GW sales down

Ty wrote:

> For that matter, shouldn't a heavy bolter...the 41st century's equivalent of
> a heavy machinegun...be more lethal? If an Imperial Guardsman fires it at an
> unarmored human, the chance to kill is (1/2 x 2/3=) 1/6 per shot. With 3
> shots, the weapon has less than a 50% chance of killing one unarmored human.
> The weapon must blaze away for 2 turns on average to kill 1 unarmored man.
> This seem right to you?

For the life of me, I tried to steer clear of this thread, but my math
degree is rearing it's ugly head.

1. An unarmored human is T3, not T4 (you are confusing them with the
super-powerful marines)

2. 1/2 x 2/3 <> 1/6. 1/2 x 2/3 = 1/3

3. Even IF the chance were 1/6 per shot, you follow with "the weapon
has less than a 50% chance..." 3/6 is not less than 50%.

Corrected calculations show the heavy bolter will kill ..

3 x 1/2 x 5/6 = 1.25 each turn, with enough power that even the best
guard stormtrooper armor won't help a bit.

D
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

In article <FJXzg.613$gY6.486@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, Ty wrote:
> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI RemoveThis @cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
> news:0ILzg.4166$cj7.3327@trnddc01...
>> Ty wrote:

<snip>

>> I think you don't know the math.
>
> The odds of a kill in 40K are quite easy to figure: (Chance of Hitting) x
> (Chance of Wounding) x (Chance of Getting Past Armor).
>
> If you see a flaw in my calculations, feel free to enlighten me.

The problem isn't math, it's your data. The scorpions were missing
their mandiblasters, the banshees were missing their power weapons
and there are also missing pieces from the the slugga boyz below.

<snip>

> Fair enough. Then I would say that the Scorpion is reasonably balanced vis a
> vis the basic Space Marine. But let's compare the 9pt Ork Slugga Boyz -- 15
> pt basic Marine kills them (1/2 x 1/2 x 5/6 =) 5/24 of the time per attack
> (20%). They kill the Marine (1/2 x 1/3 x 1/3=) 1/18 of the time per attack,

Nope, the Slugga boy carries a choppa, which reduce saves to 4+.

> or 10% of the time with 2 attacks.

Nope, Slugga boyz are A2 *and* have two weapons, which gives them a
total of 3 attacks.

Expected number of Marine wounds caused by a Slugga boy:
3 x 1/2 x 1/3 x 1/2 = 1/4

The real Slugga boy is 9/4 = 2.25 times better in close combat
(versus basic marines) than the one in your example.

--
Joakim
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

"Alan Ritchie" <alanritchie81.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%QSzg.77872$IU2.71886@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> "Ty" <tybeardSPAAAM.TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

>>>> 2. Hold Fire. A stand that moves, but is eligible to fire may hold
>>>> fire. That means that the stand will fire in the enemy fire phase. The
>>>> fire is simultaneous, so the effects are assessed after all shooting.

> But does not stop opponents advancing from one block of cover to the next,
> without being caught in the open.

Well, that's why you also have overwatch. The three mechanics - hold fire,
overwatch and pivot - should be used together.

> My concern about the 40k2 overwatch was that we had problems determining
> where a unit actually was when it got shot at. Interupting the movement
> phase failed when models effectively teleport one by one to a new
> position. This solves one problem, but not the other.

Each model must trace a movement path. You interrupt along that path.

>> Yes, but the shooting system is at least as undeadly in most cases. And
>> you only shoot once. Anyhow, I bitterly object to a game that requires
>> 2-3 turns to resolve a melee. 1/3 to 1/2 of the game...

> Don't forget morale.

I didn't. It's just an externality that cuts both ways. The bottom line is
that the combat system requires an inordinate amount of time to achieve a
result. Of course, you can always mitigate this by concentrating a huge
amount of firepower. But that really doesn't affect the overall problem.
Indeed, it actually makes the game even less deadly overall. Assume a 10%
chance of a kill. If 10 guys shoot at 10 enemies, they are statistically
likely to kill more than one enemy. But if those 10 guys shoot at one enemy,
they will never kill more than one enemy soldier.

>> The FFB melee system is derived from other games I've designed, and
>> players have never complained about it, to my memory.

> No opportunity to counter charge?

Nope. It's assumed in the combat system.

> Rely only on large movement allowances and simultaneous movement?

No simultaneous movement. The good old ugoigo system -- but implemented far
more competently than GW did.

> I am not saying that it does not work, just that it is a substantial shift
> away from the current system,

Well, that's kinda the point. I believe that the current system is incapable
of doing the job. Nor do I think that it can be fixed. The problems are
systemic. Any attempt to fix one problem will invariably create a new
problem somewhere else. See, the game system was originally designed for
small numbers of fantasy skirmishers. It has been jury rigged to fit a
completely different type of game. A sensible designer looks at the type of
game he wants, then designs the rules accordingly. GW never did that. 40K
and WFB evolved over the years into something much different. Yet GW has
kept the same rules, which were really only adequate for the original 1983
Warhammer.

> rather than one where you could sensibly borrow some but not all rules.

What's the point? If I am right -- and I do play a game designer on TV --
the problem is systemic and cannot be fixed by changing a few rules.
Therefore, I am writing a new set of rules to play the kind of 40K game that
*I* want to play. To the extent your gaming tastes agree with mine, you'll
like the new rules. The reverse is true as well.

I am not trying to replace 40K -- at least not right now. I am producing a
game that I think will be much more satisfactory to many who are frustrated
by 40K's obtuseness. But I am not interested in trying to convert anyone to
my "true faith". I am merely going to design the game that *I* want to play.

> What I find interesting is that some of these suggestions are close to the
> old epic/space marine/titan legions ruleset, which predates 40k2. I do
> not think that the current 40k rules are ideal, but I think I can defend
> any of them on the grounds of speed, unpredictability (difficult terrain),
> or the search for a good, rather than realistic, game, but perhaps not for
> their elegance. But obviously we can always shift the balance in favour
> of a faster or more detailed game.

Well, I am shifting the balance in favor of a simpler, more elegant and
faster game. And one that lets you use reasonable real-world tactics that
would still be viable in the 40K universe as that universe is defined by GW.
FFB will be more detailed than Epic, of course. It will be less "detailed"
than 40K in the sense that there will be fewer stats to keep track of. But
since we use all the WH40K stats to derive the FFB stats, the detail is
still there -- it's just built in. And there will be far fewer fussy special
rules. Most of the effects of the special rules could have been implemented
without explicit special rules. A sign of lousy game design skills is the
"kitchen sink" approach of having a rule for everything.

--Ty
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

Another good example of GW management trying to give the share price a
short term boost is their 7th edition release of Warhammer, which every
player will have to purchase. One can only speculate on an unreleased
product, but statements from GW and those that have reviewed the sample
copy at various Games Days lead me to conclude that it is really a 6.5
edition. Apparently many of the known flaws stand uncorrected, or have
been relegated to a distant army book fix. A prime example is the
unbalanced hand weapon & shield bonus. Let's face it, GW only wants
incremental changes to the game system and provides a pathetic attempt
at resolving poorly written or conflicting rules given their resources.

I'm one of the 30% they lost a couple of years back. For less than the
cost of a boxed "regiment" of Empire knights, I can purchase an entire
15mm DBA army. I will purchase the new rulebook in the U.S. so that I
don't get stung by the Canadian list price, and refrain from purchasing
every other race's army book as I have done in the past. They have
lost me as a customer, except that I will purchase only that which is
necessary for my "investment" to remain current.
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

In article <FJXzg.613$gY6.486@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
tybeardSPAAM.TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net says...
> The odds of a kill in 40K are quite easy to figure: (Chance of Hitting) x
> (Chance of Wounding) x (Chance of Getting Past Armor).
>
> If you see a flaw in my calculations, feel free to enlighten me.
>
>
>
This is where the GW games have always annoyed me, they talk about how
deadly the weapons are that are used in combat, yet you have to roll to
hit and then roll again to wound once you have finally determed that
your uber weapon has actually found a target, your oponent gets to save
against it.

I have always been of the opinion that a much quicker game could be
played by removing the roll to wound. Of course the result would be a
much deadlier game and the importance of instant kill weapons would go
up rather quickly...
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

In article <sPZzg.464$FN2.454@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
tybeardSPAAM.DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net says...
> > Beg your pardon, but I disagree with that. Wal-Mart is a successful
> > model, but hardly the only one. Just because they focus on cutting costs
> > doesn't mean there aren't other ways to get an advantage. Adding value is
> > often a much more profitable way to boost the bottom line than cutting
> > cost.
>
> I should have been more explicit. Walmart's model of low prices is the only
> applicable model that would work for GW. GW does not have a large enough
> product range for selection to be an advantage for them. The GW store in the
> Dallas area is underwhelming, quite frankly. Several local owned stores
> match their selection.
>
>
Take another look at Wal*Mart, while they generally do have low prices
on some items, across the board you can find many of the things the sell
cheaper elsewhere. A few weeks ago I was shopping for a small air
conditioning unit, and ended up purchasing one at WM for under $100, it
was a 110 volt model, if I had waqnted one that used 220v their prices
where about the same or even slightly higher then other places I
checked. THe same holds true with small appliances, they will always
have one at a price that is hard to beat, but for the better quality
ones, there is little or no difference in the pricing. In the Grocery
section Meat is generally higher at my Local Wal*Mart then at H.E.B.
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

"Desert Lurker" <ironavengers RemoveThis @spamersdie.ridgenet.net> wrote in message
news:UOPzg.1113162$xm3.821022@attbi_s21...
> Seamus wrote:
>> Andy O'Neill wrote:
>>
>>>I'm unclear whether you're advocating an alternative approach or have
>>>misunderstood what I mean by alternate activations.
>>
>>
>> I'm advocating alternate approach from IGo-UGo, and mentioned the
>> immediate example (phase-based simultaneous movement) that sprang to
>> mind. I then stated that this example sounds like a nightmare to apply
>> to a game like Warhammer.
>>
>> <snip example rules>
>>
>> So the basis is somewhat like IGo-UGo, but with interrupts as far as
>> overwatch/cover-fire and LOS snapshots are concerned. Not necessarily a
>> bad way of doing it, really.
>>
>> --
>> "These blast-points are too accurate for Imperial Guard; only Imperial
>> Special Effects personnel are so precise." - Fabrikus, World-Eaters
>> Apothecary
>>
>>
> Sounds rather like LOTR's Heroic Move/Combat. It's your turn but I spend a
> CP (Will I think.) and my hero and all my guys within x" get to move/fight
> too.
>
> Joe
>
Well, that's kind of a special ability thing in LotR.
In SG2 anyone who isn't busy doing something else can shoot someone moves
into their LoS ( or is in sight but dashing as you can interrupt a move +
move even if they started off in sight ).
All the activity in a bound is taking place at pretty much the same time.
So an activated squad is intent on someone else or dashing or something and
not available to interrupt.

There's also a sort of special case as a unit moves into close combat.
If their variable movement doesn't get them into contact in the first move
the defender can get a "free" shot.
This is quite interesting for my purposes as in ww2 a lot of combat was at
surprisingly short ranges.
Infantry were largely conscripts and much more likely to keep their heads
down than shoot at someone hundreds of yards away.
When they start looking like they'll be getting close up and personal even
badly motivated infantry tended to to take more interest.

Anyhow.
It's a simple set of mechanics which works well and pretty much obviates all
that panzerbushing and stuff that Ty is on about.
You could probably nail it onto 40k, although my obvious preference would be
to just go for sg2.

--
Regards,
Andy O'Neill
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.htm
or, for no javascript and a faster load...
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sitemap.htm
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

"jockelinde" <nouser.RemoveThis@notmydomain.se> wrote in message
news:slrned0s78.ul7.nouser@crux.id.gu.se...
> In article <FJXzg.613$gY6.486@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, Ty wrote:

>>> I think you don't know the math.

>> The odds of a kill in 40K are quite easy to figure: (Chance of Hitting) x
>> (Chance of Wounding) x (Chance of Getting Past Armor).

>> If you see a flaw in my calculations, feel free to enlighten me.

> The problem isn't math, it's your data. The scorpions were missing
> their mandiblasters, the banshees were missing their power weapons
> and there are also missing pieces from the the slugga boyz below.

I think that must be what I meant when I said "[w]ell, my data might be
screwed, but the math is sound..."

>> Fair enough. Then I would say that the Scorpion is reasonably balanced
>> vis a
>> vis the basic Space Marine. But let's compare the 9pt Ork Slugga Boyz --
>> 15
>> pt basic Marine kills them (1/2 x 1/2 x 5/6 =) 5/24 of the time per
>> attack
>> (20%). They kill the Marine (1/2 x 1/3 x 1/3=) 1/18 of the time per
>> attack,

> Nope, the Slugga boy carries a choppa, which reduce saves to 4+.

Bugger. Teach me to try this from memory...

Then the Ork kills the marine 1/12 of the time. This does make him almost as
good as a standard Space Marine in close combat (with 3 attacks as you note
below). In 4 rounds, the Marine wins 46%, the Ork wins 40%. In fire combat,
the Marine kills the Ork (2/3 x 1/2) = 1/3 of the time per shot, or 5/9
(56%) with 2 shots. The Ork kills the Marine (1/3 x 1/2 x 1/3=) 1/18 (5.5%)
of the time. If the Ork is still, he gets 2 shots, which improves his chance
to ~11%.

Soooo. The Ork is slightly inferior to the Space Marine in close combat and
only 10-20% as effective in ranged combet. Yet he costs 60% of the Marine's
cost. 6 Marines vs 10 Slugga Boyz would be a pretty even fight, if the
Marines got 1 round of shooting. The Marines would get 12 shots and would
average killing 4 Orks. Then there would be 6 vs 6 and the Marines would
have a slight advantage. Of course, the Marines have much better Leadership
rating. But the Orks would win if the Marines didn't get a round of
shooting. So the points work okay in this case.

But the Ork is in real trouble against the close combat Marines -- which is
the real Apples to Apples comparison. They kill him 37% of the time per
round vs 23%. In 4 rounds, they win 68% of the fights, he wins 26%. And the
Marine is much better in fire combat -- he kills the Ork 33%/56% of the time
with 1/2 shots, while the Ork kills him 5.5%/11% of the time. Sooo....the
Ork is only 40% as good as the Marine in close combat and about 16% as good
as the Marine in ranged fire. Yet the Ork costs 60% of the Marine. That
sound right to you?

>> or 10% of the time with 2 attacks.
>
> Nope, Slugga boyz are A2 *and* have two weapons, which gives them a
> total of 3 attacks.
>
> Expected number of Marine wounds caused by a Slugga boy:
> 3 x 1/2 x 1/3 x 1/2 = 1/4

The math doesn't quite work that way. To determine the probability of at
least one kill with multiple shots, use the following equation:

1-((Chance of Not Killing) ^ X)

X is the number of attacks. So with 3 shots, 1/12 chance, the calculation is
1-((11/12)^3) = 23%. The variance from your method increases as the number
of shots increase.

> The real Slugga boy is 9/4 = 2.25 times better in close combat
> (versus basic marines) than the one in your example.

Well, he's not quite as good as normal Space Marine (40% vs 46%) in close
combat. He is far worse in ranged fire. And he is utterly outclassed by the
close combat Space Marine -- only about 40% as good in close combat and 20%
as good in ranged combat, yet he costs 60% the cost of the Space Marine.

Against the Eldar Scorpion, it's worse. In close combat, the Scorpion's will
kill the Ork 46% of the time 3 attacks, but goes first. The Ork will kill
the Eldar 33% of the time per 3 attacks, if he survives. In 4 rounds, the
Eldar wins 77% of the time vs the Ork's 22%. The Ork kills the Scorpion in
ranged fire (1/3 x 2/3 x 1/3=) 2/27 of the time per shot. The Eldar kills
the Ork (2/3 x 1/2=) 1/3 of the time. The Ork is less than 25% as effective
in close combat, and about 20% as effective in ranged combat, yet he costs
costs 60% of the Eldar's cost. That seem reasonable to you?

<shrug>

I appreciate you correcting my data. But the revised data does not
materially change my point.

--Ty
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

"Ty" <tybeardSPAAM.TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:lq%zg.3930

> Against the Eldar Scorpion, it's worse. In close combat, the Scorpion's
> will kill the Ork 46% of the time 3 attacks, but goes first. The Ork will
> kill the Eldar 33% of the time per 3 attacks, if he survives. In 4 rounds,
> the Eldar wins 77% of the time vs the Ork's 22%. The Ork kills the
> Scorpion in ranged fire (1/3 x 2/3 x 1/3=) 2/27 of the time per shot. The
> Eldar kills the Ork (2/3 x 1/2=) 1/3 of the time. The Ork is less than 25%
> as effective in close combat, and about 20% as effective in ranged combat,
> yet he costs costs 60% of the Eldar's cost. That seem reasonable to you?
>
> <shrug>
>
> I appreciate you correcting my data. But the revised data does not
> materially change my point.

Well...maybe I spoke too soon. I rechecked my spreadsheet and found an
error. Instead of inputting the chance per attack, I input the net chance
with all attacks. This exaggerated the Eldar's performance. The Eldar wins
74% to the Ork's 24% over 4 rounds. So the Ork is about 1/3 as effective as
the Eldar in close combat and 20% as effective in ranged fire, yet costs
60%. Not as bad as I first thought, but pretty lousy.

--Ty
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

"Jim M" <hnjcomics RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f3a4c39fd89b526989734@news.east.earthlink.net...

> This is where the GW games have always annoyed me, they talk about how
> deadly the weapons are that are used in combat, yet you have to roll to
> hit and then roll again to wound once you have finally determed that
> your uber weapon has actually found a target, your oponent gets to save
> against it.

This has multiple die roll fetish has another pernicious effect. Because at
least 2 die rolls are needed and because a 1 fails on both rolls (1 or 2 on
the WS hit chart), this means that no matter how powerful the weapon, and
weak the target, there's a maximum chance to kill of 70% per ranged attack.
Close combat is even worse -- a 55% chance maximum.

If the target get's an armor save, the chance drops by about 12% per point
of save for ranged attacks and about 9% per point of save for melee attacks.

So a Bloodthirster only has a 55% of killing a gretchen per attack (unless
there are some special rules I'm unaware of). <scratches head> I
dunno...shouldn't the Bloodthirster be able to slaughter more than an
average of 2.5 gretchen per close combat?

For that matter, shouldn't a heavy bolter...the 41st century's equivalent of
a heavy machinegun...be more lethal? If an Imperial Guardsman fires it at an
unarmored human, the chance to kill is (1/2 x 2/3=) 1/6 per shot. With 3
shots, the weapon has less than a 50% chance of killing one unarmored human.
The weapon must blaze away for 2 turns on average to kill 1 unarmored man.
This seem right to you?

FFB will address these concerns.

--Ty
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

"FunkyD" <FunkyDFink.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154524251.561717.122020@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Ty wrote:

>> For that matter, shouldn't a heavy bolter...the 41st century's equivalent
>> of
>> a heavy machinegun...be more lethal? If an Imperial Guardsman fires it at
>> an
>> unarmored human, the chance to kill is (1/2 x 2/3=) 1/6 per shot. With 3
>> shots, the weapon has less than a 50% chance of killing one unarmored
>> human.
>> The weapon must blaze away for 2 turns on average to kill 1 unarmored
>> man.
>> This seem right to you?
>
> For the life of me, I tried to steer clear of this thread, but my math
> degree is rearing it's ugly head.

Given that my mistakes were of the 4th grade math variety, your math degree
is probably overkill...

> 1. An unarmored human is T3, not T4 (you are confusing them with the
> super-powerful marines)

Actually, the problem is simpler. I wrote the email to early in the morning
and simply miscalculated. 1/2 chance of hit x 2/3 chance of wounding (S4 vs
T3) = 1/3 chance of killing, not 1/6.

With three shots, the odds are [1-((2/3)^3)] = 61% chance of a kill with 3
shots (if fired at a single target). Now, the most efficient way is to fire
at more than one target. With 3 shots at 1/3, you'll kill 1.33 per burst on
average.

This is still an underwhelming performance for a machinegun. Hard to
recreate the carnage at the Somme with such weapons.

> 2. 1/2 x 2/3 <> 1/6. 1/2 x 2/3 = 1/3

> 3. Even IF the chance were 1/6 per shot, you follow with "the weapon
> has less than a 50% chance..." 3/6 is not less than 50%.

But 3/6 isn't the chance. If the weapon is fired at a single target, the
chance of at least 1 kill is:

1 - (chance of no kill) ^ # shots

> Corrected calculations show the heavy bolter will kill ..

> 3 x 1/2 x 5/6 = 1.25 each turn, with enough power that even the best
> guard stormtrooper armor won't help a bit.

Again, hard to recreate the carnage of machineguns past.

--Ty
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

In article <_X0Ag.3945$uo6.2952@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
tybeardSPAAM RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net says...
> "Jim M" <hnjcomics RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1f3a4c39fd89b526989734@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> > This is where the GW games have always annoyed me, they talk about how
> > deadly the weapons are that are used in combat, yet you have to roll to
> > hit and then roll again to wound once you have finally determed that
> > your uber weapon has actually found a target, your oponent gets to save
> > against it.
>
> This has multiple die roll fetish has another pernicious effect. Because at
> least 2 die rolls are needed and because a 1 fails on both rolls (1 or 2 on
> the WS hit chart), this means that no matter how powerful the weapon, and
> weak the target, there's a maximum chance to kill of 70% per ranged attack.
> Close combat is even worse -- a 55% chance maximum.
>
> If the target get's an armor save, the chance drops by about 12% per point
> of save for ranged attacks and about 9% per point of save for melee attacks.
>
> So a Bloodthirster only has a 55% of killing a gretchen per attack (unless
> there are some special rules I'm unaware of). <scratches head> I
> dunno...shouldn't the Bloodthirster be able to slaughter more than an
> average of 2.5 gretchen per close combat?
>

I used 30 Gretchin to effectively immobilize and render useless a
Wraithlord a few years back...

> For that matter, shouldn't a heavy bolter...the 41st century's equivalent of
> a heavy machinegun...be more lethal? If an Imperial Guardsman fires it at an
> unarmored human, the chance to kill is (1/2 x 2/3=) 1/6 per shot. With 3
> shots, the weapon has less than a 50% chance of killing one unarmored human.
> The weapon must blaze away for 2 turns on average to kill 1 unarmored man.
> This seem right to you?
>
This is precisely what I was talking about, now take out the roll to
wound and see what kind of casualties you get.

> FFB will address these concerns.
>

I look forward to checking it out... If I lived a little closer to
Dallas I would say lets get together and play a few games...
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

John Hwang wrote:
> donovan_borman DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:

> I prefer to think of 2 events: roll attack, roll defense.
>

I have no problem with this in most cases. I prefer it in games using
stands of troops vs. individually based models but that's me.

> > Warmachine went with stat cards. I hate stat cards.
>
> It's OK, only because Warmachine game scale is small.

I do appreciate the fact that they sell the cards seperate from the
models, and at a reasonable price ($5 for an entire faction I think?).

I still think either IK itself, or gamers themselves will start a trend
of large scale battles in the future.
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down