Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Isseyfaran wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Bikers are very hit and miss. this was the topic under discussion before you shoehorned in

I dont get you here. When do they hit, and when do they miss?

Hit and miss. Not Hits or misses...

AKA: Sometimes succeeding and sometimes not. Or: random; haphazard

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hit-and-miss

Ascalam wrote:I'm going to step out of this one before i get banned

Obviously you are saying one thing but doing another. And fyi kid, engaging in discussion in a proper manner does not get you a ban. It is only when you resort to childish act like that :-

Ascalam wrote:Oh and BTW the sky is sometimes pink, doofus

that gets you the ban. Hurling insults is often an apparent attempt by people to hide their ignorance.

Ascalam wrote:A mathematical problem for you:

A small Space Marine squad and a larger ork squad (i'll let you mathhammer the exact numbers) in optimal firing range have the same AVERAGE number of hits. Lets say that the Marines can shoot 6 times and the orks 18, to make the BS line up, but feel free to adjust the numbers if my math is off. Can the Marines roll 18 hits on 6 dice? Can the Orks?

Which is PRECISELY why (in fact yet another reason) rolling more dice at lower BS is advantageous. I think Mannahnin already touched on that. You obviously are too engrossed in personal insults than reading sound arguments.

Ascalam wrote:The orks are capable of a wider range of random results, due to their larger dice pool. The average may be the same, but the chance of non-average results is wider, due to the unlikelyhood of all the dice reading 3.5 on the same roll Orks have more dice to throw, therefore more possible combinations of those dice. They are more random, and their results more unpredictable.

Negative again. If your target for a D6 dice is 4+, your probability of success is half. So you would expect HALF of your rolls to be 4 or greater, and half of them to be 3 or less. If you roll the dice 10 times, you would expect the result to be not as close to half, as compared to if you would roll the dice 100 or even 1000 times.
THIS, is the theory of Law of Large Number. Your analogy of 3.5 is in fact pretty hilarious. It simply shows you have absolutely no clue about the topic. The focus is not on result of a single occurrence, but rather the average of a large number of occurrences (10,100,1000, 10000, doesnt matter how many).

Ascalam wrote:I'm familiar with the Law of large numbers (a probability theorem not a proven LAW btw), and as I understand it, It theorises a tendency towards the average, not a guarantee, and becomes stronger dependent on the number of dice rolled over a very large sample only. Ity guarantees stable results for a long term occurance, not stable results for a short term event.

Which is precisely my argument. 10 rolls is better than 1. 100 rolls is better than 10. I don't know what you mean by long term or short term. It is the NUMBER of occurrence that matters.

Ascalam wrote:It would be more applicable to an entire gamers life, for example, than a single game. It also ignores 'freak' events, which do crop up. It also works only with very large numbers of rolls. The expectation that your dice rolls within a single game will average out is a fallacy, more in tune with the Law of Averages.

It's funny. We are talking about the Law of Large numbers, but you are denying the fact that more rolls = results closer to the expected average. 10 is better than 1, and 100 is better than 10. It doesn't only work with 10,000, or 10 million rolls. The theory states that the greater number of occurrence (doesnt matter HOW MANY), the more accurate the result will be. You are ignoring the theory, AS IF you have found something new. That's funny.

Ascalam wrote:That randomness is what makes them Orks. You've admitted you use the random units when they are good, but you seem violently opposed to the statement that orks are random and erratic.

I don't think i said they are random. In fact, i said they are not, and more reliable than their comparable counterparts in other codexes.

Ascalam wrote:The law of large numbers would tend the orks, like any of the races, towards the average if you roll enough dice, assuming the theorem to be true..

The theorem is true, please don't make me laugh.

Ascalam wrote:They might even reach the average overall a little sooner overall, but in play, and for all practical purposes Orks are capable of far more variation of results and rolls than most other armies in the short term (like in any game you actually play with them) as the Law of large numbers doesn't apply well to small samples of rolling, but to large ones.

ENTIRELY false. The theory is a continum, it doesn't require a minimum number of occurrence for the theory to hold. You can continue to assume 1 is 2, and 2 is 3, but that will only amuse educated people, nothing more.

Ascalam wrote:I'm done, as you seem unable to grasp this extrordinarily simple premise.

LOL. Feel free to bring this topic up to your secondary school math teacher, and see what he says

To be frank, you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing. For instance, feel free to quote me (from any source) where it says the Law of Large Number ONLY holds true for a MINIMUM number of occurrence; i.e. say 18 rolls WILL not give you an average result that is closer to the expected average, than say 2,3, or 4 rolls.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:
AKA: Sometimes succeeding and sometimes not. Or: random; haphazard

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hit-and-miss

Which unit succeeds ALL the time? You mean you always roll sixes, and your opponents always roll ones?

I think what isseyfaran is trying to say with his unique charm, is that many ork units are more likely to get a result near the expected value(the mathematical term for the average most mathhammer uses) due to the sheer amount of dice than marines are.

If you have 20 shoota boyz on the charge against MEQ, you are quite likely to get something around 5 unsaved wounds on of them, as you are tossing about 100 dice to find out. However, if are charging with three MANz (also average of 5 dead marines) you are much more likely to roll more than six misses, or even a Yahtzee of when wounding. It has happened to me, and I bet it has happened to you. I have yet to not cause a single wound with a full unit of boyz on the charge though.

Due to the huge mass of possible combinations for the results near the average, they become much more likely, as compared to extreme results. If you just compare 1d6 to 2d6 to 3d6 to 4d6 (this page has pictures and all), you'll find that the gap of probability between the averages and extremes is becoming increasingly larger, making the area around the average much more likely than results further away. If you continue this up to 200d6, you'll find a huge majority of combinations near the center. If you throw very huge amounts of d6, you are extremely unlike to stray far from your expected value, and that's basically what the law of large numbers say. Mathematicians who are actually applying that theorem assume at least 100k trials, though.

This doesn't exactly work on lootaz though. Their number of shots hinges on that single d3, making their probability distribution look like a "Zog off!"-glyph. I wonder whether that was on purpose.

Marines are more reliable with weapons that are limited in numbers though, and this sadly includes anything good against vehicles.

Jidmah wrote:I think what isseyfaran is trying to say with his unique charm, is that many ork units are more likely to get a result near the expected value(the mathematical term for the average most mathhammer uses) due to the sheer amount of dice than marines are.

If you have 20 shoota boyz on the charge against MEQ, you are quite likely to get something around 5 unsaved wounds on of them, as you are tossing about 100 dice to find out. However, if are charging with three MANz (also average of 5 dead marines) you are much more likely to roll more than six misses, or even a Yahtzee of when wounding. It has happened to me, and I bet it has happened to you. I have yet to not cause a single wound with a full unit of boyz on the charge though.

Due to the huge mass of possible combinations for the results near the average, they become much more likely, as compared to extreme results. If you just compare 1d6 to 2d6 to 3d6 to 4d6 (this page has pictures and all), you'll find that the gap of probability between the averages and extremes is becoming increasingly larger, making the area around the average much more likely than results further away. If you continue this up to 200d6, you'll find a huge majority of combinations near the center. If you throw very huge amounts of d6, you are extremely unlike to stray far from your expected value, and that's basically what the law of large numbers say. Mathematicians who are actually applying that theorem assume at least 100k trials, though.

Actually, I didnt even expect any to have any problem understanding "Law of Large Number". It would have been part of your secondary school Statistics module.

Mathematicians apply a very large number of trials in order to confirm the validity of this theory. However, this theory is in fact applicable to any number of occurrence (i.e. 2 is better than 1, 10 is better than 5, 100 is better than 50).

Jidmah wrote:This doesn't exactly work on lootaz though. Their number of shots hinges on that single d3, making their probability distribution look like a "Zog off!"-glyph. I wonder whether that was on purpose.

Which is why you dun take 1 unit of lootas only. The fact that lootas are cheaper than most heavy support makes it easier for ork players to spam more units of them. In fact, that's what most units of orks are. You take larger number of them to average out your results, so that they become more predictable.

Ok i'm not done then Being patronized has that effect on me.

As you requested, I hit the books and asked a mathemetician friend to double-verify them.


In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

For example, a single roll of a six-sided die produces one of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, each with equal probability. Therefore, the expected value of a single die roll is

1,2,3,4,5,6/6 = 3.5

According to the law of large numbers, if a large number of six-sided dice are rolled, the average of their values (sometimes called the sample mean) is likely to be close to 3.5


Taken from my old math textbook.

In essence the more dice you roll the more likely the overall result will be the mean of the total dice rolled., which for six sided dice will be 3.5. Did you not even TAKE probability theory, since you don't seem to see where 3.5 fits into the equation? Perhaps you should hit the books yourself?


I'm not disputing the fact that if you fire more shots at something you'll hit it more times. The Law grants a more or less stable 1/3 per shot chance of a hit, and adding more shooters adds more hits, with higher numbers of rolls providing a more stable mean.

I'm saying that orks are more random and erratic in play.. This seems to be escaping you, as every time i bring it up you fail to address it in your replies, instead returning to the Law of Large Numbers.

The Law of Large Numbers (which is a theorem not a true law because it is incapable of producing exactly identical results, due to the nature of probability calculations) describes a tendency towards the mean, which increases with the number of shots you fire. The more shots you fire off, the more likely the average result will be 3.5 (either a 3 or a 4 on the dice).

The fact that if you roll three times as many dice than your opponent you will get more results despite a lower probability of success has feth all to do with this law, save for that there is a more or less stable 1/3 chance of hitting.

The Law of Large Numbers does not remove the possibility of rolling the more extreme events, though it does make their occurance less likely. The pool of possible results is still wider and more random than that of a smaller, more accurate unit. The Law's tendency to drift the results to the mean does not prevent the roll from varying wildly off-mean.



The question was not "can an ork unit pump out more shots that connect than a marine unit of equal points"

The statement was that Marines are reliable, whereas Orks are erratic and random.



1/. Marines, in any probability sum concerning their unit's ability to accurately hit the target, will have a higher percentage of hits per roll. They are reliably accurate regardless of the number of dice rolled. Do you dispute this?

2/. Orks will have a lower percentage of hits, with a far wider pool of potential results due to the larger number of dice result interactions. They compensate for this by firing off more shots, so that more will hit but the unit is nonetheless more erratic and the result of their shooting is more random with a wider possibility of results. Do you dispute this?

3/. Orks have more units requiring a random roll (beyond the usual ones needed to play the game) to determine their effect. Do you dispute this?

4/. Orks have been described in the background as being erratic and prone to random actions. Do you dispute this?

5/. A probability sum with few variables leaves each variable with a correspondingly high likelyhood of occurance. The more variables we add to the probability sum, the less likelyhood there will be of any specific result occuring. Do you dispute this?


And please answer the questions i've posed. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but i would prefer actual proof, not a snide assurance that i'm ill educated.

Please provide mathematical proof that each of these statements listed above (1-5) is inaccurate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Isseyfaran wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Pretty much.

If i wanted reliably good i'd play SM.

Randomly erratic is more of an ork thing

ENTIRELY FALSE.

Orks give you a result closer to the average due to the "Law of Large numbers".

The statement would only be entirely false is Orks were in no way random or erratic. Do you claim that Orks are capable of less random possibilities than Space Marines are?

^^^dude...



there's math... there's statistic... and then there's "Damned LIES"!!!! Guess which one Orks adhere to?

We don't need no stinkin' sums ta krump you good!

Regardless to the math, mathhammering orks seems a little odd to me

They are a random, wacky and unpredicable bunch, after all

Ascalam wrote:Ok i'm not done then Being patronized has that effect on me.

Well, i knew it. You just couldnt help it

Ascalam wrote:In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

For example, a single roll of a six-sided die produces one of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, each with equal probability. Therefore, the expected value of a single die roll is

1,2,3,4,5,6/6 = 3.5

According to the law of large numbers, if a large number of six-sided dice are rolled, the average of their values (sometimes called the sample mean) is likely to be close to 3.5


Taken from my old math textbook.

In essence the more dice you roll the more likely the overall result will be the mean of the total dice rolled., which for six sided dice will be 3.5. Did you not even TAKE probability theory, since you don't seem to see where 3.5 fits into the equation? Perhaps you should hit the books yourself?

If you shoot a unit and HOPE that you cause 6 wounds to THAT opposing unit, you would PREFER to roll 18 dice at 5+ instead of 9 dice at 3+ BECAUSE the Law of Large Number suggest that rolling 18 dice will give you a result CLOSER to your expected result, than if you roll 9 dice. I even bold your definition for your reference. It seems that you only know how to copy and paste definitions, but is absolutely unable to apply them. I find that sad, especially when you keep mentioning that 3.5. It's hilarious. No one is expecting a result of 3.5, only something as close to the mean/average as possible, something which the theory purports and holds true.

Ascalam wrote:I'm not disputing the fact that if you fire more shots at something you'll hit it more times. The Law grants a more or less stable 1/3 per shot chance of a hit, and adding more shooters adds more hits, with higher numbers of rolls providing a more stable mean.

Then i don't know what you are rumbling and rumbling for. THIS is what i am after. Simply said, i m saying your sentence that "orks are more random and erratic" has an irony in it because taken from a competitive list view point, orks actually is EXACTLY the opposite. Mention SAG mek, Zagstruk etc all you want. This is not what i am after.

Ascalam wrote:The Law of Large Numbers (which is a theorem not a true law because it is incapable of producing exactly identical results, due to the nature of probability calculations) describes a tendency towards the mean, which increases with the number of shots you fire. The more shots you fire off, the more likely the average result will be 3.5 (either a 3 or a 4 on the dice).

The fact that if you roll three times as many dice than your opponent you will get more results despite a lower probability of success has feth all to do with this law, save for that there is a more or less stable 1/3 chance of hitting.

The Law of Large Numbers does not remove the possibility of rolling the more extreme events, though it does make their occurance less likely. The pool of possible results is still wider and more random than that of a smaller, more accurate unit. The Law's tendency to drift the results to the mean does not prevent the roll from varying wildly off-mean.

Which leads me to realise you don't even understand the value of mathhammering . No one says there can never be wild results. In fact, i m sure most of the people here have rolled 3 ones or more than that in a roll. But that doesnt invalidate the theory or any mathhammering theory. You cant control freak results. But you don't expect freak results to happen to you all the time, unless you are the most unlucky person in the World. Therefore, math theory is still VERY useful on which to base our decisions and expectations. It doesn't have to be EXACTLY the mean or 3.5 (as you keep mention), but you should be happy with anything as close to the mean as possible.

Ascalam wrote:1/. Marines, in any probability sum concerning their unit's ability to accurately hit the target, will have a higher percentage of hits per roll. They are reliably accurate regardless of the number of dice rolled. Do you dispute this?

I don't see what has this got to do with our discussion. Did you eat your breakfast?

We are talking about an army as a whole, not single rolls or unit.

Ascalam wrote:2/. Orks will have a lower percentage of hits, with a far wider pool of potential results due to the larger number of dice result interactions. They compensate for this by firing off more shots, so that more will hit but the unit is nonetheless more erratic and the result of their shooting is more random with a wider possibility of results. Do you dispute this?

ABSOULUTELY wrong. LOL. You quoted the whole chunk of theory, but fail to understand what it means. You are saying exactly the opposite of what the theory purports.

Random and erratic always references back to your own expectation/the average.

Yet another example. You would prefer to fire a couple of autocannons at B5 2 than a single Autocannon at BS5 simply because you only have ONE chance at that BS 5 single shot. The moment you miss that, your result is going to be 0. So your possibilities are 0 or 1. This gives a wider possibility of results, than if you roll multiples.

Ascalam wrote:3/. Orks have more units requiring a random roll (beyond the usual ones needed to play the game) to determine their effect. Do you dispute this?

I m a competitive player. I dun use crap units. In fact, i wasnt even arguing about the randomness of these fun units. So you can give up and drop this.

Ascalam wrote:4/. Orks have been described in the background as being erratic and prone to random actions. Do you dispute this?

LOL. You just desperately need to me to agree with you right?
How about saying i breathe air. I will have no choice but to agree with you, I swear.

Ascalam wrote:5/. A probability sum with few variables leaves each variable with a correspondingly high likelyhood of occurance. The more variables we add to the probability sum, the less likelyhood there will be of any specific result occuring. Do you dispute this?

I dont think you understand variables. In the case of rolling dice, the variables are 1,2,3,4,5,6. Whether you are rolling dice for BS5 or BS 2, the variables are the same

Ascalam wrote:And please answer the questions i've posed. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but i would prefer actual proof, not a snide assurance that i'm ill educated.

And i did.

Ascalam wrote:Please provide mathematical proof that each of these statements listed above (1-5) is inaccurate.

REALLY? You can prove MATHEMATICALLY that orks are fluffy as described in the background. MATHEMATICALLY?

I am not out to ridicule you, but most of what you say just shows that you have no clue what you are talking about.

So you argue that orks are not random because you don't like/use the random units, and therefore they don't count


Contrast your statement 'we are talking about he army as a whole' with 'I m a competitive player. I dun use crap units. In fact, i wasnt even arguing about the randomness of these fun units. So you can give up and drop this.' . If we are not discussing these units we aren't talking about the army as a whole, are we?

I wasn't argueing ork randomness and erraticism from just the math-hammer perspective, though you apparently are.

Yeah, i think we're done here.

I'll agree to disagree if you will, but there's more to life than Math-hammer

Ascalam wrote:So you argue that orks are not random because you don't like/use the random units, and therefore they don't count

Yeah, i think we're done here.

I'll agree to disagree if you will, but there's more to life than Math-hammer

You are right. I play competitively, you don't.

That's the difference.

Quite likely.

Odd that I tend to win anyway, though

Isseyfaran wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Hit and miss. Not Hits or misses...

AKA: Sometimes succeeding and sometimes not. Or: random; haphazard

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hit-and-miss

Which unit succeeds ALL the time? You mean you always roll sixes, and your opponents always roll ones?

you missed an important part of my quote, I added it in bold for you.

He said the Orks were Hit and Miss, not that they hit or miss. its an expression that means haphazard.

the orks have things like the following that make them erratic/haphazard.

Reckoner wrote:Orks tend to have a more erratic nature, evidenced by things like "Don't Press Dat" in Looted Wagons, "Ramshackle" in Trukks, casualties in Stormboy movement/assault out of deepstrike with Zagstruck, several weapons (albeit ones Ork players rarely take) with the Gets Hot! rule, "Glory Hogs" with Tankbustas, and of course others like SAG results and Weirdboy pyschic powers.

The ramshackle rule adds an element of randomness that other armies just do not have.
That is all he was saying.

Ascalam wrote:Quite likely.

Odd that I tend to win anyway, though

I win noobs all the time, at a point disadvantage even. Awww
I don't think i m a competitive player because i trump noobs. I think i m a competitive player because i play competitively in tournaments. But well, i guess it's again just my view. Non competitive players like you don't think this way

DeathReaper wrote:you missed an important part of my quote, I added it in bold for you.

He said the Orks were Hit and Miss, not that they hit or miss. its an expression that means haphazard.

Actually, you miss everything.

Ascalam wrote:Bikers are very hit and miss. this was the topic under discussion before you shoehorned in

So yeah...

Right the Ork Bikers is what he was talking about they are hit and miss.

No matter how you try to spin it, it is true Ork Bikers are hit and miss.

DeathReaper wrote:Right the Ork Bikers is what he was talking about they are hit and miss.

No matter how you try to spin it, it is true Ork Bikers are hit and miss.

Actually i didnt spin anything, I ASKED WHY, or when do they hit or miss. If you have a strong argument to back up your claim, feel free to put it up for discussion. No need to go round in circles or nitpick.

Or if you have a profound definition for "hit and miss", feel free to share.

I think you have serious problem reading and comprehending what i type. Is English your first language?

Isseyfaran wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Quite likely.

Odd that I tend to win anyway, though

I win noobs all the time, at a point disadvantage even. Awww
I don't think i m a competitive player because i trump noobs. I think i m a competitive player because i play competitively in tournaments. But well, i guess it's again just my view. Non competitive players like you don't think this way

DeathReaper wrote:you missed an important part of my quote, I added it in bold for you.

He said the Orks were Hit and Miss, not that they hit or miss. its an expression that means haphazard.

Actually, you miss everything.

Ascalam wrote:Bikers are very hit and miss. this was the topic under discussion before you shoehorned in

So yeah...

Actually i do most of my playing at tournaments, beating WAAC TFG's using 'bad' units like Wierdboyz and Shokk Attack Gunz. I play non-competitively in tournaments, and beat competitive players whose armies are mathhammered to the n'th degree, and spam only the 'best' units If i lose, which does happen, i'm cool with that, unlike aforementioned TFG's, because this is a game, not a sport. A game is supposed to be enjoyable for BOTH players

If you view the game as a sport, and some do, then fair enough. Let the 2nd place be first loser. I prefer to remember them as a great player

I probably have a lot more fun than those guys that ragequit because their uberspiffy death machine IC got turned into a squig, or the highly unlikely event of my SAG hitting their deathstar and removed it from play

Where did you get the idea that i only play noobs? When i do play new players i'd certainly prefer to introduce them to the game with a fluffy, non-competitive list, rather than a hardcore tournament list, That way they might actually stay interested in the hobby, rather than get roflstomped to stroke the ego of the 'competitive' player.

Might I also suggest that you take a chill pill. You're getting rude to people that are offering you no insult.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is English your first language?, because you seem to be missing some common idiom if it is:

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hit+and+miss


As Deathreaper has already said, it means that sometimes they are good, and sometimes they are not.

Ascalam wrote:Actually i do most of my playing at tournaments, beating WAAC TFG's using 'bad' units like Wierdboyz and Shokk Attack Gunz. I play non-competitively in tournaments, and beat competitive players whose armies are mathhammered to the n'th degree, and spam only the 'best' units

REALLY? ok. Which tournament, and your name in the tournament?

Ascalam wrote:Might I also suggest that you take a chill pill. You're getting rude to people that are offering you no insult.

REALLY? Who resorted to "doofus"? Ascalam, look yourself into the mirror, SERIOUSLY.

Ascalam wrote:As Deathreaper has already said, it means that sometimes they are good, and sometimes they are not.

Then explain. Otherwise, you might as well say ;-

Assault Terminators are sometimes good, sometimes are not.
Gretchins are sometimes good, sometimes not.
Manticores are sometimes good, sometimes not.


As if they mean anything.

None of your business. Why would I give out personal information to someone who actively maligns me?
If i asked for your real name and town would you hand it out over the net for anyone to read?

And Deathreaper called you what, exactly? Who is calling who Pathetic in other threads, precisely? I wasn't claiming myself as someone who has offered you no insult.

Your moral high ground looks a little shaky.

Yes, those units are also 'hit and miss'. It's an expression. You seem to be having difficulty understanding that.

Isseyfaran wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Right the Ork Bikers is what he was talking about they are hit and miss.

No matter how you try to spin it, it is true Ork Bikers are hit and miss.

Actually i didnt spin anything, I ASKED WHY, or when do they hit or miss. If you have a strong argument to back up your claim, feel free to put it up for discussion. No need to go round in circles or nitpick.

Or if you have a profound definition for "hit and miss", feel free to share.

Edited out the personal attack, it is neither needed or appreciated.

I posted it before, Random.

The Bikers are Hit and Miss because they fit the description of hit and miss. (Which means random).

The point of agreeing to disagree is that we stop disagreeing, not that we turn this into a flame war.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread.

Insult me again and you will be Ignored. Keep it rational and calm and i'll happily discuss the subject of orky randomness as a whole over on the other thread, or let the matter drop, since it seems to aggrevate you so.

Ascalam wrote:None of your business. Why would I give out personal information to someone who actively maligns me?
If i asked for your real name and town would you hand it out over the net for anyone to read?

LOL, i knew it. Never, i didnt expect you to be able to put anything on the table to back up your lies anyway. No worries :-)

DeathReaper wrote:
I posted it before, Random.

The Bikers are Hit and Miss because they fit the description of hit and miss. (Which means random).

LOL. ok
Terminators are random
Land Raider are random.
Manticores are random


Anything can be random then, because DR the comedian (you said it yourself) says so.

Seriously, sometimes i just awe at the way people back themself up.

Ascalam wrote:The point of agreeing to disagree is that we stop disagreeing, not that we turn this into a flame war.
.

Quite.

Please remember rule #1 when conversing with other posters.

Thanks for the heads up.

Isseyfaran wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
I posted it before, Random.

The Bikers are Hit and Miss because they fit the description of hit and miss. (Which means random).

LOL. ok
Terminators are random
Land Raider are random.
Manticores are random


Anything can be random then, because DR the comedian (you said it yourself) says so.

Seriously, sometimes i just awe at the way people back themself up.

So you agree that Bikers are Hit and Miss then?

Perfect!

P.S. yes Termies, LR's and Manticores are hit and miss as well (Random)

I have had 2 terminators die to 3 total wounds before, Stupid chessex dice.

"Hit or miss" is an expression meaning something is unpredictable, occasionally successful but not consistently. It is sometimes expressed as "hit and miss", but I think "hit or miss" is the original version.

As noted, a larger number of dice thrown will produce results closer to the average with greater reliability than a smaller number. Ork units like shoota boyz and bikes do indeed have more reliable shooting than units like SM tacticals firing bolters. The orks throw more dice and thus can be depended on to more frequently come up with average results.

Moderator note: I've deleted several off topic and rude posts. Any more like them will result in suspensions.

Mannahnin wrote:"Hit or miss" is an expression meaning something is unpredictable, occasionally successful but not consistently. It is sometimes expressed as "hit and miss", but I think "hit or miss" is the original version.

So how are ork bikers considered unpredictable? How are they more unpredictable than others?

Yeah, this is what I questioned, but it appears that newbies are great at spewing something that they cannot back themself up with.

Compared to space marine bikers that hit on a 3+, ork bikers hit on 5+ TL. They are less reliable than other races with better ballistic skill.

You can math hammer the predictability to know how they will act in any situation, but as a fire base, they are less reliable than other bikes; they simply will miss more shots than space marines. For orks, they are great because of the TL guns and permanent 4+ cover save.

-cgmckenzie

Actually, they are great at shooting (Space marines don't get three shots and S5), as long as you can keept them from getting charged or flamed = Hit.

As soon as they get charged by a mediocre close combat unit, MC, walker or a close combat character, or get shot by any AP4 or less weaponry ignoring cover they die like boyz, for four times the cost = Miss.

Jidmah wrote:Actually, they are great at shooting (Space marines don't get three shots and S5), as long as you can keept them from getting charged or flamed = Hit.

As soon as they get charged by a mediocre close combat unit, MC, walker or a close combat character, or get shot by any AP4 or less weaponry ignoring cover they die like boyz, for four times the cost = Miss.

Thank you for the great breakdown Jidmah, I was trying to put this in words, but as I do not play orks yet I was having a tough time coming up with the language.

Thankfully...

A) A unit which moves 12" and shoots 18" isn't super-easy to catch in HtH.
B) Units with AP4 shooting which ignores cover and easily wounds T5 aren't commonplace.

Overall they're probably a bit overpriced; they could really stand to have kept Fearless from the previous codex. But they're pretty good.

A) 18" shooting pretty much means that if you are shooting at transports, JI, beasts or fleeting units, they might catch you next turn. Not easy to catch, but neither impossible.
B) Heavy flamers

But agree, with fearless they might be fine. Something to promote huge mobs would be better though, fearless does more for small units.