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.

 Charistoph wrote:
I know plenty of people, both in store and on forums, who won't consider taking a Gets Hot! Weapon because it has tended to fry their wearers more often than it fried their enemies. Those are the same odds, if not worse, of it happening that what is being discussed here (we don't know if Saves are allowed against the Transport Wreck).

No it's not. Your plasma-guy is often worth between 3 and 4 times as much as anyone else in the unit. Plasma weapons by their very nature risk the most valuable guy in the unit. If the rule allowed you to take another victim (next guy picks it up, whatever) those people would feel a lot less hesitant. Here you get to choose who dies.

And we can assume saves are not allowed as the article mentioned "they die" and that it makes it much more dangerous for expensive units.

I will always remember the day a Crimson Fists Terminator Captain deepstruck into my lines, and shot at a thinned unit of ork boyz I had. There were two or three lonely boyz left who charged him, and since he had a chain fist they struck first. Three wounds, and he rolls three ones.

Twas glorious.

 Purifier wrote:
No it's not. Your plasma-guy is often worth between 3 and 4 times as much as anyone else in the unit. Plasma weapons by their very nature risk the most valuable guy in the unit. If the rule allowed you to take another victim (next guy picks it up, whatever) those people would feel a lot less hesitant. Here you get to choose who dies.

Assumptions. If you roll all of them dead, you aren't picking and choosing, are you? There are also some units which carry an almost complete collection of Gets Hot! weapons.

 Purifier wrote:
And we can assume saves are not allowed as the article mentioned "they die" and that it makes it much more dangerous for expensive units.

Still an assumption. These articles say a lot of things which leave out details which become important because they fill in entire picture. Granted, a reasonable assumption, but still a guess a this time. It may be fail the Save and then die, no matter the Wounds. It could also be speaking of the average Transport rider, which tends to be 1W models as well. They weren't quoting the rules, but what are most likely seen.

 Charistoph wrote:

Not so unlikely that I've seen it happen several times to small units over the years in regards to Armour Saves with the same failure rate as the survivability of a Transport Wreck noted here.

So, you've seen an entire small squad wiped out in a transport wreck or equivalent? I'm going to assume that a "small squad" is 3 models, all failing a 2+ save at once.

The probability that this event happens is 0.00463, or 0.463%.

I'll further assume "several times" means at least 3 times. To give you the benefit of the doubt, i'll say exactly 3.

How many times do you need to see exactly 3 wounds, result in 3 deaths, on 2+ saves? This is the same as the failure rate you mentioned above.

You would need to see this scenario roughly 180 times to fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean. In other words, where you start to see effectively a non-zero chance of this happening. To be precise, the chance of you seeing as described, on 180 attempts, is 0.0015, or about one-fifth of a percent.

Let's assume you see this scenario once per week, wherein exactly 3 wounds are applied to exactly 3 models with 2+ saves. That's 52 times per year. You'd need to play for over 3 years, seeing this once per week, to have a 0.0015 chance to see what you described actually happen.

 Charistoph wrote:

Assumptions. If you roll all of them dead, you aren't picking and choosing, are you?

1.286×10^-4 = 1 in 7776
(assuming fair 6-sided dice)

I'm okay with this.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Not so unlikely that I've seen it happen several times to small units over the years in regards to Armour Saves with the same failure rate as the survivability of a Transport Wreck noted here.

So, you've seen an entire small squad wiped out in a transport wreck or equivalent? I'm going to assume that a "small squad" is 3 models, all failing a 2+ save at once.

The probability that this event happens is 0.00463, or 0.463%.

Five, actually. You may or may have not noticed I mentioned 5-man Terminator Squads several times? And it was just Wounds from Shooting, not anything from a Transport Wreck.

 Marmatag wrote:
I'll further assume "several times" means at least 3 times. To give you the benefit of the doubt, i'll say exactly 3.

How many times do you need to see exactly 3 wounds, result in 3 deaths, on 2+ saves? This is the same as the failure rate you mentioned above.

You would need to see this scenario roughly 180 times to fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean. In other words, where you start to see effectively a non-zero chance of this happening. To be precise, the chance of you seeing as described, on 180 attempts, is 0.0015, or about one-fifth of a percent.

Let's assume you see this scenario once per week, wherein exactly 3 wounds are applied to exactly 3 models with 2+ saves. That's 52 times per year. You'd need to play for over 3 years, seeing this once per week, to have a 0.0015 chance to see what you described actually happen.

Sadly, I don't get down to the store to see that many games as often as I'd like, but I have seen that happen over the last 8 years about 3 times.

So, the potential is there, but the odds are sufficiently against it that it is worth the general risk.

 Charistoph wrote:

Five, actually. You may or may have not noticed I mentioned 5-man Terminator Squads several times? And it was just Wounds from Shooting, not anything from a Transport Wreck.

Again, given that this is a one in 7700 chance, its perfectly acceptable that its a possbility. In fact, if it happens you'r reaction should probably be this

I have to tune in here. Dice games use dice for simulation, but also for unexpected events. My ork warbikers couldn't cross an obstacle without someone dieing badly. My opponents previous summer made a last effort tactic to have my nobzbikerz crash and burn by forcing 2 over dangerous terrain. Of course it paid off.

In AoS my chaos waralter is traumatized by deadly terrain. Both times it has tried crossing such it died. As one can't statistically be that unfortunate I merrily crossed same terrain with another important piece, and duly removed it to the casualty box. But hey, it was fair enough, the warshrine is held together by bluetac, and fell apart a few times on the battlefield. If it shouldn't do it while in deadly terrain then when?

Hey, when I showed my buddy 40k back in 2nd, the dice thought I should play fair and not trounce him, so my hellhound flamethrower rolled 4 x 1 when toasting his marines.

Sometimes dice do not abide by statistics (unless rolled in large sums).

 davou wrote:
Again, given that this is a one in 7700 chance, its perfectly acceptable that its a possbility. In fact, if it happens you'r reaction should probably be this

More a sympathetic, "Oh, man!" for the person who was losing the unit.

Was okay to risk the plasma Marines firing their weapon with gets hot but it's not acceptable to risk them because they transport might get blown up?

 Charistoph wrote:

 davou wrote:
Again, given that this is a one in 7700 chance, its perfectly acceptable that its a possbility. In fact, if it happens you'r reaction should probably be this

More a sympathetic, "Oh, man!" for the person who was losing the unit.

More like both.

You can lose a Riptide to a single volley of Bolters afterall. That's why we look at the odds of said events happening.

It's super unlikely. The probability of 1/7700 would take some years for you to see this once.

 Marmatag wrote:
It's super unlikely. The probability of 1/7700 would take some years for you to see this once.

And reality likes to kick probability in the nads and run off whooping. There are some people who get stuck in the outlier of the bell curves and tend to roll more 1's then other people roll 4's, 5's, and 6's. They are recognizing how probability doesn't seem to be so neat and clean in their lives as in the math.

Just because one recognizes the possibility does not mean one do not recognize the probability. I would be concerned over a Terminator Captain in a Land Raider on its last few Wounds, especially if it is RFP without Saves. I would not be concerned over my Assault Crusader Squad in a Land Raider Crusader in similar straits.

 Gloomfang wrote:
Was okay to risk the plasma Marines firing their weapon with gets hot but it's not acceptable to risk them because they transport might get blown up?

Most of the concern is the, erm, unplanned-for-feels-bad-randomness. You buy a guy a plasma gun and you are accepting he's probably going to fry himself every once in awhile. The issue is that now we have to wrap our heads around the fact that putting something into a transport might mean it never comes out again....and that's okay, ordinance used to happen before as well.

The annoying issue is seeing Draigo/Calgar/Logan Grimnar/250+ point uber lord getting squished through 3+ wounds, 2+ save and an invulnerable while billy the boltgunner walks out unscathed. Feels bad man.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It's super unlikely. The probability of 1/7700 would take some years for you to see this once.

And reality likes to kick probability in the nads and run off whooping. There are some people who get stuck in the outlier of the bell curves and tend to roll more 1's then other people roll 4's, 5's, and 6's. They are recognizing how probability doesn't seem to be so neat and clean in their lives as in the math.

And people also exaggerate their claims.

Over time, probability becomes reality. And, we're talking over time, not an isolated case.

Seeing this exact scenario - 5 wounds resulting in 5 failed 2+ saves - happen 3 times - is a statistical improbability.

If you saw someone take exactly 5 saves on 2+ save models, once per week, after 100 years, seeing this happen "several times" would still fall outside 3 standard deviations from the mean.

In reality you'd need to get a little bit closer to 400 years worth of games to see it 3 times with some measure of certainty.

Then it sure sucks I failed all four 2+ to wound rolls on my buddies assault marines in his intro game back in 2nd. Stuff happens, sometimes.

Does it make people feel better if we say that on a roll of '1' the mighty character is pinned inside...the GIGANTIC armoured vehicle and simply misses out on the rest of the game - and is subsequently rescued afterwards?

They're not dead...they're hiding. In 2nd ed. most of the devastating results killed every single model inside or, frequently, killed each model on a 4+ regardless of what it was. Just a chance you took. No big deal.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It's super unlikely. The probability of 1/7700 would take some years for you to see this once.

And reality likes to kick probability in the nads and run off whooping. There are some people who get stuck in the outlier of the bell curves and tend to roll more 1's then other people roll 4's, 5's, and 6's. They are recognizing how probability doesn't seem to be so neat and clean in their lives as in the math.

Just because one recognizes the possibility does not mean one do not recognize the probability. I would be concerned over a Terminator Captain in a Land Raider on its last few Wounds, especially if it is RFP without Saves. I would not be concerned over my Assault Crusader Squad in a Land Raider Crusader in similar straits.

Reality also obeys mathematical laws. There are no people that roll more 1's in the long run than I roll 4's 5's and 6's. It just SEEMS like it because our brains are very defective when it comes to memory recall.

Plasma on a marine is worth the risk. On a guardsmen? Probably not in 7th due to the cost of the weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
Does it make people feel better if we say that on a roll of '1' the mighty character is pinned inside...the GIGANTIC armoured vehicle and simply misses out on the rest of the game - and is subsequently rescued afterwards?

They're not dead...they're hiding. In 2nd ed. most of the devastating results killed every single model inside or, frequently, killed each model on a 4+ regardless of what it was. Just a chance you took. No big deal.

THat's why no one used transports in 2nd where I played. It wasn't worth the risk.

Waaargh wrote:
Then it sure sucks I failed all four 2+ to wound rolls on my buddies assault marines in his intro game back in 2nd. Stuff happens, sometimes.

Failing 4 2+ rolls is far more likely than failing 5. In fact, it's 6 times as likely.

In any case, there are a lot of factors that can affect a dice's outcome.

Are they chipped?
Have they been altered?
Are they made of low quality plastics, and exposed to extreme environmental conditions?

For example, I saw someone who had a dice where he drew a third dot in between the two dots on the "2" side of his dice. Rolling it with a bulk of dice you'd never know.

Depending on how someone rolls dice, you can file down some of the edges to make certain numbers more likely.

A good rule of thumb is to "roll with vigor" rather than letting them fall out of your hand. If you let them just "fall out," it's likely they will turn over only once. So with 1's faced up, you'll be more likely to get 6's as results, and vice versa.

Probabilities take into account a controlled environment where each outcome is equally likely. Environmental factors can't be considered. But if you're *seriously* seeing 4/4 1's or 5/5 1's with some regularity - i would suggest replacing your dice, with casino dice.

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It's super unlikely. The probability of 1/7700 would take some years for you to see this once.

And reality likes to kick probability in the nads and run off whooping. There are some people who get stuck in the outlier of the bell curves and tend to roll more 1's then other people roll 4's, 5's, and 6's. They are recognizing how probability doesn't seem to be so neat and clean in their lives as in the math.

And people also exaggerate their claims.

I wasn't exaggerating mine.

Marmatag wrote:Over time, probability becomes reality. And, we're talking over time, not an isolated case.

Seeing this exact scenario - 5 wounds resulting in 5 failed 2+ saves - happen 3 times - is a statistical improbability.

If you saw someone take exactly 5 saves on 2+ save models, once per week, after 100 years, seeing this happen "several times" would still fall outside 3 standard deviations from the mean.

In reality you'd need to get a little bit closer to 400 years worth of games to see it 3 times with some measure of certainty.

Probability is about certainty, not possibility. A 1 in a million chance is still a chance.

In 8th Edition, a lasgun CAN remove a Wound from any model; this is possibility. The better the Toughness and Save of a model, the probability and certainty of removing that Wound becomes smaller and smaller. It is possible, but not probable.

In 7th Edition, a lasgun CANNOT remove a Hull Point from even a Trukk because 9 < 10. It is neither possible nor probable.

Even then, reality doesn't always care for probability. Probability is too cold, and your math is too reliant on set, controlled factors. As you noted in your following post, there are more factors that involve themselves in the situation that just the probability of that specific situation. You also need to consider that for that person who is rolling his Saves, there are people rolling dice in craps, on board games across the world, as well as for other games. Those 770,000 rolls it might take to reach that goal could be accomplished within that week if we just take all the rolls of this world in consideration to the point that some poor schmuck ends up getting the outliers every week.

Just out of curiosity, how many dice rolls you yourself do in your average 40K game?

Martel732 wrote:Reality also obeys mathematical laws. There are no people that roll more 1's in the long run than I roll 4's 5's and 6's. It just SEEMS like it because our brains are very defective when it comes to memory recall.

Plasma on a marine is worth the risk. On a guardsmen? Probably not in 7th due to the cost of the weapon.

Right, I am talking about the difference between possibility and probability, and I'm getting people trying to argue that they are one and the same. The point was that they are not.

Even then, mathematics is just humanity's way of trying to define what we see in the world, and there are more factors to take in to account than just the equal chance of a die rolling up. Marmatag demonstrates some of them below, but there is also the simple fact that probability works better with larger numbers than with single persons, and there are a huge number of procedures that are operated on this factor every hour.

As you yourself point out here, and as I've stated several times now, risk is taking a chance against probability. A Trukk doing a drive-by against a Conscript Squad is not taking a risk from them in 7th, but it is a risk (no matter how small) in 8th.

Marmatag wrote:Failing 4 2+ rolls is far more likely than failing 5. In fact, it's 6 times as likely.

In any case, there are a lot of factors that can affect a dice's outcome.

Are they chipped?
Have they been altered?
Are they made of low quality plastics, and exposed to extreme environmental conditions?

For example, I saw someone who had a dice where he drew a third dot in between the two dots on the "2" side of his dice. Rolling it with a bulk of dice you'd never know.

Depending on how someone rolls dice, you can file down some of the edges to make certain numbers more likely.

A good rule of thumb is to "roll with vigor" rather than letting them fall out of your hand. If you let them just "fall out," it's likely they will turn over only once. So with 1's faced up, you'll be more likely to get 6's as results, and vice versa.

All very good points to remember when considering your probability curves which don't take those things in to account.

Marmatag wrote:Probabilities take into account a controlled environment where each outcome is equally likely. Environmental factors can't be considered. But if you're *seriously* seeing 4/4 1's or 5/5 1's with some regularity - i would suggest replacing your dice, with casino dice.

Very true, and you were trying to suggest that we only consider things in that controlled environment. And yes, I would agree that if I was getting those results, some dice would soon be smashed or burning as well.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It's super unlikely. The probability of 1/7700 would take some years for you to see this once.

And reality likes to kick probability in the nads and run off whooping. There are some people who get stuck in the outlier of the bell curves and tend to roll more 1's then other people roll 4's, 5's, and 6's. They are recognizing how probability doesn't seem to be so neat and clean in their lives as in the math.

And people also exaggerate their claims.

I wasn't exaggerating mine.

Marmatag wrote:Over time, probability becomes reality. And, we're talking over time, not an isolated case.

Seeing this exact scenario - 5 wounds resulting in 5 failed 2+ saves - happen 3 times - is a statistical improbability.

If you saw someone take exactly 5 saves on 2+ save models, once per week, after 100 years, seeing this happen "several times" would still fall outside 3 standard deviations from the mean.

In reality you'd need to get a little bit closer to 400 years worth of games to see it 3 times with some measure of certainty.

Probability is about certainty, not possibility. A 1 in a million chance is still a chance.

In 8th Edition, a lasgun CAN remove a Wound from any model; this is possibility. The better the Toughness and Save of a model, the probability and certainty of removing that Wound becomes smaller and smaller. It is possible, but not probable.

In 7th Edition, a lasgun CANNOT remove a Hull Point from even a Trukk because 9 < 10. It is neither possible nor probable.

Even then, reality doesn't always care for probability. Probability is too cold, and your math is too reliant on set, controlled factors. As you noted in your following post, there are more factors that involve themselves in the situation that just the probability of that specific situation. You also need to consider that for that person who is rolling his Saves, there are people rolling dice in craps, on board games across the world, as well as for other games. Those 770,000 rolls it might take to reach that goal could be accomplished within that week if we just take all the rolls of this world in consideration to the point that some poor schmuck ends up getting the outliers every week.

Just out of curiosity, how many dice rolls you yourself do in your average 40K game?

What you are claiming to have seen falls outside of any meaningful confidence interval. Your argument about the dice being rolled all over the world is actually irrelevant. The fact that people are rolling dice in Nebraska has no bearing on the results of your dice rolls. It's not about "reaching a goal," the fact that each dice roll has the same probability is what creates the distribution.

And it's not about the number of dice rolls in a game. You created a very *specific* scenario, saying you saw that exact thing happen several times, in a few years. So it's how often *that scenario* comes up. What you're describing is too unlikely. Unless your dice are fixed or damaged. That was my point about the dice quality affecting outcomes.

Even then, mathematics is just humanity's way of trying to define what we see in the world, and there are more factors to take in to account than just the equal chance of a die rolling up.

I disagree here. Much of math is spent extrapolating what is seen in 2 & 3 dimensional space to N-dimensional space, in fact what we'll never seen in the world. In fact there are huge portions of mathematics that deal with things that should be impossible and yet product real, possible results. Over sufficient time/trials, probability will become reality. This kind of thinking is echoed across all kinds of math - the idea of a limit, or closeness, or equivalent.

Right, I am talking about the difference between possibility and probability, and I'm getting people trying to argue that they are one and the same. The point was that they are not.

No one is arguing this. You seem to be repeating this point, but it has literally 0 bearing on what we're discussing, and no one disagrees with the distinction between possibility and probability. I don't *care* if it's theoretically possible for me to get struck by lightning. It's not something i consider.

 Marmatag wrote:
What you are claiming to have seen falls outside of any meaningful confidence interval. Your argument about the dice being rolled all over the world is actually irrelevant. The fact that people are rolling dice in Nebraska has no bearing on the results of your dice rolls. It's not about "reaching a goal," the fact that each dice roll has the same probability is what creates the distribution.

All the dice being rolled around the world is as equally relevant as a single person rolling them at the same time.

 Marmatag wrote:
And it's not about the number of dice rolls in a game. You created a very *specific* scenario, saying you saw that exact thing happen several times, in a few years. So it's how often *that scenario* comes up. What you're describing is too unlikely. Unless your dice are fixed or damaged. That was my point about the dice quality affecting outcomes.

But then you insist we ignore those same quality affecting factors in this premise. I didn't see it happening with the same person, or even to myself. I saw it happen to three separate people over the last 8 years. I don't know how many dice they have thrown over the years. It can happen at any time because each of those dice have that chance to roll that single divot.

They weren't even all the same exact scenario, either. They weren't throwing 5 dice each. For one it was 8 dice, and 5 1s popped up. For another, it was 6 dice, and so on. That bit of datum throws off your calculations because they are not the same exact scenario.

To be fair, I have not seen a 5 man Terminator unit die from an exploding Land Raider. Furthermore, I think I've seen a Land Raider actually Explode once, maybe twice, in that same amount of time. Will the same odds of surviving that Land Raider Explosion be the same as surviving an 8th Edition Land Raider wreck? We don't know yet. Armour Saves have been allowed for it for some time now, so it may still be a factor.

 Marmatag wrote:

Even then, mathematics is just humanity's way of trying to define what we see in the world, and there are more factors to take in to account than just the equal chance of a die rolling up.

I disagree here. Much of math is spent extrapolating what is seen in 2 & 3 dimensional space to N-dimensional space, in fact what we'll never seen in the world. In fact there are huge portions of mathematics that deal with things that should be impossible and yet product real, possible results. Over sufficient time/trials, probability will become reality. This kind of thinking is echoed across all kinds of math - the idea of a limit, or closeness, or equivalent.

As I said, it is humanity's attempt to define it. I didn't say how good it was. In actually reality, all it takes is once for a possibility to happen, and no matter how remote the probability, it can still happen on the first attempt.

 Marmatag wrote:

Right, I am talking about the difference between possibility and probability, and I'm getting people trying to argue that they are one and the same. The point was that they are not.

No one is arguing this. You seem to be repeating this point, but it has literally 0 bearing on what we're discussing, and no one disagrees with the distinction between possibility and probability. I don't *care* if it's theoretically possible for me to get struck by lightning. It's not something i consider.

It all started with a comment about something potentially happening, and someone going off about how it probably won't happen. I simply stated that, he had a point that it COULD happen. I have even stated several times that in many cases, I would plan my actions on it not happening due to it being a low chance, but all that was being ignored over controlled environment math rants.

If all I'm saying is that there is a chance it may happen, and you keep throwing statistics at me, it is showing me that you think that probability and possibility are one and the same. Reality doesn't actually work in the controlled environment that you insist we calculate by. You named numerous factors which could contribute to it actually happening, but continue to ignore its influence.

Dice rolls, in their very nature, are wonderful statistical studies when compared to a card game. There are a finite number of a type of card available until you recycle the deck. Dice results are recycled every single time you pick them up. The factors which contribute to a dice roll are far more than the number of faces. As you stated there is the force of the roll, the environment the roll is being performed on, the stability of the dice, the direction the dice were facing when the roll began and when it contacted the surface, and so on. That's why we actually throw the dice instead of just going by the statistics. They can make us howl for joy or howl in frustration because that is reality.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
What you are claiming to have seen falls outside of any meaningful confidence interval. Your argument about the dice being rolled all over the world is actually irrelevant. The fact that people are rolling dice in Nebraska has no bearing on the results of your dice rolls. It's not about "reaching a goal," the fact that each dice roll has the same probability is what creates the distribution.

All the dice being rolled around the world is as equally relevant as a single person rolling them at the same time.

Yes, but all the dice being rolled in the world doesn't alter your specific chances to produce any specific result. If i flip a coin and get heads 3 times in a row, that doesn't alter (a) the probability that my 4th flip is heads, or (b) the probability that your next flip is heads. Now, if you look at each individual flip, each one has a 50/50 chance. BUT, if you look at the events *as a group,* that's where you get diminished chances. Dependent vs independent trials.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
And it's not about the number of dice rolls in a game. You created a very *specific* scenario, saying you saw that exact thing happen several times, in a few years. So it's how often *that scenario* comes up. What you're describing is too unlikely. Unless your dice are fixed or damaged. That was my point about the dice quality affecting outcomes.

But then you insist we ignore those same quality affecting factors in this premise. I didn't see it happening with the same person, or even to myself. I saw it happen to three separate people over the last 8 years. I don't know how many dice they have thrown over the years. It can happen at any time because each of those dice have that chance to roll that single divot.

They weren't even all the same exact scenario, either. They weren't throwing 5 dice each. For one it was 8 dice, and 5 1s popped up. For another, it was 6 dice, and so on. That bit of datum throws off your calculations because they are not the same exact scenario.

To be fair, I have not seen a 5 man Terminator unit die from an exploding Land Raider. Furthermore, I think I've seen a Land Raider actually Explode once, maybe twice, in that same amount of time. Will the same odds of surviving that Land Raider Explosion be the same as surviving an 8th Edition Land Raider wreck? We don't know yet. Armour Saves have been allowed for it for some time now, so it may still be a factor.

Thank you - this is what i was driving at. Rolling 8 dice and seeing 5 1's is far more likely than rolling *exactly* 5 dice and seeing *exactly* 5 1's come up. It is over thirty times more likely to see 5 1's in 8 dice than 5 1's in 5 dice. I personally rolled 4 ones in 8 dice rolls last weekend. My Brother Captain with a Daemon Hammer ate it before he got to swing. Boy was i upset.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Even then, mathematics is just humanity's way of trying to define what we see in the world, and there are more factors to take in to account than just the equal chance of a die rolling up.

I disagree here. Much of math is spent extrapolating what is seen in 2 & 3 dimensional space to N-dimensional space, in fact what we'll never seen in the world. In fact there are huge portions of mathematics that deal with things that should be impossible and yet product real, possible results. Over sufficient time/trials, probability will become reality. This kind of thinking is echoed across all kinds of math - the idea of a limit, or closeness, or equivalent.

As I said, it is humanity's attempt to define it. I didn't say how good it was. In actually reality, all it takes is once for a possibility to happen, and no matter how remote the probability, it can still happen on the first attempt.

Yes, this is true. What you've been touching on is the distinction between probability 0 and impossible. Something can have a probability of 0 but still be possible. For instance, if I hid a coffee cup in a 1'x1' block somewhere in the entire milky way galaxy and asked you to find it choosing once, randomly, it's possible, but the probability of you succeeding is 0.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Right, I am talking about the difference between possibility and probability, and I'm getting people trying to argue that they are one and the same. The point was that they are not.

No one is arguing this. You seem to be repeating this point, but it has literally 0 bearing on what we're discussing, and no one disagrees with the distinction between possibility and probability. I don't *care* if it's theoretically possible for me to get struck by lightning. It's not something i consider.

It all started with a comment about something potentially happening, and someone going off about how it probably won't happen. I simply stated that, he had a point that it COULD happen. I have even stated several times that in many cases, I would plan my actions on it not happening due to it being a low chance, but all that was being ignored over controlled environment math rants.

If all I'm saying is that there is a chance it may happen, and you keep throwing statistics at me, it is showing me that you think that probability and possibility are one and the same. Reality doesn't actually work in the controlled environment that you insist we calculate by. You named numerous factors which could contribute to it actually happening, but continue to ignore its influence.

Dice rolls, in their very nature, are wonderful statistical studies when compared to a card game. There are a finite number of a type of card available until you recycle the deck. Dice results are recycled every single time you pick them up. The factors which contribute to a dice roll are far more than the number of faces. As you stated there is the force of the roll, the environment the roll is being performed on, the stability of the dice, the direction the dice were facing when the roll began and when it contacted the surface, and so on. That's why we actually throw the dice instead of just going by the statistics. They can make us howl for joy or howl in frustration because that is reality.

Probability is how we quantify risk in this game. I could say a land raider is "at risk" to taking damage from a Grot. I could say a Grot is at risk to take damage from another Grot. What's missing from these two true statements is quantifying the risk. It is more precise to establish a numerical risk of these events and consider them in that regard.

 Marmatag wrote:
Yes, but all the dice being rolled in the world doesn't alter your specific chances to produce any specific result. If i flip a coin and get heads 3 times in a row, that doesn't alter (a) the probability that my 4th flip is heads, or (b) the probability that your next flip is heads. Now, if you look at each individual flip, each one has a 50/50 chance. BUT, if you look at the events *as a group,* that's where you get diminished chances. Dependent vs independent trials.

Yet you were saying it would require years and years for this result to occur. So, why should I look at one individual's grouping alone when there are other groupings happening at the same time?

 Marmatag wrote:
Thank you - this is what i was driving at. Rolling 8 dice and seeing 5 1's is far more likely than rolling *exactly* 5 dice and seeing *exactly* 5 1's come up. It is over thirty times more likely to see 5 1's in 8 dice than 5 1's in 5 dice. I personally rolled 4 ones in 8 dice rolls last weekend. My Brother Captain with a Daemon Hammer ate it before he got to swing. Boy was i upset.

Sounds more like you weren't paying attention or making assumptions.

Realistically speaking, the odds of 5 dice showing up as 1s is exactly the same no matter how many dice you throw. The only difference is that you are providing more events to the situation, i.e. rolling 10 dice means you are rolling those 5 dice twice in one event. The only time you reduce the odds of 5 dice showing up as 1s to null is if you are rolling 4 dice or less.

 Marmatag wrote:
Yes, this is true. What you've been touching on is the distinction between probability 0 and impossible. Something can have a probability of 0 but still be possible. For instance, if I hid a coffee cup in a 1'x1' block somewhere in the entire milky way galaxy and asked you to find it choosing once, randomly, it's possible, but the probability of you succeeding is 0.

No, Probability zero is impossible. You are conflating a 7.2 x10 to the -10 chance to being zero. Also known as rounding and taking the rounded number as your final determination. If you're going to be so technical as to go through all the math, you shouldn't be so technical as to ignore even low odds just to prove a point.

 Marmatag wrote:
Probability is how we quantify risk in this game. I could say a land raider is "at risk" to taking damage from a Grot. I could say a Grot is at risk to take damage from another Grot. What's missing from these two true statements is quantifying the risk. It is more precise to establish a numerical risk of these events and consider them in that regard.

Which is something I have stated and you seemed to have repeatedly ignored, even from that last post. And if you are looking for precision, do not call a 0.000000000072% chance as zero. It goes counter to precision to make such a blanket statement. The lower the risk/probability, the more confident one can be in making certain decisions. If the guy is worried about the potential of a 5-man unit dying to a Vehicle Wreck, you can tell him not to worry so much as it is unlikely to happen. It doesn't do anything to remove the possibility, but it can go far in removing the anxiety and indecision that a person may be suffering.

I'll take my chances with lasguns vs my land raider. The odds are way more in my favor now than the old "immobilize on a shrub" rule.

I think its gotten convoluted enough that the probability arguments merit their own thread. This one about transports has almost completely lost its..... Track

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yes, but all the dice being rolled in the world doesn't alter your specific chances to produce any specific result. If i flip a coin and get heads 3 times in a row, that doesn't alter (a) the probability that my 4th flip is heads, or (b) the probability that your next flip is heads. Now, if you look at each individual flip, each one has a 50/50 chance. BUT, if you look at the events *as a group,* that's where you get diminished chances. Dependent vs independent trials.

Yet you were saying it would require years and years for this result to occur. So, why should I look at one individual's grouping alone when there are other groupings happening at the same time?

Because the number of trials has a bearing on the number of successes when you view the population as a whole, but each trial is independent. You can increase the likelihood of an event by increasing the trials, but that doesn't make your individual success chance increase.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Thank you - this is what i was driving at. Rolling 8 dice and seeing 5 1's is far more likely than rolling *exactly* 5 dice and seeing *exactly* 5 1's come up. It is over thirty times more likely to see 5 1's in 8 dice than 5 1's in 5 dice. I personally rolled 4 ones in 8 dice rolls last weekend. My Brother Captain with a Daemon Hammer ate it before he got to swing. Boy was i upset.

Sounds more like you weren't paying attention or making assumptions.

Realistically speaking, the odds of 5 dice showing up as 1s is exactly the same no matter how many dice you throw. The only difference is that you are providing more events to the situation, i.e. rolling 10 dice means you are rolling those 5 dice twice in one event. The only time you reduce the odds of 5 dice showing up as 1s to null is if you are rolling 4 dice or less.

What you stated in bold is actually 100% false. This is where there is a disconnect, i think. I don't know how else to put it, you're not correct. I think we've beat this topic to death. If you'd like to see a detailed explanation of how this works PM me, i would be happy to share. How you word a probability problem dramatically changes its outcome.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yes, this is true. What you've been touching on is the distinction between probability 0 and impossible. Something can have a probability of 0 but still be possible. For instance, if I hid a coffee cup in a 1'x1' block somewhere in the entire milky way galaxy and asked you to find it choosing once, randomly, it's possible, but the probability of you succeeding is 0.

No, Probability zero is impossible. You are conflating a 7.2 x10 to the -10 chance to being zero. Also known as rounding and taking the rounded number as your final determination. If you're going to be so technical as to go through all the math, you shouldn't be so technical as to ignore even low odds just to prove a point.

Probability 0 is not impossible, they are two different things. Pick a number at random from an uncountably infinite set. What's the probability you chose right? is it 0, or impossible? Math is about details. You're not appreciating them. And again, i'm not saying anything of the trials we've spoken about are probability 0. It's just an argument you seem hell bent on making when no one is even arguing it, and you're making it poorly.

I'm dipping out. We've gone in circles on this one. My end conclusion is the same: Transports killing the units they carry is a risk i am comfortable taking, and I feel confident in this after quantifying the risk.

 Carnage43 wrote:

 Gloomfang wrote:
Was okay to risk the plasma Marines firing their weapon with gets hot but it's not acceptable to risk them because they transport might get blown up?

Most of the concern is the, erm, unplanned-for-feels-bad-randomness. You buy a guy a plasma gun and you are accepting he's probably going to fry himself every once in awhile. The issue is that now we have to wrap our heads around the fact that putting something into a transport might mean it never comes out again....and that's okay, ordinance used to happen before as well.

The annoying issue is seeing Draigo/Calgar/Logan Grimnar/250+ point uber lord getting squished through 3+ wounds, 2+ save and an invulnerable while billy the boltgunner walks out unscathed. Feels bad man.

What's interesting is that people take issue with the randomness of model death from a wrecked vehicle, but they aren't taking into consideration the flip-side, which is that the vehicle death itself is much more predictable and consistent then before.

Yeah it will suck if your 300 point wolf-lord spontaneously combusts inside his land raider, but on the other hand your land raider ISN'T going to spontaneously combust. Gone are the days when a lucky 6 on the damage chart pops your vehicle like confetti. You know exactly how many wounds your vehicle has, and it's easy to guesstimate how much damage your opponent's shooting can do to it each turn.

So when your 20 wound land raider gets reduced to its last five wounds, you can have your units inside just... get... out, of the land raider? Sure, you're fethed if the vehicle is brought to within an inch of death while still in your deployment zone, but them's the breaks.

 Marmatag wrote:
Because the number of trials has a bearing on the number of successes when you view the population as a whole, but each trial is independent. You can increase the likelihood of an event by increasing the trials, but that doesn't make your individual success chance increase.

We are still discussing the number of trials under observation overall, though.

 Marmatag wrote:
What you stated in bold is actually 100% false. This is where there is a disconnect, i think. I don't know how else to put it, you're not correct. I think we've beat this topic to death. If you'd like to see a detailed explanation of how this works PM me, i would be happy to share. How you word a probability problem dramatically changes its outcome.

Sure its false if you exclude what came after it. If you are rolling 10 dice, you are rolling 2 sets of 5 dice at the same time. It goes back to the situation in the above. By increasing the number of dice, you are increasing the number of trials that are occurring.

But I guess that is too painful a concept to set up in your controlled environment.

 Marmatag wrote:
Probability 0 is not impossible, they are two different things. Pick a number at random from an uncountably infinite set. What's the probability you chose right? is it 0, or impossible? Math is about details. You're not appreciating them. And again, i'm not saying anything of the trials we've spoken about are probability 0. It's just an argument you seem hell bent on making when no one is even arguing it, and you're making it poorly.

What is zero? In mathematical terms it is the balance point between positive and negative in which nothing exists. If I have an apple core in my hand, the phrase, "I do not have any apples" would only be accurate if one is assuming "I do not have any apples worth eating." You talked several times about precision, but insist on me accepting this lack of precision from yourself.

If you are speaking of "probability 0" in terms of a statistical concept, maybe you should do a better job of referencing it. Not everyone wants to take, needs to take, or has taken statistical courses in college.

If no one is even arguing about it, why are you are arguing about it? Someone was lambasting a person who recognized the possibility of something happening, and I merely was pointing that it was possible, even if it wasn't likely. You came in trying to convince me that a sufficiently low probability equals no possibility. If I have 5 dice, each one of them has a chance to be rolled as a 1. That's possibility. Probability tells me that I'm more likely to only have a single 1, if any. Historical analysis tells me that I am more likely to be rolling 3s and 4s more than 1s and 6s. It made it very frustrating playing Aggravation and Risk with my family when I was younger.

 Marmatag wrote:
My end conclusion is the same: Transports killing the units they carry is a risk i am comfortable taking, and I feel confident in this after quantifying the risk.

And have I or anyone else stated otherwise?

 Carnage43 wrote:

 Gloomfang wrote:
Was okay to risk the plasma Marines firing their weapon with gets hot but it's not acceptable to risk them because they transport might get blown up?

Most of the concern is the, erm, unplanned-for-feels-bad-randomness. You buy a guy a plasma gun and you are accepting he's probably going to fry himself every once in awhile. The issue is that now we have to wrap our heads around the fact that putting something into a transport might mean it never comes out again....and that's okay, ordinance used to happen before as well.

The annoying issue is seeing Draigo/Calgar/Logan Grimnar/250+ point uber lord getting squished through 3+ wounds, 2+ save and an invulnerable while billy the boltgunner walks out unscathed. Feels bad man.

I'm willing to bet that characters will have some kind of exemption from this rule.