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.

Ailaros wrote:okay, so, this has inspired some 40k photoshop:

Awesome photoshop job.

Project2501 wrote:You also seemed to have missed the bit where the probability of 13 dark lances' chances to stun, immobilize, wreck, destroy or in any possible way affect 0 zero land raiders is exactly 0%.

And there being a 1.2% greater chance to affect a land raider in cover than not in cover.

I'll second NeutronPoison's "er, what?"

His math is right.

Knocking out 4 LR's in 1 turn, even with 13 lances, is a neat trick. You'll be lucky to knock out 2. Although if you also count cannot move results you would have a much better chance of stopping all 4, at least for 1 turn.

biccat wrote:

Project2501 wrote:You also seemed to have missed the bit where the probability of 13 dark lances' chances to stun, immobilize, wreck, destroy or in any possible way affect 0 zero land raiders is exactly 0%.

And there being a 1.2% greater chance to affect a land raider in cover than not in cover.

I'll second NeutronPoison's "er, what?"

His math is right.

Knocking out 4 LR's in 1 turn, even with 13 lances, is a neat trick. You'll be lucky to knock out 2. Although if you also count cannot move results you would have a much better chance of stopping all 4, at least for 1 turn.

I'll 'third' my own point, there's exactly a 0% chance for 13 dark lances to affect 0 Land Raiders.

Project2501 wrote:
I'll 'third' my own point, there's exactly a 0% chance for 13 dark lances to affect 0 Land Raiders.

You're misinterpreting the chart. The number of Land Raiders referred to isn't the number of Land Raiders being fired upon, it is the number of Land Raiders out of four on the field that actually get meaningfully damaged after being fired upon. There is a nonzero chance of 13 lances failing to hurt a single Land Raider and thus affecting 0 Land Raiders (out of a possible 4).

Project2501 wrote:I'll 'third' my own point, there's exactly a 0% chance for 13 dark lances to affect 0 Land Raiders.

I'm interested in your proof of this.

Each dark lance has a 1/3 chance of missing. Each also has a 50% chance of not glancing or penetrating a Land Raider (IIRC). So it's certainly possible, although unlikely, that 13 dark lances could fail to hit or glance the LR.

biccat wrote:

Project2501 wrote:I'll 'third' my own point, there's exactly a 0% chance for 13 dark lances to affect 0 Land Raiders.

I'm interested in your proof of this.

Each dark lance has a 1/3 chance of missing. Each also has a 50% chance of not glancing or penetrating a Land Raider (IIRC). So it's certainly possible, although unlikely, that 13 dark lances could fail to hit or glance the LR.

Yeah I think people confuse average results with probabilities.

(1-(2/3 hits * 1/2 at least glance))^ 13 shots = roughly 1 in 200 chance of 13 lances failing to do anything in a single turn, assuming no cover. Goes to about 1 in 100 if cover factors into every shot.

So not 'exactly 0%', but pretty unlikely.

However chances of those same 13 lances not wrecking a single land raider is high. ~37% without cover and ~61% with cover. It's why DE players usually pack in alot more then 13 lance weapons in their list, cause those stats carry across not only land raiders but chimeras, dreads etc.

Also those linked stats are misleading, as they do not take into account glance immobilizations. But pretty close.

Project2501 wrote:I'll 'third' my own point, there's exactly a 0% chance for 13 dark lances to affect 0 Land Raiders.

Reading comprehension failure complete.

End of line.

in all seriousness, it took me a second glance to understand what was meant by "0 Land Raiders," but the poster was referring to "out of X Land Raiders, 13 dark lances will damage 0 of them" rather than "13 dark lances have a 47% chance to damage 0 Land Raiders." So your initial misinterpretation was quite understandable.

However, by the time you've thirded your own point, somebody has already explained this to you earlier in the thread.

Hence, reading comprehension fail.

biccat wrote:

Project2501 wrote:I'll 'third' my own point, there's exactly a 0% chance for 13 dark lances to affect 0 Land Raiders.

I'm interested in your proof of this.

Each dark lance has a 1/3 chance of missing. Each also has a 50% chance of not glancing or penetrating a Land Raider (IIRC). So it's certainly possible, although unlikely, that 13 dark lances could fail to hit or glance the LR.

so 1/3*0,5*13/6=36% not to do anything, that means, yout of 13 lances, 76% will roll 9.88 effects on a nbc lr to glance. thats 1 immo, 1 wd, 1 stunn, 1 shaken and 2 nothing. Focus fire from 36" yeap.
on the other hand to get a pen: 1/3*1/3*13/6=0.48% not to do anything, and this is pen., so ovr half of your shots have a chance to pen a LR, so 6.7 effects: one explode, huha!!

THIS IS STILL MATHHAMMER!!! Not reality!

enfernux wrote:

biccat wrote:

Project2501 wrote:I'll 'third' my own point, there's exactly a 0% chance for 13 dark lances to affect 0 Land Raiders.

I'm interested in your proof of this.

Each dark lance has a 1/3 chance of missing. Each also has a 50% chance of not glancing or penetrating a Land Raider (IIRC). So it's certainly possible, although unlikely, that 13 dark lances could fail to hit or glance the LR.

so 1/3*0,5*13/6=36% not to do anything, that means, yout of 13 lances, 76% will roll 9.88 effects on a nbc lr to glance. thats 1 immo, 1 wd, 1 stunn, 1 shaken and 2 nothing. Focus fire from 36" yeap.
on the other hand to get a pen: 1/3*1/3*13/6=0.48% not to do anything, and this is pen., so ovr half of your shots have a chance to pen a LR, so 6.7 effects: one explode, huha!!

THIS IS STILL MATHHAMMER!!! Not reality!

I don't think you understand probability, or 'mathhammer'.

Lets try a simple thought experiment: if you roll 12 dice and they all come up "1", what are the odds that the next die rolled will come up "1"?

and if they all roll 6, what is the probability of the 13th becoming 1?? 1 to 6. The same as your example. but if we take in to calculation that there are 13 of those chances, thats 13/6to hit and 13/6/6 to do anything, that is a nother way of calculateing. this way we can see the dice gods face, while with mine, we can see that dice god can give good carma, if you are optimistic - one is bound to do enough damage, to take out that LR. If it fails, shake a leg and drink from your beer.

enfernux wrote:and if they all roll 6, what is the probability of the 13th becoming 1?? 1 to 6. The same as your example. but if we take in to calculation that there are 13 of those chances, thats 13/6to hit and 13/6/6 to do anything, that is a nother way of calculateing. this way we can see the dice gods face, while with mine, we can see that dice god can give good carma, if you are optimistic - one is bound to do enough damage, to take out that LR. If it fails, shake a leg and drink from your beer.

You can't multiply the odds of something happening by the number of events. That information is given by the binomial distribution.

This formula gives the chance of distribution of how many successes (n) you get for a number of trials (N), given probability of p.

The probability of one dark lance immobilizing or destroying a vehicle is:
4/6 * (2/6 * 3/6 + 1/6 * 1/6) or 28/216 (12%).
(that might be wrong, adjust to taste)

to hit
to pen
glance
result on table

For 13 shots you have the following odds of getting n results:
n odds 0 16.4% 1 31.8% 2 28.5% 3 15.5% 4 5.8%
So 16% of the time you would obtain 0 immobilized or destroyed results. 31% of the time you would get 1 result, etc.

We could interpret that differently: 84% of the time you'll get at least 1 result, while you'll get at least 2 results slightly less than 50% of the time.

Hope that makes sense.

edit: If you just multiplied the number of shots (13) by the odds of getting the result (12%) you would get a number that's really close (within 1%) to the average (expected) number of results. But that doesn't mean you would actually get that result.

it doesn't, thats why its called probability, or mathhammer
and if you would just read a bit more than you'd like, i said: it is mathhammer, not reality. Dig me?
somehow, im begining to question those quotes in your signature.

enfernux wrote:it doesn't, thats why its called probability, or mathhammer
and if you would just read a bit more than you'd like, i said: it is mathhammer, not reality. Dig me?

Not in the slightest, sorry. I'm just not sure what point you're trying to make.

To be blunt, math is reality. Actually rolling the dice doesn't change the probability of result A, B, or C happening (unless you're cheating).

Project2501 wrote:

NeutronPoison wrote:The probability that 13 Dark Lances will wreck various numbers of Land Raiders without cover are:

0 Land Raiders: 21.6%
1 Land Raider: 35.2%
2 Land Raiders: 26.4%
3 Land Raiders: 12.1%
4 Land Radiers: 3.8%

If they all have cover, the distribution changes to

0 Land Raiders: 47.6%
1 Land Raider: 36.4%
2 Land Raiders: 12.8%
3 Land Raiders: 2.8%

Mathematics failure complete.


End of line.

Funny, absolutely nothing in the post indicates the results are out of 4 land raiders present and total. Quite to the contrary, it does say the results are out of various numbers of land raiders that could exist at one time and as such, the point still stands. So, based on exactly what the OP posted, the mathematics are a failure, the post is missleading, and the failure of the trolls since is complete.

End of line.

Come on, folks.

And it's funny too, given that all of their bickering is about a useless point. A DE player who has all their vehicles in one place blasting it out against a LR player who doesn't use cover, move, or shoot back? Who cares who's math is right in that situation if that situation is never going to happen?

As Peter Drucker once said "There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all."