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.

Ok, but again you're being mathematically dishonest about what is "Regular". Assuming that both a roll of 3 or a 4 on the dice is "In the middle" or "Average" for a single dice roll. 4 of course being the higher number there, for those poor at math.
So when you roll 3 dice its going to be in the range of 9 (3 X 3) to 12 (3 x 4). So each of your hypothetic 'average' tervigons is actually coming in at the very highest preformance for "average", 5 turns in a row.
The 5 turns in a row is also worrisome, or lucky. The odds to roll a pair of doubles on 3 dice are a 50 percent chance. So calculating the odds, a 1/2 (50%) chance to continue spawning each turn is multiplied by the same chance for each successive turn. 1/2 X 1/2 = 1/4.
So by turn 5, the equation is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2x = 1/32
So to say it plainly, 2 tervigons rolling at the highest end of "average" (unlikely, or lucky if it happens) five turns in a row (a one in thirty two possibility, per tervigon, for a one in sixty four chance total) is really very hard for me to solidify in my mind as truthful.

"Closer in nature ot a Trygon". Really? I have much more respect for people who correct me on minor differences and grammar if they use proper spelling themselves.

Again, I maintain that my single tervigons job IS to die, after it has made 100 points of gants and onslaughted something across the board. Then my effectively 95 point MC absorbs shooting from the enemy because it is percieved as this huge threat when its really, really not. The points you spend on every extra one are being spent by me on trygons.Yes, I really play Tyranids. I guess you must really play 64 times the amount of games I do, and only remember the ones that you'd like.

So you're calling me a liar on how many Termagants my Tervigons spawn? Why would I lie, to a no name stranger over the internet for? Just why would I do that? The average dice roll for 3D6 I've found is roughly 9-11. Spawning over 5 turns 11 a turn is 165 which obivously is too little, so with things burning out and not spawning on average I get 60. So, tell me why would I lie about getting 60 Termagants for? As I've clearly said in my previous post I get 60 Termagants, why do you struggle grasping this?

I didn't correct you on grammar, once again you fail at reading. I said it's closer in nature to a Trygon, as in size clearly shown in the picture not in appearance so why you taking the piss and modelling small for?

Hold the phone. You're refusing to accept my triple Tervigons can spawn 60 Termagants which is 20 each but say your Tervigon can spawn 20 on it's own, you do know that 3 x 20 = 60, right? So in fact you're actually agreeing with me I can spawn 60..

Your Tervigon isn't 95 points, it's 160 minimum. You get Termagants for free. It boosts their output power making them better in close combat, if it's job is to die then you kill them or you're not using it to make those Termagants better; Termagants without any upgrades are pathetic, the only upgrades worth taking is devourers, and then that makes them cost too much.

So, you take Trygons in singles then?

I guess I must play 64 more games than you, is that another random figure? If you ever read my battle reports you'd see I remember them all..I don't have selective memory or reading skills like yourself.

The average on 3d6 is 10.5 now, that x2 for two tervigons is 21 per turn, if this manages to go fo 5 turns that means that 105 is 100% reasonable. I have seen Tervigons regularly go 4-5 turns without rolling doubles.

Also you are being mathematically dishonest, the chances of doubles on 3D6 is 4/9 not 50%.
It's 1/6 (for a match on the first two) plus 5/6 (the chance of that not happening) times 2/6 (the chance that if the first two don't match you get doubles anyhow), or 6/36 + 10/36 = 16/36 = 4/9.

44.4% isn't a huge difference from 50% but if you're calling him on using the high average in his example you should keep an eye on 5.6% in your numbers.

I guess you must be lying too awesome christ...

mercer wrote:So you're calling me a liar on how many Termagants my Tervigons spawn? Why would I lie, to a no name stranger over the internet for? Just why would I do that?

Seems that way. I mean, I'm the one doing the math here. That you can calculate 3x20 doesn't much impress me. I'm not calling you a liar, the math is.

mercer wrote:The average dice roll for 3D6 I've found is roughly 9-11.

No, its, 9-12, as I calculated in my previous post, going really slow so as to spoon feed it, and explaining each step.
On any given die, 1-2 is 'low', 3-4 'average', and 5-6 would be the 'high' range. On 3 dice, average range is 9-12, not 9-11. Come on.
7 is commonly accepted all over the world, casinos especially, to be the average on 2d6. Your original number of gants, 12(not the 11 you say here), necessitates a roll of a 5 on the third die - every time for 5 turns. Thats in the "High" range, remember. Because I know you'll say "well its 11 here", it still requires a 4, again on the "high" side of the "average" range.

mercer wrote:Spawning over 5 turns 11 a turn is 165 which obivously is too little.

Too.... little? ObiVously, someone is typing fast here and not giving the time to proofread their posts or use the correct words.

mercer wrote:I didn't correct you on grammar, once again you fail at reading. I said it's closer in nature to a Trygon, as in size clearly shown in the picture not in appearance so why you taking the piss and modelling small for?

You said all that? Or something different and incorrect that you extrapolated that from?

mercer wrote:Your Tervigon isn't 95 points, it's 160 minimum. Termagants without any upgrades are pathetic, the only upgrades worth taking is devourers.

195 points, spawns 20 gants at 5 points each, which I go ahead and apply as a discount. So 195 - 100 means that I get 6 T6 wounds and onslaught for 95 points.

mercer wrote: is that another random figure? If you ever read my battle reports you'd see I remember them all..I don't have selective memory or reading skills like yourself.
Also: So, you take Trygons in singles then?

Are those random figures? 64 comes from the 1:64 odds that 2 tervigons have to spawn 12 gants in a row 5 turns running. Now that you say 3, its increased to 1:96. BTW, same odds for 11 or 12, whichever set you want to use this round. Also, my battle reports and lists all say I only take devgants and one tervigon. Hmm. Seems that I'm not the only one failing to go backlogging through a bunch of older posts, but then I'm not presuming that you've read mine. I'm just objectively providing the facts in each one.

mercer wrote: so with things burning out and not spawning on average I get 60. So, tell me why would I lie about getting 60 Termagants for? As I've clearly said in my previous post I get 60 Termagants, why do you struggle grasping this? You're refusing to accept my triple Tervigons...

Well, my confusion was that you said a crazy number of gants, anything but 60. We're in agreement that its about 20 per tervigon, but you seem to think that its only you providing that statistic. And Definately sure you said 2 tervigons. Or a pair. sure, you say that your lists I'll even quote you so you don't have to go back for them (all).

mercer wrote:lol good picture though like all monstrous creatures Tervigons come in pairs.

mercer wrote:If you've got two Tervigons...

mercer wrote:Most I've had is 80 with two Tervigons, far from a lie, I think you're just sharing your negative experience.

mercer wrote:... if two Tervigons never burn out and spawn 12 Termagants each over a 5 turn game that's 120.

I'll stop there. The point is, quoting numbers like 165 gants and saying that it happens often enough to be statistically counted on in a game is really misleading, and I wish you would stop.

Ok, so its only slightly less ridiculous AC.

That is a pretty awesome Christ.
Mathematically, 2 tervigons should produce about 60 Temi's in a game, that's an approximation, it's not quite solid for numbers, but that's pretty decent. I could easily see 80 in a game with good dice rolls, you don't even have to roll high, just not doubles until about turn 4.

Edited for typos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a closer approximation is about 52-53ish.

That's not percents that's more just: if you get 21 turn one and get on the good side of the odds, neither rolls doubles, next turn 1 rolls doubles but you still get 21. third turn the other rolls doubles but you still get 10-11.

You could still get 80, but you could also get 30-40 too, it's all how nice the dice are to you that day.

For me to go with accurate numbers, I'd have to say 21 on turn one, with 1 stopping since its 44.4% chance (50.) Then another 10-11 with again a (about) 50% chance to make more, lets say another for about 44 gants total. Not 60. 60 assumes both make more without doubles first turn, and is dishonest.

Doomthumbs wrote:For me to go with accurate numbers, I'd have to say 21 on turn one, with 1 stopping since its 44.4% chance (50.) Then another 10-11 with again a (about) 50% chance to make more, lets say another for about 44 gants total. Not 60. 60 assumes both make more without doubles first turn, and is dishonest.

It's not dishonest, I did say in my post that it was an approximation based on the assumption that they did not roll doubles turn one. if they do then it's closer to 45ish, which my amendment is still fairly close to. again I'm not using math on this one, just showing different possibilities.

If we wanted to be accurate we could take the average that we got of 105 and just take 55.6% of that. it's about 57-58 gaunts

And the assumption that they did not roll doubles turn one is... Theres a word here, and it describes something that flies in the face of what should be happening...

Man, it was right on the tip of my tongue.
Dishonest. Thats what it was.

And where did we get the average of 105? The "Average" thing happening being 2 tervigons spawning 5 times in a row?

Thats way above average. Not out of the realm of possible, but not anywhere near average. Or honest.

Doomthumbs wrote:And the assumption that they did not roll doubles turn one is... Theres a word here, and it describes something that flies in the face of what should be happening...

Man, it was right on the tip of my tongue.
Dishonest. Thats what it was.

And where did we get the average of 105? The "Average" thing happening being 2 tervigons spawning 5 times in a row?

Thats way above average. Not out of the realm of possible, but not anywhere near average. Or honest.

105 is 2 tervigons spawning 10.5 termigaunts a turn each, or 21 together for 5 turns, so that is the average. you then take that and then apply the 44.4% chance of failure or that you should get 55.6% of that which is about 57 which should be correct.

Making that assumption is also not dishonest if the assumption is stated in the description of the situation, and it does not "Fly in the face of what should be happening." though the chances are closer to one failing in the first round, the numbers do not prohibit the concept that both could make it in the first turn.

Also, please keep it friendly here don't start with sarcasm, I don't feel like being attacked here and it's starting to feel like you're doing that.

Edit: it's actually 58.9ish termigaunts.

Awesome Christ wrote:
105 is 2 tervigons spawning 10.5 termigaunts a turn each, or 21 together for 5 turns, so that is the average.

Please stop right there. No. That is not average. Even, as you corrected me, at a 44.4% of rolling doubles each turn for five turns.
Go flip a coin. One coin for each tervigon. Every time you flip tails, it can't spawn. Two coins ending up heads every time for five flips each.
Why, how perfectly average!
Give me a break.
Also, please keep it friendly. Don't start with sarcasm. I don't feel like being attacked and it's starting to feel like you're doing that.

Awesome Christ wrote:
Edit: it's actually 58.9ish termigaunts.

Did you forget to carry the stop talking?

Doomthumbs wrote:
Please stop right there. No. That is not average. Even, as you corrected me, at a 44.4% of rolling doubles each turn for five turns.
Go flip a coin. One coin for each tervigon. Every time you flip tails, it can't spawn. Two coins ending up heads every time for five flips each.
Why, how perfectly average!
Give me a break.
Also, please keep it friendly. Don't start with sarcasm. I don't feel like being attacked and it's starting to feel like you're doing that.

Did you forget to carry the stop talking?

And like that I'm done talking to you, you have been insulting and overly aggressive with no reason and I will not continue this.

For the OP:

I agree with what most people have said thus far. I would say 2 tervigons are a good idea in a 1000 point game, maybe throw a venomthrop in, it's great for helping out objective campers and little nids like termagants, they're normally not considered really competitive I just happen to like them.

Also I would like to apologies for helping in derailing this thread

Doomthumbs wrote:

mercer wrote:So you're calling me a liar on how many Termagants my Tervigons spawn? Why would I lie, to a no name stranger over the internet for? Just why would I do that?

Seems that way. I mean, I'm the one doing the math here. That you can calculate 3x20 doesn't much impress me. I'm not calling you a liar, the math is.

Yeah I'm going to lie over the internet to prove a point to a stranger, erm, yeah. Please believe me! . Looks like you're not doing maths, not math, maths, very good as 3 x 20 = 60 like I said - you having problems working the calculator? Mathshammer is just a guide some gospel something you're forgetting but preaching, fail.

mercer wrote:The average dice roll for 3D6 I've found is roughly 9-11.

No, its, 9-12, as I calculated in my previous post, going really slow so as to spoon feed it, and explaining each step.
On any given die, 1-2 is 'low', 3-4 'average', and 5-6 would be the 'high' range. On 3 dice, average range is 9-12, not 9-11. Come on.
7 is commonly accepted all over the world, casinos especially, to be the average on 2d6. Your original number of gants, 12(not the 11 you say here), necessitates a roll of a 5 on the third die - every time for 5 turns. Thats in the "High" range, remember. Because I know you'll say "well its 11 here", it still requires a 4, again on the "high" side of the "average" range.

Oh no! I'm one out from guessing instead of using maths because everything works out exactly in the world world when playing toy soliders!

mercer wrote:Spawning over 5 turns 11 a turn is 165 which obivously is too little.

Too.... little? ObiVously, someone is typing fast here and not giving the time to proofread their posts or use the correct words.

Yeah, you got me here, one to you, but haven't you put a capital V in obivously and not spelt proof read correctly? I say touche' sir you got me on my little typo but I got you twice on yours - just a tip, do not correct others on typos/spelling/grammar etc if yours isn't gak hot either
mercer wrote:

mercer wrote:I didn't correct you on grammar, once again you fail at reading. I said it's closer in nature to a Trygon, as in size clearly shown in the picture not in appearance so why you taking the piss and modelling small for?

You said all that? Or something different and incorrect that you extrapolated that from?

Er, yeah...

mercer wrote:Your Tervigon isn't 95 points, it's 160 minimum. Termagants without any upgrades are pathetic, the only upgrades worth taking is devourers.

195 points, spawns 20 gants at 5 points each, which I go ahead and apply as a discount. So 195 - 100 means that I get 6 T6 wounds and onslaught for 95 points.

It's not a discount. Read the codex Tervigon costs 160 points. A discount is in the Blood Angels codex when you remove jump packs and get a 35 POINT DISCOUNT from transports. The Tervigon still costs 160 points when you put it in your army list, not 95 points.

mercer wrote: is that another random figure? If you ever read my battle reports you'd see I remember them all..I don't have selective memory or reading skills like yourself.
Also: So, you take Trygons in singles then?

Are those random figures? 64 comes from the 1:64 odds that 2 tervigons have to spawn 12 gants in a row 5 turns running. Now that you say 3, its increased to 1:96. BTW, same odds for 11 or 12, whichever set you want to use this round. Also, my battle reports and lists all say I only take devgants and one tervigon. Hmm. Seems that I'm not the only one failing to go backlogging through a bunch of older posts, but then I'm not presuming that you've read mine. I'm just objectively providing the facts in each one.

Does anyone know what this guy is on about? Whatever medication he's taking I want it!

mercer wrote: so with things burning out and not spawning on average I get 60. So, tell me why would I lie about getting 60 Termagants for? As I've clearly said in my previous post I get 60 Termagants, why do you struggle grasping this? You're refusing to accept my triple Tervigons...

Well, my confusion was that you said a crazy number of gants, anything but 60. We're in agreement that its about 20 per tervigon, but you seem to think that its only you providing that statistic. And Definately sure you said 2 tervigons. Or a pair. sure, you say that your lists I'll even quote you so you don't have to go back for them (all).

That's it you're confused.com. You failed to read where I said MOST I got in a game with TWO Tervigons is 80 Termagants. I said that if you DON'T burn out you could get 120, of course that's in a ideal world which doesn't happen. I said on average I get 60 Termagants with THREE Tervigons several times, you miss that hey homes? So you're saying you can't get 60 Termagants out of THREE Tervigons but you said you spawn 20 Termagants for a SINGLE Tervigon, uhm 3 x 20 = 60 isn't that what I said?

mercer wrote:lol good picture though like all monstrous creatures Tervigons come in pairs.

mercer wrote:If you've got two Tervigons...

mercer wrote:Most I've had is 80 with two Tervigons, far from a lie, I think you're just sharing your negative experience.

mercer wrote:... if two Tervigons never burn out and spawn 12 Termagants each over a 5 turn game that's 120.

I'll stop there. The point is, quoting numbers like 165 gants and saying that it happens often enough to be statistically counted on in a game is really misleading, and I wish you would stop.

Ah I see you've found the quote button and also quoting parts of what I say, awesomez! See I knew I said MOST I got was 80, not you always get 80, most being the keyword you missed, do you want me to highlight it for you?. I also said if TWO Tervigons never burn out that's 120 if they get 12 a turn, which using your super-duper mathshammer you agree. Now, where have you got 165 Termagants from..? No one said 165 (you having problems counting again?) no one said it happens and to be counted on you've just made that up. You do live in a search world making things up, do you think the sky is falling down too?

Sir you are a strange, sad little man who just talks rubbish and make yourself look silly. When taking your medication does it say "don't go on the internet due to random slurring" I would seriously check the bottle if I was you

I find when making responses to multiple quotes, it helps to number them inside of a quote box that has actual words said by the person you're quoting.
Otherwise, it looks silly and rude, like you've hastily slapped a post together just to spill some hate out there.
An example in proper HTML and hate-spewing follows. I'll quote what you said, all in one block, with numbers that will correspond to my responses.

mercer wrote:
1)Yeah I'm going to lie over the internet to prove a point to a stranger, erm, yeah. Please believe me! . Looks like you're not doing maths, not math, maths, very good as 3 x 20 = 60 like I said - you having problems working the calculator? Mathshammer is just a guide some gospel something you're forgetting but preaching, fail.

2)Oh no! I'm one out from guessing instead of using maths because everything works out exactly in the world world when playing toy soliders!

3)Yeah, you got me here, one to you, but haven't you put a capital V in obivously and not spelt proof read correctly? I say touche' sir you got me on my little typo but I got you twice on yours - just a tip, do not correct others on typos/spelling/grammar etc if yours isn't gak hot either
mercer wrote:

4)It's not a discount. Read the codex Tervigon costs 160 points. A discount is in the Blood Angels codex when you remove jump packs and get a 35 POINT DISCOUNT from transports. The Tervigon still costs 160 points when you put it in your army list, not 95 points.

5)Does anyone know what this guy is on about? Whatever medication he's taking I want it!

6)Sir you are a strange, sad little man who just talks rubbish and make yourself look silly. When taking your medication does it say "don't go on the internet due to random slurring" I would seriously check the bottle if I was you

Ok, Now that you've been quoted, I can put my responses outside that quote box.

1) First off, you've proved nothing, only made exaggerated claims, trying to back them up with faulty math and also making a normal claim as an addendum to your saying 165 gants is possible/ happens often enough to justify multiple tervigons. Furthermore there is not a single instance where I called you a liar, only that providing numbers exceeding around 20 gants per tervigon to someone new to the Tyranid Army (the OP. Remember him?) is dishonest. Just as possible as getting 165 gants from three would be to get 9 on the first turn with 3 lockups. That never gets mentioned though. Only how well yours do - always - which leads me to wonder if it is not in fact YOU seeking adulation of people on the internet. Then again, I could give a flying fong at a rolling donut. Also, I believe it would be very well instead of good.
2)You've slipped here into a mocking tone, where mine has remained objective. It is neither appreciated by me or effective in proving a point. Also, getting 11 as a result from guessing 4(high range of average 3-4) x 3(dice rolled) is pretty good. It IS 12 though. Sorry if that's being too much of a math purist.
3) The capital V was to emphasize your own misspelling of the word, which you haven't bothered to notice in your own quote there. That you can pick up on my capital letters (normally, not included mid word for me) is impressive. That you gave me some static about my grammar here is obivously pretty amusing in a sad kind of way. (See, I did it again. This time, I'll include a note so you know I'm making fun of you.)
4) Yes, yes. The 100 points off of the gants is not shaved off the top. It is gained additionally after the army list is totaled up. So in a 2000 point game, say. I'll end up having fielded 2100 points, after spawning. Was it there when the 195 point tervigon was purchased? No. Did I put the gants in the original list and say the tervigon was 95 points for the purposes of adding to 2000? No. Adding to 2000 is hard enough for some people (I know some who can barely do factorals of 12) . Why make it any more complicated than it has to be? Maybe replace my sentence with "This makes the tervigon worth about 95 points to me instead of 195."
5) It is available for about twenty US dollars per gram in most cities around the world. Look for the smelly smiling chap with bad allergies.
6) Now see, these are the kind of things that are directly offensive to just one person (me), instead of the argument I was making. I seem to have read somewhere that good taste mandated that I attack the argument, not the person? I've not said anything negative about you at all, other than I think you're giving an inflated number of gants that is possible because of the magical time you'd like to have spawning all of them. You though, have made direct inferences about my character that are not flattering. You have implied multiple times that I am on some kind of bizarre medication, instead of just some kind.


Whew. That was exhausting. Putting a well thought out post together so that it looks like something someone put thought into instead of mangling it? Makes one tired.
I can see why you avoided it.