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.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
To your first point there are a couple of large differences between RM and regular Power Armor models, namely mobility and flexibility. Mobility is arguablily the most important stat in the game. The flexibility is probably more important in this case as it means I can pay a couple points and get a Combi bolter on a Sargent to make him effective at ranged, AND give him a CC weapon that dosen't cost 8-10 points. The simple fact is a unit that can make use of it's Sgt. is a more effective unit, Rubrics can't do that right now, they have 1 option pay 27 points for a model which is only good in cc, who is imbeded in a unit which pays 2 points minimum for its weapons, which are all ranged. So your either waiting till the rest of the squad is killed THEN using your Sgt., or Charging in wasteing the 8 points you spent on ranged weapons. The best situation is putting flamers on most (75%) of the models and getting them close enough to shoot problem with that is you will kill most of what you shoot at, and still have no reason to take a almost 30 point models which risks killing 100 points everytime he casts.

Again you don't seem to get this, they aren't an offensive unit and that's the only metric you seem to be measuring. The sorcerer is there to give the unit a CC bite which means they aren't helpless in combat, useful when you do get charged. A unit for holding objectives isn't kiting enemies, they will take a charge eventually. That's what you do with this sort of durable generalist troop, it's really the only thing a unit designed as such can do effectively, as it leverages all of their strengths. Well, that and the warpflamers rush will typically leave you in range for something to charge you, if not the unit you shot. So melee ability helps a bit.

The sorcerer also allows denial, which is useful when smite can be such a pain for elite troops, particularly ones in the range of 20 points for a 1 w model.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
I expected them to fix the non-specialized problem. So they COULD be the mainstay if you chose that.

Well, first off I have no idea why you'd expect that considering they haven't really fixed the problem for any other similar unit. Also again, they literally cannot fix this without changing a whole mess of things across multiple codices and the base rules that's not going to happen right now, not with such a minor problem that leaves the army still perfectly functional. That or flat out not giving the rubric a standard SM statline, if rubrics dropped to a 4+ (or even 5+) WS to reflect the whole mindless automaton thing that used to net them their awful initiative they could avoid one of the problems at least and net a nice price cut. But somehow I think people would be upset about that as well.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
They instead chose to add nothing to thier offensive capabilities, they removed one of two auras, to replace it with Warpflamers are not really overpriced they can do as much damage as 80 points with 3 rounds in shooting in 2 rounds for less then half the price. So I think they are accurately priced the problem is the range really hinders them,

Okay, yes about the OC Plasma, which is why the re-roll 1s for invul saves was good it made us more durable to the things that people shoot at us with and because we spend most of our points on durability it was more effective to bring a reroll inul saves of 1 aura. We lost that which IS a nerf, we gained nothing in return, which is an even bigger nerf, since now all we have access to is Re-roll 1s to hit, which is less effective for us, and means in situations where we could have 2 auras we will only have 1.

That aura was in the range of a 5% increase to durability for a unit with a 5++. It was borderline worthless for rubrics but broken on someone like magnus or even one of the new generic tson DPs, who could go up to a 3++.

pismakron wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

pismakron wrote:
I still don't get your math. The way I see it, Firestorm will cause .87 mortal wounds per cast. Which is not super good, but it isn't super bad either. Can anyone here post the exact wording of the spell?

Correct.
0,583 x 1,5 = 0,8745 MW.

Edit: The wording is "target enemy unit within 18" and visible to the caster. Roll 9 dice, and for each 6 the target suffers a MW."

In correct you will average 1 6 per 9 d6 rolled not 1.5.

.583 × 1 = .583 MW per cast.

When rolling nine D6 you will roll 1.5 sixes on average. And if the spell is also targetable, then it is way better than smite. As well as it should be with a WC of 7.

MinscS2 wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


In correct you will average 1 6 per 9 d6 rolled not 1.5.

.583 × 1 = .583 MW per cast.

Nope.

If you roll 6 D6 you'll average 1 6.
If you roll 9 D6 you'll average 1,5 6's.
Just like you'll average 1,5 1's, 2's, 3's, 4's and 5's.

Okay, yes you will get an average of 1.5 6s on 9 d6s if you sit down and roll the set of 9 150 times. But if you just pick up 9 dice and roll them your going to average 1 6 per roll. Not 1.5.

If you don't beleive me call your local College or High school and ask someone there that knows how to do stats, they will tell you.

9 dice 1 6 on average. Just like 1d6 11% chance for any given number.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Okay, yes you will get an average of 1.5 6s on 9 d6s if you sit down and roll the set of 9 150 times. But of you just pick up 9 dice and roll them your going to average 1 6 per roll. Not 1.5.

If you don't beleive me call your local College or High school and ask someone there that knows how to do stats, they will tell you.

9 dice 1 6 on average. Just like 1d6 11% chance for any givem number.

No... you get one 6 around 35% of the time and 2 or more 46% of the time (and no sixes ~19% of the time). It depends on what you mean by average?

Obviously you can't roll half numbers on a D6, but roll enough times and the number of 6s you get on 9D6 will tend towards 1.5.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Okay, yes you will get an average of 1.5 6s on 9 d6s if you sit down and roll the set of 9 150 times. But of you just pick up 9 dice and roll them your going to average 1 6 per roll. Not 1.5.

If you don't beleive me call your local College or High school and ask someone there that knows how to do stats, they will tell you.

9 dice 1 6 on average. Just like 1d6 11% chance for any givem number.

No, it isn't 11%. When rolling a D6 there is a 16.7% chance of rolling each of the six possible results. It is hard to know if you are even serious when making claims like these.

pismakron wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Okay, yes you will get an average of 1.5 6s on 9 d6s if you sit down and roll the set of 9 150 times. But of you just pick up 9 dice and roll them your going to average 1 6 per roll. Not 1.5.

If you don't beleive me call your local College or High school and ask someone there that knows how to do stats, they will tell you.

9 dice 1 6 on average. Just like 1d6 11% chance for any givem number.

No, there isn't. When rolling a D6 there is a 16.7% chance of rolling each of the six possible results. It is hard to know if you are even serious when making claims like these.

When I say any given number I mean Pick a number. Roll a dice. You have an 11% chance of rolling THAT number on THAT roll, that is the PROBABLE outcome, your talking about the EXPECTED outcome.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

pismakron wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Okay, yes you will get an average of 1.5 6s on 9 d6s if you sit down and roll the set of 9 150 times. But of you just pick up 9 dice and roll them your going to average 1 6 per roll. Not 1.5.

If you don't beleive me call your local College or High school and ask someone there that knows how to do stats, they will tell you.

9 dice 1 6 on average. Just like 1d6 11% chance for any givem number.

No, there isn't. When rolling a D6 there is a 16.7% chance of rolling each of the six possible results. It is hard to know if you are even serious when making claims like these.

When I say any given number I mean Pick a number. Roll a dice. You have an 11% chance of rolling THAT number on THAT roll.

Surely I pick a number, 1/6. Roll a die. Chances of any particular number are (1/6)*100 of it coming up or (5/6)*100 of it not coming up. So that's... 16.67%.

 unitled wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

pismakron wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Okay, yes you will get an average of 1.5 6s on 9 d6s if you sit down and roll the set of 9 150 times. But of you just pick up 9 dice and roll them your going to average 1 6 per roll. Not 1.5.

If you don't beleive me call your local College or High school and ask someone there that knows how to do stats, they will tell you.

9 dice 1 6 on average. Just like 1d6 11% chance for any givem number.

No, there isn't. When rolling a D6 there is a 16.7% chance of rolling each of the six possible results. It is hard to know if you are even serious when making claims like these.

When I say any given number I mean Pick a number. Roll a dice. You have an 11% chance of rolling THAT number on THAT roll.

Surely I pick a number, 1/6. Roll a die. Chances of any particular number are (1/6)*100 of it coming up or (5/6)*100 of it not coming up. So that's... 16.67%.

Yes thats the expected outcome.

Whats the probable outcome?

Well, it's 'probable' the one number you pick won't come up. I'm not sure 'probable' is a technical maths definition though, so how are you defining it? The single most likely outcome?

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

pismakron wrote:
I still don't get your math. The way I see it, Firestorm will cause .87 mortal wounds per cast. Which is not super good, but it isn't super bad either. Can anyone here post the exact wording of the spell?

Correct.
0,583 x 1,5 = 0,8745 MW.

Edit: The wording is "target enemy unit within 18" and visible to the caster. Roll 9 dice, and for each 6 the target suffers a MW."

In correct you will average 1 6 per 9 d6 rolled not 1.5.

.583 × 1 = .583 MW per cast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pismakron wrote:
I still don't get your math. The way I see it, Firestorm will cause .87 mortal wounds per cast. Which is not super good, but it isn't super bad either. Can anyone here post the exact wording of the spell?

No mini smite and Firestorm have the same statistical output of damage per roll.

Per cast is not per successful cast it is per attempted cast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
These are good points, given a few constraints.

1) Casters with a psychic power bonus exist at all points on the board and have infinite slots/casts to drop important spells.

2) There are no other disciplines from which you will need to pull to cast powers on your other psykers.

It assumes neither

With +6" range on casting you can be in the middle of the board and cast Prescience 12" into your deployment or 12" into the enemy into the enemy deployment. Given Tzaangors have the Shaman to boost thier attack you wont cast on them, which leaves heavy support or RM/SOT all of which will probably neither of which will be more then 2 feet from your Sorcerer.

Bringing 3 Sorcerers and Ahriman are required for 2 battalions that gives you 9 spells, if each casts smite that puts you at 5 you would be better off casting only 3 smites though leaving you with 6 spells that can be cast.

As for bonuses a Termie Sorc with a spell familiar will give you a +2 on your first cast and a +1 on your second cast, Ahriman can add 1 to each cast. Which gives you 5 spells with a bonus to casting.

The fact is your going to need to bring 2 Sorcs per Battalion and at 2 you have a minimum of 4, and most of thier spells will have 24" range there are a couple of cases where short range spells need to be taken on multiple models but you can fix that by having 1 Sorc on a disc. Warp time is our shortest range spell on a disc with advancing you have an average spell range of 24" from the start of the turn.

You dont need a bunch of Sorcs just a few mobile ones.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
Wait, you think trading the re-roll 1s of invuln save auras is a nerf to non-magnus units? I have to disagree, having that on Ahriman/Exalted sorc is a huge bonus to the exact gunline playstyle you say you wanted out of your thousand sons.

The biggest problem with the aura on the daemon prince alone is that the aura was essentially the only value the DP was bringing if you used him to support a gunline, which in no way justified his massive 180 points cost. Ahriman at 135 provides 3 spell casts at +2 while still having character protection and still having the same mobility in case you do need to move him around to get your buffs. The fact that compared to pre-codex, most of the spells he's throwing around are now 24" range is an even bigger bonus. Rerolling the invulns was amazing on magnus, good on Tzaangors and DPs (because they always got to use it) and OK on rubrics because it was only applicable if they got hit by Ap-3 (if 1 damage) or AP-2 (if multi damage) weaponry.

I know that you think opponents always only ever target rubrics with those weapons, but there's a really good way to get them not to (or at the very least, to make it a terrible trade for them) - take heavy support options. Autocannon/Lascannon predators, Lascannon/ML helbrutes, double-butcher contemptors, forgefiends, etc, all work extremely well with the reroll to hit aura AND take heat off the rubrics, leaving them to get hit with the anti-infantry weaponry they shrug off so well. If you've got a couple rhinos full of rubrics and a couple gunline vehicles like I just described, and your opponent opts to target the rhinos with their long range anti tank, that's a fantastic trade for you, because you lose a rhino and maybe a couple rubrics and then they lose their long range anti tank to your psychic buffed gunline. The CSM stuff tends to be especially nice for that purpose because if even one heavy piece survives unscathed, you can pump highly efficient CPs into it along with Prescience to get stuff like a single forgefiend hitting on re-rolling 3s and wounding on re-rolling 4s. Even if you limit to just predators, you take three and your opponent essentially MUST kill one turn 1 or killshot will tear them up for all of 1 cp.

You think having something then not having it is a buff?

No I think that given a choice between shooting at Rubrics in rapid fire range and shooting at Tzaangors not in Rapid fire range people will choose the Tzaangors every time, and given the choice between shooting Plasma at Tzaangors in Rapid fire range and Rubrics not in Rapid fire range they will shoot at Rubrics.

LOS, people don't plop down a tank in the middle of a field they position it so they can shoot at what they want the first turn then move as nessciary.

A couple points.

1) you know that you can have values that are not whole numbers when you're calculating probability...right? Like, even though you can't physically roll a fractional value, because not factoring that in when looking at probability of small numbers leads you to hilarious amounts of rounding (like, for example, saying that the average number of 6s rolled on 9 dice is 1). When the US census bureau says that the average american family has 1.3 children, they aren't saying that they thing loads of people are running around with just a pair of legs. The reason I'm confused here is that when it comes time for you to give an average, you seem fine with this concept and you give it to three decimal places, but when it comes to making something you want to be bad look worse, you pull out "ONE POINT FIVE ROUNDS TO ONE".

2) I think having something not particularly useful swapped out for something much more useful is a buff, even if we had that thing before from less convenient sources. Thousand sons as you and I both want to play them are a shooting army with very good armor saves. This translates into a limited usefulness for an invuln save aura (which as I mentioned earlier, only applied to Rubrics when shot with AP-3 D1 weaponry or AP-2 multi-damage weaponry) but pretty much universal usefulness for a shooting aura, as long as it's actually near the models you want to buff.

3) I don't disagree that Terminator Sorcerors are a solid choice especially with the +1 power trait (which I'm guessing is how you're getting him to +2?), but I don't think regular sorcerors are that great. The way you've got your list set up here, your only reroll to hit aura is on Ahriman, who I'm still not convinced can be absolutely everywhere at once. Rubric squads and Preds are going to want to be different distances from the enemy, and you'll need something to babysit the backline troops if Ahriman is going to be up near rhino-rushing rubrics trying to get rapid fire. Turning one of those sorcerors into an exalt costs what, 23 points for that to-hit aura, which is worth it the very first time you hit when you should have missed with a 25-point lascannon.

4) not sure what your point is regarding LOS. Yes, people will try to position things out of LOS of other things. You should too. However, while you're doing that, you should probably also try to present the most optimal targets you want to get shot at by your opponents anti tank. You do get to place your own units.

5) So far, I've opted not to give my opponent the choice between firing at tzaangors and firing at rubrics, and its worked great. My one unit of tzaangors just deep strikes, and usually in doing so forces attention onto them. I don't take Tzaangors as troop slot fillers because they're not good for that, If I were trying to play pure Thousand Sons with 2 battalions I'd take 120 points of cultists instead. I just sub out cultists for brimstone horrors since I want daemons alongside my sons. But in every game so far, at least a few anti infantry weapons have had to target my rubrics because they don't have much in the way of better options, usually because the tzaangors and horrors eat it turns 1-2 and I focus my efforts on taking out the kind of weapons that threaten my rubrics and tanks. Certainly its a very rare army that has enough plasma to immediately deal with 20 rubrics and 10 SOT AFTER destroying the rhinos and the SOT get their turn of shooting out of deep strike. In that instance, I'll just have to hope that Glamour and Weaver applied where they most need to be will make up for the lack of rerolling 1s on a 5++ invuln save.

 unitled wrote:
Well, it's 'probable' the one number you pick won't come up. I'm not sure 'probable' is a technical maths definition though, so how are you defining it? The single most likely outcome?

The way they define it in statistics. The most likely outcome of an event.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 unitled wrote:
Well, it's 'probable' the one number you pick won't come up. I'm not sure 'probable' is a technical maths definition though, so how are you defining it? The single most likely outcome?

The way they define it in statistics. The most likely outcome of an event.

But that's a nonsense for evaluating things we're calculating repeatedly, like powers in a game of 40k. By your logic a power which does 10 mortal wounds on a 5 or 6 does 0 for the purposes of analysis because it 'probably' doesn't go off.

Also, how did you get to 11% for a single value on a dice roll?

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

When I say any given number I mean Pick a number. Roll a dice. You have an 11% chance of rolling THAT number on THAT roll, that is the PROBABLE outcome, your talking about the EXPECTED outcome.

I am talking about neither. The probability of rolling a six on a die roll is 1/6, or 16.7%. And the average number of sixes when rolling 9D6 is 9/6, or 1.5

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Okay, yes you will get an average of 1.5 6s on 9 d6s if you sit down and roll the set of 9 150 times. But if you just pick up 9 dice and roll them your going to average 1 6 per roll. Not 1.5.

If you don't beleive me call your local College or High school and ask someone there that knows how to do stats, they will tell you.

9 dice 1 6 on average. Just like 1d6 11% chance for any given number.

Yeah you can't actually roll 1.5 6s, but you also can't inflict .833 wounds. So why are you cherry picking?

Actually, looking at your original post I think you've double counted the probabilities too. You're taking into account dealing 0 damage (i.e. failing the casting roll) and are then multiplying by the chance of successfully casting.

The mini-smite does 1 on a success and D3 on a roll of 11+ right? So 6/36 of rolls it does 0, 3/36 it does 2 (average on a D3), and 27/36 it does 1. Averaging out we're at 0.917 MW per cast.

Firestorm, as discussed, will do 1.5 on average, so 15/36 it's 0 and 21/36 it's 1.5. Averaging out we're at 0.875 MW per cast.

Doombolt (I have assumed the text on the OP is correct for the spell) 10/36 it's 2 and 26/36 it's 0. This gives us 0.556 MW per cast.

I don't have a comment on the usefulness of the Rubrics themselves, but this should bring us closer to the actual stats for their powers. Naturally it doesn't take into account variance, any buffs/rerolls/auras or whatever, or the negative effects of perils.

 Orblivion wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Okay, yes you will get an average of 1.5 6s on 9 d6s if you sit down and roll the set of 9 150 times. But if you just pick up 9 dice and roll them your going to average 1 6 per roll. Not 1.5.

If you don't beleive me call your local College or High school and ask someone there that knows how to do stats, they will tell you.

9 dice 1 6 on average. Just like 1d6 11% chance for any given number.

Yeah you can't actually roll 1.5 6s, but you also can't inflict .833 wounds. So why are you cherry picking?

It fits his narrative.

I think you'll find that the odds of rolling any one number on a fair six sided die is 1 in 6, or .16666~17%. Not 11%. Unless you're using the special GW thousand sons dice, which feature a super-shallow thousand sons symbol on a 6 and a giant hunka-chunky skull cutout on the 1, leading them all to be massively weighted towards rolling 1s.

but you know, why would anyone care about having fair dice in their games of 40k, right GW?

Right or wrong, using your own definitions of expected outcome and probable outcome, expected outcome is the best metric as the thread is intended to evaluate rubrics; i.e. - what is the long term expected performance, so I have to side with everyone else and agree that chance of rolling a 1 is indeed 1/6.

TS have access to quite a few tricks to increase odds of successful psychic tests to name a few - Ahriman has a +1, Magnus has a +2, there is a WL trait for another +1 and also a stratagem for a +2 (which seems stackable with the other cast buffs for a max of +4). Ignoring command points or gaze of fate, TS casting probabilities should be:

WC +0 +1 +2 +3 +4
5: 0.83 0.92 0.97 1.00 1.00
6: 0.72 0.83 0.92 0.97 1.00
7: 0.58 0.72 0.83 0.92 0.97
8: 0.42 0.58 0.72 0.83 0.92
9: 0.27 0.42 0.58 0.72 0.83

Casting important powers on demand shouldn't be an issue.

If the beta ruling on smite becomes standard, then TS stands to be the premier psychic army (except maybe orks), by merit of having the most psykers with the most powers and also being able to buff their way through any smite penalties.

Again this thread just seems like bitching about a codex that's not even out.

LOL at GW basically saying, "no u", to this and the other Thousand Sons complaining threads - https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/01/30/eddie-agent-of-change-part-1-rubric-marinesgw-homepage-post-4/

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Again this thread just seems like bitching about a codex that's not even out.

You speak as if that's something new on this forum. At this point it would actually be a surprise if this didn't happen with a codex release.

 andysonic1 wrote:
LOL at GW basically saying, "no u", to this and the other Thousand Sons complaining threads - https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/01/30/eddie-agent-of-change-part-1-rubric-marinesgw-homepage-post-4/

I always hate PR "tactics" threads like this. For every one legitimate point there's about five desperately eager turd-polishings.

he does highlight the good ways to use rubrics - rhino with 10, rhino with 5 warpflamers, big block deep striking in, 10 in a land raider, etc - but it's all mixed in there with bizarre and terrible "tips" like "Rubrics too slow? Use Warptime to move them an extra 5"! WOW!"

Warptime in deepstriking Rubrics with Warpflamers can put the hurt on your opponent. Specially if hes spamming things like infantry.

 Galas wrote:
Warptime in deepstriking Rubrics with Warpflamers can put the hurt on your opponent. Specially if hes spamming things like infantry.

Slightly different situation, more to do with the fact that you really only want to move them 1" in that instance. His "tip" was more about "how to get your rubrics where you're going".

The problem is, a "tactics" article that considers every single option to be "good" is going to be inherently wrong about...most things. The whole point of differentiating between doing one thing and doing another is that one is better than the other. Walking is 100% always the worst way to field rubrics, and for some reason he advocates that while saying Land Raiders are bad...rubrics are fine out of a land raider. TBH, we have the best land raiders of any chaos legion at this point thanks to our -1 to hit power we can cast from a basic infantry squad. Don't get me wrong, they're going to be at best a mediocre unit, but nobody does 'em better!

I disagree with this statement
"The whole point of differentiating between doing one thing and doing anoter is that one is beter than the other".
Some times thas true, but it doesn't need to be always. Many times, a choice is based in your tactic and what do you want that unit to accomplish.

 Galas wrote:
I disagree with this statement
"The whole point of differentiating between doing one thing and doing anoter is that one is beter than the other".
Some times thas true, but it doesn't need to be always. Many times, a choice is based in your tactic and what do you want that unit to accomplish.

Yeah, that is true. I suppose my point is more that if you start from a place where you're not allowed to admit that any choice or option is inherently bad ("bad" here meaning "highly unlikely to be useful compared to other options to the point where there is never or almost never a compelling reason to take the choice or option) then you can't have an honest discussion and you can't accurately convey good information to the other person. When this guy says "walk your rubrics - they're like WALKING TANKS!" he just destroys his credibility when he lists something that's actually accurate or useful.

Then again, in his showcase game he did choose to put a combi-melta on his laspred.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 unitled wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

pismakron wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Okay, yes you will get an average of 1.5 6s on 9 d6s if you sit down and roll the set of 9 150 times. But of you just pick up 9 dice and roll them your going to average 1 6 per roll. Not 1.5.

If you don't beleive me call your local College or High school and ask someone there that knows how to do stats, they will tell you.

9 dice 1 6 on average. Just like 1d6 11% chance for any givem number.

No, there isn't. When rolling a D6 there is a 16.7% chance of rolling each of the six possible results. It is hard to know if you are even serious when making claims like these.

When I say any given number I mean Pick a number. Roll a dice. You have an 11% chance of rolling THAT number on THAT roll.

Surely I pick a number, 1/6. Roll a die. Chances of any particular number are (1/6)*100 of it coming up or (5/6)*100 of it not coming up. So that's... 16.67%.

Yes thats the expected outcome.

Whats the probable outcome?

Probable outcome and expected outcome are both 1/6 under the assumption that the dice don’t favour any particular side more than another.

You need to explain where you are getting the probable outcome of 11% from.
I teach stats to second year BA students, and the only thing I can think of is that you are assigning probabilities based on GW dice favouring other numbers or the probability of a cocked dice. But if that’s what you are doing you need to say so. And as said by others, it’s a misleading way to do it.
Irl there’s much more variance than we account for in math Hammer, but the reason we remove those variances is that it helps us to understand comparisons ceteris paribus...