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.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
[
As for "9th grade stats class", I don't get why people are acting like we're doing some sort of mathematical trickery here. 50% of people would prefer it to be less random than it currently is.... people are acting like adding numbers together is somehow manipulating them There are 3 poll answers that represent less randomness than we currently have and 2 that represent equal or greater randomness, I don't see any problem with adding those together.

I will admit I expected it to be more than 50%.

In some parts of the United States, Mathematics are akin to witchcraft and are treated as such.

Are? You mean are as in currently?

It is interesting to see this poll today, and how close the two most popular choices are now.

Apple fox wrote:
It is interesting to see this poll today, and how close the two most popular choices are now.

Exactly. Even up for no random charge distance at all. A big shift from the first days of the poll. Interesting what happens given a little time for reflection...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talamare wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
12% do not matter.
Of the rest, 49/88 want less random than current rules.
39/88 want same or more.
Seems pretty clear where sentiments lie here.

I would not call 10% Pretty Clear.
It seems that 32 out of 88 want No Random and 62 out of 88 want a Random Charge distance.

It can be read either way.

...That's 94 out of 88...

The numbers might have changed as I was typing , but the point was there.

As of 12:38 PCT on 05/04:

78 out of 229 want no rolls, versus 115 out of 229 who desire a roll.
106 are satisfied with the current state of affairs, versus 121 who desire a lower range and 2 who desire an increase.


Keep in mind, the probability distributions are different. 2d6 is less random than 1d6, but has a wider range.

I think an important thing to realize for some of the people clicking the 1d6 options...
Some of them aren't saying... "I want 1d6+ a number"
Some of them are saying... "I want 1d6 and no additional values because I want to nerf Assault ranges."
Same with the people with who don't want random.
Some of the people who don't want random want a flat value so they know exactly how far they need to be so that Assault will NEVER BE A THREAT.

That's part of the reason why this poll is pointless. Not enough options to really know what the people who voted are thinking.

Never be a threat?
How so?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Yeah. There is no "pretty clear" here unless you want to try to push an agenda of a variant of appealing to authority or try to have the weight of a perceived majority to validate ones' opinion..

Its pretty clear that the community lies roughly split in half on the issue as it always has, and your poll results will vary by forum. On a more competitive tourney minded forum, people wll not like random as much as compared to a less serious casual forum.

Pretty clear that most polled want change if they care enough to report on it. The degree of change is not clear but the desire for change seems to be especially given general resistance to change.

Frankly I have no agenda though I wonder how people complain about things like balance and end up looking at Yahtzee to get it.

Hahahahaha....


Okay, agenda aside. 2d6 is not Yahtzee. It's actually pretty reliable.

Yes. I prefer less random but to each his own. Some people get off tossing numbered cubes. I like chess with near infinite variability in different ways. A difference of taste does not equal an agenda. Just a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 Saber wrote:
Well, if you want to get 'realistic' the entire of idea of charging is stupid. No one runs wildly at their enemy on the battlefield, and it certainly doesn't give them an advantage (like +1 attack or striking first). The exception, of course, is guys on horseback, but even then they don't go crashing into other people or nonsense like that.

You failed your history classes didn't you?

Charging like that is a great way to get piked.

You advance at a steady and fast walk, in good order and staying in formation. A headlong charge at a run across the battlefield with make you tired and dead.

A reliable fast pace... Hmmm? Like maybe 2x movement taking into account terrain and obstacles and...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
oooooh man, this thread, lol. I don't like the results so i'll change the poll, i don't like the new results so lets pull out our 9th grade stats class and follow it up with another rousing discussion of 40k and realism.

Good times, good times.

Insightful. Thanks for sharing errr, Jack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
12% do not matter.
Of the rest, 49/88 want less random than current rules.
39/88 want same or more.
Seems pretty clear where sentiments lie here.

The only thing clear is that you're still butthurt that the majority don't agree with you.

Let it go, bruh. Let it go...

You are projecting again sunflower.
That feeling of certainty you seem to have is false.
You are not seeing what you think that you are seeing.
Besides you might want to check those numbers again...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
[
As for "9th grade stats class", I don't get why people are acting like we're doing some sort of mathematical trickery here. 50% of people would prefer it to be less random than it currently is.... people are acting like adding numbers together is somehow manipulating them There are 3 poll answers that represent less randomness than we currently have and 2 that represent equal or greater randomness, I don't see any problem with adding those together.

I will admit I expected it to be more than 50%.

In some parts of the United States, Mathematics are akin to witchcraft and are treated as such.

This is an increasingly prevalent disposition apparently.

From what I can see now,
160/330 want something less than two dice rolled for charge distance.
117/330 prefer the same or more dice rolling.

Apple fox wrote:
It is interesting to see this poll today, and how close the two most popular choices are now.

Ony problem, they are still minority in consideration that over half the community wants some randomness. Over 50% combined.

Assuming, of course, that the entire community voted.

Charge is on top of movement.

You already get M+2D6+1 charge range.

A unit with fleet and a 6 inch move has an expected charge threat range of 15.5 inches.
A unit with a 12 inch move has an expected charge threat range of 20 inches.

That's pretty solid.