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.

fresus wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.

Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?

When it comes to statistical analysis yes.

 Ratius wrote:
Any actual rumours left in here? Or just wish-listing debating?

Seems like it's become a wish-list contest. I was a little excited when I returned to the forum seeing two new pages, expecting more rumours or rumour confirmations...

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

fresus wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.

Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?

When it comes to statistical analysis yes.

And how? You have same chance of rolling success with either way since previous rolls are irrelevant.

Now if after failure that failure could not come again(like in card game) it would be different but dices don't work like that.

tneva82 wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

fresus wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.

Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?

When it comes to statistical analysis yes.

And how? You have same chance of rolling success with either way since previous rolls are irrelevant.

Now if after failure that failure could not come again(like in card game) it would be different but dices don't work like that.

Because of the number of iterations. Roll 2 dice 9 times if you get anything more or less then 1 you are off by 100% of every time you get anything other then 1 success. Then roll 2 dice 36 times if you get 1 success your 75% off 2 and your 50% off 3 and your 25% off so on so forth. It makes your predictions more accurate becuase you can roll 9 times and get 0 success and then get 3 in a row on another which isn't a very good predictive model. This isn't artifical either its just more accurate. If you were rolling a single D6 i would say the ratio to get a single 6 is 1/9 becuase that's more accurate, but the majority of people on this forum wpuld say no its 16.5 percent which is 1/6 which is inaccurate.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

fresus wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.

Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?

When it comes to statistical analysis yes.

And how? You have same chance of rolling success with either way since previous rolls are irrelevant.

Now if after failure that failure could not come again(like in card game) it would be different but dices don't work like that.

Because of the number of iterations. Roll 2 dice 9 times if you get anything more or less then 1 you are off by 100% of every time you get anything other then 1 success. Then roll 2 dice 36 times if you get 1 success your 75% off 2 and your 50% off 3 and your 25% off so on so forth. It makes your predictions more accurate becuase you can roll 9 times and get 0 success and then get 3 in a row on another which isn't a very good predictive model. This isn't artifical either its just more accurate. If you were rolling a single D6 i would say the ratio to get a single 6 is 1/9 becuase that's more accurate, but the majority of people on this forum wpuld say no its 16.5 percent which is 1/6 which is inaccurate.

So you're saying with a larger sample size the results of a dice roll is more likely to match the expected probability distribution? I'll stick the Nobel prize in the post

Still doesn't change the fact that 1/9 and 4/36 are exactly the same thing!

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

fresus wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.

Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?

When it comes to statistical analysis yes.

And how? You have same chance of rolling success with either way since previous rolls are irrelevant.

Now if after failure that failure could not come again(like in card game) it would be different but dices don't work like that.

Because of the number of iterations. Roll 2 dice 9 times if you get anything more or less then 1 you are off by 100% of every time you get anything other then 1 success. Then roll 2 dice 36 times if you get 1 success your 75% off 2 and your 50% off 3 and your 25% off so on so forth. It makes your predictions more accurate becuase you can roll 9 times and get 0 success and then get 3 in a row on another which isn't a very good predictive model. This isn't artifical either its just more accurate. If you were rolling a single D6 i would say the ratio to get a single 6 is 1/9 becuase that's more accurate, but the majority of people on this forum wpuld say no its 16.5 percent which is 1/6 which is inaccurate.

lolwtf

So, roll a dice and the "ratio" to get a six is 1/9?

Ok.

So, I assume the ratio to get any other single number, like a 2, is 1/9 too. Or are some numbers easier to roll than others?

Which would make the "ratio" of rolling anything at all 6/9. Which again would make the "ratio" of getting no result whatsoever 1/3... sorry... 3/9?

Okidoki.

TonyL707 wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

fresus wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.

Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?

When it comes to statistical analysis yes.

And how? You have same chance of rolling success with either way since previous rolls are irrelevant.

Now if after failure that failure could not come again(like in card game) it would be different but dices don't work like that.

Because of the number of iterations. Roll 2 dice 9 times if you get anything more or less then 1 you are off by 100% of every time you get anything other then 1 success. Then roll 2 dice 36 times if you get 1 success your 75% off 2 and your 50% off 3 and your 25% off so on so forth. It makes your predictions more accurate becuase you can roll 9 times and get 0 success and then get 3 in a row on another which isn't a very good predictive model. This isn't artifical either its just more accurate. If you were rolling a single D6 i would say the ratio to get a single 6 is 1/9 becuase that's more accurate, but the majority of people on this forum wpuld say no its 16.5 percent which is 1/6 which is inaccurate.

So you're saying with a larger sample size the results of a dice roll is more likely to match the expected probability distribution? I'll stick the Nobel prize in the post

Still doesn't change the fact that 1/9 and 4/36 are exactly the same thing!

Except there not in this case as 4/36 is a more accurate model then 1/9, and this whole thing is about being able to predict what will happen when you start rollong dice. So if I habe 2 choices and 1 is more accurate then ill go with that one since you know it's more accurate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thud wrote:

lolwtf

So, roll a dice and the "ratio" to get a six is 1/9?

Ok.

So, I assume the ratio to get any other single number, like a 2, is 1/9 too. Or are some numbers easier to roll than others?

Which would make the "ratio" of rolling anything at all 6/9. Which again would make the "ratio" of getting no result whatsoever 1/3... sorry... 3/9?

Okidoki.

Ratio was a bad word to use, how about predictive model with the highest accuracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

fresus wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.

Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?

When it comes to statistical analysis yes.

And how? You have same chance of rolling success with either way since previous rolls are irrelevant.

Now if after failure that failure could not come again(like in card game) it would be different but dices don't work like that.

Your talking about dependent vs. Independent results which has nothing to do with what im saying.

I think you're conflating two different things, sample size and probability of success.

If one event has a probability of success of 1/9, then the larger your sample size the more likely that 1 in 9 or your events would be successful, so you would expect 4 in 36 events. But the probability of any one event being successful is still 1/9.

If I roll 9 dice I can expect to get 1 success, if I do this 4 times, I've rolled 36 dice. Hence 1/9 = 4/36 mathematically. It doesn't matter how you dress it up they are the exact same thing if I have 1/4 of a pie having 4/16 doesn't make my slice more accurate.

This thread on topic yet with any new rumors?

TonyL707 wrote:
4 in 36

I'll see myself out.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

fresus wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.

Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?

When it comes to statistical analysis yes.

Based on your following posts, you seem to mix probabilities and probability distributions.
A probability of 1/9 and a probability of 4/36 are the same; they're both the same number.
Two probability distributions with an expected value of 1/9 can, however, be different. In particular, they can have different variances (what you seem to refer as "accuracy").

Fan67 wrote:
What do you mean they gonna list Aetaos'Rao'Keres around 1400 points? I have just barely finished painting him and at 700 He already weights heavily on my army and it feels his fair price is around 550-600 points. His wounds count barely justifies his points superiority over Magnus, who is reliable as AK-47.

As i said, that rumour came to me in a much less reliable fashion than the other bits I got. And was the result of a conversation about how powerful he was (I played him round 1 of the tourney he was at. I think the problem is he's too powerful at all aspects of the game. He's hugely survivable, with a guaranteed 3++ and a load of wounds and Toughness 8, and the ability to ignore a third of psychic powers that target him, let alone if you take the warlord trait that lets him ignore a 6th of wounds giving him 32.4 effective wounds (and of course you'll be taking the changeling for -1 to hit him if you happen to go second). He does 2D6 superlascannon shots (additional point of ap to make most tanks have no save) and flat 3 damage, that hits on 2+, and of course isn't heavy (its assault) and has the range of almost a board length. He's no slouch in the psychic phase, with bonuses to cast and 4ft smite range. And he's pretty monstrous in the assault phase, although he may struggle with large hordes. So tarpit him right? Wrong, he has a 20" base fly move and even if he doesn't want to fall back, he can shoot his staff out of and INTO ANY combat at will. And just for giggles he has a LD10 bubble for Tzeentch units and can reroll summoning if that's how you play your army. 1400 may well be a bit excessive, but 700 is criminally undercosted.

t the tournament I went to there were at least two armies with him and Magnus tagteaming with the Changeling and a horror horde. And some room for 3 basilisks etc. for fun. The problem is that he has a great set of powers/attacks/abilities, on a very survivable platform. If his invuln was straight 4++ and he was T7, then we'd be talking.

Am I the only one that kinda wishes they add an Ancient Enemies rule to the whole Magnus Morty team up? It's fluff heresy to say the least.

I understand what he is saying, but it is flawed. 4 in 36 is the same as 1 in 9. You collect 36 random people, and find that 4 have a specific trait or quality, then you determine that 1 in 9 people will have that trait in another sample. Or, if there are 36 outcomes and 4 of which are favorable to you, then you determine that there is a 1 in 9 chances of you winning. In the case of the gambler, who mistakenly thinks that previous events have any effect on the probability of the next event, i.e. craps, or even 21 since casinos fixed counting cards to the point of it being a negligable advantage, the fact is that with 36 outcomes and 4 being favorable still means that there is a 4 out of 36, or 1 in 9, outcomes that are favorable, and the statistic he clings to is that the odds of losing 9 games in a row is 34 percent, or losing 20 games in a row is just shy of 10 percent. Which means theres a 90 percent chance that he would have won at leapt a game in the 20 games he has played, except that in reality, when you play 20 games, there is the same probability that you would have lost all the games as there is that you would have lost all but the last one, or won the first and no other game, or even won the 3rd only. At the 20th game, there is still 4 out of 36 possible favorable outcomes, or 1 in 9 chances of winning. That is the distinction you are failing to make.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

fresus wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.

Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?

When it comes to statistical analysis yes.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Am I the only one that kinda wishes they add an Ancient Enemies rule to the whole Magnus Morty team up? It's fluff heresy to say the least.

As Morty is now a Psyker as well as Magnus, I don’t think there will be much ground for the fluff hate that was present in 30k. Mortarian’s whole problem before was based on the Warp and well now…

Somehow, "off-topic" just doesn't quite say it. Please drop the statistical analysis discussion before the thread gets locked. Though honestly, I don't see much in the way of "news" nor "rumors" over the last several pages. It may be time to lock the thread anyway.

Kdash wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Am I the only one that kinda wishes they add an Ancient Enemies rule to the whole Magnus Morty team up? It's fluff heresy to say the least.

As Morty is now a Psyker as well as Magnus, I don’t think there will be much ground for the fluff hate that was present in 30k. Mortarian’s whole problem before was based on the Warp and well now…

Nurgle and Tzeentch are archenemies though. One would think that their favoured sons hate each other, too.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Kdash wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Am I the only one that kinda wishes they add an Ancient Enemies rule to the whole Magnus Morty team up? It's fluff heresy to say the least.

As Morty is now a Psyker as well as Magnus, I don’t think there will be much ground for the fluff hate that was present in 30k. Mortarian’s whole problem before was based on the Warp and well now…

Nurgle and Tzeentch are archenemies though. One would think that their favoured sons hate each other, too.

Well, Magnus hates Tzeentch as well.

I second this thread being locked til something is actually shown. tired of pages and pages of people talking about math

Aww, nevemind.

str00dles1 wrote:
I second this thread being locked til something is actually shown. tired of pages and pages of people talking about math

word

Kdash wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Am I the only one that kinda wishes they add an Ancient Enemies rule to the whole Magnus Morty team up? It's fluff heresy to say the least.

As Morty is now a Psyker as well as Magnus, I don’t think there will be much ground for the fluff hate that was present in 30k. Mortarian’s whole problem before was based on the Warp and well now…

I think the way Morty is currently lends itself to the fluff very well. He did despise psykers and once he was betrayed and delivered to Nurgle, he was transformed into a demon prince and along with that comes a connection to the warp. The fact that he can only cast 2 spells but can deny 3 hints at this heavily.

Chapter approved up for pre order Nov 25.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/11/18/get-ready-chapter-approved-nov-18gw-homepage-post-3/

 gigasnail wrote:
Chapter approved up for pre order Nov 25.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/11/18/get-ready-chapter-approved-nov-18gw-homepage-post-3/

Hopefully Chapter Approved brings the land raider cost down :/

So the vehicle design rules are actually literally just rules for customising Land Raiders... Seems pointlessly specific.

 Crimson wrote:
So the vehicle design rules are actually literally just rules for customising Land Raiders... Seems pointlessly specific.

They've said it was a stepping stone and, if successful, they'll go for a more generic template.

 Crimson wrote:
So the vehicle design rules are actually literally just rules for customising Land Raiders... Seems pointlessly specific.

Quelle surprise!

 Lord Damocles wrote:
They specifically say that it's for making Land Raider variants.

I wouldn't expect much more than an generic army list entry for the hull, and then a big list of sponson/hull weapons

 gigasnail wrote:
Chapter approved up for pre order Nov 25.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/11/18/get-ready-chapter-approved-nov-18gw-homepage-post-3/

Nope. Nope. Nope.
So much for any hope of 8th becoming sane and rational once codex releases started.

From a Chaos Titan-killer bristling with lascannons, to a Space Wolves assault vehicle armed with both helfrost and inferno cannons, there’s a huge range of possibilities available.

Yep. All sorts of possibilities than involving making transport capacity as small as possible and killing ability as large as possible for the fewest points. What a fantastic idea.

I wish they would start selling the Sponsons and Forward gun parts separately.

Voss wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
Chapter approved up for pre order Nov 25.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/11/18/get-ready-chapter-approved-nov-18gw-homepage-post-3/

Nope. Nope. Nope.
So much for any hope of 8th becoming sane and rational once codex releases started.

From a Chaos Titan-killer bristling with lascannons, to a Space Wolves assault vehicle armed with both helfrost and inferno cannons, there’s a huge range of possibilities available.

Yep. All sorts of possibilities than involving making transport capacity as small as possible and killing ability as large as possible for the fewest points. What a fantastic idea.

This is why it's a test system that isn't legal for matched play...