PDA

View Full Version : "Can YOU Down A Falcon" game



deathwing_marine
22-11-2007, 04:16
Hey, heres a boatload of fun

1) Take 2 dice

2) Roll them and take the lowest one, as per the "Holofields" upgrade

4) See what you get on the glancing hit table

5) Count how many rolls it took to achieve "Vehicle Destroyed" (or immobilized, just say thats what the result was)

6) Vomit over the raw cheese

7) Post your results!



I destroyed it on my 31st try :cheese: But I did immobilize it 3 times along the way.

EDIT: You may stack damage results if you like, just say so. I personally did not

Delmont
22-11-2007, 04:25
got it on my 9th with double 6's

Commissar_Sven
22-11-2007, 04:29
Didn't get double 6's until the 33rd try but I immobilized it about 4 or 5 times on the way.

NightLord
22-11-2007, 04:33
Falcons aren't meant to be easy to kill... Taking more than one is almost always a waste for a mission as well... Because you get to spend about 1/3 of your armies value on tanks then... I guarantee you don't want 1/3 of your army to be killed in a single turn... Otherwise it wouldn't be worth taking.

Ouroboros
22-11-2007, 04:40
Imobilized on the fourth try, destroyed with double 6s on the eighth.

adreal
22-11-2007, 04:41
My Havocs are the bane of my friends falcons (until he fields three (shrugs)), are they hard to kill, yep, but for a almost 200 piont tank with cardboard armour (paper being a raider) it should be hard to kill.

Yes three is cheese, two isn't bad and one is laughable

Stella Cadente
22-11-2007, 04:57
I actually got double 6 on the second roll, but its one thing to roll dice, its another when your playing the game too, then the dice leave you to die.

also are you calculating this using GW dice as the average, or normal dice?, because we all know GW dice are like casino dice, your guaranteed to get lower rolls because of how there made

Ravenous
22-11-2007, 05:00
Immobilized on the 9th, assumed pen hits from then on and destroyed it on the 12th.

I also managed to blow off ever single weapon.

So remember, dont forget about stacking weapon destroyed/ immobilized results!

deathwing_marine
22-11-2007, 05:00
Stella: If only that could happen in a game :)

the dice I was using were not GW, and had rounded corners

Ravenous
22-11-2007, 05:03
I think that poll has been skewed.

It doesnt take 30+ unless you have terrible luck, and you are not stacking damage results.

deathwing_marine
22-11-2007, 05:10
Well Ravenous, I neither stacked damage results or had terrible luck, as I had a 5 or 6 in almost every roll. Perhaps I should edit the OP

Ravenous
22-11-2007, 05:13
Well Ravenous, I neither stacked damage results or had terrible luck, as I had a 5 or 6 in almost every roll. Perhaps I should edit the OP

Yeah, otherwise we're going to get the 1 in 108 insanity.

azimaith
22-11-2007, 05:16
Its important to understand that probability doesn't indicate when you'll get it, merely the number of times you'd need to repeat the event to generally contain at least one desired result. It could be on the 6th, the 3rd, the first, or the 30th and still be an accurate representation. Overall with damage rolls you should manage at least one double 6's within 36 rolls.
However, rolling damage dice is nowhere near the same thing as rolling to hit, to damage, then to damage which adds a great deal more re-rolls.

deathwing_marine
22-11-2007, 05:19
Yeah, I just wanted people to see the firepower its possible for a Falcon to endure

did you try it, azimaith?

Rypher
22-11-2007, 05:28
Took a few tries. Last night, my single Falcon was downed with the first round of shooting from my opponent with his autocannon Havocs. two 6's. :*(

azimaith
22-11-2007, 05:31
Yes, several times. First time was the 8th damage roll, next was the 11th, next was 30th, then another at 27th.

I can work backward to get aproximately how many shots would be needed to get them from whatever weapon system gets used.

IE 8th for marine devastators, (4 missiles) 2.64 hits each run, 1.32 glances each time.

You'd need about 25 shots of missiles at BS4 to reach the 8th (and earliest) death damage roll.

Now this is in one of the lowest numbers of rolls. Combine this with casualties from enemy shooting and blocked line of sight and the problem becomes apparent.

Higgen
22-11-2007, 06:27
It took me exactly 50 rolls to get double 6's on my lucky dice. :( However, it was officially killed on roll number 22.

TheSanityAssassin
22-11-2007, 06:30
got it on my 9th with double 6's

Me too. Continued till I got an actual destroying roll, but it would have went down on number 7 from a multitude of Weapon Destroyed into Immobilized assuming it was the same tank.

deathwing_marine
22-11-2007, 06:33
It took me exactly 50 rolls to get double 6's on my lucky dice. :( However, it was officially killed on roll number 22.

wow, thats alot. I used my lucky dice too.

i tried this with a friend once and it took over 30 just to immobilize the thing. obscenely durable.

bram kuijpers
22-11-2007, 06:38
i fought a 2000 point batle 2 days ago with my necrons facing three fire prisms with holofields the first was taken down in the first turn by my veiling immortals ( 20 shots s5 ap4 against the side armour(6s are auto glance))
and it go kaboom

the second was destroyed when a group of destroyers teleported out of my monolith (deep striked behind 2 fire prisms) and shot the thing 12 times in its rear destroying it after 3 rolls.

the last got a particle whip and landed on its side penetrating and roliing a 5 at the ordnance penetrating table.



to beat cheese, be cheesyer , buy a monolith more cheesy then the eldar:cheese:

azimaith
22-11-2007, 06:38
I did the math on the cheese bird space clowns thread. Its about 35 lascannon shots from marines to destroy a falcon combining immobilized (dual) weapon destroyed stacking, and double 6's).

About 6.25 cumulative for them all together.

I didn't do it with penetrating hits and so forth because there becomes a point where its not worth the work.

Overall, yes, obscenely durable. It won't be shooting much, but it probably won't die in a standard game.


i fought a 2000 point batle 2 days ago with my necrons facing three fire prisms with holofields the first was taken down in the first turn by my veiling immortals ( 20 shots s5 ap4 against the side armour(6s are auto glance))
and it go kaboom

the second was destroyed when a group of destroyers teleported out of my monolith (deep striked behind 2 fire prisms) and shot the thing 12 times in its rear destroying it after 3 rolls.

the last got a particle whip and landed on its side penetrating and roliing a 5 at the ordnance penetrating table.

to beat cheese, be cheesyer , buy a monolith more cheesy then the eldar:cheese:

A monolith is much easier to kill than a falcon. Isolated unlikely or lucky incidents do not make a good base for strategy. Isolating elements within unlikely events allows you of course, to extrapolate certain tactics that would be usd in building them.


Why do people have to bitch and moan about the Holo-Field upgrade? Get over it.
Why do people have to bitch and moan about the holofield upgrades bitching and moaning. Ad infinitum. This isn't remotely useful to developing counter holo-field strategy. Why waste bandwidth with it.

Seth the Dark
22-11-2007, 06:41
Why do people have to bitch and moan about the Holo-Field upgrade? Get over it.

Nurgling Chieftain
22-11-2007, 06:43
I had a league finals where I lost a falcon and a fire prism on the first turn. It definitely can happen... But it's generally a bad idea to count on it!

azimaith
22-11-2007, 06:48
That is a tactic i've heard before that is good if your using an army that can do it. Take them before they start moving for a first turn penetrate.

deathwing_marine
22-11-2007, 06:55
Why do people have to bitch and moan about the Holo-Field upgrade? Get over it.

This thread was started to demonstrate the durability of a Holofielded Falcon, not to bitch and moan.

So take your bitching and moaning somewhere else.

@ azimaith: I've used Deathwing Assault with my terminators to take out Falcons on the first turn, it works pretty well if you've got a good angle (ie rear armor) or if you roll some 6's with assault cannons.

Its great when Fire Dragons are entangled :D

bram kuijpers
22-11-2007, 06:57
A monolith is much easier to kill than a falcon. Isolated unlikely or lucky incidents do not make a good base for strategy. Isolating elements within unlikely events allows you of course, to extrapolate certain tactics that would be usd in building them.

well no, becuase its living metal, lances are useles and eldar dont ussualy put lots of s8 ap something weapons in play and if you choose the deepstrike area
with some thinking the monolith is going to be a pain in the ass, and a very good way to make a rear atack on the enemy:D

anyway thats not the point.

the point is becuase the avarage is 30 shots doesnt mean it cannot be destroyed at all, you cant predict dice since every side is the same and no result more rare than the other.

and still there are loads of ways to destroy those nasty skimmers like melta gun squads ( ig vets 3 melta guns a unit)
or tau enough firepower to blow a falcon up to the greater good!
and necrons anything will glance at a 6 or just take a unit of pharias with the anti tank upgrade s5 + 3d6 armour penetration and discard one and since a vechile isnt stuck in cc just assault it agian since your bound to shake the damn thing at least once.

azimaith
22-11-2007, 07:12
well no, becuase its living metal, lances are useles and eldar dont ussualy put lots of s8 ap something weapons in play and if you choose the deepstrike area

Lances can still kill monoliths, add with that wraith cannons, haywire hawks, d-cannons, vibro-cannons, prism cannons, pulse lasers and fire dragons I think your mistaken on their ability to gut a monolith/



with some thinking the monolith is going to be a pain in the ass, and a very good way to make a rear atack on the enemy:D

anyway thats not the point.

Don't make me break out the calculator and pocket protector and show you. No one has claimed it can't be killed, merely that its highly unlikely.
*rolls eyes*.

With careful planning just about anything can be a pain in the ass. Doesn't mean its as much of apain in the ass as something else.



the point is becuase the avarage is 30 shots doesnt mean it cannot be destroyed at all, you cant predict dice since every side is the same and no result more rare than the other.

I can tell from this answer you do not understand what I am showing you.

I show you the approximate probability of a stated event occuring in a certain number of rolls. In 40k this involves a sequence of rolls. I never *ever* EVER tell you at what point within these rolls it will occur. I say it takes about 32 shots to achieve at least ONE destroyed result somewhere within it. It could be the first, the second, the thirty second, or a hundred shots down the line. Its likely to come within the first 32.



and still there are loads of ways to destroy those nasty skimmers like melta gun squads ( ig vets 3 melta guns a unit)

How are melta guns with their short range and pointless AP1 better and slaying falcons than any other gun with longer range and better capability. The AP1 is negated by SMF, their short range makes it very difficult to subject a falcon to its fire, and the melta rule is relatively less useful because of no penetrating hits and even shorter range.



or tau enough firepower to blow a falcon up to the greater good!

I suggest you think about whats being written than simply spouting out things like this. Were not talking about mindless fanboi flag waving for factions here, were talking about probability.



and necrons anything will glance at a 6 or just take a unit of pharias with the anti tank upgrade s5 + 3d6 armour penetration and discard one and since a vechile isnt stuck in cc just assault it agian since your bound to shake the damn thing at least once.
Alright, you need to come out of la la land here. Assault a falcon with pariahs? Will your enemy player with the falcon helpfully deposit it within charge range with its 24" movement capabilities? Will necron glancing still stand up with incoming fire and will it be any more superior that focused fire from heavy weapons? Enough flag waving.

Stella Cadente
22-11-2007, 07:18
or just take a unit of pharias with the anti tank upgrade s5 + 3d6 armour penetration and discard one and since a vechile isnt stuck in cc just assault it agian since your bound to shake the damn thing at least once.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Pariahs!! your joking right?, the worst unit in history, against Eldar...thay'll be dead before there even deployed

Bob5000
22-11-2007, 07:31
I have already performed many hundreds ( possibly thousands ) of dice rolls looking at this in my idle moments to verify the supposed 1-in 9 chance , which comes out quite close overall .
I do ' sets ' of 9 and see how many times an immobilised result comes up within that ' set ' , and this happens most times on my dice rolls , and averages once a ' set ' of 9 .

Sometimes there are a cluster of double 5's / 6's , sometimes no ' sets' produced a downed Falcon .
Sometimes the downed Falcon happens on the first or second attempt .

In real life , Falcons go down quite frequently in games I play

I regard a double 5 as Falcon destroyed , as without VE it will be , and with , it should be very shortly . ( I never use VE )

Purgator Sovereign
22-11-2007, 07:42
If I stack the results, the Falcon was immobilised from the 4th shot, and so another Immobilised hit would destroy it (another one came at about the 10th, can't remember).

But if I don't... I destroyed it on the 26th roll :skull::cheese::wtf:

@BoB
What do you mean one-in-nine? The chance to get two sixes on a double roll is one-in-thirty-six.

bram kuijpers
22-11-2007, 07:48
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Pariahs!! your joking right?, the worst unit in history, against Eldar...thay'll be dead before there even deployed

thats what a lot of people thought until i hacked and slached through more then 30 csm 1 bloodletter 3 spawns and a deamon prince:evilgrin: and losing 5 pharias so i wasnt under 50% no points lost


Lances can still kill monoliths, add with that wraith cannons, haywire hawks, d-cannons, vibro-cannons, prism cannons, pulse lasers and fire dragons I think your mistaken on their ability to gut a monolith/


and when do eldar deploy loads of these weapons?
not alot of times mostly they depend on loads of shooting with their 18inch guns



I show you the approximate probability of a stated event occuring in a certain number of rolls. In 40k this involves a sequence of rolls. I never *ever* EVER tell you at what point within these rolls it will occur. I say it takes about 32 shots to achieve at least ONE destroyed result somewhere within it. It could be the first, the second, the thirty second, or a hundred shots down the line. Its likely to come within the first 32.

i didnt ask for a certain number i said it is impossible to predict how many dice there needs to be rolled

if you dont get it dont bother


How are melta guns with their short range and pointless AP1 better and slaying falcons than any other gun with longer range and better capability. The AP1 is negated by SMF, their short range makes it very difficult to subject a falcon to its fire, and the melta rule is relatively less useful because of no penetrating hits and even shorter range.

if you play it right the skimmer doesnt move. and when did 3 s8 ap1 shots hurt anyone? loads of times.
and at long range the falcon simply flies behind something so that it cant be seen


I suggest you think about whats being written than simply spouting out things like this. Were not talking about mindless fanboi flag waving for factions here, were talking about probability.

well if you would think , tau are probability very very VERY good at taking down armour


Alright, you need to come out of la la land here. Assault a falcon with pariahs? Will your enemy player with the falcon helpfully deposit it within charge range with its 24" movement capabilities? Will necron glancing still stand up with incoming fire and will it be any more superior that focused fire from heavy weapons? Enough flag waving.

assaulting a falcon very possible and a intact pharia unit gets 20 shots before it even begins hacking the damn thing this is called outflanking eldar its very possiblly.

yes gauss weapons will inflict loads of hits (bs4) and then all you need are a few sixes to take it out
and a lascannon can only inflict one glancing hit.

and if you realy stil dont get it .... maybe you need to get something else.
thats all the time im going to waste saying this to you


edit: oke i just rolled a few dice
1st 4 6
2nd 5 6
3d 6 2
4th 1 5
5th 5 1

satisfied?

azimaith
22-11-2007, 08:10
thats what a lot of people thought until i hacked and slached through more then 30 csm 1 bloodletter 3 spawns and a deamon prince:evilgrin:

Your probably A: Lying through your teeth.
B: Once again attempting to use an extraordinarily rare and lucky event and appying it as if it were normal.



and when do eldar deploy loads of these weapons?
not alot of times mostly they depend on loads of shooting with their 18inch guns

When they decide to stop poncing around with only lances and to fill a gap in their army against monoliths. Its rather silly to say: "Wow monoliths are too hard to stop, but I refuse to try weapons well designed to fight them."



i didnt ask for a certain number i said it is impossible to predict how many dice there needs to be rolled

We give rough estimates (1-32 as above) for the falcon. Statistically the result will occur once at least.



if you dont get it dont bother

Your not understanding what were saying despite the fact I just told you. Were not telling you the exact number of dice that need to be rolled. And thats what you just said is impossible.

"i said it is impossible to predict how many dice there needs to be rolled"


And I just specifically told you I wasn't predicting how many dice need to be rolled to get the result. I give you a statisical estimate. So don't tell me I don't understand.



if you play it right the skimmer doesnt move.

Well if you know a way to stop a skimmer so it can't move when it treats all stunned results as shaken please tell us.




and when did 3 s8 ap1 shots hurt anyone? loads of times.
and at long range the falcon simply flies behind something so that it cant be seen

When did I say it wouldn't hurt. I said its job could be done better by other weapons systems.

If its behind something it can't shoot back. That why you use mobile long ranged fire power or spread it out across the board.



well if you would think , tau are probability very very VERY good at taking down armour

This is relative to what armor it is. Tau railguns are only 16% better at killing falcons than space marine lascannons are.



assaulting a falcon very possible and a intact pharia unit gets 20 shots before it even begins hacking the damn thing this is called outflanking eldar its very possiblly.

Let me get this straight, your going to take 380 points, try to assault a skimmer moving 1-24" a turn, ignoring terrain and models, with a unit that walks 6" and charges 6", and you only hit it in close combat on a 6.
You must be playing against an imbecile or your probably making a rules mistake.



yes gauss weapons will inflict loads of hits (bs4) and then all you need are a few sixes to take it out
and a lascannon can only inflict one glancing hit.

You overestimate the results of a 66% hit rate and a 16% glance rate after the 66% hit rate.



and if you realy stil dont get it .... maybe you need to get something else.
thats all the time im going to waste saying this to you
Right, its all my fault you don't understand probability and quite possibly the rules. Prove you know what your talking about by giving actual evidence and scenarios that don't require the opponent to be a total imbecile to occur.

bram kuijpers
22-11-2007, 08:32
statisticly i dont care about that for 99%
dices are totaly random estimations cant be aplied to totaly random stuff

to assault the falcon outflank it by adding something like a push to the game

in a game most people simmply roll dice and dont go bangin on their calculators for estimations.

an no im not lying through my teeth... it was said that pharias are crappy wel there not.
and aboyut proving stuff? youre not even using your real name if anybody needs to prove something you are, like prove you have a life

and you dont get it DONT bother.

and this IS the end of the discussion since your simply repeating yourself by spamming around with qoputes and the same verbs over and over.

Anaris
22-11-2007, 08:38
I refer you to my signature.

Orbital
22-11-2007, 08:41
Yeah. Falcons are hard to destroy. We get it. We all get it.

Enderel
22-11-2007, 08:41
oh like this game, 6th dice roll double sixes initially, then restarted with two sets of dice (hopefully that won't skewthe results to much!!) first set rolled 5,6 second set 6,6! Bodes well as I have a game later on.

inquisitor solarris
22-11-2007, 08:41
Itook 3 weapon destroyed result before getting a double 6 on the forth roll

Stella Cadente
22-11-2007, 08:52
I tried again since my last roll was a bit too lucky, this time it took 18 rolls, now lets ASSUME this firepower is coming from 1 squad with 1 lascannon (ignoring to hit and to penetrate rolls just for simplicity), thats 18 turns before it dies, so the games over, no Victory points
lets ASSUME its 2 units firing at it every turn thats still 9 ******* turns games over, no Victory points
3 units 6 turns games over, only just got the points
4 units 4-5 turns, FINALLY the cheeze dies, and thats just against 1 ******* FALCON, and its also without hitting, if your enemy takes 3 and this happens, you will never take them down, especially if they also have serpents with it too, (sarcasm on)not even the great mighty pariahs with there uber weapons of death (sarcasm off) can do it

thank god suddenly NOBODY plays Eldar in my area anymore (my areas and armies are like an essex girls knickers)

TzarNikolai
22-11-2007, 08:53
why are we not stacking results? surely, eg after imobilising it, it either dies or we start rolling on the penetrating hit table right?

this isn't an attempt to prove how resilient falcons are, its more a measure of how often you can roll a double 6. great stuff but what did you prove?

try some statistice, they're better.

you'll get an imoblised result on average 1 in 9 rolls and a destroyed result 1 in 36 rolls.

doesn't mean it'll be the 9th or 36th roll, just that thats on average how many it would take...

and don't use GW dice.

Stella Cadente
22-11-2007, 09:03
why are we not stacking results? surely, eg after imobilising it, it either dies or we start rolling on the penetrating hit table right?
My results included stacking


and don't use GW dice.
good advice, I must try it with my own later

Dio´Ra
22-11-2007, 09:49
first roll: 3 and 4 thus only weapon destroyed
second roll: double 5, thus Imobilised
third roll: 5 and 6, thus Imobilised again....so if stacking it would go kaboom here...
fourth roll: double 2, ehm crew shaken....
fifth roll: double 2 again....
sixth roll: double 4, weapon destroyed..

lets say after 16 rolls still no double six in sight....curse you holofields!

Steel_Legion
22-11-2007, 09:59
12 :( But that is assuming I even hit and glance.. damn guardsmen. Saying that, many a time I have downed one with something OTT like a lascannon, double 6's, he wasnt chuffed, nor were the firedragons inside

Fideru
22-11-2007, 11:00
45 tries in order to down it. :(

Ravenous
22-11-2007, 11:05
45 tries in order to down it. :(

Did you remember to stack weapon destroyed and immobilzed results?

Also did you count rolls after the immobilization as pentertrating hits?

Or was it 45 rolls before you got a double 6?

dcikgyurt
22-11-2007, 11:13
Probabilty gives you a 1 in 9 chance to destroy a falcon (either with a vehicle destroyed result or through crashing because it's been immobilised). Yes they are hard to kill, but hey.

FuSs
22-11-2007, 11:16
Dead on roll 6. Easy, wasnt it? :P

Roll Results

You requested that 20 rolls of 2 6-sided dice be rolled.

Roll them bones ... your dice are

Roll 1: 4, 3 = 7.
Roll 2: 2, 6 = 8.
Roll 3: 6, 3 = 9.
Roll 4: 6, 2 = 8.
Roll 5: 3, 3 = 6.
Roll 6: 6, 6 = 12.
Roll 7: 4, 5 = 9.
Roll 8: 6, 4 = 10.
Roll 9: 1, 4 = 5.
Roll 10: 5, 4 = 9.
Roll 11: 6, 4 = 10.
Roll 12: 5, 6 = 11.
Roll 13: 4, 1 = 5.
Roll 14: 2, 3 = 5.
Roll 15: 5, 4 = 9.
Roll 16: 6, 3 = 9.
Roll 17: 1, 5 = 6.
Roll 18: 2, 1 = 3.
Roll 19: 1, 3 = 4.
Roll 20: 4, 6 = 10.

Dice gen here: http://www.irony.com/igroll.html

scarletsquig
22-11-2007, 11:22
Killed it in one roll. double-six :D

Godgolden
22-11-2007, 11:25
23'rd time i got it destroyed, had 2 immobalized results at about 8 and 15

dcikgyurt
22-11-2007, 11:37
Roll eleven and roll fifteen, both double sixes. If stacking results results then it was dead by roll 5 (immobilised,assumed penetrate his thereafter 5,2,2,2,3). Roll them Bones!

Roll 1: [6], 5 = 5.
Roll 2: 2, [6] = 2.
Roll 3: [3], 2 = 2.
Roll 4: 2, [5] = 2.
Roll 5: [3], 3 = 3.
Roll 6: [3], 1 = 1.
Roll 7: [6], 4 = 4.
Roll 8: 1, [2] = 1.
Roll 9: [3], 1 = 1.
Roll 10: [5], 2 = 2.
Roll 11: [6], 6 = 6.
Roll 12: [6], 4 = 4.
Roll 13: 4, [6] = 4.
Roll 14: 1, [5] = 1.
Roll 15: [6], 6 = 6.
Roll 16: 1, [4] = 1.
Roll 17: [6], 4 = 4.
Roll 18: 1, [3] = 1.
Roll 19: 2, [4] = 2.
Roll 20: 1, [2] = 1.

I'm going to have to bokmark this site.

Grindgodgrind
22-11-2007, 11:40
Hard to kill? Yes.

Impossible? No.

Anything can be solved with liberal application of firepower.

infernus31
22-11-2007, 12:05
40th roll and i managed to get a double 6

Dominatrix
22-11-2007, 12:45
Destroyed the cheesemobile on my 37th roll! :mad: Got two immobilised results as well up to that point.

Quote: "Anything can be solved with liberal application of firepower."
There fixed it for you: "Anything can be solved with obscene application of firepower."

catbarf
22-11-2007, 13:40
Statistically, it requires 36 rolls to get two sixes on average. So I'm voting for 30+. All you who got <10 are either lying, have strangely weighted dice, or are simply the statistic deviation.

Stella Cadente
22-11-2007, 14:08
or are simply the statistic deviation.
and thats where statistics and Maths are crushed utterly, you can go on all you want about statistics and averages, but in reality, they don't mean a thing

Master Jeridian
22-11-2007, 14:26
Remember kids, there's a 40% probability your opponent is the kind of idiot who thinks statistics and probability don't apply to him...


Statistically, it requires 36 rolls to get two sixes on average. So I'm voting for 30+. All you who got <10 are either lying, have strangely weighted dice, or are simply the statistic deviation.

That's a little harsh and unfair. You are most likely only going to get 1 double-6 on 36 dice, but that doesn't mean it's only in the last few dice you roll. It could be first dice rolled, it could be the 15th, etc. Just that if you continued to roll dice after that, your unlikely to get another double-6 within the same 36 dice rolls.

Statistics and probability work better the more times an event is repeated, if your rolling literally thousands of dice it will be closer to the most likely result predicted.

At the 40k level of a few dice, statistics is good as a very rough estimate of the likelihood of getting the event you want.

Even those people who hated Maths at school, and so now have the deluded believe they are magically immune to it use probability.

When you have say a Rhino as a target. You've got a missile launcher and a heavy bolter to choose to shoot.
You know the Str 5 has a slim chance of hurting the Rhino, but the Str 8 is more far more likely- you judging the odds.....but if Maths doesn't apply to you, and probability is a load of rubbish, you should shoot the Heavy Bolter....after all there's no way to estimate how likely the event is to occur...

Imperialis_Dominatus
22-11-2007, 16:54
Falcons aren't meant to be easy to kill... Taking more than one is almost always a waste for a mission as well... Because you get to spend about 1/3 of your armies value on tanks then... I guarantee you don't want 1/3 of your army to be killed in a single turn... Otherwise it wouldn't be worth taking.

Mmmmkay, this thread is a game. Not a discussion about how Falcons are supposed to be super durable in an army renowned for its quickness, power, and fragility. We're just having fun throwing dice. Much like games of 40k.


Why do people have to bitch and moan about the Holo-Field upgrade? Get over it.

Why the hostility? If you don't like the thread, don't post in it. Don't give people like me something to quote, remember, and not like you by.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Pariahs!! your joking right?, the worst unit in history, against Eldar...thay'll be dead before there even deployed

I did not know that special rule. On the off chance that I ever start Necrons (....off off off off chance), I suppose that will be a unit I avoid.


statisticly i dont care about that for 99%
dices are totaly random estimations cant be aplied to totaly random stuff

to assault the falcon outflank it by adding something like a push to the game

in a game most people simmply roll dice and dont go bangin on their calculators for estimations.

an no im not lying through my teeth... it was said that pharias are crappy wel there not.
and aboyut proving stuff? youre not even using your real name if anybody needs to prove something you are, like prove you have a life

and you dont get it DONT bother.

and this IS the end of the discussion since your simply repeating yourself by spamming around with qoputes and the same verbs over and over.

OK. Lots of hostility. Let me address this a bit:

1) You may not care about statistics, but frankly, the real world works according to it. I care very very little about how lucky you have gotten in a game or two. The overall trend will prove you wrong.

2) Pariahs were called a garbage unit, with little support to that point. You countered it by calling Pariahs great... with no support either, save for a random, completely off-chance event that I can't see happening multiple times. In combat, bloodthirsters will simply eat pariahs alive. What you experienced was rare. What we believe is the reality.

3) There is absolutely no reason to expect someone to use their real name over the Internet. Now you are just being ridiculous. Following that with insults and a distinct lack of any form of politeness is unacceptable, especially when applied to a perfectly sound, logical, and well thought out post.

Seriously, I think you owe Azimaith an apology. But this is not kindergarten, no matter how many people seem to act like they are in that grade, so no one can force you to. Nor force Azimaith to accept it. Which I wouldn't, were I him.


and thats where statistics and Maths are crushed utterly, you can go on all you want about statistics and averages, but in reality, they don't mean a thing

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. The system of numbers and equations that rules virtually every aspect of physics and chemistry and many other things that control our world has nothing to do with dice rolls that tend to follow a predicated pattern of probability. Nothing. At all. :p

catbarf
22-11-2007, 17:15
That's a little harsh and unfair. You are most likely only going to get 1 double-6 on 36 dice, but that doesn't mean it's only in the last few dice you roll. It could be first dice rolled, it could be the 15th, etc. Just that if you continued to roll dice after that, your unlikely to get another double-6 within the same 36 dice rolls.

It could also be the 80th roll. Statistic deviation means that for every time it only took 20 rolls, there should be a time where it took 52.

Oh, and just ignore Stella. Last year he tried to argue that Genestealers will actually kill far more Marines than the math showed (as in, he said math means nothing because according to his experience, I was wrong).

Edit: Think about it. Six rolls, to get boxcars. Does that make sense? Why didn't you roll snake eyes? Or any other combination? You don't need to be a mathematician to realize that it's unlikely.

deathwing_marine
22-11-2007, 17:40
Wow, lots of good replies.

To all of you arguing about math, where in my OP did I ever ask anything about that? There are plenty of other Falcon bashing threads so you can do so elsewhere. azimaith was just stating some statistics, but then it totally devolved. so lets just let it go.

Thanks for the good post Imperialis_Dominatus

And Stella just hates math :D


oh like this game, 6th dice roll double sixes initially, then restarted with two sets of dice (hopefully that won't skewthe results to much!!) first set rolled 5,6 second set 6,6! Bodes well as I have a game later on.

Wow, you're lucky, hope that carries on to your game :)

scientist tz
22-11-2007, 17:45
If you immobilize a skimmer moving over 6" it crashes and counts as destroyed.

So there is no "stacking" of immobilized results. Immobilized = destroyed.

Spleendokta
22-11-2007, 17:53
Heh, and how many armies actually are capable of putting 10+ shots a turn on a single falcon? If you did have 10+ shots a turn and shot everything at the falcon, the rest of his army is in your face and your dead anyways, along with the other 2 falcons you couldnt shoot at due to only stunning the first one on 5 shots.

TzarNikolai
22-11-2007, 20:15
Heh, and how many armies actually are capable of putting 10+ shots a turn on a single falcon? If you did have 10+ shots a turn and shot everything at the falcon, the rest of his army is in your face and your dead anyways, along with the other 2 falcons you couldnt shoot at due to only stunning the first one on 5 shots.

what?

you don't need to destroy one, you do enough shots to one to stop it shooting, then you do enough shots to the other to stop it shooting, then you do enough shots to the third to stop it shooting. then whats left focuses on the rest of the army (ie the tiny tiny proportion not being transported in the falcons).

the next turn the falcons move yet closer, you try and block off the access points or spread your squads out, try and shake them again...

next turn try and shake them again...
continue till you get that 1 in 9... (ie, one damage roll per falcon per turn should yeild one dead/immobilised falcon after 3 turns)

as for which armies? well sadly chaos can't anymore but lets ask, where would you find that many falcons? tournament? well, any other army you'd expect at a tournament should have a reasonable chance of doing it.

Orbital
22-11-2007, 20:16
Statistically, it requires 36 rolls to get two sixes on average. So I'm voting for 30+. All you who got <10 are either lying, have strangely weighted dice, or are simply the statistic deviation.

This is the kind of shaky grasp on statistical analysis which can make fans of math-hammer some of the biggest wellsprings of misinformation out there.

Catbarf: Even if the world functions strictly by mathematical probability (which it does not), statistics which state you need 36 rolls in order to get double sixes don't state that it has to be the last thing you roll.

Moriarty
22-11-2007, 20:25
21 for me. Of course, in a game situation Lady Luck would be much kinder to me - wouldn't she?

People note the heavy points investment in a Falcon. My Marine Dev squad (10 figs + 4 ML) costs 230pts. A similar exercise using the Pulse laser against the squad killed them in eight turns. Go figure.

catbarf
22-11-2007, 20:27
This is the kind of shaky grasp on statistical analysis which can make fans of math-hammer some of the biggest wellsprings of misinformation out there.

Catbarf: Even if the world functions strictly by mathematical probability (which it does not), statistics which state you need 36 rolls in order to get double sixes don't state that it has to be the last thing you roll.

This is the kind of shaky grasp of statistical analysis which can make detractors of Mathammer some of the biggest wellsprings of misinformation out there.

There's nothing stopping it from being the 100th roll. It's just as likely to be the 20th roll as the 52nd. The 'middle ground' is 36. It could take more, it could take less. 36 rolls doesn't mean you will get it at any point over the course of 36 rolls, it means that it will usually occur around that point. It's the same logic as saying that the average on a single die is 3.5- you're equally likely to get any given value on any given roll, but the tendency is towards the middle point.

As example, take the following:
http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=1387315

Not a single 12 on 36 rolls.

And then my very next roll was thus:

http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=1387317

So I'm already up to 72 rolls without boxcars.

Puffin Magician
22-11-2007, 20:32
I used WOTC's dice-rolling program found here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20040517a), and it took me 13 rolls to Immobilize the Falcon. Took all of it's weapons off along the way too. Disallowing a Falcon from shooting next turn makes it much less of a headache as far as I'm concerned.

Orbital
22-11-2007, 20:34
And there's nothing stopping it from being the 100th roll. It's just as likely to be the 20th roll as the 52nd. Therefore, the average is 36.

And I think you just used my point as a counter-argument.

You said that if someone claims to roll double sixes in less than 10 attempts (where you got that number from, who knows) that they are "either lying, have strangely weighted dice, or are simply the statistic deviation." This could only be the case if you think that one has to roll X number of dice before they get double sixes. In saying this, you show a lack of understanding of statistical analysis, as rolling double sixes on the first attempt is as likely as rolling any other result on the first attempt.

BTW Catbarf, nice editing after the fact to change what you've said.

catbarf
22-11-2007, 20:38
And I think you just used my point as a counter-argument.

You said that if someone claims to roll double sixes in less than 10 attempts (where you got that number from, who knows) that they are "either lying, have strangely weighted dice, or are simply the statistic deviation." This could only be the case if you think that one has to roll X number of dice before they get double sixes. In saying this, you show a lack of understanding of statistical analysis, as rolling double sixes on the first attempt is as likely as rolling any other result on the first attempt.

BTW Catbarf, nice editing after the fact to change what you've said.

Sorry about editing, just wanted to clarify and change structure slightly.

What I'm saying is that it is very strange indeed that a staggering majority report less than 36 tries to get double sixes. The math isn't wrong, so something else is at work. Thus, either somebody is making this up, or it's simply standard deviation and happens to be something of a fluke that should even out as more people vote.

I'm not pointing fingers at any one person. It's totally possible to get it on your first roll. What is very strange is that there doesn't seem to be anyone who reported taking a large number of rolls to win.

I'll just assume that those people got to a certain point and then gave up. Everything makes sense now.

Thoth62
22-11-2007, 20:40
Agreed with Orbital. Just because you have a 1 in 36 chance of rolling double sixes, does not mean it has to occur on the 36th roll. It just means that statistically speaking, one roll out of 36 will be a double 6.

The last time I played against a holo-field falcon in a game, I managed to take it out in the second round of shooting with a lucky double 6 from a pair of lascannons. So it took a total of 4 shots. 3's to hit 3+'s to glance and then a pair of 6's.

Calistarius
22-11-2007, 20:40
GW dice aren't exactly ideal random cubes.

catbarf
22-11-2007, 20:42
It just means that statistically speaking, one roll out of 36 will be a double 6.

Ah, but again, there's nothing to prevent it from taking 80 rolls to get that result. It isn't set in stone that if you roll 36 dice, then probability dictates that one will be a double six. 36 is the middle point where the chances of getting double sixes earlier and the chances of not getting double sixes later even out.

I might be wrong (it's been a while), but I believe 36 rolls is the point where you have a 50% chance of rolling two sixes. I'll write a Java program to test this theory.

Orbital
22-11-2007, 21:00
What I'm saying is that it is very strange indeed that a staggering majority report less than 36 tries to get double sixes.
Then you should just say that.


The math isn't wrong, so something else is at work.
Math isn't wrong, but your understanding of it might be. Part of what I think you might be missing is that this isn't a controlled experiment. As you said, some people probably gave up after a few rolls, some people may fudge their results, some people got lucky, and -if you look at how many people are participating- it's not actually that big of a study sample (and any researcher will tell you that if a study sample is too small, it can't be considered as an accurate representation). In other words: You can't start discussing things like "deviation" and "anomaly" with regards to this particular thread because it's not a useable study sample to begin with, as you can't establish what those words mean unless you have control over the data.

This is why I often disregard math-hammerists; they like to focus on part of the mathematical formula, but their understanding of how to gather statistical data is so weak that they end up making the math equations' role in the discussion irrelevant.

Insta_AxE_Toast
22-11-2007, 21:02
Originally Posted by catbarf
"What I'm saying is that it is very strange indeed that a staggering majority report less than 36 tries to get double sixes."

No it is not strange, considering double sixes on the glancing chart are not the only way to destroy it.


Took me two rolls, first was 1,6 second was 6,6.

An interesting question, once it was immobilized did people remember to start using the penetrating chart rather than the glancing chart? So rather than needing a 5 or 6 for the lowest roll now you need a 3,4,5,6.

Quick question, if you destroyed all the other weapons and it is immobilized and you get another weapon destroyed, does it make it a immobilized result thus have two immobilized results thus destroying it? If so make that a 2,3,4,5,6 on the pen chart.

Not sure if this was mentioned before. I think a great idea would be that if you get armorment destroyed you can choose to take off a vehicle upgrade such as the holo-field, spirit stones... I would love this idea not jsut with falcons but all vehicles.

Thoth62
22-11-2007, 21:02
And there's nothing to prevent it from only taking 2 rolls.

I think, however, that you might be applying standard deviation to the wrong variable here though. You could apply it to the results of the rolls compared to the number of times that you rolled it, but what you're doing is applying it to the roll in which you get the result of two sixes. That's why I was primarily confused at what you were trying to say. SD has nothing to do with that. No matter if it's the 2nd roll or the 80th, you still only ever have a 1 in 36 probability of rolling 2 6's. I wouldn't know how to properly check what you're trying to say though, so at this point I'll take your word for it, even if I don't understand.

Cry of the Wind
22-11-2007, 21:06
I did not know that special rule. On the off chance that I ever start Necrons (....off off off off chance), I suppose that will be a unit I avoid.

Yeah it is kindda hard to find. It's in the legal small print at the begining of the Necron Codex if you're interested, look for "teh Eldarz are in your base and killin' ur doodz", at least I think that was the what the rule was called... :p

This game has been played many many times in my local GW in one form or another be it Falcons or whatever the trendy hard to kill figure is that week (other memorable dice off games include conscripts with hidden power fist commissar vs equal points in genestealers with broodlord).

Always good for a laugh until I challenge them to a game and bust out my Tri-Falcon list (of course I'm not as inclineded to that anymore...). This time through it took my 22 rolls (though I was too lazy to calculate stacking weapon destroyed/immobilized results)!

Perfect Organism
22-11-2007, 21:06
Immobilised in one shot, destroyed outright on the second.

Dice love me. A couple of games ago I shot a landraider at 34" using the nightfighting rules. Double six for spotting distance, six for penetration, six on the damage chart.

Voleron
22-11-2007, 21:13
3rd shot lucky. Then again, I had my Guard Autocannon models sitting in front of me when I rolled, so that may have had somehting to do with it.

Autocannons = FalconBane

Bob5000
22-11-2007, 21:19
@BoB
What do you mean one-in-nine? The chance to get two sixes on a double roll is one-in-thirty-six.

In my post I pointed out I regard double 5's to be Falcon Destroyed .

The 1 in 9 chance of double 5's was put forward many months ago by someone else and I thought I would check it out in 'reality' .

Purgator Sovereign
22-11-2007, 21:41
Hm... I thought any Eldar player would also select Vectored Engines and thus 5's would only immobilise the Falcon. But you're right.

Dio´Ra
22-11-2007, 21:46
If you immobilize a skimmer moving over 6" it crashes and counts as destroyed.

So there is no "stacking" of immobilized results. Immobilized = destroyed.

nobody said it was moving :rolleyes:

Cry of the Wind
22-11-2007, 21:49
Hm... I thought any Eldar player would also select Vectored Engines and thus 5's would only immobilise the Falcon. But you're right.

Yeah, there is even some merit in calling an imobile Falcon dead even if it does have the vectored engines. I assumed the Falcon to be fully kitted out and moving as that is the only time they are considered to be broken, but I still disregarded anything but box cars for simplicity.

catbarf
22-11-2007, 21:56
Okay, I just wrote a very simple Java program to test, and I plan on making it incorporate other things- but I digress. My test found that in 1000 sets of 36 rolls of 2d6 each, right close to half of them got boxcars and half did not. So, 36 rolls is the point where you have a 50/50 chance of getting two sixes or not, NOT where you are virtually guaranteed to get it.

Edit: Wait a second, it's being screwy. Hang on.

Edit 2: Okay, wrong variable. After fixing, it seems that you have a 64% chance to get boxcars on 36 rolls. Let me find the 50% point.

Edit 3: It seems that the 50% point is right between 24 and 25 rolls.

Orbital
22-11-2007, 22:09
- Do we know how many people participated? No. We only know how many reported their results.
- Do we know if people reported accurately? No. We know there's a bias both for and against the notion that Falcons are impossible to destroy, so we have to assume that some people would skew their reports to reflect their bias.
- Have we determined how large a study sample has to be before we can start thinking of the results as statistically accurate? No.
- Do we know under which conditions results were obtained (i.e. which dice, on what surface, etc)? No. We assume they're all obtained similarly but we don't really know.

It's for these reasons that, when someone talks about the results from this thread in an analytical way, I dismiss them because the basic building blocks of accurate statistical analysis aren't present. Don't get me wrong: Those things don't have to be present to have some fun (which is what I think this thread was meant to be about)... but if someone wants to puff out their chest and declare some actual analysis, no thanks. I can't take it seriously until it's done in a scientific, unbiased manner... and, as most statisticians will tell you, we still can't really be sure. Statistics and probability are about trying to determine likely outcomes, but it's not the same as telling the future.

Amnar
22-11-2007, 22:12
- Do we know how many people participated? No. We only know how many reported their results.
- Do we know if people reported accurately? No. We know there's a bias both for and against the notion that Falcons are impossible to destroy, so we have to assume that some people would skew their reports to reflect their bias.
- Have we determined how large a study sample has to be before we can start thinking of the results as statistically accurate? No.
- Do we know under which conditions results were obtained (i.e. which dice, on what surface, etc)? No. We assume they're all obtained similarly but we don't really know.

It's for these reasons that, when someone talks about the results from this thread in an analytical way, I dismiss them because the basic building blocks of accurate statistical analysis aren't present. Don't get me wrong: Those things don't have to be present to have some fun (which is what I think this thread was meant to be about)... but if someone wants to puff out their chest and declare some actual analysis, no thanks. I can't take it seriously until it's done in a scientific, unbiased manner... and, as most statisticians will tell you, we still can't really be sure. Statistics and probability are about trying to determine likely outcomes, but it's not the same as telling the future.

Hehe, kinda sounds like a tobacco lobbyist

catbarf
22-11-2007, 22:13
- Do we know how many people participated? No. We only know how many reported their results.
- Do we know if people reported accurately? No. We can just assume they did.
- Have we determined how large a study sample has to be before we can start thinking of the results as statistically accurate? No.
- Do we know under which conditions results were obtained (i.e. which dice, on what surface, etc)? No. We assume they're all obtained similarly but we don't really know.

It's for these reasons that, when someone talks about the results from this thread in an analytical way, I dismiss them because the basic building blocks of accurate statistical analysis aren't present. Don't get me wrong: Those things don't have to be present to have some fun (which is what I think this thread was meant to be about)... but if someone wants to puff out their chest and declare some actual analysis, no thanks.

I'm not getting worked up about this. I actually think it's quite fun- I see something which seems wrong in my head, so I'm setting out to find what the probability is (I enjoy mathammer, but I hate most other kinds of math. Funny?).

It's just that the idea that 36 rolls guarantees a double six is a commonly-held misconception. I must say, I wasn't expecting 64% of all numbers... this is strange. I will look into it. Once I have a good probability program, I'll upload it so others can figure things out.

Orbital
22-11-2007, 22:20
It's just that the idea that 36 rolls guarantees a double six is a commonly-held misconception.
Only among people who don't understand the science of probability. As I said... we don't have enough data from this thread to analyze the results in a scientific or reliable way. This thread is fun for the purpose of playing make-believe Warhammer (which is not to suggest that I think Warhammer is "real", btw :) )... but it proves zero about the survivability of Falcons from a mathematical or scientific viewpoint. There's more to doing a study sample than just seeing who can roll boxcars first.

Nurgling Chieftain
22-11-2007, 22:53
It's just that the idea that 36 rolls guarantees a double six is a commonly-held misconception.Does anybody actually HOLD that misconception? It seems to be one of those things that everyone thinks everyone else thinks.


I must say, I wasn't expecting 64% of all numbers...The only thing odd about 64% is the fact that using random numbers you got the actual probability to two significant figures (~63.729%).

It's not that hard to calculate; it's just 1-(35/36)^36.

catbarf
22-11-2007, 23:22
The only thing odd about 64% is the fact that using random numbers you got the actual probability to two significant figures (~63.729%).

It's not that hard to calculate; it's just 1-(35/36)^36.

Well, I did tests instead of just math because I figured that if there are people who won't appreciate calculations, then maybe they'll accept a computer rolling the dice.

I was mostly curious by the number being [roughly] 64%. It just seems like an odd number for using 6-sided dice, and the number of attempts being 6 to the second.

Orbital
22-11-2007, 23:27
I was mostly curious by the number being [roughly] 64%. It just seems like an odd number for using 6-sided dice, and the number of attempts being 6 to the second.

If two people roll dice and one gets 6 and the other gets 5, that doesn't mean that, statistically, 50% of people get 6 and 50% get 5. The sample is too small to establish good study data. It's no different in this thread. Then, take into consideration all the other factors which are necessary for good study samples which are missing, and the 64% result is meaningless. Don't let it knot your boxers up.

Nurgling Chieftain
22-11-2007, 23:27
It really has nothing to do with the sides of the dice or the exact number of attempts, so long as the probability is low and the number of attempts is high. Any problem of that basic setup converges towards the same percentage (~63%) as the number of rolls increases and the probability of each decreases in lockstep. IIRC the convergence is at one standard deviation, but it's been a long time since I took stats.


The 64% result is meaningless.Actually, it was dead on, presumably precisely because he used a sufficient sample size.

catbarf
22-11-2007, 23:40
Orbital, my sample size was ten million sets of thirty-six rolls each.

It took a while.

Orbital
22-11-2007, 23:48
Actually, it was dead on, presumably precisely because he used a sufficient sample size.

I apologize. I meant to say that if the percentage was taken from this thread then it's meaningless due to the way that the data is gathered. If it's found in some other more scientific manner, then bon appetite.

catbarf
22-11-2007, 23:49
Oh, well I wouldn't take data from a thread where the actual values aren't given. That would be... interesting, to say the least :p

'Wow! On average, I can kill a Falcon with one squad of Marines rapid firing!' :D

Orbital
22-11-2007, 23:51
Oh, well I wouldn't take data from a thread where the actual values aren't given. That would be... interesting, to say the least :p

I gotta tell you... it happens all the time. Seriously: How many times have you read something on Warseer which states (in essence): "The majority of people in this thread think (whatever), therefore it's proven to be true/false/whatever"?

Happens all the time.

Sorry that I misunderstood you, though.

unclejimbo827
23-11-2007, 00:02
I immobilized it on my second try, but that has NEVER happened to me.

AngryAngel
23-11-2007, 00:09
statisticly i dont care about that for 99%
dices are totaly random estimations cant be aplied to totaly random stuff

to assault the falcon outflank it by adding something like a push to the game

in a game most people simmply roll dice and dont go bangin on their calculators for estimations.

an no im not lying through my teeth... it was said that pharias are crappy wel there not.
and aboyut proving stuff? youre not even using your real name if anybody needs to prove something you are, like prove you have a life

and you dont get it DONT bother.

and this IS the end of the discussion since your simply repeating yourself by spamming around with qoputes and the same verbs over and over.


You know..I really couldn't care less about how unstoppable the falcon is, I get it..but I do have protest.

While not perhaps the worst units in the game, pariahs are bad..and if they are hitting peoples lines with max numbers I can only imagine the people you play against are in fact pants on head retarded. With the amount of plasma rolling around, and just flooding of wounds in general..and the fact that they don't have wbb rolls. Added with their very high point cost..and only being allowed one unit of them..well surely I'm not the only one who finds that unbelieveable.

As for the game..I rolled a 5 and 6 in the first roll..after that I figured the falcon was pretty much done so I started anew..and got a 6 6 in the third roll..however I do realize that its very unlikely to happen in an actual game. To get back on the topic at hand.

catbarf
23-11-2007, 00:28
I gotta tell you... it happens all the time. Seriously: How many times have you read something on Warseer which states (in essence): "The majority of people in this thread think (whatever), therefore it's proven to be true/false/whatever"?

Happens all the time.

Sorry that I misunderstood you, though.

It's okay. And I always discount those types of statistics- after all, you're not going to vote unless it's something you care about. That's like using a WS poll to find what percentage of the English-speaking population plays 40k :p

Bunnahabhain
23-11-2007, 00:30
I had a long post berating people about their total lack of even a basic knowledge of stats, but the server ate it, and thee quality of posts improved rather...

It is indeed 24.something rolls to achive one or more double 6s in one of them more than 50% of the time.
1- ( chance of failure to achive desired result)^ number of tries

It's not a particulary complex idea to understand, or it least it shouldn't be for anyone who actually tries...

However, my programming is far to rusty to write to programme needed to generate enough data to be useful, such as standard deviation on the number of glances needed to kill it, which needs to take account of weapon destroyed and immobilsed results stacking, and that's before we allow penetariting hits on immobilsed ones which would have a horrific number of variables to play with....

catbarf
23-11-2007, 00:39
However, my programming is far to rusty to write to programme needed to generate enough data to be useful, such as standard deviation on the number of glances needed to kill it, which needs to take account of weapon destroyed and immobilsed results stacking, and that's before we allow penetariting hits on immobilsed ones which would have a horrific number of variables to play with....

What languages are you good with? Maybe I could help.

Orbital
23-11-2007, 00:43
That's like using a WS poll to find what percentage of the English-speaking population plays 40k :p

That, my friend, demonstrates a very keen understanding of typical statistical analysis here on Warseer. :)

catbarf
23-11-2007, 01:24
'Wow, ninety-five percent of the world population play 40k! ITS A MARICAL[sic]!'

Ahem... back to the (sort of) topic at hand, I think Falcons are just far too difficult to kill for a skimmer. Note that specification- I've got no beef with it compared to a Land Raider, if you work it out you find that a Land Raider is often harder to kill. But for a vehicle floating thirty feet above the ground that looks like it was made by an artist rather than an engineer (Oh, the irony), it just seems wrong for it to soak up so much fire.

The BIGGEST issue, however, is the speed. It's just too fast to compare to the Land Raider. That's the big point- not only is it hard to kill, but you can't avoid it like 75% of the other big nasty things in the game. If the new vehicle rules are changed, then it might get better. My personal suggestion would be that a skimmer that takes a hit (from a weapon that could hurt it, of course) cannot move more than half speed next turn. That way you can help stall Wave Serpents and the like with Bolters, yet with heavier ordnance even if you fail to kill then you'll keep them down, perhaps even for melee specialists to get in.

Oh well. Only time will tell.

MuttMan
23-11-2007, 03:40
3,3,3,4,4,3,4,1,4,1,4,4,1,4,3,4,4,1,1,2,3,2,4,2,1, 2,1,2,4,2,1,1,5(2more needed),2,2,3,4,3,5(1 more needed),4,2,1,1,3,4,1,1,1,3,2,6(boxcars)
Exactly 50 tries. I was stacking damage, and immobilised it 12 times. I doubt I have 50 glancing hits, and on the 4th glance I would have had a-lot of vehicle destroyed results as it will count as a stationary vehicle if it had vectored engines. (170 point model down the drain in 5 rolls basicly, cant kill 10 marines with just 5 rolls)
I think its fair, considering the cost and kill rate, and ineffectiveness of just 6 eldar against an army that does not separate his units (over extending himself).

Its fair. Also consider that the falcon cannot shoot its weapons most of those shots, I would just leave it alone after one shaken results and grin as he tries to get close with some clowns and wipe them off the table with my counter charge.

Rahveel
23-11-2007, 04:48
My Havocs are the bane of my friends falcons


what do you equip your Havoc's with? building onto my army, and I kina have a gap in my Anti-armor capabilities.

Duoth
23-11-2007, 04:48
Double sixes second roll :D ;)

Ravenous
23-11-2007, 04:55
what do you equip your Havoc's with? building onto my army, and I kina have a gap in my Anti-armor capabilities.

I'm guessing he is using autocannons, because they are more effective then lascannons(against falcons and light armour), I know Voodooboyz will disagree but his math on the subject fails to mention that autocannons are 10 to 15 points cheaper then lascannons and assaultcannons.

More points means more weapons, more weapons more rolls, more rolls means more dead falcons.

Moriarty
23-11-2007, 07:15
Double sixes second roll :D ;)

Git :-)

Can you roll the dice for my next game?

Khaine's Fury
23-11-2007, 07:57
A lot of you ARE factoring in the weapon destroyed results, the real-life effect of taking casualties and LOS, cover....But, NOT factoring-in the performance of the Falcon for the job it is required to do. Most Multiple-Falcon lists Eldar players use are there to deliver aspects into advantageous positions safely...that's why the Falcon is so damned hard to get a destroyed result against....it has been designed as an ultra-survivable transport, and with AV12 it needs something. I would gladly rid myself of holofields for the option to go open-topped, but hey, that's the dark kin.....
But if you look at the firepower it can dish out, with BS3, it's not that good really. There's no super-abundance of nasty AP, no large templates to decimate troops, no tank-killing lascannon or Railgun to threaten your tanks.....and it is easy to damage.

You are getting on to around 450 points to make 2 Falcons truly survivable and multi-role, once they deliver those Dragons or Harlies, Falcons aren't actually that good....not in the way that Prisms are, and it is easy to keep shaking them so that their average firepower is kept at bay. That to me is a waste of points. As an Eldar player, i want a unit which can DO something. If i want transportation i will take a cheap Serpent at around 145 points, with shuriken cannons.
Where Falcons look good is in tourny lists of around 1500 to 1850 points, where the amount of anti-tank your enemy can level at you is relatively low, and where 6 aspect warriors jumping out of a Falcon might make a real difference. In big games, i have seen them do nothing of note, and while they can take horrendous punishment sometimes, i see them die quickly too.
I recommend people do what they do when playing Necrons and come up against Monoliths...go for the rest of the force, but also to fire a few "shaking" shots their way making them expensive transports with no troops......if all you are doing is zooming Falcons around and hiding behind Cover before that last-minute star-engine move to take objectives with your Falcon scoring model, then you are a sad individual indeed.
Enough shots from a unit will kill them though, when up against multiple Falcons, find ways to get in behind them, like Deepstrike, and remember to have a fast-moving unit which can block exit ramps.....this also makes Falcons expensive points-sinks.

Have faith. I played a friend recently with a mainly foot-slogging Eldar army of 2500 points. he had 2 Necron lords, big units of warriors, 2 monoliths, immortals, 8 destroyers, large unit of scarabs, flayed ones....it was nasty. I didn't have any brightlances, star cannons or EML's....i lost my Banshees early on before they could do a thing and lost all of my Swooping hawks before they could do any more than shoot down a couple of destroyers.....to make matters worse, i lost all of my spiders but 3 to scattering badly and being shot-up by immortals.
The game finished a draw (rescue mission), but another turn would've seen my opponent lose this objective, and he was only one model off phase-out too.....i had killed 7 of the Destroyers, both Monoliths, both warrior squads, some Immortals, and all the scarabs.

If you are prepared, or can delay the drop-off, then shaken Falcons are no threat at all....and they are easy to shake.

logosloki
23-11-2007, 08:47
double six, first roll. its all about calling on the heart of the dice.

That being said I think it should be either either holofields or SMF rule not both(ie holofields cancels SMF). Along with vectored engines and spirit stones and either SMF or holofields you would get a good deal of survivability but with the SMF and all the gubbinz you ascend to demonprincevehiclehood.

edit: I have a pic of a cheese falcon in my pictures folder but haven't got it on any image site so I can't show you it. I was going to add it. so if the owner of the cheese falcon or someone who has sauce could put it up for us to see that would be great. alternatively just search funniest models on warseer and you'll find it

Anathema
23-11-2007, 08:52
You people do realise that not everyone takes Vectored Engines, right? All of those immobilised results would have killed my particular Falcon and my Prisms dead. And if you're not stacking weapon destroyed results then you're not doing it properly.

Sgt Biffo
23-11-2007, 10:52
FIRST GO!!!

Box Cars straight out of the gate... Now to some how save this roll until this coming Sunday:confused:


Oh, and just ignore Stella. Last year he tried to argue that Genestealers will actually kill far more Marines than the math showed (as in, he said math means nothing because according to his experience, I was wrong).

This is sounding awfully familiar...

Maths stands up fine. You just have to be sure its applicable to the given situation.

Stella Cadente
23-11-2007, 12:39
Oh, and just ignore Stella. Last year he tried to argue that Genestealers will actually kill far more Marines than the math showed (as in, he said math means nothing because according to his experience, I was wrong).

*cough* experience>>>>>>>>>>>stupid math *cough*
sorry, bad cough today:D

Fixer
23-11-2007, 13:31
You know, Falcons and Prisms with Holofields are fine. Using them is a mark of absoloute tactical brilliance.

I have already seen the future. The 2008/2009 grand tournament final. The last tournament before the new edition comes in to play. All non-mech Eldar armies having been removed from the running in the three entry heats with the exception of a couple of armies that got by on painting positions and decided not to turn up due to the extreme level of pointlessness.

Secure in their tactical superiority, the collected 70 Mech Eldar players get down to business and start battle! 350 games and several thousand crew shaken results later it comes to the final round. So great is the skill of each Mech Eldar player that not one has been able to best the other. The 350 games so far have been draws and anyone can claim the trophy.

It comes to the 6th turn of the 6th game, so far no-one has managed to down one of their opponents or gain the upper hand but on one table... things are different. One mech Eldar player has had the chance to shoot the rear armor of a stationary falcon for the last five turns. His opponent had to be removed from the tournament at turn 2 when he started suffering convulsions, apparently the 15 cans of red bull he used to stay alert during the weekend of mind numbing mech Eldar excitement didn't sit too well with his cardiovascular system . Fortunately the game could be continued without incident since all the judges had lapsed into comas after turn 4.

He picks up the dice his mouth dry with tension and looks down at his entire gathered force pointing at the back armor of the exposed falcon. Closing his eyes he rolls the dice and prays.

The Assembled tournament players are awoken by a cry of jubilation. They look around to see the Mech Eldar player with his hands raised to the heavens. Tears of joy stream down his cheeks as he looks accross the faces of his peers and with pained effort barely mumbles a handful of words that spark an outbreak of applause "I got a weapon destroyed result."

Having done more damage than any other player in the tournament, thus is crowned the greatest Warhammer 40,000 player ever. The last one to win before 5th Edition rules nerf Falcons and the game is ruined for everyone.

catbarf
23-11-2007, 14:47
*cough* experience>>>>>>>>>>>stupid math *cough*
sorry, bad cough today:D

Have you tried gambling recently? In my experience, you win far more than you lose. Don't let that math that says you'll lose money get in your way.

Fixer: BEST. POST. EVER.

Stella Cadente
23-11-2007, 14:56
Have you tried gambling recently?
why would I try something illegal?, and who would I gamble with?, and what would I gamble with? (certainly not money, I have none)

catbarf
23-11-2007, 15:05
Lottery? A casino? After all, if math means nothing, you could win a million on your first try!

What about my dice-rolling program? Is it meaningless because it's a computer rolling dice and not a human? From the several million rolls the computer makes, I can draw conclusions that are far more accurate than experience. Where do you draw the line?

elvinltl
23-11-2007, 15:49
Haha... Fantasise about killing falcons.

Khaine's Fury
23-11-2007, 16:31
Can someone please shut that old squeaky gate?

Thanks. I couldn't concentrate for the persistent whining sound.....:)

Seriously, if Falcons are deemed to be too hard to stop, you can bet GW will eventually **** them with the balance stick, till then block exits, shoot rear armour and cross your fingers!!

Take care, KF.

don_mondo
23-11-2007, 16:34
GT game at Baltimore, immobilized the Falcon with my first couple of shots, ignored it the rest of the game. Shaken or stunned the Fire Prism every turn but one (in hiding) and then ignored it. Finally on the last turn, he tank shocked with it (again, for the third turn in a row, only had one squad break out of about 20 tests) and I decided to have the very last unit he hits do a Death or Glory. Autohit, lascannon rills high enough to glance due to speed, rolled double 6 for the damage result.

Grazzy
23-11-2007, 17:01
Autocannons are great versus falcons. I think the math says they are equal to lascannons, but since they are about 10 points cheaper they win.

Fixer: That's fantastic!! The UK grand tournament final in (i think it was) 2004 or 2005 was just like this. Everyone on the top 10 or 20 tables had one of two armies - iron warriors or ulthwe strike forces with huge seer councils.

catbarf
23-11-2007, 18:25
Uh, against AV12 the Lascannons are better, just so you know.

Davachido
23-11-2007, 19:53
Double 6s finally at 13th roll, but it would have probably been less if I stacked the effects since I immobilzed it and weapon destroyed it a couple of times getting stupid rolls like 6/5 6/4 :(

Nurgling Chieftain
23-11-2007, 21:56
Uh, against AV12 the Lascannons are better, just so you know.Yes, but the difference is so small that per-point they're worse. ;)

Sgt Biffo
24-11-2007, 01:00
Is it meaningless because it's a computer rolling dice and not a human?

Isn't there some new chaos theory that runs along the lines of "if you are looking for a particular result then it will turn up more often"?.

Also; wouldn't a computer need a robotic extension to roll dice?

Vaktathi
24-11-2007, 01:06
Uh, against AV12 the Lascannons are better, just so you know.

the statistical difference between the lascannon and the autocannon is well beyond any statistical significance. You might see one or two extra kill results for every couple thousand rolls.


for all intents and purposes, autocannons are equal to lascannons for downing Falcons.

catbarf
24-11-2007, 01:51
the statistical difference between the lascannon and the autocannon is well beyond any statistical significance. You might see one or two extra kill results for every couple thousand rolls.


for all intents and purposes, autocannons are equal to lascannons for downing Falcons.

Autocannons need a 6 to glance on two shots. Lascannons need a 4+ on one shot. Therefore, Lascannons are one and a half times as effective as Autocannons. That's the difference between two Falcons destroyed or three. Which would you rather pick?

Sure, the difference between the two for the purpose of just a single attack is very small, but it adds up when you've got multiple heavy weapons firing every turn.


Also; wouldn't a computer need a robotic extension to roll dice?

What's the difference between randomly rolling a die and randomly generating a number based on the current time and cycles of the CPU? They give the same results. My point is that if you don't trust the math, why would/wouldn't you trust a computer making a million rolls and then using that data to draw conclusions?

Vaktathi
24-11-2007, 01:56
Autocannons need a 6 to glance on two shots. Lascannons need a 4+ on one shot. Therefore, Lascannons are one and a half times as effective as Autocannons. That's the difference between two Falcons destroyed or three. Which would you rather pick? :confused: Autocannons against AV12 only need a 5 (7+5=12), the lascannon a 3 (9+3=12). I have no idea where you are getting your numbers there. The Lascannon has 2x the chance to glance but only one shot. the Autocannon gets twice as many attempts but only half the chance to glance each. When you actually work out the precise mathematical probability, the odds are several parts on a thousand on the side of the lascannon, for all intents and purposes they should be about the same.

boogaloo
24-11-2007, 02:11
what vaktathi said! assume 3 of each gun firing, balistic skill is pertainent to the firer, so we'll assume they all hit to remove that variable. 3 of each gun hitting the falcon yields 2 glances. since by the gun is the only wat you can allocate each heavy weapon in your army. they guns stat wise are equal to eachother against AV assuming the models carrying them are of the same ballistic skill

catbarf
24-11-2007, 02:16
:confused: Autocannons against AV12 only need a 5 (7+5=12), the lascannon a 3 (9+3=12). I have no idea where you are getting your numbers there. The Lascannon has 2x the chance to glance but only one shot. the Autocannon gets twice as many attempts but only half the chance to glance each. When you actually work out the precise mathematical probability, the odds are several parts on a thousand on the side of the lascannon, for all intents and purposes they should be about the same.

Oops, I have no idea what I was thinking. The two are completely equal.

Where are you getting the notion that the lascannon is marginally better?

Vaktathi
24-11-2007, 02:24
Oops, I have no idea what I was thinking. The two are completely equal.

Where are you getting the notion that the lascannon is marginally better?

If you actually whip out a statistics book and do the actual probability calculation P(# success) = p^r * (1-p)^(n-r) * nCr rather than the calculation for averages (1/2*1/3*1/36) the lascannon ends up being very slightly statistically superior, but not to the point where you would ever notice it.

Imperialis_Dominatus
24-11-2007, 04:30
Fixer: BEST. POST. EVER.

Seconded.


why would I try something illegal?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:::D:

Stella Cadente
24-11-2007, 07:46
Autocannons are great versus falcons. I think the math says they are equal to lascannons, but since they are about 10 points cheaper they win.
Autocannons FTW...(I feel dirty for using that abbreviation:cries:), I think I would always take autos over lascanons really, cheaper, and far more effective over a wider array of things

the blind knight
24-11-2007, 09:17
4 tries :p

Damn i am lucky

Stella Cadente
24-11-2007, 09:28
I said I was gonna try my own dice so I will
1st roll 6,6.........WOOHOO
I love my dice, they never fail me, and they love destroying maths and statistics as much as I do hehehe

catbarf
24-11-2007, 11:13
Except they don't, seeing as you never roll a 13 on two dice. Funny that.

Not to mention your roll was to be expected. You don't 'break' math just by getting something away from the standard deviation.

Cry of the Wind
24-11-2007, 16:20
I said I was gonna try my own dice so I will
1st roll 6,6.........WOOHOO
I love my dice, they never fail me, and they love destroying maths and statistics as much as I do hehehe

Then I guess those guys who cheat casinos out of money using statistics and probability must hate you for destroying math and proving them wrong by rolling a pair of sixes on a single roll of the dice, those millions of dollars they made must be a mistake then :rolleyes:

Stella Cadente
24-11-2007, 16:28
using statistics and probability must hate you for destroying math and proving them wrong by rolling a pair of sixes on a single roll of the dice
its not maths, its called luck, I will NEVER believe in all this Mathhammer BS, or using statistics or probability to cheat a dice, which is completely random and cannot by pre-determined.
you can use maths alllll you like, in the end it means absolutely nothing but a bunch of numbers that are as reliable as trusting a chav with a million quid happen

Cry of the Wind
24-11-2007, 16:44
Sure each individual roll can't be predicted, that's not what mathhammer is about. It's about looking a the chances of a particular roll occuring. The way you make it out suggest that shooting a railgun at a Land Raider is as effective as shooting a krak missile since you can't say for certain that you won't roll a 6 on the damage dice. The railgun will be better becasue after rolling a hundred dice you'll be more likely to see more 4+ than you will just a 6.

Sure an indvidual roll can be any of the possibe outcomes but that doens't mean that all outcomes are equally likely, otherwise things like leadership stats would be meaningless. Just look at the way that is handled. We know that 7 is the most likely number to come up on 2 dice and so it is the base leadership in the game. Anything higher is considered good leadership and lower is worse. Using your logic this stat is meaningless as I have just as good a chance at passing a Ld6 test as I do an Ld10 test since when I roll the dice it could be anything. I ask you this how many Ld6 test have you passed compared to how many Ld10 tests? Its the same principle as killing a falcon.

Stella Cadente
24-11-2007, 16:54
I ask you this how many Ld6 test have you passed compared to how many Ld10 tests? Its the same principle as killing a falcon.
I wouldn't know, since I've never taken one to my knowledge
I know I've passed more LD tests with Guard than with marines, marines always fail though, its fate

Cry of the Wind
24-11-2007, 16:57
I wouldn't know, since I've never taken one to my knowledge
I know I've passed more LD tests with Guard than with marines, marines always fail though, its fate

Are you truly sure of that or are you just remembering the marines falling more? In any event it seems you will never be convinced that math works...clearly as a result the math gods have determined you be one of the unfortunates that suffer more bad dice rolls to balance out the lucky person who gets more good rolls...

Edit: Just a thought have you ever considered flipping a coin for all your leadership tests (Ld10 as well as Ld8 or whatever), after all you can never predict what will come up next and its less work that rolling two dice around the board...

Stella Cadente
24-11-2007, 17:29
Are you truly sure of that or are you just remembering the marines falling more? In any event it seems you will never be convinced that math works...clearly as a result the math gods have determined you be one of the unfortunates that suffer more bad dice rolls to balance out the lucky person who gets more good rolls...
if the math gods have cursed me, then they only curse my marines, my guard haven't ever failed a single LD test..........even when I damn well need them too, and it really angers my Commissar, he wants to shoot people, and they hit more than my marines do with shooting, wound more with it too, pass more armour saves, kill more in close combat.....so what does maths have to say there:D


Edit: Just a thought have you ever considered flipping a coin for all your leadership tests (Ld10 as well as Ld8 or whatever), after all you can never predict what will come up next and its less work that rolling two dice around the board...
actually its VERY easy to predict a coin, I can get a head 9 times out of 10 very easily, because its easy to fix

Vaktathi
24-11-2007, 17:33
its not maths, its called luck, I will NEVER believe in all this Mathhammer BS, or using statistics or probability to cheat a dice, which is completely random and cannot by pre-determined.
you can use maths alllll you like, in the end it means absolutely nothing but a bunch of numbers that are as reliable as trusting a chav with a million quid happen

Mathhammer shouldn't totally be ignored, it gives an idea of averages, which is what the game is based on. If a Space Marine didn't save more wounds on average than a Guardsmen, then there would be little point to the 3+ save over the 5+. The mathhammer gives you an idea of how it should play out on average, not how it will exactly play in any particular situation (but should give you a ballpark estimate, which can of course vary)

Cry of the Wind
24-11-2007, 17:54
actually its VERY easy to predict a coin, I can get a head 9 times out of 10 very easily, because its easy to fix

Way to miss the point there buddy. Sure the act of flipping a coin could be rigged, but the point was in the event that you have an unriggable coin toss or any other manner of making a 50/50 result, why would you not use that for all of your rolls since you're skipping out those dice that math has no power over anyway.

Lets take an in game example then. Which weapon would you rather shoot a Land Raider with, a Railgun or a Krak Missile? Why?

Stella Cadente
24-11-2007, 18:01
Lets take an in game example then. Which weapon would you rather shoot a Land Raider with, a Railgun or a Krak Missile? Why?
A railgun obviously, no maths involved there, its just better, higher str, better AP, more range, its just obviously much better without needing to complicate things with maths, common sense shows its better

Vaktathi
24-11-2007, 18:08
A railgun obviously, no maths involved there, its just better, higher str, better AP, more range, its just obviously much better without needing to complicate things with maths, common sense shows its better

which is borne out through the mathematical averages. The "Common sense" part is telling you that a higher S weapon with AP1 is going to mathematically work out to destructive results more times than a S8 weapon. It's still based on the math.

Cry of the Wind
24-11-2007, 18:09
A railgun obviously, no maths involved there, its just better, higher str, better AP, more range, its just obviously much better without needing to complicate things with maths, common sense shows its better

Sure it is obvious, but the fact you don't need to see the math doesn't change the fact that it is the math that makes it the obvious choice. If a railgun didn't raise the statsical chance of scoring a damaging blow on the target then it would be no different that the krak missile. Your saying that Ld8 on your marines is pointless becasue you always fail that roll anyway. Well what if you never rolled a 4+ with your railgun and always rolled a 6 with your krak missile? Would you switch to only using krak missiles because in your experince a railgun is a poor weapon against Land Raiders? It is a better gun only because the statistics say it is.

I could play a hundred games and never kill anything with a railgun and then play a single round with a krak missile and blow the target away. That doesn't mean a railgun is bad. This is exactly what you are trying to claim.

deathwing_marine
24-11-2007, 23:21
Wow. I come back and thread has gone even more downhill with math. Why the hell are you guys talking about railguns and Land Raiders? Maybe if you all put the calculators down and played a game or two, you'd see that you could do without the math.

I'm going to close the thread. Good job catbarf, orbital, cry of the wind, and vaktathi.