Jump to content

Tamachan

Members
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Blog Comments posted by Tamachan

  1. I really appreciate the time that you took to answer my questions. I absolutely agree on your caution about mathhammer and I am not trying to accuse you of being defensive. My point was that IF people engage in mathhammer it's important to do it right or when assumptions are made to make them transparent. The latter point helps to make sure that I understand you correctly.

    @ Blade Gheists vs. Glaivewraith Stalkers: Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense to me.

    Quote

    It's 50% more damage that gets through the save based on the pior examples. Not your rolls, theirs. Which is a sliding scale. +2 to +3 is 50%. +3 to +4 is 25%, +4 to +5 is 20%. It's the end-result we're looking at here.

    Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you were just referring to the change from +2 to +3, which as you state would be an increase of 50% damage that gets through (in relative terms), which is the same as my statement that you increase the likelihood to make damage by 16.6% in absolute terms. Get your point here. (Yet your example only holds for the 2+ to 3+ change, but therefore saves the reader from engaging in his/her own computations.)

    15 hours ago, EnixLHQ said:

    As for Spectral Lure, casting is two dice needing to meet or exceed a base value. In this case 6. The probability of a 6 or higher appearing on two dice is 

    6 13.89
     
    7 16.67
     
    8 13.89
     
    9 11.11
     
    10 8.33
     
    11 5.56
     
    12 2.78

     or a total of 72.22%, like you say. Dropping that cast to a 5+ adds 11.11% to that pool, making it 83.3%. Again, just as you say. Until you factor in the unbind attempt. Those 72% and 83% chances are for your roll, now you have to see if an opponent can snipe it and unbind you. Assuming you made the exact roll you needed to make to cast each time (6) then your opponent needs to roll a 7 to beat your roll, no matter your bonus. They'll have a 58.34% chance to undo you. If you add this in, then your actual chances of getting the cast off is 72-58=14% for the 6 and 83-58=25% for the 5. So, you have a 25% chance at getting the spell through with the +1. So, if I were to correct it I would drop the 30% statement I made down to 25%, which I can do. And honestly, I got the original 30% from TellTaleNoob. I assumed I could shorthand it by stealing his stat.

    Okay, thanks for clarifying that you included the ban rolls here. I wasn't sure about that. I think that the calculation is likely incorrect though, because you cannot assume that you either roll a 6 or a 7 (including the +1) and your opponent has to simply beat that. Actually your opponent has to roll +1 higher than you without the buff and +2 higher than you with the buff. This should be in the likelihood range well below 50% (you said 58.53%). So in order to get the correct number (or test whether TellTaleNoobs statement is correct) one would have to multiply the chance of casting a spell successfully with the likelihood of your opponent not banning it. I might take some time on the weekend to do that. 🙂

    15 hours ago, EnixLHQ said:

    And lastly, the 15 attacks statement. This one I need to go back and reword for sure. I don't mean that All-Out Attack will increase your damage by 50%. I'm trying to say that spending a CP on All-Out Attack will be worth more on units that can throw out more attacks in general, and that I personally don't like spending it on units that won't be throwing out at least 15, because 15 seems to be the breakpoint of reasonable attacks you can actually get to throw and is 50% more damage than if you threw any less.

    Okay, that makes sense to me. Thanks again for the clarification.

    I hope I didn't get across as being a mathhammer zealot, but I wanted to make sure that I understand what you were advising. I think the process of discussing helped me to get most of your points and I hope it can improve/make the guide a bit more clearer while still staying beginner friendly.

    • Thanks 1
  2. 22 minutes ago, Spears said:

    This is an English discrepancy not a maths one. If previously your opponent wounded on a 3+ but now wounds on a 4+ you have reduced the incoming damage by 25%.

     

    Oh, I see where you getting at. The problem/confusion with this statement is that it needs an absolute base to be calculated. (That's why I prefer to express probability statements as percentages based on a D6, i.e. increasing the wound roll for the enemy is a 16.6% reduction of the likelihood to wound.)

    In your example specific example of wounding on a 4+ instead of 3+ this is a 25% reduction of damage indeed. That does not work for a reduction from 4+ to 5+ or 2+ to 3 though. Therefore the statement that increasing the wound roll by 1 reduces incoming damage by 25% is not correct in many cases. Does that make sense? That's what confused me.

  3. Please don't get me wrong, I really appreciate your work on this very comprehensive guide. However, I have to get back to some numbers, as they seem implausible to me. Let's work on this to further Nagash's realm! 🙂

    Quote

    Glaivewraith Stalkers: You've got, like, 30 of these, right? Sorry about that. They shoved handfuls of these in Storm Strike, Tempest of Souls, and Soul Wars starter sets, so most players will have an abundance of these guys. I won't harp on them and say they're literal trash, they can be converted into Reapers after all, but they aren't great. They do have some redeeming qualities to keep in mind; they are cheap, come in units as small as 4, have 2" range that can add up if you have a lot of them, they can retreat and charge in the same turn, and re-roll failed hits if they've charged or been charged. Despite this, they will do a massive 50% less damage than Bladegheists if the gheists charged that turn. Worse, this gap only lessens to 30% if Bladegheists didn't charge. Their battalion, Death Stalkers, doesn't help this situation much either, buffing that 50% deficit to 30% of charging Bladegheists (or breaking even if the 'gheists didn't charge), but only to one enemy unit for the entire game. You really might want to convert these or wait for them to get a Dolorous Guard of their own.

    I agree that the unit underperforms, but I am not sure, in which scenario you calculated the 50% less damage of Bladegheists? If you quote numbers like these it's good to be transparent about your assumptions (How many Bladegheists vs. how many Glaivewraith Stalkers, attacking a unit with which armor save).

    This page allows to create exact scenarios with fancy graphs: https://aos-statshammer.herokuapp.com/

    Otherwise it's probably best to leave out exact numbers.

    Quote

    The Emerald Host: The only super-battalion I'll get into detail here, this is the third of the offerings from White Dwarf. I only want to point this out because it's cheap, and requires no more than the taking of both battalions above to unlock it. What it does is give an enemy hero of your choice a permanent -1 save from all attacks that target that hero. This can be devastating on the right target, bringing some enemy's +2 save up to a +3 and netting a whole 50% more potential damage on it. Also note that this debuff comes from all sources that are "attacks," not just from your army. In most cases, that might not make much of a difference, but in a team or multiplayer game, you just brought a powerful debuff everyone benefits from. And, though I'm not aware of any abilities acting this way if your enemy can damage themselves for a buff and that counts as an attack, well that's debuffed as well. This, a CP, artefact, and one-drop option on the other two battalions above? Not bad. Not bad at all.

    Did not understand how bringing up a save from +2 to +3 leads to "50% more potential damage". It leads to 16.6% more potential damage.

     

    Quote

    Shademist: Since, as an army, we will want to focus on staying alive, and in the fight, Shademist is likely the superior spell for any wizard who's not Reikenor or Lady Olynder. Maybe even if they are. Casting on a 6, a Nighthaunt unit wholly within 12" gains a buff of -1 to wound rolls for all attacks that target that unit. Not a lot of abilities buff wound rolls out there, so this tends to be a harder counter to taking damage than -hit effects. And, having it doesn't preclude Mystic Shield or All-Out Defense from also being used for extra protection. To give you an idea of how powerful this is, a reduction of 1-to-wound is about 25% less damage on average coming in.

    This is likely the same mistake here. Reducing 1 to wound is not 25% but 16.6% less damage incoming. 

     

    Quote

    Spectral Lure: Guardian of Soul's unique spell - D6 wounds must be healed if possible, otherwise worth of models returned to any unit wholly within 24". Probably the very definition of risk-vs-reward for us you have here the potential of returning a full 6 models to a 1-wound unit, or even up to 2 Spirit Hosts, to a unit allllll the way over there, but on a spell that requires a 6 to cast, can be unbound, and only one attempt to cast it no matter how many GoS's you have. This would be downright amazing if it could cast on a 4, especially when comparing it to everything else listed here, but the best you will be able to do about that is spending an artefact slot on Wychlight Lantern to get a +1. As an aside, the other Guardian of Souls artefact, Beacon of Nagashizzar, can add +3 to the models/wounds returned to a unit. Still, if you're going to give the GoS any artefact the Wychlight is statistically more sound (+30% chance to cast a spell vs. +3 models).

    You usually cast Spectral Lure on a 6+. Having a +1 bonus turns this into a 5+. This means you improve from a 72.2 probability to 83.3 probability. How do you get to a +30% chance to cast the spell?

    Quote

    All-Out Attack: If you have the Command Points, re-rolling 1s to hit can be a snap damage boost. This is best when used when you're going to throw 15+ attacks (that's about where the +50% damage threshold is), or any units that'd like to see more 6's.

    Didn't understand what 15+ attacks has to do with +50% damage threshold. Can you explain what you mean by that?

    Again, just working to improve the guide.

  4. 15 minutes ago, EnixLHQ said:

     Assuming the player reading my guide is a beginner (like I was) and would just like to know what to expect with a better save as they toss 3, 4, 5, or more dice hoping for that 5+ Frienzied save, saying you're increasing your chance TO 33% for damage negation is accurate.

    Stating it as an increase TO 33% is correct - regardless of whether you are a beginner or not - and regardless of how many dice you roll. 😉

    I couldn't get this from your statement "Just how much more saving is that? Why it's 33%. In a game of dice and random numbers, giving two of some of your best units a 33% increase in the chances of just totally ignoring incoming damage is nothing to scoff at."

     

  5. Great article and interesting insights.

    I found that at times, the likelihood statements were slightly confusing or might be even wrong, though.

    Let's take this example:

    Quote

    Shroudguard: For such a simple battalion, the net benefit of it cannot be understated. Two units of Bladegheists, our baseline threat units, get a Frenzied Fervor save of 5+ instead of a Deathless Spirits 6+. Just how much more saving is that? Why it's 33%. In a game of dice and random numbers, giving two of some of your best units a 33% increase in the chances of just totally ignoring incoming damage is nothing to scoff at. It's no wonder you see this battalion everywhere. It does have some drawbacks to note, however. It's still a Deathless save, so you still need a hero nearby to grant it, and you need the hero you chose to include in this battalion to see the Frenzied save. A hero that, by the way, doesn't benefit from that tasty save he's handing out. Despite that, this battalion is excellent for some good ole' fashioned warmongering and tieing up some enemy threat units.

     

    How did you calculate the 33% increase from a 6+ to a 5+ safe? It's either a 50% increase in relative terms (twice as likely to roll a 5+ than a 6+ terms) or a lot clearer in absolute terms a 33% chance to save instead of a 16.6% chance to save. I think to talk about percentages in absolute terms would be clearer in your text.

    Keep up the great work.

×
×
  • Create New...