Re: [NetEpic ML] Slann, the required balance

From: <hellreich_at_...>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 15:52:15 -0400

HHHmm try it out on Kinghts and you'll see they are better then Mechs exsepcially the 3 types with 2+ save, plus you can get 14 Knights for the price of 7Mechs. As for the 5+ fixed you could have a point here, but lets not forget that though I saved alot my shooting could not hit a house LOL. Plus not many Necrons ever came back for me LOL. Have yet to kill a Capital Imp, or Titan with my Mechs and they cost as much LOL. Lost every CC with my foot troops, Kroxigors are the only ones I've won with.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: dardman
  To: netepic_at_egroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 3:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Slann, the required balance


  Hellreich,
  I playtest with you so you know it is tough to kill the Slann Mechs and warriors with the fixed save. How many saves did that fixed 5 save mod help with 10 out of 30 hits? Then calculate in that most attackers hit on a 5+ which is a 1/3 chance. So if you hit then you have a 1/3 chance of the Slann saving which is 1/3 * 1/3 = 1/9 If you look at it this way you can see why people are having trouble with the Slann. Good dice rolls go a long way for any army but with the Slann the attacker needs the Gods blessings. Mech with a 3+ fixed save equates to 1/3(to hit)*2/3(fixed save)*2/3(1/6 or 0, note no targ modifres are in this)(armor save), so a bolter has about a 4/27 or a 15% of destroying a tadpole mech, this formula is a bit a screwy but you should get the idea because it shows 2 things, first the chance to hit then the power of the fixed save and this is what makes them hard to kill. My advice, "firepower baby!!!" Lots of devastators and support because the targ mod doesn't matter much because of the fixed saves. The cheaper the better
   
  Its been a long time since I used math!!
  Darius

------------------------------------------------------------------------------



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thu Apr 27 2000 - 19:52:15 UTC