Re: [Epic] The WORST GW rules

From: Ken Taborek <oberon_at_...>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 06:10:01 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 31 Aug 1997, J. Michael Looney wrote:

> Ok in 8 cases the nearest int concept dosn't cut it either, 7 if you
> assume that 0 dice = 1 dice. One of those 8 cases is 20, which, by your
> formula, should be a now brainer, as it comes out in even numbers.
>
> This is getting a bit carried away, lets just say that there is a reason
> why GW prints the fire power chart every where it can. I have 2 copies
> of E40K, plus all the WD that have E40K stuff in them and I have 7
> copies of the chart. It's not an easy formula, it's some random numbers
> more or less following a formula with variable rounding effects.
>
> Data follows. Non geek stop reading here.
[data chopped]

Damnit! You beat me to it! I was busy watching the Redskins last night,
so I didn't look at the chart. Ah, well. It's not much use trying to
make sense out of GW, anyway. (He grumbled sour-grapedly) They seem to
just "wing it" when it comes to most things that any other game designers
would subject to a rigorous mathematical formula. Damn them to the firey
pits of Heck!
Good work!


--Ken Taborek oberon_at_...
"Show respect for age. Drink good Scotch for a change."- random fortune
Received on Mon Sep 01 1997 - 10:10:01 UTC