|
Post by baldlea on Apr 24, 2013 0:06:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Aristo on Apr 24, 2013 2:05:24 GMT -5
Ooh, thanks. More material for the errata!
|
|
|
Post by papabees on Apr 24, 2013 8:37:32 GMT -5
Holy Cow! that absolutely changes things. Sweet.
|
|
|
Post by squinch on Apr 24, 2013 12:31:30 GMT -5
This topic has covered a lot of ground and it's evident the fallout from the FA dilemma is resulting in potential changes all over the place.
I think it's worth touching on an item discussed early but somewhat dismissed. That being the points for FA. I think the arguement that the SVL is overpowered is incorrect; as a 'point based' game that's a direct admission that its under-pointed.
The mechanic of assigning weapon mounts with maximum numbers by type and size of vehicle, coupled with the restriction of vehicles firing two weapons (ignoring SH's) has put a premium on slots. Enter the FA weapon.
If you fill both slots with FA weapons you can fire between 4-8 times, average of 6. Granted the weapon power is lower, the potential damage output is huge for the additional points. One FA plus another weapon gives 3-5 shots.
In the example that started this thread, the GSV only pays 4 pts (IIRC) for a SVL. The Tank pays 6 pts for the plasma. Statistically, they have fairly close damage output, within 1 point (using vet crew, avg 1 cover modifier, -1 for full auto shots, avg damage, etc). Turns out the tank has a ~72% chance to hit and the GSV has about a 58% chance.
If you took the average shots for the SVL and used that as the point multiplier, you end up with a 12 point weapon. That's 8 points the tank has to add another plasma 'shot', giving the tank a significantly higher damage output.
Just wanted to edge back to what I think is still the core issue.
I also want to add I love the suggestion of using FA on vehicles as a roll for concentrated fire (taking number of 'shots' as the +mod for hit and damage). We're going to playtest that.
Squinch
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Apr 25, 2013 11:55:28 GMT -5
This topic has covered a lot of ground and it's evident the fallout from the FA dilemma is resulting in potential changes all over the place. I think it's worth touching on an item discussed early but somewhat dismissed. That being the points for FA. I think the arguement that the SVL is overpowered is incorrect; as a 'point based' game that's a direct admission that its under-pointed. The mechanic of assigning weapon mounts with maximum numbers by type and size of vehicle, coupled with the restriction of vehicles firing two weapons (ignoring SH's) has put a premium on slots. Enter the FA weapon. If you fill both slots with FA weapons you can fire between 4-8 times, average of 6. Granted the weapon power is lower, the potential damage output is huge for the additional points. One FA plus another weapon gives 3-5 shots. In the example that started this thread, the GSV only pays 4 pts (IIRC) for a SVL. The Tank pays 6 pts for the plasma. Statistically, they have fairly close damage output, within 1 point (using vet crew, avg 1 cover modifier, -1 for full auto shots, avg damage, etc). Turns out the tank has a ~72% chance to hit and the GSV has about a 58% chance. If you took the average shots for the SVL and used that as the point multiplier, you end up with a 12 point weapon. That's 8 points the tank has to add another plasma 'shot', giving the tank a significantly higher damage output. Just wanted to edge back to what I think is still the core issue. I also want to add I love the suggestion of using FA on vehicles as a roll for concentrated fire (taking number of 'shots' as the +mod for hit and damage). We're going to playtest that. Squinch Unfortunately the entire points system needs redone. FA weapons are just the most glaring example of it. I have seen negative comments on Gruntz which say whatever side has the highest shoot skill wins which if you play strictly by points is I am sure by and large true. Shoot and guard should influence the total points for a model more than they do. It is nuts that it should only cost a 50 or 100 points vehicle 3 points to increase it's skill.
|
|
|
Post by squinch on Apr 25, 2013 13:42:53 GMT -5
Agree 100%. We have to enforce our own org chart or make scenarios and keep play balanced that way. I actually prefer it to straight points since it can never be completely balanced. Squinch
|
|
|
Post by squinch on May 1, 2013 11:29:20 GMT -5
Apparently, having three of the last four posts on a thread means one of the following: a) Nobody is interested anymore b) I'm full of myself Guess which one my wife thinks. Anyway, I wanted to inject a little probability into the discussion of possibility, which started this thread. Using Timsnoddy's original post and Comstars example (page 2), it turns out the Heavy tank has a 60% chance of hitting with both weapons (30/36x26/36=60%). Using avg damage (10 pts each hit) this kills the GSV. If (using avg damage) the GSV needs to hit with all six shots to kill the tank (avg of 2 FA SVL's, 3 shots ea. - 26/36x26/36x26/36x21/36x21/36x21/36), the probability for this to occur is 7.5%. 60% chance vs. 7.5% is significant. Again, this is the probability for one turn kills. The issue about points is still there, but this may not be the best example of imbalance if you feel the tank should be more survivable than the GSV when faced with the FA SVL. More importantly is shows the subtle modifiers of the FA weapons and 2nd shots have a large impact on hit probability. I promise I won't post anymore on this thread Squinch
|
|
|
Post by twogunsblazing on Aug 13, 2013 22:22:21 GMT -5
Apparently, having three of the last four posts on a thread means one of the following: a) Nobody is interested anymore b) I'm full of myself Guess which one my wife thinks. Anyway, I wanted to inject a little probability into the discussion of possibility, which started this thread. Using Timsnoddy's original post and Comstars example (page 2), it turns out the Heavy tank has a 60% chance of hitting with both weapons (30/36x26/36=60%). Using avg damage (10 pts each hit) this kills the GSV. If (using avg damage) the GSV needs to hit with all six shots to kill the tank (avg of 2 FA SVL's, 3 shots ea. - 26/36x26/36x26/36x21/36x21/36x21/36), the probability for this to occur is 7.5%. 60% chance vs. 7.5% is significant. Again, this is the probability for one turn kills. The issue about points is still there, but this may not be the best example of imbalance if you feel the tank should be more survivable than the GSV when faced with the FA SVL. More importantly is shows the subtle modifiers of the FA weapons and 2nd shots have a large impact on hit probability. I promise I won't post anymore on this thread Squinch Thanks for that break down, Squinch (I'm not that good at working out probabilities ) If the GSV with two Full Auto Light Vehicle Lasers then went ahead and purchased for 3 points, the vehicle mod "Peregrine Stabiliser", which negates the -1 to hit for using Full Auto weapons, how would the percentages then compare?
|
|
|
Post by comstar on Aug 14, 2013 4:47:16 GMT -5
Hi Tim I have managed to get my old laptop working (just) to see if this is what your saying. GSV Tank Now both are same cost both have two weapon systems for 51pts. Now I think your issue is that the vehicle light laser has 11 damage and 4 AP. Giving it 15 damage potential plus 2D6 per shot. The Heavy Plasma is 15 Damage AP4 plus 2D6 per shot. Both vehicles have the same Guard at 10 and same Skill of 5. Now two shots to hit at normal range for the Plasma will be 5 on one pair and 6 for the second shot. The average roll both should hit and average damage is 19 + 7 which is 26. This is 10 damage to the GSV for each hit. So 20 damage the vehicle is dead. Now for the shots from the Laser first average of D3 is 2 plus the 1 is 3 so two guns is 6 shots. The first three need 6 to hit then 7 for the second batch of three. So all six on average will hit and the average damage is 15 + 7 which is 22. This is 5 damage to the tank for each shot killing it on the last shot with 4 points left over. So if either pointed vehicle gets in range they will both potentially kill either side so I think the points are reasonably fair. It does mean that the GSV can also carry three points of infantry and be fairly effective as a support vehicle. I personally think the Vehicle Light Laser should be AP2 not AP4 to keep it in line with the Vehicle Light Projectile but that may be sorted in the next print run. I'm not sure those probabilities are right as it's easier to hit with the tank over the laser of the APC so a bit confused how that was worked out! With the average roll all will hit but on the nose with the FA weapon? Both are equally likely to kill each other!
|
|
|
Post by squinch on Aug 14, 2013 8:00:36 GMT -5
TGB- Assuming all original assumptions (been awhile so I'd have to revisit), the new probability for the GSV to kill the tank utilizing the Perigrine Stabilizer is about 22% (up from 7.5%). The tank is still three times more likely to one-turn kill the GSV.
Comstar - The tank would have a 30/36x26/36 or 60% chance of hitting both shots. The GSV would have a 30/36x30/36x30/36x26/36x26/36x26/36 or 22% chance of hitting with all six shots (assuming 3 shots for each FA).
My impression is, the limit of two weapon shots per turn (from a non-super heavy) creates premium on shot opportunities. If a weapon option like FA creates a very low cost increase (on average) to six opportunities, there is an immediate inflation on the other non-FA options. The above probabilities are for one-turn kills but the eye opener is the percentage of likely damage output from the GSV if two, three or four shots hit.
Many of my games have tanks trading fire with only one main-gun shot per turn. Typical to-hit numbers are 7 to 9 on 2D6, using my range mods and typical cover. The corresponding chances to-hit are: 7 - 21/36 - 58% 8 -
|
|
|
Post by squinch on Aug 14, 2013 8:02:57 GMT -5
darn-it, hit the Quick Reply by accident.
7 - 21/36 - 58% 8 - 15/36 - 42% 9 - 10/36 - 28%
Squinch
|
|
|
Post by inrepose on Aug 14, 2013 13:39:34 GMT -5
Very interested in this continued topic. I do often feel the Skill may need a boost in points for vehicles, perhaps even a relationship between the weapons, hull size etc as a modifier - so if you are building a bigger vehicle it would cost more to shift Skill up a peg. FA is not too far off with Comstar's thinking, however it would be good to open out the topic. I was wondering about discussing the potential for a points "plug in" or similar to work with Gruntomatic. Some method to allow people to experiment with the build with a full balanced view (rather than just focusing on one particular issue). This blueprint could then be chewed over and discussed by the group. I am not going to radically change the points for the errata 1.2 release but certainly will consider a project to overhaul them for a field test that could then be folded back into a later release. It would be nice to get a few heads thinking about it to get something closer to perfection
|
|
|
Post by inrepose on Aug 14, 2013 13:40:05 GMT -5
I just noticed we have a hairy bearded elf on board!
|
|
|
Post by squinch on Aug 14, 2013 18:51:00 GMT -5
My eye liner skills are weak, probably a 2 in the Gruntz builder...
Squinch
|
|
|
Post by twogunsblazing on Aug 14, 2013 18:51:03 GMT -5
Thanks for that probability breakdown squinch, much appreciated mate. inrepose - A hairy bearded elf or a dwarven JRR Tolkien fan wearing fake elf ears at a Lord of the Rings convention...or perhaps even a dwarven vulcan!!!
|
|