| Author |
Message |
Mestari |
|
Post subject: Dauntless
 Posted: Dec 06, 2003 - 11:48 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 407
Status: Offline
|
|
Thought I'd transfer bits from a discussion about Dauntless from TBB to here.
ianwilliams presented the problem that:
Dauntless does not take the ST of the blocker into account, only the ST of the player that is blocked.
ianwilliams suggested a solution of:
Roll D6 and add your strength (before assists are counted). If this is greater than the strength of the opponent(s) you are blocking then your strength counts as same
Critics denounced this option because it lowers the probability of ST3 player succeeding at dauntlessing a ST5 guy. Ian considers the change too small.
I suggested the following to address the problem:
Roll 2d6 and subtract the ST difference from the result. If the result is 4+, your strength counts as the same as your opponents.
Here's the data:
Current Success Rates (Opponent Strength)
Code:
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.97 0.92 0.83 0.72 0.58 0.42 0.28 0.17 0.08
Success Rate of ianwilliams suggestion (Strength Difference)
Code:
1 2 3 4 5
0.83 0.67 0.50 0.33 0.17
Success Rates of my suggestion (Strength difference)
Code:
1 2 3 4 5
0.83 0.72 0.58 0.42 0.28
As is clearly visible, my suggestion
a) Keeps the probabilities of success the same for ST3 Dauntless players.
b) Addresses the concern that the attackers ST is not taken into account
A small (although admittedly not entirely necessary) change that some people might want to use as house rules. |
_________________
Teemu Tokola aka Mestari
Member #52
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
dwarfcoach |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 06, 2003 - 01:14 PM
|
|
The Best Dressed Man in Blood Bowl
Joined: Apr 13, 2003
Posts: 764
Status: Offline
|
|
| Erm, why should the attackers strength be taken into consideration? |
_________________
Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
224th at The World Cup II
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mestari |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 06, 2003 - 02:04 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 407
Status: Offline
|
|
Well, it does make RL sense to take that into consideration, and there was the point about the Dauntless+Horns Gutter Runners.
I do not consider this an absolutely necessary change, but definitely a worthwhile house rule for anyone bothered about the fact that own ST is not taken into account or annoyed by the ease by which Dauntless+Horns turns Gutter runners into certain 2die block safeguard blitzers that have an undue amount of range at their disposal. |
_________________
Teemu Tokola aka Mestari
Member #52
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 06, 2003 - 02:29 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| Your system keeps the probability the same for a ST3 player, but it will be different for any other player. I prefer ianwilliams' solution for its simplicity. I think it would make a good change to the official rules. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 06, 2003 - 05:18 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
 Glad you agree with me. I like Mestari's solution - it's a better model than mine but I felt it was too complex. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mestari |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 07, 2003 - 12:57 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 407
Status: Offline
|
|
| Personally, I don't see a huge difference in complexity of those two suggestions, and I have to agree with what some people said over at TBB that even a slight decrease in the probabilities of ST3Dauntless vs ST5 is something that is not wanted. |
_________________
Teemu Tokola aka Mestari
Member #52
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 07, 2003 - 01:27 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Personally, i believe that this small decrease in efficiency in one case is a very small price to pay to make this skill more balanced overall (i.e. easier to use with small differences in strength). Also, remember that this change makes it *easier* to use against ST4.
Your version is something i don't like at all. Way too complicated. I'd rather use the current version than yours. Sorry. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mestari |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 07, 2003 - 12:45 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 407
Status: Offline
|
|
I can't but wonder the basis by which a rule is labelled complicated.
ians:
-roll 1 die
-add a number
-compare to another number
mine:
roll 2 die
-subtract a number
-compare to another number
way too complicated? 
BTW. ianwilliams suggestion preserves the probability of ST3vsST4 dauntless, it does not make it more likely to succeed. |
_________________
Teemu Tokola aka Mestari
Member #52
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 07, 2003 - 03:18 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| Here's why it's more complicated. First, your version means one more number to remember or look up in the book (was it 4+, 3+, 2+?). Second, it's 2D6 instead of 1D6 (the fewer the dice, the better the rule). Third, it means more calculation (1D6 + 1D6 + STb - STa >= 4 instead of 1D6 + STa > STb). Finally, Ian's version is easier to remember as a concept and more intuitive (your ST plus 1D6 must beat the opponent's ST, makes sense). |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Apedog |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 07, 2003 - 03:29 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 146
Status: Offline
|
|
| I'm too tired to run the numbers but what happens to the odds if you use Ian's version but make it ST + 1D6 must equal or beat the opponents ST? |
_________________
Munkey
Boom! He's on his back!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 07, 2003 - 03:38 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| Then all you do is take the table provided above but move everything one step to the right. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 08, 2003 - 02:35 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Apedog wrote: I'm too tired to run the numbers but what happens to the odds if you use Ian's version but make it ST + 1D6 must equal or beat the opponents ST?
If you include a 1 & 6 rule then -
Code:
1 0.83
2 0.83
3 0.67
4 0.50
5 0.17
So
S2 vs (%Points)
S3 -9%
S4 0%
S5 -5%
S6 -8%
S3 vs (% points)
S4 +0%
S5 +11%
S6 +9%
S4 vs (% points)
S5 +11%
S6 +9%
That's an interesting suggestion - making Dauntless better for everyone apart from the S2 players. However it does make the Dauntless/Multiple Block Combo better - which was something I was trying to weaken too. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mestari |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 08, 2003 - 07:18 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 407
Status: Offline
|
|
Hard to say about that. Some people might argue that a 2+ chance to successful Dauntless against player that has 1-2 points of ST more might be too good. And some might not like the fact that the probability is the same for difference of 1 and a difference of 2.
@ Zombie:
About your point 3: do you need to count ST difference? No, you don't need to, you know that straight away.
About the two other points, remembering the number '4' and rolling one more dice... well, I just can't see the "way too complicated" hidden anywhere in there.
Naturally, if it was only about the ease of using the rule, ians first suggestion would prevail. But the sad fact is that it has unwanted side-effects of Dauntless becoming worse than it used to be for ST3 players.
My suggestion keeps Dauntless exactly where it is in terms of the player group that uses it the most - ST3 players, and makes it slightly worse for ST<3 players, and slightly better for the odd ST4+ player that has it. |
_________________
Teemu Tokola aka Mestari
Member #52
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 08, 2003 - 11:27 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Or use Ian's modified system where you just need to equal. Then it won't become worse.
Seriously, i love his idea, but i hate yours. Nothing personal, that's just the way it is! |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 08, 2003 - 11:55 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
| @ Maestari - No, your systems not that difficult, but remmember that people moaned about having to roll an (max) extra 16 dice at the end of the game with the EXP system |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
