Chris Rice's suggestion for to-hit rolls

RobW · 06-24-2018, 08:21 AM

I tried a simple simulation comparing unarmoured 32pt fighters in round robin using the original TFT and this modified rule. The effect of the change, as expected, was to favour DX over ST, but the effects seem fairly small unless you are at extreme values.

https://imgur.com/C3WxP8K

To read the table, rows show how the named fighter's win percentage changes against the fighter in the columns, with the adoption of the proposed rule. For example, the chance a ST15 DX09 fighter defeats a ST09 DX15 drops 25% when we use the "opposed" system compared to regular TFT.

Values on either side of the diagonal should be the same but vary a little due to being simulated separately.

I like the fear that a ST15 DX09 battleaxe user provokes in the usual rules. So I can't see myself changing. But as I say, what surprised me was the relatively small effect of the proposed changes. Assuming I've done the sims right!

06-24-2018, 08:21 AM	#14
RobW Join Date: Mar 2018	Re: Chris Rice's suggestion for to-hit rolls I tried a simple simulation comparing unarmoured 32pt fighters in round robin using the original TFT and this modified rule. The effect of the change, as expected, was to favour DX over ST, but the effects seem fairly small unless you are at extreme values. https://imgur.com/C3WxP8K To read the table, rows show how the named fighter's win percentage changes against the fighter in the columns, with the adoption of the proposed rule. For example, the chance a ST15 DX09 fighter defeats a ST09 DX15 drops 25% when we use the "opposed" system compared to regular TFT. Values on either side of the diagonal should be the same but vary a little due to being simulated separately. I like the fear that a ST15 DX09 battleaxe user provokes in the usual rules. So I can't see myself changing. But as I say, what surprised me was the relatively small effect of the proposed changes. Assuming I've done the sims right!