actualy a fully buffed 40 man skink unit has between 4 and 28 hits with the average being 16(15%) with a MW out put of 2-14 avrage 8(15%) i think you are forgetting a buff in there somewhere. probably reroll 1s. lets add that to the stat
Right, forgot the re-rolls. Keep forgetting hand of glory is a thing. More favourable for the skinks but still not a terribly large difference. An average of 16 hits + 8 mortal wounds v.s. 20 hits at -1 rend isn't exactly massive, or at least not as massive a difference as I'd expect between a raw warscroll & a fully supported horde unit.
I mean, yeah skinks are better. But given that it's a full horde unit + multiple support heroes in a shoot-y faction v.s. a raw warscroll with 0 support in a melee focussed faction some difference is to be expected. And 20 hits at -1 rend is powerfull enough that it'l do some significant damage against most targets. Maybe not enough to kill it, but more than enough that you don't want to allow them to just shoot at you for a while.
you can't take 0.5 of a unit so that is a bit disingenuous but lets go with that any way.
It's either take half a unit, or acknowledge that one side is at a nearly 100 points disadvantage. I'd rather take half a unit for the sake of the comparison.
because saves are a thing
i get those numbers because i don't use average hits as that is a terrible method of determining damage output i use damage probability spreads. i used to use charts for this but Lustria online has stopped letting me do that so im going to have to wright it all out hear we go. all damage is calculated against a 4+ save as is standard with light mathhammer
If you don't state explicitly you're comparing against a save of X I'm going to assume you are comparing raw hits. Like
@ILKAIN has pointed out, your stats made no sense to me because I was under the impression you were looking at raw hits, not at wounds against a 4+ save. Hence I get confused, and hence I'd first like to figure that one out before moving on to whatever other examples as there's likely to be the same issue there as well. The numbers still seem odd, but I'm guessing that's due to rounding since the Ungors against a 4+ save get to 1.75 wounds on average which would round to the 2 damage you claimed earlier. Not a fan of those roundings, it makes things look a bit skewed at times, especially when you're combining multiple rolls. Especially if you then also start rounding them at every step, it can skew things quite severly at times. You can see it in your tables below as well.
yes he did.... after he continued the argument bringing up both skinks that hadn't been included and then justifying the warscrolls weakness as being a token support ranged unit and THEN bringing up the confusion. if he was going to continue the argument anyway even with the misunderstanding then why just address the one part? i did the same thing for 5 units what makes ungors special? why if the archers confuse him so much did he not continue to reinforce his point but using the rest of it?
Because assuming the same issue that is confusing me for the archers is present in the other comparisons there's little point in continuing discussing them all at once I'd rather finish discussing one, and hopefully clear up the confusion in the process. Than try to make 5 seperate comparisons all of which seem to have made an assumption somewhere that's confusing me.
Anyway, I'l try to be clearer about what confuses me in the future.
in the case of fully buffed 40 skinks we have a damage probability spread of 11(1%) 12(2%) 13(3%) 14(4%) 15(6%) 16(7%) 17(9%) 18(9%) 19(10%) 20(9%) 21(9%) 22(8%) 23(6%) 24(5%) 25(4%) 26(3%) 27(2%) 28(1%)anything below a 1% chance is ignored as statistically improbable.
Like I pointed out above, rounding is causing a skew. A fully buffed skink has a ~0.1944 chance of hitting, and a ~0.09 chance of causing a mortal wound. With 80 skinks that would average to ~15.55 hits and ~7.778 mortal wounds. Against a save of 4+ that would average ~7.778 regular wounds and 7.778 mortal wounds for an average of 15.55 total damage. Yet your average is somehow skewed to go around 19.
This is assuming the following buffs: skink priest command ability (+1 to hit), starpriest venom, starpriest hand of glory. Unless you have another buff somewhere that average of 19 is too high.
28.5 blissbarbs 5(1%) 6(3%) 7 (5%) 8(7%) 9(10) 10(11%) 11(12%) 12(12%) 13(11%) 14(9%) 15(7%) 16(5%) 17(3%) 18(1%)
More rounding skewing. blissbarbs have a ~0.33 chance of scoring a hit, with 28.5 of em that's 57 attacks, which results in 19 hits at -1 rend, which against a 4+ save would average around 12.667, not in between 11 and 12 like you'd think looking at this table.
Anyway, without rounding skewing fully buffed skinks average 15.55 damage and Blissbarbs average 12.667 damage against a 4+ save. That is not exactly a tremendous difference.
Not going into the ungor comparison for now as the same skewing is present there too (ungors with horde bonus have a 0.33 chance of hitting, with 43 ungors that results in 14,13 hits, against a 4+ save that's 7,167 wounds. Yet your table puts their average somewhere in between 9 & 10) and there's little point in comparing multiple skewed lists at once. Would rather figure out where the skewing is coming from (or if I'm making a mistake, that's also always a possibility)
so yeah the reason i can compare them like that is because i actually do the proper leg work. if you want deep mathhammer i can get you the full spread sheets as well. fun fact it does not treat blissbarbs much better
Sure send em, I'm curious what's skewing the averages so much.
Well, that's good for anyone who doesn't play them, don't want them dominating the meta as ridiculously as they did before
Which is probably why they look so meh.
I think this may be the best description of them. Most of their warscrolls aren't exactly weak. They're just not as ridiculously powerfull as the previous round of Slaanesh. There's no obviously good warscroll or combo immeadiatly visible. So it just looks sorta meh.
