using your thinking, if neither can finish off the other I think the King, Emperor, Ceaser, or the defaocto leader should have them both killed, that is unless one of them  decides to fall on thier "sword," so to speak.   

I live in fort worth and can't find anyone relatively close by. one problem with DFW, it is  a large metroplex.



It appears i spoke to Soon,

Great news guys, it seems we have found our solution to the tie break problem.





Hedge

Nature- Dance of Leaves

I don't know call me crazy, but why couldn't the code just be the card's Name.
Something like:
[card]dissolve[/card]
Simialr code used Here
http://www.temple-of-lore.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=39292


GRanted the current is just a mouse over and the other opens in another window, but the other is easier all the way around.


Hedge

I understand it just fine, but if the opportunity costs are the same, then why do I care if I might do too much damage to a target?  I understand the concept of distributing attacks in an efficient manner.

It isn't about any of that.



Hedge

Quote from: Hedge on January 22, 2014, 11:22:15 PM

I will use the 4d6 +2 P(A) and 6d6(B) set against a 2 Armor 8 HP creature in explaining the hypothisis.

The first strike from  A will always  be at 100% efficiency. However, B's can be as low as 67%.  It is rare though to roll all Crits. On the second strike, if it is not killed by the first, B has a greater chance of producing significant damage that is wasted because of the low amount of HP. If we continue this out for a whole game would the difference be even quantifiable.

Hedge

If the 4D +2 Piercing nets 2 piercing damage against a 2 armor 8 HP creature then it stands to reason that +2 dice added to that same roll will score damage whether there are critical or normal results.  Looks pretty efficient to me.

Yes it will add more, sometimes more than is required. Making it a less efficient use of the damage. The Current Dice/Armor  model, to be accurate, relies on all damage being 100% Efficient. Meaning no damage is ever inflicted beyond the creature's HP. This does not happen in the real world.


Hedge

I don't think that +x Piercing can be better than +X dice, But I believe that the difference between the two might not be as profound as the model describes. So much so that the difference is insignificant.
 
The Statistic model is correct, but for one small snafu. It does not take into account the HP of the targets or rather the lack there of. The model assumes that all damage is used at 100% efficiency. Once we think about it we know that this is not true. Piercing increases the efficiency of the dice on armored tagerts by increasing the amount of damage the target will suffer on the bottom end, but does not increase the chances of inflicting in excess of the creatures HP.


I will use the 4d6 +2 P(A) and 6d6(B) set against a 2 Armor 8 HP creature in explaining the hypothisis.

The first strike from  A will always  be at 100% efficiency. However, B's can be as low as 67%.  It is rare though to roll all Crits. On the second strike, if it is not killed by the first, B has a greater chance of producing significant damage that is wasted because of the low amount of HP. If we continue this out for a whole game would the difference be even quantifiable.


My Gut tells me that this should affect the model in some way and the problem might even need to be approached from a different angle. Something along the lines of  The Probability for 1, 2, 3.... Strikes to kill a set list of creatures with varying stats. As I said I don't think it is possible for  piercing to be better, but then again there might be some "magical" combination of dice, piercing, armor, and HP that does.

There almost always is Overkill Damage, but could some amount Piercing mitigate it to make a lower amount of attack dice just as good as adding the same amount of attack dice?


Hedge