Tater
Elder Member
You are comparing numbers in a vacuum...but you aren't actually comparing the FT's.
pward
Member
No I'm not in a vacuum, and I am comparing the two tables. As long as one or more columns that are compared exist on both tables, then it's a comparison of the tables.
Or did you miss the part of the IIFT designer having to stick to the existing results for the IFT columns?
I calculated PRECISE math probabilities of increases in booby traps from 50* mortars a number of times. I guess you believe all math and probability to be "ancedotal" and/or "hearsay". :laugh:
If you need to establish a precise baseline "X", then by your "logic", there's no proof that adding a 10-3 or a King Tiger to a side effects "scenario balance". :laugh:
Tater
Elder Member
Relative to the effect on the outcome of an actual scenario...yes, it is.
Right...now you are getting it.
One can hypothesize that it will effect balance but one certainly has no "proof" until the necessary exercise is actually conducted. What this means in the end, is that the ift'er claim that their preference is based on "fact" is unfounded and unsupported. The preference for the ift is just as much a matter of emotion (feel) as the preference for the IIFT would be.
pward
Member
If one single dr (SAN) can change the course of a game, and frequently does, why won't the multiple increased chances of a 2MC (over a 1MC) make an effect? You say we shouldn't ignore all these other game changer variables, but then relegate this game changing decision to the "does not apply" pile.
The necessary proof is in the math. The statistical methods we used are sound. There is an impact on a large number of scenarios where the IIFT is selected.
Your arguments are circular at best, relying on the false assertion that there is no alteration of the outcome since you can't play with both tables at once. Even if someone did 1000 runs of a scenario with IFT and 1000 runs with IIFT, you would say that the other factors weren't the same in each game, so the analysis is faulty...
Use of the IIFT with certain OB will give one side an undeserved advantage.
You believe that one side losing more troops in a scenario doesn't affect balance. Gotcha. I must say that this is a really bizarre belief, but some people do have irrational beliefs.
I guess you feel that if a football team lost its QB and several starting offensive linemen, it doesn't affect their odds of winning a game since we can't quantify their chances of winning beforehand. And if a baseball team loses 3 starters, it doesn't affect their chances of winning.
I'm glad you're not running any sports teams...
Sorry, that's your opinion. You have proven anything.
The Tate Postulate I.
Again, I'll use the Tate Postulate II. Keep denying everything and ignore basic math.
Tate Postulate III. You haven't proven anything, because you're a proven IIFTer, so you're skewing the results.
Tater
Elder Member
I am always amazed why you ift'ers are so d@mned desperate. :laugh:
pward
Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
At the bottom of this page is a list of logical fallacies. Tate uses quite a few of them, and still hasn't refuted the math.
At the bottom of this page is a list of logical fallacies. Tate uses quite a few of them, and still hasn't refuted the math.
Tater
Elder Member
No, the other words for the ift crowd seems to be....
...waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...I mean, seriously...you never, ever have to use the IIFT in any match.
So, why exactly do you (RobZagnut) care if anyone else uses it? Regardless of the claims of either side...why do YOU even care who uses the IIFT or not?
From my perspective, all these threads started by ift'ers and all the derogatory claims from ift'ers amount to little more than one on going, composite ad hominem attack against anyone using the IIFT.
I suppose the idea that you ift'ers could just leave us alone with our FT is out of the question.
Tater
Elder Member
Nothing to refute...your using math that doesn't actually compare the IIFT to the ift...at least not a comparison within the sphere of ASL play.
But, you go ahead and keep wasting your time all ya want with that if it gets you off. :nuts:
Much better than:
* Denial.
* Refusual to answer a simple question.
Let me try again. Do you use fire a LMG on the IIFT when the column shift gives you no advantage?
* Confusion over simple math.
* Accusations of lying.
* Baiting.
* Over-the-top childness.
Tater
Elder Member
Why do you care? What possible difference can it make to you? Why are you so desperate to have an answer? Will you start using the IIFT depending on my answer?
Tell you what, you explain why denegrating the IIFT and it's users is so important to you and I will answer your question.
Denial and refusal to answer a simple question.
I ask because one of your main arguments why the IIFT is better is because you have stated numerous times that you don't have to count FP factors and always fire MGs to not waste any FP. That it speeds up the game, because you don't have to look at columns to decide which column to fire on.
By answering the question, you invalidate one of your main arguments.
Of course, you know this, which is why you refuse to answer the question. And which is why you'll come up with some other way to dodge giving the answer. Something along the lines of...
"Why do you care? What possible difference can it make to you? Why are you so desperate to have an answer? Will you start using the IIFT depending on my answer?"
Tater
Elder Member
OK, here is my answer...depends...which is vastly different than the ift answer which is "never".
Now, will you answer my question...why do you care? Why do you need to tear down the IIFT and those who use it? Is it just a matter of feeling better about your choice of the ift? Or, is it something else?
MajorDomo
DM? Chuck H2O in his face
95% of the time I use the IFT. There are some groups, hence tourneys, where the IIFT is the norm and so I play it then.
I do believe that there is a significant difference between the two tables when odd factor units are involved (paratroopers, Italians, partisans, 548s and minors). The IIFT also generates more snipers, especially in high SAN scenarios.
Rich
I do believe that there is a significant difference between the two tables when odd factor units are involved (paratroopers, Italians, partisans, 548s and minors). The IIFT also generates more snipers, especially in high SAN scenarios.
Rich
The dodging continues. I rest my case.
Why do you care that I care? (This dodging is kinda fun!!!!)
jwb3
Just this guy, you know?
pward
Member
What do you mean nothing to refute?
And I don't have to compare it to the IFT for any reason. The IIFT is broken at it's core because it stuck with 2d6 for resolution.
The incremental table that isn't incremental in it's effectiveness from one column to another, isn't actually broken in Tatelandia?
When small DRM mean some columns are essentially improved to the point that they are just as good as the next column up, you don't consider that broken?
Take one measurement, more chances to have your enemy roll your SAN. The side firing frequently on the 7 chart will increase their chances measurably over a game played on the IFT (where those shots would be 6FP). The increased number of chances for your opponent to roll your SAN, increases your chance to activate the sniper and do some damage. That's just one measure of increased effectiveness.
Try looking at the increase in breaking your opponents units. That big increase in 2MC and CTC chances on the 7 chart, means that you are more likely to break your opponent, or to cause a PTC against an unconcealed target. There's another measure against the IIFT. More broken enemy squads is good, more Pinned enemy squads is good.
Both of those might not effect the current game you're playing, dice being what they are. (Cursed wretched things that never roll well when you need them to...) But there will come a time when you are placing yourself at a disadvantage, or gaining an advantage solely based on the selection of fire table.