Calculating land combat results

[pak19652002]

I have a question for all: Coincidentally, a situation has arisen in two of my games that I believe is relevant to MWIF.

This concerns calculating land combat results using 2D10 and fractional odds. In Game A (Reynen), we would calculate DRM as follows:

31.5:8 = +8. We would immediately round the attacker's land combat factors up to the next whole number (per 11.16.5 first paragaph) and then divide by the defender's factors. 32/8 = 4 * 2 = +8 DRM.

In Game B (Nicklas), it would be 31.5:8 = 3.9375 * 2 = 7.875. This would then be rounded in favor of the defender (per option 41) to +7.8 DRM. Then, a fractional odds roll would be carried out. In other words, the division is carried out before any rounding.

I have been told by John Reynen that Game A is using RAW but Game B is using the formula used in CWIF.

It would be helpful if someone could verify John's contentions that a) Game A is in accordance with RAW and b) Game B is in accordance with CWIF.

If he is correct on both points, then I am curious how Steve intends to implement the calculation for MWIF.

Thanks,

Peter

[lomyrin]

If you use the 2D10 tables without fractional odds then certainly the method in 'A' would be correct.

If you are using fractional odds there is a die roll that establishes in direct proportion to the fraction what final die roll modifier you will get. If one were to round prior to that die roll, as in 'A', it would distort the odds of benefitting from the fraction.

I look at the RAW para 2.6 as the norm when not using fractional odds, but that the latest 2D10 tables do modify the calculations when using fractional odds and the exact fraction should be carried to be determined by the die roll as succesful or not.

Lars

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

If you use the 2D10 tables without fractional odds then certainly the method in 'A' would be correct.

If you are using fractional odds there is a die roll that establishes in direct proportion to the fraction what final die roll modifier you will get. If one were to round prior to that die roll, as in 'A', it would distort the odds of benefitting from the fraction.

I look at the RAW para 2.6 as the norm when not using fractional odds, but that the latest 2D10 tables do modify the calculations when using fractional odds and the exact fraction should be carried to be determined by the die roll as succesful or not.

Lars

Yes.

[pak19652002]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

If you use the 2D10 tables without fractional odds then certainly the method in 'A' would be correct.

If you are using fractional odds there is a die roll that establishes in direct proportion to the fraction what final die roll modifier you will get. If one were to round prior to that die roll, as in 'A', it would distort the odds of benefitting from the fraction.

I look at the RAW para 2.6 as the norm when not using fractional odds, but that the latest 2D10 tables do modify the calculations when using fractional odds and the exact fraction should be carried to be determined by the die roll as succesful or not.

Lars

Yes.

Let me be sure I understand this. Game A methodology would be RAW if using 2D10 without fractional.

Game B methodology would be RAW if using 2D10 with fractional.

Yes?

Peter

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: pak19652002

Let me be sure I understand this. Game A methodology would be RAW if using 2D10 without fractional.

Game B methodology would be RAW if using 2D10 with fractional.

Yes?

Peter

Yes, with the following caveats:

(1) I haven't actually done the calculations with the numbers you provided, so I cannot vouch for their accuracy.

(2) When fractional odds are used, the program does no rounding, but carries the decimals out as far as floating point precision allows.