Hmm... Well, I've got a bunch of friends coming over to play minis today, maybe I'll test the squad to see just how well it does.

My only problem with using Dr. Evazan is the chance that you keep succeeding on the save! That would be quite frustrating.

I do agree though....100 points is so much of a crap shoot, and you're either going to roll well, or you're not. You can't base winning squads on whether something will have good enough dice rolls to win. 100 point games are won by strategy, pure and simple.

Perfect case for this, in a game I was watching on Vassal the other day. One guy had Han RH, Rauntaun, and Shaak Ti left, the other guy had Luke HPU, Chewie, and Yoda of Dagobah. All were pretty close to full HP, except maybe Shaak who I think had been pushed. It was a pretty close game, but the Han/Shaak player chose to move Han and set-up for a shot next round, and completely missed a very narrow-angle shot on an unactivated Luke (they were playing on Muunilist, so it was an easy LOS to miss). Then in a later round, the Han player mis-counted from the Rauntaun to Chewie, thinking they were further than 6 squares apart. These two mistakes alone really turned the game in the other guy's favor. And the Han player one initiative a couple times in there, AND had a Crit with Shaak.

So even good rolling in 100 point games won't win it for you. 100 points is 95% about the strategy, IMO.

It is always about math. Any time a Gotal Fringer fires at Darth Maul, he has a 5% of killing him outright and 95% of just getting slaughtered instead; so does that mean you would go to Vegas and bet it all on 5% odds? That's a chump's bet.

However, strategy exists to change the math in your favor. There are more than 3-4 critical rolls over time. Yes, we can state that in any given game, the rolls may or may not play out to be statistically average, but why play a squad that loses, say, 75% of the times it enters into a commonly-occuring situation over the course of its lifetime (a tourney or 3, for instance)?

Using this squad as an example: use init & activate control to better ensure assaults on individual JWMS to make the numbers change in your favor. If multiple JWMs manage to assault Maul, the numbers change against him. Once Maul enters melee with the first JWM, it is more likely that he can get ganged and in this situation Maul's fighting the odds. So each of you are trying to use movement strategies so as to enter combat in that situation which is numerically favorable for your squad. So to suggest that "math doesn't matter in 100pts" is silly (;)) Math always matters, whether its on an indiviual roll or if its over time.

Of course, if you run the Maul/MTB/horde of Uggies combo, you could try to wait till the end of a round to base the JWMs, then surround Maul with Uggies so the other JWM's can't get to him, lol.

No, you are missing my point. In 100 pt games of today, assuming relatively equal players and decent squads, it only takes 2-3 rolls typically to change the outcome of a game.

Obviously strategy is paramount, etc. etc. That isnt what was being discussed. What I see, are a bunch of people using math only, and saying ridiculous statements like, "This cant beat that," based only on attack vs defense math.

Lets look at it this way. If Maul is facing 3 JWMs. Let's assume he outactivates them. Maul moves last into base. Assume all three are clumped withing LS Assault range (smart opponent) and in gambit. Maul should need to kill 2 of them to win (should be able to get 26pts via gambit and killing fodder easily enough). Even if they get Maul dead, its a damage race. And before you tell me, you are going to do X with the Queen, or R2 or whatever, please remember I have played this game many times and I have almost always can ignore one JWM and kill the rest.

So, Maul with wicket needs 6s to hit. He needs 3 hits to kill, 4 to ensure block wont matter. If he kills the first one right then and there its essentially over. Math and odds wont help you recover. Sure, wont happen every time, but its not unusual in any way to roll 4 times greater than 5. Not to mention crits, etc. The same thing occurs in reverse when Maul does not kill a JWM in two turns, which also will be relatively frequent.

So talk about math and odds all you want, it means nothing in a game where 3/4 rolls can determine the outcome. So what if you have a 50% chance to block? The thing that people always seem to miss, is how math works in the real world. You do not make 50% of your blocks in any given game. Sometimes you make 100%, some times 0, sometimes 73%. There are so few rolls in most games that your sample size is incredibly low. In 150 and 200 this gets evened out a bit by the sheer number of units. But I can tell you how many times Ive ended a game early on with a clever move/attack and some decent rolls (not from Boba BH). In 100 though, when you only have 1-3 damage dealers and support - those first 2/3 rolls (or 1 init) completely determine most games. You cannot use averages that only are real over 100s of rolls to say this is what will "always happen" or even frequently happen.

Init control has the best odds in 100 typically, its just too expensive most of the time for 100. Some irony there I guess.

Finally I will add this. I would take my chances with Maul against a great number of squads and deal with the perhaps 40/60 matchup against 3 JWMs being run by someone close enough to my skill level to matter. Its the nature of the game. Analyze your meta and build accordingly. If you see Bane all the time, try the Maul trick. If you see 5 squads of JWMs, well, you better believe Im going to solve that problem as well. The truth of the matter is, that in 100, the game is very random. If you build a decent squad, you have a good chance of being successful. PLay the math as best you can, understanding that its just as likely to not matter as make a significant difference.

I get so tired of watching people blame their losses on dice. Oh, I failed 5/6 evade saves with Boba BH and got him killed on round 3, thats why I loss.... No you didnt. You lost because you played poorly and didnt set yourself up in a good position to deal with some early hits - even if lucky shots. Same thing with block. Some games you will make all your saves, and others, you might as well not have fps. Its never 50% every single game. Its only 50% over the course of many games.

I play it different. I rarely set myself up for a risky init. Usually only when I feel I have to. I rarely take chances on Evades to save me. I rarely allow my opponent to focus on one piece consistently. I usually set up for what I want to do if I lose init, or if I should miss my saves, etc. I have had games where I lost every init, yet the game was never close. I once rolled 5 1s for inits (did not have San or Nute). Same game I also rolled another 9 missed attacks needing below 5. I lost every init other than the very last, and lost one 14 pt piece the entire game. That's certainly an outlier and anecdotal, but you get the point. Making broad based claims based on math that only ever works across many instances, and trying to apply it to a single scenario, especially in 100, doesnt really mean anything. So what if you have a 60/40 chance of winning a given matchup based on squad math. If this game is the 40% you win, and your opponent loses and blames his dice.

Ah, in a given game you are correct, however the trend over time (playing 10 back to back 100 point games) then the numbers stack up and you begin to see the true odds. Yes, flukes can and do happen with small sample sizes, but over time they average out.

It is because one can not predict that next specific die roll, that one must rely on trends and odds to figure out their chances of winning. This is absolutely no different then other games of chance like Craps or Roulette. Each roll/spin is random, but over time things average out. It is the reason of payouts, the reason of winning percentages, the reason for everything.

I will stick to mathematics as the driving force of my squads, I have no idea how people can build good squads otherwise.

Dont misunderstand my zeal here as a lack of mathematical insight. I most certainly understand the concept of math in squad construction. I design most of my squads to eliminate dice as much as possible in many instances.

I am trying to point out that people cannot make statements like, "3 JWMs beats this every time," especially not in 100pts. And what I am trying to say about the 100pt game is that with such high damage potential today, most if not all 100pt games come down to 2-3 rolls. It doesnt matter how many times you win out of 100 games played in this case. All that matters is how you did on those 2-3 rolls of the game.

Case in point once again. Maul vs Bane. Do I roll 4 numbers 3 or higher? Can I do it twice? If yes, I win, if no I lose. Odds are in Maul's Favor. Doesnt mean he will really win though.

Next, Maul vs JWMs. Can I roll 4 numbers 6 or higher? Can the JWM make the key block that would allow him to get off a critical two extra attacks? Its all about 2-3 rolls. Call it math if you want to, but I dont think its helpful.

I will give another example. Recon. People always make the mistaken claim that Recon makes them twice as likely to win init. It is not even close to that in actuality. Its maybe, 5-10% better odds. Yet they will run a 24pt Talon just for recon and the chance to kill two ugos and think they are getting value in 100. Recon is completely dependant on what your opponent rolls on the key init. It doesnt matter that the odds are they roll 50% chance 11 or higher, and 50% lower. If they roll 16 plus, odds are recon wont help you win that game.

Now, building squads with the math in mind is critical. And playing your game understanding the math is also a good idea. The split is with relying on the math to always work as expected and blame losing on the math failing you. You can use tactics to overcome unlucky math with much more consistency than most people realize. This game is not a purely mathematical game. That's only part of it. And the more pieces you put on the table (higher pt games) the more likely the math will be predictable enough to make use of it. In 100, imo, it is rarely all that useful practically speaking.

Not one person other than Flea has suggested that squad X can't win against squad Y. Just because we are advocating statistics does not mean that anyone has suggested that numbers trump strategy everytime (again, except maybe Flea). I have only suggested that the odds shouldn't be ignored.

But in your "zeal" you are making equally absurd claims such as that numbers don't matter in the 100pt "crapshoot." Just as Nihil made the assertion that others were claiming that "block always works;" no one made that claim. You may not have intended to make such heavy-handed claims, but you did. You are trying to polarize this debate into 2 camps: "Only Numbers Matter" and "The Realworld Doesn't Work Like That." I won't let you force me onto a "team" in order to continue this discussion.

So I will more succinctly state may position: there are some compelling odds that work against this particular squad in some instances and they should not be ignored. Some of those situations (JWM x3) should be evaluated and either the squad gets "tweaked" or new strategies explored so that you may be better equipped for success and get the numbers in your favor over the course of this squad's lifetime (which I hope is long and glorious, since I love Maul).

To suggest that there is ever a case where statistics don't come into play when dealing with dice is to refute basic mathematical truths of the universe. Seriously. Everyone needs to remember that zeal does not replace logic in an argument, no matter how passionate or verbose you are.

Gotcha, I too try very hard to make it so that I either look at very high numbers to succeed and not worry about lower numbers (the Alderaan swarm only cares about 19-20s) or the reverse (Vader JH can hit just about anything on a 4). I also have been developing squads that forces opponents to roll and me not to (missile swarms and the like), unfortunately... that tends to fail when you go up against Dr I never fail a save Divot.


Well, why not run the statistics... assuming Maul takes no damage and bases Bane at the end of a round with Wicket within 6:
Chance of winning first init against a non-MTB: 97.5%
Chance of Maul then landing 4 attacks needing a 3: (17/20)^4 = 52.2%
...Then assuming then Bane just sits there and does not LS Assault and back off to not get the quad or back off and throw Wicket...
Chance of winning second init: 97.5%
Chance of Maul then landing another 4 attacks needing a 3 is a further 52.2% (actually 48.8% of the time the FPRR is not possible since you need all 4 to hit should you miss any of the first rolls, but having access to one does throw these numbers off and frankly I am not going to compute this fully so lets just estimate the number of success on the second run to somewhere near 55-60%)

I would not say they are in Maul's favor here. Each quad is a coinflip that he will miss *at least* one attack, plus you assume the Bane player does not LS Assault and back up (or kill Wicket and really hurt your number chances, or ignore everything and kill activations in hope that the MTB has to kill Maul).

Again, if Maul has THAT many Ugos following him around.....Just surround Bane with Ugos so that he cannot escape.

Well, at this time it is clear I am either not explaining my position on this clearly, or we arent going to agree. I guess what I would suggest is to look at how random numbers actually work. Its not how people think. When you deal with low sample sizes, percentages are in many ways not very useful. That's from Stats theory, so lets leave it be for now. I am certainly not trying to argue against math, just to limit the claims being made on its usefulness, and it appears the nuance is being lost.

@Menoth - I am actually using the "mathematical truths of the universe" to back up my claims. I understand statistics pretty well, and I certainly understand how they fail. I am certainly not claiming that stats dont matter, just that there is a degree of "error" that has to be taken into account when using percents to make predictions of outcomes. I did get through Calc 2 and some advanced statistics classes in college, as I was a biology major and well, they use stats pretty much exclusively.

So to the Maul/Bane example. Lets assume Bane does as you say, take the AoO and either LS Assault, or back off to throw Wicket. Next round Maul moves out of Bane's range, and waits to rebase and repeat. Assuming he has enough fodder for the MTB, that's actually helpful to Maul. The AoO becomes huge actually if Maul hits. Option two, is assuming Bane took out Wicket, allow Bane to go first and either throw and further back away, or LS Assault and base. Assuming Maul can live, this works in his favor as well.

You also you forgot the math of how often Maul will Crit. With 4 rolls, he has a decent chance of critting which changes those calculations quite a bit actually. Using the math, assuming 8 rolls, Maul should crit roughly 1 time.

My main point was the issue of Flea's statement and the further responses. 100 pt games have too few rolls for statistics to be the overriding factor in game play. Its why I dont bother with a lot of 100pt squads anymore. I think the damage potencial has moved beyond it. I think Maul can work in 100 as well as many other squads in this case, others do not. Lets leave it at that.

Sweep, MTB has to sacrifice what?

@billiv, I did forget his deady attack crit. For each run of 4 attacks he has a 19% chance of getting a crit. After 8 attacks, his chance at getting at least 1 crit goes up to 33%. Finally, statistics still have *some* influence on the 100 point game, otherwise people would play complete crap squads and expect to win.

I agree.

Well, quite obviously you wouldn't do it if you don't have 9-10 ugos left. But once Bane is based against Maul, if you can keep him there, the game is over. Besides, if Bane would rather do Sweep and only get one attack off on Maul, instead of two, more power to him.

That let's Maul stay alive longer.

Heck, if you surround Bane like that, you could even throw the MTB in there adjacent to him. Then if he sweeps he has to attack your MTB as well.

I think Mara with a MTB and backed up by wicket is a very powerful build. It is best to bring in the MTB with lobot, to avoid giving san hill more points than he needs.

Most jedi have a hard time dealing with the brutal strategy, but Mara, like Lord Vader, hates force defense, and mara herself dislikes facing lightsaber reflect or deflect. Loda is a problem for this type of squad, but Mara should be able to kill Loda quickly, especially if Leia from A&E dies before mara engages loda.