| Author | Paw knockback |
|---|
Is there any relationship between paw knock-back and size of target stack ?
As I have seen in my hunts paw knock-back doesn't seem to work very well on huge stacks ? |
Yes, the probability is lower if the target stack is bigger.
† Triggering abilities may trigger during any attack. The probability of triggering depends on HP of damager and target.
If DHP ≥ THP, then
Probability = 25% + 3% * (DHP/THP);
else
Probability = 25% - 3% * (THP/DHP)
where:
» DHP is the total remaining HP of the damaging stack;
» THP is the total remaining HP of the target stack;
» Trigger probability lays within the interval of [5%;75%]; |
I think calculation for paw knockback might be little different
As the description for paw knock-back also says the following
This ability attempts to trigger as many times as many tiles were covered before the attack |
| That just means that you get more trigger attempts if you cover more tiles. Each trigger attempt is calculated according to the formula above. |
According to the description, the chance to trigger is 1-(1-P)^(C) where P is the probability from the previous formula and C is the cell covered.
But the formula given on Ordenmira is 1-(1-P)^(C+1).
Player banned by moderator Magier until 2014-07-05 18:17:03 // Posting with additional character. |
the chance to trigger is 1-(1-P)^(C)
If DHP ≥ THP, then
P = 25% + 3% * (DHP/THP);
else
P = 25% - 3% * (THP/DHP)
where:
» DHP is the total remaining HP of the damaging stack;
» THP is the total remaining HP of the target stack;
» Trigger probability lays within the interval of [5%;75%]; |
| C as many tiles were covered before the attack |
Basically the (1-P) part translates to the probability of the effect *not* triggering (ie - the trigger failing).
The probability of one trigger failing is raised to the power of C to calculate the probability of C triggers *all* failing.
Then it's 1-(the probability of C triggers all failing)= probability of at least one trigger succeeding.
The reason the formula couldn't include (C+1) can be inferred from this part of the rule - This ability attempts to trigger as many times as many tiles were covered before the attack; thus, if this creature attacks from place on any turn, the chance of this ability to trigger is 0.
If the formula included (C+1) there would always be a chance of the effect triggering, even if the unit had not moved.
Have Fun
Grunge |
| yes :) i have seen a stack of 2 bears knockback a stack of 12 ladons, only haveing moved 3 tiles twice in a row. So therefore these formulas posted here don't really mean a thing to me. It only matters if ai is not interested in winning fight against you. Unless you are talking pvp ofc. :) |
It can trigger on retaliation strike (where ursas would not have moved), and the description on Russian interface does not explicitly specify that the chance can be 0.
So, I'm not sure which is correct. Anyone seen it triggered on attacking strike without moving? |
† Triggering abilities may trigger during any attack.
» Blinding brilliance, Knockback, Mayhem, Shadow whip and Thunderbolt can also trigger on retaliation strikes.
^Both from the rule on triggered abilities.
This ability attempts to trigger as many times as many tiles were covered before the attack; thus, if this creature attacks from place on any turn, the chance of this ability to trigger is 0.
^From the Paw Knock description.
I've never noticed a Paw Knock trigger on a retaliation strike, but then I haven't played as a Dwarf very often.
From the rules as written, I'd think it couldn't happen.
Have Fun
Grunge |
I've never noticed a Paw Knock trigger on a retaliation strike, but then I haven't played as a Dwarf very often.
paw knock(ursary) is different from knockback(ogre). |
https://www.lordswm.com/war.php?warid=624168745<=-1
It can trigger in retal, at the very end of the battle it happens (bear knock dreadbanes). |
| it has triggered manny times on retal for me,but never on direct attack without moving |
| well it looks like there is some bug in paw knockback and its calculation also doesn't seem to be very reliable |
