Nice! With the fix to the diceroller, my homemade Anydice program ( http://anydice.com/program/4e6d ) now matches the averaged results of the Monte Carlo simulation. Which means the code is (most likely) right !

I made it to predict the chance to BE hit by an enemy [Nemesis] at a given range with different defense values, whether or not I activate the Sense Power defensive "commit", or when I use Dodge/Defensive Stance/Sidestep. It also calculates the odds of the enemy having advantages (and thus doing bad stuff to YOU), versus you canceling those with Threats.

All in all, a very good program to get an idea of how likely the Force and Destiny Reflect power is to activate (since it requires 3 Threats or 1 Despair from an opponent's dicepool)

NPROF: 3    \Nemesis Proficiency Dice\
NABIL: 2    \Nemesis Ability Dice\
MYDEF: 5    \Character's Defense Score\
MYSENSE: 1  \Two Difficulty Dice Upgrades from Sense Force Power\
MYTALENT: 1 \Any Talent that Upgrades Difficulty at least once\
MISDIRECT: 0 \Misdirect's committed dice automatic threats on enemies\

output (NABILd{0, 1, 1, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0}+NPROFd{0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1})-(MYDEFd{0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0}+MYSENSEd{0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1}+MYTALENTd{0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1}) named "Success: Nemesis versus high defense character"
output (NABILd{0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2}+NPROFd{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 0})-(MYDEFd{0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1}+MYSENSEd{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 0}+MYTALENTd{0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1}+MISDIRECT) named "Advantage: Nemesis versus high defense character"
output NPROFd{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1} named "Nemesis Proficiency Triumphs"
output MYSENSEd{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1} named "The Despairs I cause to my Nemesis"



\output NPROFd{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1} named "Nemesis Proficiency Triumphs"\
\output -2d{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1} named "Nemesis Challenge Despair"\
\output -8d{0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0} named "Eight Setback dice"\

\For reference:
output Xd{0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1} named "Boost Successes"
output Xd{0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0} named "Setback Failures"
output Xd{0, 1, 1, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0} named "Ability Successes"
output Xd{0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1} named "Difficulty Failures"
output Xd{0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1} named "Proficiency Successes"
output Xd{0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1} named "Challenge Failures"

output Xd{0, 0, 2, 1, 1, 0} named "Boost Advantages"
output Xd{0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1} named "Setback Threats"
output Xd{0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2} named "Ability Advantages"
output Xd{0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1} named "Difficulty Threats"
output Xd{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 0} named "Proficiency Advantages"
output Xd{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 0} named "Challenge Threats"\

Thank you all for keeping the online community going with the Google Rollers.

I've been working on my own roller, off and on today, as an excuse to learn Python. To help my GM (and others), I plan to eventually publish some tables that illustrate what combinations of dice are likely to have at least one success. My intent is that this ought to help sizing encounters.

The game2 roller does not appear to have the failure probability fix to the red die that I noticed.

Mariner - what is the error you noticed? I am not seeing it.

I did notice that when doing the Monte Carlo mode, 0 successes is not counted as a failure. This results in a low failure percentage total.