What do you put your faith in and why? Do you stick with the statistics or do you believe that anything can happen no matter what the odds?

Sometimes, even if the odds are against you, you just HAVE to make that play. You just have that feeling in your gut that although its unlikely, you have to try.

I believe you are mis-using the term Mathhammer...

Mathhammer usually concerns list builidng that includes theory and the % of possible outcomes.

Eg. Chaos Trolls... fun to have around, but will they spend 1/3 of the game wondering around due to Stupidity, even when your General is in range...

Whereas, no matter how well built a list is, the player and his opponent are the main factors to consider... along with chance in the roll of the die. Unless you use loaded dice and are a loser.

I put my faith in statistical averages. Obviously, one still must take risks and hope for the best, but it's always better to take risks when you actually have a reasonable chance of succeeding.

Also, I tend to roll well only when the odds are enormously in my favor anyway, so trusting in luck when "the chips are down" (so to speak) does not often pay off for me.

But that "1 unlikely roll" can help make a game to remember!

AvatarForm wrote:I believe you are mis-using the term Mathhammer...

Mathhammer usually concerns list builidng that includes theory and the % of possible outcomes.

Eg. Chaos Trolls... fun to have around, but will they spend 1/3 of the game wondering around due to Stupidity, even when your General is in range...

Whereas, no matter how well built a list is, the player and his opponent are the main factors to consider... along with chance in the roll of the die. Unless you use loaded dice and are a loser.

Even by your definition my question is not misusing the term. Using your own example a person can either trust the Mathhammer that says those Trolls will spend 1/3 of the game doing nothing and not take them just because the numbers say not to. Or a person can ignore what the numbers say and put their trust in the ever present chance that they will spend 2 or even 3/3rds of the game carving their way through the enemy and take the Trolls.

My question is simply which do you put your faith in. That isn't a mis-use of the term in any way.

Luck, she has abandoned me elsewhere, but she put in a good word with the dice gods, as fickle as they might be.

Well i know when i get in close combat with my warrior bugs.... those five attacks on the charge with the alpha warrior weapon skilll, buts duel talons Im rolling 45 dice, and on the first hit will score close too 30 to 35 hits, thats when the duel talons come in 1 and 2 are rerolled.... so im looking at close too 40 to all hits after that....
then wounding its the same story with toxin sac.... will wound about 30 to 35 then rerolls with the toxin... its all about math no luck with those squads.. but when i play othere armies of my own.... its lets see if daddy needs a new pair of shoes tonight.... its both for me.

I feel like the poll numbers aren't correct...

Why doesn't everybody say math-hammer???

People play games to win, and have fun, and most people have fun by winning.

Thus the goal is winning.
Your strategy is to then to maximize chances of winning.
Math-hammer maximizes your chances of winning.
Math-hammer relies on probability, but chance takes over in the end.
However, mathhammer, even if it relies on a chance, is the best way to go, because it maximizes victory chances.

Tactics and strategy intermingled with math hammer will create a winner.

Tactics and strategy couple with hoping for luck will on average work less of the time.

I feel like this should be re-worded to Mathhammer/Luck.

It's fairly impossible to play the game without "relying" on mathhammer. How do you know Genestealers are going to mow down that unit of Tau Firewarriors? Well, basic probability says the Tau are totally screwed, that's how. You don't send the Firewarriors into combat with the Genestealers hoping that both your opponent and you will roll very low probability rolls. Instead, you shoot them off the board because you have a much greater likelihood of doing so!

If I wanted to do math every single time I made a list and played the game...I would have committed my life to celibacy and became a TA for Statistics...

This thread is going the way of the dodo


Mathhammer comes in many forms. As kirbinator said, how can you rely on a unit to work well without it. Mathhammer is simply probability of something working. Every good tactician and strategist should use mathhammer. You won't use AP3 weaponry on a model with a 2+ save. Neither will you use a bunch of Str. 7 shots on an AV 14 model. Once again, neither will you ever get a unit that doesn't do anything and is horrible, like half of the Tau codex.

This is all Mathhammer. This is all calculating the best chances of victory.

Luck is the only other road, and it doesn't work the greater part of the time.

Thus, mathhammer should be getting the majority of votes!!!!

AAERRRGHH!!!

EDIT - Unholy_martyr, you make a list with consideration in mind though? You don't make a list randomly. Everything has a purpose. Anti tanks units for destroying tanks. Something that can pump out loads of shots to take out light infantry. This is a basic mathhammer. Pure numbers can be attained for those most eager to have exact calculations, but unless you make a list randomly, you are performing a type of mathhammer.

The question makes no damn sense. None.

You can't play without some level of mathhammer. You don't have to directly calculate the expected wounds and the standard deviation, but you do need to factor in to your decision making whether you're more likely to have an affect attacking the tank or the infantry. If you aren't doing that on some level then you're not actually playing the game, you're just randomly moving stuff around.

Similarly, you can't just run mathhammer and expect to win. There are game priorities beyond straight calculations of probability, even if something is unlikely to succeed you might have assessed the consequences of failure as very low, and advantage of success as very high.

Ok let me clear something up as there seems to be some confusion. It is obvious to everyone that the game requires a little bit of both math and luck. But just because both are present in the game does not mean that everyone chooses to rely on the same option.

This thread is asking what you choose to put their faith in the numbers or the luck. That dosen't mean that players don't use a little of both.

At the start I play conservative defence and go with statistical averages and by mid-game I make the plays where the odds are stacked, but it just has to be done to win the game. But I always have a plan B

Why does this have to be a contradiction? I doubt anyone exclusively relies on one or the other.

IMHO, if a person uses no math at all, their game has no strategy. The best they can hope to do is make their game decisions by how tough the models look on the table-top.

If a person uses no luck/chance at all, then their game has no soul. They took a game, something that people do to relax and have fun, and turned it into a math test. And the winner is not the person who was the best general, but the person who scored higher in AP statistics.

Anyone have any ideas on how I can make it as simple as possible for people to understand what this is about? I don't want to sound rude but points are being brought up that have no reason to be brought up because that isn't what this is about.

This is not a discussion based on if games only have luck or math or a mixture of both. This is a post where people can post what they personally put their faith in when playing a game. They may use both math and luck but some people choose to look to luck versus math and vice versa. That is what this is about.

Has that made it any clearer?

The choosing unit types based on what their specialty is not math hammer...if it is...then I quit...

Seriously though, my list considerations really fall upon the following 3 questions:

1) Do I have what I need to kill everything?

2) Does its killing potential also have the potential to make me laugh when I roll 30 1's?

3) Does the model look good?

Seriously, the only mathematical considerations I make are what points cost the units are...do I try and figure out my chances before going into combat? No, I'd rather roll some dice and hope for a happy ending. (However, I play Space Wolves so more often than not, if I'm assaulting something I'm doing it because I know I don't want it assaulting me next turn) Do I try and figure out what the best piece of wargear is statistically before modeling my unit? No, why? Because I have enough math in my profession to not care enough for it to carry over into my hobby.

Statistics are great and all; however, when you throw them into an environment where the probability of a positive outcome plummets the more dice you roll...you're setting your own math up for failure...Like everyone says...what looks good on paper is usually too good to be true...

"Oh well anything can happen" means you don't win a lot of games, because you just act on whims without considering what works together. Once you start considering 'hey, should I charge those guys', you're starting to look at probabilities. Some people handle probabilities intuitively or through experience instead of by calculation, but that doesn't mean they're not considering probabilities.

Lots of people are bad at applying math, so will make bad decisions. A common one is the 'odds are I'll win, therefore I am guaranteed to win' or 'odds are he can't kill me, so I'm safe'. Although these are really just bad applications of math, people who don't understand how to apply probability will say 'oh, I lost that fight I "should" have won, math is worthless'. For example, there was a discussion in YMDC about charging into a marine tac squad with an eldar banshees+farseer squad. One guy who advocated arranging the charge so that only 3 banshees engaged the marines sneered at the idea of a tac squad beating banshees - yet in actuality, 3 banshees vs 10 tac marines only win about 3/4 of the time - I'm sure every eldar player has seen 6 power weapon hits whiff against T4 before. He went on to explain that he was setting up an extremely reliable plan when he relied on getting a "decent" fleet roll (fails 1 time in 3), winning the aforementioned combat (fails 1 time in 4), and marines not escaping after the combat (get away 1 in 6), but that plan actually only has around a 60-40 shot of working - decent odds, but far from guaranteed. But I'm sure if the 60-40 shot failed, or the marines won that 1 time in 4 when 3 banshees charged them, he'd say 'bleh, mathhammer never works', not acknowledge that his fight was far from a sure thing.

I use to run statistics and caulculate percentiges in my head when I was really bored or couldn't sleep. And one thing I have learned is that those little plastic cubes we all enjoy rolling so much will never fall the way probability says they should.

I would like the debating about what factor is more reliable to stop as that isn't the point. If you are stating why you put more faith in one area and it includes arguments against the other then that is fine. But actually trying to persuade others to see your point of view isn't.

I created this because I want to see how many people put more stock in luck then math (as I am way more prone to trust in chance then numbers).

Part of knowing the math is expecting the dice to deviate from the expected value. Sure, 1/2 can be expected to hit on 4+, but it might be none and it might be all, and you need a plan for every outcome as well as its likelihood of coming to pass.

I voted Luck.
Mathhammer has its benefits, and logically speaking it makes the most sense. But you will always 100% fail with the dice you don't roll. Sure, you might have a 90% chance of NOT blowing up the Landraider, but you will never blow it up until you shoot at it.

Luck makes things more fun and interesting...

Not even mathhammer can tell you for sure if it is going to be a good roll or a bad roll until the die are cast. That 10% rate of success might be every roll you make today! And tomorrow you may roll the rest of the 90% failure.

That is where mathhammer falls apart in my opinion: Are we mathhammering the percentage of dice I roll for just this one game? Just this one handful of dice? Or are we talking about the odds and percentages of ALL the dice I am ever going to roll in my entire life time?

10% success of my entire life time equals a lot more blown up Landraiders than 10% of one game. So, can I practice rolling bad or rolling good? If I roll a whole bunch of random dice all day long just before the big game; will it whittle down that 90% of failure so that when I pick up the dice again I'm closer to the 10% of success?

Luck is a skill, practice getting lucky!

Mathhammer gives you an idea what you need to do to maximize the chances of luck. The better position you are in, the more dice are rolled with lower success requirements and minimizing enemy dice rolling, the more likely things are to go your way.

Luck however will always beat anything. I don't care if you are the best player in the world with the hardest army out there at the top of your game making every correct decision, if you roll nothing but 1's you will lose.

Aye yi yi. These polls scare me sometimes.

This premise is flawed, it's not one or the other, you have both. You can't choose to use one and neglect the other, that is silly to even suggest.

Math-hammer is a tool to allow you to predict what is most likely to happen in a given situation. You use it to make plans that are based on probability.

Chance is what actually happens. It can vary wildly in any given situation but you roll the dice enough times and they will mimic probability estimations.

Even people who say they don't use math hammer do, even if without thinking about it. In your mind you think, hmm, my genestealers will probably kill those Guardians is I assault them. Why do you think this? Because math hammer says, rolling even close to average, you will kill your target.

If you don't use math as a tool in a game that is based fundamentally in mathematics then you are shooting yourself in the foot. Math hammer makes you a better player. It is not a magic bullet or a crystal ball but a tool.

Some of these answers in this thread seriously are frightening. You are more prone to trust in chance than numbers?

Chance in this game is centered around numbers. Look at a probability curve of rolling two 6 sided dice, it is not complex at all, it is very easy to understand.

Well, to each their own. But saying the two are separate is a fundamentally flawed statement as they are not. One is a tool for predicting the other, they are intrinsically tied to each other and are not in fact two separate things.

But sometimes the most fun/risky stuff comes down to pure luck. Things like deep strike, the shokk attack gun, gift of chaos. Have a high statistical chance of failure. But does that stop us using them?

I use the dark arts of mathhammer when building lists. But when it is turn 5 and an lone enemy terminator is standing on your objective, you have to assault w/ the 5 man tac squad. Mathhammer says they shouldn't win, but sometimes you just gotta take that chance.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Anyone have any ideas on how I can make it as simple as possible for people to understand what this is about? I don't want to sound rude but points are being brought up that have no reason to be brought up because that isn't what this is about.

This is not a discussion based on if games only have luck or math or a mixture of both. This is a post where people can post what they personally put their faith in when playing a game. They may use both math and luck but some people choose to look to luck versus math and vice versa. That is what this is about.

Has that made it any clearer?

We all understood you fine the first time. I personally disagree with your premise, but it's not because of a lack of clarity on your part. I don't believe most players "put their faith" in one or the other.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Anyone have any ideas on how I can make it as simple as possible for people to understand what this is about? I don't want to sound rude but points are being brought up that have no reason to be brought up because that isn't what this is about.

This is not a discussion based on if games only have luck or math or a mixture of both. This is a post where people can post what they personally put their faith in when playing a game. They may use both math and luck but some people choose to look to luck versus math and vice versa. That is what this is about.

Has that made it any clearer?

It isn't that your point isn't clear, it's that your point makes no sense. You don't turn up and say 'today I will rely on the numbers'... it can't be done. At some point you need to roll the dice, and accept that probability will only tell you the probability of each possible outcome. And I've never met a player who just trusted in dice and paid no attention to likely outcomes, and if such a player existed it'd be debateable whether they were playing the game.

The Fox Lord wrote:I use to run statistics and caulculate percentiges in my head when I was really bored or couldn't sleep. And one thing I have learned is that those little plastic cubes we all enjoy rolling so much will never fall the way probability says they should.

Probability never says how dice will turn out. It tells you the probability of each result. And yes, roll enough dice and they will trend very closely to the outcomes given.

Psyker_9er wrote:10% success of my entire life time equals a lot more blown up Landraiders than 10% of one game. So, can I practice rolling bad or rolling good? If I roll a whole bunch of random dice all day long just before the big game; will it whittle down that 90% of failure so that when I pick up the dice again I'm closer to the 10% of success?

Luck is a skill, practice getting lucky!

What?

liam0404 wrote:But sometimes the most fun/risky stuff comes down to pure luck. Things like deep strike, the shokk attack gun, gift of chaos. Have a high statistical chance of failure. But does that stop us using them?

No part of mathhammer argues that you shouldn't do things that are unlikely, it just gives you the percentage and leaves it up to you to balance the relative benefits of each and then consider that compared to the probability of success. For instance, you have the option of shooting a lascannon at a space marine, or at a land raider - mathammer will tell you the probability of scoring a kill in each instance. But which is the best target is up to the player - in most circumstances the landraider will be the preferred target because even though it's a tougher target it represents a much greater threat. But in another game it might be the last turn with the landraider contesting one objective while the lone space marine holds another objective by himself - in this instance the higher probability is the decisive factor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thaylen wrote:I use the dark arts of mathhammer when building lists. But when it is turn 5 and an lone enemy terminator is standing on your objective, you have to assault w/ the 5 man tac squad. Mathhammer says they shouldn't win, but sometimes you just gotta take that chance.

Again though, mathhammer just gives the probability of each outcome. It doesn't at any point say what decision needs to be made, that's up to the player - to balance probability against the benefits of success and the costs of failure.

Napoleon used to ask if his generals were lucky.

Math-hammer helps you figure out the most likely outcome it's a tool,
It says an IG infantry should be hitting half the time, luck can/will deviate this from all to none for any instance of the time, just when you need it most, but this is all part of the game.

Some might get the headology after one instance in a game,
"all hit, me and math hammer are unstoppable" but when they all miss "math-hammer is fail"

I use both, If you have a squad of banshees about to charge some marines, a unit of DA's about to shoot a mob of boyz and a farseer in the middle. You need to decide if your going to guide the avengers, doom the marines or doom the boyz. Thanks to mathhammer you know roughly how many you will kill of each and see who's going to need most help. you can't know for sure, but it can help you make educated guesses.

Which is correct in your scenario?

Gorechild wrote:I use both, If you have a squad of banshees about to charge some marines, a unit of DA's about to shoot a mob of boyz and a farseer in the middle. You need to decide if your going to guide the avengers, doom the marines or doom the boyz. Thanks to mathhammer you know roughly how many you will kill of each and see who's going to need most help. you can't know for sure, but it can help you make educated guesses.

This is a good scenario for explaining what I attempted at 4am this morning before I left for work...

The 2 are not mutually exclusive and Mathhammer begins with your list. You do not throw units into a list with the hope that 'luck' or 'chance' favour them in game... (unless you consider WD battle reports for the army facing opff against the latest Codex)

I would say that 'trying your luck' is okay as an opportunist tactic, but it is less viable as a long term strategy.

'Math hammer' shows you the probability of an action succeeding with average luck. The more times you attempt something, the more your luck should average out. Over millions of attempts you can expect the Math Hammer to be pretty much spot on; over 10 or 20 attempts it will be little more than an educated guess.

The problem is that the number of games a person can play and the number of events within those games is far too small for Math Hammer to be 100% accurate, so luck will always play a big part.

A good player shouldn't put 'faith' in either. They will just stack the odds as high as they can in their favour.

When building my list i take mathhammer into account to try and remove luck from my stratagey as much as possible.

During a game, i don't worry about it so much. i just use the tools I've given myself to win.

I'm wondering a little if the OP has possibly misnamed this thread.

Perhaps it should be "Mathhammer or Gut Instinct?"

Those two are more mutually exclusive.

The Bringer wrote:I feel like the poll numbers aren't correct...

Why doesn't everybody say math-hammer???

People play games to win, and have fun, and most people have fun by winning.

Thus the goal is winning.
Your strategy is to then to maximize chances of winning.
Math-hammer maximizes your chances of winning.
Math-hammer relies on probability, but chance takes over in the end.
However, mathhammer, even if it relies on a chance, is the best way to go, because it maximizes victory chances.

Tactics and strategy intermingled with math hammer will create a winner.

Tactics and strategy couple with hoping for luck will on average work less of the time.

I feel like this should be re-worded to Mathhammer/Luck.

I say play using Ork theory...sure maybe the enemy got a bunch of points, held some objectives, and technically won...but you have to ask...did ya crump up some stuff real good? Do ya gots some boyz left to fight next time? Then you won.

Good example...my last Battletech game...my buddy made a general mess of most of my mechs, and though most were still standing at the end they werent much of a threat anymore. However, what did he remember most? The moment where I got up a hill above one of his mechs and stomped the cockpit into dust with one kick.

@Johira: Well obviously people dissagree with you on that.

@Sebster: If you want to know some players who do just that scroll up through the thread and look at all of the players who have said they put their faith in luck.

And I'm unsure how wanting to know what players personal choices are on the subject dosen't make sense but I'm not trying to apply my opinion as an absolution.

General Reminder: I would like to remind everyone that I have already said I want the cross point discussion to stop. This is about personal opinion and choice which for some reason dosen't make sense to some of you but obviously makes sense to the others who have answered and voted on the pole. Everyone is free to put their opinion on the subject in the thread as this is a subject that is entirely about opinions.

Forgive me if I'm being terse but I don't want this thread turning into something it's not just because a few people think that it is impossible for a player to put the majority of their faith in one aspect or another when quiet clearly it is not impossible. If you put your faith in either luck or the math then say it, if you put your faith in both or neither say it. But do not try and sway others from their personal opinions and create arguments that will go absolutly nowhere.

Just post your choice and let others post theirs.

Thank you

Math hammer is the only reliable option. However it should be used with target priority. While my 15 lootas could easily kill that squad of 3 marines, the dakka predator is a much bigger threat.
So while math hammer says I will NOT kill the predator I will probably at least stop it from firing next turn which is more than worth it.

I have learned never to trust "the odds" after years of being burned by failing dice rolls that "should" have gone my way.

When I used to play Warmachine I would boost my dice rolls for nearly every roll I was eligible to because I wouldn't even trust my dice to produce low end rolls like 4's or 5's with 2D6.

Anything can happen despite the odds, though it probably won't.

It's usually best to play the odds, but sometimes you have to take extreme chances because the alternative is certain failure.

I really don't understand this question or the poll. Could someone give me an example of gameplay where you put "faith" in luck? is it making decisions by consulting a random number table? Does anyone play like this?

I was in Platinum Devil in April and played a scenario where an IG force with a huge cannon was blowing crap out of my Tyranids. (1,000 point game.)

I had my Trygon Prime in reserve, so I decided to try and deep strike her into the corner of the table where the cannon plus other tanks where hiding.

My reckoning was that I had no other units capable of reaching the cannon in the time of the game, so if I didn't do this I would have to endure the fire of the cannon (Basilisk?) for the rest of the game.

On the plus side, I had a better than 33% chance that the Trygon would come down close enough to where I wanted, and would be able to scrag the IG artillery for major points.

I had to take the calculated risk of the Trygon getting lost through a Deep Strike mishap.

This happened, unfortunately, as the Trygon did a major deviation off the table and never got into combat.

What's the quote? Ah, found it...

"Expect the best. Prepare for the worst. Capitalize on what comes." - -- Zig Ziglar

That about sums it up mathhammer, strategy and luck for me.

I tend to build my army lists based 0n looks or theme: basically "what would look cool on the table against this opponent" or "I really want to play a lot of tanks today"., or "What if..." statements like "What if a Big Mek and a rabble of grots went out scavenging and ran into trouble..." etc.

I'll usually eyeball my collection and whatever models/units jump out to me at that moment I pull out and calculate their points. Then i play around with points to fill in the remaining points with whatever fits.

As a result My armies sometimes win, but often go down in flames as MathHammer does not motivate my list design and luck ends up playing a big part in my games.

This is fine by me though as I play for he RPG aspects and the challenge of fighting a tough fight, not as an exercise in mathhammer and pie charts...

@KK: If you were answering me with that anecdote, it doesn't make sense to me that taking a low percentage chance on something is having "faith" on luck. It seems more like you took the highest percentage chance you had available to you right?
@CT Gamer: So did you answer you had faith in luck?

Right, as said this poll is off because the correct answer is "both". Mathhammer exists so that you can talk objectively about things in the abstract - it will in no way tell you if an attack you're going to make right there on the table top that one time will go in a certain way. Meanwhile, people who base objective, abstract decisions on the results of a couple small instances of luck are idiots.

This discussion seriously baffles me. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but putting your faith in luck is simply choosing to hope for a certain outcome in a set of probabilities. We all do it but having "faith" in luck doesn't effect the outcome of a dice roll, that is preposterous.

It is not one or the other. It just isn't getting up and saying you "choose" to trust one or the other, ignoring math is an expression of seriously shocking ignorance.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LnLmR0nJdMs/S_p1Gs-V6II/AAAAAAAAAII/xdRuoaRxW0w/s1600/GAO%2BDice.png&sa=X&ei=rbvRTNuMDpOqsAOL1ZjoCg&ved=0CAQQ8wc4sAE&usg=AFQjCNFKEUW82_sa80clb32lNTkQbkC6IA

Look at this, it is so simple.

I was an English major in College, I didn't even take math and this is obvious.

Here is a practical application: Two terminators are sitting on an objective, you need to kill them to win. You shoot them with weapons that do not penetrate their armor and do two wounds, so they each need to roll a 1 to die.

You don't sit there and say, well golly, today I am going to trust in luck! Dur!

No, you wait for your opponent to roll the dice and hope he gets the 1 in 36 possible combination's of dice that will come up double 1. That is it, that is the ONLY possible outcome. Hoping on one foot, turing in a circle three times and rubbing your lucky rabbit's foot isn't going to change this probability curve.

Putting your faith in luck isn't a strategy it is hoping for certain outcomes. You don't escape math by putting your head in the sand, you just remain ignorant of the mechanics of what is happening which is foolish. It's like thinking thunder is the anger of the gods instead of knowing it is the sound generated by lightening which is caused by static discharge from storm clouds. Does it make it any less cool? No, but it allows you to understand what is happening.

Anyway, I don't want to brow beat anyone any longer but this is like having an argument of whether the earth is flat or not, it is that backwards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Ailaros
Word up, brotha. Math teachers around the world shed tears because of this thread.

I don't know Reecius, your practical application almost goes in favor for chance. I think if you trusted the math hammer you would use something that negated the armor and force a better (in your favor) inv save. As this example stands the luck or chance of those double 1's are what you hope for rather than the math hammer hope of 1 in 36. What I mean is math hammer is more than odds to me. It's applying all the dice rolls and going with the best strategy. Needing the worst odds sounds like it's a last ditch, do or die, no other guns can reach reliance on chance.

But I would like to point out I did start this with an almost and so I still agree you. I think there's more replies in forums of 'the odds' and that this is 'as much a game of chance as strategy' that muddied people's thoughts on this subject.

As the great and all powerful han solo says, "Never tell me the odds."

I think that if the math-hammer route was completley true, you would never really get those 100-1 rolls, i think that you must have done something to please the dice gods

Speaking mostly from a WFB pov.
Part of being a balanced game is that each unit has it's specific uses. While most players would go for a core of "overall usefull in most situations" units to fill out their armies. Depending on your intent and execution most units have some kind of potential to wreak havoc with your enemy. Take Dark Riders or Goblin wolf riders, for example. Here we have a relatively weak unit that, when brought to bear effectively against the right opponent, can be devastating. Much of the strategy involved in Warhammer games is creating a list where each unit has specific tasks, and then doing everything you can on the table to make sure that they don't deviate from those tasks. Anvil units take tons of punishment and don't break. Hammer units flank and don't get flanked, light fast cav harrass war machines and other small units and don't get charged.... and so on. Where things start breaking apart is if you field a bunch of specialist units (and some lists, even some entire army books, are filled with nothing but) and can't effectively execute with them.

So to answer the question... I try to leave most of the math to the developers and trust that they've come up with a balanced game and try to make a list with units that work well with each other and I think would perform their respective jobs well. Tank units tank, hammer units hammer, support units suppot, etc...

@mrwhoop
My point is that when you trust to chance, which is what we all do every time we roll the dice, you are not ignoring math. When you use math, you aren't ignoring chance.

When someone who isn't ignorant of probability rolls the dice he or she knows that more than likely, they will not roll double 1's and kill the terminators in the suggested example. However, they also do not think that because today is a "lucky" day they will. It's the acceptance of what it and an understanding of how things work while still hoping for a favorable outcome.

For someone to say they ignore math is first, false, second incredibly dumb. It's like when someone has their "lucky" dice, or what have you. It is attributing a false characteristic to something that has no bearing on outcome, like when cave people think a rain dance actually brings rain.

What you are talking about is applying your knowledge of probability to decision making, which is actually two steps, and two intelligent ones at that. You analyze a situation and go with what is most likely to happen which is what the best players do. You don't say, I feel lucky and so I am going to charge my grots into bloodthrister and expect to win.

Math hammer is simply the estimation of probability in regards to possible dice rolls or determining what is the most points efficient unit during list building. How you use that data is another step entirely.

@Torin the Wayfarer
Dude.
Really?
No offense, but what you said was incredibly imperceptive. You countered your own point in your conclusion.

If math hammer didn't work you'd never get those 100-1 rolls?

Hahahahaha, I am pretty sure you wold get that result 1 in 100 times.....wait for it. It'll come.

The question is perfectly fine. If you don't get it don't answer

Reecius wrote:Here is a practical application: Two terminators are sitting on an objective, you need to kill them to win. You shoot them with weapons that do not penetrate their armor and do two wounds, so they each need to roll a 1 to die.

You don't sit there and say, well golly, today I am going to trust in luck! Dur!

No, you wait for your opponent to roll the dice and hope he gets the 1 in 36 possible combination's of dice that will come up double 1. That is it, that is the ONLY possible outcome. Hoping on one foot, turing in a circle three times and rubbing your lucky rabbit's foot isn't going to change this probability curve.

On the flip side... Knowing the probability will not change the outcome either, and in such a small set probability might not even be relevant. If you roll the same dice 36 times, could you be sure to roll once and only once? The truth is you could roll those dice an infinite number of times and never roll double 1, or never roll anything but double 1. The probability of this happening is zero, but since it doesn't break and physical or mathematical laws it can still happen, even with a probability of zero. Here we start to get into the concept of 'almost surely'.

The truth is probability only becomes meaningful with large sets. I've been sitting here a rolling 2 dice just out of interest, and I've rolled 5 times now in less than 64 attempts. So even though the mathematical odds are 1 in 36 the actual frequency has been about 1 in 13, which of course is nothing like the predicted odds. You just never know when you are going to hit a streak or a freak roll, and games of 40k are short enough that lucky rolls can be decisive.

It's probably much smarter to base decisions on risk versus reward, rather than probable versus improbable. That may mean taking bigger chances, and ignoring favourable odds.

@ SmackCakes and Reecius

You bring up good points about rolling and dancing for rain (respectively quoting). There is that wonderful idea that people get into 'practiced rolling' and can get the desired results without the intent to 'cheat' and get them. And even barring that statistics is a math anyway as the odds are infinitesimally small of rolling straight it is still a mathematical possibility. So I guess I'll finish by saying it is called 'dumb luck' for a perceivable reason.

Take Care all

asmith wrote:@KK: If you were answering me with that anecdote, it doesn't make sense to me that taking a low percentage chance on something is having "faith" on luck. It seems more like you took the highest percentage chance you had available to you right?
...?

Yes. Also it was a high risk, high reward strategy. Secondly, 40K is such a quick game, especially at the 1,000 point level, that you normally have only one chance to change (lose or win) the game in a major way., so there is no point messing around.

I agree with both of you guys but at the very least you understand the concept behind it and that chance is an expression of a given set of probabilities. It is not one or the other. Your perception of actual outcomes can vary and as you said, SmackCakes, that one lucky roll can make or break a game and is in fact one of the things that makes this game tense and fun. Every time you roll dice it is a unique event. The galaxy doesn't step in and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, too many 6's today, we have surpassed our quota! Every time you roll the odds remain what they are but what you actually get is chance. Over time, if you continued to roll the 2d6 you'd eventually come to a statistical average. That is how casinos function, they play the odds and while there are statistical anomalies (which is what gamblers hope to experience), in the long run the house always comes out ahead.

But to say either chance or math takes precedence is a false premise. They are two ways of discussing the exact same thing. Everyone "uses" both even if they don't think they do. There is no difference. Using math doesn't influence the results anymore than having a lucky charm does, it merely enables the smart player to have more data from which to make decisions.

Perhaps I came on a bit strong, but it is just aggravating to see the perpetuation of ideas that are inherently false.

Math can explain trends in data, probabilities etc.. Outside forces that intrude on a game of luck are there either because someone is cheating, or the dice are poorly designed. Yep... i do not believe in god or any other non scientifcally explainable explanation. There are no other factors that should influence play besides Your ability and your opponents ability, and army composition.
You should be able to use math hammer to determine the effectiveness of your army versus another army. some units on paper have much higher damage outputs. a great example is the Sterngaurd that marines now get. They are awsome for what you pay for them. all math hammer enables you to do is to allow a statistical tool to analyze your army and hopefully remove units that are low in damage and high in cost.

Math hammer is great for list design and working out who should shoot what.

But, the potential for a unit is far beyond the math hammer effect. The potential for a lucky strike is part of a unit's ability. Furthermore, when dice rolls are made once to affect a whole unit, math hammer is dangerously unpredictable.

So, for example. I've struggled to see why flash gitz get such hate. Math-hammer wise, they are pretty poor: only 1 in 3 shots get through. So you double it with more dakka and get three hits. And then the S is only above average, so you won't always wound. And it can only penetrate power armour half of the time.

But the AP roll is made once. So, given a lucky roll or two and some ammo runts, you will wipe a unit of terminators off the table. And your opponent will know it and avoid them.

@sennacherib
Well put.

@doctorludo
True, but you can't plan for luck any more than you can plan for bad luck. It strikes at random which is why it is wise to assume averages as these are most likely to occur. On the roll of two dice you will more often than any other result get 7, but it doesn't mean it will always happen, as I am sure you know. It is just the best of all guesses.

With the rationale of hoping for that lucky roll you would never be able to make cohesive plans, everything would be chaotic and random.

Good tacticians in real life and in the game seek to minimize randomness and maximize predictability. That way you can make plans that are actually useful.

Flash Gitz are cool and fun, but not reliable enough for most "serious" gamers to use. For some people wacky and random=fun. For others it is just frustrating.

Given the previous statement, if you take three units of flashgits you triple your odds of getting the roll you want which is using math to make that unit more reliable and therefore more effective. (This ignores points efficiency of course).

I'm not saying math-hammer is bad and should no be used, nor am I saying I personally rub a severed chicken foot EVERY time I pick up dice. I do however, put more faith in luck simply because it is more fun that way.

Yup, I am a freak of nature, living proof of chaos theory, and a crazy nut job... So what? Life is a box; think outside of it.

Living life in a confined little mathematical box is boring. If you want to stand on one leg and spin in circles with your lucky rabbit foot, DO IT! It is fun, you should try it sometime if you haven't... I have! Sure, math-hammer might say lucky charms and fancy circular dancing is highly improvable, but who is to say it is impossible?

If you want to try waive your hand in the air and use Jedi Mind Tricks to make the dice roll over that one extra time, TRY IT! What is the worst that can happen? Maybe someday, after you have practiced your skill in luck enough, your Jedi Mind tricks might just work!

I am 28 years old and I practice my skills in luck, levitation, and being invisible all the time... Sure, it hasn't quite worked out yet, and I might spend the rest of my life with my feet firmly on the ground, but I will die trying to fly anyway.

As long as what you are doing is not hurting any one, then I say go for it! WHY NOT?!? Live life with a head full of dreams and a heart full of hope!

As for the point I was trying to make before, I was trying to alter the perception of math-hammer into a different concept. You can math-hammer the odds on one hand full of dice, or math-hammer the odds on a particular a span of time. Can a change in perception, change the results?
Here is an example using easy numbers:

- I have math-hammered squad X, and know I have they have a 40% chance to wound squad Y. If I roll a hand full of 100 dice, 40 of those will inflict a wound. Now I alter my perception and I just start randomly rolling dice, non-stop fire for 1 hour of time for a total of 1,000 rolling dice; 40% of that is a total of 400 inflicted wounds. Granted, I know not all of the dice rolling actually takes place during my shooting phase, but do I now have a better or worse chance to getting lucky and landing some of those 400 wounds when it is my turn? Same 40% odds, I just altered the equation for a larger return on the desired product.

Does it work? Can it really be proven one way or another? Who KNOWS!?! I still like to practice getting lucky though.

Oh don't get me wrong man, I still joke around and do my "lucky" dice dance for critical roles but that is just to get a laugh from my buddies. I also do ninja kicks and bruce lee cat noises when said lucky dice fall my way if my opponent and I are laughing it up.

That is all a part of the fun of the game.

I do not though, expect it to change anything, it's just for laughs. I also don't trust to luck or whatever as it is totally illogical. But then, I also very rational and fact driven.

The reason I got upset is that this entire thread presents the argument as you are either "lucky" or "mathematical" which just isn't true and it encourages the erroneous thought process that the two are somehow different, which they aren't.

I see lots of people on the internets trying to make arguments against math hammer that are so illogical that they make me want to cry for their ignorance. It's like watching someone spell phonetically like an Ork, just cringe inducing.

Everyone is free to play how they choose, of course, it'd just be nice to see a more educated populace I guess.

I have seen too many failed leadership checks and dead terminators to believe in mathhammer.

Tacobake wrote:I have seen too many failed leadership checks and dead terminators to believe in mathhammer.

QFT.

One thing, and I was going to add, mathhammer is good for is how many bodies to get stuck in close combat. Do I need two squads to be sure, or just one. But otherwise honestly I have just seen too many games where it is irrevelent. My one buddy and I were even on a mathhammer kick at one point, figuring we could predict the outcome but to no avail. (Eldar vs Blood Angels). Too many failed LD9 checks, too many inopportune failed saves. Too many Fleet rolls of a one or two where you needed a 3+.

I mean if something has a 15% or so chance of failure it is going to come up in the game. That is a big difference from or .

Reecius wrote:I see lots of people on the internets trying to make arguments against math hammer that are so illogical that they make me want to cry for their ignorance. It's like watching someone spell phonetically like an Ork, just cringe inducing.

Everyone is free to play how they choose, of course, it'd just be nice to see a more educated populace I guess.

A more educated populace the world over would be very nice indeed. Forget the fabled Fountain of Youth; we need a Fountain of Smart.

My best friend, best man at my wedding type of best friend, is a math major and also currently teaches math. He and I get into great debates about math-hammer equations all the time. He too likes to take the rational/logical side to math, and then I remind him that most mathematicians throughout history went insane! Or even started out insane which is what allowed them to figure out those great mathematical discoveries. Like Pythagoras for example, the 'A'squared + 'B'squared = 'C'squared guy:

Not only was he crazy, but he had a whole religious following of crazies. They all thought eating beans would shorten your life span because a human only has so much "breath" in them, and passing gas caused you to lose that breath even faster. (Let us try and math-hammer that formula! 'A'breath - 'X'beans = death) One member of the Pythagorean order was butchered by an angry mob who was able to catch him simply because he refused to cross a bean field to get away from them!

The logical practice of math, like 2 + 2 = 4, is awesome and in a nice little confined black and white colored box where it should be.
Math Theories on the other hand, like trying to find the squareroot of -1, that is where the fun stuff really is. Those types of math-hammers are used for driving 9 inch long nails of pure crazy into your skull. (actually 2+2=5 btw)

Another reminder members need to refrain from insulting others both directly and indirectly for their personal preferance.

Reecius you are the most recent to have done this. There is no way you can know the educational/intelligance level of anyone that you where refering to unless you where with them through every step of their schooling. So comments like that don't even need to be posted considering there are members who have said the exact same thing in this thread that you claim is a sign of lesser education and logic.

Who the feth plays math hammer?

Play chess.

I can count on Murphy to join the game at a crucial moment. Does that answer the question?

Chance. Mathhammer is flawed in that nothing works how it should 100% of the time. Just because you SHOULD wound 4 times doesn't mean you will. Taking risks and pushing things are how the most glorious victories are achieved!

Both. No really, both.
I'll have a very good idea about who's got the mathhammer edge in any pair up, and I'll plan accordingly.
I'll throw units into fights that they will often lose, if the risk/reward is worth it. I'll off set that risk by having additional units planning for the failure.

So I use the math to judge the chances of success, and have some idea of what I need to do as a back up plan. And then I'd throw in units and hope to get lucky.

All of this is very Math Hammery.

People who don't believe in luck haven't seen my jinx of players when I'm a spectator. If you need a 10 to hold, I can walk by and say "11" and you are doomed. Sadly, this power has no effect in games that I am playing.

-Matt

Psyker_9er wrote:They all thought eating beans would shorten your life span because a human only has so much "breath" in them, and passing gas caused you to lose that breath even faster. (Let us try and math-hammer that formula! 'A'breath - 'X'beans = death) One member of the Pythagorean order was butchered by an angry mob who was able to catch him simply because he refused to cross a bean field to get away from them!

Hahaha, that is funny as hell! Some of the crazy stuff people believe is just so weird.

Another reminder members need to refrain from insulting others both directly and indirectly for their personal preferance.

Reecius you are the most recent to have done this. There is no way you can know the educational/intelligance level of anyone that you where refering to unless you where with them through every step of their schooling. So comments like that don't even need to be posted considering there are members who have said the exact same thing in this thread that you claim is a sign of lesser education and logic.

I agree with you in principle man, but this argument is as old as dirt and just gets frustrating to see so often I suppose.

One thing though, I see you trying to police the thread and while your intentions are good, you are wasting energy, man. Once you open the doors unless you are a MOD you are not going to control what comes out. Even mods can't control it, only edit it after the cat's left the bag. This is one of those topics that will stir up emotions, like competitive vs. fluff play, etc. Just watch the conversation flow, if anyone takes personal offense they can talk to me, I am very reasonable if a little forceful in my point of view in this particular case.

SmackCakes wrote:I would say that 'trying your luck' is okay as an opportunist tactic, but it is less viable as a long term strategy.

'Math hammer' shows you the probability of an action succeeding with average luck.

Mathhammer can do more than that. It can tell you the odds of scoring 1 kill, the odds of scoring 2 kills, the odds of scoring 3 kills and more. There's a lot to probability than just multiplying out the expected average.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:@Sebster: If you want to know some players who do just that scroll up through the thread and look at all of the players who have said they put their faith in luck.

And none of them answered the question in a way that actually demonstrates choosing luck over probability. None said anything along the lines of 'I am happy to charge my firewarriors into the tactical marines, because I thought my luck was more important than any probability'.

All we've seen is a general misunderstanding of probability (people thinking the average outcome 'should' happen, people thinking outliers somehow disprove probability…)

And I'm unsure how wanting to know what players personal choices are on the subject dosen't make sense but I'm not trying to apply my opinion as an absolution.

People are free to approach the hobby however they like, that there are so many ways to approach wargaming is one of its great strengths. That isn’t the issue, the issue is that the distinction you're trying to draw between probability and luck doesn't make sense, and doesn't identify (or at least properly explain) different playing styles.

Forgive me if I'm being terse but I don't want this thread turning into something it's not just because a few people think that it is impossible for a player to put the majority of their faith in one aspect or another when quiet clearly it is not impossible.

The simple point, repeated yet again, is that they're not exclusive aspects. You can't ignore probability and play. Nor can you remove luck from the game.

Torin the Wayfarer wrote:I think that if the math-hammer route was completley true, you would never really get those 100-1 rolls, i think that you must have done something to please the dice gods

"If it was really true"?!

Are you actually doubting the science of probability? Honest to God for real suggesting probability might not actually be true?

Also, you would get those 1 in 100 rolls one time in 100.

SmackCakes wrote:On the flip side... Knowing the probability will not change the outcome either, and in such a small set probability might not even be relevant.

No, but it informs the decision making that goes on before the dice are rolled. You assault the IG with your orks because you know the odds favour success.

If you roll the same dice 36 times, could you be sure to roll once and only once?

No, you wouldn't, but probability doesn't argue that you would. It does, in fact, tell you that the odds of rolling snake eyes once over the course of 36 rolls is 37% (the odds of rolling snake eyes no times is 36%, the odds of rolling two times is 19%, and the odds of rolling more than that is 8%).

The truth is you could roll those dice an infinite number of times and never roll double 1, or never roll anything but double 1.

That is true, but the more important truth is that just because you’ve rolled snake eyes 31 times in a row, the odds of rolling snake eyes on the next roll is still 2.77%. And that if you haven’t rolled snake eyes in the last decade, the odds of rolling snake eyes on the next roll is 2.77%

The truth is probability only becomes meaningful with large sets.

No. The distribution gets tighter, but probability still matters at smaller numbers. The odds of rolling snake eyes on one dice roll is 2.77%, which is a very different thing to to rolling 7 or less, 58.3%. This is a significant difference, despite being only one dice roll.

I've been sitting here a rolling 2 dice just out of interest, and I've rolled 5 times now in less than 64 attempts. So even though the mathematical odds are 1 in 36 the actual frequency has been about 1 in 13, which of course is nothing like the predicted odds.

The odds state that rolling snake eyes 5 times in 64 rolls has a 2.4% probability. I don’t see how your roll in anyway disputes probability.

It's probably much smarter to base decisions on risk versus reward, rather than probable versus improbable. That may mean taking bigger chances, and ignoring favourable odds.

Considering risk is considering probability.

mrwhoop wrote:And even barring that statistics is a math anyway as the odds are infinitesimally small of rolling straight it is still a mathematical possibility. So I guess I'll finish by saying it is called 'dumb luck' for a perceivable reason.

No, absolutely not. I don’t know who taught you probability but the odds of rolling snake eyes isn’t infinitesimally small, it’s 2.77%.

doctorludo wrote:Math hammer is great for list design and working out who should shoot what.

But, the potential for a unit is far beyond the math hammer effect. The potential for a lucky strike is part of a unit's ability. Furthermore, when dice rolls are made once to affect a whole unit, math hammer is dangerously unpredictable.

You can factor that unpredictability into your probability calculations. Indeed, standard deviation is a very important part of probability calculations.

Psyker_9er wrote:If you want to try waive your hand in the air and use Jedi Mind Tricks to make the dice roll over that one extra time, TRY IT! What is the worst that can happen? Maybe someday, after you have practiced your skill in luck enough, your Jedi Mind tricks might just work!

No-one is arguing against goofing around and having a little fun when you’re playing. Call it a rocket launcher, not a missile launcher, because you don’t want to rely on anything with ‘miss’ in it’s name. Good fun.

But what we’re actually arguing is the OP’s suggestion that people choose between luck and probability. We’re saying there is no decision possible that elects one over the other.

but do I now have a better or worse chance to getting lucky and landing some of those 400 wounds when it is my turn? Same 40% odds, I just altered the equation for a larger return on the desired product.

Does it work? Can it really be proven one way or another? Who KNOWS!?! I still like to practice getting lucky though.

Does it work? No, it doesn’t work.

Who knows? Everyone who’s taken and understood basic probability knows this. The idea of independence is a fundamental cornerstone of probability – the dice don’t know and don’t care what’s been rolled before, the odds remain 40%.

Tacobake wrote:I have seen too many failed leadership checks and dead terminators to believe in mathhammer.

The presence of outliers does not discredit mathhammer. It may discredit your previous understanding of it, which likely didn't give a significant probability to outliers like multiple ones turning up in a dice roll. But dice are not magic, they roll by the probabilities.

Tacobake wrote:One thing, and I was going to add, mathhammer is good for is how many bodies to get stuck in close combat. Do I need two squads to be sure, or just one. But otherwise honestly I have just seen too many games where it is irrevelent. My one buddy and I were even on a mathhammer kick at one point, figuring we could predict the outcome but to no avail. (Eldar vs Blood Angels). Too many failed LD9 checks, too many inopportune failed saves. Too many Fleet rolls of a one or two where you needed a 3+.

Probability doesn’t predict an outcome. It tells you the probabilityof different outcomes.

Psyker_9er wrote:My best friend, best man at my wedding type of best friend, is a math major and also currently teaches math. He and I get into great debates about math-hammer equations all the time. He too likes to take the rational/logical side to math, and then I remind him that most mathematicians throughout history went insane! Or even started out insane which is what allowed them to figure out those great mathematical discoveries. Like Pythagoras for example, the 'A'squared + 'B'squared = 'C'squared guy:

Crazy or not, the sum of the squares of the lesser two sides does in fact equal the square of the greatest side. That’s one of the really important things with stuff like this – the author can be as crazy as anyone has ever been, but the truth remains the truth.

(actually 2+2=5 btw)

Radiohead fan? Or possibly a victim of Big Brother?

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Another reminder members need to refrain from insulting others both directly and indirectly for their personal preferance.

Reecius you are the most recent to have done this. There is no way you can know the educational/intelligance level of anyone that you where refering to unless you where with them through every step of their schooling. So comments like that don't even need to be posted considering there are members who have said the exact same thing in this thread that you claim is a sign of lesser education and logic.

No. People are free to have whatever personal preference they like, but if they give a false statement about what probability is and how it works, they’re wrong and there’s nothing else to it than that. There is no personal preference when it comes to facts.

That said, I agree that there’s no need to question people’s education. They could be extremely well education in areas other than probability.

Zid wrote:Chance. Mathhammer is flawed in that nothing works how it should 100% of the time. Just because you SHOULD wound 4 times doesn't mean you will. Taking risks and pushing things are how the most glorious victories are achieved!

Probability never says ‘should’. It will give you the odds of something working, but no more, no less.

I think a lot of people are calculating the average and thinking it’s the result that ‘should’ happen. Probability doesn’t work that way.

I voted mathhammer. I am currently writing a list and was trying to deside weather or not to put Fusion blasters or Missile pods on my tau battlesuits. they both had the same cost ruling that solution out. well asuming they hit on 4 that means they will kill (1/2x5/6=5/12 or 0.42) space marines dead for the fusion blaster or (1/2x5/6x1/3x2=5/18 or 0.27) space marines dead from the missile pod/
this shows that at close range, the fusion blaster is better, but we wont always be within 12" will we put this into the formula. 0.27x36=10 for the missile pod. 0.42x12=5 for the fusion blaster. taking into account all the advantages of each weapon melta for the fusion blaster and range for the misile pod, I decided that since the main perpose of the suit is to take out space marines, i would take the missile pod. Now how would i have decided this if i didint have my funnly little friend math hammer?

I can honestly say I never work out my shots and attacks based on the numbers.

What I do though is just make a comparison of my options. Say I have a necron warrior squad in rapid fire range of plague marines, but in standard range to terminatiors. I know off the top of my head I'm likely to hurt neither, but I shoot the terminatiors because I know the plague marines will likely shrug it off.

Is this mathammer on some level? I guess so - but I never mentally calculate the exact number of wounds I think I will cause.

I hate Math-Hammer I have found it to be a total load of bollocks that very rarely works. It works if you take an average over a thousand games but that doesn't work for me because you can never add different circumstances into it. There is no consideration of improved tactics or of supporting units I just find it a very silly way of approaching things. YMMV

Well I am not going to argue with sebster @ 7:20 in the morning on a Thursday.

Although having said that, an outlier is not 15%, or 33% in the case of a 3+. If you are defining an outlier using mean/ average/ expected value an outlier is two or more standard deviations. So say 3-5% chance or if you are defining it discretely as three standard deviations you are looking at 1% chance.

So in mathhammer that would be / as I mentioned. Failing ld 10 unmodified is... 9.1% so as far as considering normal rolls in the course of the game as being outliers that is probably about as far as you want to go.

Basically the problem with mathhammer, if you want to get technical, you are dealing with statistics within one standard deviation which is not very physically accurate -- even before you take into the account you are not dealing with hundreds of dice. You can think of it as being like diffraction with a large slit if anyone has taken that class/ done that lab.

Yeah so here's the graph.



Basically what is considered scientific accuracy (or "statistical significance") is two standard deviations, or two sigma. Typical mathhammer is more like 1 sigma. It is also a good reason for them to use six-sided dice as it keeps things exciting so to speak.

Graph did not work.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg

Tacobake wrote:
Although having said that, an outlier is not 15%, or 33% in the case of a 3+. If you are defining an outlier using mean/ average/ expected value an outlier is two or more standard deviations. So say 3-5% chance or if you are defining it discretely as three standard deviations you are looking at 1% chance.

Outliers are defined by the confidence interval for the distribution being considered. For example, an outlier for a distribution seeking a 95% confidence interval is any result greater than 1.96 standard deviations from the data set mean. What this means in plain English is that 95% of all results will fall within 1.96 standard deviations of the mean, and that the 5% beyond that threshold are outliers. At least this is the most common method of defining what an outlier is. In reality the definition is subjective, and many statisticians will instead merely think of outliers as improbable results; factoring them into statistical calculations.

Strictly speaking, the technical understanding of outliers is not relevant to the calculation of probability, they are only relevant to the observed probability as determined by experimentation or data collection. So, insofar as we're talking about probability alone, we're only referencing improbable results.

Tacobake wrote:
Basically what is considered scientific accuracy (or "statistical significance") is two standard deviations, or two sigma. Typical mathhammer is more like 1 sigma. It is also a good reason for them to use six-sided dice as it keeps things exciting so to speak.

Its a bit more complicated than that. Standard deviation is only considered when considering actual rolls, which have no impact on probability in the sense that it is being discussed here. In fact, the only way to even get a reasonable data set that considered anything beyond the average outcome of individual rolls would be to do statistical calculations that are far more complicated than the descriptive ones we're currently discussing. In particular we would need to roll a given set of dice, a given number of times, and then calculate the average number of times each number came up. We could then calculate the standard deviation of each number, for each set of rolls, for each die, and compare the results across a contingency table using a measure of association. This would tell us to what degree each result was associated with a variant outcome for each set of rolls, and to what degree the difference could be regarded as statistically significant. The larger the number of sets of rolls, and the larger the number of rolls be set, the more likely the results would approach the calculated probability.

However, even if the results varied wildly, the calculated probability for unbiased dice would be the same.

Well you, or we, if we are getting technical need to define what we consider to be "statistical significance". For leadership rolls I would consider ld10 to be a sure thing, for example. If I failed that, that is an outlier. Now in the case of ld9 I have a... 75% chance to pass I would not necessarly consider failing that to be an outlier. I would then go farther and say if my Warlocks are only ld8 that is a hidrance to my Guardian squads unless they have an Avatar nearby.

We can define an outlier is being a result that you discard because it is considered to be caused by some error. 25% or 33% (one standard deviation) chance of something happening, you have a good chance of seeing that within a few dice rolls that is not really an outlier. Even a 2+ has a 15% chance to fail, unlike say a d10 system where a 2+ would have a 10% chance fail more similiar to say a ld10 roll on 2D6.

Now if you are talking about shooting or close combat that is different, especially close combat where you are making decisions about how to move your units. Maybe in Fantasy you don't need two flanking units maybe one of the flanking units can go attack a Warmachine crew.

While I believe that mathhammer has it's uses, and establishes a solid baseline, there is a lot to be said for having the opportunity to shout "Yahtzee" when you fail all those terminator saving throws.

Mathhammer will only ever tell you what to expect on average, not how the whole game will play out. Misjudging that charge range will often lead to your opponent having one more round of shooting that could, realistically, ruin a unit's day.

I actually use a bit of both. Wish there was a way to vote for 50/50.

asmith wrote:?
@CT Gamer: So did you answer you had faith in luck?

Yes.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:What do you put your faith in and why? Do you stick with the statistics or do you believe that anything can happen no matter what the odds?

I don't believe a bolter can penetrate a landraider, if that's what you mean.

A single lascannon can kill a raider. The statistics confirm this. It's hardly something to be relied upon though.

Not really sure what your point is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote: If you put your faith in either luck or the math then say it, if you put your faith in both or neither say it

So are you saying that the non-mathammer players don't consider AT ALL the odds of what they attempt?

There's a squad of enemy terminators bearing down on you so you shoot at everything else and only direct five bolters shots at them and put your faith in luck? Of course not. The players that don't do math-hammer consciously still follow the same thought process of deciding what is required to defeat a particular threat, they just do it on instinct.

The split that you are trying to describe is erroneous. There are players that calculate the odds and there are players that use their instincts to the same end.

Can you give an in-game example of putting your faith in luck?

I guess the poll would be more clear if the OP would define both "Mathhammer", and "Luck".

-Matt

No offence but the pole is fine just the way it is considering what 97 people have been able to give a definitive answer without a problem. And while it may be a little more balanced if I put a 3rd option in for both I didn't put it in because I specifically want to see how many players choose one over the other not both.

And what sebster and a few others have said is that there is no way you could choose to put your faith behind either the numbers or luck that you have to trust both equally. Beings as those people who are saying that are not every single person who plays the game and has free choice this is wrong. People can very easily choose to favor one aspect over the other in fact multiple members in this thread have done just that as is shown by the 97 voters.

@Sebster: I saw the same response repeatidly from someone on another thread concerning intelligence and he was considered a troll for it. Just because you do not consider the answers given as actual answers does not mean that the question hasen't in fact been answered. The players said in various ways that they put their faith in luck over math it's as simple as that.

Now what you are arguing against is the use of something vs having faith in it which isn't what this post is about. While both aspects may be present in the game (to which no one is arguing against) and most of the time people use a little bit of both that does not mean that they cannot favor one over the other or put their faith in one over the other. This thread is asking which do you prefer to trust etc. But there are some who have turned it into an argument about which is better based off of why others favor what they do. And there are some like yourself who are saying it is impossible to choose one over the other, well I assure you it is not.

@Scott S6: If you go to the first page of the thread (I think it's the first) there is a scenario given by a poster concerning trolls that I have responded to which I think gives a good example of choosing the math over choosing the luck.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:@Scott S6: If you go to the first page of the thread (I think it's the first) there is a scenario given by a poster concerning trolls that I have responded to which I think gives a good example of choosing the math over choosing the luck.

That seemed more to be the poster giving an example of taking a unit that he knew was bad. Not because he had faith that he would be lucky and they would do well but simply because he wanted to take them.

If that's your example then the split would be better defined as whether you value potential or reliability.

Ah but in this discussion potential=chance while reliability=math. It's the question of do you play things safe and do what the numbers say you should do or do you say screw the numbers and do things that have little hope of happening just in the chance that they will happen.

I've known multiple players who woulden't do something that would have been smart to do in the game just because the probability of it happening wasen't greater then the probability of it not happening. And I've also known players who have done the exact opposite, yeah sometimes it dosen't work but when it does it works great.

I've never heard anyone say that Trolls are a bad unit unless they personally didn't like them. But the example shows that some people would not mess with them simply because the math hammer says that they won't be usefull do to the stupidity rule while someone who puts more faith in luck and chance then in math will take them because despite what the numbers say the unit has the ability to do some real damage.

Now that is only one part of favoring luck over math and vice versa. For instance I once had a single remaining Fire Warrior in a squad armed with EMP grenades. His squad had been wiped out by a Defiler, the Warrior passed his Ld test and I (being a person who puts their faith in luck) used him to charge the Defiler in the hopes that his EMP grenade would get a 6 to pen and then destroy the Defiler and it did just that. Now someone who put their faith in math hammer probably woulden't have even tried to do that simply because the numbers say it woulden't have happened.

For more examples just read through the thread as there are quiet a few.

Probability is really about expected value, which generally proves out based on number of iterations. So yes, you may roll 6 1's to hit with 6 railgun shots. But over a million sets of those 6 rolls, you'll typically find that the number tends towards the expected value. So, even with a particular action that has a high expected success rate, often times planned redundancy is necessary.

In addition, more people use math in their play more than they necessarily realize. Any time you decide what to shoot, you're performing some sort of calculation. Your conclusion may be faulty, but you are doing it. For example, you may say that I might as well fire my railgun at the rhino that is closer than the land raider that is further. That's actually a complex equation you're attempting to solve. The human brain being what it is, you'll assign values and weights and solve, perhaps "correctly", perhaps not.

edit: Since I didn't explicitly state it, I wanted to say that part of my above point is the idea of "mathhammer" is simplistic. There is a very complex set of decision-making that takes place, some of it done by explicit math, some by a sort of heuristic analysis, and other bits by intuitive leaps informed by experience or preconceptions. All of that can be broadly described symbolically by "math".

But again this isn't about wether players use one more then the other. This is about which aspect individual players choose to trust more then the other.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Now that is only one part of favoring luck over math and vice versa. For instance I once had a single remaining Fire Warrior in a squad armed with EMP grenades. His squad had been wiped out by a Defiler, the Warrior passed his Ld test and I (being a person who puts their faith in luck) used him to charge the Defiler in the hopes that his EMP grenade would get a 6 to pen and then destroy the Defiler and it did just that. Now someone who put their faith in math hammer probably woulden't have even tried to do that simply because the numbers say it woulden't have happened.

I would disagree with that. It might be unlikely but does he have anything better to be doing?

I said probably

Scott-S6 wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Now that is only one part of favoring luck over math and vice versa. For instance I once had a single remaining Fire Warrior in a squad armed with EMP grenades. His squad had been wiped out by a Defiler, the Warrior passed his Ld test and I (being a person who puts their faith in luck) used him to charge the Defiler in the hopes that his EMP grenade would get a 6 to pen and then destroy the Defiler and it did just that. Now someone who put their faith in math hammer probably woulden't have even tried to do that simply because the numbers say it woulden't have happened.

I would disagree with that. It might be unlikely but does he have anything better to be doing?

That's the point. It isn't something the numbers say wouldn't have happened. A quick probability check shows it had a 1/36 chance of happening (2.7%).

Depending on the relative value of the remaining FW and the as yet cherry Defiler, the EMP attack might be a very smart move.

OTOH, if saving the FW prevents the enemy winning on KPs, then attacking would be a foolish move even if you had a 97% chance of winning.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:But again this isn't about whether players use one more then the other. This is about which aspect individual players choose to trust more then the other.

This is only expressing a way of looking at the same thing. It is not two separate things.

You are perpetuating a false premise by sticking to this supposed choice. There is no choice involved. If you roll the dice and say "I hope I get result X" as opposed to "I roll the dice knowing I have Y chance of getting result X" there is absolutely no difference in what is going on.

Perhaps your question should have been: do you base your in-game decisions on math or do you just go with what your gut? Something like that.

I am not trying to brow beat you, it's just that the question doesn't really present the options I think you were trying to present.

Well then I'll take what you think under advisery

Fair enough!

Tacobake wrote:Well you, or we, if we are getting technical need to define what we consider to be "statistical significance". For leadership rolls I would consider ld10 to be a sure thing, for example. If I failed that, that is an outlier. Now in the case of ld9 I have a... 75% chance to pass I would not necessarly consider failing that to be an outlier. I would then go farther and say if my Warlocks are only ld8 that is a hidrance to my Guardian squads unless they have an Avatar nearby.

That's not what statistical significance is. Statistical significance is the point at which you can say a relationship exists between two different variables as determined by a desired confidence interval where the confidence interval is essentially the number of possible, repeated results you expect to lie outside the parameters of a constructed data set.

You could construct a table that dealt with the performance of various pieces based upon turn number, proximity to other units, and army composition, which would basically be Sabermetrics for Warhammer. But you can't simply state that a certain leadership score is statistically significant as, for the purposes of this conversation statistical significance would be the method you would use to establish that a relationshi pexisted between observed dice rolls and calculated probability, which would involve doing something like a difference of means test against the expected outcome and the observed outcome for all dice rolls in a given game.

Tacobake wrote:
We can define an outlier is being a result that you discard because it is considered to be caused by some error. 25% or 33% (one standard deviation) chance of something happening, you have a good chance of seeing that within a few dice rolls that is not really an outlier. Even a 2+ has a 15% chance to fail, unlike say a d10 system where a 2+ would have a 10% chance fail more similiar to say a ld10 roll on 2D6.

First, standard deviation isn't always 33%. That only aplies to normal bell curves, which have nothing to do with calculated probability for rolling a die, or set dice.

Second, you're comparing percentages incorrectly. Standard deviation represents the number of observed results that lie within a certain region with respect to the observed mean, It would apply to a dat set like the one I described in my previous post. It has nothing to with the calculated probability of a give die coming up 6 in one roll.

Yup. That's why I try to be scrupulous when running the numbers and say what can be reasonably expected, which is to say what can be reasonably expected given the number of dice to be rolled...

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:
And what sebster and a few others have said is that there is no way you could choose to put your faith behind either the numbers or luck that you have to trust both equally. Beings as those people who are saying that are not every single person who plays the game and has free choice this is wrong. People can very easily choose to favor one aspect over the other in fact multiple members in this thread have done just that as is shown by the 97 voters.

Well, no, what the poll says is that 97 people were able to choose between what they think is luck, and what they think is math hammer. What Sebster and others said is that you can't choose one or ther other because probability calculations are not especially distinct from luck; ie. you can still be lucky to have an especially probable roll turn out the way you expected it to at a given time.

The larger point, and this doesn't just apply to Warhammer, is that most people don't really understand probability or statistics to an extent that allows them to say that they choose between the two. Many of the people in this thread,yourself included, have attributed to luck what should actually be attributed to rudimentary calculations of probability.

A good example of going on 'luck' would be any high risk move with a low probability of success made in lieu of another low risk move with a high probability of success that would achieve the same general goal.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:
@Sebster: I saw the same response repeatidly from someone on another thread concerning intelligence and he was considered a troll for it. Just because you do not consider the answers given as actual answers does not mean that the question hasen't in fact been answered. The players said in various ways that they put their faith in luck over math it's as simple as that.

Its never as simple as that, because words in the English language have many varying meanings, and the accepted proper ones are almost never those that are colloquially used. What people say is not always what they think they mean.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:
Now what you are arguing against is the use of something vs having faith in it which isn't what this post is about. While both aspects may be present in the game (to which no one is arguing against) and most of the time people use a little bit of both that does not mean that they cannot favor one over the other or put their faith in one over the other.

If you favor one over the other, which you can if you make choices like the one I outlined above, then you are placing faith in one option and not the other.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:
This thread is asking which do you prefer to trust etc.

Note that faith and trust are closely related words, so you basically just said this thread is about what you choose to place faith in.

dogma wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:
This thread is asking which do you prefer to trust etc.

Note that faith and trust are closely related words, so you basically just said this thread is about what you choose to place faith in.

Let me think of the best way to put this.....EXACTLY!!!.
That is what I have been saying this entire time because that is point in fact what this thread is about. But despite making it perfectly clear on a number of occasions what the thread is about some people seem to think that it's about something entirely differant and go off onto these soapbox discussions when all I want to know is how many people put faith into one aspect or another.

People have the ability to choose what they put faith in millions do it every day with religion. You think that the two points can't be split into choices. Well that is your opinion based off of your interpretation of them NOT a factual statement. You and others may think the question and choices needs to be redone because they don't fit with your interpretation of the subjects. Well your interpretation isn't everyones so the question and choices are just fine the way they are based off of my interpretation and the interpretations of the 100 so people who answered the poll.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:
People have the ability to choose what they put faith in millions do it every day with religion. You think that the two points can't be split into choices. Well that is your opinion based off of your interpretation of them NOT a factual statement.

Actually, that's not what I said. I said that most people in this thread don't appear to understand probability, and so cannot correctly distinguish it from luck. I then provided an example of making a choice according to luck, and probably should have specifically indicated that in order to know you were proceeding on belief in luck you would have to actually understand the probability of your choice being correct. Otherwise, as Sebster said, you aren't so much playing the game as randomly moving pieces around the board.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:
You and others may think the question and choices needs to be redone because they don't fit with your interpretation of the subjects. Well your interpretation isn't everyones so the question and choices are just fine the way they are based off of my interpretation and the interpretations of the 100 so people who answered the poll.

My interpretation has the advantage of being correct according to the scientific study of probability and the concept of luck as a logical fallacy.

Ok then you go ahead and provide an entire thread for those who actually care that explains every little exact detail of that scientific study including its authenticity as well as proof that it was made by a prominant scientific foundation and not some highschool science teacher (no offence to any actual science teachers reading this you guys rock).

In the mean time I'm going to go back to the thread where people with common sense know that not everything can be explained by science and that science itself is most certainly not always correct. I'm also going to ignore you

Have a nice night.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Ok then you go ahead and provide an entire thread for those who actually care that explains every little exact detail of that scientific study including its authenticity as well as proof that it was made by a prominant scientific foundation and not some highschool science teacher (no offence to any actual science teachers reading this you guys rock).

What scientific study? its simple mathematics. If you have a six-sided, unbiased die then all six sides have an equal chance of coming up given a non-manipulative roller (basically someone who isn't cheating).

Also, the prominence of a person producing a study is irrelevant. If the study produces sound results, then it produces sound results. That's really the end of it.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:
In the mean time I'm going to go back to the thread where people with common sense know that not everything can be explained by science and that science itself is most certainly not always correct. I'm also going to ignore you

Everything with a material cause (so, everything) can be explained by science given sufficient time. Not everything has been explained by science, but this particular thing has bee. Pretty much exhaustively.

What you're doing is operating under the luck fallacy by assuming that probability must play out identically for all possible actors at all possible times, which is not what probability is about.

I also find it pretty amusing that you seem to believe there is a thing called "common sense" that isn't simply "what I believe".

Personally I find it amusing that Warboss Imbad Ironskull responds to dogma citing the scientific study of probability by demanding dogma cite "that scientific study of probability" and prove its "authenticity"...

Math, how does that work?

Logician 1, Tattoo Artist 0.

"never tell me the odds"

No matter how much fuzzy math you calculate, there will be times where you will whiff entire assaults, shake vehicles to no end, and fail every save called.

Othertimes your troops can do no wrong, you blow every vehicle to kingdom com, and your +5 saves are like +2.

dogma wrote:My interpretation has the advantage of being correct according to the scientific study of probability and the concept of luck as a logical fallacy.

No, luck is not logical, nor should it be studied by those who are.

Psyker_9er wrote:No, luck is not logical, nor should it be studied by those who are.

It burns!

I fully use mathammer, but I think some people attribute more power to it than it has.

Certainly you use it to determine your chances of success, and the viability of choices.

However, the statistics are only actually going to "average out" over a far larger sample size than the dice offer.

Furthermore, just because you roll an equal number of each facing of the dice, does not mean your luck is equal. If you roll 1s when you need 6s and 6s when you need 1s, it doesn't matter if you roll exactly the same number of each facing.

Luck is certainly a factor. Therefore, Mathammer is simply a tool for determining risk/reward. Its the risk/reward balance that I really watch when playing.

One other thing I'll add is that in my experience, chance favors the bold. 40k games have relatively few turns. If you don't decide to take a chance early on, either you won't put yourself in a position to win, or your opponent will get the initiative. Its pretty important to come up with an aggressive plan that has a high reward, and a safer backup plan if the dice are not with you.

I try to make sure that when the dice don't go my way and the expected outcome is not realized, that it doesn't leave me completely open. Then again, sometimes those 16.7% chances are all you have. I'll still take the 16.7% chance if the other option is worse.

Nurglitch wrote:

Psyker_9er wrote:No, luck is not logical, nor should it be studied by those who are.

It burns!

Does that mean teams are tied now?
Logicians 1, Tattoo Artist/Freaks 1.

(I added the "/Freaks", dont want to leave behind any one who is not a tatoo artists or any who lack tattoos.)

I'm sorry I didn't know that a site dedicated to people who play with miniatures had so many people in it who like to stereotype.

Psyker_9er:

More like People who know math 1, People who don't know math -1.

There are four categories of knowledge. There's the people that know that they know. Then there are the people that know that they don't know. Then there are the people that don't know that they know. Finally, and your comment on logic and its applicability to luck puts you firmly in this one, there are people that don't know they don't know. The people in the second two categories are why casinos are big business....

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:I'm sorry I didn't know that a site dedicated to people who play with miniatures had so many people in it who like to stereotype.

Who, me?

I'm just having fun... That is what I do best




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:Psyker_9er:

More like People who know math 1, People who don't know math -1.

There are four categories of knowledge. There's the people that know that they know. Then there are the people that know that they don't know. Then there are the people that don't know that they know. Finally, and your comment on logic and its applicability to luck puts you firmly in this one, there are people that don't know they don't know. The people in the second two categories are why casinos are big business....

tsk tsk tsk... No need to get personal.

If you want to live inside the confines of your little box, that is awesome. I wont stop you, and I want you to be happy with your life. Honestly.

I personally rejected this so called reality, and substituted my own, long ago. This does not make me ignorant nor does it mean I am an idiot who does not know I am ignorant. Does it mean I should be locked away in a nut house? Maybe someday I might retire there, but I wont let closed minded people, wrapped up in laws and dogmas, make the decision to categorize me as an unknowing fool.

Rest assuredly Nurglitch, my decision to be this way, was an educated decision...

thehod wrote:No matter how much fuzzy math you calculate, there will be times where you will whiff entire assaults, shake vehicles to no end, and fail every save called.

For god's sake, hahahaha, we have been saying, over and again, that math hammer tells you these events WILL happen!!!!!!!!*%!T^(!*&$%)*!%(!$%)^*(!

How is this concept so hard to fathom? Math hammer tells you ALL possible outcomes of a certain situation, even the remotely possible and how often they are likely to occur.

Trusting in luck doesn't make you MORE likely to get the 1 in 100 result.

This is like debating with a wall or something (not you particularly thehod, just a large portion of this thread in general). How does this not sink in? Math hammer is not JUST averages, it is every single possible outcome and the likelihood of these events occurring.

OK, screw it. I give up. If it isn't clear then is just isn't clear. Keep playing the game in utter ignorance being dumbfounded as to why things occur. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Sorry if I seem abrasive as I am not trying to insult anyone but this feels like trying to argue why the earth is not flat with people who keep insisting that it is.

Psyker_9er wrote:
No, luck is not logical...

That's why its called the luck fallacy.

Imo, i think that luck should be extended to include personal preference. there are times when you dont want to here the numbers and just want to take the weird unit in your list like sniper teams or charge a carnafix with fire warriors just to watch them die.

gosh
that would be funny wouldent it...

Psyker_9er wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:I'm sorry I didn't know that a site dedicated to people who play with miniatures had so many people in it who like to stereotype.

Who, me?

I'm just having fun... That is what I do best




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:Psyker_9er:

More like People who know math 1, People who don't know math -1.

There are four categories of knowledge. There's the people that know that they know. Then there are the people that know that they don't know. Then there are the people that don't know that they know. Finally, and your comment on logic and its applicability to luck puts you firmly in this one, there are people that don't know they don't know. The people in the second two categories are why casinos are big business....

tsk tsk tsk... No need to get personal.

If you want to live inside the confines of your little box, that is awesome. I wont stop you, and I want you to be happy with your life. Honestly.

I personally rejected this so called reality, and substituted my own, long ago. This does not make me ignorant nor does it mean I am an idiot who does not know I am ignorant. Does it mean I should be locked away in a nut house? Maybe someday I might retire there, but I wont let closed minded people, wrapped up in laws and dogmas, make the decision to categorize me as an unknowing fool.

Rest assuredly Nurglitch, my decision to be this way, was an educated decision...

Ya know, for reasons I really can't explain I like this entire post. I don't really know why.

And no I wasen't referancing you earlier

I don't build lists by what I know works... and numbers aren't my stronghold.

Chance.

dogma wrote:

Psyker_9er wrote:
No, luck is not logical...

That's why its called the luck fallacy.

If you are going to quote me, or any one for that matter, please do not cut the quote off in mid sentence simply to try and justify your own lack of words.

I too can speak and read your seemingly preferred language of mathematics. Every time you, or any one else in this thread, go off on a tangent using big fancy math words, I read you loud and clear... Big words and fancy degrees do not scare me, nor am I intimidated by a bunch of 40 year old virgins sitting in a room trying to write an equation to prove there is an infinite amount of prime numbers.

I understand your language, please try and understand my language. The language of dreamers.
My original statement, that I am about to quote in its entirety, is very much indeed a true statement.

Psyker_9er wrote:No, luck is not logical, nor should it be studied by those who are.

Luck is in no way logical. The very concept of luck is not logical. Therefore, people with dogmatic minds, fed intravenously with other people's ideals of reality, are not qualified to study it's effects. There is not an equation for it, there is not a squareroot, nor is there any way to measure it's circumference. These principles from the black and white world of math are useless here in the land of luck. Logic will not save you on this side of the looking glass, nor will college degrees protect you from your own entropy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
My hysterical wife would like to add something:

"I hate math... Finding 'X' is really only important if you are going to be a pirate!"


AAaaRRRrrGGG ya land loving scurvey dogs!!!! AAARRRRgg I say!!

Psyker_9er wrote:
If you are going to quote me, or any one for that matter, please do not cut the quote off in mid sentence simply to try and justify your own lack of words.

That was the only part of that sentence worth quoting and, because it was a compound sentence, I was not acting outside courtesy by quoting only the part I was interested in. I even used the ellipsis to indicate that more was written, so it isn't as though I was attempting to be misleading.

Psyker_9er wrote:
I too can speak and read your seemingly preferred language of mathematics. Every time you, or any one else in this thread, go off on a tangent using big fancy math words, I read you loud and clear... Big words and fancy degrees do not scare me, nor am I intimidated by a bunch of 40 year old virgins sitting in a room trying to write an equation to prove there is an infinite amount of prime numbers.

That's nice. I didn't claim that you couldn't understand the words I was using.

Also, don't use the old "40-year-old virgin" joke. You don't know me from Adam, and everyone here knows that as well. We all also know that simply playing war games, or posting on a message board about them, doesn't tell us anything about anyone's sex life.

Psyker_9er wrote:
I understand your language, please try and understand my language. The language of dreamers.
My original statement, that I am about to quote in its entirety, is very much indeed a true statement.

Psyker_9er wrote:
No, luck is not logical, nor should it be studied by those who are.

Luck is in no way logical. The very concept of luck is not logical.

Again, that's why its called "the luck fallacy" in logic. Though, if you could demonstrate a material sort of luck, then yeah, it would have a perfectly valid place in logical argument. Which is why the luck fallacy is an informal fallacy.

Honestly, it doesn't really seem like you have any idea regarding what you're talking about. If you did, then you wouldn't have even posted this little rant, because I didn't actually disagree with you in any explicit sense.

Psyker_9er wrote:
Therefore, people with dogmatic minds, fed intravenously with other people's ideals of reality, are not qualified to study it's effects. There is not an equation for it, there is not a squareroot, nor is there any way to measure it's circumference.

Not yet, anyway. Though it should be pretty easy to demonstrate luck with statistics by showing that a given person naturally achieves outlying results despite the absence of any other discernible cause.

I'd also ask you, the person who desires to be 'unboxed' (while proceeding to box himself with words like 'dreamer') not to place others in 'boxes' because they use mathematical terminology, or talk about probability and logic. Let's be honest, all you're really doing is trying to make yourself feel like you've somehow freed your mind, when in reality you just riffed the collective Beat Generation.

Psyker_9er wrote:
These principles from the black and white world of math are useless here in the land of luck. Logic will not save you on this side of the looking glass, nor will college degrees protect you from your own entropy.

Well duh, no one ever said that college degrees would protect anyone from entropy. Why would anyone even make that argument. They're just pieces of paper that denote social concepts, they don't stave off death.

Either way, all you're saying here is "I believe in luck". And that's fine, but as many other people here have already argued, luck and probability aren't mutually exclusive ideas. Luck is a personalized concept, probability is a generalized one. Hell, as I already said, its even theoretically possible to demonstrate, statistically, that one particular person is unusually lucky when rolling dice.

Easily one of the most interesting/entertaining threads of late.
Salute all.

Ed_Bodger wrote:I hate Math-Hammer I have found it to be a total load of bollocks that very rarely works. It works if you take an average over a thousand games but that doesn't work for me because you can never add different circumstances into it.

No. Again (and likely again and again and again) just no. Mathhammer will tell you the odds of each individual result for the next roll, it doesn’t matter how many times you will roll the dice after that event, the odds of the next roll coming up a 3+ is 67%.

There is no consideration of improved tactics or of supporting units I just find it a very silly way of approaching things. YMMV

This is like saying the theory of gravity is bad because it doesn’t explain why there aren’t any unicorns.

Mathhammer provides specific information on specific actions. It can tell you the probability of each possible result on a dice roll. You use this knowledge to inform your inform your decision making. It isn’t the whole picture, but it doesn’t have to be to be very useful.

Tacobake wrote:Well I am not going to argue with sebster @ 7:20 in the morning on a Thursday.

Although having said that, an outlier is not 15%, or 33% in the case of a 3+.

So you are going to argue...

If you are defining an outlier using mean/ average/ expected value an outlier is two or more standard deviations. So say 3-5% chance or if you are defining it discretely as three standard deviations you are looking at 1% chance.

An outlier is a significantly unlikely event. In common use ‘significant’ is whatever the context of the conversation makes it out to be. In this instance people were commenting that a roll of snake eyes was common enough for them to doubt probability, so it can be considered an outlier.

Basically what is considered scientific accuracy (or "statistical significance") is two standard deviations, or two sigma. Typical mathhammer is more like 1 sigma. It is also a good reason for them to use six-sided dice as it keeps things exciting so to speak.

Yeah, that’s scientific accuracy for the purposes of publication of research data. Which is irrelevant because we aren’t doing that.

Mathhammer is as simple as saying ‘what are the odds of scoring two or more kills from this next volley of shots’ and then taking that calculation and using it as part of your decision making process for what attacks you are going to make. While not everyone makes the calculation (in the heat of the battle some of us determine average kills, I doubt anyone is calculating binomial probabilities…) we all certainly make ballpark guesses.

Tacobake wrote:Well you, or we, if we are getting technical need to define what we consider to be "statistical significance". For leadership rolls I would consider ld10 to be a sure thing, for example. If I failed that, that is an outlier. Now in the case of ld9 I have a... 75% chance to pass I would not necessarly consider failing that to be an outlier.

83%, which is actually the same odds as rolling a 2+

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:No offence but the pole is fine just the way it is considering what 97 people have been able to give a definitive answer without a problem.

No, it isn’t fine, if you want to learn anything you’re going to have to start taking constructive criticism much better.

And what sebster and a few others have said is that there is no way you could choose to put your faith behind either the numbers or luck that you have to trust both equally.

No. Please listen to what I and other people are saying. It is like asking if you put your faith in gravity or electromagnetism. The two things are not in competition and both will carry on existing regardless of whether you put your faith in them or not.

@Sebster: I saw the same response repeatidly from someone on another thread concerning intelligence and he was considered a troll for it. Just because you do not consider the answers given as actual answers does not mean that the question hasen't in fact been answered. The players said in various ways that they put their faith in luck over math it's as simple as that.

Explaining that something is wrong is not trolling. I never questioned anyone’s intelligence. So stop that nonsense right now.

When someone gives an answer that demonstrates no understanding of the subject matter, it is safe to conclude their answer isn’t representative of what’s really happening. Many people in this thread stated they preferred luck, but then tried to explain their position by giving an explanation of mathhammer that had nothing to do with what probability actually is.

This thread is asking which do you prefer to trust etc.

But you cannot prefer one or the other. You cannot. Again, which do you prefer; gravity or electromagnetism…. they’ll both carry on regardless of what you answer so what’s the point of the question?

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Ah but in this discussion potential=chance while reliability=math.

If the question was 'do you prefer to play it safe or take a risk on an unlikely outcome' you'd have something closer to a coherent question.

Now that is only one part of favoring luck over math and vice versa. For instance I once had a single remaining Fire Warrior in a squad armed with EMP grenades. His squad had been wiped out by a Defiler, the Warrior passed his Ld test and I (being a person who puts their faith in luck) used him to charge the Defiler in the hopes that his EMP grenade would get a 6 to pen and then destroy the Defiler and it did just that. Now someone who put their faith in math hammer probably woulden't have even tried to do that simply because the numbers say it woulden't have happened.

No. No. No. Mathhammer never says something won't happen. Please read this and understand it. It's not a hard concept. Mathhammer never says something won't happen. It can say something is unlikely, but that doesn't mean you should try it, a thing be worth trying because the upside of the unlikely success is so great it is worth giving it a try.

I've said this so many times I really cannot believe that you're still refusing to understand it.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Ok then you go ahead and provide an entire thread for those who actually care that explains every little exact detail of that scientific study including its authenticity as well as proof that it was made by a prominant scientific foundation and not some highschool science teacher (no offence to any actual science teachers reading this you guys rock).

Dude, seriously, don’t do that. You have two options here, you can get pissy and defend your poll, or you can actually listen to what people have tried to explain to you and learn something. If you choose the latter you might just come out of this with a little more knowledge about probability. But it looks like you’re choosing the former, and are going to end this thread with as confused an understanding as when you started.

Nurglitch wrote:Personally I find it amusing that Warboss Imbad Ironskull responds to dogma citing the scientific study of probability by demanding dogma cite "that scientific study of probability" and prove its "authenticity"...

It’s incredible. It’s a 17th century science, and there’s people in this thread honest to God claiming it’s somehow up for debate.

What is going on in the world?

Dracos wrote:I fully use mathammer, but I think some people attribute more power to it than it has.

Certainly you use it to determine your chances of success, and the viability of choices.

However, the statistics are only actually going to "average out" over a far larger sample size than the dice offer.

I explained this before. You really can determine the odds of each possible result for a single dice roll. People keep talking like you can't, but you can. It is just that simple.

Luck is certainly a factor.

Yes, people can get lucky. But when a lucky person next goes to roll a die he has the same chance of rolling a 1 as a guy who got unlucky in another game.

One other thing I'll add is that in my experience, chance favors the bold. 40k games have relatively few turns. If you don't decide to take a chance early on, either you won't put yourself in a position to win, or your opponent will get the initiative. Its pretty important to come up with an aggressive plan that has a high reward, and a safer backup plan if the dice are not with you.

Sure, having an aggressive plan to sieze the initiative is a good approach, and favouring that over reactive or defensive game plans makes for an interesting question. Unfortunately the OP's question somehow mistook elements of that with probability and some nebulous idea of luck.

NidMaster40000 wrote:I don't build lists by what I know works... and numbers aren't my stronghold.

Chance.

So, you're assuming what you've seen work in the part is probable to work in the future?

Speaking of 17th century sciences, on the topic of what gravity was, Newton make the comment that he would "feign no hypothesis". It was enough that there was a term 'g' that allowed modern physics and engineering to flower until relativity came along, and Newtonian physics is still good enough (and a damn sight more user-friendly) for non-relativistic applications.

Mind you, certain posters probably weren't even alive during the 17th century!

I was going to write a semi long post about how no one provided any examples I asked for a few pages back, but I think sebster has put the time in for me.

OP please read what he has written and take his advice.

It's funny. What I see mostly on this thread is alot of people assuming they know absolutly anything about someone else and then calling that person immature and insulting that person when they do the same thing back.

And Sebster do me a favor. Don't make any asumptions about my level of understanding of anything that has been said or my state of "being pissy" as if I was some little girl with an attitude. People like you have turned this thread into something it isn't because you're so set in your opinions that you won't let anyone else have theirs without making claims of unintelligence and a lesser standard of education which quiet frankly shows a level of maturity that I haven't seen since middle school.

I assure you I understand everything that has been said in this entire thread as I'm sure most readers have because I doubt Dakka has any genuinly stupid members. That being said the ones who are throwing the most stones are those who are arguing that math rules all and that the aspects of math and luck are indistinguishable from eachother.

Now if you where so sure and confident in your theory I see no reason why any of you would feel the need to make continual referance to the intelligence levels of those who disagree with you considering you know absolutly nothing about them and it shows a level of insecurity unfitting for an adult. Now if you want to be stuck in your perfect little world where math is your best friend and can fix everything and tell you all the secrets you need to know you go right ahead and do that.

But while your opinion is your opinion that is just it, an opinion. You THINK that the two can't be seperated. does that mean it's true? Hell no. Does that mean everyone whose been called ignorant or refered to as believing the world is flat in this thread is actually ignorant or believes such things? again hell no. All that means is that a small group of those responding feel that they are much higher then everyone else in intelligence that they must educate them in the error of their ways. Except for the people you're trying to "educate" don't need it.

And when it is made perfectly clear that they don't need it you all decide to hide behind a mask of "Oh they're ignorant, they're so thick they don't get it, instead of acting like a grown man who realises that a differance in opinion does not signify a lack of intelligence or understanding I'm going to try and insult them."

The fact is that not everyone in this world is going to agree on things, that dosen't mean either party is any less intelligent then the other. That just means that they are excercising free choice, now if you can't handle the idea that not everyone thinks like you do or follows your every word like a religion then I suggest you stay off of a site whose members are made up of people from all across the world all with differant experiences and opinions. You should also work on your god complex where you think that everything you say is absolutly 100% correct and everyone has to agree with you because if they don't you'll list a chain of numbers that says why you're correct and call everyone else ignorant.

This thread is about people expressing their personal choices which is a very viable sunject considering EVERYONE is entitled to a personal choice. This isn't the thread where "what I say is universal law so you have to listen to me". Thos of you who think that mathhammer and luck can't be seperated into 2 differant choices are free to think that absolutly it's your opinion. But for those who have a differance of opinion you should pull your heads out of your asses long enough to realise that you don't have to force your theories onto everyone else and waste their time in the process.

All you people who are arguing that they can't be seperated? what do you think I'd change the question or the answers to suit you? Do you think insulting people or making implications about them is really going to make me "see the light of your infinant wisdom". Call me stubborn or hell call me whatever you want I don't care. The poll is staying exactly the same because wether you like it or not the majority of the people who have posted on this thread have actually understood the point of it and have answered accordingly because the majority of the people who have posted on the thread be it by voting or otherwise are not arrogant enough to try and force their dribble on to others and are logical enough to realise that everyone will have a differance in opinion and they're actually fine with that.

So all you people who are calling the rest of us ignorant go ahead and read this post, go ahead and get your panties in a bunch because that's what you're good at, go ahead and make some equally long post citing this and that which I have no doubt will be something in referance to my intelligence, go ahead and do whatever you want. I however am going to be ignoring anyone who does such things as IMHO you are not welcome in this thread as you do not provide anything of use to it nor are your mature enough to be in the discussion.

Have a nice day

I think none of us have learnt anything here.

If anyone wants the thread to be re-opened, please PM me or another moderator.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reopened at user request.

Please try not to cast aspersions upon members.

Why is ignorant an insult? Everyone is ignorant in some areas, that's usually where a reasonable person will ask questions to try to learn and improve one's understanding.

Opinions are one thing, but if you have an opinion that is in opposition to facts, you can and should be called out on it.

It seems to be an ongoing thing in American society (at least) that we have started to ignore the difference between ignorance and willful ignorance. One is no shame and is the state we all exist in, the other is the worst form of intellectual dishonesty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS I think sebster has added more to this thread than anyone else, has done so on a very mature level and I thank him for his efforts.

PPS I did not ask for this thread to be reopened

Ignorance is not an insult.

The insult comes in the form of someone thinking their opinion is a fact and so they assume that they have to "educate" anyone whose opinion differs from theirs because that automatically means they're ignorant or that they actually dismiss any opinion but their own as the ramblings of someone who has not been "enlightened to some greater truth".

It is the assumption of ignorance that is insulting. If ignorance was actually present then it would be understandable but it is merely a differance in opinion with one side claiming that their opinion is fact. It is not your place nor is it any others on this site to assume that anyone is ignorant or to determine what is a universal fact. What may be accepted as a fact by you and others does not mean it is accepted as a fact by others, that dose not mean they are ignorant.

As an example look at religion. Look at the differances between Hinduism and Christianity, one religion believes that as a fact one deity exists while the other religion believes again as a fact that a completly differant deity exists. Does the fact that what one side sees something as a fact and the other side dosen't make either side ignorant? no it dosen't, they may see eachother as ignorant but that dosen't mean it's actually true.

Making the assumption based off of your interpretation of what is fact and then implying that a group with a differant interpretation is in some way lower then yourself (in this case that they are ignorant and therefore not as educated as you in the related topic) simply because they don't agree with you is the insult. And it's one made quiet regularly in this thread.

People are always free to have a differance in opinion, it's a part of what makes us individuals. But don't go around labeling people as ignorant simply because they don't see things the same way that you do or agree with what you say.

I'm sorry but are you arguing that statistics and probabilities are not fact?

Actually no that's not even close to what I said nor is it close to what anyone on this entire thread has said. That response tells me you didn't actually read what I said you just looked through it for what you wanted to see.

So on that note I will quit trying to be civilised and just ignore you. Those of you who wanted to keep a pointless argument going that dosen't even touch on the basics of my thread feel free but I'll have no part of it.

If you want to stick to what the actual thread is about you're more then welcome to and I'll keep watching the poll itself to see the end result.

I read your post and could not find a single example of what you said was happening in this thread. I did find sebster making points based on an understanding of basic probabilities and you strongly disagreeing with him. What other conclusion is there to make other than that you are taking issue with probability and statistics?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:

As an example look at religion. Look at the differances between Hinduism and Christianity, one religion believes that as a fact one deity exists while the other religion believes again as a fact that a completly differant deity exists. Does the fact that what one side sees something as a fact and the other side dosen't make either side ignorant? no it dosen't, they may see eachother as ignorant but that dosen't mean it's actually true.

Can you honestly read this and say you were not trying to make the point that probability and statistics are not facts?

I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about using math hammer to make a decision or luck by playing the odds in a given situation.
I mean luck is merely a descriptive word we give to events after they happen that occur in our favor. It's not an actual thing we can have before we toss the dice. Well, I guess I should say we can have the desire of a certain outcome but that doesn't make it more likely to happen.

It's not opinion. A 6 sided dice will only give 7 results. That's right 7. 6 on a flat side and 1 crooked. We re-roll that crooked die because statistics don't include it (just throwing that out there). Math will only ask what of the 6 possibilities will come up. Pretty accepted I think and luck becomes some great force in Life because there's more than 6 possible outcomes. Lots of factors and what not. But I digress, statistics is a math as the numbers get really funny if you get stuck in. Simple math says a die will give 1/6 or roughly 16.67% for any number. But in series you start multiplying that percentage for it to occur in sequence. Any time you roll one die it's 16% for any result, over and over again. It's when you want certain events to occur that you multiply the number of events. So if you roll 1 die 5 times for the same number it's 16%*16%*16%*16%*16% for roughly .001% occurrence. Why? Because every time you roll, to get that same number is only 1 out of 6 while breaking the chain is 5 out of 6. EACH TIME. It's possible to roll a die five times and get the same number all five times, but it gets extremely low as it wants to average out the other possibilities.

So again, luck is when you want certain events to occur in our favor. Math says it could happen but the odds drop the longer you want it to happen. Can a tac squad get shoot off an objective? Sure. Can that same squad in another game take and save every wound thrown their way? Sure. But statistics says it's a very low possibility to get that desired result every time you throw dice for that event.

PS I apologize for continuing to call stat a math (starts with a bass) but I agree with Twain that there's lies, gak lies and then there's statistics. News reports citing polls and stats anger me so much. Where did they poll, when (who was available) to poll, what was asked, and how could one answer. I don't believe 60-70% in my area supported going to multiple wars zone. One sure, but not more than one. off

mrwhoop wrote:I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about using math hammer to make a decision or luck by playing the odds in a given situation.

I've made it clear multiple times that that isn't what this thread is about. Anyone opperating under that belief must have just skipped over every single time I said that.

Well it doesn't help that you titled the thread, 'Chance vs Chance/Luck.'

Could you please iterate what this thread is supposed to be about, so we can all be clear on it?

It might also be helpful to clarify what you mean by "Math Hammer" and "Chance/Luck".

Then I apologize because that IS what this thread is about. What do you put your faith in = defining mathhammer vs luck and why one chooses to do so.

I'll bow out

Reecius wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:But again this isn't about whether players use one more then the other. This is about which aspect individual players choose to trust more then the other.

This is only expressing a way of looking at the same thing. It is not two separate things.

You are perpetuating a false premise by sticking to this supposed choice. There is no choice involved. If you roll the dice and say "I hope I get result X" as opposed to "I roll the dice knowing I have Y chance of getting result X" there is absolutely no difference in what is going on.

Perhaps your question should have been: do you base your in-game decisions on math or do you just go with what your gut? Something like that.

I am not trying to brow beat you, it's just that the question doesn't really present the options I think you were trying to present.

Extremely well put.

I do not believe that any of the people who answered luck to the poll take in game decisions without on some level considering how likely they are to succeed.

I have no idea what you're talking about - I ALWAYS use heavy bolters against terminators, heavy flamers against rhinos, and clear out those pesky scouts with their 2+ cover saves via a bevy of melta shots, because that's what my gut tells me is the best way to do it (yes, I tend to eat large amounts of cheap take-out curry, why do you ask?)

Something else worth noting is that statistics is only one branch of mathematics that is applicable to Warhammer 40,000. Game theory is another branch, one that players can both use to leverage the statistics in their favour, and to consider the non-statistical elements of the game.

Reecius wrote:
How is this concept so hard to fathom? Math hammer tells you ALL possible outcomes of a certain situation, even the remotely possible and how often they are likely to occur.

Trusting in luck doesn't make you MORE likely to get the 1 in 100 result.

This is like debating with a wall or something (not you particularly thehod, just a large portion of this thread in general). How does this not sink in? Math hammer is not JUST averages, it is every single possible outcome and the likelihood of these events occurring.

OK, screw it. I give up. If it isn't clear then is just isn't clear. Keep playing the game in utter ignorance being dumbfounded as to why things occur. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Sorry if I seem abrasive as I am not trying to insult anyone but this feels like trying to argue why the earth is not flat with people who keep insisting that it is.

I barely passed my math classes. So I dont really look too much into math. But I think I also did not communicate my point well. It is impossible to totally discount probability. But the majority of my decisions in game is based on experience.

I do think of probability when it comes to things like shooting a meltagun at a trukk. Othertimes I go based off of experience.

Which is, again, probability.

Concious calculation of the odds vs instinct/experience would seem to be a better way to ask the question.

Bookwrack wrote:Which is, again, probability.

It is probability filtered through the lenses of variable experience and human consciousness.

Thus, helpful, but not infallible.

I think it's been beaten to death that knowing the probabilities in a conscious and methodical way (as opposed to a subconscious and intuitive way...) no more guarantees infallibility than the sacrifice of 1000 math-geeks to Tzeentch.

I think if we are honest we should all recognise that no-one takes decisions in a game based on blind faith.

For example, when firing a melta-gun, you only have a 14% chance of being within range of your target, unless you know the range is 12 inches and get close enough.

The chance of being in effective range is only 3.5%. It isn’t very likely that someone could have learned from pure luck experience that a meltagun is a good anti tank weapon.

As such, I think the poll must be divided between people who know the odds and base their decision on them, and people who roughly know the odds and ignore them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the topic has been examined in detail now.