So I am curious, how well does crunching the numbers on a units capabilities compare to playing it against an experienced opponent?

I ask because, while I am a very capable mathematician, I admit to not having any challenging opponents available to me. Most of the people in my group are newer than I am and aren't very good at tactics. And even when I play my friend that plays 40k semi-regularly, and is a major meta-gamer, the outcome is still heavily in my favor.

Experience is a less precise version of math. If you play enough games you know that 2 squad of marines with 2 plasma guns each probably won't kill 7 plaguemarines in cover . Math helps you get the same resoults without having to play those 100+ games to check stuff.

Crunching the numbers is (in my opinion) better than experience.
Math-hammer tells you what you should expect, and you can even calculate the chances of you having a bad day and all.

Let's say a person uses plasma and has rolled a lot of 1's in 5 games.
He than decides to drop plasma because "it is bad!".
As a mathematician you should know that 5 samples is nothing.

Makumba wrote:
Experience is a less precise version of math. If you play enough games you know that 2 squad of marines with 2 plasma guns each probably won't kill 7 plaguemarines in cover . Math helps you get the same resoults without having to play those 100+ games to check stuff.

This is somewhat accurate. Experience doesn't just mean <= math. Experience also means that you likely understand the flow of the game and the capabilities of many units. I'm willing to bet that the best players don't sit around and crunch numbers, they go out and play games and test out lists and units against varied opponents and skill levels.

At its essence the game is a dice game. The math always wins. If every move you make puts you at a mathematical advantage you will win more than you lose. Experience is what gives you the intuition to know the moves that put you at a mathematical advantage, even without doing the math.

It also helps to play a list that already has the best mathematical chance of winning.

The one drawback of relying purely on maths is that the chances are, in a competitive environment, your opponent will likely have a similar understanding of the maths as you do. Meaning that if you are aware of the capabilities of of a particular unit, the opponent is also likely to have an idea of its effectiveness, and thus will attempt to avoid/eliminate the unit in question. As such, this is where experience comes in. as you are likely more aware of how this unit works with the rest of your list, and how you maximise the effectiveness of the unit.

Maths can tell you what a unit is capable of, but experience is the only real way to know 'how' to use that capability. Relying purely on one or the other will lead to defeat.

And no amount of mathhammer will ever stop anyone from making those "Hail Mary!" moves. And sometimes, those moves will work. Example, my Rune Priest is locked with a Dreadknight. I have meltabombs, but I choose to use the Runic Weapon instead. He survives the Dreadknight by making his 5++ terminator save. Hits in combat, wounds on a 6, Dreadknight player rolls a 1 on his armor save. Force Weapon goes off, DK's gone.

If that were to happen again, I would to the same thing again.

My experience is mathhammer doesn't work, the real world will always throw a wrench in the closed environment of mathhammer, it's a good indicator, but not something to be.relied on

The concerns I have with mathhammer is that it can tell you what will happen in certain circumstances, when you compare units shooting/assaulting units. However, most times, LOS, positioning and cover specifics aren't really dealt with in a game realistic way. There are too many possible combinations.

The other thing is that you'll only get "average" results as shown by mathhammer over hundreds of games.

"So I have caused 3 wounds on your terminators - you get 2+ saves"
"three ones....well, that's bad luck"

"So I'm shooting overwatch with my pistol, 6 to hit, 6 to wound and you'll get a 2+ armour save. Oh, you died? Pity, your charge failed".

I'm for experience.

Loborocket wrote:
Experience is what gives you the intuition to know the moves that put you at a mathematical advantage, even without doing the math.

In a nutshell, this. Math helps you understand what units/weapons are effective against which targets, but you need experience to know how to put them in the right position to be used efficiently. There's also no calculator in the world to prepare you for your opponent's tactics.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 laginess wrote:
I ask because, while I am a very capable mathematician, I admit to not having any challenging opponents available to me. Most of the people in my group are newer than I am and aren't very good at tactics. And even when I play my friend that plays 40k semi-regularly, and is a major meta-gamer, the outcome is still heavily in my favor.

This is simply a product of your environment. I would suggest signing up for some tournaments. You'll get an ego check pretty quickly.

Experience is selective, how often are you going to remember you passing a lot of 2+ saves compared to rolling 3-4 1s?
Experience bends what is true to what is most dominant, hence rolling poorly for a unit that shouldnt gets stuck in your mind.

Math on the other hand is absolute, following mathhammer is the way to ensure the squad performs the way they do.

 Formosa wrote:
My experience is mathhammer doesn't work, the real world will always throw a wrench in the closed environment of mathhammer, it's a good indicator, but not something to be.relied on

This. Very much this. I've seen too many units under perform and over perform and nothing stays constant like the pretty little math tables. Mathhammer is a great way to suck the soul out of the game.

MarkCron wrote:
"So I have caused 3 wounds on your terminators - you get 2+ saves"
"three ones....well, that's bad luck"
"So I'm shooting overwatch with my pistol, 6 to hit, 6 to wound and you'll get a 2+ armour save. Oh, you died? Pity, your charge failed".
I'm for experience.

But you still take Terminators.
You still charge even if one dead model would cause the charge to fail.

Why? Because math says that you will probably make it.
If experience really trumps math, you wouldn't take terminators or charge

 Formosa wrote:
My experience is mathhammer doesn't work, the real world will always throw a wrench in the closed environment of mathhammer, it's a good indicator, but not something to be.relied on

If you let your experiences cloud what the math tells you will be disappointed over time. Yes the real world does throw a wrench into "the closed environment of mathhammer". It is those events that stick in our minds, (and make the game fun actually) but should not cloud your judgement. Does making a charge over 10" make for an awesome, potentially game breaking moment? Yes of course it does, but the math tells us typically this is NOT a good idea and should probably not be attempted most times.

i prefer mathhammering things out. knowing on average whats the chance of wrecking this tank with my wave serpent is nice, because if its low, then i would use my walkers lances.

 laginess wrote:
So I am curious, how well does crunching the numbers on a units capabilities compare to playing it against an experienced opponent?

I ask because, while I am a very capable mathematician, I admit to not having any challenging opponents available to me. Most of the people in my group are newer than I am and aren't very good at tactics. And even when I play my friend that plays 40k semi-regularly, and is a major meta-gamer, the outcome is still heavily in my favor.

Number crunching helps to prepare you for games. It helps you to properly analyze what the odds are of a specific outcome when your playing.
I've got a website where I just geek out about math and 40k. That's because its also fun!
However, mathhammer and theoryhammer are no substitutes for playing. You need to get some games in to learn how to apply your mathHammer.

According to your profile you live near Seattle. I suspect that if you start digging around, you will find some opponents there who can properly challenge you.

 Lord Arturius wrote:
This is somewhat accurate. Experience doesn't just mean <= math. Experience also means that you likely understand the flow of the game and the capabilities of many units. I'm willing to bet that the best players don't sit around and crunch numbers, they go out and play games and test out lists and units against varied opponents and skill levels.

They do both.
For example, I've been playing a jetSeer build lately. The math showed me how to build the army list. The games I've played showed me how I need to place them when playing -- for example putting the Baron up front in a V formation when closing on Tau with a AP2 weapon that ignores cover. Another example is how I learned how to use hit and run to bounce out of an assault, then rush back into the assault while assaulting a second, weaker unit that I could deliver a ton of wounds to -- causing all units to be swept.
Edit -- I don't claim to be a 'best player'. I'm a good player -- but not the best. But I've seen the 'best players' crunch numbers in addition to playing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarkCron wrote:
"So I have caused 3 wounds on your terminators - you get 2+ saves"
"three ones....well, that's bad luck"

A smart player won't let that detur them. Sure. you might get a bad string of luck that throws off your game, but it does not mean the math does not work.

Look at blackjack games in a casino. Just because you did not bust that one time you hit on a 16 does NOT mean its a good strategy. If you believe that it is, I advise avoiding gambling facilities.

The fault of mathhammer is that it is based on large sample sizes and probability. The problem with this is that "large samples" usually exceeds dozens and dozens - even hundreds of samples.

This requirement isn't met on tables. It governs how unit A will perform in situation B over the course of 10 games worth of shooting rounds. This is meaningful in a coarse sense, but not in a specific shooting round, where marginal results can happen without causing any problems with the overall theory of math-hammer.

How many times has everyone here seen people on tables look at a dice result or an event that happened and say "that shouldn't happen"? Or, after a combat or a shooting phase say "well if I had rolled average". They don't complain near as much when they roll over average and decimate a unit of yours with great rolls.

The assumptions of math-hammer are not met on the table top. And people who rely on math-hammer instead of experience will forever get punched in the face by it at unexpected times.

This is a primary example of what I was just talking about. Lets review Gwyidion's post and change it to apply to blackjack. I altered the wording to fit blackjack, but the core of his argument is still the same.

The fault of probabilities is that it is based on large sample sizes and probability. The problem with this is that "large samples" usually exceeds dozens and dozens - even hundreds of samples.

This requirement isn't met on blackjack tables. It governs how hand A will perform in situation B over the course of 10 games . This is meaningful in a coarse sense, but not in a specific shooting round, where marginal results can happen without causing any problems with the overall theory of probabilities.

How many times has everyone here seen people on tables look at a card result or an event that happened and say "that shouldn't happen"? Or, after the dealer hits say "well he should had drawn average". They don't complain near as much when they draw great hands and hit blackjack again and again.

The assumptions of probabilities are not met on the table top. And people who rely on probabilities instead of experience will forever get punched in the face by it at unexpected times.

Gwyidion, I'm sure your a smart guy. You would not be playing warhammer if you were not. This is not a game for the intellectually challenged.
However, would you ever go to a casino and follow the paraphrased advise above? I can see why some people would, but I would rather trust in probabilities over experience.

Mathhammer is what you do when you are not playing Warhammer

They go hand and hand. All the Mathhammer in the world won't predict what the guy across from you is gonna do. Sure the mathhammer says that your squad x should ammihilate his squad y. But the whole reason he put squad y where he did was to get you to move squad x up so he could then eliminate it with squad Z!

I hate algebra...

Anywho, Dice rolls are random, and most of the time don't even out over the course of even several games. Knowing the matthammer might prevent you from dropping a unit just because it underperformed a couple of times. Not to mention there are several factors that are just so unpredicatable it is close to impossible to math out.

example...

Realistically my Fire Prism is only gonna get to fire that big gun 3 or 4 times a game(average 6 turns, 1 turn it will probabably be moving flat out, 1 or 2 turns it might already be dead). 1 out of the 3 or 4 times it is gonna miss. But that one turn that it catches those clumped up Terminators caught inside the burning wreckage of a Land Raider, that one shot might mean the game.

You also can't factor in the psychological factor of the big template on your oponents movement phase.

I guess what I am getting at is know your math AND know your enemy.

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
"So I have caused 3 wounds on your terminators - you get 2+ saves"
"three ones....well, that's bad luck"
"So I'm shooting overwatch with my pistol, 6 to hit, 6 to wound and you'll get a 2+ armour save. Oh, you died? Pity, your charge failed".
I'm for experience.

But you still take Terminators.
You still charge even if one dead model would cause the charge to fail.

Why? Because math says that you will probably make it.
If experience really trumps math, you wouldn't take terminators or charge

My examples were me talking... and I killed all the terminators next game as well.
I think experience trumps math because I still shoot at terminators, even though I should shoot at something else which I have a mathhammer greater chance of killing. (See...we can do this forever! )

ninjafiredragon wrote:i prefer mathhammering things out. knowing on average whats the chance of wrecking this tank with my wave serpent is nice, because if its low, then i would use my walkers lances.

Don't need mathhammer for that. Pick most dangerous unit. Shoot with strongest weapon. Dead? No - move to next available weapon. Can it hurt it? Yes = Shoot at most dangerous unit (repeat until "No" answer or opponent is tabled). If the answer was "No" = Pick next most dangerous unit. Can you hurt it.....etc etc.

As an example, if you know that the incoming helldrake is going to fry your troops and you'll lose the game - will you
a) Not shoot at it because Mathhammer tells you there is only a low chance of stopping it; OR
b) Shoot everything you have that can possibly pen or glance it?

If you answered (a) - wrong answer.

Loborocket wrote:
At its essence the game is a dice game. The math always wins. If every move you make puts you at a mathematical advantage you will win more than you lose. Experience is what gives you the intuition to know the moves that put you at a mathematical advantage, even without doing the math.

It also helps to play a list that already has the best mathematical chance of winning.

Math only helps in the list building. There is no math to tactical play. You still have to effectively and smartly use your optimized list to win a game. If you play like a dunderhead with your optimized list it won't matter how optimized your list is. Also if you play effectively with a non-optimized list it will get the job done quite often on the table.

Since dice rolling is still random, even the best optimized list can fall pray to bad dice performance.

Math is great if your only goal is to win no matter what. If you goal is a fun and interesting game math can add to that, but it can't provide it on its own.

Skriker

I've flirted with Mathhammer and in the end find experiance to be the better teacher. Mathhammer pushes you into very specific builds due to being mathematically the best (Nurgle and Heldrakes), but an experianced player can look at the less immediately impressive options and still make them work.

Mathhammer almost always seems to assume a unit works alone, often being played in a place with no cover.

Experiance instead teaches you how to play units together, to maximize your effects by using things together through things like area denial, counter-charge units and the like.

Plus I've seen Mathhammer has created this perception that units need to "make their points back" to be effective. It's as if that people forget that there are other things that units can be effective for.

Now could Mathhammer reliably tell me the average resault of something? Sure, but in a game where you don't roll hundreds of times the bell curve gets chucked out the window rather quickly and frankly knowing that means I don't prepare for the averages, I prepare for the extremes.

Experiance taught me that.

MarkCron wrote:
Don't need mathhammer for that. Pick most dangerous unit. Shoot with strongest weapon. Dead? No - move to next available weapon. Can it hurt it? Yes = Shoot at most dangerous unit (repeat until "No" answer or opponent is tabled). If the answer was "No" = Pick next most dangerous unit. Can you hurt it.....etc etc.

Is that really the best approach to target priority? Mathhammer will show you that's not the case.
Often your 'strongest weapon' is not the 'right weapon' to be using. Lets say that 6 wraiths are coming to smash your marine armies face in Flanking that unit is an annihilation barge.

The strongest weapon you have is a vindicator. The second strongest weapons you have are two tactical squads with bolters/PGs. According to your logic you should shoot the vindicator at the wraiths, then the bolters at the wraiths.

What you will discover through mathammer is that wraiths are vulnerable to massive STR 4 shooting. You would have been better served shooting the bolters at the wraiths and the vindicator at the annihilation barge. This maximizes your effect on the targets.

Instead the vindicator round is wasted with a small chance to kill even 1 wraith.
This is why mathhammer is important. By having a rough understanding of the proper probables your less likely to waste shots. Sure it happens when the vindiactor round will just deviate off the annaliation barge and not have any effect -- but the odds of a greater overall effect are higher. If you keep playing with better odds, you will experience a better result over the course of many games.

Gwyidion wrote:
The fault of mathhammer is that it is based on large sample sizes and probability. The problem with this is that "large samples" usually exceeds dozens and dozens - even hundreds of samples.

Yes and no.

Yes, because that is precisely where 99.9999999% of Mathhammer fails.

No, because it could be included in Mathhammer, if people wouldn't focus solely on the means (averages), but a complete set of statistic measures such as variance, range, standard deviation, standard error, etc.. But nobody does it, hence why most Mathhammer is - infact - fairly atrocious statistics (even if the math is - strictly speaking - correct).

 labmouse42 wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Don't need mathhammer for that. Pick most dangerous unit. Shoot with strongest weapon. Dead? No - move to next available weapon. Can it hurt it? Yes = Shoot at most dangerous unit (repeat until "No" answer or opponent is tabled). If the answer was "No" = Pick next most dangerous unit. Can you hurt it.....etc etc.

Is that really the best approach to target priority? Mathhammer will show you that's not the case.
Often your 'strongest weapon' is not the 'right weapon' to be using. Lets say that 6 wraiths are coming to smash your marine armies face in Flanking that unit is an annihilation barge.

The strongest weapon you have is a vindicator. The second strongest weapons you have are two tactical squads with bolters/PGs. According to your logic you should shoot the vindicator at the wraiths, then the bolters at the wraiths.

What you will discover through mathammer is that wraiths are vulnerable to massive STR 4 shooting. You would have been better served shooting the bolters at the wraiths and the vindicator at the annihilation barge. This maximizes your effect on the targets.

Instead the vindicator round is wasted with a small chance to kill even 1 wraith.
This is why mathhammer is important. By having a rough understanding of the proper probables your less likely to waste shots. Sure it happens when the vindiactor round will just deviate off the annaliation barge and not have any effect -- but the odds of a greater overall effect are higher. If you keep playing with better odds, you will experience a better result over the course of many games.

I knew that without Mathhammer personally. Forcing saves through high volumes of dice is almost always the best way to kill things with good saves. But again that bell curve goes out the window when they make more saves than they should. On a 2+ Terminators shold fail at least one save in every 6 they take, but who hasn't seen a number of times where they make a considerable number more, or even less successful saves than that?

 labmouse42 wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Don't need mathhammer for that. Pick most dangerous unit. Shoot with strongest weapon. Dead? No - move to next available weapon. Can it hurt it? Yes = Shoot at most dangerous unit (repeat until "No" answer or opponent is tabled). If the answer was "No" = Pick next most dangerous unit. Can you hurt it.....etc etc.

Is that really the best approach to target priority? Mathhammer will show you that's not the case.
Often your 'strongest weapon' is not the 'right weapon' to be using. Lets say that 6 wraiths are coming to smash your marine armies face in Flanking that unit is an annihilation barge.

The strongest weapon you have is a vindicator. The second strongest weapons you have are two tactical squads with bolters/PGs. According to your logic you should shoot the vindicator at the wraiths, then the bolters at the wraiths.

What you will discover through mathammer is that wraiths are vulnerable to massive STR 4 shooting. You would have been better served shooting the bolters at the wraiths and the vindicator at the annihilation barge. This maximizes your effect on the targets.

Instead the vindicator round is wasted with a small chance to kill even 1 wraith.
This is why mathhammer is important. By having a rough understanding of the proper probables your less likely to waste shots. Sure it happens when the vindiactor round will just deviate off the annaliation barge and not have any effect -- but the odds of a greater overall effect are higher. If you keep playing with better odds, you will experience a better result over the course of many games.

Actually, I somewhat agree. However, you've just highlighted the key issue. Experience says that if the wraiths get to charge you will lose not just that unit, but probably the chance to kill the wraiths with shooting at all (we'll assume a competent 40k player who can organise an assault to finish it off in the opponent phase - yes, I'm aware that mathhammer can be said to have a role to play in that ). So, your priority is to kill the wraiths. From your tac squads, lets assume mathhammer says that on average 2 squads of tac marines (x10) will take down 6 wraiths (I don't know if that is true by the way, but I'm SURE someone will work that out ).

Mathhammer doesn't tell you the order to shoot though. So, you could shoot the Vindi at the AB first and it would make no difference to the mathhammer - the wraith squad should die from Tac marine fire anyway. Experience says - shoot the tac marines first - because if the wraiths don't die, you need to keep shooting at them or you could lose the game.

That's why I prefer experience over mathhammer - knowing that on average 20 tac marines with bolters kills 7.65 wraiths (made that number up by the way - figured I would put that in before everyone races to correct my math!) doesn't take away the pain when the wraiths don't die.

ClockworkZion wrote:
I knew that without Mathhammer personally. Forcing saves through high volumes of dice is almost always the best way to kill things with good saves.

That is an excellent point, yet that's not always the case. Let me give you another example. Lets say that instead of 6 wraiths there are 10 plague marines (units with good saves) Each bolter shot you fire has a 4/81 (just under 5%) of killing a PM. In this case, knowing the RPPvalue of PMs to bolters you would know that shooting bolters at them is a waste, and they should instead be used on a different target. On the other hand, a PMs RPP to vindicators is extremely low so shooting them with is bank.

You may have noticed that your experience has shown the same results as Mathhammering. This is a good thing! This provides key point indicators that our mathhammer works, giving us encouragement that further items that we can gleam from mathhammering will be valid.

ClockworkZion wrote:
But again that bell curve goes out the window when they make more saves than they should. On a 2+ Terminators shold fail at least one save in every 6 they take, but who hasn't seen a number of times where they make a considerable number more, or even less successful saves than that?

Your right in the sense that you cannot throw 30 wounds on 5 marines and expect them all to be dead -- but they will probably be dead or very hurt. What the mathhammer tells us is that we can expect that 30 wounds are what it will take to get that result. Sure, it might happen after 5 wounds, but odds are it will happen when your getting closer to 30.
This is a separate item that we can gleam other from the other item -- what weapon to shoot at a target.

There's a difference between using Mathhammer as a guideline and using it as your sole source of consultance for everything ever.

MarkCron wrote:
Actually, I somewhat agree.

I think most of the time people get intimidated by mathhammer because it seems complicated or does not make sense. I've been trying to focus on a 'mathhammer for everyone' concept where I explain how the mathhammer applies to players in 40k. Listen to the 11th company podcast, I've been doing weekly segments on mathhammer for the past 2 months.

MarkCron wrote:
Mathhammer doesn't tell you the order to shoot though. So, you could shoot the Vindi at the AB first and it would make no difference to the mathhammer - the wraith squad should die from Tac marine fire anyway. Experience says - shoot the tac marines first - because if the wraiths don't die, you need to keep shooting at them or you could lose the game.

Right. What it tells you is your best chances to complete your task.
By knowing that the wraiths have low RPP values to bolters, you can start with the bolters and see the results. If the wraiths were badly injured and you can take the assault, then you can focus on the barge with the vindicators. However, if the wraiths are unscratched, then you need to hit them with the vindicator to soften them up a touch.

Mathhammering does not give you an absolute 'play this way'. Instead its a tool to add to your understanding of the game that assists you while playing.

 labmouse42 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
I knew that without Mathhammer personally. Forcing saves through high volumes of dice is almost always the best way to kill things with good saves.

That is an excellent point, yet that's not always the case. Let me give you another example. Lets say that instead of 6 wraiths there are 10 plague marines (units with good saves) Each bolter shot you fire has a 4/81 (just under 5%) of killing a PM. In this case, knowing the RPPvalue of PMs to bolters you would know that shooting bolters at them is a waste, and they should instead be used on a different target. On the other hand, a PMs RPP to vindicators is extremely low so shooting them with is bank.

You may have noticed that your experience has shown the same results as Mathhammering. This is a good thing! This provides key point indicators that our mathhammer works, giving us encouragement that further items that we can gleam from mathhammering will be valid.

Not to be difficult, but I don't think that is the same thing at all. ClockworkZion is using basic probability - "In order for them to roll more 1's I should make them roll more dice" ==> shoot more shots -the chance of them actually wounding is irrelevant as long as you get a hit. Here again - basic probability - shoot more shots - more hits.

From what you are saying, mathhammering allows more precise allocation -> "I'm not going to shoot weapon x because weapon Y has a higher chance". That isn't the same as saying "Well, I can get a wound with this weapon, I'm going to shoot at this until it is dead"

I like how all the evidence against the usefulness of math is "Well, low percentage outcomes happen...so why bother."

Yeah, a Pyrovore could kill 15 Guardsman in one shot, that does not make planning for it a good idea.

I look at it this way...Mathhammer shows what units are capable of doing.

Experence reveals synergy and tactics.

Which is more important...probably experience, because with enough of it you can determine what mathhammer is telling you anyway.

Key point is though, you don't have to just do one or the other.

 Formosa wrote:
My experience is mathhammer doesn't work, the real world will always throw a wrench in the closed environment of mathhammer, it's a good indicator, but not something to be.relied on

Mathhammer cannot not work. It always does. The main problem is that people expect different things. "Mathhammer" is nothing but rather simple statistics to get the average chance of having success doing X.

What people think mathhammering will do: According to these calculations my Wraiths will kill this squad of TAC!

What mathhammering actually does: What is the average chance of my Wraiths killing this squad of TAC?

As it does nothing but calculate averages, Mathhammer itself cannot fail. What usually fails is what people think it does

I am in the same boat as you OP. I am pretty good at math and can easily calculate the # of potential losses / kills and it's a reliable advantage over a lot of enemies.

 labmouse42 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
I knew that without Mathhammer personally. Forcing saves through high volumes of dice is almost always the best way to kill things with good saves.

That is an excellent point, yet that's not always the case.

"Not always the case" is why I said "almost always". I know that there are times when it doesn't work.

 labmouse42 wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Actually, I somewhat agree.

I think most of the time people get intimidated by mathhammer because it seems complicated or does not make sense. I've been trying to focus on a 'mathhammer for everyone' concept where I explain how the mathhammer applies to players in 40k. Listen to the 11th company podcast, I've been doing weekly segments on mathhammer for the past 2 months.

I'd suggest that the issue with Mathhammer is that it isn't done properly in the first place. As I said earlier, additional variables are often not taken into account or the results are misinterpreted as gospel. So, as a guideline it's fine, but the most important thing is to recognise inherent limitations. There is an exactly equal chance of rolling any individual number. That means that for every roll there is an exactly equal chance of a number not appearing. That's the fundmental limitation of mathhammer and is where experience takes over. Experience allows you to dedicate resources you know will get the job done and to keep focus.

 labmouse42 wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Mathhammer doesn't tell you the order to shoot though. So, you could shoot the Vindi at the AB first and it would make no difference to the mathhammer - the wraith squad should die from Tac marine fire anyway. Experience says - shoot the tac marines first - because if the wraiths don't die, you need to keep shooting at them or you could lose the game.

Right. What it tells you is your best chances to complete your task.
By knowing that the wraiths have low RPP values to bolters, you can start with the bolters and see the results. If the wraiths were badly injured and you can take the assault, then you can focus on the barge with the vindicators. However, if the wraiths are unscratched, then you need to hit them with the vindicator to soften them up a touch.

Mathhammering does not give you an absolute 'play this way'. Instead its a tool to add to your understanding of the game that assists you while playing.

+1

Mathhammer is nice when seeing what to do with units.
Experience is being able to know when to do what you need to do, how to do it, and when not to do it.

MarkCron wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
I knew that without Mathhammer personally. Forcing saves through high volumes of dice is almost always the best way to kill things with good saves.

That is an excellent point, yet that's not always the case. Let me give you another example. Lets say that instead of 6 wraiths there are 10 plague marines (units with good saves) Each bolter shot you fire has a 4/81 (just under 5%) of killing a PM. In this case, knowing the RPPvalue of PMs to bolters you would know that shooting bolters at them is a waste, and they should instead be used on a different target. On the other hand, a PMs RPP to vindicators is extremely low so shooting them with is bank.

You may have noticed that your experience has shown the same results as Mathhammering. This is a good thing! This provides key point indicators that our mathhammer works, giving us encouragement that further items that we can gleam from mathhammering will be valid.

Not to be difficult, but I don't think that is the same thing at all. ClockworkZion is using basic probability - "In order for them to roll more 1's I should make them roll more dice" ==> shoot more shots -the chance of them actually wounding is irrelevant as long as you get a hit. Here again - basic probability - shoot more shots - more hits.

From what you are saying, mathhammering allows more precise allocation -> "I'm not going to shoot weapon x because weapon Y has a higher chance". That isn't the same as saying "Well, I can get a wound with this weapon, I'm going to shoot at this until it is dead"

I like to claim I play Sciencehammer. I take a theory (that a paticular army is effective on the table) and test it (play it, a lot), adjust my hypothesis (adjust the list) and repeat. I learn more about playing the army this way, discover new tricks and am willing to break the mold more than Mathhammer seems to promote.

Plus experiance is a great tool. Even if you don't know the odds, if you pay attention you learn things just as effectively and can judge generally how effective a paticular idea is. Failing that, throwing more dice at it helps.

Gwyidion wrote:
The fault of mathhammer is that it is based on large sample sizes and probability.

The real fault with math hammer (more accurately, the way it is generally presented) is that it does not include the standard deviations or distribution, only the average. Both 2d6 and 1d3 + 5 average to 7; however, they chances either will give you exactly a 7 are quite different.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
My experience is mathhammer doesn't work, the real world will always throw a wrench in the closed environment of mathhammer, it's a good indicator, but not something to be.relied on

Mathhammer cannot not work. It always does. The main problem is that people expect different things. "Mathhammer" is nothing but rather simple statistics to get the average chance of having success doing X.

What people think mathhammering will do: According to these calculations my Wraiths will kill this squad of TAC!

What mathhammering actually does: What is the average chance of my Wraiths killing this squad of TAC?

As it does nothing but calculate averages, Mathhammer itself cannot fail. What usually fails is what people think it does

I am in the same boat as you OP. I am pretty good at math and can easily calculate the # of potential losses / kills and it's a reliable advantage over a lot of enemies.

I agree. it is in understanding what it is. Probability works for every dice roll. Every time. No exceptions.

Mathhammer is not the same as probability. It is based on probability, but has assumptions overlaid. Over a LARGE number of games, wraiths will kill the TAC squad x number of times. This MAY be one of those times. So, as a guideline then mathhammer is useful (at least you have a chance of killing them all).

Experience is better though, because most times you don't want to kill them all....just enough so you can finish them off in the next turn. You could mathhammer that, but again - too many variables.

edit, cos missed really important words!

Breng77 wrote:
I look at it this way...Mathhammer shows what units are capable of doing.

No, no
Math-hammer shows you what you can expect a unit to do.
What is actually does or is capable of is up to the dice-Gods.

MarkCron wrote:
My examples were me talking... and I killed all the terminators next game as well.
I think experience trumps math because I still shoot at terminators, even though I should shoot at something else which I have a mathhammer greater chance of killing. (See...we can do this forever! )

Ooh, can we?
Now would you fire at those terminators with autocannons or Plasma?
If experience > math, then you wouldn't care since both are equal.

As an example, if you know that the incoming helldrake is going to fry your troops and you'll lose the game - will you
a) Not shoot at it because Mathhammer tells you there is only a low chance of stopping it; OR
b) Shoot everything you have that can possibly pen or glance it?

If you answered (a) - wrong answer.

'A)' should be phrased differently.
Math-hammer means that you calculate what the best option is and shoot at that.
It's a pro's vs cons-system that results into an optimal target.

Replies to my post accurately note the the core of what was driving my post.

Math-hammer, in the colloquial sense, as seen on these boards, warseer, and in conversations around many game tables, is a pile of crap. It is poorly understood and misapplied statistics.

No discussion of variance, CIs or any other kind of expectation, in place of 'average' results is what makes me poo-poo math-hammer.

And the discussion of if math-hammer 'works' or not completely circumvents table circumstance, which usually so completely overrides math-hammer that it doesn't matter.

Example:

Battle wagon full of Ghaz and Nobz drives up to my lines. I put a few glances on it, and it has one HP left. All I have left are MLs in the AV14 front facing. It doesn't matter that the math-hammer states that is a poor target selection - that I don't have good chances of scoring a glance, and that my missles would be better served else where. The battle wagon must die. I need this to happen so I can unload all of my lower S non-AT weapons at the nobs before charging them with a CC unit (better than eating their charge).

This choice is made for me. I've already fired all my better AT, and If i don't want a bunch of really angry nobz in my lines, I have to do something about it. This happens all the time - and why did it? because my better AT rolled "less than average". Nevermind it was probably well within 1 standard deviation of the average and could be a totally expected result without any sort of significance.

Target priority supercedes math-hammer nearly every time.

Where math-hammer would be really useful is for more complicated situations that no one math-hammers. Where should blasts be put in a non-regular distribution of equal toughness and save infantry to maximize potential hits? Where should scattering DS units be placed in relation to opposing infantry to minimize distance but also minimize mishap chances at acceptable ratios?

Mathhammer as colloquially applied or understood by people who hated math is indeed bs, because it's numbers being thrown around with no comprehension of the concepts in play. It's marginally less useful than what stoned art students come up with in regards to subatomic particle theory.

Properly applied statistical analysis is a useful decision making tool. Dreaming about that big score is nice, but you have to be aware just how unlikely it is. The fact that most people can't temper their hopes with mathematics and think Experience will see them through is why casinos continue to turn massive profits.

'Experience' is often tainted with the usual problems with anecdotal evidence like selective memory. You remember when the plague marine in the open survives 10 plasma cannon wounds in a row, or when four Deathwing die to 5 storm bolters. You don't remember the results where stuff falls within a SD of average.

MarkCron wrote:
I'd suggest that the issue with Mathhammer is that it isn't done properly in the first place. As I said earlier, additional variables are often not taken into account or the results are misinterpreted as gospel.

I've been focusing on using mathhammer recently to determine the overall effectiveness of a unit. Using it as a measuring stick to determine the durability, damage capacity, and area of influence of a unit lets me compare it side by side with a different unit.

I used it an example just now in another thread here, where I am comparing the different kinds of land speeders.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/547512.page#5989816

Now what the mathhammer shows me is that dual HB speeders actually should deserve a second look. Given my findings, I'll try out a few games with them to see how well they function.

This is not the only example of mathhammer. You can use it to help determine firing order, chances of unit A killing unit B, etc. Its just the primary focus of my mathhammer today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GreyHamster wrote:
Properly applied statistical analysis is a useful decision making tool. Dreaming about that big score is nice, but you have to be aware just how unlikely it is. The fact that most people can't temper their hopes with mathematics and think Experience will see them through is why casinos continue to turn massive profits

+1
The lottery is a tax for people who are not good at math.

Gwyidion wrote:
Example:
Battle wagon full of Ghaz and Nobz drives up to my lines. I put a few glances on it, and it has one HP left. All I have left are MLs in the AV14 front facing. It doesn't matter that the math-hammer states that is a poor target selection - that I don't have good chances of scoring a glance, and that my missles would be better served else where. The battle wagon must die. I need this to happen so I can unload all of my lower S non-AT weapons at the nobs before charging them with a CC unit (better than eating their charge).

This choice is made for me. I've already fired all my better AT, and If i don't want a bunch of really angry nobz in my lines, I have to do something about it. This happens all the time - and why did it? because my better AT rolled "less than average". Nevermind it was probably well within 1 standard deviation of the average and could be a totally expected result without any sort of significance.

Target priority supercedes math-hammer nearly every time.

And that means you don't understand what math-hammer means.
Math doesn't tell you NOT to shoot at it.
Math tells you that you should try the Multi-Melta first if you have it.
Math tells you that if you are building a list, you shouldn't rely on MLs as anti-AV14.

If it NEEDS to die than your missiles are NOT better served elsewhere.
But you will have a 1 in 9 chance that it will actually glance the vehicle.
Math is there to tell you that "firing a Krak-missile at AV14 that is not a direct threat" is a bad idea since it will probably do nothing.

 GreyHamster wrote:
'Experience' is often tainted with the usual problems with anecdotal evidence like selective memory. You remember when the plague marine in the open survives 10 plasma cannon wounds in a row, or when four Deathwing die to 5 storm bolters. You don't remember the results where stuff falls within a SD of average.

To be fair, ALL events that happen on the table are anecdotal unless the same even is repeated enough times to prove it true. To put it simply there is a lack of proper testing procedures to use ANY anecdoctal evidence ad fact.

And not of us treat experiance so poorly. Experiace teaches you not to stick forks in light sockets for instance.

More seriously, if used correctly experiance, mathhammer or BOTH collectively can be used as powerful tools to make you a better player. And to be frank, most players don't use either correctly. I'd rather use experiance and basic probability to play than full mathhammer because it's how I play. I don't rely on numbers to help me choose to shoot Lootas rather than charge them, I use the fact that they get a lot of shots and I don't want to risk that many potential saves.

On the same token I ignored common wisdom about e Sisters of Battle Repentia unit during 5th (the wisdom was that they were a waste of points and to never use them...I ran a full squad) and found a way to get them across the table and into the fight safely. My Grand Theft Rhino strategy proved to be exceptionally effective and didn't rely on math, it relied on the idea that a unit in a transport is safer than out, and that Repentia like it best when they're in the enemy lines. I'm sure there are numbers I cold have run to try this out, but by putting it on the table it threw my opponents off guard and worked so well over the course of a large nmber of games that they became a staple of my army. Math didn't tell me how to make the unit better, experimenttion and experiance did (for the record, I ran the with a priest for a while for the re-rolls to hit, but found the fleet was more important so I dropped him for the larger threat range, something that made them less effective in cmbat, but increased their odds of getting there).

Is this all anedotal? Extremely. It's also true for me and the meta I played in during 5th.

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
My examples were me talking... and I killed all the terminators next game as well.
I think experience trumps math because I still shoot at terminators, even though I should shoot at something else which I have a mathhammer greater chance of killing. (See...we can do this forever! )

Ooh, can we?
Now would you fire at those terminators with autocannons or Plasma?
If experience > math, then you wouldn't care since both are equal.

Exactly. From an experience perspective, more shots from the autocannons often offsets the removal of the armour save. So I don't care from that perspective. But in a game, the deciding factor is range. So, If I shoot the autocannons, then I can't shoot at something further away. If I shoot the plasma first, I can hit the further target with the autocannons. So experience says, shoot the plasma first. This may be the same result as mathhammer, but that's coincidental. If the autocannons were closer and didn't have a useful alternative target (say due to LOS issues) well, I'd shoot the autocannon first.

The mathhammer to optimise targets in a shooting phase would be horrific.

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
As an example, if you know that the incoming helldrake is going to fry your troops and you'll lose the game - will you
a) Not shoot at it because Mathhammer tells you there is only a low chance of stopping it; OR
b) Shoot everything you have that can possibly pen or glance it?

If you answered (a) - wrong answer.

'A)' should be phrased differently.
Math-hammer means that you calculate what the best option is and shoot at that.
It's a pro's vs cons-system that results into an optimal target.

Actually I had it right. In this scenario, there is no alternative target. So irrespective of whether the mathhammer says I have a high probability of downing the drake, I have to shoot it, otherwise I lose the game.

Kangodo wrote:

Gwyidion wrote:
Example:
Battle wagon full of Ghaz and Nobz drives up to my lines. I put a few glances on it, and it has one HP left. All I have left are MLs in the AV14 front facing. It doesn't matter that the math-hammer states that is a poor target selection - that I don't have good chances of scoring a glance, and that my missles would be better served else where. The battle wagon must die. I need this to happen so I can unload all of my lower S non-AT weapons at the nobs before charging them with a CC unit (better than eating their charge).

This choice is made for me. I've already fired all my better AT, and If i don't want a bunch of really angry nobz in my lines, I have to do something about it. This happens all the time - and why did it? because my better AT rolled "less than average". Nevermind it was probably well within 1 standard deviation of the average and could be a totally expected result without any sort of significance.

Target priority supercedes math-hammer nearly every time.

And that means you don't understand what math-hammer means.
Math doesn't tell you NOT to shoot at it.
Math tells you that you should try the Multi-Melta first if you have it.
Math tells you that if you are building a list, you shouldn't rely on MLs as anti-AV14.

If it NEEDS to die than your missiles are NOT better served elsewhere.
But you will have a 1 in 9 chance that it will actually glance the vehicle.
Math is there to tell you that "firing a Krak-missile at AV14 that is not a direct threat" is a bad idea since it will probably do nothing.

I obviously agree with Gwyidion here. I agree with your point that math (as opposed to mathhammer) tells you the probability of actually doing something. Math (for clarity, defined in this case the simple probability that you will roll a sequence of numbers on a D6 ) can tell you if you have any chance of getting the required sequence of numbers. If the answer is yes, then experience tells you to take the shot.

Mathhammer (for clarity the calculation or comparison of weapons effectiveness) is not relevant to either the target priority decision or to the weapon selection decision in the example used.

My opinion is that Experience is better than mathhammer, my problem is that mathhammer usually is too much averages, and experience has taught me (and many others and will continue to do so) that you will get unusually high or low rolls, and at the end of the day I will use units that people don't use or would expect (such as Warp Talons for example) and make them useful why? because I know their role and purpose on the battlefield, all I have to do is place them somewhere precise during the game and get slaughtering

Plus Im not a fan of Mathhammer anyway as one of the products of it are Netlists (and if anyone knowes me on Dakka, I am against Netlists in any shape or form, as imo they suck the fun out of 40k for me) so my opinion maybe biased.

Plus Im not a fan of Mathhammer anyway as one of the products of it are Netlists (and if anyone knowes me on Dakka, I am against Netlists in any shape or form, as imo they suck the fun out of 40k for me) so my opinion maybe biased.

Because they are optimised and mathhammered and beat up your xp based wierd amalgam of units . I get that.

Makumba wrote:

Plus Im not a fan of Mathhammer anyway as one of the products of it are Netlists (and if anyone knowes me on Dakka, I am against Netlists in any shape or form, as imo they suck the fun out of 40k for me) so my opinion maybe biased.

Because they are optimised and mathhammered and beat up your xp based wierd amalgam of units . I get that.

Nope its because 40k is designed as a casual game not a competitive one, Netlists just grab too much cheese which 40k is not designed to be, its ok to have a slice, but not the whole wheel. The whole netlisting meta is just a way just to show how flawed the rules are, and also just shows how much you can be a Jerk to your opponent (unless he or she brought a Netlist of their own, in which case have a fun time of rock, paper, scissors not that im saying that's a wrong way to play just not my cup of tea), plus a good general adapts and makes "underdog" units good, instead of going for the "easy" mode of 40k. Close but no Cigar. Obviously as I have said in past threads that people should take my opinion with a pinch of salt.

 happygolucky wrote:
Nope its because 40k is designed as a casual game not a competitive one,

When talking about tactics and effective lists, competitive tournaments are the only place where it matters.

If your slamming beers with your buds, who cares if you play swooping hawks or mandrakes. Its just goofing off.

 happygolucky wrote:
My opinion is that Experience is better than mathhammer, my problem is that mathhammer usually is too much averages, and experience has taught me (and many others and will continue to do so) that you will get unusually high or low rolls, and at the end of the day I will use units that people don't use or would expect (such as Warp Talons for example) and make them useful why? because I know their role and purpose on the battlefield, all I have to do is place them somewhere precise during the game and get slaughtering

Plus Im not a fan of Mathhammer anyway as one of the products of it are Netlists (and if anyone knowes me on Dakka, I am against Netlists in any shape or form, as imo they suck the fun out of 40k for me) so my opinion maybe biased.

I am with you on all of this. I use "useless" units and armies all the time. Why? Because it is fun and interesting and it is even more fun to beat someone's "unbeatable" netlist with a force chock full of supposedly useless units. Thankfully my usual opponents don't get into the netlist approach to the game either. I've left more stores because of excessive numbers of optimized net lists than for any other reason. It just gets boring fighting the same army over and over on a game day despite the fact that you changed opponents. It also sucks out the originality of approach to an army where in the past you could see similar armies on the table, but the players used them so differently from each other it didn't matter. Now they get the list and the "how to" handed to them and the games start to become way too similar for my tastes.

Skriker

 labmouse42 wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
Nope its because 40k is designed as a casual game not a competitive one,

When talking about tactics and effective lists, competitive tournaments are the only place where it matters.

If your slamming beers with your buds, who cares if you play swooping hawks or mandrakes. Its just goofing off.

Some large tournaments have shown that the top tables tend to be the lists that don't look all that powerful or frightening yet when employed properly just pound armies into the dirt. I recall that until they got updated there was a Daemon player well known for making the top tables with a Daemon army, even against Grey Knights in 5th.

There is a lot more to this game than just trying to get your list to mathematical perfection because frankly there are a lot of ways to play, none of them are really wrong and if you play a list you want to play over the one that you're told is "best" I find that you not only have more fun, but you also tend to flat out play better in the long run because you want things to work so they put a lot more thought into how to employ the units beyond "push forward, shoot, eventually assault", which seems to be the major playstyle of most netlisters.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
Nope its because 40k is designed as a casual game not a competitive one,

When talking about tactics and effective lists, competitive tournaments are the only place where it matters.

If your slamming beers with your buds, who cares if you play swooping hawks or mandrakes. Its just goofing off.

Agreed I will get back to topic

Imo Mathhammer only applies when looking at the stats, and points values, for example you wouldn't pick the WS1 BS1 unless is had a upgrade that it could take that meant it gained Poisoned 2+ and a ranged gun that had armourbane and made it auto hit on 4+ and at least average for points cost, that the only reason I would use Mathammer, to tally up points for a game that both players agreed on a points limit

 happygolucky wrote:
Imo Mathhammer only applies when looking at the stats, and points values, for example you wouldn't pick the WS1 BS1 unless is had a upgrade that it could take that meant it gained Poisoned 2+ and a ranged gun that had armourbane and made it auto hit on 4+ and at least average for points cost, that the only reason I would use Mathammer, to tally up points for a game that both players agreed on a points limit

That's interesting you mention that. As I said earlier I've been working lately with the concepts of the best values 'per point' for units. The idea is this -- how durable is an ork compared to a marine? How durable are they on a per-point basis? Will 30 points of orks sit around longer than 30 points of marines? I've also been looking at the capacity for a unit to deliver damage and their area of influence.

Why do I bother comparing these values? Well, simply put GW's game designers don't use a formula to determine point costs. (or if they do is a very bad one) Its all arbitrary. That is why you have a unit like warp talons or mutilators.

Does that means that warp talons or mutilators are unplayable units? Absolutely not. But what it does mean is that a person who brings them is at a disadvantage since their models are less effective on a per-point basis than their opponents are. This disadvantage might be mitigated by dice rolling or player skill but all other elements being equal the player with the more effective units will win.

As a player I cannot mitigate by bad dice rolling on a specific day, nor can I mitigate my own player skill (other than practice, research, and reflection) As such the best thing I can do to improve my odds in games is to bring the most effective units.

"But its just a game!" you might say. In many cases I agree with that sentiment. There are a few of my buddies who I will play 40k with and just slam beers laugh and be silly. I bring 'fun' lists like my aspect warrior army to the table when we play.

Then there are tournaments. I enter those in order to feed my hobby. Last weekend I won 85 bucks of store credit for 20 dollar entry fees. I will usually place in most local events. At NOVA I think I will have a decent shot at winning my bracket. (I won't get in a top top one, probably closer to middle range). This is why mathhammer is important to me. I want to give myself as much of an edge as possible in these games.

I see that mathhammer has stigma attached to it that I wasn't aware of ...

On a side note I should clarify, I don't use math to choose my list and perfect it for points, to me that's just a pain in the . I use it on the TT so I know what I should be doing and what I should expect.

For example when I started with AOBR I looked at the rules I had available and it didn't make a lick of sense, everything seemed arbitrary or odd. But after I crunched some numbers I figured out why things were happening the way they were and what I should expect on the TT.

As I get more into the hobby I find that crunching some numbers helps me understand what I want to use my unit for on the TT more than looking on the forums or playing games with my friends. I like to relax playing (most) of my friends but every now and then I play a more serious game and I don't want to mess up little things because then I've thrown a perfectly good learning experience.

TLDR: In short I use my maths to supplement my knowledge so far and make intelligent choices on the TT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@labmouse: I'd be very interested in where examining the units leads you, I'm all for using unusual units in the game. Afterall, often the most sound tactical decision is the one that leaves your opponent with a dumb look on his face.

MarkCron wrote:
The mathhammer to optimise targets in a shooting phase would be horrific.

I was talking about S7AP2 and S7AP4, I forgot about the range and the number of shots.
I hope we can all agree that mathematically, AP2 is better against Terminators no matter how many 1's you have thrown in your experience.

And why is it horrific? We do it all the time.
Math is the reason why we don't attack Terminators with Krak-Missiles.
Math is the reason why we prefer VoF or AP2-shooting.

Actually I had it right. In this scenario, there is no alternative target. So irrespective of whether the mathhammer says I have a high probability of downing the drake, I have to shoot it, otherwise I lose the game.

Mathammer should be used to calculate the optimal target.
In your scenario there is only one target.
Three guesses to what the optimal target is! :')

Mathhammer (for clarity the calculation or comparison of weapons effectiveness) is not relevant to either the target priority decision or to the weapon selection decision in the example used.

But your tactical decisions are a result that comes from math.
If I am playing a vehicle-list, I will focus my fire on S7 and up. They are my priority because math tells me they are the biggest threat.
I am not going to target the S6-weapons because 'in my experience' they had some lucky throws!

 laginess wrote:
@labmouse: I'd be very interested in where examining the units leads you, I'm all for using unusual units in the game. Afterall, often the most sound tactical decision is the one that leaves your opponent with a dumb look on his face.

Recently I've found a few good ones.

These are all "Underperforming units" that I plan on giving a try to soon.
* Dual HB speeders do as much damage per point to infantry (GEQ and MEQ) as Typhoon speeders. They also have better resilience-per-point
* Oddly enough Howling Banshees are as good on a Damage-per-Point basis as Striking Scorpions against MEQ and GEQ.
* Adding an exarch to an eldar squad does not hurt the overall DPP or RPP ratios much at all. In fact its always worth it adding them.

Knowing what you are effective against IS Mathhammer, the guy using Daemons against GK is fighting downhill but he still probably knows that charging 10 daemonettes into 10 Paladins is a bad idea.

Thats what Mathhammer is, just because you don't calculate it doesnt mean it wasn't involved.

People have invented lots of things back without math as well, instead they did trial and error aka experience.
With math you can skip a lot of bad decisions.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 laginess wrote:
@labmouse: I'd be very interested in where examining the units leads you, I'm all for using unusual units in the game. Afterall, often the most sound tactical decision is the one that leaves your opponent with a dumb look on his face.

Recently I've found a few good ones.

These are all "Underperforming units" that I plan on giving a try to soon.
* Dual HB speeders do as much damage per point to infantry (GEQ and MEQ) as Typhoon speeders. They also have better resilience-per-point
* Oddly enough Howling Banshees are as good on a Damage-per-Point basis as Striking Scorpions against MEQ and GEQ.
* Adding an exarch to an eldar squad does not hurt the overall DPP or RPP ratios much at all. In fact its always worth it adding them.

HB Speeders are single role, while Typhoons have duality and longer range.
Are Howling Banshees as effective against non-MEQ/GEQ units as Striking Scorpions per point? If not then that's the reason they get left on the shelf. They also have lower survivability.
I've not seen anyone criticising Exarchs.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
Are Howling Banshees as effective against non-MEQ/GEQ units as Striking Scorpions per point? If not then that's the reason they get left on the shelf. They also have lower survivability..

Actually they are. Its due to the fact that they are cheaper, and ignore armor. Even IG are blocking those scorpion hits 1/3 of the time. They actually turn out to be just as dangerous to GEQ as SS.
Against MEQ they are ~70% more effective IIRC. That's quite the difference! Against TEQ they are much worse (about 50% as effective) Given the number of psudo-rending hits you can bring as eldar, I'm not as worried about that. All this is shown in my research on DPP.

When it comes to area of influence, they banshees are not that bad. Scorpions can infiltrate, so they start 18" from their opponent. Banshees are moving 13.5" per turn. Both can pull off turn 2 assaults. This is an illustration of AoI or "Area of Influence".

Scorpions are slightly more durable --per point--. Noone is arguing that scorpions are not more durable with a 3+ save. I'm talking on a pure-per point basis. Banshees are just not as bad as people think. Neither scorpions or banshees hold a candle to the durability of grey hunters or plagues marines. This is shown in RPP values.

What does it all mean? Well, the math shows that Howling Banshees are an under-rated unit. As such I picked up 20 last week on ebay for 30 bucks. I plan on painting them up and adding them to my aspect warrior army. I might pull them out after a month or so, but I'll give them a good shot first.

Experience wins over math 100%. Doesn't matter how much you math hammer or net list or min/max if you have no experience you're going to get curb stomped by the more experienced player. Conversely if you are experienced you can do very well with no math whatsoever, not saying math is bad or wouldn't help, it's just not going to carry the day.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
Are Howling Banshees as effective against non-MEQ/GEQ units as Striking Scorpions per point? If not then that's the reason they get left on the shelf. They also have lower survivability..

Actually they are. Its due to the fact that they are cheaper, and ignore armor. Even IG are blocking those scorpion hits 1/3 of the time. They actually turn out to be just as dangerous to GEQ as SS.
Against MEQ they are ~70% more effective IIRC. That's quite the difference! Against TEQ they are much worse (about 50% as effective) Given the number of psudo-rending hits you can bring as eldar, I'm not as worried about that. All this is shown in my research on DPP.

When it comes to area of influence, they banshees are not that bad. Scorpions can infiltrate, so they start 18" from their opponent. Banshees are moving 13.5" per turn. Both can pull off turn 2 assaults. This is an illustration of AoI or "Area of Influence".

Scorpions are slightly more durable --per point--. Noone is arguing that scorpions are not more durable with a 3+ save. I'm talking on a pure-per point basis. Banshees are just not as bad as people think. Neither scorpions or banshees hold a candle to the durability of grey hunters or plagues marines. This is shown in RPP values.

What does it all mean? Well, the math shows that Howling Banshees are an under-rated unit. As such I picked up 20 last week on ebay for 30 bucks. I plan on painting them up and adding them to my aspect warrior army. I might pull them out after a month or so, but I'll give them a good shot first.

So the only real issue is which elites unit you have to give up to get Banshees in? Obviously if you're already running Scorpions they're a straight swap, but if you were running ranged elite options you might have to reorganise the rest of the army to provide the support you were taking the elite slots for.

Although I suppose if you're running dual force organisation charts then it's not a problem.

 MWHistorian wrote:


Mathhammer is a great way to suck the soul out of the game.

QFT

Math-hammer feth my brain up when I played. In 5th ed, I didn't have this problem I used my CSM, charge, do mayhem and die trying. Now I thinking about statistic before deploying and moving. That mean I don't risk everything and I "scared" of if I did that, I will have X shots, may be i will have Y save save and Z guys will die.

ex : in 5th ed, for me, a Riptide like a challenge... tank shock him with my rhino and charge him with 10 CSM with chainsaws. Now is like "What I can do again that, my army is not built to play again that and blablabla,,,, shut up brain". And I play like a donkey..

Spartak wrote:
Experience wins over math 100%. Doesn't matter how much you math hammer or net list or min/max if you have no experience you're going to get curb stomped by the more experienced player. Conversely if you are experienced you can do very well with no math whatsoever, not saying math is bad or wouldn't help, it's just not going to carry the day.

Having done my fair share of the stomping I can agree with this. The same applies if you just play by pushing your army forward in a straight line, shooting then charging if you're in range. The game is more complex than people believe, and a lot can be worked out based on things like screening, blocking LOS, fire lanes or charge lanes. There is a lot about the game that where the only math you do is counting how far you moved.

I'm not saying math can't help you to decide which anti-tank weapon to use in your meta, or if Grav weapons are a better choice where you play than plasma, but a seasoned player can often make those decisions based on preference or experiance and make them work. Will they always be right? To be honest, no. But on the same token a person's die rolls could end up falling outside standard deviation for a game being very poor or very good. Math can tell you a lot, but it's not something I'd bank a game on because every die can help you or hurt you and that's a big thing that keeps either side from being magically better this game. I've had games that go great, others where I can't pass a single 3+ to save my life. If I lose and it's something I did wrong, I adapt. If it's something I did right I keep it. Others sit down, take their list and run the numbers until they're comfortable with a certain level of performance that should occur nearly everytime (this, I feel is why Marines are so popular, they're very reliable statistically speaking).

In the end, is either way wrong? Having spent some more time thinking about it, I don't feel either side should be trying to convert the other. Both groups play in the way that is most enjoyable for them, and some even find that middle ground where the two can be mixed, but neither is wrong.

So long post short, the real right answer to the thread title is "which ever is most fun for you."

Spartak wrote:
Experience wins over math 100%. Doesn't matter how much you math hammer or net list or min/max if you have no experience you're going to get curb stomped by the more experienced player. Conversely if you are experienced you can do very well with no math whatsoever, not saying math is bad or wouldn't help, it's just not going to carry the day.

Obviously experience is important, Mathhammer is equivalent to the fact that fire is hot. You can either gain it by experience by touching and burning yourself, or actually study fire on paper and learn that it is hot and shouldnt be touched

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
The mathhammer to optimise targets in a shooting phase would be horrific.

I was talking about S7AP2 and S7AP4, I forgot about the range and the number of shots.
I hope we can all agree that mathematically, AP2 is better against Terminators no matter how many 1's you have thrown in your experience.

Absolutely. In isolation, a single shot AP2 shot has a higher probability to kill a Terminator than AP4.

This, though, highlights one of my difficulties with mathhammer and why I think people need to understand what it is and what it can and can't do. When you increase the number of variables to make it more realistic, the answer can change (depending on the variables you add). So, in this case, let's take into account the shooting weapon. As I use crons, I'll use cron examples mainly. My choices are Eldritch Lance (S8 AP2) and Tesla Destructor (S7AP-). Looking at a single shot, Eldritch Lance is better (because I have an equal chance to hit, equal chance to wound but the Lance disallows the armour save). But....the Tesla destructor is TL, plus has the Tesla special rule and shoots 4 shots rather than 1. So, in this case sheer VoF makes the Destructor more effective.

Kangodo wrote:And why is it horrific? We do it all the time.

My bad. I meant using mathhammer during the turn to prioritise targets to get the best future result (ie using math to work out the best course of action to increase the probability for winning the game, given likely opponent moves in the future, and results from current shooting). Sort of like what a chess computer does.

Kangodo wrote:
Math is the reason why we don't attack Terminators with Krak-Missiles.
Math is the reason why we prefer VoF or AP2-shooting.

I agree with the second sentence - mathhammer can help to define what we PREFER to do. I'd add that experience tells us what we HAVE to do, which is why the first sentence concerns me. Mathhammer should not dictate your actions on tabletop in the way that the first sentence suggests (unless you can mathhammer in your head the game consequences of your shoot/don't shoot decision, with all relevant variables). On the table top, experience generally provides a better overall result (not in terms of the specific shooting attack, but in terms of your chances of winning the game) than mathhammer.

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Actually I had it right. In this scenario, there is no alternative target. So irrespective of whether the mathhammer says I have a high probability of downing the drake, I have to shoot it, otherwise I lose the game.

Mathammer should be used to calculate the optimal target.
In your scenario there is only one target.
Three guesses to what the optimal target is! :')

Actually, this comes back to my point about variables. (also, raises a new point about being careful what I write!). When I wrote "there is no alternative target" I meant from the perspective of having to ignore the other enemy units - not that there were no other enemy units. So, if the heldrake was the only enemy unit on the board...I don't need three guesses . If there were other enemy units, I still wouldn't need three as experience would rule (and mathhammer would agree provided that the probability of losing the game was factored into the mathhammer determination of the optimum result).

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Mathhammer (for clarity the calculation or comparison of weapons effectiveness) is not relevant to either the target priority decision or to the weapon selection decision in the example used.

But your tactical decisions are a result that comes from math.
If I am playing a vehicle-list, I will focus my fire on S7 and up. They are my priority because math tells me they are the biggest threat.
I am not going to target the S6-weapons because 'in my experience' they had some lucky throws!

But if you were playing against Crons, ignore my S4 Gauss weapons at your peril.

I agree that Mathhammer can have a place in determining general preferences for weapon selection and target priority. But you have to really understand whether the variables included in the mathhammer result are present or not before you use it on the table.

A different example - @labmouse is using mathhammer to determine the most point efficient units - combining them gives him the most point efficient army. But, if his mathhammer doesn't weight scoring, he can end up with too few troop units but have a large number of vehicles, termies, whatever. Now using mathhammer to oppose that, target selection matches up weapon AP to armour save (effectively - VoF will override AP) and should prioritise higher strength threats. But experience says "shoot the troops".

I guess that's why I rate experience more...there are simply too many variables for generically spouted mathhammer to be applicable. Course, if you have a supercomputer in your head - that's a different story.

ClockworkZion wrote:

And not of us treat experiance so poorly. Experiace teaches you not to stick forks in light sockets for instance.

I actually don't have experience telling me not to do that. I have theory telling me not to do that.

Experience helps you judge distances, spacing and tactical use.

Math-hammer helps you shortcut the learning stage of seeing why your 10 grots don't beat a squad of 5 terminators in close combat by sending them in to combat over and over again.

Banbaji wrote:

Gwyidion wrote:
The fault of mathhammer is that it is based on large sample sizes and probability.

The real fault with math hammer (more accurately, the way it is generally presented) is that it does not include the standard deviations or distribution, only the average. Both 2d6 and 1d3 + 5 average to 7; however, they chances either will give you exactly a 7 are quite different.

QFT

Mathhammer is a measuring stick that compares units effectiveness in specific situations (e.g. firing a Bolter at T4 3++ vs firng a Plasmagun at the same target). And in this regard it will trump experience (cause of bias, sample size, all the other nice things which have been said).


Experience tells you which situations you need to look at (this battlewagon is a bigger threat than that killer kan back there).


Saying mathhammer is better than experience or vice versa is like saying, using a calculator is better than Physics.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
So the only real issue is which elites unit you have to give up to get Banshees in? Obviously if you're already running Scorpions they're a straight swap, but if you were running ranged elite options you might have to reorganise the rest of the army to provide the support you were taking the elite slots for.

Ranged elite slots? Fire Dragons?

I don't think fire dragons really fit into a footdar build.

Mathematicians will tell you math is all you need.

Scientists will point out that you can do all the math in the world, until you confirm your data via experiment it's nothing more than an interesting idea.

Mathhammer can give you some rough statistical probabilities, but it just doesn't take into account enough variables to provide anything more than a basic guideline. Hell, all you have to do to totally ruin a huge series of mathhammer calculations about the relative effectiveness of two different units is increase the amount of terrain on the hypothetical board by 10%.

 GreyHamster wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

And not of us treat experiance so poorly. Experiace teaches you not to stick forks in light sockets for instance.

I actually don't have experience telling me not to do that. I have theory telling me not to do that.

Some people had to discover that for themselves before they could form theories (gotta love kids) I never did, but I have known people who have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Mathematicians will tell you math is all you need.

Scientists will point out that you can do all the math in the world, until you confirm your data via experiment it's nothing more than an interesting idea.

Mathhammer can give you some rough statistical probabilities, but it just doesn't take into account enough variables to provide anything more than a basic guideline. Hell, all you have to do to totally ruin a huge series of mathhammer calculations about the relative effectiveness of two different units is increase the amount of terrain on the hypothetical board by 10%.

I knew there was a reason I liked my Scienchammer approach (yes, I'm going to keep calling it that. Stop laughing).

I won't say that any one method anyone has is wrong (though I get the feeling some people are trying to convey that idea themselves) just different approaches to the game. I do feel experiance (even if it's being passed onto you through tacticas, or battle reports) can be a stronger teacher and tool, some people function better working the numbers. These people are usually known as Bookies.

Kidding aside, we could debate this until the world ends and I don't think either side will budge very far, or be won over by grand arguements.

My experience is that math hammer usually means that I roll 1's and 2's while my opponent rolls 5's and 6's to make up for the disparity in rolls.

 labmouse42 wrote:
Why do I bother comparing these values? Well, simply put GW's game designers don't use a formula to determine point costs. (or if they do is a very bad one) Its all arbitrary.

Definitely one of my long standing issues with GW. Even the marine books, which have a baseline codex to use as a standard still are costed as if the authors are not aware that there are currntly existing marine books in the product line.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Makutsu wrote:
Obviously experience is important, Mathhammer is equivalent to the fact that fire is hot. You can either gain it by experience by touching and burning yourself, or actually study fire on paper and learn that it is hot and shouldnt be touched

But learning that the fire is hot by the experience of getting burned by it will make a much more lasting impression than just *knowing* that fire is hot and will burn you. After all, what is the first thing people do at the table in a restaurant when the waitress says be careful these plates are REALLY hot? They touch the plate...a duh...

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrotherVord wrote:
My experience is that math hammer usually means that I roll 1's and 2's while my opponent rolls 5's and 6's to make up for the disparity in rolls.

Yeah if the probability gods conspire against you so that your highly optimized forces keep rolling 1s and 2s for everything while your opponent's inefficient and useless fluff unit filled army continues to roll 5s and 6s throughout the game no amount of pregame mathhammer is going to matter in the least. This is also why occasionally that unit of grots DOES beat the unit of terminators that they shouldn't.

Skriker

But if you stick your hand in a fire and you don't get burned, doesn't mean that fire suddenly isn't hot Which is why I prefer math.

It's a game with numbers, so math is always an issue.
It tells us that you don't want to use Krak-missiles against Land Raiders unless you have "no other choice".
(No other choice means that A; You don't have anything else or B; It has to die, so even Krak's are going towards it!)

Experience is also important because 9 out of 10 times it reflects the math.
But I am not going to take someone seriously that says "Krak is a good anti-AV14 tool because I rolled 6's a couple of times!".

Experience tells me that if that squad of firewarriors over there has even a 6+ cover save, I won't kill a single one, and that power armor is paper armor.

...I wish math-hammer applied to me more sometimes. :(

Is a hammer, better than a screwdriver?


Both math-hammer and experience are important tools, but neither is perfect.

The problem with math hammer is that it can't acount for everything, it's usualy done with an artificial set-up. X points of this vs X points of that at this arbitrary distance. It's hard to measure entire armies. It can't measure all possible armies for a tac view. It can't properly measure the effect of terrain, as you don't know the set up from game to game, let alone the fact that players play with vastly different terrain, some playing on virtually blank tables other stuffing every free inch with game changing pieces. There are many x-factor usually not used in math hammer.

Experince uses all x-factors and all the kinks in propability that happen daily. That's the strength of experience. An experinced player will be far more likely to turn around a game after a brutal game, a robot that is based purely on math hammer would concede the game, seeing the low propability of loss. Sadly, the downside is that experience makes use of all x-factors. It's not comparable, you see it daily on this board, player a says "in my experience x rocks" and player b says "you are totally wrong, in my experience x sucks". Experience is based on factors that aren't universal. Further experience is failible, it picks up false causality from corellation, it makes decisions based on precedents that are pure chance, it is very suspectible to falacies.

When you pack tools, you wouldn't leave without hammers and screwdrivers. Someone who wants to win shouldn't discount math-hammer or experience.

However, in online discussions, math-hammer is dominant, because it is comparable. You can check wether someones math-hammer is right or wrong. You can't do that with experience.

 Formosa wrote:
My experience is mathhammer doesn't work, the real world will always throw a wrench in the closed environment of mathhammer, it's a good indicator, but not something to be.relied on

See that's not entirely correct, Math in a vacuum ignoring all variables doesn't work which is the common mistake, the second we add movement, cover, range, placement and numerous other factors is when the math shines. Its in my opinion that's where people label it as experience is when they can factor in those variables with a reasonable degree of success.

Experience and math in 40k are one and the same, math is everywhere and everything. Experience is just the ability to use better math faster and more intelligently.

I think a lot of people are looking at math in this game entirely wrong. It is very rarely this unit will on average cause this many wounds. A huge factor is working out the best/worse case scenarios and how much risk you are willing to take on with a particular strategy.

That's what math is to me, running the numbers in my head and weighing up the risk Vs. reward with every move I make. If I'm in a really good spot I may be willing to take on more risk for a greater reward because I can afford it. The only thing experience has taught me is players are more unpredictable than dice ever will be.

Experience is better by far.

This comes up pretty much every day on DakkaDakka. EVERY day.

Its true: experience is just you knowing intuitively what the math woulkd have told you had you done it. Its much slower than JUST doing math, and less accurate perhaps, though well within reasonable margins.

But here's the rub: experience teaches you things the numbers wont tell you. Terrain and missions change the VALUe of a unit drastically in some cases, making what looks like a great investment (math wise) not so great. Those opportunity costs are NOT figurable. But experience WILL tell you how much of those random factors you can tolerate with your list combination and that informs you on what to change in ways that hard math will never allow.

So experience will teach you thew math but it will also teach you the math you cant see. So I respect math for its brevity and how quickly it tells me things but it fails completely in a universe of infinte terrain and mission possibilities It cant see those things. its blind to SITUATION. And situation is ALWAYS king.

I give the edge to experience. Theres a reason why mathemiticians new to the game fail. lol.

MarkCron wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
"So I have caused 3 wounds on your terminators - you get 2+ saves"
"three ones....well, that's bad luck"
"So I'm shooting overwatch with my pistol, 6 to hit, 6 to wound and you'll get a 2+ armour save. Oh, you died? Pity, your charge failed".
I'm for experience.

But you still take Terminators.
You still charge even if one dead model would cause the charge to fail.

Why? Because math says that you will probably make it.
If experience really trumps math, you wouldn't take terminators or charge

My examples were me talking... and I killed all the terminators next game as well.
I think experience trumps math because I still shoot at terminators, even though I should shoot at something else which I have a mathhammer greater chance of killing. (See...we can do this forever! )

ninjafiredragon wrote:i prefer mathhammering things out. knowing on average whats the chance of wrecking this tank with my wave serpent is nice, because if its low, then i would use my walkers lances.

Don't need mathhammer for that. Pick most dangerous unit. Shoot with strongest weapon. Dead? No - move to next available weapon. Can it hurt it? Yes = Shoot at most dangerous unit (repeat until "No" answer or opponent is tabled). If the answer was "No" = Pick next most dangerous unit. Can you hurt it.....etc etc.

As an example, if you know that the incoming helldrake is going to fry your troops and you'll lose the game - will you
a) Not shoot at it because Mathhammer tells you there is only a low chance of stopping it; OR
b) Shoot everything you have that can possibly pen or glance it?

If you answered (a) - wrong answer.

i desagree. if you see a wave serpent, and you shoot at it with your most powerfull gun, for example a lascannon... you wont do a thing. now if you shoot your auto cannons at it, you actally have a chance. (a smal one, but 2x better chance than lascannon).

ninjafiredragon wrote:

MarkCron wrote:

ninjafiredragon wrote:i prefer mathhammering things out. knowing on average whats the chance of wrecking this tank with my wave serpent is nice, because if its low, then i would use my walkers lances.

Don't need mathhammer for that. Pick most dangerous unit. Shoot with strongest weapon. Dead? No - move to next available weapon. Can it hurt it? Yes = Shoot at most dangerous unit (repeat until "No" answer or opponent is tabled). If the answer was "No" = Pick next most dangerous unit. Can you hurt it.....etc etc.

As an example, if you know that the incoming helldrake is going to fry your troops and you'll lose the game - will you
a) Not shoot at it because Mathhammer tells you there is only a low chance of stopping it; OR
b) Shoot everything you have that can possibly pen or glance it?

If you answered (a) - wrong answer.

i desagree. if you see a wave serpent, and you shoot at it with your most powerfull gun, for example a lascannon... you wont do a thing. now if you shoot your auto cannons at it, you actally have a chance. (a smal one, but 2x better chance than lascannon).

Are you seriously saying you can't destroy a wave serpent with a lascannon? Or are you saying that the higher number of shots from a autocannon gives a better chance of destroying it?

I assume that you mathhammer'd this, taking into account AP of the weapons, number of hits, presence of cover etc.

Round down.

Always round down.

Unless you already rounded down and the result of the next part is like X.9. Then you can round up, but generally, round down, it makes for much more realistic expectations.

That's how I handle my mathhammer. I don't get in as many games as I like because life gets in the way, so I tend to run units through hypothetical matchups, where they charge, get charged, etc., by tons of different units.

The other half of thinking about the game though is the situations strategically. Shooting and melee, and the results from those, are more tactics (what's the most effective melee weapon for my sergeant, for example), while figuring out how they get there, and the overall battle plan, is more strategy. If you're running mathhammer without taking into account macro-strategy, then you're going to overlook something.

For example, my hypothetically 6th ed. SM list has Pedro running his Sternwing with Tigurius allied in. Tigurius has lots of awesome psychic powers. Running pure mathhammer, a unit of Sternguard rerolling to-hits (prescience) with Hellfire rounds into a Wraithknight hit with Misfortune should result in a dead Wraithknight according to mathhammer, and that's even rounding down.

But how do the Sternguard get close? Rhino, Stormraven, Landraider? What about getting the powers onto the unit? Tigurius has to have the right powers. Prescience, sure, since it's a primaris power, but what about Misfortune? Even with two more powers and re-rolls to powers, you still only have slightly over a 50% chance of getting Misfortune. What about keeping Tigurius in range of the sternguard? He can't get in a transport with them since they're allies, so do I take a tac squad as allies and give them a rhino/razorback and let Tigur use that?

Lots to think about outside of mathhammer that you have to think about in order to have a truly effective unit. Looking at things in a vacuum is fine, if you don't mind the end result potentially sucking. /pun

DogofWar1 wrote:
Round down.

Always round down.

Unless you already rounded down and the result of the next part is like X.9. Then you can round up, but generally, round down, it makes for much more realistic expectations.

That's how I handle my mathhammer. I don't get in as many games as I like because life gets in the way, so I tend to run units through hypothetical matchups, where they charge, get charged, etc., by tons of different units.
[snip]
Looking at things in a vacuum is fine, if you don't mind the end result potentially sucking. /pun

Try doing modal average calculations. They give a perfectly accurate answer to the most likely result. Much better than mean averages for expected value calculations.
And very punny

You need experience to properly use mathhammer, unless your calculations are really extensive. For example, experience tells you that it's probably best to try to kill the last units that threaten your objectives when the game is close to end instead of shooting the best point value / weapons used, well math tells you that too but you need a bit more detailed calculations for that.

MarkCron wrote:

ninjafiredragon wrote:

MarkCron wrote:

ninjafiredragon wrote:i prefer mathhammering things out. knowing on average whats the chance of wrecking this tank with my wave serpent is nice, because if its low, then i would use my walkers lances.

Don't need mathhammer for that. Pick most dangerous unit. Shoot with strongest weapon. Dead? No - move to next available weapon. Can it hurt it? Yes = Shoot at most dangerous unit (repeat until "No" answer or opponent is tabled). If the answer was "No" = Pick next most dangerous unit. Can you hurt it.....etc etc.

As an example, if you know that the incoming helldrake is going to fry your troops and you'll lose the game - will you
a) Not shoot at it because Mathhammer tells you there is only a low chance of stopping it; OR
b) Shoot everything you have that can possibly pen or glance it?

If you answered (a) - wrong answer.

i desagree. if you see a wave serpent, and you shoot at it with your most powerfull gun, for example a lascannon... you wont do a thing. now if you shoot your auto cannons at it, you actally have a chance. (a smal one, but 2x better chance than lascannon).

Are you seriously saying you can't destroy a wave serpent with a lascannon? Or are you saying that the higher number of shots from a autocannon gives a better chance of destroying it?

I assume that you mathhammer'd this, taking into account AP of the weapons, number of hits, presence of cover etc.

the chance a lascannon will destroy a serepnt with sheild up with a bs 4 model is less than 1%. dead serious. auto cannon is around 2%

My biggest problem with mathhammer is that unless you are doing it in every possible interaction in every game it is not as helpful.

6 wraiths charge 10 marines. Okay how often is that going to happen?

It is more likely something like 3 wraiths against 4 marines, or some random combination like that.

Also unless you give me a probability % chance mathhammer is pretty worthless to me outside of kind of seeing what is better.

So if someone said there is a 70% chance of getting at least this result that is fine. However if you just give me the average, especially with a small unit(or heavy forbid one model) the standard deviation is going to make that number almost worthless for expecting anything.

However once you get it down to the exact interaction that is going to occur, and you have the time to calculate the probability(or an app, someone get on this) then it would be helpful as hell.

Also for picking army lists and just comparing and selecting optimal targets it is helpful, however once again there are too many factors to include that are not math based. Sure firing at those plaguemarines might not be as effective with your bolters as firing at those cultists, however those plaguemarines are a greater threat to something else and so that takes priority.

Personally I use it in its limited ability all the time, however it is like trying to read a book on fixing a car and then going to fix it. There are so many little interactions that a book is not going to tell you about that you just have to learn from experience.


Edit: if someone could clarify something, from what I understand of probability( I might be wrong) but the larger the sample the less likely there is to be deviation from the average mean. So for example a single terminator is going to have a much larger deviance than say 10 terminators.

thats for iot being destroyed note... its not going to take a 100 lascannons, because of hull points.

.... why not both?

I mean, mathhammer will only tell you so much. Sometimes, you just gotta take the risk. Experience helps you figure out when to do that. Mathhammer will help you get some underlying basicknowledge of how the game works.

Most of why I ask is that my own experience is rather limited while I've done a lot of testing with running numbers, and my more interesting results I've tested in games where I can.

Mathhammer will tell you how a unit will perform given average rolls.

So if your unit X will kill half of your opponents unit Y given average rolls, going by pure mathhammer you know to double the firepower, or in a strictly abstract sense, to have 2 unit X attacking unit Y

Experience tells us that you cannot rely on mathhammer since the law of averages tells us that your unit X may under perform, and leave unit Y above what is statisticly probable. so, we as player compensate by making sure that we don't simply have 2 of unit X available to do the job, we have 3, or 4 able to shoot unit Y.
We also understand that units may over perform, and as such position our units so that they have the option of shooting multiple units should the situation warrant it.
there is also the art of which order to shoot your units, and only experience can tell you what that order should be, and that order is determined by your targetting priorities.

Concentration of force is a very old concept, and applies very readily to the table top. when shooting a unit, experience tells us that whatever mathhammer says, overkill is what you should aim for, because just enough is too often not enough firepower

The best kill IS overkill. So true.

madtankbloke wrote:
Mathhammer will tell you how a unit will perform given average rolls.

So if your unit X will kill half of your opponents unit Y given average rolls, going by pure mathhammer you know to double the firepower, or in a strictly abstract sense, to have 2 unit X attacking unit Y

Experience tells us that you cannot rely on mathhammer since the law of averages tells us that your unit X may under perform, and leave unit Y above what is statisticly probable. so, we as player compensate by making sure that we don't simply have 2 of unit X available to do the job, we have 3, or 4 able to shoot unit Y.
We also understand that units may over perform, and as such position our units so that they have the option of shooting multiple units should the situation warrant it.
there is also the art of which order to shoot your units, and only experience can tell you what that order should be, and that order is determined by your targetting priorities.

Concentration of force is a very old concept, and applies very readily to the table top. when shooting a unit, experience tells us that whatever mathhammer says, overkill is what you should aim for, because just enough is too often not enough firepower

Mathhammer can do all of that

Sure, it CAN, but most often it doesn't as you can't consistently define overkill mathematically. Is it when the probability of a killing all models in a unit is 100%? double the number of wounds left? Triple?

MarkCron wrote:
Sure, it CAN, but most often it doesn't as you can't consistently define overkill mathematically. Is it when the probability of a killing all models in a unit is 100%? double the number of wounds left? Triple?

Experience has the same problem.
2 units of shooting?
3 units?

With maths you can ask yourself what an acceptable percentage is, and work to that. Personally I think that a 75% chance to wipe it is good enough for me, because if it doesn't get wiped, it's likely to be unable to do anything useful anymore anyway.

Experience has the advantage that you can see when the unit is dead.....so you can stop shooting

MarkCron wrote:
Experience has the advantage that you can see when the unit is dead.....so you can stop shooting

Haha
As funny as that is, so can maths

MarkCron wrote:
Sure, it CAN, but most often it doesn't as you can't consistently define overkill mathematically. Is it when the probability of a killing all models in a unit is 100%? double the number of wounds left? Triple?

That only applies to people that don't know math!
Math-hammer doesn't just calculate the average; It can also calculate the odds of you doing double the average.
It also calculates the odds of your unit sucking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation < That would be a good place to start.

"Math-hammer says that 1 in 6 terminators die."
This is an example of people that don't understand the math.
Math-hammer can tell you the odds of 0 terminators dying, or 1, or 2, or more.

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Sure, it CAN, but most often it doesn't as you can't consistently define overkill mathematically. Is it when the probability of a killing all models in a unit is 100%? double the number of wounds left? Triple?

That only applies to people that don't know math!
Math-hammer doesn't just calculate the average; It can also calculate the odds of you doing double the average.
It also calculates the odds of your unit sucking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation < That would be a good place to start.

"Math-hammer says that 1 in 6 terminators die."
This is an example of people that don't understand the math.
Math-hammer can tell you the odds of 0 terminators dying, or 1, or 2, or more.

Excellent, can you let me know the probability of overkilling a unit of terminators?

MarkCron wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Sure, it CAN, but most often it doesn't as you can't consistently define overkill mathematically. Is it when the probability of a killing all models in a unit is 100%? double the number of wounds left? Triple?

That only applies to people that don't know math!
Math-hammer doesn't just calculate the average; It can also calculate the odds of you doing double the average.
It also calculates the odds of your unit sucking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation < That would be a good place to start.

"Math-hammer says that 1 in 6 terminators die."
This is an example of people that don't understand the math.
Math-hammer can tell you the odds of 0 terminators dying, or 1, or 2, or more.

Excellent, can you let me know the probability of overkilling a unit of terminators?

Sure! What are you firing with and how many Terminators are there?

MarkCron wrote:
Excellent, can you let me know the probability of overkilling a unit of terminators?

Sure, if you will give me the amount of Terminators, the weapons you are shooting with and your definition of overkilling.
Do you really need a 100% chance to kill them if you already have a 99% chance?

So tell me, what chance of killing them all is enough for you?

I love math, and to be honest compared to most folks I have not been playing that long(less than a year) and have to say hammering out my lists and those I'm playing has won me many games.

I think experience comes into play when folks have the same basic match concepts of the game. I can look at a unit and estimate how much VoF I will need to put it down. I also plan my moves at least a turn in advance based on where I think your going and how well my turn will come out and when the person I'm playing can do all of that too... the dynamic changes. Things like wild card moves, baiting tricks, the psychological moves all come to those that have played more games.

I have won games that by averages I should lose 9 out of 10 times. I know I can't face you in a traditional way so I do something crazy. If it works it throws off their game and gives me the opening. If I fail, I was likely to lose anyway so there really wan't much of a risk.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

MarkCron wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Sure, it CAN, but most often it doesn't as you can't consistently define overkill mathematically. Is it when the probability of a killing all models in a unit is 100%? double the number of wounds left? Triple?

That only applies to people that don't know math!
Math-hammer doesn't just calculate the average; It can also calculate the odds of you doing double the average.
It also calculates the odds of your unit sucking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation < That would be a good place to start.

"Math-hammer says that 1 in 6 terminators die."
This is an example of people that don't understand the math.
Math-hammer can tell you the odds of 0 terminators dying, or 1, or 2, or more.

Excellent, can you let me know the probability of overkilling a unit of terminators?

Sure! What are you firing with and how many Terminators are there?

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Excellent, can you let me know the probability of overkilling a unit of terminators?

Sure, if you will give me the amount of Terminators, the weapons you are shooting with and your definition of overkilling.
Do you really need a 100% chance to kill them if you already have a 99% chance?

So tell me, what chance of killing them all is enough for you?

Thanks guys, but that just highlighted what I've been saying. Mathhammer is the only way you can compare the efficiency of units or weapons, and to do that you make certain assumptions. Sometimes, the assumptions you need make the answer too specific....in this case - what units am I shooting, what's my definition of overkill, how many terminators are there. So the answer you'd give me is correct for the assumptions I gave you - but not correct for any other circumstances. Even putting the terminators into cover would make a significant difference.

And for me, that's why experience is better. I'm not saying that math is wrong and I'm not saying that it has no place. What I am saying is that experience gives you the ability to short circuit the math - it enables you to come up with a strategy or action that is good enough and quickly enough to be able to use it on the tabletop.

On the tabletop, there is an 16.6% chance of rolling a given number with a single D6. It doesn't change. So, even though on average I should roll one 1 for every 6 dice, on the table I can roll 6 dice and get six 1. Experience allows most people to adjust that.

I think that mathhammer generally is useful for understanding what units are best suited to doing and how reliable they are at the margin (you know when you're tossing up between unit A or B - like @labmouse showed).

As many people have said, you are better off with both. If you are only going to have one, pick experience - you'll be less surprised and frustrated on the table.

A definition of terms would be appropriate here.

Mark's perspective (and the perspective of many others in this thread) is born from a colossal misunderstanding of what math actually is, and what math is appropriate for determining outcomes in a game of 40k. This misunderstanding is borne from being immersed hip-deep in the muck of what we'll affectionately call ''failure math aka some kid smashing out long divison on an IHOP napkin'' that pervades this forum, ie. something asinine like ''if I shoot x terminators at y amount of genestealers in cover on average I'll score 6.35135636 wounds" - understanding why every single piece of this assessment is either flawed, inaccurate, incorrect, or just plain awful, is both core to this debate and a huge part of why points like "So, even though on average I should roll one 1 for every 6 dice, on the table I can roll 6 dice and get six 1. Experience allows most people to adjust that. " are being advanced with no idea of why that is a 100% flawed assessment of what math actually does.

"Thanks guys, but that just highlighted what I've been saying. Mathhammer is the only way you can compare the efficiency of units or weapons, and to do that you make certain assumptions. Sometimes, the assumptions you need make the answer too specific....in this case - what units am I shooting, what's my definition of overkill, how many terminators are there. So the answer you'd give me is correct for the assumptions I gave you - but not correct for any other circumstances. Even putting the terminators into cover would make a significant difference. "

This is another great example of flat-out misunderstanding. To someone that can actually calculate the odds of x unit doing exactly y performance in z conditions, it's frankly quite *trivial* to add in any additional number of factors ie. night fight range probabilities, cover, weird invuln saves, etc. These factors (as well as your challenging "well ok then! tell me what the odds of my termies killing something are!" as if it was actually a non-trivial thing to do) only seem complicated to you because you're not familiar with how the calculations are actually done.

There should be a sticky in the tactics thread really showing how to do actual calculations for probabilities for discrete events. There was a recent thread titled something like "Do librarians belong in a crimson fists army" that showed how the actual math is supposed to be done by several people (hint: it's not spamming long division followed by something like ''ok you will kill 2.525136234634234634 orks on average)

Put a great mathemitician in front of me. See what happens.

He'll rapidly be the guy in the room who pouts and throws models because "that shouldn't have happened".

Ah the land of should. such a lonely place. No one lives there and very few pass through.

 Jancoran wrote:
Put a great mathemitician in front of me. See what happens.

He'll rapidly be the guy in the room who pouts and throws models because "that shouldn't have happened".

No, that would be a stupid mathematician. A great mathematician understands the difference between "most likely outcome" and "guaranteed outcome", and doesn't throw their toys in frustration because they didn't get the most likely outcome.

 Jancoran wrote:
Put a great mathemitician in front of me. See what happens.

He'll rapidly be the guy in the room who pouts and throws models because "that shouldn't have happened".

Ah the land of should. such a lonely place. No one lives there and very few pass through.

This pretty accurately describes what someone that's *not* a mathematician (or a good sport) would do. Your opinion also speaks to the large misunderstanding within the Dakka community of, again, what math actually *is*

Uh huh. Because its such a hard concept to grasp, right?

 Jancoran wrote:
Uh huh. Because its such a hard concept to grasp, right?

Apparently it is, because you're spreading wrong information.
A mathematician will not only know the most likely outcome, he will also know the chance on that outcome.
It are the "experience"-people who think 2+ is bad because they "always roll 1's." (See what I did there?)

 Jancoran wrote:
Uh huh. Because its such a hard concept to grasp, right?

Judging by the majority of posts in this thread, apparently so.

MikeMcSomething wrote:A definition of terms would be appropriate here.

Agreed. Many posters in the last 4 pages have sought to point out what definitions they are using. Interestingly, you didn't actually provide any definitions before continuing, so let me help.

Math : "a group of related sciences, including algebra, geometry, probability and calculus, concerned with the study of number, quantity, shape, and space and their interrelationships by using a specialized notation" - thanks to the Free Dictionary and with word in italics added by me.

Mathhammer : "Failure math aka some kid smashing out long divison on an IHOP napkin'' that pervades this forum, ie. something asinine like ''if I shoot x terminators at y amount of genestealers in cover on average I'll score 6.35135636 wounds" OR "spamming long division followed by something like ''ok you will kill 2.525136234634234634 orks on average" - snip from MikeMcSomething accurately summarising my view and that of many posters (imo )

MikeMcSomething wrote:
Mark's perspective (and the perspective of many others in this thread) is born from a colossal misunderstanding of what math actually is, and what math is appropriate for determining outcomes in a game of 40k. This misunderstanding is borne from being immersed hip-deep in the muck of what we'll affectionately call ''failure math aka some kid smashing out long divison on an IHOP napkin'' that pervades this forum, ie. something asinine like ''if I shoot x terminators at y amount of genestealers in cover on average I'll score 6.35135636 wounds" - understanding why every single piece of this assessment is either flawed, inaccurate, incorrect, or just plain awful, is both core to this debate and a huge part of why points like "So, even though on average I should roll one 1 for every 6 dice, on the table I can roll 6 dice and get six 1. Experience allows most people to adjust that. " are being advanced with no idea of why that is a 100% flawed assessment of what math actually does.

Thanks Mike Unfortunately, the only colossal misunderstanding here is your interpretation of what has been happening in the last 4 pages of this topic. For the last 4 pages, people like myself, who DO have an understanding of "math", have been putting forward their view of why experience is better than "mathhammer" (note I'm using your definitions - well one of them anyway ).

Also, re my comment "So, even though on average I should roll one 1 for every 6 dice, on the table I can roll 6 dice and get six 1." I agree that was badly worded. I should have said "If I roll 6 dice I have a very high probability of getting one 1, however, it is possible I can roll all 6 dice and get six 1's" because my probability of getting a 1 on any individual dice roll is 1/6 (as I have noted in my earlier posts).

MikeMcSomething wrote:
"Thanks guys, but that just highlighted what I've been saying. Mathhammer is the only way you can compare the efficiency of units or weapons, and to do that you make certain assumptions. Sometimes, the assumptions you need make the answer too specific....in this case - what units am I shooting, what's my definition of overkill, how many terminators are there. So the answer you'd give me is correct for the assumptions I gave you - but not correct for any other circumstances. Even putting the terminators into cover would make a significant difference. "

This is another great example of flat-out misunderstanding. To someone that can actually calculate the odds of x unit doing exactly y performance in z conditions, it's frankly quite *trivial* to add in any additional number of factors ie. night fight range probabilities, cover, weird invuln saves, etc. These factors (as well as your challenging "well ok then! tell me what the odds of my termies killing something are!" as if it was actually a non-trivial thing to do) only seem complicated to you because you're not familiar with how the calculations are actually done.

Yes I agree. There was a misunderstanding, however, perhaps it was because you didn't read what I wrote, or perhaps it was your subsequent misquote of my challenge.

I'm not sure how to clarify the statement "So the answer you would give me would depend on the assumptions I gave you, but not correct for any other circumstances. Even putting terminators in cover would make a significant difference.". The point clearly was that WHEN you do the "mathhammer" (noting that I didn't anywhere say it was non-trivial to do the calculation) the result you get by adding another variable may make a significant difference. Unless you are suggesting that putting the terminators into cover won't make a difference to the calculation?

And just to clarify my challenge - the wording was "Excellent, can you let me know the probability of overkilling a unit of terminators? " which is something that "math" CAN do (see definitions above) but "mathhammer" (see definitions above) can't.

MikeMcSomething wrote:
There should be a sticky in the tactics thread really showing how to do actual calculations for probabilities for discrete events. There was a recent thread titled something like "Do librarians belong in a crimson fists army" that showed how the actual math is supposed to be done by several people (hint: it's not spamming long division followed by something like ''ok you will kill 2.525136234634234634 orks on average)

Agreed.

Kangodo wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Uh huh. Because its such a hard concept to grasp, right?

Apparently it is, because you're spreading wrong information.
A mathematician will not only know the most likely outcome, he will also know the chance on that outcome.
It are the "experience"-people who think 2+ is bad because they "always roll 1's." (See what I did there?)

Not really . Experience people are effectively modifying their data set to reflect actual results - it is entirely possible that their dice don't conform to statistical averages.

But I agree "A mathematician will not only know the most likely outcome, he will also know the chance on that outcome".
However, a Mathhammerite (mathhammerer?) won't.

*************

So, to summarise. (I'm going to repeat the definitions first so that this hopefully won't get taken out of context).

Math : "a group of related sciences, including algebra, geometry, probability and calculus, concerned with the study of number, quantity, shape, and space and their interrelationships by using a specialized notation" - thanks to the Free Dictionary and with word in italics added by me.

Mathhammer : "Failure math aka some kid smashing out long divison on an IHOP napkin'' that pervades this forum, ie. something asinine like ''if I shoot x terminators at y amount of genestealers in cover on average I'll score 6.35135636 wounds" OR "spamming long division followed by something like ''ok you will kill 2.525136234634234634 orks on average" - snip from MikeMcSomething

Imo experience beats Mathhammer every time. Mathhammer can be useful in getting a broad idea of unit capabilities but is not to be relied on on the tabletop.
On the table experience is more useful than math - purely because most people cannot explicitly do the complex equations required to accurately do the math while playing a game. I accept that experience is effectively "short-circuiting" the math and that experience may not give the mathematically correct results. Experience is, however, something that everyone can get, it's generally quicker and it is a hell of a lot more fun (for most ).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@OP - GREAT topic

Well I've gone down this road before so let me tell you what you may not know: I own a business in financial services so all I DO is numbers. I know the probabilities and I see math in my head at night. Part of why Im good is that I can estimate (quickly) my chances in any given situation pretty darn quick.

BUT... We're talking about before the game, aren't we?

Despite this ability, I do NOT field armies that feature 9 Broadsides or 5 flyers or any of that stuff. I could. I know the math on fronht armor and back. Why don't I?

But what I have found is that a good general can create the opportunities to skew those odds in his favor if he takes something that ISNT a cockpuncher unit...but IS a numbers skewer. A disruption unit is what some people like to call them.

and the numbers dont show you ANYTHING in relation to that value. I could tell you for example that my NUMBER ONE vehicle killers (especially flyers) are the Kroot units. Hands down. Know anyone else who says that? I bet very few, if any.

I also know how to make Mandrakes work. I also have a Sisters of Battle Army that had no transports in 5E and only one exorcist and cleaned house with them again and again. I have a Footdar army that was footdar before footdar ever THOUGHT about being good. When everyone was saying Crisis Suit, I was saying I have none, and won. When people curse the gawds over Stingwings, i won with them too.

Want to play a math game? Trey this one.

Averages mean that a result is more likely than not if ALL the variables are accounted for. Whats the variable applied to OPPORTUNITY? For example: How much does your kill ratio matter...in fact... if you have no target?

Second question: How many rounds in which you don't have a target (that matters) does the value of the units kill ratio degrade?

Because obviously we know that a unit that costs 300 points could be postulated to be worth 1800 over the course of 6 rounds if it loses no strength. In other words, that unit does 300 points worth of X, given the opportunity.

So if we give every unit their points vaslue in efficacy and modify it by its kill ratio (simple math that anyone can do) we can sort of calculate what the units useful output is in a game in perfect conditions.

Each round that the unit is not allowed to output a result, we subtract that amount of rounds from its value.

This all ignores objectives and deals only with total usefulness in a killing sense.

So if I create a situation in which you EFFECTIVELY cannot act meaningfully, for three of the six rounds, i have cut your value in half, while leaving my units undiminished.

An outflanker unit coming in on turn 3 of 180 point value with a kill ratio of 3 MEQ shooting could be said to be an 2160 point value. The 300 point unit (say Grey Knight Purifiers) with a 4 MEQ kill ratio who are negated but at full str until 4th round when their target reveals itself could be said to be worth 300x3 roundsx4 = 3600.

Notice how you got a 12 production per point output from the outflanker and got a 12 production per point out of the Purifiers? What happens if the Purifiers don't get a target for FOUR rounds! Their stock plummets in comparison. And the enemy can almost afford TWO Opportunities (points wise) instead of 1, because he bought the cheaper unit. Lol. Advantage: the Grey Knights opponent in this example.

Now this assumes the Outflankers didnt use their round to damage the Purifiers. And that is the OPPORTUNITY cost that the Purifiers are paying: they cant get that jump on the outflanker. They can be hurt FIRST, dropping their production value first and any drop affects ALL subsequent rounds. that value can plummet and probably would, faster than the outflanker who bopped out of nowhere and shot them.

And what if the Grey Knight catches the offensing unit? well that Grey Knight unit may now have cost himself rounds of FUTURE production by his POSITION. By going after the one threat, he now cannot go after more that he otherwise would have been able to. So each time i LURE him into killing a smaller unit that is behind him, for example, I put his value lower JUST by knowing that his range will preclude FUTURE targets from being affected. So if he takes the bait, round 4, he then loses two rounds and his value goes to 2400. Oops. Suddenly, quite inefficient indeed for its cost.

Now some units are really great in melee. If the purifiers are good (and they are), and they are ALLOWED a target (that matters) then one can probably guess what the outcome is. but the more rounds the unit DOESN'T get to do what it wants, the worse it is.

So the trick is to find WAYS to fight and units that compliment that method, that you can use to time the enemy and dictate his movement to him. If he ignores the bait, the bait lives, doesn't it? and this bait bites back. That allows you to penalize the production value of the other units. Your ability to ABLATE the enemy's production is something that can be reflected in Saves but it cant be reflected in opportunity because terrain and tactics, and unit abilities that interact with that much it all up.

I can go on but this is just ONE of a dozen ways you can parse the numbers and look at the problem.

SITUATION determines the value of each unit using this model. So it is the SITUATION that needs to be manipulated by the General and THAT is a function of terrain, mission, timing and a little luck as always.

So there's math to it. But the so called acolytes of Math Hammer would beat me a lot more often if they were thinking bigger than a damn kill ratio. And I find it laughable to think anyone can say that experience at setting up the SITUATION can be trumped by a weak argument like "but a Crisis suit does X MEQ wounds".

It does if I let it and its alive to try. Sure. But thats not going to be the SITUATION when the time comes (against a target that matters). Not if I have anything to say about it.

...and sometimes the dice roll funny and sometimes the other guy is on his game and sometimes the terrain isn't cooperating. Stuff happens. Its a dice game. No one wins all the time.

Jancoran, you're making a ridiculous straw man here. Nobody is saying that math in isolation can tell you all you need to know about the game. The point is that math will always give you the correct answer to the question you're asking. People will say endless stupid things about "I always roll badly" or whatever, but in the end they're simply wrong. And the fact that some people make bad decisions by asking "what's my average MEQ kills per turn" instead of "what are my chances of killing the four survivors this turn to clear the objective I need to hold" doesn't make this any less true.

And what's especially amusing is that you complain about how people give too much credit to math while not asking the same question about the validity of your experience. For example, did you win with vespids because they defy the common math and you've found a way to make them a really good unit, or did you win with vespids because you were playing against weaker players with battleforce lists?

MarkCron wrote:


Thanks guys, but that just highlighted what I've been saying. Mathhammer is the only way you can compare the efficiency of units or weapons, and to do that you make certain assumptions. Sometimes, the assumptions you need make the answer too specific....in this case - what units am I shooting, what's my definition of overkill, how many terminators are there. So the answer you'd give me is correct for the assumptions I gave you - but not correct for any other circumstances. Even putting the terminators into cover would make a significant difference.

Guess what? If you're really experienced at shooting plasma at Tactical Terminators, it's not going to matter if you're shooting at TH/SS Terminators, because the variables have changed.

Do you see how ridiculous that is? When a variable changes, you modify the calculations accordingly. Saying that mathhammer is worse because "one specific calculation isn't always right" is just a staggering level of ignorance of how you're supposed to be using the math in the first place.

For me math serves a very similar role as it seems to for Labmouse. That is, I use it not to optimize my list but to find how best to use what I think would be fun. I think we can all agree that spending days getting a unit to tabletop only to have it flounder isn't very fun even in a casual environment. I think we can also all agree that using something that shouldn't be very effective, and is a cool model, to great effect is extraordinarily fun.

On the tabletop I also use math to assess and manage risk and gain while using units in inventive ways by examining the probability of certain events occurring in given situations. As I learn more I find that my experience doesn't negate what the numbers are telling me, in fact it supports them. Using these in conjunction allows me to pull off things that I don't think I could with either.

I personally am glad I learned the math behind how everything works first though. It gave me a footing to square off against people with much more experience than I and allowed to me to learn more form them. Hopefully it will continue to.


So I have a question, what situation would you think that experience would completely trump math and vice-versa?

Every tool has a select use, and just as I want to compare each of my units objectively to see how each can be used, I want to evaluate when I would have to rely upon each of these tools independently and in conjunction.

@MarkCron: Thank you Hopefully as I learn more about the game I can keep asking good questions.

 laginess wrote:
So I have a question, what situation would you think that experience would completely trump math and vice-versa?

Math trumps experience when the question you're asking is "what will these dice do".

Math is not relevant when the question is something else.

Experience never trumps math, math is just sometimes cited inappropriately when it isn't relevant.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

MarkCron wrote:


Thanks guys, but that just highlighted what I've been saying. Mathhammer is the only way you can compare the efficiency of units or weapons, and to do that you make certain assumptions. Sometimes, the assumptions you need make the answer too specific....in this case - what units am I shooting, what's my definition of overkill, how many terminators are there. So the answer you'd give me is correct for the assumptions I gave you - but not correct for any other circumstances. Even putting the terminators into cover would make a significant difference.

Guess what? If you're really experienced at shooting plasma at Tactical Terminators, it's not going to matter if you're shooting at TH/SS Terminators, because the variables have changed.

Do you see how ridiculous that is? When a variable changes, you modify the calculations accordingly. Saying that mathhammer is worse because "one specific calculation isn't always right" is just a staggering level of ignorance of how you're supposed to be using the math in the first place.

Hmmm. Actually, I hate to break it to you, but whether you mathhammer or use experience it DOES make a difference whether the target you are shooting at has storm shields.

Also, I didn't say "mathhammer was worse because one specific calculation isn't always right". That was your conclusion. The point I was making is that math calculations rely on variables (assumptions) and that these can be very specific. Apparently you agree. I also never said you couldn't recalculate. Sure you can.

I'm going to give you some credit and assume that you know how to use "math" as opposed to being a "mathhammerite". If you want to know the difference, check my earlier post.

If you are one of the people who can, in the middle of the game, quickly, probably without a calculator, calculate the probability of the range of wound outcomes possible from shooting x of weapon z at unit A, who have wargear X, saves Y, special rule Z, with half the unit in cover - knock yourself out. If you can then take that, factor it into your mathematical equation(s) which helps you determine the course of action that maximises your probability of winning the game - then go ahead - use math exclusively.

If you aren't one of those people, then use "math" to get an idea of the capability of your units and get experience on the table to help you make the right decision. If you are going to use "mathhammer" make sure you understand the limitations and what the result really means.

And, just in case I've displayed my "staggering ignorance" of how to use math again, please feel free to let me know how to use "math" properly . Apparently I'm doing it wrong.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 laginess wrote:
So I have a question, what situation would you think that experience would completely trump math and vice-versa?

Math trumps experience when the question you're asking is "what will these dice do".

Math is not relevant when the question is something else.

Experience never trumps math, math is just sometimes cited inappropriately when it isn't relevant.

QFT

@MarkCron:
I do think separating mathhammer and maths is incorrect. Here is my definition:
Maths: what you said.
Mathhammer: maths applied to 40k
Failmathhammer: what your definition of mathhammer was.

My main army is Dark Eldar, mathematically they should lose almost every game they lay simply because of the squishyness of them, however my experience of getting whooped on so many times has taught what is tactically sound and what isn't you can't really on math purely. I do use calculations in my head to to aid me, but I mostly play off of my experience. With my experience I win most my games, quite simply because I do things that most people won't, but with Dark Eldar you have to play that way, every turn just about as Dark Eldar is calculations and a hell of a lot of experience. In short, math hammer is great and all but an experienced player is what wins the game.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
@MarkCron:
I do think separating mathhammer and maths is incorrect. Here is my definition:
Maths: what you said.
Mathhammer: maths applied to 40k
Failmathhammer: what your definition of mathhammer was.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
But credit to MikeMcSomething who came up with the definition!

 epicwalrus wrote:
My main army is Dark Eldar, mathematically they should lose almost every game they lay simply because of the squishyness of them

And this is exactly the point about bad "math" being the problem. Math does NOT say that DE should lose every game, and if you think it does you just have no clue about how math works.

 Peregrine wrote:
Experience never trumps math, math is just sometimes cited inappropriately when it isn't relevant.

I'm going to have to disagree with this and reiterate a point that was made earlier than this paticular post in the thread: dice aren't always statistically "true".

Unless you're buying brand-new, never been used, to standard Casino dice (or some variant of) your dice aren't true. Math will never tell you that on it's own as it works on a principle that the die your rolling has an equal chance of rolling any face. Statistics actually relys on the fact that every possibility your calculating for has an equal chance of happening. But real dice don't follow those rules.

I have a set of dice I don't use for normal games (it sits in a bag with my RPG dice instead) because they're prone to rolling a lot of 6s. I never tampered with them, and I can't find any faults with them (they're clear and I don't see any massive air bubbles or anything) but they are prone to rolling a lot of 6s for some reason.

To add to this problem, dice with rounded corners, like the Chessex ones, or dice GW sells, are actually slightly more prone to rolling 1s than any other number.

So math may tell me that my odds are 50% to hit something at BS3, but my experiance may tell me that with my dice I'm more prone to rolling high, or rolling low, thus changing the odds. Now could I get statistically even dice and roll them thousands of times to be sure? I could, but most people don't do that. Most of us play with the dice we've got, and our experience (or "gut math" instead of real math) helps us play around that additional wrinkle.

No one plays in a vacuum where the dice are perfectly balanced and never end up being a little statistically odd. Math exists in that world and because it, we have to accept that the game will never functional perfectly based on the statistical odds of things happening.

EDIT: For clarification, when I say "equal chance of happening" I mean on the die. I know that obviously that when you need to roll a 5+ 4/6 of those faces are going to fail you, I meant that each possibility has a fair chance of occurring. Statistics relies on this in particularl when dealing with random number generation. The thing is that it's hardly as random as we expect. And that's all I meant by it.

ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm going to have to disagree with this and reiterate a point that was made earlier than this paticular post in the thread: dice aren't always statistically "true".

And again, you're just talking about bad math. Statistics does NOT require that every probability be equal, if you want to calculate predictions based on dice that are uneven you can do so (it just takes more work).

So math may tell me that my odds are 50% to hit something at BS3, but my experiance may tell me that with my dice I'm more prone to rolling high, or rolling low, thus changing the odds. Now could I get statistically even dice and roll them thousands of times to be sure? I could, but most people don't do that. Most of us play with the dice we've got, and our experience (or "gut math" instead of real math) helps us play around that additional wrinkle.

But which is more likely: that your experience has told you the exact deviation from a "fair" D6, or that you're suffering from confirmation bias? After all, you probably aren't keeping a record of every die roll you make so you're depending on your memory to keep track of how your dice roll. And which stands out more in memory, the time you rolled 20 dice for BS 3 shooting and got 11 hits, or the time when you needed to kill a single marine on an objective to win the game and got 3 hits and no wounds?

 Peregrine wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm going to have to disagree with this and reiterate a point that was made earlier than this paticular post in the thread: dice aren't always statistically "true".

And again, you're just talking about bad math. Statistics does NOT require that every probability be equal, if you want to calculate predictions based on dice that are uneven you can do so (it just takes more work).

I had to clarify that, and I'm sorry for the poor wording. I meant that in terms of a die roll that each face has an equal chance of coming up. It's important that it works this way for random number generation (which is what the dice do for us), but in reality a lot of factors (physical make up, the playing surface, if you use a die tower, ect) effect the roll and make it less "true" that you really have an equal chance.

And that's not even getting into actual cheating either.

 Peregrine wrote:
But which is more likely: that your experience has told you the exact deviation from a "fair" D6, or that you're suffering from confirmation bias? After all, you probably aren't keeping a record of every die roll you make so you're depending on your memory to keep track of how your dice roll. And which stands out more in memory, the time you rolled 20 dice for BS 3 shooting and got 11 hits, or the time when you needed to kill a single marine on an objective to win the game and got 3 hits and no wounds?

Confirmation bias is a problem for everyone. The fact is that if I use the same cube of dice for every game, and I find that I fail more of my 3+ saves than I pass on a regular basis (not to mention miss when shooting on a 3+, ect) I will learn that I roll lower than I expect and either get a new die cube or plan around that fact. Might it be confirmation bias? Perhaps. Or it could be the fact that the dice aren't truly fair.

Personally neither because I don't count my rolls that way. I play with a large enough collection of D6s that I don't bother to worry about the dice being unfair now that I've taken the actually unfair ones out of there. I have games where rolls go good, some where they go bad, and others still where they play almost exactly on average. But I'm not using the same exact dice on every roll. They sit in a pile and I grab what I need to shoot, run, ect. But I despite me randomizing my dice a bit more which ensures I have a more random result, it doesn't mean that each die is actually truly random. And I think we need to accept that as the weak link in the arguement that math is the ONLY good answer because it's somehow free of error when we're not using error free materials to play with.

Also your summaries suck. What am I shooting 20 BS3 shots at? Am I using Guard with Orders? Was I ordered to "Bring it Down" or have I managed to gain a re-roll somehow? What am I shooting the Marine with? What's it's strength? My range? The number of shots?

And if I need to kill a single Marine on an objective I shoot him until he dies, or charge him so he can't claim it or both. Math is nice and all but sometimes the game doesn't play out "correctly" and you just need to keep rolling dice until you get the result you need.

MarkCron wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

MarkCron wrote:


Thanks guys, but that just highlighted what I've been saying. Mathhammer is the only way you can compare the efficiency of units or weapons, and to do that you make certain assumptions. Sometimes, the assumptions you need make the answer too specific....in this case - what units am I shooting, what's my definition of overkill, how many terminators are there. So the answer you'd give me is correct for the assumptions I gave you - but not correct for any other circumstances. Even putting the terminators into cover would make a significant difference.

Guess what? If you're really experienced at shooting plasma at Tactical Terminators, it's not going to matter if you're shooting at TH/SS Terminators, because the variables have changed.

Do you see how ridiculous that is? When a variable changes, you modify the calculations accordingly. Saying that mathhammer is worse because "one specific calculation isn't always right" is just a staggering level of ignorance of how you're supposed to be using the math in the first place.

Hmmm. Actually, I hate to break it to you, but whether you mathhammer or use experience it DOES make a difference whether the target you are shooting at has storm shields.

Also, I didn't say "mathhammer was worse because one specific calculation isn't always right". That was your conclusion. The point I was making is that math calculations rely on variables (assumptions) and that these can be very specific. Apparently you agree. I also never said you couldn't recalculate. Sure you can.

I'm going to give you some credit and assume that you know how to use "math" as opposed to being a "mathhammerite". If you want to know the difference, check my earlier post.

If you are one of the people who can, in the middle of the game, quickly, probably without a calculator, calculate the probability of the range of wound outcomes possible from shooting x of weapon z at unit A, who have wargear X, saves Y, special rule Z, with half the unit in cover - knock yourself out. If you can then take that, factor it into your mathematical equation(s) which helps you determine the course of action that maximises your probability of winning the game - then go ahead - use math exclusively.

If you aren't one of those people, then use "math" to get an idea of the capability of your units and get experience on the table to help you make the right decision. If you are going to use "mathhammer" make sure you understand the limitations and what the result really means.

And, just in case I've displayed my "staggering ignorance" of how to use math again, please feel free to let me know how to use "math" properly . Apparently I'm doing it wrong.

Sorry, I might have been a bit too hostile, what I meant was that it doesn't exactly require a mathematical genius to adapt to stuff being in cover or not. It's not meaningfully harder to calculate the expected damage to a unit just because it's in cover than it would've been if the unit wasn't in cover.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sorry, I might have been a bit too hostile, what I meant was that it doesn't exactly require a mathematical genius to adapt to stuff being in cover or not. It's not meaningfully harder to calculate the expected damage to a unit just because it's in cover than it would've been if the unit wasn't in cover.

No worries - and I totally agree.