Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you are going to argue...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is going on in the world?

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

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

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

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

Luck is certainly a factor.

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

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

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

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

Chance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a nice day

I think none of us have learnt anything here.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reopened at user request.

Please try not to cast aspersions upon members.

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

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

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


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

PPS I did not ask for this thread to be reopened

Ignorance is not an insult.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll bow out

Reecius wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Extremely well put.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is, again, probability.

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

Bookwrack wrote:Which is, again, probability.

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

Thus, helpful, but not infallible.

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

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

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

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

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


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