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.

So? Yesterday my Vendetta shot at a tyrannofex. One shot hit, and failed to wound.
Does that mean the Vendetta is rubbish? Nope. I'm still going to take it, because statistically it deals a great deal of damage for what it costs.
I've also shot plasma vets before and had all three plasma guns get hot, die, then fail a morale check and run off the board. Does that mean I'm going to start taking penal legionairres instead? I doubt it.
I think people who poo-poo "mathhammer" probably don't understand probability too well. Which is cool, obviously.

It works the other way round too. Experience doesn't mean "from 5 out of 7 games my melta veteran squad killed more than one vehicle, they are invincible..."- rubbish.
Math is ONE tool to accomplish the goal of winning the game, but not THE tool. Math means only: Is unit X probably strong enough to deal with situation Y. Experience is: "Normally unit X would be strong enough but as dice are dice, lets have some assistance from unit Z in case unit X will fail and if Z will fail too I know that 2 turns later I will have another chance with unit P which is busy somewhere else at the moment and if X will succeed, unit Z can still be used in situation B to assist unit C and so on..."

Math clarifies probabilities and experience create possibilities.

It is one thing to know about your odds. Its another thing to shift your odds in your favour.

-Nazdreg- wrote:A good example is the ork buggy...

Sure, with statistics you still need to set up the parameters, and that can certainly make things complicated, still...

General_Marshall wrote:Yeah, I buy it or proxy it, and play a few games with some friends to see how the unit works. If I like it or its fun, I keep it, if not I don't. More fun that way. Expecting certain resaults consistantlly (even poor ones) from units leads to failure.

KplKeegan wrote:Probability in a vaccuum is rather pointless...
40K is a dice game, therefore, the math only goes so far before your luck decides for you.

... it's much better than a deeply flawed understanding of statistics.

Math is objective. "Oh, yeah, well once in my basement THIS happened!" isn't. A few games is nothing compared to the infinite sample size of statistics. The luck you have in a couple games means nothing to the luck I'm going to have in any given game.

Personal experience is subjective and any statements made therefrom are therefore subjective. Unless I have the exact same experiences that you have, the things you say are meaningless.

I mean, if you told me that you once had a single missile launcher HWS take down three land raiders in a single game, does that mean I should take missile launchers as the great destroyer of land raiders? If you tell me once that you had a squad of conscripts beat the crap out of a death company, should I expect my conscripts to do the same?

Without objectivity, we have no way to have meaningful conversations with people outside of our own frames of reference.

Personal experience is subjective and any statements made therefrom are therefore subjective. Unless I have the exact same experiences that you have, the things you say are meaningless.

I mean, if you told me that you once had a single missile launcher HWS take down three land raiders in a single game, does that mean I should take missile launchers as the great destroyer of land raiders? If you tell me once that you had a squad of conscripts beat the crap out of a death company, should I expect my conscripts to do the same?

Without objectivity, we have no way to have meaningful conversations with people outside of our own frames of reference.

Well math is objective but not reliable in game. You cannot completely rely on a precalculated outcome. Its just impossible. And math is also completely meaningless if the calculations are made out of thin air. (yes, 10 meltaguns in an army will kill a Landraider if concentrated on him. But what happens if the 10 meltaguns never see that landraider?) So even the calculations are subjective. They are based on certain assumptions. If the assumptions work, all is fine, if not, the calculation is worthless. And those assumptions are damn subjective...

You cannot objectively precalculate a game, that is defined by the subjective physical shape of the table and the models and the subjective movement of the units interacting with it and each other.

Ailaros wrote:I mean, if you told me that you once had a single missile launcher HWS take down three land raiders in a single game, does that mean I should take missile launchers as the great destroyer of land raiders? If you tell me once that you had a squad of conscripts beat the crap out of a death company, should I expect my conscripts to do the same?

Without objectivity, we have no way to have meaningful conversations with people outside of our own frames of reference.

Exaggerate more please. No one has made such out-landish claims (at least none that I've seen).

Experience and Math are far more objective, more reliable then straight up, made-in-the-vaccuum statistics. Many players come to the Tactica section to learn from experienced players, not just their math.

... it's much better than a deeply flawed understanding of statistics.

If you'd bother reading the rest of my post, I use Math-Hammer in game, not outside of it.

KplKeegan wrote:If you'd bother reading the rest of my post, I use Math-Hammer in game, not outside of it.

People can use tools without understanding them.

KplKeegan wrote:Experience and Math are far more objective, more reliable then straight up, made-in-the-vaccuum statistics.

What does the word objective mean to you? In my world, a data set taken from a single subject is subjective. Objectivity refers to things which can be true, independent of a specific subject.

Bringing in personal experience pollutes otherwise objective means of communicating with subjective anecdotes. Why is that superior?

-Nazdreg- wrote:You cannot objectively precalculate a game, that is defined by the subjective physical shape of the table and the models and the subjective movement of the units interacting with it and each other.

At no point have I claimed that statistics will tell you what the results of any particular die roll will be. Neither, I should note, can "experience".

-Nazdreg- wrote:Well math is objective but not reliable in game. You cannot completely rely on a precalculated outcome.

I think this misses the core mechanic of 40k, though. 40k is a game where you roll dice to determine the outcome of individual events, and thus the outcome of the game as a whole. Randomness can't be predicted, but it can be understood. Understanding the odds you're playing in a game of chance is the very definition of player skill in such a game.

Everything else in the game from movement to target prioritization, etc., is all about manipulating your environment so that you're more exactly playing the odds that you want to play. To dismiss understanding odds dismisses the core principle to competitive play in a game of 40k. It would be like playing blackjack without counting cards, or like playing poker without knowing the odds of various hands coming up. It is certainly possible to win games of craps or blackjack without knowing the math, but to dismiss the understanding of math as irrelevant in a game of chance is more than a little silly.

Statistics give us a framework in which to objectively assess things in 40k, and be able to have meaningful dialogue about the odds we play when we put down minis and pick up dice. I'd really like to see something that is a better means to these ends.

Ailaros wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:If you'd bother reading the rest of my post, I use Math-Hammer in game, not outside of it.

People can use tools without understanding them.

So I'm incapable of understanding probability during a game? Your arrogance is staggering.

KplKeegan wrote:Experience and Math are far more objective, more reliable then straight up, made-in-the-vaccuum statistics.

Bringing in personal experience pollutes otherwise objective means of communicating with subjective anecdotes. Why is that superior?

I think this misses the core mechanic of 40k, though. 40k is a game where you roll dice to determine the outcome of individual events, and thus the outcome of the game as a whole.

I would dare to question that. Objectively it is not necessary to roll a single dice to complete an objective marker based mission. That is a fact. So the game is not based on dice rolls. Dice rolls are a common tool to achieve certain objectives, but certainly not the only one. In unit vs unit encounters I need to calculate my probable dice rolls, yes, but as dice rolls are unreliable, the better approach would be to concentrate on things that are under your full control with no randomness (unless you choose to include randomness due to dt tests or the like): Movement and Deployment.
Of course if you count distances in the math calculation then you cant get really away from math, but you certainly can avoid uncertain dice rolls by either not rolling them or when you roll them you shouldnt be dependent on them. They should rather alter your actions.

So the plan shouldnt be: when action 1 happens, it must work.
The plan should be: when action 1 works, I do X, when action 1 doesnt work, I do Y.

I have a friend who plays 40k who literally ignores maths when he plays.
Is he a bad 40k player? Not at all. He thinks, strategises, forms complicated plans etc.
Is it as efficient as my maths-based approach? Hard to tell since he plays eldar
Anyway, some people perceive the world and information in a more mathematic way than other people.
The human mind is a complicated and subtle mechanism - no two are ever completely the same, and the world is a richer place for it. So what if some people can't see the merits of mathematics in list-building (I find it only occasionally useful in battle). I can't see the merits of a more "holistic" approach either, but the only way we'd find out is through battling. Needless to say, you'd probably win.

Joey wrote:I have a friend who plays 40k who literally ignores maths when he plays.
Is he a bad 40k player? Not at all. He thinks, strategises, forms complicated plans etc.
Is it as efficient as my maths-based approach? Hard to tell since he plays eldar

If your friend didn't ignore the math and spent a small amount of time checking it out, he would have a much greater understanding and would present much more of a challenge to you

Arguments about strategy vs maths is silly, since you are making strategies involving a bunch of maths. Although i bet you friend thinks things like "I don't need to do the math on 5 fire dragons firing into a dreadnought. I know whats going to happen", which I approve of the math is...more of a guideline really

KplKeegan wrote:Because players have actually fielded these units

I'm still waiting for why we should make decisions based on small, anecdotal data sets.

Joey wrote:I have a friend who plays 40k who literally ignores maths when he plays.
Is he a bad 40k player? Not at all. He thinks, strategises, forms complicated plans etc.
Is it as efficient as my maths-based approach? Hard to tell since he plays eldar

Right, you can use something akin a scientific method here. Playing game after game to discover the principles of the game inductively by accident.

The problem is that it's difficult to talk objectively about things without the same data set, and I'd think it would be difficult to prove that this method is as efficient or comprehensive.

@ Nazdreg - yes, what you're talking about is the more nuianced way of looking at things. Player skill is playing the odds the way you want, but when that impacts the peculiarities of 40k, you have peculiar player skill. For example, movement is a part of the game of 40k because weapons have certain ranges, and if your weapon is out of range, the odds that you'll kill something are 0%. If that's not the odds you want to play, then you need to move your units to increase the odds to the level you want to play them at.

In the end, though, you've got to kill your opponent's stuff in order to be able to win a game of 40k. You can't win KP missions without killing stuff, and you can't win objectives missions without killing your opponent's stuff off of their objectives. In the end, you can't win a game of 40k without at some point rolling dice.

Playing those odds, especially against another good odds player, can be somewhat tricky, as it requires a good list, proper deployment, good movement, good target prioritization, etc. Once you learn the basics of the game, though, it all rather quickly devolves to the dice determining the games.

Ailaros wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:Because players have actually fielded these units

I'm still waiting for why we should make decisions based on small, anecdotal data sets.

Because a list comprised of statistics without experience is a Net List, and Net Lists don't fare well against experienced and math savvy players.

Starting to think one of the worst case scenarios for a blob army would be a Quad ML havoc squad backed with a lash prince.

After clustering 25mm figures it's easy to catch 13 per small blast template. 4 frag missiles dishing out 39 hits=26 wounds with no armor save. Cluster the commissar, power weapons, and special weapons all next to each other so that the first wave of blast templates doesn't completely disperse the squad. Either the power weapons die, or the squad remains clustered. Hit the remaining members with a TL rhino based havoc launcher.

Problems with the csm lash list is it usually has oblits instead, and a pair of plasma cannons is far less scary to guardsmen than 4 frag missiles. S5 TL havoc ML on rhinos is also uncommon.