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.

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.