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.

Today a read an articel about board games. A passage was about warhammer/ warhammer40k. It was not very well and i think the author fall victim of some red shirt lies. One claim made me curious: "The bigger the armies, the less luck you need."
I do not think that is true because as long as I can remember playing a bad dice roll could destroy a hole plan. But maybe some who is fit in mathhammer or played Apocalypse can proof me wrong.

I think the basis of that statement is the fact that in larger games, there are more and more dice rolled. At that point, the outcome of each one is less critical than in smaller games. If I lose a tank in a 1000 point game to a "lucky" shot early on, its a big deal because it represents a significant portion of my army being destroyed. In a 10,000 point game, losing the same tank to the same lucky shot is much less of an issue.

It's called the law of large numbers. In stats, its the idea that the larger the sample size, the closer an average will be to the expected average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

For example, the average height of an adult man in the US is 5'10". I'm 6", so that appears wrong. My roomate is 5'6", so our average combined is 5'9", getting closer already. Let's assume the average height of all the men in my apartment is 5'10 1/2", getting even closer. The more people you measure, the more likely it is that you will reach the theoretical average.

In terms of warhammer, it's the idea that the more dice you roll, the more likely it is that the most likely results will occur. For example, when you fire two BS3 lascannons a turn at a landraider, you'll probably have turns where both hit, and turns were neither hit. Over the course of a 1500pt game, you might hit 45% of the time, or 53%. If you played a 6000pt game, shot 10 lascannons a turn, it's more likely that your average of hitting will be closer to 50%.

To extrapolate to the end: when large armies fight, extraordinary runs of luck will still occur, but they will be evenly divided and more likely to cancel each other out.

There are always games that come down to one or two rolls. A critical morale test for a unit holding an objective, or a critical save to keep a unit over half.

That said, IME there are two things that make these events come up less frequently.

One is simply good play. If you play carefully and think ahead, you are less likely to get into situations where you lose the game because of one morale test or save. Maybe you would have moved said quadrant-holding unit behind cover so they couldn’t be shot at in the first place. Maybe you would have used an unimportant unit to tie up their shooting unit in HtH. Maybe you would have moved a second scoring unit into position to give yourself some insurance. Smart play and forethought reduce the luck factor.

Second is indeed to have more models/units. In general, the more dice you roll (or your opponent rolls) the closer the results will trend towards the statistical average. When you roll a single d6, any result is equally likely. A 6 or a 1 is just as likely as a 3 or 4. But when you roll two, the odds of getting two 6s is only 1 our of 36 possible results. The odds of getting a 7 or better is 21/36. Lots of dice, rolled in groups, or in sequence, or whatever, TEND (though exceptions occur all the time) to group closer to statistical averages. When you have two units holding a quadrant, your opponent needs to kill or break BOTH of them, not just one, for you to lose it. When you have a Monolith, there is always the chance that one lucky lascannon shot will kill it on the first try. With THREE Monoliths, your opponent can’t ever do it with one shot, and will have to get really lucky to drop all three quickly.

Polonius wrote:It's called the law of large numbers. In stats, its the idea that the larger the sample size, the closer an average will be to the expected average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

For example, the average height of an adult man in the US is 5'10". I'm 6", so that appears wrong. My roomate is 5'6", so our average combined is 5'9", getting closer already. Let's assume the average height of all the men in my apartment is 5'10 1/2", getting even closer. The more people you measure, the more likely it is that you will reach the theoretical average.

In terms of warhammer, it's the idea that the more dice you roll, the more likely it is that the most likely results will occur. For example, when you fire two BS3 lascannons a turn at a landraider, you'll probably have turns where both hit, and turns were neither hit. Over the course of a 1500pt game, you might hit 45% of the time, or 53%. If you played a 6000pt game, shot 10 lascannons a turn, it's more likely that your average of hitting will be closer to 50%.

To extrapolate to the end: when large armies fight, extraordinary runs of luck will still occur, but they will be evenly divided and more likely to cancel each other out.

That is one reason I like things that get lots of dice rolls, for whatever they're doing ( Things that get lots of shots for example ). I know that because my 9 dire avengers ( I'm not counting the exarch with a pistol ) get 27 shots ( assuming bladestorm ), I am going to kill somewhere around 6 MEQs almost every time. Sure, it is possible I may kill none at all, or wipe a 10 man squad, but it isnt terribly likely. In other words, things like that are as dependable as the dice get. I would much rather have that, than say have a higher strength weapon that works out to kill 6 MEQs on average, but uses fewer dice rolls to do it in. In that case you would be less likely to hit your calculated average. A lot of times it gets down to a choice between looking at the possibility of something cool happening, or the probability of what is most likely to happen happening. Which one is better depends somewhat on your personality, but remember that gamblers work on possibilities, while casinos work on probabilities. Who does better in the long run?

27 shots at BS4 = 18 hits = 9 wounds = 3 dead.

Mannahnin wrote:27 shots at BS4 = 18 hits = 9 wounds = 3 dead.

Big oops, I multiplied by 2/3 instead of one third

I'm ALWAYS making mistakes like that.

This is also how casinos make money on Craps (and every other game, for that matter, but the higher payouts in Craps make large numbers particularly important.)