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.

Quite frankly, Wrex, your choice of words is really what's inciting people's arguments.

"The first and most important point is that, contrary to popular belief, math-hammer and working out the 'odds of success' can actually be very misleading. "

"And this is where math-hammer falls down. Math-hammer does not take into consideration an element as unreliable as luck, and so you find yourself calculating a %, coming up with a result, and then being surprised on the table when your dice don't conform to that result. "

"You may be saying to yourself: 'We all know luck is a factor, so what?' Well, I think that in this sub-forum particularly, far too much emphasis is placed upon averages, and not enough emphasis on luck."

Those three comments really make me think that 1.) Mathhammer isnt reliable and that there is doubt in the system. Any Math-based formula with a flaw somewhere usually results in a flaw in the overall system, and any output thereof is in doubt. A Fallacy, but definately what went through my mind. 2.) Mathhammer does take luck into consideration, in fact it is how we try to nudge something that is out of our control to our favour. No one genuinely expects their dice to turn up exact results, but anywhere within the ballpark (basically 2-3 dice deviation in one game, while conforming to the average over the course of 30 or so games, would be in the ballpark) would suffice. 3.) Indeed Luck is unmeasurable and uncontrollable, that is why we use Mathhammer, as it is the closest thing we get to controlling it. Hence why it's in the Tactics Forum. Without it, we'd be flipping coins instead of actually rolling dice, throwing caution to the wind as we just go through each game hoping for a victory, instead of actually changing things to put the dice rolls in our favour. Placing emphasis on luck in a tactics forum is just bad form, no good general ever relies on luck (however they do exploit lucky situations, which again Mathhammer helps in making said decision).

Stavkat wrote:Right, ok then, Lyc, so you wrote a massive amount of text to tell everyone, hey, there's variation in math. The only thing that could POSSIBLY be misleading about the math is if people expect the average every time. Which could have been said in a sentence, not a massive wall of text.

I decided to go into a bit more depth about it. You didn't have to read it all now did you?

Stavkat wrote:Obviously, since you cannot measure luck, people are going to use math when coming up with lists. It will inform their list building, tactics, etc;

Which is, as I said from the start, acceptable. I'm not quite sure what the point in your post is...

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Look at my signature, that's a dice roll I made on Vassal about 2-3 months ago. What are the chances of that happening?

Infinitessimally small.

Thankfully it wasn't a critical roll, but imagine that all those 1s are saving throws for Terminators. Suddenly a massive chunk of my army has disappeared; not through statistics, as the statistics say that such a roll should happen so rarely as to be obsolete, but through luck.

So what's the conclusion here? Never take Terminators? Expect to roll 5 1's far more than the infinitessimally small probability of doing so would suggest? Only ever play cheap, plentiful models in order to avoid losing an expensive, rare model to an aberrant roll? Armies that force many rolls are better than armies that force fewer rolls?

This is rarely, if ever, conveyed to people and is an important aspect of the game, if a completely un-measurable and un-quantifiable one.

I think it's implicitly understood by almost everybody. Nobody that plays Terminator squads ever expects to lose 5 Terminators to 5 wounds. Anybody that has played Terminator squads knows that every occasionally, you do roll far, far, far more 1's than you should have, and that even though this can and does happen, it's still exceedingly rare. You should never *not* charge six Ork Boyz with two Assault Terminators if doing so is advantageous, because you *should* expect those two Terminators to squash six Ork Boyz. If they die before they swing, the rarest and worst possible scenario came about. If they kill every single Boy with their attacks, the rarest and best possible scenario came about. Where perception of math-hammer gets skewed is in our tendency to dwell on the former and forget the latter.

Is my original post unclear? Or are people intentionally misreading it for the sake of causing an arguement?

I think you stated what is held to be common knowledge by most people on this forum, and have done so in an overly lengthy and inflammatory manner that when quickly skimmed reads: "Ignore Mathhammer, anything can happen at any time".

In which case this thread has either minimal value as it reiterates what is commonly known, or negative value in that it suggests players should ignore predictable outcomes.

Mustela wrote:

Fifty wrote:

Mustela wrote:Luck is irrelevant. In the end, tactics & strategy triumph over luck.

Oh god, now we have the opposite extreme.

In the long term yes, but even a full tournament is not long term enough for irregularities to even out. There will be people with sgnificantly better dice rolls than others by the end of a tournament.

If you blame things on luck, you will spend no time trying to improve, because you just had bad "luck" and there is nothing you could have done about it.

Your wilful disregard of what other people say and think is worse even than the OP.

By your logic, if you somehow managed to put 5 terminators on each of the two objectives in a game, and two lots of five guardsmen each hit and wounded with their lasguns, then your termies all failed their 2+ saves, so you lost, you'd have to re-evaluate the strategy that put you in that position. Nonsense.

Also, your method would assume that it was your strategy and tactics that won the day, even if you rolled 6s all day long.

Just because I said luck is not irrelevant, it doesn't follow that I think strategy and tactics are irrelevant. Total logical disconnect.

Win or lose, you need to evaluate both your own decisions, and the dice rolls in the game.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

Stavkat wrote:Obviously, since you cannot measure luck, people are going to use math when coming up with lists. It will inform their list building, tactics, etc;

Which is, as I said from the start, acceptable. I'm not quite sure what the point in your post is...

ROFLOL. Irony. I am saying your massive text wall really has no point (besides confusing everyone with your massively imprecise language). Your only point is just, hey guys, remember there is variation in math. Don't be mislead into expecting the average every time. Remember. Variation. The end. Yes?

Stavkat wrote:
ROFLOL. Irony. I am saying your massive text wall really has no point (besides confusing everyone with your massively imprecise language). Your only point is just, hey guys, remember there is variation in math. Don't be mislead into expecting the average every time. Remember. Variation. The end. Yes?

Yeah that's basically the summary. That and "Tactics forum needs to place emphasis on luck".

Stavkat wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

Stavkat wrote:Obviously, since you cannot measure luck, people are going to use math when coming up with lists. It will inform their list building, tactics, etc;

Which is, as I said from the start, acceptable. I'm not quite sure what the point in your post is...

ROFLOL. Irony. I am saying your massive text wall really has no point (besides confusing everyone with your massively imprecise language). Your only point is just, hey guys, remember there is variation in math. Don't be mislead into expecting the average every time. Remember. Variation. The end. Yes?

If that was the jist of his post, then I don't believe there would be so many people up in arms. What he is trying to say is that luck has more of a factor in any given game then statistics, which alot of people believe untrue.

Fifty wrote:

Mustela wrote:

Fifty wrote:

Mustela wrote:Luck is irrelevant. In the end, tactics & strategy triumph over luck.

Oh god, now we have the opposite extreme.

In the long term yes, but even a full tournament is not long term enough for irregularities to even out. There will be people with sgnificantly better dice rolls than others by the end of a tournament.

If you blame things on luck, you will spend no time trying to improve, because you just had bad "luck" and there is nothing you could have done about it.

Your wilful disregard of what other people say and think is worse even than the OP.

By your logic, if you somehow managed to put 5 terminators on each of the two objectives in a game, and two lots of five guardsmen each hit and wounded with their lasguns, then your termies all failed their 2+ saves, so you lost, you'd have to re-evaluate the strategy that put you in that position. Nonsense.

Also, your method would assume that it was your strategy and tactics that won the day, even if you rolled 6s all day long.

Just because I said luck is not irrelevant, it doesn't follow that I think strategy and tactics are irrelevant. Total logical disconnect.

Win or lose, you need to evaluate both your own decisions, and the dice rolls in the game.

Allow me to clarify.

Just because your termies could die from las-fire doesn't mean they will. They might once, but that doesn't mean you should avoid guardsmen like the plague next time. If you allow luck, good or bad, to influence your decisions, you have a problem.

Disagreeing with me does not give you an excuse to attack me. I never said everything is tactics and strategy either. So if your going to disagree, take a chill pill, play with your puppy, and make sure you come to a full understanding. And if something seems illogical, it's not because the poster is a moron, it's because there is a communication error.

Taoofss wrote:If that was the jist of his post, then I don't believe there would be so many people up in arms. What he is trying to say is that luck has more of a factor in any given game then statistics, which alot of people believe untrue.

Even if it were true, what then? We throw up our arms and close the tactics forum? NO. We'd still base on decisions on probabilities.

For good measure:

*blinks* I didn't intend my OP to come across as inflammatory, accusatory or finger-pointing, although taken from that perspective I can see how it might have come across as such.

Fifty wrote:Your wilful disregard of what other people say and think is worse even than the OP.

Huh? I didn't think I'd disregarded anything anyone has said/thought. Have I? If anything I've responded to people as best I can aside from posts that essentially summarise as 'lol noob doesn't like math-hammer'

Whatever. I think this thread has degenerated into a bit of a flame war, which wasn't my intention so if you were offended by my language in my OP I apologise.

L. Wrex

Mustela wrote:Allow me to clarify.

Just because your termies could die from las-fire doesn't mean they will. They might once, but that doesn't mean you should avoid guardsmen like the plague next time. If you allow luck, good or bad, to influence your decisions, you have a problem.

Disagreeing with me does not give you an excuse to attack me. I never said everything is tactics and strategy either. So if your going to disagree, take a chill pill, play with your puppy, and make sure you come to a full understanding. And if something seems illogical, it's not because the poster is a moron, it's because there is a communication error.

You've made my evening

I'm glad you decided to clarify. I mean, people need to do it regularly, but your broad-stroke, sweeping statements went well beyond the norm into hyperbole, and if it didn't reflect your true opinion, you do need to clarify.

Now, you've pretty much made my point in the second paragraph there. Thanks for re-iterating.

And please, if you think that was me attacking you, I don't think you've been on the internet for long... You made some overly-strong statements and they got dismantled. That is very different to me attacking you. I don't even know you. Believe me, your own little soapbox rant is a lot more personal, with the chill pill and puppy comments. You yourself felt the need to clarify. Maybe if you had done that in the first place, people would have been able to come to a full understanding, as you quite obviously wrote something silly.

@ the OP - I didn't see your original post as inflammatory, accusatory or finger-pointing. I merely considered it to show that you naively thought people held opinions that they don't. That is why the other poster quoted here, in my opinion, is worse.

So, um, the mathematics actually does take luck into account. . .

The odds of rolling 5 consecutive 1's is rare, taken as a whole. But, each of those rolls doesn't influence the odds of the next one. Each individual die has a 1/6 chance of rolling a one, each time. If you roll four 1's in a row, the probability of the next 1 is still just 1/6.

What I'm saying here is that our dice rolls are discrete, so the fact that you hit and wounded with 99% of one unit's shooting doesn't affect the next unit's shooting. They're just as likely to hit and wound 99%. While this means your dice are "hot" or you're being really lucky, it's all still within the set of possible rolls.

What are the odds you roll five dice one by one and get all 1s? 1/7776

If you've rolled four ones in a row, what are the odds that the fifth die is a 1? 1/6

Some of this is obvious to people, and i don't mean to be pedantic. This to me just shows that luck is already folded into statistics, and therefore Mathhammer. Again, it's all about being careful how you interpret your numbers.

sourclams wrote:Mathhammer is a tool, not a panacea. Its application is strategic, not tactical; against a known array of opponents, how can I expect this unit or combination of units to consistently perform? Where is my list overweighted; I have two Vendettas and two Hydras and 125 points left to spend. What's the most efficient use of those points? Shave 5 to get another Vendetta? Shave 25 for another Hydra squadron? 1 Hydra and plasmaguns on my command squad?

I have 8 Razorbacks; Twin-linked ACs or las/plas? What is the range premium worth compared to twin-linked rending?

The players who understand the math ultimately tend to have balanced, flexible armies.

The players who don't tend to have 125 points worth of power fists on their tac squads.

Ahhh I'm sorry I missed the beginning of this thread, but this post made me laugh - it makes a good point (I'm always happy when I see an opponent with powerfists on their tactical squads).

The OP is correct in one regard, that the mean or average result is being overworked. One thing it does not give is an idea of how likely non-mean results are. That is where the statistic tool of probability distributions comes in. This will tell you how likely all possible results are. That is the more useful tool when searching for the possible results of actions - it tells you how likely each event is.

The OP's argument in fact is not against mathhammer, but rather the limited math used by some for it.

Saying that math shouldn't be relied upon is absolutely true, as much as you shouldn't rely upon any non-certain event. However, in this game there are few certainties, and consistently giving yourself the best odds you can will lead to more success than eschewing it and trying to get lucky.

Even those who say they don't use mathhammer are not telling the truth. You still use it subconsciously, whether you like it or not. You decide whether to make a certain action based on your belief of its success vs risk. Instead of having calculated it though, you just base it off your experience which is much less precise.

Did anyone even bother consider what the others wrote - disagreeing or not? Or do we just gaze out to pick a fight?

So far, Mecha - for instance - has made some excellent points, without any rudeness - just plain simple arguing, and hence not a single quotation?

I've always thought of mathhammer as something to take into consideration, but in a game like this mathhammer cannot account for the nummerous ways you can set yourself up for success.

Mathhammer assumes a lot of variables (one of which is luck. Others being range, mobility, positioning, knowledge of yours and your enemy's army)

A good post. I feel it can be expanded upon. Dracos is on the right track.


This also raises a point that smaller, more expensive armies rely more on luck than horde armies that can pack in numerous weapons for the same role. I wonder how much this effects gameplay.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:I am trying to convey that the 'luck' element in the game plays a much larger part in success throughout than simple percentages, and using those percentages PURELY as a mechanism for decision making CAN BE misleading because the scale of 40k does not allow players to roll enough dice to routinely see perfectly average results.

I have to disagree with that statement. Luck can play the role in determine one dice roll, but you should always hedge your bets based upon what Mathhammer suggests (given game objectives in mind -- don't leave an objective on bottom of 7 to assault because you will win)

Would you make that same argument at a casino? If have a 14, and the dealer has a 10, do you hit? There will not be enough cards played to see perfectly average results. Do you rely on luck or statistical chance?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:*blinks* I didn't intend my OP to come across as inflammatory, accusatory or finger-pointing, although taken from that perspective I can see how it might have come across as such.

Your post was well written and thought out (a bit long to get to the point, but you got there!) Ignore the people trying to make it personal, or are flame-baiting you.

sourclams wrote:Mathhammer is a tool, not a panacea. Its application is strategic, not tactical; against a known array of opponents, how can I expect this unit or combination of units to consistently perform? Where is my list overweighted; I have two Vendettas and two Hydras and 125 points left to spend. What's the most efficient use of those points? Shave 5 to get another Vendetta? Shave 25 for another Hydra squadron? 1 Hydra and plasmaguns on my command squad?

I have 8 Razorbacks; Twin-linked ACs or las/plas? What is the range premium worth compared to twin-linked rending?

The players who understand the math ultimately tend to have balanced, flexible armies.

The players who don't tend to have 125 points worth of power fists on their tac squads.

This, to the letter.



Also those Powerfists are there because I had 125pts left over and couldn't afford to buy a Dreadnought model.

Billinator wrote:Did anyone even bother consider what the others wrote - disagreeing or not? Or do we just gaze out to pick a fight?

So far, Mecha - for instance - has made some excellent points, without any rudeness - just plain simple arguing, and hence not a single quotation?

That's how forums tend to work, yes. In other news: everything I'd like to have said, Sourclams got to first.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:In a single game, the number of dice thrown is comparatively small. Over a long series of games, things tend to average out..

For a tournament player, who is going to keep the same units/armies more-or-less the same possibly for years, the long-term averages are more important than temporary variations due to luck.

Whilst this may be true, there are plenty of examples within this forum where a single statistic is touted for any given situation. 'S8 has an X% chance of stopping AV11', 'Plasma has an X% chance to wound models of T6 or higher'. The vast majority of people are the instant-gratification type, they don't look over the course of 10, 20 games to see if the averages balance, they want to know what that weapon/unit will do right here, right now and then are confused and/or upset when the dice go awry and their nice, neat %-based game play folds in front of them. Not to mention that there is an insane number of variables in the game itself that also sways the results one way or another.

I'm not saying 'never use math-hammer', I'm putting forward the POV that it shouldn't be relied upon for every single eventuality in a game which, unfortunately, us internet types have a habit of doing.

And yet that reason is why mathhammer exists. Without mathhammer people will ballpark alot, and then they will think "well my Trygon has 7 attacks on charge rerolling hits at S7, im sure i can take out all the wounds on that wraithlord in one shot!

While mathhammer says that you will get 2.07 wounds with average rolling.

Does this mean you're not going to charge it? Maybe and maybe not. If it needs to die, charge it and maybe you'll be lucky, maybe you will only get 1 wound. If not, dont or at least take a wound or two off with shooting first.

Its not so much that we look at mathhammer literally, but it does give us a valid estimate as to what will most likely occur, and what we can expect to occur.

The final word on mathhammer



If you really don't believe in mathhammer, and/or believe it becomes less and less relevant as the number of rolls decreases then go to Vegas and bet everything you have on 1 roll. Pay no attention that the entire city was built on the concept of mathhammer, it's a false concept, the casinos are just "lucky".

It doesn't matter if it's 1 roll or 10,000 rolls the odds of success are the same for each and every roll, people can just see easier over a large series of rolls.

Where math hammer fails 40k players is when they count on, depend on, and need to make clutch rolls. You don't ever want to be in situations where you need to make a clutch roll, especially if said roll has is <90% likely to succeed. The game is as much about planning and movement as it is target priority. Players need to move to superior positions and have contingency plans for failed rolls. The only thing math hammer is good for is helping players maximize their target priority and army building. Proper positioning and planning will maximize the benefit of rolls that are above the statistical average, and damage control the effect of rolls that are below the statistical average.

The game really requires 4 skills to win: Army building, target priority, positioning, and planning.
Army building is the most easy of the skills to learn, followed by target priority. As skills they are far more of a science than an art.
Positioning and planning are far more difficult to learn than army building and target priority, and as skills they are far more of an art than a science.

Math never lies, but people can deceive themselves or others by using statistics and half truths.

zeekill wrote:While mathhammer says that you will get 2.07 wounds with average rolling.

I bolded the important bit, and the bit that I've been arguing since my OP. Yes, average rolls dictate you should get 2.07 wounds. But you'll charge that Wraithlord with your Trygon once per game. A single batch of rolling that falls on the extreme ends of the probability bell curve will either screw you completely, or smash your opponent into little bits. You don't charge a Wraithlord with a Trygon enough times during a game to see average results, the sample size (in this case, one) simply isn't large enough for anomalies to be ignored.

I'll re-iterate again: I am not saying math-hammer isn't worth doing. I don't know why people keep thinking I'm arguing for the utter abolition of math-hammer. I'm not. I'm saying that it only gives you a general idea of what may occur should your dice be perfectly average, this is fine. But due to the limitations in size and scope of a 40k game, extremes in the probability curve are felt a lot keener as substantially less dice are thrown than the amount needed to hit said statistical average.

I think I'm parroting myself quite a lot now. I may simply have said (as other posters have mentioned) what everyone knew to begin with, but it seems it's been enough to generate two pages of discussion so I guess that's no bad thing, even if you don't agree with what I have to say/the way I said it.

L. Wrex

The problem isn't with the math or statistics, but that they are being used correctly. Saying that on average I will score X wounds is silly, because the actual chance of you rolling average are very slim. I think saying you have a 75% chance to score 1-3 wounds would be a better way to predict results.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

zeekill wrote:While mathhammer says that you will get 2.07 wounds with average rolling.

I bolded the important bit, and the bit that I've been arguing since my OP. Yes, average rolls dictate you should get 2.07 wounds. But you'll charge that Wraithlord with your Trygon once per game. A single batch of rolling that falls on the extreme ends of the probability bell curve will either screw you completely, or smash your opponent into little bits. You don't charge a Wraithlord with a Trygon enough times during a game to see average results, the sample size (in this case, one) simply isn't large enough for anomalies to be ignored.

I'll re-iterate again: I am not saying math-hammer isn't worth doing. I don't know why people keep thinking I'm arguing for the utter abolition of math-hammer. I'm not. I'm saying that it only gives you a general idea of what may occur should your dice be perfectly average, this is fine. But due to the limitations in size and scope of a 40k game, extremes in the probability curve are felt a lot keener as substantially less dice are thrown than the amount needed to hit said statistical average.

I think I'm parroting myself quite a lot now. I may simply have said (as other posters have mentioned) what everyone knew to begin with, but it seems it's been enough to generate two pages of discussion so I guess that's no bad thing, even if you don't agree with what I have to say/the way I said it.

L. Wrex

This may be borderlining flaming, but I feel I must say this. Quite frankly if getting Mathhammer sidelined isnt your point of argument, I honestly dont see why you made the topic in the first place. As well, The 2 pages of "discussion" are largely of people proving you wrong and/or trying to make out your actual point (which again, I'm still murky about). From what I can gather through all of this, your point is to simply state that mathhammer doesnt match up to what actually comes out on the tabletop. Does that really need to be stated with a wall of text, especially one that opens with "Mathhammer and why it shouldnt be relied upon"? Also, everyone thinks you're trying to abolish Mathhammer mainly because of your opening statement and the title of the thread, both of which indicate that mathhammer is unreliable at best, false at worse. In the context of a Tactics forum, I find that this is a rather big issue to raise up.

Maybe this is a summary, or maybe it's something original. I'm not sure.

Math allows you to pick the most efficient weapon or action for a purpose, both in building a list and in playing a game.

Math cannot tell you the outcome of a particular action in a game, so it doesn't let you act with absolute certainty.

A small number of rolls make crucial differences in a game of 40k, so luck plays a crucial role in a game of 40k.

However, there's no way to predict one's luck on a given roll, so we can't factor luck into ex ante (before the fact) calculations.

The best we can do is make decisions in accordance with the math, and have contingency plans if we get better-than-average or worse-than-average results.

Agreed?

Hesperus wrote:Maybe this is a summary, or maybe it's something original. I'm not sure.

Math allows you to pick the most efficient weapon or action for a purpose, both in building a list and in playing a game.

Math cannot tell you the outcome of a particular action in a game, so it doesn't let you act with absolute certainty.

A small number of rolls make crucial differences in a game of 40k, so luck plays a crucial role in a game of 40k.

However, there's no way to predict one's luck on a given roll, so we can't factor luck into ex ante (before the fact) calculations.

The best we can do is make decisions in accordance with the math, and have contingency plans if we get better-than-average or worse-than-average results.

Agreed?

That's.....actually pretty good.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:As well, The 2 pages of "discussion" are largely of people proving you wrong and/or trying to make out your actual point (which again, I'm still murky about).

I don't mean to be rude, but I've re-iterated my point at least three times so far. Not just once on this page, but twice again on the first. If you're still murky on exactly what I'm trying to convey I don't really know how else I can help.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:This may be borderlining flaming, but I feel I must say this. Quite frankly if getting Mathhammer sidelined isnt your point of argument, I honestly dont see why you made the topic in the first place.

I'm not offering a replacement to math-hammering, thus I have no reason to demand it be sidelined. I'm trying to put forward a different point of view and evidently failing as either I'm being unreasonably unclear, or other commentators are skim-reading my OP and then making assumptions that I have spent practically the entire thread trying to dissuade.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:From what I can gather through all of this, your point is to simply state that mathhammer doesnt match up to what actually comes out on the tabletop. Does that really need to be stated with a wall of text

When 90% of arguements are formed solely upon the results that math-hammer churns out, then yes! I think that some members use math-hammer at the exclusion of all else, and tout this as law because 'maths says so'. Whether I am naive, incorrect or whatever else in thinking this I'm not sure.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:specially one that opens with "Mathhammer and why it shouldnt be relied upon"? Also, everyone thinks you're trying to abolish Mathhammer mainly because of your opening statement and the title of the thread, both of which indicate that mathhammer is unreliable at best, false at worse.

I've admitted that I can see how my word choice can be decreed as inflammatory, and have apologised for it. Frankly, if people are getting so worked up and angry over a forum thread about toy soldiers purely because it offers an alternative viewpoint to their own then...well, I guess this wouldn't be the internet then would it?

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:In the context of a Tactics forum, I find that this is a rather big issue to raise up.

And why is this a bad thing? Is questioning the status quo such a taboo thing to do?

I quite like Hesperus' summation in all honesty. I'm quite happy to leave the discussion there.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:And why is this a bad thing? Is questioning the status quo such a taboo thing to do?

I think you need to make up your mind.

You specifically wrote this thread to be 'inflammatory' and yet you seem surprised when it draws 'inflammatory' responses.

This thread reminds me of some recent posting on a different gaming forum.

Myself and someone else were comparing the relative strengths of one faction to another and providing the same 'math/theory' hammer that you apparently say shouldn't be completely relied upon.

In the end, we were told that this is a game of dice and you shouldn't rely on averages and that the weaker faction should just roll better and the stronger faction should roll worse and see how that would work out.

Under the guise of 'tactics'. I kid you not. I'm not seeing much difference here from you.

Math hammer allows you to increase your chances of being 'lucky' and helps mitigate your chances of being 'unlucky'.

Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fifty wrote:Have you ever found anyone who does think that? I certainly haven't.

The Tactics forum is rife with people who claim a unit is good or bad based upon it's ability to do something as X%. In real life I don't know of anyone who doesn't take into account other factors, but on the internet I guess the easiest way to convey your point is through numbers, so that's what we see most of.

L. Wrex

I've see it too, although most of those post tend to get fairly ignored...


But this argument is silly, there is no certainty in Math-hammer, just war and an eternity of the mocking laughter of the Dice Gods

I highly disagree with the OP.


with Mathhammer i can figure out which of my weapons are more likely to take out an enemy unit and fire the right weapon at the right targets.

With Mathhammer i know that a TL-Autocannon with BS 4 has close to a 95% accuracy rate. with that information i can fire at a transport with my Rifleman dreadnought instead of my Missile launcher which actually has a worse chance of killing the Chimera.


It's a tool to allow you to use your resources more efficiently. I can then stack the odds in my favor.



Of course, Mathhammer isn't a garuntee of Victory, but it's a darn sight better then trusting luck.


Lady Average may not be as good looking as Lady Luck, but she comes around more often.