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.

I've read most of the mathhammer material that is avaliable online. It seems like a load to me. In order to truly evaluate the effectiveness of a unit, you would have to compound every aspect of the model into a single number while making it reflect its actual point value. Its basicly the same thing as saying Tau Fire Warrior= toothbrush, Crisis suit= monkey, and kroot= toast. I understand the thought process, but I think its wrong. I challenge someone to put some numbers out there that actually have meaning.

Wait, the games you play don't just pit units against each other without movement or terrain?

Then yes, mathhammer isn't going to do you much good.

Mathhammer is nice because it gives you a way of objectively comparing different things. It's not perfect, because it doesn't predict individual die roll results, and it misses some things like difficulty of use, but it's still the best way of talking about things objectively.

Unless, perhaps, you have a different method that doesn't rely on subjectivity?

I use math hammer as a tool to evaluate options. Its not the the only tool I use, play experience and personal taste effect my decisions nearly as much.

The other use of math hammer is win arguments on the internet, if such a thing is possible...

I think I do have a different method. I've been working on it for awhile, and it's going to be a bit before I get it right.

bdix wrote:I think I do have a different method. I've been working on it for awhile, and it's going to be a bit before I get it right.

All right, well, once you come up with something better, then you can rail against our current best thing we have.

Until then...

I always thought actually playing the game was a better way.

bdix wrote:.... you would have to compound every aspect of the model into a single number ... its actual point value. ... I challenge someone to put some numbers out there that actually have meaning.
(Clipped for the core of the argument)

You have to compound all aspects of a model into a single number. You need to include how well it blends with other units, with its strengths and weaknesses.

Sometimes you might get it wrong. When there are dozens of units per codex, its bound to happen.

GW does that for every model they release into their game. Its called the point cost. GW has been meeting your challenge for years

Mathhammer to me only works on the average sense. It helps on making calculated decisions that may or may not pan out. As everyone here has said it doesnt ALWAYS decide what the outcome of a situation is going to happen but if I see that I have the advantage then i'm going to go for it. If it works out then great if not then I have an excuse that the odds were in my favor but the dice Gods decided against it. It's just like texas hold 'em in the sense that if you think you have the best hand then its worth the risk but anything can happen and you can still lose.

Monster Rain wrote:I always thought actually playing the game was a better way.

Yeah, it is a better way. But what happens when playing the game reaches a plateau of improvement?

Or you are frustrated that your tactics aren't producing the expected results, and you can't figure out why.

You can just keep trying and try to over come the "bad luck" or just keep changing things until you happen across something that works.

That isn't exactly efficient, is it?

Math hammer to the rescue. It is a short cut, for sure. But it gives something solid to base your changes on, rather than just relying on your "gut" instinct.

I suppose so. I think it really comes down to personal preference. I would honestly rather play a lot of games, win or lose, and hone my list through trial and error than do it with spreadsheets.

I just really like playing 40k!

I present numbers with meaning

Mathhammer has multiple meanings.

One is a mocking term to refer to people trying to substitute math for actual tactics, and losing perspective about how the game plays out on a real tabletop with three-dimensional terrain.

One is just a nickname for using basic probability to make simple calculations about how many wounds or damage results a given unit or units is/are LIKELY to do in a given situation against a given target. Of course any given roll could come out in any of a range of possible rolls (I missed 8 out of 8 BS 4 pistol shots with my berserkers one turn Tuesday night), but if you know what is more likely to work, you can make better tactical decisions. This can be something as simple as recognizing that a Lascannon is more likely to kill a Rhino than a Heavy Bolter is. Or that a unit of Orks is more likely to kill a unit of Terminators than a unit of Grots is. Some unit/weapon matchups are less obvious, and using a little simple math helps you distinguish a better option from a worse.

Mathhammer allows you to judge what will happen when a particular situation occurs. A tac squad with a plasma gun vs. X at y inches. It lets you compare a tac squad with a meltagun against the same target.

What it doesn't do is let you calculate how often that situation will occur. There isn't really a substitute for experience there.

Same threads, different day.

Mathhammer is a tool. That's all.

Smart players use it to their advantage.

The end.

Monster Rain wrote:I always thought actually playing the game was a better way.

The problem with relying on experience is that you're dealing with a very small data set, and you're not controlling for any variables. Perhaps something did well for you based on the specific mission, your opponent's army, your opponent's list, your opponent's health, the particulars of the terrain, or how lucky you were with your die rolls, among many other things.

As such, a few subjective data points is far, far worse than an objective method. It's not unlike the difference between superstition and science.

I think we have stirred some good conversation...I would give some "touche"s, but it would require me to quote like 5 times and I'm feeling pretty lazy. I really like the liked thread though, I dont know how I missed it. I'll give it a read through and maybe stop my complaining: We can all only hope.

Squig_herder wrote:I present numbers with meaning

That thread has almost nothing to do with this one. It isn't about math hammer itself; it is about the application of math hammer to quickly find the dominant strategy for a given scenario.

I have a intense distrust of Autocannons, and a love of Lascannons. The math says Autocannons would be more effective against transports. In practice, I've found my Tri-Las Pred to be more effective than my Autocannon Havocs. Which do I take? The Predator, of course.

My math says the Punisher is the most effective anti-infantry Russ. Everyone's experience says large blast templates can get 5-7 guys a shot, therefore other options are better. Everyone picks Manticores, Executioners, LRBTs, etc.. I take the Punisher and haven't regretted it.

What's the point to this? Well, there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics. No matter who you are, or what you do, you will never have the whole picture.

One thing that is a bit misleading of how mathhammer is often used is that the average, or mean result, is being much over worked.

Statistics have much better tools for describing what is likely to happen. If we had people who wanted to get a really clear picture of what their gamble was, a probably distribution is a far and away better tool than the average.

Some people even make the horrific error of saying that if you have a 1/3 chance of doing something, you need to do it 3 times for it to happen. That is not true at all. It might happen in one attempt, or it might not happen after 3 attempts.

That's not to say that there is no use - far from it. Mathhammer is a great tool, even overly simplified in terms of average results. It will give you a basic idea of what is likely to happen.

Experience will also give you that basic idea, as you simply gathering data on the probability distribution of results. Experience is a very slow way to gather that data, but that's what you are subconsciously doing.

If you say that you prefer experience over mathhammer, what you are really saying is that you prefer for your experience to subconsiously determine your idea on the probability, rather than actually calculating it. Calculating it is more reliable and fast. Not necessarily as enjoyable though

DarkHound wrote:

Squig_herder wrote:I present numbers with meaning

That thread has almost nothing to do with this one. It isn't about math hammer itself; it is about the application of math hammer to quickly find the dominant strategy for a given scenario.

The OP stated they wanted mathhammer "with meaning", game theory is the theoretical (which can be turned in to practical) application of mathhammering. Giving meaning to 2.5 marines dead a turn made by x squad.

Mathammer works assuming : you play on a featureless board, with perfect movement (6" not 5.9 or 6.1) against an idiot who cannot think or react.

Basically its an attempt to turn 40k into magic the gathering.

It fails as the game requires miniatures to play and you cannot form that many painted builds that rapidly (look at many competitive blogs and see how much stuff they have painted..)

Mathammer at its simplest is I rapidfire 5 marines vs some eldar guardiarns 10x(4/6) = 6.667 hits = 4.45 wounds = 4.45 guardians dead. However you cannot have 4.45 guardians dead so on 'average' you will kill 4 or 5. That's assuming that the dice 'like' you and roll average.

Phototoxin wrote:Mathammer works assuming : you play on a featureless board, with perfect movement (6" not 5.9 or 6.1) against an idiot who cannot think or react.

Basically its an attempt to turn 40k into magic the gathering.

It fails as the game requires miniatures to play and you cannot form that many painted builds that rapidly (look at many competitive blogs and see how much stuff they have painted..)

Mathammer at its simplest is I rapidfire 5 marines vs some eldar guardiarns 10x(4/6) = 6.667 hits = 4.45 wounds = 4.45 guardians dead. However you cannot have 4.45 guardians dead so on 'average' you will kill 4 or 5. That's assuming that the dice 'like' you and roll average.

What nonsens. No one uses mathhammer in that way. What people use mathhammer for is to get an idea how a certain unit could preform in a given situation. That way I wont throw my tactical marines into a 5 man Termie squad with FnP (yes hyperbole). Another example is that it helps with target priority. Should I target the slightly more dangerous tank or should I target a tank that I have a much higher chance of stopping?

tedurur wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Mathammer works assuming : you play on a featureless board, with perfect movement (6" not 5.9 or 6.1) against an idiot who cannot think or react.

Basically its an attempt to turn 40k into magic the gathering.

It fails as the game requires miniatures to play and you cannot form that many painted builds that rapidly (look at many competitive blogs and see how much stuff they have painted..)

Mathammer at its simplest is I rapidfire 5 marines vs some eldar guardiarns 10x(4/6) = 6.667 hits = 4.45 wounds = 4.45 guardians dead. However you cannot have 4.45 guardians dead so on 'average' you will kill 4 or 5. That's assuming that the dice 'like' you and roll average.

What nonsens. No one uses mathhammer in that way. What people use mathhammer for is to get an idea how a certain unit could preform in a given situation. That way I wont throw my tactical marines into a 5 man Termie squad with FnP (yes hyperbole). Another example is that it helps with target priority. Should I target the slightly more dangerous tank or should I target a tank that I have a much higher chance of stopping?

Well I'm including theoryhammer as well which includes the 'builds' mentatily

So let me get this straight. You advocate against not only having a rough idea of how well a unit will preform in a given scenario but you also advocate against taking good units?

Math hammer has a place, but sometimes you use what's in position for the shot and hope for the best. That's just how the game is played.

Humans are notoriously bad at predicting actual probabilities based on experience. People tend to focus on exceptions or unusual situations, or let their emotions override reason, and wind up with really poor assessments of the chances of something actually occurring.

That's why casinos and lotteries are so profitable.

But the numbers always pan out in the long run (if you actually crunch them correctly). Math doesn't care what you believe.

Most of the problems with mathhammer arise not from the practice itself, but from misapplications of math or statistics. I'm with Dracos on this one--it's often more complicated than simple averages.

I would use mathhammer to get a rough guesstimate...yes I know math isn't a substiute for actually playing the game, but it's always a good tool, but it's just that. A tool. If you use it effectively, it can be a good bonus to building armies as it let's you pick out what SHOULD be the more effective unit against a specific target for the points value. Of course, others take it too far and forget that there is a game here, not just math.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Humans are notoriously bad at predicting actual probabilities based on experience. People tend to focus on exceptions or unusual situations, or let their emotions override reason, and wind up with really poor assessments of the chances of something actually occurring.

That's why casinos and lotteries are so profitable.

But the numbers always pan out in the long run (if you actually crunch them correctly). Math doesn't care what you believe.

Most of the problems with mathhammer arise not from the practice itself, but from misapplications of math or statistics. I'm with Dracos on this one--it's often more complicated than simple averages.

True, but I don't want to calculate a 90% CI every time either.

Monster Rain wrote:I suppose so. I think it really comes down to personal preference. I would honestly rather play a lot of games, win or lose, and hone my list through trial and error than do it with spreadsheets.

I just really like playing 40k!

I would love to play lots and lots of games, too. But I pretty much only get one game in a week. My other recourse? Spreadsheets.

I have a friend who loves working out all the math, and almost gets up set if things don't work out averagly (like when his 34 genestealers lost combat to 10 Terminators, when he charged, going first with 102 attacks, hitting on 3s, wounding on 4s with re-rolls, which i think adds up to about 57 wounds on average, getting 10 rending? (well will say 10), which should equate to 3ish dead, and from 50 normal saves another 8 or so dead, so all 10 should have been dead before i got my attacks, rather than 2/3 dead )

But i just don't think working out averages really works, even in that case, where it really is 34 Genestealers against 10 TH terminators in a combat, no interference, it doesn't go to plan, i have many more examples as i'm sure most others do. Having a way to judge what your units should be doing in combat or shooting can be nice, but i don't think its anything that should be taken too seriously