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.

The concerns I have with mathhammer is that it can tell you what will happen in certain circumstances, when you compare units shooting/assaulting units. However, most times, LOS, positioning and cover specifics aren't really dealt with in a game realistic way. There are too many possible combinations.

The other thing is that you'll only get "average" results as shown by mathhammer over hundreds of games.

"So I have caused 3 wounds on your terminators - you get 2+ saves"
"three ones....well, that's bad luck"

"So I'm shooting overwatch with my pistol, 6 to hit, 6 to wound and you'll get a 2+ armour save. Oh, you died? Pity, your charge failed".

I'm for experience.

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
"So I have caused 3 wounds on your terminators - you get 2+ saves"
"three ones....well, that's bad luck"
"So I'm shooting overwatch with my pistol, 6 to hit, 6 to wound and you'll get a 2+ armour save. Oh, you died? Pity, your charge failed".
I'm for experience.

But you still take Terminators.
You still charge even if one dead model would cause the charge to fail.

Why? Because math says that you will probably make it.
If experience really trumps math, you wouldn't take terminators or charge

My examples were me talking... and I killed all the terminators next game as well.
I think experience trumps math because I still shoot at terminators, even though I should shoot at something else which I have a mathhammer greater chance of killing. (See...we can do this forever! )

ninjafiredragon wrote:i prefer mathhammering things out. knowing on average whats the chance of wrecking this tank with my wave serpent is nice, because if its low, then i would use my walkers lances.

Don't need mathhammer for that. Pick most dangerous unit. Shoot with strongest weapon. Dead? No - move to next available weapon. Can it hurt it? Yes = Shoot at most dangerous unit (repeat until "No" answer or opponent is tabled). If the answer was "No" = Pick next most dangerous unit. Can you hurt it.....etc etc.

As an example, if you know that the incoming helldrake is going to fry your troops and you'll lose the game - will you
a) Not shoot at it because Mathhammer tells you there is only a low chance of stopping it; OR
b) Shoot everything you have that can possibly pen or glance it?

If you answered (a) - wrong answer.

 labmouse42 wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Don't need mathhammer for that. Pick most dangerous unit. Shoot with strongest weapon. Dead? No - move to next available weapon. Can it hurt it? Yes = Shoot at most dangerous unit (repeat until "No" answer or opponent is tabled). If the answer was "No" = Pick next most dangerous unit. Can you hurt it.....etc etc.

Is that really the best approach to target priority? Mathhammer will show you that's not the case.
Often your 'strongest weapon' is not the 'right weapon' to be using. Lets say that 6 wraiths are coming to smash your marine armies face in Flanking that unit is an annihilation barge.

The strongest weapon you have is a vindicator. The second strongest weapons you have are two tactical squads with bolters/PGs. According to your logic you should shoot the vindicator at the wraiths, then the bolters at the wraiths.

What you will discover through mathammer is that wraiths are vulnerable to massive STR 4 shooting. You would have been better served shooting the bolters at the wraiths and the vindicator at the annihilation barge. This maximizes your effect on the targets.

Instead the vindicator round is wasted with a small chance to kill even 1 wraith.
This is why mathhammer is important. By having a rough understanding of the proper probables your less likely to waste shots. Sure it happens when the vindiactor round will just deviate off the annaliation barge and not have any effect -- but the odds of a greater overall effect are higher. If you keep playing with better odds, you will experience a better result over the course of many games.

Actually, I somewhat agree. However, you've just highlighted the key issue. Experience says that if the wraiths get to charge you will lose not just that unit, but probably the chance to kill the wraiths with shooting at all (we'll assume a competent 40k player who can organise an assault to finish it off in the opponent phase - yes, I'm aware that mathhammer can be said to have a role to play in that ). So, your priority is to kill the wraiths. From your tac squads, lets assume mathhammer says that on average 2 squads of tac marines (x10) will take down 6 wraiths (I don't know if that is true by the way, but I'm SURE someone will work that out ).

Mathhammer doesn't tell you the order to shoot though. So, you could shoot the Vindi at the AB first and it would make no difference to the mathhammer - the wraith squad should die from Tac marine fire anyway. Experience says - shoot the tac marines first - because if the wraiths don't die, you need to keep shooting at them or you could lose the game.

That's why I prefer experience over mathhammer - knowing that on average 20 tac marines with bolters kills 7.65 wraiths (made that number up by the way - figured I would put that in before everyone races to correct my math!) doesn't take away the pain when the wraiths don't die.

 labmouse42 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
I knew that without Mathhammer personally. Forcing saves through high volumes of dice is almost always the best way to kill things with good saves.

That is an excellent point, yet that's not always the case. Let me give you another example. Lets say that instead of 6 wraiths there are 10 plague marines (units with good saves) Each bolter shot you fire has a 4/81 (just under 5%) of killing a PM. In this case, knowing the RPPvalue of PMs to bolters you would know that shooting bolters at them is a waste, and they should instead be used on a different target. On the other hand, a PMs RPP to vindicators is extremely low so shooting them with is bank.

You may have noticed that your experience has shown the same results as Mathhammering. This is a good thing! This provides key point indicators that our mathhammer works, giving us encouragement that further items that we can gleam from mathhammering will be valid.

Not to be difficult, but I don't think that is the same thing at all. ClockworkZion is using basic probability - "In order for them to roll more 1's I should make them roll more dice" ==> shoot more shots -the chance of them actually wounding is irrelevant as long as you get a hit. Here again - basic probability - shoot more shots - more hits.

From what you are saying, mathhammering allows more precise allocation -> "I'm not going to shoot weapon x because weapon Y has a higher chance". That isn't the same as saying "Well, I can get a wound with this weapon, I'm going to shoot at this until it is dead"

 labmouse42 wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Actually, I somewhat agree.

I think most of the time people get intimidated by mathhammer because it seems complicated or does not make sense. I've been trying to focus on a 'mathhammer for everyone' concept where I explain how the mathhammer applies to players in 40k. Listen to the 11th company podcast, I've been doing weekly segments on mathhammer for the past 2 months.

I'd suggest that the issue with Mathhammer is that it isn't done properly in the first place. As I said earlier, additional variables are often not taken into account or the results are misinterpreted as gospel. So, as a guideline it's fine, but the most important thing is to recognise inherent limitations. There is an exactly equal chance of rolling any individual number. That means that for every roll there is an exactly equal chance of a number not appearing. That's the fundmental limitation of mathhammer and is where experience takes over. Experience allows you to dedicate resources you know will get the job done and to keep focus.

 labmouse42 wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Mathhammer doesn't tell you the order to shoot though. So, you could shoot the Vindi at the AB first and it would make no difference to the mathhammer - the wraith squad should die from Tac marine fire anyway. Experience says - shoot the tac marines first - because if the wraiths don't die, you need to keep shooting at them or you could lose the game.

Right. What it tells you is your best chances to complete your task.
By knowing that the wraiths have low RPP values to bolters, you can start with the bolters and see the results. If the wraiths were badly injured and you can take the assault, then you can focus on the barge with the vindicators. However, if the wraiths are unscratched, then you need to hit them with the vindicator to soften them up a touch.

Mathhammering does not give you an absolute 'play this way'. Instead its a tool to add to your understanding of the game that assists you while playing.

+1

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
My experience is mathhammer doesn't work, the real world will always throw a wrench in the closed environment of mathhammer, it's a good indicator, but not something to be.relied on

Mathhammer cannot not work. It always does. The main problem is that people expect different things. "Mathhammer" is nothing but rather simple statistics to get the average chance of having success doing X.

What people think mathhammering will do: According to these calculations my Wraiths will kill this squad of TAC!

What mathhammering actually does: What is the average chance of my Wraiths killing this squad of TAC?

As it does nothing but calculate averages, Mathhammer itself cannot fail. What usually fails is what people think it does

I am in the same boat as you OP. I am pretty good at math and can easily calculate the # of potential losses / kills and it's a reliable advantage over a lot of enemies.

I agree. it is in understanding what it is. Probability works for every dice roll. Every time. No exceptions.

Mathhammer is not the same as probability. It is based on probability, but has assumptions overlaid. Over a LARGE number of games, wraiths will kill the TAC squad x number of times. This MAY be one of those times. So, as a guideline then mathhammer is useful (at least you have a chance of killing them all).

Experience is better though, because most times you don't want to kill them all....just enough so you can finish them off in the next turn. You could mathhammer that, but again - too many variables.

edit, cos missed really important words!

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
My examples were me talking... and I killed all the terminators next game as well.
I think experience trumps math because I still shoot at terminators, even though I should shoot at something else which I have a mathhammer greater chance of killing. (See...we can do this forever! )

Ooh, can we?
Now would you fire at those terminators with autocannons or Plasma?
If experience > math, then you wouldn't care since both are equal.

Exactly. From an experience perspective, more shots from the autocannons often offsets the removal of the armour save. So I don't care from that perspective. But in a game, the deciding factor is range. So, If I shoot the autocannons, then I can't shoot at something further away. If I shoot the plasma first, I can hit the further target with the autocannons. So experience says, shoot the plasma first. This may be the same result as mathhammer, but that's coincidental. If the autocannons were closer and didn't have a useful alternative target (say due to LOS issues) well, I'd shoot the autocannon first.

The mathhammer to optimise targets in a shooting phase would be horrific.

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
As an example, if you know that the incoming helldrake is going to fry your troops and you'll lose the game - will you
a) Not shoot at it because Mathhammer tells you there is only a low chance of stopping it; OR
b) Shoot everything you have that can possibly pen or glance it?

If you answered (a) - wrong answer.

'A)' should be phrased differently.
Math-hammer means that you calculate what the best option is and shoot at that.
It's a pro's vs cons-system that results into an optimal target.

Actually I had it right. In this scenario, there is no alternative target. So irrespective of whether the mathhammer says I have a high probability of downing the drake, I have to shoot it, otherwise I lose the game.

Kangodo wrote:

Gwyidion wrote:
Example:
Battle wagon full of Ghaz and Nobz drives up to my lines. I put a few glances on it, and it has one HP left. All I have left are MLs in the AV14 front facing. It doesn't matter that the math-hammer states that is a poor target selection - that I don't have good chances of scoring a glance, and that my missles would be better served else where. The battle wagon must die. I need this to happen so I can unload all of my lower S non-AT weapons at the nobs before charging them with a CC unit (better than eating their charge).

This choice is made for me. I've already fired all my better AT, and If i don't want a bunch of really angry nobz in my lines, I have to do something about it. This happens all the time - and why did it? because my better AT rolled "less than average". Nevermind it was probably well within 1 standard deviation of the average and could be a totally expected result without any sort of significance.

Target priority supercedes math-hammer nearly every time.

And that means you don't understand what math-hammer means.
Math doesn't tell you NOT to shoot at it.
Math tells you that you should try the Multi-Melta first if you have it.
Math tells you that if you are building a list, you shouldn't rely on MLs as anti-AV14.

If it NEEDS to die than your missiles are NOT better served elsewhere.
But you will have a 1 in 9 chance that it will actually glance the vehicle.
Math is there to tell you that "firing a Krak-missile at AV14 that is not a direct threat" is a bad idea since it will probably do nothing.

I obviously agree with Gwyidion here. I agree with your point that math (as opposed to mathhammer) tells you the probability of actually doing something. Math (for clarity, defined in this case the simple probability that you will roll a sequence of numbers on a D6 ) can tell you if you have any chance of getting the required sequence of numbers. If the answer is yes, then experience tells you to take the shot.

Mathhammer (for clarity the calculation or comparison of weapons effectiveness) is not relevant to either the target priority decision or to the weapon selection decision in the example used.

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
The mathhammer to optimise targets in a shooting phase would be horrific.

I was talking about S7AP2 and S7AP4, I forgot about the range and the number of shots.
I hope we can all agree that mathematically, AP2 is better against Terminators no matter how many 1's you have thrown in your experience.

Absolutely. In isolation, a single shot AP2 shot has a higher probability to kill a Terminator than AP4.

This, though, highlights one of my difficulties with mathhammer and why I think people need to understand what it is and what it can and can't do. When you increase the number of variables to make it more realistic, the answer can change (depending on the variables you add). So, in this case, let's take into account the shooting weapon. As I use crons, I'll use cron examples mainly. My choices are Eldritch Lance (S8 AP2) and Tesla Destructor (S7AP-). Looking at a single shot, Eldritch Lance is better (because I have an equal chance to hit, equal chance to wound but the Lance disallows the armour save). But....the Tesla destructor is TL, plus has the Tesla special rule and shoots 4 shots rather than 1. So, in this case sheer VoF makes the Destructor more effective.

Kangodo wrote:And why is it horrific? We do it all the time.

My bad. I meant using mathhammer during the turn to prioritise targets to get the best future result (ie using math to work out the best course of action to increase the probability for winning the game, given likely opponent moves in the future, and results from current shooting). Sort of like what a chess computer does.

Kangodo wrote:
Math is the reason why we don't attack Terminators with Krak-Missiles.
Math is the reason why we prefer VoF or AP2-shooting.

I agree with the second sentence - mathhammer can help to define what we PREFER to do. I'd add that experience tells us what we HAVE to do, which is why the first sentence concerns me. Mathhammer should not dictate your actions on tabletop in the way that the first sentence suggests (unless you can mathhammer in your head the game consequences of your shoot/don't shoot decision, with all relevant variables). On the table top, experience generally provides a better overall result (not in terms of the specific shooting attack, but in terms of your chances of winning the game) than mathhammer.

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Actually I had it right. In this scenario, there is no alternative target. So irrespective of whether the mathhammer says I have a high probability of downing the drake, I have to shoot it, otherwise I lose the game.

Mathammer should be used to calculate the optimal target.
In your scenario there is only one target.
Three guesses to what the optimal target is! :')

Actually, this comes back to my point about variables. (also, raises a new point about being careful what I write!). When I wrote "there is no alternative target" I meant from the perspective of having to ignore the other enemy units - not that there were no other enemy units. So, if the heldrake was the only enemy unit on the board...I don't need three guesses . If there were other enemy units, I still wouldn't need three as experience would rule (and mathhammer would agree provided that the probability of losing the game was factored into the mathhammer determination of the optimum result).

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Mathhammer (for clarity the calculation or comparison of weapons effectiveness) is not relevant to either the target priority decision or to the weapon selection decision in the example used.

But your tactical decisions are a result that comes from math.
If I am playing a vehicle-list, I will focus my fire on S7 and up. They are my priority because math tells me they are the biggest threat.
I am not going to target the S6-weapons because 'in my experience' they had some lucky throws!

But if you were playing against Crons, ignore my S4 Gauss weapons at your peril.

I agree that Mathhammer can have a place in determining general preferences for weapon selection and target priority. But you have to really understand whether the variables included in the mathhammer result are present or not before you use it on the table.

A different example - @labmouse is using mathhammer to determine the most point efficient units - combining them gives him the most point efficient army. But, if his mathhammer doesn't weight scoring, he can end up with too few troop units but have a large number of vehicles, termies, whatever. Now using mathhammer to oppose that, target selection matches up weapon AP to armour save (effectively - VoF will override AP) and should prioritise higher strength threats. But experience says "shoot the troops".

I guess that's why I rate experience more...there are simply too many variables for generically spouted mathhammer to be applicable. Course, if you have a supercomputer in your head - that's a different story.

ninjafiredragon wrote:

MarkCron wrote:

ninjafiredragon wrote:i prefer mathhammering things out. knowing on average whats the chance of wrecking this tank with my wave serpent is nice, because if its low, then i would use my walkers lances.

Don't need mathhammer for that. Pick most dangerous unit. Shoot with strongest weapon. Dead? No - move to next available weapon. Can it hurt it? Yes = Shoot at most dangerous unit (repeat until "No" answer or opponent is tabled). If the answer was "No" = Pick next most dangerous unit. Can you hurt it.....etc etc.

As an example, if you know that the incoming helldrake is going to fry your troops and you'll lose the game - will you
a) Not shoot at it because Mathhammer tells you there is only a low chance of stopping it; OR
b) Shoot everything you have that can possibly pen or glance it?

If you answered (a) - wrong answer.

i desagree. if you see a wave serpent, and you shoot at it with your most powerfull gun, for example a lascannon... you wont do a thing. now if you shoot your auto cannons at it, you actally have a chance. (a smal one, but 2x better chance than lascannon).

Are you seriously saying you can't destroy a wave serpent with a lascannon? Or are you saying that the higher number of shots from a autocannon gives a better chance of destroying it?

I assume that you mathhammer'd this, taking into account AP of the weapons, number of hits, presence of cover etc.

Sure, it CAN, but most often it doesn't as you can't consistently define overkill mathematically. Is it when the probability of a killing all models in a unit is 100%? double the number of wounds left? Triple?

Experience has the advantage that you can see when the unit is dead.....so you can stop shooting

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Sure, it CAN, but most often it doesn't as you can't consistently define overkill mathematically. Is it when the probability of a killing all models in a unit is 100%? double the number of wounds left? Triple?

That only applies to people that don't know math!
Math-hammer doesn't just calculate the average; It can also calculate the odds of you doing double the average.
It also calculates the odds of your unit sucking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation < That would be a good place to start.

"Math-hammer says that 1 in 6 terminators die."
This is an example of people that don't understand the math.
Math-hammer can tell you the odds of 0 terminators dying, or 1, or 2, or more.

Excellent, can you let me know the probability of overkilling a unit of terminators?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

MarkCron wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Sure, it CAN, but most often it doesn't as you can't consistently define overkill mathematically. Is it when the probability of a killing all models in a unit is 100%? double the number of wounds left? Triple?

That only applies to people that don't know math!
Math-hammer doesn't just calculate the average; It can also calculate the odds of you doing double the average.
It also calculates the odds of your unit sucking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation < That would be a good place to start.

"Math-hammer says that 1 in 6 terminators die."
This is an example of people that don't understand the math.
Math-hammer can tell you the odds of 0 terminators dying, or 1, or 2, or more.

Excellent, can you let me know the probability of overkilling a unit of terminators?

Sure! What are you firing with and how many Terminators are there?

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Excellent, can you let me know the probability of overkilling a unit of terminators?

Sure, if you will give me the amount of Terminators, the weapons you are shooting with and your definition of overkilling.
Do you really need a 100% chance to kill them if you already have a 99% chance?

So tell me, what chance of killing them all is enough for you?

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.

And for me, that's why experience is better. I'm not saying that math is wrong and I'm not saying that it has no place. What I am saying is that experience gives you the ability to short circuit the math - it enables you to come up with a strategy or action that is good enough and quickly enough to be able to use it on the tabletop.

On the tabletop, there is an 16.6% chance of rolling a given number with a single D6. It doesn't change. So, even though on average I should roll one 1 for every 6 dice, on the table I can roll 6 dice and get six 1. Experience allows most people to adjust that.

I think that mathhammer generally is useful for understanding what units are best suited to doing and how reliable they are at the margin (you know when you're tossing up between unit A or B - like @labmouse showed).

As many people have said, you are better off with both. If you are only going to have one, pick experience - you'll be less surprised and frustrated on the table.

MikeMcSomething wrote:A definition of terms would be appropriate here.

Agreed. Many posters in the last 4 pages have sought to point out what definitions they are using. Interestingly, you didn't actually provide any definitions before continuing, so let me help.

Math : "a group of related sciences, including algebra, geometry, probability and calculus, concerned with the study of number, quantity, shape, and space and their interrelationships by using a specialized notation" - thanks to the Free Dictionary and with word in italics added by me.

Mathhammer : "Failure math aka some kid smashing out long divison on an IHOP napkin'' that pervades this forum, ie. something asinine like ''if I shoot x terminators at y amount of genestealers in cover on average I'll score 6.35135636 wounds" OR "spamming long division followed by something like ''ok you will kill 2.525136234634234634 orks on average" - snip from MikeMcSomething accurately summarising my view and that of many posters (imo )

MikeMcSomething wrote:
Mark's perspective (and the perspective of many others in this thread) is born from a colossal misunderstanding of what math actually is, and what math is appropriate for determining outcomes in a game of 40k. This misunderstanding is borne from being immersed hip-deep in the muck of what we'll affectionately call ''failure math aka some kid smashing out long divison on an IHOP napkin'' that pervades this forum, ie. something asinine like ''if I shoot x terminators at y amount of genestealers in cover on average I'll score 6.35135636 wounds" - understanding why every single piece of this assessment is either flawed, inaccurate, incorrect, or just plain awful, is both core to this debate and a huge part of why points like "So, even though on average I should roll one 1 for every 6 dice, on the table I can roll 6 dice and get six 1. Experience allows most people to adjust that. " are being advanced with no idea of why that is a 100% flawed assessment of what math actually does.

Thanks Mike Unfortunately, the only colossal misunderstanding here is your interpretation of what has been happening in the last 4 pages of this topic. For the last 4 pages, people like myself, who DO have an understanding of "math", have been putting forward their view of why experience is better than "mathhammer" (note I'm using your definitions - well one of them anyway ).

Also, re my comment "So, even though on average I should roll one 1 for every 6 dice, on the table I can roll 6 dice and get six 1." I agree that was badly worded. I should have said "If I roll 6 dice I have a very high probability of getting one 1, however, it is possible I can roll all 6 dice and get six 1's" because my probability of getting a 1 on any individual dice roll is 1/6 (as I have noted in my earlier posts).

MikeMcSomething 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. "

This is another great example of flat-out misunderstanding. To someone that can actually calculate the odds of x unit doing exactly y performance in z conditions, it's frankly quite *trivial* to add in any additional number of factors ie. night fight range probabilities, cover, weird invuln saves, etc. These factors (as well as your challenging "well ok then! tell me what the odds of my termies killing something are!" as if it was actually a non-trivial thing to do) only seem complicated to you because you're not familiar with how the calculations are actually done.

Yes I agree. There was a misunderstanding, however, perhaps it was because you didn't read what I wrote, or perhaps it was your subsequent misquote of my challenge.

I'm not sure how to clarify the statement "So the answer you would give me would depend on the assumptions I gave you, but not correct for any other circumstances. Even putting terminators in cover would make a significant difference.". The point clearly was that WHEN you do the "mathhammer" (noting that I didn't anywhere say it was non-trivial to do the calculation) the result you get by adding another variable may make a significant difference. Unless you are suggesting that putting the terminators into cover won't make a difference to the calculation?

And just to clarify my challenge - the wording was "Excellent, can you let me know the probability of overkilling a unit of terminators? " which is something that "math" CAN do (see definitions above) but "mathhammer" (see definitions above) can't.

MikeMcSomething wrote:
There should be a sticky in the tactics thread really showing how to do actual calculations for probabilities for discrete events. There was a recent thread titled something like "Do librarians belong in a crimson fists army" that showed how the actual math is supposed to be done by several people (hint: it's not spamming long division followed by something like ''ok you will kill 2.525136234634234634 orks on average)

Agreed.

Kangodo wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Uh huh. Because its such a hard concept to grasp, right?

Apparently it is, because you're spreading wrong information.
A mathematician will not only know the most likely outcome, he will also know the chance on that outcome.
It are the "experience"-people who think 2+ is bad because they "always roll 1's." (See what I did there?)

Not really . Experience people are effectively modifying their data set to reflect actual results - it is entirely possible that their dice don't conform to statistical averages.

But I agree "A mathematician will not only know the most likely outcome, he will also know the chance on that outcome".
However, a Mathhammerite (mathhammerer?) won't.

*************

So, to summarise. (I'm going to repeat the definitions first so that this hopefully won't get taken out of context).

Math : "a group of related sciences, including algebra, geometry, probability and calculus, concerned with the study of number, quantity, shape, and space and their interrelationships by using a specialized notation" - thanks to the Free Dictionary and with word in italics added by me.

Mathhammer : "Failure math aka some kid smashing out long divison on an IHOP napkin'' that pervades this forum, ie. something asinine like ''if I shoot x terminators at y amount of genestealers in cover on average I'll score 6.35135636 wounds" OR "spamming long division followed by something like ''ok you will kill 2.525136234634234634 orks on average" - snip from MikeMcSomething

Imo experience beats Mathhammer every time. Mathhammer can be useful in getting a broad idea of unit capabilities but is not to be relied on on the tabletop.
On the table experience is more useful than math - purely because most people cannot explicitly do the complex equations required to accurately do the math while playing a game. I accept that experience is effectively "short-circuiting" the math and that experience may not give the mathematically correct results. Experience is, however, something that everyone can get, it's generally quicker and it is a hell of a lot more fun (for most ).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@OP - GREAT topic

 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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 laginess wrote:
So I have a question, what situation would you think that experience would completely trump math and vice-versa?

Math trumps experience when the question you're asking is "what will these dice do".

Math is not relevant when the question is something else.

Experience never trumps math, math is just sometimes cited inappropriately when it isn't relevant.

QFT

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!

 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.