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.

Solon, you're a nice guy or so it seems to me. Don't take this as condescending.

You should really just keep all that stuff in your head and play the game. I've been to a lot of tournaments and have never witnessed a tactics sheet before. I mean, what could be on it that you can't remember?
Carnifex = shoot with low ap high strength weaponry?

Spend the time you would be writing this stuff down committing it to memory instead if you absolutely have to. Also, part of the game is making idiotic mistakes that you will kick yourself over for months afterward.

"Oh... I forgot that they move 12 inches PLUS d6... feth."

Semifinals would have gone Soo differently.

Monster Rain wrote:Spend the time you would be writing this stuff down committing it to memory instead if you absolutely have to.

Eh, I'm with Solon on this one. I'm great at strategery, but have no head for numbers and did awful in all my maths in both high school and college. As such I could see the usefulness of, say, a dice roll probability table.

Monster Rain wrote:Also, part of the game is making idiotic mistakes that you will kick yourself over for months afterward.

Yeah, but not the the good part. Myself, I prefer the non computational errors, like when i rammed my (non-deffrolla) battlewagon into a Ironclad Dreadnought. Not sure what I was thinking but it went poorly bad and got worse faster.

So you learned it and won't do it and have commited to memory.
You don't need a piece of paper dictating what you do.
_____________________________________
I think the issue isn't so much about having the sheet, but the refusal to allow it to be seen.

40K/Fantasy is a transparent game. It mimics a battle, but it is a game and is built upon all things being known by all participants.

Certainly the information on the sheet can be easilly determined by the opponent based on all the resources available to them, but is (IMO) not in the spirit of the game to withhold information no matter how trivial. (ex. teleporting squads between rhinos used to be (and still sometimes is) a problem).

In addition, calling it a 'cheat sheet' has a negative conotation to it. Just calling it a reference sheet should be enough to end any questioning.

In addition, in a different point of view, what you have brought is an aid. With that respect it can be seen as an unfair advantedge in an environment that assume to not use aids during the game. It only seem logical for the TO to 'share' the information so as not to disrupt things by taking it completely out of the game, but instead the OP did not compromise and disrupted things more than they had to be.

I've seriously considered making a "cheat sheet" for myself to bring to tournaments. It'd be some math (so I can quickly reference what I should be able to expect causalty-wise when I shoot with a unit) and some rules from codexs I don't own or ones I often over look or have to reference. That being said, I'd be more than happy to show my opponent if they asked. At that point, it's information accesible to everyone anyways.

Now, if I had "unit X should do A to units like unit Z, and do B to units like unit Y", then I'd be a lot more hesitant. To the OP, you really should memorize stuff like that though. If you haven't memorized stuff like that, maybe it's better you get a few games under your belt with that army first before taking to a tournament. A little planning and you shouldn't have to worry about that. But if you still must, for some reason, I'd say make sure that your "cheat sheet" is so packed full of other information that your opponent just doesn't have the time nor desire to look through it. I'm a big fan of the 200 page lolcat binder that you have a decoder ring for.

If nothing else, a simple chart with something along the lines of:

10xFW @ 12" v MEq = 5/6(2ML) * 2/3 * 1/3 * 20 = 4W
10xFW @ 30" v MEq = 5/6(2ML) * 2/3 * 1/3 * 10 = 2W
10XFW @ 12" v GEq = 5/6(2ML) * 5/6 * 20 = 14W
10xFW @ 30" v GEq = 5/6(2ML) * 5/6 * 10 = 7W

Simply because 1) this'd be a pain to commit to memory and 2) I'm not quite good enough to do these equations in my head on the fly, especially when I'm trying to plan two or three turns ahead at the same time.

I'd like to think that one would play long enough to not need the chart as whatever is expected or planned will fail gloriously...

But I can't help it, my knee-jerk reaction is: ...really?...

Sanctjud wrote:I'd like to think that one would play long enough to not need the chart as whatever is expected or planned will fail gloriously...

But I can't help it, my knee-jerk reaction is: ...really?...

What does that mean?

That charts like that lie.

Sanctjud wrote:That charts like that lie.

Statistics never lie. If they lie, you're calculating them wrong.

There is no universal truth except mathematics, and I place my faith in numbers wholly and with only one question: "How can these be statistically optimized?"

If there is a perception that the chart lies, it's because 1) your numbers are off, 2) there are elements you're not factoring into the equation, or 3) it's merely that - a perception, with no basis in reality.

I praise your sarcasm, you just don’t know it.

What an unfun game you play...

Grundz wrote:I very much doubt it was "tactics" it was probably some mathammer numbers to try and make his army efficient without doing basic math in his head.

In the very text I quoted he said it was more than that.

Sanctjud wrote:I think the issue isn't so much about having the sheet, but the refusal to allow it to be seen.

40K/Fantasy is a transparent game. It mimics a battle, but it is a game and is built upon all things being known by all participants.

Certainly the information on the sheet can be easilly determined by the opponent based on all the resources available to them, but is (IMO) not in the spirit of the game to withhold information no matter how trivial. (ex. teleporting squads between rhinos used to be (and still sometimes is) a problem).

Exactly, it IS a transparent game. Assuming you have shared lists at the beginning of the game, made clear what units are within what transports, etc....there is absolutely nothing you can write on a piece of paper to "cheat" in this game.

In addition, calling it a 'cheat sheet' has a negative conotation to it. Just calling it a reference sheet should be enough to end any questioning.

Maybe it's just me, but I've grown up with the understanding that a cheat sheet is just a term for a condensed reference sheet with no negativity attached.

In addition, in a different point of view, what you have brought is an aid. With that respect it can be seen as an unfair advantedge in an environment that assume to not use aids during the game. It only seem logical for the TO to 'share' the information so as not to disrupt things by taking it completely out of the game, but instead the OP did not compromise and disrupted things more than they had to be.

Now this logic I can agree with. If the TO decided it was a "game aid" and they were against the rules of the tournament (which game aids often are outlined as such), then the TO should have just said as much and removed it from the game. I think showing the other player or what not just causes more problems.

Monster Rain wrote:What an unfun game you play...

Only if you consider math to be unfun.

Which is ridiculous.

I love math.

Couple of statements made about the TO having a right to anything... Sorry, he/she only has those rights if I decide to participate.

Make inane requests that are out of the ordinary, unfair or unannounced, and I will walk. I play to have fun not get a body cavity search to play a game.

If this was unannounced off-the-cuff and in my opinion arbitrary, biased and/or mean-spirited, I would walk not even asking for my money because the flgs will lose my attendance and business.

Event organizer nazis may be tolerated once but then sorry, you won't get me to sign on for B-S a second time.

SaintHazard wrote:
If there is a perception that the chart lies, it's because 1) your numbers are off, 2) there are elements you're not factoring into the equation, or 3) it's merely that - a perception, with no basis in reality.

Woah, woah... So you're telling me that 10 shotguns firing 20 shots at BS 3 against T3 will ALWAYS score 5 wounds before armor? Or are you trying to imply that the "elements not being factored into the equation" include entropy, die shape, imperfections, and what you're bouncing your dice off of? If it's the first one I have a very dead vet squad that would like to have a chat with you, and if it's the latter then you may as well say that all you have to do to have flawless calculations is build a time machine, travel forward in time, and then use that knowledge to predict where the dice are going to land, because that's about as easy as building a mathematical model that handles all of that.

Statistics give you an overrated idea of what MIGHT happen. It's a great tool when listbuilding, but one to be taken with a large grain of salt when playing.

DAaddict wrote:Couple of statements made about the TO having a right to anything... Sorry, he/she only has those rights if I decide to participate.

Make inane requests that are out of the ordinary, unfair or unannounced, and I will walk. I play to have fun not get a body cavity search to play a game.

If this was unannounced off-the-cuff and in my opinion arbitrary, biased and/or mean-spirited, I would walk not even asking for my money because the flgs will lose my attendance and business.

Event organizer nazis may be tolerated once but then sorry, you won't get me to sign on for B-S a second time.

Well, I think that's kind of a given. Enter a tournament and if it's poorly run or managed, then you don't go back...simple as that. However it still is their tournament to run into the ground as they see fit.

@daedalus
When did I say that? Please quote the post where I said those words. If you actually do some reading up there, you'll find that I did not. Do not put words in my mouth.

Firing twenty pulse rifle shots at a squad of MEqs at 12" will statistically produce four wounds.

That's not to say every time you do it, it'll produce four wounds. That's the nature of chance. Sometimes it'll produce seven, sometimes it'll produce none.

But I make my decisions based on hard data, not "oh god what might happen oh crap I'm going to wet myself because I could be completely ineffective this round," which is what a lot of players do - worry over what "might happen" or what "might go wrong" versus accepting that math doesn't lie and in the end you can only make decisions based on statistics and probability.

So if I have the opportunity to fire my pulse rifles at the 7-man MEq squad that's 12" from me versus the 4-man MEq squad that's 28" from me, because the former is the one that will statistically provide more wounds, and thus a greater chance to make them turn tail and run.

But.... you don't need statistics for that example.
It's a "no-duh" they need to shoot the closer unit, not because they can hurt it, but because the will be charged should the ranged tacs do anything.

What about the 7 man MEQ squad in 12" from you vs. the 4 man MEQ that's 28" away sitting on the objective on turn 6?
Shoot the 4 man MEQ and hope the game ends.
Or
Shoot the 7 man MEQ and hope the game goes on.
How does statistics help you here?

Statistics is only as good as the formula, but the formula varies widely with certain variables that are weighted more heavily.....making it subjective and akin to lying IMO....but I don't have a strong math background, so everything I'm saying here will sound pretty elementary I'm going to assume.

It does, but that's only because we're working with very basic statistics here. Let me mix it up a bit and see if you can answer this one without referring to a statistics chart:

You have an IG CCS with three plasmaguns and one medi-pack, as well as an Officer of the Fleet. The commander has a laspistol. (IG1)

You're staring down three mobs of Ork Boyz. One has the following:
19 Boyz with Shootas, Nob with PK (ORK1)
One has:
12 Boyz with Sluggas/Choppas, Nob with PK (ORK2)
One has:
12 Boyz with Sluggas/Choppas, Nob with Big Choppa, Bosspole (ORK3)

IG1 is standing 2" deep in area cover, let's say a crater, and is shooting in all cases between two elements of cover, giving anything they shoot at a 4+ cover save, and a 4+ cover save for the CCS itself if it's being shot at.

ORK3 is 14" from IG1. ORK2 is 15" from IG1. ORK1 is 7" from IG1.

The Ork player is going to declare a WAAAGGHH next turn.

It's your shooting phase. You have not moved in the movement phase.

Which mob do you shoot at?

SaintHazard wrote:@daedalus
When did I say that? Please quote the post where I said those words. If you actually do some reading up there, you'll find that I did not. Do not put words in my mouth.

Unless my reading comphrension is failing me, then it's here:

SaintHazard wrote:

Sanctjud wrote:That charts like that lie.

Statistics never lie. If they lie, you're calculating them wrong.

There is no universal truth except mathematics, and I place my faith in numbers wholly and with only one question: "How can these be statistically optimized?"

If there is a perception that the chart lies, it's because 1) your numbers are off, 2) there are elements you're not factoring into the equation, or 3) it's merely that - a perception, with no basis in reality.

SaintHazard wrote:
That's not to say every time you do it, it'll produce four wounds. That's the nature of chance. Sometimes it'll produce seven, sometimes it'll produce none.

But I make my decisions based on hard data, not "oh god what might happen oh crap I'm going to wet myself because I could be completely ineffective this round," which is what a lot of players do - worry over what "might happen" or what "might go wrong" versus accepting that math doesn't lie and in the end you can only make decisions based on statistics and probability.

Perhaps this is just a differnce between you and I, but I don't classify statistics as 'hard data'. I'm not saying I ignore statistics altogether. I'm saying that anything I consider 'hard' is 100% guaranteed. The rest is wishful thinking.

SaintHazard wrote:It does, but that's only because we're working with very basic statistics here. Let me mix it up a bit and see if you can answer this one without referring to a statistics chart:

You have an IG CCS with three plasmaguns and one medi-pack, as well as an Officer of the Fleet. The commander has a laspistol. (IG1)

You're staring down three mobs of Ork Boyz. One has the following:
19 Boyz with Shootas, Nob with PK (ORK1)
One has:
12 Boyz with Sluggas/Choppas, Nob with PK (ORK2)
One has:
12 Boyz with Sluggas/Choppas, Nob with Big Choppa, Bosspole (ORK3)

IG1 is standing 2" deep in area cover, let's say a crater, and is shooting in all cases between two elements of cover, giving anything they shoot at a 4+ cover save, and a 4+ cover save for the CCS itself if it's being shot at.

ORK3 is 14" from IG1. ORK2 is 15" from IG1. ORK1 is 7" from IG1.

The Ork player is going to declare a WAAAGGHH next turn.

It's your shooting phase. You have not moved in the movement phase.

Which mob do you shoot at?

First off, I make a mental note to flog myself for not remember to move this unit back 5" from ORK1 or 3" forward toward either of the other two. Secondly, I kick myself for not having any other units left to help with this disparaging situation. Do they have Ghaz? Either way, I'd probably hit ORK1 as hard as I can, using Fire On My Target! Justification? 6 shots are better than 3, and I'm not going to be able to scare off any of the squads at those ranges, so I should do the most damage I possibly can.

I got to agree with SaintHazzard on this one. Although it's not by any means perfect, statistics can be a very helpful decision making tool. Even saying "yeah, if I shot the closer 7 man squad vs. the further 4 man squad, I've got a better chance of them running" you still did statistics, you just didn't put it down on paper or neccesarily do any number crunching. But you know at that point that twice as many shots against a squad that's not twice as big should yield a higher percentage of causalties. But having the stats out in front of you allows you to make more a informed decision and more quickly. Knowing the average number of wounds squad X will cause against unit Y instead of unit Z will give you an advantage when you're in a tough spot.

-----------

As for the transparency thing, when does it stop? It starts spiraling down from "can I see your army list", to "can I look at your cheat sheet", all the way down to "what are you thinking about doing next turn?". It's not a perfect example, but at what point is the line drawn? It's perfectly fair for a TO to demand whatever they want to of the participants, and it's perfectly fair for the participants to walk out at any time. So if a TO demands that a player share there strategy for the next turn, and DQ's them if they vary from it at all, is that still acceptable? And how different is that from asking a player to show an opponent their cheat sheet?

I think that cheat sheet isn't the fuzzy grey area, but firmly sits at the limit of what's acceptable. Now, if you're opponent suspects for some reason you are cheating whilst using it, I think the TO (not the opponent) should be able to confirm either way if the accused player is using an aid to cheat. Assuming you don't have access to some sort of future viewing device or power, I can't think of a way to cheat by using an aid or cheat sheet, so it really should be a non-issue.

Well that's simple.
I'd ask for the rest of the IG forces to be factored into the equation...this scenario of force concentration doesn't sound balanced but we'll roll with it.

From what I can see the idea is to have the IG shoot at ORK2, as they are of a low model count, maybe going under 10 to be non fearless, and has no boss pole to reroll that.

You are losing the squad anyway, but my issue is where is their Chimera.... i'd so hop in there and drive >6" and have those orks WORK for their kills (ie rolling lots of 6's )

Sanctjud wrote:Well that's simple.
I'd ask for the rest of the IG forces to be factored into the equation...this scenario of force concentration doesn't sound balanced but we'll roll with it.

From what I can see the idea is to have the IG shoot at ORK2, as they are of a low model count, maybe going under 10 to be non fearless, and has no boss pole to reroll that.

You are losing the squad anyway, but my issue is where is their Chimera.... i'd so hop in there and drive >6" and have those orks WORK for their kills (ie rolling lots of 6's )

To give this more of a chance...

Assume the rest of your army is dead. Your CCS is contesting the only objective, which is why it's sitting where it is. The rest of your opponents army is bearing down on your last squad and the one objective, and to pull off a tie, you have to hold that objective through their turn. The Ork player hasn't used the Waagh yet, and doesn't have Ghazy. The three Ork units listed are the only ones with 36 inches of the objective.

Mathhammer is not private. If someone wanted to stand around with a calculator all game doing the odds, I suppose he could as long as it didn't slow down the game. Since you have to disclose your stats to me and what you are doing, if I wanted to I could stand there and calculate the same mathhammer you have on your little paper, so I am not sure why I would somehow want to restrict this info from my opponent because he could slow down the game trying to do the odds himself if he wanted to do it.

Also, rules that you don't want to forget like 'Roll my looted wagon every movement phase, re-roll hits in combat' is also not private info.

Writing down opponent rules you often have to watch out for like Ork fearless or Nid synapse, again, is your opponents rules and are not private.

I am really not getting what is so private about this sheet. Most opponents would see it and simply not care.

"What are you thinking?"
Well, it is transparent. You (as the opponent) know how far a vehicle moves.
You know how far he will move and which direction.

The player needs to announce (essentially) all the things he is doing.

Infiltrators, Deepstrikers, outflankers....it's all known.

What will the lascannon shoot at... well, that information is known as well, any of the targets you present to him on the board.
_____________________________

It's an aid then. The OP assumed that it is 'ok'.
The opponent did not assume this was 'ok', maybe because it is not the norm and generally the status quo is maintained.
The OP did not forsee this, so has to make a decision on the spot.

I don't see an issue here. In some ways you can say everyone was at fault for being unable to compromise or yield.

But, it's such a trivial thing. If it's a reference sheet, be it a flow chart, statistics, and what not. ASK the TO before hand if you can keep it as 'Your Eyes Only.'

daedalus wrote:Statistics never lie. If they lie, you're calculating them wrong.

That doesn't mean that they're 100% accurate in predicting what's going to happen. You have a different definition of "lie."

daedalus wrote:First off, I make a mental note to flog myself for not remember to move this unit back 5" from ORK1 or 3" forward toward either of the other two. Secondly, I kick myself for not having any other units left to help with this disparaging situation. Do they have Ghaz? Either way, I'd probably hit ORK1 as hard as I can, using Fire On My Target! Justification? 6 shots are better than 3, and I'm not going to be able to scare off any of the squads at those ranges, so I should do the most damage I possibly can.

That's exactly right, but how did you come to that conclusion? You crunched the numbers in your head, concluded that you won't be able to force the units beyond 12" range to take a morale check, and decided to do as much damage as possible before you lose the squad, which you will. That's using statistics.

Sanctjud wrote:Well that's simple.
I'd ask for the rest of the IG forces to be factored into the equation...this scenario of force concentration doesn't sound balanced but we'll roll with it.

There are no other squads in range to help. Regardless of how this situation occurred, consider this what you have to work with.

Sanctjud wrote:From what I can see the idea is to have the IG shoot at ORK2, as they are of a low model count, maybe going under 10 to be non fearless, and has no boss pole to reroll that.

Exactly! Now here's an example of NOT applying statistics. That was exactly my kneejerk reaction too - the unit without the bosspole and with 12 Orks is the best chance to make one of them run away - low model count, two kills make them no longer Fearless, and no Bosspole to reroll a failed morale check. Now allow me to show you my statistics table that I wrote up for this situation that proves this to be a risky strategy at second look.

ORK1
LP = 1 * 2/3 * 1/3 * 1/2 = .1
LP = 1 * 2/3 * 1/3 * 1/2 = .1
PG = 2 * 2/3 * 5/6 * 1/2 = .56
PG = 2 * 2/3 * 5/6 * 1/2 = .56
PG = 2 * 2/3 * 5/6 * 1/2 = .56
LG = 2 * 2/3 * 1/3 * 1/2 = .2
2.08 total wounds

ORK2
LP = 0
LP = 0
PG = 1 * 2/3 * 5/6 * 1/2 = .28
PG = 1 * 2/3 * 5/6 * 1/2 = .28
PG = 1 * 2/3 * 5/6 * 1/2 = .28
LG = 1 * 2/3 * 1/3 * 1/2 = .1
.94 total wounds

ORK3
LP = 0
LP = 0
PG = 1 * 2/3 * 5/6 * 1/2 = .28
PG = 1 * 2/3 * 5/6 * 1/2 = .28
PG = 1 * 2/3 * 5/6 * 1/2 = .28
LG = 1 * 2/3 * 1/3 * 1/2 = .1
.94 total wounds

MORALE

ORK1 = no check
ORK 2 = no check
ORK3 = no check

The first thing you have to ask is, "Is the CCS going to survive this encounter?" The answer is a clear "no." The second question is, "Before I lose the CCS, how can they do the most damage?" The answer is, "by making one of the Ork units run away." The third question is, "Can I force one of them to take a morale check?"

The answer is in the statistics table. You need to kill at least two Orks in one of the 12-man Mobs to force a morale check. Statistically speaking, you cannot. Yes, you may get lucky and kill more than the numbers indicate, but it's a gamble.

So the answer is, "no, you cannot make one of them run away."

The fourth question is, "How do I do as much damage as possible without making one unit run away?"

The answer is in the difference in the number of wounds each option can statistically create. Less than one wound on average per 12-man Mob, and slightly more than two wounds on average for the 19-man Mob. The best way to cause as much damage as possible before you lose the CCS is to fire at the 19-man Mob. "Fire on my target" helps, but isn't a dealmaker in and of itself.

And there's your answer. Statistically, the best way to handle this situation is to fire on the 19-man mob 7 inches away.

That's applying statistics.

And this is still working with basic statistics, in that you only have one unit on your side in the equation!

Imagine the disparity between the statistically sound answer and the kneejerk answer when you start factoring in more elements!

Statistics are important.

I think you should be alowed to not tell them because if you had momorised every thing off the sheet they coulded of kicked you out.

@darkdm:
...if that is the only thing alive...then the orks have won.

The CCS(company command squad) does not score.
The minimum objectives is 2 in regular 40K.

Sanctjud wrote:@darkdm:
...if that is the only thing alive...then the orks have won.

The CCS(company command squad) does not score.
The minimum objectives is 2 in regular 40K.

Well, that depends on game type, and the game type with 2 objectives, the Ork objective wouldn't help them.

In the scenario darkdm is talking about, the minimum is 3. Or, to be more specific, 2+d3, which can yield a minimum of 3. 33% of the time! More math YAY

SaintHazard wrote:
That's exactly right, but how did you come to that conclusion? You crunched the numbers in your head, concluded that you won't be able to force the units beyond 12" range to take a morale check, and decided to do as much damage as possible before you lose the squad, which you will. That's using statistics.

Well, I'd just claim I went with what gave me the most shots, but I do see your point. One could go so far as to say that the knowledge that the most shots gives you the best chance of hurting something is using statistics. I'd agree that perhaps my definition of lie is a little more twisted that yours as well. In some effort to come around back to topic, I'd say that statistics so precise that they're written down on a piece of paper and referred to mid-game seems unnecessary. What if you keep changing the sheet of paper during the game? You could track how far each one of your opponents units move and thus estimate how far away they are from your guys. I mean, the whole paper thing I think just leads itself to particular things I might not actually agree with in game, and I'm generally pretty lax about that stuff. It's hard to say what's right and wrong without actually being there having seen what happened.