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.

@sennacherib
Well put.

@doctorludo
True, but you can't plan for luck any more than you can plan for bad luck. It strikes at random which is why it is wise to assume averages as these are most likely to occur. On the roll of two dice you will more often than any other result get 7, but it doesn't mean it will always happen, as I am sure you know. It is just the best of all guesses.

With the rationale of hoping for that lucky roll you would never be able to make cohesive plans, everything would be chaotic and random.

Good tacticians in real life and in the game seek to minimize randomness and maximize predictability. That way you can make plans that are actually useful.

Flash Gitz are cool and fun, but not reliable enough for most "serious" gamers to use. For some people wacky and random=fun. For others it is just frustrating.

Given the previous statement, if you take three units of flashgits you triple your odds of getting the roll you want which is using math to make that unit more reliable and therefore more effective. (This ignores points efficiency of course).

I'm not saying math-hammer is bad and should no be used, nor am I saying I personally rub a severed chicken foot EVERY time I pick up dice. I do however, put more faith in luck simply because it is more fun that way.

Yup, I am a freak of nature, living proof of chaos theory, and a crazy nut job... So what? Life is a box; think outside of it.

Living life in a confined little mathematical box is boring. If you want to stand on one leg and spin in circles with your lucky rabbit foot, DO IT! It is fun, you should try it sometime if you haven't... I have! Sure, math-hammer might say lucky charms and fancy circular dancing is highly improvable, but who is to say it is impossible?

If you want to try waive your hand in the air and use Jedi Mind Tricks to make the dice roll over that one extra time, TRY IT! What is the worst that can happen? Maybe someday, after you have practiced your skill in luck enough, your Jedi Mind tricks might just work!

I am 28 years old and I practice my skills in luck, levitation, and being invisible all the time... Sure, it hasn't quite worked out yet, and I might spend the rest of my life with my feet firmly on the ground, but I will die trying to fly anyway.

As long as what you are doing is not hurting any one, then I say go for it! WHY NOT?!? Live life with a head full of dreams and a heart full of hope!

As for the point I was trying to make before, I was trying to alter the perception of math-hammer into a different concept. You can math-hammer the odds on one hand full of dice, or math-hammer the odds on a particular a span of time. Can a change in perception, change the results?
Here is an example using easy numbers:

- I have math-hammered squad X, and know I have they have a 40% chance to wound squad Y. If I roll a hand full of 100 dice, 40 of those will inflict a wound. Now I alter my perception and I just start randomly rolling dice, non-stop fire for 1 hour of time for a total of 1,000 rolling dice; 40% of that is a total of 400 inflicted wounds. Granted, I know not all of the dice rolling actually takes place during my shooting phase, but do I now have a better or worse chance to getting lucky and landing some of those 400 wounds when it is my turn? Same 40% odds, I just altered the equation for a larger return on the desired product.

Does it work? Can it really be proven one way or another? Who KNOWS!?! I still like to practice getting lucky though.

Oh don't get me wrong man, I still joke around and do my "lucky" dice dance for critical roles but that is just to get a laugh from my buddies. I also do ninja kicks and bruce lee cat noises when said lucky dice fall my way if my opponent and I are laughing it up.

That is all a part of the fun of the game.

I do not though, expect it to change anything, it's just for laughs. I also don't trust to luck or whatever as it is totally illogical. But then, I also very rational and fact driven.

The reason I got upset is that this entire thread presents the argument as you are either "lucky" or "mathematical" which just isn't true and it encourages the erroneous thought process that the two are somehow different, which they aren't.

I see lots of people on the internets trying to make arguments against math hammer that are so illogical that they make me want to cry for their ignorance. It's like watching someone spell phonetically like an Ork, just cringe inducing.

Everyone is free to play how they choose, of course, it'd just be nice to see a more educated populace I guess.

I have seen too many failed leadership checks and dead terminators to believe in mathhammer.

Tacobake wrote:I have seen too many failed leadership checks and dead terminators to believe in mathhammer.

QFT.

One thing, and I was going to add, mathhammer is good for is how many bodies to get stuck in close combat. Do I need two squads to be sure, or just one. But otherwise honestly I have just seen too many games where it is irrevelent. My one buddy and I were even on a mathhammer kick at one point, figuring we could predict the outcome but to no avail. (Eldar vs Blood Angels). Too many failed LD9 checks, too many inopportune failed saves. Too many Fleet rolls of a one or two where you needed a 3+.

I mean if something has a 15% or so chance of failure it is going to come up in the game. That is a big difference from or .

Reecius wrote:I see lots of people on the internets trying to make arguments against math hammer that are so illogical that they make me want to cry for their ignorance. It's like watching someone spell phonetically like an Ork, just cringe inducing.

Everyone is free to play how they choose, of course, it'd just be nice to see a more educated populace I guess.

A more educated populace the world over would be very nice indeed. Forget the fabled Fountain of Youth; we need a Fountain of Smart.

My best friend, best man at my wedding type of best friend, is a math major and also currently teaches math. He and I get into great debates about math-hammer equations all the time. He too likes to take the rational/logical side to math, and then I remind him that most mathematicians throughout history went insane! Or even started out insane which is what allowed them to figure out those great mathematical discoveries. Like Pythagoras for example, the 'A'squared + 'B'squared = 'C'squared guy:

Not only was he crazy, but he had a whole religious following of crazies. They all thought eating beans would shorten your life span because a human only has so much "breath" in them, and passing gas caused you to lose that breath even faster. (Let us try and math-hammer that formula! 'A'breath - 'X'beans = death) One member of the Pythagorean order was butchered by an angry mob who was able to catch him simply because he refused to cross a bean field to get away from them!

The logical practice of math, like 2 + 2 = 4, is awesome and in a nice little confined black and white colored box where it should be.
Math Theories on the other hand, like trying to find the squareroot of -1, that is where the fun stuff really is. Those types of math-hammers are used for driving 9 inch long nails of pure crazy into your skull. (actually 2+2=5 btw)

Another reminder members need to refrain from insulting others both directly and indirectly for their personal preferance.

Reecius you are the most recent to have done this. There is no way you can know the educational/intelligance level of anyone that you where refering to unless you where with them through every step of their schooling. So comments like that don't even need to be posted considering there are members who have said the exact same thing in this thread that you claim is a sign of lesser education and logic.

Who the feth plays math hammer?

Play chess.

I can count on Murphy to join the game at a crucial moment. Does that answer the question?

Chance. Mathhammer is flawed in that nothing works how it should 100% of the time. Just because you SHOULD wound 4 times doesn't mean you will. Taking risks and pushing things are how the most glorious victories are achieved!

Both. No really, both.
I'll have a very good idea about who's got the mathhammer edge in any pair up, and I'll plan accordingly.
I'll throw units into fights that they will often lose, if the risk/reward is worth it. I'll off set that risk by having additional units planning for the failure.

So I use the math to judge the chances of success, and have some idea of what I need to do as a back up plan. And then I'd throw in units and hope to get lucky.

All of this is very Math Hammery.

People who don't believe in luck haven't seen my jinx of players when I'm a spectator. If you need a 10 to hold, I can walk by and say "11" and you are doomed. Sadly, this power has no effect in games that I am playing.

-Matt

Psyker_9er wrote:They all thought eating beans would shorten your life span because a human only has so much "breath" in them, and passing gas caused you to lose that breath even faster. (Let us try and math-hammer that formula! 'A'breath - 'X'beans = death) One member of the Pythagorean order was butchered by an angry mob who was able to catch him simply because he refused to cross a bean field to get away from them!

Hahaha, that is funny as hell! Some of the crazy stuff people believe is just so weird.

Another reminder members need to refrain from insulting others both directly and indirectly for their personal preferance.

Reecius you are the most recent to have done this. There is no way you can know the educational/intelligance level of anyone that you where refering to unless you where with them through every step of their schooling. So comments like that don't even need to be posted considering there are members who have said the exact same thing in this thread that you claim is a sign of lesser education and logic.

I agree with you in principle man, but this argument is as old as dirt and just gets frustrating to see so often I suppose.

One thing though, I see you trying to police the thread and while your intentions are good, you are wasting energy, man. Once you open the doors unless you are a MOD you are not going to control what comes out. Even mods can't control it, only edit it after the cat's left the bag. This is one of those topics that will stir up emotions, like competitive vs. fluff play, etc. Just watch the conversation flow, if anyone takes personal offense they can talk to me, I am very reasonable if a little forceful in my point of view in this particular case.

SmackCakes wrote:I would say that 'trying your luck' is okay as an opportunist tactic, but it is less viable as a long term strategy.

'Math hammer' shows you the probability of an action succeeding with average luck.

Mathhammer can do more than that. It can tell you the odds of scoring 1 kill, the odds of scoring 2 kills, the odds of scoring 3 kills and more. There's a lot to probability than just multiplying out the expected average.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:@Sebster: If you want to know some players who do just that scroll up through the thread and look at all of the players who have said they put their faith in luck.

And none of them answered the question in a way that actually demonstrates choosing luck over probability. None said anything along the lines of 'I am happy to charge my firewarriors into the tactical marines, because I thought my luck was more important than any probability'.

All we've seen is a general misunderstanding of probability (people thinking the average outcome 'should' happen, people thinking outliers somehow disprove probability…)

And I'm unsure how wanting to know what players personal choices are on the subject dosen't make sense but I'm not trying to apply my opinion as an absolution.

People are free to approach the hobby however they like, that there are so many ways to approach wargaming is one of its great strengths. That isn’t the issue, the issue is that the distinction you're trying to draw between probability and luck doesn't make sense, and doesn't identify (or at least properly explain) different playing styles.

Forgive me if I'm being terse but I don't want this thread turning into something it's not just because a few people think that it is impossible for a player to put the majority of their faith in one aspect or another when quiet clearly it is not impossible.

The simple point, repeated yet again, is that they're not exclusive aspects. You can't ignore probability and play. Nor can you remove luck from the game.

Torin the Wayfarer wrote:I think that if the math-hammer route was completley true, you would never really get those 100-1 rolls, i think that you must have done something to please the dice gods

"If it was really true"?!

Are you actually doubting the science of probability? Honest to God for real suggesting probability might not actually be true?

Also, you would get those 1 in 100 rolls one time in 100.

SmackCakes wrote:On the flip side... Knowing the probability will not change the outcome either, and in such a small set probability might not even be relevant.

No, but it informs the decision making that goes on before the dice are rolled. You assault the IG with your orks because you know the odds favour success.

If you roll the same dice 36 times, could you be sure to roll once and only once?

No, you wouldn't, but probability doesn't argue that you would. It does, in fact, tell you that the odds of rolling snake eyes once over the course of 36 rolls is 37% (the odds of rolling snake eyes no times is 36%, the odds of rolling two times is 19%, and the odds of rolling more than that is 8%).

The truth is you could roll those dice an infinite number of times and never roll double 1, or never roll anything but double 1.

That is true, but the more important truth is that just because you’ve rolled snake eyes 31 times in a row, the odds of rolling snake eyes on the next roll is still 2.77%. And that if you haven’t rolled snake eyes in the last decade, the odds of rolling snake eyes on the next roll is 2.77%

The truth is probability only becomes meaningful with large sets.

No. The distribution gets tighter, but probability still matters at smaller numbers. The odds of rolling snake eyes on one dice roll is 2.77%, which is a very different thing to to rolling 7 or less, 58.3%. This is a significant difference, despite being only one dice roll.

I've been sitting here a rolling 2 dice just out of interest, and I've rolled 5 times now in less than 64 attempts. So even though the mathematical odds are 1 in 36 the actual frequency has been about 1 in 13, which of course is nothing like the predicted odds.

The odds state that rolling snake eyes 5 times in 64 rolls has a 2.4% probability. I don’t see how your roll in anyway disputes probability.

It's probably much smarter to base decisions on risk versus reward, rather than probable versus improbable. That may mean taking bigger chances, and ignoring favourable odds.

Considering risk is considering probability.

mrwhoop wrote:And even barring that statistics is a math anyway as the odds are infinitesimally small of rolling straight it is still a mathematical possibility. So I guess I'll finish by saying it is called 'dumb luck' for a perceivable reason.

No, absolutely not. I don’t know who taught you probability but the odds of rolling snake eyes isn’t infinitesimally small, it’s 2.77%.

doctorludo wrote:Math hammer is great for list design and working out who should shoot what.

But, the potential for a unit is far beyond the math hammer effect. The potential for a lucky strike is part of a unit's ability. Furthermore, when dice rolls are made once to affect a whole unit, math hammer is dangerously unpredictable.

You can factor that unpredictability into your probability calculations. Indeed, standard deviation is a very important part of probability calculations.

Psyker_9er wrote:If you want to try waive your hand in the air and use Jedi Mind Tricks to make the dice roll over that one extra time, TRY IT! What is the worst that can happen? Maybe someday, after you have practiced your skill in luck enough, your Jedi Mind tricks might just work!

No-one is arguing against goofing around and having a little fun when you’re playing. Call it a rocket launcher, not a missile launcher, because you don’t want to rely on anything with ‘miss’ in it’s name. Good fun.

But what we’re actually arguing is the OP’s suggestion that people choose between luck and probability. We’re saying there is no decision possible that elects one over the other.

but do I now have a better or worse chance to getting lucky and landing some of those 400 wounds when it is my turn? Same 40% odds, I just altered the equation for a larger return on the desired product.

Does it work? Can it really be proven one way or another? Who KNOWS!?! I still like to practice getting lucky though.

Does it work? No, it doesn’t work.

Who knows? Everyone who’s taken and understood basic probability knows this. The idea of independence is a fundamental cornerstone of probability – the dice don’t know and don’t care what’s been rolled before, the odds remain 40%.

Tacobake wrote:I have seen too many failed leadership checks and dead terminators to believe in mathhammer.

The presence of outliers does not discredit mathhammer. It may discredit your previous understanding of it, which likely didn't give a significant probability to outliers like multiple ones turning up in a dice roll. But dice are not magic, they roll by the probabilities.

Tacobake wrote:One thing, and I was going to add, mathhammer is good for is how many bodies to get stuck in close combat. Do I need two squads to be sure, or just one. But otherwise honestly I have just seen too many games where it is irrevelent. My one buddy and I were even on a mathhammer kick at one point, figuring we could predict the outcome but to no avail. (Eldar vs Blood Angels). Too many failed LD9 checks, too many inopportune failed saves. Too many Fleet rolls of a one or two where you needed a 3+.

Probability doesn’t predict an outcome. It tells you the probabilityof different outcomes.

Psyker_9er wrote:My best friend, best man at my wedding type of best friend, is a math major and also currently teaches math. He and I get into great debates about math-hammer equations all the time. He too likes to take the rational/logical side to math, and then I remind him that most mathematicians throughout history went insane! Or even started out insane which is what allowed them to figure out those great mathematical discoveries. Like Pythagoras for example, the 'A'squared + 'B'squared = 'C'squared guy:

Crazy or not, the sum of the squares of the lesser two sides does in fact equal the square of the greatest side. That’s one of the really important things with stuff like this – the author can be as crazy as anyone has ever been, but the truth remains the truth.

(actually 2+2=5 btw)

Radiohead fan? Or possibly a victim of Big Brother?

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Another reminder members need to refrain from insulting others both directly and indirectly for their personal preferance.

Reecius you are the most recent to have done this. There is no way you can know the educational/intelligance level of anyone that you where refering to unless you where with them through every step of their schooling. So comments like that don't even need to be posted considering there are members who have said the exact same thing in this thread that you claim is a sign of lesser education and logic.

No. People are free to have whatever personal preference they like, but if they give a false statement about what probability is and how it works, they’re wrong and there’s nothing else to it than that. There is no personal preference when it comes to facts.

That said, I agree that there’s no need to question people’s education. They could be extremely well education in areas other than probability.

Zid wrote:Chance. Mathhammer is flawed in that nothing works how it should 100% of the time. Just because you SHOULD wound 4 times doesn't mean you will. Taking risks and pushing things are how the most glorious victories are achieved!

Probability never says ‘should’. It will give you the odds of something working, but no more, no less.

I think a lot of people are calculating the average and thinking it’s the result that ‘should’ happen. Probability doesn’t work that way.

I voted mathhammer. I am currently writing a list and was trying to deside weather or not to put Fusion blasters or Missile pods on my tau battlesuits. they both had the same cost ruling that solution out. well asuming they hit on 4 that means they will kill (1/2x5/6=5/12 or 0.42) space marines dead for the fusion blaster or (1/2x5/6x1/3x2=5/18 or 0.27) space marines dead from the missile pod/
this shows that at close range, the fusion blaster is better, but we wont always be within 12" will we put this into the formula. 0.27x36=10 for the missile pod. 0.42x12=5 for the fusion blaster. taking into account all the advantages of each weapon melta for the fusion blaster and range for the misile pod, I decided that since the main perpose of the suit is to take out space marines, i would take the missile pod. Now how would i have decided this if i didint have my funnly little friend math hammer?

I can honestly say I never work out my shots and attacks based on the numbers.

What I do though is just make a comparison of my options. Say I have a necron warrior squad in rapid fire range of plague marines, but in standard range to terminatiors. I know off the top of my head I'm likely to hurt neither, but I shoot the terminatiors because I know the plague marines will likely shrug it off.

Is this mathammer on some level? I guess so - but I never mentally calculate the exact number of wounds I think I will cause.

I hate Math-Hammer I have found it to be a total load of bollocks that very rarely works. It works if you take an average over a thousand games but that doesn't work for me because you can never add different circumstances into it. There is no consideration of improved tactics or of supporting units I just find it a very silly way of approaching things. YMMV

Well I am not going to argue with sebster @ 7:20 in the morning on a Thursday.

Although having said that, an outlier is not 15%, or 33% in the case of a 3+. If you are defining an outlier using mean/ average/ expected value an outlier is two or more standard deviations. So say 3-5% chance or if you are defining it discretely as three standard deviations you are looking at 1% chance.

So in mathhammer that would be / as I mentioned. Failing ld 10 unmodified is... 9.1% so as far as considering normal rolls in the course of the game as being outliers that is probably about as far as you want to go.

Basically the problem with mathhammer, if you want to get technical, you are dealing with statistics within one standard deviation which is not very physically accurate -- even before you take into the account you are not dealing with hundreds of dice. You can think of it as being like diffraction with a large slit if anyone has taken that class/ done that lab.

Yeah so here's the graph.



Basically what is considered scientific accuracy (or "statistical significance") is two standard deviations, or two sigma. Typical mathhammer is more like 1 sigma. It is also a good reason for them to use six-sided dice as it keeps things exciting so to speak.

Graph did not work.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg

Tacobake wrote:
Although having said that, an outlier is not 15%, or 33% in the case of a 3+. If you are defining an outlier using mean/ average/ expected value an outlier is two or more standard deviations. So say 3-5% chance or if you are defining it discretely as three standard deviations you are looking at 1% chance.

Outliers are defined by the confidence interval for the distribution being considered. For example, an outlier for a distribution seeking a 95% confidence interval is any result greater than 1.96 standard deviations from the data set mean. What this means in plain English is that 95% of all results will fall within 1.96 standard deviations of the mean, and that the 5% beyond that threshold are outliers. At least this is the most common method of defining what an outlier is. In reality the definition is subjective, and many statisticians will instead merely think of outliers as improbable results; factoring them into statistical calculations.

Strictly speaking, the technical understanding of outliers is not relevant to the calculation of probability, they are only relevant to the observed probability as determined by experimentation or data collection. So, insofar as we're talking about probability alone, we're only referencing improbable results.

Tacobake wrote:
Basically what is considered scientific accuracy (or "statistical significance") is two standard deviations, or two sigma. Typical mathhammer is more like 1 sigma. It is also a good reason for them to use six-sided dice as it keeps things exciting so to speak.

Its a bit more complicated than that. Standard deviation is only considered when considering actual rolls, which have no impact on probability in the sense that it is being discussed here. In fact, the only way to even get a reasonable data set that considered anything beyond the average outcome of individual rolls would be to do statistical calculations that are far more complicated than the descriptive ones we're currently discussing. In particular we would need to roll a given set of dice, a given number of times, and then calculate the average number of times each number came up. We could then calculate the standard deviation of each number, for each set of rolls, for each die, and compare the results across a contingency table using a measure of association. This would tell us to what degree each result was associated with a variant outcome for each set of rolls, and to what degree the difference could be regarded as statistically significant. The larger the number of sets of rolls, and the larger the number of rolls be set, the more likely the results would approach the calculated probability.

However, even if the results varied wildly, the calculated probability for unbiased dice would be the same.

Well you, or we, if we are getting technical need to define what we consider to be "statistical significance". For leadership rolls I would consider ld10 to be a sure thing, for example. If I failed that, that is an outlier. Now in the case of ld9 I have a... 75% chance to pass I would not necessarly consider failing that to be an outlier. I would then go farther and say if my Warlocks are only ld8 that is a hidrance to my Guardian squads unless they have an Avatar nearby.

We can define an outlier is being a result that you discard because it is considered to be caused by some error. 25% or 33% (one standard deviation) chance of something happening, you have a good chance of seeing that within a few dice rolls that is not really an outlier. Even a 2+ has a 15% chance to fail, unlike say a d10 system where a 2+ would have a 10% chance fail more similiar to say a ld10 roll on 2D6.

Now if you are talking about shooting or close combat that is different, especially close combat where you are making decisions about how to move your units. Maybe in Fantasy you don't need two flanking units maybe one of the flanking units can go attack a Warmachine crew.

While I believe that mathhammer has it's uses, and establishes a solid baseline, there is a lot to be said for having the opportunity to shout "Yahtzee" when you fail all those terminator saving throws.

Mathhammer will only ever tell you what to expect on average, not how the whole game will play out. Misjudging that charge range will often lead to your opponent having one more round of shooting that could, realistically, ruin a unit's day.

I actually use a bit of both. Wish there was a way to vote for 50/50.

asmith wrote:?
@CT Gamer: So did you answer you had faith in luck?

Yes.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:What do you put your faith in and why? Do you stick with the statistics or do you believe that anything can happen no matter what the odds?

I don't believe a bolter can penetrate a landraider, if that's what you mean.

A single lascannon can kill a raider. The statistics confirm this. It's hardly something to be relied upon though.

Not really sure what your point is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote: If you put your faith in either luck or the math then say it, if you put your faith in both or neither say it

So are you saying that the non-mathammer players don't consider AT ALL the odds of what they attempt?

There's a squad of enemy terminators bearing down on you so you shoot at everything else and only direct five bolters shots at them and put your faith in luck? Of course not. The players that don't do math-hammer consciously still follow the same thought process of deciding what is required to defeat a particular threat, they just do it on instinct.

The split that you are trying to describe is erroneous. There are players that calculate the odds and there are players that use their instincts to the same end.

Can you give an in-game example of putting your faith in luck?

I guess the poll would be more clear if the OP would define both "Mathhammer", and "Luck".

-Matt

No offence but the pole is fine just the way it is considering what 97 people have been able to give a definitive answer without a problem. And while it may be a little more balanced if I put a 3rd option in for both I didn't put it in because I specifically want to see how many players choose one over the other not both.

And what sebster and a few others have said is that there is no way you could choose to put your faith behind either the numbers or luck that you have to trust both equally. Beings as those people who are saying that are not every single person who plays the game and has free choice this is wrong. People can very easily choose to favor one aspect over the other in fact multiple members in this thread have done just that as is shown by the 97 voters.

@Sebster: I saw the same response repeatidly from someone on another thread concerning intelligence and he was considered a troll for it. Just because you do not consider the answers given as actual answers does not mean that the question hasen't in fact been answered. The players said in various ways that they put their faith in luck over math it's as simple as that.

Now what you are arguing against is the use of something vs having faith in it which isn't what this post is about. While both aspects may be present in the game (to which no one is arguing against) and most of the time people use a little bit of both that does not mean that they cannot favor one over the other or put their faith in one over the other. This thread is asking which do you prefer to trust etc. But there are some who have turned it into an argument about which is better based off of why others favor what they do. And there are some like yourself who are saying it is impossible to choose one over the other, well I assure you it is not.

@Scott S6: If you go to the first page of the thread (I think it's the first) there is a scenario given by a poster concerning trolls that I have responded to which I think gives a good example of choosing the math over choosing the luck.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:@Scott S6: If you go to the first page of the thread (I think it's the first) there is a scenario given by a poster concerning trolls that I have responded to which I think gives a good example of choosing the math over choosing the luck.

That seemed more to be the poster giving an example of taking a unit that he knew was bad. Not because he had faith that he would be lucky and they would do well but simply because he wanted to take them.

If that's your example then the split would be better defined as whether you value potential or reliability.

Ah but in this discussion potential=chance while reliability=math. It's the question of do you play things safe and do what the numbers say you should do or do you say screw the numbers and do things that have little hope of happening just in the chance that they will happen.

I've known multiple players who woulden't do something that would have been smart to do in the game just because the probability of it happening wasen't greater then the probability of it not happening. And I've also known players who have done the exact opposite, yeah sometimes it dosen't work but when it does it works great.

I've never heard anyone say that Trolls are a bad unit unless they personally didn't like them. But the example shows that some people would not mess with them simply because the math hammer says that they won't be usefull do to the stupidity rule while someone who puts more faith in luck and chance then in math will take them because despite what the numbers say the unit has the ability to do some real damage.

Now that is only one part of favoring luck over math and vice versa. For instance I once had a single remaining Fire Warrior in a squad armed with EMP grenades. His squad had been wiped out by a Defiler, the Warrior passed his Ld test and I (being a person who puts their faith in luck) used him to charge the Defiler in the hopes that his EMP grenade would get a 6 to pen and then destroy the Defiler and it did just that. Now someone who put their faith in math hammer probably woulden't have even tried to do that simply because the numbers say it woulden't have happened.

For more examples just read through the thread as there are quiet a few.

Probability is really about expected value, which generally proves out based on number of iterations. So yes, you may roll 6 1's to hit with 6 railgun shots. But over a million sets of those 6 rolls, you'll typically find that the number tends towards the expected value. So, even with a particular action that has a high expected success rate, often times planned redundancy is necessary.

In addition, more people use math in their play more than they necessarily realize. Any time you decide what to shoot, you're performing some sort of calculation. Your conclusion may be faulty, but you are doing it. For example, you may say that I might as well fire my railgun at the rhino that is closer than the land raider that is further. That's actually a complex equation you're attempting to solve. The human brain being what it is, you'll assign values and weights and solve, perhaps "correctly", perhaps not.

edit: Since I didn't explicitly state it, I wanted to say that part of my above point is the idea of "mathhammer" is simplistic. There is a very complex set of decision-making that takes place, some of it done by explicit math, some by a sort of heuristic analysis, and other bits by intuitive leaps informed by experience or preconceptions. All of that can be broadly described symbolically by "math".

But again this isn't about wether players use one more then the other. This is about which aspect individual players choose to trust more then the other.