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.

ph34r wrote:Mathhammer is not everything. Mathhammer tells you things like "take autocannon teams instead of missile launcher teams for fighting vehicles" and other such combat statistics.

Are autocannons more likely to damage vehicles per point?

If so, then they are the better choice, regardless of someone's preconceived superstition that math is somehow inherently bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord PoPo wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:And 3 shots that have a 1/3 chance of succeeding wind up with a about a 72% chance of success, which is quite a ways from 100%.

I'm sorry... but... how does this work out?

1-(chance of failure)^number of shots

It's slightly (2-3%) higher because of your ability to score multiple successes with multiple 33% chance rolls, as Elcheezus did a fantastic job of pointing out in his post.

To be honest El, that post should probably be stickied and put in the articles section or something.

I am so looking forward to Stats class next semester....

MikeMcSomething wrote:

ph34r wrote:Mathhammer is not everything. Mathhammer tells you things like "take autocannon teams instead of missile launcher teams for fighting vehicles" and other such combat statistics.

Are autocannons more likely to damage vehicles per point?

If so, then they are the better choice, regardless of someone's preconceived superstition that math is somehow inherently bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord PoPo wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:And 3 shots that have a 1/3 chance of succeeding wind up with a about a 72% chance of success, which is quite a ways from 100%.

I'm sorry... but... how does this work out?

1-(chance of failure)^number of shots

It's slightly (2-3%) higher because of your ability to score multiple successes with multiple 33% chance rolls, as Elcheezus did a fantastic job of pointing out in his post.

To be honest El, that post should probably be stickied and put in the articles section or something.

Actually, I thought about it an it's a little off. The 1/18 is based off of an autocannon's 2 shots. So it's calculating the number of autocannons that need to fire. Really you need to figure 1/36 chance per shot, and go from there. But the basic idea is what I laid out earlier. I'm tempted to do a write up on the probability equations that are frequently used and posting an article on it.

Do it! I would definitely appreciate the read and reference info!

MikeMcSomething wrote:Ok Ailaros, so right now, in your chair at your computer, tell me in completely objective terms how ''lucky'' you are. Feel free to provide references to well-known psychics, or perhaps any leprechaun consultants that might be able to help your explanation.

Well, so here's a perfect example of mathhammer in use.

Last monday I played a game in which I fired 30 BS3 autocannon shots at AV10 and didn't cause a single vehicle destroyed result.

Is this how autocannons usually perform? If it is, I need to take more autocannons in order to actually kill AV10. Was I just unlucky? In which case I shouldn't take points away from elsewhere in my list, because most of the time they will usually perform better.

How do we tell if their performance was expected, or if I was unlucky? Well, statistics provide an answer.

Assuming that I am always in range and only give my opponent's vehicles cover saves half the time (which was true in this game)...

Well, they should pass their BiD order about .58 of the time, which gives them twin-linking. This means, applied to 30 shots, I should hit with roughly 19 times. Now, I know that I'll cause a vehicle destroyed result about 1/6th of the time that I hit, which means that in 19 hits, I should expect about 2.5 vehicle destroyed results.

I got 0, which was quite a ways off from what would be expected. This means that the answer to the above question wasn't that autocannons were shooting against that which they're ineffective against, but instead I actually had bad luck. Had I not had bad luck, there would have been more vehicles destroyed.

Of course, if I add more autocannons to the list, I'll be better against AV10. The point is, though, in most games I'll actually do much more like 2 or 3 vehicles killed and much less frequently will I destroy 0 over that same time frame in the same conditions. Assuming that killing a couple of vehicles is acceptable (which it is), it means in most games, these weapons, taken in the quantity that I'm taking them, will actually accomplish the job for which I took them satisfactorally.

I can always add more, but I don't need to for most games, which means I shouldn't sacrifice more from the rest of my list unless it is absolutely critical that something dies (wherein taking more would lessen the chance that I kill 0).

Ailaros wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:Ok Ailaros, so right now, in your chair at your computer, tell me in completely objective terms how ''lucky'' you are. Feel free to provide references to well-known psychics, or perhaps any leprechaun consultants that might be able to help your explanation.

Well, so here's a perfect example of mathhammer in use.

Last monday I played a game in which I fired 30 BS3 autocannon shots at AV10 and didn't cause a single vehicle destroyed result.

Is this how autocannons usually perform? If it is, I need to take more autocannons in order to actually kill AV10. Was I just unlucky? In which case I shouldn't take points away from elsewhere in my list, because most of the time they will usually perform better.

How do we tell if their performance was expected, or if I was unlucky? Well, statistics provide an answer.

Assuming that I am always in range and only give my opponent's vehicles cover saves half the time (which was true in this game)...

Well, they should pass their BiD order about .58 of the time, which gives them twin-linking. This means, applied to 30 shots, I should hit with roughly 19 times. Now, I know that I'll cause a vehicle destroyed result about 1/6th of the time that I hit, which means that in 19 hits, I should expect about 2.5 vehicle destroyed results.

I got 0, which was quite a ways off from what would be expected. This means that the answer to the above question wasn't that autocannons were shooting against that which they're ineffective against, but instead I actually had bad luck. Had I not had bad luck, there would have been more vehicles destroyed.

Of course, if I add more autocannons to the list, I'll be better against AV10. The point is, though, in most games I'll actually do much more like 2 or 3 vehicles killed and much less frequently will I destroy 0 over that same time frame in the same conditions. Assuming that killing a couple of vehicles is acceptable (which it is), it means in most games, these weapons, taken in the quantity that I'm taking them, will actually accomplish the job for which I took them satisfactorally.

I can always add more, but I don't need to for most games, which means I shouldn't sacrifice more from the rest of my list unless it is absolutely critical that something dies (wherein taking more would lessen the chance that I kill 0).

Did you at least get a lot of shaken results? It would not be that statistically unheard of to not get a single destroyed result out of 6 penetrating hits. That would be the same as just rolling 6 dice and they all come up 1-4 without any 5s or 6s.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

ph34r wrote:Mathhammer is not everything. Mathhammer tells you things like "take autocannon teams instead of missile launcher teams for fighting vehicles" and other such combat statistics.

Are autocannons more likely to damage vehicles per point?

If so, then they are the better choice, regardless of someone's preconceived superstition that math is somehow inherently bad.

I love statistics and mathhammer. I'm just saying in response to OP, don't build up mathhammer to be some magic mystic force that is supposed to unlock the secrets of 40k. It gives you useful information, but you can't sum up every aspect of a unit's value in a number like he suggested people thought mathhammer should.