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.

ChaplainSluder wrote:Maybe I'm just a math boob, but I don't even understand your charts when I look at them.

Yeah, they are a bit difficult to understand. Sorry.
I've updated the first post with instructions for using them

p_gray99 wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

p_gray99 wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:it is irrelevant, because it depends on the tactical importance you place on any given unit. And either way, the best choice is probably still to move the kroot towards the broadsides because they are (in most cases) a unit of great importance, and risking them at all just isn't a good idea. Move the kroot and fire with them and you can guard the broadsides will helping the FW.

This helps decide what is of most tactical importance, the broadsides are threatened either way, and what if the kroot shooting is needed to help with the first lot of orks? This really would help.

That does not help you decide on tactical importance, at all. Tactical importance is the value you place on the continued existence of a unit. It is how important it is to your overall strategy.

There was only one lot of orks in your scenario, and now they are attacking the FW while getting RF'd by both kroot and FW, and are blocked from attacking the broadsides by the bubblewrap carnivores.

Perhaps you didn't understand. One set of orks was in front of the kroot, and would be able to attack the broadsides. Another set of orks was about to destroy the FW and then attack the broadsides.
Also, this helps decide what is most tactically important by working out what it could do, and thus helps decide to use everything to attack the smaller set of orks, whereas otherwise the wrong decision may be made.

Tactical importance is 50% situational, 50% what you have pre-planned. Your scenario doesn't influence either.
And either way, without hesitation I will protect my broadsides while attacking the orks with the kroot every time. FW are taken for two reasons:
1. Scoring D-fish
2. they're 1+

im2randomghgh wrote:

p_gray99 wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

p_gray99 wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:it is irrelevant, because it depends on the tactical importance you place on any given unit. And either way, the best choice is probably still to move the kroot towards the broadsides because they are (in most cases) a unit of great importance, and risking them at all just isn't a good idea. Move the kroot and fire with them and you can guard the broadsides will helping the FW.

This helps decide what is of most tactical importance, the broadsides are threatened either way, and what if the kroot shooting is needed to help with the first lot of orks? This really would help.

That does not help you decide on tactical importance, at all. Tactical importance is the value you place on the continued existence of a unit. It is how important it is to your overall strategy.

There was only one lot of orks in your scenario, and now they are attacking the FW while getting RF'd by both kroot and FW, and are blocked from attacking the broadsides by the bubblewrap carnivores.

Perhaps you didn't understand. One set of orks was in front of the kroot, and would be able to attack the broadsides. Another set of orks was about to destroy the FW and then attack the broadsides.
Also, this helps decide what is most tactically important by working out what it could do, and thus helps decide to use everything to attack the smaller set of orks, whereas otherwise the wrong decision may be made.

Tactical importance is 50% situational, 50% what you have pre-planned. Your scenario doesn't influence either.
And either way, without hesitation I will protect my broadsides while attacking the orks with the kroot every time. FW are taken for two reasons:
1. Scoring D-fish
2. they're 1+

You still don't understand the scenario. The broadsides are at threat from both sides: either the orks will destroy the FW and from there be able to attack them, or if the kroot move the other orks will attack from the other side. The new math hammer helps decide which is more important tactically: using the kroot to bubblewrap the broadsides or help the FW destroy the other orks.

p_gray99 wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

p_gray99 wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

p_gray99 wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:it is irrelevant, because it depends on the tactical importance you place on any given unit. And either way, the best choice is probably still to move the kroot towards the broadsides because they are (in most cases) a unit of great importance, and risking them at all just isn't a good idea. Move the kroot and fire with them and you can guard the broadsides will helping the FW.

This helps decide what is of most tactical importance, the broadsides are threatened either way, and what if the kroot shooting is needed to help with the first lot of orks? This really would help.

That does not help you decide on tactical importance, at all. Tactical importance is the value you place on the continued existence of a unit. It is how important it is to your overall strategy.

There was only one lot of orks in your scenario, and now they are attacking the FW while getting RF'd by both kroot and FW, and are blocked from attacking the broadsides by the bubblewrap carnivores.

Perhaps you didn't understand. One set of orks was in front of the kroot, and would be able to attack the broadsides. Another set of orks was about to destroy the FW and then attack the broadsides.
Also, this helps decide what is most tactically important by working out what it could do, and thus helps decide to use everything to attack the smaller set of orks, whereas otherwise the wrong decision may be made.

Tactical importance is 50% situational, 50% what you have pre-planned. Your scenario doesn't influence either.
And either way, without hesitation I will protect my broadsides while attacking the orks with the kroot every time. FW are taken for two reasons:
1. Scoring D-fish
2. they're 1+

You still don't understand the scenario. The broadsides are at threat from both sides: either the orks will destroy the FW and from there be able to attack them, or if the kroot move the other orks will attack from the other side. The new math hammer helps decide which is more important tactically: using the kroot to bubblewrap the broadsides or help the FW destroy the other orks.

And you seem to fail to realise that bubble wrap can still shoot. Also, 12 orks are nothing like a threat to 3 broadsides, six FW and an unknown number of kroot (10-35)

And for all I know, this could be a kitted out kroot squad worth more than the broadsides.

I've never seen such arguing over a hypothetical situation.

Seriously gents-

Jihallah wrote:I've never seen such arguing over a hypothetical situation.

Seriously gents-

Yeah, I have to say I agree. I was only trying to explain that there are situations that would be far easier to deal with if the new math hammer is used. Can you please just try to understand that rather than picking holes in my situations?

I think he understands pretty well. His point is that this situation should not have come up in the first place, because the non-random aspects of the game weight infinitely much more that the little bit of accuracy you gain by using your exact table rather than a rough estimate.

If you make or break your game based on whether you kill an exact number of models or not, you have already made at least one serious mistake before you entered your shooting phase.

You don't need to be in a make or break position to benefit from knowing the exact the probabilities of achieving x, y or z. Just as you do not need to be in a make or break position to benefit from knowing the 'expected' kills.

Why do you want to know the 'expected' casualties? So that you can make some decisions as to who to shoot at what, and who to send to assault what. knowing the expected casualties is a bit of infornation that will help increase you ability to win.

The same with knowing exact probabilities. It will help inform you who to shoot at what and who to assualt etc. It is another piece of information that will help increase your ability to win.

Average casaulties and probabilies are not the same thing, they answer different questions, but if you think maths helps you (and presumably you do if you use averages) then it is hard to argue that knowing the probabilities won't also help you. If you do not find them useful then you are not asking the right questons and will be at some disadvantage compared to someone who does.

however, I do not expect to see players pulling out calculators and spread sheets mid game.

Joey wrote:I'm "intelligent" and can figure out whatever mathhammer I need to mid-battle.
Sounds arrogant though.

Lols im the dimmest bulb in the box and even I can tell that at BS 4 with 20 shots 2/3 should hit and str 4 vs t 4 half of the hits should wound, and since the orks in question have armor 5
all the wounds will go thru leaving me with approximately 6 dead orks after shooting.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

Joey wrote:I'm "intelligent" and can figure out whatever mathhammer I need to mid-battle.
Sounds arrogant though.

Lols im the dimmest bulb in the box and even I can tell that at BS 4 with 20 shots 2/3 should hit and str 4 vs t 4 half of the hits should wound, and since the orks in question have armor 5
all the wounds will go thru leaving me with approximately 6 dead orks after shooting.

Yeah, but what's the exact chance of killing 5 orks rather than 6? or over 7 orks?
Seems you aren't the dimmest bulb in the box if you can work this out in your head...

puree wrote:Average casaulties and probabilies are not the same thing, they answer different questions, but if you think maths helps you (and presumably you do if you use averages) then it is hard to argue that knowing the probabilities won't also help you. If you do not find them useful then you are not asking the right questons and will be at some disadvantage compared to someone who does.

however, I do not expect to see players pulling out calculators and spread sheets mid game.

Firstly, thank you for backing up what I've been saying the whole time about using this where you would use the old mathhammer, and not where you wouldn't use the old one.
It also seems quite obvious that we need a better way of accessing the info, but I'm pretty much out of ideas.

p_gray99 wrote:

Jihallah wrote:I've never seen such arguing over a hypothetical situation.

Seriously gents-

Yeah, I have to say I agree. I was only trying to explain that there are situations that would be far easier to deal with if the new math hammer is used. Can you please just try to understand that rather than picking holes in my situations?

The only situation complex mathhammer has ever been useful to me is seeing who would win between lysander and Calgar, because the thunderhammer effect couldnt be compensated for otherwise. Lysander won.

Either way, Even with only the basic mathhammer I could have told you that it would come down to who had the charge,

Calgar with his AP 2 Storm bolters would probably win it for him.

p_gray99 wrote:Calgar with his AP 2 Storm bolters would probably win it for him.

No, actually. With 2 shots, that's 0.27W a turn against lysander, and that doesn't change the fact that who ever charges wins. Also, if we're going to shooting, then lysander and any unit he joins can beat Calgar with any equivalent unit, because of bolter drill.

Also, what I proved is that with the charge not factoring into the equation, lysander will Nom nom nom on Calgar in CC.

As I have been using the table in tactical discussion quite a lot now, a point of technical criticism:

Any time you wound on a 2+ or hit on a 2+, or save on a 6+ (5/6), you can't use the table. This kind of sucks, as the table is much more useful for units with few shots/attacks and those tend to be high strength, and 6+ armor is quite interesting to me as an ork player.

Another one i commonly find missing is 1/24, usually encountered when hitting on 4+, wounding on 4+, against terminator armor.

I've updated the tables to have reverses of the current charts (eg 5/6 as well as 1/6), and I added 1/24.
If you want any others in particular, just ask.

Good to hear that the tables are being used!

I ty to take math hammer with a pinch of salt. Knowing your odds is one thing but relying on them is another. I like to think of odds like a horse race. The odds get worst if many people bet on a particular horse and they get better if fewer people bet on it. What I take from this is that the odds only have the value that a person attaches to them. I try to remove odds from my plans where ever possible (which it isn't) What I mean is rather than counting on a blobbed squad of Guard winning against a terminator unit, I'll look at the benifits that the situation will give me from tying those terminators up. I find this more critical in objective games since KP's don't mean squat if i've managed to capture more objectives.

I also avoid letting mathhammer rule how I play by strict target priority. This gun is most effective against this target. This target is currently the largest threat and I should throw everything at it until its rendered useless. That target isn't very effective from that vantage point, the firepower is better spent elsewhere.

Its all still a form of mathhammer really but its a broader view of it rather than looking in too much depth. I find things go wrong when i'm expecting what the numbers tell me is going to happen doesn't.

Deceiver wrote:I ty to take math hammer with a pinch of salt. Knowing your odds is one thing but relying on them is another. I like to think of odds like a horse race. The odds get worst if many people bet on a particular horse and they get better if fewer people bet on it. What I take from this is that the odds only have the value that a person attaches to them. I try to remove odds from my plans where ever possible (which it isn't) What I mean is rather than counting on a blobbed squad of Guard winning against a terminator unit, I'll look at the benifits that the situation will give me from tying those terminators up. I find this more critical in objective games since KP's don't mean squat if i've managed to capture more objectives.

I also avoid letting mathhammer rule how I play by strict target priority. This gun is most effective against this target. This target is currently the largest threat and I should throw everything at it until its rendered useless. That target isn't very effective from that vantage point, the firepower is better spent elsewhere.

Its all still a form of mathhammer really but its a broader view of it rather than looking in too much depth. I find things go wrong when i'm expecting what the numbers tell me is going to happen doesn't.

Largely, I agree. In fact, I created this after a string of battles that I lost due to relying on the average happening, and it didn't. And, of course, this should only be used to help make tactical decisions, not be the basis of the whole plan. Overall, this math hammer is simply here to help people work out which action is most likely to manage at something.

New update: you can visit the mathhammer via this link, and edit it to create new graphs etc.