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.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
Are Howling Banshees as effective against non-MEQ/GEQ units as Striking Scorpions per point? If not then that's the reason they get left on the shelf. They also have lower survivability..

Actually they are. Its due to the fact that they are cheaper, and ignore armor. Even IG are blocking those scorpion hits 1/3 of the time. They actually turn out to be just as dangerous to GEQ as SS.
Against MEQ they are ~70% more effective IIRC. That's quite the difference! Against TEQ they are much worse (about 50% as effective) Given the number of psudo-rending hits you can bring as eldar, I'm not as worried about that. All this is shown in my research on DPP.

When it comes to area of influence, they banshees are not that bad. Scorpions can infiltrate, so they start 18" from their opponent. Banshees are moving 13.5" per turn. Both can pull off turn 2 assaults. This is an illustration of AoI or "Area of Influence".

Scorpions are slightly more durable --per point--. Noone is arguing that scorpions are not more durable with a 3+ save. I'm talking on a pure-per point basis. Banshees are just not as bad as people think. Neither scorpions or banshees hold a candle to the durability of grey hunters or plagues marines. This is shown in RPP values.

What does it all mean? Well, the math shows that Howling Banshees are an under-rated unit. As such I picked up 20 last week on ebay for 30 bucks. I plan on painting them up and adding them to my aspect warrior army. I might pull them out after a month or so, but I'll give them a good shot first.

So the only real issue is which elites unit you have to give up to get Banshees in? Obviously if you're already running Scorpions they're a straight swap, but if you were running ranged elite options you might have to reorganise the rest of the army to provide the support you were taking the elite slots for.

Although I suppose if you're running dual force organisation charts then it's not a problem.

 MWHistorian wrote:


Mathhammer is a great way to suck the soul out of the game.

QFT

Math-hammer feth my brain up when I played. In 5th ed, I didn't have this problem I used my CSM, charge, do mayhem and die trying. Now I thinking about statistic before deploying and moving. That mean I don't risk everything and I "scared" of if I did that, I will have X shots, may be i will have Y save save and Z guys will die.

ex : in 5th ed, for me, a Riptide like a challenge... tank shock him with my rhino and charge him with 10 CSM with chainsaws. Now is like "What I can do again that, my army is not built to play again that and blablabla,,,, shut up brain". And I play like a donkey..

Spartak wrote:
Experience wins over math 100%. Doesn't matter how much you math hammer or net list or min/max if you have no experience you're going to get curb stomped by the more experienced player. Conversely if you are experienced you can do very well with no math whatsoever, not saying math is bad or wouldn't help, it's just not going to carry the day.

Having done my fair share of the stomping I can agree with this. The same applies if you just play by pushing your army forward in a straight line, shooting then charging if you're in range. The game is more complex than people believe, and a lot can be worked out based on things like screening, blocking LOS, fire lanes or charge lanes. There is a lot about the game that where the only math you do is counting how far you moved.

I'm not saying math can't help you to decide which anti-tank weapon to use in your meta, or if Grav weapons are a better choice where you play than plasma, but a seasoned player can often make those decisions based on preference or experiance and make them work. Will they always be right? To be honest, no. But on the same token a person's die rolls could end up falling outside standard deviation for a game being very poor or very good. Math can tell you a lot, but it's not something I'd bank a game on because every die can help you or hurt you and that's a big thing that keeps either side from being magically better this game. I've had games that go great, others where I can't pass a single 3+ to save my life. If I lose and it's something I did wrong, I adapt. If it's something I did right I keep it. Others sit down, take their list and run the numbers until they're comfortable with a certain level of performance that should occur nearly everytime (this, I feel is why Marines are so popular, they're very reliable statistically speaking).

In the end, is either way wrong? Having spent some more time thinking about it, I don't feel either side should be trying to convert the other. Both groups play in the way that is most enjoyable for them, and some even find that middle ground where the two can be mixed, but neither is wrong.

So long post short, the real right answer to the thread title is "which ever is most fun for you."

Spartak wrote:
Experience wins over math 100%. Doesn't matter how much you math hammer or net list or min/max if you have no experience you're going to get curb stomped by the more experienced player. Conversely if you are experienced you can do very well with no math whatsoever, not saying math is bad or wouldn't help, it's just not going to carry the day.

Obviously experience is important, Mathhammer is equivalent to the fact that fire is hot. You can either gain it by experience by touching and burning yourself, or actually study fire on paper and learn that it is hot and shouldnt be touched

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.

ClockworkZion wrote:

And not of us treat experiance so poorly. Experiace teaches you not to stick forks in light sockets for instance.

I actually don't have experience telling me not to do that. I have theory telling me not to do that.

Experience helps you judge distances, spacing and tactical use.

Math-hammer helps you shortcut the learning stage of seeing why your 10 grots don't beat a squad of 5 terminators in close combat by sending them in to combat over and over again.

Banbaji wrote:

Gwyidion wrote:
The fault of mathhammer is that it is based on large sample sizes and probability.

The real fault with math hammer (more accurately, the way it is generally presented) is that it does not include the standard deviations or distribution, only the average. Both 2d6 and 1d3 + 5 average to 7; however, they chances either will give you exactly a 7 are quite different.

QFT

Mathhammer is a measuring stick that compares units effectiveness in specific situations (e.g. firing a Bolter at T4 3++ vs firng a Plasmagun at the same target). And in this regard it will trump experience (cause of bias, sample size, all the other nice things which have been said).


Experience tells you which situations you need to look at (this battlewagon is a bigger threat than that killer kan back there).


Saying mathhammer is better than experience or vice versa is like saying, using a calculator is better than Physics.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
So the only real issue is which elites unit you have to give up to get Banshees in? Obviously if you're already running Scorpions they're a straight swap, but if you were running ranged elite options you might have to reorganise the rest of the army to provide the support you were taking the elite slots for.

Ranged elite slots? Fire Dragons?

I don't think fire dragons really fit into a footdar build.

Mathematicians will tell you math is all you need.

Scientists will point out that you can do all the math in the world, until you confirm your data via experiment it's nothing more than an interesting idea.

Mathhammer can give you some rough statistical probabilities, but it just doesn't take into account enough variables to provide anything more than a basic guideline. Hell, all you have to do to totally ruin a huge series of mathhammer calculations about the relative effectiveness of two different units is increase the amount of terrain on the hypothetical board by 10%.

 GreyHamster wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

And not of us treat experiance so poorly. Experiace teaches you not to stick forks in light sockets for instance.

I actually don't have experience telling me not to do that. I have theory telling me not to do that.

Some people had to discover that for themselves before they could form theories (gotta love kids) I never did, but I have known people who have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Mathematicians will tell you math is all you need.

Scientists will point out that you can do all the math in the world, until you confirm your data via experiment it's nothing more than an interesting idea.

Mathhammer can give you some rough statistical probabilities, but it just doesn't take into account enough variables to provide anything more than a basic guideline. Hell, all you have to do to totally ruin a huge series of mathhammer calculations about the relative effectiveness of two different units is increase the amount of terrain on the hypothetical board by 10%.

I knew there was a reason I liked my Scienchammer approach (yes, I'm going to keep calling it that. Stop laughing).

I won't say that any one method anyone has is wrong (though I get the feeling some people are trying to convey that idea themselves) just different approaches to the game. I do feel experiance (even if it's being passed onto you through tacticas, or battle reports) can be a stronger teacher and tool, some people function better working the numbers. These people are usually known as Bookies.

Kidding aside, we could debate this until the world ends and I don't think either side will budge very far, or be won over by grand arguements.

My experience is that math hammer usually means that I roll 1's and 2's while my opponent rolls 5's and 6's to make up for the disparity in rolls.

 labmouse42 wrote:
Why do I bother comparing these values? Well, simply put GW's game designers don't use a formula to determine point costs. (or if they do is a very bad one) Its all arbitrary.

Definitely one of my long standing issues with GW. Even the marine books, which have a baseline codex to use as a standard still are costed as if the authors are not aware that there are currntly existing marine books in the product line.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Makutsu wrote:
Obviously experience is important, Mathhammer is equivalent to the fact that fire is hot. You can either gain it by experience by touching and burning yourself, or actually study fire on paper and learn that it is hot and shouldnt be touched

But learning that the fire is hot by the experience of getting burned by it will make a much more lasting impression than just *knowing* that fire is hot and will burn you. After all, what is the first thing people do at the table in a restaurant when the waitress says be careful these plates are REALLY hot? They touch the plate...a duh...

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrotherVord wrote:
My experience is that math hammer usually means that I roll 1's and 2's while my opponent rolls 5's and 6's to make up for the disparity in rolls.

Yeah if the probability gods conspire against you so that your highly optimized forces keep rolling 1s and 2s for everything while your opponent's inefficient and useless fluff unit filled army continues to roll 5s and 6s throughout the game no amount of pregame mathhammer is going to matter in the least. This is also why occasionally that unit of grots DOES beat the unit of terminators that they shouldn't.

Skriker

But if you stick your hand in a fire and you don't get burned, doesn't mean that fire suddenly isn't hot Which is why I prefer math.

It's a game with numbers, so math is always an issue.
It tells us that you don't want to use Krak-missiles against Land Raiders unless you have "no other choice".
(No other choice means that A; You don't have anything else or B; It has to die, so even Krak's are going towards it!)

Experience is also important because 9 out of 10 times it reflects the math.
But I am not going to take someone seriously that says "Krak is a good anti-AV14 tool because I rolled 6's a couple of times!".

Experience tells me that if that squad of firewarriors over there has even a 6+ cover save, I won't kill a single one, and that power armor is paper armor.

...I wish math-hammer applied to me more sometimes. :(

Is a hammer, better than a screwdriver?


Both math-hammer and experience are important tools, but neither is perfect.

The problem with math hammer is that it can't acount for everything, it's usualy done with an artificial set-up. X points of this vs X points of that at this arbitrary distance. It's hard to measure entire armies. It can't measure all possible armies for a tac view. It can't properly measure the effect of terrain, as you don't know the set up from game to game, let alone the fact that players play with vastly different terrain, some playing on virtually blank tables other stuffing every free inch with game changing pieces. There are many x-factor usually not used in math hammer.

Experince uses all x-factors and all the kinks in propability that happen daily. That's the strength of experience. An experinced player will be far more likely to turn around a game after a brutal game, a robot that is based purely on math hammer would concede the game, seeing the low propability of loss. Sadly, the downside is that experience makes use of all x-factors. It's not comparable, you see it daily on this board, player a says "in my experience x rocks" and player b says "you are totally wrong, in my experience x sucks". Experience is based on factors that aren't universal. Further experience is failible, it picks up false causality from corellation, it makes decisions based on precedents that are pure chance, it is very suspectible to falacies.

When you pack tools, you wouldn't leave without hammers and screwdrivers. Someone who wants to win shouldn't discount math-hammer or experience.

However, in online discussions, math-hammer is dominant, because it is comparable. You can check wether someones math-hammer is right or wrong. You can't do that with experience.

 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

See that's not entirely correct, Math in a vacuum ignoring all variables doesn't work which is the common mistake, the second we add movement, cover, range, placement and numerous other factors is when the math shines. Its in my opinion that's where people label it as experience is when they can factor in those variables with a reasonable degree of success.

Experience and math in 40k are one and the same, math is everywhere and everything. Experience is just the ability to use better math faster and more intelligently.

I think a lot of people are looking at math in this game entirely wrong. It is very rarely this unit will on average cause this many wounds. A huge factor is working out the best/worse case scenarios and how much risk you are willing to take on with a particular strategy.

That's what math is to me, running the numbers in my head and weighing up the risk Vs. reward with every move I make. If I'm in a really good spot I may be willing to take on more risk for a greater reward because I can afford it. The only thing experience has taught me is players are more unpredictable than dice ever will be.

Experience is better by far.

This comes up pretty much every day on DakkaDakka. EVERY day.

Its true: experience is just you knowing intuitively what the math woulkd have told you had you done it. Its much slower than JUST doing math, and less accurate perhaps, though well within reasonable margins.

But here's the rub: experience teaches you things the numbers wont tell you. Terrain and missions change the VALUe of a unit drastically in some cases, making what looks like a great investment (math wise) not so great. Those opportunity costs are NOT figurable. But experience WILL tell you how much of those random factors you can tolerate with your list combination and that informs you on what to change in ways that hard math will never allow.

So experience will teach you thew math but it will also teach you the math you cant see. So I respect math for its brevity and how quickly it tells me things but it fails completely in a universe of infinte terrain and mission possibilities It cant see those things. its blind to SITUATION. And situation is ALWAYS king.

I give the edge to experience. Theres a reason why mathemiticians new to the game fail. lol.

MarkCron wrote:

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.

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).

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.

Round down.

Always round down.

Unless you already rounded down and the result of the next part is like X.9. Then you can round up, but generally, round down, it makes for much more realistic expectations.

That's how I handle my mathhammer. I don't get in as many games as I like because life gets in the way, so I tend to run units through hypothetical matchups, where they charge, get charged, etc., by tons of different units.

The other half of thinking about the game though is the situations strategically. Shooting and melee, and the results from those, are more tactics (what's the most effective melee weapon for my sergeant, for example), while figuring out how they get there, and the overall battle plan, is more strategy. If you're running mathhammer without taking into account macro-strategy, then you're going to overlook something.

For example, my hypothetically 6th ed. SM list has Pedro running his Sternwing with Tigurius allied in. Tigurius has lots of awesome psychic powers. Running pure mathhammer, a unit of Sternguard rerolling to-hits (prescience) with Hellfire rounds into a Wraithknight hit with Misfortune should result in a dead Wraithknight according to mathhammer, and that's even rounding down.

But how do the Sternguard get close? Rhino, Stormraven, Landraider? What about getting the powers onto the unit? Tigurius has to have the right powers. Prescience, sure, since it's a primaris power, but what about Misfortune? Even with two more powers and re-rolls to powers, you still only have slightly over a 50% chance of getting Misfortune. What about keeping Tigurius in range of the sternguard? He can't get in a transport with them since they're allies, so do I take a tac squad as allies and give them a rhino/razorback and let Tigur use that?

Lots to think about outside of mathhammer that you have to think about in order to have a truly effective unit. Looking at things in a vacuum is fine, if you don't mind the end result potentially sucking. /pun

DogofWar1 wrote:
Round down.

Always round down.

Unless you already rounded down and the result of the next part is like X.9. Then you can round up, but generally, round down, it makes for much more realistic expectations.

That's how I handle my mathhammer. I don't get in as many games as I like because life gets in the way, so I tend to run units through hypothetical matchups, where they charge, get charged, etc., by tons of different units.
[snip]
Looking at things in a vacuum is fine, if you don't mind the end result potentially sucking. /pun

Try doing modal average calculations. They give a perfectly accurate answer to the most likely result. Much better than mean averages for expected value calculations.
And very punny

You need experience to properly use mathhammer, unless your calculations are really extensive. For example, experience tells you that it's probably best to try to kill the last units that threaten your objectives when the game is close to end instead of shooting the best point value / weapons used, well math tells you that too but you need a bit more detailed calculations for that.

MarkCron wrote:

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.

the chance a lascannon will destroy a serepnt with sheild up with a bs 4 model is less than 1%. dead serious. auto cannon is around 2%

My biggest problem with mathhammer is that unless you are doing it in every possible interaction in every game it is not as helpful.

6 wraiths charge 10 marines. Okay how often is that going to happen?

It is more likely something like 3 wraiths against 4 marines, or some random combination like that.

Also unless you give me a probability % chance mathhammer is pretty worthless to me outside of kind of seeing what is better.

So if someone said there is a 70% chance of getting at least this result that is fine. However if you just give me the average, especially with a small unit(or heavy forbid one model) the standard deviation is going to make that number almost worthless for expecting anything.

However once you get it down to the exact interaction that is going to occur, and you have the time to calculate the probability(or an app, someone get on this) then it would be helpful as hell.

Also for picking army lists and just comparing and selecting optimal targets it is helpful, however once again there are too many factors to include that are not math based. Sure firing at those plaguemarines might not be as effective with your bolters as firing at those cultists, however those plaguemarines are a greater threat to something else and so that takes priority.

Personally I use it in its limited ability all the time, however it is like trying to read a book on fixing a car and then going to fix it. There are so many little interactions that a book is not going to tell you about that you just have to learn from experience.


Edit: if someone could clarify something, from what I understand of probability( I might be wrong) but the larger the sample the less likely there is to be deviation from the average mean. So for example a single terminator is going to have a much larger deviance than say 10 terminators.

thats for iot being destroyed note... its not going to take a 100 lascannons, because of hull points.

.... why not both?

I mean, mathhammer will only tell you so much. Sometimes, you just gotta take the risk. Experience helps you figure out when to do that. Mathhammer will help you get some underlying basicknowledge of how the game works.