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.

I see what you are saying SaintHazard, but I'd like to see something more realistic.

A side note, couldn't you move forward and shoot at all of the ork units within rapid fire range?
Certainly it statistically doesn't mean they will do better than the 2.08.... but 2.08 doesn't exist. It's likely 2, but 3 is the next closest thing.

There's a simple answer to that, too: broad strokes in your head, specific guidelines on paper, specific equations on a calculator or scratch paper.

Most of my opponents don't object to me bringing a pile of scratch paper to my games, and the ones who do, I just estimate in my head, and it works out about the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sanctjud wrote:I see what you are saying SaintHazard, but I'd like to see something more realistic.

A side note, couldn't you move forward and shoot at all of the ork units within rapid fire range?
Certainly it statistically doesn't mean they will do better than the 2.08.... but 2.08 doesn't exist. It's likely 2, but 3 is the next closest thing.

1) I'm coming up with examples in my head, on the fly. No, you can't have anything more realistic. Not right now.

2) No, I specifically said you're in your shooting phase. That's one of the elements.

3) 2.08 basically translates in layman's terms as "probably two but with a better chance of being 3 than being 1."

When you work with statistics, you learn to interpret things like that in real world terms.

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

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

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

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

Does my opponent know exactly where I'm planning to move my units? How about what I'll do if my unit scatters unfavorably? Or exactly how I'll split my attacks in a multiple combat? Or maybe they know if I'm actually going to attempt that risky assualt?

Yes, there are plenty of things both my opponent and I (should) know, but saying 40K is transparent is vague at best. There are plenty of unkown elements because you're playing against a human. But should your opponent know your tactical thinking? No. If they're really good at reading and understanding other people, or know this person, then it's safe to assume they've got a good idea. But people can still be full of suprises. My point being there are things your opponent needs to know about your army (ex: army list, deep strikers) to keep the game fair, but there are still elements you don't share to keep the game competetive and fun (ex: tactics, tricks).

I still don't understand darkdm's post.
Is he suggesting a mission that does not exist in the rulebook like 'king of the hill' or something like that?

Otherwise, the minimum number of objectives in 40K is 2 (you know the ones that are in your deployment zone) Capture and Control IIRC.
Then there's Seize Ground which is the 2+1D3.

Here's what it boils down to:

Humans have an incredible ability to perform complex equations in their heads very quickly. Some people call it logic, some people call it intuition, but at the end of the day, it's all the same thing: performing mathematic equations in your head quickly and, sometimes, subconsciously. Anytime you're playing 40k, you're working with statistics, whether you know it or not. Putting them down on paper and clearly defining them simply gives you a good, solid base for your decision making and cuts down on mistakes that are so often made when performing the equations purely in your head.

Basically, statistic charts are a way to streamline and quality-control what's already going on in your head.

and simple stats like that do not help either, as you need to aply binomial theorem to determine your relative chances of performing a certain specific action.

For example while you may not have an average chance of producing a morale check on Ork2, but you may have a 40% chance which is "good enough"

nosferatu1001 wrote:and simple stats like that do not help either, as you need to aply binomial theorem to determine your relative chances of performing a certain specific action.

For example while you may not have an average chance of producing a morale check on Ork2, but you may have a 40% chance which is "good enough"

Like I said, it's not a perfect example, but I pulled it out of a hat on the fly.

The game is transparent.
I never said the players are.

You must tell
-what is deploying.
-what is infiltraing, outflanking, reserves, etc.
-what is moving.
-what is running.
-what is shooting.
-what is assaulting.
-you need to measure shooting, which provides information for both players.
-the 2 dimensional board limits are set, meaning more maths can be used.

etc.

The game is transparent in that the opponent knows all of your deployment options, unit options, spells, powers, weapon stats.
The opponent knows all of the options available to you when you start your deployment, movement, shooting, assaulting.
All materials associated with gaming are transparent. Measuring out ranges is for BOTH players to see, codex references, templates, suppliment codicies, army lists.

In general, people are saying the status quo is that everything is in your head you want to conceal. What is concealed is the order of operations essentially. Which isn't too hard to guess either with some of the internet lists I've seen floating around.
______________________________________

What tactics or tricks are you talking about that requires that kind of concealment?
It sounds more like an opponent who is careless...which is not about transparency.

It's also worth mentioning that the mathematical side of this game is what really makes it fun for me, and by no means do you have to copy what I do to 1) have fun or 2) be successful.

So don't think I'm trying to push my methods on anyone.

It's just how I do things.

First of all:
Please remember people, that not everybody studies every move, have played like 1k games and have super insight into the game. It isn't "needed" or "required", but neither are favourite dice or some lucky charm. Who cares if YOU don't need this or find it stupid, this is irrelevant to the discussion. The problems is he already had this kind of sheet. If it is useful/needed/helpful is not the point here.

IMHO Captain Solon should not have been kicked out. At least from what have been said here. If he made some effort and prepared some kind of help sheet, or whatever the name, why should he be punished?
Did he "cheat"? No.
Is it breaking the spirit of sportsmanship? No.
Is it illegal? That depends on the official rules of the T. but I believe there are no such rules.
Of course TO had the power to kick him, but he definitely should not have.

Sanctjud wrote:"PSYCHIC POWERS FIRST", when I play Eldar.

I definitely need one of those

WHich is why the actions don't make sense, and it suggests the interactions were not exactly as presented here.

I cant imagine *any* TO chucking someone out based on what was presented here.

Sorry to go a bit offtopic here, but:

One thing that I've read in this thread (and many others) that need to be cleared up is what people use in mathhammer, and how it relates to the game.

Lets say I have a squad of marines shooting at another squad of marines.

I've seen some people try and calculate out what is going to happen the following way.

Say there are 5 marines all with bolters in rapid fire range.

10* (4/6 chance to hit) * (3/6 chance to wound) * (2/6 failed saves) = 1.11.

Obviously this method has some flaws. You can't kill 1.11 marines.

You can only have whole number results. So what did I actually calculate? The average number of kills over an infinite number of attempts.

Its an average, because you took the chance based on average rolls. Every set of 6 rolls will not roll a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Some sets you might roll all 6s or all 1s.

The real way to give yourself an accurate depiction of what would occur would be a probability distribution. That is, how likely you are to get 0 kills, 1 kill, 2 kills etc. That is really the best way to give yourself a picture of what is going to happen.

Statistics don't like, assuming the math and application is correct. The trick is knowing what the numbers are actually saying.

Hence what I was saying a few posts ago.

1.11 obviously isn't a valid number of wounds.

What 1.11 means is "Probably 1. More likely to be 2 than 0."

This has moved way past a discussion of the rules. Moving on.