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 like how all the evidence against the usefulness of math is "Well, low percentage outcomes happen...so why bother."

Yeah, a Pyrovore could kill 15 Guardsman in one shot, that does not make planning for it a good idea.

I look at it this way...Mathhammer shows what units are capable of doing.

Experence reveals synergy and tactics.

Which is more important...probably experience, because with enough of it you can determine what mathhammer is telling you anyway.

Key point is though, you don't have to just do one or the other.

 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

Mathhammer cannot not work. It always does. The main problem is that people expect different things. "Mathhammer" is nothing but rather simple statistics to get the average chance of having success doing X.

What people think mathhammering will do: According to these calculations my Wraiths will kill this squad of TAC!

What mathhammering actually does: What is the average chance of my Wraiths killing this squad of TAC?

As it does nothing but calculate averages, Mathhammer itself cannot fail. What usually fails is what people think it does

I am in the same boat as you OP. I am pretty good at math and can easily calculate the # of potential losses / kills and it's a reliable advantage over a lot of enemies.

 labmouse42 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
I knew that without Mathhammer personally. Forcing saves through high volumes of dice is almost always the best way to kill things with good saves.

That is an excellent point, yet that's not always the case.

"Not always the case" is why I said "almost always". I know that there are times when it doesn't work.

 labmouse42 wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Actually, I somewhat agree.

I think most of the time people get intimidated by mathhammer because it seems complicated or does not make sense. I've been trying to focus on a 'mathhammer for everyone' concept where I explain how the mathhammer applies to players in 40k. Listen to the 11th company podcast, I've been doing weekly segments on mathhammer for the past 2 months.

I'd suggest that the issue with Mathhammer is that it isn't done properly in the first place. As I said earlier, additional variables are often not taken into account or the results are misinterpreted as gospel. So, as a guideline it's fine, but the most important thing is to recognise inherent limitations. There is an exactly equal chance of rolling any individual number. That means that for every roll there is an exactly equal chance of a number not appearing. That's the fundmental limitation of mathhammer and is where experience takes over. Experience allows you to dedicate resources you know will get the job done and to keep focus.

 labmouse42 wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Mathhammer doesn't tell you the order to shoot though. So, you could shoot the Vindi at the AB first and it would make no difference to the mathhammer - the wraith squad should die from Tac marine fire anyway. Experience says - shoot the tac marines first - because if the wraiths don't die, you need to keep shooting at them or you could lose the game.

Right. What it tells you is your best chances to complete your task.
By knowing that the wraiths have low RPP values to bolters, you can start with the bolters and see the results. If the wraiths were badly injured and you can take the assault, then you can focus on the barge with the vindicators. However, if the wraiths are unscratched, then you need to hit them with the vindicator to soften them up a touch.

Mathhammering does not give you an absolute 'play this way'. Instead its a tool to add to your understanding of the game that assists you while playing.

+1

Mathhammer is nice when seeing what to do with units.
Experience is being able to know when to do what you need to do, how to do it, and when not to do it.

MarkCron wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
I knew that without Mathhammer personally. Forcing saves through high volumes of dice is almost always the best way to kill things with good saves.

That is an excellent point, yet that's not always the case. Let me give you another example. Lets say that instead of 6 wraiths there are 10 plague marines (units with good saves) Each bolter shot you fire has a 4/81 (just under 5%) of killing a PM. In this case, knowing the RPPvalue of PMs to bolters you would know that shooting bolters at them is a waste, and they should instead be used on a different target. On the other hand, a PMs RPP to vindicators is extremely low so shooting them with is bank.

You may have noticed that your experience has shown the same results as Mathhammering. This is a good thing! This provides key point indicators that our mathhammer works, giving us encouragement that further items that we can gleam from mathhammering will be valid.

Not to be difficult, but I don't think that is the same thing at all. ClockworkZion is using basic probability - "In order for them to roll more 1's I should make them roll more dice" ==> shoot more shots -the chance of them actually wounding is irrelevant as long as you get a hit. Here again - basic probability - shoot more shots - more hits.

From what you are saying, mathhammering allows more precise allocation -> "I'm not going to shoot weapon x because weapon Y has a higher chance". That isn't the same as saying "Well, I can get a wound with this weapon, I'm going to shoot at this until it is dead"

I like to claim I play Sciencehammer. I take a theory (that a paticular army is effective on the table) and test it (play it, a lot), adjust my hypothesis (adjust the list) and repeat. I learn more about playing the army this way, discover new tricks and am willing to break the mold more than Mathhammer seems to promote.

Plus experiance is a great tool. Even if you don't know the odds, if you pay attention you learn things just as effectively and can judge generally how effective a paticular idea is. Failing that, throwing more dice at it helps.

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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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

Mathhammer cannot not work. It always does. The main problem is that people expect different things. "Mathhammer" is nothing but rather simple statistics to get the average chance of having success doing X.

What people think mathhammering will do: According to these calculations my Wraiths will kill this squad of TAC!

What mathhammering actually does: What is the average chance of my Wraiths killing this squad of TAC?

As it does nothing but calculate averages, Mathhammer itself cannot fail. What usually fails is what people think it does

I am in the same boat as you OP. I am pretty good at math and can easily calculate the # of potential losses / kills and it's a reliable advantage over a lot of enemies.

I agree. it is in understanding what it is. Probability works for every dice roll. Every time. No exceptions.

Mathhammer is not the same as probability. It is based on probability, but has assumptions overlaid. Over a LARGE number of games, wraiths will kill the TAC squad x number of times. This MAY be one of those times. So, as a guideline then mathhammer is useful (at least you have a chance of killing them all).

Experience is better though, because most times you don't want to kill them all....just enough so you can finish them off in the next turn. You could mathhammer that, but again - too many variables.

edit, cos missed really important words!

Breng77 wrote:
I look at it this way...Mathhammer shows what units are capable of doing.

No, no
Math-hammer shows you what you can expect a unit to do.
What is actually does or is capable of is up to the dice-Gods.

MarkCron wrote:
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! )

Ooh, can we?
Now would you fire at those terminators with autocannons or Plasma?
If experience > math, then you wouldn't care since both are equal.

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.

'A)' should be phrased differently.
Math-hammer means that you calculate what the best option is and shoot at that.
It's a pro's vs cons-system that results into an optimal target.

Replies to my post accurately note the the core of what was driving my post.

Math-hammer, in the colloquial sense, as seen on these boards, warseer, and in conversations around many game tables, is a pile of crap. It is poorly understood and misapplied statistics.

No discussion of variance, CIs or any other kind of expectation, in place of 'average' results is what makes me poo-poo math-hammer.

And the discussion of if math-hammer 'works' or not completely circumvents table circumstance, which usually so completely overrides math-hammer that it doesn't matter.

Example:

Battle wagon full of Ghaz and Nobz drives up to my lines. I put a few glances on it, and it has one HP left. All I have left are MLs in the AV14 front facing. It doesn't matter that the math-hammer states that is a poor target selection - that I don't have good chances of scoring a glance, and that my missles would be better served else where. The battle wagon must die. I need this to happen so I can unload all of my lower S non-AT weapons at the nobs before charging them with a CC unit (better than eating their charge).

This choice is made for me. I've already fired all my better AT, and If i don't want a bunch of really angry nobz in my lines, I have to do something about it. This happens all the time - and why did it? because my better AT rolled "less than average". Nevermind it was probably well within 1 standard deviation of the average and could be a totally expected result without any sort of significance.

Target priority supercedes math-hammer nearly every time.

Where math-hammer would be really useful is for more complicated situations that no one math-hammers. Where should blasts be put in a non-regular distribution of equal toughness and save infantry to maximize potential hits? Where should scattering DS units be placed in relation to opposing infantry to minimize distance but also minimize mishap chances at acceptable ratios?

Mathhammer as colloquially applied or understood by people who hated math is indeed bs, because it's numbers being thrown around with no comprehension of the concepts in play. It's marginally less useful than what stoned art students come up with in regards to subatomic particle theory.

Properly applied statistical analysis is a useful decision making tool. Dreaming about that big score is nice, but you have to be aware just how unlikely it is. The fact that most people can't temper their hopes with mathematics and think Experience will see them through is why casinos continue to turn massive profits.

'Experience' is often tainted with the usual problems with anecdotal evidence like selective memory. You remember when the plague marine in the open survives 10 plasma cannon wounds in a row, or when four Deathwing die to 5 storm bolters. You don't remember the results where stuff falls within a SD of average.

MarkCron wrote:
I'd suggest that the issue with Mathhammer is that it isn't done properly in the first place. As I said earlier, additional variables are often not taken into account or the results are misinterpreted as gospel.

I've been focusing on using mathhammer recently to determine the overall effectiveness of a unit. Using it as a measuring stick to determine the durability, damage capacity, and area of influence of a unit lets me compare it side by side with a different unit.

I used it an example just now in another thread here, where I am comparing the different kinds of land speeders.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/547512.page#5989816

Now what the mathhammer shows me is that dual HB speeders actually should deserve a second look. Given my findings, I'll try out a few games with them to see how well they function.

This is not the only example of mathhammer. You can use it to help determine firing order, chances of unit A killing unit B, etc. Its just the primary focus of my mathhammer today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GreyHamster wrote:
Properly applied statistical analysis is a useful decision making tool. Dreaming about that big score is nice, but you have to be aware just how unlikely it is. The fact that most people can't temper their hopes with mathematics and think Experience will see them through is why casinos continue to turn massive profits

+1
The lottery is a tax for people who are not good at math.

Gwyidion wrote:
Example:
Battle wagon full of Ghaz and Nobz drives up to my lines. I put a few glances on it, and it has one HP left. All I have left are MLs in the AV14 front facing. It doesn't matter that the math-hammer states that is a poor target selection - that I don't have good chances of scoring a glance, and that my missles would be better served else where. The battle wagon must die. I need this to happen so I can unload all of my lower S non-AT weapons at the nobs before charging them with a CC unit (better than eating their charge).

This choice is made for me. I've already fired all my better AT, and If i don't want a bunch of really angry nobz in my lines, I have to do something about it. This happens all the time - and why did it? because my better AT rolled "less than average". Nevermind it was probably well within 1 standard deviation of the average and could be a totally expected result without any sort of significance.

Target priority supercedes math-hammer nearly every time.

And that means you don't understand what math-hammer means.
Math doesn't tell you NOT to shoot at it.
Math tells you that you should try the Multi-Melta first if you have it.
Math tells you that if you are building a list, you shouldn't rely on MLs as anti-AV14.

If it NEEDS to die than your missiles are NOT better served elsewhere.
But you will have a 1 in 9 chance that it will actually glance the vehicle.
Math is there to tell you that "firing a Krak-missile at AV14 that is not a direct threat" is a bad idea since it will probably do nothing.

 GreyHamster wrote:
'Experience' is often tainted with the usual problems with anecdotal evidence like selective memory. You remember when the plague marine in the open survives 10 plasma cannon wounds in a row, or when four Deathwing die to 5 storm bolters. You don't remember the results where stuff falls within a SD of average.

To be fair, ALL events that happen on the table are anecdotal unless the same even is repeated enough times to prove it true. To put it simply there is a lack of proper testing procedures to use ANY anecdoctal evidence ad fact.

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

More seriously, if used correctly experiance, mathhammer or BOTH collectively can be used as powerful tools to make you a better player. And to be frank, most players don't use either correctly. I'd rather use experiance and basic probability to play than full mathhammer because it's how I play. I don't rely on numbers to help me choose to shoot Lootas rather than charge them, I use the fact that they get a lot of shots and I don't want to risk that many potential saves.

On the same token I ignored common wisdom about e Sisters of Battle Repentia unit during 5th (the wisdom was that they were a waste of points and to never use them...I ran a full squad) and found a way to get them across the table and into the fight safely. My Grand Theft Rhino strategy proved to be exceptionally effective and didn't rely on math, it relied on the idea that a unit in a transport is safer than out, and that Repentia like it best when they're in the enemy lines. I'm sure there are numbers I cold have run to try this out, but by putting it on the table it threw my opponents off guard and worked so well over the course of a large nmber of games that they became a staple of my army. Math didn't tell me how to make the unit better, experimenttion and experiance did (for the record, I ran the with a priest for a while for the re-rolls to hit, but found the fleet was more important so I dropped him for the larger threat range, something that made them less effective in cmbat, but increased their odds of getting there).

Is this all anedotal? Extremely. It's also true for me and the meta I played in during 5th.

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
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! )

Ooh, can we?
Now would you fire at those terminators with autocannons or Plasma?
If experience > math, then you wouldn't care since both are equal.

Exactly. From an experience perspective, more shots from the autocannons often offsets the removal of the armour save. So I don't care from that perspective. But in a game, the deciding factor is range. So, If I shoot the autocannons, then I can't shoot at something further away. If I shoot the plasma first, I can hit the further target with the autocannons. So experience says, shoot the plasma first. This may be the same result as mathhammer, but that's coincidental. If the autocannons were closer and didn't have a useful alternative target (say due to LOS issues) well, I'd shoot the autocannon first.

The mathhammer to optimise targets in a shooting phase would be horrific.

Kangodo wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
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.

'A)' should be phrased differently.
Math-hammer means that you calculate what the best option is and shoot at that.
It's a pro's vs cons-system that results into an optimal target.

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.

Kangodo wrote:

Gwyidion wrote:
Example:
Battle wagon full of Ghaz and Nobz drives up to my lines. I put a few glances on it, and it has one HP left. All I have left are MLs in the AV14 front facing. It doesn't matter that the math-hammer states that is a poor target selection - that I don't have good chances of scoring a glance, and that my missles would be better served else where. The battle wagon must die. I need this to happen so I can unload all of my lower S non-AT weapons at the nobs before charging them with a CC unit (better than eating their charge).

This choice is made for me. I've already fired all my better AT, and If i don't want a bunch of really angry nobz in my lines, I have to do something about it. This happens all the time - and why did it? because my better AT rolled "less than average". Nevermind it was probably well within 1 standard deviation of the average and could be a totally expected result without any sort of significance.

Target priority supercedes math-hammer nearly every time.

And that means you don't understand what math-hammer means.
Math doesn't tell you NOT to shoot at it.
Math tells you that you should try the Multi-Melta first if you have it.
Math tells you that if you are building a list, you shouldn't rely on MLs as anti-AV14.

If it NEEDS to die than your missiles are NOT better served elsewhere.
But you will have a 1 in 9 chance that it will actually glance the vehicle.
Math is there to tell you that "firing a Krak-missile at AV14 that is not a direct threat" is a bad idea since it will probably do nothing.

I obviously agree with Gwyidion here. I agree with your point that math (as opposed to mathhammer) tells you the probability of actually doing something. Math (for clarity, defined in this case the simple probability that you will roll a sequence of numbers on a D6 ) can tell you if you have any chance of getting the required sequence of numbers. If the answer is yes, then experience tells you to take the shot.

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.

My opinion is that Experience is better than mathhammer, my problem is that mathhammer usually is too much averages, and experience has taught me (and many others and will continue to do so) that you will get unusually high or low rolls, and at the end of the day I will use units that people don't use or would expect (such as Warp Talons for example) and make them useful why? because I know their role and purpose on the battlefield, all I have to do is place them somewhere precise during the game and get slaughtering

Plus Im not a fan of Mathhammer anyway as one of the products of it are Netlists (and if anyone knowes me on Dakka, I am against Netlists in any shape or form, as imo they suck the fun out of 40k for me) so my opinion maybe biased.

Plus Im not a fan of Mathhammer anyway as one of the products of it are Netlists (and if anyone knowes me on Dakka, I am against Netlists in any shape or form, as imo they suck the fun out of 40k for me) so my opinion maybe biased.

Because they are optimised and mathhammered and beat up your xp based wierd amalgam of units . I get that.

Makumba wrote:

Plus Im not a fan of Mathhammer anyway as one of the products of it are Netlists (and if anyone knowes me on Dakka, I am against Netlists in any shape or form, as imo they suck the fun out of 40k for me) so my opinion maybe biased.

Because they are optimised and mathhammered and beat up your xp based wierd amalgam of units . I get that.

Nope its because 40k is designed as a casual game not a competitive one, Netlists just grab too much cheese which 40k is not designed to be, its ok to have a slice, but not the whole wheel. The whole netlisting meta is just a way just to show how flawed the rules are, and also just shows how much you can be a Jerk to your opponent (unless he or she brought a Netlist of their own, in which case have a fun time of rock, paper, scissors not that im saying that's a wrong way to play just not my cup of tea), plus a good general adapts and makes "underdog" units good, instead of going for the "easy" mode of 40k. Close but no Cigar. Obviously as I have said in past threads that people should take my opinion with a pinch of salt.

 happygolucky wrote:
Nope its because 40k is designed as a casual game not a competitive one,

When talking about tactics and effective lists, competitive tournaments are the only place where it matters.

If your slamming beers with your buds, who cares if you play swooping hawks or mandrakes. Its just goofing off.

 happygolucky wrote:
My opinion is that Experience is better than mathhammer, my problem is that mathhammer usually is too much averages, and experience has taught me (and many others and will continue to do so) that you will get unusually high or low rolls, and at the end of the day I will use units that people don't use or would expect (such as Warp Talons for example) and make them useful why? because I know their role and purpose on the battlefield, all I have to do is place them somewhere precise during the game and get slaughtering

Plus Im not a fan of Mathhammer anyway as one of the products of it are Netlists (and if anyone knowes me on Dakka, I am against Netlists in any shape or form, as imo they suck the fun out of 40k for me) so my opinion maybe biased.

I am with you on all of this. I use "useless" units and armies all the time. Why? Because it is fun and interesting and it is even more fun to beat someone's "unbeatable" netlist with a force chock full of supposedly useless units. Thankfully my usual opponents don't get into the netlist approach to the game either. I've left more stores because of excessive numbers of optimized net lists than for any other reason. It just gets boring fighting the same army over and over on a game day despite the fact that you changed opponents. It also sucks out the originality of approach to an army where in the past you could see similar armies on the table, but the players used them so differently from each other it didn't matter. Now they get the list and the "how to" handed to them and the games start to become way too similar for my tastes.

Skriker

 labmouse42 wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
Nope its because 40k is designed as a casual game not a competitive one,

When talking about tactics and effective lists, competitive tournaments are the only place where it matters.

If your slamming beers with your buds, who cares if you play swooping hawks or mandrakes. Its just goofing off.

Some large tournaments have shown that the top tables tend to be the lists that don't look all that powerful or frightening yet when employed properly just pound armies into the dirt. I recall that until they got updated there was a Daemon player well known for making the top tables with a Daemon army, even against Grey Knights in 5th.

There is a lot more to this game than just trying to get your list to mathematical perfection because frankly there are a lot of ways to play, none of them are really wrong and if you play a list you want to play over the one that you're told is "best" I find that you not only have more fun, but you also tend to flat out play better in the long run because you want things to work so they put a lot more thought into how to employ the units beyond "push forward, shoot, eventually assault", which seems to be the major playstyle of most netlisters.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
Nope its because 40k is designed as a casual game not a competitive one,

When talking about tactics and effective lists, competitive tournaments are the only place where it matters.

If your slamming beers with your buds, who cares if you play swooping hawks or mandrakes. Its just goofing off.

Agreed I will get back to topic

Imo Mathhammer only applies when looking at the stats, and points values, for example you wouldn't pick the WS1 BS1 unless is had a upgrade that it could take that meant it gained Poisoned 2+ and a ranged gun that had armourbane and made it auto hit on 4+ and at least average for points cost, that the only reason I would use Mathammer, to tally up points for a game that both players agreed on a points limit

 happygolucky wrote:
Imo Mathhammer only applies when looking at the stats, and points values, for example you wouldn't pick the WS1 BS1 unless is had a upgrade that it could take that meant it gained Poisoned 2+ and a ranged gun that had armourbane and made it auto hit on 4+ and at least average for points cost, that the only reason I would use Mathammer, to tally up points for a game that both players agreed on a points limit

That's interesting you mention that. As I said earlier I've been working lately with the concepts of the best values 'per point' for units. The idea is this -- how durable is an ork compared to a marine? How durable are they on a per-point basis? Will 30 points of orks sit around longer than 30 points of marines? I've also been looking at the capacity for a unit to deliver damage and their area of influence.

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. That is why you have a unit like warp talons or mutilators.

Does that means that warp talons or mutilators are unplayable units? Absolutely not. But what it does mean is that a person who brings them is at a disadvantage since their models are less effective on a per-point basis than their opponents are. This disadvantage might be mitigated by dice rolling or player skill but all other elements being equal the player with the more effective units will win.

As a player I cannot mitigate by bad dice rolling on a specific day, nor can I mitigate my own player skill (other than practice, research, and reflection) As such the best thing I can do to improve my odds in games is to bring the most effective units.

"But its just a game!" you might say. In many cases I agree with that sentiment. There are a few of my buddies who I will play 40k with and just slam beers laugh and be silly. I bring 'fun' lists like my aspect warrior army to the table when we play.

Then there are tournaments. I enter those in order to feed my hobby. Last weekend I won 85 bucks of store credit for 20 dollar entry fees. I will usually place in most local events. At NOVA I think I will have a decent shot at winning my bracket. (I won't get in a top top one, probably closer to middle range). This is why mathhammer is important to me. I want to give myself as much of an edge as possible in these games.

I see that mathhammer has stigma attached to it that I wasn't aware of ...

On a side note I should clarify, I don't use math to choose my list and perfect it for points, to me that's just a pain in the . I use it on the TT so I know what I should be doing and what I should expect.

For example when I started with AOBR I looked at the rules I had available and it didn't make a lick of sense, everything seemed arbitrary or odd. But after I crunched some numbers I figured out why things were happening the way they were and what I should expect on the TT.

As I get more into the hobby I find that crunching some numbers helps me understand what I want to use my unit for on the TT more than looking on the forums or playing games with my friends. I like to relax playing (most) of my friends but every now and then I play a more serious game and I don't want to mess up little things because then I've thrown a perfectly good learning experience.

TLDR: In short I use my maths to supplement my knowledge so far and make intelligent choices on the TT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@labmouse: I'd be very interested in where examining the units leads you, I'm all for using unusual units in the game. Afterall, often the most sound tactical decision is the one that leaves your opponent with a dumb look on his face.

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.

And why is it horrific? We do it all the time.
Math is the reason why we don't attack Terminators with Krak-Missiles.
Math is the reason why we prefer VoF or AP2-shooting.

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! :')

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!

 laginess wrote:
@labmouse: I'd be very interested in where examining the units leads you, I'm all for using unusual units in the game. Afterall, often the most sound tactical decision is the one that leaves your opponent with a dumb look on his face.

Recently I've found a few good ones.

These are all "Underperforming units" that I plan on giving a try to soon.
* Dual HB speeders do as much damage per point to infantry (GEQ and MEQ) as Typhoon speeders. They also have better resilience-per-point
* Oddly enough Howling Banshees are as good on a Damage-per-Point basis as Striking Scorpions against MEQ and GEQ.
* Adding an exarch to an eldar squad does not hurt the overall DPP or RPP ratios much at all. In fact its always worth it adding them.

Knowing what you are effective against IS Mathhammer, the guy using Daemons against GK is fighting downhill but he still probably knows that charging 10 daemonettes into 10 Paladins is a bad idea.

Thats what Mathhammer is, just because you don't calculate it doesnt mean it wasn't involved.

People have invented lots of things back without math as well, instead they did trial and error aka experience.
With math you can skip a lot of bad decisions.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 laginess wrote:
@labmouse: I'd be very interested in where examining the units leads you, I'm all for using unusual units in the game. Afterall, often the most sound tactical decision is the one that leaves your opponent with a dumb look on his face.

Recently I've found a few good ones.

These are all "Underperforming units" that I plan on giving a try to soon.
* Dual HB speeders do as much damage per point to infantry (GEQ and MEQ) as Typhoon speeders. They also have better resilience-per-point
* Oddly enough Howling Banshees are as good on a Damage-per-Point basis as Striking Scorpions against MEQ and GEQ.
* Adding an exarch to an eldar squad does not hurt the overall DPP or RPP ratios much at all. In fact its always worth it adding them.

HB Speeders are single role, while Typhoons have duality and longer range.
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.
I've not seen anyone criticising Exarchs.

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.

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.