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 made a tool for MathHammer-ing in 8th edition

http://www.mathhammer8thed.com/

Features:

• Supports d6, 2d6, 2d3, d3, etc for Shots and Damage
• Supports re-roll to hit for all misses or ones
• Supports re-roll to hit for all failed wounds or ones
• Supports ignoring wounds on a 6+, 5+, 4+, 3+ and 2+
• Output number of hits, wounds, unsaved wounds and models killed
• No ads
• Works on mobile
• Works best on Desktop

Any ideas? Let me know!

Doesn't appear to be working my man. Check the console.

NintiethTime wrote:
Doesn't appear to be working my man. Check the console.

Hi. What values are you trying? I can't break it?!

Bit of feedback: Put 'damage caused' in there as well. I know you've got Unsaved Wounds (which you should multiply by the damage to get the result) but if I'm fighting a vehicle or the like I'd like to know how many wounds I'm getting off of it without doing the extra step of multiplication in my head. Even more important for random damage weapons.

Hi. Also can't get it to give me any results;

I was testing the Porphyrion against a Regular Imperial Knight

Values;

Shots: 2d6
BS: 2
S: 12
AP: -3
D: 6
Reroll: Do not
Reroll W: Do Not

Toughness: 8
Wounds: 24
Save: 3
Inv Save: 5
Ignore: Never

Desktop Browser / Google Chrome (and IE for a second browser to test in)


*Playing with it further, it appears that it will record and update results as long as I don't have BS: 2 in place, nothing will alter unless you use BS 3, 4, 5, 6.*

What exactly are you calculating here? Is it just figuring the average?

I am not sure about some of your calculations... if you are looking at averages something seems off. For example, if I but 2d6 or 7 shots in I get different number of hits, even though 7 is the average of 2d6. In addition the unsaved wounds calculation seems off.

Example I am running: Tempest Launcher vs mech

2d6 shots, str 4, ap 3, bs 3
vs
t 4, +3 save, 1 w

2d6 = 7 shots on average at bs 3

7 *4/6 = 4.67 hits (your program says 4 hits when i type 2d6 shots and 4.7 when i type 7 shots)

4.67 * 3/6 = 2.333 wounds (your program says the same)

2.333 * 4/6 = 1.5555 wounds go unsaved (your program says 1.3 wounds go unsaved)

Clay_Puppington wrote:
Hi. Also can't get it to give me any results;

I was testing the Porphyrion against a Regular Imperial Knight

Values;

Shots: 2d6
BS: 2
S: 12
AP: -3
D: 6
Reroll: Do not
Reroll W: Do Not

Toughness: 8
Wounds: 24
Save: 3
Inv Save: 5
Ignore: Never

Desktop Browser / Google Chrome (and IE for a second browser to test in)


*Playing with it further, it appears that it will record and update results as long as I don't have BS: 2 in place, nothing will alter unless you use BS 3, 4, 5, 6.*

Thanks for the info, this is now fixed!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
What exactly are you calculating here? Is it just figuring the average?

Yes the average.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NintiethTime wrote:
Doesn't appear to be working my man. Check the console.

This is now fixed, please retry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DSToast wrote:
I am not sure about some of your calculations... if you are looking at averages something seems off. For example, if I but 2d6 or 7 shots in I get different number of hits, even though 7 is the average of 2d6. In addition the unsaved wounds calculation seems off.

Example I am running: Tempest Launcher vs mech

2d6 shots, str 4, ap 3, bs 3
vs
t 4, +3 save, 1 w

2d6 = 7 shots on average at bs 3

7 *4/6 = 4.67 hits (your program says 4 hits when i type 2d6 shots and 4.7 when i type 7 shots)

4.67 * 3/6 = 2.333 wounds (your program says the same)

2.333 * 4/6 = 1.5555 wounds go unsaved (your program says 1.3 wounds go unsaved)

Thanks so much for that! This is now sorted!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Bit of feedback: Put 'damage caused' in there as well. I know you've got Unsaved Wounds (which you should multiply by the damage to get the result) but if I'm fighting a vehicle or the like I'd like to know how many wounds I'm getting off of it without doing the extra step of multiplication in my head. Even more important for random damage weapons.

This is now fixed!

Just added Sniper ability!

Distributions are really important in this edition. Simply knowing the average is no longer sufficient to compare options.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Distributions are really important in this edition. Simply knowing the average is no longer sufficient to compare options.

Sqrt(Trials)*Probability*(1-Probability)

 Marmatag wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Distributions are really important in this edition. Simply knowing the average is no longer sufficient to compare options.

Sqrt(Trials)*Probability*(1-Probability)

That only works for a binary result.

When a weapon can generate a range of results from 0 to many wounds it's a bit more complicated.

Example:

Rapid Fire Battlecannon shooting at a Leman Russ:



Thermal Cannon at a Leman Russ:



(helps if I post the right images)

So the Thermal Cannon has a higher average and high potential (5x more likely to cause 10 damage) but it also has a higher chance of doing nothing. The RFBC has a substantial higher chance of getting a result close to it's average (less likely to be substantially worse or better).

The TC has a higher potential but the RFBC is more reliable. This is not apparent simply from looking at the average result which suggests that there is little difference.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Distributions are really important in this edition. Simply knowing the average is no longer sufficient to compare options.

Do you mean to run the dice many many times to determine a distribution of results?

cadianshock wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Distributions are really important in this edition. Simply knowing the average is no longer sufficient to compare options.

Do you mean to run the dice many many times to determine a distribution of results?

No, I mean the range of results and their relative likelyhood.

If two weapons have an equal change of doing 2 wounds but one does a maximum of 3 with a high chance of doing nothing while the other does a maximum of 6 with a smaller chance of doing nothing which is better?

If you want to understand probability you need to understand the range of possible results and the associated probabilities with the various points of those ranges.

Thats something that the user needs to understand, and calculating that removes a lot of the process of tactical thought and list building.

cadianshock wrote:
Thats something that the user needs to understand, and calculating that removes a lot of the process of tactical thought and list building.

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. It's somehow more tactical to not use a tool to make the maths easier?

I can work out a distribution table for the results of a weapon but with up to five steps to calculate (shots, hits, wounds, saves, damage) rather than the old three steps (hits, wounds, saves) it's extremely laborious.

Even showing the average and standard deviation would add a lot more useful data.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

cadianshock wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Distributions are really important in this edition. Simply knowing the average is no longer sufficient to compare options.

Do you mean to run the dice many many times to determine a distribution of results?

No, I mean the range of results and their relative likelyhood.

If two weapons have an equal change of doing 2 wounds but one does a maximum of 3 with a high chance of doing nothing while the other does a maximum of 6 with a smaller chance of doing nothing which is better?

If you want to understand probability you need to understand the range of possible results and the associated probabilities with the various points of those ranges.

^^ This. There was a thread discussing the efficiency of Hemlocks vs Crimson Hunters vs Dark Reapers, and I really could have used a distribution graph.

(Nice graphs, BTW)

Does anyone have a resource that will plot this kind of stuff for me? I would really benefit for having this kind of data, and trying to hand-calc that gak is waaaay too time consuming.

Nice tool !! Favorited it, and subbed.

If the shooting attack has a D6 for number of shots or for damage, an option to reroll 1's would be another really useful feature.

adamsouza wrote:Nice tool !! Favorited it, and subbed.

Thanks!

Scott-S6 wrote:

cadianshock wrote:
Thats something that the user needs to understand, and calculating that removes a lot of the process of tactical thought and list building.

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. It's somehow more tactical to not use a tool to make the maths easier?

I can work out a distribution table for the results of a weapon but with up to five steps to calculate (shots, hits, wounds, saves, damage) rather than the old three steps (hits, wounds, saves) it's extremely laborious.

Even showing the average and standard deviation would add a lot more useful data.

In short, its a lot more time to get something like that done.

Jimsolo wrote:If the shooting attack has a D6 for number of shots or for damage, an option to reroll 1's would be another really useful feature.

I did not know that was even a "thing" thanks I will look into it!

znelson wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

cadianshock wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Distributions are really important in this edition. Simply knowing the average is no longer sufficient to compare options.

Do you mean to run the dice many many times to determine a distribution of results?

No, I mean the range of results and their relative likelyhood.

If two weapons have an equal change of doing 2 wounds but one does a maximum of 3 with a high chance of doing nothing while the other does a maximum of 6 with a smaller chance of doing nothing which is better?

If you want to understand probability you need to understand the range of possible results and the associated probabilities with the various points of those ranges.

^^ This. There was a thread discussing the efficiency of Hemlocks vs Crimson Hunters vs Dark Reapers, and I really could have used a distribution graph.

(Nice graphs, BTW)

Does anyone have a resource that will plot this kind of stuff for me? I would really benefit for having this kind of data, and trying to hand-calc that gak is waaaay too time consuming.

What were the weapon and unit stats in that case, and how different were a conclusion based on the simple expectation as compared to the distribution?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cadianshock wrote:
I made a tool for MathHammer-ing in 8th edition

Nice user interface!

I glanced through the source, and there are a couple of errors in the way you represent dice averages in this function:

calcFromDice: function (input) { if (!$.isNumeric(input)) { if ('d6'.toLowerCase() === input.toLowerCase()) return 3.5; else if ('1d6'.toLowerCase() === input.toLowerCase()) return 3.5; else if ('2d6'.toLowerCase() === input.toLowerCase()) return 3.5 * 2; else if ('3d6'.toLowerCase() === input.toLowerCase()) return 3.5 * 3; else if ('4d6'.toLowerCase() === input.toLowerCase()) return 3.5 * 4; else if ('d3'.toLowerCase() === input.toLowerCase()) return 2; else if ('1d3'.toLowerCase() === input.toLowerCase()) return 2; else if ('2d3'.toLowerCase() === input.toLowerCase()) return 2 * 2; else if ('3+d3'.toLowerCase() === input.toLowerCase()) return 4.5; else if ('3+d6'.toLowerCase() === input.toLowerCase()) return 3 + 3.5; else if ('d6min3'.toLowerCase() === input.toLowerCase()) return 4.5; }

3+d3 should be 5, d6min3 should be 4 ( from calculating: sum(3,3,3,4,5,6)/6 = 24/6 = 4 )

Also its not too hard to write a generic dice expression parser that could do this right so you wouldn't have to rely on manually specifying every possible damage output, this would let you combine distributions with things like quantum shielding more easily and you could let users write their dice expressions however they like.

Otherwise by grepping through the battlescribe source files, I found these damage outputs not accounted for in your function, might want to add them aswell:

4+D6
D3+6

Also its not too hard to write a generic dice expression parser that could do this right so you wouldn't have to rely on manually specifying every possible damage output, this would let you combine distributions with things like quantum shielding more easily and you could let users write their dice expressions however they like.

Otherwise by grepping through the battlescribe source files, I found these damage outputs not accounted for in your function, might want to add them aswell:

4+D6
D3+6

Thanks for the idea! I just added in https://github.com/thebinarypenguin/droll

Now it has multiple attacking profiles!

Good work, man!

This is cool.

Vector Strike wrote:Good work, man!

Mud Turkey 13 wrote:This is cool.

Thanks!

Now it has Melta ability and the one dice Salamander re-rolls! Enjoy!

http://www.mathhammer8thed.com/

MathHammer now has + and - modifiers for wound and hit rolls.

And probably some other stuff since I updated this thread, like a Return on Investment calculator.

Any way to incorporate a feel no pain?

Riggs wrote:
Any way to incorporate a feel no pain?

use http://mathhammer.thefieldsofblood.com/