Math-hammer and BA units

[Mezkh]

The problem with all this boring math-hammer is that it puts far too much emphasis on a generic 'meta' army to the exclusion of all the outliers one has to take into account when creating a take-all-comers list.

 

Sure, quite a few BA players play Razorspam gunline. Sang is bad in that army, that doesn't make him bad.

Sure, quite a few opponents won't splurge on an HQ and just take a cheapie. Sang loses a bit of shine there but that doesn't make him bad.

 

My core lists generally lean on the BA ASM Troops with Jump packs. A major obstacle to BA ASM's is when I do fight an opposing army with an HQ or monster or whatever that likes to walk through ASM's like they weren't there. Such armies aren't exactly uncommon. The Sang is a great asset in these matchups. Basically plugs the hole in an otherwise leaky boat.

 

Defense wise I rarely have problems with him when he's fielded, because I play aggressive BA, and when you're in an opponent's face they generally don't get their choice of a clear run at Sang with what they might like. Sure, in a hang back harry game where an opposing army could line up a couple of rounds of dakka at him he might have problems, but that's an error in execution on the BA player's part.

 

I rarely field Meph, too many issues with reliability with powers and can't reserve as well, plus no invulnerable. For completely different armies.

[SnorriSnorrison]

I find statistics pretty useless for the single individual. They only show what is the average, not what is actually happening in the game(well, how could they? :huh: ). Relying on statistics during list building is not a solid idea I think, because the real result will be completely different most of the time.

 

So when anybody says 'the Sanguinor will outkill Captain McKillycarnage by 0.83 wounds' it's pretty useless when you want to play the game...and that's what this thread is about, isn't it?

 

I don't think he's overpriced, actually. The stats and the special rules are pretty cool, and he's the only model with Eternal Warrior in our codex.

'3 wounds is not enough yadda yadda' is math-hammering again, ergo useless when you play the game. I'd use him to be honest. In a list with assault squads or other assault dedicated infantry he rocks, especially with Sangguard or DC. Meph can't do it that way. He's our wreckingball, the Sanguinor is a force multiplier and character hunter with Eternal warrior and an invul save to keep him from harm.

 

If you use him to support your units rather than flying around alone he's well worth the points in my very humble opinion.

 

 

'You win some, lose some, it's all a game to me', as a very wise man said about 30 years ago. -_-

 

 

Snorri

[knife&fork]

So when anybody says 'the Sanguinor will outkill Captain McKillycarnage by 0.83 wounds' it's pretty useless when you want to play the game...

 

Absolutely not. Everyone knows that rolls aren't going to be exactly average every time but mathhammer tells you what kind of performance you can realistically expect from your units.

 

The danger lies in taking these relatively simple hit/wound calculations without taking other factors into consideration.

 

Quickly made up example;

Let's say Meph and Sanguinor are about to be shot by three missiles. Even though they will take the same number of wounds on average the probability of Meph being killed outright by three krak missiles is zero. Therefore you probably play these situations slightly different depending on who you field.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Agree with knife&fork. Mathammer doesn't tell the whole story, but it does give you a part of it. Dismissing it like that is really not going to help you when you are trying to do objective analysis.

[SnorriSnorrison]

Absolutely not. Everyone knows that rolls aren't going to be exactly average every time but mathhammer tells you what kind of performance you can realistically expect from your units.

 

Well, to stay with the example, 0.83 wounds is not really what I think will make the difference in an assault. Either way, if you don't expect to roll on average and gather more models for support, you'll find yourself not so unlucky if the dice let you down.

The reason why I don't think too highly of 'running down the numbers' for each and every scenario is that it is too theoretical, while the game itself is not bound to the theory this method provides. Too much chance to actually expect something.

 

The danger lies in taking these relatively simple hit/wound calculations without taking other factors into consideration.

 

Quickly made up example;

Let's say Meph and Sanguinor are about to be shot by three missiles. Even though they will take the same number of wounds on average the probability of Meph being killed outright by three krak missiles is zero. Therefore you probably play these situations slightly different depending on who you field.

 

To the first point, I agree wholeheartly. It's just sometimes that it appears to me that certain gamers only live for math-hammering other people down. I don't see why comparing unit x against unit y even makes sense when you have a whole army on the table!

 

Well, the example is correct, although the chance that Sang is killed outright by three missiles is not that mucher higher than zero and, going by math-hammer, highly unlikely. ;)

 

 

 

 

Mathammer doesn't tell the whole story, but it does give you a part of it. Dismissing it like that is really not going to help you when you are trying to do objective analysis.

 

Well, I must say that with dismissing the part of the story, I've had a lot less situations where math-hammer told me that the amount of attacks would be sufficient to achieve a certain goal(=erase unit from table) and the dice didn't let me. For example my Captain(and don't tell me not to use him :cuss ) should have hit with 4 attacks, and in a lot of situations he barely hit with 2(on a 3+, mind you). Of course, I did expect him to score more hits, and such the close combat waged to my opponent's favour when some of my Sanguinary Guard also rolled quite poorly.

 

That's what I mean. Don't expect anything, and you won't get disappointed. (This doesn't mean to play foolishly, of course. It's just better to go with a safe bet rather than to rely on the numbers, I feel.)

 

 

 

Snorri

[knife&fork]

Well, to stay with the example, 0.83 wounds is not really what I think will make the difference in an assault.

 

...and because you bothered to calculate it you are now aware that you don't have a significant edge and can adjust your tactics accordingly. :)

[Deschenus Maximus]

@ Snorri:

 

You have to make contingencies for bad luck, of course (redundancy), but having a good understanding of your units’ capabilites will make tailoring the amount of force applied to different parts of the enemy army correctly that much easier.

[Leksington]

Here is the big problem with Math-Hammer: Almost all of the math-hammer you find on the internet is poor statistical analysis. It centers around the average result, and the average result tells you almost nothing. You really need to calculate the standard deviation.

 

What you see:

I will average 7 wounds.

 

What you should see:

The average is 7 wounds and the standard deviation is 2 wounds. This mean 68% of the time I will cause between 5 and 9 wounds (and 95% of the time I will cause between 3 and 11 wounds).

 

Knowing that up to 50% of the results are above 7, and up to 50% of the results are below 7 doesn't give you any indication of what to expect! Knowing that ~70% of the time you will cause between 5 and 9 wounds gives you a much clearer picture of how the battle should play out.

 

 

Edit: Going deeper in statistics, you will also learn what bad rolling really is. The average was 7 wounds caused, you caused 3 wounds, and you complain your rolling is terrible. Not so! Your rolling wasn't terrible as you were still within 2 standard deviations. There was still a good chance that you would roll in this range. It wasn't until you caused less than 3 wounds that you should identify it as bad luck.

[Mezkh]

Here is the big problem with Math-Hammer: Almost all of the math-hammer you find on the internet is poor statistical analysis. It centers around the average result, and the average result tells you almost nothing. You really need to calculate the standard deviation.

 

What you see:

I will average 7 wounds.

 

What you should see:

The average is 7 wounds and the standard deviation is 2 wounds. This mean 68% of the time I will cause between 5 and 9 wounds (and 95% of the time I will cause between 3 and 11 wounds).

 

Knowing that up to 50% of the results are above 7, and up to 50% of the results are below 7 doesn't give you any indication of what to expect! Knowing that ~70% of the time you will cause between 5 and 9 wounds gives you a much clearer picture of how the battle should play out.

 

EXACTLY.

 

And might I add, using the above is of the most use to help determine tactical questions raised in game. Designing a force pregame is a question of strategy, which is something else entirely.

[knife&fork]

There's also the issue of using percentages and decimal values instead of fractions. You can't score 0.833 wounds in this game, you'll either score 0 or 1. When looking at averages this usually has minimal impact but it can give the wrong impression.

 

I think it's easier to do on the fly as well by reversing the order. Who breaks out a calculator before declaring a charge?

 

Let's take an easy example, killing another marine with our assault marines.

 

Target is one unsaved wound

1

Since two thirds will be saves on average we need to triple the amount of successful S vs T rolls

3

only half of the hits will wound so let's double that up

6

again, with ws4 vs ws4 we need to to double the attacks to score enough hits

12

and we end up with an average of 12 attacks needed to cause one unsaved wound.

 

On the charge that's four assault marines attacking and six if we don't have the bonus attack. (if your example doesn't scale as neatly just round each step to your opponents favor)

 

Incidentally this also illustrates why the sanguinors bubble can make more of a difference than you might think, specially as the squad size is reduced from casualties.

 

 

EDIT: Potential (max possible damage) is also interesting and not something that shows when only looking at averages.

[Deschenus Maximus]

@Leksington: correct, though that doesn't mean that mathammer is bad, just that it needs to be done better.

 

I honestly have no idea how to calculate deviation, so although averages are flawed as far as giving you an accurate picture, they at least give me a frame of reference.

 

Perhaps I should go get myself a book on statistical analysis :angry:

[DarthOvious]

@Leksington: correct, though that doesn't mean that mathammer is bad, just that it needs to be done better.

 

I honestly have no idea how to calculate deviation, so although averages are flawed as far as giving you an accurate picture, they at least give me a frame of reference.

 

Perhaps I should go get myself a book on statistical analysis :sweat:

 

I actually agree with you here. Sure standard deviation is better but its not something that everyone can do, whereas mathhammer is using basic math skills that most people should know how to use in order to calculate an average. The mathhammer in retrospect is just a guide to let you know how one unit compares to another unit. It doesn't tell the whole story and other factors do need to be taken into consideration.

[DominicJ]

mathhammering is a scalpel, not a hammer.

 

Is a lascannon better than an autocannon? Is a very bad question.

Math hammering 'is a lascannon better than an autocannon at killing terminators?' is a very good question.

 

It cant help the times when gretchin slaughter bloodletters, but its not supposed to.

 

But even then, you have unquantifiables, like range, or assault/rapid fire/heavy, or intangibles, like being scary.