Power Axes or Power Fists

[Jarl Deathwolf]

They're great in melee, but they're dramatically more fragile than a grey hunter against everything that isn't AP3 - for the points cost, that is. at 48 points, they're 3.2 times more expensive than a grey hunter.

 

I recognize your point, but usually, my Pack Leader takes, oh, 10 - 12 basic shots before falling, which ends up saving two or three of the grey hunters behind him. My WG TDA almost always make up their points somehow, either through saving other models or by killing the enemy's. Plus, just the chance of getting into cc with that beast is too tempting to resist... I've managed to get around nine or ten challenges against other sarges and even a few HQs. So long as it wasn't a named character (freaking Abbadon), I prevailed. Even with the named character, he saved the lives of the rest of the pack so that they could kill that squad and leave the character all by himself.

 

Still, I roll slightly better than average so this may just be me.

[skeletoro]

Not to be facetious but what do you mean by "I roll slightly higher than average"? Clearly, this is likely to be perceptual, right (what else could it be)?

 

Maybe I interpreted what you said incorrectly, but consistently averaging 10-12 2+s on a d6 before rolling a 1, over a large number of trials, is only going to happen if there is a biasing factor (do you always use the same dice? Sometimes dice can be a tad biased due to imperfections).

 

And in any event, your luck, if it really did exist, wouldn't apply to others in the same situation. A model with a 2+ save is (on average, over a large number of trials) going to succeed that save 5/6 of the time.

 

However, I will admit that pouring your points into squad leader characters such as WGPLs is a worthwhile thing. Although a PF+WC terminator is pricey, it does mean that you're likely to beat most non IC characters you face in duels. IF you find that duels are a common occurrence, perhaps it's worth the extra investment to ensure your WGPL is a solid contender (after all, if you force your opponent to turn down the challenge, the character misses out on their turn, while you get to wreak havoc.)

[Dam13n]

When outfitting mine I decided to use weapons that compliment the unit they're joining.

 

5 Wolf Guard

- TDA, Ass-can, Sword (Rune Priests Bodyguard)

- TDA, Combi-melta, Sword (joins 10 GH w 2 Meltas)

- TDA, Combi-melta, Sword (joins 10 GH w 2 Meltas)

- TDA, Storm Bolter, Axe (joins 10GH w 2 Plasma)

- PA, Combi-melta, MotW (joins Scouts w Melta)

 

The two in TDA w Combi-meltas are designed to help crack a transport (3 melta shots is better than 2) then assault the occupants, and issue challanges (to hopefully remove characters from the main combat.

 

The TDA w Axe is joined to the "anti-2+ armour save" unit (I would've given him a combi-plasma but couldn't spare the points (plus his drum-mag storm bolter looks cool)) to compliment them when fending off TA units.

 

Ass-cans rock, and my last TDA can serve as a 1 man unit (which my rune priest can join <_< ) or he joins one of my long fang units, or swaps places with the TDA w Axe to augment that unit's shooting ability.

 

I do like the idea of the Claw-Fist combo, however I just wanted cheap and cheerful squad leaders (and an assault cannon).

 

Laterz...

 

(PS - link to the army in my sig below if anyone's interested :P )

[Jarl Deathwolf]

Not to be facetious but what do you mean by "I roll slightly higher than average"? Clearly, this is likely to be perceptual, right (what else could it be)?

 

Maybe I interpreted what you said incorrectly, but consistently averaging 10-12 2+s on a d6 before rolling a 1, over a large number of trials, is only going to happen if there is a biasing factor (do you always use the same dice? Sometimes dice can be a tad biased due to imperfections).

 

Dunno what to tell you there, wolf brother, but I always seem to find myself passing 2+ armor saves. The luck doesn't extend to much else, though, save that my Long Fangs can't aim, but are killers in close combat (killed a carnifex with them once with blind luck). Terminator armor on the sarge isn't reliable for enhancing the survivability of the pack, but we can both agree it is better for the challenges and cc of the pack.

 

But we (kinda) digress.

 

I recently looked at my notes and realized that the Wolf Claws I arm my sergeants with... I've used maybe once or twice. Ever. In a dozen or so battles. Because they are always in challenges, they are facing leaders with either a higher than normal toughness (bikers mainly) or those with 2+ saves (like the Necrons I faced last game). I'd definitely rather have the powerfist on my sarge than the axe, as the powerfist gives me a chance of instant death and usually wounds on a 2+, which meshes well with the Wolf Standard.

[Grey Mage]

Not to be facetious but what do you mean by "I roll slightly higher than average"? Clearly, this is likely to be perceptual, right (what else could it be)?

Luck, and the proper placement of standard error. No matter what the math-hammer junkies will tell you, we as players dont normally roll enough dice to get straight statistics as a certainty. Most of them never even bother to look at what the standard deviation on their rolls is likely to be, and how its affected by batch size.

 

Then of course theres opportunity bias. IE sure, you might roll the statistical- or close- amount for each number, but the placement of those numbers matters. Rolling low on your leadership checks, high on your to wounds, average on the armor saves and to/hits will result in you doing better 'rolling higher than average' compared to someone whose rolls are not only statistical, but also scattered evenly across each type of roll. That kind of spread is far from gauranteed, especially given the sample size of a typical wargamers year. Some people just end up with better spreads than others, and you dont have to have funky dice to do that.

 

In short- luck is not unscientific, its just not a popular idea.

[Forté]

Great reply there GM.

[skeletoro]

If by luck you merely mean a "lucky streak" (where some random trial results in an improbable but positive outcome for somebody), then yes, luck happens quite regularly. In fact, it's a direct consequence of randomness, and the reason why "improbable" is different to "impossible". If by luck you refer to an enduring trait, internal to a person, which causes them to have more than fair share of lucky streaks, then I disagree with you. That kind of "luck" has no scientific basis to it. But I think you already knew this.

 

Yes, it's entirely possible to have a big lucky streak in a given game. This is especially true because some rolls really matter. Early casualties result in fewer dice to roll in the next turn. Blowing up transports before they've done their jobs can be very influential. Poor rolling on reserves can decide a match completely. I am not denying this in any way.

 

I don't think that JDW was talking about a mere lucky streak, though. My impression (correct me if I'm wrong) was that he was going further than that, and inferring that his lucky 2+ armour save rolling is something about him. One reason I think this is because he said "I roll slightly better," not "In the past I've rolled slightly better." This sounds like a generalization. Moreover, JDW's statement would only be relevant to the thread if he was referring to an enduring characteristic. If he really has a basis to believe he will roll succeed twice as often as otherwise expected for any 2+ save he makes in the future, then it would be only sensible for him to use his TDA WGPL to absorb incoming fire (in spite of the mathhammer, which fails to take his luck into account). If he was merely identifying a streak of luck that has happened in the past few games he's played, then it would be irrelevant to the discussion (because he'd have no reason to expect his luck to continue, as die rolls are statistically independent of one another). So I assumed (and continue to assume) that he was talking about luck as an enduring personal characteristic with causal powers. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

As I said, die rolls are statistically independent. Assuming a non-weighted 6 sided die, there's a 1/6 chance of obtaining each outcome, regardless of who threw the die.

 

Why might people think otherwise? I think you've identified one of the reasons. People typically underestimate how streaky true randomness is, and all too often leap to the conclusion that a lucky streak is an "effect" in need of causal explanation. Even statistically significant outcomes happen fairly regularly by mere chance. If you haven't already seen it, I highly recommend Derren Brown's "The system" for an entertaining expose on a similar phenomenon (I am pretty sure it's on Youtube).

 

Another possible reason is perceptual biases. Different people attend to and attach significance to different events in their lives. Optimistic people are more likely to notice the lucky streaks, while pessimistic people are more likely to notice the unlucky streaks. Thus, two different people might look at the same game of 40k and come to different conclusions about how lucky the players were. I'm fairly certain that if you asked people about their luck immediately following a game of 40k, they'd be more likely to think that luck was a major factor if they'd lost. I'm not saying that JDW is biased in this manner, but it's not impossible. And being called optimistic wouldn't be much of an insult :D

 

When I posed the question I did to JDW, my point was that that particular conception of luck - a trait inference about yourself generalized from the data - has no merit to it. Your point, that he may have had poor luck in the past 12 months, and this may simply be due to the small number of games during that period, and the fact that sometimes a few lucky rolls can decide a game, is welcome, but complements, rather than contradicts the point I'm making. "I've been lucky this year" and "I'm a lucky person - I was lucky this year and will continue being lucky into the future" are very, very different claims.

 

TLDR: The fact that randomness is streaky does not change the fact that dice rolls are statistically independent of each other. People can get lucky, but they don't carry their luck with them from game to game.

[Grey Mage]

Im well aware that confirmation/experiential bias often lays behind claims of 'luck' on the internet.

 

And while I hesitate to bring it up, Ive done some research on a small scale about this. See, back with my gaming group several years ago it was noted that Im rather 'lucky'. I would save about 3/4% more of my men than was statistically likely, and got vehicular explosions nearly twice as often as should have been the case, and while I wounded fairly averagely I hit at a 15% increase over the likely average. My opponents had started getting suspicious of my dice- or possibly technique since other people handling my dice usually saw rather random results as one might expect.

 

So we plotted the totals over about a year and a half. We found that I did in fact roll more or less statistically. However, my poor rolls were concentrated to spectacularly bad rolls about one game in 8, wherein I just couldnt catch a break. A bit of bad luck balancing out the good luck, if you will.

 

Now, does this mean I was somehow mystically destroying the laws of science and warping reality through my charisma and mood? No, probly not. Does it mean that my luck became something I felt I could normally count on over the years, and continued to do so for years in my wargames? Most certainly.

 

Of course, this is just one small sample, of a fairly small sample. But Ive put it out here to illuminate the point.

 

Its not madness to count on something that happens more often than not. While we may not know why it happens, and certainly its not uncommon for the human brain to see patterns where there are none- thats its job- that doesnt mean that with a bit of caution we shouldnt learn from those things that happen around us.

 

Furthermore theres nothing wrong with simply writing something off as lucky or unlucky. While it may spit in the eye of pure logic, humans are not beings of pure logic. Theres nothing wrong with simply summing up a 'clump' of statistical anomalies as luck, for good or ill. Having a bad streak of rolls at a tournament "just wasnt my lucky day". Kicking alot of butts you shouldnt be because of hot rolls? "Im getting lucky, thank the gods" isnt a bad way to put it. Theres nothing wrong with believing in luck or using luck in conversation. Even if it isnt purely scientific... *shrugs* science isnt the end all be all of a good life, and theories- even very fundamental ones- change all the time.

 

As I said, die rolls are statistically independent. Assuming a non-weighted 6 sided die, there's a 1/6 chance of obtaining each outcome, regardless of who threw the die.

Id also like to bring special attention to this. Its an excellent point, and one I think that is ignored by both sides of the debate at times. Even if you roll 99,999 6s in a row the odds of you rolling another 6 are still 1/6. No matter what we say the statistical average is, the results are always up in the air for what well actually see on the table top. Because of this we need to not only weight what the math tells us is most likely to happen, but also what could potentially happen either way.

 

One needs to consider- 'I could roll ten 1's in a row and lose that whole WGTDA unit to a single volley of bolter fire'. What will I do if this happens? Conversely we need to look at the possible maximums too: how can I change the game if I destroy one vehicle with each of my Lascannon equiped squads this turn? Once we have these potential outcomes then we can weigh the facts of what stastics says is more likely to happen, and go with a compromise between what we want to have happen, fear would happen, and think will happen as an informed decision.

 

Because sometimes you are better off gambling that you can destroy 8 rhinos in turn two. Sure, you might only get six, or you might only get one, but nothing in life is without risk.

[skeletoro]

Yeah, I think it's very true that it's often a mistake to rely upon obtaining the average outcome in a game like this.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

What? No mention of the power mace?

[Forté]

What? No mention of the power mace?

Or lance.