A game full of averages

[Agoz]

I never claimed I was expecting a unit to do exactly what the averages suggest, it was more a case of has anyone ever had even a single round of averages?

It was meant to generate discussion on why we use math-hammer, what its purpose is, etc.

I have never denounced it, either, so I wonder if you read the post, or if I didn't quite get my point across?

THE \/ince

Yes, I've rolled exactly average before, many times in fact. For example with 4+ to hit and 4+ to wound I often get exactly 1/4 of my attacks wounding.

[vinush]

Yes, I've rolled exactly average before, many times in fact. For example with 4+ to hit and 4+ to wound I often get exactly 1/4 of my attacks wounding.

Did exactly 1/2 of the attacks hit? Did exactly 1/2 of those hits wound? Or was it a case of when all was said and done, 1/4 of the attacks resulted in wounds?

THE \/ince

[Luigi]

I always thought that dice in Warhammer break any law that the science of statistic might have...

[The bearded one]

I did once have my salamanders score 50 hits on a unit of hammerers (yeah, I know xD I fired from the side, got 1 misfire, and 2 6's, which netted the greatest number of hits) which resulted in 17 wounds (about as close you can get to the 16.66 average), of which 5 were saved (a mere 0.66 difference from the perfect average).

[vinush]

I always thought that dice in Warhammer break any law that the science of statistic might have...

Most definitely. Especially when it comes to horses and knights. Knights always underperform, horses are like ********* ninjas!

THE \/ince

[The bearded one]

Most definitely. Especially when it comes to horses and knights. Knights always underperform, horses are like ********* ninjas!

THE \/ince

Funny how that always appears to be true throughout the world. I have seen it plenty of times myself. Who needs riders?

[vinush]

Ah, but if you remove the riders then the horses would have no one to show up...

THE \/ince

[The bearded one]

Ah, but if you remove the riders then the horses would have no one to show up...

THE \/ince

They can still outperform combatskirmishers

[vinush]

But the riders are ever present to bear the continued shame of being outperformed by their inferior mounts...

THE \/ince

[theunwantedbeing]

I never claimed I was expecting a unit to do exactly what the averages suggest,

Sadly plenty of people often see/use mathhammer as a prediction rather than a guide.

it was more a case of has anyone ever had even a single round of averages?

Lots of times when there is a whole number average, never when there isn't.

It was meant to generate discussion on why we use math-hammer, what its purpose is, etc.

To know what to expect in various scenarios and to compare units.

[Still Standing]

I never claimed I was expecting a unit to do exactly what the averages suggest, it was more a case of has anyone ever had even a single round of averages?

It was meant to generate discussion on why we use math-hammer, what its purpose is, etc.

I have never denounced it, either, so I wonder if you read the post, or if I didn't quite get my point across?

THE \/ince

No such thing as a single round of averages... A thousand rounds of averages, now that's another matter...

[sulla]

Never have truer words ever been spoken. My Skeletal Steeds are a nightmare (no pun intended) for my opponents while any Skeletons or Charioteers hitching a ride usually can't hit the broad side of a barn (MWBD or no MWBD). LOL!

I don't think my cold ones have managed a single kill in the last 3 or 4 outings I took knights... Just to be different to everyone elses, I suppose...

[Don Zeko]

Most definitely. Especially when it comes to horses and knights. Knights always underperform, horses are like ********* ninjas!

THE \/ince

Except that this isn't actually true at all. Assuming that we're only talking about mounts that are actually weaker than their riders, what's going is just the frailty of human memory, with a pinch of confirmation bias added in. When your horses do better than their riders, that's noteworthy and exciting, so you remember it. When they don't, it's boring and expected, so you don't. This creates a remembered history of warhammer games in which the horses perform better than they actually did. If you don't believe me, try using a piece of paper to keep track of wounds caused by horses and wounds caused by riders for a the next four or five games.

[zoggin-eck]

Except that this isn't actually true at all. Assuming that we're only talking about mounts that are actually weaker than their riders, what's going is just the frailty of human memory, with a pinch of confirmation bias added in. When your horses do better than their riders, that's noteworthy and exciting, so you remember it. When they don't, it's boring and expected, so you don't. This creates a remembered history of warhammer games in which the horses perform better than they actually did. If you don't believe me, try using a piece of paper to keep track of wounds caused by horses and wounds caused by riders for a the next four or five games.

I think it's pretty obvious he's just having fun with it mate. A thread can actually just be about fun discussion of a topic, it doesn't always need to be about proving something.

[DaemonReign]

I think it's pretty obvious he's just having fun with it mate. A thread can actually just be about fun discussion of a topic, it doesn't always need to be about proving something.

Negative sir! This is Warseer.
I will always remember the time my Herald of Khorne on Juggernaut charged that (previous book) Waltar only to get Challanged and discover *of course* the damnable priest was fiddling the Speculum inside his robes. Herald fluffs all his (now) utterly pathethic attempts at hurting the Waltar, and survives by share miracle - the Jugger.. Well the Juggernaut scores two hits, two killing blow wounds, and Waltar-preist rolls a 1's for Ward.

It's a fact. Mounts perform better than their riders.

[stroller]

I have no idea whether my rolls are average or not. I remember 1s and 6s - especially at critical moments.

I use CRUDE mathhammer - or a glance at the statline - to give myself an idea of roughly how tough/good unit x should be, then throw it all out the window by playing orcs and goblins, who are statistically proven to nobble the dice in random and unpredictable ways.....

[Mr Ogre]

I have no idea whether my rolls are average or not. I remember 1s and 6s - especially at critical moments.

I use CRUDE mathhammer - or a glance at the statline - to give myself an idea of roughly how tough/good unit x should be, then throw it all out the window by playing orcs and goblins, who are statistically proven to nobble the dice in random and unpredictable ways.....

Best way to do it, make all your risks calculated. This is about the only time Mathshammer is really applicable. Most of the time, we know it's going to be a good bet (say, Dragon jumping 10 Skirmishers) but others, well, what are the chances of my remaining cavalry being able to pin that deathstar in place with a flank charge?

[Mr Ogre]

@ Mr. Ogre - The reason people decry some units based on mathhammer is that while what you say is true, sometimes they will perform much worse or better than their numbers represent, over the course of many games they will trend towards the performance that the math suggests.

Many of the arguments dismissing certain troops are based around this concept: "Yes, unit x has uses, however the overall utility of y is greater, therefore why would I take x?". It's not to say that you can't succeed with unit x, it just means that you'll by and large have an easier time doing it with unit y. However, diplomacy doesn't seem to be a particularly common thing on online forums, so it usually ends up sounding like this:

"That's retarded, unit x is crap, why would you ever take it. Unit y is the only way to go".

I do agree, however that looking at a unit in a vacuum is no way to evaluate the overall effectiveness of a unit. However, I'm sure you'll agree that many people do factor in various circumstances into their calculations, and often build their lists based on many different synergies that would make a unit more effective than it would look outwardly.

All that to say this: running the numbers is one tool in your arsenal to help you evaluate the effectiveness of that unit, not your only tool. It's important to understand and appreciate what your unit will do *most* of the time.

D

True dat! I may have been a little harsh in some of my comments (and thanks to all for not freaking out over an opinion). I've known players to get really bent out of shape during a game when something goes mammaries up on the dice roll. I do feel sorry for them when a severe case of rubberlance syndrome strikes, but to get stroppy because the dice are having a quiet conspiracy really does ruin the game, moreso when they roll slightly off average (say, 6 hits instead of the statisical 7 or 8). But most are happy to talk Mathshammer off the board, rather than play the game with it. Which is nice!

[vinush]

Oh god, I hate when players get bent out of shape because of dice rolls being off. Like the example with my Saurus I mentioned earlier. I failed all 5 of the 4+ armour saves I had to make, and that's acceptable. I make all of the 6++ parry saves and it's the end of the freaking world. I was cheesy, I had obviously cheated with the dice, the Saurus rules were overpowered, and I was a witch.

THE \/ince

[Mr Ogre]

Yeah. Don't blame me for rolling well, nothing I can do about the results once the dice leave my hand!