Nasty lists, negative thoughts, and relying purely on statistics.

[Mr Mystery]

How do?

Kind of spinning off from Caitsidhe's thread about Heldrakes, and sort of tackling pure Mathshammer. (note the 's', foreign types! :p )

Every now and again, we're all going to run into a really nasty opposing army. Sometimes, it's a Netlist comprised of what is allegedly all that is any good in a given codex. Other times, it's the luck of the draw, and the opposing army is the natural counter to your own. Either way, it may be an uphill struggle for you to win the game. And if you take that approach - you're far more likely to lose.

Why? Well it's pretty straight forward. If you feel powerless, or severely disadvantaged, it's going to inform the decisions you make in the game. And that's compounded if you rely solely on statistical probability. Now don't get me wrong, a little bit of Mathshammer goes a long way. After all, Mathshammer starts from the simplest 'well no point shooting that Landraider with my Grots' right up to ridiculously complex stuff which I only kind of follow.

Relying entirely upon it though, and you're going to miss out. Reading stuff online, and seeing opponents make decisions, it seems some confuse 'not likely to happen' with 'never going to happen'. This leads to missed opportunities.

Time for an example..... Ork Deff Dredd is deep in your lines. However, it's player has left it's AV10 rear armour showing to a unit of 5 Assault Marines, all armed with just Bolt Pistols. On it's way across the board, the Deff Dredd has wound up on a single Hull Point remaining, and this turn, all you have left to shoot with are those Assault Marines. Statistically, it is indeed going to shrug off all those Bolt Pistols, as I need a 6 to glance, and that means 6 hits. To get those 6 hits, I'd need 9 shots at BS4. If you're tied solely to statistical probability, you're less inclined to have a crack at it, and perhaps shoot up stuff more likely to snuff it to some bolt pistols. Me? I'm aware it's not likely, but I do know it's possible, so I'd go for it. Would I prefer something a bit more competent to do the job? Absolutely. But it only needs to work that one time. And if it does work, I'm in a far, far better position going forwards.

Now let's mix this up a bit, and use Heldrakes. Heldrakes with Bale Flamers can be pretty nasty. After all, they're AV12 fliers with a 5+ Invulnerable save, and 3 HP. That's hard to put down and take out the game. If you focus purely on that, and trick yourself into thinking it has to be destroyed, again you've given a massive advantage to your opponent. Except.....except you don't really need to destroy a Heldrake to neuter it somewhat. A single Weapon Destroyed, and that Heldrake is left with just Vector Strikes. They're pokey, but not not Baleflamer pokey! Suddenly a lot less scary, and a lot more manageable.

I've one too many games because my opponent got negged out in their head at some point. Yes, I'm a pretty competent gamer, but I also have a relentlessly optimistic outlook in general. That means I'll take risks that some won't on the battlefield. Could be forgoing shooting up your Terminators for the small chance out taking out your Landraider. Maybe I'll actually assault you with my Necron Warriors, because I feel it's better to pin your unit where it is (further away you are, the quicker my other units can get out of your range). Plus, Necron Warriors, en masse, actually fairly decent in a fight. And it's always dead funny to beat up really hard stuff with really weedy stuff!

So over to you. Am I just talking pure biscuits, or does negative thinking pave the road to defeat?

[Wolfshade]

Math shammer someone who tries to convince someone that they are correct owing to flawed maths.

[Arkhan Land]

40k is nothing but negative thinking unless you count enjoying the thrill of bloodshed and conquest, WHICH I DO

seriously though, sometimes it is really hard to decided the possible outcome of something and its worth, low volume high strength/ap shots at landraiders, walking into combat with nothing more than invulnerable save. I usually go for it dont want to play a boring long game

[Wolfshade]

I think I use it, I match my capacibilities to my targets, so for your example, I would only shoot at the back of the dread if there wasn't a more squishy target. Of course I would also do the calculation as to what was best bolt pistols or krak grenades.. or both...

But I know what you are talking of. I have a friend who will decide by the end of turn 1 if he can win or lose, and will start to "auto-concede" that is, ignoring his game plan makes bad decisions as he as already given up.
Another friend, who has taken horrendous casualties in turn 1, continues to focus and by the end of the game has clawed his way back utilising target priority and minimum engagement.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

I mean in the example above of the Deff Dredd, it's a very specific scenario, and works on the assumption that nobody really wants a Deff Dredd getting stuck into HTH.

This isn't about saying Mathshammer is worthless, or pointless. It is useful, but it's not the determining factor. That would be sheer chance in any given game, as we don't roll enough dice to really worry the God of Statistics. Yet there are some who determine the value of any given action just on Mathshammer, ignoring 'possible' entirely.

Also forgot to gibber about the other side of the coin.....

If you take that chance, and it pays off, it's likely your opponent will be on the back foot. After all, he's likely done a bit of Mathshammer himself, and worked out the Deff Dredd is the right tool for a certain task. Take that toy away when he didn't expect it, and it leaves a gap, which hopefully you can later exploit.

And then there's also the underrated, underreported units. You see a lot of 'why would you take X, when you can take Y' type discussions. And sure, some units are better than others. But the false thinking? Because unit Y is good, unit X is therefore bad..... So if you do field Unit Y, it's entirely possible your opponent won't know what it actually does, and may ignore it. And an ignored unit is a deadly unit, especially closer to the end of the game..... All about negative thinking and Mathshammer, just coming from the opposite direction.

[Charon]

I think I use it, I match my capacibilities to my targets, so for your example, I would only shoot at the back of the dread if there wasn't a more squishy target. Of course I would also do the calculation as to what was best bolt pistols or krak grenades.. or both...

Pretty much this.
You without "proper" calculations you have no target priority and just do random stuff.
Yes that Imperial Commissar can actually kill a Bloodthirster at full W. Thats an outlier but still POSSIBLE. But I would not wait for this to happen. If you base your decisions on stuff like that you are not going to win a lot of games.
Its fine if you try it out of despair but I would not ever rely on slim chances.

[Mr Mystery]

Oh indeed. Hence I'm not rubbishing Mathshammer, just an overreliance.

Only a fool tries to take down a Landraider with mass glancing when there's a friendly Meltagun within 6" of it. That's not so much Mathshammer, but sheer common sense :)

But never be afraid of an underdog fight, if that's all you've left.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

There are units in the game which are built around precisely this phenomenon. Things like Wraithknights, Imperial Knights and Gorkanauts are there to be imposing; to make your opponent think "oh my god how the hell am I going to kill that."

I think what you're saying is that probability should be a guide, not a straitjacket, and I think that this is true.

There's also the tendency to look at things from a purely statistical standpoint rather than the more chaotic circumstances of a battle, where there are numerous other factors - supporting units, ranges, multiple targets, and, of course, what your opponent is doing or what they'll be able to counter.

Of course, it's different when you get to the top-end competition, which is all about eking out the most efficient list you can. But I'm not good enough to play that game, so I have fun charging my characters around into suicidal long-shots and hope their inherent heroism will see them through. Sometimes it does!

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

There's a brilliant bit in Guards Guards! by Terry Pratchett, where the Ankh Morpork City Guard attempt to take out a Dragon with a single arrow. And they know it's a million-to-one-shot, and being a million-to-one-shot, it's bound to work. Except they realise Fred Colon, with his Lucky Arrow, is actually too likely too succeed for it to be a genuine million-to-one-shot, and so they set about making it harder for themselves.

Funny to read, but silly to depend upon at any point in real life. Yet.....that plucky Sergeant might just gut the Bloodthirster after all. And if that would prevent you having to risk a more expensive, more potent character first, never be scared to give it a bash (unless said Sarge is holding an objective). So it's kind of using Mathshammer in a more positive way than pure dictation.

[Charon]

This is still math as a 0,0000000000001 % chance is still greater than a 0% chance.
If there is a choice between acting and most probably losing or not acting and guaranteed losing there is no real choice. You act and hopt the gods of dice have mercy.
On the other hand there was a situation in my gaming group where I facepalmed hard.
A friend threw an explosive charge at the enemy holding an objective. It scattered and killed its own unit. This was improbable but it happened.
I asked him why he threw the charge. He told me that he wanted to kill the unit on the objective and secure a draw.
I told him this:
The best outcome is a draw if you do maximum damage, the worst outcome is a loss as you cant contest the objective anymore. So even if you roll godly it is a draw with a slight chance to mess up and lose.
If you did not throw the charge the outcome would have been a draw also with no negative outcome.

No, you should not throw a game because the odds are against you (in many cases you can make up for it elsewhere) but also you should not do stupid things because "it could work".

[Caitsidhe]

I had to think about this post (the thread in fact) before I responded. I believe that the best wargamers are made up of four core skill sets. They are:

1. Logistics
2. Tactical acumen
3. Strategic acumen
4. Psychology

There are lots of other weird factors, not the least of which is being born lucky, but their consistent affect on game outcomes is negligible so I don't list them. Every player is different, and thus their reliance on what I consider the "four pillars" varies. The very best of them are equal, say about 25% of each, or running on legs of the same length if that makes it easy to visualize. I'm going to define those terms above, just to make sure we are all on the same page.

LOGISTICS:
In the context of tabletop wargaming (just as in real life) proper logistics is extremely important. Many of you refer to this as "mathhammer," but it is far more than that. Logistics is a talent that ensures you bring the right tools for the right job. It means that you, as warlord, look out through you troops and select those that are going to be efficient. If you bring a knife to a gunfight, nine times out of ten you are going to lose. Logistics is a cruel mistress and she may demand that you leave some of your best-looking models on the shelf for entire editions as the rules have made your pride and joy a worthless hunk of garbage on the field of battle. Logistics is also a cold and unromantic witch. She is about results, redundancy, and the ends justifying the means. But before you start to think that applying logistical talent is just about crunching numbers, you must consider the fact that our game is constantly changing. Good logistical players are paying attention to the so-called "Meta". Efficient units aren't always the best unit in the big picture, and someone with this talent knows when they must deviate from numbers to gain OPTIONS. A successful player's army often carries with it things which look like inefficient units or models which are in fact tools to deal with certain things the rest of the army cannot. For example, Be'Lakor (aside from having invisibility) is particularly useful as a tool despite his outrageous cost. This is because he has Armourbane combined with a weapon that is (+1) to his STR. Many people balk at his enormous cost, but not me, not anymore. The META changed with the introduction of Imperial Knights (all the superheavy units really) and then again when Smash became a substitute for all a Daemon Prince's attacks. No longer can a single Daemon Prince junk a Knight with ease. Be'Lakor still can, however, and it is precisely this option (which may or may not be needed every game) which grants him utility. The logistical player balances what Be'Lakor costs versus what he brings to the game and how often it is likely to be employed. Someone with logistical talent has a sense for the tipping point. Finally, talent with logistics means understanding yourself as a player (and not just the external META). You have to know thyself to be true to thyself. When you select your units, decide upon redundancy, and choose those Swiss Army knife special selections, you have to understand your own weaknesses and strengths as a player so that you don't bother with things that you will fail to use properly. I have several friends who are wonderful designers of lists, but absolutely awful at using them intellectually, that is to say they design them for one job but in the heat of battle tend to default to other tactics. If you have a tendency to do this, there is no point in building an all-comers list. You might as well build an army that has the best chance based on the lack of tactics you will emotionally get swept up into. Do you follow?

TACTICAL ACUMEN:
Many people confuse tactics with strategy. I mean to clear that up here. Tactics represents a knowledge of basic military and mechanical truth. In the real world, a good example is a solider who knows the advantage of the high ground and quickly assesses such things and moves his troops to it. Tactics are a commonsense (or should be) grocery list of basic warfare facts. In terms of the game, it means you know the "mechanics" and how best to earn perks on the battle field and avoid pitfalls. Tactical acumen will tell you when not to do stupid things and how to gain advantage from your opponent doing stupid things. A wise man once said that wars are won by the side that makes the least mistakes. Truer words were never spoken. An understanding of tactics helps you avoid those mistakes. To dumb this down a level, don't forget that your awesome Daemon Prince doesn't have grenades. If you can't keep it straight in your head that some troops are at a disadvantage when charging positions entrenched in terrain, you are going to bleed your army white. For example, if I see my opponent is spamming Daemon Princes or Genestealers, both of which are devastating to me in close combat, I move my people into terrain, park their butts in gun lines and start shooting. There will likely be a fight but it will be on my terms and where I get the best tactical advantage. Tactics is about improvisation based on a solid core of game knowledge.

STRATEGIC ACUMEN:
Many people don't have much of a strategy when they play. This fact glares at me from across the table. It makes me wince. These people build their list and now they will play their game how they think it is supposed to be played. I know in short order I will be taking my opponent apart in detail. It will seem cruel and unfair. I will come across as "that guy" whether I'm playing the fluffiest list since Rainbow Bright decided to slum and play a game of 40K or not. Strategy is about the big picture. It is about knowing what your army does well, discerning what your opponent's army does well, and taking steps on the larger stage to play one to two turns ahead of your opponent. Someone talented in strategy often dominates the deployment part of the game as well as movement. Strategy is about placement of troops, movement of troops, and concentration of troops. A talent in strategy is about knowing how to arrange events so the strongest part of your forces always hits your opponent's weakest. Strategy is, in short, about arranging unfair fights. Rommel, during World War II, had a strict rule. Tanks were not for fighting other tanks in silly anachronisms of history. They were about slaughtering troops who could not fight back. Artillery was for killing tanks. Don't bog down in my example as it isn't a mechanical example that applies to the game; rather, it is an intellectual example. Rommel fought his battles in a ruthless sort of way wherein he wanted to "stack the deck" in his favor on a grand scale. Via movement and bluff he could get the opponent where he wanted him, and spring traps. This leads us to our next section.

PSYCHOLOGY:
Good wargamers can read people. They can manipulate the opposing player, i.e. herd the opposing troops where they want them. The most brutal truth of wargaming is that you aren't playing a list. You are playing the person standing on the other side of the table. To apply strategy (already discussed) you need every hint and clue possible, and it is your opponent that gives them to you. People can telegraph things in 40K just like they do in Poker. More to the point, if you play someone enough times you come to understand their patterns of behavior. You know what might trigger desperation, even when none is warranted. I have some regular opponents (friends for years) and what is most valuable to me in winning the game is knowing what they are thinking. That being said, you don't need to know someone for years to pick up on their "tells" or understand basic psychology. You chat them up. You watch their face and reaction to every setback. In turn, you should endeavor to give as little information away yourself as possible, or (if you want to be very advanced) you give misinformation with your own facial expressions, body language, and demeanor. Please do not mistake this for being rude. That isn't what I'm talking about. You would be surprised how often a slight smile or a look of satisfaction on your face that you seem to be trying to hide engenders doubt and hesitation in an opponent. Nothing unnerves an opponent like confidence. How ethical is this? That is a question I cannot answer. I am merely addressing the truth of it. In Poker, you play the opponent, not the cards. The same is true in tabletop wargaming. Good players develop the skills to read opponents and then use what they have discerned to manipulate said opponents. Even if you do not engage in the psychological manipulation of an opponent, you cannot help but "read" them, and if you are smart you are doing your best so that they cannot read you.

Now that I have defined these things, we must go back to a question of formula. I assert that the best players do these things in equal, good measure. However, there are many players (very good) who get by on the strength of one or two more than the others. In no case is a good player ignoring one of them entirely. All of these things matter, and they matter in every single game. There is no contradiction between "having a good time with friends" and taking the game to another level. If you come better armed than your opponent (and the things I list above are weapons), your odds of winning go up.

[Thaldin]

Those statistically rare things that happen are what make the best stories after the game is over... Math(s)hammer be damned =)

[Caitsidhe]

Those statistically rare things that happen are what make the best stories after the game is over... Math(s)hammer be damned =)

I disagree, but that isn't surprising. As an aspiring writer I know all to well how stories are constructed. There is very little that is random about it. I also think our attempts to force a story rarely generate anything interesting. Now setting up a "situation" as Sai Stephen King calls it and then letting things fall through motivations (and in this case to win) a story evolves.

[Mr Mystery]

I think he's meaning hobby stories, rather than narrative for the game itself.

For instance, Gummer will never forget, nor ultimately be allowed to forget losing his well 'ard Orcy Warboss to the first shot of the game. Single Bolt from a Dark Elf Bolt Thrower, in his face. Wyvern wound up stupid for the rest of the game.

Nor will I ever forget, or be allowed to forget the not-so-glorious charge of the White Wolves, who were 10 strong on declaration of the charge against 12 Dwarf Quarrellers, and promptly all took at least one in the visor :(

[Caitsidhe]

I think he's meaning hobby stories, rather than narrative for the game itself.

For instance, Gummer will never forget, nor ultimately be allowed to forget losing his well 'ard Orcy Warboss to the first shot of the game. Single Bolt from a Dark Elf Bolt Thrower, in his face. Wyvern wound up stupid for the rest of the game.

Nor will I ever forget, or be allowed to forget the not-so-glorious charge of the White Wolves, who were 10 strong on declaration of the charge against 12 Dwarf Quarrellers, and promptly all took at least one in the visor :(

And all of those things are possible with a balanced game. Unlikely crazy things happen when people try desperate stunts and nothing prevents them from doing so. That is, in fact, what makes them such great stories, that the desperate was attempted and came through. We must never forget, however, that all those bones and rusting suits of armor outside and around the dragon's lair are the remains of others who tried desperate, crazy things before. It is PRECISELY that such things happen rarely that makes them awesome, noteworthy and interesting. If they happen all the time, people would simply say, "so what?" You must have the standard before you can have the deviation. Black Sheep only mean something if there is herd of white sheep against whom to compare them.

My craziest story is a massive game that took place at a LGS called Central Command. They hosted a huge event that combined Planetstrike and Apocalypse rules into one massive competition wherein we started on different tables based on our position in the league. As people won their tables they could drive onto other tables. All were converging on a location wherein it was possible to get off the planet which would be disintegrating. The last army standing, holding that location would thus get a pick up. I think there were 8-10 tables with everyone at 2.5K plus. Some long range weapons could even fire at other tables. At the end of that game, a single model survived to signal for pickup. Abaddon the Despoiler stood in the ruins of a dying planet (my Abaddon as it happens) and called for extraction. Out of 16-20 players fielding 2.5K+ each, only single model survived. The battle was, to say the least, epic.

What stands out is that everyone was fighting their hardest (and having a good time). Crazy deeds happened as well as the expected standard of deviation. The crazy stuff shone all the brighter and epic against the backdrop. In short, those of you who love to do crazy things should be thankful of those who do not. It is only because of their doggedly predictable behavior that your epic moments (assuming you don't end up bones and rusting armor) stand out in memory.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I don't think anyone's suggesting seriously doing something crazy every game; just that every so often a long shot is worth a punt.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

But also knowing sometimes that long shot is what is going to bag you the game.

[Thaldin]

I think he's meaning hobby stories, rather than narrative for the game itself.

For instance, Gummer will never forget, nor ultimately be allowed to forget losing his well 'ard Orcy Warboss to the first shot of the game. Single Bolt from a Dark Elf Bolt Thrower, in his face. Wyvern wound up stupid for the rest of the game.

Nor will I ever forget, or be allowed to forget the not-so-glorious charge of the White Wolves, who were 10 strong on declaration of the charge against 12 Dwarf Quarrellers, and promptly all took at least one in the visor :(

Dead on, Mr Mystery... Hobby stories is exactly what I met. The glorious random shot of a bolt gun that magically penetrated a weak point and blew up <item>, the heroic stand of a random guardsman who despite the odds lived an encounter with a Chaos Marine... etc etc

And yeah, they aren't every day occurrences, they are occasional long shots when tactics and strategy (aka evil dice gods) have fallen through and you throw that hail mary for the endzone to win the game =)

[John Bower]

One small point here just for giggles, you start with a point on Grammar yet you say you 'one' a game? the word is Won.... hehe

[Caitsidhe]

We Yanks, at least in my area, started calling it "Mathhammer" rather than "Mathshammer" long ago. But whatever floats anyone's boat. We all know what we are talking about.