Stacking the Same Ability

[Mirage8112]

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

I implied it was sloppy writing, not bad game design. I never said that playing against persistent effects is boring to play against, I said they promote less variety in competitive lists, which can be boring. Generally I don't find AoS boring at all. 

When you are making an argument against someone, you have to repeat their actual words, otherwise your argument becomes a straw man argument where you are debating concepts that nobody even said. So already three sentences in, your argument is very off base.

I think you misunderstood me. I was trying to get past the "other people have said" mentality about this issue and focus on why you think is a problem. I wasn't saying that you specifically had said that "persistent effects were boring", I was laying out a number of arguments that wouldn't be relevant for this type of discussion. (As to "sloppy writing", what kind of "writing" would we be talking about other than game design?) 
 

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Quote

Rule conundrums from past games (WHFB) don't matter, one because it's not the same game, not the same design ethos and not even close to the same writer (Matt Wards last book was WE, but all three elf books were written at the same time). AoS is a creature unto itself, and if you're going to a make balance argument your going to compare apples to apples.  

This is false. WHFB 8th edition was produced by the same company as AoS. 

No this is absolutely true. AoS as a ruleset is radically different from 8th edition. Maytag makes refrigerators and dishwashers. That doesn't mean that a refrigerator is a dishwasher. 
 

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

That's like saying when the iPhone 8 comes out, we can expect an entirely different level of customer support from Apple. GW may have improved, but they are still making mistakes in their rules. The same company that released the WE book released AoS a little over a year later. Most of the employees including the writers and editors are very much the same.

That's all well and good, but you still haven't proven that this particular issue is a mistake. Just saying "it shouldn't work like this" doesn't mean you know what your talking about. 

So that leaves us two option for figuring out why we care that you have a problem with this. Either you have a problem with this mechanic because of balance, i.e. "it's so good that it crowds out other mechanics in the game". My original statement was that the ability to stack buffs is a balance issue, so apparently it isn't that. You apparently don't think it's bad game design, and you like playing with it, you just don't like playing against it so often. Is that your problem? (or one of them?)
 

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Also Mat Ward's name is not on the WE book, and he quit shortly after it's release, which many believe had something to do with GW changing the book. The idea that all 3 elf books were written at the same time is another rumor. You should not include refutable rumors in your arguments.

It wasn't an argument. It was an example in a minor sidepoint. The actual point was that a dishwasher isn't a refrigerator. WHFB and AOS are two different games. And anything happening in one (from a rules perspective) has nothing to do with anything happening in the other.

 

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Another thing you should avoid doing is math-hammering. All your math was done in a bubble. Sure if 10 skeletons are attacking 10 skeletons, and one group has 2 attacks vs the other has 1, yeah this is not a big deal. But when you are taking some bloodletters with +2 to hit getting +2 attacks? When you are talking Skullreapers flying across the board with +2 to hit and +2 attacks? 

I have no idea what your talking about here. What's your point?

 

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

All your math is to prove that +1 attack is near meaningless. If you go to any tournament and count the number of Bloodsecrators you find, you'll notice a lot of people don't agree with you.

Do you know how math works? My point was that +1 attack is about as good as a +1 to any other stat. Khorne Bloodbound take two Bloodsecrators because its an easy way to buff a stat twice. Sylvaneth stack hit debuffs from different sources to accomplish the (basically) same effect. Why the hell does it matter that bloodbounds buff comes from the same type of source? The point is that it's all over the game in different ways. It's called "synergy".  
 

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Your math also seeks to prove that a variety of things instead of stacking the same thing both have good effects. Thats pretty much my point, people don't have to rely on stacking the same thing when they can take a better variety of things.

  Yeah but whats the difference? You seem to think that this matters from some reason? 

 

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Quote

 In fact, I might argue that having a diversity of ways to accomplish the same ends is what balances the game. 

There we go. And how do we promote diversity? By limiting the effectiveness of the same exact things

This is my argument, and you have come to nearly the same conclusion.

No. That wasn't my conclusion at all. Diversity means a "range of different things". As in, giving a "range" of different ways to accomplish the same effect. It sounds like you want to nix stacking buffs from duplicate sources, which reduces the number of ways you can buff a unit in game. That's actually the opposite of diversity in practice.

But if your arguing that making that cut will actually make the game more diverse, then it's a balance issue. I.e. "it's so good that it crowds out other mechanics in the game". And if that's not your problem with it, then what is your problem exactly? Even, "It's so good everybody does the same thing" is a balance issue. If the issue is just with Khorne bloodhound then it's also a balance issue. Pretty much all your complaints are coming back to balance issues. 
 

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Quote

Essentially, your argument is that the ability to stack buffs is a balance issue.

No, and you have to be more specific with your wording.

Is your problem with stacking persistent buffs from the same source a balance issue? Cause it sure sounds like that's what you're saying. If it's not, can you please clearly and specifically state what your problem is? (preferably in not more than a paragraph.) 
 

[Ollie Grimwood]

15 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@Ollie Grimwood
I never said or implied that SCGT is a full test for the GH. SCGT influences it. How much, we can't know exactly. 
 

You did both to @Nico and I, claiming in one case that if things in the SCGT they were "likely"  to be in the GHB2  (I could quote them if you'd like but I'm sure you can read your own stuff) I see you have clarified your stance now, fair enough we can call it a day. 

 

[Arkiham]

You're persistently using an example where you got spanked by a chaos player using pretty much the only thing which makes them a competitive army running khorne, likeky as you deployed poorly for the in coming pain,  (an obvious tactic by now )

If it was so incredibly over powered as you're suggesting it is, why aren't chaos winning every event ? 

That strategy does one thing, really well. It kills a high value target poorly deployed.

For your example, of 15 skullreapers, 2 bloodsecrators, a Bloodstoker and sayl 140x3=420 +2x140=700+80=780+160=940.

That's half your army devoted to a single unit designed to kill  Some armies even run Kairos to ensure it happens. Which is another 300 points odd. 

This all likely charged into a unit worth a third of its cost. Dam right it should get annihilated.

If you devote that many points into pretty much any unit they're going to hurt. Regardless of the buffs placed onto them.

 

Have you read the bloodbound battalions ? Or the warscrolls for the heroes and units as Pretty much all of them are about increasing the amount of attacks khorne does, and you're suggesting to prevent it ?

Besides, once the meta shifts it'll be something different, as more armies become highly mobile they'll just teleport/run/fly behind that ultra killy unit stuck in combat with some trashy unit they counter charged on the side of your unit, so only one guy is in combat, for 3 turns as you slowly pile in, and crush your support heroes gutting your armies potential to do anything.

or counter charge their own ultra killy unit into your now exposed unit you commited hard

You can only afford to really do this once or twice. Then you're out of possibilities.

 

[Mirage8112]

5 hours ago, Arkiham said:

That strategy does one thing, really well. It kills a high value target poorly deployed.

For your example, of 15 skullreapers, 2 bloodsecrators, a Bloodstoker and sayl 140x3=420 +2x140=700+80=780+160=940.

That's half your army devoted to a single unit designed to kill  Some armies even run Kairos to ensure it happens. Which is another 300 points odd. 

This all likely charged into a unit worth a third of its cost. Dam right it should get annihilated.

If you devote that many points into pretty much any unit they're going to hurt. Regardless of the buffs placed onto them.

So much this.

 

5 hours ago, Arkiham said:

Besides, once the meta shifts it'll be something different, as more armies become highly mobile they'll just teleport/run/fly behind that ultra killy unit stuck in combat with some trashy unit they counter charged on the side of your unit, so only one guy is in combat, for 3 turns as you slowly pile in, and crush your support heroes gutting your armies potential to do anything.

This too. There is always a list or mechanic that dominates a particular faction. That isn't always the rules fault, that's more a side effect of tournaments. I've seen 5-6 ways to build a gnarlroot list for Sylvaneth but at it's heart, it's still a Gnarlroot list and runs on the same core mechanic. Change that core mechanic players will gravitate to whatever is the next best things and boom you have players playing 5-6 variations on something else. 

There's always a top build. No matter what. Cutting out the "stacking" of persistent effects with the same name not only hurts bloodhound disproportionately but it doesn't accomplish anything in the long run. As the math showed in my first post, players will still find a way to achieve the same ends, and whichever way does it the most reliably is the list everyone will run. 
 

5 hours ago, Arkiham said:

You're persistently using an example where you got spanked by a chaos player using pretty much the only thing which makes them a competitive army running khorne, likeky as you deployed poorly for the in coming pain,  (an obvious tactic by now )

Exactly. This is looking more and more like an "OMG Nerf Bloodhound plz" thread disguised as a "GW doesn't know how to write balanced rules" thread. Rather than becoming a better general it sounds like he's trying to remove mechanics he doesn't like. 

[WoollyMammoth]

Several of you are going in circles stating the same argument over and over. You are not reading the thread

Quote

I just promote discussion. I don't think anything should get nerfed. I love AoS as it is, but nothing is perfect. 

I started this thread to have an interesting intelligent debate and what I'm getting is people citing straw man arguments over and over and just accusing me of "getting whipped and whining". If you want to disagree, at least be intelligent about it.

Despite me encouraging the talk of the rule as a blanket rule, most of you keep taking about the bloodsecrator

The main good point was that Bloodbound is designed to stack and needs the bloodsecrator and I simply disagree. I think the army is still very good without two boodsecrators, as @Arkiham just said

Quote

Have you read the bloodbound battalions ? Or the warscrolls for the heroes and units as Pretty much all of them are about increasing the amount of attacks khorne does, and you're suggesting to prevent it ?

Of course not, and this proves my point, they have lots of ways to get +1 attack without two bloodsecrators being mandatory. So if the bloodsecrator got nerfed to be only 1, its not the end of the world for them. Many of you disagree and think Khorne is totally dead without this, despite repeated arguments that they have lots of good stuff.

If you read the thread, I have been trying to move the talk off of the bloodsecrator. This is not a "bloodsecrator needs a nerf" topic

Quote

(very first post)  I'm not arguing against this combo, in fact Khorne Bloodbound is designed to be a synergy-heavy army. My main complaint is that it's not very original, you see it over and over so its kind of repetitive and boring.

Quote

 I'm not saying that it is essential that they nerf him

Quote

The Bloodsecrator is not necessarily a problem that is breaking game, its more of a mistake ........
Again, I'm not saying that its breaking the game and needs to be nerfed, I just think it was a mistake that could be fixed.

This is the last time I'm going to address the ignorant "you just got spanked and are whining" statement. 

Quote

Nobody that i heard of is limiting bloodsecrators in the US. Two people finished in the top 10 at LVO with 2 bloodsecrators and a boosted up super unit flying forward with sayl. This is the hardest hitting army I've seen to date. It has its limitations like any army, mainly shooting armies can take out its key points, but they need to be able to take a huge punch the first turn.

Quote

If I get wrecked I ask the community for feedback on how they feel, I don't cry for the nerf hammer.

So you are trying to teach me things I already know. Yeah I had a bad game vs this at LVO, but it was more that terrain was exploited to get +2 to hit before it started, then I had really bad luck with the rolls and the scenario. Everybody has bad games. It was also against a very smart player with more experience than me. Next time I face this army I'll have a screen ready. 

limiting people from exploiting terrain to get two damned bonuses would also fall under the blanket rule since they are two effects with the same name. This is something I think would be a good thing.

@Ollie Grimwood

Quote

Exactly. SCGT,
- The first major tournament for AoS ever
- The largest in the world I believe? 
- The tournament that GW is officially going to demo the new point costs
- The tournament who's house rules are said to have influenced/shaped matched play
This tournament has a few house rules - one being Persisting effects & Spells with the same name do not stack.

Its published and its not changing, and the fact that it is here means that it has a likely chance of appearing in the GH2. Like the points demo they are probably trying to demo this rule and seeing if it works.

Quote

If it is in SCGT, then it is not guaranteed to be in the GH. They may try stuff they don't like. But after the tournament, if they say, we really liked how they did this or that worked, then it will likely make it in as these guys are part of the process now.

You're right I was a little to eager in my first statement. I was thinking specifically about limited summoning and points which were two key things that made it into GH. But this blanket rule of limiting stacking is not a major issue so it may not make its way in. But at the same time, I don't think casting multiple Arcane Bolts was ever a major issue, and that is part of the GH, so who knows what will happen. 

Still waiting for a good intelligent counter point as to why creating this blanket rule to limit persisting effects with the same name is definitely a bad idea.

[Arkiham]

Quote

10 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Still waiting for a good intelligent counter point as to why creating this blanket rule to limit persisting effects with the same name is definitely a bad idea.

and this is a valid?

10 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Quote

My main complaint is that it's not very original, you see it over and over so its kind of repetitive and boring.

remove it as its boring to play against. not really good argument, and not really anything to build a counter point to. 

 

you know what i find boring to play against? gunlines & mass shooting. this is AOS not 40k, if i wanted to get shot to death id play against tau or the imperials. 

But, i understand its part of the game that other people enjoy; so i just deal with it rather than having a stealthed appeal to remove it from the game disguised as a general discussion about this particular thing - which i will add, is  a nerf no matter what way you look at it. 

you don't want it removed or nerfed, but you also want it removed or nerfed ( essentially ) as its repetitive & boring - what?

 

If anything, going by the disciples of tzeentch & stormcast book, khorne. death etc is more likely to have increased synergies, which will lead to a change in game play.

Gw have absolutely no intent in limiting duplicate items as seen in both the disciples of tzeentch book and the stormcast book, they just present a greater variety in options and leave it up to the players to decide. 

so rather than advocating a change in the base rules of a game, which could have massive implications if poorly worded, and lead paragraph after paragraph of FAQ's required to fix it for various things its affected.

Wait and see what happens to the minor components such as khorne or death, when they get looked at in the release cycle.

 

[Arkiham]

rock paper sissors

there is only ever 3 options, one only ever beats another, one always loses to another and one always draws against its match.

 

always the same. never changes.

is still fun to watch and play.

 

[NoTurtlesAllowed]

How is this thread not buried yet? Should we limit stacking? IDK. That is up to the game designers. Do I enjoy stacking? Yes. If it was limited would I be OK? Yes. If it stays the same would I be OK? Yes. Change the mechanic and you change the meta. All house rules do is change who is on top. That's fine. So will the GH2.0. 

As an aside I have not seen one event in my state limit stacking, nor heard of any stateside.

[Chris Tomlin]

I'm sorry @Mirage8112, you completely lost me about the time you started talking about fractions of models remaining.

Can't remember the last time I had 8.35 Ardboys left! Great example of Math-hammer nonsense!

[Chris Tomlin]

On ‎24‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 7:15 PM, WoollyMammoth said:

@Chris Tomlin
Per the FAQ you can specifically bring your unit champion back to life, so this might be a fix for being able to rez your general. But overall I don't think most people care about this anyway and I doubt the FAQ will change or that this will be nerfed in the GH2.

Hey,

I'd love you to be right, however I feel that SCGT putting it in their pack is potentially a precursor to this being a GH2 addition...If only for matched play. Time will tell.

[Captain Marius]

Personally I would like the Portal of Skulls to not stack - i like the idea of multiple bloodsecrators to spread the buff zone, but there's just no need for it to stack (the lists ive seen with 3+ bloodsecrators just seem like one trick ponies to me).

Similarly i dont think the Celestant on foot's command ability, or treelords' stomp debuffs should stack either. I dont mind buffs stacking from different sources, i think it requires a bit more creativity than spamming the same thing.

For the same reason i think artefacts, spells and prayers should all be one of a kind in matched play. Far more interesting to see someone come up with a novel way to use some of the rubbisher items!

Ive enjoyed this discussion so far and Id be interested to read some more arguments against this prposal. Im not convinced by the argument that any one army NEEDS these combo buffs as to me this just suggests the player isnt good enough to use said army without whatever their crutch is! 

[Mirage8112]

 

5 hours ago, Chris Tomlin said:

I'm sorry @Mirage8112, you completely lost me about the time you started talking about fractions of models remaining.

Can't remember the last time I had 8.35 Ardboys left! Great example of Math-hammer nonsense!

Fractions of a model exist because not every ability will constantly do a full wound every time the ability is activated. For example, if you have to roll a 6+ to score a mortal wound you obviously won't do a wound every combat round. On average it will wound every 6 rounds, so you average that over 6 rounds it comes to .16 of a wound per round rather than saying "those abilities or units don't count for anything."

Likewise if you had 9 brutes in a squad, but one had taken 2 wounds, you would have 8.33 models left. Sort of like when somebody eats half of one of your two pies. Do you say "I have two pies!" No. You say "I have a pie and a half." Same principle. 

Mathhammer's not really that hard to understand. Some people don't like it because they think it's a "soulless" way to play the game, but I find that attitude pretty ironic considering all the hours we dedicate to building a critiquing lists; How many times have you seen players ask "is this competitive?!". It makes sense to have an objective measure of how much damage something can do or take when trying to decide what is comparable to what.  

So if you're really not smart enough to figure out the mathhammer, here's the Mathhammer for dummies version: stacking buffs from the same source or different sources doesn't matter. +1 to one stat is about as good as +1 to any other. (except bravery). There's no reason to prohibit the stacking of persistent effects from a balance perspective.

Hope thats still not too complicated  
 

[RuneBrush]

1 minute ago, Mirage8112 said:

Fractions of a model exist because not every ability will constantly do a full wound every time the ability is activated. For example, if you have to roll a 6+ to score a mortal wound you obviously won't do a wound every combat round. On average it will wound every 6 rounds, so you average that over 6 rounds it comes to .16 of a wound per round rather than saying "those abilities or units don't count for anything."

Likewise if you had 9 brutes in a squad, but one had taken 2 wounds, you would have 8.33 models left. Sort of like when somebody eats half of one of your two pies. Do you say "I have two pies!" No. You say "I have a pie and a half." Same principle. 

Mathhammer's not really that hard to understand. Some people don't like it because they think it's a "soulless" way to play the game, but I find that attitude pretty ironic considering all the hours we dedicate to building a critiquing lists; How many times have you seen players ask "is this competitive?!". It makes sense to have an objective measure of how damage something can do or take when trying to decide what is comparable to what.  

So if you're really not smart enough to figure out the mathhammer, here's the Mathhammer for funnies version: stacking buffs from the same source or different sources doesn't matter. +1 to one stat is about as good as +1 to any other. (except bravery). There's no reason to prohibit the stacking of persistent effects from a balance perspective.

Hope thats still not too complicated  
 

Don't think that Chris meant it was complicated more that it doesn't represent the game as a whole and goes to the wind as soon as you start rolling dice - as everybody knows you fail a 2+ save 50% of the time  

ps   If somebody eats half of my pies, I stab the thieving so-and-so in the hand so they can't steal any more!

[Mirage8112]

Just now, RuneBrush said:

Don't think that Chris meant it was complicated more that it doesn't represent the game as a whole and goes to the wind as soon as you start rolling dice - as everybody knows you fail a 2+ save 50% of the time  

ps   If somebody eats half of my pies, I stab the thieving so-and-so in the hand so they can't steal any more!

you sir, win the internet for the day. 

[Chris Tomlin]

1 hour ago, Mirage8112 said:

Hope thats still not too complicated  

It's not too complicated; just pretty irrelevant when it comes to actually playing a game  .  @RuneBrush has got it.

[Mirage8112]

5 minutes ago, Chris Tomlin said:

Wow. Patronising d*ck much? Actually, I shouldn't act surprised...I've had the misfortune of reading your nonsense elsewhere.

I actually thought your post was a bit patronizing. Just returning the favor. I generally frown upon calling nobody else's post "nonsense" but whatever /shrug.

 

7 minutes ago, Chris Tomlin said:

It's not too complicated; just pretty irrelevant when it comes to actually playing a game.

You're right.... So why do we optimize lists again? What do we buff units in game at all? Why is a rerollable 4+ save better than a 3 + save? Why do players complain that units are overcosted or undercosted? Especially if it's a dice game and *everything's* random apparently. 

If you fail a 2+ save 50% of the time you need new dice. Message me your address I'll send you some in the mail.

[Chris Tomlin]

1 minute ago, Mirage8112 said:

If you fail a 2+ save 50% of the time you need new dice. Message me your address I'll send you some in the mail.

DM'd x

[Mirage8112]

Sent!

[WoollyMammoth]

 @NoTurtlesAllowed You are literally boosting the post by posting in it.

@Chris Tomlin & @Captain Marius
Thank you for breaking up the monotonous patronizing anger that this post has devolved into.

@Mirage8112
Mainly your issue is you are using Algebra to determine dice rolls, which can only be determined with Statistics. You have a 16.67% chance to roll a 1. You might roll a 1 when your save comes up 5 times in a row. This is not unusual. If you roll a 1 on Monday, your chance of rolling a 1 again on Tuesday is ... 16.67%. On Wed? 16.67%. You can roll a 1 a thousand times, the dice gods are at no point going to say "hey, hes rolled too many 1s, lets make it more likely for him to roll a 2+". 

Statistics work out over long periods of time with huge sample size. No one person is likely to ever play enough games of Warhammer where they can average out every single time they rolled for an ability and the average is going to be an exact 4. You would have to roll for that same ability 100,000 times before statistics average out. The result? Rolling a 1 several times on your 2+ save is not a joke, it happens all the time - that's real life.

Fractions do not work in warhammer. Rolls are not a in any way cumulative. No one ever has or ever will cause .16 of a mortal wound. You have a 16.67% to roll a 6 each turn, you either will or you wont and thinking about it is not going to change anything. 

Mathhammer is extremely important during the battle. It comes into play when determining target priority and when you have to make a decision - it helps to know which is more likely to be successful. It comes into play very little in regards to list building. +1 to save on a unit with 5+ is better than a unit with 6+. 5+ is better than 6+/6++. If a unit causes mortal wounds on a 6, getting +1 to hit is better than doubling their attacks. This is real Math-hammer, and it's important to know it.

Also which buffs you absolutely stack matter. Getting +1 save is better than +4 to hit when your opponent charges you and you are about to get hit. If you cause mortal wounds on a 6, +1 to hit is better than +2 to wound. Some units are anvils and others are hammers and you optimize them in different ways. But you do this with logic, common sense, and game knowledge - not false-positive math equations. 



 

[Gaz Taylor]

++ Mod Hat On ++

Guys, please be pleasant to each other because we would like TGA to be that nice place everybody goes to, to discuss Age of Sigmar. I know some of you enjoy getting to the meat and potatoes of a discussion and picking out all the technical details BUT you can do this without being insulting. 

Cheers

[darkelf]

easy fix for GHB2.0 include a new additional rule of 1:

when more than one modifier would apply to a dice roll the player making the roll may choose what one modifier applies, all other modifiers are ignored.

 

should go a long ways towards clearing out a lot of the trash in the meta that no one likes anyways.

[rokapoke]

It would be interesting to see a poll to get a feel for how much of the community (at least, the readers of this discussion) see such stacking as a significant enough issue to want a "fix" from GW. From the discussion it looks to me like a minority of players, but a poll would offer more concrete data. 

[Mirage8112]

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Mainly your issue is you are using Algebra to determine dice rolls, which can only be determined with Statistics. You have a 16.67% chance to roll a 1. You might roll a 1 when your save comes up 5 times in a row. This is not unusual. If you roll a 1 on Monday, your chance of rolling a 1 again on Tuesday is ... 16.67%. On Wed? 16.67%. You can roll a 1 a thousand times, the dice gods are at no point going to say "hey, hes rolled too many 1s, lets make it more likely for him to roll a 2+". 

Actually what I'm doing is calculating probability. It has nothing to do with algebra unless I'm solving for x. Using "average dice rolls" you can get a rough estimate of how much hurt something can put out. 

 

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Statistics work out over long periods of time with huge sample size. No one person is likely to ever play enough games of Warhammer where they can average out every single time they rolled for an ability and the average is going to be an exact 4. You would have to roll for that same ability 100,000 times before statistics average out. The result? Rolling a 1 several times on your 2+ save is not a joke, it happens all the time - that's real life.

Nobody is arguing that you will fail a 2+ save roughly 16% of the time. In fact, that's accounted for in the math.

But you also have to figure you don't just roll one dice during a game to determine a winner. There are literal hundreds of dice rolls throughout the game, and a majority  of them will come down along lines that are statistically "average", with a few outliers. The closer the game the more those outliers matter. But in all the years I've played AoS and WHFB I've only had a game come down to "outlier" roll a scant handful of times. nobody looks at a war scroll with a  2+ to hit and 2+ to wound and thinks "those stats are terrible, I'll probably fail those rolls." No. You think "I like those odds".  Mathhammer just gives you a concrete number to stand in for your "gut feeling".

 

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Fractions do not work in warhammer. Rolls are not a in any way cumulative. No one ever has or ever will cause .16 of a mortal wound. You have a 16.67% to roll a 6 each turn, you either will or you wont and thinking about it is not going to change anything. 

You know that fractions, decimals, and percentages are all the same thing expressed in different ways? They aren't cumulative, nobody said they were. Roll a dice that causes a moral wound on a 6+ it might take you one roll and it might take you seven. Roll it a hundred times and you're like to see you roll a 6, one in every 6 times. 1/6 = 16% of your rolls. 

I'm of the opinion that when looking at two math-hammered numbers anything less than .5 of a wound apart is statistically insignificant (and I've said as much). Since most combats last 2 rounds (your turn and your opponents) a model that takes 1 wound can take it in either round it makes sense to break that in half if your talking about a full "game turn."
 

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Also which buffs you absolutely stack matter. Getting +1 save is better than +4 to hit when your opponent charges you and you are about to get hit. 

Not if you can activate first and destroy the unit before it has a chance to attack. Not if you have a unit with 5 wound models and the incoming attack is unlikely to fully kill off a model. Not if it's likey to get destroyed by the incoming unit and you want to kill as many enemy models as possible. 

And how would you know what's likely to survive and whats likely to get slaughtered? Mathhammer. 
 

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

It comes into play very little in regards to list building. +1 to save on a unit with 5+ is better than a unit with 6+. 5+ is better than 6+/6++. If a unit causes mortal wounds on a 6, getting +1 to hit is better than doubling their attacks. This is real Math-hammer, and it's important to know it.

Lol. I actually laughed out loud at that. You really have no clue what your talking about. What your doing is mathhammer in a very very basic way. Maybe you don't write it out on paper or via spreadsheet, but it's more or less the same principle.  

What's funny is that I never said mathhammer was the key to winning games. What mathhamer shows is average damage potential and average survivability and gives it a concrete number. For example, take kurnoth hunters. Great swords put out 4 attacks with 3+ to hit and 3+ to wound, 2 damage and -1 rend. Scythe Hunters put out 3 attacks with 3+ to hit and 3+ to wound, D3 damage and have a rend -2. What's better? Mathhammer shows vs low armor targets for swords and high armor for scythes, but at save of 4+ it's nearly dead even. That actually matters in list selection when your deciding what to equip units with. Do you need something to take out units with saves of 3+ or better? Scythes. Do you have plenty of mortal wound generation through burst damage but don't have anything for clearing hordes? Swords. Ect. ect.  this is basically what we do when we discuss lists. 

Now when we hit the tabletop it is totally true that dice don't always fall in line. There are always upsets and unexpected situations. But that extra edge of knowing what to expect when I actually roll dice makes all the difference sometimes. 
 

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Some units are anvils and others are hammers and you optimize them in different ways. But you do this with logic, common sense, and game knowledge - not false-positive math equations. 

You're wrong, but I'm not going to debate the use of mathhamer with you any further. If you want to argue about how or why thats relevant start another thread. 

The entire reason this thread exists is because you suggested that there was a problem with stacking persistent buffs/debuffs from duplicate sources. You STILL haven't been able to clearly explain why it's problem. If it was unbalanced we'd see it in the math. We don't. Buffing attacks is about as good as buffing anything else. And buffing two stats is as good as buffing a single stat twice. Instead you're telling me games come down to the will of the dice gods, outlier rolls, terrain placement or some other nebulous thing what you can't seem to fully explain (seriously what IS your problem with this?). 

I'm not going to agree with you that we need to make a (fairly) significant change to how the game plays because you don't understand probability or because you think the dice gods are against you. If you can't explain your problem in a paragraph then you clearly don't know what your problem is.  Furthermore, you shouldn't be asking for changes if you don't know exactly why those changes are needed. 



 

[rokapoke]

2 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

1/6 = 16% of your rolls. 

Maybe it's just because of my degrees in engineering, or maybe it's because I remember a scene in Futurama where they yell "Pi is equal to exactly 3" to get the attention of scientists, but I need to point out that 1/6 is closer to 17% than 16%. And no, that doesn't make a difference to your point, but there it is.

[Mirage8112]

 

9 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

Maybe it's just because of my degrees in engineering, or maybe it's because I remember a scene in Futurama where they yell "Pi is equal to exactly 3" to get the attention of scientists, but I need to point out that 1/6 is closer to 17% than 16%. And no, that doesn't make a difference to your point, but there it is.

Yeah I know. I didn't want to use 17% because that adds up to 102%. I hesitated to use decimals because apparently it makes people uneasy and if decimals give people the meat sweats I could only imagine what a total percent of 102 would do...