Math Vs flavor?

[carnage4u]

I see some people that seem to love quote numbers and also lots of people when coming down to an argument just go straight to math. It is almost this boards way of flaming. doing math against each other. I'm not saying its wrong or right. Of all the boards I have spent years reading and occasionally posting. only thing game board usually breaks into math, which is sort of amusing.

But in gameplay. how many of you just make teams based on simply.. This is the best tactic to use vs.. this team would just be cool this way?

some stick to the ff 9 and give many maths reason while others go for flare?

Is one tactic more popular among players here?

[Ghost of Pariah]

I play by the seat of my pants. No need to get out the calculator and the pocket protector for a game.

To be honest I find all of the math that is flung about to be really silly. Things work differently in real life than they do on paper and there's no way to predict where on the curve that next roll of the dice is going to be.
It's useful to work out what the odds are of a ceratin event happening with new rules but in the end what is important is how that 1in 1000 event will affect the game when it does happen. Or you can sit there and say such and such is a good tactic because you are gonna get this result 3.14 times a game but unless you figure in everything from wind velocity to what you ate for dinner in 1983, you are just throwing out BS numbers to make yourself look smarter than you are. The results of so many variables are impossible to nail down buy saying this is worth that.
Bottom line is that the game is a game of chances. If these mathmatical formulas worked then these people would be rich Craps players instead of poor Blood bowl players. It's all flaming, like you said.

[GalakStarscraper]

I usually play more for flair than the math, but the math is definitely the first thing I turn to when really trying to analyze a new rule or concept.

Galak

[dakkakhan]

For the most part, the number crunchers tend to see their numbers as irrefutable proof that one way is better than another, and in that Pariah is correct, there are so many other factors such as a coaches play style, weather, etc.

I mean if I play one game vs. Norse and lose, then the numbers don't lie, Norse is unbeatable...

I too look at the percentage chance of doing something successfully and then prioritize in what order I want those actions done in, but I've seen some really unbelieveable crap happen that statistically should have failed. That's why the game is fun, and why doing things that coincide with fluff, or playing your team "in Character" is very rewarding.

Who on this board knows someone that can't have fun unless they win? I'll bet there are some people on this board that are like that, but they don't recognize it in themselves.

[lawquoter]

I get so numbed by the numbers that I tune them out. I don't doubt their calculator's crunching, but jeez, I can only take so many 1/10000 chance of a Norse lineman with a hang nail pulling off a 2 dice block v. a Bob w/ St 5. I really try to appreciate the thought some of my colleagues put into the crunching, I just don't have a mind that's bent towards probabilities in mathematical computations.

[Ghost of Pariah]

Not trolling Galak. Stating the facts. If you like to use math to prove you are right then I'm sorry but you can't predict everything with it. Like I said, if your formulas worked then you should be rich and playing Craps in vegas but you're not. YOu're poor and playing Blood Bowl. I think that's pretty good evidence.

[Thadrin]

I like to think I'm pretty good with numbers. I really don't give a damn though. This is a game and its meant to be fun. I like my teams to have fluff and flavour over any srt of magic formula.

When I put the roster for my Old World team I didn't even give a thought to the chance to field a Wardancer. Why? because the fluff I had was a team from an imperial Brewery, which doesn't leave any room for bouncy elves. A wardancer would have been stronger than the Halflings and Human Linemen I took...but much less fun.

Whatever happens, in my experience, sitting back on the sure things bites you in the backside, whereas going for the crazy one in a million chance stuff pays off. Where's the logic in that?

Its not a logical world.

[DaImp]

numbers mean very little to me other than something is very likely / very unlikely to occur. I understand that 2 dice blocks should work more often than 1 dice blocks - but do they?

I am very much a fluff sort of player. I start teams because I like the look of the miniatures or the history of the teams not because I think they will be world beaters due to their advantage as proved by stats over other teams. I just don't think in numbers and am glad I don't as I think that would ruin the enjoyment I get from the game.

[Colin]

I would have to agree with most of the people here and say that I definately go for the fluff and flavour, it makes playing a little more interesting. I realise that some people really enjoy crunching numbers and working out probabilities,etc, so I'm not going to slam them for liking that, but I have to admit when someone does a long mathematical post to try and show proof for an arguement, I think, "who cares" and usually skip over it.

[martynq]

It's probably not much of a surprise if I say that mathematical arguments make lots of sense to me. I just wish that I could back up my good understanding of the probabilities with good positional play, decent dice rolling, and sensible decision making.

Sadly, I usually fail!

Martyn

[Ghost of Pariah]

Hay martynq,

Nobody has won the Super Bowl by playing conservative all season. YOu gotta say, "F--- the numbers! I'm going for it!"

[martynq]

Exactly - it's probably the reason why I end up being somewhere in the lower half of the MBBL! It's also why I end up having no clue how to deal with Big Guys.

Martyn

[Sushé Wakka]

Okay, this may sound silly, but I agree with both parts of the discussion and with none of them.
Running the maths (or "doin' da numba kruncha" if you prefer) is the best way to see "on the paper" if something seem appropiate before start to work that out. This will allow to spot most of the flaws on the system suggested and so get a set of "amlost done" rules. This is why JJ used the player's price formula.
However, running the maths won't assure the playability. Then the "on ground" test comes in. There's no way to know if something will really work unless it's tested enough and to a satisfactory level. if this requires adjustment over the starting idea, then so be it. This is why JJ didn't cost all the players as the calculation showed.
So, my point is that running the maths is basic to get something "on track". Once it is on track, maths "fade" and leave its play to playtesting and "live" use.

[MickeX]

I go for the fluff, but once I've chosen my team I want to try and play it as efficiently as possible. Deliberately making an irrational choice on the pitch is just as unestethic to me as splashing some color at an almost finished mini

For example, I wouldn't use halflings under the current rules, since it'd obviously be more efficient to play with unfluffy ogres than with superfluffy trees.

Micke

[GalakStarscraper]

For example, I wouldn't use halflings under the current rules, since it'd obviously be more efficient to play with unfluffy ogres than with superfluffy trees.

Micke

That will get fixed in October thankfully.

Galak