Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Reecius wrote:
And anyone who thinks it increases the odds of hitting makes math teachers cry.

Now the real question is whether or not you like your math teachers.

I'm sorry, I'm just from the school of thought that you should be announcing everything you do to your opponent. I have been to too many tournaments of all sorts, where people just roll dice willy-nilly, then declare success, whether you are aware of it or not.

When I played D&D minis, there was one kid who would roll his die obsessively for no reason. If you weren't paying attention, he'd declare a save or a hit with one of those rolls, like the chances were greater of success if he just rolled and rolled.

Read the manuals, people! Like the Razorback example earlier, these rolls could be monstrously different for re-rolls. Saving a second or two here and there could eventually stop a tournament when the TO has to come over and adjudicate a ruling.

Everyone should always be declaring what their die rolls are before making them.

As noted, for a single-shot weapon or single re-rolled save or something, rolling two dice at once makes no mathematical difference and saves a couple of seconds.

If you use different-colored dice and are clear about it, you can do it with multi-shot weapons too, but that can be a little bit confusing if you're not careful. Can result in losing as much time in explanations as you save in re-rolls, so it's often not worth it.

Bottom line is it does not speed the game up enough to make it an issue, if it speeds it up at all. I would just play RAW.

If you have a lot of twin-linked guns in your army (like meltas and multi-meltas in a Vulkan-led SM army), it can add up to a few minutes, which can matter in a tournament.

@The Bringer

Haha, good point!

@SoloFlacon

I agree, and I announce every shot before rolling the dice. If anyone doesn't understand what I am doing with twin linked weapons, then I explain it. I have only ever met one person who didn't get it and so I rolled them separately for him. I also felt bad for his ability to grasp the concept!

@Anubis_513

It actually does speed things up a bunch. Like Mannahnin said, repeated over time, you save a few minutes. My army has 6 twin linked las cannons and a number of twin linked heavy bolters that shoot every shooting phase.

Shooting those every turn and saying, "twin-linked" and rerolling a miss on the las cannons really does slow things down and is annoying to do. Tossing two dice at once is just easier and faster.

For twin heavy bolters (or any multi-shopt weapon) you just toss the dice and reroll the misses. Easy peasy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's just like letting someone run in the movement phase if it won't change the game (or in DoW). Is it RAW? No,but it makes the game flow faster and has no real impact on what happens.

sourclams wrote:For single shot weapons rolling two dice is fine.

For multishot weapons, just reroll the misses, hey? Unless your entire army is Meganobz, it just shouldn't matter that much.

This is very true.

Polonius wrote:Even for single shot weapons, it bothers me in a completely irrational way that i can't explain.

This is also very true.

General Hobbs wrote:

I've read someplace that when you roll two dice for a twin linked weapon, it vastly increases your odds of success.....

It does not increase your odds of success. The chances of rolling a 3+ on either one of two dice rolled at the same time is the same as re-rolling a missed save

When rerolling, many people just pick up the dice and drop it again. Ive seen the dice fall down and just land back on the same number as before more times than I can count. Its critical for the re-roller to move the dice around in his hand and 'roll' it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oscarius wrote:I don't mind it much if a BA player uses two dices at once for his TL las back, using 8 dices for the Assback, that is a no-no.

+1
In the case of a model with multi-shots, they should just pick up the dice that were missed and reroll them.

sourclams wrote:For single shot weapons rolling two dice is fine.

For multishot weapons, just reroll the misses, hey? Unless your entire army is Meganobz, it just shouldn't matter that much.

I concur with Sourclams.

There is no difference if I have a Die in each hand, either drop them one at a time, or at the same time.

When it comes to multi shot weapons, always just roll to hit, then pick up the misses and roll to hit a second time.

I'm in agreement with both sides actually.

In the event you're firing a 1-shot weapon that isn't "Gets Hot!", there's zero functional difference between rolling 1 die and 2 dice.

But, it can be confusing for players who aren't used to this.

Also, if you're running a list the spams tons of the same twin-linked gun that is more than one shot, it makes sense to roll those all simultaneously.

For example: If it's a heavy 3 gun, roll 3 sets of 2 dice. 2 Blue dice, 2 green dice, 2 white dice. Count hits by color (if 1 or 2 blue hits, then that's 1 hit).

It's even more confusing than the 1-shot weapon. But, if you have a whole ton of the same TL weapon, it can save a lot of time. (Although, it takes some practice to look at 6 multi-colored dice and instantly recognize how many hits it translates to.)

Polonius wrote:Even for single shot weapons, it bothers me in a completely irrational way that i can't explain.

That may be because they are different odds, because they are different events, it is wrong and it does change the odds.

For simplicity lets reduce the example to a BS3, hitting on a 4+, 50%, then we can simulate the to hit roll with a coin toss, also lets assume a shingle shot and heads hits.

With a simultaneous 2 coin toss there are 4 results:

HH
HT
TH
TT

Three of which hit, this makes the odds of hitting 3/4, or .75.

The correct way, when the second coin is only flipped if the first one fails there are only 3 combinations:

H
TH
TT

2 of these combinations hit, the odds of hitting are 2/3 or .66

Rolling 2 dice simultaneously is a cheat and it improves the odds of success by about 10 percent. Play the rules as written.

sourclams wrote:For single shot weapons rolling two dice is fine.

Actually it's not.

Good Augustus...

I don't think it works like that. Your not looking at possible combinations but what is the result. In your 2nd example there is a 50% to move from the first dice roll to the second, and a 50% to move from the second to the third.

Basically you said if you flip 2 coins at once you have a better chance to get heads.

The proof is in the law of large numbers. My simhammer program, linked in my sig, uses 25000 simulations when shooting. You can see a 75% hit ratio with TL weapons and BS 3. The simulator picks up the dice and refills them, as you can see in the play by play.

Cheers!

@ Augustus: I think you're a little confused. You actually have a 75% of a head with either method. Since you get the right answer for simultaneous flips, I'll explain what went wrong with the consecutive flips. I'll give two explanations.

1. Let's use your scenario, where you're trying to get a head on two consecutive flips of a coin. You stop when you get a head.

You have a 50% chance of getting a head when you flip a coin. That means that 50% of the time you'll stop after the first flip, and 50% of the time you'll flip another coin. When you flip a second coin, you'll get a head 50% of the time. So let's make a table of the possibilities. (X means no flip happens)

Chance Flip 1 Chance Flip 2 Heads?

25% X Yes
50% H <
25% X Yes
---------------------------------------------
25% H Yes
50% T <
25% T No


You just add up the chances to get a head. 50% + 25% is 75%, so you have a 75% chance to get a head. Make sense?

--------------------

2. Suppose you flipped the second coin even if you got a head on the first coin, just for fun. You don't count that result for anything. You just flip the coin. There are four possible results, all equally likely:

H(H)
H(T)
TH
TT

Surely flipping the second coin doesn't affect the first flip, so you get the same results you'd get if you stopped flipping after one head. And you get a head (that you count) 75% of the time. Note that the results for this are identical to the results for flipping both simultaneously (HH, HT, TH, TT). All that changes is when you count the result. And that's why it makes no difference.

I hope that was clear; sorry if it isn't.

Edit: Oh, no! The forum mangled my table!

Well, maybe its wrong? (simhammer)

Augustus wrote:Well, maybe its wrong?

Please tell me you don't believe that.

I'll say what's wrong if you like.

There is actually 4 combination possible, which is where you went wrong.

You listed:

H
TH
TT

However, there is a fourth.

That being:

H(H - hypothetical)
H(T - hypothetical)
TH
TT

Thus, your chances remain at %75

%66 = fallacy

Augustus wrote:
Rolling 2 dice simultaneously is a cheat and it improves the odds of success by about 10 percent. Play the rules as written.

sourclams wrote:For single shot weapons rolling two dice is fine.

Actually it's not.

But in your second situation the outcome of Heads on the first flip has a 50% chance of happening, while your other two outcomes only have a 25% chance each. Given that the don't have equal likelihoods you can't just count them up and proclaim 2 out of 3 hit.

Flip them both at once, and the probability of any given combination happening is .25, so the probability of hitting is .75.

Flip one coin. Probability of a hit is .5. Given it's a miss (.5) flip it again. Probability that it's a hit now is .25 (.5 * .5). Total probability of a hit is .5 + .25, or .75.

Look at that. They're the same.

Augustus wrote:

Polonius wrote:Even for single shot weapons, it bothers me in a completely irrational way that i can't explain.

That may be because they are different odds, because they are different events, it is wrong and it does change the odds.

For simplicity lets reduce the example to a BS3, hitting on a 4+, 50%, then we can simulate the to hit roll with a coin toss, also lets assume a shingle shot and heads hits.

With a simultaneous 2 coin toss there are 4 results:

HH
HT
TH
TT

Three of which hit, this makes the odds of hitting 3/4, or .75.

The correct way, when the second coin is only flipped if the first one fails there are only 3 combinations:

H
TH
TT

2 of these combinations hit, the odds of hitting are 2/3 or .66

Rolling 2 dice simultaneously is a cheat and it improves the odds of success by about 10 percent. Play the rules as written.

sourclams wrote:For single shot weapons rolling two dice is fine.

Actually it's not.

Your conclusion is incorrect. Its a 75% chance no matter how you do it. What you do in the last example is simply wrong. Your first event has a 50% chance of getting heads, the other 50% lets you reroll with yet again a 50% chance of hitting this time. So you have a 1*0.5=0.5 --> 0.5*0.5 = 0.25 risk of missing both shots no matter how you do it


edit:Lots of Ninjas tonight

Augustus wrote:

Polonius wrote:Even for single shot weapons, it bothers me in a completely irrational way that i can't explain.

That may be because they are different odds, because they are different events, it is wrong and it does change the odds.

For simplicity lets reduce the example to a BS3, hitting on a 4+, 50%, then we can simulate the to hit roll with a coin toss, also lets assume a shingle shot and heads hits.

With a simultaneous 2 coin toss there are 4 results:

HH
HT
TH
TT

Three of which hit, this makes the odds of hitting 3/4, or .75.

The correct way, when the second coin is only flipped if the first one fails there are only 3 combinations:

H
TH
TT

2 of these combinations hit, the odds of hitting are 2/3 or .66

Your math is off. The odds of the first flip are 50%, so a Heads on the first flip is 50% of the possible results, not 33.33%. In the event of a Tails on the first flip (50%), there are two possible outcomes- H or T, each representing 25% of the possible outcomes. So it adds up to the exact same .75.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd! Repeatedly!

and edit - ninjad, I said what you did, but described it in a different way.

I think the dakka-board of probability has established that it changes nothing.

Van Grothe wrote:I personally don't mind, and have seen people do it both ways.

However, I do mind very much when it comes to twin-linked weapons with Gets Hot or similar rules. Say a person rolls 2 dice for a twin-linked plasma gun. If they roll a 2 and a 1, they could argue that the 1 was the first roll. It's in cases like these that I make sure single rolls are made.

A more likely scenario is if they rolled a 6 and a 1 and claimed the 6 was first so the 1 doesn't count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reecius wrote:I do it all the time for twin linked, single shot weapons. It saves time and in tournament play that helps a lot. I also miss all the damn time with them, so it certainly doesn't help! Haha.

And anyone who thinks it increases the odds of hitting makes math teachers cry.

So you're telling me that having more objects around for the dice to bounce and reflect off of doesn't skew the potential results at all? I'm sure it doesn't change the odds, obviously, but it could most certainly affect the outcome as you add more variables of chaos into the mix.

Kevin949 wrote:So you're telling me that having more objects around for the dice to bounce and reflect off of doesn't skew the potential results at all? I'm sure it doesn't change the odds, obviously, but it could most certainly affect the outcome as you add more variables of chaos into the mix.

If it's not affecting the odds, it can't possibly affect the outcome.

seems like a waste of energy arguing. the amount of time you spend re rolling the dice in any situation is minimal. rolling double sets is not a huge time saver, and i believe is against the RAW. dont have the BRB handy but i believe under rerolls it says roll the dice, then reroll any misses. (providing no gets hot etc) the amount of time trying to explain, and keep track of what color dice is what reroll for what wep etc is just kind of silly when you could roll, seperate your misses as normal, reroll them and go. im a big fan of the KISS theroy. and i try to keep to that idea in my games. why needlessy complicate things?

Kevin949 wrote:So you're telling me that having more objects around for the dice to bounce and reflect off of doesn't skew the potential results at all? I'm sure it doesn't change the odds, obviously, but it could most certainly affect the outcome as you add more variables of chaos into the mix.

Yes. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Dropping two dice at once as opposed to one die followed by another gives you the EXACT same range of possibilities. The EXACT same. The amount of time that passes between the dice falling makes absolutely, no difference. A die will always give you a result of between 1 and 6 irregardless of how many dice are tossed or how much time has passed between the throwing of one and another. It is a total moot point to regard how the two dice falling will impact the results as they will STILL give you a result of between 1 and 6 no matter how many things they hit on the way to resting. Following that logic, you must always throw each die individually in order to prevent some kind of imaginary interference. Tell that to Ork players! One attack at a time please!

And I am not trying to mock you here at all, it is just that your argument is like saying, multiplying 2x3 isn't the same thing as saying 2+2+2. I can understand that it may seem more complex than it is, but in reality it is very simple.

A more likely scenario is if they rolled a 6 and a 1 and claimed the 6 was first so the 1 doesn't count.

What difference does it make if the 1 wold have been the first die or the second?

Perhaps this is hard to understand for some people for some reason.

If you throw a die for a twin-linked, single shot weapon and the "first" die is a hit, then you would have never thrown the second die (whatever result it might give) and you ignore it.

If you did the above and the first was a miss, but the second was a hit, then the weapon hits. The "miss" was the first die, the "hit" was the second.

Therefore, if you throw two dice it represents the act of rerolling the die in the case of a miss. If one of the dice hits, then the other die is unnecessary and is ignored. Since it takes as much time to throw two dice as it does one, it is more efficient to throw two at once.

In order for a twin linked weapon to miss, it must "miss" twice. In order for it to hit, it must only "hit" once. Therefore, the only way a twin linked weapon misses is if you roll a miss twice. Thus you throw two dice and if they both "miss" it represents throwing the same die twice and getting a miss twice in a row. Same odds, same result, less time.

Here is the breakdown of what you can get throwing two dice at the same time or one after the other:

Hit, Hit.
Hit, Miss.
Miss, Hit.
Miss, Miss.

Those are the ONLY possible results. The only ones. It makes no difference the sequence or time between throwing each die, the range of results are the same.

I hope that clears it up as it is accurate. It is quite simply a faster way of doing the same thing, with the exact same odds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Deathspader

It isn't complicating things at all. I mean, to someone who doesn't grasp the concept it is, and in that case you simply do it the slow way, but it makes no difference other than to save time.

But, to each their own.

Reecius wrote:It isn't complicating things at all. I mean, to someone who doesn't grasp the concept it is, and in that case you simply do it the slow way, but it makes no difference other than to save time.

If that were true, there is no way this would have expanded into a two page thread with so many arguments over whether or not it makes a difference, yes?

On one hand, we have: It allegedly saves some time.

On the other hand, we have A.) It doesn't save much time, B.) It's very confusing, C.) Depending on how it's done, you could be stacking the odds in your favor, and D.) it's explicitly not what the rules tell you to do.

Every single of the latter arguments on their own are overwhelmingly good reasons not to do it. I would not allow this in my games, nor play people who demanded to do this; and I'm not the type to be a rules nazi or turn down a game.

The only reason this has expanded to two pages is because people here apparently have difficulty understanding elementary level mathematics and probability.

Well, that came across a bit harsh, but it really is the same, exact thing. I mean, just think about it logically for two seconds and you will see that it is clearly so. Anyone who argues to the contrary is grossly mistaken. No matter how you throw the dice (apart from intentionally throwing the dice to skew the results, which is another matter entirely), it makes no difference what numbers come up, it really doesn't.

Like I said, I have never "demanded" to do it this way, nor have many people I would imagine. I just do it out of habit and if anyone says anything I will change to accommodate them.

Do you allow people to run their models in the movement phase if it has no impact on the game?

Do you allow people to move models in a unit without measuring each individual model's distance?

Do you allow people to do anything that speeds up game play that are not explicitly allowed within the rules?

Everyone does these things to some degree.

Why this is confusing is hard to understand, but I guess it is.

Like I said, to each their own. Most people I know play it this way, but it doesn't have to happen. It just seems almost like superstition to me that people would be against this. How isn't it clear that the results are the same? I don't know, but hey, everyone is different.

Ouze wrote:On the other hand, we have A.) It doesn't save much time, B.) It's very confusing, C.) Depending on how it's done, you could be stacking the odds in your favor, and D.) it's explicitly not what the rules tell you to do.

Every single of the latter arguments on their own are overwhelmingly good reasons not to do it.

'It doesn't save much time' is hardly an overwhleming reason for not doing it.

It's only confusing if it is unclear which dice are for which weapon. In which case, grabbing a few differently coloured dice is no more confusing that it would be if you are rolling shooting for a unit with mixed weaponry in the same manner.

It has no effect on the odds whatsoever, unless you're just rolling a great pool of identical dice and choosing which results to apply to which weapon... which would be entirely the wrong way of doing it.

So overall, the last one is the only real reason not to do it. And it's not a particularly compelling reason by itself, given how many people tweak the rules to suit themselves or their gaming groups as a matter of course.

insaniak wrote:

Ouze wrote:On the other hand, we have A.) It doesn't save much time, B.) It's very confusing, C.) Depending on how it's done, you could be stacking the odds in your favor, and D.) it's explicitly not what the rules tell you to do.

Every single of the latter arguments on their own are overwhelmingly good reasons not to do it.

'It doesn't save much time' is hardly an overwhleming reason for not doing it.

It's only confusing if it is unclear which dice are for which weapon. In which case, grabbing a few differently coloured dice is no more confusing that it would be if you are rolling shooting for a unit with mixed weaponry in the same manner.

It has no effect on the odds whatsoever, unless you're just rolling a great pool of identical dice and choosing which results to apply to which weapon... which would be entirely the wrong way of doing it.

So overall, the last one is the only real reason not to do it. And it's not a particularly compelling reason by itself, given how many people tweak the rules to suit themselves or their gaming groups as a matter of course.

Well crap... I've been doing this 40K thing all wrong... Who cares about the rules, I'll just tweak them till they make sense for me. "Deathwing Assault"? well, obviously, that means I get to assault out of a Deathwing deep strike. Maybe I'll take apothecary upgrades in all my squads, because that would make my game run sooooo much better.

Wow... can't believe I actually read that the rules themselves were not a compelling enough reason to follow the rules...

@SoloFalcon1138

Of course following the rules is a good thing.

The point here is that not following the letter of the rule has no impact on the game other than to speed it up. It is a moot point.

And again, if you prefer to have someone roll a die, pick it up, and roll it again as opposed to rolling two dice simultaneously, then simply say so. You would be in the right as it is what the rules say to do. However, it is totally pointless to do so as it changes nothing other than to increase the time between a die hitting the table from simultaneously to a few seconds apart.

In other words, it is a rule that does not need to be followed as it is inconsequential.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Wow... can't believe I actually read that the rules themselves were not a compelling enough reason to follow the rules...

I think a better example of what he was talking about was rolling your run with a large unit while you are still in the movement phase (and when it doesn't matter).

It's clearly going against the rules, but it can make things easier, still requires communication, and doesn't really make a difference - although just like in the twin-linked situations it doesn't work every time.

Always roll them together to teach people math.