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.

stroller wrote:
I *LIKE* rolling buckets of dice. It's part of the fun of the game, and it takes less time than the movement phase in a horde army.

False. Most of the time spent playing this game is rolling dice in the shooting phase. Time it the next time you play a game. And it's not true horde armies in the shooting phase, like Orks, and Tyranids, it's Imperials, and Chaos, that take all the time, because they have ridiculous access to rerolls and insane shooting volumes, with multiple different guns per unit.

Something along the lines of the OP's suggestion. Rather than taking the expected values - just reduce the number of dice you roll.

For something like 90 dice. Just roll 30 dice and triple your number of wounds. You will still get variability - you just wont have to roll as many dice. I am convinced that this is the right answer to speed up games.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Something along the lines of the OP's suggestion. Rather than taking the expected values - just reduce the number of dice you roll.

For something like 90 dice. Just roll 30 dice and triple your number of wounds. You will still get variability - you just wont have to roll as many dice. I am convinced that this is the right answer to speed up games.

Actually it increases the variance. Two standard deviations jumps from ~4.7 to ~8.2.

I would opt to roll my 90 dice rather than 30. Because in general I roll badly and more dice helps me smooth the curve.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Something along the lines of the OP's suggestion. Rather than taking the expected values - just reduce the number of dice you roll.

For something like 90 dice. Just roll 30 dice and triple your number of wounds. You will still get variability - you just wont have to roll as many dice. I am convinced that this is the right answer to speed up games.

Actually it increases the variance. Two standard deviations jumps from ~4.7 to ~8.2.

I would opt to roll my 90 dice rather than 30. Because in general I roll badly and more dice helps me smooth the curve.

Technically it will all average out in the end. Maybe 1/3 the dice isn't the sweet spot - maybe it's 1/2? Anyways - 70% of dice rolls only go to the first deviation. I think it's a worthwhile sacrifice to lose some variance to save you from rolling an additional 60 dice in this case. Heck - it will help you as often as it hurts you.

I think maybe i'm at an age after 22 years in the hobby the thought of rolling 80 dice hurts me back XD

I did think when i posted this some weird logic extension where if we do this then the ultimate extension of it is some algorithm based on the mission and army lists which decides who wins... not fun

VIVA LE DICE

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Something along the lines of the OP's suggestion. Rather than taking the expected values - just reduce the number of dice you roll.

For something like 90 dice. Just roll 30 dice and triple your number of wounds. You will still get variability - you just wont have to roll as many dice. I am convinced that this is the right answer to speed up games.

Actually it increases the variance. Two standard deviations jumps from ~4.7 to ~8.2.

I would opt to roll my 90 dice rather than 30. Because in general I roll badly and more dice helps me smooth the curve.

Technically it will all average out in the end. Maybe 1/3 the dice isn't the sweet spot - maybe it's 1/2? Anyways - 70% of dice rolls only go to the first deviation. I think it's a worthwhile sacrifice to lose some variance to save you from rolling an additional 60 dice in this case. Heck - it will help you as often as it hurts you.

Yeah obviously the more trials the lower it goes.

What i usually do, is roll and resolve batches, if we believe the unit will be destroyed.

"I'll roll the first 40 - we'll see if the unit lives. If it does, i'll roll the next 40." if something is left with 1 wound after the first 40, usually my opponent will pull it to save time.

It's probably an anomaly but I have watched every Miniwargaming game for last 3 years (they are what got me back into Fantasy and 40k since a break from the 90"s when first started, GW should should give them a bonus the amount of money I have spent ) and my own dice rolls in games and I find if I pick up a 1 and roll it in my hand it will get a 6 most of the time, however if I pick up a 6 and roll it, it will go a 1 (If watch MWG it does the same).

Maybe just a perception but often enough it happens.

If rolling batches but it usually averages out to the math (but I always take out the sixes and change the dice )

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
It's probably an anomaly but I have watched every Miniwargaming game for last 3 years (they are what got me back into Fantasy and 40k since a break from the 90"s when first started, GW should should give them a bonus the amount of money I have spent ) and my own dice rolls in games and I find if I pick up a 1 and roll it in my hand it will get a 6 most of the time, however if I pick up a 6 and roll it, it will go a 1 (If watch MWG it does the same).

Maybe just a perception but often enough it happens.

If rolling batches but it usually averages out to the math (but I always take out the sixes and change the dice )

This is probably perception bias - you consiously note only those instances with 6's and 1's involved and don't notice other outcomes. Same bias applies to things like "always looking at the clock on 11:11" - my personal variant is "when I go to bed it's usually PI hour". In reality 3:14 happens once or twice a month, I just instantly think about this hour as "round" but I don't think about any other "around 3:00" same way.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Something along the lines of the OP's suggestion. Rather than taking the expected values - just reduce the number of dice you roll.

For something like 90 dice. Just roll 30 dice and triple your number of wounds. You will still get variability - you just wont have to roll as many dice. I am convinced that this is the right answer to speed up games.

Why roll 30 dice? Just roll one and count that for all 90. It'll be even faster.

 koooaei wrote:
Say, you need to roll 100 4+ dice. Instead of rolling 100 4+ dice you pick 2d6, roll them and for every 1 away from 7 you get the disparacy part. If you want your result to be around as random as it would have been with you rolling 100 dice, get a 1-4 step.
Than take the average:
Number of dice (100) * Success Rate (1/2) = 50.
Take the disparacy part which is the result of 2d6 - 7 (in our case it's 2) and multipy it by the disparacy step which, let's say, we chose to be 3 (2 * 3 = 6).
Add the result to an average roll and get the number of successes:
50 + 6 = 56

This way you still get a random swing and don't have to roll 100 dice. Just do some basic math that takes around 10 seconds tops and roll 2d6.

You can easilly manipulate the disparacy rate and step if you want.

And how identical this is with real dice rolling bell curve?

Pretty close not good enough

Still waiting for some chipped dice linked to an app that you can just roll and the app keeps track of what the result was and how many dice are left to roll.

Dices have to be rolled, yet there are a few tricks to roll them faster.

1) Precount dices. If you keep your dices in groups of ten, then taking the right amount of dices becomes much faster.

2) Roll armor saves before your opponent has finished rolling to hit and wound. You do this by taking and rolling a single dice at a time, and one at a time your put them in a line. Then when your opponent tells you that you have to roll 10 armor saves, you use the first ten results rolled. This assumes that you don't suspect your opponent of cheating, else you have to check his rolls.

False?

Ok. I know that some rolling CAN take a long time. All I'm saying is that, for me, with my armies, rolling buckets doesn't need to take the time it takes some, and moving 120 boyz DOES take me time. Your mileage may vary, but that doesn't negate my experience.

The system has to be rebuilt from the ground up imo.

Things like Runewars or Star Wars Legion run very smoothly and quickly because you only roll a few dice.

Rolling buckets of dice *can* be fun, but running buckets of dice 4 or 5 times in a row gets old...

30 Orks can have up 180 attacks. Rolling to hit then to wound then to save will result in 405 dice being rolled... and 25 Marines dying. This is absolutely STUPID as far as game design is concerned.

Now if you build a system where each model gets 1 die, with various bonuses, you can get a similar result with only 30 dice being thrown.

Let's see what we can do :

Orks have a 3+ WS
At 20+, they have +1 to hit or -1AP
Choppa gives them +1 to hit or -1AP
Gazghkhull gives them +1 to hit or -1AP
Weirdboy gives them +1 to hit or -1AP

You end up with 30 Orks rolling 30 dice and killing 21 Marines. You still have a bucket of dice rolled, and nearly the same result.

Now build the whole system around this "1 model = 1 die" idea and I'm sure you can cut game time by at least 50%, and the whole gaming experience will be a lot better.

With that many dice, taking the average is perfectly viable.

Yep - 2/3 of 180 is 120. Half of those should wound. Or, 60 wounds. With a standard deviation of ~3. So, yeah, 70% of the time it'll fall between 57 & 63. Unlikely edge cases aside, expected value on a pool of 180 dice is totally fair.

The problem is most people seem wholly incapable of understanding math.