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.

Hey folks!

Trying to see if a new method of fast-rolling FnP saves when resolving multi-damage weapons against single-wound models is statistically equivalent to the method of rolling I currently see done.

Recently was doing a tourney-prep game with a friend (had him go up against one of the new T'au lists that's winning big tourney's), and after a game where we were frustrated by the incredible efficiency of the Shield Drone we started doing some math-hammer and some dice rolling practice to see if those results lined up with the theory. Just before he left we did one last roll for Hive Guard with their Impaler Cannons (2 dmg each). I rolled all the saves for the Shield Drones (4+), picked up all the dice that failed and rolled them for the Shield Drone's 5+ FnP, and then for each one that WAS a 5+ I rolled those ones a second time. Any that were a 5+ on that second roll were drones that didn't die (as they had passed both 5+ FnP rolls).

Is this statistically equivalent to rolling saves for the drones, and then rolling pairs of dice one at a time to see if both dice come up 5+ to save a drone? I'm thinking it is, because when you roll the first time, since a single fail equals a dead drone, then it doesn't matter if a second roll with THAT die is a 5+, because the first one already failed. The only place it matters is when a drone passes the roll on the first 5+, because then it matters if it would also pass on the second one.



EXAMPLE:
6 Hive Guard shoot at 8 Shield Drones results of shots are; 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6 = 8 hit

Roll to wound results are: 1,2,3,4,5,6,5,4 = 7 wounds

Roll for save results are: 1,2,3,4,5,6,3 = 3 saved, 4 shots get through

Roll for FnP: 1,2,5,6 = 2 survive, 2 die

Roll additional FnP for drones that survived: 3,4 = 2 die

total result = 4 dead drones



If this result is statistically equivalent, then we can save a lot of time in our games by not needing to roll FnP for each individual model in a circumstance such as this. NOTE this only works for single-wound models facing multiple damage. If a bunch of 3-damage weapons hit some drones, you'd roll FnP 3 times in a row, only rerolling dice that passed each time. If there's a way to modify this method to apply to multi-wound models with FnP facing off against multi-damage weapons, that'd be amazing, but I don't think there is (due to changing wound values based on the order of passes and failures).

Yeah, that's equivalent. You're essentially just re-rolling all your successful FNPs to take into account the second point of damage. We do this in my local group when playing with Death Guard- it really speeds up play.

And yes, it won't work with multi-wound models, since it can't factor in the possibility of overkilling a single model. Still have to roll individually for that.

 catbarf wrote:
Yeah, that's equivalent. You're essentially just re-rolling all your successful FNPs to take into account the second point of damage. We do this in my local group when playing with Death Guard- it really speeds up play.

And yes, it won't work with multi-wound models, since it can't factor in the possibility of overkilling a single model. Still have to roll individually for that.

I've started doing this as well if my opponent is happy for me to do that way. Rerolling successes really speeds things up rather than rolling 7 wounds two at a time etc.

Oh, this is a good idea.

 catbarf wrote:
Yeah, that's equivalent. You're essentially just re-rolling all your successful FNPs to take into account the second point of damage. We do this in my local group when playing with Death Guard- it really speeds up play.

And yes, it won't work with multi-wound models, since it can't factor in the possibility of overkilling a single model. Still have to roll individually for that.

You can use ROYGBIV dice to speed roll that.

Martel732 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Yeah, that's equivalent. You're essentially just re-rolling all your successful FNPs to take into account the second point of damage. We do this in my local group when playing with Death Guard- it really speeds up play.

And yes, it won't work with multi-wound models, since it can't factor in the possibility of overkilling a single model. Still have to roll individually for that.

You can use ROYGBIV dice to speed roll that.

I suppose if you stipulated that the color pattern also represents allocation order, that would work. Not a bad idea.

While we're talking about ways to avoid slow-rolling, here's my method for rapid firing Gets Hot weapons:
-Roll one to-hit die for every model shooting.
-Tally the number of hits, then separate the pool into 'rolled a 1' and 'didn't roll a 1' pools.
-Re-roll each of those pools, tally the hits, add to the first set of hits. Now you have the total number of hits.
-You lose a number of models to Gets Hot equal to the size of the 'rolled a 1' pile plus however many roll 1s the second time in the 'didn't roll a 1' pool.

Basically this method allows you to handle the case of a model rolling snake eyes and blowing itself up, whereas if you fast-rolled all the hit dice at once and got two ones, you'd have no way of knowing whether you should lose one or two models.

Okay, I hear you; creating an ordered system using different colour dice.

"Small white, then small black, then small purple, then large white, then large black, then large coloured".

That would let you roll once, and establish the order afterwards.

I like ROYGBIV myself.

Martel732 wrote:
I like ROYGBIV myself.

I don't have multiple dice colours like that, but yeah, the concept remains the same. Grouping based on some visual identifier in the dice.