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.

For example: I have a reinforced ram on my trukk which allows me to reroll failed dangerous terrain tests. I just roll 2d6 and if they are snakeyes then I failed it. Makes things easier for me. Similarly, I have a couple TL assault cannons in my Black Templar list. I just roll 8d6 and only count up to 4 of the successes as hits.

I wanted to see if anyone else does this sort of thing.

The first of your examples is fine by me, but the second would get a "No", as it's not statistically the same (to my limited knowledge of maths).

Assuming an exact 75% chance of hitting:
Say you're rolling 4 dice, 3 hit, 1 miss versus. 8 dice, 6 hit, 2 miss.
You re-roll the miss, and miss again. You've ended up with 3 hits where your method would net you 4 still.

 Icculus wrote:
For example: I have a reinforced ram on my trukk which allows me to reroll failed dangerous terrain tests. I just roll 2d6 and if they are snakeyes then I failed it. Makes things easier for me. Similarly, I have a couple TL assault cannons in my Black Templar list. I just roll 8d6 and only count up to 4 of the successes as hits.

I wanted to see if anyone else does this sort of thing.

The dangerous terrain example is fine. rolling 8D6 for four twin-linked shots however is not fine. you will average a much higher success doing that. You would need to roll 4 groups of 2D6 but that only slows things down. As proof if you have 1/2 chance to hit, TL it would be 3/4 chance. 4 shots gives average 3 hits. If instead you roll 8 dice instead of TL at 1/2 chance to hit you are averaging 4 hits. Even though you discount more than 4 so it will lower the average but nevertheless its not equivalent. More rigorously you have 32% chance to get 4 hits using normal TL, but a 64% chance to get 4 hits throwing 8 dice. Unless I've misunderstood you should reconsider doing this.

This may only be done with single re-rollable dice, else it is cheating.

If you're doing it the 8d6 way, you can do it without it being cheating, but you'd have to make each 2d6 group different. I used to do this, but it gets too complicated in my opinion. (And it's harder for an opponent to read as well.) I recommend only rolling the roll and the re-roll together if it's a single die roll being determined.

I would rather the opponent roll each one like they are supposed to, 4 TL shots= 4 dice, then re-roll as needed. When the opponent uses 8 dice and picks up the success it confuses me as to why he just rolled 8 dice for 4 shots.

I roll one and then the other because that's how I'm "supposed" to do it.

I mean, there's nothing wrong, statistically, with speedrolling, and it's certainly not cheating, but... I don't know.

It's sort of like when people use dice rolling apps on their phone. There's nothing wrong with it, per se, but sort of the experience of rolling dice has some value to it in and of itself. In this case, it's the rolling of the die, and you roll a 1, and you have that half a second of panic, because maybe you really did fail the terrain test and everything is going to get screwed up, but probably not, and you pick up the offending die and give it a second chance to do things right.

It's little, but those little things add up to the whole in the end. People can speed roll around me all the want, but I don't think I ever could, myself. Especially since those reroll situations tend not to happen all that often anyways, so it's not, you know, THAT much faster most games.

 Ailaros wrote:
I roll one and then the other because that's how I'm "supposed" to do it.

I mean, there's nothing wrong, statistically, with speedrolling, and it's certainly not cheating, but... I don't know.

But it is wrong statistically as has already been mentioned. If you roll four dice and can only re-roll misses, it's not statistically the same when you re-roll four dice if you only missed once.

They're the same if you roll the 4 dice in discrete sets of 2. It's only a problem if you roll 8 dice and count up how many hits there are.

Generally i only roll 1 die, but im pretty quick with it. Never had anyone call me out on it but thats probably because i fail things like danger tests so often my reaction to it tells them im not cheating when i pass, since i fail so damn much lol. New guys might not like me doing that, but after a game or so they'll realize i'll feth myself over more than i'll feth you over because of "rule lawyering" or never trying to cheat dice with any numbers of dice shenanigans and/or lying about the results.

Only drawback about that is i tend to be the "goto guy" for rules lol, since ive reminded my opponents of rules that made ME lose they know im honest about them.

The first example is fine but the second method is definitely cheating.

 Ailaros wrote:
They're the same if you roll the 4 dice in discrete sets of 2. It's only a problem if you roll 8 dice and count up how many hits there are.

Actually this is not true unless the first roll was 4 misses. What you are suggesting is equivalent to me rolling 4 dice hitting with 3 and then rolling 3 dice for my one miss to see if any hit.

The sets of two thing is valid.

So for TLAsC with 4 shots, you roll 2 blue, 2 red, 2 green, and 2 white dice. So if both of the blue dice are ones, you know that one missed. Probably more trouble paring up the colors and evaluating them for hits then just re-rolling the misses, but it works.

Wait, now I'm getting confused.

Nevelon wrote: you roll 2 blue, 2 red, 2 green, and 2 white dice. So if both of the blue dice are ones, you know that one missed.

This is what I meant. Except, without the colors.

So long as you keep individual rolls as discrete pairs, then it works the same as rolling two dice for a single twin-linked roll. You're just scaling it up.

 Ailaros wrote:
Wait, now I'm getting confused.

Nevelon wrote: you roll 2 blue, 2 red, 2 green, and 2 white dice. So if both of the blue dice are ones, you know that one missed.

This is what I meant. Except, without the colors.

So long as you keep individual rolls as discrete pairs, then it works the same as rolling two dice for a single twin-linked roll. You're just scaling it up.

Okay, that would work...you take longer than the normal way, but it works. I think that would be 4 sets of 2.

 ansacs wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Wait, now I'm getting confused.

Nevelon wrote: you roll 2 blue, 2 red, 2 green, and 2 white dice. So if both of the blue dice are ones, you know that one missed.

This is what I meant. Except, without the colors.

So long as you keep individual rolls as discrete pairs, then it works the same as rolling two dice for a single twin-linked roll. You're just scaling it up.

Okay, that would work...you take longer than the normal way, but it works. I think that would be 4 sets of 2.

4 discrete pairs...that's what he was saying. It's actually faster than rolling four dice and re-rolling the misses. I used to do it (different circumstances, but same principle) but it got too confusing. What's more, it's much harder for your opponent to get what's happening, since they won't have practice reading the group of dice the way you are. It's just better sportsmanship to roll four and re-roll the misses. For single die rolls, rolling two dice to save time is probably fine (although you should mention to your opponent that this is what you're doing).

still looks like abuse of the dice in any way you put it. ok so i got my tesla destructor.. i roll 8 dice.. 4 6's pop up.. " oh oh that was my roll see" discard the 4 3's.. dude justify it any ways you want.. its cheating.. roll your weapon reroll the fails its that simple..

do i roll my armor save and feel no pain at the same time? oh look i failed my fnp but passed my armor hahaha.

this idea can only be used a way of getting an in game advantage of dice and if you did it to me i would pack up walk away and deny your very existence in my local store cos it seems like a waac tactic

ansacs wrote:Okay, that would work...you take longer than the normal way, but it works. I think that would be 4 sets of 2.

Jimsolo wrote: It's actually faster than rolling four dice and re-rolling the misses. I used to do it (different circumstances, but same principle) but it got too confusing. What's more, it's much harder for your opponent to get what's happening

Yeah, I agree, it's a silly idea, even if it's technically workable.

The one thing it's not is...

XdeadpoolX wrote: justify it any ways you want.. its cheating..

... this. Unless you're doing it wrong, of course.

 XdeadpoolX wrote:
still looks like abuse of the dice in any way you put it. ok so i got my tesla destructor.. i roll 8 dice.. 4 6's pop up.. " oh oh that was my roll see" discard the 4 3's.. dude justify it any ways you want.. its cheating.. roll your weapon reroll the fails its that simple..

do i roll my armor save and feel no pain at the same time? oh look i failed my fnp but passed my armor hahaha.

this idea can only be used a way of getting an in game advantage of dice and if you did it to me i would pack up walk away and deny your very existence in my local store cos it seems like a waac tactic

Wow. Except, you know, when shooting with things that don't have additional rules, like twin-linked heavy bolters and what not. In that case rolling 6 dice (in three sets of 2) is perfectly fine, and if you were to rage quit at that I can't imagine you'd be the kind of person many people would be keen to play.

 motyak wrote:

 XdeadpoolX wrote:
still looks like abuse of the dice in any way you put it. ok so i got my tesla destructor.. i roll 8 dice.. 4 6's pop up.. " oh oh that was my roll see" discard the 4 3's.. dude justify it any ways you want.. its cheating.. roll your weapon reroll the fails its that simple..

do i roll my armor save and feel no pain at the same time? oh look i failed my fnp but passed my armor hahaha.

this idea can only be used a way of getting an in game advantage of dice and if you did it to me i would pack up walk away and deny your very existence in my local store cos it seems like a waac tactic

Wow. Except, you know, when shooting with things that don't have additional rules, like twin-linked heavy bolters and what not. In that case rolling 6 dice (in three sets of 2) is perfectly fine, and if you were to rage quit at that I can't imagine you'd be the kind of person many people would be keen to play.

How is it fine? please find the rule in the brb and tell me exactly where gw says it is ok to do so... It doesnt so you a twisting the rules.. Would any TO let you do it? no because its twisting the rules. We play to the rules and the rules of TL is pretty clear cut isnt it? or does GW need to simplify it further in the next ed?

It says Re-Roll failed to hits. Any other way of doing it looks like sneaky slight of hand. I dont like GWs BRB but i play by it.

Also, on that last personal attack towards me, Everyone at my local likes to play against me because i am not trying to cheat them, i help them when i can and when i win or loose i say "good game man" shake hand and i do it with a smile and no malice because i had fun.

XdeadpoolX wrote:Any other way of doing it looks like sneaky slight of hand.

That doesn't mean it actually is.

And you'd probably get more favorable comments directed at your person if you could make arguments that were based more on objective reasoning and less on aggressive rules lawyering.

I find for the most part it's faster to just roll one die and see the result and then reroll it if you need. If you have several dice to roll with rerolls, then trying to roll them all at once is kind of stupid as keeping track of each set is more time consuming than just rolling all the dice, picking up the failures and rolling again.

 Ailaros wrote:

XdeadpoolX wrote:Any other way of doing it looks like sneaky slight of hand.

That doesn't mean it actually is.

And you'd probably get more favorable comments directed at your person if you could make arguments that were based more on objective reasoning and less on aggressive rules lawyering.

Your right, sooooo

I personally wouldn't roll tl weapons all at once. It seems sneaky and underhanded and even if it isnt and its all clean and legit do you really want your opponent to think "hey is this guy trying to cheat me" even if he doesnt say it. There is a level of sportsmanship in 40k that i really enjoy and if you ask around most people will say the same. Saving 4 seconds on a dice roll should be the last thing on your mind in a game. I'd personally prefer someone to show me each step of their rolls so there can be no confusion, And i would do the same in return

In all my games i state what phase im in, every time i roll a dice i state hat it is "this is to hit with my squad X against your squad G"

I believe forming a dialogue with your opponent is important so there is never a misunderstanding in game and no one can feel cheated and its also why i like the brb in all its grammar and speeling errors (lol) because it is exactly what the book suggests. Yes we all make mistakes but clear simple explanation on what is being done at each phase of the game helps You,Your opponent and any officials or spectators pick up when a mistake is made and rectify it.

I apologize if i came off as a "rules lawyer"

I can't imagine any of my opponents being bamboozled by rolling 2 dice to represent a reroll. I'm going to leave it as I'm glad I don't play in your area.

that part i'm absolutely fine with. I see no foul play. you are being a internet jerk for the sake of it and I now will make sure to avoid even talking to you on this forum as you are really not worth my time if you do not have the decency to read my post and see where my gripe is based then obviously you are not here for the right reason

 motyak wrote:

 XdeadpoolX wrote:
still looks like abuse of the dice in any way you put it. ok so i got my tesla destructor.. i roll 8 dice.. 4 6's pop up.. " oh oh that was my roll see" discard the 4 3's.. dude justify it any ways you want.. its cheating.. roll your weapon reroll the fails its that simple..

do i roll my armor save and feel no pain at the same time? oh look i failed my fnp but passed my armor hahaha.

this idea can only be used a way of getting an in game advantage of dice and if you did it to me i would pack up walk away and deny your very existence in my local store cos it seems like a waac tactic

Wow. Except, you know, when shooting with things that don't have additional rules, like twin-linked heavy bolters and what not. In that case rolling 6 dice (in three sets of 2) is perfectly fine, and if you were to rage quit at that I can't imagine you'd be the kind of person many people would be keen to play.

One twin linked die? Sure, just say "it's a rerollable so I'll just roll two. If either one is at least (x), it's a hit."

Doing it on any more than one die is either ignorance, or downright cheating, with the only exception being if someone goes to extreme lengths to set apart rolls in pairs for some ungodly reason. (Or if they just want to show off how many sets of matching dice they have.)

As soon as you pass 2 shots, just rolling then rerolling the misses as per normal is going to be way faster than "ok, here's one shot (rolls two dice) ok it hits, here's the second shot (rolls two dice) ok it hits, here's the third..." and so on. Imagine going through a flyrant's 12 shots with that. Or worse, a prescience'd Leman Russ Punisher.

And then there's the ever-present danger of the supposed-to-be-separate dice knocking each other and the players losing track of which die is paired with which.

Really there's no reason to do it beyond a single shot, and if someone were to insist on doing it that way for multiple shots, I would instantly assume that they're trying to slip in some funny business.

Rolling 2 dice for a dangerous terrain test and only failing on double ones is statistically different than if you rolled them one at a time.
One at a time means that your chance is 1/6 to fail on the first die, you then make another roll and again it is 1/6. Because you are rolling one at a time.
If you roll both dice together, then to fail you need to roll double ones, which is 1/36 chance.
Rolling the one die with a 1/6 chance to fail followed by another separate 1/6 chance gives you higher odds to fail.
Rolling both means you have better odds to pass, therefore is technically cheating.

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
Rolling 2 dice for a dangerous terrain test and only failing on double ones is statistically different than if you rolled them one at a time.
One at a time means that your chance is 1/6 to fail on the first die, you then make another roll and again it is 1/6. Because you are rolling one at a time.
If you roll both dice together, then to fail you need to roll double ones, which is 1/36 chance.
Rolling the one die with a 1/6 chance to fail followed by another separate 1/6 chance gives you higher odds to fail.
Rolling both means you have better odds to pass, therefore is technically cheating.

Except 1/6 x 1/6 is 1/36 - exactly the same odds. Your maths is wrong in this instance, because the chance of rolling a second die is only 1/6 - in either case you only fail on a double one. It doesn't matter whether you roll and re-roll, or roll twice.

Do you know what really saves time in a game? Just rolling the god damn dice instead of starting a discussion on how some method is statistically the same. Tbh the dangerous terrain example is easy to grasp in a game. And i'd allow it. Nevertheless you'd have to explain why you are doing it. Boom theres your saved time going down the drain ... so why not just roll normally and be done with.

If you start doing fast dice stuff that is too much of a hassle to do the math in that moment to see if it equals the normal method i'd politely ask you to just do it how the rulebook says you should.

You could conceivably make the game slightly faster by having separate piles of different coloured dice, so that you could roll multiple sets of diferent coloured dice, two dice in each set. This would be mathematically exactly the same as picking up the failures from one big group and rerolling them (in cases where you shoot a single twin linked shot. I don't think it works for multiple shot weapons). On the other hand, the advantage of speed would be negligible and possibly be negated by having to pick 2 dice out of four or five different coloured piles. Rolling two dice for a single failed dangerous terrain test is mathematically fine, and I think not much different to how the old Terminator save of 3+ on two dice worked. It's a 2+ on two dice.

The first example is fine to me, single TL weapon etc etc 2 dice and as long as one passes your good.
and this comes to situations where you have small numbers of rolls to make eg TL LC on a predator, its faster to roll 2 dice at the one time and if one is good its good, but like say a quad gun, id roll 4 dice, then re roll the misses.

second option... no, i mean you could say, if you have 4 pairs of different colored dice ok... but digging that out takes longer than rolling 4 pairs of dice 2 dice at a time.
if you had say 3TL LC and rolled 6 of the same dice, and if 3 of them were hits, then no thats dodgy better to roll 3 then 3 again if needed..