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.

 Hedgehog wrote:

 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.

Rolling one dice, then another dice is different because the dice are independent event where as 2d6 is together

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:

 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.

Rolling one dice, then another dice is different because the dice are independent event where as 2d6 is together

BUT your not adding the results just taking the one you need... and as you can only accept one it doesnt matter that they both went down at once... i mean do you make people roll their 30 shooting attacks seperatley? because the number of dice rolled varies the result instead of 1 at a time?

No because the rule book state at attack are rolled at once

Agreed, rolling two dice for a single rerollable is fine. If its more then a single die with a reroll, forget it. Unless you have a way to differentiate, in which case you're still probably better off tossing, then rerolling as necessary.

4 shots at BS4 with retools thrown 'properly' gives an average of 3.55 hits, while 'fast dicing' (rolling 8 dice) gives an average of 5.33 hits, which would equate to 4 hits. That's not an inconsiderable difference. Just a thought.

So, no, don't do it.

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

4 shots at BS4 with retools thrown 'properly' gives an average of 3.55 hits, while 'fast dicing' (rolling 8 dice) gives an average of 5.33 hits, which would equate to 4 hits.

Not rolling them in 8 pairs it doesn't

 Quanar wrote:
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.

Pretty much this. If it is one weapon that you are firing like say a twin-linked lascannon in a guard squad that is shooting at a vehicle however rolling them both at the same time should be fine statistically speaking.

I roll both dice at the same time, and I make it perfectly clear to my opponent that that is what I am doing.

If I am to roll for, say 3 TL Lascannons I do not go for the "fast rolling".....because getting out differently coloured dice and explaining (to a person that isn't used to fast rolling) isn't....well, fast.

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:

 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.

Rolling one dice, then another dice is different because the dice are independent event where as 2d6 is together

What is the chance of rolling double 1's on two dice? 1/36.

What is the chance of rolling a 1 on one die, picking it up, and rolling another 1? The first is 1/6, the 2nd is 1/6, since the first needs to happen before the 2nd, the overall chance is, 1/6 multiplied by 1/6 is, tada, 1/36.

It's exactly the same. Now if you had 5 dice to roll and they all had rerolls, rolling 10 dice and picking the successes would be cheating. Unless you did it as 5 pairs of coloured dice and only picked one success from each pair, then that would be the same as rolling 5 dice, picking up the fails and rolling them again. Of course pairing up 5 sets of dice is more time consuming than just rolling them and rerolling the fails, so I'm not sure why you'd bother with finding lots of different coloured dice in that situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

4 shots at BS4 with retools thrown 'properly' gives an average of 3.55 hits, while 'fast dicing' (rolling 8 dice) gives an average of 5.33 hits, which would equate to 4 hits.

Not rolling them in 8 pairs it doesn't

Which is more time consuming that just rolling 4 dice and rerolling the fails so doesn't really count as "fast dicing".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Not rolling them in 8 pairs it doesn't

This. I am Ok with an opponent having a dozen different colour dice which he rolls in pairs, in theory at least. Practically it would bug the hell outta me. Just roll, let me check, grab your misses and chuck again. Simples to quote the meerkat.

But, agreeing with Skink, rolling in pairs doesn't really count as fast dicing. Dice slowing maybe?

Not understanding statistics is entirely different from being cheated. Some people need to learn the difference. It's pretty funny reading about "I refuse to play you or acknowledge your existence" from a not- internet-jerk. Lol "Dear, Kettle, you are black. -Pot"

I've played one guy who objected to rolling two dice in place of a single re-rollable one. I just chuckled at his ignorance and suspicious nature and rolled separately. Reeeeeally slowly. Lol

Although multiple shots gets too complicated rolls that don't have a target number, or any other special rules pretty much make it not worthwhile to do. Even if you could figure out a fair way to do it it would take longer to explain than just rolling normally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 XdeadpoolX wrote:


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.

Actually, if you rolled them in pairs and had a different colored dice to designate the FNP dice from the Armor Save it'd be perfectly fine. Both have a target number so if either made it there would be no wound. It'd just be extra rolls on the ones that the armor passed.

So, two things.
'
Firstly, I remember being shocked when I saw my friend do this for the first time. Like "Hey, wait a minute, what are you... umm... oh, nevermind". It does look counterintuitive. I just posed this to my math genius wife, and her initial reaction was that they would be different odds for a couple of seconds. It's kind of funny that the gut reaction is that of course it's different, even though it really isn't.

Secondly, there actually was a reason for this in 5th ed that I never bothered to deal with because it had to do with plasma weapons and the way wounding worked (and I never took plasma in 5th ed). It always bugged me that a 3x plasma gun vet squad could have one dude possibly roll two overheats and instead of taking both wounds himself, he burned the guy next to him.

I'm sure I could dig up my reasoning, but the long and short of it was that if you rolled the different plasma guns separately, you could stop burns from one model from affecting another. Actually, it might still be possible in 6th. Once again, though, I don't use plasma, so...

Anyways, the way you'd roll it is with your regular dice, plus a different color for the heavy weapon, a different color for the sergeant (thanks to precise shot), and a different color for each of the plasma gunners.

Throwing a bag of skittles on the table doesn't make it that much faster, I suppose, but it's for a different reason.

Oh, and I'm also a bit surprised that a different speed-roll technique that I've used sometimes hasn't been brought up. That is, you roll a die, and if it fails, you just roll another die. That way you don't have to go reaching between models and into terrain to fish the offending failure out.

Someone I played with regularly did a +1 of this, where if he was rolling something twin-linked, he'd pick up two dice and then roll the one while holding the other, and if it failed throwing down the other.

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:

 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.

Rolling one dice, then another dice is different because the dice are independent event where as 2d6 is together

I'm afraid to say your maths is simply, objectively, factually, incorrect.

Your ability to conquer your fear is astounding.