View Full Version : Stand and Shoot, Multiple shots

knightime98

08-02-2008, 07:16

I know there is a -1 to hit for shooting multiple shots. However, I am failing to find out where in the BRB pg. 19 and pg. 26 have no mention of it. Neither can I find it in the Empire Army book pg. 47

Did they do away with it in 7th Edition???

Can you stand and shoot with multiple shots???

I assumed that you could as it does not say that you can not..

Edit: just found under weapons BRB pg. 55, the -1 to hit with multiple shots...

Still looking to see if you can stand and shoot the same way...

I believe that you can...

I believe you believe correctly.

-T10

knightime98

08-02-2008, 07:26

T10 is always the class clown :)

The weapons always fire multiple shots.

Nurgling Chieftain

10-02-2008, 22:18

The weapons always fire multiple shots.The weapons' users can always choose to fire multiple shots. You don't have to if you don't want to. All too frequently it's not a good idea; if you've got MS2 weapons and are already hitting on 5's or 6's, don't bother.

Okay... total newb question here but if you have a move-or-shoot, multiple shot weapon (repeater handgun comes to mind) and you moved on your turn then the enemy charges you on your opponents turn, can you still stand-and-fire? Can you stand-and-fire multiple shots?

Guess this is a case of letter-o-law vs. intention-o-rules... my hunch tells me yes, you can shoot (and do multiple shots because I'm not seeing any clauses about times where you can shoot but NOT multi-shot with a multi-shot weapon) because it's a new turn and you haven't moved THAT turn... but I'm also trying to imagine what the game is abstracting and the gunners were in motion on your turn and they could be abstracted as still moving... then again, if 40k taught me anything, it's go by rules, not by gut.

But yeah... will moving in your turn have an impact on stand-and-fire on the immediately following enemy turn?

But yeah... will moving in your turn have an impact on stand-and-fire on the immediately following enemy turn?

no, you only count as moving during your own turn.

kroq'gar

13-02-2008, 01:48

you can stand and shoot with multi shots, imagine if you couldnt... brace of pistols would be borderline useless.

Nurgling Chieftain

13-02-2008, 03:31

Turn means player turn except when it doesn't. ;)

Gorbad Ironclaw

13-02-2008, 03:32

The weapons' users can always choose to fire multiple shots. You don't have to if you don't want to. All too frequently it's not a good idea; if you've got MS2 weapons and are already hitting on 5's or 6's, don't bother.

It's very rarely not worth it. Going from hitting on 5's to hitting on 6's would half your chances, but double your shoots, and that is worth it still. It's only really with poison weapons where it's an issue as you don't want to hit on less than 6's there.

Nurgling Chieftain

13-02-2008, 04:18

Going from hitting on 5's to hitting on 6's would half your chances, but double your shoots, and that is worth it still.No, it's really not. Your average number of kills is the same, assuming there are at least as many models to be killed as you're getting shots, which a lot of the time there isn't. That means that at the absolute best you're breaking even. However, in exchange for a miniscule chance of getting a whole lot of kills you're getting an increased chance of not getting any kills at all. Taking the lower number of shots gives you more reliable results - so your plan is more likely to go as expected.

I can expand on the math at length, but for simplicity's sake consider the following: if you fire 10 shots you can get up to 10 kills, while if you fire 5 shots you can only get up to 5 kills. With the average being the same, how does 5 possible kills add up to 10 possible kills? By each being more likely and therefore overall more reliable.

Poison changes the situation fairly dramatically: going from hitting on 5's to twice as many shots hitting on 6's is actually a huge benefit in that case, but of course going from 6's to 7's negates poison altogether.

No, it's really not. Your average number of kills is the same, assuming there are at least as many models to be killed as you're getting shots, which a lot of the time there isn't. That means that at the absolute best you're breaking even. However, in exchange for a miniscule chance of getting a whole lot of kills you're getting an increased chance of not getting any kills at all. Taking the lower number of shots gives you more reliable results - so your plan is more likely to go as expected.

This shows a misunderstanding - to say it politely.

It is not more reliable to roll a 6 on two dice than it is to roll a 5 on one dice-

As you say yourself: "Your average number of kills is the same"

... but you have the (off-) chance to hit twice on 6's, which simply isn't possible if you only roll 1 dice. Hence it is always better to double the dice while halving the chance.

Festus

Nurgling Chieftain

13-02-2008, 05:45

Back at'cha Festus - you're flat out wrong, no more polite way to say it.

Odds of getting no hits on 1 die at 5+ = 2/3 = 24/36

Odds of getting no hits on 2 dice at 6 = (5/6)*(5/6) = 25/36

You are more likely to miss altogether with two shots than with one. The average is made up by the fact that there's a slim chance you'll get two hits. But unless you're desperate for the game to turn around, you're better off taking the surer thing than risking blowing a solid plan.

You are more likely to miss altogether with two shots than with one. The average is made up by the fact that there's a slim chance you'll get two hits. But unless you're desperate for the game to turn around, you're better off taking the surer thing than risking blowing a solid plan.

You are coming from the wrong side:

As soon as you roll two or more dice, the average hits stay the same: 2/6 or 2*1/6.

Your math holds true for just one roll of 1 dice on 5+ compared to two dice on 6+., with the only requirement of causing *no* hits.

This is not the situation.

Festus

Festus is right.

mathematically you should do the same number of hits when in both situations.

But this is a statistics roll and then the law of large numbers comes up:

the more dice you roll, the more you will be on average.

Nurgling Chieftain

13-02-2008, 07:55

You are coming from the wrong side:At this point I am dubious that you have the foggiest notion of what my argument even is.

Your math holds true for just one roll of 1 dice on 5+ compared to two dice on 6+.I was responding to your example. The discrepancy only gets more noticeable as you add firers.

Probabilities for each possible number of hits for 5 shots at 5+:

0:13.17% 1:32.92% 2:32.92% 3:16.46% 4:4.12% 5:0.41%

Note that your chance of getting at least 2 hits is 53.91%...

Probabilities for each possible number of hits for 10 shots at 6+:

0:16.15% 1:32.30% 2:29.07% 3:15.50% 4:5.43% 5:1.3% 6:0.22% 7:0.02% 8:<0.01% 9:<0.01% 10:<0.01%

Note that your chance of getting at least 2 hits is down to 51.55%, and your chance of getting no hits is up by 2.98%! Sure, your chance of getting more than 5 hits exists (albeit only 0.24%), but you pay for that on the low end (thus, the average comes out even).

Oh, and don't kid yourself that there's anything wrong with that math. I have routines to crunch these sorts of probabilities automatically.

This is not the situation.We've agreed that the average number of kills is the same (albeit only insofar as the number of possible wounds is at least the number of shots), although your previous post demonstrates a very serious lack of comprehension of what that actually means. The fact remains, however, that each given number of potential hits is NOT equally likely.

Thus, if you fire twice as many shots with half the chance of hitting, you are both more likely to get more hits AND more likely to get less hits than if you just fire once each. This means your chance of getting a predictable result - i.e., of getting near the average - is less. Therefore, it's less reliable, which was my original assertion, and generally having a battle plan I want to succeed, I like reliable.

In fairness, in some circumstances you may want less reliable. If you're getting your ass kicked and desperately need your firers to put a huge dent in a unit, you might very well take the increased probability of doing no damage in exchange for a better chance of doing more damage. But in general - don't bother taking more shots unless the average number of kills will actually increase - staying the same is not sufficient. At the end of the day, we're not talking about large differences, here, anyway.

But this is a statistics roll and then the law of large numbers comes up:

the more dice you roll, the more you will be on average.I really don't think you truly understand what you're talking about. That works as a rule when the probabilities aren't changing. I.e., if you roll one die at 4+, you'll never get an average result, while if you roll two, you've got a fully 50% chance of scoring exactly average. It never actually gets better than that in terms of exact averages, but as you roll more dice your chance of deviating a significant percentage of results from average drops quickly. All that, however, is out the window if the probability of each roll is proportional to the number of rolls! That mostly just spreads the probabilities out wider, as demonstrated above. You can only consider that to be "closer to average" by changing what is expected, which you normally would (since you have twice as many possible results you'd expect the spread to be twice as big, and it isn't even close to THAT different), but it doesn't work across different numbers of probabilities (i.e. dice).

EDIT: Another way of putting that is that as you roll more dice you tend to get closer to average in percentage terms (i.e. percentage of hits) but further from average in absolute terms (i.e. number of hits).

We understand perfectly, believe me...

Fact is, that there is no difference in average between rolling two dice at 6+ and one dice at 5+.

It is the deviation that is important:

As much as your chance to be *safer* is lessend with more dice, the chance that you *can do more damage* is increased as well.

You will never be able to cause 6 hits with 4 dice, but you may with 8 dice.

As the die rlol that is actually on the table is all thatcounts - and not some probabilities - this makes for more than its worth...

Whatever.

I know the number crunching - by heart.

But this does not change the fact, that in the end you have to deal with just one specific set of rolls: The dice which are on the table-

I am out ... and you probably still won't see my point. Don't bother.

Festus

Nurgling Chieftain

13-02-2008, 10:39

We understand perfectly, believe me...Okay. The rest of your post is a summary of my underlying arguments, which we seem to now be in agreement on, despite some rather odd statements you made earlier. So I must conclude that you DO understand the underlying principles. Then why won't you address the actual argument I put forth? You've talked a lot about probabilities and apparently we're on the same page. So, why do you continue to avoid the point of contention?

Allow me to re-state it: I think it is mostly better to take the smaller but more reliable kills than to take a lower chance on a higher number of kills. I prioritize this way because it is easier for plans to work out as intended. I think an exception is when your plan is already failing and you need to hope for a lucky set of rolls; there are other possible exceptions (in both directions) but that's the big one. A good tactician, IMO, minimizes the chances that things will go wrong and does not rely on getting particularly lucky to win.

You have not addressed any of this, yet those are my key points.

You, instead, have baldly asserted that it is better to take the chance of getting more kills, while giving no reason beyond "more possible kills" and not addressing the downside of that position, which is the higher probability of doing less kills.

and you probably still won't see my point.Your latest post did not make any assertions I did not already make myself. I can clearly demonstrate that line by line if necessary. At our actual disagreement, you have not made an argument, only an unsupported assertion.

Hi

A good tactician, IMO, minimizes the chances that things will go wrong and does not rely on getting particularly lucky to win.

Obviously, here we fail to agree:

A good tactician knows the possible outcomes of a given situation, and the possibilities - and then decides to take his chances.

A tactic relying on averages is doomed to fail, as there (next to) never will be a set of situations where it all goes to the average.

If I only plot the average, I will take no risks and go for the defensive approach - and thus handing the initiative to my oponent who dares to challenge the statistic in the right moment. I may not make an impact on the enemy unit with regular shooting, and I may not make an impact on the unit with double the amount of shots - so there is next to no difference for me in terms of tactics ... but I might score a sizeable amount of damge and paying off for a small loss if it doesn't turn out well enough.

Believe me, I know what I do if I play WHFB (or other games of strategy or tactics - or even in reality).

This is my approach, and experience tells me about its gains ... beyond statistics, it is always the actual situation that counts in winning or losing.

We can certainly agree on having a different attitude to tactics, then :)

Festus

knightime98

13-02-2008, 11:18

Odds of getting no hits on 1 die at 5+ = 2/3 = 24/36

Odds of getting no hits on 2 dice at 6 = (5/6)*(5/6) = 25/36

While I do not disagree with the above, I will add to this that you have

a 1 in 36 chance of getting 2 hits by rolling 2 dice on 6's. Coincidentally,

by your math above you have the exact additional chance of missing with both 1 in 36 chance (the same percentage). So, IMO it is a wash. However, the upside in this case is that you have the potential of getting the 2 hits (~3%) whereby rolling only a single die you may only get a single hit(~33%).

Atrahasis

13-02-2008, 11:44

Festus, i would love to play poker with you sometime, I'm a little short on cash.

Variance will produce the anomalous results you're suggesting, but RELYING on those anomalous results is tantamount to gaming suicide. If you do so you aren't a tactician, you're a gambler.

Hi

I never said I relied on those results.

I just said that I would always roll double the number of dice with the halved chance, as on average, it is of no difference, but in a few special cases, can be beneficial. (And it is a given, that it can be less beneficial, too, in a few cases - hence the *no difference* part). I will take my chances there ... does that make me a gambler? If so, I have little to lose and a lot to gain: Great. :)

Festus

Festus

As stated, rolling the 1 die for a 5+ will yield slightly better chance (slightly under 2.7%) to get a hit then rolling a 6+ on 2 dice. Also though, rolling 2 dice has a 2.7% chance to score 2 hits. Basically, its a question of whether you want to sacrifice 2.7% of a hit chance for an equal chance of a double hit. One option is a slightly more consistent; while the other can potentially yield greater results. I personally would take the double dice almost every time. For me, the small loss in mean with a gain in upper deviation is worth it in this case.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.