Link to the data set.

TL;DR

Changing the rapid fire mechanics to rolling the ammo dice first and making that number of shots will result in reasonable increase in the chance of scoring at least 1 hit (1 rapid fire dice) and at least 2 hits (2 rapid fire dice).

The opposite effect is seen for more hits, your less likely to score a higher number of hits (2 or 3 on 1 rapid fire dice and 3+ hits on 2 rapid fire dice).

I'm not going to pass judgement yet in whether this is a positive or negative change. I'll let others review the data.

More in depth maths bit:

The data set is a result of a Monte Carlo simulation, which is basically getting the computer to roll dice lots of times and tell me the outcome. It's really good for modelling problems with lots of variables (aka several dice results that influence the final outcome).

Basically I got the computer to roll 10000 times for each scenario in the dataset, I could have done more but it didnt make much difference to the final results (and took longer to run each scenario).

You'll notice that because this is a statistical model some obvious probabilities look a little off. Best example is the old rapid fire method BS4+ chance of scoring 0 hits, this mathematically is 50%, but my simulation came out with 50.27%. Had I ran more runs (say 10 million) you'll see that the Monte Carlo result would get closer to the mathematical result, but I didn't want to wait that long for my scenario runs, and strain my poor PC.

This doesnt matter as 1 it's a very minor difference and 2, the important point of this model is to show the general trend of changing the mechanics, which it does well.

I'm happy to answer any questions and if people would like the data displayed in different ways then I'm happy to try to do that.

I quite enjoyed this analysis.