This was at rype 40 to comments ago i didnt want to copy the mamoth statement

In order
to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack).
They must also have the
same Strength, Armour
Penetration and Damage
characteristics, and they
must be directed at the
same unit.

Where is the permission.

In order to do x all the attacks must have the same a, b, c

There is no permission given

ABC are restrictions on what X can be. You are not given permission or instructed to do anything in that quote.

Given you have evidenced you have no permission the first permission you evidence is the second quote

If this is the
case, make all of the hit
rolls at the same time, then
all of the wound rolls

This refers to all.

In other words

In order to do x all the attacks must have the same a, b, c.
If this is the case, do Y

Where Y is defined as all the to hit rolls

For it to require you roll all similar attacks together when fast-rolling, instead of having the option to do some and not others, it would need to say "In order to make all of your attacks at once..." Several is a vague number which can mean practically anything. Therefore, you have permission to only fastroll some of your attacks, if you wish. All further references to "all" refer to the attacks you chose to fast-roll. Otherwise, they would have to refer to every attack your unit is able to make, including those you cannot fast-roll, and obviously this isn't the case.

U02dah4 wrote:
This was at rype 40 to comments ago i didnt want to copy the mamoth statement

In order
to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack).
They must also have the
same Strength, Armour
Penetration and Damage
characteristics, and they
must be directed at the
same unit.

Where is the permission.

In the part of fast rolling you didn't copy and paste.

"However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together.", followed by the start of what you quoted "in order to make several attacks at once" It doesn't specify all attacks of the same type, only that you are grouping similar attacks together.

As I said before though, GAP is that if you fast roll you fast roll all the dice, and (unless somebody has a reason beside the hypothetical infinite damage case) there's little reason to not roll them all together..

Does several mean ALL or does several mean more then one ?

AKA do you want to make more then one attack at the same time.
Not do you want to make ALL attacks at the same time.
Seriously, where does it tell you to make ALL attacks at the same time?
You still haven't addressed how the second sentence means that ? thats not how english works ...
Your adding context where there isn't any. ALL is either referring to what is outlined in the first sentence. Or it is referring to nothing.

I am not going to keep repeating this. You can make up what ever extra restrictions you want, but its not going to put it in the book. The book is clear. You want to make more then one attack (aka several) then they have to have the same characteristics. Then you roll all of those together. Its not complicated language. Its simple. you wana make several attacks together, you can, this is how. It does not say you MUST make them all together. Even if you take it out of context like that, what makes you think it says "ALL of the hit rolls at the same time" even refers to the restrictions. If we are ignoring one part of the sentence, why not ignore the rest. Lets just roll ALL of the hits for the entire game together ? you have to understand that what you are suggesting does not make grammatical or linguistic sense right ?
I am done with this, its not hard to figure out. I am tired of seeing people read half a sentence and then decide to ignore common syntax, grammar, full words and sentences and even add in extra parts where they find convenient.

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
This was at rype 40 to comments ago i didnt want to copy the mamoth statement

In order
to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack).
They must also have the
same Strength, Armour
Penetration and Damage
characteristics, and they
must be directed at the
same unit.

Where is the permission.

In the part of fast rolling you didn't copy and paste.

"However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together.", followed by the start of what you quoted "in order to make several attacks at once" It doesn't specify all attacks of the same type, only that you are grouping similar attacks together.

As I said before though, GAP is that if you fast roll you fast roll all the dice, and (unless somebody has a reason beside the hypothetical infinite damage case) there's little reason to not roll them all together..

I didn't quote that as its not permissive so doesnt effect anything.

However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together.",

Is a statement

It is possible is not instructive or permissive.

It doesnt say you may subgroup.

So we are back to

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all the attacks must have the same a, b, c.
If this is the case, do Y

The only permisive or instructive and therefore relevant part is Y

Except thats not what it says lol.
You just wrote words down, but they arn't the words in the book.

As to type 40 several doesnt mean anything without a context. Several what.

In this case several is defined by Y as all hit rolls and all wound rolls. Provided A B & C are met.

It tells you In Y "all the dice" you are given no other permission or instruction.

Im not make any restrictions i'm just following the instruction as they are written. (All the instructions)

Which are written in the format It is possible to do x. In order to do x all the attacks must have the same a, b, c. If this is the case, do Y.

Where Y is roll all the attack rolls then all the wound rolls.

You have no permission to do otherswise. It is a basic premise of the game that you cannot to things without permission.

U02dah4 wrote:

Spoiler:

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
This was at rype 40 to comments ago i didnt want to copy the mamoth statement

In order
to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack).
They must also have the
same Strength, Armour
Penetration and Damage
characteristics, and they
must be directed at the
same unit.

Where is the permission.

In the part of fast rolling you didn't copy and paste.

"However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together.", followed by the start of what you quoted "in order to make several attacks at once" It doesn't specify all attacks of the same type, only that you are grouping similar attacks together.

As I said before though, GAP is that if you fast roll you fast roll all the dice, and (unless somebody has a reason beside the hypothetical infinite damage case) there's little reason to not roll them all together..

I didn't quote that as its not permissive so doesnt effect anything.

However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together.",

Is a statement

It is possible is not instructive or permissive.

It doesnt say you may subgroup.

So we are back to

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all the attacks must have the same a, b, c.
If this is the case, do Y

The only permisive or instructive and therefore relevant part is Y

It says you may roll several attacks that are similar together. It does not say that it must be all of those type of attacks. So you group the several together and roll them at once. then, you go back and see what you have to roll and you still have weapons that are similar to each other and you take "several" together and fast roll those. You are following RAW when you do that.

The problem is you read "several" as "all". If you group several together and roll them, then group several together and roll them after that it's fine. There's no "subgroups" at all because the groups start, as per the rules, at the "several" level. If you're not allowed to fast roll different "subgroups" as you state, then you only get to fast roll anything once - if you have another group of similar weapons (for example, two meltaguns in a group of bolters), you couldn't fast roll the meltaguns together because that would count as a different subgroup from the bolters when fast rolling your group of "all" weapons.

it doesn't say you may if it said "you may" we would be in agreement because you would have permission

it says in order to make several attacks,

which gives you no permission

And how many is several ?

If it said "in order to make 3 attacks at the same time each of the attacks must have the same characteristics. If this is the case roll all of them and do X "

would you be arguing that it says to roll all not 3.

Its literally the same syntax.

i would be arguing that it tells you to roll all of them.

All of them in the context might happen to be 3 because the number has been defined earlier but the instruction is to roll all of them.

several in the context is an unspecified number defined later as as all of them. You have no permission to define them any other way.

U02dah4 wrote:
it doesn't say you may if it said "you may" we would be in agreement because you would have permission

it says in order to make several attacks,

which gives you no permission

"It is possible" gives you permission.

No it doesn't.

Saying it is possible to do something is not the same as give you permission to do so.

If I say it is possible for a grey knight player to win.

That does not mean I am suggesting you have permission to win just for playing grey knights.

U02dah4 wrote:
No it doesn't.

Saying it is possible to do something is not the same as give you permission to do so.

If I say it is possible for a grey knight player to win.

That does not mean I am suggesting you have permission to win just for playing grey knights.

Saying it is posssible, following up with the instructions on how to do it with "several" (not all of one type) weapons, most certainly is permission.

indeed could you point to the bit where it says (not all of one type)

if not it is followed by instructions to roll all to hit rolls

So then roll the complete games hit rolls all at once .

If the first sentence is not permissive. Then when the first sentence tells you it is possible to roll several hit rolls at once as long as they have the same characteristics. Then the second part isn't permission to roll dice with the same characteristics...

So if your claiming the first sentences qualifier isn't permissive for one part, then I guess it cant be for the second part. Again, you can't have it both ways.

So based on your logic,
You must roll ALL hit rolls that exist in the game. The first sentence does not give you permission to do anything and it also doesn't act as a qualifier for what to roll. Not a qualifier for several dice. Then not a qualifier for same characteristics. Its all within the same syntax.

Again, you dont get to have it both ways, either you acknowledge the first sentence is permissive or the second sentence has nothing AT ALL to reference. And is simply telling you to ROLL ALL HIT ROLLS without telling you what all is... so all must be every possible hit roll in the game... good luck figuring that out.

It either is permissive or at minimum a reference qualifier. Or you are trying to apply logic to a non-nonsensical sentence/rule that is literally trying to tell you to roll ALL hit rolls in the game.

So because I conclude that saying something is possible is not a permission which it's not.

Your saying I can't conclude that a specific instruction telling you
"if this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls. " means "If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls. "

and that If you wanted to apply this you would have to apply it to all hit rolls in the game despite this not meeting the "if this is the case" requirement literally the first 5 words of the instruction and the initial statement saying you can roll dice one at a time.

It's not be that's having logic problems.

Explain the first sentence then ? what is the first sentence telling you to do ?

If the first sentence is not permissive, then none of the first sentence is . So what is the second sentence even talking about ? What hit rolls is it referring too ? what restrictions ?

You are reading one sentence in the middle of a paragraph, deciding it has new qualifiers that do not exist, and then picking and choosing how it applies... that's not how reading rules works.

U02dah4 wrote:


So we are back to

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all the attacks must have the same a, b, c.
If this is the case, do Y

The only permisive or instructive and therefore relevant part is Y

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all of x must have the same a, b, c.

Let's look at the rule again:
"In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack)."

What seems to be causing contention here is that 'several' is not defined specifically, leading some to assume that 'all' delivers the primary definition of quantity. I will attempt to show that this is not the case.
"all...must have" is a condition for performing the action described immediately prior, i.e. "make several attacks at once". It thus follows that the decision to make several attacks at once has already been made. Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. This condition applies solely to the making of the several attacks and does not in and of itself define any new quantity.

U02dah4 wrote:
No it doesn't.

Saying it is possible to do something is not the same as give you permission to do so.

If I say it is possible for a grey knight player to win.

That does not mean I am suggesting you have permission to win just for playing grey knights.

But you do have permission to win just by playing GK. It's only that you also need to fulfil a whole set of additional requirements to win. Stating that something is possible implicitly grants permission until the caveat of its prohibition is added.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You can’t read that line as an operative command to force you to roll all e.g. bolters at once. It’s telling you to roll all the “several” attacks you’ve decided to at once.

There is literally no allowance to break up to hit rolls if the all have the same Ballistic Skill, Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics that are directed at the same unit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Snugiraffe wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:


So we are back to

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all the attacks must have the same a, b, c.
If this is the case, do Y

The only permisive or instructive and therefore relevant part is Y

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all of x must have the same a, b, c.

Let's look at the rule again:
"In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack)."

What seems to be causing contention here is that 'several' is not defined specifically, leading some to assume that 'all' delivers the primary definition of quantity. I will attempt to show that this is not the case.
"all...must have" is a condition for performing the action described immediately prior, i.e. "make several attacks at once". It thus follows that the decision to make several attacks at once has already been made. Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. This condition applies solely to the making of the several attacks and does not in and of itself define any new quantity.

U02dah4 wrote:
No it doesn't.

Saying it is possible to do something is not the same as give you permission to do so.

If I say it is possible for a grey knight player to win.

That does not mean I am suggesting you have permission to win just for playing grey knights.

But you do have permission to win just by playing GK. It's only that you also need to fulfil a whole set of additional requirements to win. Stating that something is possible implicitly grants permission until the caveat of its prohibition is added.

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all of x must have the same a, b, c. . If this is the case make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls. - If I add the line you missed off Agreed

"all...must have" is a condition for performing the action described immediately prior - agreed it is a restriction on the ability to form a group (x must have the same a, b, c. )

It thus follows that the decision to make several attacks at once has already been made. - Logically the decision was made when we decided to use the fast rolling rules. So yes I will conclude the decision to use fast rolls occurs before you consider whether the action is restricted and thus legal. However making the decision to use fast rolling neither defines several ( If this is the case make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls.) or restrictions on the use of several (x must have the same a, b, c. . ). In the same way as deciding to move my knight doesn't tell me how to move models or how far/what restrictions there are on my knights movement.

Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. -Given the decision to use fast rolling neither defines several or restrictions on its use, the decision itself gives you no such permissions. The only sentence that gives you permission is "If this is the case make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

Implicit by definition is not RAW especially when there is an Explicit definition for the process.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You can’t read that line as an operative command to force you to roll all e.g. bolters at once. It’s telling you to roll all the “several” attacks you’ve decided to at once.

There is literally no allowance to break up to hit rolls if the all have the same Ballistic Skill, Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics that are directed at the same unit.

Really? Are you saying I have not choice but to Fast Roll attacks with the same Ballistic Skill, Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics that are directed at the same unit? I'm pretty sure I can roll them one at a time.

What I can't see is where in the Fast Rolling rule it states that if I elect to Fast Roll that I must select group all attacks with the same characteristics together. It only says that I may only select such attacks to roll together. Notably the rule is "all attacks must" not "all attacks that".

Fast Dice
Rolling
The rules for resolving
attacks have been written
assuming you will make
them one at a time.
However, it is possible to
speed up your battles by
rolling the dice for similar
attacks together.

So yes you may role your dice one at the time

however if you apply fast rolling you "make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

You must use one system or the other.

The key phrase your looking for is "If this the case" (Condition) make all of the hit rolls at the same time (Process for how you do it) what confuses you is GW rules-writing that places this after restrictions on its use.

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all of x must have the same a, b, c. . If this is the case make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls

Your cutting parts out again.
A part of the condition it is referring to is "rolling several dice at the same time" its literally in the same sentence as the other conditions. Again, you don't get to have it both ways.

What confuses YOU is that you are assuming a random sentence in the middle of a paragraph is poor/confusing writing instead of reading it in a logical, syntax relevant, grammatically correct way whilst ignoring the context of previous sentences. A descriptive pronoun refers to a previous directly stated subject when it is a sentence in a paragraph. If GW intended that sentence be a further restriction, they would have written a sentence that makes sense.

You still havn't explained how "make al lthe hit rolls together" can refer to the ones in the current attack or anything else for that mater. That sentence as a restriction on its own does not make any sense. It is illogical as a single sentence restriction, unless it refers to the previous sentence . otherwise "all of the hit rolls" doesn't refer to anything, unless you can show where it does ?

Whilst either ignoring or acknowledging the entirety of the previous sentence what hit rolls is the second sentence referring too ? (please quote complete sentences and actual rules instead of stringing together parts of other sentences to say what you want them to).

If I said to you

"I want to eat more then one apple today. Today I will eat several apples and each one of them will be red. All of the apples must be washed before consumption then I eat each one"

I am not magically telling you that I will consume ALL of the apples I have. If we take the second sentence out of context then there will be no qualifier for the word "ALL" and make no sense. I am simply telling you what to do with each one that meet the previous condition of being red and being an amount of apples that is more then one. This is not hard to figure out.

You are grasping at this so hard, just read the paragraph out loud. Follow punctuation. pause at the commas and periods. Listen to how it sounds as you say it. If that doesn't make it obvious. I am not sure what to tell you.

I am really giving up on this topic now. You can't just pick random words and sentences and decide they work together in what ever way suits you. That's not how reading works. You don't just get to pick out some random sentence from the rules and go "wouldn't this work better if I just focused on this sentence out of context and and applied in a way not explicitly written down in these rules"

It is possible to do x.
In order to do x all of x must have the same a, b, c.
If this is the case
make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls

Is a litteral summary of the whole text nothing missed out

Im not sure what you think im trying to have both ways

I don't ignore several "its defined by make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls"

Untill that point it has no definition

I havn't explained why all hit rolls refer to the current attack well it hardly refers to a past or potential future attack. Of course it refers to the previous sentence it defines it "if this is the case" would be the linking phrase

I am quoting the whole rule you may replace my summary statements

It is possible to do x.

With

However, it is possible to
speed up your battles by
rolling the dice for similar
attacks together.

In order to do x all of x must have the same a, b, c.
With

In order
to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack).
They must also have the
same Strength, Armour
Penetration and Damage
characteristics, and they
must be directed at the
same unit.

If this is the case

With

If this is the
case,

And

make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls

With

make all of the hit
rolls at the same time, then
all of the wound rolls

You will notice the last two are identical and noones contested the first two. Its just a lot quicker to read as a summary.

No but in your apple statement you don't explicitly say you will eat all the apples while the rules tell you

"make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls"

Theres no magic its just read the rules as written in context not one clause and infer the rest.

Im not the one grasping mine is evidensed. I havn't picked random words I have followed all words in sequence.
Your entire premise is based on picking one clause out of context and claiming it adds permissions it clearly doesnt and ignoreing the rest its no wonder you havn't been able to support it

To the people saying choosing to fast roll means you have to roll ALL of the dice at the same time I propose a hypothetical... If I have a platoon of 50 guardsmen and a priest making 150 melee attacks, does that mean I have to roll 150 dice at once, and if I don't have that many dice that means I HAVE to roll them one-by-one?

That would be absurd if so.

I have never seen that kind of thing, even in tournaments.

There is also scenarios such as plasma weapons with multiple shots that need to be rolled separately per model unless you have different colored dice to differentiate the firing models, because of the possibility of rolling double ones on a single model.

By default each shot must be resolved one at a time.

The rules for fast ruling allow you to group shots. There are no restrictions on having to group them or not, and there is no written restrictions that all shots of the same type must be either grouped or ungrouped.

Generally we think that all of shooting attacks happen at one time event from a firing unit, so it seems counter Intuitive that you could take an 8 shot weapon and individually roll 4 of the attacks, then roll the other four together. However the rules are not restricting the ability to do just that, and doing so can still follow the requirements for grouped shots.

A lot of tournament formats further have rules this as being the written rules for the kelermorph who buffs to hit rolls after he wounds something. Often players will roll attacks individually until something suffers damage, then group the rest of the attacks. Legal in ITC, ETC, and Nova formats.

How is this an issue? My brother and I must be the only people on the planet with multiple sets of dice in our box/bag. I throw a white die in for my plasma shots, a red in for my missle launcher, and all the rest are my Crimson Fists colored dice for bolters. All at once. Is it really that difficult?

Many units have dozens of attacks. For example, a group of 30 Slugga Boyz, buffed by Ghazkull Thraka and Warpath, can have 180 attacks (181 with a Boss Nob). 180 dice is a sizable amount to both carry AND roll, and it's not unreasonable to fast-roll them in much smaller sets.

 Just Tony wrote:
How is this an issue? My brother and I must be the only people on the planet with multiple sets of dice in our box/bag. I throw a white die in for my plasma shots, a red in for my missle launcher, and all the rest are my Crimson Fists colored dice for bolters. All at once. Is it really that difficult?

What about a person who only has one set of 20 dice of all of the same color. Is he just not allowed to play the game then? Or is he forced to roll all of his attacks individually?

I guarantee you that resolving 150 attacks from a platoon of 50 guardsmen one model at a time will get you kicked out of a tournament for slow play, and rolling that many dice all at once is not feasible, both from a practicality perspective and maybe even a financial one.

w1zard wrote:
To the people saying choosing to fast roll means you have to roll ALL of the dice at the same time I propose a hypothetical... If I have a platoon of 50 guardsmen and a priest making 150 melee attacks, does that mean I have to roll 150 dice at once, and if I don't have that many dice that means I HAVE to roll them one-by-one?

That would be absurd if so.

I have never seen that kind of thing, even in tournaments.

There is also scenarios such as plasma weapons with multiple shots that need to be rolled separately per model unless you have different colored dice to differentiate the firing models, because of the possibility of rolling double ones on a single model.

No it means you must roll all the to hit rolls before progressing to the to wound rolls and all the to wound rolls before progressing to damage not you must roll all to hit rolls in a single throw.

If you only have 50 dice and need to make 150 attacks.

You roll 50 hits then 50 hits then 50 hits then start to roll wounds till all the wounds are rolled then all the damage.

What we are saying you can't do is roll 50 hits then, 20 wounds then resolve half the damage then a few more hits before finishing the damage and then more wound rolls.

U02dah4 wrote:

Spoiler:

w1zard wrote:
To the people saying choosing to fast roll means you have to roll ALL of the dice at the same time I propose a hypothetical... If I have a platoon of 50 guardsmen and a priest making 150 melee attacks, does that mean I have to roll 150 dice at once, and if I don't have that many dice that means I HAVE to roll them one-by-one?

That would be absurd if so.

I have never seen that kind of thing, even in tournaments.

There is also scenarios such as plasma weapons with multiple shots that need to be rolled separately per model unless you have different colored dice to differentiate the firing models, because of the possibility of rolling double ones on a single model.

No it means you must roll all the to hit rolls before progressing to the to wound rolls and all the to wound rolls before progressing to damage not you must roll all to hit rolls in a single throw.

If you only have 50 dice and need to make 150 attacks.

You roll 50 hits then 50 hits then 50 hits then start to roll wounds till all the wounds are rolled then all the damage.

What we are saying you can't do is roll 50 hits then, 20 wounds then resolve half the damage then a few more hits before finishing the damage and then more wound rolls.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that:
"In order
to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack). "
means that I can take an arbitrary number of dice (50 in the example), which then constitute the "several", and roll all of them at once. Note how we're not rolling all of the attacks at once.

 Just Tony wrote:
How is this an issue? My brother and I must be the only people on the planet with multiple sets of dice in our box/bag. I throw a white die in for my plasma shots, a red in for my missle launcher, and all the rest are my Crimson Fists colored dice for bolters. All at once. Is it really that difficult?

Thats fine your fast rolling your two plama shots and bolt guns as a seperate group due to seperate characteristics and single rolling your missile launcher im assuming krak -everyone agreed this is fine.

In most curcumstances it doesn't matter. If your only throwing 10 dice the time implications are minimal.

There are circumstances where it does matter.

If i have 150 attacks and roll 17 to hit rolls scoreing 9 wounds resolve 4 wounds then role 53 to hit rolls scoreing 20 wounds allow my opponent to make 3 armour saves then roll 28 to hit rolls scoreing 14 wounds resolving an armour save then 38 to hit rolls followed by 19 wound rolls 6 armour saves etc.....

How many hits/wounds/ armour saves have I left to roll. it quickly becomes messy this is a problem not following the rules creates. However batch players feel this is legal but can't substantiate why under the RAW so thats prob (1)

The second problem which started this was in relation to rolling infinite to wound rolls. Sequential is legal under the rules and continues untill the unit is dead. Fast rolling if you can't batch would require you to roll all to hit rolls or infinite dice which would take infinite tome locking the turn while batch players say roll a load of dice resolve them then a load more. Thats prob (2).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Snugiraffe wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

Spoiler:

w1zard wrote:
To the people saying choosing to fast roll means you have to roll ALL of the dice at the same time I propose a hypothetical... If I have a platoon of 50 guardsmen and a priest making 150 melee attacks, does that mean I have to roll 150 dice at once, and if I don't have that many dice that means I HAVE to roll them one-by-one?

That would be absurd if so.

I have never seen that kind of thing, even in tournaments.

There is also scenarios such as plasma weapons with multiple shots that need to be rolled separately per model unless you have different colored dice to differentiate the firing models, because of the possibility of rolling double ones on a single model.

No it means you must roll all the to hit rolls before progressing to the to wound rolls and all the to wound rolls before progressing to damage not you must roll all to hit rolls in a single throw.

If you only have 50 dice and need to make 150 attacks.

You roll 50 hits then 50 hits then 50 hits then start to roll wounds till all the wounds are rolled then all the damage.

What we are saying you can't do is roll 50 hits then, 20 wounds then resolve half the damage then a few more hits before finishing the damage and then more wound rolls.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that:
"In order
to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack). "
means that I can take an arbitrary number of dice (50 in the example), which then constitute the "several", and roll all of them at once. Note how we're not rolling all of the attacks at once.

We are saying the rules tell you to make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls.

If you have 70 to hit rolls you must roll all 70 and then your to wound rolls.

I have no problem with you rolling 20 hits and then 50 hits or 2x 35 or 1 x70. You have still rolled 70 before rolling your wound rolls. What you cant do is pick 50 resolve the to hits the to wounds then another 20 to hits because the sequence is all hits then all wounds.

You effectively are rolling all the attacks your just splitting the dice because you dont have / can't hold enough dice what you can't do is roll a portion of the attacks only to resolution then another portion.

w1zard wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
How is this an issue? My brother and I must be the only people on the planet with multiple sets of dice in our box/bag. I throw a white die in for my plasma shots, a red in for my missle launcher, and all the rest are my Crimson Fists colored dice for bolters. All at once. Is it really that difficult?

What about a person who only has one set of 20 dice of all of the same color. Is he just not allowed to play the game then? Or is he forced to roll all of his attacks individually?

I guarantee you that resolving 150 attacks from a platoon of 50 guardsmen one model at a time will get you kicked out of a tournament for slow play, and rolling that many dice all at once is not feasible, both from a practicality perspective and maybe even a financial one.

Not allowed to play? Hyperbole much?

That person could plink down for another set of dice relatively easily. I just nabbed a set of Golden Recon from Chessex, it was pretty effortless and can be done at damn near any game store. It's not like they are so expensive that there is much of a logical reason to CHOOSE not to.



To everyone else who posted after my first post, the poster who said "roll all 'to hit' rolls before moving on to 'to wound' rolls" has the right of it, in the case of having more hits than dice.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
I would agree, the english here is stating that you can roll similar attacks together, it doesn't specify how many. Then once you have chosen how many, you roll all of them together.
Its quite easy to parse, why is this a problem ?

It literally says to roll all the dice. That is specifying how many, namely all of them.

All of the dice belonging to the several attacks you chose to resolve.

If you have 20 dice, and 10 space marine bikes, you can choose fast roll them 5 bikes at a time. The rules don’t require you to roll 40 shots 1 at a time because you don’t physically have enough dice to fast roll 10 bikes at once. You are allowed to chose several - say 20 of the 40 Bolter shots on the bikes, and roll all 20 dice at once, while breaking the other 20 Bolger shots into a second group where you will again roll all 20 Bolter shots at once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:


No it means you must roll all the to hit rolls before progressing to the to wound rolls and all the to wound rolls before progressing to damage not you must roll all to hit rolls in a single throw.

If you only have 50 dice and need to make 150 attacks.

You roll 50 hits then 50 hits then 50 hits then start to roll wounds till all the wounds are rolled then all the damage.

What we are saying you can't do is roll 50 hits then, 20 wounds then resolve half the damage then a few more hits before finishing the damage and then more wound rolls.

No, you must roll all the hit rolls IN THAT GROUP then all the wound rolls. You do not roll all the Bolter hit rolls, then all the plasma hit rolls, the. All the hit rolls for your other squads, then all the hit rolls for your vehicles, then all the hit rolls for your characters, then all the Bolter wound rolls, then all the plasma wound rolls, etc etc. You still follow the attack sequence.

You roll all the hit rolls (for the group of attacks you are currently resolving with the current attack sequence)
You roll all the wound rolls... for the group yadda yadda.

You still apply the attack sequence rules, but you’re allowed to choose to roll several - your choice - attacks through the sequence at the same time.

Rolling Group A’s hit rolls, then group B’s hit rolls before rolling Group A’s wound rolls (and then armor saves, damage allocation etc) violates the attack sequence.

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You can’t read that line as an operative command to force you to roll all e.g. bolters at once. It’s telling you to roll all the “several” attacks you’ve decided to at once.

There is literally no allowance to break up to hit rolls if the all have the same Ballistic Skill, Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics that are directed at the same unit.

Really? Are you saying I have not choice but to Fast Roll attacks with the same Ballistic Skill, Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics that are directed at the same unit? I'm pretty sure I can roll them one at a time.

What I can't see is where in the Fast Rolling rule it states that if I elect to Fast Roll that I must select group all attacks with the same characteristics together. It only says that I may only select such attacks to roll together. Notably the rule is "all attacks must" not "all attacks that".

You clearly did not read my previous post.

I said

 DeathReaper wrote:
All of the hit rolls, that have the same Ballistic Skill Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics that are directed at the same unit need to be rolled all at once. you can not split them up ever (If you choose to fast roll).

Note the parenthetical.

If you fast roll, you must "make all of the hit rolls at the same time". This definitely obligates you to roll all similar attacks at once. (Since you may need clarification we are talking about "If you choose to fast roll").

 DeathReaper wrote:

Note the parenthetical.

If you fast roll, you must "make all of the hit rolls at the same time". This definitely obligates you to roll all similar attacks at once. (Since you may need clarification we are talking about "If you choose to fast roll").

Makes all of the hit rolls - in the several attacks.

These two things are not independent. All rolls at once refers to the several attacks, not the pool of attacks that were eligible to be the several attacks.

You can choose to roll 30 shoota boys 10 boys at a time for any reason you want - from not having enough dice, to not having a big enough box lid to roll in- to making it easier to pull out the fails, misses and rerolls.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Note the parenthetical.

If you fast roll, you must "make all of the hit rolls at the same time". This definitely obligates you to roll all similar attacks at once. (Since you may need clarification we are talking about "If you choose to fast roll").

Makes all of the hit rolls - in the several attacks.

These two things are not independent. All rolls at once refers to the several attacks, not the pool of attacks that were eligible to be the several attacks.

Please show permission to make several attacks that have the same Ballistic Skill, Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics that are directed at the same unit.

Because I have quoted rules stating that they all need to be rolled at the same time.

You can choose to roll 30 shoota boys 10 boys at a time for any reason you want - from not having enough dice, to not having a big enough box lid to roll in- to making it easier to pull out the fails, misses and rerolls.

False. If you choose to fast roll shootas in that situation, you need to make all of the hit rolls at the same time, you can not roll 10 to hits for shootas, then 10 more as there is no permission to do so.

There is literally no permission to split up attacks that have the same Ballistic Skill, Strength... etc.

Breton wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
I would agree, the english here is stating that you can roll similar attacks together, it doesn't specify how many. Then once you have chosen how many, you roll all of them together.
Its quite easy to parse, why is this a problem ?

It literally says to roll all the dice. That is specifying how many, namely all of them.

All of the dice belonging to the several attacks you chose to resolve.

If you have 20 dice, and 10 space marine bikes, you can choose fast roll them 5 bikes at a time. The rules don’t require you to roll 40 shots 1 at a time because you don’t physically have enough dice to fast roll 10 bikes at once. You are allowed to chose several - say 20 of the 40 Bolter shots on the bikes, and roll all 20 dice at once, while breaking the other 20 Bolger shots into a second group where you will again roll all 20 Bolter shots at once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:


No it means you must roll all the to hit rolls before progressing to the to wound rolls and all the to wound rolls before progressing to damage not you must roll all to hit rolls in a single throw.

If you only have 50 dice and need to make 150 attacks.

You roll 50 hits then 50 hits then 50 hits then start to roll wounds till all the wounds are rolled then all the damage.

What we are saying you can't do is roll 50 hits then, 20 wounds then resolve half the damage then a few more hits before finishing the damage and then more wound rolls.

No, you must roll all the hit rolls IN THAT GROUP then all the wound rolls. You do not roll all the Bolter hit rolls, then all the plasma hit rolls, the. All the hit rolls for your other squads, then all the hit rolls for your vehicles, then all the hit rolls for your characters, then all the Bolter wound rolls, then all the plasma wound rolls, etc etc. You still follow the attack sequence.

You roll all the hit rolls (for the group of attacks you are currently resolving with the current attack sequence)
You roll all the wound rolls... for the group yadda yadda.

You still apply the attack sequence rules, but you’re allowed to choose to roll several - your choice - attacks through the sequence at the same time.

Rolling Group A’s hit rolls, then group B’s hit rolls before rolling Group A’s wound rolls (and then armor saves, damage allocation etc) violates the attack sequence.

That would only be true under either quote if you had explicit permission to sub group and you have not shown any quote indicating this.

" in order to roll several attacks" is not permissive before you misquote the word several again. Either provide a quote explicitly saying you may group or you can choose to group or some synonym or we have to conclude you have no permision

So no you can't group 5 bikes and 5 bikes as you have not shown permission to subgroup. Saying you have permission is irrelevant if you cannot provide a rules quote to support that position.

Yes it does mean roll all dice in that group and that group is defined as all to hit rolls that meet the same characteristic criteria.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Note the parenthetical.

If you fast roll, you must "make all of the hit rolls at the same time". This definitely obligates you to roll all similar attacks at once. (Since you may need clarification we are talking about "If you choose to fast roll").

Makes all of the hit rolls - in the several attacks.

These two things are not independent. All rolls at once refers to the several attacks, not the pool of attacks that were eligible to be the several attacks.

You can choose to roll 30 shoota boys 10 boys at a time for any reason you want - from not having enough dice, to not having a big enough box lid to roll in- to making it easier to pull out the fails, misses and rerolls.

Correct they are not independent.

"If that is the case" refers to the restrictions placed on several

If the case is met several equals - all to hit rolls and then all to wound rolls.
If the case is not met ypu cannot fast roll you have no permission

The meaning of several is therefore dependent on whether the case has been met. As defined in the several paragraph.

You say you can roll shoota boys 10 boys at a time for any reason you want please provide a quote supporting this position explicitly giving you permission.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Please show permission to make several attacks that have the same Ballistic Skill, Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics that are directed at the same unit.

you mean the default status of the game? Rolling one at a time makes several attacks that have the same BS/WS, S, AP and D.

Because I have quoted rules stating that they all need to be rolled at the same time.

No, you have quoted a rule stating all the hit rolls of SEVERAL ATTACKS must be rolled at the same time. This does NOT say all hit rolls with the same BS/WS, S, AP, and D must be part of the same several.

There is literally no permission to split up attacks that have the same Ballistic Skill, Strength... etc.

you mean other than the core rules that START with every attack with the BS/WS, S, AP, and D separate?

Several must be more than one.
Several CAN be all.
Several CAN be less than all, as long as it is still more than one.

All hit rolls refers to the several attacks.

Your attempt to claim you can roll 10 hit rolls, then 10 more hit rolls if you don’t have enough dice violates both the rule you claim, and the attack sequence rule. If you roll 10 to hit dice, and then 10 more to hit dice, you are not rolling them at once. You are also not finishing the attack sequence start to finish per the rule. You cannot roll more to hit dice before you’ve rolled to wound, and save, and applied damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:


There is literally no permission to split up attacks that have the same Ballistic Skill, Strength... etc.

There is literally no permission to... play the attack sequence in its default state? They begin their “life” as split up. You’re allowed to group several together. Having to roll all of several at the same time in no way forces you to group all into several.

They begin split your given permission if they meet the criteria to roll all to hit roles and and all to wound rolls together. Where are you explicitly given permission to group/not group except In that exact way.


Several can indeed mean many different things untill you put it into a clause a sentence and a paragraph at which those other words give it context. Several in isolation means nothing.

You are trying to arbitrarily give it meaning ignore the rest of the paragraph and then reasoning based on your arbitrarily assigned meaning. If you actually had permission you be able to provide a quote - you cannot.

In this case the context says

It is possible to do x.
In order to make several attacks all must have the same a, b, c.
If this is the case
make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls

Several attacks therefore means make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls unless you can quote differently.

Finnally rolling all hit rolls then all wound rolls maintains the process and timing sequence the only way it breaks it is if you are taking BCB levels of litterality. Of course if you want to go into that absurdity I will suggest to you that two dice leaveing your hand a quarter of a second apart from one throw are not at the same time.

In the real world if i roll two lots of 35 hits i have rolled all 70 even if it took me two throws your not breaking the rule as you have made all the hit rolls together. You only break it if you roll 35 to hits then 16 wounds then 35 hits because you havn't rolled all the hits together.

Breton wrote:
you mean the default status of the game? Rolling one at a time makes several attacks that have the same BS/WS, S, AP and D.

No, that is not what we were talking about, and you know it. Read my posts before you reply. I said "...we are talking about 'if you choose to fast roll')"

You need to show permission to only roll some of the attacks, when you have decided to fast roll.

No, you have quoted a rule stating all the hit rolls of SEVERAL ATTACKS must be rolled at the same time. This does NOT say all hit rolls with the same BS/WS, S, AP, and D must be part of the same several.

It does, by saying ALL attacks must be rolled at the same time.

you mean other than the core rules that START with every attack with the BS/WS, S, AP, and D separate?

Several must be more than one.
Several CAN be all.
Several CAN be less than all, as long as it is still more than one.

All hit rolls refers to the several attacks.

Your attempt to claim you can roll 10 hit rolls, then 10 more hit rolls if you don’t have enough dice violates both the rule you claim, and the attack sequence rule. If you roll 10 to hit dice, and then 10 more to hit dice, you are not rolling them at once. You are also not finishing the attack sequence start to finish per the rule. You cannot roll more to hit dice before you’ve rolled to wound, and save, and applied damage.

Again, we are not talking about the core rules, they do not come into play once you decide to fast roll.

Several needs to be all as noted by the rule that states "However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together. In order to make several attacks at once..."

Notice how your argument is ignoring the context of the rule?

It literally says "by rolling the dice for similar attacks together..." not some of the dice, not a few of the dice, The dice. The dice, in this case, is referring to all of them that fit the criteria following that statement..

There is literally no permission to... play the attack sequence in its default state? They begin their “life” as split up. You’re allowed to group several together. Having to roll all of several at the same time in no way forces you to group all into several.

Once you begin fast rolling, that is correct.

There is literally no permission to play the attack sequence in its default state once you decide to fast roll for a group of attacks that all have the same ballistic skill, Strength, etc...

Unless you can find permission that states you can break the fast rolling into sub-groups.

Got any rules that state this? (Hint: the answer is no, because there are no rules that say that).

U02dah4 wrote:

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all of x must have the same a, b, c.

Let's look at the rule again:
"In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack)."

What seems to be causing contention here is that 'several' is not defined specifically, leading some to assume that 'all' delivers the primary definition of quantity. I will attempt to show that this is not the case.
"all...must have" is a condition for performing the action described immediately prior, i.e. "make several attacks at once". It thus follows that the decision to make several attacks at once has already been made. Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. This condition applies solely to the making of the several attacks and does not in and of itself define any new quantity.


(snip)

Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. -Given the decision to use fast rolling neither defines several or restrictions on its use, the decision itself gives you no such permissions. The only sentence that gives you permission is "If this is the case make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

Implicit by definition is not RAW especially when there is an Explicit definition for the process.

The problem with what you are saying is that the "all of the attacks" is referring to all the attacks that you group together in the "several" attacks. It is not referring to all the attacks that the model has that might be similar, only the attacks that you are grouping together to fast roll. There is no statement that you must include all similar attacks if you are fast rolling.

"All of the to hit roll's" is the only instruction you have to group attacks together while fast rolling. It is the only definition that has been shown yet in this thread.

If you can provide an alternative please provide a quote but by now we know you cannot or you would have done so.

If not there is no problem with useing the only valid definition because tbey are the same thing under that definition

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all of x must have the same a, b, c.

Let's look at the rule again:
"In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack)."

What seems to be causing contention here is that 'several' is not defined specifically, leading some to assume that 'all' delivers the primary definition of quantity. I will attempt to show that this is not the case.
"all...must have" is a condition for performing the action described immediately prior, i.e. "make several attacks at once". It thus follows that the decision to make several attacks at once has already been made. Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. This condition applies solely to the making of the several attacks and does not in and of itself define any new quantity.


(snip)

Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. -Given the decision to use fast rolling neither defines several or restrictions on its use, the decision itself gives you no such permissions. The only sentence that gives you permission is "If this is the case make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

Implicit by definition is not RAW especially when there is an Explicit definition for the process.

The problem with what you are saying is that the "all of the attacks" is referring to all the attacks that you group together in the "several" attacks. It is not referring to all the attacks that the model has that might be similar, only the attacks that you are grouping together to fast roll. There is no statement that you must include all similar attacks if you are fast rolling.

Exactly this.
Common use of English dictates that the "roll all the hit rolls together" is referring to the restrictions in the previous sentence. You guys DO acknowledge that, hence only attacks with the same characteristics. However, you don't seem to acknowledge in that very same sentence it says "several" and thus all is referring to the entirety of the previous sentence and not just a piece of it (this is why I keep saying you don't get to have it both ways).
On that note, using correct langauge/english parsing and not deciding GW wrote a random restriction in the middle of the paragraph, removed from context, with incorrect crammer and, non-standard syntax then the paragraph literally does not say anywhere that "all attacks with the same characteristics must be grouped together."
It is not RAW to assume so and if it was RAI then they would have written it that way.

Two points:

1: What about the sequencing? EG if you wish to fire a missile launcher, 4 bolters, then the second missile launcher, then 4 more bolters? are you not allowed to group the 2 lots of 4 bolters together? or do you have to roll all the bolters together, using different coloured dice, as they have the same statistics?

2: What does it matter? I can't think of a situation where rolling 30 dice through hit-wound-save, twice, to do 60 shots is actually going to have an impact on the result?

There are several instances where you would want to roll smaller groups of dice, and all of them are for the benefit of the player rolling the dice - who decides whether to fast-roll or not. For example - fire a multi-wound weapon, at a unit with 3 wound each, and roll 1 for damage. Then you would roll 2 bolter shots at a time, until the last 2 wounds are gone - at which point, you would roll your next multi-wound weapon. I would be surprised if someone declared that I have to roll those bolters individually, one after the other, to achieve the same result? only slower?


Please can someone explain to me the in-game effect of rolling 20 shots at once instead of 10, followed by 10? Other than the very bizarre "but it doesn't say you're allowed to" argument, which is very much RAW for the sake of RAW. as in, for absolutely no gain or difference.

Well it matters in the case of infinite hits. As it would require you to roll infinite wounds clock locking you. Forceing you to roll consecutive dice eating up your clock time.

vs fast rolling a portion of hits resolving the shooting quickly (very different outcomes)

In the case of 20 bolters it doesn't matter it is the principle that does in a more extreme situation like the one above

If you wish to fast roll at a target you may sequence what fires at what target in any way you like but if you fire weapons with the same characteristics at the same target you must roll all of them at the same time.

So if your to lots of bolters fire at the same target you must group them
The missile launchers you can get round because as individual weapons you can choose not to fast roll them but if you wished to fast roll them you would roll them together.

It is fast roll all of the same type at the same target or roll consecutively.

U02dah4 wrote:
Well it matters in the case of infinite hits. As it would require you to roll infinite wounds clock locking you. Forceing you to roll consecutive dice eating up your clock time.

vs fast rolling a portion of hits resolving the shooting quickly (very different outcomes)

In the case of 20 bolters it doesn't matter it is the principle that does in a more extreme situation like the one above

If you wish to fast roll at a target you may sequence what fires at what target in any way you like but if you fire weapons with the same characteristics at the same target you must roll all of them at the same time.

So if your to lots of bolters fire at the same target you must group them
The missile launchers you can get round because as individual weapons you can choose not to fast roll them but if you wished to fast roll them you would roll them together.

It is fast roll all of the same type at the same target or roll consecutively.

Yes these are some of the reasons, also if you want to split 10 bolter / missil launch / 10 bolter in a different order it might be relevant.
What U02dah4 fails to do is, show us in a gramatically correct and syntax relevant way, that the fast rolling rules say you must roll all hits/wounds with the same characteristics together, without ignoring half a sentence.

 Type40 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all of x must have the same a, b, c.

Let's look at the rule again:
"In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack)."

What seems to be causing contention here is that 'several' is not defined specifically, leading some to assume that 'all' delivers the primary definition of quantity. I will attempt to show that this is not the case.
"all...must have" is a condition for performing the action described immediately prior, i.e. "make several attacks at once". It thus follows that the decision to make several attacks at once has already been made. Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. This condition applies solely to the making of the several attacks and does not in and of itself define any new quantity.


(snip)

Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. -Given the decision to use fast rolling neither defines several or restrictions on its use, the decision itself gives you no such permissions. The only sentence that gives you permission is "If this is the case make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

Implicit by definition is not RAW especially when there is an Explicit definition for the process.

The problem with what you are saying is that the "all of the attacks" is referring to all the attacks that you group together in the "several" attacks. It is not referring to all the attacks that the model has that might be similar, only the attacks that you are grouping together to fast roll. There is no statement that you must include all similar attacks if you are fast rolling.

Exactly this.
Common use of English dictates that the "roll all the hit rolls together" is referring to the restrictions in the previous sentence. You guys DO acknowledge that, hence only attacks with the same characteristics. However, you don't seem to acknowledge in that very same sentence it says "several" and thus all is referring to the entirety of the previous sentence and not just a piece of it (this is why I keep saying you don't get to have it both ways).
On that note, using correct langauge/english parsing and not deciding GW wrote a random restriction in the middle of the paragraph, removed from context, with incorrect crammer and, non-standard syntax then the paragraph literally does not say anywhere that "all attacks with the same characteristics must be grouped together."
It is not RAW to assume so and if it was RAI then they would have written it that way.

We have acknowledged it says several many times. It's just irrelevant to the discussion as its not permissive. it is given meaning by the roll all the hit rolls line. You have shown nothing else.

We have covered the raw it is in sequence

"It is possible to do x.
In order to make several attacks all must have the same a, b, c.
If this is the case
make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

Note I include ths word several and it makes sense.

Common use of English and how GW write are different as they cant tell thw difference between errata and an faq. In this instance however they are clear.

You not countered any part of the above sequence
Or provided any quote indicate an alternative sequence
You therefore do not have a valid argument

Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all of x must have the same a, b, c.

Let's look at the rule again:
"In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack)."

What seems to be causing contention here is that 'several' is not defined specifically, leading some to assume that 'all' delivers the primary definition of quantity. I will attempt to show that this is not the case.
"all...must have" is a condition for performing the action described immediately prior, i.e. "make several attacks at once". It thus follows that the decision to make several attacks at once has already been made. Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. This condition applies solely to the making of the several attacks and does not in and of itself define any new quantity.


(snip)

Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. -Given the decision to use fast rolling neither defines several or restrictions on its use, the decision itself gives you no such permissions. The only sentence that gives you permission is "If this is the case make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

Implicit by definition is not RAW especially when there is an Explicit definition for the process.

The problem with what you are saying is that the "all of the attacks" is referring to all the attacks that you group together in the "several" attacks. It is not referring to all the attacks that the model has that might be similar, only the attacks that you are grouping together to fast roll. There is no statement that you must include all similar attacks if you are fast rolling.

Exactly this.
Common use of English dictates that the "roll all the hit rolls together" is referring to the restrictions in the previous sentence. You guys DO acknowledge that, hence only attacks with the same characteristics. However, you don't seem to acknowledge in that very same sentence it says "several" and thus all is referring to the entirety of the previous sentence and not just a piece of it (this is why I keep saying you don't get to have it both ways).
On that note, using correct langauge/english parsing and not deciding GW wrote a random restriction in the middle of the paragraph, removed from context, with incorrect crammer and, non-standard syntax then the paragraph literally does not say anywhere that "all attacks with the same characteristics must be grouped together."
It is not RAW to assume so and if it was RAI then they would have written it that way.

We have acknowledged it says several many times. It's just irrelevant to the discussion as its not permissive. it is given meaning by the roll all the hit rolls line. You have shown nothing else.

We have covered the raw it is

except if "several" is not premisive, niether is the rest of that sentence. Meaning "roll all hit rolls" refers to absolutely nothing... unless you can show us where it does ?

"If that is the case" is the permissive part

Note how it provides a condition and then follows by telling you what to do if that conditon is not met.

Versus the several section which is purely restrictive
It gives you criteria to meet in order to group attacks but doesn't provide a condition or tell you what to do.

Just because A isn't permisive doesn't mean B isn't thats a false equivalence

Also, what you are claiming is a restriction, as how you claim it, is not grammatically possible.
On top of that, the rules do not need to give me permission to make grouped attacks. As the RAW simply describes how to make several attacks together, with no restrictions to that.
The only way it says otherwise is to ignore grammar and syntax and insert additional context which is not there.

"all" refers to the rolls in question, as described in the first sentence. AKA, all of the hit rolls you make when you want to make several attacks together. AKA how grammar and syntax works. Not, cut, paste, cut paste, add line of writing ... now it means what you want it to mean.

Again unless you can show, without cutting parts of a sentence out and adding context where there isn't any, whilst completely acknowledging/ignoring the first sentence, how what you claim it says makes sense ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
"If that is the case then" is the permissive part

Just because A isn't permisive doesn't mean B isn't thats a false equivalence

ok, so you are saying that the case refered to in this sentence
"if this is the case roll all hit rolls"
is only refering to half of the statement that precedes it ?
"if you want to make several hit rolls together they must have the same characteristics"
that's not how english works.

so your saying "if this is the case" only refers to half of the first sentence ?

its not hard to figure out here.
The case being "making several attacks together with the same characteristics" would be acknowledging the entire sentence.
The case being "attacks must have the same characteristics" is only acknowledging half of the first sentence.

Whilst acknowledging the entire sentence we have

"if that's the case (making several attacks together whilst they have the same characteristics) then roll all hit rolls ... " meaning ALL refers to several with the same characteristics.
Again, you cant have the first sentence half ignored, its all or nothing
"if that's the case then do X" with no context means nothing. Then there is no case.

You are just cutting and pasting words around and adding additional context to make it mean what you want it to or are too stubborn to read it in a linear a logical way. XD you use the argument that we are confused because GW wrote it weird... How about you just acknowledge they wrote it correctly and it means what it means.

As a native speaker it makes gramatical sense to me

In order to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack).
They must also have the
same Strength, Armour
Penetration and Damage
characteristics, and they
must be directed at the
same unit."

In order to X all the attacks must have the same A B C. Thats gramatically clear.

Under Raw you cannot do anything without permission

And yes it clearly provides restrictions your attacks must have the same charactistics you may not accept theae restrictions but they are stated RAW. Furthermore if those characteristics are met you must roll all to hit rolls and then all.

"All" refers to "all" cases that meet the restrictions on several attacks (same Ws/BS /S/AP/DAM etc.)

I cannot show you because you clearly don't understand English grammar. I could repost the entire block of text but you don't accept what it says and when i paraphrase it into a simple form missing out no text because the short lines are a litteral summary you can copy and paste tge original text over and it still makes sense. (The wording and meaning hasn't been changed).

The first sentence is irrelevant without reading the context you dont accept the context as it is written and clearly don't understand the meaning of several

I read in order to make several attacks,

And think under basic english after this clause i am going to receive a bunch of criteria I need to meet to be allowed to make several attacks together. No more no less.

You read I can now make as many different subgroups as I like as I have explicit permission as several is a substitute for an unknown number and this gives me blanket permission to do what i want.

As far as syntax goes

1) It is possible to do x.
2) In order to make several attacks all must have the same a, b, c.
3)If this is the case
4)make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls.

Those are the summaries in order. No I am.not looking at half a sentence in relation to this is the case the sentence just doeant mean what you think it does and from a technical point its not a sentence its two.


Also
The case being "making several attacks together with the same characteristics" would be acknowledging the entire sentence.
The case being "attacks must have the same characteristics" is only acknowledging half of the first sentence

Is changeing the meaning

We can tell this because if you add in the next words it makes no sense

"making several attacks together with the same characteristics." if this is the case roll all the attacks and then all the wound rolls.

in order to X, you must meet A,B and C if this is the case do Y. Is a summary that is fair you can replace any section with its text and it eill make sense

I think you're going about this backwards. Fast-rolling states "in order to do several attacks at once, all of the attacks must meet these requirements", but it never says that all attacks that meet those requirements must be fast-rolled, if you choose to fast-roll any.

Basically: all lemons must be yellow, but not all yellow things must be lemons.

1) It is possible to do x.
2) In order to make several attacks all must have the same a, b, c.
3)If this is the case
4)make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls.

Section 3 tells you to apply section
Section 4 if the criteria in section 2 is met. Section 4 tells you all to hit rolls must be rolled

And, as others have pointed out, section 4 refers to the attacks being fast-rolled. As mentioned, if it meant ALL attacks, then a unit with multiple weapon profiles would need to stop at the "roll to hit" phase in order to roll their other attacks (at the most conservative interpretation. Others have mentioned rolling all attacks for the game, which I think is pretty extreme.)

U02dah4 wrote:
As a native speaker it makes gramatical sense to me

In order to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack).
They must also have the
same Strength, Armour
Penetration and Damage
characteristics, and they
must be directed at the
same unit."

In order to X all the attacks must have the same A B C. Thats gramatically clear.

Under Raw you cannot do anything without permission

And yes it clearly provides restrictions your attacks must have the same charactistics you may not accept theae restrictions but they are stated RAW. Furthermore if those characteristics are met you must roll all to hit rolls and then all.

"All" refers to "all" cases that meet the restrictions on several attacks (same Ws/BS /S/AP/DAM etc.)

I cannot show you because you clearly don't understand English grammar. I could repost the entire block of text but you don't accept what it says and when i paraphrase it into a simple form missing out no text because the short lines are a litteral summary you can copy and paste tge original text over and it still makes sense. (The wording and meaning hasn't been changed).

The first sentence is irrelevant without reading the context you dont accept the context as it is written and clearly don't understand the meaning of several

I read in order to make several attacks,

And think under basic english after this clause i am going to receive a bunch of criteria I need to meet to be allowed to make several attacks together. No more no less.

You read I can now make as many different subgroups as I like as I have explicit permission as several is a substitute for an unknown number and this gives me blanket permission to do what i want.

As far as syntax goes

1) It is possible to do x.
2) In order to make several attacks all must have the same a, b, c.
3)If this is the case
4)make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls.

Those are the summaries in order. No I aam.not looking at half a sentence in relation to this is the case the sentence just doeant mean what you think it does and from a technical point its not a sentence its two.

As a native speaker of English myself, with years of academic writing, syntax writing for technical projects and hired rules parser for several gaming groups (as someone who teaches rules and runs games), I can distinctly tell you, your grasp of standard English grammar and paragraph syntax is wrong. I only bring up this because you decided to assume I wasn't a native speaker.

When a formal paragraph is written preceding sentences define subsequent pronouns and descriptors (in this case the word "ALL" and the statement "if this is the case" ). You do not seem to be able to grasp that. Thanks for the insult by assumption, now please go read up on paragraph comprehension, this can be found in most year 1 - 4 grammar school books and, it can also be found in more complex detail, within high school academic writing text books. I don't mean this as an insult, but you clearly value your "native" comprehension over formal language. You seem convinced that only half a sentence needs to be acknowledged and you seem to confuse the word "permissive" with direct statement. "in order to make several attacks together" is literally the description of what the following words and sentences are attempting to show you how to do. It is in fact, the topic of the paragraph. Each subsequent sentence shows you how to accomplish that. You are assuming the sentence "if this is the case roll all ... " somehow goes beyond the topical boundaries of what is defined in the first sentence as well as somehow referring only to the second half of the previous sentence.
If you really can't grasp such a strait forward paragraph I am not sure how to help you. If one of my students gave me this paragraph, I know how I would interpret it, and thus if they were trying to describe something completely different with it, in the way that you are, I would likely refer them to library services for extra tutoring.

I only say this like this, because you thought it was necessary to bring up the incredible value of your native English speaking and how it MUST make you correct. So please, either actually describe what you are claiming I can not grasp (i.e. "I can not show you because you clearly don't understand English Grammar"), or acknowledge that you are talking out of your ass and can not show me because what your are describing is inconsistent with how formal English styles actually work.

p.s. I grew up in Canada and I now work and live in Sweden (clearly you noticed the Swedish flag in the corner of my profile). Assuming I am wrong and you must be correct because of that Swedish flag makes you both arrogant and elitist. My non-native speaking, Swedish, university students could "out grammar" you any day of the week. Claiming that you could not possibly describe the grammar and syntax involved in your conclusion to me because of your magical native speaking status is just disgusting and ridiculous (especially considering how wrong you are).

If you treat "all" to mean al lthe attacks from the unit and not all the attacks which fall under the group of matching stats and which you wish to roll in a group, then it is impossible to fast roll any unit with multiple profiles or weapons, as "all " the attacks do not match.


In the case of this bizarre "Infinite attacks" business; A: It's clearly not intended, and anyone who actually tries to use it needs dreadsocking (and my dreads are still metal, young whippersnappers!). Secondly, why roll? infinite attacks will remove finite wounds. the Infinite dice situation negates the need to roll at all. Though I feel anyone who tries it deserves to get stuck in a loop. I would insist that they roll, and write down, every dice. until the time limit. Let's see them do it again.

It's just a thought exercise. I doubt anyone is actually planning to do "infinite attacks". The main reason I believe he's arguing that it has to be all that attacks is because he wants to argue that "infinite attacks" would lock the game in a stalemate. For the purposes of the hypothetical situation in which "infinite attacks" exist, seems that most folks are in disagreement with him.

U02dah4 wrote:
As a native speaker it makes gramatical sense to me

In order to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack).
They must also have the
same Strength, Armour
Penetration and Damage
characteristics, and they
must be directed at the
same unit."

In order to X all the attacks must have the same A B C. Thats gramatically clear.

Under Raw you cannot do anything without permission

And yes it clearly provides restrictions your attacks must have the same charactistics you may not accept theae restrictions but they are stated RAW. Furthermore if those characteristics are met you must roll all to hit rolls and then all.

"All" refers to "all" cases that meet the restrictions on several attacks (same Ws/BS /S/AP/DAM etc.)

I cannot show you because you clearly don't understand English grammar. I could repost the entire block of text but you don't accept what it says and when i paraphrase it into a simple form missing out no text because the short lines are a litteral summary you can copy and paste tge original text over and it still makes sense. (The wording and meaning hasn't been changed).

I'm a native English speaker also, and I still say you're reading it wrong. "All" refers to the previous sentence where you are grouping "several" attacks, the restriction is only that for the attacks you group you meet the criteria they describe. "all" in no way is a limitation that "all the weapons meeting the requirements of the "all" statement must be fired, you are only required to fire "several" if you are grouping them. And there you default to English language, where "several" would be more than one. "Several" does not mean "all".

Removed - Rule #1 please

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
If you treat "all" to mean al lthe attacks from the unit and not all the attacks which fall under the group of matching stats and which you wish to roll in a group, then it is impossible to fast roll any unit with multiple profiles or weapons, as "all " the attacks do not match.


In the case of this bizarre "Infinite attacks" business; A: It's clearly not intended, and anyone who actually tries to use it needs dreadsocking (and my dreads are still metal, young whippersnappers!). Secondly, why roll? infinite attacks will remove finite wounds. the Infinite dice situation negates the need to roll at all. Though I feel anyone who tries it deserves to get stuck in a loop. I would insist that they roll, and write down, every dice. until the time limit. Let's see them do it again.

The point was whether you could force someone to fast roll infinite dice as we both agree or if they could fast roll just enough to kill the model.

Hey folks, general reminder that Rule #1, to stay polite at all times, is not optional. Kindly play nice.

U02dah4 wrote:
Removed - Rule #1 please

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
If you treat "all" to mean al lthe attacks from the unit and not all the attacks which fall under the group of matching stats and which you wish to roll in a group, then it is impossible to fast roll any unit with multiple profiles or weapons, as "all " the attacks do not match.


In the case of this bizarre "Infinite attacks" business; A: It's clearly not intended, and anyone who actually tries to use it needs dreadsocking (and my dreads are still metal, young whippersnappers!). Secondly, why roll? infinite attacks will remove finite wounds. the Infinite dice situation negates the need to roll at all. Though I feel anyone who tries it deserves to get stuck in a loop. I would insist that they roll, and write down, every dice. until the time limit. Let's see them do it again.

The point was whether you could force someone to fast roll infinite dice as we both agree or if they could fast roll just enough to kill the model.

Lol you couldn't even parse out that @some bloke was disagreeing with you.
lol "as we both agree" when they had just pointed out your interpretation would mean multi-weapon models couldn't fire at all.

Your points about your superior native speaking status giving you superior abilities to parse language (that only a native speaker could possibly begin to understand) are moot.

This discussion is done.

RAW clearly relays that similar attacks may be rolled together in what ever batches you want.
This is done. If anyone wonders why there is plenty of evidence brought up by many people in this thread. There is little evidence of actual full RAW sentences that say otherwise (unless of course you ignore parts of sentences and cut and paste different parts of sentences arround).

U02dah4 wrote:
They begin split your given permission if they meet the criteria to roll all to hit roles and and all to wound rolls together. Where are you explicitly given permission to group/not group except In that exact way.

its explicitly in the word “several” which includes the potential for both all, and less than all. I see you’re about to get spanked because you can’t back up your cherry picking after someone gave you an English lesson. Now would be the time to quit.

Several can indeed mean many different things untill you put it into a clause a sentence and a paragraph at which those other words give it context. Several in isolation means nothing.

when several comes first, it gives the meaning to the follow up, which the English teacher has also told you, but you ignored in order to continue cherry picking your “all”.

You are trying to arbitrarily give it meaning ignore the rest of the paragraph and then reasoning based on your arbitrarily assigned meaning. If you actually had permission you be able to provide a quote - you cannot.

In this case the context says

It is possible to do x.
In order to make several attacks all must have the same a, b, c.
If this is the case
make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls

Several attacks therefore means make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls unless you can quote differently.

Finnally rolling all hit rolls then all wound rolls maintains the process and timing sequence the only way it breaks it is if you are taking BCB levels of litterality. Of course if you want to go into that absurdity I will suggest to you that two dice leaveing your hand a quarter of a second apart from one throw are not at the same time.

In the real world if i roll two lots of 35 hits i have rolled all 70 even if it took me two throws your not breaking the rule as you have made all the hit rolls together. You only break it if you roll 35 to hits then 16 wounds then 35 hits because you havn't rolled all the hits together.

It’s different when YOU don’t roll ALL THE ROLLS at once? You can’t even tell the truth when you’re breaking your own cherrypick.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Again, we are not talking about the core rules, they do not come into play once you decide to fast roll.

Fast rolling IS a core rule. It’s in the core rules section of the book, it’s on the cardstock reference folder. If you can’t even get that right, maybe you shouldn’t be opining on what else Fast Rolling is or isn’t.


Anyone want to guess what’s on the top right of this photo OF THE CORE RULES handout?

I run a Space Wolves army so I don't have a huge number of models like a horde army but I tend to have twenty green dice, ten black dice and ten red dice, I have never had an issue with being able to roll unit by unit.

 Type40 wrote:


RAW clearly relays that similar attacks may be rolled together in what ever batches you want.

This is of course false. As the above clearly ignores the rules.

This is done. If anyone wonders why there is plenty of evidence brought up by many people in this thread. There is little evidence of actual full RAW sentences that say otherwise (unless of course you ignore parts of sentences and cut and paste different parts of sentences arround).

Not sure how you can claim that since your argument is the one ignoring rules.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Again, we are not talking about the core rules, they do not come into play once you decide to fast roll.

Fast rolling IS a core rule.

Again do not ignore the context. Your argument is in bad faith.

You literally said:

Breton wrote:
you mean the default status of the game?

I know fast rolling is in the core rules, You stated that rolling one hit at a time was "the default status of the game" (AKA the core rules, this is what I was referring to when I said core rules. I suspect you know that but are clearly arguing in bad faith).

Stop with the bad faith arguments, it does not get us anywhere.

It’s in the core rules section of the book, it’s on the cardstock reference folder. If you can’t even get that right, maybe you shouldn’t be opining on what else Fast Rolling is or isn’t.

Anyone want to guess what’s on the top right of this photo OF THE CORE RULES handout?

Again, Stop arguing in bad faith. it weakens your position (Not that you have a strong argument to begin with).

But let me be totally clear with you.

You can roll attacks one at a time or you can opt to fast roll.

Once you opt to fast roll, you need to roll all of the attacks that are directed at a single unit at , and have the same Ballistic skill, Strength, etc... you can not roll only some of them, because you need to "make all of the hit rolls at the same time" This clearly means that you can not save some for later, you literally need to make them all at once.

Not sure how you can even fathom the opposite.

This should be done as your side has no rules backing at all.

As others have mentioned, the first sentence states: "In order to roll several attacks at once..." and then it says to make all the hit rolls at the same time. This applies solely to the part allowing you to make several attacks at once.

The entire premise of your argument hinges on placing more importance on one sentence than another, and reading it without the context of the latter. I'll say it again, in the context of the rule as a whole, any and all rules which say "all" only refer to the attacks you've chosen to fast-roll. Otherwise, you could never fast-roll any unit with multiple weapon profiles, because you'd be stuck in a loop between all the attacks needing to be the same and having to "make all hit rolls at the same time".

Therefore, unless you can find a portion of the rule that actually states "all attacks which meet these requirements must be fast-rolled", you cannot use "make all hit rolls at the same time" as a premise for any argument that all attacks have to be fast-rolled.

I'll repeat my analogy from earlier and say "In other words, all lemons must be yellow, but not everything that is yellow must be lemons." Or, in closer terms to the fast-rolling rules: "all attacks to be fast-rolled must meet these requirements and done in this fashion, but not all attacks which meet these requirements need to be fast-rolled."

 flandarz wrote:
As others have mentioned, the first sentence states: "In order to roll several attacks at once..." and then it says to make all the hit rolls at the same time. This applies solely to the part allowing you to make several attacks at once.

They say "In order to roll several attacks at once..." And then they go on to define what that means, bu saying the thing about all having the same BS/STR etc... That group needs to have the hit rolls made at the same time per the RAW.

The entire premise of your argument hinges on placing more importance on one sentence than another, and reading it without the context of the latter. I'll say it again, in the context of the rule as a whole, any and all rules which say "all" only refer to the attacks you've chosen to fast-roll. Otherwise, you could never fast-roll any unit with multiple weapon profiles, because you'd be stuck in a loop between all the attacks needing to be the same and having to "make all hit rolls at the same time".

As shown, this is false.

There is literally no provision to only roll some of the attacks with the same BS/Str etc. (Once you have chosen to fast roll).

Therefore, unless you can find a portion of the rule that actually states "all attacks which meet these requirements must be fast-rolled", you cannot use "make all hit rolls at the same time" as a premise for any argument that all attacks have to be fast-rolled.

There is, the context groups them all together. Do not ignore the context.

I'll repeat my analogy from earlier and say "In other words, all lemons must be yellow, but not everything that is yellow must be lemons." Or, in closer terms to the fast-rolling rules: "all attacks to be fast-rolled must meet these requirements and done in this fashion, but not all attacks which meet these requirements need to be fast-rolled."

Analogies can twist things, like you have done here, they are useless.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


RAW clearly relays that similar attacks may be rolled together in what ever batches you want.

This is of course false. As the above clearly ignores the rules.

This is of course false, as the above clearly ignores the very first instruction of "Several".

This is done. If anyone wonders why there is plenty of evidence brought up by many people in this thread. There is little evidence of actual full RAW sentences that say otherwise (unless of course you ignore parts of sentences and cut and paste different parts of sentences arround).

Not sure how you can claim that since your argument is the one ignoring rules.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Again, we are not talking about the core rules, they do not come into play once you decide to fast roll.

Fast rolling IS a core rule.

Again do not ignore the context. Your argument is in bad faith.

You literally said it wasn't a core rule, when it literally is. The bad faith is yours.

You literally said:

Breton wrote:
you mean the default status of the game?

I know fast rolling is in the core rules, You stated that rolling one hit at a time was "the default status of the game" (AKA the core rules, this is what I was referring to when I said core rules. I suspect you know that but are clearly arguing in bad faith).

Stop with the bad faith arguments, it does not get us anywhere.

It’s in the core rules section of the book, it’s on the cardstock reference folder. If you can’t even get that right, maybe you shouldn’t be opining on what else Fast Rolling is or isn’t.

Anyone want to guess what’s on the top right of this photo OF THE CORE RULES handout?

Again, Stop arguing in bad faith. it weakens your position (Not that you have a strong argument to begin with).

You literally said a discussion of fast rolling wasn't talking about the core rules. Pointing out you don't know what you're talking about is not bad faith. Its not my fault you don't have the ability and/or desire to know what you're talking about to prevent making patently false claims.

But let me be totally clear with you.

You can roll attacks one at a time or you can opt to fast roll.

Once you opt to fast roll, you need to roll all of the attacks that are directed at a single unit at , and have the same Ballistic skill, Strength, etc... you can not roll only some of them, because you need to "make all of the hit rolls at the same time" This clearly means that you can not save some for later, you literally need to make them all at once.

No, and let me be clear with you - The very first sentence instructs you to group "several" attacks together. You must then roll ALL of those SEVERAL attacks together. Several comes before the ALL, so ALL Refers to the Several.

Not sure how you can even fathom the opposite.

Mostly because I read what's there, not what I want to be there.

This should be done as your side has no rules backing at all.

Other than very wording of the Fast Rolling Rules read in the order they're written instead of trying to chop the end onto the beginning.

@DeathReaper,
That's just how sentences/paragraphs work, not sure what to tell you further then that ... You know, if it said "do the following to make several attacks at once. Roll all hit dice with the same characteristics together. " Then you'd totally be right.... but that's not what it says. I know the words are similar, I know that the phrase "all hit dice" is in there. But the way that these words are organized, into sentences and a paragraph, it is quite effectively and clearly conveying a different message.
I suggest to read it out loud, pause at every piece of punctuation properly, and maybe say it to a friend or someone near by. The meaning should become clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
p.s. that's what I do when a piece of writing either confuses me or others are telling me I am parsing it wrong. This is often true with rules from games. The trick is to pay very close attention to the punctuation while you read it and apply pauses appropriately (i.e. commas, periods, etc).

Usually in the case of rules, I read it out loud to my self, or if my opponent is in the room I read it to them. It then usually becomes clear who is correctly parsing the rule. (sometimes we even read it together XD).

I highly suggest trying this with this set of rules
.

U02dah4 wrote:



"However, it is possible to speed up your battles by
rolling the dice for similar attacks together.
In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

A little hypothetical:

X people graduate from university.

Y graduates are chosen to join MI6 based on the criteria that they must all be able to speak 3 languages. They must also have knowledge of computer programming techniques. If this is the case all graduates must sign a form agreeing to be bound by the official secrets act.

Now, in this scenario, are all the graduates from X who can speak 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming made to sign the form or only those Y chosen to join MI6?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:



"However, it is possible to speed up your battles by
rolling the dice for similar attacks together.
In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

A little hypothetical:

X people graduate from university.

Y graduates are chosen to join MI6 based on the criteria that they must all be able to speak 3 languages. They must also have knowledge of computer programming techniques. If this is the case all graduates must sign a form agreeing to be bound by the official secrets act.

Now, in this scenario, are all the graduates from X who can speak 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming made to sign the form or only those Y chosen to join MI6?

Good comparison.

p.s. I love your screen name, that episode scared the bejezus out of me as a kid.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


RAW clearly relays that similar attacks may be rolled together in what ever batches you want.

This is of course false. As the above clearly ignores the rules.

This is of course false, as the above clearly ignores the very first instruction of "Several".

You do not grasp what the sentence is saying.

It literally defines "Several", in this case "However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together. In order to make several attacks at once..."

It says "rolling the dice" not rolling some of the dice. The dice, this implies ALL of the dice, since it does not say some, so you can not just roll some, you need to roll the dice.

You have no rules backing on this one.

 Type40 wrote:
@DeathReaper,
That's just how sentences/paragraphs work, not sure what to tell you further then that ... You know, if it said "do the following to make several attacks at once. Roll all hit dice with the same characteristics together. " Then you'd totally be right.... but that's not what it says. I know the words are similar, I know that the phrase "all hit dice" is in there. But the way that these words are organized, into sentences and a paragraph, it is quite effectively and clearly conveying a different message.
I suggest to read it out loud, pause at every piece of punctuation properly, and maybe say it to a friend or someone near by. The meaning should become clear.

You are ignoring that it says " by rolling the dice for similar attacks together..."

The dice, not some of the dice.

Breton wrote:
You literally said it wasn't a core rule, when it literally is. The bad faith is yours.

False, you failed to understand what I was talking about, you ignored the context of what I was saying (seemingly willfully). The bad faith is not mine.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This should be done as your side has no rules backing at all.

Other than very wording of the Fast Rolling Rules read in the order they're written instead of trying to chop the end onto the beginning.

It seriously does not say what you think it says, you are ignoring the context.

Deathreaper, you might do well to stow the “you have no backup” when your interpretation is based on misreading the English. Let’s take the “you do not grasp” and “you have no rules backing” etc. insinuations down a notch, given grammar is against you here.

Grammatically, you’re completely incorrect. The sentence does not define “several” at all. Rolling “all the dice” refers to the several attacks you’ve chosen - you’re rolling all the dice for those attacks together not one by one. This has been explained by other posters already. This is how grammar works here. There is no compulsion to group ALL similar shots in the RAW, just to roll all the dice for the group of shots you choose at the same time.

As others have also said, if it functioned the way you say then Fast Rolling only works if you you fire all guns at one target. You believe the wording compels you to roll all e.g. Bolters together... hard luck if you wanted to split fire, eh? Luckily that isn’t the case.

The weird tangent about not being able to split things because you have e.g. 30 shots to make and only 10 dice is... well that’s only an internet problem. Jeez, if anyone tried pulling that reading I’d carry on, and if they insisted I’d just laugh and pack up... save myself grief at whatever other lawyering they might be harbouring. Honestly... if you’ve declared you’re grouping shots but don’t have enough dice just roll dice til you’ve rolled enough, or sub-batch them. It really is a non-problem and this forum’s utility is diminished every time a thread falls down a rabbit hole like that. The forum is ultimately about how to play the game, and it’s entirely possible to make more shots than you have dice. End of.

Nope not ignoring it, reading it out loud and quite clearly.

The statement "by rolling the dice for similar attacks together" is a non-specific statement in terms of quantity.
here is the syntax

Do Y with X

This is non-limiting syntax.
For example.
"I have 100 boxes of cream cheese and 200 boxes of crackers"
Insert similar syntax here :
"Party atendees are expected to eat the cream cheese and crackers together"

This does not mean party attendees must each eat ALL the cream cheese and crackers. It doesn't even mean that party attendees are expected to eat ALL the cream cheese and crackers as a whole.
Just that they are expected eat cream cheese and crackers together. They can eat one, two , three, or even 100 sets of these. But the ammount is up to the party members themselves.

Or it could be subject to further instructions by me.
i.e. I can add further instruction by saying "party members can eat several sets of cheese and crackers together and if so they must spread the cream cheese on the crackers. If this is the case each atendee can eat all their crackers and cheese in the same sitting."

That's the syntax, sorry.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Deathreaper, you might do well to stow the “you have no backup” when your interpretation is based on misreading the English.

you can claim that, but it is not true.

I am taking all aspects into account, the other side is ignoring the "by rolling the dice for similar attacks together..." quote. It says the dice, not some of the dice.

Let’s take the “you do not grasp” and “you have no rules backing” etc. insinuations down a notch, given grammar is against you here.

It is not an insinuation, it is a fact, and grammar is not against me, as I have proven.

Grammatically, you’re completely incorrect. The sentence does not define “several” at all.

False. You need to ignore things for your statement to be true.

Rolling “all the dice” refers to the several attacks you’ve chosen - you’re rolling all the dice for those attacks together not one by one. This has been explained by other posters already. This is how grammar works here. There is no compulsion to group ALL similar shots in the RAW, just to roll all the dice for the group of shots you choose at the same time.

again false, in context, Rolling “all the dice” refers to all the attacks with the same BS/Str etc.

As others have also said, if it functioned the way you say then Fast Rolling only works if you you fire all guns at one target. You believe the wording compels you to roll all e.g. Bolters together... hard luck if you wanted to split fire, eh? Luckily that isn’t the case.

again not true. of the attacks at any given target, with attacks with the same BS/Str etc... need to be rolled together. They literally have a provision for other targets.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Deathreaper, you might do well to stow the “you have no backup” when your interpretation is based on misreading the English.

you can claim that, but it is not true.

I am taking all aspects into account, the other side is ignoring the "by rolling the dice for similar attacks together..." quote. It says the dice, not some of the dice.

Let’s take the “you do not grasp” and “you have no rules backing” etc. insinuations down a notch, given grammar is against you here.

It is not an insinuation, it is a fact, and grammar is not against me, as I have proven.

Grammatically, you’re completely incorrect. The sentence does not define “several” at all.

False. You need to ignore things for your statement to be true.

Rolling “all the dice” refers to the several attacks you’ve chosen - you’re rolling all the dice for those attacks together not one by one. This has been explained by other posters already. This is how grammar works here. There is no compulsion to group ALL similar shots in the RAW, just to roll all the dice for the group of shots you choose at the same time.

again false, in context, Rolling “all the dice” refers to all the attacks with the same BS/Str etc.

As others have also said, if it functioned the way you say then Fast Rolling only works if you you fire all guns at one target. You believe the wording compels you to roll all e.g. Bolters together... hard luck if you wanted to split fire, eh? Luckily that isn’t the case.

again not true. of the attacks at any given target, with attacks with the same BS/Str etc... need to be rolled together. They literally have a provision for other targets.

Please see my previous post. Your interpretation of the syntax is wrong. Grammar is, in fact, not on your side.

This may be a fool's errand, but...

If you change the "several" in that first sentence to read "In order to roll five attacks at once..." then look at the part of the rule instructing you to roll all the dice, it should become clear that "all" refers to the quantity mentioned in the previous sentence. That being the case, it should be clear that "all" does not therefore refer to all of a unit's identical attacks, but only those you've chosen as being the "several" attacks you're rolling at the same time. There's no compulsion there to make "several" all of a unit's attacks.

Slipspace wrote:
This may be a fool's errand, but...

If you change the "several" in that first sentence to read "In order to roll five attacks at once..." then look at the part of the rule instructing you to roll all the dice, it should become clear that "all" refers to the quantity mentioned in the previous sentence. That being the case, it should be clear that "all" does not therefore refer to all of a unit's identical attacks, but only those you've chosen as being the "several" attacks you're rolling at the same time. There's no compulsion there to make "several" all of a unit's attacks.

I brought up the same point 2 pages ago XD... it didn't seem to change any minds.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:



"However, it is possible to speed up your battles by
rolling the dice for similar attacks together.
In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

A little hypothetical:

X people graduate from university.

Y graduates are chosen to join MI6 based on the criteria that they must all be able to speak 3 languages. They must also have knowledge of computer programming techniques. If this is the case all graduates must sign a form agreeing to be bound by the official secrets act.

Now, in this scenario, are all the graduates from X who can speak 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming made to sign the form or only those Y chosen to join MI6?

According to these people, it's even the graduates who can't speak 3 languages and/or have no knowledge of computer programming. It's ALL GRADUATES.

 Type40 wrote:
Please see my previous post. Your interpretation of the syntax is wrong. Grammar is, in fact, not on your side.

Your previous post is incorrect. The syntax agrees with my interpretation because your interpretation ignores things.

Grammar is, in fact, on my side.

But since you are not willing to provide quotes. I guess this is finished.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Grammar is, in fact, on my side.

Nope. It really doesn't.

Or are all graduates who can speak 3 languages and have knowledge of programming required to sign up to be bound by the OSA?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Please see my previous post. Your interpretation of the syntax is wrong. Grammar is, in fact, not on your side.

Your previous post is incorrect. The syntax agrees with my interpretation because your interpretation ignores things.

And if anyone knows about ignoring things, its the guy who ignores the fact that Several comes before All, so it's all of several.

Grammar is, in fact, on my side.

Because I said so. To someone who teaches grammar for a living.

But since you are not willing to provide quotes. I guess this is finished.

Someone who is unwilling to provide quotes that several must be all, is declaring victory because an English teacher can't provide quotes from the rules of a game about how English works.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Please see my previous post. Your interpretation of the syntax is wrong. Grammar is, in fact, not on your side.

Your previous post is incorrect. The syntax agrees with my interpretation because your interpretation ignores things.

And if anyone knows about ignoring things, its the guy who ignores the fact that Several comes before All, so it's all of several

Incorrect again.

It says "rolling the dice" not rolling some of the dice.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Please see my previous post. Your interpretation of the syntax is wrong. Grammar is, in fact, not on your side.

Your previous post is incorrect. The syntax agrees with my interpretation because your interpretation ignores things.

And if anyone knows about ignoring things, its the guy who ignores the fact that Several comes before All, so it's all of several

Incorrect again.

It says "rolling the dice" not rolling some of the dice.

Nobody has said rolling some of the dice. This is a strawman, where you lie about what we said to make what you said sound right.

You can put all your wrong in several posts.

This says what you mean. Several of your posts contain all your wrong answers.

Several of your posts are all wrong.

This means what we say. In some but not necessarily all of your posts, you're all wrong.

lol. I did provide quotes,,, and examples,,, what are you even talking about @deathreaper XD . I specifically showed how I was not ignoring what you keep saying I am XD.


Just for clarification, I do not teach grammar. I teach theoretical media sciences. This means myself and my students are expected to have a high level of academic writing (as this field relies highly on technical writing and theoretical writing for publications). So a part of my job is to teach and enforce correct English styles. I am not specifically an English teacher though. Sorry for any confusion there.

Breton wrote:


Nobody has said rolling some of the dice. This is a strawman, where you lie about what we said to make what you said sound right.

So, do you want to rethink that statement?

If several and some are synonymous, why are you arguing that several attacks has to be all of them?

@deathreaper,
it is really easy to think you are correct when you disregard and ignore any points that actually counter yours. Address every point against your position instead of just the ones you think you can counter. This approach makes your position seem even more ridiculous.

There is no point in arguing with a wall like this. You don't care about any points that counter your position. You have consistently just ignored every point that clearly counters yours and then you throw some strawman out so the discussion can focus on some silly point that you keep circling back to. Circular arguments with stuborn people that fully ignore sections of what you are saying isn't discourse, its just a waste of time.

So, we'll play correctly and you just play by what ever rules you feel like XD. Why even bother buying a rule book lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think at this point, this thread has more then enough evidence to show that what is both RAW and RAI is that you can fast roll in what ever batches you want (as long as they share the same characteristics). So I am done here.

If people want to keep up with the circular arguments, please do but I am out. I know how I will teach and play these rules.

Thanks for the discourse.

 flandarz wrote:
If several and some are synonymous, why are you arguing that several attacks has to be all of them?

Because it literally says "make all of the hit rolls at the same time". (If you choose to fast roll). All. end of.

They used several because it is open ended, and if you have 2 or 200 attacks that fit the criteria, several covers all situations.

Do not ignore the context.

 Type40 wrote:
I think at this point, this thread has more then enough evidence to show that what is both RAW and RAI is that you can fast roll in what ever batches you want (as long as they share the same characteristics).

Stop saying that, it is not at all true.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
If several and some are synonymous, why are you arguing that several attacks has to be all of them?

Because it literally says "make all of the hit rolls at the same time". (If you choose to fast roll). All. end of.

They used several because it is open ended, and if you have 2 or 200 attacks that fit the criteria, several covers all situations.

Do not ignore the context.

 Type40 wrote:
I think at this point, this thread has more then enough evidence to show that what is both RAW and RAI is that you can fast roll in what ever batches you want (as long as they share the same characteristics).

Stop saying that, it is not at all true.

All of the hit rolls for the several attacks with similar characteristics that you selected to fast roll.

You are laughably incorrect here.

 Type40 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:



"However, it is possible to speed up your battles by
rolling the dice for similar attacks together.
In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

A little hypothetical:

X people graduate from university.

Y graduates are chosen to join MI6 based on the criteria that they must all be able to speak 3 languages. They must also have knowledge of computer programming techniques. If this is the case all graduates must sign a form agreeing to be bound by the official secrets act.

Now, in this scenario, are all the graduates from X who can speak 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming made to sign the form or only those Y chosen to join MI6?

Good comparison.

p.s. I love your screen name, that episode scared the bejezus out of me as a kid.

Really i have no idea what he is trying to say

Lol that's because, as we have pointed out several times, you can't seem to parse english...




If you only read every post, you'd easily see that it is. There are some posts on this thread that counter everything you are saying pretty hard... especially the ones you skip over and ignore (maybe deliberately?) that are directly responding to some of your claims.

U02dah4 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:



"However, it is possible to speed up your battles by
rolling the dice for similar attacks together.
In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

A little hypothetical:

X people graduate from university.

Y graduates are chosen to join MI6 based on the criteria that they must all be able to speak 3 languages. They must also have knowledge of computer programming techniques. If this is the case all graduates must sign a form agreeing to be bound by the official secrets act.

Now, in this scenario, are all the graduates from X who can speak 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming made to sign the form or only those Y chosen to join MI6?

Good comparison.

p.s. I love your screen name, that episode scared the bejezus out of me as a kid.

Really i have no idea what he is trying to say

A) 100 people graduate from university
B) Of those 100 people, 50 know 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming
C) MI6 selects 4 people from the pool of 50 to recruit, as they have a selection criteria that you must speak at least 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming to work for MI6
D) In order to work for MI6 you must be bound by the Official Secrets Act and so must sign a form confirming this

So, how many people sign the form?

This relates back to the fast rolling rules in the following way:

1) We have a total pool of attacks (this is the total pool of graduates)
2) Some of those attacks have similar characteristics (these are the graduates which match the selection criteria)
3) We can fast roll several (i.e more than one) attacks if they match the criteria of having similar statistics (MI6 selects 4 graduates to recruit)
4) For the selected set of attacks we roll all their to hits, then to wounds, saves etc. (this is the graduates signing the form)

By arguing that all of the attacks which share similar characteristics must be fast rolled in one set, you are saying that every graduate who met MI6's criteria would have to sign the form, rather than just the 4 who were selected to be recruited.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Deathreaper, you might do well to stow the “you have no backup” when your interpretation is based on misreading the English. Let’s take the “you do not grasp” and “you have no rules backing” etc. insinuations down a notch, given grammar is against you here.

Grammatically, you’re completely incorrect. The sentence does not define “several” at all. Rolling “all the dice” refers to the several attacks you’ve chosen - you’re rolling all the dice for those attacks together not one by one. This has been explained by other posters already. This is how grammar works here. There is no compulsion to group ALL similar shots in the RAW, just to roll all the dice for the group of shots you choose at the same time.

As others have also said, if it functioned the way you say then Fast Rolling only works if you you fire all guns at one target. You believe the wording compels you to roll all e.g. Bolters together... hard luck if you wanted to split fire, eh? Luckily that isn’t the case.

The weird tangent about not being able to split things because you have e.g. 30 shots to make and only 10 dice is... well that’s only an internet problem. Jeez, if anyone tried pulling that reading I’d carry on, and if they insisted I’d just laugh and pack up... save myself grief at whatever other lawyering they might be harbouring. Honestly... if you’ve declared you’re grouping shots but don’t have enough dice just roll dice til you’ve rolled enough, or sub-batch them. It really is a non-problem and this forum’s utility is diminished every time a thread falls down a rabbit hole like that. The forum is ultimately about how to play the game, and it’s entirely possible to make more shots than you have dice. End of.

Your first paragraph is wrong and an insult

Your second paragraph is wrong at the word chosen

You have not established any quote yet showing you are allowd or have permission to choose. Without that several in its clause is undefined till a later sentence defines it.

Your conclusion that if its read that way means multiple guns dont work is erroneous none of you have shown that at all. Following the RAW they have different characteristics so form a seperate group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:



"However, it is possible to speed up your battles by
rolling the dice for similar attacks together.
In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

A little hypothetical:

X people graduate from university.

Y graduates are chosen to join MI6 based on the criteria that they must all be able to speak 3 languages. They must also have knowledge of computer programming techniques. If this is the case all graduates must sign a form agreeing to be bound by the official secrets act.

Now, in this scenario, are all the graduates from X who can speak 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming made to sign the form or only those Y chosen to join MI6?

Good comparison.

p.s. I love your screen name, that episode scared the bejezus out of me as a kid.

Really i have no idea what he is trying to say

A) 100 people graduate from university
B) Of those 100 people, 50 know 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming
C) MI6 selects 4 people from the pool of 50 to recruit, as they have a selection criteria that you must speak at least 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming to work for MI6
D) In order to work for MI6 you must be bound by the Official Secrets Act and so must sign a form confirming this

So, how many people sign the form?

While I get the logic puzzle I fail to see how it is relevant to the question at hand.

The same technique referring to the actual question has already been user to clearly show several is defined as "all" this is as much a tangent as the stupidy of what if i onky have 10 dice.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


All of the hit rolls for the several attacks with similar characteristics that you selected to fast roll.

You are laughably incorrect here.

(Emphasis mine).

Except you can not and have not shown proof in the rules for the underlined above. There is no allowance to only roll some of the attacks that have the same BS/Str etc...

At every turn your side has failed to provide a solid rules quote that supports your position. Your position just ignores the context.

Therefore, until you have some actual rules to back your position, I can not be "laughably incorrect here".

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:



"However, it is possible to speed up your battles by
rolling the dice for similar attacks together.
In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

A little hypothetical:

X people graduate from university.

Y graduates are chosen to join MI6 based on the criteria that they must all be able to speak 3 languages. They must also have knowledge of computer programming techniques. If this is the case all graduates must sign a form agreeing to be bound by the official secrets act.

Now, in this scenario, are all the graduates from X who can speak 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming made to sign the form or only those Y chosen to join MI6?

Good comparison.

p.s. I love your screen name, that episode scared the bejezus out of me as a kid.

Really i have no idea what he is trying to say

A) 100 people graduate from university
B) Of those 100 people, 50 know 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming
C) MI6 selects 4 people from the pool of 50 to recruit, as they have a selection criteria that you must speak at least 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming to work for MI6
D) In order to work for MI6 you must be bound by the Official Secrets Act and so must sign a form confirming this

So, how many people sign the form?

This relates back to the fast rolling rules in the following way:

1) We have a total pool of attacks (this is the total pool of graduates)
2) Some of those attacks have similar characteristics (these are the graduates which match the selection criteria)
3) We can fast roll several (i.e more than one) attacks if they match the criteria of having similar statistics (MI6 selects 4 graduates to recruit)
4) For the selected set of attacks we roll all their to hits, then to wounds, saves etc. (this is the graduates signing the form)

By arguing that all of the attacks which share similar characteristics must be fast rolled in one set, you are saying that every graduate who met MI6's criteria would have to sign the form, rather than just the 4 who were selected to be recruited.

Notice how you get to 3) then lie from then on and change the wording to back you up - but your wrong because you had to change the wording

3) in order to fast roll attacks they must meet criteria of... is what it says not giving permission

Not we can fast roll several attacks if they match the criteria... is your deliberatly misleading wording giving permission.

4) if this is the case roll all to hit rolls ... is the true wording so the equivalent would be if candidates meet the criteria try to hire all of them.

4) for the selected group of attacks... Again you get three words in before misleading. It doesn't make sense as in context we havn't had permission to choose.)

If you wanted a fair comparison it would be

1,2, in order to join MI6 you must meet the following criteria if candidates neet the criteria hire them all

U02dah4 wrote:


While I get the logic puzzle I fail to see how it is relevant to the question at hand.

The same technique referring to the actual question has already been user to clearly show several is defined as "all" this is as much a tangent as the stupidy of what if i onky have 10 dice.

The hypothetical is not a puzzle. It is constructed identical to the fast rolling rule, it parses exactly the same. So, how many graduates have to sign the form?

You have the bit in bold backwards. Several does not refer to all, all refers to several.

The rule states you can fast roll several (i.e more than one) attacks if they match a criteria, agreed?

As the player we have our total pool of attacks. These are all the attacks that a unit is making.

From this pool we select several attacks we want to fast roll which have the same BS or WS as per "In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack)."

From this moment on, everything is referring to the smaller pool of attacks we have selected which have matching WS/BS.

Now we move onto the next sentence and check if our pool of several attacks all have the same strength, AP and damage characteristics and are aimed at the same target as each other as per "They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit."

So, in this sentence "they" is referring to our pool of several attacks with the same WS/BS and not the total pool, agreed? As if it is referring to the total pool and that pool contains attacks with different WS/BS values, we can never fast roll as these conditions are in addition to the WS/BS condition.

Now, if the previous condition is met, we roll all of the to hit rolls at the same time, then all of to wound rolls at the same time as per "If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls." Here "all" refers to the attacks in the pool of several attacks which meet all the previous conditions (WS/BS, Strength, AP, damage, target). If "all" does not refer to the smaller pool but rather the total pool of attacks, then you can never fast roll unless every attack in the total pool has the same WS/BS, Strength, Damage, AP and target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:


Except you can not and have not shown proof in the rules for the underlined above. There is no allowance to only roll some of the attacks that have the same BS/Str etc...

There literally is:

However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together.
In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls.

We have permission to roll for several (more than one) attacks at once, with conditions that of those several they must all be the same WS/BS, Strength, AP, Damage and target. There is no restriction in the rules which says that when selecting several you must select all of the possible selections.

Here's another question:
Are you allowed to have a model not shoot with a weapon in the shooting phase if the unit it is part of is selected to shoot? Because the rules do not give permission to not shoot with a model.

@ a town called mallus

The rule states you can fast roll several (i.e more than one) attacks if they match a criteria, agreed?

No it explicitly doesn't

It says "in order to"

They are not the same

If it said "you can" that would be permisive

I mean feel free to provide a quote with the phrase "you can" in it and everyone who can read will stop arguing because you will have an argument. However you can't because their isn't one and so you have no case. As your entire argument is predicated on that one point and if its not true your flat wrong.



Kudos for providing a rules quote litterally proving you wrong as it does not give you permission its an interesting technique.

Stating we have permission after proving you don't is lol

What the rules quote shows is not permission but a requirement

In order to - not you can

There is a preexisting YMDC thread answering your other question its irrelevant to this question i think it was to do with the one shot missiles and by RAW you have to fire them but RAI not everyone agreed.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


You have the bit in bold backwards. Several does not refer to all, all refers to several.

The rule states you can fast roll several (i.e more than one) attacks if they match a criteria, agreed?

No, the rule states you can make all of the hit rolls at the same time if they match a criteria.

"However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together. In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

this line: "However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together." sets the context for the rule. it states "by rolling the dice" not by rolling some of the dice.

If it said some of the dice, you would be correct, but it does not. It says "the dice" which means all of the dice that have the same BS/Str etc.

Then it goes on to give you the qualifications for rolling the dice for similar attacks.

Bottom line is that you need to "make all of the hit rolls at the same time"

If you try to make 5 hit rolls for 10 bolters, that meet the criteria, then you have broken a rule.

Basically "the dice for similar attacks" is what they are referring to when they say "In order to make several attacks at once" the several attacks are the similar attacks previously mentioned.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Here's another question:
Are you allowed to have a model not shoot with a weapon in the shooting phase if the unit it is part of is selected to shoot? Because the rules do not give permission to not shoot with a model.

This is clear in the rules that every model in the unit needs to shoot with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with, but this is not relevant to the discussion.

40k Battle Primer P.5 wrote:Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with.

So "the" means "all" now? So when I head to the store to buy groceries, I have to go to all of them?

And, as before, "all", in the context of this rule, only refers to all the attacks you've chosen to fast-roll.

It also bears mentioning that, if you ARE correct, then any attack that has the ability to generate additional attacks ot hits would never be able to be fast-rolled. Since you'd be unable to make the additional attacks/hits "at the same time" as the initiating attacks.

Since you're so keen on rule quotes, I'd be ecstatic to see a quote that actually states you must roll all of them. Cuz I got the feeling this is less about RAW and more about you "being right". Kinda seems like you're grasping at straws at this point.

And we're done here.