Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi all,

The Swarmlord's Bone Sabres state that the opponent must reroll their invulnerable save when and if they pass it from wounds inflicted by the Sabres. That's all fine, but, what happens if I happen to be attacking (for example) a Farseer (4+ invulnerable) who is Fortuned? Logically, it would seem that if a wound was inflicted, the Farseer would take it's inv save, if it passed it would have to reroll it according to the Swarmlord's special rule, then be allowed to reroll it again if it failed, due to Fortune! The rulebook states though, that No dice can be rerolled more than once, which begs the question, who's reroll takes preference? Or would the rules make each other redundant perhaps?

I'm quite prepared to be told that there is an obvious solution to this, but, its not something that I see being resolved without outside input from Dakka here. Thanks.

2 scenarios...
1) farseer fails invul -> fortune kicks in to reroll
2) farseer passes invul -> bone sabre kicks in to reroll

Neither special rules say anything about re-rolling re-rolls, and as you said, dice can be only rerolled once.

The outcome of either of the scenarios above will then stick.

They would essentially just cancel each other out... successful saves would be re-rolled due to the sabres, failed saves would be re-rolled due to Fortune. The results of the re-rolls would stand, as you can not re-roll a re-roll.

But since you're just going to be re-rolling everything, you might as well not bother and just accept the initial roll with no re-rolls.

insaniak wrote:But since you're just going to be re-rolling everything, you might as well not bother and just accept the initial roll with no re-rolls.

A significantly different result could occur, and the difference between a passed save and a failed save vs bonesabres is significant.

Fair enough, thanks for that. The Eldar seem to be cancelling out a lot of my rules (me doing the same to them too). Although in this case I don't think I need to be all that worried...

Seriphis wrote:A significantly different result could occur, and the difference between a passed save and a failed save vs bonesabres is significant.

Yes, you could get a different result by re-rolling than you had originally. But there is no statistical difference between rolling 3 dice and accepting the outcome, or rolling 3 dice, and then re-rolling them and accepting that outcome... Either way, you're accepting the result of rolling three dice.

Except that some people seem to always roll really well on their first roll, then roll poorly on the second. It may not be statistically different, but it sure feels better to play it the long way (imho).

From statistics, to personal beliefs in luck and superstitions... Whatever works! I just want to kill the Farseer. Although, I have a feeling my opponent will be rather pedantic and insist on rolling out all of the dice when it comes to his HQ in a bad position.

Ok we all know the answer to this one already, they cancel each other out so that the Fortuned Invulnerable save is rolled once.

You should use the search button there have been several other posts about this in the past. The most famous example is what happens when Astoroth's Axe meets Fateweaver.

I did use the search button actually... Nothing came up for ''Fortune'' or ''Bone Sabres'', and I wasn't too sure what to put in otherwise. Sorry if i've repeated it too much, I really couldn't find another post.
Thanks for clarifying again though.

Search is a little broken at the moment due to the forum just moving to a new server over the weekend.


But there's nothing wrong with posting a question that's been asked before. We tend to frown on duplicates when the previous thread is still on the front page, and will often link back to a previous discussion if the topic is a particularly heavily debated one... but don't be afraid to post for fear that someone may have asked the same question before. The rules have been out for a few years now... almost all of the questions being asked here have been asked before.

That might explain something!

Cool, i've only been here for two days, so I'm still attempting to get my head around the forum.

insaniak wrote:

Seriphis wrote:A significantly different result could occur, and the difference between a passed save and a failed save vs bonesabres is significant.

Yes, you could get a different result by re-rolling than you had originally. But there is no statistical difference between rolling 3 dice and accepting the outcome, or rolling 3 dice, and then re-rolling them and accepting that outcome... Either way, you're accepting the result of rolling three dice.

But one situation is rolling 3 dice twice, there is a statistical differance unless one is saying us the sample groups are treated identically - which their not. Same as rolling two d6 for a 4+ with a re-roll - one is using a different sampling method to generate what we expect be a similar result - they are in no way the same.

The only way there would be a difference is if the first roll somehow affects the re-roll.

Rolling your dice now has the same chance of rolling any given result as rolling them a minute ago would have.

How could the first roll possibly not have any effect on the second? What I feel you're saying is the conditions of the second roll would be identical to the first, which I feel is faintly ridiculous.

ChrisCP wrote:How could the first roll possibly not have any effect on the second? What I feel you're saying is the conditions of the second roll would be identical to the first, which I feel is faintly ridiculous.

Because they dont? If you roll 4-6 you reroll due to Bone Sabres and if you roll 1-3 you reroll due to fortune. Eitherway you have to reroll all the results. Quite obviously whatever you roll on your next roll is absolutly 100% unaffected by what you rolled previously. Saying otherwise is just like saying that "because the roulett has come up black 4 times in a row then somehow the chances of a red comming up in the next draw is higher than that of a black comming up" which is painfully absurd.

tedurur wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:How could the first roll possibly not have any effect on the second? What I feel you're saying is the conditions of the second roll would be identical to the first, which I feel is faintly ridiculous.

Saying otherwise is just like saying that "because the roulett has come up black 4 times in a row then somehow the chances of a red comming up in the next draw is higher than that of a black comming up" which is painfully absurd.

But I'm not saying that.

What you are saying, however, is that every event is unconnected to others - everywhere - ever.

ChrisCP wrote:How could the first roll possibly not have any effect on the second?

Because it doesn't?

Dice don't have some internal counter that changes how they roll depending on how many times they've been rolled in the past. The odds of rolling any given number on a D6 are the same now as they will be a minute from now, no matter how many times you roll that D6 in the meantime.

Do you know the phrase "the dice have no memory"?
The chances of rolling any given number do not change.
It doesn't matter how many times you roll the dice.
it's still a 1 in 6 chance.

THe dice are allowing you to simulate a random number generator for the numbers {1, ...., 6}

Whether you roll each discrete set 1 or 20 times, each discrete set is still a randomly generated set of numbers, with no connection to the previous roll at all.

Except, how they have interacted with the universe or their orientation to the game table ect.

All I'm saying is that rolling a dice and accepting the result is not the same as rolling two and saying "well one is a 4+" or "yeah passing an AS against bone-sabers being forced to re-roll it and passing again is the same as passing a single armour save"

Whilst the events may have the same likelihood of a condition occurring - it is not the same. For a ridiculous example consider this - I wish to roll a 4+, I'm going to use a weighted d20 die to roll, it has a 50% chance to land on 3,2,1.

All I'm saying is a die roll is an expreiment and if one takes a 'set' of rolls and claims the expected outcome is the same as another set - one is not wrong - but the conditions of that second set are not what they should have been, rendering the roll invalid (unless prior agreement is... blah...blah...blah )

This is turning into a discussion on Quantum Physcis... Perhaps when the Dice are rolled they collapse the waveform (which they do...) as you do by looking at it. So, yes, technically by rolling one set of dice and observing the result you do alter the universe, I am somehow doubtful that the alteration caused by the first dice, will change the other dice rolls though... It's still a 1/6 chance of rolling any number, no matter how many million times you do it.

Or you assume that the dice are fair, and every roll has the same chance to get a 1 through 6 and they are, statistically identical. Because all the dice are re-rolled, they are essentially independent events.

....

How can it not?

That paradox is not at all related to this topic, it relies on the knowledge of certain conditions.

Just roll the dice twice, ignoring the result of the first roll.

as gwar would say raw on this is

roll all saves, pick up all the dice ( because successful ones are rerolled from bone sabers, and failed ones reroll from fortune), then roll all saves again and figure out what saved and what didnt.

I just go with "It's faster to roll once, no rerolls, and get on with it"

Creon wrote:I just go with "It's faster to roll once, no rerolls, and get on with it"

I actually prefer the roll-ignore-result-roll-again method. It keeps you in good practice, so that you don't start forgetting your Bone Sabres, Fonutes, TL, etc. re-roll abilities.

ChrisCP: The statistical likelihood of reaching any given result is the same in both situations. That is, strictly speaking all that matters since the dice are only an estimated method of randomness. Whether the two results are or are not is covered by advanced physics theory or religion (take your pick), neither of which are actually relevant. What it boils down to is whether you want to speed things up by skipping a roll or whether you want to keep good practice. Or be completely and strictly 100% true to the rules.
The important thing is to be strict and consistent with how you do it - and above all decide on it before rolling in such a situation the first time!

By your line of argument, simply waiting 10 seconds to do the roll will have about the same affect as rolling them, picking them up, and rolling them again. Of course, that's not taking into account that the dice bounced on the table originally, thus changing their centre of mass ever so slightly. However, now you're holding your dice in your slightly warmer left hand and trying to roll! That's a huge...

I'll just do it for the same reasons as Grakmar. I can't even begin to estimate how many times I've forgotten to re-roll for Doom since restarting in with this 4th edition codex.