Switch Theme:

Do i decide when my opponent takes saves and which?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

We don't agree fast rolling doesn't put the game in a state that isn't cleanly resolved unless the defender decides to mix D

Does the attacker meet the requirement yes otherwise you could never fast role any variable damage weapon

I've seen dozens of tourney players happily navigate this situation with fast rolling and no problems and it comes up regularly.

Truth is your trying to justify cheating and you know it. I also know in any tourney situation you would get slapped down by a good TO. Outside that if your gonna WAAC that's up to you. You can try and justify it all you want I know it's against RAI and you both know it's against RAI and that your opponent gives you the opportunity to cheat doesn't mean you should cheat.

I also use the mtg definition of cheating because its pretty good here. If you know your doing something against the rules to gain an advantage its cheating. So if you know RAW doesnt cover it and its against RAI to mix damages and you do the term fits.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




I disagree that it's RAI. RAI would be to avoid the situation in the first place by slow rolling.

Here's a situation that you haven't yet considered under your "RAI".

Situation: Fast rolling Bloodletters vs Intercessors in order to maximise damage to Intercessors.

Then, later in the game slow rolling vs Gravis (3w) because you know that bundling fast rolling attacks would result in damage wastage.

In short, the attacker gets to maximise when they get an advantage and minimise when they have disadvantage.

But you just want to justify gaining an unfair advantage and cheating (under your definition) as the attacker.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

In the first case the player is within the RAW has not broken the rules so its fine

In the second case the player is within the RAW has not broken the rules so its fine it is worth noting if playing with clocks there is a drawback of lost time.

The rules allow you to do these things it is not cheating to gain an advantage by useing the rules as written

It is not cheating if the rules have a hole in them and you have to go to RAI to resolve the situation

It is cheating having had to go to RAI because the RAW has a hole to then knowingly break RAI in order to gain an advantage

You have cited a disproportionate advantage not an unfair one and certainly none that involve cheating, the rules for the interaction are broken and need resolving with RAI the player is not breaking the rules deliberately

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2022/05/21 14:54:55


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

I think you two are now talking in circles. Your POVs are clear but diametrically opposed. Is there any point in continuing the back and forth?
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Jidmah wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
It happens before you make attacks for a unit.


Oh, another bad faith argument. Prove it or feth off.
I have proven it, I do not know why you think I have not. I do not understand how you think it is a bad faith argument when I have provided multiple rules quotes to back my position.
Don't try hide behind the tenets you are violating yourself.
I have not, please stop with the personal attacks.
Also answer the question. I know you refuse to do so because it proves your argument wrong.
Not that your question is relevant, and just to be clear you asked "DeathReaper, does the model targeted by the attack lose one or two wounds?" correct?

The answer to that is, at the point in time in which you determine if you can fast roll, the bloodletters do 1 damage so a model would lose 1 wound. This is listed right on the Bloodletter Dataslate.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/21 15:08:40


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




@U02dah4
Do you think it is rules as intended that one player can get an unfair advantage over the other by fast rolling instead of slow rolling in certain circumstances? Because that seems to be what you want to allow.

I would certainly think that the rules as intended for fast rolling is that it's used only when it would produce the same outcome as slow rolling. Fast rolling any other time is cheating.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/21 15:08:06


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Rules work in such a way that players gain an advantage all the time. That's Is not unfair its a function of differential impacts of rules.

It is a plausible hypothesis that is the rules as intended for fast rolling however, ....

We only go to RAI at the point the RAW breaks. Before that it doesnt matter. RAW hasn't broken at the point you decide to fast role so RAI doesn't matter at that point only RAW.

RAI matters at the point the RAW breaks and we try to resolve it at that point by RAI only because we can't by RAW.

RAW and when you cant use RAW- RAI outcomes are not always equally beneficial but they are the rules you don't get tobpick and choose when to apply them (unless they say you do)

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/05/21 15:28:30


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 DeathReaper wrote:
The answer to that is, at the point in time in which you determine if you can fast roll, the bloodletters do 1 damage so a model would lose 1 wound. This is listed right on the Bloodletter Dataslate.


So a model targeted by a bloodletter attack will never lose 2 wounds from that attack?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/21 19:06:41


I present you, the the most misquoted part of all 40k lore:
Genetor Lukas Anzion in Codex Orks, 3rd edition wrote:[...] To the Ork, the only conceivable explanation for this is that the vehicle travels faster because it is red. However, as disturbing as it sounds, these 'facts' become true. Red Ork vehicles do travel perceptibly faster than those of other colors, even when all other design aspects are nominally the same. Similarly, many captured Ork weapons and items of equipment should not work, and indeed do not work unless wielded by an Ork. I believe this is linked to the strong psychic aura surrounding all Orkoids and have developed the Anzion Theorem of Orkoid Mechamorphic Resonant Kinetics. I theorise that many Ork inventions work because the Orks themselves think that they should work. The strong telekinetic abilities of the Ork's subconscious somehow ensures that the machinery or weaponry functions as desired.

This is literally all GW ever wrote on this topic - everything else is meme knowledge 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

U02dah4 wrote:
Rules work in such a way that players gain an advantage all the time. That's Is not unfair its a function of differential impacts of rules.

It is a plausible hypothesis that is the rules as intended for fast rolling however, ....

We only go to RAI at the point the RAW breaks. Before that it doesnt matter. RAW hasn't broken at the point you decide to fast role so RAI doesn't matter at that point only RAW.

RAI matters at the point the RAW breaks and we try to resolve it at that point by RAI only because we can't by RAW.

RAW and when you cant use RAW- RAI outcomes are not always equally beneficial but they are the rules you don't get tobpick and choose when to apply them (unless they say you do)


Made you gonna give this speech in every thread to try and lend false credibility to your arguments?

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

I long for the thread when we don't have people guessing at RAI for no reason and making questions more complex than they need to be it would negate the need to reiterate this so often but it underpins all rules arguments if you don't get it you won't get the right answers

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/21 21:21:41


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Fast rolling in this situation is proven to be against the rules. The attacks DO NOT inflict the same damage. They inflict either 1 or 2 damage.
So if the attacker wants to br3ak the rules for the sake of a non interminable game, they don't get to take an advantage at allocation as well

U02 your argument of rai is dismissed, as you broke raw to get there.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

They are not 1 or 2 the rules care about damage value of the weapon not the outcome

You can argue it should care about the outcome

Raw it does not if it did none of the arguments would be made1
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Did you ignore the rule stating the damage char Of the weapon is 2? I quoted it above

As it appears you did, thanks for confirming that the rules care about the fact the damage value of the weapon is one OR two, meaning they don't inflict the same damage, which is required.

Raw is proven.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/21 23:44:15


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




U02dah4 wrote:
Rules work in such a way that players gain an advantage all the time. That's Is not unfair its a function of differential impacts of rules.

It is a plausible hypothesis that is the rules as intended for fast rolling however, ....

We only go to RAI at the point the RAW breaks. Before that it doesnt matter. RAW hasn't broken at the point you decide to fast role so RAI doesn't matter at that point only RAW.

RAI matters at the point the RAW breaks and we try to resolve it at that point by RAI only because we can't by RAW.

RAW and when you cant use RAW- RAI outcomes are not always equally beneficial but they are the rules you don't get tobpick and choose when to apply them (unless they say you do)
The fast rolling rules are there to speed up gameplay for when attack order doesn't matter. Knowing this, you can do things such as fast-roll weapons with different characteristics when it doesn't affect the outcome. For example, fast rolling S4 and S5 weapons vs a T3 target together. (both wounding on a 3+). Or rolling weapons with differing AP because the enemy is only using an Invuln save. People extend this understanding when fast rolling saves even though the game rules don't allow you to!

There are rules to give players an advantage, but the fast rolling rules aren't those rules. They exist to speed up game play. If you are getting a game play advantage from fast rolling, then you aren't using them correctly.

Here's what I think. If we get to the point of resolving fast-rolled attacks and we have a mix of 1 or 2 damage attacks, then the attacker hasn't used the fast roll rules correctly. They should give concessions to their opponent to avoid any unfair advantage. I think the best way is to do a bald face reading of the rules: The defender can allocate each attack one at a time. No qualifiers as to how, it is their decision.

If you want a fair way to fast-roll Bloodletter attacks, then discuss a method with your opponent pre-game. You could agree that attacks are allocated from left to right, or that you roll a 4+ to see if you are going to take a 1-damage attack or 2-damage attack, or maybe you play a quick round of rock paper scissors to see who chooses the next attack to be resolved, or however you and your opponent find agreeable.
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





U02dah4 wrote:
If you just make rules up you have no consistency across forums/games it is therefore not relevant to a rules forum

Fast-rolling saves is a ubiquitous practice

it is not made up


So your version results in every game with eldar unplayable raw as rules don't cover how to deal this with fast rolling. You get to damage allocation phase...but beyond that rules don'' cover as order matters but you don"t know.

Put game on hold forerer

Anyway you are flat out wrong(no surprise there). Fast rolling raw can't be used here. Common house rule for efficiency but if we want to talk about correct rules a) can't be used here b) would literally put game to likely infinite pause(gw unlikely to do anything to this until edition changes)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/22 04:11:39


2022 painted/bought: 307/419 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Well you clearly haven't read anything I've written on here - use RAW till you can't go to rai afterthat. That doesn't mean just guess because good rai is evidenced based and we have that here. There no need to guess in 99% of situations


Automatically Appended Next Post:
JakeSiren wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
Rules work in such a way that players gain an advantage all the time. That's Is not unfair its a function of differential impacts of rules.

It is a plausible hypothesis that is the rules as intended for fast rolling however, ....

We only go to RAI at the point the RAW breaks. Before that it doesnt matter. RAW hasn't broken at the point you decide to fast role so RAI doesn't matter at that point only RAW.

RAI matters at the point the RAW breaks and we try to resolve it at that point by RAI only because we can't by RAW.

RAW and when you cant use RAW- RAI outcomes are not always equally beneficial but they are the rules you don't get tobpick and choose when to apply them (unless they say you do)
The fast rolling rules are there to speed up gameplay for when attack order doesn't matter. Knowing this, you can do things such as fast-roll weapons with different characteristics when it doesn't affect the outcome. For example, fast rolling S4 and S5 weapons vs a T3 target together. (both wounding on a 3+). Or rolling weapons with differing AP because the enemy is only using an Invuln save. People extend this understanding when fast rolling saves even though the game rules don't allow you to!

There are rules to give players an advantage, but the fast rolling rules aren't those rules. They exist to speed up game play. If you are getting a game play advantage from fast rolling, then you aren't using them correctly.

Here's what I think. If we get to the point of resolving fast-rolled attacks and we have a mix of 1 or 2 damage attacks, then the attacker hasn't used the fast roll rules correctly. They should give concessions to their opponent to avoid any unfair advantage. I think the best way is to do a bald face reading of the rules: The defender can allocate each attack one at a time. No qualifiers as to how, it is their decision.

If you want a fair way to fast-roll Bloodletter attacks, then discuss a method with your opponent pre-game. You could agree that attacks are allocated from left to right, or that you roll a 4+ to see if you are going to take a 1-damage attack or 2-damage attack, or maybe you play a quick round of rock paper scissors to see who chooses the next attack to be resolved, or however you and your opponent find agreeable.


See this us the crux of it you want "concessions" from your opponent because you've perceived they have created the situation. Your "concessions" are an unfair advantage going against RAI.

You dared to do what your allowed to do but I don't like the outcome because it helps you therefore you must be punished

Your then misrepresenting put a veneer of niceness saying "your avoiding unfair advantage" but your creating unfair advantage and you know that because your useing the words "concessions"

The neutral way is to resolve all of one type as you would in any other situation, It remains the most unbiased way of dealing with it but no it is not always equal outcomed but it is as close as you can get and you know that is as close to RAI as you can get.

And if you want it slow rolled you can ask but you need to spend your clock time because your time wasting the difference in outcomes between assigning all of one type and slow rolling is minimal. Your just trying to maximise the difference in your favour by mixing.

Trying to grub "concessions" out of your opponent that you know is against RAI is WAAC however you try and justify it.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/05/22 07:41:29


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




U02dah4 wrote:
Well you clearly haven't read anything I've written on here - use RAW till you can't go to rai afterthat. That doesn't mean just guess because good rai is evidenced based and we have that here. There no need to guess in 99% of situations


Automatically Appended Next Post:
JakeSiren wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
Rules work in such a way that players gain an advantage all the time. That's Is not unfair its a function of differential impacts of rules.

It is a plausible hypothesis that is the rules as intended for fast rolling however, ....

We only go to RAI at the point the RAW breaks. Before that it doesnt matter. RAW hasn't broken at the point you decide to fast role so RAI doesn't matter at that point only RAW.

RAI matters at the point the RAW breaks and we try to resolve it at that point by RAI only because we can't by RAW.

RAW and when you cant use RAW- RAI outcomes are not always equally beneficial but they are the rules you don't get tobpick and choose when to apply them (unless they say you do)
The fast rolling rules are there to speed up gameplay for when attack order doesn't matter. Knowing this, you can do things such as fast-roll weapons with different characteristics when it doesn't affect the outcome. For example, fast rolling S4 and S5 weapons vs a T3 target together. (both wounding on a 3+). Or rolling weapons with differing AP because the enemy is only using an Invuln save. People extend this understanding when fast rolling saves even though the game rules don't allow you to!

There are rules to give players an advantage, but the fast rolling rules aren't those rules. They exist to speed up game play. If you are getting a game play advantage from fast rolling, then you aren't using them correctly.

Here's what I think. If we get to the point of resolving fast-rolled attacks and we have a mix of 1 or 2 damage attacks, then the attacker hasn't used the fast roll rules correctly. They should give concessions to their opponent to avoid any unfair advantage. I think the best way is to do a bald face reading of the rules: The defender can allocate each attack one at a time. No qualifiers as to how, it is their decision.

If you want a fair way to fast-roll Bloodletter attacks, then discuss a method with your opponent pre-game. You could agree that attacks are allocated from left to right, or that you roll a 4+ to see if you are going to take a 1-damage attack or 2-damage attack, or maybe you play a quick round of rock paper scissors to see who chooses the next attack to be resolved, or however you and your opponent find agreeable.


See this us the crux of it you want "concessions" from your opponent because you've perceived they have created the situation. Your "concessions" are an unfair advantage going against RAI.

You dared to do what your allowed to do but I don't like the outcome because it helps you therefore you must be punished

Your then misrepresenting put a veneer of niceness saying "your avoiding unfair advantage" but your creating unfair advantage and you know that because your useing the words "concessions"

The neutral way is to resolve all of one type as you would in any other situation, It remains the most unbiased way of dealing with it but no it is not always equal outcomed but it is as close as you can get and you know that is as close to RAI as you can get.

And if you want it slow rolled you can ask but you need to spend your clock time because your time wasting the difference in outcomes between assigning all of one type and slow rolling is minimal. Your just trying to maximise the difference in your favour by mixing.

Trying to grub "concessions" out of your opponent that you know is against RAI is WAAC however you try and justify it.
No, it's not a misrepresentation to claim the attacker is getting an unfair advantage. If you pile all of your Bloodletter attacks into a unit of Intercessors and fast roll, then declare that your opponent must resolve all of the 2-damage attacks together, and all of the 1-damage attacks together, it reduces damage wastage to 0% and can result in up-to 50% more dead Intercessors than otherwise possible. If you slow roll, then you have a chance of damage wastage. Are you honestly saying that you think the fast roll rules exist to allow an attacker to minimise their damage wastage?

Also, your "RAI" is unsubstantiated. All I've asked for is to use a bald-faced reading of the rules, and you reject it because you don't like the outcome. The Rules As Written work correctly, just not in the way you want them to.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




U02 and yet as proven , you are breaking raw when you fast roll blooodletter attacks.
So you spend the attackers clock time slow rolling, as you are nit permitted to fast, or for the sake of not having a crap slow game you fast roll but allow damage allocation one attack at a time as the rules say, by defenders choice. Done.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Jakesiren your not trying to remedy the session in the fairest way your trying to get "concessions" and that's WAAC

If that's what your gonna do its what's your gonna do, but your not going to convince me your trying to do anything else because I know you know the reasonable position and the RAI and you know you know the reasonable RAI but you want to maximise your advantage thats all your argument is.

I also know any TO worth there salt will slap you down so cheat if you want to in your home game.

As to nosferatu had you proven noone else would be talking since you haven't proven I'll ignore the rest as noone has broken RAW in the scenario that is cheating the RAW doesn't cover a situation that is 100% different and we go to RAI at the break.

The attacker may choose to spend their time slow rolling it is at their discretion you spend your time how you want to but they are not obligated to do so. If you wish to force another player to slow roll when they dont have to you spend your time to do so.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/05/22 09:39:59


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




U02dah4 wrote:
Jakesiren your not trying to remedy the session in the fairest way your trying to get "concessions" and that's WAAC
JakeSiren wrote:
If you want a fair way to fast-roll Bloodletter attacks, then discuss a method with your opponent pre-game. You could agree that attacks are allocated from left to right, or that you roll a 4+ to see if you are going to take a 1-damage attack or 2-damage attack, or maybe you play a quick round of rock paper scissors to see who chooses the next attack to be resolved, or however you and your opponent find agreeable.
I already told you the fairest way to fast roll Bloodletters. Discuss with your opponent pre-game and decide on what you both think is equitable - you are already house ruling by allowing Bloodletters to fast roll in the first place.
U02dah4 wrote:
If that's what your gonna do its what's your gonna do, but your not going to convince me your trying to do anything else because I know you know the reasonable position and the RAI and you know you know the reasonable RAI but you want to maximise your advantage thats all your argument is.

I also know any TO worth there salt will slap you down so cheat if you want to in your home game.
Where is your evidence that the rules break in this circumstance? Assuming such evidence exists, you then need to provide additional evidence of what you consider RAI (you have not). Right now you are throwing a tantrum because I pointed out the very real advantage that the attacker would receive by going against the intentions of the fast roll rule and playing it the way you want.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Go back two pages the evidence was summarised clearly there is no rule for ordering damage at allocation as the rule assumes their identical ergo it breaks. the defender doesn't have permission to choose order only allocate to a model

I then cited

1) the intention of the rules to result in only one type of damage at the allocation step (so this would indicate we resolve all of one type together)

2) how MW and D dealt at the same time have been addressed because this is clear and is a virtually identical situation and has been clarified (you do all of one then all of the other shocker)

As evidence for how to handle RAI at the breaking point

Ergo one type of damage resolved followed by the other is the RAI answer.

As usual you only address RAI at the breaking point not before

The outcome is irrelevant to consideration of RAI as the same rule in different combination of units change outcome and there is no 100% perfect compromise in a situations.

Anything predating the break is irrelevant because we are still ar raw at that point.

This answer is consistent unlike the WAAC answer of I can order it however I like to gain an unfair advantage. E.g. if we swapped the target to 3 wound gravis I would still be saying all of 1 then all of the other. Your order would magically change to optimise it for yourself.

This message was edited 13 times. Last update was at 2022/05/22 11:35:14


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




U02dah4 wrote:
Go back two pages the evidence was summarised clearly there is no rule for ordering damage at alocation as the rule assumes their identical ergo it breaks

I then cited

1) the intention of the rules to result in only one type of damage at the allocation step

2) how MW and D dealt at the same time have been addressed because this is clear and is the only similar situation that has been clarified

As evidence for how to handle RAI at the breaking point

Ergo one type of damage resolved followed by the other

As usual you only address RAI at the breaking point not before

The outcome is irrelevant and doesn't change whether the target is intercessors or gravis

Nonsense, that doesn't break the rule. For reference: There's no rule telling me which unit to shoot with first. There is no rule telling me which unit to move first. There is no rule telling me which weapon to shoot with first. There is no rule telling me which unit to charge with first. Etc etc.

None of these rules (including the fast rolling rule) care about order. Therefore it's up to the player who has the agency to make up their mind on the order they want to action. For allocation, it is explicitly the defender.

U02dah4 wrote:
The outcome is irrelevant to consideration of RAI as the same rule in different combination of units change outcome and there is no 100% perfect compromise in a situations.

This answer is consistent unlike the WAAC answer of I can order it however I like to gain an unfair advantage. E.g. if we swapped the target to 3 wound gravis I would still be saying all of 1 then all of the other. Your order would change to optimise it for yourself
And since it seems like you are still formulating your argument with your multiple edits (12 at the moment). Don't you find it somewhat hypocritical to call me WAAC when your method literally allows the attacker to get the best advantage in all situations? Vs Intercessors they fast roll. Vs Gravis they slow roll and never fast roll. Don't pretend your method is fair when it demonstrably advantages the attacker.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

In most situations it doesn't the attacker most likely wants to mix 2 dam and 1 damage e.g. vs gravis 2+1 = dead gravis. the attacker wants to mix them to achieve this forcibly having 2+2+2+2 Is not optimal for the attacker it wastes damage just as the defender wants to maximise the wastage. Neither side is maximally advantaged by resolving one type then the other.

That you can slow role as an alternative is irrelevant and has no bearing on the RAI of how you resolve the break in RAW

Every tourney player I've ever met would fast role both of course this is anecdotal but then they just resolve one type of damage at a time

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2022/05/22 11:55:21


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




U02dah4 wrote:
In most situations it doesn't the attacker most likely wants to mix 2 dam and 1 damage e.g. vs gravis 2+1 = dead gravis. the attacker wants to mix them to achieve this forcibly having 2+2+2+2 Is not optimal for the attacker it wastes damage just as the defender wants to maximise the wastage. Neither side is maximally advantaged by resolving one type then the other.

That you can slow role as an alternative is irrelevant and has no bearing on the RAI of how you resolve the break in RAW

Every tourney player I've ever met would fast role both of course this is anecdotal but then they just resolve one type of damage at a time
Possibly a valid consideration if the attacker is forced to fast roll - but surprise: they aren't. However it's irrelevant because as you say, the RAI only matters when RAW is broken. Since you haven't attempted to rebut my assertion that RAW isn't broken I assume that is because you either agree or can not. The rules have many situations where the player isn't told an explicit order, and that the order is decided by the player with agency.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/22 12:03:39


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




U02 - I did prove, you just ignored it, twice. The damage characteristic of the att k is one or two, as proven, and as such the damage inflicted is NOT the same. As such, you are forbidden from fast rollling blood letters.

Raw, that's it. Your position is laughable.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

This thread continues to be an utter farce!

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: