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.

Roll the dice, but DONT look at or record the dice in any way, and then roll them again. Your 2nd roll would behave identically to the first that you did not record in any way and have no idea of knowing the result of.

However, if you look at the dice in any way, your second roll will behave different than the first.

All the quantum stuff aside, here is the actual solution you must use: BEFORE rolling the dice check and determine with your opponent if you will roll the dice and pick them all up, wasting time with an extra rolls if there is tons of dice to start with, OR roll the dice once and keep that result. Also determine if you will play the rest of the game that way.

If you dont determine this before you roll, then your decision to keep the 1st set or reroll it will be flawed based on the knowledge of your roll. Rolling all 1's for your saves and then picking them all up, without first telling your opponent you play the long way, will never look good. Even if you really do always play the long way, your opponent might play the short way and consider/percieve your pickup of 13 out of 13 1's cheating of the highest order.

Both roll one die. The player who gets higher is allowed to decide if you will play the result of the first roll of Swords vs Fortune, or by the result of the second roll.

The player who gets lower is allowed to demand a best of three roll-off to decide who decides whether to take the first roll or the second roll, but he must roll higher than the higher player in another roll off, in order to do this.

Kilkrazy wrote:Both roll one die. The player who gets higher is allowed to decide if you will play the result of the first roll of Swords vs Fortune, or by the result of the second roll.

The player who gets lower is allowed to demand a best of three roll-off to decide who decides whether to take the first roll or the second roll, but he must roll higher than the higher player in another roll off, in order to do this.

Parody of fundamentalism is indistinguishable of actual fundamentalism.

Kilkrazy wrote:Both roll one die. The player who gets higher is allowed to decide if you will play the result of the first roll of Swords vs Fortune, or by the result of the second roll.

The player who gets lower is allowed to demand a best of three roll-off to decide who decides whether to take the first roll or the second roll, but he must roll higher than the higher player in another roll off, in order to do this.

KilKrazy are you available to hire for tournaments?

I'm thinking that to negate both rules and go with the first roll would limit the chance of disagreement and statistically exactly the same as rerolling. Although any Farseer unfortunate (lol) to get caught under the sabre of a Swarmlord is either exceptionally unlucky, really distracted or simply slowed thinking that a Farseer stood a chance.

The only issue with this scenario i see with this is... a lot of shiny guns raining down upon the Swamlord or the Farseer using fleet to get away, but that’s just my observation on the matter.

I would go with both rerolls cancel each other out. Just roll one die as if their were no modifiers.

Black Dragon Ninja wrote:I'm thinking that to negate both rules and go with the first roll would limit the chance of disagreement and statistically exactly the same as rerolling. Although any Farseer unfortunate (lol) to get caught under the sabre of a Swarmlord is either exceptionally unlucky, really distracted or simply slowed thinking that a Farseer stood a chance.

The only issue with this scenario i see with this is... a lot of shiny guns raining down upon the Swamlord or the Farseer using fleet to get away, but that’s just my observation on the matter.

It doesn't have to be a Farseer, if you want to be pedantic it can be a Phoenix Lord, or a squad of avengers! Whatever you want it to be. It'll still be dead though...

my point still stands, no unit (or player for that matter) would put someone in combat with a Swarmlord with the intention of killing it and/or surviving (unless it's on one wound and you're moshing it with guys you don't care about or are capable of killing it before it hits back) and if that situation should occur both rerolls cancel out and revert to one save roll, easier, nicer and less likely to cause arguements


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i'd like to add, a PL (bar asurmen) doesn't have an inv save and wouldn't survive against a Swarmlord anyway

There are plenty of things that'll kill the Swarmlord... Notice the absence of ''Eternal Warrior"? or any other rules which are similar. There are plenty of characters and weapons that can kill it... granted it might be dangerous, but it's not impossible. Get someone with a Vindicare Temple Assassin, or two, that'll deal with it nicely I believe.
Not to mention, all of the Phoenix Lords have a higher initiative than the Swarmlord. I believe Asurmen or one of them at least has a Dire Sword, and others can get like S7 on a charge with their nasty squads backing them. I think for an HQ until for Tyranids the Swarmlord is nicely justified, also notice the absence of any guns...

I think it's probably best to do all the rolls (Only re-rolling once of course, otherwise some pedantic people are likely to cause a fuss) I do think though that the probabilities all being the same, and despite the posts referring to divine intervention, quantum interactions effecting the macroscopic level and whatever else was mentioned, there would be no problem just doing one die roll to figure it all out (or was it two... whatever the minimum was).

the minimum was one (both rules cancelling out to one die roll) i think it adds a bit of looming drama to the game but if you want rerolling the dominant rule is fine too. btw i wasn't saying it was impossible to kill a Swarmlord, it's only your best cc unit that has T6 and W6, i'm saying in a drawn out fight, i don't care if it's a phoenix lord (which aren't as good as everyone says) it'll die rather easily. your wounding on 2s and even if i have S6 (the highest i can get without loosing Initiative values) i'm wounding you an 4s oh and you have a INV save in cc. notice how only one PL has a INV save? anyway the point is yes, the Swarmlord doesn't have guns but i'f it gets into combat (and if you play it right it will) people are going to die, not maybe die, but GOING TO DIE. even if a Farseer happens to save the whole issue of hitting you on 5s through a 4++ is kinda hard.

You could just as well roll poorly the first time then roll insanely good the second time. It's faster just to roll them once and be done with it. One set of dice rolls have no effect on the next roll. If you can prove otherwise you should go to Vegas and make your fortune. To claim otherwise is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:You could just as well roll poorly the first time then roll insanely good the second time. It's faster just to roll them once and be done with it. One set of dice rolls have no effect on the next roll. If you can prove otherwise you should go to Vegas and make your fortune. To claim otherwise is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

That's not the point. The dice do have no effect on the 2nd roll. The point is the rules are 110% clear and willingly not following them is... I'll just leave it at that.

A lot of people dont care. If it's really a big deal to someone then go ahead and roll them twice. It doesn't matter either way.

Gwar! wrote: The point is the rules are 110% clear and willingly not following them is...

...choosing to change the rules to suit the players. Something that is explicitly allowed by the Warhammer 40000 rules.

Which is somewhat irrelevant on a forum discussing RAW, not houserule solutions to murky areas.

kill dem stunties wrote:Which is somewhat irrelevant on a forum discussing RAW, not houserule solutions to murky areas.

This forum isn't just for discussing RAW. That would be pointless.

Discussing the rules of the game includes discussing how people play it where that differs from the rules as written for whatever reason, so people can see the various ways the rule is interpreted and/or played and make up their own minds on what to do in their own games. A forum that only discusses the RAW results in nothing more than a whole bunch of argument for no good reason.

insaniak wrote:

kill dem stunties wrote:Which is somewhat irrelevant on a forum discussing RAW, not houserule solutions to murky areas.

This forum isn't just for discussing RAW. That would be pointless.

Discussing the rules of the game includes discussing how people play it where that differs from the rules as written for whatever reason, so people can see the various ways the rule is interpreted and/or played and make up their own minds on what to do in their own games. A forum that only discusses the RAW results in nothing more than a whole bunch of argument for no good reason.

...and I finally have something that's sig worthy...

thats the point of the whole discussion, the fact the first roll become redundant because in any case it will be forced to re roll, means that you can just cut to the chase and roll one die, which make the odds exactly the same. i admit that the RAW doesn't mention this and we're almost crossing into the realm of house rules, but it's common sense; what the point of rolling 2 dice if only one is going to be paid attention to? it's a waste. i mean come on people think about it

That was my point back at the start, yes.

Sure, by RAW you should roll and then just re-roll everything. But it makes no difference if you just leave out the first roll, so long as both players are aware that's what's happening.

It would be a definite no-no to just make it up on the spot, without consulting your opponent before rolling.

Officially, you should pointlessly roll then re-roll everything you just rolled. Every time it's come up for me and my gaming group, however, we just agree to let the rules cancel each other out and roll once so we we're not rolling dice for no reason like a couple of putzes.

I'm not at all saying go ahead without informing your opponent