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.
Also agreed, it says "several" attacks without specifying all attacks of a certain type. The "all of the hit rolls' referred to in the statement is referring to all of the selected weapons in the group, not all the weapons of that type in the unit.
That said, I would bet that most people have interpreted fast rolling to mean all the weapons of that type in the unit and not just a selected subgroup, so that is probably Game As Played even if it isn't RAW or even RAI, so some people might see this as shenanigans even if legal.
Of course, you've already had to declare what weapons are firing at what targets before you roll any dice, so even if you break up rolling the weapons into 2 groups of 5 instead of 1 group of 10, you've already had to declare which weapons are firing at which targets before you roll hit rolls with the first group of five, so you're not getting to change the target for the second group of 5 shots if you destroy the unit with the first group of 5 shots, so I don't see where not rolling them all at once would really be an advantage if you're fast rolling at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/04 17:54:17
doctortom wrote: Also agreed, it says "several" attacks without specifying all attacks of a certain type. The "all of the hit rolls' referred to in the statement is referring to all of the selected weapons in the group, not all the weapons of that type in the unit.
That said, I would bet that most people have interpreted fast rolling to mean all the weapons of that type in the unit and not just a selected subgroup, so that is probably Game As Played even if it isn't RAW or even RAI, so some people might see this as shenanigans even if legal.
Of course, you've already had to declare what weapons are firing at what targets before you roll any dice, so even if you break up rolling the weapons into 2 groups of 5 instead of 1 group of 10, you've already had to declare which weapons are firing at which targets before you roll hit rolls with the first group of five, so you're not getting to change the target for the second group of 5 shots if you destroy the unit with the first group of 5 shots, so I don't see where not rolling them all at once would really be an advantage if you're fast rolling at all.
This has come up because people are wondering if the FAQ infinite hits problem breaks the game or if you can get away making a "hit you until you die" space marine.
To be honest, these discussions are moot because this wont be a problem RAW for long and its not like anyone will play as though they have an infinite hitting unit. (and if they try to, no one will play with them)
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
This has come up because people are wondering if the FAQ infinite hits problem breaks the game or if you can get away making a "hit you until you die" space marine.
To be honest, these discussions are moot because this wont be a problem RAW for long and its not like anyone will play as though they have an infinite hitting unit. (and if they try to, no one will play with them)
Ah, I see. Okay,, thanks for that!
Of course, I'd let someone roll their infinite number of dice in batches if I'm allowed to take my saves one at a time and to use a loaded die so that I can ensure the game hits it's time limit before the unit dies.
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
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/09/04 18:09:37
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..
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 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
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.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
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
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/09/04 19:22:34
Except thats not what it says lol.
You just wrote words down, but they arn't the words in the book.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/04 19:41:21
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/04 20:11:11
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/04 21:42:26
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/04 22:07:39
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/04 22:16:11
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
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.
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.
Bharring wrote: At worst, you'll spend all your time and money on a hobby you don't enjoy, hate everything you're doing, and drive no value out of what should be the best times of your life.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2019/09/04 23:41:29
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
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/04 23:39:00
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"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/05 00:42:52
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
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
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/09/05 01:57:19
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/05 03:58:12
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/05 04:12:41
