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 dk
Longtime Dakkanaut




Danmark

So.. ive been playing for like 2 years or something and it occurred to me during a match with another player that im not entirely sure who decides what saves to make, and who decides WHEN to take them.


So i played a slannesh player and i had to take some wounds, and naturally daemonettes being -4AP or something on a wound roll of 6 (where they normally have -1AP), meant that some had higher AP than others.

He then said that hes the one dictating which AP value attack that i had to make saves for. I feel like this makes sense, as otherwise, bloodletters look rediculous with their damage 1 and damage 2 depending on the wound roll as well, when fighting 2 wound models. If your enemy dictated when to take saves, they would take a damage 1 wound roll, then a damage 2 wound roll after to waste the 2 damage.

But i feel like i gotta ask, is this the correct way to do it? Do the attacker, decide which save rolls the opponent takes first?

And to work on from that, how long can you stretch this?
Heres an example; Scrapjets and Bullgryns with the 4+ invul shields and the other shield giving +1 to the save (or is it +2? who cares).
Scrapjets have 2 ranged weapon types, str 5 and str 8, and when taking saves you have to keep allocating to that model untill he dies or untill the phase is over. Unless he is wounded then it carries over.

Can i then finish all my rokkits and big shoota shots (str 8 and 5 resectively) and then tell my bullgryn user opponent to take a str 5 wound save, which he does, then change over to my rocket shot afterwards, to get a better AP value so he cant take that save on an invul shield (because he has to keep allocating to the first bullgryn)? Or is this idea only working for things like daemonnettes because its the same attack they pull off? And you actually have to finish all the way to the save state when finishing a type of attack? And thus big shootas have to be finished then rokkits have to be finished?

Because i feel like i see people sometimes throwing different AP(str/dmg value attacks in to the tray but they merely use different colors of dies to sort between them.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/05/15 09:19:37


Hope, is the first step on the road to disappointment.

- About Dawn of War 3 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

This is covered in the core rules.

Attacks are made 1 at a time.

So the person attacking makes a to hit and to wound roll, and if they succeed with the to hit and to wound roll, then the opponent allocates the wound and rolls a save.

This is covered on page 18 of the PDF rules in the "MAKING ATTACKS" section.

"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 dk
Longtime Dakkanaut




Danmark

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is covered in the core rules.

Attacks are made 1 at a time.

So the person attacking makes a to hit and to wound roll, and if they succeed with the to hit and to wound roll, then the opponent allocates the wound and rolls a save.

This is covered on page 18 of the PDF rules in the "MAKING ATTACKS" section.


Except no one makes a single attack at a time and throws several at a time. Arent there rules for how that works then?

Hope, is the first step on the road to disappointment.

- About Dawn of War 3 
   
Made in gb
Moustache-twirling Princeps




United Kingdom

Beardedragon wrote:
Except no one makes a single attack at a time and throws several at a time. Arent there rules for how that works then?
Yes, page 221 of the Rulebook - you can only fast roll dice that have identical profiles.
   
Made in dk
Longtime Dakkanaut




Danmark

beast_gts wrote:
Beardedragon wrote:
Except no one makes a single attack at a time and throws several at a time. Arent there rules for how that works then?
Yes, page 221 of the Rulebook - you can only fast roll dice that have identical profiles.



oh i see.

thanks.

Hope, is the first step on the road to disappointment.

- About Dawn of War 3 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

The only odd case that exist from Fast Rolling is when an attack is enhanced by a Hit or Wound Roll. There is no guidance as to what happens when your Daemonettes Fast Roll their attacks and you end up with a few AP -4 Wounds amongst the AP -1 Wounds.

For simplicity's sake along with consistency with the rest of the Fast Rolling rules, I would group them two AP values together. To be sporting, I would allow my opponent to decide which group to Save against first.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 alextroy wrote:
The only odd case that exist from Fast Rolling is when an attack is enhanced by a Hit or Wound Roll. There is no guidance as to what happens when your Daemonettes Fast Roll their attacks and you end up with a few AP -4 Wounds amongst the AP -1 Wounds.

For simplicity's sake along with consistency with the rest of the Fast Rolling rules, I would group them two AP values together. To be sporting, I would allow my opponent to decide which group to Save against first.


Another option is to use a "left to right, top to bottom" or approach. You just toss all the dice and use whatever order they end up with on the table/dice tray.

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 us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




Since the defender gets to assign where an attack goes in the normal (slow roll) attack sequence, I would say that the defender picks which attack is taken by which model.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

I experience this issue with my Plaguebearers (and some other Nurgle Daemons).

On a 6+ to-wound, with a nearby Herald or Prince, they get +1 Damage.
On a 7+ to-wound with Virulent Blessing, they do double damage.

The RAW... You roll each attack (at least the wound roll) one at a time. So the order is randomized.
How I play it, though, is I explain this to my opponent at the start of the match, and just ask them "When there's multiple damage numbers, do you want to take them low-to-high, or high-to-low?" and just stick to it for that game.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




@Beardedragon
This is simply a case where it may be inappropriate for your opponent to have fast rolled. If the weapon isn't guaranteed to have the same profile when it comes to making the saving throw, they shouldn't fast roll it. The only exception I would put to this is when the order doesn't matter, eg: all of the defending models save profiles are the same, so it doesn't matter *which* model an AP-1 or AP-4 attack is resolved against, or in the cast of Bloodletters, when having 1 or 2 damage on the attack doesn't have an impact (ie: 1 wound enemies, or single model units).

If your opponent has put the game into an invalid state by fast rolling when it was inappropriate to fast roll, it's reasonable for the defender to resolve the attacks in which ever order they wish. There's no rules to cover when someone breaks the rules.


@Alextroy, wound grouping is a 7th Edition concept. If someone is too impatient to roll properly when it matters, then their opponent should allocate attack order however they see fit. In the case of Bloodletters vs Intercessors, it's entirely reasonable for them to take 1-damage saves first until the first wound, then switch to the 2-damage saves until the Intercessor dies. If the dice were rolled properly, then they would need to resolve the saves in the correct order, but someone fast rolling has thrown out that vital bit of information. Jidmah has a reasonable compromise between the ability to fast roll and the need for resolving attacks in a specific order. Although this only works on the to wound rolls.

This is the #1 reason I hate the 6 to hit/wound changes weapon profile rules - you can't guarantee the ability to fast roll, thus slowing down the game.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

JakeSiren wrote:
@Beardedragon
This is simply a case where it may be inappropriate for your opponent to have fast rolled. If the weapon isn't guaranteed to have the same profile when it comes to making the saving throw, they shouldn't fast roll it. The only exception I would put to this is when the order doesn't matter, eg: all of the defending models save profiles are the same, so it doesn't matter *which* model an AP-1 or AP-4 attack is resolved against, or in the cast of Bloodletters, when having 1 or 2 damage on the attack doesn't have an impact (ie: 1 wound enemies, or single model units).

If your opponent has put the game into an invalid state by fast rolling when it was inappropriate to fast roll, it's reasonable for the defender to resolve the attacks in which ever order they wish. There's no rules to cover when someone breaks the rules.


@Alextroy, wound grouping is a 7th Edition concept. If someone is too impatient to roll properly when it matters, then their opponent should allocate attack order however they see fit. In the case of Bloodletters vs Intercessors, it's entirely reasonable for them to take 1-damage saves first until the first wound, then switch to the 2-damage saves until the Intercessor dies. If the dice were rolled properly, then they would need to resolve the saves in the correct order, but someone fast rolling has thrown out that vital bit of information. Jidmah has a reasonable compromise between the ability to fast roll and the need for resolving attacks in a specific order. Although this only works on the to wound rolls.

This is the #1 reason I hate the 6 to hit/wound changes weapon profile rules - you can't guarantee the ability to fast roll, thus slowing down the game.
A squad of 30 Bloodletters has 61 attacks. Do you really want to make people roll 61 attacks individually?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 JNAProductions wrote:
I experience this issue with my Plaguebearers (and some other Nurgle Daemons).

On a 6+ to-wound, with a nearby Herald or Prince, they get +1 Damage.
On a 7+ to-wound with Virulent Blessing, they do double damage.

The RAW... You roll each attack (at least the wound roll) one at a time. So the order is randomized.
How I play it, though, is I explain this to my opponent at the start of the match, and just ask them "When there's multiple damage numbers, do you want to take them low-to-high, or high-to-low?" and just stick to it for that game.
Oh yeah, that's annoying. I always just tell my opponent "resolve them in whatever order you'd like". I don't have time for the noise that is rolling each wound roll, and potentially re-rolling it one at a time. Most people resolve the same damage profile all at once then move onto the next one.

 JNAProductions wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
@Beardedragon
This is simply a case where it may be inappropriate for your opponent to have fast rolled. If the weapon isn't guaranteed to have the same profile when it comes to making the saving throw, they shouldn't fast roll it. The only exception I would put to this is when the order doesn't matter, eg: all of the defending models save profiles are the same, so it doesn't matter *which* model an AP-1 or AP-4 attack is resolved against, or in the cast of Bloodletters, when having 1 or 2 damage on the attack doesn't have an impact (ie: 1 wound enemies, or single model units).

If your opponent has put the game into an invalid state by fast rolling when it was inappropriate to fast roll, it's reasonable for the defender to resolve the attacks in which ever order they wish. There's no rules to cover when someone breaks the rules.


@Alextroy, wound grouping is a 7th Edition concept. If someone is too impatient to roll properly when it matters, then their opponent should allocate attack order however they see fit. In the case of Bloodletters vs Intercessors, it's entirely reasonable for them to take 1-damage saves first until the first wound, then switch to the 2-damage saves until the Intercessor dies. If the dice were rolled properly, then they would need to resolve the saves in the correct order, but someone fast rolling has thrown out that vital bit of information. Jidmah has a reasonable compromise between the ability to fast roll and the need for resolving attacks in a specific order. Although this only works on the to wound rolls.

This is the #1 reason I hate the 6 to hit/wound changes weapon profile rules - you can't guarantee the ability to fast roll, thus slowing down the game.
A squad of 30 Bloodletters has 61 attacks. Do you really want to make people roll 61 attacks individually?
No, but the game doesn't provide a clean way of fast-rolling it. You have to rely on hacks to keep the speed going and to keep things relatively fair. You either roll it correctly (one at a time when it matters), or you don't. I think most people settle with rolling it incorrectly.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

JakeSiren wrote:
@Alextroy, wound grouping is a 7th Edition concept. If someone is too impatient to roll properly when it matters, then their opponent should allocate attack order however they see fit. In the case of Bloodletters vs Intercessors, it's entirely reasonable for them to take 1-damage saves first until the first wound, then switch to the 2-damage saves until the Intercessor dies. If the dice were rolled properly, then they would need to resolve the saves in the correct order, but someone fast rolling has thrown out that vital bit of information. Jidmah has a reasonable compromise between the ability to fast roll and the need for resolving attacks in a specific order. Although this only works on the to wound rolls.
Agreeing to a simple process to deal with these uncovered aspect of a legal Fast Roll is not some aspect of impatience. It is finding a way to deal with something the rules failed to adequately address. Grouping them into like AP/Damage just like the Fast Roll rules required from Strength, AP, and Damage is not some 7th Edition wound group concept. It is an extrapolation of the 8th/9th Edition rule.

I can assure you that I am as impatient as the defender or attacker when it comes to Slow Rolling. No one wants to do the Hit, Wound, Save process one attack at a time. We might have all day to play the game, but we don't want to take all day resolving every unit's attacks
   
Made in de
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity






Germany

 alextroy wrote:

I can assure you that I am as impatient as the defender or attacker when it comes to Slow Rolling. No one wants to do the Hit, Wound, Save process one attack at a time. We might have all day to play the game, but we don't want to take all day resolving every unit's attacks


Rolling dice is part of the game. If you are impatient dont play units which have hundreds of attacks. If you feel like fast rolling attacks could break some rules, fast rolling saves also breaks the rules. Are you slow rolling saves ? You dont, no one does that.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 alextroy wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
@Alextroy, wound grouping is a 7th Edition concept. If someone is too impatient to roll properly when it matters, then their opponent should allocate attack order however they see fit. In the case of Bloodletters vs Intercessors, it's entirely reasonable for them to take 1-damage saves first until the first wound, then switch to the 2-damage saves until the Intercessor dies. If the dice were rolled properly, then they would need to resolve the saves in the correct order, but someone fast rolling has thrown out that vital bit of information. Jidmah has a reasonable compromise between the ability to fast roll and the need for resolving attacks in a specific order. Although this only works on the to wound rolls.
Agreeing to a simple process to deal with these uncovered aspect of a legal Fast Roll is not some aspect of impatience. It is finding a way to deal with something the rules failed to adequately address. Grouping them into like AP/Damage just like the Fast Roll rules required from Strength, AP, and Damage is not some 7th Edition wound group concept. It is an extrapolation of the 8th/9th Edition rule.

I can assure you that I am as impatient as the defender or attacker when it comes to Slow Rolling. No one wants to do the Hit, Wound, Save process one attack at a time. We might have all day to play the game, but we don't want to take all day resolving every unit's attacks
It very much is a problem of impatience. You have a way to do it correctly and you chose not to in order to save time. Doing something incorrectly and then making up rules by "extrapolating" is still doing it incorrectly. Wether or not you and your opponent are happy to play incorrectly is between you and your opponent.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

Fast Rolling is correct as it is an explicit option allowed by the rules. That it leads to an issue doesn't make it magically incorrect.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




I'd argue that if an aspect of the required-same characteristics can change , then you cannot legally fast roll. An undefined value - a variable - cannot be said to be equal.

So as you NEED to fast roll, to avoid interminable games, then it's on the active player to make sensible concessions as they're the ones choosing to bring the awkward unit.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

And I'd say you are wrong. The rules clearly state you can Fast Roll if the attacks have the same WS/BS, S, AP, Damage, are affected by the same abilities, and aimed a the same target unit.

So Dire Avengers firing their Avenger Shuriken Catapults at the same unit qualify since all the attack are BS 3+, S4, AP -2, D1, Shuriken. It doesn't matter that Shuriken improves the AP by 2 of any attack that has a unmodified Wound Roll of 6. It still meets all the qualifications of the rule.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




Let's say you are correct AlexTroy, the end result is that "your opponent can then allocate the attacks one at a time, making the saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate"

Which means, your opponent can allocate them in an order that benefits them the most. For example, if you shot your Shurikin in a Drunkhari Archon. Say I'm in cover with the 3+ armour save relic, I could allocate the AP-4 attacks to my Shadowfield until it failed, then allocate the AP-2 attacks to their armour save, and if there are still AP-4 attacks left, resolve them vs my power from pain invuln, allowing for command point rerolls if needed.

The advantage to the defender becomes even clearer when you have a situation of Bloodletters/Plaguebearers vs Intercessors and the mix of 1 or 2 damage attacks.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




The attacks are by definiton a variable between ap-2 and ap-4. You can't ignore rules you find inconvenient.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

JakeSiren wrote:
Let's say you are correct AlexTroy, the end result is that "your opponent can then allocate the attacks one at a time, making the saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate"

Which means, your opponent can allocate them in an order that benefits them the most. For example, if you shot your Shurikin in a Drunkhari Archon. Say I'm in cover with the 3+ armour save relic, I could allocate the AP-4 attacks to my Shadowfield until it failed, then allocate the AP-2 attacks to their armour save, and if there are still AP-4 attacks left, resolve them vs my power from pain invuln, allowing for command point rerolls if needed.

The advantage to the defender becomes even clearer when you have a situation of Bloodletters/Plaguebearers vs Intercessors and the mix of 1 or 2 damage attacks.


This tends to be our group’s HIWPI. Allows fast rolling but defender gets an advantage. Any time you house rule there will be unintended consequences, but it’s one we suck up for sake of speed.

 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

What your missing is your told to fast role weapons with the same stats together.

Therefore the attacker roles either all the 1 or all the 2 damage weapons. The defender may then alcoate them to a model that model receive all attacks till it dies then you allocate to the next model. Only when they are resolved do you allocate to another model.

in practice this means all 1 damage then all 2 damage or vice versa

MW are always resolved at the end

So the only time you get the defender in a position to allocate would be if you fast-rolled a weapon that did extra damage or Ap on a 6. even then if they wish to fast role their saves they have to pick all of the same characteristic. Remember you can only fast role if they are the same. So at the point of attack they are at the point of save they no longer are so you can fast role in two groups but not one. the alternate is slow rolling the whole fight/shooting



If thats what they want to do I would just play with a tournament clock they can burn their time forcing me to not fast role if they wish to do everything individually. I will be happy to do so ..... slowly. I mean if I'm rolling 40 dice individually and then 40 dice individually again im pretty sure i can burn 10 minutes of their clock time.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/05/17 13:35:27


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




U02 you're not right there. You never have permission to fast roll saves. Any fast rolling is therefore a house rule.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Any game I have ever seen played anywhere in 40k involved fast dice rolling of saves

you can call it a house rule

but have you honestly ever witnessed a game where no saves were fast rolled.

If it is a house rule its a house rule in exactly the way you could advance and fire assault weapons in 8th

As in universally played

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/17 13:50:57


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




It's literally a house rule. I'm not saying not to do it. However as we've already made up rules (fast rolling saves ) it's not a leap to make up other rules as well.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

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
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Erm, it was literally made up, as it doesn't exist in the written 8th or 9th rules

You have no permission to fast roll saves, but people do it anyway.
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'd argue that if an aspect of the required-same characteristics can change , then you cannot legally fast roll. An undefined value - a variable - cannot be said to be equal.

So as you NEED to fast roll, to avoid interminable games, then it's on the active player to make sensible concessions as they're the ones choosing to bring the awkward unit.


By your reasoning you can't fast roll any weapon grouping that includes variable damage. So no Dam d3 could be rolled together nor d3+3 weapons nor Dam d6 weapons. I have yet to see someone call anyone out of fast rolling for this. Now that doesn't mean that no one has but I'd be surprised if it happened.

It would also mean you couldn't fast roll weapons with a variable number of hits like flamers. By your rational you must roll each flamer individually and complete their attack sequence before moving on to the next flamer. I have never seen that happen either.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/17 23:50:47


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




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
Please provide the rules quote that allows fast rolling saves. If you read the "Fast Dice Rolling" tip it explicitly calls out the defender as needing to allocate the fast-rolled attacks one at a time, making saving throws and taking damage as appropriate.

A ubiquitous house rule is still a house rule no matter how convenient. And one that I use when it doesn't change the potential outcome I will add.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'd argue that if an aspect of the required-same characteristics can change , then you cannot legally fast roll. An undefined value - a variable - cannot be said to be equal.

So as you NEED to fast roll, to avoid interminable games, then it's on the active player to make sensible concessions as they're the ones choosing to bring the awkward unit.


By your reasoning you can't fast roll any weapon grouping that includes variable damage. So no Dam d3 could be rolled together nor d3+3 weapons nor Dam d6 weapons. I have yet to see someone call anyone out of fast rolling for this. Now that doesn't mean that no one has but I'd be surprised if it happened.

It would also mean you couldn't fast roll weapons with a variable number of hits like flamers. By your rational you must roll each flamer individually and complete their attack sequence before moving on to the next flamer. I have never seen that happen either.

No, that's not the point. After you roll to wound, a weapon with a d3 damage characteristic still has a d3 damage characteristic. Some units have rules that change the weapons damage characteristic after rolling the to wound. It's these attacks where the weapons characteristic can change mid-resolution that makes them ineligible for fast rolling.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/18 00:39:20


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




As above

If the ap can change from ap2 to ap4, then it doesn't have a fixed AP and so can't be fast rolled. Flamers all having d6 hits all have d6 hits, and so isn't the same
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: