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 us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Must inflict the same damage"
Yet they don't.
Except they do at the time you determine if you can fast roll.

How are you of all people getting this one wrong?

"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 de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 DeathReaper wrote:
You are also missing the timing issue.

There is no timing issue, as the rule has no timing.

If you have fast-rolled the attack and the conditions are no longer true, you have broken the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
P221 (or 18 in the PDF rules) under "5. INFLICT DAMAGE" says "The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage (D) characteristic of the weapon making the attack."


Actual rule:
"The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage (D) characteristic of the weapon making the attack. A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers."

 Jidmah wrote:
DeathReaper, does the model targeted by the attack lose one or two wounds?


Now, do you answer the question or do you admit arguing in bad faith? After having being caught falsifying the rules for the sake of your argument?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/20 13:25:12


[...] 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 has ever writte on this topic - everything else is meme knowledge 
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor





St. Louis, Missouri USA

It's so simple Deathreaper. You just have to roll out every dice one at a time, to hit and to wound, then we know enough data to have permission to go back and fast roll them all. /s

Isn't the standard way most people would roll in this situation to:

Roll X number of to hits.
Remove misses.
Separate 6s and non 6s.
Roll 6s to wounds.
Opponent takes saves.
Roll non 6 to wounds.
Opponent takes saves.

Move on with life.

 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 DeathReaper wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Must inflict the same damage"
Yet they don't.
Except they do at the time you determine if you can fast roll.

How are you of all people getting this one wrong?

Except they don't. They will inflict either one damage or two damage.
At the time you determine if you can fast roll you do not know if they will inflict (future, not inflicting,present) the same damage, and as that is a condition of the fast roll, you cannot fast roll

You are changing the language to suit.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

I think most people in this Bloodletter situation:

Rolls all the unit’s attacks to hits.
Remove misses.
Roll to Wound.
Remove fails.
Separate 6s.
Tell the opponent there are A D1 wounds and B D2 wounds.
Opponent takes saves.

The last step is where we have a minor rules breakdown as there is no guidance on how to order the D1 and D2 attacks.

Some think the sequence above is legal with a missing rule for final resolution.

Some think if there is any possibility of the attack damage being different, even wirh a variable D characteristic like D6, that you aren’t allowed to Fast Roll.

I find it comical that people actually believe that GW intended for large portions of entire armies be unable to Fast Roll.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






The fast roll part isn't an actual rule, but labled "hints&tips". Absolutely nothing prevents you from speeding up the game by rolling multiple dice at once unless it changes the outcome of the roll.

[...] 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 has ever writte on this topic - everything else is meme knowledge 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

So wrong. Can a mod lock this to save this going round in an embarrassing circle of wrong?

 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 us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Jidmah wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
You are also missing the timing issue.

There is no timing issue, as the rule has no timing.
You know that is not true.

When to you determine if you can fast roll?

P.S. It tells you this on P221 (or 18 in the PDF rules) under "5. INFLICT DAMAGE"

"In order to make several attacks at once..."

There is your timing. you determine the conditions at that point, not after.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Must inflict the same damage"
Yet they don't.
Except they do at the time you determine if you can fast roll.

How are you of all people getting this one wrong?

Except they don't. They will inflict either one damage or two damage.
Due to the timing of the fast rolling rules, this does not matter for fast rolling determination.

At the time you determine if you can fast roll you do not know if they will inflict (future, not inflicting,present) the same damage, and as that is a condition of the fast roll, you cannot fast roll

You are changing the language to suit.
What you are saying here just does not matter to the fast rolling rules.

There is a timing issue, and at the time you determine if you can fast roll or not, they 100% do "inflict the same Damage" because "The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage (D) characteristic of the weapon making the attack." Nowhere in there does it say the damage is anything else except for the D characteristic of the weapon.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/20 23:27:04


"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




 alextroy wrote:
The last step is where we have a minor rules breakdown as there is no guidance on how to order the D1 and D2 attacks.

Some think the sequence above is legal with a missing rule for final resolution.
I thought we all agreed that the defender resolves the attacks in any order they wanted as "your opponent can allocate the attack one at a time, making the saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate." Seems quite clear to me.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 DeathReaper wrote:
"In order to make several attacks at once..."

There is your timing. you determine the conditions at that point, not after.


I suggest you go back to school and pick up some English classes. Not a single word in that quote is related to timing.

Since you dodged the question a second time, I will now consider all your arguments as made in bad faith.

[...] 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 has ever writte on this topic - everything else is meme knowledge 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Jidmah wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
"In order to make several attacks at once..."

There is your timing. you determine the conditions at that point, not after.


I suggest you go back to school and pick up some English classes. Not a single word in that quote is related to timing.

Since you dodged the question a second time, I will now consider all your arguments as made in bad faith.
I am not arguing in bad faith.

I did not dodge any questions.

And don't break rule #5, that's not okay.

"In order to make several attacks at once..." is a timing issue. This happens at a point in time. Why do you think it does not?

It happens before you make attacks for a 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.
 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






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


Oh, another bad faith argument. Prove it or feth off. Don't try hide behind the tenets you are violating yourself.

Also answer the question. I know you refuse to do so because it proves your argument wrong.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/21 08:11:08


[...] 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 has ever writte on this topic - everything else is meme knowledge 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

JakeSiren wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
The last step is where we have a minor rules breakdown as there is no guidance on how to order the D1 and D2 attacks.

Some think the sequence above is legal with a missing rule for final resolution.
I thought we all agreed that the defender resolves the attacks in any order they wanted as "your opponent can allocate the attack one at a time, making the saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate." Seems quite clear to me.


Absolutely not the defender can allocate the damage values in either order but cannot oscillate between them
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






U02dah4 wrote:
Absolutely not the defender can allocate the damage values in either order but cannot oscillate between them


Care to quote the rule supporting that?

[...] 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 has ever writte on this topic - everything else is meme knowledge 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

RAW There is no answer its not covered



RAW you can fast roll if they are the same so you can fast roll future values is irrelevant all that matters is they are the same now D3D is the same across attacks regardless of what that value may be. And extra D on 6s to wound is the same up until you roll a 6.



When it comes to allocation it doesn't specify how to resolve different damage values. The only evidence is the rulling on MW. The clear assumption in the way the rules are written is that at this point you are dealing with only one type of A

So it is a RAI argument useing the same logic used in the allocation of D that also causes MW

You can't mix the D and MW to the defenders advantage you have to do all damage then all mw

And RAI that same logic says you can't mix 1 and 2 damages you have to resolve 1 then the other

Secondly it's just sporting its clear intention behind the allocation and fast rolling rules was that you can't manipulate mixing of damages otherwise you wouldn't have slow rolling you would just roll all attacks together and the defender would allocate damages to their advantage

If the defender objects as they feel disadvantaged the only fair way to deal is for all dice to be rolled singularly on the defenders clock time as singular rolling wastes clock time and the defender is being unsporting by trying to grub an advantage

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2022/05/21 08:36:23


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




U02dah4 wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
The last step is where we have a minor rules breakdown as there is no guidance on how to order the D1 and D2 attacks.

Some think the sequence above is legal with a missing rule for final resolution.
I thought we all agreed that the defender resolves the attacks in any order they wanted as "your opponent can allocate the attack one at a time, making the saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate." Seems quite clear to me.


Absolutely not the defender can allocate the damage values in either order but cannot oscillate between them

Rules quote? Hint: the idea of resolving 1-damage then 2-damage attacks (or other way around) is made up, you don't get to dictate how your opponent allocates the attack one at a time.

The problem with your approach is obvious, if you chose to fast roll Bloodletters rather than slow rolling then it greatly benefits you vs certain targets. For example, let's say 8 attacks successfully wound vs Intercessors. 4 x 1 damage, 4 x 2 damage. Let's assume we fail all saves. If we resolve all 1-damage attacks first, then all 2-damage attacks, that results in 6 dead Intercessors. If we alternate between 1-damage first then 2-damage, it results in 4 dead Intercessors.

If you care about the order of attacks then you should slow roll. Otherwise it is 100% up to your opponent as per the fast rolling rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
U02dah4 wrote:
If the defender objects as they feel disadvantaged the only fair way to deal is for all dice to be rolled singularly on the defenders clock time as singular rolling wastes clock time and the defender is being unsporting by trying to grub an advantage

Bwahahah, see above about Bloodletters vs Intercessors. The attacker is being unsporting by trying to grub an advantage they are not entitled to.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/21 08:38:40


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

As stated its a RAI argument based on their being no RAW

Centered on

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.

3) You can RAW claim that the defender allocates A to models. As you do. However, It nowhere specifies that the defender gets to choose which order those A are resolved in. You assume its the defender because they allocate the wound to a model but you could equally argue the attacker presents one successful wound at a time and the defender allocates it this would make it the Attackers choice. RAW we don't know it's not covered in the rules so we have to go to RAI see points 1) and 2)



Your argument relates to outcome which is really a RAI argument and a poor one with no evidence.

Sure I will concede in certain situations it can benefit the attacker. Therefore resolving it differently benefits the defender. That is not a RAI argument for either outcome as you are just highlighting that it creates a difference and then arbitrarily argueing this supports your preference. Personally any attempt by the attacker or defender to mix D values goes against RAI and is an unsporting attempt to gain an advantage. Resolving all of one type, then the other minimises advantage to either player.



The defender should resolve 1 type of D at a time RAI. You cannot force your opponent to slow roll and waste their time. so if the defender wants it slow rolled a sporting player should allow this but only on the defenders time to prevent requests based on wasting clock time. If your not playing on clocks or time isn't an issue a sporting player should just slow roll if their opponent requests.

This message was edited 16 times. Last update was at 2022/05/21 09:15:58


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




U02dah4, can you drop the invented rules? Let's follow the RAW in this situation:
BRB Fast Rolling wrote:(after fast rolling the attacks)
Your opponent can then allocate the attack one at a time, making the saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate. Remember, if the target unit contains a model that has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, they must allocate further attacks to this model until either it is destroyed, or all of the attacks have been saved or resolved.
The rules don't care which attack you resolve (they are rolled simultaneously after all), as long as you resolve them one at a time. The person who gets to allocate the attacks one at a time is the opponent.

So let's look at this, we have a pool of 4 1-damage attacks, and 4 2-damage attacks vs Intercessors.

The opponent allocates one attack, in this case they chose a 1-damage attack (because they are the one who gets to allocate), makes the saving throw then suffers the damage as appropriate.
The opponent allocates the next attack, in this case they chose a 2-damage attack (because they are the one who gets to allocate), makes the saving throw then suffers the damage as appropriate.
The opponent allocates the next attack, in this case they chose a 1-damage attack (because they are the one who gets to allocate), makes the saving throw then suffers the damage as appropriate.
And so on. This is 100% within the rules as written.

Your RAI argument "the intention of the rules to result in only one type of damage at the allocation step" indicates that the attacker broke the intention by fast rolling attacks that they knew would violate this intention. Maybe you wouldn't be arguing about this if the attacker didn't break the intention of the rules?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/21 09:40:20


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Would you stop inventing rules I'm not inventing any I'm saying there are none so you go to RAI

they are only given permission to allocate the
attack to a model not choose the damage value or characterstocs of that attack because the sequence predisposes that they are the same at this point RAW it isn't covered - the order of the 8 A isn't mentioned because they are supposed to be the same

So you go to RAI

You could equally argue I give you 4 1 damage attacks to allocate then 4 two damage attacks to allocate not 8 attacks in any order we don't know it's not mentioned.


It does not indicate the attacker broke the intention - it indicates that the RAW has a hole in it creating an unprovable situation - so we go to RAI at the point the rules break- neither player is at fault for the break itself.

it is clearly intended that one type of D is resolved at a time. You can fast role RAW as the D is not different at that point.

The problem kicks in when you have 2 types of D and no instruction on how to order them under RAW. The only breaking of intention is if the defender tries to order them to their advantage by mixing D.

We can see the fix for D and MW and that seems the most balanced fix for both parties and the most likely RAI

D is now different so split into two types of A resolve one then the other same as D and MW.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2022/05/21 10:13:11


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




You made a very good point before, that I want to emphasis, "the intention of the rules to result in only one type of damage at the allocation step"

The attacker, choosing to fast roll the Bloodletter attacks ignores this intention. Your solution, asking the defender to honour the intention even though the attacker hasn't, is daft.

Maybe we can agree that the attacker shouldn't fast roll Bloodletter attacks so we don't get into a broken game state? If they do, then the defender has no obligation to honour the intention that the attacker dismissed.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

The attacker hasn't broken intention because at every point they have correctly followed RAW and while they are in control of things it is clear they can do that.

The point at which the rule breaks is at the point between successful wound and allocation.

There is no RAW for Attacker or defender when it comes to ordering different D.

If the defender resolves one type of D at a time they are following RAI.

If they mix they are breaking RAI to gain an advantage.

Yes I expect the defender to honour RAI as I expect the attacker to - but convention is you go to RAI based answers only at the point the RAW breaks not before and the RAW hasn't broken when the attacker is fast rolling ot breaks after it.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/05/21 10:28:28


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




U02dah4 wrote:
The attacker hasn't broken intention because at every point they have correctly followed RAW and while they are in control of things it is clear they can do that.

The point at which it breaks is at the point between successful wound and allocation

There is no RAW for Attacker or defender when it comes to ordering different D

If the defender resolves one type of D at a time they are following RAI

If they mix they are breaking RAI to gain an advantage
The attacker knows that they have rules that result in more than one type of damage at the allocation step. They have the option of slow rolling which doesn't result in more than one type of damage at the allocation step.

If they fast roll knowing this then it is 100% the attackers fault that the intention of "one type of damage at the allocation step" has been broken! With that intention broken, the defender is not beholden to it. Simple.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

They have the perfectly valid option of fast rolling.

No it is neither players fault the rules have a gap

The attacker is free to do either

The defender is creating a problem where one does not need to exist if they dont follow RAI and should just follow the RAI

I have seen dozens of players resolve this at tournaments without hassle

I have seen noone try and mix damages to their advantage and if they do they know they are being unsporting to gain an advantage they shouldn't have.

That the other player could have prevented the situation is neither here nor there

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/21 12:05:06


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




U02dah4 wrote:
They have the perfectly valid option of fast rolling.

No it is neither players fault the rules have a gap

The attacker is free to do either

The defender is creating a problem where one does not need to exist if they dont follow RAI and should just follow the RAI

I have seen dozens of players resolve this at tournaments without hassle

I have seen noone try and mix damages to their advantage and if they do they know they are being unsporting to gain an advantage they shouldn't have.

That the other player could have prevented the situation is neither here nor there
You can't have it both ways, either both players accept that the intent exists and take actions to ensure it remains intact (ie, attacker doesn't create a situation of multiple types of damage in the allocation step by fast rolling), or neither player accepts that the intent exists, and the defender can allocate the attacks in whatever order as they see fit since the rules don't dictate an order, just that they are resolved one at a time.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

No players have to follow the RAW until RAW doesn't work then and only then go to intent

RAW is clear till allocation then as you admit there is no rule for ordering so we go to intent and allocate one type of damage at a time.

The attacker is under no obligation to take Pre-emptive action to stop a fault occurring if they were they would just not field that unit

Both players are responsible for maintaining RAI once RAW breaks and in this case it means the defender doesn't mix D

Any other answer involves the defender creating an unfair situation against RAI to gain an advantage when they do not need to do so. Or the attacker doing the same. They could just be a sportsman/normal competative player and role all of one type of damage first

You know what was intended you just seem to be of the mindset that your opponent could have prevented the situation from occurring so it's ok to cheat by breaking RAI because you technically can even though you know its not the intent. Either way that behaviour would deserve a yellow card.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/05/21 12:30:36


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




U02dah4 wrote:
No players have to follow the RAW until RAW doesn't work then and only then go to intent

RAW is clear till allocation then as you admit there is no rule for ordering so we go to intent and allocate one type of damage at a time.

The attacker is under no obligation to take Pre-emptive action to stop a fault occurring if they were they would just not field that unit

Both players are responsible for maintaining RAI once RAW breaks and in this case it means the defender doesn't mix D

Any other answer involves the defender creating an unfair situation against RAI to gain an advantage when they do not need to do so. They could just be a sportsman/normal competative player and role all of one type of damage first
RAW is actually clear. The defender allocates attacks one at a time, in the same way that a player selects one unit in their army to move at a time, or selecting a psyker to cast powers at a time, etc etc. The rules don't specify order because it's up to the player to decide on the order. You want to claim "intention" but don't want to apply it equally.

And don't come at me with the BS "defender creating an unfair situation", because in Bloodletters vs Intercessors, it unfairly optimises the Bloodletter Attacks the way you want to do it. How about the attacker doesn't create an unfair situation in the first place and slow-roll it properly if they are so concerned about fairness?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

No rules don't specify order

That's it that's why there's a fault the situation isn't considered. You get to allocate the attack to the model not specify the order of those attacks because the rules think that doesn't matter.

Imagine 2 damage and 1 damage attacks going into 3w model

The attacker wants a 2 damage till 1 succeeds then a 1 damage attack then back to 2 damage

The defender wants 2 one damage attacks then a 2 damage attacks

Neither player optimally wants all 2 then all1 or vice versa

The principle is the same across all situations this occurs in but certain situations like the intercessor scenario can favour one side

The attacker didn't create an unfair situation the person trying to mix damage rolls is and the person trying to mix damage rolls can choose not to do that.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/21 12:59:22


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




U02dah4 wrote:
No rules don't specify order

That's it that's why there's a fault the situation isn't considered. You get to allocate the attack to the model not specify the order of those attacks because the rules think that doesn't matter.

Imagine 2 damage and 1 damage attacks going into 3w model

The attacker wants a 2 damage till 1 succeeds then a 1 damage attack then back to 2 damage

The defender wants 2 one damage attacks then a 2 damage attacks

Neither player optimally wants all 2 then all1 or vice versa

The attacker didn't create an unfair situation the person trying to mix damage rolls is and the person trying to mix damage rolls can choose not to do that.
It doesn't matter, it's still going to be unfair to one of the players in many circumstances. Replace Bloodletters with Incubi (2d attacks going up to 3d) vs 3W and you've got the same problem. What if instead I told you that the attacker could create a fair situation for both players? That doesn't artificially increase or decrease the effectiveness of a weapon! Do you want to know how?
Spoiler:
The attacker slow rolls the dice
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

If your situation involves mandating not fast rolling that is not fair it unfairly penalises the clock of the attacker. And against the RAW prevents a legal action the attacker could take. If it is only optional the attacker may do either



I agree different situations may favour one side or the other

My point is it is not a choice and whether it favours the defender or attacker mixing is not RAI. You need to resolve all of one type

That the attacker could have prevented the situation has no bearing on how it resolves when it does. it does not give you permission to cheat and you know you are cheating because you know its not intended

It can also be impractical and detrimental to the fun of the game imagine it happening across 12 units it would take forever to slow role them and their is no need if the defender plays by the RAI and is sporting. Both players will have more fun and that situation can easily happen with +1 ap on 6's to wound.

This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2022/05/21 13:14:25


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




U02dah4 wrote:
If your situation involves mandating not fast rolling that is not fair it unfairly penalises the clock of the attacker. And against the RAW prevents a legal action the attacker could take. If it is only optional the attacker may do witherm



I agree different situations may favour one side or the other

My point is it is not a choice and whether it favours the defender or not RAI it's all of one type
Clock's aren't in the game rules, I don't care about them.

Here's where we are at. We agree that fast rolling these attacks put the game in a state that isn't cleanly resolved because the defender now has to allocate attacks which are a mix of 1 and 2 damage. You think the RAW is unclear but there is RAI to group them. I think the RAW is clear and that the defender allocates as they see fit (no order specified = player chooses as demonstrated in other sections of BRB).

Consider this, does the attacker even meet the requirements for fast rolling these attacks? I would say no, because as I outlined above, fast rolling these attacks puts the game into an unclean state. The attacker cannot meet the guarantee that attacks must inflict the same damage (which happens after defender allocates) - and the attacker knows they can't because they might have 1 damage or 2 damage attacks when it comes to allocating them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
U02dah4 wrote:
It can also be impractical and detrimental to the fun of the game imagine it happening across 12 units it would take forever to slow role them and their is no need if the defender plays by the RAI and is sporting. Both players will have more fun and that situation can easily happen with +1 ap on 6's to wound.
For reference, whenever I play my Bloodletters I fast roll them, but I also allow my opponent to resolve their saves however they want. That is a concession I make to complete the game in a timely manner. It's up to my opponent how they want to resolve the attacks, but they shouldn't be penalised for me wanting to speed up my armies quirky rules. *That's* not fair to them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/21 13:18:07


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: