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.

When a model has a feel no pain type of rule. (Ignore an unsaved wound) is it possible to fast roll multi-damage by simply rolling a # of dice equal to the number of unsaved wounds then for every successful save. Reroll again for each count of damage?

For example, my wyches (1 wound each) take 5 unsaved wounds from a 2 damage weapon. They have a 6+++ power from pain skill so I roll 5 dice, with one 6. I then reroll the remaining 4 dice and get another 6. Therefore 3 models are slain

This appears to be faster than rolling two dice 5 times (especially at scale)

 Ysclyth wrote:
When a model has a feel no pain type of rule. (Ignore an unsaved wound) is it possible to fast roll multi-damage by simply rolling a # of dice equal to the number of unsaved wounds then for every successful save. Reroll again for each count of damage?

For example, my wyches (1 wound each) take 5 unsaved wounds from a 2 damage weapon. They have a 6+++ power from pain skill so I roll 5 dice, with one 6. I then reroll the remaining 4 dice and get another 6. Therefore 3 models are slain

This appears to be faster than rolling two dice 5 times (especially at scale)

No, it is not possible to fast roll them because the rules do not permit you to do so.

Is there a specific rule or wording you can point to to help clarify this? Are the odds actually any different doing it this way vs rolling 2 dice at a time?

There is no rule saying you can't do that. Rather, there is no rule saying you can do that, therefore you can't.

That being said, your methodology is completely wrong. Each 2 Damage attack can only kill one model. Each model must negate both points of damage to live. Therefore to "fast roll" and get the same chance of survival, you can roll 5 dice for the 5 instances of 2 damage. If you pass any, roll that many dice to see if you pass again. If so, that 2 Damage Wound is negated and you don't lose that model.

So if you roll 5 dice and get 2 6s, you then roll 2 dice. If you get any 6s, you don't lose a model.

 alextroy wrote:
There is no rule saying you can't do that. Rather, there is no rule saying you can do that, therefore you can't.

That being said, your methodology is completely wrong. Each 2 Damage attack can only kill one model. Each model must negate both points of damage to live. Therefore to "fast roll" and get the same chance of survival, you can roll 5 dice for the 5 instances of 2 damage. If you pass any, roll that many dice to see if you pass again. If so, that 2 Damage Wound is negated and you don't lose that model.

So if you roll 5 dice and get 2 6s, you then roll 2 dice. If you get any 6s, you don't lose a model.

Thanks I misstated the method I was thinking. You are describing the fast rolling accurately. But in the interest of a speedy game where no party objects, the odds of losing a model is still the same?

Personally, I use differently-coloured dice to fast roll FNP-type effects.

In this instance, I would roll 5 pairs of differently-coloured dice. Any pair which both meet the threshold - in this case, a 6 - is one model which wasn't slain. Every other pair is a slain model.

 Ysclyth wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
There is no rule saying you can't do that. Rather, there is no rule saying you can do that, therefore you can't.

That being said, your methodology is completely wrong. Each 2 Damage attack can only kill one model. Each model must negate both points of damage to live. Therefore to "fast roll" and get the same chance of survival, you can roll 5 dice for the 5 instances of 2 damage. If you pass any, roll that many dice to see if you pass again. If so, that 2 Damage Wound is negated and you don't lose that model.

So if you roll 5 dice and get 2 6s, you then roll 2 dice. If you get any 6s, you don't lose a model.

Thanks I misstated the method I was thinking. You are describing the fast rolling accurately. But in the interest of a speedy game where no party objects, the odds of losing a model is still the same?

In this case I don't see why it wouldn't since it's 1W model vs fixed damage weapons. If damage is random that doesn't work. And if you had 3+ wounds per model that might fail as well.

This is how I do it generally with 6+++, W1 model, D2 weapons. D3+ and I don't even bother rolling unless it's specific case where my model dying helps _me_(not often but there are sometimes those)

 Ysclyth wrote:
Thanks I misstated the method I was thinking. You are describing the fast rolling accurately. But in the interest of a speedy game where no party objects, the odds of losing a model is still the same?

It doesn't matter if the odds are the same. The rules are clear. Also, it's not the same "information", because the results and casualties make a difference (e.g. distance from other units that want to charge you).

Correct me if I am wrong.

FNP happens after a failed save. Saves are done one at a time since wounds are done one at a time. Fast rolling FNPs has no permission to be done but at best you can only do them to the maximum damage of a single wound.

Example. unit of tac marines get FNP for some reason and are hit by 5 2 dmg shots. All wound.

select model to allocate wound. Roll save. Roll FNPs. if the model fails any of those 3 rolls it's dead. Pick next model.


The important thing here is you need to pick the model before you roll the save. Which means you are picking the model before you roll FNP.

Technically correct. You can never fast roll Saves and thus cannot fast roll FNP.

That being said, the vast majority of the 40K world ignores this and fast rolls Saves.

 alextroy wrote:
Technically correct. You can never fast roll Saves and thus cannot fast roll FNP.

That being said, the vast majority of the 40K world ignores this and fast rolls Saves.

Yup, this.

I'm happy to allow fast rolling whenever the order is irrelevant. If the order has any impact on the outcome, then no fast rolling.

That's a house rule I believe to be prevalent though, not RAW.

 Stux wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Technically correct. You can never fast roll Saves and thus cannot fast roll FNP.

That being said, the vast majority of the 40K world ignores this and fast rolls Saves.

Yup, this.

I'm happy to allow fast rolling whenever the order is irrelevant. If the order has any impact on the outcome, then no fast rolling.

That's a house rule I believe to be prevalent though, not RAW.

Which is fine when every model in the unit is the same (30 stock hormagaunts with no upgrades). But doesn't work when you have a mixed unit with various wargear (3 tyranid warriors each with different weapons). or when the order in which the damage is done matters (so that if you have 2 damage 2 damage and 1 damage that gets through the defending player doesn't allocate 2 and 2 to one warrior killing it and 1 damage to the next warrior, when 2 and 1 would have killed the first model and the other 2 would give the surviving wounded model only 1 wound left) (tyranid warriors are 3 wound models).

It's important that everyone remembers not the house rules for speed sake but the actual rules for non-abuse reasons and defaults to the actual rules at any point where it even remotely could matter on any level.

Which is exactly my point. If the order matters, don't fast roll. Regardless of whether the RAW says you can. If the order doesn't matter, go ahead and fast roll. Even if the RAW doesn't say you can.

The raw never gives you permission when it could matter. You only get to fast roll to hits.

And if it doesn't matter who objects? We are playing game for fun. When it doesn't matter WHAT DOES IT MATTER? Except you get through it faster with less boring dice rolling.

It's game for fun. Not super serious RAW "you must follow all the stupid steps just for sake of following them" contest.

When it gives exact same result plus faster then in this thing called real world rather than internet loud mouthing world people go for the fast one. Same result, faster, more time spent on fun in game for fun.

There is a section of the forum for house rules. It's called Proposed Rules.

This is the section of the forum called You Make Da Call, where people ask questions and the only thing that actually matters is RAW when RAW is available.

Play however you want with whatever rules you want. But here. In this context. On this forum. RAW trumps your opinion.

 Lance845 wrote:
There is a section of the forum for house rules. It's called Proposed Rules.

This is the section of the forum called You Make Da Call, where people ask questions and the only thing that actually matters is RAW when RAW is available.

Play however you want with whatever rules you want. But here. In this context. On this forum. RAW trumps your opinion.

Sorry, but it's not that simple.

RAW might be the most important thing, but it's not the be all and end all, even in this forum.

As well as RAW, there is constructive advice about how to practically play the game. There is common convention. Because sometimes there is a critical failure in the RAW, and fast rolling is one such area.

 Lance845 wrote:
There is a section of the forum for house rules. It's called Proposed Rules.

This is the section of the forum called You Make Da Call, where people ask questions and the only thing that actually matters is RAW when RAW is available.

Play however you want with whatever rules you want. But here. In this context. On this forum. RAW trumps your opinion.

That's not how this forum works, at all.

It's perfectly acceptable for people to point out where they play things differently to the RAW, so long as they make it clear that this is how they choose to play, rather than RAW.

A forum devoted solely to RAW would be fine for those interested only in argument for the sake of argument, but it is ultimately far more useful to have discussion cover how the game is actually played on the table.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
There is a section of the forum for house rules. It's called Proposed Rules.

This is the section of the forum called You Make Da Call, where people ask questions and the only thing that actually matters is RAW when RAW is available.

Play however you want with whatever rules you want. But here. In this context. On this forum. RAW trumps your opinion.

That's not how this forum works, at all.

It's perfectly acceptable for people to point out where they play things differently to the RAW, so long as they make it clear that this is how they choose to play, rather than RAW.

A forum devoted solely to RAW would be fine for those interested only in argument for the sake of argument, but it is ultimately far more useful to have discussion cover how the game is actually played on the table.

I didn't say that people pointing out how they play it differently isn't fine when they acknowledge that it's their own house rules. This thread asked a question about what you are SUPPOSED to do. And the answer to that question has a RAW answer. Arguing that you should ignore that and do it like this instead 1) doesn't answer the question and 2) ignores the many instances where that house rule opens up the potential for exploitation. GW is normally full on gak at rules writing. But where they allow for fast dice rolling is actually a good line in the sand because it allows for no wiggle room that can cause exploits. It's actually the exact point where under no circumstance can anyone fudge things to their favor while allowing for handfuls of dice to quick roll all in a compact clear statement.

Now WE as players have made exceptions that extend the fast rolling beyond that. But WE haven't clearly written it in such a way that all players have a clear and concise way to follow that without opening the door for exploitation. I very much argue that this is not the correct place to ask "When it doesn't matter WHAT DOES IT MATTER?" or statements like "It's game for fun. Not super serious RAW "you must follow all the stupid steps just for sake of following them" contest." Loop holes in those exceptions exist. And if we get used to fast rolling everything as the norm we are going to thoughtlessly miss places where exploitation or no clear method forward will occur. It's the nature of getting complacent with your house rules. Hell, I often forget that the morale phase exists at all because Tyranids more or less never do anything in it. And thats just normal RAW game play.

I strongly disagree.

If it literally does not matter at all to the game state if a player does something we absolutely should say here that it is fine to do it.

 Stux wrote:
I strongly disagree.

If it literally does not matter at all to the game state if a player does something we absolutely should say here that it is fine to do it.

Agreed. It's important to know what the rules actually say and what the "proper" way to do things is. It's equally important to understand when those rules are sometimes not fully followed for convenince sake when it doesn't make a difference one way or the other.

Slippery slope fear mongering is silly. “If we house rule this we have to allow everything!” is the (il)logical extreme of that, which one guy often posts, and it’s pure nonsense.

If someone has a non-RAW method that generates exactly the same result as RAW it’s perfectly valid to discuss in this forum and use when playing friends (though preferably post with working vs the RAW so it can be proven to give identical results).

Just typing “but this is RAW” doesn’t ‘trump’ anything. And the RAW police don’t visit people who have workarounds for speed. Let people discuss and play, man...

If the outcome is no different then for the sake of speeding up play there is no harm in it. I do this all the time with pox walkers and no single opponent has ever failed to see how it is useful.

I don’t know if it would save time, but you could achieve the same result as fast rolling using a transparent tackle box or something—you’ve got two save for each model, so two dice per bin; however many bins as you’ve got models. Shake and roll. If you’ve got enough bins, roll as many “one at a time” dice together as you need.

“Fast rolling” a bunch of dice that you can’t differentiate isn’t the only alternative to rolling dice one a time.

The main argument of the RAW faction is that you might take different decisions of which model to apply the wounds to depending on what the outcome of previous rolls is.

A real example from one of my recent games: There was a situation where 12 of my pox walkers were blocking a choke point between two ruins, with an objective on the first level of a ruin and some of those pox walkers next to it. As long as at least 3 pox walkers survive, blocking the chokepoint with three models is the superior option.
If less than three survive, the enemy can charge through the choke point into the units behind it anyways, so I'd rather have the last one secure the objective.

So when they were shot at, it mattered very much whether I lost 7 or more than 7 models. Thus my opponent asked me to roll them one by one and I did.

That’s cool. When things matter do them exactly. When a different, faster method can achieve the same result it’s a fine solution. The two aren’t polar opposites, they’re appropriate and inappropriate at different times.

Just seems like one of those things you should ask about before rolling. "Hey buddy, you mind if I fast roll these FNPs?" "Sure, no problem."

 flandarz wrote:
Just seems like one of those things you should ask about before rolling. "Hey buddy, you mind if I fast roll these FNPs?" "Sure, no problem."

So, would you also say "No Problem" if I said "Hey buddy, I'm just going to assume all my rolls to hit pass?" If not, you're being hypocritical.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
Just seems like one of those things you should ask about before rolling. "Hey buddy, you mind if I fast roll these FNPs?" "Sure, no problem."

So, would you also say "No Problem" if I said "Hey buddy, I'm just going to assume all my rolls to hit pass?" If not, you're being hypocritical.

Yeah, because that's exactly the same thing

One has absolutely no mechanical difference on the game, the other massively changes it. They are extremely different circumstances and so it is not possible to draw such an equivalence.

You're changing too many variables. I assume deliberately, because your example has very little in common with my example. If I had said: "Hey buddy, you mind if I assume all my FnPs passed?" then your counterargument would hold water. But I didn't. There's a marked difference between "Hey, in this instance where it doesn't matter which model takes this Wound, do you mind if I save us both 5 minutes of our lives and just fast roll them?" and "Hey, do you mind if I actually give myself an advantage by auto-hitting you with all these attacks?"