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.

 Stux wrote:

 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.

Literally 3 posts above yours is an explicit example of why Fast Rolling FNP does have a MASSIVE mechanical difference on the game.

 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.

This is a false equivalence. If A Then B does not imply If C Then B, even if A and C have some properties in common.

For myself I think fast rolling FnP is fine, providing your opponent/judge is ok with it, when there is no mechanical difference, but not otherwise. There are examples of both situations available.

In that case, yes. It made a difference. But you can't say it will *always* make a difference. Not without being completely ignorant as to how the game is played. That's why I say to ask first. Auto-hitting shots will *always* make a difference. Fast Rolling FnPs will sometimes make a difference and sometimes it won't.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 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.

Literally 3 posts above yours is an explicit example of why Fast Rolling FNP does have a MASSIVE mechanical difference on the game.

During the same game (iirc even the same shooting phase) a unit of pox walkers sitting in a corner on an objective was hit by a night spinner. Fast rolling FNP had zero mechanical impact in that instance and the very same opponent who requested me to roll those other pox walkers one by one had no issue with me just dropping nine dice at once, two of them for mortal wounds.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 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.

Literally 3 posts above yours is an explicit example of why Fast Rolling FNP does have a MASSIVE mechanical difference on the game.

Sometimes. When it doesn't make a difference, go ahead and fast roll.

 Stux wrote:
Sometimes. When it doesn't make a difference, go ahead and fast roll.

And who gets to decide "when it makes a difference"?

The person who doesn't want you doing it.

If neither person objects, go ahead.

Basically this ^. Which is why I said: "ask first". As long as everyone involved in the game is ok with it, and it makes no mechanical difference one way or the other, it's fine.

What I don't understand is why you're being such a hard-ass about it. Literally no one has said "yeah, you can fast roll 100% of the time because it will never make a difference". The only person who's even implied that this is what people are saying is you. The general consensus has been: "If it makes no mechanical difference, and everyone involved is ok with it, then go ahead and do it."

This would be something to object to and potentially makes game differences.

Damages are resolve independently. So if I shot wyches with a knight. 2d6 shots, 9 shots, 7 hit, 5 wound. 2 fail, 3 wounds on the wyches. d3 damage each.

I roll a 5, a 3 and a 2.

You can roll 3 at a time.
Then roll 2, then finally roll 1. So its three sets of rolls but you must split each result into their own rolls.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Sometimes. When it doesn't make a difference, go ahead and fast roll.

And who gets to decide "when it makes a difference"?

It’s not about deciding. It either makes a difference or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, no need to get ya RAW knickers in a twist. If it does, follow the RAW. It’s almost like this is what people have been saying all along and is both rational and reasonable.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Sometimes. When it doesn't make a difference, go ahead and fast roll.

And who gets to decide "when it makes a difference"?

Well the factual situation could be a good indicator. There are times when it simply, factually, makes no difference. Then reality decides.

And who gets to decide "when it makes a difference"?

I think its pretty simple to figure out.
If the damage from each wound is 1 or if you are shooting a unit with only one model in it.... fast roll the hell out of it.
as soon as it is D = 2+ and more then one model it makes a difference.

example:
I got a unit of 5 models they have 3 wounds each and Disgustingly Resilient.
some one shoots 10 D = 1 shots at them. 5 hit. I save 2.
I can fast roll this because each wound and thereafter damage is going to be allocated in succession and carry over to the next model if even if some are discarded by DR.

versus.

I got a unit of 5 models they have 3 wounds each and Disgustingly resilient.
some one shoots 10 D= 2 shots at them. 7 hit. I save 2. I have 5 wounds to allocate.
Now I have check one at a time. I say "I allocate the first wound to model number 1." I manage to roll 6+ on both wounds, I discard them. Now I say "I allocate the next wound to model 1" I fail both DR rolls. now model number 1 has 2 wounds. Now I have to allocate the last one to model number 1(because it has already taken wounds), I don't pass either DR rolls. The model dies and no damage is carried over. Now for the next one I say "I allocate the next wound to model 2" I pass one DR roll but not the other. now model 2 has 1 wounds. next for the last one hit I also allocate to model 2, I succeed on DR once and I fail once, model 2 now has 2 wounds.

If I fast rolled, all I would know is that I have passed 4 DR checks out of 10. So all I know is that I suffer 6 wounds. Without doing it one at a time I do not know how that damage should be allocated. Did I pass the first 4 of the 10 and fail the rest,,,, or did I fail the first 3 and pass the next two then fail 2 then pass the remaining.... It changes the outcome completely. Do I remove 1 model or 2 ? it depends on the order the models take the wounds in because the damage does not carry over per attack, and some of those wounds could be excess and lost,,, or they might not... you got to check.

so if you are doing more then one damage with an attack, it makes a difference whether or not you fast roll, otherwise, go ahead and speed things a long.... its really not up to anyone, its just math.

And in the time it takes you to work out and argue about whether or not it makes a difference, I've just followed the rules and rolled them properly.

but I distilled it down to a simple one time explanation.

More then one damage per hit on multiple units, no fast roll. Otherwise, go for it.

You ask why, I explain it once, and then never again.

edit : clarified per hit

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And in the time it takes you to work out and argue about whether or not it makes a difference, I've just followed the rules and rolled them properly.

That seems unlikely, in most cases it takes nearly 0 time to do this. In some cases I'll stipulate to it, but suspect they are rather rare.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And in the time it takes you to work out and argue about whether or not it makes a difference, I've just followed the rules and rolled them properly.

What if... there’s no argument? What if someone says “hey this way is faster and the same as we know, cool?” “Yep” “ace” <rolls>

Change the situation, change the appropriate solution. Again, like people have been saying all along.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And in the time it takes you to work out and argue about whether or not it makes a difference, I've just followed the rules and rolled them properly.

I dare you to run a Snakebites green tide and then make that claim again.

 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.

For the love of all that is holy, please learn what a false equivalence is.

What people are saying is really quite simple:

1. It's important to know what the rules actually say. This has been achieved quite nicely ITT.
2. It's important to understand there are some situations where fast rolling doesn't work. Some examples have been provided.
3. If fast rolling has no effect on the outcome it's perfectly fine to do that, provided both players agree. This doesn't constitute breaking the rules or playing by house rules.

Slipspace wrote:
3. If fast rolling has no effect on the outcome it's perfectly fine to do that, provided both players agree. This doesn't constitute breaking the rules or playing by house rules.

It is quite literally breaking the rules and playing by house rules. There is no rule saying "If fast rolling has no effect on the outcome it's perfectly fine to do that", thus by definition if you do that it is a House Rule.

 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.

How is that hypocritical. If you ask if you can do it and the opponent says "no", then you don't do it.

but there is also no rule against streamlining ?
Its common practice in gaming in general.

Super simple example :

I am playing shoots and ladders. The rules say, roll a d6 and move that many squares one by one. If I am on square 5 and I roll a 4, and I jump to square 9 without counting each, this would not be considered cheating, it is considered streamlining.

(even though when i was 10 my 8 year old neighbor told his mom i was cheating for doing just this)

 doctortom wrote:

 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.

How is that hypocritical. If you ask if you can do it and the opponent says "no", then you don't do it.

I am saying that ignoring one rule but enforcing another is hypocritical. Either all rules should be followed, or none of them should IMHO, there is no middle ground.

I am saying that ignoring one rule but enforcing another is hypocritical. Either all rules should be followed, or none of them should IMHO, there is no middle ground.

your the kid who made me count each square separately XD .

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 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.

How is that hypocritical. If you ask if you can do it and the opponent says "no", then you don't do it.

I am saying that ignoring one rule but enforcing another is hypocritical. Either all rules should be followed, or none of them should IMHO, there is no middle ground.

That's just one dude's opinion though. It would be hypocritical for you to hold that position, but not for someone who doesn't agree with you to do so.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 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.

How is that hypocritical. If you ask if you can do it and the opponent says "no", then you don't do it.

I am saying that ignoring one rule but enforcing another is hypocritical. Either all rules should be followed, or none of them should IMHO, there is no middle ground.

Except, rationally, there is. No need to be binary about things.

If multi damage weapon is involved it does indeed make a huge mechanical difference.

Yes. Everyone here has admitted that fast rolling FnPs is not always applicable. The thing is, many times it makes no mechanical difference. For example:

I have a unit of 30 Snakebites Boyz. You fire on it with a unit of 30 Shoota Boyz. Let's say some miracle happens and all 60 shots Hit, Wound, and I fail all 60 Saves. Going by your way, I would roll all 60 of those dice individually, one at a time, and remove a model for every failure before moving on to the next dice. Going by a common sense way, I would roll them all at once, tally up the failures, and remove the appropriate number of models. The first way takes like 10 minutes, the second *maaaaaaybe* 1. In the real world, I know which one I would prefer.

 flandarz wrote:
Yes. Everyone here has admitted that fast rolling FnPs is not always applicable. The thing is, many times it makes no mechanical difference. For example:

I have a unit of 30 Snakebites Boyz. You fire on it with a unit of 30 Shoota Boyz. Let's say some miracle happens and all 60 shots Hit, Wound, and I fail all 60 Saves. Going by your way, I would roll all 60 of those dice individually, one at a time, and remove a model for every failure before moving on to the next dice. Going by a common sense way, I would roll them all at once, tally up the failures, and remove the appropriate number of models. The first way takes like 10 minutes, the second *maaaaaaybe* 1. In the real world, I know which one I would prefer.

Yeah but just because 'it makes no difference in many cases', doesn't mean that fast rolling FnP rolls don't have any mechanical consequences.

Ok. Find the mechanical consequence in my above example. As I said: this isnt a universal thing. Literally everyone has admitted that it should only be done when A) it will be exactly the same as rolling them individually and B) when your opponent consents. But when it *can* be done, there's no mechanical advantage in doing so. The only advantage is that the game moves more quickly.

 flandarz wrote:
Ok. Find the mechanical consequence in my above example. As I said: this isnt a universal thing. Literally everyone has admitted that it should only be done when A) it will be exactly the same as rolling them individually and B) when your opponent consents. But when it *can* be done, there's no mechanical advantage in doing so. The only advantage is that the game moves more quickly.

We've already given multiple examples of why it makes a difference. Say you're blocking a pathway though terrain, and also on an objective.