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:

 Type40 wrote:
Ah, so it is rounding out of convenience (and practicality).

There's no rounding in the proof. It's just notation to represent an infinitely recurring decimal.

That might be what you mean, but I'm just being clear that rounding has no part in the proof.

but it wont be zero,,, it can never be, just very very very very close.

Maybe I just don't understand the concept. If I wrote a probability equation into software that calculates the probability of how many times a single d6 dice roll will roll a 1 in a row after X amount of times. The probability will of course decrease. If I ran the same equation through an infinite loop. it will never = 0. It will get closer and closer and closer to 0 but never 0.
I understand that its easier just to round down at a certain point. but I don't understand why that isn't rounding (i.e. i don't understand your proof) .
In quantum math however, given an infinite tries of infinite rolls, however unlikely, there is 100% chance that someone will/will not roll infinite failed wounds. (but thats not a good way to play 40k,, considering we wont have infinite tries,,, in this case we just have infinite rolls). But as long as the probability isn't absolutely 0. It can be considered to be failed and passed at the same time until the dice are actually rolled.
In the same way quantum math says a single dice role is 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 at the same time until it is actually rolled. If we weighted the dice to most likely (but not always) roll 4s. It is still 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 at the same time until the dice is actually rolled.

Running it through an infinite loop will never reach infinity, it will always be a finite number of iterations that's the problem.

An infinite number of times it will be zero. If you stop on a finite number it will not be zero.

It is a strange concept to get your heap around, but that's pure maths for you!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Ah, so it is rounding out of convenience (and practicality).

There's no rounding in the proof. It's just notation to represent an infinitely recurring decimal.

That might be what you mean, but I'm just being clear that rounding has no part in the proof.

Except thats only valid as a math proof, as for any actual calculatable value 9X is not 9 it's 8.9'

9 is literally the exact same number as 8.9' and provably so in multiple ways.

No 9 is 9 8.anything isn't 9 it's close but not the same it's typical mathmatic argument vrs reality nonsence same nonsence as math lectures telling us at that X is impossible because maths proof and physics lecture proving X is possible by doing it just because its close to impossible doesn't mean it's impossible when you can prove via experiment it isn't impossible.

Ice_can wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Ah, so it is rounding out of convenience (and practicality).

There's no rounding in the proof. It's just notation to represent an infinitely recurring decimal.

That might be what you mean, but I'm just being clear that rounding has no part in the proof.

Except thats only valid as a math proof, as for any actual calculatable value 9X is not 9 it's 8.9'

9 is literally the exact same number as 8.9' and provably so in multiple ways.

No 9 is 9 8.anything isn't 9 it's close but not the same it's typical mathmatic argument vrs reality nonsence same nonsence as math lectures telling us at that X is impossible because maths proof and physics lecture proving X is possible by doing it just because its close to impossible doesn't mean it's impossible when you can prove via experiment it isn't impossible.

8.9' (infinite 9's) is equal to 9. This is simple fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... I get it's unintuitive, but that's the thing about facts, they remain true regardless of whether you understand or accept them.

 Stux wrote:
Running it through an infinite loop will never reach infinity, it will always be a finite number of iterations that's the problem.

An infinite number of times it will be zero. If you stop on a finite number it will not be zero.

It is a strange concept to get your heap around, but that's pure maths for you!

Ah I get it,
A number that is getting closer and closer to 0, in an infinite sequence is simply considered 0.
and in binary mechanics you could say the same about a number infinitely reaching towards 1.
@BCB thanks for the wiki, I don't totally get it, but I will look more into this, its interesting stuff.

In quantum math you wouldn't bother continuing the infinite sequence. You would simply say, it is both true and false until we stop the sequence to check. Then it is what it is. Einstein really wanted to make figuring out infinity easier .. but i think he made it just as confusing,, only in different ways lol.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
but as much as GW has encouraged us to talk about high-level infinite mathematics and physics and as interesting as it is.
This is way off topic friends XD.

As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

 flandarz wrote:
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.

 Stux wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.

Lol sorry, this is just hilarious. Favorite quote from daka daka ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will make this my new signature on daka daka, names redacted. If you two don't mind.

 Type40 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.

Lol sorry, this is just hilarious. Favorite quote from daka daka ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will make this my new signature on daka daka, names redacted. If you two don't mind.

Go for it, I would be honoured

There is a very simple answer for this TFG rule if they try this.

Congratulate them on the draw and pack up your models.

TFG: but your model dies because i did

Good Guy : No, you never stop generating hits under phase 4a, as such under the rules you never get to apply damage, so you can count hits until time runs out and the game ends, enjoy.
oh and this works because your infinite loop has no way to end the hit generation to get to phase 4b which is rolling to wound. 4c where i save or 4d which is applying damage.

And argument done.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Ah, so it is rounding out of convenience (and practicality).

There's no rounding in the proof. It's just notation to represent an infinitely recurring decimal.

That might be what you mean, but I'm just being clear that rounding has no part in the proof.

Except thats only valid as a math proof, as for any actual calculatable value 9X is not 9 it's 8.9'

9 is literally the exact same number as 8.9' and provably so in multiple ways.

No 9 is 9 8.anything isn't 9 it's close but not the same it's typical mathmatic argument vrs reality nonsence same nonsence as math lectures telling us at that X is impossible because maths proof and physics lecture proving X is possible by doing it just because its close to impossible doesn't mean it's impossible when you can prove via experiment it isn't impossible.

8.9' (infinite 9's) is equal to 9. This is simple fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... I get it's unintuitive, but that's the thing about facts, they remain true regardless of whether you understand or accept them.

In maths it's true in reality it's not true that the issue pure maths often works on paper but fails in reality you can yell it's true all you like I've been through this pish in uni and your not going to succeed in convincing me when the mathmatic department lost to the physics department.

 Type40 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.

Lol sorry, this is just hilarious. Favorite quote from daka daka ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will make this my new signature on daka daka, names redacted. If you two don't mind.

S'fine with me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lixulana wrote:
There is a very simple answer for this TFG rule if they try this.

Congratulate them on the draw and pack up your models.

TFG: but your model dies because i did

Good Guy : No, you never stop generating hits under phase 4a, as such under the rules you never get to apply damage, so you can count hits until time runs out and the game ends, enjoy.
oh and this works because your infinite loop has no way to end the hit generation to get to phase 4b which is rolling to wound. 4c where i save or 4d which is applying damage.

And argument done.

Until you move onto the additional hits, they doesn't actually create any additional hits themselves (if you slow roll each attack, which is allowable by RAW). Meaning you can hit with an attack, wound, do saves, and damage, before needing to move on to the additional hit you generated. And you can do this until the model dies, or until someone concedes. Pretty sure, at least.

 Type40 wrote:
Fast rolling is not conditional on both players agreeing.
No rule says that both players have to agree. Maybe a house rule but no BRB rule.

Well okay you are right. Attacker can fast roll his to hit and to wound rolls. I then CAN roll saves at once. Can. Not have to. I can ergo opt to not roll them all at once and can go one at a time. At leisure speed. No hurry in the world.

tneva82 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Fast rolling is not conditional on both players agreeing.
No rule says that both players have to agree. Maybe a house rule but no BRB rule.

Well okay you are right. Attacker can fast roll his to hit and to wound rolls. I then CAN roll saves at once. Can. Not have to. I can ergo opt to not roll them all at once and can go one at a time. At leisure speed. No hurry in the world.

Well technically you could just roll so slowly that your progress is invisible to the naked eye, but your opponent can and will get you ejected for obstruction and slow play at an official game.

I think refusing to make armor saves because an opponent hasn't made all infinite of his other to-wound rolls first would count as slow play in my book, and is certainly a game I would walk away from and claim my opponent conceded.

Unfortunately, infinite damage is RAW. Don't like it? Don't play 40k until it is fixed, but we don't get to pick and choose what rules we follow or don't follow. I am similar to BCB in that regard.

w1zard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Fast rolling is not conditional on both players agreeing.
No rule says that both players have to agree. Maybe a house rule but no BRB rule.

Well okay you are right. Attacker can fast roll his to hit and to wound rolls. I then CAN roll saves at once. Can. Not have to. I can ergo opt to not roll them all at once and can go one at a time. At leisure speed. No hurry in the world.

Well technically you could just roll so slowly that your progress is invisible to the naked eye, but your opponent can and will get you ejected for obstruction and slow play at an official game.

I think refusing to make armor saves because an opponent hasn't made all infinite of his other to-wound rolls first would count as slow play in my book, and is certainly a game I would walk away from and claim my opponent conceded.

Unfortunately, infinite damage is RAW. Don't like it? Don't play 40k until it is fixed, but we don't get to pick and choose what rules we follow or don't follow. I am similar to BCB in that regard.

So you're playing with nonfunctional assault weapons, too? Just checking.

w1zard wrote:

Unfortunately, infinite damage is RAW. Don't like it? Don't play 40k until it is fixed, but we don't get to pick and choose what rules we follow or don't follow. I am similar to BCB in that regard.

Um, yes we do. We can play with whatever rules we want. It's a game, not a court of law. There are several areas of the game where there is a common convention the majority of people play by that contradicts RAW.

tneva82 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Fast rolling is not conditional on both players agreeing.
No rule says that both players have to agree. Maybe a house rule but no BRB rule.

Well okay you are right. Attacker can fast roll his to hit and to wound rolls. I then CAN roll saves at once. Can. Not have to. I can ergo opt to not roll them all at once and can go one at a time. At leisure speed. No hurry in the world.

Actually you can’t. Fast rolling is only for attacks. I thought you could fast roll them too, but I think they changed it. Or we all never paid enough attention. You must roll saves one at a time. At which point your clock is going to hit zero on your opponents turn, and you don’t get to play on your turn(s). Again it sucks to go second.

I'll never understand why people choose to engage in rules debates when they don't know the rules. Fast Rolling only allows for hits and wounds to be batched rolled. Saves must be taken one at a time, after allocating wounds one at a time.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I'll never understand why people choose to engage in rules debates when they don't know the rules. Fast Rolling only allows for hits and wounds to be batched rolled. Saves must be taken one at a time, after allocating wounds one at a time.

I understand this one. This was a stealth change. We’ve been fast rolling saves for years and years. It’s easy to start reading the rule, see it begin the same way it’s always begun, and gloss over a change at the end. Your mind will fill in what you expect to see.

 flandarz wrote:
It's actually pretty easy to fix. You remove the line at the end of the answer, leaving as just a "Yes."

Eh, it's still busted as hell. Marines have a bunch of generate attack abilities as well as generate hits abilities they can stack on the same unit.

Let's say a unit of Incursors with whirlwind of rage, Exhortation of Rage and Death to the Traitors rolls their average of 5x on their attacks. They then generate 5 additional attacks and 10 additional hits. Those additional hits also generate 20 additional attacks because they count as rolled sixes. So you roll 25 more dice, get another 4x for another 8 automatic hits.

So the ten primaris with a chaplain can throw 56 attacks plus 18 automatic hits(~54 attacks) because they've got two kinds of additional attack/hits in the same codex that can trigger off each other. Bravo.

Still better than infinite attacks, but yeah. They probably should specify that it only applies to abilities that don't generate more attacks.

 flandarz wrote:
Still better than infinite attacks, but yeah. They probably should specify that it only applies to abilities that don't generate more attacks.

Hits and attacks

I think more attacks are fine, as you have to roll to hit again (thus it can fail)

but not generating more hits,,, because then its unstoppable.

 lixulana wrote:
There is a very simple answer for this TFG rule if they try this.

Congratulate them on the draw and pack up your models.

TFG: but your model dies because i did

Good Guy : No, you never stop generating hits under phase 4a, as such under the rules you never get to apply damage, so you can count hits until time runs out and the game ends, enjoy.
oh and this works because your infinite loop has no way to end the hit generation to get to phase 4b which is rolling to wound. 4c where i save or 4d which is applying damage.

And argument done.

Great counter.

 Type40 wrote:
I think more attacks are fine, as you have to roll to hit again (thus it can fail)

but not generating more hits,,, because then its unstoppable.

The issue is that the additional hits are generating additional attacks, while the additional attacks generate additional hits.

An intuitive rule would mean that one six generates X additional hits and Y additional attacks, and that's it.

Or even better, don't fething create two different rules that do that same thing.

 flandarz wrote:


Until you move onto the additional hits, they doesn't actually create any additional hits themselves (if you slow roll each attack, which is allowable by RAW). Meaning you can hit with an attack, wound, do saves, and damage, before needing to move on to the additional hit you generated. And you can do this until the model dies, or until someone concedes. Pretty sure, at least.

Resolve hits is section 4a, which you can never leave even if you only roll one dice because you have to resolve that hit roll before you can proceed.


section 4.1 "each time a model makes an attack, roll roll a dice." Your automatic hit does not roll a dice so either fails 4.1 or must be resolved before leaving 4.1 if it must be resolved before leaving 4.1 you never exit as you count new hits with no end as there is no control-C mechanic in this game.

A heavy flamer while auto hitting does not break this as it is individual shots which do not cause a loop during the hit sequence by automatically hitting where normally a dice is required.

The thing is, you don't have to resolve all your to-hits before moving to Wounding. If I get an additional hit, I can still resolve my first hit completely before moving to the additional one. And until I move to it, it hasn't "hit" because you're resolving each attack one at a time when you "slow roll".

 flandarz wrote:
The thing is, you don't have to resolve all your to-hits before moving to Wounding. If I get an additional hit, I can still resolve my first hit completely before moving to the additional one. And until I move to it, it hasn't "hit" because you're resolving each attack one at a time when you "slow roll".

sequencing matters

also "treated as having rolled the same value"

the same "value" of a 6 is not a natural rolled 6. is the roll 2+4? 3+3? 4+2? 5+1? these are all the same "value".

 lixulana wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
The thing is, you don't have to resolve all your to-hits before moving to Wounding. If I get an additional hit, I can still resolve my first hit completely before moving to the additional one. And until I move to it, it hasn't "hit" because you're resolving each attack one at a time when you "slow roll".

sequencing matters

also "treated as having rolled the same value"

the same "value" of a 6 is not a natural rolled 6. is the roll 2+4? 3+3? 4+2? 5+1? these are all the same "value".

I would have assumed that too, the problem is the examples used in the question (which are neatly confirmed to be accurate with the word "yes" at the beginning of the answer) contradict the idea that a "hit" is not the same thing as a "hit roll." Before this I had always assumed they were different. Based on this FAQ they are synonymous. Hence the problem.

Also, remember that a "roll of X" refers to a roll and value after modifiers. Where "an unmodified roll of X" is a value without modifiers. This is confirmed in several places over the FAQs .

w1zard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Fast rolling is not conditional on both players agreeing.
No rule says that both players have to agree. Maybe a house rule but no BRB rule.

Well okay you are right. Attacker can fast roll his to hit and to wound rolls. I then CAN roll saves at once. Can. Not have to. I can ergo opt to not roll them all at once and can go one at a time. At leisure speed. No hurry in the world.

Well technically you could just roll so slowly that your progress is invisible to the naked eye, but your opponent can and will get you ejected for obstruction and slow play at an official game.

I think refusing to make armor saves because an opponent hasn't made all infinite of his other to-wound rolls first would count as slow play in my book, and is certainly a game I would walk away from and claim my opponent conceded.

Unfortunately, infinite damage is RAW. Don't like it? Don't play 40k until it is fixed, but we don't get to pick and choose what rules we follow or don't follow. I am similar to BCB in that regard.

Try to arque silly rule and you get silly rule in response. Infinite hits might be RAW but thing is so is me rolling my saves one at a time RAW. Person can't claim RAW on one thing and deny RAW for me and if somebody tried I would say stuff it and accept I roll saves one at a time Have a problem with that? Don't try silly infinite hits. Whoever tries to claim infinite hits AND complains about me forcing him to roll for saves and me roling saves one at a time is just a crybaby. Thank god that's just internet virtual scenario without anybody actually trying that in live game.

He got what he wanted