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.

How is this an issue? My brother and I must be the only people on the planet with multiple sets of dice in our box/bag. I throw a white die in for my plasma shots, a red in for my missle launcher, and all the rest are my Crimson Fists colored dice for bolters. All at once. Is it really that difficult?

Many units have dozens of attacks. For example, a group of 30 Slugga Boyz, buffed by Ghazkull Thraka and Warpath, can have 180 attacks (181 with a Boss Nob). 180 dice is a sizable amount to both carry AND roll, and it's not unreasonable to fast-roll them in much smaller sets.

 Just Tony wrote:
How is this an issue? My brother and I must be the only people on the planet with multiple sets of dice in our box/bag. I throw a white die in for my plasma shots, a red in for my missle launcher, and all the rest are my Crimson Fists colored dice for bolters. All at once. Is it really that difficult?

What about a person who only has one set of 20 dice of all of the same color. Is he just not allowed to play the game then? Or is he forced to roll all of his attacks individually?

I guarantee you that resolving 150 attacks from a platoon of 50 guardsmen one model at a time will get you kicked out of a tournament for slow play, and rolling that many dice all at once is not feasible, both from a practicality perspective and maybe even a financial one.

w1zard wrote:
To the people saying choosing to fast roll means you have to roll ALL of the dice at the same time I propose a hypothetical... If I have a platoon of 50 guardsmen and a priest making 150 melee attacks, does that mean I have to roll 150 dice at once, and if I don't have that many dice that means I HAVE to roll them one-by-one?

That would be absurd if so.

I have never seen that kind of thing, even in tournaments.

There is also scenarios such as plasma weapons with multiple shots that need to be rolled separately per model unless you have different colored dice to differentiate the firing models, because of the possibility of rolling double ones on a single model.

No it means you must roll all the to hit rolls before progressing to the to wound rolls and all the to wound rolls before progressing to damage not you must roll all to hit rolls in a single throw.

If you only have 50 dice and need to make 150 attacks.

You roll 50 hits then 50 hits then 50 hits then start to roll wounds till all the wounds are rolled then all the damage.

What we are saying you can't do is roll 50 hits then, 20 wounds then resolve half the damage then a few more hits before finishing the damage and then more wound rolls.

U02dah4 wrote:

Spoiler:

w1zard wrote:
To the people saying choosing to fast roll means you have to roll ALL of the dice at the same time I propose a hypothetical... If I have a platoon of 50 guardsmen and a priest making 150 melee attacks, does that mean I have to roll 150 dice at once, and if I don't have that many dice that means I HAVE to roll them one-by-one?

That would be absurd if so.

I have never seen that kind of thing, even in tournaments.

There is also scenarios such as plasma weapons with multiple shots that need to be rolled separately per model unless you have different colored dice to differentiate the firing models, because of the possibility of rolling double ones on a single model.

No it means you must roll all the to hit rolls before progressing to the to wound rolls and all the to wound rolls before progressing to damage not you must roll all to hit rolls in a single throw.

If you only have 50 dice and need to make 150 attacks.

You roll 50 hits then 50 hits then 50 hits then start to roll wounds till all the wounds are rolled then all the damage.

What we are saying you can't do is roll 50 hits then, 20 wounds then resolve half the damage then a few more hits before finishing the damage and then more wound rolls.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that:
"In order
to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack). "
means that I can take an arbitrary number of dice (50 in the example), which then constitute the "several", and roll all of them at once. Note how we're not rolling all of the attacks at once.

 Just Tony wrote:
How is this an issue? My brother and I must be the only people on the planet with multiple sets of dice in our box/bag. I throw a white die in for my plasma shots, a red in for my missle launcher, and all the rest are my Crimson Fists colored dice for bolters. All at once. Is it really that difficult?

Thats fine your fast rolling your two plama shots and bolt guns as a seperate group due to seperate characteristics and single rolling your missile launcher im assuming krak -everyone agreed this is fine.

In most curcumstances it doesn't matter. If your only throwing 10 dice the time implications are minimal.

There are circumstances where it does matter.

If i have 150 attacks and roll 17 to hit rolls scoreing 9 wounds resolve 4 wounds then role 53 to hit rolls scoreing 20 wounds allow my opponent to make 3 armour saves then roll 28 to hit rolls scoreing 14 wounds resolving an armour save then 38 to hit rolls followed by 19 wound rolls 6 armour saves etc.....

How many hits/wounds/ armour saves have I left to roll. it quickly becomes messy this is a problem not following the rules creates. However batch players feel this is legal but can't substantiate why under the RAW so thats prob (1)

The second problem which started this was in relation to rolling infinite to wound rolls. Sequential is legal under the rules and continues untill the unit is dead. Fast rolling if you can't batch would require you to roll all to hit rolls or infinite dice which would take infinite tome locking the turn while batch players say roll a load of dice resolve them then a load more. Thats prob (2).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Snugiraffe wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

Spoiler:

w1zard wrote:
To the people saying choosing to fast roll means you have to roll ALL of the dice at the same time I propose a hypothetical... If I have a platoon of 50 guardsmen and a priest making 150 melee attacks, does that mean I have to roll 150 dice at once, and if I don't have that many dice that means I HAVE to roll them one-by-one?

That would be absurd if so.

I have never seen that kind of thing, even in tournaments.

There is also scenarios such as plasma weapons with multiple shots that need to be rolled separately per model unless you have different colored dice to differentiate the firing models, because of the possibility of rolling double ones on a single model.

No it means you must roll all the to hit rolls before progressing to the to wound rolls and all the to wound rolls before progressing to damage not you must roll all to hit rolls in a single throw.

If you only have 50 dice and need to make 150 attacks.

You roll 50 hits then 50 hits then 50 hits then start to roll wounds till all the wounds are rolled then all the damage.

What we are saying you can't do is roll 50 hits then, 20 wounds then resolve half the damage then a few more hits before finishing the damage and then more wound rolls.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that:
"In order
to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack). "
means that I can take an arbitrary number of dice (50 in the example), which then constitute the "several", and roll all of them at once. Note how we're not rolling all of the attacks at once.

We are saying the rules tell you to make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls.

If you have 70 to hit rolls you must roll all 70 and then your to wound rolls.

I have no problem with you rolling 20 hits and then 50 hits or 2x 35 or 1 x70. You have still rolled 70 before rolling your wound rolls. What you cant do is pick 50 resolve the to hits the to wounds then another 20 to hits because the sequence is all hits then all wounds.

You effectively are rolling all the attacks your just splitting the dice because you dont have / can't hold enough dice what you can't do is roll a portion of the attacks only to resolution then another portion.

w1zard wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
How is this an issue? My brother and I must be the only people on the planet with multiple sets of dice in our box/bag. I throw a white die in for my plasma shots, a red in for my missle launcher, and all the rest are my Crimson Fists colored dice for bolters. All at once. Is it really that difficult?

What about a person who only has one set of 20 dice of all of the same color. Is he just not allowed to play the game then? Or is he forced to roll all of his attacks individually?

I guarantee you that resolving 150 attacks from a platoon of 50 guardsmen one model at a time will get you kicked out of a tournament for slow play, and rolling that many dice all at once is not feasible, both from a practicality perspective and maybe even a financial one.

Not allowed to play? Hyperbole much?

That person could plink down for another set of dice relatively easily. I just nabbed a set of Golden Recon from Chessex, it was pretty effortless and can be done at damn near any game store. It's not like they are so expensive that there is much of a logical reason to CHOOSE not to.



To everyone else who posted after my first post, the poster who said "roll all 'to hit' rolls before moving on to 'to wound' rolls" has the right of it, in the case of having more hits than dice.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
I would agree, the english here is stating that you can roll similar attacks together, it doesn't specify how many. Then once you have chosen how many, you roll all of them together.
Its quite easy to parse, why is this a problem ?

It literally says to roll all the dice. That is specifying how many, namely all of them.

All of the dice belonging to the several attacks you chose to resolve.

If you have 20 dice, and 10 space marine bikes, you can choose fast roll them 5 bikes at a time. The rules don’t require you to roll 40 shots 1 at a time because you don’t physically have enough dice to fast roll 10 bikes at once. You are allowed to chose several - say 20 of the 40 Bolter shots on the bikes, and roll all 20 dice at once, while breaking the other 20 Bolger shots into a second group where you will again roll all 20 Bolter shots at once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:


No it means you must roll all the to hit rolls before progressing to the to wound rolls and all the to wound rolls before progressing to damage not you must roll all to hit rolls in a single throw.

If you only have 50 dice and need to make 150 attacks.

You roll 50 hits then 50 hits then 50 hits then start to roll wounds till all the wounds are rolled then all the damage.

What we are saying you can't do is roll 50 hits then, 20 wounds then resolve half the damage then a few more hits before finishing the damage and then more wound rolls.

No, you must roll all the hit rolls IN THAT GROUP then all the wound rolls. You do not roll all the Bolter hit rolls, then all the plasma hit rolls, the. All the hit rolls for your other squads, then all the hit rolls for your vehicles, then all the hit rolls for your characters, then all the Bolter wound rolls, then all the plasma wound rolls, etc etc. You still follow the attack sequence.

You roll all the hit rolls (for the group of attacks you are currently resolving with the current attack sequence)
You roll all the wound rolls... for the group yadda yadda.

You still apply the attack sequence rules, but you’re allowed to choose to roll several - your choice - attacks through the sequence at the same time.

Rolling Group A’s hit rolls, then group B’s hit rolls before rolling Group A’s wound rolls (and then armor saves, damage allocation etc) violates the attack sequence.

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You can’t read that line as an operative command to force you to roll all e.g. bolters at once. It’s telling you to roll all the “several” attacks you’ve decided to at once.

There is literally no allowance to break up to hit rolls if the all have the same Ballistic Skill, Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics that are directed at the same unit.

Really? Are you saying I have not choice but to Fast Roll attacks with the same Ballistic Skill, Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics that are directed at the same unit? I'm pretty sure I can roll them one at a time.

What I can't see is where in the Fast Rolling rule it states that if I elect to Fast Roll that I must select group all attacks with the same characteristics together. It only says that I may only select such attacks to roll together. Notably the rule is "all attacks must" not "all attacks that".

You clearly did not read my previous post.

I said

 DeathReaper wrote:
All of the hit rolls, that have the same Ballistic Skill Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics that are directed at the same unit need to be rolled all at once. you can not split them up ever (If you choose to fast roll).

Note the parenthetical.

If you fast roll, you must "make all of the hit rolls at the same time". This definitely obligates you to roll all similar attacks at once. (Since you may need clarification we are talking about "If you choose to fast roll").

 DeathReaper wrote:

Note the parenthetical.

If you fast roll, you must "make all of the hit rolls at the same time". This definitely obligates you to roll all similar attacks at once. (Since you may need clarification we are talking about "If you choose to fast roll").

Makes all of the hit rolls - in the several attacks.

These two things are not independent. All rolls at once refers to the several attacks, not the pool of attacks that were eligible to be the several attacks.

You can choose to roll 30 shoota boys 10 boys at a time for any reason you want - from not having enough dice, to not having a big enough box lid to roll in- to making it easier to pull out the fails, misses and rerolls.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Note the parenthetical.

If you fast roll, you must "make all of the hit rolls at the same time". This definitely obligates you to roll all similar attacks at once. (Since you may need clarification we are talking about "If you choose to fast roll").

Makes all of the hit rolls - in the several attacks.

These two things are not independent. All rolls at once refers to the several attacks, not the pool of attacks that were eligible to be the several attacks.

Please show permission to make several attacks that have the same Ballistic Skill, Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics that are directed at the same unit.

Because I have quoted rules stating that they all need to be rolled at the same time.

You can choose to roll 30 shoota boys 10 boys at a time for any reason you want - from not having enough dice, to not having a big enough box lid to roll in- to making it easier to pull out the fails, misses and rerolls.

False. If you choose to fast roll shootas in that situation, you need to make all of the hit rolls at the same time, you can not roll 10 to hits for shootas, then 10 more as there is no permission to do so.

There is literally no permission to split up attacks that have the same Ballistic Skill, Strength... etc.

Breton wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
I would agree, the english here is stating that you can roll similar attacks together, it doesn't specify how many. Then once you have chosen how many, you roll all of them together.
Its quite easy to parse, why is this a problem ?

It literally says to roll all the dice. That is specifying how many, namely all of them.

All of the dice belonging to the several attacks you chose to resolve.

If you have 20 dice, and 10 space marine bikes, you can choose fast roll them 5 bikes at a time. The rules don’t require you to roll 40 shots 1 at a time because you don’t physically have enough dice to fast roll 10 bikes at once. You are allowed to chose several - say 20 of the 40 Bolter shots on the bikes, and roll all 20 dice at once, while breaking the other 20 Bolger shots into a second group where you will again roll all 20 Bolter shots at once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:


No it means you must roll all the to hit rolls before progressing to the to wound rolls and all the to wound rolls before progressing to damage not you must roll all to hit rolls in a single throw.

If you only have 50 dice and need to make 150 attacks.

You roll 50 hits then 50 hits then 50 hits then start to roll wounds till all the wounds are rolled then all the damage.

What we are saying you can't do is roll 50 hits then, 20 wounds then resolve half the damage then a few more hits before finishing the damage and then more wound rolls.

No, you must roll all the hit rolls IN THAT GROUP then all the wound rolls. You do not roll all the Bolter hit rolls, then all the plasma hit rolls, the. All the hit rolls for your other squads, then all the hit rolls for your vehicles, then all the hit rolls for your characters, then all the Bolter wound rolls, then all the plasma wound rolls, etc etc. You still follow the attack sequence.

You roll all the hit rolls (for the group of attacks you are currently resolving with the current attack sequence)
You roll all the wound rolls... for the group yadda yadda.

You still apply the attack sequence rules, but you’re allowed to choose to roll several - your choice - attacks through the sequence at the same time.

Rolling Group A’s hit rolls, then group B’s hit rolls before rolling Group A’s wound rolls (and then armor saves, damage allocation etc) violates the attack sequence.

That would only be true under either quote if you had explicit permission to sub group and you have not shown any quote indicating this.

" in order to roll several attacks" is not permissive before you misquote the word several again. Either provide a quote explicitly saying you may group or you can choose to group or some synonym or we have to conclude you have no permision

So no you can't group 5 bikes and 5 bikes as you have not shown permission to subgroup. Saying you have permission is irrelevant if you cannot provide a rules quote to support that position.

Yes it does mean roll all dice in that group and that group is defined as all to hit rolls that meet the same characteristic criteria.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Note the parenthetical.

If you fast roll, you must "make all of the hit rolls at the same time". This definitely obligates you to roll all similar attacks at once. (Since you may need clarification we are talking about "If you choose to fast roll").

Makes all of the hit rolls - in the several attacks.

These two things are not independent. All rolls at once refers to the several attacks, not the pool of attacks that were eligible to be the several attacks.

You can choose to roll 30 shoota boys 10 boys at a time for any reason you want - from not having enough dice, to not having a big enough box lid to roll in- to making it easier to pull out the fails, misses and rerolls.

Correct they are not independent.

"If that is the case" refers to the restrictions placed on several

If the case is met several equals - all to hit rolls and then all to wound rolls.
If the case is not met ypu cannot fast roll you have no permission

The meaning of several is therefore dependent on whether the case has been met. As defined in the several paragraph.

You say you can roll shoota boys 10 boys at a time for any reason you want please provide a quote supporting this position explicitly giving you permission.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Please show permission to make several attacks that have the same Ballistic Skill, Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics that are directed at the same unit.

you mean the default status of the game? Rolling one at a time makes several attacks that have the same BS/WS, S, AP and D.

Because I have quoted rules stating that they all need to be rolled at the same time.

No, you have quoted a rule stating all the hit rolls of SEVERAL ATTACKS must be rolled at the same time. This does NOT say all hit rolls with the same BS/WS, S, AP, and D must be part of the same several.

There is literally no permission to split up attacks that have the same Ballistic Skill, Strength... etc.

you mean other than the core rules that START with every attack with the BS/WS, S, AP, and D separate?

Several must be more than one.
Several CAN be all.
Several CAN be less than all, as long as it is still more than one.

All hit rolls refers to the several attacks.

Your attempt to claim you can roll 10 hit rolls, then 10 more hit rolls if you don’t have enough dice violates both the rule you claim, and the attack sequence rule. If you roll 10 to hit dice, and then 10 more to hit dice, you are not rolling them at once. You are also not finishing the attack sequence start to finish per the rule. You cannot roll more to hit dice before you’ve rolled to wound, and save, and applied damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:


There is literally no permission to split up attacks that have the same Ballistic Skill, Strength... etc.

There is literally no permission to... play the attack sequence in its default state? They begin their “life” as split up. You’re allowed to group several together. Having to roll all of several at the same time in no way forces you to group all into several.

They begin split your given permission if they meet the criteria to roll all to hit roles and and all to wound rolls together. Where are you explicitly given permission to group/not group except In that exact way.


Several can indeed mean many different things untill you put it into a clause a sentence and a paragraph at which those other words give it context. Several in isolation means nothing.

You are trying to arbitrarily give it meaning ignore the rest of the paragraph and then reasoning based on your arbitrarily assigned meaning. If you actually had permission you be able to provide a quote - you cannot.

In this case the context says

It is possible to do x.
In order to make several attacks all must have the same a, b, c.
If this is the case
make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls

Several attacks therefore means make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls unless you can quote differently.

Finnally rolling all hit rolls then all wound rolls maintains the process and timing sequence the only way it breaks it is if you are taking BCB levels of litterality. Of course if you want to go into that absurdity I will suggest to you that two dice leaveing your hand a quarter of a second apart from one throw are not at the same time.

In the real world if i roll two lots of 35 hits i have rolled all 70 even if it took me two throws your not breaking the rule as you have made all the hit rolls together. You only break it if you roll 35 to hits then 16 wounds then 35 hits because you havn't rolled all the hits together.

Breton wrote:
you mean the default status of the game? Rolling one at a time makes several attacks that have the same BS/WS, S, AP and D.

No, that is not what we were talking about, and you know it. Read my posts before you reply. I said "...we are talking about 'if you choose to fast roll')"

You need to show permission to only roll some of the attacks, when you have decided to fast roll.

No, you have quoted a rule stating all the hit rolls of SEVERAL ATTACKS must be rolled at the same time. This does NOT say all hit rolls with the same BS/WS, S, AP, and D must be part of the same several.

It does, by saying ALL attacks must be rolled at the same time.

you mean other than the core rules that START with every attack with the BS/WS, S, AP, and D separate?

Several must be more than one.
Several CAN be all.
Several CAN be less than all, as long as it is still more than one.

All hit rolls refers to the several attacks.

Your attempt to claim you can roll 10 hit rolls, then 10 more hit rolls if you don’t have enough dice violates both the rule you claim, and the attack sequence rule. If you roll 10 to hit dice, and then 10 more to hit dice, you are not rolling them at once. You are also not finishing the attack sequence start to finish per the rule. You cannot roll more to hit dice before you’ve rolled to wound, and save, and applied damage.

Again, we are not talking about the core rules, they do not come into play once you decide to fast roll.

Several needs to be all as noted by the rule that states "However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together. In order to make several attacks at once..."

Notice how your argument is ignoring the context of the rule?

It literally says "by rolling the dice for similar attacks together..." not some of the dice, not a few of the dice, The dice. The dice, in this case, is referring to all of them that fit the criteria following that statement..

There is literally no permission to... play the attack sequence in its default state? They begin their “life” as split up. You’re allowed to group several together. Having to roll all of several at the same time in no way forces you to group all into several.

Once you begin fast rolling, that is correct.

There is literally no permission to play the attack sequence in its default state once you decide to fast roll for a group of attacks that all have the same ballistic skill, Strength, etc...

Unless you can find permission that states you can break the fast rolling into sub-groups.

Got any rules that state this? (Hint: the answer is no, because there are no rules that say that).

U02dah4 wrote:

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all of x must have the same a, b, c.

Let's look at the rule again:
"In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack)."

What seems to be causing contention here is that 'several' is not defined specifically, leading some to assume that 'all' delivers the primary definition of quantity. I will attempt to show that this is not the case.
"all...must have" is a condition for performing the action described immediately prior, i.e. "make several attacks at once". It thus follows that the decision to make several attacks at once has already been made. Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. This condition applies solely to the making of the several attacks and does not in and of itself define any new quantity.


(snip)

Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. -Given the decision to use fast rolling neither defines several or restrictions on its use, the decision itself gives you no such permissions. The only sentence that gives you permission is "If this is the case make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

Implicit by definition is not RAW especially when there is an Explicit definition for the process.

The problem with what you are saying is that the "all of the attacks" is referring to all the attacks that you group together in the "several" attacks. It is not referring to all the attacks that the model has that might be similar, only the attacks that you are grouping together to fast roll. There is no statement that you must include all similar attacks if you are fast rolling.

"All of the to hit roll's" is the only instruction you have to group attacks together while fast rolling. It is the only definition that has been shown yet in this thread.

If you can provide an alternative please provide a quote but by now we know you cannot or you would have done so.

If not there is no problem with useing the only valid definition because tbey are the same thing under that definition

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all of x must have the same a, b, c.

Let's look at the rule again:
"In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack)."

What seems to be causing contention here is that 'several' is not defined specifically, leading some to assume that 'all' delivers the primary definition of quantity. I will attempt to show that this is not the case.
"all...must have" is a condition for performing the action described immediately prior, i.e. "make several attacks at once". It thus follows that the decision to make several attacks at once has already been made. Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. This condition applies solely to the making of the several attacks and does not in and of itself define any new quantity.


(snip)

Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. -Given the decision to use fast rolling neither defines several or restrictions on its use, the decision itself gives you no such permissions. The only sentence that gives you permission is "If this is the case make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

Implicit by definition is not RAW especially when there is an Explicit definition for the process.

The problem with what you are saying is that the "all of the attacks" is referring to all the attacks that you group together in the "several" attacks. It is not referring to all the attacks that the model has that might be similar, only the attacks that you are grouping together to fast roll. There is no statement that you must include all similar attacks if you are fast rolling.

Exactly this.
Common use of English dictates that the "roll all the hit rolls together" is referring to the restrictions in the previous sentence. You guys DO acknowledge that, hence only attacks with the same characteristics. However, you don't seem to acknowledge in that very same sentence it says "several" and thus all is referring to the entirety of the previous sentence and not just a piece of it (this is why I keep saying you don't get to have it both ways).
On that note, using correct langauge/english parsing and not deciding GW wrote a random restriction in the middle of the paragraph, removed from context, with incorrect crammer and, non-standard syntax then the paragraph literally does not say anywhere that "all attacks with the same characteristics must be grouped together."
It is not RAW to assume so and if it was RAI then they would have written it that way.

Two points:

1: What about the sequencing? EG if you wish to fire a missile launcher, 4 bolters, then the second missile launcher, then 4 more bolters? are you not allowed to group the 2 lots of 4 bolters together? or do you have to roll all the bolters together, using different coloured dice, as they have the same statistics?

2: What does it matter? I can't think of a situation where rolling 30 dice through hit-wound-save, twice, to do 60 shots is actually going to have an impact on the result?

There are several instances where you would want to roll smaller groups of dice, and all of them are for the benefit of the player rolling the dice - who decides whether to fast-roll or not. For example - fire a multi-wound weapon, at a unit with 3 wound each, and roll 1 for damage. Then you would roll 2 bolter shots at a time, until the last 2 wounds are gone - at which point, you would roll your next multi-wound weapon. I would be surprised if someone declared that I have to roll those bolters individually, one after the other, to achieve the same result? only slower?


Please can someone explain to me the in-game effect of rolling 20 shots at once instead of 10, followed by 10? Other than the very bizarre "but it doesn't say you're allowed to" argument, which is very much RAW for the sake of RAW. as in, for absolutely no gain or difference.

Well it matters in the case of infinite hits. As it would require you to roll infinite wounds clock locking you. Forceing you to roll consecutive dice eating up your clock time.

vs fast rolling a portion of hits resolving the shooting quickly (very different outcomes)

In the case of 20 bolters it doesn't matter it is the principle that does in a more extreme situation like the one above

If you wish to fast roll at a target you may sequence what fires at what target in any way you like but if you fire weapons with the same characteristics at the same target you must roll all of them at the same time.

So if your to lots of bolters fire at the same target you must group them
The missile launchers you can get round because as individual weapons you can choose not to fast roll them but if you wished to fast roll them you would roll them together.

It is fast roll all of the same type at the same target or roll consecutively.

U02dah4 wrote:
Well it matters in the case of infinite hits. As it would require you to roll infinite wounds clock locking you. Forceing you to roll consecutive dice eating up your clock time.

vs fast rolling a portion of hits resolving the shooting quickly (very different outcomes)

In the case of 20 bolters it doesn't matter it is the principle that does in a more extreme situation like the one above

If you wish to fast roll at a target you may sequence what fires at what target in any way you like but if you fire weapons with the same characteristics at the same target you must roll all of them at the same time.

So if your to lots of bolters fire at the same target you must group them
The missile launchers you can get round because as individual weapons you can choose not to fast roll them but if you wished to fast roll them you would roll them together.

It is fast roll all of the same type at the same target or roll consecutively.

Yes these are some of the reasons, also if you want to split 10 bolter / missil launch / 10 bolter in a different order it might be relevant.
What U02dah4 fails to do is, show us in a gramatically correct and syntax relevant way, that the fast rolling rules say you must roll all hits/wounds with the same characteristics together, without ignoring half a sentence.

 Type40 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all of x must have the same a, b, c.

Let's look at the rule again:
"In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack)."

What seems to be causing contention here is that 'several' is not defined specifically, leading some to assume that 'all' delivers the primary definition of quantity. I will attempt to show that this is not the case.
"all...must have" is a condition for performing the action described immediately prior, i.e. "make several attacks at once". It thus follows that the decision to make several attacks at once has already been made. Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. This condition applies solely to the making of the several attacks and does not in and of itself define any new quantity.


(snip)

Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. -Given the decision to use fast rolling neither defines several or restrictions on its use, the decision itself gives you no such permissions. The only sentence that gives you permission is "If this is the case make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

Implicit by definition is not RAW especially when there is an Explicit definition for the process.

The problem with what you are saying is that the "all of the attacks" is referring to all the attacks that you group together in the "several" attacks. It is not referring to all the attacks that the model has that might be similar, only the attacks that you are grouping together to fast roll. There is no statement that you must include all similar attacks if you are fast rolling.

Exactly this.
Common use of English dictates that the "roll all the hit rolls together" is referring to the restrictions in the previous sentence. You guys DO acknowledge that, hence only attacks with the same characteristics. However, you don't seem to acknowledge in that very same sentence it says "several" and thus all is referring to the entirety of the previous sentence and not just a piece of it (this is why I keep saying you don't get to have it both ways).
On that note, using correct langauge/english parsing and not deciding GW wrote a random restriction in the middle of the paragraph, removed from context, with incorrect crammer and, non-standard syntax then the paragraph literally does not say anywhere that "all attacks with the same characteristics must be grouped together."
It is not RAW to assume so and if it was RAI then they would have written it that way.

We have acknowledged it says several many times. It's just irrelevant to the discussion as its not permissive. it is given meaning by the roll all the hit rolls line. You have shown nothing else.

We have covered the raw it is in sequence

"It is possible to do x.
In order to make several attacks all must have the same a, b, c.
If this is the case
make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

Note I include ths word several and it makes sense.

Common use of English and how GW write are different as they cant tell thw difference between errata and an faq. In this instance however they are clear.

You not countered any part of the above sequence
Or provided any quote indicate an alternative sequence
You therefore do not have a valid argument

Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

It is possible to do x. In order to do x all of x must have the same a, b, c.

Let's look at the rule again:
"In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack)."

What seems to be causing contention here is that 'several' is not defined specifically, leading some to assume that 'all' delivers the primary definition of quantity. I will attempt to show that this is not the case.
"all...must have" is a condition for performing the action described immediately prior, i.e. "make several attacks at once". It thus follows that the decision to make several attacks at once has already been made. Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. This condition applies solely to the making of the several attacks and does not in and of itself define any new quantity.


(snip)

Permission to make the several attacks at once is implicitly given in the form of the condition that is to be met. -Given the decision to use fast rolling neither defines several or restrictions on its use, the decision itself gives you no such permissions. The only sentence that gives you permission is "If this is the case make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

Implicit by definition is not RAW especially when there is an Explicit definition for the process.

The problem with what you are saying is that the "all of the attacks" is referring to all the attacks that you group together in the "several" attacks. It is not referring to all the attacks that the model has that might be similar, only the attacks that you are grouping together to fast roll. There is no statement that you must include all similar attacks if you are fast rolling.

Exactly this.
Common use of English dictates that the "roll all the hit rolls together" is referring to the restrictions in the previous sentence. You guys DO acknowledge that, hence only attacks with the same characteristics. However, you don't seem to acknowledge in that very same sentence it says "several" and thus all is referring to the entirety of the previous sentence and not just a piece of it (this is why I keep saying you don't get to have it both ways).
On that note, using correct langauge/english parsing and not deciding GW wrote a random restriction in the middle of the paragraph, removed from context, with incorrect crammer and, non-standard syntax then the paragraph literally does not say anywhere that "all attacks with the same characteristics must be grouped together."
It is not RAW to assume so and if it was RAI then they would have written it that way.

We have acknowledged it says several many times. It's just irrelevant to the discussion as its not permissive. it is given meaning by the roll all the hit rolls line. You have shown nothing else.

We have covered the raw it is

except if "several" is not premisive, niether is the rest of that sentence. Meaning "roll all hit rolls" refers to absolutely nothing... unless you can show us where it does ?

"If that is the case" is the permissive part

Note how it provides a condition and then follows by telling you what to do if that conditon is not met.

Versus the several section which is purely restrictive
It gives you criteria to meet in order to group attacks but doesn't provide a condition or tell you what to do.

Just because A isn't permisive doesn't mean B isn't thats a false equivalence

Also, what you are claiming is a restriction, as how you claim it, is not grammatically possible.
On top of that, the rules do not need to give me permission to make grouped attacks. As the RAW simply describes how to make several attacks together, with no restrictions to that.
The only way it says otherwise is to ignore grammar and syntax and insert additional context which is not there.

"all" refers to the rolls in question, as described in the first sentence. AKA, all of the hit rolls you make when you want to make several attacks together. AKA how grammar and syntax works. Not, cut, paste, cut paste, add line of writing ... now it means what you want it to mean.

Again unless you can show, without cutting parts of a sentence out and adding context where there isn't any, whilst completely acknowledging/ignoring the first sentence, how what you claim it says makes sense ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
"If that is the case then" is the permissive part

Just because A isn't permisive doesn't mean B isn't thats a false equivalence

ok, so you are saying that the case refered to in this sentence
"if this is the case roll all hit rolls"
is only refering to half of the statement that precedes it ?
"if you want to make several hit rolls together they must have the same characteristics"
that's not how english works.

so your saying "if this is the case" only refers to half of the first sentence ?

its not hard to figure out here.
The case being "making several attacks together with the same characteristics" would be acknowledging the entire sentence.
The case being "attacks must have the same characteristics" is only acknowledging half of the first sentence.

Whilst acknowledging the entire sentence we have

"if that's the case (making several attacks together whilst they have the same characteristics) then roll all hit rolls ... " meaning ALL refers to several with the same characteristics.
Again, you cant have the first sentence half ignored, its all or nothing
"if that's the case then do X" with no context means nothing. Then there is no case.

You are just cutting and pasting words around and adding additional context to make it mean what you want it to or are too stubborn to read it in a linear a logical way. XD you use the argument that we are confused because GW wrote it weird... How about you just acknowledge they wrote it correctly and it means what it means.

As a native speaker it makes gramatical sense to me

In order to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack).
They must also have the
same Strength, Armour
Penetration and Damage
characteristics, and they
must be directed at the
same unit."

In order to X all the attacks must have the same A B C. Thats gramatically clear.

Under Raw you cannot do anything without permission

And yes it clearly provides restrictions your attacks must have the same charactistics you may not accept theae restrictions but they are stated RAW. Furthermore if those characteristics are met you must roll all to hit rolls and then all.

"All" refers to "all" cases that meet the restrictions on several attacks (same Ws/BS /S/AP/DAM etc.)

I cannot show you because you clearly don't understand English grammar. I could repost the entire block of text but you don't accept what it says and when i paraphrase it into a simple form missing out no text because the short lines are a litteral summary you can copy and paste tge original text over and it still makes sense. (The wording and meaning hasn't been changed).

The first sentence is irrelevant without reading the context you dont accept the context as it is written and clearly don't understand the meaning of several

I read in order to make several attacks,

And think under basic english after this clause i am going to receive a bunch of criteria I need to meet to be allowed to make several attacks together. No more no less.

You read I can now make as many different subgroups as I like as I have explicit permission as several is a substitute for an unknown number and this gives me blanket permission to do what i want.

As far as syntax goes

1) It is possible to do x.
2) In order to make several attacks all must have the same a, b, c.
3)If this is the case
4)make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls.

Those are the summaries in order. No I am.not looking at half a sentence in relation to this is the case the sentence just doeant mean what you think it does and from a technical point its not a sentence its two.


Also
The case being "making several attacks together with the same characteristics" would be acknowledging the entire sentence.
The case being "attacks must have the same characteristics" is only acknowledging half of the first sentence

Is changeing the meaning

We can tell this because if you add in the next words it makes no sense

"making several attacks together with the same characteristics." if this is the case roll all the attacks and then all the wound rolls.

in order to X, you must meet A,B and C if this is the case do Y. Is a summary that is fair you can replace any section with its text and it eill make sense

I think you're going about this backwards. Fast-rolling states "in order to do several attacks at once, all of the attacks must meet these requirements", but it never says that all attacks that meet those requirements must be fast-rolled, if you choose to fast-roll any.

Basically: all lemons must be yellow, but not all yellow things must be lemons.

1) It is possible to do x.
2) In order to make several attacks all must have the same a, b, c.
3)If this is the case
4)make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls.

Section 3 tells you to apply section
Section 4 if the criteria in section 2 is met. Section 4 tells you all to hit rolls must be rolled

And, as others have pointed out, section 4 refers to the attacks being fast-rolled. As mentioned, if it meant ALL attacks, then a unit with multiple weapon profiles would need to stop at the "roll to hit" phase in order to roll their other attacks (at the most conservative interpretation. Others have mentioned rolling all attacks for the game, which I think is pretty extreme.)

U02dah4 wrote:
As a native speaker it makes gramatical sense to me

In order to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack).
They must also have the
same Strength, Armour
Penetration and Damage
characteristics, and they
must be directed at the
same unit."

In order to X all the attacks must have the same A B C. Thats gramatically clear.

Under Raw you cannot do anything without permission

And yes it clearly provides restrictions your attacks must have the same charactistics you may not accept theae restrictions but they are stated RAW. Furthermore if those characteristics are met you must roll all to hit rolls and then all.

"All" refers to "all" cases that meet the restrictions on several attacks (same Ws/BS /S/AP/DAM etc.)

I cannot show you because you clearly don't understand English grammar. I could repost the entire block of text but you don't accept what it says and when i paraphrase it into a simple form missing out no text because the short lines are a litteral summary you can copy and paste tge original text over and it still makes sense. (The wording and meaning hasn't been changed).

The first sentence is irrelevant without reading the context you dont accept the context as it is written and clearly don't understand the meaning of several

I read in order to make several attacks,

And think under basic english after this clause i am going to receive a bunch of criteria I need to meet to be allowed to make several attacks together. No more no less.

You read I can now make as many different subgroups as I like as I have explicit permission as several is a substitute for an unknown number and this gives me blanket permission to do what i want.

As far as syntax goes

1) It is possible to do x.
2) In order to make several attacks all must have the same a, b, c.
3)If this is the case
4)make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls.

Those are the summaries in order. No I aam.not looking at half a sentence in relation to this is the case the sentence just doeant mean what you think it does and from a technical point its not a sentence its two.

As a native speaker of English myself, with years of academic writing, syntax writing for technical projects and hired rules parser for several gaming groups (as someone who teaches rules and runs games), I can distinctly tell you, your grasp of standard English grammar and paragraph syntax is wrong. I only bring up this because you decided to assume I wasn't a native speaker.

When a formal paragraph is written preceding sentences define subsequent pronouns and descriptors (in this case the word "ALL" and the statement "if this is the case" ). You do not seem to be able to grasp that. Thanks for the insult by assumption, now please go read up on paragraph comprehension, this can be found in most year 1 - 4 grammar school books and, it can also be found in more complex detail, within high school academic writing text books. I don't mean this as an insult, but you clearly value your "native" comprehension over formal language. You seem convinced that only half a sentence needs to be acknowledged and you seem to confuse the word "permissive" with direct statement. "in order to make several attacks together" is literally the description of what the following words and sentences are attempting to show you how to do. It is in fact, the topic of the paragraph. Each subsequent sentence shows you how to accomplish that. You are assuming the sentence "if this is the case roll all ... " somehow goes beyond the topical boundaries of what is defined in the first sentence as well as somehow referring only to the second half of the previous sentence.
If you really can't grasp such a strait forward paragraph I am not sure how to help you. If one of my students gave me this paragraph, I know how I would interpret it, and thus if they were trying to describe something completely different with it, in the way that you are, I would likely refer them to library services for extra tutoring.

I only say this like this, because you thought it was necessary to bring up the incredible value of your native English speaking and how it MUST make you correct. So please, either actually describe what you are claiming I can not grasp (i.e. "I can not show you because you clearly don't understand English Grammar"), or acknowledge that you are talking out of your ass and can not show me because what your are describing is inconsistent with how formal English styles actually work.

p.s. I grew up in Canada and I now work and live in Sweden (clearly you noticed the Swedish flag in the corner of my profile). Assuming I am wrong and you must be correct because of that Swedish flag makes you both arrogant and elitist. My non-native speaking, Swedish, university students could "out grammar" you any day of the week. Claiming that you could not possibly describe the grammar and syntax involved in your conclusion to me because of your magical native speaking status is just disgusting and ridiculous (especially considering how wrong you are).