Fateweaver vs Nullzone

[Rindaris]

Ok, since Deamons have been the main thing that has been giving me competition in the local tournaments I've been considering how to gear my army more towards facing this threat, while still being equipped to face other threats.

 

Been using the SW list, but upon reflection perhaps returning to the SM Codex might be best, due to one main thing... Nullzone.

 

With that in mind consider that the majority of said Daemon lists have Fateweaver. Now I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to my question, but I want other opinions.

 

According to the rulebook you can never reroll a reroll.

 

So with that in mind would I be right to say, following this example:

I blast away at 10 bloodletters, who happen to be within range of Nullzone and Fateweaver.

 

Each would take a wound. 5 make their initial saves, 5 fail.

 

The 5 that made their saves would be forced to reroll thanks to Nullzone and couldn't reroll if they failed then even with Fateweaver in range since they already were forced to reroll once.

 

The 5 that failed their saves could reroll thanks to Fateweaver and would be safe from Nullzone thanks to the reroll Fateweaver granted.

[Grey Mage]

Nullzone- reroll all successful ++ saves.

Fatewearver- reroll all failed ++ saves.

 

RAW- you roll the dice, pick them up, and roll them all again.

Common sense- if theyre within null zones range, just take the first roll.

[Cale]

What Grey Mage said is right.

[Seahawk]

Common sense is you actually roll all the dice twice. You're not saving time rolling them once, and only causes problems when suddenly, due to a bad first roll sometime in the game, you say "Fateweaver lets me...etc", or when you save well the first time and your opponent says "But Nullzone makes you...etc."

[Gaz1858]

So all in all wouldnt you just roll them once? If all failed and made saves are gonna be rerolled why not just roll once and take that as that? Why roll them all once where the results dont matter only to roll them again?

[Grey Mage]

Dunno, for thuroughness I suppose, as if a roll is dodgy one player could decide its time to start playing RAW, reroll all the dice, and perhaps get a better result... and hurt feelings.

 

Discuss with your opponent if your going to roll once or twice, but frankly it shouldnt change much in the end.

[JamesI]

Dunno, for thuroughness I suppose, as if a roll is dodgy one player could decide its time to start playing RAW, reroll all the dice, and perhaps get a better result... and hurt feelings.

 

Discuss with your opponent if your going to roll once or twice, but frankly it shouldnt change much in the end.

I think in this situation, it needs to be settled before the game, so on a far from average roll one side can't try to get an advantage by changing how it goes.

 

Really, its purely random either way, so I'd go with take the first roll as is just to save the time of picking up the dice and rolling again.

[Cale]

I generally agree with Seahawk. For the sake of thoroughness, you might as well pick them all up and roll them again. Compared to the length of most games, the time investment is pretty minimal.

[HonourThyMaster]

A friends of mine that uses deamons was told at a GT that they cancel each other out so no re rolling for both. So what you roll is all you get and this keeps the game moving at a more practical pace.

[chapter master 454]

A friends of mine that uses deamons was told at a GT that they cancel each other out so no re rolling for both. So what you roll is all you get and this keeps the game moving at a more practical pace.

 

This is what i would agree with, it's like eldar with an invunerable save with fortune on them, if null zone reachs them then the two cancels out. However i believe it's a case that whoever suffers from it will go with what benefits them (good roll for space marines, cancel out. Suffering roll for marines, re-roll al dice.) so it all comes down to whoever wants to RAW it more!