BSB Speculation

[ERJAK]

Having looked at the Daemons of Tzeentch Destiny dice rules, you can really tell that they are separate teams. The daemons of Tzeentch rules use less complete language but are easier to apply practically because the team has more than 1 theoretical scenarios it walks the player through, including using multiple dice in a single roll, but not enough to replace every dice in a roll.

 

The 40k ones give you the 'back of a poptart box' detailed step by step , but only walk you through the most basic application of the rule, leaving questions such as 'can I use multiple dice in a single hit/wound/damage roll? Technically muddied.

 

The rules are written almost identically except the Tzeentch daemon rules leave much less room for doubt.They should have copy pasted the thing and just replaced keywords.

[CaptainMarsh]

The mechanical element is the same. The difference is in the examples used. If I had to place money on it, GW likely thought that by referencing the rule in their previews and the history of that rule in AoS being as it is that it would be clear.

The issue being, of course, that while many 40k players may play AoS and vice versa there isn't as much familiarity and capability of cross-referencing, meaning that you have situations where the mechanics are the same but the examples are much less in-depth. This creates confusion and questions for those that do not play or know AoS well and is an example of GW needing to learn to treat each book as if it is the first time any associated mechanic has been introduced.

This will happen in 9th/8.5 if they change how summoning works, guaranteed. XD

EDIT: And thank you for finding a better picture of the rule for use. I had two but they were of Super Blinding Potato Quality.

[ERJAK]

The mechanical element is the same. The difference is in the examples used. If I had to place money on it, GW likely thought that by referencing the rule in their previews and the history of that rule in AoS being as it is that it would be clear.

 

The issue being, of course, that while many 40k players may play AoS and vice versa there isn't as much familiarity and capability of cross-referencing, meaning that you have situations where the mechanics are the same but the examples are much less in-depth. This creates confusion and questions for those that do not play or know AoS well and is an example of GW needing to learn to treat each book as if it is the first time any associated mechanic has been introduced.

 

This will happen in 9th/8.5 if they change how summoning works, guaranteed. XD

 

EDIT: And thank you for finding a better picture of the rule for use. I had two but they were of Super Blinding Potato Quality.

Personally I think it comes down to a difference of philosophy. The AoS team play hardcore, top end competitive sigmar against the best players in the world all the time. They've all been on the receiving end of a misunderstood, but not technically incorrect, combo before. Or even better been witness to a heated debate over how a specific aspect the game works in practice. As a result, they go out of their way to try to include how the rule practically applies in the rulebooks, at least when it comes to very complex systems like Destiny Dice.

 

The 40k rules team on the other hand, often times behaves as if the very idea that the rule could be applied in a way that's outside of what they intended is unthinkable. They also have a tendency to blame the players for such things. It's possible that they omitted a more in depth 'for example' piece because they were convinced the rule could only possibly be taken one way. While it's true that the wording heavily favors the 'multiple dice per roll' interpretation, it does not fully discount the single dice per roll interpretation. Unlike the Tzeentch one.

[CaptainMarsh]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I understand how someone can read this and get to the single dice per roll interpretation. But to me, that is not only clearly goes against RAI, but it goes against RAW on its aggregate and when you start looking at a similar ability. If there are four possibilities:
 

1- RAI Clear, RAW Clear.

2- RAI Clear, RAW Unclear.

3- RAI Unclear, RAW Clear.

4- RAI Unclear, RAW Unclear.

Then at least to me this is an easy enough #1 in favor of multiple dice, with an allowance for someone arguing for #2. A #1.3 if you will.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

 

The 40k ones give you the 'back of a poptart box' detailed step by step , but only walk you through the most basic application of the rule, leaving questions such as 'can I use multiple dice in a single hit/wound/damage roll? Technically muddied.

Of course you can, the rule outright says you can. Or are you talking about using MD over several steps, because unless you've got multiple Acts that's a no-go. A To Hit is a different roll from a To Wound, which is different from a damage roll.

[CaptainMarsh]

 

 

The 40k ones give you the 'back of a poptart box' detailed step by step , but only walk you through the most basic application of the rule, leaving questions such as 'can I use multiple dice in a single hit/wound/damage roll? Technically muddied.

Of course you can, the rule outright says you can. Or are you talking about using MD over several steps, because unless you've got multiple Acts that's a no-go. A To Hit is a different roll from a To Wound, which is different from a damage roll.

 

ERJAK tends to agree with multiple dice being able to be replaced in a roll.

It is because other people are interpreting it otherwise that there is a debate. A debate that doesn't exist with the same mechanic in AoS because it is written clearer with better examples

[TheFinisher4Ever]

So after listening to one of the review videos and transcribing all of the important rules, strats, point changes, etc, I was able to get my first game in today. I played an ITC mission against my friends new Emperors Children. My list was mostly a battalion of OML with a vanguard detachment of Bloody Rose for some seraphim and Repentia. My opponent was playing a bunch of noise Marines and havoks with some obliterators and characters. If y'all want a play-by-play battle report I can type one up. But for now, I'll just give you some of my thoughts.

 

First off, the new Exorcists are STRONG. Losing scouting melta dominions in a repressor was a large blow to our anti-tank abilities. But the new exorcist really makes up for it. Both of my Exorcists blew up a rhino in one volley on my first turn, and that was without using any CP rerolls or miracle dice for damage.

 

Second, the miracle dice mechanic is really quite good! I used my MD on damage rolls and saves most of the time. The relic to reroll 1 MD per turn is an absolute must though. I found that 2s are pretty worthless and I ended up with 3-4 of them at the end of the game. I was pretty conservative with my MD spending and ended up with a ton left over so I'll definitely use them more often next time.

 

Our stratagems are quite nice as well. And almost all of them are cheap. I had a battalion and a vanguard and I was still able to use almost all of the strats that I planned to use.

 

So are we going to shape up the meta? No. Space marines will tear us apart. But I think we'll be able to hold our own against anyone else! We are in far, far better shape than we were with the beta dex.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

 

 

 

The 40k ones give you the 'back of a poptart box' detailed step by step , but only walk you through the most basic application of the rule, leaving questions such as 'can I use multiple dice in a single hit/wound/damage roll? Technically muddied.

Of course you can, the rule outright says you can. Or are you talking about using MD over several steps, because unless you've got multiple Acts that's a no-go. A To Hit is a different roll from a To Wound, which is different from a damage roll.

 

ERJAK tends to agree with multiple dice being able to be replaced in a roll.

It is because other people are interpreting it otherwise that there is a debate. A debate that doesn't exist with the same mechanic in AoS because it is written clearer with better examples

 

Then what's with the "technically muddied" language? It's clear as water, and anyone misinterpreting the rule needs a remedial course in reading comprehension.

[ERJAK]

 

 

 

 

The 40k ones give you the 'back of a poptart box' detailed step by step , but only walk you through the most basic application of the rule, leaving questions such as 'can I use multiple dice in a single hit/wound/damage roll? Technically muddied.

Of course you can, the rule outright says you can. Or are you talking about using MD over several steps, because unless you've got multiple Acts that's a no-go. A To Hit is a different roll from a To Wound, which is different from a damage roll.

 

ERJAK tends to agree with multiple dice being able to be replaced in a roll.

It is because other people are interpreting it otherwise that there is a debate. A debate that doesn't exist with the same mechanic in AoS because it is written clearer with better examples

 

Then what's with the "technically muddied" language? It's clear as water, and anyone misinterpreting the rule needs a remedial course in reading comprehension.

 

The only issue with the rule, the only thing that people who question it are questioning, and the only reason there's even a small shred of confusion, is due to GW's inability to define terms.

 

I've said it once and I'll say it again, GW has not ever defined what the word 'roll' means and uses it to refer to both singular dice and multiple dice all the time. A very particular reading of the rule alongside the attack sequence, as well as the complete lack of examples of multiple dice being used for hits/wounds/damage, could lead someone to a logical (READ: Logical does NOT mean correct) conclusion that the rule is much more limited in scope than it is.

 

I agree that the text is pretty clear about how the dice are to be used, I agree that it takes some 'out of the base path' thinking to get to the controversial conclusion, and I agree that it's wrong.

 

My GREATER point(at least now) is that if they had written the rule the way Destiny Dice was written, utterly without hubris and taking the 'curling irons have a warning on them that says: do not insert into any orifices' nature of humanity, there wouldn't have been ANY issue.

[Lemondish]

Not quite as clear as people are claiming. Every review I've read and seen has handled this as a replacement for a single roll or action.

 

I'm still not entirely convinced that fast rolling enables you to replace every hit and wound, provided you're using the same weapons, don't split fire, don't attack a mixed toughness unit, etc.

 

But the consensus here is that it is capable of replacing any number of dice when you make those actions, provided it can be done.

 

Still...the consensus among the more competitive minded reviews around are that even in its limited interpretation, it is still powerful. I actually agree with that, but then again I'm of the minded that the most powerful Stratagem in the game is the CP reroll and this basically gives a dozen of those. I know many would disagree with that assessment - you've all made that clear. I'm just hoping we get this resolved soon enough so the arguments can cease and the bellyaching gets over with sooner ;)

[Atrus]

Indeed. I can see both sides of the arguments and see merit in both. Personally I'm of the mindset that you can use all the MD you want in a single AoF per phase. While that might seem crazy strong, MD are a finite (albeit replenishing each turn to an extent) resource. You want to throw all your MD into one hail Mary phase for a really miraculous result, then that's cool. But then those MD are gone and you likely won't have any left until next turn.

It makes for an a impressive big hit for a single unit in a single phase or some smaller hits spread out over the course of the turn; but I think it pans out considering things like the new marines that are getting powerful army wide abilities that last the whole game.

 

I haven't played against new marines yet, but the idea of an army of -1 Or even ap-2 bolt rifles frightens the neck out of my t3 army.

 

But I digress. Whether we believe it or not, this is something that needs to be FAQd for the health of everyone.

[Mekhitar]

I guess I need a reading comprehension remediation course then, can anyone recommend a good one? :p

[Lemondish]

Indeed. I can see both sides of the arguments and see merit in both. Personally I'm of the mindset that you can use all the MD you want in a single AoF per phase. While that might seem crazy strong, MD are a finite (albeit replenishing each turn to an extent) resource. You want to throw all your MD into one hail Mary phase for a really miraculous result, then that's cool. But then those MD are gone and you likely won't have any left until next turn.

It makes for an a impressive big hit for a single unit in a single phase or some smaller hits spread out over the course of the turn; but I think it pans out considering things like the new marines that are getting powerful army wide abilities that last the whole game.

 

I haven't played against new marines yet, but the idea of an army of -1 Or even ap-2 bolt rifles frightens the neck out of my t3 army.

 

But I digress. Whether we believe it or not, this is something that needs to be FAQd for the health of everyone.

Have you considered Valorous Heart? With an Imagifier they will be able to ignore AP-2. Then, with but two characters, they could be at a 4++ as well. T3 is a concern, but 2+ in cover, ignoring AP-2, a 4++, and clutch MD protection is pretty durable for the cost.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

I guess I need a reading comprehension remediation course then, can anyone recommend a good one?

 

Which part isn't clear?

[Atrus]

I'm just a filthy casual garagehammer player; not really into choosing the most ideal loadout for maximum meta efficiency. My Order is combined Ebon Chalice and Bloody Rose so I will only ever use one or both of those because that my fluff and I like it ;)

[Purifying Tempest]

Ezra, that reads very clearly... after reading it 3 or 4 times, haha.  So... not very clearly at first :)

 

First sentence reads very simply: choose one or more dice from your MD pool; so if your roll contains multiple dice (charge, multiple-shot weaponry, etc.) you can immediately substitute any of those dice off.  I think fast rolling may conflict here because you're electing to roll multiple rolls as one larger roll.  That's probably the root of where any discussion comes from.  Fast rolling is the act of taking many similar individual dice rolls and compiling them into 1 super roll because it normally makes little sense to do those rolls individually.

 

I would argue that the intention is the "multiple dice" part of the wording is reserved for rolls that are naturally made up of multiple dice: 2d6 melta damage rolls (this would be a silly substitution for both dice), charge rolls, I would guess multiple-shot weaponry or even melee attacks would be in this category too.  Fast-rolling should be ruled to be a quality-of-life mechanic for rapidly resolving multiple identical rolls simultaneously.

 

Now, I will agree that confusion comes in when people read fast-rolling as a rule, and then says it is one giant roll and thus any MD can be expended for that roll... and RAW I guess it would be technically possible.  I dunno, I hate arguing at the tabletop, I would just discuss it with my opponent prior to the game and get a feel for how he wanted to play it and go from there.  This is a flashback to 7th edition though where 2 rules are creating a scenario where RAW/RAI and clearly in opposition and people will argue it simply to gain some margin of advantage over their opponent.  And this is why I don't do 40K competitively! :)

 

Just my thoughts, you guys can go back to the regularly scheduled bantering and bashing :)

[ValourousHeart]

I'm curious how players handle a storm bolter?  Is that 1 model making 1 ranged attack with a weapon that does 4 shots per attack?  Or is it 1 model making 4 ranged attacks with the 1 weapon?

 

You might not think that distinction would matter, but then you have to consider the Frag Grenade.  Now the rule is that only 1 model from a unit can throw 1 grenade during the shooting phase or on overwatch.  So depending upon how you answered the storm bolter question, changes how you view the frag grenade.  If you said the Storm Bolter is 4 ranged attacks then it doesn't matter what you roll on the 1d6 because you can only make 1 attack with a grenade.

 

Now we all know that isn't how the frag grenade works, so why would anyone assume that is how the storm bolter works.  If you do think that then there is some mental gymnastics you have to do to justify that logical inconsistency.

 

Additionally some people are confusing the rules for Fast Dice with weapons with multiple shots.   It is my understanding that fast dice is for when multiple models in a unit have a similar attack profile and you choose to roll them together.  So in the example of a Dominion squad that has 4 sisters with Storm Bolters and the Superior with a Bolt Pistol.  Using the rules for Fast Dice the player would roll all 17 to hit dice at once, then followed by the to wound rolls and then saving throws by the opponent.

 

Not using fast dice would mean that you take each dominion in turn to make their 1 ranged attack with the weapon profile they are carrying.  So the first one has a storm bolter and so rolls 4 dice to see how many times they hit with their their shooting attack, then wounds and saves.  The 2nd, 3rd and 4th models in the unit are identical to the first.  The 5th model is the superior, so they roll 1 dice to see if their bolt pistol hits, then wounds and saves.

[ZaelART]

I'm curious how players handle a storm bolter? Is that 1 model making 1 ranged attack with a weapon that does 4 shots per attack? Or is it 1 model making 4 ranged attacks with the 1 weapon?

 

You might not think that distinction would matter, but then you have to consider the Frag Grenade. Now the rule is that only 1 model from a unit can throw 1 grenade during the shooting phase or on overwatch. So depending upon how you answered the storm bolter question, changes how you view the frag grenade. If you said the Storm Bolter is 4 ranged attacks then it doesn't matter what you roll on the 1d6 because you can only make 1 attack with a grenade.

 

Now we all know that isn't how the frag grenade works, so why would anyone assume that is how the storm bolter works. If you do think that then there is some mental gymnastics you have to do to justify that logical inconsistency.

 

Additionally some people are confusing the rules for Fast Dice with weapons with multiple shots. It is my understanding that fast dice is for when multiple models in a unit have a similar attack profile and you choose to roll them together. So in the example of a Dominion squad that has 4 sisters with Storm Bolters and the Superior with a Bolt Pistol. Using the rules for Fast Dice the player would roll all 17 to hit dice at once, then followed by the to wound rolls and then saving throws by the opponent.

 

Not using fast dice would mean that you take each dominion in turn to make their 1 ranged attack with the weapon profile they are carrying. So the first one has a storm bolter and so rolls 4 dice to see how many times they hit with their their shooting attack, then wounds and saves. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th models in the unit are identical to the first. The 5th model is the superior, so they roll 1 dice to see if their bolt pistol hits, then wounds and saves.

Gosh, this Warhammer sounds like a lark.

[Lemondish]

Additionally some people are confusing the rules for Fast Dice with weapons with multiple shots. It is my understanding that fast dice is for when multiple models in a unit have a similar attack profile and you choose to roll them together. So in the example of a Dominion squad that has 4 sisters with Storm Bolters and the Superior with a Bolt Pistol. Using the rules for Fast Dice the player would roll all 17 to hit dice at once, then followed by the to wound rolls and then saving throws by the opponent.

 

Technically, no. Fast dice rolling doesn't actually refer to making saves and taking damage.

 

Likely because there are a variety of limitations that apply here.

 

But to answer your first question. Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made. The number of attacks a model can make with a weapon, and therefore the number of dice you can roll, is found on the weapon’s profile, along with the weapon’s type.

 

It's 1 model making 4 attacks if within half range with the Storm Bolter weapon profile.

[CaptainMarsh]

Ezra, that reads very clearly... after reading it 3 or 4 times, haha.  So... not very clearly at first

 

First sentence reads very simply: choose one or more dice from your MD pool; so if your roll contains multiple dice (charge, multiple-shot weaponry, etc.) you can immediately substitute any of those dice off.  I think fast rolling may conflict here because you're electing to roll multiple rolls as one larger roll.  That's probably the root of where any discussion comes from.  Fast rolling is the act of taking many similar individual dice rolls and compiling them into 1 super roll because it normally makes little sense to do those rolls individually.

 

I would argue that the intention is the "multiple dice" part of the wording is reserved for rolls that are naturally made up of multiple dice: 2d6 melta damage rolls (this would be a silly substitution for both dice), charge rolls, I would guess multiple-shot weaponry or even melee attacks would be in this category too.  Fast-rolling should be ruled to be a quality-of-life mechanic for rapidly resolving multiple identical rolls simultaneously.

 

Now, I will agree that confusion comes in when people read fast-rolling as a rule, and then says it is one giant roll and thus any MD can be expended for that roll... and RAW I guess it would be technically possible.  I dunno, I hate arguing at the tabletop, I would just discuss it with my opponent prior to the game and get a feel for how he wanted to play it and go from there.  This is a flashback to 7th edition though where 2 rules are creating a scenario where RAW/RAI and clearly in opposition and people will argue it simply to gain some margin of advantage over their opponent.  And this is why I don't do 40K competitively!

 

Just my thoughts, you guys can go back to the regularly scheduled bantering and bashing

The issue with the multi-dice example in you first sentence is that with a multi-shot weapon each shot is a separate individual attack. A Heavy Bolter doesn't shoot three times in one attack, it makes three attacks- and by the rules, three one-dice attacks at that. So the single-dice interpretation would mean one of those three attacks can be a MD. The only time, in such an interpretation, in which you could use more than a single MD is during the Charge since a Charge roll is a roll of 2D6- since the only multi-dice damage roll weapon Sisters have access to is a Melta.

 

If that was it- if that was the intent- the rule could be worded nearly infinitely better. Much of the wording is focused on mulitplicity of dice when there are infinitely easier, simpler, more straightforward ways to say a single die is used unless it is Charge or a Melta weapon. The mechanic that it is compared to by GW itself and is worded mechanically the same allows for multiple dice to be substituted.

 

While I perfectly understand why someone may think otherwise, I think the preponderance of evidence, the wording of the rule, the wording of the similar mechanic that the publishers/developers reference when discussing it, makes it clear what the RAI is. And it makes the RAW fairly clear as well. 

 

As I said before, I'm usually fairly conservative and I tend to take the more conservative interpretation if I think it is RAI and will be FAQ'd appropriately. But here? Miracle Dice seem clear to me that they can be used in the multiple and I have zero qualms with saying when it is FAQ'd to make it more clear, it will remain so.

[Purifying Tempest]

But can it be used to sub out 4 meltagun hits in the same pool of fast rolled dice, and then use the stratagem to use the same MD for the wound roll... basically making a squad of dominions auto-hit and wound since we interpret fast rolling a single roll instead of a group of identical, yet separate rolls?

[Lemondish]

I'm definitely interested in going with a Brigade and the Battle Sanctum. The rules are pretty neat for an on-demand terrain piece that bestows extra miracle dice. I can't wait to see what it looks like.

 

But considering my only selection of units will be the box set until the full launch, it gives me a ton of time to overthink my paint scheme...

[Atrus]

But can it be used to sub out 4 meltagun hits in the same pool of fast rolled dice, and then use the stratagem to use the same MD for the wound roll... basically making a squad of dominions auto-hit and wound since we interpret fast rolling a single roll instead of a group of identical, yet separate rolls?

I personally believe it can as this is the only way that that 2cp strat is worth it's cost.

 

I really really really like the idea of spending 2-3 turns just banking up MD. And then in one deft single shooting phase, the Celestian squad of the Order of the Ebon Chalice get into their prime position against a problem elite unit.

They unleash the 1cp Blessed Ammunition of their 2 Storm Bolters. 8 dice are burned to turn another 8 dice into 6s that are then used to hit and the 2cp strat is used to have those 6s wound as well and then Divine Guidance kicks in to up the ap of those Blessed shots as the emperor guides their aim, sending 8 s4 ap-3 D2 shots into their target.

 

Its costing 16MD and 3cp to pull off that trick.

Thing is you're having to save up to pull it off and once it's done, the MD is greatly diminished or exhausted. I truly believe this is how the rule is intended to be played.

Just really really really want GW to hurry up with the FAQ so it's made 100% clear which way it goes and we can move on. Me I know what answering hoping for and admittedly, shall stick my fingers in my ears and go lalala to anyone saying otherwise until there an official ruling from GW. Not saying this to be nasty or obtuse, just how I read it and believe it should be done but will change it if GW says otherwise in an FAQ.

[Lemondish]

Folks are going to need to frequently ask in order for it to be answered, and I fear those who claim it as "crystal clear" may not bother to ask. I was even guilty of saying that, given how 40k defines attacks occurring one at a time.

[CaptainMarsh]

Oh, I already sent an e-mail myself. While I don't expect it to be an issue for me IRL- the three people who run tournaments in my area as well as myself all agree on this mechanic- I do absolutely understand why it is not the same for others. I would greatly enjoy an FAQ so as to settle it, even if I am certain of the rule and am playing it so. And if I am wrong, I would appreciate being corrected by GW.