HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Share | 
 

 The Reaver Randomization Rollercoaster

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Krovin-Rezh
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 131
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Arizona

PostSubject: Re: The Reaver Randomization Rollercoaster    Tue Sep 11 2012, 15:15

The rules are decidedly vague. What GW intends or not is anybody's guess, because they only describe the following:

1. Normal wound allocation, which is one model at a time, til he's good'n'dead.
2. General randomizing procedure, which is to create as equal of groups as possible of up to 6 models, roll for which group, and then roll for which model in each group.
3. FAQ answer mashes the two together by saying "use Random Allocation."

That's fine and all, but it doesn't tell us how they interact. Does randomizing take precedence, or does the normal style of wound allocation? Apparently, randomization is allowed to have some non-random structure to the process.

Go by the letter, and you do it one at a time, but that causes the aforementioned problems... sort of. You see there's a "Fast Dice" approach to the allocation method, and it allows wounds to be batch rolled as long as all the models and wounds are the same. So the question becomes this: Once allocation becomes randomized, is it allowed to discriminate between different models? That's where it becomes murky.

Surely it cannot be GW's intention to make us roll 50-ish times in a row, one at a time, everytime we attack a unit. It's just madness.

And some wonder why I'm fed up with this edition. Sad

_________________
KR
Back to top Go down
CaptainBalroga
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 283
Join date : 2012-04-08
Location : Space is the place

PostSubject: Re: The Reaver Randomization Rollercoaster    Tue Sep 11 2012, 22:33

It's my belief that 6th Edition's wound allocation is intended to get rid of overkill: that is, if you inflict a wound in the Roll To Wound step, it can always remove some model. The way to accomplish this strictly is to randomize and inflict the wounds one at a time. If, instead, you and an opponent agree to use a speedrolling method, it should not allow for one model to absorb more unsaved Wounds than it has on its characteristic, because this is not an outcome that is possible with random allocation.

In past games, when a one Wound model has had more than one Wound assigned to it in a mixed save unit , I have had my opponent roll saves individually until failing one. Then, the surplus Wounds are re-assigned. Make it clear to your opponent what you are doing, and it should be fine.

_________________
Back to top Go down
Krovin-Rezh
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 131
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Arizona

PostSubject: Re: The Reaver Randomization Rollercoaster    Wed Sep 12 2012, 04:42

No offense, but you're speaking as an authority on the subject when your reasoning is based on personal opinion. Forgive me if I disregard it. Though I would prefer a definitive answer right now (one that doesn't take forever if possible), but sadly there won't be one until *another* FAQ is released.

_________________
KR
Back to top Go down
Ben_S
Sybarite


Posts : 376
Join date : 2012-05-20
Location : Stirling, Scotland

PostSubject: Re: The Reaver Randomization Rollercoaster    Wed Sep 12 2012, 10:13

Krovin-Rezh wrote:
No offense, but you're speaking as an authority on the subject when your reasoning is based on personal opinion. Forgive me if I disregard it.

In fairness, that's no more than you were doing when you said:

Krovin-Rezh wrote:
Surely it cannot be GW's intention to make us roll 50-ish times in a row, one at a time, everytime we attack a unit. It's just madness.

Since the rules and FAQ simply aren't explicit either way, we can only guess at GW's intentions. And your guess is as much your own opinion as anyone else's is theirs.

Personally, I'm of the view that overkill is not intended, since that would run contrary to the usual principles of wound allocation. I agree though that having to assign each wound individually would be time consuming. (Not so bad in units without mixed saves, since you could leave the randomisation until after saves.)

For friendly games, do whatever you want. Someone earlier had a case of 9 wounds on 10 guardsmen. I'd ask my opponent if he'd accept one wound on each, except for one selected randomly - then just roll each of the 9 saves separately. It's not exactly as per the rules (hence needing opponent's consent) but close enough without being unduly cumbersome.
Back to top Go down
tlronin
Wych


Posts : 814
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : The Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: The Reaver Randomization Rollercoaster    Wed Sep 12 2012, 10:18

Ah, invert it. I would agree with that if I were your opponent. So, +1.

_________________
Archon of the kabal of The Bleeding Hand.
Member of local Dutch community: http://www.sweetlakesentinels.nl
Back to top Go down
Krovin-Rezh
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 131
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Arizona

PostSubject: Re: The Reaver Randomization Rollercoaster    Wed Sep 12 2012, 20:24

There is a difference between saying (paraphrased) "I believe X, so your way is wrong and everyone should do it my way." and "I don't think they intended for this method to bog down the game so much." One is pushing an agenda, while the other is just agreeing that there is a the problem with the one-at-a-time method.

The one good thing that comes of this is, if there is a reasonable agreement that the RAW are inadequate for the situation, you are allowed to default to the most important rule (p4). So I think you're probably doing it right as long as you find sometheing your opponent agrees with (or you roll off for it).

_________________
KR
Back to top Go down
 
The Reaver Randomization Rollercoaster
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

GENERAL DARK ELDAR DISCUSSION

 :: Dark Eldar Discussion
-
Jump to: