It's more logical when you think about the fluff of an attack. But obviously not if you're thinking about game speed, as you would inflict the same number of wounds.
What's your opinion? Is this really the silliest thing you've heard? Say so.

It's a silly game, hence some silly rules. :D

I think it would make a difference though, if you rolled hit, save, wound, given the way allocation works. I am assuming that there was some reasoning that went into the decision making process, although I'm not motivated enough to do my own in-depth analysis.

If I'm not mistaken, wounds did used to be the last thing rolled. Although, it's been a long time, and I was out of the loop for quite a while -- it's entirely possible I am mistaken.

Why should we roll to save against hits? They always outnumber wounds. Which means more dice to roll, where's the time saved in that?

Prove your hits have a chance of scoring against me by rolling to try to wound me first, then I will roll my saves to shrug them off!

If you want to save time, why not just make every hit a wound to save against, that will speed your game up! Hehe. ^_^

I agree, i like the patience of the game, but there is patience and taking the *****ING yellow water.

If we took a vote i bet more people hate it than not, not very constructive but it makes me feel better

It makes more sense that you roll for armour save before you're actually wounded, but it would take more time. So it's fine :P

i also think it makes alot more sense to roll to save firts, i actually played this way for a few months, because i just assumed thats how it was. but i did the math, and it really doesn't change the outcome much so whatever.

If you guys are so hell bent on saveing against hits instead of saving against wounds why not pick up the same amount of dice as your opponent rolls to hit and roll your armor saves. Then let him roll his wound dice and take away from your 'armor save' pile until either he has more dice left (which means you are wounded that many times) or you have more dice left (which means you saved them all)?

Oh yeah, that would give YOU more dice to roll to save with, very clever guys, but it's also unfair to the attacker. That's why you only save against wounds: because you get less dice for your armor saves.

Why would it be unfair in any way? It's exactly the same outcome when you roll saves before wounds.

Thats the point, if its the same outcome then why bother changing it, as it all happens simultaneously then it doesnt matter that we roll it in the order we do.

The way that GW has it is fine. The hits that wound are just the hits that hit hard enough and in the right spot to be capable of causing a wound. The armor saves come later because the toughness of the character weeds out all of the hits they are capable of dodging and evading first.

Originally posted by WiCkEdRock@Feb 10 2005, 14:16
Why would it be unfair in any way? It's exactly the same outcome when you roll saves before wounds.
325555


Here is an example:

old way: attacker rolls 10 hits, say half wound thats 5, now the defender rolls 5 dice to save say half save that's 2.5 wounds!

your way: attacker rolls 10 hits, say half wound that's 5; now the defender rolls 10 dice to save, now say half save that equals 5 saves and zero wounds, no damage! :blink:

Wow, if I'm not mistaken, that twice as many dice! Who do you think is the loser in that scenario? I believe it is unfair to the attacker!

I believe what was suggested was:

10 hits made
10 armour saves rolled ( say 6 pass)
4 to wound rolls made
Any models wounded are now killed
perhaps 2-3 killed

No change at all.

The reason it is the way it is to save time. The current method means that dice only need to be transfered between players once. This saves time, since 4th Ed has been made to be streamlined and fast, this makes sence.

Originally posted by Archaon@Feb 10 2005, 16:04
I believe what was suggested was:

10 hits made
10 armour saves rolled ( say 6 pass)
4 to wound rolls made
Any models wounded are now killed
perhaps 2-3 killed

No change at all.
325651


My apologies, I didn't see that listed in post #1 (actually I still don't) all I was going by was the header which reads 'hits, armor saves, wounds' and that misled me to believe what the poster was saying. :blush:

In game terms it would have little to no impact at all. Logically it does make sense, as a strike that is on target has to get through armour before determining if it still has enough force to cause a wound of any sort.

As said above though - who ever said Warhammer Fantasy was a logical game? :P

well since i play orks i basiclly count rolling to wound as my armor save anyways. 8)

It's OK, Joker :P Well, I think this topic has served it's purpose and can go no further. ;)
If you want the game to make more sense, roll your saves before wounds, kids!

Lock'n'loll!