Jump to content

Why are Hit Rolls and Wound Rolls separate?


Revlid

Recommended Posts

AoS feels like the bridge between GW's "traditional" systems (e.g. 40K) and its "modern" systems (e.g. Warcry). At the time, it was quite an innovative change - a streamlined re-interpretation of well-established concepts that captured the same feel but let the game flow faster and smoother.

But when things start to evolve, they change fast. After AoS shows that challenging tradition leads to better outcomes, newer systems are created with even more abstract and streamlined mechanics, and suddenly it becomes obvious how much the old concepts that still form the foundation of AoS' mechanics are unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's probably lots of reasons (many mentioned in the posts above), the key thing to remember is that when AoS was conceived it was being designed to be the "entry level" ruleset into Games Workshop army-based games*.  As such it needed to be easier to learn/understand than other systems that were or may come.  40k took this basic ruleset one step further by implementing a To Would roll based on a simplified strength/toughness comparison (as opposed to the old S/T table), thus maintaining 40k as the "medium level" ruleset (HH: Age of Darkness being kept as the "complex level" ruleset as it was based on the more complex 40k v7.5 rules)

I'd say that AoS was the first in the way of more straightforward rulesets, Warcry, Silver Tower, 40k, Apoc etc have come afterwards.  They've all taken some bits from it and taken it in a direction appropriate to those systems.  That has resulted in AoS having things in it that perhaps don't seem quite as polished as other systems.  What I can say though is that it still is a much easier game to get to grips with.  I know a lot more people who cut their teeth on AoS than anything else and the basic concept of To Hit and To Wound stand you in a really good stead for moving into other systems as and when you choose.

 

* by army-based games I'm meaning when you place a full army on the table rather than skirmish games or board games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Revlid said:

Okay, sure, wound roll is how likely you are to hurt something after you hit it.

So a Grot Stabba can wound a Nurgling on a 4+, and an Orruk on a 4+, and an Ogor on a 4+, and a Gargant on a 4+, and a Steam Tank on 4+.

So a Grot Stabba finds it just as hard or easy to hurt each of these after they hit it, right? Does that make sense?

No, because fighters that are practically naked, like Gargants, Bullgors, Vulkite Berserkers, and Crypt Horrors all have 5+ saves. This isn't because they have good shields, thick armour, or even natural scaly skin or magical defenses; it's just because they're meant to be harder to hurt when you hit them than something with a 6+ or 7+ save. They're less squishy than average, so they have a good Save. And if you want to be better at hurting them, you need Rend.

The only difference between a Grot Stabba's chances of injuring a Giant Rat and their chances of injuring a Steam Tank is in the Saving Throw.

A monsters toughness is represented by a combination of amount of wounds, the save, any modifers and FNP save etc. So yes, a Grot can technically wound a little rat as easily as a huge monster made of solid rocks. The other stats then show how big of an impact that wound was. The system isn't perfect, but I feel all the stats on the warscroll makes sense. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Euphanism said:

Mechanically, it allows for game rules to interact with more facets of the game. Therefore allowing for different types of modifications, which gives the rules writers more options when developing stats. 

Honestly though it does mean less reliance on your opponent. Any combat attack usually results in you telling them how many saves to roll with a modifier. I think the 'strength' of the attack is represented more in the Rend.

11 hours ago, Mutton said:

 I'm no math man, but I'd also wager having two separate rolls helps to even out value distribution, i.e., if we only had a single hit roll, we might see greater spikes or failures in each batch. How many times have we rolled spectacularly to hit, only to even out the score on our to wound roll, or vice versa?

Yep. This is it. This is the whole reason, honestly. It's a game design consideration that accounts for the limited design space afforded by a D6 system.

8 hours ago, Revlid said:

I'm not wholly convinced it's worthwhile, though, considering that (for example) 2 attacks at 4+/4+ is almost identical to 3 attacks at 6+. It feels like more interesting things could be done to get that kind of delineation other than just "roll it twice", as seen in other games GW is putting out.

Having multiple steps to an attack provides lots more places for special rules to plug in. For example, the relative value of three 6+ attacks vs. two 4+ attacks changes dramatically when, for example, unmodified 6s explode into an extra hit. And that, in turn, is different to 6s to hit exploding into extra attacks (as opposed to automatic hits). And the odds change in a different way when wound rolls explode instead, or when they generate extra damage, or when save rolls can bounce damage back to the attacker. Just by separating out the rolls, the game designers gain tons of ways to distinguish between units.

In some cases, this is going to result in different ways to achieve approximately the same odds of doing damage. However, the fact that the rolls are distinct allows them to interact differently with other factors. Buffs and debuffs - either from spells, abilities, or terrain - typically affect one roll and not the other, which give them relative strengths and weaknesses against different kinds of units. 

It's worth considering why Warcry is different. A single attack roll suits that game where it wouldn't suit Age of Sigmar for a bunch of reasons, but the primary one is that it's a skirmish game where most of the skill comes through movement and the efficient use of special abilities. It has a much 'flatter' damage roll because by the time you're in position to do damage, you've already done most of the work involved in setting yourself up for success. It also fits the game thematically that a lowly grunt can sometimes knife a champion in the neck.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's there to make game mechanics deeper, that's it. It provides room for writing loads of different buffs.

If we think about all things we roll dice for - we can cut so much down, which works for fast-paced, low model count game such as Warcry, but at AoS scale that would make a rather dull and shallow game IMO. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to have the same thoughts as the OP in regards to having both 'to hit' and 'to wound' as being rather pointless, but as others have already stated and i guess ill re-echo, I think it's to add a little more granularity and tuning to the D6 system. 

An example would be say DoK's Blood Rites ability, on turn 3 they get +1 to hit and on turn 4 they get plus +1 to wound. If say, you only had a +1 'to damage' roll, it would be a lot more of a buff on turn 3 and would be harder to tone down, it would be less tune-able in that sense. Sure you could argue that you could just get +1 'to damage' on turn 3 and turn 4... but that would be a lot less immersive and given how other buffs work with, 'to hit' and 'to wound' a little differently, it would be less tune-able overall. I hope that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Side note but I really prefer damage spillover in AOS. For one thing it makes me think of Sauron swinging his mace at the black gate, smashing aside Elves and Men. Really evocative. For two it stops the weird perverse incentives in other systems where high damage weapons are less valuable against a lot of targets because high damage is wasted, where in the novels for example we see railguns blasting through 3 tanks at a time or plasma bolts going through other guardsmen beyond the initial target.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TomWhitbrook said:

Side note but I really prefer damage spillover in AOS.

Yeah, I'm definitely with you on that. It's one of the big changes that I really expect to see come through into the next edition of 40K, because it sweeps aside a huge amount of needlessly fiddly damage rules. It's so simple, but very slick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a game mechanic thing. Just think that you just had a single D6 roll instead of two separate to-Hit and to-Wound rolls.

Assuming that there is no 1+ (and thus no 100% chance) you only have 5 different probabilities to succeed:

  • 16.7% for 6+
  • 33.3% for 5+
  • 50.0% for 4+
  • 66.7% for 3+
  • 83.3% for 2+

With two separate rolls there are a lot more different probabilities to display:

  • 2.8% for 6+/6+
  • 5.6% for 6+/5+ or 5+/6+
  • 8.3% for 6+/4+ or 4+/6+
  • 11.1% for 6+/3+, 5+/5+ or 3+/6+
  • 13.9% for 6+/2+ or 2+/6+
  • 16.7% for 5+/4+ or 4+/5+
  • 22.2% for 5+/3+ or 3+/5+
  • 25.0% for 4+/4+
  • 27.8% for 5+/2+ or 2+/5+
  • 33.3% for 4+/3+ or 3+/4+
  • 41.7% for 4+/2+ or 2+/4+
  • 44.4% for 3+/3+
  • 55.6% for 3+/2+ or 2+/3+
  • 69.4% for 2+/2+

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Duke of Gisoreux said:

It's a game mechanic thing. Just think that you just had a single D6 roll instead of two separate to-Hit and to-Wound rolls.

Assuming that there is no 1+ (and thus no 100% chance) you only have 5 different probabilities to succeed:

  • 16.7% for 6+
  • 33.3% for 5+
  • 50.0% for 4+
  • 66.7% for 3+
  • 83.3% for 2+

With two separate rolls there are a lot more different probabilities to display:

  • 2.8% for 6+/6+
  • 5.6% for 6+/5+ or 5+/6+
  • 8.3% for 6+/4+ or 4+/6+
  • 11.1% for 6+/3+, 5+/5+ or 3+/6+
  • 13.9% for 6+/2+ or 2+/6+
  • 16.7% for 5+/4+ or 4+/5+
  • 22.2% for 5+/3+ or 3+/5+
  • 25.0% for 4+/4+
  • 27.8% for 5+/2+ or 2+/5+
  • 33.3% for 4+/3+ or 3+/4+
  • 41.7% for 4+/2+ or 2+/4+
  • 44.4% for 3+/3+
  • 55.6% for 3+/2+ or 2+/3+
  • 69.4% for 2+/2+

Though I tend to prefer to avoid mathhammer, this is a really interesting set of results as it shows a massive range that you couldn't replicate using a different dice system (I suppose a D10 would come closer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Revlid said:

As the title says: what's the point of having separate hit and wound rolls? Why not just have a single attack roll, like in Warcry (one attack roll, modified by Strength/Toughness), or Underworlds (one attack roll, opposed by one defense roll), or just keep the same system but remove the wound roll (one attack roll, then a saving throw).

Both the hit roll and the wound roll work the exact same way – roll a D6, apply modifiers, compare it to the value on the unit's warscroll. They both have the exact same effect – if the hit/wound roll is a failure, the attack fails and nothing happens, and if the hit/wound roll is a success, the attack proceeds to the next step of resolution. Why bother making them into two separate rolls?

In games like Warhammer 40,000, I can understand having a distinction, because the Hit Roll represents a particular model's accuracy, modified by external factors like range, and a Wound Roll represents a particular weapon's strength, opposed to the target's toughness. Two models with very different accuracy can use the same weapon with the same Strength, and two models with the same accuracy can use different weapons with different Strength. And, because the two rolls work differently (flat roll versus target-sensitive roll), it actually makes a difference to how you use a model when an attack has high Strength but low accuracy, or vice-versa.

In Age of Sigmar, that's not the case. Hit rolls and wound rolls are both specified in the profile for each attack. 20 attacks that hit on 3+ and wound on 5+ are identical to 20 attacks that hit on 5+ and wound on 3+, regardless of the attacker or their target. Modifiers can have different outcomes; +1 to wound is slightly more effective on a 3+/5+ attack than a 5+/3+ attack, but that's about it, and many such modifiers are keyed directly to units (and therefore attacks) anyway. Rend and Saving Throws (and to an extent, Damage and Wounds) serve the exact same role that Strength and Toughness "used" to – models that are particularly hard to kill just have high Saving Throws (and/or Wounds), and models are particularly strong just have high Rend (and/or Damage).

So why does the wound roll even exist?

It opens up design space. 

You can assign targets to each hit/wound roll and then have modifiers that affect them differently. 

It also increases variety in game experience.

Lets say opponent A has a model with 4+ hit and 2+ wound. If I give him -1 to his wound rolls, I get experience X. When opponent B plays against me with a model that has a 4+ hit and 3+ wound and I give him the same -1 to wound, I get experience Y. 

A general game design truism is that the more steps you take, the more space you have for creativity. Of course the inverse is true as well, which is rules bloat.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2020 at 10:50 AM, Revlid said:

As the title says: what's the point of having separate hit and wound rolls? Why not just have a single attack roll, like in Warcry (one attack roll, modified by Strength/Toughness), or Underworlds (one attack roll, opposed by one defense roll), or just keep the same system but remove the wound roll (one attack roll, then a saving throw).

....

So why does the wound roll even exist?

Could you leave us old timers just a little bit of granularity in the game?

 

Please?

Edited by Ravenborn
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to lie even seeing the title made me super apprehensive...  Why not make it just like warcry?  Because warcry is meant to fill a completely different hobby need.  Its meant to be quick, simple, and easy to pick up and put down.  Strategy and variety are secondary.   More specifically a d6 dice does not provide very much in the way of varied results or design opportunity.  a single d6 to decide combat outcomes is just not enough to provide a design space with enough varried units, rules, and tactical outputs/considerations.  The latter is very much dependent on whether you consider the statistical/mathhammer side of the game tactical/strategic (I do).  The more independent rolls you add the more variety, however.  So despite the weakness of the d6 die as the primary outcome determinate in a strategy game, this can be mitigated somewhat by each successive roll added to any phase of the game.  Thus hit and wound being independent factors of the game.  Could they be combined to represent the same thing?  Sure, thematically.  But as a game it just would be significantly less interesting/varied.  

 

If you want warcry, you have warcry.  Why make AoS the exact same thing?  It is a significantly more complicated and time intensive game for those of us who want that.  It has already been significantly streamlined/simplified from the old world days.  In my opinion they have simplified the rules about as far as they can, without removing much needed strategy and variety from the game.  Personally I think AoS has very little rules bloat, we do not need things more simplified then they already are.

Edited by tripchimeras
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I think the Warmachine game is much too vomplicated, I think the hit/wound mechanic is really elegant and clever; roll 2d6, add your melee skill to the result; if it surpasse your opponents defense, they’re hit. Roll 2d6, add your strength; for each point it surpasses your opponents armour, they take 1 damage. Though it uses 2d6 (and therefor results in a bell curve, 7s being most common), I really like it - It gives granularity, armour/toughness matters, without too many dice rolls. I’ve often thought of doing something similar with d10s. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GuitaRasmus said:

Though I think the Warmachine game is much too vomplicated, I think the hit/wound mechanic is really elegant and clever; roll 2d6, add your melee skill to the result; if it surpasse your opponents defense, they’re hit. Roll 2d6, add your strength; for each point it surpasses your opponents armour, they take 1 damage. Though it uses 2d6 (and therefor results in a bell curve, 7s being most common), I really like it - It gives granularity, armour/toughness matters, without too many dice rolls. I’ve often thought of doing something similar with d10s. 

I prefer AoS, roll everything, roll what hit, opponent saves. Hardly any calculations neccessary, which makes for relatively fast attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that since the game is governed by d6 rolls, if there was only one 'strike' roll or something, it would mean that most profiles would be functionally exactly the same (3s or 4s), and there would only be one roll that could be modified to affect the attacker. I'd think in that situation you'd end up with a lot of 2+ to 'strike' situations, even with only a +1.

More rolls give more opportunity to add situational modifiers and buffs/debuffs to affect play, and also gives unit profiles an additional way to differentiate themselves from each other. AoS is already pretty close to having everything be a +3/+3 anyway, so it's actually good to have more modifiers, not less. If the game were more simple and there were fewer rolls, there'd be less room to add factions that are functionally different from what's currently available.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Hey I found this forum because I was asking myself the same thing! I think the double roll is really quite useless in AoS, the only reasons I could think of to keep it would be:

  • don't change the rules too much: this is quite unreasonable since one of the best things in AoS IMHO is the simplified rules, so just go ahead and make them as simple as you can!
  • wound probability: with double rolls all success probabilities are lowered and in general you have a more vast spectrum of probabilities you can assign to units. This is true, but let's face it, some probabilities are quite useless: a 4+/4+ has 1/4 success rate which already really sucks IMHO, but a 5+/5+ would have 1/9 which is like plain useless. Even a 4+/5+ with 1/6 success rate is like really low. I think in average you'd have 5-7 models fighting in a unit so it's like 1 wound per turn (without even considering the save rolls) -> USELESS! Even a super skilled 3+/3+ character would have 4/9 (less than 1/2!!??) chance to do damage. Seriously if now the rolls represent the chance of a model to make a successful attack, I think 1/2 probability is like the dude isn't even trained. 1/2 means you have the same probability to succeed than to fail. WTF?
  • unit durability: ok so maybe they want to keep the losses low so the Bravery rule won't waste too many models in a unit making it very short-lived. But I mean, just raise that Bravery value.
  • more abilities/effects: sure, but duh, I mean you can already have many nice rules with just one roll. You can skip saves (always or on 6s), you can make mortal wounds (just don't roll anything), you modify the REND/DAMAGE (for example 6s to hit have additional rend/damage) etc.

I think a regular human soldier with:

  • Bravery: 7
  • Attack Success: 4+ -> still kinda sucks, but much better than 1/4...
  • Save Roll: 5+

Would be quite fine. Let's consider two human units facing each other with 6 attacking models each. Since they have 1/2 attack success rate they'd deal 3 hits per turn, with 1/3 saved it totals to 2 wounds per turn. Since they're all trained soldiers, they should be ok with some comrade falling during combat, so in this scenario a 1/6 probability to have 1 model flee should be quite fair. A combat like this would last in average 5 turns which in a 6 turns game seems quite fair too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's IMO simple: 

A) cause it's an update to the S/T ruleset

and B) you'd have even less ways to differentiate units in their combat abilities properly. The WS/S/T rules gave us more more unique profiles for units than the current one. Personally I love the simpler new rules but I scratch my head when goblins are way more deadly than liberators or Chaos Warriors. That is something that did not happen under the old rules.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree that the game design issues are clear and the mathhammer lays it out.  Two rolls provides a much wider base probability using the common d6.  That design space expands even further when you factor in all the different ways each roll can be modified.

Beyond that, since the narrative/immersion aspect is important to me, while fully acknowledging it doesn’t always fit cleanly my own mentality on each roll.

Hit = Skill of User.   How skilled is the attacker?  Are they using a weapon that aligns with those skills?  The simplest way to think about the latter is usually units focused on shooting are less skilled with their melee weapons..

Wound = Efficiency of the Weapon.  This may be a little technical but to me this is a combination of weapon design and the surface area of the part of the weapon designed to do the damage.  

Save = Skill of the Defender and/or other Measures Taken.  Re:skill think about how boxers or martial artists might have many blows land but they take these blows in ways intended to reduce the probability they are hurt by them.  Other Measures Taken covers anything from armor to magic to clouds of spores.

Rend = Aspects of the users skill or weapon design that limit the utility of the defender’s skill or the efficacy of other measures taken.

Damage = the stopping power of the weapon.

Wound or Mortal Wound Negation = Defender’s Inherent or Enhanced Resiliency

Mortal Wounds = (e.g. on Unmodified 6s) some unique element of the user or weapon that can’t be easily captured by these mechanics.

Personally I enjoy playing in a design space that allows for differentiation at this degree while still keeping it pretty simple.  Yes it is two separate rolls for me but it isn’t exactly hard to pick up the right half of the dice and roll again.  And giving my opponent a chance to roll keeps it interactive,

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

Hit = Skill of User.   How skilled is the attacker?  Are they using a weapon that aligns with those skills?  The simplest way to think about the latter is usually units focused on shooting are less skilled with their melee weapons..

Wound = Efficiency of the Weapon.  This may be a little technical but to me this is a combination of weapon design and the surface area of the part of the weapon designed to do the damage.  

Yeah agree with that, especially for ranged weapons! The AC/S/T mechanics in old Warhammer Fantasy were awesome in the "immersive" aspect, but now they just feel shallow. Also consider now the ATK and DMG values vary quite more and the REND value also adds to the lore.

For the probability width, let's face this:

2/2 ~ 70% -> I think no one has this in AoS

2/3 ~ 60% -> only mightiest heroes have this

3/3 ~ 45% -> a whole lotta people have this

3/4 ~ 33% -> good soldiers / fancy weapons

4/4 -> 25% -> common... really? how is this "lore friendly"? A trained soldier with a good sword manages to land 1 hit every 4?

4/5 ~ 20% -> like all missiles

5/5 ~ 10% -> this is already quite useless... not going lower than this

With one roll you can use the whole spectrum and still make sense:

1+ -> 100% -> mighty hero (just roll saves!)

2+ ~ 80% -> hero

3+ ~ 65% -> good soldier

4+ ~ 50% -> regular soldier

5+ ~ 33% -> weak soldier & missiles

6+ ~ 15% -> swarms or many small fries 

I know this makes for more casualties, but you can amend for that with higher base bravery, also 1 roll has flat probability so the variance kinda kicks in for "unexpected" events which can stress our Bravery fairly enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Onheiron said:

4/4 -> 25% -> common... really? how is this "lore friendly"? A trained soldier with a good sword manages to land 1 hit every 4?

A trained soldier manages to land 1 hit every two swings (not that bad considering the opponent should be actively trying to avoid being hit); of these hits, only one will actually carry enough force to have a chance to wound or kill the enemy, the other one being a glancing wound etc. Then, once we know the enemy was hit and the attack landed with enough strenght / on a good enough target, we can check whether the enemy's armour was strong enough to repel the attack.

Apart from the lore aspect, reducing h/w roll to just one roll would also mean that you would have only one roll to influence for all buffs/debuffs, taking away variety in abilities/spells/prayers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's because the AoS core rules were written very quickly by people pressured by corporate suits to make it as simple as possible while retaining as much warhammer as possible. It's why there is a static to hit and to wound roll when just combining the two makes the most sense. It's why the game is still IGOUGO. These rules weren't thought out and rushed (reminder that playtesters were ONLY allowed to playtest with the 1e starter kit). 2E brought many good changes and its up to future editions to fix the problems this game have had since launch

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Onheiron said:

For the probability width, let's face this:

2/2 ~ 70% -> I think no one has this in AoS

2/3 ~ 60% -> only mightiest heroes have this

3/3 ~ 45% -> a whole lotta people have this

3/4 ~ 33% -> good soldiers / fancy weapons

4/4 -> 25% -> common... really? how is this "lore friendly"? A trained soldier with a good sword manages to land 1 hit every 4?

4/5 ~ 20% -> like all missiles

5/5 ~ 10% -> this is already quite useless... not going lower than this

With one roll you can use the whole spectrum and still make sense:

1+ -> 100% -> mighty hero (just roll saves!)

2+ ~ 80% -> hero

3+ ~ 65% -> good soldier

4+ ~ 50% -> regular soldier

5+ ~ 33% -> weak soldier & missiles

6+ ~ 15% -> swarms or many small fries 

I know this makes for more casualties

Casualties the least reason why I’d be worried about removing the second roll.  As @Marcvs has already noted a single roll dramatically flattens the design space by severely limiting ability to differentiate between WS in the same category or even allowing variation w/in a WS, especially between different attacks.

To use a real game example from Zoom League on your nobody has 2+/2+ I beg to differ having used and regularly faced a Frostlord on Stonehorn in Boulderhead with Brand of the Svard Artefact which takes their Crushing Hooves to 2+/2+.  Add Frosthoof Bull Mount Trait and you’ve got a Profile of 2”/d6/2+/2+/-2/d3(+1 Damage if Charged).  Alternatively take Black Clatterhorn Mount Trait and the Horns are that 2+/3+.

 In our league we regularly see two Frostlords.  Only one can take the Brand and you can’t repeat Mount Traits so the player has to choose which build they want.  This creates a very different play experience for each Frostlord and highlights how in AoS taking the same unit doesn’t always mean you’re facing the same challenge when you fight those two units.

So while along the very narrow framework of just one narrow aspect of the game, the weapons base profile, you might be able to reasonably replicate the probability range.  Once you start taking account of all the other dimensions of the game there is no way to retain the design depth if you go to a single roll.

Now I’m glad there are options like WarCry that have a narrower design space in certain areas like combat in order to emphasize different design elements (e.g. interaction with terrain) but as my old Economics 101 professor used to say, There Ain’t No Such Thing As a Free Lunch.  So you can’t go to a single roll in AoS without radically changing the design space and severely restricting diversity both between and within WS.  As I appreciate that diversity I am happy GW found a simple way of expressing it.  Roll once.  Pick up the Hits and Reroll them.  Tell Your Opponent how many dice they need to roll...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...