PDA

View Full Version : Double 1's on a break



BullBuchanan
29-04-2005, 01:35
If Im forced to take break test at -7 to my LD, and I only have a LD of 8 do I fail automatically, or will a roll of double 1's pass. This came up this week during a game and I insisted that you would pass but another gamer said that you do not. Indeed it is not mentioned anywhere under breaktests in the rulebook, although my opponent decided to let it go, just because of the pure irony of it.(My unit got demolished on the charge). Wondering what the real rule is regarding this.

My explanation is that in every other facet of the warhammer world double 6's and double 1's are a constant to account for luck, or just plain extraordinary things happening that account for what makes its history so diverse. There are plenty of time where things that shouldnt happen, do, and times where a sure thing, fails for a seemingly unexplainable reason.

Slappy
29-04-2005, 01:52
I'm not sure if the rulebook says it or not, but in my opinion, double 1's should always pass. Hope someone can clarify this. Autobreak is stupid in my opinion.

skavenguy13
29-04-2005, 02:08
I play double passes (I say 1 always fail and 6 always succeeds, for most things).
Fun thing that happened: slaves got charged by Khorne chosen cavalry + lord :eek:
Only 1 little slave stood... I rolled 2 1s so I stayed. The unbreakable slave of doom.... which was easily killed next turn :p

anarchistica
29-04-2005, 02:44
It's a rule from 40K 2nd edition. Double 1 always passed, double 6 always failed (yes, you could have Ld12). Alot of people use it as a house rule, we do too.

Major Defense
29-04-2005, 02:53
If Im forced to take break test at -7 to my LD, and I only have a LD of 8 do I fail automatically, or will a roll of double 1's pass[?]

8 - 7 = 1

1 + 1 = 2

It is impossible to roll 1 on 2D6.

The unit would be "auto-broken" without a need to roll your leadership. You wouldn't roll a 3+ armor save against a strength 7 attack because even if you roll a 6 you're still out of armor!

taer
29-04-2005, 04:06
Yes, he would auto-break. However, I play with the double 1's always passing from time to time. I just like the idea of someone being so suicidally tenacious as to stay and fight, even though all his mates have been hacked to stringy burger.

BullBuchanan
29-04-2005, 04:48
stupid rule, or really stupid lack thereof a rule, as its not specifically stated whether you do break or not(lazy GW....) Anyway, Im sure it will be fairly easy to convince my group to adopt this as a house rule, especialy since at the same time Ill offer to make my HE Magic a little more bearable. :)

Major Defense
29-04-2005, 05:19
stupid rule, or really stupid lack thereof a rule, as its not specifically stated whether you do break or not(lazy GW....)

I swear I'm not picking on you but it is a rule and it is specifically stated. Sure, a much older version of the rules included something about double 1s. Sure, you can house rule whatever you want. It's all good.

Warlord Gnashgrod
29-04-2005, 06:13
Well, the rulebook doesn't say that double one's automatically pass either. So I would say that you would auto=break. This fit's into the actual rules much better.

Of course nothing prevents you from making a house rule on this.

BullBuchanan
29-04-2005, 08:00
I swear I'm not picking on you but it is a rule and it is specifically stated. Sure, a much older version of the rules included something about double 1s. Sure, you can house rule whatever you want. It's all good.

page number?

squiggoth
29-04-2005, 08:34
There's no double1alwayspassesbreaktests rule in WHFB. It's a house rule.
The rule has made a comeback in 4th edition 40K though. Should be nice to see in WHFB 7th edition :)

McMullet
29-04-2005, 10:20
It doesn't state in the rulebook that a double 1 is an auto-pass on a break test; if it doesn't say that that's the rule, then it ain't the rule! You can't claim it isn't clear because it isn't mentioned, if the rule doesn't exist in the BRB then it's 100% clear, because it doesn't exist.

As anarchistica says, this rule did exist in 2nd ed. 40k, when it was called "Insane Bravery and Craven Cowardice". I think it's a nice rule to play as a house rule, but it's certainly not an official rule.

Grumnir
07-05-2005, 06:18
You ask for 'page number' and that would be the one where they state that you must roll equal or under your leadership after modifications. They don't need to state what happens for every combination of dice roll. The absence of a rule stating that "double 1 does not count as a pass" does not mean that they do --> just to get the logic circle flowing :)

That said we've always played double 1 passes but thats because we've got the baggage of previous versions with us (and its GOOD baggage ;))

Lord Lucifer
07-05-2005, 08:31
The official rule is you have to roll equal to or under your modified leadership.

If your leadership gets reduced to 1, 0, -1 or lower, you can roll as many dice as you like but you're not going to roll equal to or under your leadership, as the lowest you can roll is 2

THAT's the rule. That's the official case. It's not lazy, it's stating it simply and clearly


If you roll a double one, you had best pray your Ld is modified only to 2 or higher



The 'pass on double 1' has always been mentioned exclusively as a House Rule, which is something both opponents must agree upon before the game begins.
It's not official, but that doesn't mean you should be discouraged from using the rule if your opponent feels the same about the rule. Remember, the rulebook is just the beginning

Da GoBBo
07-05-2005, 11:11
I just like the idea of someone being so suicidally tenacious as to stay and fight, even though all his mates have been hacked to stringy burger.

Nice of you to point this out. Because this does occur and there are units which have official rules for this kind of behaviour. One of these units are them suicidal stunties, them slayers. The rule is called unbreakable. Other units are stubborn. Some are immune to psychology. So as you can all see there are more then enough rules which prevent units from running away no matter what happens to them. But please, don't be dissapointed when one or more of your units do not have this advantage. Some creatures are just that likely to run away when something bad happens to them, you'll just have to live it.
By the way, I can see why this rule is used as a houserule. It's a nice rule and really usefull to ld 6 armies. But know this as well, since it is not an official rule, it can really outbalance the game.

Scythe
07-05-2005, 11:44
A rule which only kicks in when leadership is reduced below 2 and even then only 1 in 36 times?

I'd hardly call that unbalanced.

Da GoBBo
07-05-2005, 12:25
hmm .. ok .. got a point there :)

taer
07-05-2005, 16:53
Nice of you to point this out. Because this does occur and there are units which have official rules for this kind of behaviour. One of these units are them suicidal stunties, them slayers. The rule is called unbreakable. Other units are stubborn. Some are immune to psychology. So as you can all see there are more then enough rules which prevent units from running away no matter what happens to them. But please, don't be dissapointed when one or more of your units do not have this advantage. Some creatures are just that likely to run away when something bad happens to them, you'll just have to live it.
.


You missed the point entirely. I like a narrative element in my games, and I get a lot more pleasure from a lowly gobbo randomly deciding to stick around and fight chosen warriors of khorne, than I do from the gobbo always running. It is a rare event, so it is all the more memorable when it happens. I know there are unbreakable and stubborn units. It's not what I was talking about.

Gemini Dragon
08-05-2005, 16:57
I read the "a double 1s always pass Ld test" rule in a wd
It was an optional rule, in the WHFB equivalent of chapter approved...

Moi
08-05-2005, 17:19
I don't think the double 1s rule would be unbalanced. However, I would find it pretty much annoying to charge a weak unit of 6 gnobblars with 20 dragon princes, killing each one of them but the champion and seeing this little hassle of a guy make his break test with two 1s. My dragon princes would then be stuck for another turn, breaking the rythm of my army and preventing them from charging on my next turn and maybe exposing my flank at the same time... Won't that rule make 2-points guys far too powerful 1 in 36 times? I'd say the little green guy run! ;)

Just asking!

Durham_red
08-05-2005, 18:19
I've been dicussing this Issue with some of my mates and we think it is best served as a house rule where both players agree to it before hand.

Just to expand on it a little, If you have Ld 7 and you lose the combat by 6 you should auto break. Thought if you roll double 1's you stay. What happens if you lose the combat and are out numbered by a fear causing enemy? you should auto break in that situation to, Why don't you get the chance to roll double ones???

Da GoBBo
08-05-2005, 21:46
You missed the point entirely. I like a narrative element in my games, and I get a lot more pleasure from a lowly gobbo randomly deciding to stick around and fight chosen warriors of khorne, than I do from the gobbo always running. It is a rare event, so it is all the more memorable when it happens. I know there are unbreakable and stubborn units. It's not what I was talking about.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you mean. But since this originally started as a rules question and you made some remark about units being utterly brave / foolish, I tried to point out that there are units which have rules to represent this behavior. Besides, this is still a strategy game. With the double 1 rule, one gobbo (as pointed out before) would still be able to block a big unit of knights, even after this unit slaying every other bit of gobbo around em. I don't think that's supposed to happen in this game. The remaining gobbo is trampled or (with a little luck on the gobbo's side) pushed away or routed.
Now I can hear you think, would a slayer be able to pull that of? Actually I don't believe he could. But he's much more of a ferosios (he does one write this, I'v been on it for minutes and can't figure it out) fighter than a gobbo could ever be, ever dream of comming to be. And, slayers are a special unit. A unit can't get more core than a unit of gobbo's. I don't think it would be fitted for a core unit to pull off a neat feat like this, for a (some) special unit it would be.

Scythe
09-05-2005, 07:46
I've been dicussing this Issue with some of my mates and we think it is best served as a house rule where both players agree to it before hand.

Just to expand on it a little, If you have Ld 7 and you lose the combat by 6 you should auto break. Thought if you roll double 1's you stay. What happens if you lose the combat and are out numbered by a fear causing enemy? you should auto break in that situation to, Why don't you get the chance to roll double ones???

Cause when you're outnumbered by fear causing creatures, you don't roll for leadership at all, while with a break test, you should theoretically always roll, even if you can't pass the test cause your Ld is below 2. With fear and outnumbering, there's no test to pass in the first place.

Moi
09-05-2005, 14:26
I think the point of Durham_red was that rolling two ones on a break test would mean an exceptionnal feat. Then, as an exceptionnal feat, you could overcome your fear and stay if you were given the chance to roll two ones. The point is, I think, that if you get to roll two ones even when you have no chance of succeeding your Ld test, you should get the chance to roll for those two ones even when you don't get the chance to roll your Ld (hence, an outnumbering fear-causing unit). This would represent the "exceptionnalness" of the feat.

All in all, I'm not for it anyways as I play VC and I don't want opponents to screw my strategy even 1 time in 36! :D

peteratwar
10-05-2005, 07:17
Basically, the Double 1 can only be a House Rule. It certainly isn't a BRB rule.

Autobreaking from a fear causing unit shouldn't be included as people have said above. If you auto-break, you aren't rolling dice!

Scythe
10-05-2005, 08:08
I think the point of Durham_red was that rolling two ones on a break test would mean an exceptionnal feat. Then, as an exceptionnal feat, you could overcome your fear and stay if you were given the chance to roll two ones. The point is, I think, that if you get to roll two ones even when you have no chance of succeeding your Ld test, you should get the chance to roll for those two ones even when you don't get the chance to roll your Ld (hence, an outnumbering fear-causing unit). This would represent the "exceptionnalness" of the feat.

All in all, I'm not for it anyways as I play VC and I don't want opponents to screw my strategy even 1 time in 36! :D

But that's about my point; there is no leadership in the first place when outnumbered by fear causing creatures; Ld doesn't even come into play, while it does on a normal break test; hence the chance of insane bravery.

I see the point of not having this 'insane bravery' against fear causing creatures, but you should really limit yourself here. The pass Ld test always on double 1s is a characterfull and simple extra rule, no need to complicate this further with 'what happens if outnumbered by fear causing creatures'. No test taken, no chance to roll double 1s.

Cheesejoff
10-05-2005, 08:27
If you get the chance to roll it represents that there's a chance the unit might hold, regardless of the situation. If there is no chance to roll the your troops are scared out of their minds so they run!

arxhon
11-05-2005, 13:32
You missed the point entirely. I like a narrative element in my games, and I get a lot more pleasure from a lowly gobbo randomly deciding to stick around and fight chosen warriors of khorne, than I do from the gobbo always running. It is a rare event, so it is all the more memorable when it happens. I know there are unbreakable and stubborn units. It's not what I was talking about.

He didn't miss the point because you never explained that in the first place. It's bad form to say "you missed the point" when you never made that point to begin with. :rolleyes:



Now, if you want to houserule that double 1s always succeed, then more power to you. But that's all it would be is a house rule. The instant you go to a store or tournament, it goes out the window (but you knew that already :) ).

Major Defense
11-05-2005, 14:34
To use this baseless house rule would cheapen armies with stubborn/unbreakable units. Those units are stylish in their own right because you could easily imagine the determination of a unit of White Lions defending their general against unsurmountable odds when charged by three enemy chariots and taking heavy casualties.

A unit of Skaven Clan Rats in the same dire situation would unquestionably break and run. Rules aside, it just seems sensible to flee from imminent death unless you have that little something extra that lets you grit your teeth and stand your ground. To give that little something extra to any common unit is (sorry to insult) a flatly stupid idea.

I would guess that Durham_red started this thread simply to see what everyone thought about using this house rule. Obviously there are a lot of people here who hate the idea. If anyone wants to try to convince their own gaming group to use it then have fun but I think that any further discourse in this thread will be redundant at best. Lets all just agree to disagree.

Scythe
11-05-2005, 17:42
I disagree that this rule would discredit subborn and unbreakable units. Again, like I said before, this rule only kicks in when Ld is reduced below 2 (not a very likely occurance), and even the 1 in 36 times. And come on, it's just fun to see that single goblin or bunch of skavenslaves hold on against those chosen knights. Wargaming doesn't need to be serious all the time, and I'd love to see this rule make a reapperance in 7th edition.

However, like you said, ultimately, it's up to yourself if you want a house rule (for now at least ;)).

Gorbad Ironclaw
28-05-2005, 11:14
Have this rule ever actually made an appearance in Warhammer? Or is it(as I remember it) exclusively a 40k rule?

Anyway, I don't like it much really. If nothing else because it benefits Lizardmen a lot more than other armies. Rolling 3 dice and picking the lowest two makes it more likely to get snake eyes, and there leadership isn't that high, so making it more likely that they would actually need it.

Griefbringer
28-05-2005, 14:08
Have this rule ever actually made an appearance in Warhammer? Or is it(as I remember it) exclusively a 40k rule?


Not as an official rule, but there was a WD article once where it was suggested as a possible house rule.

Harrisondaly
04-06-2005, 16:16
Double 1 so doesn't pass if ure beet up so much ure moral is to far down and u run like the little scared girlies u r

Angelripper
05-06-2005, 22:47
I personally like the idea of such insane heroism. It's a funny idea as a houserule and we definetly gonna use it. So far I'm the only Lizzy player in our group and would not use it for them, cause lizzy's can throw 3D6 and that would take the fun out. Also the fearcausing auto-brake would stay untouched