PDA

View Full Version : Spiteful Shield plus Effigy of Mork

Guard of Itza
15-08-2009, 22:28
IF an orc or goblin has both a spiteful shield and an effigy of mork would hits to roll of 1 and 2 provoke an attack from the shield. Just wondering if I found an evil combo or an being stupid about effects of magic items.

T10
16-08-2009, 11:39
I think it is safest to assume that this applies to the actual dice roll rather than modified roll.

You can argue that a roll of 2 modified by -1 becomes a 1, thus triggering the effect. However, it would follow that a roll of 1 would become 0. The net result is that the Spiteful Shield now triggers on (unmodified) rolls of 2 only, not rolls of 1 and 2. This in no way improves the odds of triggering the Shield's effects.

-T10

Pirate Jimm
16-08-2009, 12:38
The rules for the Effigy say '-1 to hit' not '-1 to your dice rolls'. Changing the probability of the dice rolling a hit does not change the value that you roll.

The effigy doesn't modify dice rolls, so the shield is still only working on rolls of a 1.

T10
16-08-2009, 12:47
The rules for the Effigy say '-1 to hit' not '-1 to your dice rolls'.

While I see the actual text is different from what it is not :rolleyes: I fail to see what you are getting at.

And I can't see how you would apply "-1 to hit" as anything other than a modifier to the dice roll.

-T10

FluidSpace
16-08-2009, 13:13
Effigy of Mork says: All close combat attacks made against the bearer suffer -1 to hit. So instead of the enemy hitting you on lets say 4s, they are now hitting you on 5s. So in fact it is going the opposite way you want it. Plus you can never hit on a one anyway.

Lord Zarkov
16-08-2009, 13:18
While I see the actual text is different from what it is not :rolleyes: I fail to see what you are getting at.

And I can't see how you would apply "-1 to hit" as anything other than a modifier to the dice roll.

-T10

It's a modifier to the result of a dice roll, not to the dice roll itself. E.g. ghouls at -1 to hit might be made to hit on 5's rather than 4's, but would still get poison on a 6. Similarly the shield only triggers on a natural 1.

T10
16-08-2009, 13:32
That would be the best way to deal with it, yes.

Too bad the item descrition does not specify this.

-T10

Harwammer
16-08-2009, 13:32
The rules for the Effigy say '-1 to hit' not '-1 to your dice rolls'. Changing the probability of the dice rolling a hit does not change the value that you roll.

The effigy doesn't modify dice rolls, so the shield is still only working on rolls of a 1.

+/- to hit modifiers apply to the rolls, not the value needed to hit.

reason 1) -1 to hit would mean 4+ to hit would turn to 3+
readon 2) 'Hitting the enemy' ... 'Sometimes modifiers apply to these rolls' (p34, BRB).

I'm tempted to say treat the damage shield the same as poison; go by the dice roll itself to see if the effects are triggered. This does call into question if gork'll fix it/spiteful shield is a combo that stacks.

snottlebocket
16-08-2009, 13:35
Once again this is just a matter of using common sense instead of wishful thinking. The effigy makes it harder to hit, it doesn't change your diceroll.

I weep quietly every time someone brings up something like this.

T10
16-08-2009, 13:36
Effigy of Mork says: All close combat attacks made against the bearer suffer -1 to hit. So instead of the enemy hitting you on lets say 4s, they are now hitting you on 5s. So in fact it is going the opposite way you want it. Plus you can never hit on a one anyway.

And they miss on a roll of 4 because the modified result is a 3, less than the required 4+ to hit.

Wether the -1 to hit alters the minimum roll to hit or the actual roll really isn't that important. But discussing it makes for a way to while away the idle hours.

-T10

Guard of Itza
16-08-2009, 19:55
Once again this is just a matter of using common sense instead of wishful thinking. The effigy makes it harder to hit, it doesn't change your diceroll.

I weep quietly every time someone brings up something like this.

Good to know that I am not allowed to ask questions in the questions part of the forum without being mocked. I had a question that was not FAQ'd and I thought I could turn to the online community. For the people who were civilized and logical thank you. As for Snottle I am sorry I make you cry, but I asked for an answer not an insult.

Pirate Jimm
17-08-2009, 01:05
And they miss on a roll of 4 because the modified result is a 3, less than the required 4+ to hit.

Wether the -1 to hit alters the minimum roll to hit or the actual roll really isn't that important. But discussing it makes for a way to while away the idle hours.

-T10

Although by your method in this situation the alteration to the roll doesn't particularly matter, as there is an equal chance of the opponent rolling 2s as there is of them rolling 1s, there are situations where it will cause difficulties.

By your method, if a unit of Plaguebearers were attacking a Big Boss with the Effigy, they would not be able to get any poisoned hits, as their rolls of a 6 would be modified to fives. So if the Plaguebearers rolled five 6s to hit, by your method they would be modified to 5s, hit and not be poisoned (as the dice needs to be a 6 for poison). However, by the method of the '-1 to hit' affecting the roll needed, not the dice itself, if they rolled five 6s they would all be poisoned; a considerable difference.

Harwammer
17-08-2009, 18:26
Although by your method in this situation the alteration to the roll doesn't particularly matter, as there is an equal chance of the opponent rolling 2s as there is of them rolling 1s, there are situations where it will cause difficulties.

By your method, if a unit of Plaguebearers were attacking a Big Boss with the Effigy, they would not be able to get any poisoned hits, as their rolls of a 6 would be modified to fives. So if the Plaguebearers rolled five 6s to hit, by your method they would be modified to 5s, hit and not be poisoned (as the dice needs to be a 6 for poison). However, by the method of the '-1 to hit' affecting the roll needed, not the dice itself, if they rolled five 6s they would all be poisoned; a considerable difference.

I already mentioned the rule that poison is explicitly triggered by score on the dice roll itself, before modifiers (the example given is 5+ can't be modified into 6+ but the principle is the same). Page 95.

As I posted previously, the rules say modifiers are applied to the rolls, not the to hit table, described on page 34.

If the modifiers were applied to the table a -1 to hit would be a bonus!

The sword of striking (+1 to hit) even describes the rule, 'where a 3 is normally required to score a hit, the character will hit on a 2'. This works because 2+1=3

Pirate Jimm
17-08-2009, 23:39
The Sword of Striking's rules say that +1 to hit means that instead of needing to roll 3s to hit, you need to roll 2s; it mentions nothing about modifying the dice roll, and specifically modifies the value required.

This shows that +1 to hit means a 3+ goes to a 2+, not to a 4+. Logically, then, -1 to hit means a 3+ goes to a 4+.

P.34 of the BRB say some modifiers apply to the dice rolls. The specific example of a to hit modifier applies it to the value required. Therefore I would follow the specific example of a to hit modifier.

This is more sensible as it means that you can determine the results of your rolls without having to subtract/add to every specific dice, which is likely to result in error when you're rolling alot of dice (lets say a large amount of shooting at Nurgle marked chaos); it also means that you can let 'natural' rolls of the dice lie in such cases as poison and the spiteful shield.

The probabilities of rolling dice using each method are the same, as far as I can tell, it just makes more sense, is easier, and is better supported by the BRB to change the modifier rather than the roll (it having a specific example in which this happens rather than being vaguely suggested at).

Harwammer
18-08-2009, 07:02
Sword of striking gives a character wielding it a +1 bonus when rolling to hit, hence 2+1=3 (a roll of 2 with a bonus of +1 will count as a 3). It does make more sense than 3+1=2!

I was unable to find the rule you stated that to hit modifiers are applied to the value reqired.

Now, I do agree with you the rules should be that to hit modifiers apply to the value required, not the roll. Unfortunately, however, this isn't the case. Fortunately, most of the time we can play it as if it were true ("my sword of striking means 2s will hit").

It would certainly be much more sensible, a consequence of this would be the poison rules wouldn't need their 'only works on unmodified 6s' clause. I'm all for eliminating superflous rules, but currently due to modifiers applying to dice rolls, this isn't the case.

Note I'm not suggesting to manually alter all the dice rolls *turns every 3 over so 4 faces up, every 5 so 6 faces up, etc* that would be absurd. Its very easy to just think 'I need one less than I normally do'.

Once again, I do agree that your interpretation would be more sensible, but I disagree it is what the rules say and I disagree that the example given in the sword of striking entry better supports your interpretation than mine. This is especially true as there are multiple references to modifying rolls and no other reference to modifying the table for to hit in close combat (assuming you don't belive that a bonus of +1 on a 2 counts as a 3).

Hopefully some dev at GW will read this (unlikely) and will change the system to how you say next edition. It would make life much simpler!

Atrahasis
18-08-2009, 09:25
Why do Warhammer players assume that modifiers to dice rolls are solely the purview of Warhammer?

The designers have a very lax approach to applying the principles of game design established years before they took up the reigns, but modifiers to hit modify the dice roll, not the required roll, just as they always have, going back to games that were around even before D&D.

BS3 with +1 to hit still requires a "result" of 4+, but a 3 satisfies that because 3+1 = 4 which is 4 or more.
We say "BS3, Large Target, so 3+" as a convenience, not as an indication of mechanic.

Many things would be a lot clearer in the ruleset if the designers remembered that once in a while, but I'm already far enough off topic.

rtunian
19-08-2009, 00:17
Warhammer is the beginning and the end
the alpha and the omega
it is all that ever was
and all that ever shall be

jk :p

Guard of Itza
19-08-2009, 23:46
Warhammer is the beginning and the end
the alpha and the omega
it is all that ever was
and all that ever shall be

jk :p

Interesting very interesting. By far the most productive post yet. Complex yet simple.

As for this thread it seems to be going in circles although strong arguments can be made for both sides it seems that due to poor writing bye GW there can never be one correct answer. Until the day that GW can be less ambiguous it shall remain a dice off matter.