PDA

View Full Version : An interesting interpretation...



Paraelix
25-08-2010, 14:34
So it appears I am misguided in my attempts to follow the "1 is always a failure" rule... Apparently it does not exist in Warhammer any more... I argued with 4 GW staff members today over the effects of Flaming Sword of Ruin. I argued that something requiring a 2+ to wound (let's say a Chaos Warrior with Halberd rolling to wound a Goblin) would not benefit from the +1 to wound as he already needs a 2+. They insisted til blue in the face that it now caused an automatic wound. :/

Is anyone else in agreement with me?

Loopstah
25-08-2010, 14:42
It causes an automatic wound.

Rolls of 1 when rolling to hit always miss. There is no rule saying rolls of 1 to wound don't wound.

Spinocus
25-08-2010, 14:48
There is precedent to support their pro 'automatic wound' position. Per the Skaven FAQ Lord Queek can auto-wound enemies due to his +1 to Hit & to Wound bonus in challenges.


Q. Does Queek’s “Trophy Heads” special rule mean that he could
automatically wound an enemy (because he needs a 2+ and receives a
+1 modifier to the dice)? (p72)
A. Yes.

Anyway there is no such '1 is always a fail' rule in the BRB when it comes to Wounding a model (see 'Roll to Wound' section, pg. 42). However this rule does apply to Saving Throws (pg 43).

Paraelix
25-08-2010, 14:50
Ah, but the rules for Queek literally say +1 to the dice roll... Which was the argument I took. As I said, I'm fairly certain 1=fail has been a GW core rule forever...

Loopstah
25-08-2010, 14:54
Ah, but the rules for Queek literally say +1 to the dice roll... Which was the argument I took. As I said, I'm fairly certain 1=fail has been a GW core rule forever...

Only for Saves and to hit rolls. There is no mention of a 1 failing to wound in either the Shooting or Close Combat section wound entries.

PurpleSun
25-08-2010, 14:55
By that rationale, why doesn't a strength 6 hit on a toughness 3 auto-wound? I understand that the best you can get on the 'to wound' chart is a 2, but why not change the chart to allow auto-wound when the strength is 3 points higher than the toughness? Seems silly that a strength 10 Bloodthirster can't auto wound a toughness 2 gnoblar unless he has some item/spell that gives him +1 to wound.

Warboss Doink
25-08-2010, 14:55
nevermind...

Paraelix
25-08-2010, 15:00
By that rationale, why doesn't a strength 6 hit on a toughness 3 auto-wound? I understand that the best you can get on the 'to wound' chart is a 2, but why not change the chart to allow auto-wound when the strength is 3 points higher than the toughness? Seems silly that a strength 10 Bloodthirster can't auto wound a toughness 2 gnoblar unless he has some item/spell that gives him +1 to wound.

There is always the possibility of some freak occurrence... Otherwise Cannons become EVEN DIRTIER than they were already.

Teongpeng
25-08-2010, 15:07
guys guys...i believed what i read here...until i text my friend..and he replied that the side bar on page 42 specifically states that 1s always fail...when rolling to wound!

Paraelix
25-08-2010, 15:08
Pg 40. A to hit roll of 1 is a failure regardless of Ballistic Skill or Modifiers. Similarly, the CC section explains that a natural roll of 6 always hits, and a natural roll of 1 always misses.

EDIT- No, Teongpeng... It does not.

Teongpeng
25-08-2010, 15:18
ok i just went thru page 42, sidebar titled "memorising the wound chart". it really does say that "....If your strenght is higher still, you need a 2+ (1s always fail, after all). "

Can u guys care to explain how its interpretated to mean otherwise?

Angelic Dawn.
25-08-2010, 15:23
when i look in my book at page 42,
there is indeed a side bar that is about rolling to wound and states: "1's always fail after all"

:)

Bloody Nunchucks
25-08-2010, 15:31
so if the book says 1's fail, there is really nothing to discuss

Loopstah
25-08-2010, 15:36
Are those little sidebars actually part of the rules though?

Most of them are waffle about how they play stuff or tactics they use.

Spinocus
25-08-2010, 15:41
when i look in my book at page 42,
there is indeed a side bar that is about rolling to wound and states: "1's always fail after all"

:)

Geez, you're right! I can barely read the side bar, the text on the scanned copy I keep handy at work is sooo small and spotty (spare me the anti-piracy pontification, I'm not lugging that goddamn brick of a rulebook to/from the office)!

I suppose this could go one of two ways; it effectively negates the precedent set by Queek's Trophy Heads modifier and makes it the exception to the rule OR it implies that all To Wound modifiers override the '1 always fails' rule for Wound rolls. I'm fairly confident that it's the former. Lucky rat that Queek.

Teongpeng
25-08-2010, 15:44
i think my friend would like credit for saving warseer members from playing the rules wrong. thanks.

Duke_Corwin
25-08-2010, 15:46
The sidebar is describing the to "wound chart" and telling you that a roll of 1 always fails when rolling based on strength vs toughness.

Now, whether it also applies when you get a "to wound modifier" is a matter for a FAQ.

Angelic Dawn.
25-08-2010, 15:48
haha, im just stating he's right.
personaly im gonna give credit to the Warhammer team for putting rules in the book ;)
for anyone that actualy looks to find. ^^ (love the glossary)

Naahs Congrats to your friend for finding it first, :)
tho im sure someone else eventualy would've shown up and "saved" warseer :P



Ps: I think it refers to rolling 1's.
Which so far in history have always failed, so personaly i think if you roll 1. it doesnt matter if you got +2976456 to wound, its still a roll of 1 :)
but i suppose its a mater of interpretation.

Teongpeng
25-08-2010, 15:48
The sidebar is describing the to "wound chart" and telling you that a roll of 1 always fails when rolling based on strength vs toughness.

Now, whether it also applies when you get a "to wound modifier" is a matter for a FAQ.not really. the way it was phrased and taken in context with what was said in the sidebar....there is no need to include 1s in the to wound chart, because 1s always fail in the game of warhammer fantasy battle. Always.

Loopstah
25-08-2010, 15:50
there is no need to include 1s in the to wound chart, because 1s always fail in the game of warhammer fantasy battle. Always.

Not if you're using the Pendant of Khaeleth. ;)

PurpleSun
25-08-2010, 16:24
There is always the possibility of some freak occurrence... Otherwise Cannons become EVEN DIRTIER than they were already.

Personally, I think that a roll of a 1 should always fail. I'm just saying that if there is an exception to the rule that if an item or spell gives you a +1 to wound you can wound on a 1, then said exception is stupid.

Scalebug
25-08-2010, 19:33
Context, people...do not pull things out of it....

The sidebar on p.42 is about remembering the to-wound chart, and by that a 1 is always a fail. It is not a rule saying you fail on ones regardless of modifiers.

Paraelix
25-08-2010, 20:56
It appears my bleary eyes missed that single bracketed bubble... I'd still be a bit iffy about it though. Besides, it does not state a natural 1. (which it spent some time clarifying at the start of the book)

Korraz
25-08-2010, 21:08
There is no Auto-Wounds, but stuff like Queek's ability and (at least in the German book) adds directly to the roll. So, if you roll a one and get +1, it's a two. Just like, if you roll a 5, it's a 6.

Casshole
26-08-2010, 04:36
If the +1 from flaming sword isnt to the roll, then what is +1? It has to modify something, and since it is not any of the base stats (+1 ws is very different +1 to hit fr instance)

Honestly when i read the faq on queek I just rolled my eyes. But the rules now favor the +1 being auto wound (on a normal 2+). I think the +1 in flaming sowrd, etc, implies
dice roll' which Queeks rules specifies. Also flaming sowrd combined with a normal +1 to hit sword would be auto hit if higher WS (if they stak, nto sure).

@ Korraz- if you need a 2+ normally and get +1, you need to roll a one to wound. that in essence, is an automatic wound, becuase no matter what you roll you will wound.

Symrivven
26-08-2010, 12:28
IMO +1 to wound on an already 2+ to wound would result in an auto wound.

I think contexts here is very important. The 1 always fails part hasn't been printed as a separate rule in the main body of text with the rules, but instead is a small piece in a side bar. And it is titled: memorizing the to wound chart (not sure I memorized that right), this states what the intend of that side bar is, namely memorizing the to wound table, not summarizing or adding new to wound rules. If you look at the to wound table you indeed see that you always fail at a 1 with a regular strength/toughness based roll, but the to wound table does not take into account +1 to wound effects etc.

In short imo the sidebar just shows some tricks to memorize the to wound table and no new rules are introduced there.

Haravikk
26-08-2010, 12:42
I think a roll of a 1 is a failure; remember there's a difference between modifying a dice roll, and modifying a dice result, which seems to be what the Queek FAQ is going for.

Basically, a dice roll is what the dice physically says after you roll it; if you add +1 to that, then your dice is no longer 1 to 6 but 2 to 7, a roll of a 1 is therefore impossible. This is also referred to as the natural dice roll.
Modifying a dice result however is determined after the roll, usually by adding the results of all dice together (easy enough if you only have one dice!), this number can then be changed by various modifiers to produce a success or failure. However, if you've already failed the dice roll, then the dice result is irrelevant.



As an aside; I find the sidebar very confusing in this rulebook, as while a lot of what it contains are handy hints for complex cases and waffle, some important rules are hidden in there such as striking simultaneously if your Initiative is the same, which can actually occur quite a lot.

PurpleSun
26-08-2010, 16:37
I think a roll of a 1 is a failure; remember there's a difference between modifying a dice roll, and modifying a dice result, which seems to be what the Queek FAQ is going for.

Basically, a dice roll is what the dice physically says after you roll it; if you add +1 to that, then your dice is no longer 1 to 6 but 2 to 7, a roll of a 1 is therefore impossible. This is also referred to as the natural dice roll.
Modifying a dice result however is determined after the roll, usually by adding the results of all dice together (easy enough if you only have one dice!), this number can then be changed by various modifiers to produce a success or failure. However, if you've already failed the dice roll, then the dice result is irrelevant.

The only reason that we are having discussions such as these is because GW does not thoroughly edit their publications. Thus, we are left with different language in different sections which was meant to have the same effect.

Whether the item/ability says "+1 to the dice roll" or "+1 to the dice result" should be irrelevant. There is absolutely no viable reason to have such a distinction other than different people writing the rules using different verbage.

If it weren't for copyright issues, I'd go through the book with white out and a pen, fix it, then pdf it online.

solkan
26-08-2010, 16:41
If it weren't for copyright issues, I'd go through the book with white out and a pen, fix it, then pdf it online.

And then, aside from the copyright issues, you'd have people tell you that you weren't playing actual Warhammer. :cries:

Haravikk
26-08-2010, 22:38
Whether the item/ability says "+1 to the dice roll" or "+1 to the dice result" should be irrelevant. There is absolutely no viable reason to have such a distinction other than different people writing the rules using different verbage.
Except that the wording is important, as they mean two different things. They seem to have made a big effort in 8th edition to be more clear with this by referring to "natural dice roll" rather than just "dice roll", presumably to avoid precisely this kind of confusion.
Unfortunately army books that weren't written with this in mind don't benefit from the clearer wording, but that doesn't change their meaning.

While the FAQs could be clarified to use this nicer wording, given the speed with which they were released it's understandable that they can't cover everything, though the FAQ answer given in Queek Headtaker's case seems pretty clear that his ability modifies the natural dice roll.

Other abilities however will add +1 to Wound which is modifying the result rolled otherwise they would specifically mention dice.

chivalrous
27-08-2010, 11:49
Ah, but the rules for Queek literally say +1 to the dice roll... Which was the argument I took. As I said, I'm fairly certain 1=fail has been a GW core rule forever...




Whether the item/ability says "+1 to the dice roll" or "+1 to the dice result" should be irrelevant. There is absolutely no viable reason to have such a distinction other than different people writing the rules using different verbage.

Regardless of the phrasing, +1 to wound always means +1 to the roll to wound or +1 to the dice roll to wound. It says as much on Page 7 of the rulebook under 'Modifying Dice Rolls'

Otherwise, if you were to add +1 to the score you needed, for example you need a score of of 2+, adding +1 to it would result in you needing +3 to wound.

And there is no such rule any more about 1's failing, there may 'always' have been such a rule, but rules change. It used to be that you always attacked first if you charged but that's gone too.

leecutter
10-10-2011, 07:11
k wait so...
the +1 to wound from the flaming sword of ruin would wound on a 5+when its str 3 vs T5 and still wound on a 5+ against T10 because it's "+1 to the to wound roll" not the strength or the to wound table right?

and then str 10 with "+1 to the roll to wound" vs T2 still require a 2+ to wound right..?.

T10
10-10-2011, 07:22
(spare me the anti-piracy pontification, I'm not lugging that goddamn brick of a rulebook to/from the office)!


"I wouldn't steal a car, but I'd download one if I could."

DaemonReign
10-10-2011, 07:44
not really. the way it was phrased and taken in context with what was said in the sidebar....there is no need to include 1s in the to wound chart, because 1s always fail in the game of warhammer fantasy battle. Always.

Now, I'm gonna say from start that I agree with you here: If the BrB says that a roll of '1' ToWound always fails, then that's RAW and there's nothing to discuss..

But.. .. This really makes that FAQ-answer regarding that damn rat who appearantly "autowounds" in Challanges very very confusing. I mean, why would GW decide to give this guy an exception from a core-rule that has all this tradition and history.. Most seasoned WHFB-players wouldn't even ask themselves the question, we'd just assume that the '1' always fails and that's the end of it.. Whether it be for wounding or hitting.

So basically what GW has managed here it to write their rules clear as day in the BrB, and then cast a big shadow od dubiousness and this 'room for interpretation' by a contradicting answer to an official FAQ question.

Impressive. Really. Just big hands down wow.

Harwammer
10-10-2011, 08:00
Now, I'm gonna say from start that I agree with you here: If the BrB says that a roll of '1' ToWound always fails, then that's RAW and there's nothing to discuss..
No, because a roll includes it's modifiers unless explicitly stated (a roll ignoring modifiers is refered to as natural, so the rules would need to say a natural roll of '1' to wound always fails). Please no one tell me I'm being precious with the definition of natural; dice rolls vs natural dice rolls is one of the very first things explained in the rule book.

As the To Wound roll includes modifiers it's basically a case of 1+1=/=1.

jtrowell
10-10-2011, 09:39
Guys, read the Faqs, it has been confirmed that if you have a bonus to your roll like the flaming spell, you can auto-wound.

1s are not auto fail when wounding

stiggie
10-10-2011, 10:31
i think what the BRB means is if you roll a dice with a final result of a 1 you cannot wound anything.. (because you cant wound anything on a 1) but the +1 to wound makes (using s6 v t4 for example all rolls of 1 into 2's.. which wound..

so its not a BRB error etc it just takes a little thinking to get around of it.

vorthrax
10-10-2011, 14:40
From the Warhammer Rulebook FAQ (v1.5).
Q: Does a To Wound roll of a 1 always fail to Wound? (p42, 51)
A: No. Though it is very rare for a model to be able to Wound
on a 1+.

Lex
10-10-2011, 15:04
As the FAQ above and 1's do fail, but 1+1 != 1 ;)

Mercules
11-10-2011, 18:38
Per the GW FAQ for the BRB:


Q: Does a To Wound roll of a 1 always fail to Wound? (p42, 51)
A: No. Though it is very rare for a model to be able to Wound
on a 1+.

1's do not ALWAYS fail.

Mercules
11-10-2011, 18:42
By that rationale, why doesn't a strength 6 hit on a toughness 3 auto-wound? I understand that the best you can get on the 'to wound' chart is a 2, but why not change the chart to allow auto-wound when the strength is 3 points higher than the toughness? Seems silly that a strength 10 Bloodthirster can't auto wound a toughness 2 gnoblar unless he has some item/spell that gives him +1 to wound.


"I wouldn't steal a car, but I'd download one if I could."

Well, if the laws in my country stated you could make an archive copy of your car after you purchased it not to let someone else drive but for your own use, I am pretty sure everyone I know would have a copy of their car.

Lance Tankmen
13-10-2011, 08:57
it does make sense that some wounds are unstoppable...

Lane
14-10-2011, 16:32
Perhaps the bigger question is whether this pertains to Queek, only. (Army books trump the BRB in rules, so it clearly states he can...) But, does this apply to the Flaming Sword? other bonuses?

Is true that nowhere in the BRB is it stated that a "1 always fails to wound." Furthermore, under Modifying Dice Rolls (pg 7) states that one adds the score and that sum is the "final result." So, with nowhere stating it is impossible to wound on a roll of a 1 - then modified up - it should be legal and fair for all to do so.

hamsterwheel
14-10-2011, 16:47
Honestly I think GW messed up the FAQ. They should have specified that an unmodified roll of 1 is always a failure rather than saying sometimes a roll of a 1 is not always a failure.

The BRB actually says that a "to-wound" roll of 1 is always a failure in two places.

Page 42 Memorising the Wound Chart

Page 494 Metatshifting(Lore of Metal attribute)

The flaming sword actually adds one to the die roll so in this case an unmodified 1 would always be a failure, however if you normally wound on a 2+ and you have the flaming sword buff then it's impossible to roll an unmodified 1. Now for consistency I would still roll the wound dice and count the number of dice I rolled because even though the spell makes it impossible to not wound in this situation, it doesn't allow you to bypass the "to-wound" roll.

The Devourer
14-10-2011, 17:01
Page 42 does not say that rolling a 1 is a fail. It says that in normal circumstances having a final score of a 1 is a fail. Modifiers can turn that fail of 1 into a pass on 2 just like they can turn a fail of 3 into a successful score of 4.

It's very unlikely GW messed up the FAQ. They may have been unclear in the BRB but the FAQ clearly shows that they want auto wounds to be possible.

hamsterwheel
14-10-2011, 18:19
Page 42 does not say that rolling a 1 is a fail. It says that in normal circumstances having a final score of a 1 is a fail. Modifiers can turn that fail of 1 into a pass on 2 just like they can turn a fail of 3 into a successful score of 4.

It's very unlikely GW messed up the FAQ. They may have been unclear in the BRB but the FAQ clearly shows that they want auto wounds to be possible.

From page 42
Memorising the Wound chart
"The To Wound chart can seem a little baffling at first - it's got a hundred results to choose from, after all. There is, however; a method to its madness.

If your Strength is the same as the target's Toughness, you always need a 4+ to wound. If it's one point higher; you need a 3+. If your Strength is higher still, you need a 2+ (1s always fail, after all). Conversely, if your Strength is a point lower than the target's Toughness, you need a 5+ to cause a wound, and if it's lower still you're going to need a 6 - time to break out the red dice."

If you actually read what I wrote, you'd realize that I'm agreeing with you but rather than create a FAQ question that directly contradicts the BRB, they should have specified that if you modify a 1, it doesn't always fail. So I still stand by my statement that the FAQ question and answer needs to be fixed.

popisdead
14-10-2011, 20:12
I argued with 4 GW staff members today

That was your problem right there.

I learned years ago being a GW Staff Member means they hold the right to be wrong in public and enforce this.

Harwammer
15-10-2011, 09:28
Yea, the faq should have said a natural 1 won't fail provided the roll has a sufficient modifier (or something similar).

Sh4d0w
15-10-2011, 12:39
Know what would be a good rule? If you are 3 strength levels above your opponent you get to re-roll wounds starting at 2+ then a 6+ if you fail, 4 levels above would be 2+ then 5+, 5 levels higher would be 2+ then 4+, and so on. I think the rule wouldn't be stupid because when you think about it, if a cannonball hits you ANYWHERE, you would be screwed.

sorberec
15-10-2011, 18:26
From the Warhammer Rulebook FAQ (v1.5).

Actually that was first added in FAQ 1.4 which is dated 28th April so I'm surprised no-one mentioned it earlier in this thread

AMWOOD co
16-10-2011, 02:50
Actually that was first added in FAQ 1.4 which is dated 28th April so I'm surprised no-one mentioned it earlier in this thread

Well, seeing how the only difference between 1.4 and 1.5 is the addition of the errata for Power Scroll, I think it's a minor point.

To everyone, while the FAQ answer was a surprise (along with many other answers to come in the last year), it was, nonetheless, a definitive answer to an issue that we brought up.

Don't like it? You're allowed to not like it, but at tournaments (unless you organize them) you are expected to follow it.

dooders
17-10-2011, 15:44
as far as i know 1's always fail, so your not able to auto wound. but thats just my interpretation

dementian
17-10-2011, 17:18
I don't people keep saying that they fail.. It was mentioned in the FAQ that it is possible to wound on 1's. It seems pretty clear that GW has decided that Wounds exist as a separate identity to Saves at this point.

Zentdiam
18-10-2011, 03:48
1's always fail is just an old tradition that people are loathe to do away with. That was one of the first thing's taught to most people, 6's succeed and 1's fail. People always swear it is a rule and in this edition there is nothing that says 1's always fail for everything, just specific times that they do. The faq also can not get any clearer, 1's can wound in combat.

Tuttivillus
18-10-2011, 12:13
:D I will gladly put my coin in this jar !

This freak occurance and discussion made me read the rules and look what i have found :
1. BRB p.7 Modifying dice rolls - i won't qute just read it.
2. BRB p.42 to wound chart refers only to str. vs. t. rolls, it does not include any bonuses.
3. 1 always fail, 6 always succeed - really? what about 7,8,9+ to hit rolls in shooting section? it is a general rule but there are exeptions in almost every relevant chapter - combat, saves, shooting, read it than tell me how general it is :)
4. Now we are getting to the final - we have finally discovered the differance between weapons/rules which gives you modifier to your strength (sword of might +1S) which follow the rules in to wound chart, and the weapons/rules that gives you modifier +1 to wound ( as deos said spell from lore of fire ).
5. That applies also to any to hit modifiers normally in to hit chart you would not be able to hit below 3+, but there are spells and weapons which allow you to, as there are spells and weapons which just boost your WS.

That said I belive that fire mages will be back from oblivion and firebelly from OK list will gain much more fans .

Have a good day, Gentlemen !

hamsterwheel
18-10-2011, 16:34
The faq also can not get any clearer, 1's can wound in combat.

I disagree. The FAQ is dealing in absolutes but it doesn't explain in what instances 1s can wound since the BRB specifically says in two places that 1s fail to wound.

Q: Does a To Wound roll of a 1 always fail to Wound? (p42, 51)
A: No. Though it is very rare for a model to be able to Wound
on a 1+.

Q: Do I always eat steaks for dinner?
A: No, but I sometimes do.

Tuttivillus
18-10-2011, 16:57
I disagree. The FAQ is dealing in absolutes but it doesn't explain in what instances 1s can wound since the BRB specifically says in two places that 1s fail to wound.

Yes, and BRB states in one place that +1 to wound can make 2's from 1's therefore making autowounding possible in certain situations.

hamsterwheel
18-10-2011, 17:47
Yes, and BRB states in one place that +1 to wound can make 2's from 1's therefore making autowounding possible in certain situations.

Yes I understand your position, but 1+1 does not equal 1. If the FAQ said something like:

Q: Does a natural roll of a 1 on the To-Wound roll always fail to wound?
A: No, a natural roll of a 1 can wound if the model has a bonus to the To-Wound roll(eg. Flaming Sword of Rhuin, etc.)

Instead it says that a roll of a 1 doesn't always(not always, but sometimes) mean a failure to Wound.

Tuttivillus
18-10-2011, 18:02
yeah, i know. Back to natural rolls, i haven't seen any mention that only natural rolls in a to wound roll are relevant, therefore I would still assume that at some occasions you can autowound with roll of 1 , example : greatsword (S5) is wounding clanrat (T3) on a roll 2+ and failing on 1's, but the same greatsword being in the unit which is under Flaming sword of Rhuin can wound even by rolling 1, because 1+1 equals 2. That is it.

We can go further this way, What do you people think can a vampire lord armed wit sword of stiking (+1 to hit) in a unit under the lore of metal spell(+1 to hit) autohit his opponent which has lower WS? Why for Holy Hammer not?

Tregar
18-10-2011, 18:48
The combat section explicitly says that a "natural dice score of 1 always misses". No such statement is made for rolling to wound, and although the bit in red that was posted above does sorta suggest the same for wounding, the FAQ is there to clarify that it doesn't.

Zentdiam
19-10-2011, 11:08
I disagree. The FAQ is dealing in absolutes but it doesn't explain in what instances 1s can wound since the BRB specifically says in two places that 1s fail to wound.

Wait, so your argument is that the faq states that it is possible to sometimes wound on 1's but, because it does not specify when this happens the rule is void? :wtf: How can anyone possibly take the faq ruling as anything but sometimes 1's can wound.

hamsterwheel
19-10-2011, 15:25
Wait, so your argument is that the faq states that it is possible to sometimes wound on 1's but, because it does not specify when this happens the rule is void? :wtf: How can anyone possibly take the faq ruling as anything but sometimes 1's can wound.

What I'm saying is that FAQs are there to answer questions not to make more.

And if you think the FAQ is clear cut when it comes to this, then why is this thread on the 3rd or 4th page? Obviously it's not so clear cut to everyone.

Mercules
19-10-2011, 15:41
You are correct, stubborn narrow minded people who believe they are right despite obvious evidence to the contrary certainly do not see a clear cut answer as clear cut.

Tregar
19-10-2011, 18:08
Well, you've obviously not even read the thread hamsterwheel. Try to work on that. The thread was started over a year ago, before the FAQ that answered the question was posted. The rules weren't especially clear to begin with, but now they are. But anyway, if people want to keep arguing the FAQ doesn't apply to the only situations that it could possibly apply to, then this thread could go to a hundred pages. And they'd still be just as mistaken :)

hamsterwheel
19-10-2011, 18:51
Well, you've obviously not even read the thread hamsterwheel. Try to work on that. The thread was started over a year ago, before the FAQ that answered the question was posted. The rules weren't especially clear to begin with, but now they are. But anyway, if people want to keep arguing the FAQ doesn't apply to the only situations that it could possibly apply to, then this thread could go to a hundred pages. And they'd still be just as mistaken :)

I completely understand the intention of the FAQ. I, however, did not notice that it was a Necro thread. I still stand by my statement that if you're going to be creating FAQs, at least make them concrete. If the BRB says that a 1 always fails and then you create a FAQ that says "well not always...," then you're just contradicting yourself.

Besides, in what instances can you would on a 1+? If you're referring to Flaming sword then it's not possible to have a To-Wound result of a 1 since 1+1 equals 2, so you're back to wounding on a 2+.

Mr_Rose
19-10-2011, 19:07
The debate is about the "natural" roll, which is a synonym for the unmodified score on the die itself, not whether the to-wound chart goes down to one. That is, people want to know if, should you roll a one on the die, does that roll fail regardless of modifiers. And the answer is no; that's not specified anywhere. A one after modifiers will always fail, but that's not in dispute.

Lord Solar Plexus
19-10-2011, 20:22
I completely understand the intention of the FAQ. I, however, did not notice that it was a Necro thread. I still stand by my statement that if you're going to be creating FAQs, at least make them concrete. If the BRB says that a 1 always fails and then you create a FAQ that says "well not always...," then you're just contradicting yourself.


How so? A FAQ supersedes the previous rule. In this case, it supersedes the BRB. Ergo, the BRB doesn't say anything about always failing anymore.

There is no contradiction here.

Tregar
19-10-2011, 20:36
Yes, the FAQ should be taken as confirmation that when the BRB says "A 1 always fails" it is talking about the final score, not the natural roll. I think the fact that ham and har have both acknowledged that they understand what the rule says shows that even though we're still talking about it, it's not unclear. It's clear.

GW do write some really hard to understand FAQ answers, but this isn't one of them. Hell, the author even added a note in to the answer to let people know that he means what he said, and that the circumstances are rare (i.e. 3 things in the game, to my knowledge).