PDA

View Full Version : WAaaaaagh!! spell, and re-roll misses



AramilSairSianontel
21-10-2010, 11:56
Apologies if this has been posted before (search to see if, brought no results)
So, waaaagh! spell, sais all unbroken units move 2d6 towards nearest visible enemy, in contact counts as chargin, unit takes no psychology tests, strikes first and re-roll all misses.

And this is where the argument begins. As most ppl seem to think that misses are only missed to hit rolls. Can this be justified?

I also would like to point out that in the spell bash'em lads, that said exactly the same thing, they faq'ed it so it sais "re-rolls all missed to hit rolls" while nothing like it has been done for the Waaaagh! spell.

So what is your opinion on the subject? What does it mean with re-roll all misses?

sssk
21-10-2010, 12:04
urm, surely it says exactly what it says on the tin.

You re-roll misses (but as ever, you can't re-roll a re-roll)

What other possible meaning could it have? You don't "miss" a "to wound" roll, you fail to wound.

I really don't see where there can be any question in the wording here.

Could you clarify what the possible meanings of "re-roll all misses" are?

Then we can decide which it should be

AramilSairSianontel
21-10-2010, 12:08
[QUOTE=sssk;5067724]
What other possible meaning could it have? You don't "miss" a "to wound" roll, you fail to wound.
[/QUOTE

why exactly is that? can you pls explain to me why, you don't fail to hit? and not miss a wound roll?
I am not being sarcastic or aggressive here, just want to clarify.

Lex
21-10-2010, 12:19
[QUOTE=sssk;5067724]
What other possible meaning could it have? You don't "miss" a "to wound" roll, you fail to wound.
[/QUOTE

why exactly is that? can you pls explain to me why, you don't fail to hit? and not miss a wound roll?
I am not being sarcastic or aggressive here, just want to clarify.

You do fail to hit, it's called a miss. Miss is the opposite of hit. If your trying to say you "hit or miss" your to wound roll, that's using those terms in the vernacular which is inappropriate when discussing the meaning of rules. Rules would be meaningless in that context.

sssk
21-10-2010, 12:19
Maybe it's just me.

In my head, you can fail to hit, you can fail to wound, you can miss (as opposed to hit) but to miss as opposed to wound doesn't make much sense.

I've never heard the word "miss" used in that context (I've heard "hit and miss", I've not heard "wound and miss"). I take it you're using the same logic as to "hit your targets for the week".

Anyway, I suppose it depends (as so many things do) on how you use language, which leads into all kinds of holes. It's probably just something you should decide with your opponent before the game (for simplicity's sake, and to avoid arguments). However, for me (and this is just a personal opinion), if my opponent tried to claim that they could re-roll failed wounds as well, I would....strongly oppose that.

On a side note, that would also make one of the most powerful spells of the moment become ridiculous.

Anyway, there you go, I guess it may depend on each individual's perception of the term. It's just that I've never come across anyone who "missed" a to wound roll.

narrativium
21-10-2010, 12:25
If you fail a to-wound roll, then you've hit but failed to damage. If you'd missed, you wouldn't be making a to-wound roll.

Chris_
21-10-2010, 12:45
A miss is a failed to-hit roll. Is someone (you?) trying to argue that a failure to wound is a miss? See BRB pg. 50 "Roll to hit" for what is classified as a 'miss'.

Ramius4
21-10-2010, 12:57
If you fail a to-wound roll, then you've hit but failed to damage. If you'd missed, you wouldn't be making a to-wound roll.

Pretty much this. It's basic grammar.

Braad
21-10-2010, 21:04
A miss is a failed to-hit roll. Is someone (you?) trying to argue that a failure to wound is a miss? See BRB pg. 50 "Roll to hit" for what is classified as a 'miss'.

Indeed. Under roll to hit on page 50, they talk about a hit and a miss, under roll to wound on page 51 they talk about whether or not a hit wounds your opponent. Nothing there about failing to wound being a 'miss'.

Which of course is logical, as you already did hit your target, and it is quite difficult to hit and miss a target in one slash.