View Full Version : Harmonic Convergence question

05-06-2011, 21:14
Today I had a game and it was claimed that Harmonic Convergence lets you re-roll any misses, any failed rolls to wound. Only when applied to armour saves would you only be able to re-roll the '1's.

Apparantly, my opponent had seen a FAQ a long time ago which claimed this. This sounds very wrong in my opinion and would make the spell stupidly overpowered. I can't seem to find the FAQ neither.

So, what do you say?

05-06-2011, 21:45
It's written in the rulebook to say you re-roll only 1s. If there isn't a GW FAQ saying otherwise that is what it does.

Afaik even in the last edition it was just re-roll 1s.

05-06-2011, 22:03
The interpretation you were presented with seems to be based on the fact that the rules don't say "To Hit rolls of 1, To Wound rolls of 1, and armour save rolls of 1". Instead it says you get to reroll all "To Hit, To Wound and armour save rolls of 1" which can be read in the way that the 1's only applies to the armour save rolls.

However, the spell does not say that you are supposed to re-roll only FAILED rolls. If the "rolls of 1" part only applies to armour saves, then the literal interpretation is that you must re-roll ALL To Hit and To Wound rolls, regardless of wether or not the first roll was a success or a failure!

The only way this spell makes sense is if the "rolls of 1" part applies to each of the three types of rolls.

05-06-2011, 22:16
Guy claiming such a FAQ is in the wrong and it would make the spell way too strong, next time, correct him and always ask someone to show you this "FAQ" - if he does not have it then he cannot claim it is so. One must have all his rules with him.

05-06-2011, 22:20
Just FYI RichBlake Harmonic Convergence wasn't in 7th ed, so there really is nothing for this guy to fall back on.

As T10 says, it seems like a deliberately dense "misunderstanding" of the wording of the rules.

06-06-2011, 03:47
T10 makes a SUPERB argument. Huzzaw!

06-06-2011, 07:57
Fortunately, this is one of the occasions where an "easter egg" is nothing more than wishful thinking.


07-06-2011, 09:04
Just FYI RichBlake Harmonic Convergence wasn't in 7th ed, so there really is nothing for this guy to fall back on.

It was called "Portent of the Far" and did the same thing, although didn't allow for rerolls of 1 for armor saves.

Also, T10 is quite correct in the wording of the spell being a bit ambiguous and also correct in how it works. 1's only.

07-06-2011, 19:17
It's not even ambiguous. You want it it say "reroll to hit rolls", but "rolls" only appears as "rolls of 1." The sentence isn't complete without the "rolls of 1," so that interpretation can't be correct.