azazel the cat wrote:
or based off of DeathReaper's selective reading of Reserve Rolls (which can never, ever be relevant to the Wolf Standard).

That's not really true FYI.

rigeld2 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
or based off of DeathReaper's selective reading of Reserve Rolls (which can never, ever be relevant to the Wolf Standard).

That's not really true FYI.

100% this.

Keep ignoring my side of the argument.

We can wait for an FaQ if it ever comes.

Natural rolls don't have anything to do with the rules in general DR it is mentioned in one paragraph where it talks about a very specialised situation within GW's ruleset.
A case where the roll and the result impact the outcome, not just one or the other.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Natural rolls don't have anything to do with the rules in general DR it is mentioned in one paragraph where it talks about a very specialised situation within GW's ruleset.
A case where the roll and the result impact the outcome, not just one or the other.

It's a completely redundant word. If you removed it the meaning of the sentence would not change whatsoever.

The reason I said it could be relevant is that taking only the rules on one page is not the right way to look at something as generic as rolling dice. You have to look at the rule set in general.

Oh that wasn't aimed at you, I think it it redundant and we can't square natural rolls within the ruleset fully.

I agree that the rules need a big picture view, the move through your own/enemy models debates in this edition prove that it is needed.
Maybe GW should ensure that the language is internally consistent by hiring a head writer for their dev team and have them write the rules while the rest of the team make them.

HWIPI: At this point I'd play MotW either way, reroll if my opponent/TO allows or not if they disagree with my stand point. I'm inclined to believe a D6 roll is just that, regardless of modifiers. And 2D6 roll will obviously be a single roll and never get the reroll.