So, it states that the roll can never be 4+ and if the wound causes instant death, it is -1. The base roll is 5+. If you have a cyrptek and use the Decurion formation in a unit of warriors, the roll would be a 3+ base. So, it is 4+ because it can never be better than that. But if the wound is instant death, would it be at 4+ (3+, -1) or 5+ (4+ -1)

Just confused in the order and if you can stack it that way. Another way to look at it is 5+ base, -1 for instant death and then +2 for bomus, so still 4+.

You would apply all modifiers, then adjust as necessary. Leaving you with a final of 4+.

To be honest: The new Reanimation Protocol is really fethed up in its RAW.
The rule says: The required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+.
But Crypteks (and any rule I've seen so far) do not change the 'required roll', they add +1 to the roll you made!

Let's explain it:
Y = The number you need to roll to ignore the Wound.
X = The amount you rolled.

If X is equal or higher than Y, you ignore the wound.
But Y cannot be lower than 4!
That doesn't matter at all since all bonuses affect X, including the ID one.


As to your question:
X (your roll) + 1 (Cryptek) + 1 (Decurion) - 1 (Instant Death).
Y >= 5
That means you need to roll a 4 (4+1+1-1 = 5) in order to survive it.

Kangodo wrote:
To be honest: The new Reanimation Protocol is really fethed up in its RAW.
The rule says: The required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+.
But Crypteks (and any rule I've seen so far) do not change the 'required roll', they add +1 to the roll you made!

Let's explain it:
Y = The number you need to roll to ignore the Wound.
X = The amount you rolled.

If X is equal or higher than Y, you ignore the wound.
But Y cannot be lower than 4!
That doesn't matter at all since all bonuses affect X, including the ID one.


As to your question:
X (your roll) + 1 (Cryptek) + 1 (Decurion) - 1 (Instant Death).
Y >= 5
That means you need to roll a 4 (4+1+1-1 = 5) in order to survive it.

Agreed. As written, it's a little bizarre.

Combining Technomancer and Ever-Living effectively gives a 3+ RP required roll. The RP is still 5+, you just add +2 to every die you roll. Good rules writing, GW.

Yeah, but I am glad for this mistake!
Because there is exactly one scenario where I would actually claim this stupid mistake: High Court of Damnos - the Undying.
That model used to have a RP2+ and a rerollable 3++ and is now reduced to 3+/4++ and a rerollabe RP of "4+"

Yeah love the RaW 2+ RP rolls (Decurion, 2 Crypteks) the same rules interaction in 6th enabled an Overlord to have an armour save he passed on a 1 . RaW stupidity aside you'd apply all modifiers then apply the limit of 4+ as Happyjew states.

no. cannot be improved to be better than a 4+. Techromancer gives a +1 bonus. So if you have ever living and your RP roll is a
4+ to start having a cryptek will not drop it to 3+ since It can never go below 4+. So a ID RP check is a 5+.

It already is awesome why the confusion. Its not plus one to the dice roll. Lordy READ the rules.

Page 68 "...his unit receive a +1 bonus to Reanimation Protocols rolls."

So it effects the RP roll. How does that work BrB page 11 "Roll the dice and add or subtract the number given to or from the roll to get the final result. For example, d6+2 means roll a dice and add 2 to the number on the dice for a total between 3 and 8."

So a unit containing 2 Crypteks in a Decurion rolls a d6+3 for its RP rolls. Giving a number between 4 and 9. I still need a 5 to pass so haven't broken the 4+ rule. However the physical dice only needs to show a 2 to succeed.

This is RaW.
Lordy READ the rules.

Because we all know it's conflicting, my gaming group will not allow our necron player to play that way. 4+ or worse only for him period. He is kinda QQ ing about it but oh well. He can quit if he hates it that bad.

I really doubt he is QQ'ing that he can't get a RP3+ on his army.
The RP is buffed and the intent is quite clear, despite GW's messed up wording.

It could actually be even worse... (not that I'd ever do this or allow this)

attach 4 crypteks to that Decurion unit, or 5 crypteks to a unit in an unbound army, and you'd be immune to all damage that isn't "Destroyer" or "remove from play"

Since there are no automatic pass or fail rules that apply to RP, the worst you could roll, even with a 1 on the dice against a wound causing ID would be a 5. (D6+5-1 is a range of 5 to 10, which will always pass)

On the other hand, the Overlord of a Reclamation Legion in a Decurion would never be able to roll a 1 on his RP roll, and thus would never be able to reroll it.

Kangodo, thanks for getting the battlescribe files up so fast!

Kangodo and FlingitNow, I agree with your interpretation RAW, but I think we all know how GW will rule it if they ever FAQ anything. Besides, we know how the tourney's will rule it too.
FAQ Rule #1, don't further break the game.

thanks for the discussion. I guess I just confirm with TO's when it comes up. But as I reading the rules again, I notice the RP can be made against any unsaved wound. Now, I don't have the old dex in front of me, but this is a big change right? Or was I playing it wrong before. That makes the formation with Wariths getting RP even more badass. a 3++ multi wound creature that has a 4+ RP on top of it!!!! crazy as good

So what specifically other than the Cryptek buff our RP to 4+? I'm seeing re-roll 1's but not a lot of add +1 to RP

The Decurion Detachment gives +1 to all RP.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Kangodo, thanks for getting the battlescribe files up so fast!

Kangodo and FlingitNow, I agree with your interpretation RAW, but I think we all know how GW will rule it if they ever FAQ anything. Besides, we know how the tourney's will rule it too.
FAQ Rule #1, don't further break the game.

Me and Kangodo do know exactly how the rule works and what is the RaI. In fact this is one of those situations that proves the RaW fundamentalists wrong with their constant bleeting of "RaI is never knowable". Of course anything above +1 on RP is wasted against any non-ID weapons and anything above +2 is entirely useless.

Fling and Kangodo, just to be clear.

Are the +1 RP modifiers to the RP roll?

They say they are +1 modifiers to the RP roll. See my quotes above.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Kangodo, thanks for getting the battlescribe files up so fast!

Kangodo and FlingitNow, I agree with your interpretation RAW, but I think we all know how GW will rule it if they ever FAQ anything. Besides, we know how the tourney's will rule it too.
FAQ Rule #1, don't further break the game.

Me and Kangodo do know exactly how the rule works and what is the RaI. In fact this is one of those situations that proves the RaW fundamentalists wrong with their constant bleeting of "RaI is never knowable". Of course anything above +1 on RP is wasted against any non-ID weapons and anything above +2 is entirely useless.

That's a pretty bold claim to make.

DaPino wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Kangodo, thanks for getting the battlescribe files up so fast!

Kangodo and FlingitNow, I agree with your interpretation RAW, but I think we all know how GW will rule it if they ever FAQ anything. Besides, we know how the tourney's will rule it too.
FAQ Rule #1, don't further break the game.

Me and Kangodo do know exactly how the rule works and what is the RaI. In fact this is one of those situations that proves the RaW fundamentalists wrong with their constant bleeting of "RaI is never knowable". Of course anything above +1 on RP is wasted against any non-ID weapons and anything above +2 is entirely useless.

That's a pretty bold claim to make.

What is at all bold about it?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Kangodo, thanks for getting the battlescribe files up so fast!

Kangodo and FlingitNow, I agree with your interpretation RAW, but I think we all know how GW will rule it if they ever FAQ anything. Besides, we know how the tourney's will rule it too.
FAQ Rule #1, don't further break the game.

Me and Kangodo do know exactly how the rule works and what is the RaI. In fact this is one of those situations that proves the RaW fundamentalists wrong with their constant bleeting of "RaI is never knowable". Of course anything above +1 on RP is wasted against any non-ID weapons and anything above +2 is entirely useless.

True, I misunderstood the purpose of your argument. Let's hope that common sense prevails, and 5+1+1-1=+4.

Kangodo wrote:
Yeah, but I am glad for this mistake!
Because there is exactly one scenario where I would actually claim this stupid mistake: High Court of Damnos - the Undying.
That model used to have a RP2+ and a rerollable 3++ and is now reduced to 3+/4++ and a rerollabe RP of "4+"

This isn't actually a problem. The High Court of Damnos is no longer playable. There is no longer any Harbingers of Transmogrification to represent Ankh.

Well, making my favourite formation unplayable is something I would call a problem

Kangodo wrote:
Well, making my favourite formation unplayable is something I would call a problem

Ok, it's a different problem

So, does wounds disregarded by the Reanimation Protocol still count when deciding who wins an assault round? Since the RP roll triggers by "unsaved wounds"? Or are they disregarded for this purpose also?

Works the same as FNP?

Same as FNP.

If the entire squad is killed no resnimation is granted correct? I know that's how it use to be. Our necron player is saying it changed.

You roll RP per wound, just like FNP.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
If the entire squad is killed no resnimation is granted correct? I know that's how it use to be. Our necron player is saying it changed.

It did change. That rule is gone and it wouldn't be applicable anymore anyhow. The new Reanimaiton Protocol works "kind of" like FNP, in other words the models don't die until they actually failed their Reanimation roll.

If they fail the normal armour/cover/inv-save, they roll RP and if they pass they simply don't get a wound anyway. So in other words you can't kill the squad unless they already failed their RP rolls.

But if you actually DO kill a squad of necrons you don't have to worry about them coming back again =)

Thank you for the detailed answer, exalted!

After re - reading RP. HappyJew is correct.

So wait, as I understood it,
RP requires me to roll a 5 or 6 to avoid a wound.
There might be some other abilities (eg. FW books) that can lower the required roll number, but the new entry in the 2015 codex says RP can never be lower than a 4 (so no more 2+ RP guy from Damnos, unless they FAQ him an exception... HA! Like that'd ever happen)
Anyway, Ever Living says I add +1 to the roll I make for RP.
Crypteks also adds +1 to the roll.
So let's say I've got a Warrior in a Reclamation Legion with a Cryptek attached to his unit. He gets shot and fails his armor save.
Roll for RP come up 3.
Add 1 for Ever Living.
Add 1 from the Cryptek.
= 5
RP successful!

(the number required hasn't changed, it's still 5. Rule doesn't say anything about not allowing more than one +1 bonus to be added to the roll, does it?)

Technically, yes.
I'm now thinking of some meme image:
"What GW thinks the rules do."
"What TO's think the rules do."
"What the rules actually do."

 skoffs wrote:
So wait, as I understood it,
RP requires me to roll a 5 or 6 to avoid a wound.
There might be some other abilities (eg. FW books) that can lower the required roll number, but the new entry in the 2015 codex says RP can never be lower than a 4 (so no more 2+ RP guy from Damnos, unless they FAQ him an exception... HA! Like that'd ever happen)
Anyway, Ever Living says I add +1 to the roll I make for RP.
Crypteks also adds +1 to the roll.
So let's say I've got a Warrior in a Reclamation Legion with a Cryptek attached to his unit. He gets shot and fails his armor save.
Roll for RP come up 3.
Add 1 for Ever Living.
Add 1 from the Cryptek.
= 5
RP successful!

(the number required hasn't changed, it's still 5. Rule doesn't say anything about not allowing more than one +1 bonus to be added to the roll, does it?)

RAW you are correct
This would be a lot clearer if the rule stated "....the required UNMODIFIED dice roll can never be improved better than a 4+"
I'm going to assume that we Necron players will be sporting though, and that this thread is more to highlight the poor rule writing

MonumentOfRibs wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
So wait, as I understood it,
RP requires me to roll a 5 or 6 to avoid a wound.
There might be some other abilities (eg. FW books) that can lower the required roll number, but the new entry in the 2015 codex says RP can never be lower than a 4 (so no more 2+ RP guy from Damnos, unless they FAQ him an exception... HA! Like that'd ever happen)
Anyway, Ever Living says I add +1 to the roll I make for RP.
Crypteks also adds +1 to the roll.
So let's say I've got a Warrior in a Reclamation Legion with a Cryptek attached to his unit. He gets shot and fails his armor save.
Roll for RP come up 3.
Add 1 for Ever Living.
Add 1 from the Cryptek.
= 5
RP successful!

(the number required hasn't changed, it's still 5. Rule doesn't say anything about not allowing more than one +1 bonus to be added to the roll, does it?)

RAW you are correct
This would be a lot clearer if the rule stated "....the required UNMODIFIED dice roll can never be improved better than a 4+"
I'm going to assume that we Necron players will be sporting though, and that this thread is more to highlight the poor rule writing

That is wrong: you cant modify the logical value of the dice roll:

Every rule refernecing a better RP roll say something like:

have a Bonus of +1 for the Reanimation Protocol Roll

This does not say "increas the logical value of your rolled dice by one" it says "have a bonus". To determin in which way that bonus is handled we have to look to the RP rules themselfes:

Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll; these are cumulative, [...]

This is sloppy formulated but says "if you modify the RP roll you actually modify the desired number" Why? Thats why:
RAW this modifiers could be applied to both either the rolled die or the number you need to roll. So which one to use?

but the required dice roll can necer be improved to be better than 4+

Correct wording on the technomancer rule is

[quoteThis model and all models with the Reanimation Protocols special rule in his unit receive a +1 bonus to Reanimation Protocols rolls.

That's so silly.

DaPino wrote:
Correct wording on the technomancer rule is

This model and all models with the Reanimation Protocols special rule in his unit receive a +1 bonus to Reanimation Protocols rolls.

It says "rollS", not Roll. It's plural, implying it's reffering to rolls made and not the required roll.

Or its just saying that this working for all the rolls you make. The bonus you get is still for every roll seperately but the way it is aplayed is badly worded but my proov that you have to modive the value you want to reach (scroll up) still holds. Tell me where that key of arguments is brocken and come back.

I have a feeling this may actually be the way they wanted it to work. I mean, if not and you can only ever have one +1 to your RP roll, what's the point of taking Crypteks or that super ResOrb? Logic would dictate that it's so you can stack those plus ones.
If you were only allowed a single bonus to the roll, it would probably have said that. Instead, it says you can't decrease the required number to succeed lower than a 4.

Regardless, I thought this book seemed pretty well written when it first came out in regards to rule interactions... a couple days later, I can see that, no, it's a fekking train wreck (do Wraiths assaulting through difficult terrain get reduced initiative, Praetorians not allowed in their own dedicated transport, is Gaze of Death usable while in CC, and of course, how do bonuses to RP actually work, etc.)
All we can do is pray to the Void Dragon that a FAQ comes soon...

The logic behind it would be that necron armies built with the FoC (as opposed to decurions) need a way to improve their RP. Crypteks and the Orb of Eternity allow for that.

+ I think cryptek + decurion - ID modifiers give a 4+ RP

Kangodo wrote:
Technically, yes.
I'm now thinking of some meme image:
"What GW thinks the rules do."
"What TO's think the rules do."
"What the rules actually do."

Don't forget:
"What the player thinks the rules do." =)

And perhaps "What his opponent thinks the the rules do"

Anyhow, until the FAQ comes, I'm gonna play it as all bonuses stack, together with the -1 modifier for insta death, but you never pass the roll on anything lower than a 4. That is the most logical interpretation, no matter what the rules actually do RAW...

jay_mo wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Technically, yes.
I'm now thinking of some meme image:
"What GW thinks the rules do."
"What TO's think the rules do."
"What the rules actually do."

Don't forget:
"What the player thinks the rules do." =)

And perhaps "What his opponent thinks the the rules do"

Anyhow, until the FAQ comes, I'm gonna play it as all bonuses stack, together with the -1 modifier for insta death, but you never pass the roll on anything lower than a 4. That is the most logical interpretation, no matter what the rules actually do RAW...

This. I wish everyone was as reasonable logic wise as what you just said. I know there will be necron players who argue tooth and nail raw, raw, raw all because it benifits them.

RP acting like FNP is IMO, stronger game wise than it used to be anyway, the only disadvantage from the previous method is where there were many wounds lost to empty wound pools. Simply moving the roll to before removal as a casualty means a model can succeed in multiple RP rolls against wounds where as before it would have only ever got one RP roll (minus SR re rolling etc).

Possibility of chain successes as opposed to only ever a singular roll to save a model is always going to be statistically better.

What is the problem with the new reanimation protocols? Can someone explain to me what's weird with the new rules.

Old RP was better in shooting because RP was taken at the end of the phase. So if you had 8 warriors knocked down waiting to take their RP (2 warriors from the unit hiding round the corner) no one else could shoot at them for the turn. WIth a res orb, four of them would get back up.

Now for shooting those same 8 warriors would take a wound after one enemy units shoots at them and four would survive. If they are engaged in shooting attacks by another enemy unit and they take between them 8 wounds then they make 4 saves and all die anyway.


In combat new RP is so much more powerful. At each inititive phase they get hit but more will survive as it's very difficult to over saturate wounds in the same way. Let's say the resolution of combat is eight wounds in the pool of 10 warriors. On average four will die... but six will get to fight at their ini step. Under old RP, only 2 would get to fight, and normally they'd be no RP save as they'd be swept up anyway.


Multi wond models get a huge bonus from the new rolls. In essence a tw-wound model gets twice as many saves as it used to against the same number of hits. Win.

Ffyllotek wrote:
Old RP was better in shooting because RP was taken at the end of the phase. So if you had 8 warriors knocked down waiting to take their RP (2 warriors from the unit hiding round the corner) no one else could shoot at them for the turn. WIth a res orb, four of them would get back up.

Now for shooting those same 8 warriors would take a wound after one enemy units shoots at them and four would survive. If they are engaged in shooting attacks by another enemy unit and they take between them 8 wounds then they make 4 saves and all die anyway.

Except that if the squad got wiped or failed its leadership test for 25+% casualties you didn't get to roll RP at all, and both were more common than situations in which a few models in the squad were out of LoS but everyone else got mowed down.

Ffyllotek wrote:
Old RP was better in shooting because RP was taken at the end of the phase. So if you had 8 warriors knocked down waiting to take their RP (2 warriors from the unit hiding round the corner) no one else could shoot at them for the turn. WIth a res orb, four of them would get back up.

As Galorian said, unless what i've underlined above was how you made sure you played your warriors, it very rarely happened.

jay_mo wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Technically, yes.
I'm now thinking of some meme image:
"What GW thinks the rules do."
"What TO's think the rules do."
"What the rules actually do."

Don't forget:
"What the player thinks the rules do." =)

And perhaps "What his opponent thinks the the rules do"

Anyhow, until the FAQ comes, I'm gonna play it as all bonuses stack, together with the -1 modifier for insta death, but you never pass the roll on anything lower than a 4. That is the most logical interpretation, no matter what the rules actually do RAW...

Well duuh, I don't think anyone would even dare to claim it.
The HIWPI is pretty unanimous, the issue is just that GW wrote rules that don't work. Not that this surprises anyone, because our favourite hobby is buying Citadel Models.

 Galorian wrote:

Ffyllotek wrote:
Old RP was better in shooting because RP was taken at the end of the phase. So if you had 8 warriors knocked down waiting to take their RP (2 warriors from the unit hiding round the corner) no one else could shoot at them for the turn. WIth a res orb, four of them would get back up.

Now for shooting those same 8 warriors would take a wound after one enemy units shoots at them and four would survive. If they are engaged in shooting attacks by another enemy unit and they take between them 8 wounds then they make 4 saves and all die anyway.

Except that if the squad got wiped or failed its leadership test for 25+% casualties you didn't get to roll RP at all, and both were more common than situations in which a few models in the squad were out of LoS but everyone else got mowed down.

True. Though ever-living (with ghost arc replenishment) could combat that a bit.

Ffyllotek wrote:

 Galorian wrote:

Ffyllotek wrote:
Old RP was better in shooting because RP was taken at the end of the phase. So if you had 8 warriors knocked down waiting to take their RP (2 warriors from the unit hiding round the corner) no one else could shoot at them for the turn. WIth a res orb, four of them would get back up.

Now for shooting those same 8 warriors would take a wound after one enemy units shoots at them and four would survive. If they are engaged in shooting attacks by another enemy unit and they take between them 8 wounds then they make 4 saves and all die anyway.

Except that if the squad got wiped or failed its leadership test for 25+% casualties you didn't get to roll RP at all, and both were more common than situations in which a few models in the squad were out of LoS but everyone else got mowed down.

True. Though ever-living (with ghost arc replenishment) could combat that a bit.

True, but now all characters are multi-wound models that benefit massively from the change regardless, and situations in which an Ever Living non-independent character model was the sole survivor of a Warriors squad that happened to have a functional Ghost Ark standing next to it are even rarer than the "out of LoS" example...

Actually there's another example of this in the game.

Nightmare Doll

The bearer of the Nightmare Doll adds 1 to any Feel No Pain rolls he makes. Furthermore, the Nightmare Doll automatically negates the first unsaved Wound with the Instant Death special rule that the bearer suffers, though as soon as it does so, the Nightmare Doll will immediately cease to work for the rest of the battle.


Cronos Spirit Probe

The model, and all friendly units with both the Dark Eldar Faction and the Feel No Pain special rule within 6" of one or more models with a spirit probe, receive a +1 bonus to their Feel No Pain (e.g. Feel No Pain would become Feel No Pain (4+). This is cumulative with any other modifiers to Feel No Pain, but cannot improve their Feel No Pain beyond 4+.


Does a model that have FNP 5+ , pass the roll on a natural 3 if it is in range of a Cronos and has the Night Mare Doll?

100% Yes it does because Nightmare Doll is not improving it's FNP beyond a 4+ , it's FNP is a 4+ and it passes on a 3 because it adds one to the roll and that becomes a 4.

Basic Rule Book Modifiers

Modifiers
Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.), subtracting from it (–1, –2, etc.), multiplying it (×2, ×3, etc.) or even setting its value (1, 8, etc.). Attacks and Wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10. A model’s Initiative cannot be modified below 1, and no other characteristic can be modified below 0.
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values. For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).


Reanimation Protocol:

When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Reanimation Protocols roll to avoid being wounded. This is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state ‘no saves of any kind are allowed’. Reanimation Protocols rolls may even be taken against hits with the Instant Death special rule, but cannot be used against hits from Destroyer weapons or any special rule or attack that states that the model is ‘removed from play’.

Roll a D6 each time the model suffers an unsaved Wound, subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death special rule. On a 5+, discount the unsaved Wound – treat it as having been saved. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+.


Technomancer:

Technomancer: This model and all models with the Reanimation Protocols special rule in his unit receive a +1 bonus to Reanimation Protocols rolls.

Decurion Legion :

COMMAND BENEFITS:
Ever-living: Models in this Detachment with the Reanimation Protocols special rule receive a +1 bonus to Reanimation Protocols rolls. Models in this Detachment with the Living Metal rule ignore the effects of Crew Stunned and Crew Shaken (but still lose a Hull Point)



These are not the same at all. They all modify the Dice Roll not the modifier itself, [/b] Reanimation Protocols, never changes from a 5+ , ever nothing changes this what changes is the modifiers to the dice roll and it specifically states that the modifiers can not make the dice roll better than a 4+ [/b]

So yeah it's not the same situation at all.

Hollismason wrote:
Reanimation Protocol:

When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Reanimation Protocols roll to avoid being wounded. This is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state ‘no saves of any kind are allowed’. Reanimation Protocols rolls may even be taken against hits with the Instant Death special rule, but cannot be used against hits from Destroyer weapons or any special rule or attack that states that the model is ‘removed from play’.

Roll a D6 each time the model suffers an unsaved Wound, subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death special rule. On a 5+, discount the unsaved Wound – treat it as having been saved. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+.

Ah, cool, that about settles it, then.

In the Marine Corps we have a term for people who debate the RAW versus the RAI. Sea Lawyers, and just like in the Marine Corps, it drives everyone nuts!

We all know what GW was trying to do but we will continue to debate it in the hopes of slightly breaking their game a bit more :-P

 Ghazkuul wrote:
We all know what GW was trying to do...

GW has proven time and again that when we think we know what they're trying to do they go and prove us wrong...

It's pretty clear, there's one specific situation that is similar but the language for it is completely different as I illustrated.

Hollismason wrote:
Actually there's another example of this in the game.

Spoiler:

Nightmare Doll

The bearer of the Nightmare Doll adds 1 to any Feel No Pain rolls he makes. Furthermore, the Nightmare Doll automatically negates the first unsaved Wound with the Instant Death special rule that the bearer suffers, though as soon as it does so, the Nightmare Doll will immediately cease to work for the rest of the battle.


Cronos Spirit Probe

The model, and all friendly units with both the Dark Eldar Faction and the Feel No Pain special rule within 6" of one or more models with a spirit probe, receive a +1 bonus to their Feel No Pain (e.g. Feel No Pain would become Feel No Pain (4+). This is cumulative with any other modifiers to Feel No Pain, but cannot improve their Feel No Pain beyond 4+.


Does a model that have FNP 5+ , pass the roll on a natural 3 if it is in range of a Cronos and has the Night Mare Doll?

100% Yes it does because Nightmare Doll is not improving it's FNP beyond a 4+ , it's FNP is a 4+ and it passes on a 3 because it adds one to the roll and that becomes a 4.

Basic Rule Book Modifiers

Modifiers
Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.), subtracting from it (–1, –2, etc.), multiplying it (×2, ×3, etc.) or even setting its value (1, 8, etc.). Attacks and Wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10. A model’s Initiative cannot be modified below 1, and no other characteristic can be modified below 0.
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values. For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).

If you go this faar arguing RaW then please note that the above rule is talking about "model’s characteristics", not special rules. So it has no effekt on RP.

Reanimation Protocol:

When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Reanimation Protocols roll to avoid being wounded. This is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state ‘no saves of any kind are allowed’. Reanimation Protocols rolls may even be taken against hits with the Instant Death special rule, but cannot be used against hits from Destroyer weapons or any special rule or attack that states that the model is ‘removed from play’.

Roll a D6 each time the model suffers an unsaved Wound, subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death special rule. On a 5+, discount the unsaved Wound – treat it as having been saved. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+.


Technomancer:

Technomancer: This model and all models with the Reanimation Protocols special rule in his unit receive a +1 bonus to Reanimation Protocols rolls.

Decurion Legion :

COMMAND BENEFITS:
Ever-living: Models in this Detachment with the Reanimation Protocols special rule receive a +1 bonus to Reanimation Protocols rolls. Models in this Detachment with the Living Metal rule ignore the effects of Crew Stunned and Crew Shaken (but still lose a Hull Point)



These are not the same at all. They all modify the Dice Roll not the modifier itself, [/b] Reanimation Protocols, never changes from a 5+ , ever nothing changes this what changes is the modifiers to the dice roll and it specifically states that the modifiers can not make the dice roll better than a 4+ [/b]

So yeah it's not the same situation at all.

with the exact rules you are quoting i do the following:
Proposition 1: The RP rule only allows the required number to be changed if its not for ID.
Proove:
RP is no characteristic of a modell - it is a special rule so all its belonging has to follow explicit rules. Therfore the only way to modify a RP roll (or its needed value) is per the RP rule itselfe. It allows this by saying:

Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll

This means we do have the possibility to change something belonging to the dice roll. Which one? The logical value of the dice or the value needed to pass the RP test? Read a bit further:

these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+

This clearly states that the thing that gets modfied is "the required dice roll".
Only exception from this is against ID wounds - how these are handled is described within the RP rules itselfe so is inside that element that can tell you direcly what has to happen without needing another rule.
Nothing else is specified in the RP rules themselfes.
Q.E.D

Proposition 2: the other rules changing RP rolls dont break proposition 1
Proove:
All the rules that change RP "from the outside" (so are not due to ID (which is handled elsewhere)) have the exact wording:

receive a +1 bonus to Reanimation Protocols rolls

This is only an unspecific bonus that does not say anything about how its applayed but has to follow the RP rule (see above). Otherwise we needed a role that stated exactly what a "bonus" is. But: Looking to proposition 1 we can determin how this bonus should work: it improoves the required roll for RP. And pls dont get confused with math here - GW never applayed correct math with their modfires and the signum of the change. The +1 is to be seen as improoving thus "making better" the requried part of a dice roll and is thus positive to refer to it as positive effekt. Since this is done in the BRB and several codices several times it is not a strict rule but a common concept. If we wouldnt applay it here it would leed to a reductio ad absurdum because then we would make RP worse in cases where it is obvious (and even stated) to be a positive bonus.
Q.E.D.

I think i've finally got what the argument is... -_-"

Side A: Rules that give Reanimation Protocols bonuses add value to a dice thrown, with RP still only passing on a 5+

Side B: The rules that give RP bonuses modify the required roll, up to a 4+ because the roll cannot be better.

So when i roll a RP with 3 bonuses, and i roll a 3:
-Side A says i rolled a 3+3 so i actually rolled a 6: Passed the RP
-Side B says i rolled a 3 but a 5-3 = 2+, but a 4 is the lowest that is needed: I failed my RP.

Right?

 BlackTalos wrote:
I think i've finally got what the argument is... -_-"

Side A: Rules that give Reanimation Protocols bonuses add value to a dice thrown, with RP still only passing on a 5+

Side B: The rules that give RP bonuses modify the required roll, up to a 4+ because the roll cannot be better.

So when i roll a RP with 3 bonuses, and i roll a 3:
-Side A says i rolled a 3+3 so i actually rolled a 6: Passed the RP
-Side B says i rolled a 3 but a 5-3 = 2+, but a 4 is the lowest that is needed: I failed my RP.

Right?

This is correct.

My analysis of RaW tells me that Side A is technically correct... BUT I think that GW would Errata this thing in a heartbeat (if they actually issued timely and comprehensive FAQs) to make anything less than a natural 4+ a failure. I know we can never truly know RaI, but it seems pretty damned clear in this instance.

Same as many other things on this forum... work it out with your friends, but don't expect strangers or tournaments to be all right with a 2+ RP roll. It may technically follow the letter of the rules, but it's taking a crap on the spirit.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I think i've finally got what the argument is... -_-"

Side A: Rules that give Reanimation Protocols bonuses add value to a dice thrown, with RP still only passing on a 5+

Side B: The rules that give RP bonuses modify the required roll, up to a 4+ because the roll cannot be better.

So when i roll a RP with 3 bonuses, and i roll a 3:
-Side A says i rolled a 3+3 so i actually rolled a 6: Passed the RP
-Side B says i rolled a 3 but a 5-3 = 2+, but a 4 is the lowest that is needed: I failed my RP.

Right?

Yes.

And then there is also a pessimistic Side C, that says if the value is ever under 4 the bonus is dropped. So lets say I have 1 cryptek + Ever-living:

5+ is my original value
4+ is my modified value with the cryptek
4+ is still my modified value with Ever-living (since it can never be better)
Instant death wounds removes 1 from the roll -> you need a 5 to pass an ID wound, no matter how many bonuses you have =)

This was actually how I understood it the first time I read the rule (I thought the +1's modified the value of the (not a) save while the -1 modified the actual roll) but after reading the rules for bonuses in the BRB I decided Side B makes the most sense imo, while Side A may have a point RAW.

 Kriswall wrote:




My analysis of RaW tells me that Side A is technically correct...

It thats true my argument (see above) has to be wrong, can you tell me where i made a mistake?

theProgramm wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:




My analysis of RaW tells me that Side A is technically correct...

It thats true my argument (see above) has to be wrong, can you tell me where i made a mistake?

The issue is in the rule itself...

"Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+."

So, I take a wound, I make an RP save. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll. I have a Technomancer present AND am under the effect of Ever-Living. I have, in essence, a +2 to my RP dice rolls. I know this, because I'm told these modifiers are cumulative.

I'm also told that the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+. The required dice roll for Reanimation Protocols is 5+. There is no current piece of wargear and current special rule that modifies the required dice roll to be lower than a 5+. There is nothing currently in the game that gives you a Reanimation Protocol rule with a 4+ or lower REQUIRED ROLL to be effective. Every rule in question modifies each individual RP roll to give a +1. This is not the same as modifying to require 4+ or lower. This is the core issue.

So, to continue my example... my Cryptek is in a Unit of Warriors and they're all under the effect of Ever-Living. A Warrior takes a wound. He has the Reanimation Protocols rule. Reanimation Protocols requires a 5+ to save a wound. I don't have any rules currently in play changing this 5+ to anything else, so I roll my D6. I get a 3. I know I'm under the effect of Ever-Living, so I add +1. I'm now at a 4. I'm also under the effect of Technomancer, and I know that these modifiers are cumulative, so I add another +1. I'm now at 5. I don't have any other rules to consider. Did my D6 roll satisfy the Reanimation Protocols special rule of a required 5+ roll? It did. The result of my D6 roll was a 5 after all modifiers, so my Warrior keeps chugging along.

The writing is sloppy. They should not have said "...but the required dice roll...". They should have said "...but THIS dice roll...". The core issue is that the required roll is an abstract associated with the RP rule and is always at 5+. RP tells us this required roll can never be improved to be better than a 4+, but we're not trying to change the 5+ requirement.

HIWPI: Now, I almost certainly know what the intended. I think we all do. They (VERY LIKELY) intended it to work like this...

Condition 1: Warriors alone. They get an RP roll on a 5+. If they get tagged with an ID wound, they are at an efffective 6+.
Condition 2: Warriors w/ONE +1 modifier. They get an effective RP roll on a 4+. If they get tagged with an ID wound they are at an effective 5+.
Condition 3: Warriors w/TWO +1 modifiers. They get an effective RP roll on a 4+, regardless of whether or not the wound was an ID wound.

BUT... intentions and HIWPI have no impact whatsoever on a RaW debate. You have to put aside your confirmation bias (I know what they meant so I'll interpret the rules to support that belief) and do a really critical analysis of what's written on the page. I think GW made a mistake. The rules don't actually do what they seem to have intended.

 Kriswall wrote:

You have to put aside your confirmation bias (I know what they meant so I'll interpret the rules to support that belief) and do a really critical analysis of what's written on the page. I think GW made a mistake. The rules don't actually do what they seem to have intended.

While you act the exact other way around? Youre so stiff into your fix idear that you dont even see the point that im trying to argue about. This is not ment as insult!

Lets look at your argument:

I'm also told that the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+. The required dice roll for Reanimation Protocols is 5+. There is no current piece of wargear and current special rule that modifies the required dice roll to be lower than a 5+. There is nothing currently in the game that gives you a Reanimation Protocol rule with a 4+ or lower REQUIRED ROLL to be effective. Every rule in question modifies each individual RP roll to give a +1. This is not the same as modifying to require 4+ or lower. This is the core issue.

I told you why this is wrong. In fact you have to change the required dice roll - and you dont change the virtual value of the roll itselfe (besides for ID - that substraction modifies the value of the rolled dice but thats irrelevant here). My argument: All rules that let you improove your RP are worded with "bonus". And there is no rule that tells you that this kind of "bonus" is to be read as "improve the logical value of the dice you rolled". It is no where in the BRB stated. So you have to look at the rule it targets to find out in which way this bonus has to be applayed. And in that rule its explicitly worded that you have to modify the required roll.

Now its your turn.

theProgramm wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

You have to put aside your confirmation bias (I know what they meant so I'll interpret the rules to support that belief) and do a really critical analysis of what's written on the page. I think GW made a mistake. The rules don't actually do what they seem to have intended.

While you act the exact other way around? Youre so stiff into your fix idear that you dont even see the point that im trying to argue about. This is not ment as insult!

Lets look at your argument:

I'm also told that the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+. The required dice roll for Reanimation Protocols is 5+. There is no current piece of wargear and current special rule that modifies the required dice roll to be lower than a 5+. There is nothing currently in the game that gives you a Reanimation Protocol rule with a 4+ or lower REQUIRED ROLL to be effective. Every rule in question modifies each individual RP roll to give a +1. This is not the same as modifying to require 4+ or lower. This is the core issue.

I told you why this is wrong. In fact you have to change the required dice roll - and you dont change the virtual value of the roll itselfe (besides for ID - that substraction modifies the value of the rolled dice but thats irrelevant here). My argument: All rules that let you improove your RP are worded with "bonus". And there is no rule that tells you that this kind of "bonus" is to be read as "improve the logical value of the dice you rolled". It is no where in the BRB stated. So you have to look at the rule it targets to find out in which way this bonus has to be applayed. And in that rule its explicitly worded that you have to modify the required roll.

Now its your turn.

Technomancer doesn't explicitly say it modifies the REQUIRED roll. It says it gives a +1 bonus to RP rolls. Two very different things. Presumably, the REQUIRED roll is still a 5+, per the RP rule.

And if Bonus is undefined, then we are at an impasse. The rules must be subject to interpretation. I interpret "+1 bonus to RP rolls" to means adding one each time a roll a D6 to make an RP 'save'. You seem to interpret "+1 bonus to RP rolls" to mean "don't change the RP rolls at all, but instead change the required value I need to achieve".

And again, I'm arguing RaW here. In a real game situation, I would neither allow nor expect to have allowed multiple modifiers resulting in an effective 2+ or 3+ RP roll. I think this would be against the spirit, if not the letter, of the RP rule.

its a matter of semantics and how people interpret the words written. GW said it added +1 to the dice roll and we all know they meant it lowered the required roll from a 5+ to a 4+ but because people like to be competitive and be a bunch of Sea Lawyers they are trying to make it a +1 modifier to the dice roll itself. I think GW thought they had figured it out when they said "Can never be better then 4+" but our sea lawyers have attempted to find a loop hole. Im hoping to play a Necron player next week and I promise you if he tried this nonsense against me I would politely ask him to do it the other way, and if he refused I would pack it up and say I would rather not play you.

I doubt ANYONE in GW wanted to give an entire detachment of necrons what amounts to a 2++ for the entire game. That is absurd and we all know it.

 Kriswall wrote:


And again, I'm arguing RaW here. In a real game situation, I would neither allow nor expect to have allowed multiple modifiers resulting in an effective 2+ or 3+ RP roll. I think this would be against the spirit, if not the letter, of the RP rule.

No one would claim this in a real game scenario, its obviously just a RaW discussion. But that makes it even more important to be extremly precise.

Technomancer doesn't explicitly say it modifies the REQUIRED roll. It says it gives a +1 bonus to RP rolls. Two very different things. Presumably, the REQUIRED roll is still a 5+, per the RP rule.

Neither does it explicitly say taht you have to modify the rolled value.

And you are (at first glance) right:

And if Bonus is undefined, then we are at an impasse. The rules must be subject to interpretation. I interpret "+1 bonus to RP rolls" to means adding one each time a roll a D6 to make an RP 'save'. You seem to interpret "+1 bonus to RP rolls" to mean "don't change the RP rolls at all, but instead change the required value I need to achieve".

But then we look at the (much quoted) RP rules again, where it says:

Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll

This means we do have the possibility to change something belonging to the RP roll. Without this we would only be allowed to modify the dice itselfe not the required number because thats all the BRB allows. But this rule itselfe sais that there is the possibility for modifications. It says not to what nor in which way, just that this rule can be altered. To get on which way it is altered by such modifications we have to read a bit further:

these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+

This is the only part that ever specificaly states what has to be changed and it says "the required dice roll". Arguing in any other way wuold contradic this - and as you are trying to circumvent a restriction it is your duty to proove without any doubt that you can do it. Which you - as faar as i have shown - cant.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
its a matter of semantics and how people interpret the words written. GW said it added +1 to the dice roll and we all know they meant it lowered the required roll from a 5+ to a 4+ but because people like to be competitive and be a bunch of Sea Lawyers they are trying to make it a +1 modifier to the dice roll itself. I think GW thought they had figured it out when they said "Can never be better then 4+" but our sea lawyers have attempted to find a loop hole. Im hoping to play a Necron player next week and I promise you if he tried this nonsense against me I would politely ask him to do it the other way, and if he refused I would pack it up and say I would rather not play you.

I doubt ANYONE in GW wanted to give an entire detachment of necrons what amounts to a 2++ for the entire game. That is absurd and we all know it.

Of course it's absurd. That's why I keep saying that even though it's how I believe the rules currently work, I would never play it that way. The rule is at worst broken and at best ambiguous. Best case scenario, we get an FAQ or Errate.

Also, what is a "Sea Lawyer"? I've never heard that term. I feel like it's some sort of insult, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I debate these things because I love the game, love knowing how things work and like to hash out these sorts of issues in a non-game environment so that I can know what to expect during an actual game. For example, next time I play my Necrons friend, I'll say, "Hey, to be clear, stacking +1 bonuses to RP rolls still means you need to roll an actual, unmodified 4 or better. Can we agree this is how we're going to play this?". I'm not doing this to be competitive. I'm doing this because I enjoy debating.

Sea lawyer is a term used by Marines. It basically means someone who thinks they know every rule and law of the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) and will debate it to prove themselves correct to anyone of equal or higher rank. Usually these guys get 1: ordered to guard a fence post for 4 hours in the sun, or 2: politely told to go F*ck themselves :-P

I don't miss my days in the Military but the terminology and mannerisms are still fun to this day.

Semper Fi

 Kriswall wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
its a matter of semantics and how people interpret the words written. GW said it added +1 to the dice roll and we all know they meant it lowered the required roll from a 5+ to a 4+ but because people like to be competitive and be a bunch of Sea Lawyers they are trying to make it a +1 modifier to the dice roll itself. I think GW thought they had figured it out when they said "Can never be better then 4+" but our sea lawyers have attempted to find a loop hole. Im hoping to play a Necron player next week and I promise you if he tried this nonsense against me I would politely ask him to do it the other way, and if he refused I would pack it up and say I would rather not play you.

I doubt ANYONE in GW wanted to give an entire detachment of necrons what amounts to a 2++ for the entire game. That is absurd and we all know it.

Of course it's absurd. That's why I keep saying that even though it's how I believe the rules currently work, I would never play it that way. The rule is at worst broken and at best ambiguous. Best case scenario, we get an FAQ or Errate.

Also, what is a "Sea Lawyer"? I've never heard that term. I feel like it's some sort of insult, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I debate these things because I love the game, love knowing how things work and like to hash out these sorts of issues in a non-game environment so that I can know what to expect during an actual game. For example, next time I play my Necrons friend, I'll say, "Hey, to be clear, stacking +1 bonuses to RP rolls still means you need to roll an actual, unmodified 4 or better. Can we agree this is how we're going to play this?". I'm not doing this to be competitive. I'm doing this because I enjoy debating.

this

theProgramm wrote:

these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+

This is the only part that ever specificaly states what has to be changed and it says "the required dice roll". Arguing in any other way wuold contradic this - and as you are trying to circumvent a restriction it is your duty to proove without any doubt that you can do it. Which you - as faar as i have shown - cant.

Actually...

"Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+."

The modifiers are provided to "this dice roll". This dice roll refers to the previous sentence instructing you to roll a die as part of using Reanimation Protocols when you take a wound. We are never told that the modifiers from "certain special rules and wargear items" impacts the base required roll of a 5+. Again, this is my core issue. All of the special rules and wargear items modify the roll itself and not the "target". You always need to satisfy a 5+ requirement when making an RP roll. The number you need on each die will change depending on how many modifiers are in play, but you always need to achieve a 5+.

Again, I think this is just another example of sloppy rules writing with GW making assumptions about how their rules work.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
its a matter of semantics and how people interpret the words written. GW said it added +1 to the dice roll and we all know they meant it lowered the required roll from a 5+ to a 4+ but because people like to be competitive and be a bunch of Sea Lawyers they are trying to make it a +1 modifier to the dice roll itself. I think GW thought they had figured it out when they said "Can never be better then 4+" but our sea lawyers have attempted to find a loop hole. Im hoping to play a Necron player next week and I promise you if he tried this nonsense against me I would politely ask him to do it the other way, and if he refused I would pack it up and say I would rather not play you.

I doubt ANYONE in GW wanted to give an entire detachment of necrons what amounts to a 2++ for the entire game. That is absurd and we all know it.

Of course it's absurd. That's why I keep saying that even though it's how I believe the rules currently work, I would never play it that way. The rule is at worst broken and at best ambiguous. Best case scenario, we get an FAQ or Errate.

Also, what is a "Sea Lawyer"? I've never heard that term. I feel like it's some sort of insult, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I debate these things because I love the game, love knowing how things work and like to hash out these sorts of issues in a non-game environment so that I can know what to expect during an actual game. For example, next time I play my Necrons friend, I'll say, "Hey, to be clear, stacking +1 bonuses to RP rolls still means you need to roll an actual, unmodified 4 or better. Can we agree this is how we're going to play this?". I'm not doing this to be competitive. I'm doing this because I enjoy debating.

Krisswall, you must have missed the post on the previous page:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
In the Marine Corps we have a term for people who debate the RAW versus the RAI. Sea Lawyers, and just like in the Marine Corps, it drives everyone nuts!

We all know what GW was trying to do but we will continue to debate it in the hopes of slightly breaking their game a bit more :-P

Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain this and confirming my guesses.

As to my point of view:
A do agree that the "bonuses" are meant to be modifying the Results of the roll - "Side A"(and not the requirement of the roll - "Side B")

As per the rules of how: "subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death"
(Which is very clear that you remove the "-1" from the number you see on the dice, not the 5+ you are required to roll...)

And:"Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll; these are cumulative"
This says modifiers to the dice roll, not to the requirement.

However.

The wording that comes after: "the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+."
Directly linked to the previous statement by a semicolon, is clearly referring to these "items" and how they cannot improve this roll to be better than a 4+.

This seems like a very big contradiction.

One method of resolving this however, would be to take the rule literally, with the wording of 4+ rather than numbers:

"Roll a D6 each time the model suffers an unsaved Wound, subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death special rule. On a five or more, discount the unsaved Wound – treat it as having been saved. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than a four or more."

Reading the above, the rule actually seems very clear (to me anyway). And completely in line with "Side B":
5+, 4+ is not a requirement.
It is the value read on the roll:
If the roll is a five or more, then ...
The roll can be improved so that a four (or more) meets the required roll.
But if the dice rolled is a 3, it can never meet the required roll, whatever bonuses this dice roll has.

My conclusion and my HIWPI would both match:
Rolling a 3 on RP will never bring the model back. But rolling a 4 probably will, even if it reached by 4+1+1-1.
So having two +1 bonuses would negate the ID -1 penalty, bringing the required 5 down to a needed roll of a 4.

If the only thing we can agree on is a pretty sloppy rules writing:
Hey, it's the first time they tried RP worded this way. It's bound to have issues...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
All of the special rules and wargear items modify the roll itself and not the "target". You always need to satisfy a 5+ requirement when making an RP roll. The number you need on each die will change depending on how many modifiers are in play, but you always need to achieve a 5+.

Yes, this would be exactly how i see it, and that the statement: "the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+." Actually refers the to result (modified) obtained on the Dice. It is saying that even though modifiers can change the result "seen" (that needs to go up to 5), this "improvement" can never be better than a 4 to meet the requirement of 5.

"the required dice roll (of a 5) can never be improved to be better than 4+" (that is then improved to go above 5)

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
its a matter of semantics and how people interpret the words written. GW said it added +1 to the dice roll and we all know they meant it lowered the required roll from a 5+ to a 4+ but because people like to be competitive and be a bunch of Sea Lawyers they are trying to make it a +1 modifier to the dice roll itself. I think GW thought they had figured it out when they said "Can never be better then 4+" but our sea lawyers have attempted to find a loop hole. Im hoping to play a Necron player next week and I promise you if he tried this nonsense against me I would politely ask him to do it the other way, and if he refused I would pack it up and say I would rather not play you.

I doubt ANYONE in GW wanted to give an entire detachment of necrons what amounts to a 2++ for the entire game. That is absurd and we all know it.

Of course it's absurd. That's why I keep saying that even though it's how I believe the rules currently work, I would never play it that way. The rule is at worst broken and at best ambiguous. Best case scenario, we get an FAQ or Errate.

Also, what is a "Sea Lawyer"? I've never heard that term. I feel like it's some sort of insult, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I debate these things because I love the game, love knowing how things work and like to hash out these sorts of issues in a non-game environment so that I can know what to expect during an actual game. For example, next time I play my Necrons friend, I'll say, "Hey, to be clear, stacking +1 bonuses to RP rolls still means you need to roll an actual, unmodified 4 or better. Can we agree this is how we're going to play this?". I'm not doing this to be competitive. I'm doing this because I enjoy debating.

Krisswall, you must have missed the post on the previous page:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
In the Marine Corps we have a term for people who debate the RAW versus the RAI. Sea Lawyers, and just like in the Marine Corps, it drives everyone nuts!

We all know what GW was trying to do but we will continue to debate it in the hopes of slightly breaking their game a bit more :-P

Ah. I did miss that. Thanks. To be fair though, not all of us are doing this to break the game a bit more. Some of us are doing this to point out how sloppy the game is. Sea Lawyer appears to be an insult in this context and I'd rather not be insulted for my interpretation of the rules. Always best to leave personal attacks (even if they're against general types of people and not specific individuals) out of a rules debate.

I personally like to know all of these "debates" so that if my local gaming group comes up with them i can say:
"Hey, this rule is a mess, you can read it like this OR like this" Shall we care or shall we play?

The later is often chosen with a possible "you won because of that" comment.
I rarely do Tourneys, as well... But i hear the "issues" are usually fixed for those.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I personally like to know all of these "debates" so that if my local gaming group comes up with them i can say:
"Hey, this rule is a mess, you can read it like this OR like this" Shall we care or shall we play?

The later is often chosen with a possible "you won because of that" comment.
I rarely do Tourneys, as well... But i hear the "issues" are usually fixed for those.

Yeah, I rarely do Tourneys either, but pretty frequently use their tourney FAQs for guidance on how the overall community sees certain issues. It's a great HYWPI resource.

I think I did a piss poor job of explaining Sea Lawyers, its not an insult. I really can't describe it because by everyone higher ranking they hate them, by everyone lower ranking they are adored like freedom fighters. It's one of those "you have to have been there" words I guess. Trust me I am not launching ad hominem at you :-P

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I think I did a piss poor job of explaining Sea Lawyers, its not an insult. I really can't describe it because by everyone higher ranking they hate them, by everyone lower ranking they are adored like freedom fighters. It's one of those "you have to have been there" words I guess. Trust me I am not launching ad hominem at you :-P

Gotcha. I appreciate the explanation. One of the recurring issues with using industry jargon outside an industry... it's commonly misinterpreted or misunderstood! I work in high net worth banking and I run into this alot when trying to explain things to friends.

Kriswall... do you have a high bus-factor?

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Kriswall... do you have a high bus-factor?

Can't be having a low bus factor with all those crazies buses out there.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I think I did a piss poor job of explaining Sea Lawyers, its not an insult. I really can't describe it because by everyone higher ranking they hate them, by everyone lower ranking they are adored like freedom fighters. It's one of those "you have to have been there" words I guess. Trust me I am not launching ad hominem at you :-P

Yeah... I think its probably safe to just stop using the phrase "Sea Lawyers" in a sci-fi wargaming rules forum. That'd probably be the easiest thing. We already have a handy term; Rules Lawyer, which involves the word "Lawyer", the word "Rules", and leaves out all confusing references to the great briny deep.

In the same way I'm sure the military doesn't refer to China as a "WAAC power gamer" or to Kim Jong-un as "That Guy". But maybe they do - I'm not sure.

Back on topic... actually I find the whole discussion really confusing and I'd like to play this correctly. :(
It sounds like RAI you can improve the roll so that if you get hit with ID you still reanimate on a 4+ but can never go lower than 4+
But RAW you theoretically could go lower than 4+ but it's against the obvious intent.
Is that a good summary?

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

Back on topic... actually I find the whole discussion really confusing and I'd like to play this correctly. :(
It sounds like RAI you can improve the roll so that if you get hit with ID you still reanimate on a 4+ but can never go lower than 4+
But RAW you theoretically could go lower than 4+ but it's against the obvious intent.
Is that a good summary?

Well since im on the "it works well the way it is wirtten - besides its crappy written" team i have to disagree I think no1 will question anymore if ID with 2 +1 modifiers is 4+ or 5+ (almost everyone came to 4+) but if "it could RaW be 2+" holds true is imo wrong. And since the RaI is clear it is the duty of all those "2+ is possible"-sayers to proove why that is possible against the clear intent and while breaking some other rules. (and so faar i could disproove all those atempts (at least imo - but since no1 could proove those arguments wrong they still stand as beeing true)).

/Edit: i dotn want to be a dick here and restate my opinion on every possible situation but the side that claims this shennanigans to be true is wrong and since they get restated over and over (albeit beeing wrong) it leads to the common oppinion adapting it out of sheer mass of statements and because the rule is in fact extrem poorly written.

theProgramm wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:




My analysis of RaW tells me that Side A is technically correct...

It thats true my argument (see above) has to be wrong, can you tell me where i made a mistake?

Your mistake stems from your assumption.

theProgramm wrote:Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll

This means we do have the possibility to change something belonging to the dice roll. Which one? The logical value of the dice or the value needed to pass the RP test? Read a bit further:
these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+
This clearly states that the thing that gets modfied is "the required dice roll".
Only exception from this is against ID wounds - how these are handled is described within the RP rules itselfe so is inside that element that can tell you direcly what has to happen without needing another rule.
Nothing else is specified in the RP rules themselfes.
Q.E.D

The required number is in fact not part of the dice roll. It is what the dice roll is compared to to see if the RP passed or failed. It's the same as saying the cost of an item is linked to the amount of money you have.....

The semicolon links two related yet separate statements by definition. Using the second part of the sentence to make a decision that the first must be speaking about the required roll means you are not treating them as separate statements. You need to prove that the required roll is what the first part is speaking about to make that assumption and there isn't enough verbage there to make that assumption. We know they are taking about RP modification. That alone can be, and is, what people are reading as linking those statements.

Yeah I can't see how people are confused with this at all?

Roll a D6 each time the model suffers an unsaved Wound, subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death special rule. On a 5+, discount the unsaved Wound – treat it as having been saved. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+.

It's not saying your RP can not be better than a 4+ it's literally stating that the physical roll you make can never be better than a 4+, meaning if you Physically roll a 3. Regardless of modifiers it fails becuase you have physically not rolled a 4+.

The situation I discussed earlier with the Cronos and Nightmare doll is a competely seperate but kind analogous to this situation. It's a situation where one thing modifies the roll and one thing modifies the actual save itself , so that there are two seperate modifications being made one is being made to the save itself one is being made to the roll


Again there is nothing in the game that modifies the RP to being a 4+, it's only the affected dice roll and the rule clearly states that if you physically do not roll a 4, 5, or 6 when you have a modifier making the 4 a 5. You fail the roll

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah I can't see how people are confused with this at all?

Roll a D6 each time the model suffers an unsaved Wound, subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death special rule. On a 5+, discount the unsaved Wound – treat it as having been saved. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+.

It's not saying your RP can not be better than a 4+ it's literally stating that the physical roll you make can never be better than a 4+, meaning if you Physically roll a 3. Regardless of modifiers it fails becuase you have physically not rolled a 4+.

The situation I discussed earlier with the Cronos and Nightmare doll is a competely seperate but kind analogous to this situation. It's a situation where one thing modifies the roll and one thing modifies the actual save itself , so that there are two seperate modifications being made one is being made to the save itself one is being made to the roll


Again there is nothing in the game that modifies the RP to being a 4+, it's only the affected dice roll and the rule clearly states that if you physically do not roll a 4, 5, or 6 when you have a modifier making the 4 a 5. You fail the roll

Hollismason... the issue with what you're saying is that the required dice roll is still a 5+, per the Reanimation Protocol special rule, even in the presence of something like a Cryptek's Technomancer special rule. The rules are written poorly. The required roll is ALWAYS 5+ and nothing currently in the game lowers this requirement.

It's almost a semantic difference, but it's an extraordinarily important one. If my Warriors are under the influence of a Cryptek's Technomancer special rule, Reanimation Protocols still REQUIRES a 5+ to have an effect. Technomancer doesn't change this requirement. What Technomancer ACTUALLY does is take the ACTUAL, IN GAME RP rolls and adds 1 to them. So, if I roll a 4, Technomancer kicks in and ups the 4 to a 5. I then compare this 5 to the REQUIRED 5+ per the RP special rule and note that I'm successful.

It's seems clear that GW didn't want unmodified RP rolls of 3 or lower to be successful. This is not what they actually wrote. I'm expecting an FAQ or Errata to make this happen. This is how I'm currently playing it. I'm not arguing that 2+ RP rolls SHOULD be in game, but that GW accidentally made it doable.

There's no loophole , it's clearly written that the dice roll cannot be better than a 4+, so no matter what if you roll less than a 4, 5, or 6 on that dice roll regardless of modifiers you have failed the test.

That's why it says " Dice Roll" and not " RP save".

If it said " RP save cannot be better than a 4+ " then you'd totally be correct, but it doesn't it says the required roll can not be better than a 4+.

The same situation that causes Cronos and Night Mare doll to work together, is the same reason this doesn't work together because the wording matches across the board.

Hollismason wrote:
There's no loophole , it's clearly written that the dice roll cannot be better than a 4+, so no matter what if you roll less than a 4, 5, or 6 on that dice roll regardless of modifiers you have failed the test.

Actually it says "... the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+..." As Kriswall pointed out, the Cryptek's Technomancer rule doesn't modify the required roll, it modifies the results of the actual physical roll.

Dude that's the physical dice roll. Seriously that's what that literally says.

Dice Roll, if you roll anything but a 123 on a dice roll regardless of modifiers that fails because of the wording of that rule.

I honestly can't tell if people just aren't getting it or it needs to be explained more. It's clear as day that saying the Required Dice roll can never be better than a 4+, means that if you roll a 3 and you have +1 modifer and another +1 modifier it fails. Because you did not roll a 4+.

You would think necron players would be happy enough already getting what amounts to a 4++ for the entire army :-P

Sorry not a 4++ it would function more like a 4++ FNP because you get it even against double toughness or insta death weapons. The only thing that still kill instantly is Destroyer weapons :-P

Hollismason wrote:
Dude that's the physical dice roll. Seriously that's what that literally says.

Dice Roll, if you roll anything but a 123 on a dice roll regardless of modifiers that fails because of the wording of that rule.

I honestly can't tell if people just aren't getting it or it needs to be explained more. It's clear as day that saying the Required Dice roll can never be better than a 4+, means that if you roll a 3 and you have +1 modifer and another +1 modifier it fails. Because you did not roll a 4+.

Actually, I feel more or less the same way.

Ultimately, this comes down to your interpretation of "the required roll". I interpret it as "the value I need to roll to achieve a successful reanimation". This is ALWAYS a 5+. There is not a single rule in the entire Necron Codex that changes the 5+ to a 4+ REQUIREMENT. It is ALWAYS a 5+. If you disagree, show me a rule that explicitly changes the 5+ REQUIRED ROLL to a 4+. You can't, because no rule does this. What the rules ACTUALLY do is add one to your roll each time you roll for RP. So, if I roll a 4, I take my +1 bonus (4+1=5) and am able to satisfy the 5+ REQUIRED ROLL. The roll required to activate RP is still a 5+ in this situation. The fact that I get a +1 bonus has ZERO impact on the fact that RP still requires a 5 or higher.

I agree that this is bad. I agree that this isn't what GW intended. I agree that nobody should play it this way. I agree that tourneys will say nothing less than an unmodified 4 will work. I agree that you shouldn't expect strangers to allow less than an unmodified 4 to work.

BUT...

Rules as Written are Rules as Written. This is likely a mistake and likely needs to be Errata'd or FAQ'd. I'm not trying to "pull a fast one" or "rules lawyer my way to a benefit". I'm trying to point out logical issues with GW's rule set... point out the flaws, so to speak. Ideally, this will be fixed in an FAQ/Errata sooner than later. My end goal is a well written and unambiguous rule set.

At best, the rules are ambiguous and confusing (as evidenced by this debate). At worst, they inadvertently allow a 2+ RP 'save'.

Hollismason wrote:
Dude that's the physical dice roll. Seriously that's what that literally says.

Dice Roll, if you roll anything but a 123 on a dice roll regardless of modifiers that fails because of the wording of that rule.

I honestly can't tell if people just aren't getting it or it needs to be explained more. It's clear as day that saying the Required Dice roll can never be better than a 4+, means that if you roll a 3 and you have +1 modifer and another +1 modifier it fails. Because you did not roll a 4+.

The 'required dice roll' is the target number that must be met or exceeded by the result of the physical dice roll. It is not the physical dice roll, but the number you compare the physical dice roll to in order to determine success or failure. Your trying to say if a target shooter got to move the target 50 yards closer to his shooting position its the same as him moving his shooting position 50 yards closer to the target. Its not the same thing.

Are you just ignoring this entire sentence?

Roll a D6 each time the model suffers an unsaved Wound, subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death special rule. On a 5+, discount the unsaved Wound – treat it as having been saved. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+.

I don't know how it can be any clearer. It is directly stating that the dice roll if it is worse than a 4, 5, or 6 cannot ever succeed regardless of modifiers to the actual dice roll.

Are you ignoring this?

Technomancer: This model and all models with the Reanimation Protocols special rule in his unit receive a +1 bonus to Reanimation Protocols rolls.

Technomancer doesn't modify the 'required dice roll', it modifies the actual physical roll.

No one is ignoring it, you are misunderstanding it. The required dice roll is always 5+. The roll itself is what is being modified per pg 11 BRB.

 Ghaz wrote:
Are you ignoring this?

Technomancer: This model and all models with the Reanimation Protocols special rule in his unit receive a +1 bonus to Reanimation Protocols rolls.

Technomancer doesn't modify the 'required dice roll', it modifies the actual physical roll.

Oh Please don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n , it's a wording technicality.
By RAW you're right... that's not good.
That's really not good.
(how do we expedite a FAQ already?)

No it's not, it's them thinking it's saying one thing because they want to obfuscate the issue.

If you have 2 Technomancers in the squad and you roll a 3, does it become a 5?

No because as it states

Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+

The required roll to pass can never be better than a 4+.

If you would succeed your RP on a 2+ meaning you physically rolled a 2, even with bonuses you would fail because that rule states it cannot happen.

It's not even semantics, it's just bad comprehension of words.

You want it to say one thing, similar to the way that the Cronos and Nightmare doll work but it doesn't it's worded completely differently.

See my previous posts for the nightmare doll and cronos wording and why that works and this doesn't.

Cool, the required Roll is a 5++, your dice roll is a 2, you add a bonus of 3 from three sources of "RP Bonus" this isn't modifying what you require to roll, this is adding numbers to your physical roll making it a total of a 5++

No, because we know that any dice rolled that is lower than a 4+ will not succeed regardless of modifiers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Literally the rules :

Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4.

What do the words Dice Roll mean? Do they mean save? No.

This thread just come going around and around.

yup, because its people playing semantics, trying to make necrons completely broken and probably unbeatable by anyone. Armor save or invul save if they have one and then a 2+ reanimation roll....yeah thats what GW wanted

'Required' Dice roll could be referencing the original requirement, or when is required when you actually roll the dice. The latter would mean regardless of modifiers to the roll, a 4 on the dice is [physically] required.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
yup, because its people playing semantics, trying to make necrons completely broken and probably unbeatable by anyone. Armor save or invul save if they have one and then a 2+ reanimation roll....yeah thats what GW wanted

No, people aren't trying to make Necrons completely broken and probably unbeatable.
People are trying to point out how, for the hundredth time, Games Workshop failed to correctly write a rule.

There was exactly one person and one thread that seriously argued to use this and he got laughed at and ignored.
Because we all know what GW wanted with this rule, but what they want is not what they actually wrote.

It's not poorly written it is in fact written exactly how it needs to be written, people again want to interrupt it in such a way that this isn't true but it's just a bad a attempt at a semantic argument.

What do you think the required dice roll means, it means the dice roll required to pass the RP test, which can not be better than a 4+ regardless of modifiers.

What other possible Dice Roll would it mean?

Please name me something else that the words REquired Dice Roll would me?

Hollismason wrote:
It's not poorly written it is in fact written exactly how it needs to be written, people again want to interrupt it in such a way that this isn't true but it's just a bad a attempt at a semantic argument.

Or we could just make it personal instead of actually addressing the rules.

What do you think the required dice roll means, it means the dice roll required to pass the RP test, which can not be better than a 4+ regardless of modifiers.

What other possible Dice Roll would it mean?
Please name me something else that the words REquired Dice Roll would me?

The 'required dice roll' is the amount you need to roll to pass a "RP test", which is 5+ and there is nothing in the Codex that improves this.

We have two things:
1. The required dice roll, aka the number you need to roll. This is a 5+ and cannot be better than 4+ but nothing in the book improves it.
2. The roll you make for the test, which has no limitation and is affected by stuff like the Decurion and Crypteks.

If it was clear, we wouldn't be having the discussion.
I think it needs clarification.
... is there anything we can actually do about it?
Potentially:
Start an email campaign, writing in to the FAQ writers.

Gamefaqs@gwplc.com

Will this accomplish? Not a clue.
Could it help? Possibly? But probably not unless a ton of people are bombarding them with questions about this (and all the other things which are unclear)

apologize for the necro.

so is there a rule that actually improve the required dice roll?

if not, it seems pretty clear that modifiers adjust dice rolls to up to 4+.

i.e.

case 1

base RP 5+, crytek (+1), instant death (-1)
=required RP roll: 4+; modified by ID: 5+
rolls 4: does not make RP as: 4+1-1 = 4 < 5+ required

case 2
base RP 5+, crytek (+1), ever living (+1) instant death (-1)
=required RP roll: 4+ (as it cannot be below 4+); ID modifier cancelled out by remaining +1 everliving modifier
rolls 4: makes RP as: 4+1+1-1 = 5

no?

Thread is being locked due to thread necromancy.