Hey guys! I *think* it does indeed work, but for the sake of discussion/to get the word out, I have a question for you. Let's use an example of where this even applies:
- Lets say I have Drukhari Succubus. Her relevant base stats are WS2+, but she comes armed with an Archite Glaive which has a -1-to-hit built into it. IF I give my Succubus a WS +1 Combat Drug, turning her WS into 1+ (note this is permanent), does this now mean a roll of 2 passes?
- A simpler way of asking this, do *modified* 1's *always* fail?
I personally believe (though am very biased), that yes a roll of 2 will hit. I see nothing in the rules that says a WS/BS of 1+ is invalid and the only thing for rolling 1's says along the lines of ~"A roll of 1 always fails irrespective of modifiers"; When they say Roll, do they mean psychical or the dice result? I've already e-mailed GW but unfortunately they just sent me a canned response (so far) about "Our FAQ will be out soon!" so I think for now we'll have to decide ourselves.
If I'm being honest, I don't think there's currently any way to prove it one way or another and is open to the players interpretation. I again argue a WS1+ is valid and it's only physical rolls of 1 that automatically fail. What say you all though!?!
EDIT: Note I am not saying a +1 to my WS, I am saying I have a WS of 1+, permanently, entire game. Does a modified one, when using a 1+ stat, fail?
Edit ###: Read the FAQ that people are citing (the one for Plasma exploding on -1's). FAQ states "A: You apply all re-rolls and modifiers first.". This says nothing about modified ones or 1+ stats, so no offense but it is not relevant to this discussion
"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply."
It's a good question, one that I don't think has a concrete answer.
My take on it would be a "roll" of 1 fails, but a "result" of 1 does not, so as long as you don't physically roll a 1, you can hit on a 2+ with a -1 to hit modifier and WS1+.
I remember having this discussion before on Dakka but I don't remember what the consensus or what I thought of it was, I'll see if I can find it. Maybe my mind has changed, I am old and senile.
Edit: On second glance, the wording for plasma uses "roll" too, and modifiers do cause that to overheat. So yeah, a modified 1 will still fail.
Any rolls of 1 fails, regardless of any +/- modifiers unless otherwise stated ("...this weapon automatically hits."). This would include natural rolls of 1's and modified rolls of 1.
Turning WS to +1 is a moot because of the above point, no matter how good your WS/BS is.
Fattimusmcgee wrote: Hey guys! I *think* it does indeed work, but for the sake of discussion/to get the word out, I have a question for you. Let's use an example of where this even applies:
- Lets say I have Drukhari Succubus. Her relevant base stats are WS2+, but she comes armed with an Archite Glaive which has a -1-to-hit built into it. IF I give my Succubus a WS +1 Combat Drug, turning her WS into 1+, does this now mean a roll of 2 passes?
- A simpler way of asking this, do *modified* 1's *always* fail?
I personally believe (though am very biased), that yes a roll of 2 will hit. I see nothing in the rules that says a WS/BS of 1+ is invalid and the only thing for rolling 1's says along the lines of ~"A roll of 1 always fails irrespective of modifiers"; When they say Roll, do they mean psychical or the dice result? I've already e-mailed GW but unfortunately they just sent me a canned response (so far) about "Our FAQ will be out soon!" so I think for now we'll have to decide ourselves.
If I'm being honest, I don't think there's currently any way to prove it one way or another and is open to the players interpretation. I again argue a WS1+ is valid and it's only physical rolls of 1 that automatically fail. What say you all though!?!
Providing I am understanding you correctly I think you are right yes.
WS2+ with a -1 hit weapon by default. Becomes a 2+ only take 3+ into account for result of roll.
If you add an ability or stratagem (I don't know the Dark Eldar well enough to know full rules for the WS) increases a WS by 1. That would make the WS2+, then -1 so 3+ then back to +1 so taking it back to 2+ to hit. If the -1 hit weapon wasn;t there and was a straight up 2+ with a +1 mod. The physicall roll of 1 would still fail.
Natural 1s always fail. Modifiers stack so if you have both a -1 and a +1 to hit modifier, they cancel each other out.
However, the combat drug grants a +1 to the WS profile, not to the die roll. If the Succubus already has a WS of 2+, and natural 1s always fail, the model would not benefit from the +1WS and the -1 to hit would mean any 2s rolled would modify to 1s.
A roll is the usually result of the roll after modifiers, but the rule you’ve quoted tells us a roll of 1 (so including a ‘natural’ 1) fails irrespective of any modifiers. So a 1 on the dice is always a miss.
That’s in the Core Rules and doesn’t need an FAQ.
Note that modifiers don’t usually affect your WS or BS, they simply modify the roll. So your To Hit roll for a WS2+ Character still needs at least a 2 to be successful, and we know a natural 1 is a fail from the rule you partially quoted. Even for someone bugged to WS1+ a 1 is a miss - however a natural roll of 2 with a -1 modifier should be a hit. But it’s a roll of 1, so it fails.
skchsan wrote: Any rolls of 1 fails, regardless of any +/- modifiers unless otherwise stated ("...this weapon automatically hits."). This would include natural rolls of 1's and modified rolls of 1.
Turning WS to +1 is a moot because of the above point, no matter how good your WS/BS is.
That is a good point. It would also mean that plasma could only overheat on a natural 1, since it says "roll" in the rule.
Looks like i've gone through the same thought process I did before, thinking it did hit then deciding it doesn't. Yay for consistency?
On the plus side, at least they remembered to fix the +1 WS drug for the codex so it works on Succubus now!
skchsan wrote: Any rolls of 1 fails, regardless of any +/- modifiers unless otherwise stated ("...this weapon automatically hits."). This would include natural rolls of 1's and modified rolls of 1.
Turning WS to +1 is a moot because of the above point, no matter how good your WS/BS is.
That is a good point. It would also mean that plasma could only overheat on a natural 1, since it says "roll" in the rule.
Unfortunately not for plasma. Plasma weapons have been carefully worded to say hit roll not just rolls. As the modifiers modify the -1 'hit' +1 'hit' they would still be affected.
Gojiratoho wrote: Natural 1s always fail. Modifiers stack so if you have both a -1 and a +1 to hit modifier, they cancel each other out.
However, the combat drug grants a +1 to the WS profile, not to the die roll. If the Succubus already has a WS of 2+, and natural 1s always fail, the model would not benefit from the +1WS and the -1 to hit would mean any 2s rolled would modify to 1s.
Yeah after going though all my mood whiplash again, this is what I would consider to be the correct answer. You'll still miss on rolls of 2 and 1, even with WS1+ due to the -1 to hit modifier, until you get to battle round 3, where the +1 to hit modifier will cancel it out, and you'll be hitting on 2's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SeanDavid1991 wrote: Unfortunately not for plasma. Plasma weapons have been carefully worded to say hit roll not just rolls. As the modifiers modify the -1 'hit' +1 'hit' they would still be affected.
But you're right it is a good point by them.
Aye, agreed. If -1 to hit makes plasma explode more (which I believe it does) then a roll of 2 then -1 will be a 1 and miss.
Someone said: On second glance, the wording for plasma uses "roll" too, and modifiers do cause that to overheat. So yeah, a modified 1 will still fail.
I disagree guys - The Succubus has a WS1, Plasma dudes don't (or I should say have nothing related to that) so I do not think they're the same. The question can be boiled down to two parts:
- Do modified ones ALWAYS fail (please source your rule if you're positive it does)
- Does a modified one fail if you have a 1+-to-hit stat?
The fact plasma explodes on 1's is not relevant as I'll have a stat that lets me hit on 1's, technically. Also, some people seem to think I'm saying +1WS, I'm not, I'm saying a Weapon Skill of 1 up.
BaconCatBug wrote: It would also mean that plasma could only overheat on a natural 1, since it says "roll" in the rule.
I think remember seeing an entry in one of the FAQs that confirms this. I'll see if I can find it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's in the Designer's Commentary, and it states that after modifiers are factored in, if the final result is a 1, supercharged plasma injures or kills the firer.
Someone said: On second glance, the wording for plasma uses "roll" too, and modifiers do cause that to overheat. So yeah, a modified 1 will still fail.
I disagree guys - The Succubus has a WS1, Plasma dudes don't (or I should say have nothing related to that) so I do not think they're the same
That's not the point. The point is that both the plasma rule and the 1's miss rule use the word "roll". If they both use the same word, they both have to have the same mechanic. Since the FAQ informs us modifiers make plasma explode (and I feel that's a clarificatory FAQ and not a Special Snowflake one) then it's only consistent that WS1+, with -1 to hit, will miss on a physical roll of 1 or 2.
BaconCatBug wrote: It would also mean that plasma could only overheat on a natural 1, since it says "roll" in the rule.
I think remember seeing an entry in one of the FAQs that confirms this. I'll see if I can find it.
It's in the Designer's Commentary:
Q: When making a hit roll with a supercharged plasma weapon, do you determine whether a ‘1’ was rolled before or after applying re-rolls and modifiers?
A: You apply all re-rolls and modifiers first.
I still don't understand that clarification. Surely exploding is a 1/6 chance, and not affected by how well the firer can see the target
Someone said: On second glance, the wording for plasma uses "roll" too, and modifiers do cause that to overheat. So yeah, a modified 1 will still fail.
I disagree guys - The Succubus has a WS1, Plasma dudes don't (or I should say have nothing related to that) so I do not think they're the same
That's not the point. The point is that both the plasma rule and the 1's miss rule use the word "roll". If they both use the same word, they both have to have the same mechanic. Since the FAQ informs us modifiers make plasma explode (and I feel that's a clarificatory FAQ and not a Special Snowflake one) then it's only consistent that WS1+, with -1 to hit, will miss on a physical roll of 1 or 2.
Aha, I think I follow you. Well hmmmm, well now I have to wonder if a WS1+ negates that (as there are numerous rules, ie "Cant shoot after Advancing" that say you can't do something yet you can w/the correct rule to counteract it). Obv. theres nothing concrete to support this claim yet
Edit 3: Read below, I still don't think the FAQ says it will fail. ("A: You apply all re-rolls and modifiers first." - not related to 1-up stats OR modified ones always failing)
Fattimusmcgee wrote: Aha, I think I follow you. Well hmmmm, well now I have to wonder if a WS1+ negates that (as there are numerous rules, ie "Cant shoot after Advancing" that say you can't do something yet you can w/the correct rule to counteract it). Obv. theres nothing concrete to support this claim yet
WS1+ doesn't explicitly counter that though, it's just a rare characteristic value.
Alright, sorry guys but I read the FAQ, it states:
"A: You apply all re-rolls and modifiers first."
I still don't think this says a WS1+ fails w/a modified 1. Yes, the 2 turns to a 1, but I still have the 1+ stat, it doesn't say ANYTHING about a "modified one fails to hit". Hopefully this makes sense (and I hope I don't sound aggressive or anything ).
In the Plasma's case, it was talking about how the model gets a MW on a 1 - still not related to modified hits or 1-up stats
I still don't think this says a WS1+ fails w/a modified 1. Yes, the 2 turns to a 1, but I still have the 1+ stat, it doesn't say ANYTHING about a "modified one fails to hit". Hopefully this makes sense (and I hope I don't sound aggressive or anything ).
In the Plasma's case, it was talking about how the model gets a MW on a 1 - still not related to modified hits or 1-up stats
It doesn't need to say anything about modifiers. The rule says "A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply."
The key part here is the word "roll" and the word "always". A "roll" of 1 always fails. Always. Every time. At all times. On all occasions. The plasma FAQ confirms that a modified result is still a "roll" of 1, otherwise the plasma rule wouldn't work. Thus, since they both have the same word "roll", they must also behave the same mechanically.
This is pretty clear cut - 1 always fails. It is a protection to prevent auto hit's.
The only thing 1+ to hit does for you is make it impossible to overheat on an unmodified shot. It also makes you hit on a 2+ if you are hitting something with -1 to hit.
I still don't think this says a WS1+ fails w/a modified 1. Yes, the 2 turns to a 1, but I still have the 1+ stat, it doesn't say ANYTHING about a "modified one fails to hit". Hopefully this makes sense (and I hope I don't sound aggressive or anything ).
In the Plasma's case, it was talking about how the model gets a MW on a 1 - still not related to modified hits or 1-up stats
I think this is right.
We have the situation of WS of 1+, and a weapon with a -1 to hit on the roll.
We roll a 2. Irrespective of any modifiers that may apply, we have not rolled a 1, so don't trigger an always fail.
The 2 gets modified down to a result of 1, which passes the WS check of 1+.
We have the situation of WS of 1+, and a weapon with a -1 to hit on the roll.
We roll a 2. Irrespective of any modifiers that may apply, we have not rolled a 1, so don't trigger an always fail.
The 2 gets modified down to a result of 1, which passes the WS check of 1+.
As we already went though, this means -1 to hit doesn't cause plasma to explode on a 2, which it does as per the Designers Commentary. Since both rules use the word "roll", they have to act the same.
Another similar situation I've had is Lias Issodon's stealth armour, which gives him a 0+ save when he's in cover, play it as "A 1 still fails his save, but you need Ap-3 or better to start modifying it."
Valkyrie wrote: Another similar situation I've had is Lias Issodon's stealth armour, which gives him a 0+ save when he's in cover, play it as "A 1 still fails his save, but you need Ap-3 or better to start modifying it."
No, that's not how it works either. If you have a 0+, hit by an AP-1 weapon, and then roll a 2, the 2 gets modified down to a 1, which fails.
Again, if it worked the way you claim plasma would never explode except on a natural 1, which is not the case.
It might seem unintuitive but it's the only way things can work without having two different mechanics for the exact same worded rule. As a RaWphile that would boil my onions to no end.
We have the situation of WS of 1+, and a weapon with a -1 to hit on the roll.
We roll a 2. Irrespective of any modifiers that may apply, we have not rolled a 1, so don't trigger an always fail.
The 2 gets modified down to a result of 1, which passes the WS check of 1+.
As we already went though, this means -1 to hit doesn't cause plasma to explode on a 2, which it does as per the Designers Commentary. Since both rules use the word "roll", they have to act the same.
You are ignoring that the auto fail has a qualifier on it (being that it is irrespective of modifiers) where as plasma does not.
Plasma uses the word "roll", but doesn't use the qualifier "irrespective of any modifiers", and that's the key difference. With a WS1+ and a -1 to hit, a natural 2 will still succeed because it isn't a roll of 1 irrespective of any modifiers, it's a modified roll of 1, which is a hit.
EDIT: I was beaten to the punch, but JakeSiren is right. Plasma only cares about the final result of the roll, but the auto-fail clause explicitly says to ignore modifiers when checking to see if it triggered.
Benn Roe wrote: Plasma uses the word "roll", but doesn't use the qualifier "irrespective of any modifiers", and that's the key difference. With a WS1+ and a -1 to hit, a natural 2 will still succeed because it isn't a roll of 1 irrespective of any modifiers, it's a modified roll of 1, which is a hit.
EDIT: I was beaten to the punch, but JakeSiren is right. Plasma only cares about the final result of the roll, but the auto-fail clause explicitly says to ignore modifiers when checking to see if it triggered.
Irrespective does not mean ignore. Irrespective means it doesn't matter if it is with or without modifiers.
I know Dictionary Definitions are considered an automatic fail (see what I did thar ) but a quick search of the googles shows that the definition of Irrespective is "not taking (something) into account; regardless of".
Thus, if it is a roll of 1, regardless of whether modifiers made it a 1 or not, it's a fail.
The "irrespective of any modifiers" is meant to cover a different situation.
Overcharged plasma can auto-fail on a natural roll of 1, but the overheat portion can be overridden by a +1 hit modifier.
In this case, an overcharged plasma is fired, and 1 was rolled for the hit. The overcharged plasma fails to hit, but its wielder does not suffer the overheat penalty.
Alternatively, you roll a 2 on a to-hit roll on an OC plasma, but you are subject to -1 hit modifier. So now you auto fail the to hit because your modified hit roll is a 1, AND you overheat because your modified to hit is a 1.
Irrespective does not mean ignore. Irrespective means it doesn't matter if it is with or without modifiers.
I know Dictionary Definitions are considered an automatic fail (see what I did thar ) but a quick search of the googles shows that the definition of Irrespective is "not taking (something) into account; regardless of".
Thus, if it is a roll of 1, regardless of whether modifiers made it a 1 or not, it's a fail.
Be nice
Idk though, I think we can all agree (hopefully) that GW needs to clarify this. I e-mailed them 2 days ago so hopefully I get a response soon; I'll update the info then. It wouldn't be the first time there was an ambiguous rule and the WS1 makes this very... unique.
I will say, of all the people I've discussed this with it's about 80/20 that it *will* hit on a two; though none have sourced their arguments as well. I agree with previous post that Plasma is different than this situation as Plasma explodes on 1's and doesn't have to do a "hit check" to it's stat. I'm aware of the dictionary's definition but we're still in unknown territory here. GW did reply to the question about Plasma "rolling" 1's, but they didn't specifically say what a "roll" means; In Plasma's case *any* 1 = explosion. In this case we have a stat check.
To be fair, an "email" from "GW" is even more useless than dictionary definitions. If it's not in a Codex or Official FAQ, it's not really relevant to a rules discussion. I remember the bad old days where you could send them the same questions 3 times and get 4 different answers.
The question is really "Can a statline that resolves with dice roles (i.e. WS/BS/SV) be modified to be 1+". I don't think it can, as that breaks the idea of 1s failing, but I don't see anywhere that explicitly forbids it. The Modifying Characteristics sidebar on page 175 of the BRB doesn't mention it, nor did I see anything in the Designer's Commentary or Stepping Into a New Edition
Gojiratoho wrote: The question is really "Can a statline that resolves with dice roles (i.e. WS/BS/SV) be modified to be 1+". I don't think it can, as that breaks the idea of 1s failing, but I don't see anywhere that explicitly forbids it. The Modifying Characteristics sidebar on page 175 of the BRB doesn't mention it, nor did I see anything in the Designer's Commentary or Stepping Into a New Edition
You're right, nothing does forbid it, but the rules don't need to. It doesn't break the concept of 1's failing because the entire point of the 1's failing rule is to prevent auto-hits/wounds/saves. The only lower restriction of 1 is explicitly for "Strength, Toughness and Leadership". All other characteristics are fair game.
You could have a WS-30 for all the rules cares, if you roll a dice and the end result is a 1 (or lower, as per the FAQ lower than 1 becomes 1), you fail to hit/fail to wound/fail to save.
skchsan wrote: The "irrespective of any modifiers" is meant to cover a different situation.
Overcharged plasma can auto-fail on a natural roll of 1, but the overheat portion can be overridden by a +1 hit modifier.
In this case, an overcharged plasma is fired, and 1 was rolled for the hit. The overcharged plasma fails to hit, but its wielder does not suffer the overheat penalty.
BaconCatBug wrote: To be fair, an "email" from "GW" is even more useless than dictionary definitions. If it's not in a Codex or Official FAQ, it's not really relevant to a rules discussion. I remember the bad old days where you could send them the same questions 3 times and get 4 different answers.
Luckily for me, an e-mail from GW is more valid than any argument this forum can make. They will also (probably) be adding it to the Drukhari FAQ as I'm not the only one to e-mail them about this specific rule
skchsan wrote: The "irrespective of any modifiers" is meant to cover a different situation.
Overcharged plasma can auto-fail on a natural roll of 1, but the overheat portion can be overridden by a +1 hit modifier.
In this case, an overcharged plasma is fired, and 1 was rolled for the hit. The overcharged plasma fails to hit, but its wielder does not suffer the overheat penalty.
Per the Designer's Commentary FAQ, this is not the case. Supercharged plasma causes the wound if, after all modifiers are applied, the to hit roll is a 1.
It could be both ways. A 1+1 is still a roll of one, because the roll was a 1, not taking into account the modifier (per the definition of irregardless), while a 2-1 is a 1 because you don't care if modifiers made it a 1, it is still a 1.
However, if you want to decide they are mutually exclusive, which one is it? If a 2-1 is an overheat, then a 1+1 can't be, but if a 1+1 is an overheat, then a 2-1 can't be. Since the FAQ says to account for all modifiers first, I would say the FAQ is explicitly saying that a 2-1 is an overheat, thus a 1+1 can't be.
It's confusing for sure, hence me asking. I still firmly believe a 2 becomes a 1, and this passes the stat check. Won't know for SURE until we get a response from GeeDubs.
All that said you've made good arguments sir, but it's still a bit murky (we had to basically research and argue for however long this has been now hah - murky af)
I am of the mind set in any scenario the end result is considered what the "roll" was.
So if you have 5 dice shooting. and a 2+ Hit and a -2 modifer. On your unmodified roll you get 1, 2, 3, 3, 6. Your modified "roll" that you always roll'd is now 1, 1, 1, 1, 4. (As you can;t go below 1) Even is the BS was a 1+ the end result will still be four misses and one hit.
BaconCatBug wrote: Irrespective does not mean ignore. Irrespective means it doesn't matter if it is with or without modifiers.
I know Dictionary Definitions are considered an automatic fail (see what I did thar ) but a quick search of the googles shows that the definition of Irrespective is "not taking (something) into account; regardless of".
Thus, if it is a roll of 1, regardless of whether modifiers made it a 1 or not, it's a fail.
I know fully well what irrespective means. You're actually misapplying the definition. It says "irrespective of any modifiers", not "irrespective of whether modifiers made it a 1 or not". In other words, "regardless of any modifiers", which still means "ignore the modifiers for purposes of this calculation". Here's the full definition, by the way, which makes the intended meaning of the word even clearer in this context:
dictionary.com wrote:without regard to something else, especially something specified; ignoring or discounting (usually followed by of):
without regard to any modifiers
ignoring any modifiers
discounting any modifiers
Valkyrie wrote: Another similar situation I've had is Lias Issodon's stealth armour, which gives him a 0+ save when he's in cover, play it as "A 1 still fails his save, but you need Ap-3 or better to start modifying it."
No, that's not how it works either. If you have a 0+, hit by an AP-1 weapon, and then roll a 2, the 2 gets modified down to a 1, which fails.
Again, if it worked the way you claim plasma would never explode except on a natural 1, which is not the case.
It might seem unintuitive but it's the only way things can work without having two different mechanics for the exact same worded rule. As a RaWphile that would boil my onions to no end.
So in your eyes, why would they have given him a 2+ save with a +2 modifier?
Valkyrie wrote: Another similar situation I've had is Lias Issodon's stealth armour, which gives him a 0+ save when he's in cover, play it as "A 1 still fails his save, but you need Ap-3 or better to start modifying it."
No, that's not how it works either. If you have a 0+, hit by an AP-1 weapon, and then roll a 2, the 2 gets modified down to a 1, which fails.
Again, if it worked the way you claim plasma would never explode except on a natural 1, which is not the case.
It might seem unintuitive but it's the only way things can work without having two different mechanics for the exact same worded rule. As a RaWphile that would boil my onions to no end.
So in your eyes, why would they have given him a 2+ save with a +2 modifier?
Because you bamboozled me by giving me incorrect information. Having gone and opened the book, Lias Issodon does not have a "0+" save like you claim (not even Forge World are that incompetent), he has a rule saying "You may add 2 to saving throws made for Lias Issodon instead of 1 when he has the benefits of cover." He's not modifying his characteristic, he's getting a +2 modifier to his non-invulnerable save throws. In this case the modifiers will cancel each other out. So an AP0 weapon will result in a +2 total modifier, of which a 1 will still fail, so 2+ save. An AP-1 weapon will result in a total +1 modifier, of which a 1 will still fail, so a 2+ save. An AP-2 weapon will result in a total +0 modifier, of which a 1 will still fail, so a 2+ save. An AP -3 weapon will result in a total -1 modifier, of which a 1 will still fail, thus a physical roll of 1 or 2 will fail (having both been modified to 1), thus a 2+ save made on a D6-1.
AP modifiers don't change the characteristic, they change the type of dice you're rolling. An AP -1 weapon makes your saves be taken on a D6-1, of which you need to pass the value on your datasheet to succeed. It's a common shorthand, and mistake, to say AP-1 on a 3+ save is a "4+ save".
skchsan wrote: The "irrespective of any modifiers" is meant to cover a different situation.
Overcharged plasma can auto-fail on a natural roll of 1, but the overheat portion can be overridden by a +1 hit modifier.
In this case, an overcharged plasma is fired, and 1 was rolled for the hit. The overcharged plasma fails to hit, but its wielder does not suffer the overheat penalty.
Alternatively, you roll a 2 on a to-hit roll on an OC plasma, but you are subject to -1 hit modifier. So now you auto fail the to hit because your modified hit roll is a 1, AND you overheat because your modified to hit is a 1.
I think this is the right answer.
Plasma overheats on a modified roll of 1 (per the faq), and since you can't modify a roll below one then if you are subjected to -1 to hit then you blow up on a 1 and 2. But, the rule for failing a check (in this case a to hit roll) always fails on a roll of 1 irrespective of modifiers, i.e. a natural roll of one.
Take this example: a model with BS 1+ overcharges plasma at a stealthsuit, he rolls a 2. He hasn't rolled a 1 so the check passes and he hits the target (because this is a modified 1, not a 1 irrespective of modifiers) BUT the 2 is modified to a one and the plasma blows up.
So he both hits his target and blows up. The rules aren't contradictory it would seem.
In other words, blowing up plasma is not an "auto-fail" it is simply an effect of the weapon like how some weapons do MW on wound rolls of 6+.
So for the case of the OP, the succubus hits on 2+ against -1 to hit.
Benn Roe wrote: Plasma uses the word "roll", but doesn't use the qualifier "irrespective of any modifiers", and that's the key difference. With a WS1+ and a -1 to hit, a natural 2 will still succeed because it isn't a roll of 1 irrespective of any modifiers, it's a modified roll of 1, which is a hit.
EDIT: I was beaten to the punch, but JakeSiren is right. Plasma only cares about the final result of the roll, but the auto-fail clause explicitly says to ignore modifiers when checking to see if it triggered.
Irrespective does not mean ignore. Irrespective means it doesn't matter if it is with or without modifiers.
I know Dictionary Definitions are considered an automatic fail (see what I did thar ) but a quick search of the googles shows that the definition of Irrespective is "not taking (something) into account; regardless of".
Thus, if it is a roll of 1, regardless of whether modifiers made it a 1 or not, it's a fail.
Using the two definitions you provided the rules would look as follows:
A roll of 1 always fails, not taking any modifiers that may apply into account.
or
A roll of 1 always fails, regardless of any modifiers that may apply.
I don't know what else to say; the definitions you provided help demonstrate that we don't care about modifiers for the auto-fail - it's only the natural 1 that auto-fails.
Modified or unmodified rolls of 1 fail. Doesn't matter if your WS is 1+ or whatever.
In your specific instance, the roll of a 2 will fail, due to the -1 to hit. Unless the combat drugs confer a +1 to hit instead of a +1 to WS? In which case they would cancel each other out and the result would hit.
I suspect it is entirely pointless giving your Succubus WS1+ with combat drugs. 2+ is no joke anyway.
skchsan wrote: The best interpretation of the phrase "a roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" I think is:
A roll of 1 always fails, even if any modifiers would bring the result of the roll above 1.
I'm not sure if there's any practical difference here, but it says "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply", not just positive modifiers. You can substitute any definition of "irrespective" for the word itself, and every result unambiguously just means "a natural roll of 1 always fails". Using only definitions already posted in this thread:
A roll of 1 always fails, not taking into account any modifiers that may apply.
A roll of 1 always fails, regardless of any modifiers that may apply.
A roll of 1 always fails, without regard for any modifiers that may apply.
A roll of 1 always fails, ignoring any modifiers that may apply.
A roll of 1 always fails, discounting any modifiers that may apply.
There just isn't any way I can find to read that phrase other than "if your die reads 1, you fail, so don't bother calculating modifiers".
No, it would actually mean "no matter how the result was obtained, whether the dice roll showed 1 and no modifiers were in effect, or the net result of the modifiers resulted in a roll of 1, if the resulting roll is a 1, it always fails."
The phrase "roll of 1" encompasses both a natural 1 as well as modifed result of 1. One cannot deduce that the phrase only refers to a natural roll of 1 or only modifed roll of 1 from the given context. Both natural roll of 1 and modified roll of 1 are both "roll of 1".
You question then, "but hey, my natural roll of 1 can be improved because I have a +1 to hit!" This is where the second sentence comes into play: "irrespective of any modifiers." This would mean that even if you had any modifiers that would improve the natural roll of 1, a natural roll of 1 always fails.
A flowchart of this interaction would be:
1. Roll a d6; is the dice showing 1?
-- YES > the hit fails.
-- NO > go to 2.
2. Apply any modifiers. Is the result of the modified roll 1?
-- YES > the hit fails.
-- NO > go to 3.
3. Compare result to units WS/BS. Is the result of the roll greater or equal to unit's WS/BS?
-- YES > the hit succeeds.
-- NO > the hit fails.
The phrase "roll of 1" encompasses both a natural 1 as well as modifed result of 1. One cannot deduce that the phrase only refers to a natural roll of 1 or only modifed roll of 1 from the given context. Both natural roll of 1 and modified roll of 1 are both "roll of 1".
Actually this is wrong. Unless explicitly stated, such as in overwatch or the auto-fail, roll refers to the result after modifiers.
Otherwise by your argument negative to hits don't work. Ie, a Space Marine shoots at a flier and rolls a 3 thus hitting because the natural 3 is satisfies his BS check. Clearly this is not the case.
The phrase "roll of 1" encompasses both a natural 1 as well as modifed result of 1. One cannot deduce that the phrase only refers to a natural roll of 1 or only modifed roll of 1 from the given context. Both natural roll of 1 and modified roll of 1 are both "roll of 1".
Actually this is wrong. Unless explicitly stated, such as in overwatch or the auto-fail, roll refers to the result after modifiers.
Otherwise by your argument negative to hits don't work. Ie, a Space Marine shoots at a flier and rolls a 3 thus hitting because the natural 3 is satisfies his BS check. Clearly this is not the case.
The phrase "roll of 1" encompasses both a natural 1 as well as modifed result of 1. One cannot deduce that the phrase only refers to a natural roll of 1 or only modifed roll of 1 from the given context. Both natural roll of 1 and modified roll of 1 are both "roll of 1".
Actually this is wrong. Unless explicitly stated, such as in overwatch or the auto-fail, roll refers to the result after modifiers.
Otherwise by your argument negative to hits don't work. Ie, a Space Marine shoots at a flier and rolls a 3 thus hitting because the natural 3 is satisfies his BS check. Clearly this is not the case.
Read the rest of the post.
I did. The first paragraph is wrong, and your 2nd paragraph was a continuation of it. I addressed paragraph 2 as it was more structured than the first. Your 3rd paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion, we all agree that a natural 1 fails. The disagreement is if a modified result of 1 also always fails. Ie, rolled a natural 2, but have a -1 to hit, so a modified roll result of 1 - do you still hit on that modified roll if you have a 1+ WS? Your flow chart is wrong because your assumptions in paragraph 2 are wrong.
The phrase "roll of 1" encompasses both a natural 1 as well as modifed result of 1. One cannot deduce that the phrase only refers to a natural roll of 1 or only modifed roll of 1 from the given context. Both natural roll of 1 and modified roll of 1 are both "roll of 1".
Actually this is wrong. Unless explicitly stated, such as in overwatch or the auto-fail, roll refers to the result after modifiers.
Otherwise by your argument negative to hits don't work. Ie, a Space Marine shoots at a flier and rolls a 3 thus hitting because the natural 3 is satisfies his BS check. Clearly this is not the case.
Read the rest of the post.
I did. The first paragraph is wrong, and your 2nd paragraph was a continuation of it. I addressed paragraph 2 as it was more structured than the first. Your 3rd paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion, we all agree that a natural 1 fails. The disagreement is if a modified result of 1 also always fails. Ie, rolled a natural 2, but have a -1 to hit, so a modified roll result of 1 - do you still hit on that modified roll if you have a 1+ WS? Your flow chart is wrong because your assumptions in paragraph 2 are wrong.
By extension of your argument, a natural roll of 1 is not 'always miss.'
Re-rolls are before modifiers so you're re-rolling based on the 'natural' roll.
The term 'roll' doesn't always refer to modified rolls.
skchsan wrote: No, it would actually mean "no matter how the result was obtained, whether the dice roll showed 1 and no modifiers were in effect, or the net result of the modifiers resulted in a roll of 1, if the resulting roll is a 1, it always fails."
NOPE: Your stance is contradictory. Either you apply modifiers or you do not. You can't say 1s aren't modifiable but 2s are. The rule is requiring you to look at your dice and see if there are any 1s "irrespective of modifiers" or in other words "without applying modifiers". If you do not see a 1 on your physical dice then you pass this particular check.
Modified ones tend to fail after modifiers because no one has a BS or WS of 1+ until now.
Remember the case in question: a succubus has a WS of 1+ (with the upgrade). It's NOT a modifier itself.
With the rule she must roll a 2+ because ones always fail (irrespective of modifiers). If she had a +1 to hit, then she would still fail on a 1.
Now her weapon has a -1 to hit.
Case 1:
- She rolls a 1.
- She fails because 1s fail irrespective of modifiers.
Case 2:
- She rolls a 2.
- She did NOT roll a "1 irrespective of modifiers".
- The 2 becomes a modified 1.
- She must roll a 1+ after all modifiers are applied.
- She has rolled 1 or greater after modifiers.
- She passes the to hit roll
This rule is distinctly different to the plasma ruling, where 1s are determined AFTER modifiers are applied.
See my plasma example:
Take this example: a model with BS 1+ overcharges plasma at a stealthsuit, he rolls a 2. He hasn't rolled a 1 so the check passes and he hits the target (because this is a modified 1, not a 1 irrespective of modifiers) BUT the 2 is modified to a one and the plasma blows up.
So he both hits his target and blows up. The rules aren't contradictory it would seem.
JakeSiren wrote: Unless explicitly stated, such as in overwatch or the auto-fail, roll refers to the result after modifiers.
The excerpt "a roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of modifiers." makes no 'explicit statement' that the roll refers to unmodified dice roll. Therefore, as per your stance, the excerpt can only be referring to modified rolls of 1, at which point, a natural 1 can only auto-miss if there are no +hit modifiers present.
skchsan wrote: No, it would actually mean "no matter how the result was obtained, whether the dice roll showed 1 and no modifiers were in effect, or the net result of the modifiers resulted in a roll of 1, if the resulting roll is a 1, it always fails."
NOPE: Your stance is contradictory. Either you apply modifiers or you do not. You can't say 1s aren't modifiable but 2s are. The rule is requiring you to look at your dice and see if there are any 1s "irrespective of modifiers" or in other words "without applying modifiers". If you do not see a 1 on your physical dice then you pass this particular check.
Modified ones tend to fail after modifiers because no one has a BS or WS of 1+ until now.
Remember the case in question: a succubus has a WS of 1+ (with the upgrade). It's NOT a modifier itself.
With the rule she must roll a 2+ because ones always fail (irrespective of modifiers). If she had a +1 to hit, then she would still fail on a 1.
Now her weapon has a -1 to hit.
Case 1:
- She rolls a 1.
- She fails because 1s fail irrespective of modifiers.
Case 2:
- She rolls a 2.
- She did NOT roll a "1 irrespective of modifiers".
- The 2 becomes a modified 1.
- She must roll a 1+ after all modifiers are applied.
- She has rolled 1 or greater after modifiers.
- She passes the to hit roll
This rule is distinctly different to the plasma ruling, where 1s are determined AFTER modifiers are applied.
See my plasma example:
Take this example: a model with BS 1+ overcharges plasma at a stealthsuit, he rolls a 2. He hasn't rolled a 1 so the check passes and he hits the target (because this is a modified 1, not a 1 irrespective of modifiers) BUT the 2 is modified to a one and the plasma blows up.
So he both hits his target and blows up. The rules aren't contradictory it would seem.
It APPEARS contradictory because it stands against your understaning of the RAW. The rulebook makes no distinction between what we colloquially refer to as "natural rolls" and "modified rolls." The assumption that "only natural rolls of 1 auto-fails" is a fallacious conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
JakeSiren wrote: Unless explicitly stated, such as in overwatch or the auto-fail, roll refers to the result after modifiers.
The excerpt "a roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of modifiers." makes no 'explicit statement' that the roll refers to unmodified dice roll. Therefore, as per your stance, the excerpt can only be referring to modified rolls of 1, at which point, a natural 1 can only auto-miss if there are no +hit modifiers present.
Uh, I think you need to reread what I said. The part where the rule says "irrespective of modifiers" is an explicit instruction to not apply modifiers - aka, an unmodified roll. I refered to it as an example. You have even quoted me saying this! (Bolded for you)
skchsan wrote: It APPEARS contradictory because it stands against your understaning of the RAW. The rulebook makes no distinction between what we colloquially refer to as "natural rolls" and "modified rolls." The assumption that "only natural rolls of 1 auto-fails" is a fallacious conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
It's not about modified or natural rolls (both are just "rolls"). The rule says to ignore modifiers. So we ignore modifiers. Unless you can give me a different take on "irrespective of modifiers".
skchsan wrote: It APPEARS contradictory because it stands against your understaning of the RAW. The rulebook makes no distinction between what we colloquially refer to as "natural rolls" and "modified rolls." The assumption that "only natural rolls of 1 auto-fails" is a fallacious conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
It's not about modified or natural rolls (both are just "rolls"). The rule says to ignore modifiers. So we ignore modifiers. Unless you can give me a different take on "irrespective of modifiers".
Correct. To really take it simply. If you roll 6 dice. And there is a -2 Modifier and a BS+1 on the model.
Your initial roll is 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6
Once you apply modifier, physically pick up the dice and take down by 2. 1 being the minimum. So you pick up the dice and take away 2 so you have now rolled. 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6. End result four misses and 2 hits. Even if you have a BS +1 as 1 is always a miss.
skchsan wrote: It APPEARS contradictory because it stands against your understaning of the RAW. The rulebook makes no distinction between what we colloquially refer to as "natural rolls" and "modified rolls." The assumption that "only natural rolls of 1 auto-fails" is a fallacious conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
It's not about modified or natural rolls (both are just "rolls"). The rule says to ignore modifiers. So we ignore modifiers. Unless you can give me a different take on "irrespective of modifiers".
Correct. To really take it simply. If you roll 6 dice. And there is a -2 Modifier and a BS+1 on the model.
Your initial roll is 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6
Once you apply modifier, physically pick up the dice and take down by 2. 1 being the minimum. So you pick up the dice and take away 2 so you have now rolled. 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6. End result four misses and 2 hits. Even if you have a BS +1 as 1 is always a miss.
I kinda feel like you missed Dandelion's point.
Out of the rolls, irrespective of modifiers, which one's are ones? Those auto fail, everything else then has modifiers applied and checked against the shooters BS as to if they hit or not.
skchsan wrote: It APPEARS contradictory because it stands against your understaning of the RAW. The rulebook makes no distinction between what we colloquially refer to as "natural rolls" and "modified rolls." The assumption that "only natural rolls of 1 auto-fails" is a fallacious conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
It's not about modified or natural rolls (both are just "rolls"). The rule says to ignore modifiers. So we ignore modifiers. Unless you can give me a different take on "irrespective of modifiers".
Correct. To really take it simply. If you roll 6 dice. And there is a -2 Modifier and a BS+1 on the model.
Your initial roll is 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6
Once you apply modifier, physically pick up the dice and take down by 2. 1 being the minimum. So you pick up the dice and take away 2 so you have now rolled. 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6. End result four misses and 2 hits. Even if you have a BS +1 as 1 is always a miss.
I kinda feel like you missed Dandelion's point.
Out of the rolls, irrespective of modifiers, which one's are ones? Those auto fail, everything else then has modifiers applied and checked against the shooters BS as to if they hit or not.
skchsan wrote: It APPEARS contradictory because it stands against your understaning of the RAW. The rulebook makes no distinction between what we colloquially refer to as "natural rolls" and "modified rolls." The assumption that "only natural rolls of 1 auto-fails" is a fallacious conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
It's not about modified or natural rolls (both are just "rolls"). The rule says to ignore modifiers. So we ignore modifiers. Unless you can give me a different take on "irrespective of modifiers".
Correct. To really take it simply. If you roll 6 dice. And there is a -2 Modifier and a BS+1 on the model.
Your initial roll is 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6
Once you apply modifier, physically pick up the dice and take down by 2. 1 being the minimum. So you pick up the dice and take away 2 so you have now rolled. 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6. End result four misses and 2 hits. Even if you have a BS +1 as 1 is always a miss.
I kinda feel like you missed Dandelion's point.
Out of the rolls, irrespective of modifiers, which one's are ones? Those auto fail, everything else then has modifiers applied and checked against the shooters BS as to if they hit or not.
The end result is the final roll that matters.
Sorry, could you be more precise? Because what I think you are saying is that when considering the rule "A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply", that we consider the roll respective of the modifiers that do apply? Ie: In your example we consider the result of 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6.
skchsan wrote: It APPEARS contradictory because it stands against your understaning of the RAW. The rulebook makes no distinction between what we colloquially refer to as "natural rolls" and "modified rolls." The assumption that "only natural rolls of 1 auto-fails" is a fallacious conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
It's not about modified or natural rolls (both are just "rolls"). The rule says to ignore modifiers. So we ignore modifiers. Unless you can give me a different take on "irrespective of modifiers".
Correct. To really take it simply. If you roll 6 dice. And there is a -2 Modifier and a BS+1 on the model.
Your initial roll is 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6
Once you apply modifier, physically pick up the dice and take down by 2. 1 being the minimum. So you pick up the dice and take away 2 so you have now rolled. 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6. End result four misses and 2 hits. Even if you have a BS +1 as 1 is always a miss.
I kinda feel like you missed Dandelion's point.
Out of the rolls, irrespective of modifiers, which one's are ones? Those auto fail, everything else then has modifiers applied and checked against the shooters BS as to if they hit or not.
The end result is the final roll that matters.
Sorry, could you be more precise? Because what I think you are saying is that when considering the rule "A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply", that we consider the roll respective of the modifiers that do apply? Ie: In your example we consider the result of 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6.
It is a weird scenario I'm only explaining it how the guys in our gaming centre play it and interpret it. We all agree tis fairest. End result that matters, but any 1's before the modifiers are kind of like a black hole. if it's a 1 initially modifiers just don't get applied to that roll.
skchsan wrote: It APPEARS contradictory because it stands against your understaning of the RAW. The rulebook makes no distinction between what we colloquially refer to as "natural rolls" and "modified rolls." The assumption that "only natural rolls of 1 auto-fails" is a fallacious conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
It's not about modified or natural rolls (both are just "rolls"). The rule says to ignore modifiers. So we ignore modifiers. Unless you can give me a different take on "irrespective of modifiers".
Correct. To really take it simply. If you roll 6 dice. And there is a -2 Modifier and a BS+1 on the model.
Your initial roll is 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6
Once you apply modifier, physically pick up the dice and take down by 2. 1 being the minimum. So you pick up the dice and take away 2 so you have now rolled. 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6. End result four misses and 2 hits. Even if you have a BS +1 as 1 is always a miss.
I kinda feel like you missed Dandelion's point.
Out of the rolls, irrespective of modifiers, which one's are ones? Those auto fail, everything else then has modifiers applied and checked against the shooters BS as to if they hit or not.
The end result is the final roll that matters.
Sorry, could you be more precise? Because what I think you are saying is that when considering the rule "A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply", that we consider the roll respective of the modifiers that do apply? Ie: In your example we consider the result of 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6.
It is a weird scenario I'm only explaining it how the guys in our gaming centre play it and interpret it. We all agree tis fairest. End result that matters, but any 1's before the modifiers are kind of like a black hole. if it's a 1 initially modifiers just don't get applied to that roll.
Ah, I see. It tends to help in these discussions if you prefix your house ruling with HIWPI, otherwise people (like me) think you are trying to discuss rules as written.
skchsan wrote: The excerpt "a roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of modifiers." makes no 'explicit statement' that the roll refers to unmodified dice roll.
Yes, it does. It explicitly says "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply". When something tells you "x always fails, ignoring modifiers", it's explicitly saying "unmodified x always fails". You seem to want "any modifiers" to only mean "any positive modifiers", but it doesn't. You ignore all modifiers when checking to see if your roll fails because it was a 1.
skchsan wrote: The excerpt "a roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of modifiers." makes no 'explicit statement' that the roll refers to unmodified dice roll.
Yes, it does. It explicitly says "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply". When something tells you "x always fails, ignoring modifiers", it's explicitly saying "unmodified x always fails". You seem to want "any modifiers" to only mean "any positive modifiers", but it doesn't. You ignore all modifiers when checking to see if your roll fails because it was a 1.
You're reading the sentence as "a roll of 1, irrespective of any modifers that may apply, always fails." instead of reading it as written.
It really doesn't in this case. You're reading it as two final thoughts, loosely connected, but it's a single sentence that can't be considered properly in pieces. "A roll of 1 always fails", by itself, definitely means what you want it to mean, but you're otherwise imagining an implication that placing "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" after that phrase just doesn't carry, namely that the only relevant modifiers are those that further reduce your result to 1.
Benn Roe wrote: It really doesn't in this case. You're reading it as two final thoughts, loosely connected, but it's a single sentence that can't be considered properly in pieces. "A roll of 1 always fails", by itself, definitely means what you want it to mean, but you're otherwise imagining an implication that placing "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" after that phrase just doesn't carry, namely that the only relevant modifiers are those that further reduce your result to 1.
They are two separate phrases of a related topic.
A roll of 1 always fail (independent clause), irrespective of any modifiers that may apply (dependent clause).
This sentence is a combined form of two sentences:
A roll of 1 always fails. A roll of 1 always fail regardless of any modifiers that may apply.
By claiming modified rolls of 1 doesn't always fail is a direct contradiction to the first complete thought, as the rulebook makes no distinction between modified rolls and natural rolls when it uses the word 'roll'.
You are understanding the clause "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" as a relative clause whose function is to modify or act as an adjective to the phrase "A roll of 1".
The correct interpretation here is to say 'the failure stands irrespective of any effect modifiers may have,' and not 'roll of 1, in other words, a dice roll showing 1 facing up, fails irrespective of any modifiers.'
This argument is a matter of reading comprehension, not a matter of ambiguity in the rule writing.
skchsan wrote: This argument is a matter of reading comprehension, not a matter of ambiguity in the rule writing.
On that, we agree. The problem is that independent clauses are "independent" only because they could stand on their own structurally, not because they're a finished final thought. If "a roll of 1 always fails" were true without qualification, it could and would have been the whole sentence. One of the primary functions of a dependent clause is to modify an adjacent clause, and that's exactly what's happening here. You're asserting that the dependent clause is modifying the independent one only in so far as it widens the definition of "rolling a 1", but that's an implication that just isn't there. It's clarifying what it means by "rolling a 1" in this context. That's why it says "any modifiers" rather than "modifiers that would raise it".
Benn Roe wrote: It really doesn't in this case. You're reading it as two final thoughts, loosely connected, but it's a single sentence that can't be considered properly in pieces. "A roll of 1 always fails", by itself, definitely means what you want it to mean, but you're otherwise imagining an implication that placing "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" after that phrase just doesn't carry, namely that the only relevant modifiers are those that further reduce your result to 1.
They are two separate phrases of a related topic.
A roll of 1 always fail (independent clause), irrespective of any modifiers that may apply (dependent clause).
This sentence is a combined form of two sentences:
A roll of 1 always fails. A roll of 1 always fail regardless of any modifiers that may apply.
By claiming modified rolls of 1 doesn't always fail is a direct contradiction to the first complete thought, as the rulebook makes no distinction between modified rolls and natural rolls when it uses the word 'roll'.
This argument is a matter of reading comprehension, not a matter of ambiguity in the rule writing.
I think you have it wrong. "Irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" is a qualifier on "a roll of 1 always fail"
I'd like to point out that Games Workshop did in fact create a new phrase to differentiate "rolls of x" and "unmodified rolls of x".
Look at the Codex T'au Tidewall Shieldline - it reflects shots on an "unmodified save roll of 6", meaning you can reflect melta shots into mortal wounds.
The real significance of this statement though is that it is different phrasing from "rolls of 1 always fail, irrespective of modifiers". I think that the difference between the two phrases leans me towards the interpretation that ALL 1's fail, natural and modified.
Another way to look at this is that everywhere else in the game that uses the term "roll of 1" seems to be using it to refer to the final modified roll. They don't have separate terminology for "unmodified rolls". A roll is a roll, including its modifiers. So, the independent clause on its own means "modified rolls of 1 always fail". The dependent clause then tells us, however, that no modifiers apply here ("irrespective of any modifiers"), which leaves us with "unmodified rolls of 1 always fail". There is no reading that leaves you with both modified and unmodified rolls of 1 always failing. Any assertion to the contrary is nonsense.
EDIT: I stand corrected. They do have terminology for unmodified rolls. It's "unmodified rolls", as pointed out by the poster above me. That actually reinforces my point, even though the poster above me drew the opposite conclusion from that discovery.
The reason I draw the opposite conclusion is as follows:
"Rolls of 1 always fail,.."
I see this as modified rolls of 1 always fails.
"... irrespective of any modifiers."
This part of the phrase seems to increase the scope of the 1's that fail to include 1's before modifiers.
I understand how you can interpret it your way though, as they should rewrite the rule in the Spring FAQ to say "unmodified rolls and rolls of 1 always fail" if that is in fact what they intended, so that it conforms with their new and old terminology.
Pieceocake wrote: I think that the difference between the two phrases leans me towards the interpretation that ALL 1's fail, natural and modified.
This doesn't follow, as pointed out in my post above. Everywhere else in the game where they don't use the term "unmodified", they mean "modified", but the qualifier tells us explicitly to ignore modifiers for this calculation. "A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that might apply" is synonymous with "an unmodified roll of 1 always fails". The only way that might not be true is if "a roll of 1 always fails" already meant "an unmodified roll of 1 always fails", and we know it doesn't. The use of "unmodified" is likely a recent change in terminology to make things clearer.
Pieceocake wrote: The reason I draw the opposite conclusion is as follows:
"Rolls of 1 always fail,.."
I see this as modified rolls of 1 always fails.
"... irrespective of any modifiers."
This part of the phrase seems to increase the scope of the 1's that fail to include 1's before modifiers.
Well put.
Except that it ignores the fact that "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" doesn't mean "irrespective of any modifiers that would increase it". I understand what you guys are saying, but it's a misreading.
Except that it ignores the fact that "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" doesn't mean "irrespective of any modifiers that would increase it". I understand what you guys are saying, but it's a misreading.
"irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" does mean "irrespective of any modifiers that would increase it".
"irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" also means irrespective of any modifiers that would decrease it.
Hence my reading above that essentially boils down to rolls of 1 always fail, and unmodified rolls of 1 too.
Pieceocake wrote: I'd like to point out that Games Workshop did in fact create a new phrase to differentiate "rolls of x" and "unmodified rolls of x".
Look at the Codex T'au Tidewall Shieldline - it reflects shots on an "unmodified save roll of 6", meaning you can reflect melta shots into mortal wounds.
The real significance of this statement though is that it is different phrasing from "rolls of 1 always fail, irrespective of modifiers". I think that the difference between the two phrases leans me towards the interpretation that ALL 1's fail, natural and modified.
Or that they realized after writing the main rules how cumbersome the phrasing was, and by the time the T'au codex was written they streamlined it to "unmodified"
"Irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" is not the same as "ignore modifiers when determining an outcome".
As Pieceocake correctly said, the sentence refers to both modified and unmodified rolls of 1. A 1 fails regardless of whether it's had a -1 modifier or not applied to it. The "regardless of any modifiers" bit is clearly to get around auto hitting shenanigans with stacking +1's to hit.
WS1+ does nothing, don't apply that combat drug to your Succubus.
Except that it ignores the fact that "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" doesn't mean "irrespective of any modifiers that would increase it". I understand what you guys are saying, but it's a misreading.
"irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" does mean "irrespective of any modifiers that would increase it".
"irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" also means irrespective of any modifiers that would decrease it.
Hence my reading above that essentially boils down to rolls of 1 always fail, and unmodified rolls of 1 too.
If it's irrespective of any modifiers that would increase it and any modifiers that would decrease it, how would it be applying to both modified and unmodified rolls?
doctortom wrote: If it's irrespective of any modifiers that would increase it and any modifiers that would decrease it, how would it be applying to both modified and unmodified rolls?
"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply." - this means that a 1 fails if it is modified and if it is not modified. The roll of 1 always fails.
Many of you seem to be misinterpreting "irrespective". Irrespective in this instance is better thought of as "regardless". It doesn't matter if the roll is modified to become a 1 or not, a natural 1 fails, a modified 1 fails. 1 always fails. This has been consistent across every edition of the game.
doctortom wrote: If it's irrespective of any modifiers that would increase it and any modifiers that would decrease it, how would it be applying to both modified and unmodified rolls?
"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply." - this means that a 1 fails if it is modified and if it is not modified. The roll of 1 always fails.
Many of you seem to be misinterpreting "irrespective". Irrespective in this instance is better thought of as "regardless". It doesn't matter if the roll is modified to become a 1 or not, a natural 1 fails, a modified 1 fails. 1 always fails. This has been consistent across every edition of the game.
Exactly this. But don’t think logic will stop this Crazy Train... ;-)
Except that it ignores the fact that "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" doesn't mean "irrespective of any modifiers that would increase it". I understand what you guys are saying, but it's a misreading.
"irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" does mean "irrespective of any modifiers that would increase it".
"irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" also means irrespective of any modifiers that would decrease it.
Hence my reading above that essentially boils down to rolls of 1 always fail, and unmodified rolls of 1 too.
-A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.
"May apply" is a present conditional. The modifiers are already applied. As soon as you roll the dice they are modified. It all happens in one step. There's no "remove natural 1s" and then "remove modified 1s". Natural 1s don't exist, only modified 1s. So we can't make the distinction between the two when determining whether something is a 1 or not.
All 1s are modified 1s. We must now look at any modified 1s irrespective of the modifiers that apply to see if they fail.
So now we can read this 2 ways:
- You remove the modifiers to see if any dice are 1s.
- You ignore whether or not any 1s have been modified and fail them all.
For case 2, rolls cannot be modified below 1. So, a 1-1 becomes a 1. And a 2-1 becomes a 1. In this second case, both 2s and 1s auto-fail.
But, if we have +1, then the 1 becomes a 2. This 2 is not a modified 1 and therefore must pass. Again natural 1s don't exist, only modified 1s. With +1 you simply rolled a 2. There's no step before this.
This of course does not help anything since a +1 allows auto-hits, so it can't be this.
The modifiers are already applied. As soon as you roll the dice they are modified. It all happens in one step.
This is false. They now reference unmodified rolls, at least since the Tau Codex. Check the Tidewall Shieldline reflecting shots mechanic for evidence.
JohnnyHell wrote: Exactly this. But don’t think logic will stop this Crazy Train... ;-)
Lol - it's the "end of phase vs phase" discussion all over again.
1s fail guys, whether you have a WS1+ or any other shenanigans. We know this. Look deep within your souls and you'll see it - think of past editions, think of the other rules and how they interact, the answer will be as clear as the waters of lake Takananga.
The modifiers are already applied. As soon as you roll the dice they are modified. It all happens in one step.
This is false. They now reference unmodified rolls, at least since the Tau Codex. Check the Tidewall Shieldline reflecting shots mechanic for evidence.
And unmodified rolls are not rolls. The default roll is a roll that has been modified. Unmodified rolls is an exception to the way regular rolls work.
JohnnyHell wrote: Exactly this. But don’t think logic will stop this Crazy Train... ;-)
Lol - it's the "end of phase vs phase" discussion all over again.
1s fail guys, whether you have a WS1+ or any other shenanigans. We know this. Look deep within your souls and you'll see it - think of past editions, think of the other rules and how they interact, the answer will be as clear as the waters of lake Takananga.
How is WS 1+ shenanigans but + 1 to hit isn't? They are functionally the same. Also past editions don't mean squat.
The modifiers are already applied. As soon as you roll the dice they are modified. It all happens in one step.
This is false. They now reference unmodified rolls, at least since the Tau Codex. Check the Tidewall Shieldline reflecting shots mechanic for evidence.
Well, also since rerolls are done before modifiers. There must be more than one step there.
The modifiers are already applied. As soon as you roll the dice they are modified. It all happens in one step.
This is false. They now reference unmodified rolls, at least since the Tau Codex. Check the Tidewall Shieldline reflecting shots mechanic for evidence.
Well, also since rerolls are done before modifiers. There must be more than one step there.
Very well then:
Let's see how the whole sequence goes:
- Roll to hit
- Re-roll dice
- Apply modifiers
- Compare result to test
So where does "rolls of 1 fail, irrespective of modifiers" fit? Is it after the first step or before the last step?
If it's after the first step then "unmodified" rolls of 1 fail.
If ti's before the last step, then "modified" rolls of 1 fail.
How is WS 1+ shenanigans but + 1 to hit isn't? They are functionally the same. Also past editions don't mean squat.
They're both shenanigans of course.
I don't know what to say on this honestly. The rules are clear. They literally state that a 1 always fails regardless of modifiers. How some of you can claim otherwise is genuinely perplexing.
The modifiers are already applied. As soon as you roll the dice they are modified. It all happens in one step.
This is false. They now reference unmodified rolls, at least since the Tau Codex. Check the Tidewall Shieldline reflecting shots mechanic for evidence.
Well, also since rerolls are done before modifiers. There must be more than one step there.
Very well then:
Let's see how the whole sequence goes:
- Roll to hit
- Re-roll dice
- Apply modifiers
- Compare result to test
So where does "rolls of 1 fail, irrespective of modifiers" fit? Is it after the first step or before the last step?
If it's after the first step then "unmodified" rolls of 1 fail.
If ti's before the last step, then "modified" rolls of 1 fail.
It cannot be both simultaneously.
You guys keep reading it without the comma. If the comma wasn't there you guys would be right.
"A roll of 1 always fails irrespective of modifiers that may apply" means 'a dice roll showing 1 (aka 'natural roll') always fails regardless of any modifiers applicable.'
How is WS 1+ shenanigans but + 1 to hit isn't? They are functionally the same. Also past editions don't mean squat.
They're both shenanigans of course.
I don't know what to say on this honestly. The rules are clear. They literally state that a 1 always fails regardless of modifiers. How some of you can claim otherwise is genuinely perplexing.
I only claimed that rolls of 1 fail "without taking modifiers into account". So "natural" 1s always fail.
If you say "rolls of 1 fail regardless of modifiers" means rolls of "1 fail whether or not we applied modifiers", then "regardless of modifiers" adds nothing to the sentence. Because rolls of 1 fail. And the default "roll" is modified.
You guys keep reading it without the comma. If the comma wasn't there you guys would be right.
So this:
"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of modifiers that may apply".
Becomes this:
"A roll of 1 always fails, regardless of whether or not you had applied modifiers"
That just makes "irrespective of modifiers" a useless clause.
How is WS 1+ shenanigans but + 1 to hit isn't? They are functionally the same. Also past editions don't mean squat.
They're both shenanigans of course.
I don't know what to say on this honestly. The rules are clear. They literally state that a 1 always fails regardless of modifiers. How some of you can claim otherwise is genuinely perplexing.
I only claimed that rolls of 1 fail "without taking modifiers into account". So "natural" 1s always fail.
If you say "rolls of 1 fail regardless of modifiers" means rolls of "1 fail whether or not we applied modifiers", then "regardless of modifiers" adds nothing to the sentence. Because rolls of 1 fail. And the default "roll" is modified.
Yes, if you say "rolls of 1 fail regardless of modifiers" then only natural 1's can auto-fail.
But it says "rolls of 1 fail, regardless of modifiers" this clearly covers that any and all rolls of 1 fails. If this was a case of modified roll of 1, you've already applied all modifiers and still ended up at 1 - this is an auto fail because rolls of 1 always fail.
If this was a case of a natural 1 and you have any modifiers, the roll itself was a 1, therefore it fails. A natural roll of 1 cannot benefit from any positive modifiers because as per RAW, a roll of 1 fails. On the other hand, a natural roll of 1 CAN be effected by negative modifiers - however, this is redundant as a roll cannot be modified below 1 as per FAQ.
I think it's clear from context clues that, RAI, 1s always miss. Natural rolls of 1 or rolls that due to negative modifiers are reduced to 1.
15 Codexes (Codices?) deep and this is the first instance where anyone could possibly modify a statline to be 1+ (Not 100% sure on this one, if another Codex has rules to get a 1+ WS/BS/or SV, please chime in), and the fact that the most powerful models in the game all have, at best, 2+ in any of those statlines
Designer's Commentary FAQ specifically stating that while dice rolls can be modified to be higher than 6, they can never be modified to be less than one, and if multiple modifiers stack to treat the die roll as one.
Designer's Commentary also stating that Plasma Weaponry slay the bearer on rolls of 1 or rolls that count as 1 (ie rolls modified down to 1)
All of the example text I've found for an ability that raises a WS/BS/SV stat read "e.g. WS3+ becomes WS2+"
As it stands, thats how I'll play it (or would if there were DE players in my group). The DEFAQ could very well come out and say that yes, Succubi are the exception to the rule of 1s always missing when given Serpentin Combat Drugs
Gojiratoho wrote: I think it's clear from context clues that, RAI, 1s always miss. Natural rolls of 1 or rolls that due to negative modifiers are reduced to 1.
Designer's Commentary also stating that Plasma Weaponry slay the bearer on rolls of 1 or rolls that count as 1 (ie rolls modified down to 1)
Well, actually only rolls that are 1 after all modifications (if any). If I roll a 1 and have a +1 modifier, I don't have a problem with overheated plasma. They say to apply all rerolls and modifiers first, so unmodified rolls of 1 don't cause the problem unless there are no positive modifiers.
If this was a case of a natural 1 and you have any modifiers, the roll itself was a 1, therefore it fails. A natural roll of 1 cannot benefit from any positive modifiers because as per RAW, a roll of 1 fails. On the other hand, a natural roll of 1 CAN be effected by negative modifiers - however, this is redundant as a roll cannot be modified below 1 as per FAQ.
Hold up. Why can natural rolls of 1 be modified negatively but not positively. It says "any" modifiers. You're determining each case separately with different rules. Either the dice are modified or they are not when determining this failure.
I only claimed that rolls of 1 fail "without taking modifiers into account". So "natural" 1s always fail.
If you say "rolls of 1 fail regardless of modifiers" means rolls of "1 fail whether or not we applied modifiers", then "regardless of modifiers" adds nothing to the sentence. Because rolls of 1 fail. And the default "roll" is modified automatically.
No, again you're misunderstanding. It adds clarification to the first question anyone would ask 'but if I use modifiers to increase my roll to a successful value, does that count?'
You're correct in that it adds no further rules, it doesn't. It does, however, provide clarification for all those people who try and game the system.
I only claimed that rolls of 1 fail "without taking modifiers into account". So "natural" 1s always fail.
If you say "rolls of 1 fail regardless of modifiers" means rolls of "1 fail whether or not we applied modifiers", then "regardless of modifiers" adds nothing to the sentence. Because rolls of 1 fail. And the default "roll" is modified automatically.
No, again you're misunderstanding. It adds clarification to the first question anyone would ask 'but if I use modifiers to increase my roll to a successful value, does that count?'
You're correct in that it adds no further rules, it doesn't. It does, however, provide clarification for all those people who try and game the system.
It's a qualifier to the rule. It changes how the rule functions. Had they not specified this in the rule then rolls of 1 that become a 2 would not auto-fail. It is a requirement for the rule to function at all because "modified rolls" are simply called "rolls" which is exactly what this rule refers to. Without it the rule would be useless for everything except this succubus case.
I only claimed that rolls of 1 fail "without taking modifiers into account". So "natural" 1s always fail.
If you say "rolls of 1 fail regardless of modifiers" means rolls of "1 fail whether or not we applied modifiers", then "regardless of modifiers" adds nothing to the sentence. Because rolls of 1 fail. And the default "roll" is modified automatically.
No, again you're misunderstanding. It adds clarification to the first question anyone would ask 'but if I use modifiers to increase my roll to a successful value, does that count?'
You're correct in that it adds no further rules, it doesn't. It does, however, provide clarification for all those people who try and game the system.
It's a qualifier to the rule. It changes how the rule functions. Had they not specified this in the rule then rolls of 1 that become a 2 would not auto-fail. It is a requirement for the rule to function at all because "modified rolls" are simply called "rolls" which is exactly what this rule refers to. Without it the rule would be useless for everything except this succubus case.
It completely answers the OPs question, actually. A roll of a 1 always fails, regardless (irrespective) of any modifiers that may apply. Roll natural 1? It fails. Roll natural 2 that turns into a 1 due to -1 to hit? It fails. Both of these circumstances are clarified by the statement above. It couldn't be any clearer.
I'm glad I found this thread.
I know this isn't exactly what the OPs question is but we have a bit of confusion on plasma, overcharging and hit modifiers.
So he's saying that if you have a BS 2+ and give yourself a +1 to hit modifier that even though your hits would fail on a natural roll of 1 you would not be able to overheat and kill yourself as you are getting +1 to hit. So a 1 would become a 2 so you could not possibly overheat. Is this how it works because I feel like you always die on a natural roll of 1.... if not I've been playing my plasma executioners wrong this whole time. I'd be very happy to be wrong about that.
Asmodios wrote: I'm glad I found this thread.
I know this isn't exactly what the OPs question is but we have a bit of confusion on plasma, overcharging and hit modifiers.
So he's saying that if you have a BS 2+ and give yourself a +1 to hit modifier that even though your hits would fail on a natural roll of 1 you would not be able to overheat and kill yourself as you are getting +1 to hit. So a 1 would become a 2 so you could not possibly overheat. Is this how it works because I feel like you always die on a natural roll of 1.... if not I've been playing my plasma executioners wrong this whole time. I'd be very happy to be wrong about that.
Asmodios wrote: I'm glad I found this thread.
I know this isn't exactly what the OPs question is but we have a bit of confusion on plasma, overcharging and hit modifiers.
So he's saying that if you have a BS 2+ and give yourself a +1 to hit modifier that even though your hits would fail on a natural roll of 1 you would not be able to overheat and kill yourself as you are getting +1 to hit. So a 1 would become a 2 so you could not possibly overheat. Is this how it works because I feel like you always die on a natural roll of 1.... if not I've been playing my plasma executioners wrong this whole time. I'd be very happy to be wrong about that.
It completely answers the OPs question, actually. A roll of a 1 always fails, regardless (irrespective) of any modifiers that may apply. Roll natural 1? It fails. Roll natural 2 that turns into a 1 due to -1 to hit? It fails. Both of these circumstances are clarified by the statement above. It couldn't be any clearer.
Your second example requires that the roll be taken with respect to modifiers. You cannot both modify the roll and not modify it at the same time. You only make one check to see if the roll is an auto- fail. This check must happen either before you apply modifiers or after. The rule has a clause that specifies it must checked without respect to any modifiers.
If you look a the wording for plasma overheat, we will notice that the plasma blows up on a roll of 1. Stop. This roll of 1 can and must be modified by ANY modifiers that apply BEFORE blowing up.
But whatever, I've lost full interest in this discussion because no one has changed their minds and we are stuck arguing about basic grammar. This is futile.
If any DE player wants to play that the Succubus hits on 2s with combat drugs and -1 to hit then I will let him/her. It's not gamebreaking and it would feel scummy to tell him/her that the upgrades s/he paid for are worthless.
The most important rule in the rulebook is for both players to agree on unclear wording/rules. RAW I can read this how I want.
It completely answers the OPs question, actually. A roll of a 1 always fails, regardless (irrespective) of any modifiers that may apply. Roll natural 1? It fails. Roll natural 2 that turns into a 1 due to -1 to hit? It fails. Both of these circumstances are clarified by the statement above. It couldn't be any clearer.
Your second example requires that the roll be taken with respect to modifiers. You cannot both modify the roll and not modify it at the same time. You only make one check to see if the roll is an auto- fail. This check must happen either before you apply modifiers or after. The rule has a clause that specifies it must checked without respect to any modifiers.
If you look a the wording for plasma overheat, we will notice that the plasma blows up on a roll of 1. Stop. This roll of 1 can and must be modified by ANY modifiers that apply BEFORE blowing up.
But whatever, I've lost full interest in this discussion because no one has changed their minds and we are stuck arguing about basic grammar. This is futile.
If any DE player wants to play that the Succubus hits on 2s with combat drugs and -1 to hit then I will let him/her. It's not gamebreaking and it would feel scummy to tell him/her that the upgrades s/he paid for are worthless.
The most important rule in the rulebook is for both players to agree on unclear wording/rules. RAW I can read this how I want.
A rule absolutely can apply to both unmodified and modified rolls and in this case it does. As the rule we've quoted like 20 times now. You are misinterpreting the rule for some reason as a 'check that must be taken without respect to modifiers' which is wrong and not how the rule is worded at all. A roll of 1 fails, with or without modifiers. That is exactly what the rule says. There is no other interpretation.
Plasma exploding is a different rule and irrelevant to this discussion. It has no place here.
I don't see what's scummy about playing by the rules? The DE player can give their succubus all manner of other, incredible buffs from combat drugs. It's just that modifying a WS to be 1+ is pointless and rightly so becaue it could lead to game breaking things.
An Actual Englishman wrote: A roll of 1 fails, with or without modifiers. That is exactly what the rule says. There is no other interpretation.
This is the crux of the issue. We disagree on what "irrespective" means.
Irrespective: adj.
without regard to; ignoring or discounting (usu. fol. by of): Irrespective of the weather, I should go.
"A roll of 1 always fails, ignoring any modifiers that may apply"
"A roll of 1 always fails, discounting any modifiers..."
"A roll of 1 always fails, without regard to any modifiers..."
Irrespective: adj.
irrespective of (preposition) without taking account of; regardless of
"A roll of 1 always fails, without taking account of any modifiers..."
"A roll of 1 always fails, regardless of any modifiers that may apply"
adjective
1.
without regard to something else, especially something specified; ignoring or discounting (usually followed by of):
"a roll of 1 always fails, without regard to any modifiers..."
Find me a definition that defines irrespective as "with or without".
The rulebook could really be clearer on the meaning of 'roll', but as it stands, here is the order:
1. Roll the dice. This is important - without this, nothing else really matters.
2. Before anything, check the numbers showing on the dice, and compare these to the weapon skill of the model. Any dice showing numbers that are less than the required weapon skill - and any dice showing a 1 - go to step 3. Any remaining dice after this that are showing equal to or greater than the required weapon skill, go to step 4 (and they skip step 3).
3. Only the dice that didn't meet the weapon skill requirement - or showed a 1 - matter here. Check those dice against any reroll rules. Do you have reroll 1's? Or maybe you have reroll misses? Perhaps you want to use a Command reroll on one of them? Now is the time for all this business. Once you have completed all the rerolls you are allowed, check all the dice in this step for 1's - discard them. Any dice left join their friends in step 4.
4. By this stage, you don't have any dice left showing 1's. Modify all remaining dice with any applicable modifiers. Note that any dice with positive modifiers can go to infinity. You can have a modified result of 516 (nice hit)! However, even if you have negative modifiers of one billion, the dice cannot go lower than 1, just count it as 1 in this case. Now check these final numbers to see if any of them are now 1, or count as 1 - after all modifiers. Discard them. Compare all remaining numbers against the model's weapon skill. Any numbers showing less than the model's weapon skill at this point are discarded. All the remaining ones are hits, and can be moved to the wound roll.
Let's see this in action with the Succubus example. As in OP's example, the Succubus has the +1WS combat drug, so it's weapon skill which is normally 2+ is now 1+ (the rules do not prevent this). The Succubus is using its Hellglaive, giving a -1 to hit in combat.
Step 1: The Succubus has 4 attacks, so 4 dice are rolled.
Step 2: The 4 dice land, showing a 1, a 2, a 3 and a 4. These are compared to the model's weapon skill of 1+. Although all 4 dice meet the weapon skill requirement, one of them is showing a 1, and must be sent to step 3 all by itself (to be punished).
Step 3: The one naughty dice from step 2 is to be dealt with here. Do we have reroll 1's or reroll misses for this Succubus? No, so next is to check if we have dice showing a 1 regardless. We do, and it is discarded.
Step 4: Only three dice made it through from step 2 - one died in step 3 (sad face). Now we apply modifiers to our results of 2,3 and 4. Do we have modifiers? Yes, the Hellglaive gives -1. So now, our results of 2, 3 and 4 become 1, 2 and 3. Are any of these results a 1? Yes - discard it. The two remaining dice results are 2 and 3. Compare these to the model's weapon skill of 1+. Do they meet it? Yes, they graduate to wound rolls. Woohoo!
TL;DR - even with the combat drug giving +1 to the WS, a 2 to hit will fail in the Hellglaive example. That's until battle round 3 of course, but that's for another time....
If anyone wants, I can run through a space marine moving and firing a heavy weapon, or firing a plasma gun with -1 to hit, using the above steps
Warhanna wrote: ...
4. By this stage, you don't have any dice left showing 1's. Modify all remaining dice with any applicable modifiers. Note that any dice with positive modifiers can go to infinity. You can have a modified result of 516 (nice hit)! However, even if you have negative modifiers of one billion, the dice cannot go lower than 1, just count it as 1 in this case. Now check these final numbers to see if any of them are now 1, or count as 1 - after all modifiers. Discard them. Compare all remaining numbers against the model's weapon skill. Any numbers showing less than the model's weapon skill at this point are discarded. All the remaining ones are hits, and can be moved to the wound roll...
TL;DR - even with the combat drug giving +1 to the WS, a 2 to hit will fail in the Hellglaive example. That's until battle round 3 of course, but that's for another time....
If anyone wants, I can run through a space marine moving and firing a heavy weapon, or firing a plasma gun with -1 to hit, using the above steps
Points were your argument is not correct: "if any of them are now 1, or count as 1 - after all modifiers. Discard them." a 2 with a -1 modifier is not a 1 "irrespective of modifiers" it is a 2 "irrespective of modifiers"
"a 2 to hit will fail in the Hellglaive example." Same as above, a 2 with a -1 modifier is not a 1 "irrespective of modifiers" it is a 2 "irrespective of modifiers"
I was with you till you said a 2 would miss. It would miss if 1s missed always, but they only miss if they are a 1 "irrespective of modifiers". If you ignore modifiers, that was a 2.
An Actual Englishman wrote: A roll of 1 fails, with or without modifiers. That is exactly what the rule says. There is no other interpretation.
This is the crux of the issue. We disagree on what "irrespective" means.
Irrespective: adj.
without regard to; ignoring or discounting (usu. fol. by of): Irrespective of the weather, I should go.
"A roll of 1 always fails, ignoring any modifiers that may apply"
"A roll of 1 always fails, discounting any modifiers..."
"A roll of 1 always fails, without regard to any modifiers..."
Irrespective: adj.
irrespective of (preposition) without taking account of; regardless of
"A roll of 1 always fails, without taking account of any modifiers..."
"A roll of 1 always fails, regardless of any modifiers that may apply"
adjective
1.
without regard to something else, especially something specified; ignoring or discounting (usually followed by of):
"a roll of 1 always fails, without regard to any modifiers..."
Find me a definition that defines irrespective as "with or without".
Every definition you've quoted so many times above is read as "with or without" modifiers. Irrespective does not mean 'ignore', it is not exclusive. It means 'regardless of' so it applies to natural and modified rolls.
This is so obvious. I can't believe there is a group of you who misunderstand this. I guess some people will read rules how they want if it gets them an advantage.
Every definition you've quoted so many times above is read as "with or without" modifiers. Irrespective does not mean 'ignore', it is not exclusive. It means 'regardless of' so it applies to natural and modified rolls.
This is so obvious. I can't believe there is a group of you who misunderstand this. I guess some people will read rules how they want if it gets them an advantage.
It is obvious. You are the one misunderstanding this. It is not about gaining an advantage, it is about reading the rules correctly.
You said Irrespective does not mean 'ignore', but it literally does mean ignore.
"irrespective
[ir-i-spek-tiv]
adjective
1.
without regard to something else, especially something specified; ignoringor discounting (usually followed by of):" (Emphasis mine)
"irrespective... SYNONYMS regardless of, without regard for, without regard to, disregarding, ignoring, notwithstanding, whatever, no matter what, without reference to, without consideration of, setting aside, discounting" (Emphasis mine)
Weather or not that is the case, the definitions of Irrespective that you provided clearly indicate that we don't consider modifiers for the comparison. In case you don't remember here is a link
Points were your argument is not correct: "if any of them are now 1, or count as 1 - after all modifiers. Discard them." a 2 with a -1 modifier is not a 1 "irrespective of modifiers" it is a 2 "irrespective of modifiers"
"a 2 to hit will fail in the Hellglaive example." Same as above, a 2 with a -1 modifier is not a 1 "irrespective of modifiers" it is a 2 "irrespective of modifiers"
JNAProductions wrote:I was with you till you said a 2 would miss. It would miss if 1s missed always, but they only miss if they are a 1 "irrespective of modifiers". If you ignore modifiers, that was a 2.
This is why I have a problem with the word 'roll' in the rules. Is it a roll of a one on a dice before any kind of modifiers are applied (therefore, irrespective) or is it the final result after modifiers have also been applied, meaning even if you have weapon skill of 0+, a roll of a 1 or a 2 would still count as 1 after the -1 to hit?
I went with 'both'. However, if it's just the first 1's that are discarded and not also modified 1's then you're right, and the roll of a 2 would still hit.
Every definition you've quoted so many times above is read as "with or without" modifiers. Irrespective does not mean 'ignore', it is not exclusive. It means 'regardless of' so it applies to natural and modified rolls.
This is so obvious. I can't believe there is a group of you who misunderstand this. I guess some people will read rules how they want if it gets them an advantage.
It is obvious. You are the one misunderstanding this. It is not about gaining an advantage, it is about reading the rules correctly.
You said Irrespective does not mean 'ignore', but it literally does mean ignore.
"irrespective
[ir-i-spek-tiv]
adjective
1.
without regard to something else, especially something specified; ignoringor discounting (usually followed by of):" (Emphasis mine)
Quoting the dictionary is not supposed to be done in rules discussions as far as I'm aware? It adds nothing to discussion as you've given us 3 different meanings of the same word - without regard (regardless), ignoring or discounting.
Regardless here we have a little thing called context that should make the rule abundantly clear to everyone.
Rolls of 1 fail, regardless of whether a modifier got you there or not. It fails. Always. The rule couldn't be clearer.
Either way the OP has emailed GW I believe so I suggest we all wait for a FAQ to bring this crazy train to a halt.
Edit - if GW wanted the rule to be as some of you are suggesting, they'd have written "Unmodified rolls of 1 automatically fail." They did not so I think it's safe to assume that the most logical reading of the rule is the correct one?
The dependent clause modifies/adds to the independent cluase that precedes it as a whole. It does not single out the subject matter of the independent clause and modify the said subject matter alone.
You insist on interpreting the clause "irrespective of any modifers..." modifies the subject "a roll of 1." It doesn't.
The clause "irrespective of any modifiers..." modifies the clause "a roll of 1 always fails" - as in, "a roll that was considered as having failed due to the roll being 1."
All of the definitions quoted mean the same thing, including "regardless". You seem really unclear on that, but "regardless of any modifiers that may apply" doesn't mean the same thing as "regardless of whether or not modifiers are applied". You're doing the same thing BaconCatBug did on page 2: correctly replacing "irrespective" with a synonym, but then changing the rest of the clause to meet a common colloquial use of that synonym. Should GW have instead said "unmodified rolls of 1 automatically fail"? Obviously that would have been clearer (and saved on word count). Nevertheless, that's unambiguously the meaning of the sentence if you don't stuff a bunch of expected implications between all the words.
skchsan wrote: The dependent clause modifies/adds to the independent cluase that precedes it as a whole. It does not single out the subject matter of the independent clause and modify the said subject matter alone.
You insist on interpreting the clause "irrespective of any modifers..." modifies the subject "a roll of 1." It doesn't.
The clause "irrespective of any modifiers..." modifies the clause "a roll of 1 always fails" - as in, "a roll that was considered as having failed due to the roll being 1."
This is an arbitrary grammatical distinction with no practical consequences. Irrespective [sic] of what the dependent clause modifies, there's still only one way to ignore modifiers when determining if a roll of 1 always fails.
This is an arbitrary grammatical distinction with no practical consequences. Irrespective [sic] of what the dependent clause modifies, there's still only one way to ignore modifiers when determining if a roll of 1 always fails.
This is the exact error you're making in your interpretation. It is not arbitrary.
If you choose to ignore the basic rules of the English language the rule is written in, you should not be arguing this as RAW.
Maybe try go asking others with the rulebook in different language and see how it's written there. Because RAW and rule of English, your interpretation is wrong.
This is an arbitrary grammatical distinction with no practical consequences. Irrespective [sic] of what the dependent clause modifies, there's still only one way to ignore modifiers when determining if a roll of 1 always fails.
This is the exact error you're making in your interpretation. It is not arbitrary.
If you choose to ignore the basic rules of the English language the rule is written in, you should not be arguing this as RAW.
Maybe try go asking others with the rulebook in different language and see how it's written there. Because RAW and rule of English, your interpretation is wrong.
Correct. Like that awesome chart!
I feel we are wasting our breath here. A FAQ will clarify their intention.
A predicton the 2018 Chapter Approved (if not included in a FAQ somewhere before that) will include a new rule that allows WS 1+ to reroll, possibly hitting on some number (6+ or 4+ would be my guesses) if it misses with the initial roll, which would still have a reason for a WS 1+ while still having 1's miss. They did a similar rule in the previous editions for BS higher than 6 (when high numbers were good). Maybe by that point they'll go back to having modifiers apply before rerolls also, so that things will be more intuitive there (I won't hold my breath on that one, though).
On this, I take the "regardless" of modifiers to mean whether or not there are modifiers, so the unmodified and the modified 1's miss. The regardless would be for ignoring whether or not there are modifiers - unmodified 1's miss, and modified 1's miss. It could have been worded better, just by saying 1's - modified or unmodified - miss. (And, if they really meant just unmodified, they could have said unmodified.)
doctortom wrote: On this, I take the "regardless" of modifiers to mean whether or not there are modifiers, so the unmodified and the modified 1's miss. The regardless would be for ignoring whether or not there are modifiers - unmodified 1's miss, and modified 1's miss. It could have been worded better, just by saying 1's - modified or unmodified - miss. (And, if they really meant just unmodified, they could have said unmodified.)
That isn't what it says, though. It says "ignore the modifiers", not "ignore whether or not there are modifiers".
Here's another translation that shows the intent was for natural 1s to fail. I checked french too, but the phrasing there had all the perceived ambiguities as the english version.
Battle Primer in deutsch wrote:Ein Wurfergebnis von 1 schlägt unabhängig von etwaigen Modi katoren immer fehl.
A throw result of 1 will always fail regardless of any modifiers.
doctortom wrote: On this, I take the "regardless" of modifiers to mean whether or not there are modifiers, so the unmodified and the modified 1's miss. The regardless would be for ignoring whether or not there are modifiers - unmodified 1's miss, and modified 1's miss. It could have been worded better, just by saying 1's - modified or unmodified - miss. (And, if they really meant just unmodified, they could have said unmodified.)
That isn't what it says, though. It says "ignore the modifiers", not "ignore whether or not there are modifiers".
Here's another translation that shows the intent was for natural 1s to fail. I checked french too, but the phrasing there had all the perceived ambiguities as the english version.
Battle Primer in deutsch wrote:Ein Wurfergebnis von 1 schlägt unabhängig von etwaigen Modi katoren immer fehl.
A throw result of 1 will always fail regardless of any modifiers.
And note, google translator doesn't fully translate the nuances of language - best translation will be obtained from someone who speaks the language.
skchsan wrote: If you choose to ignore the basic rules of the English language the rule is written in, you should not be arguing this as RAW.
I'm not ignoring any rules of English. Or if I am, you've failed to demonstrate it. In what way does "ignoring all modifiers" modifying "a roll of 1 always fails" differ from its modification of "a roll of 1" in this context? Your last example was just a string of imaginary implications.
skchsan wrote: If you choose to ignore the basic rules of the English language the rule is written in, you should not be arguing this as RAW.
I'm not ignoring any rules of English. Or if I am, you've failed to demonstrate it. In what way does "ignoring all modifiers" modifying "a roll of 1 always fails" differ from its modification of "a roll of 1" in this context? Your last example was just a string of imaginary implications.
We've had previous instances of a rule published in a Codex in English not reading the same as it did when translated into a different language.
skchsan wrote: And note, google translator doesn't fully translate the nuances of language - best translation will be obtained from someone who speaks the language.
I do speak Spanish. The only difference I'd have made to that translation would have been to use "independent" rather than "regardless". It literally says "with independence", but Google made it more conversational.
skchsan wrote: If you choose to ignore the basic rules of the English language the rule is written in, you should not be arguing this as RAW.
I'm not ignoring any rules of English. Or if I am, you've failed to demonstrate it. In what way does "ignoring all modifiers" modifying "a roll of 1 always fails" differ from its modification of "a roll of 1" in this context? Your last example was just a string of imaginary implications.
Uh, I'm not your English teacher. Go learn it on your own.
If it would help though, I've included an excerpt from a blog that I find matches our case:
Use a comma to separate the dependent clause from the independent when it follows the independent one if the dependent clause is nonessential. Keep in mind, however, that many dependent clauses will be essential and will not require a comma.
Determining if the dependent clause is essential or nonessential can be tricky, but for nonessential in this construction, think parenthetical. If you could set the dependent clause apart from the independent clause by using a dash or parentheses—if it makes sense to do so and it is your intention to do so—you can also use a comma. When you use the comma (or dash or parentheses), you are declaring the dependent clause nonessential.
Showing that a clause is nonessential may be easier to do if you adjust the word choices.
Dexter went to jail after ten years on the run. (essential)
Compare to
Dexter finally went to jail, after ten years on the run. (nonessential)
Dexter finally went to jail—after ten years on the run.
The original sentence says that Dexter went to jail after being on the run for ten years. The next two say that Dexter finally went to jail—it happened to be after ten years on the run, but the thrust is that he finally went. The word choices and use or non-use of the comma give meaning to the sentences.
What’s important here is that the writer has a choice and the choice will direct the meaning of the sentence. This is not an instance when you must use a comma, as you do when naming a spouse—My husband, Zane, is not a cowboy. You choose comma or no comma, nonessential or essential, depending on what you want the sentence to say. (Keep in mind that we’re still looking at dependent clauses after independent ones.)
A couple more examples—
Lana gave up looking before she found her sister. (essential)
Lana gave up looking ten years ago, before she discovered her sister was actually her mother. (nonessential)
Lana gave up looking ten years ago (before she discovered her sister was actually her mother).
——–
Frances gave me her fork after the dog licked it. (essential)
Frances gave me her fork, after she let the dog lick it. (nonessential)
Frances gave me her fork—after she let the dog lick it.
doctortom wrote: We've had previous instances of a rule published in a Codex in English not reading the same as it did when translated into a different language.
Understood, but it's still compelling evidence. Spanish tends to be a much more precise language than English, but that doesn't necessarily mean the translator understood the meaning of the original sentence. The real problem is people are refusing to really read what the English sentence is saying, and I'm certainly more likely to trust the judgment of a professional translator here than people on the internet who are clearly demonstrating an inability to separate the literal meaning of words like "regardless" and "irrespective" from their commonly used contexts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: If it would help though, I've included an excerpt from a blog that I find matches our case:
While that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the present point, it does speak to (but not confirm) one of your earlier points about comma placement. Here are some other sentences with dependent clauses that still reframe the intended meaning of the independent clause, even though they follow commas.
That door is red, irrespective of its obvious repainting.
I won the game, despite some light cheating.
I lost $50 today, only to later discover it in my pocket.
doctortom wrote: We've had previous instances of a rule published in a Codex in English not reading the same as it did when translated into a different language.
Understood, but it's still compelling evidence.
No it isn't. Honestly, what it says in the language it wasn't originally written in doesn't matter. Biases from the people doing the translating can (and have) crept in to where it can change the rule. What it says in the original language really matters more. I wouldn't bring in translations as evidence.
Benn Roe wrote: Spanish tends to be a much more precise language than English, but that doesn't necessarily mean the translator understood the meaning of the original sentence. The real problem is people are refusing to really read what the English sentence is saying, and I'm certainly more likely to trust the judgment of a professional translator here than people on the internet who are clearly demonstrating an inability to separate the literal meaning of words like "regardless" and "irrespective" from their commonly used contexts.
Well, the problem of people refusing to really read what the English sentence is saying is an accusation either side can address at the other.
blaktoof wrote: A roll of 1 fails irrespective of modifiers.
With or without modifiers, if you roll a 1 you fail.
Google tells me irrespective means:
not taking (something) into account; regardless of.
So, WITHOUT TAKING MODIFIERS INTO ACCOUNT, a 1 fails. If you take modifiers into account, a 1 is no longer an automatic failure. It will almost always fail anyway, since there's one model in the game who can get a 1+ ANYTHING, but in this rare case, you'd hit.
Every definition you've quoted so many times above is read as "with or without" modifiers. Irrespective does not mean 'ignore', it is not exclusive. It means 'regardless of' so it applies to natural and modified rolls.
This is so obvious. I can't believe there is a group of you who misunderstand this. I guess some people will read rules how they want if it gets them an advantage.
It is obvious. You are the one misunderstanding this. It is not about gaining an advantage, it is about reading the rules correctly.
You said Irrespective does not mean 'ignore', but it literally does mean ignore.
"irrespective
[ir-i-spek-tiv]
adjective
1.
without regard to something else, especially something specified; ignoringor discounting (usually followed by of):" (Emphasis mine)
Quoting the dictionary is not supposed to be done in rules discussions as far as I'm aware?
You can use dictionary definitions of words if the poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner. Which clearly was the case since he said "Irrespective does not mean 'ignore'" When it clearly does.
Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC): wrote:
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
It adds nothing to discussion as you've given us 3 different meanings of the same word - without regard (regardless), ignoring or discounting.
Regardless here we have a little thing called context that should make the rule abundantly clear to everyone.
Rolls of 1 fail, regardless of whether a modifier got you there or not. It fails. Always. The rule couldn't be clearer.
Except the rule does not actually say that part about weather a modifier got you there or not... It says to ignore modifiers. aka without counting modifiers. The rule writers should just have used the term "Natural 1" as in "a Natural 1 always fails" to make it 100% clear to everyone.
Edit - if GW wanted the rule to be as some of you are suggesting, they'd have written "Unmodified rolls of 1 automatically fail." They did not so I think it's safe to assume that the most logical reading of the rule is the correct one?
Do you actually think they thought that far into the rules? the terribly worded rules have been an issue for a few editions now.
The fact that they did not make it 100% clear does not make it safe to assume anything.
But the most logical reading of the rule is the one where you ignore modifiers.
P.S. they did write unmodified in the new Tau datasheet (at least I think it was the Tau where they used unmodified). Why they did not use this all along does not surprise me though. GW is notorious for strangely worded rules.
An Actual Englishman wrote: A roll of 1 fails, with or without modifiers. That is exactly what the rule says. There is no other interpretation.
This is the crux of the issue. We disagree on what "irrespective" means.
Irrespective: adj.
without regard to; ignoring or discounting (usu. fol. by of): Irrespective of the weather, I should go.
"A roll of 1 always fails, ignoring any modifiers that may apply"
"A roll of 1 always fails, discounting any modifiers..."
"A roll of 1 always fails, without regard to any modifiers..."
Irrespective: adj.
irrespective of (preposition) without taking account of; regardless of
"A roll of 1 always fails, without taking account of any modifiers..."
"A roll of 1 always fails, regardless of any modifiers that may apply"
adjective
1.
without regard to something else, especially something specified; ignoring or discounting (usually followed by of):
"a roll of 1 always fails, without regard to any modifiers..."
Find me a definition that defines irrespective as "with or without".
Every definition you've quoted so many times above is read as "with or without" modifiers. Irrespective does not mean 'ignore', it is not exclusive. It means 'regardless of' so it applies to natural and modified rolls.
This is so obvious. I can't believe there is a group of you who misunderstand this. I guess some people will read rules how they want if it gets them an advantage.
Ignore: v.
To refuse to pay attention to, to disregard
Discount: v.
To leave out of account or consideration
"A roll of 1 always fails, leaving out of consideration any modifiers."
To leave something out of consideration means you do not care what that something is because it has no bearing on the outcome. Modifiers have no bearing on whether a roll "always" fails on a 1. They do not affect the decision. You cannot both take them into consideration and then not, as such your "with or without" is actually a misinterpretation.
"Irrespective of the weather, I will go out." Here, I am ignoring whatever the weather is because my decision is not based on the weather. It has no input.
"Anyone I disagree with on rule is trying to get an advantage" is not a fair counter. I don't even play DE. It just makes sense to me. It doesn't break the game at all. Did you roll a natural 1? then you fail. Did you roll literally anything else? Check against WS.
Like I said, if I played against a DE player i would still interpret it as "ignoring" modifiers.
I guess that makes me a masochist?
I could just as easily accuse you of trying to gain an advantage against DE players. But it would mean nothing.
And people wonder why GW has trouble writing rules
Long story short, everyone that entered this thread understood the rule a certain way and nothing has changed anyone's mind. We are on page 5 and still going. I recommend we take a break. If the FAQ addresses this then we'll know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: Exactly, you ignore whether or not the 1 was caused by a modifier.
"irrespective" does not specify causation.
"I will eat chocolate, irrespective of what my trainer may say."
I'm ignoring whether or my trainer caused me to eat chocolate?
DeathReaper wrote: .S. they did write unmodified in the new Tau datasheet (at least I think it was the Tau where they used unmodified). Why they did not use this all along does not surprise me though. GW is notorious for strangely worded rules.
They also could have decided not to use unmodified because they didn't mean for it to be only unmodified.
DeathReaper wrote: .S. they did write unmodified in the new Tau datasheet (at least I think it was the Tau where they used unmodified). Why they did not use this all along does not surprise me though. GW is notorious for strangely worded rules.
They also could have decided not to use unmodified because they didn't mean for it to be only unmodified.
But we know from the language they used they meant for it to be unmodified, because that is what "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply." means.
I'm not doing this with you two. The rules as read are clear. You have evidence in the fact that GW have not used the words "unmodified rolls" or have nowhere specified that the rule only applies to unmodified rolls. You have evidence in that the Battle Primer en Espanol confirms the English reading of the statement (a result of 1 always fails...). You have many people here suggesting that you might be wrong.
You can believe what you want gentlemen, it doesn't matter to me - likely GW will FAQ this before I have a chance to play a Dark Eldar player anyway.
I'm not doing this with you two. The rules as read are clear. You have evidence in the fact that GW have not used the words "unmodified rolls" or have nowhere specified that the rule only applies to unmodified rolls. You have evidence in that the Battle Primer en Espanol confirms the English reading of the statement (a result of 1 always fails...). You have many people here suggesting that you might be wrong.
You can believe what you want gentlemen, it doesn't matter to me - likely GW will FAQ this before I have a chance to play a Dark Eldar player anyway.
Ironically the Dark Eldar wording for combat drugs already give the example of ws +1 on combat drugs to consider the wytches as Ws2 instead Ws3 ( so it seems attributed modificatiins are applied before the roll)
skchsan wrote: If you choose to ignore the basic rules of the English language the rule is written in, you should not be arguing this as RAW.
I'm not ignoring any rules of English. Or if I am, you've failed to demonstrate it. In what way does "ignoring all modifiers" modifying "a roll of 1 always fails" differ from its modification of "a roll of 1" in this context? Your last example was just a string of imaginary implications.
Uh, I'm not your English teacher. Go learn it on your own.
If it would help though, I've included an excerpt from a blog that I find matches our case:
Use a comma to separate the dependent clause from the independent when it follows the independent one if the dependent clause is nonessential. Keep in mind, however, that many dependent clauses will be essential and will not require a comma.
Determining if the dependent clause is essential or nonessential can be tricky, but for nonessential in this construction, think parenthetical. If you could set the dependent clause apart from the independent clause by using a dash or parentheses—if it makes sense to do so and it is your intention to do so—you can also use a comma. When you use the comma (or dash or parentheses), you are declaring the dependent clause nonessential.
Showing that a clause is nonessential may be easier to do if you adjust the word choices.
Dexter went to jail after ten years on the run. (essential)
Compare to
Dexter finally went to jail, after ten years on the run. (nonessential)
Dexter finally went to jail—after ten years on the run.
The original sentence says that Dexter went to jail after being on the run for ten years. The next two say that Dexter finally went to jail—it happened to be after ten years on the run, but the thrust is that he finally went. The word choices and use or non-use of the comma give meaning to the sentences.
What’s important here is that the writer has a choice and the choice will direct the meaning of the sentence. This is not an instance when you must use a comma, as you do when naming a spouse—My husband, Zane, is not a cowboy. You choose comma or no comma, nonessential or essential, depending on what you want the sentence to say. (Keep in mind that we’re still looking at dependent clauses after independent ones.)
A couple more examples—
Lana gave up looking before she found her sister. (essential)
Lana gave up looking ten years ago, before she discovered her sister was actually her mother. (nonessential)
Lana gave up looking ten years ago (before she discovered her sister was actually her mother).
——–
Frances gave me her fork after the dog licked it. (essential)
Frances gave me her fork, after she let the dog lick it. (nonessential)
Frances gave me her fork—after she let the dog lick it.
So you consider "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" a non-essential clause?
The thing with non-essential clauses is that they don't affect the ultimate meaning of the sentence. In the examples provided:
"Dexter finally went to jail, after ten years on the run" has the same meaning as "Dexter finally went to jail"
"Lana gave up looking ten years ago, before she discovered her sister was actually her mother" has the same meaning as "Lana gave up looking ten years ago"
"Frances gave me her fork, after she let the dog lick it" has the same meaning as "Frances gave me her fork"
If we continue this to "A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" and remove the non-essential, we would get "A roll of 1 always fails".
Now, I don't know about you, but to me the meaning between these two sentences has changed. Otherwise your argument would be "if we have a positive modifier and a 2+ to hit, we can't miss", and that's clearly not the case.
Now that we consider "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" as being an essential clause, we can not determine the meaning of "A roll of 1 always fails" without also applying "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply". In this case it means that if the dice shows a 1 we automatically fail, for any other results we don't.
I'm not doing this with you two. The rules as read are clear. You have evidence in the fact that GW have not used the words "unmodified rolls" or have nowhere specified that the rule only applies to unmodified rolls. You have evidence in that the Battle Primer en Espanol confirms the English reading of the statement (a result of 1 always fails...). You have many people here suggesting that you might be wrong.
You can believe what you want gentlemen, it doesn't matter to me - likely GW will FAQ this before I have a chance to play a Dark Eldar player anyway.
There are many people saying that the "modified 1's are auto fails too" camp are also wrong. I consider the recent use of "unmodified rolls" to be GW learning how to better write rules. Regardless of how they refer to unmodified rolls in future publications, it is clear that they are referring to unmodified rolls of 1 in this instance.
An Actual Englishman wrote: You have evidence in that the Battle Primer en Espanol confirms the English reading of the statement (a result of 1 always fails...).
It does confirm the English reading, but not in the way you're suggesting. It specifies "a result of 1 on the die always fails". Your other evidence is really flimsy, and the case for a reading that includes modified 1s seems to hinge on a misunderstanding of the word "irrespective" and/or dubious beliefs about the implications of commas.
Interesting discussion, and sorry to necro, but...
I get that WS1+ with no modifier fails on a natural 1 ("A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.")
I get that WS1+ with -1 modifier fails on a natural 1 (as above) and the debate is really whether it can be considered to fail on a 2 (are modifiers completely ignored in the above quote, or does it mean before or after modifiers?)
My question is what a WS1+ with a -2, or -3 (or whatever) modifier requires to pass. Designer's commentary says you cannot modify below a 1, so under the "modifiers are completely ignored" interpretation a WS1+ will *always* hit on a 2+ regardless of what else is going on in terms of modifiers. The "before or after modifiers" interpretation would mean a WS1+ is no better than WS2+ under any circumstances I can think of (with a -2 modifier both would still need a 4+ to hit).
I have no opinion on the answer, but my personal opinion regarding the wider issue is that the problem lies with not being able to modify below 1. If you could then the "natural 1" interpretation would work and modifiers could take you to 0, meaning you could fail a roll with WS1+ when rolling 2 with a -2. It would require a lot of rewrites to "roll of 1 or less" for things like Plasma (or an FAQ stating "where anything says roll of 1 read as roll of 1 or less"), but would be unambiguous.
A "roll" is always the final result, after re-rolls and modifiers.
From the designers commentary :
Q: If a rule states that an ability triggers
on, for example, ‘hit rolls of 6+’, does this
refer to the result of the dice rolls before
or after modifiers are applied?
A: It refers to the final result, after re-rolls
and modifiers (if any) have been applied.
The only exception to this would be abilities
that specifically state, for example, ‘unmodified
hit rolls of 6’, or ‘hit rolls of 6 before modifiers
are applied.’
Yes, but this is not an ability, it is a hit roll. And it specifically states "irrespective of any modifiers...".
Edit:
A corollary of the "final result" idea is that a 5 with a +1 would be a 6 for the purposes of overwatch, right? Since the wording is basically the same?
