If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**An Actual Englishman**

Dandelion wrote:
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.

**DeathReaper**

An Actual Englishman wrote:

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)

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/irrespective

**BaconCatBug**

Exactly, you ignore whether or not the 1 was caused by a modifier.

**DeathReaper**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Exactly, you ignore whether or not the 1 was caused by a modifier.

That is not at all what the rule says...

"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply."

Or replacing irrespective with Ignore: A roll of 1 always fails, ignoring any modifiers that may apply.

**BaconCatBug**

Except Irrespective is not a synonym of Ignore.

**DeathReaper**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Except Irrespective is not a synonym of Ignore.

Except it literally is...

"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)

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/irrespective

Therefore your argument is not correct and modified 1's do not fail automatically.

**JakeSiren**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Except Irrespective is not a synonym of Ignore.

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

**Warhanna**

DeathReaper wrote:

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.

**An Actual Englishman**

DeathReaper wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:

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)

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/irrespective

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?

**skchsan**

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."

**Benn Roe**

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.

**SeanDavid1991**

Refer to Chart

**Benn Roe**

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.

SeanDavid1991 wrote:Refer to Chart

But it's wrong?

**skchsan**

Benn Roe wrote:

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.

**An Actual Englishman**

skchsan wrote:
Benn Roe wrote:

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.

**Benn Roe**

Battle Primer en español wrote:Un resultado de 1 en el dado siempre es un fallo, con independencia de los modi cadores que se apliquen.

A result of 1 on the die is always a failure, regardless of the modifiers that are applied.

That's certainly clearer. Thanks for suggesting it.

**doctortom**

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.)

**Benn Roe**

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.

**skchsan**

Benn Roe wrote:
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.

**Benn Roe**

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.

**doctortom**

Benn Roe wrote:
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.

**Benn Roe**

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**

Benn Roe wrote:
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:

from http://theeditorsblog.net/2014/07/30/commas-with-subordinate-clauses-a-readers-question/

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.

**Benn Roe**

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**

Benn Roe wrote:
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.

**Benn Roe**

And we have! (:

**blaktoof**

A roll of 1 fails irrespective of modifiers.

With or without modifiers, if you roll a 1 you fail.

**JNAProductions**

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.

**DeathReaper**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:

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)

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/irrespective

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.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

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.

An Actual Englishman wrote:

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.

**Dandelion**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
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?