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.
2018/04/13 17:53:49
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/13 17:54:08
2018/04/13 18:26:21
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
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.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
2018/04/13 18:26:27
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
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.
2018/04/13 19:19:56
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
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)
2018/04/14 01:38:46
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
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.
2018/04/15 03:12:41
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/15 03:27:08
2018/08/17 19:42:32
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
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.
2018/08/17 20:26:04
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
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.’
2018/08/17 21:40:58
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/17 23:01:45
2018/08/18 05:01:33
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
