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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
I don't see any support for such a theory. Nothing written to back it up.

You mean this theory?

rigeld2 wrote:
It's been shown that GW uses the word "natural" or "unmodified" when they mean "don't add the modifier".

How about P.124 reserve rules.

"Regardless of the modifier(s), a natural roll of a 1 always means that the unit in question remains in reserve."

There is your example liturgies of blood.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Unmodified is convention for characteristics tests, I would like one example of an unmodified roll being called for?

How about pg 5 that specifies the difference between dice rolls and modified dice rolls ...

If you think that's support, well than let's just say it's lacking.

Also Liturgies said this
"Natural is not a convention within the rules it is mentioned once in the book in a paragraph to show clearly the difference between the roll and the result. "
which you ignored and gave the same quote that you've been giving about reserve rolls.

Shhh james, don't call DR on selective reading.

Natural is defined where in the rules?
So again, I ask can you provide another example where context cannot be read that natural was used to clearly differentiate between the roll and result.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
GW also never use natural to mean unmodified, they use the term unmodified or "regardless of modifiers". Just to kill that idea that it is a convention.

Now is there a convention on "unmodified" modified rolls?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Also Liturgies said this
"Natural is not a convention within the rules it is mentioned once in the book in a paragraph to show clearly the difference between the roll and the result. "

The norm is to add the modifier, the exceptions call for Unmodified/Natural dice rolls.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Shhh james, don't call DR on selective reading.

Natural is defined where in the rules?

It isn't, so we fall back on the english definition of natural, meaning without modifiers.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
How about pg 5 that specifies the difference between dice rolls and modified dice rolls

You are right, dice rolls are "Almost all the dice rolls in Warhammer 40,000 use standard six-sided dice, also known as D6" (5). D6 = Dice roll.

As opposed to Modified dice rolls. "For example, D5+2 means roll a dice and add 2 to the number on the dice for a total between 3 and 8" (5). D6+2 you have to add the + number to the 'number on the dice' this is a modified dice roll.

A dice roll and a modified dice roll are two separate things.

Wolf Standard is talking about the former. Therefore it will have no effect on the Mark of the Wolfen roll.

Nope, you modify dice rolls to get a result. The roll is not the same as the result. A roll is a roll but a result is the modified "final result" as the rules put it.
You have constantly refused to acknowledge what page 5, line 3 of Modifying dice rolls says.
Wolf standard talks about dice rolls of 1, I roll a dice is it a one? If yes re-roll, take that roll apply the modifier and take my number of attacks.

Natural means with out modifiers but a natural roll of 2d6 is 2-12, that is a modifier under GW's rules.
So by your definition of natural, by the general convention of natural that falls down.

Modifying dice rolls does say you add the number to get the result.

The result of what? 'The roll''

So the roll, on a D6+1 is between 2-7.

Wolf standard talks about dice rolls of 1, but you can not roll a 1 on a D6+1, as you can only roll a 2-7. Had the Wolf standard said natural, or unmodified rolls of a 1, then your argument would have merit, and we would not be having this discussion.

The result of the modified roll. Not the roll.
Look you can keep going back to roll = result all you want, you have not convinced me. I don't buy it, Rigeld has the only line and that is unmodified, but natural isn't unmodified in your ONLY example. Otherwise why would it say "Regardless of modifiers, any unmodified roll of a 1....." that is too poor of writing for gw. Natural is used to draw a clear distinction as the paragraph uses the term "on a roll of a 3+" which means the result is 3 or more, that is all.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The result of the modified roll. Not the roll.

They are one and the same when talking about modified rolls. that whole section on P.5 equates roll with modified roll.

"For example, D6+2 means roll a dice and add 2 to the number on the dice for a total between 3 and 8" (5)

In that example you have rolled a 3,4,5,6,7, or 8, you can never roll a 1.

Ok, you roll the dice (getting 1-6), you then add or subtract the number given to get the final result. That is the 3rd line.
Roll =/= to the result.

Also on english, if the roll is the "modified roll" how was the "modified roll" modified? Cos then you roll the dice for a d6+2, get the result add the two and get the result and add two and get the result......

So final result, total and result are used for the outcome of the modifying process in that paragraph, not once is the outcome called a roll.

rigeld2 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's been shown that GW uses the word "natural" or "unmodified" when they mean "don't add the modifier".

Does the wolf standard say "unmodified" or "natural"?

does it say the modified, or result?

No. It doesn't need to. Unmodified or natural is the exception, not the rule.

I want you to step back and think about the cognitive dissonance of what you just said.

No, really - as far as 40k rules are concerned, it's true.

Anyway, I've already cited the passage from p.5 that directly states a difference between a "roll" and a "result". The Wolf Standard affects the "roll", which occurs prior to the modifier, as per p.5

Outside of page 5, show me one place - just one - where the distinction is made between a roll and a result.
In general, all references to "roll" are including modifiers. There are exceptions - and they make themselves clear.

I've already shown you the defining place in the book -the very section that explains modified rolls. No more is required of me; the burden is on you to disprove it. But just because I want this rotting thread to die, I'll seal the deal for you:

ARMOUR PENETRATION ROLLS p.19
For example, a lascannon shot hits the front of a Space Marine Predator (Armour Value 13). Rolling a D6, the player rolls a 4 and adds this to the lascannon's Strength of 9, for a total of 13. Because this equals the Predator's Armour Value, it inflicts a glancing hit.

Please note that the D6 is referred to as the roll, and the addition of the strength creates a total of 13. That is a distinction right there.


Further, how do you explain "Gets Hot"? By your interpretation, any model with a Plasma gun and a +1 BS modifier cannot ever succumb to the Gets Hot rule, as according to you, the roll cannot ever be a 1.

Sorry but gets hot isn't even part of this debate.
Modifiers to stats happen on the stat not on the dice.

They are two separate worlds which afaik never meet in the rules as there is no modifier that modfies both the stat and modifies the rolled value.

liturgies of blood wrote:Sorry but gets hot isn't even part of this debate.
Modifiers to stats happen on the stat not on the dice.

They are two separate worlds which afaik never meet in the rules as there is no modifier that modfies both the stat and modifies the rolled value.

Yeah, I realized after I posted that was not a good example.

But the other example I posted is further evidence. And here's yet more:

IRON PRIESTS, Spave Wolves Codex, p.38
Battlesmith: ...Roll a D6 and add +1 for each Thrall-Servitor with a servo-arm in the unit. If the result is 5 or more, then either a weapon destroyed...

Look at that. Another distinction between the roll and the result.


I will admit that often, the roll and the result are interchangeable when it comes to unmodified rolls, but modified rolls do appear to consistently give a distinction between the roll and the result. As I have been saying.

 azazel the cat wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Sorry but gets hot isn't even part of this debate.
Modifiers to stats happen on the stat not on the dice.

They are two separate worlds which afaik never meet in the rules as there is no modifier that modfies both the stat and modifies the rolled value.

Yeah, I realized after I posted that was not a good example.

But the other example I posted is further evidence. And here's yet more:

IRON PRIESTS, Spave Wolves Codex, p.38
Battlesmith: ...Roll a D6 and add +1 for each Thrall-Servitor with a servo-arm in the unit. If the result is 5 or more, then either a weapon destroyed...

Look at that. Another distinction between the roll and the result.


I will admit that often, the roll and the result are interchangeable when it comes to unmodified rolls, but modified rolls do appear to consistently give a distinction between the roll and the result. As I have been saying.

Thank you for another example. Ill concede, but assert that the standard should be FAQed to clarify.

rigeld2 wrote:
but assert that the standard should be FAQed to clarify.

This. Definitely this. I think this thread is about through then?

Rigeld, you are correct that it could do with a clarification.
To be honest the lax use of language in the brb in general has lead to lots of issues such as this.

Roll of an X+, on a result of X or more and some other terms are used to denote the result and it could be done so much simpler.

I will just say one last thing.

MODIFYING DICE ROLLS (BRB, p. 5) section
"Roll the dice and add or subtract the number given to or from the roll (as appropriate) to get the final result."

Q: "The final result" of what?
A: The Roll.

They equate the roll with the final result right in the section I quoted.

So we have the final result of the roll, and that is not a 1, so the wolf standard should not be able to re-roll it, as the wolf standard only lets you re-roll 1's.

But I will also agree that the whole situation should be FAQed.

So you wanted the last word?
The final result of modifying the roll is the answer, you can tell as it's in the section called modified dice rolls. Good hustle thought.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
So you wanted the last word?
The final result of modifying the roll is the answer, you can tell as it's in the section called modified dice rolls. Good hustle thought.

No, I just do not remember making the point before about the section equating the roll with the final result

@Rigeld2:
I have a feeling this is one of those things that will never get FAQ'd, like an embarked unit failing a morale test.

DeathReaper wrote:I will just say one last thing.

MODIFYING DICE ROLLS (BRB, p. 5) section
"Roll the dice and add or subtract the number given to or from the roll (as appropriate) to get the final result."

Q: "The final result" of what?
A: The Roll.

They equate the roll with the final result right in the section I quoted.

So we have the final result of the roll, and that is not a 1, so the wolf standard should not be able to re-roll it, as the wolf standard only lets you re-roll 1's.

But I will also agree that the whole situation should be FAQed.

And in modified dice rolls, the "final result" is different from the "roll".
The Wolf Standard does not mention the "result"; it mentions the "roll".
As a modified dice roll considers the two distinct, as per p.5, then the Wolf Standard CAN re-roll for Mark of the Wulfen.

 azazel the cat wrote:
@Rigeld2:
I have a feeling this is one of those things that will never get FAQ'd, like an embarked unit failing a morale test.

Actually, Embarked units cannot fail a morale test as they are Fearless.

Except the section equates the roll with the final result. They tell us to get the final result. The final result of what? The Roll. The roll = the final result.

It tells us how to determine what the roll actually is.

As per p.5, then the Wolf Standard CAN NOT re-roll for Mark of the Wulfen. as they only mention rolls of a 1, and P. 5 equates the two terms.

But anyway an FAQ would not hurt.

 Happyjew wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
@Rigeld2:
I have a feeling this is one of those things that will never get FAQ'd, like an embarked unit failing a morale test.

Actually, Embarked units cannot fail a morale test as they are Fearless.

Wasn't true in 5th IIRC. Which is what he's talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except the section equates the roll with the final result. They tell us to get the final result. The final result of what? The Roll. The roll = the final result.

It tells us how to determine what the roll actually is.

As per p.5, then the Wolf Standard CAN NOT re-roll for Mark of the Wulfen. as they only mention rolls of a 1, and P. 5 equates the two terms.

But anyway an FAQ would not hurt.

FAQ wouldn't hurt, as I don't agree with you as The Final result is the Dice roll Plus modifers.

The final result of what?

 DeathReaper wrote:
The final result of what?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:



the Dice roll Plus modifers.

The final result of 'the roll' has the modifiers added into it.

Also, we are not told that a natural or unmodified roll of a 1 can be re-rolled, just rolls of a 1, and the final result of a roll for the mark (D6+1) is a value between 2 and 7 inclusive.

So permissive ruleset prevails.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The final result of 'the roll' has the modifiers added into it.

Also, we are not told that a natural or unmodified roll of a 1 can be re-rolled, just rolls of a 1, and the final result of a roll for the mark (D6+1) is a value between 2 and 7 inclusive.

So permissive ruleset prevails.

Yes it's permissive. It asks for the roll, the roll is a D6.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The final result of 'the roll' has the modifiers added into it.

Also, we are not told that a natural or unmodified roll of a 1 can be re-rolled, just rolls of a 1, and the final result of a roll for the mark (D6+1) is a value between 2 and 7 inclusive.

So permissive ruleset prevails.

Yes it's permissive. It asks for the roll, the roll is a D6.

Incorrect, the roll for the mark is a D6+1, not a D6.

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The final result of 'the roll' has the modifiers added into it.

Also, we are not told that a natural or unmodified roll of a 1 can be re-rolled, just rolls of a 1, and the final result of a roll for the mark (D6+1) is a value between 2 and 7 inclusive.

So permissive ruleset prevails.

Yes it's permissive. It asks for the roll, the roll is a D6.

Incorrect, the roll for the mark is a D6+1, not a D6.

Actually no, that's how you get the result.

The roll is a D6.

The result of what? The roll?

Because the result of the roll is 2-7 as the roll is a D6+1.

Dear DeathReaper;

I have already debunked your argument so effectively that even Rigeld2, whom is even more of a stickler for RAW than I am, has come around to accept my argument. The only reason you are continuing with this thread appears to be because you are pretending my very carefully and well-cited argument does not exist. You may continue with your selective reading and ciruclar "nuh-uh!" argument all you like, however I strongly encourage everyone else in this thread to simply leave DeathReaper alone and let the thread die.

Anyone in the future seeking answers can always search for this thread and make their own informed decisions based off of either my directly relevant and correctly cited clear argument, or based off of DeathReaper's selective reading of Reserve Rolls (which can never, ever be relevant to the Wolf Standard).

However, this argument has long since been finished, and is now ciruclar at best.




Best of luck to all; I'm going to go debate other rules now.

It was circular on page 3. He tried other avenues and then came back to it on 5, 7 and 9.
Also way to sound magnanimous.