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.

When an item says you can "re-roll failed armour saves" and you go up against someone with an item that says "opponents must re-roll any successful armour saves", how does this work? I know I've read about this somewhere, but I can't find where.

Since you can't re-roll a re-roll, do you re-roll all successful armour saves and failed ones count as failed (and re-roll failed armour saves and successful ones count as thus), or do you re-roll each armour save up to two times, once because it was successful/failed and a second time for if it is the opposite, as the die being re-rolled changes (i.e. you can re-roll only one failed armour save/wound, but you can re-roll a failed armour save and re-roll a successful armour save per wound once each)?

You pick up the dice and reroll all of them, with of course this being the final result as you cannot reroll a reroll.

For exaplanation:

1) Any passed saves MUST be rerolled
2) Any failed saves can be rerolled

1) + 2) is the entire set of dice you have just rolled.

So the idea, then, is that you cannot re-roll a re-rolled armour save, not that you cannot re-roll a re-rolled successful or failed armour save? I think, mathematically, re-rolling each armour save once yields either the same or a better result for the attacker, but I'll have to look into that.

You cannot re-roll a re-roll the rules don't mess around about that one. Therefore Roll them all again. A fun rules quirk did this come up in game you played?

I'm pretty sure there's an instance of this in the back of the 2004 Warhammer Chronicles, but instead towards either hitting or wounding instead of saves. That one did involve re-rolling a re-roll, but that was also for 6th Edition and technically not the same as an armor save.

I can look it up when I get home, if desired.

Nosferatu had it right in the second post. Roll all the dice. The rules tell you all the successful saves must be re-rolled. Furthermore, all the failed saves must be re-rolled. Thus, pick them all up and roll them again.

So, RAW, roll them, pick them up, and roll them again. If you'd like to speed things along, you can just roll them all once, forgoing the ceremonial first roll.

RZ

yeah R_Z and Nos have it right.

RAW is very clear, if not very stupid.

The main reason to *know* you must reroll everything is in case you have a reroll from another source (like a lucky charm). If you just assume they cancel out and only roll the dice once, you may think you can use this other reroll.

You cannot do this as you have, even if you only roll the dice once, rerolled all the dice, allowing none to be eligible for a further reroll.

This is why the no-rerolling a reroll is there; it prevents chains or, in this case, a loop from appearing.

Mathematically rolling them once, picking them all up and rolling all of them again is EXACTLY the same as rolling them once. This is because each event is discrete, meaning they cannot effect the probabilitiy of any one result coming up.

Correct. So what if there's only one wound caused? The armour save succeeds, it is forced to re-roll, then the second result stands, which would mean that the other item is ignored (as the first roll was not failed)?

Another example is for break tests. If you've got a BSB and I have something that says you have to re-roll all successful break tests, you fail, re-roll, and then it stands? Or vise-versa; you succeed, I force the re-roll, and you can't use the BSB?

I know this looks like I'm making this all much more complicated than it needs to be, but this is my point: it seems that the "you can't re-roll a re-roll" is there to prevent people from (1) re-rolling as many times as they want and (2) barring that, stacking up re-rollable stuff. Situations like these involve two different items that ask for the die to be re-rolled in two opposite circumstances. It seems a little disappointing that one of the players just doesn't get to use their item because of the order the dice came up. Any final things to say on this type of situation?

Well - yes. Each dice either passes or fails, is rerolled because of either item, and the final result stands.

Yes - ANYTIME you have something that you reroll passes and fails , you are in the same situation as here - stop thinking specific, think general principles.

The "dont reroll a reroll" is there cbecawuse of EXACTLY thsi situation. Do you not see that you create a loop if you reroll a reroll of a reroll after a reroll?

I see that you create a brief loop...but it is only slightly more complicated than the initial one brought on by
re-rolling anything.

I think the specific thing I am asking about is misunderstood.

Here is my concern/opinion/problem or what-have-you:

(1) There are two items with two different and opposite abilities. One that forces your opponent to re-roll successful (blank), and another that allows you to re-roll failed (blank). There are two possible ways to resolve this in any reasonable fashion while still attempting to stay within the rules.
(1a) The first is as you say: you cannot re-roll an armour save that has already been re-rolled. So you pick up the all armour saves and re-roll them, the successful ones because of your opponent's item, the failed ones because of yours. These are final, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll.
(1b) The second is as follows: re-roll all, as above. Then, any of the successful armour saves that failed due to the re-roll are re-rolled (because these dice were re-rolled due to your opponent's item, not yours), while the same is applied to the failed ones that turned up successful (because your opponent's item did not yet work on these dice).
(2) What I am asking is as follows: you do not re-roll a die that you already re-rolled, but one item forces successful armour saves to be re-rolled, while the other allows you to re-roll failed ones. Two different instances. A successful armour save is one roll. A failed one is another.
(3) A few disclaimers here:
(3a) I think that the main reason that GW made this no re-rolling a re-roll is to prevent items like a BSB from essentially saying "you never fail break tests within 12 inches", because you could just roll those two dice until you got the result you wanted. Also, it prevents people from stacking up on items that do similar things to generate odds that are almost always in their favor (three items to re-roll your armour or Ward save, for example).
This example is not the same thing; there are two items that invoke two different effects. Both could be allowed to have their effect on the game within the rules of the game. That is to say, each item would force all successful or failed (blanks) once, and the result would stand. This becomes complicated, because each check can possibly be effected by each item, so the die can be rolled up to three times (the first as the initial roll, the second as a re-rolled failed check, the third as a re-rolled successful one, or the like).
(3b) I am not claiming that these items create an infinite combo where both players are forced to re-roll their dice until the end of time; I, being a sensible human being, understand that this cannot be. This is not what I am saying.
(3c) Note that re-rolling each die for each item, both when the die is successful and when it fails, will, according to probability, have the same effect as what Nosferatu is suggesting (what I refer to as '1a'), if I'm doing my math right. If anything, what I am suggesting would only bring out the law of averages further, as there are more dice.

So finally, I will say this: does anyone understand what I'm trying to say? This is apparently not an easy topic to convey via a thread...
Also, if both items are allowed to do there thing, and the result is the same, what's the harm in it, other than potentially a few headaches (like any of these messier rule situations)? It lets both player's items come into play, so both players can feel like they're having an effect on the game. I know this point isn't about rules, but I think that it is worthy enough to point out.

No, you do NOT create a "brief loop" if you remove the reroll a reroll prohibition - you create an infinite loop.

1a) is correct as it BREAKS NO RULES.

No, what you are saying is you want to ignore the basic "no reroll a reroll" rule when it suits you - which is fine as a houserule, however no tournament will ever let this happen., and i cannot see a gaming group that will adopt it either.

ok Warp, lets suppose model A has the reroll failed and model B has the reroll success.
Now, B strikes A for multiple wounds, lets say 4.
A rolls initial saves, 2 pass - 2 fail.
A's item allows 2 dice to be rerolled, the fails.
B's item allows 2 dice to be rerolled, the passes.
All 4 are rerolled, either seperately or together shouldn't matter.
Those result in 2 pass - 2 fail.
A takes 2 wounds.
Since all 4 dice have been rerolled once already, they cannot be rerolled again, regardless of what items may have influence over the initial rolls.

Correct me if I have this wrong, anyone.

No, you dont have it wrong - warp just wants a houserule to be in effect for no other purpose than it makes people happy that they have used their magic item. In essence you pick the dice up a 2nd time and reroll instead of just once.

...

I clearly understand what people are saying. That much has been painfully obvious, as I have stated exactly what everyone has (as Nosferatu pointed out). So I don't need that to be explained.

The original question is as follows: which of these two sentences is the correct one- "you cannot re-roll a re-rolled armour save" or "you cannot re-roll a re-rolled successful/failed armour save". That was the question.

Every statement after my initial post was an attempt to clarify my original statement. As I've said, it makes virtually no difference mathematically, and it makes no real difference to me. My further posts were, essentially, "do you get what I was trying to say?", and nothing more than that.

So, one last time, this is what I was attempting to communicate as a possible and reasonable alternative:

1. roll to hit and wound.
2. roll armour saves.
3. re-roll successful armour saves due to item A.
4. re-roll failed armour saves from step #3 due to item B.
5. re-roll failed armour saves due to item B.
6. re-roll successful armour saves from those from #5 due to item A.

Each successful or failed armour save is rolled once. Each armour save can either be successful or failed, and then, if the effect is both the opposite of what it was and not yet re-rolled as what it currently is, it is re-rolled. So, in a sense, each save (successful and failed) is rolled once.

It is therefore not infinite. I was just trying to see if anyone could see this possibility. Everyone I've talked to in person has understood the confusion and the possibility (though we have all admitted to it's futility), so maybe it's just this medium of communication.

I apologize for my lack of clear (enough) communication. I don't know how else to put it. So I'll just leave it at this.

Warpsolution wrote:The original question is as follows: which of these two sentences is the correct one- "you cannot re-roll a re-rolled armour save"

This one is the correct statement. The rulebook(and every single Re-roll granting item) states that you may NEVER re-roll a re-roll, regardless of the source or reason.

So your alternate solution is illegal by the rules, as it has you re-rolling a re-roll.

Warpsolution wrote:...


3. re-roll successful armour saves due to item A.
4. re-roll failed armour saves from step #3 due to item B.
5. re-roll failed armour saves due to item B.
6. re-roll successful armour saves from those from #5 due to item A.

Re-rolling the fails from the first re-roll of sucesses is re-rolling a re-roll.
The re-roll only applies to the initial armor save. Once a die is re-rolled, that's it.
thus the order is....

3. re-roll sucessful saves from the initial roll due to item A.
4. re-roll failed saves from the initial roll due to item B.

At this point, All the dice will have been re-rolled once since there are only two possible results from the initial roll, Save or Not Save.
Even if you re-roll them seperately, the items in question do not effect the re-rolls only the Initial roll.

1. Roll some dice
2. Reroll failed saves and passed saves: reroll all dice.
3. You cannot reroll any of the dice that you just rolled due to no rerolling rerolls.

Alright. Clearly no one understands what I am trying to say, or no one is reading the post correctly. I know all of that. None of that is the question any longer. Thank you for your time.

You seem to be asking "can I suspend the no-reroll a reroll rule for this specific situation" - and noone is saying you cannot. However it is a shouserule, one that odesnt seem massively useful and isnt one likely to gain much acceptance.

IF that isnt what you are saying, then rephrasing as a non wall o' text would be useful...

Edit: you also dont understand what "discrete event" means - you can reroll all the dice as mnay times as you want, however *that* roll is still entirely discrete from the previous rolls and, as such, thje previous rolls have NO effect on the dice result. It cannot, aotherwise rolling dice wouldnt be a useful randomisation system...

It isn't. What I meant or a houserule. If you want to know: a failed armour save is one roll. A successful one is another. Therefore, they can both be re-rolled, even if they consequently came from the same armour save. That was a possible interpretation. And I've tried to format my posts line-by-line, to break things up instead of a big ol' block, to answer the many different points (because I'd rather be clear over time than miss something in my few words...and I expect people to be able to read...314 words while still being able to follow me). Also...I have no idea what you're getting at with that third point...I know that. So please don't tell me I don't.

I'll gladly explain, if you don't get it, if you really want, but honestly, I don't need anyone here to understand; enough other people got most of it to satisfy me.

Warpsolution wrote:If you want to know: a failed armour save is one roll. A successful one is another. Therefore, they can both be re-rolled, even if they consequently came from the same armour save. That was a possible interpretation.

The thing is, I got that that's what you were trying to say. However, the actual rule book says differently. The way roll is defined by the rules is the actual physical roll, not what the roll is for. Hence why I said "regardless of source or reason".

An armour save by the rules is a reason for a roll, not the roll itself.

Actually I understand what you are asking completely.

Back the the 4 wounds from above...
You roll 4 saves, 2 are fails, 2 are successes.
You pick up the 2 fails, due to an item that allows you to do so, and reroll them getting 2 successes.
Now you have 4 successes.
Then you pick up the 2 previously not rerolled successes, due to an item your opponant has that allows this, and reroll them getting 2 fails.

At this point YOU want to reroll the 2 previous fail that are now successes AND the 2 previous successes that are now fails, because the items in question have not had an influence on the respective dice.

Correct so far?

That was the line of thought, yes, because the die being rolled is a "failed" or "successful" armour save. That is, each one can be re-rolled, and when one turns into another due to a re-roll, it becomes a different roll, so-to-speak. So correct, that was the idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Platuan, while I understand (and essentially agree), I still wonder, though only for curiosity's sake. Where is a "roll" defined? The "physical" roll is the die, while "what the roll is for" is why you rolled it. The items don't say "re-roll armour saves", but "re-roll failed/successful armour saves", and you can only re-roll a die once it has gained the successful/failed identity (i.e., after you rolled it once). So while I understand, there is still logic herein, and, most important of all, I was trying to get my point across to people who did not understand.

Ah, I understand now - you are saying that the "roll" for an armour save takes the identity with it, i.e. a [failed armour save] is different to a [passed armour save] -roll.

However it isnt - you are told "no dice may be rerolled more than once", and the individual dice ARE picked up and ARE rerolled more than once under your interpretation - which is why it is an invalid interpretation (as the ruels explicitly disallow it) but a valid houserule. You cannot claim "this dice is a different roll" as yo uare still rolling an Armour Save, just certain conditions require you to reroll depending on the result. In the abstract it is a discrete Roll to determine the result of your armour save, and it is THIS where the no rerolling a reroll comes from.

You stated that rolling the dice more frequently should lead to it being closer to the average result, however that only applies if you roll more dice, not reroll them - i.e you only get closer to the average result when you have a larger population. Here you DONT have a larger population, as the initial rolls are removed from the population of results. This is the nature of discrete events.

Finally - stop sounding so, frankly, annoyed that people dont get you. A text only forum misses about 70% of the cues we rely on for communication, so you have to lern to reword so others understand - the onus is on you, not them, to make your case. Especially when you are trying to overturn the rule "you cannot reroll a reroll" by saying somehow the transient property of the dice is carried over.

Warpsolution wrote:That was the line of thought, yes, because the die being rolled is a "failed" or "successful" armour save. That is, each one can be re-rolled, and when one turns into another due to a re-roll, it becomes a different roll, so-to-speak. So correct, that was the idea.

Ok then.....
Now you have to consider this: In the example above, at this point, you have rolled 4 dice and rerolled the same 4 dice, due to the abilities of the items in question.
Since each dice has already been rolled twice, once for the initial roll and once for the reroll cause by whichever item applied to the initial rolls result, you cannot again reroll simply because the dice now are affected by the items that did not affect the initial roll result of those dice.

Items only affect the initial roll result. Once the dice are rerolled, the rules state that the result of the reroll must be taken! Further influence by the items in question is a non factor as the dice have been rolled and rerolled by this point. Otherwise, it can be argued that the items continue to influence the results and create an infinity loop that bogs the game down and basically creates a stalemate situation that cannot be resolved. Which is why the "No Rerolling rerolls" rule exists.

Hope this clears up my point.

Warpsolution wrote:
And Platuan, while I understand (and essentially agree), I still wonder, though only for curiosity's sake. Where is a "roll" defined?

Pg 5 of the rule book, under Saving Throws:

"Armour save are taken by rolling a D6 and trying to score..."

Not the wording used is rolling a D6, not rolling a save. The physical roll is the roll as defined by the rule, not the save itself.

Now there's something substantial.

Helgrenze, there was never a need to clarify your point-I know it, understand it, and accept it. The potential argument was that you could re-roll each failed and successful armour save once (which would still follow the rules), but that a failed save can become a successful one and vise versa, which forces/allows another re-roll.

So, no, no infinite loop with this train of thought. Each type of armour save is re-rolled once (though an armour save can be two types, so each save could essentially be rolled three times, and without 're-rolling a re-roll'). Kind of along the same lines as how the actual D6 doesn't matter; you could use a single die for your whole game, and, technically, roll it and re-roll it (that is: roll again) a whole bunch of times, but each physical roll represents something different within the mechanics of the game.

So that was the essence of the question. Whether or not a D6's identity changed per save or per type of save.

Its not a question of the "identity" of the d6, its the nature of the roll.
A regular armor save on a d6 can be rerolled only once regardless of what items may be the cause of subsequent rerolls. Otherwise a player could "stack" reroll allowing items and benefit from all of them, regardless of which side of the equation the player is on.

Roll to save. Pass
Item A says reroll Success. Fail
Item B says reroll Fails. Pass
Item C says reroll Sucess. Pass
Item D says reroll Sucess. Fail
Item E says reroll Fails. Fail
Item F says reroll Fails. Pass.

Its all the same Armor Save rerolled 6 times due to different items.
It is the Nature of the initial roll that determines what, if any, items hold sway over the rerolls.
It is RAW that states that a die can only be rerolled once, regardless of the source of the reroll.

Sure, I can see that. But can't you see that the idea of re-rolling a passed and a failed save once each makes sense? Your example breaks the rules I offered up because each "type" of armour save is rolled more than once (and I am pretty sure that there is no way that any two armies could offer up that kind of ridiculousness anyway).

If a die can only be rolled once, then someone could steal all of your dice but one and force you to forfeit the game because "you can't re-roll it". Or maybe I make the same break test eight times, each with a new pair of dice, since I haven't re-rolled any dice. That is obviously silly. So...the definition of "a roll" has got to be in why it's rolled, not the physical die you picked up and tossed down.

Again, though. I agree. If people want to understand this concept and the logic within, keep on askin'. Don't tell me how it's wrong-at this point, I don't care and that isn't the point, and you should know that from the rest of the thread.