Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/03 23:25:56
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime
|
Orkestra wrote:Interestingly enough, if you have a Twin Linked BS 6 or higher weapon, it's possible to roll three ones in a row and still hit with the shot..
??
Twin Linked over-rides the re-roll for BS 6+, so Twin linked BS6+ is the exact same as Twin Linked BS5.
|
Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/03 23:48:53
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Swift Swooping Hawk
|
*stumbles around drunkenly looking for his rulebook in his messy domicile*
Drat! And here I was thinking "this sounds right, I mean, it can't just be a re-roll since it has a different value."
Then the rules got in the way of my fantasies.
|
The Battle Report Master wrote:i had a freind come round a few weeks ago to have a 40k apocalpocalpse game i was guards men he was space maines.... my first turn was 4 bonbaonbardlements... jacobs turn to he didnt have one i phased out. This space for rent, contact Gwar! for rights to this space.
Tantras wrote: Logically speaking, that makes perfect sense and I understand and agree entirely... but is it RAW? |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/03 23:52:08
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime
|
Orkestra wrote:*stumbles around drunkenly looking for his rulebook in his messy domicile* Drat! And here I was thinking "this sounds right, I mean, it can't just be a re-roll since it has a different value." Then the rules got in the way of my fantasies.
Indeed. I have noticed however that the belief that "If you roll doubles Twice in a row to start the game, the game breaks" is completely wrong! The rules for a "Roll-off" state that if the results are equal "both dice must be rolled again until one player is the winner." Notice the distinct lack of the word "Re-Roll" anywhere in that sentence. This is because you do NOT re-roll the dice, but you roll it again, which is similar, but it is NOT a Re-roll as defined on page 2 of the BRB, thus it can be repeated as often as one wishes should the result be a tie. I admit, I used to think that if Doubles were rolled twice, it did break the game. I am however pleasantly surprised GW caught that one, albeit Accidentally I am sure.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/03 23:53:51
Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/04 00:04:43
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
Gwar! wrote:How can you have a result of "8" in base 7? 0.0 Would that not be 11?
yes, which is a 1 on the D3, and a 1 on the D6.
The higher end of the range is a 3 on the D3 and a 6 on the D6, for 27.
|
Interceptor Drones can disembark at any point during the Sun Shark's move (even though models cannot normally disembark from Zooming Flyers).
-Jeremy Vetock, only man at Games Workshop who understands Zooming Flyers |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/04 00:06:23
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime
|
Drunkspleen wrote:Gwar! wrote:How can you have a result of "8" in base 7? 0.0 Would that not be 11?
yes, which is a 1 on the D3, and a 1 on the D6.
The higher end of the range is a 3 on the D3 and a 6 on the D6, for 27.
My Mind hurts :(
|
Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/04 03:52:58
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
MagickalMemories wrote:visavismeyou wrote:Demogerg wrote:
1 is a fail, they just get a reroll if they fail, they can still roll a 1 after that.
Wrong. The re-roll replaces the 1, you do not roll a 1, fail, and then re-roll. You roll a 1, then get to re-roll and have a chance to fail on the re-roll, the re-roll is a replacement effect meaning that the "would be fail" never happens. Look at the interaction of "Gets Hot" and re-rolling, if you're right, you'd take the wound from Gets Hot, then get to re-roll; clearly this is not the case. Remember, rules are like lines of a program.
Flawed logic.
If the 1 wasn't a fail, there would be no reason to reroll it.
Your example with plasma isn't valid, since only the FINAL result (the reroll) matters on a reroll.
Eric
/sigh, actually, you just agreed with my point in the same sentence as saying it wasn't valid. My point is that the 'reason' to re-roll it is because the rules allow you to and if you didn't it'd be a fail. The roll of '1' which would otherwise be a failure, gets expunged and you are allowed to get another chance at a better roll. My whole point is that the re-roll is a replacement effect and calling the first 1 a "failure" is technically incorrect. Failure is a result, the first '1' does not dictate the result of the test, the second die roll does, since the first '1' is not the result, it cannot be a failure.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/04 06:29:28
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Frenzied Berserker Terminator
|
Orkestra wrote:Then the rules got in the way of my fantasies.
Rules have a habit of doing that. Just ask any sex offender.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/04 06:29:52
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/04 16:41:32
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw
|
visavismeyou wrote:
/sigh, actually, you just agreed with my point in the same sentence as saying it wasn't valid. My point is that the 'reason' to re-roll it is because the rules allow you to and if you didn't it'd be a fail. The roll of '1' which would otherwise be a failure, gets expunged and you are allowed to get another chance at a better roll. My whole point is that the re-roll is a replacement effect and calling the first 1 a "failure" is technically incorrect. Failure is a result, the first '1' does not dictate the result of the test, the second die roll does, since the first '1' is not the result, it cannot be a failure.
Except that you misspoke. You stated that the "1" was not a fail. You are incorrect in that as, if it was not a failure, there would be no need for the re-roll.
Every die roll is a success or failure. If it were neither, it would be a non-roll. If it is not a roll, then it cannot be rerolled (you cannot REroll something that has not been rolled).
Your end result WAS correct. The ends, however, do not always justify the means.
Your answer is correct, but your logic is flawed.
Though it is not the FINAL result, is a result, none-the-less.
The result of your roll was a "1."
Using your ability, you re-roll the failed result. Whatever the result from that roll is, it would be your final result.
Eric
|
Black Fiend wrote: Okay all the ChapterHouse Nazis to the right!! All the GW apologists to the far left. LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE !!!
The Green Git wrote: I'd like to cross section them and see if they have TFG rings, but that's probably illegal.
Polonius wrote: You have to love when the most clearly biased person in the room is claiming to be objective.
Greebynog wrote:Us brits have a sense of fair play and propriety that you colonial savages can only dream of.
Stelek wrote: I know you're afraid. I want you to be. Because you should be. I've got the humiliation wagon all set up for you to take a ride back to suck city.
Quote: LunaHound--- Why do people hate unpainted models? I mean is it lacking the realism to what we fantasize the plastic soldier men to be?
I just can't stand it when people have fun the wrong way. - Chongara
I do believe that the GW "moneysheep" is a dying breed, despite their bleats to the contrary. - AesSedai
You are a thief and a predator of the wargaming community, and i'll be damned if anyone says differently ever again on my watch in these forums. -MajorTom11 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/05 00:55:38
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
MagickalMemories wrote:Your end result WAS correct. The ends, however, do not always justify the means.
Did you just seriously misuse such a simple idiom? "The ends do not justify the means" ... this is wholly inapplicable to this discussion... Not even in a figurative way... Not to mention you misquoted it... you added "always"... That violates the principle!! The whole point of the idiom is that the ends NEVER!!! justify the means... Utilitarians are rolling over in their graves...
MagickalMemories wrote:Your answer is correct, but your logic is flawed.
Though it is not the FINAL result, is a result, none-the-less.
Wrong, you are missing the fact that there is only one result of a die roll. This is the critical point, since you are saying there are multiple species of results you are demonstrating you do not understand this. If the first one was a result of the roll then the corresponding failure would occur (missing, getting hot, etc), then you'd get to roll again after the roll resolved, that makes no sense.
Please pay attention to this vital point: the re-roll is a replacement effect.
Re-rolls & Roll-off. Rules section: Dice
In some situations the rules allow you a 're-roll' of the dice. This is exactly as it sounds - pick up the dice you wish to re-roll and roll them again. The second score counts, even if it means a worse result than the first...
As you can see, it quite clearly states that the second score counts, the first is completely replaced and is as if it never happened; thus, the second roll is the outcome, the consequence, the end, the result... the first, however, is not. And as I have been saying, there can be only one result from a roll, it makes absolutely no sense to say there can be two results from one test. Do your troops flee from battle? or stay and fight... You roll once and find out, you dont roll once, have one consequence (they flee) and then roll again and have a second consequence (they stay)...
Your argument is completely erroneous.
And I'm sure you're going to try to use "The second score counts, even if it means a worse result than the first." out of context so I'll address this preemptively. You know what will happen if you roll a X on the die, thus each roll has an array of possible consequences. Each potential outcome has a corresponding consequence and you know what each one is. If the re-roll ends up to be 'worse' (sometimes this could be the 'positive' result such as reserve rolls for units that you would prefer stay off the table) you have no choice to ignore the second roll and take the first one, this actually informs my position. My position is that the second roll is the actual consequence of the test, the first one is replaced by the second (as this quoting of the rules clearly points out). Once you have chosen to re-roll, the first roll is completely disregarded, it is no longer a result, it is forgotten, abandoned and is no longer relevant to the game; the second one is all that matters once you have made the choice to re-roll.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/03/05 01:04:03
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/05 01:19:47
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Swift Swooping Hawk
|
Cheexsta wrote:Orkestra wrote:Then the rules got in the way of my fantasies.
Rules have a habit of doing that.
Just ask any sex offender.
Actually, those types of people don't let the rules get in the way of their fantasies. Hence why they're so offensive.
Which makes me wonder: Are there any models with a BS of 6 or higher who carry a twin linked gun?
None of the Phoenix Lords have anything TLed, nor does Yriel.
I almost checked my Ork Codex... Man, you know I'm out of it tonight!
|
The Battle Report Master wrote:i had a freind come round a few weeks ago to have a 40k apocalpocalpse game i was guards men he was space maines.... my first turn was 4 bonbaonbardlements... jacobs turn to he didnt have one i phased out. This space for rent, contact Gwar! for rights to this space.
Tantras wrote: Logically speaking, that makes perfect sense and I understand and agree entirely... but is it RAW? |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/05 01:24:57
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime
|
Orkestra wrote:Which makes me wonder: Are there any models with a BS of 6 or higher who carry a twin linked gun?
Bjorn the Fell-Handed has BS6 and the option of replacing his Assault Cannon with a Twin-linked Lascannon. Why you would do that is completely beyond me, as it costs extra points, while the Plasma Cannon option is Free and benefits much more from the High BS. All I can say is that I suspect the new motto for the dev team is "5th edition: Yes, we really fething hate Lascannons".
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/05 01:25:55
Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/05 01:27:25
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Mounted Kroot Tracker
|
d20s! For that awesome star wars game! I'll shut up now.
|
Night Watch SM
Kroot Mercenaries W 2 - D 3 - L 1
Manchu wrote: This is simply a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone says, "it won't change so why should I bother to try?" and then it doesn't change so people feel validated in their bad behavior.
Nightwatch's Kroot Blog
DQ:90-S++G++M-B++I+Pw40k08#+D+A--/cWD-R+T(S)DM+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/05 01:56:46
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Guarding Guardian
|
Gwar! wrote:Orkestra wrote:Which makes me wonder: Are there any models with a BS of 6 or higher who carry a twin linked gun?
Bjorn the Fell-Handed has BS6 and the option of replacing his Assault Cannon with a Twin-linked Lascannon.
Also, Eldar Autarchs that are mounted on jetbikes have twin-linked shuriken catapults on the bikes in addition to any other weapons selected.
|
check me out at http://thewildriderhost.blogspot.com/
"Feel the rush of the wind against your skin and hear her keening cry in your ears. Listen to her call well, for are we not the Wild Riders, the children of the storm? |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/05 04:47:16
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw
|
A) IMO, the ends do occasionally justify the means. Nothing was misused. I am sorry that you didn't comprehend that.
B) If you roll a die, and it lands on a 5, the 5 is *A* result. Perhaps it is the final result, perhaps not. However, it IS a result:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/result
If you roll the die and it lands on a one, then your buddy asked what you rolled, do you say "A one, but I'm re-rolling it" or "nothing, yet?"
YOU might say the latter. Most commonly, however, you'd hear the former, since a 1 WAS actually rolled (thus, the result of the initial die roll).
C) I never argued that it was or was not a replacement. Read for comprehension next time, not just arguing points. "As if it never happened" does not mean it never happened. It means you don't count it.
D) Your psychic powers failed you. I had no intention of using that part of the text in -or out of- context. My answers are based on real world knowledge here, not a questionable reading of rules.
Do you agree that it's a reroll? I presume so. It's in the rules as such.
Can you REroll it if you never ROLLED it? Of course not. As "re-" means "again," it's pretty obvious what a REroll is.
If you ROLL a die, you have an outcome. It may not be the outcome you decide to stick with (you keep failing to mention that I keep saying this), but it IS an outcome. In the case of BS 6 or Twin Linked, if you roll a die and get a one, then the outcome (result) of that roll is a ONE and a ONE equates to failure. Since you do not wish to fail, you choose to REROLL the die for what you hope to be a more favorable outcome.
At no point did I say you have to follow the RESULTS associated with the initial roll. In fact, I've said otherwise. Please, stop trying to make it appear as if I've said or inferred something I have not. I've been clear in my opinions on it, and at no time did I state or insinuate that you have to RESOLVE your roll before REROLLING it and resolving that roll, as well. That would be silly of me to say and sillier for someone to make such an inferrence.
By utilizing the reroll, you interrupt what would otherwise be a normal sequence of game play in hopes of altering it. You do not resolve the initial roll. Instead, the results of the REROLL are resolved.
I think that (and I admit I could be wrong) you are arguing the point because you only saw that I disagreed with your logic/description of your answer. I think (see above, re: wrong) that you missed that I AGREED with you on the RESULT of your logic. It seems to me (again, see "wrong" above) that your ego was bruised by that and you've taken it personally.
If that is the case, I am sorry that my post offended you. My meaning was simply to point out a logic fault, not to insult you. I don't do that.
I'm not sure what internet forums you posted on prior to here - and it doesn't really matter - but, it seems (see 'wrong" above) that you're used to arguing people on forums, or are prepared for people to be like that here. IF that is the case, you should know that, although there is plenty of that on Dakka, most members here are NOT of that ilk, and don't come here to argue. Especially not me.
As this post is marginally on topic at best, I won't post here about this particular misunderstanding again. If you wish to have the last word, feel free. I won't respond to it. On the other hand, feel free to PM me to continue discussing the topic. Note that, while I will disagree, I won't argue with you, though. If you want to argue, don't waste your time. I won't respond.
Eric
visavismeyou wrote:MagickalMemories wrote:Your end result WAS correct. The ends, however, do not always justify the means.
Did you just seriously misuse such a simple idiom? "The ends do not justify the means" ... this is wholly inapplicable to this discussion... Not even in a figurative way... Not to mention you misquoted it... you added "always"... That violates the principle!! The whole point of the idiom is that the ends NEVER!!! justify the means... Utilitarians are rolling over in their graves...
MagickalMemories wrote:Your answer is correct, but your logic is flawed.
Though it is not the FINAL result, is a result, none-the-less.
Wrong, you are missing the fact that there is only one result of a die roll. This is the critical point, since you are saying there are multiple species of results you are demonstrating you do not understand this. If the first one was a result of the roll then the corresponding failure would occur (missing, getting hot, etc), then you'd get to roll again after the roll resolved, that makes no sense.
Please pay attention to this vital point: the re-roll is a replacement effect.
Re-rolls & Roll-off. Rules section: Dice
In some situations the rules allow you a 're-roll' of the dice. This is exactly as it sounds - pick up the dice you wish to re-roll and roll them again. The second score counts, even if it means a worse result than the first...
As you can see, it quite clearly states that the second score counts, the first is completely replaced and is as if it never happened; thus, the second roll is the outcome, the consequence, the end, the result... the first, however, is not. And as I have been saying, there can be only one result from a roll, it makes absolutely no sense to say there can be two results from one test. Do your troops flee from battle? or stay and fight... You roll once and find out, you dont roll once, have one consequence (they flee) and then roll again and have a second consequence (they stay)...
Your argument is completely erroneous.
And I'm sure you're going to try to use "The second score counts, even if it means a worse result than the first." out of context so I'll address this preemptively. You know what will happen if you roll a X on the die, thus each roll has an array of possible consequences. Each potential outcome has a corresponding consequence and you know what each one is. If the re-roll ends up to be 'worse' (sometimes this could be the 'positive' result such as reserve rolls for units that you would prefer stay off the table) you have no choice to ignore the second roll and take the first one, this actually informs my position. My position is that the second roll is the actual consequence of the test, the first one is replaced by the second (as this quoting of the rules clearly points out). Once you have chosen to re-roll, the first roll is completely disregarded, it is no longer a result, it is forgotten, abandoned and is no longer relevant to the game; the second one is all that matters once you have made the choice to re-roll.
|
Black Fiend wrote: Okay all the ChapterHouse Nazis to the right!! All the GW apologists to the far left. LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE !!!
The Green Git wrote: I'd like to cross section them and see if they have TFG rings, but that's probably illegal.
Polonius wrote: You have to love when the most clearly biased person in the room is claiming to be objective.
Greebynog wrote:Us brits have a sense of fair play and propriety that you colonial savages can only dream of.
Stelek wrote: I know you're afraid. I want you to be. Because you should be. I've got the humiliation wagon all set up for you to take a ride back to suck city.
Quote: LunaHound--- Why do people hate unpainted models? I mean is it lacking the realism to what we fantasize the plastic soldier men to be?
I just can't stand it when people have fun the wrong way. - Chongara
I do believe that the GW "moneysheep" is a dying breed, despite their bleats to the contrary. - AesSedai
You are a thief and a predator of the wargaming community, and i'll be damned if anyone says differently ever again on my watch in these forums. -MajorTom11 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/03/06 01:17:37
Subject: is a roll of 1 always a failure?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Instead of responding to you by just repeating what I've already said i'll just cut to the chase:
MagickalMemories wrote: It means you don't count it.
So we you agree with me. The whole point i've been making is that you can call it whatever you want... however, the first roll is not the result of the ---> TEST <---- and that is all that matters.
I'm going to stop repeating myself now, just pay attention to what I have said, you probably wont understand it though.
|
|
 |
 |
|
|