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.

Having a 1+ to wound isnt a total loss, since there are magic items out there that either reduce STR of an incomming blow or reduce what is needed to wound. Just like 1+ armor is there to protect against high STR/AP

deleted

Killjoy00 wrote:Nos, the rules on the side are still rules. Helpful side notes are still RaW rules.

Uh, no, commentary on how to play the game and an explanation of the rules is, by definition, not rules....

Additionally: a reminder is by definition exactly that - it is reminding you that 1s always fail. Where is the actual rule stating that initially?

It is a reminder that is in the rules. Therefore it is a rule.

Not every word that isn't in italics is a rule. But those that tell you how to play are. A rule that "reminds" you that 1's always fail is a rule.

Nope, it really isnt. Please show me the RULE that states 1s always fail, not a *reminder*

It is a reminder that the rule exists - by definition it is reliant on the rule existing. If you cannot show the rule exists, the reminder is logically false.

If I can just interject with a quick note - even if sidebars count as rules, the "2+ to wound with a +1 to wound" issue still works as dice rolls of 1 are wounds.

Note the sidebar of page 10. It states that if the rules refer to the result of a dice roll as a "natural" whatever, you take the showing of the dice before taking into account modifiers. Page 7 says that the natural result, plus or minus any modifiers, is the final result.

The sidebar on page 42 doesn't say that natural 1's always fail, it just says that 1's always fail. So if you roll your dice (with a +1 modifier) and get a natural 1, the result of the dice roll is a 2 - which passes without breaking the whole "1's always fail" thing.

Except that in Lore of Metal (if you don't have the book, please get it or don't comment) it says that even if you would have had success on a 1+, you still fail if you roll a 1. That's pretty simple.

You missed the point. A roll of a 1 will fail, but a NATURAL 1 doesn't always fail when rolling to wound. The only reason it does for rolling to hit is because it specifically says in that section a natural 1 always misses.

Look at Qweek's FAQ entry for Skaven. He does wound on a 1+ in a challenge if he normally only needs a 2+ to wound (vs T2 for example). As the FAQ sections (not the Errata or Addendum) are clarifications, not rule changes, it falls perfectly in line with the fact that a natural one doesn't automatically fail to wound if you have some sort of modifier to the dice.

Summary= Natural ALWAYS fails to hit, but not to wound. Of course, you MUST have some sort of modifier for that natural one to wound, as a total to wound of 1 still fails.

DukeRustfield wrote:You don't need to establish that because it says:

(1s ALWAYS fail.)

Emphasis added. Not, Look at the Chart. Not when it's 4:30pm. But Always. The Lore of Metal says: "Remember that a 1 always fails, so even a model with a 1+ armor save is only wounded on a 2+"

The word always again. It doesn't leave a ton of wiggle room.

Well I will make the devil's advocate argument against your point Duke, if you notice that it doesn't say a natural 1 in your example from the Lore of Metal, now the Flaming Sword of Rhuin wouldn't work in that case not because you can't with a natural 1, but because the FSoR doesn't apply when rolling to wound with spells.

Davall wrote:You missed the point. A roll of a 1 will fail, but a NATURAL 1 doesn't always fail when rolling to wound. The only reason it does for rolling to hit is because it specifically says in that section a natural 1 always misses.

Look at Qweek's FAQ entry for Skaven. He does wound on a 1+ in a challenge if he normally only needs a 2+ to wound (vs T2 for example). As the FAQ sections (not the Errata or Addendum) are clarifications, not rule changes, it falls perfectly in line with the fact that a natural one doesn't automatically fail to wound if you have some sort of modifier to the dice.

The Lore of Metal isn't about to hit example. It's about to wound. And it says even when you need a 1+, you fail on a 1. It doesn't say natural or unnatural or anything. It says Always. Always means just that.

Qweek is a Unique Lord they gave their own FAQ entry to. That in no way contravenes the 2 blanket statements they made that 1 always fail. It seems far more likely they gave a Lord an exception instead of saying every model in a unit, no matter how crappy, gets treated like this specific Lord when hit with a 8+ spell. Especially when they say in 2 places the game doesn't work like that.

ll I will make the devil's advocate argument against your point Duke, if you notice that it doesn't say a natural 1 in your example from the Lore of Metal, now the Flaming Sword of Rhuin wouldn't work in that case not because you can't with a natural 1, but because the FSoR doesn't apply when rolling to wound with spells.

The Lore of Metal wasn't talking just about spells. It starts a brand new sentence with: "Remember that a 1 always fails..." No where earlier in the spell section did it say a 1 always fails. So the fact it says "Remember" would be non-sensical if you're trying to say it only applies to spells (or Lore of Metal) because there is nothing to remember. I.e., you don't say "Remember [here's a brand new concept]. It does, however, say it earlier in the book that 1 always fails to wound. In which case, "Remember" is referring to that.

Dukje - and that rule ONLY applies to the Lore of Metal. because that is the only place it applies.

Good point, still doesnt show the general rule. Unless you arereally trying to apply a special rule for a spell (by definition it is special as it is not in the general rules...) applies to all situations?

To everyone ignoring what brackets mean - they cannot change anything, but act ONLY as a reminder (in strict English). Meaning the bracketed comment is logically and linguistically false UNLESS you can find a RULE that is not a reminder.

Duke - please find a rule that is not a reminder.

I'm not sure what you're meaning.

I was just pointing out them saying "Remember that..." doesn't make sense if it's the first time they mentioned it.

What I'm saying is that in order for "remember that..." to make sense, the rule has to have previously existed.

In other words "remember that" is not by itself the rule, it requires the rule to have already be stated - otherwise it is not "remember that..."

Yes, you're agreeing with me.

They are saying, "Remember when I told you about this rule that 1 always fails?"

And you're trying to say they never told us about that rule? Moreover, it doesn't exist? Which means you're also saying they are kind of slowed for saying that because it makes no sense? That's quite a stretch if I understand you.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Davall wrote:You missed the point. A roll of a 1 will fail, but a NATURAL 1 doesn't always fail when rolling to wound. The only reason it does for rolling to hit is because it specifically says in that section a natural 1 always misses.

Look at Qweek's FAQ entry for Skaven. He does wound on a 1+ in a challenge if he normally only needs a 2+ to wound (vs T2 for example). As the FAQ sections (not the Errata or Addendum) are clarifications, not rule changes, it falls perfectly in line with the fact that a natural one doesn't automatically fail to wound if you have some sort of modifier to the dice.

The Lore of Metal isn't about to hit example. It's about to wound. And it says even when you need a 1+, you fail on a 1. It doesn't say natural or unnatural or anything. It says Always. Always means just that.

The reason why I used the to hit example is because the two situations use DIFFERENT language. As was mentioned earlier, check pg 10, the sidebar Is it Natural?
"You'll notice that some of the rules refer to a 'natural' dice roll - this refers to the actual dice rolled, ignoring any modifiers that might apply."

So, all the lore of Metal is saying, even if they have a 1+ armor save, a will fail.

"Remember that a 1 always fails." pg 494 Metalshifting.

Show me in that quote where it mentions the word natural. That's right, you can't because it doesn't make that distinction.

In the To Hit wording for close combat, it DOES make that claim.
pg 50 Roll to Hit: "Sometimes modifiers apply to these rolls, but a natural dice score of a 6 always hits and a natural dice score of a 1 always misses.

That's a drastic difference.

Because they NEVER use the word natural when defining to wound, you CAN add modifiers and make a 1+ into something else, and hence make it not automatically miss. This is why I referenced the Queek clarification from the FAQ. He needs a 2+ to wound in a challenge, rolls a 1, and it now goes to a 2 because the qualifier natural was never used for to wound.

DukeRustfield wrote:Qweek is a Unique Lord they gave their own FAQ entry to. That in no way contravenes the 2 blanket statements they made that 1 always fail. It seems far more likely they gave a Lord an exception instead of saying every model in a unit, no matter how crappy, gets treated like this specific Lord when hit with a 8+ spell. Especially when they say in 2 places the game doesn't work like that.

FAQs do not make rules. They are clarifications/interpretations to the rules that already exist. It also happens to fit perfectly with the above.

The Errata corrects any
mistakes in the book, while the Amendments bring the book up
to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently
Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked
questions about the rules.

If it was outside the RAW, Queek would have been in the Errata or Amendment, not the FAQ section.

Make sure you digest pg 10. Then, if you can find that word "natural" in another setting, it applies. Otherwise it doesn't.

Davall wrote:

FAQs do not make rules. They are clarifications/interpretations to the rules that already exist.

Whatever the merits of your argument, the above statement is demonstrably false as applied to GW.

Not really. Their FAQs do not make rules. They apply them within their own rules, how GW already interprets them.

Or more accurately, how outside sources interpret them because GW can't figure out how to interpret their own rules, and lets others write them for them.

People think FAQs make up new rules, when this is how GW thought it was supposed to be begin with. Right, wrong or otherwise.

I think nos especially will agree that there are multiple times it is very clear the FAQs have ignored relatively clear RaW in favor of RaI.

Like I said, GW interprets within their vision of the rules. They have said, many, MANY times that RAW people are basically power gaming dolts about whom they don't care.

I agree that a lot of times they side with RAI instead of RAW. Considering they wrote the rules, RAI is valid, for them.

And it boggles a lot of other people.

I agree completely, but I think citing them as "never changing the rules" is therefore rather useless. The rules are what GW says, whether Queek is unique or not. Regardless if we agree, if they did say Queek was unique and could autowound and no one else could, that wouldn't be surprising or that out of the oridinary.

Well, I never said "never change the rules"... Geawd, I feel like Gwar now...

My argument is FAQs are interpretations of the rules as GW sees them. For them to make Queek auto-wound, he would need his own special rule and/or an Errata.

No worries either way. I can't think of anyone I know that agrees with GW on even 85% of what they rule in general. But we are all just power gaming Americans who can't have fun.

Show me in that quote where it mentions the word natural. That's right, you can't because it doesn't make that distinction.

It doesn't say natural. Or modified. It says always. Which applies to every condition that can and ever will be. Even the natural-modified-unnatural-denaturalized-premodified-postspell-precombat-unambiguated rolls.

But we are all just power gaming Americans who can't have fun.

I'm an American. Lizardmen my fav race. But I really think a lot of these recent You Make Da Call attempts are pretty blatant power gaming grabs. GW rules writers and their lawyers that sue fans are two different groups.

If you put a common rat inside the barrel of a Dwarf Cannon and fired, you'd still wound on a 2+ in the WFB universe. But people are saying if you take a blind, diseased Skink and give him this one not-very-powerful spell, he can do better than that. Better than Sigmar Himself smashing his hammer into grandma, who still would need a 2+ to wound (depending on the special rules on his Grandma Slaying Hammer). Come on, guys.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Show me in that quote where it mentions the word natural. That's right, you can't because it doesn't make that distinction.

It doesn't say natural. Or modified. It says always. Which applies to every condition that can and ever will be. Even the natural-modified-unnatural-denaturalized-premodified-postspell-precombat-unambiguated rolls.

Well, you are right. A total roll of a one will always fail to wound.

Because since it doesn't say natural, a roll of a 1, with a +1 to wound bonus, is now a 2.

And wounds if you need a 2+.

Are we going to argue 1+1 != 2 now?

You are ignoring the basic term explanation that was presented earlier in the book, and not applying it to a later rule, as you should. Queek would like to have a talk to you, and no it doesn't matter he is a unique Lord yadda yadda. His rule doesn't specifically break the basic rules, hence he follows it. And since the FAQ says he can wound on a 1+ (with the +1 to wound modifier in a challenge), it supports this 100%

As said before, Pg 10 Is it Natural holds the key. Read the ENTIRE entry, not just the first half. It talks about sometimes wanted dice rolls WITH modifiers, and when they don't it will say natural. Which what you have been stuck on doesn't say natural. And for clarity's sake, if it doesn't say natural, YOU MAY ADD MODIFIERS to the roll total.

Arguing it any further with you (and no new insights) is a waste of time, energy, and keyboard strokes.

And as to the cannon, if it had a +1 to wound modifier, then yes, it would do better. Thems da rules.

We're not arguing, we're wasting time when we should be doing something productive with our lives

I just find it amusing the logic people are using. Even forgetting whether it's written, not written, natural, modified, etc.

A Strength 10 (highest possible in the entire universe) vs. a Toughness 1 (even a zombie has 2) would still need to roll a 2. A Giant, which can pick up and eat a unit, instantly slaying it, regardless of attributes, "only" has a Str 6. A Star Dragon only has a piddly Str 7. So a 10 would be like...a Chaos Titan Dragon Lord. Which could smush castles by farting on them. And if it lifted its massive, city-sized fist and punched a newborn kitten, it would need a 2 to wound.

I just want to hear someone say that is Rules as Intended that this one spell is better than that. Better than the most theortically skewed matchup the game can produce. Not to get aggro, just because I would love to hear their RAI logic.

DukeRustfield wrote:
It doesn't say natural. Or modified. It says always. Which applies to every condition that can and ever will be. Even the natural-modified-unnatural-denaturalized-premodified-postspell-precombat-unambiguated rolls.

Why, you are indeed correct. It does say that 1's always fail. In fact, ALL it says is:

1s always fail, after all

If you are arguing that this means that the statement MUST be interpreted to apply to all rolls of 1, then you MUST be arguing that it applies to Leadership checks as well. After all, the sentence itself, which you seem to be arguing must be obeyed, devoid of all context of referring to a 'To Wound' chart that SPECIFICALLY does not specify a natural roll, ONLY says that 1's always fail.

This means that all Attribute checks always fail on any roll with a 1. This means that Leadership checks always fail when rolling any 1s. This means that Insane Courage rolls always fail, as they have 1 or more 1's. This means that any spellcasting roll with any 1 always fails. This means that if you roll a 1 to go first, you FAIL. This means that if you roll a 1 for table edge, you FAIL the roll for table edge.

After all, the ONLY thing the sentence says is "1s always fail, after all".

And you, after all, are arguing that we CANNOT interpret the sentence in the context of the sidebar, or the title of the sidebar, or the To Wound Chart to which it refers.

Many of us, however, would argue that the sentence is specifically written intentionally in a sidebar about memorizing the Wound chart. We would assume that the statement refers specifically to the To Wound Chart next to it.

We would assume that the rule was not written to be a general rule about all 1s in the game (especially since it would then conflict with the Automatic Pass and Fail rule on page 10, which tells you that a natural 1 is always a success).

We would assume that this sentence was not meant to over-ride the Modifying Dice Rolls rule on page 7, which specifies how to add fixed number or additional dice to the dice roll to get a score. We would note that section tells you to roll the dice and add a number to get the final result. We would note that there are multiple exceptions to the general rule on page 7, but they all appear to be spelled out specifically (for instance, in the magic section).

However, your own statement indicates that you believe that this rule (1s always fail) applies to "every condition that can and ever will be". Thus, it is clear from your own statements that you believe it applies to Attribute Checks, Leadership checks, Break Tests, and roll-offs to go first. I myself confess that I am unclear how a roll of 1 on a Scatter die can indicate the failure of the scatter roll, but you seem quite positive that this sentence clearly indicates as much.

Sorry, stopped reading at 3rd sentence. Failtroll fails on a 1+.

/jumps into a volcano
/still needs 2+ to wound

Duke, unfortunately it seems that this will need a FAQ, however to continue as devil's advocate.

You do seem to have lost this argument, in a number of ways.

You have been out rules lawyered, by the mentioning of Queek. (Daval)
They have used logic. (Nos)
They have used the English language. (Daval & Nos)
And just now Da Butcha, out trolled you. (Just playing Butcher)

Duke - it was exactly what I was saying: they have *reminded* you about a rule that they have *never* written down.

Find where anuything other than a REMINDER about the rule exists, and you may have a point. Oh wait, sorry...