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.

 Gojiratoho wrote:
The question is really "Can a statline that resolves with dice roles (i.e. WS/BS/SV) be modified to be 1+". I don't think it can, as that breaks the idea of 1s failing, but I don't see anywhere that explicitly forbids it. The Modifying Characteristics sidebar on page 175 of the BRB doesn't mention it, nor did I see anything in the Designer's Commentary or Stepping Into a New Edition

You're right, nothing does forbid it, but the rules don't need to. It doesn't break the concept of 1's failing because the entire point of the 1's failing rule is to prevent auto-hits/wounds/saves. The only lower restriction of 1 is explicitly for "Strength, Toughness and Leadership". All other characteristics are fair game.

You could have a WS-30 for all the rules cares, if you roll a dice and the end result is a 1 (or lower, as per the FAQ lower than 1 becomes 1), you fail to hit/fail to wound/fail to save.

 skchsan wrote:
The "irrespective of any modifiers" is meant to cover a different situation.

Overcharged plasma can auto-fail on a natural roll of 1, but the overheat portion can be overridden by a +1 hit modifier.

In this case, an overcharged plasma is fired, and 1 was rolled for the hit. The overcharged plasma fails to hit, but its wielder does not suffer the overheat penalty.

EDIT: Think I may have misread this

 BaconCatBug wrote:
To be fair, an "email" from "GW" is even more useless than dictionary definitions. If it's not in a Codex or Official FAQ, it's not really relevant to a rules discussion. I remember the bad old days where you could send them the same questions 3 times and get 4 different answers.

Luckily for me, an e-mail from GW is more valid than any argument this forum can make. They will also (probably) be adding it to the Drukhari FAQ as I'm not the only one to e-mail them about this specific rule

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The "irrespective of any modifiers" is meant to cover a different situation.

Overcharged plasma can auto-fail on a natural roll of 1, but the overheat portion can be overridden by a +1 hit modifier.

In this case, an overcharged plasma is fired, and 1 was rolled for the hit. The overcharged plasma fails to hit, but its wielder does not suffer the overheat penalty.

Per the Designer's Commentary FAQ, this is not the case. Supercharged plasma causes the wound if, after all modifiers are applied, the to hit roll is a 1.

It could be both ways. A 1+1 is still a roll of one, because the roll was a 1, not taking into account the modifier (per the definition of irregardless), while a 2-1 is a 1 because you don't care if modifiers made it a 1, it is still a 1.

However, if you want to decide they are mutually exclusive, which one is it? If a 2-1 is an overheat, then a 1+1 can't be, but if a 1+1 is an overheat, then a 2-1 can't be. Since the FAQ says to account for all modifiers first, I would say the FAQ is explicitly saying that a 2-1 is an overheat, thus a 1+1 can't be.

Can't we all just be friends? Lol.


It's confusing for sure, hence me asking. I still firmly believe a 2 becomes a 1, and this passes the stat check. Won't know for SURE until we get a response from GeeDubs.

All that said you've made good arguments sir, but it's still a bit murky (we had to basically research and argue for however long this has been now hah - murky af)

Fattimusmcgee wrote:
(we had to basically research and argue for however long this has been now hah - murky af)

I mean, I consider this a discussion more than an argument

Also, it let me not concentrate on work which is always welcome.

I am of the mind set in any scenario the end result is considered what the "roll" was.

So if you have 5 dice shooting. and a 2+ Hit and a -2 modifer. On your unmodified roll you get 1, 2, 3, 3, 6. Your modified "roll" that you always roll'd is now 1, 1, 1, 1, 4. (As you can;t go below 1) Even is the BS was a 1+ the end result will still be four misses and one hit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Irrespective does not mean ignore. Irrespective means it doesn't matter if it is with or without modifiers.

I know Dictionary Definitions are considered an automatic fail (see what I did thar ) but a quick search of the googles shows that the definition of Irrespective is "not taking (something) into account; regardless of".

Thus, if it is a roll of 1, regardless of whether modifiers made it a 1 or not, it's a fail.

I know fully well what irrespective means. You're actually misapplying the definition. It says "irrespective of any modifiers", not "irrespective of whether modifiers made it a 1 or not". In other words, "regardless of any modifiers", which still means "ignore the modifiers for purposes of this calculation". Here's the full definition, by the way, which makes the intended meaning of the word even clearer in this context:

dictionary.com wrote:without regard to something else, especially something specified; ignoring or discounting (usually followed by of):

without regard to any modifiers
ignoring any modifiers
discounting any modifiers

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Another similar situation I've had is Lias Issodon's stealth armour, which gives him a 0+ save when he's in cover, play it as "A 1 still fails his save, but you need Ap-3 or better to start modifying it."

No, that's not how it works either. If you have a 0+, hit by an AP-1 weapon, and then roll a 2, the 2 gets modified down to a 1, which fails.

Again, if it worked the way you claim plasma would never explode except on a natural 1, which is not the case.

It might seem unintuitive but it's the only way things can work without having two different mechanics for the exact same worded rule. As a RaWphile that would boil my onions to no end.

So in your eyes, why would they have given him a 2+ save with a +2 modifier?

 Valkyrie wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Another similar situation I've had is Lias Issodon's stealth armour, which gives him a 0+ save when he's in cover, play it as "A 1 still fails his save, but you need Ap-3 or better to start modifying it."

No, that's not how it works either. If you have a 0+, hit by an AP-1 weapon, and then roll a 2, the 2 gets modified down to a 1, which fails.

Again, if it worked the way you claim plasma would never explode except on a natural 1, which is not the case.

It might seem unintuitive but it's the only way things can work without having two different mechanics for the exact same worded rule. As a RaWphile that would boil my onions to no end.

So in your eyes, why would they have given him a 2+ save with a +2 modifier?

Because you bamboozled me by giving me incorrect information. Having gone and opened the book, Lias Issodon does not have a "0+" save like you claim (not even Forge World are that incompetent), he has a rule saying "You may add 2 to saving throws made for Lias Issodon instead of 1 when he has the benefits of cover." He's not modifying his characteristic, he's getting a +2 modifier to his non-invulnerable save throws. In this case the modifiers will cancel each other out. So an AP0 weapon will result in a +2 total modifier, of which a 1 will still fail, so 2+ save. An AP-1 weapon will result in a total +1 modifier, of which a 1 will still fail, so a 2+ save. An AP-2 weapon will result in a total +0 modifier, of which a 1 will still fail, so a 2+ save. An AP -3 weapon will result in a total -1 modifier, of which a 1 will still fail, thus a physical roll of 1 or 2 will fail (having both been modified to 1), thus a 2+ save made on a D6-1.

AP modifiers don't change the characteristic, they change the type of dice you're rolling. An AP -1 weapon makes your saves be taken on a D6-1, of which you need to pass the value on your datasheet to succeed. It's a common shorthand, and mistake, to say AP-1 on a 3+ save is a "4+ save".

 skchsan wrote:
The "irrespective of any modifiers" is meant to cover a different situation.

Overcharged plasma can auto-fail on a natural roll of 1, but the overheat portion can be overridden by a +1 hit modifier.

In this case, an overcharged plasma is fired, and 1 was rolled for the hit. The overcharged plasma fails to hit, but its wielder does not suffer the overheat penalty.

Alternatively, you roll a 2 on a to-hit roll on an OC plasma, but you are subject to -1 hit modifier. So now you auto fail the to hit because your modified hit roll is a 1, AND you overheat because your modified to hit is a 1.

I think this is the right answer.

Plasma overheats on a modified roll of 1 (per the faq), and since you can't modify a roll below one then if you are subjected to -1 to hit then you blow up on a 1 and 2. But, the rule for failing a check (in this case a to hit roll) always fails on a roll of 1 irrespective of modifiers, i.e. a natural roll of one.

Take this example: a model with BS 1+ overcharges plasma at a stealthsuit, he rolls a 2. He hasn't rolled a 1 so the check passes and he hits the target (because this is a modified 1, not a 1 irrespective of modifiers) BUT the 2 is modified to a one and the plasma blows up.
So he both hits his target and blows up. The rules aren't contradictory it would seem.

In other words, blowing up plasma is not an "auto-fail" it is simply an effect of the weapon like how some weapons do MW on wound rolls of 6+.

So for the case of the OP, the succubus hits on 2+ against -1 to hit.

Haha you got bamboozled Lol

Alright, go on and argue this is getting entertaining now (I kid, I kid). For sure I'll update this post if/when I get a response from GW; if ever.

You're aaaaaaaaallll making some good points though. It does indeed say "irrespective of any modifiers"

Yeah, that's exactly right, Dandelion. There isn't any other reasonable reading.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Benn Roe wrote:
Plasma uses the word "roll", but doesn't use the qualifier "irrespective of any modifiers", and that's the key difference. With a WS1+ and a -1 to hit, a natural 2 will still succeed because it isn't a roll of 1 irrespective of any modifiers, it's a modified roll of 1, which is a hit.

EDIT: I was beaten to the punch, but JakeSiren is right. Plasma only cares about the final result of the roll, but the auto-fail clause explicitly says to ignore modifiers when checking to see if it triggered.

Irrespective does not mean ignore. Irrespective means it doesn't matter if it is with or without modifiers.

I know Dictionary Definitions are considered an automatic fail (see what I did thar ) but a quick search of the googles shows that the definition of Irrespective is "not taking (something) into account; regardless of".

Thus, if it is a roll of 1, regardless of whether modifiers made it a 1 or not, it's a fail.

Using the two definitions you provided the rules would look as follows:

A roll of 1 always fails, not taking any modifiers that may apply into account.
or
A roll of 1 always fails, regardless of any modifiers that may apply.

I don't know what else to say; the definitions you provided help demonstrate that we don't care about modifiers for the auto-fail - it's only the natural 1 that auto-fails.

Modified or unmodified rolls of 1 fail. Doesn't matter if your WS is 1+ or whatever.

In your specific instance, the roll of a 2 will fail, due to the -1 to hit. Unless the combat drugs confer a +1 to hit instead of a +1 to WS? In which case they would cancel each other out and the result would hit.

I suspect it is entirely pointless giving your Succubus WS1+ with combat drugs. 2+ is no joke anyway.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Modified or unmodified rolls of 1 fail. Doesn't matter if your WS is 1+ or whatever.

In what rules basis do you claim this?

As I understand it a unit with a WS of 1+ or even 0+ cancels out stuff like -hit but a 1 is an automatic fail.

So let's say wyches with +1 WS combat drug in turn3 attack 30 plague bearers with their passive -1 to hit in my book this would mean:

Wyches hit on a WS of 1,

-1 is 2 so a 2 still hits
1 is an autofail, always.

The best interpretation of the phrase "a roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" I think is:

A roll of 1 always fails, even if any modifiers would bring the result of the roll above 1.

You would have to have WS0 to auto hit. The RB is very clear on this matter.

 Primark G wrote:
You would have to have WS0 to auto hit. The RB is very clear on this matter.

That's not how that works, at all.

 Primark G wrote:
You would have to have WS0 to auto hit. The RB is very clear on this matter.

You still fail on roll of 1.

 skchsan wrote:
The best interpretation of the phrase "a roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" I think is:

A roll of 1 always fails, even if any modifiers would bring the result of the roll above 1.

I'm not sure if there's any practical difference here, but it says "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply", not just positive modifiers. You can substitute any definition of "irrespective" for the word itself, and every result unambiguously just means "a natural roll of 1 always fails". Using only definitions already posted in this thread:

A roll of 1 always fails, not taking into account any modifiers that may apply.
A roll of 1 always fails, regardless of any modifiers that may apply.
A roll of 1 always fails, without regard for any modifiers that may apply.
A roll of 1 always fails, ignoring any modifiers that may apply.
A roll of 1 always fails, discounting any modifiers that may apply.

There just isn't any way I can find to read that phrase other than "if your die reads 1, you fail, so don't bother calculating modifiers".

No, it would actually mean "no matter how the result was obtained, whether the dice roll showed 1 and no modifiers were in effect, or the net result of the modifiers resulted in a roll of 1, if the resulting roll is a 1, it always fails."

The phrase "roll of 1" encompasses both a natural 1 as well as modifed result of 1. One cannot deduce that the phrase only refers to a natural roll of 1 or only modifed roll of 1 from the given context. Both natural roll of 1 and modified roll of 1 are both "roll of 1".

You question then, "but hey, my natural roll of 1 can be improved because I have a +1 to hit!" This is where the second sentence comes into play: "irrespective of any modifiers." This would mean that even if you had any modifiers that would improve the natural roll of 1, a natural roll of 1 always fails.

A flowchart of this interaction would be:
1. Roll a d6; is the dice showing 1?
-- YES > the hit fails.
-- NO > go to 2.
2. Apply any modifiers. Is the result of the modified roll 1?
-- YES > the hit fails.
-- NO > go to 3.
3. Compare result to units WS/BS. Is the result of the roll greater or equal to unit's WS/BS?
-- YES > the hit succeeds.
-- NO > the hit fails.

 skchsan wrote:

The phrase "roll of 1" encompasses both a natural 1 as well as modifed result of 1. One cannot deduce that the phrase only refers to a natural roll of 1 or only modifed roll of 1 from the given context. Both natural roll of 1 and modified roll of 1 are both "roll of 1".

Actually this is wrong. Unless explicitly stated, such as in overwatch or the auto-fail, roll refers to the result after modifiers.

Otherwise by your argument negative to hits don't work. Ie, a Space Marine shoots at a flier and rolls a 3 thus hitting because the natural 3 is satisfies his BS check. Clearly this is not the case.

JakeSiren wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

The phrase "roll of 1" encompasses both a natural 1 as well as modifed result of 1. One cannot deduce that the phrase only refers to a natural roll of 1 or only modifed roll of 1 from the given context. Both natural roll of 1 and modified roll of 1 are both "roll of 1".

Actually this is wrong. Unless explicitly stated, such as in overwatch or the auto-fail, roll refers to the result after modifiers.

Otherwise by your argument negative to hits don't work. Ie, a Space Marine shoots at a flier and rolls a 3 thus hitting because the natural 3 is satisfies his BS check. Clearly this is not the case.

Read the rest of the post.

 skchsan wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

The phrase "roll of 1" encompasses both a natural 1 as well as modifed result of 1. One cannot deduce that the phrase only refers to a natural roll of 1 or only modifed roll of 1 from the given context. Both natural roll of 1 and modified roll of 1 are both "roll of 1".

Actually this is wrong. Unless explicitly stated, such as in overwatch or the auto-fail, roll refers to the result after modifiers.

Otherwise by your argument negative to hits don't work. Ie, a Space Marine shoots at a flier and rolls a 3 thus hitting because the natural 3 is satisfies his BS check. Clearly this is not the case.

Read the rest of the post.

I did. The first paragraph is wrong, and your 2nd paragraph was a continuation of it. I addressed paragraph 2 as it was more structured than the first. Your 3rd paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion, we all agree that a natural 1 fails. The disagreement is if a modified result of 1 also always fails. Ie, rolled a natural 2, but have a -1 to hit, so a modified roll result of 1 - do you still hit on that modified roll if you have a 1+ WS? Your flow chart is wrong because your assumptions in paragraph 2 are wrong.

JakeSiren wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

The phrase "roll of 1" encompasses both a natural 1 as well as modifed result of 1. One cannot deduce that the phrase only refers to a natural roll of 1 or only modifed roll of 1 from the given context. Both natural roll of 1 and modified roll of 1 are both "roll of 1".

Actually this is wrong. Unless explicitly stated, such as in overwatch or the auto-fail, roll refers to the result after modifiers.

Otherwise by your argument negative to hits don't work. Ie, a Space Marine shoots at a flier and rolls a 3 thus hitting because the natural 3 is satisfies his BS check. Clearly this is not the case.

Read the rest of the post.

I did. The first paragraph is wrong, and your 2nd paragraph was a continuation of it. I addressed paragraph 2 as it was more structured than the first. Your 3rd paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion, we all agree that a natural 1 fails. The disagreement is if a modified result of 1 also always fails. Ie, rolled a natural 2, but have a -1 to hit, so a modified roll result of 1 - do you still hit on that modified roll if you have a 1+ WS? Your flow chart is wrong because your assumptions in paragraph 2 are wrong.

By extension of your argument, a natural roll of 1 is not 'always miss.'

Re-rolls are before modifiers so you're re-rolling based on the 'natural' roll.

The term 'roll' doesn't always refer to modified rolls.

 skchsan wrote:
No, it would actually mean "no matter how the result was obtained, whether the dice roll showed 1 and no modifiers were in effect, or the net result of the modifiers resulted in a roll of 1, if the resulting roll is a 1, it always fails."

NOPE: Your stance is contradictory. Either you apply modifiers or you do not. You can't say 1s aren't modifiable but 2s are. The rule is requiring you to look at your dice and see if there are any 1s "irrespective of modifiers" or in other words "without applying modifiers". If you do not see a 1 on your physical dice then you pass this particular check.
Modified ones tend to fail after modifiers because no one has a BS or WS of 1+ until now.

Remember the case in question: a succubus has a WS of 1+ (with the upgrade). It's NOT a modifier itself.
With the rule she must roll a 2+ because ones always fail (irrespective of modifiers). If she had a +1 to hit, then she would still fail on a 1.

Now her weapon has a -1 to hit.
Case 1:
- She rolls a 1.
- She fails because 1s fail irrespective of modifiers.

Case 2:
- She rolls a 2.
- She did NOT roll a "1 irrespective of modifiers".
- The 2 becomes a modified 1.
- She must roll a 1+ after all modifiers are applied.
- She has rolled 1 or greater after modifiers.
- She passes the to hit roll

This rule is distinctly different to the plasma ruling, where 1s are determined AFTER modifiers are applied.

See my plasma example:

Take this example: a model with BS 1+ overcharges plasma at a stealthsuit, he rolls a 2. He hasn't rolled a 1 so the check passes and he hits the target (because this is a modified 1, not a 1 irrespective of modifiers) BUT the 2 is modified to a one and the plasma blows up.
So he both hits his target and blows up. The rules aren't contradictory it would seem.

JakeSiren wrote:
Unless explicitly stated, such as in overwatch or the auto-fail, roll refers to the result after modifiers.

The excerpt "a roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of modifiers." makes no 'explicit statement' that the roll refers to unmodified dice roll. Therefore, as per your stance, the excerpt can only be referring to modified rolls of 1, at which point, a natural 1 can only auto-miss if there are no +hit modifiers present.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
No, it would actually mean "no matter how the result was obtained, whether the dice roll showed 1 and no modifiers were in effect, or the net result of the modifiers resulted in a roll of 1, if the resulting roll is a 1, it always fails."

NOPE: Your stance is contradictory. Either you apply modifiers or you do not. You can't say 1s aren't modifiable but 2s are. The rule is requiring you to look at your dice and see if there are any 1s "irrespective of modifiers" or in other words "without applying modifiers". If you do not see a 1 on your physical dice then you pass this particular check.
Modified ones tend to fail after modifiers because no one has a BS or WS of 1+ until now.

Remember the case in question: a succubus has a WS of 1+ (with the upgrade). It's NOT a modifier itself.
With the rule she must roll a 2+ because ones always fail (irrespective of modifiers). If she had a +1 to hit, then she would still fail on a 1.

Now her weapon has a -1 to hit.
Case 1:
- She rolls a 1.
- She fails because 1s fail irrespective of modifiers.

Case 2:
- She rolls a 2.
- She did NOT roll a "1 irrespective of modifiers".
- The 2 becomes a modified 1.
- She must roll a 1+ after all modifiers are applied.
- She has rolled 1 or greater after modifiers.
- She passes the to hit roll

This rule is distinctly different to the plasma ruling, where 1s are determined AFTER modifiers are applied.

See my plasma example:

Take this example: a model with BS 1+ overcharges plasma at a stealthsuit, he rolls a 2. He hasn't rolled a 1 so the check passes and he hits the target (because this is a modified 1, not a 1 irrespective of modifiers) BUT the 2 is modified to a one and the plasma blows up.
So he both hits his target and blows up. The rules aren't contradictory it would seem.

It APPEARS contradictory because it stands against your understaning of the RAW. The rulebook makes no distinction between what we colloquially refer to as "natural rolls" and "modified rolls." The assumption that "only natural rolls of 1 auto-fails" is a fallacious conclusion based on insufficient evidence.

So, you rolled a 1 with modifiers. Did you roll a 1 "irrespective of modifiers"? No? Then it can hit.