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.

 azazel the cat wrote:
or based off of DeathReaper's selective reading of Reserve Rolls (which can never, ever be relevant to the Wolf Standard).

That's not really true FYI.

rigeld2 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
or based off of DeathReaper's selective reading of Reserve Rolls (which can never, ever be relevant to the Wolf Standard).

That's not really true FYI.

100% this.

Keep ignoring my side of the argument.

We can wait for an FaQ if it ever comes.

Natural rolls don't have anything to do with the rules in general DR it is mentioned in one paragraph where it talks about a very specialised situation within GW's ruleset.
A case where the roll and the result impact the outcome, not just one or the other.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Natural rolls don't have anything to do with the rules in general DR it is mentioned in one paragraph where it talks about a very specialised situation within GW's ruleset.
A case where the roll and the result impact the outcome, not just one or the other.

It's a completely redundant word. If you removed it the meaning of the sentence would not change whatsoever.

The reason I said it could be relevant is that taking only the rules on one page is not the right way to look at something as generic as rolling dice. You have to look at the rule set in general.

Oh that wasn't aimed at you, I think it it redundant and we can't square natural rolls within the ruleset fully.

I agree that the rules need a big picture view, the move through your own/enemy models debates in this edition prove that it is needed.
Maybe GW should ensure that the language is internally consistent by hiring a head writer for their dev team and have them write the rules while the rest of the team make them.

HWIPI: At this point I'd play MotW either way, reroll if my opponent/TO allows or not if they disagree with my stand point. I'm inclined to believe a D6 roll is just that, regardless of modifiers. And 2D6 roll will obviously be a single roll and never get the reroll.