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.

So, if a unit (let's call them "empire greatswords") is attacking a target (clanrats mb) and will already wound them on 2's, and then has the lore of fire spell cast on them that gives them +1 to wound.... do they auto-wound?

Or put another way, is there a rule in the rulebook that indicates that you always fail to wound on a 1, as there is with armor and ward saves? The spell text itself does not deal with this.

Perhaps it doesn't matter, but they ruled that way with Queek in the Skaven FAQ. If he wounds anything on a 2+ without his special rule, which says he has a +1 to wound, then he auto wounds. Might set a precedence, but still isn't a definete answer.

Page 42 does not have any "1s fail automatically" rule for wounding, so it suggests that you can autowound with it.

Sidebar of Page 42 says 1's always fail.

duplicated post, sorry.

You can never have an automatic win or fail with a dice roll.

Take characteristic tests for instance, if your a To 7 and have to take a To you dont auto pass, you can fail on a 6....

Same with rolling to wound, or hit, if modifiers make you need a 1+ you will not auto hit/wound you can still fail on 1's (and trust me, thats when you always roll a ton of 1's).

Same with the other way around, if for some reason in combat you would need a 7 to hit the guy, a 6 will always hit...

There are checks and balances.

The only time that comes to mind is if you need like a 9 or something to hit with a shooting attack.

Queek must then be special indead, cause he does auto-wound.

arinnoor wrote:Queek must then be special indead, cause he does auto-wound.

Where do you see that he auto wounds???

Even if he adds +1 to his rolls a natural always fails to hit or wound. No matter the modifiers. Unless its in the errata/FAQ.

ShivanAngel wrote:

arinnoor wrote:Queek must then be special indead, cause he does auto-wound.

Where do you see that he auto wounds???

Even if he adds +1 to his rolls a natural always fails to hit or wound. No matter the modifiers. Unless its in the errata/FAQ.

Which, as pointed out above, it is.

Epicwargamer wrote:Sidebar of Page 42 says 1's always fail.

Actually that is simply a "reminder" and not a rule - if you notice NONE of the italic bars are rules, they are explanations and designers notes.

For example page 43 starts "I find it best to ignore...."

In terms of *rules* there is NOTHING that states that 1s always fails. CUrrently, RAW, 1s are NOT always a failure (as that is not a common rule at all, as for characteristic tests it is the opposite - a 1 always passes) therefore a 1+ to wound is an automatic wound.

Something else for the FAQ...

Just reread it. it looks like you can still wound even with a natural .

I must have been mistaking that with rolling to hit.

a will ALWAYS miss and a will ALWAYS hit regardless of modifiers... Note this is to hit and not to wound. Must of got them mixed up, or 7th and 8th mixed up...

Yep, as I said - the sidebar, which is commentary and not rules, is the only place that mentions the "1s always fail" - so intent seems to be you wuold fail ona 1+, but they forgot to actually write the rule in ....

Where in the BRB does it say Sidebar is not rules?

Plus, name the edition of Warhammer anything that if you get 1+'s you auto wound?

8th edition with Warlord Queek Headtaker.

On a more serious note, when sidenotes start saying, like Nosferatu1001 pointed out, "I find it best to ignore.." These seem morelike comentary and opinion rather then actual rules. If they were rules, wouldn't they be with the other rules rather then off to the side?

Epicwargamer wrote:Where in the BRB does it say Sidebar is not rules?

Plus, name the edition of Warhammer anything that if you get 1+'s you auto wound?

Find where it says they ARE rules. Being in italics is a clue....

When they start "I find it best to belive that" you will find it fairly hard to state they are anything more than the designers notes they actually are.

It is also entirely irrelevant whether this has happened before: NOW it happens. This is because they didnt write a rule to say it could not happen. If you had read my post you would see they presumably *intended* it to be that way, but they didnt ACTUALLY write the rules that way.

The best argument for them being rules is the fact that "The Most Important Rule" is there.

Are you going to argue that it isn't a rule? Furthermore, page 1 is headed, "The Rules" and says, essentially, "these are the rules to play" and ends with a ". . ."

I have a feeling the 8th edition errata and faq is going to be pretty big. There are lots of places where the book contradicts itself for one.

There are also a lot of rules that are horribly unclear. Hopefully it comes out soon.

They also seem to have missed a few of the 1's or 6's always fail things, but they may be going away from that..

Killjoy - well yes, it clearly ISNT a rule: name a rule you ahve ever seen which starts "I find it best to...>2

Hint: Rules arent opinions, but statements. The VAST bulk of the italicised comments are exactly that - coments, and are to be taken as such.

Please, find some actual rules OTHER than TMIR in there - you'll struggle.

Just because some of them aren't binding doesn't mean they aren't all rules. I know we don't like using the dictionary, but a rule is defined as either a "prescribed guide for conduct" or "an accepted procedure or custom" (Mw.com).

The point is, RaW, they are rules. The book clearly says page 1 that the following are rules.

In other words, you asked where it says they ARE rules. I've shown you why (page 1) and given an example (MIP). Show me where it says they aren't rules.

Agreed with the above poster

Killjoy00 wrote:Just because some of them aren't binding doesn't mean they aren't all rules. I know we don't like using the dictionary, but a rule is defined as either a "prescribed guide for conduct" or "an accepted procedure or custom" (Mw.com).

The point is, RaW, they are rules. The book clearly says page 1 that the following are rules.

In other words, you asked where it says they ARE rules. I've shown you why (page 1) and given an example (MIP). Show me where it says they aren't rules.

Actually, I can trump your page 1 with page ix, in the section HOW THIS BOOK WORKS where it says "To clarify rules along the way you will find both illustrative diagrams and helpful side notes with practical advice scattered throughout the section." (Emphasis added.)

The book says that the note in which TMIR appears, and the one about 1's always failing to wound, is a "helpful side note". Given how immensely helpful TMIR is, it is an incredibly helpful side note.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Epicwargamer wrote:Where in the BRB does it say Sidebar is not rules?

Plus, name the edition of Warhammer anything that if you get 1+'s you auto wound?

Find where it says they ARE rules. Being in italics is a clue....

When they start "I find it best to belive that" you will find it fairly hard to state they are anything more than the designers notes they actually are.

It is also entirely irrelevant whether this has happened before: NOW it happens. This is because they didnt write a rule to say it could not happen. If you had read my post you would see they presumably *intended* it to be that way, but they didnt ACTUALLY write the rules that way.

Even if the sidebars are only taken to be illustrative and helpful they are still written by the designers and carry more weight than any opinion of how the rule is intended to work that can be offered. These people, after all, wrote the rules. With that in mind as well as the history of the game it can be pretty safe to assume how wounding is supposed to work...just like it always has. If I'm wrong and it was intended to work the other way than I would still have rather slighted myself than have had taken obvious advantage of an omission.

I kind of agree with both sides...

It doesnt say a 1 is an auto fail, but it is in the side bar...

Also as long as i have been playing warhammer, a 1 has ALWAYS failed to hit or wound...

Gridge, which is why I stated above that RAI it is *probable* that they meant to leave in 1s always fail, but RAW they *didnt*

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

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

Agreed.

There is a reference in the Lore of Metal to 1s always failing to wound as normal.

It says in parantheticals: (1s always fail, after all). That's a bringing up a given. A reiteration of a fact. It doesn't begin with, "I believe..."

I can't believe some people are trying to cross out stuff already from the rule book. It's going to be some CIA document with half of it inked-out.

If someone I played with someone who wanted to ignore the itallics, or plain, or bold, or underlined parts of the brand-spanking new 8th edition, I'd be looking for a new opponent methinks.

@Aduro good catch. Although it's a bit convoluted because it's a spell based off an armor save which already. But still.

If you take the sidebar parenthetical statement as a statement of fact, there are still two things that you need to establish before saying that a roll of a '1' with a +1 to wound modifier still fails to wound.

The first, is you need to establish that the parenthetical statement isn't just an observation about the To Wound Chart. "Gosh, if you look at the chart, you'll notice that you need better than a 1 to wound."

The other thing you need to establish is that it's a natural '1' as opposed to a modified '1' that's supposed to fail to wound.

Because that's the alternative, the fact that it takes a modified '2' or better to wound, so a modified '1' or less fails, just like it shows on the chart. And under that situation, if you have a +1 modifier to your roll and need a '2' or better, you can't fail.

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.