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.

I am just wondering, Does a natural 1 still fail to wound, this did exist as a rule in the last edition but I have been unable to find it in the last edition.

This comes to mind, because I have been having auto-hits pretty regularly with my Chaos Knights, and I have been thinking about casting the Flaming Sword of Rhuin on them, so that I auto-wound toughness 3? This should allow me to break ranks by just killing so many guys that they crumple. Lets say they have 25 Empire Swordsmen, thats still killing 20 on average, their down to 1 rank, and now need snake eyes.

Nothing in 8th states, in an actual rule, that 1s fail to wound.

There is a sidebar on the "to wound" page which indicates this, but the sidebars are simply designers notes and NOT rules.

It may not be written in the actual wording of the rule but that is likely just a mistake since we see it in the sidebar and it is long standing tradition with the game that I really doubt was actually meant to be changed. So, I would say it is better to play it safe instead of taking advantage of a likely omission until it gets FAQ'd (if ever).

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nothing in 8th states, in an actual rule, that 1s fail to wound.

There is a sidebar on the "to wound" page which indicates this, but the sidebars are simply designers notes and NOT rules.

Do you have the page number which states that sidebars are designers notes and not rules? At some point I could see someone claim sidebars are rules and it would be good to show it in writing.

Oh man, we've already got that same argument brewing here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/305442.page

Let's not create a second one of that.

As mentioned it's already debated.

The book says 1s fail to hit. It also says 1s fail to wound twice (so far as has been pointed out), once in the sidebar, once in the Lore of Metal.

And, as you keep on "forgetting", both are *reminders* which are logically false if the original rule does not exist.

Noone has been able to find the original rule that these reminders are for - hence the debate.

Or people aren't willing to accept that everything after page 1 is rules - hence the debate.

To Wound doesn't use the qualifier natural (pg 10). To Hit does.

You can modify To Wound rolls above a (with the spell Flaming Sword of Rhuin, for example), but not a To Hit (even with Enchanted Blades of Aiban, Lore of Metal spell).

Killjoy00 wrote:Or people aren't willing to accept that everything after page 1 is rules - hence the debate.

Avoid ing the question over how you "remind" someone about a rule despite having never actually written the rule down?

Classic.

Ohg, and "I belive..." is not a rule, but a comment. Your inability to tell the difference is telling.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Killjoy00 wrote:Or people aren't willing to accept that everything after page 1 is rules - hence the debate.

Avoid ing the question over how you "remind" someone about a rule despite having never actually written the rule down?

Classic.

Ohg, and "I belive..." is not a rule, but a comment. Your inability to tell the difference is telling.

Page ix: "To clarify rules along the way you will find both illustrative diagrams and helpful side notes with practical advice scattered throughout the section."
Page 42: If your strength is higher still, you need a 2+ (1's Always Fail, After all).

40k 5th edition Black Reach Rulebook, page 19 and 38 SIDEBARs: Note: blah blah. Also note that a will of 1 never scores a wound, regardless of its Strength.
- I guess because it is italicized its not a rule either, perhaps.

So I guess we have it wrong in 5th edition 40k too, huh?

No Nos, your wrong about this one. it plainly states that 1's always fail. Its in the rules section of the book and it is not written ambiguously at all.

What would happen if you, or any others that 'plainly ignore traditional rules', and I, were about to play:

EWG: Hey Nos, lets play.
Nos: Okay
EWG: Wounding rolls of 1 always fail, right?
Nos: No. They are auto wounds if the strength is high enough.
EWG: Okay, I'll pass (Picks up bag and finds another opponent)

EWG - apparently reading fail on your part.

The first bolded word - CLARIFY. guess what that means - it is NOT the rule, but an explanation of the rule.

Clarify rule /= Rule

Helpful Side note with practical advice /= Rule

Does 5th ed BRB have the same caveats about the side notes? No? Then your comment is fail, again.

Brackets have a use in english - look it up. essentially they act as a reminder, and cannot change (or bring in new) standing information. Also if you truly want it to be a rule then 1s also fail when taking Initiative tests and when rolling to pick sides - good luck with that interpretation!

Find the standing information (aka a rule,something you have yet to do) that allows you to perform the action, then the reminder has use. Until then, fail.

You also entirely fail (gee, who'd have thought) to notice my RAI comment earlier.

Edit: lol, also noticed you have failed to understand that this is not a "strength high enough" issue, as the to wound chart ;lists all possible strengths. this is about modifiers to wound which can allow a 1+

Well then chief its CLARIFYING the fact for you, who is obviously oblivious to the time-tested fact that 1's always fail to Hit/Wound, that 1's in fact fail.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And since you only follow rules, and the rules are written on page 1, then you yourself cannot use any of the text in the introduction to aid your point. Therefore, you would not KNOW the fact that Page ix says: "To clarify rules along the way you will find both illustrative diagrams and helpful side notes with practical advice scattered throughout the section."

...and you would have to generally assume that the Italicized text is in fact RAW.

1's can never wound.

Fail.

You cannot clarify a rule if the rule does not exist in the first place. Logically and linguistically you are wrong.

and remember the text you so love only mentiosn "1s always failing", it does not include "to wound", meaning 1s fail on initiative tests, when rolling to start the game, and so on.

Finally: please, for the love of reading comphrension, actually READ what I posted earlier about likely RAI vs actual Rules as Written. (and no, I dont assume, see well known prhase on that...)

RULES as written 1s do not always fail to wound, as there exist only reminders to clarify a rule that has not been written down.

RAI it is *likely* that they meant to include this, however with the large numbers of changes to long standing gaming assumptions in 8th this is not "beyond reasonable doubt"

nosferatu1001 wrote:EWG - apparently reading fail on your part.

Brackets have a use in english - look it up. essentially they act as a reminder, and cannot change (or bring in new) standing information. Also if you truly want it to be a rule then 1s also fail when taking Initiative tests and when rolling to pick sides - good luck with that interpretation!

this is invalid as characteristic tests are covered under a different rule.

Nope, it is providing a "rule" (1s ALWAYS fail) that some posters are saying should always be followed (the "always" part) - if so then 1s always fail...

The context is clearly wounding rolls. Comments like that aren't really helpful.

Guys - really.

Keep it on a 'professional' level here, and try VERY hard to avoid personal attacks.

p42 -
The number indicated is the minimum score on a D6 needed to convert the hit into a wound. Any dice that equal or beat the score shown on the chart have successfully scored a wound.

---

A die roll of '1' on a d6 does not meet or exceed the minimum value of 2+ on the chart, so would fail. The wording seems to indicate that unless otherwise stated, you have to beat the value indicated on the wound chart prior to adding modifiers (if any apply).

Read the Is it Natural sidebar on pg 10.

You can add modifiers on To Wound rolls because it doesn't mention "natural". So 1+ (+1 modifier)=2, is no longer a "1", and hence can wound. If you check out To Hit (melee), it specifically mentions "natural" and modifiers do not work for or

That will be the last time I type that as I know everyone is sick of it

I love the fact, that I get either Daval, or Nosferatu arguing with Duke in every forum I post. I swear I must start a running tally as part of my signature. . .

Keep track of who gets more right as the FAQ get released

Who is right by the FAQ doesn't matter as much, as the FAQ's often change or don't follow what the rules actually say.

citadel97501 wrote:I love the fact, that I get either Daval, or Nosferatu arguing with Duke in every forum I post. I swear I must start a running tally as part of my signature. . .

Hmm? This is the only topic, which is duplicated in one other thread, that I have interacted with Duke.

Blame Nos, not me

Davall wrote:

citadel97501 wrote:I love the fact, that I get either Daval, or Nosferatu arguing with Duke in every forum I post. I swear I must start a running tally as part of my signature. . .

Hmm? This is the only topic, which is duplicated in one other thread, that I have interacted with Duke.

Blame Nos, not me

I am not blaming anyone, just kind of interesting.