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.

The Masques Special Rule: Unnatural Reflexes states, verbatim, "The Masque of Slaanesh re-rolls all failed invulnerable saves." I know the BRB says a die cannot be re-rolled more than once, but this rule, in the Daemons codex states ALL failed invulnerable saves get re-rolled. Codex supersedes BRB, right? So the only way to kill her is to hit her with something that does not allow saves of any kind. Your thoughts?

Does The Masque say, "this overrides the normal rule that you cannot re-roll a re-roll"? Of course not. Would such a rule make any sense? Wouldn't they instead just write "1+ Invulnerable Save", or "This model cannot be killed"?

Yep. It doesn't explicitly indicate it trumps the 'can only re-roll a given roll once' rule, so it doesn't.

Chalk it up to messy editting would be my suggestion; playing with it being impossible to fail a save would break a fundamental aspect of the game.

I'm not saying I agree, It's just something I noticed while reading her profile. However, if you were playing someone that interprets it as RAW, they would technically be correct. Sure, it doesn't EXPLICITLY void the re-roll rule, it does, however, say re-roll ALL failed. In a game where wording is crucial, it seems to be sloppy editing, as Neorealist says.

And Mannahnin, they wouldn't need to have a specific rule stating it. Not when the BRB says the Codex wins out for rules.

And on a whole other side-note regarding Daemons in general. The second sentence of the Daemonic Instability (Pg. 26) says "Units with this special automatically pass Fear, Pinning, and Morale tests (And cannot choose to fail any of these tests)". Wouldn't it be easier to state that they're Fearless?

No, because with the wording it has your daemons can gtg, something you can't do if your fearless.

No, the codex does have to explicitly say it overrides the reroll mechanic. Here is why, the codex says you reroll failed invuls. How do we know what that means? Well we reference the brb, which tells us what it means when a rule allows us to reroll and how to carry out said rule in game. Unless a rule specifically voids something in the barb, the barb must be followed.

SO! Does the demons Dex say that you reroll all failed saves? Or does it say reroll all failed saves until the wound is ignored? If it doesn't say that last bit, then you follow the brb definition of rerolls and how to implement them, namely, that no dice can ever be rerolled more than once.

Templar_Grist wrote:
I'm not saying I agree, It's just something I noticed while reading her profile. However, if you were playing someone that interprets it as RAW, they would technically be correct. Sure, it doesn't EXPLICITLY void the re-roll rule, it does, however, say re-roll ALL failed.

If you re-roll it once, you've fulfilled the requirement of the rule. Nothing in the rule says to re-roll any given save multiple times. Instead, it just says to re-roll all the failed saves. So no matter how many wounds you have to save, you get to re-roll any of them that you fail.

Templar_Grist wrote:
And Mannahnin, they wouldn't need to have a specific rule stating it. Not when the BRB says the Codex wins out for rules.

It wins out if, and only if, the two are in conflict. When we have another interpretation of "all failed saves" (above) which does not result in a conflict, and which does not result in a game-breaking and absurd outcome...

 Mannahnin wrote:
Does The Masque say, "this overrides the normal rule that you cannot re-roll a re-roll"? Of course not. Would such a rule make any sense? Wouldn't they instead just write "1+ Invulnerable Save", or "This model cannot be killed"?

Just a note on your hypothetical, you would still fail if you rolled a 1.

"Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails"

Mannahnin wrote:It wins out if, and only if, the two are in conflict. When we have another interpretation of "all failed saves" (above) which does not result in a conflict, and which does not result in a game-breaking and absurd outcome...

This is the most important comment in this thread.

Like with all rules, the rulebook provides the general framework and the codices provide specific ways of operating within that framework. The general rules are only superseded when there is a direct contradiction, which is not the case here. The codex says the model gets to re-roll failed saves and the rulebook provides general rules for exactly how re-rolling operates.

I knew someone would try this

Then the old fateweaver and all daemons in 6" would be invincible.