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.
That's not true though, plasma affected by -1 to hit can then exploded on a 2+, why does that not apply here? Obviously if you roll a die and it's a 1, you stop, accept you've failed and move on. All the rest of the original argument seems like web spinning.
Plasma explodes on a 2 if you have a -1 because plasma explodes on a roll of 1 and NOT an UNMODIFIED roll of 1 (as far as I know), thats the diference; until gw publishes a faq about this, raw 1+ saves work as the op pointed out
I disagree, I'd not allow anyone to do this in any game I play because it's obvious what the intent behind the rule was. Anyone who would "try" to use this rule this way would be laughed at and likely not be the first person people in a group would pick to play from now on.
That's fine-I wouldn't play it that way either.
RAW is still borked, though, as evidenced by the fact that we're mostly agreeing to not play by it.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
We don't know what the "intent" is. I can easily say that re-rolls before modifiers is also stupid, but the rules are what the rules are. I can easily say it's not "intended" for my Ultramarines to ever take wounds, are all my Ultramarines invincible now?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 16:18:14
That's not true though, plasma affected by -1 to hit can then exploded on a 2+, why does that not apply here? Obviously if you roll a die and it's a 1, you stop, accept you've failed and move on. All the rest of the original argument seems like web spinning.
Plasma explodes on a 2 if you have a -1 because plasma explodes on a roll of 1 and NOT an UNMODIFIED roll of 1 (as far as I know), thats the diference; until gw publishes a faq about this, raw 1+ saves work as the op pointed out
I disagree, I'd not allow anyone to do this in any game I play because it's obvious what the intent behind the rule was. Anyone who would "try" to use this rule this way would be laughed at and likely not be the first person people in a group would pick to play from now on.
It is obviously not obvious as there are a few pages contesting the rule. Your opinion is not a rule. It is intended by the story that Space Marines are the mightiest army and should always win so unless you're playing space marines you can't win.
Anyone who tried to beat space marines would be laughed at and any xenos player should just sell their army and get good at imperium.
See how dumb that is?
You may not like it but so it is written so it shall be done.
I hate knights both as model a and rules. But that doesn't mean I fold my arms and glare because I don't get my way.
Drager wrote: Loot it improves the save. Cover adds 1 to the roll. As such Terminators in cover have a 2+ save on d6+1 not a 1+ save.
From a litteral sence it is a 2+ +1 However players call it a 1+ because a 1+ SV with 1's always failing is mechanically different to a 2+ SV in any situation where you apply AP and players want to communicate that efficiently in a short space of time.
I fire a heavy bolter at your terminators the "1+" terninators in cover save on a 2+ the 2+ terminators out of cover sav on a 3+ its functionally different what your complaining at is the use of coloquial terminology because its not litterally correct but players will always use coloquialisms when appropriate just like describeing a unit as having a 5+ fnp. If i say my unit has a 1+ sv you know what I mean.
It's functionally different and is the reason why loot it meganobs always pass on a 2+ regardless of AP and Terminators of in cover dont.
BaconCatBug wrote: We don't know what the "intent" is. I can easily say that re-rolls before modifiers is also stupid, but the rules are what the rules are. I can easily say it's not "intended" for my Ultramarines to ever take wounds, are all my Ultramarines invincible now?
I know you're trying to prove a point here, but you can't possibly actually believe these two things are in any way the same. Being that sensational doesn't help, it just looks silly.
That's not true though, plasma affected by -1 to hit can then exploded on a 2+, why does that not apply here? Obviously if you roll a die and it's a 1, you stop, accept you've failed and move on. All the rest of the original argument seems like web spinning.
Plasma explodes on a 2 if you have a -1 because plasma explodes on a roll of 1 and NOT an UNMODIFIED roll of 1 (as far as I know), thats the diference; until gw publishes a faq about this, raw 1+ saves work as the op pointed out
I disagree, I'd not allow anyone to do this in any game I play because it's obvious what the intent behind the rule was. Anyone who would "try" to use this rule this way would be laughed at and likely not be the first person people in a group would pick to play from now on.
Funny how you get to decide wheter to respect or ignore rules at will and even funnier is how you know what GW pretended with te rule. Go ahead and knock yourself out playing the game as you like (but dont go to big tournaments if you dont want to be laughed at), this is the rules section (where we talk about the rules writen by GW, not those you consider to be valid)
Anyway moving on, is there any difference between a "roll" of a 1 and a "result" of a 1 or they have to be treated as synonyms? I mean, one could say that a roll is just what appears in the die, and the result takes the modifiers into account.... but then again if this was the chase then the "irrespective of modifiers" wouldnt be necessary right? What do you think?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 17:43:16
That's not true though, plasma affected by -1 to hit can then exploded on a 2+, why does that not apply here? Obviously if you roll a die and it's a 1, you stop, accept you've failed and move on. All the rest of the original argument seems like web spinning.
Plasma explodes on a 2 if you have a -1 because plasma explodes on a roll of 1 and NOT an UNMODIFIED roll of 1 (as far as I know), thats the diference; until gw publishes a faq about this, raw 1+ saves work as the op pointed out
I disagree, I'd not allow anyone to do this in any game I play because it's obvious what the intent behind the rule was. Anyone who would "try" to use this rule this way would be laughed at and likely not be the first person people in a group would pick to play from now on.
Funny how you get to decide wheter to respect or ignore rules at will and even funnier is how you know what GW pretended with te rule. Go ahead and knock yourself out playing the game as you like (but dont go to big tournaments if you dont want to be laughed at), this is the rules section (where we talk about the rules writen by GW, not those you consider to be valid), you will be better off in the proposed rules one probably.
I can almost guarantee you any big event that could/would occur during the period of time without a FAQ would have a similar response to someone saying "I have a 1+ save now, and you can't tell me they didn't want this." as most people would.
People can argue RAW/RAI all day, but this is like 8th degree "That Guy" teritory.
Let me be clear, it's quite obviously RAW, you're welcome to do it until it's clarified, if we're calling it like it is and saying it's fine, it's also hilariously TFG.
Anyway moving on, is there any difference between a "roll" of a 1 and a "result" of a 1 or they have to be treated as synonyms? I mean, one could say that a roll is just what appears in the die, and the result takes the modifiers into account.... but then again if this was the chase then the "irrespective of modifiers" wouldnt be necessary right? What do you think? (Taling to peole that actually speak about rules and not what they think they should be)
From what I recall, the BRB does not differentiate "natural" rolls and modified rolls, it simply refers to "a roll". So, a roll is always assumed to be modified unless otherwise specified. Which is where "irrespective of modifiers" comes in because it tells us to ignore modifiers to determine auto-failure (i.e. it's an exception). It also explains why plasma can blow up on natural 2s. GW has since added abilities that only trigger on "unmodified" rolls, but those are a case by case basis. Then there's "rerolls before modifiers" but that's kind of the same idea.
So, yes, a roll and a result are synonymous unless specified otherwise.
flandarz wrote: ... GW stated that no roll can be modified below a 1, thus if you have a 1+ Save, you succeed on a roll of 2 or better, no matter what the AP of the weapon attacking you is, because a natural 1 is always a failure.
(Emphasis mine)
The red is not what the rule says, you realize that right?
Yes it does, and the FAQ proves it.
Q: If a Succubus is given the Serpentin combat drug, does
its Weapon Skill characteristic increase to 1+? If so, does the Succubus still hit if a hit roll of 2 is rolled for an attack for a melee weapon and, due to an ability, I have to subtract 1 from that hit roll?
A: Yes, and yes – only unmodified hit rolls of 1 automatically fail.
That FAQ is for a Succubus that is is given the Serpentin combat drug...
The "Yes, and yes" portion is an answer to the FAQ and is largely irrelevant unless you need an example of the rule. The "only unmodified hit rolls of 1 automatically fail" is the justification under the current rules because that's what "rolls of 1 always fail irrespective of modifiers" means. It's not an errata, so it's not changing any rules, it's just clarifying one interaction of the existing rule.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 18:05:19
Cephalobeard wrote: I can almost guarantee you any big event that could/would occur during the period of time without a FAQ would have a similar response to someone saying "I have a 1+ save now, and you can't tell me they didn't want this." as most people would.
People can argue RAW/RAI all day, but this is like 8th degree "That Guy" teritory.
Let me be clear, it's quite obviously RAW, you're welcome to do it until it's clarified, if we're calling it like it is and saying it's fine, it's also hilariously TFG.
I was mainly talking about the plasma rule here, people get to play house rules, and TOs get to use house rules too, but a house rule is a house rule, meaning it probably contradicts what the actual rules say or best chase scenario clarify something.
For example I think is stupid that if I cover a whole level of a building with a unit then that unit is unchargeable(I know you can charge it, but you cant reach it), but thats the way things work, if I cant get the 1+ save working as a 2++ why cant I reach a completed level of a bulding? Both rules are dumb, but thats the way the game is (at least until we get the faq)
I wouldt use the 1+ save as a 2++ in friendly games, but tournaments are a different story...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/11/06 18:51:18
Well, the terrain thing is also an issue caused by a specific ITC rule, not an actual 40k rule, but that's splitting hairs and causing a whole different discussion.
It's a rule. You're welcome to use it. It doesn't make you a BAD person, it's just a kind of dumb little trick based off of poor wording, intentional or otherwise, that we're obviously building a scenario to justify it for.
You can do it. It's just, to me, dumb. I don't care if anyone does it.
That's not true though, plasma affected by -1 to hit can then exploded on a 2+, why does that not apply here? Obviously if you roll a die and it's a 1, you stop, accept you've failed and move on. All the rest of the original argument seems like web spinning.
Plasma explodes on a 2 if you have a -1 because plasma explodes on a roll of 1 and NOT an UNMODIFIED roll of 1 (as far as I know), thats the diference; until gw publishes a faq about this, raw 1+ saves work as the op pointed out
I disagree, I'd not allow anyone to do this in any game I play because it's obvious what the intent behind the rule was. Anyone who would "try" to use this rule this way would be laughed at and likely not be the first person people in a group would pick to play from now on.
Funny how you get to decide wheter to respect or ignore rules at will and even funnier is how you know what GW pretended with te rule. Go ahead and knock yourself out playing the game as you like (but dont go to big tournaments if you dont want to be laughed at), this is the rules section (where we talk about the rules writen by GW, not those you consider to be valid), you will be better off in the proposed rules one probably.
I can almost guarantee you any big event that could/would occur during the period of time without a FAQ would have a similar response to someone saying "I have a 1+ save now, and you can't tell me they didn't want this." as most people would.
People can argue RAW/RAI all day, but this is like 8th degree "That Guy" teritory.
Let me be clear, it's quite obviously RAW, you're welcome to do it until it's clarified, if we're calling it like it is and saying it's fine, it's also hilariously TFG.
Actually, it hilariously fits with Orks too. Just like Red ones go faster because they believe that red ones go faster, here we have the orks believing that the armor makes them nigh-invulnerable, and it works out that it's true.
As you say, it's RAW, and could possibly even be RAI. Since it fits the Orky mentality of how things work this could have been intended. Given that it's only this specific unit with the Loot It ability kicking in, with what is sacrificed to get it, I wouldn't be surprised to see TO's let it happen. After all, throw enough firepower at them and they'll roll enough 1's to eventually die anyway.
DeathReaper wrote: A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply...
A 5-5 gets adjusted to a 1 and fails, since A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.
Page 1 and this answers it perfectly. Not flawed at all. Three pages of discussion for nothing.
Except I explained why this isn't true in my OP.
Except it is true, because your explanation ignores the rules.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
Except it is true, because your explanation ignores the rules.
You're the one ignoring the rules mate. That or you don't actually know what "irrespective" means, because in your example you definitely took modifiers into account. A 5, with a -5 modifier, irrespective of modifiers is a 5, not a 1.
DeathReaper wrote: Except it is true, because your explanation ignores the rules.
Can you point out exactly what section of my OP is "Breaking the rules"? I mean, you're constantly talking about context, so remember the context when pointing it out. Last time you took a line out of context because I explained in the very next line why your rebuttal was flawed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 20:25:27
I'm still not sure why there's so much contention. Is a 1/6 chance of failing a Save, on a model with T4 and W3 really that OP? Granted, it make Ghaz harder to kill, but even he only has T5 and W8. With an S4 rifle with no AP and 1 Damage, it'd take about 72 shots to take a Meganob out (200+ for Ghaz), with an average BS of 4+. Not great, but they spent CP and lost a vehicle for that slight advantage. And that's not even taking into account that a good Smite roll just bypasses that altogether.
If the FAQ is to be believed, you can roll a 2 on a WS check, with a -1 modifier, and still pass if your have a WS 1+. It stands to reason this ruling would affect other rolls. And considering how easy it is to deny people the chance to hit, by stacking -1s, and how no one bats an eye at that, I honestly think giving a small unit or single model a 5/6 chance of Saving an attack is minor in the grand scheme of things.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 20:26:52
flandarz wrote: I'm still not sure why there's so much contention. Is a 1/6 chance of failing a Save, on a model with T4 and W3 really that OP? Granted, it make Ghaz harder to kill, but even he only has T5 and W8. With an S4 rifle with no AP and 1 Damage, it'd take about 72 shots to take a Meganob out (200+ for Ghaz), with an average BS of 4+. Not great, but they spent CP and lost a vehicle for that slight advantage. And that's not even taking into account that a good Smite roll just bypasses that altogether.
If the FAQ is to be believed, you can roll a 2 on a WS check, with a -1 modifier, and still pass if your have a WS 1+. It stands to reason this ruling would affect other rolls. And considering how easy it is to deny people the chance to hit, by stacking -1s, and how no one bats an eye at that, I honestly think giving a small unit or single model a 5/6 chance of Saving an attack is minor in the grand scheme of things.
It's more a case of a "I dislike this, therefore it must be wrong" mentality that I am explicitly opposed to.
While 8th is much improved from previous editions, there is plenty that is broken and that I dislike about it. However I feel that if I'm going to play a board game, I should play by the rules that are set out. I don't go to a Chess tournament and demand we play Fairy Chess because I dislike Standard Chess.
The twin reasons of GW not waiting 9 years between erratas anymore and the fact they have explicitly confirmed some "bizarre" things as both RaW and RaI (re-rolls before modifiers, plasma exploding more often at night, etc.) to me indicate that we should "use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has." Even GW agree with me.
The whole reason I even posted this was to see if my logic was flawed or if I had missed something. So far all I have gotten is either agreement or a "no, you're wrong" with no reasoning.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 20:33:55
DeathReaper wrote: A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply...
A 5-5 gets adjusted to a 1 and fails, since A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.
Page 1 and this answers it perfectly. Not flawed at all. Three pages of discussion for nothing.
Except I explained why this isn't true in my OP.
Except it is true, because your explanation ignores the rules.
Actually he is correct and his explanation follows the rules. You are the one ignoring the rules. He even documented things like the FAQ that shows that a roll of 1 "irrespective of modifiers" is treated by GW as the same as saying an unmodified roll of 1. You have yet to offer any contrary proof to substantiate your interpretation of irrespective means you get to go ahead with the modification, which GW has already shown is not correct.
I understand that. It just seems that the consensus of the naysayers is that "it isn't what GW intended" which leads me to think that they consider it to be too strong for the cost. I, personally, think it's crazy easy to counter (either by taking out the MANZ before the vehicle, by using Mortal Wounds to bypass Saves, or just throwing a ton of attacks) for what you gotta put into it. It seems fine to me as is. A 1+ Save will still fail on a natural 1, so they ain't invincible. Hard to kill? Sure. But Orkz are sorely lacking in hard to kill options anyway.
DeathReaper wrote: Except it is true, because your explanation ignores the rules.
Can you point out exactly what section of my OP is "Breaking the rules"? I mean, you're constantly talking about context, so remember the context when pointing it out. Last time you took a line out of context because I explained in the very next line why your rebuttal was flawed.
BCB, can you prove without doubt that a "to hit" and "to save" are exactly the same? After reading this whole thread, and all the information you cited, I am not convinced of your original thesis. The Dark Eldar rule FAQ specifically calls out "to hit" not "to wound, to save," and directly references combat drugs. It's quite clear from my reading that this is not a general case in that FAQ and is unique to the CD ability and hitting in CC. Thus I would say the rule is quite specific and doesn't apply to armor saves as you suggest.
Also, an AP-5 weapon would make a 1+ Armor Save a 6+ armor save, giving you a 1/6 chance to succeed. I don't know where in the heck you got 5/6th chance from that, could you please elaborate on that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 21:55:22
DeathReaper wrote: Except it is true, because your explanation ignores the rules.
Can you point out exactly what section of my OP is "Breaking the rules"? I mean, you're constantly talking about context, so remember the context when pointing it out. Last time you took a line out of context because I explained in the very next line why your rebuttal was flawed.
BCB, can you prove without doubt that a "to hit" and "to save" are exactly the same? After reading this whole thread, and all the information you cited, I am not convinced of your original thesis. The Dark Eldar rule FAQ specifically calls out "to hit" not "to wound, to save," thus I would say the rule is quite specific and doesn't apply to armor saves.
Also, an AP-5 weapon would make a 1+ Armor Save a 6+ armor save, giving you a 1/6 chance to succeed. I don't know where in the heck you got 5/6th chance from that, could you please elaborate on that?
No, you get a 1+ on 1d6-5.
Saying a -2 AP reduces a 2+ to a 4+ is useful shorthand, but not ACTUALLY what happens.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
DeathReaper wrote: Except it is true, because your explanation ignores the rules.
Can you point out exactly what section of my OP is "Breaking the rules"? I mean, you're constantly talking about context, so remember the context when pointing it out. Last time you took a line out of context because I explained in the very next line why your rebuttal was flawed.
BCB, can you prove without doubt that a "to hit" and "to save" are exactly the same? After reading this whole thread, and all the information you cited, I am not convinced of your original thesis. The Dark Eldar rule FAQ specifically calls out "to hit" not "to wound, to save," thus I would say the rule is quite specific and doesn't apply to armor saves.
Also, an AP-5 weapon would make a 1+ Armor Save a 6+ armor save, giving you a 1/6 chance to succeed. I don't know where in the heck you got 5/6th chance from that, could you please elaborate on that?
No, you get a 1+ on 1d6-5.
Saying a -2 AP reduces a 2+ to a 4+ is useful shorthand, but not ACTUALLY what happens.
It's the same thing, you need to roll a six to survive, otherwise you take a wound and apply damage. I.E you cannot get a 5/6 chance from that. You get a 1/6th chance against an AP-5 weapon to survive it by rolling the needed 6. Unless I am just grossly misunderstanding what you're or he was saying...
Togusa wrote: BCB, can you prove without doubt that a "to hit" and "to save" are exactly the same? After reading this whole thread, and all the information you cited, I am not convinced of your original thesis. The Dark Eldar rule FAQ specifically calls out "to hit" not "to wound, to save," and directly references combat drugs. It's quite clear from my reading that this is not a general case in that FAQ and is unique to the CD ability and hitting in CC. Thus I would say the rule is quite specific and doesn't apply to armor saves as you suggest.
Read the BRB. Hit Roll and Saving Throw use the exact same language "A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply." There are two ways the RaW can be intepreted due to the ambiguity of the English language and the Dark Eldar FAQ confirms one of those interpretations. You can't have it work one way for one thing and another way for another when they have the exact same rule..
Togusa wrote: Also, an AP-5 weapon would make a 1+ Armor Save a 6+ armor save, giving you a 1/6 chance to succeed. I don't know where in the heck you got 5/6th chance from that, could you please elaborate on that?
I did, in the OP. The AP doesn't change what your save is, it makes you take the save on a D6-AP. A 2+ save vs AP-3 is a 2+ on a D6-3, not a 5+ save. If you've been playing that it alters the save you've been playing it wrong.
Togusa wrote: It's the same thing, you need to roll a six to survive, otherwise you take a wound and apply damage. I.E you cannot get a 5/6 chance from that. You get a 1/6th chance against an AP-5 weapon to survive it by rolling the needed 6. Unless I am just grossly misunderstanding what you're or he was saying...
Say you roll a 5, it gets modified down to 1 because of the DCFAQ saying you can't modify a roll below 1. Is that 1 or greater? Yes, it is, so you pass. As per the FAQ modified 1's do not fail a 1+ test.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/11/06 21:59:49
Rolls can't end below 1. Since the armor save is 1+, nothing can fail. Except for the guaranteed failure of an irrespective-of-modifiers 1. Ergo, 5/6 chance to save.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 21:59:26
Togusa wrote: BCB, can you prove without doubt that a "to hit" and "to save" are exactly the same? After reading this whole thread, and all the information you cited, I am not convinced of your original thesis. The Dark Eldar rule FAQ specifically calls out "to hit" not "to wound, to save," and directly references combat drugs. It's quite clear from my reading that this is not a general case in that FAQ and is unique to the CD ability and hitting in CC. Thus I would say the rule is quite specific and doesn't apply to armor saves as you suggest.
Read the BRB. Hit Roll and Saving Throw use the exact same language "A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply." There are two ways the RaW can be intepreted due to the ambiguity of the English language and the Dark Eldar FAQ confirms one of those interpretations. You can't have it work one way for one thing and another way for another when they have the exact same rule..
Togusa wrote: Also, an AP-5 weapon would make a 1+ Armor Save a 6+ armor save, giving you a 1/6 chance to succeed. I don't know where in the heck you got 5/6th chance from that, could you please elaborate on that?
I did, in the OP. The AP doesn't change what your save is, it makes you take the save on a D6-AP. A 2+ save vs AP-3 is a 2+ on a D6-3, not a 5+ save. If you've been playing that it alters the save you've been playing it wrong.
Togusa wrote: It's the same thing, you need to roll a six to survive, otherwise you take a wound and apply damage. I.E you cannot get a 5/6 chance from that. You get a 1/6th chance against an AP-5 weapon to survive it by rolling the needed 6. Unless I am just grossly misunderstanding what you're or he was saying...
Say you roll a 5, it gets modified down to 1 because of the DCFAQ saying you can't modify a roll below 1. Is that 1 or greater? Yes, it is, so you pass. As per the FAQ modified 1's do not fail a 1+ test.
So they have the same language, that doesn't prove they are the same thing. You are reaching here.
Also, I've been playing it as intended, as does literally every person in my group, and every person at both major tournaments I've been to this year. So, I'm safe to say I'm playing correctly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jacksmiles wrote: Rolls can't end below 1. Since the armor save is 1+, nothing can fail. Except for the guaranteed failure of an irrespective-of-modifiers 1. Ergo, 5/6 chance to save.
I hit you with an AP-5 weapon, what do you need to roll to survive the wound?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/11/06 22:03:57
Togusa wrote: I hit you with an AP-5 weapon, what do you need to roll to survive the wound?
A 1+ on a D6-5. Again you seem to think that AP modifies the characteristc when it doesn't.
Saving Throw: The player commanding the target unit then makes a saving throw by rolling a dice and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration characteristic of the weapon that caused the damage. For example, if the weapon has an Armour Penetration of -1, then 1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 22:04:01
Togusa wrote: I hit you with an AP-5 weapon, what do you need to roll to survive the wound?
A 1+ on a D6-5. Again you seem to think that AP modifies the characteristc when it doesn't.
Saving Throw: The player commanding the target unit then makes a saving throw by rolling a dice and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration characteristic of the weapon that caused the damage. For example, if the weapon has an Armour Penetration of -1, then 1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll.
NO, My god dude, you are 100% wrong. You must roll a 6 to pass. Are you trolling?
Togusa wrote: Also, I've been playing it as intended, as does literally every person in my group, and every person at both major tournaments I've been to this year. So, I'm safe to say I'm playing correctly.
No, you haven't. You've been playing it explicitly wrong. What you're saying is like saying "We've done modifiers before re-rolls, because that is intended and we're right!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote: NO, My god dude, you are 100% wrong. You must roll a 6 to pass. Are you trolling?
Did.. did you not read the rule quote? You don't need a 6 to pass. Where does it say you need a 6 to pass? It explicitly says the opposite.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/11/06 22:05:55
Last time you took a line out of context because I explained in the very next line why your rebuttal was flawed.
