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.
2018/04/11 14:06:18
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
I still don't think this says a WS1+ fails w/a modified 1. Yes, the 2 turns to a 1, but I still have the 1+ stat, it doesn't say ANYTHING about a "modified one fails to hit". Hopefully this makes sense (and I hope I don't sound aggressive or anything ).
In the Plasma's case, it was talking about how the model gets a MW on a 1 - still not related to modified hits or 1-up stats
I think this is right.
We have the situation of WS of 1+, and a weapon with a -1 to hit on the roll.
We roll a 2. Irrespective of any modifiers that may apply, we have not rolled a 1, so don't trigger an always fail.
The 2 gets modified down to a result of 1, which passes the WS check of 1+.
2018/04/11 14:18:36
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
We have the situation of WS of 1+, and a weapon with a -1 to hit on the roll.
We roll a 2. Irrespective of any modifiers that may apply, we have not rolled a 1, so don't trigger an always fail.
The 2 gets modified down to a result of 1, which passes the WS check of 1+.
As we already went though, this means -1 to hit doesn't cause plasma to explode on a 2, which it does as per the Designers Commentary. Since both rules use the word "roll", they have to act the same.
You are ignoring that the auto fail has a qualifier on it (being that it is irrespective of modifiers) where as plasma does not.
2018/04/11 21:09:01
Subject: If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
Benn Roe wrote: Plasma uses the word "roll", but doesn't use the qualifier "irrespective of any modifiers", and that's the key difference. With a WS1+ and a -1 to hit, a natural 2 will still succeed because it isn't a roll of 1 irrespective of any modifiers, it's a modified roll of 1, which is a hit.
EDIT: I was beaten to the punch, but JakeSiren is right. Plasma only cares about the final result of the roll, but the auto-fail clause explicitly says to ignore modifiers when checking to see if it triggered.
Irrespective does not mean ignore. Irrespective means it doesn't matter if it is with or without modifiers.
I know Dictionary Definitions are considered an automatic fail (see what I did thar ) but a quick search of the googles shows that the definition of Irrespective is "not taking (something) into account; regardless of".
Thus, if it is a roll of 1, regardless of whether modifiers made it a 1 or not, it's a fail.
Using the two definitions you provided the rules would look as follows:
A roll of 1 always fails, not taking any modifiers that may apply into account.
or
A roll of 1 always fails, regardless of any modifiers that may apply.
I don't know what else to say; the definitions you provided help demonstrate that we don't care about modifiers for the auto-fail - it's only the natural 1 that auto-fails.
2018/04/11 22:28:38
Subject: If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
The phrase "roll of 1" encompasses both a natural 1 as well as modifed result of 1. One cannot deduce that the phrase only refers to a natural roll of 1 or only modifed roll of 1 from the given context. Both natural roll of 1 and modified roll of 1 are both "roll of 1".
Actually this is wrong. Unless explicitly stated, such as in overwatch or the auto-fail, roll refers to the result after modifiers.
Otherwise by your argument negative to hits don't work. Ie, a Space Marine shoots at a flier and rolls a 3 thus hitting because the natural 3 is satisfies his BS check. Clearly this is not the case.
2018/04/12 04:10:10
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
The phrase "roll of 1" encompasses both a natural 1 as well as modifed result of 1. One cannot deduce that the phrase only refers to a natural roll of 1 or only modifed roll of 1 from the given context. Both natural roll of 1 and modified roll of 1 are both "roll of 1".
Actually this is wrong. Unless explicitly stated, such as in overwatch or the auto-fail, roll refers to the result after modifiers.
Otherwise by your argument negative to hits don't work. Ie, a Space Marine shoots at a flier and rolls a 3 thus hitting because the natural 3 is satisfies his BS check. Clearly this is not the case.
Read the rest of the post.
I did. The first paragraph is wrong, and your 2nd paragraph was a continuation of it. I addressed paragraph 2 as it was more structured than the first. Your 3rd paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion, we all agree that a natural 1 fails. The disagreement is if a modified result of 1 also always fails. Ie, rolled a natural 2, but have a -1 to hit, so a modified roll result of 1 - do you still hit on that modified roll if you have a 1+ WS? Your flow chart is wrong because your assumptions in paragraph 2 are wrong.
2018/04/12 05:24:37
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
JakeSiren wrote: Unless explicitly stated, such as in overwatch or the auto-fail, roll refers to the result after modifiers.
The excerpt "a roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of modifiers." makes no 'explicit statement' that the roll refers to unmodified dice roll. Therefore, as per your stance, the excerpt can only be referring to modified rolls of 1, at which point, a natural 1 can only auto-miss if there are no +hit modifiers present.
Uh, I think you need to reread what I said. The part where the rule says "irrespective of modifiers" is an explicit instruction to not apply modifiers - aka, an unmodified roll. I refered to it as an example. You have even quoted me saying this! (Bolded for you)
2018/04/12 09:34:45
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
skchsan wrote: It APPEARS contradictory because it stands against your understaning of the RAW. The rulebook makes no distinction between what we colloquially refer to as "natural rolls" and "modified rolls." The assumption that "only natural rolls of 1 auto-fails" is a fallacious conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
It's not about modified or natural rolls (both are just "rolls"). The rule says to ignore modifiers. So we ignore modifiers. Unless you can give me a different take on "irrespective of modifiers".
Correct. To really take it simply. If you roll 6 dice. And there is a -2 Modifier and a BS+1 on the model.
Your initial roll is 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6
Once you apply modifier, physically pick up the dice and take down by 2. 1 being the minimum. So you pick up the dice and take away 2 so you have now rolled. 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6. End result four misses and 2 hits. Even if you have a BS +1 as 1 is always a miss.
I kinda feel like you missed Dandelion's point.
Out of the rolls, irrespective of modifiers, which one's are ones? Those auto fail, everything else then has modifiers applied and checked against the shooters BS as to if they hit or not.
2018/04/12 12:49:07
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
skchsan wrote: It APPEARS contradictory because it stands against your understaning of the RAW. The rulebook makes no distinction between what we colloquially refer to as "natural rolls" and "modified rolls." The assumption that "only natural rolls of 1 auto-fails" is a fallacious conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
It's not about modified or natural rolls (both are just "rolls"). The rule says to ignore modifiers. So we ignore modifiers. Unless you can give me a different take on "irrespective of modifiers".
Correct. To really take it simply. If you roll 6 dice. And there is a -2 Modifier and a BS+1 on the model.
Your initial roll is 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6
Once you apply modifier, physically pick up the dice and take down by 2. 1 being the minimum. So you pick up the dice and take away 2 so you have now rolled. 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6. End result four misses and 2 hits. Even if you have a BS +1 as 1 is always a miss.
I kinda feel like you missed Dandelion's point.
Out of the rolls, irrespective of modifiers, which one's are ones? Those auto fail, everything else then has modifiers applied and checked against the shooters BS as to if they hit or not.
The end result is the final roll that matters.
Sorry, could you be more precise? Because what I think you are saying is that when considering the rule "A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply", that we consider the roll respective of the modifiers that do apply? Ie: In your example we consider the result of 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6.
2018/04/12 13:04:16
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
skchsan wrote: It APPEARS contradictory because it stands against your understaning of the RAW. The rulebook makes no distinction between what we colloquially refer to as "natural rolls" and "modified rolls." The assumption that "only natural rolls of 1 auto-fails" is a fallacious conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
It's not about modified or natural rolls (both are just "rolls"). The rule says to ignore modifiers. So we ignore modifiers. Unless you can give me a different take on "irrespective of modifiers".
Correct. To really take it simply. If you roll 6 dice. And there is a -2 Modifier and a BS+1 on the model.
Your initial roll is 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6
Once you apply modifier, physically pick up the dice and take down by 2. 1 being the minimum. So you pick up the dice and take away 2 so you have now rolled. 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6. End result four misses and 2 hits. Even if you have a BS +1 as 1 is always a miss.
I kinda feel like you missed Dandelion's point.
Out of the rolls, irrespective of modifiers, which one's are ones? Those auto fail, everything else then has modifiers applied and checked against the shooters BS as to if they hit or not.
The end result is the final roll that matters.
Sorry, could you be more precise? Because what I think you are saying is that when considering the rule "A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply", that we consider the roll respective of the modifiers that do apply? Ie: In your example we consider the result of 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6.
It is a weird scenario I'm only explaining it how the guys in our gaming centre play it and interpret it. We all agree tis fairest. End result that matters, but any 1's before the modifiers are kind of like a black hole. if it's a 1 initially modifiers just don't get applied to that roll.
Ah, I see. It tends to help in these discussions if you prefix your house ruling with HIWPI, otherwise people (like me) think you are trying to discuss rules as written.
2018/04/12 14:19:48
Subject: If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
Benn Roe wrote: It really doesn't in this case. You're reading it as two final thoughts, loosely connected, but it's a single sentence that can't be considered properly in pieces. "A roll of 1 always fails", by itself, definitely means what you want it to mean, but you're otherwise imagining an implication that placing "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" after that phrase just doesn't carry, namely that the only relevant modifiers are those that further reduce your result to 1.
They are two separate phrases of a related topic.
A roll of 1 always fail (independent clause), irrespective of any modifiers that may apply (dependent clause).
This sentence is a combined form of two sentences:
A roll of 1 always fails. A roll of 1 always fail regardless of any modifiers that may apply.
By claiming modified rolls of 1 doesn't always fail is a direct contradiction to the first complete thought, as the rulebook makes no distinction between modified rolls and natural rolls when it uses the word 'roll'.
This argument is a matter of reading comprehension, not a matter of ambiguity in the rule writing.
I think you have it wrong. "Irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" is a qualifier on "a roll of 1 always fail"
2018/04/13 10:01:52
Subject: If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
Weather or not that is the case, the definitions of Irrespective that you provided clearly indicate that we don't consider modifiers for the comparison. In case you don't remember here is a link
2018/04/14 01:38:46
Subject: Re:If I have a WS1+ does that mean a *modified* 1 doens't fail? (example in comments)
skchsan wrote: If you choose to ignore the basic rules of the English language the rule is written in, you should not be arguing this as RAW.
I'm not ignoring any rules of English. Or if I am, you've failed to demonstrate it. In what way does "ignoring all modifiers" modifying "a roll of 1 always fails" differ from its modification of "a roll of 1" in this context? Your last example was just a string of imaginary implications.
Uh, I'm not your English teacher. Go learn it on your own.
If it would help though, I've included an excerpt from a blog that I find matches our case:
Use a comma to separate the dependent clause from the independent when it follows the independent one if the dependent clause is nonessential. Keep in mind, however, that many dependent clauses will be essential and will not require a comma.
Determining if the dependent clause is essential or nonessential can be tricky, but for nonessential in this construction, think parenthetical. If you could set the dependent clause apart from the independent clause by using a dash or parentheses—if it makes sense to do so and it is your intention to do so—you can also use a comma. When you use the comma (or dash or parentheses), you are declaring the dependent clause nonessential.
Showing that a clause is nonessential may be easier to do if you adjust the word choices.
Dexter went to jail after ten years on the run. (essential)
Compare to
Dexter finally went to jail, after ten years on the run. (nonessential)
Dexter finally went to jail—after ten years on the run.
The original sentence says that Dexter went to jail after being on the run for ten years. The next two say that Dexter finally went to jail—it happened to be after ten years on the run, but the thrust is that he finally went. The word choices and use or non-use of the comma give meaning to the sentences.
What’s important here is that the writer has a choice and the choice will direct the meaning of the sentence. This is not an instance when you must use a comma, as you do when naming a spouse—My husband, Zane, is not a cowboy. You choose comma or no comma, nonessential or essential, depending on what you want the sentence to say. (Keep in mind that we’re still looking at dependent clauses after independent ones.)
A couple more examples—
Lana gave up looking before she found her sister. (essential)
Lana gave up looking ten years ago, before she discovered her sister was actually her mother. (nonessential)
Lana gave up looking ten years ago (before she discovered her sister was actually her mother).
——–
Frances gave me her fork after the dog licked it. (essential)
Frances gave me her fork, after she let the dog lick it. (nonessential)
Frances gave me her fork—after she let the dog lick it.
So you consider "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" a non-essential clause?
The thing with non-essential clauses is that they don't affect the ultimate meaning of the sentence. In the examples provided:
"Dexter finally went to jail, after ten years on the run" has the same meaning as "Dexter finally went to jail"
"Lana gave up looking ten years ago, before she discovered her sister was actually her mother" has the same meaning as "Lana gave up looking ten years ago"
"Frances gave me her fork, after she let the dog lick it" has the same meaning as "Frances gave me her fork"
If we continue this to "A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" and remove the non-essential, we would get "A roll of 1 always fails".
Now, I don't know about you, but to me the meaning between these two sentences has changed. Otherwise your argument would be "if we have a positive modifier and a 2+ to hit, we can't miss", and that's clearly not the case.
Now that we consider "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply" as being an essential clause, we can not determine the meaning of "A roll of 1 always fails" without also applying "irrespective of any modifiers that may apply". In this case it means that if the dice shows a 1 we automatically fail, for any other results we don't.
I'm not doing this with you two. The rules as read are clear. You have evidence in the fact that GW have not used the words "unmodified rolls" or have nowhere specified that the rule only applies to unmodified rolls. You have evidence in that the Battle Primer en Espanol confirms the English reading of the statement (a result of 1 always fails...). You have many people here suggesting that you might be wrong.
You can believe what you want gentlemen, it doesn't matter to me - likely GW will FAQ this before I have a chance to play a Dark Eldar player anyway.
There are many people saying that the "modified 1's are auto fails too" camp are also wrong. I consider the recent use of "unmodified rolls" to be GW learning how to better write rules. Regardless of how they refer to unmodified rolls in future publications, it is clear that they are referring to unmodified rolls of 1 in this instance.
).
