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.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Exactly this. But don’t think logic will stop this Crazy Train... ;-)

Lol - it's the "end of phase vs phase" discussion all over again.

1s fail guys, whether you have a WS1+ or any other shenanigans. We know this. Look deep within your souls and you'll see it - think of past editions, think of the other rules and how they interact, the answer will be as clear as the waters of lake Takananga.

Pieceocake wrote:

The modifiers are already applied. As soon as you roll the dice they are modified. It all happens in one step.

This is false. They now reference unmodified rolls, at least since the Tau Codex. Check the Tidewall Shieldline reflecting shots mechanic for evidence.

And unmodified rolls are not rolls. The default roll is a roll that has been modified. Unmodified rolls is an exception to the way regular rolls work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Exactly this. But don’t think logic will stop this Crazy Train... ;-)

Lol - it's the "end of phase vs phase" discussion all over again.

1s fail guys, whether you have a WS1+ or any other shenanigans. We know this. Look deep within your souls and you'll see it - think of past editions, think of the other rules and how they interact, the answer will be as clear as the waters of lake Takananga.

How is WS 1+ shenanigans but + 1 to hit isn't? They are functionally the same. Also past editions don't mean squat.

Pieceocake wrote:

The modifiers are already applied. As soon as you roll the dice they are modified. It all happens in one step.

This is false. They now reference unmodified rolls, at least since the Tau Codex. Check the Tidewall Shieldline reflecting shots mechanic for evidence.

Well, also since rerolls are done before modifiers. There must be more than one step there.

 doctortom wrote:

Pieceocake wrote:

The modifiers are already applied. As soon as you roll the dice they are modified. It all happens in one step.

This is false. They now reference unmodified rolls, at least since the Tau Codex. Check the Tidewall Shieldline reflecting shots mechanic for evidence.

Well, also since rerolls are done before modifiers. There must be more than one step there.

Very well then:

Let's see how the whole sequence goes:

- Roll to hit
- Re-roll dice
- Apply modifiers
- Compare result to test

So where does "rolls of 1 fail, irrespective of modifiers" fit? Is it after the first step or before the last step?

If it's after the first step then "unmodified" rolls of 1 fail.
If ti's before the last step, then "modified" rolls of 1 fail.

It cannot be both simultaneously.

- Roll to hit
- Re-roll dice
- Apply modifiers
- Compare result to test

So where does "rolls of 1 fail, irrespective of modifiers" fit? Is it after the first step or before the last step?

Why can't it check before the last step, but check all dice that are rolls of 1 modified AND unmodified?

Pieceocake wrote:

- Roll to hit
- Re-roll dice
- Apply modifiers
- Compare result to test

So where does "rolls of 1 fail, irrespective of modifiers" fit? Is it after the first step or before the last step?

Why can't it check before the last step, but check all dice that are rolls of 1 modified AND unmodified?

Because it says "Irrespective of modifiers".

So, if you check WITH MODIFIERS, then you're not following the rules.

Dandelion wrote:


How is WS 1+ shenanigans but + 1 to hit isn't? They are functionally the same. Also past editions don't mean squat.

They're both shenanigans of course.

I don't know what to say on this honestly. The rules are clear. They literally state that a 1 always fails regardless of modifiers. How some of you can claim otherwise is genuinely perplexing.

Pieceocake wrote:

- Roll to hit
- Re-roll dice
- Apply modifiers
- Compare result to test

So where does "rolls of 1 fail, irrespective of modifiers" fit? Is it after the first step or before the last step?

Why can't it check before the last step, but check all dice that are rolls of 1 modified AND unmodified?

Because if you apply modifiers, then it is no longer unmodified. Either the dice are modified or they are not.

Dandelion wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Pieceocake wrote:

The modifiers are already applied. As soon as you roll the dice they are modified. It all happens in one step.

This is false. They now reference unmodified rolls, at least since the Tau Codex. Check the Tidewall Shieldline reflecting shots mechanic for evidence.

Well, also since rerolls are done before modifiers. There must be more than one step there.

Very well then:

Let's see how the whole sequence goes:

- Roll to hit
- Re-roll dice
- Apply modifiers
- Compare result to test

So where does "rolls of 1 fail, irrespective of modifiers" fit? Is it after the first step or before the last step?

If it's after the first step then "unmodified" rolls of 1 fail.
If ti's before the last step, then "modified" rolls of 1 fail.

It cannot be both simultaneously.

You guys keep reading it without the comma. If the comma wasn't there you guys would be right.

"A roll of 1 always fails irrespective of modifiers that may apply" means 'a dice roll showing 1 (aka 'natural roll') always fails regardless of any modifiers applicable.'

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dandelion wrote:


How is WS 1+ shenanigans but + 1 to hit isn't? They are functionally the same. Also past editions don't mean squat.

They're both shenanigans of course.

I don't know what to say on this honestly. The rules are clear. They literally state that a 1 always fails regardless of modifiers. How some of you can claim otherwise is genuinely perplexing.

I only claimed that rolls of 1 fail "without taking modifiers into account". So "natural" 1s always fail.

If you say "rolls of 1 fail regardless of modifiers" means rolls of "1 fail whether or not we applied modifiers", then "regardless of modifiers" adds nothing to the sentence. Because rolls of 1 fail. And the default "roll" is modified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

You guys keep reading it without the comma. If the comma wasn't there you guys would be right.

So this:
"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of modifiers that may apply".
Becomes this:
"A roll of 1 always fails, regardless of whether or not you had applied modifiers"

That just makes "irrespective of modifiers" a useless clause.

Dandelion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dandelion wrote:


How is WS 1+ shenanigans but + 1 to hit isn't? They are functionally the same. Also past editions don't mean squat.

They're both shenanigans of course.

I don't know what to say on this honestly. The rules are clear. They literally state that a 1 always fails regardless of modifiers. How some of you can claim otherwise is genuinely perplexing.

I only claimed that rolls of 1 fail "without taking modifiers into account". So "natural" 1s always fail.

If you say "rolls of 1 fail regardless of modifiers" means rolls of "1 fail whether or not we applied modifiers", then "regardless of modifiers" adds nothing to the sentence. Because rolls of 1 fail. And the default "roll" is modified.

Yes, if you say "rolls of 1 fail regardless of modifiers" then only natural 1's can auto-fail.
But it says "rolls of 1 fail, regardless of modifiers" this clearly covers that any and all rolls of 1 fails. If this was a case of modified roll of 1, you've already applied all modifiers and still ended up at 1 - this is an auto fail because rolls of 1 always fail.
If this was a case of a natural 1 and you have any modifiers, the roll itself was a 1, therefore it fails. A natural roll of 1 cannot benefit from any positive modifiers because as per RAW, a roll of 1 fails. On the other hand, a natural roll of 1 CAN be effected by negative modifiers - however, this is redundant as a roll cannot be modified below 1 as per FAQ.

I think it's clear from context clues that, RAI, 1s always miss. Natural rolls of 1 or rolls that due to negative modifiers are reduced to 1.

15 Codexes (Codices?) deep and this is the first instance where anyone could possibly modify a statline to be 1+ (Not 100% sure on this one, if another Codex has rules to get a 1+ WS/BS/or SV, please chime in), and the fact that the most powerful models in the game all have, at best, 2+ in any of those statlines

Designer's Commentary FAQ specifically stating that while dice rolls can be modified to be higher than 6, they can never be modified to be less than one, and if multiple modifiers stack to treat the die roll as one.

Designer's Commentary also stating that Plasma Weaponry slay the bearer on rolls of 1 or rolls that count as 1 (ie rolls modified down to 1)

All of the example text I've found for an ability that raises a WS/BS/SV stat read "e.g. WS 3+ becomes WS 2+"

As it stands, thats how I'll play it (or would if there were DE players in my group). The DE FAQ could very well come out and say that yes, Succubi are the exception to the rule of 1s always missing when given Serpentin Combat Drugs

Dandelion wrote:
That just makes "irrespective of modifiers" a useless clause.

No it means that positive modifiers cannot make a natural roll 1 of anything but a 1, which has already 'procced' the always fail rule.

Even if you have +30 to hit aura, if you roll a 1, it misses. Plain and simple.

 Gojiratoho wrote:
I think it's clear from context clues that, RAI, 1s always miss. Natural rolls of 1 or rolls that due to negative modifiers are reduced to 1.

Designer's Commentary also stating that Plasma Weaponry slay the bearer on rolls of 1 or rolls that count as 1 (ie rolls modified down to 1)

Well, actually only rolls that are 1 after all modifications (if any). If I roll a 1 and have a +1 modifier, I don't have a problem with overheated plasma. They say to apply all rerolls and modifiers first, so unmodified rolls of 1 don't cause the problem unless there are no positive modifiers.

 skchsan wrote:

If this was a case of a natural 1 and you have any modifiers, the roll itself was a 1, therefore it fails. A natural roll of 1 cannot benefit from any positive modifiers because as per RAW, a roll of 1 fails. On the other hand, a natural roll of 1 CAN be effected by negative modifiers - however, this is redundant as a roll cannot be modified below 1 as per FAQ.

Hold up. Why can natural rolls of 1 be modified negatively but not positively. It says "any" modifiers. You're determining each case separately with different rules. Either the dice are modified or they are not when determining this failure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
That just makes "irrespective of modifiers" a useless clause.

No it means that positive modifiers cannot make a natural roll 1 of anything but a 1, which has already 'procced' the always fail rule.

Even if you have +30 to hit aura, if you roll a 1, it misses. Plain and simple.

Then why didn't it specify positive modifiers?

Dandelion wrote:


I only claimed that rolls of 1 fail "without taking modifiers into account". So "natural" 1s always fail.

If you say "rolls of 1 fail regardless of modifiers" means rolls of "1 fail whether or not we applied modifiers", then "regardless of modifiers" adds nothing to the sentence. Because rolls of 1 fail. And the default "roll" is modified automatically.

No, again you're misunderstanding. It adds clarification to the first question anyone would ask 'but if I use modifiers to increase my roll to a successful value, does that count?'

You're correct in that it adds no further rules, it doesn't. It does, however, provide clarification for all those people who try and game the system.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dandelion wrote:


I only claimed that rolls of 1 fail "without taking modifiers into account". So "natural" 1s always fail.

If you say "rolls of 1 fail regardless of modifiers" means rolls of "1 fail whether or not we applied modifiers", then "regardless of modifiers" adds nothing to the sentence. Because rolls of 1 fail. And the default "roll" is modified automatically.

No, again you're misunderstanding. It adds clarification to the first question anyone would ask 'but if I use modifiers to increase my roll to a successful value, does that count?'

You're correct in that it adds no further rules, it doesn't. It does, however, provide clarification for all those people who try and game the system.

It's a qualifier to the rule. It changes how the rule functions. Had they not specified this in the rule then rolls of 1 that become a 2 would not auto-fail. It is a requirement for the rule to function at all because "modified rolls" are simply called "rolls" which is exactly what this rule refers to. Without it the rule would be useless for everything except this succubus case.

Dandelion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dandelion wrote:


I only claimed that rolls of 1 fail "without taking modifiers into account". So "natural" 1s always fail.

If you say "rolls of 1 fail regardless of modifiers" means rolls of "1 fail whether or not we applied modifiers", then "regardless of modifiers" adds nothing to the sentence. Because rolls of 1 fail. And the default "roll" is modified automatically.

No, again you're misunderstanding. It adds clarification to the first question anyone would ask 'but if I use modifiers to increase my roll to a successful value, does that count?'

You're correct in that it adds no further rules, it doesn't. It does, however, provide clarification for all those people who try and game the system.

It's a qualifier to the rule. It changes how the rule functions. Had they not specified this in the rule then rolls of 1 that become a 2 would not auto-fail. It is a requirement for the rule to function at all because "modified rolls" are simply called "rolls" which is exactly what this rule refers to. Without it the rule would be useless for everything except this succubus case.

It completely answers the OPs question, actually. A roll of a 1 always fails, regardless (irrespective) of any modifiers that may apply. Roll natural 1? It fails. Roll natural 2 that turns into a 1 due to -1 to hit? It fails. Both of these circumstances are clarified by the statement above. It couldn't be any clearer.

An Actual Englishman has this 100% correct.

I'm glad I found this thread.
I know this isn't exactly what the OPs question is but we have a bit of confusion on plasma, overcharging and hit modifiers.
So he's saying that if you have a BS 2+ and give yourself a +1 to hit modifier that even though your hits would fail on a natural roll of 1 you would not be able to overheat and kill yourself as you are getting +1 to hit. So a 1 would become a 2 so you could not possibly overheat. Is this how it works because I feel like you always die on a natural roll of 1.... if not I've been playing my plasma executioners wrong this whole time. I'd be very happy to be wrong about that.

Asmodios wrote:
I'm glad I found this thread.
I know this isn't exactly what the OPs question is but we have a bit of confusion on plasma, overcharging and hit modifiers.
So he's saying that if you have a BS 2+ and give yourself a +1 to hit modifier that even though your hits would fail on a natural roll of 1 you would not be able to overheat and kill yourself as you are getting +1 to hit. So a 1 would become a 2 so you could not possibly overheat. Is this how it works because I feel like you always die on a natural roll of 1.... if not I've been playing my plasma executioners wrong this whole time. I'd be very happy to be wrong about that.

Yes, the plasma misses but it does not overheat.

 skchsan wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I'm glad I found this thread.
I know this isn't exactly what the OPs question is but we have a bit of confusion on plasma, overcharging and hit modifiers.
So he's saying that if you have a BS 2+ and give yourself a +1 to hit modifier that even though your hits would fail on a natural roll of 1 you would not be able to overheat and kill yourself as you are getting +1 to hit. So a 1 would become a 2 so you could not possibly overheat. Is this how it works because I feel like you always die on a natural roll of 1.... if not I've been playing my plasma executioners wrong this whole time. I'd be very happy to be wrong about that.

Yes, the plasma misses but it does not overheat.

Thank you very much

If you first roll a 1 then reroll it into another 1 it’s a miss.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

It completely answers the OPs question, actually. A roll of a 1 always fails, regardless (irrespective) of any modifiers that may apply. Roll natural 1? It fails. Roll natural 2 that turns into a 1 due to -1 to hit? It fails. Both of these circumstances are clarified by the statement above. It couldn't be any clearer.

Your second example requires that the roll be taken with respect to modifiers. You cannot both modify the roll and not modify it at the same time. You only make one check to see if the roll is an auto- fail. This check must happen either before you apply modifiers or after. The rule has a clause that specifies it must checked without respect to any modifiers.

If you look a the wording for plasma overheat, we will notice that the plasma blows up on a roll of 1. Stop. This roll of 1 can and must be modified by ANY modifiers that apply BEFORE blowing up.

But whatever, I've lost full interest in this discussion because no one has changed their minds and we are stuck arguing about basic grammar. This is futile.
If any DE player wants to play that the Succubus hits on 2s with combat drugs and -1 to hit then I will let him/her. It's not gamebreaking and it would feel scummy to tell him/her that the upgrades s/he paid for are worthless.
The most important rule in the rulebook is for both players to agree on unclear wording/rules. RAW I can read this how I want.

Dandelion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

It completely answers the OPs question, actually. A roll of a 1 always fails, regardless (irrespective) of any modifiers that may apply. Roll natural 1? It fails. Roll natural 2 that turns into a 1 due to -1 to hit? It fails. Both of these circumstances are clarified by the statement above. It couldn't be any clearer.

Your second example requires that the roll be taken with respect to modifiers. You cannot both modify the roll and not modify it at the same time. You only make one check to see if the roll is an auto- fail. This check must happen either before you apply modifiers or after. The rule has a clause that specifies it must checked without respect to any modifiers.

If you look a the wording for plasma overheat, we will notice that the plasma blows up on a roll of 1. Stop. This roll of 1 can and must be modified by ANY modifiers that apply BEFORE blowing up.

But whatever, I've lost full interest in this discussion because no one has changed their minds and we are stuck arguing about basic grammar. This is futile.
If any DE player wants to play that the Succubus hits on 2s with combat drugs and -1 to hit then I will let him/her. It's not gamebreaking and it would feel scummy to tell him/her that the upgrades s/he paid for are worthless.
The most important rule in the rulebook is for both players to agree on unclear wording/rules. RAW I can read this how I want.

A rule absolutely can apply to both unmodified and modified rolls and in this case it does. As the rule we've quoted like 20 times now. You are misinterpreting the rule for some reason as a 'check that must be taken without respect to modifiers' which is wrong and not how the rule is worded at all. A roll of 1 fails, with or without modifiers. That is exactly what the rule says. There is no other interpretation.

Plasma exploding is a different rule and irrelevant to this discussion. It has no place here.

I don't see what's scummy about playing by the rules? The DE player can give their succubus all manner of other, incredible buffs from combat drugs. It's just that modifying a WS to be 1+ is pointless and rightly so becaue it could lead to game breaking things.

That’s HIWPI (you not me).

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
A roll of 1 fails, with or without modifiers. That is exactly what the rule says. There is no other interpretation.

This is the crux of the issue. We disagree on what "irrespective" means.

Irrespective: adj.
without regard to; ignoring or discounting (usu. fol. by of): Irrespective of the weather, I should go.

"A roll of 1 always fails, ignoring any modifiers that may apply"
"A roll of 1 always fails, discounting any modifiers..."
"A roll of 1 always fails, without regard to any modifiers..."

Irrespective: adj.
irrespective of (preposition) without taking account of; regardless of

"A roll of 1 always fails, without taking account of any modifiers..."
"A roll of 1 always fails, regardless of any modifiers that may apply"

adjective
1.
without regard to something else, especially something specified; ignoring or discounting (usually followed by of):

"a roll of 1 always fails, without regard to any modifiers..."

Find me a definition that defines irrespective as "with or without".




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
That’s HIWPI (you not me).

You don't say...

The rulebook could really be clearer on the meaning of 'roll', but as it stands, here is the order:

1. Roll the dice. This is important - without this, nothing else really matters.
2. Before anything, check the numbers showing on the dice, and compare these to the weapon skill of the model. Any dice showing numbers that are less than the required weapon skill - and any dice showing a 1 - go to step 3. Any remaining dice after this that are showing equal to or greater than the required weapon skill, go to step 4 (and they skip step 3).
3. Only the dice that didn't meet the weapon skill requirement - or showed a 1 - matter here. Check those dice against any reroll rules. Do you have reroll 1's? Or maybe you have reroll misses? Perhaps you want to use a Command reroll on one of them? Now is the time for all this business. Once you have completed all the rerolls you are allowed, check all the dice in this step for 1's - discard them. Any dice left join their friends in step 4.
4. By this stage, you don't have any dice left showing 1's. Modify all remaining dice with any applicable modifiers. Note that any dice with positive modifiers can go to infinity. You can have a modified result of 516 (nice hit)! However, even if you have negative modifiers of one billion, the dice cannot go lower than 1, just count it as 1 in this case. Now check these final numbers to see if any of them are now 1, or count as 1 - after all modifiers. Discard them. Compare all remaining numbers against the model's weapon skill. Any numbers showing less than the model's weapon skill at this point are discarded. All the remaining ones are hits, and can be moved to the wound roll.


Let's see this in action with the Succubus example. As in OP's example, the Succubus has the +1WS combat drug, so it's weapon skill which is normally 2+ is now 1+ (the rules do not prevent this). The Succubus is using its Hellglaive, giving a -1 to hit in combat.

Step 1: The Succubus has 4 attacks, so 4 dice are rolled.

Step 2: The 4 dice land, showing a 1, a 2, a 3 and a 4. These are compared to the model's weapon skill of 1+. Although all 4 dice meet the weapon skill requirement, one of them is showing a 1, and must be sent to step 3 all by itself (to be punished).

Step 3: The one naughty dice from step 2 is to be dealt with here. Do we have reroll 1's or reroll misses for this Succubus? No, so next is to check if we have dice showing a 1 regardless. We do, and it is discarded.

Step 4: Only three dice made it through from step 2 - one died in step 3 (sad face). Now we apply modifiers to our results of 2,3 and 4. Do we have modifiers? Yes, the Hellglaive gives -1. So now, our results of 2, 3 and 4 become 1, 2 and 3. Are any of these results a 1? Yes - discard it. The two remaining dice results are 2 and 3. Compare these to the model's weapon skill of 1+. Do they meet it? Yes, they graduate to wound rolls. Woohoo!

TL;DR - even with the combat drug giving +1 to the WS, a 2 to hit will fail in the Hellglaive example. That's until battle round 3 of course, but that's for another time....

If anyone wants, I can run through a space marine moving and firing a heavy weapon, or firing a plasma gun with -1 to hit, using the above steps

Warhanna wrote:
...
4. By this stage, you don't have any dice left showing 1's. Modify all remaining dice with any applicable modifiers. Note that any dice with positive modifiers can go to infinity. You can have a modified result of 516 (nice hit)! However, even if you have negative modifiers of one billion, the dice cannot go lower than 1, just count it as 1 in this case. Now check these final numbers to see if any of them are now 1, or count as 1 - after all modifiers. Discard them. Compare all remaining numbers against the model's weapon skill. Any numbers showing less than the model's weapon skill at this point are discarded. All the remaining ones are hits, and can be moved to the wound roll...

TL;DR - even with the combat drug giving +1 to the WS, a 2 to hit will fail in the Hellglaive example. That's until battle round 3 of course, but that's for another time....

If anyone wants, I can run through a space marine moving and firing a heavy weapon, or firing a plasma gun with -1 to hit, using the above steps

Points were your argument is not correct: "if any of them are now 1, or count as 1 - after all modifiers. Discard them." a 2 with a -1 modifier is not a 1 "irrespective of modifiers" it is a 2 "irrespective of modifiers"

"a 2 to hit will fail in the Hellglaive example." Same as above, a 2 with a -1 modifier is not a 1 "irrespective of modifiers" it is a 2 "irrespective of modifiers"

I was with you till you said a 2 would miss. It would miss if 1s missed always, but they only miss if they are a 1 "irrespective of modifiers". If you ignore modifiers, that was a 2.