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.

theProgramm wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:




My analysis of RaW tells me that Side A is technically correct...

It thats true my argument (see above) has to be wrong, can you tell me where i made a mistake?

The issue is in the rule itself...

"Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+."

So, I take a wound, I make an RP save. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll. I have a Technomancer present AND am under the effect of Ever-Living. I have, in essence, a +2 to my RP dice rolls. I know this, because I'm told these modifiers are cumulative.

I'm also told that the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+. The required dice roll for Reanimation Protocols is 5+. There is no current piece of wargear and current special rule that modifies the required dice roll to be lower than a 5+. There is nothing currently in the game that gives you a Reanimation Protocol rule with a 4+ or lower REQUIRED ROLL to be effective. Every rule in question modifies each individual RP roll to give a +1. This is not the same as modifying to require 4+ or lower. This is the core issue.

So, to continue my example... my Cryptek is in a Unit of Warriors and they're all under the effect of Ever-Living. A Warrior takes a wound. He has the Reanimation Protocols rule. Reanimation Protocols requires a 5+ to save a wound. I don't have any rules currently in play changing this 5+ to anything else, so I roll my D6. I get a 3. I know I'm under the effect of Ever-Living, so I add +1. I'm now at a 4. I'm also under the effect of Technomancer, and I know that these modifiers are cumulative, so I add another +1. I'm now at 5. I don't have any other rules to consider. Did my D6 roll satisfy the Reanimation Protocols special rule of a required 5+ roll? It did. The result of my D6 roll was a 5 after all modifiers, so my Warrior keeps chugging along.

The writing is sloppy. They should not have said "...but the required dice roll...". They should have said "...but THIS dice roll...". The core issue is that the required roll is an abstract associated with the RP rule and is always at 5+. RP tells us this required roll can never be improved to be better than a 4+, but we're not trying to change the 5+ requirement.

HIWPI: Now, I almost certainly know what the intended. I think we all do. They (VERY LIKELY) intended it to work like this...

Condition 1: Warriors alone. They get an RP roll on a 5+. If they get tagged with an ID wound, they are at an efffective 6+.
Condition 2: Warriors w/ONE +1 modifier. They get an effective RP roll on a 4+. If they get tagged with an ID wound they are at an effective 5+.
Condition 3: Warriors w/TWO +1 modifiers. They get an effective RP roll on a 4+, regardless of whether or not the wound was an ID wound.

BUT... intentions and HIWPI have no impact whatsoever on a RaW debate. You have to put aside your confirmation bias (I know what they meant so I'll interpret the rules to support that belief) and do a really critical analysis of what's written on the page. I think GW made a mistake. The rules don't actually do what they seem to have intended.

 Kriswall wrote:

You have to put aside your confirmation bias (I know what they meant so I'll interpret the rules to support that belief) and do a really critical analysis of what's written on the page. I think GW made a mistake. The rules don't actually do what they seem to have intended.

While you act the exact other way around? Youre so stiff into your fix idear that you dont even see the point that im trying to argue about. This is not ment as insult!

Lets look at your argument:

I'm also told that the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+. The required dice roll for Reanimation Protocols is 5+. There is no current piece of wargear and current special rule that modifies the required dice roll to be lower than a 5+. There is nothing currently in the game that gives you a Reanimation Protocol rule with a 4+ or lower REQUIRED ROLL to be effective. Every rule in question modifies each individual RP roll to give a +1. This is not the same as modifying to require 4+ or lower. This is the core issue.

I told you why this is wrong. In fact you have to change the required dice roll - and you dont change the virtual value of the roll itselfe (besides for ID - that substraction modifies the value of the rolled dice but thats irrelevant here). My argument: All rules that let you improove your RP are worded with "bonus". And there is no rule that tells you that this kind of "bonus" is to be read as "improve the logical value of the dice you rolled". It is no where in the BRB stated. So you have to look at the rule it targets to find out in which way this bonus has to be applayed. And in that rule its explicitly worded that you have to modify the required roll.

Now its your turn.

theProgramm wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

You have to put aside your confirmation bias (I know what they meant so I'll interpret the rules to support that belief) and do a really critical analysis of what's written on the page. I think GW made a mistake. The rules don't actually do what they seem to have intended.

While you act the exact other way around? Youre so stiff into your fix idear that you dont even see the point that im trying to argue about. This is not ment as insult!

Lets look at your argument:

I'm also told that the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+. The required dice roll for Reanimation Protocols is 5+. There is no current piece of wargear and current special rule that modifies the required dice roll to be lower than a 5+. There is nothing currently in the game that gives you a Reanimation Protocol rule with a 4+ or lower REQUIRED ROLL to be effective. Every rule in question modifies each individual RP roll to give a +1. This is not the same as modifying to require 4+ or lower. This is the core issue.

I told you why this is wrong. In fact you have to change the required dice roll - and you dont change the virtual value of the roll itselfe (besides for ID - that substraction modifies the value of the rolled dice but thats irrelevant here). My argument: All rules that let you improove your RP are worded with "bonus". And there is no rule that tells you that this kind of "bonus" is to be read as "improve the logical value of the dice you rolled". It is no where in the BRB stated. So you have to look at the rule it targets to find out in which way this bonus has to be applayed. And in that rule its explicitly worded that you have to modify the required roll.

Now its your turn.

Technomancer doesn't explicitly say it modifies the REQUIRED roll. It says it gives a +1 bonus to RP rolls. Two very different things. Presumably, the REQUIRED roll is still a 5+, per the RP rule.

And if Bonus is undefined, then we are at an impasse. The rules must be subject to interpretation. I interpret "+1 bonus to RP rolls" to means adding one each time a roll a D6 to make an RP 'save'. You seem to interpret "+1 bonus to RP rolls" to mean "don't change the RP rolls at all, but instead change the required value I need to achieve".

And again, I'm arguing RaW here. In a real game situation, I would neither allow nor expect to have allowed multiple modifiers resulting in an effective 2+ or 3+ RP roll. I think this would be against the spirit, if not the letter, of the RP rule.

its a matter of semantics and how people interpret the words written. GW said it added +1 to the dice roll and we all know they meant it lowered the required roll from a 5+ to a 4+ but because people like to be competitive and be a bunch of Sea Lawyers they are trying to make it a +1 modifier to the dice roll itself. I think GW thought they had figured it out when they said "Can never be better then 4+" but our sea lawyers have attempted to find a loop hole. Im hoping to play a Necron player next week and I promise you if he tried this nonsense against me I would politely ask him to do it the other way, and if he refused I would pack it up and say I would rather not play you.

I doubt ANYONE in GW wanted to give an entire detachment of necrons what amounts to a 2++ for the entire game. That is absurd and we all know it.

 Kriswall wrote:


And again, I'm arguing RaW here. In a real game situation, I would neither allow nor expect to have allowed multiple modifiers resulting in an effective 2+ or 3+ RP roll. I think this would be against the spirit, if not the letter, of the RP rule.

No one would claim this in a real game scenario, its obviously just a RaW discussion. But that makes it even more important to be extremly precise.

Technomancer doesn't explicitly say it modifies the REQUIRED roll. It says it gives a +1 bonus to RP rolls. Two very different things. Presumably, the REQUIRED roll is still a 5+, per the RP rule.

Neither does it explicitly say taht you have to modify the rolled value.

And you are (at first glance) right:

And if Bonus is undefined, then we are at an impasse. The rules must be subject to interpretation. I interpret "+1 bonus to RP rolls" to means adding one each time a roll a D6 to make an RP 'save'. You seem to interpret "+1 bonus to RP rolls" to mean "don't change the RP rolls at all, but instead change the required value I need to achieve".

But then we look at the (much quoted) RP rules again, where it says:

Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll

This means we do have the possibility to change something belonging to the RP roll. Without this we would only be allowed to modify the dice itselfe not the required number because thats all the BRB allows. But this rule itselfe sais that there is the possibility for modifications. It says not to what nor in which way, just that this rule can be altered. To get on which way it is altered by such modifications we have to read a bit further:

these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+

This is the only part that ever specificaly states what has to be changed and it says "the required dice roll". Arguing in any other way wuold contradic this - and as you are trying to circumvent a restriction it is your duty to proove without any doubt that you can do it. Which you - as faar as i have shown - cant.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
its a matter of semantics and how people interpret the words written. GW said it added +1 to the dice roll and we all know they meant it lowered the required roll from a 5+ to a 4+ but because people like to be competitive and be a bunch of Sea Lawyers they are trying to make it a +1 modifier to the dice roll itself. I think GW thought they had figured it out when they said "Can never be better then 4+" but our sea lawyers have attempted to find a loop hole. Im hoping to play a Necron player next week and I promise you if he tried this nonsense against me I would politely ask him to do it the other way, and if he refused I would pack it up and say I would rather not play you.

I doubt ANYONE in GW wanted to give an entire detachment of necrons what amounts to a 2++ for the entire game. That is absurd and we all know it.

Of course it's absurd. That's why I keep saying that even though it's how I believe the rules currently work, I would never play it that way. The rule is at worst broken and at best ambiguous. Best case scenario, we get an FAQ or Errate.

Also, what is a "Sea Lawyer"? I've never heard that term. I feel like it's some sort of insult, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I debate these things because I love the game, love knowing how things work and like to hash out these sorts of issues in a non-game environment so that I can know what to expect during an actual game. For example, next time I play my Necrons friend, I'll say, "Hey, to be clear, stacking +1 bonuses to RP rolls still means you need to roll an actual, unmodified 4 or better. Can we agree this is how we're going to play this?". I'm not doing this to be competitive. I'm doing this because I enjoy debating.

Sea lawyer is a term used by Marines. It basically means someone who thinks they know every rule and law of the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) and will debate it to prove themselves correct to anyone of equal or higher rank. Usually these guys get 1: ordered to guard a fence post for 4 hours in the sun, or 2: politely told to go F*ck themselves :-P

I don't miss my days in the Military but the terminology and mannerisms are still fun to this day.

Semper Fi

 Kriswall wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
its a matter of semantics and how people interpret the words written. GW said it added +1 to the dice roll and we all know they meant it lowered the required roll from a 5+ to a 4+ but because people like to be competitive and be a bunch of Sea Lawyers they are trying to make it a +1 modifier to the dice roll itself. I think GW thought they had figured it out when they said "Can never be better then 4+" but our sea lawyers have attempted to find a loop hole. Im hoping to play a Necron player next week and I promise you if he tried this nonsense against me I would politely ask him to do it the other way, and if he refused I would pack it up and say I would rather not play you.

I doubt ANYONE in GW wanted to give an entire detachment of necrons what amounts to a 2++ for the entire game. That is absurd and we all know it.

Of course it's absurd. That's why I keep saying that even though it's how I believe the rules currently work, I would never play it that way. The rule is at worst broken and at best ambiguous. Best case scenario, we get an FAQ or Errate.

Also, what is a "Sea Lawyer"? I've never heard that term. I feel like it's some sort of insult, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I debate these things because I love the game, love knowing how things work and like to hash out these sorts of issues in a non-game environment so that I can know what to expect during an actual game. For example, next time I play my Necrons friend, I'll say, "Hey, to be clear, stacking +1 bonuses to RP rolls still means you need to roll an actual, unmodified 4 or better. Can we agree this is how we're going to play this?". I'm not doing this to be competitive. I'm doing this because I enjoy debating.

this

theProgramm wrote:

these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+

This is the only part that ever specificaly states what has to be changed and it says "the required dice roll". Arguing in any other way wuold contradic this - and as you are trying to circumvent a restriction it is your duty to proove without any doubt that you can do it. Which you - as faar as i have shown - cant.

Actually...

"Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+."

The modifiers are provided to "this dice roll". This dice roll refers to the previous sentence instructing you to roll a die as part of using Reanimation Protocols when you take a wound. We are never told that the modifiers from "certain special rules and wargear items" impacts the base required roll of a 5+. Again, this is my core issue. All of the special rules and wargear items modify the roll itself and not the "target". You always need to satisfy a 5+ requirement when making an RP roll. The number you need on each die will change depending on how many modifiers are in play, but you always need to achieve a 5+.

Again, I think this is just another example of sloppy rules writing with GW making assumptions about how their rules work.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
its a matter of semantics and how people interpret the words written. GW said it added +1 to the dice roll and we all know they meant it lowered the required roll from a 5+ to a 4+ but because people like to be competitive and be a bunch of Sea Lawyers they are trying to make it a +1 modifier to the dice roll itself. I think GW thought they had figured it out when they said "Can never be better then 4+" but our sea lawyers have attempted to find a loop hole. Im hoping to play a Necron player next week and I promise you if he tried this nonsense against me I would politely ask him to do it the other way, and if he refused I would pack it up and say I would rather not play you.

I doubt ANYONE in GW wanted to give an entire detachment of necrons what amounts to a 2++ for the entire game. That is absurd and we all know it.

Of course it's absurd. That's why I keep saying that even though it's how I believe the rules currently work, I would never play it that way. The rule is at worst broken and at best ambiguous. Best case scenario, we get an FAQ or Errate.

Also, what is a "Sea Lawyer"? I've never heard that term. I feel like it's some sort of insult, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I debate these things because I love the game, love knowing how things work and like to hash out these sorts of issues in a non-game environment so that I can know what to expect during an actual game. For example, next time I play my Necrons friend, I'll say, "Hey, to be clear, stacking +1 bonuses to RP rolls still means you need to roll an actual, unmodified 4 or better. Can we agree this is how we're going to play this?". I'm not doing this to be competitive. I'm doing this because I enjoy debating.

Krisswall, you must have missed the post on the previous page:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
In the Marine Corps we have a term for people who debate the RAW versus the RAI. Sea Lawyers, and just like in the Marine Corps, it drives everyone nuts!

We all know what GW was trying to do but we will continue to debate it in the hopes of slightly breaking their game a bit more :-P

Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain this and confirming my guesses.

As to my point of view:
A do agree that the "bonuses" are meant to be modifying the Results of the roll - "Side A"(and not the requirement of the roll - "Side B")

As per the rules of how: "subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death"
(Which is very clear that you remove the "-1" from the number you see on the dice, not the 5+ you are required to roll...)

And:"Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll; these are cumulative"
This says modifiers to the dice roll, not to the requirement.

However.

The wording that comes after: "the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+."
Directly linked to the previous statement by a semicolon, is clearly referring to these "items" and how they cannot improve this roll to be better than a 4+.

This seems like a very big contradiction.

One method of resolving this however, would be to take the rule literally, with the wording of 4+ rather than numbers:

"Roll a D6 each time the model suffers an unsaved Wound, subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death special rule. On a five or more, discount the unsaved Wound – treat it as having been saved. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than a four or more."

Reading the above, the rule actually seems very clear (to me anyway). And completely in line with "Side B":
5+, 4+ is not a requirement.
It is the value read on the roll:
If the roll is a five or more, then ...
The roll can be improved so that a four (or more) meets the required roll.
But if the dice rolled is a 3, it can never meet the required roll, whatever bonuses this dice roll has.

My conclusion and my HIWPI would both match:
Rolling a 3 on RP will never bring the model back. But rolling a 4 probably will, even if it reached by 4+1+1-1.
So having two +1 bonuses would negate the ID -1 penalty, bringing the required 5 down to a needed roll of a 4.

If the only thing we can agree on is a pretty sloppy rules writing:
Hey, it's the first time they tried RP worded this way. It's bound to have issues...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
All of the special rules and wargear items modify the roll itself and not the "target". You always need to satisfy a 5+ requirement when making an RP roll. The number you need on each die will change depending on how many modifiers are in play, but you always need to achieve a 5+.

Yes, this would be exactly how i see it, and that the statement: "the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+." Actually refers the to result (modified) obtained on the Dice. It is saying that even though modifiers can change the result "seen" (that needs to go up to 5), this "improvement" can never be better than a 4 to meet the requirement of 5.

"the required dice roll (of a 5) can never be improved to be better than 4+" (that is then improved to go above 5)

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
its a matter of semantics and how people interpret the words written. GW said it added +1 to the dice roll and we all know they meant it lowered the required roll from a 5+ to a 4+ but because people like to be competitive and be a bunch of Sea Lawyers they are trying to make it a +1 modifier to the dice roll itself. I think GW thought they had figured it out when they said "Can never be better then 4+" but our sea lawyers have attempted to find a loop hole. Im hoping to play a Necron player next week and I promise you if he tried this nonsense against me I would politely ask him to do it the other way, and if he refused I would pack it up and say I would rather not play you.

I doubt ANYONE in GW wanted to give an entire detachment of necrons what amounts to a 2++ for the entire game. That is absurd and we all know it.

Of course it's absurd. That's why I keep saying that even though it's how I believe the rules currently work, I would never play it that way. The rule is at worst broken and at best ambiguous. Best case scenario, we get an FAQ or Errate.

Also, what is a "Sea Lawyer"? I've never heard that term. I feel like it's some sort of insult, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I debate these things because I love the game, love knowing how things work and like to hash out these sorts of issues in a non-game environment so that I can know what to expect during an actual game. For example, next time I play my Necrons friend, I'll say, "Hey, to be clear, stacking +1 bonuses to RP rolls still means you need to roll an actual, unmodified 4 or better. Can we agree this is how we're going to play this?". I'm not doing this to be competitive. I'm doing this because I enjoy debating.

Krisswall, you must have missed the post on the previous page:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
In the Marine Corps we have a term for people who debate the RAW versus the RAI. Sea Lawyers, and just like in the Marine Corps, it drives everyone nuts!

We all know what GW was trying to do but we will continue to debate it in the hopes of slightly breaking their game a bit more :-P

Ah. I did miss that. Thanks. To be fair though, not all of us are doing this to break the game a bit more. Some of us are doing this to point out how sloppy the game is. Sea Lawyer appears to be an insult in this context and I'd rather not be insulted for my interpretation of the rules. Always best to leave personal attacks (even if they're against general types of people and not specific individuals) out of a rules debate.

I personally like to know all of these "debates" so that if my local gaming group comes up with them i can say:
"Hey, this rule is a mess, you can read it like this OR like this" Shall we care or shall we play?

The later is often chosen with a possible "you won because of that" comment.
I rarely do Tourneys, as well... But i hear the "issues" are usually fixed for those.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I personally like to know all of these "debates" so that if my local gaming group comes up with them i can say:
"Hey, this rule is a mess, you can read it like this OR like this" Shall we care or shall we play?

The later is often chosen with a possible "you won because of that" comment.
I rarely do Tourneys, as well... But i hear the "issues" are usually fixed for those.

Yeah, I rarely do Tourneys either, but pretty frequently use their tourney FAQs for guidance on how the overall community sees certain issues. It's a great HYWPI resource.

I think I did a piss poor job of explaining Sea Lawyers, its not an insult. I really can't describe it because by everyone higher ranking they hate them, by everyone lower ranking they are adored like freedom fighters. It's one of those "you have to have been there" words I guess. Trust me I am not launching ad hominem at you :-P

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I think I did a piss poor job of explaining Sea Lawyers, its not an insult. I really can't describe it because by everyone higher ranking they hate them, by everyone lower ranking they are adored like freedom fighters. It's one of those "you have to have been there" words I guess. Trust me I am not launching ad hominem at you :-P

Gotcha. I appreciate the explanation. One of the recurring issues with using industry jargon outside an industry... it's commonly misinterpreted or misunderstood! I work in high net worth banking and I run into this alot when trying to explain things to friends.

Kriswall... do you have a high bus-factor?

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Kriswall... do you have a high bus-factor?

Can't be having a low bus factor with all those crazies buses out there.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I think I did a piss poor job of explaining Sea Lawyers, its not an insult. I really can't describe it because by everyone higher ranking they hate them, by everyone lower ranking they are adored like freedom fighters. It's one of those "you have to have been there" words I guess. Trust me I am not launching ad hominem at you :-P

Yeah... I think its probably safe to just stop using the phrase "Sea Lawyers" in a sci-fi wargaming rules forum. That'd probably be the easiest thing. We already have a handy term; Rules Lawyer, which involves the word "Lawyer", the word "Rules", and leaves out all confusing references to the great briny deep.

In the same way I'm sure the military doesn't refer to China as a "WAAC power gamer" or to Kim Jong-un as "That Guy". But maybe they do - I'm not sure.

Back on topic... actually I find the whole discussion really confusing and I'd like to play this correctly. :(
It sounds like RAI you can improve the roll so that if you get hit with ID you still reanimate on a 4+ but can never go lower than 4+
But RAW you theoretically could go lower than 4+ but it's against the obvious intent.
Is that a good summary?

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

Back on topic... actually I find the whole discussion really confusing and I'd like to play this correctly. :(
It sounds like RAI you can improve the roll so that if you get hit with ID you still reanimate on a 4+ but can never go lower than 4+
But RAW you theoretically could go lower than 4+ but it's against the obvious intent.
Is that a good summary?

Well since im on the "it works well the way it is wirtten - besides its crappy written" team i have to disagree I think no1 will question anymore if ID with 2 +1 modifiers is 4+ or 5+ (almost everyone came to 4+) but if "it could RaW be 2+" holds true is imo wrong. And since the RaI is clear it is the duty of all those "2+ is possible"-sayers to proove why that is possible against the clear intent and while breaking some other rules. (and so faar i could disproove all those atempts (at least imo - but since no1 could proove those arguments wrong they still stand as beeing true)).

/Edit: i dotn want to be a dick here and restate my opinion on every possible situation but the side that claims this shennanigans to be true is wrong and since they get restated over and over (albeit beeing wrong) it leads to the common oppinion adapting it out of sheer mass of statements and because the rule is in fact extrem poorly written.

theProgramm wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:




My analysis of RaW tells me that Side A is technically correct...

It thats true my argument (see above) has to be wrong, can you tell me where i made a mistake?

Your mistake stems from your assumption.

theProgramm wrote:Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll

This means we do have the possibility to change something belonging to the dice roll. Which one? The logical value of the dice or the value needed to pass the RP test? Read a bit further:
these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+
This clearly states that the thing that gets modfied is "the required dice roll".
Only exception from this is against ID wounds - how these are handled is described within the RP rules itselfe so is inside that element that can tell you direcly what has to happen without needing another rule.
Nothing else is specified in the RP rules themselfes.
Q.E.D

The required number is in fact not part of the dice roll. It is what the dice roll is compared to to see if the RP passed or failed. It's the same as saying the cost of an item is linked to the amount of money you have.....

The semicolon links two related yet separate statements by definition. Using the second part of the sentence to make a decision that the first must be speaking about the required roll means you are not treating them as separate statements. You need to prove that the required roll is what the first part is speaking about to make that assumption and there isn't enough verbage there to make that assumption. We know they are taking about RP modification. That alone can be, and is, what people are reading as linking those statements.

Yeah I can't see how people are confused with this at all?

Roll a D6 each time the model suffers an unsaved Wound, subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death special rule. On a 5+, discount the unsaved Wound – treat it as having been saved. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+.

It's not saying your RP can not be better than a 4+ it's literally stating that the physical roll you make can never be better than a 4+, meaning if you Physically roll a 3. Regardless of modifiers it fails becuase you have physically not rolled a 4+.

The situation I discussed earlier with the Cronos and Nightmare doll is a competely seperate but kind analogous to this situation. It's a situation where one thing modifies the roll and one thing modifies the actual save itself , so that there are two seperate modifications being made one is being made to the save itself one is being made to the roll


Again there is nothing in the game that modifies the RP to being a 4+, it's only the affected dice roll and the rule clearly states that if you physically do not roll a 4, 5, or 6 when you have a modifier making the 4 a 5. You fail the roll

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah I can't see how people are confused with this at all?

Roll a D6 each time the model suffers an unsaved Wound, subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death special rule. On a 5+, discount the unsaved Wound – treat it as having been saved. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+.

It's not saying your RP can not be better than a 4+ it's literally stating that the physical roll you make can never be better than a 4+, meaning if you Physically roll a 3. Regardless of modifiers it fails becuase you have physically not rolled a 4+.

The situation I discussed earlier with the Cronos and Nightmare doll is a competely seperate but kind analogous to this situation. It's a situation where one thing modifies the roll and one thing modifies the actual save itself , so that there are two seperate modifications being made one is being made to the save itself one is being made to the roll


Again there is nothing in the game that modifies the RP to being a 4+, it's only the affected dice roll and the rule clearly states that if you physically do not roll a 4, 5, or 6 when you have a modifier making the 4 a 5. You fail the roll

Hollismason... the issue with what you're saying is that the required dice roll is still a 5+, per the Reanimation Protocol special rule, even in the presence of something like a Cryptek's Technomancer special rule. The rules are written poorly. The required roll is ALWAYS 5+ and nothing currently in the game lowers this requirement.

It's almost a semantic difference, but it's an extraordinarily important one. If my Warriors are under the influence of a Cryptek's Technomancer special rule, Reanimation Protocols still REQUIRES a 5+ to have an effect. Technomancer doesn't change this requirement. What Technomancer ACTUALLY does is take the ACTUAL, IN GAME RP rolls and adds 1 to them. So, if I roll a 4, Technomancer kicks in and ups the 4 to a 5. I then compare this 5 to the REQUIRED 5+ per the RP special rule and note that I'm successful.

It's seems clear that GW didn't want unmodified RP rolls of 3 or lower to be successful. This is not what they actually wrote. I'm expecting an FAQ or Errata to make this happen. This is how I'm currently playing it. I'm not arguing that 2+ RP rolls SHOULD be in game, but that GW accidentally made it doable.

There's no loophole , it's clearly written that the dice roll cannot be better than a 4+, so no matter what if you roll less than a 4, 5, or 6 on that dice roll regardless of modifiers you have failed the test.

That's why it says " Dice Roll" and not " RP save".

If it said " RP save cannot be better than a 4+ " then you'd totally be correct, but it doesn't it says the required roll can not be better than a 4+.

The same situation that causes Cronos and Night Mare doll to work together, is the same reason this doesn't work together because the wording matches across the board.

Hollismason wrote:
There's no loophole , it's clearly written that the dice roll cannot be better than a 4+, so no matter what if you roll less than a 4, 5, or 6 on that dice roll regardless of modifiers you have failed the test.

Actually it says "... the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+..." As Kriswall pointed out, the Cryptek's Technomancer rule doesn't modify the required roll, it modifies the results of the actual physical roll.

Dude that's the physical dice roll. Seriously that's what that literally says.

Dice Roll, if you roll anything but a 123 on a dice roll regardless of modifiers that fails because of the wording of that rule.

I honestly can't tell if people just aren't getting it or it needs to be explained more. It's clear as day that saying the Required Dice roll can never be better than a 4+, means that if you roll a 3 and you have +1 modifer and another +1 modifier it fails. Because you did not roll a 4+.

You would think necron players would be happy enough already getting what amounts to a 4++ for the entire army :-P

Sorry not a 4++ it would function more like a 4++ FNP because you get it even against double toughness or insta death weapons. The only thing that still kill instantly is Destroyer weapons :-P

Hollismason wrote:
Dude that's the physical dice roll. Seriously that's what that literally says.

Dice Roll, if you roll anything but a 123 on a dice roll regardless of modifiers that fails because of the wording of that rule.

I honestly can't tell if people just aren't getting it or it needs to be explained more. It's clear as day that saying the Required Dice roll can never be better than a 4+, means that if you roll a 3 and you have +1 modifer and another +1 modifier it fails. Because you did not roll a 4+.

Actually, I feel more or less the same way.

Ultimately, this comes down to your interpretation of "the required roll". I interpret it as "the value I need to roll to achieve a successful reanimation". This is ALWAYS a 5+. There is not a single rule in the entire Necron Codex that changes the 5+ to a 4+ REQUIREMENT. It is ALWAYS a 5+. If you disagree, show me a rule that explicitly changes the 5+ REQUIRED ROLL to a 4+. You can't, because no rule does this. What the rules ACTUALLY do is add one to your roll each time you roll for RP. So, if I roll a 4, I take my +1 bonus (4+1=5) and am able to satisfy the 5+ REQUIRED ROLL. The roll required to activate RP is still a 5+ in this situation. The fact that I get a +1 bonus has ZERO impact on the fact that RP still requires a 5 or higher.

I agree that this is bad. I agree that this isn't what GW intended. I agree that nobody should play it this way. I agree that tourneys will say nothing less than an unmodified 4 will work. I agree that you shouldn't expect strangers to allow less than an unmodified 4 to work.

BUT...

Rules as Written are Rules as Written. This is likely a mistake and likely needs to be Errata'd or FAQ'd. I'm not trying to "pull a fast one" or "rules lawyer my way to a benefit". I'm trying to point out logical issues with GW's rule set... point out the flaws, so to speak. Ideally, this will be fixed in an FAQ/Errata sooner than later. My end goal is a well written and unambiguous rule set.

At best, the rules are ambiguous and confusing (as evidenced by this debate). At worst, they inadvertently allow a 2+ RP 'save'.

Hollismason wrote:
Dude that's the physical dice roll. Seriously that's what that literally says.

Dice Roll, if you roll anything but a 123 on a dice roll regardless of modifiers that fails because of the wording of that rule.

I honestly can't tell if people just aren't getting it or it needs to be explained more. It's clear as day that saying the Required Dice roll can never be better than a 4+, means that if you roll a 3 and you have +1 modifer and another +1 modifier it fails. Because you did not roll a 4+.

The 'required dice roll' is the target number that must be met or exceeded by the result of the physical dice roll. It is not the physical dice roll, but the number you compare the physical dice roll to in order to determine success or failure. Your trying to say if a target shooter got to move the target 50 yards closer to his shooting position its the same as him moving his shooting position 50 yards closer to the target. Its not the same thing.

Are you just ignoring this entire sentence?

Roll a D6 each time the model suffers an unsaved Wound, subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death special rule. On a 5+, discount the unsaved Wound – treat it as having been saved. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll ; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+.

I don't know how it can be any clearer. It is directly stating that the dice roll if it is worse than a 4, 5, or 6 cannot ever succeed regardless of modifiers to the actual dice roll.

Are you ignoring this?

Technomancer: This model and all models with the Reanimation Protocols special rule in his unit receive a +1 bonus to Reanimation Protocols rolls.

Technomancer doesn't modify the 'required dice roll', it modifies the actual physical roll.