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.

Hey everyone, I don't know if this is the correct place to put this, I have seen others put SW:A stuff under 40k, but if it is in the wrong place can a mod please relocate me to the correct place?

Anyways, I noticed a weird rule today while reading the rules for SW:A.

Under Characteristic tests, page 24 of the rule book- If a fighter must take a characteristic test, roll a D6. if the result is equal to or below the characteristic involved then the test is passed. If the result is higher than the characteristic then the test has been failed. A roll of 6 is always a fail, no matter the value of the characteristic being tested.

Leadership - leadership tests work in the exact same way except that the test is rolled using 2D6. The two scores are added together and compared to the fighters leadership value to see if the test is passed

So here is my question, because the leadership test is a characteristic check, does that mean that a cumulative roll of 6 on a a leadership check is a fail?

No. A 6 is only a fail on a d6 Characteristic test.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
No. A 6 is only a fail on a d6 Characteristic test.

What says that?

 gummyofallbears wrote:

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
No. A 6 is only a fail on a d6 Characteristic test.

What says that?

Common sense and years of experience dealing with GW. On a D6 test, a natural 6 is a fail. On a 2D6 test, 2 natural 6's, or 12, would be a fail.

Yes, you could try to argue that rolling a total 6 on 2D6 could be a fail from a rules as written perspective, but I think you'll find that nobody will actually want to play it that way. I can't imagine any tournament organizer agreeing with you.

This is a situation where the intent seems so straightforward that I question why you're asking.

I am not saying I agree, but I want to point out that the 6 failure is on 'A' roll of 'a' 6. So while you cannot really argue that adding to a 6 counts, you could argue that a single roll of a 6 among the 2D6 would be a failure.

Again, though, I think this it riduculus and we have to read between the lines. As Kriswall explained, if a D6 roll of a 6 is a failure, than a 2D6 roll would need to be two 6s, which is obviously a failure since no model can have a 12 LD.

 gummyofallbears wrote:

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
No. A 6 is only a fail on a d6 Characteristic test.

What says that?

Characteristic Tests and Leadership Tests are designated as two different things in General Principles of the 40K rulebook.

From Characteristic Tests:

A model will sometimes be called upon to take a characteristic test. Such a test can be applied against any characteristic that the model has, except for Leadership and Armour Save.

So any restrictions or qualifications for Leadership Tests would not follow Characteristic Test rules.

Going on from there, under Leadership Tests > Automatic Pass and Fail:

...
When rolling dice to take a Leadership test, a dice roll of 12 (a double 6) is always a failure, and a dice roll of 2 (a double 1) is always a success, regardless of any other modifiers that apply.

Do the SW:A rules not follow a similar format?

I basically laid out all the rules in the original post.

 gummyofallbears wrote:
I basically laid out all the rules in the original post.

I have seen many "basically laid out" rules miss key details, which is why I brought it up.

 gummyofallbears wrote:
I basically laid out all the rules in the original post.

Then what is your question since Charistoph cited the relevant rule?

Fragile wrote:

 gummyofallbears wrote:
I basically laid out all the rules in the original post.

Then what is your question since Charistoph cited the relevant rule?

Charistoph cited rules from an entirely different game and apparently hadn't bothered to read the OP's first post, which quotes the rules text in question. I would imagine that the OP's question remains the same as it did in the first post.

The answer then would obviously be that they forgot to copy/paste the relevant part of the 40k rules over to SW:A

 Kriswall wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 gummyofallbears wrote:
I basically laid out all the rules in the original post.

Then what is your question since Charistoph cited the relevant rule?

Charistoph cited rules from an entirely different game and apparently hadn't bothered to read the OP's first post, which quotes the rules text in question. I would imagine that the OP's question remains the same as it did in the first post.

Don't be rude. I did read it. You apparently didn't read my whole response, either.

I pointed out the 40K rulebook instead of calling it the BRB.

I also asked if the SW:A rules followed the same format because the exceptions I quoted were not in the normal place of looking for them nor in the same spot as the version of the 40K rules has what was quoted for SW:A.

And as I stated later, sometimes people quote part of the rules, but miss looking for the answer to their question in another place they didn't think to look at.