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.

I just thought of a weird dilemma that will inevitably come up at some point and just wanted to get opinions. What happens when you have a unit that always hits on a set number regardless of modifiers, and they target a unit that can only be hit on a set number regardless of modifiers?

Case-in-point, Dark Reapers shooting Alaitoc Rangers using their stratagem. One always hits on 3+ and one is only hit on a 6+. Both specifically saying regardless of modifiers.

I think it might come down to 'The Most Important Rule' on page 180 of the rulebook:

If no single solution presents itself, you and your opponent should roll off, and whoever rolls highest gets to choose what happens

Personally, I think the Rangers rule should supercede the Dark Reapers on the fact that you have to spend a resource to use it. I know there isn't really any RAW to support that idea, but that's my take on the balance aspect of it.

Most Important Rule kicks in and you have to roll off or otherwise decide.

The Dark Reapers FAQ would seem to be precedent in this situation.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/745451.page

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Dark Reapers FAQ would seem to be precedent in this situation.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/745451.page

Not necessarily... The reason stated there is that the culexus ability doesn't say 'hits on a 6+', it says they treat their BS as 6+. The Dark Reaper ability ignores BS.

If the Alaitoc ability is as the OP stated 'only hit on 6+' then this is a different circumstance as to that covered in the FAQ

Stux wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Dark Reapers FAQ would seem to be precedent in this situation.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/745451.page

Not necessarily... The reason stated there is that the culexus ability doesn't say 'hits on a 6+', it says they treat their BS as 6+. The Dark Reaper ability ignores BS.

If the Alaitoc ability is as the OP stated 'only hit on 6+' then this is a different circumstance as to that covered in the FAQ

Agreed, the Dark Reaper FAQ has literally less than zero relevance here. As has already been pointed out, the Most Important Rule is the only way to resolve the situation baring any further clarification from GW.

Hoodwink wrote:
Personally, I think the Rangers rule should supersede the Dark Reapers on the fact that you have to spend a resource to use it. I know there isn't really any RAW to support that idea, but that's my take on the balance aspect of it.

I don't have my rule book in hand, but aren't flamer type weapons "always hits"? in that case would the Alaitoc trait contest that as well? Or potentially lead to a roll of for those of you suggesting that?

It doesnt matter if your BS is set to 6+ like the culexus does, or the unit only gets hit on 6+ like the alaitoc rangers do. Flamers always hit.

Right, the Flamer hits without rolling dice.

The case with the Dark Reapers is they always hit on a certain value... but rangers are only hit on a certain value... and they're different values.

Two interesting situations:

Flamers as mentioned auto hit as a normal rule, but does a stratagem change the normal rule?

Going from auto hitting to only hitting on a six?

Also- rangers can’t be hit during overwatch by nonflamer weapons.

Their cloaks make them -1 to hit and overwatch only hits on 6’s unless they are facing Dire Avengers who overwatch on a 5+.

Overwatch is always a 6 To Hit, irrespective of the firing model's BS or any modifier.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Two interesting situations:

Flamers as mentioned auto hit as a normal rule, but does a stratagem change the normal rule?

Going from auto hitting to only hitting on a six?

Also- rangers can’t be hit during overwatch by nonflamer weapons.

Their cloaks make them -1 to hit and overwatch only hits on 6’s unless they are facing Dire Avengers who overwatch on a 5+.

Actually with the flamers we have same rules interaction for overwatch. "always hits" and "hits only on natural 6+", and in that case "always hits" wins. So I guess it would be the same for his case?

If one rule states that Dark Reapers hit on a 3+ against a model which normally is only struck on a 6+, you can guarantee that other similar rules will have the same ruling.

Flamers would still automatically hit the said unit as well. Flamers are likewise never impacted by any to-hit modifier as they automatically hit which skips any shooting roll completely (thus it cannot be modified).

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Stux wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Dark Reapers FAQ would seem to be precedent in this situation.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/745451.page

Not necessarily... The reason stated there is that the culexus ability doesn't say 'hits on a 6+', it says they treat their BS as 6+. The Dark Reaper ability ignores BS.

If the Alaitoc ability is as the OP stated 'only hit on 6+' then this is a different circumstance as to that covered in the FAQ

Agreed, the Dark Reaper FAQ has literally less than zero relevance here. As has already been pointed out, the Most Important Rule is the only way to resolve the situation baring any further clarification from GW.

I know you hate me but saying my post has "less than zero relevance" is your usual dismissive nonsense.

Both rules do the same thing, functionally. The wording being different has no bearing because as we know, consistency isn't GW's strongpoint. Both rules functionally make you hit on a 6+ only, no? So I believe it is relevant, YMMV.

The Most Important Rule isn't the only solution, unless you're intractable and refuse to accept other solutions exist. It's entirely possible to decide to rule this using the FAQ linked as guidance. Saying otherwise is disingenuous... you can disagree it's the solution you prefer, but it is a logical solution using existing guidance as precedent.