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 wouldn't hold your breath on an answer as quite frankly who's ever going to take that as a warlord trait it's like one of the worst traits you could take even GW realise that it's sole purpose is page filler, hence why they didn't bother testing it as no-one is gona use it. While I get that GW need to get better at rules writing but given the massive list of more important things that they realy need to rewrite the rules for, distracting them with mistakes in rules no-one is using is not productive.

I was asking because I am considering taking the trait.

Thanks for playing.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I was asking because I am considering taking the trait.

Thanks for playing.

If your seeing enough S9 or higher firepower that makes it worth taking over sacristans, ion bulwark, landstrider. You havr the weirdest meta, as it says rolls of 1,2,3 fail. I would say it's apply at the same time as modifiers in the roll, reroll, modify, results sequencing. As it's modifying 2s & 3's to fails as one's always fail and it doesn't say that a 4+ would wound it just says a 2 or 3 would fail even if the S is higher than T.

It doesn't sound like a true modifier to me. A true modifier is something like -1 to whatever.
Since it's reroll a failed wound, I would say the 1-3 counts since it's not modified. It's more like a separate to wound chart, (use this instead of the normal to wound)

kaotkbliss wrote:
It doesn't sound like a true modifier to me. A true modifier is something like -1 to whatever.
Since it's reroll a failed wound, I would say the 1-3 counts since it's not modified. It's more like a separate to wound chart, (use this instead of the normal to wound)

So how do you know if a 4+ is a wound or not?

I guess I should have said that it replaces part of the standard wound chart then since you would follow the standard rules for anything outside the 1-3.

Where do the rules tell you to do this? Almost any ability that modifies a success/failure is done after the re-roll phase. Why do you think this is different (using a RAW/RAI argument please).

While you are certainly allowed to have your opinion, I'd like to see the rationale behind that conclusion.

Because it's not a modified roll. If it were, the rules would say + or -
They don't, they simply state 1-3 fails.

kaotkbliss wrote:
Because it's not a modified roll. If it were, the rules would say + or -
They don't, they simply state 1-3 fails.

Your using a very narrow definition of modifiers to a + or -.
I would say that it is a modifier as you still consult the to wound chart roll your dice and apply modifiers as for example tau can add 2 to wound rolls.
By your interpretation those benifits are useless as 123 fail and can't be modified to 3, 4 and 5's respectively.

kaotkbliss wrote:
Because it's not a modified roll. If it were, the rules would say + or -
They don't, they simply state 1-3 fails.

Not quite, the trait says a 1 ,2 or, 3 fail to wound even if the weapon has an S higher than the trait holder's T. It doesn't mention anything about numeric modifiers. So, RAW/RAI, how are you determining that you consult the trait before you consult the "To Wound" chart. What's the difference between a numeric modifier and a non-numeric modifier in terms of turning what would normally be a success into a failure? Both modify the effect of the roll they just do it through different means.

Exactly. It's telling you that instead of what a 1, 2 or 3 would normally do, they now fail.

Yes, that's what the trait does. The question is how do you "know" that you consult the trait before you consult the "To Wound" table in the BRB?

The timing makes a difference in terms of re-rolls. If you consult the trait first then if you roll a 3- then you would get to re-roll since the roll was a failure. However, if you consult the table first then (let's assume) a 3 is not be a failure and therefore you could not re-roll the die. Then you would turn to the trait and find that it was a failure.

Modifiers don't have to be numbers (although a vast majority are). A modifier may or may not change a game status such as making a success into a failure or turning what would be a failure into a success.

I assume it works the same way "natural fail" works...

for example a thunder hammer on a MEQ has -1 to hit and so 3's would miss, however because you re-roll before modifiers are used, you can not re-reoll the 3 due to that being a 'natural hit' (again before modifers)

if someone can explain how this warlord trait is not a modifier, I would gladly change my mind...

Bananarama wrote:
I assume it works the same way "natural fail" works...

for example a thunder hammer on a MEQ has -1 to hit and so 3's would miss, however because you re-roll before modifiers are used, you can not re-reoll the 3 due to that being a 'natural hit' (again before modifers)

if someone can explain how this warlord trait is not a modifier, I would gladly change my mind...

It's not a modifier because it doesn't add any + or - to the wound roll just a straight only is wounded at 4+.

Best case scenario imho it's sequencing since both apply at same time.

It doesn't modify the die roll but it does modify the result. There's no game definition of "modifier" in the BRB. So there's no RAW support for saying what is or is not a modifier for result purposes. In other words "modifier" isn't limited to a numeric form by the rules. It can also apply to anything that changes a result for the better or for the worse. It just so happens that most modifiers are numeric but that doesn't mean that's the only form a modifier can take.

It's not a modifier because nothing is added or subtracted or multiplied. Those are common modifiers.
And yes, there is no definition what a modifier is. Same with a six sided dice. It's not defined that the dice has to have 1-6 on its sides. But everyone knows it's supposed to be that way. Same with modifiers.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It doesn't modify the die roll but it does modify the result. There's no game definition of "modifier" in the BRB. So there's no RAW support for saying what is or is not a modifier for result purposes. In other words "modifier" isn't limited to a numeric form by the rules. It can also apply to anything that changes a result for the better or for the worse. It just so happens that most modifiers are numeric but that doesn't mean that's the only form a modifier can take.

but they are referring to the roll when it was asked if it was before or after modifiers. They don't mention the result, just the roll, so it would be looking at modifiers to the roll. As you aren't modifying the roll, you go by whether the result succeeded or failed.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm being dense but I don't understand what you're saying. Adamantium Knight doesn't say whether it refers to a result pre or post modification. So, what makes the rule say that it means that you can modify your result after consulting the trait?

Honestly, I think that this one needs clarification since it doesn't state when, in the timing rules, to apply warlord traits (or at least this one).

"Q: If a rule or ability grants a re-roll on,
for example, ‘hit rolls of 1’ (such as a
Space Marine Captain’s Rites of Battle
ability) does that effect trigger before or
after applying modifiers to the hit rolls?
A: Re-rolls always happen before modifiers,
so the re-roll ability is triggered before
applying modifiers."

The answer is referring to a question where they are specifically asking about modifying the hit roll. Adamantium Knight doesn't modify the hit roll. It modifies the result, but not the hit roll. As such, Adamantium Knight would apply when determining whether there was a reroll.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'm sorry, maybe I'm being dense but I don't understand what you're saying. Adamantium Knight doesn't say whether it refers to a result pre or post modification. So, what makes the rule say that it means that you can modify your result after consulting the trait?

Honestly, I think that this one needs clarification since it doesn't state when, in the timing rules, to apply warlord traits (or at least this one).

I already explained that it is after modifiers by default. If not it would say unmodified or before modifiers. Please check my post earlier in this thread.

Doctortom and p5freak please look at your answers and tell me how to reconcile them. You're each saying the other is wrong.

Honestly, we need GW to FAQ this since there are no guidelines in terms of timing and/or definitions in this situation.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Doctortom and p5freak please look at your answers and tell me how to reconcile them. You're each saying the other is wrong.

Honestly, we need GW to FAQ this since there are no guidelines in terms of timing and/or definitions in this situation.

There's no need to reconcile, and we're not saying that the other person is wrong. . We're not saying the other is wrong; both of us are saying that Adamantium Knight is not a modifier to the roll. p5greak's comments are referring to modifiers to the roll. When you roll the die, Adamantium Knight does not change the number on the roll. I showed the FAQ that clearly shows they were asking about modifiers to the roll. They're not asking about the result, so you're saying that Adamantium Knight modifies the result is irrelevant to what the FAQ is asking. Since Adamantium Knight does not modify the roll itself, it still applies. We are both trying to tell you that Adamantium Knight still applies.

Email them then instead of leaping on every reply in the thread.

 p5freak wrote:
The rule doesnt mention an unmodified roll of 1, 2 or 3. Therefore its after modifiers.

So you're saying that if someone rolls a 3 on his initial damage he can't reroll because the trait kicks in after all modifiers are applied. Doctortom is saying that you look to the trait before modifiers and if you roll a 3 then you can reroll it since it would be a failed to wound roll.

Seems to me that there's contrasting views on how this rule works.

@JohnnyHell- I can respond whenever and however I want to what people write in this thread, or any other thread (as long as it's within Dakka's rules). To your question even if I wrote GW and they responded unless they were to publish the answer there still would be no official ruling. I'm seeing if a consensus can be reached here on the boards.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
The rule doesnt mention an unmodified roll of 1, 2 or 3. Therefore its after modifiers.

So you're saying that if someone rolls a 3 on his initial damage he can't reroll because the trait kicks in after all modifiers are applied. Doctortom is saying that you look to the trait before modifiers and if you roll a 3 then you can reroll it since it would be a failed to wound roll.

Seems to me that there's contrasting views on how this rule works.

@JohnnyHell- I can respond whenever and however I want to what people write in this thread, or any other thread (as long as it's within Dakka's rules). To your question even if I wrote GW and they responded unless they were to publish the answer there still would be no official ruling. I'm seeing if a consensus can be reached here on the boards.

Well, why don't you address me directly on what I said instead of trying to play "let's you and him fight"?

p5 freak said "It's not a modifier because nothing is added or subtracted or multiplied. Those are common modifiers. " going by his saying that Adamantium Knight is not a modifier, you get to use Adamantium Knight, rolling a 3 would fail and you get a reroll.

I am saying that it is not a modeifier to the roll. Therefore you get to use Adamantium Knight, rolling a 3 would fail and you get a reroll.

We're both saying you get a reroll if you roll a 3.



Now, I gave you the quote of the question and the answer in the FAQ. The question clearly said "does that effect trigger before or
after applying modifiers to the hit rolls? "

Is Adamantium Knight a modifier to the hit roll? No. Does that mean that this FAQ question and answer applies to keep you from using Adamantium Knight for determining a reroll? No. That means you still use Adamantium Knight to determine if you have a failed roll.

Now, please address that directly.

I'm not trying to get anyone to fight with anyone else. I'm trying to get an answer to my question with the basis of that answer included.

I don't think that p5freak was saying that you get the reroll but I could be wrong. He seems to be saying that the trait is applied after modifiers and as such you wouldn't get a reroll.

To address your FAQ quote- I don't think that it is applicable to this trait. In fact I think you have it backwards. The FAQ addresses when you make a re-roll before or after modifiers. I agree that AK doesn't modify the die roll (numerically). With that aside what is the basis for you looking at the trait before modifiers to see if you have failed or not rather than after? Why wouldn't you do the normal thing of roll-consult "to wound chart"-pass/fail- reroll as allowed- consult chart again for pass/fail- consult special rule?

Basically my question boils down to how do you know, by RAW, when to consult this special rule? It could be as you say, before the reroll is determined or it could be after the reroll is determined. I can't find anyplace in the rules that says which is the correct sequence.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'm not trying to get anyone to fight with anyone else. I'm trying to get an answer to my question with the basis of that answer included.

I don't think that p5freak was saying that you get the reroll but I could be wrong. He seems to be saying that the trait is applied after modifiers and as such you wouldn't get a reroll.

To address your FAQ quote- I don't think that it is applicable to this trait. In fact I think you have it backwards. The FAQ addresses when you make a re-roll before or after modifiers. I agree that AK doesn't modify the die roll (numerically). With that aside what is the basis for you looking at the trait before modifiers to see if you have failed or not rather than after? Why wouldn't you do the normal thing of roll-consult "to wound chart"-pass/fail- reroll as allowed- consult chart again for pass/fail- consult special rule?

Basically my question boils down to how do you know, by RAW, when to consult this special rule? It could be as you say, before the reroll is determined or it could be after the reroll is determined. I can't find anyplace in the rules that says which is the correct sequence.

The FAQ asks about modifiers [b]to the die roll If something doesn't modify the die roll, then the question does not address it. You look at the trait to see if you failed, that gets applied before rerolls since it is not addressed in the FAQ. You don't get to claim that the FAQ stops you from applying the rule when it does not modify the die roll. By RAW you are not told to disregard the rule (since it is not a modifier to the die roll, so therefore by RAW the rule applies.) Where is your justification in trying to say that you don't get to apply a rule that you have when there is no rule by RAW that tells you to disregard the rule?

The trait may not modify the die roll but it does modify the definition of a successful wound. When you say that you look at the trait to see if you failed I have to ask why then and not after you have modified the die roll.

This is the normal steps taken when you try to wound something:
1)roll the dice;
2)consult the "to wound table";
3)if your roll equals or exceeds the value required then you have wounded your target. If it does not then you have failed;
4)If you have the ability to reroll failed to wound rolls and you have failed then reroll;
5)After the original roll or reroll apply numeric modifiers;
6)consult the table again to see if the final value equals or exceeds the requirement to wound;
7)if yes then roll damage, if no then go on to your next attack.

You say that you look at the trait at step 2 in my example. I would think that you would look at it at step 6. My reason for step 6 is that you don't make a final determination of failure/success until that step and the trait says that even if the weapon would normally cause a wound on a 2 or 3 it does not in this instance. So, I would say that you need a modified 4+ to succeed and cause a damage roll.

It all comes down to is the 4+ requirement a modified or unmodified weapon. You say unmodified, I (and p5freak) say modified but in all honesty since the rule itself isn't explicit there's no way to tell.

As a side note: I asked the person who runs events in my meta his opinion and he agrees with you. So I'll play it that way but I'm not sure that it is RAI.

It may modify the definition of a successful wound, but that is not modifying the die roll.

Adamantium Knight applies unless you have a rule for a specific situation to say that you can not use the rule. As the FAQ says only that modifiers to the die roll may not be applied, Adamantium Knight applies.

In the case of the steps you have lined out you are missing this fact. Adamantium Knight still applies. This means that it would be step 2.5, between step 2 and 3 - you must apply Adamantium Knight before determining a reroll since you have no instruction to say that you ignore it. So, your thought that you would not look at it until step 6 is incorrect. Step 6 would be for modifiers to the die roll, but that does not apply to other factors (like Adamantium Knight) which will apply to the result but not the die roll; those would have to be applied before determining if you succeeded or failed for purposed of determining if you get a reroll for a failed to-hit roll.

I don't see you citing any rules in your stance. As far as I can see the rules don't address when you apply the pass/fail modifier in the attack or wound sequence. This specific rule also doesn't give us a specific timing guideline (although p5freak thinks it does). My stance is no less logical than yours and neither of us has a rule to base our positions on.

I'll ask again do you have a rule or rules that says that you apply a non-numeric pass/fail modifier before you determine if a re-roll is appropriate?