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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Also, I've been playing it as intended, as does literally every person in my group, and every person at both major tournaments I've been to this year. So, I'm safe to say I'm playing correctly.

No, you haven't. You've been playing it explicitly wrong. What you're saying is like saying "We've done modifiers before re-rolls, because that is intended and we're right!"

I'm playing it literally like every other person on the planet dude.

Enjoy this troll op, because I'm not convinced that is what you're doing.

 Togusa wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Also, I've been playing it as intended, as does literally every person in my group, and every person at both major tournaments I've been to this year. So, I'm safe to say I'm playing correctly.

No, you haven't. You've been playing it explicitly wrong. What you're saying is like saying "We've done modifiers before re-rolls, because that is intended and we're right!"

I'm playing it literally like every other person on the planet dude.

Enjoy this troll op, because I'm not convinced that is what you're doing.

Well we can prove you wrong right there, because I don't play it that way. Ergo you do are not "playing it literally like every other person on the planet dude".

Can you explain to me how you are getting that the save is changing when the rule explicitly says to modify the roll? If I am hit with an AP-5 weapon, and I roll a 3, what result is the roll modified to?

 Togusa wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
I hit you with an AP-5 weapon, what do you need to roll to survive the wound?

A 1+ on a D6-5. Again you seem to think that AP modifies the characteristc when it doesn't.

Saving Throw: The player commanding the target unit then makes a saving throw by rolling a dice and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration characteristic of the weapon that caused the damage. For example, if the weapon has an Armour Penetration of -1, then 1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll.

NO, My god dude, you are 100% wrong. You must roll a 6 to pass. Are you trolling?

He's 100% right. You need to end with a 1 on a d6-5. AP modifies the saving throw roll. You are not allowed to go below a 1, ergo, a 2-6 ends with you having a roll of 1.

Togusa, I'm perfectly willing to agree that, in a game, I would play it the same as a 2+ save, negating the first point of AP. (So 2+ against AP0 or -1, 3+ against AP-2, etc.)

But that's NOT RAW. The RAW here might've been ambiguous, but it was clarified in an FAQ to work this way.

Yes, they were talking about hit rolls and not saves, but as BCB points out, the wording is literally the same.

So unless you want to claim that the exact same words mean different things when referring to a characteristic test... You're playing against RAW.

Togusa, you are doing it wrong when it comes to AP. The modifier reduces the rolled result, and is not an increase to the save. Granted, that is a shorthand way of playing that most people use, but it is not correct per RAW. This example shows why using the shorthand method does not always work out the same as to how the rules actually are written.

 Togusa wrote:


So they have the same language, that doesn't prove they are the same thing. You are reaching here.

No, he's not reaching at all. They have the same language. The FAQ question he quoted directly addressed the language being used, and GW there stated that only natural 1's would fail. The "roll of 1 irrespective of modifiers" means an unmodified 1.Anything using the same language would therefore have the same interpretation. That's not a reach at all, that is merely consistency.

 Togusa wrote:
Also, I've been playing it as intended, as does literally every person in my group, and every person at both major tournaments I've been to this year. So, I'm safe to say I'm playing correctly.

Not if you're playing contradictory to how the FAQ tells us to play it. Unmodified 1 = 1 irrespective of modifiers. A roll modified to a 1 is not irrespective of modifiers.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacksmiles wrote:
Rolls can't end below 1. Since the armor save is 1+, nothing can fail. Except for the guaranteed failure of an irrespective-of-modifiers 1. Ergo, 5/6 chance to save.

I hit you with an AP-5 weapon, what do you need to roll to survive the wound?

Except it doesn’t say anywhere an unmodified 1 is the only auto fail. A 1 irrespective of modifiers is a different thing. Yes it is an ambiguous term but of the two possible interpretations of the term one works and one doesn’t. So it’s pretty clear which one to use. The one that works.

No one had shown that that is what the worms means. I’ve seen this cat bug character on here lambast people for using an FAQ answer for a different thing to explain their point. But when it suits he is here preaching it like gospel.

People going through trying to find loopholes and trying to undermine the rules at every turn is ridiculous. It makes this part of the forum a toxic rather than helpful space. I’m not sure who this kind of discussion is trying to benefit. It seems much more of an ego stroke for those who think they are smarter than the rules writers rather than a useful discussion on a genuine rules problem.

And cat bug man if you genuinely play like you say you do then I’m very glad I will never play you. But I doubt you do. The game doesn’t work if you think like you do as your sig says.

Except there's an FAQ that explains they meant natural 1s.

Edit: Not to mention, if it works the way you say, A 1+ save is identical to a 2+.

Andykp wrote:
Except it doesn’t say anywhere an unmodified 1 is the only auto fail. A 1 irrespective of modifiers is a different thing. Yes it is an ambiguous term but of the two possible interpretations of the term one works and one doesn’t. So it’s pretty clear which one to use. The one that works.

No one had shown that that is what the worms means. I’ve seen this cat bug character on here lambast people for using an FAQ answer for a different thing to explain their point. But when it suits he is here preaching it like gospel.

People going through trying to find loopholes and trying to undermine the rules at every turn is ridiculous. It makes this part of the forum a toxic rather than helpful space. I’m not sure who this kind of discussion is trying to benefit. It seems much more of an ego stroke for those who think they are smarter than the rules writers rather than a useful discussion on a genuine rules problem.

And cat bug man if you genuinely play like you say you do then I’m very glad I will never play you. But I doubt you do. The game doesn’t work if you think like you do as your sig says.

Not liking how a rule works doesn't change how it works.

Andykp wrote:
Except it doesn’t say anywhere an unmodified 1 is the only auto fail. A 1 irrespective of modifiers is a different thing. Yes it is an ambiguous term but of the two possible interpretations of the term one works and one doesn’t. So it’s pretty clear which one to use. The one that works.

The interpretation presented in this thread works with no logical inconsistencies. It's just unintuitive to what most people would expect and want. Besides, what's wrong with admitting there's a wacky rule interaction and then emailing GW about it? An FAQ for Orks will drop in 2 weeks, otherwise we need to wait till march, so get on it (or tell someone else to get on it). GW might FAQ it or straight up errata the offending rule.

Besides, "irrespective" is pretty cut and dry to me: it means you ignore something, in this case we ignore modifiers to determine if a roll is a 1. And the FAQ clarified that "irrespective of modifiers" = "unmodified", which is how they were able to answer the question posed.

Andykp wrote:
Except it doesn’t say anywhere an unmodified 1 is the only auto fail. A 1 irrespective of modifiers is a different thing. Yes it is an ambiguous term but of the two possible interpretations of the term one works and one doesn’t. So it’s pretty clear which one to use. The one that works.

Both the more natural interpretation and a GW faq agree with BCB and disagree with you. Nothing about meganobs saving on a 2 to 6 in all instances breaks the game.

No one had shown that that is what the worms means. I’ve seen this cat bug character on here lambast people for using an FAQ answer for a different thing to explain their point. But when it suits he is here preaching it like gospel.

Its not just him using the précédent. Those of us who use precedent consistently (and frequently disagree with BCB) agree here.

People going through trying to find loopholes and trying to undermine the rules at every turn is ridiculous. It makes this part of the forum a toxic rather than helpful space. I’m not sure who this kind of discussion is trying to benefit. It seems much more of an ego stroke for those who think they are smarter than the rules writers rather than a useful discussion on a genuine rules problem.

It's a fun intellectual exercise and in some cases (like this one) finds things I would definitely allow my opponents to use and even tell them about.

And cat bug man if you genuinely play like you say you do then I’m very glad I will never play you. But I doubt you do. The game doesn’t work if you think like you do as your sig says.

Personally I find BCB abrasive and frequently very rude, I also strongly disagree with some of the language he uses (as I find it childish and demeaning) and his interpretations of aspects of RAW. I'm sure he could say similar of me or others, I see no reason to think he's disingenuous though. He's very consistent in manner and it seems churlish to call him a liar. I for one would be surprised to learn of him having a lack of personal integrity, other traits set aside.

Why does everyone equate "How it's played" (RAW), with "How I would play it" (RAI)?

We're not discussing if it's fluffly, fun, or even intentional - we're discussing if it, as per all known available rules and documents, functions as we think it might.

And it does.

BCB laid out a logical argument, cited his sources, and found out; that regardless of how "you think it should work", that the actual "how it works", is completely different.

C'mon guys.

We know the rules aren't supposed to work this way, and no one is saying that they should - but that's not the point. We know that they ARE written this way, and that's what's being discussed.

You're right, the rules aren't SUPPOSED to work this way. They only work this way due to a Special Snowflake FAQ in the Designers Commentary.

That being said, Special Snowflake FAQs are part and parcel of how the game works (while I dislike it, it's not for me to decide). Therefore if we're going to follow GWs rules as "intended" we have to actually use them even if they create issues. The only ones who can fix this are GW, and due to the bizarre issues their FAQs have caused and are apparently "intended", we have no way of knowing if this also bizarre issue is "intended" or not.

As such, the only fair way to do things is to follow the rules as laid out by GW until such time as there is a rule change, one way or another.

My sincere hope is that GW change the stratagem to say "to a maximum of 3+" because I personally don't want to face 2++ Ghaz. But until then, rules are rules and I'll just have to avoid blowing up Ork vehicles next to Mega-Armoured dudes for now.

 Togusa wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
I hit you with an AP-5 weapon, what do you need to roll to survive the wound?

A 1+ on a D6-5. Again you seem to think that AP modifies the characteristc when it doesn't.

Saving Throw: The player commanding the target unit then makes a saving throw by rolling a dice and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration characteristic of the weapon that caused the damage. For example, if the weapon has an Armour Penetration of -1, then 1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll.

NO, My god dude, you are 100% wrong. You must roll a 6 to pass. Are you trolling?

How it works is pretty simple:

Say I have to save 4 wounds with my 1+ save, im in cover (+1 to save ROLL) and ap -3 (meaning -3 to the ROLL)

I roll a 1, 2 3 and a 6
This four results are the rolls IRRESPECTIVE OF MODIFIERS, so that 1 (irrespective of modifiers) becomes an auto fail, and so a wound
After this step you then apply modifiers (-3+1=-2) so 3-2=1, 6-2=4 and 2-2=0 BUT as for the errata the minimum is 1 so...
Now I have two 1s and a 4 AFTER MODIFIERS
Then I compare this rolls with my save wich is a 1+, is 1 less than a 1+? No, so those 1s pass, is 4 less than a 1+? No, so the 4 passes too.
End result: 1 wound got though

Your logic works on 2+ saves or worse, when you get to the 1+ save or better is where it fails, the way you see it has the same result as the rules ONLY in some chases, and therefor the two ways are not equivalent and so your way is wrong (because its not what the rulebook says).

 Togusa wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
I hit you with an AP-5 weapon, what do you need to roll to survive the wound?

A 1+ on a D6-5. Again you seem to think that AP modifies the characteristc when it doesn't.

Saving Throw: The player commanding the target unit then makes a saving throw by rolling a dice and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration characteristic of the weapon that caused the damage. For example, if the weapon has an Armour Penetration of -1, then 1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll.

NO, My god dude, you are 100% wrong. You must roll a 6 to pass. Are you trolling?

Not according to the RULES.

Roll a 3. Subtract 5 from THE ROLL because AP-5. That's a -2 (3-5 = -2...you get that, right?) All negative values are converted, magically, to a +1. Because of the THE RULES.

The meganob has a +1 save characteristic, because of THE RULES.

To pass a save, you only need to match your save characteristic. Because of....you know.

It's not hard to roll a 1 or greater when everything automagics itself to a 1. You get that, right? A 2+ save means you need a modified roll of 2 or better. A 1+ save means all you need is a 1...which for the meganob is nice because everything less than 1 becomes magically1. Because of MAGIC RULES. You get that, right?

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

JimOnMars, you would be 100% correct if the Designers' Commentary didn't include:

Q: Can a dice roll ever be modified to less than 1?
A: No. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.

 alextroy wrote:
JimOnMars, you would be 100% correct if the Designers' Commentary didn't include:

Q: Can a dice roll ever be modified to less than 1?
A: No. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.

It's kind of central to his argument:

It's not hard to roll a 1 or greater when everything automagics itself to a 1.

Dandelion wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
JimOnMars, you would be 100% correct if the Designers' Commentary didn't include:

Q: Can a dice roll ever be modified to less than 1?
A: No. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.

It's kind of central to his argument:

It's not hard to roll a 1 or greater when everything automagics itself to a 1.

Technically it's BCB's argument, but yeah, that's the whole point. 1+ save with a modified 1 = win for meganobs.

Hang on a moment, wouldn't this also apply to any units with a 2+ that are in cover?

This argument is so ridiculous. It will NEVER ever fly in a tourney and too douchey to do in a friendly game so... again: Good luck having an opponent
(A) Agree amiably.
(B) Not thinking you're TFG.
(C) Actually being TFG.
Choose 2.

Given the context of the Succubus FaQ, it could very well be that GW does not mean "modified 1s aren't an automatic fail" but merely that "in this specific example (-1 To Hit modifier) the modified 1 wouldn't be a failure".

Ignoring that though, if they did infact mean "modified 1s aren't an automatic fail" then that would mean this sort of situation already existed for the Succubus's Hit Rolls if you had enough -1 to Hit modifiers that worked in melee stacked on them.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Hang on a moment, wouldn't this also apply to any units with a 2+ that are in cover?

Yes.... (See my post above)

 doktor_g wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Hang on a moment, wouldn't this also apply to any units with a 2+ that are in cover?

Yes.... (See my post above)

No. 1d6+1, needing a 2+, is not the same as 1d6, needing a 1+.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Hang on a moment, wouldn't this also apply to any units with a 2+ that are in cover?

This has been covered already multiple times. No, this doesn't apply to a 2+ unit in cover because cover modifies the dice roll, not the save characteristic. A 2+ unit in cover has a 2+ save on D6+1, that's not the same as a 1+ save on D6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Given the context of the Succubus FaQ, it could very well be that GW does not mean "modified 1s aren't an automatic fail" but merely that "in this specific example (-1 To Hit modifier) the modified 1 wouldn't be a failure".

Ignoring that though, if they did infact mean "modified 1s aren't an automatic fail" then that would mean this sort of situation already existed for the Succubus's Hit Rolls if you had enough -1 to Hit modifiers that worked in melee stacked on them.

Yes, that is correct also. Again, all caused by GW not bothering to write rules properly and making Special Snowflake FAQs that break more than they fix. Also the rules for To Hit are word for word identical for those of Saving Throw. Since the DE FAQ is confirming RaW and not ignoring it, it HAS to apply to Saving Throws because it's word for word identical.

This thread has reached that point where we who accept that the op is right know that we are right and are just trying to make people understand it but they are either incapable of understanding a simple rules interaction, trolling or just so stubborn that wont admit they are wrong
Plus those who jump here but dont read the whole 4 pages and so they repeat things that have already been answered.

So I would say just let this tread die, any TO that understands how a rule should be read and objectively applied will agree with the virtual 2++. We just have to wait a couple of weeks and see the faq

 Grotsnik1 wrote:
This thread has reached that point where we who accept that the op is right know that we are right and are just trying to make people understand it but they are either incapable of understanding a simple rules interaction, trolling or just so stubborn that wont admit they are wrong
Plus those who jump here but dont read the whole 4 pages and so they repeat things that have already been answered.

So I would say just let this tread die, any TO that understands how a rule should be read and objectively applied will agree with the virtual 2++. We just have to wait a couple of weeks and see the faq

I think people are just doing a bit of an eyeroll knowing this will get FAQd in a week, so the whole thing is moot.

The problem with this whole stupid thing is that GW can't write rules to save their asses.

And yes, this works on Gazzy too.

Like I said, I'm not sure what all the contention is about. An effective 2++ Save is good, but it ain't gonna be something that'll swing victory that much. It's neither impossible to beat, nor is it hard to counter in the first place. Why some people think that everything would consider it to be a grievous breach of the rules, or too strong, is beyond me.

I do sort of hope that the inevitable FAQ is more intelligent about it. Rather than removing 1+ hits/wounds/saves all GW needs to do is slightly change their response to exclude modified 1s from the result being 0 or less.

Of course, capping it at a 2+ is simpler all round, but it would kinda suck if they make the stratagem mostly/completely useless for Mega Nobz but keep the interaction with the Succubus (or suddenly change the interaction with the Succubus completely after however many months it's been to make that drug not overly useful) .

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I do sort of hope that the inevitable FAQ is more intelligent about it. Rather than removing 1+ hits/wounds/saves all GW needs to do is slightly change their response to exclude modified 1s from the result being 0 or less.

Of course, capping it at a 2+ is simpler all round, but it would kinda suck if they make the stratagem mostly/completely useless for Mega Nobz but keep the interaction with the Succubus (or suddenly change the interaction with the Succubus completely after however many months it's been to make that drug not overly useful) .

The "correct" fix (in my opinion of course) is to properly errata all those effects that happen on a result of 1 like plasma to either be on a "1 or less" (if they want to keep nighttime exploding plasma) or "an unmodified roll of 1", so even if you have -4 to hit and are rolling negatives, you still take the damage/slain etc on a natural 1.

Or just make BS, WS and Sv cap at 2+. That works too.

So basically keep this interaction the exact same and change everything else to be inline with it? Not sure if that'd be for the best as it really isn't intuitive that a 1+ save suddenly makes you only fail on natural 1s regardless of modifiers.
But that is another option, just not my preferred one.