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.

Ok, I was looking at the new quantum shielding rules and a review of the new generic c'tan rules and something just bit me and won't let go.

Both quantum shielding and the new c'tan have a rule that causes unmodified wound rolls of 3- to fail, and both say "Irrespective" of the weapon rules. To quote near as I can the quantum shielding rule said "a wound roll of 1-3 always fails,irrespective of any abilities the weapon or attacker may have had."

Ok, now I may be wrong but this seems to imply that abilities that reroll failed wounds or reroll 1's might not work with QS as the rule says the attack always fails irrespective of any abilities the weapon or attacker had. Would that mean the attack fails, that's it, no reroll, or does a rule that allows rerolls of failed wound rolls or just wound rolls of 1 can be rerolled?

The fact that QS rules (And some C'tan abilities) say that a wound roll of 1-3 always fails irrespective of any rules the attacker or weapon may have seems to mean, you roll a 1-3 and that's it, that attack does not wound and nothing can change that. Not "Wounds on a 2+" nothing. Since a reroll of a failed attack roll is a rule the attacker has it seems that might get shut down too.

I'm not sure how this goes. As a necron player I'd obviously like it if this was the way it goes, it makes our QS a little more unique and effective, and as for our C'tan, they're freakin' gods. But the fact that the QS rule says the attack fails to wound and many rules let you reroll failed wound rolls creates a question to me as the QS says "irrespective of any rule or ability the attacker or weapon has", which seems it just might cover rerolls too.

Now, if you need a 5+ to wound and you roll a 4 then yes, nothing in QS would stop that from being rerolled by a reroll rule as it only covers wound rolls of 1-3.

Yeah, I'm like

I hope this can remain a civil discusion.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Ok, I was looking at the new quantum shielding rules and a review of the new generic c'tan rules and something just bit me and won't let go.

Both quantum shielding and the new c'tan have a rule that causes unmodified wound rolls of 3- to fail, and both say "Irrespective" of the weapon rules. To quote near as I can the quantum shielding rule said "a wound roll of 1-3 always fails,irrespective of any abilities the weapon or attacker may have had."

Ok, now I may be wrong but this seems to imply that abilities that reroll failed wounds or reroll 1's might not work with QS as the rule says the attack always fails irrespective of any abilities the weapon or attacker had. Would that mean the attack fails, that's it, no reroll, or does a rule that allows rerolls of failed wound rolls or just wound rolls of 1 can be rerolled?

The fact that QS rules (And some C'tan abilities) say that a wound roll of 1-3 always fails irrespective of any rules the attacker or weapon may have seems to mean, you roll a 1-3 and that's it, that attack does not wound and nothing can change that. Not "Wounds on a 2+" nothing. Since a reroll of a failed attack roll is a rule the attacker has it seems that might get shut down too.

I'm not sure how this goes. As a necron player I'd obviously like it if this was the way it goes, it makes our QS a little more unique and effective, and as for our C'tan, they're freakin' gods. But the fact that the QS rule says the attack fails to wound and many rules let you reroll failed wound rolls creates a question to me as the QS says "irrespective of any rule or ability the attacker or weapon has", which seems it just might cover rerolls too.

Now, if you need a 5+ to wound and you roll a 4 then yes, nothing in QS would stop that from being rerolled by a reroll rule as it only covers wound rolls of 1-3.

Yeah, I'm like


I hope this can remain a civil discusion.

Its not the final roll until after rerolls.

Besides which the attacker wins when both have a rule for your 2+ rule question. Attacker's Priority Page 362. At least until there's a FAQ.

I hate to sound like a...lawyer but the QS rule is "a 1-3 always fails irrespective of any rules or abilities."

That sounds pretty definitive to me

 Matt Swain wrote:
I hate to sound like a...lawyer but the QS rule is "a 1-3 always fails irrespective of any rules or abilities."

That sounds pretty definitive to me

Thus why it may get FAQ'ed, but at present the BRB gives preference in "conflicting rules" to the attacker. They even have an example of a unit that always hits on 2's vs a unit that can only be hit on 6's. Page 362.

Breton wrote:
Its not the final roll until after rerolls.

This I agree with. We aren't told the attacker's abilities are nullified or anything, just that they have no bearing on the wound result of the target unit. The reroll abilities allow the rolling player to effectively ignore the original result and create a new one - they still have permission to do that, and that gives you a new result to check that 1-3 / 4-6 against.

Besides which the attacker wins when both have a rule for your 2+ rule question. Attacker's Priority Page 362. At least until there's a FAQ.

This, I'm not so sure. I see the reasoning, but unless the source of the 2+ rule has similar wording - "irrespective of any abilities" - then there isn't actually a conflict. The 1-3 Wound rule tells us to ignore this ability, so the ability must need some kind of defence against this in order for there to be a conflict.

Breton wrote:

Thus why it may get FAQ'ed, but at present the BRB gives preference in "conflicting rules" to the attacker. They even have an example of a unit that always hits on 2's vs a unit that can only be hit on 6's. Page 362.

Agreed, if the attacker always wounds on 2+, this would override the QS rule.

I don't see it as a conflicting rule. "Always wounds on a 2+" is a ability of a weapon. A rule that states "A roll of 1-3 always fails irrespective of any abilities that the weapon or model making the attack" would override the "Always wounds on a 2+."

Otherwise, why add the very specific line "irrespective of any abilities?"

If two irrespective rules met then I would think we would use the attacker priority.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I don't see it as a conflicting rule. "Always wounds on a 2+" is a ability of a weapon. A rule that states "A roll of 1-3 always fails irrespective of any abilities that the weapon or model making the attack" would override the "Always wounds on a 2+."

Otherwise, why add the very specific line "irrespective of any abilities?"

If two irrespective rules met then I would think we would use the attacker priority.

If there's no conflict there's no reason to add irrespective. If it says wounds on a 2+, and you say can't be wounded on a 2 or a 3, there's still a conflict. We're going to see a FAQ.

Breton wrote:
If there's no conflict there's no reason to add irrespective. If it says wounds on a 2+, and you say can't be wounded on a 2 or a 3, there's still a conflict.

I'm in agreement with Tango here - the fact that the 'irrespective' part exists, is what takes the conflict away. In essence it completely overrides the other rule, which has no answer back.
Without that line in there, the conflict is clear to see.

To add another argument - 99% of the time, wound rolls apply to attacks happening during the attacker's turn. Because of attacker priority on conflicts, if the 'irrespective' part is considered a conflict it would only apply during those odd edge cases when the attack happens during your own turn. Given that, what would be the point in adding a rule that does nothing in that 99% of cases? I find it very hard to believe that it being treated as a conflict is intended.

We're going to see a FAQ.

I hope so.

Breton wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I don't see it as a conflicting rule. "Always wounds on a 2+" is a ability of a weapon. A rule that states "A roll of 1-3 always fails irrespective of any abilities that the weapon or model making the attack" would override the "Always wounds on a 2+."

Otherwise, why add the very specific line "irrespective of any abilities?"

If two irrespective rules met then I would think we would use the attacker priority.

If there's no conflict there's no reason to add irrespective. If it says wounds on a 2+, and you say can't be wounded on a 2 or a 3, there's still a conflict. We're going to see a FAQ.

I suppose that there could be an FAQ, but I do not see a rules conflict in the sense of page 362 of the MRB. We do not have to invoke Attacker's Priority to resolve a conflict because the text in Transhuman Physiology or Quantum Shield resolves any conflict for the players. For example, "A roll of 1-3 always fails irrespective of any abilities" for Inner Circle/Transhuman Physiology trumps the ace of Belial's Sword of Silence always wounding on a 2+.

If Transhuman lacked the "irrespective of any abilities..." then we would have two rules in conflict (always wounds 2+ vs always fails on a 1-3) then there would be a conflict and Attacker's Priority would kick in. The writers, in this case, have saved us the trouble.

That's my read at 0600 hrs anyway!