Switch Theme:

Adamantium Knight rule  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




Under this rule a to wound roll of 1,2 or, 3 always fails. Since this is not a modifier I assume that you would be able to re-roll the to wound die if you rolled any of those numbers. Or, would you not get a reroll if you roll a 2 or 3 since they would normally wound?
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Under this rule a to wound roll of 1,2 or, 3 always fails. Since this is not a modifier I assume that you would be able to re-roll the to wound die if you rolled any of those numbers. Or, would you not get a reroll if you roll a 2 or 3 since they would normally wound?
In short, we don't have enough information to know for sure. Both arguments have merit.

One: You use the normal rules for deciding whether you get to re-roll or not, so if your S>T you can't re-roll 3's, etc.
Two: You use the WLT's rules for deciding whether you get to re-roll or not, so if your S>T you can re-roll 3's, etc.

But everyone, give GW some leeway here, they're a new upstart company, they've only have four decades to get this stuff right!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/17 15:34:53


 
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

The AK rule says that a wound roll of 1, 2 or 3 always fails. If you can re-roll failed wounds and you roll a 1, 2 or 3 against an adamantium knight, then yes you can re-roll it.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Under this rule a to wound roll of 1,2 or, 3 always fails. Since this is not a modifier I assume that you would be able to re-roll the to wound die if you rolled any of those numbers. Or, would you not get a reroll if you roll a 2 or 3 since they would normally wound?
In short, we don't have enough information to know for sure. Both arguments have merit.

One: You use the normal rules for deciding whether you get to re-roll or not, so if your S>T you can't re-roll 3's, etc.
Two: You use the WLT's rules for deciding whether you get to re-roll or not, so if your S>T you can re-roll 3's, etc.

But everyone, give GW some leeway here, they're a new upstart company, they've only have four decades to get this stuff right!


Completely disagree there isn’t enough info.

We’re told 1-3 always fails. If you’re allowed to reroll fails in this instance you can reroll results of 1-3, as they are fails. No more to it than that. It isn’t a modifier.
   
Made in ca
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant






Are we talking about a random boltgun, or a guy with buffs or what?
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




Weapons with S9+. No other weapons matter since they will only wound with 4's or better normally.

BCB does have a point. We don't know when the warlord trait kicks in. Is it before or after modifiers? There's no timing sequence to tell us. Most traits modify die rolls but this one doesn't so it's unclear whether a Lascannon (which normally needs a 3+ to wound) would get a reroll on a 3 or not.
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 JohnnyHell wrote:

Completely disagree there isn’t enough info.

We’re told 1-3 always fails. If you’re allowed to reroll fails in this instance you can reroll results of 1-3, as they are fails. No more to it than that. It isn’t a modifier.

Yep, seems clear enough to me.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Crimson wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:

Completely disagree there isn’t enough info.

We’re told 1-3 always fails. If you’re allowed to reroll fails in this instance you can reroll results of 1-3, as they are fails. No more to it than that. It isn’t a modifier.

Yep, seems clear enough to me.
By that logic you can't ever re-roll, because that means you might not fail.
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




So tell me at which point to do determine when you have failed? If I normally need a 3 to wound and roll a 3 that would normally be a success. However, I then go to the warlord trait and discover that that is a failure. How is this different from when I have a -1 modifier that I apply only after I have an opportunity to reroll? The RaW doesn't say when the trait is applied. In one aspect you are correct in that it may just set a new target number. But, in another way it may only be referred to after all modifiers. IMHO there's no way to tell which is correct.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/17 23:45:53


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
So tell me at which point to do determine when you have failed? If I normally need a 3 to wound and roll a 3 that would normally be a success. However, I then go to the warlord trait and discover that that is a failure. How is this different from when I have a -1 modifier that I apply only after I have an opportunity to reroll? The RaW doesn't say when the trait is applied. In one aspect you are correct in that it may just set a new target number. But, in another way it may only be referred to after all modifiers. IMHO there's no way to tell which is correct.


The trait tells you the conditions of a failed roll, specifically telling you to override the normal conditions for success. So if a 1-3 is now a fail, and you roll a 3, you may re-roll it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:

Completely disagree there isn’t enough info.

We’re told 1-3 always fails. If you’re allowed to reroll fails in this instance you can reroll results of 1-3, as they are fails. No more to it than that. It isn’t a modifier.

Yep, seems clear enough to me.
By that logic you can't ever re-roll, because that means you might not fail.


That isn’t the same logic at all.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 08:09:44


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

The rule doesnt mention an unmodified roll of 1, 2 or 3. Therefore its after modifiers.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Sure, make a roll and modify it if you’re able, but there’s no “normally a 3 would wound so I can’t reroll” because we’re expressly told what the result needed is, and it’s independent of S/T.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 09:27:45


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 p5freak wrote:
The rule doesnt mention an unmodified roll of 1, 2 or 3. Therefore its after modifiers.
The rule doesn't mention a modified roll of 1, 2, or 3. Therefore it is before modifiers.
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
The rule doesnt mention an unmodified roll of 1, 2 or 3. Therefore its after modifiers.
The rule doesn't mention a modified roll of 1, 2, or 3. Therefore it is before modifiers.


A wound roll or hit roll is after re-rolls and modifiers by default.


Q: If a rule states that an ability triggers
on, for example, ‘hit rolls of 6+’, does this
refer to the result of the dice rolls before
or after modifiers are applied?
A: It refers to the final result, after re-rolls
and modifiers (if any) have been applied.
The only exception to this would be abilities
that specifically state, for example, ‘unmodified
hit rolls of 6’, or ‘hit rolls of 6 before modifiers
are applied.’


Its specifically stated if it would be unmodified or before modifiers. That is not the case, so its 1, 2 or 3 after re-rolls and modifiers.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 p5freak wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
The rule doesnt mention an unmodified roll of 1, 2 or 3. Therefore its after modifiers.
The rule doesn't mention a modified roll of 1, 2, or 3. Therefore it is before modifiers.


A wound roll or hit roll is after re-rolls and modifiers by default.


Q: If a rule states that an ability triggers
on, for example, ‘hit rolls of 6+’, does this
refer to the result of the dice rolls before
or after modifiers are applied?
A: It refers to the final result, after re-rolls
and modifiers (if any) have been applied.
The only exception to this would be abilities
that specifically state, for example, ‘unmodified
hit rolls of 6’, or ‘hit rolls of 6 before modifiers
are applied.’


Its specifically stated if it would be unmodified or before modifiers. That is not the case, so its 1, 2 or 3 after re-rolls and modifiers.


Agreed. It would have to specify without modifiers if that was the intent. Thought our resident RAW guy would have picked that up. Too busy with the orkmoticons...

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






A fair point. I apologise.

Given that FAQ (it's almost like needing more FAQs than rules is a bad thing for people to remember it all), I think that you would indeed take the initial result of the dice, and if it's a 1, 2 or 3 get to re-roll it (because that result, before modifiers, is a fail), and then modify the re-rolled result, if any.

I still wish it was worded a bit better to clarify that it did do that, and I expect GW sometime in in the 2130s to issue an FAQ to that effect.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 09:50:18


 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




Sorry to bring this back up again but I've been out of touch. Is the conclusion reached that if an initial roll of "3" is made and it would normally wound can it be re-rolled as a "failed" roll? Or is it that it can't be re-rolled due to it not being a failure until after modifiers have been applied?
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Yes, as 3 is spelt out to be a fail, replacing usual fail criteria.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 JohnnyHell wrote:
Yes, as 3 is spelt out to be a fail, replacing usual fail criteria.
Actually, there hasn't been a consensus since GW have not amended their FAQs since the thread was started. Please don't give answers that appear concrete when you know they aren't. It's disingenuous and unhelpful. That is how it should (and appears) to work, but it's not 100% clear.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/27 11:52:51


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Yes, as 3 is spelt out to be a fail, replacing usual fail criteria.
Actually, there hasn't been a consensus since GW have not amended their FAQs since the thread was started. Please don't give answers that appear concrete when you know they aren't. It's disingenuous and unhelpful. That is how it should (and appears) to work, but it's not 100% clear.


Disingenuous is claiming my answer is categorically incorrect without having something to back up your “oh noes it is unclear” view.

I stand by my answer, as I did when first posted and today. We have all the info we need to make this decision. Please don’t be disingenuous and say I’m being disingenuous. ;-)

- “can reroll fails”
- 1,2,3 are specifically noted to be fails
- rolls a 3 - we know this is a fail so it can be rerolled

If you’d like to explain how this is unclear instead of attacking my character I’ll discuss rules. If you’re back to your old ways stick me back on ignore, would you?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/27 12:07:04


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




I guess my question would be why would you consult a secondary rule (Ad Knight) before consulting the primary rule (the to wound chart)?

It seems to me that the trait could be treated just like any other modifier. That would be roll die. Look at to wound table. Would the number rolled be a success or failure? Re-roll as appropriate then consult final roll. Check against wound table again. Then apply the (AK) rule.

What would make a trait that doesn't give a modifier priority over one that does (regarding when to consult the primary charts)? For example if a warlord trait gives you a -1 to be hit why wouldn't it be looked at before you consult the to hit chart rather than with all other modifiers? I know that one is a modifier to the die roll but, it seems to me, that the AK rule would be a modifier to the to wound chart just stated in words rather than in numbers.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/27 12:31:45


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

We’re not discussing hypothetical to hit rolls. We’re discussing a specific to wound interaction. Changing the example may change the answer.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




All right brass tacks. Do you consult the warlord ability before or after modifiers and what is the basis for your answer?
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

No need to insult me for staying on topic... changing the example in an age of bespoke rules is literally futile if you’re trying to shed light on a different situation. Wind your neck in.

I’ve stated my rationale twice above, clearly.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




I wasn't trying to be insulting or even offensive. I truly can not tell what the consensus is regarding this rule and no one seems to be stating how that consensus came to be.

So I ask again, is the warlord trait consulted before or after modifiers and why?
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Apologies dude. Must have been touchy last night!

You can’t consult against criteria you aren’t using. The usual S v T odds of success are changed by the Adamantium rule. Even if a 3 would normally wound were told it’s a fail, so it’s a fail, and a ‘reroll fails’ can be used.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




Fair enough. I guess my stance is that you consult the charts in the BRB before you apply special rules. For example: You roll your dice. Then you consult the chart (either "To Hit" or "To Wound) to see it the roll is a success or a failure. If it is a success stop and consult any special rules that would change its status to a failure (like cover or having moved). If it is a failure and you have the ability to re-roll failures then re-roll consult the chart again and then go to special rules for the final result.

What you are saying is that the Warlord trait replaces the "To Wound" table in determining whether the roll is a success or failure. What I am asking is why doesn't the trait kick in after consulting the table rather than before? All the other special rules come after why is this one different? I tend to think that the trait should be looked at after all the rolls have been make and you have arrived at a final number. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong but I'd like to see something (either RAW or RAI) that says to do it your way over what I think.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

I dunno. I guess there are two valid takes and until there’s an FAQ there'll be no definitive answer and pages of circular ‘discussion’, as usual!

(Although, I am consulting the regular Svs T first to get usual odds of wounding, but the 1-3=nope is not a modifier, it replaces chances of success. If I was gonna BCB it I might say that means 4+ is success for all weapons!)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/28 13:39:42


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




Nope, not even BCB could claim that. All the trait says is that a "to wound" roll of 3- always fails even if the S of the weapon is greater than the T of the subject.. There is no implication that a 4+ always wounds just that a 2 or 3 never wounds (regardless of weapon strength).
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






I find it funny because I have no idea what I couldn't claim because all I see is Leo posting five times in a row.

Leo is right in that saying a 3 always fail doesn't automatically imply the reverse of a 4+ always wounding. The best thing to do is to bring this up pre-game since GW will take months to clarify this, if they ever do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/28 14:44:08


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: