How many Sevitors to autofix? Updated 19/Mar/13

[march10k]

So...a rule allowing autowounding in WFB pertains to 40k....how?  Followed by the usual RAW argument....  ~facepalm~

 

/edit/

 

Seriously....we throw out the fact that in pretty much every D6 roll, a 1 is specified to autofail as evidence that the game designer's intent here is that a 1 should fail, but unfortunately, this particular D6 roll isn't specifically mentioned in the BGB.  So you say "but in WFB, there's one exception, therefore this MUST also be an exception."  Really?  That exception had to be expressly articulated by GW.  If they are silent, as they are on this matter, the smart money goes with the prevailing trend...which is:

 

1.  If you want high results, as in shooting, then the lowest possible result auto-fails.

 

2.  If you want low results, as in leadership tests, then the lowest possible result auto-succeeds.

 

To violate either of these norms, you need a ruling in black and white from GW.  When they say nothing, default to the norm.  You don't get to say "well, there's no rule stating that red paint doesn't make marines faster, and we know that it's true of orks, so my blood angels have M7." (assuming that there was a known M value for marines, but none specified in C:BA)

 

Until and unless GW specifies that a 4+ or better bonus on the repair roll means automatic success, natural ones always fail...like they do throughout the game system in D6 rolls where higher numbers are better.

[Avon Rekaes]

Except in armor penetration rolls, you mean. Lascannons glance Rhinos on pen rolls of 1 (you don't autofail). Or charge distance rolls, as was also pointed out (Rolling snake eyes on charge distance doesn't stop you from charging units up to 2" away. You still get your charge. No autofail.)

 

Your assumption that the auto-fail/pass rule broadly applies to all rolls is just that, an assumption.

[cypherthefallenangel]

So...a rule allowing autowounding in WFB pertains to 40k....how?  Followed by the usual RAW argument....  ~facepalm~

 

/edit/

 

Seriously....we throw out the fact that in pretty much every D6 roll, a 1 is specified to autofail as evidence that the game designer's intent here is that a 1 should fail, but unfortunately, this particular D6 roll isn't specifically mentioned in the BGB.  So you say "but in WFB, there's one exception, therefore this MUST also be an exception."  Really?  That exception had to be expressly articulated by GW.  If they are silent, as they are on this matter, the smart money goes with the prevailing trend...which is:

 

1.  If you want high results, as in shooting, then the lowest possible result auto-fails.

 

2.  If you want low results, as in leadership tests, then the lowest possible result auto-succeeds.

 

To violate either of these norms, you need a ruling in black and white from GW.  When they say nothing, default to the norm.  You don't get to say "well, there's no rule stating that red paint doesn't make marines faster, and we know that it's true of orks, so my blood angels have M7." (assuming that there was a known M value for marines, but none specified in C:BA)

 

Until and unless GW specifies that a 4+ or better bonus on the repair roll means automatic success, natural ones always fail...like they do throughout the game system in D6 rolls where higher numbers are better.

You need to read the 6th ed BRB. . Ive gone through the BRB several times looking fo any thing to say a 1 is an auto fail. Yup nothing this time either. Why don't you quote an example because ive found nothing in there to support your argument. Again just cause you dont like it, that don't make it wrong.

This is basic math.

d6+ modifiers>/= 5

[Brother Immolator]

If red makes it go faster, given the psichic field / belief / whatever the Orks have, when they face Blood Angels do the Blood Angels run faster too (fluff wise)?

EDIT: Yes they do, thats why they have those lucifer engines

EDIT2: What will happen if we paint the golden throne red?

[WatchCaptainAzrael]

EDIT2: What will happen if we paint the golden throne red?

It would stop being called the golden throne. Oh, and the painter would receive a colonoscopy from a Custodes.

[Brother Immolator]

 

EDIT2: What will happen if we paint the golden throne red?

It would stop being called the golden throne. Oh, and the painter would receive a colonoscopy from a Custodes.

You are getting more and more colourful with each post brother.... :D

[Aromir]

Dear march10k 

 

You my good man, is an Old Fart and please don't take offense of this, I say it with the utmost respect.

I can be a bit of old fart some times as well.

You probably don’t feel like an Old Fart (I know I don’t), but that doesn’t make it

any less the case. The big problem here is that most of us have played this
game for too long and gotten use to everything being a certain way and changes
to game have been so gradual that we don’t always notice them.

 

While you may indeed be right that this game was founded on the principle that 1s is
an automatic failure and 6s is an automatic success, the current rulebook has
no mention of this rule (except in specific cases) and there is no uniform way
to treat a roll of 1d6.

 

I find it pretty funny that you use Shooting as an example, because here a roll

of 1 is not automatic failure. True if you have a BS of 5, a roll of 1 is a failure,
but if you have a BS of 6, a roll of a 1 is only a failure if it is followed by
a roll 5 or less and so on. Most notably this rule is specific to shooting (6^th
ed. Rulebook page 13) and only applies here.

 

Your other example of Leadership tests isn’t really straight forward either. While

it is true that rolls of double 1 is an automatic success here, as specified in
the rulebook (page 7); there is no mention of double 6 being an automatic
failure. In fact rolls of 11 and 12 are only considered automatic and failures
due the rule about no stats being higher than 10 and leadership tests can still
be automatically passed through Fearless (page 35) and similar special rules.

 

The only place the 1s fail and 6s succeed rule is specifically mentioned in this

part of the rulebook (the introduction to the general rules) is on page 7, in a
subsection of the rules about characteristic test. The rules here are quite
specific and there is no indication that this rule should apply to anything
else. In fact it is worth noting that the rule doesn’t apply to rolls to wound,
that even though they are characteristic based rolls, isn’t actually a characteristic
test. Here a roll of 1 is an automatic failure, but a roll of 6 is not
automatic success.

 

I could go on and on. Rolls to penetrate and Rolls to hit in CC are two other

examples of ways to handle Success and Failure criteria when rolling 1d6 and I am
sure there are even more.

My point should be pretty clear though, there are no general rules concerning success
and failure when rolling. In fact it seems like GW have gone out of their way
to ensure that each roll should be handled in a different manner.

 

In the specific case, we are clearly talking about a modified dice roll as

described on page 5 of the rulebook, in this section there is no mention of the
automatic failure/success rule so it clearly doesn’t apply.

 

If we had been dealing been dealing with Characteristic test, even a modified one,

the rule would clearly have applied. But I don’t see any way we can consider
this a characteristic test.

 

Things change… it is one of the plagues of growing old. 

[Chaplain Lucifer]

This is getting pretty unpleasant and starts to look like dead horse beating and one side can't convince the other... Agree to disagree and move on. The winner of this discussion won't get a trophy so there is no need to this increasing hostility. What matters is not other people do on the internet, it's what your own gaming group do. And while here we may have a clear and correct answer for this question, it's not worth to keep the argument for argument sake. The thread is pretty informative and people will be able to make their own judgement.. those that won't or can't will have to keep playing as they will.

[march10k]

 

You need to read the 6th ed BRB. . Ive gone through the BRB several times looking fo any thing to say a 1 is an auto fail. Yup nothing this time either. Why don't you quote an example because ive found nothing in there to support your argument. Again just cause you dont like it, that don't make it wrong.

This is basic math.

d6+ modifiers>/= 5

 

Just one?  When you roll a one to wound, you always fail.  Quod Erat Demonstrandum.  Anyway, Luci's right...I'm done here.

[Brother Immolator]

Luci? lol

[cypherthefallenangel]

how about page 5, 6th ed BRB ” modified dice rolls”.

[Brother Landrain]

I retract my objection. Cypherthefallenangel is correct, the 1s/6s only apply to characteristic tests. In hindsight, this makes perfect sense, or Lasguns would be able to harm Wraithlords. Silly me.

 

As it is, there is no way to argue against Techmarines getting an automatic pass result.

 

So I guess a 1 auto-fails to hit when having a BS of 8 ?....

 

Oh, wait, it doesn't...

 

If a one would auto-fail on the Techmarine btest, it would say so in the description... such as... "remember, a roll of 1 always fails." which is clearly NOT in the text.