|
|
Post by knoffles on Feb 27, 2020 6:15:38 GMT
Gents, I’m pretty sure a roll of a 1 is always a fail but something came up on the FB group around this and a few of us couldn’t find a section that might state a natural roll of a 1 is always a fail. Admittedly the instances are rare it would happen but the sample is when you were rolling to wound on a 2 and that might be modifiered by the fire spell flaming sword.
To clarify this a bit. If you look at both the shooting ‘roll to hit’ section (pg 40) and the combat one (pg 50), the BRB states that ‘a to hit roll of 1 on a D6, always fails, regardless of the dice modifiers’ (shooting section) and in the combat section it is says: sometimes modifiers apply to these rolls but a natural dice roll of 6 always hits and a natural dice roll of 1 always missies.
That’s clear enough.
For saving throws, you get the same clarity. On pg 43 under section 5. Saving throws, it says that ‘a roll of 1 is always a failure’ and although the combat section doesn’t specifically state the same, it refers back to the shooting section.
So again that’s fine.
The to wound sections do not mention that a 1 is always a fail. I’ve never known anyone who ever plays it another way (and never will) but can anyone help locate something in the book that can show this?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Feb 27, 2020 7:43:44 GMT
Shooting:
“4. ROLL TO WOUND”
Last sentence:
“...successfully scored a wound! A To Wound roll of a 1 on a D6 always fails, regardless of any dice modifiers.”
Remember nothing for 6s always wounds.
Close combat:
ROLL TO WOUND
Last sentence:
“A To Wound roll of a 1 on a D6 always fails, regardless of any dice modifiers.”
And the same
Remember nothing for 6s always wounds.
My book has errata included if sentence differs from printed copy(Apple book store).
|
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Feb 27, 2020 7:55:02 GMT
Cheers bud and and sods law I just found it in the errata too. Thanks for the comment on the online version of the brb as that explains the variance
|
|
|
|
Post by rahotep75 on Feb 27, 2020 18:11:52 GMT
To add to the possible confusion, there is precedence from the Skaven FAQ:
Q: Does Queek’s “Trophy Heads” special rule mean that he could
automatically wound an enemy (because he needs a 2+ and receives a
+1 modifier to the dice)? (p72)
A: Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Feb 27, 2020 22:24:48 GMT
The first Skaven Official Update Version (OUV) of July 2010 already contained this FAQ. In line with this FAQ, the BRB OUV added its own FAQ in May 2011:
Q: Does a To Wound roll of a 1 always fail to Wound? (p42, 51)
A: No. Though it is very rare for a model to be able to Wound on a 1+.
This FAQ, however, was deleted by the BRB OUV of April 2013, and replaced by the erratum quoted above. However, it seems GW forgot to delete the contradictory FAQ in the Skaven OUV.
|
|
|
|
Post by tileag on Feb 27, 2020 22:30:53 GMT
Werent these FAQs done by different groups as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Feb 27, 2020 23:13:36 GMT
No idea. I should perhaps point out that there is a difference between an erratum and an FAQ. Errata are corrections to the rules, i.e. they ARE rules. FAQ are GW interpretations of the rules, or in GW's words:
"FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation."
So, the hierarchy is: Errata>BRB>FAQ. An FAQ that contradicts the Errata or BRB should be ignored.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Feb 28, 2020 8:51:14 GMT
I also should add that the rule was already present in the BRB, but in a side note, not the main text:
BRB p. 42: "If your Strength is higher still, you need a 2+ (1s always fail, after all)."
The problem was that it was a side note, and did not specify "regardless of any modifiers." The Queek FAQ was seen as a precedent, and, as we have seen, it was later backed up by the BRB FAQ. Since the erratum, however, the matter is definitely settled.
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Feb 28, 2020 11:02:48 GMT
Not sure how you come with that conclusion.
Reading that text I would say
Errata->FAQ->BrB
As the faq trumps with official way to read the brb.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Feb 28, 2020 12:00:14 GMT
No. FAQ can never trump the BRB - they can only elucidate it. As GW itself says: "FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways....while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation."
So, in areas where the rules are genuinely unclear, and/or can be interpreted in different ways, the FAQ should be followed as the official interpretation. However, there have been ample cases where the actual rules are clear enough and playable, but were flatly contradicted by FAQ. In these cases, the BRB rule remains the rule, and the FAQ should be ignored (unless the players themselves agree not to). To change the rules, they need to issue an erratum.
In other words: if there are grey areas, the FAQ can say "it is actually white," or "it is actually black." However, if the BRB says "it is white," and "white" is playable, then an FAQ cannot say "it is actually black" - for that they need an erratum.
Although I rather should have included the ABs, since their FAQ are more prone to it than the BRB's (remember conferring steadfast?). So:
Errata>BRB/AB>FAQ.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Feb 28, 2020 12:41:13 GMT
For a very poignant example:
Ogre Kingdoms Official Update Version 1.0, p. 1:
Page 62 – Greedy Fist, second paragraph.
Change the last sentence to “In addition, an enemy Wizard loses a Wizard level and a randomly selected spell each time they are hit in close combat by an Ogre wearing the Greedy Fist.”
Ogre Kingdoms Official Update Version 1.0, p. 2:
Q: If a Wizard is hit by a ranged attack from the bearer of the Greedy Fist, does it lose a Wizard Level? (p62)
A: Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Feb 28, 2020 14:32:43 GMT
This is your opinion not anything written. I would say the opposite: "official interpretation” is a clear guideline on how the rules should be read even it they mess it up.
Not read and follow if you think it comply.
I have not been in any official gw rules group though, but not following official faq seems more wrong. Until new faq.
Can you give me an example when an official gw tourney that went against an official gw faq, saying it was wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Feb 28, 2020 15:05:26 GMT
How is it not anything written? I have quoted it already two times.
"FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation."
Whar is true for the Errata is true for the BRB as such, since the Errata become the new text of the BRB. The FAQ are not "the hard and fast rules text," and, in consequence, if they blatantly contradict it, they are null and void.
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Feb 28, 2020 15:14:25 GMT
Because your opinion is all the pretty words trying to define what it means. You might be right or maybe not. For me the last sentence does not say that or the intro to the last faqs: 1.9 sep 2014 This update is split into two sections: Errata and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the book while the Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules. Although you can mark corrections in your rulebook, this is by no means necessary – just keep a copy of the update with your rulebook. FAQ are answers on how to read the rules until later says other. No where does it say follow if correct or ignore if not, that is your opinion/interpretation. You are of course allowed to play how you want, yada yada  |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Feb 28, 2020 15:27:37 GMT
Can you give me an example when an official gw tourney that went against an official gw faq, saying it was wrong? As far as I can tell, the GW tournaments rules just said something to the extent that "The Warhammer Fantasy Battles 8th Edition Rules and all relevant Games Workshop Errata and FAQs will be used." They did not publish a special list to deal with known problems, like the ETC. In past rules discussions, people have tried to claim that a rule must be read in a certain way, because "it was played like that in official GW tournaments." After inspection, it always turned out that they actually mean that a TM made an ad hoc decision, whenever a problem arose duriing a game. Of course, the task of the TM is - quite rightly - to expedite the game, not to go into a detailed rules discussion and give a definitive ruling. So, GW tournaments have little bearing on the actual rules. |
|
