Question about reserves.

[Paradox]

I think we have all quite clearly established it's not stated one way or another. Either view has it's argument "extrapolate" on the actual written rules because it's not specifically defined.

One arguement is that the modifiers stack to the point of automatic success. The rules don't say this is the case, or state that it is not.

The other stipulates that only turn 5 has automatic arrival of anything left in reserve, and that as stated "unit *must* roll a dice in order to test to see if they can come on at the beginning of the movment phase. Agreed, this does not state that a "one is always a fail", but neither does it point out that dice rolls can become a moot point prior to turn 5 because of modifiers. (Once agin just to put my position forward, i think rolls must be done for all turn bar 5 - 2+ is the best you can get - purely my opinion, and yes it's debatable)

Whether you want to run with modifiers stacking or with +2 being the best roll you can make, unless GW make a offical ruling one way or another, the arguements are as sound as each other.

Comes down to either giving your opponent the benfit of the doubt (because really, we are splitting the difference between rolling +2 compared with automatic success, different, but really how different) or agreeing to disagree and just rolling off on it at the start of a game. +4 on a die gives one ruling over another for the duration of the game and you can dicuss it further over a beer (or six) after the game.

I don't think it gets fairer than that (until and FAQ answer :P)

[SeattleDV8]

You can house rule it to play that way , but thats all it is...a house rule.
I wouldn't have a problem playing it that way if someone asked for it.
It doesn't need a FAQ because you gents are making rules up.
There is no blanket 'a one is always a failure' rule.

[BuFFo]

There is no blanket 'a one is always a failure' rule.

Yup.

There is no such blanket rule.

The only blanket rule I can remember is that you can never reroll a reroll.

[Fizyx]

well as i said its just an opinion, but i've always treated modifiers in this way

when rolling for leadership, a double 6 always fails, when rolling for anything lower than a 2+, a roll of 1 always fails. and when rolling 2D6 for a 2+, a double 1 always fails.

and as i mentioned before, turn 5 is the only turn in which "reserves AUTOMATICALLY enter" ie the only turn in which they are given the overiding rule that allows them to ignore the reserve roll. the modifier is to the die and not to the turn number. so you still have to roll for reserves on turns 2, 3 and 4.

obviously your debate is whether a modifier can modify a dice to better than a 2+.

my answer is no, because thats always a chance of failure. your answer is yes, because the rules don't say it is so. on the face of it because the letter of the rules is so, you guys have it. but in the spirit of the game, i still think mine holds more ground, as its always assumed a roll of 1 is a failure (in nearly all wargames) - regardless that GW removed this overiding rule from its rulebook.

we'll just have to agree to respectively disagree

If you hit a A10 vehicle with a S10 weapon, does a roll of 1 fail to penetrate?

There are plenty of situations where either a roll is unnecessary or a roll of a 1 does not fail. Adding +1 to reserve rolls clearly advances the reserve roll chart by one round, and +2 advances by two rounds. Now, for instance, the Tau Positional Relay still fails on a roll of a 1 because the rule for it says so.

[Pil]

If you hit a A10 vehicle with a S10 weapon, does a roll of 1 fail to penetrate?

There are plenty of situations where either a roll is unnecessary or a roll of a 1 does not fail. Adding +1 to reserve rolls clearly advances the reserve roll chart by one round, and +2 advances by two rounds. Now, for instance, the Tau Positional Relay still fails on a roll of a 1 because the rule for it says so.

That is a very good point. Also you come in round 2 on a 4+, 3 on a 3+, 4 on a 2+. When you reach round 5 it would be a 1+ if you had to still roll for it, but it makes no since to roll something you can not fail so maybe they just thought it made more since to say you come in automatically rather then say you come in on a 1+. Writing it to say "on round 5 you enter on a roll of 1+." really?

[tjkopena]

Whether you want to run with modifiers stacking or with +2 being the best roll you can make, unless GW make a offical ruling one way or another, the arguements are as sound as each other.

That's creating an equivalency where there is none. Only the argument that they would effectively automatically come in is supported by the rules. Everything else proposed in this thread is a house rule. Not unreasonable ones perhaps, but still house rules.

The actual rules are very clear: You need a 3+ to come in, you've got a +2 bonus, you roll the die; no matter what you get, the unit passes and it comes in. You're not automatically entering in the same sense as an automatic hit or that sort of thing, you just can't fail the die roll.

The discussion about automatically entering on the 5th turn is irrelevant---you're taking the test for the earlier turns here, you're just always passing it... Also, as noted several times, there's absolutely no notion of a 1-auto failing, and in fact there are cases where the rules specifically state the opposite (e.g., characteristic tests).

[UltramarineFan]

my understanding (and this is entirely opinion)

is that the +1 modifier is to the dice roll, not the turn number.

and remember the golden rule - a roll of 1 always fails

so a +2 modifier works like this:

turn 2, would normally need a 5+. you can roll a 3 (or higher), +2 to 5 (or higher) and pass

turn 3, would normally need a 4+. you can roll a 2 (or higher), +2 to 4 (or higher) and pass

turn 4, would normally need a 3+. you can roll a 1 (or higher), +2 to 3 (or higher) and pass, but keeping in mind a 1 always fails, so you are still required to roll a 2 (or higher)

Turn 5, reserves come in automatically.

so the modifier has no effect on whether you require to roll or not, you always are required to roll until turn 5(excepting turn 1), because there is a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 1, which always fails.

As others have said there is no blanket rule for 1s always failing and your table is wrong anyway. You come in on a 4+ on turn 2.

[Paradox]

Upon the further reflection (and a nights rest) i think the people supporting the "auto" are correct.

I still do believe that the rule could be much clearer, as it still isn't cut and dry as nowhere does it state that getting to a +1 in game is automatic success. Drawing comparisons between the reserves roll and shoot AV 10 with str 10 weapons is a good example, but it's still not water tight. However it is a good enough example to show that it is possible that what the games designers have in mind given there is some form of precident.

Although I really though the line "must roll a die" suggested to me that you should have a chance of failure, besides the progression anyone can see, the wording does suggest there isn' anything special about the turn 5 other than it's at the end of the progression (obviously chosen as the end specifically to make sure that anything late arrives, ie, they counted backwards from turn 5 when making sure you had some hope of stuff rocking up during game).

It's still looking into rules and thinking "i think this is what they are getting at" and that being said if anyone can shed new light on something we passed over or provide new clauses we missed that would be good, but yes, I think auto is correct.

Thanks to those who (calmly, rationally) belted out the answer. Chances are this sort of thing is like a name of someone you never heard of before - now you know about it, it'll turn up at every game or tournament you come across!

Cheers

[TSINI]

yep, i agree with all the counter arguments, and the pointings to my mistakes

regardless my gaming group play this way, and i'm sure my local comps do too.

but then we're a bunch of old hats who've played through countless other game-systems etc so maybe we're all working from "generally accepted" wargame standards which "GW only" players wouldnt. either way, it's characterful and suits the game, so i see no reason to rock the boat.

[Paradox]

Change of direction -

I do see that there is a good reason for holding the turn five as Automatic over +1.

I was flicking through the guard codex (admittedly to look at the wording on the rule for astropath +1 to reserves) and remembered that guard have access to master of the fleet (-1 to enemy reserves). At least turn five where it is labelled "automatic" avoids having a player have the possibility of having some of their unt not arrive at all!

Anyway, just cause I saw it :P

Cheers