Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Okay, so I have a unit of Inquisitorial Henchman including one Jokaero. On deployment, I roll on the Ingenuity table and get a 6. I roll two more times.
a) Let's say I roll any result from 1-5 for the first new roll, and a 6 for the second one. Obviously I keep the first dice's result, but do I then get another two rolls on the table because of the 6 (ignoring any duplicates of the first result of course)? Or, do I count the initial 6, outside of the current set of rolls, for the duplicate business and thus ignore the 6?
b) Let's say I roll two 6s. Obviously one of those 6s is ignored via the duplicate roll, but do I get to actualize the other 6? Or is it ignored as well for the above reason (ie. it counts as a duplicate of the initial 6, outside the current set of rolls)?
I'm leaning toward the first options on each of these cases, but I wouldn't presume to know for sure. What are our thoughts?
Since you rolled a 6 the first time, you ignore your second roll. So, the answer to both is, under no circumstance can you have more than two upgrades.
Right, so what happens in scenario b) then? The more specific your answer, the better.
It's ignored. A bonus roll rolls a 6. You stilled rolled a 6, so nothing happens.
So, if you roll a six, and then go on to use both die and roll 2 more sixes, you get nothing, because you ignore duplicate results.
Look at it this way. You roll, and consult the chart. Put a little checkmark next to it. That unit can never use that result again. It's a wasted roll.
Edit: The rules are pretty clear, it even says "Ignore further rolls of 6" or something to that extent.
Sorry, I'm not dumb.Put a little checkmark next to it.Not at all. AndThe rules are pretty clear, it even says "Ignore further rolls of 6" or something to that extent.Not really. The FAQ only clarified what happens when you can't roll anything but a 6. The codex states merely states that duplicates should be ignored, but not the the extent to which the term duplicate applies. Obviously, the intent was that if you rolled two ones or two twos or whatever, you'd just get one power and that would be that, but what the intended effect was regarding double 6's was not clear. Like I said, whether the initial six is counted for the purposes of categorizing "duplicate" results is hard to infer one way or another. If there was precedent for this sort of situation (which I doubt) then all would be well, but there isn't so feh. Anyway, I'll anticipate most people will count the initial 6 for all the duplicate business in future games. Thanks.I'm sure that this was covered to some extent in the FAQs for Grey Knights.
We're trying to be helpful, and explaining it, and you're being aggressive and obtuse. I didn't think you were dumb at all, and was trying to explain it another way.
Don't ask for rules help if you're going to attack people. You're going to find very quickly that nobody will help you if you do.
"Ignore Duplicate Results (Including duplicate rolls of 6)"
If you roll a 6 again, it's a duplicate because you already rolled a 6 to get your two bonus rolls. It doesnt matter that it's a duplicate on a bonus roll. It's a duplicate. It's a blanket statement. They specifically mention rolls of 6 to cover this situation, even though it's clear without it.
Last edited by cKerensky; October 16th, 2011 at 23:47.
Pardon? I'm being neither obtuse nor rude. Direct, yes, and unafraid to point out that I felt patronised, yes. That is not aggressive, merely straight with facts and perceptions. Have I insulted you personally? Have I been rude to you, or impolite? Have I attacked you, really? Keep this about rules.
Of course you are trying to be helpful, I have no doubt about that, nor (contrary to your assumption) do I have problem with you personally, but you clearly missed the issue in a frankly bizarre way. Who doesn't understand basic re-rolls, or how to navigate typical results tables? Not only should you have inferred that I understood thes concepts from the OP, but it's a pretty strange set of thing to assume about a person commenting in the manner I did in an arena like this in general. Do I sound like a noob?Three (sort-of) words: RAW vs. RAI. People have refused to take hard lines and wait for an official GW verdict on rule wordings less ambiguous than this one. Caution regarding such a wording, in spite of it's base meaning, is sensible.If you roll a 6 again, it's a duplicate because you already rolled a 6 to get your two bonus rolls. It doesnt matter that it's a duplicate on a bonus roll. It's a duplicate. It's a blanket statement. They specifically mention rolls of 6 to cover this situation, even though it's clear without it.
And besides, didn't I say I'll just accept that most people will count any of the new 6s as duplicates of the initial one anyway? Reiterating your argument serves little purpose, when there is neither an issue in verdict, a misunderstanding to be dealt with or a point to be made. Thanks again.
Last edited by Accountant13B; October 17th, 2011 at 00:15. Reason: typos, didn;t finish a sentence
"It takes a vast amount of self control to be this dangerous."
---Ogvai Ogvai Helmshrot, Jarl of Tra, VI Legion Astartes
Well, yes; my query lay more on the nature of why GW would use such a hard, blanket term, when it would result in a 6, followed by two 6s, imparting no benefit. It just struck me as odd that GW would consciously let something so strange occur as a result, and so I questioned the interpretation of the rules. GW is often unclear, I must reiterate, and the intent of fiddly rules such as this are oft removed from the actual writing of them. Thanks again