Archaon Crown of Domination Question

[Vextol]

Long time reader, first time poster.

I know archaon can reduce battleshock by 2 (not “up to 2”) so on units like plague bearers and bloodletters who regenerate models on battleshock tests of “1” , straight rules would indicate that a 1 or a 3 regenerate models.

My question:

Based on the FAQ, page 4, (abilities that trigger on a roll of 6 can be read as abilities that trigger on a roll of 6 or more) can it be extrapolated that abilities that trigger on a roll of 1 trigger on a roll of 1 or less?

I always found it extremely strange that Archaon is the only model I could find that is worded the way he is.  

Thanks!

[heywoah_twitch]

RAW, the ability only works on a 1, not a zero and not -1. However I think extrapolating 6 or more to work for 1 or less is fair RAI.

This is a good candidate for future FAQ.

[Squirrelmaster]

Hmm… daemon icons are a bit odd — by strict RAW you could argue they can never trigger without some additional special rule, since you add the number of casualties you've suffered that turn to the roll and only test if you've taken at least one.

I mean, you could argue that the icon triggers after other modifiers, but before adding the number of casualties, but personally I'd play it safe and apply the icon before any modifiers, only triggering on a "natural" 1.

[Vextol]

Interesting...

The rules say “...if you roll a 1 when making a battleshock test...”

And battleshock says “...roll a dice and add the number of models from the unit that have been slain this turn.  For each point by which the total exceeds the highest bravery characteristic in the unit....”

Looking at the wording for “+1 to X” characteristics (like an amber battlemage for wounds) the wording always refers to adding values to the die roll, never a “total”.  

The wording for battleshock seems to be intentionally different than the wording for other die modifiers.  Additionaly, Archaon’s ability speaks ‘specifically’ to the die roll.  Not the result.

I think it’s safe to say that for the icons, battleshock turn order would go like this:

 you roll a die

get a 1, 2, or 3

archaon adjusts the roll downward

 add D6 models

add losses to initial 1 roll

flee with any models that exceed bravery.

I find it hard to believe there would be several different units that have abilities that almost never get to go off (plague bearers, plague drones, bloodletters, bloodcrushers, demonettes, etc). 

[Vextol]

One more point:

My primary reason for thinking that models return on a 1 or less is that archaon’s ability could be detrimental to your own guys if not looked at this way.  

Say you lose 13 bloodletters.  If you roll a 1, you’d actually be better off NOT lowering your die roll because you will lose, on average, 0.5 additional models.  If archaon lowers your die roll by 2, and the wording isn’t interpreted as “a roll of 1 or lower” you’ll lose 2 guys.  Actually, at ANY casualty level, rolling a 1 is better than using archaons ability.  

Seems dumb to me.  He’s like, the coolest, baddest, most hardcore guy in existence.  He has a crown that can bolster his forces or cause great fear into those who look upon him!  But...I rolled a 1, so...better not.

[Squirrelmaster]

Well, sure, Archaon's ability can be detrimental to your own guys — he can add or subtract 2 from any test. That means he can add 2 to your own test, causing two extra models to flee.

Just because you have the option to use the ability in a way that is detrimental, does not mean that the ability works differently so as to be not detrimental.

On the other hand, I'm advocating "the icon triggers on a natural 1 whether you apply Archaon's ability or not", which I guess would render that argument moot.

[Vextol]

Obviously you could increase the battleshock to your own detriment. That was never on the table.  But the intent of reducing battleshock by 2 is to help your own army.

I vehemently disagree that it happens only on a natural 1.   At worst, it would happen on a 1 or 3.  Archaon can reduce the “die roll” by 2.  Thus-3 is a 1.  1 regenerates guys.  

 There are a ton of abilities that would not work if these types of rolls had to be “natural”.  Starseer’s curse of fates and lord castellant both have abilities that indicate that some effects can and DO take place after modifiers have occurred.  Curse of fates even uses the same terminology.  To the starseers point, what’s the point of being able to adjust a charge roll by 1 if whether a charge is successful is determined first?

I was mostly just curious if players played that 2s also worked based on the FAQ. 

[BaldoBeardo]

I'm in the 'natural 1, before modifiers' camp.

Principally because by definition it's impossible to get a result of 1 in a battleshock test *without* negative modifiers - which are pretty rare - which would make the ability a little pointless as a main mechanic.

[Squirrelmaster]

Certainly other abilities that check for the result of a hit roll, charge roll, etc. are applied after modifiers. It's only battleshock where we might need to apply abilities before modifiers. It seems a bit weird to suggest that we should roll, apply some modifiers, check whether an ability triggers, then apply some other modifiers, then compare that to the unit's bravery. Usually, all modifiers are applied together — not some before and some after.

I take your point, though, that maybe the "battleshock roll" refers only to the dice roll with any external modifiers, and that adding the number of casualties suffered should not be handled as a "modifier". As written it's not 100% clear.

I still don't think it matters whether the effect is detrimental or not — re-rolling failed battleshock can sometimes be detrimental, but that doesn't change the way we interpret "may re-roll failed battleshock tests". It's up to your discretion to decide whether to use such an ability or not.

As for how I've actually played it — it's honestly never come up in a game while I was around. I suppose in principal if we'd already agreed that modifying the roll can trigger the icon, I'd let it go on a "1 or less", because that seems to be the way GW are ruling these things (based, as you say, on the FAQ). I wouldn't try to use that interpretation to my own advantage, though — I prefer to err on the side of not giving myself a potentially unfair advantage when the rules are ambiguous.

[Vextol]

" Principally because by definition it's impossible to get a result of 1 in a battleshock test *without* negative modifiers - which are pretty rare - which would make the ability a little pointless as a main mechanic. " 

I see your point, but this would be a strangely unique situation for the game as a whole and I just don’t see that as being plausible.

Remember that this is the way of sigmar.  If you hit on a 4+ and have a plus 1 to hit, you don’t hit on a 3+, you change your roll of a 3 to a 4, then hit with it.

This is my last thought on the matter (regarding effects on battleshock rolls):  When taking battleshock tests, casualties do not modify the die result. They are a separate thing entirely that is added after the die result is determined.  

Abilities that modify results are speaking specifically to modifying the die roll (hits, wounds, charges, running etc.) Battleshock tests add a number (casualties)  to a die roll, they don’t modify the roll itself.  

It would be nice if GW would just answer some of these questions in a timely manner

"....I prefer to err on the side of not giving myself a potentially unfair advantage when the rules are ambiguous. "

I give you high praise for this.  I do the same thing (though this chain may seem to indicate otherwise).  This has never come up for me either.  Archaon is in a box on my floor.  I build a zillion lists before I actually field any.  It's most of the fun for me.  But, I do like to validate the effectiveness of the lists ahead of time and answer potential questions before they come up.
 

[Nico]

Roll of 1 or 3 triggers the Icons.

It’s still very strong.

[Vextol]

Interesting take.  I don't necessarily agree still.  Is it because a roll of zero doesn't trigger?  I believe there is no such thing as a roll of "zero" because this effectively means you could INACTIVATE some abilities (D3 mortal wounds, celestial hurricanum Shotek etc.  Also pretty much every ability where you consult a table)

The initial question was whether the 2 would trigger it based on “6 being a 6 or more” ruling from the FAQ.  The 3 wasn’t initially on the table.  It got sidetracked along the way.

[rokapoke]

For what it's worth, in 40k they've come out and stated that dice cannot be adjusted to less than 1. That means that in 40k you'd get to add to your unit of Daemons on a 1, 2, or 3. 

 

While 40k rules themselves are irrelevant in Age of Sigmar, I believe this shows the same intent with respect to modifiers.

[Vextol]

The plot thickens!  And yes, it’s not relevant because it’s a different game....but...we all know that’s not really true.  

It is important to know though because there are many occasions where you MIGHT make a die roll a zero.  If you can’t do that, it’s  important information.

This gets back to the previous problem.  Can a die be modified below a 1?  I think no.  Otherwise abilities that have D6 attacks could be dropped to zero (which is always stopped in the rules-thinking khemists) or abilities that rely on a roll result of SOME KIND (as before-celestial hurricanum)  would be completely nullified.  Again, never the case.

I think, given that, it’s safe to assume that a die cannot be lowered below a 1, which is very strong evidence to support crown of domination activating on a 1,2 or 3.