Reroll before modifier : did my friend and i played the game wrong ?

[ledha]

Hello people ! I was reading the 4 page rules and i wonder... did i play the game wrong since the beginning ?

As you know, in the game, reroll happen BEFORE modifier.

Let say i have a unit of vulkite fyreslayer. If they have a 5+, with +2 in save, and a battlesmith. We play it as having a 3+ reroll save. But since we have to reroll before the modifier (+2 in roll save), does that mean we have, in fact a 5+, reroll and THEN a 3 + ?

Same thing for hit and wound roll of course. How do you manage the "reroll before modifier" ?

[fued]

you have in fact a 5+ reroll then a 3+

 

BUT

 

you dont HAVE to re-roll with most abilities

 

so effectively it becomes a 3+ re-roll.

 

 

 

 

[Imperial]

Hello.

I will just give 2 example when you need worry about reroll before apply modifier.

1 You unit have save 4+ and shield what give reroll failed save rolls. Enemy unit have rend -1 for all weapons.

1.1 You roll save dice and can reroll 1-3 dice. 4+ roll - success roll and you cant reroll this

1.2 You have 2-3 roll with 4 on dice for example after all reroll

1.3 Apply rend modifier and all you roll of 4 will be failed and you cant reroll it.

2 You have unit with same weapons with hit 4+ and reroll failed hit rolls for example, but enemy unit have ability to substract hit roll.

2.1 You roll hit dice and can reroll 1-3 dice. 4+ roll - success roll and you cant reroll this

2.2 You have 2-3 roll with 4 on dice for example after all reroll

2.3 Apply substract hit modifier and all you hit roll of 4 will be failed and you cant reroll it.

 

BUT! If you have in warscroll "reroll all" instead "reroll failed" YOU CAN reroll dice which will fail after apply modifier!

So usually, you dont need worry about it, except situation when enemy have ability for substract you roll or rend.

[Jharen]

Follow these steps:

 

1) Roll the dice.

2) Check to see if succeeded or failed (based off the ROLL).

3) Reroll if needed.

4) Apply all modifiers.

 

[wayniac]

The best way to remember this is that modifiers in AOS (and in the new 40k) apply to the die roll not the stat even though everyone plays that way.  So a +1 to your save is actually a +1 to the save roll (i.e. if you have a 4+ save, you succeed on a 3 since 3+1 = 4).  The reason re-rolls occur before modifiers is because of something like the following situation:

You have a Stormcast Liberator with shield (4+ save, can re-roll saves of 1) who gets Mystic Shield (+1 to the save roll).  You make an armor save and roll a 1.  Without re-rolls happening before the modifier, you would have a result of 2 (i.e. 1+1) and fail the armor save without triggering the re-roll (which only happens on a 1).  Because the re-roll happens first, you can elect to re-roll the save of 1 (no modifier applied yet).

That's why it works this way.

[Seraphage]

28 minutes ago, wayniac said:

The best way to remember this is that modifiers in AOS (and in the new 40k) apply to the die roll not the stat even though everyone plays that way.  So a +1 to your save is actually a +1 to the save roll (i.e. if you have a 4+ save, you succeed on a 3 since 3+1 = 4).  The reason re-rolls occur before modifiers is because of something like the following situation:

You have a Stormcast Liberator with shield (4+ save, can re-roll saves of 1) who gets Mystic Shield (+1 to the save roll).  You make an armor save and roll a 1.  Without re-rolls happening before the modifier, you would have a result of 2 (i.e. 1+1) and fail the armor save without triggering the re-roll (which only happens on a 1).  Because the re-roll happens first, you can elect to re-roll the save of 1 (no modifier applied yet).

That's why it works this way.

Thank you so much for this, I knew how I should play it but as always, when you do not know the reason why behind something you cannot totally understand it. 

 

I finally do !

[Squirrelmaster]

This is one place where the rules-as-written don't really "work". In particular, Slaanesh Dæmonttes have a rule that you re-roll "6 or more", which makes no sense if you apply it before modifiers.

Most people I've met seem to play:

If it says to re-roll a specific number (eg. re-roll 1s, re-roll 6s), do that before modifiers - i.e. look at how many dots are actually on the dice.

If it says to re-roll "successes" or "failures" or "6 or more", do that after modifiers.

That's what makes most sense to me, and how I'd house-rule it.

[Turragor]

14 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

This is one place where the rules-as-written don't really "work". In particular, Slaanesh Dæmonttes have a rule that you re-roll "6 or more", which makes no sense if you apply it before modifiers.

Most people I've met seem to play:

If it says to re-roll a specific number (eg. re-roll 1s, re-roll 6s), do that before modifiers - i.e. look at how many dots are actually on the dice.

If it says to re-roll "successes" or "failures" or "6 or more", do that after modifiers.

That's what makes most sense to me, and how I'd house-rule it.

Your interpretation makes sense I think.

I'd say this is probably an error on the scroll.

Most things that happen on a 6 are 'or more' aren't rerolls - like castellant lantern or Retributor blast to ashes.

I did not know there was a reroll '6 or more' in existence actually. Those I've seen mention only 6s.

[wayniac]

18 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

This is one place where the rules-as-written don't really "work". In particular, Slaanesh Dæmonttes have a rule that you re-roll "6 or more", which makes no sense if you apply it before modifiers.

Most people I've met seem to play:

If it says to re-roll a specific number (eg. re-roll 1s, re-roll 6s), do that before modifiers - i.e. look at how many dots are actually on the dice.

If it says to re-roll "successes" or "failures" or "6 or more", do that after modifiers.

That's what makes most sense to me, and how I'd house-rule it.

I kind of agree with this, because (from another thread on this) having a negative modifier actually hurts your re-roll if you "re-roll failures".

Take, for example, a model with a 4+ save that has the ability to re-roll failed armor saves, and is wounded by an attack that has -1 Rend.  A roll of 4 on the die would not trigger the re-roll but still cause a failure because if re-rolls apply before modifiers than a roll of a 4 is not a failure at that point but then the -1 is applied from Rend and it becomes a 5, thus failing the save.  That makes zero sense and is actually harmful.

[Squirrelmaster]

58 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I kind of agree with this, because (from another thread on this) having a negative modifier actually hurts your re-roll if you "re-roll failures".

Take, for example, a model with a 4+ save that has the ability to re-roll failed armor saves, and is wounded by an attack that has -1 Rend.  A roll of 4 on the die would not trigger the re-roll but still cause a failure because if re-rolls apply before modifiers than a roll of a 4 is not a failure at that point but then the -1 is applied from Rend and it becomes a 5, thus failing the save.  That makes zero sense and is actually harmful.

Hmm… negative modifiers are meant to be "bad", though, and having a re-roll in this situation is still "good".

You're still never going to encounter a situation where re-rolling failures is bad for you, or a situation where having negative modifiers to your roll is actually good for you, so I think it still makes sense.

It's just a question of balance - one interpretation makes rend more powerful, the other makes re-rolls more powerful. Both still make sense to me, though.

[rokapoke]

1 hour ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Hmm… negative modifiers are meant to be "bad", though, and having a re-roll in this situation is still "good".

You're still never going to encounter a situation where re-rolling failures is bad for you, or a situation where having negative modifiers to your roll is actually good for you, so I think it still makes sense.

It's just a question of balance - one interpretation makes rend more powerful, the other makes re-rolls more powerful. Both still make sense to me, though.

That last point is very good, and I for one never thought of it that way. Well said, sir!

[Thomas Lyons]

2 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Hmm… negative modifiers are meant to be "bad", though, and having a re-roll in this situation is still "good".

You're still never going to encounter a situation where re-rolling failures is bad for you, or a situation where having negative modifiers to your roll is actually good for you, so I think it still makes sense.

It's just a question of balance - one interpretation makes rend more powerful, the other makes re-rolls more powerful. Both still make sense to me, though.

This.