N18 Hit Rolls

[midievil]

Hi, quick question and sorry if this has already been discussed.

The line from the n17 rules under both shooting and melee "If a natural 1 is rolled, the attack misses" seems to have been removed and I'm not sure I like the idea of so many auto-hits.

Does anyone know if this is an oversight or intentional, or if I'm just being dumb and I've missed another rewording somewhere?

 

[Thorgor]

Golly, I missed than one!
I couldn't find anything in the N18 rules that state a natural 1 always fails or that a hit roll cannot be improved beyond 2+. My guess is that it's an oversight, but that's just a guess.

 

[Dnk_83]

I would have thought that it is taken as read that a natural 1 is an auto-fail? Seems to the case in the other GW systems?

 

[Thorgor]

The rules define (page 45) what a natural roll is and state that some rules may state that "a natural roll of 1" always fail. However, it's not a generic rule that applies to all rolls, and the only time it's directly brought up in the book is for the Falling hazards rule (page 63).

Interestingly, it's also mentioned in the Escape Artist skill (page 186) in regard to the initiative check you must pass when making a Retreat action (it states that "a natural 1 still fails") whereas there is no mention of a natural 1 being an automatic failure in the Retreat rules (page 59) or the rules for characteristic checks (page 41)

So.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Ben_S]

Even if it were the case it every other GW system, that does not make it the rule for Necromunda. After all, it ought to be possible to play Necromund without playing any other GW system.

 

[Dnk_83]

True! From playing other systems for 25 years, it's a struggle for me to get out of that mindset!

Does that mean that tactical arming can auto hit with guns? it seems a bit powerful, as midievil says! The brutality of a meltagun on Van Saars BS 2+ auto hitting then 2+ wounding is extreme?

 

[Thorgor]

Yeah, as written, if you are BS 2+ with a +1 to hit (from aiming, short range bonus, etc.) and the target is in the open, you auto-hit.
I'm pretty sure it's unintentional and they simply lost the line when rewording the rules though. Maybe they wanted to rework it as a generic rule for all characteristic checks (always fail on natural 1 (or snake eyes for Cl/Ld/Wil/int)) but forgot halfway through?

 

[TopsyKretts]

Auto-hit on 1+ is obviously an oversight. I'm never gonna accept that in my games.

But if there was a general rule saying 1 is always fail and 6 is always success, what would change? Improbably shots are obviously an exception to this.

Reason I ask is, so many places say "a natural 1/6 is always fail/success", but wouldn't it be easier to just apply this universally, and instead make exceptions?

 

[Dnk_83]

Auto-hit on 1+ is obviously an oversight. I'm never gonna accept that in my games.

But if there was a general rule saying 1 is always fail and 6 is always success, what would change? Improbably shots are obviously an exception to this.

Reason I ask is, so many places say "a natural 1/6 is always fail/success", but wouldn't it be easier to just apply this universally, and instead make exceptions?

This is how my group play it. This way if you roll a one, you know you screwed up and there is no need to check if the rule applies in that specific case! It make it a little smoother and easier to deal with! ;-)

 

[TopsyKretts]

Exactly, smooth is good!

 

[Aaezel]

Exactly, smooth is good!

Equally you could argue that there is no need for the 'a natural roll of a 1' rule should exist, as it only now specifies a very small handful of cases. The natural 6 already doesn't apply to shooting (a 6 then a 4+ to make a 7+ shot), but does apply to some cases where modifiers are rarer. Why not just apply a 'roll dice, apply modifiers, compare to attribute' universal rule?

Following on from the OP the 1+ for armour saves is also a thing now and once again whilst it will only count for fringe cases there are times (undersuit, carapace Hystrar Shield in CC, certain tactics cards, modifiers for blasts when in cover) when you can't fail to save. End of the day we're using dice to imperfectly represent the real world, in house rule whatever you think is most fun (or most realistic...going to go out on a limb here, but if i was fring a machine pistol at someone 1 meter away, I'm not missing 18% of the time, equally the weediest juve in the underhive shouldn't be able to slip a punch, for example, past terminator armour 1 in 6 tries) but RAW now mean you can play games where you can't miss with your aimed Las-cannon and your servo claw is useless against a tooled up VS ganger.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Equally you could argue that there is no need for the 'a natural roll of a 1' rule should exist, as it only now specifies a very small handful of cases.

Isn't it universal in practically all cases, with only very few obvious exceptions (like improbable shots)?

Why not just apply a 'roll dice, apply modifiers, compare to attribute' universal rule?

But does 'roll dice, apply modifiers, compare to attribute' include '1 always fail, 6 always success'?

Following on from the OP the 1+ for armour saves is also a thing now and once again whilst it will only count for fringe cases there are times (undersuit, carapace Hystrar Shield in CC, certain tactics cards, modifiers for blasts when in cover) when you can't fail to save. End of the day we're using dice to imperfectly represent the real world, in house rule whatever you think is most fun (or most realistic...going to go out on a limb here, but if i was fring a machine pistol at someone 1 meter away, I'm not missing 18% of the time, equally the weediest juve in the underhive shouldn't be able to slip a punch, for example, past terminator armour 1 in 6 tries) but RAW now mean you can play games where you can't miss with your aimed Las-cannon and your servo claw is useless against a tooled up VS ganger.

In my view, that depends more on the game system than real world. I've played GW games for 20 years where this is universal, 1 is always fail, 6 is always success (with obvious exceptions). No matter if you play 40k, Blood Bowl, Necromunda, GorkaMorka, Mordheim ++. Completely different from other game systems (for example Warmachine & Hordes) where this situation is explicitly stated: if strength of a weapon is higher than armour, the wound is automatic for example. If your ability to hit an enemy is higher the ability to defend the attack, the hit is automatic.

To answer the OP's case directly, it doesn't matter what they remove in the rules, decades of experience will make it an automatic reflex that 1 is always fail and 6 is always success, unless very clearly and specifically stated.

 

[Thorgor]

Isn't it universal in practically all cases, with only very few obvious exceptions (like improbable shots)?

As I said earlier, it's only ever brought up in the rules for Falling hazard (and, indirectly, for the Initiative check you make when Retreating). There is no universal rule that states a natural 1 always fails, and it's not part of the generic rules for characteristic checks either.
What you have on page 45 is simply a definition of what always failing on a natural 1 means. But if no rule makes reference to it, it doesn't apply.

The new books have a lot of half copy-pasted rules from the previous books though, like they only bothered to rewrite part of it and didn't care to proof-read the end result. Another amusing example: the rules for the Charge action still make no sense (they tell you to make a "standard move", which was a thing in the previous version but is not defined anywhere in the new books)

 

[TopsyKretts]

There's a lot of cases where "1 is always fail" and/or "6 is always success" is specified.

What would change if such a rule was introduced?

 

[Stoof]

I am oddly not opposed to just rolling the firepower die if you find out your to-hit has become 1+. It strikes me as fairly niche - I've played quite a lot of N17 with and against Van Saar and I recon the vast majority of shots were modified to 2+ at best bar one memorable incident of my opponent failing a charge in the open right in front of the VS leader with a meltagun. It ended as you might expect.

I doubt it was intentional to omit it, but if you do go with it it's not going to make a massive world of difference unless your opponent is somehow allergic to cover.

Still, I'd probably suggest its return in N17CE when/if that comes about and it should probably be in the YAQ too.

 

[Thorgor]

There's a lot of cases where "1 is always fail" and/or "6 is always success" is specified.

Which cases? Can you give me some page references?
I ctrl+Fed the books for "natural 1" and could only find it in Falling hazard, Escape artist and Watchdog.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Which cases? Can you give me some page references?
I ctrl+Fed the books for "natural 1" and could only find it in Falling hazard, Escape artist and Watchdog.

A quick search-through gave these results:

Gangs:

• Ammo jack re-roll ammo checks, page 85
• Combat Drug Stash, page 99
• Ammo hoppers, page 101
• Watchdog, page 109, 112
• Abandonment, page 115
• Bio-scanner, page 134
• Disarm, Entangle, Flash, Gas, Power, Pulverise, Seismic, Shock, Toxin, page 140-144
• Disarm, Escape artist, Marksman, Precision Shot page 147-149

Rules:

• Ammo cache, page 122

I'm planning to remove all '1 is always fail, 6 is always success' from my own rules compilation, and add the universal rule instead. Not sure if that would have any consequences what so ever.

 

[Thorgor]

Of all the references you gave, only Watchdog, Bio-scanner and Escape artist mention an auto-fail on a natural 1 (about checks that don't mention it themself). And I already mentionned them (well, except Bio-scanner, but it's the same as Watchdog)
Abandonnement, Gas and Toxin are the only examples of auto-success on a 6

Ammo jack and Ammo hopper let you reroll failed 1 rolls (nothing about auto-failure)
Combat Drug simply state consequences for rolling a 1
Disarm, Entangle, Power, Pulverise, Seismic Shock, Marksman, Precision shot and Ammo cache simply do additional stuff when you roll a natural 6, no mention of it being an automatic success (and, in fact, for hit rolls, we know for sure they are not)
Flash does not say hits automatically succeed on a 6, just that they can only succeed on a 6

 

[Aaezel]

Going back to my first interjection on this topic, if i could suggest that instead of blanket applying the '1 is always fail and/or 6 is always success' maybe playtest the updated (opportunity to remove randomness if you really try) rule set within your gaming group? Whilst some people/orks may find randomness fun, other people may not enjoy the realisation that shooting a naked T1 juve (in the back, why not) with a melta gun even with your BS 2+ results in him shrugging it off 30.6% of the time. If i'm playing xcom I'll work my team so I dont take shots with less than a 95% chance to hit...I'd rather skillfully postion my team than take a long odds punt. Equally I'll happlily play a TCG where randomness is king. If we're playing for fun, lets work out what provides the most fun? I agree that the change is probably an editorial error, simply because, as a GW gamer, its been the case for so very long...but if we're assuming rules have been written incorrectly just because thats the way a system has always been, then can i suggest lasguns are lowered to S1 because in GW rules for every other system the IG flashlight is a joke.

 

[TopsyKretts]

For games like XCOM I fully agree. With GW games, I don't. For me, that' the result of playing for many years. But I wouldn't be offended if you call me an ork