N18 Toxin Vs T1 auto injury?

[DoomMerchant]

Hi title says it all a T1 target is hit with a toxin weapon do 1's always fail or is it an auto injury?

6's always work for toxin. Interested in RAW and how people are ruling this in their games generally.

 

[drdrybrush]

Good question.

I've played a bunch of escher vs well...everyone and toxin is very fun but genuinely yet to have this happen.

I'd assume because RAW Nat 1s fail that it's causes a bit of a toxin paradox of sorts rendering the T1 target functionality immune.

So, I'd say that the auto wound thing while it feels correct , kinda takes some fun out of dice rolling and can be a feelbad for the other player.

Id say still roll to wound as normal and anything other than 1s is good.

Seem fair?

 

[TopsyKretts]

1 always fails. It's just a general principle across all GW games and a good one IMO. Unless specifically noted otherwise.

 

[DoomMerchant]

Good question.

I've played a bunch of escher vs well...everyone and toxin is very fun but genuinely yet to have this happen.

I'd assume because RAW Nat 1s fail that it's causes a bit of a toxin paradox of sorts rendering the T1 target functionality immune.

So, I'd say that the auto wound thing while it feels correct , kinda takes some fun out of dice rolling and can be a feelbad for the other player.

Id say still roll to wound as normal and anything other than 1s is good.

Seem fair?

We made the decision to roll the dice at the time and yeah it's fun to roll dice so I don't disagree with it. Thanks for getting back!

 

[DoomMerchant]

1 always fails. It's just a general principle across all GW games and a good one IMO. Unless specifically noted otherwise.

Ok thanks. I had this idea but wasn't certain

 

[Ben_S]

1 always fails. It's just a general principle across all GW games and a good one IMO. Unless specifically noted otherwise.

I don't think this is true in all games, unless of course you simply assume that it is.

 

[TopsyKretts]

I don't remember any GW game with auto-success rolls from any games I've played but please enlighten me if you know about any exceptions.

 

[Ben_S]

Auto-successes are certainly rare, but that's normally down to the conditions of success, rather than a blanket '1s always fail' rule.

I'm not sure of the current (Second Season) rules for Blood Bowl, but in the CRP it was stated that 1s aways fail (and 6s always succeed) specifically for all Agility rolls. That covers most d6 rolls, but not all. For instance, it would be possible to auto-pass a Go For It roll, if one had a modifier (unless the modifying rule specifies otherwise of course).

The 6s succeed thing certainly isn't a GW universal, since some games (I forget exactly which) have had rules for a 7+ to hit. For instance, you need to roll a 6 followed by 4+.

If '6s succeed' isn't universal, I don't see any reason to think that '1s fail' applies except where stated. (I grant that it is often stated, but the question here is whether it's implicit even when not stated.)

 

[Lord_Ikka]

According to the 2023 rulebook in the Shooting/Resolve Hits section, a Natural 1 to Hit or to Save always fails. There is, however no rule that a Natural 1 to Wound fails, but there is also no rule concerning making the to Wound roll go to less than 2+ (the table only goes from 2+ to 6+). So unfortunately, there is wiggle room in the rules that could allow for interpretation that yes, Toxin vs a T1 model would auto-wound. This contrasts to something like the current 10th ed 40k rules, where a Natural 1 to Hit/Wound is clearly mentioned as automatically failing (and natural 6s to Hit/Wound always being sucessful- being labelled as Critical Hits/Critical Wounds, which then allows for various triggers off of those keywords).

Personally, I would say that it needs a 2+ as the intent of the rules seems to follow most of GW's other games where a Natural 1 fails, but I would give it up to the Arbiter in a campaign. Just another example of Necromunda rules just not being given quite the same design attention as the mainline games in terms of tightening up on problem areas.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Auto-successes are certainly rare, but that's normally down to the conditions of success, rather than a blanket '1s always fail' rule.

I'm not sure of the current (Second Season) rules for Blood Bowl, but in the CRP it was stated that 1s aways fail (and 6s always succeed) specifically for all Agility rolls. That covers most d6 rolls, but not all. For instance, it would be possible to auto-pass a Go For It roll, if one had a modifier (unless the modifying rule specifies otherwise of course).

The 6s succeed thing certainly isn't a GW universal, since some games (I forget exactly which) have had rules for a 7+ to hit. For instance, you need to roll a 6 followed by 4+.

If '6s succeed' isn't universal, I don't see any reason to think that '1s fail' applies except where stated. (I grant that it is often stated, but the question here is whether it's implicit even when not stated.)

Didn't put a blanket, I said "unless otherwise noted". Played CRP for many years and don't remember any positive modifiers to GFI. Had a look through LRB6 now and mostly find negative modifiers (for example Blizzard). One very niche positive modifier is from Going the Extra Mile special play card, which can give positive modifier if combined with Sprint skill: "If the player has Sprint he may add 1 to one Go For It roll made this turn (a natural 1 will still result in a failure though)." The GFI rule also specifically says 1 is always fail: "on a roll of 1 the player trips up and is Knocked Down in the square that they moved to". So not sure any positive modifier would alter that. And the intent of GFI matches all other cases perfectly as far as I can see. I'm sure you can find some weird example, but you would have to look hard and I don't think GFI is it. As far as I remember it took some time before Necromunda rules explicitly stated that 1s always failed. Until it finally did. It's one of those things I don't even bother looking for as I have yet to find an exception. Which again is not explicitly stated.

According to the 2023 rulebook in the Shooting/Resolve Hits section, a Natural 1 to Hit or to Save always fails. There is, however no rule that a Natural 1 to Wound fails, but there is also no rule concerning making the to Wound roll go to less than 2+ (the table only goes from 2+ to 6+). So unfortunately, there is wiggle room in the rules that could allow for interpretation that yes, Toxin vs a T1 model would auto-wound. This contrasts to something like the current 10th ed 40k rules, where a Natural 1 to Hit/Wound is clearly mentioned as automatically failing (and natural 6s to Hit/Wound always being sucessful- being labelled as Critical Hits/Critical Wounds, which then allows for various triggers off of those keywords).

Personally, I would say that it needs a 2+ as the intent of the rules seems to follow most of GW's other games where a Natural 1 fails, but I would give it up to the Arbiter in a campaign. Just another example of Necromunda rules just not being given quite the same design attention as the mainline games in terms of tightening up on problem areas.

That rule didn't exist in N17, N18 or N19 rulebooks. Was first introduced in N21. As far as I could see skimming through at least.

 

[Ben_S]

Didn't put a blanket, I said "unless otherwise noted".

Your suggestion is that 1s always fail, unless there's anything specifically saying they don't. (Can you give any examples where there is such a statement?)

My suggestion is that 1 isn't always an auto-fail, unless there's something saying as much.

I grant that, in many cases, there is something saying that. I'm just saying that I don't think this principle should be extrapolated to any other cases where it isn't stated.

The GFI rule also specifically says 1 is always fail: "on a roll of 1 the player trips up and is Knocked Down in the square that they moved to". So not sure any positive modifier would alter that.

The reference to 'a roll of 1' here just refers to failing your 2+. It doesn't refer to an unmodified 1. So, if you did have a +1 to your GFI rolls somehow, then it wouldn't trigger, because your (modified) roll would be at least a 2.

 

[HugeSamples]

Interesting discussion here.

My gut says that a roll of a 1 on a d6 should fail.

However, the rules for toxin went out of their way to call out 6's always succeeding, but didn't go out of their way to say that 1's always fail.

Toxin

Instead of making a wound roll for a toxin attack, roll a d6. If the result is equal to or higher than the target's toughness, or is a natural 6, make an injury rill for them (regardless of their wounds characteristic). If the roll is lower than the target's toughness, the shrug off the toxin's effects. This attack has no effect on vehicles.

~ Core Rulebook page 317

If we take the rule as written, I think against a T1 model this would auto succeed as it's impossible to roll lower than their toughness.

However, I also understand in most table top games a roll of a 1 is an auto fail. Which probably makes this a conversation to have with your arbiter and how they want to play it.

Yay edge cases!

 

[DoomMerchant]

Interesting discussion here.

My gut says that a roll of a 1 on a d6 should fail.

However, the rules for toxin went out of their way to call out 6's always succeeding, but didn't go out of their way to say that 1's always fail.

Toxin

If we take the rule as written, I think against a T1 model this would auto succeed as it's impossible to roll lower than their toughness.

However, I also understand in most table top games a roll of a 1 is an auto fail. Which probably makes this a conversation to have with your arbiter and how they want to play it.

Yay edge cases!

Yeah the impression I am getting from this...

So the follow up is. We are all new to the game and I am about to start arbitrating our fist campaign. So erm... Any advice on what 'feels' fair wrt this/is balanced?

I petition the dark gods, old heads, grognards and the holey council of terra.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Your suggestion is that 1s always fail, unless there's anything specifically saying they don't. (Can you give any examples where there is such a statement?)

My suggestion is that 1 isn't always an auto-fail, unless there's something saying as much.

I grant that, in many cases, there is something saying that. I'm just saying that I don't think this principle should be extrapolated to any other cases where it isn't stated.

That's where we differ. Case in point 1 always fail was introduced in N21 but didn't exist in N17, N18 or N19. But I wouldn't be surprised if most people played as if it existed.

Rules are unfortunately infallible. So I can't say where such an example exists, because I talk about rules that should exist but doesn't. It's something I read between the lines.

The reference to 'a roll of 1' here just refers to failing your 2+. It doesn't refer to an unmodified 1. So, if you did have a +1 to your GFI rolls somehow, then it wouldn't trigger, because your (modified) roll would be at least a 2.

For GFI, you introduce "unmodified", but that wasn't really a game term. The rules usually say something similar like "before/after modifiers". Unmodified is only used twice for Stab and Safe Throw skills:

"Make an unmodified Armour roll" and "make an unmodified Agility roll".

The GFI is quite explicit from what I can read:
"Roll a D6 for the player after they have moved each extra square. On a roll of 1 the player trips up and is Knocked Down in the square that they moved to."

If you roll a 1, it fails. Other rules may mention "after modification", but that isn't the case here. Ref Pitch Invasion:

"If a roll is 6 or more after modification then the player is Stunned"

Also, modifiers for GFI were extremely, only example I could find was that single Special play card (which you have to draw random) combined with a semi nice skill.

 

[Ben_S]

1 always fail was introduced in N21 but didn't exist in N17, N18 or N19. But I wouldn't be surprised if most people played as if it existed.

Fair enough. I'm not talking about how people play it; I'm talking about what the rules are.

When Second Season dropped, I suspect that most people still played only one Team Re-Roll per turn, because that's how it had been in the past. But when the FAQ dropped, it clarified that this was no longer the case. (Some people think that this change came about by mistake, rather than intention, but either way the Second Season rules allow multiple TRRs per turn.)

 

[Ben_S]

For GFI, you introduce "unmodified", but that wasn't really a game term. The rules usually say something similar like "before/after modifiers". Unmodified is only used twice for Stab and Safe Throw skills:

"Make an unmodified Armour roll" and "make an unmodified Agility roll".

I'm not clear on your point here. How is it not "really a game term" if the rules use the term?

In any case, it means the same as "before modifiers". Also sometimes called a "natural 1".

 

[HugeSamples]

Any advice on what 'feels' fair wrt this/is balanced?

I think either way you choose to play it seems fine.

Have a talk with your players and see which they like better .

 

[DoomMerchant]

I think either way you choose to play it seems fine.

Have a talk with your players and see which they like better .

Cheers mate!

I've been out of the gw sphere for a while and only played ttrpg's with non-lawyers...

Scrolls up skimming.

It's all very lively isn't it.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Fair enough. I'm not talking about how people play it; I'm talking about what the rules are.

When Second Season dropped, I suspect that most people still played only one Team Re-Roll per turn, because that's how it had been in the past. But when the FAQ dropped, it clarified that this was no longer the case. (Some people think that this change came about by mistake, rather than intention, but either way the Second Season rules allow multiple TRRs per turn.)

In that case I can fully agree with you, sorry for mixing in my own interpretation. I'd love to have a solid foundation and not default to my experience, but we all know how lacking rules can be. And good point on the multiple re-rolls per turn, I wouldn't think twice about it until either seeing a discussion on it or that FAQ. And indeed my cynical brain could easily think they just went with it. Regardless I find it an interesting change so I don't mind it.

I'm not clear on your point here. How is it not "really a game term" if the rules use the term?

In any case, it means the same as "before modifiers". Also sometimes called a "natural 1".

That wasn't well thought out on my part. I would say it's a very rare term which "accidentally" is used only for a couple of skills. Not like "natural roll" in later games and editions were used consistently as core rule. Looking back at this ruleset, it is much less formal than what can be found in more modern games. Like 3 different names, "GFI", "Going For It" and "Go For It". Likewise, I would imagine GFI always fail on 1, but since there are almost no modifiers to it, they simply skipped mentioning it? Of course strictly RAW you are correct. I just have a premonition RAI is always fail on 1.

 

[Lord_Ikka]

Cheers mate!

I've been out of the gw sphere for a while and only played ttrpg's with non-lawyers...

Scrolls up skimming.

It's all very lively isn't it.

To be honest, while Necromunda is fairly rules-dense and sometimes frustratingly-opaque, the players are usually laid-back. The game itself is narrative rather than competitive, so any rules issue should be less about absolutes and more about what is the most fun way to play the game, at least in my view.