Edge and Glitches Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Outline Switch to: Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Thanee]

I'm always wondering how this is supposed to work. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You can use Edge to negate a Glitch.

But can you also use Edge to gain extra hits, despite having rolled a Glitch (without negating it, of course)?

i.e. you roll 10 dice, 2 hits and a Glitch. Can you use Edge to re-roll 8 dice, in order to increase the number of hits you get (but still suffer the Glitch)?

Or does a Glitch automatically negate all other Edge-options (apart from negating the Glitch, that is)?

Bye
Thanee

[bannockburn]

Interesting. I always thought that you can negate a glitch by re-rolling dice without hits. Now I know better. I wonder if I'll keep that houserule. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[StealthSigma]

Interesting. I always thought that you can negate a glitch by re-rolling dice without hits. Now I know better. I wonder if I'll keep that houserule. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

There's not enough evidence to prove one way or another.

[Draco18s]

There's not enough evidence to prove one way or another.

This. At my table, if you pick up failed dice and reroll them, they're no longer 1s. Glitches aren't determined until after the dice stop rolling.
So at our table you can "negate" a glitch by rerolling the dice.

Maybe it doesn't make sense "any other way" if the rule exists...unless it doesn't make any sense for the rule to exist.

It's like an if(false) { } statement in programming. It'll never execute, but it'll compile anyway!
(Most compilers will throw a warning that it won't ever execute, but there are valid reasons to do it).

(Similarly there's if(a != a) { }--read "if a value does not equal itself," which appears at first glance to always evaluate to false, but there is one case where it will evaluate to true: NaN.* All comparisons for equality to NaN return false. I.e. NaN == NaN will return false, so the inverse will return true).

*Special value, "Not A Number." Happens when you attempt to divide by 0 or similar.

[forgarn]

This. At my table, if you pick up failed dice and reroll them, they're no longer 1s. Glitches aren't determined until after the dice stop rolling.
So at our table you can "negate" a glitch by rerolling the dice.

Maybe it doesn't make sense "any other way" if the rule exists...unless it doesn't make any sense for the rule to exist.

It's like an if(false) { } statement in programming. It'll never execute, but it'll compile anyway!
(Most compilers will throw a warning that it won't ever execute, but there are valid reasons to do it).

(Similarly there's if(a != a) { }--read "if a value does not equal itself," which appears at first glance to always evaluate to false, but there is one case where it will evaluate to true: NaN.* All comparisons for equality to NaN return false. I.e. NaN == NaN will return false, so the inverse will return true).

*Special value, "Not A Number." Happens when you attempt to divide by 0 or similar.

See, at my table, once the dice leave your hand they are rolled and the result is as it is. You can then re-roll the failed dice trying to get more hits, but if you had a glitch on the initial roll you still have one on the re-roll. The only way to get rid of it is to use the edge to negate the glitch. To us, re-rolls do not negate what you have done previously (they don't make it like that never happened). Just our way of looking at it.

By the way, you are not negating the glitch or critical glitch, you are negating the effects of said glitch/crit glitch. So the glitch would still happen, you just do not suffer the effects.

You may negate the effects of one glitch or critical glitch.

[pbangarth]

By the way, you are not negating the glitch or critical glitch, you are negating the effects of said glitch/crit glitch. So the glitch would still happen, you just do not suffer the effects.

Good old contradictions again: p. 62: "Characters may spend Edge to negate a glitch (p. 74)." p. 74: "You may negate the effects of one glitch or critical glitch."

The description of glitches on p. 62 seems pretty clear that glitches happen independently of number of hits. As soon as the dice pool is rolled with the necessary number of 1s, a glitch happens. Anything you do after that to affect the number of hits is exclusive of that already-occurred event.

We all agree that only one use of Edge can apply to any test. p. 74: "If you spent a point of Edge for extra dice and rolled a critical glitch anyway, for example, you cannot use Edge to negate that critical glitch since you have already applied Edge to that test."

The Rule of Six section at the bottom of p. 62 explicitly states that one die can produce multiple hits. Rerolling does not make more dice, it only makes (potentially) more hits.

So I think that if you are going to use Edge on a dice roll, you can either use it to try to make more hits, or you can use it to negate (the effects of) a glitch. If you spent Edge at the start to get extra dice and rerolls for all misses, then you are SOL if a glitch happens.

[Garvel]

Anything you do after that to affect the number of hits is exclusive of that already-occurred event.

But it isn't mentioned that the re-rolling option affects the number of hits at all.

You may re-roll all of the dice on a single test that did not score a hit.

Either you say that your re-rolled result replaces the old result of the test, or you have to say that the re-rolled dice don't effect the result of the test at all. (But the latter doesn't make sense.)
It is not like the other options, where it says:

roll a number of extra dice equal to your full Edge attribute and add their hits to the test’s total

It doesn't only add more hits. It replaces the result of the dice.

The therm "re-roll" is used a few times in the book, but its nowhere exactly defined what it means, so the developers must have thought that it would be obvious, and simple enough that it doesn't need explanation.

"Replace the old result with the re-rolled result." seems simple and obvious to me.

"Replace the old result with the re-rolled result, but when the old result was a glitch, you have to keep the glitch, but add some hits, and when the old result was a critical glitch, you have to keep the critical glitch, but may have some hits together with a critical glitch now, what is actually not supposed to happen and not covered by the rules, and when the old result was a critical success, your new result may be zero hits, but still count as a critical success for some reason." doesnt seem so simple and obvious to me.