Thanks, Peter.

I cannot find a sufficiently convincing argument to beat down the letter of the law. Primarily because of the imprecise wording.

Because of the vagueness, there is no letter of the law.

I can certainly see why people want to claim that rerolling failures adjusts the number of 1's in your result. ( I wonder if anyone's ever found lots of 1's in their second roll, and accepted the glitch?) It makes sense. But keeping the glitch while rerolling failures also makes sense.

However, adding the number of rerolled dice to the number of dice in your pool does not make sense. You're rerolling dice. Example: you roll ten dice, get three hits, and then reroll seven? You still have ten dice in your dice pool. You didn't roll seventeen dice (suddenly requiring nine of your seven dice to score 1's, for a glitch). Likewise, you didn't just make a seven-die test after spending the edge.

Came very close once. I had 4 dice, crit-glitched, did "add Edge after" and added 4 more dice.* Got 1 more 1.

Not quite the same, but had those 4 Edge dice been a re-roll it'd have been very near.

*Odds are slightly in favor of rolling edge after, due to exploding 6s (which happened, I got 3 or 4 hits**) than just rerolling the dice.

**I've forgot, it was over a month ago.

"On a single test, you may reroll all dice that did not score a hit."

Regardless, with the current wording, it functions as (most) everyone has already described - as Written.

The reason for this is, while the wording can technically be (correctly) read to apply "Hit" to either "Test" or "Dice", within the definitions presented as to the meaning of these phrases for usage in the game, a die can score a "Hit" - a test cannot. If a sufficient number of dice score a hit, the test is a "Success". If not, the test fails.

Quite simply, by the definitions presented in the game, the wording cannot be "on a test that did not score a hit", as tests cannot score hits at all.



As to the effects of rerolling negating a Glitch or Critical Glitch, a reroll, by definition, replaces the previous roll with the new result. If the test, after the reroll, results in a Glitch or Critical Glitch, then the test is treated as such, regardless of if the initial roll before the use of Edge was a [Critical]Glitch or not (and because Edge was already used, you cannot spend Edge to negate the glitch).

If the result of the reroll does not result in a Glitch or Critical Glitch, the test is not treated as such, regardless of if the initial roll before the use of Edge was a [Critical]Glitch or not.




Edit: As for resulting in a Glitch after a reroll, not exactly. But I did have a similar occurrence before; I used Edge to increase the dice pool, & the result was a Critical Glitch - which I then could not negate, because Edge had already been used on it.

Good explanation. The prepositional phrase "on a single test" adds more clarification to which dice we are talking about. The beautiful part about prepositional phrases are that they do not change the meaning of the sentence, only add to the detail. The sentence will have the same meaning with or without the phrase. So...

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

The "on a single test" phrase just lets you know that you cannot spend a point of edge and then reroll all the non-hit scoring dice for the rest of the evening or adventure. So hit cannot be correctly applied to the test, only to dice.

As for a reroll remaining a glitch or critical glitch, that would only happen if the reroll were still a glitch or critical glitch, as you are using your luck to change the result of the test.

Let's not blame the grammar. The phrase could just as easily be 'on a single test that did not score a hit', … 'you may re-roll all of the dice'.

Okay, as you were, gentlemen.

Grammar is never to blame. Only those who misuse it are at fault. Sort of like firearms.

If tests could score hits, you might have an argument.

Can they not?

Unless you can find otherwise:

If I score hits on a test, the test scored hits. *shrug*

I just don't see why they would make the rule of having to use a point of edge to downgrade a crit glitch to a regular one, if you can do the same only better by rerolling any dice that were not hits.

It seems a bit extraneous, and I have to believe that the intention behind the rule is that the glitch would not go away by rerolling non-hits. Otherwise, why the hell would they include the downgrade rule in the first place???

Why would you ever reduce your "shoot him" dice pool to reduce his armor, when you could instead spend 4 dice for +4 DV? (The same 4 dice negates 4 points of armor, but 4 damage is worth 12 points of armor in resistance, plus the +4DV counts for "modified damage").

You'd almost think that a lot of the rules in the game aren't completely thought-out or cross-referenced, and in many cases, just poorly written outright.

But that's an impossible thought!

You'd almost think that a lot of the rules in the game aren't completely thought-out or cross-referenced, and in many cases, just poorly written outright.

But that's an impossible thought!

Because if the defender rolls more hits than you in the first place you miss. That is a calculated risk, and one that would probably work out for you more often than not.

In the case of this rule, rerolling all of the dice, would almost ALWAYS result in a better result than if you just downgraded the glitch. So I still believe in the spirit of the law, rather than the very vague letter of it in this case.

So you're going to sacrifice 8 dice to ignore his armor?

Because "ignore armor" is "all of it" or "not." And a ballistics vest is 8/6.

6/4.

It has always seemed to me that a glitch is somewhat separate from the direct dice rolls. It's an indication that Something has gone Terribly Wrong. You can reroll the dice that didn't hit and try to mitigate the damage, but that doesn't get rid of the karmic smackdown triggered by the glitch.

The initial glitch means that the ever-present Murphy has decided to wake up and take note. A critical glitch indicates that he was out of coffee, and thinks someone else should be held responsible. When Murphy shows up on the scene the only way to chase him away (or calm him down in the case of a critical glitch), is a direct sacrifice to the God-of-Shit-that-Happens. i.e. burn edge.

Look, it already was already cleared up that this isn't supported by RAW.

Oh, sorry. -6 dice to you (they have a greater chance to dodge) so you bypass their 6 armor.

Or you could take -4 to do +4 damage (of which their 6 armor will mitigate about 2).

The point is: sometimes there are options that are "less than ideal."

If you're up against, say, a spirit that you can't hit at all, why wouldn't you take a huge penalty in order to have a shot at it? If you have a dicepool of 20 with your Pistols skill, but it's only a Streetline Special loaded with Regular Rounds, your shots are just going to ping right off that Force 6 spirit. But if you use the Called Shot rules, you can get away with just lowering your dicepool of 20 to 8 and actually have a shot at doing some damage.

And, honestly, if you're using any of those Called Shot rules on a regular basis against any opponent you come up with, that's just asinine. Your GM had best be doing the same with all of his NPCs, too, so they can completely ignore your armor and/or get the same DV boost as you.

I don't believe it was.



If half or more of the dice pool come up as 1s, then a glitch results. re-roll or not, something went wrong. The glitch isn't an effect of the test, it is a result of the roll. Even if you change the outcome of the test, the initial roll caused a glitch.

edit: first post should have read "separate from the test"

It was.

Was not!

If you want to address the point, please do so. Otherwise let's leave that sort of argument in second grade.

RAW for glitch says it's a result of the roll, not the test. Changing the effect of the test does not eliminate the original roll which resulted in a glitch.

Nazis are to blame. Their propaganda is tampering with our dice.

Please read the thread.

I've read the thread, I haven't seen my point adequately addressed. There was a lot about the wording of edge focused on the idea that the glitch is an effect of the test, and rerolling the test changes the glitch. I'm saying that the glitch is independent of the results of the test, and is a result of the initial roll.


RAW for glitch says that if half the pool comes up 1s then there's a glitch, and the only way to remove it is to burn edge. The result of the roll (glitch) being independent of the outcome of the test means that rerolling to change the effect of the test does not negate the glitch.

The fact that rerolling the dice changes the roll was pointed out, too.

No, RAW does not state an "the only way".

Your don't burn edge either.

You're being overly pedantic. You're trying to make out that there's some non-existent difference between a roll and a test. There isn't. Well, not unless it's an Extended Test which consists of multiple rolls/tests, but even that has nothing to do with what you're trying to say.

"Roll" is basically the verb form of "test" in the rules. Rolling is the action, test is the action being performed. But it's all the same thing. If you're rolling your Pistols + Agility dice, you're making a Pistols + Agility test. They mean exactly the same thing and are treated exactly the same way. The choice of words is based solely on how those words are being used in a sentence.

That said, "if half or more of the dice pool rolled come up as 1s, then a glitch results" would read "if you make a test and half or more of the dice pool comes up 1s, then a glitch results" if the author decided to change how he was saying it. And, they mean exactly the same thing. It's just a choice of words and has zero impact on the rules. Despite, you know, your attempt to try and portray them as different concepts.

The misconception here is that spending Edge influences the test directly in the case of a reroll.

It doesn't.
Spending Edge in this case allows you to reroll dice, redefining the roll prior to that – and only thus influencing the test.

Yes, I know. That misconception comes solely from the belief that "roll" and "test" are two different concepts in the rules. Hence my previous post.

And even if that belief would be true, in the specific wording of this way to spend Edge, it's the dice that are directly affected, not the test.

So basically what everyone is saying is that there is not such thing as a glitch or a crit. glitch because you can always just spend an edge to reroll and you eliminate it. Or you can spend an edge and negate the effects of the glitch or crit. glitch, but why do that is you can just reroll and the glitch never happened? Or you can spend an edge and downgrade a crit glitch to a regular glitch (still failing), but again why do that when you can just reroll and none of it ever happened?

It would be nice to have a dev comment on this because there has to be something to this otherwise the glitch rules are totally worthless.

Again: Because you could come up with a glitch again when rerolling. And as you only can spend one point of edge, your would be stuck with it.

Because you can run out of Edge (not everyone runs around with Edge 6+)? Because glitches aren't worth wasting Edge on (you still succeed on a glitch, you know)? Because both Edge and critical glitches are stupid mechanics, so you may as well have one negate the other? Take your pick.


Only if you look at it from a narrow perspective.

Pg 60 defines a test as "rolling dice and determining the outcome"

Test encapsulates the entire process. roll, use edge effects, apply successes against threshhold/opposed hits/what have you, determine effects.

1 roll =/= 1 test

Sounds to me that the misconception here comes solely from the belief that "roll" and "test" are not two different concepts in the rules.

pendantic, adj. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms

Not at all, I'm trying to avoid letting the broader concept be overlooked in favor of the minute rules lawyering so prevalent in this, and any other, thread on this forum.

the explicit inclusion of using edge to negate a glitch, implicitly states that if you do not use edge to negate it, it does not go away. even if you reroll the dice to attempt a more favorable outcome for the test overall, something has still gone wrong. It did so the moment that glitch hit the table.

Not so.

In this case the test would go as follows

Roll (glitch)-spend edge to reroll dice that didn't score a hit-determine total number of Hits-determine outcome (with glitch)
or
Roll (glitch)-spend edge to negate/downgrade glitch-determine total number of Hits-determine outcome (without glitch)

Edit: Changed "Successes" to "hits"

Reverse.

Not defined that way by RAW.

I'm awed by your eloquence, but forgive me if I'm not satisfied by the emphasis you put on "nuh-uh!"

I think that we forgot to answer the original question by the way.

No RAW states one use of edge per test. If you use it b4 for you cant after.

Answered it.

Your entire argument hinges completely on a make-believe rule of your own devising. Why should anyone's response be any more substantial?

My argument hinges on a direct excerpt from the core book. It's a pretty clear statement in black and white.



If half the dice are ones, it's a glitch.
If you want to make a glitch go away, spend Edge

No amount of Grammatical tomfoolery with the edge rules changes this clear statement.

Though a permanent guard power is much better then spending edge you just don't glitch at all any more.

Correct. The only problem is that you can use Edge to reroll all those ones (and twos, and threes, and fours) by spending Edge on that, instead. Or, you could just roll (Edge) dice with exploding 6's and add those dice to the test, negating the glitch or critical glitch that way. All three options result in a non-glitch, though two of them are completely dependent upon luck. "No amount of grammatical tomfoolery" changes that fact.


Sorry, guy. You're the one clinging to and relying entirely upon "grammatical tomfoolery."

I believe you are wrong. The glitch exists as an independent variable.

Edit: to clarify.
You can change all the ones to sixes, but you can't change the fact that they were there. That's why, even if you spend a point to reduce a crit glitch to a normal glitch, critical glitches are always auto-fail.

You can by virtue of rerolling them. Hence the use of the word "reroll."