So lets say I deep strike a squad with a Harbinger of Eternity, with the Cronometron, if i roll my scatter die and get an arrow, a 1 and a 6 for example, can i use that to re roll the 6?
Page 2 tells you that if re-rolling a roll of multiple dice, you have to re-roll all of them, unless you have a rule which specifically says otherwise.
Chronometron lets you re-roll a d6 roll, and says nothing about scatter rolls, 2d6 rolls, 3d6 rolls, etc. So it can't be used on them.
Give him the whole story, without re-opening the can of worms.
Kalzruk, for multi-die rolls, ie 2d6 morale etc, if you reroll you must reroll all die - unless specified otherwise, you must treat the roll as a whole. The conflict comes in because some people interpret the Chronometron rule phraseology as giving you permission to reroll just one of the set, ie, that the rule does specify otherwise. It's more regular to play that you can't, but there is a chance that GW intended otherwise.
The fact is that many 40k rules aren't clearcut. It's probably safest to play that you can't reroll just one of a set, but it's very possible that an upcoming FAQ will "clarify" that rolling one was RAW all along, too.
Randall Turner wrote:Give him the whole story, without re-opening the can of worms.
Kalzruk, for multi-die rolls, ie 2d6 morale etc, if you reroll you must reroll all die - unless specified otherwise, you must treat the roll as a whole. The conflict comes in because some people interpret the Chronometron rule phraseology as giving you permission to reroll just one of the set, ie, that the rule does specify otherwise. It's more regular to play that you can't, but there is a chance that GW intended otherwise.
The fact is that many 40k rules aren't clearcut. It's probably safest to play that you can't reroll just one of a set, but it's very possible that an upcoming FAQ will "clarify" that rolling one was RAW all along, too.
I want to flip-flop here. After talking to Norbu, the guy who won the Indy GT with the Tremorcrons. He has been and is using the Chronometron to reroll leadership rolls etc. without dispute.
We discussed it, then I looked at the rule wording, compared it to other wording in other games etc, and the D6 does plainly stand alone. Ie, permission to reroll one of the unit's D6 rolls does include half of a 2D6 morale check.
That's all, don't expect a consensus, just saying that on further consideration I'm changing my own personal position.
To be clear, when I say "comparing it to other games" I'm saying what's lacking in the 40KBRB is some wording that we're all used to re: d6, D6, 2d6, etc. from other games that I'd subconsciously projected into my reading. You know, the standard big-D, little-d differentiation is just not there in this rulebook.
And I'm not trying to say you should think this way, I'm explaining what changed in my mental picture. That's one element. What triggered the re-evaluation, though, was a GT winner telling me, "of course you can reroll one of the die!" That's a data point, and as far as "the right way to play" - Rigeld2, that's *all* I'm interested in. I care about slightly different things than you do. Not so much legalistic interpretation of RAW, but often intent.
To roll 2d6, the rule book tells you to roll 2 1d6 and add them. You never reroll the 2d6 roll with chronometron, so the rule about rerolls doesn't apply, as the chronometron is not rerolling a 2d6 roll. To use chrono, you reroll the d6 before summing it in the 2d6 roll.
DevianID wrote:To roll 2d6, the rule book tells you to roll 2 1d6 and add them. You never reroll the 2d6 roll with chronometron, so the rule about rerolls doesn't apply, as the chronometron is not rerolling a 2d6 roll. To use chrono, you reroll the d6 before summing it in the 2d6 roll.
It's like you have a unique viewpoint that contributes to the discussion.
Except you don't. And your viewpoint is wrong.
You can't re-roll the die before summing it into the 2d6 result - because thats not a d6 roll.
I get that, it's a question of degree. I figured out you're actually a pretty nice guy, dude. (especially when you look things up for me. ) But our heads work a bit different.
And GT winners can be wrong too. They are not infallible.
No question. It changes the shade of grey, though.
McNinja, it's not "safe" to depend on it. But in my mind I think it's safe enough to start looking at it as a tactical option, with a view towards checking any Chrono dependent action before trying to use it in a tourney.
I agree that the Chronometron cannot be used to re-roll single dice out of a 2D6 or 3D6 roll because of the careful way it is worded.
It says the model/unit can re-roll one of their 'D6 rolls each phase'. If the phrasing had been that they could re-roll any 'single D6 rolled by the unit each phase', then I think this would be specifically allowing a single D6 to be re-rolled (that exact exception talked about in the re-roll rules).
However a 'D6 roll' is definitely different from a 2D6 roll, as 2D6 or 3D6, etc rolls specify that you add the results of all the dice together, whereas a D6 roll, no matter how many of them you make at once you do not add them together.
With that said, we're really talking about the fine minutiae of grammar here. It is easily believable that being able to 're-roll a 'D6 roll each phase' is supposed to be exactly that exception to the re-roll rules. I mean, the whole point of that exception is to explain that if you're granted the ability to re-roll 'a roll' then it would be all the dice in a 2D6, 3D6, etc, roll, excecpt in a case where the re-roll rule specified that you only got to re-roll a single D6.
This is clearly a case where the rule only allows you to re-roll a single die, as opposed to a whole roll. So whether that is supposed to meant that you can't re-roll either die of a 2D6 roll or that you're only allowed to re-roll one D6 out of such a roll is again, frankly down to subtle minutiae.
As such, I'd personally be fine with ruling it either way.
Randall Turner wrote:To be clear, when I say "comparing it to other games" I'm saying what's lacking in the 40KBRB is some wording that we're all used to re: d6, D6, 2d6, etc. from other games that I'd subconsciously projected into my reading. You know, the standard big-D, little-d differentiation is just not there in this rulebook.
I've been playing rpg's and TTWG's for 24 years, and I don't know of any significance assigned to the capitalization (or lack thereof) of the abbreviation of "die".
Randall Turner wrote:To be clear, when I say "comparing it to other games" I'm saying what's lacking in the 40KBRB is some wording that we're all used to re: d6, D6, 2d6, etc. from other games that I'd subconsciously projected into my reading. You know, the standard big-D, little-d differentiation is just not there in this rulebook.
I've been playing rpg's and TTWG's for 24 years, and I don't know of any significance assigned to the capitalization (or lack thereof) of the abbreviation of "die".
Lordhat wrote: I've been playing rpg's and TTWG's for 24 years, and I don't know of any significance assigned to the capitalization (or lack thereof) of the abbreviation of "die".
And yet, it exists! lol Seriously, you're not familiar with the difference between D6/d6, and you're one of the senior members here, aren't you. <sigh> old. I believe the original definition is on something like page three of the D&D Player's Manual, copyright 1979, but it's basically that d6 = a six sided die, 2d6 = two dice, D6 = roll of one d6, 2D6 = atomic, indivisible roll of 2d6.
d6 = six sided die
D6 = roll of a d6 2d6 = two six sided dice
2D6 = roll of 2d6
The pertinent line to this rule interpretation is in the Necron codex where it says the Chronometron allows a reroll of one of the unit's D6 rolls per phase. In no way does that carry the same significance that it would have in the systems I'd grown up playing. So, basically I misread the rule, or at least read it with the wrong emphasis. To you all the key element was whether a 2D6 roll was atomic - to me, it was that the rule only allowed D6 rerolls, and specifically disallowed d6 rerolls.
If the rule had read, "allows a reroll of one of the unit's d6 rolls per phase", ie, one of the six sided die, I'd have long ago argued for partial rerolls. But I read it to say, "allows a reroll of one of the unit's D6 rolls per phase", ie, one of his rolls using a d6. Because a "d6", ie, six sided die, in no way equates to a "D6", ie, roll of a six sided die.
But then on page 2 - "Almost all of the dice rolls... use standard six-sided dice (usually referred to as 'D6')". Holy f'k. In 40K, "D6" means "d6"! The Chronometron rule is specifically saying that we can reroll one of the six sided die!!
(And indeed, I originally accused Norbu of misunderstanding the codex rule - though I quickly tweaked to his version of your blank "hunh?" )
Thank you for this opportunity to walk down nostalgia lane, "Ready Player One" deja vu.
yakface wrote:I agree that the Chronometron cannot be used to re-roll single dice out of a 2D6 or 3D6 roll because of the careful way it is worded.
It says the model/unit can re-roll one of their 'D6 rolls each phase'. If the phrasing had been that they could re-roll any 'single D6 rolled by the unit each phase', then I think this would be specifically allowing a single D6 to be re-rolled (that exact exception talked about in the re-roll rules).
Chrono does give implicit permission for re-roll.
It definitely isn't giving specific (ie. explicit) permission for re-roll. If it were, it would mention that it can re-roll single D6 from 2D6 roll. One good example of standard required for specific permission in rules is ATSKNF vs SA.
yakface wrote:
However a 'D6 roll' is definitely different from a 2D6 roll, as 2D6 or 3D6, etc rolls specify that you add the results of all the dice together, whereas a D6 roll, no matter how many of them you make at once you do not add them together.
yakface wrote:I agree that the Chronometron cannot be used to re-roll single dice out of a 2D6 or 3D6 roll because of the careful way it is worded.
It says the model/unit can re-roll one of their 'D6 rolls each phase'. If the phrasing had been that they could re-roll any 'single D6 rolled by the unit each phase', then I think this would be specifically allowing a single D6 to be re-rolled (that exact exception talked about in the re-roll rules).
Chrono does give implicit permission for re-roll.
It definitely isn't giving specific (ie. explicit) permission for re-roll. If it were, it would mention that it can re-roll single D6 from 2D6 roll. One good example of standard required for specific permission in rules is ATSKNF vs SA.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. The example of Sweeping Advance being mentioned in ATSKNF is a example of definitive specificity but that in no way makes it the standard.
Again, the rule for re-rolls basically states that if you are able to re-roll a roll in general, then you would have to re-roll all the dice that make up that roll. The exception is if a rule specifies otherwise. So if a rule does say that any single dice can be re-rolled, then that would absolutely be specific enough to fall into that exception. Otherwise you're creating a situation where a re-roll would have to specify every single possible combination that it could be used, which is obviously ludicrous, as then they'd have to say: you can re-roll any single die, including one die out of a 2D6, 3D6, 4D6, etc.
So while I do agree that the specific wording of the Chronometron does seem to indicate that it cannot be used to reroll one dice out of a 2D6 roll for example, it is by no means some sort of slam-dunk situation where anyone thinking differently is crazy.
The rules on Pg 2 of the rulebook do define what a '2D6' roll is, they don't explicitly say what a 'D6 roll' is, which therefore leaves the door open for people to interpret that a D6 roll is both any roll made where the single die's outcome is calculated on its own and any single die roll that helps to make up a 2D6 roll.
yakface wrote:The rules on Pg 2 of the rulebook do define what a '2D6' roll is, they don't explicitly say what a 'D6 roll' is, which therefore leaves the door open for people to interpret that a D6 roll is both any roll made where the single die's outcome is calculated on its own and any single die roll that helps to make up a 2D6 roll.
This is exactly the imprecision they were trying to avoid with the d6/D6 notation. (From whatever source, I can't for the life of me remember where or what system I internalized it from.) The ambiguity comes from us being unsure whether rerolling "..one of his D6 rolls.." means one of his physical d6 die rolls or one of his game mandated conceptual D6 rolls involving a single d6 die.
The problem I'm having now is that the the rule for re-rolls we keep referring to is only for 2D6 or 3D6 rolls - it's intended to keep a player granted the right to reroll a 2D6/3D6 roll from preserving one of his previously rolled "good" d6 die. Here, we're not rerolling a 2D6 or 3D6 roll. We're rerolling a single d6 OR D6 - without any restriction I can see. So, the qualifying phrase "If you reroll a 2D6 or 3D6 roll..." isn't triggered - that part of the reroll rule isn't relevant, so the subsequent "...you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some..." is also irrelevant.
Bottom line becomes very simple - we're just rerolling one d6, ie, one six sided die. Wrong, sorry. If it's a "D6" reroll being allowed of course we simply just can't touch a 2D6 or 3D6 - but the reroll rule above is indeed still irrelevant.
The opposing (D6) view is, of course, also supportable. However, strict RAW, the only definition of D6 is on pp. 2 as a physical, six sided die - which if we then textually substitute into the Chronometron rule, we get the "reroll allowed" interpretation. Edits colored
First of all this whole discussion is due to grammar and the inability of GW to write consistent ruling.
But it is even more simple, as you deepstrike the guy with the chronometron is not on the table ( remember deepstriking removes the models from the table) so hence you are not able to use the chronometron to reroll any of these dice...
Valek wrote:First of all this whole discussion is due to grammar and the inability of GW to write consistent ruling.
But it is even more simple, as you deepstrike the guy with the chronometron is not on the table ( remember deepstriking removes the models from the table) so hence you are not able to use the chronometron to reroll any of these dice...
Well, the same logic applies to any 2D6 roll, such as a Ld test, so the argument is valid even if Deep Striking may be moot.
yakface wrote:The rules on Pg 2 of the rulebook do define what a '2D6' roll is, they don't explicitly say what a 'D6 roll' is, which therefore leaves the door open for people to interpret that a D6 roll is both any roll made where the single die's outcome is calculated on its own and any single die roll that helps to make up a 2D6 roll.
This is exactly the imprecision they were trying to avoid with the d6/D6 notation. (From whatever source, I can't for the life of me remember where or what system I internalized it from.) The ambiguity comes from us being unsure whether rerolling "..one of his D6 rolls.." means one of his physical d6 die rolls or one of his game mandated conceptual D6 rolls involving a single d6 die.
The problem I'm having now is that the the rule for re-rolls we keep referring to is only for 2D6 or 3D6 rolls - it's intended to keep a player granted the right to reroll a 2D6/3D6 roll from preserving one of his previously rolled "good" d6 die. Here, we're not rerolling a 2D6 or 3D6 roll. We're rerolling a single d6 OR D6 - without any restriction I can see. So, the qualifying phrase "If you reroll a 2D6 or 3D6 roll..." isn't triggered - that part of the reroll rule isn't relevant, so the subsequent "...you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some..." is also irrelevant.
Bottom line becomes very simple - we're just rerolling one d6, ie, one six sided die. Wrong, sorry. If it's a "D6" reroll being allowed of course we simply just can't touch a 2D6 or 3D6 - but the reroll rule above is indeed still irrelevant.
The opposing (D6) view is, of course, also supportable. However, strict RAW, the only definition of D6 is on pp. 2 as a physical, six sided die - which if we then textually substitute into the Chronometron rule, we get the "reroll allowed" interpretation. Edits colored
Where are you getting a difference between a physical d6 and a game mandated d6 roll? The 40k rules don't allow for such a distinction. There is no difference.
Rolling a die as part of a multid6 roll is not 'a d6 roll'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yakface wrote:Otherwise you're creating a situation where a re-roll would have to specify every single possible combination that it could be used, which is obviously ludicrous, as then they'd have to say: you can re-roll any single die, including one die out of a 2D6, 3D6, 4D6, etc.
You can re-roll any single die, including one die out of a multiple d6 (2d6, 3d6 and so on) set.
Yeah, that's some ludicrous wording. It's exactly the way the brb defines multi-d6 rolls.
rigeld2 wrote:[Where are you getting a difference between a physical d6 and a game mandated d6 roll? The 40k rules don't allow for such a distinction. There is no difference. Rolling a die as part of a multid6 roll is not 'a d6 roll'.
The distinction isn't something from a rulebook. They're conceptually different things, represented by the same English word. One "roll" is a physical roll of a six-sided plastic cube. The other "roll" is an abstract game concept, ala "initiative roll".
If the Chronometron rule is read to allow us to reroll any physical roll of a six sided die, we may reroll part of a 2D6 roll.
If the Chonometron rule is read to allow us to reroll any conceptual game check involving a six sided die, we may not reroll part of a 2D6 roll.
Valek wrote:as you deepstrike the guy with the chronometron is not on the table ( remember deepstriking removes the models from the table) so hence you are not able to use the chronometron to reroll any of these dice...
Imotekh's storm continuation reroll FAQ established a chronometron's ability to function while off-table.
rigeld2 wrote:Where are you getting a difference between a physical d6 and a game mandated d6 roll? The 40k rules don't allow for such a distinction. There is no difference. Rolling a die as part of a multid6 roll is not 'a d6 roll'.
The distinction isn't something from a rulebook. They're conceptually different things, represented by the same English word. One "roll" is a physical roll of a six-sided plastic cube. The other "roll" is an abstract game concept, ala "initiative roll".
If the Chronometron rule is read to allow us to reroll any physical roll of a six sided die, we may reroll part of a 2D6 roll.
If the Chonometron rule is read to allow us to reroll any conceptual game check involving a six sided die, we may not reroll part of a 2D6 roll.
Based on the wording on page two, the "physical" roll is only used as a verb.
I don't see how you can read the Chrono rule and think that the word "roll" is used as a verb.
Dammit, I'm still doing it! lol I read your "You make a d6 roll" as little-d, ie, non-conceptual, and you *meant* it as big-D, as in "Initiative roll".
It's plain that "roll" can refer to a physical roll, a game-conceptual roll, it can be a verb in both cases and indeed in verb form can mean do both ("roll for initiative!"). The word "roll" is very versatile and deserves a bit of disambiguation. But it didn't get it here. So, the Chrono rule is, I'm afraid, open to alternate interpretation.
Based on my experiences and the information I have, my interpretation is that it can be used to reroll part of a 2D6 roll now. That's all, and I'm just explaining my reasoning, not trying to persuade you. My purpose here was to say that I'm switching to considering 2D6 chrono reroll benefits when building lists. And when talking to others about lists, and when suggesting tactics, and so on. We don't need to agree on it, the only time it'll come up between us we'll either know each other better or we'll have some judge dictating interpretations anyway. No stress.
No, "Roll for initiative!" is not referencing both.
It's a directive to roll (verb) for initiative.
You do make an initiative roll, but that's not the same thing.
You keep saying its open to interpretation, but don't really have a basis for that statement besides how other games use D and d, and your (incorrect) understanding of the word roll.
A d6 roll is a noun. You can point to it on the table and show it to someone.
Rolling a d6 is a verb. It's an action.
You're conflating the two in a way the English language doesn't allow.
And the reason I keep posting is that I don't think giving list advice based on flawed interpretations of the rules is a good idea.
Also, completely irrelevant, but hot damn the iPad spell checker is amazing.
rigeld2 wrote:You keep saying its open to interpretation, but don't really have a basis for that statement besides how other games use D and d, and your (incorrect) understanding of the word roll.
yakface wrote:The rules on Pg 2 of the rulebook do define what a '2D6' roll is, they don't explicitly say what a 'D6 roll' is, which therefore leaves the door open for people to interpret that a D6 roll is both any roll made where the single die's outcome is calculated on its own and any single die roll that helps to make up a 2D6 roll.
rigeld2 wrote:You keep saying its open to interpretation, but don't really have a basis for that statement besides how other games use D and d, and your (incorrect) understanding of the word roll.
yakface wrote:The rules on Pg 2 of the rulebook do define what a '2D6' roll is, they don't explicitly say what a 'D6 roll' is, which therefore leaves the door open for people to interpret that a D6 roll is both any roll made where the single die's outcome is calculated on its own and any single die roll that helps to make up a 2D6 roll.
Except it does. First paragraph.
"often need to roll dice... Usually referred to as d6"
It references shooting, which we know how to handle, and from the context of the rest of the page we know a d6 roll is the final result of rolling a d6.
yakface wrote:[
The rules on Pg 2 of the rulebook do define what a '2D6' roll is, they don't explicitly say what a 'D6 roll' is, which therefore leaves the door open for people to interpret that a D6 roll is both any roll made where the single die's outcome is calculated on its own and any single die roll that helps to make up a 2D6 roll.
Page 2 doesn't define D6roll explicitly, but they do define that "D6+2" roll gives final result of 3-8 (Pg2, Modifying dice rolls). Considering this and how 2D6 is defined, there is absolutely no support for the interpretation that 2D6roll is composed of 2 separate D6rolls.
Short version:
We know that any given dice roll gives us final result. Thus, even though you do throw two six-sided die, 2D6roll [result 2-12] does not consist of two separate D6rolls [first result 1-6,second result 1-6].
Fake-edit: It can be argued, that modified dice roll is not in fact a roll of separate type (ie 3D6-3 is 3D6roll, just as normal 3D6 is). This is completely valid viewpoint, but also means that D6roll is explicitly defined to give final result of 1-6, as per "Modifying Dice Rolls"
Well, Luide, at least you recognize the problem. It's the ambiguity between a D6 roll being a physical die roll, or a D6 roll being a game check that involves a physical die roll. I'm not sure we agree on the exact ambiguous element yet. Or why the 2D6 reroll rule is irrelevant.
We need more concise semantics for clear discussion. Let's make our own shorthand for these different roll flavors, I'll just abbreviate your "roll" suffix, and add the explicit concept of a "check":
D6 = a physical six sided die
D6r = a six sided die roll, ie, a physical roll
D6rc = a game roll check consisting of a roll of a six sided die, ie, "Initiative roll"
So, a game check involving a 2D6 die roll would be a 2D6rc, ie, a leadership check. The physical roll for that leadership check is a 2D6r. That physical roll consists of 2 x D6r - however, the leadership check does NOT consist in ANY WAY of 2 x D6rc.
Are we good so far? Just laying the groundwork for further discussion. To be continued, must run...
Randall Turner wrote:Well, Luide, at least you recognize the problem. It's the ambiguity between a D6 roll being a physical die roll, or a D6 roll being a game check that involves a physical die roll. I'm not sure we agree on the exact ambiguous element yet. Or why the 2D6 reroll rule is irrelevant.
The ambiguity disappears when you parse the sentence. When rules say roll as verb, they mean the physical act of throwing the dice. When game rules say roll as noun they are referring to what you'd consider "game roll check". In my post, I underlined each roll that is noun.
And 2D6 reroll rule isn't irrelevant. In my opinion it alone would stop Chrono from working against 2D6rolls.
I mean, the rule reads "unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly specifies otherwise". Compare to SA wording "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage" and wording used in ATSKNF. Because Chrono doesn't explicitly mention re-rolling only portion of 2D6 roll, it cannot do so. Implicit permission is not enough.
Randall Turner wrote:
We need more concise semantics for clear discussion. Let's make our own shorthand for these different roll flavors, I'll just abbreviate your "roll" suffix, and add the explicit concept of a "check":
D6 = a physical six sided die
D6r = a six sided die roll, ie, a physical roll
D6rc = a game roll check consisting of a roll of a six sided die, ie, "Initiative roll"
So, a game check involving a 2D6 die roll would be a 2D6rc, ie, a leadership check. The physical roll for that leadership check is a 2D6r. That physical roll consists of 2 x D6r - however, the leadership check does NOT consist in ANY WAY of 2 x D6rc.
Are we good so far? Just laying the groundwork for further discussion. To be continued, must run...
Yes. And every time rules refer to roll as a noun instead of a verb, they're always referring to what you'd consider xD6rc. So Chrono only allows re-roll of a D6rc, never D6r.
Randall Turner wrote:Well, then, you need to take that up with Yakface.
If you're using his argument to support yours, you should be able to defend it.
Just remember, while Yakface is the owner of the site, he doesn't have absolute authority over what is correct in the rules.
... just absolute authority over my punishment for calling him out.
Randall Turner wrote:So, a game check involving a 2D6 die roll would be a 2D6rc, ie, a leadership check. The physical roll for that leadership check is a 2D6r. That physical roll consists of 2 x D6r - however, the leadership check does NOT consist in ANY WAY of 2 x D6rc.
I think I can agree with that.
I will assert that the context of the sentence defines the word "roll" for us - or at least which "version" of the word we should use.
I will assert that the only time D6r is meant, the word "roll" is used as a verb.
I will assert that the wording of the Chronometron ("can re-roll one of his D6 rolls") does not use the word "roll" as a verb, and therefore is referring to a D6rc.
I'm not "appealing to authority" re: Yakface, rigeld2, I'm simply saying that I agree with his interpretations. I want to clearly state the issues first, bear with me. Reiterating our shorthand:
D6 = a physical six sided die
D6r = a six sided die roll, ie, a physical roll
D6rc = a game roll check consisting of a roll of a six sided die, ie, "Initiative roll"
2D6r = physical roll of two six sided dice, equivalent to 2xD6r
2D6rc = a game check consisting of a 2D6r, ie, "Leadership check"
etc.
Relevant rule wording, Chronometron:
"A model with a chronometron can re-roll one of his D6 rolls each phase."
There are two possible interpretations:
"A model with a chronometron can re-roll one of his D6r each phase."
"A model with a chronometron can re-roll one of his D6rc each phase."
Obviously if it's the second, we can't reroll part of a 2D6rc. However, if it's the first, we can b/c we can roll any D6r without qualification. And that is it. That's all, nothing more to it.
I agree with Yackface saying a D6 roll isn't defined - we've defined it here (both flavors), but GW neither defined it nor specified in the chrono rule which definition they're using. I also agree that the rule is ambiguous, and could be interpreted both ways. So now we get to the fun part - why interpret it as a D6r reroll? Well, first of all, it's not 100% - the only part of the opposing view I flatly disagree with is that it's the only possible interpretation. If we're in a situation where a rule is ambiguous, we have to divine intent. We're in RAI land here. We know a few things:
1) People have called the GW hotline and been told they can partial reroll.
2) It's allowed in some tournaments.
Neither of these are definitive, but though they don't hold weight here on YMDC, they matter in real life. In both cases there's *probably* been contact with GW to determine intent. And frankly I don't care about winning a debate on YMDC, I just want to know if I can use the silly thing - for casual use 1) will probably suffice, for tournament use 2) is probably germane. We could do one more thing:
3) Ask GW ourselves - but that's hard. (And even if we can, it takes time to get a response. )
reroll irrelevant
Spoiler:
Relevant rule wording, multi-die rerolls:
"If you re-roll a 2D6 or 3D6 roll, you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly specifies otherwise."
For the multi-die reroll rule, there are also two possible interpretations, ignoring 3 die flavors:
"If you re-roll a 2D6r, you must re-roll all of the dice..."
"If you re-roll a 2D6rc, you must re-roll all of the dice..."
This rule is of the logical form:
"IF (A) and not (B), then (C)"
(A) == reroll a [2D6r or 2D6rc]
(B) == rule explicitly overrides
(C) == roll 2D6
Regardless of our interpretation of the Chrono rule, (A) is never satisfied. We're never directed to reroll a 2D6r or 2D6rc.
The multi-die reroll is STILL irrelevant even if you don't agree with the strict "if (A) && !(B) then (C)" definition, b/c either the chrono rule gives us permission to reroll a D6rc and we just can't touch a 2D6r/rc, *or* the chrono rule gives us permssion to reroll a D6r, in which case it explicitly is allowing us to reroll one of the 2D6 die.
And if we go down this path I also agree with Yakface that permission to roll one D6r is explicit enough without exhaustively specifying each possible combo of D6 rolls it applies to.
But it is defined. Or are you ignoring the context and words on page 2?
Ignoring that, saying that the word "rolls" can be a verb (in the Chronometron rules) is just wrong. I don't see any way to parse that sentence to make it a verb. And the only time d6r is valid is when the word roll is a verb.
"rolls" is plural. You can't have a plural verb with a singular subject (a model, his)
lol Yeah, I'm just ignoring your noun/verb shenanigans. It's pretty obvious that a physical D6 roll is a noun and a conceptual D6 roll is also a noun. They're both "things".
Randall Turner wrote:lol Yeah, I'm just ignoring your noun/verb shenanigans. It's pretty obvious that a physical D6 roll is a noun and a conceptual D6 roll is also a noun. They're both "things".
No. The act of rolling is a verb. Roll a d6 - that's a verb. Make a d6 roll - that's a noun.
Randall Turner wrote:lol Yeah, I'm just ignoring your noun/verb shenanigans. It's pretty obvious that a physical D6 roll is a noun and a conceptual D6 roll is also a noun. They're both "things".
No. The act of rolling is a verb. Roll a d6 - that's a verb. Make a d6 roll - that's a noun.
And this is absolutely relevant.
That we can use the word "roll" as a noun or a verb? I'm not contesting that at all, it's obvious. If you're saying a physical roll of a six sided die has to be a verb, yeah, we've got a problem. I just look back in the sentence I typed and go, "yep, noun".
... No, seriously, I do.
The word act is a noun. If you are rolling dice, then that act is a verb.
The word action is a noun. Action words (that is, words that describe an action) are verbs.
To roll a die is a verb. A die roll is a noun.
Edit: it's interesting that the word I was describing you didn't address - what is the word "rolling" in the post I quoted?
Randall Turner wrote:I agree with Yackface saying a D6 roll isn't defined - we've defined it here (both flavors), but GW neither defined it nor specified in the chrono rule which definition they're using. I
D6roll per se isn't defined at page 2. D6+X roll is explicitly defined (where X is a number). Now the real question is, does adding or subtracting number from D6 change the type of the roll?
Example: is a 2D6-3 considered a type of 2D6roll?
Even better example, do you consider D6+0 roll to be a type of D6roll? If you answer yes to either, then D6roll is well defined by rules.
And the verb vs noun is extremely important, because that is exactly what distinguishes the game term roll from physical act of rolling the dice. Basically way to know did designer mean D6r or D6rc.
DEFINING TERMS!! Come on, guys! It's not that complicated! There are two kinds of rolls - a game roll and a phsical roll. D6r and D6rc - Both are friggin' nouns, okay? Both are things! What is so damn hard to understand about this? Are you guys yanking my chain? Am I getting trolled here? Are you somehow scared that admitting you understand this is going to cost you a debate? All we're doing here is defining terms. THIS ISN'T PART OF THE DEBATE! This is the part BEFORE the debate, when we make sure we're both speaking English - because though a dude speaking Mandarin may be making good points, we're not gonna agree on any of them.
By Definition: A game roll is a to-hit roll, a saving throw, a scatter roll, a night-fight check. Shorthand is D6rc, 2D6rc, etc.
By Definition: A physical roll is just any dumbass roll of a die. Shorthand is D6r, 2D6r etc.
This has nothing to do with 40K or the BRB, these are *our* agreed-on definitions. And yeah, before we go there. I'll stipulate that there are many MORE kinds of rolls, including die rolls and cinnamon rolls and lucky streaks. Some may be verbs. If you believe one of them are germane to this discussion, include them in our dictionary of terms - it's not a problem, the "defining terms" part again isn't part of a debate. Anybody can include a new term with a unique definition to use in the discussion.
Just don't go redefining terms we've already settled on!!
rigeld2 wrote:Are you saying that there is a difference between a physical roll and the act of rolling a die?
Absolutely. By definition. Pick up a die - roll it. Wait 'till it stops bouncing. That whole thing's a physical roll. It has a result. It's conceptually different from the act of rolling, it's conceptually different from its result. It contains one (the result) after it happens, and contains another (the roll action) as part of it's creation process. It requires one to happen (the act of rolling) before you know the result. But you can refer to it before it happens, so the act of rolling isn't necessary to talk about it beforehand. And it exists as a concept before you know the result, and doesn't require that you know the result before you can refer to it. And it exists in a completed state with a result after the rolling action is completed. So there's no sequential dependency to the concept. IT'S A FRICKIN' DIE ROLL. To beat the horse to a pulp here:
You roll a die to make a die roll.
The action of rolling is the initial part of the die roll.
After the action of rolling is complete, the die roll has a result.
The result of a die roll is the final state of the die, usually whichever pip side comes up on top.
The complete action and result exist after the die comes to rest.
In its completed state the die roll still contains all it's component parts - the roll action as well as the final state of the die itself.
You can reroll a die roll. Repeat the process, reroll the die, get a new result.
This creates a *new* die roll.
This is completely intuitive and obvious. There are no tricks here. It's the normal layman understanding of a die roll. The state of the die is part of the state of the roll - a die roll can fall off the table, because the die that's part of it fell off the table. And this is all BY DEFINITION - if you don't like the definition, that's fine, we can change it and refer to different parts of it as different things. But eventually I'm going to define this thing right here as something, "Ralph", I don't care, and refer to it in the subsequent discussion.
No, not at all. If I just pull out a die here and roll it, it's a d6r. It's not a d6rc, because it's not a "check" for anything.
My definition above was a d6r. A d6rc is:
A die roll associated with a game concept. An initiative roll. A to-hit roll. A leadership roll, a run distance check, a dangerous terrain roll, etc, etc, etc.
Unit1126PLL wrote:I agree with Randall Turner's point.
A roll as part of a game check is a noun. (A D6rc is a noun).
A roll as a physical act is also a noun. (A D6r is a noun).
oh, though, you've used the shorthand incorrectly. A D6rc is a game check roll, ie, initiative roll. It contains a D6r, ie, a physical roll. The asociation with the "initiative" concept is what's added to make it a conceptual roll, ie, a D6rc.
A roll as a physical act is a noun, but it's not a D6r. (Edit: crap, maybe it is, it depends on your definition of "physical act".) A D6r is a physical roll, including the physical act of rolling as well as the resulting die state. It's simply not associated with any game concept. (They're certainly all nouns, though. )
We have some more definitions to make, by the way, involving multi-die rolls. Basically what a 2D6r and a 2D6rc are, and their relationships to D6r and D6rc's. Again, these are just definitions. They're simply agreed-on conventions so that we can have a meaningful discussion.
Honestly, don't care. Doesn't matter if it's a verb or a noun, the word "roll" in "roll a die" is the physical act of rolling, ie, you can rephrase it as a noun ie, "physical act of rolling" or a verb "roll" and when you refer to it, it turns into a noun. (Has to, b/c the subject of a sentence is always a noun.)
We can define the physical act of rolling as something, not sure where it'll come up. say, Rv, "verb" for "roll as a verb", maybe? But Rv, or any shorthand or reference to "roll as a verb" itself becomes a noun.
Honestly though, rigeld2, get off the grammatical construction thing, it's irrelevant.
Randall Turner wrote:Honestly though, rigeld2, get off the grammatical construction thing, it's irrelevant.
It's not.
Roll a die.
is grammatically different from
Make a die roll.
They might end up with the same result - but the two sentences are structured different enough that you can't assume they are the same.
Hence when the Chrono rule says "d6 rolls" and the multi-d6 rules say "roll the indicated number of dice and add the scores together" we know that they are not the same.
You are rolling (verb). You do not have a die roll until there is a result - which is after the scores are added together.
rigeld2 wrote:You are rolling (verb). You do not have a die roll until there is a result - which is after the scores are added together.
That's silly. By Definition, I have two D6r's that I add together into a 2D6r. BY DEFINITION. I'm DEFINING a physical 2D6 roll as two physical D6 rolls - so I can talk about it! You can't say it doesn't exist. You can't disallow a debate opponent from defining a term.
rigeld2 wrote:You are rolling (verb). You do not have a die roll until there is a result - which is after the scores are added together.
That's silly. By Definition, I have two D6r's that I add together into a 2D6r. BY DEFINITION. I'm DEFINING a physical 2D6 roll as two physical D6 rolls - so I can talk about it! You can't say it doesn't exist. You can't disallow a debate opponent from defining a term.
And yet you keep telling me that I can't define "to roll" and "a d6 roll" as different.... (well, you're calling the difference irrelevant which amounts to the same thing)
I don't get the relevance of what you're calling a d6r then. Care to explain?
This is why we can't have nice things on this forum.
kirsanth, my definition isn't for me - it's an abstract definition of terms so that when we talk about it, we'll be talking about the same thing. May I suggest "atomic, inseparable 2D6 roll", or 2D6a, for your concept? So that when you use the term "2D6" in your sentences I'll be clear as to what you're referring to?
You understand that if a definition is just for me, and it means something else for you, when we type the same thing we won't be *meaning* the same thing? And how that's "bad"? Again, THIS ISN'T A CONTEST, the debate comes AFTER we define our terms so we understand each other.
rigeld2, I *suggested* Rv as "roll as a verb" for your term. At no point did I say you can't define it as different from anything else. I said verbatim, "not sure when it'll come up". You can define ANYTHING, this isn't a contest, it's so that we know what each of us is saying.
rigeld2 wrote:What it seems like Randall is trying to say is that the act of rolling a d6 can be the same as a "d6 roll".
If that's not correct I apologize.
To be fair, it can be.
It's just not always the case. Which is to say it is not when the x is not 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Randall Turner wrote:This is why we can't have nice things on this forum.
This is also demonstrably false.
In any case, defining a multi-d6 roll as rolling multi-d6 is fine.
Re-Defining a multi-d6 roll as separate instances of d6 rolls isn't.
The single roll (a 2d6 roll) must be rolled, to be re-rolled.
Rolling 1d6 twice is 2 d6 rolls, not a 2d6 roll.
Note: I am deliberately not caring about the d v. D because dice games do not either.
Randall Turner wrote:kirsanth, my definition isn't for me - it's an abstract definition of terms so that when we talk about it, we'll be talking about the same thing. May I suggest "atomic, inseparable 2D6 roll", or 2D6a, for your concept? So that when you use the term "2D6" in your sentences I'll be clear as to what you're referring to?
The point of defining terms isn't so that we all know where we disagree, it's to find a common ground.
You understand that if a definition is just for me, and it means something else for you, when we type the same thing we won't be *meaning* the same thing? And how that's "bad"? Again, THIS ISN'T A CONTEST, the debate comes AFTER we define our terms so we understand each other.
Right, and the way it seems you're trying to define some things doesn't make sense to me.
rigeld2, I *suggested* Rv as "roll as a verb" for your term. At no point did I say you can't define it as different from anything else. I said verbatim, "not sure when it'll come up". You can define ANYTHING, this isn't a contest, it's so that we know what each of us is saying.
Randall Turner wrote:Honestly, don't care. Doesn't matter if it's a verb or a noun, the word "roll" in "roll a die" is the physical act of rolling, ie, you can rephrase it as a noun ie, "physical act of rolling" or a verb "roll" and when you refer to it, it turns into a noun. (Has to, b/c the subject of a sentence is always a noun.)
We can define the physical act of rolling as something, not sure where it'll come up. say, Rv, "verb" for "roll as a verb", maybe? But Rv, or any shorthand or reference to "roll as a verb" itself becomes a noun.
Honestly though, rigeld2, get off the grammatical construction thing, it's irrelevant.
I bolded the part I was talking about - dismissing my comments as irrelevant is as good as telling me I can't do it.
Especially when it's absolutely relevant.
What basis do you have for treating each die in a multi-d6 roll as individual results? That's what this all comes down to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirsanth wrote:Note: I am deliberately not caring about the d v. D because dice games do not either.
QFT. I ignored that bit because there's no distinction in the BRB that I can find, and I've never really seen it around anywhere, in any rule set.
You're making an *argument*. We're not making *arguments* yet. And all I'm doing is assigning words to real-world "things". Sooner or later I'm going to refer to a physical die roll, which I've defined as a D6r, which consists of the elements that I laboriously typed out. And I'm going to refer to a physical roll of two dice, which I'm calling a 2D6r, which is by definition the concatenation of two D6r. I need words or shorthand notation or something so that you will know I'm referring to these things. That's all. If you need words or shorthand to refer to other things, that's fine, make them.
don't argue that my definitions can't exist. By Definition, they exist.
What don't you agree with? That it's completely intuitive and obvious is "fluff", you don't have to agree with that.
The definition of "physical roll" is a definition. It's what I mean when I refer to a D6r. If part of it's confusing, don't use the short version, use the long one I spent five minutes typing in.
Randall Turner wrote:What don't you agree with? That it's completely intuitive and obvious is "fluff", you don't have to agree with that.
The definition of "physical roll" is a definition. It's what I mean when I refer to a D6r. If part of it's confusing, don't use the short version, use the long one I spent five minutes typing in.
I
a) disagree that it's relevant
b) disagree that a "physical roll" as you call it is different from a die roll made for a check when you're told to make one.
And you asked if I could agree to the definitions - at first I did, but I evidently misunderstood what you meant, and I don't now.
Whether it's relevant is irrelevant. I can define anything I want.
The difference between it and a check is that the check consists of a physical roll linked to a game concept.
I roll a die here on my desk. That's a physical roll. I'm not playing the game. It has nothing to do with the game. It exists as a real-world thing, though.
I roll a die in-game. Same action, same result. I then apply it to a game mechanic, such as "to hit". That's a D6rc. It consists of a D6r, a physical roll, and also has game "significance" in some abstract fashion - in this case, determining whether I hit something. That makes it a D6rc. It also exists as a real-world thing.
A D6rc consists of a D6r plus a linkage to a game concept.
Randall Turner wrote:Whether it's relevant is irrelevant. I can define anything I want.
The difference between it and a check is that the check consists of a physical roll linked to a game concept.
I roll a die here on my desk. That's a physical roll. I'm not playing the game. It has nothing to do with the game. It exists as a real-world thing, though.
I roll a die in-game. Same action, same result. I then apply it to a game mechanic, such as "to hit". That's a D6rc. It consists of a D6r, a physical roll, and also has game "significance" in some abstract fashion - in this case, determining whether I hit something. That makes it a D6rc. It also exists as a real-world thing.
A D6rc consists of a D6r plus a linkage to a game concept.
... Okay, sure. It's pointless to define that because there's no use for it, but whatever. Have fun with that.
What's your point by defining that?
Randall Turner wrote:There are two possible interpretations:
"A model with a chronometron can re-roll one of his D6r each phase."
"A model with a chronometron can re-roll one of his D6rc each phase."
Because we don't know what the rule writers were thinking when they wrote the rule. So, it's possible. We can't say for sure either way, because we can't divine intent - but we can say for sure what's possible.
If that's the case, by definition a D6r is half of a 2D6r - which is a component of a 2D6rc. If we're told we can reroll a D6r, we can reroll one D6r of a 2D6r.
Randall Turner wrote:Because we don't know what the rule writers were thinking when they wrote the rule. So, it's possible. We can't say for sure either way, because we can't divine intent - but we can say for sure what's possible.
So you're arguing intent?
And have no rules to back up what you're saying?
From what I can see on page 2, rolling 2d6 isn't making 2 d6 rolls. It's rolling 2d6.
Randall Turner wrote:Because we don't know what the rule writers were thinking when they wrote the rule. So, it's possible. We can't say for sure either way, because we can't divine intent - but we can say for sure what's possible.
So you're arguing intent?
And have no rules to back up what you're saying?
No. Read what I said. "We can't divine intent". Try again.
Randall Turner wrote:Because we don't know what the rule writers were thinking when they wrote the rule. So, it's possible. We can't say for sure either way, because we can't divine intent - but we can say for sure what's possible.
So you're arguing intent?
And have no rules to back up what you're saying?
No. Read what I said. "We can't divine intent". Try again.
You can't divine intent, so you're going with the more powerful ruling?
And you have no rules to back up your theoretical intent...
Read the rules on page 2. Find in there the permission to evaluate the parts of a 2d6 roll separately.
rigeld2 wrote:You can't divine intent, so you're going with the more powerful ruling?
And you have no rules to back up your theoretical intent...
Reading comprehension fail again. I didn't go with *either* ruling. Try yet again.
Really?
Randall Turner wrote:
yakface wrote:The rules on Pg 2 of the rulebook do define what a '2D6' roll is, they don't explicitly say what a 'D6 roll' is, which therefore leaves the door open for people to interpret that a D6 roll is both any roll made where the single die's outcome is calculated on its own and any single die roll that helps to make up a 2D6 roll.
This is exactly the imprecision they were trying to avoid with the d6/D6 notation. (From whatever source, I can't for the life of me remember where or what system I internalized it from.) The ambiguity comes from us being unsure whether rerolling "..one of his D6 rolls.." means one of his physical d6 die rolls or one of his game mandated conceptual D6 rolls involving a single d6 die.
The problem I'm having now is that the the rule for re-rolls we keep referring to is only for 2D6 or 3D6 rolls - it's intended to keep a player granted the right to reroll a 2D6/3D6 roll from preserving one of his previously rolled "good" d6 die. Here, we're not rerolling a 2D6 or 3D6 roll. We're rerolling a single d6 OR D6 - without any restriction I can see. So, the qualifying phrase "If you reroll a 2D6 or 3D6 roll..." isn't triggered - that part of the reroll rule isn't relevant, so the subsequent "...you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some..." is also irrelevant.
Bottom line becomes very simple - we're just rerolling one d6, ie, one six sided die. Wrong, sorry. If it's a "D6" reroll being allowed of course we simply just can't touch a 2D6 or 3D6 - but the reroll rule above is indeed still irrelevant.
The opposing (D6) view is, of course, also supportable. However, strict RAW, the only definition of D6 is on pp. 2 as a physical, six sided die - which if we then textually substitute into the Chronometron rule, we get the "reroll allowed" interpretation. Edits colored
My bold, there at the end.
That means, to me, that you're interpreting the "reroll allowed" as being RAW. I double checked the thread and didn't see you flop back (forgive me if I missed it) and the re-roll allowed is obviously the more powerful interpretation. Therefore, unless I missed something, my question of "You can't divine intent, so you're going with the more powerful ruling?" is valid.
rigeld2 wrote:That means, to me, that you're interpreting the "reroll allowed" as being RAW. I double checked the thread and didn't see you flop back (forgive me if I missed it) and the re-roll allowed is obviously the more powerful interpretation. Therefore, unless I missed something, my question of "You can't divine intent, so you're going with the more powerful ruling?" is valid.
Go back and bold the part right in front of the section you chose to take out of context where I said the opposing view is also supportable. Or the umpteen places I said the rule was ambiguous. Seems to me you're just really bad at setting up strawmen and/or reading what other people type.
Try again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirsanth wrote:A d6 roll can be a 1d6 roll.
A d6 roll cannot be a 2d6 roll.
Yes, rolling a single 2d6 roll involves rolling two separate die (sic), but the event is a discreet roll of 2, not two discreet rolls of 1.
And we're never told to reroll a 2d6 of any flavor, physical or conceptual. So the 2d6 reroll rule doesn't apply. In either interpretation of the chrono rule.
rigeld2 wrote:That means, to me, that you're interpreting the "reroll allowed" as being RAW. I double checked the thread and didn't see you flop back (forgive me if I missed it) and the re-roll allowed is obviously the more powerful interpretation. Therefore, unless I missed something, my question of "You can't divine intent, so you're going with the more powerful ruling?" is valid.
Go back and bold the part right in front of the section you chose to take out of context where I said the opposing view is also supportable. Or the umpteen places I said the rule was ambiguous. Seems to me you're just really bad at setting up strawmen and/or reading what other people type.
Try again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirsanth wrote:A d6 roll can be a 1d6 roll. A d6 roll cannot be a 2d6 roll.
Yes, rolling a single 2d6 roll involves rolling two separate die (sic), but the event is a discreet roll of 2, not two discreet rolls of 1.
And we're never told to reroll a 2d6 of any flavor, physical or conceptual. So the 2d6 reroll rule doesn't apply. In either interpretation of the chrono rule.
You're attempting to re-roll part of a 2d6 roll by re-rolling a single D6 out of a Deep Strike scatter roll. I am having trouble understanding how such a rule would not apply.
Regardless of all of this (and I know I'm going to open up a whole 'nother can of worms), but the Chrono rule doesn't say anywhere that you may re-roll part of anything. It doesn't matter what a noun is and what a verb is, and which roll is a verb/noun/nerb/vern/indirect object/past participle, it matter whether or not the Chrono rule explicitly gives you permission to re-roll part of a 2d6 roll. It doesn't. It doesn't say you may re-roll part of anything. It never has in the several months since the Codex came out.
You need specific and explicit permission to re-roll part of a 2D6 roll. The Chronometron entry does not give that permission in any way, shape, or form.
McNinja wrote:You're attempting to re-roll part of a 2d6 roll by re-rolling a single D6 out of a Deep Strike scatter roll. I am having trouble understanding how such a rule would not apply.
The rule reads, "If you re-roll a 2D6 or 3D6 roll..." We're not rerolling a 2D6 or 3D6 roll, we're rerolling a D6 roll. The "If" clause doesn't apply.
Regardless of all of this (and I know I'm going to open up a whole 'nother can of worms), but the Chrono rule doesn't say anywhere that you may re-roll part of anything. It doesn't matter what a noun is and what a verb is, and which roll is a verb/noun/nerb/vern/indirect object/past participle, it matter whether or not the Chrono rule explicitly gives you permission to re-roll part of a 2d6 roll. It doesn't. It doesn't say you may re-roll part of anything. It never has in the several months since the Codex came out.
You need specific and explicit permission to re-roll part of a 2D6 roll. The Chronometron entry does not give that permission in any way, shape, or form.
If you're given permission to reroll any D6 roll, AND their definition of "D6 roll" matches the definition of D6r here, you're given permission to reroll ANY D6r, including one of the two D6r's that make up a 2D6r. And this isn't a new can of worms. In between verb/noun digressions it's what we've been talking about.
Btw, have you figured out the difference between a d6 and a D6, or the equivalent D6r and D6rc we've presented here? You know, that difference you said didn't exist on the first page?
McNinja wrote:You're attempting to re-roll part of a 2d6 roll by re-rolling a single D6 out of a Deep Strike scatter roll. I am having trouble understanding how such a rule would not apply.
The rule reads, "If you re-roll a 2D6 or 3D6 roll..." We're not rerolling a 2D6 or 3D6 roll, we're rerolling a D6 roll. The "If" clause doesn't apply.
Regardless of all of this (and I know I'm going to open up a whole 'nother can of worms), but the Chrono rule doesn't say anywhere that you may re-roll part of anything. It doesn't matter what a noun is and what a verb is, and which roll is a verb/noun/nerb/vern/indirect object/past participle, it matter whether or not the Chrono rule explicitly gives you permission to re-roll part of a 2d6 roll. It doesn't. It doesn't say you may re-roll part of anything. It never has in the several months since the Codex came out.
You need specific and explicit permission to re-roll part of a 2D6 roll. The Chronometron entry does not give that permission in any way, shape, or form.
If you're given permission to reroll any D6 roll, AND their definition of "D6 roll" matches the definition of D6r here, you're given permission to reroll ANY D6r, including one of the two D6r's that make up a 2D6r. And this isn't a new can of worms. In between verb/noun digressions it's what we've been talking about.
Btw, have you figured out the difference between a d6 and a D6, or the equivalent D6r and D6rc we've presented here? You know, that difference you said didn't exist on the first page?
1- There is no difference between d6 and D6. The rule book does not use d6 at all, only D6.
2- You have based your entire argument on the flawed assumption that because a 2D6rc is comprised of 2 D6r, you may re-roll one of the freely without heeding the rule on page 2.
3- The rest of the rule reads:
you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly specifies otherwise.
You are attempting to re-roll some of the dice. You can't. You have to re-roll all of them. The Chronometron does not give this permission. Because it does not, the next logical step is to assume that "D6 roll" is any D6rc, such as a to-wound roll, to-hit, etc.
McNinja wrote:1- There is no difference between d6 and D6. The rule book does not use d6 at all, only D6.
"The book does not use d6 at all, only D6" does not imply "there is no difference between d6 and D6". Logic fail 1.
Logic 101:
If (X) then (whatever) - as long as (X) is false, the rest of the statement is irrelevant.
"If you reroll a 2d6 or 3d6 roll..." We're never directed to reroll a 2d6, hence what "the rest of the rule reads" who cares? It doesn't apply. It's irrelevant.
McNinja wrote:2- You have based your entire argument on the flawed assumption that because a 2D6rc is comprised of 2 D6r, you may re-roll one of the freely without heeding the rule on page 2.
The one whose enabling clause isn't satisfied. Logic fail 2.
rigeld2 wrote:That means, to me, that you're interpreting the "reroll allowed" as being RAW. I double checked the thread and didn't see you flop back (forgive me if I missed it) and the re-roll allowed is obviously the more powerful interpretation. Therefore, unless I missed something, my question of "You can't divine intent, so you're going with the more powerful ruling?" is valid.
Go back and bold the part right in front of the section you chose to take out of context where I said the opposing view is also supportable. Or the umpteen places I said the rule was ambiguous. Seems to me you're just really bad at setting up strawmen and/or reading what other people type.
Try again.
Yes, you did say that. You also said that's not the interpretation you support, which is what I bolded.
Even if I grant that it's ambiguous (it's not) you should use the less powerful reading. You have said you support the re-roll being RAW.
And we're never told to reroll a 2d6 of any flavor, physical or conceptual. So the 2d6 reroll rule doesn't apply. In either interpretation of the chrono rule.
Then why do you keep trying to do so? A leadership test is a 2d6 roll. You're attempting to re-roll one of those d6. You can't do that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, you're imagiining the difference between d6 and D6. There is a difference between the terms d6r and d6rc that you've defined, but you have zero basis for claiming that d6 and D6 are different.
McNinja wrote:1- There is no difference between d6 and D6. The rule book does not use d6 at all, only D6.
"The book does not use d6 at all, only D6" does not imply "there is no difference between d6 and D6". Logic fail 1.
Logic 101:
If (X) then (whatever) - as long as (X) is false, the rest of the statement is irrelevant.
"If you reroll a 2d6 or 3d6 roll..." We're never directed to reroll a 2d6, hence what "the rest of the rule reads" who cares? It doesn't apply. It's irrelevant.
McNinja wrote:2- You have based your entire argument on the flawed assumption that because a 2D6rc is comprised of 2 D6r, you may re-roll one of the freely without heeding the rule on page 2.
The one whose enabling clause isn't satisfied. Logic fail 2.
Try again.
how about you quit making stuff up? There is ZERO difference between d6 and D6, and in fact d6 is NEVER mentioned anywhere in the warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook. Not to mention the fact that you seem willingly oblivious to the fact that you are trying to re-roll part of a 2d6 roll, which the warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook makes extremely clear is impossible unless specifically allowed. In fact, I really have no idea what you're arguing anymore, because it is so far gone and ridiculous that it comes of as pretentious and dumb.
rigeld2, do you believe that misrepresenting someone else's position is lying? Do you think that saying someone else said something that they didn't, is lying?
Do you think lying is an infraction on this forum? Or do you think that as long as you do it politely, or by inference, it's just "clever"?
Do you believe it's possible to have a reasonable discussion where one party is dishonest?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
McNinja wrote:how about you quit making stuff up? There is ZERO difference between d6 and D6, and in fact d6 is NEVER mentioned anywhere in the warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook.
Do you think that if someone "makes up" a concept, it doesn't exist?
Do you think that if a concept isn't present in the 40k rulebook, it doesn't exist?
rigeld2, do you believe that misrepresenting someone else's position is lying? Do you think that saying someone else said something that they didn't, is lying?
Do you think lying is an infraction on this forum? Or do you think that as long as you do it politely, or by inference, it's just "clever"?
Do you believe it's possible to have a reasonable discussion where one party is dishonest?
Randall Turner wrote:
Randall Turner wrote:Give him the whole story, without re-opening the can of worms.
Kalzruk, for multi-die rolls, ie 2d6 morale etc, if you reroll you must reroll all die - unless specified otherwise, you must treat the roll as a whole. The conflict comes in because some people interpret the Chronometron rule phraseology as giving you permission to reroll just one of the set, ie, that the rule does specify otherwise. It's more regular to play that you can't, but there is a chance that GW intended otherwise.
The fact is that many 40k rules aren't clearcut. It's probably safest to play that you can't reroll just one of a set, but it's very possible that an upcoming FAQ will "clarify" that rolling one was RAW all along, too.
I want to flip-flop here. After talking to Norbu, the guy who won the Indy GT with the Tremorcrons. He has been and is using the Chronometron to reroll leadership rolls etc. without dispute.
We discussed it, then I looked at the rule wording, compared it to other wording in other games etc, and the D6 does plainly stand alone. Ie, permission to reroll one of the unit's D6 rolls does include half of a 2D6 morale check.
That's all, don't expect a consensus, just saying that on further consideration I'm changing my own personal position.
However, strict RAW, the only definition of D6 is on pp. 2 as a physical, six sided die - which if we then textually substitute into the Chronometron rule, we get the "reroll allowed" interpretation.
How am I supposed to read those posts and come up with anything besides "I support re-rolling 2d6 rolls."
I've asked for clarifications if I've misinterpreted, and gotten none.
If you think I'm willfully lying and misrepresenting you, I invite you to click the yellow triangle.
Please show where I've been dishonest.
And please, PLEASE stop referring to an imagined difference between d6 and D6.
There isn't one, at least not in 40k.
I'll invite anyone to comment and let me know if I've been out of line. I don't think I have, but my perceptions are obviously slightly biased in that respect :-)
Do you think that if a concept isn't present in the 40k rulebook, it doesn't exist?
In 40k, if there's no difference defined, then there's no difference.
There's no normal English definition where d6 and D6 are different. There's no rule saying they're different. There's no context to show a difference.
...and you lie in a post where you're protesting your honesty.
rigeld2 wrote:I've asked for clarifications if I've misinterpreted, and gotten none.
You didn't ask for clarifications. Ever. You asked for forgiveness if you missed somewhere I flopped back on this issue (you didn't miss any, 'cause I never did) and you said "..unless I missed something" once. You never one time asked me for clarifications. And then I told you that you'd misinterpreted the line anyway, and you write...
rigeld2 wrote:You have said you support the re-roll being RAW.
...still a lie.
Seriously, what am I supposed to do? It's like some weird compulsion. Try writing a paragraph, and instead of shading it to make yourself look better or place something you might have said in a better light, tell the straight truth. Then double-check it. An example is...
"How am I supposed to come up with anything besides "I support re-rolling 2d6 rolls." "
i do support re-rolling 2d6 rolls. But see, your sentence above implies that's our disagreement. Rather than your assertion I'm maintaining it's RAW. So, gee, guess what - another lie.
Let's look at the RAW sentence - standing alone, even without the preceding "opposing views are supportable" qualifier - and see what I'm saying is RAW, shall we?
"However, strict RAW, the only definition of D6 is on pp. 2 as a physical, six sided die - which if we then textually substitute into the Chronometron rule, we get the "reroll allowed" interpretation."
Strict RAW, there is only one, single, clear cut definition of D6. It's on page 2. It's defined as a physical, six-sided die. Period. That in no way means a Chrono roll is a D6r by RAW - it means, there's only one definition of D6. That's the only use of RAW I make, except to say there ISN'T a RAW on this rule, in about five pages of posting. (I believe, I'd have to go do a text search.) Now, if we then decide to textually substitute the strict RAW for "D6" into the Cronometron rule, we get the "D6r" interpretation, which is the "reroll allowed" interpretation, but that's not RAW - it's making some assumptions and, more importantly, I didn't SAY it was RAW, I said it was an interpretation.
And you keep saying I did.
If you'd *REALLY* asked for clarification on this sentence, I'd have given it to you like I just did here. But again, you really didn't. No matter how many times you lie about that, too.
rigeld2 wrote:You can't divine intent, so you're going with the more powerful ruling?
And you have no rules to back up your theoretical intent...
Reading comprehension fail again. I didn't go with *either* ruling. Try yet again.
This is the post where you start calling me a liar (not in those words yet...)
You support the re-rolls of a 2d6 roll. That's what I'm saying. You called it a reading comprehension fail.
How is that again?
You can't post without lying!!
The lie in this post is your maintaining that "you don't understand" means "you're lying". And I really should stop here. I should force you to make one single post without a misrepresentation in it before discussing anything else. And according to your instructions, I should hit the yellow button right here.
If you can't stop lying, we can't have a discussion.
To be clear: You say "Readng comprehension fail" means "You're lying". No. You're lying. Because I don't think you misunderstood anything this time around.
rigeld2 wrote:You said you didn't go with either ruling.
You also said you support 2d6 re-rolls.
Where did I fail with reading comprehension?
I haven't lied once.
You haven't lied once - no, you've lied some half-dozen times, so though your statement's dishonest, it's not technically false.
Rigeld2, I'm seriously not going to explain your misunderstandings until you make an honest post.
Oh, f it -
RAW: My thesis is it's possible GW meant D6r rerolls.
RAI: It's impossible to divine intent.
RAW, I'm maintaining the wording is ambiguous, and could include the D6r interpretation. RAI, I'm maintaining it's impossible to divine intent and choose between the possible rulings.
This is YMDC. I support rerolling 2d6 as HWYPI. My own personal HWYPI isn't germane to a debate, and it's not part of my debate thesis. You mistakenly took my HWYPI statement on pp. 1 as part of my thesis. You cannot state that I am taking a position that I say I'm not - unlike the GW rule authors, I'm standing RIGHT HERE telling you that you're mistaken. Because I'm the sole arbiter of what my position in a debate is, the discussion's over.
Randall Turner wrote:
RAW: My thesis is it's possible GW meant D6r rerolls.
Your thesis isn't RAW. It's your interpretation of RAI.
By RAW, GW didn't mean D6r re-rolls, as by RAW they would have had to explicitly mention it in Chrono rules, and they didn't.
Let's compare the wording of partial re-roll and SA "If you re-roll a 2D6 or 3D6 roll, you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly specifies otherwise." (Brb, pg 2, Re-rolls)
"Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over." (brb, pg 40, Sweeeping advance)
Like you can easily see, the wording very similar. Partial re-roll technically requires stricter permission, but the intent is obviously clear: When some special rules breaks either of these rules, that special rule MUST mention how it interracts with the original rule, or it doesn't work. ATSKNF is good example.
Randall Turner wrote:
RAI: It's impossible to divine intent.
It depends on case by case basis. In this case, I'd say intent can be deduced from the fact that they wrote "D6 roll" instead just "D6" and from the fact that they wouldn't
Randall Turner wrote:
RAW, I'm maintaining the wording is ambiguous, and could include the D6r interpretation. RAI, I'm maintaining it's impossible to divine intent and choose between the possible rulings.
Wording is partially ambigious, but considering that it becomes clear when you take the noun vs verb into account, I wouldn't say so it is impossible to divine the intent.
Reason why you ignore the noun vs verb seems to be that it goes undermine your position.
Randall Turner wrote:
This is YMDC. I support rerolling 2d6 as HWYPI.
I assume you play Necrons? Because you do seem to always support any interpretation that gives Necrons advantage.
Randall Turner wrote:RAW: My thesis is it's possible GW meant D6r rerolls.
RAW, I'm maintaining the wording is ambiguous, and could include the D6r interpretation.
Your thesis isn't RAW. It's your interpretation of RAI.
Well, maybe. The "D6r possible" is a corollary to the central "ambiguous" position, I suppose you could say I should break it out, that's fine. So my RAW thesis is that the RAW is ambiguous. And my RAI is that there are multiple possible interpretations, including the D6r one, but that we still don't have enough info to choose. Thank you. Edit: wait, that's wrong. An assertion that a certain intent is possible is an evaluation of the RAW. It's not an attempt to divine intent, so it's not RAI, it's part of the RAW thesis.
Luide wrote:Let's compare the wording of partial re-roll and SA
There are two problems with this reroll rule. The first is that it technically doesn't trigger - it's arguable that its enabling clause isn't met. The second, which you deal with, is a question of how specific you actually need to be. I'm not sure you should consider the second until the first is settled. (But if/when we do consider the second, Yakface's position I'll point out is "supportable" - and for my conservative positions, all I need is "possibility", not your "certainty".)
Luide wrote:[Wording is partially ambigious, but considering that it becomes clear when you take the noun vs verb into account, I wouldn't say so it is impossible to divine the intent. Reason why you ignore the noun vs verb seems to be that it goes undermine your position.
No, that's not true. I'm reluctant to because if I'm doing it with one of "those guys", it devolves into a semantic mud wrestling contest. I'm not sure you're one of "those guys". But just pick one of the above to kick around with me, there's too much noise in here.
Luide wrote:I assume you play Necrons? Because you do seem to always support any interpretation that gives Necrons advantage.
I can find instances where that wasn't the case, but there's another factor you're not aware of. I can contact GW and get information from the rule writers, because I work for a company with a business relationship with GW. (Sometimes, and sometimes they don't respond, and it isn't going to last much longer b/c my situation's changing.) I may be subconsciously Necron partisan, but...
1) Mostly I want to get the rule "right", and...
2) I've empirical evidence that this forum tends towards anti-Necron bias in their threads.
I also tend to start throwing out posters as "not credible" after a couple 10-pagers where I find they're wrong.
Randall Turner wrote:RAW: My thesis is it's possible GW meant D6r
You haven't shown a rules basis for that. You're inventing the D6r as a possibility as a reason for your view to be valid.
This is YMDC. I support rerolling 2d6 as HWYPI. My own personal HWYPI isn't germane to a debate, and it's not part of my debate thesis. You mistakenly took my HWYPI statement on pp. 1 as part of my thesis. You cannot state that I am taking a position that I say I'm not - unlike the GW rule authors, I'm standing RIGHT HERE telling you that you're mistaken. Because I'm the sole arbiter of what my position in a debate is, the discussion's over.
I did that mistakenly because you didn't say that was a HYWPI statement - as the tenets recommend to avoid exactly this misunderstanding.
And instead of correcting my misunderstanding, you called me a liar.
Note that I haven't stooped that low.
Now I'll go back to:
Randall Turner wrote:Because we don't know what the rule writers were thinking when they wrote the rule. So, it's possible. We can't say for sure either way, because we can't divine intent - but we can say for sure what's possible.
If that's the case, by definition a D6r is half of a 2D6r - which is a component of a 2D6rc. If we're told we can reroll a D6r, we can reroll one D6r of a 2D6r.
You're right - its impossible to divine intent. I assert that the context on page 2 is enough to show that a D6 when referenced in 40k rules cannot be considered individually when rolling a set.
Even if you disagree with that I see no reason to assume that the more powerful version should be considered possible.
rigeld2 wrote:I did that mistakenly because you didn't say that was a HYWPI statement - as the tenets recommend to avoid exactly this misunderstanding.
And instead of correcting my misunderstanding, you called me a liar.
Is that what happened? 'Cause I didn't call you a liar over that. I remember you misrepresenting the meaning of a line involving the RAW of a D6 - twice - before bringing up integrity. Let me double-check...
Yep. Two times. Final one, "You have said you support the reroll being RAW". Never said it, with a HYWPI qualifier on it or not.
Let's see, call this one, hmmm... "intense rationalization and fantasy/reality differentiation personality disorder", rather than a "lie".
Randall Turner wrote:RAW: My thesis is it's possible GW meant D6r
You haven't shown a rules basis for that. You're inventing the D6r as a possibility as a reason for your view to be valid.
Now I'll go back to:
Randall Turner wrote:Because we don't know what the rule writers were thinking when they wrote the rule. So, it's possible. We can't say for sure either way, because we can't divine intent - but we can say for sure what's possible.
If that's the case, by definition a D6r is half of a 2D6r - which is a component of a 2D6rc. If we're told we can reroll a D6r, we can reroll one D6r of a 2D6r.
You're right - its impossible to divine intent. I assert that the context on page 2 is enough to show that a D6 when referenced in 40k rules cannot be considered individually when rolling a set.
Even if you disagree with that I see no reason to assume that the more powerful version should be considered possible.
We can't continue discussing game mechanics until we've *politely* resolved an integrity issue. We have another four or five to wade through, Rigeld2. I'm afraid you're either going to have to admit to "i made a mistake" on them, or explain to me what you did mean.
Next one up - Equating reading comprehension fail with accusation of dishonesty.
rigeld2 wrote:
Randall Turner wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:You can't divine intent, so you're going with the more powerful ruling?
And you have no rules to back up your theoretical intent...
Reading comprehension fail again. I didn't go with *either* ruling. Try yet again.
This is the post where you start calling me a liar (not in those words yet...)
Explain to me how that yellowed line isnt a false statement? In other words, explain to me how "reading conprehension fail" can be interpreted as an accusation of dishonesty?
Randall Turner wrote:We can't continue discussing game mechanics until we've *politely* resolved an integrity issue.
NO, actually, you can. Final warning - stick to the topic. Any further posts directed at another poster's character rather than the topic at hand will earn a holidy from the forum.
There are practically no related or similar rules to make a decision on. It's like GW actually changed the wording of any rules that would make an issue of this. The evidence is far from decisive.
If you believe:
1. rolling 2D6 is a roll that cannot be considered to be two 1D6 rolls - then no you cannot do this.
2. rolling 2D6 is two D6 rolls and you may re-roll one of your two D6 rolls - then yes you can do this.
So basically, if you're playing Grey Knights do this, but against any other army don't do this.
) But our heads work a bit different.
