Descent of angels : Use this stratagem before a charge roll with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit that was set up on the battlefield earlier that turn. Roll 3D6 to determine the units charge distance instead of 2D6.

Let's say DC wants to charge. Lemartes is in 6" (he allows DC to re-roll failed charge rolls). If i make it with two dice there is no need to spend 2CP for DoA. If i don't make it, I use DoA for lemartes charge re-roll. The stratagem says to use it before making a charge roll. A re-rolled charge roll is still a charge roll, isn't it ?

 p5freak wrote:
Descent of angels : Use this stratagem before a charge roll with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit that was set up on the battlefield earlier that turn. Roll 3D6 to determine the units charge distance instead of 2D6.

Let's say DC wants to charge. Lemartes is in 6" (he allows DC to re-roll failed charge rolls). If i make it with two dice there is no need to spend 2CP for DoA. If i don't make it, I use DoA for lemartes charge re-roll. The stratagem says to use it before making a charge roll. A re-rolled charge roll is still a charge roll, isn't it ?

You have to use this before any charge rolls are made. You would have to use this as you declare the charge but before any rolls are made. If you roll for the initial charge on 2D6 you can;t then use it on a re-roll because you can;t re-roll the dice you never roll'd to begin with.

Hope this helps.

It literally says to use it before a charge roll. A re-roll doesn't count as making a whole new roll. You can't do what you are suggesting, not even though shifty wording.

Having rerolled and failed the said reroll would imply that a charge roll has been made for that particular unit already. So, no.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

You have to use this before any charge rolls are made. You would have to use this as you declare the charge but before any rolls are made. If you roll for the initial charge on 2D6 you can;t then use it on a re-roll because you can;t re-roll the dice you never roll'd to begin with.

Hope this helps.

The stratagem doesnt say that i have to use it before any charge rolls are made. All it says is before a charge roll. A re-rolled charge roll is still a charge roll. All i'm doing is adding one dice.

 skchsan wrote:
Having rerolled and failed the said reroll would imply that a charge roll has been made for that particular unit already. So, no.

I am not re-rolling a failed re-roll.

And like I said, re-rolling a charge roll is not "before" a charge roll.

 p5freak wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

You have to use this before any charge rolls are made. You would have to use this as you declare the charge but before any rolls are made. If you roll for the initial charge on 2D6 you can;t then use it on a re-roll because you can;t re-roll the dice you never roll'd to begin with.

Hope this helps.

The stratagem doesnt say that i have to use it before any charge rolls are made. All it says is before a charge roll. A re-rolled charge roll is still a charge roll. All i'm doing is adding one dice.

 skchsan wrote:
Having rerolled and failed the said reroll would imply that a charge roll has been made for that particular unit already. So, no.

I am not re-rolling a failed re-roll.

I understand what you are saying, but that's not the structure of the game or stratagems. You cannot activate an ability or stratagem once the process has begun. This is a stratagem to use at the stat of the charge phase. Once you have declared charges and made rolls you cna;t use it nay more.

Similar to DA weapons of dark age, if I roll the hits and want to use weapons of dakr age I can;t as I have already made rolls for that unit. They have to be used before the process is begun.

If however you believe your process to be correct by all means speak it through with your opponent. But if you were my opponent and tried doing that I wouldn't let you.

I won;'t tell you how to play I'm suggesting the structure of stratagems, you can either play the obvious way it's to be used and have really fun competitive games where your opponent is cheering your rolls to get that amazing slug fest combat going. Or be TFG and try and do stuff like that and end up with salty games and people will end up packing their stuff on you.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

I understand what you are saying, but that's not the structure of the game or stratagems. You cannot activate an ability or stratagem once the process has begun. This is a stratagem to use at the stat of the charge phase. Once you have declared charges and made rolls you cna;t use it nay more.

I can use the reroll a dice stratagem anytime i like. Even during the process. I can interrupt my opponents CC attacks with this 2CP stratagem which name eludes me right now. DoA doesnt say that i have to use it before any charge rolls are made.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Similar to DA weapons of dark age, if I roll the hits and want to use weapons of dakr age I can;t as I have already made rolls for that unit. They have to be used before the process is begun.

That is a different story. The stratagem clearly says to use it just before a DA unit from your army attacks in the shooting phase.

 p5freak wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

I understand what you are saying, but that's not the structure of the game or stratagems. You cannot activate an ability or stratagem once the process has begun. This is a stratagem to use at the stat of the charge phase. Once you have declared charges and made rolls you cna;t use it nay more.

I can use the reroll a dice stratagem anytime i like. Even during the process. I can interrupt my opponents CC attacks with this 2CP stratagem which name eludes me right now. DoA doesnt say that i have to use it before any charge rolls are made.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Similar to DA weapons of dark age, if I roll the hits and want to use weapons of dakr age I can;t as I have already made rolls for that unit. They have to be used before the process is begun.

That is a different story. The stratagem clearly says to use it just before a DA unit from your army attacks in the shooting phase.

Right you're clearly trying to get someone to agree with you.

I am going to make this very simple and clear.

You cannot do what you are trying to do. If you do try and do this people will tell you no at the table. If you argue you will end up with very unpleasent games.

I know you will disagree because you want to be able to do this. But i said no and the other person said no. You still want a yes. So all I cna suggets is try it at the table top and see what happens.

"It doesn't say I can't" makes you automatically lose any rules argument.

This is from your OP - Descent of angels : Use this stratagem before a charge roll with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit that was set up on the battlefield earlier that turn. Roll 3D6 to determine the units charge distance instead of 2D6. (emphasis added by me).

This is even conceding your point about interrupting a sequence. You are attempting to use this stratagy before a re-roll not a roll. A re-roll comes after a roll.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

You have to use this before any charge rolls are made. You would have to use this as you declare the charge but before any rolls are made. If you roll for the initial charge on 2D6 you can;t then use it on a re-roll because you can;t re-roll the dice you never roll'd to begin with.

Hope this helps.

The stratagem doesnt say that i have to use it before any charge rolls are made. All it says is before a charge roll. A re-rolled charge roll is still a charge roll. All i'm doing is adding one dice.

 skchsan wrote:
Having rerolled and failed the said reroll would imply that a charge roll has been made for that particular unit already. So, no.

I am not re-rolling a failed re-roll.

I understand what you are saying, but that's not the structure of the game or stratagems. You cannot activate an ability or stratagem once the process has begun. This is a stratagem to use at the stat of the charge phase. Once you have declared charges and made rolls you cna;t use it nay more.

Similar to DA weapons of dark age, if I roll the hits and want to use weapons of dakr age I can;t as I have already made rolls for that unit. They have to be used before the process is begun.

If however you believe your process to be correct by all means speak it through with your opponent. But if you were my opponent and tried doing that I wouldn't let you.

I won;'t tell you how to play I'm suggesting the structure of stratagems, you can either play the obvious way it's to be used and have really fun competitive games where your opponent is cheering your rolls to get that amazing slug fest combat going. Or be TFG and try and do stuff like that and end up with salty games and people will end up packing their stuff on you.

Your ultimate conclusion may be right, but I think the process you're using to get there is completely wrong. You're also acting way more like TFG than OP with your rampant condescension in my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And like I said, re-rolling a charge roll is not "before" a charge roll.

I am surprised this is the answer you gave. Can you walk me through this? A re-roll is still a 'roll' in the literal sense. He is literally rolling the day, even if it is for the second time. RAW, that seems to be all the Stratagem wants, right? Where is there a RAW difference?

If you want to claim a re-roll is the same as a roll, then I can claim that all my dice have 6's on each side, or that it doesn't define exactly what type of "inch" is used.

It's one of the unspoken axioms needed for the game to work at all.

A simple difference from the rules is a roll can be re-rolled but you can not re-roll a re-roll.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you want to claim a re-roll is the same as a roll, then I can claim that all my dice have 6's on each side, or that it doesn't define exactly what type of "inch" is used.

It's one of the unspoken axioms needed for the game to work at all.

Now I'm double surprises I'm talking to BCB! Okay, fair premise, but why is this particular issue needed to work well? This 6's are obvious, but this one not so much to me. Game seems to work fine regardless how you do it.

For instance, when re-rolling overcharged plasma, we still consider a '1' on the re-roll as nuking the plasma bearer despite the plasma gun saying on a 'roll' of a 1 not a 'roll or re-roll'. They're the same thing there. Wouldn't this open the door to ignoring plasma 1's on re-roll?

Because the rules for re-rolls tell you what to do. Re-rolls can cause the result of the roll to change, but a re-roll is not the same action as a roll.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because the rules for re-rolls tell you what to do. Re-rolls can cause the result of the roll to change, but a re-roll is not the same action as a roll.

The rules dont say that re-rolling a roll changes the roll to a re-rolling roll. Its still a roll.

Re-rolls

Some rules allow you to
re-roll a dice roll, which
means you get to roll
some or all of the dice
again.

 p5freak wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

You have to use this before any charge rolls are made. You would have to use this as you declare the charge but before any rolls are made. If you roll for the initial charge on 2D6 you can;t then use it on a re-roll because you can;t re-roll the dice you never roll'd to begin with.

Hope this helps.

The stratagem doesnt say that i have to use it before any charge rolls are made. All it says is before a charge roll. A re-rolled charge roll is still a charge roll. All i'm doing is adding one dice.

 skchsan wrote:
Having rerolled and failed the said reroll would imply that a charge roll has been made for that particular unit already. So, no.

I am not re-rolling a failed re-roll.

It may say use before a charge roll, but it does not say use before a charge reroll. You have to use it before the initial charge. You can't fail the the charge roll then claim you're using it on a reroll. It would have to be in effect for the initial roll as well in order to be applicable to a reroll.

Dude, just no. Find another gimmick. Forget about this one. You are 100% wrong.

 p5freak wrote:
Descent of angels : Use this stratagem before a charge roll with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit that was set up on the battlefield earlier that turn. Roll 3D6 to determine the units charge distance instead of 2D6.

Let's say DC wants to charge. Lemartes is in 6" (he allows DC to re-roll failed charge rolls). If i make it with two dice there is no need to spend 2CP for DoA. If i don't make it, I use DoA for lemartes charge re-roll. The stratagem says to use it before making a charge roll. A re-rolled charge roll is still a charge roll, isn't it ?

It says before making a charge roll, not a charge re-roll.

 doctortom wrote:

It may say use before a charge roll, but it does not say use before a charge reroll. You have to use it before the initial charge. You can't fail the the charge roll then claim you're using it on a reroll. It would have to be in effect for the initial roll as well in order to be applicable to a reroll.

Re-rolls

Some rules allow you to
re-roll a dice roll, which
means you get to roll
some or all of the dice
again.

Re-rolling a dice roll doesnt change the dice roll to a re-roll, its still a dice roll done again.

 p5freak wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

It may say use before a charge roll, but it does not say use before a charge reroll. You have to use it before the initial charge. You can't fail the the charge roll then claim you're using it on a reroll. It would have to be in effect for the initial roll as well in order to be applicable to a reroll.

Re-rolls

Some rules allow you to
re-roll a dice roll, which
means you get to roll
some or all of the dice
again.

Re-rolling a dice roll doesnt change the dice roll to a re-roll, its still a dice roll done again.

May I make a suggestion? Check with a few TOs to see how they'd rule it. That at this point is probably your best chance to be able to do this because I don't think you've found a sympathetic audience here.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because the rules for re-rolls tell you what to do. Re-rolls can cause the result of the roll to change, but a re-roll is not the same action as a roll.

I can't find that. Any reference? The quoted rule for rerolls in this thread literally says you make the roll again. So since you are making the roll again why doesn't it count as a roll?

I trust your interpretations a lot so I'm willing to take the result of this one as you say it, but I'm really not seeing how we get there.

This thread is just one big bait piece. I'll leave, because I know how touchy the moderation is here, with the comment that this is absolutely not permitted even with flowery language interpretation.

Between this thread and a couple of others, it looks like every rule book will have to include a dictionary defining every word and every assumption that is made by the game designers. Oh and then it will also have to say whether it is using British English or American English or another form of the English language so that it doesn't get parsed that way either.

 p5freak wrote:
A re-rolled charge roll is still a charge roll, isn't it ?

So let me get this straight:

1. DC unit charges, rolls 2d6, fails the charge.
2. You elect to re-roll the failed charge via Lemartes's ability
3. You declare you will use DoA stratagem to roll 3d6 instead of re-rolling 2d6

If you take a look, you're not re-rolling the dice, but rather creating a new set of charge rolls.
You are now "re-rolling" the two dice used for the previous 2d6 charge, then adding a new dice to roll the 3rd dice of the 3d6 as governed by DoA.

What you're saying essentially is "Lemartes gives me the ability to declare a new charge at the same unit if in case the first charge fails."

This is distinctly different from "Lemartes gives me the ability re-roll failed charges"

The stratagem is clear on the point that it needs to be declared "before a charge roll is made." The phrase doesn't encompass your claim of "before a (re-rolled) charge roll is made."

 skchsan wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A re-rolled charge roll is still a charge roll, isn't it ?

So let me get this straight:

1. DC unit charges, rolls 2d6, fails the charge.
2. You elect to re-roll the failed charge via Lemartes's ability
3. You declare you will use DoA stratagem to roll 3d6 instead of re-rolling 2d6

If you take a look, you're not re-rolling the dice, but rather creating a new set of charge rolls.
You are now "re-rolling" the two dice used for the previous 2d6 charge, then adding a new dice to roll the 3rd dice of the 3d6 as governed by DoA.

What you're saying essentially is "Lemartes gives me the ability to declare a new charge at the same unit if in case the first charge fails."

This is distinctly different from "Lemartes gives me the ability re-roll failed charges"

Correct, but its not a new charge, its a failed charge re-roll with one more dice.

 p5freak wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

It may say use before a charge roll, but it does not say use before a charge reroll. You have to use it before the initial charge. You can't fail the the charge roll then claim you're using it on a reroll. It would have to be in effect for the initial roll as well in order to be applicable to a reroll.

Re-rolls

Some rules allow you to
re-roll a dice roll, which
means you get to roll
some or all of the dice
again.

Re-rolling a dice roll doesnt change the dice roll to a re-roll, its still a dice roll done again.

You've already started the charge rolling process with the first roll, so it certainly isn't "before" making a charge roll. Let's look at what you quoted. "roll some or all of the dice again". That means you've already rolled, so it isn't before rolling; you are in the process of rolling and rolling again.

Also, you also quoted "means you get to roll some or all of the dice again". It doesn't say you get to add extra dice to roll when you roll again.

You just can't legally do what you're suggesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Between this thread and a couple of others, it looks like every rule book will have to include a dictionary defining every word and every assumption that is made by the game designers. Oh and then it will also have to say whether it is using British English or American English or another form of the English language so that it doesn't get parsed that way either.

No, it means GW will be able to sell a completely different book to us, "The GW Dictionary". Put a Space Marines symbol on the cover and double the normal price! $$$$$

 p5freak wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A re-rolled charge roll is still a charge roll, isn't it ?

So let me get this straight:

1. DC unit charges, rolls 2d6, fails the charge.
2. You elect to re-roll the failed charge via Lemartes's ability
3. You declare you will use DoA stratagem to roll 3d6 instead of re-rolling 2d6

If you take a look, you're not re-rolling the dice, but rather creating a new set of charge rolls.
You are now "re-rolling" the two dice used for the previous 2d6 charge, then adding a new dice to roll the 3rd dice of the 3d6 as governed by DoA.

What you're saying essentially is "Lemartes gives me the ability to declare a new charge at the same unit if in case the first charge fails."

This is distinctly different from "Lemartes gives me the ability re-roll failed charges"

Correct, but its not a new charge, its a failed charge re-roll with one more dice.

If you're rolling 3d6 as a "re-roll" for 2d6, its not the same charge. It's a new one.

Either you declare DoA before Lemartes's re-roll and get to re-roll all three d6's or you use the stratagem after and re-roll 2 die.

I think the key take away here is that:
[re-roll of a charge roll] =/= [charge roll]

re-rolled charge roll is distinctively "re-rolled charge roll" while a charge roll is distinctive "charge roll"

Even if the roll & charge roll are separate distinct rolls, you would need to use it before the first charge roll. As a charge roll has already taken place, you cannot use the stratagem.

If you had a unit that was capable of making 500 separate charge rolls, you could not use this stratagem after making even one of them. Because it says before making a charge roll. You have already made one. Therefore the condition is invalidated.

The stratagem references a singular charge roll. Simply: Before the reroll, regardless of how you would classify the reroll, have you made a charge roll? The answer is yes, so you cannot use DoA.

And, let me add, DUH.

 Marmatag wrote:
Even if the roll & charge roll are separate distinct rolls, you would need to use it before the first charge roll. As a charge roll has already taken place, you cannot use the stratagem.

If you had a unit that was capable of making 500 separate charge rolls, you could not use this stratagem after making even one of them. Because it says before making a charge roll. You have already made one. Therefore the condition is invalidated.

The stratagem references a singular charge roll. Simply: Before the reroll, regardless of how you would classify the reroll, have you made a charge roll? The answer is yes, so you cannot use DoA.

And, let me add, DUH.

If we go with that definition, however, then it can ONLY be used on your first charge of each turn. If I have units A and B, A charges an enemy and then I try to use the stratagem on unit B, your reading would prevent me from doing so because it's not "before making a charge roll". I already made one, after all.

After speaking to my wife about this issue over lunch (who is also a gamer), I'm of the opinion that he actually CAN use it for the re-roll. This is specifically because the rule for re-rolls states that "you get to roll[i] some or all of the dice again".

So let's walk this through logically:

The stratagem requires 2 things, one temporal and one contextual.

Temporally, it must occur BEFORE a roll.

Contextually, it must be a CHARGE roll.

This thread has some back and forth on a re-roll not being a roll, but the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook overrides any other source and says it's a roll ("you get to roll"). Our contextual requirement is therefore met.

He is using this stratagem before he makes this roll, thus our temporal requirement is also met.

Ergo, he can use the stratagem to roll 3D6 on the re-try. I don't see any way to escape this answer, RAW.

EDIT: And no one should be surprised I arrived at this conclusion by this point

Audustum wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Even if the roll & charge roll are separate distinct rolls, you would need to use it before the first charge roll. As a charge roll has already taken place, you cannot use the stratagem.

If you had a unit that was capable of making 500 separate charge rolls, you could not use this stratagem after making even one of them. Because it says before making a charge roll. You have already made one. Therefore the condition is invalidated.

The stratagem references a singular charge roll. Simply: Before the reroll, regardless of how you would classify the reroll, have you made a charge roll? The answer is yes, so you cannot use DoA.

And, let me add, DUH.

If we go with that definition, however, then it can ONLY be used on your first charge of each turn. If I have units A and B, A charges an enemy and then I try to use the stratagem on unit B, your reading would prevent me from doing so because it's not "before making a charge roll". I already made one, after all.

After speaking to my wife about this issue over lunch (who is also a gamer), I'm of the opinion that he actually CAN use it for the re-roll. This is specifically because the rule for re-rolls states that "you get to roll[i] some or all of the dice again".

So let's walk this through logically:

The stratagem requires 2 things, one temporal and one contextual.

Temporally, it must occur BEFORE a roll.

Contextually, it must be a CHARGE roll.

This thread has some back and forth on a re-roll not being a roll, but the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook overrides any other source and says it's a roll ("you get to roll"). Our contextual requirement is therefore met.

He is using this stratagem before he makes this roll, thus our temporal requirement is also met.

Ergo, he can use the stratagem to roll 3D6 on the re-try. I don't see any way to escape this answer, RAW.

EDIT: And no one should be surprised I arrived at this conclusion by this point

A re-roll is the same roll, not a different one. You don;t make a new roll, you re-roll that which is already made made. You can't re-roll the dice you never roll'd to begin with.

The answer is no.

As per 99% of respondents in this thread, I agree the answer is no. You must play the Stratagem before a Charge, not try to save CP and only use it if you fail the 2D6 roll. Trying to use it as a super-reroll is a no-go.

Its only 75% in this thread who say no. I still disagree, so lets lay this one to rest. We are not going to convince each other.

 p5freak wrote:
Its only 75% in this thread who say no. I still disagree, so lets lay this one to rest. We are not going to convince each other.

If you had already made up your mind why ask the question to begin with?

p5freak wrote:Its only 75% in this thread who say no. I still disagree, so lets lay this one to rest. We are not going to convince each other.

Don’t split hairs. The consensus is you’re wrong.

SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Its only 75% in this thread who say no. I still disagree, so lets lay this one to rest. We are not going to convince each other.

If you had already made up your mind why ask the question to begin with?

Indeed.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Don’t split hairs. The consensus is you’re wrong.

Just because the majority in this thread says i'm wrong, doesnt mean i'm wrong. We dont make the rules.

No, you're just wrong.

You are trying to manipulate the sequencing of events to save yourself the CP if at all possible.

If I was in a store and I even heard you making this argument for more then the 3 sentences it takes to explain why you are wrong I would, then and there, decided to never play a game with you. Further I would recommend that everyone else avoid playing you as well.

The fact that this thread is STILL going is the very definition of you being TFG and it's all the information I or anyone else needs.

Even IF you COULD argue that the RAW supports you it would be like a tyranid player arguing that Pyrovores blew up the entire table in 6th and 7th. Except the tyranid player would ACTUALLY have RAW on their side and you don't. Either way, people would be in the right for hitting you with your own codex upside your head and leaving you to sit in the corner with your models alone.

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Don’t split hairs. The consensus is you’re wrong.

Just because the majority in this thread says i'm wrong, doesnt mean i'm wrong. We dont make the rules.

The majority are reading and applying it correctly; you're trying to wilfully misinterpret for advantage. "We disagree, it needs a FAQ" isn't a get-out for every thread, dude. If you asked a qeustion and there's clear consensus you should accept it else you just come off looking like you're butthurt your new uber-tactic isn't a tactic, rather than like you're asking a genuine question.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Even if the roll & charge roll are separate distinct rolls, you would need to use it before the first charge roll. As a charge roll has already taken place, you cannot use the stratagem.

If you had a unit that was capable of making 500 separate charge rolls, you could not use this stratagem after making even one of them. Because it says before making a charge roll. You have already made one. Therefore the condition is invalidated.

The stratagem references a singular charge roll. Simply: Before the reroll, regardless of how you would classify the reroll, have you made a charge roll? The answer is yes, so you cannot use DoA.

And, let me add, DUH.

If we go with that definition, however, then it can ONLY be used on your first charge of each turn. If I have units A and B, A charges an enemy and then I try to use the stratagem on unit B, your reading would prevent me from doing so because it's not "before making a charge roll". I already made one, after all.

After speaking to my wife about this issue over lunch (who is also a gamer), I'm of the opinion that he actually CAN use it for the re-roll. This is specifically because the rule for re-rolls states that "you get to roll[i] some or all of the dice again".

So let's walk this through logically:

The stratagem requires 2 things, one temporal and one contextual.

Temporally, it must occur BEFORE a roll.

Contextually, it must be a CHARGE roll.

This thread has some back and forth on a re-roll not being a roll, but the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook overrides any other source and says it's a roll ("you get to roll"). Our contextual requirement is therefore met.

He is using this stratagem before he makes this roll, thus our temporal requirement is also met.

Ergo, he can use the stratagem to roll 3D6 on the re-try. I don't see any way to escape this answer, RAW.

EDIT: And no one should be surprised I arrived at this conclusion by this point

A re-roll is the same roll, not a different one. You don;t make a new roll, you re-roll that which is already made made. You can't re-roll the dice you never roll'd to begin with.

The answer is no.

Which, if true, would totally make the answer no, you're right. Here's the problem: there's no RAW supporting that idea anywhere.

In fact, the only RAW we have says a re-roll is just a 'roll'. The Stratagem only requires a roll, RAW. This whole argument about sequencing or being part of the same roll has no RAW basis and that's why I can't get behind it.

Audustum wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Even if the roll & charge roll are separate distinct rolls, you would need to use it before the first charge roll. As a charge roll has already taken place, you cannot use the stratagem.

If you had a unit that was capable of making 500 separate charge rolls, you could not use this stratagem after making even one of them. Because it says before making a charge roll. You have already made one. Therefore the condition is invalidated.

The stratagem references a singular charge roll. Simply: Before the reroll, regardless of how you would classify the reroll, have you made a charge roll? The answer is yes, so you cannot use DoA.

And, let me add, DUH.

If we go with that definition, however, then it can ONLY be used on your first charge of each turn. If I have units A and B, A charges an enemy and then I try to use the stratagem on unit B, your reading would prevent me from doing so because it's not "before making a charge roll". I already made one, after all.

After speaking to my wife about this issue over lunch (who is also a gamer), I'm of the opinion that he actually CAN use it for the re-roll. This is specifically because the rule for re-rolls states that "you get to roll[i] some or all of the dice again".

So let's walk this through logically:

The stratagem requires 2 things, one temporal and one contextual.

Temporally, it must occur BEFORE a roll.

Contextually, it must be a CHARGE roll.

This thread has some back and forth on a re-roll not being a roll, but the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook overrides any other source and says it's a roll ("you get to roll"). Our contextual requirement is therefore met.

He is using this stratagem before he makes this roll, thus our temporal requirement is also met.

Ergo, he can use the stratagem to roll 3D6 on the re-try. I don't see any way to escape this answer, RAW.

EDIT: And no one should be surprised I arrived at this conclusion by this point

A re-roll is the same roll, not a different one. You don;t make a new roll, you re-roll that which is already made made. You can't re-roll the dice you never roll'd to begin with.

The answer is no.

Which, if true, would totally make the answer no, you're right. Here's the problem: there's no RAW supporting that idea anywhere.

In fact, the only RAW we have says a re-roll is just a 'roll'. The Stratagem only requires a roll, RAW. This whole argument about sequencing or being part of the same roll has no RAW basis and that's why I can't get behind it.

You Grey Knights are proper shady

Audustum wrote:
Which, if true, would totally make the answer no, you're right. Here's the problem: there's no RAW supporting that idea anywhere.

In fact, the only RAW we have says a re-roll is just a 'roll'. The Stratagem only requires a roll, RAW. This whole argument about sequencing or being part of the same roll has no RAW basis and that's why I can't get behind it.

It's not about sequencing. It's about interpretation of game terms by piecemealing words within them.

[Charge Roll] and [Re-rolled Charge Roll] are two distinct game terms.

Here's the rationale:

Can [Charge Roll] be re-rolled? Yes, [Charge Roll] can be re-rolled.
Can [Re-rolled Charge Roll] be re-rolled? No, [Re-rolled Charge Roll] cannot be re-rolled because re-rolls cannot be re-rolled.

The two are distinct in-game terms describing two different things.

When the stratagem is calling for "a charge roll', it distinctively refers to [Charge Roll], and not [Re-rolled Charge Roll].

It is a fallacious interpretation to say "well, a re-rolled charge roll is indeed a type of charge roll because it has the words 'charge roll' in it, therefore I must be allowed to declare DoA on a Lemartes-granted re-rolls!"

 skchsan wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Which, if true, would totally make the answer no, you're right. Here's the problem: there's no RAW supporting that idea anywhere.

In fact, the only RAW we have says a re-roll is just a 'roll'. The Stratagem only requires a roll, RAW. This whole argument about sequencing or being part of the same roll has no RAW basis and that's why I can't get behind it.

It's not about sequencing. It's about interpretation of game terms by piecemealing words within them.

[Charge Roll] and [Re-rolled Charge Roll] are two distinct game terms.

Here's the rationale:

I get the rationale, but THIS is where you have a problem. You say they're defined game terms, so prove it. Give me the RAW defining them and distinguishing them as separate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Even if the roll & charge roll are separate distinct rolls, you would need to use it before the first charge roll. As a charge roll has already taken place, you cannot use the stratagem.

If you had a unit that was capable of making 500 separate charge rolls, you could not use this stratagem after making even one of them. Because it says before making a charge roll. You have already made one. Therefore the condition is invalidated.

The stratagem references a singular charge roll. Simply: Before the reroll, regardless of how you would classify the reroll, have you made a charge roll? The answer is yes, so you cannot use DoA.

And, let me add, DUH.

If we go with that definition, however, then it can ONLY be used on your first charge of each turn. If I have units A and B, A charges an enemy and then I try to use the stratagem on unit B, your reading would prevent me from doing so because it's not "before making a charge roll". I already made one, after all.

After speaking to my wife about this issue over lunch (who is also a gamer), I'm of the opinion that he actually CAN use it for the re-roll. This is specifically because the rule for re-rolls states that "you get to roll[i] some or all of the dice again".

So let's walk this through logically:

The stratagem requires 2 things, one temporal and one contextual.

Temporally, it must occur BEFORE a roll.

Contextually, it must be a CHARGE roll.

This thread has some back and forth on a re-roll not being a roll, but the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook overrides any other source and says it's a roll ("you get to roll"). Our contextual requirement is therefore met.

He is using this stratagem before he makes this roll, thus our temporal requirement is also met.

Ergo, he can use the stratagem to roll 3D6 on the re-try. I don't see any way to escape this answer, RAW.

EDIT: And no one should be surprised I arrived at this conclusion by this point

A re-roll is the same roll, not a different one. You don;t make a new roll, you re-roll that which is already made made. You can't re-roll the dice you never roll'd to begin with.

The answer is no.

Which, if true, would totally make the answer no, you're right. Here's the problem: there's no RAW supporting that idea anywhere.

In fact, the only RAW we have says a re-roll is just a 'roll'. The Stratagem only requires a roll, RAW. This whole argument about sequencing or being part of the same roll has no RAW basis and that's why I can't get behind it.

You Grey Knights are proper shady

Darn straight!

Audustum wrote:
I get the rationale, but THIS is where you have a problem. You say they're defined game terms, so prove it. Give me the RAW defining them and distinguishing them as separate.

No, it's where YOU have a problem if you recognize that re-roll is different from a roll, and yet still claim it needs proof via RAW.

The word "re-roll" has the word "roll" in it. So why can't I re-roll a (re)roll? It's still nonetheless a roll, is it not?

 skchsan wrote:

Audustum wrote:
I get the rationale, but THIS is where you have a problem. You say they're defined game terms, so prove it. Give me the RAW defining them and distinguishing them as separate.

No, it's where YOU have a problem if you recognize that re-roll is different from a roll, and yet still claim it needs proof via RAW.

The word "re-roll" has the word "roll" in it. So why can't I re-roll a (re)roll? It's still nonetheless a roll, is it not?

Because there's specific RAW saying you can't re-roll something more than once. And I think most debaters would say you have a problem if you claim terms are defined as separate when, in fact, they are not.

So absent some specific RAW saying they are different, we are left with the RAW from the re-rolls entry, which makes no distinction other than to prevent multiple re-rolls.

Your distinction doesn't exist RAW. You want to argue RAI, fine, but let's acknowledge the elephant in the room.

You admit that there are different rules for rolls and re-rolls yet you continue to insist that they are the same thing. If 2 things have different rules then by definition they are different things.

Edited by Manchu

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You admit that there are different rules for rolls and re-rolls yet you continue to insist that they are the same thing. If 2 things have different rules then by definition they are different things.

Not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying that there IS a section on re-rolls, but as I quoted earlier, that section specifically says a re-roll is a roll. Thus, for interpretation purposes, it's like my vehicle section above. A re-roll is a roll unless specifically identified as something else in a different rule.

Here there is nothing saying we should deviate from that definition. Skschan said there was so I asked him to provide it. Absent that, it's a roll and the stratagem's requirement is met.

If you want to argue that the fact a re-roll section exists at all is proof enough then that's a RAI argument, which is fine too, but OP is asking about and I'm trying to identify RAW.

Edited by Manchu

As a Blood Angels player I am truly embarrassed about this thread, how is this even a thing?

The game also doesn't define if vehicles without bases need to be placed on their treads as well, nothing stopping you from deploying a Rhino on it's side. But, common sense allows us to infer that vehicles are generally placed on their treads and stay that way. This really isn't any different. Yes, a reroll is a roll, but rerolling a die that wasn't there is pretty ludicrous. That is something we also can infer from wording of the Strategem, and use our common sense that it has to be used before the unit declares their initial charge and roll their initial charge roll.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
As a Blood Angels player I am truly embarrassed about this thread, how is this even a thing?

The game also doesn't define if vehicles without bases need to be placed on their treads as well, nothing stopping you from deploying a Rhino on it's side. But, common sense allows us to infer that vehicles are generally placed on their treads and stay that way. This really isn't any different. Yes, a reroll is a roll, but rerolling a die that wasn't there is pretty ludicrous. That is something we also can infer from wording of the Strategem, and use our common sense that it has to be used before the unit declares their initial charge and roll their initial charge roll.

Common sense is not common. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein. You can't make rulings based on 'common sense' because it's not a universal ground we all share, but a subjective gut feeling that changes based on demographics, region and history.

Anyway, this might be a bad example because you CAN play with a Rhino on its side. I'm sure some people HAVE done that for 'the lols' if nothing else.

You're also making a RAI argument, which I've said is fine, but the RAW here is not the same as what people are asserting as RAI. We have to first agree on the RAW THEN we can figure out RAI.

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
As a Blood Angels player I am truly embarrassed about this thread, how is this even a thing?

The game also doesn't define if vehicles without bases need to be placed on their treads as well, nothing stopping you from deploying a Rhino on it's side. But, common sense allows us to infer that vehicles are generally placed on their treads and stay that way. This really isn't any different. Yes, a reroll is a roll, but rerolling a die that wasn't there is pretty ludicrous. That is something we also can infer from wording of the Strategem, and use our common sense that it has to be used before the unit declares their initial charge and roll their initial charge roll.

Common sense is not common. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein. You can't make rulings based on 'common sense' because it's not a universal ground we all share, but a subjective gut feeling that changes based on demographics, region and history.

Anyway, this might be a bad example because you CAN play with a Rhino on its side. I'm sure some people HAVE done that for 'the lols' if nothing else.

You're also making a RAI argument, which I've said is fine, but the RAW here is not the same as what people are asserting as RAI. We have to first agree on the RAW THEN we can figure out RAI.

No, common sense really is a thing, and those arguing it isn't make themselves look silly. The rules *absolutely* assume common sense and conventions all over the place.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Yes, a reroll is a roll, but rerolling a die that wasn't there is pretty ludicrous.

I am not rerolling a die which wasnt there. The stratagem adds a new dice. The other two are rerolls.

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
As a Blood Angels player I am truly embarrassed about this thread, how is this even a thing?

The game also doesn't define if vehicles without bases need to be placed on their treads as well, nothing stopping you from deploying a Rhino on it's side. But, common sense allows us to infer that vehicles are generally placed on their treads and stay that way. This really isn't any different. Yes, a reroll is a roll, but rerolling a die that wasn't there is pretty ludicrous. That is something we also can infer from wording of the Strategem, and use our common sense that it has to be used before the unit declares their initial charge and roll their initial charge roll.

Common sense is not common. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein. You can't make rulings based on 'common sense' because it's not a universal ground we all share, but a subjective gut feeling that changes based on demographics, region and history.

Anyway, this might be a bad example because you CAN play with a Rhino on its side. I'm sure some people HAVE done that for 'the lols' if nothing else.

You're also making a RAI argument, which I've said is fine, but the RAW here is not the same as what people are asserting as RAI. We have to first agree on the RAW THEN we can figure out RAI.

Oh no, I used that Rhino example BECAUSE peopld have done it. I wanted to illustrate how silly this argument is. The rules also don't stop your Basilisks from firing to other tables, even ones not in the room since they don't require line of sight, is that something you also find acceptable? There have been people who have done that too.

In the last 30 years of GW products, they have shown us that they are trash at writing rules, and show no improvement in writing them throughout that time. A good chunk of this game wouldn't work unless you played it as RAI.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
As a Blood Angels player I am truly embarrassed about this thread, how is this even a thing?

The game also doesn't define if vehicles without bases need to be placed on their treads as well, nothing stopping you from deploying a Rhino on it's side. But, common sense allows us to infer that vehicles are generally placed on their treads and stay that way. This really isn't any different. Yes, a reroll is a roll, but rerolling a die that wasn't there is pretty ludicrous. That is something we also can infer from wording of the Strategem, and use our common sense that it has to be used before the unit declares their initial charge and roll their initial charge roll.

Common sense is not common. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein. You can't make rulings based on 'common sense' because it's not a universal ground we all share, but a subjective gut feeling that changes based on demographics, region and history.

Anyway, this might be a bad example because you CAN play with a Rhino on its side. I'm sure some people HAVE done that for 'the lols' if nothing else.

You're also making a RAI argument, which I've said is fine, but the RAW here is not the same as what people are asserting as RAI. We have to first agree on the RAW THEN we can figure out RAI.

No, common sense really is a thing, and those arguing it isn't make themselves look silly. The rules *absolutely* assume common sense and conventions all over the place.

"[I]f … the plain meaning of a provision, not contradicted by any other provision in the same instrument, is to be disregarded, because we believe the framers of that instrument could not intend what they say, it must be one in which the absurdity and injustice of applying the provision to the case, would be so monstrous, that all mankind would, without hesitation, unite in rejecting the application."

This is as true for interpreting rules of a game as it was when Justice Marshall wrote it. We cannot just insert our own self-bias without regard into the text to reach results we prefer. The only word we have from GW, the drafter, is the actual text and any FAQ's/Erratas. That's where the inquiry begins and only progresses if you cannot reach a clear result based on that.

If the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, we may not look beyond the plain meaning of the statutory language “under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.

These rules were developed for interpreting laws for a reason: letting our own biases enter the discussion too much changes the result from what was meant by the draft to what WE want. That's fine for HYWPI, but in YMDC we're usually trying to determine what the drafters meant, that means we should adhere to these tools for the same reason.

Do you deny it is common sense that a tank drives on its tracks, and that this common sense model orientation everyone uses is not in the rules?

A reroll is done to change the result of an action. The action has already been committed. It's in the name. Reroll. It doesn't say "reattempt," it says "reroll."

good fething god

Your strategy doesn't say to add a die. It says to roll 3 dice before making a charge roll. Notice it doesn't say re-roll some and add others it says to roll all of them. Now if you want to argue that the stratagem requires that it be used for the first charge of a player's turn then you may have a point but after a charge roll is made the re-roll falls under other rules. You are not making a new charge roll because if you were then you could re-roll it. Therefore a re-rolled charge roll is not the same as a charge roll.
You are confusing nomenclature with mechanics. Yes, you roll (verb) a re-roll (noun) and you can re-roll (verb) a roll (noun) but that doesn't mean that either verb or noun is the same thing. Since you are saying they are the same thing you show me where RAW they are treated as the same thing. As it is now RAW a "re-roll" is treated differently than a "roll".

The sentence is

Use this stratagem before a charge roll with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit that was set up on the battlefield earlier that turn.

not

Use this stratagem before a charge rollcomma with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit that was set up on the battlefield earlier that turn.

It's not JUST before making a charge roll. It's before making a charge roll WITH a unit that was set up this turn. The moment you make a charge roll with that unit, that unit is no longer a valid target for the stratagem.

Audustum wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Even if the roll & charge roll are separate distinct rolls, you would need to use it before the first charge roll. As a charge roll has already taken place, you cannot use the stratagem.

If you had a unit that was capable of making 500 separate charge rolls, you could not use this stratagem after making even one of them. Because it says before making a charge roll. You have already made one. Therefore the condition is invalidated.

The stratagem references a singular charge roll. Simply: Before the reroll, regardless of how you would classify the reroll, have you made a charge roll? The answer is yes, so you cannot use DoA.

And, let me add, DUH.

If we go with that definition, however, then it can ONLY be used on your first charge of each turn. If I have units A and B, A charges an enemy and then I try to use the stratagem on unit B, your reading would prevent me from doing so because it's not "before making a charge roll". I already made one, after all.

After speaking to my wife about this issue over lunch (who is also a gamer), I'm of the opinion that he actually CAN use it for the re-roll. This is specifically because the rule for re-rolls states that "you get to roll[i] some or all of the dice again".

So let's walk this through logically:

The stratagem requires 2 things, one temporal and one contextual.

Temporally, it must occur BEFORE a roll.

Contextually, it must be a CHARGE roll.

This thread has some back and forth on a re-roll not being a roll, but the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook overrides any other source and says it's a roll ("you get to roll"). Our contextual requirement is therefore met.

He is using this stratagem before he makes this roll, thus our temporal requirement is also met.

Ergo, he can use the stratagem to roll 3D6 on the re-try. I don't see any way to escape this answer, RAW.

EDIT: And no one should be surprised I arrived at this conclusion by this point

It's more specific than being before a charge roll. It's before "making a charge roll with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit..." and the stratagem modifies "the unit's charge." So you can totally charge unit A, use the stratagem on unit B, reroll unit A's charge, and then have unit B charge 3d6. That's a dumb way to sequence things, but you can do it. You cannot use the stratagem on Unit A after making a charge roll because you've already "ma[de] a charge roll" for the unit. Whether your reroll is itself another charge roll is irrelevant, because the stratagem limits its use on its that have already made a charge roll, not units that can still make another charge roll.

Marmatag wrote:A reroll is done to change the result of an action. The action has already been committed. It's in the name. Reroll. It doesn't say "reattempt," it says "reroll."

good fething god

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Your strategy doesn't say to add a die. It says to roll 3 dice before making a charge roll. Notice it doesn't say re-roll some and add others it says to roll all of them. Now if you want to argue that the stratagem requires that it be used for the first charge of a player's turn then you may have a point but after a charge roll is made the re-roll falls under other rules. You are not making a new charge roll because if you were then you could re-roll it. Therefore a re-rolled charge roll is not the same as a charge roll.
You are confusing nomenclature with mechanics. Yes, you roll (verb) a re-roll (noun) and you can re-roll (verb) a roll (noun) but that doesn't mean that either verb or noun is the same thing. Since you are saying they are the same thing you show me where RAW they are treated as the same thing. As it is now RAW a "re-roll" is treated differently than a "roll".

Re-rolls

Some rules allow you to
re-roll a dice roll, which
means you get to roll
some or all of the dice
again.

A re-roll is just a dice roll done again. Its the same as a normal dice roll. A re-roll is not treated differently.

The stratagem says to roll 3D6 instead of 2D6. I am not making a new charge roll. Its a two dice re-roll with one new dice.

The Stratagem *SO* clearly has to be declared before making the charge at all, before rolling any dice. All this attempting to bend definitions to fit is silly.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Do you deny it is common sense that a tank drives on its tracks, and that this common sense model orientation everyone uses is not in the rules?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics and design as spelled out by the manufacturer. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Stratagem *SO* clearly has to be declared before making the charge at all, before rolling any dice. All this attempting to bend definitions to fit is silly.

The stratagem says before a charge roll, not before any or all charge rolls. You're reading in terminology that isn't there. A second charge roll is still 'a' charge roll. Just like the 2nd egg in a cart is still 'a[n] egg'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 meleti wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Even if the roll & charge roll are separate distinct rolls, you would need to use it before the first charge roll. As a charge roll has already taken place, you cannot use the stratagem.

If you had a unit that was capable of making 500 separate charge rolls, you could not use this stratagem after making even one of them. Because it says before making a charge roll. You have already made one. Therefore the condition is invalidated.

The stratagem references a singular charge roll. Simply: Before the reroll, regardless of how you would classify the reroll, have you made a charge roll? The answer is yes, so you cannot use DoA.

And, let me add, DUH.

If we go with that definition, however, then it can ONLY be used on your first charge of each turn. If I have units A and B, A charges an enemy and then I try to use the stratagem on unit B, your reading would prevent me from doing so because it's not "before making a charge roll". I already made one, after all.

After speaking to my wife about this issue over lunch (who is also a gamer), I'm of the opinion that he actually CAN use it for the re-roll. This is specifically because the rule for re-rolls states that "you get to roll[i] some or all of the dice again".

So let's walk this through logically:

The stratagem requires 2 things, one temporal and one contextual.

Temporally, it must occur BEFORE a roll.

Contextually, it must be a CHARGE roll.

This thread has some back and forth on a re-roll not being a roll, but the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook overrides any other source and says it's a roll ("you get to roll"). Our contextual requirement is therefore met.

He is using this stratagem before he makes this roll, thus our temporal requirement is also met.

Ergo, he can use the stratagem to roll 3D6 on the re-try. I don't see any way to escape this answer, RAW.

EDIT: And no one should be surprised I arrived at this conclusion by this point

It's more specific than being before a charge roll. It's before "making a charge roll with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit..." and the stratagem modifies "the unit's charge." So you can totally charge unit A, use the stratagem on unit B, reroll unit A's charge, and then have unit B charge 3d6. That's a dumb way to sequence things, but you can do it. You cannot use the stratagem on Unit A after making a charge roll because you've already "ma[de] a charge roll" for the unit. Whether your reroll is itself another charge roll is irrelevant, because the stratagem limits its use on its that have already made a charge roll, not units that can still make another charge roll.

See the response to JohnnyHell. You're reading in terminology that isn't there. 'A' charge roll can be the first, second, third, fourth, even the hundredth charge roll for that unit. It's still 'a' roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
The sentence is

Use this stratagem before a charge roll with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit that was set up on the battlefield earlier that turn.

not

Use this stratagem before a charge rollcomma with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit that was set up on the battlefield earlier that turn.

It's not JUST before making a charge roll. It's before making a charge roll WITH a unit that was set up this turn. The moment you make a charge roll with that unit, that unit is no longer a valid target for the stratagem.

See above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
A reroll is done to change the result of an action. The action has already been committed. It's in the name. Reroll. It doesn't say "reattempt," it says "reroll."

good fething god

Go to the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook. It says it's just a 'roll'.

 Lance845 wrote:
The sentence is

Use this stratagem before a charge roll with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit that was set up on the battlefield earlier that turn.

not

Use this stratagem before a charge rollcomma with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit that was set up on the battlefield earlier that turn.

It's not JUST before making a charge roll. It's before making a charge roll WITH a unit that was set up this turn. The moment you make a charge roll with that unit, that unit is no longer a valid target for the stratagem.

Even with the re-rolled charge roll the unit was still set up earlier that turn, its still a valid target. The stratagem doesnt say before any charge rolls are made, in that case it wouldnt be possible.

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Do you deny it is common sense that a tank drives on its tracks, and that this common sense model orientation everyone uses is not in the rules?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.

A real tank drives on it's tracks because they make it move. What about a toy tank? We aren't driving real ones around.

The rules leave it to common sense that we'll orient our toy tanks the same way as real ones. They don't mandate which way up you put them, nor do they for any model, save for "base" implying that bit goes downward. Common sense and wargaming convention mean we put tanks tracks-down.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
As a Blood Angels player I am truly embarrassed about this thread, how is this even a thing?

The game also doesn't define if vehicles without bases need to be placed on their treads as well, nothing stopping you from deploying a Rhino on it's side. But, common sense allows us to infer that vehicles are generally placed on their treads and stay that way. This really isn't any different. Yes, a reroll is a roll, but rerolling a die that wasn't there is pretty ludicrous. That is something we also can infer from wording of the Strategem, and use our common sense that it has to be used before the unit declares their initial charge and roll their initial charge roll.

Common sense is not common. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein. You can't make rulings based on 'common sense' because it's not a universal ground we all share, but a subjective gut feeling that changes based on demographics, region and history.

Anyway, this might be a bad example because you CAN play with a Rhino on its side. I'm sure some people HAVE done that for 'the lols' if nothing else.

You're also making a RAI argument, which I've said is fine, but the RAW here is not the same as what people are asserting as RAI. We have to first agree on the RAW THEN we can figure out RAI.

Oh no, I used that Rhino example BECAUSE peopld have done it. I wanted to illustrate how silly this argument is. The rules also don't stop your Basilisks from firing to other tables, even ones not in the room since they don't require line of sight, is that something you also find acceptable? There have been people who have done that too.

We've had this debate in another thread quite thoroughly. Two of them, I think, actually. The Rulebook does provide for a 'battlefield'. Go to those threads if you want a thorough analysis of the Basilisk/indirect fire example. We'd add 10 pages to this thread rehashing stuff that was already said to do it here.

The Rhino issue is settled then. People do it, you can do it RAW.

In the last 30 years of GW products, they have shown us that they are trash at writing rules, and show no improvement in writing them throughout that time. A good chunk of this game wouldn't work unless you played it as RAI.

No, it's largely playable, one or two issues outstanding. The problem is it wouldn't be played the way you want it to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Do you deny it is common sense that a tank drives on its tracks, and that this common sense model orientation everyone uses is not in the rules?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.

A real tank drives on it's tracks because they make it move. What about a toy tank? We aren't driving real ones around.

The rules leave it to common sense that we'll orient our toy tanks the same way as real ones. They don't mandate which way up you put them, nor do they for any model, save for "base" implying that bit goes downward. Common sense and wargaming convention mean we put tanks tracks-down.

I already covered this in the post you quoted. They didn't leave it to common sense, they stayed silent on it. People put the toy tanks on tracks because that's what they see in the real world, but that doesn't mean it's required by RAW or that GW even cares. You can't just read your biases in.

That literally is common sense, though. That you don't recognise the term as existing is irrelevant. It's not about 'biases', it's literally just common sense that tanks go on their tracks. Sheesh. You keep picking weird hills to die on, dude...

So rolling 1 die is also making a charge roll, right?

Which means you can pay 1 CP after a failed charge, to reroll one die, and then use the descent of angels to reroll the full charge with 3d6.

I mean, by your logic.

This whole thread is ridiculous. The concept of a reroll and a roll are two different things.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
That literally is common sense, though. That you don't recognise the term as existing is irrelevant. It's not about 'biases', it's literally just common sense that tanks go on their tracks. Sheesh. You keep picking weird hills to die on, dude...

That's...not actually the definition. It may be YOUR definition, but what have I been saying all along? What you describe with the Rhinos is only imitation with or without understanding.

All I'll say regarding the peanut gallery grade comment is that you always seem to have the opinion that the whole of Earth and mankind move in unison with your subjective beliefs. That's unfortunate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
So rolling 1 die is also making a charge roll, right?

Which means you can pay 1 CP after a failed charge, to reroll one die, and then use the descent of angels to reroll the full charge with 3d6.

I mean, by your logic.

This whole thread is ridiculous. The concept of a reroll and a roll are two different things.

The concept may be different but the Rulebook itself says re-rolls are rolls. The problem is GW gave them a definition that conflicts with what your gut is telling you.

I have no idea what you're going on with for that example though. It doesn't match anything I've seen anyone say.

 Marmatag wrote:
So rolling 1 die is also making a charge roll, right?

Which means you can pay 1 CP after a failed charge, to reroll one die, and then use the descent of angels to reroll the full charge with 3d6.

No, a charge roll is always 2D6. You cant re-roll a re-roll. With DoA on the second charge roll i am not re-rolling a re-roll. Its a re-roll with one new dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:


This whole thread is ridiculous. The concept of a reroll and a roll are two different things.

No, its not. A re-roll is a roll.

 p5freak wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
So rolling 1 die is also making a charge roll, right?

Which means you can pay 1 CP after a failed charge, to reroll one die, and then use the descent of angels to reroll the full charge with 3d6.

No, a charge roll is always 2D6. You cant re-roll a re-roll. With DoA on the second charge roll i am not re-rolling a re-roll. Its a re-roll with one new dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:


This whole thread is ridiculous. The concept of a reroll and a roll are two different things.

No, its not. A re-roll is a roll.

A fun question would be:

Can you Command Re-Roll the 3rd die added by the stratagem since it hasn't been re-rolled before?

Audustum wrote:

Can you Command Re-Roll the 3rd die added by the stratagem since it hasn't been re-rolled before?

Yes. Its a new dice, which hasnt been re-rolled yet.

 p5freak wrote:
Re-rolls

Some rules allow you to re-roll(verb) a dice roll(noun), which means you get to roll (verb) some or all of the dice
again.

A re-roll is just a dice roll done again. Its the same as a normal dice roll. A re-roll is not treated differently.

The stratagem says to roll 3D6 instead of 2D6. I am not making a new charge roll. Its a two dice re-roll with one new dice.

(added by me)

I think you need to go back to basic English lessons. A noun is not the same as a verb. You even say that the roll is done again. I don't know what to say that you can't see your own hypocracy.

You are not looking for a discussion you are looking for vindication of an incorrect application of the rules. I don't know what stake you have in this but your interpretation is wrong. Get over it and move on.

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Do you deny it is common sense that a tank drives on its tracks, and that this common sense model orientation everyone uses is not in the rules?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics and design as spelled out by the manufacturer. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Stratagem *SO* clearly has to be declared before making the charge at all, before rolling any dice. All this attempting to bend definitions to fit is silly.

The stratagem says before a charge roll, not before any or all charge rolls. You're reading in terminology that isn't there. A second charge roll is still 'a' charge roll. Just like the 2nd egg in a cart is still 'a[n] egg'

The stratagem also does not say before charge re-rolls, so trying to use it after a normal roll doesn't have permission. Also, rerolls have you rolling some or all of the dice, there's no permission to add dice so that it's rerolling some dice and adding new dice.

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Do you deny it is common sense that a tank drives on its tracks, and that this common sense model orientation everyone uses is not in the rules?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics and design as spelled out by the manufacturer. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Stratagem *SO* clearly has to be declared before making the charge at all, before rolling any dice. All this attempting to bend definitions to fit is silly.

The stratagem says before a charge roll, not before any or all charge rolls. You're reading in terminology that isn't there. A second charge roll is still 'a' charge roll. Just like the 2nd egg in a cart is still 'a[n] egg'

The stratagem also does not say before charge re-rolls, so trying to use it after a normal roll doesn't have permission. Also, rerolls have you rolling some or all of the dice, there's no permission to add dice so that it's rerolling some dice and adding new dice.

But re-rolls are rolls. The section on re-rolls says they are rolls. This is an unsupported distinction per RAW.

The stratagem gives you permission to roll 3 dice on the roll. That's where permission flows from for the third die.

Audustum wrote:
But re-rolls are rolls. The section on re-rolls says they are rolls. This is an unsupported distinction per RAW.

The stratagem gives you permission to roll 3 dice on the roll. That's where permission flows from for the third die.

So I guess I can re-roll a re-rolled dice since re-rolls are just rolls.

 skchsan wrote:

Audustum wrote:
But re-rolls are rolls. The section on re-rolls says they are rolls. This is an unsupported distinction per RAW.

The stratagem gives you permission to roll 3 dice on the roll. That's where permission flows from for the third die.

So I guess I can re-roll a re-rolled dice since re-rolls are just rolls.

This was already addressed. There is a specific line of RAW regarding this issue that creates an override. No such RAW exists for the scenario this thread is predicated on.

Audustum wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Do you deny it is common sense that a tank drives on its tracks, and that this common sense model orientation everyone uses is not in the rules?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics and design as spelled out by the manufacturer. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Stratagem *SO* clearly has to be declared before making the charge at all, before rolling any dice. All this attempting to bend definitions to fit is silly.

The stratagem says before a charge roll, not before any or all charge rolls. You're reading in terminology that isn't there. A second charge roll is still 'a' charge roll. Just like the 2nd egg in a cart is still 'a[n] egg'

The stratagem also does not say before charge re-rolls, so trying to use it after a normal roll doesn't have permission. Also, rerolls have you rolling some or all of the dice, there's no permission to add dice so that it's rerolling some dice and adding new dice.

But re-rolls are rolls. The section on re-rolls says they are rolls. This is an unsupported distinction per RAW.

The stratagem gives you permission to roll 3 dice on the roll. That's where permission flows from for the third die.

Rerolls don't give you permission to roll new dice, only to roll some or all of the dice again. There's no permission to combine rolling a new die for the first time with rerolling. The stratagem does not specify that you can do that either, so you still don't have permission for the third die in a reroll situation. If you used the stratagem at the start, all 3 dice would be part of what you get to partially or completely roll again, but as it is the stratagem isn't permission to combine a reroll with rolling a new die for the first time.

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

In the last 30 years of GW products, they have shown us that they are trash at writing rules, and show no improvement in writing them throughout that time. A good chunk of this game wouldn't work unless you played it as RAI.

No, it's largely playable, one or two issues outstanding. The problem is it wouldn't be played the way you want it to.

What are you even talking about, at this point it just seems like your trolling or being obtuse just because you can, and thinly disguising your rude comments. What makes you think you know how I play 40k?

If anything, you are the one getting all poopy-butt because people don't agree with how YOU would want to play 40k, and the Blood Angels Strategems.

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Do you deny it is common sense that a tank drives on its tracks, and that this common sense model orientation everyone uses is not in the rules?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics and design as spelled out by the manufacturer. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Stratagem *SO* clearly has to be declared before making the charge at all, before rolling any dice. All this attempting to bend definitions to fit is silly.

The stratagem says before a charge roll, not before any or all charge rolls. You're reading in terminology that isn't there. A second charge roll is still 'a' charge roll. Just like the 2nd egg in a cart is still 'a[n] egg'

The stratagem also does not say before charge re-rolls, so trying to use it after a normal roll doesn't have permission. Also, rerolls have you rolling some or all of the dice, there's no permission to add dice so that it's rerolling some dice and adding new dice.

But re-rolls are rolls. The section on re-rolls says they are rolls. This is an unsupported distinction per RAW.

The stratagem gives you permission to roll 3 dice on the roll. That's where permission flows from for the third die.

Rerolls don't give you permission to roll new dice, only to roll some or all of the dice again.

Right, but the stratagem says to roll 3 dice. So you must roll 3 dice after using it.

There's no permission to combine rolling a new die for the first time with rerolling. The stratagem does not specify that you can do that either, so you still don't have permission for the third die in a reroll situation.

Re-rolls are just rolls per RAW so this is a meaningless distinction. You are making a charge roll, the stratagem says to use 3 dice when doing so.

If you used the stratagem at the start, all 3 dice would be part of what you get to partially or completely roll again, but as it is the stratagem isn't permission to combine a reroll with rolling a new die for the first time.

This distinction of combining or treating re-rolls different for this purpose doesn't exist in RAW, that's why I can't get behind this argument. See previous. Give me some RAW that says re-rolls are not rolls as the stratagem means them, because the re-roll definition looks like it's saying the opposite.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

In the last 30 years of GW products, they have shown us that they are trash at writing rules, and show no improvement in writing them throughout that time. A good chunk of this game wouldn't work unless you played it as RAI.

No, it's largely playable, one or two issues outstanding. The problem is it wouldn't be played the way you want it to.

What are you even talking about, at this point it just seems like your trolling or being obtuse just because you can, and thinly disguising your rude comments. What makes you think you know how I play 40k?

If anything, you are the one getting all poopy-butt because people don't agree with how YOU would want to play 40k, and the Blood Angels Strategems.

What on earth is this? Are you sure you quoted the right post?

You said 40k is unplayable without a good chunk of RAI. I said it's mostly playable, but that you're using RAI to reach a result your prefer compared to the RAW implication. I'm not sure where any of that is rude or obtuse.

As for how I would play this particular rule, if my opponent tried to do it and asked what I thought I'd say: "I think RAW is X but choose whichever, I don't care". I'm only discussing it here because I enjoy these threads and it helps me relax after working.

RAW, a roll is *not* the same as a re-roll, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll. So that's that disproved...

And a Charge roll is the first roll you make. If you re-roll it *SURPRISE* it's a re-roll of a Charge roll, not a Charge roll. By definition.

Any more attempted RAW bending to get the OP's non-tactic to function?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, a roll is *not* the same as a re-roll, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll. So that's that disproved...

No, that's wrong. The Rulebook:

Re-rolls

Some rules allow you to
re-roll a dice roll,which
means you get to roll
some or all of the dice
again.

That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

There is a specific RAW provision that says you can't re-roll a re-roll. This overrides the general definition, but it only applies to making a subsequent re-roll. The stratagem isn't trying to re-roll a re-roll, it's just adding a third die. Therefore, this RAW exception doesn't apply and we're left with the general definition, which says it's a roll.

And a Charge roll is the first roll you make. If you re-roll it *SURPRISE* it's a re-roll of a Charge roll, not a Charge roll.

Like I said, meaningless distinction, RAW. RAW says a re-roll is a roll UNLESS you're trying to re-roll it a second time, in which case you can't. It'd be like if I wrote a law that said:

"Every time a top spins a full circle it constitutes 1 cycle. Before the top completes a cycle, you may eat a cookie. The top may not complete more than 2 cycles".

The limit on the top's cycles has no bearing on your cookie eating and all full circles are cycles, but I did just make some minor distinction between the first cycle and subsequent cycles because I prohibited you from having more than 2. That doesn't change the fact that each full circle is still a 'cycle', however and you can eat a cookie before the top's completion of it's first cycle and then again before the completion of the second cycle.

Audustum wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Do you deny it is common sense that a tank drives on its tracks, and that this common sense model orientation everyone uses is not in the rules?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics and design as spelled out by the manufacturer. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Stratagem *SO* clearly has to be declared before making the charge at all, before rolling any dice. All this attempting to bend definitions to fit is silly.

The stratagem says before a charge roll, not before any or all charge rolls. You're reading in terminology that isn't there. A second charge roll is still 'a' charge roll. Just like the 2nd egg in a cart is still 'a[n] egg'

The stratagem also does not say before charge re-rolls, so trying to use it after a normal roll doesn't have permission. Also, rerolls have you rolling some or all of the dice, there's no permission to add dice so that it's rerolling some dice and adding new dice.

But re-rolls are rolls. The section on re-rolls says they are rolls. This is an unsupported distinction per RAW.

The stratagem gives you permission to roll 3 dice on the roll. That's where permission flows from for the third die.

Rerolls don't give you permission to roll new dice, only to roll some or all of the dice again.

Right, but the stratagem says to roll 3 dice. So you must roll 3 dice after using it.

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, a roll is *not* the same as a re-roll, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll. So that's that disproved...

No, that's wrong. The Rulebook:

Re-rolls

Some rules allow you to
re-roll a dice roll,which
means you get to roll
some or all of the dice
again.

That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

There is a specific RAW provision that says you can't re-roll a re-roll. This overrides the general definition, but it only applies to making a subsequent re-roll. The stratagem isn't trying to re-roll a re-roll, it's just adding a third die. Therefore, this RAW exception doesn't apply and we're left with the general definition, which says it's a roll.

And a Charge roll is the first roll you make. If you re-roll it *SURPRISE* it's a re-roll of a Charge roll, not a Charge roll.

Like I said, meaningless distinction, RAW. RAW says a re-roll is a roll UNLESS you're trying to re-roll it a second time, in which case you can't. It'd be like if I wrote a law that said:

"Every time a top spins a full circle it constitutes 1 cycle. Before the top completes a cycle, you may eat a cookie. The top may not complete more than 2 cycles".

The limit on the top's cycles has no bearing on your cookie eating and all full circles are cycles, but I did just make some minor distinction between the first cycle and subsequent cycles because I prohibited you from having more than 2. That doesn't change the fact that each full circle is still a 'cycle', however and you can eat a cookie before the top's completion of it's first cycle and then again before the completion of the second cycle.

And cookies and tops have nothing to do with this Stratagem. I won’t wngage with that tangent, sorry, it just becomes a rabbit hole the thread descends into (see for example apples and pseudocode). Stick to the topic!

Audustum wrote:
That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

There is a specific RAW provision that says you can't re-roll a re-roll. This overrides the general definition, but it only applies to making a subsequent re-roll. The stratagem isn't trying to re-roll a re-roll, it's just adding a third die. Therefore, this RAW exception doesn't apply and we're left with the general definition, which says it's a roll.

So... a re-roll is a roll, but a re-roll cannot be re-rolled despite being a roll because re-roll is not allowed to be re-rolled. So for the purpose of determining whether a roll can be re-rolled or not, a re-roll is not a roll, but when determining whether certain stratagems are able to be applied a re-roll is a roll?

So according to your definition, re-roll is a roll... So when I claim a re-roll on a re-roll, I'm not actually claiming a re-roll on a re-roll, but a re-roll on a roll. Just because a roll is generated from a re-roll, it doesn't mean that it's a re-roll of a re-roll - after all, a re-roll is a roll, and I'm simply going to re-roll my roll rather than re-rolling my re-roll. So the provision telling you that you can't ever re-roll a re-roll is broken because a re-roll is both a re-roll AND a roll at the same time. If re-roll is a roll, then there can never be a subsequent re-rolls, or at least for smart players, that you can be prohibited from re-rolling a re-roll since re-roll is simply a roll!

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

In the last 30 years of GW products, they have shown us that they are trash at writing rules, and show no improvement in writing them throughout that time. A good chunk of this game wouldn't work unless you played it as RAI.

No, it's largely playable, one or two issues outstanding. The problem is it wouldn't be played the way you want it to.

What are you even talking about, at this point it just seems like your trolling or being obtuse just because you can, and thinly disguising your rude comments. What makes you think you know how I play 40k?

If anything, you are the one getting all poopy-butt because people don't agree with how YOU would want to play 40k, and the Blood Angels Strategems.

What on earth is this? Are you sure you quoted the right post?

You said 40k is unplayable without a good chunk of RAI. I said it's mostly playable, but that you're using RAI to reach a result your prefer compared to the RAW implication. I'm not sure where any of that is rude or obtuse.

As for how I would play this particular rule, if my opponent tried to do it and asked what I thought I'd say: "I think RAW is X but choose whichever, I don't care". I'm only discussing it here because I enjoy these threads and it helps me relax after working.

My most sincere apologies, I completely misread it. That is what I get for not going to bed last night and being exhausted. My apologies again!

 doctortom wrote:


My point was that you don't get to use it.

I know that's your overall point, but you raised a specific issue so you got a specific answer.

No, it's not a meaningless distinction. If you use the stratagem, can you use a command point to reroll the die that you're rolling for the first time, even though the roll as a whole is considered a reroll?

I just said earlier in this very thread that would be a fun discussion to have once the RAW is agreed upon.

It's not a meaningless distinction unless you're trying to game the system. A reroll is a roll where you're rolling some or all of the dice again.

It's meaningless because the RAW supplied by GW does not make the distinction you're trying to make. They make no distinction for this purpose. That overrides the plain meaning of re-roll.

It's not a roll where you are rolling a different number of dice than the first time you rolled them.

Yeah, sure. Absolutely. A re-roll is defined RAW as just a roll, however, so that's fine as long as you have another source modifying the number of the dice. In this case the stratagem.

There's no permission for a reroll to roll a different number of dice than the initial roll, whether or not you want to play the stratagem.

Re-rolls are just rolls, RAW. Therefore, you have permission to roll more dice from the stratagem since it is a roll.

The permission of combining or rerolls and normal rolls doesn't exist in RAW either. Your argument seems to be "it doesn't say I can't combine them, so I will"

Annnnnd this seems to be the indicator you're not grasping my position. You don't need permission to combine re-rolls and rolls because RAW says they're the same thing. A re-roll is a roll. Like I said, it's contrary to your guy but it's what GW gave us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, a roll is *not* the same as a re-roll, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll. So that's that disproved...

No, that's wrong. The Rulebook:

Re-rolls

Some rules allow you to
re-roll a dice roll,which
means you get to roll
some or all of the dice
again.

That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

There is a specific RAW provision that says you can't re-roll a re-roll. This overrides the general definition, but it only applies to making a subsequent re-roll. The stratagem isn't trying to re-roll a re-roll, it's just adding a third die. Therefore, this RAW exception doesn't apply and we're left with the general definition, which says it's a roll.

And a Charge roll is the first roll you make. If you re-roll it *SURPRISE* it's a re-roll of a Charge roll, not a Charge roll.

Like I said, meaningless distinction, RAW. RAW says a re-roll is a roll UNLESS you're trying to re-roll it a second time, in which case you can't. It'd be like if I wrote a law that said:

"Every time a top spins a full circle it constitutes 1 cycle. Before the top completes a cycle, you may eat a cookie. The top may not complete more than 2 cycles".

The limit on the top's cycles has no bearing on your cookie eating and all full circles are cycles, but I did just make some minor distinction between the first cycle and subsequent cycles because I prohibited you from having more than 2. That doesn't change the fact that each full circle is still a 'cycle', however and you can eat a cookie before the top's completion of it's first cycle and then again before the completion of the second cycle.

And cookies and tops have nothing to do with this Stratagem. I won’t wngage with that tangent, sorry, it just becomes a rabbit hole the thread descends into (see for example apples and pseudocode). Stick to the topic!

It's called an analogy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

In the last 30 years of GW products, they have shown us that they are trash at writing rules, and show no improvement in writing them throughout that time. A good chunk of this game wouldn't work unless you played it as RAI.

No, it's largely playable, one or two issues outstanding. The problem is it wouldn't be played the way you want it to.

What are you even talking about, at this point it just seems like your trolling or being obtuse just because you can, and thinly disguising your rude comments. What makes you think you know how I play 40k?

If anything, you are the one getting all poopy-butt because people don't agree with how YOU would want to play 40k, and the Blood Angels Strategems.

What on earth is this? Are you sure you quoted the right post?

You said 40k is unplayable without a good chunk of RAI. I said it's mostly playable, but that you're using RAI to reach a result your prefer compared to the RAW implication. I'm not sure where any of that is rude or obtuse.

As for how I would play this particular rule, if my opponent tried to do it and asked what I thought I'd say: "I think RAW is X but choose whichever, I don't care". I'm only discussing it here because I enjoy these threads and it helps me relax after working.

My most sincere apologies, I completely misread it. That is what I get for not going to bed last night and being exhausted. My apologies again!

It's O.K., in hindsight I was coming off a little rude so I apologize as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

Audustum wrote:
That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

There is a specific RAW provision that says you can't re-roll a re-roll. This overrides the general definition, but it only applies to making a subsequent re-roll. The stratagem isn't trying to re-roll a re-roll, it's just adding a third die. Therefore, this RAW exception doesn't apply and we're left with the general definition, which says it's a roll.

So... a re-roll is a roll, but a re-roll cannot be re-rolled despite being a roll because re-roll is not allowed to be re-rolled. So for the purpose of determining whether a roll can be re-rolled or not, a re-roll is not a roll, but when determining whether certain stratagems are able to be applied a re-roll is a roll?

Right.

It's convoluted but it's what GW wrote.

So according to your definition, re-roll is a roll... So when I claim a re-roll on a re-roll, I'm not actually claiming a re-roll on a re-roll, but a re-roll on a roll.

No, according to GW's definition you're claiming a re-roll on a re-roll because there's specific RAW to handle that situation.

Just because a roll is generated from a re-roll, it doesn't mean that it's a re-roll of a re-roll - after all, a re-roll is a roll, and I'm simply going to re-roll my roll rather than re-rolling my re-roll. So the provision telling you that you can't ever re-roll a re-roll is broken because a re-roll is both a re-roll AND a roll at the same time.

Not quite. Re-rolls are different when you want to re-roll them because GW says they are. Re-rolls are not different when you do anything else to them because GW says they aren't.

If re-roll is a roll, then there can never be a subsequent re-rolls, or at least for smart players, that you can be prohibited from re-rolling a re-roll since re-roll is simply a roll!

Except that GW wrote specific RAW to handle this, wheras in all other scenarios it appears to be a roll.

 skchsan wrote:

Audustum wrote:
That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

There is a specific RAW provision that says you can't re-roll a re-roll. This overrides the general definition, but it only applies to making a subsequent re-roll. The stratagem isn't trying to re-roll a re-roll, it's just adding a third die. Therefore, this RAW exception doesn't apply and we're left with the general definition, which says it's a roll.

So... a re-roll is a roll, but a re-roll cannot be re-rolled despite being a roll because re-roll is not allowed to be re-rolled. So for the purpose of determining whether a roll can be re-rolled or not, a re-roll is not a roll, but when determining whether certain stratagems are able to be applied a re-roll is a roll?

So according to your definition, re-roll is a roll... So when I claim a re-roll on a re-roll, I'm not actually claiming a re-roll on a re-roll, but a re-roll on a roll. Just because a roll is generated from a re-roll, it doesn't mean that it's a re-roll of a re-roll - after all, a re-roll is a roll, and I'm simply going to re-roll my roll rather than re-rolling my re-roll. So the provision telling you that you can't ever re-roll a re-roll is broken because a re-roll is both a re-roll AND a roll at the same time. If re-roll is a roll, then there can never be a subsequent re-rolls, or at least for smart players, that you can be prohibited from re-rolling a re-roll since re-roll is simply a roll!

All this proves exactly why you shouldn’t write incorrect posts and add “RAW!” to try and validate them! A re-roll is not the same as a roll, so Audustum’s backup for p5freak’s non-tactic unravels.

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, a roll is *not* the same as a re-roll, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll. So that's that disproved...

No, that's wrong. The Rulebook:

Re-rolls(Noun)

Some rules allow you to
re-roll(verb) a dice roll(noun),which
means you get to roll(verb)
some or all of the dice
again.

That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

That quote from the rulebook doesn't say that a re-roll is a roll though. It says that for re-rolls you roll dice again. I added to the text to show what I mean. That shows that a re-roll(noun) is the result of a roll(noun) rolled(verb) again.

Edit I typed to quick and screed up my formatting

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, a roll is *not* the same as a re-roll, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll. So that's that disproved...

No, that's wrong. The Rulebook:

Re-rolls(Noun)

Some rules allow you to
re-roll(verb) a dice roll(noun),which
means you get to roll(verb)
some or all of the dice
again.

That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

That quote from the rulebook doesn't say that a re-roll is a roll though. It says that for re-rolls you roll dice again. I added to the text to show what I mean. That shows that a re-roll(noun) is the result of a roll(noun) rolled(verb) again.

Edit I typed to quick and screed up my formatting

Aha, it only took 3 pages but now we're finally discussing RAW.

So I thought something similar in the beginning too and that's one of the reasons I wrestled with this question a lot, but ultimately I had to reject it. It IS close though.

The reason being that the sentence could also read "Some rules allow you to re-roll some or all of the dice again". We have to assume GW means what it says and says what it means so since they decided to call it a roll, it's a roll

I get where you're going by peaking at the grammar of it in more detail,. There is, of course, the possibility that roll is being used as a gerund and not just a verb, which I haven't made my mind up on yet, but ultimately I just don't think it being a verb in that statement detracts from the effect of the RAW, which is to make it a roll.

Specifically, GW is proclaiming that a re-roll is an event where you get to roll the dice. That's verb status, but if we asked "is a re-roll a roll?" the answer would be yes based on that statement because it is an instance where we have the act of rolling. Thus, re-rolls are rolls.

Since the Stratagem only wants any kind of roll for a charge without much particularity, it's satisfied.

I wrote this late so let me know if any of it is too confusing and I'll do a re-word.

Your logic is flawed. A re-roll is “a roll with conditions, that happens after a roll”, if you need definitions. It is not the same as a roll, due to the extra conditions and the fact it can’t be the first roll. You claim “re-roll=roll=RAW” but it just isn’t, as that misses out important RAW elements. Mechanically, both *look* the same as you roll dice, but rules-wise they simply are not identical.

And we’ve been discussing RAW all along, so the little snark there is unwarranted. Indeed, we’ve been trying to point out the flaws in your claims of RAW, and in the OP’s erroneous idea, it’s just you’re deriding others instead of listening.

Audustum wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, a roll is *not* the same as a re-roll, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll. So that's that disproved...

No, that's wrong. The Rulebook:

Re-rolls(Noun)

Some rules allow you to
re-roll(verb) a dice roll(noun),which
means you get to roll(verb)
some or all of the dice
again.

That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

That quote from the rulebook doesn't say that a re-roll is a roll though. It says that for re-rolls you roll dice again. I added to the text to show what I mean. That shows that a re-roll(noun) is the result of a roll(noun) rolled(verb) again.

Edit I typed to quick and screed up my formatting

Aha, it only took 3 pages but now we're finally discussing RAW.

So I thought something similar in the beginning too and that's one of the reasons I wrestled with this question a lot, but ultimately I had to reject it. It IS close though.

The reason being that the sentence could also read "Some rules allow you to re-roll some or all of the dice again". We have to assume GW means what it says and says what it means so since they decided to call it a roll, it's a roll

I get where you're going by peaking at the grammar of it in more detail,. There is, of course, the possibility that roll is being used as a gerund and not just a verb, which I haven't made my mind up on yet, but ultimately I just don't think it being a verb in that statement detracts from the effect of the RAW, which is to make it a roll.

Specifically, GW is proclaiming that a re-roll is an event where you get to roll the dice. That's verb status, but if we asked "is a re-roll a roll?" the answer would be yes based on that statement because it is an instance where we have the act of rolling. Thus, re-rolls are rolls.

Since the Stratagem only wants any kind of roll for a charge without much particularity, it's satisfied.

I wrote this late so let me know if any of it is too confusing and I'll do a re-word.

I can understand where you are coming from as it would seem that a re-roll is just a specific kind of roll. But I can also see the argument that they never actually say a re-roll is a roll but they say it is a roll redone. If re-roll has seperate rules from a roll (can't be re-rolled) it must be different than a roll. In that case I feel the rules could be interpreted in either way. Once you have a rule that can have multiple RAW interpretations RAW no longer works so you must discuss RAI. Typically if there are any weird rule interactions that would break the game you discuss before hand with your opponent how you would interpret the rules for that game. But in this case I believe RAI is clear and RAW is ambiguous.

To those who say a re-roll is not a roll I agree that is the way it should read, but at the same time what we have right now shows that a re-roll is a roll. It is kind of like saying a square is a rectangle. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares the same as all re-rolls are rolls but not all rolls are re-rolls.


Edit- I'm at work so I know that may not be as clear as I wanted it t be. I'll explain better if I get a chance to truly think about how to word it.

How about the argument from this perspective.
The charge is a 2d6 roll.
Lemartes ability allows that to be re rolled, 2d6
The stratagem says to make a charge with 3d6, it does not say to make a charge roll and add an additional d6. (While that is in effect what it is doing, defining the number of dice to buy used as opposed to a number of dice to be added or removed from the dice pool is significant) This fact makes the stratagem based roll an entirely new roll unto itself. As such, you would no longer be making a re roll from the original charge.

Let me see if I'm understanding you. I make a charge roll using 2d6 and fail. I then use a strategy card that says to play it before I make a charge roll. I can then claim that the first charge roll doesn't matter because I'm now using 3d6 instead of 2? Is that your stance? If I fail the 3d6 do I still get to re-roll the 2d6 roll that I made due to Lemartes? If I fail that again do I get to re-roll the 3d6 since that was a whole new, and different roll?

I'm sorry but your theory just doesn't work under any interpretation of the rules.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Your logic is flawed. A re-roll is “a roll with conditions, that happens after a roll”, if you need definitions. It is not the same as a roll, due to the extra conditions and the fact it can’t be the first roll. You claim “re-roll=roll=RAW” but it just isn’t, as that misses out important RAW elements. Mechanically, both *look* the same as you roll dice, but rules-wise they simply are not identical.

And we’ve been discussing RAW all along, so the little snark there is unwarranted. Indeed, we’ve been trying to point out the flaws in your claims of RAW, and in the OP’s erroneous idea, it’s just you’re deriding others instead of listening.

You're using a plain meaning definition of re-roll, which would be right except GW supplied us one so it's overriden.

As for the hilarious lash out, snip!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Let me see if I'm understanding you. I make a charge roll using 2d6 and fail. I then use a strategy card that says to play it before I make a charge roll. I can then claim that the first charge roll doesn't matter because I'm now using 3d6 instead of 2? Is that your stance? If I fail the 3d6 do I still get to re-roll the 2d6 roll that I made due to Lemartes? If I fail that again do I get to re-roll the 3d6 since that was a whole new, and different roll?

I'm sorry but your theory just doesn't work under any interpretation of the rules.

Is this addressed to me? Because that's not entirely where I was going.

My previous comment was directed toward ah64pilot5.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
My previous comment was directed toward ah64pilot5.

Fair enough!

They should rename this forum to "You Be Obstinate."

A reroll is not the same as a roll. It was already proven (cannot reroll a reroll).

I think this thread is done.

 Marmatag wrote:
They should rename this forum to "You Be Obstinate."

A knife that cuts two ways, for sure.

A reroll is not the same as a roll. It was already proven (cannot reroll a reroll).

Actually, it wasn't. That's kind of why a discussion happened, unless you didn't meant objectively, but in that case it's not conclusive either.

I think this thread is done.

And yet you saw fit to post it back to life when it was happily sinking to the bottom.

I must hate my life.

I was curious and read through some of this, but it does bring up the interesting plasma discussion, again.

If I die on a hit roll of 1, and not a hit reroll of 1... if I reroll a 1 into a 1...

Which also bears asking: does a roll of a 1 on the hit mean you die... and the reroll only mean you may actually hit before killing yourself?

I mean if a roll and a reroll are distinctly different things, then it would be distinctly worded as "any to hit rolls (or rerolls) of 1..."

I hate to bring it back around, but I want to hear how this is different than the situation first presented:

A roll happens. Success or failure.
Something changes the parameters of the roll triggering because of success or failure.
A reroll occurs.
The reroll replaces the result of the original roll.

I still think the reroll is of the type the original roll was, so that way a failed 1 roll on a plasma hit is rerolled with a new hit roll that overrides the original roll (so it never happened).

The timing on the OP's question is all sorts of interesting, but pretending it is an easy yes or no because of roll vs reroll is not exactly fair because of the implications of that interpretation carries over into EVERYTHING covered by rerolls.

The plasma rule doesn't come into play until after re-rolls (if any) since the re-roll results replace the original result.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The plasma rule doesn't come into play until after re-rolls (if any) since the re-roll results replace the original result.

That's not what he's proposing and it is a good point he's making so I'll add it here.

If I'm reading him right, what's he's saying is this:

If a re-roll =/= a roll, then plasma dies on a roll of 1 even if you can re-roll, because the plasma rule says roll. All the re-roll does is give the plasma shooter a chance to hit again before being destroyed. Re-rolls and rolls have to be the same thing in order for the plasma shooter to survive his initial roll of 1.

He's right that what we're discussing here could have far ranging applications beyond just this stratagem.

Well It would have far reaching applications if this where a federal court of law, but its not. Instead of spending so much effort on trying to win this argument, think about why you should not win this argument.


Satisfy your own curiosity, but it wont mean much to others at the end of the day.


Back to the topic at hand, a reroll is obviously a roll, but vice versa is not always true. The stratagem is meant to be activated before you roll the attempted charge at all. If you try to activate it on a reroll'd charge it is no longer a valid target.


That's the obvious intent, and also the best way to play it.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Well It would have far reaching applications if this where a federal court of law, but its not. Instead of spending so much effort on trying to win this argument, think about why you should not win this argument.


Satisfy your own curiosity, but it wont mean much to others at the end of the day.

I really wish we had an eye rolling emote.

Anyway, it has implications because most people take the rationale approach and try to, you know, uniformly apply rules of the game rather than make a checkerboard pattern result based on how they feel, what the weather is and what they'd personally like to see.

Back to the topic at hand, a reroll is obviously a roll, but vice versa is not always true. The stratagem is meant to be activated before you roll the attempted charge at all. If you try to activate it on a reroll'd charge it is no longer a valid target.


That's the obvious intent, and also the best way to play it.

Prove it. YMDC Tenet 1: Don't make a statement without backing it up.

Dude, you can’t prove half of what you’ve posted and don’t believe in common sense, so barking “Prove it” isn’t really a good look for you...

I agree that is the obvious intent. Proof: the wording of the rules. There.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Dude, you can’t prove half of what you’ve posted and don’t believe in common sense, so barking “Prove it” isn’t really a good look for you...

I agree that is the obvious intent. Proof: the wording of the rules. There.

I've offered a carefully constructed argument on the wording of the rules and how RAW must be interpreted. This is all proof and supports every line of argument with a direct quotation under 3 pages of scrutiny. So yes, I'd say I proved my end. That doesn't mean people can't disagree with it, but it's proven. Two people, after all, can watch the same event and come to two separate conclusions.

As for your proffer, you are not Eihnlazer so I'm not sure you can speak for him. That was directed to his response.

That said, I've yet to see anything from you about how the wording supports your position. I'm happy to read it if you want to outline it.

You said “roll = re-roll” and the rules say otherwise. Your argument unravelled pages ago. You’re still here tilting at windmills though. It’s *so patently onvious* from the wording of the rule how this should be played, but you and p5freak are determined to keep posting the incorrect take. Have you emailed GW FAQ hotline? It would be a better use of your time, tbh.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You said “roll = re-roll” and the rules say otherwise. Your argument unravelled pages ago. You’re still here tilting at windmills though. It’s *so patently onvious* from the wording of the rule how this should be played, but you and p5freak are determined to keep posting the incorrect take. Have you emailed GW FAQ hotline? It would be a better use of your time, tbh.

This isn't much proof. Go back to pgs. 2 and 3 and consult the RAW provided. You can reference the brief discussion about verbs and gerunds too. The RAW refers to re-rolls specifically as a "roll", thus equating them the same. This provides you quoted RAW to prove the point.

For you to pronounce "the rules say otherwise" is no different than when children proclaim "you're wrong because I said so". Where are the quotes from GW? Where's the RAW? Where's the support for what you say other than your opinion that it's better?

EDIT: As for the unneeded comment about my time, remember, I do this just because I find the discussions fun and relaxing. Firing an e-mail to likely be ignored not so much.

Plus I showed my local players this thread and they, surprisingly, all agreed with phreak. I expected at least one dissent. Anyway, there's no pressing need for further answer in my local world.

Wait... local meta is irrelevant I thought? Basing it on your experiences, etc? ;-) Tsk, tsk.

I demonstrated a roll is not equal to a re-roll using the rules pages ago. I’ve read the whole thread and engaged in it, so the insults to my reasoning and comprehension show you don’t wish an argument in good faith, just to “be right on the internet”. Good luck with that and enjoy your thread about a non-tactic.

roll = re-roll
re-rolls cannot be re-rolled
therefor rolls cannot be rolled

Eureka!
Throwing dice is not allowed in 40k.
/s

I feel like I lost IQ points just reading this thread...

I had truly hoped that YMDC would have been a bit more thoughtful than the typical argument that broke out at tables over silly rules. People could take the time to discuss the merits of the arguments, come up with carefully constructed thoughts that were a bit deeper than a rain puddle.

That's how interesting interactions are found in the game. It seems pretty decent intent to try to save 2 CP by not using the stratagem until after you've failed the roll the 2d6 way.

There is an inherent weakness in the strategy that a 2, 2, 3 still fails and now cannot be rerolled because the 3d6 charge was already a reroll. Not to mention the original charge only has a 9/36 (aka 25%) chance of succeeding.

I know that the initial reaction is apprehension to the thought, but if the failed charge generates a reroll, the reroll MUST be a charge roll (as in what type of roll are we making) as well as a reroll (something tagging the roll as being a reroll and thus not rerollable). The timing of the stratagem says when you make a charge roll do 3d6, I don't think it rightly cares if it is a charge roll or a charge reroll, at the end of the day they are both still a type of charge roll.

Reading into and implying intention is injecting bias with no sort of indication from the writer what THEIR stated intention was. So now it becomes your perception of their intention without anything really to back it up other than saying a reroll is not a roll, thus it is not applicable to the context.

At which point we come back to the plasma quandry:

I fire a Plasmagun at BS 3, I roll a 2. It is a miss. Girly man says: yo, bro, reroll that fail. I reroll that into a 1. Since this reroll is distinct and not a hit roll... my guy doesn't die.

But we all know how literally everyone plays that scenario... he dies.

The reverse is also true.

If a roll a 1 on my plasma shot and kill myself, but my Cupcake Chaptermaster says: hey, reroll that, you poor soul. I reroll it into a 5. My "roll" was still a 1, and my reroll was a 5. If these were distinct, I would land a hit, but I would also die... yet again contrary to how everyone plays it.

So the way everyone plays it is that the first "to hit" roll is totally removed and replaced by a new "to hit" roll (reroll), but this new roll has a modifier saying it cannot be rerolled. Thus the first roll never actually happened, and a "to hit" roll still triggered for overcharged plasma's wording to actually take affect.

The strategy requires that you use it before you roll your charge roll. A charge re-roll is not the same thing. You have already made your charge roll and therefore you can't use the strategy. Also per the OP you are also changing the amount of dice for the re-roll. Most people will say that a re-roll of a roll uses the same amount of dice as the original roll. So, if you try to use the strategy after failing your initial charge roll I'm not even sure you're following the proper re-roll procedure (but that's another can of worms). Per the BRB a re-roll allows you to roll some or all of the dice again. There is no mention of being able to add dice.

Your plasma line is not the same thing. Plasma weapons get hot on hit rolls of a "1". A re-roll allows you the opportunity to change that "1" into something else. The to hit roll is the final result of your roll + your re-roll (if applicable). So the first time you roll a "1" is erased if you use a re-roll and the re-roll result becomes the to hit roll.

 Ordana wrote:
roll = re-roll
re-rolls cannot be re-rolled
therefor rolls cannot be rolled

Eureka!
Throwing dice is not allowed in 40k.
/s

I feel like I lost IQ points just reading this thread...

Actually to be technical if a re-roll is not a roll then you do not kill yourself with overcharged plasma when you re-roll and get a 1, and if you roll a one and re-roll it and get a different number you still kill yourself because the rules state that overcharged plasma slays the model on a roll of one. Which lets be honest, that's not how it works. Edit-didn't see some wording, this is wrong see below.

That being said I do agree that the intent is you cannot use this stratagem with a re-roll.

I think we are better off looking at what they mean when they say before you make a charge roll. This can actually be read and interpreted in two ways.

Interpretation 1: You must use this stratagem before a(any) charge roll is made. This would mean that once you've rolled a charge roll you cannot use this stratagem because you've already rolled a charge roll. You no longer meet the requirements of before.

Interpretation 2: This one is harder to word in a satisfactory way but I'll take a crack at it. This interpretation takes "a charge roll" to mean any charge roll that unit makes regardless if its the first or not.

Neither interpretation is wrong per the English language so RAW can go both ways, however I definitely believe RAI is that you cannot use this stratagem with a re-roll


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The strategy requires that you use it before you roll your charge roll. A charge re-roll is not the same thing. You have already made your charge roll and therefore you can't use the strategy. Also per the OP you are also changing the amount of dice for the re-roll. Most people will say that a re-roll of a roll uses the same amount of dice as the original roll. So, if you try to use the strategy after failing your initial charge roll I'm not even sure you're following the proper re-roll procedure (but that's another can of worms). Per the BRB a re-roll allows you to roll some or all of the dice again. There is no mention of being able to add dice.

Your plasma line is not the same thing. Plasma weapons get hot on hit rolls of a "1". A re-roll allows you the opportunity to change that "1" into something else. The to hit roll is the final result of your roll + your re-roll (if applicable). So the first time you roll a "1" is erased if you use a re-roll and the re-roll result becomes the to hit roll.

Actually I didn't notice that plasma says hit rolls of 1 so this would be correct when it comes to plasma

Now you dont blow up with overcharged plasma if the reroll is a 1, because a hit reroll is not a hit roll ? Thats ridiculous. A hit reroll is the same as a hit roll. Same applies to a charge reroll, it's still a charge roll.

A re-roll's die/dice replace the original roll's result with their own. Plasma over heats on a hit roll of "1". All that matters is the final result in this instance. It has nothing to do with whether the result came about with a roll or a re-roll.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Wait... local meta is irrelevant I thought? Basing it on your experiences, etc? ;-) Tsk, tsk.

You miss the point. I was mentioning my local meta because some posters, who shall remain nameless but know who they are are more intent on arguing my own motivations rather than the actual argument. I'm saying I have no motivation but enjoyment of the argument.

I demonstrated a roll is not equal to a re-roll using the rules pages ago. I’ve read the whole thread and engaged in it, so the insults to my reasoning and comprehension show you don’t wish an argument in good faith, just to “be right on the internet”. Good luck with that and enjoy your thread about a non-tactic.

This is my point here. "Attack the post, not the poster" is actually one of the tenets of YMDC (though paraphrased into other words) you know.

Anyway, having, I think, written half the thread at this point I can't find much where you provided support for your opinion. If you'd like to come back at any time to actually discuss it I'm sure we'd all enjoy it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
roll = re-roll
re-rolls cannot be re-rolled
therefor rolls cannot be rolled

Eureka!
Throwing dice is not allowed in 40k.
/s

I feel like I lost IQ points just reading this thread...

Alright, I think I've made this very point when quoting you before. Re-roll ARE different than rolls for the purpose of re-rolling because there is specific RAW that says so. There is NOT RAW, however, that says they are different for any other purpose, relevantly this one. That's why it doesn't work as an example. We have to go with the general definition of re-rolls, which is that they are rolls.

It's like if you wrote a law that said: "For purposes of reading this law, cake and cupcake are synonymous unless we are talking about chocolate cakes in which case they are different". This is actually a fairly common thing to do in many disciplines in the world including game rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
roll = re-roll
re-rolls cannot be re-rolled
therefor rolls cannot be rolled

Eureka!
Throwing dice is not allowed in 40k.
/s

I feel like I lost IQ points just reading this thread...

Actually to be technical if a re-roll is not a roll then you do not kill yourself with overcharged plasma when you re-roll and get a 1, and if you roll a one and re-roll it and get a different number you still kill yourself because the rules state that overcharged plasma slays the model on a roll of one. Which lets be honest, that's not how it works. Edit-didn't see some wording, this is wrong see below.

That being said I do agree that the intent is you cannot use this stratagem with a re-roll.

I think we are better off looking at what they mean when they say before you make a charge roll. This can actually be read and interpreted in two ways.

Interpretation 1: You must use this stratagem before a(any) charge roll is made. This would mean that once you've rolled a charge roll you cannot use this stratagem because you've already rolled a charge roll. You no longer meet the requirements of before.

Interpretation 2: This one is harder to word in a satisfactory way but I'll take a crack at it. This interpretation takes "a charge roll" to mean any charge roll that unit makes regardless if its the first or not.

Neither interpretation is wrong per the English language so RAW can go both ways, however I definitely believe RAI is that you cannot use this stratagem with a re-roll


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The strategy requires that you use it before you roll your charge roll. A charge re-roll is not the same thing. You have already made your charge roll and therefore you can't use the strategy. Also per the OP you are also changing the amount of dice for the re-roll. Most people will say that a re-roll of a roll uses the same amount of dice as the original roll. So, if you try to use the strategy after failing your initial charge roll I'm not even sure you're following the proper re-roll procedure (but that's another can of worms). Per the BRB a re-roll allows you to roll some or all of the dice again. There is no mention of being able to add dice.

Your plasma line is not the same thing. Plasma weapons get hot on hit rolls of a "1". A re-roll allows you the opportunity to change that "1" into something else. The to hit roll is the final result of your roll + your re-roll (if applicable). So the first time you roll a "1" is erased if you use a re-roll and the re-roll result becomes the to hit roll.

Actually I didn't notice that plasma says hit rolls of 1 so this would be correct when it comes to plasma

I think your emphasis is on the wrong word here. It still says 'roll'. It's a To Hit roll, sure, but this stratagem is trying to work on a Charge Roll. It still falls into the trap of "if a re-roll is not a roll then...".

Leo writes that the "hit roll" is the "final result" of a roll and a re-roll, but I can't find RAW to say that's the definition and it seems more his interpretation of RAI. Which is fine, RAI is important, but we have to get a consensus on RAW before we discuss RAI otherwise we don't have a common foundation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
A re-roll's die/dice replace the original roll's result with their own. Plasma over heats on a hit roll of "1". All that matters is the final result in this instance. It has nothing to do with whether the result came about with a roll or a re-roll.

Yeah this is it. I can't find RAW to support this. Where are you pulling from? I'm fully willing to admit I missed something if shown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
I had truly hoped that YMDC would have been a bit more thoughtful than the typical argument that broke out at tables over silly rules. People could take the time to discuss the merits of the arguments, come up with carefully constructed thoughts that were a bit deeper than a rain puddle.

That's how interesting interactions are found in the game. It seems pretty decent intent to try to save 2 CP by not using the stratagem until after you've failed the roll the 2d6 way.

There is an inherent weakness in the strategy that a 2, 2, 3 still fails and now cannot be rerolled because the 3d6 charge was already a reroll. Not to mention the original charge only has a 9/36 (aka 25%) chance of succeeding.

I know that the initial reaction is apprehension to the thought, but if the failed charge generates a reroll, the reroll MUST be a charge roll (as in what type of roll are we making) as well as a reroll (something tagging the roll as being a reroll and thus not rerollable). The timing of the stratagem says when you make a charge roll do 3d6, I don't think it rightly cares if it is a charge roll or a charge reroll, at the end of the day they are both still a type of charge roll.

Reading into and implying intention is injecting bias with no sort of indication from the writer what THEIR stated intention was. So now it becomes your perception of their intention without anything really to back it up other than saying a reroll is not a roll, thus it is not applicable to the context.

At which point we come back to the plasma quandry:

I fire a Plasmagun at BS 3, I roll a 2. It is a miss. Girly man says: yo, bro, reroll that fail. I reroll that into a 1. Since this reroll is distinct and not a hit roll... my guy doesn't die.

But we all know how literally everyone plays that scenario... he dies.

The reverse is also true.

If a roll a 1 on my plasma shot and kill myself, but my Cupcake Chaptermaster says: hey, reroll that, you poor soul. I reroll it into a 5. My "roll" was still a 1, and my reroll was a 5. If these were distinct, I would land a hit, but I would also die... yet again contrary to how everyone plays it.

So the way everyone plays it is that the first "to hit" roll is totally removed and replaced by a new "to hit" roll (reroll), but this new roll has a modifier saying it cannot be rerolled. Thus the first roll never actually happened, and a "to hit" roll still triggered for overcharged plasma's wording to actually take affect.

Just wanted to say this is an excellent post.

YMDC used to be a lot better about it. Something happened in 8th and now debating RAW is pseudo-verboten by many of the regulars for who knows why.

 p5freak wrote:
Now you dont blow up with overcharged plasma if the reroll is a 1, because a hit reroll is not a hit roll ? Thats ridiculous. A hit reroll is the same as a hit roll. Same applies to a charge reroll, it's still a charge roll.

With limitations, it tells you that you are rolling some or all of the dice again, according to the Battle Primer. It does not give permission to add new dice. Also, you have already rolled a charge when you go for the reroll, so you're not playing the stratagem before the unit has made a charge roll.

Actually it's in the Basic Rules FAQ- If you are re-rolling a result then you must roll the same dice as the original roll.

As to re-rolls being the final roll (before modifiers) there is nothing RAW that explicitly states that. However modifiers are only added to the final roll since they are not added to the roll to determine pass or fail until after the final die roll(s).

From the designers notes: "A: Re-rolls always happen before modifiers, so the re-roll ability is triggered before applying modifiers."

Since re-rolls happen before modifiers and nothing can adjust a die roll after modifiers the re-roll must be the final result pending modifiers. Otherwise you would be able to take your original roll rather than the re-roll. And there are situations where it would be advantageous to go back to the original roll (if you roll a 3 needing a 4 and reroll a 2 it would miss but if there was a +1 to hit modifier then you'd rather go back to the 3 since, after modifiers, it would hit).

Audustum wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
roll = re-roll
re-rolls cannot be re-rolled
therefor rolls cannot be rolled

Eureka!
Throwing dice is not allowed in 40k.
/s

I feel like I lost IQ points just reading this thread...

Actually to be technical if a re-roll is not a roll then you do not kill yourself with overcharged plasma when you re-roll and get a 1, and if you roll a one and re-roll it and get a different number you still kill yourself because the rules state that overcharged plasma slays the model on a roll of one. Which lets be honest, that's not how it works. Edit-didn't see some wording, this is wrong see below.

That being said I do agree that the intent is you cannot use this stratagem with a re-roll.

I think we are better off looking at what they mean when they say before you make a charge roll. This can actually be read and interpreted in two ways.

Interpretation 1: You must use this stratagem before a(any) charge roll is made. This would mean that once you've rolled a charge roll you cannot use this stratagem because you've already rolled a charge roll. You no longer meet the requirements of before.

Interpretation 2: This one is harder to word in a satisfactory way but I'll take a crack at it. This interpretation takes "a charge roll" to mean any charge roll that unit makes regardless if its the first or not.

Neither interpretation is wrong per the English language so RAW can go both ways, however I definitely believe RAI is that you cannot use this stratagem with a re-roll


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The strategy requires that you use it before you roll your charge roll. A charge re-roll is not the same thing. You have already made your charge roll and therefore you can't use the strategy. Also per the OP you are also changing the amount of dice for the re-roll. Most people will say that a re-roll of a roll uses the same amount of dice as the original roll. So, if you try to use the strategy after failing your initial charge roll I'm not even sure you're following the proper re-roll procedure (but that's another can of worms). Per the BRB a re-roll allows you to roll some or all of the dice again. There is no mention of being able to add dice.

Your plasma line is not the same thing. Plasma weapons get hot on hit rolls of a "1". A re-roll allows you the opportunity to change that "1" into something else. The to hit roll is the final result of your roll + your re-roll (if applicable). So the first time you roll a "1" is erased if you use a re-roll and the re-roll result becomes the to hit roll.

Actually I didn't notice that plasma says hit rolls of 1 so this would be correct when it comes to plasma

I think your emphasis is on the wrong word here. It still says 'roll'. It's a To Hit roll, sure, but this stratagem is trying to work on a Charge Roll. It still falls into the trap of "if a re-roll is not a roll then...".

Leo writes that the "hit roll" is the "final result" of a roll and a re-roll, but I can't find RAW to say that's the definition and it seems more his interpretation of RAI. Which is fine, RAI is important, but we have to get a consensus on RAW before we discuss RAI otherwise we don't have a common foundation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
A re-roll's die/dice replace the original roll's result with their own. Plasma over heats on a hit roll of "1". All that matters is the final result in this instance. It has nothing to do with whether the result came about with a roll or a re-roll.

Yeah this is it. I can't find RAW to support this. Where are you pulling from? I'm fully willing to admit I missed something if shown.

A hit roll has to be different than a regular roll because a hit roll includes modifiers. As such a hit roll is the final result since modifiers are the last thing applied to a roll. In fact I'm looking at the battle primer right now and in the example turn on step 5 the fight phase it shows that a 2 was rolled on the die for the power fist but the hit roll was a 1. That means a hit roll is the result after all rerolls and modifiers. (which is why if you have a +1 to hit you don't blow up with plasma on a 1 and if you have a -1 you do blow up even if you roll a 2)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relevant material from Designer's Commentary faq

Q: Can a dice roll ever be modified to less
than 1?
A: No. If, after all modifiers have been
applied, a dice roll would be less than 1,
count that result as a 1.
Q: If a rule or ability grants a re-roll on,
for example, ‘hit rolls of 1’ (such as a
Space Marine Captain’s Rites of Battle
ability) does that effect trigger before or
after applying modifiers to the hit rolls?
A: Re-rolls always happen before modifiers,
so the re-roll ability is triggered before
applying modifiers.
For example, let’s imagine a Space Marine
(Ballistic Skill 3+) moves and fires a heavy bolter
(a Heavy 3 weapon) whilst within range of a
Space Marine Captain’s Rites of Battle ability
(allowing you to re-roll hit rolls of 1).
The hit dice are rolled and result in a 1, 2 and 5.
Re-rolls are applied before modifiers. In this
example a single dice is re-rolled because of the
Captain’s ability, this time resulting in a 3.
Modifiers are applied after re-rolls. In this
example there is a -1 modifier to the hit rolls
for moving and firing a Heavy weapon. That
means that the post-re-roll scores of 2, 3 and 5
are modified to 1, 2 and 4. Comparing the final
results to the model’s Ballistic Skill, only one shot
hits the target.
2
Q: When making a hit roll with a
supercharged plasma weapon, do you
determine whether a ‘1’ was rolled before
or after applying re-rolls and modifiers?
A: You apply all re-rolls and modifiers first.
For example, if, after re-rolls and modifiers,
the final result is then a 1 (or counts as a 1, as
explained above), then the supercharged plasma
weapon injures or kills the firer.
Q: If a rule states that an ability triggers
on, for example, ‘hit rolls of 6+’, does this
refer to the result of the dice rolls before
or after modifiers are applied?
A: It refers to the final result, after re-rolls
and modifiers (if any) have been applied.
The only exception to this would be abilities
that specifically state, for example, ‘unmodified
hit rolls of 6’, or ‘hit rolls of 6 before modifiers
are applied.’

That being said this has no bearing on the charge roll argument but does debase the theory that plasma shows that rolls and re-rolls are the same. Plasma proves nothing because for plasma we are looking at the hit roll which is the final result. I suppose you could infer from this that charge rolls are the same as hit rolls in that the charge roll is the final result after re-rolls and modifiers. In that case a re-roll would not count for the stratagem because a re-roll is part of the rolling process not a new roll. That actually makes a lot of sense.

If during the charge phase you declare a charge with an unit against target(s) and roll any dice you have made a charge roll.

As you have made a roll before you can re-roll you have passed the point you can use DoA.

Have you declared a charge and rolled dice? - you can't use DoA because you made a charge roll.

Have you declared a charge and not rolled any dice ? You can choose to use DoA.

blaktoof wrote:
If during the charge phase you declare a charge with an unit against target(s) and roll any dice you have made a charge roll.

As you have made a roll before you can re-roll you have passed the point you can use DoA.

Have you declared a charge and rolled dice? - you can't use DoA because you made a charge roll.

Have you declared a charge and not rolled any dice ? You can choose to use DoA.

It really is as simple as this!

I have come back from an Easter break to see this dumpster fire is still burning away!?

i really cant see why people are trying to argue this is legit/ usable

Brass eye wrote:
I have come back from an Easter break to see this dumpster fire is still burning away!?

i really cant see why people are trying to argue this is legit/ usable

Attention?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
If during the charge phase you declare a charge with an unit against target(s) and roll any dice you have made a charge roll.

As you have made a roll before you can re-roll you have passed the point you can use DoA.

Have you declared a charge and rolled dice? - you can't use DoA because you made a charge roll.

Have you declared a charge and not rolled any dice ? You can choose to use DoA.

It really is as simple as this!

I agree that this is the correct interpretation of "before a charge roll" but it isn't the only interpretation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They should have worded it like this;

Descent of angels : Use this stratagem before any charge rolls are made with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit that was set up on the battlefield earlier that turn. Roll 3D6 to determine the units charge distance instead of 2D6.