Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ngilstrap wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
...and you can't construe that to mean part of a 2d6 roll.

This is irrelevant because I never stated this nor implied it.

ngilstrap wrote:

"It let's you re-roll one of your d6 rolls".

This could be translated as:

"one of your 1d6 rolls"
OR
"one of your rolls which involve d6s"

orly?
edit: "one of your rolls which involve d6s" can't mean anything but "part of a mutli-d6 roll" so saying that you never stated nor implied it would be false.
You're free to clarify that however.

kirsanth wrote:Read the thread.

Your position is not a new one. It has been addressed.

I would ask that you re-read my statement because this position has not been addressed in this thread.

All of the arguments thus far are based on the interpretation that the statement in the book is explicitly referring to a 1d6 roll. From there, it has gone into discussions about if that 1d6 roll in question can be applied to xd6 rolls.

I am proposing that the reading could be that the "d6 roll" mentioned in the Chronometron rule is as a reference to the set of all xd6 rolls. This position has not been mentioned, but I felt was important to mention because of the lackadaisical manner in which the Chronometron rule is written. It is a 3rd and possible interpretation that the Chronometron allows for a flat re-roll of a 2d6 roll because a 2d6 roll is a type of d6 roll.

ngilstrap wrote:It is a 3rd and possible interpretation that the Chronometron allows for a flat re-roll of a 2d6 roll because a 2d6 roll is a type of d6 roll.

Except it's not.

a d6 roll is defined in the rules.
1d6 and d6 are synonymous in the rules.
Therefore a 2d6 roll is not a type of d6 roll.

You can call those facts irrelevant all you want, but you're wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
...and you can't construe that to mean part of a 2d6 roll.

This is irrelevant because I never stated this nor implied it.

ngilstrap wrote:

"It let's you re-roll one of your d6 rolls".

This could be translated as:

"one of your 1d6 rolls"
OR
"one of your rolls which involve d6s"

orly?
edit: "one of your rolls which involve d6s" can't mean anything but "part of a mutli-d6 roll" so saying that you never stated nor implied it would be false.
You're free to clarify that however.

Sure. A roll which involves d6s could be 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, xd6 and so on. There is no intent to demonstrate that a roll of xd6 is comprised of multiple 1d6 rolls. The intent is to propose that the term "d6 roll" could also be interpreted, especially given the manner in which GW approaches rule writing historically, the be the set of all xd6 rolls. This is entirely different to that which has been discussed thus far. The context of this statement is contained in the rest of that original post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:It is a 3rd and possible interpretation that the Chronometron allows for a flat re-roll of a 2d6 roll because a 2d6 roll is a type of d6 roll.

Except it's not.

a d6 roll is defined in the rules.
1d6 and d6 are synonymous in the rules.
Therefore a 2d6 roll is not a type of d6 roll.

You can call those facts irrelevant all you want, but you're wrong.

I'm not calling those statements irrelevant.

What I am stating is irrelevant is their use to counter the point I am making. There is no disagreement that a d6 is defined as a 1d6 roll. The simpler way of stating this then would be that I am basically stating the the term "d6 roll" has multiple definitions, one of which is the one you just brought up.

Also, indeed a 2d6 roll is a type of d6 roll by definition. It's even in the name.

ngilstrap wrote:What I am stating is irrelevant is their use to counter the point I am making. There is no disagreement that a d6 is defined as a 1d6 roll. The simpler way of stating this then would be that I am basically stating the the term "d6 roll" has multiple definitions, one of which is the one you just brought up.

Please back your new definition up with a rules citation.

rigeld2 wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:What I am stating is irrelevant is their use to counter the point I am making. There is no disagreement that a d6 is defined as a 1d6 roll. The simpler way of stating this then would be that I am basically stating the the term "d6 roll" has multiple definitions, one of which is the one you just brought up.

Please back your new definition up with a rules citation.

The rulebook is not a dictionary nor a guide on language. If to prove the point that an interpretation could be read that a passing reference to a "d6 roll" would thusly require a rulebook definition, then I will be unable to prove it given those parameters. To do that would require the authors at GW to adopt a vastly more technical stance in their writings and definitions than that which is currently present or ever has been present.

So, in short, if we need the rolebook to define the use of language itself, I will never be able to convince you that one could easily read the term "one of [your] d6 rolls" to be any roll involving d6s. Likewise, I would be unable to convince you that someone referring to a "car" might also be referring to an SUV. Or someone referring to a "coke" might actually be asking for a Pepsi.

I'd be willing to concede the point on that.

ngilstrap wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:What I am stating is irrelevant is their use to counter the point I am making. There is no disagreement that a d6 is defined as a 1d6 roll. The simpler way of stating this then would be that I am basically stating the the term "d6 roll" has multiple definitions, one of which is the one you just brought up.

Please back your new definition up with a rules citation.

The rulebook is not a dictionary nor a guide on language. If to prove the point that an interpretation could be read that a passing reference to a "d6 roll" would thusly require a rulebook definition, then I will be unable to prove it given those parameters. To do that would require the authors at GW to adopt a vastly more technical stance in their writings and definitions than that which is currently present or ever has been present.

So, in short, if we need the rolebook to define the use of language itself, I will never be able to convince you that one could easily read the term "one of [your] d6 rolls" to be any roll involving d6s. Likewise, I would be unable to convince you that someone referring to a "car" might also be referring to an SUV. Or someone referring to a "coke" might actually be asking for a Pepsi.

I'd be willing to concede the point on that.

Thank you for strawmanning.

d6 == 1d6 is a fact based on the rules. To prove an additional definition, you'd have to have rules backup.
Falling back to dictionary/common usage is only viable in the *absence* of any rules based definition.
You're trying to fall back out of the rules when the rules have provided a clear definition already.

Essentially, you're trying to off an alternative explanation for Ballistic Skill.

Granted, I don't agree with him often, but Rigeld2 has this one dead to rights.

ngilstrap wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
...and you can't construe that to mean part of a 2d6 roll.

This is irrelevant because I never stated this nor implied it.

ngilstrap wrote:

"It let's you re-roll one of your d6 rolls".

This could be translated as:

"one of your 1d6 rolls"
OR
"one of your rolls which involve d6s"

orly?
edit: "one of your rolls which involve d6s" can't mean anything but "part of a mutli-d6 roll" so saying that you never stated nor implied it would be false.
You're free to clarify that however.

Sure. A roll which involves d6s could be 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, xd6 and so on. There is no intent to demonstrate that a roll of xd6 is comprised of multiple 1d6 rolls. The intent is to propose that the term "d6 roll" could also be interpreted, especially given the manner in which GW approaches rule writing historically, the be the set of all xd6 rolls. This is entirely different to that which has been discussed thus far. The context of this statement is contained in the rest of that original post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:It is a 3rd and possible interpretation that the Chronometron allows for a flat re-roll of a 2d6 roll because a 2d6 roll is a type of d6 roll.

Except it's not.

a d6 roll is defined in the rules.
1d6 and d6 are synonymous in the rules.
Therefore a 2d6 roll is not a type of d6 roll.

You can call those facts irrelevant all you want, but you're wrong.

I'm not calling those statements irrelevant.

What I am stating is irrelevant is their use to counter the point I am making. There is no disagreement that a d6 is defined as a 1d6 roll. The simpler way of stating this then would be that I am basically stating the the term "d6 roll" has multiple definitions, one of which is the one you just brought up.

Also, indeed a 2d6 roll is a type of d6 roll by definition. It's even in the name.

I looked through the BRB and many codexs to find an example of this. Amazingly the authors have been very consistent with the language regarding rolls and how many dice are used. Granted most rolls involve 1D6 so the number of examples you'll find are limited.

If you can find one case of this, to prove your point it would be enough for you to make this claim. Anywhere in a codex or the BRB where the text calls a 2D6 roll a D6 roll, or refers to a partial reroll of multple dice as "a roll".

To add to that, the one clear example of this I did find - in the Eldar codex had be changed by an errata. In this case GW has been very precise.

Nemesor Dave wrote:To add to that, the one clear example of this I did find - in the Eldar codex had be changed by an errata. In this case GW has been very precise.

SitW was also changed to similar wording (roll an extra d6).

A clear distinction between 2d6 and two d6 is made page 14, under Moving Through Difficult Terrain:

"...must take a difficult terrain test. Roll two d6 and select the highest...."

Note how two d6 is used instead of 2d6. The dtt is made using rolling two individual d6. This is different from 2d6 which is two d6 added together. In the former example, the dice are not coupled together, while in the latter the two dice are coupled. Thus, with Chronom, a d6 from a difficult terrain test can be rerolled but, however, since the rules couple the 2d6 dice, Chronom has no affect on that them (or any coupling of dice in the form of id6+C, where i > 1.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:A clear distinction between 2d6 and two d6 is made page 14, under Moving Through Difficult Terrain:

"...must take a difficult terrain test. Roll two d6 and select the highest...."

Note how two d6 is used instead of 2d6. The dtt is made using rolling two individual d6. This is different from 2d6 which is two d6 added together. In the former example, the dice are not coupled together, while in the latter the two dice are coupled. Thus, with Chronom, a d6 from a difficult terrain test can be rerolled but, however, since the rules couple the 2d6 dice, Chronom has no affect on that them (or any coupling of dice in the form of id6+C, where i > 1.

Finally, an example!

You are my hero.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:A clear distinction between 2d6 and two d6 is made page 14, under Moving Through Difficult Terrain:

"...must take a difficult terrain test. Roll two d6 and select the highest...."

Note how two d6 is used instead of 2d6. The dtt is made using rolling two individual d6. This is different from 2d6 which is two d6 added together. In the former example, the dice are not coupled together, while in the latter the two dice are coupled. Thus, with Chronom, a d6 from a difficult terrain test can be rerolled but, however, since the rules couple the 2d6 dice, Chronom has no affect on that them (or any coupling of dice in the form of id6+C, where i > 1.

Soooo, in English? You're saying you could reroll a single D6 of a difficult terrain test. But it other cases of specifically 2D6 rolls, you cannot reroll a single D6. I would agree with this provided no new info is found.

That's what we've been saying for 9 pages.

I have questions and concerns.

The eldar say roll an extra d6 and discard the highest result.

Now, this makes a normal 2d6 psychic check a 3d6 check. According to the idea that 3d6 is a 'single entity' we discard the highest result. So if you roll a 4, a 5, and a 6, you discard the 15. Or are you saying that each d6 roll in the 3d6 eldar check has its own result? If you are saying that, then you discard the 6, but you also would allow the chronometron to work.

Now I also see there is a FAQ. The FAQ says that if you reroll a check that involves multiple dice, you reroll all of them. Thus, if you have a twin linked blast, you reroll 2d6.

BUT, the chronometron does not grant a reroll of a check like twin linked. It works differently. So the FAQ does not apply to it. Because the chronometron does not reroll leadership, or reroll armor saves, ect.

DevianID wrote:I have questions and concerns.

The eldar say roll an extra d6 and discard the highest result.

Now, this makes a normal 2d6 psychic check a 3d6 check. According to the idea that 3d6 is a 'single entity' we discard the highest result. So if you roll a 4, a 5, and a 6, you discard the 15. Or are you saying that each d6 roll in the 3d6 eldar check has its own result? If you are saying that, then you discard the 6, but you also would allow the chronometron to work.

This is not quite correct. The roll is still a 2D6 roll. You just happen to roll and extra D6, and then discard the highest result, thus making the end result still a 2D6 roll. The same principle applies to ordnance rolls. In your interpretation, you are succumbing to the (apparently common) mistake of thinking that 2D6 = 2x D6.

The point to the Eldar ability is to give you a mathematical advantage while still keeping the roll 2D6. But at no point does the roll ever stop being a 2D6 roll; you just get to 'cheat' the probability table on what the outcome will be.

Unless your playing Nids, and are within SitW range. Or playing Eldar who took the othe rRunes (can never seem to remember which is which)...

I would read it as any roll which uses just single D6; unless it specifically says XD6 otherwise. So i couldn't use it to reroll one of the dice for a failed leadership test. Makes sense too that unit has to be in play before its ability can be used (I.e. if I failed my reserve roll for the unit and i wanted to use it to reroll I couldn't because the unit is not in play yet)

It could be taken either way though depending on who your talking to i suppose. What I do with things like these is if the people you play with are cool with it working that way then your g2g; or if not you'd be stuck arguing it out like in this thread.

Its a neat idea though; another one for the FAQ either way.

This is not quite correct. The roll is still a 2D6 roll. You just happen to roll and extra D6, and then discard the highest result, thus making the end result still a 2D6 roll.

Azazel, this is my issue I suppose. So you roll an extra 1d6 roll to a 2d6 roll, and the result of each d6 in the now 3d6 roll is important and unique. You can pick a single 1d6 out of the 3d6 roll as well.

If we say that it is still a 3d6 roll, then the result you discard will be the 15, as that is the highest result on your 3d6 roll, which is a single item, and not 3x1d6, per you. Right?

At this point, I would say that psychic tests in general and non-2d6 psychic tests in particular are the roughest patch of this issue - especially when contrasted with difficult terrain tests. GW appears to have made some effort at streamlining this with the eldar faq language.

While it is interesting and entertaining to poke holes in each other's theories, what we really need here is an interpretation with no holes in it, or at least to pick the theory with the least holes in it. At this point, I would say that is the NO position here.

foolishmortal, I would disagree. I would say that, with the FAQs being contradictory on if Xd6 is a single entity or multiple entity (but leaning toward the multiple entity), we can safely ignore both sides of the FAQs for bearing on a 'least holes' discussion. Which means that common language of a d6 rolls being a real six sided die that was rolled. This would be any single six sided die rolled, including 1 of the 2 six sided dice rolled as part of a leadership test.

DevianID wrote:Which means that common language of a d6 rolls being a real six sided die that was rolled. This would be any single six sided die rolled, including 1 of the 2 six sided dice rolled as part of a leadership test.

Falling back to "common language" when the BRB defines a difference between a d6 roll and multi-d6 rolls is a bad idea.

DevianID wrote:foolishmortal, I would disagree. I would say that, with the FAQs being contradictory on if Xd6 is a single entity or multiple entity (but leaning toward the multiple entity), we can safely ignore both sides of the FAQs for bearing on a 'least holes' discussion. Which means that common language of a d6 rolls being a real six sided die that was rolled. This would be any single six sided die rolled, including 1 of the 2 six sided dice rolled as part of a leadership test.

And I would disagree with your disagreement, but with a particularly important specification. IMO RAI, I agree with you. IMO RAW, I disagree with you. My communication with GW is not enough to settle anything here at YMDC, but it does clarify things for me. I believe this rule is poorly worded. It would have been difficult to phrase it clearly without sounding silly, but I still think it could have been done better.

Regardless, I am still willing to participate in a RAW discussion about it. In that discussion, I disagree with you sir.

It would have been very easy to make this rule clear: "the HoE or his unit may re-roll any d6 roll where only one d6 was rolled in the first place."

The fact that this rule is written so poorly, in addition to some other Necron codex shenanigans, shows that Ward was barely interested in writing this codex. As someone who is actually writing a codex, and just writes a lot in general, if you are just not interested, there isn't much you can do to get youself interested. It's a shame that rules like this get written, because while Ward was slapped with the codex, there was probably someone else who was actually interested, at least more than Ward, in the necron codex. Well, either that Ward drew the short straw.

McNinja wrote:It would have been very easy to make this rule clear: "the HoE or his unit may re-roll any d6 roll where only one d6 was rolled in the first place."

I disagree sir. Your version is unclear in many areas. You didn't limit it to once per phase. You seem to exclude being able to re-roll one of several simultaineous rolls. DTTs are still ambiguous, etc.

McNinja wrote:The fact that this rule is written so poorly, in addition to some other Necron codex shenanigans, shows that Ward was barely interested in writing this codex.

I agree that the new Necron codex seems to have more than the typical share of shenanigans. I play primarily IG and Necrons and I have far, far fewer rules interpretation issues come up for IG. I am starting to dip my feet into Tau and I am having more issues with necrons than I am with a codex that isn't even written for the current rules edition.

DevianID wrote:foolishmortal, I would disagree. I would say that, with the FAQs being contradictory on if Xd6 is a single entity or multiple entity (but leaning toward the multiple entity), we can safely ignore both sides of the FAQs for bearing on a 'least holes' discussion. Which means that common language of a d6 rolls being a real six sided die that was rolled. This would be any single six sided die rolled, including 1 of the 2 six sided dice rolled as part of a leadership test.

I'd agree with you, except that rules stipulate that if you want to re-roll only part of 2d6 / 3d6 roll, you need to have explicit permission to do so.
Chrono only gives implicit permission, which would be enough, if not for the "explicit permission required" part on the pg 2 of brb.

As for McNinja, GW are unfortunately not known for writing concise, clear rules :/
Considering that practically all FAQ entries would be unnecessary if GW did so, we cannot really infer anything just from the fact that rule could have been easily written so that its meaning would be clear.

edit: fixed typo

Actually, viewed objectively, the Necron codex has fewer errata and FAQ than SW, DE, etc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Actually, viewed objectively, the Necron codex has fewer errata and FAQ than SW, DE, etc.

Are you referring to the number of pages in the recent codex updates by GW? If so, that is not an ideal metric for how well the codex was written. That is more of a measure of how many errors, amendments, errata and FAQs that GW chose to admit are an ongoing problem and address at that point in time.

Luide wrote:

DevianID wrote:foolishmortal, I would disagree. I would say that, with the FAQs being contradictory on if Xd6 is a single entity or multiple entity (but leaning toward the multiple entity), we can safely ignore both sides of the FAQs for bearing on a 'least holes' discussion. Which means that common language of a d6 rolls being a real six sided die that was rolled. This would be any single six sided die rolled, including 1 of the 2 six sided dice rolled as part of a leadership test.

I'd agree with you, except that rules stipulate that if you want to re-roll only part of 2d6 / 3d6 roll, you need to have explicit permission to do so.
Chrono only gives implicit permission, which would be enough, if not for the "explicit permission required" part on the pg 2 of brb.

As for McNinja, GW are unfortunately not known for writing concise, clear rules :/
Considering that practically all FAQ entries would be unnecessary if GW did so, we cannot really infer anything just from the fact that rule could have been easily written so that it's meaning would be clear.

This is completely false. Page 2 of the BRB says that to roll less than the full number of dice, it must be explicitly specified. In other words "if the rule doesn't state the number of dice to re-roll , re-roll them all". A number of dice must be given. Chrono says re-roll 1. Nowhere does it even suggest disallowing a re-roll or setting a prerequisite for a re-roll that is granted by another rule.

To claim this requires a re-roll rule to say something like "you may reroll 2 D6 out of 3D6" is blatantly misinterpreting he BRB. You're going to have to do better than twisting words to get your point across. If thats what it really said, there would be no thread.

The best argument so far is that the Chrono allows one D6 roll - singular. In other places in the BRB and codexes it always refers to a 2D6 roll - also singular. There is no rule that further clarifies this no matter how hard people try to twist the meaning of "explicitly specify otherwise".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DevianID wrote:I have questions and concerns.

The eldar say roll an extra d6 and discard the highest result.

Now, this makes a normal 2d6 psychic check a 3d6 check. According to the idea that 3d6 is a 'single entity' we discard the highest result. So if you roll a 4, a 5, and a 6, you discard the 15. Or are you saying that each d6 roll in the 3d6 eldar check has its own result? If you are saying that, then you discard the 6, but you also would allow the chronometron to work.

Now I also see there is a FAQ. The FAQ says that if you reroll a check that involves multiple dice, you reroll all of them. Thus, if you have a twin linked blast, you reroll 2d6.

BUT, the chronometron does not grant a reroll of a check like twin linked. It works differently. So the FAQ does not apply to it. Because the chronometron does not reroll leadership, or reroll armor saves, ect.

I believe this demonstrates that viewing a 2D6 as a single entity does not work for all of these types of rolls. Discard the highest would mean that you discard the 2D6 roll or the "extra D6 roll". Most times you would discard the 2D6.

So 3D6 is three D6 rolls. The chronometron 1 D6 roll is referring to a since dice out of any number of dice rolled. I would not allow it to reroll the scatter dice since it is not truely a D6, but either of the two D6's rolled for scatter would be fine.

Nemesor Dave wrote: Page 2 of the BRB says that to roll less than the full number of dice, it must be explicitly specified. In other words "if the rule doesn't state the number of dice to re-roll , re-roll them all". A number of dice must be given. Chrono says re-roll 1. Nowhere does it even suggest disallowing a re-roll or setting a prerequisite for a re-roll that is granted by another rule.

A) If the rule says to re-roll "a roll", it would mean all the dice. Like All-Seeing Eye.
B) Page 2 does say you can't re-roll one die out of a multi-die roll without an explicit rule telling you otherwise. Presently we are not aware of a rule like this, although they may have existed in the past (I think there may be a Chaos: Daemons upgrade; Tzeentch's Will?) or it may just be there in case they decide to include one in the future. I can think of at least two examples from 6th/7th ed WHFB, Mork Save Us and the old default Heavens spell.

DevianID wrote:I have questions and concerns.

The eldar say roll an extra d6 and discard the highest result.

Now, this makes a normal 2d6 psychic check a 3d6 check. According to the idea that 3d6 is a 'single entity' we discard the highest result. So if you roll a 4, a 5, and a 6, you discard the 15. Or are you saying that each d6 roll in the 3d6 eldar check has its own result? If you are saying that, then you discard the 6, but you also would allow the chronometron to work.

No, this to me sounds like "explicitly specifying" a variant procedure. Runes of Witnessing tells us explicitly to roll an additional die, and tells us explicitly to drop the highest single die out of the group. This doesn't conflict with the re-roll rules anyway, because it's not a re-roll.

Overall the Eldar rules IMO support the a group of dice being one roll in cases where not specified otherwise. Runes of Warding's errata, just above Runes of Witnessing's, says:
"Change the last sentence to “All enemy Psykers must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests, suffering Perils of the Warp on any roll of 12 or above.” So we can see here that a single (multi-die) roll results in a roll of 12 or above.

DevianID wrote:Now I also see there is a FAQ. The FAQ says that if you reroll a check that involves multiple dice, you reroll all of them. Thus, if you have a twin linked blast, you reroll 2d6.

...and the scatter die. This is actually specified in the main rulebook for scattering blast weapons.