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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

Spoiler:

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Duplicate results is plural, this means both rolls. It would be different if it says a duplicate result has no effect. Then the second one would have no effect.

No, it means there are more than one possible duplicate results. Eg 1 and 1 or 2 and 2.

No, thats not what it means.

That is, at best, your opinion. Certainly not backed up in any substantive way by the wording of the rule though.

Wrong. I already explained that duplicate results is plural, meaning both rolls have no effect. It doesnt say a duplicate roll has no effect. RAW is on my side.

It really isn't. You are ignoring the context of the rule.

You are ignoring the grammar of the rule.

You're ignoring the rule itself, which is that the set of duplicate results {(1,1),...,(6,6)} is plural, and the duplicated result what has no effect, not the original roll

This is pretty clear from any non-inane reading of the rule

Jackal90 wrote:
One person telling another that their opinion is wrong but their own is right.
Must be the internet

Or literally any debate ever, because that is what a debate is. No need to be so reductive about it.

I agree it is not the best wording, but one reading seems more reasonable that the other. That is the debate here.

 Stux wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
One person telling another that their opinion is wrong but their own is right.
Must be the internet

Or literally any debate ever, because that is what a debate is. No need to be so reductive about it.

I agree it is not the best wording, but one reading seems more reasonable that the other. That is the debate here.

But that’s the sweet irony.
Information can be wrong, but a persons opinion can not be.
It is simply how they view something.

My entire way of seeing this is that, for a duplicate to appear, you would first need an original of it.
A single die cannot produce this, so it must be a second or more.
For them to be a duplicate though, they must mirror the original.

When you duplicate something, you have made a copy(copies) of the original.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You're ignoring the rule itself, which is that the set of duplicate results {(1,1),...,(6,6)} is plural, and the duplicated result what has no effect, not the original roll

That is not what the rule is saying. Its results, not result. If the rule would say a duplicate result i would agree with you.

The set of possible duplicates is multiple
That's why it is results. I showed you that.
Only one dice is a duplicate

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You're ignoring the rule itself, which is that the set of duplicate results {(1,1),...,(6,6)} is plural, and the duplicated result what has no effect, not the original roll

This is pretty clear from any non-inane reading of the rule

He's not ignoring it. He's just being consistent. whenever people have opinion X he's got the opposite. 100% quaranteed. He's always opposite to what others say.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

Spoiler:

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Duplicate results is plural, this means both rolls. It would be different if it says a duplicate result has no effect. Then the second one would have no effect.

No, it means there are more than one possible duplicate results. Eg 1 and 1 or 2 and 2.

No, thats not what it means.

That is, at best, your opinion. Certainly not backed up in any substantive way by the wording of the rule though.

Wrong. I already explained that duplicate results is plural, meaning both rolls have no effect. It doesnt say a duplicate roll has no effect. RAW is on my side.

It really isn't. You are ignoring the context of the rule.

You are ignoring the grammar of the rule.

Incorrect, I am not ignoring anything. What nosferatu1001 wrote, was correct.

"duplicate results have no effect" Does not negate the original roll. It only says the Duplicate result has no effect. Need to keep in mind this is "English" English, they pluralize words in places that "American" English would not.

Otherwise,"re-rolling any duplicate results" would mean you have to re-roll both dice when rolling for random powers...

Jackal90 wrote:


But that’s the sweet irony.
Information can be wrong, but a persons opinion can not be.

So if a person has the opinion that the Earth is flat, he can not be wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Draco765 wrote:
"duplicate results have no effect" Does not negate the original roll. It only says the Duplicate result has no effect. Need to keep in mind this is "English" English, they pluralize words in places that "American" English would not.

Otherwise,"re-rolling any duplicate results" would mean you have to re-roll both dice when rolling for random powers...

Agreed, the duplicate result does not negate the original results. It would need to have said it negated both results.

Of course opinions can be wrong, when they are based on falsehoods.

"It is my opinion that 1 + 1 = 3"

That opinion is wrong. Simple as.