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.

sorry to take up space for this as i didnt find it when i searched. We are having a small argument at my local shop regarding warptime. 1 person says you can reroll just the dice you want and person 2 says you have to reroll all dice. What say you guys?

We agree with both.

The rules say reroll all.

People do not play that way.

Editing to add:

There will be . . . debate.

The debate basically breaks down into 2 or 3 camps based on how one reads the phrase "all".

Many people play it as "any" (especially because the most strict interpretation would mean that if you wanted to reroll wounds, you would also have go back and reroll your hits too, since it says "all to hit AND to wound rolls")

Other interpretations are looser. Discuss with your opponent.

Xca|iber wrote:it says "all rolls to hit and rolls to wound"

Other interpretations are looser. Discuss with your opponent.

Fixed for posterity.

The main part of Warptime is how it says "the psyker MAY re-roll..." (emphasis mine). You aren't forced to re-roll all the dice, but you may if so wish. Since it doesn't say you must re-roll all the dice or none at all, I would argue that you pick and choose.

After all, I know it's GW but what would the point of a power that means you could end up with less hits and wounds be? Even GW are smart enough to realise that would be a pointless spell.

Discuss it with your opponent, if he tries to argue further, sigh, shrug your shoulders and say "Well that's made this spell useless, I guess i'll have to resort to dual lash princes..." and do it with a sad face then slowly walk away.

Regardless, RAI would be you my reroll all the dice you wish to reroll, however RAW is you reroll all dice regardless of hitting or missing. RAW doesn't make sense from a gaming perspective however, what use is it to roll all your dice, and then roll them all again?

In short, if you are having this argument, someone want's to win too much.

Avatar 720 wrote:The main part of Warptime is how it says "the psyker MAY re-roll..." (emphasis mine). You aren't forced to re-roll all the dice, but you may if so wish. Since it doesn't say you must re-roll all the dice or none at all, I would argue that you pick and choose.

Interesting as "the psyker may re-roll all rolls to hit and rolls to wound for the entirety of that player's turn." (emphasis selective quotation/omission)
Says they may re-roll all rolls to hit and rolls to wound, not failed or passed ones, surely the appropriate words if they did not mean all.

Personally it's fairly cut and dried - and I feel people who try to make an amazing ability even better are well... not playing by the rule.
Funnily enough imo in the way it's written, one could use it to re-roll one's to hit before the to wound as long as one re-rolls them once one arrived at that stage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

juraigamer wrote:Regardless, RAI would be you my reroll all the dice you wish to reroll, however RAW is you reroll all dice regardless of hitting or missing. RAW doesn't make sense from a gaming perspective however, what use is it to roll all your dice, and then roll them all again?

In short, if you are having this argument, someone want's to win too much.

That seems to be a bit of a contradiction, your saying people who want to increase the strength of an already combat changing /rescuing power by allowing cherry picking - by arguing that it was intended to be written "may reroll all failed to hit and wound" by, in fact, inserting a whole word (not even a difference of meaning) into the rule are the ones who are playing fairly?

Personally I see the biggest issue arising from the interpretation that "all" refers to the act of rolling to-hit/to-wound, not the roll itself. In essence, the phrases "all to-hit rolls in the turn" and "all to-wound rolls in the turn" (paraphrased), would mean "rolls made during any and all parts of the turn" rather than "the entirety of a given roll result."

The rule was poorly written though, and really deserves a mention in the FAQ.

Yeah I do find it interesting that everyone is happy with the hidden "in close combat" clause.

Mainly because the description of the power does not matcn the interpretation that you reroll everything.

The "may" is - you "may do it at ALL".

The "all" is - if you do it, you have to do ALL of them.

So you don't have to do it, but if you choose to do it, you have to roll all of them.

I'd say that's the RAW and RAI.

I have a suspicion that the people arguing that you have to reroll all the dice vs. the people arguing that you can choose which dice to reroll is contingent on who plays Chaos, and who plays against Chaos frequently.

Let me start by saying that I get handed by Chaos on a regular basis, and have only started playing Chaos in the past two weeks.

Here's my thought. This is simply a breakdown of language.

Let's look at each roll to hit, and each roll to wound as an individual roll, and let's pretend I'm rolling them one at a time. If you think of it that way, it makes more sense to go "that one missed/I didn't care for that result, I'm going to reroll that one." I think by saying that one may re-roll all rolls to hit and to wound, it's saying that one chooses to re-roll up to all of them, if that's the case.

Yes, this power is worded poorly. It does not say "may re-roll all rolls to hit TOGETHER" or "INDIVIDUALLY". By the wording there I could read it that if I re-roll all my rolls to hit, I HAVE to re-roll all my rolls to wound as well...

But no one reads it that way seriously.

If it were an all or nothing thing, it would NOT be worth 25 pts. I'm not saying GW is spot on with points-values every time but that would be a gross overpricing, even for them.

The word "may" in there adds discretion and flexibility.

Don't forget my favorite interpretation:

At the end of the turn, the psyker says "Okay, I want a do over" and you re-roll ALL of the to-hit and to-wound rolls of the entire turn, because it says "all rolls to hit and rolls to wound for the entirety of that player's turn" without any other qualifiers. You'd better hope everyone was paying attention to who shot what and who killed whom.

solkan wrote:Don't forget my favorite interpretation:

At the end of the turn, the psyker says "Okay, I want a do over" and you re-roll ALL of the to-hit and to-wound rolls of the entire turn, because it says "all rolls to hit and rolls to wound for the entirety of that player's turn" without any other qualifiers. You'd better hope everyone was paying attention to who shot what and who killed whom.

QFT.

This may be an outside observation but if you show this rule to Warhammer 40k players they will argue both sides depending on how their group plays or which ruling favors their army (as pointed out earlier in this thread). However if you show this rule to a Magic player or judge who is otherwise naive of Warhammer they will mostly come to the conclusion that all means all. I played Magic for 17 years before starting Warhammer and have witnessed hundreds of rules arguments over the most minute of wordings. I will say though that Magic is much better at releasing erratas on intended usage than Games Workshop. Sometimes I wonder if GW intentionally leaves things vague in order to see how groups handle the rules then step in once they see what is working in play.

From my own stand point I believe that all means all. This is illustrated by other abilities, such as lightening claws, that specify in their ruleset that they may re-roll any failed rolls; rolls that fail to cause a wound in this particular example. If Warptime was meant to allow you to re-roll only the failed rolls then it would also specify failed rolls not all. Another example would be the Fateweaver which allows models within 6" to re-roll all "failed" saves. These examples illustrate that if Warptime had meant to only re-roll failed rolls then it would have specified "failed" instead of "all".

As to people who say that all should be interpreted as any rolls up to all of them, well I advise you to get a dictionary. When all is used as an adjective to describe a group of something it means "the whole of" or "the maximum possible". If the ability had been meant to allow you to pick your re-rolls it would been worded "may reroll any to-hit and wound rolls". Any is defined as one or more up to all.

I know that many players, chaos players in-particular, will argue that this is a worthless power when taken from this stand point. Any such players have obviously never played at our table. Our most recent example would be our chaos player's daemon prince model which rolled 5 successful hits on an enemy model but only rolled one wound needing 3+. Odds are that if he takes the re-roll he will score more than one wound off of his 5 hits. Of course there is an off chance that he will still only score 1 wound or maybe even no wounds, but remember, this is a chaos ability. I think that is key to understanding how this ability is intended. Chaos is unpredictable. This ability gives the player a second chance at the roll but does not guarantee that they will do any better. There are a number of chaos rules that offer the chance at a benefit with no guarantees. Heck, I play Chaos Daemons and never know if or when my entire force will make it to the table. That is the unpredictable nature of chaos.

solkan wrote:Don't forget my favorite interpretation:

At the end of the turn, the psyker says "Okay, I want a do over" and you re-roll ALL of the to-hit and to-wound rolls of the entire turn, because it says "all rolls to hit and rolls to wound for the entirety of that player's turn" without any other qualifiers. You'd better hope everyone was paying attention to who shot what and who killed whom.

Actually there is a qualifier that you left off the beginning of your rules quote and that is "The psyker may re-roll all rolls to hit and rolls to wound for the entirety of that player's turn." The power only applies to the psyker who is using it.

Psst Quaden: thread necro is bad.

Also; well thought out and presented post.

And; welcome to dakka.

thats pretty poor Thread Necro there as well...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh no wait...

Sorry!
I was looking at date joined...
¬¬

Thank you for the welcome Kel.

My intentions were not to bump the thread, it was merely a consequence of my actions.

This ability came up at our most recent game as our Chaos Marine player just bought himself a daemon prince model and ran it with Warptime. He was playing it as re-roll failed rolls which I thought sounded totally overpowered (especially since my Chaos Daemon Codex has no such option lol). So I read the rules for myself and came to a different conclusion on how the power worked. I trolled a few forums to find out how other people were playing it and found quite the debate. This was the most recently used thread I could find on the subject and it was located in the only forum that I have ever posted on before so I decided to jot down my own thoughts and interpretations.

I'm participating! -Elan, OOTS

Nice Elan quote, too.

I don't think you can make a legitimate argument on the basis of what games the player has experience with. I used to play tournament Magic too, and I read the re-rolls as any=all, in part because of the "may".

GW doesn't write to the same technical standard used with Magic cards.

Picking a bone with the most absurd interpretation of Warp Time that I could come up with isn't really a great way to introduce yourself on the topic, either.

I'd also like to point out the stickied topic at the top of the forum, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page, particularly point #6:

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Some of us more high strung posters are likely to take offense when you say to check a dictionary.

Additionally, I have to assume that he has never seen the dreaded Dice Roller Daemon Prince which IS quite capable of re-rolling every single die roll for the turn. Qualify that!