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.

Hi, I'm wondering if the Lord of Unreality allows the reroll of all the Warpstorms that happen.

Lord of Unreality allows you to re-roll. If your opponent is rolling, are you rolling?

I think this will come down to another English debate.

If you did something and then I have to do it again it could be called redoing it as well.
"why did you do it incorrectly? Now I have to redo what you did, "

But it isn't re-doing it. It's re-rolling it.

If you didn't roll it, you can't re-roll it.

If you are doing something that someone else already did it could equally (and more correctly) be phrased as :

'Why did you do this incorrectly. I now have to do it myself.'

"Do" is just a verb I am subbing in for roll instead to make an example.

As you said it is equally phrased as, which means both are correct just one is more correct.

Aka, thats why I said this is just going to be an English debate.

Languages are a flexible thing and change over time, funnier was not a word now it is a word.
If my example phrase is correct then by default you can reroll it.

I doubt there's a clear answer to this, so I guess it'll just be a roll off to see what happens.

Feel free to argue this with your opponent, or just come to an agreement if he's someone you play regularly.

Personally i think you are using semantics to work around the rules, but you are perfectly entitled to your own opinion.

 Ascalam wrote:
Feel free to argue this with your opponent, or just come to an agreement if he's someone you play regularly.

Personally i think you are using semantics to work around the rules, but you are perfectly entitled to your own opinion.

Well, it's not using semantics to work around the rules as the rules itself is not well defined.

There's not "rule" with regards to this, which should of been cleared out in a decent FAQ, but too bad Daemons haven't even had an "actual" FAQ yet.

And fluff sense which is what RAI might be, Fateweaver or whoever can manipulate it should be able to do so for both sides.

I doubt most opponents would agree to this and the same for TOs. I know I wouldn't.