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:

Brother Ramses wrote:And as has been pointed out to Nos, the "fluff" that you want to deride is how the power is activated thus breaking the defunct, fluff =/= rules argument.

the wolf standard is specifically activated or as the rule tells us, "the power of the wolf is called upon."... "called upon the power of the wolf."

Both of your quotes above are fluff.

If they are not, could you please show us rules how one calls upon the power of the wolf?

As shown, the rules state that "all models in that unit may re-roll any dice rolls of a 1" we know "That unit" means "a unit that includes a wolf standard"

this is proven.

"Once per game, a unit that includes a wolf standard may call upon the power of the wolf. For the duration of the next Assault Phase, all models in that unit may re-roll any dice rolls of a 1."

That emboldened part right there DR? That would be how one calls upon the power of the wolf.

How about an exercise?

What unit can call upon the power of the wolf? A unit that includes a wolf standard.

What unit can re-roll any dice rolls of 1? A unit that called upon the power of the wolf.

That is the RAW. I know you want the last one to read,

What unit can re-roll any dice rolls of 1? A unit that called upon the power of the wolf and includes a wolf standard.

But sadly that is not the RAW. You have no other requirement then that the unit that called upon the power of the wolf is the only unit able to re-roll dice rolls of 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here DR, I will do you a favor and just copy/paste from my previous post:

Without the "fluff" that you want to dismiss, how is the wolf standard activated per RAW? Let me act like you for a moment and create some BroRam rules,

Once per game, a unit that includes a wolf standard may activate it. For the duration of the next Assault Phase, all models in that unit may re-roll any dice rolls of a 1.

Oh look, my argument still stands by taking out the "fluff" because the effect (re-rolling any dice rolls of 1) is still tied into activation and NOT inclusion of the wolf standard.

That does not explain how to "call upon the power of the wolf" there are no rules on how to "call upon the power of the wolf" taken the context it most likely means activating the power.

Q: So who can activate the power?
A: A unit that includes a wolf standard

Q: Why may re-roll any dice rolls of a 1?
A: That unit

Q: What unit?
A: the unit that includes a wolf standard that called upon the power of the wolf (activated the power)

No wolf Standard in the unit, no Re-rolls.

This is RAW

DeathReaper wrote:That does not explain how to "call upon the power of the wolf" there are no rules on how to "call upon the power of the wolf" taken the context it most likely means activating the power.

Q: So who can activate the power?
A: A unit that includes a wolf standard

Q: Why may re-roll any dice rolls of a 1?
A: That unit

Q: What unit?
A: the unit that includes a wolf standard that called upon the power of the wolf (activated the power)

No wolf Standard in the unit, no Re-rolls.

This is RAW

The above emboldened is where you are adding a requirement that is not RAW. The RAW is the unit that, "called upon the power of the wolf" or since you need it explained, the unit that activated the wolf standard.

And that unit is "a unit that includes a Wolf Standard"

No commentary there. Again, the context is clear, you are dropping context in order to benefit from your guy tripping up.

Woooooooooo! SEMANTICS! Yea! Attempting to apply order to chaos one overanalyzed sentance at a time. This argument is looking like a rabbit-duck:




So which is it? A rabbit or a duck?

As an upgrade item assigned to a specific model, I'm inclined to agree that once the model with the upgrade is removed from play, the effects it provides are no longer available to the unit. Aspect Warrior Exarch abilities and the like are no longer available to the squad if the exarch is killed.

However, in this case the effect the upgrade provides has been activated and the cause-effect instructions of the upgrade seems to indicate that the Wolf Standard is a specific exception to this rule. My interpretation of the rule as it is written says nothing about the Wolf Standard model being required to be in the unit in the following assualt phase, only to be in the unit at the time "the power of the wolf is called upon". I'd give my opponent the chance to dice me for it if he disagreed. After all, I'm a gentleman.

I'm not married to the idea though, seeing as there may be broader implications for armies as a whole if nos' and DR's argument holds true. How would this affect my army with Pedro Kantor and scoring Sternguard? If Pedro dies, he is no longer in the army. Do my Sternguard no longer have Hold the Line as a result? I don't have my codex on hand, so I can't see the exact wording for the rule, but the concept falls in the same broad question: do models that provide a permanent or temporary effect still provide that effect after their removal if the qualifications for the effect is in play prior to their removal?

DeathReaper wrote:As shown, the rules state that "all models in that unit may re-roll any dice rolls of a 1" we know "That unit" means "a unit that includes a wolf standard"

this is proven.

This is not proven. You just say it is. You and Nos agree on this, but you do not manage to convince anyone else, so you just say 'its proven' and leave it at that? That doesn't prove it, you have to keep going and actually prove it.
And you continue to use examples for vehicles and static bonuses (like the blood chalice) to explain something completely different which has an activation. They aren't the same, you can't just draw an imaginary line between the two and says 'that proves it, ta dah' and stand there panting with the rabbit you just pulled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gavin Thorne wrote:

By the by, love it. And its a rabbit. glory glory

"Once per game, a unit that includes a wolf standard may call upon the power of the wolf. For the duration of the next Assault Phase, all models in that unit may re-roll any dice rolls of a 1."

Q: So who can activate the power?
A: A unit that includes a wolf standard

Q: Who may re-roll any dice rolls of a 1?
A: That unit

Q: What unit?
A: the unit that includes a wolf standard that called upon the power of the wolf (activated the power)

No wolf Standard in the unit, no Re-rolls.

This proves it, now find rules to refute this or concede the point.

But you aren't writing rules. Those Q and A aren't rules. I don't have to find rules to refute your opinion, unless you have to find rules to refute mine. And I mean real rules, not FAQs you make up in your mind and write up here to justify your opinion.

Actually, nos and DR have convinced someone besides each other that they're right. I just don't feel like arguing in the thread. Have fun with your incorrect assumptions though.

That's nice mate, contribute then, and help the discussion, help stop incorrect assumptions.

motyak wrote: You and Nos agree on this, but you do not manage to convince anyone else, so you just say 'its proven' and leave it at that?

motyak wrote:That's nice mate, contribute then, and help the discussion, help stop incorrect assumptions.

I did.

Nos and DR have convinced me, and my posting would only clutter the thread. I wouldn't say anything different from what they are, so I see no reason to post.

Ok then.
As an aside, how would someone lose their wolf totem before an assault. The only way I can think of is with a DT test, because it can't be picked out of a unit by someone with high initiative, and if someone like that does lay enough smack onto your unit to kill the bearer, who would normally be one of the last guys given the flick, i doubt rerolling the 1's which come up from the 4 or 5 attacks you have in reply will do too much...
But I remain unconvinced that Nos, DR and rigy's interpretation of 'that' is the correct one. And don't repost your self written questions and answers DR, they answer them in the way you interpret it.

motyak wrote:Ok then.
As an aside, how would someone lose their wolf totem before an assault. The only way I can think of is with a DT test, because it can't be picked out of a unit by someone with high initiative, and if someone like that does lay enough smack onto your unit to kill the bearer, who would normally be one of the last guys given the flick, i doubt rerolling the 1's which come up from the 4 or 5 attacks you have in reply will do too much...
But I remain unconvinced that Nos, DR and rigy's interpretation of 'that' is the correct one. And don't repost your self written questions and answers DR, they answer them in the way you interpret it.

Calling it in before your enemies shooting phase in which the situation happens to be that thier is a good chance that the bearer will die and so before he dies you call the power thusly allowing you to treat him with less importnace for his ability has been used and you no longer have to guard it or worry that he will die in the line of fire. ANd as you said DT is a vialbe cause for worry.

Oh right, forgot you could call it in their turn too. Cheers.

I still reckon they should still benefit. Even if the totem is dead and falls, they'd just be so enraged at his death that they'd re-roll ones!
Atleast that'd be cool...

motyak wrote:But you aren't writing rules. Those Q and A aren't rules. I don't have to find rules to refute your opinion, unless you have to find rules to refute mine. And I mean real rules, not FAQs you make up in your mind and write up here to justify your opinion.

Actually I am writing rules.

Those are the questions you need to ask to determine what the rules are. Those answers are the rules, in this case.

If those questions are not asked, how do you know what the rule does?

Those answers are all based on your determination of the word 'that'. It is a 50/50 call, it'll be up to players in each situation to be decided.

motyak wrote:Those answers are all based on your determination of the word 'that'. It is a 50/50 call, it'll be up to players in each situation to be decided.

You mean based on the first sentences determination of the word 'that'

I did not make that determination, the first sentence made that determination.

It says 'That unit', what is it referring to? The unit that is described in the first sentence.

Don't you see? That is still your interpretation.

It could also refer to 'that unit' as the unit which had the upgrade at some point, the unit which had the wolf standard activated in it, regardless of it's current presence. Nowhere does it explicitly say it isn't this unit. That is why it can't be decided, why we cannot agree. Not because I can't see that you have a point, you do, but there are two sides to it, two interpretations. Not just yours.

It is not my interpretation.

there are two sentences in that rule.

the second sentence states 'That unit'

It can only be referring to the first sentence, since 'That unit' is not defined in the second sentence.
the first sentence says "Once per a game, a unit that includes a wolf standard may call upon the power of the wolf."

So 'That unit' has to be referring to 'a unit that includes a wolf standard'.

That is the standard English interpretation.

No, that is your interpretation. You cannot just state that something is the standard English interpretation and expect people to meekly accept it. Because you do not define what English as a language is. You cannot say 'this is definitely how it is' because it is not a matter of a 'standard interpretation'. There are two, equally valid interpretations.

Yes, it says a unit that includes a wolf standard. That is for the activation. It has to be defined, that is why it is. The second one is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Not bound by the previous sentence. Do not impose restrictions which do not exist.

It is open to either side to decide, and will have to be decided pre-game by the players unless it is answered by Games Workshop in an official FAQ on this topic specifically, not vehicles, not blood chalice's , but on this topic, because it is different to those others in several ways.

motyak wrote:No, that is your interpretation. You cannot just state that something is the standard English interpretation and expect people to meekly accept it. Because you do not define what English as a language is. You cannot say 'this is definitely how it is' because it is not a matter of a 'standard interpretation'. There are two, equally valid interpretations.

Reading comprehension, and the English language disagree with your argument here.

motyak wrote:Yes, it says a unit that includes a wolf standard. That is for the activation. It has to be defined, that is why it is. The second one is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Not bound by the previous sentence. Do not impose restrictions which do not exist.

No its not ambiguous and open to interpretation, if it were the second sentence would be a stand alone sentence, but it is not.

motyak wrote:It is open to either side to decide, and will have to be decided pre-game by the players unless it is answered by Games Workshop in an official FAQ on this topic specifically, not vehicles, not blood chalice's , but on this topic, because it is different to those others in several ways.

Again, not open for either side to decide, since the second sentence is not a stand alone sentence.

Look at the context. Does the second sentence make any sense without the first?

"For the duration of the next Assualt Phase, all models in that unit may re-roll any dice rolls of a 1." This sentence means nothing without the first. that unit relies on a pre-defined unit from the earlier sentence.

To read them independently makes no sense.

Death Reaper, you do not rule what the English language does and does not disagree with. You think it disagrees with me, that is your view. I think you are being inflexible and refusing to understand that it can be seen both ways.

Yes, it is open for them to decide. And my argument doesn't rest on the second sentence standing by itself, do not try to tell me what I am arguing. Instead, read without extrapolating. My argument is that the first sentence is only concerning the activation. This means that the second sentence need not stand alone.

The interpretation of these rules which has the first sentence as an activation allows for the 'that' in the second sentence to mean what I believe it means, that being that it is the same unit, with or without the standard. Before you can make assumptions about the sole way that it should be interpreted in the English language, you have to eliminate the other scenarios which mean it cannot be interpreted that way.

Or, if you do not want to eliminate them, you can agree that it can be seen both ways and is up to the players to decide, pending an FAQ.

The second sentence clearly references the first sentence.

without the first you have no reference for 'That unit'

That unit clearly means what the first sentence notes as that unit.

Permissive ruleset does not allow for anything other than a unit that includes a wolf standard to be that unit.

remember the rules tell you what you are allowed to do, not what you are not allowed to do.

Yes, it references the first sentence, because that is when it is activated. If it did not reference the first sentence, it would make no sense. But the first sentence does not mandate that the 'that' from the second sentence means what you claim it to mean. The first sentence is the activation, the second sentence limits who benefits from the rule, being the unit which activated it. Now the unit which activated it which still has the wolf standard. Just the unit which activated it.

And please stop saying things like 'permissive ruleset does not allow for anything other than...', because phrases like that work of the assumption you are correct. An assumption which is not correct.

So lets go with the argument that the second sentence "that" doesn't refer to having the wolf standard.

"For the duration of the next Assualt Phase, all models in a unit may re-roll any dice rolls of a 1."

So you get to nominate a unit? I can pop a wolf standard to make some other unit reroll ones?

The second sentence only ever makes sense if you include the wolf standard requirement. Saying you don't need it means you are using the second sentence as I posted.

I never said change the 'that' to an 'an'. You have just conjured that from nothing.
I claim that the 'that' doesn't require the wolf standard to still be there. Not nominate another unit, I never said that in any of my argument. If I was unclear and you interpreted something as meaning that, quote it for me and I can edit it to make more sense, apologies.

My interpretation is that;
"For the duration of the next Assault Phase, all models in that unit may re-roll any dice rolls of one"

My argument is not that the 'that' changes into an 'an'. It is that the 'that' has a different meaning to what you are claiming. That it is the same unit, regardless of the presence of the wolf standard in the assault phase. It requires the standard to activate, which happens in the first sentence. Then in the second sentence, it is referring to that same unit.

If it helps, I can explain it as 'that same unit on the army list'. It is the same unit, even if some members have died. I believe that if you claim the unit is a different unit because the bearer of the wolf standard has perished, as you are, then if any members died, it changes it from 'that' unit to a completely different one. I know that this is not what you mean, but if the loss of the wolf standard changes the unit, would the loss of the pack leader or wolf guard attached not also change it? Because it is not the same unit which called upon the power, it is different after casualties.

That is why I think that the 'that' means that the unit is just the unit in the army list, or the unit which takes up that part of the force organization chart. And that it does not require the wolf standard to still be present to benefit, just to activate it.

motyak wrote:I never said change the 'that' to an 'an'. You have just conjured that from nothing.
I claim that the 'that' doesn't require the wolf standard to still be there. Not nominate another unit, I never said that in any of my argument. If I was unclear and you interpreted something as meaning that, quote it for me and I can edit it to make more sense, apologies.

All I did was replace the word "that" with the phrase from the first sentence that describes the unit, minus the wolf standard requirement. Since your argument is that the wolf standard requirement isn't valid in the second sentence, I removed it.

If it helps, I can explain it as 'that same unit on the army list'. It is the same unit, even if some members have died. I believe that if you claim the unit is a different unit because the bearer of the wolf standard has perished, as you are, then if any members died, it changes it from 'that' unit to a completely different one. I know that this is not what you mean, but if the loss of the wolf standard changes the unit, would the loss of the pack leader or wolf guard attached not also change it? Because it is not the same unit which called upon the power, it is different after casualties.

There is a difference, with respect to this pair of sentences, between losing the standard bearer and losing the pack leader. The pack leader is never mentioned as a requirement of the power at any time. The standard bearer is - and the second sentence references that requirement.

That is why I think that the 'that' means that the unit is just the unit in the army list, or the unit which takes up that part of the force organization chart. And that it does not require the wolf standard to still be present to benefit, just to activate it.

I understand your thought process, I just believe you're wrong.

In regards to the first bit of your response, my view doesn't necessitate the removal of the 'that', you did that on your own volition.
For the second part, the second sentence only states the requirement in your point of view, not mine.
Finally the third part, yeah, I think we are pretty much just butting heads here, me and you and me and death reaper, we aren't really making any headway, and we aren't helping old mate who started the thread much I don't think. I'll just call it here, he can judge from the thread what he wants to do. Hope the whole argument/discussion thing never got out of hand. He can follow yours or mine, either way the point is he has fun, right?

But it was amazing for procrastination. Damn uni assignments ha.

motyak wrote:In regards to the first bit of your response, my view doesn't necessitate the removal of the 'that', you did that on your own volition.

"That", when used as a reference, needs to be interchangeable with what you're referring to. If it's not, it's being used wrong.
Since it should be interchangeable, I tried your interpretation. It didn't make sense.

But yeah - there's enough info here for the OP to figure out for himself.

Start around :31 and we'll have a summary of this thread...





rigeld2, motyak's entire point is that you can't agree on the grammatical interpretation of the rule. I happen to agree on that point, but also agree that there's some broader implications if your own interpretation is correct (per my earlier post). That said, ask to dice it off like a gentleman to avoid being TFG.