Necron Deepstrike Chronometron

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.

**Randall Turner**

Honestly, don't care. Doesn't matter if it's a verb or a noun, the word "roll" in "roll a die" is the physical act of rolling, ie, you can rephrase it as a noun ie, "physical act of rolling" or a verb "roll" and when you refer to it, it turns into a noun. (Has to, b/c the subject of a sentence is always a noun.)

We can define the physical act of rolling as something, not sure where it'll come up. say, Rv, "verb" for "roll as a verb", maybe? But Rv, or any shorthand or reference to "roll as a verb" itself becomes a noun.

Honestly though, rigeld2, get off the grammatical construction thing, it's irrelevant.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:Honestly though, rigeld2, get off the grammatical construction thing, it's irrelevant.

It's not.

Roll a die.
is grammatically different from
Make a die roll.

They might end up with the same result - but the two sentences are structured different enough that you can't assume they are the same.
Hence when the Chrono rule says "d6 rolls" and the multi-d6 rules say "roll the indicated number of dice and add the scores together" we know that they are not the same.

You are rolling (verb). You do not have a die roll until there is a result - which is after the scores are added together.

**Randall Turner**

rigeld2 wrote:You are rolling (verb). You do not have a die roll until there is a result - which is after the scores are added together.

That's silly. By Definition, I have two D6r's that I add together into a 2D6r. BY DEFINITION. I'm DEFINING a physical 2D6 roll as two physical D6 rolls - so I can talk about it! You can't say it doesn't exist. You can't disallow a debate opponent from defining a term.

**kirsanth**

Randall Turner wrote: I'm[i][u] DEFINING a physical 2D6 roll as two physical D6 rolls

That is fine, so long as you realize that it is just you.

A 2d6 roll is a 2D6 roll is rolling 2 six-sided-dice but not two 1d6 rolls or two 1D6 rolls.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:You are rolling (verb). You do not have a die roll until there is a result - which is after the scores are added together.

That's silly. By Definition, I have two D6r's that I add together into a 2D6r. BY DEFINITION. I'm DEFINING a physical 2D6 roll as two physical D6 rolls - so I can talk about it! You can't say it doesn't exist. You can't disallow a debate opponent from defining a term.

And yet you keep telling me that I can't define "to roll" and "a d6 roll" as different.... (well, you're calling the difference irrelevant which amounts to the same thing)

I don't get the relevance of what you're calling a d6r then. Care to explain?

**kirsanth**

"A(n) xd6 roll" is singular, no matter what x is.

**rigeld2**

kirsanth wrote:"A(n) xd6 roll" is singular, no matter what x is.

Agreed.

What it seems like Randall is trying to say is that the act of rolling a d6 can be the same as a "d6 roll".
If that's not correct I apologize.

**Randall Turner**

This is why we can't have nice things on this forum.

kirsanth, my definition isn't for me - it's an abstract definition of terms so that when we talk about it, we'll be talking about the same thing. May I suggest "atomic, inseparable 2D6 roll", or 2D6a, for your concept? So that when you use the term "2D6" in your sentences I'll be clear as to what you're referring to?

You understand that if a definition is just for me, and it means something else for you, when we type the same thing we won't be *meaning* the same thing? And how that's "bad"? Again, THIS ISN'T A CONTEST, the debate comes AFTER we define our terms so we understand each other.

rigeld2, I *suggested* Rv as "roll as a verb" for your term. At no point did I say you can't define it as different from anything else. I said verbatim, "not sure when it'll come up". You can define ANYTHING, this isn't a contest, it's so that we know what each of us is saying.

**kirsanth**

rigeld2 wrote:What it seems like Randall is trying to say is that the act of rolling a d6 can be the same as a "d6 roll".
If that's not correct I apologize.

To be fair, it can be.

It's just not always the case. Which is to say it is not when the x is not 1.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Randall Turner wrote:This is why we can't have nice things on this forum.

This is also demonstrably false.

In any case, defining a multi-d6 roll as rolling multi-d6 is fine.

Re-Defining a multi-d6 roll as separate instances of d6 rolls isn't.

The single roll (a 2d6 roll) must be rolled, to be re-rolled.
Rolling 1d6 twice is 2 d6 rolls, not a 2d6 roll.

Note: I am deliberately not caring about the d v. D because dice games do not either.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:kirsanth, my definition isn't for me - it's an abstract definition of terms so that when we talk about it, we'll be talking about the same thing. May I suggest "atomic, inseparable 2D6 roll", or 2D6a, for your concept? So that when you use the term "2D6" in your sentences I'll be clear as to what you're referring to?

The point of defining terms isn't so that we all know where we disagree, it's to find a common ground.

You understand that if a definition is just for me, and it means something else for you, when we type the same thing we won't be *meaning* the same thing? And how that's "bad"? Again, THIS ISN'T A CONTEST, the debate comes AFTER we define our terms so we understand each other.

Right, and the way it seems you're trying to define some things doesn't make sense to me.

rigeld2, I *suggested* Rv as "roll as a verb" for your term. At no point did I say you can't define it as different from anything else. I said verbatim, "not sure when it'll come up". You can define ANYTHING, this isn't a contest, it's so that we know what each of us is saying.

Randall Turner wrote:Honestly, don't care. Doesn't matter if it's a verb or a noun, the word "roll" in "roll a die" is the physical act of rolling, ie, you can rephrase it as a noun ie, "physical act of rolling" or a verb "roll" and when you refer to it, it turns into a noun. (Has to, b/c the subject of a sentence is always a noun.)

We can define the physical act of rolling as something, not sure where it'll come up. say, Rv, "verb" for "roll as a verb", maybe? But Rv, or any shorthand or reference to "roll as a verb" itself becomes a noun.

Honestly though, rigeld2, get off the grammatical construction thing, it's irrelevant.

I bolded the part I was talking about - dismissing my comments as irrelevant is as good as telling me I can't do it.
Especially when it's absolutely relevant.

What basis do you have for treating each die in a multi-d6 roll as individual results? That's what this all comes down to.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Note: I am deliberately not caring about the d v. D because dice games do not either.

QFT. I ignored that bit because there's no distinction in the BRB that I can find, and I've never really seen it around anywhere, in any rule set.

**Randall Turner**

You're making an *argument*. We're not making *arguments* yet. And all I'm doing is assigning words to real-world "things". Sooner or later I'm going to refer to a physical die roll, which I've defined as a D6r, which consists of the elements that I laboriously typed out. And I'm going to refer to a physical roll of two dice, which I'm calling a 2D6r, which is by definition the concatenation of two D6r. I need words or shorthand notation or something so that you will know I'm referring to these things. That's all. If you need words or shorthand to refer to other things, that's fine, make them.

don't argue that my definitions can't exist. By Definition, they exist.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:You're making an *argument*.

No, I'm not. I'm disagreeing with your definition.

don't argue that my definitions can't exist. By Definition, they exist.

I haven't said that. I've said your definition is wrong.

**Randall Turner**

rigeld2 wrote:
Randall Turner wrote:You're making an *argument*.

No, I'm not. I'm disagreeing with your definition.

don't argue that my definitions can't exist. By Definition, they exist.

I haven't said that. I've said your definition is wrong.

What, *exactly*, are you disagreeing with?

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:What, *exactly*, are you disagreeing with?

Randall Turner wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:Are you saying that there is a difference between a physical roll and the act of rolling a die?
Absolutely. By definition. Pick up a die - roll it. Wait 'till it stops bouncing. That whole thing's a physical roll. It has a result.

This is completely intuitive and obvious.

**Randall Turner**

What don't you agree with? That it's completely intuitive and obvious is "fluff", you don't have to agree with that.

The definition of "physical roll" is a definition. It's what I mean when I refer to a D6r. If part of it's confusing, don't use the short version, use the long one I spent five minutes typing in.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:What don't you agree with? That it's completely intuitive and obvious is "fluff", you don't have to agree with that.

The definition of "physical roll" is a definition. It's what I mean when I refer to a D6r. If part of it's confusing, don't use the short version, use the long one I spent five minutes typing in.

I
a) disagree that it's relevant
b) disagree that a "physical roll" as you call it is different from a die roll made for a check when you're told to make one.

And you asked if I could agree to the definitions - at first I did, but I evidently misunderstood what you meant, and I don't now.

**Randall Turner**

Whether it's relevant is irrelevant.

I can define anything I want.

The difference between it and a check is that the check consists of a physical roll linked to a game concept.

I roll a die here on my desk. That's a physical roll. I'm not playing the game. It has nothing to do with the game. It exists as a real-world thing, though.

I roll a die in-game. Same action, same result. I then apply it to a game mechanic, such as "to hit". That's a D6rc. It consists of a D6r, a physical roll, and also has game "significance" in some abstract fashion - in this case, determining whether I hit something. That makes it a D6rc. It also exists as a real-world thing.

A D6rc consists of a D6r plus a linkage to a game concept.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:Whether it's relevant is irrelevant. I can define anything I want.

The difference between it and a check is that the check consists of a physical roll linked to a game concept.

I roll a die here on my desk. That's a physical roll. I'm not playing the game. It has nothing to do with the game. It exists as a real-world thing, though.

I roll a die in-game. Same action, same result. I then apply it to a game mechanic, such as "to hit". That's a D6rc. It consists of a D6r, a physical roll, and also has game "significance" in some abstract fashion - in this case, determining whether I hit something. That makes it a D6rc. It also exists as a real-world thing.

A D6rc consists of a D6r plus a linkage to a game concept.

... Okay, sure. It's pointless to define that because there's no use for it, but whatever. Have fun with that.
What's your point by defining that?

Randall Turner wrote:There are two possible interpretations:
"A model with a chronometron can re-roll one of his D6r each phase."
"A model with a chronometron can re-roll one of his D6rc each phase."

Oh, that's your point.

Now, defend your first interpretation.

**Randall Turner**

Then we're out of "definition of terms" land, and into "debate" land. Aaaand, I state my position.

My position's very simple. It's possible rule writers meant "D6r" when they wrote "D6 roll". That's it.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:Then we're out of "definition of terms" land, and into "debate" land. Aaaand, I state my position.

My position's very simple. It's possible rule writers meant "D6r" when they wrote "D6 roll". That's it.

And what do you have to back up that position?

Even if it's granted, how do you back up the position that a 2d6 roll is made up of two parts to be considered separately?

**Randall Turner**

Because we don't know what the rule writers were thinking when they wrote the rule. So, it's possible. We can't say for sure either way, because we can't divine intent - but we can say for sure what's possible.

If that's the case, by definition a D6r is half of a 2D6r - which is a component of a 2D6rc. If we're told we can reroll a D6r, we can reroll one D6r of a 2D6r.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:Because we don't know what the rule writers were thinking when they wrote the rule. So, it's possible. We can't say for sure either way, because we can't divine intent - but we can say for sure what's possible.

So you're arguing intent?
And have no rules to back up what you're saying?

From what I can see on page 2, rolling 2d6 isn't making 2 d6 rolls. It's rolling 2d6.

**Randall Turner**

rigeld2 wrote:
Randall Turner wrote:Because we don't know what the rule writers were thinking when they wrote the rule. So, it's possible. We can't say for sure either way, because we can't divine intent - but we can say for sure what's possible.

So you're arguing intent?
And have no rules to back up what you're saying?

No. Read what I said. "We can't divine intent". Try again.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Randall Turner wrote:Because we don't know what the rule writers were thinking when they wrote the rule. So, it's possible. We can't say for sure either way, because we can't divine intent - but we can say for sure what's possible.

So you're arguing intent?
And have no rules to back up what you're saying?

No. Read what I said. "We can't divine intent". Try again.

You can't divine intent, so you're going with the more powerful ruling?
And you have no rules to back up your theoretical intent...

Read the rules on page 2. Find in there the permission to evaluate the parts of a 2d6 roll separately.

**Randall Turner**

rigeld2 wrote:You can't divine intent, so you're going with the more powerful ruling?
And you have no rules to back up your theoretical intent...

Reading comprehension fail again. I didn't go with *either* ruling. Try yet again.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:You can't divine intent, so you're going with the more powerful ruling?
And you have no rules to back up your theoretical intent...

Reading comprehension fail again. I didn't go with *either* ruling. Try yet again.

Really?

Randall Turner wrote:
yakface wrote:The rules on Pg 2 of the rulebook do define what a '2D6' roll is, they don't explicitly say what a 'D6 roll' is, which therefore leaves the door open for people to interpret that a D6 roll is both any roll made where the single die's outcome is calculated on its own and any single die roll that helps to make up a 2D6 roll.
This is exactly the imprecision they were trying to avoid with the d6/D6 notation. (From whatever source, I can't for the life of me remember where or what system I internalized it from.) The ambiguity comes from us being unsure whether rerolling "..one of his D6 rolls.." means one of his physical d6 die rolls or one of his game mandated conceptual D6 rolls involving a single d6 die.

The problem I'm having now is that the the rule for re-rolls we keep referring to is only for 2D6 or 3D6 rolls - it's intended to keep a player granted the right to reroll a 2D6/3D6 roll from preserving one of his previously rolled "good" d6 die. Here, we're not rerolling a 2D6 or 3D6 roll. We're rerolling a single d6 OR D6 - without any restriction I can see. So, the qualifying phrase "If you reroll a 2D6 or 3D6 roll..." isn't triggered - that part of the reroll rule isn't relevant, so the subsequent "...you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some..." is also irrelevant.

Bottom line becomes very simple - we're just rerolling one d6, ie, one six sided die. Wrong, sorry. If it's a "D6" reroll being allowed of course we simply just can't touch a 2D6 or 3D6 - but the reroll rule above is indeed still irrelevant.

The opposing (D6) view is, of course, also supportable. However, strict RAW, the only definition of D6 is on pp. 2 as a physical, six sided die - which if we then textually substitute into the Chronometron rule, we get the "reroll allowed" interpretation. Edits colored

My bold, there at the end.

That means, to me, that you're interpreting the "reroll allowed" as being RAW. I double checked the thread and didn't see you flop back (forgive me if I missed it) and the re-roll allowed is obviously the more powerful interpretation. Therefore, unless I missed something, my question of "You can't divine intent, so you're going with the more powerful ruling?" is valid.

**kirsanth**

A d6 roll can be a 1d6 roll.
A d6 roll cannot be a 2d6 roll.

Yes, rolling a single 2d6 roll involves rolling two separate die (sic), but the event is a discreet roll of 2, not two discreet rolls of 1.

**Randall Turner**

rigeld2 wrote:That means, to me, that you're interpreting the "reroll allowed" as being RAW. I double checked the thread and didn't see you flop back (forgive me if I missed it) and the re-roll allowed is obviously the more powerful interpretation. Therefore, unless I missed something, my question of "You can't divine intent, so you're going with the more powerful ruling?" is valid.

Go back and bold the part right in front of the section you chose to take out of context where I said the opposing view is also supportable. Or the umpteen places I said the rule was ambiguous. Seems to me you're just really bad at setting up strawmen and/or reading what other people type.

Try again.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:A d6 roll can be a 1d6 roll.
A d6 roll cannot be a 2d6 roll.

Yes, rolling a single 2d6 roll involves rolling two separate die (sic), but the event is a discreet roll of 2, not two discreet rolls of 1.

And we're never told to reroll a 2d6 of any flavor, physical or conceptual. So the 2d6 reroll rule doesn't apply. In either interpretation of the chrono rule.

**McNinja**

Randall Turner wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:That means, to me, that you're interpreting the "reroll allowed" as being RAW. I double checked the thread and didn't see you flop back (forgive me if I missed it) and the re-roll allowed is obviously the more powerful interpretation. Therefore, unless I missed something, my question of "You can't divine intent, so you're going with the more powerful ruling?" is valid.

Go back and bold the part right in front of the section you chose to take out of context where I said the opposing view is also supportable. Or the umpteen places I said the rule was ambiguous. Seems to me you're just really bad at setting up strawmen and/or reading what other people type.

Try again.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:A d6 roll can be a 1d6 roll.
A d6 roll cannot be a 2d6 roll.

Yes, rolling a single 2d6 roll involves rolling two separate die (sic), but the event is a discreet roll of 2, not two discreet rolls of 1.
And we're never told to reroll a 2d6 of any flavor, physical or conceptual. So the 2d6 reroll rule doesn't apply. In either interpretation of the chrono rule.

You're attempting to re-roll part of a 2d6 roll by re-rolling a single D6 out of a Deep Strike scatter roll. I am having trouble understanding how such a rule would not apply.

Regardless of all of this (and I know I'm going to open up a whole 'nother can of worms), but the Chrono rule doesn't say anywhere that you may re-roll part of anything. It doesn't matter what a noun is and what a verb is, and which roll is a verb/noun/nerb/vern/indirect object/past participle, it matter whether or not the Chrono rule explicitly gives you permission to re-roll part of a 2d6 roll. It doesn't. It doesn't say you may re-roll part of anything. It never has in the several months since the Codex came out.

You need specific and explicit permission to re-roll part of a 2D6 roll. The Chronometron entry does not give that permission in any way, shape, or form.

**Randall Turner**

McNinja wrote:You're attempting to re-roll part of a 2d6 roll by re-rolling a single D6 out of a Deep Strike scatter roll. I am having trouble understanding how such a rule would not apply.

The rule reads, "If you re-roll a 2D6 or 3D6 roll..." We're not rerolling a 2D6 or 3D6 roll, we're rerolling a D6 roll. The "If" clause doesn't apply.

Regardless of all of this (and I know I'm going to open up a whole 'nother can of worms), but the Chrono rule doesn't say anywhere that you may re-roll part of anything. It doesn't matter what a noun is and what a verb is, and which roll is a verb/noun/nerb/vern/indirect object/past participle, it matter whether or not the Chrono rule explicitly gives you permission to re-roll part of a 2d6 roll. It doesn't. It doesn't say you may re-roll part of anything. It never has in the several months since the Codex came out.

You need specific and explicit permission to re-roll part of a 2D6 roll. The Chronometron entry does not give that permission in any way, shape, or form.

If you're given permission to reroll any D6 roll, AND their definition of "D6 roll" matches the definition of D6r here, you're given permission to reroll ANY D6r, including one of the two D6r's that make up a 2D6r. And this isn't a new can of worms. In between verb/noun digressions it's what we've been talking about.

Btw, have you figured out the difference between a d6 and a D6, or the equivalent D6r and D6rc we've presented here? You know, that difference you said didn't exist on the first page?