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 wrote:

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?

1- There is no difference between d6 and D6. The rule book does not use d6 at all, only D6.

2- You have based your entire argument on the flawed assumption that because a 2D6rc is comprised of 2 D6r, you may re-roll one of the freely without heeding the rule on page 2.

3- The rest of the rule reads:

you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly specifies otherwise.

You are attempting to re-roll some of the dice. You can't. You have to re-roll all of them. The Chronometron does not give this permission. Because it does not, the next logical step is to assume that "D6 roll" is any D6rc, such as a to-wound roll, to-hit, etc.

LOL at logic fail.

McNinja wrote:1- There is no difference between d6 and D6. The rule book does not use d6 at all, only D6.

"The book does not use d6 at all, only D6" does not imply "there is no difference between d6 and D6". Logic fail 1.

Logic 101:
If (X) then (whatever) - as long as (X) is false, the rest of the statement is irrelevant.

"If you reroll a 2d6 or 3d6 roll..." We're never directed to reroll a 2d6, hence what "the rest of the rule reads" who cares? It doesn't apply. It's irrelevant.

McNinja wrote:2- You have based your entire argument on the flawed assumption that because a 2D6rc is comprised of 2 D6r, you may re-roll one of the freely without heeding the rule on page 2.

The one whose enabling clause isn't satisfied. Logic fail 2.

Try again.

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.

Yes, you did say that. You also said that's not the interpretation you support, which is what I bolded.
Even if I grant that it's ambiguous (it's not) you should use the less powerful reading. You have said you support the re-roll being RAW.

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.

Then why do you keep trying to do so? A leadership test is a 2d6 roll. You're attempting to re-roll one of those d6. You can't do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you're imagiining the difference between d6 and D6. There is a difference between the terms d6r and d6rc that you've defined, but you have zero basis for claiming that d6 and D6 are different.

Randall Turner wrote:LOL at logic fail.

McNinja wrote:1- There is no difference between d6 and D6. The rule book does not use d6 at all, only D6.

"The book does not use d6 at all, only D6" does not imply "there is no difference between d6 and D6". Logic fail 1.

Logic 101:
If (X) then (whatever) - as long as (X) is false, the rest of the statement is irrelevant.

"If you reroll a 2d6 or 3d6 roll..." We're never directed to reroll a 2d6, hence what "the rest of the rule reads" who cares? It doesn't apply. It's irrelevant.

McNinja wrote:2- You have based your entire argument on the flawed assumption that because a 2D6rc is comprised of 2 D6r, you may re-roll one of the freely without heeding the rule on page 2.

The one whose enabling clause isn't satisfied. Logic fail 2.

Try again.

how about you quit making stuff up? There is ZERO difference between d6 and D6, and in fact d6 is NEVER mentioned anywhere in the warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook. Not to mention the fact that you seem willingly oblivious to the fact that you are trying to re-roll part of a 2d6 roll, which the warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook makes extremely clear is impossible unless specifically allowed. In fact, I really have no idea what you're arguing anymore, because it is so far gone and ridiculous that it comes of as pretentious and dumb.

rigeld2 wrote: snip

rigeld2, do you believe that misrepresenting someone else's position is lying? Do you think that saying someone else said something that they didn't, is lying?

Do you think lying is an infraction on this forum? Or do you think that as long as you do it politely, or by inference, it's just "clever"?

Do you believe it's possible to have a reasonable discussion where one party is dishonest?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

McNinja wrote:how about you quit making stuff up? There is ZERO difference between d6 and D6, and in fact d6 is NEVER mentioned anywhere in the warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook.

Do you think that if someone "makes up" a concept, it doesn't exist?

Do you think that if a concept isn't present in the 40k rulebook, it doesn't exist?

Randall Turner wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: snip

rigeld2, do you believe that misrepresenting someone else's position is lying? Do you think that saying someone else said something that they didn't, is lying?

Do you think lying is an infraction on this forum? Or do you think that as long as you do it politely, or by inference, it's just "clever"?

Do you believe it's possible to have a reasonable discussion where one party is dishonest?

Randall Turner wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:Give him the whole story, without re-opening the can of worms.

Kalzruk, for multi-die rolls, ie 2d6 morale etc, if you reroll you must reroll all die - unless specified otherwise, you must treat the roll as a whole. The conflict comes in because some people interpret the Chronometron rule phraseology as giving you permission to reroll just one of the set, ie, that the rule does specify otherwise. It's more regular to play that you can't, but there is a chance that GW intended otherwise.

The fact is that many 40k rules aren't clearcut. It's probably safest to play that you can't reroll just one of a set, but it's very possible that an upcoming FAQ will "clarify" that rolling one was RAW all along, too.

I want to flip-flop here. After talking to Norbu, the guy who won the Indy GT with the Tremorcrons. He has been and is using the Chronometron to reroll leadership rolls etc. without dispute.

We discussed it, then I looked at the rule wording, compared it to other wording in other games etc, and the D6 does plainly stand alone. Ie, permission to reroll one of the unit's D6 rolls does include half of a 2D6 morale check.

That's all, don't expect a consensus, just saying that on further consideration I'm changing my own personal position.

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.

How am I supposed to read those posts and come up with anything besides "I support re-rolling 2d6 rolls."
I've asked for clarifications if I've misinterpreted, and gotten none.
If you think I'm willfully lying and misrepresenting you, I invite you to click the yellow triangle.
Please show where I've been dishonest.
And please, PLEASE stop referring to an imagined difference between d6 and D6.
There isn't one, at least not in 40k.

I'll invite anyone to comment and let me know if I've been out of line. I don't think I have, but my perceptions are obviously slightly biased in that respect :-)

Do you think that if a concept isn't present in the 40k rulebook, it doesn't exist?

In 40k, if there's no difference defined, then there's no difference.
There's no normal English definition where d6 and D6 are different. There's no rule saying they're different. There's no context to show a difference.

...and you lie in a post where you're protesting your honesty.

rigeld2 wrote:I've asked for clarifications if I've misinterpreted, and gotten none.

You didn't ask for clarifications. Ever. You asked for forgiveness if you missed somewhere I flopped back on this issue (you didn't miss any, 'cause I never did) and you said "..unless I missed something" once. You never one time asked me for clarifications. And then I told you that you'd misinterpreted the line anyway, and you write...

rigeld2 wrote:You have said you support the re-roll being RAW.

...still a lie.

Seriously, what am I supposed to do? It's like some weird compulsion. Try writing a paragraph, and instead of shading it to make yourself look better or place something you might have said in a better light, tell the straight truth. Then double-check it. An example is...

"How am I supposed to come up with anything besides "I support re-rolling 2d6 rolls." "

i do support re-rolling 2d6 rolls. But see, your sentence above implies that's our disagreement. Rather than your assertion I'm maintaining it's RAW. So, gee, guess what - another lie.

Let's look at the RAW sentence - standing alone, even without the preceding "opposing views are supportable" qualifier - and see what I'm saying is RAW, shall we?

"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."

Strict RAW, there is only one, single, clear cut definition of D6. It's on page 2. It's defined as a physical, six-sided die. Period. That in no way means a Chrono roll is a D6r by RAW - it means, there's only one definition of D6. That's the only use of RAW I make, except to say there ISN'T a RAW on this rule, in about five pages of posting. (I believe, I'd have to go do a text search.) Now, if we then decide to textually substitute the strict RAW for "D6" into the Cronometron rule, we get the "D6r" interpretation, which is the "reroll allowed" interpretation, but that's not RAW - it's making some assumptions and, more importantly, I didn't SAY it was RAW, I said it was an interpretation.

And you keep saying I did.

If you'd *REALLY* asked for clarification on this sentence, I'd have given it to you like I just did here. But again, you really didn't. No matter how many times you lie about that, too.

rigeld2 wrote:I absolutely care about intent. And GT winners can be wrong too. They are not infallible.

Heritic, we are always right, especially when we say its your round for beer!

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.

This is the post where you start calling me a liar (not in those words yet...)

You support the re-rolls of a 2d6 roll. That's what I'm saying. You called it a reading comprehension fail.

How is that again?

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

This is the post where you start calling me a liar (not in those words yet...)

You support the re-rolls of a 2d6 roll. That's what I'm saying. You called it a reading comprehension fail.

How is that again?

You can't post without lying!!

The lie in this post is your maintaining that "you don't understand" means "you're lying". And I really should stop here. I should force you to make one single post without a misrepresentation in it before discussing anything else. And according to your instructions, I should hit the yellow button right here.

If you can't stop lying, we can't have a discussion.

To be clear: You say "Readng comprehension fail" means "You're lying". No. You're lying. Because I don't think you misunderstood anything this time around.

Try again. Don't lie.

You said you didn't go with either ruling.
You also said you support 2d6 re-rolls.

Where did I fail with reading comprehension?

I haven't lied once.

rigeld2 wrote:You said you didn't go with either ruling.
You also said you support 2d6 re-rolls.

Where did I fail with reading comprehension?

I haven't lied once.

You haven't lied once - no, you've lied some half-dozen times, so though your statement's dishonest, it's not technically false.

Rigeld2, I'm seriously not going to explain your misunderstandings until you make an honest post.

Oh, f it -

RAW: My thesis is it's possible GW meant D6r rerolls.
RAI: It's impossible to divine intent.

RAW, I'm maintaining the wording is ambiguous, and could include the D6r interpretation. RAI, I'm maintaining it's impossible to divine intent and choose between the possible rulings.

This is YMDC. I support rerolling 2d6 as HWYPI. My own personal HWYPI isn't germane to a debate, and it's not part of my debate thesis. You mistakenly took my HWYPI statement on pp. 1 as part of my thesis. You cannot state that I am taking a position that I say I'm not - unlike the GW rule authors, I'm standing RIGHT HERE telling you that you're mistaken. Because I'm the sole arbiter of what my position in a debate is, the discussion's over.

Randall Turner wrote:
RAW: My thesis is it's possible GW meant D6r rerolls.

Your thesis isn't RAW. It's your interpretation of RAI.
By RAW, GW didn't mean D6r re-rolls, as by RAW they would have had to explicitly mention it in Chrono rules, and they didn't.
Let's compare the wording of partial re-roll and SA
"If you re-roll a 2D6 or 3D6 roll, you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly specifies otherwise." (Brb, pg 2, Re-rolls)
"Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over." (brb, pg 40, Sweeeping advance)
Like you can easily see, the wording very similar. Partial re-roll technically requires stricter permission, but the intent is obviously clear: When some special rules breaks either of these rules, that special rule MUST mention how it interracts with the original rule, or it doesn't work. ATSKNF is good example.

Randall Turner wrote:
RAI: It's impossible to divine intent.

It depends on case by case basis. In this case, I'd say intent can be deduced from the fact that they wrote "D6 roll" instead just "D6" and from the fact that they wouldn't

Randall Turner wrote:
RAW, I'm maintaining the wording is ambiguous, and could include the D6r interpretation. RAI, I'm maintaining it's impossible to divine intent and choose between the possible rulings.

Wording is partially ambigious, but considering that it becomes clear when you take the noun vs verb into account, I wouldn't say so it is impossible to divine the intent.
Reason why you ignore the noun vs verb seems to be that it goes undermine your position.

Randall Turner wrote:
This is YMDC. I support rerolling 2d6 as HWYPI.

I assume you play Necrons? Because you do seem to always support any interpretation that gives Necrons advantage.

Luide wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:RAW: My thesis is it's possible GW meant D6r rerolls.
RAW, I'm maintaining the wording is ambiguous, and could include the D6r interpretation.

Your thesis isn't RAW. It's your interpretation of RAI.

Well, maybe. The "D6r possible" is a corollary to the central "ambiguous" position, I suppose you could say I should break it out, that's fine. So my RAW thesis is that the RAW is ambiguous. And my RAI is that there are multiple possible interpretations, including the D6r one, but that we still don't have enough info to choose. Thank you. Edit: wait, that's wrong. An assertion that a certain intent is possible is an evaluation of the RAW. It's not an attempt to divine intent, so it's not RAI, it's part of the RAW thesis.

Luide wrote:Let's compare the wording of partial re-roll and SA

There are two problems with this reroll rule. The first is that it technically doesn't trigger - it's arguable that its enabling clause isn't met. The second, which you deal with, is a question of how specific you actually need to be. I'm not sure you should consider the second until the first is settled. (But if/when we do consider the second, Yakface's position I'll point out is "supportable" - and for my conservative positions, all I need is "possibility", not your "certainty".)

Luide wrote:[Wording is partially ambigious, but considering that it becomes clear when you take the noun vs verb into account, I wouldn't say so it is impossible to divine the intent. Reason why you ignore the noun vs verb seems to be that it goes undermine your position.

No, that's not true. I'm reluctant to because if I'm doing it with one of "those guys", it devolves into a semantic mud wrestling contest. I'm not sure you're one of "those guys". But just pick one of the above to kick around with me, there's too much noise in here.

Luide wrote:I assume you play Necrons? Because you do seem to always support any interpretation that gives Necrons advantage.

I can find instances where that wasn't the case, but there's another factor you're not aware of. I can contact GW and get information from the rule writers, because I work for a company with a business relationship with GW. (Sometimes, and sometimes they don't respond, and it isn't going to last much longer b/c my situation's changing.) I may be subconsciously Necron partisan, but...

1) Mostly I want to get the rule "right", and...
2) I've empirical evidence that this forum tends towards anti-Necron bias in their threads.
I also tend to start throwing out posters as "not credible" after a couple 10-pagers where I find they're wrong.

Randall Turner wrote:RAW: My thesis is it's possible GW meant D6r

You haven't shown a rules basis for that. You're inventing the D6r as a possibility as a reason for your view to be valid.

This is YMDC. I support rerolling 2d6 as HWYPI. My own personal HWYPI isn't germane to a debate, and it's not part of my debate thesis. You mistakenly took my HWYPI statement on pp. 1 as part of my thesis. You cannot state that I am taking a position that I say I'm not - unlike the GW rule authors, I'm standing RIGHT HERE telling you that you're mistaken. Because I'm the sole arbiter of what my position in a debate is, the discussion's over.

I did that mistakenly because you didn't say that was a HYWPI statement - as the tenets recommend to avoid exactly this misunderstanding.
And instead of correcting my misunderstanding, you called me a liar.
Note that I haven't stooped that low.

Now I'll go back to:

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.

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.

You're right - its impossible to divine intent. I assert that the context on page 2 is enough to show that a D6 when referenced in 40k rules cannot be considered individually when rolling a set.
Even if you disagree with that I see no reason to assume that the more powerful version should be considered possible.

rigeld2 wrote:I did that mistakenly because you didn't say that was a HYWPI statement - as the tenets recommend to avoid exactly this misunderstanding.
And instead of correcting my misunderstanding, you called me a liar.

Is that what happened? 'Cause I didn't call you a liar over that. I remember you misrepresenting the meaning of a line involving the RAW of a D6 - twice - before bringing up integrity. Let me double-check...

Yep. Two times. Final one, "You have said you support the reroll being RAW". Never said it, with a HYWPI qualifier on it or not.

Let's see, call this one, hmmm... "intense rationalization and fantasy/reality differentiation personality disorder", rather than a "lie".

Try. Again.

<General warning: if you can't post without calling each other names, you're going to quickly lose the option to post at all. And I'm not lying.>

rigeld2 wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:RAW: My thesis is it's possible GW meant D6r

You haven't shown a rules basis for that. You're inventing the D6r as a possibility as a reason for your view to be valid.

Now I'll go back to:

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.

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.

You're right - its impossible to divine intent. I assert that the context on page 2 is enough to show that a D6 when referenced in 40k rules cannot be considered individually when rolling a set.
Even if you disagree with that I see no reason to assume that the more powerful version should be considered possible.

We can't continue discussing game mechanics until we've *politely* resolved an integrity issue. We have another four or five to wade through, Rigeld2. I'm afraid you're either going to have to admit to "i made a mistake" on them, or explain to me what you did mean.

Next one up - Equating reading comprehension fail with accusation of dishonesty.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

This is the post where you start calling me a liar (not in those words yet...)

Explain to me how that yellowed line isnt a false statement? In other words, explain to me how "reading conprehension fail" can be interpreted as an accusation of dishonesty?

Randall Turner wrote:We can't continue discussing game mechanics until we've *politely* resolved an integrity issue.

NO, actually, you can. Final warning - stick to the topic. Any further posts directed at another poster's character rather than the topic at hand will earn a holidy from the forum.

There are practically no related or similar rules to make a decision on. It's like GW actually changed the wording of any rules that would make an issue of this. The evidence is far from decisive.

If you believe:

1. rolling 2D6 is a roll that cannot be considered to be two 1D6 rolls - then no you cannot do this.


2. rolling 2D6 is two D6 rolls and you may re-roll one of your two D6 rolls - then yes you can do this.



So basically, if you're playing Grey Knights do this, but against any other army don't do this.