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.

 Kriswall wrote:

DutchSage wrote:
However using your rebuilding a house argument as a rule:

"Rebuilding: Some rules allow YOU to rebuild a house, which means YOU get to build some or all of the house again. YOU can never rebuild a house more than once"

How can you claim that you can rebuild your opponents house with that rule? It's not about the RE-whatever, it's about the YOU.

So while it is possible to RE-whatever (English usage, common or not), the fact that it states YOU limits it to YOU doing it and not someone else. If for some reason common English usage allows someone else to do something YOU are allowed to do I reckon a lot of students would let someone else redo the exams they failed .

"Some rules allow you to rebuild A house, ..."

Why do you interpret "A house" as "YOUR house"? I'm not adding rules here. You are. I'm just saying that my opponent's house is "A house".

And also that your opponents house would fall under "Any one house".

mhalko1 wrote:

 axisofentropy wrote:
GW said on its twitch stream you cannot re-roll your opponent's dice, for what that's worth. yes that's not "official" but hopefully that will make it into an imminent FAQ.

Also, that's pretty official in my book


Automatically Appended Next Post:

davethepak wrote:
Really? Someone thinks they can make and opponent re-roll one of their dice?

I will smack them with a trout.

re-roll that.

You got my first exalt!

lol people will believe what they want. I've taken pictures of datasheets or rules and in some cases gotten direct contact with the rules team and shown the result and people literally say "the rules writers are wrong". Meaning you can prove someone wrong with no space for any ambiguity and they will refuse any or all evidence. If fething Duncan came out with a short video on the 40k website saying that "you cannot reroll others player dice with the command stratagem, as per the rules state in the core rules section, also the writing team has told me to tell all of you this just in case you misread, interpreted this wrong or perhaps the wording wasn't clear enough, just to make clear, you cannot do that." These jerks would say, "Well he is wrong! Because I like to intentional construe words and grammar out of its current acceptable meanings to gain a slight edge in a game about having fun with friends".

 Tsol wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:

 axisofentropy wrote:
GW said on its twitch stream you cannot re-roll your opponent's dice, for what that's worth. yes that's not "official" but hopefully that will make it into an imminent FAQ.

Also, that's pretty official in my book


Automatically Appended Next Post:

davethepak wrote:
Really? Someone thinks they can make and opponent re-roll one of their dice?

I will smack them with a trout.

re-roll that.

You got my first exalt!

lol people will believe what they want. I've taken pictures of datasheets or rules and in some cases gotten direct contact with the rules team and shown the result and people literally say "the rules writers are wrong". Meaning you can prove someone wrong with no space for any ambiguity and they will refuse any or all evidence. If fething Duncan came out with a short video on the 40k website saying that "you cannot reroll others player dice with the command stratagem, as per the rules state in the core rules section, also the writing team has told me to tell all of you this just in case you misread, interpreted this wrong or perhaps the wording wasn't clear enough, just to make clear, you cannot do that." These jerks would say, "Well he is wrong! Because I like to intentional construe words and grammar out of its current acceptable meanings to gain a slight edge in a game about having fun with friends".

Actually, I don't think most players argue once GW puts out areal clarification via Errata or FAQ. They said one die. If they come out and say "Oops. We meant "any one of your dice", I'd be happy. The issue is the ambiguity. If Duncan did put out a video, it wouldn't change the fact that the rules are ambiguous. We either need an Errata or FAQ to clarify the ambiguity. Interviews are all well and good, but you kind of need the answers to be in the Erratas/FAQs section of the website if you reasonably want people to be able to find them.

Just to shed some light on this question, as it has come up a lot both here and elsewhere on the internet, it was confirmed by Pete Foley (lead designer) that you cannot use the re-roll strategem to re-roll your opponent's dice rolls, as seen here:

It's still definitely one for the FAQ, though. I don't particularly want to have to carry a print-out of a tweet to prove it when this question inevitably comes up.

Grimdakka wrote:
Just to shed some light on this question, as it has come up a lot both here and elsewhere on the internet, it was confirmed by Pete Foley (lead designer) that you cannot use the re-roll strategem to re-roll your opponent's dice rolls, as seen here:

It's still definitely one for the FAQ, though. I don't particularly want to have to carry a print-out of a tweet to prove it when this question inevitably comes up.

Right. It's pretty clear that's the intent, but the rule itself is ambiguous and requires an FAQ. I don't have a Twitter account and am certainly not signing up for one just to chance upon GW rules clarifications.

Glad it's settled, but it does need to be FAQ'd

I'm very pleased it's been answered so quickly. Even without an FAQ, it's an easy ruling for any tournament judge to make so I don't foresee it causing any problems. That does make going first very important, as that player will now have a higher level of control over whether the game goes to a sixth turn depending on their own position.

I am confused by this whole thread
RAW
"You can reroll any single dice"
This is specific, there is no ambiguity in the RAW.

Given that there is no ambiguity in the RAW you can reroll "any" dice.

What you could do in previous editions is irrelevant to a ruling on 8th.

Now whether you role the same dice again, your opponent does or you pick up an unused dice all have the same effect (assuming dice arn't weighted) so it shouldn't matter or influence the outcome so if your opponent doesn't Want you touching his dice just use one of yours.

As to RAI that is entirely subjective but also entirely irelevant. When the RAW is crystal clear you follow RAW.

While I am the first to criticise GW for bad rules writing in this instance its clear. Of course GW may later change this if they wish through FAQ or Errata, but until they do the RAW is clear

As to the lead designers comment that is not RAW in the publication. it certainly implies RAI and bad rules writing and may indicate that they will FAQ it but untill they do or ITC/ETC adopt it I won't be following it as I don't need to as the RAW is clear so you can.

U02dah4 wrote:
I am confused by this whole thread
RAW
"You can reroll any single dice"
This is specific, there is no ambiguity in the RAW.

Given that there is no ambiguity in the RAW you can reroll "any" dice.

What you could do in previous editions is irrelevant to a ruling on 8th.

Now whether you role the same dice again, your opponent does or you pick up an unused dice all have the same effect (assuming dice arn't weighted) so it shouldn't matter or influence the outcome so if your opponent doesn't Want you touching his dice just use one of yours.

As to RAI that is entirely subjective but also entirely irelevant. When the RAW is crystal clear you follow RAW.

While I am the first to criticise GW for bad rules writing in this instance its clear. Of course GW may later change this if they wish through FAQ or Errata, but until they do the RAW is clear

As to the lead designers comment that is not RAW in the publication. it certainly implies RAI and bad rules writing and may indicate that they will FAQ it but untill they do or ITC/ETC adopt it I won't be following it as I don't need to as the RAW is clear so you can.

@krisswall, and there you have it. A literal example of what I just said.

Would this allow you to re-roll one dice from a 2 dice roll like charge distance. I don't remember the exact wording, but that would be a single dice, no? Or are we to interpret that as single dice rolls like running or damage rolls and what have you.

 Tsol wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
I am confused by this whole thread
RAW
"You can reroll any single dice"
This is specific, there is no ambiguity in the RAW.

Given that there is no ambiguity in the RAW you can reroll "any" dice.

What you could do in previous editions is irrelevant to a ruling on 8th.

Now whether you role the same dice again, your opponent does or you pick up an unused dice all have the same effect (assuming dice arn't weighted) so it shouldn't matter or influence the outcome so if your opponent doesn't Want you touching his dice just use one of yours.

As to RAI that is entirely subjective but also entirely irelevant. When the RAW is crystal clear you follow RAW.

While I am the first to criticise GW for bad rules writing in this instance its clear. Of course GW may later change this if they wish through FAQ or Errata, but until they do the RAW is clear

As to the lead designers comment that is not RAW in the publication. it certainly implies RAI and bad rules writing and may indicate that they will FAQ it but untill they do or ITC/ETC adopt it I won't be following it as I don't need to as the RAW is clear so you can.

@krisswall, and there you have it. A literal example of what I just said.

Not really. Your original story was about someone who looked at murky RAW and refused to say it was Y even when the developer did.

This isn't murky RAW. This is clear. Like crystal clear. Yeah, you can roll someone else's die using that.

Now the twitter shows that while it is RAW for you to do that, it's not RAI. So GW made a boo-boo and I'm sure they'll fix it at the next opportunity. Happens. I've met judges who make bigger ones and then have to explain their orders so it's not exactly uncommon.

I must disagree if you reread my over the top and very exaggerated example, which was if the literal writing team released a video telling you, that this is how it is to be played, be it for whatever reason, people would still contest it and say they will play it their own way. And.... Ta daaaah. Jazz hands*


*See quoted the prior post of man saying, he doesn't care that the lead writer has clarified this rule, he doesn't intend to play it that way.

 Tsol wrote:
I must disagree if you reread my over the top and very exaggerated example, which was if the literal writing team released a video telling you, that this is how it is to be played, be it for whatever reason, people would still contest it and say they will play it their own way. And.... Ta daaaah. Jazz hands*


*See quoted the prior post of man saying, he doesn't care that the lead writer has clarified this rule, he doesn't intend to play it that way.

I think the point people are making is that no amount of video commentary changes the actual rules as written. If the authors wrote "The sky is green" and then in an interview said "The sky is blue", what they wrote didn't change. If they want to change what they wrote, they can via an errata or they can clarify what they wrote using an FAQ. In this case, it would be appropriate to use an errata since they seem to have wrote something counter to what they intended.

What they actually wrote, i.e. Rules as Written, states that you can re-roll any one die. Without a qualification or restriction, this should include an opponent's die. If the author's intent was to not allow this, they need to correct their rules. The lead writer effectively hasn't clarified the rule. The writers have exactly two official ways to clarify rules... errata or FAQ. Commentary on a video that the majority of the player base will very possibly never see is not on that short list. It's interesting for those who see it, but doesn't count as an official rules change or clarification.

TL DR - Until they issue an errata or FAQ, RAW will continue to allow you to roll an opponent's die. If you and an opponent want to house rule to prevent re-rolling an opponent's die based on commentary from one of the authors until an official errata or FAQ comes out, go for it. If you and an opponent want to play using the rules as written, re-rolling an opponent's die is acceptable.

I'd like to point out that the quote seems to come from a personal twitter account and not a GW account. While the gentleman may be the lead designer he is not the only designer and may or may not even still be employed by GW. Since this is his account then his statements are only his opinion.
Also, like Kriswall I don't have a twitter account and have no way to check the veracity of the tweet. Just because someone else posts a quote (or even a screenshot) doesn't mean it can't have been altered beforehand.
There are instances of other company's designers/writers/employees giving "rulings" on aspects of their games that were shown to be in error/ruled otherwise on official fora. So, until there is an official ruling the issue isn't settled in my mind.

U02dah4 wrote:
I am confused by this whole thread
RAW
"You can reroll any single dice"
This is specific, there is no ambiguity in the RAW.

Given that there is no ambiguity in the RAW you can reroll "any" dice.

So by RAW you can go over to the Monopoly game the next table over and reroll someone's dice there. Or reroll the dice for a craps game as long as you make the reroll while you're playing a 40k game also.

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
I am confused by this whole thread
RAW
"You can reroll any single dice"
This is specific, there is no ambiguity in the RAW.

Given that there is no ambiguity in the RAW you can reroll "any" dice.

So by RAW you can go over to the Monopoly game the next table over and reroll someone's dice there. Or reroll the dice for a craps game as long as you make the reroll while you're playing a 40k game also.

I'm pretty sure the rules for all 3 games begin with some kind of statement that "these are the rules for playing X game" so no, you'd be prohibited from doing that by the rules since 40k's rules are, by its own definition, only for 40k. Even if 40k didn't have that disclaimer, I am fairly confident Monopoly and Craps do, so they would prevent you from interfering with their dice even if 40k explicitly allowed you to. Since you're crossing game boundaries you need permission from both sets of rules to act.

'You'

since you didn't make the original roll... you can't re-roll it.

Templated wording would be 'You can force your opponent to re-roll any single dice roll'.

This one's done and dusted, IMHO.

zerosignal wrote:
'You'

since you didn't make the original roll... you can't re-roll it.

Templated wording would be 'You can force your opponent to re-roll any single dice roll'.

This one's done and dusted, IMHO.

Sadly, the English language isn't so precise. Clear arguments have been made in this thread for either case.

RAI has now been clarified by the GW team, but this same ambiguity seems to crop up every edition. GW would benefit from a technical writer, I think.

 Shandara wrote:

zerosignal wrote:
'You'

since you didn't make the original roll... you can't re-roll it.

Templated wording would be 'You can force your opponent to re-roll any single dice roll'.

This one's done and dusted, IMHO.

Sadly, the English language isn't so precise. Clear arguments have been made in this thread for either case.

RAI has now been clarified by the GW team, but this same ambiguity seems to crop up every edition. GW would benefit from a technical writer, I think.

GW would REALLY benefit from a technical writer.

And yes, the 'You' in question doesn't mean much as the English language readily allows you to re<something> you didn't <something> in the first place.

"I subscribed to White Dwarf last year, but let the subscription lapse. My mom renewed it for me."
"My uncle was devastated when a tornado damaged the house he built by hand. Thankfully, my cousins banded together and rebuilt it."
"Knowing that I wasn't going to drink all the wine tonight, I recorked the bottle."
"My opponent rolled his armor save die and got a 6. I used a command point to re-roll the die and got a 2."

Read those sentences to 1,000 native English speakers. I doubt any of them would say "woah... you can't rebuild a house if you weren't the one to build it in the first place", etc.

TLDR - The semantic argument that you can't re-roll a die you didn't initially roll doesn't hold up.

Q. Can I use the Command Re-roll Stratagem to re-roll
a dice roll made by my opponent?
A. No.
Note that the rules assume that a player always rolls their own
dice (instead of asking their opponent, for example, to roll hit
rolls, saving throws, etc. on their behalf). That being the case,
you can only use the above-mentioned Stratagem to affect dice
rolls you make, and not those made by your opponent

DCannon4Life wrote:
Just because someone, somewhere, decides that something is unclear, doesn't mean it's unclear. Nor does it mean that the "question" is being asked "frequently". You may get an FaQ for it (recommend holding your breath) but that hardly means one was necessary.

EDIT: And if you DO get an FaQ, remember that I was right, because I bet a dollar I will be.

@Kriswall: I want my dollar.

DCannon4Life wrote:

DCannon4Life wrote:
Just because someone, somewhere, decides that something is unclear, doesn't mean it's unclear. Nor does it mean that the "question" is being asked "frequently". You may get an FaQ for it (recommend holding your breath) but that hardly means one was necessary.

EDIT: And if you DO get an FaQ, remember that I was right, because I bet a dollar I will be.

@Kriswall: I want my dollar.

The only ones that disagreed with you were the neckbeards. And you don't want their dollars with Cheeto crumbs all over it.