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.

As nos said:

Elric - again, stop ignoring context. It is important when parsing rules

Edit: text unimportant to the debate at hand. Retracted.

I'm surprised this is till being discussed.

You can never re roll anything more than once and it clearly states within the book that the reroll must be chosen to be used BEFORE the roll.

Example:

I roll on the warpstorm table, I decide not to re-roll. My opponet has fateweaver, he has to decide before I roll whether or not he wants me to reroll the result.
I roll on the warpstorm table, I decide to re-roll. My opponet cannot use fateweaver for this roll since I have already decided to reroll.

Done.

@Generalian: we're not talking about re-rolling re-rolls anymore. We're onto the meaning of words in the English language.


The word in question is "re-roll" not "re-marry." Two different words, with two different sets of implications. Watch this:

"When John died, all his investments were converted into cash. Frank, his son, can re-invest the money if he wishes."

John invested the money originally, and yet Frank can re-invest.

So, since "re-[something]" can swing either way, we should stick to the actual word, "re-roll."

The word "re-roll" has no innate context or implication indicating that the first roll has to be done by the same person who does the second roll.

That's what the English language tells us.

Now, as to the BRB sentence in question:
"The rules allow you to pick up and re-roll a dice."
"Rules" is the subject of the sentence. "You" is the direct object. The "rules" are affecting "you." The way "rules" affect "you" is by giving permission ("allow"). None of this has any context of ownership or possession. In the same way that bocce balls can be rolled or re-rolled by anyone, so dice can be rolled or re-rolled by anyone.

 Generalian wrote:
I'm surprised this is till being discussed.

You can never re roll anything more than once and it clearly states within the book that the reroll must be chosen to be used BEFORE the roll.

Done.

No, it says, "declare before you make the re-roll."

 Generalian wrote:
I'm surprised this is till being discussed.

You can never re roll anything more than once and it clearly states within the book that the reroll must be chosen to be used BEFORE the roll.

Example:

I roll on the warpstorm table, I decide not to re-roll. My opponet has fateweaver, he has to decide before I roll whether or not he wants me to reroll the result.
I roll on the warpstorm table, I decide to re-roll. My opponet cannot use fateweaver for this roll since I have already decided to reroll.

Done.

This is actually wrong. The wording on Staff of tomorrows doesn't support this interpretation at all, it merely states you must declare that you are re-rolling before you re-roll, not that you must declare that you are re-rolling before the original roll.

Even so, I still would agree that while it is possible Fateweaver was intended to allow manipulation of an opponent's dice (it would be fluffy), we should play it as though you cannot until a FAQ resolves this. The warp table roll is even clearer in my opinion, I don't think it is intended that you can reroll the opponent's dice in this case.

Elric Greywolf wrote:

"When John died, all his investments were converted into cash. Frank, his son, can re-invest the money if he wishes."

That statement is grammatically incorrect, as frank has never invested the money so he can not re-invest it.

The money can be re-invested, but frank can not re-invest something he never invested in the first place.

Not that any of that matters we are talking about re-rolls, not re-investing.

For you to be able to re-roll something, you must have rolled it in the first place.

Plus, it says you can re-roll, not force your opponent to re-roll they are two separate things as far as the 40K rules are concerned.

As above. The subjct there is the money, which can be reinvested. Frank can Invest money that was Invested by someone else, but can only reinvest it if he invested it in the first place.

Basic parsing of English means one is correct, one isnt.

No, that sentence is just fine.
The money was invested once, and Frank caused it to be invested again, thus he re-invested it.

 Crackgnome wrote:
No, that sentence is just fine.
The money was invested once, and Frank caused it to be invested again, thus he re-invested it.

The subject being the money, and not frank.

However, as Nos said:

Frank can Invest money that was Invested by someone else, but can only reinvest it if he invested it in the first place.


Plus, it says you can re-roll, not force your opponent to re-roll they are two separate things as far as the 40K rules are concerned.

 Crackgnome wrote:
No, that sentence is just fine.
The money was invested once, and Frank caused it to be invested again, thus he re-invested it.

No, the MONEY was reinvested, FRANK invested it.

Subject : Object seems to be causing people issues

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crackgnome wrote:
No, that sentence is just fine.
The money was invested once, and Frank caused it to be invested again, thus he re-invested it.

No, the MONEY was reinvested, FRANK reinvested it.

Subject : Object seems to be causing people issues

And you are one of those people. Also, I fixed the missing part of your sentence. But since we aren't dealing with investments, but rather rolls, we should stick to rolling and re-rolling. I like my example from earlier about bocce ball (lawn bowling):
"I rolled the ball too far away to reach. You get to re-roll the ball."
This sentence proves that you're wrong about the word "re-roll," or at least only partially correct; the original roller or a new party can re-roll the object which was rolled. It doesn't matter who does the first roll--things can be re-rolled. The only prerequisite for a re-roll is that something was rolled first. There is no assumption about who did the rolling. To quote DeathReaper, "The English language tells us this is true."

Before bringing up any other words or examples, deal with the bocce ball. Explain why it doesn't work. (It does work.)


"The rules allow you to pick up and re-roll a dice."

"A dice" is actually incorrect, since the word "dice" is plural for the word "die." Hence, either the singular article "a" is wrong, or the plural word "dice" is wrong. It should be "some/the dice" or "a die." So to try and parse this sentence at all is starting with flawed material. But we work with what we're given.

"Rules" is the subject of the sentence. "You" is the direct object. The "rules" verb "you." The verb here is "allow," or give permission. None of this has any context of ownership or possession. In the same way that bocce balls can be rolled or re-rolled by anyone, so dice can be rolled or re-rolled by anyone. "To pick up and re-roll a dice [sic.]" is a prepositional phrase modifying the object "you." We have to look at the definition of the word "re-roll," which Punchdub gave us earlier. Again, there are no senses of ownership

As I mentioned in another thread, this may be a very strange situation in WH40k. But there are precedents for the opponent's dice results being re-rolled (Ven Dread). The Ven Dread rule has a different phrasing; but then again, the Ven Dread only applies to one specific die in one specific instance. Fateweaver (his staff or his Warlord trait) has a very broad rule which applies to "a single D6 of your choice" or "results on the Warp Storm table." There are no other prescriptions.

Elric Greywolf wrote:
"A dice" is actually incorrect, since the word "dice" is plural for the word "die." Hence, either the singular article "a" is wrong, or the plural word "dice" is wrong. It should be "some/the dice" or "a die." So to try and parse this sentence at all is starting with flawed material. But we work with what we're given.

Using British English this isn't true - dice and die are synonymous. Since the rules are written in England it's better to use their version of the language.

rigeld2 wrote:

Elric Greywolf wrote:
"A dice" is actually incorrect, since the word "dice" is plural for the word "die." Hence, either the singular article "a" is wrong, or the plural word "dice" is wrong. It should be "some/the dice" or "a die." So to try and parse this sentence at all is starting with flawed material. But we work with what we're given.

Using British English this isn't true - dice and die are synonymous. Since the rules are written in England it's better to use their version of the language.

The OED (http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/52390#eid6735635) seems to say that while "dice" is used as singular, it is informal (read "unapproved"), and should correctly be "die."
Regardless of whether or not dice is singular, the pertinent example of bocce balls being re-rolled remains unaddressed.

"Frank rolled the bocce ball down the field. Neither of us liked the end position, so I re-rolled the ball."

The bocce ball was rolled by frank.

The bocce ball was re-rolled, but you were the one that rolled it. You could not have re-rolled it as you never rolled it.

Stop ignoring context. It is important when parsing rules.

Nobody is ignoring context.

You contradict yourself in your second sentence:

The bocce ball was re-rolled, but you were the one that rolled it. You could not have re-rolled it as you never rolled it.

The ball was rerolled, and you were the agent responsible for the action, QED you rerolled the ball.

GW has special rules that allow YOU to re roll

IE twin linked

GW has rules that allow you to make your opponent reroll

IE misfortune


a rule that allows you to reroll something,

does not allow you to force one of your opponents to reroll HIS dice

easysauce wrote:
GW has special rules that allow YOU to re roll

IE twin linked

GW has rules that allow you to make your opponent reroll

IE misfortune


a rule that allows you to reroll something,

does not allow you to force one of your opponents to reroll HIS dice

This.

A dice can be re-rolled but for you to re-roll you must have first rolled it.
I shot a scene for a film, my co-director wasn't happy and he shot it again.
I shot a scene for a film, my co-director wasn't happy and it was re-shot.

It says you can re-roll, not force your opponent to re-roll they are two separate things as far as the 40K rules are concerned.

Crack - the ball was rolled again, re=rolled, but you rolled it for the first time.