Switch Theme:

Shadow in the Warp v.s. Runes of Witnessing  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Tunneling Trygon





Nottinghamshire- England

 DeathReaper wrote:
 warpspider89 wrote:
For the love of Khaine look this stuff up before posting. This is a necromantic thread.

Really?

It shows me the first post was on 2013/05/05 (May 5, 2013) which was a day ago as it is currently the 6th of may 2013...


Holy gak he's a time lord

Grimtuff wrote: GW want the full wrath of their Gestapo to come down on this new fangled Internet and it's free speech.


A Town Called Malus wrote: Draigo is a Mat Ward creation. They don't follow the same rules as everyone else.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






So I guess by DR's logic, a unit with 1 base attack that gets an extra attack from to close combat weapons and an extra attack from charging will still only get 2 attacks since he has already gotten his 'extra attack' once.

Fire claws innocents without number
As charred cinders replace green life
Death takes good and evil to their slumber
And guilt stabs into me with its knife 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Fedral wrote:
So I guess by DR's logic, a unit with 1 base attack that gets an extra attack from to close combat weapons and an extra attack from charging will still only get 2 attacks since he has already gotten his 'extra attack' once.

Why do people do this?

Have I ever said anything about attacks in Close combat in this thread?

Please stop misrepresenting me and retract that statement.

Thanks.

(P.S. two weapons and Charge bonus say +1 attack, not an extra attack, so your assessment is wildly inaccurate).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/07 01:25:49


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




Let's put it this way...
I need two apples for a pie, and you're going to the store. So I say, "Buy me two apples for a pie, okay?"
You say okay, so now you're going to buy two apples.
Then, I add, "And I really like to eat apples, so get an extra one, okay?"
You say okay. Now how many apples will you buy? Three.
Then I add, "And my girlfriend likes apples, so get an extra one, okay?"
I don't have a girlfriend, but if I did, how many apples would you buy? If you say anything except four, you're an idiot or else just being a smartass. The intent is clear.
   
Made in us
Lurking Gaunt





Waaaghpower wrote:
Let's put it this way...
I need two apples for a pie, and you're going to the store. So I say, "Buy me two apples for a pie, okay?"
You say okay, so now you're going to buy two apples.
Then, I add, "And I really like to eat apples, so get an extra one, okay?"
You say okay. Now how many apples will you buy? Three.
Then I add, "And my girlfriend likes apples, so get an extra one, okay?"
I don't have a girlfriend, but if I did, how many apples would you buy? If you say anything except four, you're an idiot or else just being a smartass. The intent is clear.


Ouch lmao


Hive Fleet Hydra 3500  
   
Made in ca
Dakka Veteran





Deathreaper

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/424272.page

You were saying?

"The objective of the game is to win. The purpose of the game is to have fun. The two should not be confused."



 ErikSetzer wrote:

Or you can just claim it's all bad luck and you're really the best player in the world if not for those dice and/or cards.
 
   
Made in us
Lurking Gaunt





Not everyone sits and looks up articles before they post one. Plus that article is from January, and the most newest Eldar FAQ just arrived in April.

Hive Fleet Hydra 3500  
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL



What about it?

Did you read my posts in this thread?

Specifically these:
 DeathReaper wrote:
A case could be made that, since both the rules say to "roll an extra dice" then one extra dice (For a total of 3d6) would fulfill both the rules, as you are rolling an an extra dice.

Rolling 4d6 is rolling two extra dice, and not simply "an extra dice"

Basically rolling "an extra dice" fulfills both rules.

I do not think you will find many that play this way though.


and this one
 DeathReaper wrote:
But like i said I do not think you will find many that play this way, even though a case to play it this way can be made.


and this one
 DeathReaper wrote:
This means not everyone could have the same interpretation. (I am playing devils advocate as I never encounter this combination and likely never will. If i did i would use the 4d6 method even if that is not what the rules say.4d6 seems like what the rules are intended to be and HIWPI).



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Waaaghpower wrote:
Let's put it this way...
I need two apples for a pie, and you're going to the store. So I say, "Buy me two apples for a pie, okay?"
You say okay, so now you're going to buy two apples.
Then, I add, "And I really like to eat apples, so get an extra one, okay?"
You say okay. Now how many apples will you buy? Three.
Then I add, "And my girlfriend likes apples, so get an extra one, okay?"
I don't have a girlfriend, but if I did, how many apples would you buy? If you say anything except four, you're an idiot or else just being a smartass. The intent is clear.


That is not at all applicable.

and there is this as well:
Tenets of You Make Da Call wrote: 3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/07 05:27:28


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




I wasn't using the metaphor to explain the rules. It wasn't meant to explain how the rule would work IRL.
Rather, it was a lesson in fairly simple grammar. I'm not saying that apples are dice, I'm simply pointing out how the word 'Extra' is used in the English language. I'm giving an English lesson, as it were.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






San Jose, CA

Enough.

Dakka has rules, folks, and calling anyone an idiot or a smartass, regardless of what qualifiers you hang in front of it, breaks them. Do it again, and someone is taking a vacation from posting.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? 
   
Made in gb
Morphing Obliterator






I don't think this article is ever going to be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides (it is relevant to me as I play eldar and I know tyranid players).

I would play it in one of two ways:

1. Neither ROW or SITW take effect (as per the FAQ)
2. Each piece of wargear takes priority in that players turn (i.e. use ROW in the Eldar turn and SITW in the Tyranid turn)

How are those for solutions?

Chaos Space Marines - Iron Warriors & Night Lords 7900pts

 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





rohansoldier wrote:
I don't think this article is ever going to be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides (it is relevant to me as I play eldar and I know tyranid players).

I would play it in one of two ways:

1. Neither ROW or SITW take effect (as per the FAQ)
2. Each piece of wargear takes priority in that players turn (i.e. use ROW in the Eldar turn and SITW in the Tyranid turn)

How are those for solutions?

#1 is incorrect as there's no FAQ saying that. You're trying to imply it from the RoW vs RoWi FAQ without understanding all the circumstances.
#2 SiTW isn't wargear and this solution basically says "Eldar can completely ignore SiTW" since most powers are cast during your turn.

They work together just fine. Roll 4d6 and drop the highest.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





It says roll a extra d6 for each rule so I agree 4d6 drop the highest.

40kGlobal AOA member, regular of Overlords podcast club and 4tk gaming store. Blogger @ http://sanguinesons.blogspot.co.uk/
06/2013: 1st at War of the Roses ETC warm up.
08/213: 3rd place double teams at 4tk
09/2013: 7th place, best daemon and non eldar/tau army at Northern Warlords GT
10/2013: 3rd/4th at Battlefield Birmingham
11/2013: 5th at GT heat 3
11/2013: 5th COG 2k at 4tk
01/2014: 34th at Caledonian
03/2014: 3rd GT Final 
   
Made in gb
Lurking Gaunt



Your childhood.

Yep, it's the most logical thing to do.


 
   
Made in mx
Morphing Obliterator





Mexico

 DeathReaper wrote:
A case could be made that, since both the rules say to "roll an extra dice" then one extra dice (For a total of 3d6) would fulfill both the rules, as you are rolling an an extra dice.

Rolling 4d6 is rolling two extra dice, and not simply "an extra dice"

Basically rolling "an extra dice" fulfills both rules.

I do not think you will find many that play this way though.


If you assumed that rolling 3D6 fulfills the extra dice for both rules wouldn't that apply to any extra dice in the game, like say, you get an extra attack when charging, you also get an extra attack by having an additional close combat weapon, so under your logic if you charge something and have an extra CCW you only get +1 attack to your profile since by adding 1 single die attack you are fulfilling both +extra attacks

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/07 16:39:41


CSM 10k points
IG 3k points
Orks 2k points
WoC 3.5k points
VC 2.5k points
 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






 Lord Yayula wrote:
If you assumed that rolling 3D6 fulfills the extra dice for both rules wouldn't that apply to any extra dice in the game, like say, you get an extra attack when charging, you also get an extra attack by having an additional close combat weapon, so under your logic if you charge something and have an extra CCW you only get +1 attack to your profile since by adding 1 single die attack you are fulfilling both +extra attacks
Scroll up, DR has already posted what he thinks about the difference between saying "+1 Attack" and "an additional Attack". Making him repeat himself will add little to this thread.
   
Made in us
Lurking Gaunt





This argument is pointless now. You have all answered my question already. Thank you very much, now move on with your lives.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/07 18:44:52


Hive Fleet Hydra 3500  
   
Made in mx
Morphing Obliterator





Mexico

Quanar wrote:
 Lord Yayula wrote:
If you assumed that rolling 3D6 fulfills the extra dice for both rules wouldn't that apply to any extra dice in the game, like say, you get an extra attack when charging, you also get an extra attack by having an additional close combat weapon, so under your logic if you charge something and have an extra CCW you only get +1 attack to your profile since by adding 1 single die attack you are fulfilling both +extra attacks
Scroll up, DR has already posted what he thinks about the difference between saying "+1 Attack" and "an additional Attack". Making him repeat himself will add little to this thread.


True, I miss it while I was posting.

DeathReaper wrote:
 Fedral wrote:
So I guess by DR's logic, a unit with 1 base attack that gets an extra attack from to close combat weapons and an extra attack from charging will still only get 2 attacks since he has already gotten his 'extra attack' once.

Why do people do this?

Have I ever said anything about attacks in Close combat in this thread?

Please stop misrepresenting me and retract that statement.

Thanks.

(P.S. two weapons and Charge bonus say +1 attack, not an extra attack, so your assessment is wildly inaccurate).


People use similar situations to apply a line of thought and put it in a context out of the base one in order to test that the line of thought is indeed right. If an action which occurs on the same fashion and is similarly written one would assume you apply the same line of thought to both situations instead of saying, well here it works this way because I want to, but in this other case it doesn't because I don't want it to work there.

(P.S."+1 Two weapons: ...... Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit; you only get one extra Attack, even if..." "Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra attacks")


   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Lord Yayula wrote:
People use similar situations to apply a line of thought and put it in a context out of the base one in order to test that the line of thought is indeed right.

But saying
 Fedral wrote:
So I guess by DR's logic.
Is a wild misrepresentation of what I was saying.

Putting words in others mouths is never a safe way to debate.
   
Made in ph
Brainy Zoanthrope





I can see how someone could argue for the Deathreapers interpretation, but I think the RAW is at most just a little ambiguous and I would never have thught of what DR said until he brought it up.

I agree with the 4d6, discard highest end result though.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: