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.

 Marmatag wrote:
Even if the roll & charge roll are separate distinct rolls, you would need to use it before the first charge roll. As a charge roll has already taken place, you cannot use the stratagem.

If you had a unit that was capable of making 500 separate charge rolls, you could not use this stratagem after making even one of them. Because it says before making a charge roll. You have already made one. Therefore the condition is invalidated.

The stratagem references a singular charge roll. Simply: Before the reroll, regardless of how you would classify the reroll, have you made a charge roll? The answer is yes, so you cannot use DoA.

And, let me add, DUH.

If we go with that definition, however, then it can ONLY be used on your first charge of each turn. If I have units A and B, A charges an enemy and then I try to use the stratagem on unit B, your reading would prevent me from doing so because it's not "before making a charge roll". I already made one, after all.

After speaking to my wife about this issue over lunch (who is also a gamer), I'm of the opinion that he actually CAN use it for the re-roll. This is specifically because the rule for re-rolls states that "you get to roll[i] some or all of the dice again".

So let's walk this through logically:

The stratagem requires 2 things, one temporal and one contextual.

Temporally, it must occur BEFORE a roll.

Contextually, it must be a CHARGE roll.

This thread has some back and forth on a re-roll not being a roll, but the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook overrides any other source and says it's a roll ("you get to roll"). Our contextual requirement is therefore met.

He is using this stratagem before he makes this roll, thus our temporal requirement is also met.

Ergo, he can use the stratagem to roll 3D6 on the re-try. I don't see any way to escape this answer, RAW.

EDIT: And no one should be surprised I arrived at this conclusion by this point

Audustum wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Even if the roll & charge roll are separate distinct rolls, you would need to use it before the first charge roll. As a charge roll has already taken place, you cannot use the stratagem.

If you had a unit that was capable of making 500 separate charge rolls, you could not use this stratagem after making even one of them. Because it says before making a charge roll. You have already made one. Therefore the condition is invalidated.

The stratagem references a singular charge roll. Simply: Before the reroll, regardless of how you would classify the reroll, have you made a charge roll? The answer is yes, so you cannot use DoA.

And, let me add, DUH.

If we go with that definition, however, then it can ONLY be used on your first charge of each turn. If I have units A and B, A charges an enemy and then I try to use the stratagem on unit B, your reading would prevent me from doing so because it's not "before making a charge roll". I already made one, after all.

After speaking to my wife about this issue over lunch (who is also a gamer), I'm of the opinion that he actually CAN use it for the re-roll. This is specifically because the rule for re-rolls states that "you get to roll[i] some or all of the dice again".

So let's walk this through logically:

The stratagem requires 2 things, one temporal and one contextual.

Temporally, it must occur BEFORE a roll.

Contextually, it must be a CHARGE roll.

This thread has some back and forth on a re-roll not being a roll, but the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook overrides any other source and says it's a roll ("you get to roll"). Our contextual requirement is therefore met.

He is using this stratagem before he makes this roll, thus our temporal requirement is also met.

Ergo, he can use the stratagem to roll 3D6 on the re-try. I don't see any way to escape this answer, RAW.

EDIT: And no one should be surprised I arrived at this conclusion by this point

A re-roll is the same roll, not a different one. You don;t make a new roll, you re-roll that which is already made made. You can't re-roll the dice you never roll'd to begin with.

The answer is no.

As per 99% of respondents in this thread, I agree the answer is no. You must play the Stratagem before a Charge, not try to save CP and only use it if you fail the 2D6 roll. Trying to use it as a super-reroll is a no-go.

Its only 75% in this thread who say no. I still disagree, so lets lay this one to rest. We are not going to convince each other.

 p5freak wrote:
Its only 75% in this thread who say no. I still disagree, so lets lay this one to rest. We are not going to convince each other.

If you had already made up your mind why ask the question to begin with?

p5freak wrote:Its only 75% in this thread who say no. I still disagree, so lets lay this one to rest. We are not going to convince each other.

Don’t split hairs. The consensus is you’re wrong.

SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Its only 75% in this thread who say no. I still disagree, so lets lay this one to rest. We are not going to convince each other.

If you had already made up your mind why ask the question to begin with?

Indeed.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Don’t split hairs. The consensus is you’re wrong.

Just because the majority in this thread says i'm wrong, doesnt mean i'm wrong. We dont make the rules.

No, you're just wrong.

You are trying to manipulate the sequencing of events to save yourself the CP if at all possible.

If I was in a store and I even heard you making this argument for more then the 3 sentences it takes to explain why you are wrong I would, then and there, decided to never play a game with you. Further I would recommend that everyone else avoid playing you as well.

The fact that this thread is STILL going is the very definition of you being TFG and it's all the information I or anyone else needs.

Even IF you COULD argue that the RAW supports you it would be like a tyranid player arguing that Pyrovores blew up the entire table in 6th and 7th. Except the tyranid player would ACTUALLY have RAW on their side and you don't. Either way, people would be in the right for hitting you with your own codex upside your head and leaving you to sit in the corner with your models alone.

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Don’t split hairs. The consensus is you’re wrong.

Just because the majority in this thread says i'm wrong, doesnt mean i'm wrong. We dont make the rules.

The majority are reading and applying it correctly; you're trying to wilfully misinterpret for advantage. "We disagree, it needs a FAQ" isn't a get-out for every thread, dude. If you asked a qeustion and there's clear consensus you should accept it else you just come off looking like you're butthurt your new uber-tactic isn't a tactic, rather than like you're asking a genuine question.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Even if the roll & charge roll are separate distinct rolls, you would need to use it before the first charge roll. As a charge roll has already taken place, you cannot use the stratagem.

If you had a unit that was capable of making 500 separate charge rolls, you could not use this stratagem after making even one of them. Because it says before making a charge roll. You have already made one. Therefore the condition is invalidated.

The stratagem references a singular charge roll. Simply: Before the reroll, regardless of how you would classify the reroll, have you made a charge roll? The answer is yes, so you cannot use DoA.

And, let me add, DUH.

If we go with that definition, however, then it can ONLY be used on your first charge of each turn. If I have units A and B, A charges an enemy and then I try to use the stratagem on unit B, your reading would prevent me from doing so because it's not "before making a charge roll". I already made one, after all.

After speaking to my wife about this issue over lunch (who is also a gamer), I'm of the opinion that he actually CAN use it for the re-roll. This is specifically because the rule for re-rolls states that "you get to roll[i] some or all of the dice again".

So let's walk this through logically:

The stratagem requires 2 things, one temporal and one contextual.

Temporally, it must occur BEFORE a roll.

Contextually, it must be a CHARGE roll.

This thread has some back and forth on a re-roll not being a roll, but the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook overrides any other source and says it's a roll ("you get to roll"). Our contextual requirement is therefore met.

He is using this stratagem before he makes this roll, thus our temporal requirement is also met.

Ergo, he can use the stratagem to roll 3D6 on the re-try. I don't see any way to escape this answer, RAW.

EDIT: And no one should be surprised I arrived at this conclusion by this point

A re-roll is the same roll, not a different one. You don;t make a new roll, you re-roll that which is already made made. You can't re-roll the dice you never roll'd to begin with.

The answer is no.

Which, if true, would totally make the answer no, you're right. Here's the problem: there's no RAW supporting that idea anywhere.

In fact, the only RAW we have says a re-roll is just a 'roll'. The Stratagem only requires a roll, RAW. This whole argument about sequencing or being part of the same roll has no RAW basis and that's why I can't get behind it.

Audustum wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Even if the roll & charge roll are separate distinct rolls, you would need to use it before the first charge roll. As a charge roll has already taken place, you cannot use the stratagem.

If you had a unit that was capable of making 500 separate charge rolls, you could not use this stratagem after making even one of them. Because it says before making a charge roll. You have already made one. Therefore the condition is invalidated.

The stratagem references a singular charge roll. Simply: Before the reroll, regardless of how you would classify the reroll, have you made a charge roll? The answer is yes, so you cannot use DoA.

And, let me add, DUH.

If we go with that definition, however, then it can ONLY be used on your first charge of each turn. If I have units A and B, A charges an enemy and then I try to use the stratagem on unit B, your reading would prevent me from doing so because it's not "before making a charge roll". I already made one, after all.

After speaking to my wife about this issue over lunch (who is also a gamer), I'm of the opinion that he actually CAN use it for the re-roll. This is specifically because the rule for re-rolls states that "you get to roll[i] some or all of the dice again".

So let's walk this through logically:

The stratagem requires 2 things, one temporal and one contextual.

Temporally, it must occur BEFORE a roll.

Contextually, it must be a CHARGE roll.

This thread has some back and forth on a re-roll not being a roll, but the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook overrides any other source and says it's a roll ("you get to roll"). Our contextual requirement is therefore met.

He is using this stratagem before he makes this roll, thus our temporal requirement is also met.

Ergo, he can use the stratagem to roll 3D6 on the re-try. I don't see any way to escape this answer, RAW.

EDIT: And no one should be surprised I arrived at this conclusion by this point

A re-roll is the same roll, not a different one. You don;t make a new roll, you re-roll that which is already made made. You can't re-roll the dice you never roll'd to begin with.

The answer is no.

Which, if true, would totally make the answer no, you're right. Here's the problem: there's no RAW supporting that idea anywhere.

In fact, the only RAW we have says a re-roll is just a 'roll'. The Stratagem only requires a roll, RAW. This whole argument about sequencing or being part of the same roll has no RAW basis and that's why I can't get behind it.

You Grey Knights are proper shady

Audustum wrote:
Which, if true, would totally make the answer no, you're right. Here's the problem: there's no RAW supporting that idea anywhere.

In fact, the only RAW we have says a re-roll is just a 'roll'. The Stratagem only requires a roll, RAW. This whole argument about sequencing or being part of the same roll has no RAW basis and that's why I can't get behind it.

It's not about sequencing. It's about interpretation of game terms by piecemealing words within them.

[Charge Roll] and [Re-rolled Charge Roll] are two distinct game terms.

Here's the rationale:

Can [Charge Roll] be re-rolled? Yes, [Charge Roll] can be re-rolled.
Can [Re-rolled Charge Roll] be re-rolled? No, [Re-rolled Charge Roll] cannot be re-rolled because re-rolls cannot be re-rolled.

The two are distinct in-game terms describing two different things.

When the stratagem is calling for "a charge roll', it distinctively refers to [Charge Roll], and not [Re-rolled Charge Roll].

It is a fallacious interpretation to say "well, a re-rolled charge roll is indeed a type of charge roll because it has the words 'charge roll' in it, therefore I must be allowed to declare DoA on a Lemartes-granted re-rolls!"

 skchsan wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Which, if true, would totally make the answer no, you're right. Here's the problem: there's no RAW supporting that idea anywhere.

In fact, the only RAW we have says a re-roll is just a 'roll'. The Stratagem only requires a roll, RAW. This whole argument about sequencing or being part of the same roll has no RAW basis and that's why I can't get behind it.

It's not about sequencing. It's about interpretation of game terms by piecemealing words within them.

[Charge Roll] and [Re-rolled Charge Roll] are two distinct game terms.

Here's the rationale:

I get the rationale, but THIS is where you have a problem. You say they're defined game terms, so prove it. Give me the RAW defining them and distinguishing them as separate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Even if the roll & charge roll are separate distinct rolls, you would need to use it before the first charge roll. As a charge roll has already taken place, you cannot use the stratagem.

If you had a unit that was capable of making 500 separate charge rolls, you could not use this stratagem after making even one of them. Because it says before making a charge roll. You have already made one. Therefore the condition is invalidated.

The stratagem references a singular charge roll. Simply: Before the reroll, regardless of how you would classify the reroll, have you made a charge roll? The answer is yes, so you cannot use DoA.

And, let me add, DUH.

If we go with that definition, however, then it can ONLY be used on your first charge of each turn. If I have units A and B, A charges an enemy and then I try to use the stratagem on unit B, your reading would prevent me from doing so because it's not "before making a charge roll". I already made one, after all.

After speaking to my wife about this issue over lunch (who is also a gamer), I'm of the opinion that he actually CAN use it for the re-roll. This is specifically because the rule for re-rolls states that "you get to roll[i] some or all of the dice again".

So let's walk this through logically:

The stratagem requires 2 things, one temporal and one contextual.

Temporally, it must occur BEFORE a roll.

Contextually, it must be a CHARGE roll.

This thread has some back and forth on a re-roll not being a roll, but the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook overrides any other source and says it's a roll ("you get to roll"). Our contextual requirement is therefore met.

He is using this stratagem before he makes this roll, thus our temporal requirement is also met.

Ergo, he can use the stratagem to roll 3D6 on the re-try. I don't see any way to escape this answer, RAW.

EDIT: And no one should be surprised I arrived at this conclusion by this point

A re-roll is the same roll, not a different one. You don;t make a new roll, you re-roll that which is already made made. You can't re-roll the dice you never roll'd to begin with.

The answer is no.

Which, if true, would totally make the answer no, you're right. Here's the problem: there's no RAW supporting that idea anywhere.

In fact, the only RAW we have says a re-roll is just a 'roll'. The Stratagem only requires a roll, RAW. This whole argument about sequencing or being part of the same roll has no RAW basis and that's why I can't get behind it.

You Grey Knights are proper shady

Darn straight!

Audustum wrote:
I get the rationale, but THIS is where you have a problem. You say they're defined game terms, so prove it. Give me the RAW defining them and distinguishing them as separate.

No, it's where YOU have a problem if you recognize that re-roll is different from a roll, and yet still claim it needs proof via RAW.

The word "re-roll" has the word "roll" in it. So why can't I re-roll a (re)roll? It's still nonetheless a roll, is it not?

 skchsan wrote:

Audustum wrote:
I get the rationale, but THIS is where you have a problem. You say they're defined game terms, so prove it. Give me the RAW defining them and distinguishing them as separate.

No, it's where YOU have a problem if you recognize that re-roll is different from a roll, and yet still claim it needs proof via RAW.

The word "re-roll" has the word "roll" in it. So why can't I re-roll a (re)roll? It's still nonetheless a roll, is it not?

Because there's specific RAW saying you can't re-roll something more than once. And I think most debaters would say you have a problem if you claim terms are defined as separate when, in fact, they are not.

So absent some specific RAW saying they are different, we are left with the RAW from the re-rolls entry, which makes no distinction other than to prevent multiple re-rolls.

Your distinction doesn't exist RAW. You want to argue RAI, fine, but let's acknowledge the elephant in the room.

You admit that there are different rules for rolls and re-rolls yet you continue to insist that they are the same thing. If 2 things have different rules then by definition they are different things.

Edited by Manchu

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You admit that there are different rules for rolls and re-rolls yet you continue to insist that they are the same thing. If 2 things have different rules then by definition they are different things.

Not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying that there IS a section on re-rolls, but as I quoted earlier, that section specifically says a re-roll is a roll. Thus, for interpretation purposes, it's like my vehicle section above. A re-roll is a roll unless specifically identified as something else in a different rule.

Here there is nothing saying we should deviate from that definition. Skschan said there was so I asked him to provide it. Absent that, it's a roll and the stratagem's requirement is met.

If you want to argue that the fact a re-roll section exists at all is proof enough then that's a RAI argument, which is fine too, but OP is asking about and I'm trying to identify RAW.

Edited by Manchu

As a Blood Angels player I am truly embarrassed about this thread, how is this even a thing?

The game also doesn't define if vehicles without bases need to be placed on their treads as well, nothing stopping you from deploying a Rhino on it's side. But, common sense allows us to infer that vehicles are generally placed on their treads and stay that way. This really isn't any different. Yes, a reroll is a roll, but rerolling a die that wasn't there is pretty ludicrous. That is something we also can infer from wording of the Strategem, and use our common sense that it has to be used before the unit declares their initial charge and roll their initial charge roll.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
As a Blood Angels player I am truly embarrassed about this thread, how is this even a thing?

The game also doesn't define if vehicles without bases need to be placed on their treads as well, nothing stopping you from deploying a Rhino on it's side. But, common sense allows us to infer that vehicles are generally placed on their treads and stay that way. This really isn't any different. Yes, a reroll is a roll, but rerolling a die that wasn't there is pretty ludicrous. That is something we also can infer from wording of the Strategem, and use our common sense that it has to be used before the unit declares their initial charge and roll their initial charge roll.

Common sense is not common. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein. You can't make rulings based on 'common sense' because it's not a universal ground we all share, but a subjective gut feeling that changes based on demographics, region and history.

Anyway, this might be a bad example because you CAN play with a Rhino on its side. I'm sure some people HAVE done that for 'the lols' if nothing else.

You're also making a RAI argument, which I've said is fine, but the RAW here is not the same as what people are asserting as RAI. We have to first agree on the RAW THEN we can figure out RAI.

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
As a Blood Angels player I am truly embarrassed about this thread, how is this even a thing?

The game also doesn't define if vehicles without bases need to be placed on their treads as well, nothing stopping you from deploying a Rhino on it's side. But, common sense allows us to infer that vehicles are generally placed on their treads and stay that way. This really isn't any different. Yes, a reroll is a roll, but rerolling a die that wasn't there is pretty ludicrous. That is something we also can infer from wording of the Strategem, and use our common sense that it has to be used before the unit declares their initial charge and roll their initial charge roll.

Common sense is not common. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein. You can't make rulings based on 'common sense' because it's not a universal ground we all share, but a subjective gut feeling that changes based on demographics, region and history.

Anyway, this might be a bad example because you CAN play with a Rhino on its side. I'm sure some people HAVE done that for 'the lols' if nothing else.

You're also making a RAI argument, which I've said is fine, but the RAW here is not the same as what people are asserting as RAI. We have to first agree on the RAW THEN we can figure out RAI.

No, common sense really is a thing, and those arguing it isn't make themselves look silly. The rules *absolutely* assume common sense and conventions all over the place.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Yes, a reroll is a roll, but rerolling a die that wasn't there is pretty ludicrous.

I am not rerolling a die which wasnt there. The stratagem adds a new dice. The other two are rerolls.

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
As a Blood Angels player I am truly embarrassed about this thread, how is this even a thing?

The game also doesn't define if vehicles without bases need to be placed on their treads as well, nothing stopping you from deploying a Rhino on it's side. But, common sense allows us to infer that vehicles are generally placed on their treads and stay that way. This really isn't any different. Yes, a reroll is a roll, but rerolling a die that wasn't there is pretty ludicrous. That is something we also can infer from wording of the Strategem, and use our common sense that it has to be used before the unit declares their initial charge and roll their initial charge roll.

Common sense is not common. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein. You can't make rulings based on 'common sense' because it's not a universal ground we all share, but a subjective gut feeling that changes based on demographics, region and history.

Anyway, this might be a bad example because you CAN play with a Rhino on its side. I'm sure some people HAVE done that for 'the lols' if nothing else.

You're also making a RAI argument, which I've said is fine, but the RAW here is not the same as what people are asserting as RAI. We have to first agree on the RAW THEN we can figure out RAI.

Oh no, I used that Rhino example BECAUSE peopld have done it. I wanted to illustrate how silly this argument is. The rules also don't stop your Basilisks from firing to other tables, even ones not in the room since they don't require line of sight, is that something you also find acceptable? There have been people who have done that too.

In the last 30 years of GW products, they have shown us that they are trash at writing rules, and show no improvement in writing them throughout that time. A good chunk of this game wouldn't work unless you played it as RAI.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
As a Blood Angels player I am truly embarrassed about this thread, how is this even a thing?

The game also doesn't define if vehicles without bases need to be placed on their treads as well, nothing stopping you from deploying a Rhino on it's side. But, common sense allows us to infer that vehicles are generally placed on their treads and stay that way. This really isn't any different. Yes, a reroll is a roll, but rerolling a die that wasn't there is pretty ludicrous. That is something we also can infer from wording of the Strategem, and use our common sense that it has to be used before the unit declares their initial charge and roll their initial charge roll.

Common sense is not common. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein. You can't make rulings based on 'common sense' because it's not a universal ground we all share, but a subjective gut feeling that changes based on demographics, region and history.

Anyway, this might be a bad example because you CAN play with a Rhino on its side. I'm sure some people HAVE done that for 'the lols' if nothing else.

You're also making a RAI argument, which I've said is fine, but the RAW here is not the same as what people are asserting as RAI. We have to first agree on the RAW THEN we can figure out RAI.

No, common sense really is a thing, and those arguing it isn't make themselves look silly. The rules *absolutely* assume common sense and conventions all over the place.

"[I]f … the plain meaning of a provision, not contradicted by any other provision in the same instrument, is to be disregarded, because we believe the framers of that instrument could not intend what they say, it must be one in which the absurdity and injustice of applying the provision to the case, would be so monstrous, that all mankind would, without hesitation, unite in rejecting the application."

This is as true for interpreting rules of a game as it was when Justice Marshall wrote it. We cannot just insert our own self-bias without regard into the text to reach results we prefer. The only word we have from GW, the drafter, is the actual text and any FAQ's/Erratas. That's where the inquiry begins and only progresses if you cannot reach a clear result based on that.

If the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, we may not look beyond the plain meaning of the statutory language “under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.

These rules were developed for interpreting laws for a reason: letting our own biases enter the discussion too much changes the result from what was meant by the draft to what WE want. That's fine for HYWPI, but in YMDC we're usually trying to determine what the drafters meant, that means we should adhere to these tools for the same reason.

Do you deny it is common sense that a tank drives on its tracks, and that this common sense model orientation everyone uses is not in the rules?

A reroll is done to change the result of an action. The action has already been committed. It's in the name. Reroll. It doesn't say "reattempt," it says "reroll."

good fething god

Your strategy doesn't say to add a die. It says to roll 3 dice before making a charge roll. Notice it doesn't say re-roll some and add others it says to roll all of them. Now if you want to argue that the stratagem requires that it be used for the first charge of a player's turn then you may have a point but after a charge roll is made the re-roll falls under other rules. You are not making a new charge roll because if you were then you could re-roll it. Therefore a re-rolled charge roll is not the same as a charge roll.
You are confusing nomenclature with mechanics. Yes, you roll (verb) a re-roll (noun) and you can re-roll (verb) a roll (noun) but that doesn't mean that either verb or noun is the same thing. Since you are saying they are the same thing you show me where RAW they are treated as the same thing. As it is now RAW a "re-roll" is treated differently than a "roll".

The sentence is

Use this stratagem before a charge roll with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit that was set up on the battlefield earlier that turn.

not

Use this stratagem before a charge rollcomma with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit that was set up on the battlefield earlier that turn.

It's not JUST before making a charge roll. It's before making a charge roll WITH a unit that was set up this turn. The moment you make a charge roll with that unit, that unit is no longer a valid target for the stratagem.

Audustum wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Even if the roll & charge roll are separate distinct rolls, you would need to use it before the first charge roll. As a charge roll has already taken place, you cannot use the stratagem.

If you had a unit that was capable of making 500 separate charge rolls, you could not use this stratagem after making even one of them. Because it says before making a charge roll. You have already made one. Therefore the condition is invalidated.

The stratagem references a singular charge roll. Simply: Before the reroll, regardless of how you would classify the reroll, have you made a charge roll? The answer is yes, so you cannot use DoA.

And, let me add, DUH.

If we go with that definition, however, then it can ONLY be used on your first charge of each turn. If I have units A and B, A charges an enemy and then I try to use the stratagem on unit B, your reading would prevent me from doing so because it's not "before making a charge roll". I already made one, after all.

After speaking to my wife about this issue over lunch (who is also a gamer), I'm of the opinion that he actually CAN use it for the re-roll. This is specifically because the rule for re-rolls states that "you get to roll[i] some or all of the dice again".

So let's walk this through logically:

The stratagem requires 2 things, one temporal and one contextual.

Temporally, it must occur BEFORE a roll.

Contextually, it must be a CHARGE roll.

This thread has some back and forth on a re-roll not being a roll, but the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook overrides any other source and says it's a roll ("you get to roll"). Our contextual requirement is therefore met.

He is using this stratagem before he makes this roll, thus our temporal requirement is also met.

Ergo, he can use the stratagem to roll 3D6 on the re-try. I don't see any way to escape this answer, RAW.

EDIT: And no one should be surprised I arrived at this conclusion by this point

It's more specific than being before a charge roll. It's before "making a charge roll with a BLOOD ANGELS JUMP PACK unit..." and the stratagem modifies "the unit's charge." So you can totally charge unit A, use the stratagem on unit B, reroll unit A's charge, and then have unit B charge 3d6. That's a dumb way to sequence things, but you can do it. You cannot use the stratagem on Unit A after making a charge roll because you've already "ma[de] a charge roll" for the unit. Whether your reroll is itself another charge roll is irrelevant, because the stratagem limits its use on its that have already made a charge roll, not units that can still make another charge roll.

Marmatag wrote:A reroll is done to change the result of an action. The action has already been committed. It's in the name. Reroll. It doesn't say "reattempt," it says "reroll."

good fething god

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Your strategy doesn't say to add a die. It says to roll 3 dice before making a charge roll. Notice it doesn't say re-roll some and add others it says to roll all of them. Now if you want to argue that the stratagem requires that it be used for the first charge of a player's turn then you may have a point but after a charge roll is made the re-roll falls under other rules. You are not making a new charge roll because if you were then you could re-roll it. Therefore a re-rolled charge roll is not the same as a charge roll.
You are confusing nomenclature with mechanics. Yes, you roll (verb) a re-roll (noun) and you can re-roll (verb) a roll (noun) but that doesn't mean that either verb or noun is the same thing. Since you are saying they are the same thing you show me where RAW they are treated as the same thing. As it is now RAW a "re-roll" is treated differently than a "roll".

Re-rolls

Some rules allow you to
re-roll a dice roll, which
means you get to roll
some or all of the dice
again.

A re-roll is just a dice roll done again. Its the same as a normal dice roll. A re-roll is not treated differently.

The stratagem says to roll 3D6 instead of 2D6. I am not making a new charge roll. Its a two dice re-roll with one new dice.

The Stratagem *SO* clearly has to be declared before making the charge at all, before rolling any dice. All this attempting to bend definitions to fit is silly.