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.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics and design as spelled out by the manufacturer. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

The stratagem says before a charge roll, not before any or all charge rolls. You're reading in terminology that isn't there. A second charge roll is still 'a' charge roll. Just like the 2nd egg in a cart is still 'a[n] egg'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 meleti 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

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.

See the response to JohnnyHell. You're reading in terminology that isn't there. 'A' charge roll can be the first, second, third, fourth, even the hundredth charge roll for that unit. It's still 'a' roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
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.

See above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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

Go to the definition of re-rolls in the Rulebook. It says it's just a 'roll'.

 Lance845 wrote:
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.

Even with the re-rolled charge roll the unit was still set up earlier that turn, its still a valid target. The stratagem doesnt say before any charge rolls are made, in that case it wouldnt be possible.

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.

A real tank drives on it's tracks because they make it move. What about a toy tank? We aren't driving real ones around.

The rules leave it to common sense that we'll orient our toy tanks the same way as real ones. They don't mandate which way up you put them, nor do they for any model, save for "base" implying that bit goes downward. Common sense and wargaming convention mean we put tanks tracks-down.

 NH Gunsmith 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.

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.

We've had this debate in another thread quite thoroughly. Two of them, I think, actually. The Rulebook does provide for a 'battlefield'. Go to those threads if you want a thorough analysis of the Basilisk/indirect fire example. We'd add 10 pages to this thread rehashing stuff that was already said to do it here.

The Rhino issue is settled then. People do it, you can do it RAW.

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.

No, it's largely playable, one or two issues outstanding. The problem is it wouldn't be played the way you want it to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.

A real tank drives on it's tracks because they make it move. What about a toy tank? We aren't driving real ones around.

The rules leave it to common sense that we'll orient our toy tanks the same way as real ones. They don't mandate which way up you put them, nor do they for any model, save for "base" implying that bit goes downward. Common sense and wargaming convention mean we put tanks tracks-down.

I already covered this in the post you quoted. They didn't leave it to common sense, they stayed silent on it. People put the toy tanks on tracks because that's what they see in the real world, but that doesn't mean it's required by RAW or that GW even cares. You can't just read your biases in.

That literally is common sense, though. That you don't recognise the term as existing is irrelevant. It's not about 'biases', it's literally just common sense that tanks go on their tracks. Sheesh. You keep picking weird hills to die on, dude...

So rolling 1 die is also making a charge roll, right?

Which means you can pay 1 CP after a failed charge, to reroll one die, and then use the descent of angels to reroll the full charge with 3d6.

I mean, by your logic.

This whole thread is ridiculous. The concept of a reroll and a roll are two different things.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
That literally is common sense, though. That you don't recognise the term as existing is irrelevant. It's not about 'biases', it's literally just common sense that tanks go on their tracks. Sheesh. You keep picking weird hills to die on, dude...

That's...not actually the definition. It may be YOUR definition, but what have I been saying all along? What you describe with the Rhinos is only imitation with or without understanding.

All I'll say regarding the peanut gallery grade comment is that you always seem to have the opinion that the whole of Earth and mankind move in unison with your subjective beliefs. That's unfortunate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
So rolling 1 die is also making a charge roll, right?

Which means you can pay 1 CP after a failed charge, to reroll one die, and then use the descent of angels to reroll the full charge with 3d6.

I mean, by your logic.

This whole thread is ridiculous. The concept of a reroll and a roll are two different things.

The concept may be different but the Rulebook itself says re-rolls are rolls. The problem is GW gave them a definition that conflicts with what your gut is telling you.

I have no idea what you're going on with for that example though. It doesn't match anything I've seen anyone say.

 Marmatag wrote:
So rolling 1 die is also making a charge roll, right?

Which means you can pay 1 CP after a failed charge, to reroll one die, and then use the descent of angels to reroll the full charge with 3d6.

No, a charge roll is always 2D6. You cant re-roll a re-roll. With DoA on the second charge roll i am not re-rolling a re-roll. Its a re-roll with one new dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:


This whole thread is ridiculous. The concept of a reroll and a roll are two different things.

No, its not. A re-roll is a roll.

 p5freak wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
So rolling 1 die is also making a charge roll, right?

Which means you can pay 1 CP after a failed charge, to reroll one die, and then use the descent of angels to reroll the full charge with 3d6.

No, a charge roll is always 2D6. You cant re-roll a re-roll. With DoA on the second charge roll i am not re-rolling a re-roll. Its a re-roll with one new dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:


This whole thread is ridiculous. The concept of a reroll and a roll are two different things.

No, its not. A re-roll is a roll.

A fun question would be:

Can you Command Re-Roll the 3rd die added by the stratagem since it hasn't been re-rolled before?

Audustum wrote:

Can you Command Re-Roll the 3rd die added by the stratagem since it hasn't been re-rolled before?

Yes. Its a new dice, which hasnt been re-rolled yet.

 p5freak wrote:
Re-rolls

Some rules allow you to re-roll(verb) a dice roll(noun), which means you get to roll (verb) 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.

(added by me)

I think you need to go back to basic English lessons. A noun is not the same as a verb. You even say that the roll is done again. I don't know what to say that you can't see your own hypocracy.

You are not looking for a discussion you are looking for vindication of an incorrect application of the rules. I don't know what stake you have in this but your interpretation is wrong. Get over it and move on.

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics and design as spelled out by the manufacturer. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

The stratagem says before a charge roll, not before any or all charge rolls. You're reading in terminology that isn't there. A second charge roll is still 'a' charge roll. Just like the 2nd egg in a cart is still 'a[n] egg'

The stratagem also does not say before charge re-rolls, so trying to use it after a normal roll doesn't have permission. Also, rerolls have you rolling some or all of the dice, there's no permission to add dice so that it's rerolling some dice and adding new dice.

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics and design as spelled out by the manufacturer. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

The stratagem says before a charge roll, not before any or all charge rolls. You're reading in terminology that isn't there. A second charge roll is still 'a' charge roll. Just like the 2nd egg in a cart is still 'a[n] egg'

The stratagem also does not say before charge re-rolls, so trying to use it after a normal roll doesn't have permission. Also, rerolls have you rolling some or all of the dice, there's no permission to add dice so that it's rerolling some dice and adding new dice.

But re-rolls are rolls. The section on re-rolls says they are rolls. This is an unsupported distinction per RAW.

The stratagem gives you permission to roll 3 dice on the roll. That's where permission flows from for the third die.

Audustum wrote:
But re-rolls are rolls. The section on re-rolls says they are rolls. This is an unsupported distinction per RAW.

The stratagem gives you permission to roll 3 dice on the roll. That's where permission flows from for the third die.

So I guess I can re-roll a re-rolled dice since re-rolls are just rolls.

 skchsan wrote:

Audustum wrote:
But re-rolls are rolls. The section on re-rolls says they are rolls. This is an unsupported distinction per RAW.

The stratagem gives you permission to roll 3 dice on the roll. That's where permission flows from for the third die.

So I guess I can re-roll a re-rolled dice since re-rolls are just rolls.

This was already addressed. There is a specific line of RAW regarding this issue that creates an override. No such RAW exists for the scenario this thread is predicated on.

Audustum wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics and design as spelled out by the manufacturer. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

The stratagem says before a charge roll, not before any or all charge rolls. You're reading in terminology that isn't there. A second charge roll is still 'a' charge roll. Just like the 2nd egg in a cart is still 'a[n] egg'

The stratagem also does not say before charge re-rolls, so trying to use it after a normal roll doesn't have permission. Also, rerolls have you rolling some or all of the dice, there's no permission to add dice so that it's rerolling some dice and adding new dice.

But re-rolls are rolls. The section on re-rolls says they are rolls. This is an unsupported distinction per RAW.

The stratagem gives you permission to roll 3 dice on the roll. That's where permission flows from for the third die.

Rerolls don't give you permission to roll new dice, only to roll some or all of the dice again. There's no permission to combine rolling a new die for the first time with rerolling. The stratagem does not specify that you can do that either, so you still don't have permission for the third die in a reroll situation. If you used the stratagem at the start, all 3 dice would be part of what you get to partially or completely roll again, but as it is the stratagem isn't permission to combine a reroll with rolling a new die for the first time.

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

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.

No, it's largely playable, one or two issues outstanding. The problem is it wouldn't be played the way you want it to.

What are you even talking about, at this point it just seems like your trolling or being obtuse just because you can, and thinly disguising your rude comments. What makes you think you know how I play 40k?

If anything, you are the one getting all poopy-butt because people don't agree with how YOU would want to play 40k, and the Blood Angels Strategems.

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics and design as spelled out by the manufacturer. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

The stratagem says before a charge roll, not before any or all charge rolls. You're reading in terminology that isn't there. A second charge roll is still 'a' charge roll. Just like the 2nd egg in a cart is still 'a[n] egg'

The stratagem also does not say before charge re-rolls, so trying to use it after a normal roll doesn't have permission. Also, rerolls have you rolling some or all of the dice, there's no permission to add dice so that it's rerolling some dice and adding new dice.

But re-rolls are rolls. The section on re-rolls says they are rolls. This is an unsupported distinction per RAW.

The stratagem gives you permission to roll 3 dice on the roll. That's where permission flows from for the third die.

Rerolls don't give you permission to roll new dice, only to roll some or all of the dice again.

Right, but the stratagem says to roll 3 dice. So you must roll 3 dice after using it.

There's no permission to combine rolling a new die for the first time with rerolling. The stratagem does not specify that you can do that either, so you still don't have permission for the third die in a reroll situation.

Re-rolls are just rolls per RAW so this is a meaningless distinction. You are making a charge roll, the stratagem says to use 3 dice when doing so.

If you used the stratagem at the start, all 3 dice would be part of what you get to partially or completely roll again, but as it is the stratagem isn't permission to combine a reroll with rolling a new die for the first time.

This distinction of combining or treating re-rolls different for this purpose doesn't exist in RAW, that's why I can't get behind this argument. See previous. Give me some RAW that says re-rolls are not rolls as the stratagem means them, because the re-roll definition looks like it's saying the opposite.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

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.

No, it's largely playable, one or two issues outstanding. The problem is it wouldn't be played the way you want it to.

What are you even talking about, at this point it just seems like your trolling or being obtuse just because you can, and thinly disguising your rude comments. What makes you think you know how I play 40k?

If anything, you are the one getting all poopy-butt because people don't agree with how YOU would want to play 40k, and the Blood Angels Strategems.

What on earth is this? Are you sure you quoted the right post?

You said 40k is unplayable without a good chunk of RAI. I said it's mostly playable, but that you're using RAI to reach a result your prefer compared to the RAW implication. I'm not sure where any of that is rude or obtuse.

As for how I would play this particular rule, if my opponent tried to do it and asked what I thought I'd say: "I think RAW is X but choose whichever, I don't care". I'm only discussing it here because I enjoy these threads and it helps me relax after working.

RAW, a roll is *not* the same as a re-roll, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll. So that's that disproved...

And a Charge roll is the first roll you make. If you re-roll it *SURPRISE* it's a re-roll of a Charge roll, not a Charge roll. By definition.

Any more attempted RAW bending to get the OP's non-tactic to function?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, a roll is *not* the same as a re-roll, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll. So that's that disproved...

No, that's wrong. The Rulebook:

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.

That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

There is a specific RAW provision that says you can't re-roll a re-roll. This overrides the general definition, but it only applies to making a subsequent re-roll. The stratagem isn't trying to re-roll a re-roll, it's just adding a third die. Therefore, this RAW exception doesn't apply and we're left with the general definition, which says it's a roll.

And a Charge roll is the first roll you make. If you re-roll it *SURPRISE* it's a re-roll of a Charge roll, not a Charge roll.

Like I said, meaningless distinction, RAW. RAW says a re-roll is a roll UNLESS you're trying to re-roll it a second time, in which case you can't. It'd be like if I wrote a law that said:

"Every time a top spins a full circle it constitutes 1 cycle. Before the top completes a cycle, you may eat a cookie. The top may not complete more than 2 cycles".

The limit on the top's cycles has no bearing on your cookie eating and all full circles are cycles, but I did just make some minor distinction between the first cycle and subsequent cycles because I prohibited you from having more than 2. That doesn't change the fact that each full circle is still a 'cycle', however and you can eat a cookie before the top's completion of it's first cycle and then again before the completion of the second cycle.

Audustum wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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?

I do deny it's 'common sense'. A tank drives on its tracks because of physics and design as spelled out by the manufacturer. The orientation is what most players use because it's what they see, but that's just a prejudice and is not required in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

The stratagem says before a charge roll, not before any or all charge rolls. You're reading in terminology that isn't there. A second charge roll is still 'a' charge roll. Just like the 2nd egg in a cart is still 'a[n] egg'

The stratagem also does not say before charge re-rolls, so trying to use it after a normal roll doesn't have permission. Also, rerolls have you rolling some or all of the dice, there's no permission to add dice so that it's rerolling some dice and adding new dice.

But re-rolls are rolls. The section on re-rolls says they are rolls. This is an unsupported distinction per RAW.

The stratagem gives you permission to roll 3 dice on the roll. That's where permission flows from for the third die.

Rerolls don't give you permission to roll new dice, only to roll some or all of the dice again.

Right, but the stratagem says to roll 3 dice. So you must roll 3 dice after using it.

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, a roll is *not* the same as a re-roll, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll. So that's that disproved...

No, that's wrong. The Rulebook:

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.

That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

There is a specific RAW provision that says you can't re-roll a re-roll. This overrides the general definition, but it only applies to making a subsequent re-roll. The stratagem isn't trying to re-roll a re-roll, it's just adding a third die. Therefore, this RAW exception doesn't apply and we're left with the general definition, which says it's a roll.

And a Charge roll is the first roll you make. If you re-roll it *SURPRISE* it's a re-roll of a Charge roll, not a Charge roll.

Like I said, meaningless distinction, RAW. RAW says a re-roll is a roll UNLESS you're trying to re-roll it a second time, in which case you can't. It'd be like if I wrote a law that said:

"Every time a top spins a full circle it constitutes 1 cycle. Before the top completes a cycle, you may eat a cookie. The top may not complete more than 2 cycles".

The limit on the top's cycles has no bearing on your cookie eating and all full circles are cycles, but I did just make some minor distinction between the first cycle and subsequent cycles because I prohibited you from having more than 2. That doesn't change the fact that each full circle is still a 'cycle', however and you can eat a cookie before the top's completion of it's first cycle and then again before the completion of the second cycle.

And cookies and tops have nothing to do with this Stratagem. I won’t wngage with that tangent, sorry, it just becomes a rabbit hole the thread descends into (see for example apples and pseudocode). Stick to the topic!

Audustum wrote:
That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

There is a specific RAW provision that says you can't re-roll a re-roll. This overrides the general definition, but it only applies to making a subsequent re-roll. The stratagem isn't trying to re-roll a re-roll, it's just adding a third die. Therefore, this RAW exception doesn't apply and we're left with the general definition, which says it's a roll.

So... a re-roll is a roll, but a re-roll cannot be re-rolled despite being a roll because re-roll is not allowed to be re-rolled. So for the purpose of determining whether a roll can be re-rolled or not, a re-roll is not a roll, but when determining whether certain stratagems are able to be applied a re-roll is a roll?

So according to your definition, re-roll is a roll... So when I claim a re-roll on a re-roll, I'm not actually claiming a re-roll on a re-roll, but a re-roll on a roll. Just because a roll is generated from a re-roll, it doesn't mean that it's a re-roll of a re-roll - after all, a re-roll is a roll, and I'm simply going to re-roll my roll rather than re-rolling my re-roll. So the provision telling you that you can't ever re-roll a re-roll is broken because a re-roll is both a re-roll AND a roll at the same time. If re-roll is a roll, then there can never be a subsequent re-rolls, or at least for smart players, that you can be prohibited from re-rolling a re-roll since re-roll is simply a roll!

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

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.

No, it's largely playable, one or two issues outstanding. The problem is it wouldn't be played the way you want it to.

What are you even talking about, at this point it just seems like your trolling or being obtuse just because you can, and thinly disguising your rude comments. What makes you think you know how I play 40k?

If anything, you are the one getting all poopy-butt because people don't agree with how YOU would want to play 40k, and the Blood Angels Strategems.

What on earth is this? Are you sure you quoted the right post?

You said 40k is unplayable without a good chunk of RAI. I said it's mostly playable, but that you're using RAI to reach a result your prefer compared to the RAW implication. I'm not sure where any of that is rude or obtuse.

As for how I would play this particular rule, if my opponent tried to do it and asked what I thought I'd say: "I think RAW is X but choose whichever, I don't care". I'm only discussing it here because I enjoy these threads and it helps me relax after working.

My most sincere apologies, I completely misread it. That is what I get for not going to bed last night and being exhausted. My apologies again!

 doctortom wrote:


My point was that you don't get to use it.

I know that's your overall point, but you raised a specific issue so you got a specific answer.

No, it's not a meaningless distinction. If you use the stratagem, can you use a command point to reroll the die that you're rolling for the first time, even though the roll as a whole is considered a reroll?

I just said earlier in this very thread that would be a fun discussion to have once the RAW is agreed upon.

It's not a meaningless distinction unless you're trying to game the system. A reroll is a roll where you're rolling some or all of the dice again.

It's meaningless because the RAW supplied by GW does not make the distinction you're trying to make. They make no distinction for this purpose. That overrides the plain meaning of re-roll.

It's not a roll where you are rolling a different number of dice than the first time you rolled them.

Yeah, sure. Absolutely. A re-roll is defined RAW as just a roll, however, so that's fine as long as you have another source modifying the number of the dice. In this case the stratagem.

There's no permission for a reroll to roll a different number of dice than the initial roll, whether or not you want to play the stratagem.

Re-rolls are just rolls, RAW. Therefore, you have permission to roll more dice from the stratagem since it is a roll.

The permission of combining or rerolls and normal rolls doesn't exist in RAW either. Your argument seems to be "it doesn't say I can't combine them, so I will"

Annnnnd this seems to be the indicator you're not grasping my position. You don't need permission to combine re-rolls and rolls because RAW says they're the same thing. A re-roll is a roll. Like I said, it's contrary to your guy but it's what GW gave us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, a roll is *not* the same as a re-roll, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll. So that's that disproved...

No, that's wrong. The Rulebook:

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.

That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

There is a specific RAW provision that says you can't re-roll a re-roll. This overrides the general definition, but it only applies to making a subsequent re-roll. The stratagem isn't trying to re-roll a re-roll, it's just adding a third die. Therefore, this RAW exception doesn't apply and we're left with the general definition, which says it's a roll.

And a Charge roll is the first roll you make. If you re-roll it *SURPRISE* it's a re-roll of a Charge roll, not a Charge roll.

Like I said, meaningless distinction, RAW. RAW says a re-roll is a roll UNLESS you're trying to re-roll it a second time, in which case you can't. It'd be like if I wrote a law that said:

"Every time a top spins a full circle it constitutes 1 cycle. Before the top completes a cycle, you may eat a cookie. The top may not complete more than 2 cycles".

The limit on the top's cycles has no bearing on your cookie eating and all full circles are cycles, but I did just make some minor distinction between the first cycle and subsequent cycles because I prohibited you from having more than 2. That doesn't change the fact that each full circle is still a 'cycle', however and you can eat a cookie before the top's completion of it's first cycle and then again before the completion of the second cycle.

And cookies and tops have nothing to do with this Stratagem. I won’t wngage with that tangent, sorry, it just becomes a rabbit hole the thread descends into (see for example apples and pseudocode). Stick to the topic!

It's called an analogy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

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.

No, it's largely playable, one or two issues outstanding. The problem is it wouldn't be played the way you want it to.

What are you even talking about, at this point it just seems like your trolling or being obtuse just because you can, and thinly disguising your rude comments. What makes you think you know how I play 40k?

If anything, you are the one getting all poopy-butt because people don't agree with how YOU would want to play 40k, and the Blood Angels Strategems.

What on earth is this? Are you sure you quoted the right post?

You said 40k is unplayable without a good chunk of RAI. I said it's mostly playable, but that you're using RAI to reach a result your prefer compared to the RAW implication. I'm not sure where any of that is rude or obtuse.

As for how I would play this particular rule, if my opponent tried to do it and asked what I thought I'd say: "I think RAW is X but choose whichever, I don't care". I'm only discussing it here because I enjoy these threads and it helps me relax after working.

My most sincere apologies, I completely misread it. That is what I get for not going to bed last night and being exhausted. My apologies again!

It's O.K., in hindsight I was coming off a little rude so I apologize as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

Audustum wrote:
That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

There is a specific RAW provision that says you can't re-roll a re-roll. This overrides the general definition, but it only applies to making a subsequent re-roll. The stratagem isn't trying to re-roll a re-roll, it's just adding a third die. Therefore, this RAW exception doesn't apply and we're left with the general definition, which says it's a roll.

So... a re-roll is a roll, but a re-roll cannot be re-rolled despite being a roll because re-roll is not allowed to be re-rolled. So for the purpose of determining whether a roll can be re-rolled or not, a re-roll is not a roll, but when determining whether certain stratagems are able to be applied a re-roll is a roll?

Right.

It's convoluted but it's what GW wrote.

So according to your definition, re-roll is a roll... So when I claim a re-roll on a re-roll, I'm not actually claiming a re-roll on a re-roll, but a re-roll on a roll.

No, according to GW's definition you're claiming a re-roll on a re-roll because there's specific RAW to handle that situation.

Just because a roll is generated from a re-roll, it doesn't mean that it's a re-roll of a re-roll - after all, a re-roll is a roll, and I'm simply going to re-roll my roll rather than re-rolling my re-roll. So the provision telling you that you can't ever re-roll a re-roll is broken because a re-roll is both a re-roll AND a roll at the same time.

Not quite. Re-rolls are different when you want to re-roll them because GW says they are. Re-rolls are not different when you do anything else to them because GW says they aren't.

If re-roll is a roll, then there can never be a subsequent re-rolls, or at least for smart players, that you can be prohibited from re-rolling a re-roll since re-roll is simply a roll!

Except that GW wrote specific RAW to handle this, wheras in all other scenarios it appears to be a roll.

 skchsan wrote:

Audustum wrote:
That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

There is a specific RAW provision that says you can't re-roll a re-roll. This overrides the general definition, but it only applies to making a subsequent re-roll. The stratagem isn't trying to re-roll a re-roll, it's just adding a third die. Therefore, this RAW exception doesn't apply and we're left with the general definition, which says it's a roll.

So... a re-roll is a roll, but a re-roll cannot be re-rolled despite being a roll because re-roll is not allowed to be re-rolled. So for the purpose of determining whether a roll can be re-rolled or not, a re-roll is not a roll, but when determining whether certain stratagems are able to be applied a re-roll is a roll?

So according to your definition, re-roll is a roll... So when I claim a re-roll on a re-roll, I'm not actually claiming a re-roll on a re-roll, but a re-roll on a roll. Just because a roll is generated from a re-roll, it doesn't mean that it's a re-roll of a re-roll - after all, a re-roll is a roll, and I'm simply going to re-roll my roll rather than re-rolling my re-roll. So the provision telling you that you can't ever re-roll a re-roll is broken because a re-roll is both a re-roll AND a roll at the same time. If re-roll is a roll, then there can never be a subsequent re-rolls, or at least for smart players, that you can be prohibited from re-rolling a re-roll since re-roll is simply a roll!

All this proves exactly why you shouldn’t write incorrect posts and add “RAW!” to try and validate them! A re-roll is not the same as a roll, so Audustum’s backup for p5freak’s non-tactic unravels.

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, a roll is *not* the same as a re-roll, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll. So that's that disproved...

No, that's wrong. The Rulebook:

Re-rolls(Noun)

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

That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

That quote from the rulebook doesn't say that a re-roll is a roll though. It says that for re-rolls you roll dice again. I added to the text to show what I mean. That shows that a re-roll(noun) is the result of a roll(noun) rolled(verb) again.

Edit I typed to quick and screed up my formatting

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, a roll is *not* the same as a re-roll, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll. So that's that disproved...

No, that's wrong. The Rulebook:

Re-rolls(Noun)

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

That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

That quote from the rulebook doesn't say that a re-roll is a roll though. It says that for re-rolls you roll dice again. I added to the text to show what I mean. That shows that a re-roll(noun) is the result of a roll(noun) rolled(verb) again.

Edit I typed to quick and screed up my formatting

Aha, it only took 3 pages but now we're finally discussing RAW.

So I thought something similar in the beginning too and that's one of the reasons I wrestled with this question a lot, but ultimately I had to reject it. It IS close though.

The reason being that the sentence could also read "Some rules allow you to re-roll some or all of the dice again". We have to assume GW means what it says and says what it means so since they decided to call it a roll, it's a roll

I get where you're going by peaking at the grammar of it in more detail,. There is, of course, the possibility that roll is being used as a gerund and not just a verb, which I haven't made my mind up on yet, but ultimately I just don't think it being a verb in that statement detracts from the effect of the RAW, which is to make it a roll.

Specifically, GW is proclaiming that a re-roll is an event where you get to roll the dice. That's verb status, but if we asked "is a re-roll a roll?" the answer would be yes based on that statement because it is an instance where we have the act of rolling. Thus, re-rolls are rolls.

Since the Stratagem only wants any kind of roll for a charge without much particularity, it's satisfied.

I wrote this late so let me know if any of it is too confusing and I'll do a re-word.

Your logic is flawed. A re-roll is “a roll with conditions, that happens after a roll”, if you need definitions. It is not the same as a roll, due to the extra conditions and the fact it can’t be the first roll. You claim “re-roll=roll=RAW” but it just isn’t, as that misses out important RAW elements. Mechanically, both *look* the same as you roll dice, but rules-wise they simply are not identical.

And we’ve been discussing RAW all along, so the little snark there is unwarranted. Indeed, we’ve been trying to point out the flaws in your claims of RAW, and in the OP’s erroneous idea, it’s just you’re deriding others instead of listening.

Audustum wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, a roll is *not* the same as a re-roll, because you cannot re-roll a re-roll. So that's that disproved...

No, that's wrong. The Rulebook:

Re-rolls(Noun)

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

That's the general provision. A re-roll is just a roll ("you get to roll some or all of the dice again"). The stratagem is also just looking for a "roll". There is no distinction made in the definition of re-roll that it is different than the first roll except that it happened later and must be granted by an ability. So yeah, like I said a bunch of times, you want to say RAI they're different there's a discussion to be made, but RAW they're not.

That quote from the rulebook doesn't say that a re-roll is a roll though. It says that for re-rolls you roll dice again. I added to the text to show what I mean. That shows that a re-roll(noun) is the result of a roll(noun) rolled(verb) again.

Edit I typed to quick and screed up my formatting

Aha, it only took 3 pages but now we're finally discussing RAW.

So I thought something similar in the beginning too and that's one of the reasons I wrestled with this question a lot, but ultimately I had to reject it. It IS close though.

The reason being that the sentence could also read "Some rules allow you to re-roll some or all of the dice again". We have to assume GW means what it says and says what it means so since they decided to call it a roll, it's a roll

I get where you're going by peaking at the grammar of it in more detail,. There is, of course, the possibility that roll is being used as a gerund and not just a verb, which I haven't made my mind up on yet, but ultimately I just don't think it being a verb in that statement detracts from the effect of the RAW, which is to make it a roll.

Specifically, GW is proclaiming that a re-roll is an event where you get to roll the dice. That's verb status, but if we asked "is a re-roll a roll?" the answer would be yes based on that statement because it is an instance where we have the act of rolling. Thus, re-rolls are rolls.

Since the Stratagem only wants any kind of roll for a charge without much particularity, it's satisfied.

I wrote this late so let me know if any of it is too confusing and I'll do a re-word.

I can understand where you are coming from as it would seem that a re-roll is just a specific kind of roll. But I can also see the argument that they never actually say a re-roll is a roll but they say it is a roll redone. If re-roll has seperate rules from a roll (can't be re-rolled) it must be different than a roll. In that case I feel the rules could be interpreted in either way. Once you have a rule that can have multiple RAW interpretations RAW no longer works so you must discuss RAI. Typically if there are any weird rule interactions that would break the game you discuss before hand with your opponent how you would interpret the rules for that game. But in this case I believe RAI is clear and RAW is ambiguous.

To those who say a re-roll is not a roll I agree that is the way it should read, but at the same time what we have right now shows that a re-roll is a roll. It is kind of like saying a square is a rectangle. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares the same as all re-rolls are rolls but not all rolls are re-rolls.


Edit- I'm at work so I know that may not be as clear as I wanted it t be. I'll explain better if I get a chance to truly think about how to word it.