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.

 flandarz wrote:
It doesn't reference the Explodes rule at all... it just says "...opponent rolls to see if a VEHICLE model from their army explodes."

False.

"...opponent rolls to see if a VEHICLE model from their army explodes." is referencing the explodes rule.

It's referencing literally any time you roll to see if a Vehicle explodes. This includes the Crash and Burn rule. Again, unless you can make a logical argument that a rule that states "it crashes in a fiery explosion" is NOT, in fact, a roll to see if it explodes.

 flandarz wrote:
It's referencing literally any time you roll to see if a Vehicle explodes.

It does not read that way though.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
It's referencing literally any time you roll to see if a Vehicle explodes.

It does not read that way though.

Do you have any evidence besides "I say so?"

You keep conveniently failing to address the part of my statements where I address how Crash and Burn is worded, so I have to assume that you don't have a good counterargument to my stance

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
It's referencing literally any time you roll to see if a Vehicle explodes.

It does not read that way though.

Do you have any evidence besides "I say so?"

He is the one that needs to support his claim of "It's referencing literally any time you roll to see if a Vehicle explodes." not me.

Use this Stratagem in any phase, before your opponent rolls to see if a VEHICLE model from their army explodes. If any ALPHA LEGION units from your army are on the battlefield, add 3 to one of the D6 rolled, and the roll cannot be rerolled.

That is the rule. The only two Keywords are VEHICLE and ALPHA LEGION.

Explodes is not referenced as a rule name, but as a descriptive term. I am perfectly willing to admit that that's poor form for a wargame, but the rule is pretty clear.

I DID support my case. With a rule excerpt from Crash and Burn which states that the player is making a roll to see if the vehicle explodes, and the relevant excerpt from the rule that say it applies anytime you roll to see if a vehicle explodes. JNA was nice enough to post to full rule again, but if you can find ANY evidence that it only applies to the Explodes rule, we can continue this debate. I will say that your position is pretty tenuous when even the most strict rules interpreter on this site (BCB) disagrees with you.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Explodes is not referenced as a rule name, but as a descriptive term.

I would ask you to prove that, but you can not do so as the rules are written sloppily. That is par for the course for GW though.

Bottom line is that an FAQ is needed.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Explodes is not referenced as a rule name, but as a descriptive term.

I would ask you to prove that, but you can not do so as the rules are written sloppily. That is par for the course for GW though.

Bottom line is that an FAQ is needed.

Sloppy I agree, but ambiguous it is not.

What part of it do you not understand?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Explodes is not referenced as a rule name, but as a descriptive term.

I would ask you to prove that, but you can not do so as the rules are written sloppily. That is par for the course for GW though.

Bottom line is that an FAQ is needed.

Sloppy I agree, but ambiguous it is not.

What part of it do you not understand?

I understood it all, and you can say that it is not ambiguous, but the truth says different.

you are making a claim that "Explodes is not referenced as a rule name, but as a descriptive term." but you can not prove that as the rules are not precise.

Bottom line is that a FAQ is needed.

The rules aren't written like a law book, or even a university textbook. The various rulebooks use a far more conversational tone that assumes common word usage unless otherwise noted, like with keywords, or other (commonly capitalized) terms.

When read in a conversational tone, the stratagem effects any roll which determines if a VEHICLE will explode. As stated before there are a number of rules whose effects cause a VEHICLE to explode, one of them is the "Explodes" rule listed on some datasheets, another would be the "Crash and Burn" rule, there are others.

 Blndmage wrote:
The rules aren't written like a law book, or even a university textbook. The various rulebooks use a far more conversational tone that assumes common word usage unless otherwise noted, like with keywords, or other (commonly capitalized) terms.

When read in a conversational tone, the stratagem effects any roll which determines if a VEHICLE will explode. As stated before there are a number of rules whose effects cause a VEHICLE to explode, one of them is the "Explodes" rule listed on some datasheets, another would be the "Crash and Burn" rule, there are others.

That's exactly the way I would interprete it.
I think it refers to something that happens while playing the game (rolling dice to see if something - a VEHICLE - explodes) - not a straight formulated rule condition.
There is no word about why the VEHICLE is going to explode. If your opponent and you agree to simply roll for it, because you feel like it, the stratagem would be valid...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
But there is a capital in the rule name “Explodes” but not in (paraphrased) the “when a VEHICLE explodes” colloquial wording of the rule. So it covers Crash and Burn just fine.

Except it really doesn't as written. They reference the explodes rule, not the crash and burn rule.

As I’ve previously explained, it doesn’t reference any rule. It use the word “explodes” with lowercase E, not a capitalised E that would denote the rule. So it works as I’ve explained upthread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nibbler wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
The rules aren't written like a law book, or even a university textbook. The various rulebooks use a far more conversational tone that assumes common word usage unless otherwise noted, like with keywords, or other (commonly capitalized) terms.

When read in a conversational tone, the stratagem effects any roll which determines if a VEHICLE will explode. As stated before there are a number of rules whose effects cause a VEHICLE to explode, one of them is the "Explodes" rule listed on some datasheets, another would be the "Crash and Burn" rule, there are others.

That's exactly the way I would interprete it.
I think it refers to something that happens while playing the game (rolling dice to see if something - a VEHICLE - explodes) - not a straight formulated rule condition.
There is no word about why the VEHICLE is going to explode. If your opponent and you agree to simply roll for it, because you feel like it, the stratagem would be valid...

Yes. All of this.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
But there is a capital in the rule name “Explodes” but not in (paraphrased) the “when a VEHICLE explodes” colloquial wording of the rule. So it covers Crash and Burn just fine.

Except it really doesn't as written. They reference the explodes rule, not the crash and burn rule.

As I’ve previously explained, it doesn’t reference any rule. It use the word “explodes” with lowercase E, not a capitalised E that would denote the rule. So it works as I’ve explained upthread.

Except that's not a thing.

Explodes and explodes are the same as far as the rules are concerned, unless you can prove otherwise.

As others already said, the stratagem can be used before a roll is made to check if a vehicle explodes.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
But there is a capital in the rule name “Explodes” but not in (paraphrased) the “when a VEHICLE explodes” colloquial wording of the rule. So it covers Crash and Burn just fine.

Except it really doesn't as written. They reference the explodes rule, not the crash and burn rule.

As I’ve previously explained, it doesn’t reference any rule. It use the word “explodes” with lowercase E, not a capitalised E that would denote the rule. So it works as I’ve explained upthread.

Except that's not a thing.

Explodes and explodes are the same as far as the rules are concerned, unless you can prove otherwise.

No they aren’t. I don’t have to prove anything vs a bizarro hot take with no rules basis. Why are you saying the word explodes equates to the rule Explodes? Nonsense, sorry. My proof is as I’ve explained and others have backed up. You can’t prove your stance in the slightest, and barking “prove it” at me achieves nothing. I’ve demonstrated my rules proof. Your turn...

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
But there is a capital in the rule name “Explodes” but not in (paraphrased) the “when a VEHICLE explodes” colloquial wording of the rule. So it covers Crash and Burn just fine.

Except it really doesn't as written. They reference the explodes rule, not the crash and burn rule.

As I’ve previously explained, it doesn’t reference any rule. It use the word “explodes” with lowercase E, not a capitalised E that would denote the rule. So it works as I’ve explained upthread.

Except that's not a thing.

Explodes and explodes are the same as far as the rules are concerned, unless you can prove otherwise.

No they aren’t. I don’t have to prove anything vs a bizarro hot take with no rules basis. Why are you saying the word explodes equates to the rule Explodes? Nonsense, sorry. My proof is as I’ve explained and others have backed up. You can’t prove your stance in the slightest, and barking “prove it” at me achieves nothing. I’ve demonstrated my rules proof. Your turn...

You made the claim, you need to back it up.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
But there is a capital in the rule name “Explodes” but not in (paraphrased) the “when a VEHICLE explodes” colloquial wording of the rule. So it covers Crash and Burn just fine.

Except it really doesn't as written. They reference the explodes rule, not the crash and burn rule.

As I’ve previously explained, it doesn’t reference any rule. It use the word “explodes” with lowercase E, not a capitalised E that would denote the rule. So it works as I’ve explained upthread.

Except that's not a thing.

Explodes and explodes are the same as far as the rules are concerned, unless you can prove otherwise.

No they aren’t. I don’t have to prove anything vs a bizarro hot take with no rules basis. Why are you saying the word explodes equates to the rule Explodes? Nonsense, sorry. My proof is as I’ve explained and others have backed up. You can’t prove your stance in the slightest, and barking “prove it” at me achieves nothing. I’ve demonstrated my rules proof. Your turn...

You made the claim, you need to back it up.

Ok, Here's your proof using the voice of Lorgar errata.

Page 173 – The Voice of Lorgar
Change the rule to read:
‘Increases the range of your Warlord’s aura abilities (e.g.
Lord of Chaos, Demagogue) by 3". Increase the range of
any Prayers to the Dark Gods chanted by your Warlord
by 3".’

Notice how each time a rule or ability is mentioned (Lord of Chaos, Demagogue, Prayers to the Dark Gods) is referenced, The rules each start with a capital letter to reference the rule, now look at the alpha legion stratagem, the word "explodes" is not capitalized which means it is not referencing a rule or ability on the datasheet. it is merely referring to a game descripton. in both "Crash and Burn" and "Explodes" this game description is included, namely the requirement to roll a dice to see if a Vehicle explodes.

The Voice of Lorgar has nothing to do with the rules we were talking about.

Nice try, but no dice.

@DeathReaper
Why are you totally ignoring every post I've made in an attempt to help explain this?

 Blndmage wrote:
@DeathReaper
Why are you totally ignoring every post I've made in an attempt to help explain this?

Because your posts did not explain anything, they were worthless to the discussion.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Voice of Lorgar has nothing to do with the rules we were talking about.

Nice try, but no dice.

I'm using it to establish a precedent for how rules are written and referenced, which you are clearly ignoring.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
@DeathReaper
Why are you totally ignoring every post I've made in an attempt to help explain this?

Because your posts did not explain anything, they were worthless to the discussion.

You're coming off as incredibly antagonistic and aggressive.
As you consider my contributions worthless, I'll now stop adding to this discussion.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
But there is a capital in the rule name “Explodes” but not in (paraphrased) the “when a VEHICLE explodes” colloquial wording of the rule. So it covers Crash and Burn just fine.

Except it really doesn't as written. They reference the explodes rule, not the crash and burn rule.

As I’ve previously explained, it doesn’t reference any rule. It use the word “explodes” with lowercase E, not a capitalised E that would denote the rule. So it works as I’ve explained upthread.

Except that's not a thing.

Explodes and explodes are the same as far as the rules are concerned, unless you can prove otherwise.

No they aren’t. I don’t have to prove anything vs a bizarro hot take with no rules basis. Why are you saying the word explodes equates to the rule Explodes? Nonsense, sorry. My proof is as I’ve explained and others have backed up. You can’t prove your stance in the slightest, and barking “prove it” at me achieves nothing. I’ve demonstrated my rules proof. Your turn...

You made the claim, you need to back it up.

I already have shown my working.

Let’s see your rules proof for a conversational-toned word = a named rule. Barking ‘prove it’ is arguing in poor faith. Show your backup for your position, please. Then we can discuss it. As is you’ve made a leap that isn’t suggested or supported by the rules, and are attacking posters who’ve provided complete arguments. Heck, you’ve got me and BCB agreeing in a thread. That’s not cast iron evidence in itself but you might wanna read peoples’ posts instead of just barking ‘prove it’. You can’t prove your position so the whole approach is pointless, don’t you see? If not then we’re kinda done discussing your ‘interpretation’, which is simply a misreading.

Tristanleo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Voice of Lorgar has nothing to do with the rules we were talking about.

Nice try, but no dice.

I'm using it to establish a precedent for how rules are written and referenced, which you are clearly ignoring.

The rules aren't written like a law book, precedent means little.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Voice of Lorgar has nothing to do with the rules we were talking about.

Nice try, but no dice.

I'm using it to establish a precedent for how rules are written and referenced, which you are clearly ignoring.

The rules aren't written like a law book, precedent means little.

Then what is a rulebook if not the law on how to play the game?

Well, if we got to provide proof of our position (which we all have, by the way, you've just been ignoring or dismissing anything that weakens your position), then you also need to provide evidence that supports your own position. So, where's the information that supports your claim that it only references the Explodes rule? Or is this just your opinion on the matter, and you're toting it as fact?

"Explodes" Is the name of a rule. Every time a Rule is referenced, it is capitalised
"explodes" is a simple word, and is not ref a rule.

DR you're wrong. Give up on this.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Voice of Lorgar has nothing to do with the rules we were talking about.

Nice try, but no dice.

I'm using it to establish a precedent for how rules are written and referenced, which you are clearly ignoring.

The rules aren't written like a law book, precedent means little.

You haven't shown your proof that explodes is the same thing as Explodes. The others have shown their proof, and it's credible. Your proof amounts to "because I said so" so far.