PDA

View Full Version : rerolling dice that don't affect the bearer of the ability



Selsaral
15-04-2005, 21:26
OK, so in searching the Q&A on the UK site, someone asked if a grey seer with the warpstone token (one reroll per game) could use the reroll to reroll a die on the ringing of the screaming bell, and the answer is 'no since the die roll doesn't directly affect the grey seer'.

Now I must be insane, but I thought the consensus was that these various reroll abilities that many people possess (for instance the daemonic gift Tzeentch's Will) could be used to reroll ANY die that the player rolls.

It doesn't specify in either the daemonic gift Tzeentch's Will rules or in the description for the warpstone token, but the language is amusingly vague and I could easily see someone making a case that the rule implies it.

So it appears this ruling has an intentionally broad affect: all the rerolls only let you reroll dice that directly affect the model that bears the ability.

Anyone want to bicker over this one?

Major Defense
15-04-2005, 21:50
Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!

If GW is uber-vague (i.e.: almost always) I would usually lean toward the literal interpretation of the "higgledy-piggledy" wording...unless doing so smacks of self-serving, rules-lawyering, multi-hyphenated cheeziness.

So my opinion is...bleh. :confused:

Festus
15-04-2005, 23:24
Whatever *bleh* means.

To the point:

Usually a dice re-rolling item can usually be only used by the model in posession of it.

GW tries (cough ) to differentiate between models and players. The Heaven's Lore lets you reroll any D6 (2nd Sign), most Magic Items only lets the model re-roll anything, i.e. something that affects the model directly (a save, a to-hit-roll, a Ld-test,...)

Greetings
festus

anarchistica
16-04-2005, 01:40
The Warpstone Charm refers to the bearer, the Second Sign refers to the player.

Yes, GW wording sucks. Why don't they let their lawyers write it? Their copyright policy seems tight enough. :rolleyes:

Crazy Harborc
16-04-2005, 02:55
That's my take on it too. If it says "player", that "should" me the owner of the giant hand that rolls the dice and shoves the troops across the table. To my knowledge those toys are assigned to individual models by using part of their magic toy points. That type of toy usually clearly states it, IF it can be used to affect other models/units/etc.

Selsaral
16-04-2005, 04:20
I am not sure that will work. Take for instance Tzeentch's Will:

(hordes of chaos page 49) "...The Daemon may re-roll a single d6 once per turn. The re-roll entitles the player to take a single d6..."

So they use BOTH 'the player' and the name of the model in this example.

Major Defense
16-04-2005, 21:38
I am not sure that will work. Take for instance Tzeentch's Will:

(hordes of chaos page 49) "...The Daemon may re-roll a single d6 once per turn. The re-roll entitles the player to take a single d6..."

So they use BOTH 'the player' and the name of the model in this example.

Would you mind giving that whole quote? From what little you put there it sounds like they mean the model and not the player.

Festus
16-04-2005, 21:53
Hi

This is the Daemon's roll.

The reference to the player is only to clarify that you might pick up a single die, or one of a group of dice.

It is still the Daemon's reroll.

Greetings
Festus

Crazy Harborc
17-04-2005, 02:59
IMHO it also sounds like a "special deal" for that Chaos army, not magic users in general. I've heard it said there are exceptions to all rules except the rule that there are exceptions to all rules.

Selsaral
21-04-2005, 14:53
Would you mind giving that whole quote? From what little you put there it sounds like they mean the model and not the player.

"The Daemon may re-roll a single d6 once per turn. The re-roll entitles the player to take a single d6 (including one of the dice rolled as part of a 2d6, 3d6, etc) and roll it again. Any D6 can be rerolled and can potentially cause Irresistable Force or avoid a Miscast. Remember that you cannot reroll a dice more than once".

Second Sign of Amul, RB pg 148

"....Each reroll entitles the player to take any single D6 dice (including one of the dice rolled on a 2d6, 3d6, etc) he has rolled and roll it again. Any dice can be re-rolled but the player cannot reroll a rerolled dice...."

And here's some precedent, Staff of change, Hordes of Chaos pg 52:

"The bearer can make a single re-roll of one or more dice used to cast or dispel a spell..."

So apparently they DO occasionally take the time to specify whether it's just the bearer who can use the rerolls or not.

I don't have the rules for the warpstone amulet handy.

One thing I have noticed is that their use of plurals (die, dice) isn't consistent. Both of these abilities specifically say you can reroll a single die, then constantly refer to that single die as a dice.

So aside from the fluff, these abilities appear to be essentially identical, except Second Sign won't cause irresistable force or avoid a miscast.

Any more comments?

Major Defense
21-04-2005, 17:25
"The Daemon may re-roll a single d6 once per turn. The re-roll entitles the player to take a single d6 (including one of the dice rolled as part of a 2d6, 3d6, etc) and roll it again. Any D6 can be rerolled and can potentially cause Irresistable Force or avoid a Miscast. Remember that you cannot reroll a dice more than once".

That pretty much seals the deal, eh? If GW intended it to be used only for that character then they would have specified it. Unfortunately, the first sentence screws up the spirit of what they were saying.

2nd Sign of Amul explains itself nicely, IMHO, but I hear that there's an issue of White Dwarf floating around somewhere that changes Heavens magic spells - maybe to screw up this rare instance of GW's clear wording?



And here's some precedent, Staff of change, Hordes of Chaos pg 52:

"The bearer can make a single re-roll of one or more dice used to cast or dispel a spell..."

So apparently they DO occasionally take the time to specify whether it's just the bearer who can use the rerolls or not.

I would agree that this one is clearly for the Staff of Change character only. A rules lawyer would argue that it doesn't say you can't use it for other caster's spells but I would just hit them with the book...or any other player's book! :D

Selsaral
21-04-2005, 17:49
That pretty much seals the deal, eh? If GW intended it to be used only for that character then they would have specified it. Unfortunately, the first sentence screws up the spirit of what they were saying.


I guess so. I must admit my intuition is still providing me with nagging doubts about this, but I don't have anything else to argue with.



2nd Sign of Amul explains itself nicely, IMHO, but I hear that there's an issue of White Dwarf floating around somewhere that changes Heavens magic spells - maybe to screw up this rare instance of GW's clear wording?


The new list changes the spells very little. As far as I can tell, the only changes to the Heavens lore is that Second Sign of Amul and The Comet of Cassandora are 1 power level higher now (6 and 11 respectively).



I would agree that this one is clearly for the Staff of Change character only. A rules lawyer would argue that it doesn't say you can't use it for other caster's spells but I would just hit them with the book...or any other player's book! :D

Yeah hilarious. Again, my intuition is kicking in with pretty much the exact same interpretation you are coming up with.

This is pathetic though. Warhammer Fantasy Battle 6th ed and I still have to spend hours researching on some internet forum what the damn rules mean?

Major Defense
21-04-2005, 21:21
I guess so. I must admit my intuition is still providing me with nagging doubts about this, but I don't have anything else to argue with.

No matter how much I personally wish your intuition is right we should go with what is says until that fateful day that GW spews forth more crap about rules clarifications.



The new list changes the spells very little. As far as I can tell, the only changes to the Heavens lore is that Second Sign of Amul and The Comet of Cassandora are 1 power level higher now (6 and 11 respectively).

Thank Taer for this...
http://uk.games-workshop.com/chronicles/magic/assets/revised-lores.pdf
Of course it says "TRIAL RULES" in giant letters on the first page so consider that as official as you would like.

Crazy Harborc
22-04-2005, 01:10
In the local GW store, the "Trial Rules are "THE" ones used. Amongst my normal opponents, the Trial ones are the ones used. Perhaps GW plans to add thse "revisions" to the list of reasons for 7th Edition. That would explain the changes stiil being listed as "Trial".

Atrahasis
22-04-2005, 14:59
I've heard it said there are exceptions to all rules except the rule that there are exceptions to all rules.

Off-topic, but the part in bold above is completely unnecessary, assuming the former part is correct.

Festus
22-04-2005, 18:39
Still off topic, but it is not unnecessary.
If it was, there were some rules to which there are no exceptions, as the general rule is that there are exceptions.
If there was an exception to this rule (as is if the second part is missing), then there were some rules without exceptions and thus the whole rule-thingy would have been a paradoxon.

;)

Greetings
Festus

Crazy Harborc
23-04-2005, 01:00
Actually, when I was in school the "exceptions" statement/saying was an example of why "no exceptions statements" where not a good idea since exceptions can always happen.

With 6th Edition, it's usually a good idea to assume if a toy doesn't only come with, or doesn't say restricted to (insert character name)........it's not restricted.

Atrahasis
23-04-2005, 21:24
Still off topic, but it is not unnecessary.
If it was, there were some rules to which there are no exceptions, as the general rule is that there are exceptions.
If there was an exception to this rule (as is if the second part is missing), then there were some rules without exceptions and thus the whole rule-thingy would have been a paradoxon.

;)

Greetings
Festus

No. "There is an exception to every rule" is itself a rule, and therefore has an exception. That exception is itself.

Festus
24-04-2005, 07:30
Yeees...

...but still it is a rule that goes *there is an exception to every rule*
If it is its own exception, in that it has no exceptions, it is exceptionally false, as then there is at least one rule that has no exception, thus falsifying itself:

If it is true that *rule: exception >=1* (as in the first rule) and it is its own exception, then it holds true that *rule: exception =0*

So it must be proven that

0 = rule: exception >= 1
or simply

0 >= 1

This seems to be rather impossible to me... :(

Greetings
Festus

Atrahasis
24-04-2005, 15:38
The addition of "except the rule that there is an exception to every rule" doesn't change the paradoxical nature of the statement, as all the additional clause does is point out the exception to the rule, it does not make it any less exceptional.

Either way, "There is an exception to every rule" has an exception, and is therefore a paradox.

Crazy Harborc
25-04-2005, 02:01
Lol, thank you one and all, reading from my "exceptions" post to this one brought back conversations from LONG ago.

Um........a "paradox" is that two doxs(docks) side by side. Sorry, I do NOT keep thoughts like THAT rattling around in my head. I get them OUT and GONE from my brain.

Festus
26-04-2005, 09:06
Hi

Either way, "There is an exception to every rule" has an exception, and is therefore a paradox.

Errrmmmm...
...no

*There is an exception to every rule* is NOT a rule but just a statement, innit?
So there is no paradox here, no? ;)

Greetings
Festus

Atrahasis
26-04-2005, 19:25
*There is an exception to every rule* is NOT a rule but just a statement, innit?

If it is not a rule, then why add the clause "except the rule that there is an exception to every rule"?

Arromanche
30-11-2005, 17:08
There seems to be a number of different interpretations as to how the
Daemonic gift Tzeentch's will can be played if a LOC is fielded.
These are around when and how often it can be played (player turn vs game
turn) and also what can it be used on, only dice that affects the LOC
or any dice that are played?

Selsaral
30-11-2005, 18:15
As for what a 'turn' means, in 6th ed there is no 'game' turn. There are only player turns. Tzeentch's Will can be used once in each of your own turns and in each of your enemy's turns.

And as far as I can tell, the conclusion here is that Tzeentch's Will allows rerolling of any of your own dice, whether it affects the bearer or not. That's the way we've been playing it for quite a while.

Arromanche
30-11-2005, 19:12
I agree that on Pg 42 of the BRB it only talks about the turn as a player turn. However there must be game turns else how could the scenarios make the "Length of Game: The game lasts six turns." as on pg 204. That would only be 3 player turns each then. I would have to assume there is indeed a game turn consisting of one player turn for each.

Threch
30-11-2005, 19:35
I agree that on Pg 42 of the BRB it only talks about the turn as a player turn. However there must be game turns else how could the scenarios make the "Length of Game: The game lasts six turns." as on pg 204. That would only be 3 player turns each then. I would have to assume there is indeed a game turn consisting of one player turn for each.

I think it is doubfull that a core game mechanic as basic as what a turn is would be defined in a specific scenario description.

Instead of assuming that this one sentance in a scenario confirms the existance of 'game turns,' wouldn't it be easier and more logical to assume they meant, 'The game lasts six turns (for each player.)?'

Ganymede
01-12-2005, 05:20
it would not be logical at all to assume that. You would be incredibly counterintuitive to assume they meant anything besides what they said.

It is a rulebook, not a bible... rule disputes are best solves via gentleman's agreement.

Flypaper
01-12-2005, 07:10
Edit: Yikes! Something must be wrong with my browser cache - two more pages of replies appeared magically after I submitted my post. Deleted the original as it was dealing with a now moot point and slightly off-topic in any case...

Threch
01-12-2005, 17:35
it would not be logical at all to assume that. You would be incredibly counterintuitive to assume they meant anything besides what they said.

It is a rulebook, not a bible... rule disputes are best solves via gentleman's agreement.

In a vacuum where we are only considering that one post, you are right; it does not follow a direct flow of logic. However, if you also consider the rest of the Warhammer game and not just a single sentence when drawing a logical conclusion, I remain convinced that it is more likely that GW meant '6 turns each,' rather than trying to subtly add a concept called 'game turn' by mechanism of an optional scenario without mentioning it anywhere else.

Your post reads as if you were stating that you indeed think that standard scenario games are supposed to be 6 turns total, (3 turns each,) and we have all been doing it wrong all this time. Can I safely assume this is not true?

I do agree that the BRB is not a bible though... it's way too easy to agree on what it means for it to be a bible. :D

Ganymede
02-12-2005, 18:34
My opinion is not very relevent here. I could believe they meant 12 player turns or 6 player turns, but one fact remains... saying that they meant anything other than what they said is not very logical.