PDA

View Full Version : Daemons rerolling instability due to BSB being near



Zeroth
29-10-2011, 14:17
Can reroll, or must reroll if they "fail".

I usually play it as it's up to me. Last time I played I got corrected saying I must reroll it as long as it "fails".

DaemonReign
29-10-2011, 14:27
Hm yes funny question..

I'd say you 'have to' re-roll if within range of your Bsb. That's the way it works for everyone else taking a break-test, no real reasons it should be any different for Daemons..

Except, of course, that sometimes a failed a Instability test might not be as bad as 'the next time' you fail it.. But it's a small price to pay, in the end, so I just make those unwanted re-rolls with a smile on my face.

Zeroth
29-10-2011, 14:32
Lets say I lost combat by 6, I use my Generals Ld of 9, meaning I need to roll a 3. However I roll a 4. Now I'd much rather accept this roll than rerolling, because chances are I'm gonna roll higher than 4.

ArtificerArmour
29-10-2011, 14:59
You have to reroll if you fail. I believe it says in the rules.

narrativium
29-10-2011, 15:17
The Daemons book actually does say "can reroll". The player can choose.

ArtificerArmour
29-10-2011, 15:30
Hold your ground, pg 107 BRB: "friendly models within 12" of the BSB re-roll failed leaderships tests of any kind, including panic, break, fear, rally, and so on" emphasis mine.

Instability is a leadership check of any knd. There is no "can", "may" or any other qualifier to suggest the daemon player has a choice in the matter. I don't think you can really argue a 7th ed book which says "can reroll if BSB is in range", take prescedance over the clearly laid out rules regarding BSB 8th BRB.

White_13oy
29-10-2011, 15:45
If the army book says can, then they can choose to re-roll or not. Army book over rules rulebook, no matter how old it is, unless it's changed in the errata.

ArtificerArmour
29-10-2011, 16:05
It doesnt say you cannot. The brb says you must. The ruling is clear. And im a daemon player.

Zeroth
29-10-2011, 16:06
ArtificerArmour I read that as well. I know that in 40k it's very clear that codex > rulebook. However I'm rather new to fantasy so didn't take it for granted in Fantasy.



The Daemons book actually does say "can reroll". The player can choose.


If the army book says can, then they can choose to re-roll or not. Army book over rules rulebook, no matter how old it is, unless it's changed in the errata.

It's answers like this I've been fishing for. If this really is the case then I'm a happy Daemon player.

ArtificerArmour
29-10-2011, 16:18
"can" does not mean "can choose to". Can in this context means that if the BSB affects instability. If the BSB is in range it can be used. If it is not in range, it cannot be used.

I've used many loopholes in my time, and this loophole is that stretch too far.

bildo
29-10-2011, 16:56
can is not must. the daemon rulebook says you can reroll, not you must, so its optional. until it is faq'd then thats how we roll.

Archon Deloth Vyrr
29-10-2011, 17:10
"can" does not mean "can choose to". Can in this context means that if the BSB affects instability. If the BSB is in range it can be used. If it is not in range, it cannot be used.

I've used many loopholes in my time, and this loophole is that stretch too far.

That's exactly what it means. The very definition of the word "Can" is:

1. to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to: She can solve the problem easily, I'm sure.
2. to know how to: He can play chess, although he's not particularly good at it.
3. to have the power or means to: A dictator can impose his will on the people.
4. to have the right or qualifications to: He can change whatever he wishes in the script.

"Can" is also a direct synonym of "may"
1. to have permission to: May I do this?

No where does it even imply that if you "can" do something, you must.

DaemonReign
29-10-2011, 18:02
Hm..

I have evidently been too nice to my friends when making those re-rolls that really stand to make matters worse for my Daemons.

Apologies to the OP.. This is clearly a case of AB over-riding BrB and thus we may choose whether to make use of that re-roll or not.

Rather nice, all though I would have been ok with the alternative too.

Lord Inquisitor
29-10-2011, 18:47
Yep, "can" is perhaps not intended to override the rulebook ... but equally, it's not likely that the BSB rules were meant to be an imperative (note that the Inspiring Presence was worded as "must" and then changed).

Ultimately I think it's fair that the daemon player should be able to take the first roll - they have the choice of the re-roll, but must abide by the second roll if they take it. This is usually the case with re-rolls that aren't simply pass/fail.

So I'm going to throw my lot behind "an Instability test can be re-rolled if the Battle Standard is within 12" being an book exception to the main rules.

GodlessM
29-10-2011, 21:01
Normally you have to re-roll with the BSB are per the base rules, but the Daemon book's 'can re-roll' takes preference here as the Instability rules are more specific.

brother_maynard
30-10-2011, 01:22
one more for the "DoC player can choose to take the re-roll or not" camp. the rulebook is pretty explicit that you should follow the army book, and army book says "can" not "must" or any other obligatory language.

H33D
30-10-2011, 05:09
So the demon book says you are allowed to reroll, and the brb says you must reroll. I'm not sure where I see any conflicting rules?

Now if the demon book said you can't reroll while the brb says you must then there would be conflict. Two separate rules, one granting an ability and another stating the ability must be used, aren't in any way in conflict with each other.

To avoid breaking any rules then a demon player would reroll all failed leadership tests for units that are within range of the bsb.

theunwantedbeing
30-10-2011, 10:01
The daemon book says "note that they can be re-rolled if a bsb is nearby".
Armybook trumps rulebook when there is a conflict.

This is of course a benefit to the daemon player, you can fail the instability test by 1, rather than say...7 as you aren't forced to re-roll and then be more likely to suffer a worse result. This of course makes them more difficult to shift when a BsB is nearby, although I do like the quirk that having a bsb nearby could potentially be more lethal for the daemon player if he rolls almost well enough the first time around.

It would be nice if the FAQ actually spelled this out of course, but then it would be nice if the FAQ's for other armies actually answered some of the more helpful questions that they have yet to get around to answering.....

Bodysnatcher
30-10-2011, 12:19
The difficulty is that there is no 'failure' in an instability check. No yes/no binary effect.
Hence why the rule is only workable with 'can' interpreted as 'may'.

theunwantedbeing
30-10-2011, 12:21
The difficulty is that there is no 'failure' in an instability check.

No, a fail is made quite clear in the daemons of chaos book.
Each point the test is failed by, they take a wound.

belgarath97
30-10-2011, 12:46
ArtificerArmour I read that as well. I know that in 40k it's very clear that codex > rulebook.

It's also quite clear in the BRB that Armybooks > than BRB. So if like above posters say it says can re-roll than it is an option.

Another reason I hate the Daemon book.

Zed!
30-10-2011, 12:46
The Army Book says you can reroll a failed psychology test if a BSB is near.
The Rule Book says you must reroll a failed psychology test if a BSB is near.

The two do not contradict, as anyone with an elementary grasp of modal logic knows. As there is no contradiction involved between the two, rerolling the tests is required.

The bearded one
30-10-2011, 13:04
What? no it isn't.

The armybook says "can", allowing you the choice to reroll or not. The BRB says "must", which does not allow a choice and forces it. One grants a choice the other does not.

This is the order of ruling:

FAQ&Errata > Armybook > BRB. The BRB details all the basic rules, armybooks detail exceptions on those rules and FAQs and Errata's either amend or clarify them.

I hate daemons, but I really can't see how you can say that the BRB ruling takes precedence, or that the BRB's "must" takes precedence over the armybook's "can". If there were no contradiction, you should be able to fully follow both rules at the same time. However if you play that rerolling is required (unless the test is passed, of course), then it is impossible to follow the portion of the armybook's rule that grants you the choice not to reroll.

The daemon player is allowed to keep the first roll if he wishes. It might not necessarily be what the writers consciously intended to put in the rules, but it is what is written. You can reroll, so you are not forced to, however you are allowed to.

narrativium
30-10-2011, 13:09
The Army Book says you can reroll a failed psychology test if a BSB is near.
The Rule Book says you must reroll a failed psychology test if a BSB is near.
Instability is not a psychology test. For one thing it has degrees of failure.

Instability replaces the rules for normal Break tests, and the Battle Standard Bearer rules are accordingly also replaced in the Instability rules.

The rulebook definition of what a BSB does therefore does not apply, removing the imperative to reroll.

theunwantedbeing
30-10-2011, 13:23
Instability is not a psychology test. For one thing it has degrees of failure.
Where's this from?
You fail it by points, same as any other leadership test, the only difference is that the amount failed by alters the severity of the penalty for failing the test, while a standard leadership test does not.


Instability replaces the rules for normal Break tests, and the Battle Standard Bearer rules are accordingly also replaced in the Instability rules.

The rulebook definition of what a BSB does therefore does not apply, removing the imperative to reroll.
True.
Some people are just unwilling to agree that RAW allows daemons to not re-roll a failed test if they don't want to.

Sturen
30-10-2011, 13:40
I do think the demon player must reroll.

All leadership tests taken within 12" of the BSB should be rerolled if failed.

Instability leadership tests taken within 12" of the BSB can be rerolled, therefore as the BRB requires their rerolling, they must be.

Instability tests are a special type of leadership test. Can here merely indicates that the BSB is able to effect this special case.

The two rules do not contradict, one enables the other.

AngelofSorrow
30-10-2011, 13:58
They can chooses to re-roll. It's as plain as day. It tells you how it works in the Daemon army book. I don't see a problem here.


Ready for eternal war!

The bearded one
30-10-2011, 14:18
I do think the demon player must reroll.

All leadership tests taken within 12" of the BSB should be rerolled if failed.

Instability leadership tests taken within 12" of the BSB can be rerolled, therefore as the BRB requires their rerolling, they must be.

Instability tests are a special type of leadership test. Can here merely indicates that the BSB is able to effect this special case.

The two rules do not contradict, one enables the other.

The.. duh... what?

This is the actual rule as it is written:

"Note that an instability test can be re-rolled if the battle standard is within 12" and/or tested on unmodified leadership if the unit is stubborn."


Instability leadership tests taken within 12" of the BSB can be rerolled, therefore as the BRB requires their rerolling, they must be.
what you are actually saying is this: "the armybook allows instability leadership tests near the BSB to be rerolled, therefore as a particular ruleset that is being overruled by these very rules says you must, you disregard the word 'can' and replace it with 'must' from the superceded BRB." ;)


Instability tests are a special type of leadership test. Can here merely indicates that the BSB is able to effect this special case.

The armybook says "an instability test can be re-rolled if the battle standard is within 12" ", it would be absuredly vague to mean with this sentence that 'can' means the BRB BSB rules can affect it.

If it were written in another manner and 'can' was in some other sentence like "instability tests can be affected similar to regular breaktests", then I would agree that 'can' allows the BRB BSB rules to affect instability, but s it is written in the armybook it is pretty direct: BSB within 12" --> can reroll instability.

bildo
30-10-2011, 14:50
well an instability isnt a psycology test as daemons are immune to psycology, its an instability test which is a different thing, and a bsb allows you to choose to reroll an instability test. if you feel they should reroll them or not isnt the point, as you didnt write the book, it makes no real difference, the point is they dont have to, because it would effectivly make a bsb pointless and nobody would take them.

T10
30-10-2011, 16:47
The Daemonic Instability test is "a special kind of Break test" (p. 30), and "for each point the unit fails its Instability test by, the unit suffers one additional wound".

Since it is a kind of a Break test, the BSB rule applies. Since the unit suffers damage due to a failed test, the requirement that you need to reroll also applies.

narrativium
30-10-2011, 17:00
If you're in range of a BSB, you do reroll failed Break Tests but if you're a Daemon in range of a BSB you can reroll Instability Tests. Daemons have the choice.

Archon Deloth Vyrr
30-10-2011, 17:11
The Daemonic Instability test is "a special kind of Break test" (p. 30), and "for each point the unit fails its Instability test by, the unit suffers one additional wound".

Since it is a kind of a Break test, the BSB rule applies. Since the unit suffers damage due to a failed test, the requirement that you need to reroll also applies.

Except for the fact that army book rulings overrule rules in the main rulebook. If the main rulebook and armybook have two different wordings on how a rule is handled, the army book wins out. Such is the case for Daemon instability.

Zed!
30-10-2011, 17:19
The problem is that "AB > BRB" only applies when there is a contradiction.
"You must do X" and "You can do X" do not contradict. Both apply. In other words, it is both possible to do it, and required to do it.

Bodysnatcher
30-10-2011, 17:35
GW use can in the 'may' sense as that is the general usage of language. They only use forceful words like 'must' when it is compulsory.

majian
30-10-2011, 17:51
The problem is that "AB > BRB" only applies when there is a contradiction.
"You must do X" and "You can do X" do not contradict. Both apply. In other words, it is both possible to do it, and required to do it.

Im sorry but YOU CANNOT "Have your cake and eat it to"

they conflict you use the army book. end of story.

AngelofSorrow
30-10-2011, 18:12
The Daemonic Instability test is "a special kind of Break test" (p. 30), and "for each point the unit fails its Instability test by, the unit suffers one additional wound".

Since it is a kind of a Break test, the BSB rule applies. Since the unit suffers damage due to a failed test, the requirement that you need to reroll also applies.
No. Because it says a special kind of break test just reinforces the use of the rules inside the Daemon army book. For me at least. It's clear as day how the rule works inside the armybook and that is how the rule should be used.
This doesn't even matter to me as my Daemon army doesn't even contain a BSB


Ready for eternal war!

The bearded one
30-10-2011, 19:29
Reading and thinking it over a bit, I think I am getting the core of the argument of the "you-must-reroll"-party, though frankly you guys are a bit unclear..

The rule in the daemon armybook seems to be not a rule in itself ( as in "Daemonic instability can be rerolled with a BSB near"), but more of a reminder. It even says 'note'. (in other words this is what it tries to say.. "Note! Yes, the BSB rerolls indeed aply to daemonic instability!! Yes, it does!")


So I'm a bit in the middle now, one the one hand it can be construed as a special rule "you can reroll" , on the other hand it can be seen as a pointer or reminder that the BRB BSB rules aply "yes, you can indeed reroll!"

Liber
30-10-2011, 20:17
The rule in the daemon armybook seems to be not a rule in itself ( as in "Daemonic instability can be rerolled with a BSB near"), but more of a reminder. It even says 'note'. (in other words this is what it tries to say.. "Note! Yes, the BSB rerolls indeed aply to daemonic instability!! Yes, it does!")


this is how i always interpreted it.

just a way of letting the daemon player know how bsb's effect their particular army, with their particular rules.

the 'can' is just saying that 'yes, that is how it works'

but as the brb says, you have to re-roll.

narrativium
30-10-2011, 22:27
The BRB goes on to say that wizards can cast spells in the magic phase. In fact, that they can keep casting spells until one of a number of conditions is met.

If 'can' means 'must', a player can't choose to stop casting spells. They have to keep casting until one of the conditions is met. One of these conditions is that there are no useful spells left to cast. We may have to get into a deeper discussion about how a spell qualifies for being useful. If a spell could conceivably be useful, the wizard can't choose to not cast it, because he can cast it, therefore he must do so.

I prefer to think of 'can' as meaning what 'can' means. It's a terrible abuse of language if 'can' means something other than what 'can' means.

DaemonReign
31-10-2011, 03:11
The Daemons book actually does say "can reroll". The player can choose.

Thanks again for clearing this up. I actually did some checking with the guys in my group and from time to time we've actually played those bsb-re-rolls for instability as 'optional' rather than obligatory..

This discussion about whether 'can' means 'may' or 'must' is really amusing. Some people treading awfully close to plain trolling, and that's all I'm gonna say.

I'd say the wording in the Army Book is very intentional and really the 'least of two evils' when think about it. It might be another slap in the face for people who just rampantly hates daemons, but the alternative just isn't a viable mechanic.

H33D
31-10-2011, 04:09
The word 'can' in no way automatically gives you freedom of choice, neither does it mean you must. The word can merely implies that you have that ability or in some cases, are granted permission.

I can jump.
But I also must jump.
So I'm going to jump.
Just like you are going to reroll failed instability tests if you don't want to break any rules.

Bodysnatcher
31-10-2011, 07:05
Can is a synonym for may in common usage. And GW rules are generally written to common rather than legal parlance. Hence the technically incorrect use of majority through the 40K rules.
So the rulebook says must. The armybook says may. And as armybook>BRB, it's my choice.

narrativium
31-10-2011, 12:17
The word 'can' in no way automatically gives you freedom of choice, neither does it mean you must. The word can merely implies that you have that ability or in some cases, are granted permission.

I can jump.
But I also must jump.
So I'm going to jump.
Just like you are going to reroll failed instability tests if you don't want to break any rules.
I can reroll failed Instability tests. I don't have to. The rules for Instability explicitly give the Daemons that option, to choose to or not, if they're near a BSB.

The rules for breath weapons say I can make a breath weapon attack once per game. That doesn't mean I have to do so. I'm not breaking the rules if the model with the attack dies before he can use it.

Likewise the Daemons can reroll Instability tests if they're near a BSB. They don't have to, and they're not breaking the rules if they don't.

(They still have to reroll other failed Ld tests, e.g. swift reform. That's not overruled in the Instability rules.)

a18no
31-10-2011, 15:37
Can we have the exact ruling in the deamon book?

The bearded one
31-10-2011, 15:49
Can we have the exact ruling in the deamon book?

"Note that an instability test can be re-rolled if the battle standard is within 12" and/or tested on unmodified leadership if the unit is stubborn."

a18no
31-10-2011, 16:35
"Note that an instability test can be re-rolled if the battle standard is within 12" and/or tested on unmodified leadership if the unit is stubborn."


Thanks!

To me, it's clear that the "can" make reference as WHEN you re-roll. It doesn't creat a choice though.

"When" a test can be re-roll: when missed! If you don't miss you don't re-roll. When the test is succeded, you never re-roll, when it is miss you always re-roll.

Conclusion: we can say that when the banner is within 12" you "can" re-roll a missed test since some times, you won't re-roll, exemple when you succeed!, never when you just don't want to though.

If you rule otherwise, someone could argue: If for a strange reason I want my unit to be destroy (need your opponent unit to advance a little for exemple), you could use the ruling in the deamon book to re-roll a succeeded test. But that would go against the BRB rule, as for the not re-rolling a missed test.

brother_maynard
31-10-2011, 20:36
Thanks!

To me, it's clear that the "can" make reference as WHEN you re-roll. It doesn't creat a choice though. in my opinion, this logic works contrary to your point. there is no need to specify when a roll can be re-rolled, interpreting the word "can" in this manner is completely superfluous.


"When" a test can be re-roll: when missed! If you don't miss you don't re-roll. When the test is succeded, you never re-roll, when it is miss you always re-roll. this is not the case, re-rolls are not restricted to failures, as evidenced by the myriad of "re-roll successful X" items, abilities etc. and none of this train of logic is explicit in the rulebook so i'd have a hard time accepting your use of it in a rules debate.


Conclusion: we can say that when the banner is within 12" you "can" re-roll a missed test since some times, you won't re-roll, exemple when you succeed!, never when you just don't want to though. again, in this case, the way you are interpreting the word "can" makes it completely superfluous, which leads me to believe that the other interpretation of the word (as a synonym for "may") is more valid.


If you rule otherwise, someone could argue: If for a strange reason I want my unit to be destroy (need your opponent unit to advance a little for exemple), you could use the ruling in the deamon book to re-roll a succeeded test. But that would go against the BRB rule, as for the not re-rolling a missed test. can you tell me where to find this ruling? i've scoured my BRB and can't find it. as to your point, per the RAW technically DoC can re-roll a successful test as the AB doesn't specify that failure is a prerequisite for the re-roll.

Zed!
31-10-2011, 20:48
GW regularly uses superfluous claims, so the mere fact that a sentence is superfluous doesn't mean anything.

brother_maynard
31-10-2011, 21:09
GW regularly uses superfluous claims, so the mere fact that a sentence is superfluous doesn't mean anything.

except that given the choice between 2 interpretations, one being superfluous and the other not, i'm inclined to go with the one thats not.

Zed!
31-10-2011, 21:13
Personally, I tend to go with the interpretation that doesn't assume a contradiction exists.

popisdead
31-10-2011, 21:19
It doesnt say you cannot.

Props for correct spelling on cannot.

I would expect Daemon players to always have a choice. This argument is like the "must use the generals LD" that was recently FAQd and it makes little sense to think they must be forced.

brother_maynard
31-10-2011, 21:29
Personally, I tend to go with the interpretation that doesn't assume a contradiction exists.

then we are back to defining the word "can" and if the game is being played in English, the DoC player is not required to take the re-roll.


Props for correct spelling on cannot.

I would expect Daemon players to always have a choice. This argument is like the "must use the generals LD" that was recently FAQd and it makes little sense to think they must be forced.

agreed, especially when other armies either pass or fail; DoC have degrees of failure.

basically, the precedent set by the FAQ, the rule as written, and the English definition of "can" entitle the DoC player to a re-roll.

Xzazzarai
31-10-2011, 22:56
It says "Can" re-roll.

It's an option, no matter if they fail or pass the first roll.

Accept it and stop ranting about daemons being OP?

H33D
01-11-2011, 04:59
No one is calling Demons OP.

According to Merriam-Webster's, the words can and may both can be used interchangeably to denote a possibility, permission, or an enabling.

The problem is, people have it so ingrained in their heads that if you may do something you can ALWAYS choose not to do it. That is something that is implied only because there is nothing saying you have to, or that you can't.

Except in this case you have to. It actually is pretty cut and dry.

narrativium
01-11-2011, 12:24
No one is calling Demons OP.

According to Merriam-Webster's, the words can and may both can be used interchangeably to denote a possibility, permission, or an enabling.

The problem is, people have it so ingrained in their heads that if you may do something you can ALWAYS choose not to do it. That is something that is implied only because there is nothing saying you have to, or that you can't. Sure. Because 'Superman can fly' does not mean the same thing as 'Superman can't not fly'.


Except in this case you have to. It actually is pretty cut and dry.
Except in this case, there's nothing telling you you can't not. It is pretty cut and dry: the Daemon player gets a choice.

a18no
01-11-2011, 14:11
this is not the case, re-rolls are not restricted to failures, as evidenced by the myriad of "re-roll successful X" items, abilities etc. and none of this train of logic is explicit in the rulebook so i'd have a hard time accepting your use of it in a rules debate.


EXACT' but that only prove my point. A re-roll is never a choice but a "when". It's not important to fix a rule that a re-roll is with a miss or not, a re-roll is always an obligation unless specifically said, like "you can choose to re-roll if you want".

Re-rolling all failed LD test is an obligation in the BRB. As it is with special rules that make you re-roll succeed roll (the trickster helm come to my mind). Let use a beastmen minautor that (for some reason) use the trickster helm combine with an item that raise his attack with all armor save done. If you can choose to not make you re-roll to wound, he could use that to a benefit.

Ruling in your way just create EXCEPTION, and if you follow my sign, I'm 100% against all exceptions... I want clear, precise ruling that always work.

Regards!

Lord Inquisitor
01-11-2011, 15:27
I want clear, precise ruling that always work.


And this is the game you choose to play? AHAHAHA!

:p

Look, firstly there is NO WAY Mat Ward thought this much about it. If he did, there'd have been a note in the Daemon book. Considering the Inspiring Presence rule was worded in a similar fashion to the BSB and that was changed to "may" I'm not convinced he thought about a situation where you wouldn't want general/bsb benefits. (Although in 7th it was clearly spelled out, Alessio was much more clear about these sorts of things.)

Ultimately, there's an argument for and against and neither can be definitively proven correct because the wording in the Daemon book can be read as a permissive clause or an exception.

Games as played - I've not seen anyone play it that Daemons have to re-roll if the first roll is a failure. It's more intuitive that you should be able to choose to accept a narrow failure.

The bearded one
01-11-2011, 15:47
And this is the game you choose to play? AHAHAHA!

:p

I laughed out loud in agreement



Games as played - I've not seen anyone play it that Daemons have to re-roll if the first roll is a failure. It's more intuitive that you should be able to choose to accept a narrow failure.

This is true. Here I am also always seeing daemonplayers play it as though you may choose not to reroll.

a18no
01-11-2011, 16:45
And this is the game you choose to play? AHAHAHA!

:p


I know, I know

But I try to resolve rules problem with that in mind. The reason for my conclusion: a re-roll is not a choice, you can re-roll by a situation X, you must, no choice. It's clear, simple and equal to anyone. No abuse, no surprise, no whinning and no victory by a little trickery.

But like you said: the "can" remain a problem by common langage. Like said before in all my ruling: just make it clear BEFORE the game/tournement start. You've probably lived games when: "Hey you see that if i loose only 5 to break test, I win the game!!... Roll loose 4 YEAH VICTORY... No you must re-roll... Na it says I CAN.... etc. etc. etc. etc."

Regards!

H33D
01-11-2011, 19:21
Except in this case, there's nothing telling you you can't not. It is pretty cut and dry: the Daemon player gets a choice.

Except for the main Rulebook which says you must. No one is going to say you can't not because that is just awful grammar.

Everyone can argue RAI all they want and they can criticize RAW all day long. That still doesn't change that RAW demons must reroll failed instability tests when in range of the BSB.

I'm just seeing a lot of the typical and common arguments of, "Hardihar har! There's no way I have to do what the Rulebook says! Even though the two separate rules don't contradict I can pretend they do and choose not to follow the clearly written rules because that's how I feel it should be played and of course the authors of these rules would agree with me!"

If you actually see a reason using RAW that you can ignore the rule in the BRB then use it to support your argument please. Otherwise NOT rerolling a failed instability test when you must would simply have to be a house rule. If you and your opponent both agree with that then no one else will mind I'm sure.

Bodysnatcher
01-11-2011, 19:48
But the RAW doesn't contradict. It does in your head but not to the majority of players.

narrativium
01-11-2011, 19:58
Except for the main Rulebook which says you must. No one is going to say you can't not because that is just awful grammar.

Everyone can argue RAI all they want and they can criticize RAW all day long. That still doesn't change that RAW demons must reroll failed instability tests when in range of the BSB.
I am arguing for RAW. Maybe you are as well.

As written, daemons can reroll Instability tests. They have the ability to. Just as, as I've said, wizards can cast spells rather than must, shooting models can fire rather than have to, breath weapons can be used rather than have to be used. Rules As Written, there is no imperative that Daemons must reroll Instability tests in range of BSB. That's why I'm arguing that they get the choice.

If the Instability rules said 'Daemonic units reroll failed Instability tests when within 12" of a BSB', my interpretation of RAW would be the same as yours. But that's not what the written rule says, and my interpretation differs accordingly.

a18no
01-11-2011, 20:06
I am arguing for RAW. Maybe you are as well.

As written, daemons can reroll Instability tests. They have the ability to. Just as, as I've said, wizards can cast spells rather than must, shooting models can fire rather than have to, breath weapons can be used rather than have to be used. Rules As Written, there is no imperative that Daemons must reroll Instability tests in range of BSB. That's why I'm arguing that they get the choice.

If the Instability rules said 'Daemonic units reroll failed Instability tests when within 12" of a BSB', my interpretation of RAW would be the same as yours. But that's not what the written rule says, and my interpretation differs accordingly.

As I understand the rule of for the deamon, the sentence was there only to say that you CAN re-roll (if the situation of a failled test occur!!) as if it was a normal break test.

Since instability is not a normal break test and follow his own rule, someone could have argue, in case the sentence wasn't there, that the BSB re-roll is not legal. Like for the only 2 other armies that are unbreakable: vampire and tomb king where the BSB give you a -1 wound from crumble.

Conclusion: you use the normal rule, as in the BRB, to allow a re-roll on a failed instability test as if it was a break test. Nothing more is said in that ruling, no new rule is created, just an ordinary inclusion for those who stretch too much rules.

Regards

brother_maynard
02-11-2011, 12:34
hmm, well with the lack of consensus, it looks like the answer is to ask the TO/your opponent before the event. if it is just as likely to screw you as help you, there is no reason to take one when you can get a 25 pt gift instead. add to this the fact that most comped tournaments don't allow the BSB herald to take gifts and it becomes quite a no-brainer. too bad, i have 3 really awesome BSB herald conversions.

narrativium
02-11-2011, 13:21
It's more likely to help you than screw you, because you don't reroll if you pass, so the average dice roll for a failure will be higher than the average dice roll on the reroll. It only becomes worse when your first roll falls into the better-than-average-but-still-fails group.

I checked the 7th Edition rulebook. The rule there is even more clear that the BSB reroll for a failed Break test must be used. The language for Instability tests remains looser, only allowing players to reroll Break tests.

It could be a clarification, sure. But if that's the case, it's not phrased well.

Had the sentence not been present, I would have interpreted that as a kind of Break test, a BSB would apply in the usual fashion, requiring a reroll in the case of failure. Had it been written differently - for example not including the word 'can', and including the word 'failed' - then I would have interpreted it the same.

But that's not what it says. The presence of a rule explaining how BSBs can apply to Instability tests is itself a newly created rule and gives the Daemon player the choice.

(I'm a bit surprised this isn't in the Daemons FAQ already. I've come across this in-game question during 7th Edition; the book's three years old.)

H33D
02-11-2011, 18:17
Can + must = must

It can't get any simpler than that really.
But honestly most people fight to win, not fight to uncover the truth or find out what's right so I expect this forum to continue with more, "but... but..." pleas.

narrativium
02-11-2011, 19:24
Can overrules must = can

If you believe that the rules for Instability are sufficiently consistent with BSBs that you have to reroll a failed Break test, then you have to believe that Instability is sufficiently consistent with Break tests that the Daemon unit also has to flee and possibly be overrun as well as taking wounds.

It's all or nothing. Take your pick.

EDMM
03-11-2011, 18:35
The Army Book says you can reroll a failed psychology test if a BSB is near.
The Rule Book says you must reroll a failed psychology test if a BSB is near.

The two do not contradict, as anyone with an elementary grasp of modal logic knows. As there is no contradiction involved between the two, rerolling the tests is required.

I bet very few people here have a sufficient grasp of any kind of logic to understand that there is no contradiction between "can" and "must" and that the two rules are perfectly reconciled by requiring automatic tests.

Oh well...

theunwantedbeing
03-11-2011, 18:53
I bet very few people here have a sufficient grasp of any kind of logic to understand that there is no contradiction between "can" and "must" and that the two rules are perfectly reconciled by requiring automatic tests.

Erm.....
must = no choice
can = choice

You'll need to explain it to us.

Lord Inquisitor
03-11-2011, 19:31
He means "can = allowed to/capable of".

That's the two interpretations -

"can = choice"
"can = permitted"

T10
03-11-2011, 21:06
There is of course a difference between "can choose to" and "must". :)

However, in this situation it seems to me that the Daemon instability rule that says you "can" re-roll is just a helpful reminder that the ability to re-roll does indeed exist. Really, a common theme in this game is that the models make use of their abilities as best they can, even if in the overall strategy it would be advantageous not to do so.

For example, casting a hex spell on a friendly unit that is tied up in combat could be to your advantage: once the friendly unit is dead you can target their enemies with ranged attacks! This is specifically disallowed. Or you can WANT for your models to NOT make their attacks, or want to CHOOSE to fail their break test, or even want to have them retreat when WINNING a combat. This because you see this would be to your advantage down the line!

EDMM
03-11-2011, 22:41
Erm.....
must = no choice
can = choice

You'll need to explain it to us.

The word "can" does not contradict "must."

The word "cannot" does contradict "must."

Therefore the army book does not contradict the main rulebook.

"Must" can be represented by a term such as:
□p ("necessarily p")

"Can" can be represented by a term such as:
◊p ("possibly p")

□p is not contradictory to ◊p.

All that ◊p says is that it is not necessarily the case that it is not □p. This is perfectly in accordance with the possibility of □p.

The fact that ◊p can be derived from □p is actually one of the elementary axioms of this system of logic (represented as □p→◊p [or "if necessarily p then possibly p"]). So having the two terms exist, like we have here, in Warhammer, is actually logically required by the most elementary rules of fundamental logic, and is in no way logically contradictory.

You can always derive "can" from "must." You can't derive "must" from "can," but "must" is always logically possible when starting from a position of "can."

I hope I toned that down enough so it can be understood by lay readers, without misrepresenting anything too much.

EDIT:
As a further (overly simplified and none-too elegant) example, if I say "the sun can rise in the east and set in the west" that does not contradict the phrase "the sun must rise in the east and set in the west."

H33D
04-11-2011, 04:22
'Can' absolutely does not automatically denote a choice. If you don't believe me then look it up in the dictionary. I've said it several times, can merely denotes having permission or the ability to do something.

Whether you 'choose' to use this ability or not is up to you, but if you suddenly must use it then there is no contradiction. You can, and must, do it.

Also I believe the rules for daemonic instability define it as a special kind of break test. Therefore any special rules differing from a normal break test are included in the rule's description but it is otherwise treated just like a normal break test... and therefore can, and must, be rerolled when failed.

EDMM
04-11-2011, 04:47
can, and must

Said it about as well as I did, above.

Bodysnatcher
04-11-2011, 18:32
And all bull because that's not common UK usage.

Lord Inquisitor
04-11-2011, 19:31
H33D and EDMM, your logical case is sound. However, this simply isn't the case with rules language in the WFB rules.

For example.

Breath Weapons (p67):
"[A model] can use the Breath Weapon to make an additional close combat attack at its own Initiative" (Nowhere in the Breath Weapon rule is the word "choose" used)

Close combat (p48)
"Models cannot elect not to strike"

So by your logic, "can + must = must" you MUST use your Breath Weapon at the first possible opportunity.

"Can" is used to denote a choice in GW rules language quite frequently.

H33D
06-11-2011, 00:08
Only where there is nothing telling you that you have to do it, yes, can does denote a choice. It is just not explicitly implied that you have a choice so if you have a choice and something or someone else forces your hand in the matter, as the rule for daemonic instability does, then it is no longer actually a choice. You suddenly have 'no choice' in the matter so to speak.

If your rule for breath weapons says you cannot elect not to strike (which again is just awful grammar) then you have to strike.

I'm fairly certain the rule you listed is for close combat and applies to close combat weapons specifically. I don't have my BRB with me so could you quote that rule more thoroughly so it is not taken out of context?

Also if we are to use a separate language from English for WFB, where do I find a WFB dictionary? Or do I rely on WarSeer to interpret the BRB for me?

Bodysnatcher
06-11-2011, 00:16
a separate language from English for WFB,

It's British English, hardly an uncommon tongue.

H33D
06-11-2011, 02:07
What dictionary would someone using British-English use?

Bodysnatcher
06-11-2011, 11:34
Oxford or Collins.

H33D
06-11-2011, 16:21
Collins: Can. Be able to. Be allowed to.

Oxford: Can. Be able to. Be permitted to.

Not sure there is much, if any, difference.

EDMM
06-11-2011, 16:31
It doesn't matter what language the initial terms are written in, the logic I originally proposed is a reasonable interpretation and formulation of the original terms.

The meanings of "can" and "must" in "UK English" correlate with what I have described.

I tried to point that out by showing that the simple phrase "can, and must," which is very common in "UK English" accurately described the issue as well as I had.

There are 58 million google hits for the exact phrase.

"Can" and "must" go together very easily and quite correctly.

Lord Inquisitor
06-11-2011, 18:48
Only where there is nothing telling you that you have to do it, yes, can does denote a choice. It is just not explicitly implied that you have a choice so if you have a choice and something or someone else forces your hand in the matter, as the rule for daemonic instability does, then it is no longer actually a choice. You suddenly have 'no choice' in the matter so to speak.

If your rule for breath weapons says you cannot elect not to strike (which again is just awful grammar) then you have to strike.
The rules for close combat say you cannot elect not to strike. The rules for breath weapons say you can strike. That's all.


I'm fairly certain the rule you listed is for close combat and applies to close combat weapons specifically. I don't have my BRB with me so could you quote that rule more thoroughly so it is not taken out of context?

There's not much more than that.
"all models in base contact with an enemy must fight. Models cannot elect not to strike, nor can they normally be prevented from doing so." p48

"A model with a Breath Weapon can use it to make a special attack one per game. ... The form that this special attack takes depends on whether or not the creature is in combat." p67

"BREATH WEAPON CLOSE COMBAT ATTACK
"If the model with this special rule is in close combat it can use the Breath Weapon to make an additional close combat attack at its own Initiative (in either player's turn)."

Everything else is detailing how the attack is resolved. I don't think there's much more to context.

In any case, the point is that Breath Weapons clearly use "can" to denote an option rather than permission.

Your logic may be sound but it is not the only interpretation. It goes against commonly held GaP and intent is uncertain but precedent with breath weapons suggests otherwise.

ImperiusDominatus
06-11-2011, 20:56
Only where there is nothing telling you that you have to do it, yes, can does denote a choice.

I understand exactly what you're saying, but there is nothing saying you have to do it. The rulebook says "must", but that's completely irrelevant since the rulebook is completely superseded by the army book. If the rulebook says "must" and then the army book says "can" the rulebook is promptly ignored and the army book takes place instead.

If the army book said both must and can then I would agree with you, but it doesn't. The rulebook says must, but that's ignored in favor of the army book. It's not a matter of "must+can=must" but "can=can".

Bodysnatcher
06-11-2011, 21:57
"can=can".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK0gYi1YEZ8

H33D
07-11-2011, 03:53
The rules for close combat say you cannot elect not to strike. The rules for breath weapons say you can strike. That's all.


There's not much more than that.
"all models in base contact with an enemy must fight. Models cannot elect not to strike, nor can they normally be prevented from doing so." p48

"A model with a Breath Weapon can use it to make a special attack one per game. ... The form that this special attack takes depends on whether or not the creature is in combat." p67

"BREATH WEAPON CLOSE COMBAT ATTACK
"If the model with this special rule is in close combat it can use the Breath Weapon to make an additional close combat attack at its own Initiative (in either player's turn)."

Everything else is detailing how the attack is resolved. I don't think there's much more to context.

In any case, the point is that Breath Weapons clearly use "can" to denote an option rather than permission.

Your logic may be sound but it is not the only interpretation. It goes against commonly held GaP and intent is uncertain but precedent with breath weapons suggests otherwise.

Thank you for the quotations and supportive information. The argument of the word can denoting a choice in disregard of outside factors makes a bit more sense now in light of the precedent you referred to.

At this point however, it seems that one side of the argument is:

-Despite what is logical and clearly written, the fact that we aren't following the rules for Breath Weapons and Close Combat Attacks that way shows that we also should not be following rules for Instability Tests and Break Tests that way.

The other side of this argument is:

-There is no contradiction in the rules for Instability Tests to override the BRB rules concerning Break Tests.

-Following the logic of the ways that the rule for Instability Tests and Break Tests are written, you have the ability to reroll failed Instability Test and you must as well.

I'm glad to see logical support finally appear for the other side of this argument, but it only makes me wonder if Breath Weapons are being used correctly. I'm not being obtuse, I play Dwarves so have never had to read them thoroughly.

T10
07-11-2011, 05:13
As the Breath Weapon can be used once-per-game, it seems obvious that that the player has a choice of using it or not whenever the opportunity arises. I would assume that the use of "can" in this case is in correlation with that option rather than being the reason.

-T10

narrativium
07-11-2011, 11:46
Thank you for the quotations and supportive information. The argument of the word can denoting a choice in disregard of outside factors makes a bit more sense now in light of the precedent you referred to.

At this point however, it seems that one side of the argument is:

-Despite what is logical and clearly written, the fact that we aren't following the rules for Breath Weapons and Close Combat Attacks that way shows that we also should not be following rules for Instability Tests and Break Tests that way.

The other side of this argument is:

-There is no contradiction in the rules for Instability Tests to override the BRB rules concerning Break Tests.

-Following the logic of the ways that the rule for Instability Tests and Break Tests are written, you have the ability to reroll failed Instability Test and you must as well.

I'm glad to see logical support finally appear for the other side of this argument, but it only makes me wonder if Breath Weapons are being used correctly. I'm not being obtuse, I play Dwarves so have never had to read them thoroughly.
If there's no contradiction in the rules for Instability Tests and the rules for Break tests, then in addition to suffering extra wounds, the Daemon units should also be fleeing from the combat. The Daemon players I've been playing against tend to assume that Instability happens instead of breaking and fleeing; have they been doing it wrong?

The rules never say that suffer Instability instead of fleeing. Just that they suffer Instability if the test is failed. (Maybe the army's never been broken, just always played wrong.)

Or should (as I've seen it played) the rules for Instability override the normal rules for Break tests, inclusive of the need to flee and the imperative to reroll in proximity to BSB?

a18no
07-11-2011, 14:40
The rules for close combat say you cannot elect not to strike. The rules for breath weapons say you can strike. That's all.


There's not much more than that.
"all models in base contact with an enemy must fight. Models cannot elect not to strike, nor can they normally be prevented from doing so." p48

"A model with a Breath Weapon can use it to make a special attack one per game. ... The form that this special attack takes depends on whether or not the creature is in combat." p67

"BREATH WEAPON CLOSE COMBAT ATTACK
"If the model with this special rule is in close combat it can use the Breath Weapon to make an additional close combat attack at its own Initiative (in either player's turn)."

Everything else is detailing how the attack is resolved. I don't think there's much more to context.

In any case, the point is that Breath Weapons clearly use "can" to denote an option rather than permission.

Your logic may be sound but it is not the only interpretation. It goes against commonly held GaP and intent is uncertain but precedent with breath weapons suggests otherwise.

Following your interpretation, ANY one use item must be used at the first occasion. Meaning that you must use your dispel scroll at the first spell your opponent cast in witch you don't choose to use your dices.

A "special" attack like the breath weapon can follow is own rule. Like the instability test. So we can say that can is actualyl choice.

But someone can understand that the sentence in the deamon book only "include" the instability test in the normal rules of break test. Then following any normal rule from that last one.

EDMM
07-11-2011, 15:11
If there's no contradiction in the rules for Instability Tests and the rules for Break tests, then in addition to suffering extra wounds, the Daemon units should also be fleeing from the combat. The Daemon players I've been playing against tend to assume that Instability happens instead of breaking and fleeing; have they been doing it wrong?

The rules never say that suffer Instability instead of fleeing. Just that they suffer Instability if the test is failed. (Maybe the army's never been broken, just always played wrong.)

Or should (as I've seen it played) the rules for Instability override the normal rules for Break tests, inclusive of the need to flee and the imperative to reroll in proximity to BSB?

In that case, we can ignore the part in the rulebook about subtracting combat resolution from Ld, because that's not included in the Daemon rules, and is part of the normal rules for Break Tests,which Daemons ignore.

a18no
07-11-2011, 16:51
In that case, we can ignore the part in the rulebook about subtracting combat resolution from Ld, because that's not included in the Daemon rules, and is part of the normal rules for Break Tests,which Daemons ignore.

Actually, it's not already the case?

I think that the full procedure to follow is included in the deamon army book. More importantly, they can have a "negative" ld since the rule to add/substract combat resolution is work differently.

Look in their book and in the FAQ.

Lord Inquisitor
07-11-2011, 17:02
Following your interpretation, ANY one use item must be used at the first occasion. Meaning that you must use your dispel scroll at the first spell your opponent cast in witch you don't choose to use your dices.

Thank you for the quotations and supportive information. The argument of the word can denoting a choice in disregard of outside factors makes a bit more sense now in light of the precedent you referred to.

At this point however, it seems that one side of the argument is:

-Despite what is logical and clearly written, the fact that we aren't following the rules for Breath Weapons and Close Combat Attacks that way shows that we also should not be following rules for Instability Tests and Break Tests that way.

The other side of this argument is:

-There is no contradiction in the rules for Instability Tests to override the BRB rules concerning Break Tests.

-Following the logic of the ways that the rule for Instability Tests and Break Tests are written, you have the ability to reroll failed Instability Test and you must as well.

I'm glad to see logical support finally appear for the other side of this argument, but it only makes me wonder if Breath Weapons are being used correctly. I'm not being obtuse, I play Dwarves so have never had to read them thoroughly.
There are plenty of examples of "can" being used to denote a choice in the rules. This specific example ("must + can") is difficult to find though. I'll have a look again to see if I can find a consistent use of the language this way (I looked through the special rules and found breath weapons and didn't look further!)

I don't think anyone's going to buy that breath weapons are not voluntarily used in combat.

Ultimately my point isn't that this is necessarily correct - your argument is indeed the most logically consistent. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to show that there are two valid interpretations.



Following your interpretation, ANY one use item must be used at the first occasion. Meaning that you must use your dispel scroll at the first spell your opponent cast in witch you don't choose to use your dices.

Well no, only things that are attacks. There's nothing saying you have to dispel (but if there was, then yes, that would apply).

Now, I'm not actually suggesting this is how it should work. Clearly "can" in the breath weapon rule suggests a choice and overrules the previous rule. I don't think anyone anywhere plays that you have to use the breath weapon at the first opportunity.


A "special" attack like the breath weapon can follow is own rule. Like the instability test. So we can say that can is actualyl choice.

But someone can understand that the sentence in the deamon book only "include" the instability test in the normal rules of break test. Then following any normal rule from that last one.
There's really no difference in the wording. They're pretty much analogous. Maybe that's what was intended, it is one logical interpretation - but it isn't the only one.

a18no
07-11-2011, 18:36
There's really no difference in the wording. They're pretty much analogous. Maybe that's what was intended, it is one logical interpretation - but it isn't the only one.

Right

I would really suggest though that you play it like a normal break test for the re-roll. That way it don't create too much exception, nor abuse in some situation. It's never funny to hear "you won because of your interpretation of a rule, not because you're the best one".

You remember, back in the 7th edition where when a deamon player won a tournement: "bah, he play deamon so it's easy"... a guy in our group was tired of that, and started a O&G list... and just continue to won tournement!

I still think: GW wanted to give the ability to re-roll instability test to deamon, it is a gift other unbreakable armies don't have, just don't take the arm that come with the gift! Take the gift and say "thank you" :D

Cambion Daystar
07-11-2011, 18:58
Right
It's never funny to hear "you won because of your interpretation of a rule, not because you're the best one".

Typical talk of bad losers...



You remember, back in the 7th edition where when a deamon player won a tournement: "bah, he play deamon so it's easy".

Different edition, different powerlevel



I still think: GW wanted to give the ability to re-roll instability test to deamon, it is a gift other unbreakable armies don't have, just don't take the arm that come with the gift! Take the gift and say "thank you" :D
A gift with a very heavy price! I wouldn't let my opponent talk me into doing it his way.

Lord Inquisitor
07-11-2011, 19:14
Right

I would really suggest though that you play it like a normal break test for the re-roll. That way it don't create too much exception, nor abuse in some situation. It's never funny to hear "you won because of your interpretation of a rule, not because you're the best one".

You remember, back in the 7th edition where when a deamon player won a tournement: "bah, he play deamon so it's easy"... a guy in our group was tired of that, and started a O&G list... and just continue to won tournement!

I still think: GW wanted to give the ability to re-roll instability test to deamon, it is a gift other unbreakable armies don't have, just don't take the arm that come with the gift! Take the gift and say "thank you" :D
Heh, I started up Ogre Kingdoms in 7th for the same reason.

That's reasonable, but I simply find that most people play it as a choice and these days I try to go with GaP as much as possible. I've only come across one person in Real Life who wanted me to re-roll a narrow failure and I did (and I rolled snake eyes on the re-roll so it backfired on him!). I think the perception of the rule is that you can re-roll, you don't have to.

And I don't know about how much a gift it is... it's a pretty agonising choice if your greater daemon has failed by 4 say - do you keep that even though it leaves you on 1 wound, or do you risk it dying outright?

SlaaneshSlave
08-11-2011, 00:04
And I don't know about how much a gift it is... it's a pretty agonising choice if your greater daemon has failed by 4 say - do you keep that even though it leaves you on 1 wound, or do you risk it dying outright?
And this is the truth.

The game is about a fun event for 2 players. The interpretation of an option adds alot of stress to the Demon player and it isn't always clear when to re-roll. Alternatively, forcing the re-roll only benefits the demon opponent in rare situations.

The choice gives a more-fun game for both players in most situations (they get to participate), and forcing favors the non-demon rarely but removes player involvement.

Yes, I know, "what is better for the game" should be up to the rule writers, not us. But I think it is a decent "litmus test" to judge rule interpretations. (I would rather play "incorrectly" if both players had more fun.)

Grimgormx
08-11-2011, 00:11
I cant say to much about this because in our group there isnt a demon player, but I was thinking about the intability test as I remember it last time I played (I may be confused because it may have been played with 6th)

If the demon player lose combat by 5, and the unit ld is 8, he needs to roll in its unmodified ld to see if the unit doesnt suffers instability. (it used to completely vanish if rolling more than 8)

player rolls a 5, so he passes ld, the unit stays, but as it couldnt best the modified ld of 3, the unit must take 2 wounds.

So the unit passed the instability test, but anyway the unit got some wounds.

Maybe this has changed, if it hasnt then the unit doesnt has to reroll because it passed the unmodified breaktest, but anyway it had to take some wounds.

If the unit had rolled a 9, then it must use the BSB option to reroll.

Sorry if im completely outdated, havent seen a demon in our tables since 6th

a18no
08-11-2011, 15:01
I cant say to much about this because in our group there isnt a demon player, but I was thinking about the intability test as I remember it last time I played (I may be confused because it may have been played with 6th)

If the demon player lose combat by 5, and the unit ld is 8, he needs to roll in its unmodified ld to see if the unit doesnt suffers instability. (it used to completely vanish if rolling more than 8)

player rolls a 5, so he passes ld, the unit stays, but as it couldnt best the modified ld of 3, the unit must take 2 wounds.

So the unit passed the instability test, but anyway the unit got some wounds.

Maybe this has changed, if it hasnt then the unit doesnt has to reroll because it passed the unmodified breaktest, but anyway it had to take some wounds.

If the unit had rolled a 9, then it must use the BSB option to reroll.

Sorry if im completely outdated, havent seen a demon in our tables since 6th

Interesting idea, I love, but it's a little too complicated for many players.

@Lord inquisitor: If i had to play against a deamon player, I would only make that clear before the game start. Nothing else.

But it's always the situation where you need to roll a 3, then roll a 4 and choose not to re-roll... anyone else would have be runned down with that, even vampire and tomb king would have lost many wounds on that.

In the end: just make that clear before the situation above happen!

theunwantedbeing
08-11-2011, 15:17
So the unit passed the instability test, but anyway the unit got some wounds.
Actually, he'de of failed the test by 2 points by rolling a 5 after needing a 3.
So the test is a Fail, not a Pass.


Maybe this has changed, if it hasnt then the unit doesnt has to reroll because it passed the unmodified breaktest, but anyway it had to take some wounds.

It's changed.
The unit went "poof" if it rolled above it's leadership.
But took wounds if it didn't roll low enough.

Now you just lose a number of wounds per point the test is failed by.

Lord Inquisitor
08-11-2011, 16:12
But it's always the situation where you need to roll a 3, then roll a 4 and choose not to re-roll... anyone else would have be runned down with that, even vampire and tomb king would have lost many wounds on that.
Well... it's not that simple. A mortal unit could well escape. In most cases, it's only about 50-50 that they'd get run down. An undead unit just takes wounds they failed by. A greater daemon can lose combat by 1 and lose 4 wounds. Swings and roundabouts really. Instability is incredibly good for daemonic units (in general) but makes small units very vulnerable.


In the end: just make that clear before the situation above happen!
While this is a good idea in general (especially if you're in a gaming group), I've recently stopped doing this. If you go to a tournament game with a list of clarifications as long as your arm to go over with your opponent they can get flustered like you're trying to set them up for a fall later on or just plain give them the impression they're playing a ruleslawyer. Easier to just pick the most reasonable method or check with a judge beforehand and only discuss it when it comes up. Like I said, the vast majority of players aren't going to even notice either which way.

a18no
08-11-2011, 17:20
Well... it's not that simple. A mortal unit could well escape. In most cases, it's only about 50-50 that they'd get run down. An undead unit just takes wounds they failed by. A greater daemon can lose combat by 1 and lose 4 wounds. Swings and roundabouts really. Instability is incredibly good for daemonic units (in general) but makes small units very vulnerable.

That is ok with me, good point. A friend though have pointed that your instability work with steadfast, and by this simple fact you should take the gift as it is!! :p He's still crying for the vampire. But I love your idea.



While this is a good idea in general (especially if you're in a gaming group), I've recently stopped doing this. If you go to a tournament game with a list of clarifications as long as your arm to go over with your opponent they can get flustered like you're trying to set them up for a fall later on or just plain give them the impression they're playing a ruleslawyer. Easier to just pick the most reasonable method or check with a judge beforehand and only discuss it when it comes up. Like I said, the vast majority of players aren't going to even notice either which way.

But still, you've make sure with the judge beforehand. So you did what I was saying, at least it's clear before the tournement with your opponents OR with the organizer, witchever is faster.

Good games!

Bodysnatcher
08-11-2011, 17:23
Current game as played in daemon player picks. I don't think I've ever met anyone who has said otherwise.

Adasi
10-11-2011, 12:02
i'm in the camp of..."can" means - they can/may use the ability fo the BSB...

The BRB says they have to if in range..


therefore they must re-roll...seems obvious to me ...no confusion

Cambion Daystar
10-11-2011, 13:15
i'm in the camp of..."can" means - they can/may use the ability fo the BSB...

The BRB says they have to if in range..


therefore they must re-roll...seems obvious to me ...no confusion

Rulebook says must, armybook says can -> armybook trumps rulebook -> daemons have choice of rerolling or not.

If both armybook and rulebook give rules for the same situation, you always use the rule in the armybook. Thats how it has always been in warhammer (well, anyway since 6th)

H33D
10-11-2011, 17:11
Please don't post if you've only read the last page...

I'm glad there are two sound arguments here. I would honestly prefer it if Daemons could reroll instability it just doesn't seem written or intended that way to me.

FAQ please!

Cambion Daystar
11-11-2011, 23:28
Please don't post if you've only read the last page...
Stop assuming things...

DaemonReign
12-11-2011, 07:00
Christ this thread continued for a couple of pages since last time I bothered looking for it.. How very sad..

It's just ridiculous. If you're going to compare Mortal Breaktests to Daemonic Instability and say that Daemons must re-roll any break-test that result in even one wound from Instability then you've suddenly made the BSB a liability that you pay points for having. Not merely 'meh' (as in the case of Undead stuff) but truly a liability that you are better off without.

Beyond the whole discussion of the various facettes of the word 'can' let's remember what the BrB rules for break-tests are about - they tell us basically that mortal units engaged in close combat cannot voluntarily choose to flee. For good or worse, this is the general philosophy that prevents you from going "Oh I failed my break-test, great, I'll take my chances and try to run away from this combat!"

This is what the design aims at when saying that you must re-roll a break-test if within range of a BSB.

But Daemons don't flee. They take wounds instead. Without a BSB this can sometimes be very volatile (like the GD losing combat by one and rolling a double 6 for instability going *poff*) - and at this point it's just silly to argue that the Daemon Player is expected to pay points for the 'ability' to be forced to risk rolling that double 6 despite just having rolled a double 5 (thus barely failing said test assuming GD ld of 9).

Now, of course, in most cases you do want to re-roll a failed test regardless of whether you're alive or daemonic. It's just that the Instability Rule needs to be optional in order to work (where-as for mortals the rules just affirm that you cannot choose to flee from combat as a tactic).

H33D
13-11-2011, 19:13
You are correct. Normal break tests have a more binary result of flee/don't flee while the break tests daemons take have a more variable effect on the daemons of lose X models/lose 0 models.

@Cambion: I didn't say I was talking to you. Stop assuming things please.

Whether Daemons should disappear by a random amount or not at all, and forcing them to always attempt to not disappear at all would be a better discussion for the fluff section of the forums.

There are equally valid arguments in favor of RAW both ways, the concrete rules as written which says they must reroll failed tests, and RAW based on a precedent used in other rules including the word 'can't automatically denoting a choice and therefore creating a rules conflict in favor of the army book.

There are also equally valid arguments in favor of RAI both ways. The one I support is that the rule in the army book is there to say "oh by the way, the bsb lets you reroll those tests just like the other break tests." Others feel that it is there to say "oh by the way, unlike normal break tests you don't HAVE to reroll these if you don't want to."

These are good arguments, I'm glad there is an actual intelligent debate here. I do think it needs FAQ'd personally.

H33D
13-11-2011, 19:17
Just to play along DaemonReign, perhaps losing any Daemons at all to an instability test is an awful prospect for whatever hypothetical reason, wouldn't being forced to reroll at the chance of not losing any models make sense?

DaemonReign
14-11-2011, 08:17
Daemon Army Book says 'can'.

A Special type of 'break-test' where you run the risk of taking wounds, instead of fleeing/staying put, and where you can re-roll if within BSB-range as opposed to being obliged by the 'must' in the BRB (because intentional flight from combat is impossible/forbidden).

The sad bit is that I frankly suspect we wouldn't have a multiple-page thread on this topic if it was a regarding a wording in virtually any other book than Daemons.

Are we going to start a new topic where we can argue on whether Empire Priests can generate a Dispel Dice - obviously just a remnant from 7th Ed becoming a loophole in 8th Ed because Empire Priests (unlike Horrors, for example) arn't specifically called 'wizards' in the Empire Army Book. (?)

Army Book trumps BRB. Period. As someone else was saying earlier in this thread: If Daemons are forced to make that re-roll then they also must flee in addition to taking Instability Wounds.

So apologies all around but this is looking like a set of double standards to me. The fact that forcing those Instability-rerolls creates a situation where the Daemonic BSB is a liability rather than a perk you actually want to spend points on isn't really a strict 'rules-argument' (that's true!) but come on.. Even if accepting the (IMO incorrect) analysis that we've got two "equal" arguments here, if One way makes the BSB usefull and One way makes it ridiculous I think that sort of points us the way.

At the beginning of this thread I assumed (just off the top of my head) that Instability-re-rolls would work just like normal break-tests. As far as I can remember I have always re-rolled whenever I've been able to. However, thanks to this thread I've learnt something new. My initial error is basically due to my Army Book sitting neatly at our clubhouse and not in my lap. :)

Quote H33D:
"wouldn't being forced to reroll at the chance of not losing any models make sense?
Yeah it looks all right when you put it like that, but you know as well as do that if I happen to lose combat by -15 and roll a '1' and a '2' for my 'break-test' then I'm gonna want to cut my losses instead of placing my bets on a re-roll where I may get a double '1' rolled.

And you might argue that 'hey, suck it up, Daemons are OP anyway they can take it!' (not that you said this, just saying you could say it!) and my reply to this would be: Fine - but we just removed the BSB from the Daemon Book. A forced re-roll from the BSB for Instability makes it a point-sink for no gain what-so-ever.

And that's just crazy.

But the bottom line is, still, Army Book wording trumps BRB.

T10
14-11-2011, 08:38
Daemon Army Book says 'can'.

Holy shti! How did we miss this?

:P

I think it is safe to say that this discussion is going no-where. As a Daemon player said it: "It's ambiguous enough that I interpret it to my advantage. It would be stupid for me to do anything else."

-T10

DaemonReign
14-11-2011, 10:41
It's the part I missed at the beginning of this thread, and as soon as I was reminded of the actual wording in the Army Book that meant the issue was solved.

There's no ambiguity at all. One 'interpretation' follows the standard law of AB trumping BRB plus it 'makes sense', and another 'interpretation' somehow makes up a unique out-of-the-blue special rule for Daemonic Instability with the net effect of making the Daemonic BSB a placebo-item.

But that's ok, because their Daemons!

Yay. :shifty:

H33D
14-11-2011, 17:55
I am pretty sure its only the Daemon players making the 'its because they are daemons' argument. Whether it is for their advantage or not, grammatically speaking it IS RAW for them to always re-roll failed instability tests. The precedent of using the word 'can' in a different way than is defined in any dictionary by allowing it to automaically grant you a choice rather than just give you permission to use an ability is the other side of the argument. The word can as a rules term alone does denote some type of choice rather than being permissive as is the nature of the actual word. (That is, if you choose to interpret those rules that way as well O.o put down the can of worms...)

Yeah it sucks maybe, yeah maybe people don't like it. That's what house rules are for. I'm not sure if I wouldn't let a Daemon player keep a low roll either but I'm not here to argue what people like I'm here to seek RAW.

BTW, the 'you are only saying that because i play daemons' is a lot like the 'you are only picking on me because of my skin color or nationality!' argument. It is really tiring and overused argument tactic and if someone is really being that way it will be obvious and you still won't need to say anything at all.

AlphariusOmegon20
14-11-2011, 21:14
The Daemonic Instability test is "a special kind of Break test" (p. 30), and "for each point the unit fails its Instability test by, the unit suffers one additional wound".

Since it is a kind of a Break test, the BSB rule applies. Since the unit suffers damage due to a failed test, the requirement that you need to reroll also applies.


Except for the fact that army book rulings overrule rules in the main rulebook. If the main rulebook and armybook have two different wordings on how a rule is handled, the army book wins out. Such is the case for Daemon instability.

The only problem with your line of thinking, T10, is the line you quoted does say it is a "special" rule, meaning it has not only it's own rules, but own exceptions also. it is a 'special" break check because you do not break from combat when you fail your roll, but instead take wounds in it's place of breaking. Therefore it ALREADY doesn't follow the normal rules to begin with.

It unfortunately means it's not subject to the BRB BSB rules either by extension.

The BRB even says Army book takes precedence when there is a conflict. ( I'm currently looking through the BRB and cite the page number as soon as I find it)

The correct way it works is they MAY take the re-roll if they wish ( because it says they can), but must stand by it if they use it, the same as any other form of re-roll.

T10
14-11-2011, 21:29
I'd like to point out to you pro-choice Daemon players that your interpretation allows you to not only choose not to re-roll a failed break test, but also to re-roll a successful break test. Also, you can also elect to disregard the Stubborn special rule if you so desire.

Why would anyone do this? Well, sometimes it is beneficial to get rid of a losing unit quickly to open up other tactical options. Some, like me, would call that abusive.

However, if this instability test isn't really a break test, then I'm sure you will all agree that, since the instability rules do not mention it, the steadfast rules do not apply unless the unit has the Stubborn special rule (which allows the unit to count as steadfast).

-T10

AlphariusOmegon20
14-11-2011, 22:01
pg 11 , BRB:

"Where rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a panic test under certain situations. If however, that model has a rule that makes it immune to Panic, then it does not test for Panic - the advanced rule takes precedence.

On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rule book, and one printed in a Warhammer Armies book. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the Warhammer Armies book always takes precedence."

They can choose not to re-roll their instability.

H33D
14-11-2011, 23:30
I can also choose to smack my opponent in the head with a toaster during the game.

Remember that there is only a conflict here if you are deciding not to use the literal dictionary definition of the word 'can' and are instead interpreting it as meaning 'can choose to'. The only way logic supports this is based on a precedent, and one I haven't had a chance to look into yet. The precedent is that in the rules, can ALWAYS denotes having a choice rather than merely being granted permission. Read the earlier posts (especially the ones in pink) to see more information about this precedent.

The can+must=contradiction cannot stand on its own without this precedent.
Otherwise can+must=must.

And instability tests are a special kind of 'break test' according to the Daemon book. So they will follow the normal rules for break tests where this does not contradict with its own special, different rules. Hence, they get steadfast etc. and MUST reroll tests (unless you decide can denotes a choice therefore 'can [choose to]' + must = contradiction).

AlphariusOmegon20
14-11-2011, 23:56
I can also choose to smack my opponent in the head with a toaster during the game.

Remember that there is only a conflict here if you are deciding not to use the literal dictionary definition of the word 'can' and are instead interpreting it as meaning 'can choose to'. The only way logic supports this is based on a precedent, and one I haven't had a chance to look into yet. The precedent is that in the rules, can ALWAYS denotes having a choice rather than merely being granted permission. Read the earlier posts (especially the ones in pink) to see more information about this precedent.

The can+must=contradiction cannot stand on its own without this precedent.
Otherwise can+must=must.

And instability tests are a special kind of 'break test' according to the Daemon book. So they will follow the normal rules for break tests where this does not contradict with its own special, different rules. Hence, they get steadfast etc. and MUST reroll tests (unless you decide can denotes a choice therefore 'can [choose to]' + must = contradiction).

:wtf: I wonder what dictionary you're reading, because it sure as hell isn't the English one....

"Can" does denote a choice, I figured that was basic English 101.

"Can" means you have the option of doing something. I CAN go to the store right now or I CAN CHOOSE not to. Ultimately, the choice is mine as to what I do.

However, if I MUST do something, I do not have a choice, and have to do it. In a little while, I MUST go to the store because We need to eat tonight. I simply do not have a choice in the matter because we HAVE to feed my 2 year her dinner tonight.

See the difference there? one I CAN do, the other I have no choice in.

The daemonic instability rule vs. the BSB BRB one is the same way. One you CAN re-roll if you wish, the other you MUST because you have no choice.

Using a strange twisting of the English language isn't going to to change the basic definitions of those two words.

DaemonReign
15-11-2011, 03:14
I'd like to point out to you pro-choice Daemon players that your interpretation allows you to not only choose not to re-roll a failed break test, but also to re-roll a successful break test. Also, you can also elect to disregard the Stubborn special rule if you so desire.

Why would anyone do this? Well, sometimes it is beneficial to get rid of a losing unit quickly to open up other tactical options. Some, like me, would call that abusive.

However, if this instability test isn't really a break test, then I'm sure you will all agree that, since the instability rules do not mention it, the steadfast rules do not apply unless the unit has the Stubborn special rule (which allows the unit to count as steadfast).

-T10

Like I said many pages ago, the people in your camp seem to have picked this topic for some random trolling. And yes I can only imagine it's the 'Daemons-part' that play into that, because You and the rest of the people who are doing this are usually very serious and respectable in other parts of the forum..

This above post of yours is just childish and I'm certain you actually know that. AlphariusOmegon20 have fortunately already replied to whatever's left actually replying to.

I've got nothing to add. Except that if you try to deny a Daemon player that optional re-roll you're being both a cheat and bad sport. Period.

EDIT
Yeah T10 go ahead and be the last-word-freak I ain't gonna stop you. Have fun with your willfull interpretations. That bit about steadfast you're talking about is so ridiculous it actually puts a glimmer of ridicule over everything you've been saying here. Thanks for clarifying to any impartial observer you're really just looking for a good fued. :)

T10
15-11-2011, 08:29
I've got nothing to add. Except that if you try to deny a Daemon player that optional re-roll you're being both a cheat and bad sport. Period.
That is true, you have nothing to further add to the discussion. Too bad you decided to sign off with the attitude that dismisses those who disagree with you by accusing them of random trolling.

And childish? I thought it was quite clear from the context that my example with the stubborn/steadfast rule was to point out that there are more things in the instability test text that can be willfully interpreted in wildly different ways.

I prefer to stick to the narrowest interpretation: The debated section is just a reminder that you may benefit from certain extra abilities.

-T10

Zed!
15-11-2011, 18:31
"Can" means you have the option of doing something. I CAN go to the store right now or I CAN CHOOSE not to. Ultimately, the choice is mine as to what I do.
"Can" denotes a capability. In some cases, this relates to a choice, but not in all cases. Not that you introduced the word "choose" in your second sentence, out of nothing.

Imagine the store is open right now, and I have free time. Therefore, I can go to the store right now: I have the capability of going. However, my girlfriend is forcing me to go right now. Therefore, I must go to the store right now: I am obliged to go. There is no contradiction involved here, and there is no stretching of the English language. In fact, every case of obligation implies capability. Everytime you must do something, it follows that you can do it - otherwise it is impossible to fulfill the obligation.

H33D
15-11-2011, 18:41
:wtf: I wonder what dictionary you're reading, because it sure as hell isn't the English one....

"Can" does denote a choice, I figured that was basic English 101.

"Can" means you have the option of doing something. I CAN go to the store right now or I CAN CHOOSE not to. Ultimately, the choice is mine as to what I do.

However, if I MUST do something, I do not have a choice, and have to do it. In a little while, I MUST go to the store because We need to eat tonight. I simply do not have a choice in the matte because we HAVE to feed my 2 year her dinner tonight.

See the difference there? one I CAN do, the other I have no choice in.

The daemonic instability rule vs. the BSB BRB one is the same way. One you CAN re-roll if you wish, the other you MUST because you have no choice.

Using a strange twisting of the English language isn't going to to change the basic definitions of those two words.

I have actually quoted several dictionary definitions of the word can previously in this same topic. Assuming that can denotes a choice is where you are wrong.

If you must do something but can't, you are S.O.L. if you must do something and can, you are probably a daemon failing instability.

Saying that there is a contradiction in the conditions of must and can existing at the same time is exactly the same thing as saying if you must do something, you also cant.

Be nice to T10. He is one of the 3 or 4 people who have actually contributed to this thread instead of either repeating the same tired beaten arguments or just flaming the thread with 'you're a stupid daemon hater!' Comments.

Lord Inquisitor
15-11-2011, 18:49
If you must do something but can't, you are S.O.L. if you must do something and can, you are probably a daemon failing instability.
Heh heh heh...

Armond
18-11-2011, 13:04
Try page 11 of the BRB. Look under the Basic Rules versus Advanced Rules section. Advanced rules(Army book) trumps the BRB when it comes to what models do...

As far as I was taught, can means a choice... I don't play Daemons, but if I saw "can," I would allow my opponent to choose.

Skipschnitz
18-11-2011, 15:44
Yep. Last paragraph of page 11. The army book takes precedence over the rule book.
Page 30 of the "Daemons of Chaos" book states, "Note that an Instability Test can be re-rolled if the Battle Standard is within 12"...." The book says "can", therefore, the player has a choice. I wish Undead had a choice. :cries:

brynolf
18-11-2011, 15:54
Come on guys, the rules can not (or must not, your choice) be intended to work in a way that makes a BSB that you bought as a "Ld-boost" turns out to be a negative thing in some instances.

H33D
18-11-2011, 16:38
There is a rule in the BRB that says army books trump the rule book? Gee that changes everything..........

Cambion Daystar
18-11-2011, 23:23
There is a rule in the BRB that says army books trump the rule book? Gee that changes everything..........
Hi there captain sarcasmo :p