Warptime

[DestroyerHive]

I just read Warptime more closely than I did before, and now it seems that you may reroll ALL rolls to hit and wound.

 

Is this a mistake, or was it deliberate? Considering how much it costs, it'd seem a bit stupid if I had to reroll every roll, successful or not.

[nurglez]

Im not sure about other people, but me and my gaming group make it that you reroll the ones that missed/failed, not all of them, as this seems to be the "intent" behind the rule in our opinion. (opinion not valid out of gaming group, terms and conditions may apply, please read the small print)

[eyescrossed]

You know... I've been playing it by RAW, rerolling all the rolls to hit and wound, but now that I think about it, I'm going to ask my friend if we can play that it's misses and failed wounds, not all. It seems wrong that I pay that much for a power that isn't very useful.

[DestroyerHive]

Wow! Quick replies!

 

I might houserule it with my friend also, if that's the case.

 

Thanks for the help <_<

[Aidoneus]

Reroll them all? Seriously? That wouldn't do ANYTHING. If you can't possibly use a single one of the initial rolls, you might as well not even roll them to begin with. You'd be paying 25pts for the ability to roll the dice again, with no in-game purpose.

 

Yeah... I'm pretty sure it means re-roll misses. <_<

[eyescrossed]

Reroll them all? Seriously? That wouldn't do ANYTHING. If you can't possibly use a single one of the initial rolls, you might as well not even roll them to begin with. You'd be paying 25pts for the ability to roll the dice again, with no in-game purpose.

 

Yeah... I'm pretty sure it means re-roll misses. <_<

Yes, but we don't discuss what rules are meant to mean here. By RAW, you have to reroll them all, but I might be able to convince my friend to let me otherwise.

[Aidoneus]

Are you serious? Really? That's absurd!

[nurglez]

yes, but, RAW, thats how it seems. theres been many, many debates between RAI and RAW, i think a healthy mix of both, depending on the situation works best, while discussed with a small gaming circle, its usually majority rule, which is fine by us.

 

If it happens during a game and if each side is not budging, then we just roll off as usual.

 

Oh, and the ability to reroll all the dice, while not brilliant, isnt totally rubbish, if you charge in and rolled all 1's and 2's, rerolling them all gives a nice chance to not do that again.

[Hlakir]

If you combine it with the rules for re-rolls in the BRB (which you must... otherwise "a re-roll" means nothing). You may re-roll any of the rolls to hit and wound that you like. The rules for Warptime doesn't say that you must re-roll all rolls to hit and wound if you choose to re-roll, but that you may re-roll all rolls to hit and wound if you choose to re-roll. Nothing here overrides the rules in the BRB that says that you choose the dice you want to re-roll (pg.2).

 

Also, remember that RAW is not usable to solve an issue if there are two different ideas about what a rule means that can both be read from the rule. Many sentences can mean different things depending on what part you focus on or what you take a word to mean.

[Hfran Morkai]

Like a SW ven dread. "You may force your opponent to re-roll any damage result" If I paid 175 points for a dread I'd be pretty annoyed if I had to make him reroll that 1 and it comes up 6!

[Grey Mage]

As opposed the C:SM where you cant force your opponent... you can only ask :P. *sighs*

[Brother Gothard]

I'm editing my post out because I have reversed my opinion.

 

I think I mainly just really disagreed with the way Hlakir argued his point.

 

Anyway, yeah. I agree with Aidoneus below. For some reason I read it funny the first time, and "may re-roll all rolls to hit and rolls to wound" seemed like "all of the dice or none", not "more than one or all dice."

 

It is funny, though, that we can all read the rules differently from reading to reading.

[Aidoneus]

I think the wording in the codex is fully in line with the reading that you can re-roll only the specific dice you want to. The word "all" doesn't mean you have to re-roll them all together; it means that for all the dice, you are allowed to re-roll them. It's like saying "All people on this forum can post in this thread." You're not saying that, if anyone posts, they ALL have to. What's you're saying is that ANY person can post. The way GW used "all" is the same; they could have said "any," but they chose "all" instead, without really changing the meaning.

 

Heck, I bet if they said "any" you would be arguing that they meant "any one." No matter what, there's a way to interpret a wording besides the way it was intended. When there are multiple legitimate readings of a rule according to RAW, you can to choose the one that is obviously RAI as well. In this case, it's that you can re-roll as many of the dice as you want.

[travh20]

IT says "may re roll", as in, you do not have to re roll anything you do not want to. So if you want to re roll hits that is up to you, although it would be dumb.

[Agrab]

If you combine it with the rules for re-rolls in the BRB (which you must... otherwise "a re-roll" means nothing). You may re-roll any of the rolls to hit and wound that you like. The rules for Warptime doesn't say that you must re-roll all rolls to hit and wound if you choose to re-roll, but that you may re-roll all rolls to hit and wound if you choose to re-roll. Nothing here overrides the rules in the BRB that says that you choose the dice you want to re-roll (pg.2).

 

Also, remember that RAW is not usable to solve an issue if there are two different ideas about what a rule means that can both be read from the rule. Many sentences can mean different things depending on what part you focus on or what you take a word to mean.

 

by saying may you have a choice of either to roll all or none. If it said any, on the other hand, you would be right

[Agrab]

I think the wording in the codex is fully in line with the reading that you can re-roll only the specific dice you want to. The word "all" doesn't mean you have to re-roll them all together; it means that for all the dice, you are allowed to re-roll them. It's like saying "All people on this forum can post in this thread." You're not saying that, if anyone posts, they ALL have to. What's you're saying is that ANY person can post. The way GW used "all" is the same; they could have said "any," but they chose "all" instead, without really changing the meaning.

 

Heck, I bet if they said "any" you would be arguing that they meant "any one." No matter what, there's a way to interpret a wording besides the way it was intended. When there are multiple legitimate readings of a rule according to RAW, you can to choose the one that is obviously RAI as well. In this case, it's that you can re-roll as many of the dice as you want.

 

sir, i believe your english is lacking:

the wording of all over any means that the choice is 100% or none at all

[Isiah]

Agrab I'm confused by your position. Are you saying you think that ALL dice must be rerolled regardless of result, or just the failed ones?

 

Cheers

I

[Agrab]

Agrab I'm confused by your position. Are you saying you think that ALL dice must be rerolled regardless of result, or just the failed ones?

 

Cheers

I

 

1) in a normal game, like between aidoneus or P (dont remember his BC name) and myself i would allow any failed (that is intent, IMO)

2) the wording indicates either ALL dice or NO dice, not a pick and choose

[Cale]

I think the wording in the codex is fully in line with the reading that you can re-roll only the specific dice you want to. The word "all" doesn't mean you have to re-roll them all together; it means that for all the dice, you are allowed to re-roll them. It's like saying "All people on this forum can post in this thread." You're not saying that, if anyone posts, they ALL have to. What's you're saying is that ANY person can post. The way GW used "all" is the same; they could have said "any," but they chose "all" instead, without really changing the meaning.

 

Heck, I bet if they said "any" you would be arguing that they meant "any one." No matter what, there's a way to interpret a wording besides the way it was intended. When there are multiple legitimate readings of a rule according to RAW, you can to choose the one that is obviously RAI as well. In this case, it's that you can re-roll as many of the dice as you want.

 

sir, i believe your english is lacking:

the wording of all over any means that the choice is 100% or none at all

 

On the contrary, it would seem that you are the one lacking the necessary grasp of English.

 

The rule, as written in the codex, is:

 

"If successful, the psyker may re-roll all rolls to hit and rolls to wound for the entirety of that player's turn."

 

So, let's see how this sentence breaks down:

 

What are we talking about (what is the subject)?

-The psyker

 

What does the psyker do? (what is the verb-phrase of the predicate?)

-re-rolls

 

What does the psyker re-roll? (what is the object?)

-rolls to hit and rolls to wound.

 

Now, there are two modifiers, one prepositional phrase, and one conditional phrase left in the sentence.

 

The prepositional phrase, of course, is at the end of the sentence and puts limits on the duration of the effect. It is not relevant to this issue.

 

The conditional phrase is at the beginning of the sentence, sets a condition which must be met for the power to take effect in the first place. It, too, is not relevant, here.

 

The first modifier is "may." May is important because it indicates that the psyker is not obligated to re-roll. His re-rolling is optional.

 

The second modifier is "all." The modifier all indicates that all rolls to hit and rolls to wound may be re-rolled.

 

The error you're making is that you're taking the order of the words in the sentence to mean more than it actually does. You're stating that since the order of the words is "re-roll all rolls to hit and rolls to wound" indicates that "all rolls to hit and rolls to wound" is the object. If the object were, in fact, this singular set of rolls, then you would be almost right. The sorcerer would have the option to either re-roll nothing or re-roll each and every roll to hit and each and every roll to wound (he wouldn't even get to pick just rolls to hit or just rolls to wound--it would have to be both.)

 

However, this is not the case. It would take considerably more than simply inserting the word "all" in front of the pair of plural objects to indicate that, instead of several objects, we were talking about a single object which is a set. Were the rules attempting to indicate that either everything had to be re-rolled or nothing could be, they would have failed--they simply do not include an object which is that entire set.

 

Instead, the rule includes several objects and uses the word all to indicate that there is no limit to the number of those objects which are included. That is the way the word all works.

 

The way you are suggesting the word works is simply an error. You really need to study more before you go around trying to correct other people's English.

 

Warp Time, as written, allows the sorcerer to re-roll whichever rolls to hit and rolls to wound he wants--it does not obligate him to choose between re-rolling all of them or none of them. That particular suggestion is a ridiculous over-interpretation of the statement found in the rules. It has no legitimate basis whatsoever.

[Aidoneus]

Beautifully put Cale. I couldn't agree more.

[Agrab]

while i officially now have a minor in English, i have never had a grammar course (short of what aidoneus has taught me) in my life, so i can be nowhere near as elegant

 

That said, however, both MAY and ALL are indicative modifiers in this situation. With modifiers, you are to view them as a parenthetical situation, which means that the inside moderifier is for the wording and the outside includes the inside modified. (may(rereoll all...)) is the effective way to look upon said situation. Now, that means that the main modifier is all and the conditional modifier is may. The main modifier - all - technically would imply that all rolls would be required for that condition to be met (again, i think this is a mistake and owuld not enforce this). The conditional modifier - may - allows the option to roll, but only within the parameters of the now modified sentence

[Isiah]

I totally agree that this isn't an all or nothing rule.

 

The Psyker has the option to re-roll all rolls to wounds or hit as he sees fit. He (the psyker) makes the choice of which of those particular rolls he wishes to re-roll as they occur. The 'all' is included merely to show that these types of rolls are to be included no matter what phase/type of play they occur in during that turn and by any model in whatever circumstance – it is merely the umbrella statement of the inclusivity of these two types of rolls in general and from which the choice of re-rolls is made.

 

It is not an indication that they all must be re-rolled or that none are re-rolled.

 

Cheers

I

[angry man]

if the intention of the rule was to allow the chaos player to select the dice which he wishes to re-roll (presumably the misses, otherwise the player is a bit odd), the surely a similar wording to that in the twin-linked rule would be used (as the effect is almost identical)?

 

im not sure whether the wording is as i dont have my BRB - maybe someone would be so kind as to look it up?

 

AM

[Grey Mage]

"A set of twin-linked weapons count as a single weapon of that type, but to represent their fusillade of fire you may re-roll the dice to hit if you miss (including twin-linked blast weapons). In other words, twin-linked weapons don't get more shots than normal ones, but you get a better chance of hitting with them."

[lord gunthar]

totally agree with cale i have always played rerolling any of the dice that failed to hit or wound and i never thought otherwise