Warptime

[angry man]

looking at the twin linked rule, it clearly specifies that you re-roll the to-hits that miss - in the wording for warptime it says all - is that not a specific difference?

 

AM

[Cale]

angry man

It is a difference, yes.

 

When rolling to hit with a twin-linked weapon, you may only choose to re-roll those rolls which miss. You can't opt to re-roll the ones that hit.

 

With Warp Time, you can opt to re-roll each roll, whether it hit or missed.

 

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

 

Not really. All doesn't set a condition required for the re-roll. All sets a limit on the re-rolls.

 

Once again, if the object of the sentence was "the set of all rolls to hit and rolls to wound," then you would be right. Instead, the objects (plural) of the sentence is just "rolls to hit and rolls to wound." There are two objects. Both are plural.

 

All the word "all" does is indicate that no rolls to hit or rolls to wound are excluded. There are none that you can't re-roll.

It doesn't turn the two plural objects into a single object which is an entire, required set. Different, more specific language would be required to do that--and that would be required to make the rule into the 'all or nothing' scenario that some mistakenly believe it to be.

[Agrab]

Cale, here is the problem, when you use two modifiers the closest to the modified is first, for example:

a big small box, this means a small box that is larger than a normal small box

 

in this case, may, all, rolls

the all is the primary (indicitive) modifier so it becomes may rereoll ALL ROLLS, as all modifies the type of rolls. Thus, it is technically an all or njothing

 

if you read other reroll powers then include ANY, to-miss, or some other modifier to allow picking and chosing. This one does not

[Cale]

It doesn't matter which modifier is first. I agree--the all comes first. That doesn't matter. The word "all" in that statement doesn't do what you're claiming it does regardless of whether you give it priority over "may" or not.

 

Your argument isn't wrong, it just isn't relevant.

 

Also, name some. Not that it would matter, but I'm not sure I can think of any which use the word 'any'. If there are some, what are they?

[angry man]

When rolling to hit with a twin-linked weapon, you may only choose to re-roll those rolls which miss. You can't opt to re-roll the ones that hit.

 

With Warp Time, you can opt to re-roll each roll, whether it hit or missed.

 

Why would you choose to re-roll a dice that you had already hit with?

 

AM

[eyescrossed]

When rolling to hit with a twin-linked weapon, you may only choose to re-roll those rolls which miss. You can't opt to re-roll the ones that hit.

 

With Warp Time, you can opt to re-roll each roll, whether it hit or missed.

 

Why would you choose to re-roll a dice that you had already hit with?

 

AM

Maybe you'd want to stay in combat with a unit of Grots so you don't get shot up?

[Cale]

When rolling to hit with a twin-linked weapon, you may only choose to re-roll those rolls which miss. You can't opt to re-roll the ones that hit.

 

With Warp Time, you can opt to re-roll each roll, whether it hit or missed.

 

Why would you choose to re-roll a dice that you had already hit with?

 

AM

 

It doesn't come up much (though eyescrossed's example is certainly reasonable) but it is an option and it is the difference between the two wordings you were comparing.

[Agrab]

It doesn't matter which modifier is first. I agree--the all comes first. That doesn't matter. The word "all" in that statement doesn't do what you're claiming it does regardless of whether you give it priority over "may" or not.

 

Your argument isn't wrong, it just isn't relevant.

 

Also, name some. Not that it would matter, but I'm not sure I can think of any which use the word 'any'. If there are some, what are they?

 

I dont have the BRB with me, so i can not tell you

however, it is almost always modified by failed, missed, etc, and i do not remember seeing ALL before

 

that said, i consulted with three PhDs on the matter (advantage of having a mother, and the gfs parents english PhDs), they all agreed with me based on the wording. Basically, the All Rolls is what may is modifying, so it is all or nothing

[angry man]

BRB (page 2 of the little book) - RE-ROLLS & ROLL-OFFS

 

in some situations the rules allow you a 're-roll' of the dice. This is exactly as it sounds - pick up the the dice you wish to re-roll and roll them again. The second score counts, even if it means a worse result than the first, and no single dice can be re-rolled more than once regardless of the source of of the re-roll. If you re-roll a 3D6 or 3D6, you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly specifies otherwise.

 

The first half of the quote is irrelavent (just thought id put in the whole lot to be clear). The important bit is the you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly specifies otherwise. and this whole thread/discussion, in my eye, proves that the Warptime rule is neither explicit or specific in suggesting that you may choose the dice to be re-rolled (otherwise there would be no need for the thread).

 

therefore, due to the lack of explicit specification, RAW would suggest that you cannont pick and choose the dice you re-roll, and that it is 'all or nothing'

 

AM

[Agrab]

BRB (page 2 of the little book) - RE-ROLLS & ROLL-OFFS

 

in some situations the rules allow you a 're-roll' of the dice. This is exactly as it sounds - pick up the the dice you wish to re-roll and roll them again. The second score counts, even if it means a worse result than the first, and no single dice can be re-rolled more than once regardless of the source of of the re-roll. If you re-roll a 3D6 or 3D6, you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly specifies otherwise.

 

The first half of the quote is irrelavent (just thought id put in the whole lot to be clear). The important bit is the you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly specifies otherwise. and this whole thread/discussion, in my eye, proves that the Warptime rule is neither explicit or specific in suggesting that you may choose the dice to be re-rolled (otherwise there would be no need for the thread).

 

therefore, due to the lack of explicit specification, RAW would suggest that you cannont pick and choose the dice you re-roll, and that it is 'all or nothing'

 

AM

 

thank you mr angry man, that is exactly what we needed

[nighthawks]

I believe that the statement in the reroll rules from the BRB refers to rerolling a result such as difficult terrain, where multiple dice determine the result, and not to multiple, singular die rolls such as when shooting with a multi-shot weapon (rapid, heavy 3, heavy 4, etc...) or determining close combay attack results. just as in the case of twin-linked, these individual shots or attacks may be rerolled piecemeal.

 

the BRB reroll rules teach us how to reroll. warptime tells us WHAT we MAY reroll. it does not mandate that all die must be rerolled if any are, it allws us to reroll ALL of the die used to hit or wound. as illustrated in the BRB, the player may choose which of this set he "wish[es] to reroll." PhD in english may know the language but lack the understanding of the mechanic needed to read soemthign such as the WH40K rules set. just my $0.02.

[Tutteman]

Just to butt in here a bit. I don't go to my local GW much but I noticed this guy who was treating Warptime as if he could use it for everything he had on the board. I didn't say anything because I don't have C:CSM and it was in a GW with staff around! I remember making this mistake with Veil of Time. can someone just confirm this for me, Warptime's rolls only affect the caster's rolls, right?

[Cypher 102]

Just the Psyker gets the re-rolls.

[angry man]

I believe that the statement in the reroll rules from the BRB refers to rerolling a result such as difficult terrain, where multiple dice determine the result, and not to multiple, singular die rolls such as when shooting with a multi-shot weapon (rapid, heavy 3, heavy 4, etc...) or determining close combay attack results. just as in the case of twin-linked, these individual shots or attacks may be rerolled piecemeal.

 

how can you suggest that?? the quote is under the grand heading DICE, and in a box labelled RE-ROLLS. it is quite clear that this part of the BRB is referring to ALL dice, and therefore ALL re-rolls - multiple, singular, collaborative, D6, D3, anything...

 

the BRB reroll rules teach us how to reroll. warptime tells us WHAT we MAY reroll. it does not mandate that all die must be rerolled if any are, it allws us to reroll ALL of the die used to hit or wound. as illustrated in the BRB, the player may choose which of this set he "wish[es] to reroll." PhD in english may know the language but lack the understanding of the mechanic needed to read soemthign such as the WH40K rules set. just my $0.02.

 

The BRB also says that a codex rule must, and i quote, "explicitly specify otherwise" that a player may select individual dice to be re-rolled. OK, i agree, C:CSM does not mandate that it is an all or nothing choice. but neaither does it explicitly specify that you may select the dice of your choice - people are trying to find a gap or loophole to exploit meaning, but this is still not explicit or specific. as long as the BRB says states this is necessary, Warptime is an all or nothing choice

 

AM

[Tutteman]

Thanks Cypher, thought so, just wanted to be sure given I was working on my all too failible memory of Warptime :P

[Agrab]

I believe that the statement in the reroll rules from the BRB refers to rerolling a result such as difficult terrain, where multiple dice determine the result, and not to multiple, singular die rolls such as when shooting with a multi-shot weapon (rapid, heavy 3, heavy 4, etc...) or determining close combay attack results. just as in the case of twin-linked, these individual shots or attacks may be rerolled piecemeal.

 

the BRB reroll rules teach us how to reroll. warptime tells us WHAT we MAY reroll. it does not mandate that all die must be rerolled if any are, it allws us to reroll ALL of the die used to hit or wound. as illustrated in the BRB, the player may choose which of this set he "wish[es] to reroll." PhD in english may know the language but lack the understanding of the mechanic needed to read soemthign such as the WH40K rules set. just my $0.02.

 

your belief is irrelevant here. The wording, in the BB is clear on the matter.

as for the wording in the codex, myself, along with three other people who have PhDs in english all agree what the wording means in terms of english. You can argue they dont know the rules (one plays, ftr), but the book is in english, so english matters

[Cale]

BRB (page 2 of the little book) - RE-ROLLS & ROLL-OFFS

 

in some situations the rules allow you a 're-roll' of the dice. This is exactly as it sounds - pick up the the dice you wish to re-roll and roll them again. The second score counts, even if it means a worse result than the first, and no single dice can be re-rolled more than once regardless of the source of of the re-roll. If you re-roll a 3D6 or 3D6, you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly specifies otherwise.

 

The first half of the quote is irrelavent (just thought id put in the whole lot to be clear). The important bit is the you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly specifies otherwise. and this whole thread/discussion, in my eye, proves that the Warptime rule is neither explicit or specific in suggesting that you may choose the dice to be re-rolled (otherwise there would be no need for the thread).

 

therefore, due to the lack of explicit specification, RAW would suggest that you cannont pick and choose the dice you re-roll, and that it is 'all or nothing'

 

AM

 

Did you even read the sentence you're basing your conclusion on? It states, "If you re-roll a 2d6 or 3d6, you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly states otherwise."

 

Catch that? "If you re-roll a 2d6 ot 3d6."

 

This statement has no bearing at all on the question at hand. It only applies to rolls of 2d6 or 3d6. The fact that you and Agrab leapt on this despite the fact that it obviously didn't support your point at all shows how desperate your position really is.

 

I can't even believe you posted that. Honestly. Read first, then post.

 

your belief is irrelevant here. The wording, in the BB is clear on the matter.

as for the wording in the codex, myself, along with three other people who have PhDs in english all agree what the wording means in terms of english. You can argue they dont know the rules (one plays, ftr), but the book is in english, so english matters

 

The wording in the BB to which you refer fails to bear on the situation at all. The fact that you failed to realize this really shoots a hole in your "I'm an authority on English position." Did you even read the segment quoted? If you did, then I feel really sorry for you...

 

English is what matters, and your grasp of English as it applies to this situation is flatly incorrect--regardless of what your alleged authorities have supposedly told you.

[angry man]

BRB (page 2 of the little book) - RE-ROLLS & ROLL-OFFS

 

in some situations the rules allow you a 're-roll' of the dice. This is exactly as it sounds - pick up the the dice you wish to re-roll and roll them again. The second score counts, even if it means a worse result than the first, and no single dice can be re-rolled more than once regardless of the source of of the re-roll. If you re-roll a 3D6 or 3D6, you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly specifies otherwise.

 

The first half of the quote is irrelavent (just thought id put in the whole lot to be clear). The important bit is the you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly specifies otherwise. and this whole thread/discussion, in my eye, proves that the Warptime rule is neither explicit or specific in suggesting that you may choose the dice to be re-rolled (otherwise there would be no need for the thread).

 

therefore, due to the lack of explicit specification, RAW would suggest that you cannont pick and choose the dice you re-roll, and that it is 'all or nothing'

 

AM

 

Did you even read the sentence you're basing your conclusion on? It states, "If you re-roll a 2d6 or 3d6, you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule granting you the re-roll explicitly states otherwise."

 

Catch that? "If you re-roll a 2d6 ot 3d6."

 

This statement has no bearing at all on the question at hand. It only applies to rolls of 2d6 or 3d6. The fact that you and Agrab leapt on this despite the fact that it obviously didn't support your point at all shows how desperate your position really is.

 

I can't even believe you posted that. Honestly. Read first, then post.

 

your belief is irrelevant here. The wording, in the BB is clear on the matter.

as for the wording in the codex, myself, along with three other people who have PhDs in english all agree what the wording means in terms of english. You can argue they dont know the rules (one plays, ftr), but the book is in english, so english matters

 

The wording in the BB to which you refer fails to bear on the situation at all. The fact that you failed to realize this really shoots a hole in your "I'm an authority on English position." Did you even read the segment quoted? If you did, then I feel really sorry for you...

 

English is what matters, and your grasp of English as it applies to this situation is flatly incorrect--regardless of what your alleged authorities have supposedly told you.

 

Frankly, Cale, i find your tone rude, aggressive and disrespectful. the point you make can be as valid as it likes, but as long as you go round talking to poeple like that noone will take any notice of you. maybe you should go go ask your parents/teacher/boss/random bloke in the street about an appropriate manner in which to communicate with people. Just bear that in mind when you post next please

 

so, what youre suggesting is that the rule only applies to situations when you are rolling 2 or 3D6. is it not possible for a chaos sorceror to wind up in a combat with only 3 attacks? does this mean that you are suggesting that there is a difference between how the rule works when this is the case and a scenario when the sorceror has 4attacks? i think this is highly unlikely

 

i think, regardless of how valid/invalid my opinion is, that the re-roll rule applies to any number of dice over 1

 

AM

[Isiah]

Cool it guys or this will get closed. If anyone has issues with another members' posts then hit the Report button – don't start trying to moderate things yourself.

 

By all means carry on this topic – but without the personal insults and general mudslinging.

 

Cheers

I

[Cale]

Frankly, Cale, i find your tone rude, aggressive and disrespectful. the point you make can be as valid as it likes, but as long as you go round talking to poeple like that noone will take any notice of you. maybe you should go go ask your parents/teacher/boss/random bloke in the street about an appropriate manner in which to communicate with people. Just bear that in mind when you post next please

 

I wasn't trying to be rude, merely to express my incredulity. If you can't take a point because you find the language off-putting, though...well, that's pretty much entirely your problem.

 

so, what youre suggesting is that the rule only applies to situations when you are rolling 2 or 3D6.

 

Yes, since it specifically states that the rule only applies to situations when you are rolling 2d6 or 3d6, I would say that's a reasonable conclusion. The only reasonable conclusion, in fact.

 

 

is it not possible for a chaos sorceror to wind up in a combat with only 3 attacks? does this mean that you are suggesting that there is a difference between how the rule works when this is the case and a scenario when the sorceror has 4attacks? i think this is highly unlikely

 

Well, it is very unlikely for a sorcerer to wind up having only three attacks, yes. He'd have to be fighting something with a lash-whip or equivalent.

 

That, however, is irrelevant. Rolling 2d6 or 3d6 doesn't refer to any situation in which you're rolling two or three dice--it refers exclusively to those situations in which you're rolling two or three dice and finding the sum of those dice. This is spelled out very clearly on page two of the rulebook--right next to the rule you quoted, actually, in the section on modifying dice rolls:

 

"You may also be told to roll a number of dice in one go, which is written as 2d6 or 3d6, and so on. Roll the indicated number of dice and add the scores together, so a 2d6 is two dice rolled and added together for a score of between 2-12."

 

It doesn't matter how many attacks a sorcerer makes--he's never rolling 2d6 or 3d6 on his rolls to hit. Even if he's making only two or three attacks.

 

So, yes. The rule you quoted is absolutely, 100% irrelevant to the matter at hand, and this is made crystal clear on the very page from which you quoted the rule.

 

i think, regardless of how valid/invalid my opinion is, that the re-roll rule applies to any number of dice over 1

 

Well, it doesn't. You can think it does all you want, but there is simply no rational basis for that opinion. The rules are absolutely clear on that, and you would have known that had you bothered to read them carefully.

 

It just irritates me when people take a quote miles out of context and act like it constitutes irrefutable proof. It'd be like me saying, "the sky is blue! therefor I am correct!" The sky is blue, it just doesn't make me correct.

 

Worse yet, because no-one else (apparently) actually bothered to read the rule you quoted, everyone else acted the same way.

[Agrab]

Cale, we are all adults here, so please stop attacking us and insulting us. Normally ad hocs are reserved for those who are knowingly losing their argument, so keep in mind what you show us.

 

That said, I have three points:

 

1) There is no other instance that I know of where ALL is used without any other modifier, so this is a special case (please let me know if i am wrong)

2) We both admit that all is the first modifier, so that means, based on normal english grammar, that may modifies all rolls. You are reading it as all doesnt matter.

3) all is not any, you are reading 'may reroll ANY...', not the proper wording of 'may reroll ALL'

 

now, if you have grammar to beat me please show it to me so i can rectify my position, but, until you show me grammar that agrees with your contention my experts, as well as my grammar, wins.

[SeattleDV8]

BRB pg 11 ".... a player may move any of his units-all of them if he wishes-...."

By your logic Agrab I would be forced to move all of my units, this is not the case.

The problem with grammar arguments is

A) the rules are written with British 'english' not American 'english' there are many subtle differences.

B ) The rules are not textbooks. They are full of odd wording and poor sentence contruction.

C ) Game mechanics are more important than grammar.

D) When someone uses grammar for a rules argument it usally means they don't have a good rules argument.

[Cale]

Cale, we are all adults here, so please stop attacking us and insulting us. Normally ad hocs are reserved for those who are knowingly losing their argument, so keep in mind what you show us.

 

I haven't attacked anyone, and the term you're looking for is "ad hominem." Nice try, though. =P

 

That said, I have three points:

 

1) There is no other instance that I know of where ALL is used without any other modifier, so this is a special case (please let me know if i am wrong)

 

Irrelevant--especially since, in this case, "all" is used with another modifier: "may." That "may" makes all the difference.

 

If the rule said, "the sorcerer re-rolls all of his rolls to hit and rolls to wound," then you'd be almost right. You would have to re-roll them all, but you couldn't opt not to do so.

 

I guess I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, here.

 

2) We both admit that all is the first modifier, so that means, based on normal english grammar, that may modifies all rolls. You are reading it as all doesnt matter.

 

It is the first modifier, and it does mean that the may modifies all rolls.

The conclusion that, by the rules of "normal english grammar," the may modifies all rolls as a set is an error. The word "all" doesn't lump all the rolls together into a single set which is modified by the may. It just specifies that all rolls are included as objects.

 

Objects--that's the important part. Though all rolls are included, they are included as individual objects of the sentence. The object of the sentence is not a singular thing. It is not a set which includes all the rolls. It is just all the rolls individually.

 

 

3) all is not any, you are reading 'may reroll ANY...', not the proper wording of 'may reroll ALL'

 

True, but in this case both words would accomplish the same task. Surely, being a student of English, you're aware of plenty of situations in which two different words denote the same situation. :)

 

 

 

now, if you have grammar to beat me please show it to me so i can rectify my position, but, until you show me grammar that agrees with your contention my experts, as well as my grammar, wins.

 

Produced above: the answer is simple and I've already presented it more than once.

 

In order for you to be correct, the object of the sentence would have be singular--it would have to be the set of all rolls to hit and rolls to wound.

 

It is not. Instead, all rolls to hit and rolls to wound are included as individual objects.

That, in turn, means that may applies to each of them individually--not as a set.

That, in turn means that you may choose to re-roll all of them as individuals.

 

If the sentence wanted you to treat them as a set, it would have to be worded differently--worded so that it is clear that they were being grouped together in a singular set. Something like, "the sorcerer may choose to re-roll the the set of all of his rolls to hit and the set of all of his rolls to hit." That wording would support your conclusion.

 

Surely, you can see that the wording which exists is substantially different from that wording.

[angry man]

If the sentence wanted you to treat them as a set, it would have to be worded differently--worded so that it is clear that they were being grouped together in a singular set. Something like, "the sorcerer may choose to re-roll the the set of all of his rolls to hit and the set of all of his rolls to hit." That wording would support your conclusion.

 

Surely, you can see that the wording which exists is substantially different from that wording.

 

or maybe, just maybe, if the if the sentence wanted you to consider all of the dice individually it would have been worded a closer to something like this -- "the sorcerer may choose to re-roll any number of dice from rolls to hit and rolls to wound..." That wording, would support your conclusion.

 

Also, as SeattleDV8 has noted (in favour of your own arguement)

A) the rules are written with British 'english' not American 'english' there are many subtle differences.

 

as a British person who speaks, hears, writes, reads and pretty much lives British english, i personally read it that the Warptime power is an all or nothing choice, as the most common use of the word all is every, and the word any (which is a simple enough word to use and therefore dilutes your talk of the multiple meanings of 'all') is what would better support your arguement

 

AM

[Isiah]

as a British person who speaks, hears, writes, reads and pretty much lives British english, i personally read it that the Warptime power is an all or nothing choice.

 

Me too and I don't :) for reasons I've already stated elsewhere.

 

To be honest his looks like it's heading to the grey Areas topic as there is self-evidently a RAW issue here that relies on some personal interpretation of the wording. RAI using the argument that why re-roll perfectly good rolls in the first place comes to mind - but RAI (if that is indeed the correct intention) has no place here.

 

Cheers

I