"Through Surety, Destruction" (FSE warlord trait) is bugged

Discuss any rules that are confusing or bothering you.
User avatar
Unicornsilovethem
Shas'Saal
Posts: 278

"Through Surety, Destruction" (FSE warlord trait) is bugged

Post#1 » Feb 17 2017 02:51

Unless you guys are able to find a FAQ on this that I haven't.

The Warlord trait says the following, from Mont'ka p196:
One use only. Declare your Warlord is using this ability at the start of one of your Shooting phases. For the duration of the phase, the Warlord and his unit have the Shred special rule.


So we get the Shred rule, on our models, for one shooting phase.

BRB p170
If a model has the Shred special rule, or is attacking with a Melee weapon that has the Shred special rule, it re-rolls failed to Would rolls in close combat.

Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has the Shred special rule, it re-rolls its failed to Would rolls.


So the wording of this rule means that the warlord trait is entirely useless. Since we get Shred on our models, not on their weapons, the rule comes in effect only in close combat. But we can only activate the warlord trait in the shooting phase, where no close combat happens.

Please find either a FAQ on the Warlord trait so that it gives Shred to the guns, or a FAQ on Shred that makes it work on shooting attacks if a model has the rule. Actually, please don't find the latter, since it'll probably improve enemy fire more than ours.

User avatar
Vector Strike
Shas'La
Posts: 637

Re: "Through Surety, Destruction" (FSE warlord trait) is bugged

Post#2 » Feb 17 2017 06:36

There's no FAQ, but you guys could play with RAI. It's more or less clear they wanted the guns to have it.

User avatar
Unusualsuspect
Kroot'Ui
Posts: 490

Re: "Through Surety, Destruction" (FSE warlord trait) is bugged

Post#3 » Feb 17 2017 05:10

Vector Strike has the right of it.

That said, with the addition of the Ynarri faction, there is now a way in which even the RAW trait's effects would work (albeit not in the way the trait was clearly intended to work).

Soulburst would allow a Ynarri unit to assault during our shooting phase, and that assault could be against the warlord's unit. At that point, since that assault would be resolved during the Shooting phase, the warlord's unit would gain Shred on their melee attacks.


Whoops, re-read the Strength from Death rule. It only allows a charge, it may not grant attacks during the phase of that charge. I'd need to do more research.

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Posts: 602

Re: "Through Surety, Destruction" (FSE warlord trait) is bugged

Post#4 » Feb 19 2017 04:48

There's no debate here.

"If a model has the shred special rule..."

That's all you need. The "similarly" phrase is an additional to the "or" following "if a model has the shred special rule..."

So it says "if a model has the shred special rule or if a melee weapon does, do this. Similarly, if the ranged weapon has the special rule, do this."

User avatar
Unusualsuspect
Kroot'Ui
Posts: 490

Re: "Through Surety, Destruction" (FSE warlord trait) is bugged

Post#5 » Feb 19 2017 06:10

AnonAmbientLight wrote:There's no debate here.

"If a model has the shred special rule..."

That's all you need. The "similarly" phrase is an additional to the "or" following "if a model has the shred special rule..."

So it says "if a model has the shred special rule or if a melee weapon does, do this. Similarly, if the ranged weapon has the special rule, do this."


You seem to be missing the issue here.

The rules grant a model with Shred one, and only one, benefit: The ability to re-roll to-wound rolls in close combat.

The only way Shred grants the ability to re-roll to-wound rolls in shooting attacks is when a model fires a weapon with the Shred special rule.

There is clearly an implication that the Warlord Trait was designed to grant the ability to re-roll to-wound rolls in the warlord's unit's shooting phase, but the RAW and logical structure of the Shred rule prevents it.

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Posts: 602

Re: "Through Surety, Destruction" (FSE warlord trait) is bugged

Post#6 » Feb 19 2017 12:30

If you totally ignore that another paragraph follows the first and the word similarly is used, then yes your argument holds up.

The use of similarly here is meant to replace the melee portion of the first paragraph. Since there are only two types of attacks to be made anyway.

RAW it's pretty clear to follow the logic of the post. RAI it's also pretty clear. IRL no one is going to play it this way because it is just like the Sunshark Bomber not having a bomb.

So why is this even a topic on ATT, again?

User avatar
Unicornsilovethem
Shas'Saal
Posts: 278

Re: "Through Surety, Destruction" (FSE warlord trait) is bugged

Post#7 » Feb 19 2017 02:02

Anon, I agree with you that there's no debate here. But still you are debating?

'Similarly' doesn't mean the same thing as 'identically'. The way Shred canonically works for Shooting is similar to the way it works in close combat. The interpretation you are suggesting is not only not mentioned, but also not similar to the paragraph before.

I agree it's obvious what the intention of the Warlord Trait is, and I personally try to play RAI as much as possible. But some people don't, especially in tournaments which can be serious business. And if you should find yourself against such an opponent then it's good to know in which situations RAW is going to screw you over. Against such an opponent, definitely try to avoid getting this Warlord Trait. That is why this is a topic on ATT.

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Posts: 602

Re: "Through Surety, Destruction" (FSE warlord trait) is bugged

Post#8 » Feb 19 2017 03:46

Unicornsilovethem wrote:Anon, I agree with you that there's no debate here. But still you are debating?

'Similarly' doesn't mean the same thing as 'identically'. The way Shred canonically works for Shooting is similar to the way it works in close combat. The interpretation you are suggesting is not only not mentioned, but also not similar to the paragraph before.


Let us start with the definition of "similarly".

sim·i·lar·ly
ˈsim(ə)lərlē/
adverb
in a similar way.
"a similarly priced property"
synonyms: likewise, in similar fashion, in like manner, comparably, correspondingly, uniformly, indistinguishably, analogously, homogeneously, equivalently, in the same way, the same, identically
"the two vases are similarly flawed at the base"
used to indicate a similarity between two facts or events.

Now let's look at the rule. Remember rules operate under conditions being met in order to get an outcome.

If a model has the Shred special rule, or is attacking with a Melee weapon that has the Shred special rule, it re-rolls failed to Would rolls in close combat.

Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has the Shred special rule, it re-rolls its failed to Would rolls.


It gives you three conditions that must be met to get the outcome (shred): 1) Does the model have it. 2) does the melee weapon have it. 3) does the shooting weapon have it. Satisfy one of these conditions and you get the rule, agreed?

In the case of the warlord trait it tells us that the Warlord and his unit get the shred special rule. It gives it to the models themselves. When we go to read the rule, the first condition is "If a model has the shred special rule..." so our condition is met.

The "or" that follows tells us what else we can do. It is telling us if you do not meet the first requirement, then check for the second requirement - "...is attacking with a melee weapon that has the shred special rule..." But we are not making a melee attack so we continue reading.

"Similarly" is extremely important here. It is worded the same way as melee, except it is in reference to shooting. Understanding the definition of similarly we can see that it is telling us to quite literally, "plug" the shooting definition in place of the melee one and it is directly referencing the above paragraph. Your interpretation might hold up if similarly was never added.


Unicornsilovethem wrote: I agree it's obvious what the intention of the Warlord Trait is, and I personally try to play RAI as much as possible. But some people don't, especially in tournaments which can be serious business. And if you should find yourself against such an opponent then it's good to know in which situations RAW is going to screw you over. Against such an opponent, definitely try to avoid getting this Warlord Trait. That is why this is a topic on ATT.


It will likely never come up. I've never seen anyone complain about it. Not at major tournaments. It hasn't been in the GW FAQ that they recently did and the rule remains unchanged since 6th edition. This isn't something that they "missed". You didn't find a "mistake" or a "loop hole".

I keep using this example, but it fits so well with examining player expectation and sportsmanship. Anyone that is going to say that a Sunshark Bomber can't make a bombing run because it didn't start the game with a bomb is not someone you want to play a game with anyway. Similarly, anyone arguing about whether or not you can use shred in this context falls into the same category (see what I did there :crafty: ).

What I mean by no debate is that no one is saying this is a problem. It's an issue for you because you don't understand how the language is structured and how it is meant to be interpreted. Which I guess GW is partly to blame for this. They should probably take a good look at their rules to try to simplify it so you don't have to be a lawyer to understand them for 8th edition.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 1173

Re: "Through Surety, Destruction" (FSE warlord trait) is bugged

Post#9 » Feb 19 2017 03:56

I really can't take this topic seriously.
If something sounds ridiculous and not even the most active player seems to have noticed in all those years....chances are that indeed your finding is simply wrong and no big deal at all. Especially when it comes to rules discussions. :D

User avatar
Unusualsuspect
Kroot'Ui
Posts: 490

Re: "Through Surety, Destruction" (FSE warlord trait) is bugged

Post#10 » Feb 19 2017 06:33

@Panzer: That would be a fair argument, except that people miss loopholes in the rules all the time.

I can recall a very thorny discussion a few editions ago, when the RAW wording of the Multi-tracker meant that a TL weapon couldn't be fired together with another weapon. It was a trick of the wording that had been pretty much entirely missed. It was also so clearly against the intent that every single Tau player played it as RAI - that Multi-trackers were designed to allow the model to fire multiple weapons (a TL weapon counting as a single weapon, of course), rather than multiple weapon systems (a TL weapon counting as two).

I can also recall the nearly universal understanding that multiple grenades could be used by a single unit in melee. When that topic was brought up, it was immediately dismissed upon much the same reasoning you've provided. Heck, I'm fairly sure the wording for grenades hadn't changed in years.

But then the FAQ dropped.

That reason works great... until it doesn't. People miss things, particularly where what seems to be the intent is very clear (as it is in this case, where Shred is granted solely in the Shooting phase and was clearly meant to apply to shooting weapons).

As for this quirk of Shred (that being a model with Shred doesn't grant rerolls to-wound for shooting attacks), I've seen it referenced multiple times in Kill Team discussions, particularly revolving around one of the melee specialist benefits (which grants the model Shred) and specifically noting that it wouldn't benefit shooting attacks.

That most of us missed that the Warlord Trait only grants models, and not their ranged weapons, the Shred special rule is, to me, an inevitable result of rules complexity, particularly the interaction between RAI and RAW quirks.

@Anon.

There are 3 separate conditions, but their entailed consequences are separated.

The rule is laid out in the following logical structure.

If [X or Y], then A.
If Z, then B.

The satisfaction of X or Y does not entail B, and the satisfaction of Z does not entail A.

The use of the word similarly is descriptive, but it doesn't change the nature of the logical structure used - it merely notes that there are similarities between the content of the two structures, and there are: Just as close combat weapons with Shred grant re-rolls in close combat, ranged weapons with Shred grant re-rolls in shooting attacks.

It draws parallels, but it doesn't entail the mirroring of condition X like you seem to imply.

Return to “Rules & FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest