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

A review of Rules of Engagement from earlier encounters.
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: 879

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: 578

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: 745

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."
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
Unusualsuspect
Kroot'Ui
Posts: 578

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: 745

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?
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

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: 745

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.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2208

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: 578

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.

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Posts: 745

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

Post#11 » Feb 19 2017 10:56

Unusualsuspect wrote:@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.


How would you add the word similarly in that logical structure? You left it out and it is quite important in understanding the rule itself.

Unusualsuspect wrote:The use of the word similarly is descriptive, but it doesn't change the nature of the logical structure used


So they added it for flavor then. Similarly has no meaning?

Unusualsuspect wrote: 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.


Which is it? Is it just descriptive, or does it tell the reader to do something? Based on this interpretation, you're suggesting that they are explaining the rule to us twice. Why tell us to take note of the melee Shred and then explain to us exactly how ranged Shred works.

You at least seem to be suggesting that they are referencing the previous paragraph, but only for melee? Come on now...
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
Unusualsuspect
Kroot'Ui
Posts: 578

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

Post#12 » Feb 19 2017 11:05

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Unusualsuspect wrote:@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.


How would you add the word similarly in that logical structure? You left it out and it is quite important in understanding the rule itself.


You wouldn't, as it is merely descriptive and has no logical function.

If I think people are silly, or people just don't understand, it makes me slightly ambivalent.

Similarly, if people are deliberately obtuse, it makes me slightly vexed.

People being silly does not entail that I am slightly vexed, regardless of the presence of the word similarly, because the word "similarly" performs a descriptive function rather than a performative one.

Unusualsuspect wrote:The use of the word similarly is descriptive, but it doesn't change the nature of the logical structure used


So they added it for flavor then. Similarly has no meaning?

Unusualsuspect wrote: 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.


Which is it? Is it just descriptive, or does it tell the reader to do something? Based on this interpretation, you're suggesting that they are explaining the rule to us twice. Why tell us to take note of the melee Shred and then explain to us exactly how ranged Shred works.

You at least seem to be suggesting that they are referencing the previous paragraph, but only for melee? Come on now...


It doesn't tell the reader to do anything, it is merely descriptive. To whatever extent they are referencing the previous paragraph, they are not doing so in a way that alters its formal logical structure.



Edit: it all boils down to what the consequences of being "similar" are. If I say I have a similar background to someone, that doesn't entail that every aspect of their background has direct parallels to my own - If that person had three siblings while I only had two, but our families were in the same income bracket, grew up in the suburbs, were white, and went to the same school, they would still be sufficiently similar to qualify under the definition of similar.

To be similar does not require an identical nature. By its vague and context-dependent nature, it has no necessary function, but is instead a colloquial contextual clue.

User avatar
Unicornsilovethem
Shas'Saal
Posts: 278

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

Post#13 » Feb 21 2017 09:44

When they say 'similarly', it means that the following statement is similar to the previous one. And that's quite the case: the way Shred functions in the shooting phase is similar to how it functions in the Assault phase. But the two effects, as they are described, are not identical. And the word 'similarly' does not imply that two things are identical. If you ask google to explain the word similar, the first definition is "resembling without being identical".

You invoked RAI in a previous post. And yes, it is very clear that the Warlord Trait was intended to give "Reroll Failed To-Wounds" to shooting attacks (since it is not intended to have no effect). But is also very clear that Shred on a model is not intended to have any effect on shooting. The rule would have been worded very differently if that were the case, not to mention the argument from logical consistency to the fictional universe: a monster might have Shred to represent that its claws are very sharp, but that doesn't automatically mean that the bullets it shoots also come with extra killing power. And trust me, you don't either want Shred or Rending (which is worded in the same way) on models to affect shooting.

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Posts: 745

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

Post#14 » Feb 24 2017 12:02

I'll give you guys some other examples of "similarly" and how it is used in the rules to help clarify this misunderstanding for some of you.

If the psychic power requires a target, you must nominate it at this point. Unless otherwise stated, the Psyker must have line of sight to his target. This means that a Psyker embarked on a Transport can only target himself, his vehicle or another unit embarked on the same vehicle as the Psyker. Similarly, a Psyker outside a Transport cannot target a unit embarked within one.


In this context, similarly is used to apply the "a psyker outside a Transport cannot target a unit embarked within one." to the rules of "declaring a target" that was just mentioned. They do not have to repeat what they just said about psykers outside at transport because the word similarly points back to what came before. Does this make sense?

Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings and tails, and antennae even though they are technically part of a model's body.


Similarly here is used to add "wings, tails, and antennae" to the list of things that make the model "not visible".

In all of these cases, similarly is used to point to what came before, and add the following to that definition.

RAI is grossly clear. It's a non-issue. RAW is also clear. I don't know why this topic has gone on as long as it has. It must be a slow week for Tau topics. This is like having a discussion on what is better on a hammerhead: the SMS or Burst Cannon.

What a waste of time.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
Unicornsilovethem
Shas'Saal
Posts: 278

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

Post#15 » Feb 24 2017 12:45

AnonAmbientLight wrote:RAI is grossly clear. It's a non-issue. RAW is also clear.

...

What a waste of time.


Well, we agree on these things. But for the rest, you are dead wrong and that's all I have to say to you.

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Posts: 745

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

Post#16 » Feb 24 2017 03:19

Then why did you even bother to post this thread? Are you trying to troll people?

Edit: Looking at your post history it seems like you are trying to find "inconsistencies" with the rules and create topics for them.

Your last topic was talking about whether or not a Gunrig from the Tau Fortification could receive a FnP roll. You seem to post in a manner that suggests you "know what you're talking about" instead of asking if a rule works that way and fostering discussion.

You came into this discussion with your mind made up with whatever kind of faulty logic you employ. We could all have been right, and you still would have continued as you have so far.

You don't seem interested in asking how something works. You seem to be interested in being that guy that needs to tell us we've all been missing something right before our eyes.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2208

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

Post#17 » Feb 24 2017 05:09

AnonAmbientLight wrote:You came into this discussion with your mind made up with whatever kind of faulty logic you employ. We could all have been right, and you still would have continued as you have so far.

^this

User avatar
shasocastris
Shas'Vre
Posts: 943
Contact:

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

Post#18 » Mar 01 2017 03:56

This thread has run its course. Topic locked.
-shasocastris

Return to “Archival Datacore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests