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".
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
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.