BSB rules questions

[Qrab]

Even though I'm not going to be there, I read the rules & have a question or two. First up:

Magic Resistance works as long as the spell is specifically targeted (including placement of a template) as part of the casting of the spell. If the unit is affected only after the spell is successfully cast, then Magic Resistance is not applicable.

What does this mean with regard to spells that affect every unit on the table? MR or no MR? What about a spell like Cleansing Flare that affects all units within 12" of the caster? (remember that measuring takes place after the spell is successfully cast).

What is your position on the mandatory re-roll for Daemon BSBs versus the opinion that they can choose to re-roll (or not)? Keep in mind, the "choose" interpretation also allows Daemons to ignore the rules for Stubborn as well.

[captkurt]

Unless a unit is specifically targeted in some way...MR does not work.  It also has to be specifically targeted as part of the casting of the spell, not as part of the spells effect.  If its an AOE, then MR is SOL.

I have not seen a definative thing that says a BSB is a REQUIRED re-roll, so if it is not required, then it is indeed optional with all the benefits that this might provide.

How does this ignore stubborn?

[Qrab]

I have not seen a definative thing that says a BSB is a REQUIRED re-roll, so if it is not required, then it is indeed optional with all the benefits that this might provide.

Per page 83 of the rulebook, under the section RE-ROLL BREAK TESTS, "Note that the controlling player may not choose whether or not a unit is going to use the battle standard re-roll, but must always use it if the first test is failed."

The problem is that some people read the rules for Daemonic BSBs and mentally insert the clause "choose to" after "can" into the following sentence, "Note that an Instability test can be re-rolled if the Battle Standard is within 12" and/or tested on unmodified Leadership if the unit is stubborn." (DoC pg 30)

How does this ignore stubborn?

If the daemon player can choose to use the BSB re-roll (or not), then he can also choose to use a stubborn unit's unmodified Leadership. However, "choose to" does not appear in the sentence on pg 30, nor does that sentence specifically state that the basic BSB rules (i.e. mandatory re-roll for failed tests) are ignored.

[captkurt]

Ok, I see.

I have to admit that I have not played anyone with a BSB in a DoC army, and only played against a DoC 3 times total.

I will review and post a ruling to the Broadside Bash FAQ.

[Mordante]

There is a long discussion on this on the GE forum in "Rudy's Conclusions" thread, or whatever it was called.  IMO, anything that makes it easier for daemons should NOT be allowed, thus I agree with Qrab.  Based on the syntax of the sentence in the daemon book however, I disagree ("can" does not mean "must".)

[Fellblade]

Can vs. May

My understanding of word usage conventions in gaming books is:
Can = Has the ability to be, likely an exception to something
May = The player has the choice to use the following rule or not

For example (for a hypothetical game):
A B-17 can fire upon enemy airplanes.
A B-17 may fire on any enemy fighters in an adjacent hex
A B-17 fires on any fighter within range

The first example is there giving permission, not to imply anything must be done. "Hey, this bomber has anti-aircraft guns!" This type of rule is the answer to "Well, does the rule say you can?" "Why yes, yes it does!" You can try to argue "well, the word 'airplanes' is plural so that means I can shoot any all the fighters attacking me right?" Generally this is follow up by rules for what the valid targets are rather than offering you a choice to take an action or not.

The second example is more clear, the bomber clearly has a choice of shooting at any number of targets. Perhaps there is some sort of penalty (such as friendly fire) where you wouldn't want to engage a particular target.

The third example is likewise clear, but for better or worse you have no choice. If this followed the sentence in the first example, the clearly the "can" isn't there to give a choice but rather to introduce the topic of defensive fire for the bomber.

Of course, you can argue GW rules all day long. In the case of the DoC BSB, I think "can" is just GW's way of telling the player that the banner functions for instability tests, something not covered in the main rulebook. It tells me to keep reading to find the appropriate rules. If you're going to be facing rules lawyers like this, you might consider adding some "FAQ" to the Skaven army book too. Unlike Warpfire Throwers, Ratling Guns don't specific they're removed on a misfire result of 5-6 and Jezzails say they can't be targeted by enemy shooters.

[Qrab]

Yay Pacific Marauders!

In the case of the DoC BSB, I think "can" is just GW's way of telling the player that the banner functions for instability tests, something not covered in the main rulebook. It tells me to keep reading to find the appropriate rules.

That's my position as well, though its not well received because a lot of people look at "can" and "may" as magic words that give them a choice in doing something. Problem is (surprise) GW writes sloppy rules and if one begins looking through the rulebook at all the places they use those words the game becomes very different. For example, take a look at the section on combat results and combat results bonuses.

[Gobbla]

I think it is fairer to say GW rights READABLE rules.  I’m not making excuses for GW, but c’mon.  The base rules for BSB’s clearly state that their re-roll is not optional.  That could not be clearer.  If the Instability roll is failed, it can be re-rolled with a BSB.  The word “can” in this context implies a benefit that the owning player is given. 

Here is a real world example.  If a lizard looses its tail, it can re-grow a new one.  That does not imply the lizard has an option to re-grow its tail.  Instead, it has an ability to re-grow its tail.  The opposite would be to say, if a mammal looses its tail, it can not re-grow a new one.

If you want the DoC BSB to give the OPTION to re-roll, fine.  But, don’t take a rule out of context as the basis for that option.  That was my primary objection in the other thread.

[captkurt]

I am inclined to say that the normal BSB and Stubborn rules are not ignored in these situations.  The DoC play must use the BSB re-roll.  And that Stubborn is not optional, unless using the non-Stubborn LD of a character in the unit or the General's LD.

Its does not seem that the DoC rules override or replace the existing BSB and Stubborn rules, but simply extend them to allow them to be used on the Instability roll as well...since Instability is essentially the DoC's Break Check.

Unlike the VC rules which clearly replace how the BSB ability is to be used, 1 less crumble due to lost combat res.

This is how it will be ruled in the Broadside Bash.