Fleet question - 1 or more

BRB says reroll one or more when determined run or charge. Sooooooooo does that mean if I failed my charge distance I can re-roll both or just one?

I've normally played it roll three and take the two highest but this may be incorrect play. Have I been doing it wrong this whole time?

Thanks all!

Yes, it's incorrect. You roll what you would normally roll for run or charge. Then if you don't like the results of one or more dice, you may reroll any number from zero to all of them, but how ever many you reroll, you must reroll them all at once.

Nice thanks!!

While I don't disagree with you (that's how everyone I have ever seen plays it), as an academic question, do you know of anywhere in the rules it says that you actually have to reroll them all at the same time? I checked under both 'Re-rolls' and 'Fleet' and didn't see anything.

Well I'd argue that "one or more" with no linking comma creates a singular game state and thus however many you choose must be done at the same time, BUT that argument can fairly easily be broken by pointing to GW's decision to define 'dice' as a singular die. That matters because even though GW says "dice" maybe re-rolled they place no justification for us to presume that this 'dice' applies across multiple dice, so the '1 or more' grants the space for your conclusion. That's another point for the raw thread.

Jimsolo wrote:

While I don't disagree with you (that's how everyone I have ever seen plays it), as an academic question, do you know of anywhere in the rules it says that you actually have to reroll them all at the same time?  I checked under both 'Re-rolls' and 'Fleet' and didn't see anything.

Nope, I don't know of anywhere in the rules that actually says that. I was just going off of what is accepted by the 40k community at large, and the fact that I've never seen someone try to reroll 1 die, then reroll the second one if they didn't like the result. I imagine this to be one of those things that probably doesn't effect the game much, but makes people dislike you.

Like I've said in the past, if I'm going to break from societally accepted norms on a rule and argue that it works a different way, it's going to be a rule that likely single-handedly wins me the game. I don't think this is that rule.

With my already scathingly irritating dialogue selection(I guess...I still don't know precisely what it is that rubs people the wrong way..), I have to work extra hard to avoid doing things that make people dislike me. Tournaments have a thing where you rate how much you enjoyed playing against your opponent. Those are the bane of my existence already. Things like this would likely see me ejected from tournaments for poor "sportsmanship score", despite never making an argument that was "unjust" based on the RAW.

I would nevah evah evah do it in a casual game. But in a tournament game, where money is on the line? (Especially if the top prize doesn't include a Sportsmanship score in some kind of mutant composite system?) Every tool to ensure victory.

Jimsolo wrote:

I would nevah evah evah do it in a casual game.  But in a tournament game, where money is on the line?  (Especially if the top prize doesn't include a Sportsmanship score in some kind of mutant composite system?) Every tool to ensure victory.

I would generally agree with this, but bad sportsmanship scores can get you ejected from tournaments even if you really didn't do anything to earn them. People's opinions are fickle, so I really dislike the fact that they score a tactical, strategy game using sportsmanship scores anyhow.

Most of the time, the top prize is the "Renaissance Man", which is the highest average between painting, sportsmanship, and actual tournament scores. Even in cases where it isn't, many of them have a clause that says, "If you're given 2 or more negative sportsmanship marks, the situation will be reviewed and you may be asked to leave."

Some of them don't even have the review process, and it's just "if you get X bad marks, you're asked to leave."

Personally, I'd be prepared to make a gentlemen's agreement with any opponent I faced not to give bad sportsman marks for anything short of you screaming in my face and speaking negatively about my family. I find that sportsmanship scores do more damage to the game than anything positive it brings.

The only way I think it's OK to have sportsmanship scores is if you have to explain yourself to someone any time you give someone a bad score, and bad scores aren't allowed because you just disliked someone or had rules disagreements with them. For many people, not having to justify your negative scores leads to malicious scoring of opponents you resent, even if they didn't do anything unsportsmanlike.

And why should my score suffer just because I got matched with a miserable, sore loser of a person? I think giving negative sportsman scores to people is actually representative of unsportsmanlike conduct more than the reverse.

I've never given someone a negative sportsman score, except when you're forced to by the tournaments that use a Gold/Silver/Bronze system, where you HAVE to give out a certain number of bronze scores. And I really don't like those systems.

I hate sportsmanship scores. Any tournament that does a 'Renaissance man' scoring (the mutant aberration I mentioned) is one I'll avoid. Fortunately, here in the central midwest they aren't that common. Typically we see 1-3rd place, with top painting and best sport given additional prizes. (Best Sport is invariably a guilt prize, since people tend to give the highest sportsmanship score to the person they felt worst about beating. This inevitably ends up going to a player with a cognitive disability, a physical disability, or barring that the youngest player.)

Adepticon is in the midwest(Chicago), and they do "Renaissance man" scoring for their "main" tournament results. When you see the results posted online, that's renaissance man results, not the actual tournament results. It's quite possible to go undefeated in the tournament and not get 1st place.

The same applies to the LVO. Results listed are hybrid score results that included at least paint scores and I think sportsmanship as well.

I personally don't consider those results the true arbiter of victory, and prefer to look at the results for best general, which are typicall harder to find, if they're even posted online. Since "best general" is actually a list of who performed the best in the tournament...I really don't know why they tend to make this difficult information to obtain.

How horrific. I'm well south of Chi-town, though, and that isn't generally how we operate. My (admittedly limited) experience has been that the northern midwest communities don't seem to have any real interest in serious competitive events (which Renaissance Man scoring strongly discourages).

Well, I mean, LVO is often considered to be the pinnacle of 40k competitions in this day and age, and they use renaissance man scoring too.

Of course, "Best General" gets a prize that is fairly significant as well. I think prize support between the two may even be fairly close to equal. But in the online list of rankings, they list the Renaissance man scores. So while prize support might be close to equal, public recognition often is not.

I have nothing against painting scores or renaissance man prizes. But I don't think they should be factored into tournament score. They should be seperate awards, in my opinion, with the actual tournament winner being portrayed as the tournament winner.

I've had this type of scoring effect my overall placement heavily in the past. Being top 20 in actual tournament results out of 400 people, but getting dropped down to top 60 instead because of painting scores that were less than stellar.

Renaissance at LVO only gets you to day 3 tho right? Isn't overall determined by swiss bracket? I really don't care about how prelims score tbh. I wish more people would use groups prelims like Starcraft does though tbh. Can't get that started up here unfortunately.

The entire tournament is swiss pairings, but I don't remember, to be honest with you. I looked online to find the results, but it looks like they took down the old website to put the new one up, and the new one has far less information.

As much as I like what FLG has done for the tournament scene, I really think they need to hire someone to organize their websites better. It is entirely too difficult to find information.

In looking at the results for adepticon, though, they only show the scoring method for the qualifiers to get to the final 16. They don't tell us whether the final 16 used the same scoring method or not. It could be that they change it for the final 16, I suppose. But it seems silly to have qualifiers compete under 1 standard of scoring while finalists compete under a completely different standard.