Dyvim Tvar said:
It's not really a dice-off situation since there are no rules in conflict.
There is a conflict. It is between rules that exist but do not cover all circumstances, and the logical and probably answer to that said circumstance.
Dyvim Tvar said:
The results on the reaction chart all indicate that the effects are permanent, stating either "for the remainder of the game" or "from this point onwards". There are no rules anywhere indicating that the effects of a failed monster reaction test can be lifted. You might not like what the rules tell you, and they may dictate a result that seems odd, but that doesn't change the rules. There are some gray areas in the game, but this isn't one of them.
The rules were obviously written thinking of the handlers dying and staying dead forever. And they make sense in that circumstance. I strongly doubt that the situation where a handler is reintroduced was thought of. The rule does not say that the effect is permanent "even if a handler comes back". It doesnt mention that scenario whatsoever, and as such, we cant go strictly by rules as written, because they don't cover it.
Dyvim Tvar said:
Trying to apply "real world" logic to Warhammer doesn't work, in part because it doesn't necessarily lead everyone to the same place. One could also logically argue that a monster that has gone wild could not quickly be brought back under control, or that when startled by the sudden resurrection of a handler, it is just as likely to eat the handler as obey it.
If I can't apply logic to a situation, what am I supposed to apply to a situation not strictly covered by the rules? I suppose if the players disagree on logic then this is a situation where the roll off would come into play.
Dyvim Tvar said:
Phragonist said:
... but my issue is with a dick opponent that won't allow anything unless it is explicitly stated in the rules.
Playing by the rules is not being a dick. To the contrary, if I were playing a game and my opponent wants to do something that is against the rules even after I point out the applicable rules, I think that person falls in the "dick" category. And if it is in a competitive play environment, I would go further and call that person a cheater.
What I mean is that if something is Rules As Intended (henceforth refered to as RAI) then even if it is extremely obvious that it is RAI, my opponent will still go by Rules As Written, unless there is a precedence set of a majority of people doing it a certain way, which is what I came here to get. That is the being a dick part.
I agree that doing something that you know is against the rules is cheating and being a dick, but in this situation with reviving handlers, we don't know the rules as the situation where a handler is revived is not explicitly covered in the rules. The rules do not say that the monster reaction continues if a handler comes back, and they dont say that the monster reaction goes away if a handler comes back. Therefore we cannot go by RAW and must go by RAI. (The rules do say things that lead you to believe that the effect lasts the rest of the game, but it does not take into account the chance of a handler returning, it assumes they are dead forever)
Dyvim Tvar said:
Phragonist said:
Which is why I came here, so that next time we play I can say "I asked online and the internet told me that this is the accepted rule"
Good luck with that. First you'll rarely find unanimous agreement. Second, I think if you try to use the argument "that's what I was told on the Internet" when the rules are clear, I don't think that will go over too well.
The rules are not clear though. The situation that occurred is not specifically covered.
Dyvim Tvar said:
The bottom line is that the rules left you in a spot that was unfortunate. That happens sometimes, and nobody wins all their games. Sometimes you just need to accept that.
This was not a deciding factor in the game. I just want to be able to know if reviving handlers will do me any good for my future games. If it can be proven to me one way or the other with some sort of evidence, or precedent, then I'm okay with either way. I'm not convinced yet though. The argument that we have to go by strict rules as written isn't swaying me, because it is obvious that this situation was not taken into account. At the current moment I'm inclined to say that if this scenario happens, I will present my logic as to what should happen, ask my opponent what he thinks, and if we dont agree, then dice off. I do not see this as being a house rule, or cheating, in any degree. We would be deciding upon a rule that is not covered. And it saddens me that there will be no consistency because of this, because some opponents may agree, some wont, and then the dice off could go either way. Hopefully 9th edition covers this.
I'll stand by what I said though, if the opponent takes the position that resurrected handlers do not function as handlers, or that once a monster rolls on the reaction table there is no way to calm it back down (which is certainly reasonable and not a "dick" move in my opinion, despite being a less fun way to play it) then he should allow you to pick a new target for the spell. If he does not, then I think the "dick" tag applies.
