Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cheers. It's a funny position they're adopting - I've not seen someone try to claim that blasts roll to hit in a long time. Especially once they're shown the rules quote proving them wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please refer to the tenets

You consistently fail to support your argument with anything hut abuse

I presume you ever checked about page 164, which flat out proves you wrong? Gets hot and rerolls.

Bs6+ lets you Reroll to hit AND let's you reduce scatter. That's just how the real rules - not your appeals to "spirit" , amusing given you contradict the rules in your claims - actually work

Where is the equivocation in stating that blast weapons do not roll to hit? Is it the rules quote "models do not roll To Hit" that's confusing you?

At this point, we are simply rehashing the same argument that's been had for the past several pages.

Again, let the following suffice:

I would refuse to play you on those grounds, and, chances are, any reasonable person would.

Traditio wrote:

Again, let the following suffice:

I would refuse to play you on those grounds, and, chances are, any reasonable person would.

Which is a HYWPI argument, and is not arguing RAW, which is what I pointed out some time ago.

There is no rehashing of an argument as yo lack any argument at all.

Your argument begins, and fails immediately, by claiming blasts roll To Hit.

Oh and you'd lose your contention as well - I have played in a number of places where pe rerolls blasts scatter.becuse it does.

I don't play an army with access to pe either. So it really only is ever to my detriment. However, unlike you, I'm playing the game using the rules, not made up gak that has no support, and even directly contradicts the rules given

I presume from this you finally checked out page 164 (hopefully from 7th,mans not 4th like you mistook for 5th, earlier) and realised it undermined your argument?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is no rehashing of an argument as yo lack any argument at all.

Your argument begins, and fails immediately, by claiming blasts roll To Hit.

Oh and you'd lose your contention as well - I have played in a number of places where pe rerolls blasts scatter.becuse it does.

I don't play an army with access to pe either. So it really only is ever to my detriment. However, unlike you, I'm playing the game using the rules, not made up gak that has no support, and even directly contradicts the rules given

I presume from this you finally checked out page 164 (hopefully from 7th,mans not 4th like you mistook for 5th, earlier) and realised it undermined your argument?

I tell you what:

Quote the precise sections that you think support your argument.

Further explain to me, in your own words:

1. What those sections mean.
2. The reason for those sections.
3. How those sections apply/how those sections are supposed to work in game.

I'm not going to play the "proof-text and equivocate like a protestant" game.

No. Because they've already been given

Have yo read page 164? Gets hot and rerolls. Noticed what it states about bs6+ yet? Or will you ignore that, again?

Hiwever your opinion has become irrelevant anyway - you've admitted you're only arguing from "common sense" (argument from incredulity fallacy) and based on how powerful this is.

Oh, and I'm not sure you know what equivocation means. I've asked you a few times now what "use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself" there is in "models do not roll to hit", but you seem incapable of pointing it out. For a start I am absolutely committing myself to the raw position , same as you've committed yourself to the non raw one.

Traditio wrote:

Quote the precise sections that you think support your argument.

I'm not going to play the "proof-text and equivocate like a protestant" game.

So...you expect Nos to quote the precise sections, but you won't do the same?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No. Because they've already been given

You mean, the ones that have already been given, to which I've offered an interpretation different from yours?

Have yo read page 164? Gets hot and rerolls. Noticed what it states about bs6+ yet? Or will you ignore that, again?

Quote the rule in question.

Hiwever your opinion has become irrelevant anyway - you've admitted you're only arguing from "common sense" (argument from incredulity fallacy) and based on how powerful this is.

This is simply a strawman.

Oh, and I'm not sure you know what equivocation means. I've asked you a few times now what "use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself" there is in "models do not roll to hit", but you seem incapable of pointing it out. For a start I am absolutely committing myself to the raw position , same as you've committed yourself to the non raw one.

And now you insult my education?

An equivocal term is a single word with multiple definitions. Consider how "the dog (canis)" can refer either to the dog fish, to the mammalian animal or to the dog star. A term is equivocal by chance if those multiple definitions are not related to or oherwise mutually implicated in each other. An equivocal term is analogous if those different terms are related to each other. Thus, consider how "healthy" can apply to urine, medicine, food and an animal. A term is univocal if a single word is used according to a single definition.

Equivocation (as a fallacy) occurs if a "shift" occurs in the use of an equivocal term's meanings over the course of an argument. Consider the following syllogism:

1. Communist plots are scary.
2. Lenin's grave is a communist plot.
3. Lenin's grave is scary.

The definition of "to hit" that you are using is a comparison of a 1d6 to [7 - BS of the firing model]. I've already admitted that blast weapons don't roll to hit according to this definition of the term. Thus the reason I keep saying "equivocation."

If we disambiguated our terms, this is how our argument would actually play out:

Me: For blast weapons, the scatter dice are used to determine whether the weapon successfully hits any models.
You: BUT BLAST WEAPONS DON'T ROLL A D6 AND COMPARE THE RESULT TO [7 - BS of the firing model]!!!!!

I also wish to note that, in spite of your vitriol, you've completely ignored the fact that the blast rule certainly seems to say that a model firing a blast weapon rolls to hit, at least in some sense. If you wish to disagree with me, then explain the sense of the passage to which I've appealed.

Traditio, you can't play the victim in one sentence (insulting your education) then turn around and write out the other poster's argument in all caps with half a dozen exclamation marks, making fun of their position.

You have given out plenty of vitriol yourself, so drop the victim act.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That pe grants the ability to Reroll. Same as bs6+ does.

The rule for blasts does not require you to roll a to hit , of course - it couldn't do that, as you never roll To Hit with a blast weapon. Ever.

It simply requires the ability. If I fire a non blast at my pe, do I have the ability? Yes. Same as if I have twin linked, or bs6+, or any number of sources of the ability.

Period
End of.

Come back when you have so argument not already refuted, or one that doesn't rely on pretending blasts roll to hit, when you know for a fact they don't.

BS6 does not grant an ability to reroll, you have the chance to Gain one, if you can roll a 1 on the to hit dice. Why would they need to gain an ability, that you claim they already have?

you can claim your position is RAW all you want, but until you can reconcile the fact that BS6 is not in itself an ability to reroll, you might as well just label your position HIWPI.

Traditio wrote:
Me: For blast weapons, the scatter dice are used to determine whether the weapon successfully hits any models.
You: BUT BLAST WEAPONS DON'T ROLL A D6 AND COMPARE THE RESULT TO [7 - BS of the firing model]!!!!!

But they don't roll a D6 and compare to 7-BS? Have I missed a big part of the game's rules?

Except your interpretation is based upon changing the rules-defined term "To Hit" to mean something else.

So I take it you don't have access to a rulebook at the moment then? "If a model has the ability to Reroll it's rolls To Hit (including because of BS6+... "

BS6+ grants the ability to Reroll to hit

Period
End of story.

How is pointing out that you have admitted you are not arguing based upon rules, but only in "common sense" and that this is a fallacy, a strawman? I haven't created a weak argument , claimed it was yours, and then dismantled it. I've instead dismantled the argument you actually presented

So blast weapons do jot roll "To Hit" then, yes? According to the rulebook definition of "To Hit" - note the capitalisation .

I have been utterly consistent with "To Hit". You in the other hand are trying to pretend two different concepts are somewhat similar, and using a defined rulebook term in terms other than how the rulebook defines the term.

sirlynchmob wrote:BS6 does not grant an ability to reroll, you have the chance to Gain one, if you can roll a 1 on the to hit dice.

Pretty much! The BS 6+ rule literally only exists because we play with a 1d6. If we played (per impossibile) with a 1d11, there would be no BS 6+ rule.

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That pe grants the ability to Reroll. Same as bs6+ does.

The rule for blasts does not require you to roll a to hit , of course - it couldn't do that, as you never roll To Hit with a blast weapon. Ever.

It simply requires the ability. If I fire a non blast at my pe, do I have the ability? Yes. Same as if I have twin linked, or bs6+, or any number of sources of the ability.

Period
End of.

Come back when you have so argument not already refuted, or one that doesn't rely on pretending blasts roll to hit, when you know for a fact they don't.

BS6 does not grant an ability to reroll, you have the chance to Gain one, if you can roll a 1 on the to hit dice. Why would they need to gain an ability, that you claim they already have?

you can claim your position is RAW all you want, but until you can reconcile the fact that BS6 is not in itself an ability to reroll, you might as well just label your position HIWPI.

Page 164. You're wrong. Flat out.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:But they don't roll a D6 and compare to 7-BS? Have I missed a big part of the game's rules?

They don't. I've already admitted that. That's why I keep crying "equivocation" when Nos insists that they do. It's irrelevant to my argument.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:But they don't roll a D6 and compare to 7-BS? Have I missed a big part of the game's rules?

They don't. I've already admitted that. That's why I keep crying "equivocation" when Nos insists that they do. It's irrelevant to my argument.

Your argument relies upon blasts rolling Tto Hit "in some sense"

They do not roll to hit in any 40 k rules sense.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except your interpretation is based upon changing the rules-defined term "To Hit" to mean something else.

So I take it you don't have access to a rulebook at the moment then? "If a model has the ability to Reroll it's rolls To Hit (including because of BS6+... "

The gets hot rule, right?

Oh, this is just delightful.

You realize that you've just murdered your own argument, right?

The Gets Hot rule specifically mentions BS 6+ rule and specifies that you may reroll gets hot if you have it.

The blast rule doesn't.

QED.

Furthermore, you are completely neglecting the spirit of the rule. Why is it that we can reroll gets hot for BS 6+? Because, for non-blast weapons, the to-hit roll is also the gets hot roll. You may reroll the to-hit roll if you have BS 6+ and obtain a second result other than 1. Therefore, you can do the same for gets hot on a blast weapon.

So blast weapons do jot roll "To Hit" then, yes? According to the rulebook definition of "To Hit" - note the capitalisation .

I've already said, probably 50 times now, that blast weapons do not roll a 1d6 and compare the result to [7 - BS of the firing model]. The fact that you insist on this line of reasoning is positively bewildering.

You realise it mentions them in parens? Meaning they act as a reminder?

And that the rule has exactly the same wording? You realise this means that if it provides the ability to Reroll for gets hot, it must provide the ability to Reroll for any rule that cares about it?

Or can you not recognise equivalent sentences defining the same topic?

You're just amusing now...

Blast weapons do not roll To Hit. Yes or no.

Oh and nice hyperbole. You have not even posted 50 times in this thread. It just feels like it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You realise it mentions them in parens? Meaning they act as a reminder?

And that the rule has exactly the same wording? You realise this means that if it provides the ability to Reroll for gets hot, it must provide the ability to Reroll for any rule that cares about it?

This simply doesn't follow.

So having the ability to Reroll your To Hit roll when firing a plasma cannon, say through BS6+, applies only for gets hot and not for blasts and rerolls? Despite them being exactly the same concept of "ability to.."? As in, exactly the same?

Interesting argument you have there. Still failing

You still haven't answered the question as asked. Any chance you can do so?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That pe grants the ability to Reroll. Same as bs6+ does.

The rule for blasts does not require you to roll a to hit , of course - it couldn't do that, as you never roll To Hit with a blast weapon. Ever.

It simply requires the ability. If I fire a non blast at my pe, do I have the ability? Yes. Same as if I have twin linked, or bs6+, or any number of sources of the ability.

Period
End of.

Come back when you have so argument not already refuted, or one that doesn't rely on pretending blasts roll to hit, when you know for a fact they don't.

BS6 does not grant an ability to reroll, you have the chance to Gain one, if you can roll a 1 on the to hit dice. Why would they need to gain an ability, that you claim they already have?

you can claim your position is RAW all you want, but until you can reconcile the fact that BS6 is not in itself an ability to reroll, you might as well just label your position HIWPI.

Page 164. You're wrong. Flat out.

pg 33. You're wrong. Flat out.

You keep waiving your red herring with get's hot. But you never seem to grasp what is being given permission to be rerolled. It's either the to hit die, which isn't rolled in this case. Or the d6 you roll with blast weapons to see if it gets hot. In order to be looking at the get's hot rules, that can only happen after a 1 was rolled on the to hit die, gaining the model the reroll, OR when a 1 is rolled on the d6 to see if the weapon got hot. And again that only applies to BS6 or twin linked. it's either one or the other, and nothing is mentioned about PE.

The question still remains, that you have no answer for:
Why would they need to gain an ability, that you claim they already have?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and we must remember, the model needs the ability to reroll. and PE grants the unit the ability, the models in the unit do not have the ability.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So having the ability to Reroll your To Hit roll when firing a plasma cannon, say through BS6+, applies only for gets hot and not for blasts and rerolls?

In the case of BS 6+ and PE, that's what I assert.

Despite them being exactly the same concept of "ability to.."? As in, exactly the same?

Except, they're not exactly the same. You yourself admit that the language is different. One explicitly mentions BS 6+ and the other one doesn't. You claim that the similarity of language/identity of phrase (in part) when compared to another passage discussing a similar thing is evidence that the rules work the same way. I claim that the difference of language (the removal of the explicit mention of BS 6+) is evidence to doubt the truth of your claim. Maybe they omitted the explicit mention of BS 6+ because it applies in one case, but not the other.

Again, this is where we should take into account, not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law.

Why can you reroll the Gets Hot roll for BS 6+?

You still haven't answered the question as asked. Any chance you can do so?

I've already answered this question. I refuse to play language games.

I think this is well and truly done to death, right here.