Thinking of fielding biovores and wondering if preferred enemy would help them at all being it states re-rolls 1, and barrages use blast rule for to hit and they don't roll to hit?

This keeps coming up every time there is a re-roll one and scatter (or Gets Hot).

From the other topics, if you have the option to re-roll, you can re-roll (but only against things that fits all the criteria for PE).

You can reroll the to wound rolls of 1, But it doesn't do annything for hitting.

There is two lines of thoughts on this matter, both opposite interpretations of course.

The first is that the re-rolling of 1 is enough to meet the limitations under Blast Weapons and Rerolls, page 33. The logic is simple, you are given permission to re-roll the dice should any dice show a 1. Therefore, if any of the dice show a 1, you have met the re-roll requirements and can evoke the re-rolling rule exactly as written. This is further supported by certain units named in certain re-roll 1 rules, while only ever being able to fire blast weapons.

The second interpretation is that re-roll of 1's are not enough to meet the limitations on page 33 so you can not evoke the rule. This is based on the logic that re-rolling 1's and re-rolling are two completely different terms. As the blast marker rules do not address re-rolling of 1 it does not give you permission to evoke this rule. Just because two terms are similar they are still not interchangeable, no matter how close the situation, unless the rule gives you permission to use either of them.

I, personally, am now undecided on this matter after hearing both sides out in past threads with similar topics. I used to lean towards the first in the past but have moved more back towards the center on this matter. The second does fill the rules as written a bit better because it is true that similar situations are not grounds to switch around terms. Yet the first makes sense on a rules as interpreted level, as you have permission to re-roll even if it has additional limitations.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful, but there is the situation you face.

JinxDragon wrote:
There is two lines of thoughts on this matter, both opposite interpretations of course.

You're missing the third and correct interpretation: the blast weapon rules clearly state that if you have a re-roll to hit you may re-roll the scatter dice instead. A model with preferred enemy (shooting against an appropriate target) has a re-roll to hit, therefore you may re-roll the scatter dice.

Should you want to add the argument that the term re-roll 1's is identical to the term re-roll feel free to add it to the debate. I have seen it in the past and it did not seem to go over well, with most people on the 'yes, it can be re-rolled' side supporting the limitation that a 1 would be needed before you could evoke page 33. I didn't consider it heavily because of that reason, but if you think I am in error then by all means do support it in further debates. As I mentioned, I am undecided on this issue and can be swayed by a compelling answer when it comes to many things.

You know what, can the opening poster start a poll with all three options?

Re-rolling 1s is a type of re-rolling to hit.

If you have the ability to re-roll, you re-roll the scatter.

PE gives you the ability to reroll - 1's only maybe, but you DO get to reroll. The rules for blasts do not require that you be able to reroll *all* dice

In short, I agree with Peregrine. Which really doesnt happen often

But is it 1's on the individual die you look at or do you look at the result of the two dice?

 Peregrine wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
There is two lines of thoughts on this matter, both opposite interpretations of course.

You're missing the third and correct interpretation: the blast weapon rules clearly state that if you have a re-roll to hit you may re-roll the scatter dice instead. A model with preferred enemy (shooting against an appropriate target) has a re-roll to hit, therefore you may re-roll the scatter dice.

"Must" re-roll the scatter dice as well, not "may"

Irrelevant - being able to reroll to hit allows you to reroll scatter dice. The rerroll 1 is irrelevant - you reroll all scatter dice, no matter the result, if you wish

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Irrelevant - being able to reroll to hit allows you to reroll scatter dice. The rerroll 1 is irrelevant - you reroll all scatter dice, no matter the result, if you wish

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that Preferred Enemy allows one to reroll a scatter dice??? How are you making this connection? Preferred Enemy states you can reroll To Hit results of 1. Since you never rolled a 1 to hit (blast/barrage don't have a To Hit roll), there is no reroll granted from Preferred Enemy. If Preferred Enemy just gave you a blanket reroll, then you'd be fine to reroll the scatter, but you have to meet the requirement first before you are granted a reroll.

Classic, there are three ways of looking at it (and I refuse to claim one is right):
1. Since scatter can never be a To Hit roll of 1, it does not work.
2. Since you have the ability to re-roll (regardless of stipulations), you have permission to re-roll the scatter.
3. Same as 2 except you must roll at least one "1" in order to re-roll the scatter.

How I play it is 1.

 Happyjew wrote:
Classic, there are three ways of looking at it (and I refuse to claim one is right):
1. Since scatter can never be a To Hit roll of 1, it does not work.
2. Since you have the ability to re-roll (regardless of stipulations), you have permission to re-roll the scatter.
3. Same as 2 except you must roll at least one "1" in order to re-roll the scatter.

How I play it is 1.

#1 is how I play it as well. I'm just not understanding how 2 & 3 are even considered valid, and I'm trying to get a handle on the rules interpretation that would make 2 and/or 3 valid. Preferred Enemy doesn't grant a blanket reroll on a missed To Hit, it specifically states that a To Hit roll of 1 is required before granting the reroll, which can't happen with blast/barrage weapons.

The logic is as follows.
1. If a model can re-roll To Hit rolls then with a Blast weapon they can re-roll the scatter.
2. Preferred Enemy allows a model to re-roll To Hit rolls of 1.
3. Since the model can re-roll some To Hit rolls, it meets the necessary minimum to re-roll the scatter.

I have no idea where number 3 came from, but it was mentioned earlier so I included it for completeness.

 Happyjew wrote:
The logic is as follows.
1. If a model can re-roll To Hit rolls then with a Blast weapon they can re-roll the scatter.
2. Preferred Enemy allows a model to re-roll To Hit rolls of 1.
3. Since the model can re-roll some To Hit rolls, it meets the necessary minimum to re-roll the scatter.

I have no idea where number 3 came from, but it was mentioned earlier so I included it for completeness.

Okay, I get where they are coming from now.

Its a....liberal...interpretation to say the least, and I don't agree with it at all, but I at least can see where they are getting the connection.

 Happyjew wrote:
I have no idea where number 3 came from, but it was mentioned earlier so I included it for completeness.

Because the blast weapon rules say that you get to re-roll the scatter dice if you have a re-roll to hit. It doesn't say "if you have a twin-linked weapon" or "if you have the ability to re-roll all misses" or anything like that, it just checks if you have a re-roll of some kind. Preferred enemy gives a re-roll to hit (a re-roll of some dice is still a re-roll), so it lets you re-roll the scatter dice.

I've got to disagree, Preferred Enemy doesn't give the ability to re-roll, but the potential to re-roll.
Without rolling a 1 no re-roll roll is granted (in a similar vein with normal re-rolls, if a hit is rolled there is no re-roll granted).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I have no idea where number 3 came from, but it was mentioned earlier so I included it for completeness.

Because the blast weapon rules say that you get to re-roll the scatter dice if you have a re-roll to hit. It doesn't say "if you have a twin-linked weapon" or "if you have the ability to re-roll all misses" or anything like that, it just checks if you have a re-roll of some kind. Preferred enemy gives a re-roll to hit (a re-roll of some dice is still a re-roll), so it lets you re-roll the scatter dice.

You misunderstand (my fault, I wasn't clear). I was referring to my number 3 from earlier when I said:

 Happyjew wrote:
Classic, there are three ways of looking at it (and I refuse to claim one is right):
1. Since scatter can never be a To Hit roll of 1, it does not work.
2. Since you have the ability to re-roll (regardless of stipulations), you have permission to re-roll the scatter.
3. Same as 2 except you must roll at least one "1" in order to re-roll the scatter.

How I play it is 1.

 Happyjew wrote:
You misunderstand (my fault, I wasn't clear). I was referring to my number 3 from earlier when I said:

Oh, I thought you meant #3 on the list in that post, not #3 in the earlier list. I also have no idea where the "must roll at least one 1 on the scatter dice" thing came from, it's certainly not anywhere in the rulebook. The two options are either "doesn't work at all" or an unconditional "can re-roll the scatter dice".

(And of course the second option is the correct one.)

 grendel083 wrote:
I've got to disagree, Preferred Enemy doesn't give the ability to re-roll, but the potential to re-roll.
Without rolling a 1 no re-roll roll is granted (in a similar vein with normal re-rolls, if a hit is rolled there is no re-roll granted).

Exactly. Preferred Enemy by itself does not grant a reroll, its PE plus a To Hit roll of 1 that grants the reroll, No To Hit roll of 1 means no reroll granted.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
I've got to disagree, Preferred Enemy doesn't give the ability to re-roll, but the potential to re-roll.
Without rolling a 1 no re-roll roll is granted (in a similar vein with normal re-rolls, if a hit is rolled there is no re-roll granted).

Exactly. Preferred Enemy by itself does not grant a reroll, its PE plus a To Hit roll of 1 that grants the reroll, No To Hit roll of 1 means no reroll granted.

That's like saying its not twin-linked granting the reroll, it's twin-linked and a failed to hit roll that grants it.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's like saying its not twin-linked granting the reroll, it's twin-linked and a failed to hit roll that grants it.

If you hit, are you allowed to re-roll?

This actually works in the same principle as a plasma cannon user with preferred enemy. Rolling for overheat, no reroll, and since its not twinlinked which is the same as a biovore, you cannot reroll the scatter dice its self. Then you move onto the ons you rolled on your scatter... not to hits, they are distance dice there for no reroll of ones, the only thing you get re rolls on is to wound of ones

Chris Lysander wrote:
they are distance dice there for no reroll of ones

That's not the point. You aren't re-rolling the scatter dice because they're to-hit rolls, you're re-rolling the scatter dice because if you would have a re-roll to hit then you get to re-roll the scatter dice (see the blast weapon rules).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Preferred Enemy by itself does not grant a reroll, its PE plus a To Hit roll of 1 that grants the reroll, No To Hit roll of 1 means no reroll granted.

But that's not how it works. The rule doesn't say something like "if you roll a 1 to hit your weapon gains the 'twin linked' rule for the rest of the phase", it just gives you a re-roll to hit which can be used on certain dice. And as long as you have that re-roll you have enough to satisfy the "if you have a re-roll to hit" requirement on gaining a re-roll on the scatter dice.

 grendel083 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's like saying its not twin-linked granting the reroll, it's twin-linked and a failed to hit roll that grants it.

If you hit, are you allowed to re-roll?

With Twin-Linked, no.

rigeld2 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's like saying its not twin-linked granting the reroll, it's twin-linked and a failed to hit roll that grants it.

If you hit, are you allowed to re-roll?

With Twin-Linked, no.

So in order to get a re-roll you need need twin-linked on your weapon, and a missed to To Hit roll.

Until you miss, you don't know if you're allowed to re-roll.

So a missed To Hit roll is a requirement of gaining a re-roll, as well as having the Twin-Linked rule.

Blast replaces the To Hit roll with its own version (p33 "models do not roll To Hit. Instead...").
So same situation, in order to gain a re-roll you need to miss and have Twin-Linked.

Preferred Enemy has a third requirement. Those misses must also be a 1. Something you can't fulfil with a scatter.
So the model does not have the ability to re-roll, because it did not meet the requirements to gain a re-roll.

Just my theory anyway. Feel free to pick it apart.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Preferred Enemy by itself does not grant a reroll, its PE plus a To Hit roll of 1 that grants the reroll, No To Hit roll of 1 means no reroll granted.

But that's not how it works. The rule doesn't say something like "if you roll a 1 to hit your weapon gains the 'twin linked' rule for the rest of the phase", it just gives you a re-roll to hit which can be used on certain dice. And as long as you have that re-roll you have enough to satisfy the "if you have a re-roll to hit" requirement on gaining a re-roll on the scatter dice.

That's exactly how it works. The Preferred Enemy rule is pretty straight forward. Against the listed enemy type, you can reroll failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1, that's it, nothing more to it. No failed To Hit roll of 1 equals no reroll because you failed to meet the requirement for the reroll to be granted in the first place.

By your logic, just having the PE rule allows a scatter reroll against any target, not just the "Preferred" target, because you are ignoring all of the requirements for the special rule to take effect. That's not how the rule is written and I don't believe that is how it was intended.

Additionally, check the rule for rerolling blasts. The model has to have the ability to reroll before it can reroll the scatter dice. A model with Preferred Enemy does not gain the ability to reroll until it meets the two criteria, target is the Preferred Enemy and the To Hit was failed with a roll of 1.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
No failed To Hit roll of 1 equals no reroll because you failed to meet the requirement for the reroll to be granted in the first place.

See above for why this is wrong. By this reasoning even twin-linked weapons wouldn't grant a re-roll on the scatter dice because you have to miss a to-hit roll before you gain the re-roll from having a twin-linked weapon. Since a blast weapon never generates a missed to-hit roll you would never gain the re-roll, and therefore never gain the scatter re-roll that depends on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
By your logic, just having the PE rule allows a scatter reroll against any target, not just the "Preferred" target, because you are ignoring all of the requirements for the special rule to take effect.

No. That's not it at all. The structure of the rules:

IF (target = preferred enemy) THEN gain ("may re-roll 1s").

IF (unit has re-roll to hit) THEN gain ("may re-roll scatter dice").

If you aren't shooting at your preferred enemy then you fail the first condition and never gain a re-roll at all.

My take is this, the dice rolled for hitting on a blast template is the scatter dice itself. There are arrows and 2 Hit symbols. There are no 1s on that dice, therefore Preferred Enemy does not work for that rerolling in that case. The numbered diced are a distance, not the to Hit roll. The scatter die is the actual thing determining the Hit or not.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
My take is this, the dice rolled for hitting on a blast template is the scatter dice itself. There are arrows and 2 Hit symbols. There are no 1s on that dice, therefore Preferred Enemy does not work for that rerolling in that case. The numbered diced are a distance, not the to Hit roll. The scatter die is the actual thing determining the Hit or not.

Again, the point is not that the scatter distance is a to-hit roll and you're re-rolling a 1 to hit. Look at the rules for blast weapons, there's a rule that if you have a re-roll to hit you ALSO get the ability to re-roll the scatter dice. Since you would have a re-roll to hit on a non-blast weapon with preferred enemy you get to re-roll the scatter dice on blast weapons.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
No failed To Hit roll of 1 equals no reroll because you failed to meet the requirement for the reroll to be granted in the first place.

See above for why this is wrong. By this reasoning even twin-linked weapons wouldn't grant a re-roll on the scatter dice because you have to miss a to-hit roll before you gain the re-roll from having a twin-linked weapon. Since a blast weapon never generates a missed to-hit roll you would never gain the re-roll, and therefore never gain the scatter re-roll that depends on it.

Twin-linked Blast Weapons on page 43 says you're wrong about this logic and it's application to Twin-Linked. Twin-Linked doesn't depend on "Blast Weapons and Rerolls" to work.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
My take is this, the dice rolled for hitting on a blast template is the scatter dice itself. There are arrows and 2 Hit symbols. There are no 1s on that dice, therefore Preferred Enemy does not work for that rerolling in that case. The numbered diced are a distance, not the to Hit roll. The scatter die is the actual thing determining the Hit or not.

Again, the point is not that the scatter distance is a to-hit roll and you're re-rolling a 1 to hit. Look at the rules for blast weapons, there's a rule that if you have a re-roll to hit you ALSO get the ability to re-roll the scatter dice. Since you would have a re-roll to hit on a non-blast weapon with preferred enemy you get to re-roll the scatter dice on blast weapons.

That works if you ignore the entire context of "rerolling 1's". You only have a reroll when you roll a 1. Blast weapons do not roll 1's.

You only have a reroll on twin linked weapons when you roll a miss. You never roll a miss when firing a blast weapon.

Same logic.

ALL blast weapons and rerolls asks is - do you have a reroll? If so you reroll blast scatter dice

PE grants a reroll, even though it is a reroll of a specifc result and not any result. Therefore it gains a reroll of scatter

No. That's not it at all. The structure of the rules:

IF (target = preferred enemy) THEN gain ("may re-roll 1s").

IF (unit has re-roll to hit) THEN gain ("may re-roll scatter dice").

If you aren't shooting at your preferred enemy then you fail the first condition and never gain a re-roll at all

Sorry Peregrine I don't get the distinction between the 2 criteria for a reroll with PE.

The criteria are:

1) You are targetting the PE unit.
2) You roll a 1 to hit.

If as you say the blast weapon rules don't care about criteria only that there is a possibility of a reroll, then Deathwing get rerolls with their plasma cannons against Necrons (and indeed everyone else).

Explain why the two criteria are different.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
No failed To Hit roll of 1 equals no reroll because you failed to meet the requirement for the reroll to be granted in the first place.

See above for why this is wrong. By this reasoning even twin-linked weapons wouldn't grant a re-roll on the scatter dice because you have to miss a to-hit roll before you gain the re-roll from having a twin-linked weapon. Since a blast weapon never generates a missed to-hit roll you would never gain the re-roll, and therefore never gain the scatter re-roll that depends on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
By your logic, just having the PE rule allows a scatter reroll against any target, not just the "Preferred" target, because you are ignoring all of the requirements for the special rule to take effect.

No. That's not it at all. The structure of the rules:

IF (target = preferred enemy) THEN gain ("may re-roll 1s").

IF (unit has re-roll to hit) THEN gain ("may re-roll scatter dice").

If you aren't shooting at your preferred enemy then you fail the first condition and never gain a re-roll at all.

If you don't fail a To Hit roll with a result of 1, you don't gain the reroll either.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You only have a reroll on twin linked weapons when you roll a miss. You never roll a miss when firing a blast weapon.

Same logic.

ALL blast weapons and rerolls asks is - do you have a reroll? If so you reroll blast scatter dice

PE grants a reroll, even though it is a reroll of a specifc result and not any result. Therefore it gains a reroll of scatter

It would be the same logic if Twin-Linked didn't have it's own, explicit, section on how to handle Blast Weapons. Twin-Linked is the worst possible example to use because it's the only source of rerolls that DOESN'T use the "Blast Weapons and rerolls" section.

Again - blast weapons requires IF you have a reroll to hit, you get a reroll of scatter.

It does not require that you be able to roll to hit with the blast, as that would be impossible.

So either no weapon that has a reroll to hit can reroll scatter, or any reroll to hit allows a reroll to scatter.

Blast & Large Blast:

"When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit."

Blast Weapons and Re-rolls:

"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit... ...re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6."

PE:

"...re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1..."

My logic:

[To Hit rolls of 1] =/= [To Hit rolls]

You cannot roll a To Hit roll of 1 with a blast as a blast does not roll To Hit.

Therefore, PE has no effect on the scattering of a blast.

Even if you did get a re-roll to scatter with PE, you would have to re-roll all of the dice, not just the scatter die.

"reroll its rolls to hit"

is fullfilled by

"rerolls its rolls to hit of a 1"

They are still rerolls.

"You cannot roll a To Hit roll of 1 with a blast as a blast does not roll To Hit"

NOONE rolls to hit with a blast, meaning by your argument noone with the abiltiy to reroll gets to do so.

Well he does have a point. The ability to 're-roll To Hit rolls of 1' ( has limitation) is not the same as the ability to 're-roll To Hit' (without limitation).

The ability to re-roll scatter requires the 're-roll To Hit' (without limitation), not the other.

It's a different version of the same idea, but not the stated requirement of re-rolling scatter.

Do you have the ability to reroll to-hit? It does not say "reroll to hit (all to hits)" - it gives no requirement more than ability to reroll to hit

You are parsing that sentence and adding a requirement to it that does not exist.

Reroll to hit (rolls of a 1) DOES EQUAL reroll to hit, but does NOT EQUAL reroll ALL to hits. You are statign the latter is required in the rules, when the language is entirely missing

Its like the difference between within and fully within. Reroll to hit and reroll ALL to hit have different meanings.

Re-roll To Hit
Re-roll 1s To Hit

You can't equate them. The first encompasses the second, yes, but claiming that both provide THE SAME sort of meta 're-rolls to hit' ability is a major leap in logic.

The text differs. The limitations differ. The results are not equal in all cases (one allows you to re-roll 2s to 5s if they fail to hit, the other doesn't). They are not equal.

Re-rolling scatter requires you have the ability to "Re-roll To Hit". Only one of the above abilities provides that exactly.

PE doesn't provide Re-Roll To Hit. It provides Re-Roll 1s To Hit.

Is the ability to reroll 1s on a hit an ability to reroll to hits? Yes, it is.

If it was not an ability to reroll to hits, why the hell are my opponents touching their hit dice regularly when they show a 1? Have to stop them from doing this. Since according to a lot of people here, it is not a reroll to hit.

The scatter reroll isnt specified. If you are able to reroll to hit rolls. you are able to reroll scatter dice.

 Shandara wrote:
Re-roll To Hit
Re-roll 1s To Hit

You can't equate them. The first encompasses the second, yes, but claiming that both provide THE SAME sort of meta 're-rolls to hit' ability is a major leap in logic.

No, it isnt

You have a condition - you MUST be able to reroll your to-hit dice. If you fulfill the condition you get a benefit.

So, can you reroll your to hit dice with PE? Yes, on a roll of a 1. This fulfills the condition precisely.

Do you reroll ALL dice? No, however that is not a requirement of the rule.

Shandara wrote:The text differs. The limitations differ. The results are not equal in all cases (one allows you to re-roll 2s to 5s if they fail to hit, the other doesn't). They are not equal.

Which is where you have now made up a rule that doesnt exist

You are being asked if you can reroll your tohit. You are not being asked if you can reroll ALL your to hit, or ALL FAILED, or ALL ROLLS OF A 2, or ALL ROLLS OF A 3, ..., just whether you CAN reroll your to hit. You CAN reroll your to hit dice - yes, in limited circumstances, but the requirement makes absolutely no mention of these limitations mattering.

Shandara wrote:Re-rolling scatter requires you have the ability to "Re-roll To Hit". Only one of the above abilities provides that exactly.

Incorrect, as proven

"Reroll to hit" is fulfilled by ever being able to reroll to hit. "reroll ALL to hit" is what you are claiming is required. Do not make up rules, or insert words into a parsing when they do not belonw/

Shandara wrote:PE doesn't provide Re-Roll To Hit. It provides Re-Roll 1s To Hit.

Yes, and reroll to hit (of a 1) is a part of Reroll to hit. It is not the same as reroll to hit (all rolls) , however it IS a member of the set of instances that fulfills the criteria "can you reroll to hit?"

Your error is that you are creating an absolute when none exists. Again, your claim is the same as claiming that "within" is equal to "fully within", when those two are different.

Fully within is a member of the set of "within" results. Reroll to hit rolls (1s ) is a member of the set "reroll to hit", same as "reroll to hit (all)" is a member of the set

Reread what you are saying, and note your error in parsing the sentence the way you are

To add another example - you are asked "can you throw a ball? If so you may have a chocolate"

I can throw a ball (1 metre). Do I get a chocolate
I can throw a ball (2 metres) Do I get a chocolate?
I can throw a ball (infinite distance). Do I get a chocolate?

Your claim is that being able to throw a ball means you must be able to throw all balls all distances (all failed to hit rolls, for example) when that isnt what the rule actually requires.

If you can reroll to hit you may reroll scatter. It doesnt matter how "much" you can reroll to hit, you get a flat benefit of rerolling.

The new Eldar Codex has a Spiritseer which can grant Wraith units, including the Hemlock Wraithfighter, the ability to re-roll 1's to hit through his Spirit Mark special rule.

However, in the new Iyanden supplement, the following text is included to the 'strategy' section:
Just remember that, as the Hemlock gains no benefit from a Spirit Mark (it doesn't roll to hit in a conventional manner) you don't have to worry about keeping a Spiritseer near to the enemy you want it to obliterate

Seems GW at least doesn't intend to allow re-rolling 1's to affect (Large) Blast weapons.

 Redemption wrote:
The new Eldar Codex has a Spiritseer which can grant Wraith units, including the Hemlock Wraithfighter, the ability to re-roll 1's to hit through his Spirit Mark special rule.

However, in the new Iyanden supplement, the following text is included to the 'strategy' section:
Just remember that, as the Hemlock gains no benefit from a Spirit Mark (it doesn't roll to hit in a conventional manner) you don't have to worry about keeping a Spiritseer near to the enemy you want it to obliterate

Seems GW at least doesn't intend to allow re-rolling 1's to affect (Large) Blast weapons.

Nice catch. That pretty much puts this one to bed if you ask me.

Apart from the actual rules saying otherwise, I would agree.

It shows possible intent (as in, when they wrote it they possibly thought the rule said something different), but has no bearing on the actual rules saying gain "a" form of reroll to hit, even if situational, is sufficient.

I'd say it's roughly equivalent to an FAQ answer, albeit harder to get hold of.

Not at all, given it is part of the non rules part of the book. I would not trust those parts for rules answers, given the examples of illegal army lists, options etc that have been in prior books.

ha ha ha ha ha Nosferatu wrong again

I know writing whole rules sections out is frowned upon. BUT IT IS VERY CLEAR!!!
Page 33: Blast and Large Blast: Paragraph 2 of the text.

When firing a blast weapon, models DO NOT ROLL TO HIT. Instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firerand place the relevant blast marker with its hole entirely over the base of the target model... blah blah blah


DO NOT ROLL TO HIT!

now what was the argument, oh yeah can you can you use the PE to reroll the scatter.

wait wait you need to roll a 1 to hit, wait wait wait oh yeah your not rolling to hit. so wheres your roll to hit coming from to get your re roll??? NO WHERE!!!

Chris Lysander wrote:
ha ha ha ha ha Nosferatu wrong again

I know writing whole rules sections out is frowned upon. BUT IT IS VERY CLEAR!!!
Page 33: Blast and Large Blast: Paragraph 2 of the text.

When firing a blast weapon, models DO NOT ROLL TO HIT. Instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firerand place the relevant blast marker with its hole entirely over the base of the target model... blah blah blah


DO NOT ROLL TO HIT!

now what was the argument, oh yeah can you can you use the PE to reroll the scatter.

wait wait you need to roll a 1 to hit, wait wait wait oh yeah your not rolling to hit. so wheres your roll to hit coming from to get your re roll??? NO WHERE!!!

Oh but look - there is a section about Blast Weapons and Re-rolls: If a model has the ability to re-roll To Hits... Does the model have the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls? Yes.

 Happyjew wrote:

Chris Lysander wrote:
ha ha ha ha ha Nosferatu wrong again

I know writing whole rules sections out is frowned upon. BUT IT IS VERY CLEAR!!!
Page 33: Blast and Large Blast: Paragraph 2 of the text.

When firing a blast weapon, models DO NOT ROLL TO HIT. Instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firerand place the relevant blast marker with its hole entirely over the base of the target model... blah blah blah


DO NOT ROLL TO HIT!

now what was the argument, oh yeah can you can you use the PE to reroll the scatter.

wait wait you need to roll a 1 to hit, wait wait wait oh yeah your not rolling to hit. so wheres your roll to hit coming from to get your re roll??? NO WHERE!!!

Oh but look - there is a section about Blast Weapons and Re-rolls: If a model has the ability to re-roll To Hits... Does the model have the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls? Yes.

Its all how you want to interpret "have the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit" and Preferred Enemy.

To me (and others), PE does not grant a blanket ability to re-roll, as you don't get the ability to re-roll until you meet the requirement of rolling a failed To Hit roll of 1. Since blast weapons don't roll to hit, its impossible to gain the ability to re-roll. Nos, Peregrine, and others see PE as a blanket ability to re-roll, because you can re-roll failed To Hit rolls in specific circumstances.

Now we have learned that GW apparently doesn't see it as a blanket reroll as they made it a point to mention an identical circumstance in the strategy section of the Iyanden codex, stating you do not get to reroll the blast since there is no failed To Hit roll of 1. Now one could try to argue that since its not in an FAQ, its not official, but that's just being contrary for being contrary's sake.

to anyone with half a brain cell its clear. you dont roll to hit you dont get to re roll. you HAVE to meet the requirements in the first place to get the ability to reroll.

read the woirding for gods sake, "reroll to hit of 1". you have to meet that criteria and you do not roll to hit therefore you cannot roll to hit of 1 and that model can not directly get the ability to reroll as the criteria states specifically what you need to do

Chris Lysander wrote:
to anyone with half a brain cell its clear.

Can you make your arguments without the insults and abusive manner please? It's not helping your argument.

And you're only partially correct.
Personally I don't think they should get a re-roll, but would like to point out that the "To Hit" roll is replaced in the Blast rules.
So you do roll "To Hit"
But you can't roll a one.

clearly states in the BRB models firing blast weapons do not roll to hit how much clearer do you want it to be!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and i get fed up of seeing people trying to abuse words by ignoring other rules like in this case to get the result they want, and how many people have now proven in this topic i think im one of 5, of which i have quoted directly in relation from the rule book whether or not a blast template rolls to hit which is later the requirement for rerol to hit of 1's for PE as one example

Reported for failing to present a relevant argument, and being insulting while doing so.

Have you read the actual rules stating what happens when a model has an ability to reroll to hit, and theyre using a blast weapon? It would be handy if you could do so, thanks

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Reported for failing to present a relevant argument, and being insulting while doing so.

Have you read the actual rules stating what happens when a model has an ability to reroll to hit, and theyre using a blast weapon? It would be handy if you could do so, thanks

lol cant win your argument with rules quotes so you resolve tothe "im telling on you technique"... really come on how old are you... go back to a few comments back where quoted brb page 33: blast and large blast, paragraph 2, which states you don't roll to hit.

then you go to prefered enemy which states if you roll a 1 to hit you can re roll

so using simple programming logic:
if the roll to hit =1 then re roll to hit; if the roll to hit doesn't = 1 then don't re roll to hit

seriously you only get a re roll if you meet the requirement, you don't roll to hit therefore you you cannot ever meet the requirement

its whats commonly referred to if/then not do what ever you want to do

So Preferred Enemy doesn't grant a roll to hit?

rigeld2 wrote:
So Preferred Enemy doesn't grant a roll to hit?

regardless of what 1 or 2 people want to say no. if you can't roll a one to hit you can't get the PE re roll ability. it is nice and simple logic when you apply logic to it.

It's really a yes or no question - does PE grant a re-roll to hit?
You're saying no. The rules say yes.

Chris Lysander wrote:

lol cant win your argument with rules quotes so you resolve tothe "im telling on you technique'

As a general rule, Dakka's Mod Team vastly prefers the 'I'm telling on you' technique to the 'Insult everyone who disagrees with me' technique. Please refer to Dakka's rules. Specifically, the first one.

You might also want to reconsider casting doubt on the age of those arguing against you while at the same time resorting to insults over a disagreement about the rules for a game. If you can't keep a level head while discussing this sort of thing, it might me time to take a break from the computer.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's really a yes or no question - does PE grant a re-roll to hit?
You're saying no. The rules say yes.

i say no
the rules say no

look at PE in the rule book which specifically stipulates you re roll rolls to hit of 1 (not got BRB to hand so cant say exact page) nice and clear on what you can re roll, not a 2 3 4 5 or scatter dice but 1's

then you look at page 33 blast and large blast paragraph 2 which clearly stipulates you don't role to hit

so when we ask does PE have any effect on barrage weapons the answer is nice and clear NO

Chris Lysander wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's really a yes or no question - does PE grant a re-roll to hit?
You're saying no. The rules say yes.

i say no
the rules say no

Funny...

look at PE in the rule book which specifically stipulates you re roll rolls to hit of 1

You say no, but then say that it does... I don't understand.

Chris Lysander wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's really a yes or no question - does PE grant a re-roll to hit?
You're saying no. The rules say yes.

i say no
the rules say no

look at PE in the rule book which specifically stipulates you re roll rolls to hit of 1 (not got BRB to hand so cant say exact page) nice and clear on what you can re roll, not a 2 3 4 5 or scatter dice but 1's

then you look at page 33 blast and large blast paragraph 2 which clearly stipulates you don't role to hit

so when we ask does PE have any effect on barrage weapons the answer is nice and clear NO

So a re-roll To Hit is not a re-roll To Hit?

If you don't take the trigger into account for re-rolls of scatter dice, then Orks can re-roll the scatter die for Lobbas without actually using the ammo runt.

The trigger for the re-roll is not met, but the possibility of the re-roll gives you a 2nd chance at scatter?

-Matt

rigeld2 wrote:
It's really a yes or no question - does PE grant a re-roll to hit?
You're saying no. The rules say yes.

PE does not grant a reroll unless conditions are met and you cannot meet those conditions with scatter dice.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
If you don't take the trigger into account for re-rolls of scatter dice, then Orks can re-roll the scatter die for Lobbas without actually using the ammo runt.

Depending on the wording of Ammo Runt...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's really a yes or no question - does PE grant a re-roll to hit?
You're saying no. The rules say yes.

PE does not grant a reroll unless conditions are met and you cannot meet those conditions with scatter dice.

It's a yes or no question.

Then no. There are no 1's on the board to trigger PE.

Fragile wrote:
Then no. There are no 1's on the board to trigger PE.

That's not the question at hand.
The question is whether or not PE grants a re-roll. If you answer no, I'd like you to quote PE.

That is the question at hand. Your trying to take part of a rule and apply it as a whole. That like saying Stealth (ruins) is the same thing as Stealth. The rolling of the 1 is what grants the reroll. You cannot roll a 1 on scatter die. You have no way to "gain" the reroll permitted by PE, therefore the result stands.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Then no. There are no 1's on the board to trigger PE.

That's not the question at hand.
The question is whether or not PE grants a re-roll. If you answer no, I'd like you to quote PE.

glad i now have my rule book to hand but perhaps try getting your own rule book out and looking it up in future

taking the specific relevant part of this rule only:
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule r-rolls failed To Hit and To wound rolls of 1 if attacking its preferred enemy.

So Yes it does get a reroll IF you meet set criteria, since you cannot roll a To Hit dice for the template you cannot get a To Hit roll of 1 and therefore don't get it

going back to my earlier point of If/Then statements

Chris Lysander wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So Preferred Enemy doesn't grant a roll to hit?

regardless of what 1 or 2 people want to say no. if you can't roll a one to hit you can't get the PE re roll ability. it is nice and simple logic when you apply logic to it.

Simple logic also dictates that if you don't roll to hit you cannot fail a roll to hit. I know of no ability that lets you re-roll all to-hit rolls, only failures in some fashion or another. By applying your own "simple logic" nothing gives you a re-roll until you fail a to-hit roll so nothing will get a scatter re-roll per the blast rules. Perfectly logical and I applaud you for your ability to reason things out but this also makes the rule non-functional. The obvious intent is that the rule will function in some way so the next logical step would be to redefine the parameters, entities and values applicable to the matter at hand while remaining within the limits of possible meanings the rule may have been attempting to convey until a interpretation can be found that is both logical and functional.

What you have been stating indicates you believe the rule requires a solid concrete ability to re-roll (right now) needs to be in place to get the scatter re-roll but no unit has that. All re-rolls are limited in some way even if only to re-rolling failures.

A more liberal view on the wording 'ability to re-roll' would work out logically and functionally. PE and indeed every re-roll causing ability has the potential to allow a re-roll therefore if all you are looking for is the ability to re-roll without actually making a to-hit roll they all have it (see Schrodinger's Cat).

Also of note, I see no relevance regarding the rules for twin-linked. That is only one SR that allows re-rolls and that it has it's own rules for blasts has nothing to do with PE or any of the others.

Fragile wrote:
That is the question at hand. Your trying to take part of a rule and apply it as a whole. That like saying Stealth (ruins) is the same thing as Stealth. The rolling of the 1 is what grants the reroll. You cannot roll a 1 on scatter die. You have no way to "gain" the reroll permitted by PE, therefore the result stands.

Therefore no re-roll ability applies as you must fail a to-hit roll to be able to re-roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chris Lysander wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Then no. There are no 1's on the board to trigger PE.

That's not the question at hand.
The question is whether or not PE grants a re-roll. If you answer no, I'd like you to quote PE.

glad i now have my rule book to hand but perhaps try getting your own rule book out and looking it up in future

I have. Perhaps you could try and be less insulting - particularly after being warned by a mod?

taking the specific relevant part of this rule only:
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule r-rolls failed To Hit and To wound rolls of 1 if attacking its preferred enemy.

So Yes it does get a reroll IF you meet set criteria, since you cannot roll a To Hit dice for the template you cannot get a To Hit roll of 1 and therefore don't get it

Templates != blast markers. Please use correct terms when discussing rules.
Tell me - if Twin Linked didn't have a specific rule, would you allow it to re-roll the scatter dice?

going back to my earlier point of If/Then statements

So if you are granted a reroll of failed to hit rolls, that wouldnt let you reroll scatter?

INteresting "logic", as it renders the entire section on blasts and rerolls moot.

I'll follow the ruels that say IF You have a reroll to hit (you do, just only on certain rolls - which the rule doesnt actually state matters) then you get to reroll scatter

Rerolling 1s to hit can be thought of as similar to a BS10 model. WOuld you allow a BS10 model reroll on scatter? What about Bjorn?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rerolling 1s to hit can be thought of as similar to a BS10 model. WOuld you allow a BS10 model reroll on scatter? What about Bjorn?

It's not the same, from a logic standpoint. BS10 (and BS6) allows you to reroll all misses, and tells you what the requirement to hit is the second time. Reroll 1s is just that - you can only reroll to hit of 1, not any other result. Reroll 1s has extra criteria that no other type of reroll has.

Why are you still arguing? We already know how GW meant it to be played.

 FlingitNow wrote:

If as you say the blast weapon rules don't care about criteria only that there is a possibility of a reroll, then Deathwing get rerolls with their plasma cannons against Necrons (and indeed everyone else).

This really needs more spotlight.

If you say that PE lets you re-roll scatters due to the "potential for re-rolling"

then what Flingit wrote seem's true.

Deathwing has the POSSIBILITY to reroll, the limitation being against necrons, but according to some of the logic in here they can reroll their blast's against anyone.

 Crimson wrote:
Why are you still arguing? We already know how GW meant it to be played.

Some people think it was just a passing comment. I do not.

Quark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rerolling 1s to hit can be thought of as similar to a BS10 model. WOuld you allow a BS10 model reroll on scatter? What about Bjorn?

It's not the same, from a logic standpoint. BS10 (and BS6) allows you to reroll all misses, and tells you what the requirement to hit is the second time. Reroll 1s is just that - you can only reroll to hit of 1, not any other result. Reroll 1s has extra criteria that no other type of reroll has.

You are granted a re-roll if you miss.
You are granted a re-roll if you roll a 1 to-hit.

Why is one conditional "allowed" but the other not?

rigeld2 wrote:

Quark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rerolling 1s to hit can be thought of as similar to a BS10 model. WOuld you allow a BS10 model reroll on scatter? What about Bjorn?

It's not the same, from a logic standpoint. BS10 (and BS6) allows you to reroll all misses, and tells you what the requirement to hit is the second time. Reroll 1s is just that - you can only reroll to hit of 1, not any other result. Reroll 1s has extra criteria that no other type of reroll has.

You are granted a re-roll if you miss.
You are granted a re-roll if you roll a 1 to-hit.

Why is one conditional "allowed" but the other not?

because being able to re-roll Blast's with PE creates absurdities and GW have expressly said that rerolling Blasts with limited re-rolls (such as Spiritmark) is not allowed.

rigeld2 wrote:

Quark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rerolling 1s to hit can be thought of as similar to a BS10 model. WOuld you allow a BS10 model reroll on scatter? What about Bjorn?

It's not the same, from a logic standpoint. BS10 (and BS6) allows you to reroll all misses, and tells you what the requirement to hit is the second time. Reroll 1s is just that - you can only reroll to hit of 1, not any other result. Reroll 1s has extra criteria that no other type of reroll has.

You are granted a re-roll if you miss.
You are granted a re-roll if you roll a 1 to-hit.

Why is one conditional "allowed" but the other not?

You are granted a reroll if you target the PE unit.

Why is one conditional "allowed" but the other not?

Jacob29 wrote:
because being able to re-roll Blast's with PE creates absurdities

Like...
And absurdities change how the rules are written?

and GW have expressly said that rerolling Blasts with limited re-rolls (such as Spiritmark) is not allowed.

No, they've said (in a supplement I don't have access to so I can't verify wording) that the Spiritmark doesn't allow re-rolling blasts.

rigeld2 wrote:

Jacob29 wrote:
because being able to re-roll Blast's with PE creates absurdities

Like...
And absurdities change how the rules are written?

and GW have expressly said that rerolling Blasts with limited re-rolls (such as Spiritmark) is not allowed.

No, they've said (in a supplement I don't have access to so I can't verify wording) that the Spiritmark doesn't allow re-rolling blasts.

Like Preferred Enemy (Necrons) giving re-rollable Scatter dice even when NOT against Necrons.

The primary argument is that PE allows a re-roll, and all Blast's need to be re-rolled is the possibility.


Yes and Spiritmark allows the re-roll of 1's on a marked target. Near identical to PE.

Jacob29 wrote:
Like Preferred Enemy (Necrons) giving re-rollable Scatter dice even when NOT against Necrons.

There's a difference of course, but you can ignore it if you want.

Yes and Spiritmark allows the re-roll of 1's on a marked target. Near identical to PE.

Near identical, and yet different. It's almost like things that aren't the same lead to different results.

Quark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rerolling 1s to hit can be thought of as similar to a BS10 model. WOuld you allow a BS10 model reroll on scatter? What about Bjorn?

It's not the same, from a logic standpoint. BS10 (and BS6) allows you to reroll all misses, and tells you what the requirement to hit is the second time. Reroll 1s is just that - you can only reroll to hit of 1, not any other result. Reroll 1s has extra criteria that no other type of reroll has.

Yes, and BS10 rerolls all misses - ALL 1s
PE rerolls ALL 1s

Both have conditions. The rule in question places no conditions on "how much" of a reroll you need to have in order for you to gain rerolls

If you think otherwise, prove that the rule in question actually requires you to be able to reroll "All" misses. It never states that

rigeld2 wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
If you don't take the trigger into account for re-rolls of scatter dice, then Orks can re-roll the scatter die for Lobbas without actually using the ammo runt.

Depending on the wording of Ammo Runt...

Ammo runt says you have to use and remove the ammo runt to get the re-roll.
PE says you have to roll a 1 to get the re-roll.

When you fire a barrage with PE, you have not rolled a 1, but you are re-rolling.
So logic followed if PE doesn't have to meet its requirement (roll a 1), ammo runt does not need to meet its requirement (remove runt).



If a Riptide gets Marker lights to boost it to BS6 (re-rolling 1's to hit) and fires the Nova Charged Ion Cannon, you are all saying it re-rolls scatter dice?
Tau commander with 1 marker light re-rolls Air Bursting Frag and Overcharged Cyclic Ion Blaster?

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
If you don't take the trigger into account for re-rolls of scatter dice, then Orks can re-roll the scatter die for Lobbas without actually using the ammo runt.

Depending on the wording of Ammo Runt...

Ammo runt says you have to use and remove the ammo runt to get the re-roll.
PE says you have to roll a 1 to get the re-roll.

When you fire a barrage with PE, you have not rolled a 1, but you are re-rolling.
So logic followed if PE doesn't have to meet its requirement (roll a 1), ammo runt does not need to meet its requirement (remove runt).

Not quite the same thing.

If a Riptide gets Marker lights to boost it to BS6 (re-rolling 1's to hit) and fires the Nova Charged Ion Cannon, you are all saying it re-rolls scatter dice?

Yes, absolutely.

Tau commander with 1 marker light re-rolls Air Bursting Frag and Overcharged Cyclic Ion Blaster?

Sure, if you're being accurate about what those do (not completely up on the Tau codex)

I did not realise that Farseers where that good. As long as I take guide as a power all blast weapons in my army get reroll on a scatter as those units could get a reroll to hit if I cast guide on them and we already know the if statement is irrelevant...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Quark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rerolling 1s to hit can be thought of as similar to a BS10 model. WOuld you allow a BS10 model reroll on scatter? What about Bjorn?

It's not the same, from a logic standpoint. BS10 (and BS6) allows you to reroll all misses, and tells you what the requirement to hit is the second time. Reroll 1s is just that - you can only reroll to hit of 1, not any other result. Reroll 1s has extra criteria that no other type of reroll has.

Yes, and BS10 rerolls all misses - ALL 1s
PE rerolls ALL 1s

Both have conditions. The rule in question places no conditions on "how much" of a reroll you need to have in order for you to gain rerolls

If you think otherwise, prove that the rule in question actually requires you to be able to reroll "All" misses. It never states that

BS10 rerolls all misses - that just happens to be only 1s. That is not conditional.
PE rerolls misses of 1 only. That is conditional. You don't have the "ability to re-roll to hit", you have the "ability to re-roll to hit of 1".

I'm not sure why we're still arguing when Iyanden book has showed intent. It says Spirit Mark doesn't work for Hemlock Wraithfighter. Spirit Mark exact wording:

All Wraithguards, Wraithblades, Wraithlords, Wraithknights and Hemlock Wraithfighters can re-roll To Hit rolls of 1 against spirit-marked units

That is no different than what Preferred Enemy gives for To Hit.

Quark - and, again you have created a requirement that simply does not exist in the actual, written rules

There is NO REQUIREMENT for you to be able to reroll ALL dice in order to gain a reroll. That is totally and utterly made up by you as a requirement.

So, again: you are asked if you are able to reroll to hit. I answer YES - I can reroll to hits of a 1. You never asked can I reroll ALL rolls to hit, or all 1,2 and 3, or anything like that - you just asked "CAN I" reroll to hit. I can.

Therefore I get a reroll

Please find a rule that shows that this is not true. Page and para. You have yet to do so, as you have failed to parse the question at.

Quark wrote:
BS10 rerolls all misses - that just happens to be only 1s. That is not conditional.

And yet would still require a to-hit roll. It's absolutely conditional.

PE rerolls misses of 1 only. That is conditional. You don't have the "ability to re-roll to hit", you have the "ability to re-roll to hit of 1".

I'm sorry you can't tell why that underlined bit is irrelevant, but it is.

I'm not sure why we're still arguing when Iyanden book has showed intent. It says Spirit Mark doesn't work for Hemlock Wraithfighter. Spirit Mark exact wording:

All Wraithguards, Wraithblades, Wraithlords, Wraithknights and Hemlock Wraithfighters can re-roll To Hit rolls of 1 against spirit-marked units

That is no different than what Preferred Enemy gives for To Hit.

Because that's for one specific rule and not across all rules.

Just a couple of clarifying questions for those that say PE allows rerolls for barrage.


With PE, can you get a reroll if you roll a to hit of anything but a 1?

If not, how do you have the ability to reroll required by barrage?

If the 1 is not required then is the prefered enemy of the proper type required to give a reroll or does simply having PE give you a reroll and therefor work on any unit?

Gravmyr wrote:
With PE, can you get a reroll if you roll a to hit of anything but a 1?

With BS6 can you get a re-roll if you roll a to-hit of anything but a miss?

Why is a miss different from a 1? Where is the double standard coming from - both situations are contingent on something (one a miss, one rolling a 1).

rigeld2 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
With PE, can you get a reroll if you roll a to hit of anything but a 1?

With BS6 can you get a re-roll if you roll a to-hit of anything but a miss?

Why is a miss different from a 1? Where is the double standard coming from - both situations are contingent on something (one a miss, one rolling a 1).

Is that considered a true re-roll or an "extra" roll? Because a true re-roll should allow you to use your same BS, while the BS6+ roll forces you to roll to target a different(higher) value then the original To Hit roll. I don't have my BRB with me at the moment so I'm not sure how the rules actually state that particular piece.

Hell, it's worded like PE.

If a model has BS6 or higher, it gains a re-roll whenever it rolls a 1 To Hit with ranged attacks.

rigeld2 wrote:
Hell, it's worded like PE.

If a model has BS6 or higher, it gains a re-roll whenever it rolls a 1 To Hit with ranged attacks.

To be fair, that is probably because a roll of a 2+ will hit with a BS6 or higher.

I think there is a little ambiguity and I can see where both sides are coming from. But nevermind me, carry on boys.

rigeld2 wrote:

Jacob29 wrote:
Like Preferred Enemy (Necrons) giving re-rollable Scatter dice even when NOT against Necrons.

There's a difference of course, but you can ignore it if you want.

What is the difference?

It follows the same logic that has already been introduced.

Yes and Spiritmark allows the re-roll of 1's on a marked target. Near identical to PE.

Near identical, and yet different. It's almost like things that aren't the same lead to different results.

Jacob29 wrote:
The fact is that GW clearly don't intend for PE to let you reroll blasts. They don't say "Spiritmark has no effect on Hemlocks" they give a helpful tip that "don't worry it won't do anything".

They clearly intend for Spiritmark not to re-roll blasts.
Their intent with regard to PE is unclear, you assumption notwithstanding.

And their intent is only relevant insofar as its FAQed.

I'm not arguing either way as it doesn't affect me. I was simply extending the logic you are putting forth. Can you answer my other two questions so I can see where you are coming from more clearly? As well as how far this extends. Can I reroll scatter for a blast if I have a Chronometron in the unit?

rigeld2 wrote:
Hell, it's worded like PE.

If a model has BS6 or higher, it gains a re-roll whenever it rolls a 1 To Hit with ranged attacks.

So do you feel models with a BS6+ automatically get to re-roll blast scatter?

Yes.

Quark wrote:
BS10 rerolls all misses - that just happens to be only 1s. That is not conditional.

Actually that is conditional. The two conditions being:

1. You must roll to hit.
2. You must miss.

Which is exactly the same as any ability that lets you re-roll all misses.
And the conditions for PE:

1. You must roll two hit.
2. You must miss.
3. You must roll a 1

So you're saying three conditions is two many to qualify for the scatter re-roll but two conditions is not? That seems quite arbitrary.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the reasoning. Since the ability to re-roll is never determined in any case(BS 10, PE, etc.) because the to-hit roll is never made all possible outcomes of the to-hit roll remain true per(purred) Schrodinger's Cat. This means you both do get to re-roll the to-hit roll and you do not get to re-roll the to-hit roll.... that your not making. Both outcomes being true and false at the same time because it is undetermined... as in, you do not make the roll just like you can't open the box. As the ability to re-roll is true you get to re-roll your scatter dice.

^^^this is upon the premise that it actually means 'if the model has the ability to re-roll a to-hit roll in this shooting attack'. the BRB actually does not say this.

Pure RAW though only says that the model must have the ability to re-roll it's to hit rolls. It does not say in this attack nor does it even say to-hit rolls for shooting attacks... Taken without assumption this includes CC attacks as well. I mean does a model that re-rolls failed to-hit rolls in CC re-roll to-hit rolls? Yes it does. It's ridiculous I know that the scything talons on a Tyranid Warrior would allow it to re-roll scatter for the barbed strangler it's carrying and I would never attempt this in a game but if you want straight RAW all you have to do is check the qualifiers for the rule of which they only list two...

"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon, the player must reroll both the scatter dice and the 2D6"

1. It must have the ability to re-roll rolls to-hit(it's not specific so any rolls To Hit count)
2. You must choose to re-roll

That's it... Pure RAW answer, if the model can reroll any To Hit rolls it can reroll scatter. As for RAI and HYWPI.... well...

Abandon following that logic any army containing a psyker that has prescience could reroll will ALL blast weapons because they COULD get a reroll. Indeed you could go further to any unit in any codex that contains a psyker that can roll divination or has a battle brother that can roll divination can re roll all blast weapons all the time (if I had selected this psyker etc and as we have stated if statements are irrelevant).

 FlingitNow wrote:
Abandon following that logic any army containing a psyker that has prescience could reroll will ALL blast weapons because they COULD get a reroll. Indeed you could go further to any unit in any codex that contains a psyker that can roll divination or has a battle brother that can roll divination can re roll all blast weapons all the time (if I had selected this psyker etc and as we have stated if statements are irrelevant).

Incorrect, the model must have the ability...

 Abandon wrote:

Quark wrote:
BS10 rerolls all misses - that just happens to be only 1s. That is not conditional.

Actually that is conditional. The two conditions being:

1. You must roll to hit.
2. You must miss.
3. You must roll a 1.

Abandon, I fixed that for you after re-reading BS 6+ (which says you only get the re-roll if you roll a 1 To Hit).

You only get the re-roll if you roll a 1 To Hit with BS 6+ because a 2-6 already hits and there is no need to re-roll.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

Quark wrote:
BS10 rerolls all misses - that just happens to be only 1s. That is not conditional.

Actually that is conditional. The two conditions being:

1. You must roll to hit.
2. You must miss.
3. You must roll a 1.

Abandon, I fixed that for you after re-reading BS 6+ (which says you only get the re-roll if you roll a 1 To Hit).

I'm aware, was using his words for it to better make the point that it does not matter. All rerolls come with conditions.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You only get the re-roll if you roll a 1 To Hit with BS 6+ because a 2-6 already hits and there is no need to re-roll.

That's your assumption - and logically it fits. They did not say, "If you miss you can re-roll" or anything to that effect however.
Use actual rules for your argument please, not assumptions.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You only get the re-roll if you roll a 1 To Hit with BS 6+ because a 2-6 already hits and there is no need to re-roll.

That's your assumption - and logically it fits. They did not say, "If you miss you can re-roll" or anything to that effect however.
Use actual rules for your argument please, not assumptions.

The only reason to gain a re-roll is because you missed. This is apparent in the 40K BRB such as the Divination power Prescience, Twin Linked etc.

All re-rolls are because you missed and gain a re-roll to try and hit.

I was just clarifying that the re-roll to hit on a 1 for BS6+ is because 2-6 hits and there is no reason to re-roll.

 Abandon wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Abandon following that logic any army containing a psyker that has prescience could reroll will ALL blast weapons because they COULD get a reroll. Indeed you could go further to any unit in any codex that contains a psyker that can roll divination or has a battle brother that can roll divination can re roll all blast weapons all the time (if I had selected this psyker etc and as we have stated if statements are irrelevant).

Incorrect, the model must have the ability...

And the model does if the psyker casts prescience on his unit. So our conditions are:

1) you must cast prescience on that unit
2) you must roll to hit
3) you must miss

It is just a condition of getting the reroll for that model and as we know all conditions are irrelevant. Likewise a model with PE (chaos space marines) gets his reroll on the blast no matter his opponent. Or indeed any codex that has access to a psyker with divination:

1. You must select a psyker in your army
2. You must get the prescience psychic power
3. You must cast it on the unit firing
4. You must roll to hit
5. You must miss

Again if we're ignoring ALL conditions the above is true.

Chris Lysander wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So Preferred Enemy doesn't grant a roll to hit?

regardless of what 1 or 2 people want to say no. if you can't roll a one to hit you can't get the PE re roll ability. it is nice and simple logic when you apply logic to it.

Is the ability to reroll 1s on a hit an ability to reroll hit rolls?

Please only answer that question without insults or "holier than thou" attitude.

Does the model have a reroll to hit? Then it gets a reroll on scatter.

Can someone on the "no" side please find where there is a requirement in the rules on "rerolls and blasts" for you to be able to reroll "all failed", or some other such verbiage, before you can claim a reroll on scatter?

Page and para would be hlpeful. Or, the "no" side could concede their lack of a rules based argument.

Hmmm now I think I just want to revive StrawMarine Bob for a moment.

Say that due to some enemy action (a malediction that makes it so, some special terrain rule, or anything), StrawMarine Bob and his unit have to reroll To Hit rolls of 6.

StrawMarine Bob fires his ML as a frag missile at a unit of gaunts and it scatters wildly. Can he re-roll the scatter dice?

The gist is then that any reroll to hit at all allows scatter dice rerolls. K.

Gravmyr wrote:
The gist is then that any reroll to hit at all allows scatter dice rerolls. K.

Yes, because that is all the rule actually requires - that you have a reroll to hit.

It doesnt say "reroll ALL hits, ALL the time, and then you get to reroll scatter"

So indeed, if you havea "bad" reroll - reroll all successful to-hit rolls, for example (to just extend the example further) then this also fulfils the requirement of "having" a reroll to-hit, and would allow you to reroll scatter.

Which is, of course, quite silly, but is literally the only RAW answer.

Because if you say otherwise, then exactly "how much" of a reroll to-hit do you need to have to qualify for a reroll on scatter? is all misses sufficient? What about (on a BS2 model) all 1s and 2s? Or, in this example, Preferred Enemy?
There is no textual or contextual evidence for any specific requirement being the "standard" we should follow.

Preferred Enemy allows the unit with that rule to reroll To Hit rolls of 1.

Blasts of any sort use the Scatter dice plus 2D6s. For Blast weapons the only dice that counts for a Hit is the little target symbol. If a big arrow is rolled the shot does not hit, though the 2D6 can be ignored (in most cases) if they add up to equal to or less than the BS of the firer.

Thus Preferred Enemy will NOT work on the To Hit component of Blast Weapons, as the To Hit part is not a number, it is a function of the dice with arrows on it. But the rerolling of To Wound rolls of 1 would be permitted by Preferred Enemy.

Lord Krungharr - did you read any of the preceding thread, or indeed the rules covering blasts and rerolls?

It doesnt look like you did. Please do so, and come back with an argument that takes note of the relevant rules.

Because if you say otherwise, then exactly "how much" of a reroll to-hit do you need to have to qualify for a reroll on scatter? is all misses sufficient? What about (on a BS2 model) all 1s and 2s? Or, in this example, Preferred Enemy?
There is no textual or contextual evidence for any specific requirement being the "standard" we should follow.

Hence any unit in an army that has access to divination gets rerolls on all blast weapons all the time.

Which is, of course, quite silly, but is literally the only RAW answer.

And hence why RaW is not helpful here when trying to understand what the actual rule is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So are we finally agreed? Either you get rerolls from PE but that means basically every army has rerolls on scatter in every game all the time. Or that as the rule states and GW have confirmed only if you have a flat reroll do you get to reroll scatter.

The "If anyone has divination" thing is just silly.

If my Bioplasma Carnifex for instance does not have anything cast upon him that allows rerolls of any kind, clearly the model does not have the ability to reroll at the time of the shot, and cannot reroll a miss with the Plasma.

However I do agree with Nos et al, if the Swarmolord gives the Carnifex Preferred Enemy, he HAS an ability to reroll. Granted, only on a 1, but he has the ability. RAW then that does mean I can reroll the scatter on his bioplasma. I think here it still makes some sense, but clearly it doesn't if for some reason he had an ability that forces to reroll all hits but hey... The rule still says so.

Or that as the rule states and GW have confirmed only if you have a flat reroll do you get to reroll scatter.

Please cite the portion of the rule that states that you only get to reroll when you have a "flat" reroll.

Also is the ability to reroll ones on a hit an ability to reroll to hit?

Yes an ability to reroll 1s is a conditional ability to reroll.

Does someone with PE CSMs get a reroll against Necrons?

I'm liking this PE and re-roll logic.

So as PE doesn't say you "May" reroll hits, it says you reroll.

SO if you have PE and get a direct hit on the scatter die, and a 1 on a scatter distance die, then you still have to reroll, so it actually makes it harder to get a direct hit with PE.

PS: I don't suppose it matters to anyone that Blast weapons don't roll "to hit" and as PE only allows rerolls when a "to hit" roll is 1.

So if we are ignoring the fact that we are required to have a 1 in order to reroll, by that logic, you could reroll 2's, 3's... etc... because you have "the ability to reroll" without the limiter.

Fragile wrote:
So if we are ignoring the fact that we are required to have a 1 in order to reroll, by that logic, you could reroll 2's, 3's... etc... because you have "the ability to reroll" without the limiter.

No, that's not what's being said - excellent straw man thought.

What do the rules ask for? An ability to re-roll.
Does PE allow a re-roll? Yes.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
So if we are ignoring the fact that we are required to have a 1 in order to reroll, by that logic, you could reroll 2's, 3's... etc... because you have "the ability to reroll" without the limiter.

No, that's not what's being said - excellent straw man thought.

What do the rules ask for? An ability to re-roll.
Does PE allow a re-roll? Yes.

Yes and PE states you have to reroll, so with blasts you'll always disregard the first roll (hit or miss) and roll again.

Can Prescience give any of my units a reroll? If we are throwing all conditions out of the window...

rigeld2 wrote:
Does PE allow a re-roll? Yes.

The correct answer to that question is "Maybe" or "Sometimes"

Fragile wrote:
So if we are ignoring the fact that we are required to have a 1 in order to reroll, by that logic, you could reroll 2's, 3's... etc... because you have "the ability to reroll" without the limiter.

No, we ignore your straw man, which ignores the rules.

Can you start providing some to back up your position? It's a simple request - prove yout have an "amount" of reroll you have to have before you can reroll scatter. Anything based on actual rules would be helpful, as you have totally avoided this until now

Sir lynch - any chance you read the thread, which shows you the rulEs on blasts and rerolls, instead of making the same argument as on page one, by thosee unable to.fund the rrule on blasts and rerolls? Thanks

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Does PE allow a re-roll? Yes.

The correct answer to that question is "Maybe" or "Sometimes"

Which is the same answer as any re-roll to-hit ability.
It's exactly as conditional as any other similar ability.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Does PE allow a re-roll? Yes.

The correct answer to that question is "Maybe" or "Sometimes"

Which is the same answer as any re-roll to-hit ability.
It's exactly as conditional as any other similar ability.

I was simply clarifying that it is not a "Yes" answer to that question it is a "Maybe" or "Sometimes" answer.

As long as you agree that they are all worded as "maybe" then sure.
Which is irrelevant.

I reread the Blast rules, and I stick to my previous conclusion. PE grants a reroll on To Hits of 1. The Blasts and Rerolls just says if the model gets to reroll its To Hit rolls then it would reroll the Scatter dice and both the 2D6s. Since PE only grants a single To Hit reroll (that is only of 1) and not multiple To Hit rerolls as the Blast and Rerolls rule describes (singular vs plural), the PEd model/unit would NOT get to reroll the Scatter dice and 2D6s.

A better way to word it actually would be "If you Miss and the misses are the roll of a 1"

Things Does twin linked allow a re-roll? would then be answered "If you miss"

Though the rules are written so that you gain a re-roll for missing, no need for a re-roll if you hit. The context dictates this.

Hmmm, my opinion is that PE grants a re-roll when targeting your preferred enemy.
The rules are that you need a rule that grants a re-roll. PE does so against a PE unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:
A better way to word it actually would be "If you Miss and the misses are the roll of a 1"

Things Does twin linked allow a re-roll? would then be answered "If you miss"

Though the rules are written so that you gain a re-roll for missing, no need for a re-roll if you hit. The context dictates this.

You're moving away from the question that is actually asked and inserting distinctions.

Does PE grant a re-roll?

And there are absolutely reasons to re-roll hits. Precision Shots for one.

Except the rules for twin linked say you re-roll failed to hit rolls (AKA misses), as does Prescience.

PE sometimes grants a re-roll.

Twin Linked, and Prescience grant a re-roll always.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except the rules for twin linked say you re-roll failed to hit rolls (AKA misses), as does Prescience.

Which is still a "Maybe".
It does not always grant a re-roll to-hit. You have to miss first.
PE does not always grant a re-roll to-hit. You have to roll a 1 first.

Note that the actual rule doesn't care about how you get the re-roll, just that you have one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Twin Linked, and Prescience grant a re-roll always.

That's incorrect, and you know it is because you said it correctly first.
You have to miss with either one to get a re-roll.

No PE grant's a re-roll when you roll a 1 AND when you are fighting a preferred enemy.
That is the conditional issue here IMHO. I don't like that re-rolls of 1 give the ability to re-roll blasts scatter or plasma cannons get's hot but it does appear to be consistent RAW.

However if you're telling me that a LF with an attacked Wolf Priest that has PE monstrous creature gets to re-roll it's scatter when shooting infantry I don't see why. The rule only cares that you have one, grand but a conditional re-roll that is based on more than just missing a target and requires a certain type of target is a very different animal to a blanket ability to re-roll 1s. If a PE(MC) unit is shooting at "not MCs" how does it have a re-roll?

The rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed.

If you hit there is no reason to, nor can you re-roll.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed.

If you hit there is no reason to, nor can you re-roll.

The first half of your sentence is false, and the second is only true for now - there's no guarantee the next codex won't invalidate that statement.
So have fun with your biased assumptions, ill be over here with what the rules actually say.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
So if we are ignoring the fact that we are required to have a 1 in order to reroll, by that logic, you could reroll 2's, 3's... etc... because you have "the ability to reroll" without the limiter.

No, we ignore your straw man, which ignores the rules.

Can you start providing some to back up your position? It's a simple request - prove yout have an "amount" of reroll you have to have before you can reroll scatter. Anything based on actual rules would be helpful, as you have totally avoided this until now

Sir lynch - any chance you read the thread, which shows you the rulEs on blasts and rerolls, instead of making the same argument as on page one, by thosee unable to.fund the rrule on blasts and rerolls? Thanks

You claim that PE grants a reroll regardless of having to roll a 1. You cannot apply that to blast weapons and not to any other. If you ignore the having to roll a 1 for blast, then you can ignore the 1 for any other weapon.

As far as rules, its clearly written. You have to roll a 1. Show me a 1 on a scatter die.

Show me a failed "roll to hit" on a scatter dice & 2D6. Keep in mind the brb defines what a "roll to hit" quite clearly, there is a table and everything.
Anything that grants a re-roll for "rolls to hit" cannot be applied to a scatter dice if we follow that logic and ignore the rules for blasts.

What about the Objuration Mechanicum psychic power, that forces the enemy unit to re-roll To Hit rolls of 6. Would that suddenly also grant the enemy unit to re-roll the scatter die for (Large) Blast weapons?

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
So if we are ignoring the fact that we are required to have a 1 in order to reroll, by that logic, you could reroll 2's, 3's... etc... because you have "the ability to reroll" without the limiter.

No, we ignore your straw man, which ignores the rules.

Can you start providing some to back up your position? It's a simple request - prove yout have an "amount" of reroll you have to have before you can reroll scatter. Anything based on actual rules would be helpful, as you have totally avoided this until now

Sir lynch - any chance you read the thread, which shows you the rulEs on blasts and rerolls, instead of making the same argument as on page one, by thosee unable to.fund the rrule on blasts and rerolls? Thanks

You claim that PE grants a reroll regardless of having to roll a 1. You cannot apply that to blast weapons and not to any other. If you ignore the having to roll a 1 for blast, then you can ignore the 1 for any other weapon.

As far as rules, its clearly written. You have to roll a 1. Show me a 1 on a scatter die.

It does, when you are rolling for Blast weapons> That is because the actual rules for blast weapons simply ask you if you get a reroll to hit - which you do. Show me a "1" on a BS5 model with reroll to hit rolling for Scatter - then you get your reroll. Oh, wait, that isnt how Blasts work - as you NEVER roll to hit with blasts, INSTEAD you roll the scatter dice! Almost like you're ignoring the rules...

Again: ANY Rules to support your contention? I continue to see a startling lack from you. Further failure to provide a rule stating that you must have an "amount" of reroll to-hit before you get to reroll scattrer (remember - the two are different things - something you are struggling with) will be treated as your concession.

 Redemption wrote:
What about the Objuration Mechanicum psychic power, that forces the enemy unit to re-roll To Hit rolls of 6. Would that suddenly also grant the enemy unit to re-roll the scatter die for (Large) Blast weapons?

I would say no. I'd say it gives you a re-roll to miss.
Objuration Mechanicum isn't a re-roll "to hit". You had already hit (you rolled a 6), you are forced to re-roll the result to cause a miss, not a hit.
Yes, that's reaching, but it seems to make sense.

"to hit" is, however, a defined term Matt - it has a specific meaning in the rules.

Old Eldar Guide alllwed you a reroll to-hit;. You could (and often did) reroll hits in order to get more Ap1 from a ranger unit. This being optional does not make it different to the malediction whenyou apply it to a hit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you have the ability to re-roll, you re-roll the scatter.
PE gives you the ability to reroll - 1's only maybe, but you DO get to reroll. The rules for blasts do not require that you be able to reroll *all* dice
In short, I agree with Peregrine. Which really doesnt happen often

This might come as a shock, but even I agree with you

Nosferatu, the Blasts with Rerolls rule has this as an amount of rerolls to qualify a Blast for rerolling the scatter dice and 2D6:

[i]If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon, the player must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6."

The amount to qualify is right in the rule; it's plural ROLLS To Hit, as in more than a single instance of missing, not just 1 particular dice roll that it would usually be rerolling if rolling a D6 for a To Hit. That's why Prescient Blasts would get to reroll the scatter/2D6.

This interpretation is not ignoring any rules, and I feel it's a balanced way of viewing the rules. Preferred Enemy wouldn't grant rerolling the hitting in this case of Blasts, but Blasts increase the chance of hitting more than a single model, and it would grant rerolling some wounding.

1's happen in a plural just like misses which both cause re-rolls to hit.

@Nos, do you think PE would work when not shooting at a PE enemy?

No, the 1s do not cause the reroll of the scatter dice and 2D6. My view is just as valid as yours. The plural does make a difference. If the Blasts and Rerolls said, "If the model rerolls any of its To Hit rolls then it may choose...." then I would agree with you.

And if the enemy target is not of the Preferred Enemy type specified in the army/unit rules, you most certainly would not get a reroll of the scatter dice. If you wouldn't get a reroll To Hit with a non-blast weapon then there is no reroll To Hit at all. That's just silly to think otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It does, when you are rolling for Blast weapons> That is because the actual rules for blast weapons simply ask you if you get a reroll to hit - which you do. Show me a "1" on a BS5 model with reroll to hit rolling for Scatter - then you get your reroll. Oh, wait, that isnt how Blasts work - as you NEVER roll to hit with blasts, INSTEAD you roll the scatter dice! Almost like you're ignoring the rules...

Like your ignoring the requirement to roll a 1. Funny that Gets Hots has a mechanic to "roll a 1" but PE doesnt. Its almost like your making up rules.... that dont work...

Again: ANY Rules to support your contention? I continue to see a startling lack from you. Further failure to provide a rule stating that you must have an "amount" of reroll to-hit before you get to reroll scattrer (remember - the two are different things - something you are struggling with) will be treated as your concession.

Almost every argument you have seems to have a statement like this is it. Is this your escape when losing an argument ?

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
No, the 1s do not cause the reroll of the scatter dice and 2D6. My view is just as valid as yours. The plural does make a difference. If the Blasts and Rerolls said, "If the model rerolls any of its To Hit rolls then it may choose...." then I would agree with you.

And if the enemy target is not of the Preferred Enemy type specified in the army/unit rules, you most certainly would not get a reroll of the scatter dice. If you wouldn't get a reroll To Hit with a non-blast weapon then there is no reroll To Hit at all. That's just silly to think otherwise.

Firstly, you have yet to give any rules for where the distinction of a re-roll of a fixed value and a re-roll of a variable in how they are seen in the rules. What is the difference in the rules of a model re-rolling 1's to hit with BS5 and a model re-rolling to hit rolls?

Secondly, you are not Nos.

Fragile wrote:
Like your ignoring the requirement to roll a 1. Funny that Gets Hots has a mechanic to "roll a 1" but PE doesnt. Its almost like your making up rules.... that dont work...

Why are you bringing Gets Hot into this? There's zero relevance.

And you're inventing a distinction that doesn't exist. Does PE allow a re-roll to hit? It really is a Yes or No question.

Almost every argument you have seems to have a statement like this is it. Is this your escape when losing an argument ?

Well, when you've provided zero rules support how is he supposed to argue against you?

The rule states you must roll a 1, to get a reroll. You have failed to provide how you roll a "to hit " roll of a 1 with scatter die. Hence you have no reroll.

Gets Hot is a similar mechanic. If you roll a 1 on the "to hit" roll you can suffer a wound. Since you cannot roll a 1 on scatter die, they had to add the mechanic do to so. PE has no added mechanic. You do not have a trigger to gain your reroll, hence RAW, you cannot reroll a PE blast.

Provide a rule that shows how to roll a 1 on a scatter die, or the missing extra die and you will be right, until then, you have nothing... and your answer would be No.

Fragile wrote:
The rule states you must roll a 1, to get a reroll. You have failed to provide how you roll a "to hit " roll of a 1 with scatter die. Hence you have no reroll.

BS6+ requires you to miss to have a re-roll. Using your argument, there is no re-roll. Therefore you have no re-roll for Blast Weapons.
Replace "BS6+" with every other re-roll to-hit mechanic currently in the game.

Provide a rule that shows how to roll a 1 on a scatter die, or the missing extra die and you will be right, until then, you have nothing... and your answer would be No.

Great, so the only ability that allows you to re-roll blasts is Twin Linked, and only because it has it's own exception. The rule under Blasts is useless. Have fun with your interpretation, I'll be over here with the actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The rule states you must roll a 1, to get a reroll. You have failed to provide how you roll a "to hit " roll of a 1 with scatter die. Hence you have no reroll.

BS6+ requires you to miss to have a re-roll. Using your argument, there is no re-roll. Therefore you have no re-roll for Blast Weapons.
Replace "BS6+" with every other re-roll to-hit mechanic currently in the game.

Provide a rule that shows how to roll a 1 on a scatter die, or the missing extra die and you will be right, until then, you have nothing... and your answer would be No.

Great, so the only ability that allows you to re-roll blasts is Twin Linked, and only because it has it's own exception. The rule under Blasts is useless. Have fun with your interpretation, I'll be over here with the actual rules.

Now you have RAW, and I accept your concession.

Fragile wrote:
The rule states you must roll a 1, to get a reroll. You have failed to provide how you roll a "to hit " roll of a 1 with scatter die. Hence you have no reroll.

Gets Hot is a similar mechanic. If you roll a 1 on the "to hit" roll you can suffer a wound. Since you cannot roll a 1 on scatter die, they had to add the mechanic do to so. PE has no added mechanic. You do not have a trigger to gain your reroll, hence RAW, you cannot reroll a PE blast.

Provide a rule that shows how to roll a 1 on a scatter die, or the missing extra die and you will be right, until then, you have nothing... and your answer would be No.

Gets hot is not analogous to PE.
PE is somewhat analogous to twin-linked and other things that grant a re-roll. So just like twin-linked, divination, etc etc an ability to re-roll to hit gives you an ability with blast weapons as per the brb.

Fragile wrote:
Now you have RAW, and I accept your concession.

Actually, no - that's not RAW. I've conceded nothing.

You've supplied zero - literally no - rules supporting that argument.

Out of interest have people read the blast rules?

It seems to me that folks are cherry picking the Preferred Enemy rule and focusing solely on the re-roll aspect of the rule, as opposed to the rule in it's entirety. As has been stated previously, you only get the re-roll on a To-Hit roll of '1'. Unless there is a specific exception (permissive ruleset), you cannot invoke the rule without satisfying the trigger.

There are many rules in 40k that can only be invoked/activated once certain things happen. You simply cannot get a re-roll from Preferred Enemy without first rolling a 1 on your To Hit roll.

In what way do the Blast/Barrage rules reference rolling to hit? That's a rhetorical question as we should all know by now that the rules say "...instead of rolling To Hit..."

-Yad

Yad wrote:
It seems to me that folks are cherry picking the Preferred Enemy rule and focusing solely on the re-roll aspect of the rule, as opposed to the rule in it's entirety. As has been stated previously, you only get the re-roll on a To-Hit roll of '1'. Unless there is a specific exception (permissive ruleset), you cannot invoke the rule without satisfying the trigger.

There are many rules in 40k that can only be invoked/activated once certain things happen. You simply cannot get a re-roll from Preferred Enemy without first rolling a 1 on your To Hit roll.

In what way do the Blast/Barrage rules reference rolling to hit? That's a rhetorical question as we should all know by now that the rules say "...instead of rolling To Hit..."

-Yad

Then it's your assertion that there is literally no way to re-roll scatter on blasts. It's incorrect, but that's where your argument leads.
edit: save Twin-Linked because of its specific rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

Then it's your assertion that there is literally no way to re-roll scatter on blasts. It's incorrect, but that's where your argument leads.
edit: save Twin-Linked because of its specific rules.

Yes, I have been convinced that BS6+ doesn't get reroll on blasts. Besides, you're getting benefit from the reduced scatter anyway.

Also, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/497090.page

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:
It seems to me that folks are cherry picking the Preferred Enemy rule and focusing solely on the re-roll aspect of the rule, as opposed to the rule in it's entirety. As has been stated previously, you only get the re-roll on a To-Hit roll of '1'. Unless there is a specific exception (permissive ruleset), you cannot invoke the rule without satisfying the trigger.

There are many rules in 40k that can only be invoked/activated once certain things happen. You simply cannot get a re-roll from Preferred Enemy without first rolling a 1 on your To Hit roll.

In what way do the Blast/Barrage rules reference rolling to hit? That's a rhetorical question as we should all know by now that the rules say "...instead of rolling To Hit..."

-Yad

Then it's your assertion that there is literally no way to re-roll scatter on blasts. It's incorrect, but that's where your argument leads.
edit: save Twin-Linked because of its specific rules.

No that's not what I'm asserting. I'm asserting that there is no way for models/units with Preferred Enemy to re-roll scatter. My argument has focused specifically on the Preferred Enemy rule and how it interacts with the blast rule. I'm not sure how you're trying to tie in the inability of Preferred Enemy to allow Scatter re-rolls with stopping all re-rolling of blasts. Aside from Twin-Linked what other ability/effect/rule do you think should allow you to re-roll the scatter?

Within the confines of the 40k rules, a To Hit roll is a 'thing'. Just like Scatter rolls, Leadership test, Morale check, Armour save, etc. Preferred Enemy is specifically tied to the To Hit roll. So, do the blast rules allow you to make a To Hit roll?

-Yad

Quark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Then it's your assertion that there is literally no way to re-roll scatter on blasts. It's incorrect, but that's where your argument leads.
edit: save Twin-Linked because of its specific rules.

Yes, I have been convinced that BS6+ doesn't get reroll on blasts. Besides, you're getting benefit from the reduced scatter anyway.

Also, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/497090.page

BS6+, Prescience, any other ability currently in the game that gives re-rolls when you miss...

Also, old threads mean nothing. Nos is the only one (that I can see) that argued one way before, and the other now.

rigeld2 wrote:

Then it's your assertion that there is literally no way to re-roll scatter on blasts. It's incorrect, but that's where your argument leads.
edit: save Twin-Linked because of its specific rules.

It is at least as correct as your interpretation. And you cannot argue the the interpretation is wrong because it leads to weird and clearly non-intended outcome, yours does too. That is an argument of intent and we already know the intent; but that was not good enough for you.

Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls. There is no reason to assume that blast rules mean anything besides that. That is the intent, it should be clear enough. I leave you to pointlessly wrestle over who has the supreme RAW and go play some 40K instead.

 Crimson wrote:
Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls.

Please, for once, show some actual rules support for the bolded statement.

It doesn't exist, meaning any conclusion derived from it is factually incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls.

Please, for once, show some actual rules support for the bolded statement.

It doesn't exist, meaning any conclusion derived from it is factually incorrect.

This is what's confusing to me. Like I mentioned earlier, the To Hit roll is a 'thing' within the 40k rules. Meaning it is a specific game mechanic with 'well' defined rules supporting it. (I say 'well' cause this is GW we're talking about). So whenever a rule says, "re-roll the To Hit roll" it can only, unless otherwise specified, be the To Hit roll.

-Yad

Unless another rules sublimates a re-roll on your to hit table into another ability. Which is what we are actually talking about.

rigeld2 wrote:

Please, for once, show some actual rules support for the bolded statement.

It doesn't exist, meaning any conclusion derived from it is factually incorrect.

You don't have any rules support for the claim that it would mean anything else. And it doesn't really matter. We already know the intent, I'm right, you're wrong; rest is just pointless intellectual wankery.

 Crimson wrote:
We already know the intent, I'm right, you're wrong; rest is just pointless intellectual wankery.

Bollocks! If we knew the intent we'd be GW writers.

Lord Krungharr wrote:No, the 1s do not cause the reroll of the scatter dice and 2D6. My view is just as valid as yours. The plural does make a difference. If the Blasts and Rerolls said, "If the model rerolls any of its To Hit rolls then it may choose...." then I would agree with you.

And if the enemy target is not of the Preferred Enemy type specified in the army/unit rules, you most certainly would not get a reroll of the scatter dice. If you wouldn't get a reroll To Hit with a non-blast weapon then there is no reroll To Hit at all. That's just silly to think otherwise.

I fire an assault 2 weapon, with PE. I roll {1,1}. I reroll my to hit ROLLS of 1 due to PE.

Oh look, your plurality argument fails, as you failed to listen to context. Debunked. Next argument on quantity?

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It does, when you are rolling for Blast weapons> That is because the actual rules for blast weapons simply ask you if you get a reroll to hit - which you do. Show me a "1" on a BS5 model with reroll to hit rolling for Scatter - then you get your reroll. Oh, wait, that isnt how Blasts work - as you NEVER roll to hit with blasts, INSTEAD you roll the scatter dice! Almost like you're ignoring the rules...

Like your ignoring the requirement to roll a 1. Funny that Gets Hots has a mechanic to "roll a 1" but PE doesnt. Its almost like your making up rules.... that dont work...

What, making up the rule that states you get a reroll on scatter if you reroll to-hit? Have you even read the rule in question?

Serious question, as you appear to be entirely unaware of this rules existence.

If I am BS5 and reroll failed to-hit, I also have to roll a 1 in order to re-roll. According to you, we just ignore the rules and dont provide a reroll on a scatter.

I'll play by the actual rules, while you pretend they dont exist. I know which is preferable

Fragile wrote:

Again: ANY Rules to support your contention? I continue to see a startling lack from you. Further failure to provide a rule stating that you must have an "amount" of reroll to-hit before you get to reroll scattrer (remember - the two are different things - something you are struggling with) will be treated as your concession.

Almost every argument you have seems to have a statement like this is it. Is this your escape when losing an argument ?

Amusing that you think that, when you have yet to provide a SINGLE RULE to support your made up gak, that I am "losing" the argument.

So again - does a reroll to-hit of a 1 fulfill the requirement to reroll to hit? Any chance you could provide some rules, at any point in thsi thread, or are you unaware of other rules, such as the tenets of this forum?

Further baseless arguments from you will be ignored as proof that you are making a houserule argument, and can therefore safely be ignored as irrelevant to this thread.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Unless another rules sublimates a re-roll on your to hit table into another ability. Which is what we are actually talking about.

First off, I'm not entirely sure on your use of 'sublimate'.

Do you mean that instead of making a To Hit roll, you are placing the marker and rolling for scatter and that it still counts as a To Hit roll even though the rule itself stated that you are not rolling To Hit?

-Yad

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please, for once, show some actual rules support for the bolded statement.

It doesn't exist, meaning any conclusion derived from it is factually incorrect.

You don't have any rules support for the claim that it would mean anything else. And it doesn't really matter. We already know the intent, I'm right, you're wrong; rest is just pointless intellectual wankery.

Actually he does, as has been proven. You just keep making up assertions, fail to support them, and are called on it.

We also dont know the intent for PE, at all. Youre just making up more crap by saying that.

If it is "pointless intellectual wankery", feel free to not post again in this thread. It doesnt appear to be for you.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please, for once, show some actual rules support for the bolded statement.

It doesn't exist, meaning any conclusion derived from it is factually incorrect.

You don't have any rules support for the claim that it would mean anything else. And it doesn't really matter. We already know the intent, I'm right, you're wrong; rest is just pointless intellectual wankery.

We know the intent for another, similar, ability. It is not the same ability. You're inventing that correlation.

And of course, an argument about intent is different from an argument about the rules. I couldn't care less what the intent is (because my local TOs will decide for me - and have in this case).
"pointless intellectual wankery" really? Do you need to be so insulting?

Sadly yes, and not just in this thread. It appears to be tolerated, however.

ALso we still dont know the intent behind the similar ability - the accuracy of the rules sections are low enough to cause questions, but relyingon the totally "wild" section of the rest of a codex? LAughable.

rigeld2 wrote:

We know the intent for another, similar, ability. It is not the same ability. You're inventing that correlation.

Good enough for me. Especially as it is the interpretation that works best in practice and do not lead to weirdness with all sort of abilities.

And of course, an argument about intent is different from an argument about the rules. I couldn't care less what the intent is (because my local TOs will decide for me - and have in this case).

I wish people would stop assuming that pure RAW exist in some platonic sense. It doesn't. Rules are just English sentences, often unclear and confusing; just like in this case.

"pointless intellectual wankery" really? Do you need to be so insulting?

Perhaps I should have said 'sophistry' instead.

AS opposed to your pointless making up of rules, aserting them, and insulting others when called on it?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
AS opposed to your pointless making up of rules, aserting them, and insulting others when called on it?

I have not made up rules, I never even made any RAW argument on this, merely an argument of intent. Furthermore, it was never my intent to be insulting, merely to point out that it is pointless to argue over strict-RAW reading of an unclear rule, intent of which is already known.

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
AS opposed to your pointless making up of rules, aserting them, and insulting others when called on it?

I have not made up rules, I never even made any RAW argument on this, merely an argument of intent. Furthermore, it was never my intent to be insulting, merely to point out that it is pointless to argue over strict-RAW reading of an unclear rule, intent of which is already known.

The intent of a similar rule is known, and it is pretty clear.
Unless you're saying that the intent of the blast rules is to not apply to literally any current ability?

And you absolutely did make up rules when you said, and I quote,

Crimson wrote:Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls.

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
AS opposed to your pointless making up of rules, aserting them, and insulting others when called on it?

I have not made up rules, I never even made any RAW argument on this, merely an argument of intent. Furthermore, it was never my intent to be insulting, merely to point out that it is pointless to argue over strict-RAW reading of an unclear rule, intent of which is already known.

Really? So you never made an assertion about the "quantity" of "reroll to-hit " is meant by GW

 Crimson wrote:
Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls.

Liar.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
AS opposed to your pointless making up of rules, aserting them, and insulting others when called on it?

I have not made up rules, I never even made any RAW argument on this, merely an argument of intent. Furthermore, it was never my intent to be insulting, merely to point out that it is pointless to argue over strict-RAW reading of an unclear rule, intent of which is already known.

Really? So you never made an assertion about the "quantity" of "reroll to-hit " is meant by GW

 Crimson wrote:
Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls.

Liar.

I'm not sure this the most constructive use of this thread. Perhaps we should take a step back before anyone says anything that will get them a stern talking to.

-Yad

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Really? So you never made an assertion about the "quantity" of "reroll to-hit " is meant by GW

 Crimson wrote:
Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls.

Liar.

Charming.

It must be that both you and Rigeld failed to notice a sentence in the same paragraph you quoted that made it clear that I was talking about intent. (A honest mistake I'm sure; I don't want to be impolite and call anyone a liar after all! I know how you appreciate politeness in discourse.)

Crimson wrote:That is the intent, it should be clear enough.

I'll quote the whole paragraph.

Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls. There is no reason to assume that blast rules mean anything besides that. That is the intent, it should be clear enough.

I left out the unnecessary rudeness.

The underlined sentences go together. I did not make the connection between them and the non-underlined. Perhaps if you worded things better it would help.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed.

If you hit there is no reason to, nor can you re-roll.

The first half of your sentence is false, and the second is only true for now - there's no guarantee the next codex won't invalidate that statement.
So have fun with your biased assumptions, ill be over here with what the rules actually say.

The first half is not false. Twin Linked and Prescience confirm this.

Why are you saying there is bias, when there is none?

Plus, you even confirmed my text that said "If you hit there is no reason to, nor can you re-roll." is true so your statement of "ill be over here with what the rules actually say." does not make any sense, as I have posted actual rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed.

If you hit there is no reason to, nor can you re-roll.

The first half of your sentence is false, and the second is only true for now - there's no guarantee the next codex won't invalidate that statement.
So have fun with your biased assumptions, ill be over here with what the rules actually say.

The first half is not false. Twin Linked and Prescience confirm this.

So BS6+ doesn't miss, it just happened to roll a 1?

Why are you saying there is bias, when there is none?

I can't think of any other reason for you to make the assumptions that you have.

Plus, you even confirmed my text that said "If you hit there is no reason to, nor can you re-roll." is true so your statement of "ill be over here with what the rules actually say." does not make any sense, as I have posted actual rules.

The bolded is absolutely false, and what I was referring to. I'd love to re-roll hits to try for 6's - just like I wish I could re-roll poisoned Genestealer hits for more Rends.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
AS opposed to your pointless making up of rules, aserting them, and insulting others when called on it?

I have not made up rules, I never even made any RAW argument on this, merely an argument of intent. Furthermore, it was never my intent to be insulting, merely to point out that it is pointless to argue over strict-RAW reading of an unclear rule, intent of which is already known.

Really? So you never made an assertion about the "quantity" of "reroll to-hit " is meant by GW

 Crimson wrote:
Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls.

Liar.

Wow, hard to argue with such eloquence.

BS6+, Prescience, any other ability currently in the game that gives re-rolls when you miss...

FYI Prescience works fine.

Serious question, as you appear to be entirely unaware of this rules existence.

If I am BS5 and reroll failed to-hit, I also have to roll a 1 in order to re-roll. According to you, we just ignore the rules and dont provide a reroll on a scatter.

Preferred Enemy. "..........A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of I if attacking its Preferred Enemy...."

Blasts... "When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit......"

So again... tell me how you roll a TO HIT of a 1, when you do not roll to hit...

You consistently ignore that...

at any point in thsi thread, or are you unaware of other rules, such as the tenets of this forum?

Again with the Ad Hominem.... you should focus on the rules...

Fragile wrote:
FYI Prescience works fine.

Really? You're only allowed to re-roll failed to hit rolls. Blasts don't roll to hit as you're so able to remind us.
Pray - how do you have access to a re-roll that only exists when you fail a to-hit roll if you never make a to-hit roll?

Because your trying to ignore the trigger. Neither BS6+ nor PE grant a reroll until after a condition is met. (rolling of a 1) TL and Prescience have no such condition and met the requirements set forth in the Blast rule that allows a reroll.

Since were ignoring triggers for any rerolls.

Can my ork big guns, always reroll it's blast shots without having to expend the ammo runt? It has the "ability to reroll" PE can cause a Reroll right? Sure,
Then the ammo runts being available to grant the ability should work without the trigger as well right? Yep, same reason.

To me this is the intent of the rule for blasts & rerolls, to cover any odd codex situations that might crop up. In the USR section they clearly point out how A certain rule interacts with blasts, and PE says nothing about blasts.

But if were going strictly RAW then I can reroll blast weapons and not expend my runts, so I concur with RAW

Hooray! Now my Obliterators can reroll the scatter on their plasma cannons against any enemy before charging out of a Land Raider with Abaddon within 12"! It's a win-win for Orks and Chaos Space Marines!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Lord Krungharr wrote:No, the 1s do not cause the reroll of the scatter dice and 2D6. My view is just as valid as yours. The plural does make a difference. If the Blasts and Rerolls said, "If the model rerolls any of its To Hit rolls then it may choose...." then I would agree with you.

And if the enemy target is not of the Preferred Enemy type specified in the army/unit rules, you most certainly would not get a reroll of the scatter dice. If you wouldn't get a reroll To Hit with a non-blast weapon then there is no reroll To Hit at all. That's just silly to think otherwise.

I fire an assault 2 weapon, with PE. I roll {1,1}. I reroll my to hit ROLLS of 1 due to PE.

Oh look, your plurality argument fails, as you failed to listen to context. Debunked. Next argument on quantity?

That's not a valid argument, perhaps that is a strawman that people seem to be fond of talking about? The plurality referred to is the single-condition of a reroll To Hit by Preferred Enemy vs. the universal-condition of a reroll To Hit granted by Twin-linked/Prescience; the universe being a D6 in this case. (as described in the Blasts and Rerolls rules, which yes we have read, as I posted it a page or two back.)

from Liturgies of Blood: Firstly, you have yet to give any rules for where the distinction of a re-roll of a fixed value and a re-roll of a variable in how they are seen in the rules. What is the difference in the rules of a model re-rolling 1's to hit with BS5 and a model re-rolling to hit rolls?

Secondly, you are not Nos.

The distinction is self-evident in the words of the pertinent rules, a specific condition vs. a general condition.
The crux of the question is does the Blast Rerolls rule intend to mean a model that can reroll all its To Hit rolls gets to reroll scatter dice , or does it mean a model with any[/i] rerolls To Hit grant a rerolling of the scatter dice. The plural of the wording makes me think I'm right...those who oppose think the plural tense of 'rolls' ignores the singular condition of PE or other similar rules.

What is Nos?

And whoever said it "The TOs will decide" is correct, and in my tournament this weekend I have already ruled on it. I'm also pretty confident GW will rule the same way if they ever get around to it, sometimes they do.....But if they rule the other way then someday I'll have all sorts of Blast weapons around Abaddon, and they won't scatter back onto him!

Fragile wrote:
Because your trying to ignore the trigger. Neither BS6+ nor PE grant a reroll until after a condition is met. (rolling of a 1) TL and Prescience have no such condition and met the requirements set forth in the Blast rule that allows a reroll.

Stop using TL as an example - it has an explicit rule.
Prescience absolutely has a condition - you have to fail a to hit roll to be granted a re-roll. Or are you saying it allows re-rolls of to hits?

Blast Weapons and Rerolls.

"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon,...."

Prescience.

"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls.."

What part there do you see in conflict.

Fragile wrote:
Blast Weapons and Rerolls.

"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon,...."

Prescience.

"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls.."

What part there do you see in conflict.

I don't see a conflict.
I do, however, see a conditional on Prescience. Which you're insisting is what breaks PE.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Blast Weapons and Rerolls.

"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon,...."

Prescience.

"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls.."

What part there do you see in conflict.

I don't see a conflict.
I do, however, see a conditional on Prescience. Which you're insisting is what breaks PE.

And there's a condition for ammo runts, which you insist isn't necessary as the rules for blast bypass it.
do you agree ammo runts always grant rerolls weather or not you remove a runt?

There is no conditional on Prescience.

Fragile wrote:There is no conditional on Prescience.

Really? You even quoted it. I'll bold it for you.

Fragile wrote:"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls.."

Which has nothing to do with the rules in question.

So then is "Reroll failed To Hit Rolls" = "Reroll failed To Hit Rolls of a 1" ??

Fragile wrote:
Which has nothing to do with the rules in question.

So the conditional there is okay, but a conditional in PE is right out.
That's the type of consistent argument that makes sense and influences people! Well done! (that was sarcasm btw)

So you avoid the question and resort to sarcasm... aka you have nothing ?

I didn't avoid the question actually - you did.
I said there was a conditional. You said there wasn't. I pointed it out. You said it had nothing to do with the rules in question. You have failed to support that statement.

You're asserting that one rule with a conditional works while another rule with a conditional does not. Please explain why. (there's no sarcasm there)

he rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed as evident in prescience, Twin Linked BS6+ etc...

 DeathReaper wrote:
he rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed as evident in prescience, Twin Linked BS6+ etc...

You should re-read that rule. It does not say what you think it says.
And now you're arguing for intent.

I read the rules. not intent argument.

The RAW is written in such a way that you re-roll when you miss, as evident on TL/Prescience, and even in BS6+.

the BS6+ says to re-roll 1's (the extrapolation being this is AKA All misses) as 2+ hits with BS6 and 1's are all misses.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I read the rules. not intent argument.

The RAW is written in such a way that you re-roll when you miss, as evident on TL/Prescience, and even in BS6+.

the BS6+ says to re-roll 1's (the extrapolation being this is AKA All misses) as 2+ hits with BS6 and 1's are all misses.

So how is PE's re-roll different? It applies when missing as well.
And BS6+ does not say to re-roll when you miss.

PE does not always apply when missing.

If you have a BS 4 and PE Orks, and you shoot and roll a 2, you have missed, TL or Prescience would make you re-roll this, PE does not.

BS6+ does not explicitly say to re-roll when you miss, but it tells you to re-roll 1's, which are the only number that misses with a BS6+ so it is the same as TL or Prescience as you re-roll all misses with those three things.

 DeathReaper wrote:
PE does not always apply when missing.

If you have a BS 4 and PE Orks, and you shoot and roll a 2, you have missed, TL or Prescience would make you re-roll this, PE does not.

Which isn't what the Blast rule actually asks for.

BS6+ does not explicitly say to re-roll when you miss, but it tells you to re-roll 1's, which are the only number that misses with a BS6+ so it is the same as TL or Prescience as you re-roll all misses with those three things.

So one of them has different rules, but they're all the same - even if that one is worded identically to PE. And you're not making an argument for intent.
Cool story bro.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
PE does not always apply when missing.

If you have a BS 4 and PE Orks, and you shoot and roll a 2, you have missed, TL or Prescience would make you re-roll this, PE does not.

Which isn't what the Blast rule actually asks for.

I made no mention of the Blast rules, I was just clarifying the base rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
PE does not always apply when missing.

If you have a BS 4 and PE Orks, and you shoot and roll a 2, you have missed, TL or Prescience would make you re-roll this, PE does not.

Which isn't what the Blast rule actually asks for.

I made no mention of the Blast rules, I was just clarifying the base rules.

... Which are irrelevant in this case. So thanks? for going off-topic.

The base rules are relevant when discussing the rules...

 DeathReaper wrote:
The base rules are relevant when discussing the rules...

Please, elaborate.
How does the fact that every to-hit rule is conditional apply in a discussion about the sentence "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit"?

Yad wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Unless another rules sublimates a re-roll on your to hit table into another ability. Which is what we are actually talking about.

First off, I'm not entirely sure on your use of 'sublimate'.

Do you mean that instead of making a To Hit roll, you are placing the marker and rolling for scatter and that it still counts as a To Hit roll even though the rule itself stated that you are not rolling To Hit?

-Yad

No that isn't even close. Please read the rules on blasts, it would be of great importance in this debate.

Sublimate means in this context to change the rules trigger from one form to another without the need to roll to hit. It's like the other technical meaning of the word that has nothing to do with sexual psychology, but thanks for assuming that I don't understand the big words.
That is what blasts do to re-rolls, it changes the permission to re-roll to hit rolls into something else. If the model has an ability to re-roll dice, then you get the abilities that the blast USR states you get.
What nobody has done is proven that PE doesn't grant a re-roll against the preferred enemy. Every re-roll is conditional on something if you want to be pedantic about it.

Fragile wrote:
So you avoid the question and resort to sarcasm... aka you have nothing ?

No, you avoided the critical question - why is ONE conditional (reroll all failed to hit) OK, and grants a reroll on the blast scatter roll, when another condition (reroll all 1s to hit) NOT OK?

PLease explain, using real rules for the first time this thread, with page and paragraph and citation of EXACTLY where the rulebook makes this specification, why this is the case

Your continued failure to do so tells a lot about the quality of your argument, and its ability to persuade others.

Again: the actual rules only require the ability for a model to be able to reroll its to-hit for it to be able to reroll scatter. Is rerolling to=hit rolls of a 1 a reroll to hit?

A simple yes or no answer would be helpful. If you state "no" it would be wonderful for you to explain why, using rules.

I'll wait. Should be amusing.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
No, the 1s do not cause the reroll of the scatter dice and 2D6. My view is just as valid as yours. The plural does make a difference. If the Blasts and Rerolls said, "If the model rerolls any of its To Hit rolls then it may choose...." then I would agree with you.

And if the enemy target is not of the Preferred Enemy type specified in the army/unit rules, you most certainly would not get a reroll of the scatter dice. If you wouldn't get a reroll To Hit with a non-blast weapon then there is no reroll To Hit at all. That's just silly to think otherwise.

So your argument says that, if I have a Blast 2 weapon and PE, I get to re-roll?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Is rerolling to=hit rolls of a 1 a reroll to hit?

No. Like Stealth (ruins) is not same as Stealth and Stormbolter is not same as Bolter.
Or maybe it is, but there is actually nothing in the rules that would allow us to conclude either way. (Luckily, there are things that let us conclude the intent, which works for those of us who actually intend to play the game.)

Once again, in the case of a genuinely unclear rule you decide that your arbitrary definition is right, and others need to show rules quotes that prove you wrong, while you actually cannot prove your original assumption right either. That's what unclear rules are. If there was a clear way to prove it either way, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's why pure RAW positions are stupid. Platonic clear RAW does not exist, some rules just are unclear or nonsensical as written.

No, actually, it is clear. Your refusal to accept that is irrelevant.
And you're applying intent shown by words involving a similar rule (not the same). GW has ruled in different directions for similar rules multiple times.

No, you avoided the critical question - why is ONE conditional (reroll all failed to hit) OK, and grants a reroll on the blast scatter roll, when another condition (reroll all 1s to hit) NOT OK?
.

Because in the Blast and Rerolls section of the Blast rules it just says 'if the model has the ability to re-roll its ROLLS To Hit...". It does not say 'if a model has the ability to re-roll any of its To Hit rolls it gets to.....". If a model only has a limited ability to re-roll To Hits, as with PE, I and many others don't view that as a qualifying to use the Blast and Rerolls section. PE certainly does NOT meet the first criteria of being used with a Blast weapon at all, namely Blast Weapons DO NOT roll To Hit. That much alone makes it doubtful that PE could be used Blast Weapons.

Why your team refuses to acknowledge the difference and conflict between the PE and Blast/Rerolls rules is the most confusing part. We don't need to quote any more rules showing why it is different, because the Blast/Rerolls section and PE rules are already printed differently in the bloody book; the words which qualify each to occur are different, and therefore in some conflict with each other. Needing clarification, sure, discussion, sure. But you are not absolutely irrefutably correct until GW decides upon it.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
namely Blast Weapons DO NOT roll To Hit. That much alone makes it doubtful that PE could be used Blast Weapons.

Why your team refuses to acknowledge the difference and conflict between the PE and Blast/Rerolls rules is the most confusing part.

Because your "team" is using a double standard.
Prescience, et. al. must roll to hit and fail before having a re-roll.
BS6+ must roll to hit and roll a 1 before having a re-roll.
PE must roll to hit and roll a 1 before having a re-roll.

And I'd bet you're okay with 2/3 of those working for re-rolling scatter. And there's zero basis for that double standard to apply.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
So you avoid the question and resort to sarcasm... aka you have nothing ?

No, you avoided the critical question - why is ONE conditional (reroll all failed to hit) OK, and grants a reroll on the blast scatter roll, when another condition (reroll all 1s to hit) NOT OK?

PLease explain, using real rules for the first time this thread, with page and paragraph and citation of EXACTLY where the rulebook makes this specification, why this is the case

Let me take a stab at this.

Blasts say, If a model has the ability to re-roll its To Hit and choose to do so after firing a blast weapon, the player must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6.

Twin-Linked weapons grant you the choice under the twin-linked rule (page 43).
Master-Crafted "Allows" a re-roll on one failed To Hit per turn with that weapon (page37); I'm saying the wordage allows implies a choice.
Prefered Enemy gives you the re-roll if you roll a 1 to hit.
Ammo Runt gives you a re-roll if you remove the ammo runt.

When you fail to roll a 1, or fail to remove the Ammo Runt, you are not meeting the Criteria that allows you to "choose to do so". (where "so" is re-rolling to hit).

IMO, you must qualify to use the rule to "choose to do so". I can't choose to move flat out, fire all my weapons, and pop smoke.



Does that make sense?
-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
So you avoid the question and resort to sarcasm... aka you have nothing ?

No, you avoided the critical question - why is ONE conditional (reroll all failed to hit) OK, and grants a reroll on the blast scatter roll, when another condition (reroll all 1s to hit) NOT OK?

PLease explain, using real rules for the first time this thread, with page and paragraph and citation of EXACTLY where the rulebook makes this specification, why this is the case

Let me take a stab at this.

Blasts say, If a model has the ability to re-roll its To Hit and choose to do so after firing a blast weapon, the player must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6.

Twin-Linked weapons grant you the choice under the twin-linked rule (page 43).

False, Twin-Linked says you must re-roll failed to hits.

Master-Crafted "Allows" a re-roll on one failed To Hit per turn with that weapon (page37); I'm saying the wordage allows implies a choice.

You mean 39. That one actually gives a choice.

When you fail to roll a 1, or fail to remove the Ammo Runt, you are not meeting the Criteria that allows you to "choose to do so". (where "so" is re-rolling to hit).

So the rule only applies if you have a choice? Then Master-Crafted and Twin-Linked are the only ones that work, and the latter only because it has a specific exception.

IMO, you must qualify to use the rule to "choose to do so". I can't choose to move flat out, fire all my weapons, and pop smoke.

Can you show me how Prescience qualifies to use the rule if it never rolls to hit?

Does that make sense?

It shows me you're applying the same double standard. Please explain why.

The Blast Weapons and Re-rolls rule does not mention rerolling failed To Hit rolls, it just mentions rerolling To Hit rolls.

We must assume as an axiom that it means failed To Hit rolls, as all the other rules we are referencing speak of only rerolling failed To Hit rolls. Otherwise the PE advocates would automatically lose this argument, as you only reroll failed To Hit rolls of 1 with that rule.

So if the Blasts Rerolls only occurs if models reroll To Hit rolls and not just failed To Hit rolls then nobody gets to reroll the scatter dice for Blasts except twin-linked Blasts (which only works if you don't get a Hit symbol on the scatter die).

Furthermore, Rigeld2, Twin-linked blasts have their own rule, where rerolling the scatter dice is a choice. You complain about us not reading the rules; so I will say you can afford to brush up on them too.

Prescience of course qualifies to reroll Blasts scatter dice as 'whilst in effect it allows the model to re-roll ALL failed To Hit rolls'. The Blasts and Re-rolls rule says if a model has the ability to re-roll its To Hit rolls. So if we assume the aforementioned axiom to be true, which to win your PE case you must, then Prescience would qualify.

And you go all over the place without simply stating you don't think there is a difference between the general condition of re-rolling (failed) To Hit rolls, and the very specific condition of re-roll (failed) To Hit rolls of 1.

So in a regular game we'll have to D6 it, or if there's a TO ask her or him, or get a petition worked up for GW to tell them to get of their butts and write some new FAQs. Allelujia!

I rest my case, gotta move on.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
The Blast Weapons and Re-rolls rule does not mention rerolling failed To Hit rolls, it just mentions rerolling To Hit rolls.

Correct.

So if the Blasts Rerolls only occurs if models reroll To Hit rolls and not just failed To Hit rolls then nobody gets to reroll the scatter dice for Blasts except twin-linked Blasts (which only works if you don't get a Hit symbol on the scatter die).

Which is what I said.

Furthermore, Rigeld2, Twin-linked blasts have their own rule, where rerolling the scatter dice is a choice. You complain about us not reading the rules; so I will say you can afford to brush up on them too.

Please read what was said.

Blasts say, If a model has the ability to re-roll its To Hit and choose to do so after firing a blast weapon, the player must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6.
Twin-Linked weapons grant you the choice under the twin-linked rule (page 43).

All of the examples in that post are abilities that re-roll to hit. He erroneously used Twin-Linked as an example and claimed it gave you a choice to re-roll to hit. It does not.

Prescience of course qualifies to reroll Blasts scatter dice as 'whilst in effect it allows the model to re-roll ALL failed To Hit rolls'. The Blasts and Re-rolls rule says if a model has the ability to re-roll its To Hit rolls. So if we assume the aforementioned axiom to be true, which to win your PE case you must, then Prescience would qualify.

Sure.

And you go all over the place without simply stating you don't think there is a difference between the general condition of re-rolling (failed) To Hit rolls, and the very specific condition of re-roll (failed) To Hit rolls of 1.

So - why the double standard? Why must you assume that abilities that don't roll to hit work, but abilities that don't roll to hit don't work? You've not actually argued anything in your entire post, just restated things that are already known.

My point is that people are saying PE cannot re-roll because it never rolls to hit and therefore never qualifies, and at the exact same time saying that other abilities that don't roll to hit and therefore never qualify actually do get to re-roll. With no rules explanation. At all. This cannot be a correct standing - please actually offer rules support for this opinion.

So in a regular game we'll have to D6 it, or if there's a TO ask her or him, or get a petition worked up for GW to tell them to get of their butts and write some new FAQs. Allelujia!

I rest my case, gotta move on.

You rest your case on what - you've not actually argued anything. Bye?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
namely Blast Weapons DO NOT roll To Hit. That much alone makes it doubtful that PE could be used Blast Weapons.

Why your team refuses to acknowledge the difference and conflict between the PE and Blast/Rerolls rules is the most confusing part.

Because your "team" is using a double standard.
Prescience, et. al. must roll to hit and fail before having a re-roll.
BS6+ must roll to hit and roll a 1 before having a re-roll.
PE must roll to hit and roll a 1 before having a re-roll.

And I'd bet you're okay with 2/3 of those working for re-rolling scatter. And there's zero basis for that double standard to apply.

What does Prescience fail on?

I think I see what your trying to say. Your arguing the "fail to hit" is a conditional. Ok, then all three have conditions, however 2 of those have TWO conditions. First is a fail to hit, second is a roll of a 1. No matter what happens with Prescience, you will always reroll.

Unless you claiming that the Blast rule doesnt give permission and is just clarifying other rules like Twin Linked.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Let me take a stab at this.
Blasts say, If a model has the ability to re-roll its To Hit and choose to do so after firing a blast weapon, the player must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6.
Twin-Linked weapons grant you the choice under the twin-linked rule (page 43).

rigeld2 wrote:

False, Twin-Linked says you must re-roll failed to hits.

If the scatter dice does not roll a Hit, you can CHOOSE to re-roll the dice....
It appears to be True, in the context of blasts. You must re-roll normal shooting, you may re-roll blast shooting.

rigeld2 wrote:

Master-Crafted "Allows" a re-roll on one failed To Hit per turn with that weapon (page37); I'm saying the wordage allows implies a choice.

You mean 39. That one actually gives a choice.

When you fail to roll a 1, or fail to remove the Ammo Runt, you are not meeting the Criteria that allows you to "choose to do so". (where "so" is re-rolling to hit).

So the rule only applies if you have a choice? Then Master-Crafted and Twin-Linked are the only ones that work, and the latter only because it has a specific exception.

That is exactly what I'm saying.
If you don't have the choice to use the reroll, you don't qualify for the rule that lets you re-roll blast scatters.
Prescience wouldn't work with blasts, as you have no choice. You'd still be re-rolling all your to hit rolls, just not scatter dice.

I mean, isn't the rule phrased as "Choose to do so" is a condition of having re-rolls to hit, and not a exclusion of being required to re-roll the scatter die?

I'm not trying to troll here, I'm a mathematics guy, not a grammar guy.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
namely Blast Weapons DO NOT roll To Hit. That much alone makes it doubtful that PE could be used Blast Weapons.

Why your team refuses to acknowledge the difference and conflict between the PE and Blast/Rerolls rules is the most confusing part.

Because your "team" is using a double standard.
Prescience, et. al. must roll to hit and fail before having a re-roll.
BS6+ must roll to hit and roll a 1 before having a re-roll.
PE must roll to hit and roll a 1 before having a re-roll.

And I'd bet you're okay with 2/3 of those working for re-rolling scatter. And there's zero basis for that double standard to apply.

What does Prescience fail on?

When you succeed a roll to hit...

I think I see what your trying to say. Your arguing the "fail to hit" is a conditional. Ok, then all three have conditions, however 2 of those have TWO conditions. First is a fail to hit, second is a roll of a 1. No matter what happens with Prescience, you will always reroll.

They all have 2 conditions. All 3 must roll to hit. One must miss, the others must roll a one.
You absolutely do not always reroll with prescience - you only reroll misses.

Figured out an explanation of your double standard?

nosferatu1001 wrote:"to hit" is, however, a defined term Matt - it has a specific meaning in the rules..

This^^^. The refereed to To Hit roll is capitalized because it is not just a mechanic, it is a title naming the mechanic to achieve hits in shooting and CC.

Fragile wrote:The rule states you must roll a 1, to get a reroll. You have failed to provide how you roll a "to hit " roll of a 1 with scatter die. Hence you have no reroll.

Gets Hot is a similar mechanic. If you roll a 1 on the "to hit" roll you can suffer a wound. Since you cannot roll a 1 on scatter die, they had to add the mechanic do to so. PE has no added mechanic. You do not have a trigger to gain your reroll, hence RAW, you cannot reroll a PE blast.

Provide a rule that shows how to roll a 1 on a scatter die, or the missing extra die and you will be right, until then, you have nothing... and your answer would be No.

This is a failed argument. You cannot fail a To Hit roll with scatter either as you make no To Hit roll. Obviously a misreading of the rule.

Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Then it's your assertion that there is literally no way to re-roll scatter on blasts. It's incorrect, but that's where your argument leads.
edit: save Twin-Linked because of its specific rules.

It is at least as correct as your interpretation. And you cannot argue the the interpretation is wrong because it leads to weird and clearly non-intended outcome, yours does too. That is an argument of intent and we already know the intent; but that was not good enough for you.

Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls. There is no reason to assume that blast rules mean anything besides that. That is the intent, it should be clear enough. I leave you to pointlessly wrestle over who has the supreme RAW and go play some 40K instead.

DeathReaper wrote:he rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed as evident in prescience, Twin Linked BS6+ etc...

Lord Krungharr wrote:The Blast Weapons and Re-rolls rule does not mention rerolling failed To Hit rolls, it just mentions rerolling To Hit rolls.

We must assume as an axiom that it means failed To Hit rolls, as all the other rules we are referencing speak of only rerolling failed To Hit rolls.

demonstrably not always true. OM makes you reroll successful To Hit rolls and does indeed count as rerolling To Hit. So not all rerolls are a result of failed To Hit rolls.

Fragile wrote:Blast Weapons and Rerolls.

"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon,...."

Prescience.

"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls.."

What part there do you see in conflict.

There is no conflict in those rules. The error is in your interpretation that 'failed To hit rolls' is not a condition to get a reroll.

liturgies of blood wrote:

Yad wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Unless another rules sublimates a re-roll on your to hit table into another ability. Which is what we are actually talking about.

First off, I'm not entirely sure on your use of 'sublimate'.

Do you mean that instead of making a To Hit roll, you are placing the marker and rolling for scatter and that it still counts as a To Hit roll even though the rule itself stated that you are not rolling To Hit?

-Yad

No that isn't even close. Please read the rules on blasts, it would be of great importance in this debate.

Sublimate means in this context to change the rules trigger from one form to another without the need to roll to hit. It's like the other technical meaning of the word that has nothing to do with sexual psychology, but thanks for assuming that I don't understand the big words.
That is what blasts do to re-rolls, it changes the permission to re-roll to hit rolls into something else. If the model has an ability to re-roll dice, then you get the abilities that the blast USR states you get.
What nobody has done is proven that PE doesn't grant a re-roll against the preferred enemy. Every re-roll is conditional on something if you want to be pedantic about it.

Not sure that's exactly it unless you mean both the trigger and the effect are replaced in which case the original rule is not observed at all other than to check that it is there. The condition of 'fail a roll To Hit' cannot be met because their is not roll To Hit nor can the effect of rerolling the roll To Hit be applied for the same reason.

This seems like just a check to see if you have a rule that allows you to reroll To Hit rolls and an option to choose to use it but it does not actually allow you to do so as it cannot be used, instead allowing you to reroll scatter.

Fragile wrote:

I think I see what your trying to say. Your arguing the "fail to hit" is a conditional. Ok, then all three have conditions, however 2 of those have TWO conditions. First is a fail to hit, second is a roll of a 1. No matter what happens with Prescience, you will always reroll.

Prescience lets you reroll your failed To Hit rolls, that is not 'always' rerolling. That is sometimes or conditional rerolling.

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:he rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed as evident in prescience, Twin Linked BS6+ etc...

Lord Krungharr wrote:The Blast Weapons and Re-rolls rule does not mention rerolling failed To Hit rolls, it just mentions rerolling To Hit rolls.

We must assume as an axiom that it means failed To Hit rolls, as all the other rules we are referencing speak of only rerolling failed To Hit rolls.

demonstrably not always true. OM makes you reroll successful To Hit rolls and does indeed count as rerolling To Hit. So not all rerolls are a result of failed To Hit rolls.

Almost every base rule has exceptions...

Re-rolling hits on OM is one of these exceptions to the base rule.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:he rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed as evident in prescience, Twin Linked BS6+ etc...

Lord Krungharr wrote:The Blast Weapons and Re-rolls rule does not mention rerolling failed To Hit rolls, it just mentions rerolling To Hit rolls.

We must assume as an axiom that it means failed To Hit rolls, as all the other rules we are referencing speak of only rerolling failed To Hit rolls.

demonstrably not always true. OM makes you reroll successful To Hit rolls and does indeed count as rerolling To Hit. So not all rerolls are a result of failed To Hit rolls.

Almost every base rule has exceptions...

Re-rolling hits on OM is one of these exceptions to the base rule.

I'm sure you can quote me the base rule to which this is an exception that states your case that all To Hit rerolls are only referring to rerolling misses? Or was that just something you made from a string of other statements that did not actually state that at all?

Please tell us where this rule can be found.

I already stated it, in this very thread...

The rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed. Twin Linked and Prescience confirm this.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I already stated it, in this very thread...

The rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed. Twin Linked and Prescience confirm this.

Actually you did not. You stated that very same assumption citing abilities that allow you to reroll if you miss as proof that all rerolls assume only misses count for their effects. I showed that was incorrect. In any case I'd like to add that this unwritten basis theory is fairly ridiculous. This is a permissive rule set, if they do not add it in we cannot account for it. You can assume the rules are written on some basis or another all you want but that's also called making things up.

So Abandon you believe that if you have access to a reroll conditionally you get a reroll on the scatter whether or not those conditions are met? Is that correct?

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Is rerolling to=hit rolls of a 1 a reroll to hit?

No. Like Stealth (ruins) is not same as Stealth and Stormbolter is not same as Bolter.

Wrong. Again

the set of events "reroll to hit" contains within it the events {"reroll to hit (of a 1)", "reroll to hit (of a 2)", ...., "reroll to hit (of a 6)"}

Asked "do i get a reroll to hit if I reroll to hit all 1s" you are 100% correct in answering "Yes"

Same way if I move 5", I can answer the question "have I moved up to 6"?" with "yes"

You just fail to read a set of events as a set, instead making up a rule that "reroll to hit" ACTUALLY means "reroll (all failed) to hit", and then pretend you are making an "intent" argument when asked to provide support.

 Crimson wrote:
Or maybe it is, but there is actually nothing in the rules that would allow us to conclude either way. (Luckily, there are things that let us conclude the intent, which works for those of us who actually intend to play the game.)

Wrong, as proven over and over to you. Your failure to listen and comprehend doesnt make something unclear.

If I reroll 1s on my to-hit do I have the ability to reroll to-hit? YES.

100% unarguable fact.

Oh, and we have something written in non-rules section by a company what cannot even write the rules sections without error, in a section known for getting rules wrong (from illegal options on models, to illegal army lists, etc) - that isnt even about the rule in question and you are holding that up as "intent"?

 Crimson wrote:
Once again, in the case of a genuinely unclear rule

Only by those unable to understand sets.

 Crimson wrote:
you decide that your arbitrary definition is right,

It isnt arbitrary when it is backed up by, you know, rules. Your position IS entirely arbitrary, as proven

Your insults and denigrations to others is quite appalling.

 Crimson wrote:
and others need to show rules quotes that prove you wrong, while you actually cannot prove your original assumption right either.

Again, your failure to comprehend basis sets doesnt mean I havent proven my case. It does mean you have a failure in understanding of a basic concept.

 Crimson wrote:
That's what unclear rules are. If there was a clear way to prove it either way, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Really, so something that is a known fact is never debated? Have you met real life people, ever? A genuine query. People argue about known facts all the time, because one side often has a critical misunderstanding - which is what you have here

Having a reroll to-hit of 1s IS having the abilty to reroll your to hit rolls. Fact. Your failure to understand that does not make it less true, or unclear, or whatever sophistry you will next try to claim is your argument to avoid having to admit your position is untenable.

 Crimson wrote:
That's why pure RAW positions are stupid. Platonic clear RAW does not exist, some rules just are unclear or nonsensical as written.

I agree some make no sense. However this is not one of them

You declaring something unclear, despite the clear rules pointing otherwise, does not make it so. You can houserule whatever you like, however trying to claim a requirement to do so "because the rules are unclear" is disingenuous.