Poll for this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/572358.page

If OP of the thread copies the Poll this will be a duplicate thread.

Re-rolling Scatter with Earth Cast Array:

Some believe there is no limitation on what can Re-Roll
Some believe there are limitations on what can Re-Roll
It is as simple as that.

If you are in a Tournament then run the rules by an organizer to ensure you do not run fowl of their rules. For friendly games you should discuss it with an opponent if you really want to use this piece of war-gear for Re-Rolling blast markers. Personally, I would never use a Re-Roll of 1 to Re-Roll a Blast marker as it doesn't feel right to me: The Re-Roll of 1 was designed to be a 'random chance' thing, that is to say it obviously isn't designed to grant you the ability to Re-Roll every time. The outlook that there is no limitations would grant the Rip-Tide the chance to use it 100% of the time, should they decide, instead of the 16.5% chance it is meant to have.

Rules wise the rules only require that you have a Reroll, not "how good " a Reroll you have. Reroll all failed, all ones to hit etc are all rerolls to hit.

Don't debate the rule in here, thats for the other thread

I voted yes, I can't see where rr blasts differentiates types of rr

I was presenting the other side.

also, was this meant to be a RAW or HYWPI poll?

How it will be played was my suggestion, I assumed that with my vote

RAW and HIWPI concur so my vote of yes wouldn't alter, however badly worded polls aren't always the most reliable ones to draw conclusions from...

 Formosa wrote:
Don't debate the rule in here, thats for the other thread

I voted yes, I can't see where rr blasts differentiates types of rr

Don't forget (hope the poll was clear enough) that this is only RR of 1, like preferred enemy. Not just simple rr...

Reroll to-hit of one, indeed.

When the rule only requires you to have the ability to reroll your to-hit rolls, ANY reroll satisfies that as it is unconditional

Same as in the prior threads on this, you are assuming page 33 places conditions on how "good " a Reroll you need, but cannot actually show this.

If you can reroll all failed to hit rolls, do you have the ability to reroll your to-hit role? Yes

If you Reroll to-hit of 1, do you have the SAME ability? Yes

If you disagree, an actual rule showing where this supposed condition on how good a reroll you need would be helpful

Just specifying the subject of the Poll, arguments are for the other thread ;-)

Yep, and the poster clearly knew what the poll was about, hence "types of rr" context meaning "how good a rr you have"

Is this hywpi or RAW? Badly worded polls (in future loom at the way YAk etc word them) aren't the most reliable.

Fixed

Voted no because you cannot create the reroll condition without first reaching the 1 requirement which is impossible for blast.

busby wrote:
Voted no because you cannot create the reroll condition without first reaching the 1 requirement which is impossible for blast.

Please just Vote, this is Poll only, no arguments ;-)

busby wrote:
Voted no because you cannot create the reroll condition without first reaching the 1 requirement which is impossible for blast.

Page 33 doesn't require you to have rolled to hit , just have the ABILITY to reroll to hit. A Rr of 1s is indisputably an ability to Reroll your to hit rolls. Your continued insistence on misreading this rule is impressive

nosferatu1001 wrote:

busby wrote:
Voted no because you cannot create the reroll condition without first reaching the 1 requirement which is impossible for blast.

Page 33 doesn't require you to have rolled to hit , just have the ABILITY to reroll to hit. A Rr of 1s is indisputably an ability to Reroll your to hit rolls. Your continued insistence on misreading this rule is impressive

But it doesn't gain the ability until it rolls a one.

Not trying to piss in anyones cheerios, as I've read the other thread and do feel it is a big circular argument.

 BlackTalos wrote:

busby wrote:
Voted no because you cannot create the reroll condition without first reaching the 1 requirement which is impossible for blast.

Please just Vote, this is Poll only, no arguments ;-)

Sorry.

Why is the argued permission for the re-roll potential not quoted? Are people supposed to take the poll without knowing what the actual rule language people are disagreeing over?

Rapture wrote:
Why is the argued permission for the re-roll potential not quoted? Are people supposed to take the poll without knowing what the actual rule language people are disagreeing over?

It's in an official book, posting it here could get dakka in trouble.


I think this pool won't give as conclusive an answer as the OP would like, because many people who understand both sides will vote HIWPI rather than RAW.

Rapture wrote:
Why is the argued permission for the re-roll potential not quoted? Are people supposed to take the poll without knowing what the actual rule language people are disagreeing over?

They're supposed to read the relevent thread that was included in the original post. That arguement and all others are listed there.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Poll for this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/572358.page

That thread is 8 pages long. How many people do you honestly believe read it in its entirety or even at all?

 HoverBoy wrote:

It's in an official book, posting it here could get dakka in trouble.

It would constitute a fair use. Besides, that quote is already on this site at least a dozen times.

 HoverBoy wrote:
I think this pool won't give as conclusive an answer as the OP would like, because many people who understand both sides will vote HIWPI rather than RAW.

Then they're not answering honestly as the poll explicitly asks for the RAW answer.

Can I ask, is this A) a case where you have the ability to get a re-roll as you have preferred enemy or B) where you are shooting at an enemy that is your preferred enemy and you have the rule?

FYI. If you vote for rerolling 1's, you are also voting for ammo runts granting blast rerolls all game long.

Ammo runts grant a reroll to a model
Blast allows reroll of scatter dice because the model does have the ability to reroll.
see the condition on how good of a reroll it is, is irrelevant.

like Nos says

If you can reroll all failed to hit rolls, do you have the ability to reroll your to-hit role? Yes

If you Reroll to-hit of 1, do you have the SAME ability? Yes

If you disagree, an actual rule showing where this supposed condition on how good a reroll you need would be helpful

I'd say it's very similar to gets hot on blasts where any kind of reroll including BS 6 would allow for a complete reroll.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Can I ask, is this A) a case where you have the ability to get a re-roll as you have preferred enemy or B) where you are shooting at an enemy that is your preferred enemy and you have the rule?

How are these different? please expand.

The subject of the Poll is Rerolls of 1, so Earth Cast Array, Preferred enemy, even BS 6+ and any others.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Can I ask, is this A) a case where you have the ability to get a re-roll as you have preferred enemy or B) where you are shooting at an enemy that is your preferred enemy and you have the rule?

How are these different? please expand.

The subject of the Poll is Rerolls of 1, so Earth Cast Array, Preferred enemy, even BS 6+ and any others.

The problem with this poll is that it fails to differentiate. BS6+ uses language (I.e. models 'gaining' the ability to re-roll 1s only after they roll To Hit dice - see p13) that sets it apart from a lot of the other rules like PE or ECPA. A vote for/against PE might not be a vote for/against BS6+.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Can I ask, is this A) a case where you have the ability to get a re-roll as you have preferred enemy or B) where you are shooting at an enemy that is your preferred enemy and you have the rule?

How are these different? please expand.

The subject of the Poll is Rerolls of 1, so Earth Cast Array, Preferred enemy, even BS 6+ and any others.

The last protracted thread had someone arguing that having the preferred enemy rule was enough to gain a re-roll, while I think shooting at a preferred enemy as that is when you actually have the ability to re-roll not the potential for the ability.
I do think blanket re-rolls of 1 for shooting grant the re-roll of scatter but I think you have to meet the caveats of your rule that grants the re-roll of a 1 to gain it.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Can I ask, is this A) a case where you have the ability to get a re-roll as you have preferred enemy or B) where you are shooting at an enemy that is your preferred enemy and you have the rule?

How are these different? please expand.

The subject of the Poll is Rerolls of 1, so Earth Cast Array, Preferred enemy, even BS 6+ and any others.

The last protracted thread had someone arguing that having the preferred enemy rule was enough to gain a re-roll, while I think shooting at a preferred enemy as that is when you actually have the ability to re-roll not the potential for the ability.
I do think blanket re-rolls of 1 for shooting grant the re-roll of scatter but I think you have to meet the caveats of your rule that grants the re-roll of a 1 to gain it.

So you would vote Yes: Preferred Enemy (Orks) allows you to re-roll scatter against Orks. Even though the Rule specifies: "re-rolls failed To Hit rolls of 1", you would re-roll your Scatter & 2D6.

Yes, if the blast weapon was shot at orcs. I'm not sure it's RAI but it is a re-roll.

Didnt see RAW in the question when I voted. I would have voted #1

RAW if you have any reroll you can reroll scatter.

HIWPI is if a model rerolls 1's, you only reroll 1's, not scatter. I see the arguement for both sides though, so I wouldn't argue it in a game if my opponent did not agree.

Barbo - so how "good" a Reroll would you need before you would play they got reroll on scatter? Just interested

Nos I agree that the RAW is indisputable... Any reroll works.

The reason I said HIWPI is reroll 1's doesn't work, is it just doesn't pass the sniff test.

The reroll of 1's is so specific, that it doesn't seem right that you get a reroll when no 1's are involved.

I guess in a way it seems like you should be able reroll scatter if you would have an applicable reroll to use.

I'm not saying this is correct, but it seems like it could be abused by things it wasnt intended to work for, such as preferred enemyrks. If your not playing against orks, would you get the reroll by RAW? If the conditions of the reroll don't have to be met, then you would right?

I was asking hywpi. I was asking where would you draw the line? Reroll all failed to hit? All 1s and 2s?

But what about my preferred enemy: ork question?

If the conditions of the reroll don't need to be met, then would preferred enemy: orks allow you to reroll scatter vs non-ork units?

How does that differ from rerolls of a 1 when there is no 1 to reroll?

 BarBoBot wrote:
But what about my preferred enemy: ork question?

If the conditions of the reroll don't need to be met, then would preferred enemy: orks allow you to reroll scatter vs non-ork units?

How does that differ from rerolls of a 1 when there is no 1 to reroll?

Because you have to have the "ability" to re-roll. If you have PE: Orks, but are not shooting at orks, you don't have the ability to re-roll any "to hit" dice.

That differs from "re-roll 1's", because with that you have the ability to re-roll your "to hit" dice. It applies because you cant roll a 1 "to hit" just like you cant roll a "miss" on scatter dice.

I dont see a difference.

Both rerolls are conditional.

The first allows rerolls, but only rerolls of 1.

The second allows rerolls, but only against certain units.

If the conditions are not met, neither has a reroll to use, so they can't use the reroll to scatter rule.

 BarBoBot wrote:
I dont see a difference.

Both rerolls are conditional.

The first allows rerolls, but only rerolls of 1.

The second allows rerolls, but only against certain units.

If the conditions are not met, neither has a reroll to use, so they can't use the reroll to scatter rule.

Then you are arguing that nothing gets re-rolls, as nothing can fulfill the conditional.

We should really move this to the other thread, but what I'm saying is that TL grants an unconditional reroll. When you use a tl blast weapon, you have the reroll at all times without condition.

That means that you can use the rule that allows you to reroll scatter if you had a reroll.

With only having a reroll of a 1 or a reroll of a 6 with BS6, you don't actually have rerolls at all times, only under certain conditions.

If those conditions are not met, then there is no reroll to be used for rerolling scatter rule.

 BarBoBot wrote:
We should really move this to the other thread, but what I'm saying is that TL grants an unconditional reroll. When you use a tl blast weapon, you have the reroll at all times without condition.

That means that you can use the rule that allows you to reroll scatter if you had a reroll.

With only having a reroll of a 1 or a reroll of a 6 with BS6, you don't actually have rerolls at all times, only under certain conditions.

If those conditions are not met, then there is no reroll to be used for rerolling scatter rule.

actually twin linked is also conditional, you can't re-roll a hit for example.

all re-rolls have the innate condition of a miss.

re-rolling of 1's in this case is no different than re-rolling any to hit dice.

the preferred enemy however makes it a little less straightforward, you wouldn't have the capacity to re-roll if you were not shooting at an ork unit, regardless of the weapon type you were using, as such unless you were shooting at the enemy to which you have preference you would not have the ability to re-roll.

that's the main difference between a flat re-roll 1 result and preferred enemy re-roll, they operate very differently.

think of it like an on-off switch.

preferred enemy is by default in the off position, when you declare an attack vs the preferred enemy it switched to the on position. (due to not always shooting against your preferred enemy)

with twin linked, it is permanently in the on position (due to the nature of twin linked)

with re-roll 1's to hit, it is permanently in the on position (due to the nature of the rule in question, as long as you throw to hit dice you have permission to re-roll 1's)

(hope that makes sense)

Seems pretty much 50 50 at the Mo, this will be one for discussion before the game or a roll off

Indeed: a Draw of decisions is probably the best answer.

I'll answer/quote in the other thread.

As my brother likes to field a Wolf Priest with his Long Fangs this has come up quite a bit for me. My take on it is this:
BRB p33 Blast Weapons and Re-Rolls

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.

In order for the blast to be re-roll -able, it needs to have the ability to re-roll the To Hit roll, even if the re-roll itself is conditional. Then following that the player can choose whether to use the re-roll, provided s/he has it.

Prescience

[snip]... the target can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls.

In this case if the power is in effect, the target (Unit aka Models) always have the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls, even though you only re-roll failed To Hit rolls.

Preferred Enemy

[snip]...A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy. ...[snip]

In this case the ability to re-roll is conditional on attacking the Preferred enemy. If that is satisfied, then you have the ability to re-roll rolls, even though you only re-roll failed To Hit rolls of 1.

Twin-Linked & Guide - Both have specific rules for re-rolling scatter dice and should be used instead.

These examples should provide enough of a guideline to determine if the rule 'counts'.

 S.K.Ren wrote:
Preferred Enemy

[snip]...A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy. ...[snip]

In this case the re-roll is conditional on attacking the Preferred enemy. If that is satisfied, then you have the ability to re-roll, even though you only re-roll on failed To Hit rolls of 1.

You have the ability to re-roll Blasts, "even though you only re-roll on failed To Hit rolls of 1" ?

Yes, because as stated: the written rule asks if you can Reroll. This unit absolutely CAN Reroll their to hit rolls. You keep ignoring the lack of condition placed on a unit to fulfil this requirement, presumably deliberately

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because as stated: the written rule asks if you can Reroll. This unit absolutely CAN Reroll their to hit rolls. You keep ignoring the lack of condition placed on a unit to fulfil this requirement, presumably deliberately

I'm sorry if this is rude, but: I know what you think, i was asking S.K.Ren if he did indeed think it allows Blasts.

even though you only re-roll on failed To Hit rolls of 1

Means you don't re roll Blasts to me, so clearing it up...

That was my bad I left the key words of my argument out, fixed. The conditional for 'the ability to re-roll' is separate from the conditional of the re-roll itself. The Preferred enemy example is the best illustration of this. So I'm in the 'yes, blasts can re-roll scatter' party.

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because as stated: the written rule asks if you can Reroll. This unit absolutely CAN Reroll their to hit rolls. You keep ignoring the lack of condition placed on a unit to fulfil this requirement, presumably deliberately

I'm sorry if this is rude, but: I know what you think, i was asking S.K.Ren if he did indeed think it allows Blasts.

even though you only re-roll on failed To Hit rolls of 1

Means you don't re roll Blasts to me, so clearing it up...

It does when you ignore context. If you read the rest of the post it's very clear what they're saying. Taking sentence fragments out of a post can have a distorting effect.

Im also in the yes category for all that was already stated.

Though not as sure on multiple barrage and rerolls.

 Desubot wrote:
Im also in the yes category for all that was already stated.

Though not as sure on multiple barrage and rerolls.

Yeah that would be tricky as there is no 2D6 to re-roll. But I think that is a whole other can of worms for another thread.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It does when you ignore context. If you read the rest of the post it's very clear what they're saying. Taking sentence fragments out of a post can have a distorting effect.

Not really. He stated it was conditional on attacking the Preferred enemy. Nothing about the conditional "failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1" which most of us (50% of us) also read as Written.
As that conditional was not mentioned as followed or ignored, how would i know?

I think the thread is developing enough to be independent of the other, or are voter still reading This One before Voting?

I'd certainly allow it, as long as the firing unit is shooting at something that allows rerolls. Rerolling failed to-hit or 1s, OK. Rerolling to hit your Preferred Enemy, OK - as long as you were trying to hit that preferred enemy.

If not then they wouldn't actually be able to use it at any time as blasts don't roll to hit.

What is this forum's consideration on Ignores Cover special rule not including vehicles in it's description?

You specified RAW, so I voted yes. I do not and would not play it that way, however.

 Jimsolo wrote:
You specified RAW, so I voted yes. I do not and would not play it that way, however.

So, RaW, you would say that a Farsight Enclave (before the errata) would have to take shadowsun and aun'va, but you wouldn't play it that way? For clarification, when the Tau Farsight Supplement came out, there was a rule that said that a farsight enclave cannot not have Shadowsun and Aun'va.

CLEARLY, that is a mistake, but RaW, you would have to take them. With GW being humans that they are, mistakes in wording will happen. The reason this forum exists is to get a consensus on rules that are gray areas, or are clearly badly proofread. Stating "you think RaW you agree but wouldn't play it that way" defeats the whole purpose of your involvement in this discussion.

I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but you shouldn't agree because the wording is ironclad. RAI is a phrase to be used as well. RAI, Farsight Enclaves obviously does not want you to take Shadowsun and Aun'va, and i'm sure everyone took it that way, even though it took GW a few months to officially fix it.

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Stating "you think RaW you agree but wouldn't play it that way" defeats the whole purpose of your involvement in this discussion.

Way to call someone out and then say you're not. His opinion is still valid and his input is appreciated. What's so wrong with saying this is the raw but I don't think it's fair and play it "this" way.

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
CLEARLY, that is a mistake, but RaW, you would have to take them. With GW being humans that they are, mistakes in wording will happen. The reason this forum exists is to get a consensus on rules that are gray areas, or are clearly badly proofread. Stating "you think RaW you agree but wouldn't play it that way" defeats the whole purpose of your involvement in this discussion.

As much as i am on the NO side, by RaW, this is how this part of the forum works:

We decide Exactly how they are written, even if it's an ironclad wording that would let you sit on the Table... No matter how bad the outcome or Rule result, this is the discussion and Poll at hand.

I fully respect his choice and any others who would vote & think the same. Most of these rule debates won't even come up in my games, because everyone is aware of RaI and would walk off if you start playing this sphincterlly, for lack of a better word =)

 liturgies of blood wrote:

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Stating "you think RaW you agree but wouldn't play it that way" defeats the whole purpose of your involvement in this discussion.

Way to call someone out and then say you're not. His opinion is still valid and his input is appreciated. What's so wrong with saying this is the raw but I don't think it's fair and play it "this" way.

Because it's not how he really feels. That's the issue. Why vote yes for something you do not believe in?

You really don't understand the vote at all do you?
What is the RAW of this question? Not what do you play, not what do you think RAI is. Just to be clear, RAW often has the same view of a rule as RAI but they are not the same thing at all.

He voted as he sees the answer to the question. He also expressed his opinion to give a broader context to his answer to the question. It's actually exactly how he feels, because he told us.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You really don't understand the vote at all do you?
What is the RAW of this question? Not what do you play, not what do you think RAI is. Just to be clear, RAW often has the same view of a rule as RAI but they are not the same thing at all.

He voted as he sees the answer to the question. He also expressed his opinion to give a broader context to his answer to the question. It's actually exactly how he feels, because he told us.

RAW means to take the written word, word for word and not thinking any further beyond that. If we did that, then certain rules as written completely fall apart (ignores cover, Farsight Enclave, etc). Since GW sucks at FAQing their own work, it falls to forums like this to make an interpretation at gray areas, hence this entire thread.

The poll is asking a question. He conceded to the fact that it's "RaW, can't do anything about it oh well." By that logic, RaW, if i ran Farsight Enclaves i would have to take Shadowsun and Aun'va. Voting that i agree it's written in the book doesn't solve the conflict which is: does GW really intend for me to take Shadowsun and Aun'va or is it a typo? It's the same for this.

What is the point of agreeing that it's written in the book but not following it?

Ultimately it doesn't matter what any of us say, because as BlackTalon pointed out, only the tightest of butts would make a stink over it on the table top. I still think you should have conviction. I voted no because i don't think that a special rule overrides the general rule with this particular conflict. If that's the case, then to be consistent, the ignores weapon special rule, RAW, can not be used on vehicles, since they do not take wounds.

Yes the pool is asking a question. A RAW question. If I asked RAW can Wraithguard draw shoot? I'd better get a unanimous no, since they lack eyes. I've never meet anyone who actually enforces that.

The RAW are filled with lots of examples of nonsensical rules calls that no one actually attempts to use. Wraithguard not being able to shoot is a great one.

The OP asked, specifically, for what we think the RAW state. It's unambiguous, in my opinion, that the RAW give you the re-roll. I also think it's unambiguous that it was never intended to be that way, and so I'll never play it like that.

So then what would be the point of making a thread with a poll asking if wraithguard can shoot? That's what i'm getting at. If this poll has a flaw in the wording, then it's a flawed poll. If you're saying that "Based on the poll wording i MUST vote this way. However, if the wording was different, then i would vote another because i do not agree with it." then this poll as no reason to exist, since we are literally asking if something in a book exists.

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
So then what would be the point of making a thread with a poll asking if wraithguard can shoot? That's what i'm getting at. If this poll has a flaw in the wording, then it's a flawed poll. If you're saying that "Based on the poll wording i MUST vote this way. However, if the wording was different, then i would vote another because i do not agree with it." then this poll as no reason to exist, since we are literally asking if something in a book exists.

But it's not a flawed poll. In the thread which spawned this one, several people claimed that the RAW does NOT allow the re-roll. If everyone was saying 'oh, this is what the rules actually SAY, but we know what they really MEAN," (like with the Wraithguard) then you're right, there wouldn't be a need for this poll. But as the closeness in votes indicates, clearly this isn't the case. People do NOT agree on what the rules as written state. So the original poster is trying to find out how many people feel which way, and that's perfectly acceptable.

 Jimsolo wrote:

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
So then what would be the point of making a thread with a poll asking if wraithguard can shoot? That's what i'm getting at. If this poll has a flaw in the wording, then it's a flawed poll. If you're saying that "Based on the poll wording i MUST vote this way. However, if the wording was different, then i would vote another because i do not agree with it." then this poll as no reason to exist, since we are literally asking if something in a book exists.

But it's not a flawed poll. In the thread which spawned this one, several people claimed that the RAW does NOT allow the re-roll. If everyone was saying 'oh, this is what the rules actually SAY, but we know what they really MEAN," (like with the Wraithguard) then you're right, there wouldn't be a need for this poll. But as the closeness in votes indicates, clearly this isn't the case. People do NOT agree on what the rules as written state. So the original poster is trying to find out how many people feel which way, and that's perfectly acceptable.

If this was a clear cut RAW "does this exist in the book?" question, it would be unanimous like the wraithguard example. The fact that we have a close poll points to the fact that people do not feel that RAW this is how it is. There are people suggesting there is RAI argument to be made.

You said so yourself that you feel RaI you don't play it that way, yet since the question specifically asked RaW, you're forced to agree that it exists in the book. Which is why i suggest it's a flawed poll, and questioned why you voted one way, but felt differently. Unless i interpreted it wrong.

The reason i have a problem with this poll, and indeed this whole discussion specifically, is that people are suggesting that it's RaW and it must be followed. We have examples of that not always being the case, so it makes room for an interpretation, or RaI. When that is brought up, the argument then turns to, special rules trump general rules, and again, that's not always the case. One such example is the Ignores Cover rule.

We can look at the Ignores Cover rule, read it and see that it's mentioning specifically wounds on models. That's not even debatable, it's RaW. The conflict comes when you point out that vehicles do not take wounds, so RaW, Ignores Cover doesn't effect vehicles. Yet, we know that logically, a cover save ignored on a tiny guardsman would also be transferable to a huge tank sitting next to him, or RaI. So for the blast re-roll, we can not just say "it's RaW", nor can we say, "special rules trump general rules always" and leave it at that because neither is always true. This topic forces us to make a RaI position, because it's not entirely clear how it should work.

That's why i question the purpose of this poll. If it is not asking how a rule functions, then what is the purpose of asking if it exists?

You do know that people can have nuanced views on things? Communism great in theory, horrible in execution.
Wraithknights can't shoot RAW, can RAI.
salt good in small amounts, bad in large etc etc.

Words due to the limitation of human communication are subjective in their reading, do we agree on the meaning of the words before us is the point of the pole. It's like when judges rule on constitutionality in the British Isles, they look at the laws and derive a legal answer. In this case we're looking at the interaction of a range of rules and deciding is a re-roll of 1 a re-roll for the purposes of scatter dice. Like the law, there is the spirit of the rules and the word of the rules (RAI and RAW) both exist but we're only concerned in the poll about RAW. Expression of one doesn't preclude a different answer for the other.

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
So then what would be the point of making a thread with a poll asking if wraithguard can shoot? That's what i'm getting at. If this poll has a flaw in the wording, then it's a flawed poll. If you're saying that "Based on the poll wording i MUST vote this way. However, if the wording was different, then i would vote another because i do not agree with it." then this poll as no reason to exist, since we are literally asking if something in a book exists.

I made the poll so i can tell you the point: the link in the OP is the issue being discussed.

The exact wording in the book clearly states the answer is No here (for me anyway). However, Yes got 50% of Votes. This means that those many people are actually reading the book differently, or reading the same but somehow reaching a different solution. It's not as direct as "can a wraithlord see", so people are split between what is the answer to the question by how they read it.

If i'd made the same Poll with RaI, the No would probably be 99%, but we are not discussing RaI in that thread, but RaW, because that's where the issue is.

The exact wording gives "yes" , as pointed out the RAW is clear

I'm not saying that this is how it is, but my friend and I have played it so that the riptide with it can re-roll the gets hot dice when using the blast because that is how we assume it was meant to be.

Edit why is there even a debate on this? What I get for listening to other people.

Wagguy80 wrote:
There is no "to-hit" roll made so Twin-linked rule does not apply. It simply overheats.

So what you're saying is that you have no idea what the rules actually say and just wanted to post?
Because that's not even close to what the rules say.

It clearly says it can re-roll the gets hot roll on a blast weapon. Don't see why there is even this debate.

Wagguy80 wrote:
That's the twin linked rules and for blast weapons it is based on the scatter dice.

The gets hot rule says if you roll a 1 "blah blah blah....and that shot is not fired."

So what part of "Twin-linked" covers a model not even firing a shot?

Page 37, middle column, second paragraph - "Gets Hot and Re-rolls".
The last half of the last sentence should be of interest to you.

What I get for posting on a sick day. I totally missed the issue here and I apologize. Me and a buddy had a game recently where he over-heated his TL plasma cannon and said TL didn't let him re-roll the get's hot roll.

So that was what popped in my head as I skimmed through.
Since he's usually 100% spot on and I don't personally have anything with TL plasma I assumed he was correct.

However to be on topic now that I have taken the time to go back and read through my head cold here.

The rule in question only allows you to re-roll any die result of 1. That does not give permission to re-roll all the scatter dice if either come up a 1. You could only re-roll the die that came up a 1.

Which would only make sense if you really wanted to miss what you were shooting at.

Wagguy80 wrote:
The rule in question only allows you to re-roll any die result of 1. That does not give permission to re-roll all the scatter dice if either come up a 1. You could only re-roll the die that came up a 1.

Again, not an actual rule. You've clearly not read the rules in question and are assuming you know what they say.

The rule in question allows you to re-roll To-Hit rolls of 1. Blast weapons never roll To Hit. Blast weapons allow a re-roll of the scatter dice if the firer has the ability to re-roll To Hit (all of them, not just some).

Sorry if this counts as necroing this thread but one point in regards to this I wanted to ask was that if you are permitted to reroll 1s but are firing a blast weapon would you be allowed to reroll the die when checking for Gets Hot (eg when firing a plasma cannon or when a Riptide overcharges) if it comes up as a 1?

 CrashCanuck wrote:
Sorry if this counts as necroing this thread but one point in regards to this I wanted to ask was that if you are permitted to reroll 1s but are firing a blast weapon would you be allowed to reroll the die when checking for Gets Hot (eg when firing a plasma cannon or when a Riptide overcharges) if it comes up as a 1?

BS6 being one of the possible reason you'd be able to re-roll Gets hot! tests , I'd say yes

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
Sorry if this counts as necroing this thread but one point in regards to this I wanted to ask was that if you are permitted to reroll 1s but are firing a blast weapon would you be allowed to reroll the die when checking for Gets Hot (eg when firing a plasma cannon or when a Riptide overcharges) if it comes up as a 1?

BS6 being one of the possible reason you'd be able to re-roll Gets hot! tests , I'd say yes

That's how my friends and I play it (to my lasting regret ).

I do think it is funny that people are asking if the rule regarding blast weapons getting to re-roll the scatter dice based on if a model has an ability to re-roll dice when it does in fact have that ability in the form of re-rolling results of 1's as they know and yet are saying that because it is conditional re-roll that it would not get to.

(hint, this is an ability to re-roll dice, the only condition stipulated for the scatter re-roll)

for the record ALL re-rolls are conditional on the premise that they miss, you cannot re-roll a success (as far as I can recall anyway) therefore a model either has the capacity for a re-roll or it does not.

Not entirely true - fortune, from memory, used to let you reroll successes, which was situationally useful (more chance of harlies rending, from memory - 4th ed when it was on the to-hit)

And i do not believe you can blanket statement "rerolls". If the weapon has to miss, it has to miss, and you then get a re-roll. Twin Linked is quite clear on how the "Miss part" works for Blast/L.Blast.
If the weapon has to roll 1s, it has to roll a 1, which cannot be done on 2D6+scatter. No rerolls.

But the poll has made its point:
Pretty much exactly 50/50, so until RaW are re-Written, i'm just as wrong as anyone

 BlackTalos wrote:
If the weapon has to roll 1s, it has to roll a 1, which cannot be done on 2D6+scatter. No rerolls.

Then Twin Linked is the only ability ever to be able to re-roll.

Why? Because literally every other ability requries a roll to hit which Blast weapons never make. Ever.
Your argument renders dozens of rules useless and this has been proven before. Please stop asserting it like it's relevant.

 BlackTalos wrote:
And i do not believe you can blanket statement "rerolls". If the weapon has to miss, it has to miss, and you then get a re-roll. Twin Linked is quite clear on how the "Miss part" works for Blast/L.Blast.
If the weapon has to roll 1s, it has to roll a 1, which cannot be done on 2D6+scatter. No rerolls.

Except, as proven, the rules for rerolling blasts do not require you to reoll your to hit IWHEN ROLLING BLAST SCATTER, just that IF you were rolling to hit, you could reroll it

Please stop asserting falsehoods

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
If the weapon has to roll 1s, it has to roll a 1, which cannot be done on 2D6+scatter. No rerolls.

Then Twin Linked is the only ability ever to be able to re-roll.

Why? Because literally every other ability requries a roll to hit which Blast weapons never make. Ever.
Your argument renders dozens of rules useless and this has been proven before. Please stop asserting it like it's relevant.

Twin-link describes how you Miss on a blast without a roll to hit. Done
Please stop asserting your opinion as truth.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
If the weapon has to roll 1s, it has to roll a 1, which cannot be done on 2D6+scatter. No rerolls.

Then Twin Linked is the only ability ever to be able to re-roll.

Why? Because literally every other ability requries a roll to hit which Blast weapons never make. Ever.
Your argument renders dozens of rules useless and this has been proven before. Please stop asserting it like it's relevant.

Twin-link describes how you Miss on a blast without a roll to hit. Done
Please stop asserting your opinion as truth.

For Twin Linked. It does not apply to any other ability. I bolded where I agreed TL would would still. It's not an opinion - it's fact.

and this does not change the Fact that unless you roll a 1, you don't get to reroll.

 BlackTalos wrote:
and this does not change the Fact that unless you roll a 1, you don't get to reroll.

So no rules based argument then?
Or are you asserting that TL is the only ability that gets to re-roll?

 BlackTalos wrote:
and this does not change the Fact that unless you roll a 1, you don't get to reroll.

That isnt a fact, but a made up rule with no basis in the written rules

If you can reroll 1s to hit, you can reroll blast as you have the ability to reroll your to-hit dice. It does not require you to have already rolled that 1 to hit, which is of course impossible when rolling blasts.

But you know this, of course.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
and this does not change the Fact that unless you roll a 1, you don't get to reroll.

So no rules based argument then?
Or are you asserting that TL is the only ability that gets to re-roll?

Let's use Preferred enemy for you:
"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy."

Based on Raw and still a fact:
Roll a 1 to-Hit or to-Wound and you can reroll, not before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you can reroll 1s to hit, you can reroll blast as you have the ability to reroll your to-hit dice. It does not require you to have already rolled that 1 to hit, which is of course impossible when rolling blasts.

But you know this, of course.

I know that is your assumption, yes, and the one done by 50% of people voting *Yes*

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
and this does not change the Fact that unless you roll a 1, you don't get to reroll.

So no rules based argument then?
Or are you asserting that TL is the only ability that gets to re-roll?

Let's use Preferred enemy for you:
"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy."

Based on Raw and still a fact:
Roll a 1 to-Hit or to-Wound and you can reroll, not before.

Yes or no: Are there abilities that you would agree can re-roll Blast scatter other than Twin Linked?
If so, please cite one.

Your answer is extremely relevant.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes or no: Are there abilities that you would agree can re-roll Blast scatter other than Twin Linked?
If so, please cite one.

Yes: Prescience.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes or no: Are there abilities that you would agree can re-roll Blast scatter other than Twin Linked?
If so, please cite one.

Yes: Prescience.

Then you've defeated your own argument.
Prescience:

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

It is literally not possible to fail a To Hit roll according to the Blast rules, so Prescience cannot be used to re-roll it, using your argument.

Thank you for discussing, I'm sorry your argument was proven incorrect.

Personally,
I still like the interpenetration that both parts of this sentence are restrictions that must be obeyed, instead of being a restriction and permission rolled into one sentence.

That interpenetration would render almost all of the 'strange circumstance' re-roll Rules, such as re-rolling on 1's, as invalid for the purpose of evoking Blast Marker Re-roll Rules. It would only be the Special Rules or Psychic Powers which contain words like 'may re-roll' or 'can re-roll' as valid choices for the Blast Marker Re-rolls. It also explains why Twin Linked has it's own Rule for doing the exact same thing, because it would need something to get around the fact it contains 'must re-roll' and doesn't actually give any choice in the matter. I haven't been looking to create a list of Special Rules and Psychic Powers that would be allowed, compared to those denied, so I don't know the logical extent of that conclusion but it does seem to create less issues on a casual glance.

There are still some strange things, Ammo Runts for example, so it isn't perfect....

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes or no: Are there abilities that you would agree can re-roll Blast scatter other than Twin Linked?
If so, please cite one.

Yes: Prescience.

So why the distinction between all failed to hit (prescience) and Reroll failed to hit rolls of 1? The actual written rules make no such distinction relevant.

As Rigeld pointed out, you defeated your own argument. Nice one

rigeld2 wrote:

Prescience:

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

It is literally not possible to fail a To Hit roll according to the Blast rules, so Prescience cannot be used to re-roll it, using your argument.

Thank you for discussing, I'm sorry your argument was proven incorrect.

I assume you have in mind the rule earlier on pg 33:

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

Yet actually the entire rule rests on re-rolling rolls To Hit for blast weapons:

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

You are actually choosing to re-roll the roll To Hit for the blast weapon.

In summary, blasts weapons do not roll To Hit, but you can re-roll the roll To Hit for a blast weapon.

How do people make sense of this apparent contradiction?

Because you have invented it?

Reread the pertinent rule: note it states has the ability to; this means you do not have to acutally be rolling to-hit, just have the ability to reroll your to-hit, and then you qualify to reroll your scatter.

Failure to read the phrase "ability to" is likely the cause of most confusion on this topic. It isnt saying youa re performing the to hit, just IF you were rolling to hit, would you be able to reroll.

joshau-k wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Prescience:

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

It is literally not possible to fail a To Hit roll according to the Blast rules, so Prescience cannot be used to re-roll it, using your argument.

Thank you for discussing, I'm sorry your argument was proven incorrect.

I assume you have in mind the rule earlier on pg 33:

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

Yet actually the entire rule rests on re-rolling rolls To Hit for blast weapons:

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

You are actually choosing to re-roll the roll To Hit for the blast weapon.

In summary, blasts weapons do not roll To Hit, but you can re-roll the roll To Hit for a blast weapon.

How do people make sense of this apparent contradiction?

It's not a contradiction at all.
If you have an ability that is similar - but does not apply to Blasts, you can do this other thing instead.

joshau-k wrote:
Yet actually the entire rule rests on re-rolling rolls To Hit for blast weapons:

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

Very relevant, the ability to "re-roll its rolls To Hit".
2D6 + scatter dice is "its rolls To Hit" and that roll cannot roll 1. Or quote a rule that does.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So why the distinction between all failed to hit (prescience) and Reroll failed to hit rolls of 1? The actual written rules make no such distinction relevant.
As Rigeld pointed out, you defeated your own argument. Nice one

rigeld2 wrote:
Then you've defeated your own argument.
Prescience:

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

It is literally not possible to fail a To Hit roll according to the Blast rules, so Prescience cannot be used to re-roll it, using your argument.

Thank you for discussing, I'm sorry your argument was proven incorrect.

Nope on both: Read Twin linked. Then tell me you can't "Fail to Hit"

As for the distinction? prescience is "re-roll all failed To Hit rolls", PE is "re-rolls failed To Hit rolls of 1"

"All" and "1" are very different measures of quantity, or is that not clear enough?

 BlackTalos wrote:


Nope on both: Read Twin linked. Then tell me you can't "Fail to Hit"

As for the distinction? prescience is "re-roll all failed To Hit rolls", PE is "re-rolls failed To Hit rolls of 1"

"All" and "1" are very different measures of quantity, or is that not clear enough?

Except "All failed" and "Rolls of 1" are both restrictions. In both cases you are not allowed to reroll all of your to hit dice. Dont quote half a rule - the rule says reroll "all failed" not "All" how you suggested.

 BlackTalos wrote:

joshau-k wrote:
Yet actually the entire rule rests on re-rolling rolls To Hit for blast weapons:

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

Very relevant, the ability to "re-roll its rolls To Hit".
2D6 + scatter dice is "its rolls To Hit" and that roll cannot roll 1. Or quote a rule that does.

Absolutely false. Blast weapons never, ever, roll To Hit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So why the distinction between all failed to hit (prescience) and Reroll failed to hit rolls of 1? The actual written rules make no such distinction relevant.
As Rigeld pointed out, you defeated your own argument. Nice one

rigeld2 wrote:
Then you've defeated your own argument.
Prescience:

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

It is literally not possible to fail a To Hit roll according to the Blast rules, so Prescience cannot be used to re-roll it, using your argument.

Thank you for discussing, I'm sorry your argument was proven incorrect.

Nope on both: Read Twin linked. Then tell me you can't "Fail to Hit"

Except that's what what the rule requires. You're making things up.
Twin Linked allows a reroll if you do not Roll a Hit with the scatter dice.
Prescience allows a reroll if you fail a To Hit roll.

p33 wrote:When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit.

If you do not roll, you can not fail. Prescience cannot ever apply.

Please argue your point using actual rules, not something you're making up.

As for the distinction? prescience is "re-roll all failed To Hit rolls", PE is "re-rolls failed To Hit rolls of 1"

"All" and "1" are very different measures of quantity, or is that not clear enough?

They are different.
Now, cite the rule that makes that difference relevant in this case. Or are you making up more rules?

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

joshau-k wrote:
Yet actually the entire rule rests on re-rolling rolls To Hit for blast weapons:

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

Very relevant, the ability to "re-roll its rolls To Hit".
2D6 + scatter dice is "its rolls To Hit" and that roll cannot roll 1. Or quote a rule that does.

Absolutely false. Blast weapons never, ever, roll To Hit.

Blast Rules: "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit" Will never ever apply then. Talk about defeating arguments...

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So why the distinction between all failed to hit (prescience) and Reroll failed to hit rolls of 1? The actual written rules make no such distinction relevant.
As Rigeld pointed out, you defeated your own argument. Nice one

rigeld2 wrote:
Then you've defeated your own argument.
Prescience:

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

It is literally not possible to fail a To Hit roll according to the Blast rules, so Prescience cannot be used to re-roll it, using your argument.

Thank you for discussing, I'm sorry your argument was proven incorrect.

Nope on both: Read Twin linked. Then tell me you can't "Fail to Hit"

Except that's what what the rule requires. You're making things up.
Twin Linked allows a reroll if you do not Roll a Hit with the scatter dice.
Prescience allows a reroll if you fail a To Hit roll.

p33 wrote:When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit.

If you do not roll, you can not fail. Prescience cannot ever apply.

Please argue your point using actual rules, not something you're making up.

Again, just proving it yourself. (Red emphasis)

rigeld2 wrote:

As for the distinction? prescience is "re-roll all failed To Hit rolls", PE is "re-rolls failed To Hit rolls of 1"

"All" and "1" are very different measures of quantity, or is that not clear enough?

They are different.
Now, cite the rule that makes that difference relevant in this case. Or are you making up more rules?

You like the words "making up rules" and use it as your ultimate defence when RaW is quoted but you don't agree to it.

The two above are different, we agree. Why do you apply them in the same way then?
Failed To Hit rolls of 1 =/= All failed To Hit rolls
A dice roll of a 2 is within one but not the other.
A 2D6 roll+scatter is within one but not the other.

And if you decide that:
"if you do not Roll a Hit with the scatter dice."(your words, TL)
"if you fail a To Hit roll. "
Are two very different things (because this is the core of your argument).
Then the blast Rule that says, per RaW: "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit" will never apply. That would be how you read the rules and that's fine, as YOUR interpretation.
And apart from having TL you will never Re-roll Blast weapons. I will because "not rolling a Hit" and "fail to Hit" are the exact same things...

I'm having flash backs to other discussions on this forum...

ok, nice and easy this one.

please point to the rule, in it's entirety, that actually states that the re-roll that a model has NEEDS to the be an all encompasing re-roll.

as far as I can see the RAW only asks that the model has the capacity to re-roll a to hit dice.

it does not stipulate that the re-roll needs to be for al the dice, or just those that have certain value requirements, it just asks does the model have the capacity to re-roll the dice.

a re-roll of results of a 1 is still a re-roll
a re-roll of all failed to hit is still a re-roll

for the purposes of the rule, it doesn't care about the triggering factor for the re-roll, it only cares that you 'could' re-roll.

this is not a difficult concept.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

joshau-k wrote:
Yet actually the entire rule rests on re-rolling rolls To Hit for blast weapons:

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

Very relevant, the ability to "re-roll its rolls To Hit".
2D6 + scatter dice is "its rolls To Hit" and that roll cannot roll 1. Or quote a rule that does.

Absolutely false. Blast weapons never, ever, roll To Hit.

Blast Rules: "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit" Will never ever apply then. Talk about defeating arguments...

You do realize that the model can have the ability to reroll its To Hit separate from a Blast, right?

Twin Linked allows a reroll if you do not Roll a Hit with the scatter dice.
Prescience allows a reroll if you fail a To Hit roll.

p33 wrote:When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit.

If you do not roll, you can not fail. Prescience cannot ever apply.

Please argue your point using actual rules, not something you're making up.

Again, just proving it yourself. (Red emphasis)

Not rolling a hit != failing a To Hit roll. I'm surprised you don't understand that. It's pretty basic.

You like the words "making up rules" and use it as your ultimate defence when RaW is quoted but you don't agree to it.

You haven't quoted RAW. You asserted that failing to roll a Hit on the scatter die is equivalent to failing a To Hit roll. That's the definition of making up rules.

The two above are different, we agree. Why do you apply them in the same way then?
Failed To Hit rolls of 1 =/= All failed To Hit rolls

Because the rule in question doesn't make the distinction you're asserting exists.

A 2D6 roll+scatter is within one but not the other.

Demonstrably false.

And if you decide that:
"if you do not Roll a Hit with the scatter dice."(your words, TL)
"if you fail a To Hit roll. "
Are two very different things (because this is the core of your argument).
Then the blast Rule that says, per RaW: "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit" will never apply. That would be how you read the rules and that's fine, as YOUR interpretation.
And apart from having TL you will never Re-roll Blast weapons. I will because "not rolling a Hit" and "fail to Hit" are the exact same things...

No, they are not. Holy crap - you actually believe that.

Blast weapons do not roll To Hit. Ever. It's in the rule - I quoted it and it's on page 33.
A To Hit roll is a specific action, defined by the rules. You can have the ability to reroll a failed To Hit roll without actually rerolling it.
Failing to roll a Hit on the scatter dice has literally nothing to do with a To Hit roll. You have yet to, and won't be able to, cite any rules showing your statements are correct.
Again, making up rules. Instead of making things up or telling me I'm wrong PROVE IT. Cite a rule showing that they're the same. I've proven my statements using rules.

BlackTalos wrote:
As for the distinction? prescience is "re-roll all failed To Hit rolls", PE is "re-rolls failed To Hit rolls of 1"

"All" and "1" are very different measures of quantity, or is that not clear enough?

Apart from your deceptive out of context quoting, noone has said they are not different.

What we are asking you to do is to ----->prove<------ that this distinction actually matters.
As we know, you are only required to have the ability to reroll to hit., you do not need to have any specific "level" of ability (i.e. it does not say "you must have the ability to reroll all failed rolls to hit, as it is a totally unrestricted sentence Note: the bolded words are important, as you seem to have a basic comprehension issue at play.
THe rule, at no point, states "you must be able to reroll your scatter dice", as that would be a tautology - you can reroll scaltter if you can reroll scatter

Instead you are asked: can you reroll your to-hit dice [implicitly: when firing a weapon which requires a roll to hit - denying this is impossible]?

If you answer yes - then you reroll scatter

Nowhere in the rule are you asked to prove how well you can reroll - all failed, all rolls of a 1, all rolls of a 3 every second sunday - just CAN YOU EVER, iN ANY WAY, EVER, reroll your to hit.

Once you meet this criteria, you are allowed to reroll scattrer

Proven, RAW. You have failed to cite a single relevant rule, and seem to have a very basic misunderstanding of the English language.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
it does not stipulate that the re-roll needs to be for al the dice, or just those that have certain value requirements, it just asks does the model have the capacity to re-roll the dice.

a re-roll of results of a 1 is still a re-roll
a re-roll of all failed to hit is still a re-roll

Fully agree on all those points but "capacity" and "ability" are 2 very different words. And the model only gets the ability when it triggers, even if they all have the capacity.
Otherwise we're back to "PE" can reroll blast against anything whatsoever, and that is broken, RaI or RaW.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
it does not stipulate that the re-roll needs to be for al the dice, or just those that have certain value requirements, it just asks does the model have the capacity to re-roll the dice.

a re-roll of results of a 1 is still a re-roll
a re-roll of all failed to hit is still a re-roll

Fully agree on all those points but "capacity" and "ability" are 2 very different words. And the model only gets the ability when it triggers, even if they all have the capacity.
Otherwise we're back to "PE" can reroll blast against anything whatsoever, and that is broken, RaI or RaW.

You claim RAW but you don't cite anything to disprove it.
That's amusing.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
it does not stipulate that the re-roll needs to be for al the dice, or just those that have certain value requirements, it just asks does the model have the capacity to re-roll the dice.

a re-roll of results of a 1 is still a re-roll
a re-roll of all failed to hit is still a re-roll

Fully agree on all those points but "capacity" and "ability" are 2 very different words. And the model only gets the ability when it triggers, even if they all have the capacity.
Otherwise we're back to "PE" can reroll blast against anything whatsoever, and that is broken, RaI or RaW.

no it doesn't.

prefered enemy only grants it capacity for a re-roll agasint the target of which the enemy is prefered.

so prefered enemy orks, for example, when shooting at orks you have the capcity for a reroll, but when shooting at tau you do not have the capacity for a reroll.

THAT is the distiction.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

BlackTalos wrote:
As for the distinction? prescience is "re-roll all failed To Hit rolls", PE is "re-rolls failed To Hit rolls of 1"

"All" and "1" are very different measures of quantity, or is that not clear enough?

Apart from your deceptive out of context quoting, noone has said they are not different.

What we are asking you to do is to ----->prove<------ that this distinction actually matters.
As we know, you are only required to have the ability to reroll to hit., you do not need to have any specific "level" of ability (i.e. it does not say "you must have the ability to reroll all failed rolls to hit, as it is a totally unrestricted sentence Note: the bolded words are important, as you seem to have a basic comprehension issue at play.
THe rule, at no point, states "you must be able to reroll your scatter dice", as that would be a tautology - you can reroll scaltter if you can reroll scatter

Instead you are asked: can you reroll your to-hit dice [implicitly: when firing a weapon which requires a roll to hit - denying this is impossible]?

If you answer yes - then you reroll scatter

Nowhere in the rule are you asked to prove how well you can reroll - all failed, all rolls of a 1, all rolls of a 3 every second sunday - just CAN YOU EVER, iN ANY WAY, EVER, reroll your to hit.

Once you meet this criteria, you are allowed to reroll scattrer

Proven, RAW. You have failed to cite a single relevant rule, and seem to have a very basic misunderstanding of the English language.

I like how you always turn things around, and the Void shield thread that made it quite clear that basic English was a problem for many Forum lurkers and will always be the case...
However back to the point at hand:
the abilityto reroll, adequately bolded by you, is not inherent in all models. You only receive said ability upon requirements, as per RaW:
"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls." for prescience
"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy." for PE

The ability to re-roll for A is: Power in effect; failed To Hit roll
B is: failed To Hit rolls of 1; attacking PE.

Or would you insist you always have the ability?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
it does not stipulate that the re-roll needs to be for al the dice, or just those that have certain value requirements, it just asks does the model have the capacity to re-roll the dice.

a re-roll of results of a 1 is still a re-roll
a re-roll of all failed to hit is still a re-roll

Fully agree on all those points but "capacity" and "ability" are 2 very different words. And the model only gets the ability when it triggers, even if they all have the capacity.
Otherwise we're back to "PE" can reroll blast against anything whatsoever, and that is broken, RaI or RaW.

Hate to break it to you but Ability and Capacity are synonyms and fully interchangeable.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
it does not stipulate that the re-roll needs to be for al the dice, or just those that have certain value requirements, it just asks does the model have the capacity to re-roll the dice.

a re-roll of results of a 1 is still a re-roll
a re-roll of all failed to hit is still a re-roll

Fully agree on all those points but "capacity" and "ability" are 2 very different words. And the model only gets the ability when it triggers, even if they all have the capacity.
Otherwise we're back to "PE" can reroll blast against anything whatsoever, and that is broken, RaI or RaW.

no it doesn't.

prefered enemy only grants it capacity for a re-roll agasint the target of which the enemy is prefered.

so prefered enemy orks, for example, when shooting at orks you have the capcity for a reroll, but when shooting at tau you do not have the capacity for a reroll.

THAT is the distiction.

prefered enemy only grants it capacity for a re-roll agasint the target of which the enemy is prefered.
Yes, but the rule is missing a bit:
prefered enemy only grants it capacity for a re-roll when a 1 is rolled.

Or is half the rule just ignored?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
it does not stipulate that the re-roll needs to be for al the dice, or just those that have certain value requirements, it just asks does the model have the capacity to re-roll the dice.

a re-roll of results of a 1 is still a re-roll
a re-roll of all failed to hit is still a re-roll

Fully agree on all those points but "capacity" and "ability" are 2 very different words. And the model only gets the ability when it triggers, even if they all have the capacity.
Otherwise we're back to "PE" can reroll blast against anything whatsoever, and that is broken, RaI or RaW.

Hate to break it to you but Ability and Capacity are synonyms and fully interchangeable.

Back to English Definitions it is (and a tenet of the forum about dictionaries):

Capacity:
actual or potential ability to perform, yield, or withstand

Bolded where it makes them different. Slightly but importantly different

 BlackTalos wrote:
Bolded where it makes them different. Slightly but importantly different

And you're ignoring the fact that Prescience (the ability you said works while PE doesn't) also has a conditional. Meaning a model with Prescience doesn't have the ability, they have the capactiy.
Actual rules ahoy!

rigeld2 wrote:

No, they are not. Holy crap - you actually believe that.

Blast weapons do not roll To Hit. Ever. It's in the rule - I quoted it and it's on page 33.
A To Hit roll is a specific action, defined by the rules. You can have the ability to reroll a failed To Hit roll without actually rerolling it.
Failing to roll a Hit on the scatter dice has literally nothing to do with a To Hit roll. You have yet to, and won't be able to, cite any rules showing your statements are correct.
Again, making up rules. Instead of making things up or telling me I'm wrong PROVE IT. Cite a rule showing that they're the same. I've proven my statements using rules.

Please stay civil and avoid swearing because you are getting all flustered...

If you read the post correctly:

And if you decide that:
"if you do not Roll a Hit with the scatter dice."(your words, TL)
"if you fail a To Hit roll. "
Are two very different things (because this is the core of your argument).
Then the blast Rule that says, per RaW: "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit" will never apply. That would be how you read the rules and that's fine, as YOUR interpretation.

There is no RaW that says "If the scatter dice does not roll a Hit" is the same as "you must re-roll the dice To Hit if you miss".
There is your interpretation that they are different and there is my interpretation that they are the same.
Why do I interpret it that way? Because they are the 2 statements on how the same Special Rule (TL) applies on the weapons.
Why do you interpret it that way?

Cite a rule showing that they're not the same.

 BlackTalos wrote:

prefered enemy only grants it capacity for a re-roll agasint the target of which the enemy is prefered.
Yes, but the rule is missing a bit:
prefered enemy only grants it capacity for a re-roll when a 1 is rolled.

Or is half the rule just ignored?

no, only that the roll of a 1 is not a requirement to have the capacity for a re-roll.

again, does the model have the capacity for a re-roll? answer is yes, while the condition for that reroll is rolling a 1, it has the capacity to reroll the to hit dice.

does the blast weapon re-roll rule care what the trigger for the reroll is? answer is no, it only cares that you ever could re-roll the dice.

why you, and obviously half the people that visitied this thread to vote, are making a disticintion between the rerolls I do not know.

all I know is, I have no dog in this fight, and the rule only ever asks if you could re-roll, it does not specify that this reroll must be all encompassing so therefore it is satisfied with a reroll of any sort.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Bolded where it makes them different. Slightly but importantly different

And you're ignoring the fact that Prescience (the ability you said works while PE doesn't) also has a conditional. Meaning a model with Prescience doesn't have the ability, they have the capactiy.
Actual rules ahoy!

Irrelevant completely... This was in reply of the definition of 2 words.

I'm not ignoring anything. Prescience has 2 conditionals, and when you check both, you get the ability. I miss you point with that statement, or have you decided to Troll today?

 BlackTalos wrote:
There is no RaW that says "If the scatter dice does not roll a Hit" is the same as "you must re-roll the dice To Hit if you miss".

Correct - because they aren't the same.

Why do I interpret it that way? Because they are the 2 statements on how the same Special Rule (TL) applies on the weapons.

The reason it has to state it that way is because they're two different things. If they were the same the paragraph wouldn't be required.

Cite a rule showing that they're not the same.

p13 wrote:The dice roll needed To Hit will depend on how accurate the firers are, as shown by their Ballistic Skill (or BS). The chart below shows the minimum D6 roll needed to score a hit.

Is the Scatter dice a d6 that you roll to score based on your BS?

p13 wrote:When rolling To Hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses (or, at the very least will need re-rolling - see below).

So if you roll a 1 on either die showing the distance to scatter, you always miss?

p33 wrote:When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit.

If you do not roll To Hit, then failing to roll a Hit on the scatter dice is not a failed To Hit roll.

Given the evidence that I've cited now and previously in the thread, the burden of proof is on you to prove your "interpretation" has some basis in the rules instead of you just making something up. Please at least attempt to do so citing rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Bolded where it makes them different. Slightly but importantly different

And you're ignoring the fact that Prescience (the ability you said works while PE doesn't) also has a conditional. Meaning a model with Prescience doesn't have the ability, they have the capactiy.
Actual rules ahoy!

Irrelevant completely... This was in reply of the definition of 2 words.

I'm not ignoring anything. Prescience has 2 conditionals, and when you check both, you get the ability. I miss you point with that statement, or have you decided to Troll today?

So for the purposes of your argument, conditionals are okay as long as they're met? I just want to clarify.

rigeld2 wrote:

Cite a rule showing that they're not the same.

p13 wrote:The dice roll needed To Hit will depend on how accurate the firers are, as shown by their Ballistic Skill (or BS). The chart below shows the minimum D6 roll needed to score a hit.

Is the Scatter dice a d6 that you roll to score based on your BS?

p13 wrote:When rolling To Hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses (or, at the very least will need re-rolling - see below).

So if you roll a 1 on the distance to scatter, you always miss?

p33 wrote:When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit.

If you do not roll To Hit, then failing to roll a Hit on the scatter dice is not a failed To Hit roll.

Given the evidence that I've cited now and previously in the thread, the burden of proof is on you to prove your "interpretation" has some basis in the rules instead of you just making something up. Please at least attempt to do so citing rules.

RaW on how to hit and how to fire a Blast weapon, i know them too...

Nothing in those rules says a missed To Hit is different to a scatter that does not Hit. Both have not Hit.
I'm not saying that it's the same dice Roll. One is 1 dice, the other is 2D6+scatter dice.
Both can still *not Hit*, making both statements the exact same thing....

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Bolded where it makes them different. Slightly but importantly different

And you're ignoring the fact that Prescience (the ability you said works while PE doesn't) also has a conditional. Meaning a model with Prescience doesn't have the ability, they have the capactiy.
Actual rules ahoy!

Irrelevant completely... This was in reply of the definition of 2 words.

I'm not ignoring anything. Prescience has 2 conditionals, and when you check both, you get the ability. I miss you point with that statement, or have you decided to Troll today?

So for the purposes of your argument, conditionals are okay as long as they're met? I just want to clarify.

Both must be met for the ability to exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or please quote the rule(s) that will show that not rolling a Hit on a scatter and failing a roll To Hit are very different things?

 BlackTalos wrote:
Nothing in those rules says a missed To Hit is different to a scatter that does not Hit. Both have not Hit.
I'm not saying that it's the same dice Roll. One is 1 dice, the other is 2D6+scatter dice.
Both can still *not Hit*, making both statement the exact same thing....

Prescience does not ask if you hit. Prescience asks if you failed a To Hit roll (with the caps and everything).
Since a Blast roll is demonstrably not a To Hit roll it cannot fulfill the requirement for Prescience. Again, actual rules ahoy and none cited on your side.

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

Bolded what you keep missing.

Both must be met for the ability to exist.

And Prescience does not meet its requirement, so the ability does not exist. Thanks for playing!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Or please quote the rule(s) that will show that not rolling a Hit on a scatter and failing a roll To Hit are very different things?

I have.
I've shown where a To Hit roll is defined.
You cannot roll a Scatter die and get a result of 1-6 to compare to your BS, so a Scatter roll can never be a To Hit roll.

Failing to Hit on a Scatter roll is not the same as failing a To Hit roll. Demonstrable fact, proven with rules citations.
Failing to Hit on a Scatter roll is the same as failing a To Hit roll. Absolutely false, made up to pretend you can win an argument.

Have some rules to cite to support your viewpoint?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
it does not stipulate that the re-roll needs to be for al the dice, or just those that have certain value requirements, it just asks does the model have the capacity to re-roll the dice.

a re-roll of results of a 1 is still a re-roll
a re-roll of all failed to hit is still a re-roll

Fully agree on all those points but "capacity" and "ability" are 2 very different words. And the model only gets the ability when it triggers, even if they all have the capacity.
Otherwise we're back to "PE" can reroll blast against anything whatsoever, and that is broken, RaI or RaW.

Hate to break it to you but Ability and Capacity are synonyms and fully interchangeable.

Back to English Definitions it is (and a tenet of the forum about dictionaries):

Capacity:
actual or potential ability to perform, yield, or withstand

Bolded where it makes them different. Slightly but importantly different

Rorschach9 wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
it does not stipulate that the re-roll needs to be for al the dice, or just those that have certain value requirements, it just asks does the model have the capacity to re-roll the dice.

a re-roll of results of a 1 is still a re-roll
a re-roll of all failed to hit is still a re-roll

Fully agree on all those points but "capacity" and "ability" are 2 very different words. And the model only gets the ability when it triggers, even if they all have the capacity.
Otherwise we're back to "PE" can reroll blast against anything whatsoever, and that is broken, RaI or RaW.

Hate to break it to you but Ability and Capacity are synonyms and fully interchangeable.

Back to English Definitions it is (and a tenet of the forum about dictionaries):

Capacity:
actual or potential ability to perform, yield, or withstand

Bolded where it makes them different. Slightly but importantly different

I am sorry, where did i bring up dictionary meanings in pointing out your mistake? Right, i xid not, you did and still failed to make your point.

Hate to break it to you but Ability and Capacity are synonyms and fully interchangeable.

Just replying to this, no making any point ;-)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Nothing in those rules says a missed To Hit is different to a scatter that does not Hit. Both have not Hit.
I'm not saying that it's the same dice Roll. One is 1 dice, the other is 2D6+scatter dice.
Both can still *not Hit*, making both statement the exact same thing....

Prescience does not ask if you hit. Prescience asks if you failed a To Hit roll (with the caps and everything).
Since a Blast roll is demonstrably not a To Hit roll it cannot fulfill the requirement for Prescience. Again, actual rules ahoy and none cited on your side.

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

Bolded what you keep missing.

Both must be met for the ability to exist.

And Prescience does not meet its requirement, so the ability does not exist. Thanks for playing!

that's why we are having the discussion where "failed To Hit" is the same as "If the scatter dice does not roll a Hit"
Until that one's done, and you still haven't proved it, it's interpretation and not going anywhere....

Best we steer any remaining argument down a different path than the one this is going heading down.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Just replying to this, no making any point ;-)

http://thesaurus.com/browse/ability
What's the 2nd from the top synonym on the left?

that's why we are having the discussion where "failed To Hit" is the same as "If the scatter dice does not roll a Hit"
Until that one's done, and you still haven't proved it, it's interpretation and not going anywhere....

So would you care to actually, I don't know, address my rules quotes that prove your statement that they're the same wrong?

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Just replying to this, no making any point ;-)

http://thesaurus.com/browse/ability
What's the 2nd from the top synonym on the left?

Still not the same word.

rigeld2 wrote:

that's why we are having the discussion where "failed To Hit" is the same as "If the scatter dice does not roll a Hit"
Until that one's done, and you still haven't proved it, it's interpretation and not going anywhere....

So would you care to actually, I don't know, address my rules quotes that prove your statement that they're the same wrong?

No, because this is a permissive Ruleset. I'm not proving why you can't, you need to prove why you can.
Prove:
A model firing a Blast weapon that has a Special Rule allowing Re-rolls of 1 is allowed re-rolls of the scatter and 2D6 Dice.

Until you prove that, in RaW, we are done and you have no permission. No need in asking me for rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:
No, because this is a permissive Ruleset. I'm not proving why you can't, you need to prove why you can.
Prove:
A model firing a Blast weapon that has a Special Rule allowing Re-rolls of 1 is allowed re-rolls of the scatter and 2D6 Dice.

Until you prove that, in RaW, we are done and you have no permission. No need in asking me for rules.

Has been done.

If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit

This either applies without regards to conditionals, or it never allows any ability ever.

Now, can you actually cite rules supporting your "interpretation" that a failing To Hit roll is the same as failing to roll a Hit on the scatter die?
Because that's what I was actually asking you to cite rules for. You keep saying that Prescience works while PE does not and have been proven wrong and refused to cite rules to support your viewpoint.

It's amusing you're hung up on "ability" being a synonym for "capactiy" yet you keep saying that "failed To Hit" and "failing to roll a Hit" are the same. Even though the former has been proven to be correct and the latter incorrect.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Just replying to this, no making any point ;-)

http://thesaurus.com/browse/ability
What's the 2nd from the top synonym on the left?

Still not the same word.

So you don't know what synonym means. Got it. Not that it matters because "Capacity" is not used in the rules at all (except in the concept of the number of units can fit into a transport or building).

BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

that's why we are having the discussion where "failed To Hit" is the same as "If the scatter dice does not roll a Hit"
Until that one's done, and you still haven't proved it, it's interpretation and not going anywhere....

So would you care to actually, I don't know, address my rules quotes that prove your statement that they're the same wrong?

No, because this is a permissive Ruleset. I'm not proving why you can't, you need to prove why you can.
Prove:
A model firing a Blast weapon that has a Special Rule allowing Re-rolls of 1 is allowed re-rolls of the scatter and 2D6 Dice.

Until you prove that, in RaW, we are done and you have no permission. No need in asking me for rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
No, because this is a permissive Ruleset. I'm not proving why you can't, you need to prove why you can.
Prove:
A model firing a Blast weapon that has a Special Rule allowing Re-rolls of 1 is allowed re-rolls of the scatter and 2D6 Dice.

Until you prove that, in RaW, we are done and you have no permission. No need in asking me for rules.

Has been done.

If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit

This either applies without regards to conditionals, or it never allows any ability ever.

Has not been done, or the thread and the Poll would not exist.

"applies without regards to conditionals, OR it never allows any ability ever"

Why is there an "or" in your phrase? I'm asking for RaW, not 1 interpretation OR another interpretation?
Quote rules that it "applies without regards to conditionals" then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rorschach9 wrote:
Therefore, a model that has a special rule allowing re-rolls of 1's to hit means that model has a special rule allowing re-rolls To Hit (with conditions, but the blast rule does not care about conditions on the ability to re-roll).

No, the two highlighted parts are different.
If "a model that has a special rule allowing re-rolls of 1's" it can re-roll 1s. It does not have a rule that allows re-rolls To Hit, or it would re-roll 2s, and 3s, and 4s....

And again, you assume "blast rule does not care about conditions on the ability to re-roll"
PE:(p40) "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy."

Conditions on "ability to re-roll": Roll a failed 1 and attack your Preferred Enemy.

You ignore conditions: PE lets you re-roll when you fight anything?

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

prefered enemy only grants it capacity for a re-roll agasint the target of which the enemy is prefered.
Yes, but the rule is missing a bit:
prefered enemy only grants it capacity for a re-roll when a 1 is rolled.

Or is half the rule just ignored?

no, only that the roll of a 1 is not a requirement to have the capacity for a re-roll.

again, does the model have the capacity for a re-roll? answer is yes, while the condition for that reroll is rolling a 1, it has the capacity to reroll the to hit dice.

does the blast weapon re-roll rule care what the trigger for the reroll is? answer is no, it only cares that you ever could re-roll the dice.

why you, and obviously half the people that visitied this thread to vote, are making a disticintion between the rerolls I do not know.

all I know is, I have no dog in this fight, and the rule only ever asks if you could re-roll, it does not specify that this reroll must be all encompassing so therefore it is satisfied with a reroll of any sort.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Has not been done, or the thread and the Poll would not exist.

Want me to start a thread and poll about LoS and a model with a helmet?
Or find the polls about blasts and swarms being IDd?

"applies without regards to conditionals, OR it never allows any ability ever"

Why is there an "or" in your phrase? I'm asking for RaW, not 1 interpretation OR another interpretation?
Quote rules that it "applies without regards to conditionals" then?

I've quoted the rule. Do you see anywhere it cares about conditionals? I sure don't.
I included the OR because you're asserting that the rules care about the difference between Prescience and PE. You've utterly failed to back up that assertion, however.

Also, could we rewind a second? You seem to have stopped arguing that a "failed To Hit roll" is the same as a "failure to roll Hit on the scatter dice". Have you conceded you were wrong then? Or have you found rules to support that stance?

To remind, your last comment on it was:

BlackTalos wrote:that's why we are having the discussion where "failed To Hit" is the same as "If the scatter dice does not roll a Hit"
Until that one's done, and you still haven't proved it, it's interpretation and not going anywhere....

And I replied:

rigeld2 wrote:So would you care to actually, I don't know, address my rules quotes that prove your statement that they're the same wrong?

I stopped arguing it as it was an interpretation, based on the ruling for Twin Linked, which meant Blasts could actually be re-rolled in more cases than simply Twin Linked.
I still believe the interpretation is valid, but it was a tangent to the original Question and Poll subject.
The original issue being that re-rolls granted upon rolling 1s somehow allow the re-roll of 3 dice regardless of what they roll....

Now, please quote the rule that allows you to ignore the conditionals of having the *ability* to re-roll.

If you think that is not necessary, then we can ignore the condition that you are "shooting at your Preferred Enemy", or the condition that "whilst the power is in effect". This then breaks the re-roll on blasts completely.


Make your choice, ignore conditionals completely, or don't. Once we've resolved RaW, we can move on to interpretations on how to not have it "broken" and the "failed To Hit" is the same as "If the scatter dice does not roll a Hit" part of the issue.

While whether other than Twin-linked allows a re-roll of the scatter dice is still up in the air, the fact that such a re-roll of the scatter dice would be possible for something having the ability to re-roll only To Hit rolls of 1 is pretty obvious.

Just think about it in a different context.

If you have the ability to pick up tan rocks, do you have the ability to pick rocks? Unarguably a yes.

If you have the ability to drive red and bule cars, do you have the ability to drive cars? Again, a clear yes.

If, when drawing cards from a deck of 52, you have the ability to re-draw if you get a spade, do you have the ability to re-draw cards? Obviously yes.

What you are doing is changing the question from 'does it have the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls?' to 'does it have the ability to re-roll ANY To Hit rolls.' There is no reasonable basis in the rules for adding the 'any.'

There is no rule that allows you to ignore a conditional, but there is also no requirement in the rules that you even consider the conditional. The RAW is (as some would argue) that a model with the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls can re-roll the scatter dice - there is no basis for adding an 'all' or 'any.'

Also, Preferred Enemy cannot allow for re-rolls of the scatter dice. This one is simple. Having PE does not grant the model re-rolls of the To Hit dice - only having PE and then rolling a '1' on a To Hit roll grants such a model the ability to re-roll the To Hit dice, which can never happen when a model is firing a blast weapon.

Rapture wrote:
Also, Preferred Enemy cannot allow for re-rolls of the scatter dice. This one is simple. Having PE does not grant the model re-rolls of the To Hit dice - only having PE and then rolling a '1' on a To Hit roll grants such a model the ability to re-roll the To Hit dice, which can never happen when a model is firing a blast weapon.

I do not understand why you dispute my point?
I argue PE does not allow re-roll of a Blast weapon.

Rigeld, Nosferatu and nutty_nutter are arguing that per RaW, PE would allow re-roll of scatter.

So you have voted NO in the original Poll?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rapture wrote:
There is no rule that allows you to ignore a conditional, but there is also no requirement in the rules that you even consider the conditional. The RAW is (as some would argue) that a model with the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls can re-roll the scatter dice - there is no basis for adding an 'all' or 'any.'

With this (your main point?) you decide that the RaW do not consider the conditionals? So the PE condition that your target is a PE is not considered? The rule is just conferring a conditional re-roll after all....
the condition "whilst the power is in effect" for prescience is also not considered?
Similar for Earth Cast array (reason for the original post)?

 BlackTalos wrote:

Rapture wrote:
Also, Preferred Enemy cannot allow for re-rolls of the scatter dice. This one is simple. Having PE does not grant the model re-rolls of the To Hit dice - only having PE and then rolling a '1' on a To Hit roll grants such a model the ability to re-roll the To Hit dice, which can never happen when a model is firing a blast weapon.

I do not understand why you dispute my point?
I argue PE does not allow re-roll of a Blast weapon.

Rigeld, Nosferatu and nutty_nutter are arguing that per RaW, PE would allow re-roll of scatter.

So you have voted NO in the original Poll?

this is not what I said, at least not exactly.


I also did not say that we toss the conditionals for the re-roll out of the window, only that said conditionals do not matter in terms of triggering, a re-roll can only normally be triggered by satisfying its critera, be it not rolling the desired hit value or rolling a set value that permits the reroll.

so a re-roll of any failed to hit rolls for a BS 4 character would allow a re-roll of all 1's and 2's.

a set value re-roll, in the case of preferred enemy, would allow a reroll of any dice that comes up with a 1

in both instances the character has access to a re-roll of the dice, this is all the re-rolling of the scatter dice actually cares about to satisfy the critera given. the model does indeed have a re-roll.

in the case of preferred enemy, the reroll is only granted when attacking the specified enemy, so as I gave this very example erlier in the thread.

a model with preferred enemy orks, shooting at orks, has a reroll available to him, thus he may re-roll the scatter dice.

if this model were to then shoot at Tau, he does not have a reroll available to him, his preferred enemy is not in effect so he doesn't have the ability to reroll a to hit dice, thus no re-roll is permitted.

the conditionals only matter if they are paramount at providing a reroll ability, if they only rely on a set value or a failed hit roll then that aspect is what is ignored since they have satisfied the critera of actually having a reroll.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I stopped arguing it as it was an interpretation, based on the ruling for Twin Linked, which meant Blasts could actually be re-rolled in more cases than simply Twin Linked.

So no rules support then. Gotcha.

If you think that is not necessary, then we can ignore the condition that you are "shooting at your Preferred Enemy", or the condition that "whilst the power is in effect". This then breaks the re-roll on blasts completely.

How's it broken? Because if you'd actually read the threads involved I said this long ago.

Make your choice, ignore conditionals completely, or don't. Once we've resolved RaW, we can move on to interpretations on how to not have it "broken" and the "failed To Hit" is the same as "If the scatter dice does not roll a Hit" part of the issue.

Sure. Cite rules instead of making them up and we can discuss it.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Rapture wrote:
Also, Preferred Enemy cannot allow for re-rolls of the scatter dice. This one is simple. Having PE does not grant the model re-rolls of the To Hit dice - only having PE and then rolling a '1' on a To Hit roll grants such a model the ability to re-roll the To Hit dice, which can never happen when a model is firing a blast weapon.

I do not understand why you dispute my point?
I argue PE does not allow re-roll of a Blast weapon.

Rigeld, Nosferatu and nutty_nutter are arguing that per RaW, PE would allow re-roll of scatter.

So you have voted NO in the original Poll?

this is not what I said, at least not exactly.


I also did not say that we toss the conditionals for the re-roll out of the window, only that said conditionals do not matter in terms of triggering, a re-roll can only normally be triggered by satisfying its critera, be it not rolling the desired hit value or rolling a set value that permits the reroll.

so a re-roll of any failed to hit rolls for a BS 4 character would allow a re-roll of all 1's and 2's.

a set value re-roll, in the case of preferred enemy, would allow a reroll of any dice that comes up with a 1

in both instances the character has access to a re-roll of the dice, this is all the re-rolling of the scatter dice actually cares about to satisfy the critera given. the model does indeed have a re-roll.

in the case of preferred enemy, the reroll is only granted when attacking the specified enemy, so as I gave this very example erlier in the thread.

a model with preferred enemy orks, shooting at orks, has a reroll available to him, thus he may re-roll the scatter dice.

if this model were to then shoot at Tau, he does not have a reroll available to him, his preferred enemy is not in effect so he doesn't have the ability to reroll a to hit dice, thus no re-roll is permitted.

the conditionals only matter if they are paramount at providing a reroll ability, if they only rely on a set value or a failed hit roll then that aspect is what is ignored since they have satisfied the critera of actually having a reroll.

Which is basically an inconsistency in adhering to the conditionals.

A model with PE Orks will only have a re-roll if 1.) He shoots at Orks and 2.) he rolls a 1
You cannot argue that you follow 1.) and then ignore 2.)
If i shoot at Tau, and roll a 1, i meet condition 2.), can i then ignore 1.) ? I have satisfied the criteria of having the re-roll...

Ah, so you're pretending ability doesn't mean what it says? Fair enough, the comprehension issue is resolved.

no you have not Talos, and yes you do ignore the second condition because it is not relevant to the reroll being present.

if you have preferred enemy orks and you are shooting at orks, then you have the potential for a re-roll, therefore you have one.

if you have preferred enemy orks and you are NOT shooting at orks, then you do not have the potential for a re-roll.

please state where the blast re-roll cares if you would normally trigger the re-roll to take place?

you yourself have said that presiance would allow a re-roll, but it is exactly the same thing, your not rolling to hit dice so the power would not take effect, but because you have the potential for a re-roll, you are permitted to reroll the scatter.

there really is no difference between the two as far as blast weapon rerolls are concerned, in both instances a model has the potential for a reroll, it does not care how good a chance that is.

It has no effect because blast and template weapons don't roll to hit.

I'll just use an FAQ as an example, because that's where I most recently seen it.

Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any
weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically –
interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous
Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use
blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or
otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes
weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the
Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic
powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

I.E: Blast weapons don't roll to hit because if they do, then you can hit flyers with them. I thought this was fairly self-evident given the obvious contradiction.

A better example might be "Does a plasma cannon overheat if it rolls a 1 on its scatter dice?". No, it doesn't.

Sonic - except the rule which grants a Reroll doesn't require you to be actually rolling to hit. It requires you to gave the ability to Reroll.

sonicaucie wrote:
It has no effect because blast and template weapons don't roll to hit.

I'll just use an FAQ as an example, because that's where I most recently seen it.

Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any
weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically –
interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous
Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use
blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or
otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes
weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the
Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic
powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

I.E: Blast weapons don't roll to hit because if they do, then you can hit flyers with them. I thought this was fairly self-evident given the obvious contradiction.

A better example might be "Does a plasma cannon overheat if it rolls a 1 on its scatter dice?". No, it doesn't.

in what way is that FAQ relevant?

grab your rulebook, open to p33 and under the heading Blast weapons and Re-Rolls.

note that the rule does not care HOW the model got a re-roll only that it CAN re-roll

Ignore this, Just me being an idiot.

Yes, and? They can also Reroll that, from memory, if they have the ability to reroll. Which is all the written rule requires,

It does not say "are you rolling to hit?" Just do you have the ability to reroll, if you were rerolling to hit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, and? They can also Reroll that, from memory, if they have the ability to reroll. Which is all the written rule requires,

It does not say "are you rolling to hit?" Just do you have the ability to reroll, if you were rerolling to hit.

Oops, silly me, I replied to the wrong message.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sonic - except the rule which grants a Reroll doesn't require you to be actually rolling to hit. It requires you to gave the ability to Reroll.

Which rule is that, out of curiosity? The original rules question was about Earth Caste Pilot Array which reads:

Models with battlesuits only. The model rerolls
all rolls of 1 To Hit in the Shooting
phase, and may re-roll the dice when using a
Nova Reactor. However, their Weapon Skill
is 1 (included above).

Which does specify rolling a 1 on the "to hit" roll. Preferred Enemy specifies To Hit and To Wound. So what rule, if any gives you a blanket re-roll of 1's without specifying the type of roll. If such a rule exists we could discuss how it effects scatter rolls... but so far, I haven't seen one.

chanceafs wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sonic - except the rule which grants a Reroll doesn't require you to be actually rolling to hit. It requires you to gave the ability to Reroll.

Which rule is that, out of curiosity? The original rules question was about Earth Caste Pilot Array which reads:

Models with battlesuits only. The model rerolls
all rolls of 1 To Hit in the Shooting
phase, and may re-roll the dice when using a
Nova Reactor. However, their Weapon Skill
is 1 (included above).

Which does specify rolling a 1 on the "to hit" roll. Preferred Enemy specifies To Hit and To Wound. So what rule, if any gives you a blanket re-roll of 1's without specifying the type of roll. If such a rule exists we could discuss how it effects scatter rolls... but so far, I haven't seen one.

I emboldened the part that gives the model a blanket re-roll

extracted: The model rerolls all rolls of 1 To Hit

open your rulebook and go to p33 under the heading blast weapons and re-rolls.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sonic - except the rule which grants a Reroll doesn't require you to be actually rolling to hit. It requires you to gave the ability to Reroll.

Which rule is that, out of curiosity? The original rules question was about Earth Caste Pilot Array which reads:

Models with battlesuits only. The model rerolls
all rolls of 1 To Hit in the Shooting
phase, and may re-roll the dice when using a
Nova Reactor. However, their Weapon Skill
is 1 (included above).

Which does specify rolling a 1 on the "to hit" roll. Preferred Enemy specifies To Hit and To Wound. So what rule, if any gives you a blanket re-roll of 1's without specifying the type of roll. If such a rule exists we could discuss how it effects scatter rolls... but so far, I haven't seen one.

I emboldened the part that gives the model a blanket re-roll

extracted: The model rerolls all rolls of 1 To Hit

open your rulebook and go to p33 under the heading blast weapons and re-rolls.

How about you read the page you mentioned. Blast & Large Blast: Second paragraph, first sentence "When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit."

You highlighted the exact correct part. In order to get that re-roll you have to roll a 1 To Hit, since no 'To Hit' roll was made, you didn't "roll 1 To Hit", therefor no re-roll was granted. Since no re-roll was granted the entry under blast weapons and re-rolls never enters into the equation. QED

chanceafs wrote:
How about you read the page you mentioned. Blast & Large Blast: Second paragraph, first sentence "When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit."

You highlighted the exact correct part. In order to get that re-roll you have to roll a 1 To Hit, since no 'To Hit' roll was made, you didn't "roll 1 To Hit", therefor no re-roll was granted. Since no re-roll was granted the entry under blast weapons and re-rolls never enters into the equation. QED

And by that logic, everything barring Twin-linked does not give blast weapons a re-roll. For example, Prescience allows you to re-roll failed To Hit rolls. In order to get that re-roll you have to fail a roll To Hit, since no 'To Hit' roll was made, you didn't "fail a To Hit roll", therefor no re-roll was granted. Since no re-roll was granted the entry under blast weapons and re-rolls never enters into the equation. QED

chanceafs wrote:


How about you read the page you mentioned. Blast & Large Blast: Second paragraph, first sentence "When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit."

You highlighted the exact correct part. In order to get that re-roll you have to roll a 1 To Hit, since no 'To Hit' roll was made, you didn't "roll 1 To Hit", therefor no re-roll was granted. Since no re-roll was granted the entry under blast weapons and re-rolls never enters into the equation. QED

nice, very mature.

well done, you can read that blast weapon don't roll to hit, what exactly is your point?

you asked for permission for a re-roll, I showed you where.

I gave you the answer already for a blast weapon having permission to re-roll...on p33, under the heading BLAST AND RE_ROLLS, care to point out what your point is? don't worry, I'll wait.

Chance - does that model have the ability to Reroll to hit ? Yes. So it can Reroll blasts.

Note the utter lack of a requirement to be rolling to hit in the actual written rules. I'd suggest rereading the thread, as you're repeating a debunked argument.

Why is this even a question when there is a rule that specifically details what to do?

In addition to having the ability to re-roll to-hit you must also choose to do so. The blast rules do give you that option but is that an option you can ever take?

Can you choose to re-roll a to-hit roll you never made?
-Yes. The blast rules clearly give the option to do so even though it's impossible and nothing breaks because they replace the re-roll to-hit with re-rolling scatter.
-No. There is no specific roll you can 'choose' to re-roll and the option is broken. RAW states how re-rolls are made and the rules for it cannot be followed for blasts, therefore it cannot be done.
-Yes. Sure you can re-roll a roll you never made, the blast rule says so.
-No. That choice is dysfunctional and cannot operate as stated. You cannot re-do anything that never existed.
-Etc.

There is no single correct answer by the rules specific wording. However if you consider that all rules should be taken in a way that allows them to have a functional purpose and you must then choose between interpreting a rule in a way that causes it to become meaningless and a way that causes it to have an effect on the game, the answer is clear.

Both answers being correct the one that causes the rule to have an effect is the one that should be chosen. You are permitted to proceed into paradox and can choose to re-roll a to-hit roll you never made therefore causing you to re-roll your scatter.

" There is no specific roll you can 'choose' to re-roll and the option is broken. "

All it says is that "if you have the ability to re-roll To Hit" and if you do so you re-roll the scatter dice if it is a blast weapon.

Blasts not rolling to hit is irrelevant, all that is required is that the model have the ability to re-roll.

You not re-rolling a roll you never made, you are just re-rolling the scatter dice as you are permitted to do.

Of all the non issues this is the "non-est" of all I have seen.

 Happyjew wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
How about you read the page you mentioned. Blast & Large Blast: Second paragraph, first sentence "When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit."

You highlighted the exact correct part. In order to get that re-roll you have to roll a 1 To Hit, since no 'To Hit' roll was made, you didn't "roll 1 To Hit", therefor no re-roll was granted. Since no re-roll was granted the entry under blast weapons and re-rolls never enters into the equation. QED

And by that logic, everything barring Twin-linked does not give blast weapons a re-roll. For example, Prescience allows you to re-roll failed To Hit rolls. In order to get that re-roll you have to fail a roll To Hit, since no 'To Hit' roll was made, you didn't "fail a To Hit roll", therefor no re-roll was granted. Since no re-roll was granted the entry under blast weapons and re-rolls never enters into the equation. QED

I totally agree with this line of logic. It also solves the runt dilema. If you don't meet the initial criteria for a reroll, you do not have the ability to reroll.

runt, you already rerolled once this game you no longer have the ability to reroll.
if you don't roll a 1 to hit, you don't have the ability to reroll.

so yes only TL grants rerolls to blasts, I like it, nice and simple

yea...your only issue is that the rule doesn't care about that.

it only cares that you CAN re-roll your to hit dice.

it doesn't actually care that your not going to roll a to hit dice.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
How about you read the page you mentioned. Blast & Large Blast: Second paragraph, first sentence "When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit."

You highlighted the exact correct part. In order to get that re-roll you have to roll a 1 To Hit, since no 'To Hit' roll was made, you didn't "roll 1 To Hit", therefor no re-roll was granted. Since no re-roll was granted the entry under blast weapons and re-rolls never enters into the equation. QED

And by that logic, everything barring Twin-linked does not give blast weapons a re-roll. For example, Prescience allows you to re-roll failed To Hit rolls. In order to get that re-roll you have to fail a roll To Hit, since no 'To Hit' roll was made, you didn't "fail a To Hit roll", therefor no re-roll was granted. Since no re-roll was granted the entry under blast weapons and re-rolls never enters into the equation. QED

I totally agree with this line of logic. It also solves the runt dilema. If you don't meet the initial criteria for a reroll, you do not have the ability to reroll.

runt, you already rerolled once this game you no longer have the ability to reroll.
if you don't roll a 1 to hit, you don't have the ability to reroll.

so yes only TL grants rerolls to blasts, I like it, nice and simple

Except that means they typed out the whole "Blasts and Re-Rolls" section for no reason other than to fill up space. Because Twin-Linked re-rolling blasts is already covered in its own rules.

I look at the ammo runt argument the same as the preferred enemy argument.
Does just having an ammo runt grant you a re-roll? No, you have to sacrifice the ammo runt to get the re-roll.
is the same as:
Does Preferred Enemy by itself grant you a re-roll? No, you must be shooting at your preferred enemy.

Steel-WOLF, I agree, and that is how I play it. However, for some reason, people are OK with "Re-roll failed To Hit" but not with "Re-roll To Hit rolls of 1". Despite the fact that neither requirement can be met when using blast weapons.

 Happyjew wrote:
Steel-WOLF, I agree, and that is how I play it. However, for some reason, people are OK with "Re-roll failed To Hit" but not with "Re-roll To Hit rolls of 1". Despite the fact that neither requirement can be met when using blast weapons.

Yeah I don't get it either. Its pretty straightforward.

because the rule of blasts and re-rolls doesn't care about what you need to have the re-roll, only that you could possibly re-roll your to hit dice.

if you can re-roll all failed to hit dice, you have the ability to re-roll

if you can only re-roll results of a 5, you still have the ability to re-roll.

the re-rolls and blast wepaons rule doesn't care about the conditional, only that you COULD re-roll any to hit dice.

as for prefered enemy, you don't have the ability to re-roll if you are not shooting the enemy to which you have preference.

 Happyjew wrote:
Steel-WOLF, I agree, and that is how I play it. However, for some reason, people are OK with "Re-roll failed To Hit" but not with "Re-roll To Hit rolls of 1". Despite the fact that neither requirement can be met when using blast weapons.

Indeed, this discrepancy - which is entirley ignored by the proponents of that position - is what is most puzzling.

Somehow they come up with a standard of "how good" your reroll to hit has to be for it to be allowed to reroll blast scatter, despite no such standard even being hinted at anywhere in the rules, ever. When presented evidence that the rules simply dont care "how good" your rerolls are, it is just ignored / hand waved away.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Steel-WOLF, I agree, and that is how I play it. However, for some reason, people are OK with "Re-roll failed To Hit" but not with "Re-roll To Hit rolls of 1". Despite the fact that neither requirement can be met when using blast weapons.

Indeed, this discrepancy - which is entirley ignored by the proponents of that position - is what is most puzzling.

Somehow they come up with a standard of "how good" your reroll to hit has to be for it to be allowed to reroll blast scatter, despite no such standard even being hinted at anywhere in the rules, ever. When presented evidence that the rules simply dont care "how good" your rerolls are, it is just ignored / hand waved away.

I like to ask about a BS 5 model with preferred enemy when they bring that up. The model only misses on a 1, but can re-roll 1's. So they can then re-roll all misses.......

Except any he has already re-rolled, and only if he actually rolled a one.

The problem with preferred enemy and blast weapons is that you are only allowed to re roll the scatter dice if you would be entitled to a re-roll if you made a to hit roll. In order for preferred enemy to entitle you to a re-roll you actually have to roll and get a one, with out that one you are not entitled to a re-roll. RAW you never going to be able to re-roll your scatter dice because of preferred enemy. HIWPI, roll a d6 allong with the scatter dice when firing a blast weapon at a preferred enemy, like you would for Gets Hot!. If that roll comes up a one then you may re-roll your scatter dice.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Except any he has already re-rolled, and only if he actually rolled a one.

The problem with preferred enemy and blast weapons is that you are only allowed to re roll the scatter dice if you would be entitled to a re-roll if you made a to hit roll. In order for preferred enemy to entitle you to a re-roll you actually have to roll and get a one, with out that one you are not entitled to a re-roll. RAW you never going to be able to re-roll your scatter dice because of preferred enemy. HIWPI, roll a d6 allong with the scatter dice when firing a blast weapon at a preferred enemy, like you would for Gets Hot!. If that roll comes up a one then you may re-roll your scatter dice.

So you're of the opinion that Twin Linked is literally the only ability that can reroll scatter?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Except any he has already re-rolled, and only if he actually rolled a one.

The problem with preferred enemy and blast weapons is that you are only allowed to re roll the scatter dice if you would be entitled to a re-roll if you made a to hit roll. In order for preferred enemy to entitle you to a re-roll you actually have to roll and get a one, with out that one you are not entitled to a re-roll. RAW you never going to be able to re-roll your scatter dice because of preferred enemy. HIWPI, roll a d6 allong with the scatter dice when firing a blast weapon at a preferred enemy, like you would for Gets Hot!. If that roll comes up a one then you may re-roll your scatter dice.

So you're of the opinion that Twin Linked is literally the only ability that can reroll scatter?

I am, It makes a lot more sense than you get to reroll everything. Like ammo runts rerolling all game long, using preferred enemy against all other armies.

RAW you don't roll to hit, so anything that triggers off a roll to hit does not happen for blasts.

No, anything that entitles you to a re roll your to hit rolls with out conditions (like twin linked) or anything where those conditions can be satisfied would allow you to re-roll the scatter dice. From the BRB that means

Twin-Linked

Master Crafted

Prescience

Precognition

 DJGietzen wrote:
No, anything that entitles you to a re roll your to hit rolls with out conditions (like twin linked) or anything where those conditions can be satisfied would allow you to re-roll the scatter dice. From the BRB that means

Twin-Linked

Master Crafted

Prescience

Precognition

Master-crafted, Prescience, and Precognition all require a failed To Hit roll. Therefore they have conditions, and by your own volition do not work.

 DJGietzen wrote:
No, anything that entitles you to a re roll your to hit rolls with out conditions (like twin linked) or anything where those conditions can be satisfied would allow you to re-roll the scatter dice. From the BRB that means

Twin-Linked

Master Crafted

Prescience

Precognition

The conditions on those can never be filled either, as you can not roll a miss on your to hit roll because you never roll to hit.

Hence you are arguing nothing re rolls scatter except twin liked and the blast re roll section is just space filler.

 DJGietzen wrote:
No, anything that entitles you to a re roll your to hit rolls with out conditions (like twin linked) or anything where those conditions can be satisfied would allow you to re-roll the scatter dice. From the BRB that means

Twin-Linked

Master Crafted

Prescience

Precognition

Twin Linked has its own rules to cover this situation.
The other abilities require a failed To Hit roll - something that can never happen with blasts.
Since you've said PE can't roll a 1, there's no difference between that and failing to hit.

Why are you treating the abilities differently - allowing some conditionals to reroll but not others?

 DJGietzen wrote:
No, anything that entitles you to a re roll your to hit rolls with out conditions (like twin linked) or anything where those conditions can be satisfied would allow you to re-roll the scatter dice. From the BRB that means

Twin-Linked

Master Crafted

Prescience

Precognition

Again, you dont seem to fololow what you are saying

Everything bar twinlinked requires a failed to-hit roll. It has a condition. Reroll rolls of 1 to hit is also a condition.

Be consistent - pick either your position (no condition on the to-hit) meaning ONLY twinlinked works, and means they wasted a bit of ink writing a rule with no application, or pick the one supported by the rules.

The written rules require no condition on "how good" a reroll, jus tthat you HAVE the ability to reroll, were you rolling to hit. Do you have the ability to reroll your to-hit dice with BS6+? Yes. Answering "no" is impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Steel-WOLF, I agree, and that is how I play it. However, for some reason, people are OK with "Re-roll failed To Hit" but not with "Re-roll To Hit rolls of 1". Despite the fact that neither requirement can be met when using blast weapons.

Indeed, this discrepancy - which is entirley ignored by the proponents of that position - is what is most puzzling.

Somehow they come up with a standard of "how good" your reroll to hit has to be for it to be allowed to reroll blast scatter, despite no such standard even being hinted at anywhere in the rules, ever. When presented evidence that the rules simply dont care "how good" your rerolls are, it is just ignored / hand waved away.

Oh, and just to show prescience () on this - another attempt to handwave away that the rules do not place ANY conditional on "how good" your reroll is, jus that you have that ability.

Just bought the Iyanden Supplement and found this interesting little bit well flicking through it.

Iyanden: A Codex:Eldar Supplement ; pg 49 ; Hemloc Wraithfighter ; second paragraph wrote:Just remember that, as the Hemloc 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 to obliterate.

Codex Eldar; pg 29 ; Spirit Mark ; second sentence wrote:All wraithguards, Wraithblades, Wraithknights,
and Hemloc Wraithfighters can re-roll To Hit rolls of 1
against spirit marked units.

Hemloc comes with 2 Heavy D-scythes ( i.e. Heavy 1, Blast weapons)

Already been found and discussed. "Fluff" or designers notes such as that are less than reliable.

When you have a rules system whetre the summary can be wrong trusting explicit non-rules (tactics, fluff, etc) to overturn a BRB rule? Nope.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Except any he has already re-rolled, and only if he actually rolled a one.

The problem with preferred enemy and blast weapons is that you are only allowed to re roll the scatter dice if you would be entitled to a re-roll if you made a to hit roll. In order for preferred enemy to entitle you to a re-roll you actually have to roll and get a one, with out that one you are not entitled to a re-roll. RAW you never going to be able to re-roll your scatter dice because of preferred enemy. HIWPI, roll a d6 allong with the scatter dice when firing a blast weapon at a preferred enemy, like you would for Gets Hot!. If that roll comes up a one then you may re-roll your scatter dice.

So you're of the opinion that Twin Linked is literally the only ability that can reroll scatter?

I am, It makes a lot more sense than you get to reroll everything. Like ammo runts rerolling all game long, using preferred enemy against all other armies.

RAW you don't roll to hit, so anything that triggers off a roll to hit does not happen for blasts.

Also my position: Only TL, in RaW, will allow re-roll of the Blast Dice.


Now if we were to apply the "If you fail to roll a HIT" from the TL rule to the list:

 DJGietzen wrote:

Master Crafted

Prescience

Precognition

I wonder how the part "Fail To Hit" and "Deos not roll a HIT" interact... But then that would be thinking rolling 3 dice "To Hit" as part of scatter is not actually a roll to hit at all and then page 33 pops up...

 BlackTalos wrote:
Also my position: Only TL, in RaW, will allow re-roll of the Blast Dice.

So you've changed your position then - thanks for clarifying.

Now if we were to apply the "If you fail to roll a HIT" from the TL rule to the list:

 DJGietzen wrote:

Master Crafted

Prescience

Precognition

I wonder how the part "Fail To Hit" and "Deos not roll a HIT" interact... But then that would be thinking rolling 3 dice "To Hit" as part of scatter is not actually a roll to hit at all and then page 33 pops up...

Sure, if you change rules because you feel like it all kinds of things can happen.
But failing to roll a Hit is not the same thing as failing a To Hit roll - doubly so because Blasts never roll To Hit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Also my position: Only TL, in RaW, will allow re-roll of the Blast Dice.

So you've changed your position then - thanks for clarifying.

This never changed... I've always said conditional for 1s do not allow rerolls of blast.
I then interpreted it worked for the list below, in the way described below. But you were quite keen on disproving that in Raw, so the result would be your answer...

rigeld2 wrote:

Now if we were to apply the "If you fail to roll a HIT" from the TL rule to the list:

 DJGietzen wrote:

Master Crafted

Prescience

Precognition

I wonder how the part "Fail To Hit" and "Deos not roll a HIT" interact... But then that would be thinking rolling 3 dice "To Hit" as part of scatter is not actually a roll to hit at all and then page 33 pops up...

Sure, if you change rules because you feel like it all kinds of things can happen.
But failing to roll a Hit is not the same thing as failing a To Hit roll - doubly so because Blasts never roll To Hit.

So when you roll a scatter and 2D6, it is a?
Roll to miss?

I agrees it is not a To Hit roll (which is clearly defined as 1 Dice), but is it still a roll to Hit with your blast weapon...

 BlackTalos wrote:
So when you roll a scatter and 2D6, it is a?
Roll to miss?

It is a roll to determine scatter.

I agrees it is not a To Hit roll (which is clearly defined as 1 Dice), but is it still a roll to Hit with your blast weapon...

Yes you are rolling to see if you hit. The problem, is that everything (barring Twin-linked, of course) that allows you to re-roll, requires you to fail a To Hit roll.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Also my position: Only TL, in RaW, will allow re-roll of the Blast Dice.

So you've changed your position then - thanks for clarifying.

This never changed... I've always said conditional for 1s do not allow rerolls of blast.
I then interpreted it worked for the list below, in the way described below. But you were quite keen on disproving that in Raw, so the result would be your answer...

You were asserting - repeatedly, and mocking any attempts to dissuade you - that Prescience was allowed allowed a reroll. This was in a RAW discussion, not a HYWPI discussion.
So you've changed your RAW viewpoint.

rigeld2 wrote:

Now if we were to apply the "If you fail to roll a HIT" from the TL rule to the list:

 DJGietzen wrote:

Master Crafted

Prescience

Precognition

I wonder how the part "Fail To Hit" and "Deos not roll a HIT" interact... But then that would be thinking rolling 3 dice "To Hit" as part of scatter is not actually a roll to hit at all and then page 33 pops up...

Sure, if you change rules because you feel like it all kinds of things can happen.
But failing to roll a Hit is not the same thing as failing a To Hit roll - doubly so because Blasts never roll To Hit.

So when you roll a scatter and 2D6, it is a?
Roll to miss?

Roll to scatter.

I agrees it is not a To Hit roll (which is clearly defined as 1 Dice), but is it still a roll to Hit with your blast weapon...

No, it is not. Blast weapons never roll to hit - they roll to scatter.

 Happyjew wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So when you roll a scatter and 2D6, it is a?
Roll to miss?

It is a roll to determine scatter.

I agrees it is not a To Hit roll (which is clearly defined as 1 Dice), but is it still a roll to Hit with your blast weapon...

Yes you are rolling to see if you hit. The problem, is that everything (barring Twin-linked, of course) that allows you to re-roll, requires you to fail a To Hit roll.

Oh i do agree:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Also my position: Only TL, in RaW, will allow re-roll of the Blast Dice.

For the sake of the "page 33 & re-rolls paragraph" then being redundant, that was RAI to get models "with unconditional re-rolls" to re-roll blasts, unfortunately even the most unconditional one were conditional and that paragraph no longer applies, in RaW.
Unless you apply the TL statement of "not Rolling HIT" universally to mean "fail To Hit", as it is a roll of dice to see if you hit.

 BlackTalos wrote:


For the sake of the "page 33 & re-rolls paragraph" then being redundant, that was RAI to get models "with unconditional re-rolls" to re-roll blasts, unfortunately even the most unconditional one were conditional and that paragraph no longer applies, in RaW.
Unless you apply the TL statement of "not Rolling HIT" universally to mean "fail To Hit", as it is a roll of dice to see if you hit.

right so just so I am clear, in your mind, they would write in a rule that has no effect on the game at all? and you feel the need to justify that rule's existance?

or

could it be that your hypothasis on this rule is incorrect and the other side (who's arguement doesn't require any adaptation of a rule, or have a need to make the rule work since, well it does) could be correct and you are wrong?

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


For the sake of the "page 33 & re-rolls paragraph" then being redundant, that was RAI to get models "with unconditional re-rolls" to re-roll blasts, unfortunately even the most unconditional one were conditional and that paragraph no longer applies, in RaW.
Unless you apply the TL statement of "not Rolling HIT" universally to mean "fail To Hit", as it is a roll of dice to see if you hit.

right so just so I am clear, in your mind, they would write in a rule that has no effect on the game at all? and you feel the need to justify that rule's existance?

or

could it be that your hypothasis on this rule is incorrect and the other side (who's arguement doesn't require any adaptation of a rule, or have a need to make the rule work since, well it does) could be correct and you are wrong?

Nahhhh!

Haven't you heard that old saying?: "The most complex, convoluted answer is usually correct."


Errr wait that's not how it goes......

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Haven't you heard that old saying?: "The most complex, convoluted answer is usually correct."

Isn't that Rozar S'Macco?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So when you roll a scatter and 2D6, it is a?
Roll to miss?

It is a roll to determine scatter.

I agrees it is not a To Hit roll (which is clearly defined as 1 Dice), but is it still a roll to Hit with your blast weapon...

Yes you are rolling to see if you hit. The problem, is that everything (barring Twin-linked, of course) that allows you to re-roll, requires you to fail a To Hit roll.

Oh i do agree:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Also my position: Only TL, in RaW, will allow re-roll of the Blast Dice.

For the sake of the "page 33 & re-rolls paragraph" then being redundant, that was RAI to get models "with unconditional re-rolls" to re-roll blasts, unfortunately even the most unconditional one were conditional and that paragraph no longer applies, in RaW.
Unless you apply the TL statement of "not Rolling HIT" universally to mean "fail To Hit", as it is a roll of dice to see if you hit.

except, and this is the part you keep handwaving away: the rule does not require you to be rolling to-hit, just to have the ability to reroll to-hit, were you rolling to hit. And a model which rerolls failed to-hit rolls of a 1 DOES HAVE, without a doubt, the ability to reroll their to-hit rolls

 nutty_nutter wrote:

right so just so I am clear, in your mind, they would write in a rule that has no effect on the game at all? and you feel the need to justify that rule's existance?

or

could it be that your hypothasis on this rule is incorrect and the other side (who's arguement doesn't require any adaptation of a rule, or have a need to make the rule work since, well it does) could be correct and you are wrong?

Obviously a rule with no effect would never be written... but one that was supposed to work but doesn't, that sounds familiar... So yes i feel the need to justify, even if it's a lost cause.

Or

the *hypothesis* (when discussing rules where words count for a lot, please be careful) of the other side leads to other issues, mainly allowing a lot more re-rolls than is intended.
The letters T F G then come to mind about then playing, say, a Riptide with Earth Cast Array (original issue that brought up the poll). And fielding army centred on using such an advantage.
/\
This has no effect on the argument. I understand your position fully, but cannot agree that the words:
"ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit" == "re-rolls failed To Hit (...) rolls of 1"
That you insist is right.

Your agreement isnt relevant.

You have the ability to reroll your to hit, as you can pick up dice showing "1" and reroll them. Is a "1" not a roll to-hit?

Given you are insisting there is some form of "quality" of reroll you must have, could you follow the tenets and produce some rules to back up your assertions?

You cannot actually produce them, however this is an attempt to get you to try to actually prove your case, rather than make unfounded, proven incorrect assertions.

(oh, and again - the quality of reroll is magically being discussed, despite the rules NEVER requiring any form of "quality" of reroll. Sure this was predicted by a few people, and its coming true again...)

 BlackTalos wrote:

the *hypothesis* (when discussing rules where words count for a lot, please be careful) of the other side leads to other issues, mainly allowing a lot more re-rolls than is intended.

Do you have evidence of what's intended? Or did you mean to say "... than what I think is intended." ?

It isnt a hypotehsis either, it is a theory. It was a hypothesis, and it was tested by not inventing new rules or ignoring existing ones, and found to be consistent with those rules.