I've searched up and down this forum looking for a previous thread and wasn't able to find anything...

Either way, can someone help me understand how the Preferred Enemy special rule is applied when rolling To Hit a blast weapon? Since you want lower rolls for scatter and Preferred Enemy specifically applies for rolls of 1, does it not apply to blast weapons? Any clarification would be GREATLY appreciated. Thank you!

This is one of the longest debated subjects on this Forum, as it has remained problematic over a great deal of Editions:
I am interested in a strange third option, and even that don't fix all the unusual scenario's, so I will allow the two main voices on this matter to make this another 12 page Thread.

Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter. If you enforce the need for a 1, you must also enforce the need for a failed To Hit roll for all abilities to be able to re-roll scatters, meaning that only Twin-linked works.

Repeat until Mod locks.

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter. If you enforce the need for a 1, you must also enforce the need for a failed To Hit roll for all abilities to be able to re-roll scatters, meaning that only Twin-linked works.

Repeat until Mod locks.

This is a adequate summary of both sides.

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter. If you enforce the need for a 1, you must also enforce the need for a failed To Hit roll for all abilities to be able to re-roll scatters, meaning that only Twin-linked works.

Thanks for getting me up to speed. Next time I'll do a google search for previous threads. Once I did that a bunch of the older debates popped up.

Is the wording any different between editions? Can we glean any clarity there?

 Jimsolo wrote:
Is the wording any different between editions? Can we glean any clarity there?

Lets just leave this as a well argued topic.

S'funny, with the edition change I was going to post a thread and see if there had been any shift in opinions on this, actually. With this thread up it seems kind of redundant. If anything though, an edition change seems like the time we actually should rehash the topic. It's completely possible that there is a rule in the book somewhere that might provide a little bit of insight on this one.

Well, the first line in the Blast special rule states they "do not roll to hit" and PE specifies that you re-roll to hit and to wound.

Seems pretty clear cut that if you don't do something in the first place, you can't do it again.

I'm new to the debate though, so I hope this doesn't open too many old wounds!

 azreal13 wrote:
Well, the first line in the Blast special rule states they "do not roll to hit" and PE specifies that you re-roll to hit and to wound.

Seems pretty clear cut that if you don't do something in the first place, you can't do it again.

I'm new to the debate though, so I hope this doesn't open too many old wounds!

The bone of contention comes when you look at the 'blasts and rerolls' section. If you have the ability to reroll your hits, you can reroll the scatter dice for a blast. The old argument hinged on whether the conditional rider attached to PE (only 1's) is irrelevant, or if it invalidates the ability to reroll scatter.

Ah, gotcha.

Yep, reading in a little further, the situation remains as fethed as ever.

Well done GW!

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter. If you enforce the need for a 1, you must also enforce the need for a failed To Hit roll for all abilities to be able to re-roll scatters, meaning that only Twin-linked works.

Repeat until Mod locks.

I like side B as it lets my buy one ammo runt and reroll my shock attack gun all game long at least for another couple weekd

 Jimsolo wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Well, the first line in the Blast special rule states they "do not roll to hit" and PE specifies that you re-roll to hit and to wound.

Seems pretty clear cut that if you don't do something in the first place, you can't do it again.

I'm new to the debate though, so I hope this doesn't open too many old wounds!

The bone of contention comes when you look at the 'blasts and rerolls' section. If you have the ability to reroll your hits, you can reroll the scatter dice for a blast. The old argument hinged on whether the conditional rider attached to PE (only 1's) is irrelevant, or if it invalidates the ability to reroll scatter.

I was reading it the same way as you azreal, until Jimsolo pointed out that detail. Now I'm back on the fence. Is an extra sentence of clarification from GW too much to ask?! Don't understand how this hasn't been addressed over the course of multiple editions. I've never witnessed an official GW sanctioned tournament but I would think that this would come up. Is there any other way to reach out and request some form of resolution?

Played at two ToS which plays it as the rules are written; all that is required is an ability to Reroll, not how good a Reroll you have.

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter. If you enforce the need for a 1, you must also enforce the need for a failed To Hit roll for all abilities to be able to re-roll scatters, meaning that only Twin-linked works.

Repeat until Mod locks.

Yeah i'm on the A side here, and unfortunately the new Rules do not make any changes to the debate.

I would note though, that Twin-Linked has changed in wording and reinforces my position a bit, but not enough to have a valid argument that "It can't be B"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Played at two ToS which plays it as the rules are written; all that is required is an ability to Reroll, not how good a Reroll you have.

are those tournaments sponsored/sanctioned by GW?

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter. If you enforce the need for a 1, you must also enforce the need for a failed To Hit roll for all abilities to be able to re-roll scatters, meaning that only Twin-linked works.

Repeat until Mod locks.

Me and my friends are with B.

 eluxir wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Played at two ToS which plays it as the rules are written; all that is required is an ability to Reroll, not how good a Reroll you have.

are those tournaments sponsored/sanctioned by GW?

Throne of skulls is run by GW staff at WHW in Nottingham. Yes, absolutely a "GW" tournament.

Wouldn't this make Twin-linked Flamers unable to reroll?

If so, why bother giving them Twin-linked in the first place?

They Reroll to wound instead.

Ahh, that makes sense then.

So couldn't the OP guy simply reroll to wound since he never rolls to hit?

Twin-linked have its own rules regarding templates and blasts. It takes precedence over Preferred Enemy because it's more specific

 Vector Strike wrote:
Twin-linked have its own rules regarding templates and blasts. It takes precedence over Preferred Enemy because it's more specific

Good to know, thank you

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 eluxir wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Played at two ToS which plays it as the rules are written; all that is required is an ability to Reroll, not how good a Reroll you have.

are those tournaments sponsored/sanctioned by GW?

Throne of skulls is run by GW staff at WHW in Nottingham. Yes, absolutely a "GW" tournament.

So, not to muddy the waters, but what's the consensus on Pask, Old Grudges, and Executioner Russes?

Would his unit be able to re-roll their Gets Hot! results from shooting the plasma cannons as a result of gaining Preferred Enemy (Codex)?

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:
So, not to muddy the waters, but what's the consensus on Pask, Old Grudges, and Executioner Russes?

Would his unit be able to re-roll their Gets Hot! results from shooting the plasma cannons as a result of gaining Preferred Enemy (Codex)?

DoW

You still either have choice A or choice B. There is no consensus on this. Pick whichever until GW Faqs it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter. If you enforce the need for a 1, you must also enforce the need for a failed To Hit roll for all abilities to be able to re-roll scatters, meaning that only Twin-linked works.

Repeat until Mod locks.

I like side B as it lets my buy one ammo runt and reroll my shock attack gun all game long at least for another couple weekd

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you only use the ammo grunt a limited number of times?
The :re-rolls and blasts" rules require you to actually use the re-roll in order to re-roll a blast.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter. If you enforce the need for a 1, you must also enforce the need for a failed To Hit roll for all abilities to be able to re-roll scatters, meaning that only Twin-linked works.

Repeat until Mod locks.

I like side B as it lets my buy one ammo runt and reroll my shock attack gun all game long at least for another couple weekd

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you only use the ammo grunt a limited number of times?
The :re-rolls and blasts" rules require you to actually use the re-roll in order to re-roll a blast.

Like nos said

all that is required is an ability to Reroll, not how good a Reroll you have.

the runt grants the SAG a reroll, yes it's usually only once per game, but the SAG has the ability to reroll so blasts allows it all game.

I also never understood why the argument for side B doesn't extend to PE allowing to reroll blasts against everything no matter what the preferred enemy is. Cause the requirement is "rerolled failed to hits of 1 against PE." So if you can ignore the needing to roll a 1, why would you enforce the PE part since it's all contained in the same conditional on the sentence.

chanceafs wrote:
I also never understood why the argument for side B doesn't extend to PE allowing to reroll blasts against everything no matter what the preferred enemy is. Cause the requirement is "rerolled failed to hits of 1 against PE." So if you can ignore the needing to roll a 1, why would you enforce the PE part since it's all contained in the same conditional on the sentence.

They did, you should look for the last few threads on the subject. quite a fun read. That's when I jumped in with the ammo runts and they had to agree that yes a ammo runt that is supposed to be used once per game did, by their reasoning, let me reroll all game long.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I like side B as it lets my buy one ammo runt and reroll my shock attack gun all game long at least for another couple weekd

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you only use the ammo grunt a limited number of times?
The :re-rolls and blasts" rules require you to actually use the re-roll in order to re-roll a blast.

Like nos said

all that is required is an ability to Reroll, not how good a Reroll you have.

the runt grants the SAG a reroll, yes it's usually only once per game, but the SAG has the ability to reroll so blasts allows it all game.

"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."
You may only choose to re-roll with the ammo grunt once per game.

chanceafs wrote:I also never understood why the argument for side B doesn't extend to PE allowing to reroll blasts against everything no matter what the preferred enemy is. Cause the requirement is "rerolled failed to hits of 1 against PE." So if you can ignore the needing to roll a 1, why would you enforce the PE part since it's all contained in the same conditional on the sentence.

Because you cannot choose to re-roll with Preferred Enemy if you're not firing at your Preferred Enemy.

 PrinceRaven wrote:


"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."
You may only choose to re-roll with the ammo grunt once per game.

Not quite, the ammo runt has nothing to do with the ability it grants, it's just decoration.

"a model with an ammo runt is allowed to reroll one to hit roll for a shooting attack, once per game"

"if a model has the ability to reroll it's rolls to hits..."

there you have it, the SAG model has the ability to reroll. Side B allows it all game long.

go find the last thread, like I said it's a good read. I'd never play it that way, but I guess if that's the way GW is ruling it, and the wording doesn't change soon, I might as well.

Fine, you may only choose to re-roll with the model who has an ammo grunt once per game.
Either way, you can only choose to use this re-roll once, so there's no way you're getting re-rolls all game according to RAW.

The other problem that cropped up with option B is that it's any and all options to re-roll. Including the ones that are supposed to make your shooting less accurate like the old Objuration Mechanicum ("..., the target unit must re-roll To Hit and To Wound rolls of a 6.") If things like "to hit rolls of a 1" aren't taken as pre-conditions, then neither are "to hit rolls of a 6" and so curses make blast weapons more accurate.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Fine, you may only choose to re-roll with the model who has an ammo grunt once per game.
Either way, you can only choose to use this re-roll once, so there's no way you're getting re-rolls all game according to RAW.

That's Side A thinking. If as NOS says, side B is the way GW is going, (all that is required is an ability to Reroll) then my model bought a runt, and has the ability to reroll and therefore blasts allows it to reroll for the entire game.

RAW, does my model have the ability to reroll? yes.
For another couple weeks at least

I'm solidly on side B.
Please explain how you are able to choose to re-roll to hit multiple times (in order to fulfil the requirements of the "re-rolls and blasts" rule) with a once per game ability.

Chrysis wrote:
The other problem that cropped up with option B is that it's any and all options to re-roll. Including the ones that are supposed to make your shooting less accurate like the old Objuration Mechanicum ("..., the target unit must re-roll To Hit and To Wound rolls of a 6.") If things like "to hit rolls of a 1" aren't taken as pre-conditions, then neither are "to hit rolls of a 6" and so curses make blast weapons more accurate.

and the problem with Option A is that it required making up an entirelyt new rule to the one in the rulebook.

You do not have to have rerolled your to-hit; as the rule states, you must simply have the ability to.

The rule also doesnt state "have the ability to reroll all to-hit rolls" or any such conditional denoting how good a reroll you have; any reroll ability is sufficient.

Yes it has some edge cases where this goes a little wonky. Does not alter the factual rules.

 eluxir wrote:
I've searched up and down this forum looking for a previous thread and wasn't able to find anything...

Either way, can someone help me understand how the Preferred Enemy special rule is applied when rolling To Hit a blast weapon? Since you want lower rolls for scatter and Preferred Enemy specifically applies for rolls of 1, does it not apply to blast weapons? Any clarification would be GREATLY appreciated. Thank you!

I call lies.

this comes up once a week at least.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm solidly on side B.
Please explain how you are able to choose to re-roll to hit multiple times (in order to fulfil the requirements of the "re-rolls and blasts" rule) with a once per game ability.

Once per game you can re-roll a To Hit roll. Did you re-roll a to hit roll? No, you rerolled scatter for a blast. Therefore you didn't use what you needed to for the Once per game to matter. But since you have something that COULD allow you to re-roll to hit, by Side B's reasoning, you can re-roll blasts.

So you didn't choose to re-roll a to hit roll? Fine, then you can't re-roll the blast.
""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." "

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Chrysis wrote:
The other problem that cropped up with option B is that it's any and all options to re-roll. Including the ones that are supposed to make your shooting less accurate like the old Objuration Mechanicum ("..., the target unit must re-roll To Hit and To Wound rolls of a 6.") If things like "to hit rolls of a 1" aren't taken as pre-conditions, then neither are "to hit rolls of a 6" and so curses make blast weapons more accurate.

and the problem with Option A is that it required making up an entirelyt new rule to the one in the rulebook.

You do not have to have rerolled your to-hit; as the rule states, you must simply have the ability to.

The rule also doesnt state "have the ability to reroll all to-hit rolls" or any such conditional denoting how good a reroll you have; any reroll ability is sufficient.

Yes it has some edge cases where this goes a little wonky. Does not alter the factual rules.

As Nos points out for Side B: you simply need the ability, and you get the re-roll, no matter what the conditions.
For ammo runts and Maledictions, the ability is there, so you get the re-roll. PE only give the ability when firing at your PE, so the ability itself is there a conditional.

I'm on Side A, and logically it works for me basing on Twin-Linked wording.
The conditionals are always there:
In order to "have" the re-roll, you must have rolled a 1, rolled a 6, missed your roll etc...
Twin-Linked is then very clear in it's wording of what is considered "A Miss" when firing Blast weapons.

Ergo we know exactly when the condition "miss" is met with blast weapons when using prescience etc.

Applying a Special Rule as a general rule for the game mechanics? Probably but i see no issue with it.

No, youre again conflating having a reroll available, with having the ability to reroll

There is no conditional here. Do you have, if you are firing a weapon that rolls to hit, access to a reroll of that to hit? Then, if you are instead firing a Blast weapon which does NOT roll to-hit, you instead can reroll scatter.

If you are on side A you are claiming only twinlinked works, and doing so by changing the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, youre again conflating having a reroll available, with having the ability to reroll

There is no conditional here. Do you have, if you are firing a weapon that rolls to hit, access to a reroll of that to hit? Then, if you are instead firing a Blast weapon which does NOT roll to-hit, you instead can reroll scatter.

If you are on side A you are claiming only twinlinked works, and doing so by changing the rules.

More along the lines of: I am claiming everything works like Twin-Linked.

And i go by the definition of ability: "possession of the means or skill to do something": I do not have the "ability" until i actually roll a 1, a miss, or a 2.
Before the dice is rolled on the table, i have certain special rules: Prescience, PE, Twin-linked. But i only ever have the ability to re-roll when that Special rules kicks in: when a miss or 1 is rolled. Whether that is a To Hit roll or a Template or a Blast weapon.

What does a mastercrafted flamer do now? - is that in a similar mess?

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, youre again conflating having a reroll available, with having the ability to reroll

There is no conditional here. Do you have, if you are firing a weapon that rolls to hit, access to a reroll of that to hit? Then, if you are instead firing a Blast weapon which does NOT roll to-hit, you instead can reroll scatter.

If you are on side A you are claiming only twinlinked works, and doing so by changing the rules.

More along the lines of: I am claiming everything works like Twin-Linked.

And i go by the definition of ability: "possession of the means or skill to do something": I do not have the "ability" until i actually roll a 1, a miss, or a 2.
Before the dice is rolled on the table, i have certain special rules: Prescience, PE, Twin-linked. But i only ever have the ability to re-roll when that Special rules kicks in: when a miss or 1 is rolled. Whether that is a To Hit roll or a Template or a Blast weapon.

Again, you possess the ability, and if you were rolling to-hit it would occur on a 1 or 2 (etc)

However you do not ever roll to hit, meaning that entire rule is, as you are claiming, useless. Twinlinked and blast already covers this explicitly, so you are claiming they wrote an entire rule - deliberately, as it did not appear in prior editions to 6th - to no use?

Is that your claim?

You are still also supplying a conditional of "how good" a reroll you need to have before you "have" the abilty. If you reroll all misses, or some, you still have the abilitiy to reroll, which is all that is required.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, you possess the ability, and if you were rolling to-hit it would occur on a 1 or 2 (etc)

However you do not ever roll to hit, meaning that entire rule is, as you are claiming, useless. Twinlinked and blast already covers this explicitly, so you are claiming they wrote an entire rule - deliberately, as it did not appear in prior editions to 6th - to no use?

Is that your claim?

I believe they wrote the paragraph "Blasts and Re-rolls" in order to have Blasts work *like Twin-Linked* for Special rules like Prescience and others that let you re-roll when you miss a shot.
These do not call out certain numbers like 1 or 6 on a dice, but simply a "missed shot" which, imo the Special Rule: Twin-Link defines very clearly in the case of blasts.

If that paragraph did not exist, Prescience would have no effect on Blast weapons.

Why they did not simply remove that paragraph and list things like Prescience as "giving the units Twin-Linked" is above me however. But i'm sure there are technical reasons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are still also supplying a conditional of "how good" a reroll you need to have before you "have" the abilty. If you reroll all misses, or some, you still have the abilitiy to reroll, which is all that is required.

The main difference between our views that i can see is this:

- You believe that you "have" a re-roll before you roll the dice on the table: Shred will allow you to roll ALL the dice you roll for that unit, in To Wound rolls, a second time.

- I believe that the RaW about re-rolls are for when a result is perceived: You just rolled a D6 - it lands on 1 - That roll was during a To Wound roll, against enemy infantry and does not meet "passing" requirement to inflict a Wound. That dice is now eligible, or "has the ability" to be re-rolled.

In essence, i do not think units with Shred, Prescience or PE have a re-roll of any kind. They just follow special rules that, upon rolling a dice with conditions, will give you the ability to re-roll that dice.
The condition of Rolling a 1 is the same as the condition that you must roll on the table and not the floor. Or the condition that it must be a To Hit roll or an armour save.

The thing is, for Prescience to allow you to re-roll blasts, Preferred Enemy must as well, as both are conditional upon you rolling certain numbers on the to hit roll.

Blacktalos - Prescience on a BS4 model requires different numbers to be rolled for you to get the reroll than on an BS2 model. Again, you are claiming that "all failed to hit" is a better type of reroll than "all failed to hit of 1", when on a BS5 model *they are exactly the same" in effect.

My claim is that if you are told "I can reroll my to-hit rolls [of 1]" it is exactly the same as far as the rule is concerned as "I can reroll my tohit rolls [of 12, 23, and 3s]" because the rule only cares about the ability to reroll, and nothing about the actual reroll itself.

You have the ability to reroll your dice on a to-hit roll or you do not. That is ALL that the rule requires.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm solidly on side B.
Please explain how you are able to choose to re-roll to hit multiple times (in order to fulfil the requirements of the "re-rolls and blasts" rule) with a once per game ability.

Maybe you'll listen to NOS

You do not have to have rerolled your to-hit; as the rule states, you must simply have the ability to.

The rule also doesnt state "have the ability to reroll all to-hit rolls" or any such conditional denoting how good a reroll you have; any reroll ability is sufficient.

Yes it has some edge cases where this goes a little wonky. Does not alter the factual rules.

the SAG has the ability to
the conditions are irrelevant.
Where he admits it goes a bit wonky is for ammo runts.

Blasts allows the reroll of the scatter dice for any model with a reroll. no to hit rolls were rerolled, not even once.

chanceafs wrote:
I also never understood why the argument for side B doesn't extend to PE allowing to reroll blasts against everything no matter what the preferred enemy is. Cause the requirement is "rerolled failed to hits of 1 against PE." So if you can ignore the needing to roll a 1, why would you enforce the PE part since it's all contained in the same conditional on the sentence.

If you're not firing at your PE do you have a reroll available? No? Okay then.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Blacktalos - Prescience on a BS4 model requires different numbers to be rolled for you to get the reroll than on an BS2 model. Again, you are claiming that "all failed to hit" is a better type of reroll than "all failed to hit of 1", when on a BS5 model *they are exactly the same" in effect.

My claim is that if you are told "I can reroll my to-hit rolls [of 1]" it is exactly the same as far as the rule is concerned as "I can reroll my tohit rolls [of 12, 23, and 3s]" because the rule only cares about the ability to reroll, and nothing about the actual reroll itself.

You have the ability to reroll your dice on a to-hit roll or you do not. That is ALL that the rule requires.

Do not worry, i fully understand Side B and how the interpretation works, but imo it assumes that you "have" the re-roll before you even throw the dice.
HIWPI is exactly that, you have the re-roll so you immediately pick-up and throw the "failed" dice.

But discussing RaW, a model with BS5 and Prescience is very different to a model with BS2 and PE.

Both get to re-roll a 1 with a standard weapon, but on a Blast weapon the mechanics would be very different. Even going by side B, both would re-roll but the model with PE would still only scatter -2" which is always different to -5". That simple difference is a logical argument that they are not the same thing, even if they seem that way.


To kind of close up because the discussion will never lead anywhere as it did in the many other threads:

Both Sides A and Side B, as i see them are correct by RaW.
Side A imposes all the conditionals that are required in order to "get" the re-roll, but then does not allow anything apart from Twin-Linked. Unless, as I do, you apply what TL defines as a "miss" for Blast the rest of the book
Side B is Occam's razor. However it also means that units afflicted with "reroll 6s" due to malediction can re-roll their blast weapons by choice. An inherent fault that most will simply "not play".

As I said, edge cases are wonky.

While a bs2 and bs5 model are different, they both have exactly the same "degree" of Reroll available to them. And we're only discussing rerolls, not how far something scatters.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Both get to re-roll a 1 with a standard weapon, but on a Blast weapon the mechanics would be very different. Even going by side B, both would re-roll but the model with PE would still only scatter -2" which is always different to -5". That simple difference is a logical argument that they are not the same thing, even if they seem that way.

Except when dealing with Indirect Fire Barrages.

rigeld2 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
I also never understood why the argument for side B doesn't extend to PE allowing to reroll blasts against everything no matter what the preferred enemy is. Cause the requirement is "rerolled failed to hits of 1 against PE." So if you can ignore the needing to roll a 1, why would you enforce the PE part since it's all contained in the same conditional on the sentence.

If you're not firing at your PE do you have a reroll available? No? Okay then.

Except the requirement to need to be shooting at your PE is in the same clause of the same sentence as needing to roll a 1 to Hit... so how do you justify ignoring one part of that sentence while enforcing another. They are part of the same conditional.

"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."

Green = Who benefits from this special rule
Red = effect of the special rule
Blue = Condition of the special rule that must be fulfilled to activate the effect.

If you are not firing at your Preferred Enemy, you do not have the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls, and thus can not fulfil the requirements of the "re-rolls and blasts" rule.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"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."

Green = Who benefits from this special rule
Red = effect of the special rule
Blue = Condition of the special rule that must be fulfilled to activate the effect.

If you are not firing at your Preferred Enemy, you do not have the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls, and thus can not fulfil the requirements of the "re-rolls and blasts" rule.

And if there were any punctuation, or clues from the text to support a distinction between blue and red that would be acceptable. But there is not. From the way that sentence is contructed, you don't even look to see if you are shooting at your preferred enemy until after a 1 has been rolled. And as stated above, all that matters for blasts is that you have the ability to re-roll a To Hit roll, regardless of ANY conditions put on that re-roll. Claiming that you get to ignore one condition but enforce the other is quite simply hypocritical.

The word "if" is the textual clue.
X if Y = X is the effect, Y is the condition.

The only "conditions" ignored by Re-rolls and Blasts rules are the number you roll on the to-hit dice.

but the If you are referring to is itself predicated on a To Hit or To Wound roll of 1. If you don't roll 1, there is no reason to check if you are shooting at your preferred enemy, if you never roll a 1. Thus if you are granted permission to skip the To Hit conditional, there is no reason to check the other condition.

If the special rule, states prior to the roll that you only gain the benefits of the rule if targeting a PE, then that would be a different story. But it does not, it only adds that conditional after a "to Hit" roll. So no 'To Hit' Roll, no check for PE.

Of course there's a reason to check, the Re-rolls and Blasts rules.
Do you have the ability to re-roll to hit?
Hmm, let me check. Oh, I've got Preferred Enemy, since I'm firing at my preferred enemy I do have the ability to re-roll to hit. I shall choose to do so, allowing me to re-roll the scatter die and 2d6.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Of course there's a reason to check, the Re-rolls and Blasts rules.
Do you have the ability to re-roll to hit?
Hmm, let me check. Oh, I've got Preferred Enemy, since I'm firing at my preferred enemy I do have the ability to re-roll to hit. I shall choose to do so, allowing me to re-roll the scatter die and 2d6.

Do you have the ability to re-roll to hit?
Hmm, let me check. I've got Earth Caste array, since (certain conditions are met) I do have the ability to re-roll to hit. I shall choose to do so, allowing me to re-roll the scatter die and 2d6.
Hmm, let me check. I've got Prescience, since (certain conditions are met) I do have the ability to re-roll to hit. I shall choose to do so, allowing me to re-roll the scatter die and 2d6.
Hmm, let me check. Oh, I've got Preferred Enemy, since (certain conditions are met) I do have the ability to re-roll to hit. I shall choose to do so, allowing me to re-roll the scatter die and 2d6.


Either you check those conditions... which in all 3 cases require a To Hit roll, and thus can't be checked, or you don't.

PE has a separate condition, handily denoted b y the conditional "if"

Prescience does not have a condition attached, any unit with Prescience on it has the ability to re-roll to hit rolls.

Re-roll FAILED to hits. You have to fail. And you can't fail a 'To Hit' roll if you don't make one.

That is the condition on the reroll. The seperate condition is you dont even have a reroll unless (if) you are firing at your PE.

2 different conditions, one is "how good a reroll", which the Blast weapons rule doesnt give two hoots about, and the other is whether you have that ability or not

Dont conflate the two

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That is the condition on the reroll. The seperate condition is you dont even have a reroll unless (if) you are firing at your PE.

2 different conditions, one is "how good a reroll", which the Blast weapons rule doesnt give two hoots about, and the other is whether you have that ability or not

Dont conflate the two

They are conflated in the sentence they are presented in. What gives you permission to separate them?

The word "if" which separates the two statements, making one conditional on the other.

chanceafs wrote:
Do you have the ability to re-roll to hit?
Hmm, let me check. I've got Earth Caste array, since (certain conditions are met) I do have the ability to re-roll to hit. I shall choose to do so, allowing me to re-roll the scatter die and 2d6.
Hmm, let me check. I've got Prescience, since (certain conditions are met) I do have the ability to re-roll to hit. I shall choose to do so, allowing me to re-roll the scatter die and 2d6.
Hmm, let me check. Oh, I've got Preferred Enemy, since (certain conditions are met) I do have the ability to re-roll to hit. I shall choose to do so, allowing me to re-roll the scatter die and 2d6.

Just pointing out from this you seem to be in the same position as me:

You only "have the ability" when the conditions are met, ie after having rolled the dice.
I would compare it to: You get to re-roll a Dice that fell on the floor, but only after it fell on the floor.

Side B people you are arguing with are saying you have that re-roll even before you touch the Dice you are going to Roll.
As much as i am against it logically, it is not incorrect within RaW.

But every Dice you pick up "has the ability to reroll": it always has a chance of rolling onto the floor. Which isn't, in my opinion, the right way to see things.

chanceafs wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That is the condition on the reroll. The seperate condition is you dont even have a reroll unless (if) you are firing at your PE.

2 different conditions, one is "how good a reroll", which the Blast weapons rule doesnt give two hoots about, and the other is whether you have that ability or not

Dont conflate the two

They are conflated in the sentence they are presented in. What gives you permission to separate them?

"IF" separates it out for you, as already stated. Your opinion otherwise is not releveant, this is a factual element of language construction

Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

KommissarKarl wrote:
Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

Agreed, but you still have the option. Our in house rules have been allowing the re-roll if one of the 2D6 is a 1 when rolling for scatter.

KommissarKarl wrote:Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

Because that's not what the blasts rules tell you to do.

eluxir wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

Agreed, but you still have the option. Our in house rules have been allowing the re-roll if one of the 2D6 is a 1 when rolling for scatter.

Not even close to actual rules on how to deal with rerolls and blasts, but okay.

rigeld2 wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

Because that's not what the blasts rules tell you to do.

eluxir wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

Agreed, but you still have the option. Our in house rules have been allowing the re-roll if one of the 2D6 is a 1 when rolling for scatter.

Not even close to actual rules on how to deal with rerolls and blasts, but okay.

well i'm essentially a new player (why i started this thread in the first place) who's playing with a group of people who have been around for multiple editions. don't expect them to know everything and wouldn't be surprised if we're playing it wrong, so please enlighten me on how we should be dealing with rerolls and blasts with PE. rather than always granting the re-roll (Side B), the rules we've been playing still require the PE condition of rolling a 1 (argument of Side A only Side A claims you can't roll a 1 when rolling scatter for blasts). are we missing something obvious here? please point it out and i'll be the first to admit i was mistaken.

saying i'm wrong without offering a correct solution isn't very constructive and defeats the purpose of this thread entirely. more than anything, i'm here to learn!

 eluxir wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

Because that's not what the blasts rules tell you to do.

eluxir wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

Agreed, but you still have the option. Our in house rules have been allowing the re-roll if one of the 2D6 is a 1 when rolling for scatter.

Not even close to actual rules on how to deal with rerolls and blasts, but okay.

well i'm essentially a new player (why i started this thread in the first place) who's playing with a group of people who have been around for multiple editions. don't expect them to know everything and wouldn't be surprised if we're playing it wrong, so please enlighten me on how we should be dealing with rerolls and blasts with PE. rather than always granting the re-roll (Side B), the rules we've been playing still require the PE condition of rolling a 1 (argument of Side A only Side A claims you can't roll a 1 when rolling scatter for blasts). are we missing something obvious here? please point it out and i'll be the first to admit i was mistaken.

saying i'm wrong without offering a correct solution isn't very constructive and defeats the purpose of this thread entirely. more than anything, i'm here to learn!

The correct way is the way you choose to play it.

so pick a point between:
just twin link allows blast rerolls.
if it allows all failed to hit rolls, then either allow it or not.
if it needs to roll a specific number to hit, then either allow it or not
the merest possibility of a reroll allows blasts to reroll, or not.

The choice you and your group agree to is the right one. RAW is probably one of those 4, but there is no consensus on this site.

 eluxir wrote:
well i'm essentially a new player (why i started this thread in the first place) who's playing with a group of people who have been around for multiple editions. don't expect them to know everything and wouldn't be surprised if we're playing it wrong, so please enlighten me on how we should be dealing with rerolls and blasts with PE. rather than always granting the re-roll (Side B), the rules we've been playing still require the PE condition of rolling a 1 (argument of Side A only Side A claims you can't roll a 1 when rolling scatter for blasts). are we missing something obvious here? please point it out and i'll be the first to admit i was mistaken.

saying i'm wrong without offering a correct solution isn't very constructive and defeats the purpose of this thread entirely. more than anything, i'm here to learn!

PE requires you to roll a 1 to hit. Blasts never, ever roll to hit. So your house rule has no basis in actual rules - a scatter is not a roll to hit.
If you'd read through the thread and read the rules involved you'd understand why I said your house rule was not even close to the actual rules. I'm not saying your house rule is wrong - it can't be if that's what you've decided as a group - I'm saying your house rule isn't close to the actual rules.

The actual rules give you the reroll. Note - side A's opinion means that things like Prescience don't work for Blasts either... and really only Twin Linked does.

chanceafs wrote:
Re-roll FAILED to hits. You have to fail. And you can't fail a 'To Hit' roll if you don't make one.

This is an exceptionally important and inconvenient point that people largely choose to ignore in their liquid logic that they shape to pursue their chosen answer. Most re-roll opportunities have a condition.

sirlynchmob wrote:

The correct way is the way you choose to play it.

so pick a point between:
just twin link allows blast rerolls.
if it allows all failed to hit rolls, then either allow it or not.
if it needs to roll a specific number to hit, then either allow it or not
the merest possibility of a reroll allows blasts to reroll, or not.

The choice you and your group agree to is the right one. RAW is probably one of those 4, but there is no consensus on this site.

rigeld2 wrote:
PE requires you to roll a 1 to hit. Blasts never, ever roll to hit. So your house rule has no basis in actual rules - a scatter is not a roll to hit.
If you'd read through the thread and read the rules involved you'd understand why I said your house rule was not even close to the actual rules. I'm not saying your house rule is wrong - it can't be if that's what you've decided as a group - I'm saying your house rule isn't close to the actual rules.

The actual rules give you the reroll. Note - side A's opinion means that things like Prescience don't work for Blasts either... and really only Twin Linked does.

understood. i see where i was getting confused ( ) and i appreciate the explanation. definitely curious to find out how this is being played at the local hobby stores in my area... one of which is an actual GW store.

Nope no rerolls for blast weapons with preferred enemy , it's clear you can reroll 1's, yes I know blast says yada yada if you gave the ability to reroll go ahead. Point is you didn't roll a one therefore you do not have the reroll ability when your blast misses completely.

So by that logic neither would you have the ability to re-roll if you had Prescience cast on the unit, as you did not fail a to hit roll.
In fact, every single re-roll would be unable to be used via the "Re-rolls and Blasts" rules. Only Twin-Linked would actually allow you to re-roll a blast, and only because of the rules found in Twin-Linked. Under your interpretation the "Re-rolls and Blasts" rules would be completely impotent.

Lungpickle wrote:
Nope no rerolls for blast weapons with preferred enemy , it's clear you can reroll 1's, yes I know blast says yada yada if you gave the ability to reroll go ahead. Point is you didn't roll a one therefore you do not have the reroll ability when your blast misses completely.

Good job the rules don't say anything like your claim, meaning you do get rerolls, RAW.

You don't Reroll to hit, so a condition based on a to hit roll can never be satisfied. Good job it never asks you to roll to gave , just the ability ....

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So by that logic neither would you have the ability to re-roll if you had Prescience cast on the unit, as you did not fail a to hit roll.

That's the part where I use the wording from the TL rule to say that:
Actually, the Blast weapon can fail to hit, as is described on p(xx): Twin-Linked.

As we are going by logic, there is precedence of what a "Fail to hit" is with a Blast.


Just trying to make sure you understand how Side A is not "Just Twin-linked", but "Failed To Hit rolls" too. PE specifying "Failed To Hit" + "of a 1" is an added condition unfortunately unobtainable on a Scatter.
Specifying in case: Side B is completely right and within RaW.

You cannot "fail to hit" if you never roll to hit in the first place. Which is where side a falls down, by applying an inconsistent standard

That's where i would've disagreed before, but even more so now that the Rules for Twin-Linked have been re-worded.

The last paragraph i think it was of Twin-Linked (i will confirm once i have my book again).

They equate a Failed To Hit roll to not rolling a Hit on the Scatter dice. Which to me is one and the same. If we discuss this further, then it is discussing Author's intent, which will be impossible and therefore not an argument i can make.
My argument as it stands here is that: Twin-Linked, imo "defines" what a Failed To Hit roll is for a Blast weapon, and that definition stands for the entire book.

Therefore the only flaw i can see in this argument is that you "cannot apply TL to everything in the game" basically.

 BlackTalos wrote:
That's where i would've disagreed before, but even more so now that the Rules for Twin-Linked have been re-worded.

The last paragraph i think it was of Twin-Linked (i will confirm once i have my book again).

They equate a Failed To Hit roll to not rolling a Hit on the Scatter dice. Which to me is one and the same. If we discuss this further, then it is discussing Author's intent, which will be impossible and therefore not an argument i can make.
My argument as it stands here is that: Twin-Linked, imo "defines" what a Failed To Hit roll is for a Blast weapon, and that definition stands for the entire book.

Therefore the only flaw i can see in this argument is that you "cannot apply TL to everything in the game" basically.

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

That's no more equating a miss and not rolling a hit on the scatter dice than this equates a miss with failing to wound:

“Twin-linked Template weapons are fired just like a single weapon, but must re-roll failed To Wound rolls and armour penetration rolls.”

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
That's where i would've disagreed before, but even more so now that the Rules for Twin-Linked have been re-worded.

The last paragraph i think it was of Twin-Linked (i will confirm once i have my book again).

They equate a Failed To Hit roll to not rolling a Hit on the Scatter dice. Which to me is one and the same. If we discuss this further, then it is discussing Author's intent, which will be impossible and therefore not an argument i can make.
My argument as it stands here is that: Twin-Linked, imo "defines" what a Failed To Hit roll is for a Blast weapon, and that definition stands for the entire book.

Therefore the only flaw i can see in this argument is that you "cannot apply TL to everything in the game" basically.

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

That's no more equating a miss and not rolling a hit on the scatter dice than this equates a miss with failing to wound:

“Twin-linked Template weapons are fired just like a single weapon, but must re-roll failed To Wound rolls and armour penetration rolls.”

I understand the logic there, but the original line (Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) on p158 is only for Blasts, so any rule referring to templates you quoted above are effectively ignored (irrelevant).

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

This one though is specifically referring to Blasts and how they work.
As said previously, applying TL to defining Blasts is a stretch, but not wrong.

 BlackTalos wrote:

I understand the logic there, but the original line (Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) on p158 is only for Blasts, so any rule referring to templates you quoted above are effectively ignored (irrelevant).

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

This one though is specifically referring to Blasts and how they work.
As said previously, applying TL to defining Blasts is a stretch, but not wrong.

You don't understand what I was getting at then.
Your assumption is that it's okay to treat all blasts like twin-linked does, and any failure to roll hit is a failure to hit. Correct?
Why does it not follow, then, that any failure to wound with any template is a failure to hit?

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
That's where i would've disagreed before, but even more so now that the Rules for Twin-Linked have been re-worded.

The last paragraph i think it was of Twin-Linked (i will confirm once i have my book again).

They equate a Failed To Hit roll to not rolling a Hit on the Scatter dice. Which to me is one and the same. If we discuss this further, then it is discussing Author's intent, which will be impossible and therefore not an argument i can make.
My argument as it stands here is that: Twin-Linked, imo "defines" what a Failed To Hit roll is for a Blast weapon, and that definition stands for the entire book.

Therefore the only flaw i can see in this argument is that you "cannot apply TL to everything in the game" basically.

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

That's no more equating a miss and not rolling a hit on the scatter dice than this equates a miss with failing to wound:

“Twin-linked Template weapons are fired just like a single weapon, but must re-roll failed To Wound rolls and armour penetration rolls.”

I understand the logic there, but the original line (Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) on p158 is only for Blasts, so any rule referring to templates you quoted above are effectively ignored (irrelevant).

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

This one though is specifically referring to Blasts and how they work.
As said previously, applying TL to defining Blasts is a stretch, but not wrong.

That no more defines a miss of a to-hit for blasts than anything else, as Blasts never, ever roll to-hit. So I disagree - it IS wrong to use TL to define what a "hit" is for blasts. If am BS10 and I roll a scatter and 10" on the two dice, I have STILL "hit" my initial placement of the marker.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

I understand the logic there, but the original line (Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) on p158 is only for Blasts, so any rule referring to templates you quoted above are effectively ignored (irrelevant).

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

This one though is specifically referring to Blasts and how they work.
As said previously, applying TL to defining Blasts is a stretch, but not wrong.

You don't understand what I was getting at then.
Your assumption is that it's okay to treat all blasts like twin-linked does, and any failure to roll hit is a failure to hit. Correct?
Why does it not follow, then, that any failure to wound with any template is a failure to hit?

Correct.
The reason I would include the TL paragraph about Blast Weapons, is because the core issue or OP is about Blast Weapons. The paragraph about Templates and "equating the same" does not follow because it has nothing to do with Blast Weapons.

ie we are discussing Blast Weapons: only RaW about blast weapons can be argued here, comparing Blast weapons to the standard method ("Roll To Hit") and other rules that might mention Blast Weapons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That no more defines a miss of a to-hit for blasts than anything else, as Blasts never, ever roll to-hit. So I disagree - it IS wrong to use TL to define what a "hit" is for blasts. If am BS10 and I roll a scatter and 10" on the two dice, I have STILL "hit" my initial placement of the marker.

But then that comes back to our earlier case with BS6 and BS2wPrescience: even though both cases "hit" the initial placement of the marker, Rules-wise they are very different cases.
A BS2 model would benefit much more from prescience than a BS10 model, i fully agree, but i don't think that it is of any relevance to PE letting you re-roll Blast Weapons or not.

We are not arguing between a 2+ or 4+ save, which is better or whether a 4++ would be any better at saving. The issue here is do we - or not - get the save at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
it IS wrong to use TL to define what a "hit" is for blasts

i know it might not seem different, but i am not using TL to define what a "hit" is for blasts.
I am using TL to define what a "miss" is, whether or not (BS10) the "miss" is a "hit".

so for the examples and how I see it compared to Side B:
Side A:
PE - cannot re-roll Blast, you need to Miss and roll a 1
BS2, Prescience - can re-roll Blast if the scatter rolls "arrow"
BS10, Prescience - can re-roll Blast if the scatter rolls "arrow"
TL - simply RaW

Side B:
PE - can re-roll Blast, always
BS2, Prescience - can re-roll Blast, always
BS10, Prescience - can re-roll Blast, always
TL - simply RaW

Lastly, because i am sure this will never reach agreement but i do not want the thread locked for repetition (others might want to ask more):
I am on Side A, but not the one that only allows TL.
Yes I am guessing intent with the rules for TL, but the rules are simply not clear.

PS: Just as Void shields were, when I argued logically against pretty much the entirety of the Dakka users, to no avail. I would now leave this discussion in the same way:
That is my position, and after a lot of thinking and debate i have not been convinced it is a wrong one.
I will continue answering and making it clear how Side A thinks, but will no longer argue the points across.
'till the new FAQs/BrB

Except, as pointed out, you have no rules support for that interpretation. It is an opinion, not the rules.

The rules require the ability to reroll to-hit. Not for you to be rolling to hit in the first place. When firing at your PE enemy you demonstrably HAVE the ability to reroll to hit, however you are rolling a blast so use those rules instead.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except, as pointed out, you have no rules support for that interpretation. It is an opinion, not the rules.

The rules require the ability to reroll to-hit. Not for you to be rolling to hit in the first place. When firing at your PE enemy you demonstrably HAVE the ability to reroll to hit, however you are rolling a blast so use those rules instead.

Sorry i forgot to specify that we are still in the previous state of "no ability without met conditionals"
That, to me, you must meet the conditions to have the ability, not Side B: you have the ability but then ignore conditionals.

As said, the Rules support is Twin-Linked, PE, and "Blast Weapons and Re-rolls".

The rules require the ability to reroll to-hit. When firing at your PE enemy, fail to hit, and rolled a 1, you demonstrably have the ability to reroll to hit.
When firing with Prescience, and missed, you demonstrably have the ability to reroll to hit.

However using a blast can do 2), but not 1).

You can never meet the conditions that are reliant on rolling to hit, asyou NEVER roll to hit. You never "miss" either.

However you are not required to meet the conditions; just, IF you were rolling to hit, woudl you have the ABILITY to reroll? If the answer was yes, regardless of conditions, you get a reroll. This is because it does not require a reroll because you missed, a reroll because you rolled a one, a reroll because the sky was blue, just a reroll

RAW: Firing at PE? You get a reroll of your blast.

You must meet the conditions for having the ability to re-roll. A unit with Preferred Enemy (Orks) firing at a Space Marine unit does not the ability to re-roll to hit.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You must meet the conditions for having the ability to re-roll. A unit with Preferred Enemy (Orks) firing at a Space Marine unit does not the ability to re-roll to hit.

True, buit not any condition on the to-hit "value", which is what is being claimed is needed.

Given you never roll to-hit, claiming you need to meet the "roll a 1" or "miss" criteria is impossible.

Does pe allow re rolls to hit, yes, it allows re rolls to hit of 1

Blasts and 're rolls say if you can 're roll.the hit, you can re.roll the dice for scatter etc.

Why is that an issue?

Because, some people don't like it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
just, IF you were rolling to hit, would you have the ABILITY to reroll? If the answer was yes, regardless of conditions, you get a reroll.

Well that's the thing: The answer is Yes, only if you miss (Prescience). Or Yes, if you miss and roll a 1 (PE)
IF i was rolling to hit, would i have the ability to re-roll? If i roll a 6, Answer is No.

I think that is the main point we differ on. The Yes-No is conditional. There is no "blanket yes"
When rolling dice To Hit, you don't "always have the ability to re-roll", because if you did, you could re-roll 6s too...

You have a Reroll ability, just not an unconditional Reroll.

Good job the rules make no distinction between what type of Reroll you have - all, none, any threes when it's a Sunday, etc.

You're creating a requirement that does not exist in the rules.

Are there any unconditional re-rolls in the game?
(For To Hit rolls specifically)

You have the ability to re roll 1's, and rr blasts asks if you have the ability to rr, yep we do, so rr that blast

 grendel083 wrote:
Are there any unconditional re-rolls in the game?
(For To Hit rolls specifically)

I can only think of Fateweaver - so technically they exist - but there might be one or the other..

 Formosa wrote:
You have the ability to re roll 1's, and rr blasts asks if you have the ability to rr, yep we do, so rr that blast

Your ignoring the "and choose to do so" part of the rule. You cannot choose to do so, because you have not met the condition of the reroll.

Fragile wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
You have the ability to re roll 1's, and rr blasts asks if you have the ability to rr, yep we do, so rr that blast

Your ignoring the "and choose to do so" part of the rule. You cannot choose to do so, because you have not met the condition of the reroll.

So you think the rule is useless then?

Good job the rule doesn't say that. You have to choose to use the ability to Reroll, which you do have. Try again. Or don't, given this has been thoroughly hashed out over and over, with one result only.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have a Reroll ability, just not an unconditional Reroll.

Good job the rules make no distinction between what type of Reroll you have - all, none, any threes when it's a Sunday, etc.

You're creating a requirement that does not exist in the rules.

Ok, so trying to make it clearer with support:

Page 11 wrote:In some situations, the rules allow you to re-roll a dice. This is exactly what it sounds like - pick up the dice you wish to re-roll, and roll it again.

Side note:

Page 11 wrote:If two or more special rules combine to the effect that both all failed and all successful dice results would have to be re-rolled, do not re-roll any dice; simply use the original result(s) instead.

So this "situation", in the case of Prescience or Master-crafted, is "failed To Hit rolls" or "one failed roll To Hit".

Page 158 wrote: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

This is the part we disagree on.
Side B thinks you "has the ability" because *any* special rule that you may have that contains the words "re-roll" and "To Hit" will tick the box for the phrase above.
Side A thinks that the box is only ticked once the conditionals are met.

Now i am on side A, and think it is "more RaW" (there is no such thing) because you cannot have "any kind of re-roll To Hit" applying to <Blast Weapons and Re-rolls> p158
"has the ability" means you need the correct "situation" from p11:
"failed To Hit rolls" or "one failed roll To Hit"

The side note i posted above reinforces the fact that you can never have "the effect that both all failed and all successful dice results would have to be re-rolled".

As i said previously, when rolling To Hit, you do not simply "has the ability" or you would be re-rolling successful rolls too. You only "has the ability" once the "situation", or failing To Hit has happened.
You do not know if you are allowed to re-roll that 1 Dice until it shows a result.

Same for Blast weapons:
"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit"
happens "after firing a Blast weapon" - you have already rolled the Dice and fired. How would you check that you have the ability before you rolled anything?

Also, how does Side B allow re-rolls of a weapon that is Heavy 4, Blast, Master-Crafted?
As i understand it, MC is "has the ability", so all 4 shots could be re-rolled by choice.

The singularity of Master-Crafted is in the words "one failed roll To Hit". You cannot in any way change those 5 words without completely altering RaW.
so Side B would have the choice to re-roll all 4 shots.
Side A would follow "one failed roll To Hit" so it has to be one of the Blasts that "failed to Hit" ie: Rolled an "Arrow" (per TL)

This probably confused everything further....

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
You have the ability to re roll 1's, and rr blasts asks if you have the ability to rr, yep we do, so rr that blast

Your ignoring the "and choose to do so" part of the rule. You cannot choose to do so, because you have not met the condition of the reroll.

So you think the rule is useless then?

Good job the rule doesn't say that. You have to choose to use the ability to Reroll, which you do have. Try again. Or don't, given this has been thoroughly hashed out over and over, with one result only.

If you have the ability to reroll 1's and choose to do so.....

You still have not shown a 1 to reroll. Your interpretation fails at every level.

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1 or 2]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [on a tuesday]

Nope, not a failure. Note how nothing in the more accurate version of the rules, which does not change the meaning, the degree if rerolls is entirely non specified? In fact, because you can add in any conditional result of the to hit you want, without having to change the initial meaning, proves the point.

Your argument fails a s it relies on making far up. Failure one
It fails as it relies on GW having written a useless rule. Failure two.

And so on.

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter. If you enforce the need for a 1, you must also enforce the need for a failed To Hit roll for all abilities to be able to re-roll scatters, meaning that only Twin-linked works.

Repeat until Mod locks.

It seems we are still in this position

No right, no wrong, and no fail anywhere, just contention...

 BlackTalos wrote:

Side B thinks you "has the ability" because *any* special rule that you may have that contains the words "re-roll" and "To Hit" will tick the box for the phrase above.
Side A thinks that the box is only ticked once the conditionals are met.

So to clarify, Talos: (and I have no dog in this fight, I'm just curious) if side A is correct, (other than Fateweaver) how could anyone ever get a re-roll on a Blast? Since all other re-rolls specify that they can re-roll misses, and Blast weapons never roll to hit, does that mean that they could never make use of the rule we're discussing?

If side A is correct, the only way you'd be able to re-roll a blast outside of Fateweaver would be Twin-Linked, and that's only because of the Twin-Linked rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

I understand the logic there, but the original line (Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) on p158 is only for Blasts, so any rule referring to templates you quoted above are effectively ignored (irrelevant).

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

This one though is specifically referring to Blasts and how they work.
As said previously, applying TL to defining Blasts is a stretch, but not wrong.

You don't understand what I was getting at then.
Your assumption is that it's okay to treat all blasts like twin-linked does, and any failure to roll hit is a failure to hit. Correct?
Why does it not follow, then, that any failure to wound with any template is a failure to hit?

Correct.
The reason I would include the TL paragraph about Blast Weapons, is because the core issue or OP is about Blast Weapons. The paragraph about Templates and "equating the same" does not follow because it has nothing to do with Blast Weapons.

So it's not relevant to bring up reasons it's a bad idea to set that precedent?
No, it's extremely relevant. You'd just rather not discuss it. That's fine, but it's not a good debate practice.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1 or 2]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [on a tuesday]

Nope, not a failure. Note how nothing in the more accurate version of the rules, which does not change the meaning, the degree if rerolls is entirely non specified? In fact, because you can add in any conditional result of the to hit you want, without having to change the initial meaning, proves the point.

Your argument fails a s it relies on making far up. Failure one
It fails as it relies on GW having written a useless rule. Failure two.

And so on.

Care to cite an ability that states you can reroll 1's and 2's. There isn't. You have general permissions to rerolls misses, your trying to add a numeric value, which again is a failure on your part.

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1 or 2]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [on a tuesday]

Nope, not a failure. Note how nothing in the more accurate version of the rules, which does not change the meaning, the degree if rerolls is entirely non specified? In fact, because you can add in any conditional result of the to hit you want, without having to change the initial meaning, proves the point.

Your argument fails a s it relies on making far up. Failure one
It fails as it relies on GW having written a useless rule. Failure two.

And so on.

Care to cite an ability that states you can reroll 1's and 2's. There isn't. You have general permissions to rerolls misses, your trying to add a numeric value, which again is a failure on your part.

The conditions used in the logic-check-gate for a BS4 model that has been Prescienced.

You have the ability to re-roll [failed rolls to hit] -> What is a failed roll to hit? A roll of 1 or a 2. By substitution: You have the ability to re-roll [rolls of 1 and 2].

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1 or 2]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [on a tuesday]

Nope, not a failure. Note how nothing in the more accurate version of the rules, which does not change the meaning, the degree if rerolls is entirely non specified? In fact, because you can add in any conditional result of the to hit you want, without having to change the initial meaning, proves the point.

Your argument fails a s it relies on making far up. Failure one
It fails as it relies on GW having written a useless rule. Failure two.

And so on.

Care to cite an ability that states you can reroll 1's and 2's. There isn't. You have general permissions to rerolls misses, your trying to add a numeric value, which again is a failure on your part.

Missed the point I see. Argue the substantive part, which is your insistence on rewriting the rules to include your conditional, when the actual rule doesn't give two hoots about them

Your argument is refuted, please mark your posts as opinion, not rules.

Here's a question, if the blast is a plasma cannon do you get to re roll the gets hot roll?

This is normally a to hit roll bit it technically isn't for a blast.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Side B thinks you "has the ability" because *any* special rule that you may have that contains the words "re-roll" and "To Hit" will tick the box for the phrase above.
Side A thinks that the box is only ticked once the conditionals are met.

So to clarify, Talos: (and I have no dog in this fight, I'm just curious) if side A is correct, (other than Fateweaver) how could anyone ever get a re-roll on a Blast? Since all other re-rolls specify that they can re-roll misses, and Blast weapons never roll to hit, does that mean that they could never make use of the rule we're discussing?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
If side A is correct, the only way you'd be able to re-roll a blast outside of Fateweaver would be Twin-Linked, and that's only because of the Twin-Linked rules.

It was back on page 3:

 BlackTalos wrote:
That's the part where I use the wording from the TL rule to say that:
Actually, the Blast weapon can fail to hit, as is described on p(xx): Twin-Linked.

As we are going by logic, there is precedence of what a "Fail to hit" is with a Blast.

Just trying to make sure you understand how Side A is not "Just Twin-linked", but "Failed To Hit rolls" too. PE specifying "Failed To Hit" + "of a 1" is an added condition unfortunately unobtainable on a Scatter.

rigeld2 wrote:
So it's not relevant to bring up reasons it's a bad idea to set that precedent?
No, it's extremely relevant. You'd just rather not discuss it. That's fine, but it's not a good debate practice.

I did not says the reasoning with irrelevant: If Template USR had "Templates and Re-rolls - If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Template weapon, it must re-roll ALL dice" or anything similar, i would of course make the exact same conclusion.

It is just a case of:
- We are talking about B, and how it uses A rules
- TL says what it does with A, B and C
- why would we discuss C?

The issue at hand is Blasts and To Hit re-rolls, but To Hit re-rolls only apply to weapons that roll To Hit. p158: Blasts has RaW, and p174:Twin-Linked has RaW involving those 2 things. I make a connection. But that connection does not have anything to do with p173.
It is not a connection that should be made in this way, but the BrB is written in a way that assumes we know the rules. (it is usually cross-referenced, but not always)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
Here's a question, if the blast is a plasma cannon do you get to re roll the gets hot roll?

This is normally a to hit roll bit it technically isn't for a blast.

That would be the very last phrase of the Gets Hot rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:

I understand the logic there, but the original line (Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) on p158 is only for Blasts, so any rule referring to templates you quoted above are effectively ignored (irrelevant).

I did not says the reasoning with irrelevant: If Template USR had "Templates and Re-rolls - If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Template weapon, it must re-roll ALL dice" or anything similar, i would of course make the exact same conclusion.

You did - I quoted it.

- why would we discuss C?

The issue at hand is Blasts and To Hit re-rolls, but To Hit re-rolls only apply to weapons that roll To Hit. p158: Blasts has RaW, and p174:Twin-Linked has RaW involving those 2 things. I make a connection. But that connection does not have anything to do with p173.
It is not a connection that should be made in this way, but the BrB is written in a way that assumes we know the rules. (it is usually cross-referenced, but not always)

You're trying to take a rule and apply it far beyond what's written. I'm showing a consequence of doing so.

Love reading this 'if side A is correct then....' arguments when it comes to Blasts and Re-rolls for one reason:
There is no interpretation to Re-roll's and Blast Markers which doesn't open the door to strange things!

Just have to accept that the Rules are very lacking in this section....

Not really. One side reads the rules as written, and accepts odd edge cases. The other changes the written words, attempts to state a rule has no purpose, or takes context bereft rules from another section to attempt to vaguely get the rules to operate, but only for the cases they want it to work for.

One side is consistent

I am not so sure Nosferaty1001,
I have seen no less then three different sides claim that very sentence as their Rule support, with arguments boiling down to what the Authors intended for half a sentence here or even a single word there, so all sides are claiming to have Rule as Written support.
Both sides are also very consistent with their interpretations, even the little spoken third side can produce a list of Special Rules which can always meet their interpretations Requirements, but there will always be those 'odd edge cases' as you call them.

As every side always produces at least one broken outcome when using the very same sentence for Rule Support, this is something only the Authors can answer for us.

PS:
If you mean the inconstancy of individual members that on the edge of the two main groups, I am ignoring them in favour of the core element of the group as they clearly do not represent that element.
This includes the side that you are a member of, as I have seen individual members arguing that one is still required to meet certain conditions before they can evoke the Rule granting permission to re-roll.

rigeld2 wrote:
You did - I quoted it.

A) Equating "failed To Hit" with "does not roll a hit" would be the same as Equating "failed To Hit" with "failed To Wound", yes.
That fact is relevant, that you apply to 1: you apply to all.

The irrelevance comes in to separate both: we are not discussing Twin-Linked, but Blast weapons: B) Equating "failed To Hit" with "failed To Wound" is ignored.

Logical path A) is not irrelevant.
Statement B) is irrelevant.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're trying to take a rule and apply it far beyond what's written. I'm showing a consequence of doing so.

And i conceded that upon entering the debate about it:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Applying a Special Rule as a general rule for the game mechanics? Probably but i see no issue with it.

 BlackTalos wrote:
My argument as it stands here is that: Twin-Linked, imo "defines" what a Failed To Hit roll is for a Blast weapon, and that definition stands for the entire book.

Therefore the only flaw i can see in this argument is that you "cannot apply TL to everything in the game" basically.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not really. One side reads the rules as written, and accepts odd edge cases. The other changes the written words, attempts to state a rule has no purpose, or takes context bereft rules from another section to attempt to vaguely get the rules to operate, but only for the cases they want it to work for.

One side is consistent

That i will have to fully disagree on: Side A is just as consistent as Side B:

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter.

That one line for A is fully bound and correct within RaW, or would you disagree?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter.

That one line for A is fully bound and correct within RaW, or would you disagree?

The line for A is mistaken, because blasts most certainly do roll To Hit, or else Prescience would not work either.

JinxDragon wrote:
I am not so sure Nosferaty1001,
I have seen no less then three different sides claim that very sentence as their Rule support, with arguments boiling down to what the Authors intended for half a sentence here or even a single word there, so all sides are claiming to have Rule as Written support.
Both sides are also very consistent with their interpretations, even the little spoken third side can produce a list of Special Rules which can always meet their interpretations Requirements, but there will always be those 'odd edge cases' as you call them.

As every side always produces at least one broken outcome when using the very same sentence for Rule Support, this is something only the Authors can answer for us.

PS:
If you mean the inconstancy of individual members that on the edge of the two main groups, I am ignoring them in favour of the core element of the group as they clearly do not represent that element.
This includes the side that you are a member of, as I have seen individual members arguing that one is still required to meet certain conditions before they can evoke the Rule granting permission to re-roll.

An example of this is Side B: How do you implement RaW for a Master-Crafted, Heavy 4, Blast?
Because the logical for PE works (PrinceRaven's pretty Green-Red-Blue), but you cannot do it with Master-crafted. ie Side B "breaks" RaW just as much as Side A might ignore a paragraph in Blasts & re-rolls.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You did - I quoted it.

A) Equating "failed To Hit" with "does not roll a hit" would be the same as Equating "failed To Hit" with "failed To Wound", yes.
That fact is relevant, that you apply to 1: you apply to all.

The irrelevance comes in to separate both: we are not discussing Twin-Linked, but Blast weapons: B) Equating "failed To Hit" with "failed To Wound" is ignored.

Logical path A) is not irrelevant.
Statement B) is irrelevant.

You're not discussing Twin Linked, but you're trying to apply logic from Twin Linked to all other abilities?
Can you clarify that for me?

And i conceded that upon entering the debate about it:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Therefore the only flaw i can see in this argument is that you "cannot apply TL to everything in the game" basically.

That quote doesn't say (to me) what you're saying it does. And you're arguing against me saying exactly that. So yeah - no idea what you're actually trying to say here.

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter.

That one line for A is fully bound and correct within RaW, or would you disagree?

Except Side A wants things like Prescience to also re-roll. And using their interpretation that'd be against the RAW. Meaning they're not consistent.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter.

That one line for A is fully bound and correct within RaW, or would you disagree?

The line for A is mistaken, because blasts most certainly do roll To Hit, or else Prescience would not work either.

i think even Rigeld and Nos would disagree with the statement "blasts most certainly do roll To Hit".

And "Core" Side A as i would now call it does indeed not allow Prescience....

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter.

That one line for A is fully bound and correct within RaW, or would you disagree?

The line for A is mistaken, because blasts most certainly do roll To Hit, or else Prescience would not work either.

You should read the rule you're discussing because you're absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

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

So according to Side A, Prescience doesn't allow re-rolls.

 Happyjew wrote:
Repeat until Mod locks.

You're not wrong...

 BlackTalos wrote:
An example of this is Side B: How do you implement RaW for a Master-Crafted, Heavy 4, Blast?
Because the logical for PE works (PrinceRaven's pretty Green-Red-Blue), but you cannot do it with Master-crafted. ie Side B "breaks" RaW just as much as Side A might ignore a paragraph in Blasts & re-rolls.

Why does it break? You can reroll one because you have a single reroll available. What's broken?

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You did - I quoted it.

A) Equating "failed To Hit" with "does not roll a hit" would be the same as Equating "failed To Hit" with "failed To Wound", yes.
That fact is relevant, that you apply to 1: you apply to all.

The irrelevance comes in to separate both: we are not discussing Twin-Linked, but Blast weapons: B) Equating "failed To Hit" with "failed To Wound" is ignored.

Logical path A) is not irrelevant.
Statement B) is irrelevant.

You're not discussing Twin Linked, but you're trying to apply logic from Twin Linked to all other abilities?
Can you clarify that for me?

And i conceded that upon entering the debate about it:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Therefore the only flaw i can see in this argument is that you "cannot apply TL to everything in the game" basically.

That quote doesn't say (to me) what you're saying it does. And you're arguing against me saying exactly that. So yeah - no idea what you're actually trying to say here.

We are discussing Blast weapons, and Re-rolls.
I use Twin-linked to say: "yes blasts can miss" their "equivalent To Hit roll" (from TL wording)
Templates cannot "miss", so the paragraph there doesn't come into play.

"i'm trying to apply logic from Twin Linked to all other abilities"?
Yes I am

Is it correct within RaW?
Not too sure,
it's not written down but it's logical steps.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter.

That one line for A is fully bound and correct within RaW, or would you disagree?

Except Side A wants things like Prescience to also re-roll. And using their interpretation that'd be against the RAW. Meaning they're not consistent.

Side A (as i see it) does not allow prescience. Only Twin-Linked.

I'm the one, personally, who uses what is above, and deducts "Yes Blasts can Miss" => Prescience works


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
An example of this is Side B: How do you implement RaW for a Master-Crafted, Heavy 4, Blast?
Because the logical for PE works (PrinceRaven's pretty Green-Red-Blue), but you cannot do it with Master-crafted. ie Side B "breaks" RaW just as much as Side A might ignore a paragraph in Blasts & re-rolls.

Why does it break? You can reroll one because you have a single reroll available. What's broken?

"allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn"

which one of the 4 Blast templates is the "one failed roll To Hit"?
the model has the ability to re-roll: he can choose to re-roll the 4 Blast templates, what is actually stopping him from doing so and breaking RaW?
I thought that conditional re-rolls did not exist? "re-roll one failed roll To Hit" I outlined the conditional: you ignore that part correct?

 BlackTalos wrote:

We are discussing Blast weapons, and Re-rolls.
I use Twin-linked to say: "yes blasts can miss" their "equivalent To Hit roll" (from TL wording)
Templates cannot "miss", so the paragraph there doesn't come into play.

Blasts cannot miss either - ever. They don't roll to hit.
So you're using a rule for Twin-Linked to pretend that they can miss.
And you're saying that Templates (which can't miss) can't make the same equivalence?

Side A (as i see it) does not allow prescience. Only Twin-Linked.

I'm the one, personally, who uses what is above, and deducts "Yes Blasts can Miss" => Prescience works

You're one of the few/any that's semi-reasonable about it. It's been insisted in pretty much every thread about this that Prescience and all "reroll failed to hit" abilities work, but PE doesn't per RAW.

Grendel083,
When I prophesied 12 pages I was hoping the Mods would lock it pretty quick, or enough people would read that and be discouraged from positing yet again to yet another thread on the matter.

Here we are, almost half way there now.....

JinxDragon wrote:
Grendel083,
When I prophesied 12 pages I was hoping the Mods would lock it pretty quick, or enough people would read that and be discouraged from positing yet again to yet another thread on the matter.

Here we are, almost half way there now.....

Sadly this edition does not seem to have changed anything for this question.
So it really is the same old debate.

rigeld2 wrote:
Blasts cannot miss either - ever. They don't roll to hit.
So you're using a rule for Twin-Linked to pretend that they can miss.
And you're saying that Templates (which can't miss) can't make the same equivalence?

"If the scatter dice does not roll a hit" =/= "failed To Hit rolls" agreed.
But logically, a Twin-linked weapon does the "same thing" whether it is Standard, Blast, or Template.
They don't roll To Hit, but they do roll to "hit" (on the scatter dice).

I would not say "pretending", but "deduct". Otherwise you are right on all accounts.

rigeld2 wrote:

Side A (as i see it) does not allow prescience. Only Twin-Linked.
I'm the one, personally, who uses what is above, and deducts "Yes Blasts can Miss" => Prescience works

You're one of the few/any that's semi-reasonable about it. It's been insisted in pretty much every thread about this that Prescience and all "reroll failed to hit" abilities work, but PE doesn't per RAW.

I'd say it differently: I am the one insisting that Prescience and all "reroll failed to hit" abilities work, but PE doesn't per RAW.
Most of the rest of side A doesn't care what works and what does not, simply that Side B is breaking:
"Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter" which i also see as a "Rule" that cannot be broken (PE USR).

 grendel083 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Grendel083,
When I prophesied 12 pages I was hoping the Mods would lock it pretty quick, or enough people would read that and be discouraged from positing yet again to yet another thread on the matter.

Here we are, almost half way there now.....

Sadly this edition does not seem to have changed anything for this question.
So it really is the same old debate.

I think the only reason it's not locked is that we haven't reached the "You're Wrong, I'm Right" part yet - probably around p12 we will :p

*PE* hasn't changed
*Blast Weapons & Re-rolls* hasn't changed

Side A & B have no new advantage.

Twin-Linked has changed wording, so i'm still discussing my position.

6th Edition wrote:A weapon with the Twin-Linked special rule (...), you must re-roll the dice To Hit if you miss.

7th Edition wrote:If a shooting weapon has the Twin-Linked special rule (...), it re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls.

I see that as a step in the direction: Blast do not roll To Hit, but it's result is still part of "Step 4: Roll To Hit"
Blasphemy i know....



Automatically Appended Next Post:


6th ed: "the dice (singular) To Hit" is very specific (intent?)
7th ed: "failed To Hit rolls" is much more general - almost as if trying to include "all" weapons (change of intent?)

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Blasts cannot miss either - ever. They don't roll to hit.
So you're using a rule for Twin-Linked to pretend that they can miss.
And you're saying that Templates (which can't miss) can't make the same equivalence?

"If the scatter dice does not roll a hit" =/= "failed To Hit rolls" agreed.
But logically, a Twin-linked weapon does the "same thing" whether it is Standard, Blast, or Template.
They don't roll To Hit, but they do roll to "hit" (on the scatter dice).

I would not say "pretending", but "deduct". Otherwise you are right on all accounts.

Please, explain why Templates cannot make the same equivalence. Since you agreed that my statements were correct.

I'd say it differently: I am the one insisting that Prescience and all "reroll failed to hit" abilities work, but PE doesn't per RAW.

Prescience requires a failed to hit roll. Agreed?
Blasts never roll to hit. Agreed?
How does Prescience see a failed to hit roll when the weapon never rolls to hit?

"Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter" which i also see as a "Rule" that cannot be broken (PE USR).

Since you do not roll to hit you cannot fail a to hit roll and therefore cannot reroll the scatter.

So you're saying exactly what I thought you weren't.
You have no reason other than "I want it to be true." to stretch Twin Linked like you are. And you're not even doing that consistently. And you've said you're not willing to discuss the ramifications of that.
Way to have an honest discussion man. Truly well played.

6th ed: "the dice (singular) To Hit" is very specific (intent?)
7th ed: "failed To Hit rolls" is much more general - almost as if trying to include "all" weapons (change of intent?)

The wording changed, but not in any significant manner.

you must re-roll the dice To Hit if you miss.

it re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls.

The "dice" in the first one isn't singular. As you've evidenced, it generates confusion and the 7th edition wording is absolutely clear.
Even if it was singular, nothing changed.

Does Preferred Enemy USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the target is the Preferred Enemy since the USR grants the ability to re-roll To Hit.
Does Prescience allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, since the psychic power grants the ability to re-roll To Hit.
Does a Ballistic Skill of 6 or Better allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, since a BS greater than 5 grants the ability to re-roll To Hit.
Does Guidance allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, since the psychic power grants the ability to re-roll To Hit.
Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted.

Explaination:

BRB, page 158; "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."

BRB, page 169; "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Would rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy. This applies to both shooting and close combat attacks."

BRB, page 193; "While this power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls."

BRB, page 33; "If a model has BS 6 or higher, it gains a re-roll whenever it rolls a 1 To Hit with ranged attacks."

Codex: Eldar, page 71; "Whilst this power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls when shooting."

BRB, page 167, "Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn with that weapon."

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Blasts cannot miss either - ever. They don't roll to hit.
So you're using a rule for Twin-Linked to pretend that they can miss.
And you're saying that Templates (which can't miss) can't make the same equivalence?

"If the scatter dice does not roll a hit" =/= "failed To Hit rolls" agreed.
But logically, a Twin-linked weapon does the "same thing" whether it is Standard, Blast, or Template.
They don't roll To Hit, but they do roll to "hit" (on the scatter dice).

I would not say "pretending", but "deduct". Otherwise you are right on all accounts.

Please, explain why Templates cannot make the same equivalence. Since you agreed that my statements were correct.

I'd say it differently: I am the one insisting that Prescience and all "reroll failed to hit" abilities work, but PE doesn't per RAW.

Prescience requires a failed to hit roll. Agreed?
Blasts never roll to hit. Agreed?
How does Prescience see a failed to hit roll when the weapon never rolls to hit?

"Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter" which i also see as a "Rule" that cannot be broken (PE USR).

Since you do not roll to hit you cannot fail a to hit roll and therefore cannot reroll the scatter.

So you're saying exactly what I thought you weren't.
You have no reason other than "I want it to be true." to stretch Twin Linked like you are. And you're not even doing that consistently. And you've said you're not willing to discuss the ramifications of that.
Way to have an honest discussion man. Truly well played.

This is making a full circle, my previous posts have answered what my stance is for this:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Actually, the Blast weapon can fail to hit, as is described on p(174): Twin-Linked.

As we are going by logic, there is precedence of what a "Fail to hit" is with a Blast.

Just trying to make sure you understand how (my) Side A is not "Just Twin-linked", but "Failed To Hit rolls" too. PE specifying "Failed To Hit" + "of a 1" is an added condition unfortunately unobtainable on a Scatter.

A) Templates "could" make the same equivalence, yes, if they were in any way involved in this discussion, but they are not. Paragraph on p174 ignored.
B) Blasts never roll To Hit, but they do roll to hit, which can fail as per TL (p174)
C) Prescience requires a failed To Hit roll: conditional that it is a failure, but p158 says you can take that re-roll with Scatter+2D6. Failure conditional is still there: refer to B)

That is what i am saying.
I understand how you are trying to debunk it and leave "only Side B standing", but that will just result in a lock until new Edition/FaQ.


Side A is not wrong.
Me using Twin-Link is shaky, but imo a sound deduction of the system (RaW). If you do not believe the discussion is worth it, we can leave it at the current disagreement?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dg3263827 wrote:
Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted.

BRB, page 167, "Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn with that weapon."

That is also how i see Side B working, but it is illegal in RaW:
"one failed roll To Hit per turn" is ignored in this system.

Missile Launcher, Plasma Cannon: No issue

Executioner Plasma cannon, Grozooka: Problem - "Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted." so i'll re-roll all 2-3 templates, and break the per turn clause.

 BlackTalos wrote:


Executioner Plasma cannon, Grozooka: Problem - "Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted." so i'll re-roll all 2-3 templates, and break the per turn clause.

No, you'd re-roll one per turn, just like the Master-crafted USR says. So on a Blast 3, you'd be able to re-roll one of them.

 dg3263827 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Executioner Plasma cannon, Grozooka: Problem - "Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted." so i'll re-roll all 2-3 templates, and break the per turn clause.

No, you'd re-roll one per turn, just like the Master-crafted USR says. So on a Blast 3, you'd be able to re-roll one of them.

But why just the 1?
"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon, the player must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6."

The model has the ability, it does not loose it half way through firing a weapon?
Or is the conditional "one failed roll To Hit per turn" important here? How does it apply to "has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit"?

You either use that conditional or you don't, but either way something is wrong.

 BlackTalos wrote:

But why just the 1?
"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon, the player must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6."

The model has the ability, it does not loose it half way through firing a weapon?
Or is the conditional "one failed roll To Hit per turn" important here? How does it apply to "has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit"?

You either use that conditional or you don't, but either way something is wrong.

Master-crafted allows one re-roll per turn.
If you're firing a multi-blast weapon, you are rolling more than 1 set of "scatter die and 2D6."
Therefore, Master-crafted allows you to re-roll one of those.

The model has the ability, BUT only have the ability to do it once per turn, as per the Master-crafted USR. It has nothing to do with losing it firing a weapon half-way through since, technically, all the blasts are landing at the same time just like during a storm-bolter's roll To Hit. One blast isn't fully resolved before the others. The To Hit comes first, and then the To Wound.

 BlackTalos wrote:
A) Templates "could" make the same equivalence, yes, if they were in any way involved in this discussion, but they are not. Paragraph on p174 ignored.

Again, way to ignore things that would serve to show why what you're "deducting" is a bad idea.

B) Blasts never roll To Hit, but they do roll to hit, which can fail as per TL (p174)

No, they do not roll to hit. They roll a scatter die which can roll a Hit.

C) Prescience requires a failed To Hit roll: conditional that it is a failure, but p158 says you can take that re-roll with Scatter+2D6. Failure conditional is still there: refer to B)

No, that's not what page 158 says (assuming page 158 is Blast - I have the ebook). The Blast rules say that you have to have the ability to reroll. Prescience doesn't give you that ability until you fail a To Hit (not a roll to hit, not a scatter) roll.

That is what i am saying.
I understand how you are trying to debunk it and leave "only Side B standing", but that will just result in a lock until new Edition/FaQ.

I'm really not. I couldn't care less that there's two sides as long as neither side is claiming absolute RAW or contradicting themselves. You're claiming both absolute RAW and refusing to accept that your "deduction" causes a significant problem.

Side A is not wrong.
Me using Twin-Link is shaky, but imo a sound deduction of the system (RaW). If you do not believe the discussion is worth it, we can leave it at the current disagreement?

...
You're the one that is refusing to discuss why the Twin Link stretching is shaky. I think the discussion is worth it but you've literally said you ignore it when I attempt to bring it up.
Again - I have absolutely no problem engaging in an honest debate, but you're demonstrably not.

 dg3263827 wrote:
Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted.

BRB, page 167, "Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn with that weapon."

That is also how i see Side B working, but it is illegal in RaW:
"one failed roll To Hit per turn" is ignored in this system.

Missile Launcher, Plasma Cannon: No issue

Executioner Plasma cannon, Grozooka: Problem - "Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted." so i'll re-roll all 2-3 templates, and break the per turn clause.

Way to misrepresent what he said. If it's Heavy 4, you get to reroll one blast.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Repeat until Mod locks.

You're not wrong...

Yes I am.


Wait, what are we arguing about again?

 Happyjew wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Repeat until Mod locks.

You're not wrong...

Yes I am.


Wait, what are we arguing about again?

I forgot. All we seem to do in YMDC is argue, they sort of blend together after awhile.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Repeat until Mod locks.

You're not wrong...

Yes I am.


Wait, what are we arguing about again?

I forgot. All we seem to do in YMDC is argue, they sort of blend together after awhile.

Nuh uh! Sometimes we agree on things. Not often, mostly just the rules that are actually clear (like Detachments in 7th).

Wait, we agreed on that one? Last I checked we were still arguing, I may need to go back and look.

Yes we do agree sometimes, very rarely to be honest and only on things that are so blatantly clear to everyone that we simply cannot argue. But have a rule that makes people think and OMG we have threads being locked on a daily basis and senseless argument back and forth. Some

It's past Beer O'Clock
I'm sure someone will agree with me there...

It's five o'clock somewhere

 dg3263827 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Executioner Plasma cannon, Grozooka: Problem - "Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted." so i'll re-roll all 2-3 templates, and break the per turn clause.

No, you'd re-roll one per turn, just like the Master-crafted USR says. So on a Blast 3, you'd be able to re-roll one of them.

Your side of the argument only requires the ability to reroll. All conditionals are ignored. Therefore he would reroll all of them because he has the ability to reroll one.

He can only choose to use the re-roll once per shooting phase, if he chooses to re-roll multiple times he's breaking the "re-rolls and blasts" rule.

Fragile wrote:

 dg3263827 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Executioner Plasma cannon, Grozooka: Problem - "Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted." so i'll re-roll all 2-3 templates, and break the per turn clause.

No, you'd re-roll one per turn, just like the Master-crafted USR says. So on a Blast 3, you'd be able to re-roll one of them.

Your side of the argument only requires the ability to reroll. All conditionals are ignored. Therefore he would reroll all of them because he has the ability to reroll one.

He has the ability to reroll one. He rerolls it.
He no longer has the ability to reroll. He cannot reroll the others.

Preferred Enemy gives you Rerolls to Hit on 1s. Therefore you have a 1 in 6 chance of triggering the event - ie you roll a 1 on a d6.

A value of 10 or higher on a 2d6 will happen 1 in 6 times (results 46, 55, 56, 64, 65 and 66 out of the 36 possible).

Therefore to keep the spirit of the rule (and the statistical likelihood) as intended, Preferred Enemy should give you re-rolls on Blast Weapons on a result of 10 or higher on the scatter dice, when targeting a unit you have Preferred Enemy against.

A house-rule for sure, but food for thought.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 dg3263827 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Executioner Plasma cannon, Grozooka: Problem - "Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted." so i'll re-roll all 2-3 templates, and break the per turn clause.

No, you'd re-roll one per turn, just like the Master-crafted USR says. So on a Blast 3, you'd be able to re-roll one of them.

Your side of the argument only requires the ability to reroll. All conditionals are ignored. Therefore he would reroll all of them because he has the ability to reroll one.

He has the ability to reroll one. He rerolls it.
He no longer has the ability to reroll. He cannot reroll the others.

isn't that the exact argument for:

If you don't roll a 1 on your to hit dice, you do not have the ability to reroll?

shouldn't side B, be for master crafted allowing all 3 blasts to reroll? because it does allow a reroll.

Side A would be for 1 reroll from master crafted and no rerolls for PE.

No, not at all. The "Re-rolls and Blasts" rule requires you to choose to use the re-roll, how many times can you choose to use the master-crafted re-roll?

Actually, since master-crafted only works on failed to hit rolls, wouldn't side A's argument be that you can't use it to re-roll a blast at all?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
No, not at all. The "Re-rolls and Blasts" rule requires you to choose to use the re-roll, how many times can you choose to use the master-crafted re-roll?

Actually, since master-crafted only works on failed to hit rolls, wouldn't side A's argument be that you can't use it to re-roll a blast at all?

well there was a faq that says you can use it for blasts, so side A can decide what it thinks on that one.

but, for B you have the ability to reroll it's to hit rolls, and therefore it get's to reroll everything due to the blast rules. For someone in side B, you sure don't seem to like where your conclusions lead. Maybe you're on the wrong side.

Maybe you don't understand my viewpoint and are drawing incorrect conclusions.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Maybe you don't understand my viewpoint and are drawing incorrect conclusions.

I've been reading this thread for quite some time now and you either aren't constructing your argument very well or are contradicting yourself. If PE allows you to ignore the conditional "to hit rolls of 1" on the rule and re roll scatters because they have the ability, then why are you not ignoring the conditional of only "once per turn" for master crafted? You have the ability to re roll with master crafted, so therefore you can re roll as much as you want? Obviously not, because you can't ignore the conditional there. And since you can't ignore that, you can't ignore PE's "to hit rolls of 1". And since you don't ever roll to hit and so can't roll a 1, you can't re roll the scatter for blasts.

You are equating conditions as to whether or not you have the ability to hit with conditions placed upon the to hit roll.

I would appreciate it if you did not assume I do the same.

Your condescending and rude tone aside, if we are misunderstanding your viewpoint and drawing incorrect assumptions, logic would tell you to re word your argument so it can b properly understood no?

It's really quite simple.
I have a model with a master-crafted heavy 2 blast weapon. After firing the first shot I choose to use my ability to re-roll to hit to re-roll the blast per the "re-rolls and blasts" rule. Since I have already chosen to use my 1 re-roll granted by master-crafted I may not choose to re-roll the second shot.

 Ignatius wrote:
Your condescending and rude tone aside, if we are misunderstanding your viewpoint and drawing incorrect assumptions, logic would tell you to re word your argument so it can b properly understood no?

Youre coming in late to a thread where this difference was already explained - page 1, from memory. There are conditions UPON the reroll, and conditions to OBTAIN the reroll. PE places a condition upon the reroll, and has another condition to obtain the reroll - the former is "to hit of a 1" and the second is "when firing against your PE"

Master Crafted has 2 conditions as well - you can use the reroll once per turn, and you can reroll failed to hit. Note that the same form as above applies to help you categorise which is which.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:
Your condescending and rude tone aside, if we are misunderstanding your viewpoint and drawing incorrect assumptions, logic would tell you to re word your argument so it can b properly understood no?

Youre coming in late to a thread where this difference was already explained - page 1, from memory. There are conditions UPON the reroll, and conditions to OBTAIN the reroll. PE places a condition upon the reroll, and has another condition to obtain the reroll - the former is "to hit of a 1" and the second is "when firing against your PE"

Master Crafted has 2 conditions as well - you can use the reroll once per turn, and you can reroll failed to hit. Note that the same form as above applies to help you categorise which is which.

You cannot apply the same method to Master-Crafted.

PE has the "if" statement separating the two conditions. MC does not. It has 1 condition to obtain the reroll: "one failed roll"
Side B allows Master-Crafted Heavy 4 weapons to re-roll all 4 shots.

If you disagree, please show the "textual clue" that was what allowed PE to work for side B.
As much as i can fully support Side B and their argument, it does not work for Master-Crafted...






Automatically Appended Next Post:
If we go back to the easy colour-code:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"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."

Green: Who has the Rule
Red: Effect
Blue: Condition to get effect.

Master Crafted wrote:"allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn"

Green: Who (missing the 1st part)
Red: Effect

There is no "Blue" conditional. There is only "one failed" roll that can be re-rolled. That is the conditional effect. You pick which one of your dice failed To Hit.

If you use the MC reroll twice you've factually broken a rule.
Yes, in theory it could be used multiple times for Blasts and rerolls - but that's irrelevant because using it means you break the MC rule.

I havn't read all 6 pages of comments, this is directly aimed to the OP.

You cannot re-roll to hit blast weapons with the Preferred Enemy rule because there is no numerical number that would result of a "to-hit roll" from a 1-6. Its a directional scatter dice with the addition of two d6 to determine distance that it scatters.

I don't see the debate there.

However with the Master Crafted weapon is another subject.

This thread and this rule issue are always such a mess because people have no qualms about warping their logic to meet their desired result.

Master Crafted allows a possessor to "re-roll one failed To Hit roll per turn with that weapon."

To Hit is a defined term. A model firing a blast weapon never makes a To Hit roll. So, it can never fail a To Hit roll while firing a blast weapon.

The only possible permission for a model to re-roll the scatter dice come from the "Blast Weapons and Re-rolls" 'ability' language. If Master Crafted qualifies as an 'ability,' then it allows the scatter dice to be re-rolled. As the re-rolling of the scatter dice does not qualify as a re-roll of a To Hit roll, then the model's once per turn ability to re-roll a to hit a To Hit roll would not be spent upon re-rolling the scatter dice.

Black - en-blue-en the "per turn" part. That is the other conditional - just written differently to the others. It has the same effect as saying "if you use this ability once, you may reroll a to-hit roll"

 Rapture wrote:
The only possible permission for a model to re-roll the scatter dice come from the "Blast Weapons and Re-rolls" 'ability' language. If Master Crafted qualifies as an 'ability,' then it allows the scatter dice to be re-rolled. As the re-rolling of the scatter dice does not qualify as a re-roll of a To Hit roll, then the model's once per turn ability to re-roll a to hit a To Hit roll would not be spent upon re-rolling the scatter dice.

Agreed.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, in theory it could be used multiple times for Blasts and rerolls - but that's irrelevant because using it means you break the MC rule.

Well that is the issue here. "Yes, in theory" = "By RaW" for "Blasts Weapons and Rerolls". Breaking the MC is then exactly why Side B is no better than Side A, both are at about the same level.

rnlmeat0666 wrote:
I havn't read all 6 pages of comments, this is directly aimed to the OP.

You cannot re-roll to hit blast weapons with the Preferred Enemy rule because there is no numerical number that would result of a "to-hit roll" from a 1-6. Its a directional scatter dice with the addition of two d6 to determine distance that it scatters.

Please read "Blasts Weapons and Rerolls" on the Blasts Special Rule page carefully. It only asks for "the ability to re-roll" a To-Hit roll, meaning that the blast weapon does not need a To Hit roll. If the conditions then apply is what is up for debate...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Black - en-blue-en the "per turn" part. That is the other conditional - just written differently to the others. It has the same effect as saying "if you use this ability once, you may reroll a to-hit roll"

What you want is this:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Master Crafted wrote:"allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn"

And unfortunately i cannot agree with that. You cannot split up a rule as such and only use half of it, it is inconsistent.

You cannot use PE and only use the "failed" or "of 1", it is both, and both need to happen, or they don't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:
Your condescending and rude tone aside, if we are misunderstanding your viewpoint and drawing incorrect assumptions, logic would tell you to re word your argument so it can b properly understood no?

Youre coming in late to a thread where this difference was already explained - page 1, from memory. There are conditions UPON the reroll, and conditions to OBTAIN the reroll. PE places a condition upon the reroll, and has another condition to obtain the reroll - the former is "to hit of a 1" and the second is "when firing against your PE"

Master Crafted has 2 conditions as well - you can use the reroll once per turn, and you can reroll failed to hit. Note that the same form as above applies to help you categorise which is which.

Interesting, so you draw the line at master crafted?

what happened to:

Played at two ToS which plays it as the rules are written; all that is required is an ability to Reroll, not how good a Reroll you have.

master crafted has the ability to reroll, ergo 'blast' allows it for all blasts. Because you're rerolling 2 or 3 scatter dice, not to hit rolls, so the once per turn condition should be just as irrelevant as needing to roll a 1 to get the ability to reroll for PE.

How is it being inconsistent?

I'm using both; you are allowed one reroll, so rerolling more than once is not allowed. You are allowed a reroll on failed to-hit roll. meaning you can reroll blast

Entirely consistent with:
You are allowed a reroll if you are targetting your PE (allowed one reroll) so trying to reroll when not hitting your PE is not allowed. You are allowed a reroll on failed to-hit roll (of a 1) meaning you can reroll blast.

DIfferent structure, same result - condition upon gaining the reroll ability, condition on the reroll ability itself. (how "good" a reroll it is)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:
Your condescending and rude tone aside, if we are misunderstanding your viewpoint and drawing incorrect assumptions, logic would tell you to re word your argument so it can b properly understood no?

Youre coming in late to a thread where this difference was already explained - page 1, from memory. There are conditions UPON the reroll, and conditions to OBTAIN the reroll. PE places a condition upon the reroll, and has another condition to obtain the reroll - the former is "to hit of a 1" and the second is "when firing against your PE"

Master Crafted has 2 conditions as well - you can use the reroll once per turn, and you can reroll failed to hit. Note that the same form as above applies to help you categorise which is which.

Interesting, so you draw the line at master crafted?

what happened to:

Played at two ToS which plays it as the rules are written; all that is required is an ability to Reroll, not how good a Reroll you have.

master crafted has the ability to reroll, ergo 'blast' allows it for all blasts. Because you're rerolling 2 or 3 scatter dice, not to hit rolls, so the once per turn condition should be just as irrelevant as needing to roll a 1 to get the ability to reroll for PE.

ONly if you conflate an abiltiy of the reroll, with an abiltiy to have the reroll in the first place. I'm not, so I'm not "drawing the line" at anything - just beign consistent.

If you didnt conflate two concepts you would have an easier time understanding this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is it being inconsistent?

I'm using both; you are allowed one reroll, so rerolling more than once is not allowed. You are allowed a reroll on failed to-hit roll. meaning you can reroll blast

Entirely consistent with:
You are allowed a reroll if you are targetting your PE (allowed one reroll) so trying to reroll when not hitting your PE is not allowed. You are allowed a reroll on failed to-hit roll (of a 1) meaning you can reroll blast.

DIfferent structure, same result - condition upon gaining the reroll ability, condition on the reroll ability itself. (how "good" a reroll it is)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Master Crafted has 2 conditions as well - you can use the reroll once per turn, and you can reroll failed to hit. Note that the same form as above applies to help you categorise which is which.

Interesting, so you draw the line at master crafted?

what happened to:

Played at two ToS which plays it as the rules are written; all that is required is an ability to Reroll, not how good a Reroll you have.

master crafted has the ability to reroll, ergo 'blast' allows it for all blasts. Because you're rerolling 2 or 3 scatter dice, not to hit rolls, so the once per turn condition should be just as irrelevant as needing to roll a 1 to get the ability to reroll for PE.

ONly if you conflate an abiltiy of the reroll, with an abiltiy to have the reroll in the first place. I'm not, so I'm not "drawing the line" at anything - just beign consistent.

If you didnt conflate two concepts you would have an easier time understanding this.

When I brought up ammo runts and a once per game reroll you said:

Yes it has some edge cases where this goes a little wonky. Does not alter the factual rules.

you're criteria for rerolling blasts:

You don't Reroll to hit, so a condition based on a to hit roll can never be satisfied. Good job it never asks you to roll to gave , just the ability ....
2 different conditions, one is "how good a reroll", which the Blast weapons rule doesnt give two hoots about, and the other is whether you have that ability or not

master crafted
condition based on a to hit roll: once per turn.
it has the ability to reroll.

you're definitely not being consistent, if you were you'd say "yes master crafted can reroll all blast scatter shots" then claim it's just one of those weird edge cases.

Are you drifting away from side B, towards side A?

Stay strong, keep arguing for B. I'll need guys like you on my side after saturday when we can discuss how missing on scatter dice is not failing a reroll

Ah, youre mistaken - that was not direct reference to the ammo runts. I care less about ammo runts. I was talking about maledictions that force a reeroll resulting in a reroll to hit.

Again: youre conflating two concepts, I explained your error, and how there are two conditions, already. Dont misrepresent arguments, it isnt polite.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, in theory it could be used multiple times for Blasts and rerolls - but that's irrelevant because using it means you break the MC rule.

Well that is the issue here. "Yes, in theory" = "By RaW" for "Blasts Weapons and Rerolls". Breaking the MC is then exactly why Side B is no better than Side A, both are at about the same level.

Incorrect. It's absolutely consistent - it's possible as long as you break no other rules.
Rerolling twice with Master Crafted breaks a rule, so it's consistent to say it can only be used once.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, youre mistaken - that was not direct reference to the ammo runts. I care less about ammo runts. I was talking about maledictions that force a reeroll resulting in a reroll to hit.

Again: youre conflating two concepts, I explained your error, and how there are two conditions, already. Dont misrepresent arguments, it isnt polite.

It's one concept though, You're giving two answers to the same question.


MC allows a reroll, has a condition
PE allows a reroll, has a condition

You're saying one condition matters and the other doesn't. If the MC condition needs to be met, than so does PE and you need to first roll a 1 to hit, to get the reroll.

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, youre mistaken - that was not direct reference to the ammo runts. I care less about ammo runts. I was talking about maledictions that force a reeroll resulting in a reroll to hit.

Again: youre conflating two concepts, I explained your error, and how there are two conditions, already. Dont misrepresent arguments, it isnt polite.

It's one concept though, You're giving two answers to the same question.


MC allows a reroll, has a condition
PE allows a reroll, has a condition

You're saying one condition matters and the other doesn't. If the MC condition needs to be met, than so does PE and you need to first roll a 1 to hit, to get the reroll.

MC allows a re-roll, has two conditions.
PE allows a re-roll, has two conditions.

One condition requires a To Hit roll, the other does not. The To Hit roll requirement does not matter, the other does.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, youre mistaken - that was not direct reference to the ammo runts. I care less about ammo runts. I was talking about maledictions that force a reeroll resulting in a reroll to hit.

Again: youre conflating two concepts, I explained your error, and how there are two conditions, already. Dont misrepresent arguments, it isnt polite.

It's one concept though, You're giving two answers to the same question.


MC allows a reroll, has a condition
PE allows a reroll, has a condition

You're saying one condition matters and the other doesn't. If the MC condition needs to be met, than so does PE and you need to first roll a 1 to hit, to get the reroll.

MC allows a re-roll, has two conditions.
PE allows a re-roll, has two conditions.

One condition requires a To Hit roll, the other does not. The To Hit roll requirement does not matter, the other does.

Not you as well.

PE only allows a reroll of a failed roll of 1 which you can never get with a blast, so PE does not have a reroll for blast weapons. Yet side B happily ignores this part while breaking the rule of needing a 1. NO 1, no ability to reroll.

MC has the ability to reroll one failed to hit per turn. which blast allow to reroll scatter, yet which side B wants to enforce it's condition. contradicting all of it's arguments for allowing PE.

The way you and NOS are wanting to restrict MC and allow PE shows the glaring flaw in your RAW interpretation.

You either meet the conditions or you don't, when you try to play both sides you are not arguing RAW and the both of you should mark your posts accordingly.

Unless you have some actual rules to support your two sided approach?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, youre mistaken - that was not direct reference to the ammo runts. I care less about ammo runts. I was talking about maledictions that force a reeroll resulting in a reroll to hit.

Again: youre conflating two concepts, I explained your error, and how there are two conditions, already. Dont misrepresent arguments, it isnt polite.

It's one concept though, You're giving two answers to the same question.


MC allows a reroll, has a condition
PE allows a reroll, has a condition

You're saying one condition matters and the other doesn't. If the MC condition needs to be met, than so does PE and you need to first roll a 1 to hit, to get the reroll.

MC allows a re-roll, has two conditions.
PE allows a re-roll, has two conditions.

One condition requires a To Hit roll, the other does not. The To Hit roll requirement does not matter, the other does.

Not you as well.

PE only allows a reroll of a failed roll of 1 which you can never get with a blast, so PE does not have a reroll for blast weapons. Yet side B happily ignores this part while breaking the rule of needing a 1. NO 1, no ability to reroll.

Side B has correctly applied the rules, which require an ability. No a roll to hit. You remain ignorant of this. Your argument is refuted.

sirlynchmob wrote:MC has the ability to reroll one failed to hit per turn. which blast allow to reroll scatter, yet which side B wants to enforce it's condition. contradicting all of it's arguments for allowing PE.

MC, like PE, has two conditions. Yuo appear to be unable to distinguish these, despite the handy colour coding given in prior posts. Try again.

sirlynchmob wrote:The way you and NOS are wanting to restrict MC and allow PE shows the glaring flaw in your RAW interpretation.

Only if you a) ignore rules and b) cant work out both of the conditions in MC, despite it being pointed out, colour coded even. Your refusal to accept facts - that MC has TWO conditions, and not one - isnt our problem but yours.

sirlynchmob wrote:You either meet the conditions or you don't, when you try to play both sides you are not arguing RAW and the both of you should mark your posts accordingly.

Unless you have some actual rules to support your two sided approach?

The rules, unliek your ignoring of rules approach, have been givne. Back on ignore, as apparently you cant help but wilfully misconstrue others, and cannot argue actual rules. Your entire argument is "HYWPI", proven.

you're projecting again NOS, despite your opinion otherwise, you don't have the ability if you don't roll to hit. so play it however you like, I'll play by the rules.

I have rules and a consistent application of them, you do not as highly evident and demonstrated in this thread.

sirlynchmob wrote:
PE only allows a reroll of a failed roll of 1 which you can never get with a blast, so PE does not have a reroll for blast weapons. Yet side B happily ignores this part while breaking the rule of needing a 1. NO 1, no ability to reroll.

MC has the ability to reroll one failed to hit per turn. which blast allow to reroll scatter, yet which side B wants to enforce it's condition. contradicting all of it's arguments for allowing PE.

PE grants a re-roll if you a) are firing at your preferred nemy, and b) roll a 1 To Hit.
MC grants a re-roll if you a) have not used the MC re-roll this turn, and b) fail a roll To Hit.

If you do not roll To Hit, you can neither roll a 1 (meaning PE doesn't work), nor can you fail a To Hit roll (meaning MC doesn't work).

Why do you allow failed To Hit rolls to work, but not failed To Hit rolls of 1? Neither one can possibly occur if you do not roll To Hit.

sirlynchmob wrote:
you're projecting again NOS, despite your opinion otherwise, you don't have the ability if you don't roll to hit. so play it however you like, I'll play by the rules.

I have rules and a consistent application of them, you do not as highly evident and demonstrated in this thread.

One last time: rules were shown disproving your viewpoint. Mark your posts HYPWI, as you still cannot show any actual rules, just assertions and fallacies.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
PE only allows a reroll of a failed roll of 1 which you can never get with a blast, so PE does not have a reroll for blast weapons. Yet side B happily ignores this part while breaking the rule of needing a 1. NO 1, no ability to reroll.

MC has the ability to reroll one failed to hit per turn. which blast allow to reroll scatter, yet which side B wants to enforce it's condition. contradicting all of it's arguments for allowing PE.

PE grants a re-roll if you a) are firing at your preferred nemy, and b) roll a 1 To Hit.
MC grants a re-roll if you a) have not used the MC re-roll this turn, and b) fail a roll To Hit.

If you do not roll To Hit, you can neither roll a 1 (meaning PE doesn't work), nor can you fail a To Hit roll (meaning MC doesn't work).

Why do you allow failed To Hit rolls to work, but not failed To Hit rolls of 1? Neither one can possibly occur if you do not roll To Hit.

As MC was faq'd previously to include blasts, I'd only allow it as a act of kindness til the new BRB faq comes out. But just RAW no it should not reroll blasts either.

MC has the ability to reroll.
PE does not, unless a roll of 1 is rolled on it's to hit roll. Which can not be done, so it does not have the ability to reroll.
It's a subtle yet significant difference.

Why do you rule two different ways for PE & MC?

does MC have a reroll? yes, does it lose it's ability to reroll after it uses it? no

the original test for blasts was simple "do you have the ability to reroll?" I find it interesting how many people are drifting away from that towards the middle ground.

if you reroll the scatter dice, did you reroll a roll to hit? no, ergo the once a turn never comes into play even after rerolling 3 scatter dice, you have not yet rerolled a single 'roll to hit'.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
PE only allows a reroll of a failed roll of 1 which you can never get with a blast, so PE does not have a reroll for blast weapons. Yet side B happily ignores this part while breaking the rule of needing a 1. NO 1, no ability to reroll.

MC has the ability to reroll one failed to hit per turn. which blast allow to reroll scatter, yet which side B wants to enforce it's condition. contradicting all of it's arguments for allowing PE.

PE grants a re-roll if you a) are firing at your preferred nemy, and b) roll a 1 To Hit.
MC grants a re-roll if you a) have not used the MC re-roll this turn, and b) fail a roll To Hit.

If you do not roll To Hit, you can neither roll a 1 (meaning PE doesn't work), nor can you fail a To Hit roll (meaning MC doesn't work).

Why do you allow failed To Hit rolls to work, but not failed To Hit rolls of 1? Neither one can possibly occur if you do not roll To Hit.

As MC was faq'd previously to include blasts, I'd only allow it as a act of kindness til the new BRB faq comes out. But just RAW no it should not reroll blasts either.

MC has the ability to reroll.
PE does not, unless a roll of 1 is rolled on it's to hit roll. Which can not be done, so it does not have the ability to reroll.
It's a subtle yet significant difference.

Why do you rule two different ways for PE & MC?

does MC have a reroll? yes, does it lose it's ability to reroll after it uses it? no

the original test for blasts was simple "do you have the ability to reroll?" I find it interesting how many people are drifting away from that towards the middle ground.

if you reroll the scatter dice, did you reroll a roll to hit? no, ergo the once a turn never comes into play even after rerolling 3 scatter dice, you have not yet rerolled a single 'roll to hit'.

nos, rigeld, I et al are being consistent. As far as we're concerned, the result on the To Hit roll does not matter. Any other conditions do. In other words, am I shooting at a Preferred Enemy? No - then no re-roll. Yes - then re-roll. Did I re-roll this turn with a Master-crafted weapon? Yes - then no re-roll. No - then re-roll.

And yes, an MC weapon loses it's reroll after using it once in a turn.

Or, more correctly, it's breaking a rule to reroll using MC after using it once. Exactly like it's breaking a rule if you reroll with no sources of rerolls.

This invention that MC allows infinite rerolls is a Strawman without any kind of rules support.

rigeld2 wrote:
And yes, an MC weapon loses it's reroll after using it once in a turn.

Or, more correctly, it's breaking a rule to reroll using MC after using it once. Exactly like it's breaking a rule if you reroll with no sources of rerolls.

This invention that MC allows infinite rerolls is a Strawman without any kind of rules support.

So you're saying rerolling scatter dice is rerolling a failed roll to hit?

Even though models with blast weapons do not roll to hit? your equating roll for scatter to equate to roll to hit?

I'd love to see your rules supporting that one.

If you and nos would stop ignoring the actual rules, and stop resorting to claiming logic fallacies we could settle this issue.

rigeld2 wrote:
And yes, an MC weapon loses it's reroll after using it once in a turn.

Or, more correctly, it's breaking a rule to reroll using MC after using it once. Exactly like it's breaking a rule if you reroll with no sources of rerolls.

This invention that MC allows infinite rerolls is a Strawman without any kind of rules support.

Its also an invention that you can use MC on a roll that can not roll a 1.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And yes, an MC weapon loses it's reroll after using it once in a turn.

Or, more correctly, it's breaking a rule to reroll using MC after using it once. Exactly like it's breaking a rule if you reroll with no sources of rerolls.

This invention that MC allows infinite rerolls is a Strawman without any kind of rules support.

Its also an invention that you can use MC on a roll that can not roll a 1.

Fortunately that's not what MC requires, eh?

Yup that was my mistake.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
PE only allows a reroll of a failed roll of 1 which you can never get with a blast, so PE does not have a reroll for blast weapons. Yet side B happily ignores this part while breaking the rule of needing a 1. NO 1, no ability to reroll.

MC has the ability to reroll one failed to hit per turn. which blast allow to reroll scatter, yet which side B wants to enforce it's condition. contradicting all of it's arguments for allowing PE.

PE grants a re-roll if you a) are firing at your preferred nemy, and b) roll a 1 To Hit.
MC grants a re-roll if you a) have not used the MC re-roll this turn, and b) fail a roll To Hit.

If you do not roll To Hit, you can neither roll a 1 (meaning PE doesn't work), nor can you fail a To Hit roll (meaning MC doesn't work).

Why do you allow failed To Hit rolls to work, but not failed To Hit rolls of 1? Neither one can possibly occur if you do not roll To Hit.

As MC was faq'd previously to include blasts, I'd only allow it as a act of kindness til the new BRB faq comes out. But just RAW no it should not reroll blasts either.

MC has the ability to reroll.
PE does not, unless a roll of 1 is rolled on it's to hit roll. Which can not be done, so it does not have the ability to reroll.
It's a subtle yet significant difference.

Why do you rule two different ways for PE & MC?

does MC have a reroll? yes, does it lose it's ability to reroll after it uses it? no

the original test for blasts was simple "do you have the ability to reroll?" I find it interesting how many people are drifting away from that towards the middle ground.

if you reroll the scatter dice, did you reroll a roll to hit? no, ergo the once a turn never comes into play even after rerolling 3 scatter dice, you have not yet rerolled a single 'roll to hit'.

nos, rigeld, I et al are being consistent. As far as we're concerned, the result on the To Hit roll does not matter. Any other conditions do. In other words, am I shooting at a Preferred Enemy? No - then no re-roll. Yes - then re-roll. Did I re-roll this turn with a Master-crafted weapon? Yes - then no re-roll. No - then re-roll.

Indeed, being very consistent here. An ability to see the two conditions is also needed - sirlynch I suggest you answer this directly - how many conditions are there on MC?

If you say 1, despite the evidence presented, you are lying.
If you say 2, we can then potentially discuss this as a rational argument.

There is still a "pick and choose" about conditions happening for Side B, and if you see 2 Conditions on MC, then i actually see 3 on PE:

MC:
- You need to fail a roll To Hit
- You have not used MC this turn

PE:
- You need to fail a roll To Hit (/To wound)
- You need to roll a 1
- You need to target a PE

Why do you pick 1 out of 2 for MC and 1 out of 3 in PE? This is inconsistency. Either you ignore conditionals or you include them.

With PE, i saw no inconsistency in splitting up the phrase with the phrase marker "IF", therefore it was still consistent.
But now with MC you argue that a single unique phrase can be split into 2 parts, where you adhere to 1 but not the other?


And Rigeld: You argue that i may not use "Twin-Linked Blasts" without having to Include "Twin-Linked Templates, due to inconsistency.
Well this comes right back around for MC: You cannot use "one (...) per turn" and then ignore "failed To Hit roll" simply out of logic.
Either the entire Rule must be adhered to: MC allows blasts 5 re-rolls - TL "failed To Hit" is the same for blasts and templates
Or we can split the rules by logic: "failed To Hit roll" in MC is ignore "because..." - TL templates is ignored "because..."

Ok, if we accept your 3 conditionals (its still two, with your 2nd and 3rd being a degree of failure required, not just a failure) you are STILL refusing to tell the difference between a conditional that

GRANTS the reroll

vs a conditional that is

PLACED UPON the reroll

Requiring the failed roll to be a 1 is a condition placed on the reroll.

Firing at your PE is a condition on being GRANTED the ability to ever reroll in the first place.

To be clear: the number of conditions in each caegory is irrelevant. 100% unimportant to the point being made. Dont compare them, just realise that there ARE two MC conditions, not one as you claimed. What is important is that there IS a split in the types of confditions, that you are refusing to recognise.

The consistency is this: some conditionals are relevant to the Blasts and rerolls rules, some arent. The difference has been explained, and we are 100% consistent every time. So instead of arguing consistency - we've proven we are consistent - argue the substantive portion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ok, if we accept your 3 conditionals (its still two, with your 2nd and 3rd being a degree of failure required, not just a failure) you are STILL refusing to tell the difference between a conditional that

GRANTS the reroll

vs a conditional that is

PLACED UPON the reroll

Requiring the failed roll to be a 1 is a condition placed on the reroll.

Firing at your PE is a condition on being GRANTED the ability to ever reroll in the first place.

To be clear: the number of conditions in each caegory is irrelevant. 100% unimportant to the point being made. Dont compare them, just realise that there ARE two MC conditions, not one as you claimed. What is important is that there IS a split in the types of confditions, that you are refusing to recognise.

The consistency is this: some conditionals are relevant to the Blasts and rerolls rules, some arent. The difference has been explained, and we are 100% consistent every time. So instead of arguing consistency - we've proven we are consistent - argue the substantive portion.

But your distinction of GRANTS vs PLACED ON, is completely arbitrary. The wording does not make that distinction, YOU DO. It could just as easily be argued given the wording of Preferred enemy that firing at your enemy is also placed upon the to hit roll, as it only comes into play in the paragraph in the same sentence as, and AFTER you make such a roll. Nowhere does it say, you get the ability when you shoot at your PE, it says you get the ability when you ROLL TO HIT against your preferred enemy.

The distinction is very important as the "Re-roll and Blasts" rule requires you to have the ability to re-roll to hit. So conditions on whether you have the re-roll need to be addressed but conditions on the to hit roll are irrelevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ok, if we accept your 3 conditionals (its still two, with your 2nd and 3rd being a degree of failure required, not just a failure) you are STILL refusing to tell the difference between a conditional that

GRANTS the reroll

vs a conditional that is

PLACED UPON the reroll

Requiring the failed roll to be a 1 is a condition placed on the reroll.

Firing at your PE is a condition on being GRANTED the ability to ever reroll in the first place.

To be clear: the number of conditions in each caegory is irrelevant. 100% unimportant to the point being made. Dont compare them, just realise that there ARE two MC conditions, not one as you claimed. What is important is that there IS a split in the types of confditions, that you are refusing to recognise.

The consistency is this: some conditionals are relevant to the Blasts and rerolls rules, some arent. The difference has been explained, and we are 100% consistent every time. So instead of arguing consistency - we've proven we are consistent - argue the substantive portion.

I also agree with Chanceafs that "Placed upon" and "grants" are not actually a distinction to be made.

PE only "Grants" a re-roll after you've rolled a 1
PE only "Grants" a re-roll after you've missed To Hit

You are Granted a re-roll if your dice falls off the table.

They are all conditions that you simply choose to ignore.
Using phrasing, and the "if" (defined as "in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that" - Dictionary) i fully agree that the "Granting" of the Re-roll (it's even in the definition of "if") for PE can be split into the 2 conditions "1" and "miss" on one side and "target your PE" on the other where you ignore the 1st two conditionals due to construction (Raven's pretty colors)
But MC does not have that conjunction. It simply has 2 conditions built in together that you cannot "separate" just because if feels right that way...

The consistency is this: some conditionals are relevant to the Blasts and rerolls rules, some arent.

How is that consistent at all? It is a choice made arbitrarily that you somehow got from "Blast Weapons and Re-Rolls" but has no basis there? There is no wording about "choosing conditions".

Either Side B decides that "Blast Weapons and Re-Rolls" makes this statement true: "Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit."
In which case PE Grants one on the "if" condition, and MC grants a re-roll.

Or you decide conditional are actually important, somehow, just as Side A thinks they are.
Sure, both sides create problems, but they are just problems stemming from the writing of the rules, and unchangeable until the wording we know is changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The distinction is very important as the "Re-roll and Blasts" rule requires you to have the ability to re-roll to hit. So conditions on whether you have the re-roll need to be addressed but conditions on the to hit roll are irrelevant.

That makes a lot of sense. I will concede that Side B just about works with this definition, but would still consider myself Side A until something is changed

Until next time then...

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The distinction is very important as the "Re-roll and Blasts" rule requires you to have the ability to re-roll to hit. So conditions on whether you have the re-roll need to be addressed but conditions on the to hit roll are irrelevant.

The distinction would be very important... but it is not one made in the RAW. While it would be nice to have that distinction to make the rule cleaner the reason there is such a huge debate is the RAW are worded so poorly that we are left to draw that line (between what gets blast re-rolls and what doesn't) ourselves... and any place that line is put is arbitrary and unsupported.

We can come up with all the logic in the world as to where that line should be based on our interpretation of how the wording lays out, but no interpretation is 100% supported. Every interpretation involves either rendering rules completely pointless, or inventing rules and/or distinctions that aren't there. And it will remain that way until a FAQ is released. There is no reason for this topic to continue.

 BlackTalos wrote:
There is still a "pick and choose" about conditions happening for Side B, and if you see 2 Conditions on MC, then i actually see 3 on PE:

MC:
- You need to fail a roll To Hit
- You have not used MC this turn

PE:
- You need to fail a roll To Hit (/To wound)
- You need to roll a 1
- You need to target a PE

Why do you pick 1 out of 2 for MC and 1 out of 3 in PE? This is inconsistency. Either you ignore conditionals or you include them.

With PE, i saw no inconsistency in splitting up the phrase with the phrase marker "IF", therefore it was still consistent.
But now with MC you argue that a single unique phrase can be split into 2 parts, where you adhere to 1 but not the other?

I'm adhering to both, in as much as I'm allowing things like Prescience to work. Because Prescience is exactly as conditional as MC - MC just has an additional restriction that has nothing to do with Blasts. A restriction that you cannot violate, by the way.

And Rigeld: You argue that i may not use "Twin-Linked Blasts" without having to Include "Twin-Linked Templates, due to inconsistency.
Well this comes right back around for MC: You cannot use "one (...) per turn" and then ignore "failed To Hit roll" simply out of logic.
Either the entire Rule must be adhered to: MC allows blasts 5 re-rolls - TL "failed To Hit" is the same for blasts and templates
Or we can split the rules by logic: "failed To Hit roll" in MC is ignore "because..." - TL templates is ignored "because..."

I guess you've failed to actually read all my posts on this. If we were able to break rules, MC would allow 5 rerolls. Since we can't, it doesn't.
Sure, you have the ability to reroll a second time, but if you do you're breaking a rule. Not a Blast rule, an MC rule.
I'm adhering to the entire rule, I'm not sure why you say I'm not. I'm being entirely consistent, your insistence notwithstanding.

sirlynchmob wrote:

PE grants a re-roll if you a) are firing at your preferred nemy, and b) roll a 1 To Hit.
MC grants a re-roll if you a) have not used the MC re-roll this turn, and b) fail a roll To Hit.

This is being misapplied. What matters here is whether the ability to re-roll is present, not whether a re-roll through that ability is permissible.

PE says, "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."

Compare the following:
(1) If a unit rolls a 1 on a To hit or a To Wound roll, then it may re-roll that result.
(2) A unit may re-roll rolls of 1 on To Hit and To Wound rolls.

(1) has a condition precedent, meaning that the grant does not occur until the condition is satisfied - so the unit does not have the ability to re-roll until the condition is met. (2) uses the same construction as the actual rule as written for PE. It has no condition precedent - meaning that the ability to re-roll exists in the unit without the application of any condition. Whether the ability is effective depends on the die result, but its existence is independent of that die result.

The only actual condition precedent for PE is that the unit be attacking something from its PE designation.

chanceafs wrote:

But your distinction of GRANTS vs PLACED ON, is completely arbitrary.

He is completely correct, in this case. This is not arbitrary - this is simply how language works. You have to separate the existence of the ability from the effectiveness of that ability (just like the Blast Weapons and Re-roll section of the rules does) in order to see the correct resolution here.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, you have the ability to reroll a second time, but if you do you're breaking a rule. Not a Blast rule, an MC rule.
I'm adhering to the entire rule, I'm not sure why you say I'm not. I'm being entirely consistent, your insistence notwithstanding.

This is irrelevant. Unless a model re-rolls a To Hit roll with the Master Crafted weapon, then the ability to re-roll still exists. When firing multiple blasts, a MC weapon can re-roll (through MC and Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) as many scatter dice sets as it desires. In order for the ability to re-roll To Hit dice granted from MC to no longer exist, a model must re-roll a failed To Hit roll with that MC weapon - which is not possible if only firing a blast weapon.

 Rapture wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

PE grants a re-roll if you a) are firing at your preferred nemy, and b) roll a 1 To Hit.
MC grants a re-roll if you a) have not used the MC re-roll this turn, and b) fail a roll To Hit.

This is being misapplied. What matters here is whether the ability to re-roll is present, not whether a re-roll through that ability is permissible.

PE says, "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."

Compare the following:
(1) If a unit rolls a 1 on a To hit or a To Wound roll, then it may re-roll that result.
(2) A unit may re-roll rolls of 1 on To Hit and To Wound rolls.

(1) has a condition precedent, meaning that the grant does not occur until the condition is satisfied - so the unit does not have the ability to re-roll until the condition is met. (2) uses the same construction as the actual rule as written for PE. It has no condition precedent - meaning that the ability to re-roll exists in the unit without the application of any condition. Whether the ability is effective depends on the die result, but its existence is independent of that die result.

The only actual condition precedent for PE is that the unit be attacking something from its PE designation.

chanceafs wrote:

But your distinction of GRANTS vs PLACED ON, is completely arbitrary.

He is completely correct, in this case. This is not arbitrary - this is simply how language works. You have to separate the existence of the ability from the effectiveness of that ability (just like the Blast Weapons and Re-roll section of the rules does) in order to see the correct resolution here.

Now compare the following:
(1) If one of a unit's To Hit roll is failed, then it may re-roll that result.
(2) A unit may re-roll one of it's failed To Hit rolls.

(2) has the same construction as the actual rule for Master-Crafted. "It has no condition precedent - meaning that the ability to re-roll exists in the unit without the application of any condition. Whether the ability is effective depends on the die result, but its existence is independent of that die result."

Do you see an issue, if not, why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, you have the ability to reroll a second time, but if you do you're breaking a rule. Not a Blast rule, an MC rule.
I'm adhering to the entire rule, I'm not sure why you say I'm not. I'm being entirely consistent, your insistence notwithstanding.

This is irrelevant. Unless a model re-rolls a To Hit roll with the Master Crafted weapon, then the ability to re-roll still exists. When firing multiple blasts, a MC weapon can re-roll (through MC and Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) as many scatter dice sets as it desires. In order for the ability to re-roll To Hit dice granted from MC to no longer exist, a model must re-roll a failed To Hit roll with that MC weapon - which is not possible if only firing a blast weapon.

Sorry you beat me to the answer already.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, you have the ability to reroll a second time, but if you do you're breaking a rule. Not a Blast rule, an MC rule.
I'm adhering to the entire rule, I'm not sure why you say I'm not. I'm being entirely consistent, your insistence notwithstanding.

This is irrelevant. Unless a model re-rolls a To Hit roll with the Master Crafted weapon, then the ability to re-roll still exists. When firing multiple blasts, a MC weapon can re-roll (through MC and Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) as many scatter dice sets as it desires. In order for the ability to re-roll To Hit dice granted from MC to no longer exist, a model must re-roll a failed To Hit roll with that MC weapon - which is not possible if only firing a blast weapon.

Sorry you beat me to the answer already.

...
So no, you haven't read what I've been saying, even in the post you quoted.
Does Prescience work with Blasts? Yes or no question. Should be trivial.

If you have something, I don't think that you are presenting it clearly and/or demonstrating why it is important to this part of the discussion.

Also, I don't see how him/her answering a yes or no question would be valuable other than providing for a potential (and likely short lived) 'gotcha' moment - why no just say what you are getting at?

Chance - no, it is absolutely and irrefutably NOT arbitrary.

Do you have the ability? Yes or No. Important, as the rule requires this beofre you get a reroll.
Do you have a reroll which is not as good as another reroll? Not important, as nowhere does the rule say "you must have the ability to reroll ALL FAILED to hit rolls", nor does it say "you must have the ability to reroll at least all 2s and 3s" - i.e., as I have been *exceptionally* consistent in saying all the way through the degree of your reroll is entirely unimportant. Just the ability to reroll to hit - ANY reroll, no matter how crappy, relative - is required.

So no. It is, irrefutably, not arbitrary. You need to know whether you have the ability - and if you fire at a non-PE you have absolutely NO reroll ability on your to hit

Of course, this is going by the "they didnt write this as a waste of ink" interpretation of the rule - i.e., you assume the rule has some function. Those on Side A, if theyre being consistent (theyre not, of course) are stating this rule has no function, as TL already covers this nicely.

GOing with an interpretation that has a non functional rule, which involves altering the wording of said rule to actually come up with that interpretation, is unsafe.

Good thing there are no master crafted blast weapons I know of.
As for PE and re rolling Blast weapons, until you can show how to get past the requirement of rolling a 1 to trigger a re roll you can't do it.
It's a pointless argument. Just use prescience.

Lungpickle wrote:
Good thing there are no master crafted blast weapons I know of.
As for PE and re rolling Blast weapons, until you can show how to get past the requirement of rolling a 1 to trigger a re roll you can't do it.
It's a pointless argument. Just use prescience.

Until you can show how you can have a failed To Hit roll when you literally never roll to hit you can't use Prescience.

Lungpickle wrote:
Good thing there are no master crafted blast weapons I know of.
As for PE and re rolling Blast weapons, until you can show how to get past the requirement of rolling a 1 to trigger a re roll you can't do it.
It's a pointless argument. Just use prescience.

The Dark Angels have a MC chapter relic that can fire a blast. There are likely others as well.

Unless you haven't read the thread or even the recent posts, your argument in conscious misinformation.

There is no reasonable basis for believing that the roll of a 1 is required for PE to grant the ability for a model to re-roll a To Hit roll - which is all that is required under Blast Weapons and Re-rolls' grant of permission to re-roll the scatter dice.

Unless you have an argument to present with your conclusion?

Lungpickle wrote:
Good thing there are no master crafted blast weapons I know of.
As for PE and re rolling Blast weapons, until you can show how to get past the requirement of rolling a 1 to trigger a re roll you can't do it.
It's a pointless argument. Just use prescience.

So you're arguing a better class of Reroll works, when you never roll to hit, ever?

If you could ever provide some rules it would help.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ok, if we accept your 3 conditionals (its still two, with your 2nd and 3rd being a degree of failure required, not just a failure) you are STILL refusing to tell the difference between a conditional that

GRANTS the reroll

vs a conditional that is

PLACED UPON the reroll

Requiring the failed roll to be a 1 is a condition placed on the reroll.

Firing at your PE is a condition on being GRANTED the ability to ever reroll in the first place.

To be clear: the number of conditions in each caegory is irrelevant. 100% unimportant to the point being made. Dont compare them, just realise that there ARE two MC conditions, not one as you claimed. What is important is that there IS a split in the types of confditions, that you are refusing to recognise.

The consistency is this: some conditionals are relevant to the Blasts and rerolls rules, some arent. The difference has been explained, and we are 100% consistent every time. So instead of arguing consistency - we've proven we are consistent - argue the substantive portion.

What is the condition placed upon the reroll?
you can reroll one failed to hit roll.

If I roll 3 scatter dice how many to hit rolls did I make?
If I reroll all 3 how many to hit rolls did I make?

We both know the answer is none, therefore you never exceed the one failed to hit reroll. Unless you are claiming rolling the scatter dice is the same as rolling to hit. you'll need lots of citations to prove that one, that we both know you don't have.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
Good thing there are no master crafted blast weapons I know of.
As for PE and re rolling Blast weapons, until you can show how to get past the requirement of rolling a 1 to trigger a re roll you can't do it.
It's a pointless argument. Just use prescience.

Until you can show how you can have a failed To Hit roll when you literally never roll to hit you can't use Prescience.

I concur.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Sorry you beat me to the answer already.

...
So no, you haven't read what I've been saying, even in the post you quoted.
Does Prescience work with Blasts? Yes or no question. Should be trivial.

Trivial but irrelevant? Which Side, A or B?

The post by Rapture is Side B, we were discussing Side B, and how Side B creates a problem with Master-Crafted.

Side B is very clear the Prescience works with blasts? We ignore the conditionals, and there is only "Whilst the power is in effect," to obtain the Re-Roll.
As for PE, the comma at the end of the line separates it as "if" does in PE: you must meet said condition to obtain the ability to Re-Roll.

Side B is very clear that prescience works will blasts, as it fulfils the "ability" part of the rules.

Side A cannot ever work, as it requires the rule to have no function. Arguing a rule to have no function, and requiring different wording to be used than that written in order to come to this conclusion, is not a particularly safe side to be on.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Sorry you beat me to the answer already.

...
So no, you haven't read what I've been saying, even in the post you quoted.
Does Prescience work with Blasts? Yes or no question. Should be trivial.

Trivial but irrelevant? Which Side, A or B?

The post by Rapture is Side B, we were discussing Side B, and how Side B creates a problem with Master-Crafted.

Side B is very clear the Prescience works with blasts? We ignore the conditionals, and there is only "Whilst the power is in effect," to obtain the Re-Roll.
As for PE, the comma at the end of the line separates it as "if" does in PE: you must meet said condition to obtain the ability to Re-Roll.

Side B doesn't create a problem with Master-Crafted. Do I need to say it differently?

To re-roll using the rules for Master Crafted more than once breaks a rule. Yes or no? The actual rules say yes. Hence, no problem.