Hello guys,

As the title implies I am a bit unsure as to how this actually plays.

The preferred enemy rule confers a reroll of '1' when rolling to Hit and to Wound.

However, when firing Plasma blast weaponry from vehicles the BRB says that you roll a seperate dice and if it is '1' you roll a further D6 and on a 4+ you dont lose a Hull point.

The way I interpret this is that with the Preferred Enemy rule you get to reroll the scatter dice and then the to Wound dice. There is no way of preventing the Gets hot rolls.

Help needed guys.

Thanks in advance.

Gets hits and rerolls. Covers this explicitly.

Rerolls section at the start of the rulebook also makes it clear that when you roll a dice you might be entitled to a reroll, and that when you reroll that is the result that counts, the previous result is basically ignored.

PE does not let you reroll the blast template scatter, because it does not roll to hit. It does however allow you to reroll the gets hot roll of a 1.

I dont have the BRB in front of me for the page number, but it is under the special rules for gets hot and rerolls.

 Tenzilla wrote:
PE does not let you reroll the blast template scatter, because it does not roll to hit. It does however allow you to reroll the gets hot roll of a 1.

I dont have the BRB in front of me for the page number, but it is under the special rules for gets hot and rerolls.

Blasts and rerolls disagrees with you. You only need the ABILITY to reroll to hit. You dont need to actually roll to hit - which is handy, becuse noone rolls to hit with a blast weapon. If your stance were correct, only twinlining would work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Tenzilla wrote:
PE does not let you reroll the blast template scatter, because it does not roll to hit. It does however allow you to reroll the gets hot roll of a 1.

I dont have the BRB in front of me for the page number, but it is under the special rules for gets hot and rerolls.

Blasts and rerolls disagrees with you. You only need the ABILITY to reroll to hit. You dont need to actually roll to hit - which is handy, becuse noone rolls to hit with a blast weapon. If your stance were correct, only twinlining would work.

Well see. This presents a problem. If Preferred enemy grants you the ability to reroll to scatter.

Then a gets hot roll always gets hot on a 1 with no reroll, because in the event of Plasma Canons (of all types) The gets hot roll is Not a To Hit roll, it's a separate roll specifically instructed for you to make prior to shooting.

Either the gets hot roll is your "to hit roll" for the purposes of preferred enemy, or the template scatter is. Not both.

Preferred Enemy does not allow a reroll of scatter dice. We've been through this so many times before. It is pretty clearly explained in the sections about scatter dice and not rolling to hit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Tenzilla wrote:
PE does not let you reroll the blast template scatter, because it does not roll to hit. It does however allow you to reroll the gets hot roll of a 1.

I dont have the BRB in front of me for the page number, but it is under the special rules for gets hot and rerolls.

Blasts and rerolls disagrees with you. You only need the ABILITY to reroll to hit. You dont need to actually roll to hit - which is handy, becuse noone rolls to hit with a blast weapon. If your stance were correct, only twinlining would work.

Well see. This presents a problem. If Preferred enemy grants you the ability to reroll to scatter.

Then a gets hot roll always gets hot on a 1 with no reroll, because in the event of Plasma Canons (of all types) The gets hot roll is Not a To Hit roll, it's a separate roll specifically instructed for you to make prior to shooting.

Either the gets hot roll is your "to hit roll" for the purposes of preferred enemy, or the template scatter is. Not both, it would be the same situation for twin linked.

Ffyllotek wrote:Preferred Enemy does not allow a reroll of scatter dice. We've been through this so many times before. It is pretty clearly explained in the sections about scatter dice and not rolling to hit.

Incorrect> Well, half right - we have been through this before, and have proven time and again that PE DOES allow a reroll of scatter, because it provides the ABILITY to reroll your to hit. WE know this for a fact, as it is even mentioned in the GH! section that PE grants the ability to reroll to hit

SO I wont go there again, however the proof is there, to see for all. It only requires you to entirely ignore the word "abilty" and think it means "you've actually rolled to hit, even though you dont ever roll to hit with a blast, making this entire rule utterly useless" to come to another conclusion

Chapter Master Angelos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Tenzilla wrote:
PE does not let you reroll the blast template scatter, because it does not roll to hit. It does however allow you to reroll the gets hot roll of a 1.

I dont have the BRB in front of me for the page number, but it is under the special rules for gets hot and rerolls.

Blasts and rerolls disagrees with you. You only need the ABILITY to reroll to hit. You dont need to actually roll to hit - which is handy, becuse noone rolls to hit with a blast weapon. If your stance were correct, only twinlining would work.

Well see. This presents a problem. If Preferred enemy grants you the ability to reroll to scatter.

Then a gets hot roll always gets hot on a 1 with no reroll, because in the event of Plasma Canons (of all types) The gets hot roll is Not a To Hit roll, it's a separate roll specifically instructed for you to make prior to shooting.

Either the gets hot roll is your "to hit roll" for the purposes of preferred enemy, or the template scatter is. Not both, it would be the same situation for twin linked.

Have you read the section on gets hot and rerolls?

You have 2 rolls with a PC; one for gets hot, one to see if it scatters and if so, how far

The first gets a reroll if you roll a 1, due to PE.
The second get s areroll, due to PE

This has been done to death, and proven so many times it gets dull.

Can we lock this thread before people start on the whole PF re-rolling blast nonsense that will turn into a 10 page ramble of 2 views and insults.

What everyone will agree on is you do get to re-roll the one for the gets hot roll and that is all this thread will accomplish.

Before it gets locked I dont understand.....

Do you only get to reroll the scatter if you roll a 1 for gets hot?

Or do you always get to reroll scatter for PE?

I must have missed this thread before. Because I was only aware of the reroll of the gets hot roll.

You always get to Reroll, because blasts and rerolls only cared about the ABILITY to Reroll, not how good or any other condition placed on the Reroll.

Note this is not the same as saying you get to Reroll when not firing at your pe; there you have no ability.

 Tenzilla wrote:
Before it gets locked I dont understand.....

Do you only get to reroll the scatter if you roll a 1 for gets hot?

Or do you always get to reroll scatter for PE?

I must have missed this thread before. Because I was only aware of the reroll of the gets hot roll.

They're not linked at all.

* You want to fire a blast weapon.
* You roll a D6, on a 1 it Gets Hot! - If you have the ability to reroll, you may do so.
* Assuming you did not get a Gets Hot! result, you now place your blast marker and roll for Scatter - if it misses, you may reroll the entire thing, if you have the ability to reroll.

The "link" between these two is only in the argument that if PE is a valid "ability to reroll" in one case, it should be the same for the other case.

Very interesting. Ive never heard it argued that way before. Or even considered that. So executioner LRBTs just got better in my book.

 Sieggfried wrote:
Hello guys,

As the title implies I am a bit unsure as to how this actually plays.

The preferred enemy rule confers a reroll of '1' when rolling to Hit and to Wound.

However, when firing Plasma blast weaponry from vehicles the BRB says that you roll a seperate dice and if it is '1' you roll a further D6 and on a 4+ you dont lose a Hull point.

The way I interpret this is that with the Preferred Enemy rule you get to reroll the scatter dice and then the to Wound dice. There is no way of preventing the Gets hot rolls.

Help needed guys.

Thanks in advance.

The "re-roll 1 to hit" allows you to re-roll the gets hot roll. It does not, however, allow you to reroll the scatter dice. In fact, why would you want to? If you roll the scatter dice and get double 1s, that's the next- best result after a direct hit.

Twin-linking, however, does allow you to reroll the scatter die if you end up completely missing.

Traditio- reread blast and rerolls, and gets hot and rerolls. You only need the ability, not actually roll to hit. Because you can never roll to hit.

nekooni wrote:

 Tenzilla wrote:
Before it gets locked I dont understand.....

Do you only get to reroll the scatter if you roll a 1 for gets hot?

Or do you always get to reroll scatter for PE?

I must have missed this thread before. Because I was only aware of the reroll of the gets hot roll.

They're not linked at all.

* You want to fire a blast weapon.
* You roll a D6, on a 1 it Gets Hot! - If you have the ability to reroll, you may do so.
* Assuming you did not get a Gets Hot! result, you now place your blast marker and roll for Scatter - if it misses, you may reroll the entire thing, if you have the ability to reroll.

The "link" between these two is only in the argument that if PE is a valid "ability to reroll" in one case, it should be the same for the other case.

Correct. As the rules clearly explain, PE doesn't qualify for this because it is not possible to reroll a to hit score of one, when there is no to hit with a blast. The re-rolls and scatter is explained well.

Ffyllotek wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Tenzilla wrote:
Before it gets locked I dont understand.....

Do you only get to reroll the scatter if you roll a 1 for gets hot?

Or do you always get to reroll scatter for PE?

I must have missed this thread before. Because I was only aware of the reroll of the gets hot roll.

They're not linked at all.

* You want to fire a blast weapon.
* You roll a D6, on a 1 it Gets Hot! - If you have the ability to reroll, you may do so.
* Assuming you did not get a Gets Hot! result, you now place your blast marker and roll for Scatter - if it misses, you may reroll the entire thing, if you have the ability to reroll.

The "link" between these two is only in the argument that if PE is a valid "ability to reroll" in one case, it should be the same for the other case.

Correct. As the rules clearly explain, PE doesn't qualify for this because it is not possible to reroll a to hit score of one, when there is no to hit with a blast. The re-rolls and scatter is explained well.

So the only thing you allow to re-roll scatter is twin-linked and ammo runts?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Traditio- reread blast and rerolls, and gets hot and rerolls. You only need the ability, not actually roll to hit. Because you can never roll to hit.

I'm confused. What precisely did I say with which you disagree?

Traditio wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Traditio- reread blast and rerolls, and gets hot and rerolls. You only need the ability, not actually roll to hit. Because you can never roll to hit.

I'm confused. What precisely did I say with which you disagree?

That the ability to re-roll your To hit rolls (of 1) does not allow you to re-roll scatter.

Traditio wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Traditio- reread blast and rerolls, and gets hot and rerolls. You only need the ability, not actually roll to hit. Because you can never roll to hit.

I'm confused. What precisely did I say with which you disagree?

IT doesn't matter what you roll to scatter, PE lets you reroll the scatter die by virtue of having the ability.

Happyjew wrote:That the ability to re-roll your To hit rolls (of 1) does not allow you to re-roll scatter.

Why on earth would you reroll a 1 on the scatter die?

Traditio wrote:

Happyjew wrote:That the ability to re-roll your To hit rolls (of 1) does not allow you to re-roll scatter.

Why on earth would you reroll a 1 on the scatter die?

You don't reroll just the d6 that was a 1, you don't even need to roll a 1. You reroll the whole thing (both d6s and the scatter die)

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Happyjew wrote:That the ability to re-roll your To hit rolls (of 1) does not allow you to re-roll scatter.

Why on earth would you reroll a 1 on the scatter die?

You don't reroll just the d6 that was a 1, you don't even need to roll a 1. You reroll the whole thing (both d6s and the scatter die)

Preferred enemy says that you reroll 1s to hit and to wound. For all intents and purpose, the roll of the scatter die is the roll to hit. Why would you roll a 1 on the scatter die?

Is there a specific section in the rulebook which makes an exception for rolls on the scatter die?

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Happyjew wrote:That the ability to re-roll your To hit rolls (of 1) does not allow you to re-roll scatter.

Why on earth would you reroll a 1 on the scatter die?

You don't reroll just the d6 that was a 1, you don't even need to roll a 1. You reroll the whole thing (both d6s and the scatter die)

Preferred enemy says that you reroll 1s to hit and to wound. For all intents and purpose, the roll of the scatter die is the roll to hit. Why would you roll a 1 on the scatter die?

Is there a specific section in the rulebook which makes an exception for rolls on the scatter die?

Yeah, Blasts and Re-rolls in the special rules for blasts. It says that you can reroll the scatter (which is the whole thing) if you have the ABILITY to reroll to hit. Prefferred Enemy is an ability to reroll so you can reroll scatter for blasts.

CrownAxe wrote:Yeah, Blasts and Re-rolls in the special rules for blasts. It says that you can reroll the scatter (which is the whole thing) if you have the ABILITY to reroll to hit. Prefferred Enemy is an ability to reroll so you can reroll scatter for blasts.

Simpliciter (simply speaking) vs. relative (in a certain context).

Preferred enemy is an ability to reroll relative, not simpliciter. Twin-link is an ability to reroll simpliciter, i.e., simply speaking. Preferred enemy is not an ability to reroll simpliciter, but only relative, namely, if and only if you roll a 1 to hit.

Thus, I repeat my question:

Why on earth would you reroll a 1 on the scatter dice?

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Yeah, Blasts and Re-rolls in the special rules for blasts. It says that you can reroll the scatter (which is the whole thing) if you have the ABILITY to reroll to hit. Prefferred Enemy is an ability to reroll so you can reroll scatter for blasts.

Simpliciter (simply speaking) vs. relative (in a certain context).

Preferred enemy is an ability to reroll relative, not simpliciter. Twin-link is an ability to reroll simpliciter, i.e., simply speaking. Preferred enemy is not an ability to reroll simpliciter, but only relative, namely, if and only if you roll a 1 to hit.

Thus, I repeat my question:

Why on earth would you reroll a 1 on the scatter dice?

Blasts and Rerolls doesn't care how relative the ability is, just that you have an ability to reroll.

Also you can't bring Twin Linked into the discussion because it specifies in its own rule that it rerolls the scatter for blasts. It doesn't use the Blast and Re-rolls rule to reroll scatter.

The ability doesn't exist if you don't roll a one.

Martel732 wrote:
The ability doesn't exist if you don't roll a one.

Well this is the why the debate persists, GW never defined ability and what constitutes having one. This is pretty much the only time the rulebook ever uses the term ability in such context (if ever). We simply don't know if an ability is the rule itself or the effect from triggering the rule. Its another one of the many poorly written rules courtesy of GW. There is not clear answer one way or the other.

IMO simply having the rule constitutes as having an ability. For one its much easier to assume that "ability" is just being used as a synonym for special rule rather then the much more complicated and technical idea of having to trigger an effect by meeting certain conditions to have an ability (which is not consistent with the way GW writes rules).

Also if you treat Blast and Rerolls as having to trigger the ability to reroll, then almost nothing in the game actual works with Blast and Rerolls. Almost every form of reroll specifies rerolling misses (in the same way PE specifies rerolling 1s). As such more general rerolls like prescience also don't reroll scatter because as you said "The ability doesn't exist if you don't roll a miss". The only rule in the game that would work with Blast and Rerolls in the scenario is Ammo Runts because it can reroll regardless of the result (Twin Link doesn't apply because like i said previously it specifies it rerolls scatters). This results in a useless rule which is clearly not the intention, in order for the rule to actually work you have to let having the rule at all count as having the ability to reroll.

CrownAxe wrote:Blasts and Rerolls doesn't care how relative the ability is, just that you have an ability to reroll.

You have the ability to reroll if and only if you rolled a 1 to hit.

The most obvious way to understand this is as follows:

1. You may reroll the gets hot roll (since the gets hot rule specifically says that you can).
2. You may not reroll the scatter dice.

The only way that you can reroll the scatter dice is if you have an ability which specifically says that you can reroll the scatter dice in the event of any miss without qualification. Preferred enemy does not grant such an ability to reroll.

Thus, if I am using the devastator doctrine, my plasma cannon tac squads can reroll gets hot, but may not reroll the scatter die.
If, however, I am using the tactical doctrine, my plasma cannon tac squads can both reroll gets hot AND reroll the scatter die.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:Well this is the why the debate persists, GW never defined ability and what constitutes having one.

This should be common sense. One has an ability or a power to do x if and only if one can do x. This is where knowledge of the Greek language and Aristotelian philosophy is helpful. A dunamis (a power, faculty or an ability; for example: sight (i.e., the ability to see) is a dunamis or a power which is ordered towards the further activity or actuality of actually seeing, i.e., seeing as an energeia or activity) is derived from the Greek dunamai, which means "I am able to do x or I can do x."

You have an ability to reroll your dice if and only if you can or are able to reroll your dice.

Here, I ask the question:

Preferred enemy says that you can reroll 1s to hit. You just rolled the scatter die. You missed and rolled two 4s. You do, however, have preferred enemy. You are wondering whether you have the ability to reroll. Simply ask yourself: "Can I reroll?" Now read the rule: "You can reroll 1s to hit." Now ask yourself: "Did you roll a 1 to hit?" You answer, of course, "No." Therefore, you may not reroll.

In principle, I suppose, you could argue that you could reroll 1s on the scatter dice (e.g., if you roll a 1 and a 5, then you could argue that you can reroll the 1). But again, I ask: why would you even want to?

Its another one of the many poorly written rules courtesy of GW. There is not clear answer one way or the other.

It's really not. A basic knowledge of Aristotelian physics and metaphysics, as well as the Greek language...er...scratch that, common sense clears up the issue quite readily.

IMO simply having the rule constitutes as having an ability.

It's not an ability to reroll without qualification. It's an ability to reroll 1s to hit and to wound. It's as though I told you that you could eat tacos, and then you purchased fried chicken, insisting that I told you that you could eat. You'd be omitting the key word "tacos."

For one its much easier to assume that "ability" is just being used as a synonym for special rule rather then the much more complicated and technical idea of having to trigger an effect by meeting certain conditions to have an ability (which is not consistent with the way GW writes rules)

"Ability" is simply the abstract noun form of the verbal phrase "I am able to." You have an ability if and only if you are able to do something.

Also if you treat Blast and Rerolls as having to trigger the ability to reroll, then almost nothing in the game actual works with Blast and Rerolls.

Rules which say that you can reroll all misses (e.g., twin-linked and the Space Marine devastator and tactical doctrines) allow you to reroll misses for blasts.

As such more general rerolls like prescience also don't reroll scatter because as you said "The ability doesn't exist if you don't roll a miss".

Use common sense. You roll the scatter dice. The blast scatters 12 inches north east. It doesn't hit anything; you are not able to roll any wounds.

Did you hit or miss?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The ability doesn't exist if you don't roll a one.

Bingo!

Martel732 wrote:
The ability doesn't exist if you don't roll a one.

Twin-linked doesn't allow the ability to reroll unless you roll a one, also. And in some cases, a 2, a 3, a 4, and/or a 5.

Simply put, Twin-linked still requires a failure in order to reroll. It gives itself permission to reroll Blasts as well, but that still doesn't change the fact that the base ability still requires a failure in order to function. Twin-linked does not allow you to reroll successes.

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The ability doesn't exist if you don't roll a one.

Twin-linked doesn't allow the ability to reroll unless you roll a one, also. And in some cases, a 2, a 3, a 4, and/or a 5.

Simply put, Twin-linked still requires a failure in order to reroll. It gives itself permission to reroll Blasts as well, but that still doesn't change the fact that the base ability still requires a failure in order to function. Twin-linked does not allow you to reroll successes.

I fully grant this point, but so what? Twin-link says that you can reroll any and all misses to hit. Preferred enemy specifically requires that you roll a 1 to hit.

And again, let's abstract from this lawyering over the "letter of the law," so to speak, and attend to the "spirit of the law." Is it in keeping with the obvious intention of GW in writing the preferred enemy rule that blasts should reroll ALL misses when they obviously did not intend any other kind of weapon to do so using that rule?

The answer to this should be obvious.

To use D&D terminology, the intent of GW obviously was to prevent "critical failures" or "critical misses" against the preferred enemy.

Thus, I repeat: if we interpret the letter of the rule in light of the spirit of the rule, the correct answer is obvious: you can reroll gets hot, but not the scatter dice.

Traditio wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The ability doesn't exist if you don't roll a one.

Twin-linked doesn't allow the ability to reroll unless you roll a one, also. And in some cases, a 2, a 3, a 4, and/or a 5.

Simply put, Twin-linked still requires a failure in order to reroll. It gives itself permission to reroll Blasts as well, but that still doesn't change the fact that the base ability still requires a failure in order to function. Twin-linked does not allow you to reroll successes.

I fully grant this point, but so what? Twin-link says that you can reroll any and all misses to hit. Preferred enemy specifically requires that you roll a 1 to hit.

And again, let's abstract from this lawyering over the "letter of the law," so to speak, and attend to the "spirit of the law." Is it in keeping with the obvious intention of GW in writing the preferred enemy rule that blasts should reroll ALL misses when they obviously did not intend any other kind of weapon to do so using that rule?

The answer to this should be obvious.

To use D&D terminology, the intent of GW obviously was to prevent "critical failures" or "critical misses" against the preferred enemy.

Thus, I repeat: if we interpret the letter of the rule in light of the spirit of the rule, the correct answer is obvious: you can reroll gets hot, but not the scatter dice.

For the simple case that relying on any condition to make Preferred Enemy moot also makes Twin-Linked moot as well, since both are reliant on conditions to be met before applying their ability to reroll.

Even when Twin-Linked is rerolling Blasts, it still requires a miss condition to be met to reroll.

If you require conditions to be met in order for the ability to reroll to be recognized, then both Preferred Enemy and Twin-Linked are in the same basket of considerations.

However, if you believe that even the capacity to reroll is recognized as the ability to reroll, then Preferred Enemy and Twin-Linked are both considered the same when dealing with situations where To-Hit dice are not actually rolled.

Charistoph wrote:For the simple case that relying on any condition to make Preferred Enemy moot also makes Twin-Linked moot as well, since both are reliant on conditions to be met before applying their ability to reroll.

Even when Twin-Linked is rerolling Blasts, it still requires a miss condition to be met to reroll.

Once again, apply common sense and attend to the spirit of the rules. Is it possible for a miss condition to obtain when firing a blast weapon? Yes. If you roll the scatter dice and no models are underneath the blast template after you resolve the scatter, you have missed. If you have a rule which says that you can reroll all misses, you may reroll the scatter dice.

Preferred enemy is not such a rule. It specifically says "1s." It would, perhaps, make sense to reroll 6s for the scatter dice, given the spirit of the preferred enemy rules, but alas, the rules do not tell us that we can do this. It only says "1s."

However, if you believe that even the capacity to reroll is recognized as the ability to reroll, then Preferred Enemy and Twin-Linked are both considered the same when dealing with situations where To-Hit dice are not actually rolled.

"To-hit dice" is not the same thing as "to hit." For all obvious intents and purposes, the rolling of gets hot, the rolling of the scatter die, the moving of the blast template, etc. constitutes the "to hit" roll.

Again, I urge you: simply apply common sense.

And again, preferred enemy does not confer a capacity to reroll. It confers a capacity or an ability to reroll 1s. For some reason, you guys keep conveniently missing that key word.

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:For the simple case that relying on any condition to make Preferred Enemy moot also makes Twin-Linked moot as well, since both are reliant on conditions to be met before applying their ability to reroll.

Even when Twin-Linked is rerolling Blasts, it still requires a miss condition to be met to reroll.

Once again, apply common sense and attend to the spirit of the rules.

Spirit of the rules is pointless when determining the Rules As Written, which is all I am addressing at this time. It can when be used when making a determination on HYWPI and recommendations for the end, but not when looking at the literal viewpoint of the written rule.

Traditio wrote:
Is it possible for a miss condition to obtain when firing a blast weapon? Yes. If you roll the scatter dice and no models are underneath the blast template after you resolve the scatter, you have missed. If you have a rule which says that you can reroll all misses, you may reroll the scatter dice.

Preferred enemy is not such a rule. It specifically says "1s." It would, perhaps, make sense to reroll 6s for the scatter dice, given the spirit of the preferred enemy rules, but alas, the rules do not tell us that we can do this. It only says "1s."

Actually noting what Preferred Enemy states as a gateway is not any more relevant than Twin-linked. Here is what the Blast rules state about Rerolls:

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.

Note that just the ability to reroll rolls To- Hit is all that is required. And it is to that I stated the stipulations as I did.

Here is Gets Hot regarding rerolls for weapons that do not roll to-hit:

If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit (including because of BS6+ or the Twin-linked special rule), a Wound is only suffered if the To Hit re-roll is also a 1; it may also re-roll Gets Hot results of 1 for weapons that do not roll To Hit.

The underlined establishes the relationship between Blasts rerolls and Gets Hot rerolls, as they follow the same standards.

Traditio wrote:

However, if you believe that even the capacity to reroll is recognized as the ability to reroll, then Preferred Enemy and Twin-Linked are both considered the same when dealing with situations where To-Hit dice are not actually rolled.

"To-hit dice" is not the same thing as "to hit." For all obvious intents and purposes, the rolling of gets hot, the rolling of the scatter die, the moving of the blast template, etc. constitutes the "to hit" roll.

I didn't say that "To-hit dice is the same as To-Hit". To-Hit Dice are used when To-Hit Rolls are made. Attacks using one of the templates do not roll To-Hit, therefore no To-Hit Dice are used.

Gets Hot does not use To-Hit rolls when determining its state with weapons that do not roll To-Hit. A separate die is rolled, making any direct correlation for To-Hit rolls pointless. Instead, both Gets Hot and Blasts allow for rerolls of their condition when To-Hit rolls are not possible, to reroll their specialty rolls made in their place. For Gets Hot, this is a determination on if the Attack Wounds the shooter or not. For Blasts this is the determination of Scatter.

Traditio wrote:
Again, I urge you: simply apply common sense.

A pointless endeavor to this response, as it was simply stating that the perspective on Preferred Enemy is the same as for Twin-Linked, as they are both contingent on failure to apply a reroll. Preferred Enemy's reroll is just more specific. That is all. I was not taking sides on the debate itself, just clarifying the relationships.

And that IS applying Common Sense.

Traditio wrote:
And again, preferred enemy does not confer a capacity to reroll. It confers a capacity or an ability to reroll 1s. For some reason, you guys keep conveniently missing that key word.

It does just as much as Twin-Linked does. Both are conditional on failure. If one can reroll Gets Hot and Blasts, why cannot the other? The fact that Preferred Enemy requires a more specific failure is irrelevant, they both require failure to apply a reroll. In conditions where To-Hit rolls are not used, the standards should be the same.

Charistoph:

Let us assume that I grant your arguments. It does not follow from this, that, RAW, preferred enemy permits re-rolls of the scatter dice. Either the rolling of the scatter dice counts as a to-hit roll, or else, it doesn't.

If it does count as a to-hit roll, then my arguments follow. Only twin-link and equivalents permit a re-rolling of the scatter dice.

If it does not count as a to-hit roll, then neither twin-link nor preferred enemy permit a re-rolling of the scatter dice.

In neither case does preferred enemy confer a re-roll. Again, the preferred enemy rule specifies "1s."

Again, I quote the rule that you cited above: "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."

A model with preferred enemy does not have the ability to re-roll its rolls to hit. It has the ability to re-roll 1s to hit.

In either case, the gets hot result of 1 may be re-rolled.

Traditio wrote:
Charistoph:

Let us assume that I grant your arguments. It does not follow from this, that, RAW, preferred enemy permits re-rolls of the scatter dice. Either the rolling of the scatter dice counts as a to-hit roll, or else, it doesn't.

Actually not what I stated. Please actually reread what I stated. I was making no assertions as to which side of "does it or does it not" I was supporting. I am only stipulating a relationship between two different rules which allow for a reroll under conditions of a miss.

Traditio wrote:
If it does count as a to-hit roll, then my arguments follow. Only twin-link and equivalents permit a re-rolling of the scatter dice.

If it does not count as a to-hit roll, then neither twin-link nor preferred enemy permit a re-rolling of the scatter dice.

In neither case does preferred enemy confer a re-roll. Again, the preferred enemy rule specifies "1s."

Again, I quote the rule that you cited above: "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."

A model with preferred enemy does not have the ability to re-roll its rolls to hit. It has the ability to re-roll 1s to hit.

Level of condition for the reroll is never stated in these cases. Twin-linked has as much of a condition for a reroll as Preferred Enemy. The only difference is that twin-linked's condition is just met more often and more easily than Preferred Enemy's. That is all.

If one requires conditions to be met before any ability is recognized, then neither Preferred Enemy nor Twin-linked will work with template/Blast weapons Gets Hot rolls.

If one only recognizes that the ability exists regardless of conditions, then both Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked will work with template/blast weapons Gets Hot rolls.

In this, Twin-linked and Preferred Enemy are the same.

Traditio, so it is your standpoint, that the only things that allow you to re-roll scatter is Twin-linked, and Ammo Runts?

Traditio - have you read Blasts? They NEVER rol to hit. It states so explicitly in the rules that instead of rolling to hit...

So you cannot make any requirement on a "to hit" roll in ordder to determine if it grants an ability to reroll

And, as requested, you didnt look at gets hot and rerolls either. Where it states, unequivocaby, that BS6+ grant the ABILITY to reroll to hit.

BS6 requires you to roll a 1 to hit, yet ALWAYS grants the ability to reroll to hit

PE requires you to roll a 1 to hit... yes must ALWAYS grant the ability.

Again. 20 odd pages proved this. YOur idea that scatter is like a to hit is false, and denied by the rules.

RAW: PE lets you reroll scatter AND gets hot. RAW.

I'd be tempted to walk from a table with someone trying to squeeze this much utility out of preferred enemy. Starcraft looks better and better.

Martel, would you also walk away from someone who tried to re-roll scatter after casting Guide or Prescience on the unit?

I wish to return to this posting of yours, since you actually bothered quoting various rules.

Charistoph wrote:Here is what the Blast rules state about Rerolls:

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.

I wish to note the following about what you've quoted:

1. The rule says: "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a blast weapon..." What is the referent of "so"? If a model chooses to do what after firing a blast weapon? To get the referent of "so," we need to back up to a previous part of the sentence: "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit..." So, after a model fires its blast weapon, if it has the ability to do so, it may re-roll its its rolls To Hit.

I deduce from this that, according to GW, there is a definite sense in which a model firing a blast weapon rolls To Hit. This was more explicit in 5th edition. In 5th edition, you centered the blast over an enemy model and then actually rolled to hit. This changed in 6th edition, where the to-hit roll for a blast weapon became a roll of the scatter dice.

Point to take away from this: blast weapons roll to-hit according to the rules, and that roll To Hit is the rolling of the scatter dice.

2. The rule says: "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit..." In order to reroll the scatter dice, you must have the ability to reroll. As I've pointed out repeatedly, preferred enemy does not grant this. It specifically permits re-rolls to a to-hit result of 1.

Note that just the ability to reroll rolls To- Hit is all that is required. And it is to that I stated the stipulations as I did.

I grant this. I simply deny that preferred enemy grants this ability in precisely the sense intended by the rule.

Here is Gets Hot regarding rerolls for weapons that do not roll to-hit:

If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit (including because of BS6+ or the Twin-linked special rule), a Wound is only suffered if the To Hit re-roll is also a 1; it may also re-roll Gets Hot results of 1 for weapons that do not roll To Hit.

As opposed to looking at the underlined, I recommend looking at the bolded.

The underlined establishes the relationship between Blasts rerolls and Gets Hot rerolls, as they follow the same standards.

No, they don't. The rule that you cited specifically goes on to talk about weapons (i.e., blast weapons) that do not roll To Hit in the ordinary way. Again, see the bolded.

To-Hit Dice are used when To-Hit Rolls are made.

To Hit dice are used when To Hit rolls are made for non-blast weapons. When blast weapons are used, the scatter dice are used instead, and 1d6 is rolled prior to rolling the scatter dice in order to determine gets hot results. Again, read the rules that you yourself cited.

Attacks using one of the templates do not roll To-Hit, therefore no To-Hit Dice are used.

Templates, as defined in the 40k rulebook, i.e., flamers, don't roll To Hit in any sense at all.

Gets Hot does not use To-Hit rolls when determining its state with weapons that do not roll To-Hit. A separate die is rolled, making any direct correlation for To-Hit rolls pointless.

I completely agree with all of this, but none of this is in dispute. What the gets hot rule for blast weapons says is that if you have the ability to reroll rolls To Hit, you may reroll a 1 result for gets hot. Preferred enemy grants this, since the result in question is a result of 1. Twin-linked also grants this, since it categorically permits re-rolls for failed results.

Instead, both Gets Hot and Blasts allow for rerolls of their condition when To-Hit rolls are not possible

Again, read the initial rule that you cited. The rule explicitly says that there is a sense in which blast weapons roll To Hit.

Once again, apply common sense when reading and interpreting the rules.

A pointless endeavor to this response, as it was simply stating that the perspective on Preferred Enemy is the same as for Twin-Linked, as they are both contingent on failure to apply a reroll. Preferred Enemy's reroll is just more specific. That is all. I was not taking sides on the debate itself, just clarifying the relationships.

Preferred enemy says that you can reroll 1s to hit.
Twin-link says that you may reroll all misses.

The rules don't say the same thing.

The reason preferred enemy applies to gets hot rolls is because of the following:

1. The gets hot rule says that if you have an ability to reroll rolls To Hit, you may apply that rule to a gets hot roll.
2. Weapons ordinarily get hot on a 1.
3. Preferred enemy lets you reroll results of 1 to hit.

If we were back in 5th edition and you were rapid firing a plasma gun, and you rolled a 2 (thereby triggering Gets Hot), preferred enemy wouldn't give you the ability to reroll that result.

It does just as much as Twin-Linked does. Both are conditional on failure. If one can reroll Gets Hot and Blasts, why cannot the other? The fact that Preferred Enemy requires a more specific failure is irrelevant, they both require failure to apply a reroll. In conditions where To-Hit rolls are not used, the standards should be the same.

I agree with the bolded. Both of the rules are conditional on failing a To Hit roll. Preferred enemy is conditional on failing a To Hit roll by rolling a 1, whereas Twin-Linked allows a reroll of any and all failures absolutely speaking.

Once again, a simple grasp of the simpliciter vs. relative distinction works wonders here.

Not sure. I'd have to look at all the rules side by side at this point.

" and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon"

There's no choice with preferred enemy. That's where this breaks down for me.

 Happyjew wrote:
Traditio, so it is your standpoint, that the only things that allow you to re-roll scatter is Twin-linked, and Ammo Runts?

My standpoint is that the only things that allow you to re-roll scatter are:

1. Rules which explicitly assert that you can reroll 1 or more misses, regardless of the number that you rolled to score that miss. Thus, if you have a master-crafted plasma cannon, by all means, re-roll those scatter dice.

2. Rules which explicitly assert that you may reroll the scatter dice.

It's an issue of general rerolls vs conditional rerolls. The blast marker procedure never fulfills the conditions to allow a reroll with preferred enemy under the rules for blast markers.

Martel732 wrote:
It's an issue of general rerolls vs conditional rerolls. The blast marker procedure never fulfills the conditions to allow a reroll with preferred enemy under the rules for blast markers.

Perfectly and concisely stated!

I also wish to point out that the BS 6 comparison breaks down. When you roll the scatter dice, you don't reroll misses with BS 6. You deduct 6 inches from the scatter result.

Traditio wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Traditio, so it is your standpoint, that the only things that allow you to re-roll scatter is Twin-linked, and Ammo Runts?

My standpoint is that the only things that allow you to re-roll scatter are:

1. Rules which explicitly assert that you can reroll 1 or more misses, regardless of the number that you rolled to score that miss. Thus, if you have a master-crafted plasma cannon, by all means, re-roll those scatter dice.

2. Rules which explicitly assert that you may reroll the scatter dice.

Regarding number 1, how are you re-rolling the scatter with master-crafted? You cannot meet the criteria of master-crafted of failing a To Hit roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
It's an issue of general rerolls vs conditional rerolls. The blast marker procedure never fulfills the conditions to allow a reroll with preferred enemy under the rules for blast markers.

Except with the exception of Ammo Runts, every re-roll (including Twin-linked) is conditional. The only reason Twin-linked allows blasts to re-roll (without meeting the conditions) is because it specifically tells you how to resolve it.

Happyjew wrote:Regarding number 1, how are you re-rolling the scatter with master-crafted? You cannot meet the criteria of master-crafted of failing a To Hit roll.

I quote the rule cited by Charistoph (and, in fact, I encourage you to read my latest answer to him):

"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."

Master crafted says that you can re-roll a single failed roll to hit.

Twin-linked says that you can re-roll all failed rolls to hit.

Preferred enemy says neither: it says to reroll 1s.

Except with the exception of Ammo Runts, every re-roll (including Twin-linked) is conditional.

It's conditional on missing.

Once again, apply common sense/attend to the spirit of the rules.

Martel732 wrote:
It's an issue of general rerolls vs conditional rerolls. The blast marker procedure never fulfills the conditions to allow a reroll with preferred enemy under the rules for blast markers.

All rerolls are conditional rerolls because all rerolls only reroll misses. Does that mean nothing in the game reroll scatter?

"Except with the exception of Ammo Runts, every re-roll (including Twin-linked) is conditional. The only reason Twin-linked allows blasts to re-roll (without meeting the conditions) is because it specifically tells you how to resolve it."

I will accept this interpretation before the one allowing preferred enemy to allow blast rerolls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's an issue of general rerolls vs conditional rerolls. The blast marker procedure never fulfills the conditions to allow a reroll with preferred enemy under the rules for blast markers.

All rerolls are conditional rerolls because all rerolls only reroll misses. Does that mean nothing in the game reroll scatter?

Maybe.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's an issue of general rerolls vs conditional rerolls. The blast marker procedure never fulfills the conditions to allow a reroll with preferred enemy under the rules for blast markers.

All rerolls are conditional rerolls because all rerolls only reroll misses. Does that mean nothing in the game reroll scatter?

Again, the most obvious solution to the problem is simply to understand that rolling the scatter dice is the roll to hit for a blast weapon. When considered in light of 5th edition, this should be obvious to anyone who isn't a rules-lawyering WAC min-maxer.

Regardless of the strict (scatter dice are NOT a to hit roll) or loose (scatter dice ARE a to hit roll), the preferred enemy rule does not fulfill the criteria under either interpretation.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's an issue of general rerolls vs conditional rerolls. The blast marker procedure never fulfills the conditions to allow a reroll with preferred enemy under the rules for blast markers.

All rerolls are conditional rerolls because all rerolls only reroll misses. Does that mean nothing in the game reroll scatter?

Again, the most obvious solution to the problem is simply to understand that rolling the scatter dice is the roll to hit for a blast weapon. When considered in light of 5th edition, this should be obvious to anyone who isn't a rules-lawyering WAC min-maxer.

Its 7ed. You can't bring up rules from two editions. Especially since not everyone has been playing since 5ed.

And if you want to get into the spirit of the rule, why does PE not work? It makes you more accurate against their preferred target. Why do they suddenly lose accuracy just because of the type of ammo they used?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
"Except with the exception of Ammo Runts, every re-roll (including Twin-linked) is conditional. The only reason Twin-linked allows blasts to re-roll (without meeting the conditions) is because it specifically tells you how to resolve it."

I will accept this interpretation before the one allowing preferred enemy to allow blast rerolls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's an issue of general rerolls vs conditional rerolls. The blast marker procedure never fulfills the conditions to allow a reroll with preferred enemy under the rules for blast markers.

All rerolls are conditional rerolls because all rerolls only reroll misses. Does that mean nothing in the game reroll scatter?

Maybe.

If so then the rule is a broken rule that does nothing. But we know that they wouldn't put in a broken rule intentionally so we can only assume that they intended for the rule to work with conditional rerolls.

"But we know that they wouldn't put in a broken rule intentionally"

It's GW. Just like John Snow, we know nothing. I have an entire codex of broken rules that do nothing. So forgive me if I don't have much empathy here.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its 7ed. You can't bring up rules from two editions. Especially since not everyone has been playing since 5ed.

I bring up 5th edition because it helps us to understand what GW had in mind when they were writing the rules for 6th and 7th editions. In 5th edition, blast weapons rolled to hit. In 6th, they changed it to rolling scatter dice. Furthermore, if you look at the rule cited by Charistoph, it's strongly implied that models firing blast weapons may reroll To Hit.

But they don't roll to hit dice. What should we conclude?

The scatter dice, for all rules intents and purposes, are the "to hit" dice for blast weapons.

And if you want to get into the spirit of the rule, why does PE not work?

Because PE and twin-linked aren't the same thing. PE isn't supposed to allow you to reroll all misses. PE is supposed to prevent critical failures.

It makes you more accurate against their preferred target. Why do they suddenly lose accuracy just because of the type of ammo they used?

1A. I agree that this is a flaw in the rules. PE should be amended to say that blast weapons can reroll results of 6 on the scatter dice. That said, it doesn't say that.

Alternatively:

1B: Because they're blast weapons. Blast weapons apparently are just less accurate in general.

2. PE still applies to blast weapons, since you can reroll 1s to wound.

Martel732 wrote:
"But we know that they wouldn't put in a broken rule intentionally"

It's GW. Just like John Snow, we know nothing. I have an entire codex of broken rules that do nothing. So forgive me if I don't have much empathy here.

There is a difference between "rule that works but is ineffective in practice" and "rule that is broken and never works"

GW may be bad at writing rules, but no game designer purposefully puts in rules that are completely broken and can never be used.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"But we know that they wouldn't put in a broken rule intentionally"

It's GW. Just like John Snow, we know nothing. I have an entire codex of broken rules that do nothing. So forgive me if I don't have much empathy here.

There is a difference between "rule that works but is ineffective in practice" and "rule that is broken and never works"

GW may be bad at writing rules, but no game designer purposefully puts in rules that are completely broken and can never be used.

I'm not convinced that GW is not that bad. They are the sloppiest rules entity I have ever encountered.

Martel732 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"But we know that they wouldn't put in a broken rule intentionally"

It's GW. Just like John Snow, we know nothing. I have an entire codex of broken rules that do nothing. So forgive me if I don't have much empathy here.

There is a difference between "rule that works but is ineffective in practice" and "rule that is broken and never works"

GW may be bad at writing rules, but no game designer purposefully puts in rules that are completely broken and can never be used.

I'm not convinced that GW is not that bad. They are the sloppiest rules entity I have ever encountered.

I'm not saying that the rule can't be written in a broken way, I'm saying they can't have intended for it to be broken (they still could have accidentally written it in a broken way)

RAI is clear that it should be a functional rule, and the only way its functional is if it works with conditional rerolls.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not letting my opponents double dip on preferred enemy. They don't need any more advantages against me.

Martel732 wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not letting my opponents double dip on preferred enemy. They don't need any more advantages against me.

What annoys me most about it is just how counter-intuitive that reading is. Unless you are specifically trying to read the rules to maximize advantages for your army, that interpretation of the preferred enemy rule would simply never arise. You pretty much have to be a WAC kind of guy even to come up with that reading.

And let me be clear:

I run 8 missile launchers and 3 plasma cannons in my army. If that's how re-rolling 1s on blast weapons worked, that would greatly benefit my army.

The problem is that it's just obviously wrong and contrary to the intention of the writers of the rule.

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not letting my opponents double dip on preferred enemy. They don't need any more advantages against me.

What annoys me most about it is just how counter-intuitive that reading is. Unless you are specifically trying to read the rules to maximize advantages for your army, that interpretation of the preferred enemy rule would simply never arise. You pretty much have to be a WAC kind of guy even to come up with that reading.

Because that totally never happens in this game. Because this game never attracts those kinds of people.

Guys seriously? I play daemons. Nothing in daemons gets preferred enemy. I have no way to benefit from this ruling.

Yet I have one guy calling my side of the argument WAAC min-maxer while the other guy literraly came out and said "I don't want my opponent to benefit from PE more, thats not an advantage for me"

I was just emphasizing that I'll let some rules things slide, but I can't let this slide. Blasts such as IA and battle cannons already decimate my list.

Martel732 wrote:
I was just emphasizing that I'll let some rules things slide, but I can't let this slide. Blasts such as IA and battle cannons already decimate my list.

Its still a completely unfair bias based on whether you specifically win or not

 CrownAxe wrote:
Guys seriously? I play daemons. Nothing in daemons gets preferred enemy. I have no way to benefit from this ruling.

Yet I have one guy calling my side of the argument WAAC min-maxer while the other guy literraly came out and said "I don't want my opponent to benefit from PE more, thats not an advantage for me"

To be clear, I'm not calling you or any of the persons on your side of the argument WAAC min-maxers. I am simply asserting that it takes a WAAC min-maxer to think up that interpretation of the rule.

Unless you are carefully checking and re-checking every line of the rulebook to glean any and every possible advantage you can think of, you aren't going to think of your interpretation.

What you are likely to remember or think after a simple, fair, common sense reading of the rulebook, especially if you are familiar with previous editions of Warhammer 40k, is the following:

1. PE allows me to reroll 1s.
2. I roll 1d6 to determine gets hot for blast weapons.
3. The scatter dice are basically the To Hit dice for blast weapons.

"PE allows me to reroll the scatter dice!" simply wouldn't occur to you if you're not specifically trying to read that interpretation into the rules.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I was just emphasizing that I'll let some rules things slide, but I can't let this slide. Blasts such as IA and battle cannons already decimate my list.

Its still a completely unfair bias

I stated my reasons for why I don't think it's permissable. If it wasn't a big deal, I would ignore those reasons and live with it. But it is a big deal. It takes blast accuracy from around 40%ish for BS 3 up to over 60%.

Martel732 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I was just emphasizing that I'll let some rules things slide, but I can't let this slide. Blasts such as IA and battle cannons already decimate my list.

Its still a completely unfair bias

I stated my reasons for why I don't think it's permissable. If it wasn't a big deal, I would ignore those reasons and live with it. But it is a big deal. It takes blast accuracy from around 40%ish for BS 3 up to over 60%.

It's actually higher than that. Twin-linked blast weapons are roughly 66-67% accurate, not taking BS into account (1/3 results on the scatter die is "hit"). If you roll a miss, there are as many scatter distance results as there are combinations of sides on 2d6. BS 3 allows you to ignore 3 of them.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I was just emphasizing that I'll let some rules things slide, but I can't let this slide. Blasts such as IA and battle cannons already decimate my list.

Its still a completely unfair bias based on whether you specifically win or not

Oh, I'm not winning no matter what I do. With BA, it's all degrees of humiliation.

Traditio wrote:
To be clear, I'm not calling you or any of the persons on your side of the argument WAAC min-maxers. I am simply asserting that it takes a WAAC min-maxer to think up that interpretation of the rule.

That's the same thing.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:
To be clear, I'm not calling you or any of the persons on your side of the argument WAAC min-maxers. I am simply asserting that it takes a WAAC min-maxer to think up that interpretation of the rule.

That's the same thing.

It's not. A WAAC min-maxer could have come up with the interpretation and popularized it, and you are only basing yourself on the popular interpretation that you've heard elsewhere.

You very well might be a WAAC min-maxer (you do play daemons, but I reserve judgment). I simply don't know. But simply saying that it takes a WAAC min-maxer to come up with the "WHOOO, the ability to reroll1s lets me reroll the scatter dice EVEN THOUGH NO 1s WERE ROLLED AT ALL!" isn't the same thing as calling you a WAAC min-maxer because you think that's the correct interpretation.

I wish to bracket that question altogether, and simply note that the interpretation is the WAAC min-maxing rules lawyer interpretation. It's not the common sense interpretation.

I think that even you would have to admit that the intuitive, common sense interpretation is the one that I'm advancing.

No i don't agree you. I gave my explanation why but feel free to keep ignoring my points in this debat

At any rate, to cap off my previous arguments, I'm going to summarize in a very concise way:

If you have a rule that says that you can reroll 1s (e.g., preferred enemy), you may reroll a die if and only if you roll a 1 on it.

If you roll a die and you don't get a 1, that rule (e.g., preferred enemy) DOESN'T APPLY.

Do you think the prescience psychic power lets you reroll scatter?

 CrownAxe wrote:
No i don't agree you. I gave my explanation why but feel free to keep ignoring my points in this debat

Your argument/points rest on sheer equivocation. "I desire fried chicken" is not logically equivalent to "I desire any sort of food whatsoever."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Do you think the prescience psychic power lets you reroll scatter?

Prescience allows a single unit to reroll any and all failed to hit rolls? In other words, it effectively makes a single unit twin-linked in the shooting phase?

No, twin linked is its own rule and it specifically says it reroll scatter (it doesn't use Blasts and Rerolls to do that). Prescienced doesn't say its twin-linked so its not twin linked

Also your fried chicken comparison makes no sense

 CrownAxe wrote:
No, twin linked is its own rule and it specifically says it reroll scatter (it doesn't use Blasts and Rerolls to do that). Prescienced doesn't say its twin-linked so its not twin linked

I'm not going to bother answering this since the answer should be obvious based on my previous arguments.

And again, your answer presupposes the kind of WAAC rules-lawyer mentality that I simply wouldn't want to play in the first place.

If you read prescience and you read twin-linked, unless you are specifically trying to read them as different, the common sense thing to take from it is: "Prescience basically grants twin-linked. In a nut shell, that's what it does."

Also your fried chicken comparison makes no sense

It makes perfect sense. Saying "I want fried chicken" is not the same thing as saying: "I want any kind of food whatsoever, even if its not fried chicken."

Likewise, "you can re-roll 1s" is not the same thing as "you can reroll, regardless of the specific result that caused the miss."

Twinlinked is not the same, it does extra rules like letting flamers reroll to wound. Nothing about "rerolling misses to hit" leads into "let flamers reroll to wound".

And seriously nothing about my argument had anything to do your food analogy. Go actually read my argument

or rather you get to re-roll once you have rolled a 1 to hit.

The unit with PE does not have the ability to re-reroll any dice until it rolls a 1 to hit.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Twinlinked is not the same, it does extra rules like letting flamers reroll to wound. Nothing about "rerolling misses to hit" leads into "let flamers reroll to wound".

And seriously nothing about my argument had anything to do your food analogy. Go actually read my argument

Oy vey.

At any rate, I stand by my previous comments. When interpreting the rules:

1. Use common sense.
2. Don't be a WAAC TFG.

This reminds me of an argument I had about Pathfinder. There is a rule in pathfinder that, for all rolls, if you end up with a fraction, you round down. Therefore, so went a common argument, if you use a d6 as a substitute for a d3 roll, and you roll a 3, then you actually have a d3 roll of 1. If you roll a 5 on the D6, you have a 2. And if you roll a 1, you should have a 0, but the lowest you can get is a 1, and so you get that.

It's a stupid argument. It's taking a legitimate rule which obviously was not intended to cover the case in question and simply misapplying the rule. It's an application of the letter of the law while being completely blind to the spirit of the law.

Yes, if you can re-roll all failed to-hit rolls, you can re-roll the scatter dice.
If you can re-roll failed to wound rolls, you can re-roll on the D-table.

The scatter dice, for all intents and purposes, are a "to hits" roll for blast weapons, and rolling on the D-table, for all intents and purposes, are rolls to wound.

If you normally could reroll a die to wound, then you can reroll it on the d-table.
If you normally could reroll a die to hit, then you can reroll the scatter dice.

Normally, preferred enemy only grants rerolls if you roll a 1. Did you roll a 1 on the scatter die?

I made my argument on why its intended to work with PE, but you keep ignoring it or haven't read it yet

 CrownAxe wrote:
I made my argument on why its intended to work with PE, but you keep ignoring it or haven't read it yet

Here is the argument that you've made, so far as I understand it:

1. The rule says that if the model has the ability to reroll, then it can reroll the scatter dice.
2. PE confers an ability to reroll to the model.
3. Therefore, the model can reroll the scatter dice.

I simply deny the minor premise (i.e., premise 2).

PE does not confer an ability to reroll to the model without qualification. It confers an ability to reroll 1s.

Or are you referring to the question you asked (not an argument) about why PE should confer less accuracy for blast weapons? A question that I answered earlier in the thread?

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I made my argument on why its intended to work with PE, but you keep ignoring it or haven't read it yet

Here is the argument that you've made, so far as I understand it:

1. The rule says that if the model has the ability to reroll, then it can reroll the scatter dice.
2. PE confers an ability to reroll to the model.
3. Therefore, the model can reroll the scatter dice.

I simply deny the minor premise (i.e., premise 2).

PE does not confer an ability to reroll the model without qualification. It confers an ability to reroll 1s.

Thats not my argument on why its INTENDED to work.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Thats not my argument on why its INTENDED to work.

Would you briefly restate the argument?

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Thats not my argument on why its INTENDED to work.

Would you briefly restate the argument?

If we assume that you are right and that you have to trigger the reroll by rolling a 1 to use Blasts and Rerolls, then you have to apply that logic to all the reroll rules in the game. All of the reroll rules in the game only reroll missed rolls to hit. As such no abilities in the game can use Blast and Rerolls as you haven't rolled a miss to hit (since scatter aren't a roll to hit at all)

Clearly the writer of the rule wouldn't have intended to add a rule that doesn't work. So the only option that makes the rule functional is that blasts don't need to trigger a miss for the ability to reroll which in turn measn that you don't need to roll a 1 to trigger the ability to reroll.

 CrownAxe wrote:
If we assume that you are right and that you have to trigger the reroll by rolling a 1 to use Blasts and Rerolls, then you have to apply that logic to all the reroll rules in the game. All of the reroll rules in the game only reroll missed rolls to hit. As such no abilities in the game can use Blast and Rerolls as you haven't rolled a miss to hit (since scatter aren't a roll to hit at all)

I've already addressed this argument ad nauseam.

The scatter dice roll is the roll to hit. You can't roll a 1 on the scatter die, but you can end up scattering so far that you end up missing.

Therefore, Twin-link allows a reroll, but PE does not.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
If we assume that you are right and that you have to trigger the reroll by rolling a 1 to use Blasts and Rerolls, then you have to apply that logic to all the reroll rules in the game. All of the reroll rules in the game only reroll missed rolls to hit. As such no abilities in the game can use Blast and Rerolls as you haven't rolled a miss to hit (since scatter aren't a roll to hit at all)

I've already addressed this argument ad nauseam.

The scatter dice roll is the roll to hit. You can't roll a 1 on the scatter die, but you can end up scattering so far that you end up missing.

The blast rule specifically say the scatter dice roll is not a roll to hit

CrownAxe wrote:The blast rule specifically say the scatter dice roll is not a roll to hit

Quote the passage?

Its the first sentence of the Blast rule

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its the first sentence of the Blast rule

1. Apparently, you don't know what the word "quote" means.

2. The rule quoted by Charistoph earlier in the thread very strongly implies that blast weapons do, in fact, roll to hit (at least in some sense).

3. Even granted that they don't, the rule cited by Charistoph specifically says that if a model otherwise would have the ability to reroll to hit, they can instead reroll the scatter dice if they are using a blast weapon.

So let it be granted that the rules say that rolling the scatter dice is not a to hit roll. That doesn't change the fact that it's a to hit roll for all intents and purposes.

A pilsner is not a IPA; however, for all intents and purposes, both are basically beer.

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

How am i suppose to trigger an ability "reroll misses on to hit rolls" whem I do not roll to hit?

 CrownAxe wrote:
"When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit"

All that this means is that you don't determine whether or not you score a hit by rolling a die and comparing the result to [7 - BS of the firing model].

Again, letter vs. spirit of the law. Use common sense.

How am i suppose to trigger an ability "reroll misses on to hit rolls" whem I do not roll to hit?

 CrownAxe wrote:
"When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit"

How am i suppose to trigger an ability "reroll misses on to hit rolls" whem I do not roll to hit?

Again, read the rule cited by Charistoph. It's very clear. The way that you are interpreting it is: "If this model has the ability to reroll in absolutely any circumstances (whether it rolls a 1, a 2 or for any miss), then I can reroll the scatter dice."

What the rule more obviously is intended to say is: "If you otherwise would have the ability to reroll a miss to hit, you can reroll the scatter dice."

Again, for all intents and purposes, the scatter dice is a to hit roll, even if it's not explicitly called one in the rules. Here is the common sense way to do this:

1. Place the template.
2. Roll the scatter dice.
3. Check to see if you score any hits.

If you score no hits, then you have, for all intents and purposes, scored a "miss" on your to-hit roll. If this is the case, then:

4. Determine whether you can reroll. You may reroll if and only if:

A. A rule says that you can reroll one or more missed hits.
B. A rule says that you can reroll the scatter dice.

I don't understand how you can ignore the rules as written when it comes "reroll missed to hit rolls" but when you get to PE you get all technical and abuse RAW to make PE not work.

Also you keep quoting Christoph but he is on my side of the argument.

 CrownAxe wrote:
I don't understand how you can ignore the rules as written when it comes "reroll missed to hit rolls"

Again, read the blast rule cited by Charistoph. Basically what it says is that the scatter dice roll, for all intents and purposes, counts as a to hits roll:

"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."

If we accept your interpretation of the blast rules (i.e., that they do not, in any sense, roll to hit), then this rule is self-contradictory: "If a model has the ability to reroll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so (i.e., reroll its roll To Hit, WHICH IT CANNOT DO, BY THE WAY), the player must reroll both the scatter dice and the 2d6."

My interpretation, at least, has the advantage of not turning the rule into a self-contradiction: "If a model has the ability to reroll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so (i.e., reroll its roll To Hit), the player must reroll the scatter dice and the 2d6 (because these are, for all intents and purposes, the To Hit roll for a blast weapon)."

but when you get to PE you get all technical and abuse RAW to make PE not work.

There are two and precisely two rules that you are citing to say that I'm not letting PE work insofar as RAW is concerned:

1. PE says that you can reroll 1s.
2. The blast rule says that if a model has the ability to reroll, it can reroll the scatter dice.

I'm not the one abusing RAW. You people are the ones torturing language and failing to apply common sense/context/etc. to the rules.

Nothing in the game has the ability to re-roll To Hit. everything in the game only has the ability to reroll misses to hit.

You keep trying to ignore the facts and make the excuse "oh just use common sense" but thats not how YMDC works. If you want to keep making that excuse you don't belong in YMDC, go somewhere else.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Nothing in the game has the ability to re-roll To Hit. everything in the game only has the ability to reroll misses to hit.

You keep trying to ignore the facts and make the excuse "oh just use common sense" but thats not how YMDC works. If you want to keep making that excuse you don't belong in YMDC, go somewhere else.

"If a model has the ability to reroll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so, the player must reroll both the scatter dice and the 2d6."

Explain why this rule isn't either a self-contradiction, or, at the very least, completely vacuous. If you can't, then you must concede the argument.

Because if you define "the ability to reroll its rolls to hit" as simply "a rule that can reroll to hit" and not "an effect triggered by specifically rolling to hit" then the rule actually works.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because if you define "the ability to reroll its rolls to hit" as simply "a rule that can reroll to hit" and not "an effect triggered by specifically rolling to hit" then the rule actually works.

That's not an answer to my challenge. The rule says, and I quote it again:

"If a model has the ability to reroll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so, the player must reroll both the scatter dice and the 2d6."

Either:

1. This rule either is vacuous or self-contradictory.

or

2. Blast weapons roll To Hit, even though their roll To Hit does not consist in rolling a d6 and comparing it to [7 - BS of the firing model].

I'll take the latter alternative.

Those aren't the only options

 CrownAxe wrote:
Those aren't the only options

Those are the only options. The rule literally says that a unit which can reroll To Hit and is firing a blast weapon may opt to do this, i.e., reroll To Hit.

Therefore, either:

1. This rule is vacuous, since models which fire blast weapons do not roll To Hit

Or

2. This rule is not vacuous, and blast weapons do indeed roll To Hit, albeit not in the way that non-blast weapons do.

This is literally the law of the excluded middle. Either models which fire Blast Weapons DO or DO NOT roll To Hit.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because if you define "the ability to reroll its rolls to hit" as simply "a rule that can reroll to hit" and not "an effect triggered by specifically rolling to hit" then the rule actually works.

That's not an answer to my challenge. The rule says, and I quote it again:

"If a model has the ability to reroll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so, the player must reroll both the scatter dice and the 2d6."

Either:

1. This rule either is vacuous or self-contradictory.

or

2. Blast weapons roll To Hit, even though their roll To Hit does not consist in rolling a d6 and comparing it to [7 - BS of the firing model].

I'll take the latter alternative.

Or more likely the purpose of this sentence you quoted is more along the lines of "if it chooses to use this ability to reroll To-Hit, it will also affect this situation which does not roll To-Hit, but has its own random dice roll and so is allowed to reroll the whole set".

If you want to talk about implications, we can go all day long.

Charistoph wrote:Or more likely the purpose of this sentence you quoted is more along the lines of "if it chooses to use this ability to reroll To-Hit, it will also affect this situation which does not roll To-Hit, but has its own random dice roll and so is allowed to reroll the whole set".

If you want to talk about implications, we can go all day long.

Except, that fails to account for the key phrase "to do so." To do what?

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Or more likely the purpose of this sentence you quoted is more along the lines of "if it chooses to use this ability to reroll To-Hit, it will also affect this situation which does not roll To-Hit, but has its own random dice roll and so is allowed to reroll the whole set".

If you want to talk about implications, we can go all day long.

Except, that fails to account for the key phrase "to do so." To do what?

Use common sense silly

CrownAxe wrote:Use common sense silly

"Common sense" says that "To do so" refers to re-rolling To Hit.

Basically, Charistoph's interpretation of the passage makes it say this:

"If a model has the ability to reroll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so (i.e., reroll its roll To Hit, WHICH IT CANNOT DO, BY THE WAY), the player may do something which has NOTHING to do with rolls To Hit."

In academic philosophy, there is a commonly received axiom that when we respond to the philosophical position of someone else, we should respond to them based on the most charitable and reasonable interpretation of their words.

The choice between my interpretation and your interpretation of the rules is the choice between sense and nonsense.

I'll take sense over nonsense any day of the week, Trebek. I'll take sense for 1000, Trebek!

So why then is "reroll misses to hit" so special and "reroll 1s to hit" is not?

 CrownAxe wrote:
So why then is "reroll misses to hit" so special and "reroll 1s to hit" is not?

I don't believe I've said anything of the sort. What I've consistently maintained is that blast weapons roll To Hit, namely, by placing a template and rolling scatter dice. What they do not do is roll To Hit dice (i.e., rolling 1d6 and comparing the result to [7 - BS of the firing model]).

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
So why then is "reroll misses to hit" so special and "reroll 1s to hit" is not?

I don't believe I've said anything of the sort. What I've consistently maintained is that blast weapons roll To Hit, namely, by placing a template and rolling scatter dice. What they do not do is roll To Hit dice (i.e., rolling 1d6 and comparing the result to [7 - BS of the firing model]).

"Reroll missed To Hit rolls" also only care about To Hit dice

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Or more likely the purpose of this sentence you quoted is more along the lines of "if it chooses to use this ability to reroll To-Hit, it will also affect this situation which does not roll To-Hit, but has its own random dice roll and so is allowed to reroll the whole set".

If you want to talk about implications, we can go all day long.

Except, that fails to account for the key phrase "to do so." To do what?

Use common sense and align the interpretation to its coinciding position of the actual rule.

To Do What? To use its ability. It cannot use its ability normally, so the rule then refers to how it actually works in this specific case. See? Common sense.

Going back to your earlier response:

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Here is what the Blast rules state about Rerolls:

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.

I wish to note the following about what you've quoted:

1. The rule says: "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a blast weapon..." What is the referent of "so"? If a model chooses to do what after firing a blast weapon? To get the referent of "so," we need to back up to a previous part of the sentence: "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit..." So, after a model fires its blast weapon, if it has the ability to do so, it may re-roll its its rolls To Hit.

I deduce from this that, according to GW, there is a definite sense in which a model firing a blast weapon rolls To Hit. This was more explicit in 5th edition. In 5th edition, you centered the blast over an enemy model and then actually rolled to hit. This changed in 6th edition, where the to-hit roll for a blast weapon became a roll of the scatter dice.

Point to take away from this: blast weapons roll to-hit according to the rules, and that roll To Hit is the rolling of the scatter dice.

This would be a false assumption as it is based on only the data presented in this quote. It is ignoring the context provided by the previous sections of the Blast Rules.

First off, Blasts do not roll To-Hit, this is established in the beginning of its rules, as already stated. by CrownAxe.

Second, Blasts DO have a roll, but it is used to determine where the blast template is finally located. All models under this template are considered to be Hit per the rules in General Principles regarding Blasts and Templates.

Traditio wrote:
2. The rule says: "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit..." In order to reroll the scatter dice, you must have the ability to reroll. As I've pointed out repeatedly, preferred enemy does not grant this. It specifically permits re-rolls to a to-hit result of 1.

So are you saying that a To Hit Roll of 1, is not a To Hit Roll? That is the only way that this point has merit. However, this point is complete and utter nonsense. No differentiation in this section considers a specific level of fail to be different from any other fail. So, yeah... Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked are equal levels at this point.

Traditio wrote:

The underlined establishes the relationship between Blasts rerolls and Gets Hot rerolls, as they follow the same standards.

No, they don't. The rule that you cited specifically goes on to talk about weapons (i.e., blast weapons) that do not roll To Hit in the ordinary way. Again, see the bolded.

Actually it does. The phrase which starts both and it is based on "if". How can they not have the same standards?
Gets Hot!

If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit (including because of BS6+ or the Twin-linked special rule), a Wound is only suffered if the To Hit re-roll is also a 1; it may also re-roll Gets Hot results of 1 for weapons that do not roll To Hit.

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.

See? Both start with the exact same same conditions, so they operate under the same standards. What they DO is different, of course, but has little bearing on what causes them to be applied.

Traditio wrote:

To-Hit Dice are used when To-Hit Rolls are made.

To Hit dice are used when To Hit rolls are made for non-blast weapons. When blast weapons are used, the scatter dice are used instead, and 1d6 is rolled prior to rolling the scatter dice in order to determine gets hot results. Again, read the rules that you yourself cited.

I have no idea what you are even going on about here. I think you are trying to argue something which is not even really a point.

Traditio wrote:

Attacks using one of the templates do not roll To-Hit, therefore no To-Hit Dice are used.

Templates, as defined in the 40k rulebook, i.e., flamers, don't roll To Hit in any sense at all.

Blasts use the Small Blast marker, the Large Blast marker, or the Apocalyptic Blast marker. In times past, they were also called templates. Some habits die hard..

Traditio wrote:

Instead, both Gets Hot and Blasts allow for rerolls of their condition when To-Hit rolls are not possible

Again, read the initial rule that you cited. The rule explicitly says that there is a sense in which blast weapons roll To Hit.

Once again, apply common sense when reading and interpreting the rules.

Yes, apply common sense. Whatever sense you think may be there is pointless when just looking at it from a pure written standpoint. A To Hit Roll of 1, is still a To Hit Roll. Rerolling that is just as conditional as rerolling a miss from Twin-Linked. It is not as easy, but it is still just as conditional.

Traditio wrote:

A pointless endeavor to this response, as it was simply stating that the perspective on Preferred Enemy is the same as for Twin-Linked, as they are both contingent on failure to apply a reroll. Preferred Enemy's reroll is just more specific. That is all. I was not taking sides on the debate itself, just clarifying the relationships.

Preferred enemy says that you can reroll 1s to hit.
Twin-link says that you may reroll all misses.

The rules don't say the same thing.

Didn't say they said the same thing. I said that they were both equally conditional on a type of failure. To Hit Rolls of 1 are failures. Misses are failures. Keep up.

Traditio wrote:
Once again, a simple grasp of the simpliciter vs. relative distinction works wonders here.

As if this was a standard in the game.

Did no one pick up traditio making the extraordinary claim that in 5th edition blast weapons rolled to hit? Despite this being complete and utter gak?

Traditio - the "to do so " is "use the ability to Reroll their to hit"

Note this phrase is utterly unconditional. It does not care under what circumstances you can Reroll to hit, it just requires that you have this ability

And no, I utterly dismiss your contention that the scatter is the "roll to hit". It isn't it explicitly is not a roll to hit, as you are told this. Your entire argument seems to hang from this utterly wrong assumption, meaning it is likely your conclusion is also wrong. Which it is

Stop going on about "common sense" and insulting those who are able to read the actual rules correctly.

You deny that bs6+ grants a Reroll to hit, yet p164 "gets hit and rerolls" utterly destroys your argument. And bs6+ has EXACTLY the same conditional as pe. Exactly. That you roll a one to hit.

Your insults are noted. They reduce your credibility.

Can we lock this thread before people start on the whole PF re-rolling blast nonsense that will turn into a 10 page ramble of 2 views and insults.

What everyone will agree on is you do get to re-roll the one for the gets hot roll and that is all this thread will accomplish.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Did no one pick up traditio making the extraordinary claim that in 5th edition blast weapons rolled to hit? Despite this being complete and utter gak?

Traditio - the "to do so " is "use the ability to Reroll their to hit"

Note this phrase is utterly unconditional. It does not care under what circumstances you can Reroll to hit, it just requires that you have this ability

And no, I utterly dismiss your contention that the scatter is the "roll to hit". It isn't it explicitly is not a roll to hit, as you are told this. Your entire argument seems to hang from this utterly wrong assumption, meaning it is likely your conclusion is also wrong. Which it is

Stop going on about "common sense" and insulting those who are able to read the actual rules correctly.

You deny that bs6+ grants a Reroll to hit, yet p164 "gets hit and rerolls" utterly destroys your argument. And bs6+ has EXACTLY the same conditional as pe. Exactly. That you roll a one to hit.

Your insults are noted. They reduce your credibility.

So we get to re-roll blasts if we have PE even while not fighting the specified PE faction right ? or do you just enforce one set of conditions but not the other ? I mean if i have PE eldar and i fire on imperials troops , i have the ability to re-roll .

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Did no one pick up traditio making the extraordinary claim that in 5th edition blast weapons rolled to hit? Despite this being complete and utter gak?

I did notice that, but I wanted to double check against my Black Reach book before addressing it directly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Did no one pick up traditio making the extraordinary claim that in 5th edition blast weapons rolled to hit? Despite this being complete and utter gak?

5th edition rulebook, p. 30. I quote: "Blast Weapons...When you fire a blast weapon roll to hit as normal; if the shot misses it has no effect. If a hit is scored take the blast marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected. Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a D6 roll of 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically...""

Traditio - the "to do so " is "use the ability to Reroll their to hit"

Therefore blast weapons roll To Hit. You cannot use an ability to reroll To Hit if you cannot roll To Hit. That's literally a tautology.

Note this phrase is utterly unconditional. It does not care under what circumstances you can Reroll to hit, it just requires that you have this ability

PE grants you the ability if and only if you roll a 1. If you do not roll a 1, you do not have the ability to reroll to hit.

And no, I utterly dismiss your contention that the scatter is the "roll to hit". It isn't it explicitly is not a roll to hit, as you are told this.

Equivocation. You're equivocating on two obviously different senses of "To Hit." The blast rule I cited essentially says that blast weapons roll To Hit in some sense.

You deny that bs6+ grants a Reroll to hit, yet p164 "gets hit and rerolls" utterly destroys your argument. And bs6+ has EXACTLY the same conditional as pe.

This is just obviously wrong. You do not reroll for BS 6 if you are using a blast weapon. You deduct 6 inches.

Charistoph wrote:Use common sense and align the interpretation to its coinciding position of the actual rule.

"To do so" clearly refers to using the ability to reroll To Hit. Therefore, blast weapons roll To Hit, albeit not by a comparison of a dice roll to [7 - BS of the firing unit].

That's the most obvious sense of the text.

To Do What? To use its ability.

What ability? You mean, the ability to reroll To Hit?

It cannot use its ability normally, so the rule then refers to how it actually works in this specific case. See? Common sense.

I completely agree with this. You are simply failing to understand the implications of this. Since it cannot use its ability normally (namely, by rolling a die and comparing the result to [7 - the BS of the firing unit], it uses its ability to roll To Hit in the way appropriate to blast weapons, namely, by rolling the scatter dice. You may reroll to Hit if and only if you otherwise could have rerolled to Hit under normal circumstances, namely, either by missing (in the case of twin link) or by rolling a 1 (in the case of PE), the latter of which does not and cannot occur for blast weapons.

Going back to your earlier response:

This would be a false assumption as it is based on only the data presented in this quote. It is ignoring the context provided by the previous sections of the Blast Rules.

First off, Blasts do not roll To-Hit, this is established in the beginning of its rules, as already stated. by CrownAxe.

Again, your reply is based on an equivocation of the term "To Hit."

Second, Blasts DO have a roll, but it is used to determine where the blast template is finally located. All models under this template are considered to be Hit per the rules in General Principles regarding Blasts and Templates.

Yes. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, that scatter dice roll is a roll To Hit.

Traditio wrote:So are you saying that a To Hit Roll of 1, is not a To Hit Roll?

It is a To Hit roll, but you have the ability to make it if and only if you roll a 1. It's that simple.

Actually it does. The phrase which starts both and it is based on "if". How can they not have the same standards?

Because they both start with the same sort of language, therefore, they both refer to the same thing?

Uh...no.

That's just a complete non-sequitur.

Let's actually read what you are quoting:

Gets Hot!

If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit (including because of BS6+ or the Twin-linked special rule), a Wound is only suffered if the To Hit re-roll is also a 1; it may also re-roll Gets Hot results of 1 for weapons that do not roll To Hit.

I don't see anything problematic with this. If you are rolling a non-blast shooting attack, you use the To-Hit dice as the gets hot roll. If you are rolling a blast or a firing a template which Gets Hot, then you roll a separate 1d6.

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.

See? Both start with the exact same same conditions, so they operate under the same standards. What they DO is different, of course, but has little bearing on what causes them to be applied.

Again, complete non-sequitur.

Yes, apply common sense. Whatever sense you think may be there is pointless when just looking at it from a pure written standpoint. A To Hit Roll of 1, is still a To Hit Roll.

I agree. And you have the ability to make that roll if and only if you roll a 1. Period.

AT ANY RATE:

Further discussion of this point is a waste of time. At this point, we are basically just making the same arguments. I briefly summarize the arguments on both sides:

My opponents argue:

1. The blast rule says that if a model otherwise has the ability to reroll To Hit, it may reroll the scatter dice.
2. PE grants an ability to reroll To Hit.
3. Therefore, PE grants the ability to reroll the scatter dice, regardless of whether or not a 1 is rolled.

I argue:

1. PE grants an ability to reroll To Hit if and only if a 1 is rolled.
2. A 1 cannot be rolled on the scatter die.
3. Therefore, PE does not grant the ability to reroll the scatter dice for a blast weapon.

The practical import for the OP:

There are different opinions on this matter, but here's the deal:

If I were playing against you, I would permit you to reroll your scatter dice for any rule that says "You may reroll To Hit" without qualification (twin link, guide, prescience, etc). I would not permit you to reroll your scatter dice with preferred enemy or any other rule that says you can reroll To Hit if you roll a 1 (since that's not a possible result on the scatter die).

If you insisted on rerolling the scatter dice using PE or some similar rule, I would do one of two things:

1. Call the game there and refuse to play further.
2. Finish the game, but refuse to play you again.

Fact is, the opinion of my opponents is a rules-lawyering, WAAC TFG interpretation, an interpretation which flies in the face of common sense, and I would consider you to be such a person if you insisted on reading the rules that way. I would mentally begin to associate you with feminine hygiene products.

I strongly recommend asking your opponent his opinion of the rules, offering the arguments for both sides, and letting him or her make the decision for the purposes of that game. If you're playing in a tournament, ask the TO in advance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
So we get to re-roll blasts if we have PE even while not fighting the specified PE faction right ? or do you just enforce one set of conditions but not the other ? I mean if i have PE eldar and i fire on imperials troops , i have the ability to re-roll .

This is basically what follows from their arguments. PE: Eldar grants the ability to reroll. The fact that you are playing against Imperial Guard is irrelevent! You have the ability to reroll!

As I said, it's a stupid argument dreamed up by WAAC TFGs. These people read the 40k rulebook like protestants read the Bible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd like to add, finally, to reiterate:

I would actually benefit if they are correct.

1. Pedro Kantor is my warlord; he grants my entire enemy Preferred Enemy: Orks. Therefore, all of my blast weapons, according to them, have the ability to reroll, regardless of whether I'm playing against Orks or not.

2. I play a gladius strike force.

I have 8 missile launchers (devastators) and 3 plasma cannons (tactical squads) in my army (not even to mention the fact that pretty much everyone in my army is armed with frag grenades; also did I mention that Pedro Kantor can use an orbital strike?). According to them, I can reroll frag blasts using tactical doctrine and plasma cannons using devastator doctrine. And even if I'm not playing against Orks and elect not to use a combat doctrine, I can reroll these things anyways since I have PE: Orks!

Which sounds great, of course, except for one unfortunate fact:

It's completely ridiculous.

Reading this threat hurts my eyes and I fear im just throwing gasoline into the fire but Im bored so ill put this breakdown into the mix. It seems to me that the major hangup is on the conditions of what allows rerolls to hit. Ill list the five cases that come to mind following this format using a BS3 guardsmen shooting a missile launcher.
Special Rule/Ability | Can Reroll to Hit | Required Condition

Krak Missile
No Special Rule | Cannot reroll to hit | Cannot reroll to hit
Twin Linked | Can Reroll to Hit | Fail to hit
Prescience | Can Reroll to Hit | Fail to hit
Preferred Enemy | Can Reroll to Hit | Roll a 1
Ammo Runt | Can Reroll to Hit | None

Frag Missile
No Special Rule | Cannot reroll to hit | Cannot reroll to hit
Twin Linked | Can Reroll to Hit | Fail to hit (Specifically stated in the rules for blast weapons)
Prescience | Can Reroll to Hit | Fail to hit
Preferred Enemy | Can Reroll to Hit | Roll a 1
Ammo Runt | Can Reroll to Hit | None

Going by absolute RAW in the most strict of interpretations on conditions only Twin Linked and Ammo Runt can reroll the blast because the Ammo Runt meats the requirement of "Reroll to hit" without any conditions while Twin Linked is specifically called out in the rules as being able to reroll blast scatters dice.

If you go by wording of being able to reroll to hit means there is some ability to reroll to hit then you can then include Prescience and Preferred Enemy because both of these rules have requirements that have to be met. There is no middle ground that allows Prescience to reroll scatters but not Preferred Enemy because both are conditional. Blast Weapons do not roll to hit by RAW in the BRB. The question is how you interpret "has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit". If you really want to throw more gasoline into the mix you can also look at BS 6+ because it would allow you to reroll 1s to hit with a new set of rolls.

Edit: Cleaned up the rule for Twin Linked and Prescience to more accurately state their conditions

Vankraken wrote:There is no middle ground that allows Prescience to reroll scatters but not Preferred Enemy because both are conditional.

They're conditional on different things. Prescience and guide are conditional on missing. PE is conditional on rolling a 1.

You can miss with a blast weapon.
You cannot roll a 1 on the scatter die. It's impossible.

If you really want to throw more gasoline into the mix you can also look at BS 6+ because it would allow you to reroll 1s to hit with a new set of rolls.

This point's already been made.

I tell you guys what:

If you guys are firing a blast weapon with someone who has BS 6+, I'll permit you to reroll the scatter dice. However, I'll only grant that a hit has occurred if you've rolled the necessary number on the re-rolled scatter die. Thus, you will have hit with the BS 6 reroll if and only if you roll a 6 on the rerolled scatter die (which is impossible, by the way).

Otherwise, I'll insist that you simply deduct your BS from the scatter distance (if you have LOS).

Traditio wrote:

Vankraken wrote:There is no middle ground that allows Prescience to reroll scatters but not Preferred Enemy because both are conditional.

They're conditional on different things. Prescience and guide are conditional on missing. PE is conditional on rolling a 1.

You can miss with a blast weapon.
You cannot roll a 1 on the scatter die. It's impossible.

Prescience can reroll all failed to hit rolls. You don't roll to hit with blast so you can't fail it thus you can't meet the condition of Prescience. Technically because your not rolling to hit with Gets Hot blast weapons you can't reroll those results because you didn't fail a To Hit roll to meet the Prescience condition.

This is how things get really messing when you look at everything under the RAW microscope about what constitutes having the ability to reroll to hit.

Vankraken wrote:Prescience can reroll all failed to hit rolls.

Again, for the thousandth time, stop being such a protestant about this, and use common sense:

1. For all intents and purposes, the rolling of the scatter dice is the To Hit roll for a blast weapon.
2. It is possible to fail to hit with a blast weapon once you have rolled the scatter dice.
3. It is NOT possible to roll a 1 (or a 6, for that matter) on the scatter die.

Technically

If you have to start your sentences with "technically," expect eye rolls and refusals to play with you. It's that simple.

...

...

...

Even if you do play Orks, which is totally awesome.

Traditio, do Blasts roll To Hit, yes or no?

If yes, you are lying, as the rules unequivocally state that rolling Scatter is not a To Hit roll.

If you do not roll To Hit, how can you fail a To Hit roll (as required by almost every re-roll ability)?

Traditio wrote:

Vankraken wrote:Prescience can reroll all failed to hit rolls.

Again, for the thousandth time, stop being such a protestant about this, and use common sense:

1. For all intents and purposes, the rolling of the scatter dice is the To Hit roll for a blast weapon.
2. It is possible to fail to hit with a blast weapon once you have rolled the scatter dice.
3. It is NOT possible to roll a 1 (or a 6, for that matter) on the scatter die.

Technically

If you have to start your sentences with "technically," expect eye rolls and refusals to play with you. It's that simple.

The problem is your arguing "use common sense" and interpreting the rules outside what its written as. It clearly 1000% says "Blast Weapons do not roll to hit". Your taking a mechanic "roll to hit" and ignoring the fact that blasts do not roll to hit and assuming its ok to have the blast marker scatter count as your roll to hit when it clearly doesn't RAW. The blast marker determines the number of hits and what units get hit but you are not rolling to hit. Scatter dice determines any positioning adjustments that need to be made to the blast template when the weapon is being fired. Even if the blast marker completely scatters off into the corn fields hitting zero targets it still isn't a "failed to hit" roll to activate the conditional of rules like Prescience. Your making just as many "failed to hit rolls" as your making "rolls of 1" which is 0.

 Happyjew wrote:
Traditio, do Blasts roll To Hit, yes or no?

There is a sense in which blasts roll To Hit.

If yes, you are lying, as the rules unequivocally state that rolling Scatter is not a To Hit roll.

Equivocation on "To Hit."

If you do not roll To Hit, how can you fail a To Hit roll (as required by almost every re-roll ability)?

By rolling the scatter dice, failing to score a direct hit, and then scattering in such a way that the blast template fails to hover over the bases of any models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vankraken wrote:The problem is your arguing "use common sense" and interpreting the rules outside what its written as. It clearly 1000% says "Blast Weapons do not roll to hit".

Again, you are equivocating. It also says, in the rule that I've repeatedly quoted, originally quoted by Charistoph, that a model firing a blast weapon may elect to use its ability to reroll TO HIT.

A model may not reroll To Hit if it cannot roll To Hit.

That's a fething tautology.

Your taking a mechanic "roll to hit" and ignoring the fact that blasts do not roll to hit and assuming its ok to have the blast marker scatter count as your roll to hit when it clearly doesn't RAW. The blast marker determines the number of hits and what units get hit but you are not rolling to hit.

Please, do pray tell what the little target/aim symbol on the scatter die means.

Even if the blast marker completely scatters off into the corn fields hitting zero targets it still isn't a "failed to hit" roll to activate the conditional of rules like Prescience.

I disagree. It's not a failed "To Hit" roll in the strict sense of a d6 roll made in comparison to [7 - BS of the firing unit].

It is, however, a To Hit roll in the broad sense of any roll made to determine whether and how many units are hit by a given attack (and even more strongly, it's any such roll to which BS acts as a modifier, if only the firing unit has LOS), and it is in this sense of "to hit" that we should take the term in prescience and guide.

But again, I repeat:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ROLL A NUMBER ON THE SCATTER DIE. PERIOD. END OF STORY.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But just to show all of you that, in point of fact, you actually DO agree that my interpretation is more based on common sense and much more reasonable, answer me this:

Would you prefer to play your opponent using MY interpretation of the rules...

Or for your opponent to refuse to play with you using YOUR interpretation of the rules?

If you answer the former and not the latter, then ultimately, you agree with me.

Traditio wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Traditio, do Blasts roll To Hit, yes or no?

There is a sense in which blasts roll To Hit.

I didn't ask if they hit "in a sense". I asked do blasts weapons roll To Hit?

Traditio wrote:

But just to show all of you that, in point of fact, you actually DO agree that my interpretation is more based on common sense and much more reasonable, answer me this:

Would you prefer to play your opponent using MY interpretation of the rules...

Or for your opponent to refuse to play with you using YOUR interpretation of the rules?

If you answer the former and not the latter, then ultimately, you agree with me.

The former is giving into a whinny player because of the latter and if I came across a player that whined about a rule and came up with a "my way or the highway" type of attitude I would pick the "I refuse to play with an opponent of such low sportsmanship." option

 Happyjew wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Traditio, do Blasts roll To Hit, yes or no?

There is a sense in which blasts roll To Hit.

I didn't ask if they hit "in a sense". I asked do blasts weapons roll To Hit?

"To hit" is said in many ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

Traditio wrote:

But just to show all of you that, in point of fact, you actually DO agree that my interpretation is more based on common sense and much more reasonable, answer me this:

Would you prefer to play your opponent using MY interpretation of the rules...

Or for your opponent to refuse to play with you using YOUR interpretation of the rules?

If you answer the former and not the latter, then ultimately, you agree with me.

The former is giving into a whinny player because of the latter and if I came across a player that whined about a rule and came up with a "my way or the highway" type of attitude I would pick the "I refuse to play with an opponent of such low sportsmanship." option

It's not "whining about a rule." It's deciding whether to play or not to play depending on how one's opponent interprets a rule (i.e., whether common sensically or in such a way as to maximize the advantages to his army).

But I assure you, the feeling is mutual.

I have no desire to play against a WAAC TFG.

Guys, he's just baiting you. He's done this sort of nonsensical circular "refer to this post" responses before. He's shown that he cannot accept that any sort of outcome besides that his point of view must be correct despite all evidence to the contrary. I think its been made clear to the OP how preferred enemy and blasts work, Traditio is just derailing it with deliberately misinterpreted semantics and trying to bring it back to ad hominems about people not agreeing with him being WAAC scrubs.

Traditio wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Did no one pick up traditio making the extraordinary claim that in 5th edition blast weapons rolled to hit? Despite this being complete and utter gak?

5th edition rulebook, p. 30. I quote: "Blast Weapons...When you fire a blast weapon roll to hit as normal; if the shot misses it has no effect. If a hit is scored take the blast marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected. Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a D6 roll of 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically...""

Odd. That is not what the pg 30 on my Assault on Black Reach mini-rulebook for 5th Edition states. There is no section called "Blast Weapons", the whole page is titled "Blast" and has a subsection called "Blast weapons and re-rolls".

Second paragraph on the page reads, "When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit, instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the blast marker with its hole over the base of the target model, or its hull if it is a vehicle. You may not place the marker so that the base or hull of any of your own models is even grazed by it." No other paragraph starts with "when" on this page.

6th Edition and 7th Edition's changes are not sufficiently significant to this section to be worth addressing.

Traditio wrote:"To hit" is said in many ways.

Not with any significance to this discussion so far. Blasts do not roll To Hit as defined in the Shooting Phase section of the rulebook, they roll Scatter for placement of the Marker. Hits may result from it, but that is not really the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

It cannot use its ability normally, so the rule then refers to how it actually works in this specific case. See? Common sense.

I completely agree with this. You are simply failing to understand the implications of this. Since it cannot use its ability normally (namely, by rolling a die and comparing the result to [7 - the BS of the firing unit], it uses its ability to roll To Hit in the way appropriate to blast weapons, namely, by rolling the scatter dice. You may reroll to Hit if and only if you otherwise could have rerolled to Hit under normal circumstances, namely, either by missing (in the case of twin link) or by rolling a 1 (in the case of PE), the latter of which does not and cannot occur for blast weapons.

Correct. So why are you arguing this point? In fact, most of your responses to mine have either been taken out of context or directing an argumentative stance.

Traditio wrote:
Going back to your earlier response:

This would be a false assumption as it is based on only the data presented in this quote. It is ignoring the context provided by the previous sections of the Blast Rules.

First off, Blasts do not roll To-Hit, this is established in the beginning of its rules, as already stated. by CrownAxe.

Again, your reply is based on an equivocation of the term "To Hit."

Not really. "To Hit" has a defined process established in the Shooting Phase section of the rulebook. How Blasts and Templates generate Hits do not rely on anything in that section.

Traditio wrote:

Second, Blasts DO have a roll, but it is used to determine where the blast template is finally located. All models under this template are considered to be Hit per the rules in General Principles regarding Blasts and Templates.

Yes. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, that scatter dice roll is a roll To Hit.

Incorrect. It is a placement roll to generate Hits, not quite the same thing.

Traditio wrote:

Traditio wrote:So are you saying that a To Hit Roll of 1, is not a To Hit Roll?

It is a To Hit roll, but you have the ability to make it if and only if you roll a 1. It's that simple.

You are answering a different question than asked here. I did not ask about "making" anything, I am addressing the status of a situation.

But the point still is, if something has the ability to reroll To Hit rolls of 1, they do have the ability to reroll To Hit rolls. It is a limited ability, but still the ability exists.

Traditio wrote:

Actually it does. The phrase which starts both and it is based on "if". How can they not have the same standards?

Because they both start with the same sort of language, therefore, they both refer to the same thing?

Uh...no.

That's just a complete non-sequitur.

No, they start with the same language, not just the same sort of language. Same language, same standards. Here, let me tighten it up for you:

Gets Hot!

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

Blast

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

Not non-sequitur, same standard.

Traditio wrote:
Further discussion of this point is a waste of time. At this point, we are basically just making the same arguments. I briefly summarize the arguments on both sides:

Then why did you start an argument about it?

 Charistoph wrote:
Odd. That is not what the pg 30 on my Assault on Black Reach mini-rulebook for 5th Edition states. There is no section called "Blast Weapons", the whole page is titled "Blast" and has a subsection called "Blast weapons and re-rolls".

I was in error. I was quoting from this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Warhammer-000-producer-Games-Workshop/dp/184154468X/ref=sr_1_14?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458428732&sr=1-14&keywords=warhammer+40k+rulebook

Apparently, that's the 4th edition rulebook, not the 5th edition rulebook.

As I said, I don't see any further point in arguing the matter with you, and I don't see this debate progressing. I'll simply ask this:

Has Games Workshop answered the matter in a FAQ?
Has ITC released anything about it in a FAQ?
How is it ordinarily treated in tournaments?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wish to note that this argument has apparently already been waged on this forum roughly 3 years ago. See below for that thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/536939.page#5797798

I also wish to note that HappyJew was on my side of the argument 3 years ago.

Traditio wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

Traditio wrote:

But just to show all of you that, in point of fact, you actually DO agree that my interpretation is more based on common sense and much more reasonable, answer me this:

Would you prefer to play your opponent using MY interpretation of the rules...

Or for your opponent to refuse to play with you using YOUR interpretation of the rules?

If you answer the former and not the latter, then ultimately, you agree with me.

The former is giving into a whinny player because of the latter and if I came across a player that whined about a rule and came up with a "my way or the highway" type of attitude I would pick the "I refuse to play with an opponent of such low sportsmanship." option

It's not "whining about a rule." It's deciding whether to play or not to play depending on how one's opponent interprets a rule (i.e., whether common sensically or in such a way as to maximize the advantages to his army).

But I assure you, the feeling is mutual.

I have no desire to play against a WAAC TFG.

Ok first of all you need to stop using the "common sense" argument because what is common sense is completely different on depending on where you are from and what you have experienced.

Secondly your two options weren't deciding whether to play or not to play depending on how one's opponents interprets a rule, but whether to play if I agreed with your interpretation or not. You don't even give my opinion on how the rule should be interpreted a chance because your interpretation is so "obviously common sense". Your two options were literally a "my way or the highway" choice, which is imho more of a WAAC TFG thing to do than claiming that PE gives a re-roll to hit on blast weapons against their preferred enemy.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:Ok first of all you need to stop using the "common sense" argument because what is common sense is completely different on depending on where you are from and what you have experienced.

1. If you have to start your sentence with "technically," whatever it is that you're about to say afterwards isn't common sense by any standard.

2. The entire argument is based on exploiting apparently unclear language in the rulebook and divorcing it from the obvious intent/purpose of the author in writing the rule in the first place. You're exploiting a rule to do something that it's obviously not supposed to do. Again, that's not common sense by any standard.

What makes my argument "common sensical" is that I'm simply attending to the obvious intention of the writers in crafting the preferred enemy rule. The rule doesn't say "reroll all misses." It says "reroll 1s." They didn't want Preferred Enemy to be equivalent to Twin-Linked. They wanted to prevent critical failures, again, to use DnD terminology. The fact that you can interpret it to effectively count as twin-linked for blast weapons is clearly an oversight on the part of the writers that you are exploiting.

Whereas you people are attending solely to the "letter of the law," so to speak, and exploiting ambiguous language, I am attending to the obvious spirit of the law. That's what makes my interpretation common sensical. Because I'm not reading the rules like a protestant.

Secondly your two options weren't deciding whether to play or not to play depending on how one's opponents interprets a rule, but whether to play if I agreed with your interpretation or not.

I didn't say that. You don't have to agree with me. You merely need concede that my interpretation prevails for the purposes of the game.

Your two options were literally a "my way or the highway" choice, which is imho more of a WAAC TFG thing to do than claiming that PE gives a re-roll to hit on blast weapons against their preferred enemy.

You're opinion is noted. Beyond that, I have no further comment.

I love how traditio is harping on the starting a sentence with 'technically', but then answers another question with 'in a sense'. At least be consistent.

Oh, and read the tenets for this forum. RAI doesn't exist here, so arguing over the intention or some mythical 'common sense' doesn't apply here. Only rules.

 Blacksails wrote:
I love how traditio is harping on the starting a sentence with 'technically', but then answers another question with 'in a sense'. At least be consistent.

I didn't say "in a sense." I said "there is a sense in which." I am using the word "sense" in the Fregean sense of the word. You could replace the word "sense" with "meaning" or "definition" or "understanding." I'm simply pointing out that "To Hit" has more than one definition.

Oh, and read the tenets for this forum. RAI doesn't exist here, so arguing over the intention or some mythical 'common sense' doesn't apply here. Only rules.

That's simply an abuse of language. All language, whether spoken or written, has as its purpose the expression of what is on the mind of the speaker or the writer. The intention of the writer must be taken into account in understanding a given piece of writing or speech. If I tell you that it's raining cats and dogs outside, you shouldn't come to me afterwards and accuse me of telling you a lie if you see rain, not animals, falling from the sky.

Which has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread; determining the RAW of PE and blasts.

If you want to state HYWPI, then go ahead. But if you want to argue RAW, you need to argue just the RAW, nothing more, nothing less.

 Blacksails wrote:
Which has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread; determining the RAW of PE and blasts.

If you want to state HYWPI, then go ahead. But if you want to argue RAW, you need to argue just the RAW, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not arguing HYWPI. I'm saying that the obvious context and intention of the author must be taken into account when interpreting RAW.

There's a clear difference between the two.

Furthermore, I checked the tenets. There's no rule against discussing RAI.

 Blacksails wrote:
I love how traditio is harping on the starting a sentence with 'technically', but then answers another question with 'in a sense'. At least be consistent.

Oh, and read the tenets for this forum. RAI doesn't exist here, so arguing over the intention or some mythical 'common sense' doesn't apply here. Only rules.

Should honestly change his name to Trollditio at this point.

@Traditio: As for arguing intention. Unless you speak to the rules author, you can never know actual intention of what has been written unless it is plainly written out as such.

And until then arguing intention is nothing more than arguing for your personal opinion. Which you seem to be doing rather rudely.

No, there isn't. RAW is just that; the Rules As Written. Its literally just that. Only the written rules. No feelings, no assumptions about the author's intent, just rules. If you're going to argue RAW, you need to use the rules to back up your statements. Anything else involving an interpretation or assumption of the author is RAI and/or a statement of HYWPI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:


Furthermore, I checked the tenets. There's no rule against discussing RAI.

I was pointing to the part about using rules to back your statements, and understanding the difference between RAW and HYWPI.

Chapter Master Angelos wrote:Should honestly change his name to Trollditio at this point.

Chapter Master Angelos thinks that Traditio is being rude.

Chapter Master Angelos doesn't like this.

Chapter Master Angelos decides to call Traditio by a pejorative name.

@Traditio: As for arguing intention. Unless you speak to the rules author, you can never know actual intention of what has been written unless it is plainly written out as such.

That's just silly. You would never say that in most other contexts. "I wouldn't recommend going in there. You're allergic to cats."

Are you really going to ask the speaker what your cat allergy has to do with your decision to go or not?

I mean, look, is there any real doubt here? I've repeatedly quoted the blast rule that Charistoph originally cited.

Briefly state, in your own words, what the rule means (not what it says, what it means). Briefly state what you think that GW is trying to "do."

Now briefly state what you think the Preferred Enemy rule is supposed to "do." How is it supposed to "work"? What is it "for"?

And then, based on that, try arguing that you can use PE to reroll blasts.

You won't be able to. I dare you to try.

I think it makes perfect sense for PE to allow blasts to re-roll.

Funny enough, there's RAW to back that up.

Until you have rules to back up your statements, it doesn't hold water as RAW argument. Its just like your opinion man. Feel free to make a HYWPI statement, but don't try and tell people they're wrong unless you can provide rules backing that up.

 Blacksails wrote:
No, there isn't. RAW is just that; the Rules As Written. Its literally just that. Only the written rules. No feelings, no assumptions about the author's intent, just rules. If you're going to argue RAW, you need to use the rules to back up your statements. Anything else involving an interpretation or assumption of the author is RAI and/or a statement of HYWPI.

RAW lends itself to opposite interpretations. RAW doesn't suffice to render a judgment either way. At any rate, I invite you to meet the challenge I just made to Chapter Master Angelos.

I invite you to meet the challenge of providing rules to back up your statements.

 Blacksails wrote:
I think it makes perfect sense for PE to allow blasts to re-roll.

Funny enough, there's RAW to back that up.

Until you have rules to back up your statements, it doesn't hold water as RAW argument. Its just like your opinion man. Feel free to make a HYWPI statement, but don't try and tell people they're wrong unless you can provide rules backing that up.

As I said, it's simply not fruitful to continue this line of discussion; you simply cannot prove your case conclusively, as should be evident from this thread.

If you want me to provide RAW, I'm just going to keep repeating the PE rule and emphasizing the number "one."

If I want you to provide RAW, you're just going to keep repeating the PE rule and emphasizing on the word "reroll."

If you want me to provide RAW, I'm just going to keep emphasizing the words "to do so."

If I want you to provide RAW, you're just going to keep emphasizing the words "does not roll to hit."

RAW simply doesn't and cannot decide the issue in the case. We MUST attend to RAI.

But of course you don't want to do that. Why? Because then you're obviously wrong.

Traditio wrote:


But of course you don't want to do that. Why? Because then you're obviously wrong.

The only obvious thing here should be that its clear there is no obvious right and wrong. Otherwise we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

 Blacksails wrote:
The only obvious thing here should be that its clear there is no obvious right and wrong. Otherwise we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

There's no obvious right or wrong if we attend solely to the words and take them as though in a vacuum.

But that's not how language is supposed to work (pace the protestants).

Again, I invite you to meet the challenge I made to Chapter Master Angelos.

Briefly describe, in your own words, how blasts are supposed to work.

Then describe, in your own words, when you normally can reroll a blast.

Then describe, in your own words, what PE is supposed to do.

Then, on the basis of that, try telling me why PE should allow a reroll to the scatter dice.

Traditio wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:Ok first of all you need to stop using the "common sense" argument because what is common sense is completely different on depending on where you are from and what you have experienced.

1. If you have to start your sentence with "technically," whatever it is that you're about to say afterwards isn't common sense by any standard.

I don't know if this is aimed at me or not but I haven't started a sentence with "technically". That was the first time I have even wrote the word.

2. The entire argument is based on exploiting apparently unclear language in the rulebook and divorcing it from the obvious intent/purpose of the author in writing the rule in the first place. You're exploiting a rule to do something that it's obviously not supposed to do. Again, that's not common sense by any standard.

The only thing that is obvious is that the rule can be interpreted different ways by the fact that we have at least two different readings of the rule.

What makes my argument "common sensical" is that I'm simply attending to the obvious intention of the writers in crafting the preferred enemy rule. The rule doesn't say "reroll all misses." It says "reroll 1s." They didn't want Preferred Enemy to be equivalent to Twin-Linked. They wanted to prevent critical failures, again, to use DnD terminology. The fact that you can interpret it to effectively count as twin-linked for blast weapons is clearly an oversight on the part of the writers that you are exploiting.

As Blacksails posted you can't say with 100% certainty on what the Authors "obvious intention" was, unless you are in fact an author of the brb in which case we all have a lot of questions about the rules for you. You can claim what you think the RAI are but they will always fall down to RAW and are just as viable as anyone else's interpretation of RAI

Whereas you people are attending solely to the "letter of the law," so to speak, and exploiting ambiguous language, I am attending to the obvious spirit of the law. That's what makes my interpretation common sensical. Because I'm not reading the rules like a protestant.

"Letter of the law" or RAW? If so see above because RAW trumps RAI.

Secondly your two options weren't deciding whether to play or not to play depending on how one's opponents interprets a rule, but whether to play if I agreed with your interpretation or not.

I didn't say that. You don't have to agree with me. You merely need concede that my interpretation prevails for the purposes of the game.

Ok so instead of agreeing with you I just have to be a hypocrite. That makes me feel so much better.

Your two options were literally a "my way or the highway" choice, which is imho more of a WAAC TFG thing to do than claiming that PE gives a re-roll to hit on blast weapons against their preferred enemy.

You're opinion is noted. Beyond that, I have no further comment.

Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
The only obvious thing here should be that its clear there is no obvious right and wrong. Otherwise we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

There's no obvious right or wrong if we attend solely to the words and take them as though in a vacuum.

Even outside of the vacuum of the ruleset, its not clear. Again, we wouldn't be here if it was as clear as you're insisting it to be.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:I don't know if this is aimed at me or not but I haven't started a sentence with "technically". That was the first time I have even wrote the word.

It was not. I initially said "not that you've said this, of course" in the original posting, but when I deleted/rewrote it, I simply failed to add it back in. The comment is aimed at another poster in this thread.

The only thing that is obvious is that the rule can be interpreted different ways by the fact that we have at least two different readings of the rule...

As Blacksails posted you can't say with 100% certainty on what the Authors "obvious intention" was, unless you are in fact an author of the brb in which case we all have a lot of questions about the rules for you. You can claim what you think the RAI are but they will always fall down to RAW and are just as viable as anyone else's interpretation of RAI

I'll return to this at the end of this posting

"Letter of the law" or RAW? If so see above because RAW trumps RAI.

RAW, taken out of context, apart from the intention of the author, etc. isn't decisive. It's open to either interpretation. Thus, this thread.

It's necessary to attend to RAI.

]Ok so instead of agreeing with you I just have to be a hypocrite. That makes me feel so much better.

To quote the Princess Bride, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

Let us suppose that the opposed interpretation is correct and that you believe it is correct: it doesn't make you a hypocrite to adopt the opposite interpretation for a given game. Even if the interpretation is wrong, it's effectively the same thing as "house ruling it' for the purposes of a game.

Really? Because it really sounds like my opinion has been dismissed because it differs from yours.

Context.

What has been duly noted, and about which I have no further comment, is the opinion that what I'm expressing (my way or the high way) is just as unsportsmanlike as what I am criticizing.




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


At any rate, I wish to return to this bit:

The only thing that is obvious is that the rule can be interpreted different ways by the fact that we have at least two different readings of the rule...

As Blacksails posted you can't say with 100% certainty on what the Authors "obvious intention" was, unless you are in fact an author of the brb in which case we all have a lot of questions about the rules for you. You can claim what you think the RAI are but they will always fall down to RAW and are just as viable as anyone else's interpretation of RAI

This is just wrong. If you actually read the various rulebooks, the rulebooks, counterintuitively enough, aren't just books of rules. They include explanations and all kinds of "fluffy" additions (if that's the appropriate word).

I'll meet the challenge I made to Chapter Master Angelos. Stop me if you disagree with me at any point:

Ordinarily, when you fire a weapon, you compare a dice roll to [7 minus the BS of the firing model]. This is supposed to express the skill, accuracy, etc. of the model who is firing that weapon. A space marine has much better aim than an ork. This is reflected in their required rolls To Hit.

However, there are exceptions, namely, in the case of blast and barrage weapons. Blast weapons of their very nature aren't the kinds of weapon that you aim and then fire in order to dispatch a single model. Blast weapons are AoE weapons. They have a tendency to "go off course," so to speak. What's important to a blast weapon isn't that you get it exactly where you aimed, but that the blast hits the general area that you were aiming for. In order to reflect this in the rules, models do not roll To Hit, but instead roll scatter dice and then subtract their BS from the result. Why? Because the ability of a model to aim does count here, but not as much as, say, in the case of a sniper rifle.

The exception to this is barrage weapons. Barrage weapons follow an "arc." They are used to hit enemies which you may not be able to hit directly (say, with a missile launcher or a sniper rifle), which you may not even be able to see. Perhaps there is a giant wall in the way, and the enemy is behind it. So, you fire over the wall and hit the enemies behind.

To reflect this in the rules, you may subtract BS from barrage scatter dice only if the firing model has line of sight.

Sometimes, you can fire two weapons of the same kind (say, two heavy bolters from the back of a razorback) at the same target without significantly reducing the accuracy of those weapons. To reflect this in the rules, i.e., that there are twice as many rounds firing at the same target at roughly the same accuracy, you can reroll to hit and scatter dice.

Some units have a special familiarity with their prey. They are really good at fighting that enemy. As such, they simply won't "critically fail" in attacking that enemy. To reflect this increased level of capability vs. that enemy, you may reroll 1s when rolling to hit and to wound. You don't reroll all misses, of course, because simply being really familiar and trained when it comes to a certain enemy isn't equivalent to being incapable of failure against that unit. It's conceivable that even Pedro Kantor occassionally might get parried when fighting an Ork Warboss.

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

 Blacksails wrote:

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

I did nothing of the sort. Reading comprehension: it's a thing.

You're arguing the in-universe workings as an explanation for the rules.

Quite literally as real world as you can get when discussing a fictional universe.

Its odd you point out that reading comprehension is a thing when you seem to fail to grasp that your argument about the game's fluff is the exact same thing as the rule I posted.

 Blacksails wrote:
You're arguing the in-universe workings as an explanation for the rules.

No, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that when we interpret ambiguously written rules, we should look at the "fluff" that accompanies those rules. Why don't blasts compare a 1d6 to [7 - BS of the firing model]? What does it say in the italicized letters?

You and my other interlocutor insist that we can't understand the intentions of the author outside of RAW. I deny this. They take pains to convey their intentions outside of RAW. It's often in italics.

It's like the question of whether the Imperial Fists chapter tactics applies to Dorn's Arrow. RAW, you could argue that it doesn't. My reply? It says right there in italics that Dorn's Arrow is a stormbolter.

And I'm pointing out that using the fluff as any sort of basis for a rule argument is against the rule I posted.

It has no merit as a fluff argument can be constructed for any possible interpretation of a rule or to argue that any given rule should be changed.

 Blacksails wrote:
And I'm pointing out that using the fluff as any sort of basis for a rule argument is against the rule I posted.

I'm not going to engage in such trifling quibbles. If you wish to address the argument I've provided, as stated, on its own terms, feel free. Otherwise, I see no further point in engaging in this silly little squabble about forum etiquette.

It has no merit as a fluff argument can be constructed for any possible interpretation of a rule or to argue that any given rule should be changed.

If text A can can be read in sense alpha and sense beta, and the italics support alpha, but not beta, that's evidence for interpretation alpha over beta.

Again, Dorn's Arrow only says "stormbolter" in italics. If you tell me that I can't reroll 1s even though it looks like a stormbolter on the model, has a very similar stat line and says "stormbolter" in Italics, again, I simply won't play you.

We have rules for a reason. That particular rule exists because the fluff is so malleable and the rules are such abstractions that there is literally no use in many situations to use the fluff as a justification for anything.

If you have an argument to make, make it within the rules. Posting about fluff is useless. Your own example can be easily used to justify PE granting full re-rolls, as its open to interpretation how the fluff impacts the abstracted rules.

Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
And I'm pointing out that using the fluff as any sort of basis for a rule argument is against the rule I posted.

I'm not going to engage in such trifling quibbles. If you wish to address the argument I've provided, as stated, on its own terms, feel free. Otherwise, I see no further point in engaging in this silly little squabble about forum etiquette.

It has no merit as a fluff argument can be constructed for any possible interpretation of a rule or to argue that any given rule should be changed.

If text A can can be read in sense alpha and sense beta, and the italics support alpha, but not beta, that's evidence for interpretation alpha over beta.

Again, Dorn's Arrow only says "stormbolter" in italics. If you tell me that I can't reroll 1s even though it looks like a stormbolter on the model, has a very similar stat line and says "stormbolter" in Italics, again, I simply won't play you.

So back to calling people scrubs for not following your narrow-minded view of seeing things. Seems legit.

Also your disregard towards forum etiquette is VERY relevant since posting on this forum is a privilege, not a right, and in order to continue doing so you have to follow their rules, including not using fluff as a basis for interpreting the rules. You can't shift goalposts or nonsense your way out of absolving yourself of that limitation as a poster, ya got rightfully shrek'td by Blacksails, too late to back away now.

I'm thinking this has run its course anyways.

Grimskul wrote:So back to calling people scrubs for not following your narrow-minded view of seeing things. Seems legit.

With all due respect: I haven't called anyone a scrub. I have used the term "rules lawyering, WAAC TFG." I have not used the term "scrub."

Also your disregard towards forum etiquette is VERY relevant since posting on this forum is a privilege, not a right, and in order to continue doing so you have to follow their rules, including not using fluff as a basis for interpreting the rules. You can't shift goalposts or nonsense your way out of absolving yourself of that limitation as a poster, ya got rightfully shrek'td by Blacksails, too late to back away now.

I've read the forum etiquette. The only piece of etiquette that I've really disregarded is the use of terms like "rules lawyer." Aside from that, the objections of blacksails simply miss the mark. There's nothing in the etiquette thread that says that I can't appeal to the italics. What it says is that I can't appeal to real life examples, because the game is a fantasy abstraction. Reality and fantasy don't always match up.

I've not argued from real life examples. In point of fact, I know very little about the reality of combat. I have no clue how accurate missile launchers would be when wielded by genetically altered Ork hunting specialist super soldiers.

My point, GS, is that it has already been admitted that the rules are ambiguous. To resolve the ambiguity, I am appealing to a solid principle widely applicable to the reading of pretty much any text. You don't understand what this line means? Then read it in the context of the whole passage. Doesn't help? Then what about the context of the whole book? Still doesn't make sense? What about in the context of the author's general thought?

Still no help? Then you look at his historical context, his contemporaries and his sources and predecessors. You find something to help resolve the ambiguity, which sheds light on that particular passage.

Again, the telos, finality or purpose of language is to express what is on one's mind. It grants us a brief "glimpse" into the mind of the speaker or the writer. The measure of any interpretation of a text is the intention of the author.

[Thus: the way that protestants stereotypically read the Bible is just silly. It's not a good way to read a text. ]

So why do I talk about the "fluff" (though here, of course, I use the term loosely)?

Because the italics tell us what the author had in mind when he wrote the rule, what he was trying to express. If your reading of the rule contradicts the words in italics, it contradicts the mindset of the author. It's wrong.

Traditio wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:"Letter of the law" or RAW? If so see above because RAW trumps RAI.

RAW, taken out of context, apart from the intention of the author, etc. isn't decisive. It's open to either interpretation. Thus, this thread.

It's necessary to attend to RAI.

No it really isn't. As I said you can spout what you think RAI is and I can spout what I think RAI is, neither is more valid than the other because neither of us know what the writer intended. But when we add RAW to back up what we think the RAI is then, in reality we are arguing about RAW and not RAI. But when only one is using RAW to back up their opinion then they have (in this forum) a more valid outlook on how them game is played.

Ok so instead of agreeing with you I just have to be a hypocrite. That makes me feel so much better.

To quote the Princess Bride, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

Let us suppose that the opposed interpretation is correct and that you believe it is correct: it doesn't make you a hypocrite to adopt the opposite interpretation for a given game. Even if the interpretation is wrong, it's effectively the same thing as "house ruling it' for the purposes of a game.

No it means exactly what I think it means: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs. So yes If I believe that PE gives blast a re-roll to hit, but I play the game disagreeing with that belief then that would make me a hypocrite.

Now this is really an extreme view and in fact I am a hypocrite about many things in 40k, but more on this below.

Really? Because it really sounds like my opinion has been dismissed because it differs from yours.

Context.

What has been duly noted, and about which I have no further comment, is the opinion that what I'm expressing (my way or the high way) is just as unsportsmanlike as what I am criticizing.

But what I really have an issue with, and why I don't like the "my way or highway" is because in this scenario it is up to me to change my view on the rule and not yours. The real options to if we ever had to play a game together where this came up would be.

1) Talk to the TO and get a ruling

2) Get a 3rd party ruling from other players/how it is played at that FLGS (ex. at my FLGS we do play PE gives re-rolls so if you moved here I would expect you to follow the "house rule" just as If I moved to your area (and I assume your area doesn't let PE give blasts a re-roll) then that is how we would play it)

3) Roll off

4) Both agree to not play, but neither of us holding the game hostage.



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

At any rate, I wish to return to this bit:

The only thing that is obvious is that the rule can be interpreted different ways by the fact that we have at least two different readings of the rule...

As Blacksails posted you can't say with 100% certainty on what the Authors "obvious intention" was, unless you are in fact an author of the brb in which case we all have a lot of questions about the rules for you. You can claim what you think the RAI are but they will always fall down to RAW and are just as viable as anyone else's interpretation of RAI

This is just wrong. If you actually read the various rulebooks, the rulebooks, counterintuitively enough, aren't just books of rules. They include explanations and all kinds of "fluffy" additions (if that's the appropriate word).

I'll meet the challenge I made to Chapter Master Angelos. Stop me if you disagree with me at any point:

Ordinarily, when you fire a weapon, you compare a dice roll to [7 minus the BS of the firing model]. This is supposed to express the skill, accuracy, etc. of the model who is firing that weapon. A space marine has much better aim than an ork. This is reflected in their required rolls To Hit.

However, there are exceptions, namely, in the case of blast and barrage weapons. Blast weapons of their very nature aren't the kinds of weapon that you aim and then fire in order to dispatch a single model. Blast weapons are AoE weapons. They have a tendency to "go off course," so to speak. What's important to a blast weapon isn't that you get it exactly where you aimed, but that the blast hits the general area that you were aiming for. In order to reflect this in the rules, models do not roll To Hit, but instead roll scatter dice and then subtract their BS from the result. Why? Because the ability of a model to aim does count here, but not as much as, say, in the case of a sniper rifle.

The exception to this is barrage weapons. Barrage weapons follow an "arc." They are used to hit enemies which you may not be able to hit directly (say, with a missile launcher or a sniper rifle), which you may not even be able to see. Perhaps there is a giant wall in the way, and the enemy is behind it. So, you fire over the wall and hit the enemies behind.

To reflect this in the rules, you may subtract BS from barrage scatter dice only if the firing model has line of sight.

Sometimes, you can fire two weapons of the same kind (say, two heavy bolters from the back of a razorback) at the same target without significantly reducing the accuracy of those weapons. To reflect this in the rules, i.e., that there are twice as many rounds firing at the same target at roughly the same accuracy, you can reroll to hit and scatter dice.

Some units have a special familiarity with their prey. They are really good at fighting that enemy. As such, they simply won't "critically fail" in attacking that enemy. To reflect this increased level of capability vs. that enemy, you may reroll 1s when rolling to hit and to wound. You don't reroll all misses, of course, because simply being really familiar and trained when it comes to a certain enemy isn't equivalent to being incapable of failure against that unit. It's conceivable that even Pedro Kantor occassionally might get parried when fighting an Ork Warboss.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Nothing in the game has the ability to re-roll To Hit. everything in the game only has the ability to reroll misses to hit.

You keep trying to ignore the facts and make the excuse "oh just use common sense" but thats not how YMDC works. If you want to keep making that excuse you don't belong in YMDC, go somewhere else.

There are some things that have blanket re-rolls to hit with nothing required to gain the re-roll.

Space marines, eldar, and tau just don't have access to them so many people ignore they exist and demand that the ability to re-roll to hit be defined as, "having a chance to re-roll to hit under some circumstance even if they did not fulfill that circumstance."

examples- ammo runts, some tyranid formations which don't include flyrants so they don't see the light of day.

Traditio wrote:As I said, I don't see any further point in arguing the matter with you, and I don't see this debate progressing. I'll simply ask this:

Has Games Workshop answered the matter in a FAQ?

No. At least not that I can recall from 5th edition on, at any rate.

Traditio wrote:Has ITC released anything about it in a FAQ?

Check with the ITC's forum. This is not their forum.

Traditio wrote:How is it ordinarily treated in tournaments?

However the TOs choose to rule it. There are as many rulings as there are tournaments. Some see even the ability to do it within conditions as sufficient. While others require the condition to be fulfilled in order for the ability to be usable.

Preferred Enemy and Twin-Linked both provide rerolls under conditions based on To Hit rolls, so depending on their view on ability access as described above will determine their answer.

And that is where you tried to start arguing with me about the irrelevant differences between Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked to this case.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:No it really isn't. As I said you can spout what you think RAI is and I can spout what I think RAI is, neither is more valid than the other because neither of us know what the writer intended. But when we add RAW to back up what we think the RAI is then, in reality we are arguing about RAW and not RAI. But when only one is using RAW to back up their opinion then they have (in this forum) a more valid outlook on how them game is played.

Both I and my opponents have appealed to RAW. RAW isn't decisive. That is the point that I am making. RAW in and of itself cannot settle the debate. Furthermore, I also wish to note that pretty much nobody only appeals to RAW; it's pretty much impossible. Not a single person in this thread has appealed to RAW. Every single person has appealed to Rules as Interpreted. This is, of course, a hermeneutical point. The only way that you can read a text without interpreting it is if you have failed to understand it at all [again, this is one of my many criticisms of the protestants].

Thus arises the question: how do we interpret it? Evidently, the correct interpretation is not obvious to everyone. So simply repeating what the rule(s) say won't help you.

Thus the reason I say: you have to read the italics. You have to get a general feel for the author's mindset. You have to apply common sense.

No it means exactly what I think it means: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs. So yes If I believe that PE gives blast a re-roll to hit, but I play the game disagreeing with that belief then that would make me a hypocrite.

Now this is really an extreme view and in fact I am a hypocrite about many things in 40k, but more on this below.

You wouldn't be pretending to believe that my interpretation of the rules is correct. Your disagreement would duly be noted...and then ignored for the purposes of the game. There is such a thing as doing such and such a thing under protest.

Furthermore, it's not true that one is a hypocrite simply for doing x while believing the opposite. That would make every act of incontinence render the the incontinent person a hypocrite. I know that I shouldn't eat that 6th slice of pizza. I know it constitutes an act of gluttony. Still, it would taste so good...

Again, what would be hypocritical is if I told you that you can't use PE to reroll scatter blasts, but I used the devastator doctrine to allow my plasma cannon squads to reroll theirs.

But what I really have an issue with, and why I don't like the "my way or highway" is because in this scenario it is up to me to change my view on the rule and not yours.

Again, there's no obligation for you to change your view. You can believe what you want. That's your prerogative. The question at hand is how we are going to play.

1) Talk to the TO and get a ruling

2) Get a 3rd party ruling from other players/how it is played at that FLGS (ex. at my FLGS we do play PE gives re-rolls so if you moved here I would expect you to follow the "house rule" just as If I moved to your area (and I assume your area doesn't let PE give blasts a re-roll) then that is how we would play it)

3) Roll off

4) Both agree to not play, but neither of us holding the game hostage.

If it's a house rule, it's a house rule. Local custom overrides RAW, even under the most plausible interpretation.

I have in mind the case in which there is no authoritative third party. The options I would present would be: "My way, or the game ends."

You yourself admit that your interpretation is controversial and not evident from a reading of RAW. In that case, it seems to me as though the most correct thing to do would be to play the game in a way that both of us agree that it can be played. You could imagine us both as writing up a list of all of the different possible actions that each of us believes can be taken in the course of a game of 40k. All of those items in which our lists coincide would be fair game for the course of our game. Even imagine it as a game of Mother May I in which each of us takes turns.

Mother, may I move 6 inches with this infantry unit? Yes, you may.
Mother, may I fire my boltgun within rapidfire distance? Yes, you may.
Mother, may I reroll 1s due to IF chapter tactics? Yes, you may.
Mother, may I reroll the scatter die for my tactical squad plasma cannon due to the tactical doctrine?

The moment that one of us says "no," and there is no non-controversial reason otherwise, that item must be considered forbidden for the course of the game.

Presumably, we both agree on the following:

We may reroll gets hot with PE and similar rules.
We may reroll scatter dice with guide, prescience, combat doctrines which permit rerolls of all misses (and does not require a determinate number to be rolled), etc.

Great! We'll play according to the interpretation of the rules to which we both agree.

What we do not agree about is whether PE allows a reroll of the scatter dice. Since it is a controversial ruling, we'll set it aside and assume that it's not a thing.

All of this is true, but unfortunately none of it has to do with what we are discussing.

It has EVERYTHING to do with what we are discussing.

According to your own admission, neither my interpretation of RAW nor my opponent's interpretation of RAW is obviously true. It's a matter of controversy.

Ok, then lets turn to the 'big picture." Let's take a look what the italicized stuff says. Let's see what the fluff says. Let's look at how the game works overall. Let's look at previous editions. Let's take a look at all the clues that the authors leave us.

And let's ask the question:

Which interpretation makes more sense?

You've just agreed with my assessment of the "idea" behind all of the rules in question.

Let's ignore the specific wording of RAW. What SHOULD the RAW say, if all of what I've said is true? What makes more sense and why?

If RAW CAN say what I interpret it to say, and if RAW SHOULD say what I interpret it to say it does, then by that very fact, my interpretation is superior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:Preferred Enemy and Twin-Linked both provide rerolls under conditions based on To Hit rolls, so depending on their view on ability access as described above will determine their answer.

And that is where you tried to start arguing with me about the irrelevant differences between Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked to this case.

Irrelevant if your interpretation is correct.

At any rate, further rehashing the argument would simply be redundant. Unless, of course, you would care to take up my challenge to Chapter Master Angelos?

Otherwise, let the following suffice:

There is no "official" precedent for your intepretation over mine, and there is serious doubt about the what RAW means.

However, I will say this:

In virtue of the fact that my interpretation permits the player to make fewer controversial in-game actions, by that very fact, my interpretation is superior and more non-controversial, and the OP would be safer acting as though my interpretation were correct! The OP would be less likely to run across opponents saying: "Hey, you can't do that!" So nyahah!

Although, I will say this in passing:

Your interpretation requires us to assert that it is impossible for a blast weapon to fail to hit.

This should strike any unbiased reader as utterly absurd, since it certainly sounds equivalent to saying that it's impossible for a blast weapon to miss.

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Preferred Enemy and Twin-Linked both provide rerolls under conditions based on To Hit rolls, so depending on their view on ability access as described above will determine their answer.

And that is where you tried to start arguing with me about the irrelevant differences between Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked to this case.

Irrelevant if your interpretation is correct.

The specific conditions on activating the reroll are irrelevant if all you are looking for is any condition at all. That was my point that you ignored and tried going off on a completely different direction with.

Traditio wrote:
There is no "official" precedent for your intepretation over mine, and there is serious doubt about the what RAW means.

I was stating no precedence, simply pointing out that Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked are to be considered the same under those conditions as they both require a condition to be met based on To Hit Rolls, and that is something you missed twice now.

Context. Use it.

Traditio wrote:
However, I will say this:

In virtue of the fact that my interpretation permits the player to make fewer controversial in-game actions, by that very fact, my interpretation is superior and more non-controversial, and the OP would be safer acting as though my interpretation were correct! The OP would be less likely to run across opponents saying: "Hey, you can't do that!" So nyahah!

Although, I will say this in passing:

Your interpretation requires us to assert that it is impossible for a blast weapon to fail to hit.

This should strike any unbiased reader as utterly absurd, since it certainly sounds equivalent to saying that it's impossible for a blast weapon to miss.

This whole statement is absurd as it is ascribing something which I have not stated nor addressed. You are trying to demonstrate how good you are at fighting a strawman in a fight that no one brought a strawman to.

I have not put a dog in this fight at all. All I am doing is pointing out that two certain breeds are in the same weight class. That is all.

If this is not regarding the fact that both Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked are conditional (not how conditional, how easy it is to meet the conditions, or what they does with those conditions), then you need to work on your transitions and to whom you are addressing.

If this is regrading the fact that both Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked are conditional, then you need to review the whole statement, as it makes zero sense when read under that context.

Charistoph wrote:The specific conditions on activating the reroll are irrelevant if all you are looking for is any condition at all. That was my point that you ignored and tried going off on a completely different direction with.

I fully grasp the point that you've made. You're arguing as follows:

1. Blast weapons do not roll to hit.
2. Therefore, if a rule quires that a a given roll on the to hit dice be made, it cannot apply to blast weapons.
3. Twin linked, guide, prescience, and preferred enemy all require a given result on the to hit dice.
4. Therefore, either all of them confer an ability for blast rules purposes, or else, none of them do.

Corollary:

5. If it be objected that PE requires a roll of 1, it will be answered that all of the other rules also require a given roll on the to-hit dice, namely, one which instantiates a failure to hit.

I fully grasp the points that you are making. I simply disagree with 1 in the sense that you are using it in the argument, and, consequently, 3 also.

I simply assert in turn that the obvious sense of twin-linked, guide, prescience, etc, independently of the particulars of the wording, is that they are intended to reroll misses. PE is not intended to reroll any and all misses. It's intended to reroll 1s

You'll assert that the distinction is irrelevant due to 3 above.

Again, I fully understand your arguments. I simply reject them. I think that you are reading the rules too "literally," with a univocal conception of the terms at work. I, on the other hand, understand that analogy is a thing.

Traditio wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:No it really isn't. As I said you can spout what you think RAI is and I can spout what I think RAI is, neither is more valid than the other because neither of us know what the writer intended. But when we add RAW to back up what we think the RAI is then, in reality we are arguing about RAW and not RAI. But when only one is using RAW to back up their opinion then they have (in this forum) a more valid outlook on how them game is played.

Both I and my opponents have appealed to RAW. RAW isn't decisive. That is the point that I am making. RAW in and of itself cannot settle the debate. Furthermore, I also wish to note that pretty much nobody only appeals to RAW; it's pretty much impossible. Not a single person in this thread has appealed to RAW. Every single person has appealed to Rules as Interpreted. This is, of course, a hermeneutical point. The only way that you can read a text without interpreting it is if you have failed to understand it at all [again, this is one of my many criticisms of the protestants].

Thus arises the question: how do we interpret it? Evidently, the correct interpretation is not obvious to everyone. So simply repeating what the rule(s) say won't help you.

Thus the reason I say: you have to read the italics. You have to get a general feel for the author's mindset. You have to apply common sense.

But the italics are not rules. And again you are insulting anyone who does not agree with YOUR interpretation of the rules. ("Evidently, the correct interpretation is not obvious to everyone"). I could say the same thing about your interpretation but I haven't and I won't because it is extremely insulting. Also in fact their are some people who do appeal strictly to RAW. In fact I believe that strictly RAW that PE does grant a re-roll and you are the one not appealing to strictly RAW. There are places that strict RAW doesn't work in the slightest (psychic phase). And you can read text without interpreting it, you do this by reading what the rule says AKA RAW.

No it means exactly what I think it means: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs. So yes If I believe that PE gives blast a re-roll to hit, but I play the game disagreeing with that belief then that would make me a hypocrite.

Now this is really an extreme view and in fact I am a hypocrite about many things in 40k, but more on this below.

You wouldn't be pretending to believe that my interpretation of the rules is correct. Your disagreement would duly be noted...and then ignored for the purposes of the game. There is such a thing as doing such and such a thing under protest.

Your right I wouldn't be pretending that your view is correct, but I would be behaving in a way that your view is correct which by the definition "a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs" I would be a hypocrite.

But what I really have an issue with, and why I don't like the "my way or highway" is because in this scenario it is up to me to change my view on the rule and not yours.

Again, there's no obligation for you to change your view. You can believe what you want. That's your prerogative. The question at hand is how we are going to play.

1) Talk to the TO and get a ruling

2) Get a 3rd party ruling from other players/how it is played at that FLGS (ex. at my FLGS we do play PE gives re-rolls so if you moved here I would expect you to follow the "house rule" just as If I moved to your area (and I assume your area doesn't let PE give blasts a re-roll) then that is how we would play it)

3) Roll off

4) Both agree to not play, but neither of us holding the game hostage.

If it's a house rule, it's a house rule. Local custom overrides RAW, even under the most plausible interpretation.

I have in mind the case in which there is no authoritative third party. The options I would present would be: "My way, or the game ends."

(I am going to use my internet yelling voice now)

IT IS THIS ATTITUDE THAT I WAS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH. WHY IS IT YOUR WAY, OR THE GAME ENDS AND NOT MY WAY, OR THE GAME ENDS? OH YEAH BECAUSE, I AM NOT A WAAC TFG THAT NEEDS TO HOLD THE GAME HOSTAGE IN ORDER TO GET MY WAY.

You yourself admit that your interpretation is controversial and not evident from a reading of RAW. In that case, it seems to me as though the most correct thing to do would be to play the game in a way that both of us agree that it can be played. You could imagine us both as writing up a list of all of the different possible actions that each of us believes can be taken in the course of a game of 40k. All of those items in which our lists coincide would be fair game for the course of our game. Even imagine it as a game of Mother May I in which each of us takes turns.

Mother, may I move 6 inches with this infantry unit? Yes, you may.
Mother, may I fire my boltgun within rapidfire distance? Yes, you may.
Mother, may I reroll 1s due to IF chapter tactics? Yes, you may.
Mother, may I reroll the scatter die for my tactical squad plasma cannon due to the tactical doctrine?

The moment that one of us says "no," and there is no non-controversial reason otherwise, that item must be considered forbidden for the course of the game.

Presumably, we both agree on the following:

We may reroll gets hot with PE and similar rules.
We may reroll scatter dice with guide, prescience, combat doctrines which permit rerolls of all misses (and does not require a determinate number to be rolled), etc.

Great! We'll play according to the interpretation of the rules to which we both agree.

What we do not agree about is whether PE allows a reroll of the scatter dice. Since it is a controversial ruling, we'll set it aside and assume that it's not a thing.

SO BECAUSE WE DISAGREE ON A RULE, IT OBVIOUSLY MAKES SENSE TO USE YOUR VERSION OF THE RULE AND COMPLETELY DISREGARD MINE. YES THAT IS COMPLETELY FAIR AND UNBIASED FOR BOTH OF US.

All of this is true, but unfortunately none of it has to do with what we are discussing.

It has EVERYTHING to do with what we are discussing.

According to your own admission, neither my interpretation of RAW nor my opponent's interpretation of RAW is obviously true. It's a matter of controversy.

Ok, then lets turn to the 'big picture." Let's take a look what the italicized stuff says. Let's see what the fluff says. Let's look at how the game works overall. Let's look at previous editions. Let's take a look at all the clues that the authors leave us.

The game isn't a scavenger hunt on how to read the rules. The authors didn't leave clues for anyone.

And let's ask the question:

Which interpretation makes more sense?

You've just agreed with my assessment of the "idea" behind all of the rules in question.

Let's ignore the specific wording of RAW. What SHOULD the RAW say, if all of what I've said is true? What makes more sense and why?

If RAW CAN say what I interpret it to say, and if RAW SHOULD say what I interpret it to say it does, then by that very fact, my interpretation is superior.

Both/Neither interpretation makes more sense. But I in my biased (because of how I read the rules and not because of any army i play) think my interpretation makes more sense. You in your biased (again I assume because of how YOU read the rules and not because of any army YOU play against) think your interpretation makes more sense.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:Preferred Enemy and Twin-Linked both provide rerolls under conditions based on To Hit rolls, so depending on their view on ability access as described above will determine their answer.

And that is where you tried to start arguing with me about the irrelevant differences between Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked to this case.

Irrelevant if your interpretation is correct.

At any rate, further rehashing the argument would simply be redundant. Unless, of course, you would care to take up my challenge to Chapter Master Angelos?

Otherwise, let the following suffice:

There is no "official" precedent for your intepretation over mine, and there is serious doubt about the what RAW means.

There is no "official" precedent for your interpretation over ours either, yet you consistently act like there is.

However, I will say this:

In virtue of the fact that my interpretation permits the player to make fewer controversial in-game actions, by that very fact, my interpretation is superior and more non-controversial, and the OP would be safer acting as though my interpretation were correct! The OP would be less likely to run across opponents saying: "Hey, you can't do that!" So nyahah!

Except as i said earlier, eliminating all "controversial" actions benefits the person who is not making the "controversial" action. Which is the equivalent of saying "I don't think you can do that so in the option of fairness you can not do that".

Martel732 wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not letting my opponents double dip on preferred enemy. They don't need any more advantages against me.

So the primary reason you're arguing this is because you don't usually use this rule yourself and you think that it's ok to "balance" the game by interpreting rules in a way that benefits you? Nice.

That's the pont Martel lost any credibility, sadly.

Tradito - your contention, that blast weapons do roll To Hit, is wrong. Not mistaken, or arguable in anyway. It is wrong

To Hit is a defined process, with an in game definition. Blast weapons do not do this. Secondly there is the oft quoted rule that unequivocally states they do not roll To Hit,

Your argument is based off this premise, and thus your argument is inherently flawed

You need a new argument, because this one has run its course

Credibility or no, I'm not playing with that interpretation of that rule. I've got better things to do.

Because it disadvantages you

Feel free to houserule it how you like, however the raw states otherwise.

GW has actually made me give up on RAW for their games. They don't give a gak, why should I? WK already exits. Scatterlaser already exists. That's about as much RAW as I can handle from them. I don't even care anymore if that's bad logic. If my models were lost in a fire or something, I wouldn't bother replacing them.

Martel732 wrote:
The ability doesn't exist if you don't roll a one.

And twin-linked grants no ability to re-roll if you hit with all your shooting attacks. The precise dice situation under which you get the re-roll is not important, only whether, if the shooting attack were a normal one, would the special rule potentially give you a re-roll.

So the rule could be that you can re-roll failed to hit rolls of a 2 if the enemy model is at exactly 12" range and is a grot and, as long as the 12" and grot criteria were satisfied, a model with that rule could re-roll the scatter on a blast weapon.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:But the italics are not rules. And again you are insulting anyone who does not agree with YOUR interpretation of the rules. ("Evidently, the correct interpretation is not obvious to everyone"). I could say the same thing about your interpretation but I haven't and I won't because it is extremely insulting. Also in fact their are some people who do appeal strictly to RAW. In fact I believe that strictly RAW that PE does grant a re-roll and you are the one not appealing to strictly RAW. There are places that strict RAW doesn't work in the slightest (psychic phase). And you can read text without interpreting it, you do this by reading what the rule says AKA RAW.

Ok. Fine. You believe that strictly RAW says that PE grants the reroll. What text are you going to use to support this? Are you going to appeal to the PE rule, which says that you can reroll 1s to hit? Are you going to appeal to the blast rule, which says that if the model has the ability to reroll its to hit roll, it must reroll the scatter dice and the hit die? Are you going to appeal to the blast rule which says that blast weapons do not roll to hit?

I freely admit that those things say what they say. The problem is that we interpret them differently. Understanding that PE says what it says, I understand it to mean:

"You have an ability to reroll the dice if and only if you roll a 1."

Understanding that the first blast rule says what it says, I understand it to mean:

"For all intents and purposes, the rolling of the scatter dice count as the to-hit roll for a blast weapon. If you have an ability to reroll to hit, you may do so for the scatter dice in the same circumstances in which you could have done so for a non-blast weapon; you must, however, reroll both scatter dice and the hit die, not just the particular die or dice that you don't like. You have to reroll the whole thing, not just a part."

Understanding that the second blast rule says what it says, I understand it to mean:

"Blast weapons do not compare a 1d6 roll to [7 - BS of the firing model] to determine their to hit. In order to determine their to hit, they roll scatter dice."

If you are being honest, I think that you will admit that these are perfectly viable interpretations of the rules cited. You CAN read the rules that way. There's nothing in the text itself which excludes this reading, nor will simply quoting the rules at me disprove that this is what those rules mean.

So again, I ask: what rules are you going to cite in favor of your position? The very same rules about which I am talking?

Then you wouldn't be appealing to RAW. You'd be appealing to rules as interpreted. Then that means that RAW has ceased to be enough for us to determine how to play. We need to look OUTSIDE of RAW to determine how to apply RAW. That means looking at the words in italics, using common sense, etc.

Your right I wouldn't be pretending that your view is correct, but I would be behaving in a way that your view is correct which by the definition "a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs" I would be a hypocrite.

I'm going to omit a discussion of this point. It's not relevant to the main discussion and it would take us too far afield. I assume that you're not looking to receive an ethics lecture.

Suffice to say, it would in and of itself be no more or less problematic than applying a house rule or submitting to the decision of a TO or local custom.

The game isn't a scavenger hunt on how to read the rules. The authors didn't leave clues for anyone.

Your dogmaticly asserted, baseless opinion has been noted. It's clearly false (in point of fact, many rules are prefaced by words in italics), but hey, your opinion is your opinion, I suppose.

Except as i said earlier, eliminating all "controversial" actions benefits the person who is not making the "controversial" action. Which is the equivalent of saying "I don't think you can
do that so in the option of fairness you can not do that".

You mean, it discourages people from exploiting unclear rules for in-game advantages? It discourages people from playing like rules lawyering, WAAC TFGs?

I'm cool with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The ability doesn't exist if you don't roll a one.

And twin-linked grants no ability to re-roll if you hit with all your shooting attacks. The precise dice situation under which you get the re-roll is not important, only whether, if the shooting attack were a normal one, would the special rule potentially give you a re-roll.

So the rule could be that you can re-roll failed to hit rolls of a 2 if the enemy model is at exactly 12" range and is a grot and, as long as the 12" and grot criteria were satisfied, a model with that rule could re-roll the scatter on a blast weapon.

I have repeatedly addressed this point.

It is possible to miss with a blast weapon.

It is not possible to roll a 1 on the scatter die.

I also wish to note that 2 out of 6 results on the scatter die is "HIT."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Tradito - your contention, that blast weapons do roll To Hit, is wrong. Not mistaken, or arguable in anyway. It is wrong

To Hit is a defined process, with an in game definition. Blast weapons do not do this. Secondly there is the oft quoted rule that unequivocally states they do not roll To Hit,

Your argument is based off this premise, and thus your argument is inherently flawed

You need a new argument, because this one has run its course

I've repeatedly addressed these points. You're committing an equivocation on "To Hit."

And even if I granted the point, I could still read the blast rule cited as: "Even though blast weapons do not roll to hit, you may apply an ability to reroll to hit, in circumstances in which it would normally apply to weapons that do roll to hit, by rerolling both scatter dice and the hit die (i.e., by treating the whole of [the scatter dice AND the hit die] as the "to hit" dice for the purposes of this rule)." You could not normally apply the PE rule to reroll a non-blast weapon if you don't roll a 1, therefore, you cannot apply it to the blast weapon. You could apply guide to reroll a non-blast weapon in the event of any miss. Blast weapons can miss. Therefore, etc.

Do you have any new arguments to add to the ones that have been rehashed repeatedly in this thread?

I have no new argument, because one isn't needed.

Your argument fails, because it contradicts the written rules.

To Hit is well defined. It has a precise definition of what it means within the 40k rule set. Your made up idea has no relation to the rules as written, and is therefore dismissed

Raw pe grants an ability To reroll to hit, and this satisfies the requirements under blast and Reroll to grant a Reroll of scatter dice. This is proven

Until you can come up with an argument based in the rules, and not the gak you make up, you cannot argue your position as raw. As such please follow the tenets and Mark your posts as hywpi.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I have no new argument, because one isn't needed.

Your argument fails, because it contradicts the written rules.

Ok. What particular rules do you have in mind that I am contradicting?

The ones about which we have different interpretations? The ones that we read differently?

Raw pe grants an ability To reroll to hit

If and only if you roll a 1. If you do not roll a 1, it does not grant an ability to reroll to Hit.

Period. End of story.

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

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

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

Period
End of.

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That pe grants the ability to Reroll.

If and only if you roll a 1. Otherwise, it does not grant such an ability.

Same as bs6+ does.

BS 6 allows you to reroll a failed to-hit roll and score a hit on the to-hit dice on a roll of 6.

It is impossible to roll a 6 on the scatter die.

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

Dogmatically asserted, rehashed, equivocating assertion noted. Beyond that, I have no further comment.

It simply requires the ability. If I fire a non blast at my pe, do I have the ability?

If and only if you roll a 1. Otherwise, no.

Bs6 only grants a Reroll if you roll a 1 on your to hit.

Same as PE

Yet we know bs6+ grants the ability to Reroll to hit, as page 164 states that it does.

So unless you are being inconsistent (shock!) you must agree that pe grants the same ability.

So you accept that blasts never roll to hit now? Sorry I must have missed you conceding that point. It would of course be crazy to continue to assert otherwise, given the rule explicitly stating otherwise....or do you have a rules quote stating otherwise? You like to talk a lot , but not offer any rules to support your position....

Oh, there is nothing unclear about "models do not roll to hit" at all. Especially when To Hit is defined on page 32 as an explicit process given a proper name and everything.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bs6 only grants a Reroll if you roll a 1 on your to hit.

I'm sorry, but the specific wording of the particular rules aside, it's obvious how they are intended to operate.

When you make a shooting attack with a non-blast weapon, it is possible for [7 - BS of the firing unit] to be 1 or lower. In order to compensate for this AND the fact that rolls of 1 always fail to hit, you may reroll the to hit dice and compare the rerolled 1d6 to [7 - BS of the firing unit - 5].

You don't compare a 1d6 to [7 - BS of the firing unit] when you roll a scatter die. The "reason" for re-rolling due to BS 6+ does not exist in the case of blast weapons. When you roll the scatter dice, you subtract the BS from the scatter result.

You can insist all you want that BS 6+ allows a reroll, but I'm simply never going to admit that it does. It completely ignores "the spirit of the law," so to speak. It's a contortion/abuse of the language of the rules.

If you try to apply BS 6+ to a barrage weapon for which you do not have line of sight, I'll answer you that a barrage weapon does not use BS if there is no line of sight. Therefore, a reroll on the basis of BS is obviously not permitted on a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

And if you were actually to insist on this interpretation in game, any reasonable person would call you a rules lawyering WAAC TFG and refuse to play with you.

For the thousandth time: use common sense.

So you accept that blasts never roll to hit now?

Again, equivocation.

Please refer to the tenets

You consistently fail to support your argument with anything hut abuse

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

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

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

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

I got you Nos.

Blacksails wrote:I got you Nos.

Context. It's a thing.

What context? Enlighten us.

Sounds very like you're breaking one of the tenets, again.

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please refer to the tenets

You consistently fail to support your argument with anything hut abuse

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

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

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

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

Again, let the following suffice:

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

Traditio wrote:

Again, let the following suffice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I tell you what:

Quote the precise sections that you think support your argument.

Further explain to me, in your own words:

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

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

No. Because they've already been given

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

Quote the precise sections that you think support your argument.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote the rule in question.

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

This is simply a strawman.

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

And now you insult my education?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Period
End of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BS6+ grants the ability to Reroll to hit

Period
End of story.

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

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

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