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

Black talos - still making up rules. You DO NOT ROLL TO HIT with blasts. The rule states that Instead..... Meaning you are not rolling to hit. Given your stance is proven incorrect, as yet again we have shown you making up rules, your concession is accepted.

Rapture - no, it is not a test. The test is do you have a Reroll to hit? Yes, as rerolling one s is a Reroll to hit. This gives you a Reroll for blasts. You can choose to Reroll, so this tells you how to Reroll a blast - that it is both dice and the scatter dice. This is because having a Reroll to hit allows you to Reroll blasts, with no conditions on "how much" of a reroll you must have.

Your claim would lead to no rerolls ever. Do you understand that?

Again: the ACTUAL, WRITTEN RULES require you to have a Reroll to hit. If you do, you can Reroll the scatter dice. There is NO QUALIFIER given on "how much" of a Reroll you need - it doesn't say "reroll all failed to hit" or anything similar,

As such reroll ones is sufficient to give you a reroll of blasts. Any actual rules based argument against this would be appreciated, as none has been given so far - just some chronic misunderstanding of the difference between to-hit and scatter dice rolls.

rigeld2 wrote:

busby wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

busby wrote:
You guys are silly. There is a HIT die on the scatter die. That's your roll to hit. The dice with the numbers is the distance in which the blast marker will move if the scatter die fails to show the HIT. The numbered dice have nothing to do with hitting in this instance. They have everything to do with the distance that the blast scatters by.

With non blast weapons, you roll numbered dice to try and hit thimgs. If the die comes up as a one, you get to reroll that die.

Except Blasts never make a To Hit roll - I cited the rule, perhaps you missed it.
It would behoove you to not make up rules when discussing on this forum.

So this topic is settled? You never reroll those 1s then.

Well, using that argument there's no ability that allows rerolls.
Since that renders the rule functionally useless it cannot be correct and the argument is thrown out.

So yes, you can reroll Blasts with the ECPA or PE.

How does that make "no ability to reroll"? If there is a 1 on the table, in a To Hit roll, then you get a reroll... No such thing appears on a Blast scatter, you may not reroll the blast scatter.
p40: PE: "re-rolls failed To Hit (...) rolls of 1" Once you show me the 1 on your blast, i'll let you reroll it...

If your interpretation of "Instead"(p33) makes the Blast something that's not a To-Hit and not within Phase 3 of shooting, then you can't reroll it with Prescience.

We are now arguing Dictionary definition, but when i read p33. "Instead, just(...)place the blast marker" it substitutes the Roll of a D6, but it is still a "To-Hit Roll" just a 3 Dice Roll that applies to a piece of plastic.
Now you may disagree with this last part, but that just means you deny a reroll to prescience where i don't.

It does not change the other 2 points i make:

1. No 1s rolled on Blast. Ever.
2. 1s are needed for PE and ECPA.
3. Blast is a To-Hit Roll substitute. It's still a "To-Hit Roll" for all rules and purposes (disagree if you will)

Oh and maybe show something, a special rule or such that breaks 3. then i might drop it.
1. & 2. not proven wrong though?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
I would still like to know what Special Rule meet the requirement of 'choosing' to Re-Roll.

None! =P
I would use that to say no Blast rerolls ever!! but then that's just denying everything and i'd rather call it completely broken RaW to be fully ignored, if you can do that?
As in: we are having a discussion about the rest of the rule because this would just break it fully?

But yeah: a model never "has the ability to reroll it's rolls" either. It just has Special Rules that force it to do so...

@nosferatu1001

"BLAST WEAPONS AND RE-ROLLS
IF a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit AND chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon, the player must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2d6."

Is this what you are using as permission for the re-roll of the scatter dice?

The 'if ... and...,' as this is the way it is normally used for a permission in the English language, sets up multiple conditions. Do you disagree? If so, why? If you have a hammer and a chisel, then you can make a sculpture. Based on that sentence, you cannot make the statue without both of the tools. Why are you reading the p33 quote any differently?

If x *AND* y the z. Z is the re-roll. Are you saying that y doesn't matter?

Regarding the impact of the rule and your distaste for it, do you understand that we are not discussing RAI here? I don't care what the outcome is - the rules are the rules. Besides, you are exaggerating. Re-rolls of the scatter dice are still available if the permission come from somewhere other than p33 (see Twin-linked).

Please answer each of my questions in you response so I can know the actual basis of your argument. As the quoted section uses the language to set up a standard multi-condition permission (if... and... then...), something more that 'no it isn't a heat should accompany your response.

1) I HAVE the ability to reroll my rolls to hit therefore can reroll my blast rolls to hit, 2) I choose to use this reroll gained by being able to reroll my to-0hit dice

Done.

Nosferatu, This applies here:

JinxDragon wrote:
I would still like to know what Special Rule meet the requirement of 'choosing' to Re-Roll.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) I HAVE the ability to reroll my rolls to hit therefore can reroll my blast rolls to hit, 2) I choose to use this reroll gained by being able to reroll my to-0hit dice

Done.

Read the quote again. The 'and choose to do so' refers back to the first condition, the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls. As a model firing a blast weapon does not roll To Hit, the second prong always fails.

"If you have the ability to take that and choose to do so, you must return it." 'And choose to do so refers to taking. Correct? The ability to take and choosing to take results in the limitation.

"If you can play baseball and choose to do so, you must not break any windows.'And choose to do so refers to playing baseball. Correct? The ability to take and choosing to take results in the limitation.

Now look at the language from p33. The 'and choose to do so' refers to the ability to re-roll To Hit dice. As previously stated, this is impossible when firing blast weapons. You are misusing the language to achieve you desired result.

Also, what is your permission for re-rolling the scatter dice? The previously quoted section from p33 does not grant anything other than, at best, an implied permission. It doesn't even attempt to grant a permission but only to place a restriction. Please quote the language and explain what gives you the permission to re-roll the scatter dice.

If you don't start giving actual arguments rather than conclusions, I will have to assume that you only have an opinion with no argument to actually support it.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Nosferatu, This applies here:

JinxDragon wrote:
I would still like to know what Special Rule meet the requirement of 'choosing' to Re-Roll.

I don't think that there is an answer to that inquiry that meets his desired end, so it seems like he will just ignore it.

Blasts and rerolls tells you that, if you can reroll to-hit, you can reroll your blast scatter dice

The sentence you are using entirely constructs *how* you go about rerolling scatter. It is not the permission to reroll scatter itself. Your chronic misunderstanding of this is not our issue, here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Blasts and rerolls tells you that, if you can reroll to-hit, you can reroll your blast scatter dice

The sentence you are using entirely constructs *how* you go about rerolling scatter. It is not the permission to reroll scatter itself. Your chronic misunderstanding of this is not our issue, here.

"Blasts and rerolls tells you that, if you can reroll to-hit, you can reroll your blast scatter dice." Where?

The fact that you did not provide a quote or even, although it would still be insufficient without a quote, an explanation of the rule stating that speaks volumes.

We don't care about your opinion or how you think the rule should work. Quote and apply something. Prove something. At least try...

-


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rapture wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Blasts and rerolls tells you that, if you can reroll to-hit, you can reroll your blast scatter dice

The sentence you are using entirely constructs *how* you go about rerolling scatter. It is not the permission to reroll scatter itself. Your chronic misunderstanding of this is not our issue, here.

"Blasts and rerolls tells you that, if you can reroll to-hit, you can reroll your blast scatter dice." Where?

The fact that you did not provide a quote or even, although it would still be insufficient without a quote, an explanation of the rule stating that speaks volumes.

We don't care about your opinion or how you think the rule should work. Quote and apply something. Prove something. At least try...

This quote was given a hundred times over the course of this thread. Saying nos' doesnt back up his claims with rules is a lie.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

busby wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

busby wrote:
You guys are silly. There is a HIT die on the scatter die. That's your roll to hit. The dice with the numbers is the distance in which the blast marker will move if the scatter die fails to show the HIT. The numbered dice have nothing to do with hitting in this instance. They have everything to do with the distance that the blast scatters by.

With non blast weapons, you roll numbered dice to try and hit thimgs. If the die comes up as a one, you get to reroll that die.

Except Blasts never make a To Hit roll - I cited the rule, perhaps you missed it.
It would behoove you to not make up rules when discussing on this forum.

So this topic is settled? You never reroll those 1s then.

Well, using that argument there's no ability that allows rerolls.
Since that renders the rule functionally useless it cannot be correct and the argument is thrown out.

So yes, you can reroll Blasts with the ECPA or PE.

How does that make "no ability to reroll"? If there is a 1 on the table, in a To Hit roll, then you get a reroll... No such thing appears on a Blast scatter, you may not reroll the blast scatter.
p40: PE: "re-rolls failed To Hit (...) rolls of 1" Once you show me the 1 on your blast, i'll let you reroll it...

If your interpretation of "Instead"(p33) makes the Blast something that's not a To-Hit and not within Phase 3 of shooting, then you can't reroll it with Prescience.

You've failed to prove the relevance of the bolded statement, even when asked. Stop repeating it as if it's relevant.

We are now arguing Dictionary definition, but when i read p33. "Instead, just(...)place the blast marker" it substitutes the Roll of a D6, but it is still a "To-Hit Roll" just a 3 Dice Roll that applies to a piece of plastic.
Now you may disagree with this last part, but that just means you deny a reroll to prescience where i don't.

That's a lie actually. I'm denying Prescience nothing.
Your argument, however, does - because Blast never makes a To Hit roll. I even quoted the rule where it says that.

3. Blast is a To-Hit Roll substitute. It's still a "To-Hit Roll" for all rules and purposes (disagree if you will)

Oh and maybe show something, a special rule or such that breaks 3. then i might drop it.

That's not how this works. You've made the assertion, you support it with rules.
Your "instead" argument doesn't hold up; if I tell you to not go outside, instead stay inside and read a book, can you say you're going outside?

But yeah: a model never "has the ability to reroll it's rolls" either. It just has Special Rules that force it to do so...

I would call such a special rule an ability of the model.
Like how plague marines have the ability to roll Feel No Pain tests.

 Mywik wrote:
-


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rapture wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Blasts and rerolls tells you that, if you can reroll to-hit, you can reroll your blast scatter dice

The sentence you are using entirely constructs *how* you go about rerolling scatter. It is not the permission to reroll scatter itself. Your chronic misunderstanding of this is not our issue, here.

"Blasts and rerolls tells you that, if you can reroll to-hit, you can reroll your blast scatter dice." Where?

The fact that you did not provide a quote or even, although it would still be insufficient without a quote, an explanation of the rule stating that speaks volumes.

We don't care about your opinion or how you think the rule should work. Quote and apply something. Prove something. At least try...

This quote was given a hundred times over the course of this thread. Saying nos' doesnt back up his claims with rules is a lie.

Say what you want. A new exchange is happening independent of the pages of crap about an ability not being an ability. This is a different question that goes all the way back to initial permission that even makes this question an issue. My argument is that there is no workable permission. I presented a rules quote, applied it, and argued. He just said 'no.'

If it is so obvious, then why don't you provide the proof that he will not? Reply to my previous questions. I am listening.

Okay here it is:

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.

Now its your turn to show that rerolling 1s to hit doesnt qualify as "having the ability to reroll its to hit rolls".

Quick question on the issue, but I didn't see it anywhere else and this thread is the closest related I could find.

For example I get a Riptide that gets increased to BS6, which would let it re-roll the 1's when firing normally, re-roll the blast scatter? I think it would since as already shown in the thread that only the ability to re-roll would be required.

 Mywik wrote:
Okay here it is:

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.

Now its your turn to show that rerolling 1s to hit doesnt qualify as "having the ability to reroll its to hit rolls".

...

You are so far behind that it is almost frustrating. You jump in with no understanding of what the current relevant issue is and are failing to even attempt to counter the same argument that the user you are white knighting for is also choosing to ignore no matter how many times he is asked to explain it. Only desperate people are arguing the ability prong. Read the recent posts. That is a two prong test (I emphasized it for you) - do you disagree?

How are you complying with the second part of the test? You do not roll To Hit with blast weapons (see p33 - it is explicitly stated), so you can never choose to re-roll a To Hit roll when you are firing one. This makes completing the second prong impossible.

Also, how is that quoted section a permission? 'If you have x and choose to do x, you must do y.' That only implies a permission - do you disagree? It serves to place a limitation. But where does the actual permission come from?

These are the questions that have to be answered. Maybe you will be correct in the end, that is why I care enough to ask you to prove your conclusion, but from what has been posted, there is nothing to allow a re-roll of the scatter dice outside of Twin-Linked.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Quick question on the issue, but I didn't see it anywhere else and this thread is the closest related I could find.

For example I get a Riptide that gets increased to BS6, which would let it re-roll the 1's when firing normally, re-roll the blast scatter? I think it would since as already shown in the thread that only the ability to re-roll would be required.

BS6 is never sufficient to grant a re-roll of the scatter dice under even the most lenient and optimistic reading of all of the rules. p13 says that BS5+ allows a model to "gain a re-roll whenever it rolls a 1 To Hit with ranged attacks." As a model firing a blast weapon does not roll to hit (see p33), it can never roll a 1 To Hit when firing that blast, meaning that it never 'gains' the ability to make a re-roll.

Rapture wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
Okay here it is:

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.

Now its your turn to show that rerolling 1s to hit doesnt qualify as "having the ability to reroll its to hit rolls".

Read the recent posts. That is a two prong test (I emphasized it for you) - do you disagree?

I disagree. The sentence tells you that you are able to not reroll your scatter if you dont want to. This is because rolling blast scatter isnt a roll to hit and can therefor not fail. Normally we reroll failed to hit dice. If i shoot a blast marker at a unit where only one model is in range of the firer and the marker scatters farther away and therefor hits more models i make use of the ability to not reroll.
Your assertion that it is a test is wrong.

Additionally i wont answer personal attacks. Therefore you can resort to discuss rules when answering me. Anything else is a waste of time.

Your emphasize just shows that if i have a reroll (which i have when i am able to reroll ones) i am able to make a choice if i reroll or not. I can reroll when theres a hit symbol rolled and i can when theres an arrow rolled. Its like you can always reroll blast scatter if you have a reroll. You can also NOT reroll if you have a reroll. Your choice. Thats the only thing that is told with your rules quote.

Let's stay calm and polite please people.

Thanks.

 Mywik wrote:

Rapture wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
Okay here it is:

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.

Now its your turn to show that rerolling 1s to hit doesnt qualify as "having the ability to reroll its to hit rolls".

Read the recent posts. That is a two prong test (I emphasized it for you) - do you disagree?

I disagree. The sentence tells you that you are able to not reroll your scatter if you dont want to. This is because rolling blast scatter isnt a roll to hit and can therefor not fail. Normally we reroll failed to hit dice. If i shoot a blast marker at a unit where only one model is in range of the firer and the marker scatters farther away and therefor hits more models i make use of the ability to not reroll.
Your assertion that it is a test is wrong.

Additionally i wont answer personal attacks. Therefore you can resort to discuss rules when answering me. Anything else is a waste of time.

Your emphasize just shows that if i have a reroll (which i have when i am able to reroll ones) i am able to make a choice if i reroll or not. I can reroll when theres a hit symbol rolled and i can when theres an arrow rolled. Its like you can always reroll blast scatter if you have a reroll. You can also NOT reroll if you have a reroll. Your choice. Thats the only thing that is told with your rules quote.

The 'personal attacks' were not questions and they were not attacks, just me pointing out facts, so no answer was required.

That is clearly a test. If x and y, then z. That is a test. 'If' serves serves to establish a condition - in this case, two conditions. Then, the 'then' established the result if those conditions are met. This is general English and if you want to disprove it, you will have to make a detailed and compelling argument as to why this construction should be read differently then it would be normally.

Also, that quoted section does not say 'a model may re-roll its scatter dice if it has the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls and chooses to do so.' as I said, the permission is, at best, implied. Please quote and explain where the permission is established. Just re-directing us to the quotes section does nothing unless you demonstrate how, again, contrary to the normal reading, that permission is established.

My emphasis shows that the quoted section from p33 uses the 'If x and y then z' construction. Normally, that is a two part test which, once the two prongs are satisfied, imposed the 'z.' Again, that is the normal reading, so you have a high burden if your argument is that it should be read differently (i.e. 'If x and y then z' = 'If x then b but z').

So if it is a test what does it test for? It tests if the firer is making use of his ability to reroll scatter dice or not. So how does this argument bring us closer to understand if we are able to reroll them at all?

Our problem is not the test if the reroll is used or not. Our problem is the question if we get a reroll to decide that at all if we are only able to reroll 1s.

According to you nobody is ever able to reroll scatter? Is that correct or did i understand you wrong?

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

busby wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

busby wrote:
You guys are silly. There is a HIT die on the scatter die. That's your roll to hit. The dice with the numbers is the distance in which the blast marker will move if the scatter die fails to show the HIT. The numbered dice have nothing to do with hitting in this instance. They have everything to do with the distance that the blast scatters by.

With non blast weapons, you roll numbered dice to try and hit thimgs. If the die comes up as a one, you get to reroll that die.

Except Blasts never make a To Hit roll - I cited the rule, perhaps you missed it.
It would behoove you to not make up rules when discussing on this forum.

So this topic is settled? You never reroll those 1s then.

Well, using that argument there's no ability that allows rerolls.
Since that renders the rule functionally useless it cannot be correct and the argument is thrown out.

So yes, you can reroll Blasts with the ECPA or PE.

How does that make "no ability to reroll"? If there is a 1 on the table, in a To Hit roll, then you get a reroll... No such thing appears on a Blast scatter, you may not reroll the blast scatter.
p40: PE: "re-rolls failed To Hit (...) rolls of 1" Once you show me the 1 on your blast, i'll let you reroll it...

If your interpretation of "Instead"(p33) makes the Blast something that's not a To-Hit and not within Phase 3 of shooting, then you can't reroll it with Prescience.

You've failed to prove the relevance of the bolded statement, even when asked. Stop repeating it as if it's relevant.

The relevance of Phase 3 of the shooting phase is in it's own title: "Roll to Hit"
Anything you do in Phase "Roll to Hit" is a "Roll to Hit", whether Blast, throwing a D6, Placing a template (flamer) or other...
p73:"If the target vehicle is in range, roll To Hit as normal."
"Oh sorry, Blast weapons don't *Roll to Hit*, you may not fire at my vehicles"

p77: same

p93: "When shooting at a building, roll To Hit (...) normally"
"Oh sorry, Blast weapons don't *Roll to Hit*, you may not fire at any buildings"

Are you seeing the error of Blast weapons don't *Roll to Hit*? They don't Roll a D6 to Hit, no. But they "Roll to Hit" with a scatter & 2D6. as per Phase 3 of p12.

rigeld2 wrote:

We are now arguing Dictionary definition, but when i read p33. "Instead, just(...)place the blast marker" it substitutes the Roll of a D6, but it is still a "To-Hit Roll" just a 3 Dice Roll that applies to a piece of plastic.
Now you may disagree with this last part, but that just means you deny a reroll to prescience where i don't.

That's a lie actually. I'm denying Prescience nothing.
Your argument, however, does - because Blast never makes a To Hit roll. I even quoted the rule where it says that.

You quoted part of the Rule, the other half of it with "Instead" still applies...

rigeld2 wrote:

3. Blast is a To-Hit Roll substitute. It's still a "To-Hit Roll" for all rules and purposes (disagree if you will)

Oh and maybe show something, a special rule or such that breaks 3. then i might drop it.

That's not how this works. You've made the assertion, you support it with rules.
Your "instead" argument doesn't hold up; if I tell you to not go outside, instead stay inside and read a book, can you say you're going outside?

I can yes. I WAS going outside. It was substituted by staying in, but i still was... If *putting shoes on* is a requirement when going outside i'd still have them on, whether i went ouside or not.
Rolling Scatter & 2D6 is still considered "To-Hit Roll" whether you roll that, or 1 D6 for usual attacks.

The Void Shield thread shows you have a big misunderstanding of the word "Instead" so if this continues i will have to disregard discussing rules with the word "Instead" with you, sorry.

rigeld2 wrote:

But yeah: a model never "has the ability to reroll it's rolls" either. It just has Special Rules that force it to do so...

I would call such a special rule an ability of the model.
Like how plague marines have the ability to roll Feel No Pain tests.

They get said ability once they fail an armour save yes. p35,FNP: "When a model with this SR suffers an unsaved wound(...)"
You can't FNP on impact tests: you can't have armour saves. If you had the ability to roll FNP tests, you could test any wound you'd ever sustain, including D, impact, Instant Death etc

Rapture - it isnt even a new issue, its posters confusing "abilty" with "special rule" (when ability would necessarily incorporate special rules)

I gave a citation - blasts and rerolls. I didnt feel the need to do your work for you, in repeating this threads contents (and others, as the rule hasnt altered) which shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that given the unconditional requirement in the sentence rerolling 1s IS sufficient to grant reroll of a blast.

Your "interpretation" of the rule in question results in blasts not being able to be rerolled, and as such can be ignored as an unworkable interpretation. ALL this sentence does is say that IF you are going to reroll your blast scatter, then you reroll all the dice. It is directions on HOW to perform the scatter reroll, not permission to reroll scatter in the first place. This has been explained a number of times now....

 BlackTalos wrote:
The relevance of Phase 3 of the shooting phase is in it's own title: "Roll to Hit"
Anything you do in Phase "Roll to Hit" is a "Roll to Hit", whether Blast, throwing a D6, Placing a template (flamer) or other...
p73:"If the target vehicle is in range, roll To Hit as normal."
"Oh sorry, Blast weapons don't *Roll to Hit*, you may not fire at my vehicles"

p77: same

p93: "When shooting at a building, roll To Hit (...) normally"
"Oh sorry, Blast weapons don't *Roll to Hit*, you may not fire at any buildings"

Are you seeing the error of Blast weapons don't *Roll to Hit*? They don't Roll a D6 to Hit, no. But they "Roll to Hit" with a scatter & 2D6. as per Phase 3 of p12.

They have permission to resolve hits per page 33. They do not have permission to roll To Hit as the Blast rule itself proves.

rigeld2 wrote:

3. Blast is a To-Hit Roll substitute. It's still a "To-Hit Roll" for all rules and purposes (disagree if you will)

Oh and maybe show something, a special rule or such that breaks 3. then i might drop it.

That's not how this works. You've made the assertion, you support it with rules.
Your "instead" argument doesn't hold up; if I tell you to not go outside, instead stay inside and read a book, can you say you're going outside?

I can yes. I WAS going outside. It was substituted by staying in, but i still was... If *putting shoes on* is a requirement when going outside i'd still have them on, whether i went ouside or not.

Yes, you were going to roll To Hit, but you aren't anymore.

Rolling Scatter & 2D6 is still considered "To-Hit Roll" whether you roll that, or 1 D6 for usual attacks.

Citation required. Prove your point, don't just keep stating it.

The Void Shield thread shows you have a big misunderstanding of the word "Instead" so if this continues i will have to disregard discussing rules with the word "Instead" with you, sorry.

Um... no. It proves that you refuse to actually show rules support for your statements as required by the tenants of this forum.
If I didn't know better I'd think you're purposely doing this to get the thread locked and not engaging in legitimate discussions.

rigeld2 wrote:

But yeah: a model never "has the ability to reroll it's rolls" either. It just has Special Rules that force it to do so...

I would call such a special rule an ability of the model.
Like how plague marines have the ability to roll Feel No Pain tests.

They get said ability once they fail an armour save yes. p35,FNP: "When a model with this SR suffers an unsaved wound(...)"
You can't FNP on impact tests: you can't have armour saves. If you had the ability to roll FNP tests, you could test any wound you'd ever sustain, including D, impact, Instant Death etc

Um. You can take FNP on any unsaved wound (which an Impact test is). You have to have a rule that denies FNP (like D weapons have, and FNP has for ID wounds). So I'm not sure what your point is by saying that.

 Mywik wrote:
So if it is a test what does it test for? It tests if the firer is making use of his ability to reroll scatter dice or not. So how does this argument bring us closer to understand if we are able to reroll them at all?

Our problem is not the test if the reroll is used or not. Our problem is the question if we get a reroll to decide that at all if we are only able to reroll 1s.

According to you nobody is ever able to reroll scatter? Is that correct or did i understand you wrong?

The test is 'if x and y then z,' so it, obviously and explicitly, tests for whether z is allowed/effective. The quoted section from p33 sets a test to see if the 'z,' the restriction on what can be re-rolled, comes into play.

According to me, p33 does not grant a permission for a re-roll of the scatter dice. Units with Twin-linked can still re-roll the scatter dice. Why do you think the Twin-linked rule explicitly grants permission to re-roll the scatter dice?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rapture - it isnt even a new issue, its posters confusing "abilty" with "special rule" (when ability would necessarily incorporate special rules)

I gave a citation - blasts and rerolls. I didnt feel the need to do your work for you, in repeating this threads contents (and others, as the rule hasnt altered) which shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that given the unconditional requirement in the sentence rerolling 1s IS sufficient to grant reroll of a blast.

Your "interpretation" of the rule in question results in blasts not being able to be rerolled [ Incorrect - again, see Twin-linked], and as such can be ignored as an unworkable interpretation. ALL this sentence does is say that IF you are going to reroll your blast scatter, then you reroll all the dice. It is directions on HOW to perform the scatter reroll, not permission to reroll scatter in the first place. This has been explained a number of times now....

The thread shows that prong one, the 'x,' in the 'if x and y then z' statement that you quoted is satisfied by any ability to re-roll a To Hit roll - which I agree with. What the thread does not do and what you will not do is show how the 'y' part -the prong after the end, showing that it cannot be ignore- can be satisfied.

If the quote on p33 does not grant permission to re-roll the scatter dice, then what does? Maybe I am just missing it, so please just quote it for me and I will be happy. If that is the only section allowing a re-roll of the scatter dice based on the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls, then the second prong can never be passed and it fails to function as a usable source of permission to re-roll the scatter dice.

Black talos - so when you are told you DONT roll to hit, you INSTEAD, you still think that is a roll to-hit?

Even though a roll to-hit is a well defined, discrete "Object" within the 40k ruleset? Something a scatter dice +2D6 most definitely is not?

Rapture - still not a test, but a direction to follow. If you are rerolling scatter, you reroll all dice, not just the D6. That is all that is going for. It is also telling you that you do not HAVe to reroll your scatter dice (those dice you use instead of rolling to-hit) - that is the choice made.

Your interpretation results in a flawed rule that has no effect. Ours doesnt, using a similar interpretation. Occams razor suggests yours is at fault, not ours.

Rapture wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
So if it is a test what does it test for? It tests if the firer is making use of his ability to reroll scatter dice or not. So how does this argument bring us closer to understand if we are able to reroll them at all?

Our problem is not the test if the reroll is used or not. Our problem is the question if we get a reroll to decide that at all if we are only able to reroll 1s.

According to you nobody is ever able to reroll scatter? Is that correct or did i understand you wrong?

The test is 'if x and y then z,' so it, obviously and explicitly, tests for whether z is allowed/effective.[/b] The quoted section from p33 sets a test to see if the 'z,' the restriction on what can be re-rolled, comes into play.

According to me, p33 does not grant a permission for a re-roll of the scatter dice. Units with Twin-linked can still re-roll the scatter dice. Why do you think the Twin-linked rule explicitly grants permission to re-roll the scatter dice?

So according to you the only possible way to reroll a scatter die is twin linked? Since we dont have any other permission (again according to you)?

Lets get through the sentence step by step:

"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit"
This tells us that the following only applies if we have a reroll to hit. Agreed?

and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon,
This part tells us that theres a choice involved whether or not the reroll is used. Agreed?

the player must reroll both the scatter dice and the 2D6
This part tells us that we have to reroll all dice and the scatter die when we chose to do a reroll.

We know that blast weapons dont roll to hit.
p33: When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit. - this is not debatable since its spelled out clearly.

The blast and reroll rule tells us that "if we have a reroll to hit and choose to do so". So since we've proven that blast weapons do not roll to hit - how can this rule ever take effect if the ability to reroll to hit doesnt grant a reroll in the context of the rule that we can choose to use?
We are now at a "They dont have eyes they cant shoot" kind of argument. Just that it spells out "we dont roll to hit with blast weapons therefore we can never reroll".

I can kinda see your argument now though. The Twin-Linked rule explicitly states that you have a choice to reroll when shooting a blast weapon. This would make twin-linked the only possible way to reroll scatter. To be honest i can live with that interpretation from a RaW perspective. But ask myself why gw would have written that rule into the book. The Twin-Linked rule (that is the only one that is able to choose to reroll scatter) already spells out how you do that. So the rule on p33 doesnt do anything at all. Since i normally assume rules are written into the book for a reason HIWPI having any kind of reroll to hit rolls would enable the shooter to reroll the scatter dice.

Rapture,
You honestly do not know me well enough if you honestly think I would ignore new input to a situation, I thrive on learning more about this broken game and have changed my views many a time on many a subject thanks to new input.

The interpretation that "and" exists simply to give the player a choice, the option to keep the scatter result should it miss the original target but fall into a more optimal position, is a valid interpretation of that sentence. Given that we have two interpenetration which are divided over a single word we need to start looking at precedent cases to try and figure out which one is correct. This would mean we need to look at the Re-Roll rules and compare them to both to see which one leads to a greater number of 'Gray areas,' broken resolutions or simply make entire pages worthless. There is potential for both interpretations to cause these problems, because this is one very badly written section of the book, so we need as much information as possible to conclude which one is correct.

Personally, I think the only correct answer is 'broken.'

JinxDragon wrote:
The interpretation that "and" exists simply to give the player a choice, the option to keep the scatter result should it miss the original target but fall into a more optimal position, is a valid interpretation of that sentence. Given that we have two interpenetration which are divided over a single word we need to start looking at precedent cases to try and figure out which one is correct. This would mean we need to look at the Re-Roll rules and compare them to both to see which one leads to a greater number of 'Gray areas,' broken resolutions or simply make entire pages worthless. There is potential for both interpretations to cause these problems, because this is one very badly written section of the book, so we need as much information as possible to conclude which one is correct.

Personally, I think the only correct answer is 'broken.'

The 'and' might exist to give a choice, but its existence and placement also creates a requirement. Sucking half of the meaning out of 'if... and...' is never a valid interpretation. When reading a document/rules, the words mean what they mean unless they are intentionally defined to mean something else.

"If you have the ability play soccer and choose to do so, then you must be on my team." Do you honestly read that sentence in a manner that would allow someone who wasn't actually going to play to be required to be on the team? The choice exists, but making that choice is also a condition for the imposition of the requirement.

For p33, the language is 'and chooses to do so' - chooses to do what? Chooses to re-roll to To Hit dice. A model firing a blast weapon can never choose to re-roll the To Hit dice.

Your error is trying to give additional meaning to the quoted section on p33. There is no requirement that a rule is highly functional and the quoted rule from p33 still serves a purpose. It serves only to establish a limitation on what can be re-rolled IF a model has permission to re-roll the scatter dice. This would apply to Twin-linked (even though it is redundant (there is also no requirement that GW rules are not redundant - it is even common that they are)) or any other explicit permission given to a model that allows the to re-roll the scatter dice using language that would invoke the quoted section.

When the language follows a common form (like 'if x and y then z'), then it is not our job to assure that it has meaning - we simply follow the rules. Because of the impossibility of achieving the 'and' here, this rule cannot be the source for the permission to re-roll scatter dice with the ECPA, BS6+, or anything else that has been raised in this thread.

Besides, the quoted section for p33 does not say, "A model with the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls can re-roll the scatter dice when firing a blast weapon." I don't see it as a permission at all. I see conditions followed by a resulting restriction. My argument that the second prong blocks it from being effective assumed that it does indeed grant a permission - which no one has quoted language or made a convincing argument that it does. Maybe it was intended to grant a permission, but that is strictly RaI.

 Mywik wrote:

So according to you the only possible way to reroll a scatter die is twin linked? Since we dont have any other permission (again according to you)?

No. I can't speak to all of the rules as I don't know them all. My arguments are that: 1) P33 does not grant express permission to convert a re-roll ability for To Hit dice into a re-roll for scatter dice; 2) Assuming that argument 1 is incorrect, that p33 imposes two conditions before it could grant the ability to re-roll the scatter dice, and that the second condition can never be fulfilled.

This would mean that Twin-linked is the only rule that I know which would allow a model to re-roll the scatter dice.

 Mywik wrote:


Lets get through the sentence step by step:

"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit"
This tells us that the following only applies if we have a reroll to hit. Agreed?

Yes. And that is all that it tells us.

 Mywik wrote:

and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon,
This part tells us that theres a choice involved whether or not the reroll is used. Agreed?

A choice, yes. But that choice also imposes a requirement - you must choose. 'If you have the ability and you choose to use it.' This means that if a model firing a blast weapon cannot choose to re-roll its To Hit rolls then the choice, which is required due to the 'if,' cannot be made. If the choice cannot be made then the entire quoted section cannot be applied. This might be where we differ. If so, I need to know why you disagree.

 Mywik wrote:

We know that blast weapons dont roll to hit.
p33: When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit. - this is not debatable since its spelled out clearly.

The blast and reroll rule tells us that "if we have a reroll to hit and choose to do so". So since we've proven that blast weapons do not roll to hit - how can this rule ever take effect if the ability to reroll to hit doesnt grant a reroll in the context of the rule that we can choose to use?
We are now at a "They dont have eyes they cant shoot" kind of argument. Just that it spells out "we dont roll to hit with blast weapons therefore we can never reroll".

We most certainly are not. We are at an 'I want to re-roll my scatter dice even though the rules do not let me' kind of argument. There is nothing ridiculous about models not benefiting from re-roll To Hit abilities when they fire blast weapons. It is no more unreasonable that model who get to re-roll armor saves not being able to re-roll cover saves - the rules simply don't allow the translation of the benefits.

 Mywik wrote:

I can kinda see your argument now though. The Twin-Linked rule explicitly states that you have a choice to reroll when shooting a blast weapon. This would make twin-linked the only possible way to reroll scatter. To be honest i can live with that interpretation from a RaW perspective. But ask myself why gw would have written that rule into the book. The Twin-Linked rule (that is the only one that is able to choose to reroll scatter) already spells out how you do that. So the rule on p33 doesnt do anything at all. Since i normally assume rules are written into the book for a reason HIWPI having any kind of reroll to hit rolls would enable the shooter to reroll the scatter dice.

Yes. I am not trying to apply something silly/obtuse or acheive my secret end (I love slaughtering Elder and IG with my re-rolling Thunderfire Cannon or Ion Accelerators). The RaW, from what has been presented, literally does not allow re-rolls based on the p33 language that was quoted.

RAI and HIWPI are fine. I encourage them. What I don't encourage is people becoming entrenched their opinions in public because them I have to deal with, "Well I read on Dakka that p33 lets you do it." This is not an unanswerable question and, right now, it seems like the RaW answer will go one way or the other and resorting to dicing off will not be necessary - that is a good thing.

Like I said, I am looking for the correct RaW answer. Please continue to contribute whatever will help us get there.

Rapture wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

I can kinda see your argument now though. The Twin-Linked rule explicitly states that you have a choice to reroll when shooting a blast weapon. This would make twin-linked the only possible way to reroll scatter. To be honest i can live with that interpretation from a RaW perspective. But ask myself why gw would have written that rule into the book. The Twin-Linked rule (that is the only one that is able to choose to reroll scatter) already spells out how you do that. So the rule on p33 doesnt do anything at all. Since i normally assume rules are written into the book for a reason HIWPI having any kind of reroll to hit rolls would enable the shooter to reroll the scatter dice.

Yes. I am not trying to apply something silly/obtuse or acheive my secret end (I love slaughtering Elder and IG with my re-rolling Thunderfire Cannon or Ion Accelerators). The RaW, from what has been presented, literally does not allow re-rolls based on the p33 language that was quoted.

RAI and HIWPI are fine. I encourage them. What I don't encourage is people becoming entrenched their opinions in public because them I have to deal with, "Well I read on Dakka that p33 lets you do it." This is not an unanswerable question and, right now, it seems like the RaW answer will go one way or the other and resorting to dicing off will not be necessary - that is a good thing.

Like I said, I am looking for the correct RaW answer. Please continue to contribute whatever will help us get there.

Never assumed that you are having bad intents. I assume people argue for the exact same reasons when they are here that is trying to understand better how the rules work. Thats why i try my best to avoid personal attacks and dont like it if people attack me personal because of questions i ask or rules i quote.
When someone is asking you to backup your claims or is trying to "attack" your interpretation than its because they try to find holes in it and try to FULLY understand how you came to your conclusion which helps to find the correct interpretation. I dont do that to let you look like you are dumb or something like that and if you always assume thats the case you will save yourself some trouble in here.

Rapture,
I have not given it any additional meaning but simply stated that it can be read both ways and still be a correct sentence. I do have to disagree with your view that a rule doesn't have to have function as this goes against the fundamental concept of having Rules in the first place. It is very clear that this rule was penned for some reason, it's very existence informs us the Rule designers wanted it to do something, so an argument of 'it does nothing, ignore it' has to be very well supported to be accurate. There are a few cases of this phenomenon within the Basic Rule Book, so I haven't ruled out that this might be one more to add to the list.

Keep in mind my position on this matter is : Everything is FUBAR, Game Workshop at it's finest.
From what I have seen both views lead to really unusual situations that can not be correct, one leads to situations where the rule can never be evoked and the other allows Re-rolls in situations where the normal Re-Rolls are disallowed, and both are using the same sentence as 'Rules as Written' support....

JinxDragon wrote:
Rapture,
I have not given it any additional meaning but simply stated that it can be read both ways and still be a correct sentence. I do have to disagree with your view that a rule doesn't have to have function as this goes against the fundamental concept of having Rules in the first place. It is very clear that this rule was penned for some reason, it's very existence informs us the Rule designers wanted it to do something, so an argument of 'it does nothing, ignore it' has to be very well supported to be accurate. This means something more then just one way to read the sentence leading to that outcome, but I haven't ruled out that this might be one more to add to the list.

Do you disagree that the plain meaning of a 'if x and y then z' type construction requires both 'x' and 'y' to occur before 'z' become effective? If not, then arguing for a re-roll of the scatter dice using the p33 language means that you are giving additional meaning to the rule as, in the case of p33, the 'y' is impossible.

You can argue that we know the intent of the authors if you want, but the superior counter in these surrounding and for the purpose of this discussion is what the rule actually says. My argument is not that it does nothing, just that it doesn't do what people are saying what it does. I don't know all of the rules that are and I certainly don't know the rules that will be. What I do know is that the language of the quoted section from p33 is, at absolute best, an implied permission to re-roll the scatter dice that can never be effective. As that permission is implied and not explicit, that fact that it would be ineffective really isn't that convincing.

JinxDragon wrote:

From what I have seen both views lead to really unusual situations that can not be correct, one leads to situations where the rule can never be evoked and the other allows Re-rolls in situations where the normal Re-Rolls are disallowed, and both are using the same sentence as 'Rules as Written' support....

One does result in it not working how people want it to work. The other requires reading a permission into something that should only (according to the sentence construction) apply a limitation (and I have yet to see anyone's argument that an explicit permission exists there, only an implied one) and then further requires ignoring one of the two conditions that would otherwise be require to make the rule effective.

The potential outcomes are different, but achieving the one requires going against the plain meaning of the language used by the authors.

Rapture,
As I have stated multiple times now: As both readings of that sentence are grammatically correct, and both sides are claiming this sentence as their Rule as Written support, we need a lot more evidence then this one single sentence. That is all my view on this matter is, from a Rule as Written perspective, and that view doesn't state your reading is wrong. It just states that we need more evidence to show us which side claiming this sentence as their own is correct. The only other thing I have stated is that rules are written for a reason, unless you want to state that Game Workshop makes a habit of deliberately writing while pages of Rules for the fun of it and then include them into their game for nothing more then giggles at our questions and confusions... because, I might actually agree with that.

Hell, I wasn't going to bring it up because it doesn't matter to a Rule as Written debate but:
Personally, I think it was nothing but a typo and the sentence was meant to read ', and' but the comma was missed. This is not abnormal either, I am sure they are using word programs in order to type up the rules for printing and these are not exactly thinking algorithms we are dealing with. I have had a few programs register ', and' as being 'incorrect grammar' which it then offers to correct for me. All it would take is a careless editor simply clicking 'apply all' to complete change the meaning of a sentence. I have already created my quota of 'Game Workshop Editors are monkey' jokes on this website, but their lack of skilled editors are well known.

PS:
The only reason you caught my attention was the fact you keep assuming things about me, which isn't polite. Then you made the mistake of grouping your opponents and myself together, without realizing that people not immediately agreeing with you doesn't mean they are disagreeing with you. You are not going to sway people to your way of thinking with that sort of reaction, instead try to work with some of the people asking questions on this board as they could be doing so to get a better understanding of the rules themselves. Hell, you are already half way there! You just need to provide some evidence that will let this rule function without invalidating your own interpretation of the rule. There has to be at least two or three Special Rules out there which give you the choice to Re-Roll your To Hit results without making it mandatory, Game Workshop probably made a few by mistake even if they didn't mean to, and all it would take is quoting those rules and your side has a little more strength then theirs.