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.

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.