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.

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".

...

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.

False 100%

Reading comprehension is not your friend

JinxDragon wrote:
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.

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 and sure actually try and work with some of the people asking questions on this board. You are already half way there, you just need to provide some evidence that will let this rule function exactly as written 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!

Stop being so dramatic. No one is assuming anything about you. Besides, now you are getting bent out of shape because you are assuming that I am assuming things about you - so you can call me Pot and I will call you Kettle.

I don't think that both readings are correct and I am yet to be convinced otherwise. Maybe we are at an impasse, but I am not seeing the alternative as a reasonable reading of the language. Take it back to the simplest form:

If x and y, then z.

The 'y' is just as necessary as the 'x' under that construction. Both are required for z to become effective. I have never seen that applied in any other way (not including this thread). If you told someone, "If you give me a fifty dollar bill and a five dollar bill, then I will give you my models," would you give the models away if they only handed you the five dollar bill? To make it a little closer to the language at issue, what about if you said, "If you give me a five dollar bill and choose to give me a fifty dollar bill, then I must give you my models." Again, would you hand over the models if the person that you made the offer to only gave you the five? Can you think of any circumstances where identical language would ever yield the reading that people are advocating for a re-roll?

If this a typo then they can fix it. Until they do, that is not a convincing argument. It could also be a typo that Cerberus Launchers aren't s8, but no one has the stones to make an argument that they should get a benefit because there is the possibility that an error was made and no one would entertain them even if they did.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Rapture wrote:


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.

False 100%

Reading comprehension is not your friend

Then prove me wrong. Or is 'false' all you care to contribute?

Reaper,
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you state 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. in response to my request that you provide me with some additional evidence to back up your stance?
How can that not be taken as an assumption about my character, and a negative one at that?

That I would disregard evidence just because of some 'desired end' is pretty straight forward and it is hard for me to believe I have an 'incorrect assumption' about what you meant by those words. All I did was ask for you to provide a Re-Roll ability which would fit your definition of what triggers this Rule and that is more then a justified request given the topic being debated. Your reply was not to honour this request, wave me away with a sentence that is only negative about my character, and now to state that I am over-dramatic when I call you out for it. As a person building a reputation on this site to be an impartial judge of the rules, can you not see why I might have a problem with this?

The sad thing is, if you honoured the request you would have far more evidence in order to argue your point of view in the future. Should you be able to provide Special Rules which still have the ability to trigger this particular rule, without invalidating your condition argument, then you will be in a far stronger position. It would be possible to state that this Rule was only designed for those individual Special Rules, because all the rules then function without any sort of broken situations! It is even further strengthen by the fact Twin-Linked is singled out to grant the same permission, even though it is the worse offender of 'no choice in Re-Rolling.' It's inclusion in the rule would be to give it clear permission where it would otherwise be invalid, stopping this section from being 'redundant' and re-enforcing the ideal that Special Rules which do not grant freedom of choice require specific permission to fall under this Rule.

There is no proving you false, because no rational thought gets through to you.
In stead you will just be ignored as a troll that plugs his ears yelling "no reroll, noreroll".

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
There is no proving you false, because no rational thought gets through to you.
In stead you will just be ignored as a troll that plugs his ears yelling "no reroll, noreroll".

That is all you have? No rules, no quotes, not an argument - just an 'I don't feel like it'? That was compelling. In that case, I still disagree with you. Or, should I just say, "False?"

I have responded to evry counter with quoted rules and relative patience. You dropped in for the sole purpose of taking some flimsy shot at someone and then refused to participate. Now you resort to lame name calling? I will explain it anyway, since you don't feel like you should have to go through the trouble.

On p13 there is a rules section called 'Ballistic Skill 6 or Better' ("p13"). P13 states that: If a model has BS6 or higher, it gains a re-roll whenever it rolls a 1 To Hit with ranged attacks. Therefore, a model with BS6 does not have an 'ability to re-roll To Hit' rolls, it actually generates that ability to re-roll To Hit rolls after making a To Hit roll and rolling a 1. What the model really has is an ability to have an ability to re-roll To Hit rolls.

On p33 (assuming that it grants the permission to re-roll the scatter dice under certain circumstances), it says, "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit [...]." Does a model with BS6 or higher have an ability to re-roll its To Hit rolls? If it does, that ability is not conferred from p13, as it does not say that 'models with BS6 or higher can re-roll To Hit rolls of 1.' I am unaware of any section rule that does confer the ability to re-roll To Hit dice to a model with BS6 or higher before that model makes a To Hit roll. If you have one, share it - it will make everyone happy.

If not, I can only assume that you will quote the rule language for us that states that an ability to potentially have an ability to do something is the same as having the ability to do something.

I guess my biggest question is why you would re-roll the hit dice when in the ability being used specifically states to just re-roll 1s? Re-rolling 1s and re-rolling to hit are two completely different scenarios. It's not like Prescience where it states you may re-roll (to hit) To hit constituting the the hit roll dice as well as the scatter dice because the scatter affects if you are hitting. So personally for me I would say no you cannot re-roll to hit but you can re-roll any ones from the scatter die.

 Dezstiny wrote:
I guess my biggest question is why you would re-roll the hit dice when in the ability being used specifically states to just re-roll 1s? Re-rolling 1s and re-rolling to hit are two completely different scenarios. It's not like Prescience where it states you may re-roll (to hit) To hit constituting the the hit roll dice as well as the scatter dice because the scatter affects if you are hitting. So personally for me I would say no you cannot re-roll to hit but you can re-roll any ones from the scatter die.

Because the ability doesn't say to re-roll 1s.

It says to re-roll To Hit rolls that are 1s.

 Dezstiny wrote:
I guess my biggest question is why you would re-roll the hit dice when in the ability being used specifically states to just re-roll 1s? Re-rolling 1s and re-rolling to hit are two completely different scenarios. It's not like Prescience where it states you may re-roll (to hit) To hit constituting the the hit roll dice as well as the scatter dice because the scatter affects if you are hitting. So personally for me I would say no you cannot re-roll to hit but you can re-roll any ones from the scatter die.

That is wrong. Under the argument that p33 grants a re-roll of the scatter dice, you would have blanket permission to re-roll the scatter dice - not permission to re-roll 1s on the scatter dice. Under the argument that p33 does not grant a re-roll (or at least a usable re-roll) of the scatter dice, any 1s rolled using the scatter dice are not To Hit rolls and, therefore, cannot be re-rolled under the permission that a model can re-roll To Hit rolls of one.

So, your argument would have to go one way or the other (unless you have a new angle). Re-rolling only 1s on the scatter dice is not possible under either argument.

I thought as far as the BS6 riptide was concerned, you roll the scatter and subtract the riptide's BS from the roll. This is the benefit of having such a high BS for a scatter weapon.

I think you guys are taking the fact that GW sucks at wording gak too strongly here. Last night i had a discussion with my friend and he pointed out that "Ignores Cover" special rule says wounds specifically. So RAW, a weapon cannot ignore cover on a vehicle for example because a vehicle doesn't suffer wounds. But obviously, that is not RAI. Just like how the farsight codex said for a few months that each farsight enclave army cannot not have Shadowsun and Aun'va, which required anyone taking the army to take them as well, RAW.

I think this discussion is pretty much pointless as people will interpret gray area rules to however they see fit. Bottom line is, discuss this with your opponent before the game starts, and check with your TO to read how they see it then go from there.

If it says to re-roll TO HIT rolls that are 1... that doesn't make much sense at all because a TO HIT dice does not have a 1 on it.... so I personally would see that as no different than to re-rolls 1 when determining to hit....?
please feel free to counter argument this statement


**If taken RAW I would say he may not re-roll the hit or the scatter via the rules on pg 33. however if he were shooting another weapon that was not blast then yes he may re-roll those to hit (This is what after re-reading it again I believe would be the answer with pretty strong confidence)

AnonAmbientLight,
That argument has been disproved, from a Rule as Written perspective, before: The vehicle rules tell you to treat the glance/penetrating results in the same way as you would treat a wound on another model for the purposes of cover saves. If it wasn't for this sentence, then vehicles do not get cover saves in the first place because they also state they are used on Wounds. Therefore anything which effects a cover save, and states Wounds, would still apply to vehicles. All thanks to falling under the sentence informing us to treat vehicles in the same way as other models for this specific purpose.

Now they did have to 'Frequently Asked Question' Invulnerability saves to vehicles, the situation for cover saves didn't cover Invulnerability....

 Dezstiny wrote:
If it says to re-roll TO HIT rolls that are 1... that doesn't make much sense at all because a TO HIT dice does not have a 1 on it.... so I personally would see that as no different than to re-rolls 1 when determining to hit....?
please feel free to counter argument this statement


**If taken RAW I would say he may not re-roll the hit or the scatter via the rules on pg 33. however if he were shooting another weapon that was not blast then yes he may re-roll those to hit (This is what after re-reading it again I believe would be the answer with pretty strong confidence)

To Hit rolls are made for 'regular' shooting attacks (bolters, lascannons, plasma rifles, ect.). Scatter dice are rolled for blast weapons. In the bundle of (usually) three scatter dice there is a die with a 'hit' symbol on it, but it is not a 'To Hit' die as To Hit is defined separately. P33 makes this clear by directly stating that blast weapons do not roll To Hit ("When firing a blast weapon, models to not roll To Hit. Instead...").

JinxDragon wrote:
AnonAmbientLight,
That argument has been disproved, from a Rule as Written perspective, before: The vehicle rules tell you to treat the glance/penetrating results in the same way as you would treat a wound on another model for the purposes of cover saves. If it wasn't for this sentence, then vehicles do not get cover saves in the first place because they also state they are used on Wounds. Therefore anything which effects a cover save, and states Wounds, would still apply to vehicles. All thanks to falling under the sentence informing us to treat vehicles in the same way as other models for this specific purpose.

Now they did have to 'Frequently Asked Question' Invulnerability saves to vehicles, the situation for cover saves didn't cover Invulnerability....

If it was ruled in that way, then why are we having this discussion on whether or not a blast weapon can re-roll. RAW, pg5 clearly states that if you are allowed to re-roll you MUST use the rule that allowed you to do so. But the Blast special rule states that if you can re-roll at all, do so. So if a normal rule supersedes a special rule (the vehicle cover save dilemma), then the EPCA cannot allow blast re-rolls.

And yes, i am aware about the invuln for vehicles dilemma because i play Tau and i can get invulns for some of my vehicles. Then again codex > BRB so, technically it is allowed. Even if it's not RAW, we can clearly see how invuln saves on my Decoy Launchers are suppose to function without being told.

AnonAmbientLight,
Keep in mind that Frequently Asked Questions are powerful too, and those gave Rule as Written Invulnerability saves to vehicles along time ago!

Still, back to the cover save point you are trying to make: What is it?
Just because the rules where written in such a way to give vehicles a 'counts as' scenario when it comes to cover saves has nothing to do with the Re-Rolling of blasts. It isn't a case of a basic rule over-writing an advanced one, which is all I could figure out you where alluding to. It is a case of two rules working in synergy with each other to get to the intended result. Rule One informs us that a vehicle gains a cover save in the same fashion as a non-vehicle model does with a Wound. Rule Two states a Wound caused by this weapon has the ability to ignore Cover Saves. Nothing is being superseded in this situation....

 Dezstiny wrote:
If it says to re-roll TO HIT rolls that are 1... that doesn't make much sense at all because a TO HIT dice does not have a 1 on it.... so I personally would see that as no different than to re-rolls 1 when determining to hit....?
please feel free to counter argument this statement


**If taken RAW I would say he may not re-roll the hit or the scatter via the rules on pg 33. however if he were shooting another weapon that was not blast then yes he may re-roll those to hit (This is what after re-reading it again I believe would be the answer with pretty strong confidence)

Many of us have tried to explain this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Dezstiny wrote:
I guess my biggest question is why you would re-roll the hit dice when in the ability being used specifically states to just re-roll 1s? Re-rolling 1s and re-rolling to hit are two completely different scenarios. It's not like Prescience where it states you may re-roll (to hit) To hit constituting the the hit roll dice as well as the scatter dice because the scatter affects if you are hitting. So personally for me I would say no you cannot re-roll to hit but you can re-roll any ones from the scatter die.

Because the ability doesn't say to re-roll 1s.

It says to re-roll To Hit rolls that are 1s.

Sweet. Since there is no To Hit roll of 1s on a scatter, you can't reroll blast.

busby wrote:

 Dezstiny wrote:
If it says to re-roll TO HIT rolls that are 1... that doesn't make much sense at all because a TO HIT dice does not have a 1 on it.... so I personally would see that as no different than to re-rolls 1 when determining to hit....?
please feel free to counter argument this statement


**If taken RAW I would say he may not re-roll the hit or the scatter via the rules on pg 33. however if he were shooting another weapon that was not blast then yes he may re-roll those to hit (This is what after re-reading it again I believe would be the answer with pretty strong confidence)

Many of us have tried to explain this.

And yet not ever supported it with actual rules quotes.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Dezstiny wrote:
I guess my biggest question is why you would re-roll the hit dice when in the ability being used specifically states to just re-roll 1s? Re-rolling 1s and re-rolling to hit are two completely different scenarios. It's not like Prescience where it states you may re-roll (to hit) To hit constituting the the hit roll dice as well as the scatter dice because the scatter affects if you are hitting. So personally for me I would say no you cannot re-roll to hit but you can re-roll any ones from the scatter die.

Because the ability doesn't say to re-roll 1s.

It says to re-roll To Hit rolls that are 1s.

Sweet. Since there is no To Hit roll of 1s on a scatter, you can't reroll blast.

Already addressed. Since there is no To Hit roll with a blast, ever, using that argument no ability allows you to re-roll. That renders the rule useless and therefore the argument cannot be correct and can be ignored.
Do you have any rules based support for a valid argument? At all?

How is using that argument a statement that means you never.roll to hit? That is a giant leap between the blast die and its lack of a 1 and the ability to roll to hit with all other weapons that rely on a number as a goal.

rigeld2 wrote:

Already addressed. Since there is no To Hit roll with a blast, ever, using that argument no ability allows you to re-roll. That renders the rule useless and therefore the argument cannot be correct and can be ignored.
Do you have any rules based support for a valid argument? At all?

Incorrect. There is no rule that the rules cannot be useless. The authors can make 1 wound models that have It Will Not Die or a unit with terminator armor that also has relentless. These may be counter-intuitive, but they can do whatever they want. Besides, in the case of a permission that is either non-existent or, at best, not explicit, saying that it is ineffective is not much of a stretch at all. If the permission was explicit, things would be very different.

Also, Twin-linked allows for re-rolls of the scatter dice.

busby wrote:

Sweet. Since there is no To Hit roll of 1s on a scatter, you can't reroll blast.

Unless the rules say that you can, which they do (just not on p33 - but some would disagree).

busby wrote:
How is using that argument a statement that means you never.roll to hit? That is a giant leap between the blast die and its lack of a 1 and the ability to roll to hit with all other weapons that rely on a number as a goal.

Your argument is that since you cannot roll a one, you cannot re-roll a Blast with PE/ECPA.
Meaning that since a condition for the re-roll cannot be fulfilled, the ability doesn't work.
Prescience (and indeed, all other re-roll abilities) require you to fail a To Hit roll.
Since a To Hit roll is never made for a Blast (I've quoted the rule in this thread) that condition can never be met.

I've explained this in the thread before. Please do me the courtesy of reading the thread before responding further.

rigeld2 wrote:

busby wrote:
How is using that argument a statement that means you never.roll to hit? That is a giant leap between the blast die and its lack of a 1 and the ability to roll to hit with all other weapons that rely on a number as a goal.

Your argument is that since you cannot roll a one, you cannot re-roll a Blast with PE/ECPA.
Meaning that since a condition for the re-roll cannot be fulfilled, the ability doesn't work.
Prescience (and indeed, all other re-roll abilities) require you to fail a To Hit roll.
Since a To Hit roll is never made for a Blast (I've quoted the rule in this thread) that condition can never be met.

I've explained this in the thread before. Please do me the courtesy of reading the thread before responding further.

Stop undercutting your statements with a thinly veiled insult. It makes you look even sillier than your attempt to add further statements to my simple argument. I have read this thread thoroughly. I have seen both sides of the argument. I have failed to even once understand your lack of ability to see anything else other than your side of the rules. You've posted the exact wording of the statements in question. In response to things I've said, you've gone on to state that my statement is incorrect yet yours is correct. When you do so, you actually then affirm my statement each time (hence my often short replies... other than having used my phone until this point)

For ECPA: You REROLL FAILED TO HIT ROLLS OF 1. Is this correct? Okay check.

You shoot your blast weapon.

Roll your 2d6 + scatter to see how far off target (or not) you are.

You roll an arrow, a 1, and a 6.

Your arrow is the indicator of whether you hit or not (there is a blast indicator that indicates you were directly on target).

The 1 and 6 (totaling 7) subtracted by your BS dictates how accurate your shot was.

The 1 and 6 are not an indicator of whether or not a FAILED TO HIT ROLL OF 1 ever came up. They are an indicator of drift, or scatter, if you will.

No reroll.

Since you cannot roll a 1 ON A BLAST attack, you cannot reroll, in that example. Other people have attempted to help guide you along this, but since I never care to repost statements to back up my side of the argument (other people have done so before and after me) you seem to target only my replies. I get that. I'm the lowest hanging fruit. Please don't presume I have not read your statements. I have. I just fail to understand your side since your arguments (to me) seem to indicate you do not clearly understand the rules as written, or have an undertone of insult as if you have no other ability to argue your point.

busby wrote:
The 1 and 6 are not an indicator of whether or not a FAILED TO HIT ROLL OF 1 ever came up. They are an indicator of drift, or scatter, if you will.

No reroll.

Yes, I understand that is what your argument is.

Now - insert Prescience instead of ECPA.

For Prescience: You REROLL FAILED TO HIT ROLLS.

You shoot your blast weapon.

Roll your 2d6 + scatter to see how far off target (or not) you are.

You roll an arrow, a 1, and a 6.

Your arrow is the indicator of whether you hit or not (there is a blast indicator that indicates you were directly on target) but is not a To Hit roll.

The 1 and 6 (totalling 7) subtracted by your BS dictates how accurate your shot was.

The 1 and 6 are not an indicator of whether or not a FAILED TO HIT ROLL ever came up. They are an indicator of drift, or scatter, if you will.

No reroll.

Oh - look, exactly the same. Because there is no roll To Hit (as I've proven).
Please, cite reasons you disagree with this statement. This proves that, using your argument, no ability can reroll Blasts.

Since you cannot roll a 1 ON A BLAST attack, you cannot reroll, in that example. Other people have attempted to help guide you along this, but since I never care to repost statements to back up my side of the argument (other people have done so before and after me) you seem to target only my replies. I get that. I'm the lowest hanging fruit. Please don't presume I have not read your statements. I have. I just fail to understand your side since your arguments (to me) seem to indicate you do not clearly understand the rules as written, or have an undertone of insult as if you have no other ability to argue your point.

Actually, I've replied to pretty much everyone I think. I'm not singling anyone out. The reason I'm assuming you haven't read my statements is because you're continuing to argue after I've proven my points and you're refusing (or unable) to cite rules support for your statements. As the tenets require you to. I've asked multiple times for you to and you've still failed to - which, since you haven't, I can only assume you didn't read them.
Since you've now admitted to reading those requests, further failure to meet the tenets will be reported.

Please actually abide by the tenets. I have done you that courtesy.

In addition to your 'high road' or 'high brow' insulting me, you are now resulting to threatening me with a report based on the fact that I don't feel like repeating what SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE have clearly explained to you concerning the rules on whether or not you can reroll blast using ECPA.

You threatening to report me because I refuse to requote what several other people have done for you is saddening.


Also, my argument has never involved Prescience. In fact, I have never even addressed it. I can if I feel like taking the time, but your constant insinuations have left me with the feeling that you simply do not wish to debate this topic and instead decided to pick low lying fruit while others do the debating for you and me.

busby wrote:
Also, my argument has never involved Prescience. In fact, I have never even addressed it. I can if I feel like taking the time, but your constant insinuations have left me with the feeling that you simply do not wish to debate this topic and instead decided to pick low lying fruit while others do the debating for you and me.

This is the key part you're not understanding though. The justification you give on why the ECPA would not work is the same justification on why Prescience would not work.
The argument so far boils down to either you can reroll blasts at all or not. You're arguing that ECPA should not grant a re-roll, but this would remove all ability to re-roll a blast.

busby wrote:
In addition to your 'high road' or 'high brow' insulting me, you are now resulting to threatening me with a report based on the fact that I don't feel like repeating what SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE have clearly explained to you concerning the rules on whether or not you can reroll blast using ECPA.

You threatening to report me because I refuse to requote what several other people have done for you is saddening.

I choose to treat people as individuals. No one has quoted a single rule that supports your viewpoint - no one. Not a single person in this thread.

Also, my argument has never involved Prescience. In fact, I have never even addressed it. I can if I feel like taking the time, but your constant insinuations have left me with the feeling that you simply do not wish to debate this topic and instead decided to pick low lying fruit while others do the debating for you and me.

I know it doesn't involve Presience - that's my point. If you'd read my posts (which I'm convinced you either didn't or just refuse to understand them now) you'd know that your argument leads to the rule being literally useless. I've proven that - repeatedly - by using your argument. I'm helping you to understand why your argument cannot be correct and I'm being insulted for it.

Prescience lets you reroll failed to hit rolls. There is blast indicator on the 6 sided die suggesting that you hit. If you hit, you hit. If you get an arrow, you get to reroll. Seems pretty simple to me.

ECPA says failed to hit rolls of 1. Since there is no 1 on the blast die, there is no need to reroll a blast or arrow. Use ECPA with something else (not sure... Can you use ECPA with non blast weapons? Like high rate of fire weapons? I don't own Tau as I've stated earlier).

I really might not be seeing the whole issue here. I'll admit it. However, those seem pretty clear.

Just FYI in this thread, the Tempered Helm for Iron Hands allows you to choose to re-roll rolls to hit of 1 on a unit.

busby wrote:
Prescience lets you reroll failed to hit rolls. There is blast indicator on the 6 sided die suggesting that you hit. If you hit, you hit. If you get an arrow, you get to reroll. Seems pretty simple to me.

Except it's not a To Hit roll. I've quoted the rule that says explicitly that Blasts do not roll To Hit.
Prescience requires a failed To Hit roll. You still don't see the issue?

I really might not be seeing the whole issue here. I'll admit it. However, those seem pretty clear.

You're failing to understand the rules as they're written - your quote above proves you're inserting rules where there aren't any.

busby wrote:
Prescience lets you reroll failed to hit rolls. There is blast indicator on the 6 sided die suggesting that you hit. If you hit, you hit. If you get an arrow, you get to reroll. Seems pretty simple to me.

That's the direct hit icon, not the same thing as hitting. It just means you don't scatter. If you're pulling in your own personal logic to justify that, then what if you roll a scatter, but the 2d6 is less than your BS which would still end up being a hit. What if the blast template is over a model, friend or foe, since that would also be a hit?

rigeld2 wrote:

busby wrote:
Prescience lets you reroll failed to hit rolls. There is blast indicator on the 6 sided die suggesting that you hit. If you hit, you hit. If you get an arrow, you get to reroll. Seems pretty simple to me.

Except it's not a To Hit roll. I've quoted the rule that says explicitly that Blasts do not roll To Hit.
Prescience requires a failed To Hit roll. You still don't see the issue?

I really might not be seeing the whole issue here. I'll admit it. However, those seem pretty clear.

You're failing to understand the rules as they're written - your quote above proves you're inserting rules where there aren't any.

So why have this debate? We are back at the point where there is no to hit roll and hence no ability to roll a 1 to hit as you have just now again stated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

busby wrote:
Prescience lets you reroll failed to hit rolls. There is blast indicator on the 6 sided die suggesting that you hit. If you hit, you hit. If you get an arrow, you get to reroll. Seems pretty simple to me.

That's the direct hit icon, not the same thing as hitting. It just means you don't scatter. If you're pulling in your own personal logic to justify that, then what if you roll a scatter, but the 2d6 is less than your BS which would still end up being a hit. What if the blast template is over a model, friend or foe, since that would also be a hit?

I am trying to apply other posters logic in an attempt to see their side.

busby wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

busby wrote:
Prescience lets you reroll failed to hit rolls. There is blast indicator on the 6 sided die suggesting that you hit. If you hit, you hit. If you get an arrow, you get to reroll. Seems pretty simple to me.

Except it's not a To Hit roll. I've quoted the rule that says explicitly that Blasts do not roll To Hit.
Prescience requires a failed To Hit roll. You still don't see the issue?

I really might not be seeing the whole issue here. I'll admit it. However, those seem pretty clear.

You're failing to understand the rules as they're written - your quote above proves you're inserting rules where there aren't any.

So why have this debate? We are back at the point where there is no to hit roll and hence no ability to roll a 1 to hit as you have just now again stated.

Right - according to your argument since there's no To Hit roll, nothing can be rerolled. Including with Prescience, et al.
Since that renders the rule in question (rerolling Blast) useless it cannot be correct.

I know - for a fact - I've said this and proved it before. Either you didn't read the thread before (when you assured me you did) or you didn't understand what I said before (possible, but I haven't said it any different this time) or you're pruposely asking me to repeat myself. Could you clarify which one it is?