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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm thinking this has run its course anyways.

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

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

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

I've read the forum etiquette. The only piece of etiquette that I've really disregarded is the use of terms like "rules lawyer." Aside from that, the objections of blacksails simply miss the mark. There's nothing in the etiquette thread that says that I can't appeal to the italics. What it says is that I can't appeal to real life examples, because the game is a fantasy abstraction. Reality and fantasy don't always match up.

I've not argued from real life examples. In point of fact, I know very little about the reality of combat. I have no clue how accurate missile launchers would be when wielded by genetically altered Ork hunting specialist super soldiers.

My point, GS, is that it has already been admitted that the rules are ambiguous. To resolve the ambiguity, I am appealing to a solid principle widely applicable to the reading of pretty much any text. You don't understand what this line means? Then read it in the context of the whole passage. Doesn't help? Then what about the context of the whole book? Still doesn't make sense? What about in the context of the author's general thought?

Still no help? Then you look at his historical context, his contemporaries and his sources and predecessors. You find something to help resolve the ambiguity, which sheds light on that particular passage.

Again, the telos, finality or purpose of language is to express what is on one's mind. It grants us a brief "glimpse" into the mind of the speaker or the writer. The measure of any interpretation of a text is the intention of the author.

[Thus: the way that protestants stereotypically read the Bible is just silly. It's not a good way to read a text. ]

So why do I talk about the "fluff" (though here, of course, I use the term loosely)?

Because the italics tell us what the author had in mind when he wrote the rule, what he was trying to express. If your reading of the rule contradicts the words in italics, it contradicts the mindset of the author. It's wrong.

Traditio wrote:

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

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

It's necessary to attend to RAI.

No it really isn't. As I said you can spout what you think RAI is and I can spout what I think RAI is, neither is more valid than the other because neither of us know what the writer intended. But when we add RAW to back up what we think the RAI is then, in reality we are arguing about RAW and not RAI. But when only one is using RAW to back up their opinion then they have (in this forum) a more valid outlook on how them game is played.

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

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

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

No it means exactly what I think it means: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs. So yes If I believe that PE gives blast a re-roll to hit, but I play the game disagreeing with that belief then that would make me a hypocrite.

Now this is really an extreme view and in fact I am a hypocrite about many things in 40k, but more on this below.

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

Context.

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

But what I really have an issue with, and why I don't like the "my way or highway" is because in this scenario it is up to me to change my view on the rule and not yours. The real options to if we ever had to play a game together where this came up would be.

1) Talk to the TO and get a ruling

2) Get a 3rd party ruling from other players/how it is played at that FLGS (ex. at my FLGS we do play PE gives re-rolls so if you moved here I would expect you to follow the "house rule" just as If I moved to your area (and I assume your area doesn't let PE give blasts a re-roll) then that is how we would play it)

3) Roll off

4) Both agree to not play, but neither of us holding the game hostage.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are some things that have blanket re-rolls to hit with nothing required to gain the re-roll.

Space marines, eldar, and tau just don't have access to them so many people ignore they exist and demand that the ability to re-roll to hit be defined as, "having a chance to re-roll to hit under some circumstance even if they did not fulfill that circumstance."

examples- ammo runts, some tyranid formations which don't include flyrants so they don't see the light of day.

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

Has Games Workshop answered the matter in a FAQ?

No. At least not that I can recall from 5th edition on, at any rate.

Traditio wrote:Has ITC released anything about it in a FAQ?

Check with the ITC's forum. This is not their forum.

Traditio wrote:How is it ordinarily treated in tournaments?

However the TOs choose to rule it. There are as many rulings as there are tournaments. Some see even the ability to do it within conditions as sufficient. While others require the condition to be fulfilled in order for the ability to be usable.

Preferred Enemy and Twin-Linked both provide rerolls under conditions based on To Hit rolls, so depending on their view on ability access as described above will determine their answer.

And that is where you tried to start arguing with me about the irrelevant differences between Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked to this case.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:No it really isn't. As I said you can spout what you think RAI is and I can spout what I think RAI is, neither is more valid than the other because neither of us know what the writer intended. But when we add RAW to back up what we think the RAI is then, in reality we are arguing about RAW and not RAI. But when only one is using RAW to back up their opinion then they have (in this forum) a more valid outlook on how them game is played.

Both I and my opponents have appealed to RAW. RAW isn't decisive. That is the point that I am making. RAW in and of itself cannot settle the debate. Furthermore, I also wish to note that pretty much nobody only appeals to RAW; it's pretty much impossible. Not a single person in this thread has appealed to RAW. Every single person has appealed to Rules as Interpreted. This is, of course, a hermeneutical point. The only way that you can read a text without interpreting it is if you have failed to understand it at all [again, this is one of my many criticisms of the protestants].

Thus arises the question: how do we interpret it? Evidently, the correct interpretation is not obvious to everyone. So simply repeating what the rule(s) say won't help you.

Thus the reason I say: you have to read the italics. You have to get a general feel for the author's mindset. You have to apply common sense.

No it means exactly what I think it means: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs. So yes If I believe that PE gives blast a re-roll to hit, but I play the game disagreeing with that belief then that would make me a hypocrite.

Now this is really an extreme view and in fact I am a hypocrite about many things in 40k, but more on this below.

You wouldn't be pretending to believe that my interpretation of the rules is correct. Your disagreement would duly be noted...and then ignored for the purposes of the game. There is such a thing as doing such and such a thing under protest.

Furthermore, it's not true that one is a hypocrite simply for doing x while believing the opposite. That would make every act of incontinence render the the incontinent person a hypocrite. I know that I shouldn't eat that 6th slice of pizza. I know it constitutes an act of gluttony. Still, it would taste so good...

Again, what would be hypocritical is if I told you that you can't use PE to reroll scatter blasts, but I used the devastator doctrine to allow my plasma cannon squads to reroll theirs.

But what I really have an issue with, and why I don't like the "my way or highway" is because in this scenario it is up to me to change my view on the rule and not yours.

Again, there's no obligation for you to change your view. You can believe what you want. That's your prerogative. The question at hand is how we are going to play.

1) Talk to the TO and get a ruling

2) Get a 3rd party ruling from other players/how it is played at that FLGS (ex. at my FLGS we do play PE gives re-rolls so if you moved here I would expect you to follow the "house rule" just as If I moved to your area (and I assume your area doesn't let PE give blasts a re-roll) then that is how we would play it)

3) Roll off

4) Both agree to not play, but neither of us holding the game hostage.

If it's a house rule, it's a house rule. Local custom overrides RAW, even under the most plausible interpretation.

I have in mind the case in which there is no authoritative third party. The options I would present would be: "My way, or the game ends."

You yourself admit that your interpretation is controversial and not evident from a reading of RAW. In that case, it seems to me as though the most correct thing to do would be to play the game in a way that both of us agree that it can be played. You could imagine us both as writing up a list of all of the different possible actions that each of us believes can be taken in the course of a game of 40k. All of those items in which our lists coincide would be fair game for the course of our game. Even imagine it as a game of Mother May I in which each of us takes turns.

Mother, may I move 6 inches with this infantry unit? Yes, you may.
Mother, may I fire my boltgun within rapidfire distance? Yes, you may.
Mother, may I reroll 1s due to IF chapter tactics? Yes, you may.
Mother, may I reroll the scatter die for my tactical squad plasma cannon due to the tactical doctrine?

The moment that one of us says "no," and there is no non-controversial reason otherwise, that item must be considered forbidden for the course of the game.

Presumably, we both agree on the following:

We may reroll gets hot with PE and similar rules.
We may reroll scatter dice with guide, prescience, combat doctrines which permit rerolls of all misses (and does not require a determinate number to be rolled), etc.

Great! We'll play according to the interpretation of the rules to which we both agree.

What we do not agree about is whether PE allows a reroll of the scatter dice. Since it is a controversial ruling, we'll set it aside and assume that it's not a thing.

All of this is true, but unfortunately none of it has to do with what we are discussing.

It has EVERYTHING to do with what we are discussing.

According to your own admission, neither my interpretation of RAW nor my opponent's interpretation of RAW is obviously true. It's a matter of controversy.

Ok, then lets turn to the 'big picture." Let's take a look what the italicized stuff says. Let's see what the fluff says. Let's look at how the game works overall. Let's look at previous editions. Let's take a look at all the clues that the authors leave us.

And let's ask the question:

Which interpretation makes more sense?

You've just agreed with my assessment of the "idea" behind all of the rules in question.

Let's ignore the specific wording of RAW. What SHOULD the RAW say, if all of what I've said is true? What makes more sense and why?

If RAW CAN say what I interpret it to say, and if RAW SHOULD say what I interpret it to say it does, then by that very fact, my interpretation is superior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:Preferred Enemy and Twin-Linked both provide rerolls under conditions based on To Hit rolls, so depending on their view on ability access as described above will determine their answer.

And that is where you tried to start arguing with me about the irrelevant differences between Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked to this case.

Irrelevant if your interpretation is correct.

At any rate, further rehashing the argument would simply be redundant. Unless, of course, you would care to take up my challenge to Chapter Master Angelos?

Otherwise, let the following suffice:

There is no "official" precedent for your intepretation over mine, and there is serious doubt about the what RAW means.

However, I will say this:

In virtue of the fact that my interpretation permits the player to make fewer controversial in-game actions, by that very fact, my interpretation is superior and more non-controversial, and the OP would be safer acting as though my interpretation were correct! The OP would be less likely to run across opponents saying: "Hey, you can't do that!" So nyahah!

Although, I will say this in passing:

Your interpretation requires us to assert that it is impossible for a blast weapon to fail to hit.

This should strike any unbiased reader as utterly absurd, since it certainly sounds equivalent to saying that it's impossible for a blast weapon to miss.

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Preferred Enemy and Twin-Linked both provide rerolls under conditions based on To Hit rolls, so depending on their view on ability access as described above will determine their answer.

And that is where you tried to start arguing with me about the irrelevant differences between Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked to this case.

Irrelevant if your interpretation is correct.

The specific conditions on activating the reroll are irrelevant if all you are looking for is any condition at all. That was my point that you ignored and tried going off on a completely different direction with.

Traditio wrote:
There is no "official" precedent for your intepretation over mine, and there is serious doubt about the what RAW means.

I was stating no precedence, simply pointing out that Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked are to be considered the same under those conditions as they both require a condition to be met based on To Hit Rolls, and that is something you missed twice now.

Context. Use it.

Traditio wrote:
However, I will say this:

In virtue of the fact that my interpretation permits the player to make fewer controversial in-game actions, by that very fact, my interpretation is superior and more non-controversial, and the OP would be safer acting as though my interpretation were correct! The OP would be less likely to run across opponents saying: "Hey, you can't do that!" So nyahah!

Although, I will say this in passing:

Your interpretation requires us to assert that it is impossible for a blast weapon to fail to hit.

This should strike any unbiased reader as utterly absurd, since it certainly sounds equivalent to saying that it's impossible for a blast weapon to miss.

This whole statement is absurd as it is ascribing something which I have not stated nor addressed. You are trying to demonstrate how good you are at fighting a strawman in a fight that no one brought a strawman to.

I have not put a dog in this fight at all. All I am doing is pointing out that two certain breeds are in the same weight class. That is all.

If this is not regarding the fact that both Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked are conditional (not how conditional, how easy it is to meet the conditions, or what they does with those conditions), then you need to work on your transitions and to whom you are addressing.

If this is regrading the fact that both Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked are conditional, then you need to review the whole statement, as it makes zero sense when read under that context.

Charistoph wrote:The specific conditions on activating the reroll are irrelevant if all you are looking for is any condition at all. That was my point that you ignored and tried going off on a completely different direction with.

I fully grasp the point that you've made. You're arguing as follows:

1. Blast weapons do not roll to hit.
2. Therefore, if a rule quires that a a given roll on the to hit dice be made, it cannot apply to blast weapons.
3. Twin linked, guide, prescience, and preferred enemy all require a given result on the to hit dice.
4. Therefore, either all of them confer an ability for blast rules purposes, or else, none of them do.

Corollary:

5. If it be objected that PE requires a roll of 1, it will be answered that all of the other rules also require a given roll on the to-hit dice, namely, one which instantiates a failure to hit.

I fully grasp the points that you are making. I simply disagree with 1 in the sense that you are using it in the argument, and, consequently, 3 also.

I simply assert in turn that the obvious sense of twin-linked, guide, prescience, etc, independently of the particulars of the wording, is that they are intended to reroll misses. PE is not intended to reroll any and all misses. It's intended to reroll 1s

You'll assert that the distinction is irrelevant due to 3 above.

Again, I fully understand your arguments. I simply reject them. I think that you are reading the rules too "literally," with a univocal conception of the terms at work. I, on the other hand, understand that analogy is a thing.

Traditio wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:No it really isn't. As I said you can spout what you think RAI is and I can spout what I think RAI is, neither is more valid than the other because neither of us know what the writer intended. But when we add RAW to back up what we think the RAI is then, in reality we are arguing about RAW and not RAI. But when only one is using RAW to back up their opinion then they have (in this forum) a more valid outlook on how them game is played.

Both I and my opponents have appealed to RAW. RAW isn't decisive. That is the point that I am making. RAW in and of itself cannot settle the debate. Furthermore, I also wish to note that pretty much nobody only appeals to RAW; it's pretty much impossible. Not a single person in this thread has appealed to RAW. Every single person has appealed to Rules as Interpreted. This is, of course, a hermeneutical point. The only way that you can read a text without interpreting it is if you have failed to understand it at all [again, this is one of my many criticisms of the protestants].

Thus arises the question: how do we interpret it? Evidently, the correct interpretation is not obvious to everyone. So simply repeating what the rule(s) say won't help you.

Thus the reason I say: you have to read the italics. You have to get a general feel for the author's mindset. You have to apply common sense.

But the italics are not rules. And again you are insulting anyone who does not agree with YOUR interpretation of the rules. ("Evidently, the correct interpretation is not obvious to everyone"). I could say the same thing about your interpretation but I haven't and I won't because it is extremely insulting. Also in fact their are some people who do appeal strictly to RAW. In fact I believe that strictly RAW that PE does grant a re-roll and you are the one not appealing to strictly RAW. There are places that strict RAW doesn't work in the slightest (psychic phase). And you can read text without interpreting it, you do this by reading what the rule says AKA RAW.

No it means exactly what I think it means: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs. So yes If I believe that PE gives blast a re-roll to hit, but I play the game disagreeing with that belief then that would make me a hypocrite.

Now this is really an extreme view and in fact I am a hypocrite about many things in 40k, but more on this below.

You wouldn't be pretending to believe that my interpretation of the rules is correct. Your disagreement would duly be noted...and then ignored for the purposes of the game. There is such a thing as doing such and such a thing under protest.

Your right I wouldn't be pretending that your view is correct, but I would be behaving in a way that your view is correct which by the definition "a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs" I would be a hypocrite.

But what I really have an issue with, and why I don't like the "my way or highway" is because in this scenario it is up to me to change my view on the rule and not yours.

Again, there's no obligation for you to change your view. You can believe what you want. That's your prerogative. The question at hand is how we are going to play.

1) Talk to the TO and get a ruling

2) Get a 3rd party ruling from other players/how it is played at that FLGS (ex. at my FLGS we do play PE gives re-rolls so if you moved here I would expect you to follow the "house rule" just as If I moved to your area (and I assume your area doesn't let PE give blasts a re-roll) then that is how we would play it)

3) Roll off

4) Both agree to not play, but neither of us holding the game hostage.

If it's a house rule, it's a house rule. Local custom overrides RAW, even under the most plausible interpretation.

I have in mind the case in which there is no authoritative third party. The options I would present would be: "My way, or the game ends."

(I am going to use my internet yelling voice now)

IT IS THIS ATTITUDE THAT I WAS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH. WHY IS IT YOUR WAY, OR THE GAME ENDS AND NOT MY WAY, OR THE GAME ENDS? OH YEAH BECAUSE, I AM NOT A WAAC TFG THAT NEEDS TO HOLD THE GAME HOSTAGE IN ORDER TO GET MY WAY.

You yourself admit that your interpretation is controversial and not evident from a reading of RAW. In that case, it seems to me as though the most correct thing to do would be to play the game in a way that both of us agree that it can be played. You could imagine us both as writing up a list of all of the different possible actions that each of us believes can be taken in the course of a game of 40k. All of those items in which our lists coincide would be fair game for the course of our game. Even imagine it as a game of Mother May I in which each of us takes turns.

Mother, may I move 6 inches with this infantry unit? Yes, you may.
Mother, may I fire my boltgun within rapidfire distance? Yes, you may.
Mother, may I reroll 1s due to IF chapter tactics? Yes, you may.
Mother, may I reroll the scatter die for my tactical squad plasma cannon due to the tactical doctrine?

The moment that one of us says "no," and there is no non-controversial reason otherwise, that item must be considered forbidden for the course of the game.

Presumably, we both agree on the following:

We may reroll gets hot with PE and similar rules.
We may reroll scatter dice with guide, prescience, combat doctrines which permit rerolls of all misses (and does not require a determinate number to be rolled), etc.

Great! We'll play according to the interpretation of the rules to which we both agree.

What we do not agree about is whether PE allows a reroll of the scatter dice. Since it is a controversial ruling, we'll set it aside and assume that it's not a thing.

SO BECAUSE WE DISAGREE ON A RULE, IT OBVIOUSLY MAKES SENSE TO USE YOUR VERSION OF THE RULE AND COMPLETELY DISREGARD MINE. YES THAT IS COMPLETELY FAIR AND UNBIASED FOR BOTH OF US.

All of this is true, but unfortunately none of it has to do with what we are discussing.

It has EVERYTHING to do with what we are discussing.

According to your own admission, neither my interpretation of RAW nor my opponent's interpretation of RAW is obviously true. It's a matter of controversy.

Ok, then lets turn to the 'big picture." Let's take a look what the italicized stuff says. Let's see what the fluff says. Let's look at how the game works overall. Let's look at previous editions. Let's take a look at all the clues that the authors leave us.

The game isn't a scavenger hunt on how to read the rules. The authors didn't leave clues for anyone.

And let's ask the question:

Which interpretation makes more sense?

You've just agreed with my assessment of the "idea" behind all of the rules in question.

Let's ignore the specific wording of RAW. What SHOULD the RAW say, if all of what I've said is true? What makes more sense and why?

If RAW CAN say what I interpret it to say, and if RAW SHOULD say what I interpret it to say it does, then by that very fact, my interpretation is superior.

Both/Neither interpretation makes more sense. But I in my biased (because of how I read the rules and not because of any army i play) think my interpretation makes more sense. You in your biased (again I assume because of how YOU read the rules and not because of any army YOU play against) think your interpretation makes more sense.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:Preferred Enemy and Twin-Linked both provide rerolls under conditions based on To Hit rolls, so depending on their view on ability access as described above will determine their answer.

And that is where you tried to start arguing with me about the irrelevant differences between Preferred Enemy and Twin-linked to this case.

Irrelevant if your interpretation is correct.

At any rate, further rehashing the argument would simply be redundant. Unless, of course, you would care to take up my challenge to Chapter Master Angelos?

Otherwise, let the following suffice:

There is no "official" precedent for your intepretation over mine, and there is serious doubt about the what RAW means.

There is no "official" precedent for your interpretation over ours either, yet you consistently act like there is.

However, I will say this:

In virtue of the fact that my interpretation permits the player to make fewer controversial in-game actions, by that very fact, my interpretation is superior and more non-controversial, and the OP would be safer acting as though my interpretation were correct! The OP would be less likely to run across opponents saying: "Hey, you can't do that!" So nyahah!

Except as i said earlier, eliminating all "controversial" actions benefits the person who is not making the "controversial" action. Which is the equivalent of saying "I don't think you can do that so in the option of fairness you can not do that".

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

So the primary reason you're arguing this is because you don't usually use this rule yourself and you think that it's ok to "balance" the game by interpreting rules in a way that benefits you? Nice.

That's the pont Martel lost any credibility, sadly.

Tradito - your contention, that blast weapons do roll To Hit, is wrong. Not mistaken, or arguable in anyway. It is wrong

To Hit is a defined process, with an in game definition. Blast weapons do not do this. Secondly there is the oft quoted rule that unequivocally states they do not roll To Hit,

Your argument is based off this premise, and thus your argument is inherently flawed

You need a new argument, because this one has run its course

Credibility or no, I'm not playing with that interpretation of that rule. I've got better things to do.

Because it disadvantages you

Feel free to houserule it how you like, however the raw states otherwise.

GW has actually made me give up on RAW for their games. They don't give a gak, why should I? WK already exits. Scatterlaser already exists. That's about as much RAW as I can handle from them. I don't even care anymore if that's bad logic. If my models were lost in a fire or something, I wouldn't bother replacing them.

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

And twin-linked grants no ability to re-roll if you hit with all your shooting attacks. The precise dice situation under which you get the re-roll is not important, only whether, if the shooting attack were a normal one, would the special rule potentially give you a re-roll.

So the rule could be that you can re-roll failed to hit rolls of a 2 if the enemy model is at exactly 12" range and is a grot and, as long as the 12" and grot criteria were satisfied, a model with that rule could re-roll the scatter on a blast weapon.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:But the italics are not rules. And again you are insulting anyone who does not agree with YOUR interpretation of the rules. ("Evidently, the correct interpretation is not obvious to everyone"). I could say the same thing about your interpretation but I haven't and I won't because it is extremely insulting. Also in fact their are some people who do appeal strictly to RAW. In fact I believe that strictly RAW that PE does grant a re-roll and you are the one not appealing to strictly RAW. There are places that strict RAW doesn't work in the slightest (psychic phase). And you can read text without interpreting it, you do this by reading what the rule says AKA RAW.

Ok. Fine. You believe that strictly RAW says that PE grants the reroll. What text are you going to use to support this? Are you going to appeal to the PE rule, which says that you can reroll 1s to hit? Are you going to appeal to the blast rule, which says that if the model has the ability to reroll its to hit roll, it must reroll the scatter dice and the hit die? Are you going to appeal to the blast rule which says that blast weapons do not roll to hit?

I freely admit that those things say what they say. The problem is that we interpret them differently. Understanding that PE says what it says, I understand it to mean:

"You have an ability to reroll the dice if and only if you roll a 1."

Understanding that the first blast rule says what it says, I understand it to mean:

"For all intents and purposes, the rolling of the scatter dice count as the to-hit roll for a blast weapon. If you have an ability to reroll to hit, you may do so for the scatter dice in the same circumstances in which you could have done so for a non-blast weapon; you must, however, reroll both scatter dice and the hit die, not just the particular die or dice that you don't like. You have to reroll the whole thing, not just a part."

Understanding that the second blast rule says what it says, I understand it to mean:

"Blast weapons do not compare a 1d6 roll to [7 - BS of the firing model] to determine their to hit. In order to determine their to hit, they roll scatter dice."

If you are being honest, I think that you will admit that these are perfectly viable interpretations of the rules cited. You CAN read the rules that way. There's nothing in the text itself which excludes this reading, nor will simply quoting the rules at me disprove that this is what those rules mean.

So again, I ask: what rules are you going to cite in favor of your position? The very same rules about which I am talking?

Then you wouldn't be appealing to RAW. You'd be appealing to rules as interpreted. Then that means that RAW has ceased to be enough for us to determine how to play. We need to look OUTSIDE of RAW to determine how to apply RAW. That means looking at the words in italics, using common sense, etc.

Your right I wouldn't be pretending that your view is correct, but I would be behaving in a way that your view is correct which by the definition "a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs" I would be a hypocrite.

I'm going to omit a discussion of this point. It's not relevant to the main discussion and it would take us too far afield. I assume that you're not looking to receive an ethics lecture.

Suffice to say, it would in and of itself be no more or less problematic than applying a house rule or submitting to the decision of a TO or local custom.

The game isn't a scavenger hunt on how to read the rules. The authors didn't leave clues for anyone.

Your dogmaticly asserted, baseless opinion has been noted. It's clearly false (in point of fact, many rules are prefaced by words in italics), but hey, your opinion is your opinion, I suppose.

Except as i said earlier, eliminating all "controversial" actions benefits the person who is not making the "controversial" action. Which is the equivalent of saying "I don't think you can
do that so in the option of fairness you can not do that".

You mean, it discourages people from exploiting unclear rules for in-game advantages? It discourages people from playing like rules lawyering, WAAC TFGs?

I'm cool with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

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

And twin-linked grants no ability to re-roll if you hit with all your shooting attacks. The precise dice situation under which you get the re-roll is not important, only whether, if the shooting attack were a normal one, would the special rule potentially give you a re-roll.

So the rule could be that you can re-roll failed to hit rolls of a 2 if the enemy model is at exactly 12" range and is a grot and, as long as the 12" and grot criteria were satisfied, a model with that rule could re-roll the scatter on a blast weapon.

I have repeatedly addressed this point.

It is possible to miss with a blast weapon.

It is not possible to roll a 1 on the scatter die.

I also wish to note that 2 out of 6 results on the scatter die is "HIT."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Tradito - your contention, that blast weapons do roll To Hit, is wrong. Not mistaken, or arguable in anyway. It is wrong

To Hit is a defined process, with an in game definition. Blast weapons do not do this. Secondly there is the oft quoted rule that unequivocally states they do not roll To Hit,

Your argument is based off this premise, and thus your argument is inherently flawed

You need a new argument, because this one has run its course

I've repeatedly addressed these points. You're committing an equivocation on "To Hit."

And even if I granted the point, I could still read the blast rule cited as: "Even though blast weapons do not roll to hit, you may apply an ability to reroll to hit, in circumstances in which it would normally apply to weapons that do roll to hit, by rerolling both scatter dice and the hit die (i.e., by treating the whole of [the scatter dice AND the hit die] as the "to hit" dice for the purposes of this rule)." You could not normally apply the PE rule to reroll a non-blast weapon if you don't roll a 1, therefore, you cannot apply it to the blast weapon. You could apply guide to reroll a non-blast weapon in the event of any miss. Blast weapons can miss. Therefore, etc.

Do you have any new arguments to add to the ones that have been rehashed repeatedly in this thread?

I have no new argument, because one isn't needed.

Your argument fails, because it contradicts the written rules.

To Hit is well defined. It has a precise definition of what it means within the 40k rule set. Your made up idea has no relation to the rules as written, and is therefore dismissed

Raw pe grants an ability To reroll to hit, and this satisfies the requirements under blast and Reroll to grant a Reroll of scatter dice. This is proven

Until you can come up with an argument based in the rules, and not the gak you make up, you cannot argue your position as raw. As such please follow the tenets and Mark your posts as hywpi.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I have no new argument, because one isn't needed.

Your argument fails, because it contradicts the written rules.

Ok. What particular rules do you have in mind that I am contradicting?

The ones about which we have different interpretations? The ones that we read differently?

Raw pe grants an ability To reroll to hit

If and only if you roll a 1. If you do not roll a 1, it does not grant an ability to reroll to Hit.

Period. End of story.

That pe grants the ability to Reroll. Same as bs6+ does.

The rule for blasts does not require you to roll a to hit , of course - it couldn't do that, as you never roll To Hit with a blast weapon. Ever.

It simply requires the ability. If I fire a non blast at my pe, do I have the ability? Yes. Same as if I have twin linked, or bs6+, or any number of sources of the ability.

Period
End of.

Come back when you have so argument not already refuted, or one that doesn't rely on pretending blasts roll to hit, when you know for a fact they don't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That pe grants the ability to Reroll.

If and only if you roll a 1. Otherwise, it does not grant such an ability.

Same as bs6+ does.

BS 6 allows you to reroll a failed to-hit roll and score a hit on the to-hit dice on a roll of 6.

It is impossible to roll a 6 on the scatter die.

The rule for blasts does not require you to roll a to hit , of course - it couldn't do that, as you never roll To Hit with a blast weapon. Ever.

Dogmatically asserted, rehashed, equivocating assertion noted. Beyond that, I have no further comment.

It simply requires the ability. If I fire a non blast at my pe, do I have the ability?

If and only if you roll a 1. Otherwise, no.

Bs6 only grants a Reroll if you roll a 1 on your to hit.

Same as PE

Yet we know bs6+ grants the ability to Reroll to hit, as page 164 states that it does.

So unless you are being inconsistent (shock!) you must agree that pe grants the same ability.

So you accept that blasts never roll to hit now? Sorry I must have missed you conceding that point. It would of course be crazy to continue to assert otherwise, given the rule explicitly stating otherwise....or do you have a rules quote stating otherwise? You like to talk a lot , but not offer any rules to support your position....

Oh, there is nothing unclear about "models do not roll to hit" at all. Especially when To Hit is defined on page 32 as an explicit process given a proper name and everything.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bs6 only grants a Reroll if you roll a 1 on your to hit.

I'm sorry, but the specific wording of the particular rules aside, it's obvious how they are intended to operate.

When you make a shooting attack with a non-blast weapon, it is possible for [7 - BS of the firing unit] to be 1 or lower. In order to compensate for this AND the fact that rolls of 1 always fail to hit, you may reroll the to hit dice and compare the rerolled 1d6 to [7 - BS of the firing unit - 5].

You don't compare a 1d6 to [7 - BS of the firing unit] when you roll a scatter die. The "reason" for re-rolling due to BS 6+ does not exist in the case of blast weapons. When you roll the scatter dice, you subtract the BS from the scatter result.

You can insist all you want that BS 6+ allows a reroll, but I'm simply never going to admit that it does. It completely ignores "the spirit of the law," so to speak. It's a contortion/abuse of the language of the rules.

If you try to apply BS 6+ to a barrage weapon for which you do not have line of sight, I'll answer you that a barrage weapon does not use BS if there is no line of sight. Therefore, a reroll on the basis of BS is obviously not permitted on a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

And if you were actually to insist on this interpretation in game, any reasonable person would call you a rules lawyering WAAC TFG and refuse to play with you.

For the thousandth time: use common sense.

So you accept that blasts never roll to hit now?

Again, equivocation.

Please refer to the tenets

You consistently fail to support your argument with anything hut abuse

I presume you ever checked about page 164, which flat out proves you wrong? Gets hot and rerolls.

Bs6+ lets you Reroll to hit AND let's you reduce scatter. That's just how the real rules - not your appeals to "spirit" , amusing given you contradict the rules in your claims - actually work

Where is the equivocation in stating that blast weapons do not roll to hit? Is it the rules quote "models do not roll To Hit" that's confusing you?

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

I got you Nos.

Blacksails wrote:I got you Nos.

Context. It's a thing.

What context? Enlighten us.

Sounds very like you're breaking one of the tenets, again.