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.

Yup that was my mistake.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
PE only allows a reroll of a failed roll of 1 which you can never get with a blast, so PE does not have a reroll for blast weapons. Yet side B happily ignores this part while breaking the rule of needing a 1. NO 1, no ability to reroll.

MC has the ability to reroll one failed to hit per turn. which blast allow to reroll scatter, yet which side B wants to enforce it's condition. contradicting all of it's arguments for allowing PE.

PE grants a re-roll if you a) are firing at your preferred nemy, and b) roll a 1 To Hit.
MC grants a re-roll if you a) have not used the MC re-roll this turn, and b) fail a roll To Hit.

If you do not roll To Hit, you can neither roll a 1 (meaning PE doesn't work), nor can you fail a To Hit roll (meaning MC doesn't work).

Why do you allow failed To Hit rolls to work, but not failed To Hit rolls of 1? Neither one can possibly occur if you do not roll To Hit.

As MC was faq'd previously to include blasts, I'd only allow it as a act of kindness til the new BRB faq comes out. But just RAW no it should not reroll blasts either.

MC has the ability to reroll.
PE does not, unless a roll of 1 is rolled on it's to hit roll. Which can not be done, so it does not have the ability to reroll.
It's a subtle yet significant difference.

Why do you rule two different ways for PE & MC?

does MC have a reroll? yes, does it lose it's ability to reroll after it uses it? no

the original test for blasts was simple "do you have the ability to reroll?" I find it interesting how many people are drifting away from that towards the middle ground.

if you reroll the scatter dice, did you reroll a roll to hit? no, ergo the once a turn never comes into play even after rerolling 3 scatter dice, you have not yet rerolled a single 'roll to hit'.

nos, rigeld, I et al are being consistent. As far as we're concerned, the result on the To Hit roll does not matter. Any other conditions do. In other words, am I shooting at a Preferred Enemy? No - then no re-roll. Yes - then re-roll. Did I re-roll this turn with a Master-crafted weapon? Yes - then no re-roll. No - then re-roll.

Indeed, being very consistent here. An ability to see the two conditions is also needed - sirlynch I suggest you answer this directly - how many conditions are there on MC?

If you say 1, despite the evidence presented, you are lying.
If you say 2, we can then potentially discuss this as a rational argument.

There is still a "pick and choose" about conditions happening for Side B, and if you see 2 Conditions on MC, then i actually see 3 on PE:

MC:
- You need to fail a roll To Hit
- You have not used MC this turn

PE:
- You need to fail a roll To Hit (/To wound)
- You need to roll a 1
- You need to target a PE

Why do you pick 1 out of 2 for MC and 1 out of 3 in PE? This is inconsistency. Either you ignore conditionals or you include them.

With PE, i saw no inconsistency in splitting up the phrase with the phrase marker "IF", therefore it was still consistent.
But now with MC you argue that a single unique phrase can be split into 2 parts, where you adhere to 1 but not the other?


And Rigeld: You argue that i may not use "Twin-Linked Blasts" without having to Include "Twin-Linked Templates, due to inconsistency.
Well this comes right back around for MC: You cannot use "one (...) per turn" and then ignore "failed To Hit roll" simply out of logic.
Either the entire Rule must be adhered to: MC allows blasts 5 re-rolls - TL "failed To Hit" is the same for blasts and templates
Or we can split the rules by logic: "failed To Hit roll" in MC is ignore "because..." - TL templates is ignored "because..."

Ok, if we accept your 3 conditionals (its still two, with your 2nd and 3rd being a degree of failure required, not just a failure) you are STILL refusing to tell the difference between a conditional that

GRANTS the reroll

vs a conditional that is

PLACED UPON the reroll

Requiring the failed roll to be a 1 is a condition placed on the reroll.

Firing at your PE is a condition on being GRANTED the ability to ever reroll in the first place.

To be clear: the number of conditions in each caegory is irrelevant. 100% unimportant to the point being made. Dont compare them, just realise that there ARE two MC conditions, not one as you claimed. What is important is that there IS a split in the types of confditions, that you are refusing to recognise.

The consistency is this: some conditionals are relevant to the Blasts and rerolls rules, some arent. The difference has been explained, and we are 100% consistent every time. So instead of arguing consistency - we've proven we are consistent - argue the substantive portion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ok, if we accept your 3 conditionals (its still two, with your 2nd and 3rd being a degree of failure required, not just a failure) you are STILL refusing to tell the difference between a conditional that

GRANTS the reroll

vs a conditional that is

PLACED UPON the reroll

Requiring the failed roll to be a 1 is a condition placed on the reroll.

Firing at your PE is a condition on being GRANTED the ability to ever reroll in the first place.

To be clear: the number of conditions in each caegory is irrelevant. 100% unimportant to the point being made. Dont compare them, just realise that there ARE two MC conditions, not one as you claimed. What is important is that there IS a split in the types of confditions, that you are refusing to recognise.

The consistency is this: some conditionals are relevant to the Blasts and rerolls rules, some arent. The difference has been explained, and we are 100% consistent every time. So instead of arguing consistency - we've proven we are consistent - argue the substantive portion.

But your distinction of GRANTS vs PLACED ON, is completely arbitrary. The wording does not make that distinction, YOU DO. It could just as easily be argued given the wording of Preferred enemy that firing at your enemy is also placed upon the to hit roll, as it only comes into play in the paragraph in the same sentence as, and AFTER you make such a roll. Nowhere does it say, you get the ability when you shoot at your PE, it says you get the ability when you ROLL TO HIT against your preferred enemy.

The distinction is very important as the "Re-roll and Blasts" rule requires you to have the ability to re-roll to hit. So conditions on whether you have the re-roll need to be addressed but conditions on the to hit roll are irrelevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ok, if we accept your 3 conditionals (its still two, with your 2nd and 3rd being a degree of failure required, not just a failure) you are STILL refusing to tell the difference between a conditional that

GRANTS the reroll

vs a conditional that is

PLACED UPON the reroll

Requiring the failed roll to be a 1 is a condition placed on the reroll.

Firing at your PE is a condition on being GRANTED the ability to ever reroll in the first place.

To be clear: the number of conditions in each caegory is irrelevant. 100% unimportant to the point being made. Dont compare them, just realise that there ARE two MC conditions, not one as you claimed. What is important is that there IS a split in the types of confditions, that you are refusing to recognise.

The consistency is this: some conditionals are relevant to the Blasts and rerolls rules, some arent. The difference has been explained, and we are 100% consistent every time. So instead of arguing consistency - we've proven we are consistent - argue the substantive portion.

I also agree with Chanceafs that "Placed upon" and "grants" are not actually a distinction to be made.

PE only "Grants" a re-roll after you've rolled a 1
PE only "Grants" a re-roll after you've missed To Hit

You are Granted a re-roll if your dice falls off the table.

They are all conditions that you simply choose to ignore.
Using phrasing, and the "if" (defined as "in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that" - Dictionary) i fully agree that the "Granting" of the Re-roll (it's even in the definition of "if") for PE can be split into the 2 conditions "1" and "miss" on one side and "target your PE" on the other where you ignore the 1st two conditionals due to construction (Raven's pretty colors)
But MC does not have that conjunction. It simply has 2 conditions built in together that you cannot "separate" just because if feels right that way...

The consistency is this: some conditionals are relevant to the Blasts and rerolls rules, some arent.

How is that consistent at all? It is a choice made arbitrarily that you somehow got from "Blast Weapons and Re-Rolls" but has no basis there? There is no wording about "choosing conditions".

Either Side B decides that "Blast Weapons and Re-Rolls" makes this statement true: "Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit."
In which case PE Grants one on the "if" condition, and MC grants a re-roll.

Or you decide conditional are actually important, somehow, just as Side A thinks they are.
Sure, both sides create problems, but they are just problems stemming from the writing of the rules, and unchangeable until the wording we know is changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The distinction is very important as the "Re-roll and Blasts" rule requires you to have the ability to re-roll to hit. So conditions on whether you have the re-roll need to be addressed but conditions on the to hit roll are irrelevant.

That makes a lot of sense. I will concede that Side B just about works with this definition, but would still consider myself Side A until something is changed

Until next time then...

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The distinction is very important as the "Re-roll and Blasts" rule requires you to have the ability to re-roll to hit. So conditions on whether you have the re-roll need to be addressed but conditions on the to hit roll are irrelevant.

The distinction would be very important... but it is not one made in the RAW. While it would be nice to have that distinction to make the rule cleaner the reason there is such a huge debate is the RAW are worded so poorly that we are left to draw that line (between what gets blast re-rolls and what doesn't) ourselves... and any place that line is put is arbitrary and unsupported.

We can come up with all the logic in the world as to where that line should be based on our interpretation of how the wording lays out, but no interpretation is 100% supported. Every interpretation involves either rendering rules completely pointless, or inventing rules and/or distinctions that aren't there. And it will remain that way until a FAQ is released. There is no reason for this topic to continue.

 BlackTalos wrote:
There is still a "pick and choose" about conditions happening for Side B, and if you see 2 Conditions on MC, then i actually see 3 on PE:

MC:
- You need to fail a roll To Hit
- You have not used MC this turn

PE:
- You need to fail a roll To Hit (/To wound)
- You need to roll a 1
- You need to target a PE

Why do you pick 1 out of 2 for MC and 1 out of 3 in PE? This is inconsistency. Either you ignore conditionals or you include them.

With PE, i saw no inconsistency in splitting up the phrase with the phrase marker "IF", therefore it was still consistent.
But now with MC you argue that a single unique phrase can be split into 2 parts, where you adhere to 1 but not the other?

I'm adhering to both, in as much as I'm allowing things like Prescience to work. Because Prescience is exactly as conditional as MC - MC just has an additional restriction that has nothing to do with Blasts. A restriction that you cannot violate, by the way.

And Rigeld: You argue that i may not use "Twin-Linked Blasts" without having to Include "Twin-Linked Templates, due to inconsistency.
Well this comes right back around for MC: You cannot use "one (...) per turn" and then ignore "failed To Hit roll" simply out of logic.
Either the entire Rule must be adhered to: MC allows blasts 5 re-rolls - TL "failed To Hit" is the same for blasts and templates
Or we can split the rules by logic: "failed To Hit roll" in MC is ignore "because..." - TL templates is ignored "because..."

I guess you've failed to actually read all my posts on this. If we were able to break rules, MC would allow 5 rerolls. Since we can't, it doesn't.
Sure, you have the ability to reroll a second time, but if you do you're breaking a rule. Not a Blast rule, an MC rule.
I'm adhering to the entire rule, I'm not sure why you say I'm not. I'm being entirely consistent, your insistence notwithstanding.

sirlynchmob wrote:

PE grants a re-roll if you a) are firing at your preferred nemy, and b) roll a 1 To Hit.
MC grants a re-roll if you a) have not used the MC re-roll this turn, and b) fail a roll To Hit.

This is being misapplied. What matters here is whether the ability to re-roll is present, not whether a re-roll through that ability is permissible.

PE says, "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy."

Compare the following:
(1) If a unit rolls a 1 on a To hit or a To Wound roll, then it may re-roll that result.
(2) A unit may re-roll rolls of 1 on To Hit and To Wound rolls.

(1) has a condition precedent, meaning that the grant does not occur until the condition is satisfied - so the unit does not have the ability to re-roll until the condition is met. (2) uses the same construction as the actual rule as written for PE. It has no condition precedent - meaning that the ability to re-roll exists in the unit without the application of any condition. Whether the ability is effective depends on the die result, but its existence is independent of that die result.

The only actual condition precedent for PE is that the unit be attacking something from its PE designation.

chanceafs wrote:

But your distinction of GRANTS vs PLACED ON, is completely arbitrary.

He is completely correct, in this case. This is not arbitrary - this is simply how language works. You have to separate the existence of the ability from the effectiveness of that ability (just like the Blast Weapons and Re-roll section of the rules does) in order to see the correct resolution here.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, you have the ability to reroll a second time, but if you do you're breaking a rule. Not a Blast rule, an MC rule.
I'm adhering to the entire rule, I'm not sure why you say I'm not. I'm being entirely consistent, your insistence notwithstanding.

This is irrelevant. Unless a model re-rolls a To Hit roll with the Master Crafted weapon, then the ability to re-roll still exists. When firing multiple blasts, a MC weapon can re-roll (through MC and Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) as many scatter dice sets as it desires. In order for the ability to re-roll To Hit dice granted from MC to no longer exist, a model must re-roll a failed To Hit roll with that MC weapon - which is not possible if only firing a blast weapon.

 Rapture wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

PE grants a re-roll if you a) are firing at your preferred nemy, and b) roll a 1 To Hit.
MC grants a re-roll if you a) have not used the MC re-roll this turn, and b) fail a roll To Hit.

This is being misapplied. What matters here is whether the ability to re-roll is present, not whether a re-roll through that ability is permissible.

PE says, "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy."

Compare the following:
(1) If a unit rolls a 1 on a To hit or a To Wound roll, then it may re-roll that result.
(2) A unit may re-roll rolls of 1 on To Hit and To Wound rolls.

(1) has a condition precedent, meaning that the grant does not occur until the condition is satisfied - so the unit does not have the ability to re-roll until the condition is met. (2) uses the same construction as the actual rule as written for PE. It has no condition precedent - meaning that the ability to re-roll exists in the unit without the application of any condition. Whether the ability is effective depends on the die result, but its existence is independent of that die result.

The only actual condition precedent for PE is that the unit be attacking something from its PE designation.

chanceafs wrote:

But your distinction of GRANTS vs PLACED ON, is completely arbitrary.

He is completely correct, in this case. This is not arbitrary - this is simply how language works. You have to separate the existence of the ability from the effectiveness of that ability (just like the Blast Weapons and Re-roll section of the rules does) in order to see the correct resolution here.

Now compare the following:
(1) If one of a unit's To Hit roll is failed, then it may re-roll that result.
(2) A unit may re-roll one of it's failed To Hit rolls.

(2) has the same construction as the actual rule for Master-Crafted. "It has no condition precedent - meaning that the ability to re-roll exists in the unit without the application of any condition. Whether the ability is effective depends on the die result, but its existence is independent of that die result."

Do you see an issue, if not, why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, you have the ability to reroll a second time, but if you do you're breaking a rule. Not a Blast rule, an MC rule.
I'm adhering to the entire rule, I'm not sure why you say I'm not. I'm being entirely consistent, your insistence notwithstanding.

This is irrelevant. Unless a model re-rolls a To Hit roll with the Master Crafted weapon, then the ability to re-roll still exists. When firing multiple blasts, a MC weapon can re-roll (through MC and Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) as many scatter dice sets as it desires. In order for the ability to re-roll To Hit dice granted from MC to no longer exist, a model must re-roll a failed To Hit roll with that MC weapon - which is not possible if only firing a blast weapon.

Sorry you beat me to the answer already.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, you have the ability to reroll a second time, but if you do you're breaking a rule. Not a Blast rule, an MC rule.
I'm adhering to the entire rule, I'm not sure why you say I'm not. I'm being entirely consistent, your insistence notwithstanding.

This is irrelevant. Unless a model re-rolls a To Hit roll with the Master Crafted weapon, then the ability to re-roll still exists. When firing multiple blasts, a MC weapon can re-roll (through MC and Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) as many scatter dice sets as it desires. In order for the ability to re-roll To Hit dice granted from MC to no longer exist, a model must re-roll a failed To Hit roll with that MC weapon - which is not possible if only firing a blast weapon.

Sorry you beat me to the answer already.

...
So no, you haven't read what I've been saying, even in the post you quoted.
Does Prescience work with Blasts? Yes or no question. Should be trivial.

If you have something, I don't think that you are presenting it clearly and/or demonstrating why it is important to this part of the discussion.

Also, I don't see how him/her answering a yes or no question would be valuable other than providing for a potential (and likely short lived) 'gotcha' moment - why no just say what you are getting at?

Chance - no, it is absolutely and irrefutably NOT arbitrary.

Do you have the ability? Yes or No. Important, as the rule requires this beofre you get a reroll.
Do you have a reroll which is not as good as another reroll? Not important, as nowhere does the rule say "you must have the ability to reroll ALL FAILED to hit rolls", nor does it say "you must have the ability to reroll at least all 2s and 3s" - i.e., as I have been *exceptionally* consistent in saying all the way through the degree of your reroll is entirely unimportant. Just the ability to reroll to hit - ANY reroll, no matter how crappy, relative - is required.

So no. It is, irrefutably, not arbitrary. You need to know whether you have the ability - and if you fire at a non-PE you have absolutely NO reroll ability on your to hit

Of course, this is going by the "they didnt write this as a waste of ink" interpretation of the rule - i.e., you assume the rule has some function. Those on Side A, if theyre being consistent (theyre not, of course) are stating this rule has no function, as TL already covers this nicely.

GOing with an interpretation that has a non functional rule, which involves altering the wording of said rule to actually come up with that interpretation, is unsafe.

Good thing there are no master crafted blast weapons I know of.
As for PE and re rolling Blast weapons, until you can show how to get past the requirement of rolling a 1 to trigger a re roll you can't do it.
It's a pointless argument. Just use prescience.

Lungpickle wrote:
Good thing there are no master crafted blast weapons I know of.
As for PE and re rolling Blast weapons, until you can show how to get past the requirement of rolling a 1 to trigger a re roll you can't do it.
It's a pointless argument. Just use prescience.

Until you can show how you can have a failed To Hit roll when you literally never roll to hit you can't use Prescience.

Lungpickle wrote:
Good thing there are no master crafted blast weapons I know of.
As for PE and re rolling Blast weapons, until you can show how to get past the requirement of rolling a 1 to trigger a re roll you can't do it.
It's a pointless argument. Just use prescience.

The Dark Angels have a MC chapter relic that can fire a blast. There are likely others as well.

Unless you haven't read the thread or even the recent posts, your argument in conscious misinformation.

There is no reasonable basis for believing that the roll of a 1 is required for PE to grant the ability for a model to re-roll a To Hit roll - which is all that is required under Blast Weapons and Re-rolls' grant of permission to re-roll the scatter dice.

Unless you have an argument to present with your conclusion?

Lungpickle wrote:
Good thing there are no master crafted blast weapons I know of.
As for PE and re rolling Blast weapons, until you can show how to get past the requirement of rolling a 1 to trigger a re roll you can't do it.
It's a pointless argument. Just use prescience.

So you're arguing a better class of Reroll works, when you never roll to hit, ever?

If you could ever provide some rules it would help.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ok, if we accept your 3 conditionals (its still two, with your 2nd and 3rd being a degree of failure required, not just a failure) you are STILL refusing to tell the difference between a conditional that

GRANTS the reroll

vs a conditional that is

PLACED UPON the reroll

Requiring the failed roll to be a 1 is a condition placed on the reroll.

Firing at your PE is a condition on being GRANTED the ability to ever reroll in the first place.

To be clear: the number of conditions in each caegory is irrelevant. 100% unimportant to the point being made. Dont compare them, just realise that there ARE two MC conditions, not one as you claimed. What is important is that there IS a split in the types of confditions, that you are refusing to recognise.

The consistency is this: some conditionals are relevant to the Blasts and rerolls rules, some arent. The difference has been explained, and we are 100% consistent every time. So instead of arguing consistency - we've proven we are consistent - argue the substantive portion.

What is the condition placed upon the reroll?
you can reroll one failed to hit roll.

If I roll 3 scatter dice how many to hit rolls did I make?
If I reroll all 3 how many to hit rolls did I make?

We both know the answer is none, therefore you never exceed the one failed to hit reroll. Unless you are claiming rolling the scatter dice is the same as rolling to hit. you'll need lots of citations to prove that one, that we both know you don't have.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
Good thing there are no master crafted blast weapons I know of.
As for PE and re rolling Blast weapons, until you can show how to get past the requirement of rolling a 1 to trigger a re roll you can't do it.
It's a pointless argument. Just use prescience.

Until you can show how you can have a failed To Hit roll when you literally never roll to hit you can't use Prescience.

I concur.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Sorry you beat me to the answer already.

...
So no, you haven't read what I've been saying, even in the post you quoted.
Does Prescience work with Blasts? Yes or no question. Should be trivial.

Trivial but irrelevant? Which Side, A or B?

The post by Rapture is Side B, we were discussing Side B, and how Side B creates a problem with Master-Crafted.

Side B is very clear the Prescience works with blasts? We ignore the conditionals, and there is only "Whilst the power is in effect," to obtain the Re-Roll.
As for PE, the comma at the end of the line separates it as "if" does in PE: you must meet said condition to obtain the ability to Re-Roll.

Side B is very clear that prescience works will blasts, as it fulfils the "ability" part of the rules.

Side A cannot ever work, as it requires the rule to have no function. Arguing a rule to have no function, and requiring different wording to be used than that written in order to come to this conclusion, is not a particularly safe side to be on.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Sorry you beat me to the answer already.

...
So no, you haven't read what I've been saying, even in the post you quoted.
Does Prescience work with Blasts? Yes or no question. Should be trivial.

Trivial but irrelevant? Which Side, A or B?

The post by Rapture is Side B, we were discussing Side B, and how Side B creates a problem with Master-Crafted.

Side B is very clear the Prescience works with blasts? We ignore the conditionals, and there is only "Whilst the power is in effect," to obtain the Re-Roll.
As for PE, the comma at the end of the line separates it as "if" does in PE: you must meet said condition to obtain the ability to Re-Roll.

Side B doesn't create a problem with Master-Crafted. Do I need to say it differently?

To re-roll using the rules for Master Crafted more than once breaks a rule. Yes or no? The actual rules say yes. Hence, no problem.

 Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, you have the ability to reroll a second time, but if you do you're breaking a rule. Not a Blast rule, an MC rule.
I'm adhering to the entire rule, I'm not sure why you say I'm not. I'm being entirely consistent, your insistence notwithstanding.

This is irrelevant. Unless a model re-rolls a To Hit roll with the Master Crafted weapon, then the ability to re-roll still exists. When firing multiple blasts, a MC weapon can re-roll (through MC and Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) as many scatter dice sets as it desires. In order for the ability to re-roll To Hit dice granted from MC to no longer exist, a model must re-roll a failed To Hit roll with that MC weapon - which is not possible if only firing a blast weapon.

You are refuting this (quite well phrased) statement then?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, you have the ability to reroll a second time, but if you do you're breaking a rule. Not a Blast rule, an MC rule.
I'm adhering to the entire rule, I'm not sure why you say I'm not. I'm being entirely consistent, your insistence notwithstanding.

This is irrelevant. Unless a model re-rolls a To Hit roll with the Master Crafted weapon, then the ability to re-roll still exists. When firing multiple blasts, a MC weapon can re-roll (through MC and Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) as many scatter dice sets as it desires. In order for the ability to re-roll To Hit dice granted from MC to no longer exist, a model must re-roll a failed To Hit roll with that MC weapon - which is not possible if only firing a blast weapon.

You are refuting this (quite well phrased) statement then?

Yes - that statement is wholly incorrect.
The underlined is the basis for the argument.
The issue comes down to availability of a reroll, correct?
I look at MC, see that I have a reroll available, use that reroll to reroll Scatter on a Blast.
Note that I've used the reroll. If I attempt to use it twice I've broken a rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, you have the ability to reroll a second time, but if you do you're breaking a rule. Not a Blast rule, an MC rule.
I'm adhering to the entire rule, I'm not sure why you say I'm not. I'm being entirely consistent, your insistence notwithstanding.

This is irrelevant. Unless a model re-rolls a To Hit roll with the Master Crafted weapon, then the ability to re-roll still exists. When firing multiple blasts, a MC weapon can re-roll (through MC and Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) as many scatter dice sets as it desires. In order for the ability to re-roll To Hit dice granted from MC to no longer exist, a model must re-roll a failed To Hit roll with that MC weapon - which is not possible if only firing a blast weapon.

You are refuting this (quite well phrased) statement then?

Yes - that statement is wholly incorrect.
The underlined is the basis for the argument.
The issue comes down to availability of a reroll, correct?
I look at MC, see that I have a reroll available, use that reroll to reroll Scatter on a Blast.
Note that I've used the reroll. If I attempt to use it twice I've broken a rule.

Indeed it does. The availability of the re-roll is there during the To Hit phase. As the re-roll is available, "Blast Weapons and Re-Rolls" does not care if it is a failed To Hit, if it is one To Hit roll, if it is 20 To Hit rolls, if it is a roll of 1, 2 or 6 etc (the list goes on).

Now that is RaW for Blast Weapons, and what that rule says: You can re-roll all 5 blasts.

Now where in this resolution does the MC rule kick in? because the part of it that says "one failed roll To Hit" is discarded above by the "ignore conditions".
When you are rolling your second blast, you have still not failed one roll To Hit: Master-Crafted still gives you the ability.
Or would you show me what part of the first blast scatter is the "one failed roll To Hit"?

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, you have the ability to reroll a second time, but if you do you're breaking a rule. Not a Blast rule, an MC rule.
I'm adhering to the entire rule, I'm not sure why you say I'm not. I'm being entirely consistent, your insistence notwithstanding.

This is irrelevant. Unless a model re-rolls a To Hit roll with the Master Crafted weapon, then the ability to re-roll still exists. When firing multiple blasts, a MC weapon can re-roll (through MC and Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) as many scatter dice sets as it desires. In order for the ability to re-roll To Hit dice granted from MC to no longer exist, a model must re-roll a failed To Hit roll with that MC weapon - which is not possible if only firing a blast weapon.

You are refuting this (quite well phrased) statement then?

Yes - that statement is wholly incorrect.
The underlined is the basis for the argument.
The issue comes down to availability of a reroll, correct?
I look at MC, see that I have a reroll available, use that reroll to reroll Scatter on a Blast.
Note that I've used the reroll. If I attempt to use it twice I've broken a rule.

Indeed it does. The availability of the re-roll is there during the To Hit phase. As the re-roll is available, "Blast Weapons and Re-Rolls" does not care if it is a failed To Hit, if it is one To Hit roll, if it is 20 To Hit rolls, if it is a roll of 1, 2 or 6 etc (the list goes on).

Now that is RaW for Blast Weapons, and what that rule says: You can re-roll all 5 blasts.

Now where in this resolution does the MC rule kick in? because the part of it that says "one failed roll To Hit" is discarded above by the "ignore conditions".
When you are rolling your second blast, you have still not failed one roll To Hit: Master-Crafted still gives you the ability.
Or would you show me what part of the first blast scatter if the "one failed roll To Hit"?

Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn with that weapon.

We've agreed that any reroll qualifies for a Blast reroll, correct?
So we're allowed to reroll one time per turn, correct?
If you reroll using the MC special rule more than one time per turn, have you rerolled one failed roll?

Seriously - this isn't difficult. The B side is essentially equating any failed To Hit roll with a scatter roll (so things like Prescience work). You're agreeing with that, but refusing to accept it for Master Crafted to attempt to prove a point... why?

rigeld2 wrote:

Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn with that weapon.

We've agreed that any reroll qualifies for a Blast reroll, correct?
So we're allowed to reroll one time per turn, correct?
If you reroll using the MC special rule more than one time per turn, have you rerolled one failed roll?

Seriously - this isn't difficult. The B side is essentially equating any failed To Hit roll with a scatter roll (so things like Prescience work). You're agreeing with that, but refusing to accept it for Master Crafted to attempt to prove a point... why?

No, i'm not agreeing with "equating any failed To Hit roll with a scatter roll" for Side B. Because if it did, then PE requires a failed To Hit roll AND a roll of 1.
Side B, as far as i understood it (and agreed with reasoning) until now, ignores conditionals.

I first thought, as other did, that Side B made PE allowing re-rolls of ALL blasts, including fire at Orks with PE(Tau).
Nos (mainly) then put forward the logical separation that "IF attacking it's Preferred Enemy" was a separate sentence which applied a conditional to the re-roll ability itself.
So "re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1" is only in effect "if attacking its Preferred Enemy"
Just as Prescience:
"the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls." is only in effect when "Whilst the power is in effect"
And MC:
"re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn" is only in effect "Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow (...) with that weapon"

So we're allowed to reroll one time per turn, correct?

We are allowed to reroll "one failed roll To Hit" per turn, correct. If you make a distinction between "one" and "failed" you're giving conditions to the ability.

If you reroll using the MC special rule more than one time per turn, have you rerolled one failed roll?

No we haven't?

rigeld2 wrote:

We've agreed that any reroll qualifies for a Blast reroll, correct?
So we're allowed to reroll one time per turn, correct?
If you reroll using the MC special rule more than one time per turn, have you rerolled one failed roll?

Seriously - this isn't difficult. The B side is essentially equating any failed To Hit roll with a scatter roll (so things like Prescience work). You're agreeing with that, but refusing to accept it for Master Crafted to attempt to prove a point... why?

You are wrong, being rude, and being disingenuous. Quote the rules to support your argument.

Master-crafted: "Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow the bearer to re-roll one failed To Hit per turn with that weapon."

Excerpt from Blast: "When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit."

Therefore, a model firing only a blast weapon, as blast weapons never roll To Hit, can never actually use the Master-crafted rule directly. However, the Master-crafted rule does grant a model the ability to re-roll a To Hit roll. This ability allows for the scatter dice to be re-rolled pursuant to the following:

Blast Weapons and Re-rolls: "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon, the player must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6."

This is all RAW, so I would expect most people to be reasonable about the rule and play according to how you would prefer the rules to interact, but showing that down someone's throat and calling it RAW isn't justified based on what you have presented.

At this point in time, is it safe for me to state once more:
Every single person has a different list of which Special Rules function with Re-Rolling Blast and which ones do not. The fact there can be so many different lists, with so many different lines in the sand as to how X or Y applies to the scenario, proves there can never be a correct interpretation short of Author Mandate. Given that this problem has occurred over how many Editions now, I'm just going to state that it is not a piece of Errata that I will be holding my breath for. As someone whom took no part in this discussion, and has seen it far to many times to find it to be interesting, I will request that a moderator to close this topic once more for another day as it undoubtedly will occur.

Any problem with me doing so?

JinxDragon wrote:
I will request that a moderator to close this topic once more for another day as it undoubtedly will occur.

Any problem with me doing so?

None at all, I agree with this conclusion.