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.

Fatewiever's ability only allows the re-rolling of D6s. So it could be used for one of the D6s in a scatter roll, but not for the scatter dice. I don't see the confusion.

More specific trumps, so that stuff about ignoring internal restrictions (ie: saying PE gives re-roll for Blast) is out.

It's extremely clear that you cannot roll a 1 in a scatter roll, so PE can never work with Blast. You can't just ignore rules.

All things point to the scatter dice. The only logical thing to do is decide that the "hit" on 2 of the 6 sides is a "hit" and an arrow is a "failed To Hit". This clears up everything.

Which is why it would be nice if the Rules actually stated that failing to roll the 'Hit' icon on the Scatter dice counts as a 'failed To Hit....'

It sure would be.

 Kavish wrote:
Twin linked also requires a "failed to hit roll".

"Twin linked blast weapons: if the scatter dice does not roll a hit..."

Twin Linked has special rules to deal with blasts specifically because they do not roll to hit.
You cannot (as in, you have no rules basis) equate a scatter dice with a To Hit roll.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
Twin linked also requires a "failed to hit roll".

"Twin linked blast weapons: if the scatter dice does not roll a hit..."

Twin Linked has special rules to deal with blasts specifically because they do not roll to hit.
You cannot (as in, you have no rules basis) equate a scatter dice with a To Hit roll.

Then why would they bother with the "Blast weapons and re-rolls" section if it didn't do anything? Nothing has the ability to simply re-roll To Hit, it's always "re-roll FAILED To Hit".

 Kavish wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
It's not necro when the last post was 4 days ago. Hopefully I have stated it in a way that makes it clear. I don't see how anyone could seriously argue against it.

Because the actual rule states "ability". Given you can never roll to hit with a blast, your reasoning is flawed from the start.
That's just two ways.

It's rude to not at least read the thread before appending your rule less opinion to it, and is against the tenets

If you read the twin linked rule, it's clear that the scatter dice determines a hit or not. Side B is irrefutably wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I read enough. I'm not going to read all 400 odd posts. If you did, you need a life.

Reported, oh, and you should look up what "refute" means, as you haven't supplied a shred of evidence to support that statement

JinxDragon wrote:
Do you not find it interesting that Twin Linked is worded the way it is, creating a way for the Re-Roll to trigger outside of a To Hit roll?
Almost as if Twin Link needed a specific a clause in order to address the fact Scatter dice do not roll To Hit....

The idea of "one rule works in all situations" is already flawed and trying to apply the same logic to all cases just fails.

I would not even try to put the different situations under one umbrella, but look at them individually.

Can TL let me reroll a missed blast/scatter? Yes, as the rule says so.
Could PE let me do the same? I'm not sure, but I would allow it.

etc.. The rules are complicated already and trying to cover all cases just causes more confusion.

Maybe you should look it up. If you refute, you need evidence. Saying something is irrefutable requires none.

Why don't you look at the more recent posts. I think we concluded rather well. It's not explicitly stated that a hit (or not) on the scatter dice represents a success (or fail) To Hit when it comes to Blast weapons, but it's pretty damn obvious considering the "re-rolls and and blast weapons" section. It's GW man. You can't expect the rules to be all concise like MTG or something. (Btw the MTG official rules are many hundreds of pages long and very dry reading.)

 Kavish wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
Twin linked also requires a "failed to hit roll".

"Twin linked blast weapons: if the scatter dice does not roll a hit..."

Twin Linked has special rules to deal with blasts specifically because they do not roll to hit.
You cannot (as in, you have no rules basis) equate a scatter dice with a To Hit roll.

Then why would they bother with the "Blast weapons and re-rolls" section if it didn't do anything? Nothing has the ability to simply re-roll To Hit, it's always "re-roll FAILED To Hit".

So as written, Twin Linked is the only ability that works. It's almost like this thread said that pages ago. Didn't you read it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kavish wrote:
You can't expect the rules to be all concise like MTG or something. (Btw the MTG official rules are many hundreds of pages long and very dry reading.)

Well, I can.
And the MTG rules *can* be summarized quickly and only referred to in edge cases (mostly to do with time stamps and the stack). And I enjoy reading them - obviously YMMV.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kavish wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
Twin linked also requires a "failed to hit roll".

"Twin linked blast weapons: if the scatter dice does not roll a hit..."

Twin Linked has special rules to deal with blasts specifically because they do not roll to hit.
You cannot (as in, you have no rules basis) equate a scatter dice with a To Hit roll.

Then why would they bother with the "Blast weapons and re-rolls" section if it didn't do anything? Nothing has the ability to simply re-roll To Hit, it's always "re-roll FAILED To Hit".

So as written, Twin Linked is the only ability that works. It's almost like this thread said that pages ago. Didn't you read it?

No, as written a model can choose to use any rule granting it the ability to re-roll to hit for a shooting attack to re-roll a blast.

It's almost like I paraphrased the exact rule we're discussing.

 Kavish wrote:

I read enough. I'm not going to read all 400 odd posts. If you did, you need a life.

Willful ignorance followed by a boring, defensive insult? Good for you.

Perhaps this is why you have added literally nothing to the discussion.

I defended this threat on the basis that it had some reasonably novel points and hadn't degraded into a waste of space. I was wrong. Reading your posts and trying to figure out how they could make sense in the context of the present discussion was my penance. A minimal effort is all that is asked of you. You could have at least read the first two pages and the last two pages. You probably would have found your opinion already represented and the difficulty of the content isn't exactly on bar with a organic chemistry textbook.

This should be locked.

 Kavish wrote:
Maybe you should look it up. If you refute, you need evidence. Saying something is irrefutable requires none.

Why don't you look at the more recent posts. I think we concluded rather well. It's not explicitly stated that a hit (or not) on the scatter dice represents a success (or fail) To Hit when it comes to Blast weapons, but it's pretty damn obvious considering the "re-rolls and and blast weapons" section. It's GW man. You can't expect the rules to be all concise like MTG or something. (Btw the MTG official rules are many hundreds of pages long and very dry reading.)

Ah no, you need evidence of this. Otherwise by refuting you, which was done during this thread at every turn, you just look foolish. Of course jumping in , not reading anything in the thread and repeating the same refuted argument as if it is irrefutable ...well, it's not a great start.

I indisputably gave the ABILITY to Reroll my to hit, if I were rolling a to hit. Hence I can do so. Done

Your concession is accepted.

I want to apologize to you, Rapture.
It was refreshing to see someone enjoying this thread....

JinxDragon wrote:
I want to apologize to you, Rapture.
It was refreshing to see someone enjoying this thread....

Enjoying it? Nah... you just got trolled.