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.

A RAW v RAI and fluff discussion started on the B&C forums, Black Templars section.

"can always re-roll their rolls to hit in close combat against their preferred enemy"

Unlike twin-linked, master crafted, signum, lightning claws, and feel no pain (and probably other abilities and weapons from other races) which specifically mention and require failure to re-roll, Preferred Enemy does not. So, in a situation where the destruction of your enemy in close combat will lead to your own destruction in the subsequent shooting phase....

Can you re-roll your hits in an effort to MISS, remain in close combat, and increase your survivability???

I say yes, though some say "cheese!" Thoughts?

Edit: Added "can" though it doesn't actually effect this discussion. Even if you always have to roll, you may still re-roll your hits. That is the question.

Edit: Removed twin linked template.

bigduncm24 wrote:
A RAW v RAI and fluff discussion started on the B&C forums, Black Templars section.

"always re-roll their rolls to hit in close combat against their preferred enemy"

Unlike twin-linked, master crafted, signum, lightning claws, twin linked blast, and feel no pain (and probably other abilities and weapons from other races) which specifically mention and require failure to re-roll, Preferred Enemy does not. So, in a situation where the destruction of your enemy in close combat will lead to your own destruction in the subsequent shooting phase....

Can you re-roll your hits in an effort to MISS, remain in close combat, and increase your survivability???

I say yes, though some say "cheese!" Thoughts?

I don't have a BT codex - does it give them the Preferred Enemy rule, specifically? If so, I'd say you could re-roll what you'd like. Fluff-wise, you might imagine a marines overwhelming a unit of fire warriors or something and their captain comes on the comm commanding them to leave one alive for questioning. You get my drift. The rule for Preferred Enemy says just what you posted above, so I'd say you could re-roll whichever you'd like.

To answer your question, no. It makes no sense. If they always re-roll, then you have to roll the dice twice and take the second result, every time. If you do that in a game, your opponent will likely take pity on you and let you roll it once. You obviously can't re-roll your hits in an effort to miss any more than you can re-roll your misses in an attempt to hit, if this is the way you want to play it. To borrow a phrase from kirsanth, the point is moot (or in his case, not moot).

EDIT:
Having read the codex, and having found out that it references the USR (not, in fact, a special BT version of PE) and having looked up the USR, I have discovered that you left out the word "can" which makes the sentence quite different.

Kitzz wrote:To answer your question, no. It makes no sense. If they always re-roll, then you have to roll the dice twice and take the second result, every time. If you do that in a game, your opponent will likely take pity on you and let you roll it once. You obviously can't re-roll your hits in an effort to miss any more than you can re-roll your misses in an attempt to hit, if this is the way you want to play it. To borrow a phrase from kirsanth, the point is moot (or in his case, not moot).

It doesn't say "must". It says "can".

Yup, its optional. And in this case you can re-roll successful hits.

RAW is subjective. RAI is clear. The Black Templar do not take Xenos prisoners. Crusader squads aim to inflict maximum damage. They aren't trying to stay in combat longer. Doing it for this reason is extremely gamey.

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:RAW is subjective. RAI is clear. The Black Templar do not take Xenos prisoners. Crusader squads aim to inflict maximum damage. They aren't trying to stay in combat longer. Doing it for this reason is extremely gamey.

Maybe they got REALLY angry at the xenos for kicking sand in their face and then laughing as the xenos' bulging pectorals heaved up and down that in their fury they end up flailing while held at arms length by the much larger and more manly aliens?

If you need a fluff explanation that is.

Templars are zealous about killing Xenos in hand to hand, but it does not mention how quickly they must kill them. If it makes sense tactically, wouldn't they "stall" close combat to draw another enemy closer, or give them better odds to kill another foe in hand to hand when the timing seemed right? I think it works fluff wise. Now if it were Space Wolves, probably not. They are so feral their brains have shrunk.... but Templars are not so zealous that they don't play smart.

And that view of Templars is definitely up to the player.

Another TFG BS query.

G

If Slaanesh had preferred enemy it would be fluffy to let them reroll hits.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Another TFG BS query.

G

Helpful, polite, and on topic. Nice.

Anyhow.
Twin-linked (amoung other rules) specify that only misses can be re-rolled. PE has no such restrictions.
RAW is clear. The rules are not the same, and the same restriction do not apply.

Tactical decision making is allowed without that restriction.

kirsanth wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Another TFG BS query.

G

Helpful, polite, and on topic. Nice.

Anyhow.
Twin-linked (amoung other rules) specify that only misses can be re-rolled. PE has no such restrictions.
RAW is clear. The rules are not the same, and the same restriction do not apply.

Tactical decision making is allowed without that restriction.

The funny thing about twin linked though is the Template Weapon rules, which state "Twin-linked template weapons are fired just like a single weapon, but they can re-roll the dice to wound." This line is so ambiguous it is not even funny. It could mean:
You may re-roll the failed "To Wound" Rolls.
You may re-roll all "To Wound Rolls", successful ones included.
You can re-roll "the dice" (NB: Dice in British English is Plural) or not re-roll "The Dice". i.e. You may re-roll all the dice, or none of the dice.

Gwar! wrote: (NB: Dice in British English is Plural)

I beg to differ.

Read the rest of the book, "Dice" is used in singular as well as plural, and is used so in modern standard english as such.

ex. page 2. ROLLING A d3 "a three-sided dice"

editing to add: I am referencing Oxford. (OED or AskOxford)

kirsanth wrote:

Gwar! wrote: (NB: Dice in British English is Plural)

I beg to differ.

Read the rest of the book, "Dice" is used in singular as well as plural, and is used so in modern standard english as such.

ex. page 2. ROLLING A d3"a three-sided dice"

Not my fault GW cannot write English. But it is a moot point anyway because this is about Preferred enemy, not twin linked <zing>

I stand corrected on the twin linked template rules. Scratch that from my previous example.

Or I'll just edit it out.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Another TFG BS query.

G

Er, lets avoid throwing around a term that is very much akin to a match to gasoline, OK?

I don't see anything in this thread that would warrant that particular label being applied.

Before this deflates any further, look at what "reroll" means in the BGB! "A reroll is exactly what it sounds like - pick up the dice you wish to reroll and roll them again" I believe is the quote. regardless if I can or must reroll a die, I still have the option of rolling it according to the book, because reroll doesn't mean picking up a die and rolling it again, it means I have the option of picking up a die and rolling it again. If you disagree, read the little bit about it.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Before this deflates any further, look at what "reroll" means in the BGB! "A reroll is exactly what it sounds like - pick up the dice you wish to reroll and roll them again" I believe is the quote. regardless if I can or must reroll a die, I still have the option of rolling it according to the book, because reroll doesn't mean picking up a die and rolling it again, it means I have the option of picking up a die and rolling it again. If you disagree, read the little bit about it.

But the issue - as I read it - is whether the successful rolls are available to be rerolled at all. Which for PE reads as "Yes", being that there are not the restrictions given to other such rules that prevent it (See: Twin Linked for text refering to rerolling only failed rolls).

What about "Fire on my Target!"? What about perils of the warp with invulnerable saves? Granted, these both say "must," but I think the template re-rolls also are an issue that implies a "must."

NOTE:
Not "implied" to mean "intended" but rather "tense-implied."

kirsanth wrote:But the issue - as I read it - is whether the successful rolls are available to be rerolled at all. Which for PE reads as "Yes", being that there are not the restrictions given to other such rules that prevent it (See: Twin Linked for text refering to rerolling only failed rolls).

My point is that, let's say, Warptime, would go something like this:

1) I use Warptime.
2) I can now reroll "all rolls to hit and to wound."
3) By the rulebook definition, since "it's exactly as it sounds - I can pick up and roll which dice I wish to roll again," I pick the dice I want and reroll them.

'Reroll' in a rule in a codex references the definition of 'reroll' in the rulebook the way it's worded. The definition of a die being rerollable in the book is that I may reroll it if I wish. The block, I believe at least, amkes it pretty clear that I could choose to fail some hits if I wanted. That's barring anything telling me I can only reroll failed rolls. I do believe if you could only "reroll failed wounds," and you failed three wounds, you could choose just to actually pick up and reroll two dice if you wanted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: That "must" is an interesting point. Seems like the rule would break itself the way I interpret it then. All I can really say is how I would play it which doesn't count for much, but I'd interpret "must" rerolls as not what you wish, even though they in theory should be.

Please do not use Warptime as an example (even though we may agree). Last time I brought up Warptime stating "must" I was flamed - and that was in a thread about Warptime.



The rules in question do not state "must" or "failed" - so to restrict the player as such is uncalled for.

I loved that thread All that build up for nothing

bigduncm24 wrote:
Can you re-roll your hits in an effort to MISS, remain in close combat, and increase your survivability???

I say yes, though some say "cheese!" Thoughts?

Can you, yes...however very much the gouda cheese IMO, and if you like playing with actual people...I would suggest leaving that out lol

If it really says ALWAYS REROLL TO HIT, then clearly GW has just tatooted "Half ASSED MFers" on their foreheads. That is just blatant bad writing and editing. DO they even have editors, or do they let any half drunken Englishman just write whatever they want.

smart_alex wrote:If it really says ALWAYS REROLL TO HIT, then clearly GW has just tatooted "Half ASSED MFers" on their foreheads. That is just blatant bad writing and editing. DO they even have editors, or do they let any half drunken Englishman just write whatever they want.

We now have a culprit. That is the man you want to blame for all the bad writing. ALthough he looks more irish. Thats OK. mOst irish people live in America now.

Sorry, did the best I could on short notice =) I certainly agree with you though, a decent editor and continuity manager would do a lot for all of their published material. Fluff and rules.

Maybe the writer just expected us to know better. I don't all the blame should be placed on the person who wrote the rules. For example terminators now must use their power fist in assault, that tells me something right there. It's only an inference but I can definitely see the correlation.

G

Of course they can re-roll successes. It's exactly like Doom. The power, not the game. I've never re-rolled a bullet.