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.

Albatross wrote:Under current rules, that is what an 'automatic hit' with a blast template means.... what else would it mean?

It could mean nothing.

The rulebook FAQ has an entry that covers codex rules that refer to things that don't exist under the 5th edition rules, and tells us to ignore them.

So in this case, as far as I can see, you have two options:
1: Count the 'automatically hits' as referring to the scatter roll. This runs into problems with 5th edition terminology, since rolling a 'hit' result on the scatter die is not referred to by the Blast rules as a 'Hit'... it is instead referred to as the shot landing 'on target'.
or
2: Treat it as an artefact of 4th edition and ignore it. In which case the power is treated as a normal Blast weapon. Which runs into problems with scattering, as mentioned earlier in the thread.

Puts it pretty much into the 'Discuss it with your opponent' camp, in my book.

Except that it is referred to as a 'hit.'

p30, 4th paragraph: "a hit symbol"
p30, 9th paragraph: "number of hits"*
p30, Inset Diagram: "The Space Marine player rolled a hit"
p30, 12th paragraph: "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls to hit"


The diagram and the ability to re-roll rolls to hit with a blast answer this definitively-- you still roll to hit with blast weapons, but you don't use a standard d6. Instead, you place the blast marker and then roll a scatter die-- one of the results of which is a hit.

A weapon that hits automatically, and is a blast, does not scatter.

kartofelkopf wrote:Except that it is referred to as a 'hit.'

p30, 4th paragraph: "a hit symbol"
p30, 9th paragraph: "number of hits"*
p30, Inset Diagram: "The Space Marine player rolled a hit"

None of these are referring to the blast landing on target as a hit.

The first is referring to rolling a hit on the scatter die. It mentions specifically that this means the shot is 'on target' ... not that it is a 'hit'. You roll a hit on the die in order for the shot to be on target.

The second is referring to what happens after the Blast is placed. It's not referring to the Blast 'hitting', it's referring to models under the Blast being hit. A Blast automatically hits the number of models under it regardless of whether or not the weapon 'hits' automatically, so this has no bearing on the problem at hand.

The third is once again referring to the face of the scatter die.


This, however:

p30, 12th paragraph: "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls to hit"

...if you read the entire section, actually does make a valid point. That section doesn't say that if a model can reroll hits that it can choose to re-roll the scatter ... it simply tells you how the scatter is re-rolled if you choose to do so.

Which, while not being an explicit rule allowing it, is certainly an indication of how the writer intended it to be played. Sort of falls into the same area as putting units into non-dedicated transports on deployment or in Reserves... it's not explicitly allowed, but the rules assume that you can do so.


It's certainly good enough for me.

I'm still of the opinion that the first and third are explicit enough, in that it specifically calls the roll a 'hit.' Blast weapons still roll 'to hit' but they use a different die. The terminology used in the diagram, for example, is identical to that used in the example paragraph from p17.


The second one was supposed to have a disclaimer with it (hence the * after) but I was a bit quick on the draw for posting-- it probably is a spurious reference.


Either way, I do think the 4th pretty much lays to rest any RAW argument against auto-hits, as being forced to re-roll both the scatter and the distance when choosing to re-roll to hit is a certain indication that the choice to re-roll 'to hit' means that the scatter die is a 'to hit' roll.

kartofelkopf wrote:I'm still of the opinion that the first and third are explicit enough, in that it specifically calls the roll a 'hit.'

It uses the word 'hit' because that's the result on the scatter die. It explicitly says, though, that the result of rolling a 'hit' is that the shot is 'on target', not that the shot is a hit. So you're not rolling 'to hit'... you're rolling to determine if the shot is 'on target'.

It's confusing terminology, thanks to GW's habit of using common words for multiple things. But it's ultimately the same as any other dice roll. The facing side of the die is the result of the roll, not the name of the resultant action. Rolling a 6 when shooting with a bolter is a 'hit', not a '6'. You rolled a 6, and scored a hit. With a Blast, you roll a hit, and score an 'on target shot'.

Which may seem like pointless semantics, but it's going towards explaining why the rule works as it does.

Either way, I do think the 4th pretty much lays to rest any RAW argument against auto-hits, as being forced to re-roll both the scatter and the distance when choosing to re-roll to hit is a certain indication that the choice to re-roll 'to hit' means that the scatter die is a 'to hit' roll.

It doesn't do anything to the RAW argument. Telling you what to do if you do something does not in itself grant permission to do that thing in the first place.

It's an indication of RAI though, which will be enough for most players.

My understanding was that the process for firing went:

a) Determine LOS/firing eligibility
b) Fire
c) Place blast marker
d) Roll 'to hit' (by way of scatter die)-- determine if the shot hits or scatters [re-roll or auto-hit as applicable]
e) score 'hits' (in the sense of 'potential wounds') based on final location of blast
f) roll to wound
g) etc....


Firing a regular weapon follows a similar procedure:
a) Determine LOS/firing eligibility
b) Fire
c) Roll 'to hit' by rolling a die [this 'to hit' is a specific die facing as well-- it just happens to vary based on BS]-- re-rolling/auto-hitting as applicable
d) score 'hits' (in the sense of potential wounds) based on number of successful rolls
e) roll to wound
f) etc...

Rolling 'to hit' and scoring hits are two different mechanics-- one is the result of the other. The blast marker's scatter die determines 'to hit' while the blast marker's location determines scored hits.

With regular shooting, the two mechanics are determined with a single step-- rolling 'to hit' and then immediately scoring a 'hit' for each successful 'roll to hit.'

GW does use the same word for two mechanics, but the alternative would be rolling 'to hit' followed by tallying number of 'on targets' or other clunky language.

kartofelkopf wrote:My understanding was that the process for firing went:

a) Determine LOS/firing eligibility
b) Fire
c) Place blast marker
d) Roll 'to hit' (by way of scatter die)-- determine if the shot hits or scatters [re-roll or auto-hit as applicable]

This is where you're going wrong, and what I've been trying to explain.

If you check the actual rules for Blasts, you'll see that it doesn't refer to that roll as a 'To Hit' roll. It says you roll to see where the shot lands, and a successful shot is not referred to as a 'Hit'... it's referred to as 'on target'.


If you're shooting a bolter and need a 6 to hit, a roll of a 6 does not mean that your shot 'sixed' the target. It hit the target, because the roll you were making was a 'to hit' roll. The result is a 6. The outcome is a hit.

If you're shooting a frag missile, rolling a 'hit' on the scatter die likewise does not mean that your shot 'hit' the target. It landed 'on target' because the roll you were making was a roll to determine whether the shot lands on target. The result is a hit. The outcome is an on target shot.
(In a similar fashion, rolling an arrow on the die doesn't mean the shot 'arrowed'... The result is an arrow, the outcome is a scattered shot.)

Whether it's 'on target' or not, a Blast scores hits for each model under the marker. You don't roll to hit... You roll to determine whether or not the shot is on target, and they're hit automatically by being under the marker.

But the mechanic is still a 'to hit' roll (as seen in the examples cited).

"The Space Marine player rolled a hit, ... scoring three hits on the Ork unit."

"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."

Clearly, a model firing a blast weapon with a re-roll to hit (twin-linking, etc...) may re-roll his 'to hit' die (i.e., the scatter die) but also must re-roll the distance scattered.

p31 under twin-linking says "may re-roll the dice to hit if you miss (including twin-linked blast weapons)"

If the scatter die isn't a 'to hit' roll, then what is the rule on p31 referencing?

(an aside: I get that you agree the RAI point-- not trying to be obstinate, but thorough, in continuing the discussion)

kartofelkopf wrote:But the mechanic is still a 'to hit' roll (as seen in the examples cited).

"The Space Marine player rolled a hit, ... scoring three hits on the Ork unit."

The roll (as laid out in the Blast section) is not a roll to hit. The roll is a roll to see if it lands 'on target'. The Space Marine player rolled a hit on the scatter die. The shot lands on target, which scores 3 hits. There was no 'to hit' roll. Just the 'on target' roll. The roll of a hit on the scatter die gives an 'on target' result, which automatically hits the models under the marker. No 'to hit' roll was made.

"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."

Again, this does not define the scatter roll as a 'to hit' roll. It simply says that if they have the ability to re-roll hits, and if they want to do so where a Blast weapon is concerned, they re-roll the scatter and distance dice instead.

p31 under twin-linking says "may re-roll the dice to hit if you miss (including twin-linked blast weapons)"

That's a better proof. Although it's also a wonderful example of GW's inconsistent wording, given the wording of the actual Blast section.

(an aside: I get that you agree the RAI point-- not trying to be obstinate, but thorough, in continuing the discussion)

All good here. Whilst I'm sure that there are at least a few lurkers rolling their eyes at the last page of discussion, it can be good to thrash out the why of a grey area, so it's clear as to why a given interpretation is made. The right answer for the wrong reason can be every bit as much a game-stopper as the wrong answer, since an opponent will quite often want to see the rule that backs up your version of how it works.

I think the twin-linked quote seals it for me, though. It would certainly seem that they intended the scatter roll to count as a 'to hit' roll. They just suck at consistent rules writing.


Edit: Of course, it occurs to me that a RAW argument could be made that the twin-linked bit is actually meaningless, since according to the Blast rules they don't roll to hit... so a rule allowing twin-linked Blasts to re-roll their to hit roll does nothing... But it's too late at night for that sort of nonsense, so I'm not going there...

insaniak wrote:
I think the twin-linked quote seals it for me, though. It would certainly seem that they intended the scatter roll to count as a 'to hit' roll. They just suck at consistent rules writing.

Exactly, which is why I said it Frazzle could be interpreted to mean different things. And why I prefer Insaniak's courteous and reasoned argument to, ahem, 'other' people's. My point was that, in the context of 5th Ed, the meaning seems to change slightly. It says 'hitting automatically', which in 4th meant it succesfully 'hits' and rolls to scatter. In the context of 5th it doesn't mean 'nothing happens, ignore this rule', because that is not what is written. Basic structuralism means the sentence now signifies something different.

For example:

Take 'Waaagh!' for instance - current rules mean that units count as having 'Fleet of Foot' for one turn, meaning they can move, 'run' in the shooting phase, then assault in the assault phase. This means they roll a D6 in the shooting phase to determine how far they 'run', correct? What if this changes in 6th Ed? What if 'run' means something different in a newer edition of the rules? If instead of rolling a D6, you just move 6 inches in the shooting phase - what does that mean for 'Waaaagh!'? Well, it means you apply the new meaning of the 'Run' rule, surely? Anything else is RAI.
In the context of 5th, an 'automatic hit' with a blast can really only be interpreted as a 'hit' result on a scatter dice, because rolling for scatter would be the only 'non-automatic' hit in the whole exchange. The words 'automatically' and 'hit' are the operative words in the rule, so taking it from a RAW standpoint that's the conclusion I reach. Sure, it means that the power is pretty different now - but them's the breaks.

Lol, not again!!

The others debates (i think we had one on eldritch storm and one on thunderclap) were very annoying as they just dragged on, and i dont want to have another one, sorry to be a killjoy!! Just look at the other threads about this type of thing.

On the subject, i think that if it has a profile then it will scatter, if it doesnt then it won't scatter.

You know what, Ive thought on this hole rule deal since I last posted on here. I agree with Albatross on how the rule works. Sure the way its written doesnt really mesh well with the rules as a whole. I stopped thinking about it being originally a 4th edition codex, because now its in 5th edition.

So in saying that, Im changing my answer to, if it says automatically hits, then you count the scatter roll as an automatic hit. It doesnt matter that in 4th "what it was meant to be used as" shouldnt count anymore. In 5th, you dont roll to hit with blast weapons, you roll to scatter. And as such, the scatter roll counts as an auto hit. *braces for GWARs argument*

Eldar Own wrote:The others debates (i think we had one on eldritch storm and one on thunderclap) were very annoying as they just dragged on, and i dont want to have another one, sorry to be a killjoy!!

Cool, don't post on this thread then. Problem solved.
It's just a discussion of a contentious issue - if the MODs (including the one who has been posting) had a problem with this thread they would have locked it down by now.

I see no-one brining up deff-rollas here.

ARRGH!

kartofelkopf, look, you are not correct. Just because it is called something similar, does not make it the same.

The blast rules even call the target marker on the scatter dice a "hit" symbol. And so you literally do roll to "hit" with a scatter dice, it just so happens you only have 2 "hit" symbols on the scatter dice and the rest is scattering.

I think this follows along the lines of not being fundamentally RAW tight. But neither does nearly 1/3 of the rules written in the no kidding 5th edition Space Wolf codex and yet we play it as "intended" too (i.e. Bjorn's rule, Thunder wolf bonuses, etc...).

If the Frazzle rule says you auto hit then what could that possibly mean other than you hit where intended, or in other words rolled enough to "hit" either with the scatter "hit" or whatever is required when rolling a different dice.

EDIT: its amazing to see certain people take something that is so unbelievable obvious and turn it on it's head.

Rolling a scatter die can result in rolling a "hit".
Rolling a scatter die is not rolling "to hit".
This is true regardless of what the result of the dice are.

See the second sentence of page 30, "When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit".

So, I can reroll "to hit" rolls with a scatter die...

... but it's not a 'to hit' roll.

Gotcha.

kartofelkopf wrote:So, I can reroll "to hit" rolls with a scatter die...

... but it's not a 'to hit' roll.

Gotcha.

No, you cannot re-roll "To hit" rolls with a scatter die, because you never roll to hit.

However, the Blast rules state that if you are able to re-roll "to hit" with a blast weapon (say, due to being Twin Linked), you instead re-roll the scatter dice.

And for the record, snarky comments like that are frowned upon, especially when they are wrong.

Gwar! wrote:And for the record, snarky comments like that are frowned upon

True, which is why you're often frowned upon.

Gwar! wrote:No, you cannot re-roll "To hit" rolls with a scatter die, because you never roll to hit.

However, the Blast rules state that if you are able to re-roll "to hit" with a blast weapon (say, due to being Twin Linked), you instead re-roll the scatter dice.

Actually it never says anything of the like, there is no word "instead" in any relation to any of the rules for twin linked blast weapons. In fact the only place I found it was in the beginning of firing the blast weapon without it being twin-linked.

that statement is not correct Gwar!

In fact the exact quote has already been posted here and is found on page 31 under the heading "Twin-linked" second paragraph. In which the paragraph specifically states that you re-roll "to hit" "including twin-linked blast weapons" (These are exact quotes unlike the word"instead"). How can this possibly be ignored?

In fact the closest thing to Gwar!'s interpretation is located on page 30 under Blast weapons and re-rolls and it only reinforces the statement found on page 31 by stating if there is a solid relationship on re-rolls "to hit" and "re-roll the scatter dice and the 2D6" creating an exact connection to how To hit modifiers effect the Scatter. How is the relation to To hit and scatter ignored here?

answer: I am sure all of you can fathom a reason.

In fact the ability to "hit" units is explained all throughout the rules for blast weapons. Example " ...And can hit units out of range and sight..." and " all models whose bases are completely or partially covered by the blast marker are hit" these are all found within the blast rules themselves. So if a blast weapon has the ability to actually "hit units" does it not also have the ability to miss them...well blast rules "if the shot scatters so that the hole in the center of the marker is beyond the table's edge, the shot is a complete miss...". The rules themselves describe the way a blast is used as hits and misses. And the Frazzle rule itself tells us to center the blast over the ork in question and "auto-hits". As described in the blast rules hits are only hits after the final placement of the blast marker. So if the codex says auto-hits then, we must agree that the placement of the marker is indeed final.

Gwar! wrote:And for the record, snarky comments like that are frowned upon, especially when they are wrong.

Kettle meet pot.

simply put the answer is beyond obvious. If anyone denies it then the same person can deny Bjorn's rule as well and even have a leg to stand on in many rules found in the 5th edition space wolf codex in which I don't see any certain persons making strict RAW arguments against, but play it civilly in which is intended.

For the record, I actually do "deny" Bjorn his save, because I like playing by the rules.

Also Note that I am not some Bandwagon Fair Weather SW Player, but have been playing them exclusively for 11 years now.

Also, padixon, how can you even begin to claim that what you say is in any way correct, when THE VERY FIRST LINE OF RULES for Blast Weapons is "When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit"?

Well, apologies for the snark-- your violation of the tenets of YMDC just brings out my most pleasant side. Either way, let's leave moderation to the moderators, hey?

I was just restating the thrust of the thread, to wit, that a scatter roll is affected by rules that affect "to hit" rolls. Your original position, that scatter != to hit is, at least as far as the rules are concerned, wholly inaccurate.

Call it what you will, but a scatter roll is a 'to hit' roll in everything but name. Scatter rolls can 'hit' automatically and can be 'twin linked' (netting a re-roll of the scatter die), per the RAW.

@Gwar! as you can see in my standing statements I was not referring to rolling to hit in my main stance. In fact the rule book itself shows a clear distinction and at the same time a clear connection as already shown. So by RAW the blast does roll to hit and it doesn't roll to hit. In which case if you are a good debater than you must agree those statements cancel each other out and neither can be relied upon for further discussion. However I do summit the next point.

My main point was the fact that you do "hit" with blast weapons and if you can "hit" then you can surely "auto-hit" in which case according to the blast rules, the placement of the blast marker is final as that is the only time a "hit" is scored. And the fact you do place the marker over the ork and it does "auto hit" then the marker placement is already finalized.

Having read through this entire thread, I can certainly see why people roll their eyes heavenwards when discussions like this crop up. Whatever you all say and whatever you all argue for and against, however well reasoned that argument is, unless you have a direct tap into the Codex author's brain you will be arguing until blue in the face. For what it's worth, I agree with Albatross and think that the intended working of the power (given that the mechanics of blast have changed) is basically saying that the power cannot scatter. That's how I would play it but whatever you would choose would probably result in a lengthy discussion with your opponent.

kartofelkopf wrote:Call it what you will, but a scatter roll is a 'to hit' roll in everything but name.

This is where you logic fails.
The blast rules list an "instead" to let you know what is done instead of using "to hit". Yes, twin linked mention blast weapons, as without the parenthetical, TL blast does nothing different than any other blast weapon. So twin linked allows you reroll to hits. Blast do not roll to hit, instead rolling scatter. Since the twin linked rules say that blast weapons also get a re roll, you reroll scatter dice instead of the to hit dice.

Simple.

I shot at you. My shot scattered 1". You are under the template still. Therefore, I HIT you. So if it automatically hits...wow you guys should be in politics.

Norvin Invasion wrote:I shot at you. My shot scattered 1". You are under the template still. Therefore, I HIT you. So if it automatically hits...wow you guys should be in politics.

Yes, well done in completely ignoring the actual issue.

And you say WE should be in politics? Also, how the hell are you getting Template to Scatter (outside of Apoc, which I don't play so for all I know there might be)?

Someone else already made my point.

Edited for nevermind.

Gwar! wrote:

Norvin Invasion wrote:I shot at you. My shot scattered 1". You are under the template still. Therefore, I HIT you. So if it automatically hits...wow you guys should be in politics.

Yes, well done in completely ignoring the actual issue.

And you say WE should be in politics? Also, how the hell are you getting Template to Scatter (outside of Apoc, which I don't play so for all I know there might be)?

Oh cmon GWAR you know what hes talking about. Template, marker, BLAST TEMPLATE *mwahahahaA* Stop being a stick in the mud........ what the hell does that even mean? *going to google that one

Q. Is it possible to be a model to be 'hit' by a blast template?
A. Yes.

Q. How?
A. If all or part of the model is underneath the blast template.

Q.How does this normally occur?
A. Example: Player A fires a frag missile at one of Player Bs units. Player A places blast template over intended target, then rolls for scatter. If the result is 'hit', the template does not move. If the result is an arrow, the templete scatters. Subsequently, any models under the template are hit.

Q. In this context, what do the words 'automatically hit' mean?
A. '...'



It's an interpretation. That's all I'm saying.