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.

"If a model has the ability..."

This does not say 'could have the ability', it does require the model actually has the ability at the time.

"...to re-roll its rolls To Hit..."

This part is not specific. It does not say all or always therefore any reroll To Hit counts. As defined in page 5 of the BRB This is any ability that lets you pick up the dice and roll again conjoined with the defined To Hit roll procedures on pages 13 and 24 of the BRB.

Put together, this means if the model has the ability to pick and reroll dice on any To Hit roll

" ...and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon, the player must reroll both the scatter dice and the 2D6."

Add to the previous the condition that you must choose to do so as permitted by the stated rule. Regardless of the fact that no To Hit rule is made it gives you the option to exorcise your reroll To Hit ability outside of its normal constraints and in so doing you will reroll scatter.

Note that there are zero abilities that, themselves, allow you to reroll a To Hit roll where no To Hit roll is made. For this rule to be functional at all it must allow you to exercise the models ability to reroll regardless of the abilities conditions of normal use.

Well your first 4 lines are correct. Then it all starts to fall apart. Starting with:

"It does not say all or always therefore any reroll To Hit counts. "

Sorry why? It doesn't say any, or some therefore you must have the ability to reroll all to count. See how the reverse argument is exactly the same. As this is a permissive ruleset you need specific permission to do stuff. Does this give specific permission for ANY reroll to count? Also you only have the ability to reroll to hit rolls if you roll 1s (or misses) so even by this definition you don't have the ability to reroll to hit. Unless again you are redefining it to ability to reroll to hit under any conditions. In which case everyone gets rerolls all the time.

The next part is true a reroll is something that let's you reroll the dice.

"put together, this means if the model has the ability to pick and reroll dice on ALL To Hit rolls"

FTFY as your interpretation was based of an incorrect or at least incomplete first premise.

Add to the previous the condition that you must choose to do so as permitted by the stated rule. Regardless of the fact that no To Hit rule is made it gives you the option to exorcise your reroll To Hit ability outside of its normal constraints and in so doing you will reroll scatter.

So again we are going outside of normal constraints. Again your argument is going back to removing all conditions or you are arbitrarily choosing which conditions apply and which don't. I'd argue the RAW currently does nothing but clarifies that anyone who does have this ability in the future would have to reroll all dice.

Note that there are zero abilities that, themselves, allow you to reroll a To Hit roll where no To Hit roll is made. For this rule to be functional at all it must allow you to exercise the models ability to reroll regardless of the abilities conditions of normal use.

So is this you admitting you're making an RaI argument? Because if you are the Iyanden codex says you're wrong. RaW the rule either applies to no one or everyone all the time. Stop arbitrarily deciding which conditions apply and which don't.

Again: do you have the ability to reroll to hit? Yes. I can, if I roll a 1, reroll to hit. Therefore I HAVE the ability to reroll to hit, and, absent a *restriction* (there is none) I have fully, 100% complied with the rule

Proven.

Stating otherwise is lying. Stating you do not have the ability to reroll to hit - as it is a binary situation here, as there is no qualifer on "ability" that can be shown by ANYONE - requires you to lie.

If I pick up 1s and reroll them, have I rerolled to hit? YEs. If I pick up 1s,2s, and 3s, have I rerolled to hit? Yes

"Have" is the requirement ignored by Fling in their OT queries.

Prove there is a qualifer on "ability..", in the next post, or concede. I have proven I have permisison to reroll scatter, as I have the ability to reroll to hit. THis is now factual. Your only course of action is to prove there is a qualifier

Further failure to answer will be treated as concession

Again: do you have the ability to reroll to hit? Yes. I can, if I roll a 1, reroll to hit.

The underlined section is the issue here. If we take what you say then the following is also true:

Again: do you have the ability to reroll to hit? Yes. I can, if <insert any list of conditions here>, reroll to hit.

Hence literally every unit fulfills that requirement all the time.

Therefore I HAVE the ability to reroll to hit, and, absent a *restriction* (there is none) I have fully, 100% complied with the rule

No you haven't because you don't Have the ability to reroll if you don't roll a 1 to hit. Just as my Fire Prism doesn't have the ability to reroll if I haven't cast guide on it and it hasn't failed a to hit roll.

If your army includes a psyker and he casts OM on my unit and I pick up a 6 and reroll it have I rerolled to hit? Yes but a lot of things need to happen for me to reroll that dice. If we are removing those conditions you need to prove which conditions are remove. Page and paragraph for which restrictions apply to ability and which don't. Or accept that your interpretation means all units reroll all the time.

Your conclusion still ignores the actual rules, so is still false.

"have the". I "have the ability" when rolling against my PE. I dont when I dont.

You're done, your concession is accepted. Back on ignore.

im personally leaning towards the cant reroll since their is no to hit roll of a 1.


However if my opponent was adament about it, I'd just let him roll an additional dice like a gets hot dice and on a 1 let him reroll the scatter.

Eihnlazer wrote:
im personally leaning towards the cant reroll since their is no to hit roll of a 1.


However if my opponent was adament about it, I'd just let him roll an additional dice like a gets hot dice and on a 1 let him reroll the scatter.

You never, ever roll to-hit with a blast. Your "rule" results in no one ever able to reroll to hit, apart from TL because it has its own rule.

Its already been said before, but I think with the way the Blast reroll rule is written, its actually more of a clarification of what must be rolled rather than giving blanket permission to always re-roll blasts. With the way the sentence is written, it feels more like its stating that IF you are re-rolling, you MUST re-roll all dice, not just some of them.

So I'm curious as to why the pro-reroll camp has almost completely ignored GW's interpretation of the scenario in Codex: Iyanden? I mean, we have an official publication from the writers of the game rules giving their interpretation of a scenario that is EXACTLY the same as has been discussed here.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Its already been said before, but I think with the way the Blast reroll rule is written, its actually more of a clarification of what must be rolled rather than giving blanket permission to always re-roll blasts. With the way the sentence is written, it feels more like its stating that IF you are re-rolling, you MUST re-roll all dice, not just some of them.

So I'm curious as to why the pro-reroll camp has almost completely ignored GW's interpretation of the scenario in Codex: Iyanden? I mean, we have an official publication from the writers of the game rules giving their interpretation of a scenario that is EXACTLY the same as has been discussed here.

It has been ignored most likely due to the fact it is not an actual rule. It shows the intent, but intent=/=written.

FlingitNow wrote:Well your first 4 lines are correct. Then it all starts to fall apart. Starting with:

"It does not say all or always therefore any reroll To Hit counts. "

Sorry why? It doesn't say any, or some therefore you must have the ability to reroll all to count. See how the reverse argument is exactly the same. As this is a permissive ruleset you need specific permission to do stuff. Does this give specific permission for ANY reroll to count? Also you only have the ability to reroll to hit rolls if you roll 1s (or misses) so even by this definition you don't have the ability to reroll to hit. Unless again you are redefining it to ability to reroll to hit under any conditions. In which case everyone gets rerolls all the time.

This is incorrect. The ability to reroll failed rolls To Hit of one is in fact an ability to reroll to hit rolls. That aside your comments indicate that you believe the statement could mean all or some depending on how you look at it witch is logically incorrect. It asks for a true or false state wherein you have such an ability or you do not. If you have an ability that allows for a reroll sometimes to be true and sometimes to be false and do not resolve the state of the ability (do not roll To Hit) then the state is both true and false at the same time. Which means that it is in fact true and meets all requirements based on that. It also meets all requirements for it being false but that is never asked for.

FlingitNow wrote:
The next part is true a reroll is something that let's you reroll the dice.

"put together, this means if the model has the ability to pick and reroll dice on ALL To Hit rolls"

FTFY as your interpretation was based of an incorrect or at least incomplete first premise.

Why would you add 'all'? That is not stated or implied by the written text. It does not say 'the ability to reroll all To Hit rolls'. That would cause the rule to be completely dysfunctional. I believe the reading of this line is where you make your error as your translation leads to the rule doing nothing. Do you not presume that the rules were intended to function in some way?

FlingitNow wrote:

Add to the previous the condition that you must choose to do so as permitted by the stated rule. Regardless of the fact that no To Hit rule is made it gives you the option to exorcise your reroll To Hit ability outside of its normal constraints and in so doing you will reroll scatter.

So again we are going outside of normal constraints. Again your argument is going back to removing all conditions or you are arbitrarily choosing which conditions apply and which don't. I'd argue the RAW currently does nothing but clarifies that anyone who does have this ability in the future would have to reroll all dice.

And again I point out that 'all conditions on an ability' and 'all conditions under which a model might have an ability' are drastically different claims. One of those I made and the other is a ridiculous strawman argument that others come up with that is completely unsupported by the rules as written.

FlingitNow wrote:

Note that there are zero abilities that, themselves, allow you to reroll a To Hit roll where no To Hit roll is made. For this rule to be functional at all it must allow you to exercise the models ability to reroll regardless of the abilities conditions of normal use.

So is this you admitting you're making an RaI argument? Because if you are the Iyanden codex says you're wrong. RaW the rule either applies to no one or everyone all the time. Stop arbitrarily deciding which conditions apply and which don't.

You realize which units have the ability to reroll To Hit dice is hardly 'arbitrarily decided' by me. You are in fact the one attempting to add definitions outside of the written text. you are in fact claiming that rerolling failed To Hit rolls of 1 is somehow not rerolling To hit rolls.

ClassicCarraway wrote:Its already been said before, but I think with the way the Blast reroll rule is written, its actually more of a clarification of what must be rolled rather than giving blanket permission to always re-roll blasts. With the way the sentence is written, it feels more like its stating that IF you are re-rolling, you MUST re-roll all dice, not just some of them.

So I'm curious as to why the pro-reroll camp has almost completely ignored GW's interpretation of the scenario in Codex: Iyanden? I mean, we have an official publication from the writers of the game rules giving their interpretation of a scenario that is EXACTLY the same as has been discussed here.

I would comment on it if I had the correct source material.

 Happyjew wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Its already been said before, but I think with the way the Blast reroll rule is written, its actually more of a clarification of what must be rolled rather than giving blanket permission to always re-roll blasts. With the way the sentence is written, it feels more like its stating that IF you are re-rolling, you MUST re-roll all dice, not just some of them.

So I'm curious as to why the pro-reroll camp has almost completely ignored GW's interpretation of the scenario in Codex: Iyanden? I mean, we have an official publication from the writers of the game rules giving their interpretation of a scenario that is EXACTLY the same as has been discussed here.

It has been ignored most likely due to the fact it is not an actual rule. It shows the intent, but intent=/=written.

But if we know the intent, why continue the argument? FAQs are generally about showing the intent (unless its actually an Errata entry), and nobody argues those after they have been released. To me, a clarification of intent in a published Codex is just as good as a question answered in a FAQ document.

Except Iyanden answers a different question, and does so not in the rules section, but in the error-prone other sections of the book.
Ignoring it, for now, until an actual FAQ answering this situation, makes some sense

rerolling 1's =/= rerolls to hit....


would you let someone with permission to reroll 1's, reroll all hits?

no? why? because they are not the same, they are worded differently, and have different effects.

you need to follow rules as written, not "close enough" as is the case with equating rerolling 1's to re rolling to hit as a requirement....

those arguing that reroling 1's = reroling to hit in general, your argument is totally flawed, and IF it was correct, then models with permission to re roll 1's, could re roll all failed to hits.

as soon as you state that words mean different worst (ie stating that re rolling 1's means the same thing as re rolling all hits)

you have broken raw, and are now having a RAI/HIWPI discussion, you are not allowed to be "close enough" in the definitions, it must be word for word what is written down, or nothing at all.

Oh tell me you didn't just resurrect this thread...

WHYYYY OH WHY THE NECROMANCY!

THREADNOMANCY DETECTED!



Please remember the check the date on threads before posting in them - thanks!