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.

PE has a separate condition, handily denoted b y the conditional "if"

Prescience does not have a condition attached, any unit with Prescience on it has the ability to re-roll to hit rolls.

Re-roll FAILED to hits. You have to fail. And you can't fail a 'To Hit' roll if you don't make one.

That is the condition on the reroll. The seperate condition is you dont even have a reroll unless (if) you are firing at your PE.

2 different conditions, one is "how good a reroll", which the Blast weapons rule doesnt give two hoots about, and the other is whether you have that ability or not

Dont conflate the two

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That is the condition on the reroll. The seperate condition is you dont even have a reroll unless (if) you are firing at your PE.

2 different conditions, one is "how good a reroll", which the Blast weapons rule doesnt give two hoots about, and the other is whether you have that ability or not

Dont conflate the two

They are conflated in the sentence they are presented in. What gives you permission to separate them?

The word "if" which separates the two statements, making one conditional on the other.

chanceafs wrote:
Do you have the ability to re-roll to hit?
Hmm, let me check. I've got Earth Caste array, since (certain conditions are met) I do have the ability to re-roll to hit. I shall choose to do so, allowing me to re-roll the scatter die and 2d6.
Hmm, let me check. I've got Prescience, since (certain conditions are met) I do have the ability to re-roll to hit. I shall choose to do so, allowing me to re-roll the scatter die and 2d6.
Hmm, let me check. Oh, I've got Preferred Enemy, since (certain conditions are met) I do have the ability to re-roll to hit. I shall choose to do so, allowing me to re-roll the scatter die and 2d6.

Just pointing out from this you seem to be in the same position as me:

You only "have the ability" when the conditions are met, ie after having rolled the dice.
I would compare it to: You get to re-roll a Dice that fell on the floor, but only after it fell on the floor.

Side B people you are arguing with are saying you have that re-roll even before you touch the Dice you are going to Roll.
As much as i am against it logically, it is not incorrect within RaW.

But every Dice you pick up "has the ability to reroll": it always has a chance of rolling onto the floor. Which isn't, in my opinion, the right way to see things.

chanceafs wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That is the condition on the reroll. The seperate condition is you dont even have a reroll unless (if) you are firing at your PE.

2 different conditions, one is "how good a reroll", which the Blast weapons rule doesnt give two hoots about, and the other is whether you have that ability or not

Dont conflate the two

They are conflated in the sentence they are presented in. What gives you permission to separate them?

"IF" separates it out for you, as already stated. Your opinion otherwise is not releveant, this is a factual element of language construction

Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

KommissarKarl wrote:
Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

Agreed, but you still have the option. Our in house rules have been allowing the re-roll if one of the 2D6 is a 1 when rolling for scatter.

KommissarKarl wrote:Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

Because that's not what the blasts rules tell you to do.

eluxir wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

Agreed, but you still have the option. Our in house rules have been allowing the re-roll if one of the 2D6 is a 1 when rolling for scatter.

Not even close to actual rules on how to deal with rerolls and blasts, but okay.

rigeld2 wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

Because that's not what the blasts rules tell you to do.

eluxir wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

Agreed, but you still have the option. Our in house rules have been allowing the re-roll if one of the 2D6 is a 1 when rolling for scatter.

Not even close to actual rules on how to deal with rerolls and blasts, but okay.

well i'm essentially a new player (why i started this thread in the first place) who's playing with a group of people who have been around for multiple editions. don't expect them to know everything and wouldn't be surprised if we're playing it wrong, so please enlighten me on how we should be dealing with rerolls and blasts with PE. rather than always granting the re-roll (Side B), the rules we've been playing still require the PE condition of rolling a 1 (argument of Side A only Side A claims you can't roll a 1 when rolling scatter for blasts). are we missing something obvious here? please point it out and i'll be the first to admit i was mistaken.

saying i'm wrong without offering a correct solution isn't very constructive and defeats the purpose of this thread entirely. more than anything, i'm here to learn!

 eluxir wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

Because that's not what the blasts rules tell you to do.

eluxir wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Why would you ever want to re-roll a 1 on a scatter dice? It's the best possible result. This argument is invalid

Agreed, but you still have the option. Our in house rules have been allowing the re-roll if one of the 2D6 is a 1 when rolling for scatter.

Not even close to actual rules on how to deal with rerolls and blasts, but okay.

well i'm essentially a new player (why i started this thread in the first place) who's playing with a group of people who have been around for multiple editions. don't expect them to know everything and wouldn't be surprised if we're playing it wrong, so please enlighten me on how we should be dealing with rerolls and blasts with PE. rather than always granting the re-roll (Side B), the rules we've been playing still require the PE condition of rolling a 1 (argument of Side A only Side A claims you can't roll a 1 when rolling scatter for blasts). are we missing something obvious here? please point it out and i'll be the first to admit i was mistaken.

saying i'm wrong without offering a correct solution isn't very constructive and defeats the purpose of this thread entirely. more than anything, i'm here to learn!

The correct way is the way you choose to play it.

so pick a point between:
just twin link allows blast rerolls.
if it allows all failed to hit rolls, then either allow it or not.
if it needs to roll a specific number to hit, then either allow it or not
the merest possibility of a reroll allows blasts to reroll, or not.

The choice you and your group agree to is the right one. RAW is probably one of those 4, but there is no consensus on this site.

 eluxir wrote:
well i'm essentially a new player (why i started this thread in the first place) who's playing with a group of people who have been around for multiple editions. don't expect them to know everything and wouldn't be surprised if we're playing it wrong, so please enlighten me on how we should be dealing with rerolls and blasts with PE. rather than always granting the re-roll (Side B), the rules we've been playing still require the PE condition of rolling a 1 (argument of Side A only Side A claims you can't roll a 1 when rolling scatter for blasts). are we missing something obvious here? please point it out and i'll be the first to admit i was mistaken.

saying i'm wrong without offering a correct solution isn't very constructive and defeats the purpose of this thread entirely. more than anything, i'm here to learn!

PE requires you to roll a 1 to hit. Blasts never, ever roll to hit. So your house rule has no basis in actual rules - a scatter is not a roll to hit.
If you'd read through the thread and read the rules involved you'd understand why I said your house rule was not even close to the actual rules. I'm not saying your house rule is wrong - it can't be if that's what you've decided as a group - I'm saying your house rule isn't close to the actual rules.

The actual rules give you the reroll. Note - side A's opinion means that things like Prescience don't work for Blasts either... and really only Twin Linked does.

chanceafs wrote:
Re-roll FAILED to hits. You have to fail. And you can't fail a 'To Hit' roll if you don't make one.

This is an exceptionally important and inconvenient point that people largely choose to ignore in their liquid logic that they shape to pursue their chosen answer. Most re-roll opportunities have a condition.

sirlynchmob wrote:

The correct way is the way you choose to play it.

so pick a point between:
just twin link allows blast rerolls.
if it allows all failed to hit rolls, then either allow it or not.
if it needs to roll a specific number to hit, then either allow it or not
the merest possibility of a reroll allows blasts to reroll, or not.

The choice you and your group agree to is the right one. RAW is probably one of those 4, but there is no consensus on this site.

rigeld2 wrote:
PE requires you to roll a 1 to hit. Blasts never, ever roll to hit. So your house rule has no basis in actual rules - a scatter is not a roll to hit.
If you'd read through the thread and read the rules involved you'd understand why I said your house rule was not even close to the actual rules. I'm not saying your house rule is wrong - it can't be if that's what you've decided as a group - I'm saying your house rule isn't close to the actual rules.

The actual rules give you the reroll. Note - side A's opinion means that things like Prescience don't work for Blasts either... and really only Twin Linked does.

understood. i see where i was getting confused ( ) and i appreciate the explanation. definitely curious to find out how this is being played at the local hobby stores in my area... one of which is an actual GW store.

Nope no rerolls for blast weapons with preferred enemy , it's clear you can reroll 1's, yes I know blast says yada yada if you gave the ability to reroll go ahead. Point is you didn't roll a one therefore you do not have the reroll ability when your blast misses completely.

So by that logic neither would you have the ability to re-roll if you had Prescience cast on the unit, as you did not fail a to hit roll.
In fact, every single re-roll would be unable to be used via the "Re-rolls and Blasts" rules. Only Twin-Linked would actually allow you to re-roll a blast, and only because of the rules found in Twin-Linked. Under your interpretation the "Re-rolls and Blasts" rules would be completely impotent.

Lungpickle wrote:
Nope no rerolls for blast weapons with preferred enemy , it's clear you can reroll 1's, yes I know blast says yada yada if you gave the ability to reroll go ahead. Point is you didn't roll a one therefore you do not have the reroll ability when your blast misses completely.

Good job the rules don't say anything like your claim, meaning you do get rerolls, RAW.

You don't Reroll to hit, so a condition based on a to hit roll can never be satisfied. Good job it never asks you to roll to gave , just the ability ....

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So by that logic neither would you have the ability to re-roll if you had Prescience cast on the unit, as you did not fail a to hit roll.

That's the part where I use the wording from the TL rule to say that:
Actually, the Blast weapon can fail to hit, as is described on p(xx): Twin-Linked.

As we are going by logic, there is precedence of what a "Fail to hit" is with a Blast.


Just trying to make sure you understand how Side A is not "Just Twin-linked", but "Failed To Hit rolls" too. PE specifying "Failed To Hit" + "of a 1" is an added condition unfortunately unobtainable on a Scatter.
Specifying in case: Side B is completely right and within RaW.

You cannot "fail to hit" if you never roll to hit in the first place. Which is where side a falls down, by applying an inconsistent standard

That's where i would've disagreed before, but even more so now that the Rules for Twin-Linked have been re-worded.

The last paragraph i think it was of Twin-Linked (i will confirm once i have my book again).

They equate a Failed To Hit roll to not rolling a Hit on the Scatter dice. Which to me is one and the same. If we discuss this further, then it is discussing Author's intent, which will be impossible and therefore not an argument i can make.
My argument as it stands here is that: Twin-Linked, imo "defines" what a Failed To Hit roll is for a Blast weapon, and that definition stands for the entire book.

Therefore the only flaw i can see in this argument is that you "cannot apply TL to everything in the game" basically.

 BlackTalos wrote:
That's where i would've disagreed before, but even more so now that the Rules for Twin-Linked have been re-worded.

The last paragraph i think it was of Twin-Linked (i will confirm once i have my book again).

They equate a Failed To Hit roll to not rolling a Hit on the Scatter dice. Which to me is one and the same. If we discuss this further, then it is discussing Author's intent, which will be impossible and therefore not an argument i can make.
My argument as it stands here is that: Twin-Linked, imo "defines" what a Failed To Hit roll is for a Blast weapon, and that definition stands for the entire book.

Therefore the only flaw i can see in this argument is that you "cannot apply TL to everything in the game" basically.

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

That's no more equating a miss and not rolling a hit on the scatter dice than this equates a miss with failing to wound:

“Twin-linked Template weapons are fired just like a single weapon, but must re-roll failed To Wound rolls and armour penetration rolls.”

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
That's where i would've disagreed before, but even more so now that the Rules for Twin-Linked have been re-worded.

The last paragraph i think it was of Twin-Linked (i will confirm once i have my book again).

They equate a Failed To Hit roll to not rolling a Hit on the Scatter dice. Which to me is one and the same. If we discuss this further, then it is discussing Author's intent, which will be impossible and therefore not an argument i can make.
My argument as it stands here is that: Twin-Linked, imo "defines" what a Failed To Hit roll is for a Blast weapon, and that definition stands for the entire book.

Therefore the only flaw i can see in this argument is that you "cannot apply TL to everything in the game" basically.

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

That's no more equating a miss and not rolling a hit on the scatter dice than this equates a miss with failing to wound:

“Twin-linked Template weapons are fired just like a single weapon, but must re-roll failed To Wound rolls and armour penetration rolls.”

I understand the logic there, but the original line (Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) on p158 is only for Blasts, so any rule referring to templates you quoted above are effectively ignored (irrelevant).

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

This one though is specifically referring to Blasts and how they work.
As said previously, applying TL to defining Blasts is a stretch, but not wrong.

 BlackTalos wrote:

I understand the logic there, but the original line (Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) on p158 is only for Blasts, so any rule referring to templates you quoted above are effectively ignored (irrelevant).

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

This one though is specifically referring to Blasts and how they work.
As said previously, applying TL to defining Blasts is a stretch, but not wrong.

You don't understand what I was getting at then.
Your assumption is that it's okay to treat all blasts like twin-linked does, and any failure to roll hit is a failure to hit. Correct?
Why does it not follow, then, that any failure to wound with any template is a failure to hit?

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
That's where i would've disagreed before, but even more so now that the Rules for Twin-Linked have been re-worded.

The last paragraph i think it was of Twin-Linked (i will confirm once i have my book again).

They equate a Failed To Hit roll to not rolling a Hit on the Scatter dice. Which to me is one and the same. If we discuss this further, then it is discussing Author's intent, which will be impossible and therefore not an argument i can make.
My argument as it stands here is that: Twin-Linked, imo "defines" what a Failed To Hit roll is for a Blast weapon, and that definition stands for the entire book.

Therefore the only flaw i can see in this argument is that you "cannot apply TL to everything in the game" basically.

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

That's no more equating a miss and not rolling a hit on the scatter dice than this equates a miss with failing to wound:

“Twin-linked Template weapons are fired just like a single weapon, but must re-roll failed To Wound rolls and armour penetration rolls.”

I understand the logic there, but the original line (Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) on p158 is only for Blasts, so any rule referring to templates you quoted above are effectively ignored (irrelevant).

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

This one though is specifically referring to Blasts and how they work.
As said previously, applying TL to defining Blasts is a stretch, but not wrong.

That no more defines a miss of a to-hit for blasts than anything else, as Blasts never, ever roll to-hit. So I disagree - it IS wrong to use TL to define what a "hit" is for blasts. If am BS10 and I roll a scatter and 10" on the two dice, I have STILL "hit" my initial placement of the marker.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

I understand the logic there, but the original line (Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) on p158 is only for Blasts, so any rule referring to templates you quoted above are effectively ignored (irrelevant).

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

This one though is specifically referring to Blasts and how they work.
As said previously, applying TL to defining Blasts is a stretch, but not wrong.

You don't understand what I was getting at then.
Your assumption is that it's okay to treat all blasts like twin-linked does, and any failure to roll hit is a failure to hit. Correct?
Why does it not follow, then, that any failure to wound with any template is a failure to hit?

Correct.
The reason I would include the TL paragraph about Blast Weapons, is because the core issue or OP is about Blast Weapons. The paragraph about Templates and "equating the same" does not follow because it has nothing to do with Blast Weapons.

ie we are discussing Blast Weapons: only RaW about blast weapons can be argued here, comparing Blast weapons to the standard method ("Roll To Hit") and other rules that might mention Blast Weapons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That no more defines a miss of a to-hit for blasts than anything else, as Blasts never, ever roll to-hit. So I disagree - it IS wrong to use TL to define what a "hit" is for blasts. If am BS10 and I roll a scatter and 10" on the two dice, I have STILL "hit" my initial placement of the marker.

But then that comes back to our earlier case with BS6 and BS2wPrescience: even though both cases "hit" the initial placement of the marker, Rules-wise they are very different cases.
A BS2 model would benefit much more from prescience than a BS10 model, i fully agree, but i don't think that it is of any relevance to PE letting you re-roll Blast Weapons or not.

We are not arguing between a 2+ or 4+ save, which is better or whether a 4++ would be any better at saving. The issue here is do we - or not - get the save at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
it IS wrong to use TL to define what a "hit" is for blasts

i know it might not seem different, but i am not using TL to define what a "hit" is for blasts.
I am using TL to define what a "miss" is, whether or not (BS10) the "miss" is a "hit".

so for the examples and how I see it compared to Side B:
Side A:
PE - cannot re-roll Blast, you need to Miss and roll a 1
BS2, Prescience - can re-roll Blast if the scatter rolls "arrow"
BS10, Prescience - can re-roll Blast if the scatter rolls "arrow"
TL - simply RaW

Side B:
PE - can re-roll Blast, always
BS2, Prescience - can re-roll Blast, always
BS10, Prescience - can re-roll Blast, always
TL - simply RaW

Lastly, because i am sure this will never reach agreement but i do not want the thread locked for repetition (others might want to ask more):
I am on Side A, but not the one that only allows TL.
Yes I am guessing intent with the rules for TL, but the rules are simply not clear.

PS: Just as Void shields were, when I argued logically against pretty much the entirety of the Dakka users, to no avail. I would now leave this discussion in the same way:
That is my position, and after a lot of thinking and debate i have not been convinced it is a wrong one.
I will continue answering and making it clear how Side A thinks, but will no longer argue the points across.
'till the new FAQs/BrB

Except, as pointed out, you have no rules support for that interpretation. It is an opinion, not the rules.

The rules require the ability to reroll to-hit. Not for you to be rolling to hit in the first place. When firing at your PE enemy you demonstrably HAVE the ability to reroll to hit, however you are rolling a blast so use those rules instead.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except, as pointed out, you have no rules support for that interpretation. It is an opinion, not the rules.

The rules require the ability to reroll to-hit. Not for you to be rolling to hit in the first place. When firing at your PE enemy you demonstrably HAVE the ability to reroll to hit, however you are rolling a blast so use those rules instead.

Sorry i forgot to specify that we are still in the previous state of "no ability without met conditionals"
That, to me, you must meet the conditions to have the ability, not Side B: you have the ability but then ignore conditionals.

As said, the Rules support is Twin-Linked, PE, and "Blast Weapons and Re-rolls".

The rules require the ability to reroll to-hit. When firing at your PE enemy, fail to hit, and rolled a 1, you demonstrably have the ability to reroll to hit.
When firing with Prescience, and missed, you demonstrably have the ability to reroll to hit.

However using a blast can do 2), but not 1).

You can never meet the conditions that are reliant on rolling to hit, asyou NEVER roll to hit. You never "miss" either.

However you are not required to meet the conditions; just, IF you were rolling to hit, woudl you have the ABILITY to reroll? If the answer was yes, regardless of conditions, you get a reroll. This is because it does not require a reroll because you missed, a reroll because you rolled a one, a reroll because the sky was blue, just a reroll

RAW: Firing at PE? You get a reroll of your blast.