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.

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not letting my opponents double dip on preferred enemy. They don't need any more advantages against me.

What annoys me most about it is just how counter-intuitive that reading is. Unless you are specifically trying to read the rules to maximize advantages for your army, that interpretation of the preferred enemy rule would simply never arise. You pretty much have to be a WAC kind of guy even to come up with that reading.

Because that totally never happens in this game. Because this game never attracts those kinds of people.

Guys seriously? I play daemons. Nothing in daemons gets preferred enemy. I have no way to benefit from this ruling.

Yet I have one guy calling my side of the argument WAAC min-maxer while the other guy literraly came out and said "I don't want my opponent to benefit from PE more, thats not an advantage for me"

I was just emphasizing that I'll let some rules things slide, but I can't let this slide. Blasts such as IA and battle cannons already decimate my list.

Martel732 wrote:
I was just emphasizing that I'll let some rules things slide, but I can't let this slide. Blasts such as IA and battle cannons already decimate my list.

Its still a completely unfair bias based on whether you specifically win or not

 CrownAxe wrote:
Guys seriously? I play daemons. Nothing in daemons gets preferred enemy. I have no way to benefit from this ruling.

Yet I have one guy calling my side of the argument WAAC min-maxer while the other guy literraly came out and said "I don't want my opponent to benefit from PE more, thats not an advantage for me"

To be clear, I'm not calling you or any of the persons on your side of the argument WAAC min-maxers. I am simply asserting that it takes a WAAC min-maxer to think up that interpretation of the rule.

Unless you are carefully checking and re-checking every line of the rulebook to glean any and every possible advantage you can think of, you aren't going to think of your interpretation.

What you are likely to remember or think after a simple, fair, common sense reading of the rulebook, especially if you are familiar with previous editions of Warhammer 40k, is the following:

1. PE allows me to reroll 1s.
2. I roll 1d6 to determine gets hot for blast weapons.
3. The scatter dice are basically the To Hit dice for blast weapons.

"PE allows me to reroll the scatter dice!" simply wouldn't occur to you if you're not specifically trying to read that interpretation into the rules.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I was just emphasizing that I'll let some rules things slide, but I can't let this slide. Blasts such as IA and battle cannons already decimate my list.

Its still a completely unfair bias

I stated my reasons for why I don't think it's permissable. If it wasn't a big deal, I would ignore those reasons and live with it. But it is a big deal. It takes blast accuracy from around 40%ish for BS 3 up to over 60%.

Martel732 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I was just emphasizing that I'll let some rules things slide, but I can't let this slide. Blasts such as IA and battle cannons already decimate my list.

Its still a completely unfair bias

I stated my reasons for why I don't think it's permissable. If it wasn't a big deal, I would ignore those reasons and live with it. But it is a big deal. It takes blast accuracy from around 40%ish for BS 3 up to over 60%.

It's actually higher than that. Twin-linked blast weapons are roughly 66-67% accurate, not taking BS into account (1/3 results on the scatter die is "hit"). If you roll a miss, there are as many scatter distance results as there are combinations of sides on 2d6. BS 3 allows you to ignore 3 of them.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I was just emphasizing that I'll let some rules things slide, but I can't let this slide. Blasts such as IA and battle cannons already decimate my list.

Its still a completely unfair bias based on whether you specifically win or not

Oh, I'm not winning no matter what I do. With BA, it's all degrees of humiliation.

Traditio wrote:
To be clear, I'm not calling you or any of the persons on your side of the argument WAAC min-maxers. I am simply asserting that it takes a WAAC min-maxer to think up that interpretation of the rule.

That's the same thing.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:
To be clear, I'm not calling you or any of the persons on your side of the argument WAAC min-maxers. I am simply asserting that it takes a WAAC min-maxer to think up that interpretation of the rule.

That's the same thing.

It's not. A WAAC min-maxer could have come up with the interpretation and popularized it, and you are only basing yourself on the popular interpretation that you've heard elsewhere.

You very well might be a WAAC min-maxer (you do play daemons, but I reserve judgment). I simply don't know. But simply saying that it takes a WAAC min-maxer to come up with the "WHOOO, the ability to reroll1s lets me reroll the scatter dice EVEN THOUGH NO 1s WERE ROLLED AT ALL!" isn't the same thing as calling you a WAAC min-maxer because you think that's the correct interpretation.

I wish to bracket that question altogether, and simply note that the interpretation is the WAAC min-maxing rules lawyer interpretation. It's not the common sense interpretation.

I think that even you would have to admit that the intuitive, common sense interpretation is the one that I'm advancing.

No i don't agree you. I gave my explanation why but feel free to keep ignoring my points in this debat

At any rate, to cap off my previous arguments, I'm going to summarize in a very concise way:

If you have a rule that says that you can reroll 1s (e.g., preferred enemy), you may reroll a die if and only if you roll a 1 on it.

If you roll a die and you don't get a 1, that rule (e.g., preferred enemy) DOESN'T APPLY.

Do you think the prescience psychic power lets you reroll scatter?

 CrownAxe wrote:
No i don't agree you. I gave my explanation why but feel free to keep ignoring my points in this debat

Your argument/points rest on sheer equivocation. "I desire fried chicken" is not logically equivalent to "I desire any sort of food whatsoever."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Do you think the prescience psychic power lets you reroll scatter?

Prescience allows a single unit to reroll any and all failed to hit rolls? In other words, it effectively makes a single unit twin-linked in the shooting phase?

No, twin linked is its own rule and it specifically says it reroll scatter (it doesn't use Blasts and Rerolls to do that). Prescienced doesn't say its twin-linked so its not twin linked

Also your fried chicken comparison makes no sense

 CrownAxe wrote:
No, twin linked is its own rule and it specifically says it reroll scatter (it doesn't use Blasts and Rerolls to do that). Prescienced doesn't say its twin-linked so its not twin linked

I'm not going to bother answering this since the answer should be obvious based on my previous arguments.

And again, your answer presupposes the kind of WAAC rules-lawyer mentality that I simply wouldn't want to play in the first place.

If you read prescience and you read twin-linked, unless you are specifically trying to read them as different, the common sense thing to take from it is: "Prescience basically grants twin-linked. In a nut shell, that's what it does."

Also your fried chicken comparison makes no sense

It makes perfect sense. Saying "I want fried chicken" is not the same thing as saying: "I want any kind of food whatsoever, even if its not fried chicken."

Likewise, "you can re-roll 1s" is not the same thing as "you can reroll, regardless of the specific result that caused the miss."

Twinlinked is not the same, it does extra rules like letting flamers reroll to wound. Nothing about "rerolling misses to hit" leads into "let flamers reroll to wound".

And seriously nothing about my argument had anything to do your food analogy. Go actually read my argument

or rather you get to re-roll once you have rolled a 1 to hit.

The unit with PE does not have the ability to re-reroll any dice until it rolls a 1 to hit.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Twinlinked is not the same, it does extra rules like letting flamers reroll to wound. Nothing about "rerolling misses to hit" leads into "let flamers reroll to wound".

And seriously nothing about my argument had anything to do your food analogy. Go actually read my argument

Oy vey.

At any rate, I stand by my previous comments. When interpreting the rules:

1. Use common sense.
2. Don't be a WAAC TFG.

This reminds me of an argument I had about Pathfinder. There is a rule in pathfinder that, for all rolls, if you end up with a fraction, you round down. Therefore, so went a common argument, if you use a d6 as a substitute for a d3 roll, and you roll a 3, then you actually have a d3 roll of 1. If you roll a 5 on the D6, you have a 2. And if you roll a 1, you should have a 0, but the lowest you can get is a 1, and so you get that.

It's a stupid argument. It's taking a legitimate rule which obviously was not intended to cover the case in question and simply misapplying the rule. It's an application of the letter of the law while being completely blind to the spirit of the law.

Yes, if you can re-roll all failed to-hit rolls, you can re-roll the scatter dice.
If you can re-roll failed to wound rolls, you can re-roll on the D-table.

The scatter dice, for all intents and purposes, are a "to hits" roll for blast weapons, and rolling on the D-table, for all intents and purposes, are rolls to wound.

If you normally could reroll a die to wound, then you can reroll it on the d-table.
If you normally could reroll a die to hit, then you can reroll the scatter dice.

Normally, preferred enemy only grants rerolls if you roll a 1. Did you roll a 1 on the scatter die?

I made my argument on why its intended to work with PE, but you keep ignoring it or haven't read it yet

 CrownAxe wrote:
I made my argument on why its intended to work with PE, but you keep ignoring it or haven't read it yet

Here is the argument that you've made, so far as I understand it:

1. The rule says that if the model has the ability to reroll, then it can reroll the scatter dice.
2. PE confers an ability to reroll to the model.
3. Therefore, the model can reroll the scatter dice.

I simply deny the minor premise (i.e., premise 2).

PE does not confer an ability to reroll to the model without qualification. It confers an ability to reroll 1s.

Or are you referring to the question you asked (not an argument) about why PE should confer less accuracy for blast weapons? A question that I answered earlier in the thread?

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I made my argument on why its intended to work with PE, but you keep ignoring it or haven't read it yet

Here is the argument that you've made, so far as I understand it:

1. The rule says that if the model has the ability to reroll, then it can reroll the scatter dice.
2. PE confers an ability to reroll to the model.
3. Therefore, the model can reroll the scatter dice.

I simply deny the minor premise (i.e., premise 2).

PE does not confer an ability to reroll the model without qualification. It confers an ability to reroll 1s.

Thats not my argument on why its INTENDED to work.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Thats not my argument on why its INTENDED to work.

Would you briefly restate the argument?

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Thats not my argument on why its INTENDED to work.

Would you briefly restate the argument?

If we assume that you are right and that you have to trigger the reroll by rolling a 1 to use Blasts and Rerolls, then you have to apply that logic to all the reroll rules in the game. All of the reroll rules in the game only reroll missed rolls to hit. As such no abilities in the game can use Blast and Rerolls as you haven't rolled a miss to hit (since scatter aren't a roll to hit at all)

Clearly the writer of the rule wouldn't have intended to add a rule that doesn't work. So the only option that makes the rule functional is that blasts don't need to trigger a miss for the ability to reroll which in turn measn that you don't need to roll a 1 to trigger the ability to reroll.

 CrownAxe wrote:
If we assume that you are right and that you have to trigger the reroll by rolling a 1 to use Blasts and Rerolls, then you have to apply that logic to all the reroll rules in the game. All of the reroll rules in the game only reroll missed rolls to hit. As such no abilities in the game can use Blast and Rerolls as you haven't rolled a miss to hit (since scatter aren't a roll to hit at all)

I've already addressed this argument ad nauseam.

The scatter dice roll is the roll to hit. You can't roll a 1 on the scatter die, but you can end up scattering so far that you end up missing.

Therefore, Twin-link allows a reroll, but PE does not.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
If we assume that you are right and that you have to trigger the reroll by rolling a 1 to use Blasts and Rerolls, then you have to apply that logic to all the reroll rules in the game. All of the reroll rules in the game only reroll missed rolls to hit. As such no abilities in the game can use Blast and Rerolls as you haven't rolled a miss to hit (since scatter aren't a roll to hit at all)

I've already addressed this argument ad nauseam.

The scatter dice roll is the roll to hit. You can't roll a 1 on the scatter die, but you can end up scattering so far that you end up missing.

The blast rule specifically say the scatter dice roll is not a roll to hit

CrownAxe wrote:The blast rule specifically say the scatter dice roll is not a roll to hit

Quote the passage?

Its the first sentence of the Blast rule

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its the first sentence of the Blast rule

1. Apparently, you don't know what the word "quote" means.

2. The rule quoted by Charistoph earlier in the thread very strongly implies that blast weapons do, in fact, roll to hit (at least in some sense).

3. Even granted that they don't, the rule cited by Charistoph specifically says that if a model otherwise would have the ability to reroll to hit, they can instead reroll the scatter dice if they are using a blast weapon.

So let it be granted that the rules say that rolling the scatter dice is not a to hit roll. That doesn't change the fact that it's a to hit roll for all intents and purposes.

A pilsner is not a IPA; however, for all intents and purposes, both are basically beer.

"When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit"

How am i suppose to trigger an ability "reroll misses on to hit rolls" whem I do not roll to hit?