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.

So I noticed that General Grizmund from Imperial Armour 1 has a special rule that allows all Tanks within 12" to re-roll their first missed To hit each phase.
However, as blasts do not roll to hit as normal when shooting, is an arrow on the scatter die considered a miss or does it mean that only tanks without blast weapons benefit from this rule?

Blast Weapons and Re-rolls

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.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Blast Weapons and Re-rolls

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.

Which doesn't really completely answer the question, since the rule in question hinges on a 'missed' To Hit roll.


We're told in the Blast rules that if the Blast completely scatters off any models, then it has missed. A shot that scatters but still covers at least one model wouldpresumably still be considered a successful hit.


So you would be able to re-roll, but only if the Blast completely missed any models.

Not true, as the ability to Reroll blasts only requires that you can Reroll to hit. Which you can.

How good a Reroll to hit you have has no effect on your ability to Reroll blasts.

As we are back into "Blasts and misses" massive debate, i'll put my point of view forward as a suggestion rather than an argument, to avoid getting back into it:
I suggest you have a read at the "Twin-Linked" Special Rule. It describes what it considers to be "a miss" in Terms of Blasts. You may use that as a basis to find your answer to the question.

Either that, or as Nos says: The "Blast Weapons and Re-rolls" Rule is enabled by General Grizmund's rule, because it grants a re-roll, no matter the "quality" (or "requirements")

 BlackTalos wrote:
...because it grants a re-roll, no matter the "quality" (or "requirements")

Does it? Because from the OP - "...allows all Tanks within 12" to re-roll their first missed To hit each phase'

...which appears to allow a re-roll for their first missed To Hit.

So you only have the ability to re-roll if you miss.

The to-hit. Which we know, for a fact, we never do when rolling blasts.

Do they have the ability to Reroll their to hit? Unequivocally yes.

This was a huge debate at one point? How did this become a huge debate?

You roll a "hit" dice with the 2d6 scatter dice. If you don't get a "hit" on your "hit" dice then you failed to hit and it scatters in the direction of the arrow.

If you can rerolled failed "to hits" then you can reroll anything that scatters even if it still lands on top of something.

I fail to see how this could be a debate.

Because you haven't understood the rules, mainly

Blasts do not roll to-hit. If you disagree, pleas overturn the rule stating explicitly otherwise.

Oh, now I see where the argument comes from.

I agree that there is no roll to hit in the same sense that you roll to hit with a bolter, the first or second line in the rule under blasts says as much. But it then goes on to describe how you roll your hits with a blast weapon. Place your marker and roll your scatter dice. Did your blast marker scatter? Then it didn't "hit" the models that were originally under the blast maker. Plus we're given express permission to reroll blasts if we have a rule that lets us reroll but no wording on when that is applied.

But since the specifics of "when" to reroll is not worded well, the rule is broken as there is no RAW instructions on how to proceed and this forum only debates RAW in the absolute strictest sense.

No, I get it now. But it's not a problem with the rule so much as it is a problem with the mindset that there has to be a super accurate RAW explanation for everything. In this case I agree, that super accurate RAW explanation is missing and YMDC won't be able to solve it.

 NightHowler wrote:
Oh, now I see where the argument comes from.

I agree that there is no roll to hit in the same sense that you roll to hit with a bolter, the first or second line in the rule under blasts says as much. But it then goes on to describe how you roll your hits with a blast weapon. Place your marker and roll your scatter dice. Did your blast marker scatter? Then it didn't "hit" the models that were originally under the blast maker.

You're aware Blasts can scatter 0" right? How does that fit your statement? It scatters, but still hits the models that were originally under the marker.
Or if you're covering a single large model and it scatters enough that the model is still hit - it scattered (and therefore missed) but still hit?

But since the specifics of "when" to reroll is not worded well, the rule is broken as there is no RAW instructions on how to proceed and this forum only debates RAW in the absolute strictest sense.

Yes, it's purely a problem with YMDC and not at all with the gak wording of the rules. Please, don't pretend you're some kind of better person for your enlightened understanding.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Oh, now I see where the argument comes from.

I agree that there is no roll to hit in the same sense that you roll to hit with a bolter, the first or second line in the rule under blasts says as much. But it then goes on to describe how you roll your hits with a blast weapon. Place your marker and roll your scatter dice. Did your blast marker scatter? Then it didn't "hit" the models that were originally under the blast maker.

You're aware Blasts can scatter 0" right? How does that fit your statement? It scatters, but still hits the models that were originally under the marker.
Or if you're covering a single large model and it scatters enough that the model is still hit - it scattered (and therefore missed) but still hit?

But since the specifics of "when" to reroll is not worded well, the rule is broken as there is no RAW instructions on how to proceed and this forum only debates RAW in the absolute strictest sense.

Yes, it's purely a problem with YMDC and not at all with the gak wording of the rules. Please, don't pretend you're some kind of better person for your enlightened understanding.

Oh yeah. That's what I was going for - I'm super enlightened. Thanks for noticing.

So no response to me proving your other statements wrong?
Cool.

rigeld2 wrote:
So no response to me proving your other statements wrong?
Cool.

I think it's pretty clear that there's no way to get a strict RAW with this one. No need to prove you wrong, it's not a fight, it's just a rules discussion.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So no response to me proving your other statements wrong?
Cool.

I think it's pretty clear that there's no way to get a strict RAW with this one. No need to prove you wrong, it's not a fight, it's just a rules discussion.

You made an assertion ("Then it didn't "hit" the models that were originally under the blast maker.") that is demonstrably untrue. You based your portion of the discussion on that assertion. Therefore your stance in the discussion has no basis in fact.

And yes - there is a way to get a strict RAW on this one. Nos has demonstrated it, it's been hashed over in multiple threads. Similar to PE, you're granted a reroll To Hit and can therefore reroll a Blast.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So no response to me proving your other statements wrong?
Cool.

I think it's pretty clear that there's no way to get a strict RAW with this one. No need to prove you wrong, it's not a fight, it's just a rules discussion.

You made an assertion ("Then it didn't "hit" the models that were originally under the blast maker.") that is demonstrably untrue. You based your portion of the discussion on that assertion. Therefore your stance in the discussion has no basis in fact.

And yes - there is a way to get a strict RAW on this one. Nos has demonstrated it, it's been hashed over in multiple threads. Similar to PE, you're granted a reroll To Hit and can therefore reroll a Blast.

The blasts rule tells you that if you can reroll you may choose to do so. The rule in question says that you reroll if you fail to hit. Blasts don't roll to hit. But you can reroll if you choose to. There's a pretty obvious RAI, but I disagree with your assertion that there is a clear RAW.

You're arguing with me like I'm taking a side. I'm not. I'm saying that there is no clear answer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not true, as the ability to Reroll blasts only requires that you can Reroll to hit. Which you can.

How good a Reroll to hit you have has no effect on your ability to Reroll blasts.

Not true, actually:

Rorschach9 wrote:
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.

Apparently, the model must also be able to choose to reroll its to-hit rolls.

This is impossible for two reasons - firstly because models can rarely (if ever) "choose" to reroll misses or 1s - they are usually forced to do so. Second, the model cannot choose to reroll regardless, because nothing has missed. The model is only allowed to reroll misses, and there was no 'miss', just a scatter.

I suspect that, RAI, you're supposed to be able to reroll scatters with anything that lets you reroll misses. However, RAW, it is impossible to ever get the reroll (except for twin-linked - which has its own exception). It's just another example of abysmal rule-writing by GW.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So no response to me proving your other statements wrong?
Cool.

I think it's pretty clear that there's no way to get a strict RAW with this one. No need to prove you wrong, it's not a fight, it's just a rules discussion.

You made an assertion ("Then it didn't "hit" the models that were originally under the blast maker.") that is demonstrably untrue. You based your portion of the discussion on that assertion. Therefore your stance in the discussion has no basis in fact.

And yes - there is a way to get a strict RAW on this one. Nos has demonstrated it, it's been hashed over in multiple threads. Similar to PE, you're granted a reroll To Hit and can therefore reroll a Blast.

The blasts rule tells you that if you can reroll you may choose to do so. The rule in question says that you reroll if you fail to hit. Blasts don't roll to hit. But you can reroll if you choose to. There's a pretty obvious RAI, but I disagree with your assertion that there is a clear RAW.

What the Blast rule actually says is

Does the model have the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit? It's a yes or no question. Not "If it misses." or "If you roll a 1." or "When the moon and sun are in the sky."

You're arguing with me like I'm taking a side. I'm not. I'm saying that there is no clear answer.

a) Saying it's not clear is taking a side.
b) You stated " But it then goes on to describe how you roll your hits with a blast weapon. Place your marker and roll your scatter dice. Did your blast marker scatter? Then it didn't "hit" the models that were originally under the blast maker." How is that not arguing the point?

rigeld2 wrote:

a) Saying it's not clear is taking a side.
b) You stated " But it then goes on to describe how you roll your hits with a blast weapon. Place your marker and roll your scatter dice. Did your blast marker scatter? Then it didn't "hit" the models that were originally under the blast maker." How is that not arguing the point?

a) Sure, ok. If you want to call it taking a side, lets call it side three if that makes you happy.

b) Yes, because I think there's a clear RAI, but nobody on YMDC cares about RAI (one of the shortcommings of YMDC), and in the same post you're quoting I said that I don't think there's a clear RAW but you're still arguing like I'm taking one of the two sides. Please remember that I'm on side three.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

a) Saying it's not clear is taking a side.
b) You stated " But it then goes on to describe how you roll your hits with a blast weapon. Place your marker and roll your scatter dice. Did your blast marker scatter? Then it didn't "hit" the models that were originally under the blast maker." How is that not arguing the point?

a) Sure, ok. If you want to call it taking a side, lets call it side three if that makes you happy.

b) Yes, because I think there's a clear RAI, but nobody on YMDC cares about RAI (one of the shortcommings of YMDC), and in the same post you're quoting I said that I don't think there's a clear RAW but you're still arguing like I'm taking one of the two sides. Please remember that I'm on side three.

And I've shown how side 3 is incorrect - there is a clear RAW answer. Perhaps you read my post? Perhaps you'd like to respond to it?

 vipoid wrote:
This is impossible for two reasons - firstly because models can rarely (if ever) "choose" to reroll misses or 1s - they are usually forced to do so. Second, the model cannot choose to reroll regardless, because nothing has missed. The model is only allowed to reroll misses, and there was no 'miss', just a scatter.

I suspect that, RAI, you're supposed to be able to reroll scatters with anything that lets you reroll misses. However, RAW, it is impossible to ever get the reroll (except for twin-linked - which has its own exception). It's just another example of abysmal rule-writing by GW.

I'd have to agree on this for the "pure RaW" side of things. A lot of rules seem to be "ignored for their own good", but if we really want to be 100% exact by RaW, it all falls apart...

Any reason why this wouldn't apply to ALL blasts fired, then? We're ignoring "first missed" on account of a re-roll being present at all.

Pyrian wrote:
Any reason why this wouldn't apply to ALL blasts fired, then? We're ignoring "first missed" on account of a re-roll being present at all.

No, we're ignoring "missed" not "first". One is qualitative, one is quantitative.

rigeld2 wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
Any reason why this wouldn't apply to ALL blasts fired, then? We're ignoring "first missed" on account of a re-roll being present at all.

No, we're ignoring "missed" not "first". One is qualitative, one is quantitative.

The one you're not ignoring is a modifier to the one you are ignoring. I'm not convinced it means anything out of context; you'd have to apply it to something it doesn't apply to in the RaW. Furthermore, I don't see how being quantitative exempts it from the logic ignoring "missed", which as you put it is:

Does the model have the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit? It's a yes or no question. Not "If it misses." or "If you roll a 1." or "When the moon and sun are in the sky."

Can a Blast miss a To Hit ? No, it doesn't even roll one.

To Hit has two outcomes: Miss and Hit

Blasts have half a dozen outcomes: Out of the table, Hits nothing, Hits friendly, Hits another target, Partially covers its target, Fully covers its target.

Two of them would qualify as Miss, two of them could never happen with a To Hit roll, and anything that hits more than a single unit is just as impossible to achieve with a To Hit roll.


There is significant difference between the two so it's clear that blasts are not affected per RAW.




With regards to the RAI, this is ForgeWorld, which produces a ton of rules a lot less clear than the GW books, and the intent is hard to guess.

Main reason being that letting one tank reroll one missed To Hit, and letting it reroll a single powerful blast are two very different effects.

The second interpretation vastly increases the effectiveness of any blast weapons, including destroyers, blowing the value of Grizmund way out of proportion.

I can imagine him sitting in between a few SH Tanks, LRs and the mandatory void shields and delivering a lot more value than if he simply helped score 16% more lascan hits.

Per RAW, youre still ignroing that only the ability to reroll to hit is required

This rule grants this ability. Fact
Do you have an ability to reroll your tohit? Yes? Then, as per blasts and rerolls, you can reroll your scatter
RAW is clear on this. You have no need to have a "good enough" reroll of your to hit.

morgoth wrote:
I can imagine him sitting in between a few SH Tanks

You can imagine it, but it can't happen. Grizmund's ability only applies to vehicles with the Tank type, and superheavies do not have the Tank type.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Per RAW, youre still ignroing that only the ability to reroll to hit is required

This rule grants this ability. Fact
Do you have an ability to reroll your tohit? Yes? Then, as per blasts and rerolls, you can reroll your scatter
RAW is clear on this. You have no need to have a "good enough" reroll of your to hit.

Again, you're mixing up two different things: one is the ability to re roll To Hit rolls, the other one is the ability to re roll missed to hit rolls. not the same thing, the first is universal and always applies, the second one is situational.

Pyrian wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
Any reason why this wouldn't apply to ALL blasts fired, then? We're ignoring "first missed" on account of a re-roll being present at all.

No, we're ignoring "missed" not "first". One is qualitative, one is quantitative.

The one you're not ignoring is a modifier to the one you are ignoring. I'm not convinced it means anything out of context; you'd have to apply it to something it doesn't apply to in the RaW. Furthermore, I don't see how being quantitative exempts it from the logic ignoring "missed", which as you put it is:

Does the model have the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit? It's a yes or no question. Not "If it misses." or "If you roll a 1." or "When the moon and sun are in the sky."

After the first miss, does the model have the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit? No, it doesn't.

morgoth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Per RAW, youre still ignroing that only the ability to reroll to hit is required

This rule grants this ability. Fact
Do you have an ability to reroll your tohit? Yes? Then, as per blasts and rerolls, you can reroll your scatter
RAW is clear on this. You have no need to have a "good enough" reroll of your to hit.

Again, you're mixing up two different things: one is the ability to re roll To Hit rolls, the other one is the ability to re roll missed to hit rolls. not the same thing, the first is universal and always applies, the second one is situational.

But for the second situational one, would you say that it is still "a Re-roll"? If you had to choose between deciding if it is A) a Re-Roll or B) Not a Re-Roll?

When you look at the blast & re-rolls rule, one of the reading is that, because you pick "B" above, it is a re-roll, so the rule is activated.