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.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
No, the 1s do not cause the reroll of the scatter dice and 2D6. My view is just as valid as yours. The plural does make a difference. If the Blasts and Rerolls said, "If the model rerolls any of its To Hit rolls then it may choose...." then I would agree with you.

And if the enemy target is not of the Preferred Enemy type specified in the army/unit rules, you most certainly would not get a reroll of the scatter dice. If you wouldn't get a reroll To Hit with a non-blast weapon then there is no reroll To Hit at all. That's just silly to think otherwise.

Firstly, you have yet to give any rules for where the distinction of a re-roll of a fixed value and a re-roll of a variable in how they are seen in the rules. What is the difference in the rules of a model re-rolling 1's to hit with BS5 and a model re-rolling to hit rolls?

Secondly, you are not Nos.

Fragile wrote:
Like your ignoring the requirement to roll a 1. Funny that Gets Hots has a mechanic to "roll a 1" but PE doesnt. Its almost like your making up rules.... that dont work...

Why are you bringing Gets Hot into this? There's zero relevance.

And you're inventing a distinction that doesn't exist. Does PE allow a re-roll to hit? It really is a Yes or No question.

Almost every argument you have seems to have a statement like this is it. Is this your escape when losing an argument ?

Well, when you've provided zero rules support how is he supposed to argue against you?

The rule states you must roll a 1, to get a reroll. You have failed to provide how you roll a "to hit " roll of a 1 with scatter die. Hence you have no reroll.

Gets Hot is a similar mechanic. If you roll a 1 on the "to hit" roll you can suffer a wound. Since you cannot roll a 1 on scatter die, they had to add the mechanic do to so. PE has no added mechanic. You do not have a trigger to gain your reroll, hence RAW, you cannot reroll a PE blast.

Provide a rule that shows how to roll a 1 on a scatter die, or the missing extra die and you will be right, until then, you have nothing... and your answer would be No.

Fragile wrote:
The rule states you must roll a 1, to get a reroll. You have failed to provide how you roll a "to hit " roll of a 1 with scatter die. Hence you have no reroll.

BS6+ requires you to miss to have a re-roll. Using your argument, there is no re-roll. Therefore you have no re-roll for Blast Weapons.
Replace "BS6+" with every other re-roll to-hit mechanic currently in the game.

Provide a rule that shows how to roll a 1 on a scatter die, or the missing extra die and you will be right, until then, you have nothing... and your answer would be No.

Great, so the only ability that allows you to re-roll blasts is Twin Linked, and only because it has it's own exception. The rule under Blasts is useless. Have fun with your interpretation, I'll be over here with the actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The rule states you must roll a 1, to get a reroll. You have failed to provide how you roll a "to hit " roll of a 1 with scatter die. Hence you have no reroll.

BS6+ requires you to miss to have a re-roll. Using your argument, there is no re-roll. Therefore you have no re-roll for Blast Weapons.
Replace "BS6+" with every other re-roll to-hit mechanic currently in the game.

Provide a rule that shows how to roll a 1 on a scatter die, or the missing extra die and you will be right, until then, you have nothing... and your answer would be No.

Great, so the only ability that allows you to re-roll blasts is Twin Linked, and only because it has it's own exception. The rule under Blasts is useless. Have fun with your interpretation, I'll be over here with the actual rules.

Now you have RAW, and I accept your concession.

Fragile wrote:
The rule states you must roll a 1, to get a reroll. You have failed to provide how you roll a "to hit " roll of a 1 with scatter die. Hence you have no reroll.

Gets Hot is a similar mechanic. If you roll a 1 on the "to hit" roll you can suffer a wound. Since you cannot roll a 1 on scatter die, they had to add the mechanic do to so. PE has no added mechanic. You do not have a trigger to gain your reroll, hence RAW, you cannot reroll a PE blast.

Provide a rule that shows how to roll a 1 on a scatter die, or the missing extra die and you will be right, until then, you have nothing... and your answer would be No.

Gets hot is not analogous to PE.
PE is somewhat analogous to twin-linked and other things that grant a re-roll. So just like twin-linked, divination, etc etc an ability to re-roll to hit gives you an ability with blast weapons as per the brb.

Fragile wrote:
Now you have RAW, and I accept your concession.

Actually, no - that's not RAW. I've conceded nothing.

You've supplied zero - literally no - rules supporting that argument.

Out of interest have people read the blast rules?

It seems to me that folks are cherry picking the Preferred Enemy rule and focusing solely on the re-roll aspect of the rule, as opposed to the rule in it's entirety. As has been stated previously, you only get the re-roll on a To-Hit roll of '1'. Unless there is a specific exception (permissive ruleset), you cannot invoke the rule without satisfying the trigger.

There are many rules in 40k that can only be invoked/activated once certain things happen. You simply cannot get a re-roll from Preferred Enemy without first rolling a 1 on your To Hit roll.

In what way do the Blast/Barrage rules reference rolling to hit? That's a rhetorical question as we should all know by now that the rules say "...instead of rolling To Hit..."

-Yad

Yad wrote:
It seems to me that folks are cherry picking the Preferred Enemy rule and focusing solely on the re-roll aspect of the rule, as opposed to the rule in it's entirety. As has been stated previously, you only get the re-roll on a To-Hit roll of '1'. Unless there is a specific exception (permissive ruleset), you cannot invoke the rule without satisfying the trigger.

There are many rules in 40k that can only be invoked/activated once certain things happen. You simply cannot get a re-roll from Preferred Enemy without first rolling a 1 on your To Hit roll.

In what way do the Blast/Barrage rules reference rolling to hit? That's a rhetorical question as we should all know by now that the rules say "...instead of rolling To Hit..."

-Yad

Then it's your assertion that there is literally no way to re-roll scatter on blasts. It's incorrect, but that's where your argument leads.
edit: save Twin-Linked because of its specific rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

Then it's your assertion that there is literally no way to re-roll scatter on blasts. It's incorrect, but that's where your argument leads.
edit: save Twin-Linked because of its specific rules.

Yes, I have been convinced that BS6+ doesn't get reroll on blasts. Besides, you're getting benefit from the reduced scatter anyway.

Also, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/497090.page

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:
It seems to me that folks are cherry picking the Preferred Enemy rule and focusing solely on the re-roll aspect of the rule, as opposed to the rule in it's entirety. As has been stated previously, you only get the re-roll on a To-Hit roll of '1'. Unless there is a specific exception (permissive ruleset), you cannot invoke the rule without satisfying the trigger.

There are many rules in 40k that can only be invoked/activated once certain things happen. You simply cannot get a re-roll from Preferred Enemy without first rolling a 1 on your To Hit roll.

In what way do the Blast/Barrage rules reference rolling to hit? That's a rhetorical question as we should all know by now that the rules say "...instead of rolling To Hit..."

-Yad

Then it's your assertion that there is literally no way to re-roll scatter on blasts. It's incorrect, but that's where your argument leads.
edit: save Twin-Linked because of its specific rules.

No that's not what I'm asserting. I'm asserting that there is no way for models/units with Preferred Enemy to re-roll scatter. My argument has focused specifically on the Preferred Enemy rule and how it interacts with the blast rule. I'm not sure how you're trying to tie in the inability of Preferred Enemy to allow Scatter re-rolls with stopping all re-rolling of blasts. Aside from Twin-Linked what other ability/effect/rule do you think should allow you to re-roll the scatter?

Within the confines of the 40k rules, a To Hit roll is a 'thing'. Just like Scatter rolls, Leadership test, Morale check, Armour save, etc. Preferred Enemy is specifically tied to the To Hit roll. So, do the blast rules allow you to make a To Hit roll?

-Yad

Quark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Then it's your assertion that there is literally no way to re-roll scatter on blasts. It's incorrect, but that's where your argument leads.
edit: save Twin-Linked because of its specific rules.

Yes, I have been convinced that BS6+ doesn't get reroll on blasts. Besides, you're getting benefit from the reduced scatter anyway.

Also, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/497090.page

BS6+, Prescience, any other ability currently in the game that gives re-rolls when you miss...

Also, old threads mean nothing. Nos is the only one (that I can see) that argued one way before, and the other now.

rigeld2 wrote:

Then it's your assertion that there is literally no way to re-roll scatter on blasts. It's incorrect, but that's where your argument leads.
edit: save Twin-Linked because of its specific rules.

It is at least as correct as your interpretation. And you cannot argue the the interpretation is wrong because it leads to weird and clearly non-intended outcome, yours does too. That is an argument of intent and we already know the intent; but that was not good enough for you.

Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls. There is no reason to assume that blast rules mean anything besides that. That is the intent, it should be clear enough. I leave you to pointlessly wrestle over who has the supreme RAW and go play some 40K instead.

 Crimson wrote:
Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls.

Please, for once, show some actual rules support for the bolded statement.

It doesn't exist, meaning any conclusion derived from it is factually incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls.

Please, for once, show some actual rules support for the bolded statement.

It doesn't exist, meaning any conclusion derived from it is factually incorrect.

This is what's confusing to me. Like I mentioned earlier, the To Hit roll is a 'thing' within the 40k rules. Meaning it is a specific game mechanic with 'well' defined rules supporting it. (I say 'well' cause this is GW we're talking about). So whenever a rule says, "re-roll the To Hit roll" it can only, unless otherwise specified, be the To Hit roll.

-Yad

Unless another rules sublimates a re-roll on your to hit table into another ability. Which is what we are actually talking about.

rigeld2 wrote:

Please, for once, show some actual rules support for the bolded statement.

It doesn't exist, meaning any conclusion derived from it is factually incorrect.

You don't have any rules support for the claim that it would mean anything else. And it doesn't really matter. We already know the intent, I'm right, you're wrong; rest is just pointless intellectual wankery.

 Crimson wrote:
We already know the intent, I'm right, you're wrong; rest is just pointless intellectual wankery.

Bollocks! If we knew the intent we'd be GW writers.

Lord Krungharr wrote:No, the 1s do not cause the reroll of the scatter dice and 2D6. My view is just as valid as yours. The plural does make a difference. If the Blasts and Rerolls said, "If the model rerolls any of its To Hit rolls then it may choose...." then I would agree with you.

And if the enemy target is not of the Preferred Enemy type specified in the army/unit rules, you most certainly would not get a reroll of the scatter dice. If you wouldn't get a reroll To Hit with a non-blast weapon then there is no reroll To Hit at all. That's just silly to think otherwise.

I fire an assault 2 weapon, with PE. I roll {1,1}. I reroll my to hit ROLLS of 1 due to PE.

Oh look, your plurality argument fails, as you failed to listen to context. Debunked. Next argument on quantity?

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It does, when you are rolling for Blast weapons> That is because the actual rules for blast weapons simply ask you if you get a reroll to hit - which you do. Show me a "1" on a BS5 model with reroll to hit rolling for Scatter - then you get your reroll. Oh, wait, that isnt how Blasts work - as you NEVER roll to hit with blasts, INSTEAD you roll the scatter dice! Almost like you're ignoring the rules...

Like your ignoring the requirement to roll a 1. Funny that Gets Hots has a mechanic to "roll a 1" but PE doesnt. Its almost like your making up rules.... that dont work...

What, making up the rule that states you get a reroll on scatter if you reroll to-hit? Have you even read the rule in question?

Serious question, as you appear to be entirely unaware of this rules existence.

If I am BS5 and reroll failed to-hit, I also have to roll a 1 in order to re-roll. According to you, we just ignore the rules and dont provide a reroll on a scatter.

I'll play by the actual rules, while you pretend they dont exist. I know which is preferable

Fragile wrote:

Again: ANY Rules to support your contention? I continue to see a startling lack from you. Further failure to provide a rule stating that you must have an "amount" of reroll to-hit before you get to reroll scattrer (remember - the two are different things - something you are struggling with) will be treated as your concession.

Almost every argument you have seems to have a statement like this is it. Is this your escape when losing an argument ?

Amusing that you think that, when you have yet to provide a SINGLE RULE to support your made up gak, that I am "losing" the argument.

So again - does a reroll to-hit of a 1 fulfill the requirement to reroll to hit? Any chance you could provide some rules, at any point in thsi thread, or are you unaware of other rules, such as the tenets of this forum?

Further baseless arguments from you will be ignored as proof that you are making a houserule argument, and can therefore safely be ignored as irrelevant to this thread.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Unless another rules sublimates a re-roll on your to hit table into another ability. Which is what we are actually talking about.

First off, I'm not entirely sure on your use of 'sublimate'.

Do you mean that instead of making a To Hit roll, you are placing the marker and rolling for scatter and that it still counts as a To Hit roll even though the rule itself stated that you are not rolling To Hit?

-Yad

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please, for once, show some actual rules support for the bolded statement.

It doesn't exist, meaning any conclusion derived from it is factually incorrect.

You don't have any rules support for the claim that it would mean anything else. And it doesn't really matter. We already know the intent, I'm right, you're wrong; rest is just pointless intellectual wankery.

Actually he does, as has been proven. You just keep making up assertions, fail to support them, and are called on it.

We also dont know the intent for PE, at all. Youre just making up more crap by saying that.

If it is "pointless intellectual wankery", feel free to not post again in this thread. It doesnt appear to be for you.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please, for once, show some actual rules support for the bolded statement.

It doesn't exist, meaning any conclusion derived from it is factually incorrect.

You don't have any rules support for the claim that it would mean anything else. And it doesn't really matter. We already know the intent, I'm right, you're wrong; rest is just pointless intellectual wankery.

We know the intent for another, similar, ability. It is not the same ability. You're inventing that correlation.

And of course, an argument about intent is different from an argument about the rules. I couldn't care less what the intent is (because my local TOs will decide for me - and have in this case).
"pointless intellectual wankery" really? Do you need to be so insulting?

Sadly yes, and not just in this thread. It appears to be tolerated, however.

ALso we still dont know the intent behind the similar ability - the accuracy of the rules sections are low enough to cause questions, but relyingon the totally "wild" section of the rest of a codex? LAughable.

rigeld2 wrote:

We know the intent for another, similar, ability. It is not the same ability. You're inventing that correlation.

Good enough for me. Especially as it is the interpretation that works best in practice and do not lead to weirdness with all sort of abilities.

And of course, an argument about intent is different from an argument about the rules. I couldn't care less what the intent is (because my local TOs will decide for me - and have in this case).

I wish people would stop assuming that pure RAW exist in some platonic sense. It doesn't. Rules are just English sentences, often unclear and confusing; just like in this case.

"pointless intellectual wankery" really? Do you need to be so insulting?

Perhaps I should have said 'sophistry' instead.

AS opposed to your pointless making up of rules, aserting them, and insulting others when called on it?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
AS opposed to your pointless making up of rules, aserting them, and insulting others when called on it?

I have not made up rules, I never even made any RAW argument on this, merely an argument of intent. Furthermore, it was never my intent to be insulting, merely to point out that it is pointless to argue over strict-RAW reading of an unclear rule, intent of which is already known.

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
AS opposed to your pointless making up of rules, aserting them, and insulting others when called on it?

I have not made up rules, I never even made any RAW argument on this, merely an argument of intent. Furthermore, it was never my intent to be insulting, merely to point out that it is pointless to argue over strict-RAW reading of an unclear rule, intent of which is already known.

The intent of a similar rule is known, and it is pretty clear.
Unless you're saying that the intent of the blast rules is to not apply to literally any current ability?

And you absolutely did make up rules when you said, and I quote,

Crimson wrote:Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls.

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
AS opposed to your pointless making up of rules, aserting them, and insulting others when called on it?

I have not made up rules, I never even made any RAW argument on this, merely an argument of intent. Furthermore, it was never my intent to be insulting, merely to point out that it is pointless to argue over strict-RAW reading of an unclear rule, intent of which is already known.

Really? So you never made an assertion about the "quantity" of "reroll to-hit " is meant by GW

 Crimson wrote:
Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls.

Liar.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
AS opposed to your pointless making up of rules, aserting them, and insulting others when called on it?

I have not made up rules, I never even made any RAW argument on this, merely an argument of intent. Furthermore, it was never my intent to be insulting, merely to point out that it is pointless to argue over strict-RAW reading of an unclear rule, intent of which is already known.

Really? So you never made an assertion about the "quantity" of "reroll to-hit " is meant by GW

 Crimson wrote:
Unless specified otherwise, re-roll to hit always means re rolling all failed to hit rolls.

Liar.

I'm not sure this the most constructive use of this thread. Perhaps we should take a step back before anyone says anything that will get them a stern talking to.

-Yad