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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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.

Charming.

It must be that both you and Rigeld failed to notice a sentence in the same paragraph you quoted that made it clear that I was talking about intent. (A honest mistake I'm sure; I don't want to be impolite and call anyone a liar after all! I know how you appreciate politeness in discourse.)

Crimson wrote:That is the intent, it should be clear enough.

I'll quote the whole paragraph.

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 left out the unnecessary rudeness.

The underlined sentences go together. I did not make the connection between them and the non-underlined. Perhaps if you worded things better it would help.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed.

If you hit there is no reason to, nor can you re-roll.

The first half of your sentence is false, and the second is only true for now - there's no guarantee the next codex won't invalidate that statement.
So have fun with your biased assumptions, ill be over here with what the rules actually say.

The first half is not false. Twin Linked and Prescience confirm this.

Why are you saying there is bias, when there is none?

Plus, you even confirmed my text that said "If you hit there is no reason to, nor can you re-roll." is true so your statement of "ill be over here with what the rules actually say." does not make any sense, as I have posted actual rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed.

If you hit there is no reason to, nor can you re-roll.

The first half of your sentence is false, and the second is only true for now - there's no guarantee the next codex won't invalidate that statement.
So have fun with your biased assumptions, ill be over here with what the rules actually say.

The first half is not false. Twin Linked and Prescience confirm this.

So BS6+ doesn't miss, it just happened to roll a 1?

Why are you saying there is bias, when there is none?

I can't think of any other reason for you to make the assumptions that you have.

Plus, you even confirmed my text that said "If you hit there is no reason to, nor can you re-roll." is true so your statement of "ill be over here with what the rules actually say." does not make any sense, as I have posted actual rules.

The bolded is absolutely false, and what I was referring to. I'd love to re-roll hits to try for 6's - just like I wish I could re-roll poisoned Genestealer hits for more Rends.

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.

Wow, hard to argue with such eloquence.

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

FYI Prescience works fine.

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.

Preferred Enemy. "..........A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of I if attacking its Preferred Enemy...."

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

So again... tell me how you roll a TO HIT of a 1, when you do not roll to hit...

You consistently ignore that...

at any point in thsi thread, or are you unaware of other rules, such as the tenets of this forum?

Again with the Ad Hominem.... you should focus on the rules...

Fragile wrote:
FYI Prescience works fine.

Really? You're only allowed to re-roll failed to hit rolls. Blasts don't roll to hit as you're so able to remind us.
Pray - how do you have access to a re-roll that only exists when you fail a to-hit roll if you never make a to-hit roll?

Because your trying to ignore the trigger. Neither BS6+ nor PE grant a reroll until after a condition is met. (rolling of a 1) TL and Prescience have no such condition and met the requirements set forth in the Blast rule that allows a reroll.

Since were ignoring triggers for any rerolls.

Can my ork big guns, always reroll it's blast shots without having to expend the ammo runt? It has the "ability to reroll" PE can cause a Reroll right? Sure,
Then the ammo runts being available to grant the ability should work without the trigger as well right? Yep, same reason.

To me this is the intent of the rule for blasts & rerolls, to cover any odd codex situations that might crop up. In the USR section they clearly point out how A certain rule interacts with blasts, and PE says nothing about blasts.

But if were going strictly RAW then I can reroll blast weapons and not expend my runts, so I concur with RAW

Hooray! Now my Obliterators can reroll the scatter on their plasma cannons against any enemy before charging out of a Land Raider with Abaddon within 12"! It's a win-win for Orks and Chaos Space Marines!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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?

That's not a valid argument, perhaps that is a strawman that people seem to be fond of talking about? The plurality referred to is the single-condition of a reroll To Hit by Preferred Enemy vs. the universal-condition of a reroll To Hit granted by Twin-linked/Prescience; the universe being a D6 in this case. (as described in the Blasts and Rerolls rules, which yes we have read, as I posted it a page or two back.)

from Liturgies of Blood: 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.

The distinction is self-evident in the words of the pertinent rules, a specific condition vs. a general condition.
The crux of the question is does the Blast Rerolls rule intend to mean a model that can reroll all its To Hit rolls gets to reroll scatter dice , or does it mean a model with any[/i] rerolls To Hit grant a rerolling of the scatter dice. The plural of the wording makes me think I'm right...those who oppose think the plural tense of 'rolls' ignores the singular condition of PE or other similar rules.

What is Nos?

And whoever said it "The TOs will decide" is correct, and in my tournament this weekend I have already ruled on it. I'm also pretty confident GW will rule the same way if they ever get around to it, sometimes they do.....But if they rule the other way then someday I'll have all sorts of Blast weapons around Abaddon, and they won't scatter back onto him!

Fragile wrote:
Because your trying to ignore the trigger. Neither BS6+ nor PE grant a reroll until after a condition is met. (rolling of a 1) TL and Prescience have no such condition and met the requirements set forth in the Blast rule that allows a reroll.

Stop using TL as an example - it has an explicit rule.
Prescience absolutely has a condition - you have to fail a to hit roll to be granted a re-roll. Or are you saying it allows re-rolls of to hits?

Blast Weapons and Rerolls.

"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon,...."

Prescience.

"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls.."

What part there do you see in conflict.

Fragile wrote:
Blast Weapons and Rerolls.

"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon,...."

Prescience.

"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls.."

What part there do you see in conflict.

I don't see a conflict.
I do, however, see a conditional on Prescience. Which you're insisting is what breaks PE.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Blast Weapons and Rerolls.

"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon,...."

Prescience.

"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls.."

What part there do you see in conflict.

I don't see a conflict.
I do, however, see a conditional on Prescience. Which you're insisting is what breaks PE.

And there's a condition for ammo runts, which you insist isn't necessary as the rules for blast bypass it.
do you agree ammo runts always grant rerolls weather or not you remove a runt?

There is no conditional on Prescience.

Fragile wrote:There is no conditional on Prescience.

Really? You even quoted it. I'll bold it for you.

Fragile wrote:"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls.."

Which has nothing to do with the rules in question.

So then is "Reroll failed To Hit Rolls" = "Reroll failed To Hit Rolls of a 1" ??

Fragile wrote:
Which has nothing to do with the rules in question.

So the conditional there is okay, but a conditional in PE is right out.
That's the type of consistent argument that makes sense and influences people! Well done! (that was sarcasm btw)

So you avoid the question and resort to sarcasm... aka you have nothing ?

I didn't avoid the question actually - you did.
I said there was a conditional. You said there wasn't. I pointed it out. You said it had nothing to do with the rules in question. You have failed to support that statement.

You're asserting that one rule with a conditional works while another rule with a conditional does not. Please explain why. (there's no sarcasm there)

he rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed as evident in prescience, Twin Linked BS6+ etc...

 DeathReaper wrote:
he rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed as evident in prescience, Twin Linked BS6+ etc...

You should re-read that rule. It does not say what you think it says.
And now you're arguing for intent.

I read the rules. not intent argument.

The RAW is written in such a way that you re-roll when you miss, as evident on TL/Prescience, and even in BS6+.

the BS6+ says to re-roll 1's (the extrapolation being this is AKA All misses) as 2+ hits with BS6 and 1's are all misses.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I read the rules. not intent argument.

The RAW is written in such a way that you re-roll when you miss, as evident on TL/Prescience, and even in BS6+.

the BS6+ says to re-roll 1's (the extrapolation being this is AKA All misses) as 2+ hits with BS6 and 1's are all misses.

So how is PE's re-roll different? It applies when missing as well.
And BS6+ does not say to re-roll when you miss.

PE does not always apply when missing.

If you have a BS 4 and PE Orks, and you shoot and roll a 2, you have missed, TL or Prescience would make you re-roll this, PE does not.

BS6+ does not explicitly say to re-roll when you miss, but it tells you to re-roll 1's, which are the only number that misses with a BS6+ so it is the same as TL or Prescience as you re-roll all misses with those three things.

 DeathReaper wrote:
PE does not always apply when missing.

If you have a BS 4 and PE Orks, and you shoot and roll a 2, you have missed, TL or Prescience would make you re-roll this, PE does not.

Which isn't what the Blast rule actually asks for.

BS6+ does not explicitly say to re-roll when you miss, but it tells you to re-roll 1's, which are the only number that misses with a BS6+ so it is the same as TL or Prescience as you re-roll all misses with those three things.

So one of them has different rules, but they're all the same - even if that one is worded identically to PE. And you're not making an argument for intent.
Cool story bro.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
PE does not always apply when missing.

If you have a BS 4 and PE Orks, and you shoot and roll a 2, you have missed, TL or Prescience would make you re-roll this, PE does not.

Which isn't what the Blast rule actually asks for.

I made no mention of the Blast rules, I was just clarifying the base rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
PE does not always apply when missing.

If you have a BS 4 and PE Orks, and you shoot and roll a 2, you have missed, TL or Prescience would make you re-roll this, PE does not.

Which isn't what the Blast rule actually asks for.

I made no mention of the Blast rules, I was just clarifying the base rules.

... Which are irrelevant in this case. So thanks? for going off-topic.

The base rules are relevant when discussing the rules...

 DeathReaper wrote:
The base rules are relevant when discussing the rules...

Please, elaborate.
How does the fact that every to-hit rule is conditional apply in a discussion about the sentence "If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit"?

Yad wrote:

 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

No that isn't even close. Please read the rules on blasts, it would be of great importance in this debate.

Sublimate means in this context to change the rules trigger from one form to another without the need to roll to hit. It's like the other technical meaning of the word that has nothing to do with sexual psychology, but thanks for assuming that I don't understand the big words.
That is what blasts do to re-rolls, it changes the permission to re-roll to hit rolls into something else. If the model has an ability to re-roll dice, then you get the abilities that the blast USR states you get.
What nobody has done is proven that PE doesn't grant a re-roll against the preferred enemy. Every re-roll is conditional on something if you want to be pedantic about it.