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.

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

No, you avoided the critical question - why is ONE conditional (reroll all failed to hit) OK, and grants a reroll on the blast scatter roll, when another condition (reroll all 1s to hit) NOT OK?

PLease explain, using real rules for the first time this thread, with page and paragraph and citation of EXACTLY where the rulebook makes this specification, why this is the case

Your continued failure to do so tells a lot about the quality of your argument, and its ability to persuade others.

Again: the actual rules only require the ability for a model to be able to reroll its to-hit for it to be able to reroll scatter. Is rerolling to=hit rolls of a 1 a reroll to hit?

A simple yes or no answer would be helpful. If you state "no" it would be wonderful for you to explain why, using rules.

I'll wait. Should be amusing.

 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.

So your argument says that, if I have a Blast 2 weapon and PE, I get to re-roll?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Is rerolling to=hit rolls of a 1 a reroll to hit?

No. Like Stealth (ruins) is not same as Stealth and Stormbolter is not same as Bolter.
Or maybe it is, but there is actually nothing in the rules that would allow us to conclude either way. (Luckily, there are things that let us conclude the intent, which works for those of us who actually intend to play the game.)

Once again, in the case of a genuinely unclear rule you decide that your arbitrary definition is right, and others need to show rules quotes that prove you wrong, while you actually cannot prove your original assumption right either. That's what unclear rules are. If there was a clear way to prove it either way, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's why pure RAW positions are stupid. Platonic clear RAW does not exist, some rules just are unclear or nonsensical as written.

No, actually, it is clear. Your refusal to accept that is irrelevant.
And you're applying intent shown by words involving a similar rule (not the same). GW has ruled in different directions for similar rules multiple times.

No, you avoided the critical question - why is ONE conditional (reroll all failed to hit) OK, and grants a reroll on the blast scatter roll, when another condition (reroll all 1s to hit) NOT OK?
.

Because in the Blast and Rerolls section of the Blast rules it just says 'if the model has the ability to re-roll its ROLLS To Hit...". It does not say 'if a model has the ability to re-roll any of its To Hit rolls it gets to.....". If a model only has a limited ability to re-roll To Hits, as with PE, I and many others don't view that as a qualifying to use the Blast and Rerolls section. PE certainly does NOT meet the first criteria of being used with a Blast weapon at all, namely Blast Weapons DO NOT roll To Hit. That much alone makes it doubtful that PE could be used Blast Weapons.

Why your team refuses to acknowledge the difference and conflict between the PE and Blast/Rerolls rules is the most confusing part. We don't need to quote any more rules showing why it is different, because the Blast/Rerolls section and PE rules are already printed differently in the bloody book; the words which qualify each to occur are different, and therefore in some conflict with each other. Needing clarification, sure, discussion, sure. But you are not absolutely irrefutably correct until GW decides upon it.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
namely Blast Weapons DO NOT roll To Hit. That much alone makes it doubtful that PE could be used Blast Weapons.

Why your team refuses to acknowledge the difference and conflict between the PE and Blast/Rerolls rules is the most confusing part.

Because your "team" is using a double standard.
Prescience, et. al. must roll to hit and fail before having a re-roll.
BS6+ must roll to hit and roll a 1 before having a re-roll.
PE must roll to hit and roll a 1 before having a re-roll.

And I'd bet you're okay with 2/3 of those working for re-rolling scatter. And there's zero basis for that double standard to apply.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

No, you avoided the critical question - why is ONE conditional (reroll all failed to hit) OK, and grants a reroll on the blast scatter roll, when another condition (reroll all 1s to hit) NOT OK?

PLease explain, using real rules for the first time this thread, with page and paragraph and citation of EXACTLY where the rulebook makes this specification, why this is the case

Let me take a stab at this.

Blasts say, If a model has the ability to re-roll its To Hit and choose to do so after firing a blast weapon, the player must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6.

Twin-Linked weapons grant you the choice under the twin-linked rule (page 43).
Master-Crafted "Allows" a re-roll on one failed To Hit per turn with that weapon (page37); I'm saying the wordage allows implies a choice.
Prefered Enemy gives you the re-roll if you roll a 1 to hit.
Ammo Runt gives you a re-roll if you remove the ammo runt.

When you fail to roll a 1, or fail to remove the Ammo Runt, you are not meeting the Criteria that allows you to "choose to do so". (where "so" is re-rolling to hit).

IMO, you must qualify to use the rule to "choose to do so". I can't choose to move flat out, fire all my weapons, and pop smoke.



Does that make sense?
-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

No, you avoided the critical question - why is ONE conditional (reroll all failed to hit) OK, and grants a reroll on the blast scatter roll, when another condition (reroll all 1s to hit) NOT OK?

PLease explain, using real rules for the first time this thread, with page and paragraph and citation of EXACTLY where the rulebook makes this specification, why this is the case

Let me take a stab at this.

Blasts say, If a model has the ability to re-roll its To Hit and choose to do so after firing a blast weapon, the player must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6.

Twin-Linked weapons grant you the choice under the twin-linked rule (page 43).

False, Twin-Linked says you must re-roll failed to hits.

Master-Crafted "Allows" a re-roll on one failed To Hit per turn with that weapon (page37); I'm saying the wordage allows implies a choice.

You mean 39. That one actually gives a choice.

When you fail to roll a 1, or fail to remove the Ammo Runt, you are not meeting the Criteria that allows you to "choose to do so". (where "so" is re-rolling to hit).

So the rule only applies if you have a choice? Then Master-Crafted and Twin-Linked are the only ones that work, and the latter only because it has a specific exception.

IMO, you must qualify to use the rule to "choose to do so". I can't choose to move flat out, fire all my weapons, and pop smoke.

Can you show me how Prescience qualifies to use the rule if it never rolls to hit?

Does that make sense?

It shows me you're applying the same double standard. Please explain why.

The Blast Weapons and Re-rolls rule does not mention rerolling failed To Hit rolls, it just mentions rerolling To Hit rolls.

We must assume as an axiom that it means failed To Hit rolls, as all the other rules we are referencing speak of only rerolling failed To Hit rolls. Otherwise the PE advocates would automatically lose this argument, as you only reroll failed To Hit rolls of 1 with that rule.

So if the Blasts Rerolls only occurs if models reroll To Hit rolls and not just failed To Hit rolls then nobody gets to reroll the scatter dice for Blasts except twin-linked Blasts (which only works if you don't get a Hit symbol on the scatter die).

Furthermore, Rigeld2, Twin-linked blasts have their own rule, where rerolling the scatter dice is a choice. You complain about us not reading the rules; so I will say you can afford to brush up on them too.

Prescience of course qualifies to reroll Blasts scatter dice as 'whilst in effect it allows the model to re-roll ALL failed To Hit rolls'. The Blasts and Re-rolls rule says if a model has the ability to re-roll its To Hit rolls. So if we assume the aforementioned axiom to be true, which to win your PE case you must, then Prescience would qualify.

And you go all over the place without simply stating you don't think there is a difference between the general condition of re-rolling (failed) To Hit rolls, and the very specific condition of re-roll (failed) To Hit rolls of 1.

So in a regular game we'll have to D6 it, or if there's a TO ask her or him, or get a petition worked up for GW to tell them to get of their butts and write some new FAQs. Allelujia!

I rest my case, gotta move on.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
The Blast Weapons and Re-rolls rule does not mention rerolling failed To Hit rolls, it just mentions rerolling To Hit rolls.

Correct.

So if the Blasts Rerolls only occurs if models reroll To Hit rolls and not just failed To Hit rolls then nobody gets to reroll the scatter dice for Blasts except twin-linked Blasts (which only works if you don't get a Hit symbol on the scatter die).

Which is what I said.

Furthermore, Rigeld2, Twin-linked blasts have their own rule, where rerolling the scatter dice is a choice. You complain about us not reading the rules; so I will say you can afford to brush up on them too.

Please read what was said.

Blasts say, If a model has the ability to re-roll its To Hit and choose to do so after firing a blast weapon, the player must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6.
Twin-Linked weapons grant you the choice under the twin-linked rule (page 43).

All of the examples in that post are abilities that re-roll to hit. He erroneously used Twin-Linked as an example and claimed it gave you a choice to re-roll to hit. It does not.

Prescience of course qualifies to reroll Blasts scatter dice as 'whilst in effect it allows the model to re-roll ALL failed To Hit rolls'. The Blasts and Re-rolls rule says if a model has the ability to re-roll its To Hit rolls. So if we assume the aforementioned axiom to be true, which to win your PE case you must, then Prescience would qualify.

Sure.

And you go all over the place without simply stating you don't think there is a difference between the general condition of re-rolling (failed) To Hit rolls, and the very specific condition of re-roll (failed) To Hit rolls of 1.

So - why the double standard? Why must you assume that abilities that don't roll to hit work, but abilities that don't roll to hit don't work? You've not actually argued anything in your entire post, just restated things that are already known.

My point is that people are saying PE cannot re-roll because it never rolls to hit and therefore never qualifies, and at the exact same time saying that other abilities that don't roll to hit and therefore never qualify actually do get to re-roll. With no rules explanation. At all. This cannot be a correct standing - please actually offer rules support for this opinion.

So in a regular game we'll have to D6 it, or if there's a TO ask her or him, or get a petition worked up for GW to tell them to get of their butts and write some new FAQs. Allelujia!

I rest my case, gotta move on.

You rest your case on what - you've not actually argued anything. Bye?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
namely Blast Weapons DO NOT roll To Hit. That much alone makes it doubtful that PE could be used Blast Weapons.

Why your team refuses to acknowledge the difference and conflict between the PE and Blast/Rerolls rules is the most confusing part.

Because your "team" is using a double standard.
Prescience, et. al. must roll to hit and fail before having a re-roll.
BS6+ must roll to hit and roll a 1 before having a re-roll.
PE must roll to hit and roll a 1 before having a re-roll.

And I'd bet you're okay with 2/3 of those working for re-rolling scatter. And there's zero basis for that double standard to apply.

What does Prescience fail on?

I think I see what your trying to say. Your arguing the "fail to hit" is a conditional. Ok, then all three have conditions, however 2 of those have TWO conditions. First is a fail to hit, second is a roll of a 1. No matter what happens with Prescience, you will always reroll.

Unless you claiming that the Blast rule doesnt give permission and is just clarifying other rules like Twin Linked.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Let me take a stab at this.
Blasts say, If a model has the ability to re-roll its To Hit and choose to do so after firing a blast weapon, the player must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6.
Twin-Linked weapons grant you the choice under the twin-linked rule (page 43).

rigeld2 wrote:

False, Twin-Linked says you must re-roll failed to hits.

If the scatter dice does not roll a Hit, you can CHOOSE to re-roll the dice....
It appears to be True, in the context of blasts. You must re-roll normal shooting, you may re-roll blast shooting.

rigeld2 wrote:

Master-Crafted "Allows" a re-roll on one failed To Hit per turn with that weapon (page37); I'm saying the wordage allows implies a choice.

You mean 39. That one actually gives a choice.

When you fail to roll a 1, or fail to remove the Ammo Runt, you are not meeting the Criteria that allows you to "choose to do so". (where "so" is re-rolling to hit).

So the rule only applies if you have a choice? Then Master-Crafted and Twin-Linked are the only ones that work, and the latter only because it has a specific exception.

That is exactly what I'm saying.
If you don't have the choice to use the reroll, you don't qualify for the rule that lets you re-roll blast scatters.
Prescience wouldn't work with blasts, as you have no choice. You'd still be re-rolling all your to hit rolls, just not scatter dice.

I mean, isn't the rule phrased as "Choose to do so" is a condition of having re-rolls to hit, and not a exclusion of being required to re-roll the scatter die?

I'm not trying to troll here, I'm a mathematics guy, not a grammar guy.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
namely Blast Weapons DO NOT roll To Hit. That much alone makes it doubtful that PE could be used Blast Weapons.

Why your team refuses to acknowledge the difference and conflict between the PE and Blast/Rerolls rules is the most confusing part.

Because your "team" is using a double standard.
Prescience, et. al. must roll to hit and fail before having a re-roll.
BS6+ must roll to hit and roll a 1 before having a re-roll.
PE must roll to hit and roll a 1 before having a re-roll.

And I'd bet you're okay with 2/3 of those working for re-rolling scatter. And there's zero basis for that double standard to apply.

What does Prescience fail on?

When you succeed a roll to hit...

I think I see what your trying to say. Your arguing the "fail to hit" is a conditional. Ok, then all three have conditions, however 2 of those have TWO conditions. First is a fail to hit, second is a roll of a 1. No matter what happens with Prescience, you will always reroll.

They all have 2 conditions. All 3 must roll to hit. One must miss, the others must roll a one.
You absolutely do not always reroll with prescience - you only reroll misses.

Figured out an explanation of your double standard?

nosferatu1001 wrote:"to hit" is, however, a defined term Matt - it has a specific meaning in the rules..

This^^^. The refereed to To Hit roll is capitalized because it is not just a mechanic, it is a title naming the mechanic to achieve hits in shooting and CC.

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.

This is a failed argument. You cannot fail a To Hit roll with scatter either as you make no To Hit roll. Obviously a misreading of the rule.

Crimson 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.

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.

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...

Lord Krungharr wrote:The Blast Weapons and Re-rolls rule does not mention rerolling failed To Hit rolls, it just mentions rerolling To Hit rolls.

We must assume as an axiom that it means failed To Hit rolls, as all the other rules we are referencing speak of only rerolling failed To Hit rolls.

demonstrably not always true. OM makes you reroll successful To Hit rolls and does indeed count as rerolling To Hit. So not all rerolls are a result of failed To Hit rolls.

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.

There is no conflict in those rules. The error is in your interpretation that 'failed To hit rolls' is not a condition to get a reroll.

liturgies of blood wrote:

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.

Not sure that's exactly it unless you mean both the trigger and the effect are replaced in which case the original rule is not observed at all other than to check that it is there. The condition of 'fail a roll To Hit' cannot be met because their is not roll To Hit nor can the effect of rerolling the roll To Hit be applied for the same reason.

This seems like just a check to see if you have a rule that allows you to reroll To Hit rolls and an option to choose to use it but it does not actually allow you to do so as it cannot be used, instead allowing you to reroll scatter.

Fragile wrote:

I think I see what your trying to say. Your arguing the "fail to hit" is a conditional. Ok, then all three have conditions, however 2 of those have TWO conditions. First is a fail to hit, second is a roll of a 1. No matter what happens with Prescience, you will always reroll.

Prescience lets you reroll your failed To Hit rolls, that is not 'always' rerolling. That is sometimes or conditional rerolling.

 Abandon wrote:

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...

Lord Krungharr wrote:The Blast Weapons and Re-rolls rule does not mention rerolling failed To Hit rolls, it just mentions rerolling To Hit rolls.

We must assume as an axiom that it means failed To Hit rolls, as all the other rules we are referencing speak of only rerolling failed To Hit rolls.

demonstrably not always true. OM makes you reroll successful To Hit rolls and does indeed count as rerolling To Hit. So not all rerolls are a result of failed To Hit rolls.

Almost every base rule has exceptions...

Re-rolling hits on OM is one of these exceptions to the base rule.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

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...

Lord Krungharr wrote:The Blast Weapons and Re-rolls rule does not mention rerolling failed To Hit rolls, it just mentions rerolling To Hit rolls.

We must assume as an axiom that it means failed To Hit rolls, as all the other rules we are referencing speak of only rerolling failed To Hit rolls.

demonstrably not always true. OM makes you reroll successful To Hit rolls and does indeed count as rerolling To Hit. So not all rerolls are a result of failed To Hit rolls.

Almost every base rule has exceptions...

Re-rolling hits on OM is one of these exceptions to the base rule.

I'm sure you can quote me the base rule to which this is an exception that states your case that all To Hit rerolls are only referring to rerolling misses? Or was that just something you made from a string of other statements that did not actually state that at all?

Please tell us where this rule can be found.

I already stated it, in this very thread...

The rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed. Twin Linked and Prescience confirm this.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I already stated it, in this very thread...

The rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed. Twin Linked and Prescience confirm this.

Actually you did not. You stated that very same assumption citing abilities that allow you to reroll if you miss as proof that all rerolls assume only misses count for their effects. I showed that was incorrect. In any case I'd like to add that this unwritten basis theory is fairly ridiculous. This is a permissive rule set, if they do not add it in we cannot account for it. You can assume the rules are written on some basis or another all you want but that's also called making things up.

So Abandon you believe that if you have access to a reroll conditionally you get a reroll on the scatter whether or not those conditions are met? Is that correct?

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Is rerolling to=hit rolls of a 1 a reroll to hit?

No. Like Stealth (ruins) is not same as Stealth and Stormbolter is not same as Bolter.

Wrong. Again

the set of events "reroll to hit" contains within it the events {"reroll to hit (of a 1)", "reroll to hit (of a 2)", ...., "reroll to hit (of a 6)"}

Asked "do i get a reroll to hit if I reroll to hit all 1s" you are 100% correct in answering "Yes"

Same way if I move 5", I can answer the question "have I moved up to 6"?" with "yes"

You just fail to read a set of events as a set, instead making up a rule that "reroll to hit" ACTUALLY means "reroll (all failed) to hit", and then pretend you are making an "intent" argument when asked to provide support.

 Crimson wrote:
Or maybe it is, but there is actually nothing in the rules that would allow us to conclude either way. (Luckily, there are things that let us conclude the intent, which works for those of us who actually intend to play the game.)

Wrong, as proven over and over to you. Your failure to listen and comprehend doesnt make something unclear.

If I reroll 1s on my to-hit do I have the ability to reroll to-hit? YES.

100% unarguable fact.

Oh, and we have something written in non-rules section by a company what cannot even write the rules sections without error, in a section known for getting rules wrong (from illegal options on models, to illegal army lists, etc) - that isnt even about the rule in question and you are holding that up as "intent"?

 Crimson wrote:
Once again, in the case of a genuinely unclear rule

Only by those unable to understand sets.

 Crimson wrote:
you decide that your arbitrary definition is right,

It isnt arbitrary when it is backed up by, you know, rules. Your position IS entirely arbitrary, as proven

Your insults and denigrations to others is quite appalling.

 Crimson wrote:
and others need to show rules quotes that prove you wrong, while you actually cannot prove your original assumption right either.

Again, your failure to comprehend basis sets doesnt mean I havent proven my case. It does mean you have a failure in understanding of a basic concept.

 Crimson wrote:
That's what unclear rules are. If there was a clear way to prove it either way, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Really, so something that is a known fact is never debated? Have you met real life people, ever? A genuine query. People argue about known facts all the time, because one side often has a critical misunderstanding - which is what you have here

Having a reroll to-hit of 1s IS having the abilty to reroll your to hit rolls. Fact. Your failure to understand that does not make it less true, or unclear, or whatever sophistry you will next try to claim is your argument to avoid having to admit your position is untenable.

 Crimson wrote:
That's why pure RAW positions are stupid. Platonic clear RAW does not exist, some rules just are unclear or nonsensical as written.

I agree some make no sense. However this is not one of them

You declaring something unclear, despite the clear rules pointing otherwise, does not make it so. You can houserule whatever you like, however trying to claim a requirement to do so "because the rules are unclear" is disingenuous.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You just fail to read a set of events as a set, instead making up a rule that "reroll to hit" ACTUALLY means "reroll (all failed) to hit", and then pretend you are making an "intent" argument when asked to provide support.

And Stealth (ruins) is subset of Stealth; still, having Stealth (ruins) is not same as having Stealth.

Oh, and we have something written in non-rules section by a company what cannot even write the rules sections without error, in a section known for getting rules wrong (from illegal options on models, to illegal army lists, etc) - that isnt even about the rule in question and you are holding that up as "intent"?

Over your assertions? Absolutely.

I am certain that if and when this gets an FAQ it will be similar to the Spirit Mark ruling.

Except your false comparison is just that - false

You have such an item as "stealth", that is a discrete entity.

You do not have such a discrete entity as "reroll to-hit" - as you yourself has agreed, by making up the rule that "reroll to-hit" instead means "reroll (all failed) to-hit"

Stop creating strawman arguments, please. Stop pretending that a clear rule (do you have the ability to reroll your to hit rolls? Then you reroll scatter) is anything less than sparklingly clear.

They arent assertions when they are backed by rules. Your failed "intent" argument that it means "all failed" remains an assertion, with no merit.

Thank you for conceding that your "unclear rule" assertion is exactly that - your assertion. One that isnt linked to reality.

Also - your selective quoting is fun, it REALLY makes your argument that much more persuasive, when you fail to rebut the elemtns which prove you to be incorrect. I highly recommend that you continue to do so.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I already stated it, in this very thread...

The rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed. Twin Linked and Prescience confirm this.

Actually you did not. You stated that very same assumption citing abilities that allow you to reroll if you miss as proof that all rerolls assume only misses count for their effects. I showed that was incorrect. In any case I'd like to add that this unwritten basis theory is fairly ridiculous. This is a permissive rule set, if they do not add it in we cannot account for it. You can assume the rules are written on some basis or another all you want but that's also called making things up.

If 5 rules are written one way, and 1 is written in reverse, which rule is the exception? (Hint, the 1 rule that is opposite of the 5 others is the exception...)

This situation seems to stem simply from where you start your logic in the first place:

If you start your logic from the USR side, the rules clearly state you cannot make the reroll.
If you begin your logic from the Blast side, the rules clearly state you can make the reroll.

Now THIS is a funny predicament. I would honestly play it(as I do any heavily debated rule like this) in the manner that is the least powerful. In that Spirit Mark, and Prefered Enemy, do not allow rerolls to scattering blast weapons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

If I reroll 1s on my to-hit do I have the ability to reroll to-hit? YES.

100% unarguable fact.

come on Nos, lets see someone arguing for PE always allowing rerolls to scatter dice answer the question about ammo runts.

They grant they ability to reroll, so does blast allow the reroll without "removing" the ammo runt?
A model with an ammo runt is allowed to reroll one to hit roll .....
So blast only asks "does the model have the abilitiy to reroll" the answer with the runts is yes. So as long as there is a runt you can use the blast rule to reroll every turn. Right?

If you answer yes here, then I'll believe this is how you think the rules should be read.

If you answer no, then you are agreeing that rerolls that are conditional. And if you need to meet the criteria to gain the reroll, then you can not use PE, as you never get the 1's required to gain the reroll. And the fact is actually arguable.

If you can't meet the criteria to gain a reroll, then you don't have a reroll.

If I reroll 1s on my to-hit do I have the ability to reroll to-hit? YES.

100% unarguable fact.

Not if you roll a 2.

Your insults and denigrations to others is quite appalling.

Seriously.... from the person calling people "Liar" in an online argument..

This is a failed argument. You cannot fail a To Hit roll with scatter either as you make no To Hit roll. Obviously a misreading of the rule.

Yet, you cannot dispute it other than to say its a "misreading".

Fragile wrote:

This is a failed argument. You cannot fail a To Hit roll with scatter either as you make no To Hit roll. Obviously a misreading of the rule.

Yet, you cannot dispute it other than to say its a "misreading".

You really should clarify whose posts you're quoting, especially when you quote 2 different people in one post.

And are you actually going to argue that rolling scatter dice is a roll to hit? I can dispute that all day long.

FlingitNow wrote:So Abandon you believe that if you have access to a reroll conditionally you get a reroll on the scatter whether or not those conditions are met? Is that correct?

Absolutely. It is both a valid reading of the rule and the only way it will make sense as all known rerolls are conditional.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I already stated it, in this very thread...

The rules are written on the basis that needing a re-roll is because you missed. Twin Linked and Prescience confirm this.

Actually you did not. You stated that very same assumption citing abilities that allow you to reroll if you miss as proof that all rerolls assume only misses count for their effects. I showed that was incorrect. In any case I'd like to add that this unwritten basis theory is fairly ridiculous. This is a permissive rule set, if they do not add it in we cannot account for it. You can assume the rules are written on some basis or another all you want but that's also called making things up.

If 5 rules are written one way, and 1 is written in reverse, which rule is the exception? (Hint, the 1 rule that is opposite of the 5 others is the exception...)

Yes, their are several rules that allow you to reroll failures and at least one that allows you(makes you) to reroll successes. That is not called an exception. That is just a different rule with absolutely zero conflict and hence no need for an exception to be made. If you could point to this unwritten rule that says all rerolls are just rerolling failures, then you could call it such but until then, it just not the case and furthermore you have no case to present as a logical argument.

Fragile wrote:

This is a failed argument. You cannot fail a To Hit roll with scatter either as you make no To Hit roll. Obviously a misreading of the rule.

Yet, you cannot dispute it other than to say its a "misreading".

If that is all you got out of what I said, I believe I have found the source of the problem you are having grasping the relevant concepts.

Fragile wrote:

If I reroll 1s on my to-hit do I have the ability to reroll to-hit? YES.

100% unarguable fact.

Not if you roll a 2.

Yet the actual rule, the one you seem to have a hard time understanding, doesnt make any requirement on you to ALWAYS be able to reroll. At least, none you have been able to find, despite being asked. Found anything yet, anything at all? The continued lack of a rules argument from you does mean you are advocating a houserule, otherwise you are violating the tenets...again.

Your insults and denigrations to others is quite appalling.

Seriously.... from the person calling people "Liar" in an online argument..

When someone lies, stating that whether online or not is appropriate.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yet the actual rule, the one you seem to have a hard time understanding, doesnt make any requirement on you to ALWAYS be able to reroll. At least, none you have been able to find, despite being asked. Found anything yet, anything at all? The continued lack of a rules argument from you does mean you are advocating a houserule, otherwise you are violating the tenets...again.

The rule also doesn't say 'if the model has the ability to re-roll SOME of its rolls to hit." That's what you seem to assume it is saying.

When someone lies, stating that whether online or not is appropriate.

Except that was you failing at reading and making baseless accusations. Luckily, I'm not easily offended so I let that pass.