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.

 Abandon wrote:
Yes, their are several rules that allow you to reroll failures and at least one that allows you(makes you) to reroll successes. .

It is the same as Characteristic values, they work a certain way (Higher is better) But there is an exception, which are Save Values, which are written in reverse.

One way is the baseline rules and the other is the exception.

With re-rolls one of these things is not like the other and as such is the exception to the base.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Yes, their are several rules that allow you to reroll failures and at least one that allows you(makes you) to reroll successes. .

It is the same as Characteristic values, they work a certain way (Higher is better) But there is an exception, which are Save Values, which are written in reverse.

One way is the baseline rules and the other is the exception.

With re-rolls one of these things is not like the other and as such is the exception to the base.

Characteristic tests are actually stated to be made in a specific way with a noted exception for armor saves. Their is no such supporting text for your argument. In fact a reroll is clearly defined on page 5 of the BRB as simply rerollong the dice regardless of the result or the source of the reroll. This makes your claim at the least a baseless assumption and at most a complete fabrication.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Yes, their are several rules that allow you to reroll failures and at least one that allows you(makes you) to reroll successes. .

It is the same as Characteristic values, they work a certain way (Higher is better) But there is an exception, which are Save Values, which are written in reverse.

One way is the baseline rules and the other is the exception.

With re-rolls one of these things is not like the other and as such is the exception to the base.

Characteristic tests are actually stated to be made in a specific way with a noted exception for armor saves. Their is no such supporting text for your argument. In fact a reroll is clearly defined on page 5 of the BRB as simply rerollong the dice regardless of the result or the source of the reroll. This makes your claim at the least a baseless assumption and at most a complete fabrication.

Only if you ignore how the rules are written.

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

Awesome so for any blast weapon in an Eldar army under the following conditions you get a reroll:

1) you have a Farseer in your army
2) he has either guide or prescience (or both)
3) he casts that power successfully
4) he targets the relevant unit
5) that unit rolls to hit and misses

Given that we know that we don't need conditions 1-5 to be met I can ALWAYS reroll all blast weapons in an Eldar army regardless of whether I have a Farseer in my list.

Orks with ammo runts can likewise reroll every turn without ever using the runt. And in deed any army with access to divination or a battle brother with divination can reroll blasts all the time. Death wing terminators can use PE (CSM) to reroll against Necrons... etc etc etc.

Abandon I really don't see many people agreeing with you and Nos that this is how the rules work.

 Crimson wrote:

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.

Nope, not at all. that is not what I am claiming the rule says.

Nice strawman though. Any more fallacies you want to add in?

Again: rerolling *some* rolls to-hit fulfils the requirement of having the ability to reroll your to-hit rolls. This is fact. If you wish to post further on this topic, then following the tenets would be wonderful - in otherwords, actually prove your case that this is unclear. It would be wonderful if you actually did this for once this thread.

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

Awesome so for any blast weapon in an Eldar army under the following conditions you get a reroll:

1) you have a Farseer in your army
2) he has either guide or prescience (or both)
3) he casts that power successfully
4) he targets the relevant unit
5) that unit rolls to hit and misses

Given that we know that we don't need conditions 1-5 to be met I can ALWAYS reroll all blast weapons in an Eldar army regardless of whether I have a Farseer in my list.

Orks with ammo runts can likewise reroll every turn without ever using the runt. And in deed any army with access to divination or a battle brother with divination can reroll blasts all the time. Death wing terminators can use PE (CSM) to reroll against Necrons... etc etc etc.

Abandon I really don't see many people agreeing with you and Nos that this is how the rules work.

That is incorrect as I have pointed out. The model must have the ability to reroll To Hit rolls in order to reroll scatter per the Blast rules. Are you arguing just to argue at this point because this has been dis-proven already.

"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 reroll both the scatter dice and the 2D6."

It must be the model that has the rule, not that some other unit in your army that might be able to give it to him at some point. Unless the Farseer uses the power on the unit the model does not have any reroll ability (unless it has on from some other source)

There is a large difference between having an ability that allows a reroll and having the possibility of receiving a an ability that allows a reroll. You are making a giant leap in that regard.

Do your thoughts on popular opinion count for something here? Perhaps you should concern yourself more with what the book actually says.

1. A reroll is anytime you reroll the die for the same test. Page 5 BRB

2. Every known reroll is conditional. TL rerolls on a miss, OM rerolls on a 6, PE rerolls on a 1, etc

3. For the rule to preform any function at all conditional rerolls must be counted. Otherwise the rule would not do anything and I think we can all agree it was intended to have an effect in some way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Yes, their are several rules that allow you to reroll failures and at least one that allows you(makes you) to reroll successes. .

It is the same as Characteristic values, they work a certain way (Higher is better) But there is an exception, which are Save Values, which are written in reverse.

One way is the baseline rules and the other is the exception.

With re-rolls one of these things is not like the other and as such is the exception to the base.

Characteristic tests are actually stated to be made in a specific way with a noted exception for armor saves. Their is no such supporting text for your argument. In fact a reroll is clearly defined on page 5 of the BRB as simply rerollong the dice regardless of the result or the source of the reroll. This makes your claim at the least a baseless assumption and at most a complete fabrication.

Only if you ignore how the rules are written.

Answer this. How does the BRB define a reroll? Does it say Rerolling failures? No. Please actually read the rules for rerolls on page 5 before commenting again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Again: rerolling *some* rolls to-hit fulfils the requirement of having the ability to reroll your to-hit rolls. This is fact.

No it doesn't and no it isn't.

If you are by law required to have winter tyres on your car during certain months, can you just have two winter tyres and two regular tyres? After all, then you have some winter tyres on your car.

If the requirement is to have winter tires on, you've met the requirement.
If the requirement is to have a specific number of tires on, you need to meet that more specific requirement.

rigeld2 wrote:
If the requirement is to have winter tires on, you've met the requirement.
If the requirement is to have a specific number of tires on, you need to meet that more specific requirement.

At least in Finland you'd get a fine with that interpretation (yes, I checked the actual law.) I'd hazard to guess it is the same thing in most countries with such laws.

Been reading this thread for a while, and all it has really told me is GW needs to hire better writers.

This has never actually come up in a game before for me, probably because nobody thought to do it. However if it did, I'd allow it. It's a powerful and neat trick, and the area around it is grey enough for me to accept that it could swing either way. I mean, it's just plastic soldiers after all. And if my group were to start playing this way we'd all adapt with counter-tactics.

I understand this is a rules forum, but it looks like this is one of those famous 40k "whoops we did not think of that." situations.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If the requirement is to have winter tires on, you've met the requirement.
If the requirement is to have a specific number of tires on, you need to meet that more specific requirement.

At least in Finland you'd get a fine with that interpretation (yes, I checked the actual law.) I'd hazard to guess it is the same thing in most countries with such laws.

So the law is actually that you need to have all 4 tires. It's like having a specific statement forms a specific requirement. Absent a specific require,ent, you're inserting your own assumptions.

The law says that you must have winter tyres on such and such vehicles at such and such times. It says nothing about the number of the tyres.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

lordwellingstone wrote:
Been reading this thread for a while, and all it has really told me is GW needs to hire better writers.

This has never actually come up in a game before for me, probably because nobody thought to do it. However if it did, I'd allow it. It's a powerful and neat trick, and the area around it is grey enough for me to accept that it could swing either way. I mean, it's just plastic soldiers after all. And if my group were to start playing this way we'd all adapt with counter-tactics.

I understand this is a rules forum, but it looks like this is one of those famous 40k "whoops we did not think of that." situations.

It is. However GW has said that a similar mechanic, Spirit Mark (that let's you re-roll ones) does not apply to blasts. Also, if any re-roll would suffice, Objuration Mechanicum, a malediction that is supposed to make your enemy's shooting worse would actually make blast weapons more accurate! For these reasons it is clear to me what the intent is.

 Crimson wrote:
The law says that you must have winter tyres on such and such vehicles at such and such times. It says nothing about the number of the tyres.

Then it could be challenged (in the us and likely England) if someone cared about it. It would cost more than the cost of the ticket though.
And you're bringing up irrelevant issues - hell, it could be a matter of different languages leading to different expectations.

If all you tell me is to buy apples and I buy 2 but you meant 10, I've accomplished the task you set forth.
Words mean things. It's a fact that if I can reroll 1s I have a reroll available.

Rigeld, yes it is irrelevant, but so is this whole discussion. We already know how the rule is supposed to work. Only reason for it to be FAQed differently that Spirit Mark is that GW feths up (which is a realistic possibility but not something to base rulings on.)

If we know how one rule works, we can assume that other rules that are worded exactly the same way work in the same way, unless we are told otherwise.

I couldn't care less how they eventually rule it.
I know (and have shown) how the rules are actually written. Nos and I are arguing RAW. When you disagree and post an argument responding to one of us, you're also arguing RAW. I get that you started out posting about intent - I really do. But when you continue to argue with Nos and I (who have said multiple times we're not discussing intent), get shown how the rules actually work, and then fall back on "oh, but this is how they intended it" its more than a little frustrating and IMO impolite.

Isn't one of the rules (either for the site or YMDC forum) not to argue RAI vs RAW?

rigeld2 wrote:
I couldn't care less how they eventually rule it.
I know (and have shown) how the rules are actually written. Nos and I are arguing RAW. When you disagree and post an argument responding to one of us, you're also arguing RAW. I get that you started out posting about intent - I really do. But when you continue to argue with Nos and I (who have said multiple times we're not discussing intent), get shown how the rules actually work, and then fall back on "oh, but this is how they intended it" its more than a little frustrating and IMO impolite.

My position on RAW is that the rule is properly unclear and true RAW on it doesn't exits. My position on RAI is that PE doesn't allow re-roll blasts. Are we clear?

Out of curiosity, what is you position on Spirit Mark then?

Not having the relevant books for the Spirit Mark I can't form an opinion on it.

How is the RAW unclear? Does a mode, with PE have a reroll to hit? It's a yes or no question.

 Happyjew wrote:
Isn't one of the rules (either for the site or YMDC forum) not to argue RAI vs RAW?

No, I don't think so. You shouldn't argue HWYP against RAW or vice versa, but that's different. I don't think that pure platonic RAW can ever exist, at least as long as rules are not written as logical syntax. You have to consider RAI to arrive at correct interpretation.
Here is a good post by Yakface on RAW which describes the situation rather well.

And while I respect yakface, I disagree with his overall position.

 Crimson wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Isn't one of the rules (either for the site or YMDC forum) not to argue RAI vs RAW?

No, I don't think so. You shouldn't argue HWYP against RAW or vice versa, but that's different. I don't think that pure platonic RAW can ever exist, at least as long as rules are not written as logical syntax. You have to consider RAI to arrive at correct interpretation.
Here is a good post by Yakface on RAW which describes the situation rather well.

Yeah I was thinking RAW v HYWPI. I think, however, that is basically what is going on here. Side A says the rule says this. Side B says the writers intended that. Unfortunately, unless somebody is a GW writer (and I have no idea how they would be able to prove it on an anonymous forum) you do not know what their intent is. It could very well be that the intent is that only Twin-linked or Prescience/Guide is the only way to gain a re-roll for blasts. If so, then GW dropped the ba and needs to clarify via FAQ.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Isn't one of the rules (either for the site or YMDC forum) not to argue RAI vs RAW?

No, I don't think so. You shouldn't argue HWYP against RAW or vice versa, but that's different. I don't think that pure platonic RAW can ever exist, at least as long as rules are not written as logical syntax. You have to consider RAI to arrive at correct interpretation.
Here is a good post by Yakface on RAW which describes the situation rather well.

Yeah I was thinking RAW v HYWPI. I think, however, that is basically what is going on here. Side A says the rule says this. Side B says the writers intended that. Unfortunately, unless somebody is a GW writer (and I have no idea how they would be able to prove it on an anonymous forum) you do not know what their intent is. It could very well be that the intent is that only Twin-linked or Prescience/Guide is the only way to gain a re-roll for blasts. If so, then GW dropped the ba and needs to clarify via FAQ.

Agreed. Technically Scything Talons give a unit a 'reroll To Hit' and though I'm certain that falls outside of the intended qualification it is not specific to ranged To Hit rerolls in the written text making RAW rather ridiculous in this case and I'd highly recommend actually using the best RAI(Edit: or HYWPI) you can get your group to consent to. Might want to add it to the list of things to ask TOs about as well since I highly doubt anyone's gonna let you get away with rerolling scatter because you can reroll To Hit rolls in CC. On second though, just assume that's not gonna fly... but it's in RAW lol

 Happyjew wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Isn't one of the rules (either for the site or YMDC forum) not to argue RAI vs RAW?

No, I don't think so. You shouldn't argue HWYP against RAW or vice versa, but that's different. I don't think that pure platonic RAW can ever exist, at least as long as rules are not written as logical syntax. You have to consider RAI to arrive at correct interpretation.
Here is a good post by Yakface on RAW which describes the situation rather well.

Yeah I was thinking RAW v HYWPI. I think, however, that is basically what is going on here. Side A says the rule says this. Side B says the writers intended that. Unfortunately, unless somebody is a GW writer (and I have no idea how they would be able to prove it on an anonymous forum) you do not know what their intent is. It could very well be that the intent is that only Twin-linked or Prescience/Guide is the only way to gain a re-roll for blasts. If so, then GW dropped the ba and needs to clarify via FAQ.

Well, we do have an interpretation of a rule that works exactly the same as PE in terms of the relevant pieces from a GW writer, but that's apparently not good enough for the pro-scatter camp because its in a codex strategy section and not a FAQ.

The problem with the pure RAW approach is that if you are playing the game purely RAW with no RAI judgment, the game breaks almost immediately.

Yes, there are cases where the game breaks.
This isn't one of them. Stop with that "argument".

 ClassicCarraway wrote:



The problem with the pure RAW approach is that if you are playing the game purely RAW with no RAI judgment, the game breaks almost immediately.

The problem with RAI arguments is that we cant know the intent but We have the RAW available and printed in our hands. Therefor we should always use the RAW and if there are conflicts (other than here because there are none) we should wait for a FAQ and until then make a local HIWPI Rule. The debates on this forum help my player group a lot to identify and house rule the critical problems before stepping on them in a game.

rigeld2 wrote:
Not having the relevant books for the Spirit Mark I can't form an opinion on it.

How is the RAW unclear? Does a mode, with PE have a reroll to hit? It's a yes or no question.

Does a model with PE have a reroll to hit and chooses to do so? It's a Yes or No Question.

Scything Talons specifically state that they only apply in Close Combat.

So no, my Warrior with a Venom Cannon and a set of Scything Talons doesn't get to re-roll when he fires the Cannon.

However when he is within 6" of the Old Adversary Hive Tyrant, he does. As has been correctly argued by Rigeld and some others.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I couldn't care less how they eventually rule it.
I know (and have shown) how the rules are actually written. Nos and I are arguing RAW. When you disagree and post an argument responding to one of us, you're also arguing RAW. I get that you started out posting about intent - I really do. But when you continue to argue with Nos and I (who have said multiple times we're not discussing intent), get shown how the rules actually work, and then fall back on "oh, but this is how they intended it" its more than a little frustrating and IMO impolite.

My position on RAW is that the rule is properly unclear and true RAW on it doesn't exits. My position on RAI is that PE doesn't allow re-roll blasts. Are we clear?

Out of curiosity, what is you position on Spirit Mark then?

Yes, and your position on RAW has been proven incorrect -the RAW is 100% clear, because the set of all to-hit rerolls is satisfied by having a reroll of 1s to hit. This is indisputable, as you have yet to actually prove otherwise - just asserted it, breaking the tenets of the forum repeatedly.

If I reroll 1s, I HAVE an ability to reroll to hit. Fact. Stop stating otherwise, as that is a strict lie.

That is incorrect as I have pointed out. The model must have the ability to reroll To Hit rolls in order to reroll scatter per the Blast rules. Are you arguing just to argue at this point because this has been dis-proven already.

"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 reroll both the scatter dice and the 2D6."

It must be the model that has the rule, not that some other unit in your army that might be able to give it to him at some point. Unless the Farseer uses the power on the unit the model does not have any reroll ability (unless it has on from some other source)

There is a large difference between having an ability that allows a reroll and having the possibility of receiving a an ability that allows a reroll. You are making a giant leap in that regard.

So are you saying a Fire Prism model with prescience cast on it doesn't have the ability to reroll? If I cast prescience on a unit the model(s) in that unit, would be able to reroll to hit rolls if they miss with a to hit roll.

Yes or no?

These are conditions for that model to get a reroll. You stated that ALL conditions for a reroll are irrelevant. Why are you saying some conditions are OK and others are not. You are now making the same argument as the people you are disagreeing with.

The RaW here has two correct results:

1) In order to get the reroll on the blasts you must have an unconditional reroll. If so the rule essentially does nothing as no one currently has that (though when written Warp Time would have applied).
2) In order to get the reroll on the blasts you must have a confitional reroll and you get that reroll regardless of whether the conditions are met.

If you are going by the later I don't see how you could state my Fire Prism doesn't get to reroll the scatter just because I haven't met the conditions of failing a to hit roll, having prescience cast on me, having my Farseer have the prescience power or having a Farseer in my army.

Why are some conditions OK and others not?

HawaiiMatt wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Not having the relevant books for the Spirit Mark I can't form an opinion on it.

How is the RAW unclear? Does a mode, with PE have a reroll to hit? It's a yes or no question.

Does a model with PE have a reroll to hit and chooses to do so? It's a Yes or No Question.

Yes, he can choose to re-roll scatter. Since that's where the choice comes in.