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.

Yet simultaneously managing to conflate two separate concepts

To hit is a defined process in the rule book.m while other things can "hit" that does not mean they made a to hit roll.

The rules state that IF you have the ability to Reroll to hit, then you can Reroll blasts.

Note this DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO ROLL A TO HIT at all. THAT is what you don't seem to understand here, which is why you are misapplying two different rules.

A BS6 model HAS the ability to reroll their to hit dice; a limited one, granted, but so does prescience have limitations. Luckily for us the actual rule does give two gaks about any limitations - just asks if you have a reroll or not. So,me know I can reroll the scatter dice, and have a handy rule that then tells me how to do so.

rigeld2 wrote:

busby wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

busby wrote:
Prescience lets you reroll failed to hit rolls. There is blast indicator on the 6 sided die suggesting that you hit. If you hit, you hit. If you get an arrow, you get to reroll. Seems pretty simple to me.

Except it's not a To Hit roll. I've quoted the rule that says explicitly that Blasts do not roll To Hit.
Prescience requires a failed To Hit roll. You still don't see the issue?

I really might not be seeing the whole issue here. I'll admit it. However, those seem pretty clear.

You're failing to understand the rules as they're written - your quote above proves you're inserting rules where there aren't any.

So why have this debate? We are back at the point where there is no to hit roll and hence no ability to roll a 1 to hit as you have just now again stated.

Right - according to your argument since there's no To Hit roll, nothing can be rerolled. Including with Prescience, et al.
Since that renders the rule in question (rerolling Blast) useless it cannot be correct.

I know - for a fact - I've said this and proved it before. Either you didn't read the thread before (when you assured me you did) or you didn't understand what I said before (possible, but I haven't said it any different this time) or you're pruposely asking me to repeat myself. Could you clarify which one it is?

A LITTLE EDIT HERE:

My earlier statements indicated that there was never a roll to hit. I believe page 4. I'll pull up a quote in a moment. I began trying to change this viewpoint based on the assertion that I was somehow wrong. By doing so, I still could not come to the conclusion that ECPA could ever allow a reroll for Blast weapons.

END OF EDIT
I've bolded your quote just in case you forgot.
Yes. You have. This is at least the second time.

I'll repost it here for you:

"Except it's not a To Hit roll. I've quoted the rule that says explicitly that Blasts do not roll To Hit."

So the issue whether or not ECPA can reroll to hit rolls of 1 on a blast weapon has been clearly laid out. Since it cannot roll To Hit, it cannot then reroll to hit. If this is also to be applied to Prescience: Then oh well.

Since neither blast nor template weapons roll to hit, neither ECPA nor Prescience apply to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

busby wrote:
You guys are silly. There is a HIT die on the scatter die. That's your roll to hit. The dice with the numbers is the distance in which the blast marker will move if the scatter die fails to show the HIT. The numbered dice have nothing to do with hitting in this instance. They have everything to do with the distance that the blast scatters by.

With non blast weapons, you roll numbered dice to try and hit thimgs. If the die comes up as a one, you get to reroll that die.

Nope, didn't say it there. Guess I never said it. Regardless, this was my attempt to try and see the other side of the argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

busby wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
but blast RR say if you get a RR (it doesn't specify what kind that im aware of) then you can RR the blast dice etc.

otherwise pref enemy doesn't allow it either ?

The rule in question give the shooter the ability to reroll failed to hit rolls of 1. The blast die is not an attemptto hit based on a roll of 1-6. It is an attempt to hit based on whether the hit indicator comes up. The numbers on the other two dice show you how far it will scatter should it miss. There is never a point during a blast shot where you are comparing its chances of hitting based on the numbers. You are always comparing how far it moves base on the numbers. I like how people keep quoting page 33 though. Keep doing that.

In fact, I take back what I said. I literally stated that I attempt to hit base on whether the hit indicator comes up. So that was my comment concerning a roll in an attempt to hit.

busby wrote:
So why have this debate? We are back at the point where there is no to hit roll and hence no ability to roll a 1 to hit as you have just now again stated.

The real issue is whether p33 gives the potential for a re-roll. If it does, then the ECPA, prescience, ect. allow for re-rolls of the scatter dice (BS6+ might work, but Steel-WOLF has not found the time to respond yet). If it does not, then the only thing that I am aware of that will allow for a re-roll of the scatter dice is Twin-Linked. The arguments have likely been laid out in their entirety, but I am sure that you can find something important that we missed.

As for the argument that the ECPA doesn't allow for a re-roll of the scatter dice and prescience does, I recommend leaving it behind. That result would be inconsistent under either ultimate result.

So busby, you agree that your argument means that there are literally no abilities that allow blasts to reroll To Hit?

"Blast Weapons and Re-Rolls"

If a model has the ability to re-roll its roll To Hit and choose to do so after firing a Blast weapon, the player must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6. (p. 33 W40k rulebook).

EPCA (I don't have the book, but this is what I'm getting from everyone)
Re-roll failed to hit rolls of 1.

Never is there a failed to hit roll of 1.

"Prescience"

Prescience is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 12". Whilst this power is in affect, the target unit can reroll all failed To Hit Rolls. (p. 420 Warhammer rulebook).

Looks like this is the best way in which to reroll a blast weapon (other than the fact that you can't reroll failed to hit rolls, though the blast quote states that you can so, this would be the instance) other than:

"Twin-Linked Blast Weapons"

If the scatter dice does not roll a Hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linkd Blast or Large Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must reroll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice. (p. 43 W40k rulebook).
(the ability to reroll the blast weapon)

Otherwise, I don't see how you can reroll a blast weapon using ECPA or Prescience.

Because of this:

"Blast and Large Blast"

When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit. Instead, just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the relevant blast marker within its hole entirely over the base of the target model... (p. 33 W40k rulebook)

There. You went and made me unpack my book.

rigeld2:

I never once claimed that they ever could reroll failed To Hit rolls of one. Mostly because you cannot roll a 1 on the scatter die. While I was not stating the bolded statement above, I was still agreeing that you could never ever reroll failed to hit rolls of 1 (this being my argument, not Prescience, but since we've lumped it in there, I've added it in above).

In fact, I've never claimed that they could ever reroll failed To Hit rolls either. At least I don't think I've seen anywhere that I've stated that.

Edit (hope I get this in): Other than trying to see the other side of the argument and trying to reach out there and try to allow Prescience a reroll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet simultaneously managing to conflate two separate concepts

To hit is a defined process in the rule book.m while other things can "hit" that does not mean they made a to hit roll.

The rules state that IF you have the ability to Reroll to hit, then you can Reroll blasts.

Note this DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO ROLL A TO HIT at all. THAT is what you don't seem to understand here, which is why you are misapplying two different rules.

A BS6 model HAS the ability to reroll their to hit dice; a limited one, granted, but so does prescience have limitations. Luckily for us the actual rule does give two gaks about any limitations - just asks if you have a reroll or not. So,me know I can reroll the scatter dice, and have a handy rule that then tells me how to do so.

With this reasoning: You would find that you could reroll with Prescience but still could not reroll using ECPA as: Reroll 1s never will apply.

So as a final summary: Looks like Prescience: Yes? ECPA: No (has the 1s stipulation, right? Quote ECPA for me someone).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SIXTH EDIT!:

Is this it:
- models with battlesuits only. The model re-rolls all rolls of 1 to hit in the shooting phase. May also re-roll the dice when using a nova reactor. Weapon skill is also reduced to 1 ?

Does Nova Reactor turn a shot into a blast?

(seventh edit to bold a few more things.

busby wrote:
There. You went and made me unpack my book.

GOOD. Thank you for citing rules (even those that have been cited in this thread).

I never once claimed that they ever could reroll failed To Hit rolls of one. Mostly because you cannot roll a 1 on the scatter die. While I was not stating the bolded statement above, I was still agreeing that you could never ever reroll failed to hit rolls of 1 (this being my argument, not Prescience, but since we've lumped it in there, I've added it in above).

I never said you did, so... Okay?

In fact, I've never claimed that they could ever reroll failed To Hit rolls either. At least I don't think I've seen anywhere that I've stated that.

Edit (hope I get this in): Other than trying to see the other side of the argument and trying to reach out there and try to allow Prescience a reroll.

Sure. Again - I never said you were saying those things. Or I didn't mean to do so.

With this reasoning: You would find that you could reroll with Prescience but still could not reroll using ECPA as: Reroll 1s never will apply.

So as a final summary: Looks like Prescience: Yes? ECPA: No (has the 1s stipulation, right? Quote ECPA for me someone).

Why is Prescience a yes? It requires a roll To Hit with a specific outcome, exactly like PE and ECPA. Why are you treating them differently?

ECPA requires you to have a failed to hit roll of 1.

PE requires you to fail to hit, granting it something like Twin-Linked. I'll quote tat too since I now have my book out.

These are two different requirements.


"Twin-Linked" (I don't know why I'm quoting it this way, but I'll continue to do so)

A weapon wit the Twin-linked special rule counts as a single weapon of that type, but to represent the fusillade of fire, you must re-roll the dice To Hit if you miss. (p.43)

"Prescience"

Prescience is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 12." Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls.

"Blast Weapons and Re-rolls"

If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Blast weapon, the player ust re-roll both the scatter dice and 2D6. (p. 33)

So Twin-Linked and Prescience being similar in allowing a reroll To Hit and then referencing page 33's blurb stating that you can reroll rolls To Hit, then Prescience and Twin-Linked should allow a reroll of your blast weapon.

Earth Caste Pilot Array
Re-roll failed to hit rolls of 1.

This does not ever meet the requirement outlined on page 33, page 430, page 43, or anywhere else in the book as it specifies a to hit roll of 1.

We all know now that based on page 33 that despite Blast Weapons not rolling to hit, the second to last paragraph (Blast Weapons and Re-Rolls) clearly states (to me I guess, now that I'm reading this over and over) that Prescience and Twin-Linked and statements that require the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit can do so.

ECPA again:

Re-roll failed to hit rolls of 1.

Failed to hit rolls of 1.

To hit rolls of 1.

1.

One forever. One is the ending statement. One is the additional stipulation for the reroll. Not the chance to reroll itself. But the result of a 1. One.

1.

I'll restate this. Prescience is a yes with a question mark, but provided with what I feel is evidence on whether or not the ability can allow a blast reroll.

busby wrote:
ECPA requires you to have a failed to hit roll of 1.

PE requires you to fail to hit, granting it something like Twin-Linked. I'll quote tat too since I now have my book out.

These are two different requirements.

Correct.
How does Prescience meet the Blast requirement if it requires a failed To Hit roll (something which a Blast will never, ever generate)?

Re-roll failed to hit rolls of 1.

Failed to hit rolls of 1.

To hit rolls of 1.

1.

One forever. One is the ending statement. One is the additional stipulation for the reroll. Not the chance to reroll itself. But the result of a 1. One. 1.

Not a useful comment, and not appreciated. Perhaps you could make this point in a more polite and less condescending way?

As far as the Blast rule is concerned, can you point out where it differentiates between abilities that grant a reroll based on a failed To Hit and those that grant a reroll based on a failed To Hit roll if a 1? Since you're so adamant they're treated differently (based on your refusal to treat them the same) I'm sure you've simply found a rule I haven't.

Actually, Precognition and some similar worded Psykic disciplines, do contain the word 'can' which means they give the model/player the choice to re-roll. This lends support to the concept that the 'and chooses to do so' is a requirement, that the model must have permission to decide if they want to re-roll before this rule can come into effect. The biggest obstruction to this ideal was the question if the rule would become 'non-invokable,' and therefore pointless which can not be correct, but now we are seeing this is not the case at all. Some Special Rules which can still evoke this rule under this interpretation, so while it is not as far stretching as some people might like these limitations might be intentional to keep it to a handful of psychic powers, maybe one or two rules I have yet to review and Twin-Linked as a special exception. That would cover the vast majority of ways to get a Re-Roll, while still preventing the 'unusual situation' creating Special Rules from being able to evoke this rule in really nonsense ways.

Are there any more barriers to this interpretation?
Are there any 'free to chose' Re-Roll Special Rules which still create these unusual 'gray areas?'
I still wish this whole section was written a lot better....

nosferatu1001 wrote:

The rules state that IF you have the ability to Reroll to hit, then you can Reroll blasts.

That is half of the arguable permission and very misleading when it it written as anything other than its entirety. Also, you are writing it like that permission is explicit, which is also highly misleading as any permission from p33 is, at best, implied.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

A BS6 model HAS the ability to reroll their to hit dice; a limited one, granted, but so does prescience have limitations. Luckily for us the actual rule does give two gaks about any limitations - just asks if you have a reroll or not. So,me know I can reroll the scatter dice, and have a handy rule that then tells me how to do so.

Models with BS6+ do not have the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls. However, after, and only after, rolling a 1 on a To Hit roll, they gain the ability to re-roll the To Hit roll that failed. One of the recent posts regarding p13 cites all of the relevant rule language.

Rapture - so you are claiming that they cannot reroll to-hit? Yet that cannot be, as you just stated they CAN, under some circumstances, reroll to hit! SO wehic his it?

Your MADE UP distinction between the two is impressive. Care to cite a rule stating that "ability" must be a permanent, always available thing? Even under that definition BS6 models ALWAYS have the ability to reroll to-hit, so please - define, explicitly, where your assertion comes from. Page and para. So far you have failed to provide such.

Busby - nope, you are still making up a distinction where none exists. Reroll failed to hit is a set containing reroll failed to hit rolls of a 1 (or 2, or 3, or 4.... depending on BS) and so any treatment based on the requirement to have a reroll on the to-hit has to be the same for both, as the requirement is unconditional

Do you have a reroll to-hit if you reroll to-hit rolls of a 1? YES
Do you have a reroll to hit if you reroll failed to-hit rolls? YES
They are the same. BOTH generate a reroll.

Failed to hit .... roll of 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will requote page 33 and page 430 later. I will then resrate again the stipulation in ECPA requiring a 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also don't assume I am agreeing to this interpretation. I am attempting to make some sort of connection with the rules as written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is ECPA: if x and y then z where x is a failed roll y is the ... of one and z is the ability to reroll.

Since ECEC

If x and not y then not z.

Here is prescience if x then z.

Here is blast reroll
Grant exception if z then z.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

busby wrote:
Failed to hit .... roll of 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will requote page 33 and page 430 later. I will then resrate again the stipulation in ECPA requiring a 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also don't assume I am agreeing to this interpretation. I am attempting to make some sort of connection with the rules as written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is ECPA: if x and y then z where x is a failed roll y is the ... of one and z is the ability to reroll.

Heer is the stipulation

If x and not y then not z.

Here is prescience if x then z.

Here is blast reroll
Grant exception if z then z.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
The relevance of Phase 3 of the shooting phase is in it's own title: "Roll to Hit"
Anything you do in Phase "Roll to Hit" is a "Roll to Hit", whether Blast, throwing a D6, Placing a template (flamer) or other...
p73:"If the target vehicle is in range, roll To Hit as normal."
"Oh sorry, Blast weapons don't *Roll to Hit*, you may not fire at my vehicles"

p77: same

p93: "When shooting at a building, roll To Hit (...) normally"
"Oh sorry, Blast weapons don't *Roll to Hit*, you may not fire at any buildings"

Are you seeing the error of Blast weapons don't *Roll to Hit*? They don't Roll a D6 to Hit, no. But they "Roll to Hit" with a scatter & 2D6. as per Phase 3 of p12.

They have permission to resolve hits per page 33. They do not have permission to roll To Hit as the Blast rule itself proves.

No, the permission is clear: " roll To Hit as normal." Blast not a Roll To Hit (of 3 dice)? No permission to roll them.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

3. Blast is a To-Hit Roll substitute. It's still a "To-Hit Roll" for all rules and purposes (disagree if you will)

Oh and maybe show something, a special rule or such that breaks 3. then i might drop it.

That's not how this works. You've made the assertion, you support it with rules.
Your "instead" argument doesn't hold up; if I tell you to not go outside, instead stay inside and read a book, can you say you're going outside?

I can yes. I WAS going outside. It was substituted by staying in, but i still was... If *putting shoes on* is a requirement when going outside i'd still have them on, whether i went ouside or not.

Yes, you were going to roll To Hit, but you aren't anymore.

If A is B, but Instead of A, do C. C *can* still be B, just as A is.
In my "Roll To Hit" (B) Phase i was going to roll To Hit (A). Instead I roll scatter (C), which is still (B) "Roll To Hit" phase roll of 3 Dice.

rigeld2 wrote:

Rolling Scatter & 2D6 is still considered "To-Hit Roll" whether you roll that, or 1 D6 for usual attacks.

Citation required. Prove your point, don't just keep stating it.

p12: 3.Roll To Hit. (...)
p33: do not roll To Hit. Instead, place blast

The capital R on page 12 should indicate this is what the Phase is, and not "a roll" from p33

rigeld2 wrote:

The Void Shield thread shows you have a big misunderstanding of the word "Instead" so if this continues i will have to disregard discussing rules with the word "Instead" with you, sorry.

Um... no. It proves that you refuse to actually show rules support for your statements as required by the tenants of this forum.
If I didn't know better I'd think you're purposely doing this to get the thread locked and not engaging in legitimate discussions.

Lol, the thing is, I actually quote page numbers and actual rules. Many more times than you do.
Example below where you start randomly talking about FNP, no pages or quotes, and I reply with direct page a quote.
Your previous statement and this one however both break tennet n°5, but i had to reply to it. Can't let personal accusations pass without being able to defend them. I'd hope you would not include this part in further quotes though as it is completely irrelevant to the topic.

rigeld2 wrote:

But yeah: a model never "has the ability to reroll it's rolls" either. It just has Special Rules that force it to do so...

I would call such a special rule an ability of the model.
Like how plague marines have the ability to roll Feel No Pain tests.

They get said ability once they fail an armour save yes. p35,FNP: "When a model with this SR suffers an unsaved wound(...)"
You can't FNP on impact tests: you can't have armour saves. If you had the ability to roll FNP tests, you could test any wound you'd ever sustain, including D, impact, Instant Death etc

Um. You can take FNP on any unsaved wound (which an Impact test is). You have to have a rule that denies FNP (like D weapons have, and FNP has for ID wounds). So I'm not sure what your point is by saying that.

rigeld2 wrote:

busby wrote:
ECPA requires you to have a failed to hit roll of 1.

PE requires you to fail to hit, granting it something like Twin-Linked. I'll quote tat too since I now have my book out.

These are two different requirements.

Correct.
How does Prescience meet the Blast requirement if it requires a failed To Hit roll (something which a Blast will never, ever generate)?

Re-roll failed to hit rolls of 1.

Failed to hit rolls of 1.

To hit rolls of 1.

1.

One forever. One is the ending statement. One is the additional stipulation for the reroll. Not the chance to reroll itself. But the result of a 1. One. 1.

Not a useful comment, and not appreciated. Perhaps you could make this point in a more polite and less condescending way?

As far as the Blast rule is concerned, can you point out where it differentiates between abilities that grant a reroll based on a failed To Hit and those that grant a reroll based on a failed To Hit roll if a 1? Since you're so adamant they're treated differently (based on your refusal to treat them the same) I'm sure you've simply found a rule I haven't.

It doesn't. Again. I am attempting to make s leap of faith to see how it does. Another poster above also mentions abilities outside of ECPA and Prescience that discusses may reroll. Maybe we should investigate that and finally conclude that ECPA cannot reroll... my original argument.

Whether or not Prescience can is questionable (remember my question mark yes?) at best.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rapture - so you are claiming that they cannot reroll to-hit? Yet that cannot be, as you just stated they CAN, under some circumstances, reroll to hit! SO wehic his it?

Your MADE UP distinction between the two is impressive. Care to cite a rule stating that "ability" must be a permanent, always available thing? Even under that definition BS6 models ALWAYS have the ability to reroll to-hit, so please - define, explicitly, where your assertion comes from. Page and para. So far you have failed to provide such.

No they do not. Go read p13. A model with BS6 "gains" the ability to re-roll a To Hit roll of 1 upon rolling a To Hit roll of 1. The models clearly does not have the ability as the rules explicitly say that the model "gains" it.

Notice that you did not quote any rules to support your argument - please provide an exact quote - not another half-quote that fabricates support, but an exact quote - that says, "Models with BS6 have the ability to re-roll 1s."

My argument, and the "gains" language, comes from the bottom right corner of p13. Maybe try reading it before you make an argument that is counter to its explicit language?

You aren't thinking. Having the ability to do something and having the potential to have the ability to do something are so intuitively differt that it is almost painful to see you struggle with the concept. If you have a psychic with prescience, des your whole army have the the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls? Just like the BS6+, any unit in your army is only one triggering event away from having the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls. How about and entire Tau army when the player has markerlights? How about a Tau army when the CandC Node is being used? What is the difference between the trigger being rolling a certain number and the trigger being a model joining the unit? Both establish the ability to have an ability after a certain trigger.

Black Talos - are you playing 5th edition again, where FNP was denied if you could not take an armour save? We're back to 4th edition rules now on FNP.

Rapture - OK, so go back to reroll 1s to hit. That is a pure ability to reroll to hit.

Oh, and reported for your continued insults. You have a habit of that is in this thread, and it gets tiresome.

In fact there's far too many "subtle" digs and insults at other users from many posters.

They really don't help and there's no need for them.

 BlackTalos wrote:
No, the permission is clear: " roll To Hit as normal." Blast not a Roll To Hit (of 3 dice)? No permission to roll them.

No permission to roll scatter?
I suggest you read the Blast rules - they give permission to do something instead of a To Hit roll.

If A is B, but Instead of A, do C. C *can* still be B, just as A is.
In my "Roll To Hit" Phase i was going to roll To Hit [A]. Instead I roll scatter [C], which is still [B] "Roll To Hit" phase roll of 3 Dice.

Everything after the word "which" is your invention and literally doesn't exist in the rules.
The blast rules tell you, full stop, that Blasts do not roll To Hit.

p12: 3.Roll To Hit. (...)
p33: do not roll To Hit. Instead, place blast

The capital R on page 12 should indicate this is what the Phase is, and not "a roll" from p33

Conveniently ignoring the definition if a To Hit roll on page 13.
I'm sure you just didn't think to look at that page though.

Lol, the thing is, I actually quote page numbers and actual rules. Many more times than you do.
Example below where you start randomly talking about FNP, no pages or quotes, and I reply with direct page a quote.
Your previous statement and this one however both break tennet n°5, but i had to reply to it. Can't let personal accusations pass without being able to defend them. I'd hope you would not include this part in further quotes though as it is completely irrelevant to the topic.

Please don't lie. When I make rules assertions I support them with quotes. I've included it because, as you say, you can't let personal accusations pass.

You mean you take FNP rolls on impact tests? Your answer here will dictate whether you get the ignore list or not... For someone advocating RaW like a bible, to miss words like "unsaved", and clear bolded statements on p95: "armour saves cannot be taken".

Is an invul save a save? Are you able to take invul saves from impact tests?
Any wound applied to a model is by definition unsaved. Especially when you read that sentence in context - normal Dangerous Terrain tests allow an armor save, but Impact specifically doesn't. (P95)
You're applying the 5th edition idea that a wound you could not save against cannot be FNPed. This is absolutely incorrect in 6th edition.

My interpretation exactly. You cannot roll 1s on a Blast roll of 3 Dice. Simple as:

And your interpretation ignores that this breaks literally every ability to reroll. Which is what I've pointed out. Repeatedly. With rules quotes.

Some keep on arguing, that when a blast misses... but does a blast ever miss? No. It just scatters and if you have a RR ability, you can RR the dice. I think this is the key thing some arguers are missing. It does not roll for hit, so they implemented a rule into the blast rules, that says if you are not happy with the scatter result, you can try again if the model has the ability to RR. The problem is that what qualifies as a RR? Here the rules are vague on what qualifies as a RR when firing a blast.

Twinlinked (is a RR)
PE (is a RR to 1's when firing x) (could also be argued, that it is not an RR if firing at y instead of x)
presience (is a RR)
high enough BS (is a RR for 1's)
edit: Oh and some wargear, like the earth caste Array

There may be others i forgot now, but those are the most common found and quoted in this thread. Before GW gives an FAQ on what of these gives the ability to RR blasts i doupt there will be a conclusion to this debate.

sorry, no page references, don't have my BRB with me at work, but scroll up, all have been quoted a million times in this thread allready

Indeed, it is what has been shown throughout - that the BRB onlyu actually cares if you have the ability to reroll to-hit rolls.

It doesnt require you to be able to reroll ALL to-hit rolls, or ALL FAILED to-hit rolls, or ALL to-hit rolls OF A ONE, just that you HAVE the ability to reroll to-hit rolls.

A model with BS6+ HAS the ability to reroll to-hit rolls - it cant actually do so when rolling scatter, but luckily that isnt what the rules ask for. Similarly a model with PE(Orks) shooting at ORks HAS the ability to reroll their dice.

The and.... construct that Rapture was so worked up about states you can choose to use the ability to reroll blasts, you arent forced to. Twinlinked doesnt force me to reroll, as due to scatter a "hit" or "miss" is fairly subjective; hitting 5 models could well be considered a hit, or a miss, depending on what you are firing, and what at.

But this has been explained for about 20 pages now, to no avail. Just the same old inability to tell the difference between something that isnt a to-hit roll and a to-hit roll, despite a rule stating it isnt a to-hit roll and can never be one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Rapture - OK, so go back to reroll 1s to hit. That is a pure ability to reroll to hit.

Oh, and reported for your continued insults. You have a habit of that is in this thread, and it gets tiresome.

AND? I don't care if that is a 'pure' (whatever that means) ability to re-roll a To Hit. You said that models with BS6+ can, if the p33 statement somehow allows them, re-roll the scatter dice. I said that that statement was unequivocally false and had no rule support. I then quoted the simple rules explicitly proving you wrong. Do you still content that a model with BS6+ can re-roll the scatter dice (again, assuming that p33 even grants that permission), or were you just reminding me that the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls of 1 is an ability to re-roll To Hit rolls for no reason?

What is tiresome is your relentless failure to support your arguments - and that is not an insult, it is just an obvious conclusion based on your actions. You are making them without rules support, refuse to provide quotes when asked, and simply re-direct when you are proven wrong.

I am interested in entertaining any argument that you have just as I have been for the past several pages. But, you need to 1) start reading the rules before you make and argument and 2) start quoting rules that actually support your argument. Otherwise, why are wasting our time with you throwing out your opinions of how the rules should work and then me having to tell you that you are wrong and could not have possibly thought that unless you didn't read the rules?

Or, you can make me retract everything that I just said by posting any rules that overcome the simple, explicit language on p13 by saying that models with BS6+ have the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls before they roll a 1 on that To Hit roll. I don't think you have it, but I will be happy if you do.

BS6 isnt the only way to reroll to-hit of a 1. I suggest you take note of the mods warning, as your tone is still as belligerent as before.

No, it isnt "tiresome" that I dont support my arguments - I do. Your lying is tiresome. Your claims have been proven wrong, your misreading (leading to a broken rule, vs the readnig that doesnt) shown to be irrelevant, and your continued snide remarks are frustrating.

PE(Orks) gives you reroll to hit on 1s, as does ECPA. You know, the subject of this thread?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
BS6 isnt the only way to reroll to-hit of a 1. I suggest you take note of the mods warning, as your tone is still as belligerent as before.

No, it isnt "tiresome" that I dont support my arguments - I do. Your lying is tiresome. Your claims have been proven wrong, your misreading (leading to a broken rule, vs the readnig that doesnt) shown to be irrelevant, and your continued snide remarks are frustrating.

PE(Orks) gives you reroll to hit on 1s, as does ECPA. You know, the subject of this thread?

Again, you are moving the target. You said that models with BS6+ could re-roll the scatter dice because of it. You did not quote the rules that would sport that. I responded by saying that your assertion was obviously wrong under any of the arguments for re-rolling the scatter dice enumerated in this thread. I then quotes the rule that proved your unsupported argument completely contrary to the rules with no real potential for a justification. I an sorry that you feel that you should be able to make groundless claims and not be rebuked appropriately - but what did you honestly expect?

With regard to you statement about PE and the ECPA - no kidding. The issue is whether permission to re-roll the scatter based on p33 even exists.

I'm still curious about the 'chooses to do so' angle, why can't we go back to that because it felt...more productive.

JinxDragon wrote:
I'm still curious about the 'chooses to do so' angle, why can't we go back to that because it felt...more productive.

Because all its doing is giving you the choice to not re-roll if you happen to like where the blast scattered, like shooting a unit close to the weapons max range and having the marker scatter more onto the unit getting more hits than you could if the marker did not scatter.

Maybe, maybe, I originally thought the same but now I am not sure as the interpretation does work. There are Special Rules which do contain the ability to choose if you wish to Re-Roll, instead of making it mandatory. The interpretation that the two sections are both requirements, not one requirement and a permission, does removes the Special Rules creating the 'unusual situations' from the equation. It also explains why Twin-linked was singled out for additional permissions within it's entry, that whole section would be redundant if it already fell under the re-roll rules within the Blast section. It is worth consideration, and felt a hell of a lot more productive to review then the mess this thread is right now, because it is producing far less 'broken scenarios' like re-Rolling scatter while fighting Imperial Guards under the argument that your unit has Preferred Enemy (orks).

Maybe it is selfish that I want something more then insults being thrown around, which is the only thing that occurs when the thread goes on for more then four pages, but I find that more entertaining then an insult-war....

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
I'm still curious about the 'chooses to do so' angle, why can't we go back to that because it felt...more productive.

Because all its doing is giving you the choice to not re-roll if you happen to like where the blast scattered, like shooting a unit close to the weapons max range and having the marker scatter more onto the unit getting more hits than you could if the marker did not scatter.

The word 'if' serves to establish conditions. Whether or not one of those conditions is a choice our not is irrelevant - the test is failed if one of the conditions is not met. In this instance, that choice can never bee made. Thus means that the test can never be passed. This means that even if p33 granted the permission that people are arguing that it does, that permission could never be invoked. Unless you can show that half of the sentence should be ignored completely, but that will obviously be a tough sell.

If x and y then z. Why exactly should the 'and y' be ignored as a condition? Can we also ignore the'x' condition? If no, why is'and y' looked at any differently than 'x?' Can we ignore other conditions for tests located elsewhere in the rules? If you said no to that question but yes to ignoring'and y' in this instance, what would make this case so special that we should star ignoring half of the language only for the purpose of getting a re-roll of the scatter dice?

Rapture wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
I'm still curious about the 'chooses to do so' angle, why can't we go back to that because it felt...more productive.

Because all its doing is giving you the choice to not re-roll if you happen to like where the blast scattered, like shooting a unit close to the weapons max range and having the marker scatter more onto the unit getting more hits than you could if the marker did not scatter.

The word 'if' serves to establish conditions. Whether or not one of those conditions is a choice our not is irrelevant - the test is failed if one of the conditions is not met. In this instance, that choice can never bee made. Thus means that the test can never be passed. This means that even if p33 granted the permission that people are arguing that it does, that permission could never be invoked. Unless you can show that half of the sentence should be ignored completely, but that will obviously be a tough sell.

If x and y then z. Why exactly should the 'and y' be ignored as a condition? Can we also ignore the'x' condition? If no, why is'and y' looked at any differently than 'x?' Can we ignore other conditions for tests located elsewhere in the rules? If you said no to that question but yes to ignoring'and y' in this instance, what would make this case so special that we should star ignoring half of the language only for the purpose of getting a re-roll of the scatter dice?

You the player, making a decision, is never a requirement that can deny a special rule. The decision HAS to be made by you the player, as models cant think.... And since your reading nullifies the whole rule in total under all circumstances, it can be ignored.

1 Can the model re-roll to hits? If yes goto 2
2 Do you want to re-roll? if yes goto 3
3 Re-roll all the dice.

Rapture wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
BS6 isnt the only way to reroll to-hit of a 1. I suggest you take note of the mods warning, as your tone is still as belligerent as before.

No, it isnt "tiresome" that I dont support my arguments - I do. Your lying is tiresome. Your claims have been proven wrong, your misreading (leading to a broken rule, vs the readnig that doesnt) shown to be irrelevant, and your continued snide remarks are frustrating.

PE(Orks) gives you reroll to hit on 1s, as does ECPA. You know, the subject of this thread?

Again, you are moving the target. You said that models with BS6+ could re-roll the scatter dice because of it. You did not quote the rules that would sport that. I responded by saying that your assertion was obviously wrong under any of the arguments for re-rolling the scatter dice enumerated in this thread. I then quotes the rule that proved your unsupported argument completely contrary to the rules with no real potential for a justification. I an sorry that you feel that you should be able to make groundless claims and not be rebuked appropriately - but what did you honestly expect?

With regard to you statement about PE and the ECPA - no kidding. The issue is whether permission to re-roll the scatter based on p33 even exists.

Actually no, you didnt prove it wrong. You think you did, but you also think that the line on page 33 leads to a rule that doesnt work, despite evidence to the contrary. I also am not moving the target, the target remains the same - they have an ability to reroll to-hit, so can reroll scatter.

Permission certainly exists, your belief otherwise doesnt alter that fact.

Oh, and you have not "rebuked" - you have lied, but that isnt the same thing

Nos,
The interpretation doesn't lead to useless like we first assumed, there are Special Rules and Psychic Powers out there which contain the words 'can Re-roll' and therefore can still trigger this Rule.