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.

Barbo - so how "good" a Reroll would you need before you would play they got reroll on scatter? Just interested

Nos I agree that the RAW is indisputable... Any reroll works.

The reason I said HIWPI is reroll 1's doesn't work, is it just doesn't pass the sniff test.

The reroll of 1's is so specific, that it doesn't seem right that you get a reroll when no 1's are involved.

I guess in a way it seems like you should be able reroll scatter if you would have an applicable reroll to use.

I'm not saying this is correct, but it seems like it could be abused by things it wasnt intended to work for, such as preferred enemyrks. If your not playing against orks, would you get the reroll by RAW? If the conditions of the reroll don't have to be met, then you would right?

I was asking hywpi. I was asking where would you draw the line? Reroll all failed to hit? All 1s and 2s?

But what about my preferred enemy: ork question?

If the conditions of the reroll don't need to be met, then would preferred enemy: orks allow you to reroll scatter vs non-ork units?

How does that differ from rerolls of a 1 when there is no 1 to reroll?

 BarBoBot wrote:
But what about my preferred enemy: ork question?

If the conditions of the reroll don't need to be met, then would preferred enemy: orks allow you to reroll scatter vs non-ork units?

How does that differ from rerolls of a 1 when there is no 1 to reroll?

Because you have to have the "ability" to re-roll. If you have PE: Orks, but are not shooting at orks, you don't have the ability to re-roll any "to hit" dice.

That differs from "re-roll 1's", because with that you have the ability to re-roll your "to hit" dice. It applies because you cant roll a 1 "to hit" just like you cant roll a "miss" on scatter dice.

I dont see a difference.

Both rerolls are conditional.

The first allows rerolls, but only rerolls of 1.

The second allows rerolls, but only against certain units.

If the conditions are not met, neither has a reroll to use, so they can't use the reroll to scatter rule.

 BarBoBot wrote:
I dont see a difference.

Both rerolls are conditional.

The first allows rerolls, but only rerolls of 1.

The second allows rerolls, but only against certain units.

If the conditions are not met, neither has a reroll to use, so they can't use the reroll to scatter rule.

Then you are arguing that nothing gets re-rolls, as nothing can fulfill the conditional.

We should really move this to the other thread, but what I'm saying is that TL grants an unconditional reroll. When you use a tl blast weapon, you have the reroll at all times without condition.

That means that you can use the rule that allows you to reroll scatter if you had a reroll.

With only having a reroll of a 1 or a reroll of a 6 with BS6, you don't actually have rerolls at all times, only under certain conditions.

If those conditions are not met, then there is no reroll to be used for rerolling scatter rule.

 BarBoBot wrote:
We should really move this to the other thread, but what I'm saying is that TL grants an unconditional reroll. When you use a tl blast weapon, you have the reroll at all times without condition.

That means that you can use the rule that allows you to reroll scatter if you had a reroll.

With only having a reroll of a 1 or a reroll of a 6 with BS6, you don't actually have rerolls at all times, only under certain conditions.

If those conditions are not met, then there is no reroll to be used for rerolling scatter rule.

actually twin linked is also conditional, you can't re-roll a hit for example.

all re-rolls have the innate condition of a miss.

re-rolling of 1's in this case is no different than re-rolling any to hit dice.

the preferred enemy however makes it a little less straightforward, you wouldn't have the capacity to re-roll if you were not shooting at an ork unit, regardless of the weapon type you were using, as such unless you were shooting at the enemy to which you have preference you would not have the ability to re-roll.

that's the main difference between a flat re-roll 1 result and preferred enemy re-roll, they operate very differently.

think of it like an on-off switch.

preferred enemy is by default in the off position, when you declare an attack vs the preferred enemy it switched to the on position. (due to not always shooting against your preferred enemy)

with twin linked, it is permanently in the on position (due to the nature of twin linked)

with re-roll 1's to hit, it is permanently in the on position (due to the nature of the rule in question, as long as you throw to hit dice you have permission to re-roll 1's)

(hope that makes sense)

Seems pretty much 50 50 at the Mo, this will be one for discussion before the game or a roll off

Indeed: a Draw of decisions is probably the best answer.

I'll answer/quote in the other thread.

As my brother likes to field a Wolf Priest with his Long Fangs this has come up quite a bit for me. My take on it is this:
BRB p33 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 must re-roll both the scatter dice and the 2D6.

In order for the blast to be re-roll -able, it needs to have the ability to re-roll the To Hit roll, even if the re-roll itself is conditional. Then following that the player can choose whether to use the re-roll, provided s/he has it.

Prescience

[snip]... the target can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls.

In this case if the power is in effect, the target (Unit aka Models) always have the ability to re-roll To Hit rolls, even though you only re-roll failed To Hit rolls.

Preferred Enemy

[snip]...A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy. ...[snip]

In this case the ability to re-roll is conditional on attacking the Preferred enemy. If that is satisfied, then you have the ability to re-roll rolls, even though you only re-roll failed To Hit rolls of 1.

Twin-Linked & Guide - Both have specific rules for re-rolling scatter dice and should be used instead.

These examples should provide enough of a guideline to determine if the rule 'counts'.

 S.K.Ren wrote:
Preferred Enemy

[snip]...A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy. ...[snip]

In this case the re-roll is conditional on attacking the Preferred enemy. If that is satisfied, then you have the ability to re-roll, even though you only re-roll on failed To Hit rolls of 1.

You have the ability to re-roll Blasts, "even though you only re-roll on failed To Hit rolls of 1" ?

Yes, because as stated: the written rule asks if you can Reroll. This unit absolutely CAN Reroll their to hit rolls. You keep ignoring the lack of condition placed on a unit to fulfil this requirement, presumably deliberately

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because as stated: the written rule asks if you can Reroll. This unit absolutely CAN Reroll their to hit rolls. You keep ignoring the lack of condition placed on a unit to fulfil this requirement, presumably deliberately

I'm sorry if this is rude, but: I know what you think, i was asking S.K.Ren if he did indeed think it allows Blasts.

even though you only re-roll on failed To Hit rolls of 1

Means you don't re roll Blasts to me, so clearing it up...

That was my bad I left the key words of my argument out, fixed. The conditional for 'the ability to re-roll' is separate from the conditional of the re-roll itself. The Preferred enemy example is the best illustration of this. So I'm in the 'yes, blasts can re-roll scatter' party.

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because as stated: the written rule asks if you can Reroll. This unit absolutely CAN Reroll their to hit rolls. You keep ignoring the lack of condition placed on a unit to fulfil this requirement, presumably deliberately

I'm sorry if this is rude, but: I know what you think, i was asking S.K.Ren if he did indeed think it allows Blasts.

even though you only re-roll on failed To Hit rolls of 1

Means you don't re roll Blasts to me, so clearing it up...

It does when you ignore context. If you read the rest of the post it's very clear what they're saying. Taking sentence fragments out of a post can have a distorting effect.

Im also in the yes category for all that was already stated.

Though not as sure on multiple barrage and rerolls.

 Desubot wrote:
Im also in the yes category for all that was already stated.

Though not as sure on multiple barrage and rerolls.

Yeah that would be tricky as there is no 2D6 to re-roll. But I think that is a whole other can of worms for another thread.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It does when you ignore context. If you read the rest of the post it's very clear what they're saying. Taking sentence fragments out of a post can have a distorting effect.

Not really. He stated it was conditional on attacking the Preferred enemy. Nothing about the conditional "failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1" which most of us (50% of us) also read as Written.
As that conditional was not mentioned as followed or ignored, how would i know?

I think the thread is developing enough to be independent of the other, or are voter still reading This One before Voting?

I'd certainly allow it, as long as the firing unit is shooting at something that allows rerolls. Rerolling failed to-hit or 1s, OK. Rerolling to hit your Preferred Enemy, OK - as long as you were trying to hit that preferred enemy.

If not then they wouldn't actually be able to use it at any time as blasts don't roll to hit.

What is this forum's consideration on Ignores Cover special rule not including vehicles in it's description?

You specified RAW, so I voted yes. I do not and would not play it that way, however.

 Jimsolo wrote:
You specified RAW, so I voted yes. I do not and would not play it that way, however.

So, RaW, you would say that a Farsight Enclave (before the errata) would have to take shadowsun and aun'va, but you wouldn't play it that way? For clarification, when the Tau Farsight Supplement came out, there was a rule that said that a farsight enclave cannot not have Shadowsun and Aun'va.

CLEARLY, that is a mistake, but RaW, you would have to take them. With GW being humans that they are, mistakes in wording will happen. The reason this forum exists is to get a consensus on rules that are gray areas, or are clearly badly proofread. Stating "you think RaW you agree but wouldn't play it that way" defeats the whole purpose of your involvement in this discussion.

I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but you shouldn't agree because the wording is ironclad. RAI is a phrase to be used as well. RAI, Farsight Enclaves obviously does not want you to take Shadowsun and Aun'va, and i'm sure everyone took it that way, even though it took GW a few months to officially fix it.

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Stating "you think RaW you agree but wouldn't play it that way" defeats the whole purpose of your involvement in this discussion.

Way to call someone out and then say you're not. His opinion is still valid and his input is appreciated. What's so wrong with saying this is the raw but I don't think it's fair and play it "this" way.

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
CLEARLY, that is a mistake, but RaW, you would have to take them. With GW being humans that they are, mistakes in wording will happen. The reason this forum exists is to get a consensus on rules that are gray areas, or are clearly badly proofread. Stating "you think RaW you agree but wouldn't play it that way" defeats the whole purpose of your involvement in this discussion.

As much as i am on the NO side, by RaW, this is how this part of the forum works:

We decide Exactly how they are written, even if it's an ironclad wording that would let you sit on the Table... No matter how bad the outcome or Rule result, this is the discussion and Poll at hand.

I fully respect his choice and any others who would vote & think the same. Most of these rule debates won't even come up in my games, because everyone is aware of RaI and would walk off if you start playing this sphincterlly, for lack of a better word =)

 liturgies of blood wrote:

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Stating "you think RaW you agree but wouldn't play it that way" defeats the whole purpose of your involvement in this discussion.

Way to call someone out and then say you're not. His opinion is still valid and his input is appreciated. What's so wrong with saying this is the raw but I don't think it's fair and play it "this" way.

Because it's not how he really feels. That's the issue. Why vote yes for something you do not believe in?

You really don't understand the vote at all do you?
What is the RAW of this question? Not what do you play, not what do you think RAI is. Just to be clear, RAW often has the same view of a rule as RAI but they are not the same thing at all.

He voted as he sees the answer to the question. He also expressed his opinion to give a broader context to his answer to the question. It's actually exactly how he feels, because he told us.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You really don't understand the vote at all do you?
What is the RAW of this question? Not what do you play, not what do you think RAI is. Just to be clear, RAW often has the same view of a rule as RAI but they are not the same thing at all.

He voted as he sees the answer to the question. He also expressed his opinion to give a broader context to his answer to the question. It's actually exactly how he feels, because he told us.

RAW means to take the written word, word for word and not thinking any further beyond that. If we did that, then certain rules as written completely fall apart (ignores cover, Farsight Enclave, etc). Since GW sucks at FAQing their own work, it falls to forums like this to make an interpretation at gray areas, hence this entire thread.

The poll is asking a question. He conceded to the fact that it's "RaW, can't do anything about it oh well." By that logic, RaW, if i ran Farsight Enclaves i would have to take Shadowsun and Aun'va. Voting that i agree it's written in the book doesn't solve the conflict which is: does GW really intend for me to take Shadowsun and Aun'va or is it a typo? It's the same for this.

What is the point of agreeing that it's written in the book but not following it?

Ultimately it doesn't matter what any of us say, because as BlackTalon pointed out, only the tightest of butts would make a stink over it on the table top. I still think you should have conviction. I voted no because i don't think that a special rule overrides the general rule with this particular conflict. If that's the case, then to be consistent, the ignores weapon special rule, RAW, can not be used on vehicles, since they do not take wounds.

Yes the pool is asking a question. A RAW question. If I asked RAW can Wraithguard draw shoot? I'd better get a unanimous no, since they lack eyes. I've never meet anyone who actually enforces that.