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.

You must meet the conditions for having the ability to re-roll. A unit with Preferred Enemy (Orks) firing at a Space Marine unit does not the ability to re-roll to hit.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You must meet the conditions for having the ability to re-roll. A unit with Preferred Enemy (Orks) firing at a Space Marine unit does not the ability to re-roll to hit.

True, buit not any condition on the to-hit "value", which is what is being claimed is needed.

Given you never roll to-hit, claiming you need to meet the "roll a 1" or "miss" criteria is impossible.

Does pe allow re rolls to hit, yes, it allows re rolls to hit of 1

Blasts and 're rolls say if you can 're roll.the hit, you can re.roll the dice for scatter etc.

Why is that an issue?

Because, some people don't like it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
just, IF you were rolling to hit, would you have the ABILITY to reroll? If the answer was yes, regardless of conditions, you get a reroll.

Well that's the thing: The answer is Yes, only if you miss (Prescience). Or Yes, if you miss and roll a 1 (PE)
IF i was rolling to hit, would i have the ability to re-roll? If i roll a 6, Answer is No.

I think that is the main point we differ on. The Yes-No is conditional. There is no "blanket yes"
When rolling dice To Hit, you don't "always have the ability to re-roll", because if you did, you could re-roll 6s too...

You have a Reroll ability, just not an unconditional Reroll.

Good job the rules make no distinction between what type of Reroll you have - all, none, any threes when it's a Sunday, etc.

You're creating a requirement that does not exist in the rules.

Are there any unconditional re-rolls in the game?
(For To Hit rolls specifically)

You have the ability to re roll 1's, and rr blasts asks if you have the ability to rr, yep we do, so rr that blast

 grendel083 wrote:
Are there any unconditional re-rolls in the game?
(For To Hit rolls specifically)

I can only think of Fateweaver - so technically they exist - but there might be one or the other..

 Formosa wrote:
You have the ability to re roll 1's, and rr blasts asks if you have the ability to rr, yep we do, so rr that blast

Your ignoring the "and choose to do so" part of the rule. You cannot choose to do so, because you have not met the condition of the reroll.

Fragile wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
You have the ability to re roll 1's, and rr blasts asks if you have the ability to rr, yep we do, so rr that blast

Your ignoring the "and choose to do so" part of the rule. You cannot choose to do so, because you have not met the condition of the reroll.

So you think the rule is useless then?

Good job the rule doesn't say that. You have to choose to use the ability to Reroll, which you do have. Try again. Or don't, given this has been thoroughly hashed out over and over, with one result only.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have a Reroll ability, just not an unconditional Reroll.

Good job the rules make no distinction between what type of Reroll you have - all, none, any threes when it's a Sunday, etc.

You're creating a requirement that does not exist in the rules.

Ok, so trying to make it clearer with support:

Page 11 wrote:In some situations, the rules allow you to re-roll a dice. This is exactly what it sounds like - pick up the dice you wish to re-roll, and roll it again.

Side note:

Page 11 wrote:If two or more special rules combine to the effect that both all failed and all successful dice results would have to be re-rolled, do not re-roll any dice; simply use the original result(s) instead.

So this "situation", in the case of Prescience or Master-crafted, is "failed To Hit rolls" or "one failed roll To Hit".

Page 158 wrote: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

This is the part we disagree on.
Side B thinks you "has the ability" because *any* special rule that you may have that contains the words "re-roll" and "To Hit" will tick the box for the phrase above.
Side A thinks that the box is only ticked once the conditionals are met.

Now i am on side A, and think it is "more RaW" (there is no such thing) because you cannot have "any kind of re-roll To Hit" applying to <Blast Weapons and Re-rolls> p158
"has the ability" means you need the correct "situation" from p11:
"failed To Hit rolls" or "one failed roll To Hit"

The side note i posted above reinforces the fact that you can never have "the effect that both all failed and all successful dice results would have to be re-rolled".

As i said previously, when rolling To Hit, you do not simply "has the ability" or you would be re-rolling successful rolls too. You only "has the ability" once the "situation", or failing To Hit has happened.
You do not know if you are allowed to re-roll that 1 Dice until it shows a result.

Same for Blast weapons:
"If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit"
happens "after firing a Blast weapon" - you have already rolled the Dice and fired. How would you check that you have the ability before you rolled anything?

Also, how does Side B allow re-rolls of a weapon that is Heavy 4, Blast, Master-Crafted?
As i understand it, MC is "has the ability", so all 4 shots could be re-rolled by choice.

The singularity of Master-Crafted is in the words "one failed roll To Hit". You cannot in any way change those 5 words without completely altering RaW.
so Side B would have the choice to re-roll all 4 shots.
Side A would follow "one failed roll To Hit" so it has to be one of the Blasts that "failed to Hit" ie: Rolled an "Arrow" (per TL)

This probably confused everything further....

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
You have the ability to re roll 1's, and rr blasts asks if you have the ability to rr, yep we do, so rr that blast

Your ignoring the "and choose to do so" part of the rule. You cannot choose to do so, because you have not met the condition of the reroll.

So you think the rule is useless then?

Good job the rule doesn't say that. You have to choose to use the ability to Reroll, which you do have. Try again. Or don't, given this has been thoroughly hashed out over and over, with one result only.

If you have the ability to reroll 1's and choose to do so.....

You still have not shown a 1 to reroll. Your interpretation fails at every level.

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1 or 2]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [on a tuesday]

Nope, not a failure. Note how nothing in the more accurate version of the rules, which does not change the meaning, the degree if rerolls is entirely non specified? In fact, because you can add in any conditional result of the to hit you want, without having to change the initial meaning, proves the point.

Your argument fails a s it relies on making far up. Failure one
It fails as it relies on GW having written a useless rule. Failure two.

And so on.

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter. If you enforce the need for a 1, you must also enforce the need for a failed To Hit roll for all abilities to be able to re-roll scatters, meaning that only Twin-linked works.

Repeat until Mod locks.

It seems we are still in this position

No right, no wrong, and no fail anywhere, just contention...

 BlackTalos wrote:

Side B thinks you "has the ability" because *any* special rule that you may have that contains the words "re-roll" and "To Hit" will tick the box for the phrase above.
Side A thinks that the box is only ticked once the conditionals are met.

So to clarify, Talos: (and I have no dog in this fight, I'm just curious) if side A is correct, (other than Fateweaver) how could anyone ever get a re-roll on a Blast? Since all other re-rolls specify that they can re-roll misses, and Blast weapons never roll to hit, does that mean that they could never make use of the rule we're discussing?

If side A is correct, the only way you'd be able to re-roll a blast outside of Fateweaver would be Twin-Linked, and that's only because of the Twin-Linked rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

I understand the logic there, but the original line (Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) on p158 is only for Blasts, so any rule referring to templates you quoted above are effectively ignored (irrelevant).

“If the scatter dice does not roll a hit, you can choose to re-roll the dice with a Twin-linked Blast weapon. If you choose to do so, you must re-roll both the 2D6 and the scatter dice."

This one though is specifically referring to Blasts and how they work.
As said previously, applying TL to defining Blasts is a stretch, but not wrong.

You don't understand what I was getting at then.
Your assumption is that it's okay to treat all blasts like twin-linked does, and any failure to roll hit is a failure to hit. Correct?
Why does it not follow, then, that any failure to wound with any template is a failure to hit?

Correct.
The reason I would include the TL paragraph about Blast Weapons, is because the core issue or OP is about Blast Weapons. The paragraph about Templates and "equating the same" does not follow because it has nothing to do with Blast Weapons.

So it's not relevant to bring up reasons it's a bad idea to set that precedent?
No, it's extremely relevant. You'd just rather not discuss it. That's fine, but it's not a good debate practice.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1 or 2]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [on a tuesday]

Nope, not a failure. Note how nothing in the more accurate version of the rules, which does not change the meaning, the degree if rerolls is entirely non specified? In fact, because you can add in any conditional result of the to hit you want, without having to change the initial meaning, proves the point.

Your argument fails a s it relies on making far up. Failure one
It fails as it relies on GW having written a useless rule. Failure two.

And so on.

Care to cite an ability that states you can reroll 1's and 2's. There isn't. You have general permissions to rerolls misses, your trying to add a numeric value, which again is a failure on your part.

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1 or 2]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [on a tuesday]

Nope, not a failure. Note how nothing in the more accurate version of the rules, which does not change the meaning, the degree if rerolls is entirely non specified? In fact, because you can add in any conditional result of the to hit you want, without having to change the initial meaning, proves the point.

Your argument fails a s it relies on making far up. Failure one
It fails as it relies on GW having written a useless rule. Failure two.

And so on.

Care to cite an ability that states you can reroll 1's and 2's. There isn't. You have general permissions to rerolls misses, your trying to add a numeric value, which again is a failure on your part.

The conditions used in the logic-check-gate for a BS4 model that has been Prescienced.

You have the ability to re-roll [failed rolls to hit] -> What is a failed roll to hit? A roll of 1 or a 2. By substitution: You have the ability to re-roll [rolls of 1 and 2].

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [of a 1 or 2]

If you have the ability to Reroll your to hit rolls [on a tuesday]

Nope, not a failure. Note how nothing in the more accurate version of the rules, which does not change the meaning, the degree if rerolls is entirely non specified? In fact, because you can add in any conditional result of the to hit you want, without having to change the initial meaning, proves the point.

Your argument fails a s it relies on making far up. Failure one
It fails as it relies on GW having written a useless rule. Failure two.

And so on.

Care to cite an ability that states you can reroll 1's and 2's. There isn't. You have general permissions to rerolls misses, your trying to add a numeric value, which again is a failure on your part.

Missed the point I see. Argue the substantive part, which is your insistence on rewriting the rules to include your conditional, when the actual rule doesn't give two hoots about them

Your argument is refuted, please mark your posts as opinion, not rules.

Here's a question, if the blast is a plasma cannon do you get to re roll the gets hot roll?

This is normally a to hit roll bit it technically isn't for a blast.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Side B thinks you "has the ability" because *any* special rule that you may have that contains the words "re-roll" and "To Hit" will tick the box for the phrase above.
Side A thinks that the box is only ticked once the conditionals are met.

So to clarify, Talos: (and I have no dog in this fight, I'm just curious) if side A is correct, (other than Fateweaver) how could anyone ever get a re-roll on a Blast? Since all other re-rolls specify that they can re-roll misses, and Blast weapons never roll to hit, does that mean that they could never make use of the rule we're discussing?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
If side A is correct, the only way you'd be able to re-roll a blast outside of Fateweaver would be Twin-Linked, and that's only because of the Twin-Linked rules.

It was back on page 3:

 BlackTalos wrote:
That's the part where I use the wording from the TL rule to say that:
Actually, the Blast weapon can fail to hit, as is described on p(xx): Twin-Linked.

As we are going by logic, there is precedence of what a "Fail to hit" is with a Blast.

Just trying to make sure you understand how Side A is not "Just Twin-linked", but "Failed To Hit rolls" too. PE specifying "Failed To Hit" + "of a 1" is an added condition unfortunately unobtainable on a Scatter.

rigeld2 wrote:
So it's not relevant to bring up reasons it's a bad idea to set that precedent?
No, it's extremely relevant. You'd just rather not discuss it. That's fine, but it's not a good debate practice.

I did not says the reasoning with irrelevant: If Template USR had "Templates and Re-rolls - If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Template weapon, it must re-roll ALL dice" or anything similar, i would of course make the exact same conclusion.

It is just a case of:
- We are talking about B, and how it uses A rules
- TL says what it does with A, B and C
- why would we discuss C?

The issue at hand is Blasts and To Hit re-rolls, but To Hit re-rolls only apply to weapons that roll To Hit. p158: Blasts has RaW, and p174:Twin-Linked has RaW involving those 2 things. I make a connection. But that connection does not have anything to do with p173.
It is not a connection that should be made in this way, but the BrB is written in a way that assumes we know the rules. (it is usually cross-referenced, but not always)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
Here's a question, if the blast is a plasma cannon do you get to re roll the gets hot roll?

This is normally a to hit roll bit it technically isn't for a blast.

That would be the very last phrase of the Gets Hot rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:

I understand the logic there, but the original line (Blast Weapons and Re-rolls) on p158 is only for Blasts, so any rule referring to templates you quoted above are effectively ignored (irrelevant).

I did not says the reasoning with irrelevant: If Template USR had "Templates and Re-rolls - If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit and chooses to do so after firing a Template weapon, it must re-roll ALL dice" or anything similar, i would of course make the exact same conclusion.

You did - I quoted it.

- why would we discuss C?

The issue at hand is Blasts and To Hit re-rolls, but To Hit re-rolls only apply to weapons that roll To Hit. p158: Blasts has RaW, and p174:Twin-Linked has RaW involving those 2 things. I make a connection. But that connection does not have anything to do with p173.
It is not a connection that should be made in this way, but the BrB is written in a way that assumes we know the rules. (it is usually cross-referenced, but not always)

You're trying to take a rule and apply it far beyond what's written. I'm showing a consequence of doing so.

Love reading this 'if side A is correct then....' arguments when it comes to Blasts and Re-rolls for one reason:
There is no interpretation to Re-roll's and Blast Markers which doesn't open the door to strange things!

Just have to accept that the Rules are very lacking in this section....

Not really. One side reads the rules as written, and accepts odd edge cases. The other changes the written words, attempts to state a rule has no purpose, or takes context bereft rules from another section to attempt to vaguely get the rules to operate, but only for the cases they want it to work for.

One side is consistent

I am not so sure Nosferaty1001,
I have seen no less then three different sides claim that very sentence as their Rule support, with arguments boiling down to what the Authors intended for half a sentence here or even a single word there, so all sides are claiming to have Rule as Written support.
Both sides are also very consistent with their interpretations, even the little spoken third side can produce a list of Special Rules which can always meet their interpretations Requirements, but there will always be those 'odd edge cases' as you call them.

As every side always produces at least one broken outcome when using the very same sentence for Rule Support, this is something only the Authors can answer for us.

PS:
If you mean the inconstancy of individual members that on the edge of the two main groups, I am ignoring them in favour of the core element of the group as they clearly do not represent that element.
This includes the side that you are a member of, as I have seen individual members arguing that one is still required to meet certain conditions before they can evoke the Rule granting permission to re-roll.

rigeld2 wrote:
You did - I quoted it.

A) Equating "failed To Hit" with "does not roll a hit" would be the same as Equating "failed To Hit" with "failed To Wound", yes.
That fact is relevant, that you apply to 1: you apply to all.

The irrelevance comes in to separate both: we are not discussing Twin-Linked, but Blast weapons: B) Equating "failed To Hit" with "failed To Wound" is ignored.

Logical path A) is not irrelevant.
Statement B) is irrelevant.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're trying to take a rule and apply it far beyond what's written. I'm showing a consequence of doing so.

And i conceded that upon entering the debate about it:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Applying a Special Rule as a general rule for the game mechanics? Probably but i see no issue with it.

 BlackTalos wrote:
My argument as it stands here is that: Twin-Linked, imo "defines" what a Failed To Hit roll is for a Blast weapon, and that definition stands for the entire book.

Therefore the only flaw i can see in this argument is that you "cannot apply TL to everything in the game" basically.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not really. One side reads the rules as written, and accepts odd edge cases. The other changes the written words, attempts to state a rule has no purpose, or takes context bereft rules from another section to attempt to vaguely get the rules to operate, but only for the cases they want it to work for.

One side is consistent

That i will have to fully disagree on: Side A is just as consistent as Side B:

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter.

That one line for A is fully bound and correct within RaW, or would you disagree?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Side A: You must roll a 1 to get the re-roll from Preferred Enemy. Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter.

Side B: The rules only state you must be able to re-roll To Hit. Since Preferred Enemy grants a re-roll, you can re-roll the scatter.

That one line for A is fully bound and correct within RaW, or would you disagree?

The line for A is mistaken, because blasts most certainly do roll To Hit, or else Prescience would not work either.

JinxDragon wrote:
I am not so sure Nosferaty1001,
I have seen no less then three different sides claim that very sentence as their Rule support, with arguments boiling down to what the Authors intended for half a sentence here or even a single word there, so all sides are claiming to have Rule as Written support.
Both sides are also very consistent with their interpretations, even the little spoken third side can produce a list of Special Rules which can always meet their interpretations Requirements, but there will always be those 'odd edge cases' as you call them.

As every side always produces at least one broken outcome when using the very same sentence for Rule Support, this is something only the Authors can answer for us.

PS:
If you mean the inconstancy of individual members that on the edge of the two main groups, I am ignoring them in favour of the core element of the group as they clearly do not represent that element.
This includes the side that you are a member of, as I have seen individual members arguing that one is still required to meet certain conditions before they can evoke the Rule granting permission to re-roll.

An example of this is Side B: How do you implement RaW for a Master-Crafted, Heavy 4, Blast?
Because the logical for PE works (PrinceRaven's pretty Green-Red-Blue), but you cannot do it with Master-crafted. ie Side B "breaks" RaW just as much as Side A might ignore a paragraph in Blasts & re-rolls.