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.

 BlackTalos wrote:

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.

You're not discussing Twin Linked, but you're trying to apply logic from Twin Linked to all other abilities?
Can you clarify that for me?

And i conceded that upon entering the debate about it:

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

That quote doesn't say (to me) what you're saying it does. And you're arguing against me saying exactly that. So yeah - no idea what you're actually trying to say here.

 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?

Except Side A wants things like Prescience to also re-roll. And using their interpretation that'd be against the RAW. Meaning they're not consistent.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

i think even Rigeld and Nos would disagree with the statement "blasts most certainly do roll To Hit".

And "Core" Side A as i would now call it does indeed not allow Prescience....

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

You should read the rule you're discussing because you're absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit.

So according to Side A, Prescience doesn't allow re-rolls.

 Happyjew wrote:
Repeat until Mod locks.

You're not wrong...

 BlackTalos wrote:
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.

Why does it break? You can reroll one because you have a single reroll available. What's broken?

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

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.

You're not discussing Twin Linked, but you're trying to apply logic from Twin Linked to all other abilities?
Can you clarify that for me?

And i conceded that upon entering the debate about it:

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

That quote doesn't say (to me) what you're saying it does. And you're arguing against me saying exactly that. So yeah - no idea what you're actually trying to say here.

We are discussing Blast weapons, and Re-rolls.
I use Twin-linked to say: "yes blasts can miss" their "equivalent To Hit roll" (from TL wording)
Templates cannot "miss", so the paragraph there doesn't come into play.

"i'm trying to apply logic from Twin Linked to all other abilities"?
Yes I am

Is it correct within RaW?
Not too sure,
it's not written down but it's logical steps.

rigeld2 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?

Except Side A wants things like Prescience to also re-roll. And using their interpretation that'd be against the RAW. Meaning they're not consistent.

Side A (as i see it) does not allow prescience. Only Twin-Linked.

I'm the one, personally, who uses what is above, and deducts "Yes Blasts can Miss" => Prescience works


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
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.

Why does it break? You can reroll one because you have a single reroll available. What's broken?

"allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn"

which one of the 4 Blast templates is the "one failed roll To Hit"?
the model has the ability to re-roll: he can choose to re-roll the 4 Blast templates, what is actually stopping him from doing so and breaking RaW?
I thought that conditional re-rolls did not exist? "re-roll one failed roll To Hit" I outlined the conditional: you ignore that part correct?

 BlackTalos wrote:

We are discussing Blast weapons, and Re-rolls.
I use Twin-linked to say: "yes blasts can miss" their "equivalent To Hit roll" (from TL wording)
Templates cannot "miss", so the paragraph there doesn't come into play.

Blasts cannot miss either - ever. They don't roll to hit.
So you're using a rule for Twin-Linked to pretend that they can miss.
And you're saying that Templates (which can't miss) can't make the same equivalence?

Side A (as i see it) does not allow prescience. Only Twin-Linked.

I'm the one, personally, who uses what is above, and deducts "Yes Blasts can Miss" => Prescience works

You're one of the few/any that's semi-reasonable about it. It's been insisted in pretty much every thread about this that Prescience and all "reroll failed to hit" abilities work, but PE doesn't per RAW.

Grendel083,
When I prophesied 12 pages I was hoping the Mods would lock it pretty quick, or enough people would read that and be discouraged from positing yet again to yet another thread on the matter.

Here we are, almost half way there now.....

JinxDragon wrote:
Grendel083,
When I prophesied 12 pages I was hoping the Mods would lock it pretty quick, or enough people would read that and be discouraged from positing yet again to yet another thread on the matter.

Here we are, almost half way there now.....

Sadly this edition does not seem to have changed anything for this question.
So it really is the same old debate.

rigeld2 wrote:
Blasts cannot miss either - ever. They don't roll to hit.
So you're using a rule for Twin-Linked to pretend that they can miss.
And you're saying that Templates (which can't miss) can't make the same equivalence?

"If the scatter dice does not roll a hit" =/= "failed To Hit rolls" agreed.
But logically, a Twin-linked weapon does the "same thing" whether it is Standard, Blast, or Template.
They don't roll To Hit, but they do roll to "hit" (on the scatter dice).

I would not say "pretending", but "deduct". Otherwise you are right on all accounts.

rigeld2 wrote:

Side A (as i see it) does not allow prescience. Only Twin-Linked.
I'm the one, personally, who uses what is above, and deducts "Yes Blasts can Miss" => Prescience works

You're one of the few/any that's semi-reasonable about it. It's been insisted in pretty much every thread about this that Prescience and all "reroll failed to hit" abilities work, but PE doesn't per RAW.

I'd say it differently: I am the one insisting that Prescience and all "reroll failed to hit" abilities work, but PE doesn't per RAW.
Most of the rest of side A doesn't care what works and what does not, simply that Side B is breaking:
"Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter" which i also see as a "Rule" that cannot be broken (PE USR).

 grendel083 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Grendel083,
When I prophesied 12 pages I was hoping the Mods would lock it pretty quick, or enough people would read that and be discouraged from positing yet again to yet another thread on the matter.

Here we are, almost half way there now.....

Sadly this edition does not seem to have changed anything for this question.
So it really is the same old debate.

I think the only reason it's not locked is that we haven't reached the "You're Wrong, I'm Right" part yet - probably around p12 we will :p

*PE* hasn't changed
*Blast Weapons & Re-rolls* hasn't changed

Side A & B have no new advantage.

Twin-Linked has changed wording, so i'm still discussing my position.

6th Edition wrote:A weapon with the Twin-Linked special rule (...), you must re-roll the dice To Hit if you miss.

7th Edition wrote:If a shooting weapon has the Twin-Linked special rule (...), it re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls.

I see that as a step in the direction: Blast do not roll To Hit, but it's result is still part of "Step 4: Roll To Hit"
Blasphemy i know....



Automatically Appended Next Post:


6th ed: "the dice (singular) To Hit" is very specific (intent?)
7th ed: "failed To Hit rolls" is much more general - almost as if trying to include "all" weapons (change of intent?)

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Blasts cannot miss either - ever. They don't roll to hit.
So you're using a rule for Twin-Linked to pretend that they can miss.
And you're saying that Templates (which can't miss) can't make the same equivalence?

"If the scatter dice does not roll a hit" =/= "failed To Hit rolls" agreed.
But logically, a Twin-linked weapon does the "same thing" whether it is Standard, Blast, or Template.
They don't roll To Hit, but they do roll to "hit" (on the scatter dice).

I would not say "pretending", but "deduct". Otherwise you are right on all accounts.

Please, explain why Templates cannot make the same equivalence. Since you agreed that my statements were correct.

I'd say it differently: I am the one insisting that Prescience and all "reroll failed to hit" abilities work, but PE doesn't per RAW.

Prescience requires a failed to hit roll. Agreed?
Blasts never roll to hit. Agreed?
How does Prescience see a failed to hit roll when the weapon never rolls to hit?

"Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter" which i also see as a "Rule" that cannot be broken (PE USR).

Since you do not roll to hit you cannot fail a to hit roll and therefore cannot reroll the scatter.

So you're saying exactly what I thought you weren't.
You have no reason other than "I want it to be true." to stretch Twin Linked like you are. And you're not even doing that consistently. And you've said you're not willing to discuss the ramifications of that.
Way to have an honest discussion man. Truly well played.

6th ed: "the dice (singular) To Hit" is very specific (intent?)
7th ed: "failed To Hit rolls" is much more general - almost as if trying to include "all" weapons (change of intent?)

The wording changed, but not in any significant manner.

you must re-roll the dice To Hit if you miss.

it re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls.

The "dice" in the first one isn't singular. As you've evidenced, it generates confusion and the 7th edition wording is absolutely clear.
Even if it was singular, nothing changed.

Does Preferred Enemy USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the target is the Preferred Enemy since the USR grants the ability to re-roll To Hit.
Does Prescience allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, since the psychic power grants the ability to re-roll To Hit.
Does a Ballistic Skill of 6 or Better allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, since a BS greater than 5 grants the ability to re-roll To Hit.
Does Guidance allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, since the psychic power grants the ability to re-roll To Hit.
Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted.

Explaination:

BRB, page 158; "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."

BRB, page 169; "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Would rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy. This applies to both shooting and close combat attacks."

BRB, page 193; "While this power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls."

BRB, page 33; "If a model has BS 6 or higher, it gains a re-roll whenever it rolls a 1 To Hit with ranged attacks."

Codex: Eldar, page 71; "Whilst this power is in effect, the target unit can re-roll all failed To Hit rolls when shooting."

BRB, page 167, "Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn with that weapon."

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Blasts cannot miss either - ever. They don't roll to hit.
So you're using a rule for Twin-Linked to pretend that they can miss.
And you're saying that Templates (which can't miss) can't make the same equivalence?

"If the scatter dice does not roll a hit" =/= "failed To Hit rolls" agreed.
But logically, a Twin-linked weapon does the "same thing" whether it is Standard, Blast, or Template.
They don't roll To Hit, but they do roll to "hit" (on the scatter dice).

I would not say "pretending", but "deduct". Otherwise you are right on all accounts.

Please, explain why Templates cannot make the same equivalence. Since you agreed that my statements were correct.

I'd say it differently: I am the one insisting that Prescience and all "reroll failed to hit" abilities work, but PE doesn't per RAW.

Prescience requires a failed to hit roll. Agreed?
Blasts never roll to hit. Agreed?
How does Prescience see a failed to hit roll when the weapon never rolls to hit?

"Since you do not roll To Hit you cannot roll a 1 and therefore cannot re-roll the scatter" which i also see as a "Rule" that cannot be broken (PE USR).

Since you do not roll to hit you cannot fail a to hit roll and therefore cannot reroll the scatter.

So you're saying exactly what I thought you weren't.
You have no reason other than "I want it to be true." to stretch Twin Linked like you are. And you're not even doing that consistently. And you've said you're not willing to discuss the ramifications of that.
Way to have an honest discussion man. Truly well played.

This is making a full circle, my previous posts have answered what my stance is for this:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Actually, the Blast weapon can fail to hit, as is described on p(174): 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 (my) 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.

A) Templates "could" make the same equivalence, yes, if they were in any way involved in this discussion, but they are not. Paragraph on p174 ignored.
B) Blasts never roll To Hit, but they do roll to hit, which can fail as per TL (p174)
C) Prescience requires a failed To Hit roll: conditional that it is a failure, but p158 says you can take that re-roll with Scatter+2D6. Failure conditional is still there: refer to B)

That is what i am saying.
I understand how you are trying to debunk it and leave "only Side B standing", but that will just result in a lock until new Edition/FaQ.


Side A is not wrong.
Me using Twin-Link is shaky, but imo a sound deduction of the system (RaW). If you do not believe the discussion is worth it, we can leave it at the current disagreement?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dg3263827 wrote:
Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted.

BRB, page 167, "Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn with that weapon."

That is also how i see Side B working, but it is illegal in RaW:
"one failed roll To Hit per turn" is ignored in this system.

Missile Launcher, Plasma Cannon: No issue

Executioner Plasma cannon, Grozooka: Problem - "Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted." so i'll re-roll all 2-3 templates, and break the per turn clause.

 BlackTalos wrote:


Executioner Plasma cannon, Grozooka: Problem - "Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted." so i'll re-roll all 2-3 templates, and break the per turn clause.

No, you'd re-roll one per turn, just like the Master-crafted USR says. So on a Blast 3, you'd be able to re-roll one of them.

 dg3263827 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Executioner Plasma cannon, Grozooka: Problem - "Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted." so i'll re-roll all 2-3 templates, and break the per turn clause.

No, you'd re-roll one per turn, just like the Master-crafted USR says. So on a Blast 3, you'd be able to re-roll one of them.

But why just the 1?
"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."

The model has the ability, it does not loose it half way through firing a weapon?
Or is the conditional "one failed roll To Hit per turn" important here? How does it apply to "has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit"?

You either use that conditional or you don't, but either way something is wrong.

 BlackTalos wrote:

But why just the 1?
"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."

The model has the ability, it does not loose it half way through firing a weapon?
Or is the conditional "one failed roll To Hit per turn" important here? How does it apply to "has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit"?

You either use that conditional or you don't, but either way something is wrong.

Master-crafted allows one re-roll per turn.
If you're firing a multi-blast weapon, you are rolling more than 1 set of "scatter die and 2D6."
Therefore, Master-crafted allows you to re-roll one of those.

The model has the ability, BUT only have the ability to do it once per turn, as per the Master-crafted USR. It has nothing to do with losing it firing a weapon half-way through since, technically, all the blasts are landing at the same time just like during a storm-bolter's roll To Hit. One blast isn't fully resolved before the others. The To Hit comes first, and then the To Wound.

 BlackTalos wrote:
A) Templates "could" make the same equivalence, yes, if they were in any way involved in this discussion, but they are not. Paragraph on p174 ignored.

Again, way to ignore things that would serve to show why what you're "deducting" is a bad idea.

B) Blasts never roll To Hit, but they do roll to hit, which can fail as per TL (p174)

No, they do not roll to hit. They roll a scatter die which can roll a Hit.

C) Prescience requires a failed To Hit roll: conditional that it is a failure, but p158 says you can take that re-roll with Scatter+2D6. Failure conditional is still there: refer to B)

No, that's not what page 158 says (assuming page 158 is Blast - I have the ebook). The Blast rules say that you have to have the ability to reroll. Prescience doesn't give you that ability until you fail a To Hit (not a roll to hit, not a scatter) roll.

That is what i am saying.
I understand how you are trying to debunk it and leave "only Side B standing", but that will just result in a lock until new Edition/FaQ.

I'm really not. I couldn't care less that there's two sides as long as neither side is claiming absolute RAW or contradicting themselves. You're claiming both absolute RAW and refusing to accept that your "deduction" causes a significant problem.

Side A is not wrong.
Me using Twin-Link is shaky, but imo a sound deduction of the system (RaW). If you do not believe the discussion is worth it, we can leave it at the current disagreement?

...
You're the one that is refusing to discuss why the Twin Link stretching is shaky. I think the discussion is worth it but you've literally said you ignore it when I attempt to bring it up.
Again - I have absolutely no problem engaging in an honest debate, but you're demonstrably not.

 dg3263827 wrote:
Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted.

BRB, page 167, "Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn with that weapon."

That is also how i see Side B working, but it is illegal in RaW:
"one failed roll To Hit per turn" is ignored in this system.

Missile Launcher, Plasma Cannon: No issue

Executioner Plasma cannon, Grozooka: Problem - "Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted." so i'll re-roll all 2-3 templates, and break the per turn clause.

Way to misrepresent what he said. If it's Heavy 4, you get to reroll one blast.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Repeat until Mod locks.

You're not wrong...

Yes I am.


Wait, what are we arguing about again?

 Happyjew wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Repeat until Mod locks.

You're not wrong...

Yes I am.


Wait, what are we arguing about again?

I forgot. All we seem to do in YMDC is argue, they sort of blend together after awhile.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Repeat until Mod locks.

You're not wrong...

Yes I am.


Wait, what are we arguing about again?

I forgot. All we seem to do in YMDC is argue, they sort of blend together after awhile.

Nuh uh! Sometimes we agree on things. Not often, mostly just the rules that are actually clear (like Detachments in 7th).

Wait, we agreed on that one? Last I checked we were still arguing, I may need to go back and look.

Yes we do agree sometimes, very rarely to be honest and only on things that are so blatantly clear to everyone that we simply cannot argue. But have a rule that makes people think and OMG we have threads being locked on a daily basis and senseless argument back and forth. Some

It's past Beer O'Clock
I'm sure someone will agree with me there...

It's five o'clock somewhere

 dg3263827 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Executioner Plasma cannon, Grozooka: Problem - "Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted." so i'll re-roll all 2-3 templates, and break the per turn clause.

No, you'd re-roll one per turn, just like the Master-crafted USR says. So on a Blast 3, you'd be able to re-roll one of them.

Your side of the argument only requires the ability to reroll. All conditionals are ignored. Therefore he would reroll all of them because he has the ability to reroll one.

He can only choose to use the re-roll once per shooting phase, if he chooses to re-roll multiple times he's breaking the "re-rolls and blasts" rule.

Fragile wrote:

 dg3263827 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Executioner Plasma cannon, Grozooka: Problem - "Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted." so i'll re-roll all 2-3 templates, and break the per turn clause.

No, you'd re-roll one per turn, just like the Master-crafted USR says. So on a Blast 3, you'd be able to re-roll one of them.

Your side of the argument only requires the ability to reroll. All conditionals are ignored. Therefore he would reroll all of them because he has the ability to reroll one.

He has the ability to reroll one. He rerolls it.
He no longer has the ability to reroll. He cannot reroll the others.

Preferred Enemy gives you Rerolls to Hit on 1s. Therefore you have a 1 in 6 chance of triggering the event - ie you roll a 1 on a d6.

A value of 10 or higher on a 2d6 will happen 1 in 6 times (results 46, 55, 56, 64, 65 and 66 out of the 36 possible).

Therefore to keep the spirit of the rule (and the statistical likelihood) as intended, Preferred Enemy should give you re-rolls on Blast Weapons on a result of 10 or higher on the scatter dice, when targeting a unit you have Preferred Enemy against.

A house-rule for sure, but food for thought.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 dg3263827 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Executioner Plasma cannon, Grozooka: Problem - "Does Master-crafted USR allow models to re-roll scatter for Blasts? Yes, as long as the Blast weapon is Master-crafted." so i'll re-roll all 2-3 templates, and break the per turn clause.

No, you'd re-roll one per turn, just like the Master-crafted USR says. So on a Blast 3, you'd be able to re-roll one of them.

Your side of the argument only requires the ability to reroll. All conditionals are ignored. Therefore he would reroll all of them because he has the ability to reroll one.

He has the ability to reroll one. He rerolls it.
He no longer has the ability to reroll. He cannot reroll the others.

isn't that the exact argument for:

If you don't roll a 1 on your to hit dice, you do not have the ability to reroll?

shouldn't side B, be for master crafted allowing all 3 blasts to reroll? because it does allow a reroll.

Side A would be for 1 reroll from master crafted and no rerolls for PE.

No, not at all. The "Re-rolls and Blasts" rule requires you to choose to use the re-roll, how many times can you choose to use the master-crafted re-roll?

Actually, since master-crafted only works on failed to hit rolls, wouldn't side A's argument be that you can't use it to re-roll a blast at all?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
No, not at all. The "Re-rolls and Blasts" rule requires you to choose to use the re-roll, how many times can you choose to use the master-crafted re-roll?

Actually, since master-crafted only works on failed to hit rolls, wouldn't side A's argument be that you can't use it to re-roll a blast at all?

well there was a faq that says you can use it for blasts, so side A can decide what it thinks on that one.

but, for B you have the ability to reroll it's to hit rolls, and therefore it get's to reroll everything due to the blast rules. For someone in side B, you sure don't seem to like where your conclusions lead. Maybe you're on the wrong side.