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.

I agree mostly because words mean things and I've mis-stated things in my past few posts. Instead of looking like I'm trying to dig myself out of a hole I'm okay with it being locked.

JinxDragon wrote:
At this point in time, is it safe for me to state once more:
Every single person has a different list of which Special Rules function with Re-Rolling Blast and which ones do not. The fact there can be so many different lists, with so many different lines in the sand as to how X or Y applies to the scenario, proves there can never be a correct interpretation short of Author Mandate. Given that this problem has occurred over how many Editions now, I'm just going to state that it is not a piece of Errata that I will be holding my breath for. As someone whom took no part in this discussion, and has seen it far to many times to find it to be interesting, I will request that a moderator to close this topic once more for another day as it undoubtedly will occur.

Any problem with me doing so?

At a minimum, there can be a best interpretation. The best interpretation is the one without can blatant violations of the clear language and without arbitrary application. Just because this has been discussed before doesn't mean that there is nothing left that can change what we think is the best definition. There have been a few points raised in this thread that I have never seen before, so it was worthwhile for me.

Anyway, this is a forum and when things die, they sink. It will sink if no one has anything left to add.

Rapture,
Thank you for making me chuckle a little there, but all the time I have spent here proves the opposite is correct on this site. Threads will continue for months, with three or four people banging the table and shouting how their interpretation of the word 'is' means they are right and anyone whom posts after them needs to be 'educated.' After around 5 pages of just that alone a Moderator will come in and close the thread, stating it has gone on long enough, as they know the remaining people are more interested in getting the last word in as if that somehow means their side has 'won' the debate. I know that is the fate of this thread because this is not a new topic at all, it has been brought up many times in the past and that is how it always seems to end.

Though to be fair, glad to hear at least someone got something out of it this time around!

Could this be the very first thread where all sides of a heated argument decide to let it rest and there is no lock?
Onward to another table and another debate!

Nice way to jinx it

 BlackTalos wrote:
Could this be the very first thread where all sides of a heated argument decide to let it rest and there is no lock?
Onward to another table and another debate!

No! It cannot be! Will...not...let...it...rest....

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Could this be the very first thread where all sides of a heated argument decide to let it rest and there is no lock?
Onward to another table and another debate!

No! It cannot be! Will...not...let...it...rest....

Exalted
(just to make sure it keeps going )

So youre saying It Will Not Die?

Maybe if we keep talking about the concept of the thread dying or not... we'll all forget what the thread was about letting the debate die either way...

We can always go off topic and have it locked...

You cannot roll a 1 with a 2D6 roll. Therefore PE can never grant a re-roll for blast weapons.

The 2D6 and scatter dice roll counts as a single roll. Therefore MC allows a re-roll (all 3 dice of course).

Don't necro an 8 page long thread without reading it all first and determining you have something to add that hasn't been covered several times before. As your comment has been. Leave it be!

It's not necro when the last post was 4 days ago. Hopefully I have stated it in a way that makes it clear. I don't see how anyone could seriously argue against it.

 Kavish wrote:
It's not necro when the last post was 4 days ago. Hopefully I have stated it in a way that makes it clear. I don't see how anyone could seriously argue against it.

It is when you didn't add anything significant to the conversation (do you really think no one had said what your post says before)

Righty-o then. Just one thing. Would not rolling a "hit" on the scatter dice count as a "failed roll to hit"?

 Kavish wrote:
Righty-o then. Just one thing. Would not rolling a "hit" on the scatter dice count as a "failed roll to hit"?

I don't know, why don'y you read this thread's 8 pages of posts to find out.

No need to be snarky. I don't much feel like reading all 8 pages.

No you just felt like your 2 sentence post is so genius no one has thought of it over 8 pages and 20 days.

 Kavish wrote:
No need to be snarky. I don't much feel like reading all 8 pages.

Great way to put forward a point then

I'll find the right post for you:

Oh! page 1:

 Happyjew wrote:
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.

If that is not clear enough, you just have to read a bit of page 2:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
My claim is that if you are told "I can reroll my to-hit rolls [of 1]" it is exactly the same as far as the rule is concerned as "I can reroll my tohit rolls [of 12, 23, and 3s]" because the rule only cares about the ability to reroll, and nothing about the actual reroll itself.

You have the ability to reroll your dice on a to-hit roll or you do not. That is ALL that the rule requires.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Of course there's a reason to check, the Re-rolls and Blasts rules.
Do you have the ability to re-roll to hit?
Hmm, let me check. Oh, I've got Preferred Enemy, since I'm firing at my preferred enemy I do have the ability to re-roll to hit. I shall choose to do so, allowing me to re-roll the scatter die and 2d6.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Also, the 3rd post of Page one which i already linked is a clear statement of each side, and by your post, i do believe you are on Side A, like me.

We both agree that PE needs a 1 and Blast weapons don't roll 1s. But we are not "right", and it if most definitely not the last "clear up" answer...

 Kavish wrote:
It's not necro when the last post was 4 days ago. Hopefully I have stated it in a way that makes it clear. I don't see how anyone could seriously argue against it.

Because the actual rule states "ability". Given you can never roll to hit with a blast, your reasoning is flawed from the start.
That's just two ways.

It's rude to not at least read the thread before appending your rule less opinion to it, and is against the tenets

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
It's not necro when the last post was 4 days ago. Hopefully I have stated it in a way that makes it clear. I don't see how anyone could seriously argue against it.

Because the actual rule states "ability". Given you can never roll to hit with a blast, your reasoning is flawed from the start.
That's just two ways.

It's rude to not at least read the thread before appending your rule less opinion to it, and is against the tenets

If you read the twin linked rule, it's clear that the scatter dice determines a hit or not. Side B is irrefutably wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I read enough. I'm not going to read all 400 odd posts. If you did, you need a life.

Then why do the Rules state:
When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit
Just prior to providing us with instructions to determine the number of Hit's without rolling To Hit tests.

Twin linked also requires a "failed to hit roll".

"Twin linked blast weapons: if the scatter dice does not roll a hit..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Then why do the Rules state Blast Markers do not roll To Hit?

You should know how to read GW rules by now. That's their way of making sure you don't roll to hit using your BS and roll for a hit with the scatter dice as well.

Do you not find it interesting that Twin Linked is worded the way it is, creating a way for the Re-Roll to trigger outside of a To Hit roll?
Almost as if Twin Link needed a specific a clause in order to address the fact Scatter dice do not roll To Hit....

Blast special rule has basically the same clause. It's clear that it's intended to count as a To Hit roll for the purpose of re-rolls. Try telling your opponent he can't re-roll with his MC Blast weapon and see how that goes down.

Why are we trolling this back up? This is all a rehash of the first 3 pages.

It's another case where the rules are too foggy and we have to go with RAI. I always prefer RAW. But sometimes you have to use your common sense and see they buggered it up.

Strange, all I find is that annoying and badly written sentence stating that a Model with the Ability to Re-roll To Hit's can do so with the Scatter Dice.
The same sentence which has no less then half a dozen different interpenetration as to what is and isn't an 'Ability to Re-roll,' on which self-contained requirements can prevent the above sentence from functioning and a dozen other things which always ensures these Threads reach 12 pages before being locked with no consensus between the parties.

JinxDragon wrote:
Strange, all I find is that annoying and badly written sentence stating that a Model with the Ability to Re-roll To Hit's can do so with the Scatter Dice.
The same sentence which has no less then half a dozen different interpenetration as to what is and isn't an 'Ability to Re-roll,' on which self-contained requirements can prevent the above sentence from functioning and a dozen other things which always ensures these Threads reach 12 pages before being locked with no consensus between the parties.

Self contained restrictions prevent the sentence from functioning? How? Please elaborate.

It's pretty clear. If you've got re-rolls TO HIT you can use it on Blast weapons. A "failed roll To Hit" is not a defined term. Notice how To and Hit both have capitols to show that "To Hit" is a defined term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So what is a failed roll "To Hit"? Are we then assuming that since the rulebook doesn't define a "fail" on a scatter dice that it can't be failed and therefore can't be re-rolled unless there is a specific clause (meaning that only Twin-linked works)? I suppose we are. But then the Roll To Hit section doesn't define what a "failed roll To Hit" is either. So I guess no one gets any re-rolls... ever.

It's well accepted that if an interpretation invalidates any rules then it is not the correct interpretation.

Some groups believe expending an Ammo grunt, actually evoking Fate-weavers 1 per turn ability, having a Dice result of 1, or a wide range of other self-contained clauses within the Rule granting the ability to Re-roll must be met before the Model has the Ability to Re-roll.
Some groups have a list which is not as exclusive, requiring things like expending an Ammo Grunts or firing against the Preferred Enemy but not other things like showing a dice result of 1 has been achieved.
Some groups simply state that all these Rules grant the ability to Re-roll, regardless of their internal conditions, so any Rule which can even remotely grant a Re-roll counts.
Some even state Twin-Linked, as the only Rule which directly address' Blast Markers, is the only Rule which functions when it comes to Re-rolling Scatter dice from a pure Rule as Written stance.

Regardless of what you or I post here today, those same groups will have the same argument a month from now because there is no clear 'correct' answer which doesn't cause unusual situations.
Hell even the one I am fond of, because it creates the smallest list yet but doesn't limit it to just Twin Linked which is the sole reason I find it interesting, still allows stupid things such as Re-rolling all Blast Markers simply because Fatewiever is in your Army....