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.

If you roll a 1, does the weapon get hot, so preventing the re-roll.
Or do you ignore the gets hot and roll for the second weapon
or do you take the gets hot (and take the save) and the roll to see whether the second weapon hits. If that gets hot, is it a second save?

If you miss with your first shot, you reroll it. If the reroll is a 1 Gets Hot! kicks in and you suffer the wound.

Have a read of the whole Gets Hot rule, it tells you how to handle re-rolls.

Thanks both. I found it later - I thought it would come under twin linked. Didn't think to see whether there was a Gets Hot section! Doooooh.

Thanks again.

I've had an opponent who has put forth that the 'as well' in the section on 'Gets Hot! and re-rolls' means that both the initial miss AND the re-roll have to come up 1 in order to trigger the wound.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I've had an opponent who has put forth that the 'as well' in the section on 'Gets Hot! and re-rolls' means that both the initial miss AND the re-roll have to come up 1 in order to trigger the wound.

Is that the previous edition?

The current Gets Hot and Re-rolls doesn't say "as well" at all, and is very clear that this doesn't happen.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I've had an opponent who has put forth that the 'as well' in the section on 'Gets Hot! and re-rolls' means that both the initial miss AND the re-roll have to come up 1 in order to trigger the wound.

Is that the previous edition?

The current Gets Hot and Re-rolls doesn't say "as well" at all, and is very clear that this doesn't happen.

Sorry. It says 'is also a 1,' not 'is a 1 as well.'

Different wording, same question really.

Ah right.

"...a Wound is only suffered if the To Hit re-roll is also a 1."

I really can't see it the same way as your opponent, especially given the rules for re-rolls that it's the second die that counts.

He talking about a situation where I shoot my weapon and roll a 2 and miss the shot, but I re-roll because of twin-linked and then roll a one. You don't get hot because the rule says you need to roll a 1 and that the second result is also a one.

However I the RAI it's just meant to be what the second result says.

You would need both dice to be a one actually.

That word also is a necessity for the Gets Hot! to be activated.

The second roll "Also" needs to be a one means the first one should be a one as well or it would not count for anything.

The ruling for this would override the ruling for the second dice result rule as Gets Hot! is a special rule and special rules override normal rules as far as I have been reading.

 Lobomalo wrote:
You would need both dice to be a one actually.

That word also is a necessity for the Gets Hot! to be activated.

The second roll "Also" needs to be a one means the first one should be a one as well or it would not count for anything.

The ruling for this would override the ruling for the second dice result rule as Gets Hot! is a special rule and special rules override normal rules as far as I have been reading.

That's an interesting point.

If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit (including because of BS6+ or the Twin-linked special rule), a Wound is only suffered if the To Hit re-roll is also a 1; it may also re-roll Gets Hot results of 1 for weapons that do not roll To Hit.

For me, I think of it as two subsets of situations (assume a BS4 model with the ability to reroll misses):

Situation 1
1 - To Hit roll of 1.
2 - Gets Hot! rule kicks in and indicates that the re-roll rule takes precedence.
3 - Re-roll rule kicks in.
4 - Re-roll To Hit roll of 1.
5 - Gets Hot! rule is resolved and model suffers a wound.

Situation 2
1 - To Hit roll of 2.
2 - Re-roll rule kicks in.
3 - Re-roll To Hit roll of 1.
4 - Gets Hot! rule kicks in. Model no longer has the ability to re-roll so Gets Hot! resolves and model suffers a wound.

I completely agree that it should say exactly what the 'Venerable' rule for Dreadnoughts says (e.g. "you must abide by the second result"), but I don't think it's completely illogical to say that a model that rolled a miss (but not a 1) on the first roll is not still beholden to first section of the Gets Hot! rule. The "a wound is only suffered if the second result is also a 1" is specifically dealing with the situation where a 1 was rolled first, but I don't think it necessarily overrides the alternate case where the first roll was simply a miss (and not a 1).

Either way, I think most people would agree with you that even if the rule is poorly worded, HYWPI you still suffer the wound on a re-roll of 1 regardless.

DoW

 Jimsolo wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I've had an opponent who has put forth that the 'as well' in the section on 'Gets Hot! and re-rolls' means that both the initial miss AND the re-roll have to come up 1 in order to trigger the wound.

Is that the previous edition?

The current Gets Hot and Re-rolls doesn't say "as well" at all, and is very clear that this doesn't happen.

Sorry. It says 'is also a 1,' not 'is a 1 as well.'

Different wording, same question really.

The section being quoted is "Gets Hot and Rerolls" I believe. It only covers what happens when a model suffers a "Gets Hot" result and has a reroll available. Its not a general "Misses and Rerolls" rule.

 DogOfWar wrote:

Either way, I think most people would agree with you that even if the rule is poorly worded, HYWPI you still suffer the wound on a re-roll of 1 regardless.

Oh, a hundred percent.

But since I've variously been accused of being stupid, a madman, or mentally disabled, I thought I'd just double check to make sure I wasn't the crazy one.

 Jimsolo wrote:
But since I've variously been accused of being stupid, a madman, or mentally disabled, I thought I'd just double check to make sure I wasn't the crazy one.

Just the sort of thing a madman would say... seize him!

DoW



Automatically Appended Next Post:
But seriously, anyone who uses the Oxford comma cannot possibly be insane. Fact.

Wow, I guess I'm the odd man out. It's seems very clear to me that RAW and RAI mean it has to be a one followed by a one. It simply says so to me.

RAW I could give you (the language certainly seems to indicate as such) but the vast preponderance of re-roll related rules (blast weapons, damage results, armour penetration, etc.) all follow the same theme that "the second result stands, even if it's worse" and the result of the first roll is completely ignored once the re-roll takes place.

Which would lead me to believe the intention is that you Gets Hot! when you choose to re-roll and get a , no matter what the first roll was. To argue it another way, if a piece of wargear required a model to re-roll hits, would a re-roll result of cause them to suffer Gets Hot?

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:
RAW I could give you (the language certainly seems to indicate as such) but the vast preponderance of re-roll related rules (blast weapons, damage results, armour penetration, etc.) all follow the same theme that "the second result stands, even if it's worse" and the result of the first roll is completely ignored once the re-roll takes place.

Which would lead me to believe the intention is that you Gets Hot! when you choose to re-roll and get a , no matter what the first roll was. To argue it another way, if a piece of wargear required a model to re-roll hits, would a re-roll result of cause them to suffer Gets Hot?

DoW

IMO, no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This was a question before and was FAQd in 6th. I don't hand the old FAQs anymore. Could someone check? Pretty sure it was required for two sequential ones to Get Hot.

I've got some explaining to do to my RTT opponents from our 7th ed kickoff if I'm wrong here. My plasma talons dodged quite a few saves. Guess it's good to know sooner than later.

Fair enough. I have to disagree and I would use the (admittedly inductive) evidence of every other instance of re-rolling rules that require the second roll to take precedence, regardless of the first. It's certainly not proof, but it's something to consider.

Out of curiosity, considering your view of the RAW and RAI, would you play it as a re-roll Gets Hot! requiring you to roll two 1's in a row only?

EDIT - I only ask because I have never played it that way and have never met anyone who played it that way. Doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, but I'm surprised that it's never come up in any of the groups I've played with.

DoW

 Lobukia wrote:
This was a question before and was FAQd in 6th. I don't hand the old FAQs anymore. Could someone check? Pretty sure it was required for two sequential ones to Get Hot.

I just went through the last BRB FAQ for 6th edition. nothing on the question at hand.

It is faulty to say that, because of the 1 on the first roll requiring another 1 from the reroll to gets hot, that the ONLY way to gets hot is if you first roll a 1

If you roll a 2 first, on a BS3 model, then you miss and can reroll. If this is a 1, you cannot reference that rule as you did not roll a 1 initially

Yes, if you roll a 1 on your first roll, you only gets hot on another 1. That has no effect on any other roll you make on your first roll though.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is faulty to say that, because of the 1 on the first roll requiring another 1 from the reroll to gets hot, that the ONLY way to gets hot is if you first roll a 1

If you roll a 2 first, on a BS3 model, then you miss and can reroll. If this is a 1, you cannot reference that rule as you did not roll a 1 initially

Yes, if you roll a 1 on your first roll, you only gets hot on another 1. That has no effect on any other roll you make on your first roll though.

"For each To Hit roll of 1, the firing model immediately suffers a wound." That part of the rule still applies on the re-roll. The rules under the 'Get's Hot and Re-rolls' subsection only applies if you Get Hot, and can re-roll it. If you didn't get hot the first time there's no reason to reference that section and you still have To Hit roll of 1... which triggers the first paragraph of hte Gets Hot rule.

Whcih is what I was saying.

There is no need for a FAQ, as any situation where you got hot on the first roll is covered by the section mentioned, and any other situation where you get hot on the second roll is covered by the normal rules for gets hot.

 DogOfWar wrote:
Fair enough. I have to disagree and I would use the (admittedly inductive) evidence of every other instance of re-rolling rules that require the second roll to take precedence, regardless of the first. It's certainly not proof, but it's something to consider.

Out of curiosity, considering your view of the RAW and RAI, would you play it as a re-roll Gets Hot! requiring you to roll two 1's in a row only?

EDIT - I only ask because I have never played it that way and have never met anyone who played it that way. Doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, but I'm surprised that it's never come up in any of the groups I've played with.

DoW

I do not have my book with me, but i do believe some of the "must abide by second roll" wording is on pages 1-5, where the rulebook explains what a re-roll is in the first place. Worth a check.

 BlackTalos wrote:

I do not have my book with me, but i do believe some of the "must abide by second roll" wording is on pages 1-5, where the rulebook explains what a re-roll is in the first place. Worth a check.

It certainly does, but I think most people would see the Gets Hot! rule as taking precedence (insofar as it's implying that two 1s must be rolled in a row) over the generic re-roll rules. Additionally, I think the fact that many of the rules that talk about "abiding by the second roll" specifically mention that the player must do this (despite the overarching rule in the beginning of the BRB) can, unfortunately, lend credence to either argument.

DoW

Except as noted the "Get Hot and Rerolls" section only applies if you had a 'Gets Hot' result on the first roll and had a reroll available.

 Ghaz wrote:
Except as noted the "Get Hot and Rerolls" section only applies if you had a 'Gets Hot' result on the first roll and had a reroll available.

Exactly, which is what I argued in my first post:

For me, I think of it as two subsets of situations (assume a BS4 model with the ability to reroll misses):

Situation 1
1 - To Hit roll of 1.
2 - Gets Hot! rule kicks in and indicates that the re-roll rule takes precedence.
3 - Re-roll rule kicks in.
4 - Re-roll To Hit roll of 1.
5 - Gets Hot! rule is resolved and model suffers a wound.

Situation 2
1 - To Hit roll of 2.
2 - Re-roll rule kicks in.
3 - Re-roll To Hit roll of 1.
4 - Gets Hot! rule kicks in. Model no longer has the ability to re-roll so Gets Hot! resolves and model suffers a wound.

It's certainly not QED, but I side with the "a re-roll of a on a Gets Hot! weapon causes a wound, regardless of the result of the first roll" camp. The further discussion about precedence and inductive reasoning was just out of idle interest.

DoW

The Re-roll clause that the 'second result stands' can easily be overturned by more Advanced Rules, there are more then a handful of Rules out there granting permission to do something to the first result. The most obvious example would be all the Rules allowing us to keep the first result if it would be better then the second. This gets us to the core of the problem: That example clearly address the Restriction in question in order to provide us with permission to use the first result, no one can lay any doubt to the intention of such a Rule as it has only that purpose. Other Rules might not be as clear cut as that, they might simply require us to reference what the first result was in relation to the second, modify the second based on the first or whom knows what else the Authors might decide to pen in the future.

All we would hope is the Author would be a lot more clear then using terminology such as 'is also' in those hypothetical situations....

"Is also" is an inclusive and joining qualifier. I don't see how you could argue it isn't clear.

If A is also B, do C.... Look at A, see if it includes B, proceed to C. I'm missing the ambiguity.

Given that more then one interpretation exists it is not something we can say is 'clear.'
The 'disregard the first result' side has multiple groups, all coming to the same conclusion based on different interpretations of that very sentence and a few others, which is not possible if it is so cut and dry.

If they wanted all new 1s to be gets hot, then why put anything in at all?