Gets Hot and Rerolls

[DrLove42]

Noticed reading book last night.

It says you get hot on a 1. With rerolls it says you take a wound if Both the rolls are a 1.

Does this mean that if a Marine with a Plasma Rifle fires, rolls a 2, then rerolls and gets a 1, he doesnt take a wound?

[Mr Mystery]

By the wording above?

Yup.

[RGilbert26]

I'm sorry but what are you on about?

Gets Hot: If you roll a 1 to shoot you take a wound and can take an armour save (or invul if better).

Gets Hot and re-rolls: If you're able to re-roll your to hit roll (such as being BS6 or above) then if you get a 1 to hit (which under Gets Hot rules causes a wound) because you are able to re-roll you only suffer the wound if you roll another 1 to hit.

How do you then confer from that that you only get a wound if both are 1s?

From your example, if the guy rolled a 2 to hit and then re-rolled because I assume from your example he needs higher than 2 to hit, and got a 1 on his second roll then he will suffer a wound because he's re-rolled his failed to hit roll and gotten a 1. Which under Gets Hot rules causes a wound.

[Vindur]

Because "another one" implies there was already an initial 1.

[RGilbert26]

Gets Hot and Re-rolls
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.

So, how is the above difficult to understand?

You roll to hit, get a 1, re-roll and get another 1 so you take a wound. You roll to hit and miss, choose to re-roll and get a 1 and so you take a wound.

Simple.

[Wolfshade]

I certainly agree with you RG that is RAI, but reading the rules as written.

Roll to Hit -> 2
Re-roll -> 1

So applying the rules,

A wound is only suffered if the To Hit re-roll is also a 1.

Initial Roll is not a one, therefore any susbequent re-roll cannot be also a 1, it can be a one, but the key word is also.

In this logic also is equivalent to an and.

RAW you need a double 1.

[RGilbert26]

If you're referring to
...a Wound is only suffered if To Hit re-roll is also a 1 then it is written that way because the example they are using is that you've rolled your die, gotten a 1 and so you have chosen to re-roll and rolled a 1. And so of course the only way to suffer the wound is if the To-Hit roll is also a one. Just because they haven't written
Oh by the way don't forget that if you miss and choose to re-roll and get a 1 then you also suffer a wound. - they're assuming we have common sense to understand this. So as far as I'm concerned it's RAW and RAI.

[Wolfshade]

You are ignoring the word "also".

It could simply be written that: a Wound is only suffered if the To Hit re-roll is a 1

That doesn't care what the initial roll was, only that the subsequent re-roll of a 1 triggers the Get's Hot rule.

But, the wording specifically says also.

I hate using synoynms but here goes

a Wound is only suffered if the To Hit re-roll is in addtion a 1
a Wound is only suffered if the To Hit re-roll is a 1 too
a Wound is only suffered if the To Hit re-roll is a 1 as well
a Wound is only suffered if the To Hit re-roll is a further 1

Now, this may actually be a deliberate design change. I have no idea if it is or not. So that people with re-rolls are safer when using plasma weaponry.

- - - Updated - - -

Also is an "and" type statement not an "or".

Get some milk, also get some bread.

This means that you need to get both bread and milk. Not just bread.

[RGilbert26]

No I'm not though I can't be bothered to carry on, clearly you're unable to accept it as RAW.

I'm tired of these pointless rules questions when the answers are clear.

[-Tom-]

No I'm not though I can't be bothered to carry on, clearly you're unable to accept it as RAW.

I'm tired of these pointless rules questions when the answers are clear.

If the answers were really clear, then there wouldn't be a question. What you're saying here is really along the lines of "I have decided that the answer is 'such and such', and so therefore it is". Being arrogant isn't really validation of the point your making. Thinking you are right doesn't mean that you actually are.

As far as usage of the English language goes, Wolfshade, Mystery and DrLove have all picked up the implication of the word 'also' for RAW. You can't argue that them saying how it is written is unaccepting it as RAW.

This may be one of those cases where RAW doesn't agree with RAI, but that doesn't change the RAW result itself.

Maybe I'm misreading your tone in your posts throughout this thread, but they seem really arsey and condescending from the outset. Perhaps the solution to thinking your better than others at deciphering the rules and being tired of getting involved in the 'pointless obvious questions' is to stay out of them unless you have something more constructive to say, rather than sticking your oar in, failing to justify your point in any meaningful way and then getting in a strop when people are unswayed by your lack of argument?

[RGilbert26]

Or perhaps because I don't have an issue with the word 'also'.

You roll to hit, miss, re-roll, get a 1, take an armour save.

You roll to hit, get a 1, re-roll and the re-roll is also a 1, take an armour save.

Simple.

[Patrick Boyle]

No I'm not though I can't be bothered to carry on, clearly you're unable to accept it as RAW.

I'm tired of these pointless rules questions when the answers are clear.

Except from what's written it's clearly not what you're saying.

The "Gets Hot and Re-Rolls" section immediately follows text saying you take a wound if you roll a 1 to hit, and states that if you are able to reroll you only suffer a wound if the reroll is also 1. If they intended it to be "a reroll of 1 causes a wound" they would have said that rather than qualifying with "a Wound is only suffered if" and "also a 1". Or at least they would if they weren't GW. You could be right about their intent, but outside of an errata I can't read it any other way than how DrLove and Wolfshade are reading it.

[Thaldin]

It could be the example they are using. BS6 only misses on a 1, so if the re-roll is also a 1, then take the hit. The 'also' could be example specific.

I agree though, no matter what the first roll, the if the re-roll is a 1, you take the "Get Hot" hit because earlier when it talks about re-rolls, the final roll is ALWAYS the taken result.

[RGilbert26]

Thank you Thaldin; I couldn't have written it any better.

[DWest]

There are two circumstantial factors, however, which point towards a Wound being scored only on a 1-followed-by-a-1. First, a specific exemption always trumps a general rule, which means that saying "the final roll is always taken" is irrelevant; the specific rule for Gets Hot requires a 1 followed by another 1. Second, the rules states "[a model with the ability to reroll To-Hits] may also re-roll Gets Hot results of 1 for weapons that do not roll to-hit."; therefor, RAW and RAI for weapons that don't roll to hit is "1 followed by another 1", and it can be reasonably inferred that weapons that do roll to hit should work the same way, therefore, RAW and RAI for standard Gets Hot weapons is "1 followed by another 1".

[Wolfshade]

If you were using that as an example then you would agree then that both rolls needed to be a 1.

But more importantly, it also mentions immediately after BS6+, Twin-Linked. Now Twin-Linked do not require a roll of 1 in order to be re-rolled. So again, the use of "is also a 1" problematic.

[daboarder]

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.

unless you want to ignore the word also you only gets hot on two consecutive 1's

[Mr Mystery]

Sounds like a 1 in 3 for twinlinked Plasma/Gets Hot to me.

[sfshilo]

So this entire thread is for people that want a plasma buff.

The take the reroll result rule has been around for, oh forever?

The reroll is not combined with any logic, it is a seperate independent roll that can blow up your model.

Stop wasting time trying to get around rules.

[daboarder]

So this entire thread is for people that want a plasma buff.

The take the reroll result rule has been around for, oh forever?

The reroll is not combined with any logic, it is a seperate independent roll that can blow up your model.

Stop wasting time trying to get around rules.
quote the rules, what do they say?

[The Tisroc]

Threads like this drive me nuts. The rule is clear and yet a few people are glomming onto a couple of words to force the rules into new shapes that they'd like to see. Arrrrrrgh!http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45565-Gets-Hot-and-Rerolls&p=425935&posted=1#post425935
9015

[-Tom-]

Threads like this drive me nuts. The rule is clear and yet a few people are glomming onto a couple of words to force the rules into new shapes that they'd like to see. Arrrrrrgh!http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45565-Gets-Hot-and-Rerolls&p=425935&posted=1#post425935
9015

I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. I thought that DrLove was an Eldar player, who needn't worry about the Gets Hot rule (maybe he plays other things too that it does count for). I certainly am an Eldar player, and only Eldar, so there is no benefit to me of the word 'also' being in the rule, but I still believe that it is a very important word in the sentence, and agree with the mass consensus of posters in this thread that. as written, you'd need both rolls to be a 1.

I'm not trying to force the rules to be something that I want. I just like to play with the correct rules, so if I ever have a query about something then I like to ask to see if there is something that I am missing. I don't see why this so often leads to accusations of people attempting to 'rules lawyer', or twist the rules to their advantage.

I'll reiterate, from my point of view, I don't care what the rule is either way. But, I would like to play by the correct rule.

[Caitsidhe]

Also, those of you upset about the discussion of the wording should remember:

1. Games Workshop could have kept the original wording. It didn't.
2. They have a long history of surprising people who who claim they know the RAI.
3. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the poor wording so that they fix it even if you are right.

[The Tisroc]

3. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the poor wording so that they fix it even if you are right. Right, but it often seems that folks dig into wording that is only slightly poorly worded and try to make it seem like a bigger deal than it is. That's what really drives me mental. The above rule isn't really different from the old rule but (because of some words that went with a specific example) now folks are trying to make a big change. From where I sit all that happened was that the GW writers were a bit mealy-mouthed. I don't seem them as implementing a rule that says gets hot only wounds on a one when it is re-rollable. However, reasonable people can disagree.

[DWest]

I don't seem them as implementing a rule that says gets hot only wounds on a one when it is re-rollable. However, reasonable people can disagree.
Except for the fact that's exactly what they did. 7th Edition has lots of little tweaks that look to be nonsensical, but they are an official part of the rules. Characters lost Precision Shots/Strikes. The rule about Ordinance causing Snap Shots, which GW just clarified a few weeks ago as not affecting Heavy vehicles, now affects Heavy vehicles once again. These things happen, which is why it is important to read the rules as they are actually written in the book, not "as they were in the previous book" or "what you wish they were".

[daboarder]

this change was actually made in 6th.

[DWest]

There's nothing vague about it. If the first roll is a 1, and the second roll is also a 1, you overheat. If you want to "play nice", stop throwing around insults and play the rules as they are written in the book.

[Turner]

Except for the fact that's exactly what they did. 7th Edition has lots of little tweaks that look to be nonsensical, but they are an official part of the rules. Characters lost Precision Shots/Strikes. The rule about Ordinance causing Snap Shots, which GW just clarified a few weeks ago as not affecting Heavy vehicles, now affects Heavy vehicles once again. These things happen, which is why it is important to read the rules as they are actually written in the book, not "as they were in the previous book" or "what you wish they were".

Would it be possible to reference this old rule/ruling?

[DWest]

It's from this (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?43952-Stationary-vehicles-firing-Ordnance) thread. The response is an official email (albeit from Forge World, but they're in the same building as GW proper), so should be as solid as an FAQ, I would think (maybe even moreso, seeing as how GW had to reissue 2 FAQs the week of release because they can't bother to ensure that information is accurate in them).

[Aegwymourn]

It's from this (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?43952-Stationary-vehicles-firing-Ordnance) thread. The response is an official email (albeit from Forge World, but they're in the same building as GW proper), so should be as solid as an FAQ, I would think (maybe even moreso, seeing as how GW had to reissue 2 FAQs the week of release because they can't bother to ensure that information is accurate in them).

"Official" emails and phone calls to GW/FW are incredibly unreliable. Unless it is a posted FAQ that anyone can access and print, it probably isn't going to fly. Not that I disagree with any of the points, but an email still isn't a FAQ/Errata.

Although if you group is alright with it, go for it!

[Charon]

It's from this (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?43952-Stationary-vehicles-firing-Ordnance) thread. The response is an official email (albeit from Forge World, but they're in the same building as GW proper), so should be as solid as an FAQ, I would think (maybe even moreso, seeing as how GW had to reissue 2 FAQs the week of release because they can't bother to ensure that information is accurate in them).

E-mail them 3 times and you get 3 different answers.
When the "can an infiltrating character give his USR to another unit and let them both deploy as infiltrators at the begin of the game" was hot in 5th some people I know personally sent it in (I wanted to know if Karandras or Illic can deploy on first turn infiltrating together with Wraithguard).
We received an fun amount of replies. We had yes, no and a few answers in between some suggesting to roll a dice.
Are they all considered official now and I can choose which one I like?

[sfshilo]

quote the rules, what do they say?

Page freaking 11. It is even in bold.

"The second roll counts, even if it means a worse result than the first, no single dice can be rerolled more than once."

This thread is a whole new level of pointless rule mongering.

People read these threads and think that it is a new fangled rule their buddies don't know.

[John Bower]

Which just proves we were right; what I said (now deleted) wasn't meant as an 'insult' per se, it was a statement of fact, WAAC players were looking for a buff that clearly isn't there. Gets Hot just Gets Hot, they are still almost as likely to kill you as they are to kill your enemy the way it's been since I've been playing anyway.

[DWest]

Page freaking 11. It is even in bold.

"The second roll counts, even if it means a worse result than the first, no single dice can be rerolled more than once."

Also in bold, in the same "General Principles" are is Basic Versus Advanced, which states "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules". Gets Hot is a specific, advanced rule which has a special requirement to activate. The only bending of the rule is trying to state that anything other than double 1's causes a Gets Hot result on a re-roll.

[John Bower]

And we also know that GW have already had to redo 2 FAQ's because of their wonderful grasp of literature... So you don't think it entirely likely they messed up their wording which we all know they do quite frequently so when an FAQ comes out and you are proven wrong (which I'm pretty confident once they realise this you will be), you will I trust be wanting salt and pepper for your hat?

[DWest]

And we also know that GW have already had to redo 2 FAQ's because of their wonderful grasp of literature... So you don't think it entirely likely they messed up their wording which we all know they do quite frequently so when an FAQ comes out and you are proven wrong (which I'm pretty confident once they realise this you will be), you will I trust be wanting salt and pepper for your hat?

Only if you admit that you're making a pathetic overreach by trying to twist words around to mean the complete opposite of what they say when it doesn't get mentioned in the FAQ.

[Gir]

And we also know that GW have already had to redo 2 FAQ's because of their wonderful grasp of literature... So you don't think it entirely likely they messed up their wording which we all know they do quite frequently so when an FAQ comes out and you are proven wrong (which I'm pretty confident once they realise this you will be), you will I trust be wanting salt and pepper for your hat?

What the rules get FAQ/Errata'd too doesn't change the rule right now. As it stands, you need a double one to get hot with rerolls. This is the actual rule, regardless of intention, until it is FAQ'd or Errata'd.

[daboarder]

Page freaking 11. It is even in bold.

"The second roll counts, even if it means a worse result than the first, no single dice can be rerolled more than once."

This thread is a whole new level of pointless rule mongering.

People read these threads and think that it is a new fangled rule their buddies don't know.

wrong rule mate, plus your going to want to look at the rule that deals with advanced rules overriding the basic rules. so sorry matey your wrong