Preferred Enemy - clarification

[Dark Serpentine]

Hey all,

 

Fairly new to all this, but just wanted clarification on people's PE interpretation.

 

I've previously read the rule as 'reroll 1's to hit and reroll 1's to wound'

 

Although rereading it, it could be read as 'reroll all failed to hits and reroll 1's to wound'.

[Spinsanity]

Nice catch, I'd be tempted to say it only works on ToHit rolls of one too.

My one argument in favor of this reading is the placement of the word roll:

Compare these two portions of sentences :

- all failed to hit and to wound rolls of one

- all failed to hit rolls and to wound rolls of one

In the first case, the "to hit and to wound" part seems to be a single qualifier for "all failed rolls of one"

In the second case, "to hit rolls" refer to "all failed" and "wound rolls" refers to "of one" very distinctly...

But then again, I'm no English major so take this however you want

[Dark Serpentine]

Yea that's pretty much as I first read it...after reading some of the forums on B&C it sounds as though some people go with your option 2, (which is basically what people using PE want

[Spinsanity]

The more I think about it, the more convince I am that the more restricted use is the only viable interpretation.

 

Dissecting the sentence in two would result in the following, which clearly breaks how To Hit and To Wound rolls are referred to accross the book :

 

"A unit ... re-rolls failed To Hit if attacking its Preferred Enemy."

and

"A unit ... re-rolls To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy."

 

As far as I am aware, nowhere else, in this book or another, does GW refer to "To Hit rolls" simply as "To Hit".

You cannot fail a "To Hit", whereas you can fail a "To Hit roll".

[Raktra]

You are really, really stretching it here if you're arguing for the restricted side.

[Spinsanity]

You are really, really stretching it here if you're arguing for the restricted side.

Seriously? The 'any failed to hit roll' interpretation makes no sense considering the sshntax, so on my end it sounds as though it's the other way round which is stretching it...

[Slips]

Page 169 7th Ed BRB:

 

A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy.

 

There. Done. That should answer the question of how to interpret the rule. Couldn't be any more black and white, imo.

[Spinsanity]

Slips, some read that passage as "any roll to hit" and "to wound rolls of 1", whereas others (myself included), read it as "any roll to hit or wound that fails on a 1"...

 

I've argued my point, so I won't insist any further...

[Slips]

But...but its literally written there in black and white: "[...] Any failed To Hit AND To Wound rolls of 1[...]"

 

Saying otherwise seems bizarre to me. If they had wanted to separate both, they would have by using punctuation such as:

• "[...] Re-roll any failed To Hit Rolls. Additionally, they unit may re-roll failed To Wound rolls of 1[...]" 

Or something along those lines.

 

But they didn't. Therefore its on To Hit Rolls and To Wound Rolls whose result are 1s. 

[Massaen]

I agree - it says to hit AND to wound rolls of 1... not - to hit, and to wound rolls of 1.

 

That little grammatical change is significant.

 

Its only 1's to reroll

[Raktra]

There's no comma between "to hit" and "and", so by the laws of the English language it's an inclusive sentence, not two seperate articles.

[Dark Serpentine]

Thanks for all the comments guys, pretty much clears that up! Rerolls on 1's only. 

[Hesh Kadesh]

Failed rolls to hit and rolls to wound of 1.

 

A 1 is automatically a failure. You do bot need to say that a failed rolled to hit of 1.

 

That grammatical change is the oxford comma.

 

I love my parents, Tom and Ella. Or, I love my Parents, Tom, and Ella. These are differences. The only way that you can prove the intention of the oxford comma and its lack of presence in that sentence structure is if it is present elsewhere. That is isn't means that it is impossible to tell whether or not the exclusion of Oxford.comma is necessary.

 

The rule can be parsed as it currently stands on either 'failed rolls to hit' and 'rolls to wound of 1', or rolls of 1 to hit and wound.

 

That the inclusion of the 'failed' in regards of rolls to hit are uneccesary as a roll of 1 is an automatic failure anyway, and the sentence structure does not apportion failed to rolls to wound, I believe it's the 'failed rolls to hit'/'rolls to wound of 1' rather than rolls of 1 when rolling to hit or to wound'.

 

TL/DR; GW cannot write rules in the english language that are abundantly clear, and can be parsed in several ways due to vagaries of language. They have proven unwilling to FAQ. You must go with what you interpret as there is no 'RAW' and employing 'RAW' as the baseline of all arguments leads to a broken game. If you cannot agree (ie one person says one thing the other says another, if you cannot solve it within 20 seconds of discussion, roll it off and let the game continue, and apply the diced off rule (or the adjudicators decision in such an environment) equally and fairly on all sodes of the argument.

 

Also, do not be a dick; Do not let your opponent roll PE on 1's only, then try to claim benefit. If you do not bring it uo the first time the rule comes inti play, you have voided your ability to complain unt the end/designated break point.

[Elzender]

Hesh Kadesh, if we go by the phrase that Slipstreams has cited from the rulebook (which I do not own so I cannot check it, but I think we can trust Slips), it says "a unit (...) with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy" , so I understand the "rolls of 1" part refers to both hitting and wounding. Moreover, regarding rolls of 1 always being an automatic failure, wouldn't it apply to the wounding rolls aswell? (if this is not the case, please do tell me, I must say it's been a long time since the last time I read the rules or played, and I haven't even read the 7th ed. rules). I believe that the inclusion of the word "failed" is to emphasize the fact that it allows to repeat rolls which have been negative for the player, or as an explanation like "you get to repeat failed rolls, but only those that got a 1 on the die".

Regarding the (in)ability of GW to write clear rules, as a non-English rulebooks user, and not having read them for quite long, I cannot have much of an opinion about it, although the fact that many rules have to be discussed might be a hint. What I think the main problem is, and it is probably even clearer with FW rules, is that the rule writers often develop them with a narrative element or intent in mind (specially regarding RoWs, but I might be digressing here, I just read some of the other threads), which might not always be shared by those who use the rules (something absolutely normal), causing the potential misunderstanding or ambiguous interpretations. While I usually drift towards the "fluff" interpretation, it is true that people that focus or have more interest on the gaming part of the hobby, which I guess is the case of Hesh and many others, find that the rules have not been written to such level of attention, leading to the intended meaning being misunderstood due to the different perception of every individual. As Hesh has said in many occasions, GW rules do not shine for their clear language and exactitude, but this probably stems from their origins as a group of enthusiasts who wanted to recreate battles with miniatures, and therefore do not aim for a standarised and perfectly regulated system. The fact that the current edition is just the addition of multiple layers and patches to the 3rd edition rules (or so I've read and understood) definitely does not help to this.

I guess it can be summed up as "we probably take the rules more seriously than GW/FW does" .

[Spinsanity]

The rule can be parsed as it currently stands on either 'failed rolls to hit' and 'rolls to wound of 1', or rolls of 1 to hit and wound.

Actually, no.

 

There is only one reference to 'rolls' in that sentence and it specifically refers to 'rolls of 1'.

 

The sentence could - if it made sense, that is - be parsed into 'failed To Hit' and 'To Wound rolls of 1' but there is no such thing in 40k as a 'To Hit'.

 

We have 'To Hit rolls' and 'To Wound rolls' however, and in this case, as I said, the only rolls PE ever refers to are rolls of 1.

[Hesh Kadesh]

Well that's what you get for googling the rule without the boom to hand.

 

Clarification does stop that.

 

That it IS so confusingly worded shoes the frequency that these arguments come up, so it is NOT obvious in plain black and white.

[Lord Blackwood]

My gaming group has always played this as you roll a 1 to hit or wound and you can re roll it. I don't think anyone has ever tried to argue a different interpretation than that in our circle.