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.

Thanks Rigeld, Nos cleared that part up above, as can be seen by my last post.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you have an incomplete profile. ASsault weapons MUST have a number - its in their definition.

That is "undefined" number of shots

But that is exactly how i would resolve the Witchfires without profile: As an Assault weapon without a number. Possible Strawman but best way to describe it.
The "witchfire power must roll To Hit" and we know that you do such a thing using the "roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are ..." RaW

Now either as you both agree we simply ignore the first part for some tests (and do not refer to the To Hit RaW), or we do take that Rule and, as we have no profile, must use the basic rule ("Most models only get") and not the reference to other detailed weapons ("however, some weapons").

I can use the To Wound wording for a similar example: "In most cases, when rolling To Wound in close combat, you use the Strength on the attacker’s profile regardless of what weapon he is using. However, there are some Melee weapons that give the attacker a Strength bonus,
and this is explained later in the Weapons section."
Would you not ignore the "However," here if you Decided to use a Smash attack?
You still refer to the Model's Strength when Smashing even if the model had a Melee weapon with a Profile.

I understand Un-Profiled melee weapons/attacks are more common than Un-profiled Shooting attacks, but the rules can still be followed. (and IMHO not just "ignored")

You cannot follow an incomplete rule. You have an undefined number of shots, and cannot continue.

There is no link to the rest of the power, so instead of making up a minimum two rules, why not ignore the irrelevant one?

@nos @ rigeld2 IYO why did they spend as much time as they did putting multiple rules into place concerning the to hit rules if they didn't mean it to be tied to the processing of the power?

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos @ rigeld2 IYO why did they spend as much time as they did putting multiple rules into place concerning the to hit rules if they didn't mean it to be tied to the processing of the power?

If they wanted Focused Witchfires to require a successful to hit to resolve the power, then why didn't they make the To Hit roll tied to the processing of the power?

Why not just give them a profile?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos @ rigeld2 IYO why did they spend as much time as they did putting multiple rules into place concerning the to hit rules if they didn't mean it to be tied to the processing of the power?

If they wanted Focused Witchfires to require a successful to hit to resolve the power, then why didn't they make the To Hit roll tied to the processing of the power?

Why not just give them a profile?

Because they mistakenly assumed that people could logically follow the implication that requiring a roll to hit means that such a roll actually means something.

chanceafs wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos @ rigeld2 IYO why did they spend as much time as they did putting multiple rules into place concerning the to hit rules if they didn't mean it to be tied to the processing of the power?

If they wanted Focused Witchfires to require a successful to hit to resolve the power, then why didn't they make the To Hit roll tied to the processing of the power?

Why not just give them a profile?

Because they mistakenly assumed that people could logically follow the implication that requiring a roll to hit means that such a roll actually means something.

Except there is no set number of dice to roll, they wrote the rules governing profiles and shots for a reason.

Focused Witchfires do not tell you how many dice you need to roll to hit, and there is no default number in the shooting section because the shooting section tells you to look at the weapons profile to determine how many shots a weapon fires.

@DR Is it your opinion then missing a line about a profile and/or stating that there is no profile needed you roll one die and apply the effect or not per the to hit roll, is more important the all the time they spent concerning the to roll to hit and templates and the sections in subtypes?

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos @ rigeld2 IYO why did they spend as much time as they did putting multiple rules into place concerning the to hit rules if they didn't mean it to be tied to the processing of the power?

You do realize there are lots of witchfires that do have a profile, right?

You do realize that they all have to roll to hit not just the ones with profiles, right?

Gravmyr wrote:
You do realize that they all have to roll to hit not just the ones with profiles, right?

Thanks for missing my point!

You asked why they took the time to put "multiple rules into place concerning the to hit rules if they didn't mean it to be tied to the processing of the power". That's an incorrect statement - they are tied to the processing of witchfires with a profile.

Gravmyr wrote:
@DR Is it your opinion then missing a line about a profile and/or stating that there is no profile needed you roll one die and apply the effect or not per the to hit roll, is more important the all the time they spent concerning the to roll to hit and templates and the sections in subtypes?

I am not 100% sure what you are saying here.

Gravmyr wrote:
You do realize that they all have to roll to hit not just the ones with profiles, right?

Missing the point

There ARE witchfire with profiles, so no time was wasted. Your contention is therefore undermined

No more jibes about "logical conclusions" please, as it is illogical to make up a connection that doesn't exist, based on no valid reason

Time and space are both wasted if the roll to hit doesn't matter. They could have summed up what you are describing as:

Witchfire powers may have a profile similar to ranged attacks. If a witchfire power has a profile it is treated just like a ranged weapon and fired following the rules for shooting. Psychers can make Snap Shots.....

Saving space by not rehashing templates and blasts while not stating that they all have to roll to hit. They could have left the need for a to hit roll out entirely at that point. Why not word it above which would have removed any question? Why make the statement that they all must roll to hit when 1/3 witchfire powers, minus beam and nova powers, don't have profiles? There are 2 powers which don't state they hit within the power and don't have a profile.

As an aside I also noticed that these powers have to be weapons or the blast usr and template usr do not affect them. Which brings us back to firing one shot per the ranged weapons rules.

I ask you all again why does it say all witchfire must roll to hit if only half of the powers, including beams and novas, would be affected by it?

Don't be a bunch of robots. Use your brain and figure out what to do. Are you really that devoid of thought that you don't know what to do when the book doesn't tell you how many 'to hit' dice to roll? Do you hold the rulebook in your left hand and follow it word by word as you roll your dice? Your games must take weeks to complete!

 Kavish wrote:
Don't be a bunch of robots. Use your brain and figure out what to do. Are you really that devoid of thought that you don't know what to do when the book doesn't tell you how many 'to hit' dice to roll? Do you hold the rulebook in your left hand and follow it word by word as you roll your dice? Your games must take weeks to complete!

We are using our brains.

That does not mean we get to make up rules though.

What permission are you using to avoid rolling to hit?

As a general thing, please discuss the topic without throwing insults around.

Gravmyr wrote:
What permission are you using to avoid rolling to hit?

The psychic power rules

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase chapter, Resolve Psychic Power section).

we are instructed to "Resolve [the psychic power's] effects according to the instructions in its entry."

Its entry does not have a profile so we ignore the irrelevant rolls to hit.

Either:

1) The game breaks because we have to roll to hit but are not given a profile so we don't know how many dice we need to roll.
Or
2) We skip the roll to hit since we are not given a profile, and everything works just fine.

Ill go with the one that does not bring the game to a screeching halt. (#2 just FYI).

Grav - another incorrect statement. The roll to hit sometimes matters. No space wasted. They could have been more efficient, but this their choice. You don't go from that, to making up at least two rules just because you think they should exist

Fact you make up a minimum of two rules, vs ignoring the irrelevant one. Occam's razor States your position is less tenable

 DeathReaper wrote:

2) We skip the roll to hit since we are not given a profile, and everything works just fine.

But this is a houserule.

This problem has existed since 6th edition, and it really annoys me that it wasn't fixed with the 7th. The rule is just incomplete, and do not work as written. It however seems ludicrous to me how people seem to present their houserules as RAW here. RAW is broken, the best you can do is attempt to decipher RAI. (Personally, I have no idea how they meant it to work, reasonable interpretations can be made to support either option.)

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

2) We skip the roll to hit since we are not given a profile, and everything works just fine.

But this is a houserule.

This problem has existed since 6th edition, and it really annoys me that it wasn't fixed with the 7th. The rule is just incomplete, and do not work as written. It however seems ludicrous to me how people seem to present their houserules as RAW here. RAW is broken, the best you can do is attempt to decipher RAI. (Personally, I have no idea how they meant it to work, reasonable interpretations can be made to support either option.)

The rules are only as broken as when you cast Enfeeble on a vehicle or have some other unresolvable irrelevant event. We see them all the time in the rules and move forward. Why in this case must we invent and entire series if rules to resolve thus unresolvable irrelevant roll?

@DR As long as you are choosing to ignore what you cannot see as something that can be resolved, you are making up rules. Since both the instructions for power resolution and the requirement for rolling to hit are in the same section they are the same level.

@nos Care to clarify which statement you view as incorrect. This is why I use to have you blocked because you do not use rule questions and make sweeping statements without clarification. Stating incorrect statement without identifying what you are speaking about while also not addressing my concerns leads me to believe you cannot defend you own position.

My position above, that they are weapons as displayed by the template and blast USR's applying to them, being referenced as weapons, and having to roll to hit with them means you follow the general shooting rule of one shot unless otherwise stated. This means we have made up a single rule, tying the roll to hit with resolution, as being weapons misses are not addressed just like normal shots. It is your opinion that it is irrelevant, clearly it has the same standing to some people as the rest of the rules despite not being spelled out word for word.

Care to address why all witchfire powers must roll to hit instead of just the ones with profiles? Why would that be a misprint as opposed to not stating resolution is tied to hits being the misprint.

Gravmyr wrote:
My position above, that they are weapons as displayed by the template and blast USR's applying to them, being referenced as weapons, and having to roll to hit with them means you follow the general shooting rule of one shot unless otherwise stated.

Except that's not what the rule actually says, despite your constant assurances.

This means we have made up a single rule, tying the roll to hit with resolution, as being weapons misses are not addressed just like normal shots. It is your opinion that it is irrelevant, clearly it has the same standing to some people as the rest of the rules despite not being spelled out word for word.

Care to address why all witchfire powers must roll to hit instead of just the ones with profiles? Why would that be a misprint as opposed to not stating resolution is tied to hits being the misprint.

So... Making up a rule makes it RAW? I'm confused...

@rigeld2 Can't help you with your confusion. Under witchfire pg 27 "or it is a template weapon," and "can target a different unit with his other ranged weapons" Blast pg 158 "When firing a blast weapon" Template pg 173 "Template weapons are indicated by having the word 'Template' for their range instead of a number." Weapons pg 40 "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type." As you can see that is exactly what the rule says.

My position above, that they are weapons as displayed by the template and blast USR's applying to them, being referenced as weapons, and having to roll to hit with them means you follow the general shooting rule of one shot unless otherwise stated. This means we have made up a single rule, tying the roll to hit with resolution, as being weapons misses are not addressed just like normal shots. It is your opinion that it is irrelevant, clearly it has the same standing to some people as the rest of the rules despite not being spelled out word for word. 

See page 40 first sentence under WEAPON PROFILES, then first sentence under TYPE. If your argument is that they are weapons then you are disagreeing with the BrB. They absolutely can not be weapons. Only the Witchfires that have profiles are or indeed can be weapons.

Care to address why all witchfire powers must roll to hit instead of just the ones with profiles? Why would that be a misprint as opposed to not stating resolution is tied to hits being the misprint.

Only the witchfires which are weapons can possibly roll to hit using the shooting rules. Otherwise they can not. They don't tell you what to do with the Witchfires that can not roll to hit just as they don't tell you what to do with misses or what to do with T modifiers against vehicles. This is consistent with how the rules are written.

Clear RaI no roll to hit is made. RaW we have an irrelevant unresolvable roll to hit that is unrelated to the effect.

Grav - cool. Then I will no longer attempt to debate you, if I am on ignore. It was hard to tell, as you were responding. Incorrectly, but responding.

Some witchfires have profiles, so it is not wrong for them to write that they roll to hit.

There is NO RULE that it is "one shot unless told otherwise". This is why you're in correct, you create rules out of thin air, and state them as if they are true. Don't do that

You're making up two rules. Occams you're wrong, and raw you're wrong, and arguably RAI you're wrong. Not doing well.

Unfortunately it also equates, as I displayed above, that all witchfire powers are weapons. It does not list the ones that are or are not nor does it separate them in any way to make such a statement as only the ones with profiles are weapons and therefor you have to roll to hits to them. It states all witchfire must roll to hit. You either have to come up with a way to fulfill said requirement or not use those powers, RAW. Stating they don't tell you what to do with things does not get you past that need. I am basing the T requirement for vehicles off an old statement, as most people are.

Witchfire pg 27 Does not make any statement about only the ones with profiles nor weapons have to roll to hit. If you are disagreeing with "a witchfire power must roll To Hit" then you are disagreeing with the BRB.

Two rules made up vs one, I know which makes most sense here.

There is no debate, just grav trying desperately to claim it is one made up rule, or RAI, or something.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

There is NO RULE that it is "one shot unless told otherwise". This is why you're in correct, you create rules out of thin air, and state them as if they are true. Don't do that

Weapons: number of shots. Pg 40 "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type." Directly out of the BRB. So clearly that is not made up despite your statement otherwise. Once given a quote from the book don't continue to state someone is making something up, address the quote per the tenents.

So, that states exactly what you stated? No, it gives something else.

Back to you. Find the exact rule you stated or retract.