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.

So, as we all know this quite well by now, there is an issue with Witchfires that do not have a profile but must roll To Hit to follow RaW.

Question is:

Does the new rules for the Maleceptor (nids) now change anything in the debate?

-"Vehicles are treated as having a Leadership of 10"
-"The Psyker can attempt to manifest this Psychic power up to 3 times in each of its Pshycic phases"
-"Each attempt is resolved separately"

A) 3 Rolls To Hit with misses just like shooting an Assault 3?
B) Yet again we simply ignore the "a witchfire power must roll To Hit" and just resolve the 3 Powers?

Other option:
X) Let's simply ignore this until an unknowing soul asks the question because we know that this will simply Loop & Lock within a few pages?

B) you yet again ignore, as missing has no effect on the resolution of the power, same for similar powers such as PS.

ASsuming ASsault 3 is unsafe, as every time an assumption on the number of shots is made.

Well, less of an assumption and more of a use of standard Shooting rules:

IE: following the rule: "Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. Indeed, they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons."
and then the rule: "roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot".

No assumptions there, just applying Rules rather than ignoring one. I have also just noted that it says "Most models only get" and not weapons, so you could conclude:
1) Models get 1 Shot.
2) Some weapons get more ("as we’ll explain in more detail later").

That isnt a rule. "most" doesnt define anything specific enough to apply it, as you do not know if your model is "most" or not. In fact even "most" is almost certainly untrue....

Well, i take it as "most" being all the ones that are not defined.

I mean let's take other examples:

a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later)

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.

Most units Fall Back 2D6".

Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model.

Unlike most other vehicles, Skimmers have flying bases under their hull.

Most Destroyer Weapons have AP1 or AP2, so armour saves are not typically allowed.

If you are rolling To Wound in close combat, do you not assume "use the Strength on the attacker’s profile"?
If a Unit is told to Fall back, do you not assume "Fall Back 2D6"?

(Assumptions here)
If a Vehicle has no Unit stat line, would you not assume they "fight as individual units"?
If a Vehicle is not a skimmer, do you not assume that they have no base?
If D weapons have an AP, but it is not defined, would you not assume "have AP1 or AP2"?

In terms of the "most" in Fall Back and To Wound above, i always make those assumptions:
If there is no definition as to how far you Fall back (as opposed to: Jetbikes, Cavalry, Jump Units who are defined as 3D6) then you take the defined "most" 2D6".
If there is no definition as to how many shots you have (as opposed to: Assault, Heavy, Salvo who are defined as 2,3,4,36 Shots) then you take the defined "most" 1 shot.

All in all, you struggle to find "most" being a rule that can be followed. But why is that? I mean it's Rules as Written. Yes a little vague, but has RaW always been clear cut? YMDC would not exist ...

 BlackTalos wrote:
So, as we all know this quite well by now, there is an issue with Witchfires that do not have a profile but must roll To Hit to follow RaW.

Question is:

Does the new rules for the Maleceptor (nids) now change anything in the debate?

It's not assault 3 - it's 3 different castings of the same power. No, the new creature doesn't change a single thing.

"If you are rolling To Wound in close combat, do you not assume "use the Strength on the attacker’s profile"? "

No, I use the exactly specified in every instance "look at wha tthe CCW profile states", which MAY be "S:User"

"If a Unit is told to Fall back, do you not assume "Fall Back 2D6"?"

No, I look at the units unit type to work out how far it falls back. Again, 100% complete information, no assumption required

For "most" to make any sense, then "most" would have to refer to the number of modles in the game as a whole. And probably, given the sheer number of SM with bolters and IG with lasgun, this "most" is entirely false. It is more likely "a fair number of models only get to fire 1 shot" - which is even less of a rule than the actual wording given.

"Most" does not define a rule. It never has done.Mainly, because it cannot do so. The actual rules require you to look at the profile, so when you can find the profile for this power, or PS, you can know and not assume.

Can anyone quote this 'mythical' RAW passage that things that are required to hit can resolve their effect anyways because normal shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, and non normal shooting that is required to roll to hit doesn't therefore reasons?

or can we drop that B.S. and admit its not RAW and that it is just some peoples HYWPI

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That isnt a rule. "most" doesnt define anything specific enough to apply it, as you do not know if your model is "most" or not. In fact even "most" is almost certainly untrue....

Just a quick thumb through of the codexes on my desk, and very few models actually only get 1 shot.
Oddly, in the entirety of the DE book, 1 shot models are 3 HQ choices, 1 troop choice, 1 transport with an upgrade to take away it's multiple shots.
Everything else either isn't shooting, or is shooting a lot more.
Most can't be used as a general qualifier for all models, when most aren't actually most.

-Matt

blaktoof wrote:
Can anyone quote this 'mythical' RAW passage that things that are required to hit can resolve their effect anyways because normal shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, and non normal shooting that is required to roll to hit doesn't therefore reasons?

or can we drop that B.S. and admit its not RAW and that it is just some peoples HYWPI

It's been quoted before. The psychic power rules require us to resolve a power according to its instructions.
Cite the rule that denies Shriek (et. al.) from finishing resolution because you missed a To Hit roll. It's not like Shriek rolls To Wound or anything.

I understand your point, but i disagree with 100% information with the other example:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"If a Unit is told to Fall back, do you not assume "Fall Back 2D6"?"

No, I look at the units unit type to work out how far it falls back. Again, 100% complete information, no assumption required

could you Quote which rules you are using for Infantry Fall Back moves?
You said yourself that "Most units Fall Back 2D6" cannot be used: an IG Tank list contains almost no Infantry and the "most" is not RaW.

Most to me just means in all cases here "ones that are not the non-basic (Jump Units, Monstrous Creatures, etc)". Even if Infantry are 10% of the Units on the board and only 5% of shooting attacks (Witchfires) are "Most models only get to fire one shot".

"Most" does not define a rule. It never has done.Mainly, because it cannot do so. The actual rules require you to look at the profile, so when you can find the profile for this power, or PS, you can know and not assume.

So you cannot use an existing wording ("Most models only get to fire one shot") in the RaW but you can decide to ignore a Rule? ("a witchfire power must roll To Hit")

I mean between breaking a Rule and following a vague RaW, i've already made my decision long ago... But i can definitely see where you are coming from. Just need to wait for another FAQ. They did sort out the "Precision shots" one....

 BlackTalos wrote:
So you cannot use an existing wording ("Most models only get to fire one shot") in the RaW but you can decide to ignore a Rule? ("a witchfire power must roll To Hit")

I mean between breaking a Rule and following a vague RaW, i've already made my decision long ago... But i can definitely see where you are coming from. Just need to wait for another FAQ. They did sort out the "Precision shots" one....

See, here you show a failure to understand.
The rule isn't being ignored just because. It's just not relevant to decide what is required because the power must be resolved according to its instructions anyway.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Can anyone quote this 'mythical' RAW passage that things that are required to hit can resolve their effect anyways because normal shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, and non normal shooting that is required to roll to hit doesn't therefore reasons?

or can we drop that B.S. and admit its not RAW and that it is just some peoples HYWPI

It's been quoted before. The psychic power rules require us to resolve a power according to its instructions.
Cite the rule that denies Shriek (et. al.) from finishing resolution because you missed a To Hit roll. It's not like Shriek rolls To Wound or anything.

A above. We have a rule telling us to resolve the power. We miss the to hit, or ignore it. We check the rest of the power, note that nothing in the power requires us to successfully hit to carry on resolving, and we move on.

Please, for once, provide actual rules showing that a successful to hit is necessary for ps et al. Page and graph. Further dissembling on your part will be concession.

Uh, C. You don't need to ignore any rules. "A witchfire must roll to hit" That isn't optional.

However, hits don't matter to this particular power.

HIWPI: I wouldn't make someone roll to hit when it didn't matter.
RAW: Witchfire powers roll to hit, unless it's a nova, blast, or template, even if the roll will have no impact on the rest of the power.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
. Further dissembling on your part will be concession.

Can you please stop making this sort of statement? It doesn't actually encourage any sort of positive response.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Can anyone quote this 'mythical' RAW passage that things that are required to hit can resolve their effect anyways because normal shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, and non normal shooting that is required to roll to hit doesn't therefore reasons?

or can we drop that B.S. and admit its not RAW and that it is just some peoples HYWPI

It's been quoted before. The psychic power rules require us to resolve a power according to its instructions.
Cite the rule that denies Shriek (et. al.) from finishing resolution because you missed a To Hit roll. It's not like Shriek rolls To Wound or anything.

quote it again, the statement "its been quoted before" is not a valid argument.

here

You are wrong, because its been quoted before.

see it adds nothing and shows nothing of relevance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Can anyone quote this 'mythical' RAW passage that things that are required to hit can resolve their effect anyways because normal shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, and non normal shooting that is required to roll to hit doesn't therefore reasons?

or can we drop that B.S. and admit its not RAW and that it is just some peoples HYWPI

It's been quoted before. The psychic power rules require us to resolve a power according to its instructions.
Cite the rule that denies Shriek (et. al.) from finishing resolution because you missed a To Hit roll. It's not like Shriek rolls To Wound or anything.

A above. We have a rule telling us to resolve the power. We miss the to hit, or ignore it. We check the rest of the power, note that nothing in the power requires us to successfully hit to carry on resolving, and we move on.

Please, for once, provide actual rules showing that a successful to hit is necessary for ps et al. Page and graph. Further dissembling on your part will be concession.

stating that the steps to resolve a psychic power are all you need for resolution is pretty incorrect, as they do not cover any witchfires needing to roll to hit at all. Claiming that is the extent of what is necessary means all witchfires do not need to roll to hit, when clearly by the RAW statement that they are required to roll to hit -they do.

Why do you think a RAW required step is not necessary to the outcome, in this case the required to hit roll?

blaktoof wrote:
Why do you think a RAW required step is not necessary to the outcome, in this case the required to hit roll?

Because the only thing that requires a successful To Hit roll are To Wound rolls.

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Why do you think a RAW required step is not necessary to the outcome, in this case the required to hit roll?

Because the only thing that requires a successful To Hit roll are To Wound rolls.

The normal shooting sequence is to hit roll, then roll to wound.

that does not mean the only thing that requires a successful to hit roll are to wound rolls, and obviously as a witchfire it is called out as needing to roll to hit with the actual entry for psychic shriek not stating it can ignore the to hit roll.


Can you actually quote somewhere it says the only thing that requires a successful to hit roll are to wound rolls?

Can you quote where the rules tells you that you need to hit to resolve the Psychic Power?

W all agree you need to roll to hit, however, the onus is on you to prove that in order to resolve the power you need to actually hit.

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Why do you think a RAW required step is not necessary to the outcome, in this case the required to hit roll?

Because the only thing that requires a successful To Hit roll are To Wound rolls.

so you have no RAW to actually support that claim in any way.

Witchfire Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. Indeed, they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons. Just like when shooting a weapon, a Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point) and cannot be locked in combat if he wishes to manifest a witchfire power. Similarly, a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it

well the power states RAW it must roll to hit

also states its a shooting attack, so psychic shriek is a shooting attack.

Shooting attacks require a successful to hit roll, to hit.

blaktoof wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Why do you think a RAW required step is not necessary to the outcome, in this case the required to hit roll?

Because the only thing that requires a successful To Hit roll are To Wound rolls.

so you have no RAW to actually support that claim in any way.

Witchfire Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. Indeed, they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons. Just like when shooting a weapon, a Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point) and cannot be locked in combat if he wishes to manifest a witchfire power. Similarly, a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it

well the power states RAW it must roll to hit

also states its a shooting attack, so psychic shriek is a shooting attack.

Shooting attacks require a successful to hit roll, to hit.

Good job. You proved you need to roll to hit (which nobody has said otherwise). Now prove you need to successfully roll To Hit to resolve the power. Shooting attacks require a successful hit if you wish to roll to wound. Since Psychic Shriek doesn't roll to wound, I don't need permission to do so from a successful hit.

Do any of the witchfire powers with profiles have instructions on the resolution of the power within the power? Without them your argument that you only resolve the power using the rules within the power just broke all the powers with profiles only....

blaktoof wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Why do you think a RAW required step is not necessary to the outcome, in this case the required to hit roll?

Because the only thing that requires a successful To Hit roll are To Wound rolls.

so you have no RAW to actually support that claim in any way.

Witchfire Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. Indeed, they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons. Just like when shooting a weapon, a Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point) and cannot be locked in combat if he wishes to manifest a witchfire power. Similarly, a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it

well the power states RAW it must roll to hit

also states its a shooting attack, so psychic shriek is a shooting attack.

Shooting attacks require a successful to hit roll, to hit.

Proviong a negative is quite tricky

We have rules allowing us to resolve the power according to its entry. Nothing int he entry requires a successful to-hit roll, therefore unless told otherwise, a successful to-hit roll is not needed

SO we have proven permission. You now need to prove there is a restriction. Page and graph.

Normal shooting attacks require a succesful to-hit in order to roll to-wound. Noone disputes this. Please, SHOW A LINK between this power and the to-hit. Anything causal - anything at all - stating that before you can resolve the rest of the power you must successfully hit.

Page and graph. Nothing else.

It's a single hit that causes D3 wounds to a unit or a glancing hit on a vehicle. I don't see where the argument comes into play.

Side Note Edit: I don't know why someone would start this type of thread up again. It's just going to be locked right away after everyone starts bashing each other.

Proviong a negative is quite tricky

We have rules allowing us to resolve the power according to its entry. Nothing int he entry requires a successful to-hit roll, therefore unless told otherwise, a successful to-hit roll is not needed

SO we have proven permission. You now need to prove there is a restriction. Page and graph.

Normal shooting attacks require a succesful to-hit in order to roll to-wound. Noone disputes this. Please, SHOW A LINK between this power and the to-hit. Anything causal - anything at all - stating that before you can resolve the rest of the power you must successfully hit.

Page and graph. Nothing else.

So if we treat witchfire as a shooting attack.

Shooting Attacks roll to hit unless otherwise specified.

On a roll to hit, the hit is successful. On a failed roll to hit, the shooting attack is not successful.

So how does an ability with the witchfire rule go on to resolve the rest of its profile? I don't believe it can.

Note that the minimum roll needed To Hit is always at least 2. When rolling To Hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses.

What do you think happens when it misses?

note there is no link between needing to hit and rolling to wound directly either.

the to wound process tells you what you get do with hits.

you hit with psychic shriek, the psychic shriek profile tells you what you get do with the hit.

blaktoof wrote:Note that the minimum roll needed To Hit is always at least 2. When rolling To Hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses.

What do you think happens when it misses?

note there is no link between needing to hit and rolling to wound directly either.

Gravmyr wrote:
Do any of the witchfire powers with profiles have instructions on the resolution of the power within the power? Without them your argument that you only resolve the power using the rules within the power just broke all the powers with profiles only....

You said the same thing in the last thread and were proved wrong. Care to offer actual rules support for this stance?
We know how to resolve shooting attacks with profiles. Witchfires are - surprise surprise - shooting attacks with profiles (when they exist).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Can anyone quote this 'mythical' RAW passage that things that are required to hit can resolve their effect anyways because normal shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, and non normal shooting that is required to roll to hit doesn't therefore reasons?

or can we drop that B.S. and admit its not RAW and that it is just some peoples HYWPI

It's been quoted before. The psychic power rules require us to resolve a power according to its instructions.
Cite the rule that denies Shriek (et. al.) from finishing resolution because you missed a To Hit roll. It's not like Shriek rolls To Wound or anything.

quote it again, the statement "its been quoted before" is not a valid argument.

here

You are wrong, because its been quoted before.

see it adds nothing and shows nothing of relevance.

Sorry, I thought you were familiar with the rules being discussed.

Now, I'm required by the rules to "[r]esolve it's effects according to the instructions in its entry."

I see nothing in there telling me I must hit with the power to roll the 3d6. In fact, I see a simple instruction to do so.

I quoted rules. Find some that prove my assertions or quotes incorrect.

Thankfully you posted exactly what you are using. Your first quote above is to follow the rules in the entry. What rules are you using in the entry for any power with just a profile?

Gravmyr wrote:
Thankfully you posted exactly what you are using. Your first quote above is to follow the rules in the entry. What rules are you using in the entry for any power with just a profile?

The fact that all of them say they're witchfires, which references the shooting rules.
Which is what I said in the last thread. There isn't a power that is "just" a profile, they're all witchfires with profiles.
Since shooting rules dictate how to handle profiles, your assertion continues to be unfounded.

Care to quote what in the witchfire powers tells you to continue with shooting rules and roll to wound after the roll to hit? The to hit is all that is referenced in the Witchfire rules.

Edit: As well as saves. So the question becomes in a power that just has a profile has no rules that are different from those such as Shriek, why would you treat them different. Unless a weapon tells you on a miss do x you stop after the missed to hit. Since witchfires are weapons why treat them different? There is nothing in any weapon that tells you this is what you do after a failed to hit roll without actually using the words do x even if / instead if you miss.