liturgies of blood wrote:
Eh, that's not what witchfire rules say. If it has a subtype you use those rules for targeting. It doesn't say you ignore the basic witchfire rules if it has a subtype and focussed witchfire doesn't say it hits automatically like the other subtypes do. That doesn't mean there is no roll to hit, you don't have permission to ignore it as they say it follows all the rules for witchfire with the following restriction.

The 5 or less is nothing to do with hitting, it's to do with targeting.

p69 wrote:If the witchfire does not list a subtype, or simply describes itself as a psychic shooting attack, use the rules given above to resolve it. If it has one of the following subtypes, use the rules for that subtype.

The rules given above include the to-hit roll to resolve, not just targeting.

p69 wrote:They follow all the normal rules for witchfire

Focussed witchfire also need a to-hit roll.

Sorry Rigeld, that post wasn't aimed at you.
I think you're pulling apart my post despite the fact I agree with you that focused witchfire need to roll to hit. .....

edited the above to change targeting to resolving.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Eh, that's not what witchfire rules say. If it has a subtype you use those rules for targeting. It doesn't say you ignore the basic witchfire rules if it has a subtype and focussed witchfire doesn't say it hits automatically like the other subtypes do. That doesn't mean there is no roll to hit, you don't have permission to ignore it as they say it follows all the rules for witchfire with the following restriction.

The 5 or less is nothing to do with hitting, it's to do with targeting.

I bolded the incorrect part of your post - the witchfire rules absolutely do say that the subtypes ignore the normal witchfire rules - not just for targeting. FW happens to include all the rules, so your conclusion was correct but your statements were not.

I disagree, the subtypes over-rule the basic rules mostly. Firing 2 PSAs still applies, just because the targeting and subtype specific rules are different doesn't mean the basic rules don't apply where there is no direct conflict (basic vs advanced).

If Nova don't follow basic witchfire powers (where there is no conflict) what does it count as having fired?

rigeld2 wrote:
the witchfire rules absolutely do say that the subtypes ignore the normal witchfire rules

I am completely confused. Can you explain this more for me, please?

I feel like I am looking at the right paragraph, but I do not see what you're referring to.

liturgies of blood wrote:I disagree, the subtypes over-rule the basic rules mostly. Firing 2 PSAs still applies, just because the targeting and subtype specific rules are different doesn't mean the basic rules don't apply where there is no direct conflict (basic vs advanced).

If Nova don't follow basic witchfire powers (where there is no conflict) what does it count as having fired?

This isn't a basic vs advanced situation. The basic rules say to ignore them when there's a subtype involved. Do you agree?

Brometheus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
the witchfire rules absolutely do say that the subtypes ignore the normal witchfire rules

I am completely confused. Can you explain this more for me, please?

I feel like I am looking at the right paragraph, but I do not see what you're referring to.

You don't see the sentence I quoted earlier in this thread?

First, I see lots of quoted sentences in this thread. Some are unhelpful (yours in particular are indeed helpful)

Second, some people (me) may not have your level of reading comprehension skills and so might occasionally ask for clarification or help from other users. So thanks for essentially telling me to "read the thread". I have been reading.. All 11 pages. I am trying to keep up. : ]

If you're right then we have even further broken witchfire powers, the subtypes don't count as having fired an assault weapon, there is no restriction on firing 2.

I think from how I read it that the context that the paragraph is about targeting. Each of the subtypes either says how it hits by referring to the standard rules or listing their own. I think this is the definition of a basic vs advanced situation.

It doesn't say ignore the basic rules, it says use the rules for that subtype. Does the use of advanced rules exclude the restrictiions and benefits of basic rules without a direct conflict?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

It doesn't say ignore the basic rules, it says use the rules for that subtype.

This is why I am confused. (and why we are having issues with this Power in the first place, I guess)

Ugh, the problem is manifold at this stage.

1. Do witchfire powers without a weapons profile need a roll to hit to allow resolution of the power?
The views are that the "must roll to hit" has no exemption and that the roll to hit is not tied to resolution of anything beyond the weapons profile.

2. If a roll to hit is needed for a PSA without a profile, how many dice are rolled?
The views are that you cannot roll without any profile or any specific wording due to the lack of the assault profile and that the basic rules are that without multiple shots it's one dice as per page 50.

Myself and rigeld are off topic atm but at least we're being civil so it's all cool.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
If you're right then we have even further broken witchfire powers, the subtypes don't count as having fired an assault weapon, there is no restriction on firing 2.

I think from how I read it that the context that the paragraph is about targeting. Each of the subtypes either says how it hits by referring to the standard rules or listing their own. I think this is the definition of a basic vs advanced situation.

It doesn't say ignore the basic rules, it says use the rules for that subtype. Does the use of advanced rules exclude the restrictiions and benefits of basic rules without a direct conflict?

It says use the rules for that subtype to resolve it and not the "basic" rules. Meaning the basic rules to resolve it are ignored.
How do you resolve a power (post passing the psychic test obviously since that isn't listed "above")?

It doesn't say use the subtype rules to resolve it, it says use the rules for that subtype. It says use the above rules to resolve any witchfires without a subtype.

That the subtypes tell you how to resolve them does not ignore all of the basic rules. It overrules some of them and that's it. Beam tells you it hits automatically, overriding the need to roll to hit.

It still counts as having fired an assault weapon and cannot be fired in addition to any other weapons unless you have a specific allowance. It can also be fired out of a vehicle with fire points. These are basic witchfire rules that still apply to this subtype.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It doesn't say use the subtype rules to resolve it, it says use the rules for that subtype. It says use the above rules to resolve any witchfires without a subtype.

It says, and I'll quote it again,

p69 wrote:If the witchfire does not list a subtype, or simply describes itself as a psychic shooting attack, use the rules given above to resolve it. If it has one of the following subtypes, use the rules for that subtype.

Use the rules for that subtype to do what? To resolve it.

Ok and how does that say to ignore all of the basic rules for witchfire powers?

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Further refusal is considered further concession that you are making a RAI argument, while failing to mark it as such, and will be reported for trolling.

Your opinion is noted.

I thank you for noting my opinion, and calling you a cheater was uncalled for, I read your post that you HAVE been ignoring the need to roll to hit. Which would be cheating. In the future please don't threaten to report, just report and let the mods do their jobs.

As for the effect of the ability still going off on a miss. Damn, that is a grey area for sure. I see your RAW argument and think you're spot on.

From there we go to HIWPI and think about the table.....

1. Test and pass to cast Psychic Shriek.
2. Roll to hit.
3. Miss.
4. Tell my opponent to please roll his 3D6.....

5..... The TO asks me to leave and takes my army as a punishment for trying that crap.

We could also go with.

1. Test and pass to cast Psychic Shriek (Not two, just one as it isn't Psychic Shriek(s))
2. Roll to hit with my (1) Psychic Shriek
3. Wait are we sure it's one? No? Uh Oh.

Having people come in here and fight the fight for a RAI vs RAW isn't a bad thing and has in the past lead to new thinking which has resolved RAW arguments.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Ok and how does that say to ignore all of the basic rules for witchfire powers?

How do you resolve a witchfire power?
Now - you must ignore those rules and use the rules for the subtypes.

Stormbreed - at the time I wasnt convinced you were trolling, hence didnt want to report. Hence the "further" comment, and thank you for acknowledging your error in assusmption, and for conceding the rules are certainly not FOR the effect being tied to the to-hit.

Given I dont use psychic powers in the main (Main army is Khorne....) this is all about allowing my opponents the best use of this power. Especially as otherwise it is worse than mindwar....

I also disagree on the RAI - as pointed out, it is *incredibly* muddy. A LOT of people never evenn thought of rolling to hit, others cant see how you wouldnt roll to hit (but never really looked into it, to realise you dont actually know how many dice to roll....) so I definitely dont agree on a RAI argument being anymore valid here than anywhere.

You seem to be missing my point completely. I said you don't ignore all of the witchfire rules when it comes to subtypes.

You ignore the roll to hit and the targeting restrictions (for most of them) because you're told to in the rules. You're still not given permission to overcome the rest of the basic rules.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You seem to be missing my point completely. I said you don't ignore all of the witchfire rules when it comes to subtypes.

You ignore the roll to hit and the targeting restrictions (for most of them) because you're told to in the rules. You're still not given permission to overcome the rest of the basic rules.

If they're part of resolving the power you are - which was my original point. You initially only called out targeting which was incorrect - it's far more than just that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Eh, that's not what witchfire rules say. If it has a subtype you use those rules for targeting. It doesn't say you ignore the basic witchfire rules if it has a subtype and focussed witchfire doesn't say it hits automatically like the other subtypes do. That doesn't mean there is no roll to hit, you don't have permission to ignore it as they say it follows all the rules for witchfire with the following restriction.

The 5 or less is nothing to do with hitting, it's to do with targeting.

I bolded the incorrect part of your post - the witchfire rules absolutely do say that the subtypes ignore the normal witchfire rules - not just for targeting. FW happens to include all the rules, so your conclusion was correct but your statements were not.

I changed target to resolve but you also bolded more than what I was mistaken on. It also doesn't matter if you read it as targeting only or resolution as the roll to hit is covered in each of the subtypes.

The rule does say you ignore the basic witchfire rules when it comes to resolving the power (which is what you were addressing).

It doesn't say that, it says "use the rules for that subtype" not ignore all witchfire rules. There are three sentences in that paragraph. The 1st one you keep omitting from your quote and it changes the reading of the paragraph. I was also addressing a blanket statement that was incorrect.

There are several different sub-types of witchfire, each applying different targeting restrictions. If the witchfire does not list a subtype, or simply describes itself as a psychic shooting attack, use the rules given above to resolve it. If it has one of the following subtypes, use the rules for that subtype.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It doesn't say that, it says "use the rules for that subtype" not ignore all witchfire rules. There are three sentences in that paragraph. The 1st one you keep omitting from your quote and it changes the reading of the paragraph.

There are several different sub-types of witchfire, each applying different targeting restrictions. If the witchfire does not list a subtype, or simply describes itself as a psychic shooting attack, use the rules given above to resolve it. If it has one of the following subtypes, use the rules for that subtype.

Use the rules for that subtype to do what?

Again, I was addressing the blanket statement that was incorrect: that subtypes ignore all the basic rules.

Target. The subtype rules tell you the rest of how to resolve them that differs from witchfire powers and basic vs advanced tells you the rest.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Again, I was addressing the blanket statement that was incorrect: that subtypes ignore all the basic rules.

They do - all basic rules that have to do with resolving the power.

Target. The rules tell you the rest of how to resolve them that differs from witchfire powers and basic vs advanced tells you the rest.

Incorrect. You use the rules for the subtype to resolve the power, not simply to handle targeting.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Again, I was addressing the blanket statement that was incorrect: that subtypes ignore all the basic rules.

They do - all basic rules that have to do with resolving the power.

Well targeting, which is part of resolving but not the whole of it. The subtype rules tell you the rest of where they diverge. See the 2nd line says resolve as above because there is no difference in targeting for those with no listed subtype as they follow all of the rules, the 3rd as per the 1st talks about targeting as they are where ALL of the subtypes and the basic rules diverge. Each of the subtypes then deals with how they target and if they hit automatically but focussed still uses all of the other rules of the basic witchfire power.

And again you still are the one that called "you don't ignore all of the basic witchfire rules" wrong. You said it was wrong, not wrong with conditions, just wrong and it isn't.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Again, I was addressing the blanket statement that was incorrect: that subtypes ignore all the basic rules.

They do - all basic rules that have to do with resolving the power.

Well targeting, which is part of resolving but not the whole of it. The subtype rules tell you the rest of where they diverge. See the 2nd line says resolve as above because there is no difference in targeting for those with no listed subtype as they follow all of the rules, the 3rd as per the 1st talks about targeting as they are where ALL of the subtypes and the basic rules diverge. Each of the subtypes then deals with how they target but focussed still uses all of the other rules of the basic witchfire power.

And again you still are the one that called "you don't ignore all of the basic witchfire rules" wrong.

No, they absolutely must ignore all basic rules regarding resolving the power. It's simply how English works.
Use the above rules to resolve witchfires and PSAs. For other subtypes, use the rules for that subtype. Use them for what? Resolving.

Yes, it's likely they meant to limit it to targeting, but that's not what they did.

Resolving a power is the final step of the process and you do so by reading the power's entry. pg 68 And in the case of witchfire there is a roll to hit, which I'm just going to assume is part of resolution for the purposes of this and as it feels like the right place to put it.
So does the 2nd line of the 4th paragraph on page 69 refer to this process or just use the verb resolve in it's general meaning? If it's the specific it's just throw in the roll to hit. If not it's very RAI what the answer is.

Targeting happens long before that (pg 67) and must apply the basic rules too since there is no reason to ignore them unless there is a clear conflict of rules. Since there is a lot of clear conflicts between the basic and the subtypes you don't use all of the rules but that's how this game works. The 1st line is looking more like a reminder to me. So I think I was right in the first place you don't get to ignore all of the basic rules nor the rules on targeting.

So yes, I will still continue to say that you cannot ignore all of the basic rules. Which was the mistake I addressed with my OP on this issue.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Stormbreed - at the time I wasnt convinced you were trolling, hence didnt want to report. Hence the "further" comment, and thank you for acknowledging your error in assusmption, and for conceding the rules are certainly not FOR the effect being tied to the to-hit.

Given I dont use psychic powers in the main (Main army is Khorne....) this is all about allowing my opponents the best use of this power. Especially as otherwise it is worse than mindwar....

I also disagree on the RAI - as pointed out, it is *incredibly* muddy. A LOT of people never evenn thought of rolling to hit, others cant see how you wouldnt roll to hit (but never really looked into it, to realise you dont actually know how many dice to roll....) so I definitely dont agree on a RAI argument being anymore valid here than anywhere.

No problem I can see where you were confused. Next time just report me and let the mods decide if I was trolling as that is not your job on these forums.

I have to point out that Ignorance of the Law doesn't make you Immune to the Law. We know the rules state you must roll to hit with this power, that's not RAI or HIWPI, it is specifically RAW. So all the people who were not rolling because they didn't know they had to have no bearing on this. If we know RAW and we must roll to hit, we then must get to the point where we don't know what to do. This is where is becomes a complete RAI argument.

Which, as pointed out, involves breaking the fewest rules. You have to completely make up two rules, versus breaking one.

You have to make up the number of shots
You have to make up a requirement that a failure to hit, on the number of shots you have made up, stops you from using the effect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which, as pointed out, involves breaking the fewest rules. You have to completely make up two rules, versus breaking one.

You have to make up the number of shots
You have to make up a requirement that a failure to hit, on the number of shots you have made up, stops you from using the effect.

The 2nd is not a made up rule. We don't need to show what happens when you fail, we just have to show that resolution requires a roll to hit which you agree is there, page 13 defines a roll to hit. If you don't pass it, you don't hit and what happens when a shooting attack doesn't hit?

Just to be clear I am on about this specific line "To determine if the firing model has hit it's target...." If the power doesn't hit why are you continuing to resolve it?

Now you need to show permission for a witchfire power to divest it's resolution from the to hit roll. You have permission for non wound causing secondary effects, is the 3d6-LD the same as difficult and dangerous terrain?

Now, that leaves it as 1 rule each, one assumption based on page 50 and the other based on an FAQ for a 5th ed power.

I tried to stay out of this discussion as I'm a terrible rule-lawyer but looking for focused witchfires in the rulebook I noticed something
Consider Hemorragy (bomancy's 6th power)
The target has to make a toughness test or suffer a wound. If it is killed start over. If you made me roll to-hit with it, would you make me roll to-hit again for the following tests?

That's not what hamorrhage actually says. The process starts on the second line and you are told to repeat the process not to start again.

rigeld2, 'Focused witchfire' is a 'witchfire' sub-type, 'Focused witchfire' fallows all the rules for 'witchfire' except where the sub-type explicitly contradicts the generic 'witchfire' rules. Are you saying this is not the case?

 DJGietzen wrote:
rigeld2, 'Focused witchfire' is a 'witchfire' sub-type, 'Focused witchfire' fallows all the rules for 'witchfire' except where the sub-type explicitly contradicts the generic 'witchfire' rules. Are you saying this is not the case?

No. Perhaps you could quote why you're asking that? I've never said anything to contradict that. (well, I did derp on page 1 but I admitted that on page 1)

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
rigeld2, 'Focused witchfire' is a 'witchfire' sub-type, 'Focused witchfire' fallows all the rules for 'witchfire' except where the sub-type explicitly contradicts the generic 'witchfire' rules. Are you saying this is not the case?

No. Perhaps you could quote why you're asking that? I've never said anything to contradict that. (well, I did derp on page 1 but I admitted that on page 1)

I was asking mainly for clarification. It seems there may be some posts where you are addressing 'basic' vs 'advanced' and not 'witchfire' vs 'focused witchfire' and a reader could get confused. Like this statement, I'm not sure what you meant or who you were addressing.

rigeld2 wrote:
The rule does say you ignore the basic witchfire rules when it comes to resolving the power (which is what you were addressing).

That was in the middle of a conversation with liturgies of blood. So I was addressing him.

Liturgies - again, the reason we know what happens when you hit or miss your target for shooting is because - the rules tell us what happens.

They state successful hits can then roll to wound

Find a rule saying you need a successful hit before you can roll 3D6. Page and paragraph. NOte; so far you have assumed such a rule, and made a logical leap that to-hit for a weapon profile shooting being required in order to roll to-wound means the same for somethign which is NOT rolling to-wound, but an entirely separate, unique mechanic.

AGain: you are MAKING UP the requirement that you need a successful roll to-hit before you can carry on resolving the power, despite that not being in the rules for psychic powers.

No it's not in the rules for psychic powers, it's in the rules for witchfire. Being defined as a shooting attack tells you what happens when you don't roll to hit. It's a capitalised "To Hit", so if you don't make a successful roll to hit for a shooting attack what happens?

This is treated as a shooting attack? Yes/no
Shooting attacks in general must roll to hit? Yes/no
Do shooting attacks continue to be resolved if they do not roll to hit? Yes/No

Actually it is treated as firing an assault weapon

As such you roll "SOME" dice to hit
You then roll "SOME - failed to hit" to-wound

Nothing in the shooting process talks about 3D6. You are just making up a requirement that a successful roll to-hit is required.

Since you are so convinced of it, please state the exact page and paragraph you are relying on.

I am aware you dearly, dearly want this to be the case, but there is no such general rule are you are claiming - the shooting rules are very, very specific on wht is required in order to roll to-wound - successful to-hit. However they do not state, ANYWHERE that I can find, the same requirement for the 3D6 effect.

Page and paragraph if you believe otherwise, otherwise mark your argument a RAI one - as your last post is most definitely RAI. (You failed to cite a single rule to back up your posisiotn - note I cannot do so for mine, as my argument is based on a lack of such a rule; your argument requires there to be a rule, so the onus is on you to prove it)

They don't have to specifically say that the 3d6 effect is dependent on the roll to hit. The witchfire powers say that they must roll to hit and that they are a shooting attack. Many shooting attacks and PSAs substitute the normal rolling to wound procedure, you're not kicking up a fuss about those powers but for some reason this one is sacrosanct.

It doesn't matter how many dice we need to roll, that is a separate issue. You keep talking around the issue and demanding something I don't need to provide because I've already shown my rules. WHERE are you getting the RAW permission to ignore the roll To Hit in the resolution of this power? You don't have it. You're just saying "it doesn't say I cannot ignore it", good job.

You're just being obtuse for the sake of it. I know you really, really want it to be the case that you're right but you're not.

Pg: 13: To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain later.

You need to hit the target to continue with a shooting attack. It doesn't however talk about rolls to wound in the To Hit rules so the need to point to wounds is a false requirement you have included. This power doesn't need to roll to wound as it gives you a different mechanic to how we determine the wounds inflicted to the target.

Pg 69: A witchfire power must roll To Hit, .....
Note, as witchfire is a Shooting attack,....

So we have to roll to hit and the witchfire is a shooting attack, pg 13 deals fully with what a roll to hit is. Back to the above, one shot unless told otherwise = 1 dice, IMHO and restated on page 50.

Pg: 69
If the witchfire power doesn't list a subtype or simply describes itself as a psychic shooting attack, use the above to resolve it.

So the roll to hit is part of resolution, if you don't hit the target then you cannot resolve because otherwise you haven't hit the target which is required for shooting attacks unless they hit automatically. So what you need to do is show where a shooting attack must roll to wound as per page 13, hint you cannot. You need to equate shriek with MH, which you cannot within reason.

There is my argument, I have used quotes from the book, you didn't because your argument is not based on rules. You may argue with the idea about looking to the basic rules for how many numbers of shots but the rest is in the rules.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
They don't have to specifically say that the 3d6 effect is dependent on the roll to hit. The witchfire powers say that they must roll to hit and that they are a shooting attack. Many shooting attacks and PSAs substitute the normal rolling to wound procedure, you're not kicking up a fuss about those powers but for some reason this one is sacrosanct.

Please read the title - it's specifically calling out Psychic Shriek. Since that's the one the OP was about, it makes sense to discuss it.
If you'd like to talk about other powers, please bring them up. But implying that someone is being disingenuous simply because he's only talking about the single power mentioned in the topic is ... well, it's not quite dishonest but it's close.

I think it's a fine statement to make when there is an implication of all To Hits must lead to To Wounds. Which is what he was stating in his previous post.
The tone may come across bad but written word doesn't ever get it perfect.

While the OP is about Shriek, there is a wider question of do PSAs require a roll to hit if they don't follow the basic weapons profile method of being resolved. If there is something else going on instead of a weapons profile do you need to hit to continue resolution of that power. If I am too far beyond the pale, feel free to call in a mod and they can deal with it.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I think it's a fine statement to make when there is an implication of all To Hits must lead to To Wounds. Which is what he was stating in his previous post.
The tone may come across bad but written word doesn't ever get it perfect.

Except that if you replace "3d6 leadership test" with "whatever effect of a power you want to bring up" his argument is consistent. Please don't pretend otherwise.

It's not consistent with the rules, I have shown where and why. I have not seen a specific piece of argument or rules that show any reason to ignore the roll to hit in the resolution of a witchfire power.

Which has literally nothing to do with you trying to call him out on treating Psychic Shriek special. It wasn't a "fine statement" it was an implication of dishonesty (that for whatever reason nos wants PS to be treated specially, but he won't make the same argument for Pupper Master (for example)). You have no evidence to support that implication and it's insulting to make it - and worse to defend it.

liturgies of blood wrote: They don't have to specifically say that the 3d6 effect is dependent on the roll to hit. The witchfire powers say that they must roll to hit and that they are a shooting attack. Many shooting attacks and PSAs substitute the normal rolling to wound procedure, you're not kicking up a fuss about those powers but for some reason this one is sacrosanct.

Eh? No, this one is being used as an example. Other examples have been given. It is just easiest, when talking about an entire class of witchfires which do not have a shooting profile to talk about 1, and then generalise to the rest. It means we dont get bogged down in the differences that dont matter one jot.

I thought that was stunningly obvious. My apologies that it wasnt. Would you like me to restate everytime EVERY single different non to-wound mechanic for every power? Do you not see that is a little redundant?

You almost seem to be insinuating personal bias, which if you had read my posts clearly you would understand is highly, highly unlikely, given I haven't ever, and will never, use this power.

liturgies of blood wrote: It doesn't matter how many dice we need to roll, that is a separate issue.

Agreed it is separate, but disagree that it doesnt matter.

liturgies of blood wrote: You keep talking around the issue and demanding something I don't need to provide because I've already shown my rules. WHERE are you getting the RAW permission to ignore the roll To Hit in the resolution of this power? You don't have it. You're just saying "it doesn't say I cannot ignore it", good job.

Clearly you havent read my responses. Note when I talk about BREAKING one rule? Guess which one I'm breaking? THe roll to hit. BEcause, as I have proven, there is no requirement to successfully roll to hit

I have stated, over and over, that RAW this is broken - you cant roll to hit, as you cannot show how many dice you need to roll, but that it can safely be ignored as it is irrelevant whether you hit or not, because the effect has no rules stating it is tied to a successful to hit. Please show some respect for other posters by actually reading and responding to what they have written, not what you have made up.

liturgies of blood wrote: You're just being obtuse for the sake of it. I know you really, really want it to be the case that you're right but you're not.

Personal attack noted. Your denigration of others, for asking you to provide actual rules in concord with the rules of this forum, is unwarranted. Reported.

liturgies of blood wrote:

Pg: 13: To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain later.

You need to hit the target to continue with a shooting attack.

Leap, not based in rules.

liturgies of blood wrote: It doesn't however talk about rolls to wound in the To Hit rules so the need to point to wounds is a false requirement you have included. This power doesn't need to roll to wound as it gives you a different mechanic to how we determine the wounds inflicted to the target.

Entirely irrelevant, without rules to that effect. Provide those rules, page and paragraph.

liturgies of blood wrote:

Pg 69: A witchfire power must roll To Hit, .....
Note, as witchfire is a Shooting attack,....

So we have to roll to hit and the witchfire is a shooting attack, pg 13 deals fully with what a roll to hit is. Back to the above, one shot unless told otherwise = 1 dice, IMHO and restated on page 50.

That only applies to weapons. Are you back claiming it is a weapon? In which case page 51 overrides, and we are back to undefined

liturgies of blood wrote:

Pg: 69
If the witchfire power doesn't list a subtype or simply describes itself as a psychic shooting attack, use the above to resolve it.

So the roll to hit is part of resolution,

Agreed

liturgies of blood wrote:if you don't hit the target then you cannot resolve

So again you tie together two separate concepts as if they behave in a sequence. Please, using page and graph, define this sequence

It shoudl be easy, yes? You keep insisting it is there, after all. Do so, with page and paragraph for THIS 3D6 effect, and you are done convincing me.

liturgies of blood wrote: because otherwise you haven't hit the target which is required for shooting attacks unless they hit automatically.

See above: AND?#

You are positing a connection between roll to hit and the rest of a powers effects, when in ACTUAL RULES the only connection (usually) is between roll to-hit and roll to-wound

Find, using page and paragraph, the explicit connection.

Note: if you are claiming an implicit connection - then actually state so. We can then dissect that implication.

liturgies of blood wrote: So what you need to do is show where a shooting attack must roll to wound as per page 13, hint you cannot. You need to equate shriek with MH, which you cannot within reason.

Actually, YOU must show thet a roll to hit is required in order to perform an entirely-unrelated-to-shooting-an-assault-weapon effect.

I have no need to equate the two, I am requiring YOU to back up YOUR argument with rules that actually state what you are claiming. You have yet to do so.

liturgies of blood wrote:There is my argument, I have used quotes from the book, you didn't because your argument is not based on rules. You may argue with the idea about looking to the basic rules for how many numbers of shots but the rest is in the rules.

Wrong, as shown above

Yes, you have used rules - you just have yet to post any ones which are relevant

You ignore page 51, with no relevant reason to, as shown repeatedly throughout this thread
You create a rule that 3D6 (as AN EXAMPLE, so I can be EXPLICIT that this is an example, so you do not think I am being precious about this specific power) requires a succesful roll to-hit, despite the only requirement with firing a weapon is that a to-wound is tied to successful to-hit

My argument IS based in rules: I am told to resolve the power, and that includes the 3D6 effect. Failing a roll to hit has NO rules requirement on this, absolutely none

Frankly you appear unable to actually respond with relevant rules, so this is likely my final response on this matter to you. Provide an actuall

It's not insulting unless he feels aggrieved. If you feel that my comments are out of line, call a mod.

It's not an implication of dishonesty, it's a statement of my opinion that he is wrong on this issue. Your implication that I am seeking to smear Nos instead of debate him, however, is insulting.

Nos you had a go at me first, just responding in kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The roll to hit is tied to the power by the sheer fact that it is a shooting attack. That is all I need to show to tie the resolution of the power into the roll to hit. The power tells you what to do to generate the wounds, in this case and in powers such as haemorrage, ecstatic seizure etc, the roll to hit is not solely tied to rolling to wound, there is more advanced/specific rules in play in the resolution of these powers and how they wound which precludes the use of the basic To Wound.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Many shooting attacks and PSAs substitute the normal rolling to wound procedure, you're not kicking up a fuss about those powers but for some reason this one is sacrosanct.

Don't most of those powers say "instead of rolling to wound" or something like that? Also, don't most special rules for weapons usually specify "if a model is wounded/hit by a weapon with this special rule" or some other triggering language (these are actual questions, not rhetorical. I think I remember this, but I want to make sure)? Wouldn't the lack of this language for psychic shriek, which specifies the target suffers an affect, not an affect that occurs after hitting, mean that hitting is unnecessary?

After all, we know that the special abilities of weapons that miss can affect a unit. The C:SM hunter has a special rule listed in its profile (right next to armourbane and all that) that only matters when you miss. It seem so me that if a shot had to hit for its special rules and effects to matter, savant lock would have to be listed separately.

It is always possible I could be remembering this incorrectly; my mind is like a steel sieve.

No Banbaji, the hunter is seperate as it says what to do when you miss. If there is nothing that tells you to apply effects when you miss then you don't apply the effects.
A lot do say instead of roll to wound, some say roll a test for whoever is hit etc. Shriek tells you how to generate the wounds for this power and that it is applied to the target unit.

Also NOS, how is it a leap to say that a shooting attack must hit to continue in it's resolution? Can I miss with all of my dice and still roll to wound with all of my bolters?
No, because they require a successful roll to hit, the wounding comes after but is seperate and in this case is supplanted by a very specific wounding mechanic.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No Banbaji, the hunter is seperate as it says what to do when you miss. If there is nothing that tells you to apply effects when you miss then you don't apply the effects.
A lot do say instead of roll to wound, some say roll a test for whoever is hit etc. Shriek tells you how to generate the wounds for this power and that it is applied to the target unit.

OK. The hunter tells you what to do when you miss. Based on the wording of Shriek quoted earlier in the thread, the rules for psychic shriek tell you what to do when you target (i.e., leadership test and all that), which would seem to make the to hit roll irrelevant.

No, they just say that you apply it to the target unit, not that you wound when you target as that runs contrary to the rules for psychic powers on page 67 where targeting is long before resolution.
Also the fact they call it the target unit doesn't preclude the roll to hit as you've got no permission to break that rule.

Mozzamanx wrote:

Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire power with a range of 12". Roll 3D6 and subtract the targets Leadership- the target suffers a number of wounds equal to the result. Armour and Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek.

(quoted from the OP as I have no means to confirm the specific wording at this time)

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Shriek tells you how to generate the wounds for this power and that it is applied to the target unit.

You state that the 3d6 roll replaces the wounding portion of a shooting attack. What makes that more likely than the 3d6 replacing the to hit roll of a shooting attack, which seems to be just as viable an interpretation given they do not tell you either way?

That there is a clear need to roll to hit and in the absence of a weapons profile you cannot roll to wound. This power, however, tells you how to generate wounds as the resolution of a psychic power is found in it's entry and witchfire powers require a roll to hit in their resolution(last paragraph 2nd line under witchfire page 69).

Without something that tells you to ignore the roll to hit, you still have to roll to hit.

Many PSAs jump the gun and just apply wounds, like blood boil, instead of giving you a profile to generate wounds on. This is no different. Haemorrage doesn't talk about rolls to wound either, it just says how to generate them.

The question keeps coming up of the effect being tied to the To Hit roll. I am not sure why there is a necessity to explicitly spell this out. Is a Witchfire a shooting attack? I think we are all at least in agreement that a Witchfire is a shooting attack, and the rules explicitly state that they require a To Hit roll. So, in order for PS - or any Witchfire, for that matter - to have an effect on a miss, it would come to follow that there would need to be explicit permission given for the power to have an effect on a miss. To break this rule would require permission as, again, we are told over and over that 40K is a permissive ruleset. The 3d6-LD effect is how you determine the wound pool for the power rather than the standard S vs. T of your normal weapon.

Just out of curiosity...

If GW put out a FAQ tomorrow for PS, how do you THINK they would rule?

1. no roll to hit at all / or the to hit roll doesn't effect the power

2. they add a weapon profile for PS / or just call it Assault 1 or 2 or something

The title of the Forum is "You Make the Call" not "You Prove the Rule"(no offense meant to either side of the argument)


Me being the "Just Out for Fun" type would typically just roll the 3d6 without rolling to hit. Not because I think I shouldn't have to, but because there is no standard weapon profile on the card so I wouldn't even think about it. If my opponent said I needed to roll to hit(kinda reminding me) I would roll to hit. If I rolled a 6 to hit I would ask him "Hey I rolled a 6, do I get to Presision shot them since I did?"(if I even remembered).

Here's how I see GW handling it if they FAQ it, word for word:

"Do I need to roll to hit when using Psychic Shriek?"
Yes.

Note how nothing was actually clarified at all.

x13rads wrote:
Just out of curiosity...

If GW put out a FAQ tomorrow for PS, how do you THINK they would rule?

1. no roll to hit at all / or the to hit roll doesn't effect the power

2. they add a weapon profile for PS / or just call it Assault 1 or 2 or something

The title of the Forum is "You Make the Call" not "You Prove the Rule"(no offense meant to either side of the argument)


Me being the "Just Out for Fun" type would typically just roll the 3d6 without rolling to hit. Not because I think I shouldn't have to, but because there is no standard weapon profile on the card so I wouldn't even think about it. If my opponent said I needed to roll to hit(kinda reminding me) I would roll to hit. If I rolled a 6 to hit I would ask him "Hey I rolled a 6, do I get to Presision shot them since I did?"(if I even remembered).

I would think it would be 1 as I think that was how they intended it to work.

 Brometheus wrote:
Here's how I see GW handling it if they FAQ it, word for word:

"Do I need to roll to hit when using Psychic Shriek?"
Yes.

Note how nothing was actually clarified at all.

So it's a shooting attack and you rolled to hit, I would give you persision shots for it. I know that doesn't help but I just wanted to give the opinion of what I think SHOULD happen at the gaming table.

 Battlesong wrote:
The question keeps coming up of the effect being tied to the To Hit roll. I am not sure why there is a necessity to explicitly spell this out. Is a Witchfire a shooting attack? I think we are all at least in agreement that a Witchfire is a shooting attack, and the rules explicitly state that they require a To Hit roll. So, in order for PS - or any Witchfire, for that matter - to have an effect on a miss, it would come to follow that there would need to be explicit permission given for the power to have an effect on a miss. To break this rule would require permission as, again, we are told over and over that 40K is a permissive ruleset. The 3d6-LD effect is how you determine the wound pool for the power rather than the standard S vs. T of your normal weapon.

However, as has been stated previously, the rules for assault weapons (I believe it was said to be page 51) explicitly state that the number of dice rolled to hit are obtained from the weapons profile, which we are not given. Therefore, you have to roll to hit but have no permission to roll any specific number of dice, and the rules break. The other 7 pages of this thread seem to basically be trying to divine RAI (or HYWPI) or to show that there is a default number of dice to roll (1) even though the rules never define it as such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, default shooting attacks is roll to hit and then roll to wound based on strength and majority toughness. Nothing in the psychic shriek rules seems to say not to do this, just that there is this other affect (no "instead of rolling to wound"). Which means, you have no permission to skip those steps and makes the rules even less possible to follow as written.

x13rads wrote:

 Brometheus wrote:
Here's how I see GW handling it if they FAQ it, word for word:

"Do I need to roll to hit when using Psychic Shriek?"
Yes.

Note how nothing was actually clarified at all.

So it's a shooting attack and you rolled to hit, I would give you persision shots for it. I know that doesn't help but I just wanted to give the opinion of what I think SHOULD happen at the gaming table.

Well, I pretty much agree with you. I just honestly think if GW did FAQ it, it'd be so vague and terrible that it doesn't solve anything. That's all

x13rads wrote:
Just out of curiosity...

If GW put out a FAQ tomorrow for PS, how do you THINK they would rule?

1. no roll to hit at all / or the to hit roll doesn't effect the power

This is how I would think they'd rule.
Partially because #2 would mean that they'd be allowing precision shots (which overrides the focussed witchfire requirements).

I don't have my rulebook with me atm, can someone post the actual wording for precision shots, please?

 Battlesong wrote:
I don't have my rulebook with me atm, can someone post the actual wording for precision shots, please?

This forum is not a replacement for Rulebooks. You have to wait until you get back to your book.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Battlesong wrote:
I don't have my rulebook with me atm, can someone post the actual wording for precision shots, please?

This forum is not a replacement for Rulebooks. You have to wait until you get back to your book.

I apologize if that was inappropriate; I saw other rules quotes throughout the thread - did not realize this was out of bounds.

Started out thinking 'yeah roll to hit sure' then changed my mind. Mainly as I was checking the nid codec for weapon effects and they do all state ' on a successful hit' (or words to that effect)

HIWPI - either the roll to hit matters and allow precision shots on a 6. Or the roll to hit is not linked to generation of wounds an no precision shots.

I don't think I've seen any of my meta use this though :p

liturgies of blood wrote:
Also NOS, how is it a leap to say that a shooting attack must hit to continue in it's resolution? Can I miss with all of my dice and still roll to wound with all of my bolters?

So, you didnt go and read the basic rules?

The answer is: it is a leap to apply the SHooting rules for weapons to ALL shooting attacks, because there is nothing explicitly stating your claim. We know this, and you know this, you are now jsut arguing dishonestly.

No, you may not roll to wound with bolters if you miss, because the rules explicitly tie your ability to roll to-wound with successfully rolling to-hit, however as I have pointed out, and you refuse to accept because it destroys your argument, there is no such requirement linking the two concepts of "to -hit" and "3D6 effect" together, as there is for to-hit and to-wound

Again you refuse to provide rules.

Your refusal is noted, and your concession accepted. You have lost this argument, as you cannot prove your assertion.

liturgies of blood wrote:No, because they require a successful roll to hit, the wounding comes after but is seperate and in this case is supplanted by a very specific wounding mechanic.

Prove it.

Prove it, using actual rules, actually relevant rules, that state that the roll to-wound is supplanted. Given you have no weapon profile for this assault weapon, you cannot honestly make that claim. You know this, I know this, you are now just trolling.

No sir, I'm not trolling. You are with you "concession accepted". Your assertion is not based on anything.

It's not a leap to apply shooting attack rules to shooting attacks. You're actually trolling now.

Either you say a roll To Wound must follow after a roll To Hit (not in the rules but you've asserted it earlier), in which case this power like so many others supplants the normal To Wound mechanics, or you just roll To Hit because it is part of the resolution as per the witchfire powers and as a shooting attack requires a successful roll to hit to resolve and then carry out the entry on the power because you're told to do so. Whichever way you slice it, you need to successfully hit. The concept that ties resolution with rolls To Hit is called the witchfire rules. A normal psychic power just resolves, a PSA requires a little more.

The witchfire powers tie the roll to hit in with resolution and resolution is "as per the entry" so resolve by rolling a successful To Hit and then apply 3d6 -LD wounds etc.

I'm just going to ask you again and please answer why.
Why does a shooting attack continue to be resolved after a failed roll to hit? Not a RAI argument about how this makes more sense to you but an actual reason.

If that's too much trouble just answer this question:
Do shooting attacks require a successful Roll to Hit? Y/N

rigeld2 wrote:

x13rads wrote:
Just out of curiosity...

If GW put out a FAQ tomorrow for PS, how do you THINK they would rule?

1. no roll to hit at all / or the to hit roll doesn't effect the power

This is how I would think they'd rule.
Partially because #2 would mean that they'd be allowing precision shots (which overrides the focussed witchfire requirements).

Which brings up another rules problem with rolling to hit and powers like psychic shriek: if I roll a "6" to hit and cause 5 wounds after the LD test, how many of those wounds do I get to allocate to specific models because I rolled a precision shot?

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

x13rads wrote:
Just out of curiosity...

If GW put out a FAQ tomorrow for PS, how do you THINK they would rule?

1. no roll to hit at all / or the to hit roll doesn't effect the power

This is how I would think they'd rule.
Partially because #2 would mean that they'd be allowing precision shots (which overrides the focussed witchfire requirements).

Which brings up another rules problem with rolling to hit and powers like psychic shriek: if I roll a "6" to hit and cause 5 wounds after the LD test, how many of those wounds do I get to allocate to specific models because I rolled a precision shot?

All of them obviously. You didn't generate a wound with any non Precision hit.

 Battlesong wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Battlesong wrote:
I don't have my rulebook with me atm, can someone post the actual wording for precision shots, please?

This forum is not a replacement for Rulebooks. You have to wait until you get back to your book.

I apologize if that was inappropriate; I saw other rules quotes throughout the thread - did not realize this was out of bounds.

Speaking of those other rules quoted in the thread, you should check to OP as I believe the italicized portion is a direct quote of the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

x13rads wrote:
Just out of curiosity...

If GW put out a FAQ tomorrow for PS, how do you THINK they would rule?

1. no roll to hit at all / or the to hit roll doesn't effect the power

This is how I would think they'd rule.
Partially because #2 would mean that they'd be allowing precision shots (which overrides the focussed witchfire requirements).

Which brings up another rules problem with rolling to hit and powers like psychic shriek: if I roll a "6" to hit and cause 5 wounds after the LD test, how many of those wounds do I get to allocate to specific models because I rolled a precision shot?

All of them obviously. You didn't generate a wound with any non Precision hit.

But the rules for Precision Shot link a singular hit to a singular wound roll. Its not written in a way that accounts for a single shot to generate wounds on multiple models.

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

x13rads wrote:
Just out of curiosity...

If GW put out a FAQ tomorrow for PS, how do you THINK they would rule?

1. no roll to hit at all / or the to hit roll doesn't effect the power

This is how I would think they'd rule.
Partially because #2 would mean that they'd be allowing precision shots (which overrides the focussed witchfire requirements).

Which brings up another rules problem with rolling to hit and powers like psychic shriek: if I roll a "6" to hit and cause 5 wounds after the LD test, how many of those wounds do I get to allocate to specific models because I rolled a precision shot?

All of them obviously. You didn't generate a wound with any non Precision hit.

But the rules for Precision Shot link a singular hit to a singular wound roll. Its not written in a way that accounts for a single shot to generate wounds on multiple models.

Page 63 says that wounds from precision shots are allocated as you choose. It's not singular.

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

x13rads wrote:
Just out of curiosity...

If GW put out a FAQ tomorrow for PS, how do you THINK they would rule?

1. no roll to hit at all / or the to hit roll doesn't effect the power

This is how I would think they'd rule.
Partially because #2 would mean that they'd be allowing precision shots (which overrides the focussed witchfire requirements).

Which brings up another rules problem with rolling to hit and powers like psychic shriek: if I roll a "6" to hit and cause 5 wounds after the LD test, how many of those wounds do I get to allocate to specific models because I rolled a precision shot?

All of them obviously. You didn't generate a wound with any non Precision hit.

But the rules for Precision Shot link a singular hit to a singular wound roll. Its not written in a way that accounts for a single shot to generate wounds on multiple models.

Page 63 says that wounds from precision shots are allocated as you choose. It's not singular.

This. Bypassing the debate over the roll to hit, if the Witchfire "to hit" roll is a 6, then wounds from that roll are Precision and would be allocated as such. Psy Shriek is just a rare example of being able to generate more than 1 wound from a to hit roll.

Liturgies - page 14, 2nd paragraph states you are wrong. It directly links rolling to hit successfully with then being allowed to roll to wound.

You cannot find a rule linking rolling to-hit and the 3D6 effect. You continue to refuse to back up your assertion with any rules and have thus violated the rules of this forum.

Your argument is voided, and you are considered to be making RAI only. As per the tenets of this forum, mark your posts as such.

Good day.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which, as pointed out, involves breaking the fewest rules. You have to completely make up two rules, versus breaking one.
.

The First Principle of an intelligent rules debate is simple: "Break No Rule." In every situation, we should strive to follow this principle. If rules appear to conflict each other, there are three possible causes. First, that one rule is more specific, and thus overrides the more general rule. Second, that one rule limits the other. Third (and thankfully, most rarely), the rules are actually in conflict, and it is up to the players to come up with a mutually agreeable outcome to continue the game.

Even in your opinion of me I'm not breaking a rule, you are breaking one.

As for this, I've said it from page 1 on. We don't know how many dice to roll so regardless of what happens this is RAI debate.

1. Test for power.
2. Roll to hit. "Oops sorry Nos(place holder name for opponent) can you read this card and tell me how many dice I should roll"
3. Raw (game ends)
4. RAI (well the name is a singular power)
5. We've agreed using the rules we have to roll (decided on amount of dice) I'd say 1
6. I MISS
7. Oh well (myself)
7b. Sorry Nos although I missed the power that rules specifically say I need to hit with, I still need you to do the effects of the card.
8. My Swarmlord charges Nos's Skulltaker obliterates it.

I very much enjoy my Tyranids btw. For those with arguments against Nos and I think Rigeld try and keep in mind they are using strict RAW which in this case as the power doesn't have a profile (other then being singular by name) you will not win a Raw debate. You will also not find a rule saying if you MISS with Psychic Shriek you still don't have to roll the 3d6.

However I like to think people come to these forums to find out a solution vs a blue in the face argument about proving the game is broken. so just follow the rules as closely we can without breaking any one rule.

I'm not debating strict RAW - I haven't really since I admitted it was broken. Please read the thread.

I'm only discussing RAW where people are asserting that RAW nothing is broken.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not debating strict RAW - I haven't really since I admitted it was broken. Please read the thread.

I'm only discussing RAW where people are asserting that RAW nothing is broken.

Sorry I didn't intend it in a negative way towards either of you, I was simply noting how some people really get when in reality we've noted since page 1 that you both have strict RAW stand points that won't be dis proven.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Liturgies - page 14, 2nd paragraph states you are wrong. It directly links rolling to hit successfully with then being allowed to roll to wound.

Cool story bro, how do you roll to wound with this power?
Page 14 2nd paragraph is about running....

The power explains how you generate wounds.
Have you read it?

rigeld2 wrote:
The power explains how you generate wounds.
Have you read it?

Yes, the question is rhetorical. I'm just wondering if there is a point to the To Wound thing I have to defend against even though the power tells you how to generate wounds and PSAs don't alway generate wounds by rolling To Wound. Similarly shooting weapons don't always follow a roll to hit with a roll to wound and just apply effects, rad grenades iirc.
Thanks for assuming, again, I'm just in this to argue ad nauseum.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The power explains how you generate wounds.
Have you read it?

Yes, the question is rhetorical. I'm just wondering if there is a point to the To Wound thing I have to defend against even though the power tells you how to generate wounds and PSAs don't alway generate wounds by rolling To Wound. Similarly shooting weapons don't always follow a roll to hit with a roll to wound and just apply effects, rad grenades iirc.
Thanks for assuming, again, I'm just in this to argue ad nauseum.

That you have asserted a direct link between successfully rolling to hit, and rolling the 3D6 effect.

I am requiring you to back that position up with some rules, as per the tenet of this forum.

You havent dont so so far. Is this because you cannot?

What do you want? Honestly.
Witchfire is a shooting attack? Yes
Witchfire require a roll to hit? Yes
Witchfire powers are resolved as per the witchfire rules, (pg 69 last paragraph of witchfire.)? Yes
Does that resolution include a roll To Hit? Yes

The only question is what happens when a shooting attack fails to roll To Hit. You refuse to answer this question because the answer is NOTHING happens, do not pass go, do not collect €200, do not roll 3d6 - LD. And the link between the successful roll to hit and the resolution of the power... just in case it's not clear, is that it is a shooting attack.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
What do you want? Honestly.
Witchfire is a shooting attack? Yes
Witchfire require a roll to hit? Yes
Witchfire powers are resolved as per the witchfire rules, (pg 69 last paragraph of witchfire.)? Yes
Does that resolution include a roll To Hit? Yes

The only question is what happens when a shooting attack fails to roll To Hit. You refuse to answer this question because the answer is NOTHING happens, do not pass go, do not collect €200, do not roll 3d6 - LD. And the link between the successful roll to hit and the resolution of the power... just in case it's not clear, is that it is a shooting attack.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is not always correct, check out the FAQ for Murderous Hurricane...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
What do you want? Honestly.
Witchfire is a shooting attack? Yes
Witchfire require a roll to hit? Yes
Witchfire powers are resolved as per the witchfire rules, (pg 69 last paragraph of witchfire.)? Yes
Does that resolution include a roll To Hit? Yes

The only question is what happens when a shooting attack fails to roll To Hit. You refuse to answer this question because the answer is NOTHING happens, do not pass go, do not collect €200, do not roll 3d6 - LD. And the link between the successful roll to hit and the resolution of the power... just in case it's not clear, is that it is a shooting attack.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is not always correct, check out the FAQ for Murderous Hurricane...

While true, MH's FAQ applies only to it and is not a general rule. It also has two effects on resolution, which makes it obvious why they ruled the way they did.

DR you are correct in that specific circumstance there is a 2nd part to the power and an FAQ gives specific permission.
Can you think of any others that would be similar? I can think of lots of powers etc that don't roll To Wound or hit and wound automatically but no others that have a secondary effect that isn't tied to a successful To Hit roll.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
What do you want? Honestly.

Exactly what I asked of you - a link between to-hit and resolving the rest of the power, explicitly stated as a rule in the rulebook. Not a list of assertions, which is all you have given, violating the tenets of this forum

I have shown where firing a weapon explicitly links successful hits with the ability to then roll to wound. Now, WITHOUT making assertions, provide a rule that EXPLICITLY states the same for this power.

Page, and Paragraph. Failure to do so, this time, is proof you are trolling this thread, as you are failing to abide by the tenets. I have provided rules for my posoition. Failure for you to do so this time is indeed concession.

liturgies of blood wrote:Witchfire is a shooting attack? Yes

COunts as firing an assault weapon. Found the profile yet?

liturgies of blood wrote:Witchfire require a roll to hit? Yes

Not in doubt, at no point have I disagreed with this - you seem to have difficulty with this concept.

liturgies of blood wrote:Witchfire powers are resolved as per the witchfire rules, (pg 69 last paragraph of witchfire.)? Yes

Yes; again, you realise page 68 does not state anything like your claim

liturgies of blood wrote:Does that resolution include a roll To Hit? Yes

Repetition to try and hide the lack of evidence for your position?

liturgies of blood wrote:The only question is what happens when a shooting attack fails to roll To Hit.

Depends if it is a shooting weapon or not. If it is a shooting weapon you have no permission to roll to-wound, because the actual rules, page 14 as I showed you, directly link successful to-hit with the ability to roll to-wound

liturgies of blood wrote:You refuse to answer this question because the answer is NOTHING happens,

Assertion. Rules please. Same as I asked all along

liturgies of blood wrote:do not pass go,

Assertion. Rules please

liturgies of blood wrote:do not collect €200,

Assertion, rules please

liturgies of blood wrote:do not roll 3d6 - LD.

Again, assertion. You're good at those.

liturgies of blood wrote:And the link between the successful roll to hit and the resolution of the power... just in case it's not clear, is that it is a shooting attack.

Ah, so you have some actual rules to back that up? I must have missed them, amongst the assertions.

Again, in case I wasnt clear enough:

The actual rules for Shooting Weapons links a successful roll to-hit with the ability to then roll to-wound. Page 14 under rolling to wound.

Find any actual, written rules stating the same for resolving non- to-wound effects It should be easy for you, because you keep asserting that concept.

I am asking you to provide PAGE and PARAGRAPH, as well as an EXACT QUOTE to back up your assertions. Repeated posts failing this requirement, like the one I just responded to, will be treated as further trolling

You could actually concede there is a RAW gap here - I have done at least. For some reason you seem to be taking GWs lack of rules writing ability personally.

What you asserted was that by rolling 1 dice I was breaking 2 rules. That's what I am disagreeing with you on, it breaks 1 rule by looking at the basic rules instead. You break 1 rules when you ignore the roll to hit but you're not using any other rules as a guide and claiming it's more logical based on nothing.

Pg 68 tells you resolve as per the entry. Pg 69 is more specific and tells you to resolve as above and above includes lots of targeting restrictions(which are part of Declare a Target on pg 67) and the roll to hit. Rigeld was the one that argued so much better than me that page 69, Witchfire, 4th paragraph was about resolution. And what does the 2nd line say? "use the rules given above to resolve it".

Depends if it is a shooting weapon or not. If it is a shooting weapon you have no permission to roll to-wound, because the actual rules, page 14 as I showed you, directly link successful to-hit with the ability to roll to-wound

Firstly it's not the ability to roll to wound it's a roll to wound based on the shooting attacks strength, which this power hasn't got.
So you have no permission to roll to wound with this power? That's fine, this power doesn't roll to wound. It has it's own mechanic. There is another straw man gone.
What is a shooting weapon? I couldn't see the rules for that in the BRB, I could see Shooting which deals with Shooting Attacks.

It is not an assertion to say do not pass go or collect €200 as there are no rules to say that you may pass go. Maybe you should look at the shooting rules if you think that they are part of it.

Actually I stated you were MAKING UP two rules

1) you are making up how many dice to roll
2) You are tying the success of to-hit with an effect that is not a to-wound roll

Whereas I see a rule that says resolve the power. Resolving the power means rolling 3D6. It has no requirement to link the two entities together.

You have yet to find a rule to link the successful to-hit with any requirement on the 3D6, and this is at least the 4 th time you have refused to do so

Your concession is accepted

You're just trolling nos. Simple as.
I've not made up two rules, I've ignored one line in the assault rules as there is no profile and looked at more basic rules. That isn't making up a rule, it's breaking 1.
You're making up rules that shooting attacks don't require a successful to hit roll unless otherwise stated.

You've refused to engage with any of the substantive, prefering to dance around the issue and ignore page 69. You just erect straw man and false requirements.

Resolving the power as above means what?

liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Your ideas on how this power should work are to different for a consensus and RAI is to unclear to make the call by and depending on your ideology you will feel more or less rules are broken one way or the other. I've looked at this for many pages and there have been some good points all around and in the end, with an FAQ, it may turn into a beautiful flower but for now it remains a steaming pile of ...umm ...compost. You can keep flinging it around if you want but I'm done here ...going to take a shower now

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You're just trolling nos. Simple as.

Yes, because asking you to provide a rule in a rules forum is trolling.

Clearly.

liturgies of blood wrote:I've not made up two rules, I've ignored one line in the assault rules as there is no profile and looked at more basic rules. That isn't making up a rule, it's breaking 1.

No, I have explained how you have made up two rules

You have made up a profile. Created rule number 1
You have made up a link between roll to-hit and roll 3D6 which does not exist in the rules

liturgies of blood wrote: You're making up rules that shooting attacks don't require a successful to hit roll unless otherwise stated.

Wrong. I have explained the exact statement I am making 3 or 4 times now, so your continued misrepresentation of my opinion on the matter is quite frankly appalling.

What I have said, a number of times now, is that shooting weapons have an explicit requirement to successfully roll to-hit before they are allowed to roll to-wound - which is 100% true and accurate. You have been unable to counter this statement, backed up by the rules statement on page 14 that you conveniently ignore, as it destroys your arguments validity.

Rolling to-wound is a defined process - for a start it compares S vs T. Please, in this shooting attack find the comparison between S and T

Page and paragraph. Should be easy, given the number of times you have asserted this.

Now, we both know that is impossible - as there is no weapon profile, no S vs T comparison is possible. Instead we have a different effect, which CAN cause wounds, however this is not the same thing as a to-wound roll. Therefore making an assertion that this is equivalent, a replacement, etc, requires a rule to back up that assertion. a rule you refuse to provide

liturgies of blood wrote: You've refused to engage with any of the substantive, prefering to dance around the issue and ignore page 69. You just erect straw man and false requirements.

Resolving the power as above means what?

Another fallacy here. No strawman. No dancing around.

Resolving the power means rolling 3D6 and taking off the leadership. There is no other possible meaning. You have totally, 100% made up a requirement that does not exist in the actual, written rules and have refused to back it up. At any point

Find a rule linking to-hit and 3D6 - one actually written in the rulebook, and not something you made up - and I will happily concede

Can I get the same agrement from you?

There is no such thing as a shooting weapon, firstly.

Seconldy, the to wound mechanic is replaced in this power, it tells you how to generate wounds, if you cannot see that then there is no point talking anymore.

I don't have to deal with page 14 as there is nothing there that impacts on the resolution of A) this shooting attack as it's not got a S profile similar to how you resolve other shooting attacks that have an effect such as rad grenades, B) there is a clear method of wound generation that diverges from the normal process.
So instead of rolling To Wound, I'm rolling 3D6-Ld to generate wounds. I see this as a false standard I need to meet.

Why does this power not have the same restrictions placed on it as other PSAs that circumvent the normal shooting process?

I did find a link between roll To Hit and resolution on pg 69 a more specific section than pg68 that deals with witchfire powers. You don't accept it because "it doesn't say that" in your opinion.
I cannot find a line that links 3d6 and resolution as the brb wasn't written to service this one power. Just one that links resolution and to hit and names PSAs shooting attacks.

Would you agree to disagree or do you want to keep going around?

And on a side note, I find the constant "do as I say or conceed" line rather ivory tower. You keep insulting people in your posts with how it reads and when they are goaded and snap back you threaten mods. Please cut it out, I've responded in kind to you as I find your tone insulting in this thread.

The "Find the rule or concede" is spot on, if you show rules and the other side does not, then if they can not find rules to back their position they must concede. that is just debate basics.

Do you have any rules that tell us how many dice we need to roll to hit with for PS? If not then...

DR, that is not what myself and nos are even talking about. Everyone has agreed that that is where the power breaks.

It's funny cos I've shown rules and the other side hasn't in this case.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
DR, that is not what myself and nos are even talking about.

Everyone has agreed that that is where the power breaks.

Not at all, it is proof that the power is not contingent on a roll to hit as it has no standard profile.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Not at all, it is proof that the power is not contingent on a roll to hit as it has no standard profile.

It's proof that there's a hole in the rules.

That is such an assertion and is completely baseless.

If it had a profile we would know how many dice to roll to hit. This power does not so the roll to hit does not matter and the power will have effect regardless of the power hitting or not.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If it had a profile we would know how many dice to roll to hit. This power does not so the roll to hit does not matter and the power will have effect regardless of the power hitting or not.

Well thats your RAI opinion.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If it had a profile we would know how many dice to roll to hit. This power does not so the roll to hit does not matter and the power will have effect regardless of the power hitting or not.

Even with that interpretation the RAW does not work. Rules say you have to roll (whether it affected anything or not), but you cannot, because you don't know how many dice to roll. So to resolve the power you must do something you cannot do. The power cannot be resolved. We've been over this.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If it had a profile we would know how many dice to roll to hit. This power does not so the roll to hit does not matter and the power will have effect regardless of the power hitting or not.

Well thats your RAI opinion.

With actual rules to back my position, as nothing in the rules links the roll to hit and the effects of the Psychic power.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If it had a profile we would know how many dice to roll to hit. This power does not so the roll to hit does not matter and the power will have effect regardless of the power hitting or not.

Even with that interpretation the RAW does not work. Rules say you have to roll (whether it affected anything or not), but you cannot, because you don't know how many dice to roll. So to resolve the power you must do something you cannot do. The power cannot be resolved. We've been over this.

Well it really does not matter because the roll to hit is irrelevant. so weather you hit or miss, or even roll at all, the power works just fine.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Well it really does not matter because the roll to hit is irrelevant. so weather you hit or miss, or even roll at all, the power works just fine.

RAW is that you have to roll, you can't skip it. If you can't roll, you can't resolve.

RAW and RAI you have to roll.

it does NOT fall under one of the subtype PSAs that gets to ignore to hit roll.

There is no faq saying you can ignore the to hit roll, or continue the effect on a non successful to hit roll.

No one has bee able to present a RAW or RAI arguement that you can ignore the hit roll has it is stated plainly in RAW you must roll to hit, subtype PSAs have their own rules to follow and some of those have different rules on how to hit but the lowly primaris power, yes lowly as it its primaris power, pyshic shriek does not get to ignore that rule as it is not one of the subtypes, and has not been faqed to ignore the roll it its required to make, ie hit roll.

the arguement that it doesnt specifically tell you how many dice you get to roll does not null and void the to hit roll. As most people can figure out that you are given 0 permission to roll multiple dice...they can usually figure out how many dice to roll.

And yes as it stands you get precision shots with it until that is faqed,

 DeathReaper wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If it had a profile we would know how many dice to roll to hit. This power does not so the roll to hit does not matter and the power will have effect regardless of the power hitting or not.

Well thats your RAI opinion.

With actual rules to back my position, as nothing in the rules links the roll to hit and the effects of the Psychic power.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If it had a profile we would know how many dice to roll to hit. This power does not so the roll to hit does not matter and the power will have effect regardless of the power hitting or not.

Even with that interpretation the RAW does not work. Rules say you have to roll (whether it affected anything or not), but you cannot, because you don't know how many dice to roll. So to resolve the power you must do something you cannot do. The power cannot be resolved. We've been over this.

Well it really does not matter because the roll to hit is irrelevant. so weather you hit or miss, or even roll at all, the power works just fine.

I'm am 100% okay with you saying that HYWPI is, you don't roll. However don't make it seem like RAI and RAW don't conflict hugely here.

If you were to stand and play someone at any tournament anywhere and say "Okay I roll to hit, I miss, now you must still take the test" You would be smacked down my the TO very quickly.

As I've said before to people in this forum.

As of page 1 we established we don't know how many dice to roll.

Nos/DR can not provide me with a rule however to skip the chain of events that says I MUST ROLL TO HIT. So at that point it is clearly a RAI debate. From there do as you will. NOS/DR argue that there isn't a rule saying if you

Wait for it


M I S S

with this roll of RAI dice (whatever you all decide to roll) that the ability still doesn't go off. You will not be able to prove them wrong from a RAW standpoint, don't try. However they both agree we don't know how many dice to roll. So they would want us to ignore that rule all together thus BREAKING the rules.

Not one side is right. Because in a debate, the moment the rules are broken by one side, that side is in turn losing said debate.



EDIT.....

I agree with NOS and DR from a RAW standpoint about the effect as I can't find a rule. Best I can find is a FAQ saying a specific power doesn't need to roll to hit for Blood Angels. If the effects of said powers don't need to roll to hit, why bother FAQ ? I dunno.....

Q: As
Blood Lance
is a psychic shooting attack, does it need to roll
To Hi t ? (p 63)
A: No.

Not sure I want to get in the middle of this but here goes anyway.

The rule for Psychic Shriek tells us that it is a witchfire power with a range of 12".

The witchfire rules state, "Manifesting witchfire counts as shooting an assault weapon (unless otherwise noted)"

It is not otherwise noted so PS must be treated like an AW, which in turn means we must follow the rules for a shooting attack. So lets take it step by step following the shooting phase section in the BRB.

We can check the range for the shooting attack as Psychic Shriek's profile tells us it has a range of 12".

Next we roll to hit. From the BRB -
"To determine if the firing model has hit it's target, roll a D6 for each shot that is range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later."

This 'later' referred to here is the weapons section of the BRB under the sub-heading 'Number of Shots' which states - "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type."

Since it is not noted anywhere that PS fires multiple shots, we can deduce that it only fires one shot as per the previous rule.

The reason there is no profile for PS is because it is not needed. We have the range, we know it is treated as an assault weapon and have to follow the rules for a shoooting attack, which tell us that unless otherwise stated we only get to fire one shot.

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
Not sure I want to get in the middle of this but here goes anyway.

The rule for Psychic Shriek tells us that it is a witchfire power with a range of 12".

The witchfire rules state, "Manifesting witchfire counts as shooting an assault weapon (unless otherwise noted)"

It is not otherwise noted so PS must be treated like an AW, which in turn means we must follow the rules for a shooting attack. So lets take it step by step following the shooting phase section in the BRB.

We can check the range for the shooting attack as Psychic Shriek's profile tells us it has a range of 12".

Next we roll to hit. From the BRB -
"To determine if the firing model has hit it's target, roll a D6 for each shot that is range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later."

This 'later' referred to here is the weapons section of the BRB under the sub-heading 'Number of Shots' which states - "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type."

Since it is not noted anywhere that PS fires multiple shots, we can deduce that it only fires one shot as per the previous rule.

The reason there is no profile for PS is because it is not needed. We have the range, we know it is treated as an assault weapon and have to follow the rules for a shoooting attack, which tell us that unless otherwise stated we only get to fire one shot.

You are missing the more advanced rules for Assault Weapons on page 51. A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile. As has been pointed out the game breaks when you go to roll To Hit.

OK now tell me what part of the rules says PS doesn't go off if I miss?

This is the part that's most important, it is completely irrelevant to even roll as it merely stipulates that you target a unit. It is similar to search lights during NF IMO.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
Not sure I want to get in the middle of this but here goes anyway.

The rule for Psychic Shriek tells us that it is a witchfire power with a range of 12".

The witchfire rules state, "Manifesting witchfire counts as shooting an assault weapon (unless otherwise noted)"

It is not otherwise noted so PS must be treated like an AW, which in turn means we must follow the rules for a shooting attack. So lets take it step by step following the shooting phase section in the BRB.

We can check the range for the shooting attack as Psychic Shriek's profile tells us it has a range of 12".

Next we roll to hit. From the BRB -
"To determine if the firing model has hit it's target, roll a D6 for each shot that is range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later."

This 'later' referred to here is the weapons section of the BRB under the sub-heading 'Number of Shots' which states - "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type."

Since it is not noted anywhere that PS fires multiple shots, we can deduce that it only fires one shot as per the previous rule.

The reason there is no profile for PS is because it is not needed. We have the range, we know it is treated as an assault weapon and have to follow the rules for a shoooting attack, which tell us that unless otherwise stated we only get to fire one shot.

You are missing the more advanced rules for Assault Weapons on page 51. A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile. As has been pointed out the game breaks when you go to roll To Hit.

No I haven't missed it. It states that ".. an assault weapon shoots the number of times on it's profile." Since we do not have a profile we must go back to what it say's about rolling to hit. " Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once." We can find no rule giving us multiple shots. So according to the BRB it is a single roll to hit.

 Unforgiven656 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
Not sure I want to get in the middle of this but here goes anyway.

The rule for Psychic Shriek tells us that it is a witchfire power with a range of 12".

The witchfire rules state, "Manifesting witchfire counts as shooting an assault weapon (unless otherwise noted)"

It is not otherwise noted so PS must be treated like an AW, which in turn means we must follow the rules for a shooting attack. So lets take it step by step following the shooting phase section in the BRB.

We can check the range for the shooting attack as Psychic Shriek's profile tells us it has a range of 12".

Next we roll to hit. From the BRB -
"To determine if the firing model has hit it's target, roll a D6 for each shot that is range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later."

This 'later' referred to here is the weapons section of the BRB under the sub-heading 'Number of Shots' which states - "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type."

Since it is not noted anywhere that PS fires multiple shots, we can deduce that it only fires one shot as per the previous rule.

The reason there is no profile for PS is because it is not needed. We have the range, we know it is treated as an assault weapon and have to follow the rules for a shoooting attack, which tell us that unless otherwise stated we only get to fire one shot.

You are missing the more advanced rules for Assault Weapons on page 51. A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile. As has been pointed out the game breaks when you go to roll To Hit.

No I haven't missed it. It states that ".. an assault weapon shoots the number of times on it's profile." Since we do not have a profile we must go back to what it say's about rolling to hit. " Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once." We can find no rule giving us multiple shots. So according to the BRB it is a single roll to hit.

That is not true, the Default is not 1 unless otherwise stated.

Most weapons get one shot, but that is indicated on its profile, PS does not have a profile.

@unforgiven-Your making an illogical leap there. Saying most models have one shot =/= unless otherwise stated models have one shot by default.

 Red Corsair wrote:
OK now tell me what part of the rules says PS doesn't go off if I miss?

This is the part that's most important, it is completely irrelevant to even roll as it merely stipulates that you target a unit. It is similar to search lights during NF IMO.

If you're debating RAW please tell me how you got to this question. RAW we have no idea how many dice to roll, if you ask what happens if you MISS, let me slow it down..... M I S S then how can you RAW be there as you had no idea how many dice to roll? Did you break or make up rules?

Edit

My standpoint is this is clearly a RAI or HIWPI

Edit x 2

Damn you redid your whole post!

It's not illogical because it's backed up in the wepons section under number of shots. Again. " Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type."

We don't have a profile for PS, so it cannot be noted that it fires multiple shots. Ergo it fires one shot.

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
It's not illogical because it's backed up in the wepons section under number of shots. Again. " Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type."

We don't have a profile for PS, so it cannot be noted that it fires multiple shots. Ergo it fires one shot.

Then why do some weapons bother listing assault or heavy 1? By your reasoning it is completely pointless to mention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormbreed wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
OK now tell me what part of the rules says PS doesn't go off if I miss?

This is the part that's most important, it is completely irrelevant to even roll as it merely stipulates that you target a unit. It is similar to search lights during NF IMO.

If you're debating RAW please tell me how you got to this question. RAW we have no idea how many dice to roll, if you ask what happens if you MISS, let me slow it down..... M I S S then how can you RAW be there as you had no idea how many dice to roll? Did you break or make up rules?

Edit

My standpoint is this is clearly a RAI or HIWPI

Edit x 2

Damn you redid your whole post!

I agree that RAW the game breaks, I have been following this whole debate from page one. I should staight I also think its now a RAI or HYWPI situation. I personally agree with nos that ignoring the roll to hit breaks the least rules, so is the lesser evil. Saying you need to roll to hit means you need to first make up a weapon profile that isn't provided, then make the leap that the 3d6-LD doesn't happen on a miss. And please stop "slowing it down" I can read it fine I just don't agree with your interpretation since MH, jaws and blood lance don't require to hit rolls and their effects take place, I am inclined to play it that way. Since no one is right I think we can close this thread since it will come down to how we each feel is th best way to play it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
Not sure I want to get in the middle of this but here goes anyway.

The rule for Psychic Shriek tells us that it is a witchfire power with a range of 12".

The witchfire rules state, "Manifesting witchfire counts as shooting an assault weapon (unless otherwise noted)"

It is not otherwise noted so PS must be treated like an AW, which in turn means we must follow the rules for a shooting attack. So lets take it step by step following the shooting phase section in the BRB.

We can check the range for the shooting attack as Psychic Shriek's profile tells us it has a range of 12".

Next we roll to hit. From the BRB -
"To determine if the firing model has hit it's target, roll a D6 for each shot that is range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later."

This 'later' referred to here is the weapons section of the BRB under the sub-heading 'Number of Shots' which states - "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type."

Since it is not noted anywhere that PS fires multiple shots, we can deduce that it only fires one shot as per the previous rule.

The reason there is no profile for PS is because it is not needed. We have the range, we know it is treated as an assault weapon and have to follow the rules for a shoooting attack, which tell us that unless otherwise stated we only get to fire one shot.

You are missing the more advanced rules for Assault Weapons on page 51. A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile. As has been pointed out the game breaks when you go to roll To Hit.

No I haven't missed it. It states that ".. an assault weapon shoots the number of times on it's profile." Since we do not have a profile we must go back to what it say's about rolling to hit. " Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once." We can find no rule giving us multiple shots. So according to the BRB it is a single roll to hit.

That is not true, the Default is not 1 unless otherwise stated.

Most weapons get one shot, but that is indicated on its profile, PS does not have a profile.

Actually page 13 says most fire one, while page 50 says it will list it on it's profile if it has more than one. Ignoring the lack of a profile, the default is one because unless something tells you to roll more than 1 you only get 1 as per the basic shooting rules.

It has to list 1 to have 1 though, you are missing that point.

This is where your argument falls flat. It doesn't say without a profile the default is one. It simply tells us to look to the profile for the number of shots. PS doesn't have a profile. So we are left stranded.

The fact that every other weapon (apart from pistols of course) lists the amount of shots in it's profile is neither here nor there. But it does kind of illustrate my point. We have been told that if it is the case that a weapon has multiple shots, it will be noted after it's weapon type. The logical step is that if it is not noted - as in the case of PS - then it does not have multiple shots. If it does not have multiple shots then the inference is that it is single shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:
This is where your argument falls flat. It doesn't say without a profile the default is one. It simply tells us to look to the profile for the number of shots. PS doesn't have a profile. So we are left stranded.

Could you quote the rulebook on where it tells us to look to the profile for the number of shots?

The exact wording under number of shots is "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type."

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
The fact that every other weapon (apart from pistols of course) lists the amount of shots in it's profile is neither here nor there. But it does kind of illustrate my point. We have been told that if it is the case that a weapon has multiple shots, it will be noted after it's weapon type. The logical step is that if it is not noted - as in the case of PS - then it does not have multiple shots. If it does not have multiple shots then the inference is that it is single shot.

Again, it never says this. It says on pg 13 most weapons, this doesn't mean all. On page 50 it says some weapons fire multiple shots, look to the profile (paraphrasing). It never says that you default to 1, ever, anywhere in the BRB.

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
The fact that every other weapon (apart from pistols of course) lists the amount of shots in it's profile is neither here nor there.

The rules for Pistols tell you its an Assault 1 weapon. Rapid Fire weapons however, do not tell you how many shots in their profile.

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
The fact that every other weapon (apart from pistols of course) lists the amount of shots in it's profile is neither here nor there. But it does kind of illustrate my point. We have been told that if it is the case that a weapon has multiple shots, it will be noted after it's weapon type. The logical step is that if it is not noted - as in the case of PS - then it does not have multiple shots. If it does not have multiple shots then the inference is that it is single shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:
This is where your argument falls flat. It doesn't say without a profile the default is one. It simply tells us to look to the profile for the number of shots. PS doesn't have a profile. So we are left stranded.

Could you quote the rulebook on where it tells us to look to the profile for the number of shots?

The exact wording under number of shots is "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type."

Now quote me the page number to find PS profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lets back up anyway. I don't want to even debate the rolling to hit part anymore since its not even a requirement for PS effect. Show me where it says PS needs to fulfill more then targeting a unit for it's effect? If your making up a profile why stop at number of shots, lets call it strength- AP- it doesn't matter for the 3D6-LD effect at all.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
The fact that every other weapon (apart from pistols of course) lists the amount of shots in it's profile is neither here nor there. But it does kind of illustrate my point. We have been told that if it is the case that a weapon has multiple shots, it will be noted after it's weapon type. The logical step is that if it is not noted - as in the case of PS - then it does not have multiple shots. If it does not have multiple shots then the inference is that it is single shot.

Again, it never says this. It says on pg 13 most weapons, this doesn't mean all. On page 50 it says some weapons fire multiple shots, look to the profile (paraphrasing). It never says that you default to 1, ever, anywhere in the BRB.

Don't paraphrase. The exact quote again is "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type." If it is not noted then the logical assumption is that it does not fire multiple shots.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
The fact that every other weapon (apart from pistols of course) lists the amount of shots in it's profile is neither here nor there. But it does kind of illustrate my point. We have been told that if it is the case that a weapon has multiple shots, it will be noted after it's weapon type. The logical step is that if it is not noted - as in the case of PS - then it does not have multiple shots. If it does not have multiple shots then the inference is that it is single shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:
This is where your argument falls flat. It doesn't say without a profile the default is one. It simply tells us to look to the profile for the number of shots. PS doesn't have a profile. So we are left stranded.

Could you quote the rulebook on where it tells us to look to the profile for the number of shots?

The exact wording under number of shots is "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type."

Now quote me the page number to find PS profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lets back up anyway. I don't want to even debate the rolling to hit part anymore since its not even a requirement for PS effect. Show me where it says PS needs to fulfill more then targeting a unit for it's effect? If your making up a profile why stop at number of shots, lets call it strength- AP- it doesn't matter for the 3D6-LD effect at all.

Why would we even talk about that?


Did you read the OP topic? How can we even get to the point where we talk about the requirement for something to HIT, that we can all agree MUST ROLL TO HIT RAW, to not matter if we MISS........?

 Unforgiven656 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
The fact that every other weapon (apart from pistols of course) lists the amount of shots in it's profile is neither here nor there. But it does kind of illustrate my point. We have been told that if it is the case that a weapon has multiple shots, it will be noted after it's weapon type. The logical step is that if it is not noted - as in the case of PS - then it does not have multiple shots. If it does not have multiple shots then the inference is that it is single shot.

Again, it never says this. It says on pg 13 most weapons, this doesn't mean all. On page 50 it says some weapons fire multiple shots, look to the profile (paraphrasing). It never says that you default to 1, ever, anywhere in the BRB.

Don't paraphrase. The exact quote again is "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type." If it is not noted then the logical assumption is that it does not fire multiple shots.

Which is part of the "Type" listed on the profile. Since there is no profile, there can be no "Type" and as such that rule does not apply.

Page 51 "A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile"

Page 69 " Manifesting witchfire counts as firing an Assault weapon"

Also HJ is correct.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
The fact that every other weapon (apart from pistols of course) lists the amount of shots in it's profile is neither here nor there. But it does kind of illustrate my point. We have been told that if it is the case that a weapon has multiple shots, it will be noted after it's weapon type. The logical step is that if it is not noted - as in the case of PS - then it does not have multiple shots. If it does not have multiple shots then the inference is that it is single shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:
This is where your argument falls flat. It doesn't say without a profile the default is one. It simply tells us to look to the profile for the number of shots. PS doesn't have a profile. So we are left stranded.

Could you quote the rulebook on where it tells us to look to the profile for the number of shots?

The exact wording under number of shots is "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type."

Now quote me the page number to find PS profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lets back up anyway. I don't want to even debate the rolling to hit part anymore since its not even a requirement for PS effect. Show me where it says PS needs to fulfill more then targeting a unit for it's effect? If your making up a profile why stop at number of shots, lets call it strength- AP- it doesn't matter for the 3D6-LD effect at all.

Okay.
PS is a witchfire.
Witchfires count as firing an assault weapon.
Follow the rules for firing an assaut weapon.
Now you need to roll to hit.
And we're back to square one.
Roll to hit using the rules for an assault weapon.
No profile so no number of shots listed. Fall back to number of shots rule.
"Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type."

I'm not making up a profile. PS tells us that it is an assault weapon with 12" range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
The fact that every other weapon (apart from pistols of course) lists the amount of shots in it's profile is neither here nor there. But it does kind of illustrate my point. We have been told that if it is the case that a weapon has multiple shots, it will be noted after it's weapon type. The logical step is that if it is not noted - as in the case of PS - then it does not have multiple shots. If it does not have multiple shots then the inference is that it is single shot.

Again, it never says this. It says on pg 13 most weapons, this doesn't mean all. On page 50 it says some weapons fire multiple shots, look to the profile (paraphrasing). It never says that you default to 1, ever, anywhere in the BRB.

Don't paraphrase. The exact quote again is "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type." If it is not noted then the logical assumption is that it does not fire multiple shots.

Which is part of the "Type" listed on the profile. Since there is no profile, there can be no "Type" and as such that rule does not apply.

Well yes this it what I'm getting at. There is no requirement in that rule for single shot weapons to have the number 1 (shot) listed after it's type. We already know PS is treated as an assault weapon with a range of 12". We go back to the roll to hit. pg 13 - "Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable of firing more than once." Since we can find nothing indicating that our weapon is capable of firing more than once, the only logical outcome is we fire one shot.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 51 "A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile"

Page 69 " Manifesting witchfire counts as firing an Assault weapon"

Also HJ is correct.

Which doesnt not say that Witchfires=Assault weapons. That sentences parses to Manifesting=firing.

Which means you are bound the the same rules as if you had fired an assault weapon.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 51 "A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile"

Page 69 " Manifesting witchfire counts as firing an Assault weapon"

Also HJ is correct.

Which doesnt not say that Witchfires=Assault weapons. That sentences parses to Manifesting=firing.

Which means you are bound the the same rules as if you had fired an assault weapon.

yes, profile included which will tell you how many shots you get.

Like Lifeleach page 419, or Inferno P.421, or Vortex of doom P. 422...

P.S. why do they list Assault 1, if one shot is the default? (Hint: it is because 1 shot is not the default and the profile contains the information for how many shots any given weapon will fire).

liturgies of blood wrote:There is no such thing as a shooting weapon, firstly.

Odd, there are no weapons that shoot? Interesting attempt at dissembling there.

liturgies of blood wrote:Seconldy, the to wound mechanic is replaced in this power, it tells you how to generate wounds, if you cannot see that then there is no point talking anymore.

Ah, so you havea rule backing that assertion up? How do you know, using rules, that what you just stated is correct? I treat it as an alternative effect, like MH and other powers. Just because it can generate wounds (just like MH additonal effects) does not alter that it is not an assault weapon profile, therefore you have to have a link between the two

I like that you finally admit that you are, without rules, replacing one clearly defined process - to-wound - with another, without a rule stating that this is a replacement. Youre just, frankly, making gak up

liturgies of blood wrote:I don't have to deal with page 14 as there is nothing there that impacts on the resolution of A) this shooting attack as it's not got a S profile similar to how you resolve other shooting attacks that have an effect such as rad grenades, B) there is a clear method of wound generation that diverges from the normal process.

So you are saying you DONT need to have a rule linking a succesful to-hit with rolling the 3D6 effect? Because Page 14 is where you are told you need a successful to-hit in order to roll to-wound.

liturgies of blood wrote:So instead of rolling To Wound, I'm rolling 3D6-Ld to generate wounds. I see this as a false standard I need to meet.

How is it a "false standard" to ask you to back up your opinion with some written rules? Have you noted that, so far in this response, you have failed to cite a single rule? Just a load of assertions. Snarky ones at that.

liturgies of blood wrote:Why does this power not have the same restrictions placed on it as other PSAs that circumvent the normal shooting process?

What other restrictions? Like JotWW, whcih doesnt have to roll to hit?

liturgies of blood wrote:I did find a link between roll To Hit and resolution on pg 69 a more specific section than pg68 that deals with witchfire powers. You don't accept it because "it doesn't say that" in your opinion.
I cannot find a line that links 3d6 and resolution as the brb wasn't written to service this one power. Just one that links resolution and to hit and names PSAs shooting attacks.

No, I am asking you to provide a RULE that links a successful roll to-hit with the abiltiy to continue power resolution when you are not comparing S vs T. It isnt MY opinion that the rules dont actually say what you continually assert - they DO NOT say what you continually assert

liturgies of blood wrote:Would you agree to disagree or do you want to keep going around?

I will agree you have failed to provide any rules to back up your assertions, and are basing this on a "replacement" effect you have made up, and that has no place in the actual written rules of the game.

liturgies of blood wrote:And on a side note, I find the constant "do as I say or conceed" line rather ivory tower. You keep insulting people in your posts with how it reads and when they are goaded and snap back you threaten mods. Please cut it out, I've responded in kind to you as I find your tone insulting in this thread.

Actually I pointed out what would make me concede - actual rules stating that, for PSAs, in order to resolve any part of the power you have to successfully roll to hit. Find it, actual rules stating that, and I will concede the argument

If you cannot find this, then I will accept your concession. Fair?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 51 "A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile"

Page 69 " Manifesting witchfire counts as firing an Assault weapon"

Also HJ is correct.

Which doesnt not say that Witchfires=Assault weapons. That sentences parses to Manifesting=firing.

Which means you are bound the the same rules as if you had fired an assault weapon.

yes, profile included which will tell you how many shots you get.

Like Lifeleach page 419, or Inferno P.421, or Vortex of doom P. 422...

P.S. why do they list Assault 1, if one shot is the default? (Hint: it is because 1 shot is not the default and the profile contains the information for how many shots any given weapon will fire).

1 shot is quite clearly the default. We have two statements from the rulebook backing this up.

Rolling to hit pg 13 - "Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable of firing more than once.."

Number of shots pg 50 - Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots, where this is the case the number of shots is noted after it's type."

The first rule is most important as it tells the only exception to firing one shot is if our weapon profile confers multiple shots. Since we do not have a weapon profile for PS it cannot possibly give us multiple shots. That leaves us with only one option - that the model gets to fire just one shot.

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
1 shot is quite clearly the default. We have two statements from the rulebook backing this up.

Rolling to hit pg 13 - "Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable of firing more than once.."

Number of shots pg 50 - Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots, where this is the case the number of shots is noted after it's type."

The first rule is most important as it tells the only exception to firing one shot is if our weapon profile confers multiple shots. Since we do not have a weapon profile for PS it cannot possibly give us multiple shots. That leaves us with only one option - that the model gets to fire just one shot.

That rule doesn't actually say what you hope it says.

Rolling to hit pg 13 - "Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable of firing more than once.."

Most models. Not all models. And we're talking weapons not models. And it doesn't say "by default, all models fire one shot".
"Some weapons are capable of firing more that once" - which weapons? How can you tell? The only way is looking at there profile.
Psychic Shriek doesn't say, so is it 1 shot or 3? This rule doesn't set a default, just talks about a common number.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
1 shot is quite clearly the default. We have two statements from the rulebook backing this up.

Rolling to hit pg 13 - "Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable of firing more than once.."

Number of shots pg 50 - Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots, where this is the case the number of shots is noted after it's type."

The first rule is most important as it tells the only exception to firing one shot is if our weapon profile confers multiple shots. Since we do not have a weapon profile for PS it cannot possibly give us multiple shots. That leaves us with only one option - that the model gets to fire just one shot.

That rule doesn't actually say what you hope it says.

Rolling to hit pg 13 - "Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable of firing more than once.."

Most models. Not all models. And we're talking weapons not models. And it doesn't say "by default, all models fire one shot".
"Some weapons are capable of firing more that once" - which weapons? How can you tell? The only way is looking at there profile.
Psychic Shriek doesn't say, so is it 1 shot or 3? This rule doesn't set a default, just talks about a common number.

Most models only get to fire one shot. The ONLY exception to this is where weapons are capable of firing more than one shot. pg 50 - where it is the case that weapons fire more than one shot it will be noted after it's type. From this wording we can logically assume that if a number is not noted after it's type it fires a single shot.

If the only way to determine the number of shots is to check the profile of a weapon, how do we know how many shots a pistol has?

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
Most models only get to fire one shot. The ONLY exception to this is...

Whoa stop right there.
The rule definitely says nothing like this. You're stating your interpretation as rules.

"Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable of firing more than once.."
Exact wording. This gives us two options. We either fire one shot, as most models do, or we have a weapon that specifically confers multiple shots. We do not have a weapon profile for PS. Therefore we cannot say that we have multiple shots. What does that leave us with?

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
"Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable of firing more than once.."
Exact wording. This gives us two options. We either fire one shot, as most models do, or we have a weapon that specifically confers multiple shots. We do not have a weapon profile for PS. Therefore we cannot say that we have multiple shots. What does that leave us with?

... No answer. We can't say it's a single shot either.
No profile, so we don't know if it's a single shot or multiple shot.
"Most models" is very different from "by default"

I disagree. Most models relates to everything that doesn't have multiple shots listed on it's weapon profile. Therefore 'most models' is the default. Weapons with multiple shots are the exception. This is further backed up by pg50 - "some shooting weapons fire multiple shots, where this the case, the number of shots will be listed after it's type." This implies that weapons that don't list the number of shots after it's type are single shot

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
Therefore 'most models' is the default.

I totally disagree. Most means most, not all, and not default.
Statistically most players play Space Marines, doesn't mean it's default.
"Most" and "default" are completely different.
You can guess that it should be 1 shot, based on most, but that's still just a guess.

I vehemently disagree. lol. Your example of most people playing Space Marines is not a good analogy as there are multiple alternatives to Space Marines. With the to hit roll there is only one. We either fire one shot as most models do, or we fire lots if noted on a weapon profile. We do not have a weapon profile so we can not fire multiple shots. And we do not need to guess as it is stated 'most models fire one shot'.

To be clear, the reason this rule is important is because it is in the shooting phase section under 'roll to hit'. So even though it says ..'models fire one shot' it is clearly talking about shooting attacks.

regardless of how many shots you get you are required to roll to hit.

the one RAW statement in all of the arguements in all of the threads on this is the same

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ROLL TO HIT

saying it breaks the least amount of rules to ignore the to hit roll is false, as the only thing RAW you have is the to hit roll which is required.

then you get to "ok how many dice"

you are not plainly told 1

you are given no permission to roll more than 1.

so which breaks the least amount of rules?

completely ignoring the 1 RAW thing (rolling to hit)?

Rolling just 1 dice (you are not given permission to roll multiple)

rolling more than 1 dice?

The one that breaks the least RAW and RAI is obvious.

rolling to hit and using just 1 dice to roll it.

All MCs can fire at least two shots, even if their weapon only fires one. Bang goes your "default" argument

Most != default. Most simply means most common, it does not even imply the existence of a defautl

THe sentence also covers two distinct ideas, which you muddle - the first part talks about *models*, and the second talks about *weapons*

Most MODELS can.... allows for the existence of models which can fire mroe than once with each weapon - XV107, as a simple example.

Some WEAPONS can....

We are talking about a weapon here - and page 51 tells us how many shots our weapon can fire. It states it is found on the profile

You cannot use the lack of a profile to claim it only fires one shot, as you are ignoring the more specific rule because yuo are finding it inconvenient. That isnt how this rules system works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blaktoof - stop ignoring the counters to your argument

You are making you two rules vs breaking one
1) Yuo have to make up the number of shots. Rule broken / made up (made up profile)
2) You have to compel a link between successfully rolling to hit and being able to resolve the non-assault weapon effects. The only RULE in the whole entire rulebook that creates a link, is between shooting to-hit and to-wound - yet we are not following to-wound, we are doing something entirely different

You can skip "to hit" as functionally it does nothing. Whether you hit or miss, you still resolve the rest of the power, as nothing on page 68 or 69 tells you to STOP resolving the power if you miss

That is the section the Liturgies was making up and the part you are conveniently ignoring in your oft repeated posts.

I 100% disagree with your statement 2, as you cannot say a required to hit roll needs to be linked to being successful for an effect.

that it is required to do for the effect to go off is evident because it is required RAW

that is a fallacy on your part, that you keep ignoring.

blaktoof wrote:
I 100% disagree with your statement 2, as you cannot say a required to hit roll needs to be linked to being successful for an effect.

that it is required to do for the effect to go off is evident because it is required RAW

that is a fallacy on your part, that you keep ignoring.

I don't think he's ignoring that, he's said since page 1 that RAW currently doesn't work. Which is why this is a RAI/HIWPI debate.

blaktoof wrote:
I 100% disagree with your statement 2, as you cannot say a required to hit roll needs to be linked to being successful for an effect.

that it is required to do for the effect to go off is evident because it is required RAW

that is a fallacy on your part, that you keep ignoring.

Incorrect, I have NOT ignored that part.

Please, provide a link between succesfully hitting and rolling the 3D6. You claim it is RAW, yet cite no rules.

You havent disproven 2, just sttated an opinion. I have stated a fact - that successful to-hit is indeed linked to being able to roll to-wound. Prove it for this case.

Liturgies was unable to, can you?

Nos- You have stated nothing RAW or RAI intended at all to support your claim, your entire assertation is simply HYWPI

I do not need to provide a link between hitting and the effect occuring.

IT is required to roll to hit.

If it wasnt required to roll to hit it wouldnt need to roll to hit.

The requirement to hit is part of the effect going off. That is RAW.

There is no permission to ignore the required roll, as you claim there is the burden of proof is on anyone to prove that RAW or RAI there is no requirement to roll to hit for the power. Simply being if RAW it says "required to roll to hit as if shooting.." Then it must roll to hit to effect. The requirement is that it is required to roll to hit.

There is no compelled link, that is simply your completely unsupported opinion that there needs to be anything more than "required to roll to hit"

Given that it is RAW that it has to roll to hit, the hit roll is required.

So when playing you should follow the given RAW and roll to hit then figure out how it is intended to be played from there.

pg 69. Manifesting a witchfire counts as firing an assault weapon. Assault weapons must have succesful 'to hit rolls' to be able to move on to rolling to wound. We are still rolling to wound with PS, it just gives us a different formula for determining the amount of wounds than the normal 'succesful hits = number of wounds - "Roll 3D6 and subtract the targets leadership - the target unit suffer a number of wounds equal to the result" That is the link. There is no specific rule in PS that says you can ignore the roll to hit or that it has no effect on resolution of the power.

To try and be clearer (if I possibly can), it is specifically the roll to hit that manifests the witchfire, NOT the psychic test. To then say the outcome of this roll does not matter makes no sense to me.

But you still don't know how many dice to roll to hit.

To play the devil's advocate...

Manifesting a witchfire counts as firing an assault weapon but the 3D6 is not rolling to wound as in the traditional sense, but is an effect. RAW on p. 67 is that to manifest a psychic power you must target a unit (this does not require hitting the target).

It is then RAI whether or not rolling to hit refers to a weapons profile for shots fired from witchfire powers or additional limitations on the effects of the actual power in accordance to targeting for the psychic power's effects to occur.

One. I stand by my earlier argument.

So there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chillis wrote:
To play the devil's advocate...

Manifesting a witchfire counts as firing an assault weapon but the 3D6 is not rolling to wound as in the traditional sense, but is an effect. RAW on p. 67 is that to manifest a psychic power you must target a unit (this does not require hitting the target).

It is then RAI whether or not rolling to hit refers to a weapons profile for shots fired from witchfire powers or additional limitations on the effects of the actual power in accordance to targeting for the psychic power's effects to occur.

The witchfire rule on pg69 overides this rule -"A witchfire power must roll to hit." Is there anything in PS's rule telling us to ignore that?

I'm sorry, got lost on your second point. Could you lay it out a little clearer?

Please read the RAI part kind sir, I'm not saying I'm supporting "the doesn't have to hit" position- I'm providing perspective. This perspective can logically be deduced to an understanding and stronger support for one of the sides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh yes of course! no worries. one second


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We are given the basics from page 67 on how to manifest psychic powers- in this we are not required a roll to hit

page 69 We are required a roll to hit for witchfire powers but this does not necessarily have to do with the effects. We have weapon profiles on most witchfire powers that generate wounds like normal and then have additional effects.
This is simply RAI, does rolling to hit have to do with the manifesting of the effect of the power or it's shooting ability?

The counter-argument for this is the RAI of what purpose does the blasts, large blasts, and templates information serve?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is that any more clear? I have difficulty putting my thoughts down sometimes...

Perfectly clear Chillis. Little drowsy due to a cold, so that's probably not helping.

And apologies. Being fairly new to these forums the whole RAI vs RAW thing keeps going straight over my head.

Your second point regarding blasts etc. is certainly food for thought. Certainly worth a mulling over.

With regards to the first point, I'm not sure we can separate the shooting ability from the effect can we?

It depends on how you read it. Is targeting (RAW) enough for the effect to occur in terms of witchfires? It depends on whether or not rolling to hit refer to its shooting ability or further requirements for its effects. This part is purely RAI

 Unforgiven656 wrote:


With regards to the first point, I'm not sure we can separate the shooting ability from the effect can we?

Well we can, the power requires we only have a valid target in order for the 3D6-LD to happen. Which is why I and others have stated it is irrelevant even if we decide how to determine a hit (which would require too many assumptions). Murderous hurricane, JoTWW and blood lance all set a precedent in their FAQ's which I believe helps determine RAI to not require a to hit roll for the secondary effect to happen. This really comes down to a RAI HYWP scenario.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chillis wrote:
It depends on how you read it. Is targeting (RAW) enough for the effect to occur in terms of witchfires? It depends on whether or not rolling to hit refer to its shooting ability or further requirements for its effects. This part is purely RAI

This^

But we do have other FAQ rulings on similar powers. Specifically MH.

Although lets not be biased in terms of RAI, there is plenty of RAI going with the side that it is further requirements.

Well we can, the power requires we only have a valid target in order for the 3D6-LD to happen. Which is why I and others have stated it is irrelevant even if we decide how to determine a hit (which would require too many assumptions). Murderous hurricane, JoTWW and blood lance all set a precedent in their FAQ's which I believe helps determine RAI to not require a to hit roll for the secondary effect to happen. This really comes down to a RAI HYWP scenario.

False.

Nowhere does it state you simply target the power then the effect happens.

But we do have other FAQ rulings on similar powers. Specifically MH.

MH is not a similar power, and has a specific FAQ just for it. The fact it is faqed means that without the faq the effect would not occur without rolling to hit. as there is no faq for psychic shriek there is nothing RAW or RAI supporting the hit roll not mattering, as it is plainly RAW require to roll to hit.

The blast, template, beam, and nova subtypes are given their own rules. Psychic shriek is not one of those. These rules are all contained within the same book, and if psychic shriek was intended to be one of those subtypes it would have been listed so. it is not one of those subtypes, it is a standard witchfire power. It is required to roll to hit.

blaktoof wrote:
as there is no faq for psychic shriek there is nothing RAW or RAI supporting the hit roll not mattering, as it is plainly RAW require to roll to hit.

Except for what we have proven in this very thread!

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
as there is no faq for psychic shriek there is nothing RAW or RAI supporting the hit roll not mattering, as it is plainly RAW require to roll to hit.

Except for what we have proven in this very thread!

that was never proven, simply stated in its own void by certain people without any support.

[quote=DeathReaper 555787 6149088 4c88678b47c696ff320c311a3a04b86c.jpg
yes, profile included which will tell you how many shots you get.

Like Lifeleach page 419, or Inferno P.421, or Vortex of doom P. 422...

P.S. why do they list Assault 1, if one shot is the default? (Hint: it is because 1 shot is not the default and the profile contains the information for how many shots any given weapon will fire).

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
as there is no faq for psychic shriek there is nothing RAW or RAI supporting the hit roll not mattering, as it is plainly RAW require to roll to hit.

Except for what we have proven in this very thread!

that was never proven, simply stated in its own void by certain people without any support.

It has been proven, with quotes, however some people are ignoring it, so there can be no further discussion.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
as there is no faq for psychic shriek there is nothing RAW or RAI supporting the hit roll not mattering, as it is plainly RAW require to roll to hit.

Except for what we have proven in this very thread!

that was never proven, simply stated in its own void by certain people without any support.

It has been proven, with quotes, however some people are ignoring it, so there can be no further discussion.

Sorry I missed this also.

Where's the quote that a witchfire power can be resolved after it missed its roll to hit?

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
as there is no faq for psychic shriek there is nothing RAW or RAI supporting the hit roll not mattering, as it is plainly RAW require to roll to hit.

Except for what we have proven in this very thread!

that was never proven, simply stated in its own void by certain people without any support.

It has been proven, with quotes, however some people are ignoring it, so there can be no further discussion.

Sorry I missed this also.

Where's the quote that a witchfire power can be resolved after it missed its roll to hit?

Page 67 Declare a target. -This is basic ruleset though and is over-ridden by the more specific witchfire rules
Page 69- roll to hit, does it say that a hit is required for an effect to happen? This is up to RAI and is not RAW because it can be referring to the powers shooting ability.

These interpretations can be debated (don't argue) on which has a stronger foundation and why.

So this seems to be no clearer, and I really don't want to wade through 16 pages of back and forth tosh...

Could Markerlights be something to refer to? They aren't weapons either.

 Bloodhorror wrote:
So this seems to be no clearer, and I really don't want to wade through 16 pages of back and forth tosh...

Could Markerlights be something to refer to? They aren't weapons either.

Markerlights are weapons, Pg. 68 "Markerlights are ranged weapons"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I see where you are coming from where the special rule is a result of getting a hit

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
as there is no faq for psychic shriek there is nothing RAW or RAI supporting the hit roll not mattering, as it is plainly RAW require to roll to hit.

Except for what we have proven in this very thread!

that was never proven, simply stated in its own void by certain people without any support.

It has been proven, with quotes, however some people are ignoring it, so there can be no further discussion.

Sorry I missed this also.

Where's the quote that a witchfire power can be resolved after it missed its roll to hit?

Psychic Shriek, re-read it and not that rolling to hit does not matter, as the #d6 effect has nothing to do with a to hit roll.

It is as chillis said above.

^as based on justified interpretation

 DeathReaper wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
as there is no faq for psychic shriek there is nothing RAW or RAI supporting the hit roll not mattering, as it is plainly RAW require to roll to hit.

Except for what we have proven in this very thread!

that was never proven, simply stated in its own void by certain people without any support.

It has been proven, with quotes, however some people are ignoring it, so there can be no further discussion.

Sorry I missed this also.

Where's the quote that a witchfire power can be resolved after it missed its roll to hit?

Psychic Shriek, re-read it and not that rolling to hit does not matter, as the #d6 effect has nothing to do with a to hit roll.

It is as chillis said above.

Read any PSA's entry and it doesn't talk about rolling to hit unless it breaks from the norm. This is a false burden you've inserted here.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Read any PSA's entry and it doesn't talk about rolling to hit unless it breaks from the norm. This is a false burden you've inserted here.

Like Smite, wait, that is Assault 4. Lifeleech, wait, that is Assault 2. Inferno, wait that is Assault 1. Flame Breath wait, that is Assault 1. Assail, wait, that is Assault 1. Vortex of Doom, wait, that is Heavy 1.

Literally all of the other Witchfire powers have a profile so they do actually talke about rolling to hit by virtue of Assault X or Heavy X is the respective power. Something that Psychic Shriek lacks.

And for all of the focussed witchfire powers? All of the unusual and odd powers in the codices?
I didn't know that the number was all that mattered when it came to rolls to hit, does that mean that I have to just look at the profile for a pistol when I go to roll to hit? Or do I look at more than one place in the rule book? Cos if you look at the pistol rules then you're argument here is also false, as you can look at the witchfire powers to see that you need to roll to hit.

The number explicitly tells you how many shots you get with an assault weapon, something that Whichfires are equated to in the BRB...

Blaktoof - sigh, again you misrepresent the argument

I will I imagine shock you now: I agree that you have to roll to-hit with witchfires, in general

Shock!

However, what you missed is that there is nothing in the rules that requires a successful hit for you to proceed with non to-wound effects

We know this to be true, despite liturgies claims otherwise, because the written rules only require a successful to hit when rolling to-wound

If you are NOT rolling to wound, there is nothing requiring a successful roll to-hit before you can resolve the power

Now, plenty of people have assumedt there is such a thing - Liturgies, yourself, etc. However no actual written rule states any such thing - if there was, someone would surely have found it by now.

So, RAW, you have to roll to hit. You cannot roll ANY dice, as you have no written profile as required by page 51, but you are still compelled to do so. Assume, for a minute, that you actually make up this number, and arbitrarily decide on one D6 as the number - pretendingit is assault 1. Now, without a rule equating successful to-hit with resolving non to-wound effects - and remember, we know there is no such rule in the rulebook - the result of this to-hit - pass or fail - is irrelevant - the rest of the power WILL resolve regardless, because you have NO RULE stating it does not, and a rule stating it does resolve

Can you now see the issue? to repeat - I freely admit I am not following RAW when I state I do not require people to roll to hit with those powers, but that is because RAW is broken - instead I skip the roll to hit because the roll to hit is irrelevant to resolving the actual powers efffects

Now, hopefully the bolding will mean you cannot any longer misrepresent my argument through misunderstanding it, as I have explicitly stated - for about the 5th time - the exact problems with it.

Liturgies - given you still cannot find a link between non-towound resolution and to-hit being successful, your concession is accepted that no such requirement in the rules exists.

Nos - what do you mean by non to-wound effects. PS's effect is a to wound effect. Or am I mis-understanding?

I guess my question is, is the roll of 3D6 - leadership an effect or a just a mechanic to determine number of wounds.

I have to say I'm being swayed by chilli's argument regarding templates. Also is it possible that PS was intended to be a focussed witchfire? The wording of the power certainly matches the wording for other focussed witchfires such as Spontaneous Combustion.

When you're firing a gun you roll to hit and then in accordance to those hits you roll to wound. These to wound rolls are a result, whereas PS has an effect (in some instances the effect follows the result)and doesn't have the 1:1 traditional to roll for wound ritual (3D6 effect is not dependent on to hit roll then even though it allocates wounds) and is only completely known to require targeting. That is my interpretation though of what nos was saying

RAW targeting is required to manifest a power
RAW to hit roll is required for a witchfire power
RAI does to hit roll refer to the manifestation (effect) or the shooting ability (result) of said power?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Cos if you look at the pistol rules then you're argument here is also false, as you can look at the witchfire powers to see that you need to roll to hit.

All pistols are effectively Assault 1, I feel like you probably had a good argument but I was probably too slow to comprehend.

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
Nos - what do you mean by non to-wound effects. PS's effect is a to wound effect. Or am I mis-understanding?

I guess my question is, is the roll of 3D6 - leadership an effect or a just a mechanic to determine number of wounds.

I have to say I'm being swayed by chilli's argument regarding templates. Also is it possible that PS was intended to be a focussed witchfire? The wording of the power certainly matches the wording for other focussed witchfires such as Spontaneous Combustion.

to-wound is a defined mechanic within 40k - you compare S vs T, check chart, etc. This has a specific link to how many hits you managed to get, as per page 14.

These other effects - which CAN generate wounds, but dont have to - are NOT to-wound; they do not follow this process

As such there is no RULES lnk to say that you can only perform these effects - such as the 3D6 - if you first manage to "hit" successfully. There just isnt anything stating this - hence me saying it is irrelevant whether you hit or not, and why those saying you have to hit BEFORE you can roll these effects, are making a rule up that does not exist.

It is a good assumption, sort of, but there is no consistency on this from GW - PSAs have sometimes rolled to hit and sometimes havent, seemingly art random. Hell, Lash of Despair both didnt roll to hit, rolled to hit, then didnt roll to hit all during 5th edition!

Food for thought
Using the nos and unforgiven's last statements, but keeping PS as a normal witchfire as it is labeled, would PS have the ability to get precision shots since it is not following the normal mechanic?

 chillis wrote:
Food for thought
Using the nos and unforgiven's last statements, but keeping PS as a normal witchfire as it is labeled, would PS have the ability to get precision shots since it is not following the normal mechanic?

No precision shots. Would be tought to get a 6 when we do not know how many dice to roll to hit for Psychic Shriek. Not that the roll to hit matters with PS anyway.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 chillis wrote:
Food for thought
Using the nos and unforgiven's last statements, but keeping PS as a normal witchfire as it is labeled, would PS have the ability to get precision shots since it is not following the normal mechanic?

No precision shots. Would be tought to get a 6 when we do not know how many dice to roll to hit for Psychic Shriek. Not that the roll to hit matters with PS anyway.

I was using the scenario ignoring the whole missing profile sense situation. But yea, that would keep PS different from a focused witchfire in the case stated

You would get precision shots on any wounds you allocate, that come from the roll to hit of a 6. Except no wounds result from the hit - there is no link between the two parts.