col_impact wrote: Yup, this requires a house rule to continue. And my house rule is better than yours.
...
Right, so your opinion is worthless to me. The actual rules allow you to roll 0 dice to continue, and you're asserting otherwise. Have a great day.
There is no rule that says the entirety of the power must be resolved as a single shooting attack and nothing outside of it.
Indeed, as we have no rule stating that we tie the 3d6 to any step of the shooting attack process, doing so is inventing rules.
We are told to resolve a shooting attack. Doing so leaves rules unresolved - we must resolve them.
There is actually. Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. It doesn't say they are mostly shooting attacks or there are parts of them that are shooting attacks. That is a flat blanket statement that the entire power is a shooting attack. You must prove that you have permission to resolve it outside of that framework. The lack of a rule telling you how to resolve it makes anything as all a house rule. Since the whole power is a shooting attack why are you taking it out of the shooting framework. You would need instructions giving you permission to do so. You are told to resolve it. You are told it is a shooting attack which tells you what rules you must follow. You are not told how to fit the power into said framework. Resolving a shooting attack then resolving part of said shooting attack separate, without direct rules telling you to is inventing rules.
So Psychic Shriek (and any witchfire without a profile), according to you, does nothing?
col_impact wrote: Yup, this requires a house rule to continue. And my house rule is better than yours.
...
Right, so your opinion is worthless to me. The actual rules allow you to roll 0 dice to continue, and you're asserting otherwise. Have a great day.
All of what you have advanced is HYWPI. You have not proven otherwise. You are house ruling to treat Psychic Shriek as a zero shot shooting attack. The onus is on you to delineate a full-fledged strict RAW argument. I am having a great day, thank you.
We have no way to resolve it RAW. The only way to resolve it is to incorporate the wording of the power into a shooting attack. In this case simply exchange the wording in the power for the to wound roll in the shooting sequence. Which by default is HIWPI.
What do you do if someone casts Enfeeble on a Dreadnaught? We can apply the DT effect we can apply the -1S, so what do you do with the -1T?
This is a tangent. Feel free to open up a separate YMDC thread to see if this question has anything at all to do with the present discussion. I eagerly await your findings.
It does I'm checking for consistency. So answer the question. How do you deal with it?
Do you believe the game breaks and requires house rules to resolve? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Do you assign the number 1 to any missing profile value and then resolve using that number? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
FlingitNow wrote: It does I'm checking for consistency. So answer the question. How do you deal with it?
Do you believe the game breaks and requires house rules to resolve? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Do you assign the number 1 to any missing profile value and then resolve using that number? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
You need to do your homework first. Feel free open up a separate YMDC thread and see how Enfeeble plays out.
FlingitNow wrote: Your concession is accepted thank you for finally conceding.
This kind of lame argument tactic has no place in a YMDC thread. Refrain from posting this kind of stuff.
It wasn't a tactic. We both know you've conceded I was just being polite and thanking you for it.
I have made no such concession. Again please refrain from lame argument tactics that have no place in a YMDC thread.
No need to get upset I was just trying to be polite. You've conveded your argument can't hold up to scrutiny live with it. Or change yoyr argument. I don't really care which you choose.
FlingitNow wrote: Your concession is accepted thank you for finally conceding.
This kind of lame argument tactic has no place in a YMDC thread. Refrain from posting this kind of stuff.
It wasn't a tactic. We both know you've conceded I was just being polite and thanking you for it.
I have made no such concession. Again please refrain from lame argument tactics that have no place in a YMDC thread.
No need to get upset I was just trying to be polite. You've conveded your argument can't hold up to scrutiny live with it. Or change yoyr argument. I don't really care which you choose.
Yet more lameness from you. Refrain from posting this drivel in a YMDC thread.
FlingitNow wrote: Your concession is accepted thank you for finally conceding.
This kind of lame argument tactic has no place in a YMDC thread. Refrain from posting this kind of stuff.
It wasn't a tactic. We both know you've conceded I was just being polite and thanking you for it.
I have made no such concession. Again please refrain from lame argument tactics that have no place in a YMDC thread.
No need to get upset I was just trying to be polite. You've conveded your argument can't hold up to scrutiny live with it. Or change yoyr argument. I don't really care which you choose.
Yet more lameness from you. Refrain from posting this drivel in a YMDC thread.
So personal attacks are your recourse after concefing your argument and you don't think I should post here? Priceless.
FlingitNow wrote: Your concession is accepted thank you for finally conceding.
This kind of lame argument tactic has no place in a YMDC thread. Refrain from posting this kind of stuff.
It wasn't a tactic. We both know you've conceded I was just being polite and thanking you for it.
I have made no such concession. Again please refrain from lame argument tactics that have no place in a YMDC thread.
No need to get upset I was just trying to be polite. You've conveded your argument can't hold up to scrutiny live with it. Or change yoyr argument. I don't really care which you choose.
Yet more lameness from you. Refrain from posting this drivel in a YMDC thread.
So personal attacks are your recourse after concefing your argument and you don't think I should post here? Priceless.
Anyone who is following this thread can see your posts are out of line.
Anyone who is following this thread can see your posts are out of line
Nothing I've said is out of line. You're the one that conceded your argument could not be defended. I was polite and presumably due to being upset after realising your interpretation was incorrect decided to turn to personal attacks.
Anyone who is following this thread can see your posts are out of line
Nothing I've said is out of line. You're the one that conceded your argument could not be defended. I was polite and presumably due to being upset after realising your interpretation was incorrect decided to turn to personal attacks.
Good day.
I made no such concession. You attempted to put words into my mouth. Lame argument tactics like that have no place in YMDC. Refrain from putting words into other peoples mouth. Those kind of posts are out of line here.
Witchfires require you to roll to hit to resolve the power, and follow the rules for shooting.
if you fail to hit, you have missed.
if you miss you do not proceed past the hit roll step as the attack has ended, and the rest of the entries rules no longer matter unless it specifies it has an affect on a miss.
if people are asserting that the attack gets to continue because the psychic power rules say to resolve the psychic power, and you have to resolve the entire profile.
then if you miss with warp blast (lance)
18" range strength 10 assault 1 ap 2, do you still resolve the strength 10 hit?
It has all the same rules to resolve as a normal witchfire power just like psychic shriek, and neither entry states you may not resolve the effect on a miss.
Gravmyr wrote: Shriek is a shooting attack. You are told what the rules are for resolving shooting attacks. At what step are you resolving them?
You use all of the steps that you can. and you resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry.
Rolling to hit is required, but we have no profile to tell us how many shots we have, so either the game breaks or we skip this step and move on to the next one.
That is rolling To Wound on a successful To Hit roll, can't do that either, there was no To Hit roll.
I made no such concession. You attempted to put words into my mouth. Lame argument tactics like that have no place in YMDC. Refrain from putting words into other peoples mouth. Those kind of posts are out of line here.
I did not put words in your mouth. But thanks for keeping up with the personal attacks. If you don't wish to discuss rules but instead just want to throw insults do it elsewhere.
Gravmyr wrote: Shriek is a shooting attack. You are told what the rules are for resolving shooting attacks. At what step are you resolving them?
You use all of the steps that you can. and you resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry.
Rolling to hit is required, but we have no profile to tell us how many shots we have, so either the game breaks or we skip this step and move on to the next one.
That is rolling To Wound on a successful To Hit roll, can't do that either, there was no To Hit roll.
Technically the game breaks as you say. If you skip the step you are technically house ruling as you have made very clear in your own words.
And by the way, my house rule is better than yours. It doe not Easter Egg (by turning Psychic Shriek into a power that autohits and autowounds) and resolves the power as witchfire (which is RAI)
blaktoof wrote: Witchfires require you to roll to hit to resolve the power, and follow the rules for shooting.
if you fail to hit, you have missed.
Correct
if you miss you do not proceed past the hit roll step as the attack has ended, and the rest of the entries rules no longer matter unless it specifies it has an affect on a miss.
Repeating this over and over won't make it more true. If you don't hit you don't do a to wound roll. Anything else that needs to be resolved as part of that attack that is not a to wound roll or not dependent on a to wound roll continues as you have no denial of the permission to resolve those rules.
if people are asserting that the attack gets to continue because the psychic power rules say to resolve the psychic power, and you have to resolve the entire profile.
then if you miss with warp blast (lance)
18" range strength 10 assault 1 ap 2, do you still resolve the strength 10 hit?
What S10 hit? You just stated there was no hit. As covered in depth you would not make a to wound roll for that attack as that is dependent on a successful to hit roll (an armour pen roll is made instead of a to wound roll so is also covered by this). This has all been explained to you several times so why are you deliberately posting untrue statements?
It has all the same rules to resolve as a normal witchfire power just like psychic shriek, and neither entry states you may not resolve the effect on a miss.
Cool we resolve Warp Blast too. What effect does it have? We have covered no to wound (or armour pen) roll is made so what are you expecting Warp Blast to do?
Gravmyr wrote: Shriek is a shooting attack. You are told what the rules are for resolving shooting attacks. At what step are you resolving them?
You use all of the steps that you can. and you resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry.
Rolling to hit is required, but we have no profile to tell us how many shots we have, so either the game breaks or we skip this step and move on to the next one.
That is rolling To Wound on a successful To Hit roll, can't do that either, there was no To Hit roll.
Technically the game breaks as you say. If you skip the step you are technically house ruling as you have made very clear in your own words.
And by the way, my house rule is better than yours. It doe not Easter Egg (by turning Psychic Shriek into a power that autohits and autowounds) and resolves the power as witchfire (which is RAI)
No, skipping the step is not a house rule.
It is needed to move the game along.
Since you have two choices. 1) Stop the game altogether because you are not given any instructions to continue with a witchfire without a profile.
Or 2) Skip the irrelevant to hit roll because you skip the To Wound roll as the power does not roll To Wound and resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry as the rules tell us to do.
Ill pick #2 because that is what the rules tell us to do.
Gravmyr wrote: Shriek is a shooting attack. You are told what the rules are for resolving shooting attacks. At what step are you resolving them?
You use all of the steps that you can. and you resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry.
Rolling to hit is required, but we have no profile to tell us how many shots we have, so either the game breaks or we skip this step and move on to the next one.
That is rolling To Wound on a successful To Hit roll, can't do that either, there was no To Hit roll.
Technically the game breaks as you say. If you skip the step you are technically house ruling as you have made very clear in your own words.
And by the way, my house rule is better than yours. It doe not Easter Egg (by turning Psychic Shriek into a power that autohits and autowounds) and resolves the power as witchfire (which is RAI)
No, skipping the step is not a house rule.
It is needed to move the game along.
Since you have two choices. 1) Stop the game altogether because you are not given any instructions to continue with a witchfire without a profile.
Or 2) Skip the irrelevant to hit roll because you skip the To Wound roll as the power does not roll To Wound and resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry as the rules tell us to do.
Ill pick #2 because that is what the rules tell us to do.
Where exactly in the rules does it say that the roll to hit is irrelevant? Where does it say you can skip the step?
Witchfire MUST roll to hit.
#1 is the only strict RAW option. #2 is your house rule with no rules support.
And by the way, my house rule is better than yours. It doe not Easter Egg (by turning Psychic Shriek into a power that autohits and autowounds) and resolves the power as witchfire (which is RAI)
It is not RaI at all, none of the focussed witchfires work by your made up rules. The RaW and the clear RaI line up here.
So looks like you actually want to talk rules now? If so:
How do you deal with the -1T from Enfeeble cast on a Dreadnaught?
Do you believe the game breaks and requires house rules to resolve? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Do you assign the number 1 to any missing profile value and then resolve using that number? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
And by the way, my house rule is better than yours. It doe not Easter Egg (by turning Psychic Shriek into a power that autohits and autowounds) and resolves the power as witchfire (which is RAI)
It is not RaI at all, none of the focussed witchfires work by your made up rules. The RaW and the clear RaI line up here.
So looks like you actually want to talk rules now? If so:
How do you deal with the -1T from Enfeeble cast on a Dreadnaught?
Do you believe the game breaks and requires house rules to resolve? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Do you assign the number 1 to any missing profile value and then resolve using that number? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Feel free to make a separate YMDC post on the Enfeeble tangent or write up a full fledged argument with regards to Enfeeble case. I will not answer half-baked questions that are tangential to the discussion at hand. Do your homework and show how Enfeeble is directly relevant. By the way, if you rely on a house rule to resolve the Enfeeble case you are supporting my argument.
col_impact wrote: Where exactly in the rules does it say that the roll to hit is irrelevant? Where does it say you can skip the step?
Witchfire MUST roll to hit.
#1 is the only strict RAW option. #2 is your house rule with no rules support.
It says it by telling us to resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry.
The entry for PS does not link the 3D6 roll to a successful to hit roll.
So hit or miss we still roll 3D6 and subtract the LD score of the target unit.
#1 is not RAW, #2 is because of the rule about resolving the power according to the instructions in its entry.
The Psychic Shriek entry links it to a To Hit Roll that must be made.
Spoiler:
a witchfire power must roll To Hit
#1 "Stop the game altogether because you are not given any instructions to continue with a witchfire without a profile" (YOUR WORDS) is the consequence of following strict RAW. We are not granted permission to skip steps anywhere in the rules. The burden on you is to provide such permission. Or as you have noted already the game comes to a screeching halt and can only continue with a house rule (such as the skipping you espouse in your #2 option).
The Psychic Shriek entry links it to a To Hit Roll that must be made.
But nothing relates the success or failure of that roll to the PS effect. Hence the roll is irrelevant as DR has already stated. So time number 4 (if anyone had any doubt that you were conceding by refusing to engage in discussion):
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught?
Do you believe the game breaks and requires house rules to resolve the 3d6-ld effect and the resultant wounds? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Do you assign the number 1 to any missing profile value and then resolve using that number? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
The Psychic Shriek entry links it to a To Hit Roll that must be made.
But nothing relates the success or failure of that roll to the PS effect. Hence the roll is irrelevant as DR has already stated. So time number 4 (if anyone had any doubt that you were conceding by refusing to engage in discussion):
How do you deal with the -1T from Enfeeble cast on a Dreadnaught?
Do you believe the game breaks and requires house rules to resolve? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Do you assign the number 1 to any missing profile value and then resolve using that number? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Feel free to make a separate YMDC post on the Enfeeble tangent or write up a full fledged argument with regards to Enfeeble case. I will not answer half-baked questions that are tangential to the discussion at hand. Do your homework and show how Enfeeble is directly relevant. By the way, if you rely on a house rule to resolve the Enfeeble case you are supporting my argument.
Please stop with the 'Thank You For Conceding' stuff.
Unless, of course, someone actually concedes.
Thanks!
I would like to point out I only thanked him for conceding when he responded to a direct rules question with a refusal to answer. Which is the same as conceding.
Feel free to make a separate YMDC post on the Enfeeble tangent or write up a full fledged argument with regards to Enfeeble case. I will not answer half-baked questions that are tangential to the discussion at hand. Do your homework and show how Enfeeble is directly relevant. By the way, if you rely on a house rule to resolve the Enfeeble case you are supporting my argument.
Did you read the edit? I referenced only Psychic Shriek?
Please stop with the 'Thank You For Conceding' stuff.
Unless, of course, someone actually concedes.
Thanks!
I would like to point out I only thanked him for conceding when he responded to a direct rules question with a refusal to answer. Which is the same as conceding.
I am not refusing to answer any such questions. You need to make a case for Enfeeble with a clear argument and show direct relevance before it should even be included in this discussion. Otherwise it has no relevance here.
Feel free to make your argument using Enfeeble as an example. Do your homework and make a case in your words. I am not preventing you from making your argument.
So have you got an answer to the question col_impact?
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught? Lets assume you roll 1 dice to hit and it hits.
Do you believe the game breaks and requires house rules to resolve the3d6-ld effect and the resultant wounds? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Do you assign the number 1 to any missing profile value and then resolve using that number? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Please stop with the 'Thank You For Conceding' stuff.
Unless, of course, someone actually concedes.
Thanks!
I would like to point out I only thanked him for conceding when he responded to a direct rules question with a refusal to answer. Which is the same as conceding.
FlingitNow wrote: So have you got an answer to the question col_impact?
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught? Lets assume you roll 1 dice to hit and it hits.
Do you believe the game breaks and requires house rules to resolve the3d6-ld effect and the resultant wounds? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Do you assign the number 1 to any missing profile value and then resolve using that number? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
This set of questions as posted contradicts itself.
FlingitNow wrote: So have you got an answer to the question col_impact?
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught? Lets assume you roll 1 dice to hit and it hits.
Do you believe the game breaks and requires house rules to resolve the3d6-ld effect and the resultant wounds? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Do you assign the number 1 to any missing profile value and then resolve using that number? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
I would like an answer to this as well.
Simple question put forth:
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught? Lets assume you roll 1 dice to hit and it hits.
FlingitNow wrote: So have you got an answer to the question col_impact?
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught? Lets assume you roll 1 dice to hit and it hits.
Do you believe the game breaks and requires house rules to resolve the3d6-ld effect and the resultant wounds? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Do you assign the number 1 to any missing profile value and then resolve using that number? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
I would like an answer to this as well.
Simple question put forth:
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught? Lets assume you roll 1 dice to hit and it hits.
You do not have a str value and similarly the rules come to a screeching halt due to the missing profile.
Spoiler:
Armour Penetration Rolls
Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been
scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon’s Strength, comparing this total with
the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.
Missing profiles sure cause a problem, don't they? Let's all just admit that Psychic Shriek is a mess and requires house rule to resolve.
You use all of the steps that you can. and you resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry.
Rolling to hit is required, but we have no profile to tell us how many shots we have, so either the game breaks or we skip this step and move on to the next one.
That is rolling To Wound on a successful To Hit roll, can't do that either, there was no To Hit roll.
FlingitNow wrote: So have you got an answer to the question col_impact?
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught? Lets assume you roll 1 dice to hit and it hits.
Do you believe the game breaks and requires house rules to resolve the3d6-ld effect and the resultant wounds? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Do you assign the number 1 to any missing profile value and then resolve using that number? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
I would like an answer to this as well.
Simple question put forth:
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught? Lets assume you roll 1 dice to hit and it hits.
You do not have a str value and similarly the rules come to a screeching halt due to the missing profile.
Spoiler:
Armour Penetration Rolls
Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been
scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon’s Strength, comparing this total with
the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.
Missing profiles sure cause a problem, don't they? Let's all just admit that Psychic Shriek is a mess and requires house rule to resolve.
For the sake of discussion lets ignore the armour pen roll as that is the same issue as the to wound roll. How do you resolve the 3d6-ld roll? Then, how to do resolve the resultant wounds?
FlingitNow wrote: So have you got an answer to the question col_impact?
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught? Lets assume you roll 1 dice to hit and it hits.
Do you believe the game breaks and requires house rules to resolve the3d6-ld effect and the resultant wounds? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Do you assign the number 1 to any missing profile value and then resolve using that number? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
I would like an answer to this as well.
Simple question put forth:
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught? Lets assume you roll 1 dice to hit and it hits.
You do not have a str value and similarly the rules come to a screeching halt due to the missing profile.
Spoiler:
Armour Penetration Rolls
Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been
scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon’s Strength, comparing this total with
the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.
Missing profiles sure cause a problem, don't they? Let's all just admit that Psychic Shriek is a mess and requires house rule to resolve.
For the sake of discussion lets ignore the armour pen roll as that is the same issue as the to wound roll. How do you resolve the 3d6-ld roll? Then, how to do resolve the resultant wounds?
Any further arguing of "semantics" (did someone concede or did they not, etc) will result in warnings being issued and the thread likely being locked. This kind of language, or describing your opponent's argument as "drivel", etc is not appropriate for YMDC.
If you cannot argue the rules politely, please simply refrain from posting! The points you are making will be much more persuasive without this off-topic attacking of other posters (on all sides).
I went into the GW store today and had a discussion on the Maleceptor and how I don't think it's very viable - the GW employee argued that it's not as bad as I made out to be as you don't have to roll to hit. You simply have to nominate a model (after successfully manifesting the power) and force the 3D6Ld check (if you get more than 2 WC).
I argued that you do have to roll to hit as focused witchfires are otherwise treated as witchfires, which have to roll to hit. I didn't mention this in the store, but the Maleceptor has a BS of 3, which is weird if it has access to no ranged weapons whatsoever (for example, Genestealers and Mawloc has a BS of 0 and have no ranged weapon access).
Something to think about anyway...I maintain that you have to roll to hit since RAW they are treated like witchfires but I could be wrong - I think the GW employee just wanted to sell the last WD xD
You use all of the steps that you can. and you resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry.
Rolling to hit is required, but we have no profile to tell us how many shots we have, so either the game breaks or we skip this step and move on to the next one.
That is rolling To Wound on a successful To Hit roll, can't do that either, there was no To Hit roll.
So at what step are you resolving the roll at?
Irrelevant, hit or miss you resolve the power according to the entry, so that means rolling the 3D6 - LD check weather you hit or miss, since the roll does not say it is dependent on a successful To Hit roll.
FlingitNow wrote: So have you got an answer to the question col_impact?
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught? Lets assume you roll 1 dice to hit and it hits.
Do you believe the game breaks and requires house rules to resolve the3d6-ld effect and the resultant wounds? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Do you assign the number 1 to any missing profile value and then resolve using that number? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
I would like an answer to this as well.
Simple question put forth:
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught? Lets assume you roll 1 dice to hit and it hits.
You do not have a str value and similarly the rules come to a screeching halt due to the missing profile.
Spoiler:
Armour Penetration Rolls Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon’s Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.
Missing profiles sure cause a problem, don't they? Let's all just admit that Psychic Shriek is a mess and requires house rule to resolve.
Incorrect, if you can not apply something, you do not apply it, and you move on. No screeching halt at all.
Frozocrone wrote: I maintain that you have to roll to hit since RAW they are treated like witchfires but I could be wrong
No one is claiming that a roll to hit is not needed, it is required by the rules, but nothing in Psychic Shriek (Which is a whitchfire and not a Focused Witchfire) ties the To Hit roll with the resolution of Psychic Shriek.
You use all of the steps that you can. and you resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry.
Rolling to hit is required, but we have no profile to tell us how many shots we have, so either the game breaks or we skip this step and move on to the next one.
That is rolling To Wound on a successful To Hit roll, can't do that either, there was no To Hit roll.
So at what step are you resolving the roll at?
Irrelevant, hit or miss you resolve the power according to the entry, so that means rolling the 3D6 - LD check weather you hit or miss, since the roll does not say it is dependent on a successful To Hit roll.
FlingitNow wrote: So have you got an answer to the question col_impact?
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught? Lets assume you roll 1 dice to hit and it hits.
Do you believe the game breaks and requires house rules to resolve the3d6-ld effect and the resultant wounds? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
Do you assign the number 1 to any missing profile value and then resolve using that number? If not why are you treating this differently to the PS roll to hit?
I would like an answer to this as well.
Simple question put forth:
How do you deal with Psychic Shriek cast on a Dreadnaught? Lets assume you roll 1 dice to hit and it hits.
You do not have a str value and similarly the rules come to a screeching halt due to the missing profile.
Spoiler:
Armour Penetration Rolls
Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been
scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon’s Strength, comparing this total with
the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.
Missing profiles sure cause a problem, don't they? Let's all just admit that Psychic Shriek is a mess and requires house rule to resolve.
Incorrect, if you can not apply something, you do not apply it, and you move on. No screeching halt at all.
That's a nice house rule you have there. Skipping the To Wound Roll because of a missing profile effectively buffs the witchfire. AutoWound is a nice feature to have Easter Egged.
A better house rule is one that does not Easter Egg Psychic shriek.
Gravmyr wrote: So you are not resolving it at any step then?
The 3D6 roll is not tied to the successful To Hit roll so you go through the shooting process, then you make your 3D6 roll. Simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: That's a nice house rule you have there. Skipping the To Wound Roll because of a missing profile effectively buffs the witchfire. AutoWound is a nice feature to have Easter Egged.
A better house rule is one that does not Easter Egg Psychic shriek.
I did not say it auto wounds... what are you talking about?
Have you ever played a full game? As you seem to want to bring the game to a screeching halt at every opportunity. You clearly have no interest in actually discussing the rules interactions so I think we'll call it a day. You have your HYWPI that results in the game coming to a halt every 5 seconds. I'll continue to play by the RaW and RaI in this case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which would make that not part of a shooting attack. Can you quote a line that states you make the roll outside of a shooting attack?
Easy the Psychic Shriek rules. If you want to tie them to a specific step in the shooting phase you need to provide rules to support.
Frozocrone wrote: I argued that you do have to roll to hit as focused witchfires are otherwise treated as witchfires, which have to roll to hit. I didn't mention this in the store, but the Maleceptor has a BS of 3, which is weird if it has access to no ranged weapons whatsoever (for example, Genestealers and Mawloc has a BS of 0 and have no ranged weapon access).
I'll have to double check this edition, but certainly in the last there was a rule preventing and ranged attacks (including Psychic Shooting Attacks) if the model had BS0.
The BS3 may well be to allow the casting of the power. Or it could be purely Fluff reasons.
That's my point Fling. by the rules it is a shooting attack. No matter what is said after that. part or not part of the shooting attack it's HIWPI / RAI and not just RAI unclear RAI. I've brought up the fact that no power with a profile tells you how to proceed only the shooting attack rules do and everyone is fine with it. We state that means that all the powers must use the shooting attack rules and people deny it. There is literally nothing in the wording of Shriek that tells you to take it out of the shooting attack rules. Therefor it must be one. At what step are you resolving the 3d6 at?
Gravmyr wrote: So you are not resolving it at any step then?
The 3D6 roll is not tied to the successful To Hit roll so you go through the shooting process, then you make your 3D6 roll. Simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: That's a nice house rule you have there. Skipping the To Wound Roll because of a missing profile effectively buffs the witchfire. AutoWound is a nice feature to have Easter Egged.
A better house rule is one that does not Easter Egg Psychic shriek.
I did not say it auto wounds... what are you talking about?
You are saying you can skip the To Wound Roll on successful Psychic Shriek hits. Provide rules justification for skipping the step. If you cannot provide that justification you are implementing a house rule. There is nothing wrong with implementing a house rule. Psychic Shriek requires a house rule to resolve. This should come as no surprise since we are obviously missing critical info required to resolve Psychic Shriek as a shooting attack per strict RAW. There is only a problem with the actual HYWPI that you are advocating (since it Easter Eggs).
Have you ever played a full game? As you seem to want to bring the game to a screeching halt at every opportunity. You clearly have no interest in actually discussing the rules interactions so I think we'll call it a day. You have your HYWPI that results in the game coming to a halt every 5 seconds. I'll continue to play by the RaW and RaI in this case.
I am saying that resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW causes the game to come to a screeching halt. People implement house rules to resolve Psychic Shriek and continue on with the game. This state of affairs should come as no surprise since Psychic Shriek is missing a profile with critical info in it.
Just because it is a shooting attack why does every part of it have to be part of the existing shooting phase rules? Particularly when you have a self contained rule that tells you how to resolve it and references no part of the shooting phase rules. The issue isn't that it doesn't work RaW the issue us that some people have read the "must roll to hit" rule out of context and are treating as the most powerful rule in the game and are trying to make the rules break so they can force their HYWPI over that 1 largely contextual rule.
FlingitNow wrote: Just because it is a shooting attack why does every part of it have to be part of the existing shooting phase rules? Particularly when you have a self contained rule that tells you how to resolve it and references no part of the shooting phase rules. The issue isn't that it doesn't work RaW the issue us that some people have read the "must roll to hit" rule out of context and are treating as the most powerful rule in the game and are trying to make the rules break so they can force their HYWPI over that 1 largely contextual rule.
The rules were broken by GW when they neglected to include a profile that would contain critical information on how to resolve Psychic Shriek according to their own rules.
I didn't break the rules. I am only recognizing that we absolutely have to house rule it because of the situation GW put us in.
@fling Due to nothing in shriek telling us that it is not part of a shooting attack. BY labeling it as a witchfire it includes everything that is included with that including the shooting rules. There is no out of context in this case as it covers all witchfire powers. If it states that only the powers with profiles roll there would be something but as it stands they went out of their way to tell you that not only do they roll to hit but that they must do so, which is more forcefully then they put forth in the entire paragraph describing to hit rolls in the general shooting rules.
FlingitNow wrote: So do you think the rules are broken everytime there is an interaction with a missing profile item?
Nope. Only where the missing profile leads to questions that cannot be answered. Sometimes unstated default values can be justified or gaps filled in elsewhere by the rules.
Would have been nice if the Authors informed us, with specific instructions, how to resolve Witchfires without Profiles. The number of times this topic comes up, and the fact it is always 10-20 pages before locked, clearly indicates what we have is too vague to follow....
grendel083 wrote: I wouldn't say missing. The BRB does say many Witchfires have a Profile. Not all. So a Profile not present is well within the rules.
BRB - Witchfire wrote:...and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons.
By not having a profile, Psychic Shriek is missing critical info. Other witchfires may not be missing critical info, but Psychic Shriek does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JinxDragon wrote: Would have been nice if the Authors informed us, with specific instructions, how to resolve Witchfires without Profiles.
The number of times this topic comes up, and the fact it is always 10-20 pages before locked, clearly indicates what we have is too vague to follow....
Nope. Only where the missing profile leads to questions that cannot be answered. Sometimes unstated default values can be justified or gaps filled in elsewhere by the rules.
So if the missing profile leads to unresolvable actions you believe the game breaks. Is this correct?
Nope. Only where the missing profile leads to questions that cannot be answered. Sometimes unstated default values can be justified or gaps filled in elsewhere by the rules.
So if the missing profile leads to unresolvable actions you believe the game breaks. Is this correct?
You need to house rule cases of legitimate unresolvable actions. The game doesn't break usually between players. Wittingly or unwittingly players provide house rules to glue the holes together.
col_impact wrote: You are saying you can skip the To Wound Roll on successful Psychic Shriek hits. Provide rules justification for skipping the step. If you cannot provide that justification you are implementing a house rule. There is nothing wrong with implementing a house rule. Psychic Shriek requires a house rule to resolve. This should come as no surprise since we are obviously missing critical info required to resolve Psychic Shriek as a shooting attack per strict RAW. There is only a problem with the actual HYWPI that you are advocating (since it Easter Eggs).
What To Wound roll?
Psychic Shriek does not have a To Wound roll...
"To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below." (The shooting Phase Chapter, Roll To Wound section).
Psychic Shriek does not have a Strength characteristic to compare with a Toughness characteristic so you can not use the To Wound chart ergo Psychic Shriek does not ever roll To Wound rolls...
col_impact wrote: You are saying you can skip the To Wound Roll on successful Psychic Shriek hits. Provide rules justification for skipping the step. If you cannot provide that justification you are implementing a house rule. There is nothing wrong with implementing a house rule. Psychic Shriek requires a house rule to resolve. This should come as no surprise since we are obviously missing critical info required to resolve Psychic Shriek as a shooting attack per strict RAW. There is only a problem with the actual HYWPI that you are advocating (since it Easter Eggs).
What To Wound roll?
Psychic Shriek does not have a To Wound roll...
"To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below." (The shooting Phase Chapter, Roll To Wound section).
Psychic Shriek does not have a Strength characteristic to compare with a Toughness characteristic so you can not use the To Wound chart ergo Psychic Shriek does not ever roll To Wound rolls...
To be exact, there is a required To Wound Roll that you cannot resolve due to missing critical info. You are not permitted to skip this required roll. Not having the critical info is not itself permission to skip that roll. Giving yourself permission to skip that To Wound Roll is a house rule. There is nothing wrong with resorting to a house rule. In fact, we are required to house rule Psychic Shriek in order to resolve it. However, the problem with your house rule is that it Easter Eggs Psychic Shriek and we can come up with a much better house rule that does not Easter Egg.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact - Would you say that once you start the shooting sequence, you must complete all steps, and cannot skip any steps?
Spoiler:
THE SHOOTING PHASE
As armies engage, guns thunder and shrapnel rains down from the sky. In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, a player’s army fires in the Shooting phase of his turn. During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.
The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact - Would you say that once you start the shooting sequence, you must complete all steps, and cannot skip any steps?
Spoiler:
THE SHOOTING PHASE
As armies engage, guns thunder and shrapnel rains down from the sky. In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, a player’s army fires in the Shooting phase of his turn. During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.
The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.
That is for THE SHOOTING PHASE not for The Psychic Phase...
Happyjew wrote: col_impact - Would you say that once you start the shooting sequence, you must complete all steps, and cannot skip any steps?
Spoiler:
THE SHOOTING PHASE
As armies engage, guns thunder and shrapnel rains down from the sky. In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, a player’s army fires in the Shooting phase of his turn. During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.
The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.
That is for THE SHOOTING PHASE not for The Psychic Phase...
Witchfire are shooting attacks. Don't blame me for GW sloppiness.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact - Would you say that once you start the shooting sequence, you must complete all steps, and cannot skip any steps?
Spoiler:
THE SHOOTING PHASE
As armies engage, guns thunder and shrapnel rains down from the sky. In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, a player’s army fires in the Shooting phase of his turn. During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.
The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.
That is for THE SHOOTING PHASE not for The Psychic Phase...
Witchfire are shooting attacks. Don't blame me for GW sloppiness.
Right, shooting attacks but they are also psychic powers performed in the Psychic phase.
So the shooting sequence will not always be applied 100%
Indeed the rule stating "you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next. " clearly does not apply as you can cast a Witchfire with a Psyker, cast a Witchfire with a different Psyker, then cast another Witchfire with the first Psyker if you wish.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact - Would you say that once you start the shooting sequence, you must complete all steps, and cannot skip any steps?
Spoiler:
THE SHOOTING PHASE
As armies engage, guns thunder and shrapnel rains down from the sky. In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, a player’s army fires in the Shooting phase of his turn. During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.
The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.
So what happens, in the Shooting phase, if you cannot complete all the steps?
For example, I nominate a unit of Tac Marines (with a Plasma Cannon).
I decide to fire the Plasma Cannon first, and roll a 1 for Gets Hot.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact - Would you say that once you start the shooting sequence, you must complete all steps, and cannot skip any steps?
Spoiler:
THE SHOOTING PHASE
As armies engage, guns thunder and shrapnel rains down from the sky. In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, a player’s army fires in the Shooting phase of his turn. During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.
The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.
So what happens, in the Shooting phase, if you cannot complete all the steps?
For example, I nominate a unit of Tac Marines (with a Plasma Cannon).
I decide to fire the Plasma Cannon first, and roll a 1 for Gets Hot.
What happens next?
Relevance? Plasma Cannon is a blast weapon, so we follow the sequence in the blast rule. Psychic Shriek is not a blast weapon.
Spoiler:
When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit. Instead, just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the 3" blast marker with its hole entirely over the base of the target model (see diagram), or its hull if the target is a vehicle. The hole at the centre of the marker must be within the weapon’s maximum range. You cannot place the blast marker so that the base or hull of any friendly model is even partially under it.
The large area affected by the blast means it’s going to be very hard to miss completely. Nonetheless, the shot might not land exactly where intended. Roll for the blast marker to scatter and subtract the firer’s Ballistic Skill from the distance (if any) that it scatters, to a minimum of 0". Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon’s maximum or minimum range and line of sight. This represents the chance of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events. In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat). If the shot scatters so that the hole in the centre of the marker is beyond the table’s edge, the shot is a complete miss and is discarded.
Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above – each unit suffers one hit for each of their models which is fully or partially beneath the blast marker, even if those models are not within the firer’s line of sight.
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To Wound and save as normal. Remember that any Wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit.
Spoiler:
Gets Hot and Weapons that do not roll To Hit
Weapons that do not roll To Hit (such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot immediately before firing. On a 2+, the shot is resolved as normal. For each roll of a 1, the weapon Gets Hot; that shot is not fired and the firing model immediately suffers a single Wound (armour saves or invulnerable saves can be taken) – this Wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a Wound caused by the Gets Hot special rule. A vehicle instead suffers a glancing hit on a further roll of a 1, 2 or 3.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact - Would you say that once you start the shooting sequence, you must complete all steps, and cannot skip any steps?
Spoiler:
THE SHOOTING PHASE
As armies engage, guns thunder and shrapnel rains down from the sky. In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, a player’s army fires in the Shooting phase of his turn. During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.
The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.
So what happens, in the Shooting phase, if you cannot complete all the steps?
For example, I nominate a unit of Tac Marines (with a Plasma Cannon).
I decide to fire the Plasma Cannon first, and roll a 1 for Gets Hot.
What happens next?
Relevance? Plasma Cannon is a blast weapon, so we follow the sequence in the blast rule. Psychic Shriek is not a blast weapon.
Spoiler:
When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit. Instead, just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the 3" blast marker with its hole entirely over the base of the target model (see diagram), or its hull if the target is a vehicle. The hole at the centre of the marker must be within the weapon’s maximum range. You cannot place the blast marker so that the base or hull of any friendly model is even partially under it.
The large area affected by the blast means it’s going to be very hard to miss completely. Nonetheless, the shot might not land exactly where intended. Roll for the blast marker to scatter and subtract the firer’s Ballistic Skill from the distance (if any) that it scatters, to a minimum of 0". Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon’s maximum or minimum range and line of sight. This represents the chance of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events. In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat). If the shot scatters so that the hole in the centre of the marker is beyond the table’s edge, the shot is a complete miss and is discarded.
Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above – each unit suffers one hit for each of their models which is fully or partially beneath the blast marker, even if those models are not within the firer’s line of sight.
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To Wound and save as normal. Remember that any Wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit.
Spoiler:
Gets Hot and Weapons that do not roll To Hit
Weapons that do not roll To Hit (such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot immediately before firing. On a 2+, the shot is resolved as normal. For each roll of a 1, the weapon Gets Hot; that shot is not fired and the firing model immediately suffers a single Wound (armour saves or invulnerable saves can be taken) – this Wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a Wound caused by the Gets Hot special rule. A vehicle instead suffers a glancing hit on a further roll of a 1, 2 or 3.
You misunderstand.
This has nothing to do blast weapons. This is about following the Shooting sequence. Please, bear with me for a moment.
So, as I said, Plasma Cannon Gets Hot. We are already part way through the Shooting Sequence. What happens next.?
If, on the off-chance, you feel I'm trying to derail the thread, or trying to start problems, feel free to PM me with your answer, and we'll ocntinue this discussion outside of hte thread.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact - Would you say that once you start the shooting sequence, you must complete all steps, and cannot skip any steps?
Spoiler:
THE SHOOTING PHASE
As armies engage, guns thunder and shrapnel rains down from the sky. In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, a player’s army fires in the Shooting phase of his turn. During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.
The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.
So what happens, in the Shooting phase, if you cannot complete all the steps?
For example, I nominate a unit of Tac Marines (with a Plasma Cannon).
I decide to fire the Plasma Cannon first, and roll a 1 for Gets Hot.
What happens next?
Relevance? Plasma Cannon is a blast weapon, so we follow the sequence in the blast rule. Psychic Shriek is not a blast weapon.
Spoiler:
When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit. Instead, just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the 3" blast marker with its hole entirely over the base of the target model (see diagram), or its hull if the target is a vehicle. The hole at the centre of the marker must be within the weapon’s maximum range. You cannot place the blast marker so that the base or hull of any friendly model is even partially under it.
The large area affected by the blast means it’s going to be very hard to miss completely. Nonetheless, the shot might not land exactly where intended. Roll for the blast marker to scatter and subtract the firer’s Ballistic Skill from the distance (if any) that it scatters, to a minimum of 0". Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon’s maximum or minimum range and line of sight. This represents the chance of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events. In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat). If the shot scatters so that the hole in the centre of the marker is beyond the table’s edge, the shot is a complete miss and is discarded.
Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above – each unit suffers one hit for each of their models which is fully or partially beneath the blast marker, even if those models are not within the firer’s line of sight.
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To Wound and save as normal. Remember that any Wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit.
Spoiler:
Gets Hot and Weapons that do not roll To Hit
Weapons that do not roll To Hit (such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot immediately before firing. On a 2+, the shot is resolved as normal. For each roll of a 1, the weapon Gets Hot; that shot is not fired and the firing model immediately suffers a single Wound (armour saves or invulnerable saves can be taken) – this Wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a Wound caused by the Gets Hot special rule. A vehicle instead suffers a glancing hit on a further roll of a 1, 2 or 3.
You misunderstand.
This has nothing to do blast weapons. This is about following the Shooting sequence. Please, bear with me for a moment.
So, as I said, Plasma Cannon Gets Hot. We are already part way through the Shooting Sequence. What happens next.?
If, on the off-chance, you feel I'm trying to derail the thread, or trying to start problems, feel free to PM me with your answer, and we'll ocntinue this discussion outside of hte thread.
The Blast rules offer an alternate sideways path through the Shooting Sequence that is instead of a To Hit Roll. We are not resolving To Hit Rolls per normal Shooting Sequence. It normally re-integrates back with the Shooting Sequence at the To Wound Roll "once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out."
The Gets Hot rule is a sub routine that is invoked on a roll of one that is cast immediately before firing. Per special exception granted by that rule, the shot resolves as a registered miss/non-fire/self-wound.
Both Blast and Gets Hot are rules providing specific exceptions.
Where in the Get's Hot Rule does it specifically mention what to do when any Weapon Group, in this case Plasma Cannons, consists of 0 Weapons after it has been resolved? It does, after all, occur after Weapon Group selection and before To Hit Rolls are resolved....
col_impact wrote: The Blast rules offer an alternate sideways path through the Shooting Sequence that is instead of a To Hit Roll. We are not resolving To Hit Rolls per normal Shooting Sequence. It normally re-integrates back with the Shooting Sequence at the To Wound Roll "once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out."
The Gets Hot rule is a sub routine that is invoked on a roll of one that is cast immediately before firing. Per special exception granted by that rule, the shot resolves as a registered miss/non-fire/self-wound.
Both Blast and Gets Hot are rules providing specific exceptions.
I think you are under the impression that I am waiting for you to say "First place the blast marker and roll for scatter. Then count the number of models below the marker to determine hits" at which point I will reply "You didn't roll To Hit. Therefore you are breaking the shooting sequence rules". I assure you this is not the case. If you are uncomfortable with discussing a plasma cannon, let's switch it up then.
1. I nominate a unit of Tac Marines (one with a Lascannon).
2. I choose to target the Hornet 26" away
3. I decide to fire the Lascannon first.
4. I roll To Hit, and roll a 1.
col_impact wrote: The Blast rules offer an alternate sideways path through the Shooting Sequence that is instead of a To Hit Roll. We are not resolving To Hit Rolls per normal Shooting Sequence. It normally re-integrates back with the Shooting Sequence at the To Wound Roll "once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out."
The Gets Hot rule is a sub routine that is invoked on a roll of one that is cast immediately before firing. Per special exception granted by that rule, the shot resolves as a registered miss/non-fire/self-wound.
Both Blast and Gets Hot are rules providing specific exceptions.
I think you are under the impression that I am waiting for you to say "First place the blast marker and roll for scatter. Then count the number of models below the marker to determine hits" at which point I will reply "You didn't roll To Hit. Therefore you are breaking the shooting sequence rules". I assure you this is not the case. If you are uncomfortable with discussing a plasma cannon, let's switch it up then.
1. I nominate a unit of Tac Marines (one with a Lascannon).
2. I choose to target the Hornet 26" away
3. I decide to fire the Lascannon first.
4. I roll To Hit, and roll a 1.
What happens next?
He's already answered that it requires a house rule to continue.
blaktoof wrote: Witchfires require you to roll to hit to resolve the power, and follow the rules for shooting.
if you fail to hit, you have missed.
Correct
if you miss you do not proceed past the hit roll step as the attack has ended, and the rest of the entries rules no longer matter unless it specifies it has an affect on a miss.
Repeating this over and over won't make it more true. If you don't hit you don't do a to wound roll. Anything else that needs to be resolved as part of that attack that is not a to wound roll or not dependent on a to wound roll continues as you have no denial of the permission to resolve those rules.
if people are asserting that the attack gets to continue because the psychic power rules say to resolve the psychic power, and you have to resolve the entire profile.
then if you miss with warp blast (lance)
18" range strength 10 assault 1 ap 2, do you still resolve the strength 10 hit?
What S10 hit? You just stated there was no hit. As covered in depth you would not make a to wound roll for that attack as that is dependent on a successful to hit roll (an armour pen roll is made instead of a to wound roll so is also covered by this). This has all been explained to you several times so why are you deliberately posting untrue statements?
It has all the same rules to resolve as a normal witchfire power just like psychic shriek, and neither entry states you may not resolve the effect on a miss.
Cool we resolve Warp Blast too. What effect does it have? We have covered no to wound (or armour pen) roll is made so what are you expecting Warp Blast to do?
the issue with your reply is this:
both have the same restriction of following the shooting rules, both are required to roll to hit.
if you miss with either you stop at step 4 "rolling to hit" because you failed to proceed at this point of the shooting rules-which are required. You do not go on to step 5, or anything after it because you have failed the attack at this point. There is no check to see if the weapon/attack has a strength value or other way of effecting a unit, because the attack has failed at this point.
neither are required to have a weapon profile, and neither have an exemption specifically stated in their rules that the rest of their entry can be resolved after failing to hit.
as there is nothing in psychic shrieks profile over another witchfire power that tells us we can resolve the rest of the effect on a miss, there is no actual rules stance that allows for such to occur.
so there is no actual RAW reason to proceed with resolving the one on a miss, versus the other.
Blaktoof we have already shown general permission to resolve a power. If this permission is not enough to work for a miss then it is not enough to work for a hit. Thus where is your permission to resolve the 3d6-ld on a hit?
blaktoof wrote: Witchfires require you to roll to hit to resolve the power, and follow the rules for shooting.
if you fail to hit, you have missed.
Correct
if you miss you do not proceed past the hit roll step as the attack has ended, and the rest of the entries rules no longer matter unless it specifies it has an affect on a miss.
Repeating this over and over won't make it more true. If you don't hit you don't do a to wound roll. Anything else that needs to be resolved as part of that attack that is not a to wound roll or not dependent on a to wound roll continues as you have no denial of the permission to resolve those rules.
if people are asserting that the attack gets to continue because the psychic power rules say to resolve the psychic power, and you have to resolve the entire profile.
then if you miss with warp blast (lance)
18" range strength 10 assault 1 ap 2, do you still resolve the strength 10 hit?
What S10 hit? You just stated there was no hit. As covered in depth you would not make a to wound roll for that attack as that is dependent on a successful to hit roll (an armour pen roll is made instead of a to wound roll so is also covered by this). This has all been explained to you several times so why are you deliberately posting untrue statements?
It has all the same rules to resolve as a normal witchfire power just like psychic shriek, and neither entry states you may not resolve the effect on a miss.
Cool we resolve Warp Blast too. What effect does it have? We have covered no to wound (or armour pen) roll is made so what are you expecting Warp Blast to do?
the issue with your reply is this:
both have the same restriction of following the shooting rules, both are required to roll to hit.
if you miss with either you stop at step 4 "rolling to hit" because you failed to proceed at this point of the shooting rules-which are required. You do not go on to step 5, or anything after it because you have failed the attack at this point. There is no check to see if the weapon/attack has a strength value or other way of effecting a unit, because the attack has failed at this point.
neither are required to have a weapon profile, and neither have an exemption specifically stated in their rules that the rest of their entry can be resolved after failing to hit.
as there is nothing in psychic shrieks profile over another witchfire power that tells us we can resolve the rest of the effect on a miss, there is no actual rules stance that allows for such to occur.
so there is no actual RAW reason to proceed with resolving the one on a miss, versus the other.
So if you miss with a normal shooting attack, you skip Steps 5-7?
JinxDragon wrote: Would have been nice if the Authors informed us, with specific instructions, how to resolve Witchfires without Profiles. The number of times this topic comes up, and the fact it is always 10-20 pages before locked, clearly indicates what we have is too vague to follow....
I think i'll conclude that i can definitely agree with this!
I will personally bow out until we get a decent new Rule change. My OP was only because the new Nids added "Treat Vehicles as Ld10" and "multiple attempts" which was never in the RaW before.
FlingitNow wrote: Blaktoof we have already shown general permission to resolve a power. If this permission is not enough to work for a miss then it is not enough to work for a hit. Thus where is your permission to resolve the 3d6-ld on a hit?
My reply was entirely RaW.
your reply was not entirely RAW.
and honestly your reply makes no sense.
you really feel that because it doesn't say "if you hit with the required to hit roll you may then.."
means the absence of "if you miss you may not continue the attack" means that you can continue the attack on a miss.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote:
So if you miss with a normal shooting attack, you skip Steps 5-7?
Why would you continue going down the list of steps if you fail at 1?
if you have 0 units that have targets in LOS to shoot do you begin at step 1 and nominate each unit because it can shoot, then go on to step 2, the units are out of los, but instead of going on to the next unit you roll to hit then wound then allocate the wounds and check for casualties?
seriously?
you are seriously saying that for all eligible units you go through all the steps even if they fail at one and cannot progress to anything after?
col_impact wrote: The Blast rules offer an alternate sideways path through the Shooting Sequence that is instead of a To Hit Roll. We are not resolving To Hit Rolls per normal Shooting Sequence. It normally re-integrates back with the Shooting Sequence at the To Wound Roll "once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out."
The Gets Hot rule is a sub routine that is invoked on a roll of one that is cast immediately before firing. Per special exception granted by that rule, the shot resolves as a registered miss/non-fire/self-wound.
Both Blast and Gets Hot are rules providing specific exceptions.
I think you are under the impression that I am waiting for you to say "First place the blast marker and roll for scatter. Then count the number of models below the marker to determine hits" at which point I will reply "You didn't roll To Hit. Therefore you are breaking the shooting sequence rules". I assure you this is not the case. If you are uncomfortable with discussing a plasma cannon, let's switch it up then.
1. I nominate a unit of Tac Marines (one with a Lascannon).
2. I choose to target the Hornet 26" away
3. I decide to fire the Lascannon first.
4. I roll To Hit, and roll a 1.
What happens next?
He's already answered that it requires a house rule to continue.
I thought the Mods made it clear that posters on this this thread are to refrain from putting words into other people's mouths.
col_impact wrote: I thought the Mods made it clear that posters on this this thread are to refrain from putting words into other people's mouths.
Since you've said literally that, it's not putting words in your mouth - it's repeating your answer. Feel free to flag my post, however - I don't mind at all.
Blaktoof - rule to say you stop at step four if you have hi successful hits. The actual rules font say this, but instead at step five ask you to see how many you have, and till a dice for each.
In other words, your assertion is false, you resolve all steps in sequence, following the rules contained within.
col_impact wrote: The Blast rules offer an alternate sideways path through the Shooting Sequence that is instead of a To Hit Roll. We are not resolving To Hit Rolls per normal Shooting Sequence. It normally re-integrates back with the Shooting Sequence at the To Wound Roll "once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out."
The Gets Hot rule is a sub routine that is invoked on a roll of one that is cast immediately before firing. Per special exception granted by that rule, the shot resolves as a registered miss/non-fire/self-wound.
Both Blast and Gets Hot are rules providing specific exceptions.
I think you are under the impression that I am waiting for you to say "First place the blast marker and roll for scatter. Then count the number of models below the marker to determine hits" at which point I will reply "You didn't roll To Hit. Therefore you are breaking the shooting sequence rules". I assure you this is not the case. If you are uncomfortable with discussing a plasma cannon, let's switch it up then.
1. I nominate a unit of Tac Marines (one with a Lascannon).
2. I choose to target the Hornet 26" away
3. I decide to fire the Lascannon first.
4. I roll To Hit, and roll a 1.
What happens next?
I am not uncomfortable discussing a plasma cannon or a lascannon. However, I will not do your work for you or go down a tangent before relevance has been shown. If you have an argument to make then make it. Please include in your argument how this discussion about plasma cannons or lascannons is relevant to the discussion at hand. Relevance is important here to make clear since we do not want to de-rail the thread. So make sure to make it abundantly clear how this point you are going to make is relevant to the discussion at hand about Psychic Shriek.
Lascannon Range: 48" S:9 AP:2 Heavy 1
Shooting Sequence
Spoiler:
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models
equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the
target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one
visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in
range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines
what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the
target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing
weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing
unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target
unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has
one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed
as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to
allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected
weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that
have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.
Gets Hot
Spoiler:
Some weapons are fuelled by unstable power sources and risk overheating with each
shot – often to the detriment of the wielder.
When firing a weapon that Gets Hot, roll To Hit as normal. For each To Hit roll of 1, the
firing model immediately suffers a Wound (armour or invulnerable saves can be taken) –
this Wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a
Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a Wound caused by the Gets Hot special rule. A vehicle
instead rolls a D6 for each roll of a 1 to hit. On a roll of a 1, 2 or 3 it suffers a glancing hit.
Gets Hot and Weapons that do not roll To Hit
Weapons that do not roll To Hit (such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot
immediately before firing. On a 2+, the shot is resolved as normal. For each roll of a 1, the
weapon Gets Hot; that shot is not fired and the firing model immediately suffers a single
Wound (armour saves or invulnerable saves can be taken) – this Wound cannot be
allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt
to avoid a Wound caused by the Gets Hot special rule. A vehicle instead suffers a glancing
hit on a further roll of a 1, 2 or 3.
Gets Hot and Re-rolls
If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit (including because of BS6+ or the
Twin-linked special rule), a Wound is only suffered if the To Hit re-roll is also a 1; it may
also re-roll Gets Hot results of 1 for weapons that do not roll To Hit.
I have posted the relevant rules. I eagerly await the presentation of your argument in your words.
col_impact wrote: Relevance is important here to make clear since we do not want to de-rail the thread. So make sure to make it abundantly clear how this point you are going to make is relevant to the discussion at hand about Psychic Shriek.
Although technically my original question was about the Maleceptor and his new Tyranid Psychic power (which is a Focussed Witchfire) changing anything about the current "Witchfire must roll To Hit" debate.
col_impact wrote: I thought the Mods made it clear that posters on this this thread are to refrain from putting words into other people's mouths.
Since you've said literally that, it's not putting words in your mouth - it's repeating your answer. Feel free to flag my post, however - I don't mind at all.
Where have I said that it breaks the game and requires house rule to resolve a weapon with Gets Hot?
Mods - please take note of rigeld's continued attempts at trying to put words in other people's mouths.
Rigeld - Please refrain from this disruptive behavior. It has no place in a YMDC thread.
col_impact wrote: I thought the Mods made it clear that posters on this this thread are to refrain from putting words into other people's mouths.
Since you've said literally that, it's not putting words in your mouth - it's repeating your answer. Feel free to flag my post, however - I don't mind at all.
Where have I said that it breaks the game and requires house rule to resolve a weapon with Gets Hot?
Mods - please take note of rigeld's continued attempts at trying to put words in other people's mouths.
Rigeld - Please refrain from this disruptive behavior. It has no place in a YMDC thread.
rigeld2 wrote: What happens if you have no successful hits? According to your words (almost literal) it's a logical implausibility to be able to satisfy a step if you roll zero dice.
This is a situation where you're required - by the rules - to roll zero dice.
According to you, this requires a house rule to continue. Do you agree?
Yup, this requires a house rule to continue. And my house rule is better than yours.
I've not put any words in your mouth. You've literally said that if the rules require you to roll 0 dice it requires a house rule to continue.
It's not disruptive behavior to note what you've argued in this very thread.
col_impact wrote: I thought the Mods made it clear that posters on this this thread are to refrain from putting words into other people's mouths.
Since you've said literally that, it's not putting words in your mouth - it's repeating your answer. Feel free to flag my post, however - I don't mind at all.
Where have I said that it breaks the game and requires house rule to resolve a weapon with Gets Hot?
Mods - please take note of rigeld's continued attempts at trying to put words in other people's mouths.
Rigeld - Please refrain from this disruptive behavior. It has no place in a YMDC thread.
rigeld2 wrote: What happens if you have no successful hits? According to your words (almost literal) it's a logical implausibility to be able to satisfy a step if you roll zero dice.
This is a situation where you're required - by the rules - to roll zero dice.
According to you, this requires a house rule to continue. Do you agree?
Yup, this requires a house rule to continue. And my house rule is better than yours.
I've not put any words in your mouth. You've literally said that if the rules require you to roll 0 dice it requires a house rule to continue.
It's not disruptive behavior to note what you've argued in this very thread.
Taken out of context. It was in the midst of a discussion about the To Wound Roll.
Witchfire powers MUST roll to hit. You are required to pick up a die and roll to hit. Successful hits require a roll to wound. It's at the To Wound Roll that Psychic Shriek breaks since you lack the profile which would have the critical info to continue.
My comment above references the To Wound Roll which you arrive at from successful hits. If I got confused or I confused you, allow me to clarify . . .
You are pushing for a solution which involves rolling zero dice to hit while actively shooting psychic shriek as a shooting attack, which is not only a logical implausibility and relies on fictions that are not to be found in the rules (there is no such thing as a zero shot shooting attack), the rules expressly forbid it (witchfire powers MUST roll to hit).
This is all fine if you want to house rule Psychic Shriek as a "zero shot shooting attack" but it's not RAW.
rigeld2 wrote: What happens if you have no successful hits? According to your words (almost literal) it's a logical implausibility to be able to satisfy a step if you roll zero dice.
This is a situation where you're required - by the rules - to roll zero dice.
According to you, this requires a house rule to continue. Do you agree?
Yup, this requires a house rule to continue. And my house rule is better than yours.
I've not put any words in your mouth. You've literally said that if the rules require you to roll 0 dice it requires a house rule to continue.
It's not disruptive behavior to note what you've argued in this very thread.
Taken out of context. It was in the midst of a discussion about the To Wound Roll.
The question was "This is a situation where you're required - by the rules - to roll zero dice.
According to you, this requires a house rule to continue. Do you agree?"
You said yes.
Witchfire powers MUST roll to hit. You are required to pick up a die and roll to hit. Successful hits require a roll to wound. It's at the To Wound Roll that Psychic Shriek breaks since you lack the profile which would have the critical info to continue.
My comment above references the To Wound Roll which you arrive at from successful hits. If I got confused or I confused you, allow me to clarify . . .
You are pushing for a solution which involves rolling zero dice to hit while actively shooting psychic shriek as a shooting attack, which is not only a logical implausibility and relies on fictions that are not to be found in the rules (there is no such thing as a zero shot shooting attack), the rules expressly forbid it (witchfire powers MUST roll to hit).
This is all fine if you want to house rule Psychic Shriek as a "zero shot shooting attack" but it's not RAW.
Witchfire powers must roll to hit.
I've underlined an incorrect statement - there demonstrably is. It's been demonstrated multiple times.
rigeld2 wrote: What happens if you have no successful hits? According to your words (almost literal) it's a logical implausibility to be able to satisfy a step if you roll zero dice.
This is a situation where you're required - by the rules - to roll zero dice.
According to you, this requires a house rule to continue. Do you agree?
Yup, this requires a house rule to continue. And my house rule is better than yours.
I've not put any words in your mouth. You've literally said that if the rules require you to roll 0 dice it requires a house rule to continue.
It's not disruptive behavior to note what you've argued in this very thread.
Taken out of context. It was in the midst of a discussion about the To Wound Roll.
The question was "This is a situation where you're required - by the rules - to roll zero dice.
According to you, this requires a house rule to continue. Do you agree?"
You said yes.
Witchfire powers MUST roll to hit. You are required to pick up a die and roll to hit. Successful hits require a roll to wound. It's at the To Wound Roll that Psychic Shriek breaks since you lack the profile which would have the critical info to continue.
My comment above references the To Wound Roll which you arrive at from successful hits. If I got confused or I confused you, allow me to clarify . . .
You are pushing for a solution which involves rolling zero dice to hit while actively shooting psychic shriek as a shooting attack, which is not only a logical implausibility and relies on fictions that are not to be found in the rules (there is no such thing as a zero shot shooting attack), the rules expressly forbid it (witchfire powers MUST roll to hit).
This is all fine if you want to house rule Psychic Shriek as a "zero shot shooting attack" but it's not RAW.
Witchfire powers must roll to hit.
I've underlined an incorrect statement - there demonstrably is. It's been demonstrated multiple times.
The To Wound Roll requires a house rule to continue in the case of resolving successful hits from Psychic Shriek, which is what we were discussing.
Feel free to prove the existence of a zero shot shooting attack. I've combed the BRB and have found no profiles with Assault 0 on them or anything along those lines. The burden of proof is on you.
col_impact wrote: The To Wound Roll requires a house rule to continue in the case of resolving successful hits from Psychic Shriek, which is what we were discussing.
It does not require a house rule.
Since there are no successful To Hit rolls with Psychic Shriek, we never roll To Wound.
Then we continue to resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry as the rules tell us to do.
col_impact wrote: The To Wound Roll requires a house rule to continue in the case of resolving successful hits from Psychic Shriek, which is what we were discussing.
It does not require a house rule.
Since there are no successful To Hit rolls with Psychic Shriek, we never roll To Wound.
Then we continue to resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry as the rules tell us to do.
Please indicate exactly how you resolve Psychic Shriek without ever having any successful To Hit rolls.
Witchfire powers MUST roll to hit.
Zero shot shooting attacks are a fiction that you are making up. This is all fine if you are just claiming HYWPI, but this is not RAW.
Yes, they must follow e "to hit" process. We have no dice to roll, so complete this step. You're misunderstanding, wilfully, the step vs w process. I suggest you reread the brb
col_impact wrote: Zero shot shooting attacks are a fiction that you are making up.
As an example of a legal zero shot shooting attack:
A heavy plasma gun. It makes a legal shooting attack that fails it's Gets Hot! roll for its one shot (test is taken per shot, and discounts the shot if failed).
So a Zero shot Attack.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, they must follow e "to hit" process. We have no dice to roll, so complete this step. You're misunderstanding, wilfully, the step vs w process. I suggest you reread the brb
Spoiler:
a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically.
Also, there is no such thing as a zero shot shooting attack.
col_impact wrote: Zero shot shooting attacks are a fiction that you are making up.
As an example of a legal zero shot shooting attack:
A heavy plasma gun. It makes a legal shooting attack that fails it's Gets Hot! roll for its one shot (test is taken per shot, and discounts the shot if failed).
So a Zero shot Attack.
Does the heavy plasma gun have a zero on its profile for the number of shots it takes? If not, then this is clearly not an example of a zero shot shooting attack.
How many Shots are Fired if a lone Plasma Cannon Get's Hot? As you have put forth the statement that a Shooting Attack which Fires 0 Shots is not possible, please provide an answer to this question which isn't 0.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, have you completed the step roll to hit? We have. Done, again.
"a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JinxDragon wrote: How many Shots are Fired if it Get's Hot?
This is all about a Shooting Attack which Fires 0 Shots being impossible, so please provide an answer to this question which isn't 0.
How many shots are on the profile of the weapon in question? This is all about the plausibility of a zero shot shooting attack, not on whether special exceptions are caused by specific rules like Gets Hot.
Does Psychic Shriek have Gets Hot on its profile? Does Gets Hot actually modify the weapon profile or simply resolve the hit in a specific rules mandated manner?
JinxDragon wrote: To Hit is the name of a Rule, so what does that Rule tell us in relation to rolling?
A number equal to the Shots being Fired....
As long as those Rules are obeyed, we have successfully completed this Step.
"a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically."
Shooting attacks with zero shots on their profile do not exist.
If secondary Rules can lead to a situation where 0 Shots are possible, then it proves that 0 Shots are a possible outcome! If one Secondary Rule can lead to a situation where 0 Shots occur, then other secondary Rules have the ability to lead to the very same outcome. Now it is up to you to prove that a Psychic Power, a secondary Rule in this situation, is specifically forbidden from generating 0 Shots....
JinxDragon wrote: If secondary Rules can lead to a situation where 0 Shots are possible, then it proves that 0 Shots are a possible outcome!
If one Secondary Rule can lead to a situation where 0 Shots occur, then other secondary Rules have the ability to lead to the very same outcome.
Now it is up to you to prove that a Psychic Power, a secondary Rule in this situation, is specifically forbidden from generating 0 Shots....
"a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically."
The burden is on you. Psychic Shriek doesn't have any secondary Rules on its profile. Seriously, is this the argument you are advancing, Jinx Dragon?
Yes, we are aware of that rule. It just refers to step four, the process. Where you then determine how many dice we have. We have an indeterminate number of shots (proven) so when we get to step four, we auto resolve that step, as w have rolled a dice for as many shots as we have.
col_impact, Repeating the Rule you quoted is not evidence that your interpretation of said Rule is correct, particularly when someone is pointing out that you might be misapplying the Rule in question.
What you quoted tells us that we must Roll To Hit, which I do agree is what the Rule states, but that doesn't tell us what a 'To Hit' is or how we go about Rolling it. Those instructions are found in a Rule called 'To Hit' and they inform us how we go about successfully resolving this Step of the sequence. Those instructions inform us that Rolling a dice will be part of the process, so the terminology 'Roll To Hit' directly relates to the process within the To Hit Step itself. So, as long as we can obey the actual instructions within the To Hit process, we have successfully rolled To Hit.
As for the burden of proof: We repetitively have shown evidence that Advanced Rules can modify the basic Shooting Sequence to create a 0 Shots outcome. Psychic Powers are an Advanced Rules, so they have the ability to generate a 0 Shot outcome. Regardless if this one Psychic Power does or does not, the core concept of 0 Shot outcomes for a Psychic Power has support!
PS: Accusing me of bending a Rule for an Advantages is far from justified. Particularly given that I am a Tau player so I am the least likely to ever be in a situation where I can exploit anything!
JinxDragon wrote: col_impact,
Repeating the Rule you quoted is not evidence when someone is pointing out that you might be mis-applying the Rule. What you quoted tells us that we must Roll To Hit, which I do agree is what the Rule states, but that doesn't tell us what a 'To Hit' is or how we go about Rolling it. Those instructions are found in a Rule called 'To Hit' and they inform us how we go about successfully resolving this Step of the sequence. Those instructions inform us that Rolling a dice will be part of the process, so the terminology 'Roll To Hit' directly relates to the process within the To Hit Step itself.
So, as long as we can obey the actual instructions within the To Hit process, we have successfully rolled To Hit.
PS:
Accusing me of bending a Rule for an Advantages is far from justified.
Particularly given that I am a Tau player!
There is a clear directive to roll to hit. It takes a house rule on your part to interpret rolling zero dice as rolling to hit when the clear language and logic indicate a die must be rolled. It also takes a house rule on your part to treat Psychic Shriek as a zero shot shooting attack.
At no point is any burden of proof on me. I am not the one claiming a strict RAW solution.
Had to edit a few posts here... once again, please remember rule #1 and simply argue the rules, not the character / motivation of the other poster. Thanks.
Unless you answer the actual question, instead of simply repeating 'the Rule states to Roll' which we have already confirmed it does, I will continue to ask it: If we follow the instructions found under the Step/Rule called 'To Hit' to the letter, have we done anything illegal?
Ignore what the body of the To Hit Step/Rule might be at the moment, and the broken power which is completely irrelevant to the above question, and provide a simple yes or no answer followed by a brief explanation as to why you answered that way. This is a fundamental question related to how we go about legally obeying a set of instructions, we can not continue the discussion until we come to an agreement on how we go about legally obeying a Rule. Personally, I am of the mindset that simply completing the instructions within a Rule means that the result is 'legal' regardless of what it might be.
As for 0 Shots being Fired: You are the one claiming for certain that it is not possible, and it is tempting to point out the history of some of the people you are arguing against but that wouldn't be professional.
Unfortunately for you, evidence has been put forth which shows that the Rules allow for 0 Shots to be Fired in certain situations. Not because those situations are governed by Rules which have Exception clauses specifically stating they are 'legal.' Instead the Rule Interactions simply generate the result of 0 Shots being fired, which can not be possible if the Rules require for that number to be anything but 0 to function. I will point out, again not so professional but this one I will do: Even you seem to be backing away from this being somehow 'fictional' with your current requirement that we provide a profile which lists 0 Shots.
Surely feels as if you are narrowing the scope so we can no longer address situations which do not fit your interpretation of the Shooting Sequence.
At this point in time it is very clear that the burden of proof is very much on your shoulders. Should you want to continue to state that 0 Shots being Fired is an impossible outcome, then you need to prove why certain Rules leading us to this outcome are somehow 'illegal results.' Short of a Rule quote stating that we must have Fired at least one Shots to proceed through the Shooting Sequence, I doubt it will be possible for you to provide any evidence to explain why the only possible outcome of certain Rule Interactions is simply... not possible.
JinxDragon wrote: Unless you answer the actual question, instead of simply repeating 'the Rule states to Roll' which we have already confirmed it does, I will continue to ask it:
If we follow the instructions found under the Step/Rule called 'To Hit' to the letter, have we done anything illegal?
Ignore what the body of the To Hit Step/Rule might be at the moment, and the broken power which is completely irrelevant to the above question, and provide a simple yes or no answer followed by a brief explanation as to why you answered that way. This is a fundamental question related to how we go about legally obeying a set of instructions, we can not continue the discussion until we come to an agreement on how we go about legally obeying a Rule. Personally, I am of the mindset that simply completing the instructions means that the outcome is 'legal' regardless of what that outcome is.
As for 0 Shots being Fired:
You are the only one claiming that it is not possible in this thread, and it is tempting to point out the history of some of the people you are arguing against but that wouldn't be professional. Evidence has been put forth which shows that the Rules allow for 0 Shots to be Fired in certain situations, not because they are specifically stated as 'legal' but because the interactions simply generate the result of 0 Shots being fired. Even you seem to be backing away from this being somehow 'fictional' with your current requirement that we provide a profile which lists 0 Shots, which feels as if you are narrowing the scope so we can no longer address situations which do not fit your interpretation of the Shooting Sequence.
Should you want to continue to state that 0 Shots being Fired is an impossible outcome, the burden of proof is very much on your shoulders as you need to show we have misapplied out evidence to come to the conclusions we have.... and simply repeating 'Psychic Powers must Roll to Hit' does not address the fact the Rules allow for 0 Fired Shots to be a possible....
At best you have shown that the rules allow for 0 shots to be retro-actively determined as fired by some special rule which swallows the shot that was fired. In order to get to that point you are required to shoot a weapon with a shot on its profile. My point stands that there are no Zero Shot Shooting Attacks. Clearly in the example you have provided there is a shot number on its profile. You are not able to get to the point where zero is a valid choice for a shooting attack profile. Thus you have no argument at this point.
The burden of proof is never on my shoulders. You are the one claiming a strict RAW resolution.
col_impact wrote: The To Wound Roll requires a house rule to continue in the case of resolving successful hits from Psychic Shriek, which is what we were discussing.
It does not require a house rule.
Since there are no successful To Hit rolls with Psychic Shriek, we never roll To Wound.
Then we continue to resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry as the rules tell us to do.
Please indicate exactly how you resolve Psychic Shriek without ever having any successful To Hit rolls.
Witchfire powers MUST roll to hit.
Zero shot shooting attacks are a fiction that you are making up. This is all fine if you are just claiming HYWPI, but this is not RAW.
Because we followed the shooting process and found that we did not have any dice to roll for To Hit rolls, ergo there were no successful To Hit rolls.
Then we resolved the power according to the instructions in its entry.
col_impact wrote: The To Wound Roll requires a house rule to continue in the case of resolving successful hits from Psychic Shriek, which is what we were discussing.
It does not require a house rule.
Since there are no successful To Hit rolls with Psychic Shriek, we never roll To Wound.
Then we continue to resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry as the rules tell us to do.
Please indicate exactly how you resolve Psychic Shriek without ever having any successful To Hit rolls.
Witchfire powers MUST roll to hit.
Zero shot shooting attacks are a fiction that you are making up. This is all fine if you are just claiming HYWPI, but this is not RAW.
Because we followed the shooting process and found that we did not have any dice to roll for To Hit rolls, ergo there were no successful To Hit rolls.
Then we resolved the power according to the instructions in its entry.
"Zero Shot Shooting Attack" is a house rule that you are making up.
Rolling zero dice to satisfy "must roll to hit" is a house rule that you are making up.
You are free to implement house rules to satisfy step 4. Treating Psychic Shriek as a zero shot shooting attack is a house rule.
It's an uphill battle for you to prove zero as a valid choice for a shooting attack. There are no examples anywhere in the rules of a Shooting Attack with zero shots on its profile and it logically implausible for a shooting attack to shoot zero shots and actively shoot.
Col_impact, My objection to your posts have always been the fact you stated a Shooting Sequence which Fires 0 Shots are 'fictional,' when it is clearly an outcome that is possible from certain Rule Interactions. You continue to state that it is not possible, with no Rule quote that specifically prevents 0 Fired Shots from occurring within these interactions....
JinxDragon wrote: Col_impact,
My objection to your posts have always been the fact you stated a Shooting Sequence which Fires 0 Shots was 'fictional,' when it is clearly an outcome that is possible from certain Rule Interactions.
I stated that Zero Shot Shooting Attacks do not exist. Zero is not a valid choice for the number of shots on a shooting attack profile. The burden is on you to prove that it is a valid choice otherwise we stick to valid choices. You are the one claiming a strict RAW resolution for a psychic power that is missing critical info. My argument is simply that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve because we are missing critical info. Don't get confused on who has the burden of proof here.
col_impact wrote: "Zero Shot Shooting Attack" is a house rule that you are making up.
Rolling zero dice to satisfy "must roll to hit" is a house rule that you are making up.
I begin a shooting attack. Let's go over the steps, shall we?
Spoiler:
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.
Step 1 - I nominate the Tac squad.
Step 2 - I choose the Obliterator 25" away from the Tac Squad.
Step 3 - I select a Plasma Cannon
Step 4 - I roll to waitasecond
Spoiler:
Gets Hot and Weapons that do not roll To Hit
Weapons that do not roll To Hit (such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot immediately before firing. On a 2+, the shot is resolved as normal. For each roll of a 1, the weapon Gets Hot; that shot is not fired and the firing model immediately suffers a single Wound (armour saves or invulnerable saves can be taken) – this Wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a Wound caused by the Gets Hot special rule. A vehicle instead suffers a glancing hit on a further roll of a 1, 2 or 3.
Immediately before firing. So that's right now. Awesome! I rolled a 1. Doh. According to the rules, that shot isn't fired. Let's continue on before the break, shall we?
Step 4 - Roll a D6 for each shot fired. I'm firing zero shots. According to your argument, this not only isn't possible, but if it's ever encountered requires a house rule.
This is a Shooting Attack (agreed?) that had zero shots (agreed?). It's not made up. It's not fictional. It's demonstrably possible.
col_impact wrote: "Zero Shot Shooting Attack" is a house rule that you are making up.
Rolling zero dice to satisfy "must roll to hit" is a house rule that you are making up.
I begin a shooting attack. Let's go over the steps, shall we?
Spoiler:
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.
Step 1 - I nominate the Tac squad.
Step 2 - I choose the Obliterator 25" away from the Tac Squad.
Step 3 - I select a Plasma Cannon
Step 4 - I roll to waitasecond
Spoiler:
Gets Hot and Weapons that do not roll To Hit
Weapons that do not roll To Hit (such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot immediately before firing. On a 2+, the shot is resolved as normal. For each roll of a 1, the weapon Gets Hot; that shot is not fired and the firing model immediately suffers a single Wound (armour saves or invulnerable saves can be taken) – this Wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a Wound caused by the Gets Hot special rule. A vehicle instead suffers a glancing hit on a further roll of a 1, 2 or 3.
Immediately before firing. So that's right now. Awesome! I rolled a 1. Doh. According to the rules, that shot isn't fired. Let's continue on before the break, shall we?
Step 4 - Roll a D6 for each shot fired. I'm firing zero shots. According to your argument, this not only isn't possible, but if it's ever encountered requires a house rule.
This is a Shooting Attack (agreed?) that had zero shots (agreed?). It's not made up. It's not fictional. It's demonstrably possible.
How many shots are specified on the Lascannon profile? So it has one shot on its profile, agreed?
You need to prove that zero is a valid choice for a shooting attack profile.
col_impact wrote: "Zero Shot Shooting Attack" is a house rule that you are making up.
Rolling zero dice to satisfy "must roll to hit" is a house rule that you are making up.
I begin a shooting attack. Let's go over the steps, shall we?
Spoiler:
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn. 2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see. 3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot. 4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target. 5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit. 6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved. 7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.
Step 1 - I nominate the Tac squad. Step 2 - I choose the Obliterator 25" away from the Tac Squad. Step 3 - I select a Plasma Cannon Step 4 - I roll to waitasecond
Spoiler:
Gets Hot and Weapons that do not roll To Hit Weapons that do not roll To Hit (such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot immediately before firing. On a 2+, the shot is resolved as normal. For each roll of a 1, the weapon Gets Hot; that shot is not fired and the firing model immediately suffers a single Wound (armour saves or invulnerable saves can be taken) – this Wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a Wound caused by the Gets Hot special rule. A vehicle instead suffers a glancing hit on a further roll of a 1, 2 or 3.
Immediately before firing. So that's right now. Awesome! I rolled a 1. Doh. According to the rules, that shot isn't fired. Let's continue on before the break, shall we? Step 4 - Roll a D6 for each shot fired. I'm firing zero shots. According to your argument, this not only isn't possible, but if it's ever encountered requires a house rule. This is a Shooting Attack (agreed?) that had zero shots (agreed?). It's not made up. It's not fictional. It's demonstrably possible.
How many shots are specified on the Lascannon profile? So it has one shot on its profile, agreed?
I'm discussing a Plasma Cannon. And yes, one shot (for both weapons). That's not relevant, however. You said, and I'll quote you so you know I'm not putting words in your mouth.
col_impact wrote: I stated that Zero Shot Shooting Attacks do not exist
If a Shooting Attack has Zero shots, is that not a Zero shot Shooting Attack? In addition, please elaborate on how the above scenario is resolved, RAW? I assume you require a house rule to move forward (to be consistent with your position on wounds when there are zero hits) but I don't want to put words in your mouth, nor have either of us confused.
edit:
You need to prove that zero is a valid choice for a shooting attack profile.
No. I need to prove that a Zero Shot Shooting Attack isn't a fantasy. Then, once you agree it can exist, I need to prove that zero is a valid number of dice to roll for a shooting attack. Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so proving zero is valid for a profile is irrelevant.
col_impact wrote: "Zero Shot Shooting Attack" is a house rule that you are making up.
Rolling zero dice to satisfy "must roll to hit" is a house rule that you are making up.
I begin a shooting attack. Let's go over the steps, shall we?
Spoiler:
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.
Step 1 - I nominate the Tac squad.
Step 2 - I choose the Obliterator 25" away from the Tac Squad.
Step 3 - I select a Plasma Cannon
Step 4 - I roll to waitasecond
Spoiler:
Gets Hot and Weapons that do not roll To Hit
Weapons that do not roll To Hit (such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot immediately before firing. On a 2+, the shot is resolved as normal. For each roll of a 1, the weapon Gets Hot; that shot is not fired and the firing model immediately suffers a single Wound (armour saves or invulnerable saves can be taken) – this Wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a Wound caused by the Gets Hot special rule. A vehicle instead suffers a glancing hit on a further roll of a 1, 2 or 3.
Immediately before firing. So that's right now. Awesome! I rolled a 1. Doh. According to the rules, that shot isn't fired. Let's continue on before the break, shall we?
Step 4 - Roll a D6 for each shot fired. I'm firing zero shots. According to your argument, this not only isn't possible, but if it's ever encountered requires a house rule.
This is a Shooting Attack (agreed?) that had zero shots (agreed?). It's not made up. It's not fictional. It's demonstrably possible.
How many shots are specified on the Lascannon profile? So it has one shot on its profile, agreed?
I'm discussing a Plasma Cannon. And yes, one shot (for both weapons). That's not relevant, however.
You said, and I'll quote you so you know I'm not putting words in your mouth.
col_impact wrote: I stated that Zero Shot Shooting Attacks do not exist
If a Shooting Attack has Zero shots, is that not a Zero shot Shooting Attack?
In addition, please elaborate on how the above scenario is resolved, RAW? I assume you require a house rule to move forward (to be consistent with your position on wounds when there are zero hits) but I don't want to put words in your mouth, nor have either of us confused.
edit:
You need to prove that zero is a valid choice for a shooting attack profile.
No. I need to prove that a Zero Shot Shooting Attack isn't a fantasy. Then, once you agree it can exist, I need to prove that zero is a valid number of dice to roll for a shooting attack.
Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so proving zero is valid for a profile is irrelevant.
A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.
col_impact wrote: A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.
To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
col_impact wrote: A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.
To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
You are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
col_impact wrote: A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.
To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
You are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
That's not the question I asked. I'll re-ask it, hoping for an answer this time.
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
Again, proving that zero is valid for a profile is irrelevant because, as we both know, Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.
col_impact wrote: A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.
To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
You are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
That's not the question I asked. I'll re-ask it, hoping for an answer this time.
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
Again, proving that zero is valid for a profile is irrelevant because, as we both know, Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.
Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
col_impact wrote: Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
For the sake of argument: Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Please, show the relevance to this discussion - given that we both know Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile. Also, please actually answer my question as it's extremely relevant.
Col_impact, You keep narrowing the scope of your request every time someone presents evidence that Rule interactions can lead to 0 Shots being Fired.... So, even if we did humor you at this point and find something that fits into your thrice narrowed and very specifically defined request, what is stopping you from simply stating that those Rule Interactions also do not count?
At this point in time, simply answer the question being put forth to you: A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct? -Rigeld2
col_impact wrote: Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
For the sake of argument:
Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Please, show the relevance to this discussion - given that we both know Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.
Also, please actually answer my question as it's extremely relevant.
Psychic Shriek is missing a profile.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JinxDragon wrote: Col_impact,
You keep narrowing the scope of your request every time someone presents evidence that Rule interactions can lead to 0 Shots being Fired....
So, even if we did humor you at this point and find something that fits into your thrice narrowed and very specifically defined request, what is stopping you from simply stating that those Rule Interactions also do not count?
At this point in time, simply answer the question being put forth to you:
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct? -Rigeld2
Please clarify what you think the difference is between a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots and a Zero Shot Shooting Attack so that we can be certain to be on the same page. I can't answer that because I do not know for sure how you are differentiating them.
col_impact wrote: Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
For the sake of argument:
Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Please, show the relevance to this discussion - given that we both know Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.
Also, please actually answer my question as it's extremely relevant.
Psychic Shriek is missing a profile.
... correct? We're on the same page?
How is that relevant?
JinxDragon wrote: Col_impact,
You keep narrowing the scope of your request every time someone presents evidence that Rule interactions can lead to 0 Shots being Fired....
So, even if we did humor you at this point and find something that fits into your thrice narrowed and very specifically defined request, what is stopping you from simply stating that those Rule Interactions also do not count?
At this point in time, simply answer the question being put forth to you:
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct? -Rigeld2
Please clarify what you think the difference is between a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots and a Zero Shot Shooting Attack so that we can be certain to be on the same page. I can't answer that because I do not know for sure how you are differentiating them.
There isn't one. You've asserted there's a difference, I just want to make sure I understand exactly what you're saying.
col_impact wrote: Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
For the sake of argument:
Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Please, show the relevance to this discussion - given that we both know Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.
Also, please actually answer my question as it's extremely relevant.
Psychic Shriek is missing a profile.
... correct? We're on the same page?
How is that relevant?
JinxDragon wrote: Col_impact,
You keep narrowing the scope of your request every time someone presents evidence that Rule interactions can lead to 0 Shots being Fired....
So, even if we did humor you at this point and find something that fits into your thrice narrowed and very specifically defined request, what is stopping you from simply stating that those Rule Interactions also do not count?
At this point in time, simply answer the question being put forth to you:
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct? -Rigeld2
Please clarify what you think the difference is between a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots and a Zero Shot Shooting Attack so that we can be certain to be on the same page. I can't answer that because I do not know for sure how you are differentiating them.
There isn't one. You've asserted there's a difference, I just want to make sure I understand exactly what you're saying.
This is what I am saying. Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
col_impact wrote: This is what I am saying. Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
...
No, I'm not required to prove that. At all. I've acknowledged, for the sake of argument, that Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Shooting Attacks don't have profiles - weapons do.
And Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so I don't even know why we're discussing profiles at all.
col_impact wrote: This is what I am saying. Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
...
No, I'm not required to prove that. At all. I've acknowledged, for the sake of argument, that Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Shooting Attacks don't have profiles - weapons do.
And Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so I don't even know why we're discussing profiles at all.
col_impact wrote: This is what I am saying. Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
...
No, I'm not required to prove that. At all. I've acknowledged, for the sake of argument, that Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Shooting Attacks don't have profiles - weapons do.
And Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so I don't even know why we're discussing profiles at all.
col_impact wrote: This is what I am saying. Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
...
No, I'm not required to prove that. At all. I've acknowledged, for the sake of argument, that Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Shooting Attacks don't have profiles - weapons do.
And Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so I don't even know why we're discussing profiles at all.
Psychic Shriek is missing a profile.
Great. Now cite the requirement for one to exist.
You do realize that zero != undefined, right?
If you claim that there is no profile then you will have an undefined number of shots to resolve. The game breaks at step four since you cannot "Roll a D6 for each shot fired" since "each shot" cannot be defined. Not surprisingly rules break on undefined quantities.
You cannot proceed on undefined except by house rule. You cannot roll an undefined number of dice.
If you claim like I do that there is a missing profile then you need to proceed with valid default values for the number of shots in the Psychic Shriek shooting attack. "Zero" is not a valid number for the number of shots on the profile of shooting attacks. Nor is "zero" the unstated default for number of shots. "One" is a valid number for the number of shots of shooting attacks. Moreover there is some definite rules support for taking "one" as the default, and I am sure everyone is aware of those oft quoted places in the BRB. Some support is always better than no support so "one" is taken as the default.
So I start step four by rolling 1 die to hit for Psychic Shriek.
col_impact wrote: This is what I am saying. Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
...
No, I'm not required to prove that. At all. I've acknowledged, for the sake of argument, that Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Shooting Attacks don't have profiles - weapons do.
And Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so I don't even know why we're discussing profiles at all.
Psychic Shriek is missing a profile.
Great. Now cite the requirement for one to exist.
You do realize that zero != undefined, right?
If you claim that there is no profile then you will have an undefined number of shots to resolve. The game breaks at step four since you cannot "Roll a D6 for each shot fired" since "each shot" cannot be defined. Not surprisingly rules break on undefined quantities.
Except they don't. But we've been over this and you haven't cited a rule to support your statement, whereas I've explained it.
If you claim like I do that there is a missing profile then you need to proceed with valid default values for the number of shots in the Psychic Shriek shooting attack.
What default? Something you've invented?
"Zero" is not a valid number for the number of shots on the profile of shooting attacks. Nor is "zero" the unstated default for number of shots. "One" is a valid number for the number of shots of shooting attacks. Moreover there is some definite rules support for taking "one" as the default, and I am sure everyone is aware of those oft quoted places in the BRB. Some support is always better than no support so "one" is taken as the default.
So I start step four by rolling 1 die to hit for Psychic Shriek.
You do realize the significant wording difference between the two underlined sentences, yes?
So, again, since you never did answer the question,
Is a Shooting Attack with zero shots a Zero Shot shooting Attack?
col_impact wrote: This is what I am saying. Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.
...
No, I'm not required to prove that. At all. I've acknowledged, for the sake of argument, that Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Shooting Attacks don't have profiles - weapons do.
And Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so I don't even know why we're discussing profiles at all.
Psychic Shriek is missing a profile.
Great. Now cite the requirement for one to exist.
You do realize that zero != undefined, right?
If you claim that there is no profile then you will have an undefined number of shots to resolve. The game breaks at step four since you cannot "Roll a D6 for each shot fired" since "each shot" cannot be defined. Not surprisingly rules break on undefined quantities.
Except they don't. But we've been over this and you haven't cited a rule to support your statement, whereas I've explained it.
If you claim like I do that there is a missing profile then you need to proceed with valid default values for the number of shots in the Psychic Shriek shooting attack.
What default? Something you've invented?
"Zero" is not a valid number for the number of shots on the profile of shooting attacks. Nor is "zero" the unstated default for number of shots. "One" is a valid number for the number of shots of shooting attacks. Moreover there is some definite rules support for taking "one" as the default, and I am sure everyone is aware of those oft quoted places in the BRB. Some support is always better than no support so "one" is taken as the default.
So I start step four by rolling 1 die to hit for Psychic Shriek.
You do realize the significant wording difference between the two underlined sentences, yes?
So, again, since you never did answer the question,
Is a Shooting Attack with zero shots a Zero Shot shooting Attack?
The rules do break on undefined quantities. If you continue the game by assigning zero to undefined quantities then you have wittingly or unwittingly house ruled the game to continue, by house ruling 0 = undefined. Congrats! You have merely proved my point that Psychic Shriek cannot be resolved without house rule. But we've been over this and you haven't cited a rule to support rolling for an undefined number of dice, whereas I've explained it.
Sorry to rain on your Easter Egg parade but rolling an undefined number of dice doesn't work without house rule. Rules can't be completed with undefined numbers of rolled dice.
DeathReaper wrote: Rules can be completed with undefined numbers of rolled dice.
its called skipping it as it is clearly irrelevant since it is not defined.
Skipping steps that you cannot define is a house rule. There is nothing wrong with this and you can complete the rules. You just can't do it by strict RAW. Congrats! You have just house ruled!
DeathReaper wrote: Rules can be completed with undefined numbers of rolled dice.
its called skipping it as it is clearly irrelevant since it is not defined.
Skipping steps that you cannot define is a house rule. There is nothing wrong with this and you can complete the rules. You just can't do it by strict RAW. Congrats! You have just house ruled!
So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle? do you:
a) skip it as it is unresolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1", to be consistent with your other random, made up value here
or
c) something else?
Yes, this applies directly, as the question is "what do you do with unresolvable actions?" and -1T on a vehicle IS unresolvable, as we have no profile to apply it to.
Your ducking of questions and narrowing of scope is impressive though.
Oh, and zero can be a valid number. An example does not have to make it exist for it to be valid. For example, prior to the Avenger bolt cannon I am not aware of a single 7 shot gun existing. Does that mean that 7 wasnt valid? No, because thats not how definitions work. The definition is that the number of shots will be in the profile. This has no restrictions, so can be *any* number on the real line - possibly imaginary as well. Onus oin you to prove otherwise. Good luck with that
Oh, and your gak that the burden of proof is never on you, as you claim it needs a houserule? Actually that requires you to find a break, and prove the break exists. Asserting ad infinitum that "zero isnt a valid number" isnt proof, its an assertion.
DeathReaper wrote: No it is not a house rule. you skip un-resolvable actions, it is literally the only way the rule-set functions.
Feel free to show in the BRB where you are given permission to skip unresolvable actions. Page? Paragraph?
If you turn to your opponent and say explicitly or act implicitly on the statement "I can't resolve this since it's undefined. I will assign zero to the number of hit rolls and continue" then you are absolutely house ruling. The truth of the matter is that a lot of the rules are held together - and the game manages to continue - by house rules.
However, you guys are claiming to be able to resolve Psychic Shriek by strict RAW, which I have shown again and again you are not able to. It's an uphill battle for you since the rules are missing critical info in the case of Psychic Shriek and the burden of proof is on you to prove that you can resolve Psychic Shriek by strict RAW.
Once you admit to having to rely on house rules to resolve Psychic Shriek then the real fun begins, since my house rule is better than yours. It does not Easter Egg.
DeathReaper wrote: Rules can be completed with undefined numbers of rolled dice.
its called skipping it as it is clearly irrelevant since it is not defined.
Skipping steps that you cannot define is a house rule. There is nothing wrong with this and you can complete the rules. You just can't do it by strict RAW. Congrats! You have just house ruled!
So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle? do you:
a) skip it as it is unresolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1", to be consistent with your other random, made up value here
or
c) something else?
Yes, this applies directly, as the question is "what do you do with unresolvable actions?" and -1T on a vehicle IS unresolvable, as we have no profile to apply it to.
Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.
col_impact wrote: Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.
It's a very relevant question to the topic at hand, and one that has been constantly dodged with skill of a politician.
Also if you're discussing Psychic Shriek, then you're already on a tangential discussion, as this is not what the original post was asking about.
So since we're off topic already, might as well answer the very relevent question.
col_impact wrote: Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.
It's a very relevant question to the topic at hand, and one that has been constantly dodged with skill of a politician.
Also if you're discussing Psychic Shriek, then you're already on a tangential discussion, as this is not what the original post was asking about.
So since we're off topic already, might as well answer the very relevent question.
He can't answer the question without destroying his argument hence why he refuses to answer it like he's refused to clarify his statement that a zero shot shooting attack isn't the same thing as a shootibg attack with zero shots.
me wrote:So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle? do you:
a) skip it as it is unresolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1", to be consistent with your other random, made up value here or c) something else?
Yes, this applies directly, as the question is "what do you do with unresolvable actions?" and -1T on a vehicle IS unresolvable, as we have no profile to apply it to.
Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.
It isnt tangential, as was explained. It is incredibly relevant to this thread, and to the basis on which you are claiming there is a "house rule" in play. Stop dodging and actually answer questions, or we will presume that doing so is prejudicial to your argument and you are thus avoiding answering to save your already flimsy argument.
I assume your day job is politician, or something to do with marketing?
I also note you neatly selectively quoted, to avoid another query - given your claim that shots with 0 are not valid, what proof do you have of this? Prior to the Avenger Bolt Cannon there were no weapons with 7 shots in the game - that I am aware of - so by the same token that meant that 7 was not a valid number.; Except of course that isnt how the actual rules work
So, again, where is your *proof* that 0 is a number that cannot be picked? Page and graph. I'll wait with baited breath as you dodge / selectively quote / alter your scope yet again on this excessively simple topic.
nosferatu1001 wrote: I also note you neatly selectively quoted, to avoid another query - given your claim that shots with 0 are not valid, what proof do you have of this? Prior to the Avenger Bolt Cannon there were no weapons with 7 shots in the game - that I am aware of - so by the same token that meant that 7 was not a valid number.; Except of course that isnt how the actual rules work
Also to add to this point further, when an valid example of a weapon having 0 To Hit dice was given, the requirements where suddenly shifted to exclude Blast and Template.
The Rules do not discriminate in this fashion, in fact they're written with weapon types in mind. It isn't one rule for some, another for others.
There may be no current weapon with Assault 0 in its starting profile, but that doesn't discount the possibility of one being added.
nosferatu1001 wrote: I also note you neatly selectively quoted, to avoid another query - given your claim that shots with 0 are not valid, what proof do you have of this? Prior to the Avenger Bolt Cannon there were no weapons with 7 shots in the game - that I am aware of - so by the same token that meant that 7 was not a valid number.; Except of course that isnt how the actual rules work
Also to add to this point further, when an valid example of a weapon having 0 To Hit dice was given, the requirements where suddenly shifted to exclude Blast and Template.
The Rules do not discriminate in this fashion, in fact they're written with weapon types in mind. It isn't one rule for some, another for others.
There may be no current weapon with Assault 0 in its starting profile, but that doesn't discount the possibility of one being added.
And it doesnt mean that "0" isnt a valid number anyway, as (and I did point this out to col, so they were under no illusions otherwise) the definition of the number of shots makes no reference to a restricted set of numbers. Technically the whole real and imaginary line would be included. Meaning it is up to them to show how 0 is excluded. Just saying "find me an example of a 0" - which we did, and they then excluded to avoid having to accept defeat - doesnt cut it. The burden of proof - that 0 is invalid - is on the person making the claim, once generic proof of *any* number being vaild has been proferred
Or, to put it more succinctly: claiming that 0 shots isnt valid as there is no explicit permission for it is similar to saying rolling dice to-hit on a tuesday isnt valid, as the game has no explicit allowance to roll dice on a tuesday
[/u]Nor is "zero" the unstated default for number of shots. "One" is a valid number for the number of shots of shooting attacks. Moreover there is some definite rules support for taking "one" as the default, and I am sure everyone is aware of those oft quoted places in the BRB. Some support is always better than no support so "one" is taken as the default.
So I start step four by rolling 1 die to hit for Psychic Shriek.
You do realize the significant wording difference between the two underlined sentences, yes? So, again, since you never did answer the question,
Is a Shooting Attack with zero shots a Zero Shot shooting Attack?
The rules do break on undefined quantities. If you continue the game by assigning zero to undefined quantities then you have wittingly or unwittingly house ruled the game to continue, by house ruling 0 = undefined. Congrats! You have merely proved my point that Psychic Shriek cannot be resolved without house rule. But we've been over this and you haven't cited a rule to support rolling for an undefined number of dice, whereas I've explained it.
Sorry to rain on your Easter Egg parade but rolling an undefined number of dice doesn't work without house rule. Rules can't be completed with undefined numbers of rolled dice.
Instead of dodging questions, please answer them. I've bolded them in case you missed them.
I know it was from a earlier addition but the Lash of Submission didn't have a profile and it was FAQ'd so that you had to roll to hit.
The wording of the FAQ from document
m2170006a_Chaos_Space_Marine_FAQ_Version_1_1_January_2012
Q: Is Lash of Submission a Psychic Shooting Attack and
must it roll To Hit? (p88)
A: Yes to both questions. Note that if it misses, it will
have no effect.
I suppose it's specifically for LoS and from an earlier edition, but wouldn't the intention be the same for the witchfire powers in question?
Roll a dice to hit, if you hit, then you determine the outcome of the power, if you miss you don't.
col_impact wrote: Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.
It's a very relevant question to the topic at hand, and one that has been constantly dodged with skill of a politician.
Also if you're discussing Psychic Shriek, then you're already on a tangential discussion, as this is not what the original post was asking about.
So since we're off topic already, might as well answer the very relevent question.
I don't have to answer the tangential question. First it must be shown by the poster of the question that the issue bears directly on the discussion at hand.
The poster must prove for the case of Enfeeble that it is unresolvable and that the rules explicitly support skipping it's resolution. To do that, the poster would have to open up a YMDC thread.
De-railing discussions with tangential discussions is a well-known disruptive argument technique and I will ignore tangential discussions until direct relevance is first proven. That hasn't been done yet.
Psychic shooting attacks worked entirely differently. Also look at one of Stormcallers rules from the previous codex it was a shooting attack that also forced a unit to treat all terrain as dangerous. The treating terrain as dangerous effect was FAQd to work when all shots missed as it was not tied to a hit, so there is FAQ precedent in both directions. Fundamentally Focussed Witchfires in 6th didn't work if you rolled to hit as you had to roll under 5 for the psychic test to choose the target but all characters has precision shots on a 6 which mean the first model would take whatever test was required but wounds from that test would then be allocated by the firer to whoever he wanted. Basically the whole thing became a mess if you try to resolve a single to hit much like this edition with PS.
col_impact wrote: Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.
It's a very relevant question to the topic at hand, and one that has been constantly dodged with skill of a politician.
Also if you're discussing Psychic Shriek, then you're already on a tangential discussion, as this is not what the original post was asking about.
So since we're off topic already, might as well answer the very relevent question.
I don't have to answer the tangential question. First it must be shown by the poster of the question that the issue bears directly on the discussion at hand.
The poster must prove for the case of Enfeeble that it is unresolvable and that the rules explicitly support skipping it's resolution. To do that, the poster would have to open up a YMDC thread.
De-railing discussions with tangential discussions is a well-known disruptive argument technique and I will ignore tangential discussions until direct relevance is first proven. That hasn't been done yet.
De-rail? This thread was never about Psychic Shriek to begin with. It's already de-railed.
And the relevance has been explained. If your position is solid it should be able to stand up to any scrutiny or questioning.
A correct path can deal with tough questions
[/u]Nor is "zero" the unstated default for number of shots. "One" is a valid number for the number of shots of shooting attacks. Moreover there is some definite rules support for taking "one" as the default, and I am sure everyone is aware of those oft quoted places in the BRB. Some support is always better than no support so "one" is taken as the default.
So I start step four by rolling 1 die to hit for Psychic Shriek.
You do realize the significant wording difference between the two underlined sentences, yes? So, again, since you never did answer the question,
Is a Shooting Attack with zero shots a Zero Shot shooting Attack?
The rules do break on undefined quantities. If you continue the game by assigning zero to undefined quantities then you have wittingly or unwittingly house ruled the game to continue, by house ruling 0 = undefined. Congrats! You have merely proved my point that Psychic Shriek cannot be resolved without house rule. But we've been over this and you haven't cited a rule to support rolling for an undefined number of dice, whereas I've explained it.
Sorry to rain on your Easter Egg parade but rolling an undefined number of dice doesn't work without house rule. Rules can't be completed with undefined numbers of rolled dice.
Instead of dodging questions, please answer them. I've bolded them in case you missed them.
I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.
col_impact wrote: Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.
It's a very relevant question to the topic at hand, and one that has been constantly dodged with skill of a politician.
Also if you're discussing Psychic Shriek, then you're already on a tangential discussion, as this is not what the original post was asking about.
So since we're off topic already, might as well answer the very relevent question.
I don't have to answer the tangential question. First it must be shown by the poster of the question that the issue bears directly on the discussion at hand.
The poster must prove for the case of Enfeeble that it is unresolvable and that the rules explicitly support skipping it's resolution. To do that, the poster would have to open up a YMDC thread.
De-railing discussions with tangential discussions is a well-known disruptive argument technique and I will ignore tangential discussions until direct relevance is first proven. That hasn't been done yet.
De-rail? This thread was never about Psychic Shriek to begin with. It's already de-railed.
And the relevance has been explained. If your position is solid it should be able to stand up to any scrutiny or questioning.
A correct path can deal with tough questions
Nope relevance must first be shown. I do not fall for well-known disruptive argument techniques.
col_impact wrote: Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.
It's a very relevant question to the topic at hand, and one that has been constantly dodged with skill of a politician.
Also if you're discussing Psychic Shriek, then you're already on a tangential discussion, as this is not what the original post was asking about.
So since we're off topic already, might as well answer the very relevent question.
I don't have to answer the tangential question. First it must be shown by the poster of the question that the issue bears directly on the discussion at hand.
The poster must prove for the case of Enfeeble that it is unresolvable and that the rules explicitly support skipping it's resolution. To do that, the poster would have to open up a YMDC thread.
De-railing discussions with tangential discussions is a well-known disruptive argument technique and I will ignore tangential discussions until direct relevance is first proven. That hasn't been done yet.
So you really expect us to create a new thread were we discuss your interpretation of Enfeeble? Which you won't tell us? Genius.
The relevance of the question has been demonstrated. The relevance of other peoples interpretation of how to resolve Enfeeble has not. Only your interpretation matters here, we all know how we interpret that and how everyone plays it. Refusing to answer questions is a lame tactic that has no place on YMDC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.
He doesn't see the things as 2 different things. He can't differentiate between them as he believes they are the same. You are the one claiming they are different he asking you to clarify that is what you actually meant.
Drager wrote: Whilst I agree with col_impact I'll answer one of the tangential questions, mostly to illustrate why its irrelevant.
So in answer to how do you deal with applying -1 toughness to a unit with no toughness:
Game breaks, house rule needed. In this case I and many others house rule no effect.
Cool so why are you ruling a missing profile means no effect for Enfeeble but not for the roll to hit for Psychic Shriek? Why are you not setting the Vehicle to T1 like you are for the PS roll to hit?
What you quoted tells us that we must Roll To Hit, which I do agree is what the Rule states, but that doesn't tell us what a 'To Hit' is or how we go about Rolling it. Those instructions are found in a Rule called 'To Hit' and they inform us how we go about successfully resolving this Step of the sequence. Those instructions inform us that Rolling a dice will be part of the process, so the terminology 'Roll To Hit' directly relates to the process within the To Hit Step itself. So, as long as we can obey the actual instructions within the To Hit process, we have successfully rolled To Hit.
Spoiler:
a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit automatically.
You are getting confused by the language being used here, which can be sorted out by paying attention to the use of CAPITALIZATION.
"To Hit" refers to an explicitly named die roll and not to a step. Notice how roll is not capitalized and To Hit is capitalized. Obviously roll is acting as verb in the sentence. And obviously you cannot "roll" a step. The step itself in the shooting sequence or the full rule is called "Roll To Hit" and note the use of capitalization. "To Hit" refers to explicitly named die rolls and that is how it makes sense that we 'must roll To Hit (die roll).'
For example here is how To Hit rolls are being implemented in the rules. Notice how it is referred to as a "To Hit roll"
Spoiler:
To Hit rolls are easy to remember if you just subtract the Ballistic Skill of the firing model from 7. This will give you the number you need; e.g. a model with BS 2 needs to roll a 5 or more (7-2=5).
At any case we are being told we must roll a To Hit die roll. Simply marching through the Roll To Hit step is not enough. We must roll a To Hit roll. We are not being instructed to merely "abide by the instructions of the Roll To Hit" step.
If you feel the need to reply, please pay careful attention to CAPITALIZATION. Your incorrect use of capitalization in your quote above betrays your confusion between named steps and named die rolls. And feel free to elaborate on how you claim you can 'roll a step' or 'roll a process' and violate basic English semantics. The use of "roll" as a verb in the sentence is critical to take note of here, obviously.
Drager wrote: Whilst I agree with col_impact I'll answer one of the tangential questions, mostly to illustrate why its irrelevant.
So in answer to how do you deal with applying -1 toughness to a unit with no toughness:
Game breaks, house rule needed. In this case I and many others house rule no effect.
Cool so why are you ruling a missing profile means no effect for Enfeeble but not for the roll to hit for Psychic Shriek? Why are you not setting the Vehicle to T1 like you are for the PS roll to hit?
Do you realize that if you admit to using house rules in both cases you actually support my argument that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve? Thank you for supporting my argument!
Do you realize that if you admit to using house rules in both cases you actually prove my point that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve? Thank you for supporting my argument!
I'm aware of that and I didn't state that you need a houserule to deal with both. I've never come across anyone who feels a house rule is needed to fix Enfeeble except when they are arguing that a House rule is needed to fix PS and so invested in breaking the game, so they can claim their made up rules are the best HYWPI, that they'll have to agree pretty much nothing in the game works. As so much leaves unresolvable actions that everyone plays do nothing except for the PS roll to hit where suddenly people feel you have to make up rules and numbers and then try to make those numbers mean something.
I'm guessing you're going to continue to refuse to answer the questions that have destroyed argument. So here's a question why are you posting still? By refusing to answer relevant questions you've admitted that you know your argument has no basis so why still persist? What are you doing for?
Do you realize that if you admit to using house rules in both cases you actually prove my point that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve? Thank you for supporting my argument!
I'm aware of that and I didn't state that you need a houserule to deal with both. I've never come across anyone who feels a house rule is needed to fix Enfeeble except when they are arguing that a House rule is needed to fix PS and so invested in breaking the game, so they can claim their made up rules are the best HYWPI, that they'll have to agree pretty much nothing in the game works. As so much leaves unresolvable actions that everyone plays do nothing except for the PS roll to hit where suddenly people feel you have to make up rules and numbers and then try to make those numbers mean something.
I'm guessing you're going to continue to refuse to answer the questions that have destroyed argument. So here's a question why are you posting still? By refusing to answer relevant questions you've admitted that you know your argument has no basis so why still persist? What are you doing for?
The burden is on you to show how the Enfeeble case is relevant. Make your own argument about Enfeeble and directly relate it to the discussion at hand. Do your homework. I don't have to do your work for you.
Do you realize that if you admit to using house rules in both cases you actually prove my point that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve? Thank you for supporting my argument!
I'm aware of that and I didn't state that you need a houserule to deal with both. I've never come across anyone who feels a house rule is needed to fix Enfeeble except when they are arguing that a House rule is needed to fix PS and so invested in breaking the game, so they can claim their made up rules are the best HYWPI, that they'll have to agree pretty much nothing in the game works. As so much leaves unresolvable actions that everyone plays do nothing except for the PS roll to hit where suddenly people feel you have to make up rules and numbers and then try to make those numbers mean something.
I'm guessing you're going to continue to refuse to answer the questions that have destroyed argument. So here's a question why are you posting still? By refusing to answer relevant questions you've admitted that you know your argument has no basis so why still persist? What are you doing for?
The burden is on you to show how the Enfeeble case is relevant. Make your own argument about Enfeeble and directly relate it to the discussion at hand. Do your homework. I don't have to do your work for you.
it is relevant because enfeeble has a situation where we do not know how to apply something. Same goes for PS and how many dice to roll. (Look at that, I just have shown how the Enfeeble case is relevant.)
How do you apply a -1T to a vehicle that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score?
Same as How do you roll To Hit with PS when the number of shots is undefined (AKA Does not have a profile)?
So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle (that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score) do you:
a) skip it as it is unresolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1", to be consistent with your other random, made up value here or c) something else?
Do you realize that if you admit to using house rules in both cases you actually prove my point that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve? Thank you for supporting my argument!
I'm aware of that and I didn't state that you need a houserule to deal with both. I've never come across anyone who feels a house rule is needed to fix Enfeeble except when they are arguing that a House rule is needed to fix PS and so invested in breaking the game, so they can claim their made up rules are the best HYWPI, that they'll have to agree pretty much nothing in the game works. As so much leaves unresolvable actions that everyone plays do nothing except for the PS roll to hit where suddenly people feel you have to make up rules and numbers and then try to make those numbers mean something.
I'm guessing you're going to continue to refuse to answer the questions that have destroyed argument. So here's a question why are you posting still? By refusing to answer relevant questions you've admitted that you know your argument has no basis so why still persist? What are you doing for?
The burden is on you to show how the Enfeeble case is relevant. Make your own argument about Enfeeble and directly relate it to the discussion at hand. Do your homework. I don't have to do your work for you.
it is relevant because enfeeble has a situation where we do not know how to apply something. Same goes for PS and how many dice to roll. (Look at that, I just have shown how the Enfeeble case is relevant.)
How do you apply a -1T to a vehicle that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score?
Same as How do you roll To Hit with PS when the number of shots is undefined (AKA Does not have a profile)?
So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle (that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score) do you:
a) skip it as it is unresolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1", to be consistent with your other random, made up value here
or
c) something else?
So are you doing a house rule or not in the case of Enfeeble? As you say that you do not know how to apply something by following the rules, are you coming up with your own way of resolving Enfeeble by implementing a house rule? Yes or No. The burden is on you to clarify your argument about Enfeeble fully and then show direct relevance to the discussion at hand.
col_impact wrote: I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.
To remind you of the conversation (apparently you've forgotten?):
col_impact wrote: A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.
To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
As you said, a Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile.
And a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is, for example, a Plasma Cannon that Gets Hot.
And you're asserting there's a difference. That can be proven with actual rules instead of assumptions.
col_impact wrote: So are you doing a house rule or not in the case of Enfeeble?
What do you mean? I simply asked a question that was unanswered.
As you say that you do not know how to apply something by following the rules, are you coming up with your own way of resolving Enfeeble by implementing a house rule? Yes or No.
I never mentioned applying a house rule did I?
The burden is on you to clarify your argument about Enfeeble fully and then show direct relevance to the discussion at hand.
I have clarified it.
Both situations have un-resolvable actions.
So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle (that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score) do you:
a) skip it as it is un-resolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1", to be consistent with your other random, made up value here
or
c) something else?
col_impact wrote: I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.
To remind you of the conversation (apparently you've forgotten?):
col_impact wrote: A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.
To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
As you said, a Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile.
And a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is, for example, a Plasma Cannon that Gets Hot.
And you're asserting there's a difference. That can be proven with actual rules instead of assumptions.
Is that correct?
Please clarify further whether you think Gets Hot modifies the underlying profile of a shooting attack (to change Assault 1 to Assault 0 for example) or merely just acts retroactively on a particular shot in the Roll To Hit step.
col_impact wrote: So are you doing a house rule or not in the case of Enfeeble?
What do you mean? I simply asked a question that was unanswered.
As you say that you do not know how to apply something by following the rules, are you coming up with your own way of resolving Enfeeble by implementing a house rule? Yes or No.
I never mentioned applying a house rule did I?
The burden is on you to clarify your argument about Enfeeble fully and then show direct relevance to the discussion at hand.
I have clarified it.
Both situations have un-resolvable actions.
So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle (that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score) do you:
a) skip it as it is un-resolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1", to be consistent with your other random, made up value here
or
c) something else?
I would like to know what you think the RAW say.
You need to clarify how you resolve it and whether or not you use a house rule (ie a procedure that you make up that is not in the rules) to do so.
col_impact wrote: I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.
To remind you of the conversation (apparently you've forgotten?):
col_impact wrote: A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.
To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
As you said, a Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile.
And a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is, for example, a Plasma Cannon that Gets Hot.
And you're asserting there's a difference. That can be proven with actual rules instead of assumptions.
Is that correct?
Please clarify further whether you think Gets Hot modifies the underlying profile of a shooting attack (to change Assault 1 to Assault 0 for example) or merely just acts retroactively on a particular shot in the Roll To Hit step.
No, it doesn't change the profile.
Feel free to answer the question adding your own clarification/caveats instead of continuing to dodge.
col_impact wrote: I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.
To remind you of the conversation (apparently you've forgotten?):
col_impact wrote: A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.
To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
As you said, a Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile.
And a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is, for example, a Plasma Cannon that Gets Hot.
And you're asserting there's a difference. That can be proven with actual rules instead of assumptions.
Is that correct?
Please clarify further whether you think Gets Hot modifies the underlying profile of a shooting attack (to change Assault 1 to Assault 0 for example) or merely just acts retroactively on a particular shot in the Roll To Hit step.
No, it doesn't change the profile.
Feel free to answer the question adding your own clarification/caveats instead of continuing to dodge.
Haven't you just answered your own question? If Gets Hot doesn't modify the profile and only swallows shots retroactively and conditionally, then there is a difference between
Shooting Attack Assault 0 and Shooting Attack Assault 1, Gets Hot
col_impact wrote: I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.
To remind you of the conversation (apparently you've forgotten?):
col_impact wrote: A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.
To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
As you said, a Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile.
And a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is, for example, a Plasma Cannon that Gets Hot.
And you're asserting there's a difference. That can be proven with actual rules instead of assumptions.
Is that correct?
Please clarify further whether you think Gets Hot modifies the underlying profile of a shooting attack (to change Assault 1 to Assault 0 for example) or merely just acts retroactively on a particular shot in the Roll To Hit step.
No, it doesn't change the profile.
Feel free to answer the question adding your own clarification/caveats instead of continuing to dodge.
Haven't you just answered your own question? If Gets Hot doesn't modify the profile and only swallows shots retroactively and conditionally, then there is a difference between
Shooting Attack Assault 0 and Shooting Attack Assault 1, Gets Hot
That's not the question I asked. Since the question is in the quote I'll not repeat it, just ask you to reread what has actually been said.
col_impact wrote: I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.
To remind you of the conversation (apparently you've forgotten?):
col_impact wrote: A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.
To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
As you said, a Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile.
And a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is, for example, a Plasma Cannon that Gets Hot.
And you're asserting there's a difference. That can be proven with actual rules instead of assumptions.
Is that correct?
Please clarify further whether you think Gets Hot modifies the underlying profile of a shooting attack (to change Assault 1 to Assault 0 for example) or merely just acts retroactively on a particular shot in the Roll To Hit step.
No, it doesn't change the profile.
Feel free to answer the question adding your own clarification/caveats instead of continuing to dodge.
Haven't you just answered your own question? If Gets Hot doesn't modify the profile and only swallows shots retroactively and conditionally, then there is a difference between
Shooting Attack Assault 0 and Shooting Attack Assault 1, Gets Hot
That's not the question I asked. Since the question is in the quote I'll not repeat it, just ask you to reread what has actually been said.
And you answered your own question. You gave examples for each usage and indicated clearly how the two are being differentiated. You are asserting there's a difference, is that correct?
col_impact wrote: I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.
To remind you of the conversation (apparently you've forgotten?):
col_impact wrote: A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.
To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
As you said, a Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile.
And a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is, for example, a Plasma Cannon that Gets Hot.
And you're asserting there's a difference. That can be proven with actual rules instead of assumptions.
Is that correct?
Please clarify further whether you think Gets Hot modifies the underlying profile of a shooting attack (to change Assault 1 to Assault 0 for example) or merely just acts retroactively on a particular shot in the Roll To Hit step.
No, it doesn't change the profile.
Feel free to answer the question adding your own clarification/caveats instead of continuing to dodge.
Haven't you just answered your own question? If Gets Hot doesn't modify the profile and only swallows shots retroactively and conditionally, then there is a difference between
Shooting Attack Assault 0 and Shooting Attack Assault 1, Gets Hot
That's not the question I asked. Since the question is in the quote I'll not repeat it, just ask you to reread what has actually been said.
And you answered your own question. You gave examples for each usage and indicated clearly how the two are being differentiated. You are asserting there's a difference, is that correct?
I'm asserting there's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You (apparently) disagree.
I've demonstrated a difference.
I'm asserting there's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You (apparently) disagree.
I've demonstrated a difference.
If you have demonstrated a difference then how can you assert there is no difference?
nosferatu1001 wrote: I also note you neatly selectively quoted, to avoid another query - given your claim that shots with 0 are not valid, what proof do you have of this? Prior to the Avenger Bolt Cannon there were no weapons with 7 shots in the game - that I am aware of - so by the same token that meant that 7 was not a valid number.; Except of course that isnt how the actual rules work
Also to add to this point further, when an valid example of a weapon having 0 To Hit dice was given, the requirements where suddenly shifted to exclude Blast and Template.
The Rules do not discriminate in this fashion, in fact they're written with weapon types in mind. It isn't one rule for some, another for others.
There may be no current weapon with Assault 0 in its starting profile, but that doesn't discount the possibility of one being added.
And it doesnt mean that "0" isnt a valid number anyway, as (and I did point this out to col, so they were under no illusions otherwise) the definition of the number of shots makes no reference to a restricted set of numbers. Technically the whole real and imaginary line would be included. Meaning it is up to them to show how 0 is excluded. Just saying "find me an example of a 0" - which we did, and they then excluded to avoid having to accept defeat - doesnt cut it. The burden of proof - that 0 is invalid - is on the person making the claim, once generic proof of *any* number being vaild has been proferred
Or, to put it more succinctly: claiming that 0 shots isnt valid as there is no explicit permission for it is similar to saying rolling dice to-hit on a tuesday isnt valid, as the game has no explicit allowance to roll dice on a tuesday
Its a nonsense. one of many.
There is nothing wrong with assigning zero to the number of shots for Psychic Shriek. However, you are using a house rule to do so. There is no justification in the rules for zero as a valid choice or as a default choice. Zero shots never shows up on a shooting attack profile. If you claim strict RAW then the rules need to make the decision for you. There is some justification in the rules for seeing "one" as the default number of shots and no justification for seeing "zero" as the default number. For strict RAW to work without house rule the answer to how many shots does Psychic Shriek have literally has to come out of the pages of the BRB or be directly justified by the BRB. You don't have permission to freely choose and assign your own number of shots to Psychic Shriek (unless you want to admit to house ruling of course).
Like I said, I don't have a problem if you want to use house rules. My argument is that you cannot resolve Psychic Shriek without resorting to house rule (ie places where you patch in self-created allowances that you are making up for the rules to resolve).
If we all agree that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve then the real fun can begin of sorting out who has the best house rule. If you don't agree then the burden is on you to delineate a complete strict RAW resolution of Psychic Shriek. If you can do so, you effectively invalidate my argument.
Genius so your argument is now dependent on a Zero Shot Shooting Attack being different to a shooting attack with zero shots. Did that even make sense when you wrote it? Seriously col_impact this is just getting ludicrous now.
Col_impact, I'm curious here, why is it, everyone someone asks you about your opinion, you either all them to clarify their opinion, claim irrelevancy, or ask the questioner what his opinion?
I'm asserting there's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You (apparently) disagree.
I've demonstrated a difference.
If you have demonstrated a difference then how can you assert there is no difference?
Sorry, I mis-spoke.
There's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots.
The difference I've demonstrated is between profiles, not between shooting attacks. Either way, it's a Zero Shot Shooting Attack.
In addition, Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so any argument related to a profile is absolutely irrelevant.
Happyjew wrote: Col_impact, I'm curious here, why is it, everyone someone asks you about your opinion, you either all them to clarify their opinion, claim irrelevancy, or ask the questioner what his opinion?
It's called deflection it is a common tactic used in an argument when you know you've lost. Effectively it is the same as conceding but without actually conceding and instead trying to make the argument go in circles by refusing to answer the direct questions. Like he did with zero shot shooting attack.
Happyjew wrote: Col_impact, I'm curious here, why is it, everyone someone asks you about your opinion, you either all them to clarify their opinion, claim irrelevancy, or ask the questioner what his opinion?
Because the burden of proof in this discussion rests on those that would claim to have a strict RAW argument in the case of Psychic Shriek. Those who would claim strict RAW need to fully delineate their arguments and indicate clearly how they overcome all the hurdles and their arguments need to hold up to scrutiny and prove justification in the rules.
The people who are constantly sending questions my way are trying to blur that and hide that they are the ones that have the burden of proof. My argument is that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve. This is an easy argument to make since we are missing a profile and critical info on how to resolve some steps. All the opposing side needs to do is present a strict RAW for resolving Psychic Shriek that holds up to scrutiny and my argument is countered. However no one has been able to do so.
De-railing discussions with tangential matters is a well-known disruptive argument technique and I will continue to ignore or reflect back on the asker until relevance to the discussion is fully clarified.
a shooting attack with zero shots is an automatic miss.
Note that the minimum roll needed To Hit is always at least 2.
if you "roll zero dice" did you roll a 2+? no? You missed. you now stop at step 4 as you have failed and move onto the next weapon/attack from that unit, or a new unit.
further rolling 0d6 is not rolling dice, as there are no dice rolled on a 0d6.
0d6 is made up nonsense that some people have used to falsely validate their HYWPI argument. It has 0 RAW support as there is nothing anywhere that tells you to roll 0d6, or that rolling no dice is rolling dice. rolling 0d6 is rolling no dice, is not rolling dice. if you are required to roll to hit you are rolling dice, therefore the number is not 0 dice.
additionally there is still 0 RAW support that you are allowed to resolve the effect of an attack that requires a to hit roll, on a miss. Page and graph if you have it.
otherwise we are just discussing some peoples easter egg hunting HYWPI.
additionally there is still 0 RAW support that you are allowed to resolve the effect of an attack that requires a to hit roll, on a miss. Page and graph if you have it.
You keep saying this despite knowing it not to be true. Why do you keep saying stuff you know is not true? If your argument is dependent on stuff you know not to be true why keep making? The arguing tactics you and col are using just illustrates that neither believe in what you've stated so why keep arguing? I just don't get it? Please explain why you keep going when you know your argument is based on stuff that isn't true?
Happyjew wrote: Col_impact, I'm curious here, why is it, everyone someone asks you about your opinion, you either all them to clarify their opinion, claim irrelevancy, or ask the questioner what his opinion?
It's called deflection it is a common tactic used in an argument when you know you've lost. Effectively it is the same as conceding but without actually conceding and instead trying to make the argument go in circles by refusing to answer the direct questions. Like he did with zero shot shooting attack.
This sure sounds like you are in violation of a rule that the Mods specifically pointed out for this thread.
additionally there is still 0 RAW support that you are allowed to resolve the effect of an attack that requires a to hit roll, on a miss. Page and graph if you have it.
You keep saying this despite knowing it not to be true. Why do you keep saying stuff you know is not true? If your argument is dependent on stuff you know not to be true why keep making? The arguing tactics you and col are using just illustrates that neither believe in what you've stated so why keep arguing? I just don't get it? Please explain why you keep going when you know your argument is based on stuff that isn't true?
This also sounds like a it's in violation of the same rule set forth by the Mods for this thread
So I can't ask someone why they stated something that is untrue when I have already explained to that the statement does not hold and he could not argue against the stated facts.
Correct. By tenent 1 you should not ever make a statement without backing it up.
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up. - You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.
This goes for all of us. There should never be a post with a single line in it. You actually need to spell out what you are saying and back it with rules.
I'm asserting there's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You (apparently) disagree.
I've demonstrated a difference.
If you have demonstrated a difference then how can you assert there is no difference?
Sorry, I mis-spoke.
There's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots.
The difference I've demonstrated is between profiles, not between shooting attacks. Either way, it's a Zero Shot Shooting Attack.
In addition, Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so any argument related to a profile is absolutely irrelevant.
Now I am confused. You provided examples for each term that could be easily differentiated.
additionally there is still 0 RAW support that you are allowed to resolve the effect of an attack that requires a to hit roll, on a miss. Page and graph if you have it.
You keep saying this despite knowing it not to be true. Why do you keep saying stuff you know is not true? If your argument is dependent on stuff you know not to be true why keep making? The arguing tactics you and col are using just illustrates that neither believe in what you've stated so why keep arguing? I just don't get it? Please explain why you keep going when you know your argument is based on stuff that isn't true?
is this a serious response?
I know its not true?
this is true, if you miss an attack unless something in the entry for the attack/weapon tells you there is an effect on a miss, there is no effect.
can you actually supply a quote for this thing which "I know is true", since you seem to know what I know about your made up rules that are not actually anywhere in the game.
If he offered a rebuff to my argument that would be different. Instead he simply stated something he knew for a fact wasn't true. So I asked him why.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You want the requote for the rules? Page 24 step 5 and page 26 1st paragraph second column. Answer these two questions:
1) is the quote provided general permission to resolve the power?
2) does it state that permission is dependent on a successful to hit roll? Or indeed on the result of a to hit roll at all?
FlingitNow wrote: If he offered a rebuff to my argument that would be different. Instead he simply stated something he knew for a fact wasn't true. So I asked him why.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You want the requote for the rules? Page 24 step 5 and page 26 1st paragraph second column. Answer these two questions:
1) is the quote provided general permission to resolve the power?
2) does it state that permission is dependent on a successful to hit roll? Or indeed on the result of a to hit roll at all?
resolving the power per its entry is resolving it as a witchfire, which is resolving it as a shooting attack.
no shooting attack has permission to have an effect past failing to hit on step 4, unless the specific attack/weapon lists so in its entry.
at the point you have rolled to hit, if you miss, the attack has been resolved as a miss.
permission for something to happen on a miss in the entry for psychic shriek? no.
FlingitNow wrote: If he offered a rebuff to my argument that would be different. Instead he simply stated something he knew for a fact wasn't true. So I asked him why.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You want the requote for the rules? Page 24 step 5 and page 26 1st paragraph second column. Answer these two questions:
1) is the quote provided general permission to resolve the power?
2) does it state that permission is dependent on a successful to hit roll? Or indeed on the result of a to hit roll at all?
Spoiler:
a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically.
You need to satisfy this without resorting to house rule or anything that can't be justified directly by the rules.
FlingitNow wrote: If he offered a rebuff to my argument that would be different. Instead he simply stated something he knew for a fact wasn't true. So I asked him why.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You want the requote for the rules? Page 24 step 5 and page 26 1st paragraph second column. Answer these two questions:
1) is the quote provided general permission to resolve the power?
2) does it state that permission is dependent on a successful to hit roll? Or indeed on the result of a to hit roll at all?
Spoiler:
a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically.
You need to satisfy this without resorting to house rule or anything that can't be justified directly by the rules.
Nice try but that is entirely irrelevant to the point I'm discussing for what the forth time with blaktoof. I've not talked about the resolution of the to hit roll we're discussing if you have permission to resolve the power on a miss. I've proven there is general permission to resolve nlaktoof has the choice to disagree with the rulebook or accept that general permission exists.
FlingitNow wrote: If he offered a rebuff to my argument that would be different. Instead he simply stated something he knew for a fact wasn't true. So I asked him why.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You want the requote for the rules? Page 24 step 5 and page 26 1st paragraph second column. Answer these two questions:
1) is the quote provided general permission to resolve the power?
2) does it state that permission is dependent on a successful to hit roll? Or indeed on the result of a to hit roll at all?
Spoiler:
a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically.
You need to satisfy this without resorting to house rule or anything that can't be justified directly by the rules.
Nice try but that is entirely irrelevant to the point I'm discussing for what the forth time with blaktoof. I've not talked about the resolution of the to hit roll we're discussing if you have permission to resolve the power on a miss. I've proven there is general permission to resolve nlaktoof has the choice to disagree with the rulebook or accept that general permission exists.
You don't even get to that point. Psychic Shriek winds up being unresolvable per strict RAW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Unless you are claiming his statement is true. Or discussing the validity of his statement whatever you state is irrelevant because what we are discussing is the validity of his statement that Psychic Shriek has no permission to resolve if you roll a miss.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Unless you are claiming his statement is true. Or discussing the validity of his statement whatever you state is irrelevant because what we are discussing is the validity of his statement that Psychic Shriek has no permission to resolve if you roll a miss.
If you resort to house rule to get to that point (which you have to since Psychic Shriek cannot resolve per strict RAW) then it can matter which house rule you implemented to get Psychic Shriek to resolve.
So you need to delineate a full argument and not just an argument in piecemeal.
blaktoof wrote: a shooting attack with zero shots is an automatic miss.
Note that the minimum roll needed To Hit is always at least 2.
The quoted rule does not say what your assertion does.
In addition, you've failed to tie the resolution of Psychic Shriek's "roll 3d6" section to a hit on a shooting attack.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Unless you are claiming his statement is true. Or discussing the validity of his statement whatever you state is irrelevant because what we are discussing is the validity of his statement that Psychic Shriek has no permission to resolve if you roll a miss.
If you resort to house rule to get to that point (which you have to since Psychic Shriek cannot resolve per strict RAW) then it can matter which house rule you implemented to get Psychic Shriek to resolve.
So you need to delineate a full argument and not just an argument in piecemeal.
I'm asserting there's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You (apparently) disagree.
I've demonstrated a difference.
If you have demonstrated a difference then how can you assert there is no difference?
Sorry, I mis-spoke.
There's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots.
The difference I've demonstrated is between profiles, not between shooting attacks. Either way, it's a Zero Shot Shooting Attack.
In addition, Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so any argument related to a profile is absolutely irrelevant.
Now I am confused. You provided examples for each term that could be easily differentiated.
No. I haven't.
I've shown an example of a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You said
col_impact wrote: Feel free to prove the existence of a zero shot shooting attack. I've combed the BRB and have found no profiles with Assault 0 on them or anything along those lines. The burden of proof is on you.
I've shown that a Shooting Attack can have Zero Shots, regardless of the number of shots on a profile.
You've also failed, at literally every point, to show an understanding that arguments that rely on a profile, or rely on "proving something must exist on a profile" are absolutely irrelevant because - and you've acknowledged this so I know you know it - Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.
You've equated Number of shots on a profile with number of shots in a shooting attack (and your arguments rely on that). I've shown that's a false equivalence by demonstrating that a Blast weapon that Gets Hot may have a number of shots in its profile, but is involved in a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. You also asserted
col_impact wrote: The Blast rules offer an alternate sideways path through the Shooting Sequence that is instead of a To Hit Roll. We are not resolving To Hit Rolls per normal Shooting Sequence. It normally re-integrates back with the Shooting Sequence at the To Wound Roll "once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out."
The Gets Hot rule is a sub routine that is invoked on a roll of one that is cast immediately before firing. Per special exception granted by that rule, the shot resolves as a registered miss/non-fire/self-wound.
Both Blast and Gets Hot are rules providing specific exceptions.
Please, show me in the Gets Hot rule - spoilered below - what exceptions are made aside from the removal of a shot. You've asserted that the entire shooting attack sequence must be followed and that a shooting attack with zero shots cannot follow the entire shooting attack sequence.
Spoiler:
Gets Hot and Weapons that do not roll To Hit
Weapons that do not roll To Hit (such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot immediately before firing. On a 2+, the shot is resolved as normal. For each roll of a 1, the weapon Gets Hot; that shot is not fired and the firing model immediately ...
Happyjew wrote: col_impact - Would you say that once you start the shooting sequence, you must complete all steps, and cannot skip any steps?
Spoiler:
THE SHOOTING PHASE
As armies engage, guns thunder and shrapnel rains down from the sky. In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, a player’s army fires in the Shooting phase of his turn. During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.
The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.
So to sum up, you've asserted that it is a, quote, logical implausibility, unquote, to have a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You've also asserted that the entire shooting sequence must be followed and that if you cannot follow any individual step that the rules break and require house rules. You've asserted that there's a difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots, and declined to elaborate on what that difference is. You've demonstrated an inability to keep your argument away from rules that apply to profiles (in other words, rules which don't apply to Psychic Shriek).
I'm asserting there's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You (apparently) disagree.
I've demonstrated a difference.
If you have demonstrated a difference then how can you assert there is no difference?
Sorry, I mis-spoke.
There's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots.
The difference I've demonstrated is between profiles, not between shooting attacks. Either way, it's a Zero Shot Shooting Attack.
In addition, Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so any argument related to a profile is absolutely irrelevant.
Now I am confused. You provided examples for each term that could be easily differentiated.
No. I haven't.
I've shown an example of a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You said
col_impact wrote: Feel free to prove the existence of a zero shot shooting attack. I've combed the BRB and have found no profiles with Assault 0 on them or anything along those lines. The burden of proof is on you.
I've shown that a Shooting Attack can have Zero Shots, regardless of the number of shots on a profile.
You've also failed, at literally every point, to show an understanding that arguments that rely on a profile, or rely on "proving something must exist on a profile" are absolutely irrelevant because - and you've acknowledged this so I know you know it - Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.
You've equated Number of shots on a profile with number of shots in a shooting attack (and your arguments rely on that). I've shown that's a false equivalence by demonstrating that a Blast weapon that Gets Hot may have a number of shots in its profile, but is involved in a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. You also asserted
col_impact wrote: The Blast rules offer an alternate sideways path through the Shooting Sequence that is instead of a To Hit Roll. We are not resolving To Hit Rolls per normal Shooting Sequence. It normally re-integrates back with the Shooting Sequence at the To Wound Roll "once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out."
The Gets Hot rule is a sub routine that is invoked on a roll of one that is cast immediately before firing. Per special exception granted by that rule, the shot resolves as a registered miss/non-fire/self-wound.
Both Blast and Gets Hot are rules providing specific exceptions.
Please, show me in the Gets Hot rule - spoilered below - what exceptions are made aside from the removal of a shot. You've asserted that the entire shooting attack sequence must be followed and that a shooting attack with zero shots cannot follow the entire shooting attack sequence.
Spoiler:
Gets Hot and Weapons that do not roll To Hit
Weapons that do not roll To Hit (such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot immediately before firing. On a 2+, the shot is resolved as normal. For each roll of a 1, the weapon Gets Hot; that shot is not fired and the firing model immediately ...
Happyjew wrote: col_impact - Would you say that once you start the shooting sequence, you must complete all steps, and cannot skip any steps?
Spoiler:
THE SHOOTING PHASE
As armies engage, guns thunder and shrapnel rains down from the sky. In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, a player’s army fires in the Shooting phase of his turn. During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.
The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.
So to sum up, you've asserted that it is a, quote, logical implausibility, unquote, to have a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You've also asserted that the entire shooting sequence must be followed and that if you cannot follow any individual step that the rules break and require house rules. You've asserted that there's a difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots, and declined to elaborate on what that difference is. You've demonstrated an inability to keep your argument away from rules that apply to profiles (in other words, rules which don't apply to Psychic Shriek).
If you claim that there is no profile then you will have an undefined number of shots to resolve. The game breaks at step four since you cannot "Roll a D6 for each shot fired" since "each shot" cannot be defined. Not surprisingly rules break on undefined quantities.
You cannot proceed on undefined except by house rule. You cannot roll an undefined number of dice. If you assign some number like 0 to represent undefined then you are doing so on the authority of house rule, not RAW
If you claim like I do that there is a missing profile then you need to proceed with valid default values for the number of shots in the Psychic Shriek shooting attack. "Zero" is not a valid number for the number of shots on the profile of shooting attacks. Nor is "zero" the unstated default for number of shots. "One" is a valid number for the number of shots of shooting attacks. Moreover there is some definite rules support for taking "one" as the default, and I am sure everyone is aware of those oft quoted places in the BRB. Some support is always better than no support so "one" is taken as the default. Default is just a way of saying the value that the rules provide when a value is not explicitly stated.
So I start step four by rolling 1 die to hit for Psychic Shriek.
col_impact wrote: If you claim that there is no profile then you will have an undefined number of shots to resolve. The game breaks at step four since you cannot "Roll a D6 for each shot fired" since "each shot" cannot be defined. Not surprisingly rules break on undefined quantities.
You cannot proceed on undefined except by house rule. You cannot roll an undefined number of dice. If you assign some number like 0 to represent undefined then you are doing so on the authority of house rule, not RAW
Are all steps in a shooting attack required to be followed? You've asserted so in the past, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying and not putting words in your mouth.
I quoted your assertion above, for reference.
blaktoof wrote: a shooting attack with zero shots is an automatic miss.
Note that the minimum roll needed To Hit is always at least 2.
if you "roll zero dice" did you roll a 2+? no? You missed. you now stop at step 4 as you have failed and move onto the next weapon/attack from that unit, or a new unit.
further rolling 0d6 is not rolling dice, as there are no dice rolled on a 0d6.
0d6 is made up nonsense that some people have used to falsely validate their HYWPI argument. It has 0 RAW support as there is nothing anywhere that tells you to roll 0d6, or that rolling no dice is rolling dice. rolling 0d6 is rolling no dice, is not rolling dice. if you are required to roll to hit you are rolling dice, therefore the number is not 0 dice.
additionally there is still 0 RAW support that you are allowed to resolve the effect of an attack that requires a to hit roll, on a miss. Page and graph if you have it.
otherwise we are just discussing some peoples easter egg hunting HYWPI.
No, you need to prove that you stop at step four when you haven't successfully hit.
You have been required to show this for, ooh, a number of pages now, and you still refuse to do so. Instead asserting an argument with no basis in rules, in violation, again, Of the tenets.
You are required to walk through the steps. Step five happily handles zero hits, by letting you not roll any dice.
Page and graph to show you stop at step four. You cannot prove this, of course, but at least make a direct response on this.
We have permission to work through the steps. We have permission to resolve the power, which REQUIRES the 3d506 roll. Failure to roll the 3d6 means you have cheated.
col_impact wrote: If you claim that there is no profile then you will have an undefined number of shots to resolve. The game breaks at step four since you cannot "Roll a D6 for each shot fired" since "each shot" cannot be defined. Not surprisingly rules break on undefined quantities.
You cannot proceed on undefined except by house rule. You cannot roll an undefined number of dice. If you assign some number like 0 to represent undefined then you are doing so on the authority of house rule, not RAW
Are all steps in a shooting attack required to be followed? You've asserted so in the past, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying and not putting words in your mouth.
I quoted your assertion above, for reference.
Spoiler:
a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically.
Spoiler:
The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is
explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting
sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have
completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack,
carry on to the Assault phase.
col_impact wrote: If you claim that there is no profile then you will have an undefined number of shots to resolve. The game breaks at step four since you cannot "Roll a D6 for each shot fired" since "each shot" cannot be defined. Not surprisingly rules break on undefined quantities.
You cannot proceed on undefined except by house rule. You cannot roll an undefined number of dice. If you assign some number like 0 to represent undefined then you are doing so on the authority of house rule, not RAW
Are all steps in a shooting attack required to be followed? You've asserted so in the past, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying and not putting words in your mouth.
I quoted your assertion above, for reference.
Spoiler:
a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically.
You neglected to actually answer my question. I underlined it above for reference - please answer it.
Still didn't answer it. Quoting sections of the rulebook that don't say "All steps must be followed or the rules break and the sun goes out and we all die." isn't answering the question.
Still didn't answer it. Quoting sections of the rulebook that don't say "All steps must be followed or the rules break and the sun goes out and we all die." isn't answering the question.
Please, answer the question.
The sun does not go out and we do not all die. You simply resort to house rule to get the game to continue.
Still didn't answer it. Quoting sections of the rulebook that don't say "All steps must be followed or the rules break and the sun goes out and we all die." isn't answering the question.
Please, answer the question.
The sun does not go out and we do not all die. You simply resort to house rule to get the game to continue.
Okay, so if any of the 7 steps cannot be followed, for whatever reason, it requires a house rule to continue? I just want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Oh, and quoting the rules at me again would be pretty rude - you're an intelligent person, use your words.
Still didn't answer it. Quoting sections of the rulebook that don't say "All steps must be followed or the rules break and the sun goes out and we all die." isn't answering the question.
Please, answer the question.
The sun does not go out and we do not all die. You simply resort to house rule to get the game to continue.
Okay, so if any of the 7 steps cannot be followed, for whatever reason, it requires a house rule to continue? I just want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Oh, and quoting the rules at me again would be pretty rude - you're an intelligent person, use your words.
The rules should be quoted whenever possible. Keep in mind that you are the one who has the burden of proof here. You need to resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.
Still didn't answer it. Quoting sections of the rulebook that don't say "All steps must be followed or the rules break and the sun goes out and we all die." isn't answering the question.
Please, answer the question.
The sun does not go out and we do not all die. You simply resort to house rule to get the game to continue.
Okay, so if any of the 7 steps cannot be followed, for whatever reason, it requires a house rule to continue? I just want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Oh, and quoting the rules at me again would be pretty rude - you're an intelligent person, use your words.
The rules should be quoted whenever possible. Keep in mind that you are the one who has the burden of proof here. You need to resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.
They've been quoted before, hence why I said "again".
Answer my question please. You're dodging again. I've underlined it for clarity.
Still didn't answer it. Quoting sections of the rulebook that don't say "All steps must be followed or the rules break and the sun goes out and we all die." isn't answering the question.
Please, answer the question.
The sun does not go out and we do not all die. You simply resort to house rule to get the game to continue.
Okay, so if any of the 7 steps cannot be followed, for whatever reason, it requires a house rule to continue? I just want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Oh, and quoting the rules at me again would be pretty rude - you're an intelligent person, use your words.
The rules should be quoted whenever possible. Keep in mind that you are the one who has the burden of proof here. You need to resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.
They've been quoted before, hence why I said "again".
Answer my question please. You're dodging again. I've underlined it for clarity.
You are the one who needs to advance an argument here. I have posted the relevant rules. Have a conversation with the rules and resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.
Still didn't answer it. Quoting sections of the rulebook that don't say "All steps must be followed or the rules break and the sun goes out and we all die." isn't answering the question.
Please, answer the question.
The sun does not go out and we do not all die. You simply resort to house rule to get the game to continue.
Okay, so if any of the 7 steps cannot be followed, for whatever reason, it requires a house rule to continue? I just want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Oh, and quoting the rules at me again would be pretty rude - you're an intelligent person, use your words.
The rules should be quoted whenever possible. Keep in mind that you are the one who has the burden of proof here. You need to resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.
They've been quoted before, hence why I said "again".
Answer my question please. You're dodging again. I've underlined it for clarity.
You are the one who needs to advance an argument here. I have posted the relevant rules. Have a conversation with the rules and resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.
Your answer is relevant to my argument. I don't ask questions for random reasons. I've spelled out how it's resolved and I understand why you disagree. For me to continue the discussion I have to understand your stance.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Why do you not answer pertinent, on point questions? This isn't debate, you want a monologue.
Your constant ducking isn't suitable for these forums. Please refrain from posting if you are unwilling to interact, it's rude.
You need to advance a fully delineated way of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek requires some measure of house rule (intervention from outside strict RAW) to resolve.
col_impact so if any of the 7 steps cannot be followed, for whatever reason, it requires a house rule to continue? I just want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Why do you not answer pertinent, on point questions? This isn't debate, you want a monologue.
Your constant ducking isn't suitable for these forums. Please refrain from posting if you are unwilling to interact, it's rude.
You need to advance a fully delineated way of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek requires some measure of house rule (intervention from outside strict RAW) to resolve.
It has been presented. You disagreed, but will not provide anything to back up your disagreement
When questioned, in a reasonable, intelligent manner, in detail with pertinent, probing questions, you refuse to respond. When provided proof that your assertions are flawed, you narrow the scope, or change tack.
Throughout you have failed to contribute, but have distracted immensely from worthwhile debate.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Why do you not answer pertinent, on point questions? This isn't debate, you want a monologue.
Your constant ducking isn't suitable for these forums. Please refrain from posting if you are unwilling to interact, it's rude.
You need to advance a fully delineated way of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek requires some measure of house rule (intervention from outside strict RAW) to resolve.
It has been presented. You disagreed, but will not provide anything to back up your disagreement
When questioned, in a reasonable, intelligent manner, in detail with pertinent, probing questions, you refuse to respond. When provided proof that your assertions are flawed, you narrow the scope, or change tack.
Throughout you have failed to contribute, but have distracted immensely from worthwhile debate.
The thread missed the part where you provided fully delineated ways of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.
You need to advance a fully delineated way of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek requires some measure of house rule (intervention from outside strictRAW) to resolve.
You need to show that Psychic Shriek per strict RAW is broken. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek works RaW.
You need to advance a fully delineated way of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek requires some measure of house rule (intervention from outside strictRAW) to resolve.
You need to show that Psychic Shriek per strict RAW is broken. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek works RaW.
I am not the one claiming a strict RAW to resolve Psychic Shriek. My argument is that you cannot resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden is on those who claim to have a strict RAW way of resolving Psychic Shriek to prove that they indeed have a strict RAW way of resolving Psychic Shriek.
If you do not see that your greater claim has the burden of proof, then you have a fundamental misconception about logic and about proof and about debates.
You need to advance a fully delineated way of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek requires some measure of house rule (intervention from outside strictRAW) to resolve.
You need to show that Psychic Shriek per strict RAW is broken. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek works RaW.
I am not the one claiming a strict RAW to resolve Psychic Shriek. My argument is that you cannot resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden is on those who claim to have a strict RAW way of resolving Psychic Shriek to prove that they indeed have a strict RAW way of resolving Psychic Shriek.
If you do not see that your greater claim has the burden of proof, then you have a fundamental misconception about logic and about proof and about debates.
After 15 pages things start to blur together. Could you please quote where anyone has said strict RAW that Psychic Shriek can be resolved?
One side has said that since certain steps in the shooting attack rules cannot be resolved, to skip them, just like you would do with anything else that cannot be resolved, such as affecting vehicles with a Toughness buff/debuff provided by either Enfeeble or Iron Arm.
The other side has claimed that RAW if you do not have a profile you get 1 shot. They have also been asked to back up their claim. They ask for a "Zero shot shooting attack" (whatever that is), and when provided with a scenario where a weapon fires zero shots (yet sounds to me like a "Zero shot shooting attack") claim it is irrelevant. When asked what it is, they do not answer the questions.
You need to advance a fully delineated way of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek requires some measure of house rule (intervention from outside strictRAW) to resolve.
You need to show that Psychic Shriek per strict RAW is broken. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek works RaW.
I am not the one claiming a strict RAW to resolve Psychic Shriek. My argument is that you cannot resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden is on those who claim to have a strict RAW way of resolving Psychic Shriek to prove that they indeed have a strict RAW way of resolving Psychic Shriek.
If you do not see that your greater claim has the burden of proof, then you have a fundamental misconception about logic and about proof and about debates.
After 15 pages things start to blur together. Could you please quote where anyone has said strict RAW that Psychic Shriek can be resolved?
One side has said that since certain steps in the shooting attack rules cannot be resolved, to skip them, just like you would do with anything else that cannot be resolved, such as affecting vehicles with a Toughness buff/debuff provided by either Enfeeble or Iron Arm.
The other side has claimed that RAW if you do not have a profile you get 1 shot. They have also been asked to back up their claim. They ask for a "Zero shot shooting attack" (whatever that is), and when provided with a scenario where a weapon fires zero shots (yet sounds to me like a "Zero shot shooting attack") claim it is irrelevant. When asked what it is, they do not answer the questions.
Is everyone in agreement that Psychic Shriek cannot be resolved per strict RAW? If so that would be great to hear since that proves my argument and then we can begin with the fun stuff of debating the merits of various HYWPI approaches.
If anyone is still maintaining that Psychic Shriek can be resolved per strict RAW then it's time to stand up and be recognized and give us your full delineated argument since the burden of proof is on you.
