Can you draw the line for Jaws so that the first thing it passes over is in close combat?

No. The first model hit is the target and you may not choose targets that are engaged in close combat.

No. Its a PSA, you have a target and nothing allows you to target close combat. You would need specific allowance to override the shooting rules.

You also need to roll to hit that first model.

Roll to hit??? It doesn't even have a weapon profile.

It's a PSA - read your codex. You roll to hit with PSAs, unless specifically told otherwise. Guess what Jaws DOESNT do

If I miss the first roll to hit does the entire power not work? Or is it only a roll to hit on the first model and every other model is automatically hit.

Bah, what was GW thinking with that FAQ.

The entire power misses - according to the shooting rules if you fail your "to hit" you miss and nothing happens.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The entire power misses - according to the shooting rules if you fail your "to hit" you miss and nothing happens.

This is contradicted by another PSA Murderous Hurricane, where FAQ specificially states that the power takes effect, even if it 'misses'.

Roll to hit is inconsequential for powers like Jaws, Thunderclap etc. Anything touched by the 'template' they use, is effected. Rolling to hit never enters the picture.

Thaylen wrote:If I miss the first roll to hit does the entire power not work? Or is it only a roll to hit on the first model and every other model is automatically hit.

Bah, what was GW thinking with that FAQ.

1) Roll to pass psychic test
2) Roll to hit
3) Enemy rolls an initiative test

How many times has this arguement been raised since the FAQ?

INAT contradicts the FAQ as JotWW is considered an "odd" templae attack.

Missing the first model would not mean that all others would miss... if you understand the effect, the ground opens up beneath them and they are removed if they fail their I test to evade.

Once again... rolling to hit after passing a Psy Test then having the models roll I is too many hoops...

Except its how the rules work. INAT is also NOT a source of rules, read the Tenets please.

RaW Nos is 100% accurate, as odd as it may be in this specific case

I don't know why people have such a hard time with that too. Sure, a giant chasm is opening up. If you miss, the chasm didn't open where you wanted it to, and didn't end up swallowing anyone. Is that really so outlandish that people can't fathom it? If I shoot a gun and it misses, why do you not argue that it might hit someone else?

nosferatu1001 wrote:No. Its a PSA, you have a target and nothing allows you to target close combat. You would need specific allowance to override the shooting rules.

You also need to roll to hit that first model.

One questions that follows: after you selected a valid target (one that is an enemy unit, not locked in CC, in LOS), is it possible for the line to continue on, passing through other units that are stuck in CC? Or would you have to draw the line in such a way as to avoid any and all models in CC?

Oh lord. This debate again.

Let's not make this debate about whether JoTWW requires a roll-to-hit. We've been down that road before. Just ask the TO of your local FLGS how it should be played, or if you are among friends, come to an agreement amongst yourselves.

For the CC question; once a valid target has been selected, then if the line happens to pass through a model or two in CC, those models are affected - whether they are enemy models or friendly models. There is no provision in the power that it only affects enemies, or models not in CC, or stops for any reason other than the board edge. It's essentially the same as a blast template that scattered into combat.

Just for the giggles of this silly argument....again.....you do not have to roll to hit. Talk to your opponent before the game and work out how you want to play it so you do not have to have this silly argument in the game. You cannot target model.....ever.....in close combat.

Bikeninja wrote:Just for the giggles of this silly argument....again.....you do not have to roll to hit. Talk to your opponent before the game and work out how you want to play it so you do not have to have this silly argument in the game. You cannot target model.....ever.....in close combat.

Your last statement is false. The Eldar heavy weapon Vibro Cannons specifically allow you to fire into close combat, (and without LOS,) courtesy of the Eldar FAQ I believe. Boon of Mutation, from the Chaos Daemons codex, is a ranged weapon which may be used in close combat, and may also target a model in close combat.

There are exceptions to the rules. These exceptions are usually explicitly spelled out.

Can we just kill this discussion right now? The question was in regards to targeting units in close combat, and it has already been ruled that it cannot. End of discussion.

Forgot about the Vibro Cannon. Don't play Eldar so it slipped my mind. Thanks

As for JoTWW, First model has to be unengaged (not in HTH). From then on any model hit whether in CC or not has to make the Int. Test. That is how we play it. Our game club has several members (me included) that have been playing since Rogue Trader. We have a pretty good feel for RAW and RAI (I think anyway).

Just remember, talk to your opponent or TO first, make your case before the first dice is rolled. It will make your life alot easier.

Can't target into close combat and having read both sides of this argument in several threads, no to-hit roll is needed.

P1. PSA needs to roll to hit unless explicitly excused.

P2. JotWW is a PSA.

P3. JotWW is not explicitly excused from rolling to hit.


C1. JotWW needs to roll to hit.

Steelmage99 wrote:P1. PSA needs to roll to hit unless explicitly excused.

P2. JotWW is a PSA.

P3. JotWW is not explicitly excused from rolling to hit.


C1. JotWW needs to roll to hit.

This has been discussed ad-nauseum in previous threads. Please don't turn this thread into another pointless argument which will ultimately boil down to "ask your TO". It is not even the point of the thread.

The discussion have moved on to a different subject.

The original point of the thread has been more than adequately answered.

Steelmage99 wrote:P1. PSA needs to roll to hit unless explicitly excused.

P2. JotWW is a PSA.

P3. JotWW is not explicitly excused from rolling to hit.


C1. JotWW needs to roll to hit.

Keep chasing that car Rover, I am sure you will know what to do with it once you have caught it.

OP has had his question answered, the other topic can be searched for both sides of the argument.

The side which follows rules and the side which doesnt?

I am genuinely curious, Tyr.

I have presented three premises and a conclusion that seems logical.

Is it the third premise that we disagree on?

Steelmage99 wrote:I am genuinely curious, Tyr.

I have presented three premises and a conclusion that seems logical.

Is it the third premise that we disagree on?

Really?

Use the search function, read the previous threads about JoTWW. Every reason conceivable as to why it does or does not require a roll to hit has been brought up, debated, contested, and ignored for ones own convenience. We really don't need to reopen this pointless argument and keep repeating history, do we?

Maybe, maybe not.

As long as some posters present the opinion that JotWW does not need to roll to hit, I WILL respond in kind.

CiaranAnnrach wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:I am genuinely curious, Tyr.

I have presented three premises and a conclusion that seems logical.

Is it the third premise that we disagree on?

Really?

Use the search function, read the previous threads about JoTWW. Every reason conceivable as to why it does or does not require a roll to hit has been brought up, debated, contested, and ignored for ones own convenience. We really don't need to reopen this pointless argument and keep repeating history, do we?

I agree with Ciaran.

My opinions pretty much match those that have been expressed against needing a to hit roll with the exception to those claiming the line is a template.

As to your supposedly logical conclusion, it is based on the fallacy that JotWW hits. The rule entry is quite clear in that anything the line touches must take an initiative test, not anything the line hits. Based on that specific wording alone, JottWW clearly uses something different then the required rolling to hit mechanic which allows it to fall under the codex exception rule listed on page 50.

If you choose to equate touching to hitting, then you are just choosing to change the rules as written to fit your argument. That would be an unwise stance to take.

Ok, better question, can I Target my own unit? Say I want to snipe into a combat with ork nobs and there are no enemies nearby, could I use a grey hunter as an aiming point to shoot the nobs?

A no answer would not surprise me but can't hurt to ask.

No.

JoTWW does not require to roll to hit at NOVA!

And hopefully at all the other major GTs!!!!

Steelmage99 wrote:P1. PSA needs to roll to hit unless explicitly excused.
P2. JotWW is a PSA.
P3. JotWW is not explicitly excused from rolling to hit.
C1. JotWW needs to roll to hit.

Steelmage99, your P3 is the mistake, as the entry states "draw a line". *That's* the bypass on the dice throw. The other PSAs will have 'target unit' or shoot or such, but not Jaws.

Much like Fury of the Ancients in 4e's Codex:SM.

Yet there is a target that Jaws hits: the first model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet there is a target that Jaws affects: the first model.

I went ahead and fixed your personal errata to the rule.

Its a PSA: the target is most definitely "hit"

Ah, people who already play the "easy" army has to make it even more easier to play with.

Grown men and thier toys, shame shame shame.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its a PSA: the target is most definitely "hit"

That's cool. Just let your opponent know that you are changing the wording of the rules so your rule interpretation becomes valid.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet there is a target that Jaws hits: the first model.

Technically, it treats the first model it affects as the target of the PSA, courtesy of the FAQ. This wording is slightly nuanced, and implies that there isn't a "true" target of the PSA; rather, the target is something considered after the fact during the resolution of the power. This is opposed to other PSAs and ranged attacks which require you to declare a target prior to resolving the attack - with JoTWW, no such declaration is necessary.

If this is argument is going to continue, particularly with this level of sniping at each other, please let me know so I can go make popcorn. But really, I don't like popcorn all that much, so can we just drop the whole thing?

CiaranAnnrach wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet there is a target that Jaws hits: the first model.

Technically, it treats the first model it affects as the target of the PSA, courtesy of the FAQ. This wording is slightly nuanced, and implies that there isn't a "true" target of the PSA; rather, the target is something considered after the fact during the resolution of the power. This is opposed to other PSAs and ranged attacks which require you to declare a target prior to resolving the attack - with JoTWW, no such declaration is necessary.

If this is argument is going to continue, particularly with this level of sniping at each other, please let me know so I can go make popcorn. But really, I don't like popcorn all that much, so can we just drop the whole thing?

Really?

Then again, I like popcorn only sometimes. Now nachos with cheese and jalapenos? Heck yea! Funny thing is I wont touch those outside of a movie theater, but once I get to the snack bar their cheesey goodness is overpowering.

Tyr - glad your bias isnt showing, much.

Show me a rule stating you do not select a target, as the normal rules for PSAs require. Then show a rule stating that this PSA does not roll to hit.

Failure to do either, whcih you WILL fail to do as they dont exist, shows your argument to be what it is - bunk.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tyr - glad your bias isnt showing, much.

Show me a rule stating you do not select a target, as the normal rules for PSAs require. Then show a rule stating that this PSA does not roll to hit.

Failure to do either, whcih you WILL fail to do as they dont exist, shows your argument to be what it is - bunk.

Just go read previous threads. Your points have already been contested.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its a PSA: the target is most definitely "hit"

That's cool. Just let your opponent know that you are changing the wording of the rules so your rule interpretation becomes valid.

hsojvvad wrote:Ah, people who already play the "easy" army has to make it even more easier to play with.

Grown men and thier toys, shame shame shame.

Ahh, somone who is butthurt that their toy soldiers suck to compared to another person's toy soldiers.

Amidoinrite?

Nope, you're doing it wrong.

Please re-read the rules of this part of the forum and for the site in general.

Thanks!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tyr - glad your bias isnt showing, much.

Show me a rule stating you do not select a target, as the normal rules for PSAs require. Then show a rule stating that this PSA does not roll to hit.

Failure to do either, whcih you WILL fail to do as they dont exist, shows your argument to be what it is - bunk.

Show me where JotWW hits.

I know that a line is placed and anything touched by the line must take an initiative test. I know that the FAQ tells me me that the first model the power will affect is considered the target model. I don't see in the rule or the FAQ anything that tells me that JottW hits the target model. The FAQ does say that the power happens to hit everybody else on its way through, but it never says that it hits the first target.

Here is what JotWW does do;

Per RAW a line is placed and anything touched by said line must take an initiative test.

That is how JotWW is employed as an exception to the general rules for psychic shooting attacks, which includes the BRB FAQ of PSA need a roll to hit and is where you continue to show your ignorance of the rules as written.

The BRB FAQ tells you that PSA require a roll to hit. That FAQ does not change the RAW that exceptions to the general rules will be found in the codex. So when you read,

"PSA require a roll to hit"

you must also include,

"unless there is a codex exception."

JotWW specifically gives you a codex exception in that it never hits. The power affects models as described in the rules entry, i.e., models touched by the line must take an initiative test. Not when they are hit by the line, but when they are touched by the line.

As I said though, play as you wish but let your opponent know that you are changing the wording of the rules to make your argument valid.

Now where are my nachos, melted cheese, and jalapenos?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alpharius wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its a PSA: the target is most definitely "hit"

That's cool. Just let your opponent know that you are changing the wording of the rules so your rule interpretation becomes valid.

hsojvvad wrote:Ah, people who already play the "easy" army has to make it even more easier to play with.

Grown men and thier toys, shame shame shame.

Ahh, somone who is butthurt that their toy soldiers suck to compared to another person's toy soldiers.

Amidoinrite?

Nope, you're doing it wrong.

Please re-read the rules of this part of the forum and for the site in general.

Thanks!

I went back and edited it out Hso. Care to edit out his as well or would I need to report it?

So, where is the rule saying it doesnt hit?
Oh wait, you stil cannot provide one. Because it doesnt exist.

Yes, there is a mechanism talking about hitting models, and touching models - but nothing saying you replace the to hit roll

Find this rule, and you haev an argument. An actual rule please, page and paragraph

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, where is the rule saying it doesnt hit?
Oh wait, you stil cannot provide one. Because it doesnt exist.

Yes, there is nos1001. " ... trace a line ... "

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, there is a mechanism talking about hitting models, and touching models - but nothing saying you replace the to hit roll

I disagree. It is " ... the RP may trace a line across the board ... ". That *is* the replace "to hit". But I suppose you disagree with me?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Find this rule, and you haev an argument. An actual rule please, page and paragraph

Codex, SW, page 37, JoWW paragraph. Specifically, Nos, you haven't disqualified "... the RP may trace a line across the board ... line may pass through terrain ... models that are touched by the line ... " And such. Before the FAQ, people played it without rolling. The FAQ did necessarily nix the description in the JoWW listing.

But you disagree that the whole "trace a line" bypasses the "to hit." If you disagree, then okay. There won't be much else to cover.

That's the thing: it doesn't SPECIFICALLY say that there is no to hit roll. It says you place a line. Why can't you place a line after you determine whether or not you hit? You place a blast marker after rolling to hit. Living Lightning, another PSA from the same codex, does not tell you that you need to hit either. All it tells you is that it is a psychic shooting attack. That is how you know you need to roll to hit.

Same thing with Jaws. Forget for a second how you think it should work - even I agree that you shouldn't need to roll for hit. However, we are talking about the rules as written here. As much as it makes sense, as much as you all THINK that being told to draw a line automatically means you don't roll to hit, you have to realize that is YOUR assumption.

Nos keeps asking, show me specifically where it says you don't roll to hit. You all quote the text for placing the line. That does not specifically say you don't need to roll to hit. If it said, for example, "Jaws is a Psychic Shooting Attack. Instead of rolling to hit, place the line blah blah blah..." then you would have something. It doesn't say that. Again, there is no reason why you can't roll to hit, and then place the line. Like I said earlier, if you miss, the chasm didn't open up where you intended. Not really that far fetched.

Again, I think that you shouldn't have to roll to hit. Shouldn't. The rules, however, say that you do.

lledwey wrote:That's the thing: it doesn't SPECIFICALLY say that there is no to hit roll. It says you place a line. Why can't you place a line after you determine whether or not you hit? You place a blast marker after rolling to hit. Living Lightning, another PSA from the same codex, does not tell you that you need to hit either. All it tells you is that it is a psychic shooting attack. That is how you know you need to roll to hit.

Same thing with Jaws. Forget for a second how you think it should work - even I agree that you shouldn't need to roll for hit. However, we are talking about the rules as written here. As much as it makes sense, as much as you all THINK that being told to draw a line automatically means you don't roll to hit, you have to realize that is YOUR assumption.

Nos keeps asking, show me specifically where it says you don't roll to hit. You all quote the text for placing the line. That does not specifically say you don't need to roll to hit. If it said, for example, "Jaws is a Psychic Shooting Attack. Instead of rolling to hit, place the line blah blah blah..." then you would have something. It doesn't say that. Again, there is no reason why you can't roll to hit, and then place the line. Like I said earlier, if you miss, the chasm didn't open up where you intended. Not really that far fetched.

Again, I think that you shouldn't have to roll to hit. Shouldn't. The rules, however, say that you do.

(wish they would have called it a line "template") I find it hilarious you need a psychic test and than an are you coherent test (3+) or 2+ depending on CoTS

Beings this and Blood Lance are somewhat similar powers I don't see why they shouldnt work the same way. Blood Lance doesnt auto hit the units it passes through does it? Does it have to roll for each unit or per unit? I don't have the Blood Angels codex on me so I'm a wee bit rusty with this information.

While Blood Lance is a PSA, the wording of the power is slanted towards it functioning as a template.

That is to say that it specifies "extend a straight line, 4d6" long, form the librarian's base in any direction - this is the path taken by the blood lance. Any unit in the lance's path suffers a single strength 8 ap1 hit with the 'lance' type."

So that really doesn't solve much of anything

The way I've been playing it is that the length of the line merely denotes the 'potential' hits of the PSA, and from there I treat it exactly as if each of the touched units was being fired at by an assault 1 s8 ap1 lance weapon.

I'm sure I'm not adding anything new to the debate, and it sounds like most of the people posting have really already made up their minds, I think that any PSA that says that things within a certain range (such as a line) are affected in such-and-such a way will bypass the to-hit roll, because rules from codices are generally specific exemptions to main-rule-book rules, and thus are exemptions to main-rule-book FAQ answers as well.

I can see how requiring the roll to hit is the least sophisticated reading of how the rules interact, however, so I don't see it as being an unreasonable interpretation.

Brother - and, again, you have no *specific* override to the reuqirement to-hit, as you have yet to find "instead of rolling to hit" or "this power hits automaticallY" or, in fact, anything stating the "to hit" roll required by ALL PSA is not, in fact, required here.

You cannot do that, because the line does not exist. And where a rule does not exist, you follow the default.

I just want to know, how come every rule that I see that doesn't need a roll to hit specifically says "no need to roll to hit" or some other clear indication that you do not roll to hit but for JotWW, we have to read "between the lines" for not to roll to hit?

I am sure, if you Do Not Roll to Hit, it must clearly say so, and JotWW does not say this.

I guess people need to play the "easy" army with even easier rules. Heaven forbid if something for them is made a bit harder. All I can say is look in the mirror on how you need to have it easy when playing with plastic toy soldiers. LOL

I don't always agree with nos, but I have to this time. If "draw a line" is to be equated with not needing to roll to hit, then lots of other PSAs should also get a pass. What about "select a model" and do X to it, or simply "place a template" and X happens. Both of these things override the normal shooting procedure, just like JOTWW. Does that mean I don't need to roll to hit with Mind War and Eldritch Storm? Super!

It seems like this is the typical standard in rules debates taken even by GW itself. The rules apply to all the armies except the current flavors of Marines. For evidence just look at the Tyranid FAQ

I also agree with Nos.

Yes Jaws does not follow the regular rules of a PSA, but nowhere does it specifically state that you do not roll to hit, so you have to.

But if tournaments rule that you don't need to, go crazy. Just be sure to clear it up in advance in a friendly game.

The funny thing about Nos continually asking where the, "no hit to roll" clause is that he has absolutely zero rules basis to set that as the standard. Page 50 of the BRB simply tells you that codex exceptions to how some psychic powers are employed will be in the codexes. That is the only standard.

As has been pointed out in other threads. JotWW also does not specifically tell you NOT to roll to wound. Instead we see that the rule gives you an exception to rolling to wound, without specifically saying,

"Do not roll to wound."

How many times will your argument change Nos? Through the course of all the threads on this subject you have not been able to give a solid argument and are now relying on asking for a proof that the rules on page 50 do not require. In fact page 50 ONLY tells you that codex exceptions to employ specific psychi powers will be in the codexes, which means you read the rules entries for the psychic powers and if they are different then the general you follow them. No standard for how the codex exceptions will be written or directed is given.

As I said, play as you want but let your opponent know you are changing the wording of the rules to make your argument valid. However now also be sure to tell your opponent that you are also creating a standard that does not exist to make your argument valid as well. Make a little cheat sheet so you can remember to inform them of all your 40( revisions.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
As has been pointed out in other threads. JotWW also does not specifically tell you NOT to roll to wound. Instead we see that the rule gives you an exception to rolling to wound, without specifically saying,

"Do not roll to wound."

Spurious arguments derail your attempt at a point. JotWW doesn't cause wounds.

Tyr - no, I have a number of arguments, you have failed utterly in all of them.

PSA are requyired to hit. Disprove this (hint, you will not be able to, as the FAQ states the opposite)

Jaws is required to hit

Find a line, a rule, anything stating the contrary position. You Cant? Guess youre out of luck then.

Since you cannot provide rules you are violating the tenets of YMDC. Put up or shut up.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:No standard for how the codex exceptions will be written or directed is given.

Which is where you step in, to show us the light. You are the only one with the knowledge and clarity to decide which way is right, apparently.

No, if no standard is established, you can't just assume that your way is right. It works both ways, they were not specific in telling us, so we have to just go by what is written and not come to our own conclusions (which is exactly what you are doing.)

Nos is spot on. The entire debate is based on the apparent vagueness of "draw a line". Draw a line, however, never says ignore roll to hit. The FAQ even clarifies this VERBATIM.

There is nothing vague about draw a line and if the model is touched by the line it has to take an initiative test. Space Wolves are not an easy army they are just an army like all the others. You do not have to roll to hit. The line is a template for all practical purposes and until GW does another FAQ and says JotWW has to roll to hit, good luck making me roll those dice. While I realize the NOVA and INAT are unofficial they are put to gether by some extremely smart and intelligent people. To discount their rulings based on the fact they are not official or "I don't agree" is folly. This poor guy tried to have a simple question answered and you guys have jacked this to do another round of this arguement. Both sides have valid points both in RAW and RAI. I simply believe based on all that is written that you do not roll to hit for it. The guys whom I play with who have played every addition and every side game since its inception(me included) and totalled almost 150 years of GW gaming experience easily say "Nah you do not need to hit just read the rule the power" that lends more credence to me than many of the silly rules lawyering here.

Good luck with your debate gentlemen.

Where does it say the line is a template weapon? Is it in the power description? Or is it your subjective interpretation... Don't you think they would use the word template once in the codex or FAQ? The answer is they have never done so, not once.

The NOVA and INAT FAQ are, in this case, wrong. They've been wrong before and will wrong in the future.They do get rulings correct, in this case however they are incorrect. I'm sure they are intelligent people, but intelligent people CAN be wrong, as this case clearly shows.

I'll tell you what, i have a "friend" that works in GW and he tells me JOTWW requires a roll to hit. See how this works?

As nos said, give me a line, sentence, page, any empirical proof of your point. Up to this point, nothing has been put forth with any worth.

Bikeninja wrote:There is nothing vague about draw a line and if the model is touched by the line it has to take an initiative test. Space Wolves are not an easy army they are just an army like all the others. You do not have to roll to hit. The line is a template for all practical purposes and until GW does another FAQ and says JotWW has to roll to hit, good luck making me roll those dice. While I realize the NOVA and INAT are unofficial they are put to gether by some extremely smart and intelligent people. To discount their rulings based on the fact they are not official or "I don't agree" is folly. This poor guy tried to have a simple question answered and you guys have jacked this to do another round of this arguement. Both sides have valid points both in RAW and RAI. I simply believe based on all that is written that you do not roll to hit for it. The guys whom I play with who have played every addition and every side game since its inception(me included) and totalled almost 150 years of GW gaming experience easily say "Nah you do not need to hit just read the rule the power" that lends more credence to me than many of the silly rules lawyering here.

Good luck with your debate gentlemen.

You may want to take a look at the tenets. This discussion is not about what you "believe" happens, or what you think "should" happen. It is about what the rules clearly state (RAW). According to the RAW JotWW must roll to hit as per any other PSA. With a permissive rules set, it tells us what we do in the general and unless an official rulebook specifically states otherwise the general still applies. JotWW is still a PSA as per it's description on p. 37 of the SW codex "As a psychic shooting attack, the rune priest may trace a straight line along the board starting from the rune priest and ending 24" away." The rule for the power doesn't contradict the PSA general rules, so a roll to hit is still called for according to the rules. This is not rules lawyering, this is RAW fact.

These debates would be so much more enjoyable if done in person...with machetes in hand...while being recorded on You-Tube for our collective viewing pleasure

edit: rather than the repeated snearing and sniping this has quickly devolved into.

wyomingfox wrote:These debates would be so much more enjoyable if done in person...with machetes in hand...while being recorded on You-Tube for our collective viewing pleasure.

That was unhelpful. One side has given substantial evidence and precedent (PSA needing rolls to hit) in the rules for their ruling, and the other has given none (?). Post something that adds to the discussion...

The counter-argument is written into the rules for JotWW, which *is* a rule. The power does not behave like *any* other shooting weapon, so I don't see how needing to roll to hit is even material, as it does not create *hits* and there's no stipulation needing a hit roll for the "line" to be created.

So probably the RAW is that it rolls to hit, but then you simply *ignore* the to-hit roll because it doesn't affect how the power works.

But that is your assumption, and sure it might make sense, but that doesn't make it a rule. It does behave like a few shooting weapons in a few different ways, but that isn't the point. Like I said earlier, just because the units are hit in a strange way doesn't mean you can't have a hit roll. Blast markers need a hit roll (granted, it is a different type, but still). You roll a die to determine where the effect of the shot lands and if it does any damage. There is absolutely no reason, other than you feeling like it makes sense, that the Jaws line can't behave the same way.

wyomingfox wrote:These debates would be so much more enjoyable if done in person...with machetes in hand...while being recorded on You-Tube for our collective viewing pleasure

edit: rather than the repeated snearing and sniping this has quickly devolved into.

In my opinion it would be a whole lot of people standing around thinking "I really have to talk face to face with a person I disagree with, Man I hope they do not know my handle".

As for the rest. If you can't read the rule and determine that a roll to hit not needed, I just feel sorry for ya.

How come in the Tyranid Codex wich is made after the Space Wolf codex, (please correct me if I am wrong) that the Tyranid PSA it clearly states you don't need to roll to hit, it is hit automaitcally.

So how come JotWW does not say this? No where does it say it is hit automatically and no where does it say, that JotWW is a template weapon as well.

It would be nice for people to start acknowladging what oter people are saying and debating what the other said, instead of saying, you are wrong it's because of this way, instead of proving the person wrong in what he said.

Also as well the INAT is done, by no way it is LAW and alot of stuff in there can be debateable because alot of it is from previous 40K editions on how it was played instead of actual 5th edtion rules.

Bikeninja wrote:There is nothing vague about draw a line and if the model is touched by the line it has to take an initiative test. Space Wolves are not an easy army they are just an army like all the others. You do not have to roll to hit. The line is a template for all practical purposes and until GW does another FAQ and says JotWW has to roll to hit, good luck making me roll those dice. While I realize the NOVA and INAT are unofficial they are put to gether by some extremely smart and intelligent people. To discount their rulings based on the fact they are not official or "I don't agree" is folly. This poor guy tried to have a simple question answered and you guys have jacked this to do another round of this arguement. Both sides have valid points both in RAW and RAI. I simply believe based on all that is written that you do not roll to hit for it. The guys whom I play with who have played every addition and every side game since its inception(me included) and totalled almost 150 years of GW gaming experience easily say "Nah you do not need to hit just read the rule the power" that lends more credence to me than many of the silly rules lawyering here.

Good luck with your debate gentlemen.

To be fair, Tyr has been arguing the same way over several threads, so they're just growing very tired of it. Personally I'm going to stay out of this one until GW gives us an official ruling (I'm in the template camp, although TBH I've never used JotWW in a battle before)...

Also, Space Wolves are only the "easy" army if you spam missile launchers out the wazoo.

Well, like I said before, I think that you shouldn't have to roll to hit, and I wouldn't force someone to do so in a game. Also, GW probably will FAQ it ruling that you don't have to roll. That isn't what this forum is for though. The rule may be stupid, but that's what it is.

Also, it seems like most of the people who are for not rolling either have a name like Wolf Wolfson, a wolf/Space Wolf in their avatar picture, or something similar, so it does get tiring and tough to take it seriously.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Brother - and, again, you have no *specific* override to the reuqirement to-hit, as you have yet to find "instead of rolling to hit" or "this power hits automaticallY" or, in fact, anything stating the "to hit" roll required by ALL PSA is not, in fact, required here.

Welllllll, I disagree. I do think the "trace a line" is quite specific enough to replace "roll to hit" etc. , and if one accepts that is the way a model is targeted for *this* Psy-power, then the rest follows.

But you (and many others supporting you) do not accept it as 'enough'.

*shrugs*
So be it. We're at impass. I see no other argument for my position, other than I have provided, and I *do* see your POV. I just still disagree.

I do wish someone for GW would go over every power, every weapon (*ahem* Deffrolla wargear?!) and give them a consistent format of how they function, instead of an often blurred line between fluff and function. Then re-release each codex as 5.1 with the clarifications.

But then again, it is really fun to whine, bitch, piss and moan about these controversial items, right?

lledwey wrote:Well, like I said before, I think that you shouldn't have to roll to hit, and I wouldn't force someone to do so in a game. Also, GW probably will FAQ it ruling that you don't have to roll. That isn't what this forum is for though. The rule may be stupid, but that's what it is.

Also, it seems like most of the people who are for not rolling either have a name like Wolf Wolfson, a wolf/Space Wolf in their avatar picture, or something similar, so it does get tiring and tough to take it seriously.

At least we have an avatar.

I suspect if they ever officially came out with an answer for this, it would be that JotWW does not require a roll to hit, but it's only my gut saying that.

The rules we have to go by now though, are quite clear that it does require a roll to hit. Just like Mind War, just like Vibrocannons, just like any other shooting attack that is not specifically exempt from rolling to hit.

Actually, I just checked the rules again for Vibro Cannons. This is the closest thing to Jaws other than Blood Lance, and although it is not a psychic power, the wording of it does support the hit roll.

To fire a vibro cannon, first roll to hit. Then, if it hits, you draw the line, and any unit touched by the line is hit.

So here we have the only other thing in the game besides Jaws and Blood Lance that uses the 'draw a line' method, and it requires you to hit before you place the line.

Does it matter if you actually need to hit as JotWW doesn't cause wounds?

The only thing I see in the shooting rules is if you don't hit, you don't get to roll to wound.

Since JotWW doesn't cause wounds, does it matter if it hits or not?

Rolling to hit and rolling to wound has no relationship beyond that rolling to wound sometimes require you to first roll to hit. Eschewing one does not eschew the other.

DarknessEternal: That's me belief as well. It sort of goes hand-in-hand with the GW rule design methodology (or lack thereof).

As read it, nosferatu1001 has the right of it. Outside of house rules...and INAT, iirc.

There is no reason to claim it follows template rules or overwrites text that it does not mention.

I recently (as in, earlier this morning) posted a really, really long discussion of the "jaws rolling to hit" issue over at theruleslawyers.com.

Here's the link: http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2011/09/rulings-jaws-of-the-world-wolf-and-rolling-to-hit/ if anyone's interested!

Short summary of my opinion: Jaws requires a roll to hit, but the effect gets applied whether it hits or not.

Hope this helps!
-GiantKiller
The Rules Lawyers
www.theruleslawyers.com

GiantKiller wrote:I recently (as in, earlier this morning) posted a really, really long discussion of the "jaws rolling to hit" issue over at theruleslawyers.com.

Here's the link: http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2011/09/rulings-jaws-of-the-world-wolf-and-rolling-to-hit/ if anyone's interested!

Short summary of my opinion: Jaws requires a roll to hit, but the effect gets applied whether it hits or not.

Hope this helps!
-GiantKiller
The Rules Lawyers
www.theruleslawyers.com

I am in agreement with the above.

Thats a nice article, but I feel like you made a big leap from the ruling on Murderous Hurricane to your opinion on Jaws. Murderous Hurricane has two effects, Jaws has one. The FAQ clarified that even if the hurricane does no damage (the primary effect), via missing or failing to wound, the unit is still affected by the dangerous/difficult terrain part (the secondary effect.) That is too different from Jaws, its too big a leap.

Everything you said was well thought out and logical, but in the end you're still just assuming how it works. You even say, the only thing written is that you must roll to hit. You say it doesn't specify that, but even powers that obviously need a hit roll don't specify that (Living Lightning.) See above for the rules for Vibro Cannons, which work almost the same way, and they require a hit roll. Don't bother talking about templates/blasts, Jaws is not either of those, it is a line, and only 2 other things in the game are like it, Blood Lance and the aforementioned Vibro Cannons. If we're comparing two different abilities to get an idea of the rules, let's do it with things that are similar, not Jaws/Hurricane.

Mahtamori wrote:Rolling to hit and rolling to wound has no relationship beyond that rolling to wound sometimes require you to first roll to hit. Eschewing one does not eschew the other.

DarknessEternal: That's me belief as well. It sort of goes hand-in-hand with the GW rule design methodology (or lack thereof).

But does it matter in JotWW case?

It explicitly states that if you are 'under/in' the line, you take an init test. Period. Whether you actually 'hit' or not with the PSA doesn't seem to matter?

It matters because what if, like the very similar vibrocannon, missing means you dont draw the line at all?

lledwey, thanks for reading.

I understand your contention, but I believe vibro cannons are too different from Jaws to have any value as precedent for three important reasons:

1. Vibro cannons cause wounds. This is probably the biggest distinguishing characteristic. Vibro cannons' effects, unlike Jaws' effects, do not fall into that category of weirder effects (read: non-wounding effects) GW discusses in its FAQ entry re: cover saves.
2. Vibro cannons are ranged weapons which include a shooting profile (alongside some additional rules on how to use them), while Jaws is a psychic power which does not.
3. Vibro cannons specifically say "if any of the vibro cannons hit, draw a single 36" line from one vibro cannon" (Codex: Eldar p. 45) so we know exactly what happens if it misses: don't draw the line. Jaws has no such condition in its rule, it simply says "may trace a straight line" (Codex: Space Wolves p. 37).

Hope this helps!
-GiantKiller

lledwey wrote:It matters because what if, like the very similar vibrocannon, missing means you dont draw the line at all?

Where in the world do you get this? That's in the vibro cannon rules. Nothing like that in the JotWW or the faq for this.

No, but other things it hits can be in combat.

Small, Far Away wrote:No, but other things it hits can be in combat.

That would matter if GW ever set and used precedent.

They don't so it's moot. *thanks nos*

Has anyone got something that would prevent the dropping of the line if the to hit roll misses in the main rules or in the JotWW entry?

One could rule that the following phrase in the hit rules would do just that.

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

Since it is a PSA, it rolls to hit, and a roll of 1 is explicitly defined as a miss and when you roll for hit there is no such thing as an automatic hit.

In this case, that would prove contradictory to the wording of JotWW, but as you can imagine this is one of the sources for confusion. Once again, it boils down to whether or not you feel JotWW and its similar powers require the roll in the first place.

"moot"

WanderingFox wrote:One could rule that the following phrase in the hit rules would do just that.

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

Since it is a PSA, it rolls to hit, and a roll of 1 is explicitly defined as a miss and when you roll for hit there is no such thing as an automatic hit.

In this case, that would prove contradictory to the wording of JotWW, but as you can imagine this is one of the sources for confusion. Once again, it boils down to whether or not you feel JotWW and its similar powers require the roll in the first place.

Even if you "miss" where does it say that the "line" is not created. Whether or not you miss is irrelevant.

Regardless if the hit roll hits or misses, the line still causes models it goes through to take an ini test.

It does not. I had been going on everyone stating that it was similar in wording to Blood Lance. It turns out that it, unlike lance does not have the specific phrasing "automatically hits" that I thought was present.

You're entirely correct in thinking that the to hit roll is irrelevant. That will teach me to not look up the exact wording and just trusting people My bad :3

edit:
To explain more specifically, I thought it was phrased like Blood Lance which clearly states "any unit the lance passes through suffers a ... hit" That would constitute an automatic hit, which would in turn be in direct contradiction with how a PSA functions

Pretty much everyone that wants to side with Nos just mimics his contention that JotWW hits. People need to read the rule,

JAWS NEVER HITS A TARGET!!

All of you keep asking for the rule that tells you that you do not roll to hit. People keep asking what is the codex exception to rolling to hit. The very fact that the very wording of the rule tells you how a model is affected by JotWW is the codex exception!! The very fact that the rule tells you how to employ the psychic power is the codex exception!

Somebody please show me where JotWW HITS. It doesn't hit, it touches. Touching a model is how the psychic power is employed. Touched a model is the codex exception to rolling to hit.

Seriuosly, read the damn rule instead of just mimicking whatever Nos says because here is the real deal; Nos is NOT following all the RAW. He is picking and choosing to only present the FAQ saying PSA roll to hit WITHOUT including that exceptions to that general rule will be in the codexes. He is blatantly ignoring RAW and only presenting the BRB FAQ time and time again for you monkies to repeat it.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Pretty much everyone that wants to side with Nos just mimics his contention that JotWW hits. People need to read the rule,

JAWS NEVER HITS A TARGET!!

All of you keep asking for the rule that tells you that you do not roll to hit. People keep asking what is the codex exception to rolling to hit. The very fact that the very wording of the rule tells you how a model is affected by JotWW is the codex exception!! The very fact that the rule tells you how to employ the psychic power is the codex exception!

Somebody please show me where JotWW HITS. It doesn't hit, it touches. Touching a model is how the psychic power is employed. Touched a model is the codex exception to rolling to hit.

Seriuosly, read the damn rule instead of just mimicking whatever Nos says because here is the real deal; Nos is NOT following all the RAW. He is picking and choosing to only present the FAQ saying PSA roll to hit WITHOUT including that exceptions to that general rule will be in the codexes. He is blatantly ignoring RAW and only presenting the BRB FAQ time and time again for you monkies to repeat it.

Granted, I don't agree with Nosferatu in this debate, your post is pretty redundant and makes it look like you're very emotionally invested.

His bias has been pretty damn obvious since the first post, to be honest.

Tyr - so a number of posters have given very detailed explanations of why it must hit, yet you are unable to counter them.

I'd suggest bowing out.

nosferatu1001 wrote:His bias has been pretty damn obvious since the first post, to be honest.

Tyr - so a number of posters have given very detailed explanations of why it must hit, yet you are unable to counter them.

I'd suggest bowing out.

And yet again Nos, the psychi power is employed via touching a model, not hitting a model. That is the RAW per the rule. You have utterly failed to show at any time how the psychic power JotWW hits a model. I have asked you and your reply was to put the word "hits" in quotation marks.

The RAW of JotWW is that is employed when it touches a model. That is the codex exception to the general rule for a psychic shooting attack needing to hit a model to be employed.

Compare Living Lighning to JotWW:

Living Lightning as a psychic shooting attack affects its target with D6 Str 7 shots when it hits the model.

JotWW as a psychic shooting attack affects its target with a an initiative test when it touches the model.

The RAW that JotWW never hits a model and is employed via a different mechanic (touching) a model is the codex exception.

Your argument is solid when you don't include ALL the rules. Once they are included you stumble around trying to redefine touching to "hits" and "you are rolling to place the line".

Living Lightning doesn't say that, though. It just says that it is a psychic shooting attack with the following profile: Unlimited Range, S7 AP5 Assault D6. Nowhere does it say hits in that either. It doesn't have to. Hitting the target is implied by the use of "psychic shooting attack."

willydstyle wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Pretty much everyone that wants to side with Nos just mimics his contention that JotWW hits. People need to read the rule,

JAWS NEVER HITS A TARGET!!

All of you keep asking for the rule that tells you that you do not roll to hit. People keep asking what is the codex exception to rolling to hit. The very fact that the very wording of the rule tells you how a model is affected by JotWW is the codex exception!! The very fact that the rule tells you how to employ the psychic power is the codex exception!

Somebody please show me where JotWW HITS. It doesn't hit, it touches. Touching a model is how the psychic power is employed. Touched a model is the codex exception to rolling to hit.

Seriuosly, read the damn rule instead of just mimicking whatever Nos says because here is the real deal; Nos is NOT following all the RAW. He is picking and choosing to only present the FAQ saying PSA roll to hit WITHOUT including that exceptions to that general rule will be in the codexes. He is blatantly ignoring RAW and only presenting the BRB FAQ time and time again for you monkies to repeat it.

Granted, I don't agree with Nosferatu in this debate, your post is pretty redundant and makes it look like you're very emotionally invested.

Actually it is pretty frustrating when one individual does not include ALL the rules in his argument ofr blatantly uses vernacular that is not the RAW. If Nos actually went back and replaced everytime he says that JotWW hits a target with the proper RAW vernacular, the entire basis of his argument falls apart.

What is then worse is that anyone who is not familiar with the actual RAW of rule comes in and not knowing that Nos is not using the proper RAW vernacular go right along with his reasoning. He perpetuates the problem by not being honest and blatantly changing the RAW vernacular to make his argument valid.

His argument is only valid if he continually changes the RAW vernacular of the rule from "anything the line touches" to "anything the line hits". So when he grandstands his argument saying that JotWW hits the target he is being disingenuous at the very least. Considering he is doing to force a change of gameplay, it becomes blatant cheating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lledwey wrote:Living Lightning doesn't say that, though. It just says that it is a psychic shooting attack with the following profile: Unlimited Range, S7 AP5 Assault D6. Nowhere does it say hits in that either. It doesn't have to. Hitting the target is implied by the use of "psychic shooting attack."

Rolling to hit is implied AND required because the rule as written gives you no codex exception to employ the psychic shooting attack other then the general rules, which even before the FAQ already included rolling to hit.

JotWW gives you a specific codex exception that the psychic shooting attack is employed by touching the models. The power affects the model not by hitting but by touching. That is your exception.

Psychic powers all state what occurs when the power entirely works.
A very few mention what happens when it does not.

JotWW does not mention what happens when it fails.

Failing to hit with a PSA does not allow hitting another target any more than failing to hit with a bolter does.

Template rules do not matter until template rules are relevant. Entirely.

Those quoting vibro cannons, they are a fundamentally different attack. They do not require LOS, can fire into combat, only one cannon in the unit has to hit, and regardless of how many in a unit hits only one line is drawn. But we know each of these points does not apply to JoTWW, so no parallels between the two can be made. It's kiwis and pineapples.

Just pointing out logical flaws. I don't care which way this argument goes, I just don't want to see bad arguments being used for either side.

The only reason I brought up Vibro Cannons is because people keep throwing the word 'template' around. That is what people try to compare Jaws to. Vibro Cannons are worth mentioning because they are, again, the only other shooting attack in the game that uses the draw a line method. I agree that they are two different things, but if you're going to compare the line to anything, it should be that and not a flame template.

Just because they have differences, doesn't mean you can't make parallels, thats silly. That's like saying you can't make parallels between Julius Caesar and Macbeth because they are set in different time periods and have different plots. You can make parallels between anything with any bit of similarity. The effects/restrictions of the attack aren't what we are looking at, we are just looking at the 'draw a line part'. Again, it sets an important precedent, in that here we have an attack that requires you to draw a line only after you see whether or not you hit.

Umm blood lance is a PSA that uses the 'draw a line' wording

The Blood Lance:
This power is a Psychic Shooting Attack. Extand a straight line ... yadda yadda

The problem with that is blood lance causes 'hits'

JotWW is uniquely worded as far as I know :3

Well I meant besides Blood Lance but I've typed it so many times I forgot that bit... my bad!

lledwey wrote:The only reason I brought up Vibro Cannons is because people keep throwing the word 'template' around. That is what people try to compare Jaws to. Vibro Cannons are worth mentioning because they are, again, the only other shooting attack in the game that uses the draw a line method. I agree that they are two different things, but if you're going to compare the line to anything, it should be that and not a flame template.

Just because they have differences, doesn't mean you can't make parallels, thats silly. That's like saying you can't make parallels between Julius Caesar and Macbeth because they are set in different time periods and have different plots. You can make parallels between anything with any bit of similarity. The effects/restrictions of the attack aren't what we are looking at, we are just looking at the 'draw a line part'. Again, it sets an important precedent, in that here we have an attack that requires you to draw a line only after you see whether or not you hit.

I like you Hed. Nice and consise points.

I too completely disagree with the template argument. It isn't supported in the RAW at all. It is a bunch argument that people cling to because of what the FAQ says about the thickness of the line.

I do not agree with you on the vibro-cannon comparison at all. While they both trace a line, that is absolutely all they share in common. The vibro-cannon is explicit in its instructions on rolling to hit and subsequently hitting the targets. JotWW is explicit in that models are affected by the power when the line tpuches them.

Vibro-cannon hits.

JotWW tpuches.

That is the difference that makes them completely different.

But that isn't how it is worded, and I apologize for not including that part. Vibro Cannons touch also. What it says is, after you hit, draw the line. Any unit touched by the line takes D6 hits. First check to hit, then see what the line touches. Again, PSAs often don't tell you they have to hit (see Living Lightning).

So here is how I break it down:

Vibro Cannon - tells you to roll to hit, then see what the line touches

Jaws - tells you it is a PSA (which implies you need to roll to hit as per the FAQ), then see what the line touches

That's what really gets me. If I was talking about a power in a different book not stating that you need a hit roll when you obviously do, that would be one thing. But they're on the same page. Living Lightning needs to hit, but it doesn't tell you that. There would be no reason for them to put a hit requirement in the Jaws text, as they assume you already know to hit due to it being a PSA.

Again I want to reiterate that I think this is completely stupid, should not work this way, and would not make someone else play this way, but going by the RAW, this is what I see.

Tyr - you do realise to be an exception, it has to be a specific set of wording to override the normal requirements?

The requirement of all PSA is: roll to hit

Until you can find a rule, actual wording, which you have utterly and completely failed to do despite REPEATED requests to do so and in complete disregard for the tenets of YMDC, which states it does not need to roll to hit - it does.

Also, please retract that I have altered the rules. I havent. I've asked you to substantiate your claim that you have a specific exception to the requirement to roll to hit. You have completely and utterly failed to provide one.

You do realise that, as you are claiming the exceptional, you need to actually prove it, right? That requires you to provide rules, not just repeated unsubstantiated claims.

lledwey wrote:The only reason I brought up Vibro Cannons is because people keep throwing the word 'template' around. That is what people try to compare Jaws to. Vibro Cannons are worth mentioning because they are, again, the only other shooting attack in the game that uses the draw a line method. I agree that they are two different things, but if you're going to compare the line to anything, it should be that and not a flame template.

Just because they have differences, doesn't mean you can't make parallels, thats silly. That's like saying you can't make parallels between Julius Caesar and Macbeth because they are set in different time periods and have different plots. You can make parallels between anything with any bit of similarity. The effects/restrictions of the attack aren't what we are looking at, we are just looking at the 'draw a line part'. Again, it sets an important precedent, in that here we have an attack that requires you to draw a line only after you see whether or not you hit.

Right. Except you are trying to use Vibro Cannons support for why JoTWW requires a roll to hit, suggesting the attacks are fundamentally similar. Or rather because they use the line mechanism, they share the same rules for using the attack. This is the fallicy, as if they were fundamentally similar, then they would have identical rules for placing the line as well, which is untrue. Otherwise I could use the same logic you are using to say JotWW doesn't require LoS - which we know is not true due to the FAQ.

At best, it's evidence that the text "draw a line" doesn't replace the roll to hit. But if you go down that route, people will chime in saying "since when did the rules in one codex affect another codex?" It's really a messy argument, and it's one that's been brought up before - by myself, at least in one thread.

In the end, just ask your TO. After all, it doesn't matter what your opinion is, the TO sets the rules you have to play by. Plus, this is such a polarizing issue that those from each camp are likely to never give in, for whatever reason. Which is fine, if you like running around in circles and seeing these threads pop up every few weeks or so.

Which, the template thing was from a TO at GW's US headquarters in Memphis. He justified Jaws not requiring it to need a roll to hit by saying it worked as a pseudo template. That's likely the origins of that argument, as it was brought up in the last thread. And as my FLGS is the Memphis Battle Bunker - or was before I moved, I'm content to use those rulings. Really, just ask your TO and go with their rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tyr - you do realise to be an exception, it has to be a specific set of wording to override the normal requirements?

The requirement of all PSA is: roll to hit

Until you can find a rule, actual wording, which you have utterly and completely failed to do despite REPEATED requests to do so and in complete disregard for the tenets of YMDC, which states it does not need to roll to hit - it does.
...
You do realise that, as you are claiming the exceptional, you need to actually prove it, right? That requires you to provide rules, not just repeated unsubstantiated claims.

Nos1001, I've got back into the thread because you're beating up (friendly idiom) the other posters by committing a fallacy. Asking someone to provide rules for something, and when they fail to do so, for you to claim that their argument holds no water, well *that* is a fallacy in of itself (man! that is worded badly, sorry).

Just because it wasn't prove does *not necessarily* invalidate their position.

I had not seen a response to my last post. I was wondering if ya missed it or ignored it.

Anyway, is my claim that the text in JoWW, "trace a line" a fallacy? Nope. Or simply evidence that you (and most others0 won't accept ? May I request that you dispute the "trace a line" text itself? I know PSAs require rolls to hit, but this is an exception. "Trace a line."

Whaddya think?


As for my argument (syllogism and such)?

a. JoWW is a PSA.
b. PSAs require a roll to hit.
c. 40k is fulla exceptions (meltas get x2 to Pen at half distance, but not against Living Metal, SRGs or Wave Serpents)
d. JoWW has an exception in its text, " ... trace a line."

Okay, blast away!

I have always read that line as defining range and area of the (successful) use of the power. Even before the FAQ.

I do not understand how it can equate to a die roll that is not mentioned.

lledwey wrote:You can make parallels between anything with any bit of similarity. The effects/restrictions of the attack aren't what we are looking at, we are just looking at the 'draw a line part'. Again, it sets an important precedent, in that here we have an attack that requires you to draw a line only after you see whether or not you hit.

You can absolutely compare anything with any bit of similarity. What weight that comparison has on the argument, however, depends on the degree of similarity. In the case of Jaws and Vibrocannons, the degree of similarity is low enough that the comparison has little value, for the reasons I and others have mentioned.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You do realise[sic] that, as you are claiming the exceptional, you need to actually prove it, right? That requires you to provide rules, not just repeated unsubstantiated claims.

Actually, it's the ones who are arguing that "failing to hit means you don't draw the line" who are claiming the exceptional. 40k is a permissive ruleset. We can only do what the rules tell us to do. Jaws says "may trace a straight line". It does NOT make that permission conditional on a successful roll to hit (unlike, say, vibrocannons). Yes we have to obey the PSA's roll to hit rule and roll the die, but its outcome is irrelevant. Nowhere do the rules give us permission NOT TO draw the line, even if the hit roll fails. Rolling to hit, as I discussed in the article I linked previously (yeah, I'm citing myself, take that!) only has relevance in the context of determining whether an attack ultimately causes wounds. Nowhere in the rule for Jaws, the rules for psychic shooting attacks, or the rules for rolling to hit, does it say, "if you fail to hit, you don't draw the line". Without such language, we must do what Jaws tells us to do, regardless of the outcome of the roll to hit - draw the line and apply the effects. The FAQ for Murderous Hurricane says basically the same thing - even if you fail to hit, the effect happens anyway.

So my opponent declares he's casting Jaws and passes the psychic test. The Jaws rule gives him permission to draw the line and apply its effects. It does not make that permission conditional on a successful roll to hit. The only thing failing a roll to hit gives permission to do is not cause wounds. He rolls to hit and fails. Fine, I take no wounds from my opponent's Jaws. I wouldn't anyway, so the outcome of that roll is irrelevant. In a permissive rule set, once a permission has been granted you must be able to point to something that takes away or nullifies that permission granted in order to stop it from happening. I've got no such rule to stop him from drawing the line and applying the effects of the power anyway. Failing his roll to hit has exactly the same relevance as to whether or not the line gets drawn as whether or not my opponent breaks wind while leaning over to measure the 24". (Yep. That's happened.)

Hope this helps!
-GiantKiller

GiantKiller wrote:Yes we have to obey the PSA's roll to hit rule and roll the die, but its outcome is irrelevant.

I read this often in folk's assertion but never yet in the rules. Did I miss it? It makes as much sense as saying the psychic roll is irrelevent.

GiantKiller wrote:Nowhere do the rules give us permission NOT TO draw the line

Check the section on Psykers, especially the use of powers.
PSAs function as ranged weapons.
Next check using ranged weapons. Especially on what happens when they fail to hit rolls.

There is your permission NOT TO draw the line.

Let's just get rid of JotWW, it's the only sensible answer.

gpfunk wrote:Let's just get rid of JotWW, it's the only sensible answer.

Honestly I do not see it that often, it really is not all that. (Note: I am a Tyranid player)

Once the novelty wore off most SW players I know realized there are better ways to use their army.

CiaranAnnrach wrote:At best, it's evidence that the text "draw a line" doesn't replace the roll to hit.

Just wanted to point out that this was the ONLY thing I was using it as evidence for in the first place. So you agree with me!

kirsanth wrote:I read this often in folk's assertion but never yet in the rules. Did I miss it? It makes as much sense as saying the psychic roll is irrelevent.

Take another look at your rule book. Rolling to hit is only relevant as part of the process to determine whether or not ranged and physical attacks ultimately cause wounds. The psychic test is specifically applicable to all psychic powers, regardless of whether or not they cause wounds. (BGB p. 50)

kirsanth wrote:Next check using ranged weapons. Especially on what happens when they fail to hit rolls. There is your permission NOT TO draw the line.

I have checked. Many times. When ranged weapons fail to hit rolls, they don't cause wounds. That is certainly not enough to take away my opponent's permission to draw a line which:
a. does not cause wounds; and
b. is not made conditional upon a successful roll to hit

Hope this helps!
-GiantKiller

GiantKiller wrote:When ranged weapons fail to hit rolls, they don't cause wounds.

You skipped a step or two there.

Editing to add to what is apparently a confusing point:
When a (psychic) shooting attack misses its target it is rather contradictory to say it touches the target it misses.

When a (psychic) shooting attack misses its target, where is your text allowing it to affect ANYTHING in the game?
removing redundancy

kirsanth wrote:When a (psychic) shooting attack misses its target it is rather contradictory to say it touches the target it misses.
When a (psychic) shooting attack misses its target, where is your text allowing it to affect ANYTHING in the game?

"Q. Does Murderous Hurricane require the power to hit or wound its target to affect them? (p37)
A. No, a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even if the power fails to hit or wound." Codex: Space Wolves FAQ v1.1 (July 2011)

.


Hope this helps!
-GiantKiller

So let me ask you this, GiantKiller. Do you believe that markerlights don't work? You must, because they require a hit roll and do not cause wounds. What happens when you miss with a markerlight? Does the game end because the rules just broke?

I know you'll say "well markerlights aren't psychic powers and are different, etc. etc." just like with the vibro cannons. Seriously though, you're trying to say that only things that cause wounds depend on the hit roll. It isn't true. Next time I play a Tau player, I'll let him know though that even if he misses with his markerlight, he still gets the bonus. I'm sure he'll be happy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as I said earlier, that FAQ bit you quoted about Murderous Hurricane allows the SECONDARY effect of the power, the slowing of units, to still happen even if the damage part misses. Jaws only has one part to it.

Although would it really have killed them to just add in another line about Jaws? Maybe someday.

imweasel wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:Rolling to hit and rolling to wound has no relationship beyond that rolling to wound sometimes require you to first roll to hit. Eschewing one does not eschew the other.

DarknessEternal: That's me belief as well. It sort of goes hand-in-hand with the GW rule design methodology (or lack thereof).

But does it matter in JotWW case?

It explicitly states that if you are 'under/in' the line, you take an init test. Period. Whether you actually 'hit' or not with the PSA doesn't seem to matter?

I'm staying well away from this debate.

I mean, come on. "The power may miss, but it still hits" is essentially the current argument.

lledwey wrote:So let me ask you this, GiantKiller. Do you believe that markerlights don't work? You must, because they require a hit roll and do not cause wounds. What happens when you miss with a markerlight? Does the game end because the rules just broke?

So you ask me a question, answer it yourself, attribute the answer to me, and then attempt to discredit the answer you've attributed to me with a poorly constructed reductio ad absurdem? Do I even need to point out the toxic levels of fallacy in your argument?

lledwey wrote:I know you'll say "well markerlights aren't psychic powers and are different, etc. etc." just like with the vibro cannons. Seriously though, you're trying to say that only things that cause wounds depend on the hit roll. It isn't true. Next time I play a Tau player, I'll let him know though that even if he misses with his markerlight, he still gets the bonus. I'm sure he'll be happy.

Here's why your reductio ad absurdem fails. We have permission not to apply the markerlight effect if they miss because the effect is conditioned upon a successful to hit roll. In other words, we only have permission to apply the effect if it hits. Tau markerlights tell us "each time you hit a target with a markerlight, put a counter by that unit." (Codex: Tau p.29, emphasis added). It is expressly conditional upon a successful hit. Note the complete lack of any such language in the Jaws rule. Jaws doesn't say if you hit, draw the line; it says draw the line.

lledwey wrote:And as I said earlier, that FAQ bit you quoted about Murderous Hurricane allows the SECONDARY effect of the power, the slowing of units, to still happen even if the damage part misses. Jaws only has one part to it.

The rules and FAQs, as best I can tell, make no distinction between "primary" and "secondary" effects of a power. Murderous Hurricane does not say "as a secondary effect, that unit treats all terrain as difficult and dangerous." But the FAQ does draw a distinction between those effects that cause wounds and those that do not.

Right, but you contended that the only time you ever have to make a hit roll is if something is going to wound. That IS what you said. I showed you how that is false.

As for the hurricane thing, I know there is no such defined thing as primary and secondary effects. I'm just saying that was the intent of that FAQ. You are twisting the answer, specific to that one power, to mean that all PSAs can 'miss' and still have their effect. That just isn't true. In the specific case of murderous hurricane, the power can miss, and some of the effects of the power still go through. You take it to mean "any effects that don't cause wounds (weirder effects) disregard whether or not the PSA hits." It does not say that though, or anything like it. You applying it to Jaws is just not valid.

Here's what I have shown in the points I've argued:

Within the rules, there is an example of a shooting attack that requires the player to draw a line. They must roll to hit, and if they miss, they don't draw the line. That is a fact, I'm not arguing any other similarity between vibrocannons and Jaws. Hit roll followed by drawing a line. It exists in the rules.

Within the rules, there is also an example of a shooting attack that does not cause wounds, that is still dependant on a hit roll. Jaws not causing wounds therefore does not automatically disqualify it from depending on the hit roll.

Then, the points that Nos and everyone else have argued: nowhere does it say that you are exempt from the roll. You yourself even agree that you do have to roll, just that it doesn't matter.

So we have a power that does need to roll to hit (you agree), nowhere in the text does it specifically give you permission to ignore the hit roll, and other examples in the rules of shooting attacks working in the way I am describing.

We have no solid proof that the power does not require a hit roll. We also have no solid proof that the power does require a hit roll. By solid proof of course I mean a direct answer from GW. I have tried to show, however, that it is POSSIBLE within the rules for a hit roll to apply in this case.

I think I'll take a break from this for a while, especially seeing as how little it actually matters.

It's not "everyone else" lledway. I agree with GK, and arrived at the same conclusion as him several pages ago, but realize that endlessly repeating myself is not going to make me "more correct."

You're right, I shouldn't have said everyone else, I meant everyone on this side of the argument. My bad! I wasn't trying to imply that everyone else agrees with me, I know it is far from it!

I am pretty amazed that people are still equating JotWW touching a model with JotWW hitting a model,

IIed, your entire comparison and argument with the vibro-cannon is based on the false premise that JotWW hits the target model. The vibro-specifically tells you that what the line touches is hit. JotWW lacks that and makes a key difference. JotWW specifically tells you that what the line touches takes an iniative test.

Nos you are still floundering on a standard that you have arbitrarily created and that is not supported by RAW or the RAW of other psychic powers. Demanding that JotWW must specifically say that it does not roll to hit is your created standard. The standard given on page 50, is that exceptions on employing psychic powers are in the codex. If the codex tells you that you jump six times in a circle and all models within 72" of the rune priest suffer a hit/take an iniative test/are hit by str8 bunnies, then that is the codex exception on how to employ that psychic power that is different from the general rules,

I keep pointing out that JotWW also does not specifically tell you NOT to roll to wound to which the reply is that JotWW does not wound. Well, JotWW does not specifically tell you NOT to roll to hit, so my reply is that JotWW does not hit a target, it touches a target.

Damn space wolves are OP... Why can't Necrons have s8 bunnies ;_;

lledwey wrote:Right, but you contended that the only time you ever have to make a hit roll is if something is going to wound. That IS what you said. I showed you how that is false.

I don't believe that is his contention. I believe what he is saying that if you miss a 'to hit' roll, then you don't get to roll to wound. You still get to do everything else. To go even further, the 'to wound' roll converts the 'to hit' roll to a wound. Which jaws doesn't do or need to do.

Now if there is some entry somewhere that states that a psychic power that is a PSA that fails to hit negates or cancels the psychic power, I'm all ears. As far as I can tell, it just fails to wound.

Now, I'm on the side of it needing a 'to hit' roll. I am playing devil's advocate here. I didn't even think that this could actually work until (due to this thread) I took a closer look at the shooting rules.

Is there any other PSA's out there that don't wound? And what do those rules/errata/faq state on how those powers work? Like turning something into a chaos schmuck or a grot. Not that it matters as gw doesn't set or use precedent...

GiantKiller wrote:

kirsanth wrote:When a (psychic) shooting attack misses its target it is rather contradictory to say it touches the target it misses.
When a (psychic) shooting attack misses its target, where is your text allowing it to affect ANYTHING in the game?

"Q. Does Murderous Hurricane require the power to hit or wound its target to affect them? (p37)
A. No, a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even if the power fails to hit or wound." Codex: Space Wolves FAQ v1.1 (July 2011)

.


Hope this helps!
-GiantKiller

It helps if you are contending that no PSA needs to succeed in its to-hit roll (and potentially its psychic test), regardless of the subsequent effects.

You will note that the PSA it is refering to has two distinct effects.
The FAQ states that they are independent of each other--and the second does not require a successful to-hit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:Is there any other PSA's out there that don't wound? And what do those rules/errata/faq state on how those powers work?

The most often quoted are in the Tyranid codex. Many of them are PSAs that do not cause wounds and "that automatically hits" units.
It is silly that they use such obvious wording before and after JotWW and yet it is conspicuously lacking in it. Yet there it is.

I've played 6 games in the past 2 weeks with Rune Priests. I've cast Jaws at least 12 times. Hey guess who missed all 12 times. I hate the roll to hit almost as much as my dice.

OK 40k is a game of procedures. The rules dictate, how you do things.

How is a PSA done?

before FAQ:
1. pass the psychic test
2. measure range
3. resolve effect

after FAQ:
1. pass psychic test
2. Pick a target
3. measure range
3. Roll to hit
4. Resolve the effect

so the effect of Jaws is: trace a line with the length of 24" under which all opposing models must pass an initiative test. Otherwise they are removed.

The effect does not interfere with the rest of the procedure. If there is no specific contradiction to the usual procedure, this procedure will have to be followed.

-Nazdreg- wrote:OK 40k is a game of procedures. The rules dictate, how you do things.

How is a PSA done?

before FAQ:
1. pass the psychic test
2. measure range
3. resolve effect

after FAQ:
1. pass psychic test
2. Pick a target
3. measure range
3. Roll to hit
4. Resolve the effect

so the effect of Jaws is: trace a line with the length of 24" under which all opposing models must pass an initiative test. Otherwise they are removed.

The effect does not interfere with the rest of the procedure. If there is no specific contradiction to the usual procedure, this procedure will have to be followed.

Considering that you do not even have the general rules right, you might want a refresher course with the BRB and the SW codex before contributing to this thread.

Tyr - so, you're still failing to find any rule, anywhere stating that the to hit roll is not needed, or is replaced, or any such similar statement?

No, I am not making an arbitrary standard, just trying to get you to finally admit that JotWW makes NO MENTION of "to hit" and, as such, cannot specifically override the requirement to hit.

An exception has to be stated - for example "do not roll to hit" or "hits automatically" or "instead of rolling to hit" - franky *anything* which creates a specific exemption to the general rule requiring PSA to roll to hit.

You do understand specific > general, right?

I hate to say this, but I wonder if some people are from the Bolter and Chainsword Space Wolf forums. When I was there, SW players were always right, never wrong, and if you or in my case, made some great points, they were never acknowladged and they just say "it's the way it is" without and explanation, or any counters to what I had to say.

I see alot of this happening here. When someone makes a comment be it right or wrong, there is no counter arguement to say that they are wrong.

Welcome to YMDC... Dizzy yet?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tyr - so, you're still failing to find any rule, anywhere stating that the to hit roll is not needed, or is replaced, or any such similar statement?

No, I am not making an arbitrary standard, just trying to get you to finally admit that JotWW makes NO MENTION of "to hit" and, as such, cannot specifically override the requirement to hit.

An exception has to be stated - for example "do not roll to hit" or "hits automatically" or "instead of rolling to hit" - franky *anything* which creates a specific exemption to the general rule requiring PSA to roll to hit.

You do understand specific > general, right?

Exceptions do not need to be stated! Where are you getting this besides your own imagination? That is not what page 50 dictates and is not what the rules actually even do. Page 50 tells yout that excpetions to the general rules for employing psychic powers will be in the codex and that is it.

JotWW does not STATE that you do NOT roll to wound. Instead it tells you that models failing an initiative are removed from the table. That is not STATING that you do not roll to wound, that is giving you an exception to rolling to wound.

Thunderclap does not STATE that you do NOT declare a target, that yiu do NOT check range, or that you dodo NOT check LoS. Instead it tells you to place the small blast marker so that it is touching the rune priest. That is not STATING that you do not do those things, that as giving you exceptions to having to do those general rules.

JotWW does not STATE that you do NOT roll to hit. Instead it tells you that models that are touched by the line take an initiative test. That is not STATING that you do not roll to hit, that is giving you an exception to rolling to hit.

Even your, "automatically hits" examples do notnot STATE that you do not roll to hit. It is telling you telling you that the models are automatically hit. That is not STATING that you do not roll to hit, that is giving you an exception to rolling to hit.

Your continued insistance that it requires a statement shows you have absolutely zero grasp of how exceptions to the general rules for psychic powers work. It also shows that your argument has zero merit in the rules as writen because you keep asking for a standard that does not exist in the BRB or even in practice with other psychic powers.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Exceptions do not need to be stated!

I stopped here because it is simply wrong.

If a rule states (for argumentative purposes) that a to-hit roll needs to be made by XXX.

When you use XXX you need to have made a to-hit roll.

Otherwise you actually need an exception in text stating so.
You are cheating if you acknowledge those rules, have no exception to them, and yet refuse to follow them.

Editing to add:
It still makes more sense to say "INAT says it is allowed" than trying to. . .interpret the rules to validate it.

hsojvvad wrote:I hate to say this, but I wonder if some people are from the Bolter and Chainsword Space Wolf forums. When I was there, SW players were always right, never wrong, and if you or in my case, made some great points, they were never acknowladged and they just say "it's the way it is" without and explanation, or any counters to what I had to say.

I see alot of this happening here. When someone makes a comment be it right or wrong, there is no counter arguement to say that they are wrong.

INAT and Nova folks must be from the SW forums as well right? And Nos must be from The Tyranid Hive or The Waagh forums because he is arguing for a to roll hit?

Motives can be varied or can singular, but do not matter when the argument is RAW based on page 5050 of the BRB. RAI arguments can easily be motive driven. In Nos' case, I have no idea what army he plays that forces him to create a RAI standard to base his argument. I don't care what his army is, I have a point of contention that he is arbitrarily creating a standard that does not exist in the face of RAW and then is trying to push it as the rule. He has zero basis to set the standard at what he contends. He has created it and he is trying to push it as RAW.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

hsojvvad wrote:I hate to say this, but I wonder if some people are from the Bolter and Chainsword Space Wolf forums. When I was there, SW players were always right, never wrong, and if you or in my case, made some great points, they were never acknowladged and they just say "it's the way it is" without and explanation, or any counters to what I had to say.

I see alot of this happening here. When someone makes a comment be it right or wrong, there is no counter arguement to say that they are wrong.

INAT and Nova folks must be from the SW forums as well right? And Nos must be from The Tyranid Hive or The Waagh forums because he is arguing for a to roll hit?

Motives can be varied or can singular, but do not matter when the argument is RAW based on page 5050 of the BRB. RAI arguments can easily be motive driven. In Nos' case, I have no idea what army he plays that forces him to create a RAI standard to base his argument. I don't care what his army is, I have a point of contention that he is arbitrarily creating a standard that does not exist in the face of RAW and then is trying to push it as the rule. He has zero basis to set the standard at what he contends. He has created it and he is trying to push it as RAW.

If spite is your respite, I play Tyranids and never demand any player play by rules they do not agree with.

I assume the weaker arguement for my side regardless of the debate.

Do you play otherwise?

kirsanth wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Exceptions do not need to be stated!

I stopped here because it is simply wrong.

If a rule states (for argumentative purposes) that a to-hit roll needs to be made by XXX.

When you use XXX you need to have made a to-hit roll.

Otherwise you actually need an exception in text stating so.
You are cheating if you acknowledge those rules, have no exception to them, and yet refuse to follow them.

Editing to add:
It still makes more sense to say "INAT says it is allowed" than trying to. . .interpret the rules to validate it.

If you stopped reading there then you are just as short sighted as Nos because the examples I have provided show direct proof as to how GW provides exceptions to the general rules without specifically stating the exception.

You will not find, "DO NOT ROLL TO WOUND" in the rules entry for JotWW, yet it is number 4 of the general rules. Are you proposing that JotWW now needs to roll to wound?

You will not find, "DO NOT CHECK LINE OF SIGHT & PICK A TARGET" in the rules entry for Blood Boil, yet it is number 1 of the general rules. Are you proposing that Blood Boil now needs to check LoS and pick a target?

Exceptions to the general rules are not stated on a per word to word basis. If the codex tells you to employ a psychic power differently then the general rules you employ it as the rule is written, not by including your own criteria of what wording qualifies as an exception.

And even as I pointed out, "automatically hits" examples are not the standard for making an exception to the general rules. Especially in the case of JotWW where you never hit a target.

Most gaming groups have addressed this issue by this point. However, below is the analysis that we came up with for why a "to hit" roll is not required. The crux of the issue is that the Space Wolf FAQ explicitly states that the target of the power is determined after the affected models have been determined. Based on this we apply the codex FAQ as an override to the general FAQ and the power actually goes off and affects models prior to any target being nominated. See below.

I am going by RAW explicitly, you are trying to infer intent from the FAQ. Let's take a look at the RAW for psychic shooting attacks.
(BRB pg50)
"The following general rules explain how psychic powers are employed. Exceptions to these rules are covered in the Codexes"

This section is GW tellling you that these rules only apply in general, and that the Codexes will supercede them with their own rules where appropriate.

(BRB pg50)
"Psychic powers that take the form of shooting attacks are very common. Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon (an assault weapon unless otherwise specified)."

It simply says that you "count as" firing a ranged weapon. No where in the rules does it specify anything about applying the rules from the shooting section of the rulebook. "Counts as" does not mean that you suddenly get to apply the rules from another section of the rulebook. If I had a power that had a side effect that I "count as" moving when I use it. That doesn't mean that I get to go to the movement section of the rules and make a free move because I feel like it. By RAW, you are not given permission to use the shooting rules when making a psychic shooting attack.

Thus GW decided to give us a FAQ that told us that yes, these general psychic attacks do need to roll to hit just like all other shooting.
(BRB FAQ 1.3)
Q: Do psychic shooting attacks need to roll to hit? (p50)
A: Yes.

Ah, so now they have clarified that the general psychic shooting attacks do need to roll to hit like other shooting. There is still no RAW anywhere for it, but we have now been given permission by GW to roll to hit (still not to roll to wound, take saves, etc.) but that is another issue altogether. Thanks for sloppy rules writing GW...

So then we go to the SW Codex and take a look at JOWW for example.
(SW Codex pg37)
"As a psychic shooting attack, the Rune Priest may trace a straight line along the board, starting from the Rune Priest and ending 24" away. This line may pass through terrain. Monsterous Creatures, beasts, cavalry, bikes, and infantry models that are touched by this line must take an initiative test...If the model fails this test, it is removed from play..."

This declares that yes, JOWW "counts as" a psychic shooting attack, it then tells you what models it affects and how it affects them. By RAW, you do not pick a target for this power, you simply trace a line along the board. Anything that the line touches is affected by the power and must take an initiative test. The RAW for this power is that it is a line that doesn't declare a target. You place it and causes initiative tests to any models from any number of units that happen to be touching the line. From a RAW perspective, it is functionally identical to a power that said all units within 24" of the caster must take an initiative test or be removed from play. No target is specified, just a distance and the width of the affected area (for JOWW, the width is a hairline). By RAW, you don't declare a target, you don't roll to hit, you don't roll wounds, and you don't take armor saves from this power. It doesn't use any of the rules from the shooting section of the rulebook because it has told you how to determine the affected models/effects in the codex entry. This supercedes any "to hit" roll to determine the affected models/units for the power and falls directly into the exception clause on pg50 of the BRB.

However, this caused some problems. Since JOWW didn't have a target, you didn't need LOS to anything to fire it. Thus GW added some clarification to JOWW in the SW FAQ.

(SW FAQ 1.1)
Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf require line of sight?
Does it ignore terrain that blocks line of sight (i.e.,
impassable terrain)? (p37)
A. As a psychic shooting attack, Jaws of the World Wolf
requires line of sight. The Rune Priest must have line of
sight to the first model that the power affects – in effect he
is treated as the target model; the power just happens to
hit everybody else on its way through!

As you can see, the SW FAQ clarified that even though you don't specify a target for the power, you need LOS to the first model that the power affects once you have placed the line. And "in effect" that first affected model is considered the target for the power. This proves that by RAW, there is no target until the power has already successfully been cast and has affected models. This cleared up the LOS issue, but also clarified what unit the rest of the Priest's squad could shoot and subsequently assault. It also does give an order to the process of using JOWW.

1. First you place a line on the table touching the rune priests base and extending 24"
2. Check to see which models have been affected by the power and will need to take initiative tests
3. Then check to make sure that you have LOS to the first model affected by the power, that model is the target of the power
4. Resolve the initiative tests

Now the argument that a "to hit" roll is required has already failed by RAW, however if you are stubborn and to try to implement a "to hit roll" using RAI you run into the following issue. If you want the BRB to apply "to hit" rolls to JOWW you would need to declare a target and roll prior to placing the line. So the new sequence looks like this.

1. Declare a target and roll "to hit" it (per BRB FAQ)
2. Place a line on the table touching the rune priests base and extending 24"
3. Check to see which models have been affected by the power and will need to take initiative tests
4. Then check to make sure that you have LOS to the first model affected by the power, that model is the target of the power (per SW FAQ)
5. Resolve the initiative tests

Uh oh, you have two different steps that declare what the target of the power is. If you follow the targeting rules from the shooting section, then you can pick any unit within 24" to be the target. If you follow the rules from the SW Codex and FAQ, then you don't pick a target until the line is drawn and the first model affected is the target.

So now we have a conflict in the rules, two different ways to pick the target for the power. If only there was a way that GW had given us to determine which set of rules take precidence... Oh wait! it explicitly stated that the Codex rules trump the general rules for psychic powers on pg50 of the BRB. In fact, for 40k as a whole, the Codex rules always supercede BRB rules when they conflict.

So since the Codex rules trump the BRB rules you are left with the following order.

1. Declare a target and roll "to hit" it
1. Place a line on the table touching the rune priests base and extending 24"
2. Check to see which models have been affected by the power and will need to take initiative tests
3. Then check to make sure that you have LOS to the first model affected by the power, that model is the target of the power
4. Resolve the initiative tests

Thus this is the correct RAW way to play JOWW no matter how you analyze it.

Thank goodness someone with some sense decided to take the time and lay it all out there. Excellent work and Thank You very much. I want to get the compliment in now before the naysayers start trashing you.

On that note, I think this thread has reached its expiration date.

Moving on.