Hello all,

A couple of quick questions about our dear friend, Psychic Shriek.

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


1- Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire power and so it requires a roll To Hit, based on BS. This one is the simpler question and I cannot imagine this one can be argued against.

2- If I roll a '6' to Hit, am I entitled to Precision Shots?
If any of your character's shots roll 6 to hit, these are Precision Shots. Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, so long as it is in range, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation.

Based on the 2 rules interacting, I believe that I am required to make a roll To Hit with my Witchfire. If this roll is a 6, I would then roll 3D6, subtract Leadership, and allocate *all* of the Wounds as I see fit.
The reason I ask is because this seems monstrously powerful. Is this a correct interpretation of the rules?

Many thanks

I don't think it works in the same way.

Focussed witchfire can be on a specific squad member - but you have to get 5 or less on your psychic to choose the guy you want. Its why no one uses the eldar power mind war anymore if they can help it.

I think witchfire is more 'remove the nearest model' as otherwise, what would be the point of focussed witchfire?

Thats my 2p anyway - if I'm wrong Mind War just got better

Witchfire requires a roll to hit, yes, howeer if you miss then you still move on to the next step anyway - the roll to hit does nothing for this power.

THe focussed witchfire powers also do not folllow normal shooting rules, as they affect a single model - so precision shot would have no effect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Witchfire requires a roll to hit, yes, howeer if you miss then you still move on to the next step anyway - the roll to hit does nothing.

Um, what?

Unless I'm missing something, this power does not have a shooting profile - so if you miss, what stops you from still performing the 3D6 roll against leadership?

For example MH - if you miss (even automatically) you still apply the other effects of the power.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, this power does not have a shooting profile - so if you miss, what stops you from still performing the 3D6 roll against leadership?

The fact that your attack missed, obviously. It's treated as assault weapon.

Yes, and an assault weapon has a defined profile. This also has an additional effect of the Leadership check

Again, see MH for a very similar power, that was FAQd that the parts that did not rely on the roll to hit still take place. THe 3D6 does not rely on a roll to hit - the roll to hit is essentially rolling a 5 or less on the psychic check.

1. Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power, telling you that your psyker must use it in the shooting phase in lieu of a shooting attack. Since the Psychic Shriek does not have have a weapons profile, it does not need a "to hit" or "to wound" roll. Instead, you resolve the power as stated once successfully cast (roll 3d6, subtract leadership to generate number of wounds caused). Witchfires without weapon profiles do not require to hit rolls because they do not follow the traditional shooting rules (i.e. hemorrhage, puppet master)

My point was that, even if you do "roll to hit", the non-weapon effects still occur, as they have no reliance on hitting.

If psychic shriek was also assault D6, S1, AP-, in addition to the current rules, you could miss with every one of the D6, and the additional effects would still occur.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Witchfire requires a roll to hit, yes, howeer if you miss then you still move on to the next step anyway - the roll to hit does nothing for this power.

THe focussed witchfire powers also do not folllow normal shooting rules, as they affect a single model - so precision shot would have no effect.

Can you clarify this post with RAW support.

Focused witchfire uses all the rules for normal witchfire, with some extras. So it would be fired as an assault weapon as well.

Fragile - already done, further down in the thread

NOthing about the additional effect requires you to have succeeded on your roll to-hit. Nothing. Only shooting weapons have this requirement, or close combat attacks, and the additional effect is neither.

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

Focused Witchfires don't even roll to hit in the first place, since the FW subtype never lists that as a requirement. (it is a requirement in the "rules given above")
Which also means they can't precision shot.

edit: I'm a derp - irrelevant citation. Ignore this post.

Witchfire* Psychic Powers are shooting weapons.. So if the 3d6 is an "additional" effect of Psychic Shriek, are you saying that the "original" effect is just a Range: 12" Strength: 0 AP: 2 Assault 1 power?

Psychic Shriek rolls to hit- You can miss. This isn't Miniwargaming.com where we just pass the test and make the opponent roll 3d6 or even Hallucinate people from each other's Deployment zones just because it makes sense. Psychic Shriek also follows the rules for Precision Shots, if you roll a 6. That means all those wounds go to a character (LoS accordingly).

OP, Psychic Shriek is great but not as powerful as you think even with Precision Shots. The roll to hit part has thrown a kink in my plans many a time.

It drives me insane to be rolling to hit with my Psychic Shriek (I always have at least Ahriman or someone else using it), and then watching my opponent just flat out ignore that he must roll to hit.

 Brometheus wrote:
Psychic Powers are shooting weapons.. So if the 3d6 is an "additional" effect of Psychic Shriek, are you saying that the "original" effect is just a Range: 12" Strength: 0 AP: 2 Assault 1 power?

Psychic Shriek rolls to hit- You can miss. This isn't Miniwargaming.com where we just pass the test and make the opponent roll 3d6 or even Hallucinate people from each other's Deployment zones just because it makes sense. Psychic Shriek also follows the rules for Precision Shots, if you roll a 6. That means all those wounds go to a character (LoS accordingly).

OP, Psychic Shriek is great but not as powerful as you think even with Precision Shots. The roll to hit part has thrown a kink in my plans many a time.

Page 69 disagrees - Focused Witchfires don't roll to hit.

edit: NM - Shriek is a Witchfire, not a Focused Witchfire.

Fair enough- but I'm talking about Shriek- and only Shriek.

And Shriek is a Focused Witchfire. Meaning it does not roll to hit.
edit: I'm a derp.

It's just a Witchfire.

Yeah, just went to correct myself. Nevermind.

It's cool, man

Since Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire, and manifesting Witchfires counts as firing an assault weapon, they have to roll To Hit, and could get a 6. I think they would benefit from Precision Shots.

The Shriek just has a different manner of causing wounds, rather than rolling vs. majority Toughness of the target unit.

Wounds from Precision shots are allocated against a model/models of the firer's choice in the target unit rather than the normal mode of wound allocation. The fancy pants target model of a Precision Shot, if a character, can always use Look Out Sir. And it's only a 12" range power; not that overpowered, and most of the time it only does 2 or 3 wounds (average).

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Since Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire, and manifesting Witchfires counts as firing an assault weapon, they have to roll To Hit, and could get a 6. I think they would benefit from Precision Shots.

The Shriek just has a different manner of causing wounds, rather than rolling vs. majority Toughness of the target unit.

Wounds from Precision shots are allocated against a model/models of the firer's choice in the target unit rather than the normal mode of wound allocation. The fancy pants target model of a Precision Shot, if a character, can always use Look Out Sir. And it's only a 12" range power; not that overpowered, and most of the time it only does 2 or 3 wounds (average).

Unless you're playing a 10yr old in a shop and he goes to cast psychic shriek...and gets 17 on 3 dice!
Bye bye, my wolf guard.

I don't like Psychic Shriek. My penchant for rolling 1's and 2's does not help in this case.

Mozzamanx wrote:
Hello all,

A couple of quick questions about our dear friend, Psychic Shriek.

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


1- Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire power and so it requires a roll To Hit, based on BS. This one is the simpler question and I cannot imagine this one can be argued against.

2- If I roll a '6' to Hit, am I entitled to Precision Shots?
If any of your character's shots roll 6 to hit, these are Precision Shots. Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, so long as it is in range, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation.

Based on the 2 rules interacting, I believe that I am required to make a roll To Hit with my Witchfire. If this roll is a 6, I would then roll 3D6, subtract Leadership, and allocate *all* of the Wounds as I see fit.
The reason I ask is because this seems monstrously powerful. Is this a correct interpretation of the rules?

Many thanks

But where does it tell you how many attacks Psychic Shriek has? It is treated as an assault weapon. Is it Assault 1? 2? 3? Infinite? How do you know how many dice to roll. Also, if they hit, what is their strength? It is only the hit that rolls a six that gets to be directed. This attack has no listed strength, ap value, or even number of attacks. The 3d6 on leadership is an effect that triggers simply off of targeting a unit and does not seem to be tied to a to hit roll. As such, it should not be able to be a precision shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Put it another way, how would you play a weapon with this profile:

range 12" S 0 AP - Assault 0 Psychic shriek

Psychic Shriek: Unit targeted by this weapon takes a leadership roll on 3d6...

Having a profile or not doesn't matter- it's a Witchfire. If you miss, you don't apply anything. If you hit, the "wounds" are determined by what your opponent rolls.

 Brometheus wrote:
Having a profile or not doesn't matter- it's a Witchfire. If you miss, you don't apply anything. If you hit, the "wounds" are determined by what your opponent rolls.

But how many "to hit" rolls does psychic shriek require? It has no weapons profile. Why could it not be assault 2 or 3 and if any dice generates a hit apply the results? All other witchfire powers that require clear "to hit" rolls have a profile (i.e. Smite, Life Leech). I contend that the "to hit" roll is not required for psychic shriek because it does not have a weapons profile. It essentially automatically hits and you then roll 3d6 and subtract leadership to determine the number of wounds caused.

If it's a Witchfire, it requires a roll to hit. Saying that roll is not required because the power has no shooting profile is getting close to making up rules. We would have to find in the rulebook where weapons without profiles automatically "hit", or, more importantly, why Witchfires would automatically hit before either of us can argue with each other more.

 Brometheus wrote:
If it's a Witchfire, it requires a roll to hit. Saying that roll is not required because the power has no shooting power is getting close to making up rules. We would have to find in the rulebook where weapons without profiles automatically "hit". Or, more importantly, why Witchfires would automatically hit.

It's not about automatically hitting.
It's about the effect on a miss. Since there's no weapon profile does it matter if you miss?

Sure does- The Psychic Power did not hit the target.

Let me be clear- You guys are saying that you understand the requirement for the Roll to Hit in the Witchfire paragraph, but that you will apply the effects of Psychic Shriek whether you hit or not? Correct me if I misunderstand, please.

I'll leave this one be- I don't think I can effectively argue for my side- Maybe that's why I'm not doing well in my Logic class!

This sounds like another case of intent blind rules-lawyering by Rigeld and Nos.

 Brometheus wrote:
Having a profile or not doesn't matter- it's a Witchfire. If you miss, you don't apply anything. If you hit, the "wounds" are determined by what your opponent rolls.

How many dice do you roll to hit, and where did you get that number from?

Banbaji wrote:

 Brometheus wrote:
Having a profile or not doesn't matter- it's a Witchfire. If you miss, you don't apply anything. If you hit, the "wounds" are determined by what your opponent rolls.

How many dice do you roll to hit, and where did you get that number from?

Also there are clear cut cases of witchfires that don't roll to hit...

example: Any template psi power.

With the blanket statement of witchfire MUST roll to hit then you would be changing the rules for a lot of powers.

 Crimson wrote:
This sounds like another case of intent blind rules-lawyering by Rigeld and Nos.

No - actually the intent on this could go either way for Psychic Shriek specifically. Making it reliant on BS makes it a very sub-par power.

Which wouldn't surprise us at all in the case of GW, would it? That we can agree upon, at least.

It was errata'ed under the last Codex, but the Lash of Submission might be suitable for precedence?

It was listed as a psychic shooting attack, and was later addressed in a FAQ to state that it did in fact need a roll to hit. Of course this might be because it was notoriously overpowered but there is perhaps a precedent in that.

Mozzamanx wrote:
It was errata'ed under the last Codex, but the Lash of Submission might be suitable for precedence?

It was listed as a psychic shooting attack, and was later addressed in a FAQ to state that it did in fact need a roll to hit. Of course this might be because it was notoriously overpowered but there is perhaps a precedent in that.

And then there's JotWW (a PSA that does not need to roll to hit) and Murderous Hurricane (that needs to roll to hit to do damage, but the secondary effect of difficult/dangerous terrain happens regardless of the hit)

So if it doesn't "need" to roll to hit, must you (or may you) roll to hit to determine whether or not Precision Shots occurs?

 Brometheus wrote:
So if it doesn't "need" to roll to hit, must you (or may you) roll to hit to determine whether or not Precision Shots occurs?

If you do not need to roll to hit, Precision Shot cannot occur. Precision Shot is part of the risk/reward of the "to hit" roll. Powers that do not require "to hit" rolls cannot benefit from rules dependant on a "to hit" roll occuring.

 Brometheus wrote:
So if it doesn't "need" to roll to hit, must you (or may you) roll to hit to determine whether or not Precision Shots occurs?

No, because the act of hitting never occurs. Example: Psi Shriek never causes grounding tests because the act of hitting never happens

But where does it say you ignore the requirement to roll to hit per the Witchfire rule?

 Brometheus wrote:
But where does it say you ignore the requirement to roll to hit per the Witchfire rule?

How can you implement that requirement without a weapons profile telling you the number of shots (which equals the number of "to hit" dice) to roll for?

The same way a Warpsmith can Curse vehicles by rolling to Hit . "If the curse hits, all that vehicles.." blah blah..

Psychic Shriek is an effect that happens after you roll to hit, much like the Curse. The number of "shots" doesn't matter, because the effect is applied if it hits (in this case: 3d6 vs. Leadership is the effect and there is only one effect)

I am not implementing the requirement to hit. The Witchfire rule is.

SaganGree wrote:

 Brometheus wrote:
So if it doesn't "need" to roll to hit, must you (or may you) roll to hit to determine whether or not Precision Shots occurs?

No, because the act of hitting never occurs. Example: Psi Shriek never causes grounding tests because the act of hitting never happens

Well, sure, it never causes grounding checks....you can't target Swooping FMCs with it in the first place if it doesn't roll to hit.

I think the most convincing argument I've seen so far in favour of skipping the "To Hit" rolls is this: how many dice does one roll when seeing if it hits? It's Assault X (since it's PSA)...but what is that X? The rules for PSA don't tell us, nor do the rules for Shriek. There is no default value (such as 1) to choose, which means the caster could choose any number he desires. But without rules support any number he chooses, be it 1 or 100, is illegal.
The simplest way to solve this, then, is to skip the roll to hit. No Precision Shots, no missing. Target unit takes a 3D6 Ld, and that's that.

 Brometheus wrote:
The same way a Warpsmith can Curse vehicles by rolling to Hit . "If the curse hits, all that vehicles.." blah blah..

But that's not what Shriek says.

I am not implementing the requirement to hit. The Witchfire rule is.

I don't disagree that you're required to roll.
I just don't see evidence that you must hit to successfully resolve the power.

SaganGree wrote:

 Brometheus wrote:
So if it doesn't "need" to roll to hit, must you (or may you) roll to hit to determine whether or not Precision Shots occurs?

No, because the act of hitting never occurs. Example: Psi Shriek never causes grounding tests because the act of hitting never happens

Incorrect. Psi Shriek requires a to hit roll. It is a plain witchfire spell. Now in order to hit a FMC you would have to snapfire it.

Psi Shriek requires a roll to hit.

On a 6 "to hit" a precision shot occurs so any wounds from that shot would be precision.

rigeld2 wrote:

I don't disagree that you're required to roll.
I just don't see evidence that you must hit to successfully resolve the power.

If you honestly believe that a correct way to interpret the rules is to make a to-hit roll that affects nothing, I really don't know what to tell you.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I don't disagree that you're required to roll.
I just don't see evidence that you must hit to successfully resolve the power.

If you honestly believe that a correct way to interpret the rules is to make a to-hit roll that affects nothing, I really don't know what to tell you.

It could be intended that you don't roll and it just works.
It could be intended that you do roll and it works regardless of the roll.
It could be intended that you do roll and if you miss it doesn't work.

As far as I can tell, it's written to be the second option. I'm open to actual rules proving otherwise but I'd rather not be insulted like you're doing.

When you shoot, you roll the number of dice indicated in the weapons profile. Here, you are never told how many dice to roll. Well, actually, this would have to be an assault 0 weapon. It is treated as firing an assault weapon (can move and charge), but you are not given permission to roll any dice (which requires a statement like "assault 0" in a weapons profile). You cannot roll to hit with this attack. You are given no dice to roll. Instead, the attack takes effect simply by targeting a unit.

 Crimson wrote:
This sounds like another case of intent blind rules-lawyering by Rigeld and Nos.

Stick to arguing rules and not making personal attacks please.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I don't disagree that you're required to roll.
I just don't see evidence that you must hit to successfully resolve the power.

If you honestly believe that a correct way to interpret the rules is to make a to-hit roll that affects nothing, I really don't know what to tell you.

OK, as it is an assault weapon, I will call it an Assault Infinity weapon, and therefore I automatically hit.

Done.

Seriously, MH. If you miss, the effect on the unit takes place. Take your "intent rules lawyering" insults and see that FAQ first before posting again

You can roll to hit, miss, and the effect still happens, because those are the rules for the psychic power.

As I recall (do not have the book on me for direct quotes), the section detailing "assault weapons" simply lists what models are allowed to do when these weapons are fired (can have moved, and allowed to assault). The only time rolling to hit is talked about is, as far as I remember, directly tied to a weapons profile, which psychic shriek does not have. No profile, no number of dice given, no roll. Only an effect.

rigeld2 wrote:

It could be intended that you do roll and it works regardless of the roll.

No it couldn't.

As far as I can tell, it's written to be the second option. I'm open to actual rules proving otherwise but I'd rather not be insulted like you're doing.

Would you actually play it like this?

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It could be intended that you do roll and it works regardless of the roll.

No it couldn't.

Citation required - you cannot know that without some form of FAQ.

As far as I can tell, it's written to be the second option. I'm open to actual rules proving otherwise but I'd rather not be insulted like you're doing.

Would you actually play it like this?

I'd ask the TO for his ruling but not argue it. In a friendly game I wouldn't care.

rigeld2 wrote:

Citation required - you cannot know that without some form of FAQ.

I know it same way I know Wraithguard are intended to be able to shoot. GW doesn't make rules that are that stupid.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Citation required - you cannot know that without some form of FAQ.

I know it same way I know Wraithguard are intended to be able to shoot. GW doesn't make rules that are that stupid.

One of those examples leads to an unplayable game. The other is an oddity due to funky wording that really has no effect on anything. Comparing the two isn't smart.

Regardless - have any actual rules to add to the discussion yet? Or just trying to get someone angry?

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Citation required - you cannot know that without some form of FAQ.

I know it same way I know Wraithguard are intended to be able to shoot. GW doesn't make rules that are that stupid.

We know where the eyes of the model should be(art students know exactly where they should be but also baulk at every model in the 40K range).

We do not know the intent of a power that requires a to hit roll, and then has an effect against units/targeted or random models as a whole.

Requiring a Psychic test and then a successful To-hit roll on some of the non-weapon witchfires is a bit much compared to the auto hitting maledictions with limited effects

rigeld2 wrote:

Page 69 disagrees - Focused Witchfires don't roll to hit.

I only now noticed this. Which part that may be? It sure as hell isn't the part where they follow all the rules of normal witchfires.

As for Shriek, I just don't believe GW writes rules so that you have to decrypt the secret meanings. When they say that a power must roll to hit, they obviously mean it has to hit for its damaging effect to apply. They don't mean roll for hit just for LOLs.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Page 69 disagrees - Focused Witchfires don't roll to hit.

I only now noticed this. Which part that may be? It sure as hell isn't the part where they follow all the rules of normal witchfires.

As for Shriek, I just don't believe GW writes rules so that you have to decrypt the secret meanings. When they say that a power must roll to hit, they obviously mean it has to hit for its damaging effect to apply. They don't mean roll for hit just for LOLs.

Murderous. Hurricane.

Will you ever address the ONE FAQ that I have mentioned every damn time, or will you just pretend we have no prior ruling on this?

Fact: secondary effects CAN apply even if you miss.

ALso: if you insist on rolling to hit, tell me how many dice I can use, using some written rules as per the tenets of this forum.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Murderous. Hurricane.

Will you ever address the ONE FAQ that I have mentioned every damn time, or will you just pretend we have no prior ruling on this?

Fact: secondary effects CAN apply even if you miss.

I can now, as you actually typed the name of the power instead of two letter acronym; I don't remember initials of every power in every book by heart.

It's an old power from old codex, and it's an odd combination of witchfire and malediction, and that's why it works like it does.

ALso: if you insist on rolling to hit, tell me how many dice I can use, using some written rules as per the tenets of this forum.

It's a single attack, so one die. Why would it be anything else?

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ALso: if you insist on rolling to hit, tell me how many dice I can use, using some written rules as per the tenets of this forum.

It's a single attack, so one die. Why would it be anything else?

And what rule told you to roll one die?

Page and Graph will suffice.

P. 13 should suffice.

 Crimson wrote:
P. 13 should suffice.

What Graph, because I can not find anything on Page 13 telling me how many dice to roll for Psychic Shriek's to hit roll.

I see this " roll a D6 for each shot that is in range" (13)

So how many shots does Psychic Shriek have?

I can not find this information in the rules.

"Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable..." This should be sufficient information for you to conclude, that unless otherwise told, a shooting attack has one shot.

Are you firing a shot?

Or any weapon at all?

 Crimson wrote:
"Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable..." This should be sufficient information for you to conclude, that unless otherwise told, a shooting attack has one shot.

1) that says most, so it may or may not apply to Psychic Shriek.

2) Unfortunately that does not address Psychic Shriek.

How do we know how many shots Psychic Shriek gets, there is nothing to tell us, we can not just assume it is one.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
"Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable..." This should be sufficient information for you to conclude, that unless otherwise told, a shooting attack has one shot.

1) that says most, so it may or may not apply to Psychic Shriek.

2) Unfortunately that does not address Psychic Shriek.

How do we know how many shots Psychic Shriek gets, there is nothing to tell us, we can not just assume it is one.

It is obviously 3d6-the target units LD in shots; but then they all auto hit because that is what the rule says(to apply that many wounds)

Pg 69 "a witchfire power must roll to hit unless its a blast, large blast, ..."

Shriek doesn't match any of the exceptions and has no exemption from rolling to hit. Therefore it must roll to hit. 1d6 as it (the witchfire power) is treated as an assault weapon.

There's literally nothing in the BRB exempting it from this roll. There is nothing in the BRB even hinting that a miss would still apply the effect, only a single power specific FAQ to an old codex. You cannot apply a FAQ to an old codex as a precedent to create a situation in how the whole witchfire system in the BRB functions.

1) Assault weapons all have a number after the word assault telling you how many shots are made from that assault weapon(and the weapon profile powers all have this number too).

2) There is nothing in the BRB that states you have to hit to have the effects of the power go off; instead we are given a power and then given an effect for when that power is successfully cast.

So the question arises: did you pass a Psychic test? if the answer is yes then the effects of the power occur. Many witchfire powers have weapon profiles, these absolutely then need to hit for their effects to occur

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Page 69 disagrees - Focused Witchfires don't roll to hit.

I only now noticed this. Which part that may be? It sure as hell isn't the part where they follow all the rules of normal witchfires.

If you just now noticed this, I'm not sure how you missed my post 4 minutes prior to that.

rigeld2 wrote:

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

Focused Witchfires don't even roll to hit in the first place, since the FW subtype never lists that as a requirement. (it is a requirement in the "rules given above")
Which also means they can't precision shot.

But thank you pointing out a sentence I missed. How about instead of getting all uppity you politely correct me on something like that?
Have I offended you recently? Is there a reason you're being so hostile?

As for Shriek, I just don't believe GW writes rules so that you have to decrypt the secret meanings. When they say that a power must roll to hit, they obviously mean it has to hit for its damaging effect to apply. They don't mean roll for hit just for LOLs.

Except for JotWW - that doesn't have to roll at all. And Murderous Hurricane can cause damage on a miss. Yeah, except for where your statement doesn't apply, it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Pg 69 "a witchfire power must roll to hit unless its a blast, large blast, ..."

Shriek doesn't match any of the exceptions and has no exemption from rolling to hit. Therefore it must roll to hit. 1d6 as it (the witchfire power) is treated as an assault weapon.

There's literally nothing in the BRB exempting it from this roll. There is nothing in the BRB even hinting that a miss would still apply the effect, only a single power specific FAQ to an old codex. You cannot apply a FAQ to an old codex as a precedent to create a situation in how the whole witchfire system in the BRB functions.

Please explain how many dice I must roll to hit with. Please also include a page citation.
Please note that page 51 requires you to fire the number of times indicated in the Assault weapon's profile. Have you found a profile for Psychic Shriek yet? A page number for that would be great.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Page 69 disagrees - Focused Witchfires don't roll to hit.

I only now noticed this. Which part that may be? It sure as hell isn't the part where they follow all the rules of normal witchfires.

If you just now noticed this, I'm not sure how you missed my post 4 minutes prior to that.

rigeld2 wrote:

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

Focused Witchfires don't even roll to hit in the first place, since the FW subtype never lists that as a requirement. (it is a requirement in the "rules given above")
Which also means they can't precision shot.

But thank you pointing out a sentence I missed. How about instead of getting all uppity you politely correct me on something like that?
Have I offended you recently? Is there a reason you're being so hostile?

As for Shriek, I just don't believe GW writes rules so that you have to decrypt the secret meanings. When they say that a power must roll to hit, they obviously mean it has to hit for its damaging effect to apply. They don't mean roll for hit just for LOLs.

Except for JotWW - that doesn't have to roll at all. And Murderous Hurricane can cause damage on a miss. Yeah, except for where your statement doesn't apply, it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Pg 69 "a witchfire power must roll to hit unless its a blast, large blast, ..."

Shriek doesn't match any of the exceptions and has no exemption from rolling to hit. Therefore it must roll to hit. 1d6 as it (the witchfire power) is treated as an assault weapon.

There's literally nothing in the BRB exempting it from this roll. There is nothing in the BRB even hinting that a miss would still apply the effect, only a single power specific FAQ to an old codex. You cannot apply a FAQ to an old codex as a precedent to create a situation in how the whole witchfire system in the BRB functions.

Please explain how many dice I must roll to hit with. Please also include a page citation.
Please note that page 51 requires you to fire the number of times indicated in the Assault weapon's profile. Have you found a profile for Psychic Shriek yet? A page number for that would be great.

Have you found a rules quote that exempts shriek from following the requirement of all witchfire powers rolling to hit?

You're dodging by asking pointless questions. Poorly written rules do not equate to an exemption.

Since the rules state witchfire powers must roll to hit, it's fairly obvious that shriek should be read as "(if this power hits) target unit rolls 3d6..." Since a witchfire power must roll to hit, and all references to the power are singular, it's fairly obvious that a power must roll a d6 to hit.

It's not written in RAW, but the weight of intent in the gaps of the rule are obvious enough that every person I've played with shriek has rolled a single d6 to hit. Without any question or debate.

If you did not roll to hit, you didn't meet the requirements of witchfire. Stop there and don't apply the effects.

I'm with Nos and rigeld2 in this one.

My personal RAW opinion. Psychic Shriek does not work at all per RAW. It requires you to roll to hit and gives you no dice to roll with. Either the game suddenly ends in a stalemate as you are not allowed to proceed at that point without making a To-hit roll or the power just fails entirely as you cannot meet the requirements. Either way is entirely broken but per RAW, that's it. The effects would be applied to the target either way as it does not stipulate a requirement to Hit, wound, etc for those effects to go off unless you can find some thing saying otherwise. You'll never get that far though for the aforementioned reason.

The closest related-though-not-exactly-RAW point of view on this would be that since the roll to hit does not do anything we can just gloss over that particular oversight of theirs and and proceed with the rest of the power which only requires targeting.

Edit: Added note: This power does require a roll To-Hit and therefore can effect flyers and Swooping FMCs.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Have you found a rules quote that exempts shriek from following the requirement of all witchfire powers rolling to hit?

You're dodging by asking pointless questions. Poorly written rules do not equate to an exemption.

Since the rules state witchfire powers must roll to hit, it's fairly obvious that shriek should be read as "(if this power hits) target unit rolls 3d6..." Since a witchfire power must roll to hit, and all references to the power are singular, it's fairly obvious that a power must roll a d6 to hit.

It's not written in RAW, but the weight of intent in the gaps of the rule are obvious enough that every person I've played with shriek has rolled a single d6 to hit. Without any question or debate.

Thank you. This pretty much sums it up.

Hvy - fine, once you can tell me how many shots my Assault Weapon fires, I will roll that many dice to-hit.

Note the rules for assault weapons state how many shots they fire. An assault 1 weapn fires one shot. How many shots does an assault (undefined) weapon fire?

Find me the number of dice I am required to roll, then you may have a point. A page and paragraph will be sufficient

Failure or refusal to prrovide is concession that the roll is undefined.

Nos, you approach this from RAW-debate-society point of view, we approach this from we-actually-want-to-play-the-bloody-game point of view. Considering that vast majority of people are actually rolling to hit for Psychic Shriek, they somehow manage to figure out how many dice to roll.

What Hyv3mynd sais.

Yes, in a forum dedicated to determining rules, when I am explicitly discussing the written rules - and showing you explanations of how GW have previously ruled in similar situations, to clarify that your "intention" argument fails, and fails hard - and showing the gaps in peoples assumptions

You are assuming that the roll to-hit has any effect on the use of the secondary power. This is belied by a minimum of 2 other witchhfire powers just mentioned in this thread. So not only do you have no written evidence, you lack any intent argument. Point the first

Even if I accepted your contention that you must have a successful roll to hit, I was asking you to determine - using rules, not your made up version of the game - how many dice I roll. This you have also been unable to do.

So, in order to how I want to play the rule - given how generally lacklustre witchfires, and focused witchfires are in particular - playing it how precedent has ruled makes most sense to me. Thus, you have no need to roll to hit, as your secondary effect always takes place.

Also, who is "we"? So far "we" consists of "not many people in this thread"

Finally, define "vast majority". Any citations for that? Anything?

I think that there is a need to roll to hit because nothing says you don't have to make the roll.

I also think that the roll needs to hit and I'm not taking MH as precedence due to the age difference in the codex and the brb I see it just as a rebalancing. Also there is a clear primary attack and secondary effect there so the powers aren't analogous .

There is nothing to say that the actual effect of shriek is an effect in the same way MH's secondary effect is. It is an attack as it causes wounds, while I can see the idea that the roll to hit isn't said to be necessary in the power, the witchfire rules does say that it must roll to hit. Must is a very direct order to take the roll. If it doesn't roll to hit, like all other witchfire powers it cannot cause wounds, that MH gets to put on secondary effects is irrelevant to this discussion IMHO.

As to how many dice are rolled, just 1. The same as any ambiguous stuff in 40k, you assume it's the simplest iteration of the rules unless there is something to say otherwise and it's one attack that has a very odd mechanic to figure out how many wounds are inflicted so just 1 dice.

These all all the threads on Dakka I could find that deal with the subject:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/461761.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/485633.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513701.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/497392.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/481298.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/470546.page

In all of these the consensus is, or it is just flat out taken as given, that you need to roll to hit. The problem of how many dice to roll has not ever been brought up before this thread, it's a made up problem.

"I don't know how many dice to roll, so my power just automatically hits!" or "Yes, I have roll to hit, but it doesn't say I actually have to hit for to work!" are not arguments I could see going well in any real gaming table.

And FAQs on old 5E powers should have no bearing on how 5E powers work.

How is it made up?
Find some rules. Please. The actual rules state it is an Assault weapon, and the rules for assault weapons define them as stating the number of shots. This does not define the number of shots, so it is undefined.

As per the tenets can you please mark your posts as "HIWPI", so people dont mistakenly think you are arguing from a rules position?

Edit: following the first link that you posted, Yak had this to say (I have edited to get to the summary)

So the questions (that have no RAW answers) are:

1) Does Focused Witchfire really have to roll 'to hit' as the basic Witchfire rules seem to indicate?
2) If so, and the psyker is a character and he rolls a '6' to hit, are any and all wounds caused by the focused witchfire precision shots?
3) If so, how does this interact with the focused witchfire rule about the psyker getting to choose the target only if he passes his Psychic Test on a '5' or less?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Actually reading the 4th paragraph of the Witchfire rules on page 69 have led me to conclude that all the specialty types of Witchfire (Beam, focused witchfire, maelstrom, nova) are probably not supposed to have to roll to hit, although if that's the case it really is quite unclear which if any of the targeting restrictions for general witchfire (such as LOS) apply.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is it made up?
Find some rules. Please. The actual rules state it is an Assault weapon, and the rules for assault weapons define them as stating the number of shots. This does not define the number of shots, so it is undefined.

Because thousands of people have managed to play with rolling to hit just fine. It obviously cannot be a game stopping problem. I can conclude from from p. 13 just fine that unless told otherwise, you shoot once. But I'm clever like that.

As per the tenets can you please mark your posts as "HIWPI", so people dont mistakenly think you are arguing from a rules position?

Strict RAW position is that game breaks down and you cannot play as rules are not clear enough. And if you want actually play the game (as I assume the OP does) you must move beyond that.

Although page 13 doesnt say that. And the rule for Assault weapons doesn't actually say that. So when you say "clever", what you mean is "capable of blindly assuming", and we all know how clever making assumptions is.

Strict RAW for this power doesnt result in the game breaking - the roll to-hit is not tied to the success, or otherwise, of the 3D6 effect. Because its like rules matter or something.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is it made up?
Find some rules. Please. The actual rules state it is an Assault weapon, and the rules for assault weapons define them as stating the number of shots. This does not define the number of shots, so it is undefined.

As per the tenets can you please mark your posts as "HIWPI", so people dont mistakenly think you are arguing from a rules position?

Edit: following the first link that you posted, Yak had this to say (I have edited to get to the summary)

So the questions (that have no RAW answers) are:

1) Does Focused Witchfire really have to roll 'to hit' as the basic Witchfire rules seem to indicate?
2) If so, and the psyker is a character and he rolls a '6' to hit, are any and all wounds caused by the focused witchfire precision shots?
3) If so, how does this interact with the focused witchfire rule about the psyker getting to choose the target only if he passes his Psychic Test on a '5' or less?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Actually reading the 4th paragraph of the Witchfire rules on page 69 have led me to conclude that all the specialty types of Witchfire (Beam, focused witchfire, maelstrom, nova) are probably not supposed to have to roll to hit, although if that's the case it really is quite unclear which if any of the targeting restrictions for general witchfire (such as LOS) apply.

"Must roll to hit" still applies to focused witchfire as there is nothing saying it doesn't. Unlike beams, maelstroms and novas there is no automatic hitting RAW. Unless you have a specific permission you've got to apply all the restrictions of psychic powers and shooting to these attacks.

The issue of focussed witchfire has nothing to to with shriek as it's just a witchfire and the 4th paragraph is about targeting restrictions not about creating a false dichotomy of witchfire and every other witchfire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Although page 13 doesnt say that. And the rule for Assault weapons doesn't actually say that. So when you say "clever", what you mean is "capable of blindly assuming", and we all know how clever making assumptions is.

Strict RAW for this power doesnt result in the game breaking - the roll to-hit is not tied to the success, or otherwise, of the 3D6 effect. Because its like rules matter or something.

If the roll is not tied to the success, where is the page quote? Rigeld proposed that it may not be tied due to precedent not hard facts from RAW, which is fine but I don't think it's a strong or winning argument.

The 3D6 effect is an attack, it is not analogous to "counts all terrain as difficult and dangerous" which is an effect secondary to MH's attack.
If the rules matter or something, why are you ignoring them? Glib answers are great and I do love to give them but there is a rule you've not shown exemption from that you are handwaving away.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Although page 13 doesnt say that. And the rule for Assault weapons doesn't actually say that. So when you say "clever", what you mean is "capable of blindly assuming", and we all know how clever making assumptions is.

Believe or not, GW rules are written with assumption that people can make such assumptions.

Strict RAW for this power doesnt result in the game breaking - the roll to-hit is not tied to the success, or otherwise, of the 3D6 effect. Because its like rules matter or something.

No, you have to roll to hit, even though it would not be tied to the success. You cannot skip the step as rules require it. And then you are standing there, staring at the dice as you cannot know how many to roll (possibly without pants, as they didn't come with instructions for which way to put them on.)

Liturgies - because the 3D6 roll has nothing to do with a to-wound roll. There is no link between an assault weapon to-hit and this test. Yes, it is an attack - just not a shooting attack. You can tell, as it has no shootign profile. Not even a glimmer of one.

It isnt being handwaved away - I am pointing out that you have no rule tying the two together. I dont have to prove a negative, you have to prove that to0hit has ANYTHING to do with rolling 3D6, comparing to Ld, and taking that many wounds. Where is the to-wound step, the next part of the shooting process? There isnt one? Then why are you stating this remains part of the shootnig process?

It is a nonsensical position to take.

Crimson - maybe this isnt the forum for you, as you dont seem to agree with the tenets. Ignored your post as it remains irrelevant to the discussion, and lacked any actual content - it didnt even respond to the points raised by Yak, ina thread you cited, which points out a flaw in your argument

So is ecstatic seizures is not an attack as it doesn't roll to wound as normal? If it's not a shooting attack why is it witchfire, if it's not a shooting attack how do I allocate those wounds, if it's not a witchfire why does it say it's a witchfire power and why does witchfire rules call them shooting attacks? I think you might be mistaken.

What process? It's a shooting attack that doesn't use the standard to hit, to wound and take saves procedure. It doesn't have to follow that exactly to be a witchfire attack. Ecstatic seizures doesn't and the examples of different powers are from the SW codex which is ham fisted into 6th ed rather than being 6th ed powers.

The power is witchfire, it is resolved as a witchfire is resolved.
Does a witchfire have to roll to hit?
Does this hit allow you to continue the resolution of the power?
What happens when you fail to roll to hit with a witchfire power in the absence of any exceptions?

You are told witchfires are Assault weapons unless stated otherwise. Does this state otherwise?

No. It doesn't... and?
It also doesn't state any exceptions to the rules of a witchfire.

You're entire argument is based on the assumption that because something doesn't have the profile of an assault weapon it isn't one. However the convention that "counts as = is" in 40k means that stance is irrelevant as the attack "is" an assault weapon as per the witchfire rules.

Many shooting attacks do not follow the range x S y AP Z profile, it doesn't stop them being shooting attacks nor does it remove the need to roll to hit, unless there is an exception in the attack's wording.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Crimson - maybe this isnt the forum for you, as you dont seem to agree with the tenets. Ignored your post as it remains irrelevant to the discussion, and lacked any actual content - it didnt even respond to the points raised by Yak, ina thread you cited, which points out a flaw in your argument

Cite the rule that allows you to skip the clear requirement to roll to hit, please. This is important, you haven't been able to do so.



As for Yak's points (though I don't see why they're relevant):

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) They both apply. You just have two different ways being able to choose the target.

Crimson - Cite the rules that allow you to roll only 1 dice to hit. You havent been able to. Page 13 doesnt work, as you are well aware. Once you can do that, you may have a point. Or are you back to arguing HYWPI, without stating so explicitly?

Liturgies - because otherwise it is an assault weapon, but has no profile given. Meaning you cannot operate it. You are claiming that the 3D6 is part of the assault weapon, with no actual rules stating so. It is simply an effect that is not tied to the "weapon" status at all - as there is no such link stated. Permissive ruleset - you have no permission to alter the assault weapon stat line (that doesnt exist, in totality) so you may not do so.

Prove it. Prove it is partr of the stat line, with page and para.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - Cite the rules that allow you to roll only 1 dice to hit. You havent been able to. Page 13 doesnt work, as you are well aware. Once you can do that, you may have a point. Or are you back to arguing HYWPI, without stating so explicitly?

And what if I can't? You can't cite the rule that allows you to skip rolling to hit part either. That you cannot figure out how many dice you have to roll doesn't let you skip that part. Maybe it means that the power cannot be resolved at all; tough luck. That's what you get with strict RAW.

All focused witchfires in the brb don't have an assault profile as you demand, they are an assault weapon.

If your stance is correct then no focused witchfire works.


You cannot answer the question "Why does the roll not count?" because there is no reason it doesn't. You keep throwing roadblocks up that have no bearing in the rules because it looks like you just want this to be your way. I have yet to see any rules provided by yourself to back this up.

You assert that a PSA must have a strict weapons profile, why?
Witchfires don't follow the witchfire rules for rolling to hit, why in every case other than the SW codex where there is explicit permission?

Also page 50 "number of shots" for the "how many dice question" if a weapon can be shot multiple times, it'll tell you. Since this doesn't it's 1.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You assert that a PSA must have a strict weapons profile, why?

Because the rules require it.

Also page 50 "number of shots" for the "how many dice question" if a weapon can be shot multiple times, it'll tell you. Since this doesn't it's 1.

Perhaps you'd like to reference the more specific Assault rules that require a profile to tell you how many shots.

Crimson -
The fact that "no one" has had a problem with it until now is irrelevant. "No one" had a problem with Force vs FNP all the time until it was brought up here.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You assert that a PSA must have a strict weapons profile, why?

Because the rules require it.

Citation please? I just don't see anywhere that says PSA require the standard profile or they don't work, because if this is true then no focused witchfire works.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You assert that a PSA must have a strict weapons profile, why?

Because the rules require it.

Citation please? I just don't see anywhere that says PSA require the standard profile or they don't work, because if this is true then no focused witchfire works.

Page 51 requires you to look at the profile to see how many shots to fire an Assault weapon.
To look at a profile one must exist.
Therefore the rules require PSAs (witchfires) to have a profile.

So you broke the game. Grats! Now what?

 Crimson wrote:
So you broke the game. Grats! Now what?

Again with the hostility...

As long as people agree on that, we can move on to talking about intent. Did GW intend for witchfires/FW without a profile to roll to hit?
I don't think they did - there's tons of PSAs that don't need to roll to hit (have been FAQed that way). It also makes the power extremely sub-par.

The are a few PSAs but they're mostly SW and other mid 5th ed powers so it's not a fair statement to say that intent is that a nebulous number of powers don't need to roll to hit.

Now that we're on to intent we cannot have any real discussion if opinions differ as they are all just as valid. As none of us can know the intent and it falls down to ask your TO really.

For me saying a power has to roll to hit is enough of a guidance that it's just make a single roll to hit in this instance, in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

Which don't say anything about how many dice to roll. They literally give no guidance on how to handle powers without profiles.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

Which don't say anything about how many dice to roll. They literally give no guidance on how to handle powers without profiles.

Well they do say roll to hit, I have 1 PSA, it doesn't say it has multiple shots.... how many dice do I roll seems very straight forward to me. I also said just above that, that if we're accepting that you must have a profile that we were now talking RAI.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

Which don't say anything about how many dice to roll. They literally give no guidance on how to handle powers without profiles.

Yes, but still in reality everyone knows to roll one die if not told otherwise. So once we move beyond strict RAW, this is not an issue.

 Crimson wrote:
Considering that vast majority of people are actually rolling to hit for Psychic Shriek, they somehow manage to figure out how many dice to roll.

Speak for yourself. Not a single person I have ever played has rolled to hit for psychic shriek because the power doesn't require the hit to be successful to work. The rules for assault weapons specifically say to roll the number of dice indicated in the profile. No profile, no dice. This power has no resolution RAW; however, the effect goes off by simply targeting a unit, as stated in the power itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

Which don't say anything about how many dice to roll. They literally give no guidance on how to handle powers without profiles.

Well they do say roll to hit, I have 1 PSA, it doesn't say it has multiple shots.... how many dice do I roll seems very straight forward to me. I also said just above that, that if we're accepting that you must have a profile that we were now talking RAI.

It doesn't say you have any shots, at all. A stormbolter is 1 shooting attack, but you roll two dice for it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So you broke the game. Grats! Now what?

Again with the hostility...

As long as people agree on that, we can move on to talking about intent. Did GW intend for witchfires/FW without a profile to roll to hit?
I don't think they did - there's tons of PSAs that don't need to roll to hit (have been FAQed that way). It also makes the power extremely sub-par.

I would disagree on intent as RAW requires a roll to hit and PS doesn't provide an exemption. "Making the power sub par" probably comes from playing an army filled with bs3 psykers.

A witchfire power (singlular) requires a roll (singular) to hit. I would argue that intent is a single d6. Everyone I've played against with PS has rolled a single d6 to hit, and I roll a single d6 to hit when I use it.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

Which don't say anything about how many dice to roll. They literally give no guidance on how to handle powers without profiles.

Yes, but still in reality everyone knows to roll one die if not told otherwise. So once we move beyond strict RAW, this is not an issue.

Demonstrably false. I didn't roll to hit until someone pointed it out to me. Other people in this thread have said they don't. So how about you drop the hostility and have a polite discussion?

 Crimson wrote:
So you broke the game. Grats! Now what?

I would suggest you refrain from posting further, as you arent actually doing anything to further the useful debate over what the rules say, as opposed to what you assumed they said.

We have determined, usefully, that there is a gap in the rules that should be addressed.

You have, personally, zero evidence that GW intended them to hit or to not hit, so cannot make an intent argument

So you have..nothing left to argue about. Meanwhile those who want to determine what the rules actually say should be allowed to get on with it, without having to respond to hostility such as the above

Just as a reminder: this forum isnt a game of 40k. We arent currently, I suspect, in the middle of playing a game. This question is unlikely to be causing a win or lose moment in a game we are currently playing. As such why not allow others the luxury of debate, to come to a consensus, and then maybe let this thread die. Your hostility, insults and general tone all the way through this thread is not conducive to anything but causing others opinion of you to lower.

In short: nothing forces you to post here. If the debate offends you, somehow, then please leave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

Which don't say anything about how many dice to roll. They literally give no guidance on how to handle powers without profiles.

Yes, but still in reality everyone knows to roll one die if not told otherwise. So once we move beyond strict RAW, this is not an issue.

Not "everyone", either. T ehre you go with assumptions

I never made an opponent of mine roll to hit, as nothing about the power suggests the effect is tied to any such roll to hit

Oops, another failed assumption.

Banbaji wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Considering that vast majority of people are actually rolling to hit for Psychic Shriek, they somehow manage to figure out how many dice to roll.

Speak for yourself. Not a single person I have ever played has rolled to hit for psychic shriek because the power doesn't require the hit to be successful to work. The rules for assault weapons specifically say to roll the number of dice indicated in the profile. No profile, no dice. This power has no resolution RAW; however, the effect goes off by simply targeting a unit, as stated in the power itself.

Firstly this is a fallacy, just because some people play it this way doesn't make it the objective right answer.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

Which don't say anything about how many dice to roll. They literally give no guidance on how to handle powers without profiles.

Well they do say roll to hit, I have 1 PSA, it doesn't say it has multiple shots.... how many dice do I roll seems very straight forward to me. I also said just above that, that if we're accepting that you must have a profile that we were now talking RAI.

It doesn't say you have any shots, at all. A stormbolter is 1 shooting attack, but you roll two dice for it.

A storm bolter does make a shooting attack and because it's profile says you make multiple shots you roll multiple dice, that's perfectly fine and if you follow that hard line that any shooting attack that doesn't have a profile cannot fire you aslo don't get to resolve witchfires and use the 3d6 vs ld wounds as you're not following the rules and haven't resolved a witchfire.
And again... I was giving my opinion of RAI.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So you broke the game. Grats! Now what?

Again with the hostility...

As long as people agree on that, we can move on to talking about intent. Did GW intend for witchfires/FW without a profile to roll to hit?
I don't think they did - there's tons of PSAs that don't need to roll to hit (have been FAQed that way). It also makes the power extremely sub-par.

I would disagree on intent as RAW requires a roll to hit and PS doesn't provide an exemption. "Making the power sub par" probably comes from playing an army filled with bs3 psykers.

A witchfire power (singlular) requires a roll (singular) to hit. I would argue that intent is a single d6. Everyone I've played against with PS has rolled a single d6 to hit, and I roll a single d6 to hit when I use it.

The one that I use it on is BS4 (Doom) but still - 11/12 chance to pass the psychic test, 3/4 chance to hit, 5/6 chance to not get denied is about a 57% chance to do anything... and even then, on the majority of targets (LD9) you'll only do a single wound half the time... a 28.5% chance to have some effect is pretty bad. Removing the roll to hit makes it ~38% which is still not great, but with the possibility of an extreme roll I'm okay using the power.

I think it's unfair to say Crimson cannot make a RAI argument Nos. He is making one, you don't buy it but that's not the same thing.

I think your maths are a little off on the wounds inflicted rigeld, it's a 74% chance on 3d6 getting more than 9.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I think it's unfair to say Crimson cannot make a RAI argument Nos. He is making one, you don't buy it but that's not the same thing.

No, actually Crimson is saying dont argue, as only their version of the rules should be considered. Or at least, that is the impression they have given in this thread - that the rules are silly, so yell "intent!" and get on with it.

Theyre also not making a particularly valid RAI argument, given a) the existence of the power itself, whcih does not follow any usual to-hit, to-wound mechanic as a normal assault weapon would, without a profile to state the difference, and b) there is precedence of other unusual PSAs / witchfires not requiring a roll to hit, or with a flip flop between needing it. "Intent" is incredibly, incredibly murky on this - as it quite often is, for those being honest about it - that falling back on the RAW makes sense.

And the RAW is that: roll to hit (somehow), but regardless of the result the 3D6 effect triggers. Because nothing in the 3D6 requires you to have actually hit - there is zero textual evidence to that fact - otherwise you would have proven it.

I just get irritated by those posters who feel that, just because they think arguing about a particular topic is silly, it is OK to be rude, hostile and incredibly disrespectful to those who are interested in finding out what, in a forum dedicated to answering ruels queries, the rules actually say. Especially when they say their piece, but if the discussion continues feel the need to interrupt to tell other people to not bother - as if somehow the debate is personally offensive to them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have, personally, zero evidence that GW intended them to hit or to not hit, so cannot make an intent argument

Except for the rule that all witchfires except for basts, templates, etc require a roll to hit.

Without an explicit exemption for PS, you're breaking a rule by not rolling to hit.

I do like a nice discussion and I agree that name calling isn't cool.

The RAW is not apply the 3d6 regardless, the best you've proven is that the RAW is the power doesn't work. The fact it's a witchfire requires you to hit and if you don't hit with a witchfire where is the RAW permission to finish applying the rest of the power.

You've shown that the assault weapons rules say look at the profile for how many dice to roll and it doesn't have one. That isn't the same as it doesn't need to roll or that the roll to hit on however many dice is ignored no matter the result.

Precedence of other witchfires that use different to hit mechanics and have a secondary effect that has no bearing on it's primary attack isn't the same and I don't see it as precedence in this. Especially as I've not seen any examples given of a witchfire power that was written after 2009.

So I ask, where is the permission to ignore the roll to hit in witchfire and focussed witchfire and still apply the entire ability of the power?

Your argument on the 3d6 sounds a little like it doesn't say I cannot. I have shown textual evidence, it's on page 69, unless you have a rule that shows this power hits automatically then you must roll to hit.

The RAW permission is in the power. as I have said - nothing about "roll to hit" says *anything whatsoever* about the effect "3D6...." being conditional upon a successful hit or not. It says simply "do ..." and never requires a roll to hit to succeed or not.

I also did not say you do not have to roll to-hit - I pointed out you cannto actually do so, as you have undefined number of dice - just that no matter the result the 3D6 will occur.

Again: look at the rules for rolling to-hit with an assault weapon. Find a requirement in there for a succesful roll to hit in order to trigger PS 3D6 effect. If you cannot find one then you cannot state - cannot, as in it would be impossible for you to state truthfully - that a succesful roll to hit is a requirement to trigger the 3D6

It isnt "it doesnt say I cant" - the power tells me I can, and nothing in the to-hit section says I am required to successfully hit before applying the powers effects. Absolutely nothing.

I repeat, as I have made this point a few times now: I am not ignoring the roll to-hit; it must still be made. The number of dice cannot be determined, so you cannot actually roll to-hit, but it must still occur. What I am saying is that the power does not place a requirement on a successful roll to-hit needing to take place before you roll the 3D6 effect. All the power tells you to do is to roll 3D6..., and gives no precondition whatsoever

Hopefully this is clear.

I'm sorry but you're saying because there is a gap in the rules that this power doesn't have a profile it must auto resolve.
A roll to hit must happen as you have said yourself, so if it cannot happen but must happen the rules require an FAQ otherwise it's an assertion to make any call. However a roll to hit is the common parlance in the books to roll a dice and look at the result. 1 dice.

That is a cop out, none of the focussed witchfire powers say they require a roll to hit in their wording but that doesn't overcome the fact they require it raw.

It's not clear as you haven't given RAW you have said that the value of x is missing so we skip x. Unfortunately this doesn't gel with the witchfire rules.
If you're missing a value in a power or weapon you don't skip that step without some permission.

Yes I cannot say that assault weapons don't say look at the profile, I'm saying that the rules on the previous page says what happens if you don't have a number greater than 1 on your profile.

After what has been discussed, I will ask my opponent about psychic shriek before every game, because it always gets used by my hq.

rigeld2 wrote:

Demonstrably false. I didn't roll to hit until someone pointed it out to me. Other people in this thread have said they don't. So how about you drop the hostility and have a polite discussion?

No, I meant that if you think that you need to roll to hit in the first place, then in reality you know how many dice to roll. If you have ever rolled to hit for this power because an opponent requested it, then you have determined the number of dice needed to be rolled. In practice that is a non-issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

No, actually Crimson is saying dont argue, as only their version of the rules should be considered.

Absolutely not.

Or at least, that is the impression they have given in this thread - that the rules are silly, so yell "intent!" and get on with it.

However, if a strict application of RAW leads to the game breaking (as at least by your interpretation it does here), then you absolutely have to consider intent.

Theyre also not making a particularly valid RAI argument, given a) the existence of the power itself, whcih does not follow any usual to-hit, to-wound mechanic as a normal assault weapon would, without a profile to state the difference, and b) there is precedence of other unusual PSAs / witchfires not requiring a roll to hit, or with a flip flop between needing it. "Intent" is incredibly, incredibly murky on this - as it quite often is, for those being honest about it - that falling back on the RAW makes sense.

Rules saying that you have to roll to hit is pretty compelling argument that they intended that you have to roll for hit. Granted, it is possible that they intended all non-weapon-profile witchfires to autohit, but that is quite a big assumption to make.

And the RAW is that: roll to hit (somehow), but regardless of the result the 3D6 effect triggers. Because nothing in the 3D6 requires you to have actually hit - there is zero textual evidence to that fact - otherwise you would have proven it.

But still you cannot skip the rolling for hit part. And if you cannot determine the number of dice to be rolled, you cannot proceed. The power cannot be resolved. The moment you suggest just skipping this part, you're arguing HYWPI without rules backing, exactly the thing you accused me of doing.

I just get irritated by those posters who feel that, just because they think arguing about a particular topic is silly, it is OK to be rude, hostile and incredibly disrespectful to those who are interested in finding out what, in a forum dedicated to answering ruels queries, the rules actually say. Especially when they say their piece, but if the discussion continues feel the need to interrupt to tell other people to not bother - as if somehow the debate is personally offensive to them.

You are one who is constantly reading hostility in simple disagreement.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Banbaji wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Considering that vast majority of people are actually rolling to hit for Psychic Shriek, they somehow manage to figure out how many dice to roll.

Speak for yourself. Not a single person I have ever played has rolled to hit for psychic shriek because the power doesn't require the hit to be successful to work. The rules for assault weapons specifically say to roll the number of dice indicated in the profile. No profile, no dice. This power has no resolution RAW; however, the effect goes off by simply targeting a unit, as stated in the power itself.

Firstly this is a fallacy, just because some people play it this way doesn't make it the objective right answer.

It is the same fallacy you used when saying the "vast majority" play it that way. I simply request that you change your claim to the vast majority of people you play with.

Banbaji wrote:

It is the same fallacy you used when saying the "vast majority" play it that way. I simply request that you change your claim to the vast majority of people you play with.

I said that, not Liturgies. But yes, it is of course anecdotal. My search of Dakka threads and internet in general seems to support rolling being the prevailing position though. That of course isn't in itself a proof that it's the correct interpretation.

Banbaji wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Banbaji wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Considering that vast majority of people are actually rolling to hit for Psychic Shriek, they somehow manage to figure out how many dice to roll.

Speak for yourself. Not a single person I have ever played has rolled to hit for psychic shriek because the power doesn't require the hit to be successful to work. The rules for assault weapons specifically say to roll the number of dice indicated in the profile. No profile, no dice. This power has no resolution RAW; however, the effect goes off by simply targeting a unit, as stated in the power itself.

Firstly this is a fallacy, just because some people play it this way doesn't make it the objective right answer.

It is the same fallacy you used when saying the "vast majority" play it that way. I simply request that you change your claim to the vast majority of people you play with.

I simply request that you read what I say and not what someone else says and say it was me. I never claimed anyone did or didn't roll for it. That's not the debate, I don't discuss the rules using logical fallacies because they detract from the arguments.

Never really looked into it that much, always have rolled 1D6.

The effect being contingent on the To Hit roll is assumptive. Since Witchfire powers require To Hit rolls (as per the BRB), there is an assumption that the power has to hit to have an effect. We all know that GW does not write the clearest most concise rules, and you do have to make some assumptions when playing this game. So, it seems to go like this:

1. Determine you want to use Psychic Shriek - if you meet all of the requirements for making a shooting attack, proceed
2. Make your Psychic Test - If you make the test, proceed
3. Opponent attempts to Deny the Witch - If opponent fails, proceed
4. Roll To Hit - If you hit, proceed
5. Resolve the attack by rolling the 3d6

We are always beat over the head with the fact that 40k is a permissive ruleset, therefore we have to ask: has Psychic Shriek been given permission to not follow the rules? The answer is no. There is no caveat or exception in the description for Psychic Shriek that states that it does not require the roll to hit, or to allow it to affect its target if it misses. I have not played anybody that has tried to use this power without shooting, or tried to affect me after missing....

Edited for clarity.

 Battlesong wrote:
The effect being contingent on the To Hit roll is assumptive. Since Witchfire powers require To Hit rolls (as per the BRB), there is an assumption that the power has to hit to have an effect. If this weren't the case then this would not be a witchfire power, this would be a malediction. We all know that GW does not write the clearest most concise rules, and you do have to make some assumptions when playing this game. So, it seems to go like this:

1. Determine you want to use Psychic Shriek - if you meet all of the requirements for making a shooting attack, proceed
2. Make your Psychic Test - If you make the test, proceed
3. Opponent attempts to Deny the Witch - If opponent fails, proceed
4. Roll To Hit - If you hit, proceed
5. Resolve the attack by rolling the 3d6

We are always beat over the head with the fact that 40k is a permissive ruleset, therefore we have to ask: has Psychic Shriek been given permission to not follow the rules? The answer is no. There is no caveat or exception in the description for Psychic Shriek that states that it does not require the roll to hit, or to allow it to affect its target if it misses. I have not played anybody that has tried to use this power without shooting, or tried to affect me after missing....

The bolded is an assumption with no support.
If they wanted it to be used during the shooting phase they could make it a witchfire and simply forgot that witchfires must roll to hit.

Withfire powers require a to hit roll

if they require a to hit roll you must hit to move on.

If fires with the profile of 'assault' then it is assault and rolls 1 dice.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Banbaji wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Banbaji wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Considering that vast majority of people are actually rolling to hit for Psychic Shriek, they somehow manage to figure out how many dice to roll.

Speak for yourself. Not a single person I have ever played has rolled to hit for psychic shriek because the power doesn't require the hit to be successful to work. The rules for assault weapons specifically say to roll the number of dice indicated in the profile. No profile, no dice. This power has no resolution RAW; however, the effect goes off by simply targeting a unit, as stated in the power itself.

Firstly this is a fallacy, just because some people play it this way doesn't make it the objective right answer.

It is the same fallacy you used when saying the "vast majority" play it that way. I simply request that you change your claim to the vast majority of people you play with.

I simply request that you read what I say and not what someone else says and say it was me. I never claimed anyone did or didn't roll for it. That's not the debate, I don't discuss the rules using logical fallacies because they detract from the arguments.

My apologies for misattributing that quote to you, I shall try and be more careful in the future. I simply meant to show that the argument that the "vast majority" do something is not universally applicable. I should have just done what you did and directly stated that it was a logical fallacy.

blaktoof wrote:
If fires with the profile of 'assault' then it is assault and rolls 1 dice.

It'd be nice if people said this and supported it with a quote instead of just saying it.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
If fires with the profile of 'assault' then it is assault and rolls 1 dice.

It'd be nice if people said this and supported it with a quote instead of just saying it.

We all know there's no quote anywhere addressing this. That's why you informed us of your change to addressing RAI since there's a RAW hole in the rules.

Since you're rolling to hit (singular) with a (singular) witchfire power (which RAW is required to roll to hit [singular]), the most obvious and simplest conclusion would be that you roll a single d6 to hit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

It isnt being handwaved away - I am pointing out that you have no rule tying the two together. I dont have to prove a negative, you have to prove that to0hit has ANYTHING to do with rolling 3D6, comparing to Ld, and taking that many wounds. Where is the to-wound step, the next part of the shooting process? There isnt one? Then why are you stating this remains part of the shootnig process?

It is a nonsensical position to take.

I'm sure this is already addressed further in the thread, but isn't the "to wound" step the process of 3d6 vs LD?

I get the argument of RAW with no profile, but to say there is no shooting process due to no wound roll is odd to me, especially since you admit to wounds being allocated via the LD check... Personally, as much as I'd love to give my DoM a no check, targeted duplicate of his aura, or a zoan squad the ability to spot clean squads without any chance of failure (besides the usual DtW and Psyker check), I just don't feel GW was intending this, since the Primaris is supposed to be an "also ran" option.

Roll the d6 and call it a day.

That's my .02 anyway...

rigeld2 wrote:
The bolded is an assumption with no support.
If they wanted it to be used during the shooting phase they could make it a witchfire and simply forgot that witchfires must roll to hit.

That's ok, remove the bolded sentence from my post entirely and it does not functionally change the post. As a matter of fact, i'll edit that out.....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is it made up?
Find some rules. Please. The actual rules state it is an Assault weapon

The rules do not state this. They state witchfires count as "firing" an assault weapon. It does not say they are an assault weapon. A subtle yet important difference.

count as must be the same as "is".

Therefore using a witchfire is the same as firing an assault weapon.

Same as "firing an assault".. not the same as "an assault weapon".

And therefore subject to all the restrictions you would for "firing" an assault weapon. Like no running (or anything that substitutes for firing). You can assault after using a psychic power as compared to a Rapid Fire weapon, etc..

But a psychic power is a psychic power, not an assault weapon. There is no requirement for it to have a profile as discussed in this thread. Show me the profile for say Puppet Master, Crush, Hemorrhage, etc..

The rules on 69 clearly state that a roll to hit is required.

Fragile wrote:
Same as "firing an assault".. not the same as "an assault weapon".

And therefore subject to all the restrictions you would for "firing" an assault weapon. Like no running (or anything that substitutes for firing). You can assault after using a psychic power as compared to a Rapid Fire weapon, etc..

But a psychic power is a psychic power, not an assault weapon. There is no requirement for it to have a profile as discussed in this thread. Show me the profile for say Puppet Master, Crush, Hemorrhage, etc..

The rules on 69 clearly state that a roll to hit is required.

And how many dice do we roll to hit? Unlimited? bercause it does not tell us to roll a single dice to hit. It is like ""firing" an assault weapon" so it is Assault what 1, 3 10, 3000? where is this information?

You attempting to make a psychic power something it is not. It is a psychic power, unless it has a profile, you roll 1 die to hit. If it has a profile, then you roll however many listed in said profile.

Fragile wrote:
You attempting to make a psychic power something it is not. It is a psychic power, unless it has a profile, you roll 1 die to hit. If it has a profile, then you roll however many listed in said profile.

You of course have a rules citation for that, right?

Page 13 has already been covered there. Without permission to fire more, it defaults to 1.

Fragile wrote:
Page 13 has already been covered there. Without permission to fire more, it defaults to 1.

Which is more specific - page 13 or page 51? When dealing with firing an Assault weapon of course.

Your stuck on psychic powers being Assault weapons. They are not. Manifesting a witchfire counts as FIRING an assault weapon. That means you can declare a charge, etc.

Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire power, and Witchfire rules require a roll To Hit. Psychic Shriek's power rules do not say it effects the unit automatically if successfully cast. If we didn't need To Hit with Witchfires, then Smite would just cause 4 Hits on a unit and we'd go straight to rolling To Wound.

Fragile wrote:
Your stuck on psychic powers being Assault weapons. They are not. Manifesting a witchfire counts as FIRING an assault weapon. That means you can declare a charge, etc.

Please explain how many dice you roll for a power that has Assault 4 listed in its profile. Do so without ever referencing page 51.

Well page 50 tells you what to do and 4 dice.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well page 50 tells you what to do and 4 dice.

So in the weapons section...

Well he asked a question. If he'd ask how do you determine if a shooting attack needs to roll to hit if it doesn't have a profile I'd refer to page 13 and then point to 50 to show that it doesn't get multiple to hit rolls.

To be honest I don't feel like there is a resolution for PS. It is agreed that PS is a witchfire and so needs to roll to hit but has no profile so this is impossible to do. Page 50/51 tells the attributes, that a psychic can charge after using the witchfire (due to being treated like assault). Page 13 gets into the specifics of "rolling to hit" but does not really aid in the argument because no profile was given and the fact that "most models only get to fire one shot" is simply referring to the fact that there are different kinds of weapons that shoot multiple shots. So, just agree with your opponent on the way that you'll play with PS and the case of profiles being existent (if they are auto-hits if no profile is present). If it's agreed to do a roll-to-hit make up the profile of:
Psychic Shriek
Range: 12"
S: -
AP: -
Type: (witchfire) Assault 1, banshee howl

Banshee howl: any unit hit suffers 3D6-LD wounds without armor or cover saves

-banshee howl wasn't necessary and could just put the effect on the bottom

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Your stuck on psychic powers being Assault weapons. They are not. Manifesting a witchfire counts as FIRING an assault weapon. That means you can declare a charge, etc.

Please explain how many dice you roll for a power that has Assault 4 listed in its profile. Do so without ever referencing page 51.

You roll 4, because a specific profile for that power.. ( for example Smite) is listed. Therefore it has more than 1 shot, (pg 13).


Your really trying to stretch too hard. Lets reverse this. All assault weapons have a profile (pg 50). Please list the profile for Puppet master for me since you claim Psy Powers are assault weapons.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Your stuck on psychic powers being Assault weapons. They are not. Manifesting a witchfire counts as FIRING an assault weapon. That means you can declare a charge, etc.

Please explain how many dice you roll for a power that has Assault 4 listed in its profile. Do so without ever referencing page 51.

You roll 4, because a specific profile for that power.. ( for example Smite) is listed. Therefore it has more than 1 shot, (pg 13).


Your really trying to stretch too hard. Lets reverse this. All assault weapons have a profile (pg 50). Please list the profile for Puppet master for me since you claim Psy Powers are assault weapons.

No, witchfire powers are assault weapons, page 69. But thanks for helping to prove my point - Puppet Master doesn't have a profile either.

I'd just like to point out that a hit does nothing in this case.

Without something to attach a hit or even a miss to, the To-hit roll is still pointless without a profile. Many things already have an effect on units they 'Hit' and if they had added wording to indicate that into PS it would allow the hit to amount to something. Barring that, the only default functionality a To- Hit Roll has is to create Hits and those are only good for turning into wounds. None of that happens without a profile as it is written making RAW broken in this case. RAI is unclear at best mostly due to the fact that in most cases GW is pretty good at letting us know if something happens on a Hit or a wound or whatever the trigger may be for something. Considering that they seem to know better then you leave it unspoken and that this says only 'Roll 3D5 and subtract the target's Leadership" without reference to any 'Hit' tell me it may indeed have been intended to work automatically... or they may have just forgotten to include the proper words 'a unit hit by PS must...' or perhaps they forgot to add 'hits automatically'... who knows?

RAW: Broken

RAI: Unknown

HYWPI: Ask your local gaming crew to house rule it.

Personally my judgement leans me towards 'on a hit...' It's a bit under powered IMO but auto-hit is OP.

Crimson - not just me, others as well. Perhaps you should look at how you write posts.

So, can anyone point to where the success on the to-hit roll(s) [that you cannot prove is only one dice, or 10, or 100, because page 13 doesnt actually state that for Assault weapons, and the assault weapon rules havent been fulfilled, which we know) is tied to rolling 3D6?

Failure to provide proof that success on the (undefined number of) rolls to hit is tied to rolling the 3D6, in the next post, is concession that no such rule exists.

Drop the number of shots argumebt - that is proven. It is undefined, because the rules for FIRING AN ASSAULT WEAPON state to look at the assault weapon profile for the number of shots. This is more specific than page 13.

I'm still waiting for citation of the rule that allows you to skip the rolling to hit part (irrespective of whether that affects something or not.)

As for number of shots, p.50 section on the matter pretty strongly indicates that the number needs to be provided only in the case of multiple shots.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Your stuck on psychic powers being Assault weapons. They are not. Manifesting a witchfire counts as FIRING an assault weapon. That means you can declare a charge, etc.

Please explain how many dice you roll for a power that has Assault 4 listed in its profile. Do so without ever referencing page 51.

You roll 4, because a specific profile for that power.. ( for example Smite) is listed. Therefore it has more than 1 shot, (pg 13).


Your really trying to stretch too hard. Lets reverse this. All assault weapons have a profile (pg 50). Please list the profile for Puppet master for me since you claim Psy Powers are assault weapons.

No, witchfire powers are assault weapons, page 69. But thanks for helping to prove my point - Puppet Master doesn't have a profile either.

Failure to provide a profile proves they are not. All assault weapons have a profile. Puppet master, hemorrhage, crush do not, therefore they cannot be assault weapons. Your own argument proves such.

They are treated as firing an assault weapon, therefore disallowing a run or turbo boost, however you can declare a charge.

They are required to roll a to hit roll and should a 6 be rolled, they would be a precision hit. However, the odds of this occurring and actually mattering are very low. About 5% or so with a Tervigon vs LD10.

After reading all the thread as a neutral (bloody hell that took a while), I think Abaddon has it spot on.

RAW: Broken

RAI: Unknown

HYWPI: ask opponent/gaming group/TO

I would also add fluff wise: its a shriek... surely a wave of (psychic) sound will hit wherever it is directed? I mean it is sound... stand right under a speaker in a nightclub where the sound is focussed and your bones feel like they are vibrating, move away and the bass no longer makes your teeth shudder. Where ever you stand under that speaker the wave of sound will hit you, not in a particular place as narrow as the line of a bullet or shell. That's how I would read it fluff and logic wise anyway. Plus if it auto hits, it makes the power actually worth taking.
I don't run psycic shriek myself btw so aren't biased towards it.
If you can't decide, roll a 4+ each time it is used. 4+ auto hits. 3- roll to hit.
I think discussing how the rules tell you how to use it has run its course now because its quite apparent they don't and you've been going in circles for at least 3 pages now.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Your stuck on psychic powers being Assault weapons. They are not. Manifesting a witchfire counts as FIRING an assault weapon. That means you can declare a charge, etc.

Please explain how many dice you roll for a power that has Assault 4 listed in its profile. Do so without ever referencing page 51.

You roll 4, because a specific profile for that power.. ( for example Smite) is listed. Therefore it has more than 1 shot, (pg 13).


Your really trying to stretch too hard. Lets reverse this. All assault weapons have a profile (pg 50). Please list the profile for Puppet master for me since you claim Psy Powers are assault weapons.

No, witchfire powers are assault weapons, page 69. But thanks for helping to prove my point - Puppet Master doesn't have a profile either.

Failure to provide a profile proves they are not. All assault weapons have a profile. Puppet master, hemorrhage, crush do not, therefore they cannot be assault weapons. Your own argument proves such.

They are treated as firing an assault weapon, therefore disallowing a run or turbo boost, however you can declare a charge.

They are required to roll a to hit roll and should a 6 be rolled, they would be a precision hit. However, the odds of this occurring and actually mattering are very low. About 5% or so with a Tervigon vs LD10.

Here is my problem with this. Puppet Master is a focused witchfire. The witchfire rules state that the psyker cannot choose the target unless he passes his LD test on a 5 or less. If he passes with more than a 5, it is a random model. By adding a "to hit" roll, we give the player a mechanism to bypass this rule through precision shot. So if the psyker rolls a "9" for his leadership but then a "6" to hit, does he still get to pick a specific model per precision shot or is he disallowed because of the witchfire rules?

I agree the intent is generally unknown, but on witchfires without a profile I think insisting on the to hit roll makes the game more complicated, not less. Puppet master is most likely a witchfire power because it allows the psyker to shoot a more powerful weapon in lieu of his own. As a malediction, it would have given the psyker a bonus shooting attack which GW normally tries not to allow. Hemorrhage also has clear effects that can be used independent of the to hit roll, just like crush and psychic shriek.

To me, the most logical solution is that witchfires with a weapons profile are fired exactly like assault weapons to include a to hit roll (i.e. Smite, Life Leech) and powers without a profile will resolve their effects automatically after passing a psychic test and a failed DTW (i.e. Psychic Shriek, Puppet Master, Hemorrhage). This circumvents the issues raised about number of dice to be rolled for powers without a profile and the loophole on focused witchfire rules versus precision shot.

Puppet Master doesn't cause Wounds does it? If it does not cause Wounds, then the power would not benefit from Precision Shots, as the Precision just permits the firing player to allocate the Wound/Wounds as he/she wants.

All psychic Witchfires (other than the ones with blast or template) count as firing an assault weapon, therefore MUST roll To Hit. They do not roll To Hits (plural) unless they have multiple shots described in their power rules. The ones with no numbers of shots listed still roll To Hit, meaning a singular roll To Hit.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Puppet Master doesn't cause Wounds does it? If it does not cause Wounds, then the power would not benefit from Precision Shots, as the Precision just permits the firing player to allocate the Wound/Wounds as he/she wants.

All psychic Witchfires (other than the ones with blast or template) count as firing an assault weapon, therefore MUST roll To Hit. They do not roll To Hits (plural) unless they have multiple shots described in their power rules. The ones with no numbers of shots listed still roll To Hit, meaning a singular roll To Hit.

So explain which takes precedence: focused witchfire for hemorrhage or precision shot for hemorrhage?

And how many dice do you roll for puppet master to hit? Without a profile, there is no actual rule telling you how many to roll. RAW is broken and RAI is unclear.

"A witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is a Blast or Large Blast, in which case it scatters as normal, or is a Template weapon, which hits automatically."

As far as Puppet Master rolling high but getting a precision shot, goes, it seems like it work like this:
1. Choose target model
2. Psychic test
3. Randomly determine next target model
4. Deny the Witch rolls
5. Roll to hit (get a 6)
6. Allocate hit to any model in unit.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"A witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is a Blast or Large Blast, in which case it scatters as normal, or is a Template weapon, which hits automatically."

As far as Puppet Master rolling high but getting a precision shot, goes, it seems like it work like this:
1. Choose target model
2. Psychic test
3. Randomly determine next target model
4. Deny the Witch rolls
5. Roll to hit (get a 6)
6. Allocate hit to any model in unit.

What rule tells you how many dice you need to roll for Step 5? Page and Graph please.

P. 50, Number of Shots.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"A witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is a Blast or Large Blast, in which case it scatters as normal, or is a Template weapon, which hits automatically."

As far as Puppet Master rolling high but getting a precision shot, goes, it seems like it work like this:
1. Choose target model
2. Psychic test
3. Randomly determine next target model
4. Deny the Witch rolls
5. Roll to hit (get a 6)
6. Allocate hit to any model in unit.

Puppet master does not allocate wounds, therefore your #6 is incorrect.

What rule tells you how many dice you need to roll for Step 5? Page and Graph please.

This has been covered already multiple times. You can debate the answer, but just repeating the question does nothing.

 Crimson wrote:
P. 50, Number of Shots.

Page 51, Assault Weapons. MOre specific. Try again,

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
P. 50, Number of Shots.

Page 51, Assault Weapons. MOre specific. Try again,

Does not apply. Pg 13 if any would apply.

 Crimson wrote:
P. 50, Number of Shots.

Let me be more specific, since you did not understand my question:

Witchfires are treated as assault weapons, Assault weapons have a profile.

Where can I find the profile that says Puppet Master is Assault 1, as you are claiming.

Page and Graph please.

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
P. 50, Number of Shots.

Page 51, Assault Weapons. MOre specific. Try again,

Does not apply. Pg 13 if any would apply.

How does page 51 Assault Weapons not apply when firing an Assault weapons?
Please explain this revelation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
P. 50, Number of Shots.

Page 51, Assault Weapons. MOre specific. Try again,

Which of these seem more reasonable to you:

1) My assault weapon* lacks a number of shots, maybe I should look at generic rule for number of shots** that solves the problem.
2) My assault weapon lacks number of shots, therefore it automatically hits.

*) Which witchfires really even aren't, they're merely fired as one.
**) Which probably is in the book for a reason. Most weapons have profiles and number of shots listed, but if you could not revert to the generic rule if for some reason the profile is missing, the generic rule would be serve no purpose.

Also, I'm still waiting for your rule quote that allows you to skip rolling to hit part with witchfires. And as you cannot do so, it seems you have advocated HYWPI without stating so from beginning of this thread. Maybe you should get out of this thread if you cannot follow the tenets...

And you have a generic rule that says something to the effect of [Unless otherwise stated all assault weapons fire one shot]?

If so could you quote it for us?

P.S. mind answering my question in my previous post?

 DeathReaper wrote:
And you have a generic rule that says something to the effect of [Unless otherwise stated all assault weapons fire one shot]?

No, but we have generic rule saying that if a shooting weapon has multiple shots, it is stated. So if it is not stated, it has to have one (unless you're next claiming that you cannot know as the rules fail to mention that the number of shots must be a natural number, and could in fact be 0.87 shots.)

Witchfires are treated as assault weapons, Assault weapons have a profile.

No, they're fired as assault weapons.

Where can I find the profile that says Puppet Master is Assault 1, as you are claiming.

I'm not claiming that. It is a shooting attack with unspecified profile, thus you default to generic rules for shooting weapons, which handily clear the issue. Almost like if they meant it to work this way!

 DeathReaper wrote:
And you have a generic rule that says something to the effect of [Unless otherwise stated all assault weapons fire one shot]?

If so could you quote it for us?

P.S. mind answering my question in my previous post?

Its on page 13.

Has no one brought up the difference in it not being an assault weapon, but that using only counts as firing an assault weapon?

It is a pretty big difference.

Firing an assault weapon gives you certain capabilities and denials(well, no real denials aside from not being able to fire another weapon without other rules in place).

Being an assault weapon has a weapon profile and gives the number of shots that you have to roll to hit with.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Has no one brought up the difference in it not being an assault weapon, but that using only counts as firing an assault weapon?

It is a pretty big difference.

Firing an assault weapon gives you certain capabilities and denials(well, no real denials aside from not being able to fire another weapon without other rules in place).

Being an assault weapon has a weapon profile and gives the number of shots that you have to roll to hit with.

It wasn't dealt with. We just got all shooting attacks must have a weapons profile.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Has no one brought up the difference in it not being an assault weapon, but that using only counts as firing an assault weapon?

It is a pretty big difference.

Firing an assault weapon gives you certain capabilities and denials(well, no real denials aside from not being able to fire another weapon without other rules in place).

Being an assault weapon has a weapon profile and gives the number of shots that you have to roll to hit with.

When firing an assault weapon, how many dice do you roll? How do you determine this information?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Has no one brought up the difference in it not being an assault weapon, but that using only counts as firing an assault weapon?

It is a pretty big difference.

Firing an assault weapon gives you certain capabilities and denials(well, no real denials aside from not being able to fire another weapon without other rules in place).

Being an assault weapon has a weapon profile and gives the number of shots that you have to roll to hit with.

It wasn't dealt with. We just got all shooting attacks must have a weapons profile.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Your stuck on psychic powers being Assault weapons. They are not. Manifesting a witchfire counts as FIRING an assault weapon. That means you can declare a charge, etc.

Please explain how many dice you roll for a power that has Assault 4 listed in its profile. Do so without ever referencing page 51.

It was, you (obviously) chose to ignore it.

P. 50, 'Number of Shots' tells you how number of shots can be determined for any shooting weapon, assault or otherwise. How is this so difficult?

Because page 51 is more specific.

Crimson, can we find some specific instances here where GW ha had to clarify how many times shots are fired by witchfire powers without specific profiles or clarification on how many shots?

rigeld2 wrote:
Because page 51 is more specific.

So fething what? It obviously do not have sufficient information without p. 50. Why you think 'Number of Shots' rule even is there, if not exactly to address a situation like this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarOne wrote:
Crimson, can we find some specific instances here where GW ha had to clarify how many times shots are fired by witchfire powers without specific profiles or clarification on how many shots?

No, because before this 'problem' was invented in this thread, no one had any difficulty with figuring out how many dice to roll.

Do you know if any of the FAQs have clarity on the subject more precisely?

 WarOne wrote:
Do you know if any of the FAQs have clarity on the subject more precisely?

No they don't. The only example brought up on the "doesn't need to roll" side is the SW powers that have been FAQ'd not to roll to hit (JOTWW) and to apply a secondary effect even if it doesn't hit (MH) both of which are not analogous.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
Do you know if any of the FAQs have clarity on the subject more precisely?

No they don't. The only example brought up on the "doesn't need to roll" side is the SW powers that have been FAQ'd not to roll to hit (JOTWW) and to apply a secondary effect even if it doesn't hit (MH) both of which are not analogous.

Yep, especially as those are 5E powers.

Just got clarity as well, how does 5th edition rule on their final form explain how to resolve psychic powers. Perhaps GW assumed rules between editions would be understood rarer than explicitly explained?

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because page 51 is more specific.

So fething what? It obviously do not have sufficient information without p. 50. Why you think 'Number of Shots' rule even is there, if not exactly to address a situation like this?

So because the rule is more specific it shouldn't apply?

They were mostly kept consistent with their 5th resolution.

rigeld2 wrote:

So because the rule is more specific it shouldn't apply?

It shouldn't apply because it can't apply. Thus logical course of action is look at the generic rule (which is there for a purpose!) instead of declaring that the attack auto-hits.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So because the rule is more specific it shouldn't apply?

It shouldn't apply because it can't apply. Thus logical course of action is look at the generic rule (which is there for a purpose!) instead of declaring that the attack auto-hits.

I'm pretty sure no one is saying anything auto-hits.
People are saying that a) the rules fail to function as written and b) your assertion of intent is not the only possibility.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Has no one brought up the difference in it not being an assault weapon, but that using only counts as firing an assault weapon?

It is a pretty big difference.

Firing an assault weapon gives you certain capabilities and denials(well, no real denials aside from not being able to fire another weapon without other rules in place).

Being an assault weapon has a weapon profile and gives the number of shots that you have to roll to hit with.

When firing an assault weapon, how many dice do you roll? How do you determine this information?

I dont think you "got" what I was saying.

In this case you roll 0 dice because you have no profle telling you how many shots you have.

What you do is follow the rules for firing assault weapons on page 51: shoot the number of times indicated in the profile regardless of whether you have moved(0 in this case as there is no profile), may assault in the assault phase, and must target the same unit as the rest of your unit.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And you have a generic rule that says something to the effect of [Unless otherwise stated all assault weapons fire one shot]?

If so could you quote it for us?

P.S. mind answering my question in my previous post?

Its on page 13.

Specifically where does this information reside on Page 13, because I see nothing that states anything about [Puppet Master is treated as an Assault 1 weapon, therefore you fire one shot[].

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm pretty sure no one is saying anything auto-hits.

Isn't that exactly what you, Nos and DR have been arguing for? That Psychic Shriek doesn't need to roll to hit?

People are saying that a) the rules fail to function as written and b) your assertion of intent is not the only possibility.

It certainly isn't the only possibility. But when they have written clear requirement for rolling to hit, I want to see pretty compelling case before I believe they didn't actually mean exactly that.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm pretty sure no one is saying anything auto-hits.

Isn't that exactly what you, Nos and DR have been arguing for? That Psychic Shriek doesn't need to roll to hit?

Ah, I see you are still struggling to comprehend the two arguments, despite them being stated with zero ambiguity earlier

1) I havent said it auto hits. THis was made absolutely, 100% explicit. Perhaps you shoulld try reading others posts more carefully.
2) Not needing to roll to hit != auto hit. You should hopefully be aware of this plain fact. Difference between not needing to take a test and auto passing a test.

Crimson wrote:

People are saying that a) the rules fail to function as written and b) your assertion of intent is not the only possibility.

It certainly isn't the only possibility. But when they have written clear requirement for rolling to hit, I want to see pretty compelling case before I believe they didn't actually mean exactly that.

I will try again

1) You need to roll to hit, but have no rules telling you how many shots to roll. You state, without any rules backing (because you are claiming the more specific rule should be ignored, which is a stunning rules argument - or are you back on intent again? Without stating so?) that you roll 1 dice. Actually, using the rules on page 51, it is undefined

(Kel - undefined is not the same as zero)

HOWEVER:
2) whether you manage to hit or not, the effect of PS is not tied to succeeding on your roll to hit. You cannot prove this - I assume, given you have been asked repeatedly and have failed / refused to do so - and so, in a permissive ruleset, I have been given permission to resolve the power as per the rules for psychic powers, and nothing stating I do not....

So as I stated, repeatedly, and which you seem to miss every time, it is irrelevant if you roll to hit, successfully or otherwise. Entirely irrelevant

So now, prove the number of shots isnt undefined. You cannot. Prove succesfully hitting is required to perform the 3D6 action. You cannot.

We only have your weak "RAI" argument, which you refuse to label as such, that they meant it to roll 1 dice to hit. No-one I have played has ever thought it did. Intent as muddy as ever.

Oh, in case you raise the strawman again - I DID label my HIWPI version: no roll to hit, as it is irrelevant. I am aware RAW is incomplete on this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Ah, I see you are still struggling to comprehend the two arguments, despite them being stated with zero ambiguity earlier

1) I havent said it auto hits. THis was made absolutely, 100% explicit. Perhaps you shoulld try reading others posts more carefully.
2) Not needing to roll to hit != auto hit. You should hopefully be aware of this plain fact. Difference between not needing to take a test and auto passing a test.

The end result is the same. And you have no permission to skip the rolling to hit part.

1) You need to roll to hit, but have no rules telling you how many shots to roll. You state, without any rules backing (because you are claiming the more specific rule should be ignored, which is a stunning rules argument - or are you back on intent again? Without stating so?) that you roll 1 dice. Actually, using the rules on page 51, it is undefined

No, it's one. When you are making a shooting attack in the first place, you must be making some shots, so it cannot be zero. But unless it is specifically stated, you're not making multiple shots. One is the only possibility.

HOWEVER:
2) whether you manage to hit or not, the effect of PS is not tied to succeeding on your roll to hit. You cannot prove this - I assume, given you have been asked repeatedly and have failed / refused to do so - and so, in a permissive ruleset, I have been given permission to resolve the power as per the rules for psychic powers, and nothing stating I do not....

So as I stated, repeatedly, and which you seem to miss every time, it is irrelevant if you roll to hit, successfully or otherwise. Entirely irrelevant

So now, prove the number of shots isnt undefined. You cannot. Prove succesfully hitting is required to perform the 3D6 action. You cannot.

We only have your weak "RAI" argument, which you refuse to label as such, that they meant it to roll 1 dice to hit. No-one I have played has ever thought it did. Intent as muddy as ever.

Oh, in case you raise the strawman again - I DID label my HIWPI version: no roll to hit, as it is irrelevant. I am aware RAW is incomplete on this.

So for this whole time your interpretation of the rules has been based on your houserule of skipping the rolling to hit part. Nice to know. I wish you had been clearer with that. Because without that houserule you're stuck there, regardless of whether that roll actually has any effect. You say you cannot know how many dice you have to roll, yet you must roll. So the power cannot be resolved as you cannot complete all the steps.

 Crimson wrote:
So for this whole time your interpretation of the rules has been based on your houserule of skipping the rolling to hit part. Nice to know. I wish you had been clearer with that.

He was actually. Crystal clear to anyone who was trying to actually discuss the issue instead of trying find something to harp on.

Edit - it's actually his first post in the thread. Although he didn't say he skips the to-hit roll (you've made that up) just that it's irrelevant.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/555787.page#6111970


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm pretty sure no one is saying anything auto-hits.

Isn't that exactly what you, Nos and DR have been arguing for? That Psychic Shriek doesn't need to roll to hit?

Do you understand the difference between an auto-hit and not needing to roll to hit? Based on your response, it doesn't seem like you do.

People are saying that a) the rules fail to function as written and b) your assertion of intent is not the only possibility.

It certainly isn't the only possibility. But when they have written clear requirement for rolling to hit, I want to see pretty compelling case before I believe they didn't actually mean exactly that.

Go ahead - roll to hit. I don't believe its a relevant roll, but feel free to.

rigeld2 wrote:

Go ahead - roll to hit. I don't believe its a relevant roll, but feel free to.

But I don't know how many dice to roll! (Well, I do, but you and Nos don't.)

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Go ahead - roll to hit. I don't believe its a relevant roll, but feel free to.

But I don't know how many dice to roll! (Well, I do, but you and Nos don't.)

Which is why we don't feel its a relevant roll. It's like that's our point or something...

rigeld2 wrote:

Which is why we don't feel its a relevant roll. It's like that's our point or something...

You don't get it. Whether or not it is relevant, it is still a required step by the rules. You cannot just skip it.

This is what Nos said in the Orbital Bombardment thread:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You MUST determine your range at the Check Range step. To perform this you MUST find a value for the distance between the two units, following the rules for measuring between units

YOu CANNOT complete this measurement, meaning you have NO PERMISSION to carry on firing.

While the actual value does not matter, you have to actually find a value, as per the actual rules

that is your citation. If you disagree, please find a rule allowing you to fire despite being unable to complete "check range"

This is the same thing. You must roll, even if the result wouldn't matter. And combined with your stance that the number of dice that needs to be rolled cannot be determined, you're stuck. The power cannot be resolved.

Crimson, what is the profile for Psychic Shriek (since the weapon's profile tells us how many dice to roll)?

Anything other than "undefined" is incorrect. So my next question would be how many dice do you roll when it is undefined?

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Which is why we don't feel its a relevant roll. It's like that's our point or something...

You don't get it. Whether or not it is relevant, it is still a required step by the rules. You cannot just skip it.

Which means you literally cannot use witchfire or focused witchfire powers.
Your argument means that a general rule is more appropriate to use than a specific one - which runs contrary to understanding how the rules work.

This is what Nos said in the Orbital Bombardment thread:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You MUST determine your range at the Check Range step. To perform this you MUST find a value for the distance between the two units, following the rules for measuring between units

YOu CANNOT complete this measurement, meaning you have NO PERMISSION to carry on firing.

While the actual value does not matter, you have to actually find a value, as per the actual rules

that is your citation. If you disagree, please find a rule allowing you to fire despite being unable to complete "check range"

This is the same thing. You must roll, even if the result wouldn't matter. And combined with your stance that the number of dice that needs to be rolled cannot be determined, you're stuck. The power cannot be resolved.

... Which was decided pages ago. The difference is that we've accepted that and moved on to discussing intent - you're somehow stuck on proving that you're correct RAW which is demonstrably false.

 Happyjew wrote:
Crimson, what is the profile for Psychic Shriek (since the weapon's profile tells us how many dice to roll)?

Anything other than "undefined" is incorrect. So my next question would be how many dice do you roll when it is undefined?

Well there is something to plug into that profile range 12", S- AP-.

While you may be arguing intent Rigeld, there is no reason your view of intent is any more valid than anyone else. It may have more weighting due to position within the community etc but ignore the roll and just resolve breaks more rules than assuming assault 1 IMHO.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Crimson, what is the profile for Psychic Shriek (since the weapon's profile tells us how many dice to roll)?

Anything other than "undefined" is incorrect. So my next question would be how many dice do you roll when it is undefined?

Well there is something to plug into that profile range 12", S- AP-.

While you may be arguing intent Rigeld, there is no reason your view of intent is any more valid than anyone else. It may have more weighting due to position within the community etc but ignore the roll and just resolve breaks more rules than assuming assault 1 IMHO.

And where did you find that profile? It obviously is not RAW, and it still does not tell us how many dice are rolled. So what is stopping me from rolling all of my dice at once? Would you then allow me to resolve the effect for every dice that rolled a hit?

Firstly the profile fragment is from the power, it being 12".

HIWPI? No I'd tell you to stick your dice somewhere sensitive if you rolled 40 dice and said you get to apply 3d6 - LD for each that hit. One dice as it's one shot unless stated otherwise.

There is no profile for Psychic Shriek. Psy Powers are not required to have profiles.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Firstly the profile fragment is from the power, it being 12".

HIWPI? No I'd tell you to stick your dice somewhere sensitive if you rolled 40 dice and said you get to apply 3d6 - LD for each that hit. One dice as it's one shot unless stated otherwise.

So you have a range. That's it. you have no weapon profile, and nothing stopping me from rolling 40 dice. with that many I'm bound to get at least one hit (probably even a precision shot, but I wouldn't hold my breath) so since I got a hit I can now resolve the power.

 Happyjew wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Firstly the profile fragment is from the power, it being 12".

HIWPI? No I'd tell you to stick your dice somewhere sensitive if you rolled 40 dice and said you get to apply 3d6 - LD for each that hit. One dice as it's one shot unless stated otherwise.

So you have a range. That's it. you have no weapon profile, and nothing stopping me from rolling 40 dice. with that many I'm bound to get at least one hit (probably even a precision shot, but I wouldn't hold my breath) so since I got a hit I can now resolve the power.

You have no permission to use more than 1 die. It requires a to hit roll unless stated otherwise it is a single shot. There is no profile suggesting you get more than 1 to hit roll.

Well are we playing silly buggers or 40k? Cos if we're playing silly buggers I'll roll a scatter dice and punch whoever it points at and allow them to do the same.

If we're playing 40k, there is a requirement to roll to hit and a rule that says that multiple shot weapons will have it listed in their profile. No profile = no multiple shots.

Fragile wrote:
There is no profile for Psychic Shriek. Psy Powers are not required to have profiles.

Firing assault weapons requires a profile.
Witchfires are fired as assault weapons.
Your statement is factually incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
While you may be arguing intent Rigeld, there is no reason your view of intent is any more valid than anyone else. It may have more weighting due to position within the community etc but ignore the roll and just resolve breaks more rules than assuming assault 1 IMHO.

Have I said mine is any more valid? Pretty sure I haven't. Please quote where I have.
And what rules does it break? It lifts the requirement for witchfires to roll to hit if there's no profile. Yours alters a much broader rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
There is no profile for Psychic Shriek. Psy Powers are not required to have profiles.

Firing assault weapons requires a profile.
Witchfires are fired as assault weapons.
Your statement is factually incorrect. .

Psy Powers are not Assault weapons. You have failed to parse the sentence you quote for it.

Manifesting witchfire counts as firing an Assault weapon

The two things being equated in this sentence are Manifesting =Firing (verbs). That sentence does not say ( Witchfire counts as Assault weapons.) In which case you would be correct. A psyker who uses a witchfire counts as having shot a assault weapon for all other purposes (running, assault etc.) But a Psy power is not an assault weapon as proven by the fact that several Psy powers that are witchfires do not have a Profile and like you say... all assault weapons have a profile.

Since it is not an assault weapon, it is fired 1 time.

Witchfire are not fired as an assault weapons, they count as having fired an assault weapon. The reason I know this, aside from the rules saying it, is that assault weapons don't need a psychic test. There is a bit of a leap from counts as having fired to is, just saying.

No you haven't but you and Nos are jumping up and down when I look to the basic rules first and it doesn't alter any rule to follow page 50 before page 51. You label rolling to hit as weak RAI based on the RAW, which does sound a lot like you're claiming your opinion is the right one.

Fragile wrote:
it is fired 1 time.

And you have a page for this?

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
There is no profile for Psychic Shriek. Psy Powers are not required to have profiles.

Firing assault weapons requires a profile.
Witchfires are fired as assault weapons.
Your statement is factually incorrect. .

Psy Powers are not Assault weapons. You have failed to parse the sentence you quote for it.

No, I really haven't.

It's a shooting attack. Said shooting attack is made counting as firing an assault weapon. How do you fire assault weapons that are shooting attacks? Please cite the rules for doing so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Witchfire are not fired as an assault weapons, they count as having fired an assault weapon. The reason I know this, aside from the rules saying it, is that assault weapons don't need a psychic test. There is a bit of a leap from counts as having fired to is, just saying.

If you count as having fired an assault weapon, what did you just do?
If you don't answer "Fired an assault weapon" please explain why.

No you haven't but you and Nos are jumping up and down when I look to the basic rules first and it doesn't alter any rule to follow page 50 before page 51.

We're "jumping up and down" because you're presenting that as RAW (unless I missed you stating it was a RAI argument) which cannot be correct.

I stated I was talking RAI 4 pages back as I think the rules give very clear guidance on what to do and I include IMO in most of my statements.


Also the answer is used a witchfire power. "Counts as" is not always the same as "is", counting as not having moved is not the same as not having moved.

rigeld2 wrote:

Which means you literally cannot use witchfire or focused witchfire powers.

Well, I can, because I can determine the correct number of shots. You however can't.

Your argument means that a general rule is more appropriate to use than a specific one - which runs contrary to understanding how the rules work.

Then perhaps your understanding is faulty, if it results the game breaking down? If specific rule you are looking at doesn't resolve the matter, then it is perfectly reasonable to look at the generic rule.

... Which was decided pages ago. The difference is that we've accepted that and moved on to discussing intent - you're somehow stuck on proving that you're correct RAW which is demonstrably false.

Oh, I completely agree that this is about intent. That's why I have said numerous times that clear sentence requiring roll to hit is pretty strong statement of intent.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Which means you literally cannot use witchfire or focused witchfire powers.

Well, I can, because I can determine the correct number of shots. You however can't.

And how do you determine the number of shots? You look at the profile. Since the profile does not exist you cannot determine the number of shots. Unless you have a rule stating otherwise.

 Happyjew wrote:

And how do you determine the number of shots? You look at the profile. Since the profile does not exist you cannot determine the number of shots. Unless you have a rule stating otherwise.

As you well know, p. 50 tells you how to determine number of shots. I'm making a shooting attack, thus I'm firing some shots. Does my weapon profile or any other rule say I'm firing multiple shots? Nope. Ergo, I'm firing one shot.

 Crimson wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

And how do you determine the number of shots? You look at the profile. Since the profile does not exist you cannot determine the number of shots. Unless you have a rule stating otherwise.

As you well know, p. 50 tells you how to determine number of shots. I'm making a shooting attack, thus I'm firing some shots. Does my weapon profile or any other rule say I'm firing multiple shots? Nope. Ergo, I'm firing one shot.

No page 50 tells us that some weapons shoot more than one shot. Is the psychic power a weapon? If yes, then per page 51 (which is more specific) the profile (which does not exist) tells you how many shots to fire. If it is not a weapon (as some have argued) then page 50 does not apply, as that only deals with weapons.

 Happyjew wrote:

No page 50 tells us that some weapons shoot more than one shot. Is the psychic power a weapon? If yes, then per page 51 (which is more specific) the profile (which does not exist) tells you how many shots to fire. If it is not a weapon (as some have argued) then page 50 does not apply, as that only deals with weapons.

If rule on p.50 cannot apply to any weapon that is a weapon, why it is there?

Page 50 is a general rule regarding weapons. It tells us that if a weapon fires multiple shots it will be listed in its profile.
Page 51 (which has rules dealing specifically with Assault weapons) tells us the number of shots will be in the profile.

So it comes down to
a) Psychic Shriek is an assault weapon. Since it has no profile the number of shots is undefined.
b) Psychic Shriek is not an assault weapon. Since it is not a weapon the rules governing weapons do not apply, and the number of shots fired is undefined.

This seems rather silly to have been going on for 7 pages.
The way I'm reading it is that you have to roll to hit, or in other words take a BS test.
The only real information you need at that point is your psychic character's BS value and the type of weapon, since moving would have reduced it to a snap shot if it were heavy.
Witchfire is counted as assault, probably so we know you can move fire and assault in the same turn.
So we know it's counted as assault and we have to roll to hit, or again just a simple BS test.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
This seems rather silly to have been going on for 7 pages.
The way I'm reading it is that you have to roll to hit, or in other words take a BS test.
The only real information you need at that point is your psychic character's BS value and the type of weapon, since moving would have reduced it to a snap shot if it were heavy.
Witchfire is counted as assault, probably so we know you can move fire and assault in the same turn.
So we know it's counted as assault and we have to roll to hit, or again just a simple BS test.

A BS test =/= To Hit roll. The mechanics are completely different between the two.
Everybody agrees that you have to roll To Hit. The reason it has gone on for 7 pages is that people can't agree on how many dice you roll (1 or undefined).

 Happyjew wrote:

Everybody agrees that you have to roll To Hit. The reason it has gone on for 7 pages is that people can't agree on how many dice you roll (1 or undefined).

But you must agree that in reality we know. It's a technical hiccup at best. I don't believe that it even occurred to GW designers that someone would demand to be told that they have to roll that one die. When something is blindingly obvious, it is easy to forget to actually write it down.

If it was blindingly obvious we wouldn't have 8 pages of discussion.

 Happyjew wrote:
If it was blindingly obvious we wouldn't have 8 pages of discussion.

What is not blindingly obvious is whether you have to roll at all. That is the matter what the genuine confusion is about. I admit I'm not absolutely certain which way they meant it. However, if you think you have to roll to hit, then you really know how many dice to roll. The matter may be technically unclear, but we all know that in case you roll at all, you roll one die. So if GW designers meant that you have to roll, it is perfectly plausible that they forgot to spell out the exact number of dice as it was obvious to them.

RaW-No solution as rules are not clear enough
RaI-too vague

Imo its a matter of the TO's house rule or have your club/friends you game with come to a local concencus

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
There is no profile for Psychic Shriek. Psy Powers are not required to have profiles.

Firing assault weapons requires a profile.
Witchfires are fired as assault weapons.
Your statement is factually incorrect. .

Psy Powers are not Assault weapons. You have failed to parse the sentence you quote for it.

No, I really haven't.

It's a shooting attack. Said shooting attack is made counting as firing an assault weapon. How do you fire assault weapons that are shooting attacks?

You dont fire assault weapons by passing a Psy Test first. Nor does the target get a DTW vs assault weapons. Psy Powers have their own mechanic for how they are used and after they are manifested they count as having fired assault weapons. Nothing you have shown equates the two. Only a failed parsing of that sentence does, which is incorrect.

And you have a page for this?

Pg 13. Most models get to fire one shot, some weapons are capable of firing more than once. You do not have permission to fire a Psy Power more than once unless it is specified. Puppet Master does not.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
There is no profile for Psychic Shriek. Psy Powers are not required to have profiles.

Firing assault weapons requires a profile.
Witchfires are fired as assault weapons.
Your statement is factually incorrect. .

Psy Powers are not Assault weapons. You have failed to parse the sentence you quote for it.

No, I really haven't.

It's a shooting attack. Said shooting attack is made counting as firing an assault weapon. How do you fire assault weapons that are shooting attacks?

You dont fire assault weapons by passing a Psy Test first. Nor does the target get a DTW vs assault weapons. Psy Powers have their own mechanic for how they are used and after they are manifested they count as having fired assault weapons. Nothing you have shown equates the two. Only a failed parsing of that sentence does, which is incorrect.

So you're refusing to answer my question? Cool story bro. Come back when you have relevant statements.
Using a witchfire is firing an assault weapon.

You question is irrelevant. Assault weapons have their own mechanic and have Profiles. Show me the profile on Crush, Hemorrhage, Puppet Master. Hint.. they do not have one, because Psy Powers are not assault weapons. They only count as having fired them. Until then, you have nothing but your RAI and HIWPI statements from early in this thread. RAW is clear.

Fragile wrote:

And you have a page for this?

Pg 13. Most models get to fire one shot, some weapons are capable of firing more than once. You do not have permission to fire a Psy Power more than once unless it is specified. Puppet Master does not.

But we are not talking about weapons. We are talking about psychic powers, which as you claimed (5 times no less)

Fragile wrote:
Your stuck on psychic powers being Assault weapons. They are not.

Fragile wrote:
But a psychic power is a psychic power, not an assault weapon.

Fragile wrote:
It does not say they are an assault weapon.

Fragile wrote:
Since it is not an assault weapon, it is fired 1 time.

Fragile wrote:
Psy Powers are not assault weapons.

So if the rule is weapons fire one shot, then this rue does not apply. Therefore Page 13, 50, and 51 do not apply. So without referencing those rules (as they deal with weapons, not psychic powers), please cite a page that says unless otherwise specified witchfire powers roll a single dice to hit.

Fragile wrote:
You question is irrelevant. Assault weapons have their own mechanic and have Profiles. Show me the profile on Crush, Hemorrhage, Puppet Master. Hint.. they do not have one, because Psy Powers are not assault weapons. They only count as having fired them. Until then, you have nothing but your RAI and HIWPI statements from early in this thread. RAW is clear.

Yes, RAW is clear in that the powers do not function as written. Or do you disagree with that?

Kinda surprised this is still going. Everyone here can be construed as correct for RAI. Just talk with your opponent/gaming group/TO. Theirs are the only RAI opinions that are going to matter to you. Time to let this one die I think until an FAQ comes out (if ever).

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
You question is irrelevant. Assault weapons have their own mechanic and have Profiles. Show me the profile on Crush, Hemorrhage, Puppet Master. Hint.. they do not have one, because Psy Powers are not assault weapons. They only count as having fired them. Until then, you have nothing but your RAI and HIWPI statements from early in this thread. RAW is clear.

Yes, RAW is clear in that the powers do not function as written. Or do you disagree with that?

Use Warp Charge, Declare Target, Psy Test, DTW, Resolve Power.

Resolving a Witchfire.

Roll to hit and if successful resolve effects.

Pretty basic.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
You question is irrelevant. Assault weapons have their own mechanic and have Profiles. Show me the profile on Crush, Hemorrhage, Puppet Master. Hint.. they do not have one, because Psy Powers are not assault weapons. They only count as having fired them. Until then, you have nothing but your RAI and HIWPI statements from early in this thread. RAW is clear.

Yes, RAW is clear in that the powers do not function as written. Or do you disagree with that?

Use Warp Charge, Declare Target, Psy Test, DTW, Resolve Power.

Resolving a Witchfire.

Roll to hit and if successful resolve effects.

Pretty basic.

OK, but how many dice do you roll to hit with? Page 13, 50, and 51 don't apply as they deal with weapons.

Crimson - I actually stated it, as was pointed out, in my first post. I kept pointing it out. You kept missing it, in your apparent hostiliity

Also, by "know" you mean "assume". You are assuming you use one dice to see if you roll to hit, and you are assuming that the roll to hit has to succeed for you to use the 3D6 ability. You cannot, as you have not, provide any proof of either assumption. Nothing.

Fragile - please answer HJs question, without using page 13, 50 or 51, as you are asserting (without any rules, of course) that you are not firing an assault weapon.

A witchfire power must roll To Hit,... (p69).

Psychic Shriek does not mention To Hit rolls, therefore it does not deviate from the already stated rule about WF.

You can infer that PS requires a (ONE) To Hit roll because it is a WF, has no profile, and its description offers no exception to the WF rules.

Arguing RAW vs RAI for this has gotten ridiculous. All a player needs to do is think about... HWYPI! Just ask yourself, seriously, HWYPI.

PS requires no To Hit rolls? Requires one for each wound caused?
What about every other WF out there? How many does Puppet Master require? Mind War? How would these powers play out with multiple To Hit rolls?

Saying they require no To Hit rolls clearly breaks the rule from p69. In lieu of a written exception, they all require a To Hit roll.
In practice, you will see all non-area, non-profile providing WFs require ONE To Hit roll.

Actually, in my area (Chicago Battle Bunker) I have played many games and my opponents have had no issue with my Psykers not rolling to hit for Psychic Shriek.

Farseer Pef wrote:

In practice, you will see all non-area, non-profile providing WFs require ONE To Hit roll.

Not a single person in any tournament, LGS etc that I have seen use a witchfire power that has no obvious requirement to roll to hit has done so. NOt a single one

Throws your "in practice" argument out of the water, like all anecdotal "evidence" tends to do to "intent" based arguments. Some people see it one way, some see it the other.

Noone can prove that a succesful roll to hit is required to perform the 3D6 check. Noone, because no textual rule exists that states so. That is the plain fact of the matter. As such I play it that it is irrelevant if you roll to hit or not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Also, by "know" you mean "assume". You are assuming you use one dice to see if you roll to hit, and you are assuming that the roll to hit has to succeed for you to use the 3D6 ability.

Yes, indeed, which I find immensely more plausible assumptions than assumption that when they wrote that witchfires need to roll to hit, they didn't actually mean it.

I never made that assumption, I stated it was irrelevant, using rules. As rules matter.

Can we all agree you have no rules argument here, just a HYPWI one?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Noone can prove that a succesful roll to hit is required to perform the 3D6 check. Noone, because no textual rule exists that states so. That is the plain fact of the matter. As such I play it that it is irrelevant if you roll to hit or not.

Farseer Pef wrote:A witchfire power must roll To Hit,... (p69).

Psychic Shriek does not mention To Hit rolls, therefore it does not deviate from the already stated rule about WF.

Saying they require no To Hit rolls clearly breaks the rule from p69. In lieu of a written exception, they all require a To Hit roll.

I have provided a textual rule. I have provided a train of thought on bridging a 'gap' in rule interpretation. I recommend going back and thinking about the questions I posed earlier while keeping p69 in mind. Just because others have ignored the rule, intentionally or unintentionally, doesn't mean the rule doesn't apply.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I never made that assumption, I stated it was irrelevant, using rules. As rules matter.

And yet, by the rules it is required. You have to roll, whether or not it affects anything, and you cannot know the number of dice to be rolled. You're stuck.

Can we all agree you have no rules argument here, just a HYPWI one?

Your interpretation of the rules requires your houserule of allowing to skip the roll to hit part to work. That isn't any less HYWPI.

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I never made that assumption, I stated it was irrelevant, using rules. As rules matter.

And yet, by the rules it is required. You have to roll, whether or not it affects anything, and you cannot know the number of dice to be rolled. You're stuck.

Yes, and? Does that alter the truth of what I am stating?

Do you agree, yes or no, that there is no textual basis for requring a successful roll to hit (of an undetermined number of dice as per page 51 requirements for assault weapons, or the underfeind number of dice if you say it isnt a weapon - either way it is undefined) in order to use the 3D6 ?

Yes or No. Simple question, simple answer.

Crimson wrote:

Can we all agree you have no rules argument here, just a HYPWI one?

Your interpretation of the rules requires your houserule of allowing to skip the roll to hit part to work. That isn't any less HYWPI.

It has more basis than making up an arbitrary number of dice to roll. You arent told how many to roll, so dont roll any. You are not told the 3D6 effect requires a successful roll to hit, meaning the roll to hit is irrelevant anyway

Skipping somethign irrelevant vs making up a number of dice to roll AND creating a rule that requires the roll to hit to be succsful. I count one houserule vs 2.

Oh, and I never said it wasnt HYWPI, you just managed to miss it over and over and over by your overly hostile and demeaning attitude to people discussing the rules, and how they have a gap.

Farseer - no, you have not stated anything new. I agree you need to roll to hit, RAW. My point is that you cannot prove that a successful roll to hit is required before you can use the effect.

If a hit roll is required, it then has to to be passed to go on.

Otherwise a hit roll wouldn't be required.

It is required for a shooting attack to have a hit roll.

That's how you know it hits.

if a witchfire requires a hit roll then it must hit to have an effect.

agree or disagree? no comments on how many dice to roll.

if the RAW requires it to roll to hit does it require it to roll to hit?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - I actually stated it, as was pointed out, in my first post. I kept pointing it out. You kept missing it, in your apparent hostiliity

Also, by "know" you mean "assume". You are assuming you use one dice to see if you roll to hit, and you are assuming that the roll to hit has to succeed for you to use the 3D6 ability. You cannot, as you have not, provide any proof of either assumption. Nothing.

Fragile - please answer HJs question, without using page 13, 50 or 51, as you are asserting (without any rules, of course) that you are not firing an assault weapon.

Why would I not use 13? It deals with shooting.

"Most models (Psyker) only get to fire (Witchfire =Psychic shooting attack) one shot (=1d6) however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once ( nothing in Psy Shriek indicates that it should be fired more than once even if you call it an assault weapon).

You have been admittedly arguing HIWPI and apparently do not like the fact that you have to roll to hit. Its understandable as it greatly increases the chance of failing a powerful Psy ability. There is nothing RAW to even consider the fact that it still has an effect if it misses.

There is also nothing RAW to even consider the fact that it does not tell us how many dice to roll to hit.

Do you need LOS for psychic shreik?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Farseer - no, you have not stated anything new. I agree you need to roll to hit, RAW. My point is that you cannot prove that a successful roll to hit is required before you can use the effect.

Well that part is simple. When you roll To Hit, you either have a Hit or a Miss.
What do you suppose happens on a Hit?
What do you suppose happens on a Miss?
Do you think a WF, p69 in mind, should resolve any of their effect on a Miss?
Or should it, like every other shooting or melee attack in the game, have no effect whatsoever on a Miss?

Seriously, think these questions over and let us know what answers you come up.

Logic bridges this 'gap' in the rules.

Farseer Pef wrote:

Do you think a WF, p69 in mind, should resolve any of their effect on a Miss?

He actually thinks they should...

 Crimson wrote:

Farseer Pef wrote:

Do you think a WF, p69 in mind, should resolve any of their effect on a Miss?

He actually thinks they should...

Well what would a Hit do? Per RAW please cite and explain the mechanics from the book that tell us what to do with a Hit in this case.

Nos has made an RAW argument and has what the BRB says(or lack thereof) backing him and you keep accusing him of being wrong using RAI or HYWPI reasoning. If you want to debate RAI or HYWPI that's fine but please stop attacking his RAW assessment with those arguments because it's counterproductive and you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm keeping up on this thread in case any good new points come forth and I don't mean to be harsh but this has been going on for pages now and it is detracting from the quality of the discussion.

I'm sorry abandon but there is no RAW argument for allowing resolution without a successful roll to hit.

An absence of a profile is not permission. It is a RAI argument.