In the Telepathy Psyker table the Primaris Power states.

Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 12". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target's Leadership - the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the Result. Armor and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek.

The confusion, stems from wondering if this is a simply Leadership Test on 3D6. If so and lets say you have a leadership of 8. You reoll 12 on 3D6, do you fail and thereby take 4 Wounds?

Yep. That's what it says.

Well no it is not a " Leadership Test on 3D6"

It does exactly what it says...
"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target's Leadership - the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the Result."

Ergo Roll 3d6, get a 15, units LD is 8 so 15 - 8 = 7

While we are on the topic, Do you have to roll to hit with psychic shriek, because it is a witchfire?

I have been rolling to hit as normal.. I would assume so as it is a Witchfire, which is why I have been rolling to hit all this time

deviant cadaver wrote:
While we are on the topic, Do you have to roll to hit with psychic shriek, because it is a witchfire?

Well it requires a roll to hit but it does not have a profile to tell us how many dice to roll to hit.

"Manifesting a Witchfire counts as firing an Assault weapon" (69)

The primary effect of rolling to hit with an assault weapon is the possibility of generating wounds off of a successful hit, as per the Shooting section.

The 3D6 test is not tied to the roll to hit at all.

Ergo you do not need to roll to hit with Psychic shriek.

Well then... That's always nice to hear lol

deviant cadaver wrote:
While we are on the topic, Do you have to roll to hit with psychic shriek, because it is a witchfire?

Yes, but we don't know how many dice we have to roll or what happens when you miss.

There's a long thread on the same issues already, safe to say not everyone agrees that the lack of a profile stops your from having to roll to hit.

Ergo, discuss it in your group rather than the internet.

EDIT:
Found it -> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/555787.page

Not everyone agrees, but only one side was able to show that the rules are functionally broken, and that therefore a suitable compromise is to not to roll to hit, as nothing within the rules for the power state what happens if you miss - technically even if you assume a single dice is used, if you "miss" you still resolve the power, as only to-wound rolls require a to-hit, using the actual written rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not everyone agrees, but only one side was able to show that the rules are functionally broken, and that therefore a suitable compromise is to not to roll to hit, as nothing within the rules for the power state what happens if you miss - technically even if you assume a single dice is used, if you "miss" you still resolve the power, as only to-wound rolls require a to-hit, using the actual written rules.

And that is an assumption, not a conclusion, as the previous thread shows. Nothing was proven by either side despite multiple logic chains linking specific rules. End the end, talk to your opponent or follow the TO's ruling.

SJ

J - no, it was a conclusion. The only rules stating a requirement on to-hit are to-wound. Unless you are assuming that the 3D6-Ld is a roll to-wound - which is a poor assumption, as the roll to-wound is very well defined - then there is simply no requirement to actually hit, EVEN IF you decide to roll only a single dice, instead of the "undefined" number of dice you should roll

This was proven in the previous thread, beyond reasonable argument.

This is YMDC, arguments don't have to be reasonable.

Oh indeed they dont have to be reasonable - the point was that the broken nature of the rules (you are *required* to have a profile to know the number of shots, and no profile is given = game halts) was proven to all but those who chose to pretend that the most specific rules dont apply - "because". There was never a good, rules based reason, jutst "because".

Just stating something was proven in no way actually proves anything, which was well documented in the linked thread. Baring an FAQ or errata from GW, which I doubt will occur since GW "discovered" ePublications, the issue in question will remain unresolved until 7th (if even then).

SJ

100% RAW the power doesn't work, we will never know how many dice to roll and we know we must roll.

Nos and everyone else are arguing RAI or HIWPI.

I've been playing roll 1 dice as it is one power.

I kinda thought about saying, well even if I "MISS" the power still effects you, then I had someone try and do it to me in a tournament earlier this month. 3D6 People, and this guy picks up his dice, rolls a 2 and said on "Dakka" the rules guys had decided that rolling to hit doesn't effect the outcome of me having to roll the 3D6.

I smile and rolled the 3D6, I rolled a 14 and then asked Jim what the leadership was on his unit which was closer then my unit to the one cast the actual power. He laughed and asked "What?" I said well Jimmy boy if you decided that the MISS you rolled was invalid to the result of the power then I wonder how you even target my models, is there not just as much as a chance that you've now randomly targeted something else on the board?

He got a little steamed so we called over the the TO.

The TO asked what he rolled on the required "TO HIT" roll, we told him a 2 with his BS of 4.

The TO explained to Jim that the BS table on the back shows that as a MISS, Jim explained that was only for wounds. The TO asked if he wanted to do something other then "wound" my models? Jim said no, but that isn't the point.

The TO shook his head.

The TO said he had missed, and walked away.

Personally I'd have been fine allowing him to use a power he RAW can't use as long as understood his roll "TO HIT" actually counted as if he was rolling "TO HIT".

Stormbreed wrote:
100% RAW the power doesn't work, we will never know how many dice to roll and we know we must roll.

Nos and everyone else are arguing RAI or HIWPI.

Not 100% true.

The RAW side is stating that the roll to hit is not tied to the 3d6-LD check as it circumvents the normal way of the 'To Hit - To Wound' mechanic.

So RAW we need to roll to hit but do not know how many dice to roll. Also RAW the effect is not dependent on a successful roll to hit so it can be ignored.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
100% RAW the power doesn't work, we will never know how many dice to roll and we know we must roll.

Nos and everyone else are arguing RAI or HIWPI.

Not 100% true.

The RAW side is stating that the roll to hit is not tied to the 3d6-LD check as it circumvents the normal way of the 'To Hit - To Wound' mechanic.

So RAW we need to roll to hit but do not know how many dice to roll. Also RAW the effect is not dependent on a successful roll to hit so it can be ignored.

You can't make it to that point without first rolling to hit. So before anything else we have to roll to hit, we need to know how many dice, if we don't know, we can't roll, thus if we do, we're breaking RAW.

What happens afterwards doesn't matter as you can't use the power.

Although I do find your arguments in regards to the "HIt" or "MISS" not meaning anything interesting and will tell you that our local GW employee house ruled there was no need to roll to hit with this power.

^ My case in point.

SJ

if the power wasnt a witch fire, you wouldnt have to roll to hit...

it is, so you do, when you hit, the effects of the power are applied, when you miss, they are not...

that is OBS RAI, and it is also RAW

pretending a mandatory to hit roll is meaningless, is a house rule... trying to add confusion where there is none regarding how many "shots" you have to define the power for is just that... adding confusion where there is none, you roll to hit, you roll to see how many wounds the power causes using the powers rules.

In other words, go read that other thread that went 16 pages, before we do it again.

 easysauce wrote:
it is, so you do, when you hit, the effects of the power are applied, when you miss, they are not...

that is OBS RAI, and it is also RAW

pretending a mandatory to hit roll is meaningless, is a house rule... trying to add confusion where there is none regarding how many "shots" you have to define the power for is just that... adding confusion where there is none, you roll to hit, you roll to see how many wounds the power causes using the powers rules.

This is incorrect.

Nothing ties in a successful to hit roll with the effects of PS.

Similar to Murderous Hurricane, PS can effect a unit even if you miss the To Hit roll every witchfire is supposed to have (Not that we know how many dice to roll to hit, but it is irrelevant anyway as the 3d6-LD check is not dependent on a successful roll to hit).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
it is, so you do, when you hit, the effects of the power are applied, when you miss, they are not...

that is OBS RAI, and it is also RAW

pretending a mandatory to hit roll is meaningless, is a house rule... trying to add confusion where there is none regarding how many "shots" you have to define the power for is just that... adding confusion where there is none, you roll to hit, you roll to see how many wounds the power causes using the powers rules.

This is incorrect.

Nothing ties in a successful to hit roll with the effects of PS.

Similar to Murderous Hurricane, PS can effect a unit even if you miss the To Hit roll every witchfire is supposed to have (Not that we know how many dice to roll to hit, but it is irrelevant anyway as the 3d6-LD check is not dependent on a successful roll to hit).

As above: easy stop claiming RAW when there is no such rule stating such.

The ONLY time a to-hit roll must be successful, in the rules, is when you are then rolling to-wound. If you disagree - which you do - then follow the tenets and actually support yoru assertion with rules. Page, paragraph and EXACT citation. You cannot do this, as you failed to do so in the previous thread, I just want to make it clear to others that holes in your argument.

J - no, it was proven. RAW, you MUST have a profile in order to shoot an assault weapon - indisputable. IF you do not have a profile, you CANNOT fire that assault weapon, as you do not know the number of shots you must fire - again, indisputable.

PS does not have a profile. Game halts.

Your disagreement, which isnt based (again) on any actual rules - just "dont use the most specific rules just because", is irrelevant to this.

RAW PS is a broken power; however luckily the broken part - how many dice you roll - is entirely irrelevant to the rules stating you resolve the psychic power according to its entry, and as its entry isnt a to-wound roll of any form (it causes wounds; it isnt a to-wound roll. These are two different concepts) resolving the 3D6 effect has no dependency on the to-hit roll

Now you know all this, so your continual denial of the rules is disingenuous at best.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
it is, so you do, when you hit, the effects of the power are applied, when you miss, they are not...

that is OBS RAI, and it is also RAW

pretending a mandatory to hit roll is meaningless, is a house rule... trying to add confusion where there is none regarding how many "shots" you have to define the power for is just that... adding confusion where there is none, you roll to hit, you roll to see how many wounds the power causes using the powers rules.

This is incorrect.

Nothing ties in a successful to hit roll with the effects of PS.

Similar to Murderous Hurricane, PS can effect a unit even if you miss the To Hit roll every witchfire is supposed to have (Not that we know how many dice to roll to hit, but it is irrelevant anyway as the 3d6-LD check is not dependent on a successful roll to hit).

As above: easy stop claiming RAW when there is no such rule stating such.

The ONLY time a to-hit roll must be successful, in the rules, is when you are then rolling to-wound. If you disagree - which you do - then follow the tenets and actually support yoru assertion with rules. Page, paragraph and EXACT citation. You cannot do this, as you failed to do so in the previous thread, I just want to make it clear to others that holes in your argument.

J - no, it was proven. RAW, you MUST have a profile in order to shoot an assault weapon - indisputable. IF you do not have a profile, you CANNOT fire that assault weapon, as you do not know the number of shots you must fire - again, indisputable.

PS does not have a profile. Game halts.

Your disagreement, which isnt based (again) on any actual rules - just "dont use the most specific rules just because", is irrelevant to this.

RAW PS is a broken power; however luckily the broken part - how many dice you roll - is entirely irrelevant to the rules stating you resolve the psychic power according to its entry, and as its entry isnt a to-wound roll of any form (it causes wounds; it isnt a to-wound roll. These are two different concepts) resolving the 3D6 effect has no dependency on the to-hit roll

Now you know all this, so your continual denial of the rules is disingenuous at best.

Long paragraph, but it isn't disingenuous. You're trying to cause wounds to your target.

There won't be one TO or House Rule that enforces a roll to hit that doesnt matter.

It's either gonna be roll to hit or don't bother. It will never be roll to hit and disregard the roll.

Ahhhhhhh this again???????

Stormbreed wrote:
Long paragraph, but it isn't disingenuous. You're trying to cause wounds to your target.

You're trying to equate a to wound roll with the PS leadership test?

Nos, you failed to support your claim in the previous thread. I cited and quoted the exact rules for how Psychic Shriek requires a single roll of 1d6 for To Hit in order for the Wounding effect to then take place. You on the other hand, as always, break the tenets by handwaving your opponent's argument as "wrong" without posting an actual counter argument. Your inability to post a rules supported counter argument is the main reason these threads go 16+ pages of circular bickering.

Your entire argument is that a single FAQ for the Space Wolf codex about a specific Space Wolf psychic power overrides the general rules in the BRB regarding any Witchfire power that lacks a shooting profile. You further state that Psychic Shriek requires a shooting profile in order to work, therefore you can "legally" ignore the required To Hit roll.

The argument you disagree with is that the BRB per RAW tells us we roll 1d6 per attack, we have 1 attack unless otherwise noted, following Assault Weapon rules allows the ability to be used after moving yet does not prevent charging, and Psychic Shriek in no way tells us to step any of those points. No profile is required, because all the information we need to use the ability is listed.

16+ pages of you stating your opposition is wrong without you proving it, per the tenets, with rules. 16+ pages of you claiming your opposition's RAW based argument, which causes no hiccups in the rules, is wrong because you think ignoring RAW is the "correct" way to play it.

Do we need 16 more pages of that nonsense?

Simple answer is: talk to your opponent or follow the TO's ruling. Rolling 1d6 to hit with a miss stopping the attack does not break the game; however, ignoring the to hit roll does break the game. If you agree in your game to skip the to hit roll, that is a house-rule, which is perfectly fine for your game.

SJ

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Long paragraph, but it isn't disingenuous. You're trying to cause wounds to your target.

You're trying to equate a to wound roll with the PS leadership test?

Am not trying, the power reads the 3D6 leadership test can cause wounds with no armour or cover saves.

It's simple. Ask yourself are you trying to cause wounds. Like when you roll to hit. Which RAW you must do.

I'm not saying its a set in stone thing but I'm saying people linking the wounds to hitting will never have the ruling go that way.

It will always be. You don't need to roll. Or you do. Never you do need to roll but it doesn't matter.

Stormbreed wrote:
It will always be. You don't need to roll. Or you do. Never you do need to roll but it doesn't matter.

A Fortuned Eldar and the Swarmlord walk into a bar combat...

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
It will always be. You don't need to roll. Or you do. Never you do need to roll but it doesn't matter.

A Fortuned Eldar and the Swarmlord walk into a bar combat...

Either talk before hand to just accept the rolls. Or. Re roll the fails and successful rolls as the rules require knowing you can't reroll a reroll.

Stormbreed wrote:
Long paragraph, but it isn't disingenuous. You're trying to cause wounds to your target.

Causing wounds != to wound roll. One is defined very differently to the other.

This has been pointed out, and therefore it IS disingenuous to continue to conflate the two.

Stormbreed wrote:There won't be one TO or House Rule that enforces a roll to hit that doesnt matter.

It's either gonna be roll to hit or don't bother. It will never be roll to hit and disregard the roll.

No, but only for the sake of brevity. Same as a lot of TOs dont enforce the fortun+misfortune roll, then roll everything again. Dont mistake that for not understanding the rules, however.

I have simply told, as a TO, to not roll to hit with PS, as the end result doesnt matter, and might lead people to conclude you roll one dice, when the actual rule for number is broken as there is no profile.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Nos, you failed to support your claim in the previous thread.

That is a lie, retract.it

jeffersonian000 wrote:I cited and quoted the exact rules for how Psychic Shriek requires a single roll of 1d6 for To Hit in order for the Wounding effect to then take place.

No, you made a claim that the most specific rules, for Assault Weapons (that PS is treated as, when it manifest), can be ignored because it is inconvenient to your argument.

You have failed to show that a succesful roll to-hit is required to resolve a psychic power, and you have failed to show a requirement for a sucessful roll to-hit to manifest non-to-wound-rolls. PS DOES NOT ROLL TO-WOUND, therefore the requirement that inorder to roll-to-wound you must first have successfully rolled-to-hit does not apply

You hand wave these failures of your arguments, and claim the other side handwaves theirs? Hypocrisy at best.

jeffersonian000 wrote: You on the other hand, as always, break the tenets by handwaving your opponent's argument as "wrong" without posting an actual counter argument. Your inability to post a rules supported counter argument is the main reason these threads go 16+ pages of circular bickering.

Really? So in the prior thread I did not post exact rules pages and quotes? Any chance you can back up your attacks on my character - not for the first time, I might add - thi time? Or will you follow rule number one and retract yoru bald faced lies and attacks?

jeffersonian000 wrote:Your entire argument is that a single FAQ for the Space Wolf codex about a specific Space Wolf psychic power overrides the general rules in the BRB regarding any Witchfire power that lacks a shooting profile.

Another lie. As you know, as you made this repeated lie in the previous thread, and you were corrected every time

The SW FAQ simply adds support that failing to-hit (veen automatically missing) has no bearing on non-to-wound effects. As in, no matter how many times you lie about this, this is not the core of my argument.

I bolded and quoted, many times for your benefit and others, my exact argument.

jeffersonian000 wrote:You further state that Psychic Shriek requires a shooting profile in order to work, therefore you can "legally" ignore the required To Hit roll.

In order to know how many dice to roll to-hit when firing an assault weapon, you must have a profile. This is stated in the actual rules. You keep ignoring them, handwaving this requirement away, in the hope people will disagree

jeffersonian000 wrote:The argument you disagree with is that the BRB per RAW tells us we roll 1d6 per attack, we have 1 attack unless otherwise noted,

The assault weapon rules state we must follow the profile.

jeffersonian000 wrote: following Assault Weapon rules allows the ability to be used after moving yet does not prevent charging,

Yes, it also allows us to know how many shots the attack gets, by following the profile we are required to have for an assault weapon. Or are you now claiming you dont need a profile when firing an assault weapon? The rules disagree, but it would be interesting to know which rules you are ignoring.

jeffersonian000 wrote:and Psychic Shriek in no way tells us to step any of those points. No profile is required, because all the information we need to use the ability is listed.

Apart from the profile that the assault weapon rules require you to have

I try to avoid ignoring the more specific rules, as I think written rules matter.

jeffersonian000 wrote:16+ pages of you stating your opposition is wrong without you proving it, per the tenets, with rules. 16+ pages of you claiming your opposition's RAW based argument, which causes no hiccups in the rules, is wrong because you think ignoring RAW is the "correct" way to play it.

Another lie, and an attack, AND putting words in my mouth!

jeffersonian000 wrote:Do we need 16 more pages of that nonsense?

No, as I do not intend to engage with your nonsense any further. Reported, and back on ignore as you really do not contribute anything useful to these discussions - jsut repeatedly breaking rule #1, lying about others, attacking their character and other gak. Not worth it.

Stormbreed wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
It will always be. You don't need to roll. Or you do. Never you do need to roll but it doesn't matter.

A Fortuned Eldar and the Swarmlord walk into a bar combat...

Either talk before hand to just accept the rolls. Or. Re roll the fails and successful rolls as the rules require knowing you can't reroll a reroll.

I'm aware of how it works, I'm just pointing out that the assertion that there is no time when a roll doesn't matter is factually incorrect.

what does the failed leadership cause? It actually tells you in the power. So I'm rolling dice to cause wounds. Sounds like a to wound roll to me. Is it a super special one, sure, but it is still rolling dice with the negative effect being wounds.


The Swarmlord house rule has nothing to do with this conversation because RAW is easy. Roll all the dice then roll them all again.

This's power doesn't work RAW and regardless of what a TO said to you in private, there is no known TO FAQ or Tournament rules list that says, you roll x dice and disregard the result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
It will always be. You don't need to roll. Or you do. Never you do need to roll but it doesn't matter.

A Fortuned Eldar and the Swarmlord walk into a bar combat...

Either talk before hand to just accept the rolls. Or. Re roll the fails and successful rolls as the rules require knowing you can't reroll a reroll.

I'm aware of how it works, I'm just pointing out that the assertion that there is no time when a roll doesn't matter is factually incorrect.

The 1st roll matters. It is the reason you can't reroll the 2nd roll.

Stormbreed wrote:
what does the failed leadership cause? It actually tells you in the power. So I'm rolling dice to cause wounds. Sounds like a to wound roll to me. Is it a super special one, sure, but it is still rolling dice with the negative effect being wounds.

So a Get's Hot to hit roll is a to wound roll? Demonstrably false.
And psychic tests are also to wound rolls apparently.
And Leadership tests for Orks with a boss pole.
And Leadership tests for IG with Commisars.

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
what does the failed leadership cause? It actually tells you in the power. So I'm rolling dice to cause wounds. Sounds like a to wound roll to me. Is it a super special one, sure, but it is still rolling dice with the negative effect being wounds.

So a Get's Hot to hit roll is a to wound roll? Demonstrably false.
And psychic tests are also to wound rolls apparently.
And Leadership tests for Orks with a boss pole.
And Leadership tests for IG with Commisars.

Do you take armor saves against gets hot. Does the rule specifically tell you it can cause wounds.

The rest of your examples cover what they are in the rule itself.

If we disregard the roll to hit, then what kind of power are you playing it As? Don't the shooting rules say "nominate a target" or along those words. If we start down the shooting rules path I see no RAW to skip steps.

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
what does the failed leadership cause? It actually tells you in the power. So I'm rolling dice to cause wounds. Sounds like a to wound roll to me. Is it a super special one, sure, but it is still rolling dice with the negative effect being wounds.

So a Get's Hot to hit roll is a to wound roll? Demonstrably false.
And psychic tests are also to wound rolls apparently.
And Leadership tests for Orks with a boss pole.
And Leadership tests for IG with Commisars.

Do you take armor saves against gets hot. Does the rule specifically tell you it can cause wounds.

The rest of your examples cover what they are in the rule itself.

Your assertion was that any roll that ends in a wound must be a to wound roll. So you agree that those things I listed are to wound rolls despite the fact that the actual rules (not what you pretend the rules say) have a specific definition of a to-wound roll?

If we disregard the roll to hit, then what kind of power are you playing it As? Don't the shooting rules say "nominate a target" or along those words. If we start down the shooting rules path I see no RAW to skip steps.

Since we can't skip steps, what's the STR value of the hit? How many dice do we roll to hit?

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
what does the failed leadership cause? It actually tells you in the power. So I'm rolling dice to cause wounds. Sounds like a to wound roll to me. Is it a super special one, sure, but it is still rolling dice with the negative effect being wounds.

So a Get's Hot to hit roll is a to wound roll? Demonstrably false.
And psychic tests are also to wound rolls apparently.
And Leadership tests for Orks with a boss pole.
And Leadership tests for IG with Commisars.

Do you take armor saves against gets hot. Does the rule specifically tell you it can cause wounds.

The rest of your examples cover what they are in the rule itself.

Your assertion was that any roll that ends in a wound must be a to wound roll. So you agree that those things I listed are to wound rolls despite the fact that the actual rules (not what you pretend the rules say) have a specific definition of a to-wound roll?

If we disregard the roll to hit, then what kind of power are you playing it As? Don't the shooting rules say "nominate a target" or along those words. If we start down the shooting rules path I see no RAW to skip steps.

Since we can't skip steps, what's the STR value of the hit? How many dice do we roll to hit?

Please re read thread we all agree RAW the power doesn't work. I'm just not sold that if you roll to ........ Wait for it.......HIT. And you come up with a.............M I S S............. Your ability still goes off.


Im all for either rolling to hit with 1 dice or not rolling at all as I've had it ruled both ways.

No tournament or TO has ever told me, yes roll X dice but ignore the result.

Stormbreed wrote:
The 1st roll matters. It is the reason you can't reroll the 2nd roll.

But the outcome of the roll doesn't matter, you can roll a 1 or a 6 and you still get to reroll, it doesn't affect the game in any way. This is essentially what Rigeld's arguing happens when rolling to hit with Psychic Shriek.

Stormbreed wrote:

If we disregard the roll to hit, then what kind of power are you playing it As? Don't the shooting rules say "nominate a target" or along those words. If we start down the shooting rules path I see no RAW to skip steps.

Since we can't skip steps, what's the STR value of the hit? How many dice do we roll to hit?

Please re read thread we all agree RAW the power doesn't work. I'm just not sold that if you roll to ........ Wait for it.......HIT. And you come up with a.............M I S S............. Your ability still goes off.

Im all for either rolling to hit with 1 dice or not rolling at all as I've had it ruled both ways.

No tournament or TO has ever told me, yes roll X dice but ignore the result.

Sorry - I misunderstood (or didn't see you say) and thought you were discussing RAW. Even then, however, there's precedent for an effect happening even if you miss.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
The 1st roll matters. It is the reason you can't reroll the 2nd roll.

But the outcome of the roll doesn't matter, you can roll a 1 or a 6 and you still get to reroll, it doesn't affect the game in any way. This is essentially what Rigeld's arguing happens when rolling to hit with Psychic Shriek.

Not a good example. Two rules canceling each other is not the same as ignoring a to hit roll to automatically apply an effect.

SJ

Good example or not it still disproves this claim:

Stormbreed wrote:
Never you do need to roll but it doesn't matter.

Which is why I posted it.

None of the arguments that the power isnt tied to the hit roll matter, because that is made up.

It is a witchfire, you are required RAW to roll to hit.

You can argue how many dice do you roll? Well the profile doesn't state how many.

That in no way makes the RAW that you must roll to hit with a witchfire power invalid, if they intended for it not to roll to hit it would have been a malediction...

So RAW there is an impasse in how many dice to roll to hit, as it is not explicitly stated but you are required to roll to hit.

Failing to roll to hit is breaking raw.

Talk to the TO or your opponent before the game begins to agree to how it works. Keep in mind it is a primaris power, so its not supposed to be the "best power" in the discipline.

blaktoof wrote:
Keep in mind it is a primaris power, so its not supposed to be the "best power" in the discipline.

If only that were true...

Stormbreed wrote:
what does the failed leadership cause? It actually tells you in the power. So I'm rolling dice to cause wounds. Sounds like a to wound roll to me. Is it a super special one, sure, but it is still rolling dice with the negative effect being wounds.

A "to wound roll" is a defined thing in the rulebook. No matter what you think is "super special" about the 3D6 effect, while it causes wounds, and dice are involved, it is NOT a to-wound roll. THis is a fact.

For it to be a to-wound roll requires it to be comparing S vs T, etc. This is clear from the rulebook. As such, no matter how many patronising ways you have of writing "M I S S", RAW there is no requirement for a [b]successful[/b[ roll to-hit for you to be able to carry on resolving the power - in this case rolling 3D6 - Ld. There just isnt one.

PLease argue *rules*, or make it clear when you are making RAI / HYWPI style arguments.

We are not talking about a To Wound roll, we are talking about a To Hit roll. Basic rules tell us each model may make 1 attack unless otherwise noted, and rolls 1d6 To Hit per attack. Assault Weapons, a more specific rule, tells us a weapon with multiple attacks will be noted. As Psychic Shriek does not denote multiple attacks, the more specific rule does not conflict with the basic rule. Without direction to roll multiple attacks, we roll for 1 attack. If that To Hit roll is successful, we then are allowed to move on to wounding, and as seen in the entry under Psychic Shriek, wound with this ability follows a specific format that is different from normal shooting attacks.

To Hit and To Wound are not the same thing.

SJ

blaktoof wrote:
None of the arguments that the power isnt tied to the hit roll matter, because that is made up.

Well, no, it isnt made up, as you havent described the argument.

The argument is that passing or failing your to hit has no effect on your ability to roll the 3D6 effect. This argument is 100% correct, rule-less arguments from others being safely ignored.

blaktoof wrote:It is a witchfire, you are required RAW to roll to hit.

Never stated otherwise. Stated this, repeatedly.

blaktoof wrote:You can argue how many dice do you roll? Well the profile doesn't state how many.

Agreed - you need a profile to know how many dice to roll.

blaktoof wrote:That in no way makes the RAW that you must roll to hit with a witchfire power invalid, if they intended for it not to roll to hit it would have been a malediction...

Never disagreed with this.

blaktoof wrote:So RAW there is an impasse in how many dice to roll to hit, as it is not explicitly stated but you are required to roll to hit.

Failing to roll to hit is breaking raw.

Again, agreed. Have pointed out that an acceptable houserule - if you want the primaris power to be useful, at all, an acceptbale houserule given precedent AND the RAW regarding the 3D6 effect, is to not bother with the roll to-hit. Again this being a hosuerule is not in dispute

KTalk to the TO or your opponent before the game begins to agree to how it works. Keep in mind it is a primaris power, so its not supposed to be the "best power" in the discipline.

The OP only wanted to know how to resolve the wounds damage on a 3d6 roll.

Answer: it breaks before you get there.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
what does the failed leadership cause? It actually tells you in the power. So I'm rolling dice to cause wounds. Sounds like a to wound roll to me. Is it a super special one, sure, but it is still rolling dice with the negative effect being wounds.

A "to wound roll" is a defined thing in the rulebook. No matter what you think is "super special" about the 3D6 effect, while it causes wounds, and dice are involved, it is NOT a to-wound roll. THis is a fact.

For it to be a to-wound roll requires it to be comparing S vs T, etc. This is clear from the rulebook. As such, no matter how many patronising ways you have of writing "M I S S", RAW there is no requirement for a [b]successful[/b[ roll to-hit for you to be able to carry on resolving the power - in this case rolling 3D6 - Ld. There just isnt one.

PLease argue *rules*, or make it clear when you are making RAI / HYWPI style arguments.

I clarified this was a HYWPI discussion from the start as RAW you can never use the power.

I agree he power is amazing so I will be rolling to hit to be a nice guy, unless I'm at my LGS where it's been ruled you do not roll to hit.

Sorry this is a little late. rigeld, you forgot dangerous terrain on your list of "to wound" rolls.

 Happyjew wrote:
Sorry this is a little late. rigeld, you forgot dangerous terrain on your list of "to wound" rolls.

Damn. Knew I forgot something.

edit: Stormbreed - since you've asserted that any roll that ends in a wound is a to-wound roll (HYWPI, not RAW) do you force models that re-roll failed to wound rolls to reroll successful dangerous terrain tests, etc.?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Sorry this is a little late. rigeld, you forgot dangerous terrain on your list of "to wound" rolls.

Damn. Knew I forgot something.

edit: Stormbreed - since you've asserted that any roll that ends in a wound is a to-wound roll (HYWPI, not RAW) do you force models that re-roll failed to wound rolls to reroll successful dangerous terrain tests, etc.?

I never asserted anything. I said that you roll a leadership test to see how many wounds you cause. What do you roll the leadership to cause when you play?

I see no RAW to make them re roll dangerous terrain tests, not sure why you even need to ask that question maybe make a new thread if you see a reason to do so.

Stormbreed wrote:
I never asserted anything. I said that you roll a leadership test to see how many wounds you cause.

Which is completely different than a To Wound roll... (To Wound rolls are dependent on To Hit rolls, the mechanic in PS is not dependent on a successful To Hit roll because it is not tied to that To Hit roll at all).

Stormbreed wrote:what does the failed leadership cause? It actually tells you in the power. So I'm rolling dice to cause wounds. Sounds like a to wound roll to me[b]. Is it a super special one, sure, but it is still rolling dice with the negative effect being wounds.

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Sorry this is a little late. rigeld, you forgot dangerous terrain on your list of "to wound" rolls.

Damn. Knew I forgot something.

edit: Stormbreed - since you've asserted that any roll that ends in a wound is a to-wound roll (HYWPI, not RAW) do you force models that re-roll failed to wound rolls to reroll successful dangerous terrain tests, etc.?

I never asserted anything. I said that you roll a leadership test to see how many wounds you cause. What do you roll the leadership to cause when you play?

I see no RAW to make them re roll dangerous terrain tests, not sure why you even need to ask that question maybe make a new thread if you see a reason to do so.

You did say that it was a to wound roll. I even bolded it above.

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Sorry this is a little late. rigeld, you forgot dangerous terrain on your list of "to wound" rolls.

Damn. Knew I forgot something.

edit: Stormbreed - since you've asserted that any roll that ends in a wound is a to-wound roll (HYWPI, not RAW) do you force models that re-roll failed to wound rolls to reroll successful dangerous terrain tests, etc.?

I never asserted anything. I said that you roll a leadership test to see how many wounds you cause. What do you roll the leadership to cause when you play?

I see no RAW to make them re roll dangerous terrain tests, not sure why you even need to ask that question maybe make a new thread if you see a reason to do so.

Yes you did - you said it sounds lie a to-wound roll to you. Except it isnt, as a to-wound roll is a specific "thing"

You and jeffersonian are both making the same error - that of assuming that just because you are causing wounds, that yo uare making a to-wound roll and therefore have to have a successful to-hit roll.

Of course, this isnt at all true.

I've made no such error. At no point have I stated To Wound is reliant on To Hit. Blast markers and templates cause wounds using a completely different mechanic from regular shooting attacks. In the case of Psychic Shriek, wounding is determined by a "3d6-Ld" mechanic.

SJ

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:what does the failed leadership cause? It actually tells you in the power. So I'm rolling dice to cause wounds. Sounds like a to wound roll to me[b]. Is it a super special one, sure, but it is still rolling dice with the negative effect being wounds.

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Sorry this is a little late. rigeld, you forgot dangerous terrain on your list of "to wound" rolls.

Damn. Knew I forgot something.

edit: Stormbreed - since you've asserted that any roll that ends in a wound is a to-wound roll (HYWPI, not RAW) do you force models that re-roll failed to wound rolls to reroll successful dangerous terrain tests, etc.?

I never asserted anything. I said that you roll a leadership test to see how many wounds you cause. What do you roll the leadership to cause when you play?

I see no RAW to make them re roll dangerous terrain tests, not sure why you even need to ask that question maybe make a new thread if you see a reason to do so.

You did say that it was a to wound roll. I even bolded it above.

Oh you mean i said "It sounds like" which since you're rolling and that roll can cause wounds, yea I think it does SOUND LIKE a to wound roll. Weird that you don't. Sounding like something doesn't equal being something.

Witchfires are shooting attacks and if we're gonna disregard one or more of those rules we may as well disregard the target option as well.

Or do a suitable exception as the power doesn't work anyways.
a) Don't roll to hit
b) Roll to hit

Yep and those wounds are not reliant on a "successful to-Hit"

Stormbreed wrote:
Oh you mean i said "It sounds like" which since you're rolling and that roll can cause wounds, yea I think it does SOUND LIKE a to wound roll. Weird that you don't. Sounding like something doesn't equal being something.

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Long paragraph, but it isn't disingenuous. You're trying to cause wounds to your target.

You're trying to equate a to wound roll with the PS leadership test?

Am not trying, the power reads the 3D6 leadership test can cause wounds with no armour or cover saves.

It's simple. Ask yourself are you trying to cause wounds. Like when you roll to hit. Which RAW you must do.

I'm not saying its a set in stone thing but I'm saying people linking the wounds to hitting will never have the ruling go that way.

It will always be. You don't need to roll. Or you do. Never you do need to roll but it doesn't matter.

You go ahead and try and say you weren't calling it a to wound roll - your statements in the thread show how dishonest that is.
I asked if you were trying to equate them and you answered you weren't trying, the test causes wounds.

It's proven that rolls that cause wounds are not always linked to hitting. You're trying to assert that they are. There's literally no basis for your stance.

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Oh you mean i said "It sounds like" which since you're rolling and that roll can cause wounds, yea I think it does SOUND LIKE a to wound roll. Weird that you don't. Sounding like something doesn't equal being something.

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Long paragraph, but it isn't disingenuous. You're trying to cause wounds to your target.

You're trying to equate a to wound roll with the PS leadership test?

Am not trying, the power reads the 3D6 leadership test can cause wounds with no armour or cover saves.

It's simple. Ask yourself are you trying to cause wounds. Like when you roll to hit. Which RAW you must do.

I'm not saying its a set in stone thing but I'm saying people linking the wounds to hitting will never have the ruling go that way.

It will always be. You don't need to roll. Or you do. Never you do need to roll but it doesn't matter.

You go ahead and try and say you weren't calling it a to wound roll - your statements in the thread show how dishonest that is.
I asked if you were trying to equate them and you answered you weren't trying, the test causes wounds.

It's proven that rolls that cause wounds are not always linked to hitting. You're trying to assert that they are. There's literally no basis for your stance.

Eh, again I told you what the power says, I told what it causes and I even said "I'm not saying as a set in stone thing" , but clearly something is causing those wounds, and since its a witchfire and we must roll to hit, and follow shooting rules, it bares reason to believe a miss on this shooting attack would in fact, miss.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Blast markers and templates cause wounds using a completely different mechanic from regular shooting attacks.

This is irrelevant as Blast markers and templates specifically tell you they do not need to roll To Hit.

"When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit, Instead..." (33)

It specifically tells you they do not need to roll To Hit and you use this method instead.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Blast markers and templates cause wounds using a completely different mechanic from regular shooting attacks.

This is irrelevant as Blast markers and templates specifically tell you they do not need to roll To Hit.

"When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit, Instead..." (33)

It specifically tells you they do not need to roll To Hit and you use this method instead.

Yep, just like Witchfire powers require a successful To Hit roll to apply their effect. We actually need specific permission to bypass the To Hit roll, such as the already mention SW FAQ or Blast Marks or Templates or Nova powers or Beam powers, etc.

Psychic Shriek has no specific exemption from rolling To Hit, nor does it have specific permission to apply its effect on a miss.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Blast markers and templates cause wounds using a completely different mechanic from regular shooting attacks.

This is irrelevant as Blast markers and templates specifically tell you they do not need to roll To Hit.

"When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit, Instead..." (33)

It specifically tells you they do not need to roll To Hit and you use this method instead.

Yep, just like Witchfire powers require a successful To Hit roll to apply their effect. We actually need specific permission to bypass the To Hit roll, such as the already mention SW FAQ or Blast Marks or Templates or Nova powers or Beam powers, etc.

Psychic Shriek has no specific exemption from rolling To Hit, nor does it have specific permission to apply its effect on a miss.

SJ

Good points SJ. Maybe everyone else should digest your posts instead of trying to post lawyer everything storm breed is writing.

Wait if they ignore your posts and make lots of posts about storm breed maybe everyone else will ignore them too and they can still blissfully think a witch fire ability can ignore a hit roll.

Good work SJ and storm.

Sho off wrote:
Good points SJ. Maybe everyone else should digest your posts instead of trying to post lawyer everything storm breed is writing.

Wait if they ignore your posts and make lots of posts about storm breed maybe everyone else will ignore them too and they can still blissfully think a witch fire ability can ignore a hit roll.

Good work SJ and storm.

I have SJ on ignore so I have no idea what he's said previously, but Storm was arguing a completely different point.
SJ in the past has failed to actually cite rules (despite his assurances that he has) and is convinced that Psychic Shriek actually works RAW (despite the fact that he's been shown evidence that it does not) because... well I'm not sure why. But his stance literally ignores rules and he refuses to accept it.

And I'm not "post lawyering" I'm holding people accountable for what they said. You do understand the difference, right?

rigeld2 wrote:

Sho off wrote:
Good points SJ. Maybe everyone else should digest your posts instead of trying to post lawyer everything storm breed is writing.

Wait if they ignore your posts and make lots of posts about storm breed maybe everyone else will ignore them too and they can still blissfully think a witch fire ability can ignore a hit roll.

Good work SJ and storm.

I have SJ on ignore so I have no idea what he's said previously, but Storm was arguing a completely different point.
SJ in the past has failed to actually cite rules (despite his assurances that he has) and is convinced that Psychic Shriek actually works RAW (despite the fact that he's been shown evidence that it does not) because... well I'm not sure why. But his stance literally ignores rules and he refuses to accept it.

And I'm not "post lawyering" I'm holding people accountable for what they said. You do understand the difference, right?

My point was asking you if you consider rolling dice with the intent to wound the same as "rolling to wound".

I never stated it was the same rolling to wound as in the BRB under shooting however it does stand to reason that since we have to follow shooing rules for this ability to work what so ever (granted it doesn't) IF you are rolling to cause wounds in any way shape or forum WHILE USING THIS POWER you are simply following the correct order of operations for shooting.

There is no special permission for this rule to ignore the "need to hit" rule that other rules have.
There is only one way to actually cause the wounds, which is to use the power which is, "A Shooting Attack"

The small box on page 12 of the BRB has a quick reference. It says 2. Hit, Roll 1 Dice for each shot fired. (1 power 1 shot?)

Stormbreed wrote:
My point was asking you if you consider rolling dice with the intent to wound the same as "rolling to wound".

Absolutely not. I don't take a defined BRB term and apply it to something else willy-nilly.

I never stated it was the same rolling to wound as in the BRB under shooting however it does stand to reason that since we have to follow shooing rules for this ability to work what so ever (granted it doesn't) IF you are rolling to cause wounds in any way shape or forum WHILE USING THIS POWER you are simply following the correct order of operations for shooting.

Um. No - you're resolving the power. You are not rolling to wound. Since that's a defined brb process and all. And you may not have outright stated it, but saying you never implied it (heavily) is flatly dishonest. I've quoted two of your posts where you're doing your best to say it but not say it. It's like saying "No I didn't eat that cookie." while not saying "I ate every cookie and that's the only one that's left."

There is no special permission for this rule to ignore the "need to hit" rule that other rules have.

There's also no requirement to actually hit.

There is only one way to actually cause the wounds, which is to use the power which is, "A Shooting Attack"

... and?

The small box on page 12 of the BRB has a quick reference. It says 2. Hit, Roll 1 Dice for each shot fired. (1 power 1 shot?)

... Seriously? Now you're saying the power works as written? How about you go read the thread that was linked and not waste my time with invalidated arguments. Thanks.

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
My point was asking you if you consider rolling dice with the intent to wound the same as "rolling to wound".

Absolutely not. I don't take a defined BRB term and apply it to something else willy-nilly.

I never stated it was the same rolling to wound as in the BRB under shooting however it does stand to reason that since we have to follow shooing rules for this ability to work what so ever (granted it doesn't) IF you are rolling to cause wounds in any way shape or forum WHILE USING THIS POWER you are simply following the correct order of operations for shooting.

Um. No - you're resolving the power. You are not rolling to wound. Since that's a defined brb process and all. And you may not have outright stated it, but saying you never implied it (heavily) is flatly dishonest. I've quoted two of your posts where you're doing your best to say it but not say it. It's like saying "No I didn't eat that cookie." while not saying "I ate every cookie and that's the only one that's left."

There is no special permission for this rule to ignore the "need to hit" rule that other rules have.

There's also no requirement to actually hit.

There is only one way to actually cause the wounds, which is to use the power which is, "A Shooting Attack"

... and?

The small box on page 12 of the BRB has a quick reference. It says 2. Hit, Roll 1 Dice for each shot fired. (1 power 1 shot?)

... Seriously? Now you're saying the power works as written? How about you go read the thread that was linked and not waste my time with invalidated arguments. Thanks.

So what do you call it?

Rolling to tickle?
Step 1 "Roll 3 D6" (Yep you rolled the dice)
Step 2 Subtract the leadership
Step 3 Whats left over are they ..... Wounds you cause.....

Sounds like you rolled with intent to wound to me. Just like in the "SHOOTING PHASE" which is what this spell is, a SHOOTING attack.

You're rolling dice with the intent to wound. Those dice are being rolled and based on their result, you may cause wounds.

The requirement to hit is based on the fact your are using a SHOOTING attack, if you miss, you MISS.

You can't create the wounds by saying you're not following the shooting rules, you have to follow the shooting rules because it is a shooting attack. Its not a blessing or a malediction, it is a shooting attack and has to follow those rules.

Page 12 quick reference just brought me back to thinking, why not roll to hit and make all our lives easier. I'm not claiming the rule works, but everything we can add helps, why not throw that in there. Maybe it will open up other lines of thinking for those reading this thread (such as SHO OFF) saying "Damn these people are crazy"!

I honestly don't want to fight with you Rigeld2 , I promise you won't find a tournament that has a "House Rule" saying "On the powers PS and Puppet Master you must roll to hit but you can disregard the result as it doesn't matter"
This isn't about RAW, RAW this power doesn't work unless we look outside the box, just a smidge!

Stormbreed wrote:


Sounds like you rolled with intent to wound to me.

So you consider a dangerous terrain test a roll to wound? What about a psychic test or daemonic instability tests? After all they can have wounds as their result.

Stormbreed wrote:
So what do you call it?

Resolving Psychic Shriek. Since, you know, that's what it is.

Rolling to tickle?
Step 1 "Roll 3 D6" (Yep you rolled the dice)
Step 2 Subtract the leadership
Step 3 Whats left over are they ..... Wounds you cause.....

Sounds like you rolled with intent to wound to me. Just like in the "SHOOTING PHASE" which is what this spell is, a SHOOTING attack.

You're rolling dice with the intent to wound. Those dice are being rolled and based on their result, you may cause wounds.

So wait - are you actually saying that any roll that could cause a wound is a to wound roll? So rolling To Hit with a plasma weapon is a roll to wound? I'm trying not to put words in your mouth, but you keep saying "I'm not saying that" and then you come out and say things like this.

The requirement to hit is based on the fact your are using a SHOOTING attack, if you miss, you MISS.

Yes, I'm not allowed to roll to wound or apply any effects that require a hit if I miss.
I'm doing neither so you CAPS and YELLING aren't relevant.

You can't create the wounds by saying you're not following the shooting rules, you have to follow the shooting rules because it is a shooting attack. Its not a blessing or a malediction, it is a shooting attack and has to follow those rules.

I am following those rules. Every one that applies.

Page 12 quick reference just brought me back to thinking, why not roll to hit and make all our lives easier. I'm not claiming the rule works, but everything we can add helps, why not throw that in there. Maybe it will open up other lines of thinking for those reading this thread (such as SHO OFF) saying "Damn these people are crazy"!

Because you're not helping by presenting half of the discussion.

I honestly don't want to fight with you Rigeld2 , I promise you won't find a tournament that has a "House Rule" saying "On the powers PS and Puppet Master you must roll to hit but you can disregard the result as it doesn't matter"
This isn't about RAW, RAW this power doesn't work unless we look outside the box, just a smidge!

You promise me that? Are you really sure? For the local tournament I was going to suggest exactly that. And I'm not "fighting" with you.

Sho - most have read, and responded to at least some of, jeffersonians points. Sadly, they neither cite applicable rules, nor address the rules presented by others in any logical way. They're simply non arguments, and continuing to try to argue against them is a non starter. Hence on ignore.

Storm - we've thought outside the box, which is that discarding the proven irrelevan part - the to hit has no bearing on your ability to resolve the power - makes the most sense here. Why try to fix something broken, which when following actual, non made up rules had no effect anyway?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Blast markers and templates cause wounds using a completely different mechanic from regular shooting attacks.

This is irrelevant as Blast markers and templates specifically tell you they do not need to roll To Hit.

"When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit, Instead..." (33)

It specifically tells you they do not need to roll To Hit and you use this method instead.

Yep, just like Witchfire powers require a successful To Hit roll to apply their effect. We actually need specific permission to bypass the To Hit roll, such as the already mention SW FAQ or Blast Marks or Templates or Nova powers or Beam powers, etc.

Psychic Shriek has no specific exemption from rolling To Hit, nor does it have specific permission to apply its effect on a miss.

SJ

(Emphasis mine).
It does not have specific permission to apply its effect on a miss because it does not need it.

Indeed, which is another area j has simply made rules up out of whole cloth. You are told to resolve the power, and barring the actual rules requiring to hit in order to wound, there is no further requirement placed before you can roll the 3D6.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Blast markers and templates cause wounds using a completely different mechanic from regular shooting attacks.

This is irrelevant as Blast markers and templates specifically tell you they do not need to roll To Hit.

"When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit, Instead..." (33)

It specifically tells you they do not need to roll To Hit and you use this method instead.

Yep, just like Witchfire powers require a successful To Hit roll to apply their effect. We actually need specific permission to bypass the To Hit roll, such as the already mention SW FAQ or Blast Marks or Templates or Nova powers or Beam powers, etc.

Psychic Shriek has no specific exemption from rolling To Hit, nor does it have specific permission to apply its effect on a miss.

SJ

(Emphasis mine).
It does not have specific permission to apply its effect on a miss because it does not need it.

I'll bite. What permission does Psychic Shriek have that allows it to ignore a miss?

Pages 13 and 14 the BRB advises us that a Shooting attack needs to hit a target before it can damage the target, per the "Roll To Hit" and "Roll To Wound" sections on those pages. Page 69 advises us that non-subtype Witchfire powers are Shooting attacks (2nd paragraph under "Witchfire"). Page 423, under Primis Power, "Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire power ..." The rule provide on page 423 on how Psychic Shriek wounds a target does appear to replace the "Roll To Wound" rules with a 3d6-Ld instead of S vs T as detailed on page 14. These points show a logic chain detailing why a To Hit roll is required, why a hit is needed to move on to wounding, and how Psychic Shriek goes about wounding.

Please be so kind as to show a similar chain of logic that supports your claim.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Blast markers and templates cause wounds using a completely different mechanic from regular shooting attacks.

This is irrelevant as Blast markers and templates specifically tell you they do not need to roll To Hit.

"When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit, Instead..." (33)

It specifically tells you they do not need to roll To Hit and you use this method instead.

Yep, just like Witchfire powers require a successful To Hit roll to apply their effect. We actually need specific permission to bypass the To Hit roll, such as the already mention SW FAQ or Blast Marks or Templates or Nova powers or Beam powers, etc.

Psychic Shriek has no specific exemption from rolling To Hit, nor does it have specific permission to apply its effect on a miss.




SJ

(Emphasis mine).
It does not have specific permission to apply its effect on a miss because it does not need it.

I'll bite. What permission does Psychic Shriek have that allows it to ignore a miss?

Pages 13 and 14 the BRB advises us that a Shooting attack needs to hit a target before it can damage the target, per the "Roll To Hit" and "Roll To Wound" sections on those pages. Page 69 advises us that non-subtype Witchfire powers are Shooting attacks (2nd paragraph under "Witchfire"). Page 423, under Primis Power, "Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire power ..." The rule provide on page 423 on how Psychic Shriek wounds a target does appear to replace the "Roll To Wound" rules with a 3d6-Ld instead of S vs T as detailed on page 14. These points show a logic chain detailing why a To Hit roll is required, why a hit is needed to move on to wounding, and how Psychic Shriek goes about wounding.

Please be so kind as to show a similar chain of logic that supports your claim.

SJ

Seems logical to follow SJ. I can see the logic flow and can understand.

To sum it up, psychic shriek is a witch fire, and it states in the witch fire rules it is a shooting attack and requires a roll to hit.

You cannot move onto resolving a witch fire power without first rolling to hit.

Maybe these guys have the wrong people on ignore?

I do agree this power is broken RAW as there is no shooting profile. Witchfire rules state to treat a power with no profile as an assault type. It would really clear things up if it said assault 1 .

The authors probably had this argument when writing the rules, but agreed people can't be that silly. It's clearly a Witchfire and we said you have to roll to hit.

It doesn't roll To Wound so it does not need a successful To Hit roll.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It doesn't roll To Wound so it does not need a successful To Hit roll.

A Witchfire power must roll to hit as per rules. You cannot ignore that. Unless you plan to break RAW. End.

Do not even consider resolving he power yet. Break it down simply. Do not even think about psychic shriek yet.

Witchfire spell = treat like a shooting attack. Rules for Witchfire state roll to hit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rules for those who are confused about a Witchfire.


As I a newer here hopefully this isn't an issue with me posting this here. If it is sorry.

“WITCHFIRE
Witchfire powers aer manifested during the Psyker’s Shooting phase instead of firing a weapon. Witchfire powers are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks. Manifesting witchfire counts as firing an Assault weapon (unless otherwise noted). 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. Saves can be taken against Wounds from witchfire in the same way as for any other shooting attack.

The Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point), cannot be locked in combat, must not have Run in the Shooting phase and must shoot at the same target as his unit, if he wishes to manifest witchfire. In the same way, if a Psyker targets a unit with witchfire, then he and his unit can only charge that target in the ensuing Assault phase. Note that, as witchfire is a Shooting attack, a Psyker embarked on a vehicle can target an enemy outside that vehicle by using a Fire Point.

Even if a Psyker has a special rule allowing him to manifest more than one psychic power per turn, he[…]”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Admittedly, if GW wrote Psychic Shriek as a Focused Witchfire power, threads like this would not exist. However, they did not.

SJ

Sho off wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It doesn't roll To Wound so it does not need a successful To Hit roll.

A Witchfire power must roll to hit as per rules. You cannot ignore that. Unless you plan to break RAW. End.

Do not even consider resolving he power yet. Break it down simply. Do not even think about psychic shriek yet.

Witchfire spell = treat like a shooting attack. Rules for Witchfire state roll to hit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rules for those who are confused about a Witchfire.


As I a newer here hopefully this isn't an issue with me posting this here. If it is sorry.

“WITCHFIRE
Witchfire powers aer manifested during the Psyker’s Shooting phase instead of firing a weapon. Witchfire powers are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks. Manifesting witchfire counts as firing an Assault weapon (unless otherwise noted). 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. Saves can be taken against Wounds from witchfire in the same way as for any other shooting attack.

The Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point), cannot be locked in combat, must not have Run in the Shooting phase and must shoot at the same target as his unit, if he wishes to manifest witchfire. In the same way, if a Psyker targets a unit with witchfire, then he and his unit can only charge that target in the ensuing Assault phase. Note that, as witchfire is a Shooting attack, a Psyker embarked on a vehicle can target an enemy outside that vehicle by using a Fire Point.

Even if a Psyker has a special rule allowing him to manifest more than one psychic power per turn, he[…]”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

And none of that ties a successful To Hit roll to the power.

The fact that the power must roll to hit, but does not have a profile is Irrelevant because we know the power is broken. We must then figure out how to make the power work. This is because having the power not function at all is a waste of ink and clearly not implied in the rules.

HIWPI (as no rule book). Surely rolling to hit is resolving the power?, it is a witchfire so you resolve the power by rolling to hit then applying the effects?.

MarkyMark wrote:
HIWPI (as no rule book). Surely rolling to hit is resolving the power?, it is a witchfire so you resolve the power by rolling to hit then applying the effects?.

Sure, but how many dice do you roll to hit?

Psychic Shriek does not have a profile so you don't know how many dice to roll to hit...

 DeathReaper wrote:
It doesn't roll To Wound so it does not need a successful To Hit roll.

This.

The requirement for a succesful roll to-hit before you can roll to-wound is ONLY found in the...to-wound section. There is no GENERAL rule stating if you must roll to hit, before you can move on this roll to hit must be successful.

This has, of course, been pointed out in this and the previous thread, but has been soundly ignored by Jeffersonian, who makes up that the 3D6 is a "replacement" for the roll to-wound, without, of course, providing any rules to support that contention.

So marker lights, How do you roll to hit with them if not allowed to roll to hit?. (unless there is a mechansim in tau dex for the markerlights).

I do agree that 3d6 test is not a replacement to wound.

(not arguing the point, I have a stinking cold and thats the last thing I need, add to that my brain not fully woken up nor gone to sleep last night I may be missing something obvious!).

Marky - no idea what youre asking about markerlights. They have a profile, so dont have the issues that PS does

PS doesnt have a profile, as required for an assault weapon to fire. More specific rule than the one jeffersonian is banking on in order to try to show that PS isnt functionally broken.

See told you I would be missing something obvoius!, heavy 1 for markers and PSA are assault......

I get it now .

So to summarise my argument, to avoid certain posters claiming it is something else, again:

1) the most specific rules require that, in order to know how many dice yo umust use, an Assault weapon has to have a profile. PS does not have a profile, ergo you have "undefined" number of dice, thus the game halts
2) The 3D6 effect is part of resolving the power, and nothing in the witchfire rules requires a succesful hit in order to continue resolving the power.
3) The only time you are required to have a succesful to-hit is when you are looking to roll to-wound, as stated in the rules for shooting. The 3D6 effect is NOT a roll to wound; claiming "it causes wounds, so must be!!" results in Gets Hot et al all being rolls to-wound, and handily conflicts with the written rules, so can be safely ignored as an opinion not based in fact

The result of 1) is that you should ideally never cast PS, as the game breaks if you do.

The result of 2) and 3) is that, IF you want the game to continue, a sensible houserule is that as the 3D6 effect is NEVER in any way shape of form tied to successfully hitting, the roll to-hit is entirely irrelevant. So skip it. It, functionally, does NOTHING for this power - so why bother with it? This is backed up by the FAQ for MH, which is a very similar power

Making up the number of dice to roll, THEN stating missing means you dont get to roll the 3D6 effect, is NOT a sensible solution - it involves making up 2 rules, vs ignoring one irrelevant one.

This has been the same argument in both threads, I just didnt put it in bold this time as doing so last time apparently didnt make any difference.

For the most part I agree with nosferatu, apart from rolling 1 die to hit and requiring a hit to have the power effect not being a sensible solution. I consider both to be reasonable house rules to resolve this issue, and while I lean towards one I realise I am biased because I use Psychic Shriek and want it to actually be good on models with less than BS 5.

I dont consider it a reasonable solution here, as it involves making up 2 rules - as opposed to ignoring an irrelevant one. Making a rule have relevance when it doesnt already is far from the simplest solution.

rigeld2 wrote:

You promise me that? Are you really sure? For the local tournament I was going to suggest exactly that. And I'm not "fighting" with you.

I'll concede I shouldn't call it a to wound roll as specified as in the shooting phase. My train of thought has always been if we have to follow the shooting rules we need to follow them all and the 3d6 was just a special example of the to wound roll. Again this is all RAI as the RAW the power doesn't work right now at all.

As for your local tournament, do they have a web age or location, I'm curious because of all the large tournaments I've been to or plan to go to I have never had a TO rule you must roll to hit and then disregard the outcome. The sheer amount of times you must have to explain the fact you missed to your opponent but they still have to resolve the power must by mind numbing.

The crazy part is, if they FAQ this as needing to roll 1D6 to hit the argument of many people in this thread won't change. Not that they will,

 DeathReaper wrote:
It doesn't roll To Wound so it does not need a successful To Hit roll.

that is completely false by RAW for witchfires.

making up that it can ignore RAW that is needs to hit, is a made up rule.

If there are rules to follow you follow them, RAW it has to roll to hit.

Then it comes to how many dice to roll?

Do you roll 1 or more, the profile doesn't explicitly state.

It doesnt give you permission to roll multiple, and tbh everyone posting here knows the silliest and worst thing would be to roll multiple because then do you roll a LD test for each to hit roll? Yes you would if you rolled to hit more than once. Obviously that's now how the power works.

Ignoring the to hit roll is breaking a solid RAW.

Making up that it rolls one dice is using a RAI that doesnt break a RAW.

No one is disputing that according to RAW you need to roll to hit, the dispute is whether or not the roll to hit affects the resolution of the power.

it is a Witchfire

RAW it is required to roll to hit.

It is not a malediction.

blaktoof wrote:
it is a Witchfire

RAW it is required to roll to hit.

It is not a malediction.

No one is arguing that. Perhaps you should read the thread?
The fact that it rolls to hit has what relevancy?

maybe you should read the thread.

The fact it is RAW required to hit as a witchfire.

It does not matter if it doesn't cause wounds like a generic shooting attack from the shooting section, it is a witchfire and RAW witchfires are required to roll to hit.

Therefore the hit roll is relevant.

blaktoof wrote:
maybe you should read the thread.

The fact it is RAW required to hit as a witchfire.

It does not matter if it doesn't cause wounds like a generic shooting attack from the shooting section, it is a witchfire and RAW witchfires are required to roll to hit.

Therefore the hit roll is relevant.

Witchfires have to roll to hit. Fine. Nobody ever questioned that. Point of the discussion is that if you hit with an assault weapon you make a to wound roll. To do this you need a weapon profile that tells you the shots strength and goes on that you have to compare it to its toughness. You dont get to do this when you dont hit. I dont think anyone here questions this fact.

The reason why people are arguing is that if you pass the psychic test for PS and your opponent fails his DTW roll you are allowed to resolve the power. Lets assume you do a single to hit roll (which would be a house rule). You roll and hit. There is no strength that could be compared to the models T characteristics therefor you go on and resolve the power since you have permission to do this. Since a to wound roll is defined in the BRB we can prove that "comparing 3d6 to LS value" isnt a to wound roll.
Now lets assume the to hit roll failed. You dont compare the non existant strength to the T characteristics. Nevertheless you still have permission to resolve the power. Now whether or not you have that permission after failing the to hit roll is what is discussed. Not if witchfires require a roll. Thats indisputable.

Note that since the power doesnt contain a weapon profile (shots. str. ap) it is factually dysfunctional rules wise anyway. This would be like arguing that models without eyes cant shoot at all. So were looking for RAW possibilites to acutally make it work.

blaktoof wrote:
maybe you should read the thread.

The fact it is RAW required to hit as a witchfire.

It does not matter if it doesn't cause wounds like a generic shooting attack from the shooting section, it is a witchfire and RAW witchfires are required to roll to hit.

Therefore the hit roll is relevant.

You've asserted a link between the to hit roll and applying the result of the power.
Please prove this assertion using rules. So far you've simply made statements without evidence.

so any weapon that wounds on LD (there are dark eldar ones and other races) are not wounds. got it...

perhaps melee weapons that remove models on a failed LD test no longer require to hit rolls, and you can make a number of tests equal to the number of attacks my model has? Afterall a LD test is not strength and therefore I can disregard a to wound roll. obviously a phallacy of logic, just as the above.

You are not required to compare S to T to wound for all weapons, not all weapons have a strength value, and not all attacks have a strength value. Some weapons and attacks wound in ways other than rolling S vs T as per the attacks profile.

PS has its on method for rolling to wound, but it does not auto hit, as per its rules.

and as per its rules, its a witchfire and requires a to hit roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
maybe you should read the thread.

The fact it is RAW required to hit as a witchfire.

It does not matter if it doesn't cause wounds like a generic shooting attack from the shooting section, it is a witchfire and RAW witchfires are required to roll to hit.

Therefore the hit roll is relevant.

You've asserted a link between the to hit roll and applying the result of the power.
Please prove this assertion using rules. So far you've simply made statements without evidence.

Please prove you auto hit, or can ignore the hit roll.

The hit roll is required, because it is a witchfire.

Do you think its required because you are not required to hit?

please provide any rule showing this.

blaktoof wrote:
so any weapon that wounds on LD (there are dark eldar ones and other races) are not wounds. got it...

Nope, never said that. Wounding on Leadership instead of Toughness is still a to-wound roll. That's not even close to what PS is doing and asserting a commonality undermines your argument.

perhaps melee weapons that remove models on a failed LD test no longer require to hit rolls, and you can make a number of tests equal to the number of attacks my model has? Afterall a LD test is not strength and therefore I can disregard a to wound roll. obviously a phallacy of logic, just as the above.

Except for the fact that, you know, they all require a wound first. Tiny details and all that.

You are not required to compare S to T to wound for all weapons, not all weapons have a strength value, and not all attacks have a strength value.

Those that don't are stated how they work.

PS has its on method for rolling to wound, but it does not auto hit, as per its rules.

The PS roll is not a to wound roll.

and as per its rules, its a witchfire and requires a to hit roll.

Again, relevancy of this statement hasn't been shown.

So no rules to support your assertion then - just misguided strawman arguments? Cool story bro - come back when you have something to contribute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
maybe you should read the thread.

The fact it is RAW required to hit as a witchfire.

It does not matter if it doesn't cause wounds like a generic shooting attack from the shooting section, it is a witchfire and RAW witchfires are required to roll to hit.

Therefore the hit roll is relevant.

You've asserted a link between the to hit roll and applying the result of the power.
Please prove this assertion using rules. So far you've simply made statements without evidence.

Please prove you auto hit, or can ignore the hit roll.

The hit roll is required, because it is a witchfire.

Do you think its required because you are not required to hit?

please provide any rule showing this.

Page 67 spells out the process for a psychic power. Do you see roll to hit in there? No? Didn't think so.
Page 69 spells out the process for a witchfire. There is no requirement to hit if the power applies something other than a normal shooting attack.

The roll to hit is required - I've not disputed that.
You have failed - utterly - to prove that it matters.

and as per its rules, its a witchfire and requires a to hit roll.


Again, relevancy of this statement hasn't been shown.

So no rules to support your assertion then - just misguided strawman arguments? Cool story bro - come back when you have something to contribute.

so obviously you either do not own a copy of the rule or you are purposefully trolling.

p.69 of the rulebook explicitly says " A witchfire power must roll to hit, unless it is a blast or large blast..."

So yes, obviously there is rules support.

can you support that it auto hits or the required to hit roll is not required? you never have, because you cannot.


the requirement to hit for a withcfire power is there unless it falls under a certain categories. Normal shooting attack isnt one of them.

the only exceptions to rolling to hit for witchfires are templates, blasts, and large blasts.

It has no exception for rolling to hit, what you stated is completely false.


i dont have to show that a hit roll matters, it is required.

you have to demonstrate that a required roll is not required.

blaktoof wrote:
i dont have to show that a hit roll matters, it is required.

Not a single person has argued this point. You're acting like we are. That's not the right way to debate.

you have to demonstrate that a required roll is not required.

Um. No? Because I'm not saying it's not required. Never have.

If the hit roll is required, it is a logical fallacy to assume [which you and others have done with out any rules support] that the power continues on a failed to hit roll.

requirement means it must happen and pass.

if it happens and does not pass you did not hit. You are required to hit for a witchfire power to work. p.69 of the rules.

blaktoof wrote:
p.69 of the rulebook explicitly says " A witchfire power must roll to hit, unless it is a blast or large blast..."

So yes, obviously there is rules support.

No one was disputing that a to hit roll is required when you use a Witchfire...

can you support that it auto hits or the required to hit roll is not required? you never have, because you cannot.

It does not auto hit because it does not say that it autohits. The roll to hit is required, as we have noted in this very thread. The issue comes in when we do not have a profile to tell us how many dice to roll to hit with PS.

the requirement to hit for a withcfire power is there unless it falls under a certain categories. Normal shooting attack isnt one of them.

I do not see the relevance of this.

the only exceptions to rolling to hit for witchfires are templates, blasts, and large blasts.

again I do not see the relevance of this.

i dont have to show that a hit roll matters, it is required.

It is required, but the power still works weather you hit or you miss, similar to murderous hurricane.

you have to demonstrate that a required roll is not required.

Ah you are misunderstanding the issue at hand, this makes more sense.

we are not saying that the roll to hot is not required, we are saying that we do not know how many dice to roll to hit. Also the to hit roll is not linked to the resolution of the power.

RAW you cast PS go to roll to hit, and can not find a profile telling you how many dice to roll and the game halts.

Luckily nothing in the PS power ties a successful roll to hit with the powers effects.

blaktoof wrote:
If the hit roll is required, it is a logical fallacy to assume [which you and others have done with out any rules support] that the power continues on a failed to hit roll.

requirement means it must happen and pass.

Murderous Hurricane would like to have a word with you about that...

It still has its effect even if you miss your To Hit rolls...

blaktoof wrote:
If the hit roll is required, it is a logical fallacy to assume [which you and others have done with out any rules support] that the power continues on a failed to hit roll.

It's really not. We know one thing that must have a passed to hit roll - to wound rolls. Does PS generate to wound rolls?

requirement means it must happen and pass.

The former is self-evident. The latter is your assumption for non-to wound rolls.

if it happens and does not pass you did not hit. You are required to hit for a witchfire power to work.[b] p.69 of the rules.

Quote the rule please - my page 69 does not say the bolded.

Quote the rules please where the to hit roll is not linked to the resolution of the power.

blaktoof wrote:
Quote the rules please where the to hit roll is not linked to the resolution of the power.

We have, a To Hit roll is linked to the To Wound roll (In the shooting section)

PS does not roll To Wound so there is nothing attaching a successful to hit roll with the PS effect.

Murderous Hurricane would like to have a word with you about that...

It still has its effect even if you miss your To Hit rolls...

it did not until it was explicitly faqed to do so.

There has been no faq for Psychic shriek in this regard, nor one that says anything along the lines of "witchfires without a weapon profile still have an effect on a miss"

just one specific one for murderous hurricane that came out how many years ago?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Quote the rules please where the to hit roll is not linked to the resolution of the power.

We have, a To Hit roll is linked to the To Wound roll (In the shooting section)

PS does not roll To Wound so there is nothing attaching a successful to hit roll with the PS effect.

Interesting, So how do you determine how many wounds PS causes? Do you roll some dice to see how many wounds there are...

a to hit roll is linked to a shooting roll in the shooting section of the rules. great.

A witchfire still requires a to hit roll, specificly it is spelled out. Specifically it is not one of the "unlesses" in the case of PS.

blaktoof wrote:

Murderous Hurricane would like to have a word with you about that...

It still has its effect even if you miss your To Hit rolls...

it did not until it was explicitly faqed to do so.

It did all along, the FAQ was just a clarification and not a change in the rules.

There has been no faq for Psychic shriek in this regard, nor one that says anything along the lines of "witchfires without a weapon profile still have an effect on a miss"

just one specific one for murderous hurricane that came out how many years ago?

relevance?

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Quote the rules please where the to hit roll is not linked to the resolution of the power.

We have, a To Hit roll is linked to the To Wound roll (In the shooting section)

PS does not roll To Wound so there is nothing attaching a successful to hit roll with the PS effect.

Interesting, So how do you determine how many wounds PS causes? Do you roll some dice to see how many wounds there are...

you follow the PS entry for determining how many woounds the power causes, the 3d6 roll is not a To Wound roll as you are not comparing S vs T.

a to hit roll is linked to a shooting roll in the shooting section of the rules. great.

A witchfire still requires a to hit roll, specificly it is spelled out. Specifically it is not one of the "unlesses" in the case of PS.

This has not relevance.

There has been no faq for Psychic shriek in this regard, nor one that says anything along the lines of "witchfires without a weapon profile still have an effect on a miss"

just one specific one for murderous hurricane that came out how many years ago?

relevance?

faq for a single specific power is not a faq for all powers.

blaktoof wrote:

There has been no faq for Psychic shriek in this regard, nor one that says anything along the lines of "witchfires without a weapon profile still have an effect on a miss"

just one specific one for murderous hurricane that came out how many years ago?

relevance?

faq for a single specific power is not a faq for all powers.

It is not an FAQ for PS, but it does set a precedent that effects that do not have a To Wound roll are not linked to the To Hit process of a Witchfire.

Murderous hurricane is a 5th edition power that predates witchfires, maledictions, etc.

MH is not faqed to be a witchfire, or any kind of current power type.

additionally murderous hurricane specifically said the power generates hits.

blaktoof wrote:
Interesting, So how do you determine how many wounds PS causes? Do you roll some dice to see how many wounds there are...

So are you saying that PS uses a to-wound roll? It's a yes or no question - please answer this question (I've asked before).

blaktoof wrote:
Murderous hurricane is a 5th edition power that predates witchfires, maledictions, etc.

MH is not faqed to be a witchfire, or any kind of current power type.

additionally murderous hurricane specifically said the power generates hits.

MH is a Psychic shooting attack, just like a Witchfire.


I am interested in your answer to Rig's question as well.

You roll dice to determine if and how many wounds there are.

is it the wound roll from the shooting section which references str vs t? no

TBH I dont care if there is a wound roll, because it does not matter. That has no bearing in this case that you must roll to hit, simply because under the rules for psychic powers it says witchfires have to hit, and there is nothing anywhere in the rules for PS that says it can ignore that, and it does not fall under one of the types of witchfires that can ignore it.

RAW you are required to roll to hit, it does not fall under a category of powers that auto hit, and PS does not say it auto hits or generates an automatic effect. If they wanted it to auto hit they would have said "auto hits" or made it a malediction.

However it is a withcfire and is required to hit.

Ignoring the effect of not hitting, is ignoring the raw requirement to hit.

If you say the effect of the hit roll is not contingent on the required to hit roll you need to show where in the rules it says that.

blaktoof wrote:
You roll dice to determine if and how many wounds there are.

is it the wound roll from the shooting section which references str vs t? no

TBH I dont care if there is a wound roll, because it does not matter. That has no bearing in this case that you must roll to hit, simply because under the rules for psychic powers it says witchfires have to hit, and there is nothing anywhere in the rules for PS that says it can ignore that, and it does not fall under one of the types of witchfires that can ignore it.

RAW you are required to roll to hit, it does not fall under a category of powers that auto hit, and PS does not say it auto hits or generates an automatic effect. If they wanted it to auto hit they would have said "auto hits" or made it a malediction.

However it is a withcfire and is required to hit.

Ignoring the effect of not hitting, is ignoring the raw requirement to hit.

If you say the effect of the hit roll is not contingent on the required to hit roll you need to show where in the rules it says that.

No, it's not. I've shown permission to resolve the power on page 67. Nothing on page 69 refutes that permission. Therefore I have permission to resolve the power even if the roll to hit fails.
And it really is a simple question - yes or not. Don't pussy foot around an answer, just answer the question I asked.

if you follow the rules for page 67, none of it says rolling to hit is not required for any psychic power.

that does not show that you can ignore the to hit roll that is required under the psychic power subtype "witchfire'. at all.

blaktoof wrote:
if you follow the rules for page 67, none of it says rolling to hit is not required for any psychic power.

Correct but irrelevant.

that does not show that you can ignore the to hit roll that is required under the psychic power subtype "witchfire'. at all.

I'm not ignoring it. Please stop insisting that I am.
I have permission to resolve PS according to page 67. Cite denial of that permission.

And still no yes/no answer?

But you are.

if you say you can resolve the power without passing the to hit roll you are ignoring it, thats exactly what you are saying.

You then go on to state that page 67 shows you how to resolve a power. It makes no mention of seeing if you need to roll to hit anywhere on page 67, why?


because that is under witchfires which are a subtype of psychic powers.

witchfires require you to roll to hit, so guess what?

in addition to the rules on page 67 YOU MUST ALSO ROLL TO HIT.

why?

because PS is a witchfire, and it requires that you roll to hit.

---

If you g0by the logic you just stated, if you follow only the rules for psychic powers on page 67 then all withfires automatically hit, even if they have a plain weapon profile. which is completely wrong.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
No one is disputing that according to RAW you need to roll to hit, the dispute is whether or not the roll to hit affects the resolution of the power.

My question is, why wouldn't it? To Hit effects the ability of a Witchfire power to resolve its rules, be it a weapon profile or a rule bending effect. They say above that the 3d6-Ld is not a "To Wound" effect, despite 3d6-Ld=wounds in this case. With all non-subtype Witchfire powers requiring a To Hit roll, and all Witchfire powers causing wounds as their end effect, what proof do you have that suggests the wounds caused by Psychic Shriek did not require a successful roll To Hit before wounds can be applied?

Please show us your chain of logic that supports your claim.

As to the lack of a weapon profile for Psychic Shriek, Witchfire powers do not seem to require a weapon profile, as seen with the Psychic Shriek power found on page 423 of the BRB.

On the number of dice to roll for To Hit, the general rule tells us 1d6 is the default for most models, while multiple attacks will be noted for specific models and/or abilities. The more specific rule tells us to look at the profile to determine number of shots. Since Specific only trumps General if there is a conflict, and no conflict exists in the case of Psychic Shriek which lacks a profile, only 1 attack is available at 1d6 for To Hit per the general rules.

Please post a logical argument that proves my statements are wrong.

SJ

blaktoof wrote:
But you are.

No, I'm not. Please stop saying that.

if you say you can resolve the power without passing the to hit roll you are ignoring it, thats exactly what you are saying.

No. Ignoring the to-hit requirement would be not rolling it in the first place.

You then go on to state that page 67 shows you how to resolve a power. It makes no mention of seeing if you need to roll to hit anywhere on page 67, why?
because that is under witchfires which are a subtype of psychic powers.
witchfires require you to roll to hit, so guess what?
in addition to the rules on page 67 YOU MUST ALSO ROLL TO HIT.
why?
because PS is a witchfire, and it requires that you roll to hit.

FYI, line breaks are not punctuation.
Witchfires do require me to roll to hit. I don't dispute that in the least and never have. Stop pretending I have.

Still no rules to cite denying page 67? Didn't think so.

If you g0by the logic you just stated, if you follow only the rules for psychic powers on page 67 then all withfires automatically hit, even if they have a plain weapon profile. which is completely wrong.

Another strawman. No, when resolving a power with a profile you have to hit to follow the rest of the shooting attack procedures, just like the rule says. PS does not actually do anything in the shooting attack procedures (aside from target and roll to hit as all witchfires must) because - wait for it - it has no profile. You can't equate Psychic Shriek and Smite because one of them lacks a profile.


edit: And still no answer to a simple yes or no question. Not that I'm surprised really because answering correctly would undermine your argument.

I fail to see a rule anywhere that says an attack without a weapon profile can ignore rolling to hit, even when it is required to hit.

can you show that pls?

Im not denying page 67, Never did. I said you have to follow that and all the rules for witchfires, since psychic shriek is a witchfire. Therefore you must roll to hit, PS does not fall under an attack type for withcfires that ignores rolling to hit, and it does not state it auto hits.

You are required to roll to hit, you are required to hit.

and I already answered your "question", are you replying without reading what you are replying and quoting?

blaktoof wrote:
I fail to see a rule anywhere that says an attack without a weapon profile can ignore rolling to hit, even when it is required to hit.

I'm not ignoring the to hit roll - stop saying that. I've asked you repeatedly and warned you that you're misstating my argument. That's not very polite.

Im not denying page 67, Never did. I said you have to follow that and all the rules for witchfires, since psychic shriek is a witchfire. Therefore you must roll to hit, PS does not fall under an attack type for withcfires that ignores rolling to hit, and it does not state it auto hits.

So you're saying I do not have permission to resolve the power because I missed? Please, cite the rule. Actual rule, not your (proven incorrect) assertions.

You are required to roll to hit, you are required to hit.

Assertion without evidence.

and I already answered your "question", are you replying without reading what you are replying and quoting?

Well, no you didn't. I asked for a one word answer and you tapdanced around it. I don't want to assume either way what your answer is, I want to know - yes or no - is PS's effect a to wound roll according to you.

I'll answer: the 3d6-Ld effect replaces the normal To Wound mechanic for a shooting attack.

SJ

Q: Does
Murderous Hurricane
require the power to hit or wound
its target to affect them ? (p37)
A: No, a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even
if the power fails to hit or wound.

This fluff is the basis for their argument blaktoof, the unit is still effected by the dangerous terrain test portion even though they never took a wound from the hurricane. Its fluffy but they have a point.

However FAQ's are not blanket statements.

Stormbreed wrote:
Q: Does
Murderous Hurricane
require the power to hit or wound
its target to affect them ? (p37)
A: No, a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even
if the power fails to hit or wound.

This fluff is the basis for their argument blaktoof, the unit is still effected by the dangerous terrain test portion even though they never took a wound from the hurricane. Its fluffy but they have a point.

However FAQ's are not blanket statements.

That is not a fluff basis. It is based off the FAQ ruling. (RAW).

It is base on the precedent that even if you miss your to hit roll with MH you still effect the unit with the Difficult Trrain that MH imposes.

So you do not have to hit and the power still takes effect.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Q: Does
Murderous Hurricane
require the power to hit or wound
its target to affect them ? (p37)
A: No, a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even
if the power fails to hit or wound.

This fluff is the basis for their argument blaktoof, the unit is still effected by the dangerous terrain test portion even though they never took a wound from the hurricane. Its fluffy but they have a point.

However FAQ's are not blanket statements.

That is not a fluff basis. It is based off the FAQ ruling. (RAW).

It is base on the precedent that even if you miss your to hit roll with MH you still effect the unit with the Difficult Trrain that MH imposes.

So you do not have to hit and the power still takes effect.

That is an excellent ruling for Murderous Hurricane. Now please show, if you can, how this SW FAQ answer applies to any power other than Murderous Hurricane.

SJ

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Q: Does
Murderous Hurricane
require the power to hit or wound
its target to affect them ? (p37)
A: No, a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even
if the power fails to hit or wound.

This fluff is the basis for their argument blaktoof, the unit is still effected by the dangerous terrain test portion even though they never took a wound from the hurricane. Its fluffy but they have a point.

However FAQ's are not blanket statements.

That is not a fluff basis. It is based off the FAQ ruling. (RAW).

It is base on the precedent that even if you miss your to hit roll with MH you still effect the unit with the Difficult Trrain that MH imposes.

So you do not have to hit and the power still takes effect.

It is a good "pillar" for your foundation however FAQ's often rule against one another and are not a precedent in any way.

Stormbreed wrote:

It is a good "pillar" for your foundation however FAQ's often rule against one another and are not a precedent in any way.

Did you ever play 5th edition? If so, vehicle invulnerable saves, multiple barrage from a single model and smoke launchers during scout moves would like to talk to you.

 Happyjew wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

It is a good "pillar" for your foundation however FAQ's often rule against one another and are not a precedent in any way.

Did you ever play 5th edition? If so, vehicle invulnerable saves, multiple barrage from a single model and smoke launchers during scout moves would like to talk to you.

No I played 2nd/3rd , then stopped till 6th as crazy as that sounds. FAQ's go against each other in the 6th edition rules, that is why I don't consider them blanket statements. FAQ's often use fluff as well, I personally believe the MH FAQ is really because GW wants to show that there is actually a hurricane on the field of battle! Yikes!

Stormbreed wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

It is a good "pillar" for your foundation however FAQ's often rule against one another and are not a precedent in any way.

Did you ever play 5th edition? If so, vehicle invulnerable saves, multiple barrage from a single model and smoke launchers during scout moves would like to talk to you.

No I played 2nd/3rd , then stopped till 6th as crazy as that sounds. FAQ's go against each other in the 6th edition rules, that is why I don't consider them blanket statements. FAQ's often use fluff as well, I personally believe the MH FAQ is really because GW wants to show that there is actually a hurricane on the field of battle! Yikes!

As noted GW has used precedent in the FAQ rulings before, so they have a record of similar things working, well, similarly.

such is the case with MH and PS

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

It is a good "pillar" for your foundation however FAQ's often rule against one another and are not a precedent in any way.

Did you ever play 5th edition? If so, vehicle invulnerable saves, multiple barrage from a single model and smoke launchers during scout moves would like to talk to you.

No I played 2nd/3rd , then stopped till 6th as crazy as that sounds. FAQ's go against each other in the 6th edition rules, that is why I don't consider them blanket statements. FAQ's often use fluff as well, I personally believe the MH FAQ is really because GW wants to show that there is actually a hurricane on the field of battle! Yikes!

As noted GW has used precedent in the FAQ rulings before, so they have a record of similar things working, well, similarly.

such is the case with MH and PS

And Tyranid ICs.... oh wait.

Fragile wrote:
And Tyranid ICs.... oh wait.

I do not get the reference.

What do you mean?

I assume Fragile is referring to Tyranid Independent Characters not being able to join units in Mycetic Spores despite Space Marine ICs being able to join units in Drop Pods.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I assume Fragile is referring to Tyranid Independent Characters not being able to join units in Mycetic Spores despite Space Marine ICs being able to join units in Drop Pods.

Space marines can join a unit in a Drop pod because a Drop Pod is a vehicle, something Spores are not.

Plus IC's embarking on a Drop Pod is hardly a controversial rule. No need for an FAQ about it.

Spores, on the other hand, being MCs instead of vehicles needed clarification.

The situation is hardly comparable.

How about the ruling that non shooting attacks do not grant a cover save but you do get a cover from Dooms pulse.

There are FAQs that go against each other so no FAQs do not set a precedent.

That being said at best GW would rule how many dice to roll or to not roll at all and we'd still have a players claiming that roll doesn't matter regardless.

Yes, because as proven the result of the to hit has no bearing on the resolution of the power

Not a single poster has done anything to disprove that, so it is now settled fact. Further assertions otherwise, by blastoff et al, should be ignored for breaking the tenets of the forums

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because as proven the result of the to hit has no bearing on the resolution of the power

Not a single poster has done anything to disprove that, so it is now settled fact. Further assertions otherwise, by blastoff et al, should be ignored for breaking the tenets of the forums

Nos just rolls in and says blastoff et al should be ignored. Like a boss, I've never understood saying it has been proven when you readily admit you're using a FAQ as fundamental core for your reasoning. FAQs sometime contradict each other.

I still don't believe the flow is RAI supposed to go.

Roll to hit
miss
Still cause wounds.

That being said blastoff et al shall be ignored as ruled by nosferatu1001.

Its quite tiring to see repeated posts where people claim to have "proven" their point when they have done no such thing. All I ask is that they post a rules backed chain of logic that supports their claim, as I have done, so that we can move on to an actual debate rather than the circular bickering that has become norm for this topic.

Prove your claim, don't claim it is proven.

SJ

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I assume Fragile is referring to Tyranid Independent Characters not being able to join units in Mycetic Spores despite Space Marine ICs being able to join units in Drop Pods.

Space marines can join a unit in a Drop pod because a Drop Pod is a vehicle, something Spores are not.

Plus IC's embarking on a Drop Pod is hardly a controversial rule. No need for an FAQ about it.

Spores, on the other hand, being MCs instead of vehicles needed clarification.

The situation is hardly comparable.

You continue to miss the point. Your trying to use a FAQ to apply to every possible instance, where FAQs like MH apply to only MH. Its like the Logan FAQ in the PEN argument or Tyranid ICs in dedicated transports.

Storm - sigh. No, the FAQ is not the core of my argument. Please don't make more gak up, it's rather tiresome to continually have to correct your misrepresentations.

The FACT that there is no requirement to roll to hit successfully before applying non to-wound effects HAS been proven. There are only vague assertions that because the 3d6 can cause wounds, it is a replacement for the to-wound roll, and is therefore bound by the same requirements,

It isn't. This is proven. Stop asserting that it is a to wound, otherwise you are also asserting that dangerous terrain tests, gets hot etc are also rolls to wound,

The logical chain, 100% backed up by actual written rules, has been given.

RAW, strictly, means PS halts the game. So, assuming you wish to carry on the game, paying attention to the element that doesn't matter - also proven - makes no sense.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - sigh. No, the FAQ is not the core of my argument. Please don't make more gak up, it's rather tiresome to continually have to correct your misrepresentations.

The FACT that there is no requirement to roll to hit successfully before applying non to-wound effects HAS been proven. There are only vague assertions that because the 3d6 can cause wounds, it is a replacement for the to-wound roll, and is therefore bound by the same requirements,

It isn't. This is proven. Stop asserting that it is a to wound, otherwise you are also asserting that dangerous terrain tests, gets hot etc are also rolls to wound,

The logical chain, 100% backed up by actual written rules, has been given.

There has never been proof provided, just you constantly arguing there is no connection between hitting and the 3d6, no proof just your word, myself I believe you should follow the rules for shooting as it is a shooting attack. Other instances have provided us with permission to wound without hitting or rolling to hit, this power doesn't.

And other then the tournament which Rigeld2 is currently at, I've never had or heard of, or even read a battle report of a game with another player, or TO rule that you
1. Roll to hit
2. Disregard Roll
3. Apply power affects.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - sigh. No, the FAQ is not the core of my argument. Please don't make more gak up, it's rather tiresome to continually have to correct your misrepresentations.

The FACT that there is no requirement to roll to hit successfully before applying non to-wound effects HAS been proven. There are only vague assertions that because the 3d6 can cause wounds, it is a replacement for the to-wound roll, and is therefore bound by the same requirements,

It isn't. This is proven. Stop asserting that it is a to wound, otherwise you are also asserting that dangerous terrain tests, gets hot etc are also rolls to wound,

The logical chain, 100% backed up by actual written rules, has been given.

RAW, strictly, means PS halts the game. So, assuming you wish to carry on the game, paying attention to the element that doesn't matter - also proven - makes no sense.

Always saying "proven", never actually proving. FACT.

Per RAW, Psychic Shriek works just fine. Pass a Psychic test, roll to hit, apply effect. No rules broken, no rules ignored, game moves on without issue.

To be more specific: Pass test, roll 1d6 vs Ballistic Skill, on a successful To Hit roll deal wounds to the target equaling 3d6 minus the target's Leadership.

Please actually cite RULES to support your disagreement, or concede. It would bring me joy to have a real debate on this, if only you would actually bother to follow the forum tenets and post a counter-argument rather than claiming my argument is "provably wrong". If my argument is provably wrong, please prove it wrong. Or concede.

SJ

Storm - you are claiming a connection, so prove it. You do realise proving a negative is impossible? So instead YOU get to prove that in order to resolve a psychic shooting attack with non to-wound effects, that you must succeed at rolling to hit.

Page and paragraph. We have shown, more than once, that rolling to-wound states such a requirement, and asked you to find anything real which states this for the 3d6 effect.

Prove it. Page, para and exact phrase supporting your claim.

Once you find you cannot do that, then you have to Follow the real written rules, which is that you roll to hit using an undefined number of dice, then no matter what, you roll the 3d6 effect.

Can you provide the proof? It's been tried for about 21 pages now, with a complete failure by everyone on your side to do so, so it would be refreshing to see it.

I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

Stormbreed wrote:
How about the ruling that non shooting attacks do not grant a cover save but you do get a cover from Dooms pulse

That is not a rule I have found in the BRB, Citation please.

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

Because the 3D6 effect does not require a successful hit to take effect, as the 3D6 effect is not a To Wound roll.

You get to prove that in order to resolve a psychic shooting attack with non to-wound effects, that you must succeed at rolling to hit.

As Nos has said "Prove it. Page, para and exact phrase supporting your claim. "

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
How about the ruling that non shooting attacks do not grant a cover save but you do get a cover from Dooms pulse

That is not a rule I have found in the BRB, Citation please.

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

Because the 3D6 effect does not require a successful hit to take effect, as the 3D6 effect is not a To Wound roll.

You get to prove that in order to resolve a psychic shooting attack with non to-wound effects, that you must succeed at rolling to hit.

As Nos has said "Prove it. Page, para and exact phrase supporting your claim. "

1 FAQ specifically says you do not get cover saves against non shooting attacks. In the Space Wolves FAQ, the tyranid FAQ then grants cover saves from Dooms special ability.

I'm following the rules for shooting. The 3D6 ability is fired at the target as a shooting attack, if it misses I see no special permission for it to hit. I know what a miss is, nothing to prove.

Only two things mention cover saves not being allowed in the SW faq: JOTWW and Vengeful Tornado. Jaws does not cause wounds and as such would not allow cover saves. Vengeful Tornado is poorly written, however, based on the FAQ, only denies the cover save from not being able to see side armor, which means that the effect is not based on LOS.

The exact reply in the FAQ is,

A: No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack and
therefore allows no cover save.

So they FAQ no cover saves against non shooting attacks, but then FAQ dooms pulse to have a cover save. So yea FAQs can go against each other from time to time, not a big deal as FAQ are just that questions that needed answers, sometimes they clarify and sometimes they fix the rules themselves, but they are not blanket rules for everything alike.

Because the Doom's Pulse is similar to a Nova Psychic Power, so precedent would dictate that you get a cover save against it.

However you get a cover save unless specifically disallowed (Like CC attacks specify).

Can you take a cover save against the Deff Rolla? (RAW, yes you can as they do not disallow a cover save).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormbreed wrote:
The 3D6 ability is fired at the target as a shooting attack,

Not quite, the power Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire.

if it misses I see no special permission for it to hit. I know what a miss is, nothing to prove.

Well, the roll to hit is irrelevant as there is no To Wound roll (Which demonstrably has been determined is what follows a To Hit roll), so you need to prove that a miss somehow stops you from rolling the 3d6-LD roll.

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

So still no rule denying the page 67 permission to resolve the power?

Cool story bro. Keep saying things like they're facts and you have nothing to prove.

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

Yes, there is no to wound roll, as you haven't hit. Good job the permission on page 67 to resolve the power doesn't say missing the to hit roll has any effect on things which aren't to-wound

Cool story, keep making up new terms, not based in rules, when you can't cite relevant rules,

RAW: Broken. The more specific assault weapons rules require you to consult the profile of the weapon in order to determine the number of shots(number of dice) and as the power(weapon) has no profile this number is unknown and you cannot roll an unknown number of dice. This issue is compounded with the fact that you are never given permission to do anything with a 'Hit' either. The idea that the 3d6 roll is a replacement for the normal 'to wound' roll has no supporting text and therefore such a connection does not exist in the rules as written.

RAI: Unknown. We can assume they intended the power to be functional but they left little in the way of hints as to the manner of its intended functionality. Slight alterations could be assumed but adding 'instead of rolling to wound, roll 3d6...' has no more or less merit than adding 'this power automatically hits'. While the general rule regarding witchfires being 'required to roll to hit unless otherwise noted' might lead some to believe that it was intended that a roll 'To Hit' should be worked in, that point is directly countered by the complete and obvious lack of regard for any 'To Hit' mechanic in the powers description.

HYWPI: Personally I'd go with treating it as an auto effect power that does not require a 'To Hit' roll but that is not a rules based decision. It is strictly based on game balance considering the point expenditures required to obtain the psychic power, its very short rang with a single target and wild fluctuations in effect. The odds of it one-shotting a Wraith Knight(rolling all 5's and 6's) and having no effect on a unit of termagants(rolling all 1's and 2's) are the same. A tactician would look at this power like an accountant would look at gambling as a financial plan.

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

So still no rule denying the page 67 permission to resolve the power?

Cool story bro. Keep saying things like they're facts and you have nothing to prove.

How was your tournament which specifically says you roll to hit and then disregard the roll? You never did let me know if they have a web page or which LGS it was.

You are shooting at me with a power.

Yes or no.

If you miss you miss. Now after missing you are welcome to resolve the power against a random target since the shooting rules do not apply. Just not my models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

Yes, there is no to wound roll, as you haven't hit. Good job the permission on page 67 to resolve the power doesn't say missing the to hit roll has any effect on things which aren't to-wound

Cool story, keep making up new terms, not based in rules, when you can't cite relevant rules,

The only person making up rules is you. I just say if you miss with your shooting attack you. Miss. You're saying well Dan there isn't a rule saying my miss matters. I'm saying. Wait. What did you do. You missed. With an ability that is a shooting attack. What happens when we miss with shooting attacks normally?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because the Doom's Pulse is similar to a Nova Psychic Power, so precedent would dictate that you get a cover save against it.

However you get a cover save unless specifically disallowed (Like CC attacks specify).

Can you take a cover save against the Deff Rolla? (RAW, yes you can as they do not disallow a cover save).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormbreed wrote:
The 3D6 ability is fired at the target as a shooting attack,

Not quite, the power Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire.

if it misses I see no special permission for it to hit. I know what a miss is, nothing to prove.

Well, the roll to hit is irrelevant as there is no To Wound roll (Which demonstrably has been determined is what follows a To Hit roll), so you need to prove that a miss somehow stops you from rolling the 3d6-LD roll.

No argument against you. But regardless one FAQ says yes one says no. Dooms pulse may be similar to a Nova but it isn't

Okay so you say the to hit roll doesn't natter, I get that, except what about precision shots?

I think it's silly this hasn't been FAQ'd.

Should be a malediction or just a weird weapon /w a special wound ability.

It's one of the most popular powers out there because, generally, a successful hit isn't needed.

Whether you hit or not is irrelevant I feel, there isn't a profile available BUT witchfires require a BS test to be made.

RAW I think it's broken as we simply don't know how many dice to pick up to try and hit and at the same time the hit's/misses don't matter

Theres no way to argue it NEEDS to hit because ther's simply not a profile.

RAI/We play it, as a malediction in the shooting phase. Really it could go either way though with RAI, The powers really good.

What if it was 4d6 to wound and Assault 4 O: Interesting


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zhutch wrote:
Okay so you say the to hit roll doesn't natter, I get that, except what about precision shots?

Again theres no profile so there are no wounds to allocate taking into consideration 6's.

Precision doesn't work for special abilities

And just to be clear, I'm comparing the special ability of shriek to something like soul blaze in terms of not being part of the profile/not needing to hit's to be made.

I may not represent everyone else interpretation though.

Storm - so you're saying you can ignore page 67, AND make up a new rule, all without ever providing a single rule?

Cool story

The no connection side is proven, unless and until you provide the rules. Failure to do so in your next response will be considered to be concession that you are unable or unwilling to provide any such proof.

The shooting (to hit, to wound) missed. Good job the target doesn't alter, and page 67 tells me to continue resolving.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - so you're saying you can ignore page 67, AND make up a new rule, all without ever providing a single rule?

Cool story

The no connection side is proven, unless and until you provide the rules. Failure to do so in your next response will be considered to be concession that you are unable or unwilling to provide any such proof.

The shooting (to hit, to wound) missed. Good job the target doesn't alter, and page 67 tells me to continue resolving.

Actually I'm following page 68 resolve psychic power, which is more detailed and tells me to resolve the power according to its entry. Then page 69 explains how to resolve a Psychic Shooting Attack. Unless you can provide an allowance for you to resolve a miss with Psychic Shooting Attacks I will accept your concession.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aijec wrote:
I think it's silly this hasn't been FAQ'd.

Should be a malediction or just a weird weapon /w a special wound ability.

It's one of the most popular powers out there because, generally, a successful hit isn't needed.

Whether you hit or not is irrelevant I feel, there isn't a profile available BUT witchfires require a BS test to be made.

RAW I think it's broken as we simply don't know how many dice to pick up to try and hit and at the same time the hit's/misses don't matter

Theres no way to argue it NEEDS to hit because ther's simply not a profile.

RAI/We play it, as a malediction in the shooting phase. Really it could go either way though with RAI, The powers really good.

What if it was 4d6 to wound and Assault 4 O: Interesting


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zhutch wrote:
Okay so you say the to hit roll doesn't natter, I get that, except what about precision shots?

Again theres no profile so there are no wounds to allocate taking into consideration 6's.

Precision doesn't work for special abilities

And just to be clear, I'm comparing the special ability of shriek to something like soul blaze in terms of not being part of the profile/not needing to hit's to be made.

I may not represent everyone else interpretation though.

Agreed. This is a RAI argument and I'm fine playing it you don't need to hit, it makes since from a fluff stand point. I just don't agree with rolling to hit, missing and still forcing my opponent to take wounds.

Why is everyone arguing why it's broken according to RAW instead of the most acceptable RAI solution?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - so you're saying you can ignore page 67, AND make up a new rule, all without ever providing a single rule?

Cool story

The no connection side is proven, unless and until you provide the rules. Failure to do so in your next response will be considered to be concession that you are unable or unwilling to provide any such proof.

The shooting (to hit, to wound) missed. Good job the target doesn't alter, and page 67 tells me to continue resolving.

I accept your lack of proof as a concession. Thank you for not following the tenets, again, Nos.

SJ

Storm - the entry states you roll 3d6. Nothing states you have to successfully roll to hit first

Concession accepted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - the entry states you roll 3d6. Nothing states you have to successfully roll to hit first

Concession accepted.

Nos your common mistake is clear. You're going to page 67 and seeing "resolve power". But you missed page 68 which explains how to do so. It specifically shows the different ways of resolving the different types of powers. More over it specifically gives allowance for beams and novas to not roll to hit. An allowance which it doesn't give witch fire powers. Witch fire powers must hit to resolve.

I don't expect a concession. Nor should you at this point. Only one of us believes RAI you roll to hit, miss and then look your opponent in the eye and tell him the to hit roll didn't matter and you still resolve your power that missed.

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

So still no rule denying the page 67 permission to resolve the power?

Cool story bro. Keep saying things like they're facts and you have nothing to prove.

How was your tournament which specifically says you roll to hit and then disregard the roll? You never did let me know if they have a web page or which LGS it was.

Hasn't happened yet. Small store just getting a 40k environment started. Thanks for your concern though.

You are shooting at me with a power.

Yes or no.

Yes. See how simple answering a yes or no question is? Would you mind answering mine finally?

If you miss you miss. Now after missing you are welcome to resolve the power against a random target since the shooting rules do not apply. Just not my models.

When have I ever said the shooting rules do not apply? And why are you making things up?

The only person making up rules is you. I just say if you miss with your shooting attack you. Miss. You're saying well Dan there isn't a rule saying my miss matters. I'm saying. Wait. What did you do. You missed. With an ability that is a shooting attack. What happens when we miss with shooting attacks normally?

Normally shooting attacks have a profile. Have you found PS's profile yet? Since your argument hinges on it and all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormbreed wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - so you're saying you can ignore page 67, AND make up a new rule, all without ever providing a single rule?

Cool story

The no connection side is proven, unless and until you provide the rules. Failure to do so in your next response will be considered to be concession that you are unable or unwilling to provide any such proof.

The shooting (to hit, to wound) missed. Good job the target doesn't alter, and page 67 tells me to continue resolving.

Actually I'm following page 68 resolve psychic power, which is more detailed and tells me to resolve the power according to its entry. Then page 69 explains how to resolve a Psychic Shooting Attack. Unless you can provide an allowance for you to resolve a miss with Psychic Shooting Attacks I will accept your concession.

You've still not shown an actual connection that you keep saying is there. You've repeated over and over that a miss means you can't apply the rest of the rules for the power. You've failed to actually prove that however.

Agreed. This is a RAI argument and I'm fine playing it you don't need to hit, it makes since from a fluff stand point. I just don't agree with rolling to hit, missing and still forcing my opponent to take wounds.

Whatever, I'm done. Have fun with your failure to prove a point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormbreed wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - the entry states you roll 3d6. Nothing states you have to successfully roll to hit first

Concession accepted.

Nos your common mistake is clear. You're going to page 67 and seeing "resolve power". But you missed page 68 which explains how to do so. It specifically shows the different ways of resolving the different types of powers. More over it specifically gives allowance for beams and novas to not roll to hit. An allowance which it doesn't give witch fire powers. Witch fire powers must hit to resolve.

I'm sure you can quote a rule saying so. Since you keep asserting it and all.

Rigeld2 you say "I'm done"

then add in more, sigh.

I've proven my points and back them up with rules. Page 67 gives you the order of operations, which ends in resolve your power, then on page 68 it explains how to resolve individual powers based on their type. It even goes into detail on how Nova's and Beams don't need to hit, however it does not give such an exclusion for the witch fire powers.

Again we can't because we don't have a profile. We've agreed on that since page 1, no argument hinges on that, just because the rules do not work RAW doesn't mean there is a clear RAI to "Witch Fire Power Must Roll To Hit" and the conclusion of what happens if you "Miss".

Stormbreed wrote:
Rigeld2 you say "I'm done"

then add in more, sigh.

Yes. I get frustrated with your arguing for RAI and asserting facts as if you're arguing RAW.

I've proven my points and back them up with rules. Page 67 gives you the order of operations, which ends in resolve your power, then on page 68 it explains how to resolve individual powers based on their type. It even goes into detail on how Nova's and Beams don't need to hit, however it does not give such an exclusion for the witch fire powers.

Again you're failing to show a link between hitting and applying the effects of the power. It's like you have no idea what I'm actually arguing.

Again we can't because we don't have a profile. We've agreed on that since page 1, no argument hinges on that, just because the rules do not work RAW doesn't mean there is a clear RAI to "Witch Fire Power Must Roll To Hit" and the conclusion of what happens if you "Miss".

And yet you keep saying I'm incorrect. If you say it's not clear how can it be clear that your argument is correct and mine isn't?
Especially since you aren't proving what I'm saying wrong - you're making up an argument for me and disproving that. Ever heard of a straw man argument?

As above - storm, you haven't proven a single thing.

Prove that you cannot resolve the 3d6 effect when you miss. Page and para, with full wording. Nothing less will be accepted.

Until then, the default - that an unrelated roll has no effect on resolving the 3d6 - remains the default.

So since rolling to hit happens before resolving the power, doors that mean we have to roll to hit with Smite, before rolling to see if each shot hits?

 Happyjew wrote:
So since rolling to hit happens before resolving the power, doors that mean we have to roll to hit with Smite, before rolling to see if each shot hits?

Of course, wouldn't want to be inconsistent when making up rules...

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Rigeld2 you say "I'm done"

then add in more, sigh.

Yes. I get frustrated with your arguing for RAI and asserting facts as if you're arguing RAW.

I've stated outright that this is a RAI argument. I've also stated my LGS have ruled you simply do not roll to hit.

The way I believe RAI works. If you're going to roll to hit, or play somewhere that is forcing you to roll the one dice as it is one power.

1. Roll to hit.
2. Miss
3. You missed

The way you're arguing it works

1. Roll to hit
2. Miss
3. Explain to the person across the table you are still going to resolve the power you just rolled to hit with, but missed
4. Person argues you're wrong, you now spend a rather large chunk of time showing him how there is no link between the to hit roll and the powers effect happening.
5. TO comes over and says you rolled to hit and missed perhaps he even rules in your favor (again no major tournament, battle report or LGS I've been too has ever ruled this way)

In the already time crunched experience of a tournament I believe RAI I'm correct and you are wrong.

RAW I still don't see a permission for you to resolve a power that you must roll to hit with and you miss. Perhaps you're both right and I can admit it, however I just don't see a permission. If the argument is, "well we don't need to show permission because page 67 says to resolve the power" then what of page 68 which specifically tells you "this is how you resolve different powers" and witch fire specifically needing to hit.

RAW I'm not sold RAI I'm most certainly not sold. I'm not being stubborn, I'm not looking to make you frustrated I'm just looking for one line that says Witchfire spells with a to wound special effect can disregard their to hit roll.

Again, page 68 says you roll to hit. It does not say all non to wound effects depend upon this.

That is your claim, and I isn't clear when you're arguing RAW or just made up rules

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, page 68 says you roll to hit. It does not say all non to wound effects depend upon this.

That is your claim, and I isn't clear when you're arguing RAW or just made up rules

You have failed to prove that the 3d6-Ld mechanic is not a To Wound effect.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
a To Wound effect.

Citation needed, I am not sure what a 'To Wound effect' is using the 40k Rules. Page and graph please.

I see To Hit and To Wound, but not your assertation of a 'To Wound effect'

jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, page 68 says you roll to hit. It does not say all non to wound effects depend upon this.

That is your claim, and I isn't clear when you're arguing RAW or just made up rules

You have failed to prove that the 3d6-Ld mechanic is not a To Wound effect.

SJ

Is it found under the 'To Wound' section in the shooting rules? No.
Well, looks like you need to find some evidence of that claim that is not sheer speculation. You rationale for how it could work and make sense is not proof that it does or was even intended to work that way.

Such evidence is required before any other consideration to this theory needs be given.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
a To Wound effect.

Citation needed, I am not sure what a 'To Wound effect' is using the 40k Rules. Page and graph please.

I see To Hit and To Wound, but not your assertation of a 'To Wound effect'

Top of page 423, under "Psychic Shriek",

Roll 3d6 and subtract the target's Leadership - the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result.

I bolded underlined it, on the off chance you missed it. Note how the word "Wounds" is capitalized, just like "Wound" is capitalized on page 14 under Roll To Wound, or as seen under every rules entry that involves dealing wounds to a target? The capitalization denotes a mechanic, which in this case is listed as the effect of the Psychic power Psychic Shriek.

SJ

So to-hit rolls with plasma weapons, psychic tests, dangerous terrain tests, etc. are al, to Wound rolls?

Interesting statement. Completely against the actual rules, but min it surprised that you wrote it.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
a To Wound effect.

Citation needed, I am not sure what a 'To Wound effect' is using the 40k Rules. Page and graph please.

I see To Hit and To Wound, but not your assertation of a 'To Wound effect'

Top of page 423, under "Psychic Shriek",

Roll 3d6 and subtract the target's Leadership - the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result.

I bolded underlined it, on the off chance you missed it. Note how the word "Wounds" is capitalized, just like "Wound" is capitalized on page 14 under Roll To Wound, or as seen under every rules entry that involves dealing wounds to a target? The capitalization denotes a mechanic, which in this case is listed as the effect of the Psychic power Psychic Shriek.

SJ

That does not say 'To Wound effect'

You might want to read that one a bit closer...


It can cause Wounds, but that is not a To Wound...

Page 2 describes the Wounds characteristic.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
a To Wound effect.

Citation needed, I am not sure what a 'To Wound effect' is using the 40k Rules. Page and graph please.

I see To Hit and To Wound, but not your assertation of a 'To Wound effect'

Top of page 423, under "Psychic Shriek",

Roll 3d6 and subtract the target's Leadership - the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result.

I bolded underlined it, on the off chance you missed it. Note how the word "Wounds" is capitalized, just like "Wound" is capitalized on page 14 under Roll To Wound, or as seen under every rules entry that involves dealing wounds to a target? The capitalization denotes a mechanic, which in this case is listed as the effect of the Psychic power Psychic Shriek.

SJ

Perhaps you missed the variation in the term there. Specifically, 'To Wound' is not the same as 'Wound'.

'To Wound' is the given label of a mechanic(To Wound) that transforms Hits into Wounds per the BRB pg 14 in the Roll To Wound section where it details the process. This function requires
use of the To Wound chart so, unless otherwise noted, To Wound rolls require use of that process... Does PS note otherwise or have you roll on the To Wound chart? No.

'Wounds' caused to a unit are a mechanic that are detailed in the next section called Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties.

Please learn the difference. A unit does not suffer a number of 'To Wounds'... that would be suffering 'a number of charts'. While I'll admit charts can be deadly what they actually suffer are Wounds and they can come from any number of sources with no 'To Wound' roll needed.

Perhaps you are over thinking English as a language? I'm not going to post dictionary definitions, nor explain grammar, seeing as both of you are trying to be obtuse.

I stated that the effect of Psychic Shriek, the 3d6-Ld=wounds, replaces the To Wound mechanic found on page 14. You claim the 3d6-Ld is not "wounds", despite the fact that it is Wounds.

As you are not able to refute this with a rules based argument, I accept your concession on this matter.

SJ

You can not resolve a witch fire without a role to hit. Brb page 68.

You can now resolve the power according to its entry.

So we know we have to follow the rules for the type of power we want to resolve.

PS is a witch fire. Lets check how to resolve a witch fire.

Brb page 68. All psychic powers are organized into catagories to determine what the requirements are and any restrictions that apply with its type.

Brb page 69.

A witch fire power must roll to hit. This is a requirement. You don't hit you don't resolve.

You have no permission to resolve a witch fire unless you hit.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Perhaps you are over thinking English as a language? I'm not going to post dictionary definitions, nor explain grammar, seeing as both of you are trying to be obtuse.

I stated that the effect of Psychic Shriek, the 3d6-Ld=wounds, replaces the To Wound mechanic found on page 14. You claim the 3d6-Ld is not "wounds", despite the fact that it is Wounds.

As you are not able to refute this with a rules based argument, I accept your concession on this matter.

SJ

You have stated that because A leads to B and C leads to B that A=C, which is not logically sound. The effect does not determine the nature of the cause nor do correlations between the effects mean there are correlations between the causes. B cannot be used as a basis to compare A and C. The cause is not the effect. This means that even though the 3d6-Ld creates wounds and a 'To Wound' mechanic creates wounds, no further comparison can be drawn from that.

So yeah, they both cause wounds... And? That fact by itself does not mean anything. No other logical connection or comparison can be made between the two based on solely that piece of information.

Fires die.
People die.
Fires must be a replacement for people...

Stormbreed wrote:
A witch fire power must roll to hit. This is a requirement. You don't hit you don't resolve.

You have no permission to resolve a witch fire unless you hit.

Funny, neither of my rule books say this on any of pages 67-69. I'm sure I'm missing it - could you provide a quote? Or which paragraph and page it's on? I'm sure it's just me failing to find the rule you're asserting is there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Perhaps you are over thinking English as a language? I'm not going to post dictionary definitions, nor explain grammar, seeing as both of you are trying to be obtuse.

Considering to do so would violate one of the tenets, it might have been a better idea than breaking rule #1.

I stated that the effect of Psychic Shriek, the 3d6-Ld=wounds, replaces the To Wound mechanic found on page 14. You claim the 3d6-Ld is not "wounds", despite the fact that it is Wounds.

Well, no. We're not claiming that. You have literally zero evidence to support your claim and it's trivial to prove it is not a to wound roll.
How you ask?
The To Wound process is defined on page 14. You have no rule saying "instead of rolling to wound" or anything like that - instead you're inventing a link and pretending there is rules support while citing none. Again, not surprised you've done this.

As you are not able to refute this with a rules based argument, I accept your concession on this matter.

As soon as you come up with rules support I'll refute it. Until then you will not accept my concession as it's not offered. Please dont presume anything when it comes to that, especially when your argument is as flimsy as the one you've presented.
"It's totes a to wound roll. How do I know? Duh, I said it was!"
Yeah, solid reasoning there old chap.

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
A witch fire power must roll to hit. This is a requirement. You don't hit you don't resolve.

You have no permission to resolve a witch fire unless you hit.

Funny, neither of my rule books say this on any of pages 67-69. I'm sure I'm missing it - could you provide a quote? Or which paragraph and page it's on? I'm sure it's just me failing to find the rule you're asserting is there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Perhaps you are over thinking English as a language? I'm not going to post dictionary definitions, nor explain grammar, seeing as both of you are trying to be obtuse.

Considering to do so would violate one of the tenets, it might have been a better idea than breaking rule #1.

I stated that the effect of Psychic Shriek, the 3d6-Ld=wounds, replaces the To Wound mechanic found on page 14. You claim the 3d6-Ld is not "wounds", despite the fact that it is Wounds.

Well, no. We're not claiming that. You have literally zero evidence to support your claim and it's trivial to prove it is not a to wound roll.
How you ask?
The To Wound process is defined on page 14. You have no rule saying "instead of rolling to wound" or anything like that - instead you're inventing a link and pretending there is rules support while citing none. Again, not surprised you've done this.

As you are not able to refute this with a rules based argument, I accept your concession on this matter.

As soon as you come up with rules support I'll refute it. Until then you will not accept my concession as it's not offered. Please dont presume anything when it comes to that, especially when your argument is as flimsy as the one you've presented.
"It's totes a to wound roll. How do I know? Duh, I said it was!"
Yeah, solid reasoning there old chap.

I'm still waiting for you to prove Wounds =/= Wounds.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

I'm still waiting for you to prove Wounds =/= Wounds.

SJ

...

That has nothing to do with anything but... ok... You may wait for that if you like... It might be a while as you are the only on claiming anyone has claimed it... or that it might prove something...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Perhaps you are over thinking English as a language? I'm not going to post dictionary definitions, nor explain grammar, seeing as both of you are trying to be obtuse.

I stated that the effect of Psychic Shriek, the 3d6-Ld=wounds, replaces the To Wound mechanic found on page 14. You claim the 3d6-Ld is not "wounds", despite the fact that it is Wounds.

As you are not able to refute this with a rules based argument, I accept your concession on this matter.

SJ

...and a note on proper reading FYI

to Wound ≠ To Wound

You see any roll that might cause a wound could be considered a roll 'to Wound'. As opposed to a 'To Wound' roll, which is only ever made using the chart labeled 'To Wound' unless otherwise noted. As rigeld pointed out, PS does not ask you to make a 'To Wound' roll of any sort nor does it suggest a replacement of that specific function. Your insistence that you are rolling dice in order to Wound the unit has nothing to do with this.

Please be careful in the future when making disparaging suggestions regarding other peoples comprehensive reading abilities that you yourself fully comprehend the pertinent material.

Stormbreed] wrote:
You can not resolve a witch fire without a role to hit. Brb page 68.

Agreed. I roll to hit using X dice.

Stormbreed wrote:A witch fire power must roll to hit. This is a requirement. You don't hit you don't resolve.

Oh, NOW I see your problem - you thnk that a requirement to roll to-hit is the same as requiring a SUCCESSFUL roll to hit. It isnt. THis makes your third sentence - and therefore yoru argument - false.

Stormbreed wrote:You have no permission to resolve a witch fire unless you hit.

Please find a rule STATING THIS. NOT a rule stating you myust ROLL to-hit, but that the roll to-hit must be successful.

J- reported for rule 1, again. Only noted as your "responses" have been quoted by others.

It isnt "obtuse" to ask people to prove their assertions.

You have now

1) created a "to wound effect" rule, which appears nowhere in the rulebook. You were requested to back up your assertion with rules - failure to do so noted, breaking the tenets.
2) YOu have lied, again by stating we are not saying that wounds are wounds. We havent. We have said that "something" that creates wounds as an outcome is not the same thing as a To Wound roll. This has been proven. Your lie was an easy one to uncover, so retract it.
3) You asserted that the 3D6 effect replaces the To Wound roll. You failed to back that up with any rules - again.
4) No concession was offered, especially not when your argument falls at the first hurdle - its based on making rules up.

So, again - your position has been soundly refuted at every turn, and your continual lying and disparaging remarks have been noted.

Stormbreed, you're claim is that in order to be able to resolve a witchfire power, you must roll to hit, and then resolve the power. Does this mean for Smite, you must roll to hit to see if you can roll to hit?

delete

Locally we play roll to hit, and the roll to hit to be successful. I checked with the TO last time. We roll 1D6 for singular powers with no profile.

I'm okay with that, though It seems pretty illogical, I blame the writers for not making it clear. If using an ability which mirrors firing a weapon then the effects should be worded the same. For weapons which do not roll to hit or automatically hit, we are told so, additional weapon effects (modifiers etc) usually say 'on a unsaved wound' or 'on a hit' or similar, PP's lack any of this, how are we suppose to know on what condition different parts can be resolved with no rules to tell us so, These WF should have contained those rules.

Oh they definitely arelacking rules - that must is indisputable* fact; currently the power, as written, does not function.

I just disagree that you need to roll to hit, AND for that hit to be successul, as it makes no sense to me given the way the rules are written AND the precedence of the SW FAQ on MH**.

I go for the simpler way to resolve this - I want the pwoer to function, at all, and so break one rule. I dont roll to hit. I consider this simpler than making up a number of dice to roll, AND then making the 3D6 effect reliant on this to-hit roll succeeding. 1 vs 2, I pick 1, especially when the latter creates an implrtance that is not only not in the rules, but has been ruled against in other FAQs - I find it hard to argue "RAI" you need to hit successfully

*as in, the specific rules for assault weapons state there MUST be a profile. As there isnt one, the power cannot function. This is not up for debate any longer
**Note the "AND" there, as some posters keep insisting that the FAQ is the "core" of my argument. It isnt, and I could nto be more clear about that fact.

Page 68 states.

Targeting requirements and any other restrictions that apply.

Page 69.

A witch fire must roll to hit. Later on in the same paragraph it says. Use the rules given Above to resolve it. So to resolve the power we must use the rules given above which include a to hit roll. We already know what a to hit roll does if you miss because we're making a shooting attack. Page 12 and 13 will tell you how to make a to hit roll.

So at that point the brb has specifically told us how to resolve the power and that we must follow the rules provided.

Nowhere in the rules above does it say a witch fire power doesn't require a hit to resolve. Under this area which is how to resolve each power it requires a hit.

Understandably enough the next power beam and later nova both give the allowance you're claiming witch fire has. Both powers say in there area explaining how to resolve that they need not roll to hit.

As for the smite question, no as it tells us to use the profile to roll to hit. Page 69.

The power itself is the shooting attack.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I'm still waiting for you to prove Wounds =/= Wounds.

I'm still waiting for a rules quote supporting your position. Since we both know I've never claimed that Wounds != Wounds you shouldn't expect any proof. Since we both know that you're not debating in good faith without rules quotes I should expect them.
So when can I expect them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormbreed wrote:
Page 68 states.

Targeting requirements and any other restrictions that apply.

Page 69.

A witch fire must roll to hit. Later on in the same paragraph it says. Use the rules given Above to resolve it. So to resolve the power we must use the rules given above which include a to hit roll. We already know what a to hit roll does if you miss because we're making a shooting attack. Page 12 and 13 will tell you how to make a to hit roll.

So at that point the brb has specifically told us how to resolve the power and that we must follow the rules provided.

Nowhere in the rules above does it say a witch fire power doesn't require a hit to resolve. Under this area which is how to resolve each power it requires a hit.

Understandably enough the next power beam and later nova both give the allowance you're claiming witch fire has. Both powers say in there area explaining how to resolve that they need not roll to hit.

As for the smite question, no as it tells us to use the profile to roll to hit. Page 69.

The power itself is the shooting attack.

Stop it. Seriously. Stop what you're doing and reread the entire thread. I am not claiming the RAW does not require a roll to hit. You're arguing against a Strawman after being corrected probably a dozen times. That's. Not. What's. Being. Said.
Your refusal to even pretend you understand the argument is noted but useless.

I'm not claiming anything. RAW does require a roll to hit, and I believe RAW if you Miss you do not resolve a witch fire power.

As for straw man arguments. You just quoted someone and said, if you don't provide rules I won't provide rules. That is 3rd grade stuff.

I've provided rules specifically stating the to hit roll is a must under targeting and resolution of the power. I've provided other types for powers that specifically grant permission to resolve without a to hit roll. All you've done is name call, and throw out an allowance to miss with a shooting attack yet still resolve the shooting attack. No rules to back up your stance.

Gah

Again. You are making a *positive* assertion - that you MUST successfully roll to-hit BEFORE you can continue resolving non-to-wound effects.

As you are making this claim - prove it

NOTHING you have posted makes this link that you are claiming. Nothing.

To be clear, despite saying this a dozen times: noone here is stating you do not "need" to roll to-hit. Noone. Stop pretending we are. What we ARE asking you to prove is that the 3D6 effect is dependent upon having successfully hit

And lastly - no, Rigeld isnt behaving like a 3rd grader, he is simply asking you to provide rules that back up your assertions - something asked since page 1 it seems. Until you do so, there is no argument.

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming anything. RAW does require a roll to hit,

You keep saying that like anyone is arguing against it. It's the only actual rule you've been able to provide and no one is disputing it.

and I believe RAW if you Miss you do not resolve a witch fire power.

And you've failed to cite rules that support that statement. Again, the only thing you've proven is something that no one disputes. Also, I thought you were discussing RAI? Switching back and forth isn't helping your argument, especially since when asked you've said that you've been arguing RAI all along.

As for straw man arguments. You just quoted someone and said, if you don't provide rules I won't provide rules. That is 3rd grade stuff.

Well, no. It's impossible to debate with someone who doesn't back up their statements with actual rules. Like if I said PS did not allow Deny the Witch. Prove me wrong.

I've provided rules specifically stating the to hit roll is a must under targeting and resolution of the power. I've provided other types for powers that specifically grant permission to resolve without a to hit roll. All you've done is name call, and throw out an allowance to miss with a shooting attack yet still resolve the shooting attack. No rules to back up your stance.

That's a lie.
I've proven that page 67 allows me to resolve the power. I've proven that page 68 explains that means to follow the instructions in its entry. There is no rule, despite your assertions, that a witchfire must hit to resolve the power. I haven't "name called" that I can think of. Thanks for the attack though! It really means a lot.

A general notification to the thread: as Nos and Rigeld are intentionally ignoring the forum tenets requiring them to prove their position rather than stating their position is proven, I would like to post a formal motion to ignore their continued obstruction to resolving this debate.

I have personally, as have others, cited and quoted the specific rules related to how the power Psychic Shriek is resolved within the rules as written. In counterpoint, Nos and Rigeld have taken a stance of deconstructing our argument rather than posting a counter argument. They continue to bait posters with legalese while supplying no actual counter argument beyond stating they are right and the rest of us are wrong.

After repeated requests for them to prove their claim, and after repeat attempts by them to derail the debate by intentionally misrepresenting their opponents' statements, I am asking formally for Moderator intervention.

If at some point, Nos and Rigeld decide to follow the tenets and post an actual counter argument that can be debated per the tenets, I will withdraw my complaint.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
A general notification to the thread: as Nos and Rigeld are intentionally ignoring the forum tenets requiring them to prove their position rather than stating their position is proven, I would like to post a formal motion to ignore their continued obstruction to resolving this debate.

I have actually proven my position. Hypocrisy abounds with you apparently.
Have you found a rules quote to support your assertion that the PS wound mechanism is a To Wound roll?

I have personally, as have others, cited and quoted the specific rules related to how the power Psychic Shriek is resolved within the rules as written. In counterpoint, Nos and Rigeld have taken a stance of deconstructing our argument rather than posting a counter argument. They continue to bait posters with legalese while supplying no actual counter argument beyond stating they are right and the rest of us are wrong.

That's a lie. I've cited page numbers repeatedly.

After repeated requests for them to prove their claim, and after repeat attempts by them to derail the debate by intentionally misrepresenting their opponents' statements, I am asking formally for Moderator intervention.

I've derailed nothing. At all. I've misrepresented nothing. You, however, have lied and are intentionally trolling to get the thread locked.

I see this thread went downhill just like the other one did. Only 9 more pages to go.

Rig you've proven permission to resolve the power, now cite the rules on page 68 or 69 which allow you miss and still resolve a witch fire, you won't find that rule.

I know I have permission to attack your models in close combat, that doesn't mean I just read the attack stat from the stat line and say "okay you take 10 wounds".

No we read how to resolve the attacks on the next pages.

Page 67 gives permission to resolve a power once passing the required tests, page 68 explains that to resolve a power we must follow the rules of the power, page 69 under witch fire specifically uses the word "resolve" and roll to hit.

You're making a shooting attack at that point so you go and look how to "roll to hit" and what happens if you miss.

I am specifically giving your rules and logical steps on how to resolve the witch fire ability. Please in response cite a page # which specifies witch fire spells being able to resolve when they miss their intended target.

Seems somewhat pointless keeping this going any longer.