Does Psychic Scream always affect the rider of a chariot or can it be allocated to the chariot in order to try to save the rider?

Thanks.

This needs an FAQ, among other things.

The way I look at it is that psychic shooting attacks are resolved as any other shooting attacks and while the rider is the only one that can be affected by psychic shriek by virtue of being the only part of the chariot with a ld value, the final number hits should still be allocated as let any other shooting attacks and can be allocated to the chariot.

It doesn't seem right but it's just the same as lasgun hits being allocated to the chariot.

Here is what I had posted in the other thread.

Directing Psychic Shriek at the Barge?

You only have permission to allocate hits against the Chariot, and Psychic Shriek only needs to hit the unit for its ability to apply which is different than a normal weapon profile which could be resolved upon the Chariot. Wounds taken by the unit, have to go the only place they can, the Overlord. You only have permission to allocate hits to the chariot, but the hit from Psychic shriek does nothing, it's its special ability which deals wounds to the unit. The only legal place for wounds to go is on the Rider.

Psychic Shriek targets the unit, rolls to hit, hit allocated to the Chariot, hit invokes Psychic Shriek which deals wounds to the unit, which can only be resolved upon the rider as you have no permission to allocate wounds to the chariot.

You can allocate the hit to the Chariot, but that doesn't stop the Psychic Power which affects the unit. A "Hit" merely means the power affects the unit, the hit itself has nothing to resolve, but ques the power which affects the unit. As it deals wounds to the unit, not as a direct result of a hit as a normal weapon profile, the unit takes the wounds. There is no permission to allocate Wounds to a vehicle, therefore the only way to resolve them is against the rider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mortetvie wrote:
This needs an FAQ, among other things.

The way I look at it is that psychic shooting attacks are resolved as any other shooting attacks and while the rider is the only one that can be affected by psychic shriek by virtue of being the only part of the chariot with a ld value, the final number hits should still be allocated as let any other shooting attacks and can be allocated to the chariot.

It doesn't seem right but it's just the same as lasgun hits being allocated to the chariot.

The difference is that the Lasgun has a weapons profile and we have something to resolve, an armor Penetration Roll. With Psychic Shriek, a hit merely means the power affects the unit. No permission exists to allocate wounds to the chariot as it cannot be wounded.

IT is a focused witchfire so 2 or more successes sees the caster assign the wounds.

MarkyMark wrote:
IT is a focused witchfire so 2 or more successes sees the caster assign the wounds.

Which does nothing because the Chariot is one model.

Ah I thought focussed was resolved same as prescision shot but its not.

MarkyMark wrote:
Then how can I prescision shot and assign wounds to the character?. Exactly.

Focused Witchfire isn't prescion shot (which has specific permission to let the shooter allocate against chariots)

It will need a FAQ to satisfy people. I would suggest anything that causes direct Wounds / Pens etc can not be allocated to the profile which doesn't have them. We don't have any conversion rate etc etc and shooting at chariot rules only cover from the point you have a hit pool, and this doesn't.

Arguably RAW you could say it effects both profiles as a model (They are not hits and Characteristic modifications which effect the model are applied to both profiles). The controlling player can only choose where to allocate HITS to either profile, where there are no hits, it just wounds the model (Both profiles), obviously wounds do not effect the chariot profile, but they would be taken from the rider all the same. This is how I would currently play the rules.

So no, you cannot allocate wounds to a particular profile to save the model in this instance, would be the same for anything that causes pens / wounds without hits.

Chariots are Vehicles. Vehicles don't have a LD value.

Unless I missed something in the Chariot rules? Where do you have permission to choose the profile your opponent uses?

MarkyMark wrote:
IT is a focused witchfire so 2 or more successes sees the caster assign the wounds.

It's not a Focused Witchfire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Chariots are Vehicles. Vehicles don't have a LD value.

Unless I missed something in the Chariot rules? Where do you have permission to choose the profile your opponent uses?

How about the part that says..... "For the purpose of Characteristic tests, always use the Rider's profile." 3d6 vs Ld isn't a characteristic test, but it establishes precedent. We are also told where a model has multiple characteristic values, use the higher.

It's also a dual Profile Model, and the Rider has a Leadership value. Psychic Shriek affects the unit, and the unit does have a leadership value. What gives you permission to ignore the riders profile when making the single model, dual profile, characteristic test. The part of theChariots Profile that is "hit" doesn't matter, we resolve a Leadership test on 3d6 against the unit and deal with the wounds accordingly. With no way to assign wounds to a vehicle, they must be resolved against the Rider which tracks with established Characteristic precedent.

Can you target a unit embarked in a vehicle?

The Rider isn't embarked, so that's not relevant.

 Zagman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Chariots are Vehicles. Vehicles don't have a LD value.

Unless I missed something in the Chariot rules? Where do you have permission to choose the profile your opponent uses?

How about the part that says..... "For the purpose of Characteristic tests, always use the Rider's profile." 3d6 vs Ld isn't a characteristic test, but it establishes precedent.

Poor argument for RAW. I disagree as far as RAI as well - it's simply not applicable.

We are also told where a model has multiple characteristic values, use the higher.

Context is important for that one - remember when Bikers had 2 toughness values?

It's also a dual Profile Model, and the Rider has a Leadership value. Psychic Shriek affects the unit, and the unit does have a leadership value. What gives you permission to ignore the riders profile when making the single model, dual profile, characteristic test. The part of theChariots Profile that is "hit" doesn't matter, we resolve a Leadership test on 3d6 against the unit and deal with the wounds accordingly. With no way to assign wounds to a vehicle, they must be resolved against the Rider which tracks with established Characteristic precedent.

It's not a characteristic test. If it was, you'd use this rule:

For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider’s profile.

Since it's not and you're hitting a Chariot, the owner of the Chariot distributes the hits. I allocate the hit to the Vehicle profile. Have fun shrieking that.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Can you target a unit embarked in a vehicle?

The Rider is no Embarked. But, you do target the unit, which consists of a dual profile single model.

Since it's not and you're hitting a Chariot, the owner of the Chariot distributes the hits. I allocate the hit to the Vehicle profile. Have fun shrieking that.

? Psychic Shreik doesn't generate any hits for you to assign to anything is generates wounds and only wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:

Since it's not and you're hitting a Chariot, the owner of the Chariot distributes the hits. I allocate the hit to the Vehicle profile. Have fun shrieking that.

Psychic Shriek affects a unit, the hit itself does nothing. By all means, allocate the hit to the Chariot, the power affects the target of the Psychic power, which is the unit. Then, you roll 3d6 vs your Leadership which the Unit has, and then you take wounds which cannot be allocated to the Chariot.

No one is contesting that you can assign a "hit" to the Chariot, but in this instance, the hit does nothing except being required for the power to affect the targeted unit. That is what I am trying to emphasize, everything else about characteristics was RAI and setting precedence on how to treat similar situations for other characteristics which cannot be ignored by using only the vehicle's profile. Hitting the unit is required to invoke the effects of Psychic Shriek, which affect the Unit as a whole.

"Psychic Shriek is a

witchfire

power with a range of 18". Roll 3d6 and subtract the target's Leadership- the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Amor and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek."

Witchfires target a unit, the hit is irrelevant as the effect is resolved against the Target, ie the targeted unit as referenced by Witchfires. Yes, you assign a meaningless hit to the Chariot, the actual effect is resolved against the unit and deals Wounds which then cannot be allocated to the Chariot.

 Zagman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Since it's not and you're hitting a Chariot, the owner of the Chariot distributes the hits. I allocate the hit to the Vehicle profile. Have fun shrieking that.

Psychic Shriek affects a unit, the hit itself does nothing. By all means, allocate the hit to the Chariot, the power affects the target of the Psychic power, which is the unit. Then, you roll 3d6 vs your Leadership which the Unit has, and then you take wounds which cannot be allocated to the Chariot.

a) Why can they not be allocated to the chariot?
b) The unit only has a Leadership in certain instances. Why are you asserting this instance is one of them? IE - cite permission to use the Rider profile to resolve this attack.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Since it's not and you're hitting a Chariot, the owner of the Chariot distributes the hits. I allocate the hit to the Vehicle profile. Have fun shrieking that.

Psychic Shriek affects a unit, the hit itself does nothing. By all means, allocate the hit to the Chariot, the power affects the target of the Psychic power, which is the unit. Then, you roll 3d6 vs your Leadership which the Unit has, and then you take wounds which cannot be allocated to the Chariot.

a) Why can they not be allocated to the chariot?
b) The unit only has a Leadership in certain instances. Why are you asserting this instance is one of them? IE - cite permission to use the Rider profile to resolve this attack.

A. There is no permission to allocate Wounds to a Vehicle. Only hits. The unit suffers wounds, vehicles cannot be wounded, the only place for those wounds to be resolved are against the Rider.
B. Yes, certain instances. Like be targeted by power which ques off of Leadership. The unit has a leadership value, and no permission exists for you to ignore that fact. I do not need to cite permission to use the Rider's profile, you need to cite permission to use the Chariot's profile to resolve wounds dealt to a unit. Show me permission to allocate wounds to the Chariot, none exist in the 7th Edition BRB. The unit takes wounds, those wounds have to be resolved, no permission exists for them to be allocated to a Vehcile, they must resolved the only place they can be RAW, the Rider.

Precedent exists for using the Rider's profile for Characteristics tests.

 Zagman wrote:
A. There is no permission to allocate Wounds to a Vehicle. Only hits. The unit suffers wounds, vehicles cannot be wounded, the only place for those wounds to be resolved are against the Rider.

The unit suffers wounds that must be allocated to a Vehicle. Even using the Rider's profile, the unit is a vehicle. So you're causing wounds to a vehicle. Have fun?

B. Yes, certain instances. Like be targeted by power which ques off of Leadership.

Citation needed.

The unit has a leadership value, and no permission exists for you to ignore that fact. I do not need to cite permission to use the Rider's profile, you need to cite permission to use the Chariot's profile to resolve wounds dealt to a unit.

No - you're asserting permission to use the Rider's leadership for something. You need to prove that.

The unit takes wounds, those wounds have to be resolved, no permission exists for them to be allocated to a Vehcile, they must resolved the only place they can be RAW, the Rider.

If no permission exists to be allocated to a Vehicle, there's no permission to resolve the power. Because it's a single model it's a Vehicle. Unless you have something saying otherwise?

Precedent exists for using the Rider's profile for Characteristics tests.

And, RAW, only for characteristic tests.

But you can cast Psychic Scream (or Haemorrhage or other similar powers which causes Characteristic tests) against a dreadnought (or vehicle), but because it doesn't have Wounds (or Toughness), then the power does nothing. So there is precedent that these types of attacks can be allocated to a vehicle....it just does nothing because the vehicle lacks the corresponding characteristics.

Here is how I interpret it to work:

1. Opponent successfully casts the the power (in this case, Psychic Shriek).

2. He rolls to hit. It hits. There is only 1 successful hit.

3. The player controlling the chariot then allocates this hit, either to the rider or to the chariot. Let's say he decides to allocate it onto the chariot.

4. You then resolve the power on the "profile" that is allocated to. Since it is allocated against the Chariot, the chariot then uses the rider's LD to resolve the characteristic test (i.e. the LD test). However, if it happens to fail the LD test, then the power just bounces off of it as it (the chariot profile) has no Wounds to lose.

 jy2 wrote:
But you can cast Psychic Scream (or Haemorrhage or other similar powers which causes Characteristic tests) against a dreadnought (or vehicle), but because it doesn't have Wounds (or Toughness), then the power does nothing. So there is precedent that these types of attacks can be allocated to a vehicle....it just does nothing because the vehicle lacks the corresponding characteristics.

Here is how I interpret it to work:

1. Opponent successfully casts the the power (in this case, Psychic Shriek).

2. He rolls to hit. It hits. There is only 1 successful hit.

3. The player controlling the chariot then allocates this hit, either to the rider or to the chariot. Let's say he decides to allocate it onto the chariot.

4. You then resolve the power on the "profile" that is allocated to. Since it is allocated against the Chariot, the chariot then uses the rider's LD to resolve the characteristic test (i.e. the LD test). However, if it happens to fail the LD test, then the power just bounces off of it as it (the chariot profile) has no Wounds to lose.

Shriek is not an LD test.

rigeld2 wrote:

Shriek is not an LD test.

Ok, I take it back. I meant it's effects causes you to test against LD to determine the number of wounds.

I agree with jy2's interpretation .

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
A. There is no permission to allocate Wounds to a Vehicle. Only hits. The unit suffers wounds, vehicles cannot be wounded, the only place for those wounds to be resolved are against the Rider.

The unit suffers wounds that must be allocated to a Vehicle. Even using the Rider's profile, the unit is a vehicle. So you're causing wounds to a vehicle. Have fun?

B. Yes, certain instances. Like be targeted by power which ques off of Leadership.

Citation needed.

The unit has a leadership value, and no permission exists for you to ignore that fact. I do not need to cite permission to use the Rider's profile, you need to cite permission to use the Chariot's profile to resolve wounds dealt to a unit.

No - you're asserting permission to use the Rider's leadership for something. You need to prove that.

The unit takes wounds, those wounds have to be resolved, no permission exists for them to be allocated to a Vehcile, they must resolved the only place they can be RAW, the Rider.

If no permission exists to be allocated to a Vehicle, there's no permission to resolve the power. Because it's a single model it's a Vehicle. Unless you have something saying otherwise?

Precedent exists for using the Rider's profile for Characteristics tests.

And, RAW, only for characteristic tests.

"A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile -a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot(See below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself."

It is a single model unit, but it can not be disputed that it has a profile that Psychic Shrike affects and can be resolved normally against. To say otherwise, is certainly not RAW. The Rider profile can be effected normally by Psychic Shriek.

The unit suffers wounds from Psychic Shriek, only one profile can suffer wounds, the non-vehicle half, there fore the Rider's Profile is wounded.

Of course I have permission to use the Rider's Leadership. We have an ability that affects a unit, that ability ques off of the leadership score of the unit, the unit has a leadership score via the Rider. How can you ignore the leadership value of the unit when resolving Psychic Shriek?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jy2 wrote:
But you can cast Psychic Scream (or Haemorrhage or other similar powers which causes Characteristic tests) against a dreadnought (or vehicle), but because it doesn't have Wounds (or Toughness), then the power does nothing. So there is precedent that these types of attacks can be allocated to a vehicle....it just does nothing because the vehicle lacks the corresponding characteristics.

Here is how I interpret it to work:

1. Opponent successfully casts the the power (in this case, Psychic Shriek).

2. He rolls to hit. It hits. There is only 1 successful hit.

3. The player controlling the chariot then allocates this hit, either to the rider or to the chariot. Let's say he decides to allocate it onto the chariot.

4. You then resolve the power on the "profile" that is allocated to. Since it is allocated against the Chariot, the chariot then uses the rider's LD to resolve the characteristic test (i.e. the LD test). However, if it happens to fail the LD test, then the power just bounces off of it as it (the chariot profile) has no Wounds to lose.

The problem is step 4. The hit does nothing, the power ques off of the target of the Psychic Power, the Unit and is resolved against the unit. The fact you can allocate a hit means nothing, the hit is merely required to effect the unit.

 Zagman wrote:
"A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile -a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot(See below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself."

It is a single model unit, but it can not be disputed that it has a profile that Psychic Shrike affects and can be resolved normally against. To say otherwise, is certainly not RAW. The Rider profile can be effected normally by Psychic Shriek.

Sure.
Cite permission for you (not the Chariot's owner) to choose the profile PS affects.

Ignoring the question of allocating hits, Rig are you saying the CCB/NL model doesn't have a leadership value?

 AndrewC wrote:
Ignoring the question of allocating hits, Rig are you saying the CCB/NL model doesn't have a leadership value?

It does when required to. The Chariot rules dictate when that is.

But the effects of the power require it to. The power asks that 3d6 is rolled against the units leadership does it not? And the resultant difference is allocated as wounds against the unit. Those wounds are not hits, and so can't be allocated by the controlling player. Now the originating hit can be allocated by the controlling player, but has no profile, only a secondary (if it can be called that) effect which requires a unit leadership value in order to establish.

The better question should be if a non-effective hit can trigger a secondary effect?

Cheers

Andrew

You don't make any rolls to hit with Psychic Shreik unless you'd like to show me a profile with a type so I know how many dice to roll?

You roll 3d6 against the units Ld. The unit only has 1 Ld value to use so we know which one we MUST use. That will generate a wound pool. We have no permission to split that pool or resolve it against one particular profile of the model we just look at the model and ask for a wounds characteristic. Which again we only have 1 number for so we again know what value we MUST use.

Well it being a witchfire makes it a psychic shooting attack no? (dont has a book available) but IIRC you still need to roll to hit.

Shriek is a witch fire power isn't it? So you have to roll to hit first.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
But the effects of the power require it to.

What effect does Psychic Shriek have on a Rhino? Go through the entire process.
Now, cite the rule that tells you to treat a Chariot differently.

How many dice do I roll to hit? 1000?

Fling, desu and Andrew, do we really need that argument (again)?

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling, desu and Andrew, do we really need that argument (again)?

If so there is a thread for it here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603219.page

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
But the effects of the power require it to.

What effect does Psychic Shriek have on a Rhino? Go through the entire process.
Now, cite the rule that tells you to treat a Chariot differently.

Well, as the Rhino has no Leadership Value, nothing happens.

How about the lines that have been quoted, establishing a single model unit with two profiles, one of which does have a Leadership value which allows up to proceed?

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
But the effects of the power require it to.

What effect does Psychic Shriek have on a Rhino? Go through the entire process.
Now, cite the rule that tells you to treat a Chariot differently.

There is no effect on a Rhino, granted, but what has that got to do with a dual profile model?

The unit has been allocated X wounds, one profile can be affected, one can't.

How do you allocate those wounds? Apparently neither of us has raw backing to resolve them. Game breaks!

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling, desu and Andrew, do we really need that argument (again)?

I was not aware that thread existed and not trying to resurrect any old arguments. Sorry.

Cheers

Andrew

 Zagman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
But the effects of the power require it to.

What effect does Psychic Shriek have on a Rhino? Go through the entire process.
Now, cite the rule that tells you to treat a Chariot differently.

Well, as the Rhino has no Leadership Value, nothing happens.

How about the lines that have been quoted, establishing a single model unit with two profiles, one of which does have a Leadership value which allows up to proceed?

And again, why do you get to choose which profile this is resolved against? You keep asserting that we have to, but haven't cited a rule *allowing* it.

You're arguing intent, not actual rules.

But then again, as far as I can see neither are you. You have provided rules about allocating hits, but these are generated wounds, you have provided rules about the use of leadership on the CB, but what's important here is the units leadership.

What the crux of the matter seems to be, if you have wounds allocated to a unit, of which one part is immune and one part isn't how do you do it. Even the rules about allocating wounds when you can't determine which is closer is irrelevant because that talks about models.

D6 it it would seem.

Cheers

Andrew

The Chariot is a model with a Ld characteristic and a W characteristic. The power tells us what to do with those.

 AndrewC wrote:
But then again, as far as I can see neither are you.

I'm really not. I'm not arguing for Chariots to be immune to PS. I'm asking people to prove their arguments. There's a difference.

You have provided rules about allocating hits, but these are generated wounds

And how are those wounds allocated? Absent any other statement it'd be the closest model. People have said that since the CCB cannot take wounds that the Rider must, but have failed utterly to show any rules support for that statement.

you have provided rules about the use of leadership on the CB, but what's important here is the units leadership.

The unit's leadership is the Rider's... when it's allowed to be used. There's no permission to use the Rider's leadership in this scenario - people are making an argument of precedent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Angelic wrote:
The Chariot is a model with a Ld characteristic and a W characteristic.

This is an incorrect statement.
The Chariot is a model that might have a Ld Characteristic and a W characteristic, but doesn't always.

I think at this point we can all agree that it needs an FAQ.

The Chariot rules tells us to allocate hits, not Wounds. As such neither player has permission to decide which profile of the chariot is affected.

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
But then again, as far as I can see neither are you.

This is an incorrect statement.
The Chariot is a model that might have a Ld Characteristic and a W characteristic, but doesn't always.

It is a correct statement. Chariots are always vehicle and non-vehicle. The non-vehicle always has a Ld and W characteristic, it may have a value of '-' (not aware of any in the game currently), but it's there.

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
But then again, as far as I can see neither are you.

This is an incorrect statement.
The Chariot is a model that might have a Ld Characteristic and a W characteristic, but doesn't always.

It is a correct statement. Chariots are always vehicle and non-vehicle. The non-vehicle always has a Ld and W characteristic, it may have a value of '-' (not aware of any in the game currently), but it's there.

Citation needed for the underlined statement.
They have vehicle and non-vehicle profiles, but the unit type is Vehicle still.

Chariots move normally for a vehicle of their type.

Saying that there's two unit types means that this rule gets broken by moving more than 6".

 Happyjew wrote:
I think at this point we can all agree that it needs an FAQ.

The Chariot rules tells us to allocate hits, not Wounds. As such neither player has permission to decide which profile of the chariot is affected.

This is pretty much the situation

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
But then again, as far as I can see neither are you.

This is an incorrect statement.
The Chariot is a model that might have a Ld Characteristic and a W characteristic, but doesn't always.

It is a correct statement. Chariots are always vehicle and non-vehicle. The non-vehicle always has a Ld and W characteristic, it may have a value of '-' (not aware of any in the game currently), but it's there.

Citation needed for the underlined statement.
They have vehicle and non-vehicle profiles, but the unit type is Vehicle still.

Chariots move normally for a vehicle of their type.

Saying that there's two unit types means that this rule gets broken by moving more than 6".

Did I say anything about unit type? Obviously I'm talking about profiles since I'm talking about characteristics. Why is it even relevant what unit type it is? Didn't see any rules that say Vehicles are immune to Psychic Powers. The target is the Chariot. It has Ld and Wounds. The power says what to do.

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
But then again, as far as I can see neither are you.

This is an incorrect statement.
The Chariot is a model that might have a Ld Characteristic and a W characteristic, but doesn't always.

It is a correct statement. Chariots are always vehicle and non-vehicle. The non-vehicle always has a Ld and W characteristic, it may have a value of '-' (not aware of any in the game currently), but it's there.

Citation needed for the underlined statement.
They have vehicle and non-vehicle profiles, but the unit type is Vehicle still.

Chariots move normally for a vehicle of their type.

Saying that there's two unit types means that this rule gets broken by moving more than 6".

Did I say anything about unit type? Obviously I'm talking about profiles since I'm talking about characteristics. Why is it even relevant what unit type it is? Didn't see any rules that say Vehicles are immune to Psychic Powers.

Still - please support the underlined statement with actual rules. The model has two profiles; which one is used at any given time depends on what's happening. It's not both at the same time.

rigeld2 wrote:

It's not both at the same time.

Rules quote please.

I've added a poll to get a consensus of what dakkalites think.

Citation needed for the underlined statement. 
They have vehicle and non-vehicle profiles, but the unit type is Vehicle still. 

Chariot rules page 87 first paragraph first column.

Saying that there's two unit types means that this rule gets broken by moving more than 6".

Incorrect the rule says you move based on vehicle type so non-vehicle type is irrelevant for that rule.

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It's not both at the same time.

Rules quote please.

a) Pot, kettle.
b) It's inherent in the way the rules treat them separately. Chariots move normally for a vehicle of their type. Riders have different rules.
One model, two profiles, used at different times.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It's not both at the same time.

Rules quote please.

a) Pot, kettle.
b) It's inherent in the way the rules treat them separately. Chariots move normally for a vehicle of their type. Riders have different rules.
One model, two profiles, used at different times.

Chariot rules:
"A Chariot is an usual unit with a dual profile..."

du·al
ˈd(y)o͞oəl/Submit
adjective
1.
consisting of two parts, elements, or aspects.

Therefore, it is a single profile consisting of 2 parts, each of which is also a profile.

Chariot rules:
"Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot"

Ergo, both must exist. Just because you use different parts at different times does not mean the others cease to exist.

So, if we don't roll to hit for Psychich Shriek the game breaks since we can't proceed beyond the 'must roll to hit' part of the rules.

If we do roll to hit (and let's pick an arbitrary amount of 1 dice) we have to allocate any hits and the controlling player can just allocate the hit to the vehicle profile and the game breaks too since we can't resolve it.

That's a lot of ways to break the game, unless there are some rules I missed that tell you to ignore all sorts of bits of the rules to make it work against Chariots?

Clearly, GW didn't think these rules through and they won't work in a sensible way without a lot of modification.

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
But then again, as far as I can see neither are you.

I'm really not. I'm not arguing for Chariots to be immune to PS. I'm asking people to prove their arguments. There's a difference.

The unit's leadership is the Rider's... when it's allowed to be used. There's no permission to use the Rider's leadership in this scenario - people are making an argument of precedent.

But in this case it has to use the riders LD as the power requires that the unit LD be used, ergo the argument.

Cheers

Andrew

You need permission to allocate it to the rider's profile. Currently RAW you have wound(s) that have no legal allocation rules.

 AndrewC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
But then again, as far as I can see neither are you.

I'm really not. I'm not arguing for Chariots to be immune to PS. I'm asking people to prove their arguments. There's a difference.

The unit's leadership is the Rider's... when it's allowed to be used. There's no permission to use the Rider's leadership in this scenario - people are making an argument of precedent.

But in this case it has to use the riders LD as the power requires that the unit LD be used, ergo the argument.

Cheers

Andrew

The problem here isn't that the chariot part of the model doesn't have a Ld. Its that even if you do generate wounds from psychic shriek what makes them go on the rider and not the chariot?

 jy2 wrote:
Does Psychic Scream always affect the rider of a chariot or can it be allocated to the chariot in order to try to save the rider?

Thanks.

If it's treated like a normal shooting attack, I see no reason why it should have a special exclusion allowing it to single out the character on the unit. A strength 7 weapon can't hurt a CCB for the same reasons that it will be allocated to the chariot instead of the rider.

You can allocate the hit to the chariot, but the target unit suffers a number of wounds equal to the difference, as the chariot and rider are the same unit- the chariot doesn't have wounds to suffer, but the rider does and is part of the same unit and would suffer the wounds.

you can use psychic shriek on a vehicle like a rhino or dreadnaught but as they have no wounds characterstic on any profile they have you will have no effect, the chariot does have wounds on one of the units profiles.

wounds from normal shooting attacks are allocated to models, but wounds from psychic shriek specify they are allocated to a unit.

the rider is part of the unit.

blaktoof wrote:
You can allocate the hit to the chariot, but the target unit suffers a number of wounds equal to the difference, as the chariot and rider are the same unit- the chariot doesn't have wounds to suffer, but the rider does and is part of the same unit and would suffer the wounds.

you can use psychic shriek on a vehicle like a rhino or dreadnaught but as they have no wounds characterstic on any profile they have you will have no effect, the chariot does have wounds on one of the units profiles.

wounds from normal shooting attacks are allocated to models, but wounds from psychic shriek specify they are allocated to a unit.

the rider is part of the unit.

The rider is not part of the same unit. He is part of the model which counts as a chariot unit. Psychic shriek inflicts automatic wounds on a model it hits. The chariot model has two profiles. A vehicle profile and a character profile. The hit can be allocated to either profile if it's a shooting attack. Therefore it can be allocated to the vehicle profile and it would have no affect just as if it hit a dreadnought.

Like I said above, I don't see the issue with this. Strength 7, poisoned and all sorts of weapons are denied any effect at all by allocating them to the vehicle on a CCB. Why should Psychic screech / automatic wounding weapons receive special treatment? There is no RAW support for it as far as I can read beyond interpreting "counts as one model" to over-ride the function of allocating hits between the profiles or interpreting the wounds as a characteristic modifier.

psychic shriek inflicts wounds on a unit, its different wording than normal shooting which inflicts wounds on a model.

The problem is if you allocate the hit to the vehicle profile you still have x wounds to allocate to the unit, and I dont think you can allocate wounds to a vehicle before you allocate it to a profile that has a Wounds value.

If psychic shriek allocated wounds to a model, I would agree.

its not that its automatic wounding, its that the hit puts wounds onto the unit, not a singular model. One of the profiles of the unit can suffer wounds, the other cannot, you can put wounds onto the vehicle but the issue is the wound pool wont be emptied as the vehicle has no wounds to reduce, and another profile in the unit does have wounds to reduce.

if it was normal shooting, you could allocate it to the vehicle all day long as normal shooting specifies you allocate wounds to a model within the unit, psychic shriek does not state this.

A S7 shot can wound the rider but the owning player has the choice to apply it to the Chariot.

blaktoof wrote:
psychic shriek inflicts wounds on a unit, its different wording than normal shooting which inflicts wounds on a model.

The problem is if you allocate the hit to the vehicle profile you still have x wounds to allocate to the unit, and I dont think you can allocate wounds to a vehicle before you allocate it to a profile that has a Wounds value.

If psychic shriek allocated wounds to a model, I would agree.

its not that its automatic wounding, its that the hit puts wounds onto the unit, not a singular model. One of the profiles of the unit can suffer wounds, the other cannot, you can put wounds onto the vehicle but the issue is the wound pool wont be emptied as the vehicle has no wounds to reduce, and another profile in the unit does have wounds to reduce.

if it was normal shooting, you could allocate it to the vehicle all day long as normal shooting specifies you allocate wounds to a model within the unit, psychic shriek does not state this.

"If it was normal shooting"; which it is not as you are following the advanced "shooting at chariots" section of rolling to hit and not the basic/general shooting rules.

The rule uses the word "unit" so that wounds carry across the entire unit and not just one model. Which is not important in my interpretation, but I think it's worth remembering the intention behind the wording of a rule.

As soon as you declare a shooting attack at a chariot, you follow the chariot rules for shooting at it. Thus psychic shriek is then allocated to the rider or vehicle. The chariot player then selects the vehicle profile and you inflict your wounds which cannot be allocated to that profile. If you wish to inflict wounds on the rider then you are relying on an interpretation that follows these steps:

1) Roll to hit
2) Allocate hit to rider or chariot
3) inflict wounds on the unit
4) Since the rules do not handle allocation of wounds on a chariot, allocate them to the rider regardless of previous steps

In my eyes, you have no method of handling the allocation of wounds to a chariot unit and given that they are found in the vehicle section, it makes perfect sense for why that's the case. The same restriction that prevents you form wounding a dreadnought is taking place. Just because there is a profile with wounds available does not give you permission to use it. So, without a method of carrying out what you're intending to do, I would go with the position that nothing happens unless the player for some reason allocates the hit to the rider allowing you to roll wounds against the rider profile(s) in the unit.

The crux of this problem can be answered with a simple ruling on an issue:

"If a model through some special rule or attack automatically allocates a wound to a chariot unit, does it wound the rider?"

My stance would be: You have no method of allocating such a wound, so no it does not.

I agree the rules just break at 2 points so people are just arguing HIWPI and why.

My question for the people opposed to it is, do you agree the barge gets the lords 3++ save then? If you can pull the wounds characteristic because it applies at the time then can you pull the save characteristic because it applies at the time.

I'd put it in line with haywire. Nothing stops you from hitting a unit no AV it just doesn't do anything.

Characteristic modifications which affect the model change both profiles. Wounds is a characteristic, and applying them is a modification.

The rider loses wounds.
The chariot loses wounds (Which does nothing because it doesn't have that characteristic).


Nothing is allocated to either profile because there are no hits and were already told what to do with modifications which affect the model (Which is this..)

RAW wise even when a hit is allocated it affects both profiles, as wounds / AV are applied to models, allocating hits determines if you roll for Wounds or AV, which will only ever affect one.

Is there actually any problem with the above or are people just arguing for the sake of wanting invulnerable chariots? The chariot rules tell you how to handle this - and it actually works out very well. In all instances of auto hits the 2 profiles will have differing characteristics so it's never at the detriment to both and we have a mechanic for working out anything that isn't a hit and can be allocated.

Anywhere anyone suggests invulnerability you know you have a RAI issue.

The only question is related to rolling to hit with *those* powers and if it's related to the outcome.

deviant cadaver wrote:
I'd put it in line with haywire. Nothing stops you from hitting a unit no AV it just doesn't do anything.

Although the image of a unit of Swooping Hawks trying to plaster Haywire grenades on the Overlord is rather hilarious.

"Stick it up his nostril."

"No it doesn't hold well. Try sticking it under his shoulderpads."

"Anyone got Blu-Tack?"

Exactly Nem.

"Modifiers
Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.), subtracting from it (–1, –2, etc.), multiplying it (×2, ×3, etc.) or even setting its value (1, 8, etc.). Attacks and Wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10. A model’s Initiative cannot be modified below 1, and no other characteristic can be modified below 0."

I would want to know the full argument for why a wound is a characteristic modifier. It seems like it's intended more for things like rad grenades.

Wounds where always Characteristic modifiers, which is why the model is removed as a Casualty when it reaches 0.
Any-time a Wound is Allocated, for example, all we are doing is applying a -1 modifier to the Wound Characteristic.

I think it is a stretch to call wounds modifiers. When you take a wound you go from 3/3 to 2/3 the characteristic does not change. If a 2/3 model was some how brought back to full wounds it would not go to 2/2. The same way a 2 wound model can't have a wound added with out special permission.

Is this RAW or HIWPI?

Stats aren't x/x if your strength is modified from 4 to 6 we don't see any wording in the rules that the models strength is 4/6.

However we do see some wording for models which are allowed to regain wounds that they may or may not go over their starting wounds. Whether this implies we always keep track of a models wounds as current(starting) or current/starting or just as current is pretty ambiguous from a rules stand point.

regarding the psychic power entries, if we look at enfeeble "the model suffers -1 S and T" so suffers is negative, and S and T is a characteristic so it modifies the characteristic.

of we look at psychic shriek it says "a unit suffers wounds"

Wounds is also a characteristic, and suffers sounds just like enfeebles wording of suffers, so it does sound like its a characteristic modifier.

If it was in melee attack you could put the shriek on the Rider. Witchfire are shooting attacks so the owner may choose to put it vs the Chariot and it does nothing.

 Mythra wrote:
If it was in melee attack you could put the shriek on the Rider. Witchfire are shooting attacks so the owner may choose to put it vs the Chariot and it does nothing.

The Chariot rules give you permission to assign hits to either profile. How many hits does a psychic shriek generate? What impact do those hits have on the effect applied to the unit.

How are shooting attacks handled by the chariot? Why does Psychic Shriek create wounds against a unit? Which is more specific?

shooting attacks - hits-wounds allocated to model.

psychic shriek-hits-wounds allocated to unit.

There is no to wound roll for psychic shriek so if the vehicle suffers a wound the rider suffers a wound as suffers =characteristic modifier, and if there is a modifier to a chariots characteristic it affects both the rider and chariot?

So basically you are advocating violating 2 sets of rules in an attempt to now create a work around to an imagined issue.... What stops you from using the two sets of rules that are already in place?

Edit: If it is a modifier you would need to show that it falls into that category. The game defines modifiers. What in the wound or modifier sections qualifies a wound as a modifier?

Edit 2: Enfeeble also specifically states it is a penalty.

I agree with Jim's analysis of how things work out... As per RAW we have the following order of operations:

Psychic phase starts:
(1) Generate Warp Charge dice.
(2) Pick target as per Witchfires.
(3) Manifest the power.
(4) Roll to hit because it is a Witchfire.
(5) Owner of chariot allocates the hit to either the Rider or the Chariot.
(6a) If hit is allocated to Rider, resolve the hit against Rider and do 3d6-LD of Rider and Rider takes number of wounds if any.
(6b) If hit is allocated to Chariot, resolve hit against Chariot and either you (1) roll 3d6-LD of rider and wounds are resolved against Vehicle part of the Chariot profile which are ignored since vehicles don't take wounds OR (2) you don't bother rolling 3d6 since Chariot portion of model has no LD value that can be used.

This seems to follow the RAW as closely as possible. However, many rules are not as clear cut as we would like so this will need to be resolved between players in a pickup game one way or another (most likely will be a d6 roll) and in a tournament a TO will need to make a ruling one way or another.

I think a lot of people don't like the above resolution because it doesn't really seem right but ultimately, I think that is one of the RAW benefits of a Chariot model as the RAW.

I don't know how this will end up working, but it is interesting.

However, it would be more interesting if people came up with arguments leading to conclusions and not the other way around. The biggest offender is that people are invoking the profile selection rule for chariot units. There is not resolution of a To Hit roll when using psychic shriek. There is a total disconnect between how this power is resolved and how a standard witchfire is resolved. No hit means no profile selection. Maybe there is a way around that, but I haven't seen anyone raise it yet.

So, when resolving psychic shriek, your step 5 does not exist. That is a star shaped peg and weonlyhave square shaped holes.

 Rapture wrote:

So, when resolving psychic shriek, your step 5 does not exist. That is a star shaped peg and weonlyhave square shaped holes.

That's not true, Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire and BRB states "witchfire powers are shooting attacks." Therefore, since it is a shooting attack, it is resolved just like any other thing that is "shot" at the Chariot and follows normal shooting rules unless noted otherwise. If the power doesn't hit, the attack misses and does not succeed even though it was manifested with enough dice. Therefore, since it hits just like any other shooting attack as mentioned above (and pointed out in BRB), the owner of the Chariot can allocate what part of the Chariot is affected by the hit, either the Rider or the Vehicle part.

It seems pretty strait forward to me.

 mortetvie wrote:
I agree with Jim's analysis of how things work out... As per RAW we have the following order of operations:

Psychic phase starts:
(1) Generate Warp Charge dice.
(2) Pick target as per Witchfires.
(3) Manifest the power.
(4) Roll to hit because it is a Witchfire.
(5) Owner of chariot allocates the hit to either the Rider or the Chariot.
(6a) If hit is allocated to Rider, resolve the hit against Rider and do 3d6-LD of Rider and Rider takes number of wounds if any.
(6b) If hit is allocated to Chariot, resolve hit against Chariot and either you (1) roll 3d6-LD of rider and wounds are resolved against Vehicle part of the Chariot profile which are ignored since vehicles don't take wounds OR (2) you don't bother rolling 3d6 since Chariot portion of model has no LD value that can be used.

This seems to follow the RAW as closely as possible. However, many rules are not as clear cut as we would like so this will need to be resolved between players in a pickup game one way or another (most likely will be a d6 roll) and in a tournament a TO will need to make a ruling one way or another.

I think a lot of people don't like the above resolution because it doesn't really seem right but ultimately, I think that is one of the RAW benefits of a Chariot model as the RAW.

The problem with this is you can't roll to hit with Psychic Shriek and the effect on the unit has nothing to do with any hit.

So lets say I choose to roll 0 dice to hit so generate no hits (or 1 dice if you prefer and roll a miss) the Chariot still takes 3d6-LD wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gravmyr wrote:
How are shooting attacks handled by the chariot? Why does Psychic Shriek create wounds against a unit? Which is more specific?

1) you roll to hit then the chariot controlling player assigns those hits to chariot or rider and then you resolves those hits.

2) the psychic shriek effect is not related to a hit in any way shape or form. So you can resolve the hit against anything as there is no hit resolution.

Can you answer my questions?

Fling, I think you are confused. You have to roll to hit with psychic shriek (you don't have the option of not rolling to hit) or nothin happens-it is a witchfire and therefore a shooting attack. You also only need to roll to hit once to determine if the target is hit at all before moving on to resolving the power's effects.

Once you roll to hit you then either resolve te hit/power against the rider or the chariot itself and the owning player of the chariot model gets to choose just like with any other shooting attack : /.

Gravmyr wrote:
So basically you are advocating violating 2 sets of rules in an attempt to now create a work around to an imagined issue.... What stops you from using the two sets of rules that are already in place?

Edit: If it is a modifier you would need to show that it falls into that category. The game defines modifiers. What in the wound or modifier sections qualifies a wound as a modifier?

Edit 2: Enfeeble also specifically states it is a penalty.

The game defines modifiers as something modifying the characteristic profile positively or negatively. If it's not a modification, then why do anything with the profile at all? The model loses a wound, OK, since that's not a characteristic modifier ill just do nothing with the profile and my hive tyrant remains on 4 wounds in it's profile.

 mortetvie wrote:
Fling, I think you are confused. You have to roll to hit with psychic shriek (you don't have the option of not rolling to hit) or nothin happens-it is a witchfire and therefore a shooting attack.

Nothing in Psychic Shriek says that if you miss you do not resolve the effects of Psychic Shriek.

You also only need to roll to hit once to determine if the target is hit at all before moving on to resolving the power's effects.

Why once? Where are you getting one roll to hit from? I cant find it in the rules.

Once you roll to hit you then either resolve te hit/power against the rider or the chariot itself and the owning player of the chariot model gets to choose just like with any other shooting attack : /.

Psychic Shriek does not generate hits.

But I am not going to get into that again.

Read this thread for the full explanation about Psychic Shriek and why rolling to hit does not matter.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/599053.page

Dude, the BRB clearly states that for all witchfires that are not blasts or templates you need to make a to-hit roll... So if you can't find the rule you are not looking hard enough. The answer is not in the psychic shriek entry but the psychic powers section which you appear to be missing or disregarding all together. General principle we are ALL familiar with in 40k is that if a shooting attack misses, it does no damage...

In the case of psychic shriek, a single to-hit roll is made because it is a shooting attack (as all witchfires are) and if it misses, the power fails to do any damage because all shooting attacks that miss fail by virtue if their very nature. If the to hit roll is successful, you resolve the power by rolling 3d6 and subtract model's LD from the value to determine number of wounds caused. If the hit was allocated to the chariot, no wounds are dealt because the chariot doesn't have a wounds characteristic itself.

Dude, the BRB clearly states that for all witchfires that are not blasts or templates you need to make a to-hit roll... So if you can't find the rule you are not looking hard enough. The answer is not in the psychic shriek entry but the psychic powers section which you appear to be missing or disregarding all together.

So how many dice do I roll to hit? What weapon profile are you using to determine that number?

General principle we are ALL familiar with in 40k is that if a shooting attack misses, it does no damage... 

This is not actually a rule though. Missed shooting attacks don't roll to wound or armour pen. The Psychic Shriek roll is neither of those nor is it done in place of one of those.

In the case of psychic shriek, a single to-hit roll is made because it is a shooting attack (as all witchfires are) and if it misses, the power fails to do any damage because all shooting attacks that miss fail by virtue if their very nature. If the to hit roll is successful, you resolve the power by rolling 3d6 and subtract model's LD from the value to determine number of wounds caused. If the hit was allocated to the chariot, no wounds are dealt because the chariot doesn't have a wounds characteristic itself.

Please read the thread DeathReaper posted because this is not at all how Psychic Shriek works.

Um, you make a single to hit roll because it is a single attack. If it hits, it causes 3d6-ld wounds on the unit.

So there is no point in continuing in this because you are blatantly disregarding the clearly written rules in the BRB, as is everyone who would deny that a single to-hit roll is made for psychic shriek and if the roll misses the power misses and fails to do any damage.

Just like how if a bolt pistol misses no damage roll is made, if psychic shriek misses, no 3d6-ld roll is made to determine the number of wounds...

They keep claiming that lack of rules stating how many dice we need to roll to hit makes it alright to just skip that part of the rules (that say you must roll to hit) and continue resolving the power.

They haven't provided any rules to back that up either.

 mortetvie wrote:
Um, you make a single to hit roll because it is a single attack. If it hits, it causes 3d6-ld wounds on the unit.

So there is no point in continuing in this because you are blatantly disregarding the clearly written rules in the BRB, as is everyone who would deny that a single to-hit roll is made for psychic shriek and if the roll misses the power misses and fails to do any damage.

Just like how if a bolt pistol misses no damage roll is made, if psychic shriek misses, no 3d6-ld roll is made to determine the number of wounds...

So a single attack only rolls one To Hit? Does that mean a Punisher Gatling Cannon (Heavy 20) only rolls one To Hit roll as it is only a single shooting attack?

No because its profile denotes that it does 20 attacks...it has 20 shots. Psychic shriek does one attack that when hit resolves as 3d6-ld wounds.

Also, just because you may feign ignorance as to how many dice to roll to hit, it does not allow you to bypass the very clear rule that you must make a to-hit roll and as any shooting attack that misses, if the to hit roll misses, the entire attack fails to do anything.

Um, you make a single to hit roll because it is a single attack. If it hits, it causes 3d6-ld wounds on the unit. 

So a Punisher Cannon rolls a single dice to hit? It is also single shooting attack.

So there is no point in continuing in this because you are blatantly disregarding the clearly written rules in the BRB, as is everyone who would deny that a single to-hit roll is made for psychic shriek and if the roll misses the power misses and fails to do any damage. 

So is Psychic shriek Assault 1, Heavy 1, Ordnance 1, Primary Weapon 1 or pistol? Which of those is true if I'm making 1 roll to hit and where is that stated?

The connection between a hit and damage is one you've made up unless you'd like to state the "clearly written rules in the BRB" that state this. Page and paragraph please.

Just like how if a bolt pistol misses no damage roll is made, if psychic shriek misses, no 3d6-ld roll is made to determine the number of wounds...

If a bolt pistol doesn't hit you don't roll to wound or armour pen. Psychic Shriek makes neither roll if it hits or misses. Also a bolt pistol has a weapon profile we can use to determine how many dice to roll to hit and what S to use for rolls to wound and armour pen etc none of that is present in Psychic Shriek.

They keep claiming that lack of rules stating how many dice we need to roll to hit makes it alright to just skip that part of the rules (that say you must roll to hit) and continue resolving the power. 

So lets say you roll to hit with your made up number of 1 dice. After rolling to hit I must roll to wound if I hit right? That's the rules. So what to I need to roll to wound what strength do I use? So given that we don't have enough information to do that process do I just make up the Strength to be 10 and roll to wound armour pen with that? Or do I skip the to wound roll as I do not have all the permissions required to complete it?

There's a separate thread for that discussion

I agree we roll to hit. And that the chariots owner can allocate hit. But, PS does not have a weapons profile and the hit itself does no damage outside of making PS go off. The power itself is queued against the target of the power, ie the unit selected, and the unit makes a leadership test and is wounded. Only one profile can suffer wounds, and the controlling player does not have permission to allocate wounds to the Chariot.

The hit itself does nothing but guarantee Ps affects the unit. The power itself is against the unit, not the specific profile "hit" as the power effects the unit. The Unit does have a leadership and can suffer wounds. We know how to handle that.

Either PS affects the profile hit and can be allocated to do nothing.

Or

It effects the unit where we can fully resolve the power against the Rider as normal.

Here's another example if you Psychic Shriek a Rhino. You must roll 3d6-LD but the Rhino has no Ld and no wounds. Do we

a) conclude that the attack does nothing as it can not be resolved (if this is your interpretation then you don't roll to hit)

b) make up a value for the Rhino Ld and wounds (which you huys seem to think is 1) so auto-remove the rhino (if this is your interpretation then you roll 1 dice to hit with PS).

The power does not work RAW as there is no way to roll to hit with it. Some people are claiming you can skip the to-hit roll, but that has just as much support as rolling a single die (i.e. none).

Simply put, there are no mechanics in the rules that allow psychic shriek to resolve at all.

It is therefore unsurprising that it can't be resolved against chariots either.

 Zagman wrote:
Only one profile can suffer wounds, and the controlling player does not have permission to allocate wounds to the Chariot.

While this may be correct, your assumption that this means all wound must be allocated to the Rider has no basis in actual rules.

Unless there is wording in Psychic Shriek to avoid the roll we have to follow the rules for witchfire that tell us to roll To Hit. There is the hit you keep looking for. Now let's look at the wording a little closer, witchfire powers target a unit and therefor create wounds against the unit, just like all non-focussed witchfire and shooting attacks. The chariot has special rules when targeting the unit with a shooting attack. You would need to show exception to the witchfire's requirement to roll to hit and then to the chariot's rules of profile allocation.

Chariots:

P. 78 Vehicles NEVER take leadership tests.

Chariot Rules p.86 A chariot is unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle for the rider and a vehicle profile for the chariot. For the purpose of characteristics tests ALWAYS use the riders profile. So Jaws would have killed Necron Lord Chariots on a 3+. Good thing for them it is gone.

P 13 A characteristic test can applied any characteristic the model has except armor and leadership.

Shriek is a leadership test not a characteristics test so if the chariot counts as both a vehicle and whatever the rider is so you would never take the shriek LD test.

It is neither a leadership nor characteristic test. It has an effect that creates wounds.

 Mythra wrote:

Chariots:

P. 78 Vehicles NEVER take leadership tests.

Chariot Rules p.86 A chariot is unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle for the rider and a vehicle profile for the chariot. For the purpose of characteristics tests ALWAYS use the riders profile. So Jaws would have killed Necron Lord Chariots on a 3+. Good thing for them it is gone.

P 13 A characteristic test can applied any characteristic the model has except armor and leadership.

Shriek is a leadership test not a characteristics test so if the chariot counts as both a vehicle and whatever the rider is so you would never take the shriek LD test.

Wholly incorrect. Perhaps you should read the rules for Shriek. Feel free to quote where it says it's a leadership test to prove me wrong.

Well then even better it is a shooting attack I assign the wounds to the chariot and wounds don't affect it.

Shriek:

According to the witchfire rules p.27 "Many have profiles similar to ranged weapons." If it doesn't and you can't just make one up - you go to power and resolve it like in its description. If it does have a profile yes you do have to roll to hit. I believe you need not make to hit for Crush, Purge Soul, Haemorrhage, or Spontaneous Combustion. They have no weapon profiles and tell you specifically how to resolve them.

What is interesting is you could move your rhino flat out and still use Shriek. P. 27 "Manifesting a witchfire powers does not prevent the psykers unit from running, turbo boosting, or moving flat out." So it looks like you could move 12" use shriek then move another 6" in the shooting phase w/ a Rhino that had a psyker using psychic shriek.

 Dracos wrote:
The power does not work RAW as there is no way to roll to hit with it. Some people are claiming you can skip the to-hit roll, but that has just as much support as rolling a single die (i.e. none).

Simply put, there are no mechanics in the rules that allow psychic shriek to resolve at all.

It is therefore unsurprising that it can't be resolved against chariots either.

So if I cast enfeeble on a Rhino foes the game stop because we have no way to resolve against S or T or do we ignore the effect?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unless there is wording in Psychic Shriek to avoid the roll we have to follow the rules for witchfire that tell us to roll To Hit. There is the hit you keep looking for. Now let's look at the wording a little closer, witchfire powers target a unit and therefor create wounds against the unit, just like all non-focussed witchfire and shooting attacks. The chariot has special rules when targeting the unit with a shooting attack. You would need to show exception to the witchfire's requirement to roll to hit and then to the chariot's rules of profile allocation.

Again answer the question above. Then you equate causing wounds through the to wound roll and through the Psychic Shriek rule. Which you can't do unless you have a rule that states the 3d6-ld roll is instead of a to wound roll.

So you can allocate the hits to the Chariot all you want, we have no strength to resolve those hits against the chariot. So again either the game breaks or we ignore the process (as long as you are consistent in that decision which forces the game to break in numerous other situations). Well then even better it is a shooting attack I assign the wounds to the chariot and wounds don't affect it.  Regardless of that the unit still takes the effect.

Well then even better it is a shooting attack I assign the wounds to the chariot and wounds don't affect it. 

No rule allows you to do this. Have you read any of the rules you are trying to argue?

I'm leaning towards the "it has to effect the rider" camp. The Unit does indeed have a LD value and once the wounds are generated, they have to go to the rider. I think it has to be this way because it is the UNIT that is suffering the wounds. Either way, an FAQ would be nice.

"No rule allows you to do this. Have you read any of the rules you are trying to argue?"

Have you? P. 86 "When shooting at the chariot total up the number of successful hits". either Shriek is auto hit or roll to hit depending on which camp you are in. So.... either way this isn't a problem. "Keep the dice that hit in a pool. If there are hits with different strengths, AP values, OR SPECIAL RULES that affect saving throws or ANY WOUNDS that they inflict, split them in several pools of hits." So it looks like I can take the special rule of Shrieks 3d6 - leadership wounds and put them into a pool.

"The player controlling the chariot then allocates each hit pool to either the rider or the chariot."

Gravmyr wrote:
So basically you are advocating violating 2 sets of rules in an attempt to now create a work around to an imagined issue.... What stops you from using the two sets of rules that are already in place?

Edit: If it is a modifier you would need to show that it falls into that category. The game defines modifiers. What in the wound or modifier sections qualifies a wound as a modifier?

Edit 2: Enfeeble also specifically states it is a penalty.

the wording used in enfeeble is "suffers" the wording used in psychic shriek is "suffers" both are the same specific statements of suffering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mythra wrote:

Chariots:

P. 78 Vehicles NEVER take leadership tests.

Chariot Rules p.86 A chariot is unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle for the rider and a vehicle profile for the chariot. For the purpose of characteristics tests ALWAYS use the riders profile. So Jaws would have killed Necron Lord Chariots on a 3+. Good thing for them it is gone.

P 13 A characteristic test can applied any characteristic the model has except armor and leadership.

Shriek is a leadership test not a characteristics test so if the chariot counts as both a vehicle and whatever the rider is so you would never take the shriek LD test.

you however left out

Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.

suffering wounds is a characteristic modifier.

FlingitNow 603190 6994353 65afb78ba94982239ee431d965e2013a.jpg]

 Dracos wrote:
The power does not work RAW as there is no way to roll to hit with it. Some people are claiming you can skip the to-hit roll, but that has just as much support as rolling a single die (i.e. none).

Simply put, there are no mechanics in the rules that allow psychic shriek to resolve at all.

It is therefore unsurprising that it can't be resolved against chariots either.

So if I cast enfeeble on a Rhino foes the game stop because we have no way to resolve against S or T or do we ignore the effect?

No, the game doesn't end but you are correct the rhino is unaffected. However the model+chariot are one unit, and if enfeeble was cast on the chariot and you "allocated" the hit to the chariot the chariot would be unaffected but the rider would suffer -S and -T as it is a characteristic modifer, and as per the rules for chariots if the chariot is hit by a characteristic modifier it would affect the rider.

 Mythra wrote:
"No rule allows you to do this. Have you read any of the rules you are trying to argue?"

Have you? P. 86 "When shooting at the chariot total up the number of successful hits". either Shriek is auto hit or roll to hit depending on which camp you are in. So.... either way this isn't a problem. "Keep the dice that hit in a pool. If there are hits with different strengths, AP values, OR SPECIAL RULES that affect saving throws or ANY WOUNDS that they inflict, split them in several pools of hits." So it looks like I can take the special rule of Shrieks 3d6 - leadership wounds and put them into a pool.

"The player controlling the chariot then allocates each hit pool to either the rider or the chariot."

And what from the rules you quoted allows you to assign wounds as you claimed?

I don't think anyone is claiming that the Psychic Shriek effect is linked to a hit because literally nothing tells you it is. So that is just made up. Either you roll an unknown number of dice (which of course is impossible) and roll to hit either on full bs or as snap shot (we have no way of knowing which) compare your to hit roll with either your bs required score or 6+ and then ignore the result and do the 3d6-ld or we just skip the impossible stage and jump straight to the 3d6-ld effect...

"Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot."

"suffering wounds is a characteristic modifier."

If what your saying is true then when a las cannon causes wounds it always goes to the lord? Or are you saying shriek is special attack and not a shooting attack and only a characteristic modifier? Even if it is a special rule that causes wounds it says to put it in one of these pools.It doesn't become a wound till after hit and after allocation thru the pool or else all shooting would go strait to the rider since they modify wounds and there would be no need for special chariot rules. They give us those rules whether it is a hit roll or auto hit you make a pool then apply it to the rider or chariot. I see no where telling you the player attacking the chariot is free to allocate to any pool. Only the controlling player may allocate to either of the 2 profiles.

Shriek is still a shooting attack that auto hits. Chariot rules tell to you to make a pool of hits - even ones that have special rules that affect saving throws or any wounds that they inflict. Shriek has a special rule that affects the wounds it inflicts. It goes into a pool then the chariot controller assigns it to the chariot ot lord.

Shriek is still a shooting attack that auto hits. Chariot rules tell to you to make a pool of hits - even ones that have special rules that affect saving throws or any wounds that they inflict. Shriek has a special rule that affects the wounds it inflicts. It goes into a pool then the chariot controller assigns it to the chariot or lord.

Underlined has no rules support. Psychic Shriek does not generate any hits. Unless you have a rule to support that?

Psychic Shriek simply targets a unit and applies an effect to the target unit. Where is your permission to:

a) generate a hit or hits
b) attach the effect to those hit(s)

Here is the quote you seem to be missing "Similarly, a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it scatters as described on page 158, or it is a Template weapon, which hit automatically." Does the power have a statement that tells you not to roll To Hit? How many effects are there of firing an Assault 3 weapon? There is one effect of the Psychic Shriek power so you roll to hit once. If it hits you perform the effect which is the roll and creation of wounds. There is no rule allowing you to allocate wounds to a vehicle so by targeting one you are causing the game to break because there is no rule that gives you permission. Now that is the only way to actually resolve the power. You can't choose to ignore the need to roll To Hit unless you have a specific rule that over rides the need under the witchfire rules. Claiming you can ignore that need to roll To Hit because the power or rules don't specifically tell you how many dice to roll is by definition creating a rule for your benefit.

Gravmyr wrote:
Here is the quote you seem to be missing "Similarly, a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it scatters as described on page 158, or it is a Template weapon, which hit automatically." Does the power have a statement that tells you not to roll To Hit? How many effects are there of firing an Assault 3 weapon? There is one effect of the Psychic Shriek power so you roll to hit once. If it hits you perform the effect which is the roll and creation of wounds. There is no rule allowing you to allocate wounds to a vehicle so by targeting one you are causing the game to break because there is no rule that gives you permission. Now that is the only way to actually resolve the power. You can't choose to ignore the need to roll To Hit unless you have a specific rule that over rides the need under the witchfire rules. Claiming you can ignore that need to roll To Hit because the power or rules don't specifically tell you how many dice to roll is by definition creating a rule for your benefit.

Oh sorry I missed that please post the page and paragraph vwhere it says the number of dice you roll to hit = the number of effects a weapon has and that it defines that an Assault 3 weapon has 3 effects.

How many effects does a tesla destructor have (heavy 4 can potentially tesult in 12 hits)?

Right so he is ignoring that hole in the rules, and you are ignoring the requirement to roll to hit.

So you are both ignoring the rules that make it non-functional.

The only answer is common sense. Please post a rule that allows you to ignore the To Hit requirement. Since I can post a rule that says you need to roll To Hit, can you post a rule that says you can ignore that requirement?

Tesla, Heavy 4, has 4 effects 4 shots which can generate additional hits based off special weapon rules which tell you specifically you do not need to roll to hit to gain the benefit of.

You continue to ignore this requirement. What rule allows you to do so?

Gravmyr, if I accept that you need to roll To Hit, can you clarify (using the rules of course) how many dice to roll, and link the result of a successful To Hit roll(s) to the effect of Psychic Shriek (Scream? Whatever.)?

Man that is a fun circle. Didn't get enough of it last thread?


We get it... you have to roll to hit,but we don't know how many dice. There is no language on how to continue the game. The power is not mechanically functional.

What I don't understand is why both sides don't just admit that it is mechanically non-functional.

Wouldn't that be more sensible than each side ignoring a different part of how its broken in order to justify their position?

 Happyjew wrote:
Gravmyr, if I accept that you need to roll To Hit, can you clarify (using the rules of course) how many dice to roll, and link the result of a successful To Hit roll(s) to the effect of Psychic Shriek (Scream? Whatever.)?

The problem is if you roll 0 dice you didn't roll to hit, so you have to roll something (which being as there is no weapons profile there is no specific number for doing so)

Dracos, the ignore the To Hit roll side does admit that the powr is non-functional. Are argument, as it were, is that a successful To Hit roll is required to determine the number of attempts to Wound/Penetrate. Since there is no To Wound/Pentration roll involved, there is nothing linking the successful To Hit roll to resolving the attack.

I'm sure some one else can explain it more eloquently, but me, I like blunt.

Right so once you admit that the power is non-functional, all you are doing is criticizing each other's way of fixing it via 'house rule'.

Why is it so important that others agree that your house rule is the proper house rule?

 Dracos wrote:
Right so he is ignoring that hole in the rules, and you are ignoring the requirement to roll to hit.

So you are both ignoring the rules that make it non-functional.

I'm not ignoring the requirement to roll to hit at all. Say I cast enfeeble on a Rhino which doesn't have a T or S that I HAVE to modify. Do you:

a) Say the game breaks and call it a draw.
b) Accept that the rule cannot be resolved so has no effect?

I would choose b and apply the same logic here. You must answer a given your stance on this situation. So is the answer a or do you accept that there is no roll to hit for PS?

Interesting that you think a non-functional rule stops the game.

I think a non-functional rule requires "house ruling", not stopping the game.

I simply acknowledge that what I'm doing is make a house rule to resolve the situation.

Call me crazy on that one though, as acknowledging the fact that I'm glossing over the broken rule with a house rule means I can't tell other people to play it my way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw, HIWPI (you know, the house rule) is that you roll to hit once, and failing to hit discards the power.

This interacts with Chariots by allowing them to allocate to whichever profile they want, meaning under my house rule Psychic Shriek doesn't really have an affect on Chariots.

Gravmyr wrote:
The only answer is common sense. Please post a rule that allows you to ignore the To Hit requirement. Since I can post a rule that says you need to roll To Hit, can you post a rule that says you can ignore that requirement?

Tesla, Heavy 4, has 4 effects 4 shots which can generate additional hits based off special weapon rules which tell you specifically you do not need to roll to hit to gain the benefit of.

You continue to ignore this requirement. What rule allows you to do so?

So again you fail to support your argument with rules. Please post the rule that links effect to rolls to hit and where effect for this purpose is defined.

I'm not ignoring the requirement I'm pointing out that it is non-functional.

Lets have some fun with LOGIC!

- BRB says all witchfire powers that are not blasts or templates need to roll to hit.

- Psychic Shriek is a witchfire that is not a blast or template.

- Therefore, since Psychic Shriek is a witchfire, you must roll to hit for it to properly affect the target unit.

If you reject the above, then you have a problem with logic, not anything else as it is a simple If P then Q, P therefore Q logical statement.

The problem, as it appears to be, is that since the power doesn't specify how many dice you need to roll, their brains divide by zero and go haywire or something...


My premise to resolve the dilemma is that Psychic Shriek is, for all intents and purposes, a SINGLE attack that when resolved generates a number of wounds by rolling 3d6 and subtracting the target's LD value from the number rolled.

To support this premise, we look at what we can logically and naturally infer from the language of the power. The first line says it is a Psychic Shooting attack-we know this and the dead horse has been sufficiently beaten to death, it's probably a glue-like paste by now-therefore you need to roll to hit. I would imagine it makes sense to require only a single roll to hit since it doesn't specify the number of hits and since it is only a single effect. The next sentence in the power simply says what to do after the power is successful. The simplest and most logical reading of the rule is that it does a single hit which causes 3d6-Ld in wounds, not 3d6-ld hits, which is what some people I think are trying to argue? A roughly analogous situation is how a Plasma Cannon is a single attack that has a single roll to hit but can generate multiple wounds.

So the bottom line here is that people are saying because they can't use simple powers of logical inference and reasonably come up with a solution to make the Psychic Shriek power and the BRB rules consistent in their minds, that they can all of a sudden disregard what is otherwise clearly stated and required in the BRB. Good luck with that at any tournament =/. I'd be interested to hear a regular TO's input on how they would rule on the matter and why.

 mortetvie wrote:
My premise to resolve the dilemma is that Psychic Shriek is, for all intents and purposes, a SINGLE attack that when resolved generates a number of wounds by rolling 3d6 and subtracting the target's LD value from the number rolled..

An Assault 20 Weapon (eg Fleshborer Hive) is a single attack. Do you propose a single To Hit roll to see if all 20 shots hit?

Given your obvious disagreement with mortetvie's interpretation, perhaps you could offer some rules citing the number of dice to roll to hit with the witchfire power Psychic Shriek?

If you can't, then what is the value of criticizing his house rule?

My premise to resolve the dilemma is that Psychic Shriek is, for all intents and purposes, a SINGLE attack that when resolved generates a number of wounds by rolling 3d6 and subtracting the target's LDvalue from the number rolled. 

To support this premise, we look at what we can logically and naturally infer from the language of the power. The first line says it is a Psychic Shooting attack-we know this and the dead horse has been sufficiently beaten to death, it's probably a glue-like paste by now-therefore you need to roll to hit. I would imagine it makes sense to require only a single roll to hit since it doesn't specify the number of hits and since it is only a single effect. The next sentence in the power simply says what to do after the power is successful. The simplest and most logical reading of the rule is that it does a single hit which causes 3d6-Ld in wounds, not 3d6-ld hits, which is what some people I think are trying to argue? A roughly analogous situation is how a Plasma Cannon is a single attack that has a single roll to hit but can generate multiple wounds. 

The issue here is you have a premise you don't understand and even with that you've not made supported conclusions you've made an unsupported leap.

For instance firing an Assault 20 weapon is a single shooting attack yet rolls to hit 20 times.

You've also made the massive unsupported leap that you conveniently underlined that a single shooting attack means a single roll to hit (which is demonstrably false as in the example above).

Then you go on to make another unsupported leap that the effect is tied to hits. Nothing in the rules supports that conclusion.

So actual apply logic. We know the target unit suffers an effect and this effect is in no way tied to hits. We know we must roll to hit (and then to wound/armour pen) but we have no way to resolve that hit and it has no impact on the effect. So we can either create a whole mechanic of our own (i.e. a houserule) or we can say we don't have a way to resolve that effect so it has no effect (like we do in any other situation like this).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

My premise to resolve the dilemma is that Psychic Shriek is, for all intents and purposes, a SINGLE attack that when resolved generates a number of wounds by rolling 3d6 and subtracting the target's LDvalue from the number rolled. 

To support this premise, we look at what we can logically and naturally infer from the language of the power. The first line says it is a Psychic Shooting attack-we know this and the dead horse has been sufficiently beaten to death, it's probably a glue-like paste by now-therefore you need to roll to hit. I would imagine it makes sense to require only a single roll to hit since it doesn't specify the number of hits and since it is only a single effect. The next sentence in the power simply says what to do after the power is successful. The simplest and most logical reading of the rule is that it does a single hit which causes 3d6-Ld in wounds, not 3d6-ld hits, which is what some people I think are trying to argue? A roughly analogous situation is how a Plasma Cannon is a single attack that has a single roll to hit but can generate multiple wounds. 

The issue here is you have a premise you don't understand and even with that you've not made supported conclusions you've made an unsupported leap.

For instance firing an Assault 20 weapon is a single shooting attack yet rolls to hit 20 times.

You've also made the massive unsupported leap that you conveniently underlined that a single shooting attack means a single roll to hit (which is demonstrably false as in the example above).

Then you go on to make another unsupported leap that the effect is tied to hits. Nothing in the rules supports that conclusion.

So actual apply logic. We know the target unit suffers an effect and this effect is in no way tied to hits. We know we must roll to hit (and then to wound/armour pen) but we have no way to resolve that hit and it has no impact on the effect. So we can either create a whole mechanic of our own (i.e. a houserule) or we can say we don't have a way to resolve that effect so it has no effect (like we do in any other situation like this).

The number of dice rolled is unknown. I'm not criticizing his house rule, I'm criticizing how he gets it. If the argument is one attack therefore one To Hit roll, then it should be applied for all shooting attacks.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So we can either create a whole mechanic of our own (i.e. a houserule) or we can say we don't have a way to resolve that effect so it has no effect (like we do in any other situation like this).

Please cite a rule supporting the idea that if you can't resolve a rule as written, you have permission to ignore it.

Otherwise, that is a house rule my friend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So now you are arguing the merits of each other's house rules... please mark your posts as HIWPI as to not confuse what you are saying with RAW.

 Dracos wrote:
Interesting that you think a non-functional rule stops the game.

I think a non-functional rule requires "house ruling", not stopping the game.

I simply acknowledge that what I'm doing is make a house rule to resolve the situation.

Call me crazy on that one though, as acknowledging the fact that I'm glossing over the broken rule with a house rule means I can't tell other people to play it my way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw, HIWPI (you know, the house rule) is that you roll to hit once, and failing to hit discards the power.

This interacts with Chariots by allowing them to allocate to whichever profile they want, meaning under my house rule Psychic Shriek doesn't really have an affect on Chariots.

So just to confirm your argument is that to treat Enfeeble as having no effect on a Rhino is a Houserule. That is your position, correct?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dracos wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So we can either create a whole mechanic of our own (i.e. a houserule) or we can say we don't have a way to resolve that effect so it has no effect (like we do in any other situation like this).

Please cite a rule supporting the idea that if you can't resolve a rule as written, you have permission to ignore it.

Otherwise, that is a house rule my friend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So now you are arguing the merits of each other's house rules... please mark your posts as HIWPI as to not confuse what you are saying with RAW.

So is there a reason you haven't written such a reply to posts claiming you make 1 roll to hit?

I accept your criticism that I have targeted one side of the argument unfairly. I apologize.

I have not taken a position on enfeeble - I don't have the text in front of me so will not be offering one at this juncture.

edit: Btw Flingit, gratz on having post count go OVER 9000!

To consider a Punisher which has 20 shots as a "single attack" is a semantic straw man thrown into the discussion. The rules for any shooting weapon which has more than one shot is painfully obvious as per the BRB...

The Punisher Cannon is not a "single attack" as you are wording it, it is a single WEAPON with 20 shots, which allow you to make essentially 20 separate attacks each individually rolled and resolved at the same target.

Likewise, Psychic Shriek is a single attack that generates multiple wounds depending on the number rolled on the 3d6.

My position is supported by a simple, plain, logical reading and synthesis of the two rules. It is not a house rule, but the way the BRB logcially and naturally reads.

If it's not a house rule, then please cite the text telling you how many dice to roll. Not paraphrased, but the text from the rulebook.

 Dracos wrote:
I accept your criticism that I have targeted one side of the argument unfairly. I apologize.

Thank you.

I have not taken a position on enfeeble - I don't have the text in front of me so will not be offering one at this juncture.

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness..." (there is a further effect which would effect a Rhino and is not what we are discussing here).

So we have a -1 modifier we must apply to both S&T and no S or T values to modify. Do we call it broken and create a houserule. Or do we just say the effect is not resolvable and therefore has no effect.

edit: Btw Flingit, gratz on having post count go OVER 9000!

Thank you again

If it's not a house rule, then please cite the text telling you how many dice to roll. Not paraphrased, but the text from the rulebook.

And thank you once again


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Punisher Cannon is not a "single attack" as you are wording it, it is a single WEAPON with 20 shots, which allow you to make essentially 20 separate attacks each individually rolled and resolved at the same target. 

So shooting attack = shot now? Please support that with rules or rescind that comment.

Based on what you have posted:

Since, as you point out it is unresolvable, it would be a house rule no matter how you choose to resolve it.

That being said, I think one would find most (all?) players house ruling (edit) that case it the same way.

House ruling is nothing to be ashamed of in 40k - the text is written so sloppily that it's hard/impossible to use without doing so.

 Dracos wrote:
Based on what you have posted:

Since, as you point out it is unresolvable, it would be a house rule no matter how you choose to resolve it.

That being said, I think one would find most (all?) players house ruling (edit) that case it the same way.

House ruling is nothing to be ashamed of in 40k - the text is written so sloppily that it's hard/impossible to use without doing so.

It was my check for consistency and so everyone is clear your position is that if I cast Enfeeble on a Rhino we have to create a houserule to resolve it rather than just accepting the -1 S&T does nothing.

So lets look at your houserule for deal with this situation. We have no number to resolve the shooting attack so intjis case we assume it is a 1 correct?

So I roll my 1 hit, lets say I hit, you assign that to the chariot. I must now roll 3d6-LD you have no Ld so for consistency we must make up the number to be 1. So I do 2-17 wounds but you have no wounds characteristic so again we have to make up an arbitrary number so again we must pick 1 for consistency so the chariot is automatically killed. Or are you going to rule since you don't have an Ld or W to resolve against we rule the hit has no effect?

If the later why are you not apply that logic to the roll to hit, when in 3 other similar situations (Rhino, Ld & Ws) you are using the normal approach of unresolvable effect is treated as no effect?

Why would you need to house rule the enfeeble on the rhino ? BTW i believe there is another part of enfeeble that makes it treat terrain as difficult as well as the characteristic modifiers

kambien wrote:
Why would you need to house rule the enfeeble on the rhino ? BTW i believe there is another part of enfeeble that makes it treat terrain as difficult as well as the characteristic modifiers

Dracos believes if you can't resolve something because there is no profile to resolve you must create a houserule rather than simply accepting it has no effect. Examples of this are the -1 S&T from Enfeeble against a Rhino, and rolling to hit with Psychic Shriek.

Yes there is also the DT effect which can resolve against a Rhino with no issues.

 FlingitNow wrote:
It was my check for consistency and so everyone is clear your position is that if I cast Enfeeble on a Rhino we have to create a houserule to resolve it rather than just accepting the -1 S&T does nothing.

So lets look at your houserule for deal with this situation. We have no number to resolve the shooting attack so intjis case we assume it is a 1 correct?

So I roll my 1 hit, lets say I hit, you assign that to the chariot. I must now roll 3d6-LD you have no Ld so for consistency we must make up the number to be 1. So I do 2-17 wounds but you have no wounds characteristic so again we have to make up an arbitrary number so again we must pick 1 for consistency so the chariot is automatically killed. Or are you going to rule since you don't have an Ld or W to resolve against we rule the hit has no effect?

If the later why are you not apply that logic to the roll to hit, when in 3 other similar situations (Rhino, Ld & Ws) you are using the normal approach of unresolvable effect is treated as no effect?

My position is that the house rule is that the -1 S / T is ignored as the rhino does not have those characteristics.

(edit) To be clear, the act of "accepting the -1 S&T does nothing" is in fact a house rule - since there is nothing in the rulebook directing you to do this.

For my own house ruling of Psychic Shriek (which I am familiar with since my SM use it often):

I roll to hit once because I need a number greater than zero and less than infinity, and 1 seems nice and easy. I have never suggested that it is logical to assign the number 1 to all house rule situations. That is a pretty silly strawman you've built. Essentially, no one would target a vehicle (including chariot) with this power as it will never have an effect since vehicles do not suffer wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, I do believe that if a situation is unresolvable by raw, the act of ignoring it (thus filling in the blanks in "what to do next") is a house rule.

I roll to hit once because I need a number greater than zero and less than infinity, and 1 seems nice and easy. I have never suggested that it is logical to assign the number 1 to all house rule situations. That is a pretty silly strawman you've built. Essentially, no one would target a vehicle (including chariot) with this power as it will never have an effect since vehicles do not suffer wounds.

Why does it need to be greater than zero? Zero seems the most logical number to use for the roll to hit. Also it is your houserule that vehicles don't suffer the wounds (by your own definitions). The issue I have is your arbitrary decision to roll 1 dice is then causing lots of other houserules being created. Like tying the effect to the roll to hit, and how to deal with the Ld roll and wounds against the chariot.

Also all these other situations (no profile to resolve against) you consistently houserule that there is no effect. Yet for PS when you hit the same issue (must roll to hit, but no profile to resolve the to hit roll) you start arbitrarily making up numbers and then creating rules to make these numbers matter. Does that not seem just a little inconsistent or contrary to you?

And yes, I do believe that if a situation is unresolvable by raw, the act of ignoring it (thus filling in the blanks in "what to do next") is a house rule.

We have 1 step that is unresolvable and steps before it and after it that are and are not dependant on the resolution of that step. The only way to resolve that RaW is to ignore that step. I am not filling in blanks at all your houserule does that. I am only doing what the rules tell me to do. The rule requires a vague to hit roll but does not tell me how to do that, so I only do what it does tell me to do. It is the same way we ignore fluff text because it has no definable in game effect. That roll to hit requirement for a witchfire has no definable in game effect on PS so I ignore it. Much like say the rule on the number of Psychic Powers a Psyker can cast is dependant on his mastery level, as we do not know what that dependency is we ignore that rule. This is how RaW works or the game completely falls apart at almost every process.

The other problem is people quoting "Must roll to hit" are not quoting the earlier part of the paragraph. "Many have profiles". I is talking about psychic attacks with profiles. If it doesn't have a profile it isn't included in that paragraph.

 mortetvie wrote:

- Therefore, since Psychic Shriek is a witchfire, you must roll to hit for it to properly affect the target unit.

If you reject the above, then you have a problem with logic, not anything else as it is a simple If P then Q, P therefore Q logical statement.

Please explain the logic for the underlined. There aren't any rules to support it. I have no problem with logic, I have a problem with made up rules. Instead of insulting people, perhaps slow down and think things through?

I'm going to just say three things and I'd like y'all to tell me which parts you agree with or disagree with and why, fair enough?

(1) Since witch fires are shooting attacks and require a to-hit roll to be successful (witch fires that are not blasts or templates specifically), there is no getting around the fact that you need to make a successful to-hit roll for the power to actually hit and affect the target unit. No to-hit roll RAW means no effect/damage taking place. So with that said, do you agree or disagree with this because I am just sating the RAW and if we disagree even at this point then the problem is simply a rejection of the RAW in the BRB.

(2) the primary disagreement is that it does not appear to be certain how many to-hit rolls to make for the power.

(3) Looking at the shooting phase part of the BRB might shed some light on the matter. It says that "to determine if a firing model has hit it's target, roll a d6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later."

Later the BRB goes on to say, under "number of shots" that "some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type."

Putting both those rules together, one can safely infer, through the cunning use of logician inference that a weapon only has one shot (if it has a shot) unless otherwise noted. If psychic shriek had more than one shot, it would be denoted and if it has NO shots, it would NOT be a witchfire.

All witchfires, according to what the rules tell us, should be a single shot for the purposes of to-hit rolls unless they have more than one shot denoted on thier profile. This is not some huge leap from premise to conclusion but the natural and logical application of applying the principles of how 40k works in general-namely that because "Most models only get to fire one shot" and "some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type" clearly imply that there is a general rule or assumption that shooting attacks have a single shot unless otherwise noted-ergo psychic shriek has one shot and one roll to hit is made.

 mortetvie wrote:

I'm going to just say three things and I'd like y'all to tell me which parts you agree with or disagree with and why, fair enough?

(1) Since witch fires are shooting attacks and require a to-hit roll to be successful (witch fires that are not blasts or templates specifically), there is no getting around the fact that you need to make a successful to-hit roll for the power to actually hit and affect the target unit. No to-hit roll RAW means no effect/damage taking place. So with that said, do you agree or disagree with this because I am just sating the RAW and if we disagree even at this point then the problem is simply a rejection of the RAW in the BRB.

You continue to claim RAW but refuse to cite support.

Please do so for the underlined statements.

"When rolling to hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of 1 always misses"

You don't need a rule to explain the concept that when an attack misses, it does no damage...that's just common sense and the way the game works.. Based on the RAW, if an attack misses, no damage takes place, the attack is not resolved. You are asking someone to prove what amounts to a "brute fact."

If I shoot a gun at you and I miss, how does it make sense that you get hit? If an attack does not hit you (I.e., misses you) then it can't hurt you... If the bullet from John Wilkes Booth's gun missed Abraham Lincoln, it would not have entered his head and killed him...

So if you have zero hits, how do you have any damage? Explain that please.

I leave this post with the point that the BRB only says that hits can cause wounds when it says "to see if a hit causes a telling amount of damage..." It never asks you to do that with misses, because misses by thier very nature and definition don't do damage. If you need further reading, check out the dictionary, it's a good read!

Psychic shriek and Hemorrhage and all other witchfires work the same way.

The unit takes hits, wounds, or characteristic tests. The player who controls the chariot gets to choose where hits and wounds go, but can not choose to allocate wounds or characteristic tests to targets that are not valid.

Order of operations for psychic shriek.

Pass psychic test.
Roll to hit.
Perform characteristic test for the unit.
Player who controls the chariot allocates wounds to legal targets which can only be the rider.

Order of operations for hemorrhage when it doesn't go off as a focused witchfire.
Pass psychic test.
Roll to hit.
Player who controls the chariot selects a legal target to take the characteristic test which can only be the rider.

Order of operations for witch fires with a str value.

Pass a witch fire that has a str value.
Roll to hit.
Player who controls the chariot allocates wounds to legal targets which can be the chariot or rider.
Roll to wound or penetrate armor.

Mortetvie

I also disagree with point 1. The fact that you state it as RaW and your support for that RaW is that it is common sense proves that it is not RaW (if it was you'd have quoted the ruke that supports it).

A missed to hit roll on a shooting attack stops you making a to wound roll or an armour penetration roll. That is all it stops by the shooting rules in the BrB (because only hits are given permission to make those rolls). It can also stop effects triggered off hits like Entropic Strike for instance. Notice there is nothing in Psychic Shriek that ties its effect to a successful to hit roll (where there is for Entropic Strike and other such abilities). So we know that the Psychic Shriek effect has nothing to do with a successful to hit roll RaW.

If you believe that the Psychic Shriek effect is triggered by a successful to hit roll please quote the rule that ties the effect to a to hit roll or to a hit. If you can not provide this rule you must concede this part of the argument.

Your 2nd point is only half right. With no profile not only do we not know how many dice we must roll to hit we also don't know the weapon type (or any special rules). Thus we don't know if we must resolve the shot as a snap shot or not and we don't know what actions this prohibits the Psyker from taking later in the turn. Simply put we can't resolve the to hit roll (and even if we could it has no impact on the effect).

 FlingitNow wrote:
Mortetvie

I also disagree with point 1. The fact that you state it as RaW and your support for that RaW is that it is common sense proves that it is not RaW (if it was you'd have quoted the ruke that supports it).

A missed to hit roll on a shooting attack stops you making a to wound roll or an armour penetration roll. That is all it stops by the shooting rules in the BrB (because only hits are given permission to make those rolls). It can also stop effects triggered off hits like Entropic Strike for instance. Notice there is nothing in Psychic Shriek that ties its effect to a successful to hit roll (where there is for Entropic Strike and other such abilities). So we know that the Psychic Shriek effect has nothing to do with a successful to hit roll RaW.

If you believe that the Psychic Shriek effect is triggered by a successful to hit roll please quote the rule that ties the effect to a to hit roll or to a hit. If you can not provide this rule you must concede this part of the argument.

Your 2nd point is only half right. With no profile not only do we not know how many dice we must roll to hit we also don't know the weapon type (or any special rules). Thus we don't know if we must resolve the shot as a snap shot or not and we don't know what actions this prohibits the Psyker from taking later in the turn. Simply put we can't resolve the to hit roll (and even if we could it has no impact on the effect).

Because psychic shriek and haemmorage are witchfires and not maledictions they require a single to hit roll or the entire power is considered to have missed.

The power is triggered when the psychic test is passed. It's then nullified if DTW kicks in, and if a miss is rolled on the to hit roll then it's still triggered but it has no effect because it whiffed.

The weapon type is witch fire with a range of 18".

Thus we do know if we must resolve the shot as a snap shot if we check the main rulebook page 27 under witch fires left hand column 3rd to last paragraph. Unless the unit is pinned or moved more than 6" in a transport or shooting at a target that requires snap shots it fires at full bs.

We do know what actions this prohibits the Psyker from taking later in the turn if we check the rule book on page 27 left column 2nd to last paragraph. It specifically states the psyker may freely act including running, turbo boost, shooting another target, or assaulting another target.

Simply put we can resolve the to hit roll will the rules being very clear on page 27 under witchfires.

Because psychic shriek and haemmorage are witchfires and not maledictions they require a single to hit roll or the entire power is considered to have missed. 

I'm going to need a rules quote to support that if you don't hit a witchfire does nothing.

You then go on to point to the rules that prove your interpretation isn't correct. Page 27 defines that you snap shot just like a normal weapon. So if the Witchfire (which isn't a weapon type) is heavy and you've move it is a snap shot. We don't know if it is heavy, assault, rapidfire, salvo, ordnance or Primary Weapon so we can know if we are snapfiring or not. Which also means we don't know if we can assault after firing the witchfire or not.

Check out most focussed Witchfires like Haemorrage which also don't need a roll to hit.

 mortetvie wrote:
You guys need to demonstrate why missing allows it to succeed... Convenient you disregard that.

We have, several times.

Here it is again, with rules backing and everything.

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase section Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

If you do not apply the effects after a missed roll to hit have you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."?

The "instructions in its entry" do not say that a successful roll to hit is needed to apply the effects of Psychic Shriek.

But seriously:
Read this thread for the full explanation about Psychic Shriek and why rolling to hit does not matter.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/599053.page

Not going to get into that aspect of it again.

there really is no point to go on as you guys are either monumental trolls or just that dumb.

So breaking the forum rules is suddenly okay now?

When an attack misses, it is a brute fact that it does nothing unless otherwise specified. Look up the terms "miss" and "brute fact."

I prefer to support my facts with the Rules in the BRB...

 mortetvie wrote:
"When rolling to hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of 1 always misses"

You don't need a rule to explain the concept that when an attack misses, it does no damage...that's just common sense and the way the game works.. Based on the RAW, if an attack misses, no damage takes place, the attack is not resolved. You are asking someone to prove what amounts to a "brute fact."

I agree that if you miss you cannot roll to wound. No issues with that.
I have permission to use the power. I have permission to resolve the power according to its rules text. Where is the denial of that permission if I miss?

I leave this post with the point that the BRB only says that hits can cause wounds when it says "to see if a hit causes a telling amount of damage..." It never asks you to do that with misses, because misses by thier very nature and definition don't do damage. If you need further reading, check out the dictionary, it's a good read!

So the only thing you can cite has to so with rolling to wound? Yeah, that's irrelevant. Perhaps you should spend less time insulting people and more time building a stable platform to argue from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 schadenfreude wrote:
The unit takes hits, wounds, or characteristic tests. The player who controls the chariot gets to choose where hits and wounds go, but can not choose to allocate wounds or characteristic tests to targets that are not valid.

Citation required.

Order of operations for psychic shriek.

Pass psychic test.
Roll to hit.
Perform characteristic test for the unit.
Player who controls the chariot allocates wounds to legal targets which can only be the rider.

Psychic Shriek is not a characteristic test. Perhaps you should read the rules involved before posting.

Good then, I'll let it go that the intent is clear to most people about the roll to hit and move on. Since everyone, just about, agrees there should be a To Hit roll even though to some is doesn't do anything I can then use the chariot rule and allocate it, the resolution, and wounds to the the chariot not the rider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would also like a rule quote that tells me that a missed weapon does nothing. I've just read the section and nothing like that is mentioned. I have permission to fire and permission to resolve the shots but I do not have any rule as what to do with the misses. Continuing with your line of thinking I'll just resolve them as I have no other instructions on what to do with them.

Gravmyr wrote:

I would also like a rule quote that tells me that a missed weapon does nothing. I've just read the section and nothing like that is mentioned. I have permission to fire and permission to resolve the shots but I do not have any rule as what to do with the misses. Continuing with your line of thinking I'll just resolve them as I have no other instructions on what to do with them.

You can't roll to wound unless you make a successful To Hit roll. But Shriek doesn't roll To Wound.

Doesn't look like a rule quote.

Gravmyr wrote:
Doesn't look like a rule quote.

Cute.

“To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below”

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

So for a missed weapon to be allowed to Roll to Wound, you'd need a rule allowing it.
Got one?

That's not what I asked for. I need a quote on what to do with the misses.

Gravmyr wrote:
That's not what I asked for. I need a quote on what to do with the misses.

Since there are no rules covering what to do with them, you don't do anything with them.

Just like we would with wounds allocated to a vehicle.

Gravmyr wrote:
Just like we would with wounds allocated to a vehicle.

Agreed?

Can we move on from this stage.

There has been posted at least three times, a link, that vets ad nauseam the fact that a to hit roll is irrelevant.

Even if every one decided to agree a roll to hit was required it wouldn't matter. The damaging effect of PS only requires a target, not successful hits anyway.

That is the current cruxt though, as soon as you say there is a To Hit roll it creates the required conditions allowing me to allocate to the chariot profile instead of the rider.

Gravmyr wrote:
Good then, I'll let it go that the intent is clear to most people about the roll to hit and move on. Since everyone, just about, agrees there should be a To Hit roll even though to some is doesn't do anything I can then use the chariot rule and allocate it, the resolution, and wounds to the the chariot not the rider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would also like a rule quote that tells me that a missed weapon does nothing. I've just read the section and nothing like that is mentioned. I have permission to fire and permission to resolve the shots but I do not have any rule as what to do with the misses. Continuing with your line of thinking I'll just resolve them as I have no other instructions on what to do with them.

You require permission or a method of carrying out an action to do something in 40k.

You create a pool of dice from hits and then roll wounds with them. The misses are irrelevant.

This is one of my biggest issues with the chariot itself. The rule states that the chariot unit takes the wounds from psychic screech. However, the chariot / vehicle section has no rules for allocating wounds to a chariot unit. Technically there are no restrictions or permissions present and the only saving grace is to try and argue that it's a characteristic modifier and be applied to the rider since the chariot states that they apply to both the chariot and the rider.

My contention, however, is that there's no method for the wounds to be assigned to the chariot model since there are no rules for allocating wounds in a chariot unit. The rules simply don't interact well and end up ignoring sections and failing others.

Page 34 first line tells you that you roll to wound for a hit. So you nerd to show permission to roll to wound for a miss. As DeathReaper has already pointed out we have permission to resolve PS and nothing in PS relates its effect to hits.

Good then, I'll let it go that the intent is clear to most people about the roll to hit and move on. Since everyone, just about, agrees there should be a To Hit roll even though to some is doesn't do anything I can then use the chariot rule and allocate it, the resolution, and wounds to the the chariot not the rider.

Yes I believe most people do understand the clear intent which in this case matches up with the RaW that there is no roll to hit for these types of power.

You still haven't posted any rule that negates the witchfire requirement of a To Hit roll.

About 15 minutes into to research and typing an argument, I found this. Wish I would have looked there first.

Witchfire [excerpt]
Similarly, a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it has the blast special rule, in which case it scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit automatically.

Roll To Hit
To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later. [remainder omitted - unrelated to the issue]

Number of Shots
Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type.

Emphasis is all mine.

The 'where this is the case' language implies pretty strongly that a weapon does not need to have a number of shots designated. The only thing that I don't have the energy to find right now is something that says 'witchfire is = weapon.' That would be the final nail for this issue, but the close relationship between weapons and witchfires as shooting attacks and the Witchfire section referring to a witchfire psychic power as a 'Template weapon' likely makes that exact language unnecessary.

The way to ignore the most rule holes is to say that witchfires are weapons. As such, they have one shot unless otherwise stated. Therefore, the wounds bounce off the chariot's hull.

Right? Wrong? I can't say that I though it would work out this way (particularly because of the shoddy rule support and morphing arguments in support of this conclusion - but who knows, maybe mine is just as bad).

The general Witchfire Rules might not outright state that it is a weapon, but it does constantly relate to Shooting Weapons for how the Rules function, comparing where they are identical and where they are not.

How about this line:
Indeed, they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons.

You can make a very strong case that PS rolls 1 die to hit and RAW states you have to roll to hit.

The hole in the rules that they will focus on is that PS requires a hit to resolve since there is nothing that says misses do not also resolve PS.

Also even rolling 1 dice does not allow you resolve the to hit roll without a weapon type. And as Fragile has clearly pointed out PS resolves an effect on the targeted unit and that effect foes not care if you hit nor who in the unit you hit (if anyone), much like say Haemmorage which likewise cares not for a roll to hit.

We know we treat Witchfires with a profile like weapons. We do not know that we treat witchfires without a weapon profile like weapons and we do know that their effects only care who is targeted not who is hit.

I'd have to agree that the defender can allocate the wounds to the chariot right now, in which case they do nothing.

I also think it's an oversight which should be corrected in a FAQ as part of the unit can be affected. IMO, if you use the Overlord's LD to determine amount of wounds in the first place (and he's the only one whom they might concern) he should also take them.

Except if you can allocate the hit and witchfire to the chariot as opposed to the rider there is no LD. So you create 3d6 wounds which then are ignored, just like the S and T mods from enfeeble. In the end if there is a FAQ I beleive it will state that you need to roll to hit with Witchfire Powers and a miss will keep the power from being resolved. The entire rest of the rules for Witchfire fall into line if you put that line into place. Without a specific wording though we can take it at face value and simply roll off BS we only need to know restrictions of which there are none.

Sorry Gravmyr, but that statement is wrong. PS does not use the models leadership, but the units leadership. Which is normally the highest leadership contained within the unit.

Cheers

Andrew

I still disagree with the premise that you need hits in order to wound a target. There are weapons like certain barrage types that literally must scatter and therefore can never "hit" yet still can resolve damage upon the unit that was targeted.

PS only requires a target for the 3d6-ld=wounds effect. I am literally reading the card right now, no where does it say that it's contingent upon requiring hits. Select a target within range. targeted unit suffers X.

Think of it this way, even if it listed a profile. Upon a miss, the secondary effect still resolves. In fact Murderous Hurricane worked in this EXACT same way and was even FAQ'd. Even when it missed, the secondary effect still took place because it only required an initial target to resolve just like PS.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I still disagree with the premise that you need hits in order to wound a target. There are weapons like certain barrage types that literally must scatter and therefore can never "hit" yet still can resolve damage upon the unit that was targeted.

Blast weapons generate hits on units under their marker.

PS only requires a target for the 3d6-ld=wounds effect. I am literally reading the card right now, no where does it say that it's contingent upon requiring hits. Select a target within range. targeted unit suffers X.

Think of it this way, even if it listed a profile. Upon a miss, the secondary effect still resolves. In fact Murderous Hurricane worked in this EXACT same way and was even FAQ'd. Even when it missed, the secondary effect still took place because it only required an initial target to resolve just like PS.

Specific FAQ'd power does not equal a general rule.

I agree but it helps determine intent.

 AndrewC wrote:
Sorry Gravmyr, but that statement is wrong. PS does not use the models leadership, but the units leadership. Which is normally the highest leadership contained within the unit.

Cheers

Andrew

I thought you only use the highest Leadership for Leadership tests taken by the unit. Otherwise you would use the majority.

Take a look at the Chariot rules you can only use the rider leadership in case of characteristic tests. The rules presented there are for firing at a Chariot unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does that power exist in the same incarnation currently? Have we changed rule sets where the focus may have changed?

PS is not a focused witchfire, which means it hits the unit. Convention from earlier editions, for which I am forever getting mixed up with, was that a units leadership was the highest available.

Given that the majority value is the value of the riders LD, which would also be the highest LD it seems that I have little to disagree with you on should I be reminiscing on an earlier edition.

Cheers

Andrew

Also I can look at my units and they do not say their weapons are based off of getting hits in their profiles does that mean i can ignore the basic rule that tells me that i need to hit? The entire text of a spell can hardly be considered to be a secondary effect either, it would be the primary or solo effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again please look at the rules for Chariots there are done differently from normal units.

Gravmyr wrote:
Also I can look at my units and they do not say their weapons are based off of getting hits in their profiles...

This is incorrect. a Heavy 1 weapon tells you that the weapon is based off getting hits to proceed to the To Wound roll.

does that mean i can ignore the basic rule that tells me that i need to hit? The entire text of a spell can hardly be considered to be a secondary effect either, it would be the primary or solo effect.

Incorrect premise leads to incorrect conclusions.

However you need to resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry.

If you do not resolve Psychic shriek (because you made up a number of dice to roll and missed with all of them) by rolling 3D6 - LD then you have not resolved the power according to the instructions in its entry.

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is incorrect. a Heavy 1 weapon tells you that the weapon is based off getting hits to proceed to the To Wound roll.

Much like the Witchfire tells us that you need to roll to hit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Incorrect premise leads to incorrect conclusions.

However you need to resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry.

If you do not resolve Psychic shriek (because you made up a number of dice to roll and missed with all of them) by rolling 3D6 - LD then you have not resolved the power according to the instructions in its entry.

If you do not roll to hit you are not resolving the witcfire power per it's rules.

So you roll 1d6 to hit, and if you hit, the chariot owner assigns the wounds? If you miss, the generated wounds are assigned to the unit, ie. the rider gets wounded?

Huh?

If you miss we have no way allocate the wounds as chariots require you to allocate hits then the wounds that are caused by them.

Gravmyr wrote:
Much like the Witchfire tells us that you need to roll to hit.

Yes the general witchfire rules tell us to roll to hit.

None of that matters in the end as you still can not show an exception to the requirement.No weapon tells you how to resolve it fully, we know to look to the rules for weapons to solve this issue. Lack of clarity does not allow us to ignore requirements.

Edit: Beyond that how can you apply the wounds without a to hit roll on a chariot?

Agreed, as PS is a witchfire of unspecified type and a roll to hit is mandatory for all witchfire attacks.

Then we look back at Model vs Unit for the Wounding.

Rules then say that the owner of the chariot decides where the hits go. If 3d6 was taken against the Ld value, then also wounds should be assigned to a profile that can be wounded.

But the chariot rules... You end up hitting the vehicle that does not have Ld value or Wounds, so the Power does nothing.

Lessons learned: Do not shoot a chariot with your Psychic Shriek.

My original stance was that the rider must be wounded, but now I think differently. Just accept the fact that in this situation another target or another Power could be more useful.

Agreed, as PS is a witchfire of unspecified type and a roll to hit is mandatory for all witchfire attacks. 

Which is impossible to resolve unless you make up numbers.

Rules then say that the owner of the chariot decides where the hits go. If 3d6 was taken against the Ld value, then also wounds should be assigned to a profile that can be wounded.

But the chariot rules... You end up hitting the vehicle that does not have Ld value or Wounds, so the Power does nothing. 
 

You assign all the unresolvable hits to the Chariot those hits then must roll armour penetration which is also unresolvable unless you make up numbers as above.

The unit then also take 3d6-ld wounds (this effect has literally no link to the impossible to resolve hits).

Also your stance is entirely hypocritical. When we must resolve a to hit roll without the relevant information you just make it up to resolve that, yet when you try to resolve 3d6-ld wounds against a vehicle that does not have the information required to resolve you say the effect does nothing.

If you are saying 3d6-ld wounds does nothing to a chariot you must also say the roll to hit for PS does nothing. There is literally no other way to read it either both do nothing or you invent the relevant information for both (i.e. the Chariot is Ld1 & W1 so is insta killed by PS).

Actually you need to make up the info, as you put it, to even manifest the power. Unless you can actually post a rules quote that states you do not need to roll to hit. Without that you can never manifest the power. I believe that even allowing you to do so is generous.

Gravmyr wrote:
Actually you need to make up the info, as you put it, to even manifest the power. Unless you can actually post a rules quote that states you do not need to roll to hit. Without that you can never manifest the power. I believe that even allowing you to do so is generous.

Then the same is true for all powers due to the wording on the number of powers a psyker can manifest is dependant on his mastery. We are not given that dependency so we have to make it up to apply that rule. Also the numerous other bits of fluff text that have no in game effect break the game because we can't resolve them. Or you know we could just treat the to hit roll like we do for any other text in the rulebook that has no in game effect and no way to resolve we ignore it and move forward with rules that actually work.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Agreed, as PS is a witchfire of unspecified type and a roll to hit is mandatory for all witchfire attacks. 

Which is impossible to resolve unless you make up numbers.

Rules then say that the owner of the chariot decides where the hits go. If 3d6 was taken against the Ld value, then also wounds should be assigned to a profile that can be wounded.

But the chariot rules... You end up hitting the vehicle that does not have Ld value or Wounds, so the Power does nothing. 
 

You assign all the unresolvable hits to the Chariot those hits then must roll armour penetration which is also unresolvable unless you make up numbers as above.

The unit then also take 3d6-ld wounds (this effect has literally no link to the impossible to resolve hits).

Also your stance is entirely hypocritical. When we must resolve a to hit roll without the relevant information you just make it up to resolve that, yet when you try to resolve 3d6-ld wounds against a vehicle that does not have the information required to resolve you say the effect does nothing.

If you are saying 3d6-ld wounds does nothing to a chariot you must also say the roll to hit for PS does nothing. There is literally no other way to read it either both do nothing or you invent the relevant information for both (i.e. the Chariot is Ld1 & W1 so is insta killed by PS).

Now you are the one freewheeling with the weak argument. You need to quote rules.

I did not read the entire rule book, but I did look into resolving a shooting attack and I did not see anything that mandates a weapon profile for a psychic shooting attack.

Witchfire [excerpt]
Similarly, a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it has the blast special rule, in which case it scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit automatically.

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

Number of Shots
Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type.

The rules specifically say that, if a weapon fires multiple shots, the number of shots will be listed.

We know that witchfires have to roll To Hit. We know that a weapon fires one shot unless otherwise listed. We know that a witchfire power is is referred to as a weapon. We also know that weapons that do not hit do not have have their effect resolved unless explicitly stated.

If we do that we have no rules based way to apply the outcome to the chariot. If you treat the to hit roll like something that matters. It allows the rest of the rules to be applied, including the rest of the Witchfire rules, to make sense. You roll once to see if the power hits, if it doesn't you do not create wounds via resolving the power, just as you wouldn't roll to wound. Doesn't that fit into the feel and the rest of the rules system better then just assuming you can ignore the roll and remove up to 8+ models from the a unit without the two most common saves with an easily obtainable power? I'll stick with making the rest of the rules make sense instead of introducing 2 house rules to apply the effects of powers.

Edit: Yes we have to houserule that as well, I assume you are using a 1 for 1 ratio for that just as I am for this?

Edit2: The to hit roll does serve a purpose in this case as without it there is no way to resolve shooting attacks against a profile.

The two sides of the argument both have equally valid points, this is one of the few times when I'm really not sure which way the rule should go.

With this said, how will most people be house ruling this until an FAQ covers it?

I always find creating a single houserule is better then multiple. Pretty sure you can tell how I am planning on putting this forth.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
The two sides of the argument both have equally valid points, this is one of the few times when I'm really not sure which way the rule should go.

With this said, how will most people be house ruling this until an FAQ covers it?

I started on the majority side, but now I really don't see how not resolving the To Hit roll is possible. There are a lot of arguments with good points, but without the rules to back them up.

Gravmyr wrote:
I always find creating a single houserule is better then multiple. Pretty sure you can tell how I am planning on putting this forth.

So by creating 1 house rule you mean assigning an Assault 1 type to Psychic Shriek, the making a house rule that the 3d6-ld roll is a to wound roll and then making a houserule that 3d6-ld does nothing when you have no Ld to resolve against (a contrary choice given in the same position earlier you decided you just make up numbers when not given enough infornation).

Or you know instead of making 3 contrary houserules we could just apply rules as we do in every similar situation where a rule has no in game function we ignore it and move on as long as the process works (which it does here fine).

Now you are the one freewheeling with the weak argument. You need to quote rules. 

I did not read the entire rule book, but I did look into resolving a shooting attack and I did not see anything that mandates a weapon profile for a psychic shooting attack. 

Ok try page 40 "Every weapon has a profile" does PS have a profile? Again BrB page 40 "A shooting weapon always has one of the following types:" does PS have a weapon type? Note how Witchfire is not one of those options.

So what are we going to do? Treat these rules the way we treat all other rules or are we going to invent a list of contrary houserules and try to pass them off as RaW or RaI?

As in one rule. All witchfire powers are treated as weapons (allowing for the required To Hit roll) which also means the power does not resolve if it does not hit.

I never said the LD was what made it have no result. It was the fact that you have wounds allocated to a vehicle. I said you created a full 3d6 wounds.

In order to go your route we need to create a HR to ignore the To Hit requirement. One to ignore the allocation rules of a chariot. One to allow allocation of wounds to a vehicle. One to allow you to select the rider as the final resting place of the wounds.

As in one rule. All witchfire powers are treated as weapons (allowing for the required To Hit roll) which also means the power does not resolve if it does not hit. 

So that is 3 rules there:

1) all witchfires are weapons
2) PS is Assault 1
3) the 3d6-ld effect is made instead of a to wound roll

None of the above is supported by the rules.

I never said the LD was what made it have no result. It was the fact that you have wounds allocated to a vehicle. I said you created a full3d6 wounds. 

So we do 3d6 wounds to a vehicle. The vehicle does not have a wounds characteristic so do we:

a) Accept we have a rule that can not resolve and move on
b) invent a number to resolve those wounds against?

In order to go your route we need to create a HR to ignore the To Hit requirement. One to ignore the allocation rules of a chariot. One to allow allocation of wounds to a vehicle. One to allow you to select the rider as the final resting place of the wounds.

Right the first isn't a houserule it is simply a rule we can not resolve so move on.

As no hits are caused the Chariot rules have no function so again no houserule created.

The unit only has 1 wounds characteristic so we have no choice how to resolve. Also as it is a characteristic modifier the Chariot rules tell us how to deal with it.

So not a single houserule created.

@FlingitNow
I think that you are overstating the importance of the assumptions required to treat Psychic Shriek as a standard shooting attack while downplaying the assumptions required to treat is as something wholly unique.

Making a To Hit roll is explicitly required (just like a weapon having a profile is explicitly required). And saying that it is just a rule that we cannot resolve ignores the fact that a To Hit roll is, in every case where the rules do not state otherwise, a condition precedent for resolving the rest of the attack.

With the quotes that you provided, there are clearly rules on both sides of this one. I don't think that there is a resolution without something else from the rules.

Making a To Hit roll is explicitly required (just like a weapon having a profile is explicitly required). And saying that it is just a rule that we cannot resolve ignores the fact that a To Hit roll is, in every case where the rules do not state otherwise, a condition precedent for resolving the rest of the attack. 

Not correct only rolls to wound or armour pen are dependant on a roll to hit (plus and roll that states it requires a hit or is done in place of one of the above rolls). The 3d6-ld is not such a roll. There is literally nothing in the rules that makes that effect interact with a to hit roll. Hence why the unresolvable to hit roll is not relevant to the resolution of the power and why skipping it is the only way to play it RaW.

Except, again you need the To Hit roll to
A: Resolve the power as it is a requirement and
B: Have a legal way to allocate anything

Houserules via your outlook:
1: Deciding to ignore the roll is a houserule, there is no rule in the book that says if you can't figure it out ignore it.
2: You do not have any way of allocating the wound to either profile because you have decided to ignore the to hit roll and standard rules do not give you an option to allocate to either profile.
3: There is no rule that you can quote that requires us to allocate the wound to the rider nor permission to do so.

Going over my single houserule again.

All witchfire powers are treated as weapons (allowing for the required To Hit roll) which also means the power does not resolve if it does not hit.
1: This doesn't require a type per the To Hit rules. Page 32.
2: I am not assigning a type to it as it is not required.

1. Is only a houserule if you also count the 3d6 wounds not effecting the Vehicle is a houserule. And the -1 S&T not effecting a Rhino from Enfeeble is also a houserule. Do you consider those other situations also houserules?

2. The unit has an Ld value so we can resolve the 3d6-ld without a houserule. The Chariot tells us how to apply characteristic modifiers so we know how to apply the negative wound modifiers. So no definitely no houserule here.

3. Just repeating 2 and again not a houserule.

As for yours. The weapon must have a profile and type so you're eithrer creating houserules for both or creating houserules that neither are needed. In the case of the later you are then creating a houserule to determine how I resolve the shot if I moved and whether I can assault inthe assault phase. So you must be creating either 2 or 4 houserules there. Just because you miss with the shot that does not effect whether the unit takes the 3d6-ld wounds so to make that true it is another houserule. So between 3&5 houserules vs none.

Gravmyr wrote:
Except, again you need the To Hit roll to
A: Resolve the power as it is a requirement and

You actually do not need to roll to hit for Psychic Shriek, you resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry.

Doing so, weather you make up an arbitrary number of dice to roll to hit or not, you will roll 3D6 and compare it to the targets LD score.

Missing, on an arbitrary number of to hit dice, does not disallow the resolution of Psychic Shriek.

Ergo your A is not correct.

What rule are you using to make the determination that you don't need a successful to-hit roll to resolve psychic shriek? The BRB says psychic shriek is a shooting attack and every shooting attack needs to roll to hit...if you don't need to roll to hit to resolve psychic shriek then why does the BRB tell you to roll to hit?


Your position has no merit based on any rule in the book what so ever. Indeed, you have to actively disregard a clear, black and white rule in the BRB to try and resolve psychic shriek without a to-hit roll. Also, when someone says "show me a rule that says when an attack misses that it fails," that isn't an answer. The converse can and should be put to your position to provide a rule that says a shooting attack that misses can still do damage/inflict wounds.

The BRB sets the principle that when a shooting attack misses it doesn't do any damage-but apparently you are saying every shooting attack except psychic shriek needs to roll to hit to do any damage. The concept that only shooing attacks that hit do damage is so basic and intrinsic to the game that GW shouldn't need to write a rule that says "a shooting attack that misses does no damage" yet you guys are demanding just that.

 mortetvie wrote:
What rule are you using to make the determination that you don't need a successful to-hit roll to resolve psychic shriek? The BRB says psychic shriek is a shooting attack that needs to roll to hit...if you don't need to roll to hit to resolve psychic shriek then why does the BRB tell you to roll to hit?

Your position has no merit based on any rule in the book what so ever.

My position is actually fully supported by the rules.

The BRB says it is a Witchfire, but does not give us a profile or tell us how many dice we need to roll to hit. (So if we actually roll dice to hit we are making up the number of dice to hit, since PS does not tell us how many we need to roll, so I will roll 30 dice to hit).

The rule we use that tells us that the roll to hit for PS does not matter is this one:

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase section Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

If you do not apply the effects after a missed roll to hit have you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."?

The "instructions in its entry" do not say that a successful roll to hit is needed to apply the effects of Psychic Shriek.

You are still disregarding the brb rule that mandates a to-hit roll for all witchfire powers... You can't pick and choose what rules you want to follow dude.

The psychic shriek entry does not allow you to disregard the mandate to roll to hit. The rules you quote are only PART of the big picture of how psychic powers work and the rules you quoted don't allow you to get around the requirement to roll to-hit. Smite doesn't say you need to roll to hit either, so are you saying you can do damage with it without any to-hit rolls for that very reason? That makes no sense.

So once again, please cite a rule that allows you to resolve psychic shriek without rolling to hit because the rules you quoted don't allow you to do that...they only explain part of the requirements of resolving powers and witchfires have te adde requirement of having a to-hit roll according to the BRB-which I remind you that you are choosing to ignore.

 mortetvie wrote:
You are still disregarding the brb rule that mandates a to-hit roll for all witchfire powers... You can't pick and choose what rules you want to follow dude.

The psychic shriek entry does not allow you to disregard the mandate to roll to hit..

If you do not apply the effects after a missed, or successful roll to hit have you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."?

If not, why?

Part of a requirement to even be able to resolve witchfires is a to-hit roll.

Answer these questions:

(1) Is psychic shriek a witchfire power?

(2) Do witchfires require a roll to hit according to the BRB?

If the answer is yes to both of these questions then Psychic Shriek requires a to-hit roll. By trying to resolve psychic shriek without a to-hit roll, you are breaking a rule in the BRB. Resolving a rules issue where he rules are not violate should be preferred to one that requires you to break the rules...

I never said PS dod not require a roll to hit. Psychic shriek does require a roll to hit.

However the power does not tie the effect to a successful roll to hit, ergo hitting or missing with a fabricated number of to hit dice does not matter.

Seriously though, check out this thread, you are not adding anything to the discussion that has not been covered and debunked.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603219.page

 DeathReaper wrote:
I never said PS dod not require a roll to hit.

Um, yes you did:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Except, again you need the To Hit roll to
A: Resolve the power as it is a requirement and

You actually do not need to roll to hit for Psychic Shriek...

So where you said "you actually do not need to roll to hit for psychic shriek" as quoted above...you didn't really say that? Lol...

The bottom line is, by playing psychic shriek as resolving against a unit even when it misses, you are playing the power in a nonsensical manner that goes against how everything else in the game works.

Why need a to hit roll if it, according to your position, is resolved anyway? The only logical answer is that absent an exception in the power's entry itself, you still need a successful to-hit roll to resolve the power. When the BRB says you must do x to achieve y, the only way to achieve y without x is with a specific permission which is absent in the psychic shriek entry.

 mortetvie wrote:
So where you said "you actually do not need to roll to hit for psychic shriek" as quoted above...you didn't really say that?

I said that but maybe you didn't understand what I was saying. I said "I never said PS did not require a roll to hit." this is different than "You actually do not need to roll to hit for Psychic Shriek..."

I said you don't need to roll to hit, this is because even if you miss on your to hit roll you still are instructed to "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

So while it is required, you do not need to roll to hit as the effect is not tied to a successful roll to hit.

See the difference?

 mortetvie wrote:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603219.page

You seriously need to read that thread. literally none of your positions are new and its painfully obvious you haven't bothered reading the above thread despite being directed to it no less then 4 times now.

Seriously, read it.

Then we can move past the to hit debate and discuss how wounds are allocated to chariots, you know the actual point of the thread.

Yes, you keep posting that link, and I read it, but the rules you are citing are only the GENERAL ones for resolving psychic powers in general. It doesn't make sense to discuss to-hit rolls in rules that also affect blessings and maledictions. Indeed, each type of psychic power has more specific rules that determine if they are successful or not and how they function.

By your logic and by the rules you are citing, you would also be able to cast psychic shriek into combat. Anyway, like I asked before, why require a to-hit roll if it doesn't matter? How does that make sense? Ultimately, you keep citing the general rules for psychic powers while ignoring the more specific requirements that come later in the witch fire section...if you ignore the to-hit requirement, you might as well ignore the LOS and no targeting in close combat restrictions...


Now to get back on topic...

The only way wounds are inflicted or damage is done in 40k is if a model is hit by:

(1) A template weapon of which the BRB specifically mentions needs no to-hit roll to do damage;
(2) A blast weapon, of which a successfull scatter dice and 2d6 are rolled-which is modified by the firer's BS;
(3) A shooting attack, of which a successful to-hit roll per shot based on the BS of the attacker is required;
(4) A close combat attack, of which a successful to-hit roll based on the WS of the attacker is required;
(5) A special rule is in play that allows damage to be done regardless of to-hit rolls.

The rule relied upon by some people that says "...resolve the power according to its entry..." Does not make psychic shriek fall into category 5 for the very reason that psychic shriek's entry says it is a witch fire and all witchfires fall under categories 1, 2, or 3. Since psychic shriek is not a blast or template it falls under category 3. Indeed, EVERY source of damage that automatically causes damage without needing a successful to-hit roll expressly says that the hits/wounds generated are automatic while every other source of damage in the game needs a successful roll to hit to cause damage. It flies in the face of the "natural order" of things in 40k to resolve Psychic Shriek even after a failed to-hit roll.

So since a to-hit roll is made, if the model hits, a hit is generated. BTW, the only logical number of dice required to roll is one because all shooting attacks are presumed to have 1 attack unless stated otherwise (as has been quoted previously).

Since a hit is generated, and since this is a shooting attack that is neither a blast or template, the owning player has the option of allocating the attack to the rider or the chariot itself. Remember that the chariot model itself is the target, not the rider or vehicle individually so it matters not what part of the model has a ld value.

If applied to the rider, roll 3d6-ld and take any wounds if applicable. If allocated to chariot portion of the model, nothing happens as it has no ld value and cannot suffer wounds.


The ONLY way psychic shriek and the rules question from the OP gets confusing or muddled is if you try to play psychic shriek as not requiring a single, successful to-hit roll which inflicts a hit that does 3d6-ld in wounds to be able to do any damage.

This is the simplest way to resolve the problems raised and Ockham would agree!

Anyway, like I asked before, why require a to-hit roll if it doesn't matter? How does that make sense? 

Sloppy writing. Why is requiring a to hit roll for Witchfires in general and having some witchfires that cause some effects even without hitting more nonsensical than requiring a to hut roll and expecting the player to make up out of thin air how to resolve said to hit roll?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you seem huge up on a to hit roll determining the effect (which you've made up with no rules support). So if I hit 10 times with my made up weapon profile do I do 10x3d6-ld wounds? If not why not in your interpretation. If so why?

You conveniently disregard and willfully ignore the previous rules statements quoted that in summary state that a shooting attack is normally one shot unless otherwise stated (therefore every shooting attack that does not have more than one shot on its profile or lacks a profile only has one shot). Furthermore, no shooting attack in all of the history of 40k has ever done damage when the (required) to-hit roll has failed and you want to make an exception to this principle for psychic shriek?

You don't need a rule to say shooting attacks that miss do no damage because the fact that they miss makes it painfully obvious...by asking for a rule in the BRB to say "shooting attacks that miss cause no damage" is like asking for someone to demonstrate that water is wet..

I wonder if any of you guys have played psychic shriek like you propose in any major tournaments...

Actually quite a few shooting attacks have required no roll to hit to have an effect (Puppet Master 6th Ed, practically all focussed witchfires in 6th & 7th just off the top of my head). So just saying its painfully obvious is not rules. If you can't debate using any sort of rules please concede this is your made up rules or leave the debate. Just say "I'm right because it's obvious I'm right" is not helpful to the debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean have you even read that 1 shot rule? It applies to weapons which on the very same page tells you must have both a profile and weapon type. Does Psychic Shriek have either of those?

The examples you cite actually required a to-hit roll and still do...Also, the BRB never says anywhere that all weapons must have a profile and weapon type.

Ironic accusing me of not using rules because that is exactly what you are doing, not me =/. There is no rule that allows psychic shriek (or any shooting attack) to do damage if it misses and nobody has shown any rule that says shooting attacks that miss do damage. Absent such a rule one MUST assume shooting attacks that miss fail to do damage because that is the only thing the makes sense. To say shooting attacks that miss do damage is to court the absurd.

Well the rulebook unsurprisingly disagrees with you:

BrB page 40 "Every weapon has a profile"

BrB page 40 "A shooting weapon always has one of the following types:"

The on the Psychic Shriek requiring a successful hit to resolve its effect again the BrB disagrees with you:

BrB page 198 "Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3d6 and subtract the target's Leadership - the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."

Nothing about that effect requiring or in anyway being linked to a passed or fail to hit roll. Compare with rolls to wound & armour pen:

BrB page 34 "To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic..."

BrB page 75 "Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon's Strength..."

So they call out that this is for hits rather than expecting you to just make that up. Note how adding a to hit roll into PS causes problems with both of these rules too as you can't roll to wound or armour pen because PS has no weapon profile telling you its Strength characteristic.

So please come up with a rule that links the Psychic Shriek to a to hit roll or I'll take that as you conceding.

One thing to note here, I was pretty adamant you should roll to hit - but this was before studying non wound roll effects which relate to a hit.

For example, you have a weapon which states;
On a successful hit apply this effect. //
For each hit scored ... //
When a wound is suffered...


Those are very common phrasing for weapons and a event connected with a hit or a wound.

What troubles me about these powers is that the effect does not require in it's wording a successful hit or successful wound, which is outside the norm for something an effect, which is not a to-wound roll, does require these things.

Basically regardless of the requirement to hit, there is nothing in the rules suggesting the to hit roll relates to these powers effects at all - and the language to relate them are commonly used, but absent.

Powers could have stipulated 'On a successful roll to hit, the unit takes a leadership test...'
But they did not.

Exactly Nem they all connect to a hit a wound or at least they state "instead of rolling to wound". All these types of rules are connected to and dependant on a successful to hit roll.

Psychic Shriek, Haemmorage etc are not. Just the target suffers x effect.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Except, again you need the To Hit roll to
A: Resolve the power as it is a requirement and

You actually do not need to roll to hit for Psychic Shriek, you resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry.

I never said PS dod not require a roll to hit. Psychic shriek does require a roll to hit.

A sure sign an argument if falling apart is when you contradict yourself.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Except, again you need the To Hit roll to
A: Resolve the power as it is a requirement and

You actually do not need to roll to hit for Psychic Shriek, you resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry.

I never said PS dod not require a roll to hit. Psychic shriek does require a roll to hit.

A sure sign an argument if falling apart is when you contradict yourself.

I did not contradict myself though.

You do not need to roll to hit and Psychic Shriek requiring a roll to hit do not contradict.

I said you "do not need to roll to hit for Psychic Shriek" even though a to hit roll is required, this is because even if you miss on your to hit roll you still are instructed to "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

So while it is required, you do not need to roll to hit as the effect is not tied to a successful roll to hit.

See the difference?

Fling, is psychic shriek a witchfire? Do witchfires require a roll to hit? Guess what, the answer is yes to both.

The only reason it makes sense for a psychic power to require a roll to-hit is to make a successful to-hit roll a condition necessary to resolve the power (as to-hit rolls either pass or fail by thier very nature). To say otherwise, as mentionedd, requires an absurd result.

Also, (1) psychic shriek does have a profile-as does every psychic power (find a rule that says what info must be in every profile), and (2) not every shooting attack rolls to wound after a to-hit roll (I.e., some wargear can inflict certain effects once a to-hit roll is made).

Hemorhage, Mind War and other such powers still require a roll to hit, as well. You know why? They are witchfires.

So once again, you and everyone else in your position has failed to demonstrate why if the to-hit roll fails that the power still goes off as there is no rule that says shooting attacks that fail to hit still do any damage or have any effect. You need a rule to say such a thing, not a rule negating it as this is a permissive set of rules.

Fling, is psychic shriek a witchfire? Do witchfires require a roll to hit? Guess what, the answer is yes to both. 

Also, (1) psychic shriek does have a profile-as does every psychic power (find a rule that says what info must be in every profile), and (2) not every shooting attack rolls to wound after a to-hit roll (I.e., some wargear can inflict certain effects once a to-hit roll is made). 

Oh dear. No one has contested the first 2 points so why keep repeating them?

Well the rulebook on page 40 (and a little bit onto page 41) does indeed tell you want is on a weapon profile. Also still no weapon type mentioned I notice.

The part about weapons not all rolling to wound had me signing with pity at you. Do you want a chance to retract that? Or are you trying to make your argument ridiculius because this is an ironic troll argument where you're showing how incorrect the roll to hit argument is by taking it's side and making increasing ludicrous claims?

I've quoted the rule that says the target unit rolls 3d6-ld and suffers that many wounds. That is the permission for that to happen because it tells you it happens to the target unit. So if I target a unit with a PS and I manifest it the unit takes the 3d6-ld wounds. You now need to show denial of that permission or you need to show that permission is dependant on a successful to hit roll. Now quote the rules that say this or you are conceding.

You guys sure are persistent at ramming your own house rule down each other's throats.

RAW doesn't work since you must rule to hit but have no rule specifying that the number of dice is 1.

No matter how you play this power, you must create a house rule in order to resolve it.

As far as RAI is concerned, saying you don't need to succeed the to-hit roll in order for the power to resolve is silly imo, but house rule it however you want.

Just stop pretending that you are not house ruling it. Rationalize your house rules however you want, just don't try and sell it as RAW since the RAW is non-functional.

It is actually not a house rule, as nothing in the PS entry ties the resolution of the power to a successful roll to hit.

And so how are you doing the roll to-hit without RAW telling you how many dice?

Making a house rule that you can ignore the requirement of rolling to-hit?

That sounds like a house rule to me.

 Dracos wrote:
And so how are you doing the roll to-hit without RAW telling you how many dice?

Making a house rule that you can ignore the requirement of rolling to-hit?

That sounds like a house rule to me.

No it is not a house rule as, hit or miss, you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase Chapter Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

and the instructions in its entry do not link a successful to hit roll to the resolution of the power, as you are not rolling To Wound with PS.

Right I understand the RAW lacks a connection of the to-hit roll and the resolution of the power, but you have yet to demonstrate an exception to the rule that you must still perform the to-hit roll.

Please cite the exception, or admit that you are making a house rule that allows you to avoid performing the to-hit roll.

Dracos is correct. The statement "Psychic Shriek is a witchfire" adds in a requirement of a To-Hit roll.

While DeathReaper points out that the power itself doesn't mention a successful hit being required, that does not in itself grant permission to ignore the statement that a witchfire requires a To-Hit roll. The To-Hit roll, while it may be meaningless, MUST be made. You cannot just shrug and skip it because you don't know how to do it. The game says you must roll the dice, so you must roll them, unless the game says you do not have to. That is RAW.

Hit or miss you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase Chapter Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

Therefore a roll to hit is not needed RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hit or miss you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase Chapter Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

Therefore a roll to hit is not needed RAW.

It's not needed, but you have no permission to skip the step RAW. Agreed?

 Dracos wrote:
Right I understand the RAW lacks a connection of the to-hit roll and the resolution of the power, but you have yet to demonstrate an exception to the rule that you must still perform the to-hit roll.

Please cite the exception, or admit that you are making a house rule that allows you to avoid performing the to-hit roll.

We went through this. The rules simply stop functioning if you try to do everything they hint at you doing. Like for instance resolving Psychic Shriek against a vehicle, or Enfeeble or indeed cast any psychic powers ever. Why? Because we are told that the number of psychic powers a psyker can cast in a turn is dependent on Mastery Level. However we are not told that dependency so we have a vague rule telling us to do something but not telling us how so we have to ignore it. Just like with focussed witchfires and PS we are given instruction to do something but nothing tells us how so we ignore because we have literally no other choice.

This approach has to be taken due to imprecise fluff text that often precedes rules. This fluff text generally includes instructions to do stuff or hints at how real world situations are represented but without clear definable processes for us to take. In these situations we ignore those instructions because they can not be followed.

DeathReaper wrote:Hit or miss you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase Chapter Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

Therefore a roll to hit is not needed RAW.

"Witchfire
Similarly, a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it has the blast special rule, in which case it scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit automatically. "

Your description of RAW does not match what is said in the rule book. I understand your position, but I can't help but feel like you are refusing to admit that you lack permission to skip this step as you keep insisting you have.

FlingitNow wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
Right I understand the RAW lacks a connection of the to-hit roll and the resolution of the power, but you have yet to demonstrate an exception to the rule that you must still perform the to-hit roll.

Please cite the exception, or admit that you are making a house rule that allows you to avoid performing the to-hit roll.

We went through this. The rules simply stop functioning if you try to do everything they hint at you doing. Like for instance resolving Psychic Shriek against a vehicle, or Enfeeble or indeed cast any psychic powers ever. Why? Because we are told that the number of psychic powers a psyker can cast in a turn is dependent on Mastery Level. However we are not told that dependency so we have a vague rule telling us to do something but not telling us how so we have to ignore it. Just like with focussed witchfires and PS we are given instruction to do something but nothing tells us how so we ignore because we have literally no other choice.

This approach has to be taken due to imprecise fluff text that often precedes rules. This fluff text generally includes instructions to do stuff or hints at how real world situations are represented but without clear definable processes for us to take. In these situations we ignore those instructions because they can not be followed.

So your argument that you are following the rules is that they stop working if you follow them? Wow.

So you admit the rules don't work as written, but still insist that the way you fix them to make them functional is RAW. Incredible.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hit or miss you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase Chapter Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

Therefore a roll to hit is not needed RAW.

It's not needed, but you have no permission to skip the step RAW. Agreed?

Permission to skip is in the rule is actually in the rule right here (Though not explicitly).

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase section Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

If you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." that does not include a to hit roll since we are not given instruction on how many dice to roll, so we just do not roll any and resolve the effects anyway.

It clearly states it is a witchfire, which requires the to-hit roll. That is certainly part of the instructions of the power. Or are you asserting that the power does not specify it is a witchfire?

It specifies it is a witchfire, but also lacks a profile so that alone tells us that the roll to hit is not needed and we can "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

The same for focussed witchfire powers like Haemorrhage, or Purge Soul, they do not mention a roll to hit in the entry so RAW you do not need to roll to hit.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It specifies it is a witchfire, but also lacks a profile so that alone tells us that the roll to hit is not needed and we can "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

The same for focussed witchfire powers like Haemorrhage, it does not mention a roll to hit in the entry so RAW you do not need to roll to hit.

There are two possibilities.

Either:
A) That permission is real and exists in the book in text form. If this is the case, then surely you can quote it.

or

B) You are making up permission (quite reasonably) to ignore directions you are unable to execute.

Which is it (and citation if A please).

It is A.

Permission to skip is in the rule is actually in the rule right here (Though not explicitly).

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase section Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

If you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." that does not include a to hit roll since we are not given instruction on how many dice to roll, so we just do not roll any and resolve the effects anyway.

Alright haha I guess you just can't admit it. No worries!

So your argument that you are following the rules is that they stop working if you follow them? Wow. 

So you admit the rules don't work as written, but still insist that the way you fix them to make them functional is RAW. Incredible. 

So your argument is that you need a houserule for the following situations:

Roll to hit with PS or focussed witchfires
Roll to wound with those same powers (no strength profile)
Cast any powers with any Psyker (no dependency to work out numbers a psyker can cast based on his mastery level)
Make the 3d6-ld roll against a vehicle
Apply the resulting wounds to a vehicle.
Remove casualties as they must be placed on one side but we are never told which side (page 13)

Yes? Those all require Houserules to resolve correct? Because I'm fairly confident in all those situations except for the PS roll to hit you would have concluded the rule does nothing (you make no to wound roll, cast as many powers as you have dice for, the vehicle suffers no effect from Psychic Shriek, you place the models where ever you want when they die).

Classic deflection! Well done!

Not really just showing the inconsistency of your approach.

Haha you made up a bunch of opinions I might have and then call me inconsistent for holding them! Love it!

 Dracos wrote:
Classic deflection! Well done!

This is all he is doing (along with the others maintaining his position), he can't cite an appropriate rule to support his position. He keeps citing a specific rule but as the great Inigo Montoya said "you keep using that [rule] but I do not think it means what you think it means..."

FYI Fling, the rule that says "resolve the power according to its entry" does not mean you get to disregard any other rules that affect that specific entry, or other parts of the entry for that matter. For example, part of the entry for Psychic Shriek involves the words "witch fire" which you are blatantly disregarding. Witch fire means you need to make a successful to-hit roll as all BS based, non-blast, non-template shooting attacks do. Asking someone to cite a rule that says otherwise whereby "only successful shooting attacks can resolve damage" is a bit silly as the rules in the BRB essentially amount to saying exactly that. You want my position to demonstrate water is wet while your position is being asked why water isn't wet...Which proposition makes the most sense?

Indeed, simply resolving Psychic Shriek regardless of the to-hit roll's result leaves us with an absurd result. Psychic Shriek only affecting the target if a single to-hit roll is successful does not result in an absurd result and is in fact supported by how the game works in general. A non-absurd result should always be preferable to an absurd one.

Finally, NO major tournament will ever rule or play Psychic Shriek the way you think it should be played...You know why? Because it doesn't make any sense to.

Mortetvie your position is "I assume I'm right because it's obvious". You concession accepted.

 Dracos wrote:
Alright haha I guess you just can't admit it. No worries!

Well since there isn't anything to admit...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Mortetvie your position is "I assume I'm right because it's obvious". You concession accepted.

Another classic deflection, good job.

FYI. my position that Psychic Shriek needs a successful to-hit roll to resolve damage is more likely to be correct because that is how everything else in 40k works. Unless there is a specific rule that says a shooting attack that misses can still do damage, you are wrong by default. The rule that says "resolve the power according to its entry" does not get around the to-hit requirement imposed by the Witch Fire rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hit or miss you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase Chapter Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

Therefore a roll to hit is not needed RAW.

It's not needed, but you have no permission to skip the step RAW. Agreed?

Permission to skip is in the rule is actually in the rule right here (Though not explicitly).

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase section Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

If you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." that does not include a to hit roll since we are not given instruction on how many dice to roll, so we just do not roll any and resolve the effects anyway.

False. It's a witchfire so the rules require - absolutely, without question - a roll to hit. Nothing in the rule you quoted says otherwise. Yes, you resolve the power according to its effects, but you're still required to make the roll. Please cite the rule you've asserted exists.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hit or miss you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase Chapter Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

Therefore a roll to hit is not needed RAW.

It's not needed, but you have no permission to skip the step RAW. Agreed?

Permission to skip is in the rule is actually in the rule right here (Though not explicitly).

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase section Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

If you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." that does not include a to hit roll since we are not given instruction on how many dice to roll, so we just do not roll any and resolve the effects anyway.

False. It's a witchfire so the rules require - absolutely, without question - a roll to hit. Nothing in the rule you quoted says otherwise. Yes, you resolve the power according to its effects, but you're still required to make the roll. Please cite the rule you've asserted exists.

As a witchfire, the power requires a to hit roll.

As there is no number of dice or a profile to go off of this particular witchfire does not require a to hit roll. Basic Vs Advanced.

So what I said before is actually True.

 DeathReaper wrote:

As there is no number of dice or a profile to go off of this particular witchfire does not require a to hit roll. Basic Vs Advanced.

Lacking a weapon profile or a number of shots is not equivalent to "This power does not need to roll To-Hit".

FYI. my position that Psychic Shriek needs a successful to-hit roll to resolve damage is more likely to be correct because that is how everything else in 40k works. 

Simply not true. Rules that require a to hit roll to function say they do. Nem even posted a list of examples earlier and we have Njal's no defunked power that had a secondary effect that happened whether you hit or not.

Unless there is a specific rule that says a shooting attack that misses can still do damage, you are wrong by default. 

You mean like Psychic Shriek which says the target unit takes the 3d6-ld wounds?

The rule that says "resolve the power according to its entry" does not get around the to-hit requirement imposed by the Witch Fire rules.

No it doesn't. The to hit roll is however unresolvable and has no impact on the target unit taking 3d6-ld wounds. If the to hit roll generates 0 hits, 1 hits, 20 hits you make that many to wound rolls (also unresolvable) and the target unit takes 3d6-LD wounds. We have a non-functional non-resolvable part of the rule. We can either ignore it as we do in every other similar situation or we can make a raft of houserules to try make it functional resolvable and relevant.

Stick with the clear intent, GW does not expect you to create your own processes. They word things in a hamfisted way at times true. But stick to doing what they actually tell you to do and you're going to be much nearer the actual rules than making a raft of houserules and then trying to pass them off as RaW and RaI when we both know they are not.