Do beams roll to hit? I'm leaning toward no. What do others think?

It seems obvious that focussed witchfires roll to hit, but Crush (Telekinesis) just states "the target model suffers a hit with the strength equal to..." Is the purpose of this sentence only to mention the method of determining a hit's strength, or is it exempting this power from rolling to hit?
You make da call.

The Beam rule is very clear on this

So beams don't roll to hit. That's cool.

I'm thinking crush needs to roll to hit though.

 Kavish wrote:
So beams don't roll to hit. That's cool.

I'm thinking crush needs to roll to hit though.

Sure Crush needs to roll to hit, because it is a focussed witchfire which follows "all the normal rules for witchfire" which includes a roll to hit, but how many dice does it roll to hit, and where did you find that information because I can not find it. (The psychic phase chapter, focussed witchfire section).

Crush is a Focussed Witchfire (FWf) and thus requires a roll to hit. However it is impossible to resolve that roll to hit as we don't have a weapons profile to do that with (telling us how many shots are fired, what weapon type and what strength to resolve those shots at). However the effect is not dependant on a to hit so it is either resolved vs the nearest model in the unit or a selected model (as per the FWf rules) regardless of what happens with that unresolvable to hit roll. In game this means that you do not roll to hit, much as you do not resolve other unresolvable and irrelevant actions (like applying -1T from enfeeble on a vehicle).

 FlingitNow wrote:
Crush is a Focussed Witchfire (FWf) and thus requires a roll to hit. However it is impossible to resolve that roll to hit as we don't have a weapons profile to do that with (telling us how many shots are fired, what weapon type and what strength to resolve those shots at). However the effect is not dependant on a to hit so it is either resolved vs the nearest model in the unit or a selected model (as per the FWf rules) regardless of what happens with that unresolvable to hit roll. In game this means that you do not roll to hit, much as you do not resolve other unresolvable and irrelevant actions (like applying -1T from enfeeble on a vehicle).

Unless of course you read the shooting section that specifically tells you to roll a single die To Hit unless specefied otherwise.

No, that isnt what the shooting section specifies. It specifies most weapons roll one die. It also tells you that assault weapons must have a profile. Page and graph where this profile is, please

chanceafs wrote:
Unless of course you read the shooting section that specifically tells you to roll a single die To Hit unless specefied otherwise.

Citation please. Or are you referring to "...roll a D6 for each shot that is in range."?

Broken part of the Rules, RaW states you MUST roll To Hit, but does not provide a weapon profile, as DR said.

By Occams i'd say 1 Roll To Hit. Obviously got just as much rules support as "no dice", but does not break the "You must roll To Hit" rule, and is not a stupid amount of 25567 Dice rolls (ie Occams)

Again, roll one dice to hit if it makes you feel better

Even if you "miss", given ONLY to-wound rolls require a successful roll to hit (basic rules) barring a more specific rule, the outcome of the roll to hit is 100% irrelevant

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, roll one dice to hit if it makes you feel better

Even if you "miss", given ONLY to-wound rolls require a successful roll to hit (basic rules) barring a more specific rule, the outcome of the roll to hit is 100% irrelevant

100% this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, roll one dice to hit if it makes you feel better

Even if you "miss", given ONLY to-wound rolls require a successful roll to hit (basic rules) barring a more specific rule, the outcome of the roll to hit is 100% irrelevant

Yes a miss causes no problems but what if you hit with your made up number of dice? The shooting rules then require you to roll to wound for each hit caused, do we now make up a S value and AP to resolve the hit(s)? What actions does it prevent the user from making in later phases? Is it an assault weapon, rapidfire, salvo, heavy? What?

If you have to roll to hit with focused witchfires that demand a test rather than fire a profile, the 'Eadbanger spell just became the most worthless awful spell in the whole game.

 Bolg da Goff wrote:
If you have to roll to hit with focused witchfires that demand a test rather than fire a profile, the 'Eadbanger spell just became the most worthless awful spell in the whole game.

Why? The effect is not dependant on a to hit roll so you lose nothing. Except obviously the game breaks when you then try to roll to wound for that hit (or those hits)...

 Bolg da Goff wrote:
If you have to roll to hit with focused witchfires that demand a test rather than fire a profile, the 'Eadbanger spell just became the most worthless awful spell in the whole game.

You have to roll to hit - an undefined number of times - but the effect for e.g. 'eadbanger STILL OCCURS, NO MATTER WHAT YOU ROLL

Because only to-wound requires a succesful to-hit. If you are not rolling to-wound, then you are not required to have a successful to hit.

So, you may as well skip the unknown number of dice, that now cannot roll to-wound anyway as you have no profile.

I can't find any way around it in the rules. Even beams don't have an exception to rolling to hit. It just says your target is "a point within the powers range". I'm starting to think that psychic powers are useless.

For crush for example:
First you have to succeed in manifesting.
Then your opponent has to fail to deny the witch.
Then you have to hit.
Then you have to roll up a good Str and ap.
Then your opponent has to fail their save.

What are the chances of that succeeding?!

 Kavish wrote:
I can't find any way around it in the rules. Even beams don't have an exception to rolling to hit. It just says your target is "a point within the powers range". I'm starting to think that psychic powers are useless.

It's not about finding away around anything. Beams are absolutely clear on how they work as has been covered. Whilst for focussed witchfires it appears you haven't read either the rules or this thread:

For crush for example:
First you have to succeed in manifesting.
Then your opponent has to fail to deny the witch.
Then you have to hit.
Then you have to roll up a good Str and ap.
Then your opponent has to fail their save.

What are the chances of that succeeding?!

The underlined is clearly wrong. You have to roll to hit (with an undefined number of dice) whether you hit or not is irrelevant to the effect.

Is it wrong or is that just one interpretation? Why do you have to roll if it doesn't matter? I lean toward GW meaning for it to matter despite not telling you so. If it didn't why not make them maledictions or conjurations? RAW it may not matter but do you really believe that is what GW intended?

Gravmyr wrote:
Is it wrong or is that just one interpretation? Why do you have to roll if it doesn't matter? I lean toward GW meaning for it to matter despite not telling you so. If it didn't why not make them maledictions or conjurations? RAW it may not matter but do you really believe that is what GW intended?

I agree with the RaI of this being that a failed roll To Hit would mean the beam fails to hit, just as any other shooting attack would: it is discarded.

No rules support however.

Gravmyr wrote:
Is it wrong or is that just one interpretation? Why do you have to roll if it doesn't matter? I lean toward GW meaning for it to matter despite not telling you so. If it didn't why not make them maledictions or conjurations? RAW it may not matter but do you really believe that is what GW intended?

It is wrong, as there is nothing, written, that requires a hit for you to carry on resolving the power, and a written rule (resolving) requiring you to resovle the power. Discarding the effect on a failed to hit has no rules support

Making items witchfires allows them to be used out of fire points, would be one obvious reason for them to have this category.,

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Is it wrong or is that just one interpretation? Why do you have to roll if it doesn't matter? I lean toward GW meaning for it to matter despite not telling you so. If it didn't why not make them maledictions or conjurations? RAW it may not matter but do you really believe that is what GW intended?

It is wrong, as there is nothing, written, that requires a hit for you to carry on resolving the power, and a written rule (resolving) requiring you to resovle the power. Discarding the effect on a failed to hit has no rules support

Making items witchfires allows them to be used out of fire points, would be one obvious reason for them to have this category.,

Going by RaW, of course, no contention. But RaI: What happens when you fail To Hit with absolutely anything in the game? are these Witchfires not the ONLY time when a fail is not discarded? Also why not include text such as "most witchfires roll To Hit? Easily done and allows a choice. They seemed quite final about "witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast (...) or it is a Template". Its like saying "you must be able to Miss" (<--and RaI)

@nos I would assume then RAW you would never allow those powers to be manifested that do not tell you how many dice to roll. Would that be correct?

Edit: the roll to hit meaning something is also backup by the fact that they give exceptions to it in the beam weapon rules. I fail to understand how as a player you can choose to follow strict RAW in one part of a rule but not another. ie, The power doesn't say it matter but I'm not going to roll/don't have to roll as it's not spelled out how to do it.

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos I would assume then RAW you would never allow those powers to be manifested that do not tell you how many dice to roll. Would that be correct?

Edit: the roll to hit meaning something is also backup by the fact that they give exceptions to it in the beam weapon rules. I fail to understand how as a player you can choose to follow strict RAW in one part of a rule but not another. ie, The power doesn't say it matter but I'm not going to roll/don't have to roll as it's not spelled out how to do it.

How do you apply the -1T from enfeeble on a vehicle? Do you:

1) Ignoring the non-resolvable effect and just apply the effects we are told to how to do (like we are claiming here)
2) Make up a toughness value and apply the modifier to that (which presumably would be zero resulting in instant removal of the vehicle).

Which would you do?

RaW the roll to hit is required but irrelevant and unresolvable. RaI no roll to hit is made, this intent is clear when you consider powers like Psychic Shriek and 'Eadbanger.

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos I would assume then RAW you would never allow those powers to be manifested that do not tell you how many dice to roll. Would that be correct?

Edit: the roll to hit meaning something is also backup by the fact that they give exceptions to it in the beam weapon rules. I fail to understand how as a player you can choose to follow strict RAW in one part of a rule but not another. ie, The power doesn't say it matter but I'm not going to roll/don't have to roll as it's not spelled out how to do it.

So you -1T an enfeedbled vehicle as well?

You have an unresolvable requirement, that luckily has absolutely no effect - none whatsoever - on the rest of the power. So, RAW you resolve the power, and leave the unresolved parts alone as nothing about htem halts the game.

Black - I really dont care what other things happen when you fail compared to other, entirely unrelated rules - sometimes a 1 is a fail, sometimes a 6 is, so I'm not going to guess that just because ONE situaiton (to-hit from shooting phase) is required before you can resolve tghe next step, that something entirely unrelated also must follow this.

Other focused witchfire attacks don't require a to hit roll.

Crush is no different.

You are rolling to hit during the casting phase of it, if you meet the charge requirement it hits as if it were a regular shooting attack from the front, if it is exceeded by 1+ charges it can then strike the actual model selected.

As I said you are picking and choosing. We can use 6th as a guideline and assume they missed a line in the characteristics section or we can stop the game/not play with those powers, it's really your choice. An unresolvable requirement is still a requirement, so it's up to you choose to ignore it, a house rule or roll a single die as it is a single attack also a house rule. If you fail to roll the to hit you are not following the rule which is a requirement it doesn't matter that in your opinion they don't do anything it's still a requirement and this is a RAW discussion is it not?

I notice you bring up another power but do not actually address the fact that the power may not tell you what to do if it misses but neither does any shooting attack. No where does it tell you to ignore the misses it leaves them hanging in limbo.

There are no misses with focused witchfire.

Just fails.

Gravmyr wrote:
As I said you are picking and choosing. We can use 6th as a guideline and assume they missed a line in the characteristics section or we can stop the game/not play with those powers, it's really your choice. An unresolvable requirement is still a requirement, so it's up to you choose to ignore it, a house rule or roll a single die as it is a single attack also a house rule. If you fail to roll the to hit you are not following the rule which is a requirement it doesn't matter that in your opinion they don't do anything it's still a requirement and this is a RAW discussion is it not?

I notice you bring up another power but do not actually address the fact that the power may not tell you what to do if it misses but neither does any shooting attack. No where does it tell you to ignore the misses it leaves them hanging in limbo.

"Normal" Shooting attacks do tell you what happens if you miss, by telling you that you then roll to wound ONLY with those that successfully hit. As there is no in between state (no excluded middle), you are able to know what to do with the misses - they have no further effect, as none is called for.

There is no equivalent stipulation in *any* of these powers. So it is not an opinion that missing has no effect, it is a factual statement. If you disagree, you must provide some textual evidence, page and graph, or tkae that assertion back. Something like "if you miss, this power has no further effect" would do nicely. Failure to furnish such a point renders your argument, and thus your statement that this is my opinion, null.

"single attack = single dice" fails utterly as even a concept of a house rule, as it is belied by every multishot weapon out there. There is NO rational basis for it, conceptually.

So you you resolve the -1T? At least my ruling is consistent - ignore those conditions which can have no effect on the game. A "missed" Witchfire still resolves its power according to its entry (as the rules require you to do), enfeeble on a vehicle still resolves, despite the vehicle having no toughness.

You can make a RAI argument all you like, which is what I am assumign you are doing, but I/'m pointing out that even then it isnt even probable RAI...

I assume then you can quote a similar rule for shooting, something like "if you miss, this weapon has no further effect" would do nicely. If you cannot do so it renders your argument, and thus your statement that this is not your opinion, null.

single attack=single roll does work just fine as multishot weapons tell you they are multishot.

I use the standard ruling from 6th that if it does not have a particular stat it has no effect on that model just as had been stated about str checks against vehicles since before 6th.

If it's not probable RAI why make the statement in witchfire powers that they have to roll to hit and give exceptions to it in other subpowers?

Cute, but flawed, again

You understand the game works by telling you what to do first, yes?

Shooting tells you what to do with hits. As there is no in-between state, it also tells you what to do with misses as there is no excluded middle fallacy, which I had already pointed to you but you ignored. If you roll 5 misses from 5, you go no further, as only a successful to-hit tells you to then do something.

Witchfires tell you to roll to-hit, but then make no further requirement on that roll to-hit - successful or otherwise. I am sure you can provide a rule linking this? Either telling you you must SUCCESSFULLY roll to hit (and how many dice to do it with) before you can resolve the power according to its description, or you are told that missing means you cannot resolve.

If it tells you nothing, which as we both know for a fact is the case, you fall to your first instruction - to resolve the power according to its entry. Which has no tie to the to hit roll. There is no outcome determined by the to hit. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. We know this to be true.

Which is why your laughable swap around of my words is a failure - I am already complying with written rules. Youre not. Youre introducing a requirement that DOES NOT EXIST, and claiming it is then my opinion that this made up by you requirement does not exist.

Of course, you did make it up, and as I cannot prove a negative (I cannot prove your made up phrase does not exist in the rulebook), you must prove you did not make it up. So, do as required, or correct your flawed post and mark your argument appropriately.

Again: provide a link between the requirement to-hit, an resolving the power according to its entry. I've made it nice and simple for you, as to-hit rolls are nicely binary - they hit or miss, no third option. So, find something that tells you to continue resolving on a hit, to not resolve on a miss, or concede the point.

Single attack = one, two, three, four, 6, 7, 8, 15, 20, 30 rolls just from the top of my head on fixed number weapons, not including super gatlas that can in theory roll indefinitely. So you cannot state single attack = single roll, as ALL weapons must tell you how many shots they fire, either explicitly, or tied to another rule.

Gravmyr wrote:
I assume then you can quote a similar rule for shooting, something like "if you miss, this weapon has no further effect" would do nicely. If you cannot do so it renders your argument, and thus your statement that this is not your opinion, null.

single attack=single roll does work just fine as multishot weapons tell you they are multishot.

I use the standard ruling from 6th that if it does not have a particular stat it has no effect on that model just as had been stated about str checks against vehicles since before 6th.

If it's not probable RAI why make the statement in witchfire powers that they have to roll to hit and give exceptions to it in other subpowers?

Cool so by your argument that unresolvable actions means the game breaks or we have to invent our own rules every time a unit misses with a shot the game breaks as we have nothing to do with the misses? Or be ignore unresolvable actions?

Misses arent "unresolveable actions" - there is no action associated with a miss, for a standard shooting attack. Here, there is no unresolvable action if you miss, or if you hit, as no part of the power relies upon the outcome of the to-hit

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Shooting tells you what to do with hits. As there is no in-between state, it also tells you what to do with misses as there is no excluded middle fallacy, which I had already pointed to you but you ignored. If you roll 5 misses from 5, you go no further, as only a successful to-hit tells you to then do something.

Witchfires tell you to roll to-hit, but then make no further requirement on that roll to-hit - successful or otherwise. I am sure you can provide a rule linking this? Either telling you you must SUCCESSFULLY roll to hit (and how many dice to do it with) before you can resolve the power according to its description, or you are told that missing means you cannot resolve.

If it tells you nothing, which as we both know for a fact is the case, you fall to your first instruction - to resolve the power according to its entry. Which has no tie to the to hit roll. There is no outcome determined by the to hit. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. We know this to be true.

This is the part that makes the most sense, in that the Shooting sequence contains "5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target." but this same wording is not contained within the "un-profiled" Witchfires.

But even so, i would still agree with Gravmyr's point of view here, the RaW clearly says "witchfire power must roll To Hit". Now can that part of the rules simply "be ignored" or "not applied" as you say? I don't believe so, simply by Intent of having that exact wording in the RaW.
What purpose does that "must" serve, if they know full well some Witchfires "don't need to roll To Hit"?

If you were to take the RaW for "must roll To Hit" independently, you get this:

"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. The dice roll needed To Hit will depend on how accurate the firers are, as shown by their Ballistic Skill (or BS). The chart below shows the minimum D6 roll needed to score a hit.
Note that the minimum roll needed To Hit is always at least 2. When rolling To Hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses."

Can this RaW really not be applied "as is" to any Witchfire? There is no mention of need a profile, S or AP whatsoever, and no reference to a need to Roll To Wound either.
The only issue i can see when doing this is referring to the Witchfire as a "Shot"...

@flingitnow: That is exactly correct, we as players make up houserules without realizing it all the time. RAW picking a model up off the table is removing it from the battlefield which we know we cannot do yet we all do it to move them models. Without a rule giving permission to do so we have to make sure it remains in contact with the battlefield. There are a large number of things we do that are not expressed in the game.
@blacktalos: Well put.

RAW: I think we can all agree that there is a requirement we cannot meet, rolling to hit, without attributing some form of RAI.
RAI: Witchfire rules state you must roll to hit then continue on to tell you how to deal with blast and template powers. Beam weapons tell you how to hit as do novas. The witchfire rules even refer to witchfire powers as a weapon.

So how many dice is RAI? One shot from one attack is clearly not correct, as proven, so I'll roll infinite dice. I will definitely hit then.

Or I keep rolling, until I hit.

Yes, you can indeed roll to hit, and work out if you hit. It has absolutely no relevance to resolving the power, as you're told to do by actual written rules. If you don't successfully hit, you still resolve - if you don't, you break a definite rule.

So is rolling to hit. Choose your house rule.

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

Underline emphasis added.

Beam
All units under the line (friend and foe) are hit, with the exception of Zooming Flyers, Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures and the Psyker himself. Each unit hit by the attack takes a number of hits equal to the number of models from that unit that are under the line.

Beams are templates, so they hit automatically.
Crush states

The target model suffers a hit

so it doesn't need to roll to hit either consider it a 1mm by 1mm or 28mm scale fist sized template.

and for completion and "snipe-ability"

Focussed Witchfire
Some witchfire powers can pick out models in an enemy unit – these are called focussed witchfire powers. They follow all the normal rules for witchfire, but you can choose the specific model in the target unit that you want the power to affect...[stuff about picking a specific target model]... If the cost to manifest the power is met, but not exceeded, resolve the power against the closest model in the target unit instead.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

Beam
All units under the line (friend and foe) are hit, with the exception of Zooming Flyers, Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures and the Psyker himself. Each unit hit by the attack takes a number of hits equal to the number of models from that unit that are under the line.

Beams are templates, so they hit automatically.

The provided quote does not support the underlined statement. Support the underlined statement with actual rules please.

rigeld2 wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

Beam
All units under the line (friend and foe) are hit, with the exception of Zooming Flyers, Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures and the Psyker himself. Each unit hit by the attack takes a number of hits equal to the number of models from that unit that are under the line.

Beams are templates, so they hit automatically.

The provided quote does not support the underlined statement. Support the underlined statement with actual rules please.

Beam
To use a witchfire power with the beam sub-type, target a point within the power’s range and trace a line (about 1mm thick) between the chosen point and the centre of the Psyker’s base – this line cannot be drawn over any unit that is locked in combat. All units under the line (friend and foe) are hit, with the exception of Zooming Flyers, Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures and the Psyker himself. Each unit hit by the attack takes a number of hits equal to the number of models from that unit that are under the line

It is a line "about 1mm thick". Even if you wanted to dispute that being a "template" read the last portion.

Each unit hit by the attack takes a number of hits equal to the number of models from that unit that are under the line

It explicitly hits automatically, even if you want to reject my characterization of a "1mm thick line" as a template.

I thought that 'shooting' psychic attacks used the model's BS unless otherwise specified? Which was why Zogwort was broken because he could uses 'shooting' psychic powers, but had a BS of 0, basically meaning...he was the worst Psyker in the game.

Melevolence wrote:
I thought that 'shooting' psychic attacks used the model's BS unless otherwise specified?

Yes they do, what is your point?

Rawrai- templates are a defined weapon type, so no, it isn't a template. Unless you Can find a rule staying such, retract the statement

Grav - Ill choose the one that reflects the complete lack of connection between to hit and the rest of the power. I won't make up at minimum two rules
1) how many shots
2) a requirement that one of my mythical shots then has to hit befrore I can then resolve the rest of the power

Vs

1) the roll to hit that doesn't actually do anything, don't bother with it

I've not said its total raw, just that, once you look into it, making up two rules has significantly less supp than one.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
I thought that 'shooting' psychic attacks used the model's BS unless otherwise specified?

Yes they do, what is your point?

Getting confirmation, was my point. Is your objective to always sound hostile in the forums?

Melevolence wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
I thought that 'shooting' psychic attacks used the model's BS unless otherwise specified?

Yes they do, what is your point?

Getting confirmation, was my point. Is your objective to always sound hostile in the forums?

Asking a question is viewed as hostility now? (Was this question less "hostile"?)

I was simply asking what the point of your remark was.

If you were just getting confirmation then I now know what the point of your remark was.

I don't need to be told what to do with hits or misses because it goes without saying! It's so obvious it's ridiculous.The rulebook assumes we have brains. There is no explicitly stated link between rolling to hit, and rolling to wound (that's only in the summary of the SHOOTING phase). Furthermore, the section on rolling to hit does, however, tell you: "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..."

 Kavish wrote:
I don't need to be told what to do with hits or misses because it goes without saying! It's so obvious it's ridiculous. And just so you know, the rulebook doesn't tell you what to do with hits in normal shooting. It assumes we have brains. There is no explicitly stated link between rolling to hit, and rolling to wound. Furthermore, the section on rolling to hit does, however, tell you: "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..."

Actually the rulebook does tell you what to do with successful hits.

The very first two sentences under To Wound: To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below. The number indicated on the chart is the minimum result on a D6 needed to convert the hit into a Wound.

Edited last message. I made a mistake.

Yea I'll concede that, but by the logic I've been seeing here, it doesn't matter because Witchfires don't have to roll to wound. It's not explicitly stated in the Witchfires rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This whole discussion is absolutely ridiculous.

Beams hit automatically. "All units under the line are hit"

Focussed Witchfires must roll to hit "They follow all the normal rules for Witchfire, but you can choose the specific model..." With the exception of crush, which explicitly states that "The target model suffers a hit". There are other powers that do the same thing, such as Eldar's Executioner and Pyromancy's Spontaneous Combustion.

There. I've ruled it. That's the way I'm going to play it. If someone starts telling me they can roll unlimited rolls to hit they can pack up their models and get lost.

Where does it tell you how many dice to roll to hit?

"Most models only get to fire one shot..."

But how do we know that this applies to the model with the Focussed Witchfire power?

what rules say this?

Kavish - in your ruling, you neglected to rule how many rolls you would make, and why.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

Beam
All units under the line (friend and foe) are hit, with the exception of Zooming Flyers, Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures and the Psyker himself. Each unit hit by the attack takes a number of hits equal to the number of models from that unit that are under the line.

Beams are templates, so they hit automatically.

The provided quote does not support the underlined statement. Support the underlined statement with actual rules please.

Beam
To use a witchfire power with the beam sub-type, target a point within the power’s range and trace a line (about 1mm thick) between the chosen point and the centre of the Psyker’s base – this line cannot be drawn over any unit that is locked in combat. All units under the line (friend and foe) are hit, with the exception of Zooming Flyers, Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures and the Psyker himself. Each unit hit by the attack takes a number of hits equal to the number of models from that unit that are under the line

It is a line "about 1mm thick". Even if you wanted to dispute that being a "template" read the last portion.

Each unit hit by the attack takes a number of hits equal to the number of models from that unit that are under the line

It explicitly hits automatically, even if you want to reject my characterization of a "1mm thick line" as a template.

Since "Template" has specific rules associated with it (one of which is Ignores Cover), yes I reject your characterization of the line as a Template. Words mean things, so using the right ones is important.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

1) how many shots
2) a requirement that one of my mythical shots then has to hit befrore I can then resolve the rest of the power

Vs

1) the roll to hit that doesn't actually do anything, don't bother with it

I've not said its total raw, just that, once you look into it, making up two rules has significantly less supp than one.

1) how many shots: "roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot" RaW from To Hit phase.
2) a requirement that one of my mythical shots then has to hit befrore I can then resolve the rest of the power.

As in: To Hit tell you to roll one Dice. If you miss the "shot" the Beam "misses" (does not cause Hits in it's To Hit phase).

As Kavish posted, it would even further reduce the effectiveness of Witchfires, even though we can agree that all the Witchfires with profile have to "To Hit" do so anyway....

 Kavish wrote:
For crush for example:
First you have to succeed in manifesting.
Then your opponent has to fail to deny the witch.
Then you have to hit.
Then you have to roll up a good Str and ap.
Then your opponent has to fail their save.

What are the chances of that succeeding?!

As such i would personally choose the HIWPI:
1) the roll to hit that doesn't actually do anything, don't bother with it

But have not been surprised at my local club when i met an opponent who rolled To Hit with his beam weapons, be them Weapons or Psychic powers. And as such can easily understand the position Gravmyr has on this...

 BlackTalos wrote:
1) how many shots: "roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot" RaW from To Hit phase.

How do I know if I'm "most models" or not? I look at the weapon's profile. Oh - I don't have a profile.

Blacktalos - am I most models, or special? Please tell me how I determine this, raw.

Guys. Seriously. I just really don't think you roll to hit.

It says under the rules for Focussed Witchfire:
"If the total number of Warp Charge points harnessed exceeds the Warp Charge cost required to manifest the psychic power, the power is resolved against the model you chose. If the cost to manifest the power is met, but not exceeded, resolve the power against the closest model in the target unit instead."

The key thing here is "RESOLVE THE POWER" which earlier pages say means "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. Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."

I really think they just happen to a model once passed. They are so worthless otherwise, I can't imagine they don't work this way. Who would ever use one of these on purpose if they did?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, for what it's worth, since Focussed Witchfires only ever affect one model initially...it would probably always be one die, if there was a to-hit roll. So I don't see much reason to debate the actual number of dice.

Fenris - MOST weapons fire one shot. Is that focused witchfire MOST weapons? Or is it special?

If I fire an autocannon at one model, do i only fire once? After all, it can only affect one model total.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
1) how many shots: "roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot" RaW from To Hit phase.

How do I know if I'm "most models" or not? I look at the weapon's profile. Oh - I don't have a profile.

Blacktalos - am I most models, or special? Please tell me how I determine this, raw.

All i can say is that using the rest of the rule: "however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we’ll explain in more detail later." does not refer to the *previous* Psychic phase, so why would we worry about "however"?

It refers to this:
"Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type."
Found under "Type
A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo."

But as pointed out, there is no profile, so no Type either. This precludes it from being a shooting weapon, but i think we knew that...
So if the point of reference that "however, some weapons(...)" uses is not applicable, then you cannot follow the "however" option and you are left with:"Most models only get to fire one shot". Why that Ruleset somehow does not work and has to be ignored for some Witchfires is beyond me...?



----New Post----
An expanded version of this argument is also this:

"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."

Witchfires can be "fired" by models, but they are not "weapons" (as some have no profile - even those with profile i doubt are "weapons"), so you can follow the first part of the rule but do not follow a "however" specification that applies to weapons.



----New Post----
You could even apply their example by litterally following RaW:
I have a Space marine and an Ork Psykers who fire a Witchfire:

For example, if the firing model is a Space Marine with a Ballistic Skill of 4, a roll of 3 or more would score a hit. An Ork Boy only has a Ballistic Skill of 2, which means that it will only hit its target on a roll of 5 or 6.

As there is no mention of "weapons" or "shots", this example can apply to Witchfires

"Fire one shot" is, contextually, talking about weapons. As it is in the shooting phase talking about shooting weapons. YOu cannto claim that as psychic powers arent weapons we dont follow the however..., yet claim we follow this line despite it being linked to firing weapons.

Witchfires arent" fired" either. Theyre resolved.

 BlackTalos wrote:
The only issue i can see when doing this is referring to the Witchfire as a "Shot"...

I pointed out there was an issue with the "shot". And i understand the issue with "Fired" too.

As you say, if the To Hit wording is to be applied to Witchfires then they have to be "assumed" as weapons. As is done with those with profiles.

I would then simply stick to my point where "however" is not used due to the absence of a profile. (IE if we had an actual weapon with no number in its Type)

IE if i apply "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." to:

TT Bolter 24" S4 AP5 Assault

I read that the weapon has only 1 shot, as there is "no explanation in more detail". Probably a stretch? But how would you rule such a weapon? (No shot number)

No, you have an incomplete profile. ASsault weapons MUST have a number - its in their definition.

That is "undefined" number of shots

 BlackTalos wrote:
Witchfires can be "fired" by models, but they are not "weapons" (as some have no profile - even those with profile i doubt are "weapons"), so you can follow the first part of the rule but do not follow a "however" specification that applies to weapons.

They're not? Oh, then I guess it doesn't mention that in the...

Psykers can make Snap Shots in the Psychic phase with witchfire powers in the same way as with other shooting weapons.

Oops. Since it says "other shooting weapons" that means that witchfire powers are shooting weapons.

So your premise is false, and conclusions drawn from that premise are false.

Thanks Rigeld, Nos cleared that part up above, as can be seen by my last post.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you have an incomplete profile. ASsault weapons MUST have a number - its in their definition.

That is "undefined" number of shots

But that is exactly how i would resolve the Witchfires without profile: As an Assault weapon without a number. Possible Strawman but best way to describe it.
The "witchfire power must roll To Hit" and we know that you do such a thing using the "roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are ..." RaW

Now either as you both agree we simply ignore the first part for some tests (and do not refer to the To Hit RaW), or we do take that Rule and, as we have no profile, must use the basic rule ("Most models only get") and not the reference to other detailed weapons ("however, some weapons").

I can use the To Wound wording for a similar example: "In most cases, when rolling To Wound in close combat, you use the Strength on the attacker’s profile regardless of what weapon he is using. However, there are some Melee weapons that give the attacker a Strength bonus,
and this is explained later in the Weapons section."
Would you not ignore the "However," here if you Decided to use a Smash attack?
You still refer to the Model's Strength when Smashing even if the model had a Melee weapon with a Profile.

I understand Un-Profiled melee weapons/attacks are more common than Un-profiled Shooting attacks, but the rules can still be followed. (and IMHO not just "ignored")

You cannot follow an incomplete rule. You have an undefined number of shots, and cannot continue.

There is no link to the rest of the power, so instead of making up a minimum two rules, why not ignore the irrelevant one?

@nos @ rigeld2 IYO why did they spend as much time as they did putting multiple rules into place concerning the to hit rules if they didn't mean it to be tied to the processing of the power?

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos @ rigeld2 IYO why did they spend as much time as they did putting multiple rules into place concerning the to hit rules if they didn't mean it to be tied to the processing of the power?

If they wanted Focused Witchfires to require a successful to hit to resolve the power, then why didn't they make the To Hit roll tied to the processing of the power?

Why not just give them a profile?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos @ rigeld2 IYO why did they spend as much time as they did putting multiple rules into place concerning the to hit rules if they didn't mean it to be tied to the processing of the power?

If they wanted Focused Witchfires to require a successful to hit to resolve the power, then why didn't they make the To Hit roll tied to the processing of the power?

Why not just give them a profile?

Because they mistakenly assumed that people could logically follow the implication that requiring a roll to hit means that such a roll actually means something.

chanceafs wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos @ rigeld2 IYO why did they spend as much time as they did putting multiple rules into place concerning the to hit rules if they didn't mean it to be tied to the processing of the power?

If they wanted Focused Witchfires to require a successful to hit to resolve the power, then why didn't they make the To Hit roll tied to the processing of the power?

Why not just give them a profile?

Because they mistakenly assumed that people could logically follow the implication that requiring a roll to hit means that such a roll actually means something.

Except there is no set number of dice to roll, they wrote the rules governing profiles and shots for a reason.

Focused Witchfires do not tell you how many dice you need to roll to hit, and there is no default number in the shooting section because the shooting section tells you to look at the weapons profile to determine how many shots a weapon fires.

@DR Is it your opinion then missing a line about a profile and/or stating that there is no profile needed you roll one die and apply the effect or not per the to hit roll, is more important the all the time they spent concerning the to roll to hit and templates and the sections in subtypes?

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos @ rigeld2 IYO why did they spend as much time as they did putting multiple rules into place concerning the to hit rules if they didn't mean it to be tied to the processing of the power?

You do realize there are lots of witchfires that do have a profile, right?

You do realize that they all have to roll to hit not just the ones with profiles, right?

Gravmyr wrote:
You do realize that they all have to roll to hit not just the ones with profiles, right?

Thanks for missing my point!

You asked why they took the time to put "multiple rules into place concerning the to hit rules if they didn't mean it to be tied to the processing of the power". That's an incorrect statement - they are tied to the processing of witchfires with a profile.

Gravmyr wrote:
@DR Is it your opinion then missing a line about a profile and/or stating that there is no profile needed you roll one die and apply the effect or not per the to hit roll, is more important the all the time they spent concerning the to roll to hit and templates and the sections in subtypes?

I am not 100% sure what you are saying here.

Gravmyr wrote:
You do realize that they all have to roll to hit not just the ones with profiles, right?

Missing the point

There ARE witchfire with profiles, so no time was wasted. Your contention is therefore undermined

No more jibes about "logical conclusions" please, as it is illogical to make up a connection that doesn't exist, based on no valid reason

Time and space are both wasted if the roll to hit doesn't matter. They could have summed up what you are describing as:

Witchfire powers may have a profile similar to ranged attacks. If a witchfire power has a profile it is treated just like a ranged weapon and fired following the rules for shooting. Psychers can make Snap Shots.....

Saving space by not rehashing templates and blasts while not stating that they all have to roll to hit. They could have left the need for a to hit roll out entirely at that point. Why not word it above which would have removed any question? Why make the statement that they all must roll to hit when 1/3 witchfire powers, minus beam and nova powers, don't have profiles? There are 2 powers which don't state they hit within the power and don't have a profile.

As an aside I also noticed that these powers have to be weapons or the blast usr and template usr do not affect them. Which brings us back to firing one shot per the ranged weapons rules.

I ask you all again why does it say all witchfire must roll to hit if only half of the powers, including beams and novas, would be affected by it?

Don't be a bunch of robots. Use your brain and figure out what to do. Are you really that devoid of thought that you don't know what to do when the book doesn't tell you how many 'to hit' dice to roll? Do you hold the rulebook in your left hand and follow it word by word as you roll your dice? Your games must take weeks to complete!

 Kavish wrote:
Don't be a bunch of robots. Use your brain and figure out what to do. Are you really that devoid of thought that you don't know what to do when the book doesn't tell you how many 'to hit' dice to roll? Do you hold the rulebook in your left hand and follow it word by word as you roll your dice? Your games must take weeks to complete!

We are using our brains.

That does not mean we get to make up rules though.

What permission are you using to avoid rolling to hit?

As a general thing, please discuss the topic without throwing insults around.

Gravmyr wrote:
What permission are you using to avoid rolling to hit?

The psychic power rules

"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 chapter, Resolve Psychic Power section).

we are instructed to "Resolve [the psychic power's] effects according to the instructions in its entry."

Its entry does not have a profile so we ignore the irrelevant rolls to hit.

Either:

1) The game breaks because we have to roll to hit but are not given a profile so we don't know how many dice we need to roll.
Or
2) We skip the roll to hit since we are not given a profile, and everything works just fine.

Ill go with the one that does not bring the game to a screeching halt. (#2 just FYI).

Grav - another incorrect statement. The roll to hit sometimes matters. No space wasted. They could have been more efficient, but this their choice. You don't go from that, to making up at least two rules just because you think they should exist

Fact you make up a minimum of two rules, vs ignoring the irrelevant one. Occam's razor States your position is less tenable

 DeathReaper wrote:

2) We skip the roll to hit since we are not given a profile, and everything works just fine.

But this is a houserule.

This problem has existed since 6th edition, and it really annoys me that it wasn't fixed with the 7th. The rule is just incomplete, and do not work as written. It however seems ludicrous to me how people seem to present their houserules as RAW here. RAW is broken, the best you can do is attempt to decipher RAI. (Personally, I have no idea how they meant it to work, reasonable interpretations can be made to support either option.)

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

2) We skip the roll to hit since we are not given a profile, and everything works just fine.

But this is a houserule.

This problem has existed since 6th edition, and it really annoys me that it wasn't fixed with the 7th. The rule is just incomplete, and do not work as written. It however seems ludicrous to me how people seem to present their houserules as RAW here. RAW is broken, the best you can do is attempt to decipher RAI. (Personally, I have no idea how they meant it to work, reasonable interpretations can be made to support either option.)

The rules are only as broken as when you cast Enfeeble on a vehicle or have some other unresolvable irrelevant event. We see them all the time in the rules and move forward. Why in this case must we invent and entire series if rules to resolve thus unresolvable irrelevant roll?

@DR As long as you are choosing to ignore what you cannot see as something that can be resolved, you are making up rules. Since both the instructions for power resolution and the requirement for rolling to hit are in the same section they are the same level.

@nos Care to clarify which statement you view as incorrect. This is why I use to have you blocked because you do not use rule questions and make sweeping statements without clarification. Stating incorrect statement without identifying what you are speaking about while also not addressing my concerns leads me to believe you cannot defend you own position.

My position above, that they are weapons as displayed by the template and blast USR's applying to them, being referenced as weapons, and having to roll to hit with them means you follow the general shooting rule of one shot unless otherwise stated. This means we have made up a single rule, tying the roll to hit with resolution, as being weapons misses are not addressed just like normal shots. It is your opinion that it is irrelevant, clearly it has the same standing to some people as the rest of the rules despite not being spelled out word for word.

Care to address why all witchfire powers must roll to hit instead of just the ones with profiles? Why would that be a misprint as opposed to not stating resolution is tied to hits being the misprint.

Gravmyr wrote:
My position above, that they are weapons as displayed by the template and blast USR's applying to them, being referenced as weapons, and having to roll to hit with them means you follow the general shooting rule of one shot unless otherwise stated.

Except that's not what the rule actually says, despite your constant assurances.

This means we have made up a single rule, tying the roll to hit with resolution, as being weapons misses are not addressed just like normal shots. It is your opinion that it is irrelevant, clearly it has the same standing to some people as the rest of the rules despite not being spelled out word for word.

Care to address why all witchfire powers must roll to hit instead of just the ones with profiles? Why would that be a misprint as opposed to not stating resolution is tied to hits being the misprint.

So... Making up a rule makes it RAW? I'm confused...

@rigeld2 Can't help you with your confusion. Under witchfire pg 27 "or it is a template weapon," and "can target a different unit with his other ranged weapons" Blast pg 158 "When firing a blast weapon" Template pg 173 "Template weapons are indicated by having the word 'Template' for their range instead of a number." Weapons pg 40 "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type." As you can see that is exactly what the rule says.

My position above, that they are weapons as displayed by the template and blast USR's applying to them, being referenced as weapons, and having to roll to hit with them means you follow the general shooting rule of one shot unless otherwise stated. This means we have made up a single rule, tying the roll to hit with resolution, as being weapons misses are not addressed just like normal shots. It is your opinion that it is irrelevant, clearly it has the same standing to some people as the rest of the rules despite not being spelled out word for word. 

See page 40 first sentence under WEAPON PROFILES, then first sentence under TYPE. If your argument is that they are weapons then you are disagreeing with the BrB. They absolutely can not be weapons. Only the Witchfires that have profiles are or indeed can be weapons.

Care to address why all witchfire powers must roll to hit instead of just the ones with profiles? Why would that be a misprint as opposed to not stating resolution is tied to hits being the misprint.

Only the witchfires which are weapons can possibly roll to hit using the shooting rules. Otherwise they can not. They don't tell you what to do with the Witchfires that can not roll to hit just as they don't tell you what to do with misses or what to do with T modifiers against vehicles. This is consistent with how the rules are written.

Clear RaI no roll to hit is made. RaW we have an irrelevant unresolvable roll to hit that is unrelated to the effect.

Grav - cool. Then I will no longer attempt to debate you, if I am on ignore. It was hard to tell, as you were responding. Incorrectly, but responding.

Some witchfires have profiles, so it is not wrong for them to write that they roll to hit.

There is NO RULE that it is "one shot unless told otherwise". This is why you're in correct, you create rules out of thin air, and state them as if they are true. Don't do that

You're making up two rules. Occams you're wrong, and raw you're wrong, and arguably RAI you're wrong. Not doing well.

Unfortunately it also equates, as I displayed above, that all witchfire powers are weapons. It does not list the ones that are or are not nor does it separate them in any way to make such a statement as only the ones with profiles are weapons and therefor you have to roll to hits to them. It states all witchfire must roll to hit. You either have to come up with a way to fulfill said requirement or not use those powers, RAW. Stating they don't tell you what to do with things does not get you past that need. I am basing the T requirement for vehicles off an old statement, as most people are.

Witchfire pg 27 Does not make any statement about only the ones with profiles nor weapons have to roll to hit. If you are disagreeing with "a witchfire power must roll To Hit" then you are disagreeing with the BRB.

Two rules made up vs one, I know which makes most sense here.

There is no debate, just grav trying desperately to claim it is one made up rule, or RAI, or something.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

There is NO RULE that it is "one shot unless told otherwise". This is why you're in correct, you create rules out of thin air, and state them as if they are true. Don't do that

Weapons: number of shots. Pg 40 "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type." Directly out of the BRB. So clearly that is not made up despite your statement otherwise. Once given a quote from the book don't continue to state someone is making something up, address the quote per the tenents.

So, that states exactly what you stated? No, it gives something else.

Back to you. Find the exact rule you stated or retract.

Don't just state not that one. Quote me so I can address it directly.

No, the context is clear. I assume you can remember what you wrote? State if it has escaped you.

You stated a general rule book rule. You have not found it yet, so either you were lying about the rule, or you were mistaken, or you can now find the exact rule you stated exists.

Which is it? Or, in fact, are you creating a rule out of an assumption , as weapons firing multiple shots state this after their type, this means you only fire one shot...but, if you do not have a profile, you cannot know how many shots.

you remain wrong in this. Two rules made up vs one, and no matter how far you stretch, twist and manipulate the rules, even outright making up rules, this will not change.

Thank you for the concession.

Nope, no concession. You failed to support your rules claim with a quote, so your argument is void.

You're done. Good day.

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

Unfortunately it also equates, as I displayed above, that all witchfire powers are weapons. It does not list the ones that are or are not nor does it separate them in any way to make such a statement as only the ones with profiles are weapons and therefor you have to roll to hits to them. It states all witchfire must roll to hit. You either have to come up with a way to fulfill said requirement or not use those powers, RAW. Stating they don't tell you what to do with things does not get you past that need. I am basing the T requirement for vehicles off an old statement, as most people are. 

It may equate all witchfires to weapons it may not list which ones are and which ones aren't. However we have a specific rule telling us that a weapon must have a profile therefore for a Witchfire to be a weapon it must either have a profile or have a more specific rule stating that it is a weapon even though it does not have a profile. Neither of those is true for focussed witchfires. Therefore we absolutely KNOW that they are not weapons. Any rules that apply to weapons do not apply to them so please stop posting irrelevant rules.

Anyone dizzy yet?

This one will continue to be a mess until GW gets around to finishing writing the psychic rules. Until then, discuss it with your opponent before the game if in doubt.

Moving on.