Does psychic shriek roll to hit, and if so at what point? Since it deals 3d6 minus leadership wounds, does it count as that many shots? From the way it was worded, we've been playing that you roll to see how many wounds psychic shriek causes, then see how many of those wounds hit. However, someone brought up that hits should be rolled before wounds, meaning that you would only do a single test of ballistic skill and then apply all the wounds. Is there an official ruling on this (that you can point me to)? If not, what is the general consensus?
Per the current Warhammer 40K rules, the psychic power "Psychic Shriek" is unplayable, as it is a shooting attack with no shooting profile. Any decision on how to play it is a HYWPI, there is no correct answer.
Mavlun wrote: Per the current Warhammer 40K rules, the psychic power "Psychic Shriek" is unplayable, as it is a shooting attack with no shooting profile. Any decision on how to play it is a HYWPI, there is no correct answer.
This is only true if you believe that the following are also broken:
1) Applying the -1T from enfeeble to a vehicle
2) Applying the wounds from Purge Soul (or Psychic Shriek) to a vehicle.
etc etc
What is bizarre is people ignore such unresolvable actions all the time to play their games yet for Psychic Shriek and rolling to hit they feel that have to invent rules and then make those rules relevant yet don't do it in any other similar situation.
Mavlun wrote: Per the current Warhammer 40K rules, the psychic power "Psychic Shriek" is unplayable, as it is a shooting attack with no shooting profile. Any decision on how to play it is a HYWPI, there is no correct answer.
No, but there is a most reasonable interpretation or most correct answer, which I outlined.
If RAW is impossible, the only thing that's relevant is that most reasonable interpretation.
Mavlun wrote: Per the current Warhammer 40K rules, the psychic power "Psychic Shriek" is unplayable, as it is a shooting attack with no shooting profile. Any decision on how to play it is a HYWPI, there is no correct answer.
No, but there is a most reasonable interpretation or most correct answer, which I outlined.
If RAW is impossible, the only thing that's relevant is that most reasonable interpretation.
Which is:
1. WC 2. Shoot 1
3. Hit causes 3D6-Ld wounds
How on earth can you possibly claim that is the most reasonable answer? Then turn around and say our answer is the correct way when the exact same problem arises in every other situation. I really am bemused by your increasingly bizarre claims.
morgoth wrote: It's the only thing you can derive from the rules.
No number of shots ? then it must be one.
This is false. I cant not find anywhere that says the default is one shot for Psychic shooting attacks.
The power says wounds ? then it must happen after it hit.
The power causes wounds, it does not roll To Wound though, important distinction.
One of them happens after a To Hit roll, one does not.
Oh but I love Morgoth's idea that you can only wound after a to hit roll. Therefore Perils is a lot less worrying as the perils must roll to hit you before it can wound and with no Bs to use we just make up the numbet 1 and use that.
morgoth wrote: It's the only thing you can derive from the rules.
No number of shots ? then it must be one.
This is false. I cant not find anywhere that says the default is one shot for Psychic shooting attacks.
The power says wounds ? then it must happen after it hit.
The power causes wounds, it does not roll To Wound though, important distinction.
One of them happens after a To Hit roll, one does not.
Oh but I love Morgoth's idea that you can only wound after a to hit roll. Therefore Perils is a lot less worrying as the perils must roll to hit you before it can wound and with no Bs to use we just make up the numbet 1 and use that.
Yeah I'm comparing an effect that does wounds independent of a to hit roll and a to wound roll with effect that does wounds independent of a to hit roll and a to wound roll. Crazy.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Psychic Shriek causes wounds without a to wound roll. Perils causes wounds without a to wound roll. Crazy how different they are.
Your attempts at sarcasm are weak. Deep Strike uses scatter dice. Blasts use scatter dice. Crazy how similar they are.
If you were comparing the part about the scatter, then yes they are very similar...
Just like when comparing the part about something that does wounds without a To Hit roll, to something else that does not roll To Hit but still causes wounds.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Psychic Shriek causes wounds without a to wound roll. Perils causes wounds without a to wound roll. Crazy how different they are.
Your attempts at sarcasm are weak.
Deep Strike uses scatter dice. Blasts use scatter dice. Crazy how similar they are.
Attempt, singular.
When comparing the ability to cause wounds without rolling to wound, it is a very helpful comparison to make. Do you have anything actually constructive to add, maybe using something written in actual rules this time, not made up gak?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Psychic Shriek causes wounds without a to wound roll. Perils causes wounds without a to wound roll. Crazy how different they are.
Your attempts at sarcasm are weak.
Deep Strike uses scatter dice. Blasts use scatter dice. Crazy how similar they are.
Attempt, singular.
When comparing the ability to cause wounds without rolling to wound, it is a very helpful comparison to make. Do you have anything actually constructive to add, maybe using something written in actual rules this time, not made up gak?
It's an incorrect comparison, because morgoth was referring to how wounds are applied for shooting attacks, and Flingitnow (whose name suddenly makes sense) tried to discredit his example by comparing a secondary effect of a peril test during the psychic phase to how shooting attacks work. Therefore, a terrible comparison.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Psychic Shriek causes wounds without a to wound roll. Perils causes wounds without a to wound roll. Crazy how different they are.
Your attempts at sarcasm are weak.
Deep Strike uses scatter dice. Blasts use scatter dice. Crazy how similar they are.
Attempt, singular.
When comparing the ability to cause wounds without rolling to wound, it is a very helpful comparison to make. Do you have anything actually constructive to add, maybe using something written in actual rules this time, not made up gak?
It's an incorrect comparison, because morgoth was referring to how wounds are applied for shooting attacks, and Flingitnow (whose name suddenly makes sense) tried to discredit his example by comparing a secondary effect of a peril test during the psychic phase to how shooting attacks work. Therefore, a terrible comparison.
Morgoth was saying that you need to roll to hit for wounds to be generated, regardless of whether the rules tell you to or not and regardless of whether the rules give you the profiles required to make that roll. I illustrated what a ludicrous stance that was.
Still no answer from you as to why you treat this situation differently to all similar situations. Still absolutely no justification for completely changing your stance on unresolvable actions for this one instance in the rules, when you agree that our approach is the one you take in every other instance of this situation. Still no defence of your indefensible position.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Psychic Shriek causes wounds without a to wound roll. Perils causes wounds without a to wound roll. Crazy how different they are.
Your attempts at sarcasm are weak.
Deep Strike uses scatter dice. Blasts use scatter dice. Crazy how similar they are.
Attempt, singular.
When comparing the ability to cause wounds without rolling to wound, it is a very helpful comparison to make. Do you have anything actually constructive to add, maybe using something written in actual rules this time, not made up gak?
It's an incorrect comparison, because morgoth was referring to how wounds are applied for shooting attacks, and Flingitnow (whose name suddenly makes sense) tried to discredit his example by comparing a secondary effect of a peril test during the psychic phase to how shooting attacks work. Therefore, a terrible comparison.
Morgoth was saying that you need to roll to hit for wounds to be generated, regardless of whether the rules tell you to or not and regardless of whether the rules give you the profiles required to make that roll. I illustrated what a ludicrous stance that was.
Still no answer from you as to why you treat this situation differently to all similar situations. Still absolutely no justification for completely changing your stance on unresolvable actions for this one instance in the rules, when you agree that our approach is the one you take in every other instance of this situation. Still no defence of your indefensible position.
Frankly, I've kind of been ignoring your posts, that's why I haven't answered them, as I consider you to be in a rut, and refusing to change your opinion purely on principle, so no point in continuing to discuss things with you. I have no idea what you mean by "similar situations". Please elaborate.
OK how do you handle the -1T effect from Enfeeble when it is cast on a Vehicle? You must apply that effect but it is unresolvable due to lack of relevant profile.
How would you calculate the 3d6-ld for Psychic Shriek against a Vehicle? You must apply that effect but it is unresolvable due to lack of relevant profile.
How would you handle the 3d6-ld wounds for Psychic Shriek against a Vehicle? You must apply that effect but it is unresolvable due to lack of relevant profile.
If you do not make up the missing profile to resolve all the above why are you doing so for some and not others?
Its not unresolvable, it just has no effect as the models do not have a toughness value.
in regards to vehicles you can generate wound pools versus vehicles, which is totally legal, but as vehicles have no wounds characteristic that can be reduced the excess wounds would be discarded.
Its not unresolvable, it just has no effect as the models do not have a toughness value.
So you agree the roll to hit for PS has no effect as it has no weapon type? The -1T is not an optional instruction (just likr the roll to hit) if you are not applying it why due to lack of relevant profile, why are you inventing a profile to roll to hit with?
Why the difference in approach?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
What do you do in a game where you spot your opponent moving one unit twice? What does BRB tell you?
In answer to your question, Enfeeble against vehicles is as useful as Poison. Yet you can figure out how Poison works, yes?
Yes the BrB does not cover what to do when your opponent is breaking the rules. I don't see your point casting enfeeble on a vehicle is not breaking rules.
Poison has no effect on vehicles because you never make a to wound roll against vehicles because the rules tell you to replace that step with the armour pen roll. Enfeeble does have effects on vehicles for instance the -1S is useful at times against Walkers.
The issue you have is those claiming there is no roll to hit for PS are treating the -1T as doing nothing. Those that invent numbers to make the roll to hit work must also do the same for the -1T or they are being inconsistent and hypocritical. When we then highlight other similar situations (this thread has spilled over from a PS vs CCB thread) like the 3d6-ld roll for PS vs a CCB again they go with out method of no profile no effect.
Yet they refuse to tell us why they treat the roll to hit for PS differently to all other similar situations. The no roll to hit method is literally the only consistent way to play the rule otherwise if you cast PS against a vehicle these are the steps:
1. Roll to hit, but we have no profile to work out how many times so set to 1 roll.
2. Roll to pen, but we have no S & Ap, so set to S1 Ap1.
3. Roll 3d6-ld, but we have no Ld, so set to 1, therefore roll 3d6-1.
4. Apply 3d6-1 wounds to vehicle but it has no Wounds characteristic, so set to 1, Vehicle is automatically removed even if Super Heavy and does not explode as it was not reduced to 0 HPs...
Do you understand now why saying it is 1 roll to hit is ludicrous? Because if you're saying that then you're saying the above or you're being a hypocrite.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Psychic Shriek causes wounds without a to wound roll. Perils causes wounds without a to wound roll. Crazy how different they are.
Your attempts at sarcasm are weak.
Deep Strike uses scatter dice. Blasts use scatter dice. Crazy how similar they are.
Attempt, singular.
When comparing the ability to cause wounds without rolling to wound, it is a very helpful comparison to make. Do you have anything actually constructive to add, maybe using something written in actual rules this time, not made up gak?
It's an incorrect comparison, because morgoth was referring to how wounds are applied for shooting attacks, and Flingitnow (whose name suddenly makes sense) tried to discredit his example by comparing a secondary effect of a peril test during the psychic phase to how shooting attacks work. Therefore, a terrible comparison.
Nope, a totally apt one. You have a situation where you are causing wounds without rolling to-wound, or even to-hit, exactly like Perils can. I suggest you retract your assertion, as you are demonstrably incorrect.
What do you do in a game where you spot your opponent moving one unit twice? What does BRB tell you?
In answer to your question, Enfeeble against vehicles is as useful as Poison. Yet you can figure out how Poison works, yes?
Yes the BrB does not cover what to do when your opponent is breaking the rules. I don't see your point casting enfeeble on a vehicle is not breaking rules.
So how do you handle such cases then, if there are no instructions? The whole problem with this topic is that the rules are lacking.
Poison has no effect on vehicles because you never make a to wound roll against vehicles because the rules tell you to replace that step with the armour pen roll. Enfeeble does have effects on vehicles for instance the -1S is useful at times against Walkers.
Agreed, bad example that came to my mind while driving so I just typed away. In any case I was pointing out that why must you try to resolve it when it obviously is not resolvable? You aren't stupid, you don't try to target something without Toughness with something that affects Toughness, right? The same way you don't try shooting AV13 with a bolter. There is no need to spell it out in the rules as nothing would happen even if you did try. See my first point on this.
The issue you have is those claiming there is no roll to hit for PS are treating the -1T as doing nothing.
Well, I am not in that camp then as I think the rules demand for these powers to roll for to hit and if they miss, the chain of events stops there.
Those that invent numbers to make the roll to hit work must also do the same for the -1T or they are being inconsistent and hypocritical.
I don't get this. The power requires a roll to hit. A profile is not given. Unless specified I deduce that I must roll once to hit. I think I am happy with this solution.
When we then highlight other similar situations (this thread has spilled over from a PS vs CCB thread) like the 3d6-ld roll for PS vs a CCB again they go with out method of no profile no effect.
Yet they refuse to tell us why they treat the roll to hit for PS differently to all other similar situations. The no roll to hit method is literally the only consistent way to play the rule otherwise if you cast PS against a vehicle these are the steps:
1. Roll to hit, but we have no profile to work out how many times so set to 1 roll.
2. Roll to pen, but we have no S & Ap, so set to S1 Ap1.
3. Roll 3d6-ld, but we have no Ld, so set to 1, therefore roll 3d6-1.
4. Apply 3d6-1 wounds to vehicle but it has no Wounds characteristic, so set to 1, Vehicle is automatically removed even if Super Heavy and does not explode as it was not reduced to 0 HPs...
Maybe I missed something here, but does not Psychic Shriek cause only Wounds? Why do you attempt to utilize it against Vehicles? Would it make any difference if you did not roll for To Hit? Would the above suddenly make more sense and you could roll to pen, roll for Ld and apply the Wound??
Do you understand now why saying it is 1 roll to hit is ludicrous? Because if you're saying that then you're saying the above or you're being a hypocrite.
I am sorry, but I do not get what you are saying
The only thing obvious here is that the rules are not complete, they are lacking some key elements. No matter how you explain it, you are not playing it RAW.
Edit: Sorry, it looked fine when previewed with a mobile device, maybe now?
What do you do in a game where you spot your opponent moving one unit twice? What does BRB tell you? In answer to your question, Enfeeble against vehicles is as useful as Poison. Yet you can figure out how Poison works, yes?
Yes the BrB does not cover what to do when your opponent is breaking the rules. I don't see your point casting enfeeble on a vehicle is not breaking rules.
So how do you handle such cases then, if there are no instructions? The whole problem with this topic is that the rules are lacking.
Poison has no effect on vehicles because you never make a to wound roll against vehicles because the rules tell you to replace that step with the armour pen roll. Enfeeble does have effects on vehicles for instance the -1S is useful at times against Walkers.
Agreed, bad example that came to my mind while driving so I just typed away. In any case I was pointing out that why must you try to resolve it when it obviously is not resolvable? You aren't stupid, you don't try to target something without Toughness with something that affects Toughness, right? The same way you don't try shooting AV13 with a bolter. There is no need to spell it out in the rules as nothing would happen even if you did try. See my first point on this.
The issue you have is those claiming there is no roll to hit for PS are treating the -1T as doing nothing.
Well, I am not in that camp then as I think the rules demand for these powers to roll for to hit and if they miss, the chain of events stops there.
Those that invent numbers to make the roll to hit work must also do the same for the -1T or they are being inconsistent and hypocritical.
I don't get this. The power requires a roll to hit. A profile is not given. Unless specified I deduce that I must roll once to hit. I think I am happy with this solution.
When we then highlight other similar situations (this thread has spilled over from a PS vs CCB thread) like the 3d6-ld roll for PS vs a CCB again they go with out method of no profile no effect.
Yet they refuse to tell us why they treat the roll to hit for PS differently to all other similar situations. The no roll to hit method is literally the only consistent way to play the rule otherwise if you cast PS against a vehicle these are the steps:
1. Roll to hit, but we have no profile to work out how many times so set to 1 roll. 2. Roll to pen, but we have no S & Ap, so set to S1 Ap1. 3. Roll 3d6-ld, but we have no Ld, so set to 1, therefore roll 3d6-1. 4. Apply 3d6-1 wounds to vehicle but it has no Wounds characteristic, so set to 1, Vehicle is automatically removed even if Super Heavy and does not explode as it was not reduced to 0 HPs...
Maybe I missed something here, but does not Psychic Shriek cause only Wounds? Why do you attempt to utilize it against Vehicles? Would it make any difference if you did not roll for To Hit? Would the above suddenly make more sense and you could roll to pen, roll for Ld and apply the Wound??
Do you understand now why saying it is 1 roll to hit is ludicrous? Because if you're saying that then you're saying the above or you're being a hypocrite.
I am sorry, but I do not get what you are saying
The only thing obvious here is that the rules are not complete, they are lacking some key elements. No matter how you explain it, you are not playing it RAW.
Please fix your post. Something got screwed up when quoting, and it makes it harder to figure out your responses.
Psychic Shriek requires a To Hit roll. Everyone agrees on that. The problem is the pick an arbitrary number group, do not want to pick an arbitrary number when other things require us to do something with a non-existent value. If your claim is that you only roll 1 To Hit die, but do not have to assign a Toughness Value to a Walkere who has been enfeebled, you are being hypocritical.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What do you do in a game where you spot your opponent moving one unit twice? What does BRB tell you?
In answer to your question, Enfeeble against vehicles is as useful as Poison. Yet you can figure out how Poison works, yes?
Yes the BrB does not cover what to do when your opponent is breaking the rules. I don't see your point casting enfeeble on a vehicle is not breaking rules.
So how do you handle such cases then, if there are no instructions? The whole problem with this topic is that the rules are lacking.
Well if your opponent is breaking the rules you tell him. Why do you think the rules require explanation of what you do if your opponemt breaks the rules?
Poison has no effect on vehicles because you never make a to wound roll against vehicles because the rules tell you to replace that step with the armour pen roll. Enfeeble does have effects on vehicles for instance the -1S is useful at times against Walkers.
Agreed, bad example that came to my mind while driving so I just typed away. In any case I was pointing out that why must you try to resolve it when it obviously is not resolvable? You aren't stupid, you don't try to target something without Toughness with something that affects Toughness, right? The same way you don't try shooting AV13 with a bolter. There is no need to spell it out in the rules as nothing would happen even if you did try. See my first point on this.
Actually the rules do cover what to do when you fire a bolter at AV13. The rules only don't need to spell out that the -1T has no effect if they also don't need to spell out that you don't roll to hit with PS (and focussed witchfires).
The issue you have is those claiming there is no roll to hit for PS are treating the -1T as doing nothing.
Well, I am not in that camp then as I think the rules demand for these powers to roll for to hit and if they miss, the chain of events stops there.
Then you are also in the camp that the rules demand you apply a -1T modifier to a vehicle when you enfeeble it. So how do you apply it?
Those that invent numbers to make the roll to hit work must also do the same for the -1T or they are being inconsistent and hypocritical.
I don't get this. The power requires a roll to hit. A profile is not given. Unless specified I deduce that I must roll once to hit. I think I am happy with this solution.
The power requires that I reduce toughness by 1, a profile is jot given so I assume it is T1... This is your claim?
When we then highlight other similar situations (this thread has spilled over from a PS vs CCB thread) like the 3d6-ld roll for PS vs a CCB again they go with out method of no profile no effect.
Yet they refuse to tell us why they treat the roll to hit for PS differently to all other similar situations. The no roll to hit method is literally the only consistent way to play the rule otherwise if you cast PS against a vehicle these are the steps:
1. Roll to hit, but we have no profile to work out how many times so set to 1 roll.
2. Roll to pen, but we have no S & Ap, so set to S1 Ap1.
3. Roll 3d6-ld, but we have no Ld, so set to 1, therefore roll 3d6-1.
4. Apply 3d6-1 wounds to vehicle but it has no Wounds characteristic, so set to 1, Vehicle is automatically removed even if Super Heavy and does not explode as it was not reduced to 0 HPs...
Maybe I missed something here, but does not Psychic Shriek cause only Wounds? Why do you attempt to utilize it against Vehicles? Would it make any difference if you did not roll for To Hit? Would the above suddenly make more sense and you could roll to pen, roll for Ld and apply the Wound??
Do you understand now why saying it is 1 roll to hit is ludicrous? Because if you're saying that then you're saying the above or you're being a hypocrite.
I am sorry, but I do not get what you are saying
The only thing obvious here is that the rules are not complete, they are lacking some key elements. No matter how you explain it, you are not playing it RAW.
What I'm saying is if you believe that when the rules require you to perform an action but do not provide the profile to do so that you set the profile to 1 then the above sequence holds for PS and it is the best antitank in the game.
So do you believe that if the rules require you to perform an action but do not give you the relevant profile you then treat it as if that profile was a 1? Yes or No (remembering that a No means there is no roll to hit for Psychic Shriek).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also to sum up the no roll to hit interpretation leads to this when you resolve PS against a vehicle:
1. Roll to hit, can't resolve as there is no profile, so does nothing.
2. Roll 3d6-ld, can't resolve as there is no profile, so does nothing.
Please fix your post. Something got screwed up when quoting, and it makes it harder to figure out your responses.
Psychic Shriek requires a To Hit roll. Everyone agrees on that. The problem is the pick an arbitrary number group, do not want to pick an arbitrary number when other things require us to do something with a non-existent value. If your claim is that you only roll 1 To Hit die, but do not have to assign a Toughness Value to a Walkere who has been enfeebled, you are being hypocritical.
Nope, you're just being obnoxious.
It's a shooting attack, meaning it does between one and infinite number of shots.
Without any clarification, it's just one shot, because one shot is enough to resolve the power and more shots are not necessary.
That has nothing to do with missing profile stats.
Please fix your post. Something got screwed up when quoting, and it makes it harder to figure out your responses.
Psychic Shriek requires a To Hit roll. Everyone agrees on that. The problem is the pick an arbitrary number group, do not want to pick an arbitrary number when other things require us to do something with a non-existent value. If your claim is that you only roll 1 To Hit die, but do not have to assign a Toughness Value to a Walkere who has been enfeebled, you are being hypocritical.
Nope, you're just being obnoxious.
It's a shooting attack, meaning it does between one and infinite number of shots.
Without any clarification, it's just one shot, because one shot is enough to resolve the power and more shots are not necessary.
That has nothing to do with missing profile stats.
given that psychic shriek causes a target to suffer 3d6-LD of target units LD in wounds, and as a witchfire it requires a to hit roll.
per rolling to hit under shooting, you can never automatically hit if you are required to roll to hit.
That a to hit roll is required means you need to hit for the effect to happen, otherwise normal witchfires with a normal profile would still work if you missed as well if the effect is not tied to a to hit roll.
Default rolling to hit is 1 die unless we are told more.
We are not told how many dice to roll to hit specifically in the case of PS, so it is safe to assume you would roll 1 dice - HYWPI/RAW (not told how many to roll, but are required to roll to hit)
Given that we could roll more than one die in some peoples thoughts what would happen if we scored more than 1 hit? Would it be 3d6-ld of target unit per hit? Obviously the rules for PS do not state this is the case so RAI it is 1 hit on a target unit, and as a witchfire being required to roll to hit it is most likely 1 shot. RAI arguement.
anyone claiming it goes off despite the hit roll is ignore the RAW for witchfires and treating it as a malediction, anyone rolling only 1 die has no clear RAW support to say that is the rule, however there is more RAI support that this is how it should be played.
That a to hit roll is required means you need to hit for the effect to happen, otherwise normal witchfires with a normal profile would still work if you missed as well if the effect is not tied to a to hit roll.
Supposition. Not supported by actual rules. Actual rules only tie to-wound to succesfully rolling to-hit
blaktoof wrote:
Default rolling to hit is 1 die unless we are told more.
Supposition, the actual rules do not state that. they state "most", but then point out that a weapon profile will tell you how many shots are fired. We dont have a profile, so the default HERE is "unknown"
blaktoof wrote:We are not told how many dice to roll to hit specifically in the case of PS, so it is safe to assume you would roll 1 dice - HYWPI/RAW (not told how many to roll, but are required to roll to hit)
Agreed that RAW we must roll ot hit, however there is no rule telling you how many dice you must roll. You cannot roll any, as doing so has literally no rules support.
blaktoof wrote:Given that we could roll more than one die in some peoples thoughts what would happen if we scored more than 1 hit? Would it be 3d6-ld of target unit per hit? Obviously the rules for PS do not state this is the case so RAI it is 1 hit on a target unit, and as a witchfire being required to roll to hit it is most likely 1 shot. RAI arguement.
I wouldnt argue it was RAI, given we have had powers in the past that could auto=miss(out of range) but still resolve non-to-wound effects. There simply isnt enough support to come up with "RAI It is one dice and if that misses then non-to-wound effects are ignored, despite the rules for psychic powers stating you must resolve the power"
blaktoof wrote:anyone claiming it goes off despite the hit roll is ignore the RAW for witchfires and treating it as a malediction, anyone rolling only 1 die has no clear RAW support to say that is the rule, however there is more RAI support that this is how it should be played.
overall its broken and poorly written.
No, by stating it goes off despite not rolling to-hit, you ignore that you cannot roll any dice, and that the resolution of the power is not tied to successfully hitting, meaning the to-hit roll has literally no purpose. Absolutely none.
So you feel that marker lights hit regardless of to hit rolls as their effect is not to wound based, and they also require a to hit roll as per the RAW just like psychic shriek does?
Well if your opponent is breaking the rules you tell him. Why do you think the rules require explanation of what you do if your opponemt breaks the rules?
But I do not need specific rules here, as I explained already. It seems that there are those who do. This thread should be another proof for that.
Then you are also in the camp that the rules demand you apply a -1T modifier to a vehicle when you enfeeble it. So how do you apply it?
The power requires that I reduce toughness by 1, a profile is jot given so I assume it is T1... This is your claim?
These are not my claims nor would I try to play them that way. I have no problem requiring Psychic Shriek that 1 roll to hit and based on its results resolve the power if needed. I also do not need to try to apply -1T to a target that does not have a toughness value, that would simply not work.
What I'm saying is if you believe that when the rules require you to perform an action but do not provide the profile to do so that you set the profile to 1 then the above sequence holds for PS and it is the best antitank in the game.
It is the best because you decided that for this to work the vehicle must have a toughness value of 1? Does not compute.
So do you believe that if the rules require you to perform an action but do not give you the relevant profile you then treat it as if that profile was a 1? Yes or No (remembering that a No means there is no roll to hit for Psychic Shriek).
As said, I'd require Psychic Shriek a roll to hit with 1 die.
1. Roll to hit, can't resolve as there is no profile, so does nothing.
2. Roll 3d6-ld, can't resolve as there is no profile, so does nothing.
The end. Now which makes more sense?
As those are the only options you see available we are at a dead end. I've already pointed out how I would read and use the rules.
Edit: Is quoting somehow broken? Can't spot the error. Bah, there it was. Small font..
No, stop creating a strawman. The two situaitons are not remotely similar
1) Markerlightys create a requirement that the to-hit is succesful. No such requirement is written ANYWHERE in the PS or witchfire rules. If it is, find it or concede
2) Requiring a to-hit roll is NOT THE SAME THING as requiring the to-hit roll to be a certain value. I really do not understand why posters cannot understand the difference between a to-hit roll (in general) and a to-hit (must be X value otherwise you canonot proceed)
The witchfire rule require a roll to hit. They do NOT, in any way shape or form require that the roll is a to=hit of a specific value, i.e. a successful one. They just dont. If they did, and you could find it, this argument would have been finished long ago
So go on, find a link. Find a written, actual link between to-hit of a specific value and resolving non-to-wound parts of a psychic power. Page and graph. Fialure to do so means you concede there is no such link.
blaktoof wrote: given that psychic shriek causes a target to suffer 3d6-LD of target units LD in wounds, and as a witchfire it requires a to hit roll.
Correct.
per rolling to hit under shooting, you can never automatically hit if you are required to roll to hit.
That's not entirely true there are several abilities that automatically hit. Psychic Shriek is not such an ability.
That a to hit roll is required means you need to hit for the effect to happen, otherwise normal witchfires with a normal profile would still work if you missed as well if the effect is not tied to a to hit roll.
This is entirely incorrect. Normal witchfires that have effects other than a to wound roll would absolutely have those effects apply even if all shots hit, unless those effects were tied to the to hit roll. The to wound roll is the only effect directly tied to a successful to hit roll by default. So please don't make these assertions that have absolutely no rules support at all.
Default rolling to hit is 1 die unless we are told more.
Again with the baseless assertions.
We are not told how many dice to roll to hit specifically in the case of PS, so it is safe to assume you would roll 1 dice - HYWPI/RAW (not told how many to roll, but are required to roll to hit)
Given that we could roll more than one die in some peoples thoughts what would happen if we scored more than 1 hit? Would it be 3d6-ld of target unit per hit? Obviously the rules for PS do not state this is the case so RAI it is 1 hit on a target unit, and as a witchfire being required to roll to hit it is most likely 1 shot. RAI arguement.
1 hit, 0 hits, 1,000,000 hits the unit suffers 3d6-ld wounds because nothing in the rules ties it to hits so they are independent of each other. Stop trying to claim an RaI when you absolutely know your interpretation is not the intention of the rules and is entirely hypocritical as proven above.
anyone claiming it goes off despite the hit roll is ignore the RAW for witchfires and treating it as a malediction, anyone rolling only 1 die has no clear RAW support to say that is the rule, however there is more RAI support that this is how it should be played.
Absolutely false. As you are well aware the roll to hit has absolutely nothing to do with the PS effect. So please stop posting stuff you know is untrue it does not help the discussion.
Overall its broken and poorly written.
Only as broken as manifesting Enfeeble, Ironarm or say Haemmorage on a vehicle is broken. Just because people want to interpret the rules in bizarre and advantageous ways doesn't necessarily mean they are poorly written.
blaktoof wrote: That a to hit roll is required means you need to hit for the effect to happen, otherwise normal witchfires with a normal profile would still work if you missed as well if the effect is not tied to a to hit roll.
Untrue. Witchfires with a profile don't do anything different from a gun.
Default rolling to hit is 1 die unless we are told more.
Literally invented from whole cloth. There isn't a rule anywhere telling us this.
Given that we could roll more than one die in some peoples thoughts what would happen if we scored more than 1 hit? Would it be 3d6-ld of target unit per hit? Obviously the rules for PS do not state this is the case so RAI it is 1 hit on a target unit, and as a witchfire being required to roll to hit it is most likely 1 shot. RAI arguement.
No, the hit is irrelevant - but it'd satisfy your "side" that requires a hit to resolve the power.
anyone claiming it goes off despite the hit roll is ignore the RAW for witchfires and treating it as a malediction, anyone rolling only 1 die has no clear RAW support to say that is the rule, however there is more RAI support that this is how it should be played.
Quote the rule that requires a hit to resolve a non-profile power. Nothing in the actual rules is broken.
Why do you require that the to hit roll to be set to a 1 with a missing profile but not the T value of a vehicle? Why are you treating them differently?
Do you believe that if an action is unresolvable due to lack of relevant profile we set the profile to 1? Yes or No?
Big Blind Bill wrote: There is no right answer. Anyone claiming the answer to be simple or obvious is writing out of arrogance or ignorance.
As it stands the rulebook does not clarify the issue, therefore houserule it to your own liking.
These two statements are completely false.
There is a RAW answer for this one, people are just not accepting it.
As it stands the rule-book could do a better job of clarifying the issue, but it does clarify the issue if you do a little reading and comprehension of all relevant rules.
Big Blind Bill wrote: There is no right answer. Anyone claiming the answer to be simple or obvious is writing out of arrogance or ignorance.
As it stands the rulebook does not clarify the issue, therefore houserule it to your own liking.
These two statements are completely false.
There is a RAW answer for this one, people are just not accepting it.
As it stands the rule-book could do a better job of clarifying the issue, but it does clarify the issue if you do a little reading and comprehension of all relevant rules.
RAW says witchfires roll to hit. RAW says psychic shriek rolls 3D6-LD for determining number of wounds, but nothing about determining how many shots.
I personally play the power as you are saying, however there is still no clear RAW answer to this question. Nowhere does it say "instead of rolling to hit", therefore the issue of the power still being a witchfire remains.
3.) If it passes, you then roll 3D6, you add the total and subtract the targets leadership.
The remainder is the number of Wounds taken, which MUST BE Invulnerable saves. This is what it says in the telepathy description in the Rule Book.
Kill this thread =/
No the generic way it played is the same as a focussed witchfire with no roll to hit made. Some people make up their own hypocritical and inconsistent rules and play by them instead.
Big Blind Bill wrote: There is no right answer. Anyone claiming the answer to be simple or obvious is writing out of arrogance or ignorance.
As it stands the rulebook does not clarify the issue, therefore houserule it to your own liking.
These two statements are completely false.
There is a RAW answer for this one, people are just not accepting it.
As it stands the rule-book could do a better job of clarifying the issue, but it does clarify the issue if you do a little reading and comprehension of all relevant rules.
RAW says witchfires roll to hit. RAW says psychic shriek rolls 3D6-LD for determining number of wounds, but nothing about determining how many shots.
I personally play the power as you are saying, however there is still no clear RAW answer to this question. Nowhere does it say "instead of rolling to hit", therefore the issue of the power still being a witchfire remains.
I actually roll the 3D6-LD first, then fire that many shots. It makes more sense with the shooting rules of 1 shot = 1 hit.
despite the fact I think there is no RAW way to resolve the power.
it is always amazing how much the strawman arguements put forth that it goes off despite not hitting come out, they never are backed up with any RAW statements and never refute the central point of needing to roll to hit and are always laced with insults and the lowest form of debate.
Big Blind Bill wrote: There is no right answer. Anyone claiming the answer to be simple or obvious is writing out of arrogance or ignorance.
As it stands the rulebook does not clarify the issue, therefore houserule it to your own liking.
These two statements are completely false.
There is a RAW answer for this one, people are just not accepting it.
As it stands the rule-book could do a better job of clarifying the issue, but it does clarify the issue if you do a little reading and comprehension of all relevant rules.
RAW says witchfires roll to hit. RAW says psychic shriek rolls 3D6-LD for determining number of wounds, but nothing about determining how many shots.
I personally play the power as you are saying, however there is still no clear RAW answer to this question. Nowhere does it say "instead of rolling to hit", therefore the issue of the power still being a witchfire remains.
Yes you must roll to hit and have no profile to resolve that. Thus skipping the roll to hit is just as RaW as not applying the -1T from enfeeble on a vehicle or the +3T from iron arm or saying that casting Haemmorage or Psychic Shriek on a vehicle has no effect. If the people claiming you have to roll to hit were also claiming that the had to invent the relevant profile to resolve all the above too then and only then would you be able to claim that there isn't a clear answer. Yet everyone claiming you must roll to hit is also claiming that in those situations you don't try to resolve the unresolvable action. That those situations obviously do nothing, yet drop that reasoning for the roll to hit and only for the roll to hit. This is the Hypocrisy and inconsistency of their approach.
The rules are clear regardless that many people want them not to be.
blaktoof wrote: despite the fact I think there is no RAW way to resolve the power.
it is always amazing how much the strawman arguements put forth that it goes off despite not hitting come out, they never are backed up with any RAW statements and never refute the central point of needing to roll to hit and are always laced with insults and the lowest form of debate.
Always laced with insults? Cite them. It should be easy since they're always there.
And I think you don't understand what "strawman" arguments are.
Spoiler:
Manifesting Psychic Powers Sequence
1. Select Psyker and Psychic Power. Unless you have 0 Warp Charge points remaining, select one of your Psyker units, then nominate a psychic power known to that unit that you wish to manifest.
2. Declare Target. If the power requires a target, choose it at this point.
3. Take Psychic Test. The Psyker must now expend Warp Charge points and attempt to harness them by taking a Psychic test. If the test is failed, the psychic power fails and nothing further happens. If two or more 6s are rolled, the Psyker suffers Perils of the Warp, which is resolved immediately.
4. Deny the Witch. If the Psychic test was passed, one of the enemy targets gets a chance to expend Warp Charge points to nullify the power by taking a Deny the Witch test. If the psychic power does not target an enemy unit, your opponent can still attempt to Deny the Witch, but will not be able to use any bonuses. In either case, if the Deny the Witch test is passed, the psychic power does not manifest and nothing further happens.
5. Resolve Psychic Power. Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the power was not negated by a successful Deny the Witch test, it is now resolved.
What's step 5 again?
Spoiler:
Resolve Psychic Power
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.
Okay - we have to resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry. That's easy! Let's go look at Shriek's entry!
Spoiler:
PSYCHIC SHRIEK - Warp Charge 1
The psyker breathes in deeply the power of the Warp before emitting a banshee howl of psychic energy that shreds the minds of his enemies.
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. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek.
Does it say to roll if you hit? Oh - it doesn't. It just says to roll. So not rolling would mean you're not resolving the power according to the instructions in its entry. Where's your permission (actual rules quote please) to skip the resolution?
blaktoof wrote: despite the fact I think there is no RAW way to resolve the power.
it is always amazing how much the strawman arguements put forth that it goes off despite not hitting come out, they never are backed up with any RAW statements and never refute the central point of needing to roll to hit and are always laced with insults and the lowest form of debate.
Always laced with insults? Cite them. It should be easy since they're always there.
And I think you don't understand what "strawman" arguments are.
Spoiler:
Manifesting Psychic Powers Sequence
1. Select Psyker and Psychic Power. Unless you have 0 Warp Charge points remaining, select one of your Psyker units, then nominate a psychic power known to that unit that you wish to manifest.
2. Declare Target. If the power requires a target, choose it at this point.
3. Take Psychic Test. The Psyker must now expend Warp Charge points and attempt to harness them by taking a Psychic test. If the test is failed, the psychic power fails and nothing further happens. If two or more 6s are rolled, the Psyker suffers Perils of the Warp, which is resolved immediately.
4. Deny the Witch. If the Psychic test was passed, one of the enemy targets gets a chance to expend Warp Charge points to nullify the power by taking a Deny the Witch test. If the psychic power does not target an enemy unit, your opponent can still attempt to Deny the Witch, but will not be able to use any bonuses. In either case, if the Deny the Witch test is passed, the psychic power does not manifest and nothing further happens.
5. Resolve Psychic Power. Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the power was not negated by a successful Deny the Witch test, it is now resolved.
What's step 5 again?
Spoiler:
Resolve Psychic Power
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.
Okay - we have to resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry. That's easy! Let's go look at Shriek's entry!
Spoiler:
PSYCHIC SHRIEK - Warp Charge 1
The psyker breathes in deeply the power of the Warp before emitting a banshee howl of psychic energy that shreds the minds of his enemies.
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. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek.
Does it say to roll if you hit? Oh - it doesn't. It just says to roll. So not rolling would mean you're not resolving the power according to the instructions in its entry. Where's your permission (actual rules quote please) to skip the resolution?
following that line all witch fires hit without a successful to hit roll is the problem that is not refuted by people who resolve the power without rolling to hit, or by rolling to hit and discarding the to hit roll.
the list of steps does not require a to hit roll for any witchfire, so yes it is a strawman argument to throw that list up and state it resolves because list, and ignore that required to hit roll.
1) Is the -1T from enfeeble optional or a requirement once manifested?
2) Is it possible to resolve that against units that lack a T characteristic on their profile?
3) How do you resolve the -1T from enfeeble against a vehicle.
4) If different from assigning a T value of 1 and then resolving against that why are you treating this situation differently to the roll to hit for PS?
Particularly number 4 because it is something no one on your side of the argument has ever answered despite repeatedly being asked.
1) Is the -1T from enfeeble optional or a requirement once manifested?
2) Is it possible to resolve that against units that lack a T characteristic on their profile?
3) How do you resolve the -1T from enfeeble against a vehicle.
4) If different from assigning a T value of 1 and then resolving against that why are you treating this situation differently to the roll to hit for PS?
Particularly number 4 because it is something no one on your side of the argument has ever answered despite repeatedly being asked.
your argument is pretty invalid.
1- required, but this is a malediction which has no to hit roll so your whole argument failed at this point and there is no point in continuing.
2-Yes, it applies a -1 to a charcteristic present, if none is present there is no effect this does not mean the power did not resolve.
3- above
4- because it requires a to hit roll before resolution of the power, otherwise all witchfires always resolve as the order of resolution posted by rigeld2 from the book does not state to roll to hit for any power.
comparing a malediction to a witchfire is not a good analogy as they are not similar in how they resolve, one has a step that is required by the RAW that the other does not have, and ignoring that step does not refute that it is required, and stating it is not required is a strawmen argument as witchfire requires it outside of the normal resolution of psychic power sequence, otherwise all withcfires would resolve without rolling to hit as that is not part of the normal resolution of psychic powers.
If -1 toughness has been done to a model with no toughness the effect isn't ignored by the RAW. At the same time you cannot modify a value that isn't there, so effect resolved, the model is enfeebled and should it need to do anything with Toughness that value is at -1 for the turn, but as that will never happen it doesn't really matter. It's like underwear gnomes, collect underwear>???>>profit. enfeeble vehicle>>??>>its -1 Toughness for all those thing it needs a toughness characteristic for, which is none. Ironically Enfeeble would reduce walker strength by 1, and makes the vehicle count terrain as difficult so not that bad.
None of that has anything to do with something that is required to roll to hit having an effect without hitting.
the malediction doesn't hit, or auto hit, or roll to hit, Psychic shriek does need to roll to hit, and as per the rules for rolling to hit it cannot auto hit.
Blaktoof - your concession is accepted, as you haven't found those rules you keep claiming are there.
You also don't understand strawman argument. No one has created an easy to defeat argument, claimed it is yours, and defeated it. What we have done is pointed out your entire lack of rules support.
please cite where resolution of non to wound rolls requires a succesful to hit. Page and graph. Or, you could bluster some more, claiming mythical insults are present without managing to cite any, and generally avoid following the tenets.
Yes PS does not autohit no one is claiming it does.
However you're now claiming that you can resolve the -1T against the vehicle. Lets say I then cast Haemmorage on the vehicle what T is it for the toughness test? Which you must roll?
Big Blind Bill wrote: There is no right answer. Anyone claiming the answer to be simple or obvious is writing out of arrogance or ignorance.
As it stands the rulebook does not clarify the issue, therefore houserule it to your own liking.
These two statements are completely false.
There is a RAW answer for this one, people are just not accepting it.
As it stands the rule-book could do a better job of clarifying the issue, but it does clarify the issue if you do a little reading and comprehension of all relevant rules.
RAW says witchfires roll to hit. RAW says psychic shriek rolls 3D6-LD for determining number of wounds, but nothing about determining how many shots.
I personally play the power as you are saying, however there is still no clear RAW answer to this question. Nowhere does it say "instead of rolling to hit", therefore the issue of the power still being a witchfire remains.
Which is not a question at all.
It is the same as manifesting enfeeble against a vehicle. You ignore the -1T because vehicles donot have a toughness value, just like you ignore the roll to hit because PS does not have a profile to tell you how many dice you need to roll to hit.
If you make up a number of dice to roll, you would also have to make up a T value for a vehicle when it is hit with enfeeble, to be consistent in the ruling.
blaktoof wrote: despite the fact I think there is no RAW way to resolve the power.
it is always amazing how much the strawman arguements put forth that it goes off despite not hitting come out, they never are backed up with any RAW statements and never refute the central point of needing to roll to hit and are always laced with insults and the lowest form of debate.
Always laced with insults? Cite them. It should be easy since they're always there. Does it say to roll if you hit? Oh - it doesn't. It just says to roll. So not rolling would mean you're not resolving the power according to the instructions in its entry. Where's your permission (actual rules quote please) to skip the resolution?
following that line all witch fires hit without a successful to hit roll is the problem that is not refuted by people who resolve the power without rolling to hit, or by rolling to hit and discarding the to hit roll.
Nope, that's not true at all. You're told what to do with weapons with a profile. They generate X number of hits resolved with Y strength and special rules. Weapons without a profile are far less defined - which is what's been said.
the list of steps does not require a to hit roll for any witchfire, so yes it is a strawman argument to throw that list up and state it resolves because list, and ignore that required to hit roll.
No, you don't understand what strawman arguments are. edit: And again, no citation of the "always there" insults. And no actual rules quotes. Cool.
The issue is clear. People just don't want to roll their crappy BS after dumping Warp Dice. I don't blame them. Currently, Psychic Phase is very unreliable. To have a power succeed on Warp generation, avoid Perils, pass Deny the Witch, just to be thwarted by one BS die roll is painful.
Likewise I'm running AstraDar at the moment with no Psykers at all. People arguing for not performing the roll to hit are simply arguing because that is what the rules say happens. If anyone has questionable motives it is those arguing that you make up rules to cover this 1 specific unresolvable event yet in every single other incident of an unresolvable event they follow our reasoning. It absolutely beggars belief that people could read what's been posted here yet still claim that the roll 1 dice to hit interpretation has any reasonable grounds at all.
The issue is clear. People just don't want to roll their crappy BS after dumping Warp Dice. I don't blame them. Currently, Psychic Phase is very unreliable. To have a power succeed on Warp generation, avoid Perils, pass Deny the Witch, just to be thwarted by one BS die roll is painful.
If only GW cared about its customers...
I suggest you refrain from assigning bias to posters you've never met, and with no idea of the armies they play. My main army is Khorne, no psykers.
blaktoof wrote: despite the fact I think there is no RAW way to resolve the power.
it is always amazing how much the strawman arguements put forth that it goes off despite not hitting come out, they never are backed up with any RAW statements and never refute the central point of needing to roll to hit and are always laced with insults and the lowest form of debate.
Always laced with insults? Cite them. It should be easy since they're always there.
And I think you don't understand what "strawman" arguments are.
Spoiler:
Manifesting Psychic Powers Sequence
1. Select Psyker and Psychic Power. Unless you have 0 Warp Charge points remaining, select one of your Psyker units, then nominate a psychic power known to that unit that you wish to manifest.
2. Declare Target. If the power requires a target, choose it at this point.
3. Take Psychic Test. The Psyker must now expend Warp Charge points and attempt to harness them by taking a Psychic test. If the test is failed, the psychic power fails and nothing further happens. If two or more 6s are rolled, the Psyker suffers Perils of the Warp, which is resolved immediately.
4. Deny the Witch. If the Psychic test was passed, one of the enemy targets gets a chance to expend Warp Charge points to nullify the power by taking a Deny the Witch test. If the psychic power does not target an enemy unit, your opponent can still attempt to Deny the Witch, but will not be able to use any bonuses. In either case, if the Deny the Witch test is passed, the psychic power does not manifest and nothing further happens.
5. Resolve Psychic Power. Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the power was not negated by a successful Deny the Witch test, it is now resolved.
What's step 5 again?
Spoiler:
Resolve Psychic Power
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.
Okay - we have to resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry. That's easy! Let's go look at Shriek's entry!
Spoiler:
PSYCHIC SHRIEK - Warp Charge 1
The psyker breathes in deeply the power of the Warp before emitting a banshee howl of psychic energy that shreds the minds of his enemies.
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. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek.
Does it say to roll if you hit? Oh - it doesn't. It just says to roll. So not rolling would mean you're not resolving the power according to the instructions in its entry. Where's your permission (actual rules quote please) to skip the resolution?
This got me thinking that I am actully wrong here. As it is, there is a built-in check already to see if you hit, and that is the 3d6-ld check. Wonder why I did not think of this earlier until I read this. Looking at it from this perspective, if you roll e.g. 8 vs ld of 10 you failed the roll / missed and do not get to cause wounds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FlingitNow wrote: Sorry so you agree that the -1T has to be done. Yet also if they have no T value then you just ignore it? Is that correct?
Could you stop bringing this one up? It has no relevance whatsoever to this.
A and T are both alphabets but they are not the same. That you even suggest we should agree that -T can be applied to something with no T value is quite frankly beyond silly.
Manifesting Psychic Powers Sequence 1. Select Psyker and Psychic Power. Unless you have 0 Warp Charge points remaining, select one of your Psyker units, then nominate a psychic power known to that unit that you wish to manifest. 2. Declare Target. If the power requires a target, choose it at this point. 3. Take Psychic Test. The Psyker must now expend Warp Charge points and attempt to harness them by taking a Psychic test. If the test is failed, the psychic power fails and nothing further happens. If two or more 6s are rolled, the Psyker suffers Perils of the Warp, which is resolved immediately. 4. Deny the Witch. If the Psychic test was passed, one of the enemy targets gets a chance to expend Warp Charge points to nullify the power by taking a Deny the Witch test. If the psychic power does not target an enemy unit, your opponent can still attempt to Deny the Witch, but will not be able to use any bonuses. In either case, if the Deny the Witch test is passed, the psychic power does not manifest and nothing further happens. 5. Resolve Psychic Power. Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the power was not negated by a successful Deny the Witch test, it is now resolved.
What's step 5 again?
Spoiler:
Resolve Psychic Power 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.
Okay - we have to resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry. That's easy! Let's go look at Shriek's entry!
Spoiler:
PSYCHIC SHRIEK - Warp Charge 1 The psyker breathes in deeply the power of the Warp before emitting a banshee howl of psychic energy that shreds the minds of his enemies. 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. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek.
Does it say to roll if you hit? Oh - it doesn't. It just says to roll. So not rolling would mean you're not resolving the power according to the instructions in its entry. Where's your permission (actual rules quote please) to skip the resolution?
As Blaktoof has already posted, you cannot claim that "the power has been successfully manifested" above applies to all Psychic powers. If they did, all Witchfires would Auto-Hit. The rules you have quoted above are the general rules. Witchfires have specific rules. Those being:
Spoiler:
Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. Indeed, they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons. Just like when shooting a weapon, a Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point) and cannot be locked in combat if he wishes to manifest a witchfire power. 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. (...) Unlike firing a shooting weapon though, a Psyker can manifest several different witchfire powers during the same phase (assuming he has enough Warp Charge) and each can target a different unit if you so choose. Manifesting witchfire powers does not prevent the Psyker (or his unit) from firing weapons in the following Shooting phase, nor does it prevent the Psyker’s unit from Running, Turbo-boosting or moving Flat Out. A Psyker who manifests a witchfire power can target a different unit with his other ranged weapons in the Shooting phase. Witchfire powers cannot be used to make Overwatch attacks.
So, "Witchfire powers are shooting attacks". How do you resolve them? Shooting sequence.
What happens at the To Hit phase if you fail To Hit? No To Wound phase.
As for the age-old excuse:
DeathReaper wrote: If you make up a number of dice to roll, you would also have to make up a T value for a vehicle when it is hit with enfeeble, to be consistent in the ruling.
When has a To Hit roll of 1 been made up? Making up a T value is indeed "making up" a rule, obviously not allowed.
Spoiler:
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, (...).
Naw wrote: This got me thinking that I am actully wrong here. As it is, there is a built-in check already to see if you hit, and that is the 3d6-ld check. Wonder why I did not think of this earlier until I read this. Looking at it from this perspective, if you roll e.g. 8 vs ld of 10 you failed the roll / missed and do not get to cause wounds.
I am quite sure that is indeed the RaI of it. Psychic Shriek just needs to be a Malediction... But by RaW, it is only trouble, that's a certainty.
BlackTalos wrote: As Blaktoof has already posted, you cannot claim that "the power has been successfully manifested" above applies to all Psychic powers. If they did, all Witchfires would Auto-Hit.
Not true. What are the " effects according to the instructions in its entry"?
Oh, it's a profile. Profiles have a number of shots that need to hit. I've addressed this with blaktoof, perhaps you read that post?
What happens at the To Hit phase if you fail To Hit?
No To Wound phase.
Correct. Absolutely correct. 100% inarguable.
Psychic Shriek does not roll To Wound. Ever.
The roll to hit is defined as is the roll to wound. It is impossible to resolve either of those rolls for PS due to lack of a profile. So why stop at making up rules to roll to hit? Why not make up a profile to roll to wound on too? No one on your side has ever been able to answer this.
Lets assume it is assault 1 for a second and has a profile. Guess what the 3d6-ld wounds still occurs regardless of that roll to hit. Why? Because literally NOTHING in the rules links the 2 effects. So why again link it to the roll to hit why not link it to the roll to wound? Or link it to a failed save? Why arbitrarily link it to a successful hit? Again no one on your side of the argument has been able to answer this.
Lets see how you handle similar situations. Lets say I manifest Haemmorage and target a vehicle. The toughness test roll is well defined, impossible to auto pass and required to happen. However the vehicle lacks the relevant profile. So do you set it to T1 or say it has no effect?
Once you've resolved your T1 test and it fails you then have a wound on the vehicle. However the vehicle has no woubds characteristic so do you say it is uneffected by wounds or set it to W1 and remove it as a casualty?
Also the roll to hit before you resolve crowd how does this work for say Smite. The effect of Smite is to fire an Assault 4 S4 Ap2 shooting attack. Do I:
1) roll once to hit if I do then make the shooting attack and if I miss I do jot resolve the power
2) roll 4 dice to hit and resolve an Assault 4 S4 Ap2 shooting attack for each hit (potentially 16 shots).
3) roll 4 dice if I miss once then the power is cancelled or if I hit all 4 times then resolve the Assault4 S4 Ap2 shooting attack?
This thread should be locked already it has gone no where like the nth threads before it on the same topic. This is not the fault of the posters, but the general consensus can see that the rules for PS are incomplete within the context of the rest of the rules for actually using a witchfire psychic power against a target.
facts-
PS is a witchfire- it requires a to hit roll
speculation- how many dice to roll
The general psychic rules do not call for a to hit roll
the specific rules for witch fires require a to hit roll
specific overrides general
otherwise every witchfire would resolve its effect despite missing or the result of the to hit roll as it is not part of the general steps in resolving a psychic power.
speculation- you can resolve the effect of a power that requires a to hit roll without rolling to hit or when missing
nothing within the rule for PS states you may do so, and no one can state a RAW passage from any of the pertinent rules section that you may resolve effects for things that require to hit rolls even if they miss.
arguments that 1 dice is rolling to hit- strawman, no RAW support in shooting, psychic, or PS rules.
arguments that effect happens despite to hit roll- strawman, no RAW support in shooting, psychic, or PS rules.
arguments that you do not need to roll to hit- goes against RAW, just plain false.
anyone in this thread that says "this is how it works" is a HYWPI argument.
lets lock this thread and be done with it until next month again.
Broad declarations that because your argument was debunked that the rules are broken and don't work. What is known:
You have an unresolvable roll to hit. That is fine because in any case where this happens we leave the unresolvable effect and any subsequent effects. Just as we do when wounds get applied to vehicles or T tests or modifiers. This is all fact.
We have a 3d6-ld roll that generates wounds that HAS to be resolved once the power is manifested. This is not a to wound roll and is not dependant on a successful to wound roll or indeed a successful to hit roll. All it depends on is a successful casting of the power. If the target UNIT doesn't have an Ld value just like above we leave the roll unresolved and there for have no wounds to worry about.
If Blaktoof thought that he actually had a leg to stand on he would have answered the questions from my previous post. As usual for his side of the argument when they have been proven wrong they throw their hands in the air and declare the rules broken. They are not. They are actually very clear.
your entire post is HYWPI and is the basis of my above argument which you nor anyone else has been able to debunk as there is no RAW support for your false made up stance that has 0 RAW support and is in fact a collection of half rules that never actually override the required to hit roll and are in fact nothing but strawman arguments, ignoring the plain RAW, and erroneous.
I am not supporting the stance that you roll 1 hit die to resolve the effect, I am supporting the stance that RAW the rules for PS make it unresolvable.
Just saying that RaW is HYWPI doesn't stop it from being RaW. If you weren't just trolling you would have answered my questions or argued against the points made. You have failed to do so at every turn. I'll repeat them for you:
The roll to hit is defined as is the roll to wound. It is impossible to resolve either of those rolls for PS due to lack of a profile. So why stop at making up rules to roll to hit? Why not make up a profile to roll to wound on too? No one on your side has ever been able to answer this.
Lets assume it is assault 1 for a second and has a profile. Guess what the 3d6-ld wounds still occurs regardless of that roll to hit. Why? Because literally NOTHING in the rules links the 2 effects. So why again link it to the roll to hit why not link it to the roll to wound? Or link it to a failed save? Why arbitrarily link it to a successful hit? Again no one on your side of the argument has been able to answer this.
Lets see how you handle similar situations. Lets say I manifest Haemmorage and target a vehicle. The toughness test roll is well defined, impossible to auto pass and required to happen. However the vehicle lacks the relevant profile. So do you set it to T1 or say it has no effect?
Once you've resolved your T1 test and it fails you then have a wound on the vehicle. However the vehicle has no woubds characteristic so do you say it is uneffected by wounds or set it to W1 and remove it as a casualty?
Let me guess you'll go quiet for a while then when someone else posts the RaW you'll declare that is HYWPI and beg for the thread to be closed again to save face?
blaktoof wrote: otherwise every witchfire would resolve its effect despite missing or the result of the to hit roll as it is not part of the general steps in resolving a psychic power.
already posted rules, maybe you should try posting rules to support your claim that it is RAW that you can ignore the to hit roll?
or RAW that effects that you are required to roll to hit for still go off if you miss?
A strawman argument is proping up a psuedo set of rules that do not actually discuss the central point of the debate, and claiming they do for no supported reason.
example.
the general rules for psychic powers do not list rolling to hit as required to make it to resolving the power, therefire psychic shriek goes off without a to hit roll.
why this is a strawman argument- it ignores the central point that specifically witchfires require a to hit roll, therefore stating that the general rule overrides the specific rule is the same as saying all witchfires resolve without rolling to hit, because you ignored that central point of the argument with general rules that do not actually discuss witchfires and requiring to roll to hit.
example 2
the normal shooting sequence requires you to roll to wound after rolling to hit, since there is no roll to wound in PS therefore you do not need to roll to hit.
why this is a strawman argument, the general rules for shooting pertain to weapons with a profile, psychic shriek has no profile but RAW is still required to roll to hit as it is a witchfire which is more specific than the general shooting rules. Nothing in the rules for PS itself state it may ignore the to hit roll, so you cannot go to an unrelated general rule and claim because there is no to wound roll it resolves anyways. There is no actual connection back to psychic shriek nor is there anything in the shooting rules that gives you permission to resolve attacks effects that are required to roll to hit that do not roll to wound even if they fail their to hit roll.
example 3
we roll 1 hit die to resolve to hit rolls for psychic shriek
why this is a strawman argument, generally things roll 1 die to hit, however psychic shriek doesn't tell us to roll 1 die, nor does it have a profile that lists how many die to roll, therefore there is no actual rules connection back to psychic shriek to support this claim. Further there is no actual RAW stating that you only roll 1 die unless specified otherwise. It is simply propping up part of a section in the shooting section and claiming its something it is not and encompasses everything else.
anyone who says "this is how it works" in regards to resolving PS is a HYWPI argument, with at best some RAI to support it.
the general rules for psychic powers do not list rolling to hit as required to make it to resolving the power, therefire psychic shriek goes off without a to hit roll.
why this is a strawman argument- it ignores the central point that specifically witchfires require a to hit roll, therefore stating that the general rule overrides the specific rule is the same as saying all witchfires resolve without rolling to hit, because you ignored that central point of the argument with general rules that do not actually discuss witchfires and requiring to roll to hit.
Yes it requires a roll to hit. The 3d6-ld test however is not tied to that roll at all. Requires a roll to hit is not the same as requiring a successful hit. Stop claiming it is or come up with some rules supporting this claim. Also come up with ANY rules that tie the 3d6-ld wounds effect to the result of rolls to hit.
he normal shooting sequence requires you to roll to wound after rolling to hit, since there is no roll to wound in PS therefore you do not need to roll to hit.
why this is a strawman argument, the general rules for shooting pertain to weapons with a profile, psychic shriek has no profile but RAW is still required to roll to hit as it is a witchfire which is more specific than the general shooting rules. Nothing in the rules for PS itself state it may ignore the to hit roll, so you cannot go to an unrelated general rule and claim because there is no to wound roll it resolves anyways. There is no actual connection back to psychic shriek nor is there anything in the shooting rules that gives you permission to resolve attacks effects that are required to roll to hit that do not roll to wound even if they fail their to hit roll.
You largely defeat your own argument here. Nothing in the Witchfire or PS tells you not to resolve the wound roll. So why are you treating it differently? I almost laughed out load at the underlined, I mean the specific instructions in the Witchfire rules to roll to hit override the general shooting rules that require you to hit. Genius, those 2 rules agree.
This word "Stawman" you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means.
blaktoof wrote: cite permission for effect to resolve on a failed to hit roll.
as you have never done so.
blaktoof, you just posted an irrelevant question. It would be the same as saying 'cite permission for Psychic Shrieks effect to resolve on a successful to hit roll'.
We have shown permission to resolve through the Psychic power rules. (This has nothing to do with a successful or failed to hit roll)
The rule that states you resolve the effects according to the instructions in the psychic powers entry. (This has been posted already).
You would have to make up a rule (Number of dice to roll) to be able to roll to hit at all, as PS has no profile telling us how many shots it has.
blaktoof wrote: A strawman argument is proping up a psuedo set of rules that do not actually discuss the central point of the debate, and claiming they do for no supported reason.
blaktoof wrote: cite permission for effect to resolve on a failed to hit roll.
as you have never done so.
We have cited permission to resolve the power repeatedly. It doesn't mention anything about hitting or missing therefore it doesn't care whether you hit or miss. You now need to show that a miss removes that permission or that witchfires require a hit to resolve.
A successful hit only matters if you intend to make a to wound roll or if you have an effect that states it is triggered by a hit or by hits thus you need to post rules for above or that the 3d6-ld wounds is dependent on scoring one or more hits or is resolved for each hit or is done instead of the to wound roll (as that roll is trigger by successful to hits).
blaktoof wrote: cite permission for effect to resolve on a failed to hit roll.
as you have never done so.
blaktoof, you just posted an irrelevant question. It would be the same as saying 'cite permission for Psychic Shrieks effect to resolve on a successful to hit roll'.
We have shown permission to resolve through the Psychic power rules. (This has nothing to do with a successful or failed to hit roll)
The rule that states you resolve the effects according to the instructions in the psychic powers entry. (This has been posted already).
You would have to make up a rule (Number of dice to roll) to be able to roll to hit at all, as PS has no profile telling us how many shots it has.
for the reason I stated you have not shown permission and stating the general resolution process for psychic powers which does not take into account the rules for witchfire requiring a to hit rule makes that completely invalid as was my statement, that is the defination of a strawman argument.
please cite RAW that you have permission to ignore the to hit roll for witchfires from the general section on how psychic powers are resolved. Otherwise your argument is that no witchfire is required to roll to hit to resolve the effect of the power.
blaktoof wrote: for the reason I stated you have not shown permission and stating the general resolution process for psychic powers which does not take into account the rules for witchfire requiring a to hit rule makes that completely invalid as was my statement, that is the defination of a strawman argument.
Did you miss where I cited the definition? Because what you're saying isn't it.
please cite RAW that you have permission to ignore the to hit roll for witchfires from the general section on how psychic powers are resolved. Otherwise your argument is that no witchfire is required to roll to hit to resolve the effect of the power.
No, that's not a true statement. As I've proven. Please stop asserting it.
I think it's time to drop this - despite proving that the to hit has no effect on the resolution, Blaktoof is incapable of posting any sensical rebuttal.
for the reason I stated you have not shown permission and stating the general resolution process for psychic powers which does not take into account the rules for witchfire requiring a to hit rule makes that completely invalid as was my statement, that is the defination of a strawman argument.
Again you're equating to hit roll with successful to hit roll. Stop this has been pointed out to you already so repeatibg this stance without support is not help. Prove that the requirement to roll to hit with a Witchfire means you that you must hit with that roll to resolve.
please cite RAW that you have permission to ignore the to hit roll for witchfires from the general section on how psychic powers are resolved. Otherwise your argument is that no witchfire is required to roll to hit to resolve the effect of the power.
Are you incapable of understanding English? We have not stated that you don't have to roll to hit. Yes all witchfires roll to hit. You still resolve them regardless of that roll, obviously anything that is dependent on a successful to hit roll will only trigger on a successful to hit roll. No part of PS is dependent on a successful to hit roll, unless you can show that it is. If you point to the requirement to roll to hit that is you conceding.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Do we finally have general agreement that the roll to hit for PS is irrelevant and PS works fine RaW.
Nice
