So, as we all know this quite well by now, there is an issue with Witchfires that do not have a profile but must roll To Hit to follow RaW.

Question is:

Does the new rules for the Maleceptor (nids) now change anything in the debate?

-"Vehicles are treated as having a Leadership of 10"
-"The Psyker can attempt to manifest this Psychic power up to 3 times in each of its Pshycic phases"
-"Each attempt is resolved separately"

A) 3 Rolls To Hit with misses just like shooting an Assault 3?
B) Yet again we simply ignore the "a witchfire power must roll To Hit" and just resolve the 3 Powers?

Other option:
X) Let's simply ignore this until an unknowing soul asks the question because we know that this will simply Loop & Lock within a few pages?

B) you yet again ignore, as missing has no effect on the resolution of the power, same for similar powers such as PS.

ASsuming ASsault 3 is unsafe, as every time an assumption on the number of shots is made.

Well, less of an assumption and more of a use of standard Shooting rules:

IE: following the rule: "Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. Indeed, they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons."
and then the rule: "roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot".

No assumptions there, just applying Rules rather than ignoring one. I have also just noted that it says "Most models only get" and not weapons, so you could conclude:
1) Models get 1 Shot.
2) Some weapons get more ("as we’ll explain in more detail later").

That isnt a rule. "most" doesnt define anything specific enough to apply it, as you do not know if your model is "most" or not. In fact even "most" is almost certainly untrue....

Well, i take it as "most" being all the ones that are not defined.

I mean let's take other examples:

a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later)

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.

Most units Fall Back 2D6".

Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model.

Unlike most other vehicles, Skimmers have flying bases under their hull.

Most Destroyer Weapons have AP1 or AP2, so armour saves are not typically allowed.

If you are rolling To Wound in close combat, do you not assume "use the Strength on the attacker’s profile"?
If a Unit is told to Fall back, do you not assume "Fall Back 2D6"?

(Assumptions here)
If a Vehicle has no Unit stat line, would you not assume they "fight as individual units"?
If a Vehicle is not a skimmer, do you not assume that they have no base?
If D weapons have an AP, but it is not defined, would you not assume "have AP1 or AP2"?

In terms of the "most" in Fall Back and To Wound above, i always make those assumptions:
If there is no definition as to how far you Fall back (as opposed to: Jetbikes, Cavalry, Jump Units who are defined as 3D6) then you take the defined "most" 2D6".
If there is no definition as to how many shots you have (as opposed to: Assault, Heavy, Salvo who are defined as 2,3,4,36 Shots) then you take the defined "most" 1 shot.

All in all, you struggle to find "most" being a rule that can be followed. But why is that? I mean it's Rules as Written. Yes a little vague, but has RaW always been clear cut? YMDC would not exist ...

 BlackTalos wrote:
So, as we all know this quite well by now, there is an issue with Witchfires that do not have a profile but must roll To Hit to follow RaW.

Question is:

Does the new rules for the Maleceptor (nids) now change anything in the debate?

It's not assault 3 - it's 3 different castings of the same power. No, the new creature doesn't change a single thing.

"If you are rolling To Wound in close combat, do you not assume "use the Strength on the attacker’s profile"? "

No, I use the exactly specified in every instance "look at wha tthe CCW profile states", which MAY be "S:User"

"If a Unit is told to Fall back, do you not assume "Fall Back 2D6"?"

No, I look at the units unit type to work out how far it falls back. Again, 100% complete information, no assumption required

For "most" to make any sense, then "most" would have to refer to the number of modles in the game as a whole. And probably, given the sheer number of SM with bolters and IG with lasgun, this "most" is entirely false. It is more likely "a fair number of models only get to fire 1 shot" - which is even less of a rule than the actual wording given.

"Most" does not define a rule. It never has done.Mainly, because it cannot do so. The actual rules require you to look at the profile, so when you can find the profile for this power, or PS, you can know and not assume.

Can anyone quote this 'mythical' RAW passage that things that are required to hit can resolve their effect anyways because normal shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, and non normal shooting that is required to roll to hit doesn't therefore reasons?

or can we drop that B.S. and admit its not RAW and that it is just some peoples HYWPI

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That isnt a rule. "most" doesnt define anything specific enough to apply it, as you do not know if your model is "most" or not. In fact even "most" is almost certainly untrue....

Just a quick thumb through of the codexes on my desk, and very few models actually only get 1 shot.
Oddly, in the entirety of the DE book, 1 shot models are 3 HQ choices, 1 troop choice, 1 transport with an upgrade to take away it's multiple shots.
Everything else either isn't shooting, or is shooting a lot more.
Most can't be used as a general qualifier for all models, when most aren't actually most.

-Matt

blaktoof wrote:
Can anyone quote this 'mythical' RAW passage that things that are required to hit can resolve their effect anyways because normal shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, and non normal shooting that is required to roll to hit doesn't therefore reasons?

or can we drop that B.S. and admit its not RAW and that it is just some peoples HYWPI

It's been quoted before. The psychic power rules require us to resolve a power according to its instructions.
Cite the rule that denies Shriek (et. al.) from finishing resolution because you missed a To Hit roll. It's not like Shriek rolls To Wound or anything.

I understand your point, but i disagree with 100% information with the other example:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"If a Unit is told to Fall back, do you not assume "Fall Back 2D6"?"

No, I look at the units unit type to work out how far it falls back. Again, 100% complete information, no assumption required

could you Quote which rules you are using for Infantry Fall Back moves?
You said yourself that "Most units Fall Back 2D6" cannot be used: an IG Tank list contains almost no Infantry and the "most" is not RaW.

Most to me just means in all cases here "ones that are not the non-basic (Jump Units, Monstrous Creatures, etc)". Even if Infantry are 10% of the Units on the board and only 5% of shooting attacks (Witchfires) are "Most models only get to fire one shot".

"Most" does not define a rule. It never has done.Mainly, because it cannot do so. The actual rules require you to look at the profile, so when you can find the profile for this power, or PS, you can know and not assume.

So you cannot use an existing wording ("Most models only get to fire one shot") in the RaW but you can decide to ignore a Rule? ("a witchfire power must roll To Hit")

I mean between breaking a Rule and following a vague RaW, i've already made my decision long ago... But i can definitely see where you are coming from. Just need to wait for another FAQ. They did sort out the "Precision shots" one....

 BlackTalos wrote:
So you cannot use an existing wording ("Most models only get to fire one shot") in the RaW but you can decide to ignore a Rule? ("a witchfire power must roll To Hit")

I mean between breaking a Rule and following a vague RaW, i've already made my decision long ago... But i can definitely see where you are coming from. Just need to wait for another FAQ. They did sort out the "Precision shots" one....

See, here you show a failure to understand.
The rule isn't being ignored just because. It's just not relevant to decide what is required because the power must be resolved according to its instructions anyway.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Can anyone quote this 'mythical' RAW passage that things that are required to hit can resolve their effect anyways because normal shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, and non normal shooting that is required to roll to hit doesn't therefore reasons?

or can we drop that B.S. and admit its not RAW and that it is just some peoples HYWPI

It's been quoted before. The psychic power rules require us to resolve a power according to its instructions.
Cite the rule that denies Shriek (et. al.) from finishing resolution because you missed a To Hit roll. It's not like Shriek rolls To Wound or anything.

A above. We have a rule telling us to resolve the power. We miss the to hit, or ignore it. We check the rest of the power, note that nothing in the power requires us to successfully hit to carry on resolving, and we move on.

Please, for once, provide actual rules showing that a successful to hit is necessary for ps et al. Page and graph. Further dissembling on your part will be concession.

Uh, C. You don't need to ignore any rules. "A witchfire must roll to hit" That isn't optional.

However, hits don't matter to this particular power.

HIWPI: I wouldn't make someone roll to hit when it didn't matter.
RAW: Witchfire powers roll to hit, unless it's a nova, blast, or template, even if the roll will have no impact on the rest of the power.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
. Further dissembling on your part will be concession.

Can you please stop making this sort of statement? It doesn't actually encourage any sort of positive response.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Can anyone quote this 'mythical' RAW passage that things that are required to hit can resolve their effect anyways because normal shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, and non normal shooting that is required to roll to hit doesn't therefore reasons?

or can we drop that B.S. and admit its not RAW and that it is just some peoples HYWPI

It's been quoted before. The psychic power rules require us to resolve a power according to its instructions.
Cite the rule that denies Shriek (et. al.) from finishing resolution because you missed a To Hit roll. It's not like Shriek rolls To Wound or anything.

quote it again, the statement "its been quoted before" is not a valid argument.

here

You are wrong, because its been quoted before.

see it adds nothing and shows nothing of relevance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Can anyone quote this 'mythical' RAW passage that things that are required to hit can resolve their effect anyways because normal shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, and non normal shooting that is required to roll to hit doesn't therefore reasons?

or can we drop that B.S. and admit its not RAW and that it is just some peoples HYWPI

It's been quoted before. The psychic power rules require us to resolve a power according to its instructions.
Cite the rule that denies Shriek (et. al.) from finishing resolution because you missed a To Hit roll. It's not like Shriek rolls To Wound or anything.

A above. We have a rule telling us to resolve the power. We miss the to hit, or ignore it. We check the rest of the power, note that nothing in the power requires us to successfully hit to carry on resolving, and we move on.

Please, for once, provide actual rules showing that a successful to hit is necessary for ps et al. Page and graph. Further dissembling on your part will be concession.

stating that the steps to resolve a psychic power are all you need for resolution is pretty incorrect, as they do not cover any witchfires needing to roll to hit at all. Claiming that is the extent of what is necessary means all witchfires do not need to roll to hit, when clearly by the RAW statement that they are required to roll to hit -they do.

Why do you think a RAW required step is not necessary to the outcome, in this case the required to hit roll?

blaktoof wrote:
Why do you think a RAW required step is not necessary to the outcome, in this case the required to hit roll?

Because the only thing that requires a successful To Hit roll are To Wound rolls.

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Why do you think a RAW required step is not necessary to the outcome, in this case the required to hit roll?

Because the only thing that requires a successful To Hit roll are To Wound rolls.

The normal shooting sequence is to hit roll, then roll to wound.

that does not mean the only thing that requires a successful to hit roll are to wound rolls, and obviously as a witchfire it is called out as needing to roll to hit with the actual entry for psychic shriek not stating it can ignore the to hit roll.


Can you actually quote somewhere it says the only thing that requires a successful to hit roll are to wound rolls?

Can you quote where the rules tells you that you need to hit to resolve the Psychic Power?

W all agree you need to roll to hit, however, the onus is on you to prove that in order to resolve the power you need to actually hit.

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Why do you think a RAW required step is not necessary to the outcome, in this case the required to hit roll?

Because the only thing that requires a successful To Hit roll are To Wound rolls.

so you have no RAW to actually support that claim in any way.

Witchfire 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

well the power states RAW it must roll to hit

also states its a shooting attack, so psychic shriek is a shooting attack.

Shooting attacks require a successful to hit roll, to hit.

blaktoof wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Why do you think a RAW required step is not necessary to the outcome, in this case the required to hit roll?

Because the only thing that requires a successful To Hit roll are To Wound rolls.

so you have no RAW to actually support that claim in any way.

Witchfire 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

well the power states RAW it must roll to hit

also states its a shooting attack, so psychic shriek is a shooting attack.

Shooting attacks require a successful to hit roll, to hit.

Good job. You proved you need to roll to hit (which nobody has said otherwise). Now prove you need to successfully roll To Hit to resolve the power. Shooting attacks require a successful hit if you wish to roll to wound. Since Psychic Shriek doesn't roll to wound, I don't need permission to do so from a successful hit.

Do any of the witchfire powers with profiles have instructions on the resolution of the power within the power? Without them your argument that you only resolve the power using the rules within the power just broke all the powers with profiles only....

blaktoof wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Why do you think a RAW required step is not necessary to the outcome, in this case the required to hit roll?

Because the only thing that requires a successful To Hit roll are To Wound rolls.

so you have no RAW to actually support that claim in any way.

Witchfire 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

well the power states RAW it must roll to hit

also states its a shooting attack, so psychic shriek is a shooting attack.

Shooting attacks require a successful to hit roll, to hit.

Proviong a negative is quite tricky

We have rules allowing us to resolve the power according to its entry. Nothing int he entry requires a successful to-hit roll, therefore unless told otherwise, a successful to-hit roll is not needed

SO we have proven permission. You now need to prove there is a restriction. Page and graph.

Normal shooting attacks require a succesful to-hit in order to roll to-wound. Noone disputes this. Please, SHOW A LINK between this power and the to-hit. Anything causal - anything at all - stating that before you can resolve the rest of the power you must successfully hit.

Page and graph. Nothing else.

It's a single hit that causes D3 wounds to a unit or a glancing hit on a vehicle. I don't see where the argument comes into play.

Side Note Edit: I don't know why someone would start this type of thread up again. It's just going to be locked right away after everyone starts bashing each other.

Proviong a negative is quite tricky

We have rules allowing us to resolve the power according to its entry. Nothing int he entry requires a successful to-hit roll, therefore unless told otherwise, a successful to-hit roll is not needed

SO we have proven permission. You now need to prove there is a restriction. Page and graph.

Normal shooting attacks require a succesful to-hit in order to roll to-wound. Noone disputes this. Please, SHOW A LINK between this power and the to-hit. Anything causal - anything at all - stating that before you can resolve the rest of the power you must successfully hit.

Page and graph. Nothing else.

So if we treat witchfire as a shooting attack.

Shooting Attacks roll to hit unless otherwise specified.

On a roll to hit, the hit is successful. On a failed roll to hit, the shooting attack is not successful.

So how does an ability with the witchfire rule go on to resolve the rest of its profile? I don't believe it can.

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.

What do you think happens when it misses?

note there is no link between needing to hit and rolling to wound directly either.

the to wound process tells you what you get do with hits.

you hit with psychic shriek, the psychic shriek profile tells you what you get do with the hit.

blaktoof wrote: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.

What do you think happens when it misses?

note there is no link between needing to hit and rolling to wound directly either.

Gravmyr wrote:
Do any of the witchfire powers with profiles have instructions on the resolution of the power within the power? Without them your argument that you only resolve the power using the rules within the power just broke all the powers with profiles only....

You said the same thing in the last thread and were proved wrong. Care to offer actual rules support for this stance?
We know how to resolve shooting attacks with profiles. Witchfires are - surprise surprise - shooting attacks with profiles (when they exist).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Can anyone quote this 'mythical' RAW passage that things that are required to hit can resolve their effect anyways because normal shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, and non normal shooting that is required to roll to hit doesn't therefore reasons?

or can we drop that B.S. and admit its not RAW and that it is just some peoples HYWPI

It's been quoted before. The psychic power rules require us to resolve a power according to its instructions.
Cite the rule that denies Shriek (et. al.) from finishing resolution because you missed a To Hit roll. It's not like Shriek rolls To Wound or anything.

quote it again, the statement "its been quoted before" is not a valid argument.

here

You are wrong, because its been quoted before.

see it adds nothing and shows nothing of relevance.

Sorry, I thought you were familiar with the rules being discussed.

Now, I'm required by the rules to "[r]esolve it's effects according to the instructions in its entry."

I see nothing in there telling me I must hit with the power to roll the 3d6. In fact, I see a simple instruction to do so.

I quoted rules. Find some that prove my assertions or quotes incorrect.

Thankfully you posted exactly what you are using. Your first quote above is to follow the rules in the entry. What rules are you using in the entry for any power with just a profile?

Gravmyr wrote:
Thankfully you posted exactly what you are using. Your first quote above is to follow the rules in the entry. What rules are you using in the entry for any power with just a profile?

The fact that all of them say they're witchfires, which references the shooting rules.
Which is what I said in the last thread. There isn't a power that is "just" a profile, they're all witchfires with profiles.
Since shooting rules dictate how to handle profiles, your assertion continues to be unfounded.

Care to quote what in the witchfire powers tells you to continue with shooting rules and roll to wound after the roll to hit? The to hit is all that is referenced in the Witchfire rules.

Edit: As well as saves. So the question becomes in a power that just has a profile has no rules that are different from those such as Shriek, why would you treat them different. Unless a weapon tells you on a miss do x you stop after the missed to hit. Since witchfires are weapons why treat them different? There is nothing in any weapon that tells you this is what you do after a failed to hit roll without actually using the words do x even if / instead if you miss.

Gravmyr wrote:
Care to quote what in the witchfire powers tells you to continue with shooting rules and roll to wound after the roll to hit? The to hit is all that is referenced in the Witchfire rules.

Not true.

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

First sentence in the witchfire rules. I'm surprised you missed it.
Let's go see the rules for shooting attacks, shall we?

So now, can we stop pretending that your assertion has any basis in actual rules or reality? Maybe, I dunno, come back with a rules quote instead of "NUH UH REASONS!"?

I assume you did not see the rest of the amended post. Please explain how and why you are treating Shriek different from any other weapon. If the entirety of the witchfire rules are considered part of every single witchfire, and therefor all rules referenced/used by weapons, then how can you advocate not rolling to hit even if it doesn't matter. What are you then using to not continue with step 5. There is nothing telling you to skip that step either. As soon as you use the line "it doesn't matter" you must by the tenets of YMDC mark your post as HIWPI.

Gravmyr wrote:
I assume you did not see the rest of the amended post. Please explain how and why you are treating Shriek different from any other weapon. If the entirety of the witchfire rules are considered part of every single witchfire, and therefor all rules referenced/used by weapons, then how can you advocate not rolling to hit even if it doesn't matter. What are you then using to not continue with step 5. There is nothing telling you to skip that step either. As soon as you use the line "it doesn't matter" you must by the tenets of YMDC mark your post as HIWPI.

I'm not treating it differently. I roll to hit with zero dice, because I'm not told to roll any. I don't roll to wound because I've hit zero times.
Just like that "HIWPI" of not rolling 10 dice, then rerolling them all if I'm under the effects of both Misfortune and Fortune, I skip steps that are entirely irrelevant.
I'm not treating Shriek differently from any other weapon - and never have.

Now, could you address the actual point that your original assertion is indeed inaccurate? To remind you:

Gravmyr wrote:
Do any of the witchfire powers with profiles have instructions on the resolution of the power within the power? Without them your argument that you only resolve the power using the rules within the power just broke all the powers with profiles only....

Nothing is broken, I've supported that stance completely using rules.

Except you are. You are told you must roll to hit, you are in fact told how many to roll.

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

Stating that a profile tells you to roll is incorrect. The profile only tells you how many shots are taken. The rules for shriek do not in fact tell you not to roll. So you must roll to hit. Again no weapon in the game tells you to create wounds or affects without hitting without specifically stating the the roll is irrelevant or that there are other consequences. You have a requirement to do so therefor you need a specific allowance to get around it. There is nothing in Shriek that allows it. Again no weapon states it if you don't hit you don't compare on the table and then not roll to wound. If there is please point it out.

Again missing the point there.

Your stance is proven incorrect, so you change tack. Classy.

You cannot roll any dice, so you satisfy step four, this then satisfies step five. Done.

Mark your posts hywpi. Thanks

@nos Are psychic powers weapons? Rigeld2 and I agree that they are.

The shooting rules tell you to roll, based on the profile. You have no profile, so cannot roll any dice.

Can your prove your case at any point? Some valid rules would be a start.

You mean like the rule about weapons I posted above?

Ok, relevant rules. As in, prove how many dice you can roll. Page and graph. Not "most", that isn't a rule. Page and graph, and exact cite, showing how many dice you roll.

I just did above, I have altered mine and do not have a page number. In the shooting section under type number of shots. Above does not say most, it states you fire one unless told otherwise. Were you told otherwise?

And what defines most?

I play Eldar, almost every single one of my models fires 2+ shots. So clearly most models roll more than 2 To hit dice.

I also play Nids, again most of my models roll either 3+ or 0 dice when shooting.

Gravmyr wrote:
I just did above, I have altered mine and do not have a page number. In the shooting section under type number of shots. Above does not say most, it states you fire one unless told otherwise. Were you told otherwise?

The quote above does not state that. It never mentions one shot. The only reference to one shot is "most weapons", whereas in fact for most codexes the weapons fire more than one shot. Hell, the actual quote only talks about models. So no, you have yet to cite a relevant rule.

Prove, when you have no profile, how many shots you fire. Page and graph.

Gravmyr wrote:

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

Interesting this says most? Where does it state that? It states that if it is not 1 you will be told so. Again were you told so?

I did not state that that quote States one shot, at all. Try reading more carefully.

Where can you find one shot? I don't see one mentioned in that quote.

Gravmyr wrote:
Except you are. You are told you must roll to hit, you are in fact told how many to roll.

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

The underlined is an assumption and not based on the quoted rule.

Stating that a profile tells you to roll is incorrect. The profile only tells you how many shots are taken. The rules for shriek do not in fact tell you not to roll. So you must roll to hit. Again no weapon in the game tells you to create wounds or affects without hitting without specifically stating the the roll is irrelevant or that there are other consequences. You have a requirement to do so therefor you need a specific allowance to get around it. There is nothing in Shriek that allows it. Again no weapon states it if you don't hit you don't compare on the table and then not roll to wound. If there is please point it out.

I haven't asserted the underlined.
The bolded, while true, is irrelevant because the shooting rules only allow To Wound rolls for successful Hits. No hits? No To Wound rolls.
Does Shriek roll To Wound?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gravmyr wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:

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

Interesting this says most? Where does it state that? It states that if it is not 1 you will be told so. Again were you told so?

Please underline the word "one" in the provided quote. For your statement to be true, it must be there.

It's the antonym of multiple. Beyond that all models fire a single weapon except for Monstrous Creatures. Before you point to a codex and state that they most do not fire a single shot please post a single model that is shooting without a weapon to display that the model is not firing a single shot.

Which nids fire 0 shots? By which I mean that have a WS above - or 0 so actually fire.

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos Are psychic powers weapons? Rigeld2 and I agree that they are.

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. Nowhere is it mentioned they are weapons.

As for Wtichfires and the rolling to hit debacle;

Those that have a profile follow the normal rules for shooting, using the profile provided, then resolving the power as described (if there is nothing else, there is no other resolution required)
Those that have no profile follow the normal rules for shooting, using the profile provided (oh, there is none, so you must either skip it .. or the rules break at this point and the game grinds to a halt), then resolving the power as described.

The only method that does not break the game is the one that takes a Witchfire Power with no profile and simply resolve the power as described as you cannot follow any of the shooting rules without a profile, despite earlier in the rules stating Wtichfire Powers must roll to hit. If there is no profile, you can not roll to hit as there is no direction (ie: no rules) providing for it. Can Not trumps Must.

So HIWPI not RAW. Rigeld2 and I disagree with you there they are weapons.

Gravmyr wrote:
It's the antonym of multiple. Beyond that all models fire a single weapon except for Monstrous Creatures. Before you point to a codex and state that they most do not fire a single shot please post a single model that is shooting without a weapon to display that the model is not firing a single shot.

So it doesn't actually say, and I'll quote, " It states that if it is not 1 you will be told so." as you asserted. Thanks for clarifying.

Which nids fire 0 shots? By which I mean that have a WS above - or 0 so actually fire.

I assume you mean BS. Venomthropes. I have no idea what the relevance of this question is, however.

If it's not multiple what would it be? If one is an assumption then any number must be an assumption including 0.


Venomtropes don't fire a weapon which is different from firing 0 shots.

Correct,
The only answer which has Rule as Written support is 'there is no profile providing a Weapon Type, let alone the number of Shots.'

Gravmyr wrote:
If it's not multiple what would it be? If one is an assumption then any number must be an assumption including 0.

Considering you're not quoting the entirety of the rule, the answer isn't relevant. 2 sentences from a paragraph is misleading at best.

Venomtropes don't fire a weapon which is different from firing 0 shots.

Fine. Relevance?

Would you admit that your statements haven't been absolutely correct so far?
" You are told you must roll to hit, you are in fact told how many to roll. "
" It states that if it is not 1 you will be told so."
" Without them your argument that you only resolve the power using the rules within the power just broke all the powers with profiles only...."

None of those are actually true given actual rules quotes. Please feel free to try and defend them with actual quotes proving your statements correct.

Those 2 sentences are the entirety of said paragraph. They are followed by a blank line then an example.

Gravmyr wrote:
Those 2 sentences are the entirety of said paragraph. They are followed by a blank line then an example.

I misremembered where the rule was. Finding your quote, it literally has no application to Shriek. At all.
Why? Because it's listed under profiles. Please cite Shriek's profile.

Gravmyr wrote:
Those 2 sentences are the entirety of said paragraph. They are followed by a blank line then an example.

Those lines are also under Weapon Profiles, Number of Shots. How does this apply to Witchfires without a weapon profile?

so people are still pretending shreik has no profile?

shriek has a profile which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on.

pretending it doesnt have a profile, when it very clearly does have a profile, is just asinine and not a RAW argument at *ALL*

 easysauce wrote:
so people are still pretending shreik has no profile?

shriek has a profile which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on.

pretending it doesnt have a profile, when it very clearly does have a profile, is just asinine and not a RAW argument at *ALL*

Sure, lets pretend that how to resolve the power is somehow a profile. How many dice do you roll to hit? The line quoted above does not say.

 easysauce wrote:
so people are still pretending shreik has no profile?

shriek has a profile which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on.

pretending it doesnt have a profile, when it very clearly does have a profile, is just asinine and not a RAW argument at *ALL*

Really? What's Shriek's Strength? What page did you find this profile on?
A profile consists of Name, Range, Strength, AP, Type and Special Rules.
You can make assumptions on Name, Range, Special Rules... but the rest you have to completely make up.

please quote where having a str value is a requirement for a profile?

You have been quoted in other threads the rules that state there are more then one type of profiles.

we have instructions in the shreik profile on how to resolve the power, how to wound, ect which is what make the profile... plenty of other profiles dont have a str.. they have a way to get the str, or a method to resolve wounds or glances/pens... sniper, haywire dont have str, yet you dont argue they lack profiles.

str in a profile, is just a STANDARD way to resolve wounds, having a non standard way to resolve wounds in the profile does not magically stop it from being a profile.

quote a rule that says other wise please, I expect none, because there is none.

your assertation that there is only one type of profile, has no RAW backing,

your assertation, that a psychic shooting atttacks profile, is not a profile, is also baseless.

the profile is clearly on the power page in the BRB, your willfull ignorance of it doesnt change that.

 easysauce wrote:
please quote where having a str value is a requirement for a profile?

"Every weapon has a profile. Here are two examples:..." (Weapons chapter, Weapons Profiles section)

Weapon Profiles have a Range, Strength, AP value, and a Type and any Special Rules as per the as per the Weapons Profiles section.

They show two examples as well.

that doesnt say STR is a requirement for all profiles death, simply that in those examples str is present.

 easysauce wrote:
please quote where having a str value is a requirement for a profile?

WEAPON PROFILES
Every weapon has a profile. Here are two examples:

There are 5 things in both profiles. They are (Name) Range, S, AP, Type. 4 of those (Name isn't) are explained further.
Please cite allowance for different profiles.

You have been quoted in other threads the rules that state there are more then one type of profiles.

I have? Please, link the post.

we have instructions in the shreik profile on how to resolve the power, how to wound, ect which is what make the profile... plenty of other profiles dont have a str.. they have a way to get the str, or a method to resolve wounds or glances/pens... sniper, haywire dont have str, yet you dont argue they lack profiles.

No, because they have a profile with * or X as the S value.

str in a profile, is just a STANDARD way to resolve wounds, having a non standard way to resolve wounds in the profile does not magically stop it from being a profile.

No - not having a profile stops it from having a profile. To make a profile for Shriek you have to make things up.

quote a rule that says other wise please, I expect none, because there is none.

Actually, I've proven that there is a requirement for a profile. You have to prove that what Shriek has makes up a profile.

your assertation that there is only one type of profile, has no RAW backing,

It does because there's no rules covering another type of profile.

your assertation, that a psychic shooting atttacks profile, is not a profile, is also baseless.

I've never made that assertion. Ever.

the profile is clearly on the power page in the BRB, your willfull ignorance of it doesnt change that.

Please be kind enough to underline the profile. I am getting old so maybe I'm simply losing my eyesight. I can assure you that I can read, however, and there's no such thing as a profile in that spoiler.

 easysauce wrote:
that doesnt say STR is a requirement for all profiles death, simply that in those examples str is present.

Did you read what was listed after the profiles?

Gravmyr wrote:
It's the antonym of multiple. Beyond that all models fire a single weapon except for Monstrous Creatures. Before you point to a codex and state that they most do not fire a single shot please post a single model that is shooting without a weapon to display that the model is not firing a single shot.

Which nids fire 0 shots? By which I mean that have a WS above - or 0 so actually fire.

Wrong. You are excluding 0. Why are you making an assumption that it has to be a natural number? Why are -1...-infinity not also included? Why do you leave poor 0 out in the cold?

All models fire single weapons except MCs? Guess crisis suits are cheating then. Oh, and vehicles.

Your line about "do not fire a single shot...." is incomprehensible as to its relevance. Actually, it doesnt even hold together logically - your requirement does not follow the reason given. At all. Just nonsense.

So, again - please cite where it STATES in your quote that they shoot 1 shot.

Or can you finally admit your error in this, and move on?

Rorschach9 wrote:
As for Wtichfires and the rolling to hit debacle;

Those that have a profile follow the normal rules for shooting, using the profile provided, then resolving the power as described (if there is nothing else, there is no other resolution required)
Those that have no profile follow the normal rules for shooting, using the profile provided (oh, there is none, so you must either skip it .. or the rules break at this point and the game grinds to a halt), then resolving the power as described.

If there is no profile, you can not roll to hit as there is no direction (ie: no rules) providing for it. Can Not trumps Must.

If you had followed what i showed in the OP, the highlighted above is not the case. A To Hit roll does not require a profile. It just need a number of shots as defined by a profile or a rule. "Most models only get to fire one shot" Is enough of a RaW for me.

When you say "Can not", is that a Rule in the book? Or an opinion you have created from reading it? (Requesting Rule Quote)

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"If a Unit is told to Fall back, do you not assume "Fall Back 2D6"?"
No, I look at the units unit type to work out how far it falls back. Again, 100% complete information, no assumption required

could you Quote which rules you are using for Infantry Fall Back moves?
You said yourself that "Most units Fall Back 2D6" cannot be used: an IG Tank list contains almost no Infantry and the "most" is not RaW.

Most to me just means in all cases here "ones that are not the non-basic (Jump Units, Monstrous Creatures, etc)". Even if Infantry are 10% of the Units on the board and only 5% of shooting attacks (Witchfires) are "Most models only get to fire one shot".

I never got a reply to this.

"Most units Fall Back 2D6" is (to me) RaW just as "Most models only get to fire one shot".

How many shots does a model without Profile have?
How far does Infantry Fall Back?

I can answer both of those with the Rules quoted above, but for some, those "are not Rules", so how do you answer both questions?

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So you cannot use an existing wording ("Most models only get to fire one shot") in the RaW but you can decide to ignore a Rule? ("a witchfire power must roll To Hit")

I mean between breaking a Rule and following a vague RaW, i've already made my decision long ago... But i can definitely see where you are coming from. Just need to wait for another FAQ. They did sort out the "Precision shots" one....

See, here you show a failure to understand.
The rule isn't being ignored just because. It's just not relevant to decide what is required because the power must be resolved according to its instructions anyway.

rigeld2 wrote:
We know how to resolve shooting attacks with profiles. Witchfires are - surprise surprise - shooting attacks with profiles (when they exist).
Sorry, I thought you were familiar with the rules being discussed.

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.”

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

Now, I'm required by the rules to "[r]esolve it's effects according to the instructions in its entry."

Spoiler:

“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.”

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

I see nothing in there telling me I must hit with the power to roll the 3d6. In fact, I see a simple instruction to do so.

I quoted rules. Find some that prove my assertions or quotes incorrect.

So, as you are basing "*Ignore To Hit* because the power must be resolved according to its instructions" on the above, as Gravmyr and Easysauce have posted, what is actually meant by the above?

"Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

What is my entry?

"Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18".

So we know that it is a Witchfire and it has a range.
Witchfire? A Shooting attack. (Needs To Hit, be in LoS and Range)
How many Shots? "Most models only get to fire one shot"

So once you have checked LoS, range and To Hit with your shot, you may move on to the next sentence (you're up to step 4 of the shooting phase) :
"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."
Simple enough. This is what you do for step 5 of the phase.

Step 6, you know what to do.

I have followed the RaW to come to a resolution. Now if you disagree, please quote exactly which Rule in the book would disallow the above?
Because i have a resolution that makes no assumptions, simply follows what i read, against your resolution of Ignoring a Rule (Disregarding a rule because another says so is acceptable, but "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry" doesn't somehow stop you from rolling To Hit and ignoring its effects).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
so people are still pretending shreik has no profile?

shriek has a profile which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on.

pretending it doesnt have a profile, when it very clearly does have a profile, is just asinine and not a RAW argument at *ALL*

Well, although i said i agreed with this, i meant in the general form:

"shriek is a shooting attack which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on."

I will not say it has a profile, nor is it a weapon. But it is a Witchfire and by extension a shooting attack. Shooting attacks must Roll To Hit and PS contains "how to resolve wounds".
Being forced to resolve the "how to resolve wounds" does not stop the To Hit phase.

"So once you have checked LoS, range and To Hit with your shot, you may move on to the next sentence (you're up to step 4 of the shooting phase) :
"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."
Simple enough. This is what you do for step 5 of the phase. "

Incorrect. That is an assumption. In fact its more than that, it is a direct change to wording

Step 5 is Roll To Wound. ROlling 3D6 is NOT a roll to wound. It may cause wounds, but not everything that causes wounds is a roll to wound. We know this because we have a definition of to-wound rolls. Or are you saying the D6 roll for Perils is a to-wound roll? or only the results which result in a wound are? or something else?

So no, you DID NOT follow the RAW. You made up your own step 5 and inserted it. THen pretended it was RAW, despite you surely knowing full well that it wasnt.

If you do not roll the 3D6, because you "missed" with your unknowable number of shots, you have failed to resolve the power according to its entry.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"So once you have checked LoS, range and To Hit with your shot, you may move on to the next sentence (you're up to step 4 of the shooting phase) :
"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."
Simple enough. This is what you do for step 5 of the phase. "

Incorrect. That is an assumption. In fact its more than that, it is a direct change to wording

Step 5 is Roll To Wound. ROlling 3D6 is NOT a roll to wound. It may cause wounds, but not everything that causes wounds is a roll to wound. We know this because we have a definition of to-wound rolls. Or are you saying the D6 roll for Perils is a to-wound roll? or only the results which result in a wound are? or something else?

So no, you DID NOT follow the RAW. You made up your own step 5 and inserted it. THen pretended it was RAW, despite you surely knowing full well that it wasnt.

If you do not roll the 3D6, because you "missed" with your unknowable number of shots, you have failed to resolve the power according to its entry.

I notice you also failed to answer the question above this.

Step 5 is Roll To Wound. Rolling 3D6 is NOT a roll to wound. A Destroyer result of 6 is NOT a roll to wound. Armour Penetration Rolls are NOT rolls to wound.
They don't even cause Wounds...

Are they not part of a Shooting Sequence? Does the game break because we suddenly follow another set of instructions than what is in "Roll To Wound"?
No, we:
-roll a D6 and add the weapon’s Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle. Step 5.
-suffers a hit that wounds automatically. Step 5.
-suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Step 5.

All 3 follow RaW. Point out where i'm breaking a Rule.

Where did you roll to wound, or were given allowance to replace roll to-wound with something else?. Page and graph.

Vehicles have a "instead of rolling to wound" clause, so your example is invalid

Destroyer weapons have an exception to rolling to wound. Example invalid

Psychic shriek has...no, wait. It doesnt have an exception to the rule. Oops. Guess that means it isnt step 5, as it is not rolling to-wound, but something else.

I was focussing on a single point here, as it was easiest to destroy that - as I have done - than go through the arguments already disproven. If you notice I quoted what I was responding to directly. Nothing else. Do not infer anything more than that, or make more assumptions.

SO, where is your permission to insert the non-roll-to-wound 3D6 roll into the shooting sequence? Page and graph detailing this rule given exception. If you can provide such a rule, I will concede.

There isnt one, but happy hunting!

I have indeed noticed your focus, and was not inferring anything, simply waiting for the answer.

As to permission to resolve the 3D6 within the Shooting sequence?

Resolve Psychic Power
Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry.

"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."

I have instructions on how to perform Step 5. Granted it does not have an "instead of rolling To Wound" clause. But neither does "Gets Hot". I know there are a lot of special rules/weapons that perform other "effects" rather than roll To Wound. I don't think we need to keep chasing this.

The Power has instructions on how to generate Wounds. I have permission by RaW and you would need a restriction in the Rules to stop the resolution.

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
4. Roll To Hit. "Most models only get to fire one shot"
5. Roll To Wound."Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties.

I mean, arguing that PS, while being a Shooting Attack and must follow the Shooting Sequence, does not "Roll To Wound" per those rules would be the same as arguing you never "Select a Weapon"

Or is your RaW reading that it doesn't even follow the Shooting Sequence?

Incorrect, again. Oh, and you can wait all you like, those questions I am fairly certain were already answered, and I'm not rehashing again. It gets repetitive. So instead I will carry on trying to get you to post any RULES supporting your assumptions / assertions.

Gets Hot! does not need a special allowance to cause a wound instead of rolling to-wound, as the wound is not caused within the shooting sequence step 5. Example invalid. Again.

You are making the extraordinary claim that the 3D6 effect, which while causing wounds has NO OTHER RELATION to the roll to-wound (it in fact is as close, or closer, to perils as it is a normal to-wound roll) is in fact a roll tow-ound. Despite not having any rule stating as such. As such, the burden of proof is yours as you have made the assertion. I have, instead, made the trivial case - it is not a roll to-wound because it does not fulfill the criteria to be one. It is notr a replacement for the roll to-wound because it does not say it is. I cannot prove a negative, therefore YOU must prove your positive assertion. If you cannot - and you CANNOT - then your assertion has no merit.

So, again. Page and graph allowing you to put this in place of the roll to wound. You have plenty of examples of the exact type of language (can even draw parallels with blasts and to-hit if you need more, same concept) that is needed. So, find it.

My RAW reading is that the resolution of the power requires 2 parts

Part 1 is the shooting sequence. You check LOS, range etc, then get to step 4. As y0ou cannot roll any dice, as you have no legitimate profile (as proven) this stage is resolved. You are only required to roll a dice for each shot - once you have done this you have "rolled to hit" (name of section) . You roll no dice, section completed

Step 5 auto resolves as the trivial case; you have no successful to hit rolls.

Part 2 is where you resolve the rest of the psychic power, as told. Here you follow the requirement and roll 3D6. If you do not roll 3D6 having met the warp charge cost (and being in range, etc - all trivial) you have broken a rule.

Find a rule denying the requirement to roll 3D6 regardless of the outcome of the roll to-hit step. I have proof, and have given it, that I am [b]required[b] to roll the 3D6; you must find the denial.

Answer these two, with page and graph and an exact citation of the rule you are reliant upon. Failure to do so will make me assume you cannot do so, and that your argument is simply HYWPI. I would then ask that you follow the tenets and mark your posts as such, and stop pretending your rules are anything but houserules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
as the wound is not caused within the shooting sequence step 5. Example invalid. Again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
My RAW reading is that the resolution of the power requires 2 parts

Part 1 is the shooting sequence. You check LOS, range etc, then get to step 4. As y0ou cannot roll any dice, as you have no legitimate profile (as proven) this stage is resolved. You are only required to roll a dice for each shot - once you have done this you have "rolled to hit" (name of section) . You roll no dice, section completed

Step 5 auto resolves as the trivial case; you have no successful to hit rolls.

Part 2 is where you resolve the rest of the psychic power, as told. Here you follow the requirement and roll 3D6. If you do not roll 3D6 having met the warp charge cost (and being in range, etc - all trivial) you have broken a rule.

I have highlighted where you are incorrect. If Gets Hot is not Step 5, how does the model get removed in Step 6?
He has no Step 5 or Step 6? How do you remove the model from play? Rules Quote if there are any.

Gets Hot, in Step 5, provides the Model with a Wound for Step 6 (specifically you cannot re-allocate it or take LoS)

How can you "resolve" Step 4 or Step 5 by just ignoring them?
Psychic Shriek provides a method for Step 5, and Step 4 is covered by it being a Witchfire, needing to roll.

You want the exact "instead of rolling To Wound" clause? I would need the exact "automatically inflicts (...) hits" in order to bypass a To Hit roll.

Part 2: How do you resolve a set of "Wounds" ? Quote which Rules you are using if not "Step 6"?
How can you perform Step 6 without having done 4 & 5?

Going by how you read the RaW, i have stopped my shooting sequence at Step 4.
I then resolve the rest of the psychic power, as told? How do i remove models? There is no Wound Pool.

Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – remove models equal to the result.

Now i can stop at Step 4 and simply "Resolve the Power". Unfortunately that is not the RaW.


Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.
"Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack,(...)"
"The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below."

This is the RaW. You must work from Step 1 to 7 or you are not allowed to remove models from the board.
I assume that PS was written with intent to remove models?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Find a rule denying the requirement to roll 3D6 regardless of the outcome of the roll to-hit step. I have proof, and have given it, that I am [b]required[b] to roll the 3D6; you must find the denial.

Being required to "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." means just that, follow instructions. The instructions for a Witchfire is to roll To Hit. You have not done so and are breaking the very rule you are quoting in your defence.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Answer these two, with page and graph and an exact citation of the rule you are reliant upon. Failure to do so will make me assume you cannot do so, and that your argument is simply HYWPI. I would then ask that you follow the tenets and mark your posts as such, and stop pretending your rules are anything but houserules.

 insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
. Further dissembling on your part will be concession.

Can you please stop making this sort of statement? It doesn't actually encourage any sort of positive response.

@nos You seem to think you either choose 0 as a number of shots or apparently -1 or other such number. You can at least try to come up with a rules based reason for a weapon to fire those numbers of shots or you can't. No one here in the it fires 0 shots camp can do so. There is not a single model in the game that fires 0 shots as part of a shooting attack. There have never been any weapons that fire a negative number of shots. Unless you can actually present a line from the book that states Shriek fires 0 shots then you are playing HIWPI, note this is different from stating that it doesn't tell me how many so I choose 0 to avoid situations where I create more unresolvable actions. 0 is an illogical source because by the very definition of shooting something must come out. I'll even give you your entire argument as total gospel if you can list a single weapon that actually has 0 listed as the number of shots it fires. You want logic please look up both firing and shooting and explain how you can fire 0 shots and still be doing those things.

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos You seem to think you either choose 0 as a number of shots or apparently -1 or other such number. You can at least try to come up with a rules based reason for a weapon to fire those numbers of shots or you can't. No one here in the it fires 0 shots camp can do so. There is not a single model in the game that fires 0 shots as part of a shooting attack.

Blast weapons with Gets Hot. Do I get a cookie?

rigeld2 wrote:
Blast weapons with Gets Hot. Do I get a cookie?

Why would those not be Heavy 1 still?
ED: sorry, i found it's in the rule... "(such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot immediately before firing."
ED2: "that shot is not fired" So yeah that is an example.

I was trying to find weapons along the lines of Markerlights but they still fire shots...

 BlackTalos wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"If a Unit is told to Fall back, do you not assume "Fall Back 2D6"?"
No, I look at the units unit type to work out how far it falls back. Again, 100% complete information, no assumption required

could you Quote which rules you are using for Infantry Fall Back moves?
You said yourself that "Most units Fall Back 2D6" cannot be used: an IG Tank list contains almost no Infantry and the "most" is not RaW.

Most to me just means in all cases here "ones that are not the non-basic (Jump Units, Monstrous Creatures, etc)". Even if Infantry are 10% of the Units on the board and only 5% of shooting attacks (Witchfires) are "Most models only get to fire one shot".

I never got a reply to this.

So far, we’ve discussed the basic rules as they pertain to Infantry, the most important and common unit type in the Warhammer 40,000 game.

This means that everything before that refers to Infantry.

Most units Fall Back 2D6".

Can therefore be rewritten to be:
Most Infantry units Fall Back 2D6".

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So you cannot use an existing wording ("Most models only get to fire one shot") in the RaW but you can decide to ignore a Rule? ("a witchfire power must roll To Hit")

I mean between breaking a Rule and following a vague RaW, i've already made my decision long ago... But i can definitely see where you are coming from. Just need to wait for another FAQ. They did sort out the "Precision shots" one....

See, here you show a failure to understand.
The rule isn't being ignored just because. It's just not relevant to decide what is required because the power must be resolved according to its instructions anyway.

rigeld2 wrote:
We know how to resolve shooting attacks with profiles. Witchfires are - surprise surprise - shooting attacks with profiles (when they exist).
Sorry, I thought you were familiar with the rules being discussed.

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.”

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

Now, I'm required by the rules to "[r]esolve it's effects according to the instructions in its entry."

Spoiler:

“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.”

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

I see nothing in there telling me I must hit with the power to roll the 3d6. In fact, I see a simple instruction to do so.

I quoted rules. Find some that prove my assertions or quotes incorrect.

So, as you are basing "*Ignore To Hit* because the power must be resolved according to its instructions" on the above, as Gravmyr and Easysauce have posted, what is actually meant by the above?

"Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

What is my entry?

"Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18".

So we know that it is a Witchfire and it has a range.
Witchfire? A Shooting attack. (Needs To Hit, be in LoS and Range)
How many Shots? "Most models only get to fire one shot"

Pause - again, you have zero basis for firing a single shot here. You have no profile (which is what Gravmyr was using as his argument, and what easysauce was inventing with his) to base that on, purely an assumption.
Play!

So once you have checked LoS, range and To Hit with your shot, you may move on to the next sentence (you're up to step 4 of the shooting phase) :
"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."

I'm sorry, why are you replacing the To Wound step with something entirely different? Please cite a rule.

Simple enough. This is what you do for step 5 of the phase.

Sure, if you make things up.

Because i have a resolution that makes no assumptions, simply follows what i read, against your resolution of Ignoring a Rule (Disregarding a rule because another says so is acceptable, but "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry" doesn't somehow stop you from rolling To Hit and ignoring its effects).

No assumptions? Seriously? You're assuming Shriek falls under "most". You're assuming that the 3d6 is a roll To Wound (with no rules directing you to do so). You're ignoring the rules for Roll To Wound without a rule telling you to do so - something you admonish me for doing in this very quote. I'm in awe, truly.

Well, although i said i agreed with this, i meant in the general form:

"shriek is a shooting attack which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on."

I will not say it has a profile, nor is it a weapon. But it is a Witchfire and by extension a shooting attack. Shooting attacks must Roll To Hit and PS contains "how to resolve wounds".
Being forced to resolve the "how to resolve wounds" does not stop the To Hit phase.

It has a mechanic to resolve wounds. It is not a roll To Wound.
Haemorrhage doesn't cause wounds at all and lacks a profile, yet is a focused witchfire. Please make your argument fit both powers. Remember, Haemorrhage doesn't say anything about "instead of rolling To Wound" or any other verbiage like that.

*rigeld2 And the profile says 0?

Edit: Which also means you loose the shot and can't deal wounds with it.... is that really the claim you would like to make? That loosing a shot to Gets Hot! makes it that way so the weapons' profile becomes 0? For how long till the end of the game?

Edit: And better yet that weapons that fire 0 shots are not fired?

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"If a Unit is told to Fall back, do you not assume "Fall Back 2D6"?"
No, I look at the units unit type to work out how far it falls back. Again, 100% complete information, no assumption required

could you Quote which rules you are using for Infantry Fall Back moves?
You said yourself that "Most units Fall Back 2D6" cannot be used: an IG Tank list contains almost no Infantry and the "most" is not RaW.

Most to me just means in all cases here "ones that are not the non-basic (Jump Units, Monstrous Creatures, etc)". Even if Infantry are 10% of the Units on the board and only 5% of shooting attacks (Witchfires) are "Most models only get to fire one shot".

I never got a reply to this.

So far, we’ve discussed the basic rules as they pertain to Infantry, the most important and common unit type in the Warhammer 40,000 game.

This means that everything before that refers to Infantry.

Most units Fall Back 2D6".

Can therefore be rewritten to be:
Most Infantry units Fall Back 2D6".

Correct. But Nos's point was that "most" is not RaW. So "Most Infantry units Fall Back 2D6" is correct to me, just like "Most models only get to fire one shot".
Both are Rules as Written, yes.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So you cannot use an existing wording ("Most models only get to fire one shot") in the RaW but you can decide to ignore a Rule? ("a witchfire power must roll To Hit")

I mean between breaking a Rule and following a vague RaW, i've already made my decision long ago... But i can definitely see where you are coming from. Just need to wait for another FAQ. They did sort out the "Precision shots" one....

See, here you show a failure to understand.
The rule isn't being ignored just because. It's just not relevant to decide what is required because the power must be resolved according to its instructions anyway.

rigeld2 wrote:
We know how to resolve shooting attacks with profiles. Witchfires are - surprise surprise - shooting attacks with profiles (when they exist).
Sorry, I thought you were familiar with the rules being discussed.

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.”

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

Now, I'm required by the rules to "[r]esolve it's effects according to the instructions in its entry."

Spoiler:

“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.”

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

I see nothing in there telling me I must hit with the power to roll the 3d6. In fact, I see a simple instruction to do so.

I quoted rules. Find some that prove my assertions or quotes incorrect.

So, as you are basing "*Ignore To Hit* because the power must be resolved according to its instructions" on the above, as Gravmyr and Easysauce have posted, what is actually meant by the above?

"Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

What is my entry?

"Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18".

So we know that it is a Witchfire and it has a range.
Witchfire? A Shooting attack. (Needs To Hit, be in LoS and Range)
How many Shots? "Most models only get to fire one shot"

Pause - again, you have zero basis for firing a single shot here. You have no profile (which is what Gravmyr was using as his argument, and what easysauce was inventing with his) to base that on, purely an assumption.
Play!

So once you have checked LoS, range and To Hit with your shot, you may move on to the next sentence (you're up to step 4 of the shooting phase) :
"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."

I'm sorry, why are you replacing the To Wound step with something entirely different? Please cite a rule.

Simple enough. This is what you do for step 5 of the phase.

Sure, if you make things up.

Because i have a resolution that makes no assumptions, simply follows what i read, against your resolution of Ignoring a Rule (Disregarding a rule because another says so is acceptable, but "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry" doesn't somehow stop you from rolling To Hit and ignoring its effects).

No assumptions? Seriously? You're assuming Shriek falls under "most". You're assuming that the 3d6 is a roll To Wound (with no rules directing you to do so). You're ignoring the rules for Roll To Wound without a rule telling you to do so - something you admonish me for doing in this very quote. I'm in awe, truly.

"Most models only get to fire one shot" is RaW, not an assumption. Why does it not cover Shriek?
"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." is RaW. Rules in Vacuum? Or simply Step 5 instructions?
Or do you deny we are performing a Shooting Attack following the Shooting Sequence?
"compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below." is RaW. Can we follow those Rules without a profile?
If you can find "most Psychic attacks are S4" or a similar Rule, then you might have a point. Until then i'll follow the Instructions from PS above. With a number of wounds we can move to Step 6.

rigeld2 wrote:

Well, although i said i agreed with this, i meant in the general form:

"shriek is a shooting attack which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on."

I will not say it has a profile, nor is it a weapon. But it is a Witchfire and by extension a shooting attack. Shooting attacks must Roll To Hit and PS contains "how to resolve wounds".
Being forced to resolve the "how to resolve wounds" does not stop the To Hit phase.

It has a mechanic to resolve wounds. It is not a roll To Wound.
Haemorrhage doesn't cause wounds at all and lacks a profile, yet is a focused witchfire. Please make your argument fit both powers. Remember, Haemorrhage doesn't say anything about "instead of rolling To Wound" or any other verbiage like that.

What?
"The target must pass two separate Toughness tests or suffer a Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed for each test that was failed."

Gravmyr wrote:
*rigeld2 And the profile says 0?

Edit: Which also means you loose the shot and can't deal wounds with it.... is that really the claim you would like to make? That loosing a shot to Gets Hot! makes it that way so the weapons' profile becomes 0? For how long till the end of the game?

Edit: And better yet that weapons that fire 0 shots are not fired?

You're comparing something that has a profile with something that doesn't. Bad idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Correct. But Nos's point was that "most" is not RaW. So "Most Infantry units Fall Back 2D6" is correct to me, just like "Most models only get to fire one shot".
Both are Rules as Written, yes.

You really don't see a difference there? Because there is one.

"Most models only get to fire one shot" is RaW, not an assumption. Why does it not cover Shriek?

Because nothing says it does. Most Infatry covers Infantry units because, well, it says "Infantry."

"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." is RaW. Rules in Vacuum? Or simply Step 5 instructions?
Or do you deny we are performing a Shooting Attack following the Shooting Sequence?

You're linking the shooting attack to the resolution of the entire power. You have no rule doing so.

"compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below." is RaW. Can we follow those Rules without a profile?
If you can find "most Psychic attacks are S4" or a similar Rule, then you might have a point. Until then i'll follow the Instructions from PS above. With a number of wounds we can move to Step 6.

So like I said - you're making things up.

rigeld2 wrote:

Well, although i said i agreed with this, i meant in the general form:

"shriek is a shooting attack which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on."

I will not say it has a profile, nor is it a weapon. But it is a Witchfire and by extension a shooting attack. Shooting attacks must Roll To Hit and PS contains "how to resolve wounds".
Being forced to resolve the "how to resolve wounds" does not stop the To Hit phase.

It has a mechanic to resolve wounds. It is not a roll To Wound.
Haemorrhage doesn't cause wounds at all and lacks a profile, yet is a focused witchfire. Please make your argument fit both powers. Remember, Haemorrhage doesn't say anything about "instead of rolling To Wound" or any other verbiage like that.

What?
"The target must pass two separate Toughness tests or suffer a Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed for each test that was failed."

Apologies. I misremembered the power and misread when I went to double check it.

@rigeld2 All weapons have profiles. Just because they are not spelled out for you doesn't mean it doesn't have one.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Correct. But Nos's point was that "most" is not RaW. So "Most Infantry units Fall Back 2D6" is correct to me, just like "Most models only get to fire one shot".
Both are Rules as Written, yes.

You really don't see a difference there? Because there is one.

"Most models only get to fire one shot" is RaW, not an assumption. Why does it not cover Shriek?

Because nothing says it does. Most Infatry covers Infantry units because, well, it says "Infantry."

And most models covers models because, well, it says "models". I do not really see a difference, no.

Infantry Falling back: 2D6.
Shooting attack by a Model: Get to fire one shot.

Jump Infantry? Well it tells you to go 3D6.
Heavy 2 or Rapid Fire? Well it tells you to roll 2 shots. (<12" )

rigeld2 wrote:

"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." is RaW. Rules in Vacuum? Or simply Step 5 instructions?
Or do you deny we are performing a Shooting Attack following the Shooting Sequence?

You're linking the shooting attack to the resolution of the entire power. You have no rule doing so.

Apart from "Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.". Why would you not link a Shooting Attack with a Shooting Attack?

rigeld2 wrote:

"compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below." is RaW. Can we follow those Rules without a profile?
If you can find "most Psychic attacks are S4" or a similar Rule, then you might have a point. Until then i'll follow the Instructions from PS above. With a number of wounds we can move to Step 6.

So like I said - you're making things up.

Which part is being made up?
To Wound has no Strength to use, so Step 6 cannot be resolved because there are no Wounds generated. But "suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." is generating Wounds so i see no issue here?

Advanced V Basic, the Wounds from PS (or Haemorrhage or Maleceptor) supersede the Roll To Wound at step 5.

Per Witchfire RaW you are still missing a step 4 and a step 6 to finish your Shooting Attack.
Unless, as i have already suggested you believe PS is not a "full" Shooting Attack (Stops at Step 4 or something similar). To which i ask how you remove models?

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Correct. But Nos's point was that "most" is not RaW. So "Most Infantry units Fall Back 2D6" is correct to me, just like "Most models only get to fire one shot".
Both are Rules as Written, yes.

You really don't see a difference there? Because there is one.

"Most models only get to fire one shot" is RaW, not an assumption. Why does it not cover Shriek?

Because nothing says it does. Most Infatry covers Infantry units because, well, it says "Infantry."

And most models covers models because, well, it says "models". I do not really see a difference, no.

Infantry Falling back: 2D6.
Shooting attack by a Model: Get to fire one shot.

Jump Infantry? Well it tells you to go 3D6.
Heavy 2 or Rapid Fire? Well it tells you to roll 2 shots. (<12" )

You missed the point. But you continuously do so so I'll just drop it because it's not worth it.

rigeld2 wrote:

"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." is RaW. Rules in Vacuum? Or simply Step 5 instructions?
Or do you deny we are performing a Shooting Attack following the Shooting Sequence?

You're linking the shooting attack to the resolution of the entire power. You have no rule doing so.

Apart from "Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.". Why would you not link a Shooting Attack with a Shooting Attack?

No, the fact that the power is a shooting attack does not link the resolution of the entire power to a shooting attack. But it's okay, taking one word out of context to make your argument is the right call.

rigeld2 wrote:

"compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below." is RaW. Can we follow those Rules without a profile?
If you can find "most Psychic attacks are S4" or a similar Rule, then you might have a point. Until then i'll follow the Instructions from PS above. With a number of wounds we can move to Step 6.

So like I said - you're making things up.

Which part is being made up?
To Wound has no Strength to use, so Step 6 cannot be resolved because there are no Wounds generated. But "suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." is generating Wounds so i see no issue here?

Step 6 can't be resolved so you invent a rule saying "Instead of rolling To Wound..." is making things up.
You are not allowed to skip a step without a rule telling you to do so. What rule, specifically, is allowing you to skip rolling To Wound. This is your requirement, not mine.

Advanced V Basic, the Wounds from PS (or Haemorrhage or Maleceptor) supersede the Roll To Wound at step 5.

Citation required - your statement says you're not allowed to do that without a rule saying so. Provide it.

rigeld2 wrote:
You missed the point. But you continuously do so so I'll just drop it because it's not worth it.

I really see no difference between "most Infantry" being a Rule for Infantry and "most models"(To Hit of a Shooting Attack) being a rule for models making a shooting attack.
Maybe you could elaborate on the point? The origin of it was that "most models" cannot possibly be RaW because "most" is too vague to be a Rule. "most Infantry" is just as Vague?

rigeld2 wrote:

Apart from "Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.". Why would you not link a Shooting Attack with a Shooting Attack?

No, the fact that the power is a shooting attack does not link the resolution of the entire power to a shooting attack. But it's okay, taking one word out of context to make your argument is the right call.

The permission (restriction?) is to resolve Witchfire Powers as Shooting Attacks. It's a general permission so you would need a specific Rule to "let you out" of the Standard Shooting Sequence. Providing "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." only insist that it must follow the Rules for Witchfires (+any added specifications).
It does not extract you from following the Shooting Sequence from 1 to 7 nor has PS any such permission either.

rigeld2 wrote:
Step 6 can't be resolved so you invent a rule saying "Instead of rolling To Wound..." is making things up.
You are not allowed to skip a step without a rule telling you to do so. What rule, specifically, is allowing you to skip rolling To Wound. This is your requirement, not mine.

Advanced V Basic, the Wounds from PS (or Haemorrhage or Maleceptor) supersede the Roll To Wound at step 5.

Citation required - your statement says you're not allowed to do that without a rule saying so. Provide it.

I am not adding "Instead of rolling To Wound..." as a Rule. I am following the Advanced rule PS to generate Wounds instead of the Basic Step 5:roll To Wound rules
BrB:
"Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."
"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon, unusual skills (Power: Psychic Shriek), (...)."
The Psyker model (using PS) is affected/needs to follow the rules for Witchfire > Shooting Attack > Shooting Sequence.
He does not have a weapon profile so Step 4 provides the "most" one shot (even though we agree that "most" is actually 0.01% of our models), and gets stuck at Step 5 because he has a Hit (or Not) and no Strength. PS Rules provides Wounds, so you can move on to step 6 (run through 7) and End your Shooting Attack that was the Witchfire.

So where things apply:
"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."
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You missed the point. But you continuously do so so I'll just drop it because it's not worth it.

I really see no difference between "most Infantry" being a Rule for Infantry and "most models"(To Hit of a Shooting Attack) being a rule for models making a shooting attack.
Maybe you could elaborate on the point? The origin of it was that "most models" cannot possibly be RaW because "most" is too vague to be a Rule. "most Infantry" is just as Vague?

No, it's not just as vague.

rigeld2 wrote:

Apart from "Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.". Why would you not link a Shooting Attack with a Shooting Attack?

No, the fact that the power is a shooting attack does not link the resolution of the entire power to a shooting attack. But it's okay, taking one word out of context to make your argument is the right call.

The permission (restriction?) is to resolve Witchfire Powers as Shooting Attacks. It's a general permission so you would need a specific Rule to "let you out" of the Standard Shooting Sequence. Providing "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." only insist that it must follow the Rules for Witchfires (+any added specifications).
It does not extract you from following the Shooting Sequence from 1 to 7 nor has PS any such permission either.

We'll remember this for later.

So where things apply:
"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."
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7

Since you are requiring a (I'm quoting here) specific Rule to "let you out" of the standard shooting sequence, please provide it. You've shown where you assume things fit in the Standard Shooting Sequence, but have cited zero "specific Rule[s])" allowing you to do so. Applying double standards in a discussion isn't polite.

Black Talos - so no rules from you allowing to replace the roll to-wound with the 3d6? Nothing at all? Point noted. I will not attempt to engage you further on thus, as you cannot follow the tenets by providing a single relevant rule, just assertions.

Grav - you made yet another demonstrably wrong statement, that 1 I'd the antonym of multiple shots. It isn't. Excluded middle fallacy, and this was pointed out. The rest of your paragraph of text is irrelevant.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/multiple?s=t

Except I didn't. Both logically and via english neither 0 nor a negative number can in fact be used to describe an action as occurring. If you did not perform it then you did not do it.

Gravmyr wrote:
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/multiple?s=t

Except I didn't. Both logically and via english neither 0 nor a negative number can in fact be used to describe an action as occurring. If you did not perform it then you did not do it.

So a Gets Hot Blast didn't make a shooting attack?

I just want to understand your argument.

Did you look at the link?

It attempted.

Relying on a concept like a "zero shot shooting attack" to make psychic shriek work is making up a fiction to hide that you are doing HYWPI and magically claiming that you have RAW.

Please provide a profile with "Assault 0" or something similar to show that the mythical unicorn called the "zero shot shooting attack" exists.

Gets Hot weapons still have a >0 shot on their profile. Zero is not a valid number for the number of shots on a shooting attack profile. Neither is -1 or infinity. Zero, -1, and infinity all go against basic logic and the onus is on you to prove that an illogical choice can be valid. "Chocolate" is also not a valid option. If you make up fictions, your argument is HYWPI. Per the tenets of the forum, label arguments that rely on the fiction of "zero shot shooting attack" as HYWPI.

For all of the argument about 0 shot shooting attacks and "most models only have one shot" and on ..

Please provide the rule that states how many dice are rolled when rolling to hit with a Psychic Power such as Psychic Shriek. This should be simple.

Also note that the line "most models" is not in any way a rule that states how many dice are rolled. It is a generic statement about shooting that may or may not apply. Even my Space Marines with bolters only have "one shot" yet may roll more than one die, depending on the range.

Thus far, nobody has been able to provide a rule or concrete evidence stating how many dice are rolled to hit with Psychic Shriek (or similar witchfires without a profile).

Rorschach9 wrote:
For all of the argument about 0 shot shooting attacks and "most models only have one shot" and on ..

Please provide the rule that states how many dice are rolled when rolling to hit with a Psychic Power such as Psychic Shriek. This should be simple.

Also note that the line "most models" is not in any way a rule that states how many dice are rolled. It is a generic statement about shooting that may or may not apply. Even my Space Marines with bolters only have "one shot" yet may roll more than one die, depending on the range.

Thus far, nobody has been able to provide a rule or concrete evidence stating how many dice are rolled to hit with Psychic Shriek (or similar witchfires without a profile).

Witchfire powers MUST roll to hit so we know there is at least one. Multiple shots need to be specified. One is the unstated default.

There are absolutely no provided shooting attack profiles with zero shots on them. I can no more consider "zero" a valid choice than "chocolate."

If your argument has to rely on something being possible that does not exist elsewhere in the rules then you are doing HYWPI. If zero is the default option for a shooting attack then you should have no trouble finding at least one profile with zero specified on it. Keep in mind that not only do you have to prove that it is a valid choice but you also have to prove that it is the default choice. In the case of Psychic Shriek we are providing the unstated default.

In summary,

there is no support for zero as a valid choice
there is no support for zero as the default choice

one is a valid choice without question
there is some support for one as the default choice

Actually all weapons have a profile as DR has pointed out. Just because it has not been presented in a form you are use to does not mean it does not have one. Under weapons it states the profile will say if it fires more than one. Does Shriek state it fires more than one shot?

Great. Now show us how many dice we roll. Please.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
For all of the argument about 0 shot shooting attacks and "most models only have one shot" and on ..

Please provide the rule that states how many dice are rolled when rolling to hit with a Psychic Power such as Psychic Shriek. This should be simple.

Also note that the line "most models" is not in any way a rule that states how many dice are rolled. It is a generic statement about shooting that may or may not apply. Even my Space Marines with bolters only have "one shot" yet may roll more than one die, depending on the range.

Thus far, nobody has been able to provide a rule or concrete evidence stating how many dice are rolled to hit with Psychic Shriek (or similar witchfires without a profile).

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.

Witchfire powers MUST roll to hit so we know there is at least one. Multiple shots need to be specified.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gravmyr wrote:
Actually all weapons have a profile as DR has pointed out. Just because it has not been presented in a form you are use to does not mean it does not have one. Under weapons it states the profile will say if it fires more than one. Does Shriek state it fires more than one shot?

So what is Psychic Shrieks weapon profile? Keep in mind a profile includes Range, Strength, Type, AP and special rules.

I just did. you roll one.

And done here.

Roll to hit all you like. The outcome cannot have any effect on resolving the 3d6 , as per actual rules, as it is not a to-wound

Claims that they are a to-wound have been refuted. That argument holds no water - and never did.

So all this talk about number of shots is utterly irrelevant. And always has been

If posters wish to claim otherwise, find a rule, an actual gakking printed rule, stating that a non to-wound effect relies upon a to- hit being succesful. NOONE has found anything like this

Until you can do so, this is finished.

Gravmyr wrote:
Did you look at the link?

It attempted.

Okay, so an attempt is all that's required.
So why is a Gets Hot Blast okay (0 shots) but Shriek isn't (0 shots)?

You are correct it is finished as you cannot find a single rule that backs up rolling 0 nor ignoring the to hit roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because it didn't attempt to shoot only to fail to shoot unless that is what you are saying. You are going to attempt to shoot then not and just move on wasting the warp charges and doing no wounds. Comparing the two is the same as stating that me making my armour saves or FNP kept you from shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shooting 0 is not even attmpting, it's not shooting.

Gravmyr wrote:
You are correct it is finished as you cannot find a single rule that backs up rolling 0 nor ignoring the to hit roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because it didn't attempt to shoot only to fail to shoot unless that is what you are saying. You are going to attempt to shoot then not and just move on wasting the warp charges and doing no wounds. Comparing the two is the same as stating that me making my armour saves or FNP kept you from shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shooting 0 is not even attmpting, it's not shooting.

Blasts that Gets Hot fail to shoot. By definition. Almost like it's what the rules say (they do).

rigeld2 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Did you look at the link?

It attempted.

Okay, so an attempt is all that's required.
So why is a Gets Hot Blast okay (0 shots) but Shriek isn't (0 shots)?

Show a Gets Hot shooting attack that has zero on its profile for the number of shots.

Then by definition a shooting attack with 0 shots fails to shoot and does nothing..... so again how are you rolling 0?

Gravmyr wrote:
You are correct it is finished as you cannot find a single rule that backs up rolling 0 nor ignoring the to hit roll.

Nor a single rule that tells you to not finish resolving the witchfires power (as instructed) inflicting 3D6-LD wounds on the target (which has no tie to any roll to hit, which makes the roll to hit discussion irrelevant).

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Did you look at the link?

It attempted.

Okay, so an attempt is all that's required.
So why is a Gets Hot Blast okay (0 shots) but Shriek isn't (0 shots)?

Show a Gets Hot shooting attack that has zero on its profile for the number of shots.

Any Blast that rolls a 1 for Gets Hot.

Gravmyr wrote:Then by definition a shooting attack with 0 shots fails to shoot and does nothing..... so again how are you rolling 0?

You're equating resolving the 3d6 to the resolution of the shooting attack. What rule are you using to do so again? You've never shown it.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
You are correct it is finished as you cannot find a single rule that backs up rolling 0 nor ignoring the to hit roll.

Nor a single rule that tells you to not finish resolving the witchfires power (as instructed) inflicting 3D6-LD wounds on the target (which has no tie to any roll to hit, which makes the roll to hit discussion irrelevant).

A roll to hit is required.

Roll to wounds are mandated for successful hits.





You cannot avoid this step. Only successful rolls to wound enable psychic shriek to wound or cause a telling amount of damage. However, we are missing critical info to resolve this mandated step. This is where the lack of profile causes the rules to technically break. Everyone at this point is required to implement some sort of HYWPI.

col_impact wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
You are correct it is finished as you cannot find a single rule that backs up rolling 0 nor ignoring the to hit roll.

Nor a single rule that tells you to not finish resolving the witchfires power (as instructed) inflicting 3D6-LD wounds on the target (which has no tie to any roll to hit, which makes the roll to hit discussion irrelevant).

A roll to hit is required.

Roll to wounds are mandated for successful hits.

Spoiler:

5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the
target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing
weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.

Spoiler:

ROLL 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. A value of ‘-’ indicates that the target cannot
be wounded by the attack.
Note that the minimum roll needed To Wound is always at least 2. When rolling To
Wound, there is no such thing as an automatic Wound and a roll of a 1 always
fails.

You cannot avoid this step. Only successful rolls to wound enable psychic shriek to wound or cause a telling amount of damage. However, we are missing critical info to resolve this mandated step. This is where the lack of profile causes the rules to technically break. Everyone at this point is required to implement some sort of HYWPI.

The underlined is untrue. Nothing ties the 3d6 roll (and resulting wounds) to the To Hit roll. You (and others) have repeatedly asserted that as fact, but have as yet failed to prove it. Pardon me for not just assuming you're right, but could you provide rules to support the underlined statement?

Can you back that up with a rule that states you skip things that are irrelevant in your opinion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Per the witchfire rules the entire power is the shooting attack it's not the result of one.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
You are correct it is finished as you cannot find a single rule that backs up rolling 0 nor ignoring the to hit roll.

Nor a single rule that tells you to not finish resolving the witchfires power (as instructed) inflicting 3D6-LD wounds on the target (which has no tie to any roll to hit, which makes the roll to hit discussion irrelevant).

A roll to hit is required.

Roll to wounds are mandated for successful hits.

Spoiler:

5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the
target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing
weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.

Spoiler:

ROLL 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. A value of ‘-’ indicates that the target cannot
be wounded by the attack.
Note that the minimum roll needed To Wound is always at least 2. When rolling To
Wound, there is no such thing as an automatic Wound and a roll of a 1 always
fails.

You cannot avoid this step. Only successful rolls to wound enable psychic shriek to wound or cause a telling amount of damage. However, we are missing critical info to resolve this mandated step. This is where the lack of profile causes the rules to technically break. Everyone at this point is required to implement some sort of HYWPI.

The underlined is untrue. Nothing ties the 3d6 roll (and resulting wounds) to the To Hit roll. You (and others) have repeatedly asserted that as fact, but have as yet failed to prove it. Pardon me for not just assuming you're right, but could you provide rules to support the underlined statement?

"For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target."

"To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage . . ."

Why are you ignoring this part then:
The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.

As Shriek does not follow the default method to determine if a Wound is successful, how can it be bound to and obey a Rule which details that method?
If it creates a conflict with the Rule because it can not follow the default method, why then does it not over-write the entirety of the Rule?

JinxDragon wrote:
Why are you ignoring this part then:
The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.

As Shriek does not follow the default method to determine if a Wound is successful, how can it be bound to a Rule which details what the default method is?

I am not ignoring it. My argument is that there is missing info that allows us to resolve Psychic Shriek and that everyone is in HYWPI land.

Everyone should be labeling their arguments as HYWPI per the tenets of this forum.

In particular, Psychic Shriek is missing "Instead of a to-wound roll" that other weapons have. Minimally, that needs to be there to resolve Psychic Shriek.

If it creates a conflict with the Rule because it can not follow the default method, why then does it not over-write the entirety of the Rule?

It's pretty bold to claim that conflicts allow the overwriting of the entirety of the rules. If that is HYWPI then fine.

col_impact wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Why are you ignoring this part then:
The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.

As Shriek does not follow the default method to determine if a Wound is successful, how can it be bound to a Rule which details what the default method is?

I am not ignoring it. My argument is that there is missing info that allows us to resolve Psychic Shriek and that everyone is in HYWPI land.

Everyone should be labeling their arguments as HYWPI per the tenets of this forum.

In particular, Psychic Shriek is missing "Instead of a to-wound roll" that other weapons have. Minimally, that needs to be there to resolve Psychic Shriek.

Seconded.

Gravmyr wrote:Can you back that up with a rule that states you skip things that are irrelevant in your opinion?

Per the witchfire rules the entire power is the shooting attack it's not the result of one.

I haven't said the rules allow you to skip it. HIWPI is it's skipped as it's irrelevant.
And no, the witchfire rules don't say that. Quoting rules is polite.

col_impact wrote:"For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target."

"To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage . . ."

And no shots hit, so those rules are irrelevant. Perhaps you'd rather read the thread to keep up with the discussion?
I mean, I don't mind informing you, but we've covered this ground already and repetition is tiring.

I don't think anyone involved in this discussion is oblivious to how broken the Written Rule itself is, the lack of a profile really does mess everything up.

Some are just trying to find out how the Authors Intended for it to work within the Rule system they designed. This is an uphill battle because it involves evoking 'loopholes' which do exist in the Written Rule, even though they lead to conclusions which make no sense. However, in order to keep in a Rule as Written structure, the only way for us to both resolve a Shooting Sequence and have no profile is to utilize one of these loopholes: The 0-Shot Shooting Sequence.

This only has problems with the group that believes such a concept its impossible, because it goes against all sorts of common sense.
Of course 0 Results is the same as 0 Successful Results, and the sequence handles those perfectly well....

BRB wrote:Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

Looks like it says exactly that.

Edit: It's literally the first line under the witchfire section.

As for the overwrite:
Without specific instructions telling us to replace only part of a Rule with the conflicting instructions, we do not have permission to evoke only half a Rule!

In this situation it is impossible to roll 3d6 in order to generate Wounds without violating the default method of To Wounding. These are not successful hit dice we are rolling to determine the number of wounds, it is an entirely different pool of dice that are rolled and the end result is X number of Successful Wounds. If this 3d6 dice roll was meant to replace just the 'Strength Vs Toughness' portion of the Rule, then it would need to be worded very different to what it currently is.

Gravmyr wrote:

BRB wrote:Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

Looks like it says exactly that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:Can you back that up with a rule that states you skip things that are irrelevant in your opinion?

Per the witchfire rules the entire power is the shooting attack it's not the result of one.

I haven't said the rules allow you to skip it. HIWPI is it's skipped as it's irrelevant.
And no, the witchfire rules don't say that. Quoting rules is polite.

No, it doesn't say exactly that.

No that is exactly what the first line under witchfire says per my BRB. It's copy pasted for exactness.

Gravmyr wrote:
No that is exactly what the first line under witchfire says per my BRB. It's copy pasted for exactness.

You misunderstand.
The rule you quoted is correct.
It does not, however, say what you assured me it does. In other words, it does not say (as I underlined) "the entire power is the shooting attack it's not the result of one."

Again that is exactly what is says. It does not state that the powers are the result of shooting attacks. It literally states the power is a shooting attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. does not mean Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. What does it mean?

JinxDragon wrote:
I don't think anyone involved in this discussion is oblivious to how broken the Written Rule itself is, the lack of a profile really does mess everything up.

Some are just trying to find out how the Authors Intended for it to work within the Rule system they designed. This is an uphill battle because it involves evoking 'loopholes' which do exist in the Written Rule, even though they lead to conclusions which make no sense. However, in order to keep in a Rule as Written structure, the only way for us to both resolve a Shooting Sequence and have no profile is to utilize one of these loopholes: The 0-Shot Shooting Sequence.

This only has problems with the group that believes such a concept its impossible, because it goes against all sorts of common sense.
Of course 0 Results is the same as 0 Successful Results, and the sequence handles those perfectly well....

It sounds like you are agreeing that strict RAW is broke here. It sounds like you agree that we are all in HYWPI land here.

The problem with ducktaping a bunch of loopholes and fictions that are made up (like the zero shot shooting attack) is that you wind up easter-egging (in addition to misrepresenting yourself as a strict RAW argument). You are producing a Psychic Shriek that acts like a malediction and not like witchfire. It's fairly obvious that the authors intend for it to resolve like witchfire.

The most elegant HYWPI solution resolves it as witchfire. Roll to hit and resolve psychic shriek on successful hits. It's super simple and we don't have to ducktape loopholes or make up fictions to do so. Plenty of shooting attacks have an "instead of a to wound roll" on them.

If anyone doesn't think we are in HYWPI land then they really are "oblivious to how broken the Written Rule itself is" or are pretending to be for advantage (which is far worse).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
As for the overwrite:
Without specific instructions telling us to replace only part of a Rule with the conflicting instructions, we do not have permission to evoke only half a Rule!

We can not skip parts of a rule that are mandatory to determining if its successful. I am not permitted to skip spending WC to manifest Psychic Shriek. If we cannot pay costs then powers fail.

If there is a conflict and we cannot resolve requisite components then Psychic Shriek fails (just as if the WC amount was missing on its entry).

Where you see a free lunch granted by a conflict or a typo and are making an easter egg out of it (wow I autohit and autowound with a witchfire attack! gee thanks sloppy rule writing!) I see a lunch that has to be paid by the rules and nothing in your wallet to pay it.

However, it's outrageously obvious that it's intended to be witchfire. So instead of turning a broken situation into something it is not, use HYWPI to fill the missing piece (a line that reads "instead of a To Wound Roll")

Col_Impact,
What I see is not people discussing How They Would Play It, but discussing Author Intent.
It is a very good question: Just what did the Author Intend when they created a Witchfire with no profile?

As for resolving only half a Rule:
Quote the Rule that allows you permission to evoke only half a Rule for me, please....

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_Impact,
What I see is not people discussing How They Would Play It, but discussing Author Intent.
It is a very good question: Just what did the Author Intend when they created a Witchfire with no profile?

I see a pretty slam dunk RAI argument that resolves Psychic Shriek as witchfire. To do that, the only thing that is missing is "Instead of a To Wound Roll . . ." and we have plenty of other cases of that in the rules. It can even be understood how a clause like that could have been accidentally left out (the writer assumed that the reader would apply the psychic shriek text as a custom to wound roll)

I hereby claim to have the most elegant solution to the mess that Psychic Shriek is in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:


As for resolving only half a Rule:
Quote the Rule that allows you permission to evoke only half a Rule for me, please....

Quote the rule that allows you to resolve witchfire without satisfying all its requirements (such as being in range, etc.)

Gravmyr wrote:
Again that is exactly what is says. It does not state that the powers are the result of shooting attacks. It literally states the power is a shooting attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. does not mean Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. What does it mean?

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.
That does not mean that everything the power does is resolved as part of a shooting attack.

Gravmyr wrote:
Care to quote what in the witchfire powers tells you to continue with shooting rules and roll to wound after the roll to hit? The to hit is all that is referenced in the Witchfire rules.

Edit: As well as saves. So the question becomes in a power that just has a profile has no rules that are different from those such as Shriek, why would you treat them different. Unless a weapon tells you on a miss do x you stop after the missed to hit. Since witchfires are weapons why treat them different? There is nothing in any weapon that tells you this is what you do after a failed to hit roll without actually using the words do x even if / instead if you miss.

Every witchfire is bound to the shooting rules. Whether every rule can be applied is another matter entirely. Any hits resolved against a model with a Str characteristic require a hit in order to be able to wound. That is why witchfires with a profile require a hit in order to wound. But this is different for psychic powers that don't have a str characteristic.

I'll take Smite as an example:

Smite is a witchfire power with the following profile:
18" S4 AP2 Assault 4

So we've established that witchfires are a shooting attack. Smite gives you a profile to resolve the shooting attack as you would any other weapon.
You resolve the power (shooting attack) as per entry. The sequence for shooting is as follows:


Now the debate here is about step 4 & 5. The debate isn't about whether a roll to hit is required but whether it has effect on the outcome.

So on to the next step, which is "Roll to wound". The BRB has the following to say about this.


This paragraph specifies that only 'hits' are allowed to roll to wound because only 'hits' can be converted into wounds. This is possible with smite since it has a Str characteristic.
It also specifies that in order to 'Roll to wound' you need a Str characteristic.


Moving on to psychic shriek.
The rules quoted in my last quote cannot be applied to psychic shriek, because Psychic Shriek simply does not have a Str characteristic.
Because you cannot roll to wound, any ruling from the "Roll to wound" section in the BRB do not apply it. We do not have to convert hit's to wounds as described in the BRB page 34 because that simply is not possible.

Now what we do have is the "Manifesting psychic powers sequence", which you can find on P. 24 in the BRB. The last step here is "5. Resolve psychic power" in which we read the following:


Said entry:

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

So it is a shooting attack. We have to roll to hit. However, we cannot apply the 'to wound' rolls of shooting attacks because we are not given a Str value (which is required as per the 'To wound' rules found on P. 34 of the BRB). Because we cannot apply the rules, the rules have no effect on the power. This includes the restriction that you can only cause a wound for every hit you have made, meaning the number of hits is irrelevant to the outcome of the power.

The only rule that can be applied to generating wounds using Psychic Shriek is the ruling provided by the power itself which states that I Roll 3D6 and subtract the target's leadership. It does not tell me that it needs a 'hit' in order to cause the wound, whereasthe BRB tells me to do so for any weapon that includes a profile (or more specifically any weapon that has a Str characteristic).


TL;DR To generate wounds as per shooting attacks, you are converting 'hits' to 'wounds' using the Str and T characteristics of the weapon and the target. Using psychic shriek does not use this method of generating wounds and as such, any restrictions applying to the first method cannot be applied without being specifically stated in the power's entry. You roll 'to hit' but since you utilize another method of generating wounds, the number of hits is irrelevant to the process of generating wounds. RAW, Psychic Shriek does not require a hit in order to generate wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:

That does not mean that everything the power does is resolved as part of a shooting attack.

Then you need a specific statement in it that states this. You need something in the rule book that states it happens x instead of y otherwise you have no directions to skip or replace a step. Without that you are bound by the statement that it is a shooting attack to follow all the rules of a shooting attack.

DaPino wrote:
Every witchfire is bound to the shooting rules. Whether every rule can be applied is another matter entirely. Any hits resolved against a model with a Str characteristic require a hit in order to be able to wound. That is why witchfires with a profile require a hit in order to wound. But this is different for psychic powers that don't have a str characteristic.

I assume then you can provide the same quote I asked rigeld2 for, a line that states do x instead of y. You are attempting to apply one advanced rule instead of another when you are told specifically that you need to apply them both. There is nothing in any of the witchfires without a profile that state you get to treat it as anything other than a shooting attack. As such you in fact actually must meet all the requirements of being a witchfire, that includes a roll to hit. Whether or not you agree that it applies means 0 to the rules. Rigeld2 even went to great lengths to gather all of the rules that prove that all witchfire powers are weapons. Therefor you have rules telling you to follow the shooting rules using a weapon (witchfire power).

Gravmyr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

That does not mean that everything the power does is resolved as part of a shooting attack.

Then you need a specific statement in it that states this. You need something in the rule book that states it happens x instead of y otherwise you have no directions to skip or replace a step. Without that you are bound by the statement that it is a shooting attack to follow all the rules of a shooting attack.

I'm not skipping or replacing any steps - that's your intent.
The shooting attack is resolved. You still have instructions in the entry that must be resolved. You're saying they cannot be and haven't cited a rule saying so.

Then how many dice are you rolling to hit?

Gravmyr wrote:
Then how many dice are you rolling to hit?

An irrelevant number. HIWPI is that I skip that step because it literally doesn't matter.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not skipping or replacing any steps - that's your intent.
The shooting attack is resolved. You still have instructions in the entry that must be resolved. You're saying they cannot be and haven't cited a rule saying so.

rigeld2 wrote:
An irrelevant number. HIWPI is that I skip that step because it literally doesn't matter.

Umm huh....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Skipping the to hit step does in fact matter as long as there is a single ability that functions on a successful hit. Is there a single ability in the game that triggers off being successfully hit?

Gravmyr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not skipping or replacing any steps - that's your intent.
The shooting attack is resolved. You still have instructions in the entry that must be resolved. You're saying they cannot be and haven't cited a rule saying so.

rigeld2 wrote:
An irrelevant number. HIWPI is that I skip that step because it literally doesn't matter.

Umm huh....

Oh, I see where you're confused. You're conflating HIWPI with the RAW. I purposely noted it there to show it's not RAW.

Skipping the to hit step does in fact matter as long as there is a single ability that functions on a successful hit. Is there a single ability in the game that triggers off being successfully hit?

There's To Wound, but since there's no S value and no hits to generate To Wound rolls, HIWPI is that it can be safely skipped as well - because it's literally impossible to generate Wounds from it.

Actually I believe that is one of the first times you have marked anything as HIWPI so it's easy enough to do. So no other ability in the game that functions off a model being hit by a shooting attack?

I'd like to see a poll on this topic, to see how people are playing it.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'd like to see a poll on this topic, to see how people are playing it.

Last time we did it is was pretty much even, and it matches my experiences in real life. This is really a frustrating issue, and all solutions either require making up rules or some really questionable interpretations that seem like easter-egging. And unlike often with YMDC debates, RAI is properly unclear as well; I just have no idea why they wrote it like they did. This problem has existed since the sixth edition, has never been addressed in a FAQ, and was not clarified with the seventh, so apparently GW somehow thinks it is clear, despite being the most hotly debated part of the 40K rules for two editions.

Please do so Jim, I do find your polls to be quite educational.

Crimson,
Agreed... it boggles my mind how such a massive error could be missed for so long.
I honestly start to wonder at times if these mistakes are deliberate....

DaPino wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Care to quote what in the witchfire powers tells you to continue with shooting rules and roll to wound after the roll to hit? The to hit is all that is referenced in the Witchfire rules.

Edit: As well as saves. So the question becomes in a power that just has a profile has no rules that are different from those such as Shriek, why would you treat them different. Unless a weapon tells you on a miss do x you stop after the missed to hit. Since witchfires are weapons why treat them different? There is nothing in any weapon that tells you this is what you do after a failed to hit roll without actually using the words do x even if / instead if you miss.

Every witchfire is bound to the shooting rules. Whether every rule can be applied is another matter entirely. Any hits resolved against a model with a Str characteristic require a hit in order to be able to wound. That is why witchfires with a profile require a hit in order to wound. But this is different for psychic powers that don't have a str characteristic.

I'll take Smite as an example:

Smite is a witchfire power with the following profile:
18" S4 AP2 Assault 4

So we've established that witchfires are a shooting attack. Smite gives you a profile to resolve the shooting attack as you would any other weapon.
You resolve the power (shooting attack) as per entry. The sequence for shooting is as follows:

Spoiler:

Nominate unit

Choose a target

Select a weapon

Roll to hit

Roll to wound

Allocate Wounds & remove casualties

Select another weapon

As per BRB page 30

Now the debate here is about step 4 & 5. The debate isn't about whether a roll to hit is required but whether it has effect on the outcome.

So on to the next step, which is "Roll to wound". The BRB has the following to say about this.

Spoiler:

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 on this page.
The number indicated on the chart is the minimum result on a D6 needed to convert the hit into a wound. A value of '-' indicates that the target cannout be wounded by the attack.

This paragraph specifies that only 'hits' are allowed to roll to wound because only 'hits' can be converted into wounds. This is possible with smite since it has a Str characteristic.
It also specifies that in order to 'Roll to wound' you need a Str characteristic.


Moving on to psychic shriek.
The rules quoted in my last quote cannot be applied to psychic shriek, because Psychic Shriek simply does not have a Str characteristic.
Because you cannot roll to wound, any ruling from the "Roll to wound" section in the BRB do not apply it. We do not have to convert hit's to wounds as described in the BRB page 34 because that simply is not possible.

Now what we do have is the "Manifesting psychic powers sequence", which you can find on P. 24 in the BRB. The last step here is "5. Resolve psychic power" in which we read the following:

Spoiler:

Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a succesful 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.

Said entry:

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

So it is a shooting attack. We have to roll to hit. However, we cannot apply the 'to wound' rolls of shooting attacks because we are not given a Str value (which is required as per the 'To wound' rules found on P. 34 of the BRB). Because we cannot apply the rules, the rules have no effect on the power. This includes the restriction that you can only cause a wound for every hit you have made, meaning the number of hits is irrelevant to the outcome of the power.

The only rule that can be applied to generating wounds using Psychic Shriek is the ruling provided by the power itself which states that I Roll 3D6 and subtract the target's leadership. It does not tell me that it needs a 'hit' in order to cause the wound, whereasthe BRB tells me to do so for any weapon that includes a profile (or more specifically any weapon that has a Str characteristic).


TL;DR To generate wounds as per shooting attacks, you are converting 'hits' to 'wounds' using the Str and T characteristics of the weapon and the target. Using psychic shriek does not use this method of generating wounds and as such, any restrictions applying to the first method cannot be applied without being specifically stated in the power's entry. You roll 'to hit' but since you utilize another method of generating wounds, the number of hits is irrelevant to the process of generating wounds. RAW, Psychic Shriek does not require a hit in order to generate wounds.

Please mark your post HYWPI. The point at which your solution becomes HYWPI is where you decide that the missing profile and the broken rules allow you to skip paying witchfire's requisite costs. You are required to roll to wound. Skipping that requisite step is HYWPI. The end result of your HYWPI is a witchfire that has been seriously buffed to effectively autohit and autowound. The problem with your approach is that you are admitting to broken rules and then leveraging those broken rules to buff powers, which is easter-egging.

A better, more elegant HYWPI is to follow the other examples of weapons that affect Target leadership and simply add a clause "Instead of a To Wound Roll . . . " to the power which enables the power to resolve fully as witchfire with a To Hit Roll and a To Wound Roll. This approach is better than your approach since I am fully acknowledging that there is a missing profile and a broken ruleset and I am treating the situation appropriately and openly as HYWPI and not taking advantage of broken rules to generate buffs under the disguise of a HYWPI argument masquerading as a RAW argument. Moreover, my approach has a solid RAI argument. GW clearly intends Psychic Shriek to resolve as witchfire so lets treat it that way instead of bending rules, going down the path of loopholes, and inventing fictions to transform a witchfire power into an uber-witchfire.

col_impact wrote:
The point at which your solution becomes HYWPI is where you decide that the missing profile and the broken rules allow you to skip paying witchfire's requisite costs.

This is, of course, not true.

There are a few things we skip because we can not resolve, like casting enfeeble on a vehicle...

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The point at which your solution becomes HYWPI is where you decide that the missing profile and the broken rules allow you to skip paying witchfire's requisite costs.

This is, of course, not true.

There are a few things we skip because we can not resolve, like casting enfeeble on a vehicle...

That's not skipped at all. It's a perfectly reasonable RAW interpretation that modifiying characteristics on models that don't have those characteristics has no effect. Similarly, I cannot assign wounds to vehicles. Wounds have no effect on vehicles.

col_impact wrote:
Please mark your post HYWPI. The point at which your solution becomes HYWPI is where you decide that the missing profile and the broken rules allow you to skip paying witchfire's requisite costs. You are required to roll to wound. Skipping that requisite step is HYWPI. The end result of your HYWPI is a witchfire that has been seriously buffed to effectively autohit and autowound. The problem with your approach is that you are admitting to broken rules and then leveraging those broken rules to buff powers, which is easter-egging.

A better, more elegant HYWPI is to follow the other examples of weapons that affect Target leadership and simply add a clause "Instead of a To Wound Roll . . . " to the power which enables the power to resolve fully as witchfire with a To Hit Roll and a To Wound Roll. This approach is better than your approach since I am fully acknowledging that there is a missing profile and a broken ruleset and I am treating the situation appropriately and openly as HYWPI and not taking advantage of broken rules to generate buffs under the disguise of a HYWPI argument masquerading as a RAW argument. Moreover, my approach has a solid RAI argument. GW clearly intends Psychic Shriek to resolve as witchfire so lets treat it that way instead of bending rules, going down the path of loopholes, and inventing fictions to transform a witchfire power into an uber-witchfire.

Except that it is not HYWPI. He asked me for a ruling on why the to hit role does not matter and I gave it to him.

You are referring to something as 'requisite' while there is no way of applying the ruling behind it (Roll to wound). In order to apply the restriction based on the requisite of to wound rolls, you need to have a to wound roll in the first place. If you don't then you are bending the rules. You take a requisite from one rule (which can't be used) and you paste it into to the rule that does apply. In this case, you are taking the restriction from the 'Roll to wound' section in the BRB and apply it to the power description of Psychic Shriek while there is not even so much as a hint that you should do so.

Your solution might be a more balanced. But my solution goes by the book (even if it's broken) and does not require me to add/remove words from the BRB. I do not bend rules, I simply don't apply rules that cannot be applied. This includes any requisites for these rules. The result is that any restriction because of the lack of the requisite is nullified.

DaPino wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Please mark your post HYWPI. The point at which your solution becomes HYWPI is where you decide that the missing profile and the broken rules allow you to skip paying witchfire's requisite costs. You are required to roll to wound. Skipping that requisite step is HYWPI. The end result of your HYWPI is a witchfire that has been seriously buffed to effectively autohit and autowound. The problem with your approach is that you are admitting to broken rules and then leveraging those broken rules to buff powers, which is easter-egging.

A better, more elegant HYWPI is to follow the other examples of weapons that affect Target leadership and simply add a clause "Instead of a To Wound Roll . . . " to the power which enables the power to resolve fully as witchfire with a To Hit Roll and a To Wound Roll. This approach is better than your approach since I am fully acknowledging that there is a missing profile and a broken ruleset and I am treating the situation appropriately and openly as HYWPI and not taking advantage of broken rules to generate buffs under the disguise of a HYWPI argument masquerading as a RAW argument. Moreover, my approach has a solid RAI argument. GW clearly intends Psychic Shriek to resolve as witchfire so lets treat it that way instead of bending rules, going down the path of loopholes, and inventing fictions to transform a witchfire power into an uber-witchfire.

Except that it is not HYWPI. He asked me for a ruling on why the to hit role does not matter and I gave it to him.

You are referring to something as 'requisite' while there is no way of applying the ruling behind it (Roll to wound). In order to apply the restriction based on the requisite of to wound rolls, you need to have a to wound roll in the first place. If you don't then you are bending the rules. You take a requisite from one rule (which can't be used) and you paste it into to the rule that does apply. In this case, you are taking the restriction from the 'Roll to wound' section in the BRB and apply it to the power description of Psychic Shriek while there is not even so much as a hint that you should do so.

Your solution might be a more balanced. But my solution goes by the book (even if it's broken) and does not require me to add/remove words from the BRB. I do not bend rules, I simply don't apply rules that cannot be applied. This includes any requisites for these rules. The result is that any restriction because of the lack of the requisite is nullified.

The result is an easter-egg. You are taking broken rules and missing information as justification for skipping requisite steps and buffing witchfire into uber-witchfire. Moreover, it is HYWPI. You are not permitted to skip requisite steps. Psychic shriek cannot be resolved per strict RAW. There is missing critical information and everyone acknowledges that. Everyone is in the land of HYWPI.

col_impact wrote:
The result is an easter-egg. You are taking broken rules and missing information as justification for skipping requisite steps and buffing witchfire into uber-witchfire. Moreover, it is HYWPI. You are not permitted to skip requisite steps. Psychic shriek cannot be resolved per strict RAW. There is missing critical information and everyone acknowledges that. Everyone is in the land of HYWPI.

I do not skip requisites, the requisite does not exist because the rule that requires the requisite is not in effect (because it cannot be applied).
Wether this is intentional or not does not matter, the fact is that the ruling is there.

It would be like saying that a model with Str 8 Poisond(2+) attacks cannot harm vehicles because 'Poisoned' cannot affect vehicles. However, Str 8 poisoned(2+) attacks can affect vehicles because Str 8 stands apart from Poisoned(2+) and restrictions from 1 can't be hauled over to another. Like that, Psychic Shriek stands apart from rolling to wound and restrictions from rolling to wound cannot be applied to Psychic Shriek, including the requisite of having scored a hit.

Easter egg or not, it is according to the rules. I am not wrongly using rules, I am using the rules I am given to resolve the power in the only way possible without adding/removing/changing rules. It might be overpowered or broken (although I hardly think it is), but it is still within the boundaries set up by the rules. Whether it is something the writers intended or not is of little consequence, it is the only way to resolve the power until changes are made.
'Because it's too strong' is not a decent argument to this because there are a lot of things that are 'too strong' according to a lot of people.

Calling it a loophole is an assumption on your side because we do not know what the RAI is and we can't be sure until the rule is FAQ'ed or otherwise changed.

Can you provide me with a paragraph of anything else that RAW proves me that 'a hit' is a requisite to resolve the power. If no, We will have to agree to disagree because I don't feel like having an arguement if people claim that my arguments are HYWPI, even though they are all supported by the BRB's literal writing.

@DaPino Are witchfire powers required to roll to hit?

Gravmyr wrote:
@DaPino Are witchfire powers required to roll to hit?

Yes, and as I already explain very lengthily why the result of the roll is irrelevant to the outcome when no weapon profile is given.
Briefly, it comes down to this:
Witchfires are shooting attacks, shooting attacks require a roll to hit. Causing wounds as per shooting attacks requires you to convert hits to wounds using Str and T characteristics. You cannot apply 'rolling to wound' rules because there is a total lack of said characteristics. The only rule that you can apply says to resolve the power as per power entry.
The power tells us to generate wounds in totally different way than described in the 'rolling to wound' section of the shooting attack sequence, and as such you cannot apply restrictions and requisites from the 'rolling to wound' section to this method of generating wounds because there is not one ounce of evidence that we should do so.

For a more detailed explanation I point you to one of my previous posts.

DaPino wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
@DaPino Are witchfire powers required to roll to hit?

Yes, and as I already explain very lengthily why the result of the roll is irrelevant to the outcome when no weapon profile is given.
Briefly, it comes down to this:
Witchfires are shooting attacks, shooting attacks require a roll to hit. Causing wounds as per shooting attacks requires you to convert hits to wounds using Str and T characteristics. You cannot apply 'rolling to wound' rules because there is a total lack of said characteristics. The only rule that you can apply says to resolve the power as per power entry.
The power tells us to generate wounds in totally different way than described in the 'rolling to wound' section of the shooting attack sequence, and as such you cannot apply restrictions and requisites from the 'rolling to wound' section to this method of generating wounds because there is not one ounce of evidence that we should do so.

For a more detailed explanation I point you to one of my previous posts.

Your reasoning is as nonsensical as stating that general shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, so since you can't roll to wound vehicles they are auto penetrated.

a step after the required step that cannot be performed for a specific profile does not mean the previous step that is required is invalid.

terrible reasoning.

if the hit roll were irrelevant it would have to be stated in the power.

You are completely and utterly wrong with no RAW support.

@dapino Is there even a single ability that exists in the game that is triggered off of being hit by a shooting attack?

blaktoof wrote:

DaPino wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
@DaPino Are witchfire powers required to roll to hit?

Yes, and as I already explain very lengthily why the result of the roll is irrelevant to the outcome when no weapon profile is given.
Briefly, it comes down to this:
Witchfires are shooting attacks, shooting attacks require a roll to hit. Causing wounds as per shooting attacks requires you to convert hits to wounds using Str and T characteristics. You cannot apply 'rolling to wound' rules because there is a total lack of said characteristics. The only rule that you can apply says to resolve the power as per power entry.
The power tells us to generate wounds in totally different way than described in the 'rolling to wound' section of the shooting attack sequence, and as such you cannot apply restrictions and requisites from the 'rolling to wound' section to this method of generating wounds because there is not one ounce of evidence that we should do so.

For a more detailed explanation I point you to one of my previous posts.

Your reasoning is as nonsensical as stating that general shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, so since you can't roll to wound vehicles they are auto penetrated.

a step after the required step that cannot be performed for a specific profile does not mean the previous step that is required is invalid.

terrible reasoning.

if the hit roll were irrelevant it would have to be stated in the power.

You are completely and utterly wrong with no RAW support.

Seriously, could you go out and buy the rulebook before making bold claims?
Your argument is nonsensical because the BRB contains rules on how to resolve shooting at vehicles, as described in the 'shooting at vehicles' section (what a surprise).
What the rulebook does not contain, is any statement that allows you to apply the rules from 'Rolling to wound' on the Psychic shriek power. The ruling IS invalid because there is no way of applying it, because there is no Str characteristic. It is not 'an example way of wounding' as some have stated, it is THE way of wounding as per 'Rolling to wound'. If it was an example, the rulebook would have said so.

I don't even find a single written word that tells me I have to finish step 5 before I can move on to step 6. It only tells me that if I want to allocate wounds as per step 6, I need a wound pool.
Step 5 only tells me that if I want to produce wounds as per step 5, I need a hit. However, I need to produce wounds as per Psychic Shriek entry. This entry does not tell me that 'a hit' is a requirement in order to generate wounds.

The closest thing I can find that supports your claims is P.30 which says:

Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.

Now how would you complete step 5 you wonder? I'll tell you how. I apply every rule and written word from step 5 that is applicable, which is 0 because there is not a single thing in the 'Roll to wound' paragraph that can be applied to the situation.
Step 5 is now resolved because logic dictates that when everything that is applicable is applied, the entry is resolved. I do not ignore it, I go through it while applying every rule that is applicable.

If you shoot at someone with a weapon that has 'ignore cover' he does not get to make a cover save before being removed as a casualty. The entry 'cover saves' is ignored because the 'Ignore cover' rule says you cannot apply them.
Here it's similar (meaning they can be compared, not that it is the same). We cannot take 'a hit' as a requisite because the rule that requires the requisite cannot be applied, in this case because of a lack of a Str characteristic. So we ignore the rule while going through step 5.


I (nor the book) do not have to prove the irrelevance of 'a hit' you have to prove its relevance.
YOU are taking requisites from a method of wounding that is not applied ( wounding as described in step 5) and are applying them to another method of wounding.
You have to prove to me that a requisite from method A (Roll to wound) should apply to method B (Psychic Shriek) when method A is not applied (because it is not applicable). You make that claim so you have to give me proof.

Even if you were to replace the step 'Rolling to wound', that does not give you the right to only replace half the step. You have to replace the entire 'roll to wound' method with the one provided by Psychic Shriek, which does impose the requisite of 'a hit'.

Gravmyr wrote:
@dapino Is there even a single ability that exists in the game that is triggered off of being hit by a shooting attack?

Strictly speaking, yes. The preferred enemy USR triggers without hitting with a shooting attack, but I understand that this is not similar to this situation.
The stomp ability, at no point in its entry, refers to 'hitting a unit' you roll a 2-5. However, if you roll a 6 the book doesn't talk about 'hits'. Again this is not a shooting attack but whatever, you asked for an ability that triggers without 'hits' so I gave you one.

One final point I'd like to make is that everyone is treating Psychic powers the same as 'shooting with a weapon' in order to try and impose restrictions applying to weapons. Psychic powers are not the same as 'weapons' and the rulebook is very clear on this.

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. Indeed, they are often refered to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons. Just like shooting a weapon, a Psyker must be able to see the target unit 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 descrbied on page 158 or it is a templeta weapon, which hit automatically.

We learn 2 things here. 1) Not all witchfires are required to have profiles, because 'many' =/= 'all'. However, this is irrelevant because there is still a lack of Str characteristic which is the real issue. So I don't understand why everyone is so determined to (dis)prove the existence of one. 2) The only restrictions from 'shooting with a weapon' we can apply literally to witchfires are 'Line of sight' and 'not locked in combat', blindly applying anything else literally is not supported by the rulebook.

For example:
The BRB specifically states that saves can be taken against Witchfires and THAT requires you to have an overriding rule to be written in its entry.
However, there is no rule that allows you to apply requisites from the 'Roll to wound' section (which 100% is inapplicable) to the Psychic Shriek entry.

Then you do in fact know that there are abilities in the game that trigger directly off being hit by a shooting attack. With that knowledge can you still claim that rolling to hit is irrelevant? Unless you know every codex and every rule in every codex there is no way to make the claim the to hit is irrelevant in any situation due to the nature of a shooting attack affecting another unit.

By the way Stomp does not trigger off being hit it triggers off being under a blast template then can create hits and preferred enemy triggers on a miss.

My point stands as this, as long as you are interacting with other models there are going to be other things that are triggered so even if in your opinion the to hit is irrelevant to the power the hit may allow / cause other things to happen. Beyond that post a rule that states rules can be ignored that you don't see a link to what you are doing or is irrelevant. Without it you are playing HIWPI not RAW.

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The point at which your solution becomes HYWPI is where you decide that the missing profile and the broken rules allow you to skip paying witchfire's requisite costs.

This is, of course, not true.

There are a few things we skip because we can not resolve, like casting enfeeble on a vehicle...

That's not skipped at all. It's a perfectly reasonable RAW interpretation that modifiying characteristics on models that don't have those characteristics has no effect. Similarly, I cannot assign wounds to vehicles. Wounds have no effect on vehicles.

And the roll to hit for PS and Focused Witchfire powers also has no affect on the resolution of those powers.

Can it have an affect on other powers or abilities that trigger off a hit for a shooting attack?

Gravmyr wrote:
Then you do in fact know that there are abilities in the game that trigger directly off being hit by a shooting attack. With that knowledge can you still claim that rolling to hit is irrelevant? Unless you know every codex and every rule in every codex there is no way to make the claim the to hit is irrelevant in any situation due to the nature of a shooting attack affecting another unit.

By the way Stomp does not trigger off being hit it triggers off being under a blast template then can create hits and preferred enemy triggers on a miss.

My point stands as this, as long as you are interacting with other models there are going to be other things that are triggered so even if in your opinion the to hit is irrelevant to the power the hit may allow / cause other things to happen. Beyond that post a rule that states rules can be ignored that you don't see a link to what you are doing or is irrelevant. Without it you are playing HIWPI not RAW.

You have to prove a link between the rules that does exist. And there is not a single line written in the book that allows you to connect the two and it is up to you to prove the contrary. I can type out the entire rulebook here just to prove nothing is in it but in the end you'd have to read it and tell me what part does connect the requisite 'a hit' with the profile of psychic shriek in a way.
YOU have to prove that 'A hit' is a requisite for psychic shriek to resolve. It is a requisite for rolling to wound but the BRB is very clear on what a to wound roll is and Psychic Shriek is not in any way shape or form a to wound roll as describe in the section 'roll to wound'.

Quite honestly I am fething sick of having to disprove relationships that others claim to exist with 0 wording to back them up.
I have typed over and over and over again why I think that RAW there is no relationship between 'roll to wound' P34 (with its requisite 'a hit') and psychic shriek's entry. All I ever get as an answer is: "But you have to prove there is a no relationship because I think there is a relationship".
I've also typed over and over and over again that a rule that cannot be applied cannot put restrictions on something. all you have to say to that is: "I have to prove it". NO! that is not how burden of proof works, YOU claim something exists so it is up to YOU to provide evidence for the existence of whatever it is you claim exists.

If you do something that is not in the rules, you are breaking the rules that is the basic concept of what rules are.
There is no ruling on how to apply the 'roll to wound' section (including it's requisites and restrictions) to Psychic Shriek. If you want to do so anyway you need rules that allow you to do so. If "Instead of a to wound roll..." or "except that you..." was in Psychic shriek's entry for instance (and oh yeah there's rules that do exactly this), you'd have a solid connection . But you do not, because there is no connection as per the rulebook but still you insist that there is a connection.

Again, you claim that I am 'ignoring and skipping rules'. No I am not, I am simply not trying to apply the inapplicable. Prove that I am ignoring a rule that is perfectly applicable in this situation? Everyone here has failed to provide so much as a single line of texts from the rulebook that says that I have to meet requirements put in place by a rule that cannot be applied.

It doesn't matter in the least if it applicable. There is a requirement in Witchfire that states you have to roll to hit. You have even acknowledged that the book has stated you have to do it. You then follow it up with but it doesn't matter so I'm not doing it. Post a rule that states you can skip it if it doesn't matter. You have yet to do so. Secondly I already pointed out there are abilities on models that trigger on successful hits from shooting attacks. As such it does in fact matter.

Did you even read what i posted?

I did not post about resolution I asked for the rule that states you ignore can skip any step that you don't see a link to. There isn't one, you are still required to do so. I also note you didn't address my post. You addressed what you assume I am talking about. So again is a to hit roll irrelevant if there are abilities in the game that trigger off being hit by a shooting attack? To spell it out better for you, if a model/unit has a rule that states "if model/unit is hit by a successful shooting attack do x." Doesn't that make the to hit roll relevant?

Gravmyr wrote:
It doesn't matter in the least if it applicable. There is a requirement in Witchfire that states you have to roll to hit. You have even acknowledged that the book has stated you have to do it. You then follow it up with but it doesn't matter so I'm not doing it. Post a rule that states you can skip it if it doesn't matter. You have yet to do so. Secondly I already pointed out there are abilities on models that trigger on successful hits from shooting attacks. As such it does in fact matter.

Did you even read what i posted?

I did not post about resolution I asked for the rule that states you ignore can skip any step that you don't see a link to. There isn't one, you are still required to do so. I also note you didn't address my post. You addressed what you assume I am talking about. So again is a to hit roll irrelevant if there are abilities in the game that trigger off being hit by a shooting attack? To spell it out better for you, if a model/unit has a rule that states "if model/unit is hit by a successful shooting attack do x." Doesn't that make the to hit roll relevant?

I'm not saying I shouldn't roll to hit, I am saying that the result of this roll is irrelevant to resolve the power because I don't need a hit in order to resolve the rest of the power.
Fine I'll throw a dice... but whether it's a 1 or a 6, I am still rolling that 3D6 and you are still going to take wounds if it's higher than your leadership.

I already explained this multiple times aswell why I think this and I am not going over it again because you are too lazy to read all arguments made.
There are powers that trigger on succesful hits or trigger when no succesful hit is scored, so I will make a to hit roll if you really want me to.
It's just that Psychic Shriek is not one of those powers and requires neither a succesful or unsuccesful to hit roll in order to be resolved.

Also, not once did I claim you don't make a to hit roll. I said that a succesful to hit roll is not a requirement for resolving Psychic Shriek, which is completely different.

So I decide to cast Psychic Shriek.

After successfully casting the power, I then proceed to resolve the power.

Since it is a witchfire, I must roll To Hit. I roll an undefined number of dice. I count up the undefined number of successful Hits and roll them again comparing an undefined Strength with Toughness to determine an undefined number of Wounds.

I then finish resolving the power in accordance with its entry.


Did I do this correctly?

If you follow Psychic Shriek strictly according to RAW, everything comes to a screeching halt when you are asked to roll to wound.

It is in the Roll To Wound where the missing profile makes for a situation where you cannot proceed any further. The missing profile means you have no Str characteristic to enable you to Roll To Wound.

At this point some people are advocating that you skip this step that is mired in broken rules and missing information.

HOWEVER -- SKIPPING THIS STEP IS HYWPI. Nowhere in the rules are you allowed to skip over sections of the rules where you cannot proceed (because you have a broken situation).

Per strict RAW the games comes to a screeching halt at the To Wound Roll because of the missing profile.

At this point in the rules per strict RAW you can shake hands since now you have a draw!

However no one wants that so you need to come up with a house rule that avoids that stupidity.

If you implement a HYWPI that skips the To Wound Roll, the end result is an easter egg and a witchfire power that autohits and autowounds. By skipping over rules with your HYWPI you have effectively cast witchfire without paying costs.

Quit pretending that you have a RAW argument when you have skipped over rules to do so. That is absurd. You are deceiving yourself minimally and at worse you are actively trying to pull the wool over other peoples eyes and rules lawyer to advantage.

Come on people. Psychic Shriek is broken rules. There is obviously a missing profile and we are missing critical information. You cannot resolve witchfire wihout some measure of HYWPI. You absolutely do not have permission to skip over rules because you are missing information.

Psychic Shriek absolutely puts us in a position of being forced to HYWPI in order to get along with the game.

Quit trying to hide your HYWPI as a RAW argument. Strict RAW brings the game to a screeching halt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
So I decide to cast Psychic Shriek.

After successfully casting the power, I then proceed to resolve the power.

Since it is a witchfire, I must roll To Hit. I roll an undefined number of dice. I count up the undefined number of successful Hits and roll them again comparing an undefined Strength with Toughness to determine an undefined number of Wounds.

I then finish resolving the power in accordance with its entry.


Did I do this correctly?

If all you are claiming is HYWPI then that's fine. Feel free to implement a house rule that lets you roll undefined number of dice. Strict RAW does not allow for that. So you are obviously not doing strict RAW if you are "rolling an undefined number of dice".

However, I have a much better HYWPI than yours. My HYWPI does not resort to fictions like "rolling an undefined number of dice" and it leads to a result that does not produce an Easter Egg and it leads to a result that actually resolves Psychic Shriek as witchfire (which is RAI!)

the issue with anyone claiming you don't know how many dice to roll to hit is ridiculous.

its 1 dice.

you are not told it is more than 1.

further if it were more than 1, then it would be the only attack in the game where you can have more than 1 chance to hit without a reroll for a single effect which it obviously is not.

further claiming it is more than 1 roll to hit is against that it generates a single set of 3d6-ld for wounds, not roll 3d6-ld for wounds per hit.

blaktoof wrote:
the issue with anyone claiming you don't know how many dice to roll to hit is ridiculous.

its 1 dice.

you are not told it is more than 1.

further if it were more than 1, then it would be the only attack in the game where you can have more than 1 chance to hit without a reroll for a single effect which it obviously is not.

further claiming it is more than 1 roll to hit is against that it generates a single set of 3d6-ld for wounds, not roll 3d6-ld for wounds per hit.

So of course you can provide rules citations for your assertions.
Calling people ridiculous isn't polite.

do you actually read the rules to this game before you post anything in any thread?

serious question, since you never quote anything from the rules.

provide a rules citation the to hit roll isn't required- you can't and also wont.

nice talking to you as always, putting you back on ignore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the issue with anyone claiming you don't know how many dice to roll to hit is ridiculous.

its 1 dice.

you are not told it is more than 1.

further if it were more than 1, then it would be the only attack in the game where you can have more than 1 chance to hit without a reroll for a single effect which it obviously is not.

further claiming it is more than 1 roll to hit is against that it generates a single set of 3d6-ld for wounds, not roll 3d6-ld for wounds per hit.

So of course you can provide rules citations for your assertions.
Calling people ridiculous isn't polite.

you do realize i am quoting the rules with each of my assertions, right? Do you have a copy of the rules?

also I called an issue ridiculous, not a person, or people. Because honestly the issue put forth is done so without any thought of what implication rolling multiple dice to hit with an attack that has a singular effect means, as I pointed out.

and yeah, its ridiculous.

blaktoof wrote:
its 1 dice.

I also cannot find this in the rules.

 grendel083 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
its 1 dice.

I also cannot find this in the rules.

can you find that it is more than 1 die?

and did you actually read my post?

here it is, since you might have a hard time locating it based on your post.



thanks for the useful contribution to the thread tho.

blaktoof wrote:
can you find that it is more than 1 die?

No. Nor can I find that it is less than 1. Nor can I find that it IS one. There is no number anywhere. No hint that it is 1.
1 is an assumption. Nothing more.

and did you actually read my post?

Yes I did. Having no evidence that it is more than 1 is NOT evidence that it is 1.

thanks for the useful contribution to the thread tho.

You're quite welcome. Sarcasm and insults at anyone that doesn't agree is no way to debate however.

No rule says it's more than 1. Great! Now prove that it IS 1.

so really no comments on the reasoning behind why i stated it was 1 with the RAW for each example?

you are told to roll to hit

you are required to do so to resolve the power.

you are not told to roll more than 1 dice.

further if it were more than 1, then it would be the only attack in the game where you can have more than 1 chance to hit without a reroll for a single effect which it obviously is not.

further claiming it is more than 1 roll to hit is against that it generates a single set of 3d6-ld for wounds, not roll 3d6-ld for wounds per hit.

In all honesty in that situation, how many dice do you think you roll to hit, if you had to guess a real number above 0.

Blaktoof, how many shots does a model with a Bolt Pistol get?
What about a model with a Boltgun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
In all honesty in that situation, how many dice do you think you roll to hit, if you had to guess a real number above 0.

It is undefined. Just like the Toughness of a vehicle.

 Happyjew wrote:
Blaktoof, how many shots does a model with a Bolt Pistol get?
What about a model with a Boltgun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
In all honesty in that situation, how many dice do you think you roll to hit, if you had to guess a real number above 0.

It is undefined. Just like the Toughness of a vehicle.

regardless if it is defined or undefined there are some rules for the power, and rules that it has to follow.

within those guidelines there is no RAW that you can ignore the required to hit roll for being a witchfire, and there is no RAW that you may roll more than 1 dice.

Given the wording of the power doesn't tell the reader that you roll 3d6-ld per hit, we know its not more than one dice.

so when you are asked to make a hit roll with such an attack, how many dice would you think is the correct to roll?

It's a good guess. And if I had to guess, it would be 1.

But it is a guess, an assumption. HIWPI at best.

No rule anywhere says its 1. It's not fact.

I agree its a guess.

but given the RAW states you have to roll to hit.

and no RAW says it cam be more than 1 dice, and the above I stated

there is no plain RAW answer.

however there is only 1 logical answer as to how many dice you are to roll to hit with, and when the best answer you have is a HYWPI that is what you go with.

blaktoof, as all you did was quote me, I repeat. How many shots does a model with a bolt pistol fire? What about a model armed with a Bolter?

Is a witchfire power a weapon?

Gravmyr wrote:
Is a witchfire power a weapon?

as much as I would love to have a circular argument where you answer no question presented to you on the topic after I answer you I am still baited into your game.

a witchfire power is not a weapon.

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

which is the first sentence after the heading witchfire

a witchfire power is a shooting attack, it is required to have a successful to hit roll as part of its resolution due to its entry[its entry states its a witchfire, resolution of psychic powers states you must resolve them by their entry witchfires require a to hit roll as per a shooting attack, shooting attacks require the hit roll to succeed to not miss) stating its a witchfire.

how many dice would you roll to hit with?

blaktoof wrote:
[how many dice would you roll to hit with?

An undefined number.

Now your turn to answer a question. How many dice would you roll To Hit with a Bolt Pistol?

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
[how many dice would you roll to hit with?

An undefined number.

Now your turn to answer a question. How many dice would you roll To Hit with a Bolt Pistol?

thanks for being pointlessly obtuse, when you manage to pickup an undefined number of dice at a game I will reply to anything you post.

I realize you are being evasive because you know that you are wrong.

which is why you posted a poor analogy like the toughness of a rhino. Rhinos have AV, so toughness never comes into play, PS is a witchfire(shooting attack) and is required to hit with a hit roll.

one has an undefined value that is undefeined because it would never been asked to be used, like the side armor value of gretchin. Another has an unlisted value, that is required for use in playing the game.

blaktoof wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
[how many dice would you roll to hit with?

An undefined number.

Now your turn to answer a question. How many dice would you roll To Hit with a Bolt Pistol?

thanks for being pointlessly obtuse, when you manage to pickup an undefined number of dice at a game I will reply to anything you post.

You ask a question, I give an answer. I ask a question, you refuse to answer, because you don't like my answer.

Rigeld2 was kind enough to gather all the instances where witchfire powers are called weapons. After which if you look at pg 40 under weapons, number of shots you will see if it is multiple shots then you will be told it is so. So 1 shot backed up by rules.

Gravmyr wrote:
Rigeld2 was kind enough to gather all the instances where witchfire powers are called weapons. After which if you look at pg 40 under weapons, number of shots you will see if it is multiple shots then you will be told it is so. So 1 shot backed up by rules.

You'll also note that under Weapons

Every weapon has a profile.

What is the profile for Psychic Shriek?

BRB - Witchfire wrote:...and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons.

Many Witchfires have profiles, not all
They're described as similar to weapons, not as weapons.

Due to GW being GW and like they have for numerous other weapons in the game we have to extrapolate. If we go by anything else, ie it doesn't have a profile it's not a weapon, then I would say a good number of things were not weapons in the change from 4th to 5th and at another large number of times. The onus is on them to provide them once they have labeled it a weapon not the on the profile to prove it's a weapon. There is nothing in that section that states the weapon profiles will in fact look like the standard profile either. Since the power does not tell us it stops us from charging we can deduce it is not heavy, salvo, rapid fire or ordance. Since it also does not state it can be used in close combat it cannot be a pistol. Leaving assault. We are not told if fires more than 1 shot so single shot. It gives no strength to resolve it so we use the rule as presented earlier as "Instead of rolling to wound as normal..." Range 18". You have your profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes this is HIWPI through the addition of Instead of rolling cause otherwise we end up resolving the power as a shooting attack then resolving the power and that cannot be as the power is a shooting attack so should fit into the shooting attack steps easily.

Here is all the proof that Rigeld2 collected.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/619172.page#7299357

 Happyjew wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Rigeld2 was kind enough to gather all the instances where witchfire powers are called weapons. After which if you look at pg 40 under weapons, number of shots you will see if it is multiple shots then you will be told it is so. So 1 shot backed up by rules.

You'll also note that under Weapons

Every weapon has a profile.

What is the profile for Psychic Shriek?

Psychic Shriek does not have a profile so it is not a weapon.

Col_impact - rolling to wound doesnt cause an issue, as you only roll a dice for each successful hit. You have no successful hits. So you roll 0 dice, fully satisfying the requirements.

I note blaktoof still struggles with answering straight forward questions.

If every weapon has a profile, and you do not have a profile, can you have a weapon? No.

So it has undefined shots. RAW.

RAW: roll to hit with an undefined number of dice. No matter the result, resolve the 3D6-Ld as the rules tell you to do.

 grendel083 wrote:
It's a good guess. And if I had to guess, it would be 1.

But it is a guess, an assumption. HIWPI at best.

No rule anywhere says its 1. It's not fact.

I've quoted that Rule before:

"roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot" From the To Hit section.

rigeld2 wrote:
The shooting attack is resolved.

That is simply not true is you have not rolled To Hit or To Wound. Unless you mean "resolved" = Stopped at Step 4?

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'd like to see a poll on this topic, to see how people are playing it.

rigeld2 wrote:
HIWPI is that I skip that step because it literally doesn't matter.

Good, HIWPI and not RaW. I agree too, it would be stupid (redundant) to have To Hit before you can apply 3D6 and the Wounds.
Even though HIWPI is in the exact same way (Basically PS is a malediction), any of my other posts so far have been arguing what the RaW (possibly part intent) is about.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Black Talos - so no rules from you allowing to replace the roll to-wound with the 3d6? Nothing at all? Point noted. I will not attempt to engage you further on thus, as you cannot follow the tenets by providing a single relevant rule, just assertions.

Advanced V Basic. (Hope you don't need a quote) It replaces a basic set of Rules (roll To Wound) with additional "special" rules (3d6 and get wounds).
3D6 to get wounds is not a Special Rule in a Vacuum. You must integrate it within a Shooting Sequence or you may never remove models.

rigeld2 wrote:

So where things apply:
"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."
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7

Since you are requiring a (I'm quoting here) specific Rule to "let you out" of the standard shooting sequence, please provide it. You've shown where you assume things fit in the Standard Shooting Sequence, but have cited zero "specific Rule[s])" allowing you to do so. Applying double standards in a discussion isn't polite.

Why do I need a specific Rule to "let you out" of the standard shooting sequence? I never left?
I've not assumed them to fit but rather followed Advanced V Basic as i described above.
Basic: Step 5, To Wound
Advanced: 3D6 remove Leadership, cause that amount of Wounds (Step 5 is replaced)

Continue as standard with Step 6.

BlackTalos wrote:
(Snip)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Black Talos - so no rules from you allowing to replace the roll to-wound with the 3d6? Nothing at all? Point noted. I will not attempt to engage you further on thus, as you cannot follow the tenets by providing a single relevant rule, just assertions.

Advanced V Basic. (Hope you don't need a quote) It replaces a basic set of Rules (roll To Wound) with additional "special" rules (3d6 and get wounds).
3D6 to get wounds is not a Special Rule in a Vacuum. You must integrate it within a Shooting Sequence or you may never remove models.
(end snip)

As noted, only applies when there is a conflict, which requires an overriding phrase. There is no conflict here. An example or two of a conflict, to which you have been made well aware of previoulsy and chose to ignore, would be Blasts and not rolling to hit, and destroyer weapons not rolling to wound. There is no such language contained within PS, therefore there is no support to your assertion.

Point refuted, do not repeat it further claiming it to be actual rules, as you have been made aware that it isnt. Further repetition will be a breach of the tenets of this forum, unless you mark it as "hywpi"

So you may never remove models unless within the shooting sequence? Perils. Assertion refuted through single counter example (all that is required). Do not repeat that assertion again.

Again: you have an additional step to resolve, whci his the 3D6. nothing states that it replaces the roll to wound, so it does not do so. If you wish to "debate" this further, some actual cited rules showing how the 3D6 effect replaces the to-wound - for example "...instead of rolling to-wound, for each succesful hit roll...." would do the trick - are required of you. Do not reference basic vs advanced, as this does not provide the specific override required.

Onus is on you. Page and graph.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
It's a good guess. And if I had to guess, it would be 1.

But it is a guess, an assumption. HIWPI at best.
I
No rule anywhere says its 1. It's not fact.

I've quoted that Rule before:

"roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot" From the To Hit section.

Most models only get to fire one shot. Most. Not all. And it doesn't state that 1 is the default.

This rule in no way says that you roll 1 dice for this power.

That "rule" is also woefully inaccurate, as has been pointed out before. It does nto provide an actual rule you can follow.

I would be comfortable betting that most models in fact get more than one shot, looking through my various codexes (for example, every un-upgraded model in my GK book has 2 shots, from memory)

It isnt a rule, Blacktalos, stop pretending it is one. No, fall back does not counter this, as has been proven.

Circular arguments are circular. Disprove a point, 2 pages later the same point is raised again as if it is new, or valid, or relevant, or in fact progressing the debate at all.

 Happyjew wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Rigeld2 was kind enough to gather all the instances where witchfire powers are called weapons. After which if you look at pg 40 under weapons, number of shots you will see if it is multiple shots then you will be told it is so. So 1 shot backed up by rules.

You'll also note that under Weapons

Every weapon has a profile.

What is the profile for Psychic Shriek?

Read the thread before making arguments already refuted.

Witchfires are not weapons. They work 'similar to' weapon.
The rulebook always talks about how 'witchfires are like weapons ' and 'Just like with weapons, you do X', meaning that they are similar to, but not the same as weapons. As such they are nit automatically subjected to any rule applying to weapons, including the need to have a profile.

So we know most focussed witchfires and PS aren't weapons. We know that their effect occurs regardless of a roll to hit as the psychic phase tells us.

So why does it matter if it is 1 shot, 0 shots (number with most RaW support) or 10,000 shots? You're going to either ignore the result or make up a strength and Ap value to resolve any hits. So why bother arguing about it?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As noted, only applies when there is a conflict, which requires an overriding phrase. There is no conflict here. An example or two of a conflict, to which you have been made well aware of previoulsy and chose to ignore, would be Blasts and not rolling to hit, and destroyer weapons not rolling to wound. There is no such language contained within PS, therefore there is no support to your assertion.

The language is not always required. If the rules overlap (as they do here) and one is not possible to perform, Advanced V Basic applies.
If you are not permitted to shoot, can you elect to Run?
2 permissions, one is un-resolvable, does it deny the second?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you may never remove models unless within the shooting sequence? Perils. Assertion refuted through single counter example (all that is required). Do not repeat that assertion again.

Perils is not a Shooting Attack.

The Rule, from the book:
-"Witchfire powers are shooting attacks".

Shooting Attacks require a sequence to be followed. Permission to leave/ignore said sequence is required.

Please do not bring in non-Shooting Attacks Strawman arguments. (Perils, Vector Strike, Soul Blaze...)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That "rule" is also woefully inaccurate, as has been pointed out before. It does not provide an actual rule you can follow.
It isnt a rule, Blacktalos, stop pretending it is one. No, fall back does not counter this, as has been proven.

"Most models only get to fire one shot".
"Most units Fall Back 2D6"

Two rules, one is valid for you but the other not?
Consistency, please.

 grendel083 wrote:
Most models only get to fire one shot. Most. Not all. And it doesn't state that 1 is the default.

This rule in no way says that you roll 1 dice for this power.

Most Infantry only get to Fall Back 2D6". Most. Not all. And it doesn't state that 2D6" is the default.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The shooting attack is resolved.

That is simply not true is you have not rolled To Hit or To Wound. Unless you mean "resolved" = Stopped at Step 4?

Selective quoting is bad, mmk?

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'd like to see a poll on this topic, to see how people are playing it.

rigeld2 wrote:
HIWPI is that I skip that step because it literally doesn't matter.

Good, HIWPI and not RaW. I agree too, it would be stupid (redundant) to have To Hit before you can apply 3D6 and the Wounds.
Even though HIWPI is in the exact same way (Basically PS is a malediction), any of my other posts so far have been arguing what the RaW (possibly part intent) is about.

More selective quoting. Awesome.

Advanced V Basic. (Hope you don't need a quote) It replaces a basic set of Rules (roll To Wound) with additional "special" rules (3d6 and get wounds).
3D6 to get wounds is not a Special Rule in a Vacuum. You must integrate it within a Shooting Sequence or you may never remove models.

Advanced vs Basic applies when there's a conflict between rules. (Cannot assault when disembarking vs Able to assault when disembarking from an Assault Vehicle, for example)
Demonstrate the conflict since your argument requires it.

rigeld2 wrote:

So where things apply:
"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."
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7

Since you are requiring a (I'm quoting here) specific Rule to "let you out" of the standard shooting sequence, please provide it. You've shown where you assume things fit in the Standard Shooting Sequence, but have cited zero "specific Rule[s])" allowing you to do so. Applying double standards in a discussion isn't polite.

Why do I need a specific Rule to "let you out" of the standard shooting sequence? I never left?
I've not assumed them to fit but rather followed Advanced V Basic as i described above.
Basic: Step 5, To Wound
Advanced: 3D6 remove Leadership, cause that amount of Wounds (Step 5 is replaced)

Continue as standard with Step 6.

Step 4 you've proven nothing with regards to how many dice to roll. Step 5 requires Step 4 to be resolved.
There's no conflict generated at Step 5 so your rule "substitution" cannot happen.
Please, use actual rules to prove your argument.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So we know most focussed witchfires and PS aren't weapons. We know that their effect occurs regardless of a roll to hit as the psychic phase tells us.

So why does it matter if it is 1 shot, 0 shots (number with most RaW support) or 10,000 shots? You're going to either ignore the result or make up a strength and Ap value to resolve any hits. So why bother arguing about it?

most of what you just stated is untrue, and mostly fabricated.

there is no RAW that their effects resolve regardless of a hit roll, you have made this up. Please correct me with the RAW passage if I am wrong.

witchfires are not required to be weapons, or have a weapon profile. Some may have weapon profiles, all of them are required to hit, and follow the rules for shooting attacks as per the rules for witchfires, if their entry states otherwise then otherwise happens. Psychic shriek does not state otherwise. Shooting attacks require a successful to hit roll so as not to miss. Nothing states the effect may occur on a miss, in the witchfire section or PS entry.

as per psychic powers resolution step you use the psychic powers entry.

Psychic shriek states it is a witchfire in its entry.

witchfires must roll to hit following the rules for a shooting attack.

shooting attacks miss on a failed to hit roll.


no where are you allowed to ignore that step.

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So we know most focussed witchfires and PS aren't weapons. We know that their effect occurs regardless of a roll to hit as the psychic phase tells us.

So why does it matter if it is 1 shot, 0 shots (number with most RaW support) or 10,000 shots? You're going to either ignore the result or make up a strength and Ap value to resolve any hits. So why bother arguing about it?

most of what you just stated is untrue, and mostly fabricated.

there is no RAW that their effects resolve regardless of a hit roll, you have made this up. Please correct me with the RAW passage if I am wrong.

Your statements are incorrect blaktoof, here is why:

"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).

So, for psychic powers, you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." PS says to roll 3d6 and compare that to the units LD score to make the unit suffer wounds. So this is what we do, even if the undefined number of to hit dice you roll hit or miss, we still "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." because that is what the Psychic power rules tell us to do.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So we know most focussed witchfires and PS aren't weapons. We know that their effect occurs regardless of a roll to hit as the psychic phase tells us.

So why does it matter if it is 1 shot, 0 shots (number with most RaW support) or 10,000 shots? You're going to either ignore the result or make up a strength and Ap value to resolve any hits. So why bother arguing about it?

most of what you just stated is untrue, and mostly fabricated.

there is no RAW that their effects resolve regardless of a hit roll, you have made this up. Please correct me with the RAW passage if I am wrong.

Your statements are incorrect blaktoof, here is why:

"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).

So, for psychic powers, you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." PS says to roll 3d6 and compare that to the units LD score to make the unit suffer wounds. So this is what we do, even if the undefined number of to hit dice you roll hit or miss, we still "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." because that is what the Psychic power rules tell us to do.

you statement is incorrect deathreaper and here is why.

you didn't actually quote the RAW for psychic shriek in your quotes.

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

its entry specifies it is a witchfire.

you must resolve it is as witchfire.

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

a witchfire power must roll To 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.

so to resolve the power you must roll to hit, otherwise you have broken the RAW in the resolve psychic power section, the entry for psychic shriek, the entry for witchfires, and the entry for how to roll to hit for shooting.