The new Genestealer Patriarch has Telepathy as a psychic discipline, which has Psychic Scream as it's Primaris.

Does that mean the Patriarch can *never* use the Primaris Power?

aaaaaaaaaaaaand let the burning commence ! No, but in all seriousness, I think this atleast proves that RAI Scream doesn't need to roll to hit, and really should have been a malediction.

Yeah, this nails the coffin for me. The Witchfire part of it is for targeting restrictions only, as are all such similarly worded abilities.

 Swampmist wrote:
aaaaaaaaaaaaand let the burning commence ! No, but in all seriousness, I think this atleast proves that RAI Scream doesn't need to roll to hit, and really should have been a malediction.

How does it prove anything? BS 0 means the rules writer obviously intends for the Genestealer to not be able to shoot or use witchfires at all.



Even if you were skipping the To Hit roll for Psychic Shriek, the Genestealer would still be unable to cast witchfire. He has no ability to shoot.

col_impact wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
aaaaaaaaaaaaand let the burning commence ! No, but in all seriousness, I think this atleast proves that RAI Scream doesn't need to roll to hit, and really should have been a malediction.

How does it prove anything? BS 0 means the rules writer obviously intends for the Genestealer to not be able to shoot or use witchfires at all.

Spoiler:

Some creatures have been given a 0 for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a ‘–’).

Even if you were skipping the To Hit roll for Psychic Shriek, the Genestealer would still be unable to cast witchfire. He has no ability to shoot.

I agree based on the rules as written (they clearly say any Witchfire is a Shooting Attack), but the Psychic Phase rules suck RAW, and it is very unlikely to be what the psychic phases authors intention was - literally everyone I know uses houserules to fix it in some way (Mastery Levels & Warp Charges in a unit with multiple Psykers / Psykers joining Brotherhoods and what happens to Perils then etc).

HIWPI is that any witchfire without a weapon profile does not roll To Hit and can be used regardless of BS.

nekooni wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
aaaaaaaaaaaaand let the burning commence ! No, but in all seriousness, I think this atleast proves that RAI Scream doesn't need to roll to hit, and really should have been a malediction.

How does it prove anything? BS 0 means the rules writer obviously intends for the Genestealer to not be able to shoot or use witchfires at all.

Spoiler:

Some creatures have been given a 0 for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a ‘–’).

Even if you were skipping the To Hit roll for Psychic Shriek, the Genestealer would still be unable to cast witchfire. He has no ability to shoot.

I agree based on the rules as written (they clearly say any Witchfire is a Shooting Attack), but the Psychic Phase rules suck RAW, and it is very unlikely to be what the psychic phases authors intention was - literally everyone I know uses houserules to fix it in some way (Mastery Levels & Warp Charges in a unit with multiple Psykers / Psykers joining Brotherhoods and what happens to Perils then etc).

HIWPI is that any witchfire without a weapon profile does not roll To Hit and can be used regardless of BS.

How do you differentiate between profile-less Witchfire powers and Maledictions, then? Or do you think that such a distinction is meaningless?

AFAIK there are no (or at least very few) maledictions that cause wound/hull point loss on their target, or if they do it's a secondary effect in addition to causing some other non-damaging effect.

That would be the distinction.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

nekooni wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
aaaaaaaaaaaaand let the burning commence ! No, but in all seriousness, I think this atleast proves that RAI Scream doesn't need to roll to hit, and really should have been a malediction.

How does it prove anything? BS 0 means the rules writer obviously intends for the Genestealer to not be able to shoot or use witchfires at all.

Spoiler:

Some creatures have been given a 0 for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a ‘–’).

Even if you were skipping the To Hit roll for Psychic Shriek, the Genestealer would still be unable to cast witchfire. He has no ability to shoot.

I agree based on the rules as written (they clearly say any Witchfire is a Shooting Attack), but the Psychic Phase rules suck RAW, and it is very unlikely to be what the psychic phases authors intention was - literally everyone I know uses houserules to fix it in some way (Mastery Levels & Warp Charges in a unit with multiple Psykers / Psykers joining Brotherhoods and what happens to Perils then etc).

HIWPI is that any witchfire without a weapon profile does not roll To Hit and can be used regardless of BS.

How do you differentiate between profile-less Witchfire powers and Maledictions, then? Or do you think that such a distinction is meaningless?

You can't use the profile-less Witchfires without LoS and you cant use Maledictions from inside a transport. It's stupid, but it works reasonably well and I don't have to create more houserules than necessary. (Again: HIWPI!)

I can't believe they would give him a power he couldn't even use.

Well maybe. .....

 dan2026 wrote:
I can't believe they would give him a power he couldn't even use.

Well maybe. .....

GW didn't give him the power, you selected it. The Primaris is always optional and never mandatory from a given discipline, unless you get it for free for rolling everything from the same discipline, which is still a choice on your part.

You mean the choice of rolling all his powers from the one discipline he can roll on ?

yeah, he literally can't not have that power...

Bs0 -> Can't shoot with whatever shooting weapon they might have not even auto hitting ones.

He still gets invis and stuff.

 koooaei wrote:
He still gets invis and stuff.

The best description of the Telepathy list
Invisibility and stuff : P

 oldzoggy wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
He still gets invis and stuff.

The best description of the Telepathy list
Invisibility and stuff : P

Haha, pretty much why anyone takes it.

I HOPE that his little buddies that come with him will give him rules to fire.
Just waiting for that full leak..

 Swara wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
He still gets invis and stuff.

The best description of the Telepathy list
Invisibility and stuff : P

Haha, pretty much why anyone takes it.

I HOPE that his little buddies that come with him will give him rules to fire.
Just waiting for that full leak..

It says to refer to page 2, willing to bet that is the page the Magus is on and the Magus will have one too. They will give a psyker benefit for sure, just not sure what kind. Maybe just like the spell familiar from the CSM codex.

Well...since i was fething curious i wrote to the WD Team.
Good news everyone?

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160307/5smlr6do.jpg

P.S.

Gesendet: Montag, 07. März 2016 um 12:00 Uhr
Von: "White Dwarf" <team@whitedwarf.co.uk>
An: XXXX
Betreff: Re: Re: Question to Patriarch Ghosar (Genestealer Cult) and Telepathy
Haha - yes, I can imagine. I normally use Tau and Skitarii, so I rarely make contact with psykers! And yes, more than likely it would be added to an FAQ/Errata.

Dan

Except they don't seem to do many FAQ/Errata these days...

RAW it doesn't work.
RAI it's what they meant had GW not been poor rules writers. The short stories on ghosar even has the patriarch using psychic scream it's obviously intended when it's in the Lore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shandara wrote:
Except they don't seem to do many FAQ/Errata these days...

The white dwarf team apparently keeps telling people it will be faq and errata on everything and it never happens.
I'm assuming the same white dwarf guy above was also the one who was saying the hunter continent allows buff sharing and target lock splitting and it would be in the next errata too. Btw we got an errata get a month later and nothing was in it. This leads me to believe the white dwarf team has no clue.

I almost willing to bet GW has a very extensive list of FAQs somewhere in their office, they don't intent to answer any of them

So how would you guys play this then?

Take psychic test, then if passed/not denied pick a unit within 18 Inches and do 3d6 - leadership?

 dan2026 wrote:
So how would you guys play this then?

Take psychic test, then if passed/not denied pick a unit within 18 Inches and do 3d6 - leadership?

Just follow the steps for psychic shooting, and don't roll to hit, since it's not required. You first select a target within range and Line of Sight, then attempt to manifest, and resolve the power if successful. Because it's a psychic shooting attack, the direction that casualties are removed is dictated by closest-to-closest, and look out sir saves can be taken.

They should just errata it to be a Malediction and be done with it... And then if they feel like it put a clause saying you can't manifest it when you're locked in combat, if thats the problem.

Is this still in the Tyranid FAQ?
Since the precodex faq was just-> you cant shoot if you are BS0 so no witch fires for you even if they don't require a to hit roll.

I hated this one as an ork player.

You just can't shoot anything with bs0. Psy shreik is witchfire => you can't use it.

RAW it can't be used.

RAI I'm sure it should be as it describes it doing so in the fluff lol.
I assume it's another GW oversight.

 Jackal wrote:
RAW it can't be used.

RAI I'm sure it should be as it describes it doing so in the fluff lol.
I assume it's another GW oversight.

My FLGS houseruled that it can be used at BS0. The boardgame specifically says he is able to use Psychic Scream, and in fact it is more powerful when he is on his "throne", so it's pretty obvious he's able to cast it RAI.

How did you houseruled it ?

 godardc wrote:
How did you houseruled it ?

I you are asking me, we decided that Psychic Shriek, and any other witch fire powers that do not have a profile, do not require an attack roll. You must have LoS and be within range. Otherwise you move straight to the to-wound roll. It basically functions exactly like the C'Tan Shard of the Nightbringer's special ability "Gaze of Death".

 dan2026 wrote:
So how would you guys play this then?

Take psychic test, then if passed/not denied pick a unit within 18 Inches and do 3d6 - leadership?

With a BS0, can not use witchfire powers. that is how I would play it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
So how would you guys play this then?

Take psychic test, then if passed/not denied pick a unit within 18 Inches and do 3d6 - leadership?

With a BS0, can not use witchfire powers. that is how I would play it.

This.

In the local GW and looking at that, what the guy from the WD wrote:

Make the test, if there is line of sight and than the 3d6.

You can look at this one of two ways.

1. That the designer of psychic shriek chose WITCHFIRE accidentally, however it was never fixed in an errata or FAQ, and it should have been MALEDICTION.

2. The designer of the new Patriarch didn't want the model to be able to use psychic shriek.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
You can look at this one of two ways.

1. That the designer of psychic shriek chose WITCHFIRE accidentally, however it was never fixed in an errata or FAQ, and it should have been MALEDICTION.

2. The designer of the new Patriarch didn't want the model to be able to use psychic shriek.

So the possibility of the Patriarch designer making an uncorrected typo is a non-starter? Or the possibility that it was set up one way, then options changed and were never reviewed, like the 7th Edition Shooting Sequence?

Or, as it is with the psychic rules in general, the rules as written do not work.

I accept the 3d6 as the to-hit roll.

Naw wrote:
Or, as it is with the psychic rules in general, the rules as written do not work.

I accept the 3d6 as the to-hit roll.

That doesn't matter you can't make any shooting attacks with bs 0 even the ones that don't require a to hit roll such as flamers

HIWPI: How i have always played psychic shriek:

Doesn't roll to hit.

 oldzoggy wrote:

Naw wrote:
Or, as it is with the psychic rules in general, the rules as written do not work.

I accept the 3d6 as the to-hit roll.

That doesn't matter you can't make any shooting attacks with bs 0 even the ones that don't require a to hit roll such as flamers

If you pulled that card I'd point that your psyker in a unit of non-psykers couldn't do anything

I've always done it so that you need to roll to hit before you cause the damage.

Maybe psychic shriek can't penetrate rock or something.

Because.

1. Whitefires roll to hit.

2. Psychic shriek is a witchfire.

3. A model with BS0 cannot make ranged attacks or cast witchfires.

Naw wrote:
If you pulled that card I'd point that your psyker in a unit of non-psykers couldn't do anything

Now that is not proper, as that unit is already defined as a Psyker unit at the beginning of the Psychic Phase section.

There are rules about models with BS 0 not being able to shoot anything, be it a Flamer or an ADL skyfire cannon. Witchfires are treated the same as Shooting a Weapon, and Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire.

 Charistoph wrote:

Naw wrote:
If you pulled that card I'd point that your psyker in a unit of non-psykers couldn't do anything

Now that is not proper, as that unit is already defined as a Psyker unit at the beginning of the Psychic Phase section.

There are rules about models with BS 0 not being able to shoot anything, be it a Flamer or an ADL skyfire cannon. Witchfires are treated the same as Shooting a Weapon, and Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire.

I am quite certain my message was clear enough for everyone to understand that it is how I would (and do) play it. Doh??

RAW, the Patriarch can't use Psychic Shriek. I don't think anyone is arguing that point. What I and many others are arguing is that the RAW are stupid. There are multiple instances in the fluff of Genestealer Patriarchs using Psychic Shriek.

Naw wrote:
I am quite certain my message was clear enough for everyone to understand that it is how I would (and do) play it. Doh??

No, it sounded like you were being petulant about not being able to play how you think the rules should operate, just like you are sounding a little petulant with the ending of that quote.

 Shandara wrote:
Except they don't seem to do many FAQ/Errata these days...

Fixed that for you.

To be honest, whether or not you have to roll to hit with witchfire powers is largely a house ruled thing. There isn't anything that says one way or the other in the actual rules. It's entirely plausible that the authors didn't expect any witchfires at all to roll to hit, basically taking the psychic roll to manifest as being the "roll to hit" equivalent. We can't know in the absence of a FAQ that we'll never get, and have largely house ruled that witchfires roll to hit(which hasn't got a LOT of resistance, primarily because most psykers have BS5+). What we DO know is that it was the intent of the authors for the Patriarch to use psychic shriek. Bearing that in mind, a reasonable person must be willing to change his/her position, or at least consider the ramifications on their position, in light of new information.

You would have to be a bit of a dick to complain about the Patriarch using Psychic Shriek in a game.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Except they don't seem to do many FAQ/Errata these days...

Fixed that for you.

To be honest, whether or not you have to roll to hit with witchfire powers is largely a house ruled thing. There isn't anything that says one way or the other in the actual rules. It's entirely plausible that the authors didn't expect any witchfires at all to roll to hit, basically taking the psychic roll to manifest as being the "roll to hit" equivalent. We can't know in the absence of a FAQ that we'll never get, and have largely house ruled that witchfires roll to hit(which hasn't got a LOT of resistance, primarily because most psykers have BS5+). What we DO know is that it was the intent of the authors for the Patriarch to use psychic shriek. Bearing that in mind, a reasonable person must be willing to change his/her position, or at least consider the ramifications on their position, in light of new information.

You don't seem to get the point, most witchfires have a shooting profile like Smite for example: 18" S4 AP2 Assault 4. This shows us how many dice we have to roll at what range to hit and to wound. Only psychic shriek lacks this profile, and that is where the confusion starts. You HAVE to roll to hit for witchfires, thats stated in the rules (contrary to what you believe). But psychic shriek doesn't tell us how many dice, only a range of 18".

Personally HIWPI is he gets to cast psychic shriek and you dont roll to hit. Imo the most obvious fix would be to make it a malediction (like I stated earlier). It feels intended that way because of the psychic focus rule. Why would they create a unit that has a guaranteed psychic power but cant use it. Ofcourse RAW he cant use it until we get an FAQ ( )

 M0ff3l wrote:
You HAVE to roll to hit for witchfires, thats stated in the rules (contrary to what you believe).

Pretty sure you're incorrect, and that it's not in the rules that you have to roll to hit with witchfires. The closest parallel would be the rules for shooting in general, in which we're never told directly that they apply to witchfires that have a shooting profile(it specifies weapons, not psychic powers). If you're going to make the argument that it IS printed in the rules, have the decency to cite a book and page. Otherwise your claim holds no substance. I can't cite a page for what's NOT there, or I would.

 dan2026 wrote:
You would have to be a bit of a dick to complain about the Patriarch using Psychic Shriek in a game.

So should I force you to have your Flying Monstrous Creature roll for Dangerous Terrain as it Swoops around my Obelisk? Or would it be a dick move to point out that it has Move Through Cover and automatically passes Dangerous Terrain Tests?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Pretty sure you're incorrect, and that it's not in the rules that you have to roll to hit with witchfires.

From 'Witchfires' (Main Rulebook, pg 27):

Similarly, a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it has the Blast special rule, in which case it scatters as described on page 158, or is a Template weapon, which hit automatically.

Naw wrote: Let's move to Generate Warp Charge part: Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units...

Lets not do that. This has noting to do at all with the original question. This might get back on the rails.

There are a few types of questions asked in this thread

Question 1: Are psykers in general able to cast spells, and what about mixed units?
Question 2: Are psykers with BS0 able to cast anything that is a Witchfire ?
Question 3: How does Psy scream work when you cast it, if it works at all ?

All these questions cover different topics that can be answered individually. Only the second type of questions is on topic. Sure the other ones can be fun to discuss if you are into that but these discussions don't belong here. They belong in a separate thread.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Because it is so obvious, please play along. Let's say the Patriarch had a BS of 5, would it be able to use the witchfire psychic scream? Don't know how? Then don't claim it is obvious.

This is the same problem of losing scope again.

There are 2 questions in here

1. Can he cast the power if he had BS5 ?
2. How would it work. ?

The first one is the question we are trying to answer.
The second one doesn't matter, that is a different discussion.

Here is an example why
Suppose there was a witchfire called "Doom of strawberries" that had the following effect "deals 1 dmg to strawberries and only hits on a 7+ ".
We could still answer the question that most of us try to answer: Can a model with BS0, or BS5 cast that power ?
Without going into the whole discussion of what the hell this power does in the first place.

Naw wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
So it says witchfire, it says shooting requires rolls to hit. It says he has bs 0, but instead of the obvious it is a long drawn out, "Raw, Rai, Gw writes bad rulez". Not this time, its clear he cant use it...

Because it is so obvious, please play along. Let's say the Patriarch had a BS of 5, would it be able to use the witchfire psychic scream? Don't know how? Then don't claim it is obvious.

Play it as it reads.

Hope you also do as you preach and don't mix psykers with non-psykers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Naw wrote:That is just your own inability to read context and get argumentative. We've seen it often enough.

And the rudeness and petulance continues... Talk about reading out of context and getting argumentative...

You reap what you sow.

Charistoph wrote:

Naw wrote:As was said, no one says it is RAW, to top it all, psychic shriek et others don't even follow the rules laid out in the rulebook. Shall we also open that discussion?

That was not in what was in the post, though:

Naw wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

Naw wrote:
Or, as it is with the psychic rules in general, the rules as written do not work.

I accept the 3d6 as the to-hit roll.

That doesn't matter you can't make any shooting attacks with bs 0 even the ones that don't require a to hit roll such as flamers

If you pulled that card I'd point that your psyker in a unit of non-psykers couldn't do anything

Now, it could be that I misinterpreted the smiley at the end, but just looking at this, the rest just feels like a "so there!" is all that is missing from the end.

I highlighted it for you, hope this helps. Failure to understand it's HIPWI is yours, not mine.

Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
How so? A unit with a Psyker model in it is referred to as a Psyker or Psyker unit and is clearly established.

Where is that stated? The closest I can find is. [ For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rules.]

It appears I misremembered the introduction, apologies.

Do keep in mind that the Psyker rule does specifically mention it being on the model, though, and technically more Advanced and higher precedence than the Phase rules. So in the end, still works in a very roundabout way (like many 40K rules).

So when the rules say For the purposes of all rules, the term 'Psyker' and 'Psyker unit' refers to any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rules it actually means that a Psyker IC attaching to a unit of non-psykers confers (I like that word nowadays) the Psyker special rule to the unit?

Let's move to Generate Warp Charge part: Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units...

And Manifesting Psychic Powers Sequence: 1. Select Psyker and Psychic power. Unless you have 0 Warp Charge points remaining, select one of your Psyker units, then nominate a psychic power known to that unit that you wish to manifest.

Shall we play RAW and your attached psykers can forget about casting any powers?

Tsilber wrote:

Im not sure what easter egg hunting you are doing with your final paragraph, but lets stick to the one rule of topic we are discussing.

You play a long for a second and pretend the rules in the book exist.

BS 0 means you can not shoot, you always fail, Page 9
Witchfire spells require roll to hit, page 27
psy shriek is a witchfire, See back of the book reference in spells. Also see spell cards if you have them.
So, hence you can manifest it, but you miss.
Its very obvious...

Write all the long, drawn out, hypothetical you like. Those are the easiest rules in the book to interpret.
if it is not obvious to you, then I do not know what to tell you.

I do see sometimes GW may write the wording of rules to be considered bad. But more often than not its the bad interpretation of the rule, lent credence by long hypotheticals, when weighed against the rules as written, has no merit. And the fail safe defense for such is, "GW writes bad rules".

But since we are changing the rules as we see fit. I'll ask my opponents if my Lord Of change can fire a 4d6 flicker fire, and since he got perfect timing as one of his spells, that the 4d6 can ignore cover. After all, there is no way a psyker should be able to get a power that he can't use. Ooooo and if he rolls foreboding, maybe I can shoot my flicker fire on over-watch since I have a spell that would help me If I had a weapon to fire. I'm this would be accepted and not laughed at one bit.

It's not rocket science, don't make it rocket science. Some psykers get spells they can not use, its that simple and Obvious, when we just read the rules for what they are.

Pretty much this. The RAW are exceptionally clear on what is supposed to happen.

The Psychic system in it's entirety is simply broken, from the basics ("How many Warp Charges do I get if I use both Brotherhoods of Psykers and regular Psykers?") to little details ("How do I resolve Witchfires without an actual weapon profile?") and the Powers themself (Invisibility). Noone I know ever played it "RAW", unless you count matches where there was not a single psyker on the table.

RAW, you clearly have to make a shooting attack and hit with all Witchfires. If you're BS0 / BS- you can't achieve that - therefore Psychic Scream is not usable.

HIWPI is that any Witchfire which does not have a weapon profile does not roll To Hit / doesn't count as a Shooting Attack. BS0 therefore isn't an issue using that house rule.


Just because it makes more sense or something looks unintentional or doesn't "feel right" or is "too strong/weak to be correct" doesn't change the rules as written.
It only matters as to whether or not you implement a house rule to fix it.

I would still disagree that any witchfire without a profile, even if it doesn't roll to hit, would be usable by BS0. Flamers don't roll to hit, but BS0 still prevents them from being shot. I get at this point it's just discussing house rulings, but it's inconsistent with other existing rules.

 KharnsRightHand wrote:
I would still disagree that any witchfire without a profile, even if it doesn't roll to hit, would be usable by BS0. Flamers don't roll to hit, but BS0 still prevents them from being shot. I get at this point it's just discussing house rulings, but it's inconsistent with other existing rules.

Flamers still have a weapon profile, though.

Naw wrote:
You reap what you sow.

Charistoph wrote:

Naw wrote:As was said, no one says it is RAW, to top it all, psychic shriek et others don't even follow the rules laid out in the rulebook. Shall we also open that discussion?

That was not in what was in the post, though:

Naw wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

Naw wrote:
Or, as it is with the psychic rules in general, the rules as written do not work.

I accept the 3d6 as the to-hit roll.

That doesn't matter you can't make any shooting attacks with bs 0 even the ones that don't require a to hit roll such as flamers

If you pulled that card I'd point that your psyker in a unit of non-psykers couldn't do anything

Now, it could be that I misinterpreted the smiley at the end, but just looking at this, the rest just feels like a "so there!" is all that is missing from the end.

I highlighted it for you, hope this helps. Failure to understand it's HIPWI is yours, not mine.

Tsilber wrote:

But since we are changing the rules as we see fit. I'll ask my opponents if my Lord Of change can fire a 4d6 flicker fire, and since he got perfect timing as one of his spells, that the 4d6 can ignore cover.

Is there something that prevents this from being the case? Witchfires that have a "weapon" profile, and are therefore used just like a weapon would be effected just like a weapon, would they not? Perfect timing also says it gives "ignore cover" to the psyker, and his unit's weapons.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Tsilber wrote:

But since we are changing the rules as we see fit. I'll ask my opponents if my Lord Of change can fire a 4d6 flicker fire, and since he got perfect timing as one of his spells, that the 4d6 can ignore cover.

Is there something that prevents this from being the case? Witchfires that have a "weapon" profile, and are therefore used just like a weapon would be effected just like a weapon, would they not? Perfect timing also says it gives "ignore cover" to the psyker, and his unit's weapons.

Nothing prevents it from being cast, (Just like a BS0 Tyranid can cast/manifest /roll dice for psy shriek), but it has no further effect other than, horray I manifested a spell, lol.

Or so I assume, weapons I figured are under the war-gear section of the book, or unit entries weapons/wargear profile. I dont think because a spell has range, str , AP and/or special rules, it makes the spell a "weapon".

Even if the Patriarch had a BS, exactly how may times do I roll to hit?

Once?
Or 3d6-enemy leadership times?

Even if he had a BS it doesn't solve the problem. This being the case should he roll at all?

Personally I would treat the power as a Malediction, if/until a faq comes out.
This solves all of the problems and prevents argument over specifics.

 dan2026 wrote:
Even if the Patriarch had a BS, exactly how may times do I roll to hit?

Once?
Or 3d6-enemy leadership times?

Even if he had a BS it doesn't solve the problem. This being the case should he roll at all?

Personally I would treat the power as a Malediction, if/until a faq comes out.
This solves all of the problems and prevents argument over specifics.

You roll to hit, when you hit, you follow the wording under the spell, its says roll 3d6 and subtract leadership. You are reading into more than you need to. I mean it is written out.

I appreciate and respect your personal opinion on how you would play it.
But the flipside to that coin is, just play it the way it says in the rulebook, keep it as a wtichfire, until an FAQ comes out.
There are some spells, psykers get, they caoulnt use... If a devastator is carrying a plasma cannon, cant shoot at any viable targets due to line of site or whatever, except can see a heldrake, should we wave the rule of blast hitting flyers for him?...

Tsilber wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
Even if the Patriarch had a BS, exactly how may times do I roll to hit?

Once?
Or 3d6-enemy leadership times?

Even if he had a BS it doesn't solve the problem. This being the case should he roll at all?

Personally I would treat the power as a Malediction, if/until a faq comes out.
This solves all of the problems and prevents argument over specifics.

You roll to hit, when you hit, you follow the wording under the spell, its says roll 3d6 and subtract leadership. You are reading into more than you need to. I mean it is written out.

I appreciate and respect your personal opinion on how you would play it.
But the flipside to that coin is, just play it the way it says in the rulebook, keep it as a wtichfire, until an FAQ comes out.
There are some spells, psykers get, they caoulnt use... If a devastator is carrying a plasma cannon, cant shoot at any viable targets due to line of site or whatever, except can see a heldrake, should we wave the rule of blast hitting flyers for him?...

How many times do you roll to hit? Once? Twice? 3D6-Ld Times?.
The point is you have no way of determining how many dice to roll.
And even then it doesn't matter as the wording of the power means it doesn't care if you hit or miss as it has no weapon profile. No matter what you're house-ruling Psyhcic Shriek to either roll 1 to Hit roll and having a miss mean a power fails, or just skipping those steps all together because even though your meant to roll to Hit it doesn't matter in the end and it's not worth the effort of determining/deciding how many dice need to be rolled.

Psychic Shriek is just one of the many broken (read: non-functioning) parts of the Psychic Phase.

Tsilber wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
Even if the Patriarch had a BS, exactly how may times do I roll to hit?

Once?
Or 3d6-enemy leadership times?

Even if he had a BS it doesn't solve the problem. This being the case should he roll at all?

Personally I would treat the power as a Malediction, if/until a faq comes out.
This solves all of the problems and prevents argument over specifics.

You roll to hit, when you hit, you follow the wording under the spell, its says roll 3d6 and subtract leadership. You are reading into more than you need to. I mean it is written out.

I appreciate and respect your personal opinion on how you would play it.
But the flipside to that coin is, just play it the way it says in the rulebook, keep it as a wtichfire, until an FAQ comes out.
There are some spells, psykers get, they caoulnt use... If a devastator is carrying a plasma cannon, cant shoot at any viable targets due to line of site or whatever, except can see a heldrake, should we wave the rule of blast hitting flyers for him?...

There is no profile, therefore you roll to hit an unknown number of tines

Luckily the power has no reliance on you actually hitting. Only roll to wound needs a successful hit. So no matter what you roll the 3d6...

 Charistoph wrote:
I disagree. You are taking an ambiguous rule and trying to use it as a flagellation against someone who is applying the literal rule which has no ambiguity. Considering that I only pointed it out, seems to me that you are the one who is sowing.

You can disagree all you want, but it is how we play psychic shriek.

Charistoph wrote:

Naw wrote:
So when the rules say For the purposes of all rules, the term 'Psyker' and 'Psyker unit' refers to any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rules it actually means that a Psyker IC attaching to a unit of non-psykers confers (I like that word nowadays) the Psyker special rule to the unit?

Did I state that? No. I simply stated that the model itself is still considered a Psyker, no matter what the introduction states.

And I wrote If you pulled that card I'd point that your psyker in a unit of non-psykers couldn't do anything , which is what RAW says. There's no ambiguity, just badly written rules. There was no need for you to join that discussion, but you did.

Edit: Power's name..

From the brb; they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons.

Many, not all. Not having a weapon profile doesn't take away the roll to hit. It's a single attack that can cause multiple wounds, meaning it's only a single roll to hit. No confusion. As Tsilber has rightly said, anything else is reading more into it than is there.

 JamesY wrote:
From the brb; they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons.

Many, not all. Not having a weapon profile doesn't take away the roll to hit. It's a single attack that can cause multiple wounds, meaning it's only a single roll to hit. No confusion. As Tsilber has rightly said, anything else is reading more into it than is there.

Again, with my BS5 psyker, could you tell me how many dice I must roll to hit with my psychic shriek?

Naw wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
From the brb; they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons.

Many, not all. Not having a weapon profile doesn't take away the roll to hit. It's a single attack that can cause multiple wounds, meaning it's only a single roll to hit. No confusion. As Tsilber has rightly said, anything else is reading more into it than is there.

Again, with my BS5 psyker, could you tell me how many dice I must roll to hit with my psychic shriek?

One, which hits on a 2+. Assuming you hit, you resolve the power.

 JamesY wrote:

Naw wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
From the brb; they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons.

Many, not all. Not having a weapon profile doesn't take away the roll to hit. It's a single attack that can cause multiple wounds, meaning it's only a single roll to hit. No confusion. As Tsilber has rightly said, anything else is reading more into it than is there.

Again, with my BS5 psyker, could you tell me how many dice I must roll to hit with my psychic shriek?

One, which hits on a 2+. Assuming you hit, you resolve the power.

And where did you get one from?

Naw wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
From the brb; they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons.

Many, not all. Not having a weapon profile doesn't take away the roll to hit. It's a single attack that can cause multiple wounds, meaning it's only a single roll to hit. No confusion. As Tsilber has rightly said, anything else is reading more into it than is there.

Again, with my BS5 psyker, could you tell me how many dice I must roll to hit with my psychic shriek?

1d6. Per the BRB, models with a shooting attack roll one dice for To Hit unless otherwise noted:

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

Although, I'm pretty sure you disagree with that, too.

SJ

JamesY, you invented that there is a single roll to hit.

I could just as easily require you to roll 756 dice to hit, and if even one of them fails I guess I can force you to not resolve the power.

I would be as much within your mindset as you are if I did so. Both of those are inventing an amount of to hit dice and determining criteria for success that isn't in the rulebook.

Happyjew wrote:

 JamesY wrote:

Naw wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
From the brb; they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons.

Many, not all. Not having a weapon profile doesn't take away the roll to hit. It's a single attack that can cause multiple wounds, meaning it's only a single roll to hit. No confusion. As Tsilber has rightly said, anything else is reading more into it than is there.

Again, with my BS5 psyker, could you tell me how many dice I must roll to hit with my psychic shriek?

One, which hits on a 2+. Assuming you hit, you resolve the power.

And where did you get one from?

AncientSkarbrand wrote:JamesY, you invented that there is a single roll to hit.

I could just as easily require you to roll 756 dice to hit, and if even one of them fails I guess I can force you to not resolve the power.

I would be as much within your mindset as you are if I did so. Both of those are inventing an amount of to hit dice and determining criteria for success that isn't in the rulebook.

Invented how? It is a single attack that can potentially cause multiple wounds.

 JamesY wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

 JamesY wrote:

Naw wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
From the brb; they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons.

Many, not all. Not having a weapon profile doesn't take away the roll to hit. It's a single attack that can cause multiple wounds, meaning it's only a single roll to hit. No confusion. As Tsilber has rightly said, anything else is reading more into it than is there.

Again, with my BS5 psyker, could you tell me how many dice I must roll to hit with my psychic shriek?

One, which hits on a 2+. Assuming you hit, you resolve the power.

And where did you get one from?

AncientSkarbrand wrote:JamesY, you invented that there is a single roll to hit.

I could just as easily require you to roll 756 dice to hit, and if even one of them fails I guess I can force you to not resolve the power.

I would be as much within your mindset as you are if I did so. Both of those are inventing an amount of to hit dice and determining criteria for success that isn't in the rulebook.

Invented how? It is a single attack that can potentially cause multiple wounds.

But where do the rules say to roll only a single dice?

Because it is a single attack. Single attack = 1d6 according to p32 of the brb.

 JamesY wrote:
Because it is a single attack. Single attack = 1d6 according to p32 of the brb.

What, you mean roll a D6 for each shot in range?

Where does Psychic Shriek tell you that it only fires a single shot?

 JamesY wrote:
Because it is a single attack. Single attack = 1d6 according to p32 of the brb.

No, it is one d6 for each shot in range. Explain precisely how many shots it has. Exactly usurping rules, tell me where in the weapon profile the number of shots is defined.

I don't need to prove that, the steps in the rules are clear. If something deviates from the norm, you need to prove the steps. The shriek tells you how many wounds are caused. At no point does it tell you that you then need retrospectively roll to hit with those wounds. It does tell you to resolve witchfires as shooting attacks though, so the normal steps of roll to hit, wound, and saves apply. If you are not told it has more than one attack, it has one attack. Once you have established a hit, you follow the procedure to wound. Shriek, like grav, has a unique way of doing this, a way that can inflict multiple wounds. The rules support that chain of events. They don't support any suggestion of rolling for wounds to determine the number of attacks.

@nosferatu again, one attack that causes multiple wounds.

 JamesY wrote:
...If you are not told it has more than one attack, it has one attack...

and this is the part you invented.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
...If you are not told it has more than one attack, it has one attack...

and this is the part you invented.

Ok, let me show you...

P32. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons can fire more than once...

P40 Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots the weapon fires is noted after it's type.

Psychic shriek doesn't have a type, therefore there is no grounds there to claim more than one attack. As the rule says nothing about it being more than one attack, it is a one shot weapon, as described in the shooting rules.

Any suggestion otherwise I'd like to see backed up by rules to the contrary please, rather than trying to tell me I am making a rule up. RAW it is resolved as a single attack.

And weapons that have one shot say what in their weapon profile? Which psychic shriek does not have and you are inventing?

Is it assault? Heavy? Salvo? Rapid fire?

It does need to say anything, the rule refers to weapons with more than one attack. If it doesn't say it has more than one, it doesn't. We are told we need to roll to hit with witchfires. If we are not explicitly told it is more than one attack, it is one attack, same as every other attack in the game, I.e pistols, HoW etc.

It is you that are inventing rules if you are trying to suggest retrospectively hitting after causing the wounds. Can you back up that interpretation with reference to the rules please? If you can show me steps supported by actual rules I'd be more than happy to reconsider my pov.

 JamesY wrote:
If it doesn't say it has more than one, it doesn't.

Source please.

No, I'm suggesting it doesn't require a roll to hit.

What I think is, if you really want to resolve that single shot you think is needed, go ahead. But psychic shriek doesn't care if you hit or not. It resolves regardless. In your method it would go: roll to hit. Fail. Resolve the power anyway as there is no necessity to hit with a shooting attack using your BS in the psychic shriek text. There is no weapon profile.

It doesn't have a weapon profile, there is no ROF that needs to be actualized in order for the power to resolve.

You are telling me that something with ROF 0 is actually ROF 1, with no reason in the rules to say this. If it was ROF 1 they would have done what they always do with shooting attacks, create a weapon profile with a ROF included. Then they would say "units hit by this weapon" or "unsaved wounds dealt by..." but it doesn't. It says roll 3d6 - leadership. So that's what you do when you manifest the power.

Sure, require a hit roll. But whether it hits or not still has no bearing whatsoever on the resolution of the power. You might as well just not roll the dice.

Also, just so we're on the same page, I am simply following what the power tells me. You're the one with the burden of proof, you have to prove that psychic shriek has ROF 1. You also should tell me what weapon type it is so I don't make a mistake.

Not to mention the power doesn't have any rules involved with it that rely on BS at all. You can't even determine what dice roll you need to hit the target. Does it use your BS? Maybe it's a barrage weapon? Who knows? Maybe it's a beam, or a template attack, or a bomb, or an apocalyptic blast.

 Ghaz wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
If it doesn't say it has more than one, it doesn't.

Source please.

Already given. Source to the contrary?

@AS the witchfire rules tell you to roll to hit. They also tell you that many witchfire powers have a profile similar to a ranged weapon. Many acknowledges that not all do. It doesn't tell you not to roll to hit in those instances.

Your source is insufficient. It doesn't say what you are asserting it says.

"Most models only get to fire one shot" is not the same as "Psychic shriek- range 18" str x assault 1, psychic shriek

Psychic shriek: units hit by this weapon must suffer an amount of wounds equal to a roll of 3d6 minus their leadership. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against these wounds."

If you can point me to that weapon profile I'll change my mind.

All this thread is proving is that Psychic Shriek is entirely broken as a power. All it causes is arguments. BS0 or not.

I stand by my view of playing it as a malediction until further notice.

The ease of including that weapon profile really tells me they wanted it not to have one.

There is no instance where GW has forgotten to put a weapon profile for any weapon.

 JamesY wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
If it doesn't say it has more than one, it doesn't.

Source please.

Already given. Source to the contrary?

@AS the witchfire rules tell you to roll to hit. They also tell you that many witchfire powers have a profile similar to a ranged weapon. Many acknowledges that not all do. It doesn't tell you not to roll to hit in those instances.

So no source on your part then.

The source is not insufficient, and it does say what I am asserting. It is explicitly stated.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I'm sure you are as tired of this as I am.



@ghaz like I said already given.

None on yours either...

When you say "many have a weapon profile similar to a shooting weapon, many acknowledges that not all do" do you realize that the exact same logic makes the source you quoted to assert psychic shriek is ROF 1 faulty?

You can't have it both ways. Most models only get to fire one shot doesn't mean they all have to fire one shot, or even fire a shot at all. It also doesn't automatically make anything without a ROF have ROF 1.

But the real question is, if Patriarch Ghosar joins a unit from another formation, to they get the benefit of his special rules?

Nor does it suggest anything else. If we are not told a rof, we only have grounds to assume one attack, following the standard shooting sequence of hit, wound, save. Your way inverts or ignores those steps, which we are not told to do.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
No, I'm suggesting it doesn't require a roll to hit.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Psychic shriek: units hit by this weapon must suffer an amount of wounds equal to a roll of 3d6 minus their leadership. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against these wounds.".

i'm confuzzled

I'm inverting nothing.

I'm resolving the power.

If you say you are assuming it is ROF 1, then I have reached a conclusion to my initial problem with what you said, which can be described as "you invented a ROF"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
No, I'm suggesting it doesn't require a roll to hit.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Psychic shriek: units hit by this weapon must suffer an amount of wounds equal to a roll of 3d6 minus their leadership. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against these wounds.".

i'm confuzzled

That was a made up weapon profile I created to show what it would need to say for anyone to assert it has ROF 1 or indeed any ROF at all.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Tsilber wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
Even if the Patriarch had a BS, exactly how may times do I roll to hit?

Once?
Or 3d6-enemy leadership times?

Even if he had a BS it doesn't solve the problem. This being the case should he roll at all?

Personally I would treat the power as a Malediction, if/until a faq comes out.
This solves all of the problems and prevents argument over specifics.

You roll to hit, when you hit, you follow the wording under the spell, its says roll 3d6 and subtract leadership. You are reading into more than you need to. I mean it is written out.

I appreciate and respect your personal opinion on how you would play it.
But the flipside to that coin is, just play it the way it says in the rulebook, keep it as a wtichfire, until an FAQ comes out.
There are some spells, psykers get, they caoulnt use... If a devastator is carrying a plasma cannon, cant shoot at any viable targets due to line of site or whatever, except can see a heldrake, should we wave the rule of blast hitting flyers for him?...

How many times do you roll to hit? Once? Twice? 3D6-Ld Times?.
The point is you have no way of determining how many dice to roll.
And even then it doesn't matter as the wording of the power means it doesn't care if you hit or miss as it has no weapon profile. No matter what you're house-ruling Psyhcic Shriek to either roll 1 to Hit roll and having a miss mean a power fails, or just skipping those steps all together because even though your meant to roll to Hit it doesn't matter in the end and it's not worth the effort of determining/deciding how many dice need to be rolled.

Psychic Shriek is just one of the many broken (read: non-functioning) parts of the Psychic Phase.

Really?
Witchfire requires roll to hit, already established.
Shriek spell tells you the rest..
Rule book states;
1) manifest,
2)make a roll to hit if witchfire
3) resolve spell
Then.
Find spell, Go to spell card or back of book;
4) then roll 3 dice and subtract leadership.

Its clear, to read into that, and make an argument against it in anyway, is beyond any answer for help.
Rules are clear, interpretation for the sake of disputing or throwing another dart at GW for "writing bad rulez" is almost like someone must just be joking on the internet boards to get a rise...

But this is going in circles.
It will warrant a vote from ITC no doubt, that will warrant another 30 page post of the minority opinions bashing the majority opinions and how ITC is terrible for 40k and wants all of our house to catch fire...
Only for the next white dwarf/book to come out, and because something or a rule effects a model that they cant benefit from will initiate another long RAW or RAI debate, someone will ask a question, someone will answer it sighting a rule somewhere, and original someone will switch a few words around in his argument to barely skate around the wording in the rule. We will then move to an argument "well you started it, and hence I did it also", and in the end we will no doubt get to one party making the, GW writing bad rules, "failsafe" argument.
Its like a circle. But honestly, we might want to consider why GW does not put out FAQ's.. I would bet a pretty penny they are to busy laughing hysterically to get any work done, after some of the emails on rules questions they must get.

But you aren't resolving it according to the rules, which require a roll to hit. Unless we are told rof is higher than one, it is one. It is still a shooting attack, so rof 0 would mean no attack at all. We are not told it is higher. P32 tells us therefore it fires once.

Repeat, let's agree to disagree. Neither of us will convince the other, as we are clearly both right. Shake hands and walk away?

 JamesY wrote:


Repeat, let's agree to disagree. Neither of us will convince the other, as we are clearly both right. Shake hands and walk away?

I know this not directed at me, on this particular discussion as we seem to have the same opinion/ruling.
But I love you saying this, rejuvenates my faith in forum discussion that is not face to face.

Tsilber wrote:

 JamesY wrote:


Repeat, let's agree to disagree. Neither of us will convince the other, as we are clearly both right. Shake hands and walk away?

I know this not directed at me, on this particular discussion as we seem to have the same opinion/ruling.
But I love you saying this, rejuvenates my faith in forum discussion that is not face to face.

Ha ha, cheers mate duelling pistols seem a bit out-dated.

P32 says absolutely no such thing, good sir. It really doesn't, and you disproved it with your own logic a few posts after you quoted it with that bit about most witchfires having a profile similar to ranged weapons. Also I am following the rules, even if a to hit roll is failed the resolution of the power isn't conditional upon a to hit roll.

But yeah, agree to disagree and such. A firm, genuine handshake to you.

We are both right because HIWPI is almost all we have in this game nowadays.

Really, whatever makes you enjoy the game more is the "right" way to play. Just to be clear, I respect the way you assert your opinion.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Just to be clear, I respect the way you assert your opinion.

Same to you bud.

I wish I didn't agree with me though, the genestealer cult is the next project on the table, and shriek with the formation rules would be a killer.

Tsilber wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Tsilber wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
Even if the Patriarch had a BS, exactly how may times do I roll to hit?

Once?
Or 3d6-enemy leadership times?

Even if he had a BS it doesn't solve the problem. This being the case should he roll at all?

Personally I would treat the power as a Malediction, if/until a faq comes out.
This solves all of the problems and prevents argument over specifics.

You roll to hit, when you hit, you follow the wording under the spell, its says roll 3d6 and subtract leadership. You are reading into more than you need to. I mean it is written out.

I appreciate and respect your personal opinion on how you would play it.
But the flipside to that coin is, just play it the way it says in the rulebook, keep it as a wtichfire, until an FAQ comes out.
There are some spells, psykers get, they caoulnt use... If a devastator is carrying a plasma cannon, cant shoot at any viable targets due to line of site or whatever, except can see a heldrake, should we wave the rule of blast hitting flyers for him?...

How many times do you roll to hit? Once? Twice? 3D6-Ld Times?.
The point is you have no way of determining how many dice to roll.
And even then it doesn't matter as the wording of the power means it doesn't care if you hit or miss as it has no weapon profile. No matter what you're house-ruling Psyhcic Shriek to either roll 1 to Hit roll and having a miss mean a power fails, or just skipping those steps all together because even though your meant to roll to Hit it doesn't matter in the end and it's not worth the effort of determining/deciding how many dice need to be rolled.

Psychic Shriek is just one of the many broken (read: non-functioning) parts of the Psychic Phase.

Really?
Witchfire requires roll to hit, already established.
Shriek spell tells you the rest..
Rule book states;
1) manifest,
2)make a roll to hit if witchfire
3) resolve spell
Then.
Find spell, Go to spell card or back of book;
4) then roll 3 dice and subtract leadership.

Its clear, to read into that, and make an argument against it in anyway, is beyond any answer for help.
Rules are clear, interpretation for the sake of disputing or throwing another dart at GW for "writing bad rulez" is almost like someone must just be joking on the internet boards to get a rise...

If it's so clear, how many dice to you roll To Hit? From the rules I have here the number is never specified at all.
Also, show where missing would stop a person resolving the '3D6-Ld'. From the rules I have, failing To Hit only means you can't roll To Wound, which is something Psychic Shriek doesn't do.

 JamesY wrote:
Unless we are told rof is higher than one, it is one.

Please quote the rule that says this.

I have not seen anything that says the default shots is 1...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
Unless we are told rof is higher than one, it is one.

Please quote the rule that says this.

I have not seen anything that says the default shots is 1...

I've already cited this, and my other comments have made it clear I don't intend to continue with the discussion. At least not until an alternative sequence of steps is supported by direct, unambiguous reference to the rules.

 JamesY wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
Unless we are told rof is higher than one, it is one.

Please quote the rule that says this.

I have not seen anything that says the default shots is 1...

I've already cited this, and my other comments have made it clear I don't intend to continue with the discussion. At least not until an alternative sequence of steps is supported by direct, unambiguous reference to the rules.

No you did not. you did not post anything from the rulebook that said the Default was one shot.

 JamesY wrote:
P32. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons can fire more than once...

The above does not say that the default is one.

P40 Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots the weapon fires is noted after it's type.

The above does not say that the default is one.

Psychic shriek doesn't have a type, therefore there is no grounds there to claim more than one attack. As the rule says nothing about it being more than one attack, it is a one shot weapon, as described in the shooting rules.

False, there is nothing stating every gun is 1 shot unless otherwise noted. That simply is not a rule.

Tsilber wrote:
we might want to consider why GW does not put out FAQ's..

They did FAQed it a while ago. I admit it isn't a FAQ for the resent codex but it is a FAQ for exactly the same situation.
I quoted it, then you all ignored it and started to babble utter nonsense. Have fun I am out.

 JamesY wrote:
my other comments have made it clear I don't intend to continue with the discussion. At least not until an alternative sequence of steps is supported by direct, unambiguous reference to the rules.

Did you read that bit as well?

Then that isn't going to happen because no such thing exists. RAW the power (and phase in general) don't function without sidestepping rules that don't work, such as the rule requiring having to roll To Hit with an unknown number of dice.

All we know is that the sequence requires us to roll To Hit, and that if we miss we can't roll To Wound. Psychic Shriek doesn't tell us how many to to roll To Hit with and doesn't require a roll(s) To Wound either, making missing do nothing.

 JamesY wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
my other comments have made it clear I don't intend to continue with the discussion. At least not until an alternative sequence of steps is supported by direct, unambiguous reference to the rules.

Did you read that bit as well?

Yep, and since you do not have any rules to back up what you have claimed, it makes sense that you do not want to continue the discussion.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Then that isn't going to happen because no such thing exists because RAW the power (and phase in general) don't function without sidestepping rules that don't work, such as the rule requiring having to roll To Hit with an unknown number of dice.

All we know is that the sequence requires us to roll To Hit, and that if we miss we can't roll To Wound. Psychic Shriek doesn't tell us how many to to roll To Hit with and doesn't require a roll(s) To Wound either, making missing do nothing.

Actually the power works just fine as the rolling of 3D6-LD has nothing to do with the power hitting or missing.

I did say that missing means nothing for the power's resolution. I should have worded it better though as I realise now that what I wrote can also be read as 'Psychic Shriek has no effect upon missing".

The problem stems from that in order to resolve it RAW (ignoring the rest of the psychic phase) you HAVE to roll To Hit, even though it is meaningless, with an unknown number of dice. If you skip this step you aren't playing RAW... but if you don't the game just stops as you attempt to roll and unknown number of dice.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JamesY wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
my other comments have made it clear I don't intend to continue with the discussion. At least not until an alternative sequence of steps is supported by direct, unambiguous reference to the rules.

Did you read that bit as well?

Yep, and since you do not have any rules to back up what you have claimed, it makes sense that you do not want to continue the discussion.

Actually, I have, repeatedly. Show me how the rules support your sequence of events, and I will happily resume the discussion at hand, or concede if your chain is better supported than mine.

And to be clear, having the last word in a discussion is not the same thing as being right. Say I'm wrong until you are blue in the face. Until you can show me in the rules an alternative resolution, rather than trying to find fault with mine, which at least have basis in the rules, it will fall on deaf ears.

Except the rules do not back what you claim. my post debunks them as you do not have any actual rules quotes that say the default is one shot.

There is nothing stating every gun is 1 shot unless otherwise noted. That simply is not a rule.

James - you continually asserting that "most..." STATES ROF 1 is the default is not helpful, because it doesn't actually state that. You can argue at best an implication. But the actual text does not support your argument

The entire point were making is that psychic shriek is broken, raw. You must roll to hit, but cannot state for certain you roll only one dice. However, as also proven, the resolution of the power (3d6-ld) has no requirement on any to hit succeeding - only oils to-wound need a successful to-hit roll first.

Also when it says "Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons can fire more than once... " They do not explain what they mean by most models.

"A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile..." (Weapons Chapter, Assault weapons section) So not a default of 1

"When shooting, a model with a Heavy weapon shoots the number of times indicated." (Weapons Chapter, Heavy weapons section) So not a default of 1

"When shooting, a model with an Ordnance weapon fires the number of times indicated in its profile after its type. (Weapons Chapter, Ordnance weapons section) So not a default of 1

"Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons." (Weapons Chapter, Pistol weapons section) First type of weapon that fires only one shot all the time.

"A model armed with a Rapid Fire weapon can fire two shots at a target up to half the weapon’s maximum range away. Alternatively, it can instead fire one shot at a target over half the weapon’s range away, up to the weapon’s maximum range." (Weapons Chapter, Rapid Fire weapons section) Sometimes 1 shot, sometimes 2 shots. So not a default of 1

"Salvo weapons have two numbers on their profile (listed after their type) separated by a ‘/’. A model armed with a Salvo weapon can move and fire at a target up to half its maximum range away. In this case, the number of shots is equal to the first number. If the model has not moved, it can instead fire a greater number of shots at a target up to the weapon’s maximum range. In this case, the number of shots is equal to the second number." (Weapons Chapter, Salvo weapons section) So not a default of 1

So out of the six weapon types only one has a default of 1, and one has 1 sometimes and 2 sometimes. The other four are not a default of one.

If 4/6 are not 1, then 1 is simply not the default for most weapons. But they are not talking about weapons are they, they are talking about models. So what exactly did they mean by "Most models only get to fire one shot..."

They must be talking about how many times a model can use a shooting attack in a particular phase. That is the only thing that lines up with the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
James - you continually asserting that "most..." STATES ROF 1 is the default is not helpful, because it doesn't actually state that. You can argue at best an implication. But the actual text does not support your argument

The entire point were making is that psychic shriek is broken, raw. You must roll to hit, but cannot state for certain you roll only one dice. However, as also proven, the resolution of the power (3d6-ld) has no requirement on any to hit succeeding - only oils to-wound need a successful to-hit roll first.

I am aware that it is an implication, but it is at least an implication supported by rules. There is no rule at all state supports a different inference that I can see. There is nothing to support not rolling to hit. Just because the rules you have been told to follow have not been repeated, it does not mean they cease to exist.

@DeathReaper, none of your examples help, as they rely on the profile of a ranged weapon, which PS does not follow. From p 32, it does say "Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons can fire more than once", but it then says that models that can fire more than once will be discussed later. It doesn't refer to any specific point though. p40 is one example of where this might be discussed, but it doesn't help as it refers to profiles that ps doesn't have. Following from there the next helpful page is the rule for ps on the telepathy page. There is no discussion there of it being more than one shot.

We are told that wf are shooting attacks. PS is a witchfire.
Shooting attacks need to roll to hit unless specified otherwise, i.e. template or blast. PS doesn't specify otherwise, and isn't a template or a blast, therefore a roll to hit is required.
Models only get to fire one shot, except in instances discussed elsewhere. No discussion elsewhere to say more than one shot.

A clear and objective reading of the rules indicates those steps. If you want to argue that some of it is implied, fine, it's implied. But given that the rules do not imply an alternative route, I accept those implications as the only actual guidance from the brb.

Again, if you want to tell me I am wrong, and there is another route supported by the rules, share it. The only other route I can see is that, in the event of no possible resolution, within the rules it simply cannot be cast by a psyker of any bs, as it is impossible to resolve. Anything else as I see it is house rules or HIWPI. Nothing wrong with that at all, but that is not what I am discussing.

edited for errors.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Tsilber wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Tsilber wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
Even if the Patriarch had a BS, exactly how may times do I roll to hit?

Once?
Or 3d6-enemy leadership times?

Even if he had a BS it doesn't solve the problem. This being the case should he roll at all?

Personally I would treat the power as a Malediction, if/until a faq comes out.
This solves all of the problems and prevents argument over specifics.

You roll to hit, when you hit, you follow the wording under the spell, its says roll 3d6 and subtract leadership. You are reading into more than you need to. I mean it is written out.

I appreciate and respect your personal opinion on how you would play it.
But the flipside to that coin is, just play it the way it says in the rulebook, keep it as a wtichfire, until an FAQ comes out.
There are some spells, psykers get, they caoulnt use... If a devastator is carrying a plasma cannon, cant shoot at any viable targets due to line of site or whatever, except can see a heldrake, should we wave the rule of blast hitting flyers for him?...

How many times do you roll to hit? Once? Twice? 3D6-Ld Times?.
The point is you have no way of determining how many dice to roll.
And even then it doesn't matter as the wording of the power means it doesn't care if you hit or miss as it has no weapon profile. No matter what you're house-ruling Psyhcic Shriek to either roll 1 to Hit roll and having a miss mean a power fails, or just skipping those steps all together because even though your meant to roll to Hit it doesn't matter in the end and it's not worth the effort of determining/deciding how many dice need to be rolled.

Psychic Shriek is just one of the many broken (read: non-functioning) parts of the Psychic Phase.

Really?
Witchfire requires roll to hit, already established.
Shriek spell tells you the rest..
Rule book states;
1) manifest,
2)make a roll to hit if witchfire
3) resolve spell
Then.
Find spell, Go to spell card or back of book;
4) then roll 3 dice and subtract leadership.

Its clear, to read into that, and make an argument against it in anyway, is beyond any answer for help.
Rules are clear, interpretation for the sake of disputing or throwing another dart at GW for "writing bad rulez" is almost like someone must just be joking on the internet boards to get a rise...

If it's so clear, how many dice to you roll To Hit? From the rules I have here the number is never specified at all.
Also, show where missing would stop a person resolving the '3D6-Ld'. From the rules I have, failing To Hit only means you can't roll To Wound, which is something Psychic Shriek doesn't do.

Okay okay we are done here it seems. Lol, are you serious? You really do not want resolution do you? You are posting to just keep arguing the metaphysical subtleties in the wording of RAW, and making further arguments changing your wording a little bit each time (as i said earlier, that you left out of my quote BTW), to keep finding a way to challenge anything anyone says or point out. So you enjoy it, agree to disagree, Yet the Majority plays it as steps 1-4 mentioned, reading the rules for what they are and when something is not directly spelled out because a single word may be missing they utilize the steps again in the rules. The game is complex, not as complex as some people want to make it though, perhaps checkers or risk would be better for some...

OP asked if it was an error on BS0 using telepathy. I shared my opinion, quoted the rules, and will continue to utilize a little common sense to have a fun time with my fellow gamers, at events and tourneys.
Because as it was said, some people will just keep disputing for the sake of disputing, the post/discussion begins experiencing diminishing returns, and sooner or later we just need to agree to disagree, part on hand shake, and hope our view on the subject is what is ruled at a tourney we play or event we play.

Considering my argument was "you can't play is RAW because it doesn't work, no matter what you have to house rule it"... yeah I know. It was not "this power can't ever be used ever because you can only play RAW". But sure be condescending and say 40k is too complex for one as simple as me.

The point is, both arguments as to how Psychic Shriek should be resolved are no more correct that the other. You either house-rule the number of dice rolled and missing actually meaning something or you house rule skipping the 'To Hit' step.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Considering my argument was "you can't play is RAW because it doesn't work, no matter what you have to house rule it"... yeah I know. It was not "this power can't ever be used ever because you can only play RAW". But sure be condescending and say 40k is too complex for one as simple as me.

The point is, both arguments as to how Psychic Shriek should be resolved are no more correct that the other. You either house-rule the number of dice rolled and missing actually meaning something or you house rule skipping the 'To Hit' step.

Well said, I still disagree, and hence we part as friends, no hard feelings, and agree to simply disagree on the matter. I know when ones mind is made, it is tough for one person to change the other persons, any conviction or frustration that one party says to influence the other, can only be met by the same conviction in their views.
I hope however you play it (and myself), we find others to enjoy the game who accept to play it the same way, which ever way is decided.
Cheers. (Cheers is not mocking you either, as i have been accused of mocking British. My 40k sparing partner, I play like 6 times a month is Alex Fennel, and hes got me saying "Cheers", "Mate", and "bloody" all the time now.)

James - it has no support, as "most" is undefined; we just know "at least half" of models can fire 1 shot, but when you actually analyse when models can shoot, you find that statement to be false.

The rules are BROKEN, they DO NOT COVER psychic shriek, as it lacks a weapon profile OR a reason to actually care about the reuslt of the to-hit, which we know is UTTERLY IRREVELANT to the resolution of the power.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
James - it has no support, as "most" is undefined; we just know "at least half" of models can fire 1 shot, but when you actually analyse when models can shoot, you find that statement to be false.

The rules are BROKEN, they DO NOT COVER psychic shriek, as it lacks a weapon profile OR a reason to actually care about the reuslt of the to-hit, which we know is UTTERLY IRREVELANT to the resolution of the power.

Using cap-locks doesn't add relevance to your point. I also commented that one reading prevents it being used at all. There is also no basis to assert that a roll to hit is irrelevant, when we are told we need to do it, but never given an exclusion from this in the case of ps. The way that wounds are resolved doesn't mean previous steps are bypassed. Deciding to bypass it for sake of ease is one thing, but it would be a house rule.

I think the rules do cover ps, and have illustrated clearly how the steps in the rules illustrate this.

Last post on this topic, it's circling.

It's strange to me how no one from the roll to hit camp has really stopped and analyzed whether the to hit roll has an effect on the resolution of the power or not.

There is no to wound roll, the to wound roll is what is conditional upon a to hit roll. You can roll to hit, but missing doesn't stop you from rolling 3d6 - leadership.

We know witchfires have to roll to hit to resolve their to wound rolls. We also know psychic shriek doesn't have a to wound roll that is conditional on a successful to hit roll because there is no weapon profile. We know that psychic shriek is a witchfire.

I really see nothing that causes a failed to hit roll to stop the power from resolving. If you think a failed to hit roll stops the power from resolving, why?

 JamesY wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
James - it has no support, as "most" is undefined; we just know "at least half" of models can fire 1 shot, but when you actually analyse when models can shoot, you find that statement to be false.

The rules are BROKEN, they DO NOT COVER psychic shriek, as it lacks a weapon profile OR a reason to actually care about the reuslt of the to-hit, which we know is UTTERLY IRREVELANT to the resolution of the power.

Using cap-locks doesn't add relevance to your point. I also commented that one reading prevents it being used at all. There is also no basis to assert that a roll to hit is irrelevant, when we are told we need to do it, but never given an exclusion from this in the case of ps. The way that wounds are resolved doesn't mean previous steps are bypassed. Deciding to bypass it for sake of ease is one thing, but it would be a house rule.

I think the rules do cover ps, and have illustrated clearly how the steps in the rules illustrate this.

Last post on this topic, it's circling.

Being required to do something, and that something having an actual effect onthe game are not the same thing

"missing" has no effect on whether or not you roll the 3d6-Ld and apply wounds. This is proven. Whether you hit or not, you MUST resolve the power, meanin gyou MUST resolve the 3d6, every time.

Caps adds emphasis. Your point lacks any relevance, as you are not following rules.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
It's strange to me how no one from the roll to hit camp has really stopped and analyzed whether the to hit roll has an effect on the resolution of the power or not.

There is no to wound roll, the to wound roll is what is conditional upon a to hit roll. You can roll to hit, but missing doesn't stop you from rolling 3d6 - leadership.

We know witchfires have to roll to hit to resolve their to wound rolls. We also know psychic shriek doesn't have a to wound roll that is conditional on a successful to hit roll because there is no weapon profile. We know that psychic shriek is a witchfire.

I really see nothing that causes a failed to hit roll to stop the power from resolving. If you think a failed to hit roll stops the power from resolving, why?

By that logic, wouldn't the power also resolve normally from a model with BS0?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 JamesY wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
James - it has no support, as "most" is undefined; we just know "at least half" of models can fire 1 shot, but when you actually analyse when models can shoot, you find that statement to be false.

The rules are BROKEN, they DO NOT COVER psychic shriek, as it lacks a weapon profile OR a reason to actually care about the reuslt of the to-hit, which we know is UTTERLY IRREVELANT to the resolution of the power.

Using cap-locks doesn't add relevance to your point. I also commented that one reading prevents it being used at all. There is also no basis to assert that a roll to hit is irrelevant, when we are told we need to do it, but never given an exclusion from this in the case of ps. The way that wounds are resolved doesn't mean previous steps are bypassed. Deciding to bypass it for sake of ease is one thing, but it would be a house rule.

I think the rules do cover ps, and have illustrated clearly how the steps in the rules illustrate this.

Last post on this topic, it's circling.

Being required to do something, and that something having an actual effect onthe game are not the same thing

"missing" has no effect on whether or not you roll the 3d6-Ld and apply wounds. This is proven. Whether you hit or not, you MUST resolve the power, meanin gyou MUST resolve the 3d6, every time.

Caps adds emphasis. Your point lacks any relevance, as you are not following rules.

Where is it proven that you still resolve the power after missing? I haven't seen any proof that that is the case. I'm not asking you to regurgitate anything, but if you could quote the steps or point me in the right direction please?

There is no "proof". Just as there is no proof that it fires a single shot. Both stances require reading into the rules and finding things that are not in print. Just accept that the Psychic rules are broken, particularly Psychic Scream, and house rule it. Or check with the TO if its not your own FLGS.

For what it's worth, all tournaments around here including the ETC have ruled that you need to hit in order to cause the wounds, and that the Partiarch can't used it due to being BS0. Yes blabla it's a houserule yadda, but it clearly indicates what the favored interpretation of competitive players is.
Also, speaking from a balancing point of view, the telepathy tree is already the best thanks to invis, no need to buff it further that way.

 M0ff3l wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
It's strange to me how no one from the roll to hit camp has really stopped and analyzed whether the to hit roll has an effect on the resolution of the power or not.

There is no to wound roll, the to wound roll is what is conditional upon a to hit roll. You can roll to hit, but missing doesn't stop you from rolling 3d6 - leadership.

We know witchfires have to roll to hit to resolve their to wound rolls. We also know psychic shriek doesn't have a to wound roll that is conditional on a successful to hit roll because there is no weapon profile. We know that psychic shriek is a witchfire.

I really see nothing that causes a failed to hit roll to stop the power from resolving. If you think a failed to hit roll stops the power from resolving, why?

By that logic, wouldn't the power also resolve normally from a model with BS0?

No, because it would not be able to initialize in the first place, as in the case of Templates and Blasts.

Ushtarador wrote:
For what it's worth, all tournaments around here including the ETC have ruled that you need to hit in order to cause the wounds, and that the Partiarch can't used it due to being BS0. Yes blabla it's a houserule yadda, but it clearly indicates what the favored interpretation of competitive players is.
Also, speaking from a balancing point of view, the telepathy tree is already the best thanks to invis, no need to buff it further that way.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but using tournaments in your area to be representative of all "competitive players" is misleading. There are HUGE differences in how games are played between the UK and the US, for instance. Primarily due to the cultural difference that the "spirit of the rule" is an actual legal, codified thing in English law, whereas in the United States, we generally follow the letter of the law, which is how huge companies get away with using tax loopholes and such here to pay no taxes. This effects the way people who grew up in these two cultures think about rules and laws.

But I'm straying. Your local tournament scene is by no means representative of the 40k community as a whole.

I'm guessing most competitive players don't have a large tyranids collection they plan on expanding with genestealer cults and using in tournaments either, so there's definitely the possibility of bias there, if not the inevitability.

I'd rather say that most competitive players understand that at least in tournaments there is no need to significantly buff Psychic Shriek for the benefit of a single model that will rarely see the tabletop anyway

Of course it's not gonna be representative for all competitive players (we aren't a hivemind yet), but seeing that e.g. for ETC people from various nations (including the US) agreed unanimously that this was the 'correct' interpretation, I think it's a good indicator. If I'm not mistaken, most big tournaments in the US rule it that way as well? If there is no clear answer to an issue, and you can't agree on a ruling within your local scene, I would think it's a good idea to look at how big tournaments rule it.

 JamesY wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 JamesY wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
James - it has no support, as "most" is undefined; we just know "at least half" of models can fire 1 shot, but when you actually analyse when models can shoot, you find that statement to be false.

The rules are BROKEN, they DO NOT COVER psychic shriek, as it lacks a weapon profile OR a reason to actually care about the reuslt of the to-hit, which we know is UTTERLY IRREVELANT to the resolution of the power.

Using cap-locks doesn't add relevance to your point. I also commented that one reading prevents it being used at all. There is also no basis to assert that a roll to hit is irrelevant, when we are told we need to do it, but never given an exclusion from this in the case of ps. The way that wounds are resolved doesn't mean previous steps are bypassed. Deciding to bypass it for sake of ease is one thing, but it would be a house rule.

I think the rules do cover ps, and have illustrated clearly how the steps in the rules illustrate this.

Last post on this topic, it's circling.

Being required to do something, and that something having an actual effect onthe game are not the same thing

"missing" has no effect on whether or not you roll the 3d6-Ld and apply wounds. This is proven. Whether you hit or not, you MUST resolve the power, meanin gyou MUST resolve the 3d6, every time.

Caps adds emphasis. Your point lacks any relevance, as you are not following rules.

Where is it proven that you still resolve the power after missing? I haven't seen any proof that that is the case. I'm not asking you to regurgitate anything, but if you could quote the steps or point me in the right direction please?

It was shown to you already. Show that anything bar to-wound requires a successful to-hit. Note you must comply with the psychic power rules which state you resolve the power. You have no permission to halt if you roll you to-hit and then miss.

Considering that this argument has gone on for 6 pages, it's safe to say the best answer for this is the same as it always is: Ask your opponent or TO how they plan to play this particular rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


It was shown to you already. Show that anything bar to-wound requires a successful to-hit. Note you must comply with the psychic power rules which state you resolve the power. You have no permission to halt if you roll you to-hit and then miss.

So, to be clear, you keep asking me to refer to the rules, and when I ask you to point me to the same, you think it is ok to refuse? Not cool, and quite rude.

Show you where it says that something bar a to-wound roll requires a successful roll to hit? In the witchfire rules where it clearly states that you must to roll to hit with all witchfires except templates and blasts. It is a shooting attack, if you miss with it, the power has been resolved. You missed, the process ends and is resolved. PS has a unique means of generating a wound pool, that's all. It replaces the to-wound section of the shooting process. We are told to hit. We are then told how wounds are generated. We are then told what kind of saves aren't allowed. Exactly the same as the shooting phase, because it is a shooting attack. If they didn't want it to function in this way, they wouldn't have made it a witchfire. 6th ed FAQ clearly shows that they were aware of it as witchfire, and wanted to keep it as a witchfire. If I shoot a bolter and miss, the shooting has been resolved. If I attack with a lightning claw and miss, the attack has been resolved. Why are you adamant that this shooting attack is resolved any differently, when we are told it is a shooting attack, and told to resolve it as such?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
Considering that this argument has gone on for 6 pages, it's safe to say the best answer for this is the same as it always is: Ask your opponent or TO how they plan to play this particular rule.

TO, agreed. Opponent? Could end up on the same carousel only face to face...

There is always the dice off in the event of such a disagreement. Nosferatu1001, AncientSkarbrand, should we ever game against each other, and one of us has PS, we can at least defer to that

 JamesY wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
Considering that this argument has gone on for 6 pages, it's safe to say the best answer for this is the same as it always is: Ask your opponent or TO how they plan to play this particular rule.

TO, agreed. Opponent? Could end up on the same carousel only face to face...

There is always the dice off in the event of such a disagreement. Nosferatu1001, AncientSkarbrand, should we ever game against each other, and one of us has PS, we can at least defer to that

If your opponent has the same lack of manners as half the posts I've seen here, then you, sir, need to find a new opponent.

Ushtarador wrote:
I'd rather say that most competitive players understand that at least in tournaments there is no need to significantly buff Psychic Shriek for the benefit of a single model that will rarely see the tabletop anyway

Of course it's not gonna be representative for all competitive players (we aren't a hivemind yet), but seeing that e.g. for ETC people from various nations (including the US) agreed unanimously that this was the 'correct' interpretation, I think it's a good indicator. If I'm not mistaken, most big tournaments in the US rule it that way as well? If there is no clear answer to an issue, and you can't agree on a ruling within your local scene, I would think it's a good idea to look at how big tournaments rule it.

Like I said in my original post to you, it had nothing to do with my stance on the rule. I happen to agree with the ruling of the people in your area. However, it's still generally not a good practice to use local tournaments as a barometer of the opinions of all competitive people in a hobby that spans the globe.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Considering my argument was "you can't play is RAW because it doesn't work, no matter what you have to house rule it"... yeah I know. It was not "this power can't ever be used ever because you can only play RAW". But sure be condescending and say 40k is too complex for one as simple as me.

The point is, both arguments as to how Psychic Shriek should be resolved are no more correct that the other. You either house-rule the number of dice rolled and missing actually meaning something or you house rule skipping the 'To Hit' step.

We have agreed in my group that the 3d6-ld check is the to hit roll in this case, but I could also play it by using psyker's BS and then rolling "to wound".

@ EnTyme. Old and wise enough now not to play against opponents who aren't after the same thing from a game that I am. All my gaming buddies are great fun to play against.

But yeah, manners cost nothing. Happy gaming mate

 JamesY wrote:
@ EnTyme. Old and wise enough now not to play against opponents who aren't after the same thing from a game that I am. All my gaming buddies are great fun to play against.

But yeah, manners cost nothing. Happy gaming mate

And to you, sir.

Don't confuse boards with real life

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Don't confuse boards with real life

People should have the same manners in both.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Don't confuse boards with real life

People should have the same manners in both.

Yes, but unfortunately tone and sarcasm is almost impossible to convey over a pure text medium.

So something that sounds snarky could just be something said very matter of fact.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Don't confuse boards with real life

People should have the same manners in both.

Yes, but unfortunately tone and sarcasm is almost impossible to convey over a pure text medium.

So something that sounds snarky could just be something said very matter of fact.

It is achievable though. With no paralinguistic features beyond orkmoticons or pictures, we just have to be more mindful of what we are saying, and the words we choose to express ourselves with. Also, as readers, we need to be a little less sensitive to tone, as we will load meaning into comments where it wasn't intended. However, clear manners show respect to the person you are talking too. Ignorant and supercilious comments show disrespect. It's easy to forget manners in a heated discussion, but it's also easy to put right after with an apology. Luckily we have the ignore button for those who just don't seem to want to understand the importance of this basic courtesy.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Don't confuse boards with real life

People should have the same manners in both.

Odd, as I did use an emoticon then. Odd


Its more: dont presume that because people are discussing a rule on the boards, that they would discuss this in real life as well. WHat the board DOES do is provide a place to discuss where no game is being played. SO there is no "side" to worry about, and time to dig into the rules.

James - please cite a rulethat states "missing" means you have resolved the power. BEcause nothing actually states that, you will have a tough time.

Yes, we know you MUST roll to hit. However you are assuming that the words "and at least one succesful to-hit must be rolled..." is written in the rule. It isnt.

All we know is that we MUST roll to hit, and we MUST resolve the power. The power has nothing within it that requires the roll to hit to succeed - if there was a weapon profile, then we know we could not roll to-wound without a to-hit beign successful, because the rulebook tells us this. The rulebook makes no similar requirement of 3d6-Ld, so you cannot assume the same requirement applies. That is NOT rules as written, by definition.

Hence why I have said the roll to-hit is irrelevant; it has no effect, as no matter what you roll, no matter how many dice you roll based upon making up rules, you must continue to resolve the rule.

You also cannot assume the ld roll does not require you to hit as you are required to hit the targetted unit and nothing in.psychic shriek allows you to resolve the ld roll without rolling to hit or on a miss. It is personal opinion that some people think the ld roll is not tied to the to hit roll. The power as a witchfire has its resolution ties to rolling to hit. On a miss the power is resolved already, however the psyker failed to hit and the power missed.

RAW psychic shriek is not playable. Ignoring the required to hit roll us the worst way to try to make it playable as a witchfire. Generally it is bad to ignore rules you are told you must do to resolve an outcome.

Regardless of that, none of this for pages has anything to do with the question which had already been answered using the written rules. The patriarch cannot use witchfires with BS 0.

It is absolutely not opinion. It is YOUR opinion that a miss means you dont resolve the power, luckily the RULES tell us to resolve the power.

If you can find a link between successfully hitting and rolling the 3d6, post it. Given you cannot do so - as you have NEVER done so, despite claiming a link exists - please dont keep raising it as if your opinion matches rules. It doesnt, and you know it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is absolutely not opinion. It is YOUR opinion that a miss means you dont resolve the power, luckily the RULES tell us to resolve the power.

If you can find a link between successfully hitting and rolling the 3d6, post it. Given you cannot do so - as you have NEVER done so, despite claiming a link exists - please dont keep raising it as if your opinion matches rules. It doesnt, and you know it.

Nothing makes me sadder than realizing nos is on my side of the debate. Please stop being so inflammatory in your arguments. By focusing on how your opponent is wrong instead of how your interpretation is right, you weaken our stance.

Additionally RAW, there is 100% NO WAY for the patriarch to cast witchfire powers at BS0. If Psychic Shriek had a profile of Assault 3000 S 10 AP 1, he still could not use it. The argument most of us are making is that RAW, it is stupid that he can't use Psychic Shriek. It is well established in the fluff the Genestealer Patriarchs make use of the power.

I honestly think the way witchfire in general works is kind of dumb. In order to hit with a witchfire power, the Psyker must roll to manifest, roll to hit, and roll to wound. The target is allowed to roll to deny and roll to save. That's 5 rolls that have to go the Psyker's way in order for the cast to be worthwhile. Imagine if in order to hit with a bolt gun, a Space Marine had to pass an Appease the Machine Spirit Roll, followed by roll-to-hit, followed by his target's Dodge Roll, followed by roll-to-wound, followed by target's roll-to-save. Pretty ridiculous, no?

It's pointless to argue with Nos, as he will never cite support for his position while at same time ignoring the rules you cited in support of your argument. He is disingenuous in rule debates, which means there is no reason to entertain him in one.

As has already been stated, a BS0 psyker cannot legally manifest a Witchfire power. Psychic Shreik is a Witchfire power. The Patriarch either has a typo for a Ballistic Skill, or the GW writer for this specific unit failed to take into account the rules for Witchfire powers. Either way, the ability is useless until the unit is updated, or an FAQ/Errata is published.

Mods should lock this thread, as the OP was answered a long time ago.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It's pointless to argue with Nos, as he will never cite support for his position while at same time ignoring the rules you cited in support of your argument. He is disingenuous in rule debates, which means there is no reason to entertain him in one.

As has already been stated, a BS0 psyker cannot legally manifest a Witchfire power. Psychic Shreik is a Witchfire power. The Patriarch either has a typo for a Ballistic Skill, or the GW writer for this specific unit failed to take into account the rules for Witchfire powers. Either way, the ability is useless until the unit is updated, or an FAQ/Errata is published.

Mods should lock this thread, as the OP was answered a long time ago.

SJ

Rule one, reported.

I could cite my rules citations, but you would ignore them as you often do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is absolutely not opinion. It is YOUR opinion that a miss means you dont resolve the power, luckily the RULES tell us to resolve the power.

If you can find a link between successfully hitting and rolling the 3d6, post it. Given you cannot do so - as you have NEVER done so, despite claiming a link exists - please dont keep raising it as if your opinion matches rules. It doesnt, and you know it.

The rules for psychic phase sequence doesn't grant you permission to ignore the to hit roll.

You are required to roll to hit with witchfires, unless specified otherwise. Some witchfires specify such. Psychic shriek however does not.

If you could ignore rolling to hit with witchfires, despite being told you must roll to hit, and claim you could resolve the power still than other witchfires would still resolve without rolling to hit which is not at all how the rules work- rendering your opinion of the rules interaction of the psychic phase sequence list as overriding a to hit roll as a hywpi stance. That there is no link to rolling to hit and the effect of that hit is your opinion.

Which is of course fine as there is no way to play psychic shriek within the rules because anyone using it comes to the required to hit roll, and there is no rules as written way to resolve it and no rules for psychic shriek give permission to ignore it.

Which of course, isn't what I asked you to prove. Yet again you duck the question

Prove your assertion, with rules this time, that "missing" means you stop and you do not resolve the power. Please give a page and para for this.

I was not stating that the roll to hit wasn't a required element. What I did - and proved - was that the resolution of the power does not care whether this roll is successful or not. No matter whether yo hit or not, you still roll the 3d6.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It's pointless to argue with Nos, as he will never cite support for his position while at same time ignoring the rules you cited in support of your argument. He is disingenuous in rule debates, which means there is no reason to entertain him in one.

As has already been stated, a BS0 psyker cannot legally manifest a Witchfire power. Psychic Shreik is a Witchfire power. The Patriarch either has a typo for a Ballistic Skill, or the GW writer for this specific unit failed to take into account the rules for Witchfire powers. Either way, the ability is useless until the unit is updated, or an FAQ/Errata is published.

Mods should lock this thread, as the OP was answered a long time ago.

SJ

Rule one, reported.

I could cite my rules citations, but you would ignore them as you often do.

Citing the rules IS the rule of this forum, Nosferatu. Maybe you should go read them again, as you just reported someone for breaking the rules while openly admitting that you break the rules yourself because you think people will ignore them. If you think people will ignore rules citations, why post anything at all on this forum Nos? Why not just hang up the spurs and retire? What he said was a fact, that you don't support your posts with rules citations, and that you are disingenuous in debates. After repeatedly asking you in multiple threads over the last couple years to cite rules, I don't think you can make a claim otherwise: You're a habitual rule breaker, and I have no idea how you avoid being banned.

Su. Any chance you can actually read what I wrote, and not what you made up ?

I reported for rule one - being rude.

Citing rules is one of the tenets of the SUB forum. Rule one is a rule of the who,e forum.

I stated that I could cite MY rule citations. As in, I could provide links to (cite) the times when I have cited rules (in general, not just this thread) however there is no pont, as Jeffersonian will simply ignore this - as they have done before. Hopefully now you can apologise for yet again failing to read a post from another poster...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Don't confuse boards with real life

People should have the same manners in both.

Yes, but unfortunately tone and sarcasm is almost impossible to convey over a pure text medium.

So something that sounds snarky could just be something said very matter of fact.

You could type your text like an Elcor speaks...

One Rule to rule them all: Be Polite. If you decide to discount someone's argument there is no need to tell them. The ignore button is there for a reason.

The OP was answered a long time ago, and the current argument is circular, so any additional entry is simply arguing for argument's sack.

Edited by Moderator ~ Please don't ignore moderator instructions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which of course, isn't what I asked you to prove. Yet again you duck the question

Prove your assertion, with rules this time, that "missing" means you stop and you do not resolve the power. Please give a page and para for this.

I was not stating that the roll to hit wasn't a required element. What I did - and proved - was that the resolution of the power does not care whether this roll is successful or not. No matter whether yo hit or not, you still roll the 3d6.

How about you cite where missing with any witchfire allows you to resolve the power? Missing with Warp Lances allows you to still resolve Warp Lance against the target? No, it does not. Missing with Physic Shriek is the same situation. I can't believe this is even being argued again. A witch fire is a type of shooting attack, shooting attacks require a roll to hit "unless otherwise specified" witch fires have a blanket rule saying they required a roll to hit.

Since we have no profile, we look at the rules of how a witchfire work, and find that we need to roll to hit. 3d6 leadership is your roll to wound.

Edit by Moderator

Questions about moderation and site features should be posted in the Nuts & Bolts sub-forum. Please remember that Rule Number Two is Stay On Topic. Thanks!

 Whacked wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which of course, isn't what I asked you to prove. Yet again you duck the question

Prove your assertion, with rules this time, that "missing" means you stop and you do not resolve the power. Please give a page and para for this.

I was not stating that the roll to hit wasn't a required element. What I did - and proved - was that the resolution of the power does not care whether this roll is successful or not. No matter whether yo hit or not, you still roll the 3d6.

How about you cite where missing with any witchfire allows you to resolve the power? Missing with Warp Lances allows you to still resolve Warp Lance against the target? No, it does not. Missing with Physic Shriek is the same situation. I can't believe this is even being argued again. A witch fire is a type of shooting attack, shooting attacks require a roll to hit "unless otherwise specified" witch fires have a blanket rule saying they required a roll to hit.

Since we have no profile, we look at the rules of how a witchfire work, and find that we need to roll to hit. 3d6 leadership is your roll to wound.

Failing a To Hit roll only stops you from rolling To Wounds unless stated otherwise (like with Markerlights).

Witchfires do not state otherwise, therefore RAW (assuming you could somehow manage to roll a unknown number of dice and failed the rolls for all of them) Psychic Shriek would still be resolved as it doesn't require To Wounds rolls and it doesn't say the target has to be successfully hit for the 3D6-ld wounds - it just says the target takes them.

The difference with Warp Lance is that it has a weapon profile, and therefore requires a To Wound roll. If you miss the rules for shooting say you can't roll To Wound.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:



Failing a To Hit roll only stops you from rolling To Wounds unless stated otherwise (like with Markerlights).

Witchfires do not state otherwise

There you go, witchfires do not state otherwise, therefore they need to hit to progress to the next stage of the process. There is no exemption clause to say that failed hits can still cause damage (like there is with missile lock). There is nothing to say that only to-wound rolls need a successful to hit prior. If the to hit roll didn't matter, Ps would be a malediction or nova. It isn't, it's a witchfire, and a requirement of causing damage with a shooting attack is a successful hit, however that comes about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if you tried to argue that RAW the wounds don't need to hit because they don't roll to wound, allow me to apply that same logic elsewhere in the process. Raw it is a shooting attack, and in the shooting sequence the wounds caused create a wound pool, from which I take my saves. I'd use your logic to say that, as your wounds don't come from the wound pool, raw I don't take any wounds, because I am not told otherwise. Clearly ridiculous, and clearly not the intention.

Lets play sensibly, and rather than try to find wording that clearly flies in the face of the spirit of the game, just find the simplest way that works with the rules we have and enjoy our games.

Yes... If you read everything I did say they required To Hit RAW (which is a step you can't complete as you lack the knowledge of how many dice to roll).

I've also said - multiple times mind you - that RAW this power can't be played, and either requires multiple house rules to put it in line with how more conventional witchfires 'work' or less house rules to make it function while keeping it as a special snowflake power.

Also wtf are you on about? There no exception required to say that failed hits still cause wounds as failed To Hit rolls only stop To Wound rolls, unless some effect says they require a successful To Hit (or successful To Wound).

And congratulations, you found another thing that is broken RAW with Psychic Shriek. As I said, this power is completely non-functional without heavy houserules and no house rule is more correct than the other (because they're house rules... they don't need to stick to what the author probably intended).

As to why PS isn't a nova or malediction... Novas function differently (they're an AoE) and we have a power like that already (The 'nid power), and maledicitons only last until the beginning of the next psychic phase and can't be fired from vehicles. Pretty large differences. An argument could also be made in the opposite direction: if GW didn't want Psychic Shriek to be special and not require To Hit rolls, why didn't they give it a Weapon Profile like the Slaanesh power (written at a similar time, and for reference it's a Rng 24", S: Special AP - Assault 1 weapon with the Ecstasy special rule which causes every model in the unit to suffer a single hit at their own unmodified strength).

James - again, you are confusing two terms

Needing to roll to hit

And

Having to successfully "hit"

Only rolls to-wound have a RULE stating they need a successful to-hit first. This is proven - because if it were not, you would have cited the rule in psychic shriek that links the 3d6-ld to the successful "hit". There is no such rule, therefore you must resolve the power, and you're not told the 3d6 is a to wound. So it isn't. Meaning it resolves.

Find a rule linking the SUCCESFUL hit to the ability to roll the 3d6. I have cited my source with to wound rolls having this requirement, so without this requirement, there is no link.

Please, read carefully. There is a conflation you are making, and this is clouding your analysis.

Nos, you are still ignoring the RAW of having to roll to hit and claiming that the ld roll is not contingent on rolling to hit to ignore a required step.

This is proven because if it were not someone could cite the rule in psychic shriek that allows it to not perform the required to hit roll, or rather grants permission to resolve without doing what it is required to do by its type.

How do you apply the power enfeeble, which gives a -1T and -1S, to a vehicle that has an undefined (Does not have) Toughness/Strength score?

So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle (that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score) do you:

a) Skip it as it is unresolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1"
c) something else?

If you answer is A for this, then for an undefined number of shots for Psychic Shriek, you must do the same.

 DeathReaper wrote:
How do you apply the power enfeeble, which gives a -1T and -1S, to a vehicle that has an undefined (Does not have) Toughness/Strength score?

So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle (that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score) do you:

a) Skip it as it is unresolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1"
c) something else?

If you answer is A for this, then for an undefined number of shots for Psychic Shriek, you must do the same.

This is not a good analogy or comparison, and I will tell you why. Psychic shriek requires you to roll to hit as it is a witchfire. More importantly, it requires you to resolve it as a shooting attack. Looking at the sequence of shooting attacks you first pick a target, you then roll to hit(which you are further told you must do under witchfires) then based on the hits you resolve wounds. However you have to resolve it in that order, You cant say "Hey I have a gun that fires 10 shots, so make 10 armor rolls and remove casualties, then I will roll to hit and wound" there is a specific sequence you have to follow. The rules for psychic shriek do not fail to have written permission that thoroughly explains how to resolve it until you get to the rolling to hit step. This is where essentially if you are following the RAW you have to stop. We don't actually have permission to look ahead and say "wounds are based on to hit rolls so we can ignore this step" as that is not given as permission anywhere in the rules. If it were psychic shriek would have it listed as permission.

Enfeeble does not have this problem at all as it is a malediction.

Enfeeble can manifest, be denied or not, and then resolve on a vehicle. It has no rules about specific types of target. It still affects the vehicle, its just that it may not have an effect on a vehicle based on its stats. Some vehicles have strength scores, and would have a lower strength. Obviously you cannot a affect a stat that does not exist- but this is in no way comparable to the issue with psychic shriek, as psychic shriek you are told as a witchfire you MUST do something. You do not get any further permission within the rules set to ignore that step. Enfeeble can resolve on a predator, it just may have no effect because you chose to target something that has no stat that it modifies. I could cast a power that causes 20 Strength 2 hits on a wraithknight- it still resolves and affects the wraithknight, there is just no effect from the power on the wraithknight as strength two cannot wound toughness 8. Or I can cast a power that causes models to suffer a morale test, but if I target an unit with fearless they fail to deny they are affected, there is just no actual effect in the game because they cannot fail a morale test. I could cast the same power on a predator, it will affect the predator which does have a LD value, but as vehicles do not suffer morale(other than killa kanz...) there will be no effect of the power.

Your last point has no basis in logic, and is not actually a correlation of rules that are similar with a similar effect based on their affect.

@matt Kingsley I don't think we do lack that knowledge, it is a single attack, that can cause multiple wounds. A single d6 to hit is all that is required. I've yet to see the logic in any other approach, or a good reason to dismiss a single d6 other than a refusal to acknowledge that it can follow all the rules we are given. As we are not told it is more than one attack, we have no reason to consider it as more than one, the potential for wounds doesn't affect the to hit stage. There is no auto hit rule for Ps. There is no directive to retrospectively hit with wounds created. There is no suggestion that it is anything but a single attack. Treating it as such allows the steps to be followed clearly and easily. Given that, why the refusal to consider that this clears up the problem neatly and makes it work perfectly well?

It's only broken if you want it to be. If you approach it as a single attack, with a unique means of generating a wound pool, it works absolutely fine. I don't see the need to insist it doesn't work when this interpretation is supported by the rules (don't ask for citations, it's all on previous posts), and shows that it does work perfectly fine.

Except... no rules state 1 dice at all. Your previous citation don't say that all shooting attacks fire 1 shot by default. Indeed, it refers to models and as we all know many models in the game have no shooting attack(s) at all.

You can house rule it to 1 attack - and if you do all the more power to you - but RAW it is a Witchfire attack with an unknown number of shots.

It's broken RAW. You can fix it with house rules, but you have to realise that any house rules made are as valid as each other for multiple reasons.

It doesn't need a rule, we already have a rule in place saying one shot unless told otherwise.

Following the one shot rule isn't a house rule. It follows the rules we are told to follow. Choosing to ignore it would be a house rule.

 JamesY wrote:
It doesn't need a rule, we already have a rule in place saying one shot unless told otherwise.

Following the one shot rule isn't a house rule. It follows the rules we are told to follow. Choosing to ignore it would be a house rule.

Oh yes, the one shot rule... where is it in the BRB ?
Why haven't I come across a single quote of that rule in at least five Psychic Shriek topics ?

morgoth wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
It doesn't need a rule, we already have a rule in place saying one shot unless told otherwise.

Following the one shot rule isn't a house rule. It follows the rules we are told to follow. Choosing to ignore it would be a house rule.

Oh yes, the one shot rule... where is it in the BRB ?
Why haven't I come across a single quote of that rule in at least five Psychic Shriek topics ?

Do I detect... sarcasm?

I'm sure it does come up every time, probably because it's a valid rule that affects the power with absolutely no reason to ignore it beyond a stubborn refusal to acknowledge its relevance.

 JamesY wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
It doesn't need a rule, we already have a rule in place saying one shot unless told otherwise.

Following the one shot rule isn't a house rule. It follows the rules we are told to follow. Choosing to ignore it would be a house rule.

Oh yes, the one shot rule... where is it in the BRB ?
Why haven't I come across a single quote of that rule in at least five Psychic Shriek topics ?

Do I detect... sarcasm?

I'm sure it does come up every time, probably because it's a valid rule that affects the power with absolutely no reason to ignore it beyond a stubborn refusal to acknowledge its relevance.

Or maybe, just maybe, it doesn't exist or it doesn't apply.

Or maybe, it's a piece of text talking about models and their general abilities, not about weapons, weapon profiles, shooting in the psychic phase, or anything remotely close to the topic at hand.

Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we’ll explain in more detail later.

Oh yeah, that's what it is.... it tells us that most models only get to fire one shot (due to their weapons being crap), however, some weapons (which are not crap) are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later.

Now, first of all, poor models who own crappy weapons, let's shed a tear for them.

Next question for you: Could you cite one weapon that has no profile and no number of shots that can be fired with a single shot thanks to that general statement about weapons being generally one shot ?

But let's not worry about that, because you surely don't care about such pesky details right...


Next up, 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.

Suddenly it appears that every single other sentence in that shooting phase sequence can't handle Psychic Shriek.

So, do you think Psychic Shriek has:

1. an implicit weapon profile with one shot thanks to a general mention about weapons that doesn't apply to anything else but "witchfire maledictions"
2. an implicit allowance to replace the next steps of shooting with "resolving the psychic power"

Or:

1. you roll To Hit as instructed in the witchfire rules (compile error, missing weapon profile) - continue on error or just exit the game
2. you resolve the psychic power

If it takes two implicit invented rules to make your theory stand, while the opposing theory needs only RAW, you're pretty much likely to be wrong.

 JamesY wrote:
@matt Kingsley I don't think we do lack that knowledge, it is a single attack, that can cause multiple wounds. A single d6 to hit is all that is required. I've yet to see the logic in any other approach, or a good reason to dismiss a single d6 other than a refusal to acknowledge that it can follow all the rules we are given. As we are not told it is more than one attack, we have no reason to consider it as more than one, the potential for wounds doesn't affect the to hit stage. There is no auto hit rule for Ps. There is no directive to retrospectively hit with wounds created. There is no suggestion that it is anything but a single attack. Treating it as such allows the steps to be followed clearly and easily. Given that, why the refusal to consider that this clears up the problem neatly and makes it work perfectly well?

It's only broken if you want it to be. If you approach it as a single attack, with a unique means of generating a wound pool, it works absolutely fine. I don't see the need to insist it doesn't work when this interpretation is supported by the rules (don't ask for citations, it's all on previous posts), and shows that it does work perfectly fine.

I think the primary reason for the argument that it is ambiguous is that there is no permission on how many dice, or shots, your roll. That isn't to say your argument is illogical, but that for a RAW argument, there is more than enough ambiguity for interpretation. Without a profile, some of the rules that expect a profile for a shooting attack have gaps.

The intent of the argument in my opinion is to illustrate that both arguments are HIWPI.

@ Morgoth I'm only trying to find a way to make it work within the rules. If it came up in a game and my opponent insisted it didn't work, I'd be happy not to let them use it at all, I'd default to the exit game (I'm assuming you mean the process stops there as it breaks down, rather than packing up your models) on your flow chart with no problem. Then we are both satisfied that the rules have been followed, and can carry on enjoying our game.

@Nilok I completely respect what you have said, and I do see the ambiguity. That's what I have been trying to navigate to a route that uses the rules to resolve the power in a way that satisfies both sides. It isn't fair to one side that a vital step be inexplicably bypassed because of unclear wording, neither is it fair for the other side to have an unusable psychic power for the same fault.

blaktoof wrote:
Nos, you are still ignoring the RAW of having to roll to hit and claiming that the ld roll is not contingent on rolling to hit to ignore a required step.

This is proven because if it were not someone could cite the rule in psychic shriek that allows it to not perform the required to hit roll, or rather grants permission to resolve without doing what it is required to do by its type.

I am not saying the roll to hit isn't required

I have never said that

Stop lying and claiming otherwise.

I am saying the roll to hit is not contingent on you resolving the rest of the power. Because that's true. The 3d6 roll has no link to the to hit result. At all. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

So, prove your claim. FIFTH time of asking. Or can't you do so? It's ok to admit you're wrong on this. You may regain some credibility.

 JamesY wrote:

@Nilok I completely respect what you have said, and I do see the ambiguity. That's what I have been trying to navigate to a route that uses the rules to resolve the power in a way that satisfies both sides. It isn't fair to one side that a vital step be inexplicably bypassed because of unclear wording, neither is it fair for the other side to have an unusable psychic power for the same fault.

But that isn't the case though, both sides have a non-functioning psychic power that they house rule to work in different ways.

@matt True, but unless both sides are using shriek, someone is getting an unfair benefit if it's an all or nothing decision, unless you roll off every time it is used that is.

Well... that's the way 40k is in general. If someone has a WK and someone doesn't, the person with it has an unfair benefit.

I'd hardly call skipping a To Hit roll or making up a number of dice to make a To Hit roll with a house rule an unfair advantage though.

I don't know, I've seen Ps completely remove elite units and hq's in one go a few times. It only needs 1 wc, so making it even easier to cause damage by removing a step I'd say could create an advantage. We're discussing the crumbs now though, so I'll go back to agreeing to disagree and exiting the discussion respectfully.

We can definitely agree on the wk though...

blaktoof wrote:


This is not a good analogy or comparison...

It is a good analogy/comparison as both situations have an undefined aspect that we are told to resolve.

So do we skip the to hit roll and the application of -1S/T or do we make up rules to try and roll to hit and apply the -1S/T to a vehicle.

 JamesY wrote:
@ Morgoth I'm only trying to find a way to make it work within the rules. If it came up in a game and my opponent insisted it didn't work, I'd be happy not to let them use it at all, I'd default to the exit game (I'm assuming you mean the process stops there as it breaks down, rather than packing up your models) on your flow chart with no problem. Then we are both satisfied that the rules have been followed, and can carry on enjoying our game.

The way to make it work within the rules is to cast psychic shriek, disregard the witchfire weapon profile which does not apply because no weapon profile, and proceed to resolve the psychic power.

What I mean is that you can either play the game as it is written (continue on error), accept that Psychic Shriek is badass, or leave because you can't tolerate the fact that Psychic Shriek does not follow any witchfire-as-a-shooting-weapon rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JamesY wrote:
I don't know, I've seen Ps completely remove elite units and hq's in one go a few times. It only needs 1 wc, so making it even easier to cause damage by removing a step I'd say could create an advantage. We're discussing the crumbs now though, so I'll go back to agreeing to disagree and exiting the discussion respectfully.

We can definitely agree on the wk though...

So your argument to change the rules from "psychic shriek requires no To Hit rolls" to "it does" is that you think PS is too powerful ?

I guess that's a great way to justify your way to play it, doesn't make it rules however.