I did see one other thread about this but it was mostly arguing whether a unit with BS 0 could use psychic shriek and I couldn't find a clear answer.

Snap shot entry says abilities that don't use BS can't use snapshots. Witchfire entry says that to-hit rolls must be made. FAQ entry on page 1 adds the part where Shriek auto hits.

But only snap shots can be taken against invisible units. Shriek can't snap shot.

Having a disagreement with friends over this. I have a migraine and need help slogging through this one.

BS0 has no relevance for this argument.
BRB Snap Shots says, " Any shooting attack that does not use BS cannot be 'fired' as a Snap Shot."
FAQ says, "no To Hit roll is required - the attack hits automatically."

Unlike FMCs/Flyers "Hard to Hit" rule, Snap Shots doesn't say anything about auto-hitting. Compare those two wordings to see how GW could've easily stated this for SS but didn't.

So Psychic Shriek doesn't actually not use BS, it just doesn't require it.

Although...isn't there something about some GSC with BS0 who CAN use Psychic Shriek....

So does Psychic Shriek auto hit invisible units?

But yeh, snap shots makes them bs1, then shriek hits automatically anyway even after that modification.

PsycicSpaceElf wrote:
So does Psychic Shriek auto hit invisible units?

Shriek doesn't roll to hit so it can't snap shot. So it can't hit invisible units

 CrownAxe wrote:

PsycicSpaceElf wrote:
So does Psychic Shriek auto hit invisible units?

Shriek doesn't roll to hit so it can't snap shot. So it can't hit invisible units

Ding, Ding, we have a winner.

Shots that auto-hit cannot be resolved as snap-shots
Invisibility forces shooting attacks to be resolved as snap-shots
Ergo, Shriek cannot be resolved against an Invisible unit.

-

They're arguing that the 5th sentence of the first paragraph on Witchfires allows Psychic Shriek to be fired as a Snap Shot.

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

So their argument seems to be that Psychic Shriek can make snap shots, which reduce the shooter's Ballistic Skill to 1, but that it always hits so it doesn't matter.

PsycicSpaceElf wrote:
They're arguing that the 5th sentence of the first paragraph on Witchfires allows Psychic Shriek to be fired as a Snap Shot.

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

So their argument seems to be that Psychic Shriek can make snap shots, which reduce the shooter's Ballistic Skill to 1, but that it always hits so it doesn't matter.

The witchfires rules also say all witchfires must roll to hit and we aren't doing that with psychic shriek now are we?

I appreciate the replies.

The errata entry for psychic shriek is supposed to be placed after the 4th sentence in the first paragraph of the Witchfire entry. Right after the sentence where it says that witchfires have to roll to hit. The errata specifically states that Psychic Shriek does not roll to hit, but hits automatically.

it is a bit confusing that the rulebook seems to give permission for witchfires to snapshot.

That is the part that my friend is hung up on. If it can snap shot then it can be used against invisible units.

(Errata 2017 BRB)

Page 27 – The Psychic Phase, Witchfire
Add the following sentence after the fourth sentence of
the first paragraph:
‘However, some witchfire powers do not have a weapon
profile (such as the Telepathy power, Psychic Shriek);
where this is the case, no To Hit roll is required – the
attack hits automatically.’


(Witchfire entry BRB)

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

The answer would be... yes. Psychic shriek can be used against invisible units and auto hits them. There is no need to roll

mchammadad wrote:
(Errata 2017 BRB)

Page 27 – The Psychic Phase, Witchfire
Add the following sentence after the fourth sentence of
the first paragraph:
‘However, some witchfire powers do not have a weapon
profile (such as the Telepathy power, Psychic Shriek);
where this is the case, no To Hit roll is required – the
attack hits automatically.’


(Witchfire entry BRB)

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

The answer would be... yes. Psychic shriek can be used against invisible units and auto hits them. There is no need to roll

None of what you said lets Shriek snap fire. Snap Fire's restriction on "can not shoot if you don't roll to hit" is still there. In fact your 2nd quote proves that it still follows normal snap fire rules because it makes snap shots in the same way as other shooting weapons.

Actually, couldn't you interpret the FAQ errata as saying Psychic Shriek bypasses shooting entirely? "No To-Hit roll is required" could just as easily mean "there is no shooting test". Then it's a moot point whether it can Snap Fire or not and it auto-hits the invisible unit.

Audustum wrote:
Actually, couldn't you interpret the FAQ errata as saying Psychic Shriek bypasses shooting entirely? "No To-Hit roll is required" could just as easily mean "there is no shooting test". Then it's a moot point whether it can Snap Fire or not and it auto-hits the invisible unit.

No, you couldn't. Since making a shooting attack has several steps, out of which hitting is only one step. You are still making a shooting attack which explicitly does not roll to hit.

Another rule prevents attacks that do not roll to hit to be used when only snap-shots can be used, ergo, you cannot use auto-hit to circumvent invisibility.

This was both a buff and a debuff to flying demon princes, no, you don't need to have a discussion and roll to hit on 2+ to shriek, but you won't be jinking while you do it.
Flipping this by having the target rather than the shooter force snap shots changes nothing.

(Witchfire Powers (BRB)

Witchfire
Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. Indeed, they are often referred to as psychic
shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons. Just like when
shooting a weapon, a Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point) and
cannot be locked in combat if he wishes to manifest a witchfire power. Similarly, a
witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically. Psykers can make Snap Shots in the Psychic phase with witchfire powers in
the same way as with other shooting weapons. Saves can be taken against Wounds from
witchfire in the same way as for any other shooting attack, and hits are allocated to the
closest target models to the Psyker.

Unlike firing a shooting weapon though, a Psyker can manifest several different witchfire
powers during the same phase (assuming he has enough Warp Charge) and each can
target a different unit if you so choose. Manifesting witchfire powers does not prevent the
Psyker (or his unit) from firing weapons in the following Shooting phase, nor does it
prevent the Psyker’s unit from Running, Turbo-boosting or moving Flat Out. A Psyker
who manifests a witchfire power can target a different unit with his other ranged weapons
in the Shooting phase. Witchfire powers cannot be used to make Overwatch
attacks.

There are several different sub-types of witchfire, each applying slightly different
targeting restrictions. If the witchfire does not list a sub-type, or simply describes itself as
a psychic shooting attack, use the rules given above to resolve it. If it has one of the
following subtypes, use the rules for that sub-type

(FAQ ruling Starts here)

‘However, some witchfire powers do not have a weapon
profile (such as the Telepathy power, Psychic Shriek);
where this is the case, no To Hit roll is required – the
attack hits automatically

The ENTIRE witchfire ruling is right here. Since this is not a blast, or a template or a overwatch attack it clearly states that you can use it even when firing snap shots AND because it does not have a profile it automatically hits

It's basically saying that, "This attack needs a roll of a 6 to hit, it automatically rolls a 6 to hit"

It is not a blast,or a template, it is not a sub type of witchfire (Nova,Beam,Focussed witchfire) and it has no profile, it hits the target automatically according to these very rules

"no To Hit roll is required – the
attack hits automatically "

If you do not make a hit roll,you do not use your BS, triggering the snap shot clause
" Any shooting attack that does not use BS cannot be 'fired' as a Snap Shot."

Trying very hard to explain why they are different things isn't working, because they aren't.

But you CAN make a To Hit roll. It's just not required.
And even if you do make the roll, it hits automatically, regardless of what the roll is.

This is the debate we've had pre-faq about what happens if you roll to hit with Shriek and miss. We decided that it didn't matter if you hit or miss, the effects still occur. Well now we've got that it just auto hits.

But you can still roll if you want, which means that BS is considered.

mchammadad wrote:
(Witchfire Powers (BRB)

Witchfire
Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. Indeed, they are often referred to as psychic
shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons. Just like when
shooting a weapon, a Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point) and
cannot be locked in combat if he wishes to manifest a witchfire power. Similarly, a
witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically. Psykers can make Snap Shots in the Psychic phase with witchfire powers in
the same way as with other shooting weapons. Saves can be taken against Wounds from
witchfire in the same way as for any other shooting attack, and hits are allocated to the
closest target models to the Psyker.

Unlike firing a shooting weapon though, a Psyker can manifest several different witchfire
powers during the same phase (assuming he has enough Warp Charge) and each can
target a different unit if you so choose. Manifesting witchfire powers does not prevent the
Psyker (or his unit) from firing weapons in the following Shooting phase, nor does it
prevent the Psyker’s unit from Running, Turbo-boosting or moving Flat Out. A Psyker
who manifests a witchfire power can target a different unit with his other ranged weapons
in the Shooting phase. Witchfire powers cannot be used to make Overwatch
attacks.

There are several different sub-types of witchfire, each applying slightly different
targeting restrictions. If the witchfire does not list a sub-type, or simply describes itself as
a psychic shooting attack, use the rules given above to resolve it. If it has one of the
following subtypes, use the rules for that sub-type

(FAQ ruling Starts here)

‘However, some witchfire powers do not have a weapon
profile (such as the Telepathy power, Psychic Shriek);
where this is the case, no To Hit roll is required – the
attack hits automatically

The ENTIRE witchfire ruling is right here. Since this is not a blast, or a template or a overwatch attack it clearly states that you can use it even when firing snap shots AND because it does not have a profile it automatically hits

It's basically saying that, "This attack needs a roll of a 6 to hit, it automatically rolls a 6 to hit"

It is not a blast,or a template, it is not a sub type of witchfire (Nova,Beam,Focussed witchfire) and it has no profile, it hits the target automatically according to these very rules

Go find the snap shooting rules. Those will add on to your knowledge posted above. If an attack does not actually roll to-hit, such as a blast weapon (or Psychic Shriek, for example), then it can not be snap fired. You're ignoring the fact that it's still a shooting attack as a result of being a witchfire and thus still follows rules for shooting attacks except where explicitly noted otherwise. It hits automatically but is still never anywhere given permission to snap fire.

Rules like 'Invis', 'Hard to Hit' and 'Jink' force any shooting attack to be resolved as Snap-shots.
Shooting attacks that auto-hit cannot be resolved in this manner and will auto-fail.

It is that simple.
Shriek is a shooting attack that auto-hits. If anything forces it to be resolved as snap-shots (see above) it cannot be resolved at all.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
But you CAN make a To Hit roll. It's just not required.
And even if you do make the roll, it hits automatically, regardless of what the roll is.

This is the debate we've had pre-faq about what happens if you roll to hit with Shriek and miss. We decided that it didn't matter if you hit or miss, the effects still occur. Well now we've got that it just auto hits.

But you can still roll if you want, which means that BS is considered.

Even if this were the case (most would say it isn't) the fact that Shriek now has the "auto-hit" verbiage means that the "cannot be resolved as snap-shots" comes into play.
So go ahead and roll that dice that doesn't matter. It still auto-hits and thus cannot be resolved against rules that force snap-shots.

-

Snap Shots (BRB)

Under specific circumstances, models must fire Snap Shots – opportunistic bursts of fire
‘snapped’ off in the general direction of the target. The most common occurrences of Snap
Shots are when models with Heavy weapons move and shoot in the same turn or when
units make Overwatch shots. If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than
shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of
those shots, unless it has a Ballistic Skill of 0 (in which case it may not shoot).

The Ballistic Skill of a model firing a Snap Shot can only be modified by special rules that
specifically state that they affect Snap Shots, along with any other restrictions (some may
only modify Ballistic Skill when firing Overwatch Snap Shots, for example). If a special
rule doesn’t specifically state that it affects Snap Shots, then the Snap Shot is resolved at
Ballistic Skill 1.

Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special
rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. In addition, any shooting attack that
does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot. These exceptions aside, Snap
Shots are treated in the same manner as any other shooting attack made with a Ballistic
Skill of 1.

Witchfire powers still count as balistic skill 1 (Unless the model has BS 0) Psychic shriek is an auto hit shooting attack that is resolved at BS 1

There, instead of speculating the rules. I actually print the full rule so i cant be disputed

So.... please.... enlighten me.... where does it say in here that an ability that still uses BS and auto hits can't be used in snap shots

 Galef wrote:
Rules like 'Invis', 'Hard to Hit' and 'Jink' force any shooting attack to be resolved as Snap-shots.
Shooting attacks that auto-hit cannot be resolved in this manner and will auto-fail.

It is that simple.
Shriek is a shooting attack that auto-hits. If anything forces it to be resolved as snap-shots (see above) it cannot be resolved at all.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
But you CAN make a To Hit roll. It's just not required.
And even if you do make the roll, it hits automatically, regardless of what the roll is.

This is the debate we've had pre-faq about what happens if you roll to hit with Shriek and miss. We decided that it didn't matter if you hit or miss, the effects still occur. Well now we've got that it just auto hits.

But you can still roll if you want, which means that BS is considered.

Even if this were the case (most would say it isn't) the fact that Shriek now has the "auto-hit" verbiage means that the "cannot be resolved as snap-shots" comes into play.
So go ahead and roll that dice that doesn't matter. It still auto-hits and thus cannot be resolved against rules that force snap-shots.

-

I'll have to get the wording, but wouldn't this mean Nova powers also can't hit invisible? I think they also read that they "automatically hit".

From the Main Rulebook FAQ:

Q: How does the Invisibility psychic power work in relation to nova and beam powers, and Template and Blast weapons not initially targeting the invisible unit?

A: You cannot choose to target an invisible unit with such attacks, but should models from the unit end up beneath the template, marker or line of fire, then they can be hit using the normal rules. The invisible unit would be hit if it was on the line of a beam, if it was in the range of a nova, or if a blast ended up being scattered onto it. For Template weapons, as long as you follow the rules – ensuring that the template ‘covers as many models in the target unit as possible, without touching any other friendly units’ – then if the invisible unit was also fully or partially under the template, it would be hit.

Audustum wrote:

You can still make the roll and add your BS. It just doesn't matter what you roll. The same is true for Novas. You can't disqualify the one without disqualifying the other and the FAQ says Novas are O.K.

You don't "make the roll and add your BS" to resolve a shooting attack. In a normal non-blast shooting attack you make a roll then compare the result of that roll to chart to determine if it hit. If it auto hits you don't make that comparison so BS never comes into play and is not used.

It's also worth noting in all this discussion that for the same reasons nova attacks can't make snap shots either. They have rules that allow them to hit invisible units and flyers regardless, but you cannot fire a nova in overwatch and you cannot fire a heavy nova after moving.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

You can still make the roll and add your BS. It just doesn't matter what you roll. The same is true for Novas. You can't disqualify the one without disqualifying the other and the FAQ says Novas are O.K.

You don't "make the roll and add your BS" to resolve a shooting attack. In a normal non-blast shooting attack you make a roll then compare the result of that roll to chart to determine if it hit. If it auto hits you don't make that comparison so BS never comes into play and is not used.

It's also worth noting in all this discussion that for the same reasons nova attacks can't make snap shots either. They have rules that allow them to hit invisible units and flyers regardless, but you cannot fire a nova in overwatch and you cannot fire a heavy nova after moving.

Or if you've jinked, I assume, which is more likely. What nova has "heavy" in its profile?

But seriously. You don't use BS with an attack that automatically hits. Believing that to be true is why you seem to believe everything else, and you need to let that go, because it's not true. Find it for me. Show me where you have the option "roll and add bs even though it doesn't matter" to a template weapon.

Jacksmiles wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

You can still make the roll and add your BS. It just doesn't matter what you roll. The same is true for Novas. You can't disqualify the one without disqualifying the other and the FAQ says Novas are O.K.

You don't "make the roll and add your BS" to resolve a shooting attack. In a normal non-blast shooting attack you make a roll then compare the result of that roll to chart to determine if it hit. If it auto hits you don't make that comparison so BS never comes into play and is not used.

It's also worth noting in all this discussion that for the same reasons nova attacks can't make snap shots either. They have rules that allow them to hit invisible units and flyers regardless, but you cannot fire a nova in overwatch and you cannot fire a heavy nova after moving.

Or if you've jinked, I assume, which is more likely. What nova has "heavy" in its profile?

But seriously. You don't use BS with an attack that automatically hits. Believing that to be true is why you seem to believe everything else, and you need to let that go, because it's not true. Find it for me. Show me where you have the option "roll and add bs even though it doesn't matter" to a template weapon.

Go back to the analogies on page 1. Psychic Shriek is more like a nova than a template weapons. Novas have an optional roll and can hit invisibility, thus Shriek can to. You're just making everyone regurgitate 2 pages of arguments at this point.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

You can still make the roll and add your BS. It just doesn't matter what you roll. The same is true for Novas. You can't disqualify the one without disqualifying the other and the FAQ says Novas are O.K.

You don't "make the roll and add your BS" to resolve a shooting attack. In a normal non-blast shooting attack you make a roll then compare the result of that roll to chart to determine if it hit. If it auto hits you don't make that comparison so BS never comes into play and is not used.

Audustum wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

You can still make the roll and add your BS. It just doesn't matter what you roll. The same is true for Novas. You can't disqualify the one without disqualifying the other and the FAQ says Novas are O.K.

You don't "make the roll and add your BS" to resolve a shooting attack. In a normal non-blast shooting attack you make a roll then compare the result of that roll to chart to determine if it hit. If it auto hits you don't make that comparison so BS never comes into play and is not used.

It's also worth noting in all this discussion that for the same reasons nova attacks can't make snap shots either. They have rules that allow them to hit invisible units and flyers regardless, but you cannot fire a nova in overwatch and you cannot fire a heavy nova after moving.

Or if you've jinked, I assume, which is more likely. What nova has "heavy" in its profile?

But seriously. You don't use BS with an attack that automatically hits. Believing that to be true is why you seem to believe everything else, and you need to let that go, because it's not true. Find it for me. Show me where you have the option "roll and add bs even though it doesn't matter" to a template weapon.

Go back to the analogies on page 1. Psychic Shriek is more like a nova than a template weapons. Novas have an optional roll and can hit invisibility, thus Shriek can to. You're just making everyone regurgitate 2 pages of arguments at this point.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

You can still make the roll and add your BS. It just doesn't matter what you roll. The same is true for Novas. You can't disqualify the one without disqualifying the other and the FAQ says Novas are O.K.

You don't "make the roll and add your BS" to resolve a shooting attack. In a normal non-blast shooting attack you make a roll then compare the result of that roll to chart to determine if it hit. If it auto hits you don't make that comparison so BS never comes into play and is not used.

Oh dear, if you're looking at the To-Hit chart that's the wrong place. That's for close quarters combat. For shooting, you deduct your BS from 7. Alternatively, you add your BS to your roll and attempt to equal or exceed 7. You can do this for Shriek ("not required" is permissive), it just hits anyway.

It's also worth noting in all this discussion that for the same reasons nova attacks can't make snap shots either. They have rules that allow them to hit invisible units and flyers regardless, but you cannot fire a nova in overwatch and you cannot fire a heavy nova after moving.

An errata is when a company adds rules. A FAQ is when they answer a question within the rules as written. The 'novas hit invisible stuff' is from the FAQ portion not an errata portion. That means, GW is saying under RAW novas target and hit invisible units and fliers. There is no special rule allowing them to do this.

GW uses the same language to describe Shriek and novas mechanisms for hitting units. Thus, under GW's interpretation of RAW, Shriek can hit invisible.

Novas have rules and FAQ text specifically saying they can hit those units. Psychic Shriek does not. You can't apply nova rules just because you have decided they work similar or they overlap on some of the rules wording.

There is a chart for shooting to hit as well. It happens that the number on the chart equate to 7-BS but the chart does exist. Either way it doesn't change the fact that you don't make that comparison if you auto hit. Rules only tell you to make one determination of whether the attack hits. You want to determine both ways then choose the better option.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Even if you did use both options, if you compare using BS to determine hit then ignore that result because it auto hits then BS still wasn't used in game mechanics. You went through a mental exercise with BS to justify your position but it played no part whatsoever in the resolution of that attack.

Interesting discussion. To me it comes down to the part in the FAQ that says that "a roll to hit is not required" and whether or bit that gives permission to technically make a roll. I think the evidence leans further in the "can't snap shot because auto hits" direction but it's fuzzy enough that we almost need clarification from GW. How did nobody catch this in the earlier version of the FAQ?

If it's ever settled by GW that Psychic Shriek does indeed hit Invisible targets automatically it makes Shriek an amazing power for bypassing two of the most common defensive crutches used today, Invisibility and Void Shield Generators.

I was surprised to see in the FAQ that Shriek is not intercepted by the Void Shield. It's a shooting attack that is targeting units within the shield which can't actually hurt the shield.

If it auto hits invisibility too does that make Psychic Shriek the best Primaris?

There is a chart for shooting to hit as well. It happens that the number on the chart equate to 7-BS but the chart does exist. Either way it doesn't change the fact that you don't make that comparison if you auto hit. Rules only tell you to make one determination of whether the attack hits. You want to determine both ways then choose the better option.

Trimming the quote tree!

The errata (thus new rule) says "not required" so you actually do have permission to do one if you want.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Even if you did use both options, if you compare using BS to determine hit then ignore that result because it auto hits then BS still wasn't used in game mechanics. You went through a mental exercise with BS to justify your position but it played no part whatsoever in the resolution of that attack.

Re-consult the dictionary definitions of 'use' I quoted. I actually repeated one just about verbatim. So yes, we 'used' the BS.

PsycicSpaceElf wrote:
Interesting discussion. To me it comes down to the part in the FAQ that says that "a roll to hit is not required" and whether or bit that gives permission to technically make a roll. I think the evidence leans further in the "can't snap shot because auto hits" direction but it's fuzzy enough that we almost need clarification from GW. How did nobody catch this in the earlier version of the FAQ?

If it's ever settled by GW that Psychic Shriek does indeed hit Invisible targets automatically it makes Shriek an amazing power for bypassing two of the most common defensive crutches used today, Invisibility and Void Shield Generators.

I was surprised to see in the FAQ that Shriek is not intercepted by the Void Shield. It's a shooting attack that is targeting units within the shield which can't actually hurt the shield.

If it auto hits invisibility too does that make Psychic Shriek the best Primaris?

I think it hands down absolutely would be. If this logic is true, then nothing would prevent Psychic Shriek from hitting flying monstrous creatures either. It'd be one of the most reliable shooting attacks in the game.

At this point, it looks like everyone is going in circles too so I'd agree it's ambiguous (though I come down a bit more on the other side of it than you). Thus, ask your TO, consult your gaming group and if you feel like it, pester GW for an additional clarification. I don't think we'll be able to reach a firm conclusion without a ruling from a higher authority.

Let's take a moment to recap your stance on this:

You decide to make a roll the rules expressly tell you is not needed because those rules don't tell you that you can't. Based on that roll and the BS of the model you determine if that attack would hit. Regardless of that result, you ignore everything up to this point because those aforementioned rules also dictate the result and the attack hits. Despite those actions having to other game impact, you have decided Psychic Shriek does use BS because you took then ignored an otherwise pointless action, so can not only make but also automatically hits Snap Shots.

What if you decided not to roll? It's been made clear the roll is not required so intuitively there would be no reason to do so. Now we don't have a roll to use so no way at all we can apply BS. Everything else about the attack is going to resolve the exact same way because it still auto hits, but now there is no way to claim we have used BS. It never came under consideration in this situation.

We now have two scenarios with the same rule that in almost all respects resolve exactly the same way, but in one we are claiming it uses BS because of an unnecessary roll made and the other is does not. Should we now reach the conclusion that Psychic Shriek sometimes uses BS and sometimes doesn't, based on whether the player decided/remembered to roll a die that otherwise doesn't matter at all?

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Let's take a moment to recap your stance on this:

You decide to make a roll the rules expressly tell you is not needed because those rules don't tell you that you can't. Based on that roll and the BS of the model you determine if that attack would hit. Regardless of that result, you ignore everything up to this point because those aforementioned rules also dictate the result and the attack hits. Despite those actions having to other game impact, you have decided Psychic Shriek does use BS because you took then ignored an otherwise pointless action, so can not only make but also automatically hits Snap Shots.

The rules just as expressly provide that you may if you so choose, but your spin aside, this is mostly right. We have made a roll to hit and then noted the attack scored a hit (which would be automatic).

What if you decided not to roll? It's been made clear the roll is not required so intuitively there would be no reason to do so. Now we don't have a roll to use so no way at all we can apply BS. Everything else about the attack is going to resolve the exact same way because it still auto hits, but now there is no way to claim we have used BS. It never came under consideration in this situation.

This would be incorrect. BS was still part of the calculation even if it was inconsequential. Consult the dictionary definition again.

We now have two scenarios with the same rule that in almost all respects resolve exactly the same way, but in one we are claiming it uses BS because of an unnecessary roll made and the other is does not. Should we now reach the conclusion that Psychic Shriek sometimes uses BS and sometimes doesn't, based on whether the player decided/remembered to roll a die that otherwise doesn't matter at all?

Of course not. We have two scenarios but the same rules being employed in both. Remember, the rules say "does not use BS", which is mandatory and global; BS cannot touch it anywhere in any way. Since Psychic Shriek can use BS, permissively, it is not something that does not use BS, mandatory, ever.

Just because we chose not to use the roll that time does not change the fact that Psychic Shriek, as a whole, uses BS. Thus, we have no contradiction. You're just hung-up on a very narrow definition and application of 'use'.

Seriously?

If you don't use BS to meaningfully impact the result of the rule, then BS has not nor cannot be used.
Ergo, Shriek is a rule that does not use BS and is considered to auto-hit. Thereby meaning it cannot be resolved against an invisible unit.
The only BS here is what anyone who really thinks otherwise is full of.

No, I am "hung-up" on the idea that a stat that does nothing except determine if an attack hits has no bearing on an attack that can never miss. And as I pointed out before, you only make a determination about whether an attack hits once. Since in this case that is dictated by the ability, whether or not you feel you have permission to make the roll you don't get to make a second determination on hitting just to be able to say it used BS.

Audustum wrote:

This would be incorrect. BS was still part of the calculation even if it was inconsequential. Consult the dictionary definition again.

Actually, you're wrong. BS isn't used because BS determines what it takes to hit, and when BS is used a roll of 1 always fails. If you automatically hit, you aren't having the 1 in 6 chance of missing even if your ballistic skill is a 6 (or the 1 in 36 chance by rolling 2 1's if your ballistic skill is 10). Using ballistic skill = having a chance of failure. Automatically hitting = no chance of failure = ballistic score is not being used.

 doctortom wrote:
Automatically hitting = no chance of failure = ballistic score is not being used.

Bingo!

PsycicSpaceElf wrote:
Interesting discussion. To me it comes down to the part in the FAQ that says that "a roll to hit is not required" and whether or bit that gives permission to technically make a roll. I think the evidence leans further in the "can't snap shot because auto hits" direction but it's fuzzy enough that we almost need clarification from GW. How did nobody catch this in the earlier version of the FAQ?

It's only fuzzy because one person is trying their hardest to make it fuzzy and you've fallen for it. In fact, what happened with the FAQ was people realized the consequences of it being an automatic hit. Such as can't be snap fired and can't target invisible units.

The evidence leans further in the "can't snap shot because auto hits" direction because it can't snap shot because it auto hits.

Jacksmiles wrote:

PsycicSpaceElf wrote:
Interesting discussion. To me it comes down to the part in the FAQ that says that "a roll to hit is not required" and whether or bit that gives permission to technically make a roll. I think the evidence leans further in the "can't snap shot because auto hits" direction but it's fuzzy enough that we almost need clarification from GW. How did nobody catch this in the earlier version of the FAQ?

It's only fuzzy because one person is trying their hardest to make it fuzzy and you've fallen for it. In fact, what happened with the FAQ was people realized the consequences of it being an automatic hit. Such as can't be snap fired and can't target invisible units.

The evidence leans further in the "can't snap shot because auto hits" direction because it can't snap shot because it auto hits.

Haha well the post above which made the point about the lack of miss chance defuzzed it more for me.

More than one person feels that Psychic Shriek should auto hit Invisible units. I've posed the question elsewhere and there was no consensus there either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just thought the language was vague. If it said "Do not roll to hit, the attack hits automatically" it would be obvious. The "not required" wording is what made it less than crystal clear to me.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
No, I am "hung-up" on the idea that a stat that does nothing except determine if an attack hits has no bearing on an attack that can never miss. And as I pointed out before, you only make a determination about whether an attack hits once. Since in this case that is dictated by the ability, whether or not you feel you have permission to make the roll you don't get to make a second determination on hitting just to be able to say it used BS.

That's where you'd be wrong. Again, look at the plain language of the rules. It's rather notable that I'm quoting them and you're not. You're trying to invoke a rule that only applies to attacks that do not use BS. I listed the dictionary definition of 'use' and walked you through two different ways it applies to Psychic Shriek. Just throwing up your arms and saying 'na-uh' isn't going to waive that. The caveat for weapons that "do not use BS" goes to the entirety of a weapons usage and not to one particular kind of usage, unless you can show some RAW otherwise.

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

This would be incorrect. BS was still part of the calculation even if it was inconsequential. Consult the dictionary definition again.

Actually, you're wrong. BS isn't used because BS determines what it takes to hit, and when BS is used a roll of 1 always fails. If you automatically hit, you aren't having the 1 in 6 chance of missing even if your ballistic skill is a 6 (or the 1 in 36 chance by rolling 2 1's if your ballistic skill is 10). Using ballistic skill = having a chance of failure. Automatically hitting = no chance of failure = ballistic score is not being used.

This is one of those things that sounds right, but is actually incorrect. As mchammadad laid out previously in this very thread, regardless of what you roll, it turns into a '6' in order to secure the automatic hit. Thus, you still roll, but you can't roll a 1 once the result is finalized. You're entire example breaks down after that. That's the only way to reconcile this with Novas being able to hit invisible units and also 'automatically hitting'.

Alternatively, I could see GW saying it works like Harlequin attacks (see below) on immobile vehicles and buildings, but I'm trying to add as little as possible to each interpretation.

Jacksmiles wrote:

PsycicSpaceElf wrote:
Interesting discussion. To me it comes down to the part in the FAQ that says that "a roll to hit is not required" and whether or bit that gives permission to technically make a roll. I think the evidence leans further in the "can't snap shot because auto hits" direction but it's fuzzy enough that we almost need clarification from GW. How did nobody catch this in the earlier version of the FAQ?

It's only fuzzy because one person is trying their hardest to make it fuzzy and you've fallen for it. In fact, what happened with the FAQ was people realized the consequences of it being an automatic hit. Such as can't be snap fired and can't target invisible units.

The evidence leans further in the "can't snap shot because auto hits" direction because it can't snap shot because it auto hits.

Actually, I'm a late comer to this but kudos to reading the thread. mchammadad was the original proponent and I thought his arguments were right (and had some free time today).

PsycicSpaceElf wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

PsycicSpaceElf wrote:
Interesting discussion. To me it comes down to the part in the FAQ that says that "a roll to hit is not required" and whether or bit that gives permission to technically make a roll. I think the evidence leans further in the "can't snap shot because auto hits" direction but it's fuzzy enough that we almost need clarification from GW. How did nobody catch this in the earlier version of the FAQ?

It's only fuzzy because one person is trying their hardest to make it fuzzy and you've fallen for it. In fact, what happened with the FAQ was people realized the consequences of it being an automatic hit. Such as can't be snap fired and can't target invisible units.

The evidence leans further in the "can't snap shot because auto hits" direction because it can't snap shot because it auto hits.

Haha well the post above which made the point about the lack of miss chance defuzzed it more for me.

More than one person feels that Psychic Shriek should auto hit Invisible units. I've posed the question elsewhere and there was no consensus there either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just thought the language was vague. If it said "Do not roll to hit, the attack hits automatically" it would be obvious. The "not required" wording is what made it less than crystal clear to me.

It's not just that which should make it confusing, it's also the fact that identical wording is used for Novas as for Psychic Shriek. Novas are also said to "target" and "hit automatically". As I explained, this is not an errata: GW is saying the RAW allows for this, which means any contrary interpretation is violating GW's own interpretation of RAW. Obviously, we have to stick with GW's otherwise no opinion is valid and we have no bedrock basis.

Anyway, I'm not saying the GW solution is elegant, but the problem I'm seeing in other conclusions here is that people are adding their own additions without any basis, like saying that Novas received a special rule. They didn't; GW is saying RAW allows 'automatic hitting' to hit invisibility. We can't just declare that to be an errata when it's a FAQ.

Moreover, rolling for an automatic hit isn't even unprecedented. GW has melee weapons roll To Hit on vehicles if their special ability procs on To Hit rolls of 6 even though hitting a vehicle is automatic.

From the Harlequin FAQ:

Q: What does a Harlequin Troupe armed with Harlequin's caresses do to a building or immobile vehicle? As you automatically hit does this count as a roll of 6 or is the roll totally ignored?
A: In this situation, roll all of your attacks. None of the attacks will miss, and any rolls of 6 benefit from the Caress of Death rule.

Assault To-Hit rolls are also supposed to always fail on a 1 and yet, here we are.

Audustum wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

This would be incorrect. BS was still part of the calculation even if it was inconsequential. Consult the dictionary definition again.

Actually, you're wrong. BS isn't used because BS determines what it takes to hit, and when BS is used a roll of 1 always fails. If you automatically hit, you aren't having the 1 in 6 chance of missing even if your ballistic skill is a 6 (or the 1 in 36 chance by rolling 2 1's if your ballistic skill is 10). Using ballistic skill = having a chance of failure. Automatically hitting = no chance of failure = ballistic score is not being used.

This is one of those things that sounds right, but is actually incorrect. As mchammadad laid out previously in this very thread, regardless of what you roll, it turns into a '6' in order to secure the automatic hit. Thus, you still roll, but you can't roll a 1 once the result is finalized. You're entire example breaks down after that. That's the only way to reconcile this with Novas being able to hit invisible units and also 'automatically hitting'.

Please quote from the rulebook that you roll and it turns into a 6. Automatically hitting means you don't roll, which means you aren't rolling and turning it into something else - it means you aren't rolling. Period. You might enjoy your theory there, there's no basis in the rules for that to apply.

Audustum wrote:
Alternatively, I could see GW saying it works like Harlequin attacks (see below) on immobile vehicles and buildings, but I'm trying to add as little as possible to each interpretation.

Well, you're certainly adding to the interpretation, changing "automatically hitting" from not rolling to rolling but changing the roll to a 6, which is not stated anywhere in the rules.


Also, claiming that an automatic hit still counts as using ballistic skill means that there literally would be no situation that would not use ballistic skill for a ranged attack if that were true, which would mean that there would not be any need to say that attacks not using BS automatically miss since (by your definition) all attack use it.

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

This would be incorrect. BS was still part of the calculation even if it was inconsequential. Consult the dictionary definition again.

Actually, you're wrong. BS isn't used because BS determines what it takes to hit, and when BS is used a roll of 1 always fails. If you automatically hit, you aren't having the 1 in 6 chance of missing even if your ballistic skill is a 6 (or the 1 in 36 chance by rolling 2 1's if your ballistic skill is 10). Using ballistic skill = having a chance of failure. Automatically hitting = no chance of failure = ballistic score is not being used.

This is one of those things that sounds right, but is actually incorrect. As mchammadad laid out previously in this very thread, regardless of what you roll, it turns into a '6' in order to secure the automatic hit. Thus, you still roll, but you can't roll a 1 once the result is finalized. You're entire example breaks down after that. That's the only way to reconcile this with Novas being able to hit invisible units and also 'automatically hitting'.

Please quote from the rulebook that you roll and it turns into a 6. Automatically hitting means you don't roll, which means you aren't rolling and turning it into something else - it means you aren't rolling. Period. You might enjoy your theory there, there's no basis in the rules for that to apply.

Audustum wrote:
Please quote a rule where it says an "automatic hit" cannot roll.

You obviously don't understand how a permissive rules set works. If it doesn't say that you can do something, then you can not. Working with your position, I could place all of my models back on the board again after you've killed them because the rules don't say I cannot do so.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

 Ghaz wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Please quote a rule where it says an "automatic hit" cannot roll.

You obviously don't understand how a permissive rules set works. If it doesn't say that you can do something, then you can not. Working with your position, I could place all of my models back on the board again after you've killed them because the rules don't say I cannot do so.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

I think it's quite the opposite and you should read your own link. We have a ruling saying rolling is permissive, it's under Psychic Shriek's entry in the FAQ (and that actually is Errata). Thus, you have permission to roll or not roll. He's arguing you cannot choose to roll, thus he needs to show a rule supporting that.

Let's recap the situation here. That might help your understanding:

1. Originally, people said Psychic Shriek could not hit invisible if it did not roll. Under this interpretation, novas also cannot hit invisible as they do not roll to hit.
2. GW released an errata for Psychic Shriek saying it "hits automatically".
3. In the original rules, novas also say "hits automatically".
4. GW released a FAQ that says novas, based upon RAW, can hit invisible.
5. Someone now asks: can Psychic Shriek hit invisible?
6. Psychic Shriek has no provisions specifically referring to invisibility or snap shots.
7. Thus, we're left only with "hits automatically".
8. Since novas also "hit automatically" after targeting a unit, there is no reason to believe GW meant two different things by the exact same wording.

The onus is now on the naysayers to explain how "hits automatically" means two different things despite the literally same language or how GW failed to interpret its own rules (and thus we should abrogate them).

Psychic Shriek and nova are two different types of attack. You can't just decide they work the she, you need rules that tell you they work the same. That's how the game rules work. You can't do things unless you are given express permission to do then.

In the same line, the only rules I have seen for using BS is to determine if an attack hits. If to hit has already been determined those don't apply so you would need rules giving you permission to use BS when it isn't needed. Note that even if we accept that not required to roll still allows you to roll, rolling is not using BS and it does not give permission to do so.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Psychic Shriek and nova are two different types of attack. You can't just decide they work the she, you need rules that tell you they work the same. That's how the game rules work. You can't do things unless you are given express permission to do then.

In the same line, the only rules I have seen for using BS is to determine if an attack hits. If to hit has already been determined those don't apply so you would need rules giving you permission to use BS when it isn't needed. Note that even if we accept that not required to roll still allows you to roll, rolling is not using BS and it does not give permission to do so.

The rules DO tells us they work the same. They say both attacks "hit automatically" you're choosing to create two different definitions for the exact same language, that's the issue.

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Psychic Shriek and nova are two different types of attack. You can't just decide they work the she, you need rules that tell you they work the same. That's how the game rules work. You can't do things unless you are given express permission to do then.

In the same line, the only rules I have seen for using BS is to determine if an attack hits. If to hit has already been determined those don't apply so you would need rules giving you permission to use BS when it isn't needed. Note that even if we accept that not required to roll still allows you to roll, rolling is not using BS and it does not give permission to do so.

The rules DO tells us they work the same. They say both attacks "hit automatically" you're choosing to create two different definitions for the exact same language, that's the issue.

That is an unsupported assumption on your part. You only know with certainty that nova powers are intended to hit invisible units because of the FAQ. That FAQ doesn't mention Psychic Shriek. They share a line of rules text but that doesn't mean they are intended to work in all ways the same. In the absence of errata or FAQ answered that say otherwise you don't assume it works the same as a different FAQ answer, you assume it works the way the rules state. Which brings us back to you need rules that tell you to use BS when to hit has already been decided.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Psychic Shriek and nova are two different types of attack. You can't just decide they work the she, you need rules that tell you they work the same. That's how the game rules work. You can't do things unless you are given express permission to do then.

In the same line, the only rules I have seen for using BS is to determine if an attack hits. If to hit has already been determined those don't apply so you would need rules giving you permission to use BS when it isn't needed. Note that even if we accept that not required to roll still allows you to roll, rolling is not using BS and it does not give permission to do so.

The rules DO tells us they work the same. They say both attacks "hit automatically" you're choosing to create two different definitions for the exact same language, that's the issue.

That is an unsupported assumption on your part. You only know with certainty that nova powers are intended to hit invisible units because of the FAQ. That FAQ doesn't mention Psychic Shriek. They share a line of rules text but that doesn't mean they are intended to work in all ways the same. In the absence of errata or FAQ answered that say otherwise you don't assume it works the same as a different FAQ answer, you assume it works the way the rules state. Which brings us back to you need rules that tell you to use BS when to hit has already been decided.

So your argument is that GW meant two different things by the exact same language? If that's true we can't trust anything in the book!

Look at the errata again. Remember, this is the errata for Witchfires (of which novas are a sub-category) so it applies to all Witchfires (vanilla, focussed, beam, nova):

‘However, some witchfire powers do not have a weapon
profile (such as the Telepathy power, Psychic Shriek);
where this is the case, no To Hit roll is required – the
attack hits automatically.’

Now for invisibility and novas:

Q: How does the Invisibility psychic power work in relation to
nova and beam powers, and Template and Blast weapons not
initially targeting the invisible unit?
A: You cannot choose to target an invisible unit with
such attacks, but should models from the unit end up
beneath the template, marker or line of fire, then they
can be hit using the normal rules. The invisible unit
would be hit if it was on the line of a beam, if it was
in the range of a nova, or if a blast ended up being
scattered onto it. For Template weapons, as long as you
follow the rules – ensuring that the template ‘covers
as many models in the target unit as possible, without
touching any other friendly units’ – then if the invisible
unit was also fully or partially under the template, it
would be hit.

The only way for your interpretation to work, is to disregard this and say "Psychic Shriek doesn't roll to hit thus it can't Snap Fire", but you skipped a step to get there. The rules did not give you permission to go there. The rules said "psychic shriek hits automatically". Thus, the question is 'what does hit automatically mean?'.

The nova answer tells you. "Hits automatically" can hit invisible. Otherwise, you have to explain, with RAW, why novas can circumvent that rule and psychic shriek can't when they use identical language.

The reason Novas and Beams work on invisible untis is because THEY DON"T TARGET UNITS.

Shriek does target a unit for its shooting attack

 CrownAxe wrote:
The reason Novas and Beams work on invisible untis is because THEY DON"T TARGET UNITS.

Shriek does target a unit for its shooting attack

And that is where you would be wrong. Straight RAW from the book (and previously quoted in this thread):

A nova power automatically targets and hits all enemy units...

A shooting attack can only hit automatically if it can be fired in the first place. An attack that doesn't use BS can't be fired as a snap shot. You have not shown where you have permission to use BS in Psychic Shriek when the to hit has already been determined.

The thing that you keep missing or ignoring with nova and beam powers in that FAQ is that it's not dealing with them being snap shot. Like Psychic Shriek, those powers can't be fired as snap shots. The FAQ is saying nova and beam powers WHEN FIRED NORMALLY can hit invisible units. Those powers don't have to declare a target unit to fire so don't trigger the snap shot requirement for shooting at invisible units. That is not the same as Psychic Shriek which does require a declared target before firing.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
A shooting attack can only hit automatically if it can be fired in the first place. An attack that doesn't use BS can't be fired as a snap shot. You have not shown where you have permission to use BS in Psychic Shriek when the to hit has already been determined.

The thing that you keep missing or ignoring with nova and beam powers in that FAQ is that it's not dealing with them being snap shot. Like Psychic Shriek, those powers can't be fired as snap shots. The FAQ is saying nova and beam powers WHEN FIRED NORMALLY can hit invisible units. Those powers don't have to declare a target unit to fire so don't trigger the snap shot requirement for shooting at invisible units. That is not the same as Psychic Shriek which does require a declared target before firing.

The novas are targeting invisible units, by definition, they are snap shoting. The FAQ also establishes that they can hit flying units, by definition snap shoting again. A nova is also declaring targets: it's automatically declaring every unit in range a target. Read the RAW I just posted. The player has no control over what is being declared, but it is still being targeted and thus declared.

Beam powers also have to declare a target, though the target can be a piece of ground and not a unit so that is different.

You're problem is that you're taking "hits automatically" from Psychic Shriek and saying this means it doesn't use ballistic skill and thus can't snap shot, but novas also say "hits automatically" after targeting and GW has explicitly said those do hit snap shot targets (invisible and flying). You have to explain why "hits automatically" means two different things with no change in language.

Let's put this even more simply: an attack that hits automatically can be fired as a snap shot (see novas). Novas target units just like psychic shriek. What rule justification is there for treating identical language differently?

I didn't say nova powers don't target. They target all units in range as part of the resolution of the ability. However, no target must be declared before firing. That is very different from most shooting attacks including Psychic Shriek that require you declare a target before you fire.

Order of operations:
Nova powers-fire, then all units in range are targetted and hit automatically, then roll and resolve wounds
Beams-lay down the line, then anything under it is automatically hit, then roll and resolve wounds
Psychic Shriek-target a unit, fire, then the unit is hit automatically, roll and wound per the Psychic Shriek rules

If something prevents Psychic Shriek from firing the auto hit never comes into play. Being prevented from firing snap shots does this.

Nova powers CAN NOT be snap shot because they also do not use BS. If you jink you would not be allowed to fire it. Because it targets after firing it works around the invisible and flying rules that would dictate a snap shot when targeting them.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
I didn't say nova powers don't target. They target all units in range as part of the resolution of the ability. However, no target must be declared before firing. That is very different from most shooting attacks including Psychic Shriek that require you declare a target before you fire.

Order of operations:
Nova powers-fire, then all units in range are targetted and hit automatically, then roll and resolve wounds
Beams-lay down the line, then anything under it is automatically hit, then roll and resolve wounds
Psychic Shriek-target a unit, fire, then the unit is hit automatically, roll and wound per the Psychic Shriek rules

If something prevents Psychic Shriek from firing the auto hit never confess into play. Being prevented from firing snap shots Sirs this.

Nova powers CAN NOT be snap shot because they also do not use BS. If you jink you would not be allowed to fire it. Because it targets after firing it works around the invisible and flying rules that would dictate a snap shot when targeting them.

There's a couple things wrong with this. First, there's no RAW whatsoever to indicate a snap shot is determined at the 'declaring' step. The rule for snap shots just says "cannot be 'fired' as a snap shot". As outlined in the rules (and quoted previously), there are 7 steps in the shooting sequence. "Choose a target" is 2 and just says "The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see". Rolling to hit is 4. Inbetween them is 'select a weapon'. Where is this saying we determine if we're snap shooting or not at 2?

Conversely and second, you can just as easily argue that novas 'automatically targeting' all units occurs at 2: choose a target. Then there is literally no place for what you're arguing to supersede in the sequence as 1 is just "Nominate a unit to shoot".

So what is 'fire', where are you pulling its definition from the rules and how are we justifying inserting it before step 2 or step 4?

Under the plain language of the Shooting Sequence, we nominate a unit (the psyker), select a weapon (after manifesting it) then roll to hit, roll to wound, allocate wounds & remove casualties and finally select another weapon (if applicable). In Psychic Shriek's case, we target an invisible squad, we're asked to make a snap shot and we automatically hit. In a nova's case we target an invisible squad, we're asked to make a snap shot and we automatically hit. There's no plain language reason for a distinction.

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
I didn't say nova powers don't target. They target all units in range as part of the resolution of the ability. However, no target must be declared before firing. That is very different from most shooting attacks including Psychic Shriek that require you declare a target before you fire.

Order of operations:
Nova powers-fire, then all units in range are targetted and hit automatically, then roll and resolve wounds
Beams-lay down the line, then anything under it is automatically hit, then roll and resolve wounds
Psychic Shriek-target a unit, fire, then the unit is hit automatically, roll and wound per the Psychic Shriek rules

If something prevents Psychic Shriek from firing the auto hit never confess into play. Being prevented from firing snap shots Sirs this.

Nova powers CAN NOT be snap shot because they also do not use BS. If you jink you would not be allowed to fire it. Because it targets after firing it works around the invisible and flying rules that would dictate a snap shot when targeting them.

There's a couple things wrong with this. First, there's no RAW whatsoever to indicate a snap shot is determined at the 'declaring' step. The rule for snap shots just says "cannot be 'fired' as a snap shot". As outlined in the rules (and quoted previously), there are 7 steps in the shooting sequence. "Choose a target" is 2 and just says "The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see". Rolling to hit is 4. Inbetween them is 'select a weapon'. Where is this saying we determine if we're snap shooting or not at 2?

Conversely and second, you can just as easily argue that novas 'automatically targeting' all units occurs at 2: choose a target. Then there is literally no place for what you're arguing to supersede in the sequence as 1 is just "Nominate a unit to shoot".

So what is 'fire', where are you pulling its definition from the rules and how are we justifying inserting it before step 2 or step 4?

Under the plain language of the Shooting Sequence, we nominate a unit (the psyker), select a weapon (after manifesting it) then roll to hit, roll to wound, allocate wounds & remove casualties and finally select another weapon (if applicable). In Psychic Shriek's case, we target an invisible squad, we're asked to make a snap shot and we automatically hit. In a nova's case we target an invisible squad, we're asked to make a snap shot and we automatically hit. There's no plain language reason for a distinction.

I will concede that may have been my brain filling and and not be completely accurate. However that makes my presentation wrong not the conclusion. Nova powers still do not use BS so cannot fire snap shots. This is supported in the FAQ, which states "you cannot choose to target an invisible unit with such attacks". If an invisible unit were the only available target it would be forced to snap shot which it can't do, however if another unit is targeted the nova will automatically target and hit all other units in range.

Essentially a nova can target a unit that does not require snap shots and will hit invisible units also in range. Psychic Shriek only targets one unit with no text about targeting and hitting other units. If the unit targeted is invisible it is forced to snap shoot, wich it is prevented to do because it doesn't use BS. If it can't fire then it doesn't matter that it auto hits.

To expand on this, you're able to target a non-invisible unit with a template, and as long as you're hitting as many models in the target unit as possible, if the template covers any models in an invisible that unit is hit as well. You can't primarily target the invisible unit with the template, however.

Psychic shriek. You declare a target. You do not roll to hit, You hit automtically. You do not use BS, you cannot snap shot.

The rules are unambiguous. Everything else that's been said is completely unrelated. (Novas and beams follow unique targeting methods, and have been clarified by faqs, no comparison to psychic shriek is valid.)

The idea that a to hit roll is made philosophically is interesting but has no place in a rules discussion.

If there were an actual choice to roll to hit or not, then perhaps a snap shot could be made, which would obviously not hit automatically. However the rules do not indicate this is the case (falling back into the age old discussion of how you roll to hit for something with no weapon profile- you can't). Fortunately the faq has cleared this up.

The attempted argument that you can BOTH snap shot AND hit automatically is clearly for the purpose of gaining a game advantage, and has no rules justification.

There reaches a point, where this is arguing for arguments sake. A lot of wookies on endor going on here.

^^^

What he said.

Also, if you're claiming that Nova powers and Psychic Shriek work the same then the first sentence of the FAQ answer you quoted is relevant:

"You cannot choose to target an invisible unit with
such attacks, but should models from the unit end up
beneath the template, marker or line of fire, then they
can be hit using the normal rules."

First part of that sentence prohibits you from targeting an invisible unit with "such attacks". According to you this means not only Novas and Beams but Psychic Shriek too. We are then given special permission for Nova and Beam powers to affect an invisible unit because of the way they determine who is affected.

In my opinion the only reason why the FAQ even mentions "no roll is required" is that people previously insisted on a to-hit roll for Shriek. To avoid any further insisting, they spelled it out. This elaboration isn't a starting point for flipping the entire situation on it's head though.

This thread makes me very grateful that neither death-stars nor invisible death-stars are common in my meta.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
I didn't say nova powers don't target. They target all units in range as part of the resolution of the ability. However, no target must be declared before firing. That is very different from most shooting attacks including Psychic Shriek that require you declare a target before you fire.

Order of operations:
Nova powers-fire, then all units in range are targetted and hit automatically, then roll and resolve wounds
Beams-lay down the line, then anything under it is automatically hit, then roll and resolve wounds
Psychic Shriek-target a unit, fire, then the unit is hit automatically, roll and wound per the Psychic Shriek rules

If something prevents Psychic Shriek from firing the auto hit never confess into play. Being prevented from firing snap shots Sirs this.

Nova powers CAN NOT be snap shot because they also do not use BS. If you jink you would not be allowed to fire it. Because it targets after firing it works around the invisible and flying rules that would dictate a snap shot when targeting them.

There's a couple things wrong with this. First, there's no RAW whatsoever to indicate a snap shot is determined at the 'declaring' step. The rule for snap shots just says "cannot be 'fired' as a snap shot". As outlined in the rules (and quoted previously), there are 7 steps in the shooting sequence. "Choose a target" is 2 and just says "The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see". Rolling to hit is 4. Inbetween them is 'select a weapon'. Where is this saying we determine if we're snap shooting or not at 2?

Conversely and second, you can just as easily argue that novas 'automatically targeting' all units occurs at 2: choose a target. Then there is literally no place for what you're arguing to supersede in the sequence as 1 is just "Nominate a unit to shoot".

So what is 'fire', where are you pulling its definition from the rules and how are we justifying inserting it before step 2 or step 4?

Under the plain language of the Shooting Sequence, we nominate a unit (the psyker), select a weapon (after manifesting it) then roll to hit, roll to wound, allocate wounds & remove casualties and finally select another weapon (if applicable). In Psychic Shriek's case, we target an invisible squad, we're asked to make a snap shot and we automatically hit. In a nova's case we target an invisible squad, we're asked to make a snap shot and we automatically hit. There's no plain language reason for a distinction.

I will concede that may have been my brain filling and and not be completely accurate. However that makes my presentation wrong not the conclusion. Nova powers still do not use BS so cannot fire snap shots. This is supported in the FAQ, which states "you cannot choose to target an invisible unit with such attacks". If an invisible unit were the only available target it would be forced to snap shot which it can't do, however if another unit is targeted the nova will automatically target and hit all other units in range.

Essentially a nova can target a unit that does not require snap shots and will hit invisible units also in range. Psychic Shriek only targets one unit with no text about targeting and hitting other units. If the unit targeted is invisible it is forced to snap shoot, wich it is prevented to do because it doesn't use BS. If it can't fire then it doesn't matter that it auto hits.

Don't worry. I've been there too.

When you use a nova, you never declare a target. The nova does that for you: it declares all units. If only an invisible unit is in range of a nova, the nova automatically targets and hits it. There's no basis in RAW to say it doesn't.

So really you need to show 2 things for this: 1. That there is a 'declare' step in the shooting sequence (outlined twice in this thread already). 2. The text of nova powers saying they 'automatically target' all units means the nova isn't declaring targets on its own, because that's my interpretation. You manifest a nova and the rules state the nova automatically declares every unit in range to be a target, including invisible ones. This is supported by the RAW and the FAQ.

Finally, look carefully at that FAQ language. You're missing an important word. It says "you cannot choose", which is still accurate. The player doesn't choose what a nova targets: it automatically targets everything. There is no basis for interpreting this as some new rule that the player must nominate an enemy unit to be the target of a nova and then coincidentally hit all others. Novas emanate from the psyker.

Jacksmiles wrote:
To expand on this, you're able to target a non-invisible unit with a template, and as long as you're hitting as many models in the target unit as possible, if the template covers any models in an invisible that unit is hit as well. You can't primarily target the invisible unit with the template, however.

Back to page 2. "Is psychic shriek more like a nova or a template?". It's pretty clearly more like a nova since they use identical language.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Psychic shriek. You declare a target. You do not roll to hit, You hit automtically. You do not use BS, you cannot snap shot.

The rules are unambiguous. Everything else that's been said is completely unrelated. (Novas and beams follow unique targeting methods, and have been clarified by faqs, no comparison to psychic shriek is valid.)

The idea that a to hit roll is made philosophically is interesting but has no place in a rules discussion.

If there were an actual choice to roll to hit or not, then perhaps a snap shot could be made, which would obviously not hit automatically. However the rules do not indicate this is the case (falling back into the age old discussion of how you roll to hit for something with no weapon profile- you can't). Fortunately the faq has cleared this up.

The attempted argument that you can BOTH snap shot AND hit automatically is clearly for the purpose of gaining a game advantage, and has no rules justification.

There reaches a point, where this is arguing for arguments sake. A lot of wookies on endor going on here.

Oh no, nu-uh. We've been at this for 3 pages and covered all these points. Not regurgitating. My wrists can't take it.

In addition, I'll have you know my primary competitive army doesn't run any Psykers. I have no horse in this race. So you can take your bias insinuation and keep it to yourself.

Slipspace wrote:
^^^

What he said.

Also, if you're claiming that Nova powers and Psychic Shriek work the same then the first sentence of the FAQ answer you quoted is relevant:

"You cannot choose to target an invisible unit with
such attacks, but should models from the unit end up
beneath the template, marker or line of fire, then they
can be hit using the normal rules."

First part of that sentence prohibits you from targeting an invisible unit with "such attacks". According to you this means not only Novas and Beams but Psychic Shriek too. We are then given special permission for Nova and Beam powers to affect an invisible unit because of the way they determine who is affected.

See what I wrote above and note the word 'choose'. Novas don't give the player a choice: they automatically target everything.

We are not given any special permission. Special permission would be part of an errata, a new rule, this is a FAQ, meaning GW is saying that's how it works RAW. Psychic Shriek and use novas use the same language, where is the RAW reason to interpret them differently?

 Stephanius wrote:
In my opinion the only reason why the FAQ even mentions "no roll is required" is that people previously insisted on a to-hit roll for Shriek. To avoid any further insisting, they spelled it out. This elaboration isn't a starting point for flipping the entire situation on it's head though.

This thread makes me very grateful that neither death-stars nor invisible death-stars are common in my meta.

The rules are the rules though. We insist on extremely particular readings for all other parts of the book when discussing RAW, there's no reason to treat this different. Look at the debates on infiltrate and independent characters for example or the fights people used to have over whether arriving from deep strike and deep strike reserves are the same thing.

Warhammer 40k, when the phrase "Automatically Hits' means it doesnt automatically hit.

Audustum wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
To expand on this, you're able to target a non-invisible unit with a template, and as long as you're hitting as many models in the target unit as possible, if the template covers any models in an invisible that unit is hit as well. You can't primarily target the invisible unit with the template, however.

Back to page 2. "Is psychic shriek more like a nova or a template?". It's pretty clearly more like a nova since they use identical language.

What's your point? They're still very separate things, whether or not they use the same words.

Another difference is that novas "automatically target and hit" while Psychic Shriek only "automatically hits" - it needs to be manually targeted, which can not be done to an invisible unit.

This is an argument you can't win, because you're clearly wrong because your whole premise is flawed yet you keep battering through using the same disproven points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Warhammer 40k, when the phrase "Automatically Hits' means it doesnt automatically hit.

Exalted.

Audustum wrote:

Back to page 2. "Is psychic shriek more like a nova or a template?". It's pretty clearly more like a nova since they use identical language.

Let's just take this piece. You are completely fixated that Psychic shriek and novas should be treated in all ways the same and an FAQ for one applies to the other because both automatically hit and that somehow equates to identical language even though the entire rest of the wording is different. That's a terribly faulty conclusion but we will run with it because even then it leads to the conclusion you can't snap shot Psychic Shriek.

The first part of that FAQ, as you yourself have acknowledged is that those types of attack cannot choose to target invisible units. Novas get around that because you don't choose a target and beams because you choose a point not a unit. Both of those have been clearly established in discussion. If the same FAQ applies because Psychic Shriek and novas "use identical language", then the entire FAQ entry applies not just the part you cherry pick to make your point. Psychic Shriek requires the player choose a unit to target and per that FAQ you cannot choose to target an invisible unit. Ergo you cannot use Psychic Shriek on an invisible target per your own line of reasoning.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Back to page 2. "Is psychic shriek more like a nova or a template?". It's pretty clearly more like a nova since they use identical language.

Let's just take this piece. You are completely fixated that Psychic shriek and novas should be treated in all ways the same and an FAQ for one applies to the other because both automatically hit and that somehow equates to identical language even though the entire rest of the wording is different. That's a terribly faulty conclusion but we will run with it because even then it leads to the conclusion you can't snap shot Psychic Shriek.

The first part of that FAQ, as you yourself have acknowledged is that those types of attack cannot choose to target invisible units. Novas get around that because you don't choose a target and beams because you choose a point not a unit. Both of those have been clearly established in discussion. If the same FAQ applies because Psychic Shriek and novas "use identical language", then the entire FAQ entry applies not just the part you cherry pick to make your point. Psychic Shriek requires the player choose a unit to target and per that FAQ you cannot choose to target an invisible unit. Ergo you cannot use Psychic Shriek on an invisible target per your own line of reasoning.

Look at the wording of the FAQ again and remember it's a FAQ not an errata. It's not making a new rule, it's just stating that blasts, novas, templates and beams cannot choose invisible targets for one reason or another. It is specifically not addressing vanilla Witchfires there.

I am not and never have argued that Shriek is identical to novas in all ways. I have said only that "automatically hits" must be interpreted the same between both rules as they use identical language. That's why you treat them the same with regards to hitting a target.

Look at the errata for Witchfires and rulebook for novas again. Note they are the same for hitting, but the errata doesn't say Witchfires automatically target. Thus, we do not have permission to treat them the same for targeting.

You have argued that RAW prevents a Witchfires from targeting a unit due to Snap Shots. Now it's time to show where. Give the quote or you've got no legs. The quote needs to relate to 'targeting'.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
To expand on this, you're able to target a non-invisible unit with a template, and as long as you're hitting as many models in the target unit as possible, if the template covers any models in an invisible that unit is hit as well. You can't primarily target the invisible unit with the template, however.

Back to page 2. "Is psychic shriek more like a nova or a template?". It's pretty clearly more like a nova since they use identical language.

What's your point? They're still very separate things, whether or not they use the same words.

Another difference is that novas "automatically target and hit" while Psychic Shriek only "automatically hits" - it needs to be manually targeted, which can not be done to an invisible unit.

This is an argument you can't win, because you're clearly wrong because your whole premise is flawed yet you keep battering through using the same disproven points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Warhammer 40k, when the phrase "Automatically Hits' means it doesnt automatically hit.

Exalted.

So your argument is that automatically hits means two different things despite identical language? Alright, where is the RAW to support that?

Where is the RAW that links snap shots to targeting rather than hitting?

I'll give you a hint because you're being snide without call: it hasn't been supplied in 4 pages because it isn't there. You're just being stubborn.

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Back to page 2. "Is psychic shriek more like a nova or a template?". It's pretty clearly more like a nova since they use identical language.

Let's just take this piece. You are completely fixated that Psychic shriek and novas should be treated in all ways the same and an FAQ for one applies to the other because both automatically hit and that somehow equates to identical language even though the entire rest of the wording is different. That's a terribly faulty conclusion but we will run with it because even then it leads to the conclusion you can't snap shot Psychic Shriek.

The first part of that FAQ, as you yourself have acknowledged is that those types of attack cannot choose to target invisible units. Novas get around that because you don't choose a target and beams because you choose a point not a unit. Both of those have been clearly established in discussion. If the same FAQ applies because Psychic Shriek and novas "use identical language", then the entire FAQ entry applies not just the part you cherry pick to make your point. Psychic Shriek requires the player choose a unit to target and per that FAQ you cannot choose to target an invisible unit. Ergo you cannot use Psychic Shriek on an invisible target per your own line of reasoning.

Look at the wording of the FAQ again and remember it's a FAQ not an errata. It's not making a new rule, it's just stating that blasts, novas, templates and beams cannot choose invisible targets for one reason or another. It is specifically not addressing vanilla Witchfires there.

I am not and never have argued that Shriek is identical to novas in all ways. I have said only that "automatically hits" must be interpreted the same between both rules as they use identical language. That's why you treat them the same with regards to hitting a target.

Look at the errata for Witchfires and rulebook for novas again. Note they are the same for hitting, but the errata doesn't say Witchfires automatically target. Thus, we do not have permission to treat them the same for targeting.

You have argued that RAW prevents a Witchfires from targeting a unit due to Snap Shots. Now it's time to show where. Give the quote or you've got no legs. The quote needs to relate to 'targeting'.

Then we are back to any shooting attack that doesn't use BS can't be snap shot and any shooting attack that targets an invisible unit must be snap shot. Same conclusion, no Psychic Shriek on an invisible unit.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Back to page 2. "Is psychic shriek more like a nova or a template?". It's pretty clearly more like a nova since they use identical language.

Let's just take this piece. You are completely fixated that Psychic shriek and novas should be treated in all ways the same and an FAQ for one applies to the other because both automatically hit and that somehow equates to identical language even though the entire rest of the wording is different. That's a terribly faulty conclusion but we will run with it because even then it leads to the conclusion you can't snap shot Psychic Shriek.

The first part of that FAQ, as you yourself have acknowledged is that those types of attack cannot choose to target invisible units. Novas get around that because you don't choose a target and beams because you choose a point not a unit. Both of those have been clearly established in discussion. If the same FAQ applies because Psychic Shriek and novas "use identical language", then the entire FAQ entry applies not just the part you cherry pick to make your point. Psychic Shriek requires the player choose a unit to target and per that FAQ you cannot choose to target an invisible unit. Ergo you cannot use Psychic Shriek on an invisible target per your own line of reasoning.

Look at the wording of the FAQ again and remember it's a FAQ not an errata. It's not making a new rule, it's just stating that blasts, novas, templates and beams cannot choose invisible targets for one reason or another. It is specifically not addressing vanilla Witchfires there.

I am not and never have argued that Shriek is identical to novas in all ways. I have said only that "automatically hits" must be interpreted the same between both rules as they use identical language. That's why you treat them the same with regards to hitting a target.

Look at the errata for Witchfires and rulebook for novas again. Note they are the same for hitting, but the errata doesn't say Witchfires automatically target. Thus, we do not have permission to treat them the same for targeting.

You have argued that RAW prevents a Witchfires from targeting a unit due to Snap Shots. Now it's time to show where. Give the quote or you've got no legs. The quote needs to relate to 'targeting'.

Then we are back to any shooting attack that doesn't use BS can't be snap shot and any shooting attack that targets an invisible unit must be snap shot. Same conclusion, no Psychic Shriek on an invisible unit.

If we're back there then your position has lost. Nova 'doesn't use BS' as you define it, but GW has said it hits invisible. Shriek and novas both automatically hit, GW says automatically hit hits invisible.

Your interpretation is a fair one, it's just the game creator went with a different one. You were overruled.

So your argument now is reading the rules directly out of the rulebook is wrong? And your entire basis for that is an FAQ on different attack types? Note FAQ not errata, so as you keep pointing out it can't change change the way the rules work.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
So your argument now is reading the rules directly out of the rulebook is wrong? And your entire basis for that is an FAQ on different attack types? Note FAQ not errata, so as you keep pointing out it can't change change the way the rules work.

No. My argument is simple.

Start with this logical principle: when a word is used in the rules it should have the same meaning.

Now, GW published an errata, a change to the rules, saying profile-less Witchfires hit automatically.

The vanilla rules identically say novas hit automatically.

Can profile-less Witchfires hit invisible is presented as a question?

That depends. Does hit automatically mean even hitting invisible automatically?

GW issues a FAQ. In the FAQ, GW says novas hit invisible. Novas hit automatically without rolling. Thus, despite the fact you would say "they don't use BS", GW says we don't go to that rule: they hit automatically.

Due to our principle, we must now interrupt "hits automatically" consistently across all rules. Profile-less Witchfires hit automatically. Profile-less Witchfires hit invisible.

You have argued profile-less Witchfires cannot target invisible due to snap shots. This is valid if true, but there's no RAW to get us there since GW said hits automatically hits invisible and those rules don't talk about targets: they talk about hits. Novas also target invisible units.

All the pages in this thread are just delving into those points in detail.

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
So your argument now is reading the rules directly out of the rulebook is wrong? And your entire basis for that is an FAQ on different attack types? Note FAQ not errata, so as you keep pointing out it can't change change the way the rules work.

No. My argument is simple.

Start with this logical principle: when a word is used in the rules it should have the same meaning.

Now, GW published an errata, a change to the rules, saying profile-less Witchfires hit automatically.

The vanilla rules identically say novas hit automatically.

Can profile-less Witchfires hit invisible is presented as a question?

That depends. Does hit automatically mean even hitting invisible automatically?

GW issues a FAQ. In the FAQ, GW says novas hit invisible. Novas hit automatically without rolling. Thus, despite the fact you would say "they don't use BS", GW says we don't go to that rule: they hit automatically.

Due to our principle, we must now interrupt "hits automatically" consistently across all rules. Profile-less Witchfires hit automatically. Profile-less Witchfires hit invisible.

You have argued profile-less Witchfires cannot target invisible due to snap shots. This is valid if true, but there's no RAW to get us there since GW said hits automatically hits invisible and those rules don't talk about targets: they talk about hits. Novas also target invisible units.

All the pages in this thread are just delving into those points in detail.

No errata says witchfires without a profile hit invisible units. An FAQ for beams and novas says they hit invisible, however it also says invisible units can't be targeted by such attacks. Regardless, there is no reason to apply rulings that do not mention Psychic Shriek to Psychic Shriek and rules state attacks that don't use BS can't snap shot. FAQs and errata modify/interpret the rules they name and nothing else. You can't just decide to apply them because you think they sound similar.

RAW you can't use Psychic Shriek on an invisible unit.

The FAQ does not say they can't hit invisible units. It says when using novas, relevant portion o ly, you cannot choose to target I visible. That's correct: novas target automatically. Novas and vanilla Witchfires do use different language for targeting so its logical to not treat them the same. Novas and profile-less Witchfires do NOT use different language for hitting, so they should be treated the same there. This is not similar, it's the same. The same language.

The only way your interpretation works is if we say "hits automatically" means two different things without a RAW reason to do so.

Your interpretation would open a Pandora's Box where every word in the book and FAQ could be subject to shifting and varied meanings at any time even if they're the same words. "Hits automatically" means hits invisible since novas hit invisible and have nothing else governing their hit mechanics. Profile-less Witchfires are in the same boat.

You are expressly forbidden in the rules from resolving a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snap shot. You are expressly required to resolve any shooting attacks against an invisible unit as a snap shot. If you don't have permission to resolve the attack at all it doesn't matter that it would auto hit, it's banned from happening.

You referenced before a Harlequin attack that automatically hits in close combat. You can't use that attack to hit a unit 12" away because rules don't allow you to resolve that attack at range. Same principle. The attack would auto hit, but you don't have permission to resolve it.

Show where any of that is incorrect RAW or show errata or FAQs that state Psychic Shriek works differently.

It's simple. Your analysis would apply to novas. They don't use BS to hit and must snap shot under your reasoning and are thus prohibited from snap shooting. GW says they can hit invisible, thus your reading is wrong. That's RAW.

Profile-less Witchfires and novas use the same to hit rules. Thus they should operate the same.

I brought up Harlequins only as a way I could envision them FAQ'ing it later.

Audustum wrote:

Please quote a rule where it says an automatic hit "does not use ballistic skill".

Actually, you have to be the one to prove that it does use ballistic skill. The roll to hit section on page 22 and on page 23 states "When rolling to hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses", qualified by the box on page 23 about rerolling the 1 and what you need if your ballistic score is higher than 6. If you hit automatically, you aren't rolling to hit, since according to the rules you have a chance of failure. Because of that, if you aren't rolling to hit (because of hitting automatically), you aren't using the Roll to Hit rules in the first place, which means you are not accessing the rules that say you use Ballsitic skill. Therefore, you need to show in the rules where you do use ballstic skill when you automatically hit.

Audustum wrote:
Alternatively, I could see GW saying it works like Harlequin attacks (see belo

Also, claiming that an automatic hit still counts as using ballistic skill means that there literally would be no situation that would not use ballistic skill for a ranged attack if that were true, which would mean that there would not be any need to say that attacks not using BS automatically miss since (by your definition) all attack use it.

Well that's not true. Flamers wouldn't use ballistic skill. Neither would weapons with the orbital profile.

Orbital would (still scatter). And if it's written so that it only excludes flamers, then why not just say that flamers can't fire and not bother with the rest?

Audustum wrote:
It's simple. Your analysis would apply to novas. They don't use BS to hit and must snap shot under your reasoning and are thus prohibited from snap shooting. GW says they can hit invisible, thus your reading is wrong. That's RAW.

Profile-less Witchfires and novas use the same to hit rules. Thus they should operate the same.

I brought up Harlequins only as a way I could envision them FAQ'ing it later.

Faulty conclusion again. First, novas target differently than Psychic Shriek which is a significant element in the resolution of the attack. More importantly though, there is an FAQ that states novas work differently with regards to hitting invisible units. If Psychic Shriek were named in that FAQ or if Psychic Shriek had a separate FAQ or errata saying it could hit invisible units then it would be able to per that rules supplement. No such FAQ or errata exists so we continue to use the rules as written in the BRB.

Audustum wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
The reason Novas and Beams work on invisible untis is because THEY DON"T TARGET UNITS.

Shriek does target a unit for its shooting attack

And that is where you would be wrong. Straight RAW from the book (and previously quoted in this thread):

A nova power automatically targets and hits all enemy units...

Which means that if an invisible unit is the only unit within range of a nova power you can't use the power because there are no units that you are allowed to target, and you have to have a valid target to shoot. If you have another target, then the invisible unit gets caught up as "collateral damage" by being within range when the other units are targeted (the way that you can't target ian invisible unit with a beam, but can hit it if it's in the path of something else that's targeted)

Fhionnuisce wrote:
You are expressly forbidden in the rules from resolving a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snap shot. You are expressly required to resolve any shooting attacks against an invisible unit as a snap shot. If you don't have permission to resolve the attack at all it doesn't matter that it would auto hit, it's banned from happening.

I would point out that you CAN resolve a shooting attack against an invisible unit without snap shooting, but it requires not actively selecting that unit as a target and usually hitting something besides when you were looking at when the shot is fired.

If a Blast Scatters from its target on to an Invisible Unit, Hits are allocated against the Invisible unit and the Attack is resolved against the Invisible unit.

If a Template user fires its Weapon properly and covers the maximum number of models in its target, but the Template also covers some models in an Invisible unit, Hits are still made and allocated to the Invisible unit.

This is because these scenarios bypass the points that would stop these Weapons from being fired by not firing AT them.

Novas and Beams fall under this category. They are indiscriminate in their targeting, just like a Scattered Blast or a Template flowing past its target, and just Hit what is there. This is how they are allowed to bypass the Invisible unit's requirements.

Psychic Shriek does not do this in any manner. It specifically targets a unit and proceeds To Wound it, not allowing its power to overflow it.

Honestly, it would have been better for all involved if it was either given a proper Ranged Profile or made a Malediction so that way this would have been a thousand times easier to write and process the rules on.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
You are expressly forbidden in the rules from resolving a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snap shot. You are expressly required to resolve any shooting attacks against an invisible unit as a snap shot. If you don't have permission to resolve the attack at all it doesn't matter that it would auto hit, it's banned from happening.

I would point out that you CAN resolve a shooting attack against an invisible unit without snap shooting, but it requires not actively selecting that unit as a target and usually hitting something besides when you were looking at when the shot is fired.

If a Blast Scatters from its target on to an Invisible Unit, Hits are allocated against the Invisible unit and the Attack is resolved against the Invisible unit.

If a Template user fires its Weapon properly and covers the maximum number of models in its target, but the Template also covers some models in an Invisible unit, Hits are still made and allocated to the Invisible unit.

This is because these scenarios bypass the points that would stop these Weapons from being fired by not firing AT them.

Novas and Beams fall under this category. They are indiscriminate in their targeting, just like a Scattered Blast or a Template flowing past its target, and just Hit what is there. This is how they are allowed to bypass the Invisible unit's requirements.

Psychic Shriek does not do this in any manner. It specifically targets a unit and proceeds To Wound it, not allowing its power to overflow it.

Honestly, it would have been better for all involved if it was either given a proper Ranged Profile or made a Malediction so that way this would have been a thousand times easier to write and process the rules on.

Agreed! It would have been much easier.

The problem some have with this logic is that blasts and templates don't say they target incidentally, they say they hit incidentally. Novas, however, specifically say they target everything. Thus, each enemy unit is being individually targeted, just like a profile-less Witchfire targeting an invisible unit.

It may very well be sloppy writing on GW's part, but we've never used that as a basis to say something isn't RAW before, just RAI.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:
It's simple. Your analysis would apply to novas. They don't use BS to hit and must snap shot under your reasoning and are thus prohibited from snap shooting. GW says they can hit invisible, thus your reading is wrong. That's RAW.

Profile-less Witchfires and novas use the same to hit rules. Thus they should operate the same.

I brought up Harlequins only as a way I could envision them FAQ'ing it later.

Faulty conclusion again. First, novas target differently than Psychic Shriek which is a significant element in the resolution of the attack. More importantly though, there is an FAQ that states novas work differently with regards to hitting invisible units. If Psychic Shriek were named in that FAQ or if Psychic Shriek had a separate FAQ or errata saying it could hit invisible units then it would be able to per that rules supplement. No such FAQ or errata exists so we continue to use the rules as written in the BRB.

I notice every time I point out you need some RAW to support you, you just go off to argue a different point without bringing any RAW.

The FAQ is not making new rules. The FAQ is interpreting the existing rules. That is the inherent nature of a FAQ and that is a rule of interpretation for tabletop games ranging from Monopoly to Risk and Arkham Horror and yes, Warhammer 40k. Your entire point here rests on the idea that GW made a specific addendum for novas. They didn't. They interpreted the RAW as saying novas hit invisible. The rule for novas hitting is "hits automatically". The rule for profile-less Witchfires is "hits automatically" per an errata.

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Please quote a rule where it says an automatic hit "does not use ballistic skill".

Actually, you have to be the one to prove that it does use ballistic skill. The roll to hit section on page 22 and on page 23 states "When rolling to hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses", qualified by the box on page 23 about rerolling the 1 and what you need if your ballistic score is higher than 6. If you hit automatically, you aren't rolling to hit, since according to the rules you have a chance of failure. Because of that, if you aren't rolling to hit (because of hitting automatically), you aren't using the Roll to Hit rules in the first place, which means you are not accessing the rules that say you use Ballsitic skill. Therefore, you need to show in the rules where you do use ballstic skill when you automatically hit.

Your problem is your entire premise rests upon "there is no such thing as an automatic hit". Remember, that rule is referring to all shooting attacks, not just shooting attacks that use ballistic skill.

It's contradicted later, however, because the rule for novas specifically says "hits automatic". The errata'd rule for profile-less Witchfires says "hits automatically". Thus, there are instances of automatic hits and just like when a Codex overrides the BRB, the specific beats the general. The specific rule for novas and profile-less witchfires means there are such things as automatic hits in shooting.

As a second point, you do not seem to have followed what I was getting at. We don't actually have any RAW whatsoever regarding how an automatic hit works except for two things: rolling is permissive ("not required") and it hits invisibility (FAQ for novas). So if you want to say it NEVER rolls, you have to use RAW to override the permissive nature of "not required".

Audustum wrote:
Alternatively, I could see GW saying it works like Harlequin attacks (see belo

Also, claiming that an automatic hit still counts as using ballistic skill means that there literally would be no situation that would not use ballistic skill for a ranged attack if that were true, which would mean that there would not be any need to say that attacks not using BS automatically miss since (by your definition) all attack use it.

Well that's not true. Flamers wouldn't use ballistic skill. Neither would weapons with the orbital profile.

Orbital would (still scatter). And if it's written so that it only excludes flamers, then why not just say that flamers can't fire and not bother with the rest?

Orbitals scatter, but they arn't reduced by ballistic skill. That's part of the definition of orbital. So no, orbital attacks don't use ballistic skill.

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:
It's simple. Your analysis would apply to novas. They don't use BS to hit and must snap shot under your reasoning and are thus prohibited from snap shooting. GW says they can hit invisible, thus your reading is wrong. That's RAW.

Profile-less Witchfires and novas use the same to hit rules. Thus they should operate the same.

I brought up Harlequins only as a way I could envision them FAQ'ing it later.

Faulty conclusion again. First, novas target differently than Psychic Shriek which is a significant element in the resolution of the attack. More importantly though, there is an FAQ that states novas work differently with regards to hitting invisible units. If Psychic Shriek were named in that FAQ or if Psychic Shriek had a separate FAQ or errata saying it could hit invisible units then it would be able to per that rules supplement. No such FAQ or errata exists so we continue to use the rules as written in the BRB.

I notice every time I point out you need some RAW to support you, you just go off to argue a different point without bringing any RAW.

The FAQ is not making new rules. The FAQ is interpreting the existing rules. That is the inherent nature of a FAQ and that is a rule of interpretation for tabletop games ranging from Monopoly to Risk and Arkham Horror and yes, Warhammer 40k. Your entire point here rests on the idea that GW made a specific addendum for novas. They didn't. They interpreted the RAW as saying novas hit invisible. The rule for novas hitting is "hits automatically". The rule for profile-less Witchfires is "hits automatically" per an errata.

FAQs and errata are rules supplements. Errata change the rules while FAQs provide guidance in the application of those rules. In both cases they apply only as specified. No matter how much you feel like Psychic Shriek is worded like a nova, it is not one. You cannot assume FAQ for one has any bearing on the other unless it says so, and cannot choose to apply an FAQ or errata for one to the other unless told to do so.

As to providing RAW, I did not quote the rules because they have been quoted multiple times already in the course of the thread, but I did reference the relevant rule. Rules do state you cannot resolve a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snap shot. Rules do state you can only resolve an attack against an invisible unit as a snap shot. You countered, as you always have, by referencing the FAQ for nova powers, but cannot cite anything that gives you permission to use that FAQ on Psychic Shriek. The best you have to offer is that it creates inconsistency in how we handle multiple attacks that automatically hit. I happen to disagree with that, but the truth is it doesn't matter. If the full rules (base rules plus any applicable rules supplements) determine you resolve an ability in a certain way then that is how it works. It is unfortunate if that results in confusion or apparent inconsistencies, but that doesn't change the fact that it is RAW.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:
It's simple. Your analysis would apply to novas. They don't use BS to hit and must snap shot under your reasoning and are thus prohibited from snap shooting. GW says they can hit invisible, thus your reading is wrong. That's RAW.

Profile-less Witchfires and novas use the same to hit rules. Thus they should operate the same.

I brought up Harlequins only as a way I could envision them FAQ'ing it later.

Faulty conclusion again. First, novas target differently than Psychic Shriek which is a significant element in the resolution of the attack. More importantly though, there is an FAQ that states novas work differently with regards to hitting invisible units. If Psychic Shriek were named in that FAQ or if Psychic Shriek had a separate FAQ or errata saying it could hit invisible units then it would be able to per that rules supplement. No such FAQ or errata exists so we continue to use the rules as written in the BRB.

I notice every time I point out you need some RAW to support you, you just go off to argue a different point without bringing any RAW.

The FAQ is not making new rules. The FAQ is interpreting the existing rules. That is the inherent nature of a FAQ and that is a rule of interpretation for tabletop games ranging from Monopoly to Risk and Arkham Horror and yes, Warhammer 40k. Your entire point here rests on the idea that GW made a specific addendum for novas. They didn't. They interpreted the RAW as saying novas hit invisible. The rule for novas hitting is "hits automatically". The rule for profile-less Witchfires is "hits automatically" per an errata.

FAQs and errata are rules supplements. Errata change the rules while FAQs provide guidance in the application of those rules. In both cases they apply only as specified. No matter how much you feel like Psychic Shriek is worded like a nova, it is not one. You cannot assume FAQ for one has any bearing on the other unless it says so, and cannot choose to apply an FAQ or errata for one to the other unless told to do so.

As to providing RAW, I did not quote the rules because they have been quoted multiple times already in the course of the thread, but I did reference the relevant rule. Rules do state you cannot resolve a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snap shot. Rules do state you can only resolve an attack against an invisible unit as a snap shot. You countered, as you always have, by referencing the FAQ for nova powers, but cannot cite anything that gives you permission to use that FAQ on Psychic Shriek. The best you have to offer is that it creates inconsistency in how we handle multiple attacks that automatically hit. I happen to disagree with that, but the truth is it doesn't matter. If the full rules (base rules plus any applicable rules supplements) determine you resolve an ability in a certain way then that is how it works. It is unfortunate if that results in confusion or apparent inconsistencies, but that doesn't change the fact that it is RAW.

This is where you're going off the rails. We're not saying "use novas as profile-less shooting powers even though we're not". We're saying that when the rules say "hits automatically" you have to apply the same definition to every instance of "hits automatically" otherwise you don't have rules: you just have player whimsy.

I'm sorry GW overruled you, it was a fair argument, but they came down on the opposite side. You want to house rule it? You want to petition the ITC to treat it differently? Go for it, but RAW, hits automatically hits invisible. Don't go to any tournament and assume an invisible unit is safe from Psychic Shriek. I know at the Nova Narrative last year they were fully allowing Psychic Shriek to hit fliers even with an automatic hit. Some of the other Mid-Atlantic tournaments do to.

Bottom line, GW said a weapon that does not use ballistic skill can target and hit an invisible unit and it hits automatically. We have no reason to interpret plain English in one part of the book different from another. That's just life.

Audustum wrote:
Agreed! It would have been much easier.

The problem some have with this logic is that blasts and templates don't say they target incidentally, they say they hit incidentally. Novas, however, specifically say they target everything. Thus, each enemy unit is being individually targeted, just like a profile-less Witchfire targeting an invisible unit.

It may very well be sloppy writing on GW's part, but we've never used that as a basis to say something isn't RAW before, just RAI.

I never stated that last paragraph was RAW, which is why I left it as "would have been better".

That having been said, everything before is RAW if one is willing to look at the interplay of all the rules instead of focusing on the only one or two lines which support what one wants it to do.

 Charistoph wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Agreed! It would have been much easier.

The problem some have with this logic is that blasts and templates don't say they target incidentally, they say they hit incidentally. Novas, however, specifically say they target everything. Thus, each enemy unit is being individually targeted, just like a profile-less Witchfire targeting an invisible unit.

It may very well be sloppy writing on GW's part, but we've never used that as a basis to say something isn't RAW before, just RAI.

I never stated that last paragraph was RAW, which is why I left it as "would have been better".

That having been said, everything before is RAW if one is willing to look at the interplay of all the rules instead of focusing on the only one or two lines which support what one wants it to do.

I wasn't saying you did, sorry for the conclusion. I was just climbing a soap box to make a general announcement to the whole thread.

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:
It's simple. Your analysis would apply to novas. They don't use BS to hit and must snap shot under your reasoning and are thus prohibited from snap shooting. GW says they can hit invisible, thus your reading is wrong. That's RAW.

Profile-less Witchfires and novas use the same to hit rules. Thus they should operate the same.

I brought up Harlequins only as a way I could envision them FAQ'ing it later.

Faulty conclusion again. First, novas target differently than Psychic Shriek which is a significant element in the resolution of the attack. More importantly though, there is an FAQ that states novas work differently with regards to hitting invisible units. If Psychic Shriek were named in that FAQ or if Psychic Shriek had a separate FAQ or errata saying it could hit invisible units then it would be able to per that rules supplement. No such FAQ or errata exists so we continue to use the rules as written in the BRB.

I notice every time I point out you need some RAW to support you, you just go off to argue a different point without bringing any RAW.

The FAQ is not making new rules. The FAQ is interpreting the existing rules. That is the inherent nature of a FAQ and that is a rule of interpretation for tabletop games ranging from Monopoly to Risk and Arkham Horror and yes, Warhammer 40k. Your entire point here rests on the idea that GW made a specific addendum for novas. They didn't. They interpreted the RAW as saying novas hit invisible. The rule for novas hitting is "hits automatically". The rule for profile-less Witchfires is "hits automatically" per an errata.

FAQs and errata are rules supplements. Errata change the rules while FAQs provide guidance in the application of those rules. In both cases they apply only as specified. No matter how much you feel like Psychic Shriek is worded like a nova, it is not one. You cannot assume FAQ for one has any bearing on the other unless it says so, and cannot choose to apply an FAQ or errata for one to the other unless told to do so.

As to providing RAW, I did not quote the rules because they have been quoted multiple times already in the course of the thread, but I did reference the relevant rule. Rules do state you cannot resolve a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snap shot. Rules do state you can only resolve an attack against an invisible unit as a snap shot. You countered, as you always have, by referencing the FAQ for nova powers, but cannot cite anything that gives you permission to use that FAQ on Psychic Shriek. The best you have to offer is that it creates inconsistency in how we handle multiple attacks that automatically hit. I happen to disagree with that, but the truth is it doesn't matter. If the full rules (base rules plus any applicable rules supplements) determine you resolve an ability in a certain way then that is how it works. It is unfortunate if that results in confusion or apparent inconsistencies, but that doesn't change the fact that it is RAW.

This is where you're going off the rails. We're not saying "use novas as profile-less shooting powers even though we're not". We're saying that when the rules say "hits automatically" you have to apply the same definition to every instance of "hits automatically" otherwise you don't have rules: you just have player whimsy.

I'm sorry GW overruled you, it was a fair argument, but they came down on the opposite side. You want to house rule it? You want to petition the ITC to treat it differently? Go for it, but RAW, hits automatically hits invisible. Don't go to any tournament and assume an invisible unit is safe from Psychic Shriek. I know at the Nova Narrative last year they were fully allowing Psychic Shriek to hit fliers even with an automatic hit. Some of the other Mid-Atlantic tournaments do to.

Bottom line, GW said a weapon that does not use ballistic skill can target and hit an invisible unit and it hits automatically. We have no reason to interpret plain English in one part of the book different from another. That's just life.

GW didn't overrule me. GW made no ruling on Psychic Shriek on invisible units or even all powers that hit automatically on invisible units. GW made a ruling on very specific attack types (novas, beams, and templates). YOU are extrapolating that out to all attacks that automatically hit with NO rules justification to do so.

And FYI, ruling by ITC or any other tournament organizer have no bearing on what is RAW. They often change rules for their own sense of balance and do sometimes just get things wrong.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:
It's simple. Your analysis would apply to novas. They don't use BS to hit and must snap shot under your reasoning and are thus prohibited from snap shooting. GW says they can hit invisible, thus your reading is wrong. That's RAW.

Profile-less Witchfires and novas use the same to hit rules. Thus they should operate the same.

I brought up Harlequins only as a way I could envision them FAQ'ing it later.

Faulty conclusion again. First, novas target differently than Psychic Shriek which is a significant element in the resolution of the attack. More importantly though, there is an FAQ that states novas work differently with regards to hitting invisible units. If Psychic Shriek were named in that FAQ or if Psychic Shriek had a separate FAQ or errata saying it could hit invisible units then it would be able to per that rules supplement. No such FAQ or errata exists so we continue to use the rules as written in the BRB.

I notice every time I point out you need some RAW to support you, you just go off to argue a different point without bringing any RAW.

The FAQ is not making new rules. The FAQ is interpreting the existing rules. That is the inherent nature of a FAQ and that is a rule of interpretation for tabletop games ranging from Monopoly to Risk and Arkham Horror and yes, Warhammer 40k. Your entire point here rests on the idea that GW made a specific addendum for novas. They didn't. They interpreted the RAW as saying novas hit invisible. The rule for novas hitting is "hits automatically". The rule for profile-less Witchfires is "hits automatically" per an errata.

FAQs and errata are rules supplements. Errata change the rules while FAQs provide guidance in the application of those rules. In both cases they apply only as specified. No matter how much you feel like Psychic Shriek is worded like a nova, it is not one. You cannot assume FAQ for one has any bearing on the other unless it says so, and cannot choose to apply an FAQ or errata for one to the other unless told to do so.

As to providing RAW, I did not quote the rules because they have been quoted multiple times already in the course of the thread, but I did reference the relevant rule. Rules do state you cannot resolve a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snap shot. Rules do state you can only resolve an attack against an invisible unit as a snap shot. You countered, as you always have, by referencing the FAQ for nova powers, but cannot cite anything that gives you permission to use that FAQ on Psychic Shriek. The best you have to offer is that it creates inconsistency in how we handle multiple attacks that automatically hit. I happen to disagree with that, but the truth is it doesn't matter. If the full rules (base rules plus any applicable rules supplements) determine you resolve an ability in a certain way then that is how it works. It is unfortunate if that results in confusion or apparent inconsistencies, but that doesn't change the fact that it is RAW.

This is where you're going off the rails. We're not saying "use novas as profile-less shooting powers even though we're not". We're saying that when the rules say "hits automatically" you have to apply the same definition to every instance of "hits automatically" otherwise you don't have rules: you just have player whimsy.

I'm sorry GW overruled you, it was a fair argument, but they came down on the opposite side. You want to house rule it? You want to petition the ITC to treat it differently? Go for it, but RAW, hits automatically hits invisible. Don't go to any tournament and assume an invisible unit is safe from Psychic Shriek. I know at the Nova Narrative last year they were fully allowing Psychic Shriek to hit fliers even with an automatic hit. Some of the other Mid-Atlantic tournaments do to.

Bottom line, GW said a weapon that does not use ballistic skill can target and hit an invisible unit and it hits automatically. We have no reason to interpret plain English in one part of the book different from another. That's just life.

GW didn't overrule me. GW made no ruling on Psychic Shriek on invisible units or even all powers that hit automatically on invisible units. GW made a ruling on very specific attack types (novas, beams, and templates). YOU are extrapolating that out to all attacks that automatically hit with NO rules justification to do so.

And FYI, ruling by ITC or any other tournament organizer have no bearing on what is RAW. They often change rules for their own sense of balance and do sometimes just get things wrong.

I didn't say tournament rulings effected RAW. The point of knowing RAW, however, is to give yourself a firm foundation of what to expect when you go elsewhere. I was helping you prepare for that. Forgive me for being good natured.

We have two powers with identical methods of hitting. GW has said one of them hits invisibility. There is no reason to assume identical language should be treated differently. That's really all there is to it. At this point I think we're both just saying 'na-uh' though, so we should probably just leave it at that. We've made a good record of both arguments for anyone using Google at their local FLGS to settle a rules dispute. They'll have plenty of information to figure it out themselves. I'd say mission accomplished on our end.

Audustum wrote:



We have two powers with identical methods of hitting.

No, you don't. You have one thing, Psychic Shriek, which targets a unit. You have Nova which targets all units. Those are most definitedly not identical. Getting back to a point I made earlier, you would not be able to use a Nova power if an invisible unit is the only unit in range because you must have a target to use the power. You can't use the power if there is no target for you to use it on. Psychic Shriek targets one unit - you can't use it on an invisible unit because you are specficially told in the FAQ that you are not allowed to target invisible units.

I see no reason you wouldn't be able to cast a nova if an invisible unit was the only thing in range. The whole thing of a nova is you don't need to declare a target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(I obviously agree that novas and profileless witchfires are completely different methods of targeting)

Captyn_Bob wrote:
I see no reason you wouldn't be able to cast a nova if an invisible unit was the only thing in range. The whole thing of a nova is you don't need to declare a target.

After thinking about it, maybe. But no matter what, novas tell you they *automatically* target units. Unlike Psychic Shriek.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
I see no reason you wouldn't be able to cast a nova if an invisible unit was the only thing in range. The whole thing of a nova is you don't need to declare a target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(I obviously agree that novas and profileless witchfires are completely different methods of targeting)

Debatable, since it's not that it tells you you don't need to declare a target, but that every unit in range is a target. We are told that you can't target an invisible unit, though. Invisibility would override Nova's targeting on a basic vs advanced level. This means theere are no valid units to target, and you have no permission to shoot if you do not have a valid target.

But, this is actually a moot point (a side issue possibly worth exploring, though, but moot for the aske of Audustum's arguments) because if we accept what you say, it makes Nova powers even less like Psychic Shriek. Going with either possibility being discussed here about Nova powers vs invisible units, we are still left with the fact that we are told that you cannot target an invisible unit, and psychic shriek requires you to target a unit. That means you cannot target an invisible unit with psychic shriek.

You know, I was awful hesitant to come back since I think Fhionnuisce and I just about plumbed every angle of this, but then people are mentioning me by name specifically so I feel like I have to.

So two points.

1. You're all putting a lot of confidence in a rule that doesn't exist. Specifically, doctortom's statement that:

We are told that you can't target an invisible unit, though.

This doesn't exist. It's not a rule anywhere in RAW.

"Sequence of Shooting" under "The Shooting Phase" says: "Choose a target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see". That's it.

Even under the banner paragraph, it says "Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at. To do so, you must check the range of line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting. Note that you may check the range and line of sight to multiple enemy units before deciding which one to shoot at and declaring it to your opponent. You cannot target a unit that is locked in combat".

Again, that's it. Even the FAQ doesn't say you can't. It says :

Q: How does the Invisibility psychic power work in relation to
nova and beam powers, and Template and Blast weapons not
initially targeting the invisible unit?
A: You cannot choose to target an invisible unit with
such attacks, but should models from the unit end up
beneath the template, marker or line of fire, then they
can be hit using the normal rules.

"You cannot choose to target...with such attacks is a radically different statement than doctortom's "you cannot target an invisible unit".

RAW, the only thing that stops you from targeting a unit is line of sight. That's it. You can target a unit that you have to snap shot (when you can't snap shot). You can also target a unit that's out of range (your attack will fizzle). There's nothing in RAW to stop you from targeting a unit you can't attack.

What about the snap fire rule itself? I didn't mention it earlier because it doesn't even say the word 'target' anywhere in it. It says a weapon cannot be 'fired', which isn't described anywhere in the shooting sequence or shooting phase breakdown so we really have no idea what it means except that, for some reason, the attack doesn't work.

2. My argument wasn't conditioned on the "automatic target" part of novas. That was only brought up because some people said novas don't target invisible units. It's the "automatic hit" part, which is shared with Shriek, that was key.

3. Finally, whether novas can hit solitary invisible units, the FAQ clearly states "The invisible unit would be hit...if it was in the range of the nova...". The question itself also only speaks to an "invisible unit". No provision is made for a non-invisible unit being around. The FAQ is clearly stating that against an invisible unit, with no other considerations, a nova should hit it (and this should be its own thread).

If you want to quote RAW that says you can't target something you have to snap shot against when you can't snap shot, go for it. I'll happily concede #1 if you can, but I searched the book and the FAQ and then employed the good old search function for extra measure. If you don't quote more RAW, well, I think that speaks for itself.

I'm going to attempt to recap the major points of both sides. If I miss our get anything wrong feel free to correct.

On the no Psychic Shriek on invisible units side:

Invisibly traits any attacks against the unit to be snap shots. The rules for snap shots say attack that does not use ballistic skill cannot be fired as snap shots, which would include templates, novas, beams, and witchfires with no weapon profile.

Novas, beams, and templates are area attacks meaning, even when fired under normal rules and restrictions, there could be an invisible unit in the area of effect. GW released an FAQ that answers what would happen in that case. They cannot choose to target the unit but would automatically hit if it were there. The FAQ does not change or even address the requirements and restrictions related to firing and in particular did not give them permission to fire snap shots.

Since Psychic Shriek is not an area attack, not mentioned in the FAQ related to invisible units, nothing had been presented that would allow it to snap shot, and nothing presented that removes the restriction against snap shots, we must conclude Psychic Shriek cannot be used on an invisible unit.


On the Psychic Shriek can be used on invisible side:

GW released an FAQ saying novas, beams, and templates can hit invisible units in their area of effect, therefore all attacks that automatically hit can be used against and will automatically hit invisible units, the restriction against attacks that don't use BS didn't apply.

Have I missed a critical point in either side?

Fhionnuisce wrote:
I'm going to attempt to recap the major points of both sides. If I miss our get anything wrong feel free to correct.

On the no Psychic Shriek on invisible units side:

Invisibly traits any attacks against the unit to be snap shots. The rules for snap shots say attack that does not use ballistic skill cannot be fired as snap shots, which would include templates, novas, beams,blasts and witchfires with no weapon profile (due to an errata saying they hit automatically).

Novas, beams, and templates are area attacks meaning, even when fired under normal rules and restrictions, there could be an invisible unit in the area of effect. GW released an FAQ that answers what would happen in that case. They cannot choose to target the unit but would automatically hit if it were there. The FAQ does not change or even address the requirements and restrictions related to firing and in particular did not give them permission to fire snap shots.

--There is a branch-off thought from this one espoused in the thread which is that novas can target invisible units but profile-less Witchfires cannot.

Since Psychic Shriek is not an area attack, not mentioned in the FAQ related to invisible units, nothing had been presented that would allow it to snap shot, and nothing presented that removes the restriction against snap shots, we must conclude Psychic Shriek cannot be used on an invisible unit.


On the Psychic Shriek can be used on invisible side:

GW released an FAQ saying novas, beams, blasts and templates can hit invisible units in certain circumstances, GW also errated profile-less Witchfires to have the same hit language (automatic) as novas, if the restriction against attacks that don't use BS don't apply to novas then they don't apply to profile-less Witchfires.

A second view holds that profile-less Witchfires can roll to hit if they want to, the roll being permissive and not mandatory, thus they can snap shot.

Have I missed a critical point in either side?

I changed it in the body of the quote. Thanks for doing this!

So lets see if we can narrow this down a bit because I'm not completely sure we've been speaking the same language. Most of your posts have centered around the fact that Psychic Shriek, novas, etc. have the same or similar verbiage that they automatically hit. That's not where there is contention. I agree, and think most others do as well, that if you can use Psychic Shriek it will automatically hit. The FAQ seems pretty clear to me on how that works. The question whether you can use Psychic Shriek at all.

This centers entirely around the BRB restriction that attacks that do not use BS cannot be fired as snap shots. That stipulation exists and is clearly stated in the BRB, so it would require explicit errata to remove it which does not exist.

So the question is whether that applies to Psychic Shriek. Since Psychic Shriek only hits one unit, if it can't snap shot then it can't be used on invisible units per the invisiblity requirement. That is not necessarily true of novas, beams, and templates thiugh. Because they have an area of effect and can hit mutiple units it is possible for them to fire under normal conditions (not snap shot) but have an invisible unit in that area of effect. That is why people are claiming the FAQ doesn't in any way give or imply the permission for Psychic Shriek to be used on an invisible unit. The FAQ addresses hitting, not the base permission to make the attack which is the Psychic Shriek problem.

So can Psyvhic Shriek fire snap shots as would be required. I say no because it is predetermined to hit without consideration of BS, you say yes because the wording making it auto hit says the roll is not required, but does not say it can't be done. So if you choose to roll then ignore the result you still used BS. Lets talk about this.

I disagree with your conclusionon two points. First, the way the game is designed you must be told you can do things, failure to tell you that you can't isn't sufficient. So when you are told it is not required the game is no longer telling you that you have permission to do so. Secondly, your basis for argument is that you choose to roll, compare BS results as normal, then discard the result because it automatically hits regardless of result. At that point the attack has not used BS. The attack has resolved entirely without looking at, requiring, or assessing the BS of the firing model. You as the player may have used BS to make a calculation, but since the game did not require it and it was not a factor in resolving the attack, its a big stretch to say the attack used BS. Since this is how you are saying Psychic Shriek is allowed to snap shot, how do you defend this as use of BS when the attack did not address it in any way?