Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Maleceptor has a focus witchfire that forces the target to take a 3D6 leadership test and if failed the target takes D3 hits. Now the Maleceptor also has Shadow in the Warp which lowers a psykers leadership by 3. Now if this power targets a psyker, does the psyker have to use his leadership which would be -3 due to shadows or (if he is in a unit) would he use his units leadership which would most likely be better?

Also since the power treats vehicles as leadership 10, if the vehicle has the psychic pilot special rule does shadows then reduce that leadership to 7?

Irrelevant, Shadow in the Warp is only for psychic tests, not normally.

Not true, shadows in the warps ruling states that a psyker's leadership is -3 within 12". It does not specify only for psychic tests, it is just a negative modifier for all purposes.

danny1995 wrote:
Irrelevant, Shadow in the Warp is only for psychic tests, not normally.

No, it's not.

Tyranidus wrote:
The Maleceptor has a focus witchfire that forces the target to take a 3D6 leadership test and if failed the target takes D3 hits. Now the Maleceptor also has Shadow in the Warp which lowers a psykers leadership by 3. Now if this power targets a psyker, does the psyker have to use his leadership which would be -3 due to shadows or (if he is in a unit) would he use his units leadership which would most likely be better?

Since the witchfire is focused, the target would be the model affected (I think, Psychic rules are so bass ackwards). As such, you would use the targeted models Leadership. Of course, strict RAW, since Psyker = Psychic unit = unit with the Psyker special rule, and the unit has the Psyker special rule (same as a Tac Marine with a Meltagun means you have a Tac Squad with a Meltagun), then every model in the unit would be at a reduced Leadership. I don't think this is intended, and would not play it like that.

Also since the power treats vehicles as leadership 10, if the vehicle has the psychic pilot special rule does shadows then reduce that leadership to 7?

Yes.

Sorry for the threadomancy ... but in dealing with this particular power I had a discussion recently about if you had to roll to hit or not. It is a focused witchfire that allows you to pick the target, and after having rolled your psyker test, you would then have to roll to hit as well?

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
Sorry for the threadomancy ... but in dealing with this particular power I had a discussion recently about if you had to roll to hit or not. It is a focused witchfire that allows you to pick the target, and after having rolled your psyker test, you would then have to roll to hit as well?

Discuss it with your gaming group. It breaks down into two arguments. 1. RAW you have to roll to hit and 2. Hitting or Missing has no bearing on resolving the power.

http://www.miniwargaming.com/content/rules-debate-does-psychic-shriek-need-roll-hit

Decent discussion on it here. They don't hit all the points, but it's a good video to show your friends to help you all make a decision.

It doesn't say anything about psychic tests, therefore it is not restricted to psychic tests.

To answer OP's question. Yes the -3 Ld modifier applies on the Psychic overload power, provided you are close enough.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
Sorry for the threadomancy ... but in dealing with this particular power I had a discussion recently about if you had to roll to hit or not. It is a focused witchfire that allows you to pick the target, and after having rolled your psyker test, you would then have to roll to hit as well?

It works like psychic shriek. You manifest the power, roll an undefined number of dice, then roll to wound with an undefined strength for those that hit. Then roll saves and apply wounds, then resolve the effect of the power (even if no hits were caused). Most people simply ignore the unresolvable parts as you would ignore the -1T from Enfeeble if cast on a vehicle.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
Sorry for the threadomancy ... but in dealing with this particular power I had a discussion recently about if you had to roll to hit or not. It is a focused witchfire that allows you to pick the target, and after having rolled your psyker test, you would then have to roll to hit as well?

The rules as provided in the BRB are broken so its up to the players to house rule whether or not the power rolls to hit as witchfire powers are required or whether it essentially automatically hits (a buff granted somehow by a missing profile).

Take note that competitive events unanimously, to my knowledge, require the to hit roll to be successful for the power to work.

Also, it should be noted that the player base is evenly divided on this contentious rules issue. 50% say the roll to hit factors in to the success of the power and 50% say the power succeeds whether it hits or not.

Take note that competitive events unanimously, to my knowledge, require the to hit roll to be successful for the power to work.

Also note that the rules explicitly state the power works regardless of the roll to hit.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Take note that competitive events unanimously, to my knowledge, require the to hit roll to be successful for the power to work.

Also note that the rules explicitly state the power works regardless of the roll to hit.

Take note that the rules are broken. The rules do not recognize witchfire powers without profiles as a category, and if the rules are followed strictly they require house rule at some point to get to work. Players are of course free to house rule as they like.

Players who care about competitive play should play according to how their tourney's handle the broken rules.

They are only as broken as resolving the -1T from Enfeeble on a vehicle or the 3d6-ld wounds effect on a vehicle or resolving any wounds on a vehicle for that matter. Yet in none of those situations do people set the missing profile to 1 or call the rules broken. So I'll happily play rolling to hit with PS if you consistently rule that way as it becomes the best At power in existence and I'll completely spam Telepathy Psykers if playing by those made up rules.

Or we can just play by the actual rules...

 FlingitNow wrote:
They are only as broken as resolving the -1T from Enfeeble on a vehicle or the 3d6-ld wounds effect on a vehicle or resolving any wounds on a vehicle for that matter. Yet in none of those situations do people set the missing profile to 1 or call the rules broken. So I'll happily play rolling to hit with PS if you consistently rule that way as it becomes the best At power in existence and I'll completely spam Telepathy Psykers if playing by those made up rules.

Or we can just play by the actual rules...

Since you are not a competitive player, feel free to house rule however which way you like, FlingItNow. If you want to house rule it the same way you house rule Enfeeble then go ahead.

What makes you think I'm not a competitive player? Because I play by the rules? Because I like to play 7th Ed?

 FlingitNow wrote:
What makes you think I'm not a competitive player? Because I play by the rules? Because I like to play 7th Ed?

Like I said, since you are not a competitive player, feel free to house rule however which way you like, FlingItNow

Again what makes you think I'm not a competitive player? I'm not advocating House ruling at all. I'm advocating playing by the rules in the book as opposed to making up rules. Yes most tournaments use a whole raft of their own rules and it is common for them to change how PS and focussed witchfires work as they also change how the missions and army building work.

So advocate your Houserules all you want. But let's be clear I am not advocating playing by anything other than the rules in the book and am not advocating making up any rules.

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
What makes you think I'm not a competitive player? Because I play by the rules? Because I like to play 7th Ed?

Like I said, since you are not a competitive player, feel free to house rule however which way you like, FlingItNow

Interesting assertion to make. Care to back it up?

It isn't a house rule to not apply irrelevant rules, like -1t on a vehicle. It's done all the time. You just seem to have a problem with this. No competitive event I know of makes up your house rule though, where we roll one dice (not undefined) and fail to resolve the psychic power on a failed to hit, despite the clear instructions otherwise

But your house rules were all proven as such in the prior threads.

Should we just leave it as "Witchfires are broken" and not re-open the "must roll To Hit" debate?

No new rules and a clear separation of opinions would be a good reason...

They're not broken just because Col wants them to be. The work fine just like Enfeeble works fine.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Should we just leave it as "Witchfires are broken" and not re-open the "must roll To Hit" debate?

No new rules and a clear separation of opinions would be a good reason...

They work just fine, if you do what you do every other time you gave an irrelevant rule.

They're only broken if, like col, you want to pretend they are so you can push a set of nonsensical house rules.

"witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, (...), or it is a Template weapon".

That clause will never be fulfilled, even if you take 0, 1 or 40 000 Dice. As such, the rule is broken.

I did not think that it was a point of contention?

Sorry if Quoted out of context, but from the previous debates:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You must resolve the power, and the to hit has no effect on anything other than rolling to wound, so I play it as my opponent does not need to roll to hit with the power, as it is an irrelevant action. Like trying to apply -1T to a vehicle.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I've not said its total raw, just that, once you look into it, making up two rules has significantly less supp than one.

You do indeed have a method of resolving the issue, but cannot deny that the compulsory "must roll To Hit" is not followed. As such the rule is broken.

Let's just go by the above for now, you ignore the Roll To Hit and move on. Until new FAQ/RAW fix this.

They must roll to hit, but the outcmoe has no effect. So the rule is ignored

You must apply -1T, but cannot, so the rule is ignored

Ignored =/= resolved

It has been skipped, but it's still broken. And before it comes out as a point: Enfeeble by extension is also "broken" against vehicles.
You can't just go around ignoring rules form the BrB when discussing RaW.

As the OP's question has been answered i'll leave it at that. Fragile got the right answer a while back.

When your interpretation is dependant on every stat modifying ability/power being broken the minute it can apply to a model missing that stat then you are at the point of trying to break the rules for the sake of it. Wanting the rules to be broken so you can force totally made up rules on people is not a good way to look at the rules. We are suggesting an interpretation that is based on purely doing what the rules tell us, rather than making up profiles and then making up further rules to make the previous rules we made up become relevant.

If you have an unresolvable action that is ok it happens all the time in the rules. Anything dependent on the outcome of that action likewise can not be resolved. So we have a choice we can either say the same is broken and give up everytime we hit an unresolvable action. We can leave the unresolvable action and continue the game with the actions we can resolve. Finally we can call the game broken and make up a load of our own rules.

In literally every other case where this occurs everyone chooses the second option. Why they choose the 3rd option only for the roll to hit on psychic powers has NEVER been answered by anyone on that side of the debate.

 FlingitNow wrote:
When your interpretation is dependant on every stat modifying ability/power being broken the minute it can apply to a model missing that stat then you are at the point of trying to break the rules for the sake of it. Wanting the rules to be broken so you can force totally made up rules on people is not a good way to look at the rules. We are suggesting an interpretation that is based on purely doing what the rules tell us, rather than making up profiles and then making up further rules to make the previous rules we made up become relevant.

If you have an unresolvable action that is ok it happens all the time in the rules. Anything dependent on the outcome of that action likewise can not be resolved. So we have a choice we can either say the same is broken and give up everytime we hit an unresolvable action. We can leave the unresolvable action and continue the game with the actions we can resolve. Finally we can call the game broken and make up a load of our own rules.

In literally every other case where this occurs everyone chooses the second option. Why they choose the 3rd option only for the roll to hit on psychic powers has NEVER been answered by anyone on that side of the debate.

If you want to have a RAW debate I suggest you open a new thread.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Ignored =/= resolved

It has been skipped, but it's still broken. And before it comes out as a point: Enfeeble by extension is also "broken" against vehicles.
You can't just go around ignoring rules form the BrB when discussing RaW.

As the OP's question has been answered i'll leave it at that. Fragile got the right answer a while back.

If the witchfire requires a roll to hit, but doesn't require a hit to proceed, how is rolling to hit and then ignoring the result (because it doesn't matter) not resolving the rule?

It seems like people are reading the requirement to roll to hit as a requirement to hit? Am I missing something? I skimmed through the thread, so it's possible I'm missing a key bit.

It seems like people are using tournament house rules as circumstancial evidence for how RaW should be interpreted. The overwhelming majority of tournaments are based on a series of house rules, so they're a really bad source for RaW discussions. They're an excellent source for HIWPI guidance.

If you want to concede you can do it in this thread.

 FlingitNow wrote:
If you want to concede you can do it in this thread.

If you want to have a RAW debate I suggest you open a new thread.

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
If you want to concede you can do it in this thread.

If you want to have a RAW debate I suggest you open a new thread.

Not willing to discuss RaW on YMDC? Why create a whole other thread? You won't discuss RaW on that one either, instead you'll ask me to create yet another thread because you can't argue without conceding that you are unable to defend your position.