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.

Xarian wrote:This is the way that the game has been played for years. A 10-word clarification in a FAQ isn't going to come in and tell us that we've been doing it wrong all along.

But yet... it did! That is usually why GW releases FAQs, because people have been playing rules wrong and they need clarification. People thought Deffrolling tanks was absurd and unbalanced... Psychic powers not autohitting anymore because nothing says they do will quickly be seen to be fair and balanced except for people who are bitter they got hit with the nerf bat.

I am stoked as now I get a 1/3 or 1/2 to nullify almost every psychic power that I dislike before it hits me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:To see if your power has any effect?

So if power misses, it has no effect, right?

...except that Murderous Hurricane FAQ says that it has effect even if it misses.

...oh...

I'm confused...

Xarian - template weapons Do need to "roll to hit" - i.e. step 3 of the shooting process - however they replace the "roll to hit" mechanic with something else.

If a psychic weapon uses the Blast Marker then it is a Blast WEapon. ALL PSAs are "Assault" by default, however making them use a blast or template means the follow those rules as well.

Otherwise, for example - how do you resovle the attack? without referencing the Blast rules you have no rules for determining hits, no rules for working out vehicle damage, and so on.

Grey elder wrote:Also seeing as Lash of Submission has the same wording as MH for picking a unit

Who cares, Lash is not a PSA, MH is.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Xarian - template weapons Do need to "roll to hit" - i.e. step 3 of the shooting process - however they replace the "roll to hit" mechanic with something else.

If a psychic weapon uses the Blast Marker then it is a Blast WEapon. ALL PSAs are "Assault" by default, however making them use a blast or template means the follow those rules as well.

Otherwise, for example - how do you resovle the attack? without referencing the Blast rules you have no rules for determining hits, no rules for working out vehicle damage, and so on.

Nos, this still hasn't answered the problem with Nurgle's Rot.

If it is a PSA, I have to break the targeting rules, the Who Can Fire rules and assault rules to follow the PSA rules, not to mention the wording of Nurgle's Rot. So, in reference to Gwar! (or was it you), I would default to the answer that breaks the least amount of rules. Which would be that Nurgle's Rot automatically hits because it states that everyone within 6" suffers a hit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Eldritch storm is a PSA using the large blast.

BR - the rules for the SW power tell you to place the blast over the Rune Priest. This does NOT override the step 3 replacement rules for rolling to hit (roll for scatter), it just limits where you can place the blast marker. So you still scatter.

Not that you'll listen. Bucket full of holes indeed.

If you check my breakdown Thunderclap, the placement of the blast is so that it touches the rune priest which would pretty much be step 1 and step 2, I listed it as step 1. When the rule tells you that that everything under the template takes a Str 3 hit would be step 3, being the codex exception to the general rule.

And oh wise one, you do not roll for scatter unless the psychic shooting attack is blast type. Using the marker does not make the power blast type. So no roll for scatter. I think I actually might have made that mistake at first as well, but ws corrected by someone else.

But hey, keep shouting, "PSA need to roll to hit" from the rooftops without following the rest of the rules. Hopefully that will work out for your gaming group.

It sure will.

NOt shouting, just reminding you that "exception" means just that - you have to show the exception, something you are singularly failing to do. AS in, utterly.

The exception that you continue to gloss over is right there in the rule where it tells you who and how the models are hit INSTEAD of the general rules for psychic shooting attacks.

Just another argument where you think arbitrarily introducing wording or requirements makes you win when the actual rules when read in simple plain english prove you wrong. Case in point, using the blast marker makes the attack type blast. Really? Being type blast makes and the attack type blast.

unneeded comment removed.

Reds8n


Have a nice day.

Brother Ramses wrote:

But hey, keep shouting, "PSA need to roll to hit" from the rooftops without following the rest of the rules. Hopefully that will work out for your gaming group.

People at tourneys seem to follow FAQs... so I am not worried. And it is really easy to roll to hit AND apply the effects of the power. You roll to hit... then apply the effects of the power if you hit. It isn't as complicated as you are making it, you just want to keep your power and dodge the nerf bat as you are a SW player.

As long as you and your gaming group agree to not roll to hit for PSA and disclosing what is in transports, more power to you. Whatever version fo 40k you and your opponent agree on becomes 'the rules' for that game.

As above

It isnt difficult to follow the FAQ, it is difficult to follows BRs dodging the question, insults and quite worrying "laughter".

Yes having read the Rulebook and Codexes as well as the FAQ.

I admit I was wrong and you were right Ramses

The FAQ is just stating what is already what is already there.

If you have any exception like JOTWW, blood lance and the like it overrides the need to roll to hit.

Damn

nkelsch wrote:

Xarian wrote:This is the way that the game has been played for years. A 10-word clarification in a FAQ isn't going to come in and tell us that we've been doing it wrong all along.

But yet... it did! That is usually why GW releases FAQs, because people have been playing rules wrong and they need clarification. People thought Deffrolling tanks was absurd and unbalanced... Psychic powers not autohitting anymore because nothing says they do will quickly be seen to be fair and balanced except for people who are bitter they got hit with the nerf bat.

I am stoked as now I get a 1/3 or 1/2 to nullify almost every psychic power that I dislike before it hits me.

FAQs don't introduce sweeping rules changes to the game. Period. There are often specific changes; for example, clarifying Scout/Shunt move, or explaining that Mind War is a Psychic Shooting Attack (which was not in the codex at all). Bigger changes only occur in errata, and there are usually explanations or justifications for the more contentious rulings. If you read a FAQ entry and say "wow, that changes the way that 25 different things are done in 7 different armies, and we've been doing it completely wrong for years, even after multiple rulebook and codex revisions and more than a hundred tournaments where everything was accepted as perfectly okay with no arguments whatsoever!" then you're interpreting the FAQ incorrectly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Xarian - template weapons Do need to "roll to hit" - i.e. step 3 of the shooting process - however they replace the "roll to hit" mechanic with something else.

If a psychic weapon uses the Blast Marker then it is a Blast WEapon. ALL PSAs are "Assault" by default, however making them use a blast or template means the follow those rules as well.

Otherwise, for example - how do you resovle the attack? without referencing the Blast rules you have no rules for determining hits, no rules for working out vehicle damage, and so on.

Right, replacing the "roll to hit" mechanic with "something else" is exactly what I'm talking about. Templates replace it with "place the template and resolve a hit against any model touched" (well, more involved, but you get the idea). Blast weapons replace it with "place the marker and roll for scatter, then resolve a hit against any model touched". And other, more exotic powers replace it with "draw a line and resolve a hit against any model touched" or "resolve 3d6 hits against the targeted unit". I'm just trying to explain that Template/Blast/exotic targeting methods are all equivalent - they all replace the standard "roll to hit" mechanic.

I honestly believe that the intended point of that particular FAQ entry was to clarify that psychic shooting attacks with a profile do not automatically hit - because psychic powers without a profile almost always automatically affect their targets without rolling to hit (for example, Doom).

pitfighter wrote:
I would counter argue on this. If all PSA's need a roll to hit before they resolve, does this mean that even Living Lightning needs a roll to hit before anything resolves?

Psychic test taken, roll to hit for the power
roll D6, roll for hits, and finaly roll for wounds. Does this make sense?

Wow... I'm floored. You just presented a well reasoned argument without being condescending or rude... On Dakka YMDC! Shocking! Kudos Sir!

Actually you do make a good point, and I don't really have an answer for that. While I do think that "to hit" makes sense for JOTWW and MH, the double to hit roll that would infer on LL seems incorrect. And you can't play a rule inconsistently from one power to another. I'll have to think about that...

As an aside tho, I wouldn't assume people are arguing for the "to hit" side because the think JOTWW is scary. I, for one, play Tau, and my army of suits and skimmers laugh at your JOTWW. I, and I'm sure others, just want the rules to be enforced properly (if indeed GW meant for them to be clarified this way).

Also in regards to the Nurgle thing, if it doesn't identify itself as a PSA and doesn't have a proper shooting stat line, then I don't think it qualifies as a PSA, and shouldn't need to roll for hitting.

Time for a little honesty check: How many people arguing in favor of BL and JotWW requiring a roll to hit really just want to see these powers get nerfed hard?

Xarian wrote:FAQs don't introduce sweeping rules changes to the game. Period.

yes they do.

If you read a FAQ entry and say "wow, that changes the way that 25 different things are done in 7 different armies, and we've been doing it completely wrong for years, even after multiple rulebook and codex revisions and more than a hundred tournaments where everything was accepted as perfectly okay with no arguments whatsoever!" then you're interpreting the FAQ incorrectly.

Ramming is a special type of tank shock would like to disagree with you for the 2+ years that wrong interpretation was out there being used by gamers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Eldritch storm is a PSA using the large blast.

That's right: Eldritch storm has a weapons profile with the rule "Blast" in it. As does Vortex of Doom.

Thunderclap doesn't, thus it is no more a "Blast weapon" than it is a Melta, or Rending weapon. Which is why it does not scatter.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Time for a little honesty check: How many people arguing in favor of BL and JotWW requiring a roll to hit really just want to see these powers get nerfed hard?

Honestly Yes I was

Choboking wrote:As an aside tho, I wouldn't assume people are arguing for the "to hit" side because they think JOTWW is scary.

Well, to be honest, JOTWW has had a lot of hate thrown at it over the years even if its actual effectiveness was subpar against a majority of amry lists. Tyranids have probably the best reason to hate JOTWW and have been some of its most vocal critics. Then again, it doesn't take much these days to rile a nid player as GW's constant shenanigans starting with 5th edition has kept thier back sides pretty tender. Even more so, SW are seen as being one of the more effective armies, which has naturally bred quite a bit of jealousy here on the Dakka forums. Some of that residual hate can certainly be seen bleeding into this and related threads that recently sprung up with the new BRB FAQ.

nkelsch wrote:Ramming is a special type of tank shock would like to disagree with you for the 2+ years that wrong interpretation was out there being used by gamers.

Ramming is under the tank shock section.

However:
- A change to the Deff Rolla is not a sweeping rules change. It affects one army, and it's a pretty minor change.
- It's a clarification, not a rules change. The same way that "you cannot use furious charge with the counter attack special rule because you are not actually charging" is a clarification.
- Ramming is new to 5e. Psychic powers have been around since 2e (or RT? not familiar with rules older than 2e), and have worked in their current incarnation since 3e.
- Flat-out denial of a conclusion is not a valid counter argument and is the equivalent of stamping your foot and shouting "nuh uh!"

What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

Like I said, sweeping rules changes don't go in the FAQ. They come about because there was some sort of egregious error in the main rulebook, and they get hit with errata. Not a one-word answer to an eight-word question with no further clarification.

Xarian wrote:FAQs don't introduce sweeping rules changes to the game. Period.

That should be "Question Mark?" Since FAQs can and have introduced sweeping rules changes.

wyomingfox wrote:

Choboking wrote:As an aside tho, I wouldn't assume people are arguing for the "to hit" side because they think JOTWW is scary.

Well, to be honest, JOTWW has had a lot of hate thrown at it over the years even if its actual effectiveness was subpar against a majority of amry lists. Tyranids have probably the best reason to hate JOTWW and have been some of its most vocal critics. Then again, it doesn't take much these days to rile a nid player as GW's constant shenanigans starting with 5th edition has kept thier back sides pretty tender. Even more so, SW are seen as being one of the more effective armies, which has naturally bred quite a bit of jealousy here on the Dakka forums. Some of that residual hate can certainly be seen bleeding into this and related threads that recently sprung up with the new BRB FAQ.

I'm sure that is quite accurate, any strong codex is going to be a victim of "haters gonna hate." Still, I don't think that should figure into the discussion. SW players wan't to keep as many advantages as possible. Haters want to take as many toys away as they can. Both are understandable, but neither should be what we are concerned with.

The rules are the rules, arguments one way or the other should be evaluated objectively, and if you are not doing that (either side) then there is no point in contributing to the conversation.

Backfire wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Eldritch storm is a PSA using the large blast.

That's right: Eldritch storm has a weapons profile with the rule "Blast" in it. As does Vortex of Doom.

Thunderclap doesn't, thus it is no more a "Blast weapon" than it is a Melta, or Rending weapon. Which is why it does not scatter.

Er, Eldritch Storm doesn't actually have a profile, not directly. It uses the "place the large blast template" wording because in 4e (when the codex is written), Blast weapons had to roll to hit (rather than place and roll to scatter). It got FAQed to introduce the scatter roll once 5e hit.

Thunder Clap was written in 5e, so I figure they probably already accounted for the difference in wording, and scatter isn't intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Xarian wrote:FAQs don't introduce sweeping rules changes to the game. Period.

That should be "Question Mark?" Since FAQs can and have introduced sweeping rules changes.

Citation needed. Sweeping rules changes happen in Errata (rare) or in edition changes (common).

As with any argument on Dakka there comes a time for me when I put up my last word and just don't bother anymore with the repetitive counter-arguments.

You cannot argue against the repeated use of,

"PSA need to roll to hit!!"

Not because it is a valid argument, but because it is the tunnel vision stance of the blissfully ignorant. It is the Pee Wee Herman tactic of YMDC, ie, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Do psychic shooting attacks need to roll to hit?

Yes.

Do ALL psychic shooting attacks need to roll to hit?

No.

This is clearly evident by all of the various psychic shooting attacks spread across numerous codexes with their various rules for resolving how they are employed. It is then clearly and strongly backed by the BRB rule that exceptions to the general rules for psychic shooting attacks are found in the individual codexes.

The basic premise is far too simple;

"If the codex tells you something different then the general rules, you follow the codex."

I have already broken down several examples of psychic shooting attacks using the Shooting Sequence as my template and showing where general rules apply and where codex exceptions take precedent. Not suprsingly the responses were for the most part,

"Not uh, PSA need to roll to hit!"

So as has been mentioned, you can lead a horse to water but you can't stop him from saying, "PSA need to roll to hit" while making him drink from a water barrel full of holes that you had shot fish in.

Till the next faq.

Xarian wrote:Er, Eldritch Storm doesn't actually have a profile, not directly. It uses the "place the large blast template" wording because in 4e (when the codex is written), Blast weapons had to roll to hit (rather than place and roll to scatter). It got FAQed to introduce the scatter roll once 5e hit.

Um, at least the Eldar Codex version I have has a profile for it: Range: 18" S:3 AP: - Pinning, Large Blast. Has it changed at some point?

Large scale sweeping change brought about by a FAQ: BT "EMperors Champion" answer

Prior to this noone ever thought that a techpriest would be able to lead an army (non-HQ-filling HQ choice)

Not only a FAQ, but a FAQ for one army

Another way youre wrong in the sweeping statement: AP1 vs SMF in 4th edition, answered in the Eldar codex, from memory. Thats EVERY AP1 weapon in EVERY codex changed due to a FAQ

And so on

ANd ignoring BR for his inability to avoid insults. Bucket, holes, etc.

This may have been brought up already, but here it goes anyway.
Multiple Psychic Shooting Attacks say something to the effect of "draw a line and everything under that line is hit", correct?
So why is it hard to imagine that you have to roll 'to hit' to see if that line actually happened where you wanted it to?
Every other shooting attack has to roll 'to hit' to see if you hit what you were aiming at, why not JotWW or similar Psychic Shooting attacks?

Also, could someone explain to me if rolling a scatter die to see if a blast template scatters is considered 'rolling to hit'? That argument seems to be popping up regarding psychic shooting attacks that use blast templates. Thanks.






Remember, its a game. If you don't enjoy yourself even while being tabled, you should probably not be putting as much money into this hobby as you currently are

So we have non drinking horses and leaky buckets full of personal insults...

When the loudest argument is made by someone who promotes cheating as a tactic which has poisoned the thread for me.

Seems like it is very easy to resolve but there is too much invested for anyone to be objective. I can honestly say, I think JotWW deserves a thump from the nerf bat and I don't think rolling to hit once before cast is an unreasonable nerf... Since no one is a mindreader and can tell what is 'intended' unless the studio says one way or the other, we don't know what they intend. I guess we have to wait for INAT to clarify the FAQ into individual power rulings as I doubt we will get a GW FAQ re-FAQ before most of the summer tourneys.

As long as it is clearly agreed upon before a game/tourney, I can take either side as long as it is consistently applied.

Power Roll to Hit
Fury of the Wolf Spirits Yes
Jaws of the World Wolf No
Living Lightning Yes
Murderous Hurricane No
Thunder Clap No
Boil Blood No
Blood Lance No
Fear of the Darkness No
Shackle Soul No
Smite Yes
Hellfire Template
The Avenger Template
Vortex of Doom Roll Scatter
Machine Curse Yes
Wind of Chaos Template
Bolt of Change Yes
Doom Bolt Yes
Nurgles Rot No
Lash of Submission No
Mind War No
Eldritch Storm Roll Scatter
Destructor Template
Lightening Arc Yes
Soulstorm Roll Scatter
Frazzle Roll Scatter
Zzap ?
Leech Essence No
Paroxysm No
Psychic Scream No
The Horror No
Cataclysm Roll Scatter
Warp Blast Roll Scatter
Warp Lance Yes

I am a Blood Angles Player and I think that you should have to roll for Blood Lance. Yes it makes it less effective but it does define what a Psychic Shooting Attack is. I think we are seeing the first stirrings of 6th Edition.

This power is a psychic shooting attack. Extend a straight line, 4D6" long, from the Librarian's base in any direction - this is the path taken by the Blood Lance. Any enemy unit in the lance's path suffers a single Strength 8, AP 1 hit with the
'lance' type. Friendly units, and enemy units locked in close combat, are unaffected - the lance darts over them before continuing on its course.

Perhaps the Librarian need to be looking the correct way while dodging stray rounds, and in the utter chaos that is a 40k battlefield. I don't know but it doesn't really hurt the effectiveness of my main army that much and I can live with it.
I can tell you that since the FAQ specifically says that any Psychic Shooting Attack must roll to hit that is how I will be playing it. No matter if I think that its dumb or not.

I play in tournaments and I find that erring on the side of caution always pays off. I you are trying to hold on to something that is to your benefit most of the time GW will rule against it.

When the question of Coteaz came up regarding if you could have more troops then the force organization chart allows you I made my list with 6 troops or less. Guess what, that is how the ruling went.

This seems to be a trend in our community. Players holding on to rules that benefit their army above others. My rule is if it sounds too good for you it will be FAQed up for sure.

In addition if I am in a tournament and a Space Wolf player doesn't roll to hit I will be calling a Tournament Organizer over for a judgement. Like the Space Wolves need MORE tools to wreck me with, lol. I will also call any Eldar player who doesn't roll to hit with Mind War.

The FAQs are rules with which we all play by. As such, in a tournament I expect them followed. Even if I think they are wrong.

*Briefly stepping into the Thunderdome*

Is it THAT much of a nerf to require these abilities a roll to hit? Don't most of these caster have BS of 4 or 5?

Oh snap... you needs 2s or 3s to hit...

It isn't that much of a nerf...

However, like any other muddied rules, I'd consult with the opposing player or TO for clarification. I've done this with my Kanwall list (do I need 1 or 2 kans to get 4+) and I've always played accordingly.

*ducking all the trash thrown at me and leaving the Thunderdome *