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.

It's not "everyone else" lledway. I agree with GK, and arrived at the same conclusion as him several pages ago, but realize that endlessly repeating myself is not going to make me "more correct."

You're right, I shouldn't have said everyone else, I meant everyone on this side of the argument. My bad! I wasn't trying to imply that everyone else agrees with me, I know it is far from it!

I am pretty amazed that people are still equating JotWW touching a model with JotWW hitting a model,

IIed, your entire comparison and argument with the vibro-cannon is based on the false premise that JotWW hits the target model. The vibro-specifically tells you that what the line touches is hit. JotWW lacks that and makes a key difference. JotWW specifically tells you that what the line touches takes an iniative test.

Nos you are still floundering on a standard that you have arbitrarily created and that is not supported by RAW or the RAW of other psychic powers. Demanding that JotWW must specifically say that it does not roll to hit is your created standard. The standard given on page 50, is that exceptions on employing psychic powers are in the codex. If the codex tells you that you jump six times in a circle and all models within 72" of the rune priest suffer a hit/take an iniative test/are hit by str8 bunnies, then that is the codex exception on how to employ that psychic power that is different from the general rules,

I keep pointing out that JotWW also does not specifically tell you NOT to roll to wound to which the reply is that JotWW does not wound. Well, JotWW does not specifically tell you NOT to roll to hit, so my reply is that JotWW does not hit a target, it touches a target.

Damn space wolves are OP... Why can't Necrons have s8 bunnies ;_;

lledwey wrote:Right, but you contended that the only time you ever have to make a hit roll is if something is going to wound. That IS what you said. I showed you how that is false.

I don't believe that is his contention. I believe what he is saying that if you miss a 'to hit' roll, then you don't get to roll to wound. You still get to do everything else. To go even further, the 'to wound' roll converts the 'to hit' roll to a wound. Which jaws doesn't do or need to do.

Now if there is some entry somewhere that states that a psychic power that is a PSA that fails to hit negates or cancels the psychic power, I'm all ears. As far as I can tell, it just fails to wound.

Now, I'm on the side of it needing a 'to hit' roll. I am playing devil's advocate here. I didn't even think that this could actually work until (due to this thread) I took a closer look at the shooting rules.

Is there any other PSA's out there that don't wound? And what do those rules/errata/faq state on how those powers work? Like turning something into a chaos schmuck or a grot. Not that it matters as gw doesn't set or use precedent...

GiantKiller wrote:

kirsanth wrote:When a (psychic) shooting attack misses its target it is rather contradictory to say it touches the target it misses.
When a (psychic) shooting attack misses its target, where is your text allowing it to affect ANYTHING in the game?

"Q. Does Murderous Hurricane require the power to hit or wound its target to affect them? (p37)
A. No, a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even if the power fails to hit or wound." Codex: Space Wolves FAQ v1.1 (July 2011)

.


Hope this helps!
-GiantKiller

It helps if you are contending that no PSA needs to succeed in its to-hit roll (and potentially its psychic test), regardless of the subsequent effects.

You will note that the PSA it is refering to has two distinct effects.
The FAQ states that they are independent of each other--and the second does not require a successful to-hit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:Is there any other PSA's out there that don't wound? And what do those rules/errata/faq state on how those powers work?

The most often quoted are in the Tyranid codex. Many of them are PSAs that do not cause wounds and "that automatically hits" units.
It is silly that they use such obvious wording before and after JotWW and yet it is conspicuously lacking in it. Yet there it is.

I've played 6 games in the past 2 weeks with Rune Priests. I've cast Jaws at least 12 times. Hey guess who missed all 12 times. I hate the roll to hit almost as much as my dice.

OK 40k is a game of procedures. The rules dictate, how you do things.

How is a PSA done?

before FAQ:
1. pass the psychic test
2. measure range
3. resolve effect

after FAQ:
1. pass psychic test
2. Pick a target
3. measure range
3. Roll to hit
4. Resolve the effect

so the effect of Jaws is: trace a line with the length of 24" under which all opposing models must pass an initiative test. Otherwise they are removed.

The effect does not interfere with the rest of the procedure. If there is no specific contradiction to the usual procedure, this procedure will have to be followed.

-Nazdreg- wrote:OK 40k is a game of procedures. The rules dictate, how you do things.

How is a PSA done?

before FAQ:
1. pass the psychic test
2. measure range
3. resolve effect

after FAQ:
1. pass psychic test
2. Pick a target
3. measure range
3. Roll to hit
4. Resolve the effect

so the effect of Jaws is: trace a line with the length of 24" under which all opposing models must pass an initiative test. Otherwise they are removed.

The effect does not interfere with the rest of the procedure. If there is no specific contradiction to the usual procedure, this procedure will have to be followed.

Considering that you do not even have the general rules right, you might want a refresher course with the BRB and the SW codex before contributing to this thread.

Tyr - so, you're still failing to find any rule, anywhere stating that the to hit roll is not needed, or is replaced, or any such similar statement?

No, I am not making an arbitrary standard, just trying to get you to finally admit that JotWW makes NO MENTION of "to hit" and, as such, cannot specifically override the requirement to hit.

An exception has to be stated - for example "do not roll to hit" or "hits automatically" or "instead of rolling to hit" - franky *anything* which creates a specific exemption to the general rule requiring PSA to roll to hit.

You do understand specific > general, right?

I hate to say this, but I wonder if some people are from the Bolter and Chainsword Space Wolf forums. When I was there, SW players were always right, never wrong, and if you or in my case, made some great points, they were never acknowladged and they just say "it's the way it is" without and explanation, or any counters to what I had to say.

I see alot of this happening here. When someone makes a comment be it right or wrong, there is no counter arguement to say that they are wrong.

Welcome to YMDC... Dizzy yet?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tyr - so, you're still failing to find any rule, anywhere stating that the to hit roll is not needed, or is replaced, or any such similar statement?

No, I am not making an arbitrary standard, just trying to get you to finally admit that JotWW makes NO MENTION of "to hit" and, as such, cannot specifically override the requirement to hit.

An exception has to be stated - for example "do not roll to hit" or "hits automatically" or "instead of rolling to hit" - franky *anything* which creates a specific exemption to the general rule requiring PSA to roll to hit.

You do understand specific > general, right?

Exceptions do not need to be stated! Where are you getting this besides your own imagination? That is not what page 50 dictates and is not what the rules actually even do. Page 50 tells yout that excpetions to the general rules for employing psychic powers will be in the codex and that is it.

JotWW does not STATE that you do NOT roll to wound. Instead it tells you that models failing an initiative are removed from the table. That is not STATING that you do not roll to wound, that is giving you an exception to rolling to wound.

Thunderclap does not STATE that you do NOT declare a target, that yiu do NOT check range, or that you dodo NOT check LoS. Instead it tells you to place the small blast marker so that it is touching the rune priest. That is not STATING that you do not do those things, that as giving you exceptions to having to do those general rules.

JotWW does not STATE that you do NOT roll to hit. Instead it tells you that models that are touched by the line take an initiative test. That is not STATING that you do not roll to hit, that is giving you an exception to rolling to hit.

Even your, "automatically hits" examples do notnot STATE that you do not roll to hit. It is telling you telling you that the models are automatically hit. That is not STATING that you do not roll to hit, that is giving you an exception to rolling to hit.

Your continued insistance that it requires a statement shows you have absolutely zero grasp of how exceptions to the general rules for psychic powers work. It also shows that your argument has zero merit in the rules as writen because you keep asking for a standard that does not exist in the BRB or even in practice with other psychic powers.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Exceptions do not need to be stated!

I stopped here because it is simply wrong.

If a rule states (for argumentative purposes) that a to-hit roll needs to be made by XXX.

When you use XXX you need to have made a to-hit roll.

Otherwise you actually need an exception in text stating so.
You are cheating if you acknowledge those rules, have no exception to them, and yet refuse to follow them.

Editing to add:
It still makes more sense to say "INAT says it is allowed" than trying to. . .interpret the rules to validate it.

hsojvvad wrote:I hate to say this, but I wonder if some people are from the Bolter and Chainsword Space Wolf forums. When I was there, SW players were always right, never wrong, and if you or in my case, made some great points, they were never acknowladged and they just say "it's the way it is" without and explanation, or any counters to what I had to say.

I see alot of this happening here. When someone makes a comment be it right or wrong, there is no counter arguement to say that they are wrong.

INAT and Nova folks must be from the SW forums as well right? And Nos must be from The Tyranid Hive or The Waagh forums because he is arguing for a to roll hit?

Motives can be varied or can singular, but do not matter when the argument is RAW based on page 5050 of the BRB. RAI arguments can easily be motive driven. In Nos' case, I have no idea what army he plays that forces him to create a RAI standard to base his argument. I don't care what his army is, I have a point of contention that he is arbitrarily creating a standard that does not exist in the face of RAW and then is trying to push it as the rule. He has zero basis to set the standard at what he contends. He has created it and he is trying to push it as RAW.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

hsojvvad wrote:I hate to say this, but I wonder if some people are from the Bolter and Chainsword Space Wolf forums. When I was there, SW players were always right, never wrong, and if you or in my case, made some great points, they were never acknowladged and they just say "it's the way it is" without and explanation, or any counters to what I had to say.

I see alot of this happening here. When someone makes a comment be it right or wrong, there is no counter arguement to say that they are wrong.

INAT and Nova folks must be from the SW forums as well right? And Nos must be from The Tyranid Hive or The Waagh forums because he is arguing for a to roll hit?

Motives can be varied or can singular, but do not matter when the argument is RAW based on page 5050 of the BRB. RAI arguments can easily be motive driven. In Nos' case, I have no idea what army he plays that forces him to create a RAI standard to base his argument. I don't care what his army is, I have a point of contention that he is arbitrarily creating a standard that does not exist in the face of RAW and then is trying to push it as the rule. He has zero basis to set the standard at what he contends. He has created it and he is trying to push it as RAW.

If spite is your respite, I play Tyranids and never demand any player play by rules they do not agree with.

I assume the weaker arguement for my side regardless of the debate.

Do you play otherwise?

kirsanth wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Exceptions do not need to be stated!

I stopped here because it is simply wrong.

If a rule states (for argumentative purposes) that a to-hit roll needs to be made by XXX.

When you use XXX you need to have made a to-hit roll.

Otherwise you actually need an exception in text stating so.
You are cheating if you acknowledge those rules, have no exception to them, and yet refuse to follow them.

Editing to add:
It still makes more sense to say "INAT says it is allowed" than trying to. . .interpret the rules to validate it.

If you stopped reading there then you are just as short sighted as Nos because the examples I have provided show direct proof as to how GW provides exceptions to the general rules without specifically stating the exception.

You will not find, "DO NOT ROLL TO WOUND" in the rules entry for JotWW, yet it is number 4 of the general rules. Are you proposing that JotWW now needs to roll to wound?

You will not find, "DO NOT CHECK LINE OF SIGHT & PICK A TARGET" in the rules entry for Blood Boil, yet it is number 1 of the general rules. Are you proposing that Blood Boil now needs to check LoS and pick a target?

Exceptions to the general rules are not stated on a per word to word basis. If the codex tells you to employ a psychic power differently then the general rules you employ it as the rule is written, not by including your own criteria of what wording qualifies as an exception.

And even as I pointed out, "automatically hits" examples are not the standard for making an exception to the general rules. Especially in the case of JotWW where you never hit a target.

Most gaming groups have addressed this issue by this point. However, below is the analysis that we came up with for why a "to hit" roll is not required. The crux of the issue is that the Space Wolf FAQ explicitly states that the target of the power is determined after the affected models have been determined. Based on this we apply the codex FAQ as an override to the general FAQ and the power actually goes off and affects models prior to any target being nominated. See below.

I am going by RAW explicitly, you are trying to infer intent from the FAQ. Let's take a look at the RAW for psychic shooting attacks.
(BRB pg50)
"The following general rules explain how psychic powers are employed. Exceptions to these rules are covered in the Codexes"

This section is GW tellling you that these rules only apply in general, and that the Codexes will supercede them with their own rules where appropriate.

(BRB pg50)
"Psychic powers that take the form of shooting attacks are very common. Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon (an assault weapon unless otherwise specified)."

It simply says that you "count as" firing a ranged weapon. No where in the rules does it specify anything about applying the rules from the shooting section of the rulebook. "Counts as" does not mean that you suddenly get to apply the rules from another section of the rulebook. If I had a power that had a side effect that I "count as" moving when I use it. That doesn't mean that I get to go to the movement section of the rules and make a free move because I feel like it. By RAW, you are not given permission to use the shooting rules when making a psychic shooting attack.

Thus GW decided to give us a FAQ that told us that yes, these general psychic attacks do need to roll to hit just like all other shooting.
(BRB FAQ 1.3)
Q: Do psychic shooting attacks need to roll to hit? (p50)
A: Yes.

Ah, so now they have clarified that the general psychic shooting attacks do need to roll to hit like other shooting. There is still no RAW anywhere for it, but we have now been given permission by GW to roll to hit (still not to roll to wound, take saves, etc.) but that is another issue altogether. Thanks for sloppy rules writing GW...

So then we go to the SW Codex and take a look at JOWW for example.
(SW Codex pg37)
"As a psychic shooting attack, the Rune Priest may trace a straight line along the board, starting from the Rune Priest and ending 24" away. This line may pass through terrain. Monsterous Creatures, beasts, cavalry, bikes, and infantry models that are touched by this line must take an initiative test...If the model fails this test, it is removed from play..."

This declares that yes, JOWW "counts as" a psychic shooting attack, it then tells you what models it affects and how it affects them. By RAW, you do not pick a target for this power, you simply trace a line along the board. Anything that the line touches is affected by the power and must take an initiative test. The RAW for this power is that it is a line that doesn't declare a target. You place it and causes initiative tests to any models from any number of units that happen to be touching the line. From a RAW perspective, it is functionally identical to a power that said all units within 24" of the caster must take an initiative test or be removed from play. No target is specified, just a distance and the width of the affected area (for JOWW, the width is a hairline). By RAW, you don't declare a target, you don't roll to hit, you don't roll wounds, and you don't take armor saves from this power. It doesn't use any of the rules from the shooting section of the rulebook because it has told you how to determine the affected models/effects in the codex entry. This supercedes any "to hit" roll to determine the affected models/units for the power and falls directly into the exception clause on pg50 of the BRB.

However, this caused some problems. Since JOWW didn't have a target, you didn't need LOS to anything to fire it. Thus GW added some clarification to JOWW in the SW FAQ.

(SW FAQ 1.1)
Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf require line of sight?
Does it ignore terrain that blocks line of sight (i.e.,
impassable terrain)? (p37)
A. As a psychic shooting attack, Jaws of the World Wolf
requires line of sight. The Rune Priest must have line of
sight to the first model that the power affects – in effect he
is treated as the target model; the power just happens to
hit everybody else on its way through!

As you can see, the SW FAQ clarified that even though you don't specify a target for the power, you need LOS to the first model that the power affects once you have placed the line. And "in effect" that first affected model is considered the target for the power. This proves that by RAW, there is no target until the power has already successfully been cast and has affected models. This cleared up the LOS issue, but also clarified what unit the rest of the Priest's squad could shoot and subsequently assault. It also does give an order to the process of using JOWW.

1. First you place a line on the table touching the rune priests base and extending 24"
2. Check to see which models have been affected by the power and will need to take initiative tests
3. Then check to make sure that you have LOS to the first model affected by the power, that model is the target of the power
4. Resolve the initiative tests

Now the argument that a "to hit" roll is required has already failed by RAW, however if you are stubborn and to try to implement a "to hit roll" using RAI you run into the following issue. If you want the BRB to apply "to hit" rolls to JOWW you would need to declare a target and roll prior to placing the line. So the new sequence looks like this.

1. Declare a target and roll "to hit" it (per BRB FAQ)
2. Place a line on the table touching the rune priests base and extending 24"
3. Check to see which models have been affected by the power and will need to take initiative tests
4. Then check to make sure that you have LOS to the first model affected by the power, that model is the target of the power (per SW FAQ)
5. Resolve the initiative tests

Uh oh, you have two different steps that declare what the target of the power is. If you follow the targeting rules from the shooting section, then you can pick any unit within 24" to be the target. If you follow the rules from the SW Codex and FAQ, then you don't pick a target until the line is drawn and the first model affected is the target.

So now we have a conflict in the rules, two different ways to pick the target for the power. If only there was a way that GW had given us to determine which set of rules take precidence... Oh wait! it explicitly stated that the Codex rules trump the general rules for psychic powers on pg50 of the BRB. In fact, for 40k as a whole, the Codex rules always supercede BRB rules when they conflict.

So since the Codex rules trump the BRB rules you are left with the following order.

1. Declare a target and roll "to hit" it
1. Place a line on the table touching the rune priests base and extending 24"
2. Check to see which models have been affected by the power and will need to take initiative tests
3. Then check to make sure that you have LOS to the first model affected by the power, that model is the target of the power
4. Resolve the initiative tests

Thus this is the correct RAW way to play JOWW no matter how you analyze it.

Thank goodness someone with some sense decided to take the time and lay it all out there. Excellent work and Thank You very much. I want to get the compliment in now before the naysayers start trashing you.

On that note, I think this thread has reached its expiration date.

Moving on.