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.

And I quote: "If a destroyer weapon hits a vehicle, there is no need to roll for armor penetration - it automatically scores a penetrating hit.
If a destroyer weapon hits a non-vehicle model, there is no need to roll to wound - it automatically scores a wound."
It specifically says that armor pen and wounding is AUTOMATIC. I agree you don't need to roll to hit every unit the line passes through, however as it is a PSA you still have to roll to hit before placing the line.

reds8n wrote:We can do without the digs at each other and the hyperbole please.
Take a breath, count to 10.. whatever.



Ta.

Per the above, I am going to actually try and break down some points to try and understand the "other" side of the coin on this issue.

To Nos, HJ, Rigeld, and others;

Where have you come up with the standard that for a psychic shooting attack to have an exception to the general rules, it must specifically state it? The focus with this topic has been rolling to hit and therefore the constant argument I have seen has been,

"Blood Lance/JotWW does not contain the wording, "Instead of rolling to hit.." or "Automatically hits..." or "Do not roll to hit..."

Where did you come up with that specific set of wording as the standard for a codex exception?

I bring this up because psychic shooting attacks are employed quite differently across the spectrum. Many psychic shooting attacks do not check range, LoS, declare a target, roll for wounds, or do not follow other general rules. Yet, the specific wording that you claim is required for rolling to hit is not present to ignore those general rules for employing those psychic shooting attacks.

So as I previously asked, where have you come up with the specific wording that you say is required to be considered an exception to the general rule for rolling to hit when it is not present for any of the other general rules (LoS/range/wounding) on several other psychic shooting attacks?

Brother Ramses wrote:To Nos, HJ, Rigeld, and others;

Where have you come up with the standard that for a psychic shooting attack to have an exception to the general rules, it must specifically state it? The focus with this topic has been rolling to hit and therefore the constant argument I have seen has been,

"Blood Lance/JotWW does not contain the wording, "Instead of rolling to hit.." or "Automatically hits..." or "Do not roll to hit..."

Where did you come up with that specific set of wording as the standard for a codex exception?

I bring this up because psychic shooting attacks are employed quite differently across the spectrum. Many psychic shooting attacks do not check range, LoS, declare a target, roll for wounds, or do not follow other general rules. Yet, the specific wording that you claim is required for rolling to hit is not present to ignore those general rules for employing those psychic shooting attacks.

So as I previously asked, where have you come up with the specific wording that you say is required to be considered an exception to the general rule for rolling to hit when it is not present for any of the other general rules (LoS/range/wounding) on several other psychic shooting attacks?

There's no set wording, but there needs to be something similar to what you've stated - otherwise it's not an exception. Blood lance is telling you how to apply hits once you hit.

Can you cite what "many psychic shooting attacks do not check range, LoS," etc. that are missing something similar to "instead of"? Just a few is fine - I want to understand your point.

Thunderclap;

Does not check range, you do not declare a target, you do not check LoS, you do not roll to hit; at no time are you told NOT to do those general rules.

JotWW;

Does not check range, you do not declare a target, you do not roll to wound, you do not roll to hit; at no time are you told NOT to do those general rules.

Blood Lance;

Does not check range, does not declare a target, does not check LoS, you do not roll to hit; at no time are you told NOT to do those general rules.

Now an exception to employing a psychic power does not need to have a "instead of" or similiar to be an exception. As the rule is written, the codex only has to give a different method of employment of the psychic power to be an exception. Nos actually said it best when he was trying to correct me by saying,

I used the word "example" a number of times in my argument, you just apparently enjoy ignoring the inconvenient parts.

Because in reality, those are exactly that, examples. That does not limit them to just those examples because we have proof in other psychic shooting attacks on how codex exceptions to employing psychic shooting attacks are used for other general rules. Again with my Thunderclap example,

Thunderclap does not have you check LoS and it does not contain, "instead of or similar" to exclude it from the general rule for checking LoS. Yet, you employ the psychic shooting attack per the codex exception to the general rule of checking LoS.

JotWW does not roll for wounds and it does not contain, "instead of or similar" to exclude it from the general rule for rolling to wound. Yet you employ the psychic shooting attack per the codex exception to the general rule of rolling to wound.

I think that is probably my main contention with the rolling to hit crowd. You are arbitrarily applying a standard to the rolling to hit exception that you are not applying to the other psychic shooting attacks that also do not contain the "instead of or similar" wording for codex exceptions to the general rules in their entries.

What is even worse is that the exceptions to the other general rules on employing psychic shooting is clearly shown. The precedent is not to go down the list of general rules and check them off for "instead of or similar" clauses or statement, but instead to employ the psychic shooting attack by however the codex tells you to. People are just flat out ignoring how codex exceptions are being applied to other general rules, and setting the standard for rolling to hit based on something else.

Brother Ramses wrote:Thunderclap;

Does not check range, you do not declare a target, you do not check LoS; at no time are you told NOT to do those general rules.

Not familiar - which codex? I'm at work, but have some access to some.

JotWW;

Does not check range, you do not declare a target, you do not roll to wound; at no time are you told NOT to do those general rules.

Actually, you can check range, and you do declare a target and roll to hit. It just so happens that in this case, that roll is irrelevant. And you don't roll to wound because there is no STR listed in the profile.

Blood Lance;

Does not check range, does not declare a target, does not check LoS; at no time are you told NOT to do those general rules.

Using this power as an example in a discussion about this power doesn't work so well.

Now an exception to employing a psychic power does not need to have a "instead of" or similiar to be an exception. As the rule is written, the codex only has to give a different method of employment of the psychic power to be an exception. Nos actually said it best when he was trying to correct me by saying,

I used the word "example" a number of times in my argument, you just apparently enjoy ignoring the inconvenient parts.

Because in reality, those are exactly that, examples. That does not limit them to just those examples because we have proof in other psychic shooting attacks on how codex exceptions to employing psychic shooting attacks are used for other general rules. Again with my Thunderclap example,

Thunderclap does not have you check LoS and it does not contain, "instead of or similar" to exclude it from the general rule for checking LoS. Yet, you employ the psychic shooting attack per the codex exception to the general rule of checking LoS.

JotWW does not roll for wounds and it does not contain, "instead of or similar" to exclude it from the general rule for rolling to wound. Yet you employ the psychic shooting attack per the codex exception to the general rule of rolling to wound.

I think that is probably my main contention with the rolling to hit crowd. You are arbitrarily applying a standard to the rolling to hit exception that you are not applying to the other psychic shooting attacks that also do not contain the "instead of or similar" wording for codex exceptions to the general rules in their entries.

I'm not arbitrarily applying anything - I'd apply the same thing to JotWW (and have).

rigeld2 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Thunderclap;

Does not check range, you do not declare a target, you do not check LoS; at no time are you told NOT to do those general rules.

Not familiar - which codex? I'm at work, but have some access to some.

JotWW;

Does not check range, you do not declare a target, you do not roll to wound; at no time are you told NOT to do those general rules.

Actually, you can check range, and you do declare a target and roll to hit. It just so happens that in this case, that roll is irrelevant. And you don't roll to wound because there is no STR listed in the profile.

Blood Lance;

Does not check range, does not declare a target, does not check LoS; at no time are you told NOT to do those general rules.

Using this power as an example in a discussion about this power doesn't work so well.

Now an exception to employing a psychic power does not need to have a "instead of" or similiar to be an exception. As the rule is written, the codex only has to give a different method of employment of the psychic power to be an exception. Nos actually said it best when he was trying to correct me by saying,

I used the word "example" a number of times in my argument, you just apparently enjoy ignoring the inconvenient parts.

Because in reality, those are exactly that, examples. That does not limit them to just those examples because we have proof in other psychic shooting attacks on how codex exceptions to employing psychic shooting attacks are used for other general rules. Again with my Thunderclap example,

Thunderclap does not have you check LoS and it does not contain, "instead of or similar" to exclude it from the general rule for checking LoS. Yet, you employ the psychic shooting attack per the codex exception to the general rule of checking LoS.

JotWW does not roll for wounds and it does not contain, "instead of or similar" to exclude it from the general rule for rolling to wound. Yet you employ the psychic shooting attack per the codex exception to the general rule of rolling to wound.

I think that is probably my main contention with the rolling to hit crowd. You are arbitrarily applying a standard to the rolling to hit exception that you are not applying to the other psychic shooting attacks that also do not contain the "instead of or similar" wording for codex exceptions to the general rules in their entries.

I'm not arbitrarily applying anything - I'd apply the same thing to JotWW (and have).

Thunderclap;

Pass a psychic test, place the blast marker so it is touching base of the rune priest, anything touched by the marker are hit.

Care to show me how you check range with JotWW? And you do not declare a target. You check LoS to the first model the power will affect, which effectively makes it the target model, however you never declare a target per the general rules.

As for not rolling to wound, not having a Str value is not a "instead of or similar" clause that is being proposed as a requirement for an exception. You do not roll to wound because the psychic power has an exception to that general rule telling you that models that fail an initiative test are removed from play. Which again, is not the proposed, "instead of or similar" clause that you are trying to apply to rolling to hit.

And Blood Lance works perfectly fine despite being part of this discussion because it follows exceptions to other general rules, not just rolling to hit, but does not contain "instead of or similar" for those general rules.

As for your last point, then you are being inconsistent with your rules. If you are going to insist on a "instead of or similar" clause for the general rule for rolling to hit, then you must insist on a "instead of or similar" clause for all of them. Your own defense of not rolling to wound for JotWW being "it does not have a str value" does not even pass your own litmus test.

Thunderclap is a poor example. It tells you how to place a blast marker, and blast markers have never required a 'To Hit' roll.

Happyjew wrote:Thunderclap is a poor example. It tells you how to place a blast marker, and blast markers have never required a 'To Hit' roll.

Blast weapons do not roll to hit (instead roll for scatter) however thunder clap is not using the blast rule only the blast template. As per the FAQ all psychic shooting attacks roll to hit.

"Soulstorm" doesn't mention having to roll scatter dice, so I guess I don't have to.

I dont see how anyone comes to the conclusion that there is a roll to hit needed. The power states how it works. Lets see if I can prove my point.

Blood Lance:
This power is a psyhic shooting attack. Extend a straight line,4d6 long from thelib in any direction. Any enemy unit in the path suffers a single hit.

So by codex the only thing you must do is extend a line 4d6 in any direction. They only include its a shooting attack because it is done in the shooting phase. BRB doesnt superside codex in this instance. If you require a hit to extend the line then you modify the power beyond its intent or as written. There cant be a roll to hit if the power tells you it hits already just by touching the line. It sounds like rolling a reroll.

How can roll a hit if it tells you it hits?

What you have would be correct if it was NOT a pyscic shooting attack.
If it was "just" a pyschic attack, then that would be the end of it. But unless stated otherwise, pyschic shooting attacks need to roll to hit.

Joey wrote:What you have would be correct if it was NOT a pyscic shooting attack.
If it was "just" a pyschic attack, then that would be the end of it. But unless stated otherwise, pyschic shooting attacks need to roll to hit.

He's correct as it is. It hits units under the line, saying you need to roll to hit to make hits ... get outta here lol

It hits the units it hits...but it has to roll first. How is this difficult?

Not difficult really. The power already states that it hits. It already states how to check for range and since there isnt a target it states that it goes in any direction. You arent aiming at a unit or model but in a direction.

Actually I would be ok with rolling to hit since it doesnt matter with the outcome. Roll for power(assume it passes) roll to hit (pass or fail) still doesnt negate the power and still doesnt miss because the power states that a line is to be drawn (you dont have the option of not drawing the line based on the rule) and that any unit under the line suffers a single hit. Pretty cut and dry to me.

My arguement would be that the straight line(which the power says you must draw) would be treated as a templet.

chewielight, The thing that has me on the side of roll to his it that there exists at least 1 other rule out there that draws a line and everything under the line takes a hit but you still need to roll to hit first.

Which power is that? JoWW doesnt have the same wording as BL does. JoWW states that "As a psyhic shooting attack,the Rune Priest may extend a line 24" from the priest. The difference is that it doesnt state that it is a hit or an automatic hit where as BL DOES state that the unit suffers a hit.

No where in either BRB,FAQ/Errata nor codex is there a rule or function that makes a model or unit suffer/roll a hit twice if an item states that the suffer the hit to begin withunless it is a multi-barrage weapon. That is the gist of BL. The power hits because it states that it hits. Making someone roll to hit doesnt negate the rule of the power nor how it reacts. The codex is pretty clear on how the power works.

First thing I can think of off the top of my head was written by Phil Kelly (In my opinion a considerably better rules writer the Matt Ward) and that is the Vibro Cannon. Other then that I know that the Death Ray in the new Necron Codex has similar rules as well, I don't know the exact wording of it yet as I haven't been able to read the full description yet just 1 sentence of it which is under contention with how it works.

Just so happen to have both of those codexs handy so lets see.

Vibro cannon.
When firing a vibro cannon, Roll to hit (the firer does not need to pick a target). If any of the vibro-cannons hit draw a single straight line from one vibro cannon in any direction. Any unit which the line passes suffers D6 hits.

I wont post the BL rules again. Similar yes but different in both items. The VC tells you to roll to hit. BL states that they ARE hit. BL states to extend a line 4d6,VC states roll first then if you hit draw a line.

If the FAQ were an erratta then I would agree.

The thing is the rules as I am sure we can all agree are permissive which means we need to have permission to do something. There exists precedence in the rules that a roll to hit needs to be made before placing a line. Also on the same page as BL state is a single sentence before describing how the powers work there exist iirc 3 powers that state "This is a psychic shooting attack that automatically hits." then go on to describe what the powers do.

Saiisil wrote:The thing is the rules as I am sure we can all agree are permissive which means we need to have permission to do something. There exists precedence in the rules that a roll to hit needs to be made before placing a line. Also on the same page as BL state is a single sentence before describing how the powers work there exist iirc 3 powers that state "This is a psychic shooting attack that automatically hits." then go on to describe what the powers do.

Sure they are permissive and the permission is/has already been granted as it tells you exactly how the power works. There isnt a precedence because one is a weapon and states that a roll to hit needs to be made. Your right there are iic 3 powers that state this however each power also targets a unit/model.Since it targets a unit/model it would require a roll to hit said unit. BL is unique because it is aimed at a direction and not a unit. Units just happen to be affected by said power if they are in the line that the power states you must draw (like a templet).

The point is when bringing up those 3 powers is that what they do is a part of a completely separate sentence then what it describes it does, just as with BL where it is described as a PSA is a different sentence from where it describes what it does that, just because of that, I believe the roll to hit is needed.

Saiisil wrote:The point is when bringing up those 3 powers is that what they do is a part of a completely separate sentence then what it describes it does, just as with BL where it is described as a PSA is a different sentence from where it describes what it does that, just because of that, I believe the roll to hit is needed.

See that is where we differ. Those three powers are like BL in that they state exactly how they work and what is needed to work. They state that they are an auto hit because the only way to hit a specific target is to roll to hit. This fixes that arguement because it states so in in the rule. This is where I feel you are incorrect in your logic with this arguement. It is a different sentence because it has to be being a psyhic shooting attack doesnt always mean it requires you to roll a hit because there are execptions to it(IE templets of any time). If BL targeted a single unit/s I would agree that a to hit roll would be needed. It targets a direction not a unit and as such cant really miss in that regard.

Addtionally if you read those other powers you will see that in none of them does it state that once they pass the roll to hit they are hit again(this is the arguement your making)because if you hit then you hit and no roll is necssary. If BL worked the way you state it does means that you would have to cast the power, roll to hit, THEN because the power works as discribed the unit are hit (wait you just rolled a hit so why state it twice).

Bad GW FAQs are too blame for this confusion.

BA Codex says Blood Lance causes hits.

Rulebook FAQ says psychic attacks have to roll to hit. They say that because people don't want to roll to hit they just want to hit. In response GW should say *crickets*. Instead they say you need to roll to hit for Psychic attacks with a weapon profile. By that I think they mean the profiles like you would see in the back of the codex.

Blood Lance just says anyone in the line suffers a Str 8 Ap1 Lance hit. It says you suffer a hit. It doesn't say you may be hit. It does not have a weapon profile.

chewielight wrote:Addtionally if you read those other powers you will see that in none of them does it state that once they pass the roll to hit they are hit again(this is the arguement your making)because if you hit then you hit and no roll is necssary. If BL worked the way you state it does means that you would have to cast the power, roll to hit, THEN because the power works as discribed the unit are hit (wait you just rolled a hit so why state it twice).

Yet isn't that exactly what the Vibro Cannon says, after saying you roll to hit, you hit again? Why did they state it twice if it doesn't make sense to do so.

Happyjew wrote:Thunderclap is a poor example. It tells you how to place a blast marker, and blast markers have never required a 'To Hit' roll.

Wrong. Thunderclap is not a blast weapon. It uses the marker, but is not a blast weapon. The reason why units touched by the blast marker are hit by Thunderclap is not because you are using a blast weapon, but because the rule is a codex exception to employing a psychic shooting attack and it tells you that models touched by the blast marker are hit.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Wrong. Thunderclap is not a blast weapon.

I never said it was.

Brother Ramses wrote:
It uses the marker, but is not a blast weapon.

So all PSA that use the blast marker, are not blast weapons. I'm almost 100% certain you still follow the rules on page 30 unless told differently (i.e. place the marker anywhere so it's in base contact with the model)

Brother Ramses wrote:
The reason why units touched by the blast marker are hit by Thunderclap is not because you are using a blast weapon, but because the rule is a codex exception to employing a psychic shooting attack and it tells you that models touched by the blast marker are hit.

Which is exactly the same a blast weapons, all models whose bases are under the marker are hit.

No, only psychic shooting attacks that have blast in their profile are blast weapons.

Saiisil wrote:

chewielight wrote:Addtionally if you read those other powers you will see that in none of them does it state that once they pass the roll to hit they are hit again(this is the arguement your making)because if you hit then you hit and no roll is necssary. If BL worked the way you state it does means that you would have to cast the power, roll to hit, THEN because the power works as discribed the unit are hit (wait you just rolled a hit so why state it twice).

Yet isn't that exactly what the Vibro Cannon says, after saying you roll to hit, you hit again? Why did they state it twice if it doesn't make sense to do so.

Not quite. The Vibro cannon needs a roll to hit in order to hit because it tells you that is how it works. BL tells you exactly how it works as well. No roll to hit needed because there is no target. They need to errata this but that wont happen.

Theres no target for a vibrocannon either.

Pretty sure a Template or Psi powers without a "Type" doesn't roll to hit if it has an alternate mode of hitting like drawing a 4D6 line to reach its target.

Rolling to Hit applies to powers like "Smite" that have a Str, AP, and Type profile for purposes of shooting. If you had to roll to hit with Blood Lance I'd want to know what kind of type the weapon was, Rapid Fire? Assault? Heavy 1? Barring older Codices I think the trend has been to give a special rule for things like Jotww and BL when it comes to how they hit.

Just my two cents.