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.

 extremefreak17 wrote:
How do you guys have the energy to argue this when the intent is clear as day?

It's always amusing to watch Dakka tie itself in knots trying to interpret what should really be very obvious.

Zodiark wrote:Now for the other debater who reported me for disagreeing with him earlier.

No, I didn't. Please don't lie.
Edit to clarify: I don't report people for disagreeing with me. And I haven't reported anyone in this thread. So if you were warned by a mod either they saw your posts and acted on their own, or someone else reported you. Don't place blame where none lies.

Passing the psychic test gives me permission to resolve the power according to its entry. Correct?
Cite denial to resolve the power if your arbitrary number of dice miss.

You first assertion is correct,, successfully passing the psychic test allows you to move onto the next stage, which in the case of a WITCHFIRE power, REQUIRES A ROLL TO HIT.

Throughout the BRB, any time to-hit is mentioned it is assumed and widely accepted that you roll using your BS and if you hit, you hit and if you miss, you miss. Consider that Witchfire requires a roll to hit unless SPECIFICALLY STATED otherwise, you would roll to-hit as you would a shooting weapon and if you hit, you would then roll 3d6, subtracting the targets LD and apply wounds as normal. If you miss the to-hit roll, well the answer is indeed obvious isn't it. Logic dictates that if you miss, you miss. BRB dictates that if you miss a to-hit rule, you miss.

None of that is a denial of permission to resolve the power as it's entry requires. So instead of citing a rule you just repeat what you've already said? Cool story bro.

Either of you who disagree with rolling to hit on a Witchfire power, unless it is a Blast or Template or the power DIRECTLY states otherwise, prove that you a) do not need to roll to hit, and I mean a DIRECT quote from the rules, not your opinion, not your assumptions, but cold hard FACT, or b) prove that a roll of zero dice or simply not rolling at all allows you to hit, (especially when things that auto-hit SPECIFICALLY tell you that the attack auto-hits), you prove either of these with actual facts and backing, you will have won the debate and we can stop arguing, until you do, you're both wrong and this entire thing has been a waste of everyones time.

As per rules of YMDC, provide examples, from the text that specifically back up your claim.

I haven't said you don't have to roll to hit. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
I don't see the relevancy in rolling to hit, as you're required to resolve the power according to its entry anyway, regardless if what you roll.

rigel, missing is denial to resolve ANY weapon profile.

to claim missing has no effect on witchfires, is exactly the same as claiming missing has no effect on resolving a bolt guns profile.


just because witchfires have a special profile, does not disclude that profile from having to HIT first to resolve wounds according to its profiles specific rules.

 easysauce wrote:
rigel, missing is denial to resolve ANY weapon profile.

Sure. Where's Psychic Shriek's profile again? I must've missed where you cited the page.

to claim missing has no effect on witchfires, is exactly the same as claiming missing has no effect on resolving a bolt guns profile.

Incorrect. One of these has a profile. The other has instructions on how to resolve it without mentioning missing or hitting.

just because witchfires have a special profile, does not disclude that profile from having to HIT first to resolve wounds according to its profiles specific rules.

Oh, I wasn't aware they had a special profile. Can you explain how it works? A rules based explanation would obviously be best.

 easysauce wrote:
rigel, missing is denial to resolve ANY weapon profile.

Rules quote please.

to claim missing has no effect on witchfires, is exactly the same as claiming missing has no effect on resolving a bolt guns profile.

No it isn't, because the shooting phase rule has very explicit instructions to convert hits into wounds for a normal shooting attack.
If you read Psychic Shriek, you'll notice it does not follow these rules.

just because witchfires have a special profile, does not disclude that profile from having to HIT first to resolve wounds according to its profiles specific rules.

Psychic Shriek doesn't even have a profile, all it has is a range increment.

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
rigel, missing is denial to resolve ANY weapon profile.

Sure. Where's Psychic Shriek's profile again? I must've missed where you cited the page.

if you missed it , its because you purposefully missed it,

the fact that you know the range listed on the profile, means you know exactly where the profile is.(pg 198)

Stop pretending that every weapon profile must look like (range str ap)

because not all of them do, and witchfires are specifically called out as having often having different profiles in this edition.

we have range, we have a way to work out wounds and AP, all the requirements of a "standard" profile, and despite you claiming this is not a profile, it very much is one.

quote page and rule that defines profiles as ONLY the most common one.

its your own fault if you assume EVERY profile must conform to the exact same layout, please quote PG # that says every single profile must do this or concede that because we are told witchfires have DIFFERENT profiles, that different profiles must exist.



but please, quote the rule and pg # stating that any mandatory roll to hit does not count,

and the pg # and rule that states rolling 0 dice counts as rolling to hit.

So since some people advocate rolling an indeterminate number of dice, I will roll 100 times to hit for Psychic shriek. (Since we are making up rules and all).

Since PS is not a weapon the part about "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type." (Weapons, Number Of Shots) does not apply as PS is not a weapon.

 easysauce wrote:
rigel, missing is denial to resolve ANY weapon profile.we have range, we have a way to work out wounds and AP, all the requirements of a "standard" profile, and despite you claiming this is not a profile, it very much is one.

A ranged weapon without any number of attacks in its profile is not really a weapon, as it cannot attack.
Psychic Shriek has a value for its range, but beyond this is different from a weapon profile in every other way.

quote the rule and pg # stating that any mandatory roll to hit does not count,

They are not arguing this point. I'm sure they would 100% agree with you if the question was "Do shooting attacks and psychic powers with weapon profiles roll to hit."
Of course the answer is yes. However, PS is not a standard shooting attack. It does not have an attack value on its profile.

If I cause 8 wounds on a target unit, should I roll to hit once, or 8 times?

The RAW have no answer to this, so most players, because the rules for PS do not explicitly state that it must roll to hit, presume the power auto hits.
This conclusion, unlike others, does not require making up new rules, or cause any more debate over the number of dice to roll, so is most often viewed as the "correct method."

Of course there is no such thing as a "correct method" with PS, due to the holes in its rules. However, creating new rules over the number of dice required to hit is altering the RAW more so than following the literal wording of PS. ("Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." Nothing about rolling to hit here), Therefore, auto-hits is the more correct answer of the two options, as it draws all of its answers from existing written rules.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
rigel, missing is denial to resolve ANY weapon profile.we have range, we have a way to work out wounds and AP, all the requirements of a "standard" profile, and despite you claiming this is not a profile, it very much is one.

A ranged weapon without any number of attacks in its profile is not really a weapon, as it cannot attack.
Psychic Shriek has a value for its range, but beyond this is different from a weapon profile in every other way.

quote the rule and pg # stating that any mandatory roll to hit does not count,

They are not arguing this point. I'm sure they would 100% agree with you if the question was "Do shooting attacks and psychic powers with weapon profiles roll to hit."
Of course the answer is yes. However, PS is not a standard shooting attack. It does not have an attack value on its profile.

If I cause 8 wounds on a target unit, should I roll to hit once, or 8 times?

The RAW have no answer to this, so most players, because the rules for PS do not explicitly state that it must roll to hit, presume the power auto hits.
This conclusion, unlike others, does not require making up new rules, or cause any more debate over the number of dice to roll, so is most often viewed as the "correct method."

Of course there is no such thing as a "correct method" with PS, due to the holes in its rules. However, creating new rules over the number of dice required to hit is altering the RAW more so than following the literal wording of PS. ("Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." Nothing about rolling to hit here), Therefore, auto-hits is the more correct answer of the two options, as it draws all of its answers from existing written rules.

Actually "Most" players roll one dice to hit as its a single shot. The only people I have spoken too recently who disagree are the handful in this thread. Also, auto hits must say auto hit, otherwise you must always roll to hit as normal as per RAW

Zodiark wrote:
Actually "Most" players roll one dice to hit as its a single shot. The only people I have spoken too recently who disagree are the handful in this thread. Also, auto hits must say auto hit, otherwise you must always roll to hit as normal as per RAW

Maybe where you play.

Still, what do you do when can't roll to hit as normal as there is no weapon profile. Your choices are make up rules as you are advocating, or follow the exact wording of the power, which does not mention rolling to hit at all.

 easysauce wrote:

Stop pretending that every weapon profile must look like (range str ap)

because not all of them do, and witchfires are specifically called out as having often having different profiles in this edition.

I must be missing that - can you cite it?

we have range, we have a way to work out wounds and AP, all the requirements of a "standard" profile, and despite you claiming this is not a profile, it very much is one.

No, it's demonstrably not a weapon profile if you have to, quote, "work out wounds and AP".

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Actually "Most" players roll one dice to hit as its a single shot. The only people I have spoken too recently who disagree are the handful in this thread. Also, auto hits must say auto hit, otherwise you must always roll to hit as normal as per RAW

Maybe where you play.

Still, what do you do when can't roll to hit as normal as there is no weapon profile. Your choices are make up rules as you are advocating, or follow the exact wording of the power, which does not mention rolling to hit at all.

The ruling for resolving witchfire powers is explicit in how it must be done, it even has rules for the exceptions. Nowhere does it say a normal witchfire allows you not to roll a die. This is a faulty interpretation by those in this thread.

Also, how much brow beating was required where you play to convince them it auto hits, because even browsing online, in the numerous threads over the years, the majority has always been that you roll to hit as normal and since it is a one shot you get one die.

Idk how you call this making up rules, its the players Interpretation of the rules, and until GW says otherwise, you have no basing to say they are wrong.

While the other side, following rules as written has RAW to back their claim that you must roll to hit on witchfire powers unless it states otherwise, and it does give examples as to these exceptions.

Zodiark wrote:
While the other side, following rules as written has RAW to back their claim that you must roll to hit on witchfire powers unless it states otherwise, and it does give examples as to these exceptions.

I'm still waiting for why the to-hit roll is relevant. Please use rules to prove your point.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
While the other side, following rules as written has RAW to back their claim that you must roll to hit on witchfire powers unless it states otherwise, and it does give examples as to these exceptions.

I'm still waiting for why the to-hit roll is relevant. Please use rules to prove your point.

Dude I have, so have a handful of others. It is written right there on the description of Witchfire powers, stop asking questions you already know the answer to and for the love of God, stop ignoring information posted because you are intentionally discounting others arguments purely by pretending they were never stated in this discussion. Also, stop being argumentative, this issue won't get solved here because to the majority, it is done one way and to a minority it is done another. Seeing as most of us will probably never play against each other, it doesn't matter.

Best advice, when tourneys come, try it out and see what the judges say, until then its speculation to some and obvious to others.

While the other side, following rules as written has RAW to back their claim that you must roll to hit on witchfire powers unless it states otherwise, and it does give examples as to these exceptions.

Sure I agree with you. It should roll to hit as a witchfire power. However you do not have any information on how many dice to roll.

So the choices are:

-Follow some rules, but make other up to do so: The rules say roll to hit, but you have to make up a number of dice to roll.
-Follow the entry of PS to the letter, and ignore the blanket roll to hit statement because it is currently broken and does not actually tell you what to do with regards to PS.

These are the two options as it stands. I would opt for ignoring the broken rule, rather than making my own homebrewed rules to cover it.
As said before, there is no right answer, however to me ignoring a broken rule is staying more true to actual rules of the game than creating up rules out of the air.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

While the other side, following rules as written has RAW to back their claim that you must roll to hit on witchfire powers unless it states otherwise, and it does give examples as to these exceptions.

Sure I agree with you. It should roll to hit as a witchfire power. However you do not have any information on how many dice to roll.

So the choices are:

-Follow some rules, but make other up to do so: The rules say roll to hit, but you have to make up a number of dice to roll.
-Follow the entry of PS to the letter, and ignore the blanket roll to hit statement because it is currently broken and does not actually tell you what to do with regards to PS.

These are the two options as it stands. I would opt for ignoring the broken rule, rather than making my own homebrewed rules to cover it.
As said before, there is no right answer, however to me ignoring a broken rule is staying more true to actual rules of the game than creating up rules out of the air.

How is it a homebrewed rule to say it is a single shot. The wording in the name is singular, witchfire works like a shooting attack, shooting attacks specifically mention when they get more than one shot, assuming anything more than one on Psychic Shriek is pointless, assuming less than one simply does not work as it is clearly not an auto-hit attack because it lacks the ruling auto-hit.

Again, best advice, go to a tourney, see what a judge says or play it however your playgroup wants to go about doing it, but don't go about it assuming it's right simply because there is not a direct sentence affirming or denying your position.

There is more references in the BRB support my claim than there is supporting yours, this is not an interpretation, but rules as written. The RAW may not be explicit enough for some, but to many the answer is obvious and debating the subject is pointless as it will change the mind of neither side and both sides will simply go back to playing it however they want it either way.

Zodiark wrote:
How is it a homebrewed rule to say it is a single shot. The wording in the name is singular, witchfire works like a shooting attack, shooting attacks specifically mention when they get more than one shot, assuming anything more than one on Psychic Shriek is pointless, assuming less than one simply does not work as it is clearly not an auto-hit attack because it lacks the ruling auto-hit.

Again, best advice, go to a tourney, see what a judge says or play it however your playgroup wants to go about doing it, but don't go about it assuming it's right simply because there is not a direct sentence affirming or denying your position.

There is more references in the BRB support my claim than there is supporting yours, this is not an interpretation, but rules as written. The RAW may not be explicit enough for some, but to many the answer is obvious and debating the subject is pointless as it will change the mind of neither side and both sides will simply go back to playing it however they want it either way.

It is a homebrewed rule to say it is a single shot because there are no actual rules stating the PS is a single shot. PS does not have a standard weapon profile so we simply do not know how many dice we need to roll to hit.

However the roll to hit does not matter as you need to "Resolve [the Psychic Powers] effects according to the instructions in its entry." (Resolve psychic power section).

Not applying the effects of PS on a miss when you have arbitrarily rolled a number of dice for PS is breaking the rule for Psychic powers.

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
While the other side, following rules as written has RAW to back their claim that you must roll to hit on witchfire powers unless it states otherwise, and it does give examples as to these exceptions.

I'm still waiting for why the to-hit roll is relevant. Please use rules to prove your point.

Dude I have, so have a handful of others.

No, you haven't. At all.

It is written right there on the description of Witchfire powers, stop asking questions you already know the answer to and for the love of God, stop ignoring information posted because you are intentionally discounting others arguments purely by pretending they were never stated in this discussion.

No, it's not in the description of Witchfires. I'm ignoring nothing and resent the accusation.
I haven't seen anyone do anything more than assume it matters. Not a single person has cited a rule showing that the to-hit roll is relevant.

Also, stop being argumentative, this issue won't get solved here because to the majority, it is done one way and to a minority it is done another. Seeing as most of us will probably never play against each other, it doesn't matter.

When you stop posting things as RAW that demonstrably aren't, I'll stop replying.

Best advice, when tourneys come, try it out and see what the judges say, until then its speculation to some and obvious to others.

I've seen it played both ways as tournaments. So appealing to some non-existent majority isn't a good argument.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
How is it a homebrewed rule to say it is a single shot. The wording in the name is singular, witchfire works like a shooting attack, shooting attacks specifically mention when they get more than one shot, assuming anything more than one on Psychic Shriek is pointless, assuming less than one simply does not work as it is clearly not an auto-hit attack because it lacks the ruling auto-hit.

Again, best advice, go to a tourney, see what a judge says or play it however your playgroup wants to go about doing it, but don't go about it assuming it's right simply because there is not a direct sentence affirming or denying your position.

There is more references in the BRB support my claim than there is supporting yours, this is not an interpretation, but rules as written. The RAW may not be explicit enough for some, but to many the answer is obvious and debating the subject is pointless as it will change the mind of neither side and both sides will simply go back to playing it however they want it either way.

It is a homebrewed rule to say it is a single shot because there are no actual rules stating the PS is a single shot. PS does not have a standard weapon profile so we simply do not know how many dice we need to roll to hit.

However the roll to hit does not matter as you need to "Resolve [the Psychic Powers] effects according to the instructions in its entry." (Resolve psychic power section).

Not applying the effects of PS on a miss when you have arbitrarily rolled a number of dice for PS is breaking the rule for Psychic powers.

Except the roll isn't arbitrary, it is necessary. You have to roll, there is no avoiding it. Not rolling is flat out breaking the rules as the power itself does not state that you do not roll. The debate is how many. This is where logic and reading comprehension comes into play. We can agree that Witchfire powers count as shooting attacks. We can also agree that shooting attacks have a different number of shots depending on the weapon being used. We also know that if we shoot with something and it does not state a number greater than 1, then we get one shot. So, we can deduce from RAW and simple logic that because PS, as a shooting attack that does not specify that it receives more than one shot, it only gets one.

Stop looking for a specific line in the text, because you won't find it. What you will find are rules that tell you exactly what you need to do. The power has no weapon profile because if the power successfully hits, wounds are applied automatically according to the 3d6 - LD when you roll, no need for STR or AP at all, RAI this is because it is not necessary when resolving the power.

The argument from your end literally becomes, "It has no weapon profile so we don't know how many time to roll to-hit or how many hits it gets so we are going to play it this way because we can't find anything in the rules to tell us otherwise, oh and you are all wrong because you can't prove my argument wrong."

Logic > opinion


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I've seen it played both ways as tournaments. So appealing to some non-existent majority isn't a good argument.

At the same tournament? I highly doubt that.

And appealing to a majority when what we are doing here is tantamount to theory crafting with the rules, this is exactly what we are doing lol. You have zero facts to back up your point, zero. You have nothing from the rules stating that Witchfire powers with Blast/Template or a statement otherwise do not roll to hit, you are assuming that this particular power does not need to simply because it lacks information generally supplied by other witchfire powers, yet you are not realizing that those powers are working in different ways and thus need to have the weapon profile on them.

Zzz.....you have said you are right so often that you have begun to believe it.

but don't go about it assuming it's right simply because there is not a direct sentence affirming or denying your position.

Who is assuming they are right?

Zodiark: "but to many the answer is obvious"

It is you who is posting in a condescending manor because you won't actually acknowledge any of the responses given to you.

Do you even read what other people have been writing? Apparently you don't.
As I have said many times now, there is no right answer.

I'm sure tournaments will come down on either side of this, because there is no right answer.

Stating that your argument holds more weight than anyone else's is just plain wrong, because there is no right answer.

You are homebrewing because nowhere does it state "roll one die to hit with PS". Lets see why your interpretation could be wrong.

Flickering fire, for example, is a single psychic power therefore according to you should roll to hit on one die. Should I roll to hit once, and then roll 2-4 D6 and see how many actual hits I got? No, each shot is independent. How do you know PS should not be resolved like this? The weapon profile tells us how many dice to roll. Without being told how many dice to roll with a weapon, anything you do next is your own interpretation of the rules.

Let me reiterate it again for you: There is no right answer. It is my opinion that adding rules is a greater variation of the standard rules than ignoring broken ones. That is why I do not roll to hit with PS. Is this the correct way? No. But I feel it is better than the other option.

Flickering fire, for example, is a single psychic power therefore according to you should roll to hit on one die. Should I roll to hit once, and then roll 2-4 D6 and see how many actual hits I got? No, each shot is independent. How do you know PS should not be resolved like this? The weapon profile tells us how many dice to roll. Without being told how many dice to roll with a weapon, anything you do next is your own interpretation of the rules.

Dude, number one, you answered your own question. The weapon tells you what to roll, it specifically tells you. PS does not, I grant that, never said that it did, what the RAW does do though is give you a way of figuring it out. Sure without a direct acknowledgement we will never know for sure.

Also, I have stated, numerous times actually, that we won't know what the right answer is unless GW tells us, Do YOU read other peoples posts? Cause if you did you would notice this. I am simply providing examples as to how RAW supports my assertion over the opposing. Does this make my answer right, not entirely, but it does support my argument. Does it make my answer wrong, again no. Then again, nothing in the rules counters my argument either. So once again, I will reiterate for I think the fourth time now. We will not know for sure until GW tells us, which they won't as this issue has been going on for years, but what we can do and what is widely accepted by the majority (look around online on other forums and even this one over the years) and you will find that the majority of players play it as rolling a single die for the to-hit roll. You are free to do whatever you won't, personally I believe you are breaking the rules not doing this as RAW is quite clear to me, but if you need someone to hold your hand through it and read the rules one word at a time for you to understand, then maybe you will never be satisfied.

But until something in the BRB specifically counters anything in my argument, I will consider myself right. Because in a debate, if the opponent cannot disprove your point, their point has no merit and they have lost. All your side has done is ask again and again for people to cite things from RAW and we have, plenty of times, you simply choose to ignore it.

So for the last time, play it however you want, just know you're most likely doing it wrong.

Because in a debate, if the opponent cannot disprove your point, their point has no merit and they have lost.

The exact same is true for you.

what the RAW does do though is give you a way of figuring it out

No it doesn't. You are homebrewing if you have to figure something out.

All your side has done is ask again and again for people to cite things from RAW and we have, plenty of times, you simply choose to ignore it.

Because this goes back to the first quote of yours that I posted. If you can't disprove the point then you lose.
Please, for all our benefit, provide a quote and page number of the attack profile or rules determining the number of dice rolled to hit when using psychic shriek.
If you can't provide it, then it is not RAW, and therefore what you are stating as the truth, is actually an interpretation.

just know you're most likely doing it wrong.

We're both doing it wrong. There is no right with the current rules.

We're both doing it wrong. There is no right with the current rules.

Very likely the case, but I will reiterate, logic is on my side of the argument as is RAW, simply read through the thread, it details it for you. This argument is exhausting and is actually making me not wanting to play this game at all if I have to deal with people like this on a regular basis (thankfully I don't) maybe it's just where I play, but things like this don't bring up heated discussions, they are logically deduced and not theory crafted, guess I'm used to more open-minded people and not those seeking advantages in their play.

Just answer the question.

Please, for all our benefit, provide a quote and page number of the attack profile or rules determining the number of dice rolled to hit when using psychic shriek.
If you can't provide it, then it is not RAW, and therefore what you are stating as the truth, is actually an interpretation.

Once you've done this then you can feel free to try and promote the merits of your "logic" and "open mindedness" in your own indirectly rude manor.

Thanks.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Just answer the question.

Please, for all our benefit, provide a quote and page number of the attack profile or rules determining the number of dice rolled to hit when using psychic shriek.
If you can't provide it, then it is not RAW, and therefore what you are stating as the truth, is actually an interpretation.

Once you've done this then you can feel free to try and promote the merits of your "logic" and "open mindedness" in your own indirectly rude manor.

Thanks.

Dude, I told you it was an interpretation, its something called READING COMPREHENSION. Try it. Unless something specifically states the opposite, the affirmative is true. PS does not auto hit, therefore you must roll. The question is how many, considering any other shooting attack that has greater than one shot states that it does, PS, which clearly does not state it has multiple shots, has one shot. An interpretation, true. But it fits logic and it is how the answer has been found by many and the people I have asked have explained it as thus, if you disagree, give an exact quote from the RAW that shows the opposite, otherwise you are simply arguing from a position with no base.

Assuming you either do not roll for PS, violates the rules of Witchfire, assuming you do not roll to hit violates rules of Witchfire, assuming you roll more than one die, violates the rules of shooting because you only roll for how many shots fired and PS is a single shot.

Interpretation =/= rules.

So the RAW is not on your side. Thank you very much.

Are there any other attacks or powers which require a roll to hit but don't explicitly say how many dice to roll?

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Interpretation =/= rules.

So the RAW is not on your side. Thank you very much.

You're sidestepping the point. YMDC discusses issues in the RAW that are unclear to the players. This, to me as a player is not an unclear rule, it is quite clear and easily understood.

The BRB as a whole provides you with every tool you need to answer this question, you simply need to put 1+1 together to = 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pocketcanoe wrote:
Are there any other attacks or powers which require a roll to hit but don't explicitly say how many dice to roll?

Yes, someone mentioned them earlier. Yet there was no argument about how they are resolved.

The issue with this one comes from the fact that the power is indeed quite good and I figure one of the dissenters for logic and the obviousness of RAW got hit rather hard by the power and is seeking any way to limit its use in game.

Zodiark wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Interpretation =/= rules.

So the RAW is not on your side. Thank you very much.

You're sidestepping the point. YMDC discusses issues in the RAW that are unclear to the players. This, to me as a player is not an unclear rule, it is quite clear and easily understood.

The BRB as a whole provides you with every tool you need to answer this question, you simply need to put 1+1 together to = 2.

As long as you keep saying "RAW is on my side" when you also acknowledge you have to make a leap (however logical it may be to you) you're contradicting yourself.
Why is it not logical that all Witchfires without a profile automatically hit?

The issue with this one comes from the fact that the power is indeed quite good and I figure one of the dissenters for logic and the obviousness of RAW got hit rather hard by the power and is seeking any way to limit its use in game.

It's not that powerful. And it's amusing that you think people are biased against it when it's your interpretation that makes it less powerful.
Also, insinuating bias without evidence is rude.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Interpretation =/= rules.

So the RAW is not on your side. Thank you very much.

You're sidestepping the point. YMDC discusses issues in the RAW that are unclear to the players. This, to me as a player is not an unclear rule, it is quite clear and easily understood.

The BRB as a whole provides you with every tool you need to answer this question, you simply need to put 1+1 together to = 2.

As long as you keep saying "RAW is on my side" when you also acknowledge you have to make a leap (however logical it may be to you) you're contradicting yourself.
Why is it not logical that all Witchfires without a profile automatically hit?

The issue with this one comes from the fact that the power is indeed quite good and I figure one of the dissenters for logic and the obviousness of RAW got hit rather hard by the power and is seeking any way to limit its use in game.

It's not that powerful. And it's amusing that you think people are biased against it when it's your interpretation that makes it less powerful.
Also, insinuating bias without evidence is rude.

1. My interpretation makes it fair and balanced. Not to mention obvious. It doesn't auto hit. You are targeting one unit with a single shot AoE type attack as that is what a Psychic Shriek is.

2. Not contradicting when my interpretation goes along with RAW.

3. It isn't logical for them to auto-hit because anything that auto-hits specifically states that it does.