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.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
I'm going to attempt to recap the major points of both sides. If I miss our get anything wrong feel free to correct.

On the no Psychic Shriek on invisible units side:

Invisibly traits any attacks against the unit to be snap shots. The rules for snap shots say attack that does not use ballistic skill cannot be fired as snap shots, which would include templates, novas, beams,blasts and witchfires with no weapon profile (due to an errata saying they hit automatically).

Novas, beams, and templates are area attacks meaning, even when fired under normal rules and restrictions, there could be an invisible unit in the area of effect. GW released an FAQ that answers what would happen in that case. They cannot choose to target the unit but would automatically hit if it were there. The FAQ does not change or even address the requirements and restrictions related to firing and in particular did not give them permission to fire snap shots.

--There is a branch-off thought from this one espoused in the thread which is that novas can target invisible units but profile-less Witchfires cannot.

Since Psychic Shriek is not an area attack, not mentioned in the FAQ related to invisible units, nothing had been presented that would allow it to snap shot, and nothing presented that removes the restriction against snap shots, we must conclude Psychic Shriek cannot be used on an invisible unit.


On the Psychic Shriek can be used on invisible side:

GW released an FAQ saying novas, beams, blasts and templates can hit invisible units in certain circumstances, GW also errated profile-less Witchfires to have the same hit language (automatic) as novas, if the restriction against attacks that don't use BS don't apply to novas then they don't apply to profile-less Witchfires.

A second view holds that profile-less Witchfires can roll to hit if they want to, the roll being permissive and not mandatory, thus they can snap shot.

Have I missed a critical point in either side?

I changed it in the body of the quote. Thanks for doing this!

So lets see if we can narrow this down a bit because I'm not completely sure we've been speaking the same language. Most of your posts have centered around the fact that Psychic Shriek, novas, etc. have the same or similar verbiage that they automatically hit. That's not where there is contention. I agree, and think most others do as well, that if you can use Psychic Shriek it will automatically hit. The FAQ seems pretty clear to me on how that works. The question whether you can use Psychic Shriek at all.

This centers entirely around the BRB restriction that attacks that do not use BS cannot be fired as snap shots. That stipulation exists and is clearly stated in the BRB, so it would require explicit errata to remove it which does not exist.

So the question is whether that applies to Psychic Shriek. Since Psychic Shriek only hits one unit, if it can't snap shot then it can't be used on invisible units per the invisiblity requirement. That is not necessarily true of novas, beams, and templates thiugh. Because they have an area of effect and can hit mutiple units it is possible for them to fire under normal conditions (not snap shot) but have an invisible unit in that area of effect. That is why people are claiming the FAQ doesn't in any way give or imply the permission for Psychic Shriek to be used on an invisible unit. The FAQ addresses hitting, not the base permission to make the attack which is the Psychic Shriek problem.

So can Psyvhic Shriek fire snap shots as would be required. I say no because it is predetermined to hit without consideration of BS, you say yes because the wording making it auto hit says the roll is not required, but does not say it can't be done. So if you choose to roll then ignore the result you still used BS. Lets talk about this.

I disagree with your conclusionon two points. First, the way the game is designed you must be told you can do things, failure to tell you that you can't isn't sufficient. So when you are told it is not required the game is no longer telling you that you have permission to do so. Secondly, your basis for argument is that you choose to roll, compare BS results as normal, then discard the result because it automatically hits regardless of result. At that point the attack has not used BS. The attack has resolved entirely without looking at, requiring, or assessing the BS of the firing model. You as the player may have used BS to make a calculation, but since the game did not require it and it was not a factor in resolving the attack, its a big stretch to say the attack used BS. Since this is how you are saying Psychic Shriek is allowed to snap shot, how do you defend this as use of BS when the attack did not address it in any way?