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.

bigbaboonass wrote:

WarOne wrote:In the end, leave it for the TOs and in-house rules decisions to decide if they do or do not need to roll a hit.

I'm in the mid-south of the United States and frequent the Memphis Factory Store on a regular basis. As many of you know this is now the new GW headquarters. I asked the manager, and tourney organizer, last month before a tournament that I played in (I was playing Eldar so the decision wasn't going to affect me either way) and this is what I was told:

"Jaws of the World Wolf doesn't need to roll to hit. It is essentially an odd shaped template weapon. You place the line after declaring your target and work out the results from there."
The example of Thunderclap was also used as an example that not all template weapons are teardrop shaped. I'm not saying that every TO will rule it this way so it's best to check with your local TO before a tourney, but if you are playing at the Memphis Factory Store (GW's HQ) this is how it was ruled.

Good enough for me.

This is a good justification. As it fits the Fluff and RAI, as opposed to the RAW (I hope I got those around the right way... )

GW store rulings are notoriously bad. This is why we have a YMDC section of the forum.

The word template is never mentioned in the spell description of Jaws. Just because some random schmuck from GW states his opinion, it doesn't trump the rules.

The power never mentions an exemption of the required roll to hit. This fact has yet to be adequately challenged.

To repeat ad nauseam, Jaws is a PSA, PSA requires a roll to hit unless an exemption is listed. No exemption is listed.

Night's Blood wrote:GW store rulings are notoriously bad. This is why we have a YMDC section of the forum.

The word template is never mentioned in the spell description of Jaws. Just because some random schmuck from GW states his opinion, it doesn't trump the rules.

The power never mentions an exemption of the required roll to hit. This fact has yet to be adequately challenged.

To repeat ad nauseam, Jaws is a PSA, PSA requires a roll to hit unless an exemption is listed. No exemption is listed.

I believe bigbaboonass had asked for a ruling during a tournament, which was held at the GW Factory. Not during a random pick-up game at the Battle Bunker. I also believe this was before the FAQ came out, so I don't know if that would change the TO's ruling. But it really just comes down to, get a ruling from the TO.

Either way, I'm content to bow out of this argument, unless someone wishes to continue as a purely theoretical exercise.

It really isn't a theoretical exercise, as that would imply it is complex - in reality it isn't even that base.

Bieng a GW TO doesn't make you the end all for rules. GW TO's make bad calls all the time. I can see where the "doesn't roll to hit" is comming from, however, RAW it requires a to hit roll. There is no specific expection stating auto hit or similar. And until GW has an official faq which says it auto hits I will continue to rule it at my tournies as requires a roll to hit.

Night's Blood wrote:It really isn't a theoretical exercise, as that would imply it is complex - in reality it isn't even that base.

That's right, it is blatantly obvious that neither JotWW nor Thunderclap need any kind of roll to hit.

Rules please?

You have failed, utterly, to provide any. Assertions are not rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rules please?

You have failed, utterly, to provide any.

A lie. I provided it in my response to ChrisCP on previous page of the thread and nobody is yet to show me where I am wrong.

CiaranAnnrach wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:GW store rulings are notoriously bad. This is why we have a YMDC section of the forum.

The word template is never mentioned in the spell description of Jaws. Just because some random schmuck from GW states his opinion, it doesn't trump the rules.

The power never mentions an exemption of the required roll to hit. This fact has yet to be adequately challenged.

To repeat ad nauseam, Jaws is a PSA, PSA requires a roll to hit unless an exemption is listed. No exemption is listed.

I believe bigbaboonass had asked for a ruling during a tournament, which was held at the GW Factory. Not during a random pick-up game at the Battle Bunker. I also believe this was before the FAQ came out, so I don't know if that would change the TO's ruling. But it really just comes down to, get a ruling from the TO.

Either way, I'm content to bow out of this argument, unless someone wishes to continue as a purely theoretical exercise.

The truth of the whole matter is this. The tourney that I played in was after the FAQ was released, so the TO had all of the current rules and rulings available to him when he made this decision.

In response to Night's Blood.

My opinion doesn't matter.

Your opinion does not matter.

The only opinion that does matters is that of the TO, period end of story.

The TO is the one who makes all of the rulings and rules decisions for an event. Whether they are the right call or not, when it comes to the event they are running, their decision is law. If you don't like the way they run their events then don't participate. In my post I never once stated that his ruling was a universally accepted decision, and that everyone would agree with how he decided. However I did state that as far as games at the Memphis Factory Store (GW HQ) are concerned, at least at that tourney, that was how it was ruled. Your local TO may rule it differently and that's fine, and I don't care because it doesn't affect me. To start saying that because some folks disagree with how you would make a ruling on something that they're "schmucks" is childish and should be left at home. Please have more respect for those around you than this because the man whom you are calling a random schmuck happens to be one of the rules judges for the GT at Gamesday in Chicago.

Backfire wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rules please?

You have failed, utterly, to provide any.

A lie. I provided it in my response to ChrisCP on previous page of the thread and nobody is yet to show me where I am wrong.

It has been shown to be wrong, repeatedly

Please, find some rules. Any

Backfire wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rules please?

You have failed, utterly, to provide any.

A lie. I provided it in my response to ChrisCP on previous page of the thread and nobody is yet to show me where I am wrong.

I wouldn't be too quick to claim the "nobody is yet to show me where I am wrong" bit - I know I've made quite a few arguments in this thread that people found more convenient to forget were made than try to provide a response to them. But to respond to your own assertions. You made several, one is a fluffy argument which doesn't hold water - you can't use fluff to justify how a rule works, so it's not worth arguing that point any further.

The other is a claim that the text "models suffer a hit" either replaces the roll-to-hit or implies no such roll is needed as a rule. This is false, as I can show to you an exception to that rule - Vibro Cannons, which contain that text in addition to stating that a roll-to-hit must be made. If "models under the line suffer a hit" does imply that no roll-to-hit is necessary, then the rules for vibro cannons contradict themself. The take away there is the phrase "models/units touched by the line suffer a hit" does not replace the roll-to-hit, or imply no roll is needed. Templates and Blasts explicitly state within their rules that you do not roll to hit, in addition to the "models under the template suffer a hit" rule. If the rule were sufficient alone to negate the roll-to-hit, there would be no need to specify in the rule book that no roll to hit is made.

Your last argument is perhaps the best one - that unless the power explicitly states the keyword, then the rules associated with that keyword do not apply to the power. Thunderclap uses a large blast template, but because it does not state it is a blast weapon, it doesn't follow the rules for using blast weapons. The problem with this argument is it actually works against you as well. JoTWW/Thunderclap do not state they are template weapons, so by your logic they do not follow the rules for template weapons. The rules then become fuzzy, as there are no well-defined rules for resolving these attacks, and no well-defined rule that allows them to omit the roll-to-hit. And thus we are back to where we started.

[Edit] I'm in no way trying to say that Thunderclap/JoTWW require a roll-to-hit, I'm just pointing out the flaws in Backfire's arguments. The ruling from the TO reported by bigbaboonass is sufficient for me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It has been shown to be wrong, repeatedly

Please, find some rules. Any

I already did, maybe you missed them? Well, here are they again:


It's very simple. Scatter rules are for weapons which have Blast rule. Look it up from the rulebook. It is very unambigious.

"Blast" is a special weapon rule. Just like Melta, Pinning, Gets hot etc.

Thunderclap has no Melta rule in its profile, so it's not a Melta weapon. It has no Gets hot rule in its profile, so it does not Get Hot!. Etcetera.

And finally, it has no Blast rule in its profile, so it does not use Blast weapon rules, and hence, does not use scatter rules.

It uses a large Blast marker, but that is completely incidental. They might just as well specify using a dinner plate. Or your own palm. Or, I dunno, say a line which is 24 inches long?

Awaiting your response.

bigbaboonass wrote:

CiaranAnnrach wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:GW store rulings are notoriously bad. This is why we have a YMDC section of the forum.

The word template is never mentioned in the spell description of Jaws. Just because some random schmuck from GW states his opinion, it doesn't trump the rules.

The power never mentions an exemption of the required roll to hit. This fact has yet to be adequately challenged.

To repeat ad nauseam, Jaws is a PSA, PSA requires a roll to hit unless an exemption is listed. No exemption is listed.

I believe bigbaboonass had asked for a ruling during a tournament, which was held at the GW Factory. Not during a random pick-up game at the Battle Bunker. I also believe this was before the FAQ came out, so I don't know if that would change the TO's ruling. But it really just comes down to, get a ruling from the TO.

Either way, I'm content to bow out of this argument, unless someone wishes to continue as a purely theoretical exercise.

The truth of the whole matter is this. The tourney that I played in was after the FAQ was released, so the TO had all of the current rules and rulings available to him when he made this decision.

In response to Night's Blood.

My opinion doesn't matter.

Your opinion does not matter.

The only opinion that does matters is that of the TO, period end of story.

The TO is the one who makes all of the rulings and rules decisions for an event. Whether they are the right call or not, when it comes to the event they are running, their decision is law. If you don't like the way they run their events then don't participate. In my post I never once stated that his ruling was a universally accepted decision, and that everyone would agree with how he decided. However I did state that as far as games at the Memphis Factory Store (GW HQ) are concerned, at least at that tourney, that was how it was ruled. Your local TO may rule it differently and that's fine, and I don't care because it doesn't affect me. To start saying that because some folks disagree with how you would make a ruling on something that they're "schmucks" is childish and should be left at home. Please have more respect for those around you than this because the man whom you are calling a random schmuck happens to be one of the rules judges for the GT at Gamesday in Chicago.

I am not saying they disagree with me, i'm saying they disagree with the rules. My opinion does matter when that same opinion is the one the rules support. Using this line of reasoning the only person qualified to make a judgement on a 40k debate is someone running a tournament? That's silly and you know so. The term schmuck has no malicious connotation besides what you are assuming. What i meant was that just because someone agrees with you it does not change the rules being debated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It has been shown to be wrong, repeatedly

Please, find some rules. Any

I already did, maybe you missed them? Well, here are they again:


It's very simple. Scatter rules are for weapons which have Blast rule. Look it up from the rulebook. It is very unambigious.

"Blast" is a special weapon rule. Just like Melta, Pinning, Gets hot etc.

Thunderclap has no Melta rule in its profile, so it's not a Melta weapon. It has no Gets hot rule in its profile, so it does not Get Hot!. Etcetera.

And finally, it has no Blast rule in its profile, so it does not use Blast weapon rules, and hence, does not use scatter rules.

It uses a large Blast marker, but that is completely incidental. They might just as well specify using a dinner plate. Or your own palm. Or, I dunno, say a line which is 24 inches long?

Awaiting your response.

This means nothing. The fact that PSA wasn't even mentioned in your "rules" just shows you either are ignoring the context of the debate or are simply confused.

Night's Blood wrote:
This means nothing. The fact that PSA wasn't even mentioned in your "rules"

Doesn't have to.

The FAQ didn't change how Psychic Shooting Attacks are played. It merely redefined what powers count as PSA's (and the new definition is more confusing than the old one).

So, all you have done is proven it does not have to scatter. Which is NOT the same as proving it does not need to roll to hit. At all.

So, find some RULES exempting you from the need to roll to hit. Actual rules.

CiaranAnnrach wrote:
I wouldn't be too quick to claim the "nobody is yet to show me where I am wrong" bit - I know I've made quite a few arguments in this thread that people found more convenient to forget were made than try to provide a response to them. But to respond to your own assertions. You made several, one is a fluffy argument which doesn't hold water - you can't use fluff to justify how a rule works, so it's not worth arguing that point any further.

It gets often repeated that "fluff means nothing rules-wise" but GW itself does use fluff descriptions to justify its rulings.

Anyway, the "fluff argument" is only a bonus.

CiaranAnnrach wrote:
The other is a claim that the text "models suffer a hit" either replaces the roll-to-hit or implies no such roll is needed as a rule. This is false, as I can show to you an exception to that rule - Vibro Cannons, which contain that text in addition to stating that a roll-to-hit must be made. If "models under the line suffer a hit" does imply that no roll-to-hit is necessary, then the rules for vibro cannons contradict themself. The take away there is the phrase "models/units touched by the line suffer a hit" does not replace the roll-to-hit, or imply no roll is needed. Templates and Blasts explicitly state within their rules that you do not roll to hit, in addition to the "models under the template suffer a hit" rule. If the rule were sufficient alone to negate the roll-to-hit, there would be no need to specify in the rule book that no roll to hit is made.

However, in similar fashion it does not follow that failed Roll to Hit would result to the power being nullified: FAQ about Murderous Hurricane already estabilishes it.

In other words, even if you DO roll to hit for Jaws, it means nothing. The line does not disappear if you fail, and the models touching it must take Initiative check etc etc.

CiaranAnnrach wrote:
Your last argument is perhaps the best one - that unless the power explicitly states the keyword, then the rules associated with that keyword do not apply to the power. Thunderclap uses a large blast template, but because it does not state it is a blast weapon, it doesn't follow the rules for using blast weapons. The problem with this argument is it actually works against you as well. JoTWW/Thunderclap do not state they are template weapons, so by your logic they do not follow the rules for template weapons. The rules then become fuzzy....

Not at all. No, they are not "Template weapons" (which is an explicit weapon category, just like "Blast") but it is clear from their wording that they work in similar fashion.

In the case of Thunderclap, it is obvious. Any enemy model touched by the Blast Marker takes a "hit". A hit is a hit. You only roll to hit once (unless there is a specific rule which forces a reroll). You don't roll to hit so you get to "hit". You move to wounds (or whatever effects the power has). It's same like in Mind War, which produces wounds to target. You do not roll to wound there, do you? And the Mind War does not use the words "Automatically wounds".

Can we call this a dead horse, yet?

Seriously, 5 pages and nothing new, just the same old BUT THE FAQ SAYS v. CODEX TRUMPS GENERAL.

Oh, and sniping psuedo personal comments, of course.

With Mindwar you must now roll to hit - is is a PSA, so you must roll to hit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:With Mindwar you must now roll to hit - is is a PSA, so you must roll to hit.

Says where?

jmurph is right, the old angle is a dead horse, but where do you get this idea?

I got it from a) the rules for PSA and b) the Eldar FAQ saying it is a PSA

So, any rules yet? Any at all?

nosferatu1001 wrote:I got it from a) the rules for PSA and b) the Eldar FAQ saying it is a PSA

Ah, I forgot they were specified in the FAQ. The FAQ however also mentions that they have "few exceptions to the normal shooting rules, as specified in their descriptions". So I'd say that Mind War does not roll to hit, since this is pretty much the only "exception" which the FAQ could refer to.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, any rules yet? Any at all?

Did already. Read 'em.

Apart from no roll to wound, of course. Thats an exception. So yes it DOES need to roll to hit because NO it does not have a rule saying it does not.

Have done. If youd bothered to read my response you would see that ALL you have done is show no need to roll scatter for that power. You have NOT shown a RULE saying it does not need to roll to hit.

So, find a RULE that says it does not need to roll to hit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, find a RULE that says it does not need to roll to hit.

I already DID: the actual description of the power and how it works and how it resolves its effects. It's all laid out there.

You are just stuck on the word "automatic" as if it's the only expression of its kind in the English language.

There is simply nothing more to say.

jmurph wrote:Can we call this a dead horse, yet?

Seriously, 5 pages and nothing new, just the same old BUT THE FAQ SAYS v. CODEX TRUMPS GENERAL.

Oh, and sniping psuedo personal comments, of course.

Nonono, we've not just beaten the dead horse, we've invoked the Dark Arts, raised it from the grave, and proceeded to flog the skeletal remains until the leather frays and our wrists crack.

And I'm sure everyone respects everyone else's opinion, and certainly isn't wishing they'd shut up and stick their head in a loo.

Backfire wrote:

It gets often repeated that "fluff means nothing rules-wise" but GW itself does use fluff descriptions to justify its rulings.

Anyway, the "fluff argument" is only a bonus.

Fair enough. But that's a slippery slope to begin going down...but let's not go there right now.

However, in similar fashion it does not follow that failed Roll to Hit would result to the power being nullified: FAQ about Murderous Hurricane already estabilishes it.

In other words, even if you DO roll to hit for Jaws, it means nothing. The line does not disappear if you fail, and the models touching it must take Initiative check etc etc.

FAQ: about Murderous Hurricane only addresses Murderous Hurricane. You keep bringing up other psychic powers as evidence for why one gets to ignore rules without stating they do, and it doesn't work that way. Each psychic power works in a unique fashion independently of each other. Additionally, Murderous Hurricane does require both a roll-to-hit and roll-to-wound, and is not exempt from either. FAQ: "a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even if the power fails to hit or to wound." - the fact that it could fail to hit implies that there is a to-hit roll. If there was no to-hit roll, they would not have specified the fails-to-hit case. The effect of Murderous Hurricane has if it fails to hit, or to wound, is the unit treats all terrain as difficult and dangerous terrain. But you don't get to skip the to-hit roll, and this only works this way because it was FAQ'ed, but that FAQ only applies to Murderous Hurricane.

Not at all. No, they are not "Template weapons" (which is an explicit weapon category, just like "Blast") but it is clear from their wording that they work in similar fashion.

In the case of Thunderclap, it is obvious. Any enemy model touched by the Blast Marker takes a "hit". A hit is a hit. You only roll to hit once (unless there is a specific rule which forces a reroll). You don't roll to hit so you get to "hit". You move to wounds (or whatever effects the power has). It's same like in Mind War, which produces wounds to target. You do not roll to wound there, do you? And the Mind War does not use the words "Automatically wounds".

Huh? Are you saying you need to roll to hit with Thunderclap? Or am I misreading? Either way...

You don't get to claim that it's clear it works as a template, therefore gets to follow its rules even though it doesn't say it is a template, but in order for it to use the blast rules it has to say it is a blast. That's being hypocritical. Either it must state it is that weapon type to follow its rules, or it's up to a person's interpretation which set of rules it follows based upon how the power is described. But you can't selectively enforce your rule like that; apply it equally or not at all.

Again, to clarify, I'm not saying you are playing Thunderclap wrong - I believe it functions as a template and doesn't scatter as well. I am just saying your reasoning for why Thunderclap is played that way is flawed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

darkPrince010 wrote:

jmurph wrote:Can we call this a dead horse, yet?

Seriously, 5 pages and nothing new, just the same old BUT THE FAQ SAYS v. CODEX TRUMPS GENERAL.

Oh, and sniping psuedo personal comments, of course.

Nonono, we've not just beaten the dead horse, we've invoked the Dark Arts, raised it from the grave, and proceeded to flog the skeletal remains until the leather frays and our wrists crack.

And I'm sure everyone respects everyone else's opinion, and certainly isn't wishing they'd shut up and stick their head in a loo.

But it's fun to beat a dead horse! Good upper body exercise.

Nah, at this point I'm just enjoying poking holes in people's logic who want to continue to argue the issue. It was settled for me when bigbaboonass piped in.

Meh, I just avoid playing vs SW armies, so it's a moot point for me too. It's just fun to watch

Well when I made this thread, I was hoping there wouldnt be too much arguements over this topic. I was expecting more of a yes or no type of response. And I know that the best way to find out is to ask the TO as the event that you are looking to participate in.

And considering that GW HQ rules it "no roll to hit needed" and so does the INAT, I am expecting majority of future GTs/Cons will rule the same way.

Feel free to continue the debate in this thread about other PSAs. But for the people that keep saying JoTWW needs to roll to hit, it doesnt matter how sound your arguements are ONLINE, you're losing the battle if you cant change the rulings at majority of the GTs. And I'm pretty sure most SW players are happy.

The rulings came before the FAQ.

CiaranAnnrach wrote:
FAQ: about Murderous Hurricane only addresses Murderous Hurricane. You keep bringing up other psychic powers as evidence for why one gets to ignore rules without stating they do, and it doesn't work that way. Each psychic power works in a unique fashion independently of each other. Additionally, Murderous Hurricane does require both a roll-to-hit and roll-to-wound, and is not exempt from either. FAQ: "a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even if the power fails to hit or to wound." - the fact that it could fail to hit implies that there is a to-hit roll. If there was no to-hit roll, they would not have specified the fails-to-hit case. The effect of Murderous Hurricane has if it fails to hit, or to wound, is the unit treats all terrain as difficult and dangerous terrain. But you don't get to skip the to-hit roll, and this only works this way because it was FAQ'ed, but that FAQ only applies to Murderous Hurricane.

I find this very funny that you would point this out when I have repeatedly said the same thing about virbo cannons to you and you still ignore me... Anyways, yes this is an undead skeletal horse that has been beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten, etc.....

The only anwser as of right now is that no one not even GW knows... they have not deigned to give us an FAQ covering these questions, so again everyone put down the torches and pitchforks back away from each other ..... and agree to disagree, then before going to any Tourny ask the T.O.

Backfire wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, find a RULE that says it does not need to roll to hit.

I already DID: the actual description of the power and how it works and how it resolves its effects. It's all laid out there.

You are just stuck on the word "automatic" as if it's the only expression of its kind in the English language.

There is simply nothing more to say.

Annnnd youre back to missing or mixing up posters again. I dont care about hte word automatic. Im looking for a RULE stating you do not roll to hit. The description of the power, or JAWs, do NOT provide an exception for the roll to hit. THey dont. You havent provided any rules to counter this, at all. IF you belive otherwise - quote them, exactly, showing exactly how they ignore "PSAs roll to hit"