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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - so when asked to prove your assertions, you dissemble?

Very convincing.

You cannot prove that a successful to-hit is required before you resolve the rest of the power. You have been asked for an actual rule, and all you can point to is a blackshirt. Well, I know five, all say you're wrong. So I guess you're wrong.

You have no rules argument. You are now simply trolling, as you cannot follow rule one, you cannot cite an acceptable source, and have yet to back up your assertions with anything resembling a cogent argument. You have, by dint of failing to come up with a single pertinent rules quote, conceded.

Cite rules for resolving a shooting attack. Witchfire is a shooting attack.

Shooting rules. You roll to hit, if you do not successfully hit, you miss.

/end trollish discussion

As PS is a witchfire power and it HAS to roll-to hit as per rules in the description of witchfire, you must roll.

/end trollish discussion

Now, I have provided examples from the text, where are yours? You have none and we both know it so once again

/end trollish discussion




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Location and number for shop please, I'll verify myself

I provided my shops info for everyone to call and get an answer, only fair you do the same

I called GW customer service, their number is 1-800-394-4263


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:
Psychic Shriek itself doesn't, but it is a witchfire so you must as per witchfire rules, there is no legitimate way to avoid it?

Why did you contradict yourself?

I said provide information from a shop, not a customer service line. They sell products, they do not cite rules. Once again, a valid shop with an employee who not only plays but enforces rules.

2nd portion. I did not. PS in its description makes no mention of rolling to hit which is where this issue originated from. You would then refer to the rules for witchfire where you see that you have to roll to hit unless it states otherwise which PS does not.

So still no denial of permission to resolve the power according to its entry?

Awesome.

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - so when asked to prove your assertions, you dissemble?

Very convincing.

You cannot prove that a successful to-hit is required before you resolve the rest of the power. You have been asked for an actual rule, and all you can point to is a blackshirt. Well, I know five, all say you're wrong. So I guess you're wrong.

You have no rules argument. You are now simply trolling, as you cannot follow rule one, you cannot cite an acceptable source, and have yet to back up your assertions with anything resembling a cogent argument. You have, by dint of failing to come up with a single pertinent rules quote, conceded.

Cite rules for resolving a shooting attack. Witchfire is a shooting attack.

Shooting rules. You roll to hit, if you do not successfully hit, you miss.

/end trollish discussion

As PS is a witchfire power and it HAS to roll-to hit as per rules in the description of witchfire, you must roll.

/end trollish discussion

Now, I have provided examples from the text, where are yours? You have none and we both know it so once again

/end trollish discussion

Sigh.

Rule one. Reported, again.

I have bolded your critical misunderstanding of the rules.

You do not "miss". You are not allowed to roll to-wound. Now, given the 3d6 resolution isn't a roll to-wound, YOU are required to prove that if you do not successfully hit, that you cannot roll the 3d6... Effect.

Pages and para. The onus is on YOU as you are claiming there is a rule. I am claiming the absence of this requirement, meaning YOU have to prove existence, one mor chance - failing to do so is you conceding.

T your second "end trolling discussion" you do realise I already said that? I ACCEPT you roll to hit. I am questioning the OUTCOME of the to hit and it's necessity. There are only so many ways to state this, but this is utter proof you aren't actually bothering to read my posts. That is also rude.

Zodiark wrote:
Cite rules for resolving a shooting attack. Witchfire is a shooting attack.

Shooting rules. You roll to hit, if you do not successfully hit, you miss.

Awesome!
Now, what happens when a witchfire without a profile misses? Cite rules to back up your statements.

Nos is correct, there does not seem to be a rule that says if you fail your "to-hit" roll for a witchfire (without a profile) that it fails to resolve. Granted.

However, you are still glossing over the fact that you must roll an unknown number of dice. The power simply does not work RAW for that reason.

Now, HIWPI is to house rule the number of dice to 1 and have the power fail on a miss of the "to hit" roll, but any way you resolve this power must be a house rule as you simple do not have the information required to complete the power.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - so when asked to prove your assertions, you dissemble?

Very convincing.

You cannot prove that a successful to-hit is required before you resolve the rest of the power. You have been asked for an actual rule, and all you can point to is a blackshirt. Well, I know five, all say you're wrong. So I guess you're wrong.

You have no rules argument. You are now simply trolling, as you cannot follow rule one, you cannot cite an acceptable source, and have yet to back up your assertions with anything resembling a cogent argument. You have, by dint of failing to come up with a single pertinent rules quote, conceded.

Cite rules for resolving a shooting attack. Witchfire is a shooting attack.

Shooting rules. You roll to hit, if you do not successfully hit, you miss.

/end trollish discussion

As PS is a witchfire power and it HAS to roll-to hit as per rules in the description of witchfire, you must roll.

/end trollish discussion

Now, I have provided examples from the text, where are yours? You have none and we both know it so once again

/end trollish discussion

Sigh.

Rule one. Reported, again.

I have bolded your critical misunderstanding of the rules.

You do not "miss". You are not allowed to roll to-wound. Now, given the 3d6 resolution isn't a roll to-wound, YOU are required to prove that if you do not successfully hit, that you cannot roll the 3d6... Effect.

Pages and para. The onus is on YOU as you are claiming there is a rule. I am claiming the absence of this requirement, meaning YOU have to prove existence, one mor chance - failing to do so is you conceding.

T your second "end trolling discussion" you do realise I already said that? I ACCEPT you roll to hit. I am questioning the OUTCOME of the to hit and it's necessity. There are only so many ways to state this, but this is utter proof you aren't actually bothering to read my posts. That is also rude.

Seriously, another report, cmon man, do something that matters, like contributing to the discussion, could care less for reports.

The only way to not roll 3d6 is if you fail the roll to hit.

You have cited zero rules that state that you do not need a hit or miss for a rolls effect to happen with a witchfire when the answer is fairly obvious and described in the shooting section

I have read every one of your posts, hence why I know you are doing nothing but arguing for the sake of argument. You have cited NOTHING from the text to back up anything you claim whereas I have provided you with references which you ignore and ask for a specific one that backs mine up when, if you knew how to comprehend the rules, you would find on your own.

I'm seriously tired of you so I'm just gonna report, ignore you and go about my day because you are a waste of my time

I'm not glossing over it. As Zodiark seems to not understand the difference between rolling to hit, and the outcome, I am focussing on just this one aspect. As this is independent of the number of dice rolled, you can sort this part of the argument out first

Or you could, if the person you're debating followed the tenets

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Cite rules for resolving a shooting attack. Witchfire is a shooting attack.

Shooting rules. You roll to hit, if you do not successfully hit, you miss.

Awesome!
Now, what happens when a witchfire without a profile misses? Cite rules to back up your statements.

Same thing to nos, you're contributing nothing so I'm reporting and moving on. You are arguing for the sake of argument.

Play it how you want where you play but don't you dare come on the forums and tell them this is how it is played when others have consistently provided alternatives using the RAW as well as credible sources, (anyone but people on a forum) to back up their claims.

Good day

 DeathReaper wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
"a witchfire power must roll To Hit"
Is there some sort of specific exception to this that I am missing? I think RAW you cant get by that. Now is there any RAW to support that the roll is connected to the resolution? I cant find it, but given that they are telling us we must roll for all witchfires, I think we can assume they intended the rolls to mean something, even for powers without a profile.

(Emphasis mine)

No good comes from assuming when talking about RAW.

I am talking about RAI. As far as RAW goes, as I said, I do agree that the rules make to connection from the roll to hit to the resolution of the power. I also agree that we are never told how many dice to roll. I am trying to show that going on any further about RAW is really pointless because strict RAW, when we get to the to hit roll, the game breaks, as we have no idea how many dice to roll and thus can not contunue. Given this, RAI is all that is really left here.

Zodiark wrote:
I said provide information from a shop, not a customer service line. They sell products, they do not cite rules. Once again, a valid shop with an employee who not only plays but enforces rules

Well the Chicago battle bunker rules that you dont need to hit, of course that shop has closed.

However
Games Workshop - Lakeview Plaza
15766 LaGrange Road, Orland Park, 60462, IL
1-800-394-4263

Rules it that they do not need to roll to hit. I talked to scott.

However appeals to Authority is a fallacy, and renders your argument based on the appeal to authority, moot.

2nd portion. I did not. PS in its description makes no mention of rolling to hit which is where this issue originated from. You would then refer to the rules for witchfire where you see that you have to roll to hit unless it states otherwise which PS does not.

PS also does not say that if you hit then apply effects...

Do you have some rules that deny the permission to resolve the power according to its entry?

You have not posted any.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

I am talking about RAI. As far as RAW goes, as I said, I do agree that the rules make to connection from the roll to hit to the resolution of the power. I also agree that we are never told how many dice to roll. I am trying to show that going on any further about RAW is really pointless because strict RAW, when we get to the to hit roll, the game breaks, as we have no idea how many dice to roll and thus can not contunue. Given this, RAI is all that is really left here.

Except RAW does cover it.

you need to roll to hit. But pass or fail on an arbitrarily assigned number of dice does not matter as we still resolve the power according to its entry, and the entry does not mention a successful to hit roll to apply the effects. Just like the Focused witchfire powers.

No, RAW does not cover how to roll to-hit for this power or what to do with either a pass or failure. The game breaks when you get to the roll to-hit step.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
I said provide information from a shop, not a customer service line. They sell products, they do not cite rules. Once again, a valid shop with an employee who not only plays but enforces rules

Well the Chicago battle bunker rules that you dont need to hit, of course that shop has closed.

However
Games Workshop - Lakeview Plaza
15766 LaGrange Road, Orland Park, 60462, IL
1-800-394-4263

Rules it that they do not need to roll to hit. I talked to scott.

However appeals to Authority is a fallacy, and renders your argument based on the appeal to authority, moot.

2nd portion. I did not. PS in its description makes no mention of rolling to hit which is where this issue originated from. You would then refer to the rules for witchfire where you see that you have to roll to hit unless it states otherwise which PS does not.

PS also does not say that if you hit then apply effects...

Do you have some rules that deny the permission to resolve the power according to its entry?

You have not posted any.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

I am talking about RAI. As far as RAW goes, as I said, I do agree that the rules make to connection from the roll to hit to the resolution of the power. I also agree that we are never told how many dice to roll. I am trying to show that going on any further about RAW is really pointless because strict RAW, when we get to the to hit roll, the game breaks, as we have no idea how many dice to roll and thus can not contunue. Given this, RAI is all that is really left here.

Except RAW does cover it.

you need to roll to hit. But pass or fail on an arbitrarily assigned number of dice does not matter as we still resolve the power according to its entry, and the entry does not mention a successful to hit roll to apply the effects. Just like the Focused witchfire powers.

Actually appeals to authority in a game like this is a necessity if the BRB needs clarification. As nobody on this forum is qualified to do this, I appeal to an authority on the subject

The redshirts at the GW stores are not an authority on the subject...

 Dracos wrote:
No, RAW does not cover how to roll to-hit for this power or what to do with either a pass or failure. The game breaks when you get to the roll to-hit step.

The roll to hit can be safely skipped because the power is not reliant on a successful roll to hit.

Please cite the RAW that permits you to do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, please stop addressing Zodiark's references to non-RAW sources. Engaging on that front is getting nowhere.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The redshirts at the GW stores are not an authority on the subject...

 Dracos wrote:
No, RAW does not cover how to roll to-hit for this power or what to do with either a pass or failure. The game breaks when you get to the roll to-hit step.

The roll to hit can be safely skipped because the power is not reliant on a successful roll to hit.

If you can cite an exact ruling in this the debate ends, but you cannot and we both know it so we will sit here and waste time arguing.

Also Dracos, in any game, when RAW are in question, you ALWAYS go to a judge or other authority on the subject when it comes to any competitive competition, in a friendly game, do what you want

Dracos wrote:Please cite the RAW that permits you to do that.

I have permission to resolve the power according to its text, correct?
Where's the denial of that permission?

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Cite rules for resolving a shooting attack. Witchfire is a shooting attack.

Shooting rules. You roll to hit, if you do not successfully hit, you miss.

Awesome!
Now, what happens when a witchfire without a profile misses? Cite rules to back up your statements.

Same thing to nos, you're contributing nothing so I'm reporting and moving on. You are arguing for the sake of argument.

Play it how you want where you play but don't you dare come on the forums and tell them this is how it is played when others have consistently provided alternatives using the RAW as well as credible sources, (anyone but people on a forum) to back up their claims.

Good day

Contributing nothing? Are you really sure?
You admitted the RAW doesn't cover this situation, and yet you say that it does? And your appeals to red shirts at GWs are literally meaningless. It's literally exactly as relevant as asking my 4 year old.

rigeld2 wrote:

Dracos wrote:Please cite the RAW that permits you to do that.

I have permission to resolve the power according to its text, correct?
Where's the denial of that permission?

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Cite rules for resolving a shooting attack. Witchfire is a shooting attack.

Shooting rules. You roll to hit, if you do not successfully hit, you miss.

Awesome!
Now, what happens when a witchfire without a profile misses? Cite rules to back up your statements.

Same thing to nos, you're contributing nothing so I'm reporting and moving on. You are arguing for the sake of argument.

Play it how you want where you play but don't you dare come on the forums and tell them this is how it is played when others have consistently provided alternatives using the RAW as well as credible sources, (anyone but people on a forum) to back up their claims.

Good day

Contributing nothing? Are you really sure?
You admitted the RAW doesn't cover this situation, and yet you say that it does? And your appeals to red shirts at GWs are literally meaningless. It's literally exactly as relevant as asking my 4 year old.

RAW does not explicitly answer it no, but it gives you the tools to figure it out on your own, you simply lack the ability to do so.

As for red shirts, they are more of an authority on the subject than anything I have seen here.

Zodiark - your dissembling and lying noted, reported again.

You have no rules based argument. None.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - your dissembling and lying noted, reported again.

You have no rules based argument. None.

How have I lied? Prove it with my own quotes or go away. You're just arguing for the hell of it and doing a poor job of it as well.

Told you already, idc if I get reported, this is a forum about home brews and discussing misinterpretations of the BRB, not discussing facts so in the long run it doesn't matter.

I have quoted several passages from books and you have yet to disprove a single one.

You've lost.

This thread has just about descended into parody.

I'm going to suggest that certain parties either put each other on ignore, or perhaps take a break from posting in this thread.

This thread, which is about to be locked, and which is about to earn multiple users some lengthy suspensions if things continue as they have been for the last few posts, pages, etc.

 Alpharius wrote:
This thread has just about descended into parody.

I'm going to suggest that certain parties either put each other on ignore, or perhaps take a break from posting in this thread.

This thread, which is about to be locked, and which is about to earn multiple users some lengthy suspensions if things continue as they have been for the last few posts, pages, etc.

I accept that, this thread, like all the others on this exact topic going back a minimum of 4 years has solved nothing and the issue will remain unresolved until people start to actually talk to authorities on the subject

Zodiark wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
This thread has just about descended into parody.

I'm going to suggest that certain parties either put each other on ignore, or perhaps take a break from posting in this thread.

This thread, which is about to be locked, and which is about to earn multiple users some lengthy suspensions if things continue as they have been for the last few posts, pages, etc.

I accept that, this thread, like all the others on this exact topic going back a minimum of 4 years has solved nothing and the issue will remain unresolved until people start to actually talk to authorities on the subject

As per the tenets, shop staff don't count. Until the studio say anything concrete, the lack of a rule stating what you're claiming IS concrete.

So, no one is going to follow moderation in here then?