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.

Except... no rules state 1 dice at all. Your previous citation don't say that all shooting attacks fire 1 shot by default. Indeed, it refers to models and as we all know many models in the game have no shooting attack(s) at all.

You can house rule it to 1 attack - and if you do all the more power to you - but RAW it is a Witchfire attack with an unknown number of shots.

It's broken RAW. You can fix it with house rules, but you have to realise that any house rules made are as valid as each other for multiple reasons.

It doesn't need a rule, we already have a rule in place saying one shot unless told otherwise.

Following the one shot rule isn't a house rule. It follows the rules we are told to follow. Choosing to ignore it would be a house rule.

 JamesY wrote:
It doesn't need a rule, we already have a rule in place saying one shot unless told otherwise.

Following the one shot rule isn't a house rule. It follows the rules we are told to follow. Choosing to ignore it would be a house rule.

Oh yes, the one shot rule... where is it in the BRB ?
Why haven't I come across a single quote of that rule in at least five Psychic Shriek topics ?

morgoth wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
It doesn't need a rule, we already have a rule in place saying one shot unless told otherwise.

Following the one shot rule isn't a house rule. It follows the rules we are told to follow. Choosing to ignore it would be a house rule.

Oh yes, the one shot rule... where is it in the BRB ?
Why haven't I come across a single quote of that rule in at least five Psychic Shriek topics ?

Do I detect... sarcasm?

I'm sure it does come up every time, probably because it's a valid rule that affects the power with absolutely no reason to ignore it beyond a stubborn refusal to acknowledge its relevance.

 JamesY wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
It doesn't need a rule, we already have a rule in place saying one shot unless told otherwise.

Following the one shot rule isn't a house rule. It follows the rules we are told to follow. Choosing to ignore it would be a house rule.

Oh yes, the one shot rule... where is it in the BRB ?
Why haven't I come across a single quote of that rule in at least five Psychic Shriek topics ?

Do I detect... sarcasm?

I'm sure it does come up every time, probably because it's a valid rule that affects the power with absolutely no reason to ignore it beyond a stubborn refusal to acknowledge its relevance.

Or maybe, just maybe, it doesn't exist or it doesn't apply.

Or maybe, it's a piece of text talking about models and their general abilities, not about weapons, weapon profiles, shooting in the psychic phase, or anything remotely close to the topic at hand.

Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we’ll explain in more detail later.

Oh yeah, that's what it is.... it tells us that most models only get to fire one shot (due to their weapons being crap), however, some weapons (which are not crap) are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later.

Now, first of all, poor models who own crappy weapons, let's shed a tear for them.

Next question for you: Could you cite one weapon that has no profile and no number of shots that can be fired with a single shot thanks to that general statement about weapons being generally one shot ?

But let's not worry about that, because you surely don't care about such pesky details right...


Next up, roll to wound !

To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below. The number indicated on the chart is the minimum result on a D6 needed to convert the hit into a Wound. A value of ‘-’ indicates that the target cannot be wounded by the attack.

Suddenly it appears that every single other sentence in that shooting phase sequence can't handle Psychic Shriek.

So, do you think Psychic Shriek has:

1. an implicit weapon profile with one shot thanks to a general mention about weapons that doesn't apply to anything else but "witchfire maledictions"
2. an implicit allowance to replace the next steps of shooting with "resolving the psychic power"

Or:

1. you roll To Hit as instructed in the witchfire rules (compile error, missing weapon profile) - continue on error or just exit the game
2. you resolve the psychic power

If it takes two implicit invented rules to make your theory stand, while the opposing theory needs only RAW, you're pretty much likely to be wrong.

 JamesY wrote:
@matt Kingsley I don't think we do lack that knowledge, it is a single attack, that can cause multiple wounds. A single d6 to hit is all that is required. I've yet to see the logic in any other approach, or a good reason to dismiss a single d6 other than a refusal to acknowledge that it can follow all the rules we are given. As we are not told it is more than one attack, we have no reason to consider it as more than one, the potential for wounds doesn't affect the to hit stage. There is no auto hit rule for Ps. There is no directive to retrospectively hit with wounds created. There is no suggestion that it is anything but a single attack. Treating it as such allows the steps to be followed clearly and easily. Given that, why the refusal to consider that this clears up the problem neatly and makes it work perfectly well?

It's only broken if you want it to be. If you approach it as a single attack, with a unique means of generating a wound pool, it works absolutely fine. I don't see the need to insist it doesn't work when this interpretation is supported by the rules (don't ask for citations, it's all on previous posts), and shows that it does work perfectly fine.

I think the primary reason for the argument that it is ambiguous is that there is no permission on how many dice, or shots, your roll. That isn't to say your argument is illogical, but that for a RAW argument, there is more than enough ambiguity for interpretation. Without a profile, some of the rules that expect a profile for a shooting attack have gaps.

The intent of the argument in my opinion is to illustrate that both arguments are HIWPI.

@ Morgoth I'm only trying to find a way to make it work within the rules. If it came up in a game and my opponent insisted it didn't work, I'd be happy not to let them use it at all, I'd default to the exit game (I'm assuming you mean the process stops there as it breaks down, rather than packing up your models) on your flow chart with no problem. Then we are both satisfied that the rules have been followed, and can carry on enjoying our game.

@Nilok I completely respect what you have said, and I do see the ambiguity. That's what I have been trying to navigate to a route that uses the rules to resolve the power in a way that satisfies both sides. It isn't fair to one side that a vital step be inexplicably bypassed because of unclear wording, neither is it fair for the other side to have an unusable psychic power for the same fault.

blaktoof wrote:
Nos, you are still ignoring the RAW of having to roll to hit and claiming that the ld roll is not contingent on rolling to hit to ignore a required step.

This is proven because if it were not someone could cite the rule in psychic shriek that allows it to not perform the required to hit roll, or rather grants permission to resolve without doing what it is required to do by its type.

I am not saying the roll to hit isn't required

I have never said that

Stop lying and claiming otherwise.

I am saying the roll to hit is not contingent on you resolving the rest of the power. Because that's true. The 3d6 roll has no link to the to hit result. At all. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

So, prove your claim. FIFTH time of asking. Or can't you do so? It's ok to admit you're wrong on this. You may regain some credibility.

 JamesY wrote:

@Nilok I completely respect what you have said, and I do see the ambiguity. That's what I have been trying to navigate to a route that uses the rules to resolve the power in a way that satisfies both sides. It isn't fair to one side that a vital step be inexplicably bypassed because of unclear wording, neither is it fair for the other side to have an unusable psychic power for the same fault.

But that isn't the case though, both sides have a non-functioning psychic power that they house rule to work in different ways.

@matt True, but unless both sides are using shriek, someone is getting an unfair benefit if it's an all or nothing decision, unless you roll off every time it is used that is.

Well... that's the way 40k is in general. If someone has a WK and someone doesn't, the person with it has an unfair benefit.

I'd hardly call skipping a To Hit roll or making up a number of dice to make a To Hit roll with a house rule an unfair advantage though.

I don't know, I've seen Ps completely remove elite units and hq's in one go a few times. It only needs 1 wc, so making it even easier to cause damage by removing a step I'd say could create an advantage. We're discussing the crumbs now though, so I'll go back to agreeing to disagree and exiting the discussion respectfully.

We can definitely agree on the wk though...

blaktoof wrote:


This is not a good analogy or comparison...

It is a good analogy/comparison as both situations have an undefined aspect that we are told to resolve.

So do we skip the to hit roll and the application of -1S/T or do we make up rules to try and roll to hit and apply the -1S/T to a vehicle.

 JamesY wrote:
@ Morgoth I'm only trying to find a way to make it work within the rules. If it came up in a game and my opponent insisted it didn't work, I'd be happy not to let them use it at all, I'd default to the exit game (I'm assuming you mean the process stops there as it breaks down, rather than packing up your models) on your flow chart with no problem. Then we are both satisfied that the rules have been followed, and can carry on enjoying our game.

The way to make it work within the rules is to cast psychic shriek, disregard the witchfire weapon profile which does not apply because no weapon profile, and proceed to resolve the psychic power.

What I mean is that you can either play the game as it is written (continue on error), accept that Psychic Shriek is badass, or leave because you can't tolerate the fact that Psychic Shriek does not follow any witchfire-as-a-shooting-weapon rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JamesY wrote:
I don't know, I've seen Ps completely remove elite units and hq's in one go a few times. It only needs 1 wc, so making it even easier to cause damage by removing a step I'd say could create an advantage. We're discussing the crumbs now though, so I'll go back to agreeing to disagree and exiting the discussion respectfully.

We can definitely agree on the wk though...

So your argument to change the rules from "psychic shriek requires no To Hit rolls" to "it does" is that you think PS is too powerful ?

I guess that's a great way to justify your way to play it, doesn't make it rules however.

@Morgoth not at all, I primarily play grey knights so rarely get affected by it. My comment referred to the suggestion that not rolling to hit doesn't give any advantage.

Another way to play it is as I have suggested, role to hit, and if you hit, take the ld test to generate the wound pool. No need to even encounter an error.

I have shown a clear route by which the shooting attack can be resolved as a shooting attack.

Bye bye on this matter Morgoth! Perhaps on another discussion we'll be on the same page. All the best.

 JamesY wrote:
Another way to play it is as I have suggested, role to hit, and if you hit, take the ld test to generate the wound pool. No need to even encounter an error.

Except rolling to hit involves a profile to tell you how many dice to roll. And it has been proven that the roll to hit is irrelevant, so making the LD test contingent on a successful roll to hit would be a second made up rule.

I have shown a clear route by which the shooting attack can be resolved as a shooting attack.

Not with rules quotes you have not.

@deathreaper nowhere does it tell you that a roll to hit needs a profile to be resolved. However, the rules for witchfires tell you that they do require a roll to hit, whilst acknowledging that not all witchfires have a profile. Get your merry melon around that...

Seriously though, no point us continuing. Your line of argument makes no sense to me, and is as full of holes as mine is to you. Shake hands, put down the lances, and dismount?

We're instructed to roll to hit for witchfire powers, regardless of whether they have a weapon profile or not. It even acknowledges that some DON'T have weapon profiles in the same sentence it tells us to do this. In the case of not having a weapon profile, you are rolling to hit for the power, which is 1 power, meaning 1 roll.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
We're instructed to roll to hit for witchfire powers, regardless of whether they have a weapon profile or not. It even acknowledges that some DON'T have weapon profiles in the same sentence it tells us to do this. In the case of not having a weapon profile, you are rolling to hit for the power, which is 1 power, meaning 1 roll.

And the angels sang in unison;

Hallelujah, hallelujah...

Seriously though, if someone tried to tell me that they don't have to accept this, as it doesn't specify that the hit has to be successful, I'd flat out refuse to accept that I have taken any wounds from an attack that missed, because the rules don't state that missed attacks can cause damage either. That logic instantly screams waac. Not what playing a game is about for me.

 JamesY wrote:
@deathreaper nowhere does it tell you that a roll to hit needs a profile to be resolved. However, the rules for witchfires tell you that they do require a roll to hit, whilst acknowledging that not all witchfires have a profile. Get your merry melon around that...

Seriously though, no point us continuing. Your line of argument makes no sense to me, and is as full of holes as mine is to you. Shake hands, put down the lances, and dismount?

Not sure how you are not understanding the rules. that is what is confusing me.

Nowhere in the rules does it tell you to roll 1 die to hit with Psychic Shriek. it just isn't there.

The rules for manifesting a power are "To manifest a psychic power you will need to declare a target (if the power in question requires a target) and make a Psychic test (see below). If the Psychic test is successful, your opponent then has an opportunity to make a Deny the Witch test. If this test is failed, or if your opponent chooses not to make a Deny the Witch test, the psychic power is manifested and its effects are immediately resolved." (The Psychic Phase chapter, Manifesting Psychic Powers section)

Claiming 1 to hit roll for Psychic Shriek is just as RAW as claiming 100 to hit rolls.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
We're instructed to roll to hit for witchfire powers, regardless of whether they have a weapon profile or not. It even acknowledges that some DON'T have weapon profiles in the same sentence it tells us to do this. In the case of not having a weapon profile, you are rolling to hit for the power, which is 1 power, meaning 1 roll.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is not at all backed up with any actual rules.

@ deathreaper I could go over the reasons again why the rules tell us that it is one attack. You will again say that isn't correct. I've politely suggested that we drop it. Feel free to carry on the thread in discussion with others, as will I. But if you ignore me on this occasion, and try to continue the endless circling with me, as is your prerogative, my only response will be adding you to my ignore list. We have been around and around, accept that I disagree, and stop trying to convince me, and play your games however makes you happy. All the best.

Edit to be clear I am not intending this in any rude or malicious way, I am only asserting my desire to end this cycle that neither of us seem willing to break, and acknowledge fully that I have participated as much as you have. No hard feelings intended in your direction. We've derailed the main purpose of this thread long enough.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
We're instructed to roll to hit for witchfire powers, regardless of whether they have a weapon profile or not. It even acknowledges that some DON'T have weapon profiles in the same sentence it tells us to do this. In the case of not having a weapon profile, you are rolling to hit for the power, which is 1 power, meaning 1 roll.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is not at all backed up with any actual rules.

You're right. We have to apply logic to get to that conclusion. It doesn't specifically spell it out for us. It's poorly written, but that is still the clear intent.

Nowhere in the rules does it tell us HOW to roll to hit for a single witchfire power that doesn't have a shooting profile, but we ARE told that you have to roll to hit for said witchfire power(note singular), even if it doesn't have a weapon profile. So, if we apply logix, we can deduce that a "To Hit" roll for a single power would require a single roll. You're not firing the power multiple times, like you would a gun with "Assault 3". It's a single power. With no other indicators to tell us otherwise, logic dictates that we make one to hit roll for the power.

I concede that the rules don't directly say that. But it's the only logical conclusion based on what they DO tell us. So arguing that it should be played any other way is simply being difficult. I agree that it's not RAW. But RAW doesn't function. So we need to use RAI, and it's clear that this is RAI.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
Another way to play it is as I have suggested, role to hit, and if you hit, take the ld test to generate the wound pool. No need to even encounter an error.

Except rolling to hit involves a profile to tell you how many dice to roll. And it has been proven that the roll to hit is irrelevant, so making the LD test contingent on a successful roll to hit would be a second made up rule.

I have shown a clear route by which the shooting attack can be resolved as a shooting attack.

Not with rules quotes you have not.

No one has proven that rolling to hit is irrelevant. ever. That entire line of thought requires ignoring the shooting phase sequence and looking at it out of order which the rules do not suggest or permit in anyway.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
@deathreaper nowhere does it tell you that a roll to hit needs a profile to be resolved. However, the rules for witchfires tell you that they do require a roll to hit, whilst acknowledging that not all witchfires have a profile. Get your merry melon around that...

Seriously though, no point us continuing. Your line of argument makes no sense to me, and is as full of holes as mine is to you. Shake hands, put down the lances, and dismount?

Not sure how you are not understanding the rules. that is what is confusing me.

Nowhere in the rules does it tell you to roll 1 die to hit with Psychic Shriek. it just isn't there.

The rules for manifesting a power are "To manifest a psychic power you will need to declare a target (if the power in question requires a target) and make a Psychic test (see below). If the Psychic test is successful, your opponent then has an opportunity to make a Deny the Witch test. If this test is failed, or if your opponent chooses not to make a Deny the Witch test, the psychic power is manifested and its effects are immediately resolved." (The Psychic Phase chapter, Manifesting Psychic Powers section)

Claiming 1 to hit roll for Psychic Shriek is just as RAW as claiming 100 to hit rolls.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
We're instructed to roll to hit for witchfire powers, regardless of whether they have a weapon profile or not. It even acknowledges that some DON'T have weapon profiles in the same sentence it tells us to do this. In the case of not having a weapon profile, you are rolling to hit for the power, which is 1 power, meaning 1 roll.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is not at all backed up with any actual rules.

We know for sure that we get to roll at least 1 roll since 1 roll satisfies the requirement of rolling to hit.

And you have failed to show that we have permission to make more than 1 roll. The burden of proof is on you to find that permission. If you can't it defaults to the 1 roll we know we have permission for.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Nos, you are still ignoring the RAW of having to roll to hit and claiming that the ld roll is not contingent on rolling to hit to ignore a required step.

This is proven because if it were not someone could cite the rule in psychic shriek that allows it to not perform the required to hit roll, or rather grants permission to resolve without doing what it is required to do by its type.

I am not saying the roll to hit isn't required

I have never said that

Stop lying and claiming otherwise.

I am saying the roll to hit is not contingent on you resolving the rest of the power. Because that's true. The 3d6 roll has no link to the to hit result. At all. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

So, prove your claim. FIFTH time of asking. Or can't you do so? It's ok to admit you're wrong on this. You may regain some credibility.

Your correct that there is no written link to rolling the LD test and the to hit roll.

you see to have a hard time understanding what I am posting, so I will make it simple because you keep demanding I support a claim I am not making while breaking the tenets of the forum (being rude, not supporting arguements with quotes from rules, telling other posters they are "wrong" which I will put politely as you never seem to be polite without explaining why using quoted rules..etc)

I am not saying they are linked.

I am saying you cannot claim to be able to resolve the power because they may not be linked- which is exactly what you said

Nos-
All we know is that we MUST roll to hit, and we MUST resolve the power. The power has nothing within it that requires the roll to hit to succeed - if there was a weapon profile, then we know we could not roll to-wound without a to-hit beign successful, because the rulebook tells us this. The rulebook makes no similar requirement of 3d6-Ld, so you cannot assume the same requirement applies. That is NOT rules as written, by definition.

Hence why I have said the roll to-hit is irrelevant; it has no effect, as no matter what you roll, no matter how many dice you roll based upon making up rules, you must continue to resolve the rule.
you claim you can ignore the to hit roll.

Plainly.

Multiple times.

You are rude, and misrepresent other peoples posts without ever supporting your "claims" with any rules.

so again I say the utter 100% true statement about the rules and yourself

Nos, you are still ignoring the RAW of having to roll to hit and claiming that the ld roll is not contingent on rolling to hit to ignore a required step.

This is proven because if it were not someone could cite the rule in psychic shriek that allows it to not perform the required to hit roll, or rather grants permission to resolve without doing what it is required to do by its type.

You are required to roll to hit with witchfires, unless specified otherwise. Some witchfires specify such. Psychic shriek however does not.

If you could ignore rolling to hit with witchfires, despite being told you must roll to hit, and claim you could resolve the power still than other witchfires would still resolve without rolling to hit which is not at all how the rules work- rendering your opinion of the rules interaction of the psychic phase sequence list as overriding a to hit roll as a hywpi stance. That there is no link to rolling to hit and the effect of that hit is your opinion.

Which is of course fine as there is no way to play psychic shriek within the rules because anyone using it comes to the required to hit roll, and there is no rules as written way to resolve it and no rules for psychic shriek give permission to ignore it.


the point of which is, once you hit to hit step you have to stop because no one knows how many dice to roll by the RAW. Your claim that you can ignore this step is purely a HYWPI stance and has nothing to do with the rules of the game. You cannot look past the to hit step to say "when this does not wound so I don't have to roll to hit, care about the roll to hit, etc" because the sequence of shooting is a SEQUENCE and the rules for psychic shriek do not say you can ignore the to hit roll, or apply the effect on a miss. Witchfires resolution includes rolling to hit, if you miss the power still resolved it just did not hit anything.

So yes there is no link specifically stating the ld roll is contingent on hitting, however you are required to roll to hit to go on past the to hit step to whatever the effect is in shooting. and nothing in psychic shriek grants you permission to ignore to hit roll. As you cannot actually roll a to hit roll within the rules as written anyone claiming they know how to resolve the power or the power resolves in any way they may state is purely a HYWPI/HIWPI rules stance. There is no RAW to resolve the power.

and of course bottom line for the topic- its a shooting attack and BS0 models cannot perform shooting attacks.

 JamesY wrote:
@ deathreaper I could go over the reasons again why the rules tell us that it is one attack.

Except the rules do not say one attack.

You have never been able to use any rules quotes to back that assertation up.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
You're right. We have to apply logic to get to that conclusion. It doesn't specifically spell it out for us. It's poorly written, but that is still the clear intent.

I disagree. I do not think rolling one to hit die was the intent. But since it is intent we can never know fore sure and have to go with the RAW.

Nowhere in the rules does it tell us HOW to roll to hit for a single witchfire power that doesn't have a shooting profile, but we ARE told that you have to roll to hit for said witchfire power(note singular), even if it doesn't have a weapon profile. So, if we apply logix, we can deduce that a "To Hit" roll for a single power would require a single roll. You're not firing the power multiple times, like you would a gun with "Assault 3". It's a single power. With no other indicators to tell us otherwise, logic dictates that we make one to hit roll for the power.

and even if you did roll once to hit, you would need to resolve the power even if the to hit missed because the only thing dependent on a successful to hit roll is a To Wound roll. which we do not have.

I concede that the rules don't directly say that. But it's the only logical conclusion based on what they DO tell us. So arguing that it should be played any other way is simply being difficult. I agree that it's not RAW. But RAW doesn't function. So we need to use RAI, and it's clear that this is RAI.

Again with the RAI...

Since it is intent we can never know fore sure and have to go with the RAW.

blaktoof wrote:
No one has proven that rolling to hit is irrelevant. ever.

I did earlier, ill repost it.

The rules for manifesting a power are "To manifest a psychic power you will need to declare a target (if the power in question requires a target) and make a Psychic test (see below). If the Psychic test is successful, your opponent then has an opportunity to make a Deny the Witch test. If this test is failed, or if your opponent chooses not to make a Deny the Witch test, the psychic power is manifested and its effects are immediately resolved." (The Psychic Phase chapter, Manifesting Psychic Powers section)

That tells us If the Psychic test is successful and the power is not denied, we must manifest the power and its effects are immediately resolved.

So since there is nothing in the power about not rolling the 3d6-LD if you miss the To Hit roll, you still have to resolve the power. to not resolve the power on a missed To Hit roll would be breaking a rule.

That entire line of thought requires ignoring the shooting phase sequence and looking at it out of order which the rules do not suggest or permit in anyway.

So similar to when you have to apply a -1T to a vehicle?

Yea, you ignore it as irrelevant, because you are not told how many dice to roll To Hit and missing with the To Hit roll does not matter because you have to immediately resolve the power as per the rules I posted.

The only thing you have proven is that you don't understand the difference between a required rollnot being defined so there I'd no way to resolve it and applying an affect to something that can't be effected by the modifier has no effect.

The rules require a roll to hit for witchfire.

We have permission to make 1 roll to hit. No one has successfully pointed to permission to make more than one roll so in the case of Psychic Shriek we make one roll to hit.

If you hit the rules require a successful To Wound roll to see if you wound the target.



If you lack the information required to make that roll the rules technically halt at that point.

The rules are broken in the case of psychic shriek.

col_impact wrote:

We have permission to make 1 roll to hit. No one has successfully pointed to permission to make more than one roll so in the case of Psychic Shriek we make one roll to hit.

That is not a literal statement, though, just an assumption. Quantity, even one single, is never defined for this Power for rolling To-Hit.

col_impact wrote:
The rules require a roll to hit for witchfire.

We have permission to make 1 roll to hit. No one has successfully pointed to permission to make more than one roll so in the case of Psychic Shriek we make one roll to hit.

If you hit the rules require a successful To Wound roll to see if you wound the target.

Spoiler:

Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target.

If you lack the information required to make that roll the rules technically halt at that point.

The rules are broken in the case of psychic shriek.

To wound is a defined term. In order to wound, you just have successfully hit. Now please, show where your quote states that 3d6-ld requires a SUCCESFUL to hit. I'll wait

Blaktoof - you're back to ignoring, deliberately, the actual text stated I see. Your usual dishonest argument. Not worth responding to further.