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.

GK - except "affect" is not the same as "target" - it may be your opinion but that doesn't make it correct.

Also if you make the assumption that "affect" is the same as "target", despite the two not being the same at all, is that then Jaws could only affect a single model - as you are only allowed to pick "a" target when shooting. This is contradicted by the rules for JotWW which states that it affects all models.

The only conclusion that can be made is that "affect" CANNOT mean the same as "target", unless you are saying Jaws can only ever affect a single model?

Just to muddle the issue more, since it is a "Shooting attack", does that mean I get a cover save against it for each model hit? I would think so. Don't have the codex so I haven't read it verbatim.

Cover save from what?
There are no wounds dealt.

Gah! Stupid removed from play nonsense! Good point. Well, I guess that just makes the inquisitor lord with psychic hood part of the standard build then.

nosferatu1001 wrote:GK - except "affect" is not the same as "target" - it may be your opinion but that doesn't make it correct.

I agree. It's not just correct because it's my opinion, it's correct because it follows logic. Just like any other shooting attack, choosing which units/models you affect with your JotWW shooting attack is the functional equivalent of targeting those models/units.

Similarly, "choosing which models to affect" being different from "targeting those models" is your opinion. It's not incorrect just because it's your opinion, it's incorrect because it doesn't hold water that choosing which models to affect is something completely different from targeting those models. You can call it 'affecting' 'picking' 'choosing' 'selecting' 'victimizing' or whatever you want... it all means the same thing as targeting.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Also if you make the assumption that "affect" is the same as "target", despite the two not being the same at all, is that then Jaws could only affect a single model - as you are only allowed to pick "a" target when shooting. This is contradicted by the rules for JotWW which states that it affects all models.

The only conclusion that can be made is that "affect" CANNOT mean the same as "target", unless you are saying Jaws can only ever affect a single model?

An interesting, but completely ineffective straw man argument. Your statement (not mine) that Jaws could only affect one model if it requires targets is incorrect. Most shooting attacks can only target one unit, but Jaws targets models not units.

Gwar! wrote:But nowhere does JotWW say the line has to be aimed at the target.

Correct. It doesn't use the word "target" at all. But it does let you choose exactly which models are affected by drawing the line, which is the functional equivalent of targeting those models.

-GK

GiantKiller wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:GK - except "affect" is not the same as "target" - it may be your opinion but that doesn't make it correct.

I agree. It's not just correct because it's my opinion, it's correct because it follows logic. Just like any other shooting attack, choosing which units/models you affect with your JotWW shooting attack is the functional equivalent of targeting those models/units.

Similarly, "choosing which models to affect" being different from "targeting those models" is your opinion. It's not incorrect just because it's your opinion, it's incorrect because it doesn't hold water that choosing which models to affect is something completely different from targeting those models. You can call it 'affecting' 'picking' 'choosing' 'selecting' 'victimizing' or whatever you want... it all means the same thing as targeting.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Also if you make the assumption that "affect" is the same as "target", despite the two not being the same at all, is that then Jaws could only affect a single model - as you are only allowed to pick "a" target when shooting. This is contradicted by the rules for JotWW which states that it affects all models.

The only conclusion that can be made is that "affect" CANNOT mean the same as "target", unless you are saying Jaws can only ever affect a single model?

An interesting, but completely ineffective straw man argument. Your statement (not mine) that Jaws could only affect one model if it requires targets is incorrect. Most shooting attacks can only target one unit, but Jaws targets models not units.

Gwar! wrote:But nowhere does JotWW say the line has to be aimed at the target.

Correct. It doesn't use the word "target" at all. But it does let you choose exactly which models are affected by drawing the line, which is the functional equivalent of targeting those models.

-GK

so my beasts can move up ruins now, because they move 6" like infantry, which is a functional equivalent.

functional equivalent =/= equalivalent

this is a game of rules, JotWW is used as a psychic shooting attack, it takes the place of a psychic shooting attack (in that you cannot run and use it, only one psychic shooting attack per turn, etc) but you must follow all of the instructions given. In the instructions you trace a line, with no specification on where this line can go other than "starting from the rune priest and ending 24" away."


also please note the wording of every other psychic shooting attack on page 37,

- Thunderclap, "As a psychic shooting attack" place a template, all enemy models touched take a S3 AP5 hit, this does not scatter, and does not require a target, even though you place a large blast marker.

- Living Lightning, "Is a psychic shooting attack" and follows all psychic shooting attack rules.

- Fury of the Wolf Spirits, "As a psychic shooting attack" "they are treated like a psychic shooting attack"

- Murderous Hurricane, "Is a psychic shooting attack" and follows all psychic shooting attack rules.

- Jaws of the World Wolf, "As a psychic shooting attack" trace a line, models touching the line take a test or are removed

if you go by the theory that no sentence should be made frivolous or redundant through interpretation, then Murderous Hurricane and Living lightning are both Psychic shooting attacks, Fury of the Wolf Spirits is used as a shooting attack, and proceeds to follow the rules like it is actually a psychic shooting attack. Finally, Thunderclap and Jaws of the World Wolf are used as shooting attacks, but they do not act like shooting attacks.

so i will pose a question for you, how can something, that you describe, "as a psychic shooting attack" also be treated "like a psychic shooting attack" unless the terminology for "as" is refering to the limitations on use of the ability, rather than the actual process of using the abilty?

GiantKiller wrote:I agree. It's not just correct because it's my opinion, it's correct because it follows logic. Just like any other shooting attack, choosing which units/models you affect with your JotWW shooting attack is the functional equivalent of targeting those models/units.

GW *precisely* disagree that Target is the same as Affect. Please see WHFB FAQ part 2, where MR is errata'd to change AFFECT to TARGET and this changes how MR works.

This is because the two words have very different meanings in the game.

Blast markers can *affect* units despite never ever *targetting* them. The two words are *not* interchangeable, except in GK land.

Your supposition that they can be interchanged is illogical and unsupported in the rules.

GiantKiller wrote:Similarly, "choosing which models to affect" being different from "targeting those models" is your opinion. It's not incorrect just because it's your opinion, it's incorrect because it doesn't hold water that choosing which models to affect is something completely different from targeting those models. You can call it 'affecting' 'picking' 'choosing' 'selecting' 'victimizing' or whatever you want... it all means the same thing as targeting.

GW disagrees with you. You lose.

GiantKiller wrote:An interesting, but completely ineffective straw man argument. Your statement (not mine) that Jaws could only affect one model if it requires targets is incorrect. Most shooting attacks can only target one unit, but Jaws targets models not units.

Ah see, there you go substituting words when you have no permission to do so - of course you can state they "target" models, despite GW disagreeing with you that target is equivalent to affect. they never target models.

Good try though

GiantKiller wrote:Correct. It doesn't use the word "target" at all. But it does let you choose exactly which models are affected by drawing the line, which is the functional equivalent of targeting those models.

Functionally equivalent? No, they are not.

Targetting is a *very* specific action in 40k: it is the first thing you do in shooting, and *nowhere* is "affect" given equivalence to it. In fact the exact opposite happens - you are told Blast Markers and Templates can affect models despite them not being the target of shooting. if the two were equivalent, as you incorreclty claim, this statement would be false - you would substitute "target" in and find that you are told Blast markers can target units despite then not targetting the unit....which is a nonsensical statement.

So to sum up: attempting to claim "target" is equivalent to "affect" is wrong, as shown in the rules for Blast Markers, templates and where GW specifically changed a usage of the word "affect" to "target" and has changed how a rule works.

Nosferatu1001, since you're bringing in WHFB rulings, I'll bring in CSM codex and Chaos Daemons wordings as a counter example.

CSM Nurgle's Rot: "The psyker may be in close combat at the time, as may the targets. If the psychic test is successful, all enemy models within 6" of the psyker suffer a ... hit ... ."
CD Aura of Decay: "Aura of Decay is a ranged weapon, but the Daemon may be in close combat at the time ... as may the targets. When used, all enemy models within 6" ... suffer a ... hit ... ."

If GW made a decent distinction between *targetting* and *affecting*, someone could give a plausible answer to whether or not those two abilities *target* every enemy model within 6", or merely *affect* every enemy model within 6" without inventing a few paragraphs of rules theory to cover omissions in the rulebook.

Demogerg wrote:so my beasts can move up ruins now, because they move 6" like infantry, which is a functional equivalent.

No, because there's a rule that specifically prohibits them from doing so. See BGB p.83. I'm aware of no rule which says "choosing which models to affect is not targeting those models" or even "Jaws of the World Wolf may affect friendly models and models in combat".

Demogerg wrote:functional equivalent =/= equalivalent

this is a game of rules, JotWW is used as a psychic shooting attack, it takes the place of a psychic shooting attack (in that you cannot run and use it, only one psychic shooting attack per turn, etc) but you must follow all of the instructions given. In the instructions you trace a line, with no specification on where this line can go other than "starting from the rune priest and ending 24" away."

Exactly. This is a game of rules, and you must follow all of the rules that apply. You don't get to choose to ignore the ones that make using your power slightly less convenient, like having to choose proper targets. There are indeed specifications on where this line can go, because it is a psychic shooting attack and must follow all of the rules for psychic shooting attacks that aren't specifically overridden by more specific language.

Demogerg wrote:how can something, that you describe, "as a psychic shooting attack" also be treated "like a psychic shooting attack" unless the terminology for "as" is refering to the limitations on use of the ability, rather than the actual process of using the abilty?

"is a psychic shooting attack" "as a psychic shooting attack" and "like a psychic shooting attack" all invoke the same rules for psychic shooting attacks. Suggesting that "is, as, and like" have three distinct meanings in the rules is giving more credit to GW's rules writers than they're due.

nosferatu1001 wrote:GW *precisely* disagree that Target is the same as Affect.

I'm not arguing "target" is the same as "affect", I'm arguing that "target" is the same as "choosing which models to affect". There's a significant difference.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please see WHFB FAQ part 2, where MR is errata'd to change AFFECT to TARGET and this changes how MR works.

Citing FAQs from another game to shoot down an argument I didn't make isn't going to convince anyone, least of all me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Blast markers can *affect* units despite never ever *targetting* them. The two words are *not* interchangeable, except in GK land.

Blast markers are a red herring because they involve scatter. Because of scatter, of course units/models you didn't target with a blast marker can end up being affected. JotWW does not involve scatter. You're choosing precisely which models will be affected every time.

Nosferatu1001 wrote:GW disagrees with you. You lose.

So you've cited a FAQ from another game and based upon that, you've summarily decided that I lose? Congrats on the win!

Nosferatu1001 wrote:Targetting is a *very* specific action in 40k: it is the first thing you do in shooting, and *nowhere* is "affect" given equivalence to it. In fact the exact opposite happens - you are told Blast Markers and Templates can affect models despite them not being the target of shooting. if the two were equivalent, as you incorreclty claim, this statement would be false - you would substitute "target" in and find that you are told Blast markers can target units despite then not targetting the unit....which is a nonsensical statement.

1. Again, blast markers make poor examples because they involve scatter.
2. Again, I'm not arguing that "affect" = "target", I'm arguing "choosing which models to affect" = "target". I understand that you're a big fan of the straw man argument, but I think you'll find shooting down my actual argument a little more persuasive.
3. Again, since we've argued about this topic before on other forums, I can tell you're getting worked up about it. When you get worked up, the asterisks come out in droves, your spelling suffers, you rely primarily on straw man arguments, and you start using pejorative terms like "gk land" and making terse, falsely authoritative statements like "you lose." Do you really think any of those things help your argument? Take a step back and think about how much sense it makes to argue that choosing which models to affect with an attack isn't targeting those models.

"Target ... tr.v. tar·get·ed, tar·get·ing, tar·gets
1. To make a target of.
2. To aim at or for.
3. To establish as a target or goal."
-American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition (Houghton Mifflin 2009).

Sure seems to me like that's exactly what we're doing.

-GK

And none of your definitions involve, in the slightest, the phrase "choose which models to affect"

Since you've brought up other fora - how about that you do NOT choose which models to affect? First you pick a direction, and then draw a line.

The first bit is the only "choice" you have - the direction. Determining which models are affected does not happen until the second bit, meaning you are never "choosing what models are affected" and therefore cannot, according to *your* "functional equivalent", be choosing a target (or targets)

So either way round the models affected are not the targets.

Good job GK, selectively ignoring my quotes from page 37.

I'll repost them here so you can read them again...

also please note the wording of every other psychic shooting attack on page 37,

- Thunderclap, "As a psychic shooting attack" place a template, all enemy models touched take a S3 AP5 hit, this does not scatter, and does not require a target, even though you place a large blast marker.

- Living Lightning, "Is a psychic shooting attack" and follows all psychic shooting attack rules.

- Fury of the Wolf Spirits, "As a psychic shooting attack" "they are treated like a psychic shooting attack"

- Murderous Hurricane, "Is a psychic shooting attack" and follows all psychic shooting attack rules.

- Jaws of the World Wolf, "As a psychic shooting attack" trace a line, models touching the line take a test or are removed

if you go by the theory that no sentence should be made frivolous or redundant through interpretation, then Murderous Hurricane and Living lightning are both Psychic shooting attacks, Fury of the Wolf Spirits is used as a shooting attack, and proceeds to follow the rules like it is actually a psychic shooting attack. Finally, Thunderclap and Jaws of the World Wolf are used as shooting attacks, but they do not act like shooting attacks.-- and thus do not follow the procedure for shooting attacks, just the limitations on when you can use it.

Logic cant be brought into rules discussion, its just RAW. RAW is the only way to view rules that leaves the least amount of interpretation. You also cant sample other codex rules to try and figure out because frankly, thats another codex and has nothing to do with it in terms of RAW

Trying to bring something other than "read as written" into rules arguements is why there is still debates on simple things like deffrollas.

Exactly - and using RaW there is no target, as the directive gives you no oppurtunity to declare one.

You take psychic test: if passed you pick a direction. That is it - nothing about that lets you select or otherwise target models. No matter how GK would like it to be otherwise.

Suggesting that "is, as, and like" have three distinct meanings in the rules is giving more credit to GW's rules writers than they're due.

You can't simply choose which rules to follow because you think the writers are incompetent. This is an excuse for ignoring RAW rather than a logical argument supporting your interpretation.

I'm not arguing "target" is the same as "affect", I'm arguing that "target" is the same as "choosing which models to affect". There's a significant difference.

I disagree with the assertion that "target" is equivalent to "choosing which models to affect" in terms of rules. Sometimes this is the case, but not in many cases. As has been pointed out before, when I target a unit with shooting or CC attacks, I am choosing the UNIT to be affected by my action, but the defending player ends up choosing which MODELS are affected. Clearly the two are not functionally equivalent

I also want to point out that according to RAW, JotWW does not "choose which models to affect". The only choice you make when using the ability is "choosing a direction". Models are then affected as a result of the choice you made, but at no point did you explicitly choose models to be affected. (this is fundamentally different from abilities that choose models, like telions sniper shot).

It seems Dakka is having a go at the SW pshycic powers today.

Technically if he's opening a huge fissure in the ground the Rune Priest may not necessarily have to "see" his target, after all he's not firing a weapon, but surely he needs to know what he's attacking.

No - all he needs to know is which direction to throw the fissure in.

Given that it can suck his own troops down you would assume he would have a vague idea, but that is not a necessary condition.

Had a little bit of fun with this move the other day...
Tossed it at a group of Mega Nobs that were about to attack my Land Raider. Toss it at them to clear them out, (line went through the LR). Opponent wasn't very happy about it... but vehicles don't have to make Initiative saves.

Demogerg wrote:Good job GK, selectively ignoring my quotes from page 37.

I'll repost them here so you can read them again...

also please note the wording of every other psychic shooting attack on page 37,

- Thunderclap, "As a psychic shooting attack" place a template, all enemy models touched take a S3 AP5 hit, this does not scatter, and does not require a target, even though you place a large blast marker.

- Living Lightning, "Is a psychic shooting attack" and follows all psychic shooting attack rules.

- Fury of the Wolf Spirits, "As a psychic shooting attack" "they are treated like a psychic shooting attack"

- Murderous Hurricane, "Is a psychic shooting attack" and follows all psychic shooting attack rules.

- Jaws of the World Wolf, "As a psychic shooting attack" trace a line, models touching the line take a test or are removed

I'm going to regret this...
What you are implying here is that "is a psychic shooting attack" follows ALL the rules of a psychic shooting attack, while "As a psychic shooting attack" only follows the rules for a psychic shooting attack that happen to be listed in the description of the psychic ability? Why even bother mentioning the psychic shooting rules if they don't follow the psychic shooting rules? I don't have the codex, so can you please for my benefit show where it lists which psychic shooting attack rules it DOES follow? Per your above statement, I'm lead to believe that it says that it is used "as a psychic shooting attack" and then does nothing in common with psychic shooting attacks, in which case I would think would be described in a manner similar to "..is a psychic ability used during your shooting phase".



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Case in point for terminology: Null Zone, SM Codex, Page 57.

Clearly states "This power is used at the start of the Librarian's Shooting phase."

Weaken Resolve, IG Codex, Page 47.

Clearly states "This power is used during the Psyker Battle Squad's Shooting phase."

I know arguing based upon other Codex's is flimsy, but so is arguing that "as" lets you ignore whatever parts of the rules you feel is appropriate.

Demogerg wrote:
it takes the place of a psychic shooting attack (in that you cannot run and use it, only one psychic shooting attack per turn, etc) but you must follow all of the instructions given

If it follows all the above rules of a psychic shooting attack, why can't it follow the rest of the psychic shooting attack rules? Page 50 of the AoBR rulebook says that psychic shooting attacks count as firing from a ranged weapon. Why does it have to follow your version of the rules instead of what's in the rulebook? Maybe it "takes the place of a psychic shooting attack (in that it counts as firing a ranged weapon, etc)"?

*EDIT* Oh, one last thing. The fact that you mentioned that Thuderclap does not scatter in your description of the rules is disingenuous. In a RaW discussion, you should stick with what is actually WRITTEN in the rules. I'm not about to open that can of worms, but the fact that you mention that while it is not explicitly stated causes me to cause doubt on the rest of your descriptions of those powers.

Eldar Own wrote:It seems Dakka is having a go at the SW pshycic powers today.

Technically if he's opening a huge fissure in the ground the Rune Priest may not necessarily have to "see" his target, after all he's not firing a weapon, but surely he needs to know what he's attacking.

This is precisely the RAW and RAI that I get from JotWW. You are targeting a line, on the table. Anything on that line is affected, (if it falls under the affected parameters). Models specifically, not units. The fissure opens up, and anything small enough to fall in the fissure, and reacts too slowly does.... then it seals itself up, lets out a little belch, and you continue on with the game...


Edited for clarity.

I would use the eldar vibrocannon rules for precedence since they are rather similar. You draw a straight line in any direction. You don't actually target a unit or model. You can hit models locked in combat, out of line of sight, even your own models. It ignores night fighting and veil of tears, etc.

haderach wrote:I would use the eldar vibrocannon rules for precedence since they are rather similar. You draw a straight line in any direction. You don't actually target a unit or model. You can hit models locked in combat, out of line of sight, even your own models. It ignores night fighting and veil of tears, etc.

Yeah, it also has well-defined rules for attacking with it: roll to hit, if any of the vibro cannons hit, draw a single 36" line... and so on. It's also a weapon, not an "as psychic shoooting attack", whatever that even means. It was also in a codex that makes a moderate amount of sense to read, excepting skimmer base heights.

Im curious to see in this thread what people would do if an opponent engaged one of your units with ss/th termies such as a fex and dealt one wound therefore dropping his I. The placement of his pile in placed the termies within coherency but had decent gaps then dropped jaws in between the lines striking the fex. Would he have to take the test at 1 or would you disallow this use?

This argument goes along the same lines of Arjac's Foehammer argument:

In that argument you are given a very specific profile to use when using Foehammer as a ranged weapon. That weapon profile does not include the stunning effects of a thunderhammer, so you do not get the stunning effects of a thunderhammer when using Foehammer as a ranged weapon.

In the case of JotWW, you are given specific instructions on how to use the psychic power as a psychic shooting attack. To look any further into the rule beyond what it tells you to do in the codex crosses over from RAW into RAI.

And yes, using the worn out argument of GW writers not knowing how to write is the sign of a losing argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarmasterScott wrote:Im curious to see in this thread what people would do if an opponent engaged one of your units with ss/th termies such as a fex and dealt one wound therefore dropping his I. The placement of his pile in placed the termies within coherency but had decent gaps then dropped jaws in between the lines striking the fex. Would he have to take the test at 1 or would you disallow this use?

From what I understand, JotWW tests on a models unmodified leadership value. In addition, the specific thunderhammer rules have no impact on anything outside of the assault phase in terms of initiative. Does it not specifically state that the next assault phase is when the model will be at initiative 1?

I'm asking so chill. As far as the arjac, it's not the same as foehammer, because it's a th hitting in cc not as a ranged. This would fall more into shooting into combat with the power because it says you can hit your own.

WarmasterScott wrote:I'm asking so chill. As far as the arjac, it's not the same as foehammer, because it's a th hitting in cc not as a ranged. This would fall more into shooting into combat with the power because it says you can hit your own.

I am out of town and away from my BRB so I can't see if it is at the next assault phase and was thus asking you.

The point about the Arjac argument was not directed to your question it was directed to the general topic of the thread. I was relating that the argument for Foehammer is similar since people want to include the thunderhammer efffects in the ranged profile despite them clearly not being written. The same type of folks want to include all the psychic shooting attack rules when the instructions on how to use JotWW as a psychic shooting attack are clearly written and does not include targeting a unit or models.

Brother Ramses wrote:In the case of JotWW, you are given specific instructions on how to use the psychic power as a psychic shooting attack. To look any further into the rule beyond what it tells you to do in the codex crosses over from RAW into RAI.

I can accept this I think. With this in mind, we should be able to painstakingly map out how this works. Turns out a friend had a copy of the silly book that I could borrow for the purposes of rationalizing this to myself.

The power reads:

As a psychic shooting attack, the Rune Priest may <ESTABLISH LINE OF EFFECT>. <MODELS IN LINE OF AFFECT> must <MAKE SPECIFIC TEST>. If they fail, be removed from play. <SPECIFIC CREATURE THAT GETS MODIFIER>.

Page 50 in the little book says that psychic shooting powers count as firing a ranged weapon. This leads me to believe that they follow the rules for firing ranged weapons, since they operate AS A PSYCHIC SHOOTING ATTACK, including (page 15):

1. Check line of sight and pick target. (where are you doing this?)

2. Check Range. (we can do this. its 24")

3. Roll to hit. (where are you doing this?)

4. Roll to wound (okay, the "weapon" doesn't cause wounds, I'm fine with that.)

5. Saving throws (see #4)

6. Remove casualities. (Remove from play)

From this breakdown, I can only guess that at least one of the following is necessary:

- JoWW is affected by LoS and night fight rules per #1
- Roll to hit on every model affected.
- Get GW to properly define "as a psychic shooting attack", which isn't happening anytime soon.
- Consider it completely broken, put it in the same category as Valkyries and house rule it like no tomorrow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:The same type of folks want to include all the psychic shooting attack rules when the instructions on how to use JotWW as a psychic shooting attack are clearly written and does not include targeting a unit or models.

Is it clearly written? Which pages RaW are you supposed to use to activate it? What you propose is that it fires AS a psychic shooting attack, but without following any of the psychic shooting rules. Were that the case, why would they say as a psychic shooting attack and not just say "During your shooting phase", like every other power that already allows you to do this?

Dae, I would say that you are trying to read into it way too much.

As a psychic shooting attack,...

Stop right here. If it was a normal psychic shooting attack and required to follow all the specific rules of a psychic shooting attack there there would be absolutely no need to then go along and state the following:

the Rune Priest may <ESTABLISH LINE OF EFFECT>. <MODELS IN LINE OF AFFECT> must <MAKE SPECIFIC TEST>. If they fail, be removed from play. <SPECIFIC CREATURE THAT GETS MODIFIER>.

I don't see how this is an issue. It tells you exactly how to use the power as a psychic shooting attack in the codex. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm confused then. What does it have in common with "psychic shooting attacks" such that the term even gets mentioned in the same paragraph?


*EDIT* Clarity

To stop you use it when engaged in CC, or form inside a transport without firepoints, or after you have run, etc.

It is a PSA to stop you from abusing it basically. It shares pretty much notihng in common with any type of shooting.

You cannot target a single model as you are never given the oppurtunity to - you only EVER pick a direction. No roll to hit, etc.

daedalus wrote:
Page 50 in the little book says that psychic shooting powers count as firing a ranged weapon. This leads me to believe that they follow the rules for firing ranged weapons, since they operate AS A PSYCHIC SHOOTING ATTACK, including (page 15):

1. Check line of sight and pick target. (where are you doing this?)

2. Check Range. (we can do this. its 24")

3. Roll to hit. (where are you doing this?)

4. Roll to wound (okay, the "weapon" doesn't cause wounds, I'm fine with that.)

5. Saving throws (see #4)

6. Remove casualities. (Remove from play)

From this breakdown, I can only guess that at least one of the following is necessary:

- JoWW is affected by LoS and night fight rules per #1
- Roll to hit on every model affected.
- Get GW to properly define "as a psychic shooting attack", which isn't happening anytime soon.
- Consider it completely broken, put it in the same category as Valkyries and house rule it like no tomorrow.

Here is what is happening:

1. Check Ling of site and pick target:

You target the ground, in a direction, for 24".

2. Check Range:

24" line

3. Roll to Hit:

You auto hit the ground.

4. Roll to wound:

Attack doesn't wound, this never happens.

5. Saving throws

No wounds, no saving throws

6. Remove casualties.

No casualties

7. Special Effects of Attack

Any model on the targeted ground that can be affected by JotWW takes an initiative test.
Any model that fails its initiative test is removed from play.


There's your "Psychic Shooting Attack"

Please note: I am only extrapolating on what Daedalus wrote.

Cheers,

-Fool Whip