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.

No.

JoTWW does not require to roll to hit at NOVA!

And hopefully at all the other major GTs!!!!

Steelmage99 wrote:P1. PSA needs to roll to hit unless explicitly excused.
P2. JotWW is a PSA.
P3. JotWW is not explicitly excused from rolling to hit.
C1. JotWW needs to roll to hit.

Steelmage99, your P3 is the mistake, as the entry states "draw a line". *That's* the bypass on the dice throw. The other PSAs will have 'target unit' or shoot or such, but not Jaws.

Much like Fury of the Ancients in 4e's Codex:SM.

Yet there is a target that Jaws hits: the first model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet there is a target that Jaws affects: the first model.

I went ahead and fixed your personal errata to the rule.

Its a PSA: the target is most definitely "hit"

Ah, people who already play the "easy" army has to make it even more easier to play with.

Grown men and thier toys, shame shame shame.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its a PSA: the target is most definitely "hit"

That's cool. Just let your opponent know that you are changing the wording of the rules so your rule interpretation becomes valid.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet there is a target that Jaws hits: the first model.

Technically, it treats the first model it affects as the target of the PSA, courtesy of the FAQ. This wording is slightly nuanced, and implies that there isn't a "true" target of the PSA; rather, the target is something considered after the fact during the resolution of the power. This is opposed to other PSAs and ranged attacks which require you to declare a target prior to resolving the attack - with JoTWW, no such declaration is necessary.

If this is argument is going to continue, particularly with this level of sniping at each other, please let me know so I can go make popcorn. But really, I don't like popcorn all that much, so can we just drop the whole thing?

CiaranAnnrach wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet there is a target that Jaws hits: the first model.

Technically, it treats the first model it affects as the target of the PSA, courtesy of the FAQ. This wording is slightly nuanced, and implies that there isn't a "true" target of the PSA; rather, the target is something considered after the fact during the resolution of the power. This is opposed to other PSAs and ranged attacks which require you to declare a target prior to resolving the attack - with JoTWW, no such declaration is necessary.

If this is argument is going to continue, particularly with this level of sniping at each other, please let me know so I can go make popcorn. But really, I don't like popcorn all that much, so can we just drop the whole thing?

Really?

Then again, I like popcorn only sometimes. Now nachos with cheese and jalapenos? Heck yea! Funny thing is I wont touch those outside of a movie theater, but once I get to the snack bar their cheesey goodness is overpowering.

Tyr - glad your bias isnt showing, much.

Show me a rule stating you do not select a target, as the normal rules for PSAs require. Then show a rule stating that this PSA does not roll to hit.

Failure to do either, whcih you WILL fail to do as they dont exist, shows your argument to be what it is - bunk.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tyr - glad your bias isnt showing, much.

Show me a rule stating you do not select a target, as the normal rules for PSAs require. Then show a rule stating that this PSA does not roll to hit.

Failure to do either, whcih you WILL fail to do as they dont exist, shows your argument to be what it is - bunk.

Just go read previous threads. Your points have already been contested.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its a PSA: the target is most definitely "hit"

That's cool. Just let your opponent know that you are changing the wording of the rules so your rule interpretation becomes valid.

hsojvvad wrote:Ah, people who already play the "easy" army has to make it even more easier to play with.

Grown men and thier toys, shame shame shame.

Ahh, somone who is butthurt that their toy soldiers suck to compared to another person's toy soldiers.

Amidoinrite?

Nope, you're doing it wrong.

Please re-read the rules of this part of the forum and for the site in general.

Thanks!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tyr - glad your bias isnt showing, much.

Show me a rule stating you do not select a target, as the normal rules for PSAs require. Then show a rule stating that this PSA does not roll to hit.

Failure to do either, whcih you WILL fail to do as they dont exist, shows your argument to be what it is - bunk.

Show me where JotWW hits.

I know that a line is placed and anything touched by the line must take an initiative test. I know that the FAQ tells me me that the first model the power will affect is considered the target model. I don't see in the rule or the FAQ anything that tells me that JottW hits the target model. The FAQ does say that the power happens to hit everybody else on its way through, but it never says that it hits the first target.

Here is what JotWW does do;

Per RAW a line is placed and anything touched by said line must take an initiative test.

That is how JotWW is employed as an exception to the general rules for psychic shooting attacks, which includes the BRB FAQ of PSA need a roll to hit and is where you continue to show your ignorance of the rules as written.

The BRB FAQ tells you that PSA require a roll to hit. That FAQ does not change the RAW that exceptions to the general rules will be found in the codex. So when you read,

"PSA require a roll to hit"

you must also include,

"unless there is a codex exception."

JotWW specifically gives you a codex exception in that it never hits. The power affects models as described in the rules entry, i.e., models touched by the line must take an initiative test. Not when they are hit by the line, but when they are touched by the line.

As I said though, play as you wish but let your opponent know that you are changing the wording of the rules to make your argument valid.

Now where are my nachos, melted cheese, and jalapenos?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alpharius wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its a PSA: the target is most definitely "hit"

That's cool. Just let your opponent know that you are changing the wording of the rules so your rule interpretation becomes valid.

hsojvvad wrote:Ah, people who already play the "easy" army has to make it even more easier to play with.

Grown men and thier toys, shame shame shame.

Ahh, somone who is butthurt that their toy soldiers suck to compared to another person's toy soldiers.

Amidoinrite?

Nope, you're doing it wrong.

Please re-read the rules of this part of the forum and for the site in general.

Thanks!

I went back and edited it out Hso. Care to edit out his as well or would I need to report it?

So, where is the rule saying it doesnt hit?
Oh wait, you stil cannot provide one. Because it doesnt exist.

Yes, there is a mechanism talking about hitting models, and touching models - but nothing saying you replace the to hit roll

Find this rule, and you haev an argument. An actual rule please, page and paragraph

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, where is the rule saying it doesnt hit?
Oh wait, you stil cannot provide one. Because it doesnt exist.

Yes, there is nos1001. " ... trace a line ... "

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, there is a mechanism talking about hitting models, and touching models - but nothing saying you replace the to hit roll

I disagree. It is " ... the RP may trace a line across the board ... ". That *is* the replace "to hit". But I suppose you disagree with me?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Find this rule, and you haev an argument. An actual rule please, page and paragraph

Codex, SW, page 37, JoWW paragraph. Specifically, Nos, you haven't disqualified "... the RP may trace a line across the board ... line may pass through terrain ... models that are touched by the line ... " And such. Before the FAQ, people played it without rolling. The FAQ did necessarily nix the description in the JoWW listing.

But you disagree that the whole "trace a line" bypasses the "to hit." If you disagree, then okay. There won't be much else to cover.

That's the thing: it doesn't SPECIFICALLY say that there is no to hit roll. It says you place a line. Why can't you place a line after you determine whether or not you hit? You place a blast marker after rolling to hit. Living Lightning, another PSA from the same codex, does not tell you that you need to hit either. All it tells you is that it is a psychic shooting attack. That is how you know you need to roll to hit.

Same thing with Jaws. Forget for a second how you think it should work - even I agree that you shouldn't need to roll for hit. However, we are talking about the rules as written here. As much as it makes sense, as much as you all THINK that being told to draw a line automatically means you don't roll to hit, you have to realize that is YOUR assumption.

Nos keeps asking, show me specifically where it says you don't roll to hit. You all quote the text for placing the line. That does not specifically say you don't need to roll to hit. If it said, for example, "Jaws is a Psychic Shooting Attack. Instead of rolling to hit, place the line blah blah blah..." then you would have something. It doesn't say that. Again, there is no reason why you can't roll to hit, and then place the line. Like I said earlier, if you miss, the chasm didn't open up where you intended. Not really that far fetched.

Again, I think that you shouldn't have to roll to hit. Shouldn't. The rules, however, say that you do.

lledwey wrote:That's the thing: it doesn't SPECIFICALLY say that there is no to hit roll. It says you place a line. Why can't you place a line after you determine whether or not you hit? You place a blast marker after rolling to hit. Living Lightning, another PSA from the same codex, does not tell you that you need to hit either. All it tells you is that it is a psychic shooting attack. That is how you know you need to roll to hit.

Same thing with Jaws. Forget for a second how you think it should work - even I agree that you shouldn't need to roll for hit. However, we are talking about the rules as written here. As much as it makes sense, as much as you all THINK that being told to draw a line automatically means you don't roll to hit, you have to realize that is YOUR assumption.

Nos keeps asking, show me specifically where it says you don't roll to hit. You all quote the text for placing the line. That does not specifically say you don't need to roll to hit. If it said, for example, "Jaws is a Psychic Shooting Attack. Instead of rolling to hit, place the line blah blah blah..." then you would have something. It doesn't say that. Again, there is no reason why you can't roll to hit, and then place the line. Like I said earlier, if you miss, the chasm didn't open up where you intended. Not really that far fetched.

Again, I think that you shouldn't have to roll to hit. Shouldn't. The rules, however, say that you do.

(wish they would have called it a line "template") I find it hilarious you need a psychic test and than an are you coherent test (3+) or 2+ depending on CoTS

Beings this and Blood Lance are somewhat similar powers I don't see why they shouldnt work the same way. Blood Lance doesnt auto hit the units it passes through does it? Does it have to roll for each unit or per unit? I don't have the Blood Angels codex on me so I'm a wee bit rusty with this information.

While Blood Lance is a PSA, the wording of the power is slanted towards it functioning as a template.

That is to say that it specifies "extend a straight line, 4d6" long, form the librarian's base in any direction - this is the path taken by the blood lance. Any unit in the lance's path suffers a single strength 8 ap1 hit with the 'lance' type."

So that really doesn't solve much of anything

The way I've been playing it is that the length of the line merely denotes the 'potential' hits of the PSA, and from there I treat it exactly as if each of the touched units was being fired at by an assault 1 s8 ap1 lance weapon.

I'm sure I'm not adding anything new to the debate, and it sounds like most of the people posting have really already made up their minds, I think that any PSA that says that things within a certain range (such as a line) are affected in such-and-such a way will bypass the to-hit roll, because rules from codices are generally specific exemptions to main-rule-book rules, and thus are exemptions to main-rule-book FAQ answers as well.

I can see how requiring the roll to hit is the least sophisticated reading of how the rules interact, however, so I don't see it as being an unreasonable interpretation.

Brother - and, again, you have no *specific* override to the reuqirement to-hit, as you have yet to find "instead of rolling to hit" or "this power hits automaticallY" or, in fact, anything stating the "to hit" roll required by ALL PSA is not, in fact, required here.

You cannot do that, because the line does not exist. And where a rule does not exist, you follow the default.

I just want to know, how come every rule that I see that doesn't need a roll to hit specifically says "no need to roll to hit" or some other clear indication that you do not roll to hit but for JotWW, we have to read "between the lines" for not to roll to hit?

I am sure, if you Do Not Roll to Hit, it must clearly say so, and JotWW does not say this.

I guess people need to play the "easy" army with even easier rules. Heaven forbid if something for them is made a bit harder. All I can say is look in the mirror on how you need to have it easy when playing with plastic toy soldiers. LOL

I don't always agree with nos, but I have to this time. If "draw a line" is to be equated with not needing to roll to hit, then lots of other PSAs should also get a pass. What about "select a model" and do X to it, or simply "place a template" and X happens. Both of these things override the normal shooting procedure, just like JOTWW. Does that mean I don't need to roll to hit with Mind War and Eldritch Storm? Super!

It seems like this is the typical standard in rules debates taken even by GW itself. The rules apply to all the armies except the current flavors of Marines. For evidence just look at the Tyranid FAQ

I also agree with Nos.

Yes Jaws does not follow the regular rules of a PSA, but nowhere does it specifically state that you do not roll to hit, so you have to.

But if tournaments rule that you don't need to, go crazy. Just be sure to clear it up in advance in a friendly game.

The funny thing about Nos continually asking where the, "no hit to roll" clause is that he has absolutely zero rules basis to set that as the standard. Page 50 of the BRB simply tells you that codex exceptions to how some psychic powers are employed will be in the codexes. That is the only standard.

As has been pointed out in other threads. JotWW also does not specifically tell you NOT to roll to wound. Instead we see that the rule gives you an exception to rolling to wound, without specifically saying,

"Do not roll to wound."

How many times will your argument change Nos? Through the course of all the threads on this subject you have not been able to give a solid argument and are now relying on asking for a proof that the rules on page 50 do not require. In fact page 50 ONLY tells you that codex exceptions to employ specific psychi powers will be in the codexes, which means you read the rules entries for the psychic powers and if they are different then the general you follow them. No standard for how the codex exceptions will be written or directed is given.

As I said, play as you want but let your opponent know you are changing the wording of the rules to make your argument valid. However now also be sure to tell your opponent that you are also creating a standard that does not exist to make your argument valid as well. Make a little cheat sheet so you can remember to inform them of all your 40( revisions.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
As has been pointed out in other threads. JotWW also does not specifically tell you NOT to roll to wound. Instead we see that the rule gives you an exception to rolling to wound, without specifically saying,

"Do not roll to wound."

Spurious arguments derail your attempt at a point. JotWW doesn't cause wounds.

Tyr - no, I have a number of arguments, you have failed utterly in all of them.

PSA are requyired to hit. Disprove this (hint, you will not be able to, as the FAQ states the opposite)

Jaws is required to hit

Find a line, a rule, anything stating the contrary position. You Cant? Guess youre out of luck then.

Since you cannot provide rules you are violating the tenets of YMDC. Put up or shut up.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:No standard for how the codex exceptions will be written or directed is given.

Which is where you step in, to show us the light. You are the only one with the knowledge and clarity to decide which way is right, apparently.

No, if no standard is established, you can't just assume that your way is right. It works both ways, they were not specific in telling us, so we have to just go by what is written and not come to our own conclusions (which is exactly what you are doing.)

Nos is spot on. The entire debate is based on the apparent vagueness of "draw a line". Draw a line, however, never says ignore roll to hit. The FAQ even clarifies this VERBATIM.

There is nothing vague about draw a line and if the model is touched by the line it has to take an initiative test. Space Wolves are not an easy army they are just an army like all the others. You do not have to roll to hit. The line is a template for all practical purposes and until GW does another FAQ and says JotWW has to roll to hit, good luck making me roll those dice. While I realize the NOVA and INAT are unofficial they are put to gether by some extremely smart and intelligent people. To discount their rulings based on the fact they are not official or "I don't agree" is folly. This poor guy tried to have a simple question answered and you guys have jacked this to do another round of this arguement. Both sides have valid points both in RAW and RAI. I simply believe based on all that is written that you do not roll to hit for it. The guys whom I play with who have played every addition and every side game since its inception(me included) and totalled almost 150 years of GW gaming experience easily say "Nah you do not need to hit just read the rule the power" that lends more credence to me than many of the silly rules lawyering here.

Good luck with your debate gentlemen.