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.

Gravmyr wrote:
Care to quote what in the witchfire powers tells you to continue with shooting rules and roll to wound after the roll to hit? The to hit is all that is referenced in the Witchfire rules.

Not true.

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

First sentence in the witchfire rules. I'm surprised you missed it.
Let's go see the rules for shooting attacks, shall we?

So now, can we stop pretending that your assertion has any basis in actual rules or reality? Maybe, I dunno, come back with a rules quote instead of "NUH UH REASONS!"?

I assume you did not see the rest of the amended post. Please explain how and why you are treating Shriek different from any other weapon. If the entirety of the witchfire rules are considered part of every single witchfire, and therefor all rules referenced/used by weapons, then how can you advocate not rolling to hit even if it doesn't matter. What are you then using to not continue with step 5. There is nothing telling you to skip that step either. As soon as you use the line "it doesn't matter" you must by the tenets of YMDC mark your post as HIWPI.

Gravmyr wrote:
I assume you did not see the rest of the amended post. Please explain how and why you are treating Shriek different from any other weapon. If the entirety of the witchfire rules are considered part of every single witchfire, and therefor all rules referenced/used by weapons, then how can you advocate not rolling to hit even if it doesn't matter. What are you then using to not continue with step 5. There is nothing telling you to skip that step either. As soon as you use the line "it doesn't matter" you must by the tenets of YMDC mark your post as HIWPI.

I'm not treating it differently. I roll to hit with zero dice, because I'm not told to roll any. I don't roll to wound because I've hit zero times.
Just like that "HIWPI" of not rolling 10 dice, then rerolling them all if I'm under the effects of both Misfortune and Fortune, I skip steps that are entirely irrelevant.
I'm not treating Shriek differently from any other weapon - and never have.

Now, could you address the actual point that your original assertion is indeed inaccurate? To remind you:

Gravmyr wrote:
Do any of the witchfire powers with profiles have instructions on the resolution of the power within the power? Without them your argument that you only resolve the power using the rules within the power just broke all the powers with profiles only....

Nothing is broken, I've supported that stance completely using rules.

Except you are. You are told you must roll to hit, you are in fact told how many to roll.

BRB wrote:Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a
weapon fires is noted after its type.

Stating that a profile tells you to roll is incorrect. The profile only tells you how many shots are taken. The rules for shriek do not in fact tell you not to roll. So you must roll to hit. Again no weapon in the game tells you to create wounds or affects without hitting without specifically stating the the roll is irrelevant or that there are other consequences. You have a requirement to do so therefor you need a specific allowance to get around it. There is nothing in Shriek that allows it. Again no weapon states it if you don't hit you don't compare on the table and then not roll to wound. If there is please point it out.

Again missing the point there.

Your stance is proven incorrect, so you change tack. Classy.

You cannot roll any dice, so you satisfy step four, this then satisfies step five. Done.

Mark your posts hywpi. Thanks

@nos Are psychic powers weapons? Rigeld2 and I agree that they are.

The shooting rules tell you to roll, based on the profile. You have no profile, so cannot roll any dice.

Can your prove your case at any point? Some valid rules would be a start.

You mean like the rule about weapons I posted above?

Ok, relevant rules. As in, prove how many dice you can roll. Page and graph. Not "most", that isn't a rule. Page and graph, and exact cite, showing how many dice you roll.

I just did above, I have altered mine and do not have a page number. In the shooting section under type number of shots. Above does not say most, it states you fire one unless told otherwise. Were you told otherwise?

And what defines most?

I play Eldar, almost every single one of my models fires 2+ shots. So clearly most models roll more than 2 To hit dice.

I also play Nids, again most of my models roll either 3+ or 0 dice when shooting.

Gravmyr wrote:
I just did above, I have altered mine and do not have a page number. In the shooting section under type number of shots. Above does not say most, it states you fire one unless told otherwise. Were you told otherwise?

The quote above does not state that. It never mentions one shot. The only reference to one shot is "most weapons", whereas in fact for most codexes the weapons fire more than one shot. Hell, the actual quote only talks about models. So no, you have yet to cite a relevant rule.

Prove, when you have no profile, how many shots you fire. Page and graph.

Gravmyr wrote:

BRB wrote:Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a
weapon fires is noted after its type.

Interesting this says most? Where does it state that? It states that if it is not 1 you will be told so. Again were you told so?

I did not state that that quote States one shot, at all. Try reading more carefully.

Where can you find one shot? I don't see one mentioned in that quote.

Gravmyr wrote:
Except you are. You are told you must roll to hit, you are in fact told how many to roll.

BRB wrote:Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a
weapon fires is noted after its type.

The underlined is an assumption and not based on the quoted rule.

Stating that a profile tells you to roll is incorrect. The profile only tells you how many shots are taken. The rules for shriek do not in fact tell you not to roll. So you must roll to hit. Again no weapon in the game tells you to create wounds or affects without hitting without specifically stating the the roll is irrelevant or that there are other consequences. You have a requirement to do so therefor you need a specific allowance to get around it. There is nothing in Shriek that allows it. Again no weapon states it if you don't hit you don't compare on the table and then not roll to wound. If there is please point it out.

I haven't asserted the underlined.
The bolded, while true, is irrelevant because the shooting rules only allow To Wound rolls for successful Hits. No hits? No To Wound rolls.
Does Shriek roll To Wound?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gravmyr wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:

BRB wrote:Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a
weapon fires is noted after its type.

Interesting this says most? Where does it state that? It states that if it is not 1 you will be told so. Again were you told so?

Please underline the word "one" in the provided quote. For your statement to be true, it must be there.

It's the antonym of multiple. Beyond that all models fire a single weapon except for Monstrous Creatures. Before you point to a codex and state that they most do not fire a single shot please post a single model that is shooting without a weapon to display that the model is not firing a single shot.

Which nids fire 0 shots? By which I mean that have a WS above - or 0 so actually fire.

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos Are psychic powers weapons? Rigeld2 and I agree that they are.

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. Nowhere is it mentioned they are weapons.

As for Wtichfires and the rolling to hit debacle;

Those that have a profile follow the normal rules for shooting, using the profile provided, then resolving the power as described (if there is nothing else, there is no other resolution required)
Those that have no profile follow the normal rules for shooting, using the profile provided (oh, there is none, so you must either skip it .. or the rules break at this point and the game grinds to a halt), then resolving the power as described.

The only method that does not break the game is the one that takes a Witchfire Power with no profile and simply resolve the power as described as you cannot follow any of the shooting rules without a profile, despite earlier in the rules stating Wtichfire Powers must roll to hit. If there is no profile, you can not roll to hit as there is no direction (ie: no rules) providing for it. Can Not trumps Must.

So HIWPI not RAW. Rigeld2 and I disagree with you there they are weapons.

Gravmyr wrote:
It's the antonym of multiple. Beyond that all models fire a single weapon except for Monstrous Creatures. Before you point to a codex and state that they most do not fire a single shot please post a single model that is shooting without a weapon to display that the model is not firing a single shot.

So it doesn't actually say, and I'll quote, " It states that if it is not 1 you will be told so." as you asserted. Thanks for clarifying.

Which nids fire 0 shots? By which I mean that have a WS above - or 0 so actually fire.

I assume you mean BS. Venomthropes. I have no idea what the relevance of this question is, however.

If it's not multiple what would it be? If one is an assumption then any number must be an assumption including 0.


Venomtropes don't fire a weapon which is different from firing 0 shots.

Correct,
The only answer which has Rule as Written support is 'there is no profile providing a Weapon Type, let alone the number of Shots.'

Gravmyr wrote:
If it's not multiple what would it be? If one is an assumption then any number must be an assumption including 0.

Considering you're not quoting the entirety of the rule, the answer isn't relevant. 2 sentences from a paragraph is misleading at best.

Venomtropes don't fire a weapon which is different from firing 0 shots.

Fine. Relevance?

Would you admit that your statements haven't been absolutely correct so far?
" You are told you must roll to hit, you are in fact told how many to roll. "
" It states that if it is not 1 you will be told so."
" Without them your argument that you only resolve the power using the rules within the power just broke all the powers with profiles only...."

None of those are actually true given actual rules quotes. Please feel free to try and defend them with actual quotes proving your statements correct.

Those 2 sentences are the entirety of said paragraph. They are followed by a blank line then an example.

Gravmyr wrote:
Those 2 sentences are the entirety of said paragraph. They are followed by a blank line then an example.

I misremembered where the rule was. Finding your quote, it literally has no application to Shriek. At all.
Why? Because it's listed under profiles. Please cite Shriek's profile.

Gravmyr wrote:
Those 2 sentences are the entirety of said paragraph. They are followed by a blank line then an example.

Those lines are also under Weapon Profiles, Number of Shots. How does this apply to Witchfires without a weapon profile?

so people are still pretending shreik has no profile?

shriek has a profile which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on.

pretending it doesnt have a profile, when it very clearly does have a profile, is just asinine and not a RAW argument at *ALL*

 easysauce wrote:
so people are still pretending shreik has no profile?

shriek has a profile which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on.

pretending it doesnt have a profile, when it very clearly does have a profile, is just asinine and not a RAW argument at *ALL*

Sure, lets pretend that how to resolve the power is somehow a profile. How many dice do you roll to hit? The line quoted above does not say.

 easysauce wrote:
so people are still pretending shreik has no profile?

shriek has a profile which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on.

pretending it doesnt have a profile, when it very clearly does have a profile, is just asinine and not a RAW argument at *ALL*

Really? What's Shriek's Strength? What page did you find this profile on?
A profile consists of Name, Range, Strength, AP, Type and Special Rules.
You can make assumptions on Name, Range, Special Rules... but the rest you have to completely make up.

please quote where having a str value is a requirement for a profile?

You have been quoted in other threads the rules that state there are more then one type of profiles.

we have instructions in the shreik profile on how to resolve the power, how to wound, ect which is what make the profile... plenty of other profiles dont have a str.. they have a way to get the str, or a method to resolve wounds or glances/pens... sniper, haywire dont have str, yet you dont argue they lack profiles.

str in a profile, is just a STANDARD way to resolve wounds, having a non standard way to resolve wounds in the profile does not magically stop it from being a profile.

quote a rule that says other wise please, I expect none, because there is none.

your assertation that there is only one type of profile, has no RAW backing,

your assertation, that a psychic shooting atttacks profile, is not a profile, is also baseless.

the profile is clearly on the power page in the BRB, your willfull ignorance of it doesnt change that.

 easysauce wrote:
please quote where having a str value is a requirement for a profile?

"Every weapon has a profile. Here are two examples:..." (Weapons chapter, Weapons Profiles section)

Weapon Profiles have a Range, Strength, AP value, and a Type and any Special Rules as per the as per the Weapons Profiles section.

They show two examples as well.