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.

Unless you answer the actual question, instead of simply repeating 'the Rule states to Roll' which we have already confirmed it does, I will continue to ask it:
If we follow the instructions found under the Step/Rule called 'To Hit' to the letter, have we done anything illegal?

Ignore what the body of the To Hit Step/Rule might be at the moment, and the broken power which is completely irrelevant to the above question, and provide a simple yes or no answer followed by a brief explanation as to why you answered that way. This is a fundamental question related to how we go about legally obeying a set of instructions, we can not continue the discussion until we come to an agreement on how we go about legally obeying a Rule. Personally, I am of the mindset that simply completing the instructions within a Rule means that the result is 'legal' regardless of what it might be.

As for 0 Shots being Fired:
You are the one claiming for certain that it is not possible, and it is tempting to point out the history of some of the people you are arguing against but that wouldn't be professional.

Unfortunately for you, evidence has been put forth which shows that the Rules allow for 0 Shots to be Fired in certain situations. Not because those situations are governed by Rules which have Exception clauses specifically stating they are 'legal.' Instead the Rule Interactions simply generate the result of 0 Shots being fired, which can not be possible if the Rules require for that number to be anything but 0 to function. I will point out, again not so professional but this one I will do: Even you seem to be backing away from this being somehow 'fictional' with your current requirement that we provide a profile which lists 0 Shots.

Surely feels as if you are narrowing the scope so we can no longer address situations which do not fit your interpretation of the Shooting Sequence.

At this point in time it is very clear that the burden of proof is very much on your shoulders. Should you want to continue to state that 0 Shots being Fired is an impossible outcome, then you need to prove why certain Rules leading us to this outcome are somehow 'illegal results.' Short of a Rule quote stating that we must have Fired at least one Shots to proceed through the Shooting Sequence, I doubt it will be possible for you to provide any evidence to explain why the only possible outcome of certain Rule Interactions is simply... not possible.

JinxDragon wrote:
Unless you answer the actual question, instead of simply repeating 'the Rule states to Roll' which we have already confirmed it does, I will continue to ask it:
If we follow the instructions found under the Step/Rule called 'To Hit' to the letter, have we done anything illegal?

Ignore what the body of the To Hit Step/Rule might be at the moment, and the broken power which is completely irrelevant to the above question, and provide a simple yes or no answer followed by a brief explanation as to why you answered that way. This is a fundamental question related to how we go about legally obeying a set of instructions, we can not continue the discussion until we come to an agreement on how we go about legally obeying a Rule. Personally, I am of the mindset that simply completing the instructions means that the outcome is 'legal' regardless of what that outcome is.

As for 0 Shots being Fired:
You are the only one claiming that it is not possible in this thread, and it is tempting to point out the history of some of the people you are arguing against but that wouldn't be professional. Evidence has been put forth which shows that the Rules allow for 0 Shots to be Fired in certain situations, not because they are specifically stated as 'legal' but because the interactions simply generate the result of 0 Shots being fired. Even you seem to be backing away from this being somehow 'fictional' with your current requirement that we provide a profile which lists 0 Shots, which feels as if you are narrowing the scope so we can no longer address situations which do not fit your interpretation of the Shooting Sequence.

Should you want to continue to state that 0 Shots being Fired is an impossible outcome, the burden of proof is very much on your shoulders as you need to show we have misapplied out evidence to come to the conclusions we have.... and simply repeating 'Psychic Powers must Roll to Hit' does not address the fact the Rules allow for 0 Fired Shots to be a possible....

At best you have shown that the rules allow for 0 shots to be retro-actively determined as fired by some special rule which swallows the shot that was fired. In order to get to that point you are required to shoot a weapon with a shot on its profile. My point stands that there are no Zero Shot Shooting Attacks. Clearly in the example you have provided there is a shot number on its profile. You are not able to get to the point where zero is a valid choice for a shooting attack profile. Thus you have no argument at this point.

The burden of proof is never on my shoulders. You are the one claiming a strict RAW resolution.

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The To Wound Roll requires a house rule to continue in the case of resolving successful hits from Psychic Shriek, which is what we were discussing.

It does not require a house rule.

Since there are no successful To Hit rolls with Psychic Shriek, we never roll To Wound.

Then we continue to resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry as the rules tell us to do.

Please indicate exactly how you resolve Psychic Shriek without ever having any successful To Hit rolls.

Witchfire powers MUST roll to hit.

Zero shot shooting attacks are a fiction that you are making up. This is all fine if you are just claiming HYWPI, but this is not RAW.

Because we followed the shooting process and found that we did not have any dice to roll for To Hit rolls, ergo there were no successful To Hit rolls.

Then we resolved the power according to the instructions in its entry.

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The To Wound Roll requires a house rule to continue in the case of resolving successful hits from Psychic Shriek, which is what we were discussing.

It does not require a house rule.

Since there are no successful To Hit rolls with Psychic Shriek, we never roll To Wound.

Then we continue to resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry as the rules tell us to do.

Please indicate exactly how you resolve Psychic Shriek without ever having any successful To Hit rolls.

Witchfire powers MUST roll to hit.

Zero shot shooting attacks are a fiction that you are making up. This is all fine if you are just claiming HYWPI, but this is not RAW.

Because we followed the shooting process and found that we did not have any dice to roll for To Hit rolls, ergo there were no successful To Hit rolls.

Then we resolved the power according to the instructions in its entry.

"Zero Shot Shooting Attack" is a house rule that you are making up.

Rolling zero dice to satisfy "must roll to hit" is a house rule that you are making up.

It satisfies step four, which is what is required of us.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It satisfies step four, which is what is required of us.

You are free to implement house rules to satisfy step 4. Treating Psychic Shriek as a zero shot shooting attack is a house rule.

It's an uphill battle for you to prove zero as a valid choice for a shooting attack. There are no examples anywhere in the rules of a Shooting Attack with zero shots on its profile and it logically implausible for a shooting attack to shoot zero shots and actively shoot.

Col_impact,
My objection to your posts have always been the fact you stated a Shooting Sequence which Fires 0 Shots are 'fictional,' when it is clearly an outcome that is possible from certain Rule Interactions.
You continue to state that it is not possible, with no Rule quote that specifically prevents 0 Fired Shots from occurring within these interactions....

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_impact,
My objection to your posts have always been the fact you stated a Shooting Sequence which Fires 0 Shots was 'fictional,' when it is clearly an outcome that is possible from certain Rule Interactions.

I stated that Zero Shot Shooting Attacks do not exist. Zero is not a valid choice for the number of shots on a shooting attack profile. The burden is on you to prove that it is a valid choice otherwise we stick to valid choices. You are the one claiming a strict RAW resolution for a psychic power that is missing critical info. My argument is simply that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve because we are missing critical info. Don't get confused on who has the burden of proof here.

col_impact wrote:
"Zero Shot Shooting Attack" is a house rule that you are making up.

Rolling zero dice to satisfy "must roll to hit" is a house rule that you are making up.

I begin a shooting attack. Let's go over the steps, shall we?

Step 1 - I nominate the Tac squad.
Step 2 - I choose the Obliterator 25" away from the Tac Squad.
Step 3 - I select a Plasma Cannon
Step 4 - I roll to waitasecond

Immediately before firing. So that's right now. Awesome! I rolled a 1. Doh. According to the rules, that shot isn't fired. Let's continue on before the break, shall we?
Step 4 - Roll a D6 for each shot fired. I'm firing zero shots. According to your argument, this not only isn't possible, but if it's ever encountered requires a house rule.
This is a Shooting Attack (agreed?) that had zero shots (agreed?). It's not made up. It's not fictional. It's demonstrably possible.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
"Zero Shot Shooting Attack" is a house rule that you are making up.

Rolling zero dice to satisfy "must roll to hit" is a house rule that you are making up.

I begin a shooting attack. Let's go over the steps, shall we?

Spoiler:

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.

Step 1 - I nominate the Tac squad.
Step 2 - I choose the Obliterator 25" away from the Tac Squad.
Step 3 - I select a Plasma Cannon
Step 4 - I roll to waitasecond

Spoiler:

Gets Hot and Weapons that do not roll To Hit
Weapons that do not roll To Hit (such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot immediately before firing. On a 2+, the shot is resolved as normal. For each roll of a 1, the weapon Gets Hot; that shot is not fired and the firing model immediately suffers a single Wound (armour saves or invulnerable saves can be taken) – this Wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a Wound caused by the Gets Hot special rule. A vehicle instead suffers a glancing hit on a further roll of a 1, 2 or 3.

Immediately before firing. So that's right now. Awesome! I rolled a 1. Doh. According to the rules, that shot isn't fired. Let's continue on before the break, shall we?
Step 4 - Roll a D6 for each shot fired. I'm firing zero shots. According to your argument, this not only isn't possible, but if it's ever encountered requires a house rule.
This is a Shooting Attack (agreed?) that had zero shots (agreed?). It's not made up. It's not fictional. It's demonstrably possible.

How many shots are specified on the Lascannon profile? So it has one shot on its profile, agreed?

You need to prove that zero is a valid choice for a shooting attack profile.

deleteme


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
"Zero Shot Shooting Attack" is a house rule that you are making up.

Rolling zero dice to satisfy "must roll to hit" is a house rule that you are making up.

I begin a shooting attack. Let's go over the steps, shall we?

Spoiler:

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.

Step 1 - I nominate the Tac squad.
Step 2 - I choose the Obliterator 25" away from the Tac Squad.
Step 3 - I select a Plasma Cannon
Step 4 - I roll to waitasecond

Spoiler:

Gets Hot and Weapons that do not roll To Hit
Weapons that do not roll To Hit (such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot immediately before firing. On a 2+, the shot is resolved as normal. For each roll of a 1, the weapon Gets Hot; that shot is not fired and the firing model immediately suffers a single Wound (armour saves or invulnerable saves can be taken) – this Wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a Wound caused by the Gets Hot special rule. A vehicle instead suffers a glancing hit on a further roll of a 1, 2 or 3.

Immediately before firing. So that's right now. Awesome! I rolled a 1. Doh. According to the rules, that shot isn't fired. Let's continue on before the break, shall we?
Step 4 - Roll a D6 for each shot fired. I'm firing zero shots. According to your argument, this not only isn't possible, but if it's ever encountered requires a house rule.
This is a Shooting Attack (agreed?) that had zero shots (agreed?). It's not made up. It's not fictional. It's demonstrably possible.

How many shots are specified on the Lascannon profile? So it has one shot on its profile, agreed?

I'm discussing a Plasma Cannon. And yes, one shot (for both weapons). That's not relevant, however.
You said, and I'll quote you so you know I'm not putting words in your mouth.

col_impact wrote:
I stated that Zero Shot Shooting Attacks do not exist

If a Shooting Attack has Zero shots, is that not a Zero shot Shooting Attack?
In addition, please elaborate on how the above scenario is resolved, RAW? I assume you require a house rule to move forward (to be consistent with your position on wounds when there are zero hits) but I don't want to put words in your mouth, nor have either of us confused.

edit:

You need to prove that zero is a valid choice for a shooting attack profile.

No. I need to prove that a Zero Shot Shooting Attack isn't a fantasy. Then, once you agree it can exist, I need to prove that zero is a valid number of dice to roll for a shooting attack.
Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so proving zero is valid for a profile is irrelevant.

rigeld2 wrote:
deleteme


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
"Zero Shot Shooting Attack" is a house rule that you are making up.

Rolling zero dice to satisfy "must roll to hit" is a house rule that you are making up.

I begin a shooting attack. Let's go over the steps, shall we?

Spoiler:

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.

Step 1 - I nominate the Tac squad.
Step 2 - I choose the Obliterator 25" away from the Tac Squad.
Step 3 - I select a Plasma Cannon
Step 4 - I roll to waitasecond

Spoiler:

Gets Hot and Weapons that do not roll To Hit
Weapons that do not roll To Hit (such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot immediately before firing. On a 2+, the shot is resolved as normal. For each roll of a 1, the weapon Gets Hot; that shot is not fired and the firing model immediately suffers a single Wound (armour saves or invulnerable saves can be taken) – this Wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a Wound caused by the Gets Hot special rule. A vehicle instead suffers a glancing hit on a further roll of a 1, 2 or 3.

Immediately before firing. So that's right now. Awesome! I rolled a 1. Doh. According to the rules, that shot isn't fired. Let's continue on before the break, shall we?
Step 4 - Roll a D6 for each shot fired. I'm firing zero shots. According to your argument, this not only isn't possible, but if it's ever encountered requires a house rule.
This is a Shooting Attack (agreed?) that had zero shots (agreed?). It's not made up. It's not fictional. It's demonstrably possible.

How many shots are specified on the Lascannon profile? So it has one shot on its profile, agreed?

I'm discussing a Plasma Cannon. And yes, one shot (for both weapons). That's not relevant, however.
You said, and I'll quote you so you know I'm not putting words in your mouth.

col_impact wrote:
I stated that Zero Shot Shooting Attacks do not exist

If a Shooting Attack has Zero shots, is that not a Zero shot Shooting Attack?
In addition, please elaborate on how the above scenario is resolved, RAW? I assume you require a house rule to move forward (to be consistent with your position on wounds when there are zero hits) but I don't want to put words in your mouth, nor have either of us confused.

edit:

You need to prove that zero is a valid choice for a shooting attack profile.

No. I need to prove that a Zero Shot Shooting Attack isn't a fantasy. Then, once you agree it can exist, I need to prove that zero is a valid number of dice to roll for a shooting attack.
Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so proving zero is valid for a profile is irrelevant.

A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.

col_impact wrote:
A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.

To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...

A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.

To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...

A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?

You are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.

To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...

A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?

You are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

That's not the question I asked. I'll re-ask it, hoping for an answer this time.

A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?

Again, proving that zero is valid for a profile is irrelevant because, as we both know, Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
A Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile. As said, Lascannon has a one on its profile so you have effectively proven nothing.

To clarify, so that I'm not accused of confusing you or putting words in your mouth...

A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?

You are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

That's not the question I asked. I'll re-ask it, hoping for an answer this time.

A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?

Again, proving that zero is valid for a profile is irrelevant because, as we both know, Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.

Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

col_impact wrote:
Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

For the sake of argument:
Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.

Please, show the relevance to this discussion - given that we both know Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.
Also, please actually answer my question as it's extremely relevant.

Col_impact,
You keep narrowing the scope of your request every time someone presents evidence that Rule interactions can lead to 0 Shots being Fired....
So, even if we did humor you at this point and find something that fits into your thrice narrowed and very specifically defined request, what is stopping you from simply stating that those Rule Interactions also do not count?

At this point in time, simply answer the question being put forth to you:
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
-Rigeld2

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

For the sake of argument:
Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.

Please, show the relevance to this discussion - given that we both know Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.
Also, please actually answer my question as it's extremely relevant.

Psychic Shriek is missing a profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_impact,
You keep narrowing the scope of your request every time someone presents evidence that Rule interactions can lead to 0 Shots being Fired....
So, even if we did humor you at this point and find something that fits into your thrice narrowed and very specifically defined request, what is stopping you from simply stating that those Rule Interactions also do not count?

At this point in time, simply answer the question being put forth to you:
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
-Rigeld2

Please clarify what you think the difference is between a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots and a Zero Shot Shooting Attack so that we can be certain to be on the same page. I can't answer that because I do not know for sure how you are differentiating them.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

For the sake of argument:
Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.

Please, show the relevance to this discussion - given that we both know Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.
Also, please actually answer my question as it's extremely relevant.

Psychic Shriek is missing a profile.

... correct? We're on the same page?
How is that relevant?

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_impact,
You keep narrowing the scope of your request every time someone presents evidence that Rule interactions can lead to 0 Shots being Fired....
So, even if we did humor you at this point and find something that fits into your thrice narrowed and very specifically defined request, what is stopping you from simply stating that those Rule Interactions also do not count?

At this point in time, simply answer the question being put forth to you:
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
-Rigeld2

Please clarify what you think the difference is between a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots and a Zero Shot Shooting Attack so that we can be certain to be on the same page. I can't answer that because I do not know for sure how you are differentiating them.

There isn't one. You've asserted there's a difference, I just want to make sure I understand exactly what you're saying.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

For the sake of argument:
Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.

Please, show the relevance to this discussion - given that we both know Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.
Also, please actually answer my question as it's extremely relevant.

Psychic Shriek is missing a profile.

... correct? We're on the same page?
How is that relevant?

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_impact,
You keep narrowing the scope of your request every time someone presents evidence that Rule interactions can lead to 0 Shots being Fired....
So, even if we did humor you at this point and find something that fits into your thrice narrowed and very specifically defined request, what is stopping you from simply stating that those Rule Interactions also do not count?

At this point in time, simply answer the question being put forth to you:
A Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is not the same as a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. Is that correct?
-Rigeld2

Please clarify what you think the difference is between a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots and a Zero Shot Shooting Attack so that we can be certain to be on the same page. I can't answer that because I do not know for sure how you are differentiating them.

There isn't one. You've asserted there's a difference, I just want to make sure I understand exactly what you're saying.

This is what I am saying. Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

col_impact wrote:
This is what I am saying. Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

...
No, I'm not required to prove that. At all. I've acknowledged, for the sake of argument, that Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Shooting Attacks don't have profiles - weapons do.
And Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so I don't even know why we're discussing profiles at all.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This is what I am saying. Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

...
No, I'm not required to prove that. At all. I've acknowledged, for the sake of argument, that Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Shooting Attacks don't have profiles - weapons do.
And Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so I don't even know why we're discussing profiles at all.

Psychic Shriek is missing a profile.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This is what I am saying. Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

...
No, I'm not required to prove that. At all. I've acknowledged, for the sake of argument, that Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Shooting Attacks don't have profiles - weapons do.
And Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so I don't even know why we're discussing profiles at all.

Psychic Shriek is missing a profile.

Great. Now cite the requirement for one to exist.

You do realize that zero != undefined, right?

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This is what I am saying. Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

...
No, I'm not required to prove that. At all. I've acknowledged, for the sake of argument, that Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Shooting Attacks don't have profiles - weapons do.
And Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so I don't even know why we're discussing profiles at all.

Psychic Shriek is missing a profile.

Great. Now cite the requirement for one to exist.

You do realize that zero != undefined, right?

If you claim that there is no profile then you will have an undefined number of shots to resolve. The game breaks at step four since you cannot "Roll a D6 for each shot fired" since "each shot" cannot be defined. Not surprisingly rules break on undefined quantities.

You cannot proceed on undefined except by house rule. You cannot roll an undefined number of dice.

If you claim like I do that there is a missing profile then you need to proceed with valid default values for the number of shots in the Psychic Shriek shooting attack. "Zero" is not a valid number for the number of shots on the profile of shooting attacks. Nor is "zero" the unstated default for number of shots. "One" is a valid number for the number of shots of shooting attacks. Moreover there is some definite rules support for taking "one" as the default, and I am sure everyone is aware of those oft quoted places in the BRB. Some support is always better than no support so "one" is taken as the default.

So I start step four by rolling 1 die to hit for Psychic Shriek.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This is what I am saying. Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

...
No, I'm not required to prove that. At all. I've acknowledged, for the sake of argument, that Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Shooting Attacks don't have profiles - weapons do.
And Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so I don't even know why we're discussing profiles at all.

Psychic Shriek is missing a profile.

Great. Now cite the requirement for one to exist.

You do realize that zero != undefined, right?

If you claim that there is no profile then you will have an undefined number of shots to resolve. The game breaks at step four since you cannot "Roll a D6 for each shot fired" since "each shot" cannot be defined. Not surprisingly rules break on undefined quantities.

Except they don't. But we've been over this and you haven't cited a rule to support your statement, whereas I've explained it.

If you claim like I do that there is a missing profile then you need to proceed with valid default values for the number of shots in the Psychic Shriek shooting attack.

What default? Something you've invented?

"Zero" is not a valid number for the number of shots on the profile of shooting attacks. Nor is "zero" the unstated default for number of shots. "One" is a valid number for the number of shots of shooting attacks. Moreover there is some definite rules support for taking "one" as the default, and I am sure everyone is aware of those oft quoted places in the BRB. Some support is always better than no support so "one" is taken as the default.

So I start step four by rolling 1 die to hit for Psychic Shriek.

You do realize the significant wording difference between the two underlined sentences, yes?
So, again, since you never did answer the question,
Is a Shooting Attack with zero shots a Zero Shot shooting Attack?

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This is what I am saying. Again, to clarify, you are required to prove that a Shooting Attack (which is not a Blast or a Template since Psychic Shriek is neither of these) can have zero as a valid choice for the number of shots on its profile.

...
No, I'm not required to prove that. At all. I've acknowledged, for the sake of argument, that Zero isn't a valid choice for the number of shots on a profile.
Shooting Attacks don't have profiles - weapons do.
And Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so I don't even know why we're discussing profiles at all.

Psychic Shriek is missing a profile.

Great. Now cite the requirement for one to exist.

You do realize that zero != undefined, right?

If you claim that there is no profile then you will have an undefined number of shots to resolve. The game breaks at step four since you cannot "Roll a D6 for each shot fired" since "each shot" cannot be defined. Not surprisingly rules break on undefined quantities.

Except they don't. But we've been over this and you haven't cited a rule to support your statement, whereas I've explained it.

If you claim like I do that there is a missing profile then you need to proceed with valid default values for the number of shots in the Psychic Shriek shooting attack.

What default? Something you've invented?

"Zero" is not a valid number for the number of shots on the profile of shooting attacks. Nor is "zero" the unstated default for number of shots. "One" is a valid number for the number of shots of shooting attacks. Moreover there is some definite rules support for taking "one" as the default, and I am sure everyone is aware of those oft quoted places in the BRB. Some support is always better than no support so "one" is taken as the default.

So I start step four by rolling 1 die to hit for Psychic Shriek.

You do realize the significant wording difference between the two underlined sentences, yes?
So, again, since you never did answer the question,
Is a Shooting Attack with zero shots a Zero Shot shooting Attack?

The rules do break on undefined quantities. If you continue the game by assigning zero to undefined quantities then you have wittingly or unwittingly house ruled the game to continue, by house ruling 0 = undefined. Congrats! You have merely proved my point that Psychic Shriek cannot be resolved without house rule. But we've been over this and you haven't cited a rule to support rolling for an undefined number of dice, whereas I've explained it.

Sorry to rain on your Easter Egg parade but rolling an undefined number of dice doesn't work without house rule. Rules can't be completed with undefined numbers of rolled dice.

Rules can be completed with undefined numbers of rolled dice.

its called skipping it as it is clearly irrelevant since it is not defined.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Rules can be completed with undefined numbers of rolled dice.

its called skipping it as it is clearly irrelevant since it is not defined.

Skipping steps that you cannot define is a house rule. There is nothing wrong with this and you can complete the rules. You just can't do it by strict RAW. Congrats! You have just house ruled!

No it is not a house rule. you skip un-resolvable actions, it is literally the only way the rule-set functions.