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.

col_impact wrote:

 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!

So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle? do you:

a) skip it as it is unresolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1", to be consistent with your other random, made up value here
or
c) something else?

Yes, this applies directly, as the question is "what do you do with unresolvable actions?" and -1T on a vehicle IS unresolvable, as we have no profile to apply it to.

Your ducking of questions and narrowing of scope is impressive though.

Oh, and zero can be a valid number. An example does not have to make it exist for it to be valid. For example, prior to the Avenger bolt cannon I am not aware of a single 7 shot gun existing. Does that mean that 7 wasnt valid? No, because thats not how definitions work. The definition is that the number of shots will be in the profile. This has no restrictions, so can be *any* number on the real line - possibly imaginary as well. Onus oin you to prove otherwise. Good luck with that

Oh, and your gak that the burden of proof is never on you, as you claim it needs a houserule? Actually that requires you to find a break, and prove the break exists. Asserting ad infinitum that "zero isnt a valid number" isnt proof, its an assertion.

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

Feel free to show in the BRB where you are given permission to skip unresolvable actions. Page? Paragraph?

If you turn to your opponent and say explicitly or act implicitly on the statement "I can't resolve this since it's undefined. I will assign zero to the number of hit rolls and continue" then you are absolutely house ruling. The truth of the matter is that a lot of the rules are held together - and the game manages to continue - by house rules.

However, you guys are claiming to be able to resolve Psychic Shriek by strict RAW, which I have shown again and again you are not able to. It's an uphill battle for you since the rules are missing critical info in the case of Psychic Shriek and the burden of proof is on you to prove that you can resolve Psychic Shriek by strict RAW.

Once you admit to having to rely on house rules to resolve Psychic Shriek then the real fun begins, since my house rule is better than yours. It does not Easter Egg.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 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!

So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle? do you:

a) skip it as it is unresolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1", to be consistent with your other random, made up value here
or
c) something else?

Yes, this applies directly, as the question is "what do you do with unresolvable actions?" and -1T on a vehicle IS unresolvable, as we have no profile to apply it to.

Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.

col_impact wrote:
Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.

It's a very relevant question to the topic at hand, and one that has been constantly dodged with skill of a politician.

Also if you're discussing Psychic Shriek, then you're already on a tangential discussion, as this is not what the original post was asking about.
So since we're off topic already, might as well answer the very relevent question.

 grendel083 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.

It's a very relevant question to the topic at hand, and one that has been constantly dodged with skill of a politician.

Also if you're discussing Psychic Shriek, then you're already on a tangential discussion, as this is not what the original post was asking about.
So since we're off topic already, might as well answer the very relevent question.

He can't answer the question without destroying his argument hence why he refuses to answer it like he's refused to clarify his statement that a zero shot shooting attack isn't the same thing as a shootibg attack with zero shots.

col_impact wrote:

me wrote:So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle? do you:

a) skip it as it is unresolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1", to be consistent with your other random, made up value here
or
c) something else?

Yes, this applies directly, as the question is "what do you do with unresolvable actions?" and -1T on a vehicle IS unresolvable, as we have no profile to apply it to.

Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.

It isnt tangential, as was explained. It is incredibly relevant to this thread, and to the basis on which you are claiming there is a "house rule" in play. Stop dodging and actually answer questions, or we will presume that doing so is prejudicial to your argument and you are thus avoiding answering to save your already flimsy argument.

I assume your day job is politician, or something to do with marketing?

I also note you neatly selectively quoted, to avoid another query - given your claim that shots with 0 are not valid, what proof do you have of this? Prior to the Avenger Bolt Cannon there were no weapons with 7 shots in the game - that I am aware of - so by the same token that meant that 7 was not a valid number.; Except of course that isnt how the actual rules work

So, again, where is your *proof* that 0 is a number that cannot be picked? Page and graph. I'll wait with baited breath as you dodge / selectively quote / alter your scope yet again on this excessively simple topic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I also note you neatly selectively quoted, to avoid another query - given your claim that shots with 0 are not valid, what proof do you have of this? Prior to the Avenger Bolt Cannon there were no weapons with 7 shots in the game - that I am aware of - so by the same token that meant that 7 was not a valid number.; Except of course that isnt how the actual rules work

Also to add to this point further, when an valid example of a weapon having 0 To Hit dice was given, the requirements where suddenly shifted to exclude Blast and Template.
The Rules do not discriminate in this fashion, in fact they're written with weapon types in mind. It isn't one rule for some, another for others.
There may be no current weapon with Assault 0 in its starting profile, but that doesn't discount the possibility of one being added.

 grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I also note you neatly selectively quoted, to avoid another query - given your claim that shots with 0 are not valid, what proof do you have of this? Prior to the Avenger Bolt Cannon there were no weapons with 7 shots in the game - that I am aware of - so by the same token that meant that 7 was not a valid number.; Except of course that isnt how the actual rules work

Also to add to this point further, when an valid example of a weapon having 0 To Hit dice was given, the requirements where suddenly shifted to exclude Blast and Template.
The Rules do not discriminate in this fashion, in fact they're written with weapon types in mind. It isn't one rule for some, another for others.
There may be no current weapon with Assault 0 in its starting profile, but that doesn't discount the possibility of one being added.

And it doesnt mean that "0" isnt a valid number anyway, as (and I did point this out to col, so they were under no illusions otherwise) the definition of the number of shots makes no reference to a restricted set of numbers. Technically the whole real and imaginary line would be included. Meaning it is up to them to show how 0 is excluded. Just saying "find me an example of a 0" - which we did, and they then excluded to avoid having to accept defeat - doesnt cut it. The burden of proof - that 0 is invalid - is on the person making the claim, once generic proof of *any* number being vaild has been proferred

Or, to put it more succinctly: claiming that 0 shots isnt valid as there is no explicit permission for it is similar to saying rolling dice to-hit on a tuesday isnt valid, as the game has no explicit allowance to roll dice on a tuesday

Its a nonsense. one of many.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

[/u]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.

Instead of dodging questions, please answer them. I've bolded them in case you missed them.

I know it was from a earlier addition but the Lash of Submission didn't have a profile and it was FAQ'd so that you had to roll to hit.

The wording of the FAQ from document
m2170006a_Chaos_Space_Marine_FAQ_Version_1_1_January_2012

Q: Is Lash of Submission a Psychic Shooting Attack and
must it roll To Hit? (p88)
A: Yes to both questions. Note that if it misses, it will
have no effect.

I suppose it's specifically for LoS and from an earlier edition, but wouldn't the intention be the same for the witchfire powers in question?

Roll a dice to hit, if you hit, then you determine the outcome of the power, if you miss you don't.

It needs an FAQ certainly.

 grendel083 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.

It's a very relevant question to the topic at hand, and one that has been constantly dodged with skill of a politician.

Also if you're discussing Psychic Shriek, then you're already on a tangential discussion, as this is not what the original post was asking about.
So since we're off topic already, might as well answer the very relevent question.

I don't have to answer the tangential question. First it must be shown by the poster of the question that the issue bears directly on the discussion at hand.

The poster must prove for the case of Enfeeble that it is unresolvable and that the rules explicitly support skipping it's resolution. To do that, the poster would have to open up a YMDC thread.

De-railing discussions with tangential discussions is a well-known disruptive argument technique and I will ignore tangential discussions until direct relevance is first proven. That hasn't been done yet.

Psychic shooting attacks worked entirely differently. Also look at one of Stormcallers rules from the previous codex it was a shooting attack that also forced a unit to treat all terrain as dangerous. The treating terrain as dangerous effect was FAQd to work when all shots missed as it was not tied to a hit, so there is FAQ precedent in both directions. Fundamentally Focussed Witchfires in 6th didn't work if you rolled to hit as you had to roll under 5 for the psychic test to choose the target but all characters has precision shots on a 6 which mean the first model would take whatever test was required but wounds from that test would then be allocated by the firer to whoever he wanted. Basically the whole thing became a mess if you try to resolve a single to hit much like this edition with PS.

col_impact wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.

It's a very relevant question to the topic at hand, and one that has been constantly dodged with skill of a politician.

Also if you're discussing Psychic Shriek, then you're already on a tangential discussion, as this is not what the original post was asking about.
So since we're off topic already, might as well answer the very relevent question.

I don't have to answer the tangential question. First it must be shown by the poster of the question that the issue bears directly on the discussion at hand.

The poster must prove for the case of Enfeeble that it is unresolvable and that the rules explicitly support skipping it's resolution. To do that, the poster would have to open up a YMDC thread.

De-railing discussions with tangential discussions is a well-known disruptive argument technique and I will ignore tangential discussions until direct relevance is first proven. That hasn't been done yet.

De-rail? This thread was never about Psychic Shriek to begin with. It's already de-railed.

And the relevance has been explained. If your position is solid it should be able to stand up to any scrutiny or questioning.
A correct path can deal with tough questions

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

[/u]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.

Instead of dodging questions, please answer them. I've bolded them in case you missed them.

I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.

It's a very relevant question to the topic at hand, and one that has been constantly dodged with skill of a politician.

Also if you're discussing Psychic Shriek, then you're already on a tangential discussion, as this is not what the original post was asking about.
So since we're off topic already, might as well answer the very relevent question.

I don't have to answer the tangential question. First it must be shown by the poster of the question that the issue bears directly on the discussion at hand.

The poster must prove for the case of Enfeeble that it is unresolvable and that the rules explicitly support skipping it's resolution. To do that, the poster would have to open up a YMDC thread.

De-railing discussions with tangential discussions is a well-known disruptive argument technique and I will ignore tangential discussions until direct relevance is first proven. That hasn't been done yet.

De-rail? This thread was never about Psychic Shriek to begin with. It's already de-railed.

And the relevance has been explained. If your position is solid it should be able to stand up to any scrutiny or questioning.
A correct path can deal with tough questions

Nope relevance must first be shown. I do not fall for well-known disruptive argument techniques.

col_impact wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Feel free to open up a YMDC thread on this tangential discussion. It's actually very interesting. I eagerly await your findings.

It's a very relevant question to the topic at hand, and one that has been constantly dodged with skill of a politician.

Also if you're discussing Psychic Shriek, then you're already on a tangential discussion, as this is not what the original post was asking about.
So since we're off topic already, might as well answer the very relevent question.

I don't have to answer the tangential question. First it must be shown by the poster of the question that the issue bears directly on the discussion at hand.

The poster must prove for the case of Enfeeble that it is unresolvable and that the rules explicitly support skipping it's resolution. To do that, the poster would have to open up a YMDC thread.

De-railing discussions with tangential discussions is a well-known disruptive argument technique and I will ignore tangential discussions until direct relevance is first proven. That hasn't been done yet.

So you really expect us to create a new thread were we discuss your interpretation of Enfeeble? Which you won't tell us? Genius.

The relevance of the question has been demonstrated. The relevance of other peoples interpretation of how to resolve Enfeeble has not. Only your interpretation matters here, we all know how we interpret that and how everyone plays it. Refusing to answer questions is a lame tactic that has no place on YMDC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.

He doesn't see the things as 2 different things. He can't differentiate between them as he believes they are the same. You are the one claiming they are different he asking you to clarify that is what you actually meant.

Whilst I agree with col_impact I'll answer one of the tangential questions, mostly to illustrate why its irrelevant.

So in answer to how do you deal with applying -1 toughness to a unit with no toughness:

Game breaks, house rule needed. In this case I and many others house rule no effect.

Drager wrote:
Whilst I agree with col_impact I'll answer one of the tangential questions, mostly to illustrate why its irrelevant.

So in answer to how do you deal with applying -1 toughness to a unit with no toughness:

Game breaks, house rule needed. In this case I and many others house rule no effect.

Cool so why are you ruling a missing profile means no effect for Enfeeble but not for the roll to hit for Psychic Shriek? Why are you not setting the Vehicle to T1 like you are for the PS roll to hit?

JinxDragon wrote:

What you quoted tells us that we must Roll To Hit, which I do agree is what the Rule states, but that doesn't tell us what a 'To Hit' is or how we go about Rolling it. Those instructions are found in a Rule called 'To Hit' and they inform us how we go about successfully resolving this Step of the sequence. Those instructions inform us that Rolling a dice will be part of the process, so the terminology 'Roll To Hit' directly relates to the process within the To Hit Step itself. So, as long as we can obey the actual instructions within the To Hit process, we have successfully rolled To Hit.

You are getting confused by the language being used here, which can be sorted out by paying attention to the use of CAPITALIZATION.

"To Hit" refers to an explicitly named die roll and not to a step. Notice how roll is not capitalized and To Hit is capitalized. Obviously roll is acting as verb in the sentence. And obviously you cannot "roll" a step. The step itself in the shooting sequence or the full rule is called "Roll To Hit" and note the use of capitalization. "To Hit" refers to explicitly named die rolls and that is how it makes sense that we 'must roll To Hit (die roll).'

For example here is how To Hit rolls are being implemented in the rules. Notice how it is referred to as a "To Hit roll"




At any case we are being told we must roll a To Hit die roll. Simply marching through the Roll To Hit step is not enough. We must roll a To Hit roll. We are not being instructed to merely "abide by the instructions of the Roll To Hit" step.

If you feel the need to reply, please pay careful attention to CAPITALIZATION. Your incorrect use of capitalization in your quote above betrays your confusion between named steps and named die rolls. And feel free to elaborate on how you claim you can 'roll a step' or 'roll a process' and violate basic English semantics. The use of "roll" as a verb in the sentence is critical to take note of here, obviously.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Drager wrote:
Whilst I agree with col_impact I'll answer one of the tangential questions, mostly to illustrate why its irrelevant.

So in answer to how do you deal with applying -1 toughness to a unit with no toughness:

Game breaks, house rule needed. In this case I and many others house rule no effect.

Cool so why are you ruling a missing profile means no effect for Enfeeble but not for the roll to hit for Psychic Shriek? Why are you not setting the Vehicle to T1 like you are for the PS roll to hit?

Do you realize that if you admit to using house rules in both cases you actually support my argument that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve? Thank you for supporting my argument!

Do you realize that if you admit to using house rules in both cases you actually prove my point that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve? Thank you for supporting my argument!

I'm aware of that and I didn't state that you need a houserule to deal with both. I've never come across anyone who feels a house rule is needed to fix Enfeeble except when they are arguing that a House rule is needed to fix PS and so invested in breaking the game, so they can claim their made up rules are the best HYWPI, that they'll have to agree pretty much nothing in the game works. As so much leaves unresolvable actions that everyone plays do nothing except for the PS roll to hit where suddenly people feel you have to make up rules and numbers and then try to make those numbers mean something.

I'm guessing you're going to continue to refuse to answer the questions that have destroyed argument. So here's a question why are you posting still? By refusing to answer relevant questions you've admitted that you know your argument has no basis so why still persist? What are you doing for?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Do you realize that if you admit to using house rules in both cases you actually prove my point that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve? Thank you for supporting my argument!

I'm aware of that and I didn't state that you need a houserule to deal with both. I've never come across anyone who feels a house rule is needed to fix Enfeeble except when they are arguing that a House rule is needed to fix PS and so invested in breaking the game, so they can claim their made up rules are the best HYWPI, that they'll have to agree pretty much nothing in the game works. As so much leaves unresolvable actions that everyone plays do nothing except for the PS roll to hit where suddenly people feel you have to make up rules and numbers and then try to make those numbers mean something.

I'm guessing you're going to continue to refuse to answer the questions that have destroyed argument. So here's a question why are you posting still? By refusing to answer relevant questions you've admitted that you know your argument has no basis so why still persist? What are you doing for?

The burden is on you to show how the Enfeeble case is relevant. Make your own argument about Enfeeble and directly relate it to the discussion at hand. Do your homework. I don't have to do your work for you.

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Do you realize that if you admit to using house rules in both cases you actually prove my point that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve? Thank you for supporting my argument!

I'm aware of that and I didn't state that you need a houserule to deal with both. I've never come across anyone who feels a house rule is needed to fix Enfeeble except when they are arguing that a House rule is needed to fix PS and so invested in breaking the game, so they can claim their made up rules are the best HYWPI, that they'll have to agree pretty much nothing in the game works. As so much leaves unresolvable actions that everyone plays do nothing except for the PS roll to hit where suddenly people feel you have to make up rules and numbers and then try to make those numbers mean something.

I'm guessing you're going to continue to refuse to answer the questions that have destroyed argument. So here's a question why are you posting still? By refusing to answer relevant questions you've admitted that you know your argument has no basis so why still persist? What are you doing for?

The burden is on you to show how the Enfeeble case is relevant. Make your own argument about Enfeeble and directly relate it to the discussion at hand. Do your homework. I don't have to do your work for you.

it is relevant because enfeeble has a situation where we do not know how to apply something. Same goes for PS and how many dice to roll. (Look at that, I just have shown how the Enfeeble case is relevant.)

How do you apply a -1T to a vehicle that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score?

Same as How do you roll To Hit with PS when the number of shots is undefined (AKA Does not have a profile)?

So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle (that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score) do you:

a) skip it as it is unresolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1", to be consistent with your other random, made up value here
or
c) something else?

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Do you realize that if you admit to using house rules in both cases you actually prove my point that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve? Thank you for supporting my argument!

I'm aware of that and I didn't state that you need a houserule to deal with both. I've never come across anyone who feels a house rule is needed to fix Enfeeble except when they are arguing that a House rule is needed to fix PS and so invested in breaking the game, so they can claim their made up rules are the best HYWPI, that they'll have to agree pretty much nothing in the game works. As so much leaves unresolvable actions that everyone plays do nothing except for the PS roll to hit where suddenly people feel you have to make up rules and numbers and then try to make those numbers mean something.

I'm guessing you're going to continue to refuse to answer the questions that have destroyed argument. So here's a question why are you posting still? By refusing to answer relevant questions you've admitted that you know your argument has no basis so why still persist? What are you doing for?

The burden is on you to show how the Enfeeble case is relevant. Make your own argument about Enfeeble and directly relate it to the discussion at hand. Do your homework. I don't have to do your work for you.

it is relevant because enfeeble has a situation where we do not know how to apply something. Same goes for PS and how many dice to roll. (Look at that, I just have shown how the Enfeeble case is relevant.)

How do you apply a -1T to a vehicle that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score?

Same as How do you roll To Hit with PS when the number of shots is undefined (AKA Does not have a profile)?

So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle (that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score) do you:

a) skip it as it is unresolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1", to be consistent with your other random, made up value here
or
c) something else?

So are you doing a house rule or not in the case of Enfeeble? As you say that you do not know how to apply something by following the rules, are you coming up with your own way of resolving Enfeeble by implementing a house rule? Yes or No. The burden is on you to clarify your argument about Enfeeble fully and then show direct relevance to the discussion at hand.

col_impact wrote:
I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.

To remind you of the conversation (apparently you've forgotten?):

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?

As you said, a Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile.
And a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is, for example, a Plasma Cannon that Gets Hot.

And you're asserting there's a difference. That can be proven with actual rules instead of assumptions.

Is that correct?

col_impact wrote:
So are you doing a house rule or not in the case of Enfeeble?

What do you mean? I simply asked a question that was unanswered.

As you say that you do not know how to apply something by following the rules, are you coming up with your own way of resolving Enfeeble by implementing a house rule? Yes or No.

I never mentioned applying a house rule did I?

The burden is on you to clarify your argument about Enfeeble fully and then show direct relevance to the discussion at hand.

I have clarified it.

Both situations have un-resolvable actions.

So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle (that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score) do you:

a) skip it as it is un-resolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1", to be consistent with your other random, made up value here
or
c) something else?

I would like to know what you think the RAW say.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.

To remind you of the conversation (apparently you've forgotten?):

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?

As you said, a Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile.
And a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is, for example, a Plasma Cannon that Gets Hot.

And you're asserting there's a difference. That can be proven with actual rules instead of assumptions.

Is that correct?

Please clarify further whether you think Gets Hot modifies the underlying profile of a shooting attack (to change Assault 1 to Assault 0 for example) or merely just acts retroactively on a particular shot in the Roll To Hit step.

@col_impact Is firing a Plasma cannon a shooting attack?

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
So are you doing a house rule or not in the case of Enfeeble?

What do you mean? I simply asked a question that was unanswered.

As you say that you do not know how to apply something by following the rules, are you coming up with your own way of resolving Enfeeble by implementing a house rule? Yes or No.

I never mentioned applying a house rule did I?

The burden is on you to clarify your argument about Enfeeble fully and then show direct relevance to the discussion at hand.

I have clarified it.

Both situations have un-resolvable actions.

So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle (that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score) do you:

a) skip it as it is un-resolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1", to be consistent with your other random, made up value here
or
c) something else?

I would like to know what you think the RAW say.

You need to clarify how you resolve it and whether or not you use a house rule (ie a procedure that you make up that is not in the rules) to do so.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.

To remind you of the conversation (apparently you've forgotten?):

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?

As you said, a Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile.
And a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is, for example, a Plasma Cannon that Gets Hot.

And you're asserting there's a difference. That can be proven with actual rules instead of assumptions.

Is that correct?

Please clarify further whether you think Gets Hot modifies the underlying profile of a shooting attack (to change Assault 1 to Assault 0 for example) or merely just acts retroactively on a particular shot in the Roll To Hit step.

No, it doesn't change the profile.
Feel free to answer the question adding your own clarification/caveats instead of continuing to dodge.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.

To remind you of the conversation (apparently you've forgotten?):

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?

As you said, a Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile.
And a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is, for example, a Plasma Cannon that Gets Hot.

And you're asserting there's a difference. That can be proven with actual rules instead of assumptions.

Is that correct?

Please clarify further whether you think Gets Hot modifies the underlying profile of a shooting attack (to change Assault 1 to Assault 0 for example) or merely just acts retroactively on a particular shot in the Roll To Hit step.

No, it doesn't change the profile.
Feel free to answer the question adding your own clarification/caveats instead of continuing to dodge.

Haven't you just answered your own question? If Gets Hot doesn't modify the profile and only swallows shots retroactively and conditionally, then there is a difference between

Shooting Attack Assault 0 and Shooting Attack Assault 1, Gets Hot

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.

To remind you of the conversation (apparently you've forgotten?):

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?

As you said, a Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile.
And a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is, for example, a Plasma Cannon that Gets Hot.

And you're asserting there's a difference. That can be proven with actual rules instead of assumptions.

Is that correct?

Please clarify further whether you think Gets Hot modifies the underlying profile of a shooting attack (to change Assault 1 to Assault 0 for example) or merely just acts retroactively on a particular shot in the Roll To Hit step.

No, it doesn't change the profile.
Feel free to answer the question adding your own clarification/caveats instead of continuing to dodge.

Haven't you just answered your own question? If Gets Hot doesn't modify the profile and only swallows shots retroactively and conditionally, then there is a difference between

Shooting Attack Assault 0 and Shooting Attack Assault 1, Gets Hot

That's not the question I asked. Since the question is in the quote I'll not repeat it, just ask you to reread what has actually been said.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I have asked repeatedly that you clarify how you are differentiating between "a Shooting Attack with zero shots" and "a Zero Shot shooting Attack". I cannot answer until you clarify and fully define the difference you see between the two choices. So fully define the two choices and only then will I answer.

To remind you of the conversation (apparently you've forgotten?):

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?

As you said, a Zero Shot Shooting Attack would be one that had something like Assault 0 on its profile.
And a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots is, for example, a Plasma Cannon that Gets Hot.

And you're asserting there's a difference. That can be proven with actual rules instead of assumptions.

Is that correct?

Please clarify further whether you think Gets Hot modifies the underlying profile of a shooting attack (to change Assault 1 to Assault 0 for example) or merely just acts retroactively on a particular shot in the Roll To Hit step.

No, it doesn't change the profile.
Feel free to answer the question adding your own clarification/caveats instead of continuing to dodge.

Haven't you just answered your own question? If Gets Hot doesn't modify the profile and only swallows shots retroactively and conditionally, then there is a difference between

Shooting Attack Assault 0 and Shooting Attack Assault 1, Gets Hot

That's not the question I asked. Since the question is in the quote I'll not repeat it, just ask you to reread what has actually been said.

And you answered your own question. You gave examples for each usage and indicated clearly how the two are being differentiated. You are asserting there's a difference, is that correct?