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.

can your oppenent deny the witch cleansing flame? i feel that they can.

Well it is a psychic ability which effects the enemy unit, so i don't see why not...

Edit: I stand corrected, cleansing flame does not target a specific unit (enemy or otherwise). Deny the Witch requires that the psychic power targets the unit you are rolling it for: "...If the Psychic test was passed and the target was an enemy, it now gets a chance to Deny the Witch and nullify the power..."

The poster below this one has the right of it that way.

Technically CF doesn't "target" anything, and only the target's controller can attempt to deny the witch so RAW I don't think you can. (but you can try to deny your own blessings haha).

As far as how I would play it, yes I'd allow each enemy unit a chance to deny the witch. If the rule were written with 6th edition mechanics in mind I suspect it'd be worded like a Maelstrom or Nova power, somthing like "automatically targets and hits all unit in the same combat".

Stern's Zone of Banishment is another one that doesn't technically "target" anything, it just goes off and affects things.

The whole book was written with 6th ed in mind. This is evident by the listed mastery levels of psykers in it. Also it makes more sense now why dreadknight hammer is only 10 points since the thing is S10 now without it. Anyway, CF doesn't target anything. RAW says no deny. I'm willing to be its not an oversight since Ward's whole book is generally douchie