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:

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?

I'm asserting there's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You (apparently) disagree.
I've demonstrated a difference.

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm asserting there's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You (apparently) disagree.
I've demonstrated a difference.

If you have demonstrated a difference then how can you assert there is no difference?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 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.

There is nothing wrong with assigning zero to the number of shots for Psychic Shriek. However, you are using a house rule to do so. There is no justification in the rules for zero as a valid choice or as a default choice. Zero shots never shows up on a shooting attack profile. If you claim strict RAW then the rules need to make the decision for you. There is some justification in the rules for seeing "one" as the default number of shots and no justification for seeing "zero" as the default number. For strict RAW to work without house rule the answer to how many shots does Psychic Shriek have literally has to come out of the pages of the BRB or be directly justified by the BRB. You don't have permission to freely choose and assign your own number of shots to Psychic Shriek (unless you want to admit to house ruling of course).

Like I said, I don't have a problem if you want to use house rules. My argument is that you cannot resolve Psychic Shriek without resorting to house rule (ie places where you patch in self-created allowances that you are making up for the rules to resolve).

If we all agree that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve then the real fun can begin of sorting out who has the best house rule. If you don't agree then the burden is on you to delineate a complete strict RAW resolution of Psychic Shriek. If you can do so, you effectively invalidate my argument.

Genius so your argument is now dependent on a Zero Shot Shooting Attack being different to a shooting attack with zero shots. Did that even make sense when you wrote it? Seriously col_impact this is just getting ludicrous now.

Col_impact, I'm curious here, why is it, everyone someone asks you about your opinion, you either all them to clarify their opinion, claim irrelevancy, or ask the questioner what his opinion?

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm asserting there's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You (apparently) disagree.
I've demonstrated a difference.

If you have demonstrated a difference then how can you assert there is no difference?

Sorry, I mis-spoke.
There's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots.
The difference I've demonstrated is between profiles, not between shooting attacks. Either way, it's a Zero Shot Shooting Attack.

In addition, Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so any argument related to a profile is absolutely irrelevant.

 Happyjew wrote:
Col_impact, I'm curious here, why is it, everyone someone asks you about your opinion, you either all them to clarify their opinion, claim irrelevancy, or ask the questioner what his opinion?

It's called deflection it is a common tactic used in an argument when you know you've lost. Effectively it is the same as conceding but without actually conceding and instead trying to make the argument go in circles by refusing to answer the direct questions. Like he did with zero shot shooting attack.

 Happyjew wrote:
Col_impact, I'm curious here, why is it, everyone someone asks you about your opinion, you either all them to clarify their opinion, claim irrelevancy, or ask the questioner what his opinion?

Because the burden of proof in this discussion rests on those that would claim to have a strict RAW argument in the case of Psychic Shriek. Those who would claim strict RAW need to fully delineate their arguments and indicate clearly how they overcome all the hurdles and their arguments need to hold up to scrutiny and prove justification in the rules.

The people who are constantly sending questions my way are trying to blur that and hide that they are the ones that have the burden of proof. My argument is that Psychic Shriek requires house rule to resolve. This is an easy argument to make since we are missing a profile and critical info on how to resolve some steps. All the opposing side needs to do is present a strict RAW for resolving Psychic Shriek that holds up to scrutiny and my argument is countered. However no one has been able to do so.

De-railing discussions with tangential matters is a well-known disruptive argument technique and I will continue to ignore or reflect back on the asker until relevance to the discussion is fully clarified.

a shooting attack with zero shots is an automatic miss.

Note that the minimum roll needed To Hit is always at least 2.

if you "roll zero dice" did you roll a 2+? no? You missed. you now stop at step 4 as you have failed and move onto the next weapon/attack from that unit, or a new unit.

further rolling 0d6 is not rolling dice, as there are no dice rolled on a 0d6.

0d6 is made up nonsense that some people have used to falsely validate their HYWPI argument. It has 0 RAW support as there is nothing anywhere that tells you to roll 0d6, or that rolling no dice is rolling dice. rolling 0d6 is rolling no dice, is not rolling dice. if you are required to roll to hit you are rolling dice, therefore the number is not 0 dice.

additionally there is still 0 RAW support that you are allowed to resolve the effect of an attack that requires a to hit roll, on a miss. Page and graph if you have it.

otherwise we are just discussing some peoples easter egg hunting HYWPI.

additionally there is still 0 RAW support that you are allowed to resolve the effect of an attack that requires a to hit roll, on a miss. Page and graph if you have it. 

You keep saying this despite knowing it not to be true. Why do you keep saying stuff you know is not true? If your argument is dependent on stuff you know not to be true why keep making? The arguing tactics you and col are using just illustrates that neither believe in what you've stated so why keep arguing? I just don't get it? Please explain why you keep going when you know your argument is based on stuff that isn't true?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Col_impact, I'm curious here, why is it, everyone someone asks you about your opinion, you either all them to clarify their opinion, claim irrelevancy, or ask the questioner what his opinion?

It's called deflection it is a common tactic used in an argument when you know you've lost. Effectively it is the same as conceding but without actually conceding and instead trying to make the argument go in circles by refusing to answer the direct questions. Like he did with zero shot shooting attack.

This sure sounds like you are in violation of a rule that the Mods specifically pointed out for this thread.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

additionally there is still 0 RAW support that you are allowed to resolve the effect of an attack that requires a to hit roll, on a miss. Page and graph if you have it. 

You keep saying this despite knowing it not to be true. Why do you keep saying stuff you know is not true? If your argument is dependent on stuff you know not to be true why keep making? The arguing tactics you and col are using just illustrates that neither believe in what you've stated so why keep arguing? I just don't get it? Please explain why you keep going when you know your argument is based on stuff that isn't true?

This also sounds like a it's in violation of the same rule set forth by the Mods for this thread

So I can't ask someone why they stated something that is untrue when I have already explained to that the statement does not hold and he could not argue against the stated facts.

Correct. By tenent 1 you should not ever make a statement without backing it up.

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

This goes for all of us. There should never be a post with a single line in it. You actually need to spell out what you are saying and back it with rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm asserting there's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You (apparently) disagree.
I've demonstrated a difference.

If you have demonstrated a difference then how can you assert there is no difference?

Sorry, I mis-spoke.
There's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots.
The difference I've demonstrated is between profiles, not between shooting attacks. Either way, it's a Zero Shot Shooting Attack.

In addition, Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so any argument related to a profile is absolutely irrelevant.

Now I am confused. You provided examples for each term that could be easily differentiated.

 FlingitNow wrote:

additionally there is still 0 RAW support that you are allowed to resolve the effect of an attack that requires a to hit roll, on a miss. Page and graph if you have it. 

You keep saying this despite knowing it not to be true. Why do you keep saying stuff you know is not true? If your argument is dependent on stuff you know not to be true why keep making? The arguing tactics you and col are using just illustrates that neither believe in what you've stated so why keep arguing? I just don't get it? Please explain why you keep going when you know your argument is based on stuff that isn't true?

is this a serious response?

I know its not true?

this is true, if you miss an attack unless something in the entry for the attack/weapon tells you there is an effect on a miss, there is no effect.

can you actually supply a quote for this thing which "I know is true", since you seem to know what I know about your made up rules that are not actually anywhere in the game.

If he offered a rebuff to my argument that would be different. Instead he simply stated something he knew for a fact wasn't true. So I asked him why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You want the requote for the rules? Page 24 step 5 and page 26 1st paragraph second column. Answer these two questions:

1) is the quote provided general permission to resolve the power?
2) does it state that permission is dependent on a successful to hit roll? Or indeed on the result of a to hit roll at all?

 FlingitNow wrote:
If he offered a rebuff to my argument that would be different. Instead he simply stated something he knew for a fact wasn't true. So I asked him why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You want the requote for the rules? Page 24 step 5 and page 26 1st paragraph second column. Answer these two questions:

1) is the quote provided general permission to resolve the power?
2) does it state that permission is dependent on a successful to hit roll? Or indeed on the result of a to hit roll at all?

resolving the power per its entry is resolving it as a witchfire, which is resolving it as a shooting attack.

no shooting attack has permission to have an effect past failing to hit on step 4, unless the specific attack/weapon lists so in its entry.

at the point you have rolled to hit, if you miss, the attack has been resolved as a miss.

permission for something to happen on a miss in the entry for psychic shriek? no.

 FlingitNow wrote:
If he offered a rebuff to my argument that would be different. Instead he simply stated something he knew for a fact wasn't true. So I asked him why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You want the requote for the rules? Page 24 step 5 and page 26 1st paragraph second column. Answer these two questions:

1) is the quote provided general permission to resolve the power?
2) does it state that permission is dependent on a successful to hit roll? Or indeed on the result of a to hit roll at all?

You need to satisfy this without resorting to house rule or anything that can't be justified directly by the rules.

resolving the power per its entry is resolving it as a witchfire, which is resolving it as a shooting attack. 

no shooting attack has permission to have an effect past failing to hit on step 4, unless the specific attack/weapon lists so in its entry. 

at the point you have rolled to hit, if you miss, the attack has been resolved as a miss. 

permission for something to happen on a miss in the entry for psychic shriek? no.

Answer the questions is that general permission to resolve the power?
Does it state that it is dependent on a successful to hit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
If he offered a rebuff to my argument that would be different. Instead he simply stated something he knew for a fact wasn't true. So I asked him why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You want the requote for the rules? Page 24 step 5 and page 26 1st paragraph second column. Answer these two questions:

1) is the quote provided general permission to resolve the power?
2) does it state that permission is dependent on a successful to hit roll? Or indeed on the result of a to hit roll at all?

Spoiler:

a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically.

You need to satisfy this without resorting to house rule or anything that can't be justified directly by the rules.

Nice try but that is entirely irrelevant to the point I'm discussing for what the forth time with blaktoof. I've not talked about the resolution of the to hit roll we're discussing if you have permission to resolve the power on a miss. I've proven there is general permission to resolve nlaktoof has the choice to disagree with the rulebook or accept that general permission exists.

 FlingitNow wrote:

resolving the power per its entry is resolving it as a witchfire, which is resolving it as a shooting attack. 

no shooting attack has permission to have an effect past failing to hit on step 4, unless the specific attack/weapon lists so in its entry. 

at the point you have rolled to hit, if you miss, the attack has been resolved as a miss. 

permission for something to happen on a miss in the entry for psychic shriek? no.

Answer the questions is that general permission to resolve the power?
Does it state that it is dependent on a successful to hit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
If he offered a rebuff to my argument that would be different. Instead he simply stated something he knew for a fact wasn't true. So I asked him why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You want the requote for the rules? Page 24 step 5 and page 26 1st paragraph second column. Answer these two questions:

1) is the quote provided general permission to resolve the power?
2) does it state that permission is dependent on a successful to hit roll? Or indeed on the result of a to hit roll at all?

Spoiler:

a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically.

You need to satisfy this without resorting to house rule or anything that can't be justified directly by the rules.

Nice try but that is entirely irrelevant to the point I'm discussing for what the forth time with blaktoof. I've not talked about the resolution of the to hit roll we're discussing if you have permission to resolve the power on a miss. I've proven there is general permission to resolve nlaktoof has the choice to disagree with the rulebook or accept that general permission exists.

You don't even get to that point. Psychic Shriek winds up being unresolvable per strict RAW.

Still irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless you are claiming his statement is true. Or discussing the validity of his statement whatever you state is irrelevant because what we are discussing is the validity of his statement that Psychic Shriek has no permission to resolve if you roll a miss.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Still irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless you are claiming his statement is true. Or discussing the validity of his statement whatever you state is irrelevant because what we are discussing is the validity of his statement that Psychic Shriek has no permission to resolve if you roll a miss.

If you resort to house rule to get to that point (which you have to since Psychic Shriek cannot resolve per strict RAW) then it can matter which house rule you implemented to get Psychic Shriek to resolve.

So you need to delineate a full argument and not just an argument in piecemeal.

blaktoof wrote:
a shooting attack with zero shots is an automatic miss.

Note that the minimum roll needed To Hit is always at least 2.

The quoted rule does not say what your assertion does.
In addition, you've failed to tie the resolution of Psychic Shriek's "roll 3d6" section to a hit on a shooting attack.

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Still irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless you are claiming his statement is true. Or discussing the validity of his statement whatever you state is irrelevant because what we are discussing is the validity of his statement that Psychic Shriek has no permission to resolve if you roll a miss.

If you resort to house rule to get to that point (which you have to since Psychic Shriek cannot resolve per strict RAW) then it can matter which house rule you implemented to get Psychic Shriek to resolve.

So you need to delineate a full argument and not just an argument in piecemeal.

Still irrelevant

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm asserting there's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You (apparently) disagree.
I've demonstrated a difference.

If you have demonstrated a difference then how can you assert there is no difference?

Sorry, I mis-spoke.
There's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots.
The difference I've demonstrated is between profiles, not between shooting attacks. Either way, it's a Zero Shot Shooting Attack.

In addition, Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so any argument related to a profile is absolutely irrelevant.

Now I am confused. You provided examples for each term that could be easily differentiated.

No. I haven't.
I've shown an example of a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You said

col_impact wrote:
Feel free to prove the existence of a zero shot shooting attack. I've combed the BRB and have found no profiles with Assault 0 on them or anything along those lines. The burden of proof is on you.

I've shown that a Shooting Attack can have Zero Shots, regardless of the number of shots on a profile.
You've also failed, at literally every point, to show an understanding that arguments that rely on a profile, or rely on "proving something must exist on a profile" are absolutely irrelevant because - and you've acknowledged this so I know you know it - Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.

You've equated Number of shots on a profile with number of shots in a shooting attack (and your arguments rely on that). I've shown that's a false equivalence by demonstrating that a Blast weapon that Gets Hot may have a number of shots in its profile, but is involved in a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. You also asserted

col_impact wrote:
The Blast rules offer an alternate sideways path through the Shooting Sequence that is instead of a To Hit Roll. We are not resolving To Hit Rolls per normal Shooting Sequence. It normally re-integrates back with the Shooting Sequence at the To Wound Roll "once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out."

The Gets Hot rule is a sub routine that is invoked on a roll of one that is cast immediately before firing. Per special exception granted by that rule, the shot resolves as a registered miss/non-fire/self-wound.

Both Blast and Gets Hot are rules providing specific exceptions.

Please, show me in the Gets Hot rule - spoilered below - what exceptions are made aside from the removal of a shot. You've asserted that the entire shooting attack sequence must be followed and that a shooting attack with zero shots cannot follow the entire shooting attack sequence.

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
col_impact - Would you say that once you start the shooting sequence, you must complete all steps, and cannot skip any steps?

Spoiler:

THE SHOOTING PHASE
As armies engage, guns thunder and shrapnel rains down from the sky. In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, a player’s army fires in the Shooting phase of his turn. During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.

The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.

So to sum up, you've asserted that it is a, quote, logical implausibility, unquote, to have a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You've also asserted that the entire shooting sequence must be followed and that if you cannot follow any individual step that the rules break and require house rules. You've asserted that there's a difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots, and declined to elaborate on what that difference is. You've demonstrated an inability to keep your argument away from rules that apply to profiles (in other words, rules which don't apply to Psychic Shriek).

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm asserting there's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You (apparently) disagree.
I've demonstrated a difference.

If you have demonstrated a difference then how can you assert there is no difference?

Sorry, I mis-spoke.
There's no difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots.
The difference I've demonstrated is between profiles, not between shooting attacks. Either way, it's a Zero Shot Shooting Attack.

In addition, Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile, so any argument related to a profile is absolutely irrelevant.

Now I am confused. You provided examples for each term that could be easily differentiated.

No. I haven't.
I've shown an example of a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You said

col_impact wrote:
Feel free to prove the existence of a zero shot shooting attack. I've combed the BRB and have found no profiles with Assault 0 on them or anything along those lines. The burden of proof is on you.

I've shown that a Shooting Attack can have Zero Shots, regardless of the number of shots on a profile.
You've also failed, at literally every point, to show an understanding that arguments that rely on a profile, or rely on "proving something must exist on a profile" are absolutely irrelevant because - and you've acknowledged this so I know you know it - Psychic Shriek doesn't have a profile.

You've equated Number of shots on a profile with number of shots in a shooting attack (and your arguments rely on that). I've shown that's a false equivalence by demonstrating that a Blast weapon that Gets Hot may have a number of shots in its profile, but is involved in a Zero Shot Shooting Attack. You also asserted

col_impact wrote:
The Blast rules offer an alternate sideways path through the Shooting Sequence that is instead of a To Hit Roll. We are not resolving To Hit Rolls per normal Shooting Sequence. It normally re-integrates back with the Shooting Sequence at the To Wound Roll "once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out."

The Gets Hot rule is a sub routine that is invoked on a roll of one that is cast immediately before firing. Per special exception granted by that rule, the shot resolves as a registered miss/non-fire/self-wound.

Both Blast and Gets Hot are rules providing specific exceptions.

Please, show me in the Gets Hot rule - spoilered below - what exceptions are made aside from the removal of a shot. You've asserted that the entire shooting attack sequence must be followed and that a shooting attack with zero shots cannot follow the entire shooting attack sequence.

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 ...

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
col_impact - Would you say that once you start the shooting sequence, you must complete all steps, and cannot skip any steps?

Spoiler:

THE SHOOTING PHASE
As armies engage, guns thunder and shrapnel rains down from the sky. In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, a player’s army fires in the Shooting phase of his turn. During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.

The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.

So to sum up, you've asserted that it is a, quote, logical implausibility, unquote, to have a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots. You've also asserted that the entire shooting sequence must be followed and that if you cannot follow any individual step that the rules break and require house rules. You've asserted that there's a difference between a Zero Shot Shooting Attack and a Shooting Attack with Zero Shots, and declined to elaborate on what that difference is. You've demonstrated an inability to keep your argument away from rules that apply to profiles (in other words, rules which don't apply to Psychic Shriek).

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 assign some number like 0 to represent undefined then you are doing so on the authority of house rule, not RAW

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. Default is just a way of saying the value that the rules provide when a value is not explicitly stated.

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

col_impact wrote:
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 assign some number like 0 to represent undefined then you are doing so on the authority of house rule, not RAW

Are all steps in a shooting attack required to be followed? You've asserted so in the past, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying and not putting words in your mouth.
I quoted your assertion above, for reference.

blaktoof wrote:
a shooting attack with zero shots is an automatic miss.

Note that the minimum roll needed To Hit is always at least 2.

if you "roll zero dice" did you roll a 2+? no? You missed. you now stop at step 4 as you have failed and move onto the next weapon/attack from that unit, or a new unit.

further rolling 0d6 is not rolling dice, as there are no dice rolled on a 0d6.

0d6 is made up nonsense that some people have used to falsely validate their HYWPI argument. It has 0 RAW support as there is nothing anywhere that tells you to roll 0d6, or that rolling no dice is rolling dice. rolling 0d6 is rolling no dice, is not rolling dice. if you are required to roll to hit you are rolling dice, therefore the number is not 0 dice.

additionally there is still 0 RAW support that you are allowed to resolve the effect of an attack that requires a to hit roll, on a miss. Page and graph if you have it.

otherwise we are just discussing some peoples easter egg hunting HYWPI.

No, you need to prove that you stop at step four when you haven't successfully hit.

You have been required to show this for, ooh, a number of pages now, and you still refuse to do so. Instead asserting an argument with no basis in rules, in violation, again, Of the tenets.

You are required to walk through the steps. Step five happily handles zero hits, by letting you not roll any dice.

Page and graph to show you stop at step four. You cannot prove this, of course, but at least make a direct response on this.

We have permission to work through the steps. We have permission to resolve the power, which REQUIRES the 3d506 roll. Failure to roll the 3d6 means you have cheated.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
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 assign some number like 0 to represent undefined then you are doing so on the authority of house rule, not RAW

Are all steps in a shooting attack required to be followed? You've asserted so in the past, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying and not putting words in your mouth.
I quoted your assertion above, for reference.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
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 assign some number like 0 to represent undefined then you are doing so on the authority of house rule, not RAW

Are all steps in a shooting attack required to be followed? You've asserted so in the past, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying and not putting words in your mouth.
I quoted your assertion above, for reference.

Spoiler:

a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically.

You neglected to actually answer my question. I underlined it above for reference - please answer it.

See above