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.

Zodiark wrote:

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

Really, so you're not rolling 3d6 against the units LD in order to determine how many wounds the target suffers?

No, you are.
But how is that similar to a to-wound roll, which is defined (using actual rules) as:

To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below.

Do you ever reference the chart? What's the STR of Psychic Shriek?

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

Really, so you're not rolling 3d6 against the units LD in order to determine how many wounds the target suffers?

No, you are.
But how is that similar to a to-wound roll, which is defined (using actual rules) as:

To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below.

Do you ever reference the chart? What's the STR of Psychic Shriek?

They're auto wounds so no need for a STR on it actually. Read the power man, the unit suffers wounds, meaning they take them, can't take armor or cover saves either.

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

Really, so you're not rolling 3d6 against the units LD in order to determine how many wounds the target suffers?

No, you are.
But how is that similar to a to-wound roll, which is defined (using actual rules) as:

To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below.

Do you ever reference the chart? What's the STR of Psychic Shriek?

They're auto wounds so no need for a STR on it actually. Read the power man, the unit suffers wounds, meaning they take them, can't take armor or cover saves either.

... So you agree it's not a Roll To Wound as defined by the BRB?

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

Really, so you're not rolling 3d6 against the units LD in order to determine how many wounds the target suffers?

No, you are.
But how is that similar to a to-wound roll, which is defined (using actual rules) as:

To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below.

Do you ever reference the chart? What's the STR of Psychic Shriek?

They're auto wounds so no need for a STR on it actually. Read the power man, the unit suffers wounds, meaning they take them, can't take armor or cover saves either.

... So you agree it's not a Roll To Wound as defined by the BRB?

You are rolling to see how many wounds are applied are you not? You are not doing them the same way as the BRB because they are AUTOMATICALLY wounding. The same way you would not roll to hit on any shooting attacks that were auto-hit

Zodiark wrote:
You are rolling to see how many wounds are applied are you not? You are not doing them the same way as the BRB because they are AUTOMATICALLY wounding. The same way you would not roll to hit on any shooting attacks that were auto-hit

Right - you don't make a To-Hit roll if you auto hit. So you're not making a To-Wound roll since you auto wound.

As long as we're clear on that - since you disagreed before.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
You are rolling to see how many wounds are applied are you not? You are not doing them the same way as the BRB because they are AUTOMATICALLY wounding. The same way you would not roll to hit on any shooting attacks that were auto-hit

Right - you don't make a To-Hit roll if you auto hit. So you're not making a To-Wound roll since you auto wound.

As long as we're clear on that - since you disagreed before.

Where did I disagree lol. I said you are rolling To-Wound, you assumed I was referring to the To-Wound listed in the BRB. I wasn't. You roll 3d6 against the targets LD and apply wounds there, said it like 3 times in this thread, read more

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
You are rolling to see how many wounds are applied are you not? You are not doing them the same way as the BRB because they are AUTOMATICALLY wounding. The same way you would not roll to hit on any shooting attacks that were auto-hit

Right - you don't make a To-Hit roll if you auto hit. So you're not making a To-Wound roll since you auto wound.

As long as we're clear on that - since you disagreed before.

Where did I disagree lol. I said you are rolling To-Wound, you assumed I was referring to the To-Wound listed in the BRB. I wasn't. You roll 3d6 against the targets LD and apply wounds there, said it like 3 times in this thread, read more

Zodiark wrote:

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

Really, so you're not rolling 3d6 against the units LD in order to determine how many wounds the target suffers?

That's where you disagreed. I said it wasn't a to-wound roll. You responded, questioning my statement. That's a disagreement.
I made no assumptions - words mean things. In the case of 40k, "to-wound roll" refers to using the table in the BRB.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
You are rolling to see how many wounds are applied are you not? You are not doing them the same way as the BRB because they are AUTOMATICALLY wounding. The same way you would not roll to hit on any shooting attacks that were auto-hit

Right - you don't make a To-Hit roll if you auto hit. So you're not making a To-Wound roll since you auto wound.

As long as we're clear on that - since you disagreed before.

Where did I disagree lol. I said you are rolling To-Wound, you assumed I was referring to the To-Wound listed in the BRB. I wasn't. You roll 3d6 against the targets LD and apply wounds there, said it like 3 times in this thread, read more

Zodiark wrote:

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

Really, so you're not rolling 3d6 against the units LD in order to determine how many wounds the target suffers?

That's where you disagreed. I said it wasn't a to-wound roll. You responded, questioning my statement. That's a disagreement.
I made no assumptions - words mean things. In the case of 40k, "to-wound roll" refers to using the table in the BRB.

Just as I thought, we're arguing semantics and you're arguing for the sake of argument. I'm done with this thread, nothing is going to be solved anytime soon, going on a minimum of 4+ years of pointless arguing on an obvious rule.

Zodiark wrote:
Just as I thought, we're arguing semantics and you're arguing for the sake of argument. I'm done with this thread, nothing is going to be solved anytime soon, going on a minimum of 4+ years of pointless arguing on an obvious rule.

Semantics when I say words mean things?

Yellow pumpernickel monkey kangaroo squash. Pinto beans transmission.

Does rolling 0 dice count as having rolled to hit?

An interesting new thread for Nos, Rig, and the rest of them to take pride in the rage of others.

I don't think the last one had people saying "rolling 0 dice" is still rolling.


That being said, every major tournament and every LGS I've been too has ruled you roll one dice to hit, or simply do not roll at all. NONE have ruled, you roll and ignore the outcome.

Would like to see the results of a neutrally-worded poll as to which interpretation people think is correct. I don't think I can manage it though, as my own opinion is pretty strongly decided. Anyone want to give it a go?

Is anyone going to read my post, where I laid out a clear RAW argument for exactly one To Hit die being used for this power?

If you disagree, I'd like to see specifically what's wrong with my argument.

Zodiark - the point Rigeld was making is that To-Wound is a defined term in 40k. It is like target, or Psychic Test. It has a specified meaning, and a definition. The 3d6 test is NOT a to-wound; while it causes wounds, it does not follow the correct process to be classified as To-Wound

What you call "semantics" is more accurately described ad "what is quite important when discussing the written rules for a game"

Aka, you were wrong, and the point is clear.

 Cheexsta wrote:
Is anyone going to read my post, where I laid out a clear RAW argument for exactly one To Hit die being used for this power?

If you disagree, I'd like to see specifically what's wrong with my argument.

Your previous post makes the assumption that the effect is dependent on the roll to hit.

It also assumes that 1 is the default even though this is not stated anywhere. Your Premise 3 applies to shooting weapons, not Psychic powers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - the point Rigeld was making is that To-Wound is a defined term in 40k. It is like target, or Psychic Test. It has a specified meaning, and a definition. The 3d6 test is NOT a to-wound; while it causes wounds, it does not follow the correct process to be classified as To-Wound

What you call "semantics" is more accurately described ad "what is quite important when discussing the written rules for a game"

Aka, you were wrong, and the point is clear.

Are you applying wounds, yes or no? Yes

Are you rolling to see how many wounds to apply, yes or no? Yes.

Nuff said.

Also, confirmed directly from GW, you would role ONE dice To-Hit, not zero, not more than one. I will even provide the telephone number of the GW employee who can verify this if you like, not sure if this is against the rules or not so I will not immediately post it here.

/END Pointless Argument

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - the point Rigeld was making is that To-Wound is a defined term in 40k. It is like target, or Psychic Test. It has a specified meaning, and a definition. The 3d6 test is NOT a to-wound; while it causes wounds, it does not follow the correct process to be classified as To-Wound

What you call "semantics" is more accurately described ad "what is quite important when discussing the written rules for a game"

Aka, you were wrong, and the point is clear.

Are you applying wounds, yes or no? Yes

Are you rolling to see how many wounds to apply, yes or no? Yes.

Nuff said.

Also, confirmed directly from GW, you would role ONE dice To-Hit, not zero, not more than one. I will even provide the telephone number of the GW employee who can verify this if you like, not sure if this is against the rules or not so I will not immediately post it here.

/END Pointless Argument

The customer service reps that answer the phones and e-mails have no idea what they are talking about.

If you call them twice with the same question, you will get three different answers.

Also: YMDC Rule #2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

So This does not end the argument because you could get an answer from a hot dog vendor on the street and it would be just as valid.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - the point Rigeld was making is that To-Wound is a defined term in 40k. It is like target, or Psychic Test. It has a specified meaning, and a definition. The 3d6 test is NOT a to-wound; while it causes wounds, it does not follow the correct process to be classified as To-Wound

What you call "semantics" is more accurately described ad "what is quite important when discussing the written rules for a game"

Aka, you were wrong, and the point is clear.

Are you applying wounds, yes or no? Yes

Are you rolling to see how many wounds to apply, yes or no? Yes.

Nuff said.

Also, confirmed directly from GW, you would role ONE dice To-Hit, not zero, not more than one. I will even provide the telephone number of the GW employee who can verify this if you like, not sure if this is against the rules or not so I will not immediately post it here.

/END Pointless Argument

The customer service reps that answer the phones and e-mails have no idea what they are talking about.

If you call them twice with the same question, you will get three different answers.

Also: YMDC Rule #2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Called my local GW store, both of them actually, both had the exact same answer as per the rule book and the statements I made earlier.

It's okay though, continue to argue about something that has been decided by a majority of players in the game, it's okay, you'll get somewhere eventually.

/END I'm out, got my answer, provided said answer, what you do with it is your own business

The problem with the tenets is that everything that isn't explicitly written is up to the opinions of others and if they see an answer they do not like or approve of, they do things like have pages of pointless arguing for years on end. Hence, talk to people whose job it is to enforce the rules of the game if there are any questions, i.e., judges or official employees you can see in person. If these people are unable to answer the question then you're sol. Otherwise, its just one opinion against another

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - the point Rigeld was making is that To-Wound is a defined term in 40k. It is like target, or Psychic Test. It has a specified meaning, and a definition. The 3d6 test is NOT a to-wound; while it causes wounds, it does not follow the correct process to be classified as To-Wound

What you call "semantics" is more accurately described ad "what is quite important when discussing the written rules for a game"

Aka, you were wrong, and the point is clear.

Are you applying wounds, yes or no? Yes

Are you rolling to see how many wounds to apply, yes or no? Yes.

Nuff said.

Also, confirmed directly from GW, you would role ONE dice To-Hit, not zero, not more than one. I will even provide the telephone number of the GW employee who can verify this if you like, not sure if this is against the rules or not so I will not immediately post it here.

/END Pointless Argument

Sigh. You're still missing the point, even when it has been pointed out for you explicitly

Not "nuff said" - it is NOT a roll to -wound. That is not opinion but written fact. Your disagreement on this is entirely irrelevant and unimportant, as it is just an opinion, and one demonstrably incorrect at that. Please follow the tenets, or stop posting here

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - the point Rigeld was making is that To-Wound is a defined term in 40k. It is like target, or Psychic Test. It has a specified meaning, and a definition. The 3d6 test is NOT a to-wound; while it causes wounds, it does not follow the correct process to be classified as To-Wound

What you call "semantics" is more accurately described ad "what is quite important when discussing the written rules for a game"

Aka, you were wrong, and the point is clear.

Are you applying wounds, yes or no? Yes

Are you rolling to see how many wounds to apply, yes or no? Yes.

Nuff said.

Also, confirmed directly from GW, you would role ONE dice To-Hit, not zero, not more than one. I will even provide the telephone number of the GW employee who can verify this if you like, not sure if this is against the rules or not so I will not immediately post it here.

/END Pointless Argument

Sigh. You're still missing the point, even when it has been pointed out for you explicitly

Not "nuff said" - it is NOT a roll to -wound. That is not opinion but written fact. Your disagreement on this is entirely irrelevant and unimportant, as it is just an opinion, and one demonstrably incorrect at that. Please follow the tenets, or stop posting here

I did not say that it was a roll to wound. I said it was a roll to APPLY wounds, either way, I'm done with this discussion, nobody is contributing anything meaningful to the discussion at large

When the rulebook says a roll to hit is required, I think it is incumbent upon the readers to infer that a failure on that roll means the power fails. Equally, it is incumbent to infer that rolling zero dice is not satisfying the requirement of a roll.

Therefore, the only real hole here is that the number of dice used for the roll is not listed. That problem would require an errata to fix. HIWPI is a single die as you are using a single instance of the power, therefore a single die.

Cheers

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:
Is anyone going to read my post, where I laid out a clear RAW argument for exactly one To Hit die being used for this power?

If you disagree, I'd like to see specifically what's wrong with my argument.

Your previous post makes the assumption that the effect is dependent on the roll to hit.

It also assumes that 1 is the default even though this is not stated anywhere. Your Premise 3 applies to shooting weapons, not Psychic powers.

The roll to hit is a requirement of witchfire powers. There is no rule allowing you to apply the effect of something without being the rule's requirements.

Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon, as per premise 1, which why premise 3 is relevant. While 1 shot it's never explicitly stated anywhere premise 3 points out that multiple shots must be defined by the weapon.

No, no you did not. You disagreed when Rigeld stated it was not a roll to-wound, meaning you are claiming it is. It's also, from memory, now the third time you've claimed you're out. Sounding quite hollow.

It is also rich to claim no one has added anything, given your refusal to read either the rule book rules nor the forum rules.

So, as it is not a roll to-wound, what ties it to needing a successful roll to-hit! Page and para. If you again refuse / dissemble / lie about your argument, the assumption is you are conceding you don't actually have a rules argument, and as such your posts should be marked "HIWPI" so others are aware

 Dracos wrote:
When the rulebook says a roll to hit is required, I think it is incumbent upon the readers to infer that a failure on that roll means the power fails. Equally, it is incumbent to infer that rolling zero dice is not satisfying the requirement of a roll.

Therefore, the only real hole here is that the number of dice used for the roll is not listed. That problem would require an errata to fix. HIWPI is a single die as you are using a single instance of the power, therefore a single die.

Cheers

This is how it is played where I am at.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, no you did not. You disagreed when Rigeld stated it was not a roll to-wound, meaning you are claiming it is. It's also, from memory, now the third time you've claimed you're out. Sounding quite hollow.

It is also rich to claim no one has added anything, given your refusal to read either the rule book rules nor the forum rules.

So, as it is not a roll to-wound, what ties it to needing a successful roll to-hit! Page and para. If you again refuse / dissemble / lie about your argument, the assumption is you are conceding you don't actually have a rules argument, and as such your posts should be marked "HIWPI" so others are aware

Read my posts again. I clarified what was an error in his understanding of my statement.

The power itself as a witchfire REQUIRES a roll to hit unless STATED OTHERWISE, which it does not.

And the last couple of pages have mostly been pointless arguing.

I was gone from the discussion originally until I got a concrete answer from people better and wiser than me and I figured I would share the answer with you, but I fell for the troll bait which is my own mistake.

It is a roll to apply wounds, as stated on the power itself. 3d6 subtract LD and you apply that many wounds. It isn't the same as rolling against the targets toughness as the spell, if it hits, is an auto wound.

 Cheexsta wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:
Is anyone going to read my post, where I laid out a clear RAW argument for exactly one To Hit die being used for this power?

If you disagree, I'd like to see specifically what's wrong with my argument.

Your previous post makes the assumption that the effect is dependent on the roll to hit.

It also assumes that 1 is the default even though this is not stated anywhere. Your Premise 3 applies to shooting weapons, not Psychic powers.

The roll to hit is a requirement of witchfire powers. There is no rule allowing you to apply the effect of something without being the rule's requirements.

Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon, as per premise 1, which why premise 3 is relevant. While 1 shot it's never explicitly stated anywhere premise 3 points out that multiple shots must be defined by the weapon.

This is how we play it. Unless stated otherwise, it is 1 shot, so one dice. Unless something states otherwise this is how it is played

 Cheexsta wrote:
The roll to hit is a requirement of witchfire powers.

This is true.

There is no rule allowing you to apply the effect of something without being the rule's requirements.

Not sure what you mean by this, but:

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase section Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

If you do not apply the effects after a missed roll to hit have you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."?

The "instructions in its entry" do not say that a successful roll to hit is needed to apply the effects of Psychic Shriek.

Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon, as per premise 1, which why premise 3 is relevant. While 1 shot it's never explicitly stated anywhere premise 3 points out that multiple shots must be defined by the weapon.

#1 draws similarities between shooting and Witchfires, but I do not see anything that states "Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon" this statement is made up and does not appear in the rules anywhere.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:
The roll to hit is a requirement of witchfire powers.

This is true.

There is no rule allowing you to apply the effect of something without being the rule's requirements.

Not sure what you mean by this, but:

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase section Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

If you do not apply the effects after a missed roll to hit have you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."?

The "instructions in its entry" do not say that a successful roll to hit is needed to apply the effects of Psychic Shriek.

Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon, as per premise 1, which why premise 3 is relevant. While 1 shot it's never explicitly stated anywhere premise 3 points out that multiple shots must be defined by the weapon.

#1 draws similarities between shooting and Witchfires, but I do not see anything that states "Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon" this statement is made up and does not appear in the rules anywhere.

The RB states that Witchfire, and I quote "Similarly, a Witchfire power must roll To-Hit, unless it has the Blast Special rule, in which case it scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template Weapon, which hits automatically. Saves can be taken against Wounds from witchfire in the same way as for any other shooting attack" (Types of Psychic Powers, Witchfire.)

That is not the same as saying "Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon"

They have similarities, but not exactly alike.

Zodiark - argument conceded then. You cannot show a requirement on a successful roll to hit, as we know and you agree, that shriek is not a roll to wound.

Thus even if you miss with your made up number of shots, you still MUST resolve the power according to its entry, which as you are aware does not require a successful roll to hit first.

So even if you "miss" with your X dice, you still roll 3d6, etc

And I did read your posts, and no it wasn't Rigeld who was mistaken. You seem to think words are unimportant, which in a written medium is amusing.

Oh, and rule one. Again.

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is not the same as saying "Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon"

They have similarities, but not exactly alike.

I didn't say it rolled exactly like a firing weapon. I directly quoted the BRB which lists the rulings itself. I.e., unless a rule states differently, you ALWAYS follow RAW


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - argument conceded then. You cannot show a requirement on a successful roll to hit, as we know and you agree, that shriek is not a roll to wound.

Thus even if you miss with your made up number of shots, you still MUST resolve the power according to its entry, which as you are aware does not require a successful roll to hit first.

So even if you "miss" with your X dice, you still roll 3d6, etc

And I did read your posts, and no it wasn't Rigeld who was mistaken. You seem to think words are unimportant, which in a written medium is amusing.

Oh, and rule one. Again.

Umm, you need to roll to hit for Psychic Shriek, the common practice everywhere I have played and the bulk of people I have talked to about this, including those in this own conversation have stated rolling one dice. If the dice misses, the power cannot inflict any wounds. If it hits, then you would roll to see how many wounds would be applied.

Rule one again? Make sense, stop trolling, contribute something that isn't pointless argument please.

Nobody said X dice, my statement from the beginning has been rolling ONE dice to see if it hits. If it hits, you resolve said power, if it does not, you can not. This is RAW, good day

Seeing as though witchfires specifically dictate that a roll to hit is required, I find it absurd to claim that the roll to hit has no effect on the success of casting a witchfire.

That is why tournaments and everyone else but a few rules lawyers do not play it that way.

Rather than claiming that the witchfire rules allow for psychic shriek to ignore the roll to hit, you should just be admitting that there is a lack of information on how the writers intended it to be resolved.

Saying that a single dice is rolled and compared to balistic skill at least has some integrity to it.

Claiming you roll 0d6 or just ignore the result is WAAC.

Zodiark wrote:
Nobody said X dice, my statement from the beginning has been rolling ONE dice to see if it hits. If it hits, you resolve said power, if it does not, you can not. This is RAW, good day

(Emphasis mine).

You have yet to prove the underlined assertation.