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.

that doesnt say STR is a requirement for all profiles death, simply that in those examples str is present.

 easysauce wrote:
please quote where having a str value is a requirement for a profile?

WEAPON PROFILES
Every weapon has a profile. Here are two examples:

There are 5 things in both profiles. They are (Name) Range, S, AP, Type. 4 of those (Name isn't) are explained further.
Please cite allowance for different profiles.

You have been quoted in other threads the rules that state there are more then one type of profiles.

I have? Please, link the post.

we have instructions in the shreik profile on how to resolve the power, how to wound, ect which is what make the profile... plenty of other profiles dont have a str.. they have a way to get the str, or a method to resolve wounds or glances/pens... sniper, haywire dont have str, yet you dont argue they lack profiles.

No, because they have a profile with * or X as the S value.

str in a profile, is just a STANDARD way to resolve wounds, having a non standard way to resolve wounds in the profile does not magically stop it from being a profile.

No - not having a profile stops it from having a profile. To make a profile for Shriek you have to make things up.

quote a rule that says other wise please, I expect none, because there is none.

Actually, I've proven that there is a requirement for a profile. You have to prove that what Shriek has makes up a profile.

your assertation that there is only one type of profile, has no RAW backing,

It does because there's no rules covering another type of profile.

your assertation, that a psychic shooting atttacks profile, is not a profile, is also baseless.

I've never made that assertion. Ever.

the profile is clearly on the power page in the BRB, your willfull ignorance of it doesnt change that.

Please be kind enough to underline the profile. I am getting old so maybe I'm simply losing my eyesight. I can assure you that I can read, however, and there's no such thing as a profile in that spoiler.

 easysauce wrote:
that doesnt say STR is a requirement for all profiles death, simply that in those examples str is present.

Did you read what was listed after the profiles?

Gravmyr wrote:
It's the antonym of multiple. Beyond that all models fire a single weapon except for Monstrous Creatures. Before you point to a codex and state that they most do not fire a single shot please post a single model that is shooting without a weapon to display that the model is not firing a single shot.

Which nids fire 0 shots? By which I mean that have a WS above - or 0 so actually fire.

Wrong. You are excluding 0. Why are you making an assumption that it has to be a natural number? Why are -1...-infinity not also included? Why do you leave poor 0 out in the cold?

All models fire single weapons except MCs? Guess crisis suits are cheating then. Oh, and vehicles.

Your line about "do not fire a single shot...." is incomprehensible as to its relevance. Actually, it doesnt even hold together logically - your requirement does not follow the reason given. At all. Just nonsense.

So, again - please cite where it STATES in your quote that they shoot 1 shot.

Or can you finally admit your error in this, and move on?

Rorschach9 wrote:
As for Wtichfires and the rolling to hit debacle;

Those that have a profile follow the normal rules for shooting, using the profile provided, then resolving the power as described (if there is nothing else, there is no other resolution required)
Those that have no profile follow the normal rules for shooting, using the profile provided (oh, there is none, so you must either skip it .. or the rules break at this point and the game grinds to a halt), then resolving the power as described.

If there is no profile, you can not roll to hit as there is no direction (ie: no rules) providing for it. Can Not trumps Must.

If you had followed what i showed in the OP, the highlighted above is not the case. A To Hit roll does not require a profile. It just need a number of shots as defined by a profile or a rule. "Most models only get to fire one shot" Is enough of a RaW for me.

When you say "Can not", is that a Rule in the book? Or an opinion you have created from reading it? (Requesting Rule Quote)

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"If a Unit is told to Fall back, do you not assume "Fall Back 2D6"?"
No, I look at the units unit type to work out how far it falls back. Again, 100% complete information, no assumption required

could you Quote which rules you are using for Infantry Fall Back moves?
You said yourself that "Most units Fall Back 2D6" cannot be used: an IG Tank list contains almost no Infantry and the "most" is not RaW.

Most to me just means in all cases here "ones that are not the non-basic (Jump Units, Monstrous Creatures, etc)". Even if Infantry are 10% of the Units on the board and only 5% of shooting attacks (Witchfires) are "Most models only get to fire one shot".

I never got a reply to this.

"Most units Fall Back 2D6" is (to me) RaW just as "Most models only get to fire one shot".

How many shots does a model without Profile have?
How far does Infantry Fall Back?

I can answer both of those with the Rules quoted above, but for some, those "are not Rules", so how do you answer both questions?

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So you cannot use an existing wording ("Most models only get to fire one shot") in the RaW but you can decide to ignore a Rule? ("a witchfire power must roll To Hit")

I mean between breaking a Rule and following a vague RaW, i've already made my decision long ago... But i can definitely see where you are coming from. Just need to wait for another FAQ. They did sort out the "Precision shots" one....

See, here you show a failure to understand.
The rule isn't being ignored just because. It's just not relevant to decide what is required because the power must be resolved according to its instructions anyway.

rigeld2 wrote:
We know how to resolve shooting attacks with profiles. Witchfires are - surprise surprise - shooting attacks with profiles (when they exist).
Sorry, I thought you were familiar with the rules being discussed.

Spoiler:

“Resolve Psychic Power
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. Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Warhammer 40,000.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Now, I'm required by the rules to "[r]esolve it's effects according to the instructions in its entry."

Spoiler:

“Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Warhammer 40,000.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

I see nothing in there telling me I must hit with the power to roll the 3d6. In fact, I see a simple instruction to do so.

I quoted rules. Find some that prove my assertions or quotes incorrect.

So, as you are basing "*Ignore To Hit* because the power must be resolved according to its instructions" on the above, as Gravmyr and Easysauce have posted, what is actually meant by the above?

"Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

What is my entry?

"Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18".

So we know that it is a Witchfire and it has a range.
Witchfire? A Shooting attack. (Needs To Hit, be in LoS and Range)
How many Shots? "Most models only get to fire one shot"

So once you have checked LoS, range and To Hit with your shot, you may move on to the next sentence (you're up to step 4 of the shooting phase) :
"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."
Simple enough. This is what you do for step 5 of the phase.

Step 6, you know what to do.

I have followed the RaW to come to a resolution. Now if you disagree, please quote exactly which Rule in the book would disallow the above?
Because i have a resolution that makes no assumptions, simply follows what i read, against your resolution of Ignoring a Rule (Disregarding a rule because another says so is acceptable, but "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry" doesn't somehow stop you from rolling To Hit and ignoring its effects).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
so people are still pretending shreik has no profile?

shriek has a profile which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on.

pretending it doesnt have a profile, when it very clearly does have a profile, is just asinine and not a RAW argument at *ALL*

Well, although i said i agreed with this, i meant in the general form:

"shriek is a shooting attack which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on."

I will not say it has a profile, nor is it a weapon. But it is a Witchfire and by extension a shooting attack. Shooting attacks must Roll To Hit and PS contains "how to resolve wounds".
Being forced to resolve the "how to resolve wounds" does not stop the To Hit phase.

"So once you have checked LoS, range and To Hit with your shot, you may move on to the next sentence (you're up to step 4 of the shooting phase) :
"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."
Simple enough. This is what you do for step 5 of the phase. "

Incorrect. That is an assumption. In fact its more than that, it is a direct change to wording

Step 5 is Roll To Wound. ROlling 3D6 is NOT a roll to wound. It may cause wounds, but not everything that causes wounds is a roll to wound. We know this because we have a definition of to-wound rolls. Or are you saying the D6 roll for Perils is a to-wound roll? or only the results which result in a wound are? or something else?

So no, you DID NOT follow the RAW. You made up your own step 5 and inserted it. THen pretended it was RAW, despite you surely knowing full well that it wasnt.

If you do not roll the 3D6, because you "missed" with your unknowable number of shots, you have failed to resolve the power according to its entry.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"So once you have checked LoS, range and To Hit with your shot, you may move on to the next sentence (you're up to step 4 of the shooting phase) :
"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."
Simple enough. This is what you do for step 5 of the phase. "

Incorrect. That is an assumption. In fact its more than that, it is a direct change to wording

Step 5 is Roll To Wound. ROlling 3D6 is NOT a roll to wound. It may cause wounds, but not everything that causes wounds is a roll to wound. We know this because we have a definition of to-wound rolls. Or are you saying the D6 roll for Perils is a to-wound roll? or only the results which result in a wound are? or something else?

So no, you DID NOT follow the RAW. You made up your own step 5 and inserted it. THen pretended it was RAW, despite you surely knowing full well that it wasnt.

If you do not roll the 3D6, because you "missed" with your unknowable number of shots, you have failed to resolve the power according to its entry.

I notice you also failed to answer the question above this.

Step 5 is Roll To Wound. Rolling 3D6 is NOT a roll to wound. A Destroyer result of 6 is NOT a roll to wound. Armour Penetration Rolls are NOT rolls to wound.
They don't even cause Wounds...

Are they not part of a Shooting Sequence? Does the game break because we suddenly follow another set of instructions than what is in "Roll To Wound"?
No, we:
-roll a D6 and add the weapon’s Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle. Step 5.
-suffers a hit that wounds automatically. Step 5.
-suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Step 5.

All 3 follow RaW. Point out where i'm breaking a Rule.

Where did you roll to wound, or were given allowance to replace roll to-wound with something else?. Page and graph.

Vehicles have a "instead of rolling to wound" clause, so your example is invalid

Destroyer weapons have an exception to rolling to wound. Example invalid

Psychic shriek has...no, wait. It doesnt have an exception to the rule. Oops. Guess that means it isnt step 5, as it is not rolling to-wound, but something else.

I was focussing on a single point here, as it was easiest to destroy that - as I have done - than go through the arguments already disproven. If you notice I quoted what I was responding to directly. Nothing else. Do not infer anything more than that, or make more assumptions.

SO, where is your permission to insert the non-roll-to-wound 3D6 roll into the shooting sequence? Page and graph detailing this rule given exception. If you can provide such a rule, I will concede.

There isnt one, but happy hunting!

I have indeed noticed your focus, and was not inferring anything, simply waiting for the answer.

As to permission to resolve the 3D6 within the Shooting sequence?

Resolve Psychic Power
Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry.

"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."

I have instructions on how to perform Step 5. Granted it does not have an "instead of rolling To Wound" clause. But neither does "Gets Hot". I know there are a lot of special rules/weapons that perform other "effects" rather than roll To Wound. I don't think we need to keep chasing this.

The Power has instructions on how to generate Wounds. I have permission by RaW and you would need a restriction in the Rules to stop the resolution.

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
4. Roll To Hit. "Most models only get to fire one shot"
5. Roll To Wound."Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties.

I mean, arguing that PS, while being a Shooting Attack and must follow the Shooting Sequence, does not "Roll To Wound" per those rules would be the same as arguing you never "Select a Weapon"

Or is your RaW reading that it doesn't even follow the Shooting Sequence?

Incorrect, again. Oh, and you can wait all you like, those questions I am fairly certain were already answered, and I'm not rehashing again. It gets repetitive. So instead I will carry on trying to get you to post any RULES supporting your assumptions / assertions.

Gets Hot! does not need a special allowance to cause a wound instead of rolling to-wound, as the wound is not caused within the shooting sequence step 5. Example invalid. Again.

You are making the extraordinary claim that the 3D6 effect, which while causing wounds has NO OTHER RELATION to the roll to-wound (it in fact is as close, or closer, to perils as it is a normal to-wound roll) is in fact a roll tow-ound. Despite not having any rule stating as such. As such, the burden of proof is yours as you have made the assertion. I have, instead, made the trivial case - it is not a roll to-wound because it does not fulfill the criteria to be one. It is notr a replacement for the roll to-wound because it does not say it is. I cannot prove a negative, therefore YOU must prove your positive assertion. If you cannot - and you CANNOT - then your assertion has no merit.

So, again. Page and graph allowing you to put this in place of the roll to wound. You have plenty of examples of the exact type of language (can even draw parallels with blasts and to-hit if you need more, same concept) that is needed. So, find it.

My RAW reading is that the resolution of the power requires 2 parts

Part 1 is the shooting sequence. You check LOS, range etc, then get to step 4. As y0ou cannot roll any dice, as you have no legitimate profile (as proven) this stage is resolved. You are only required to roll a dice for each shot - once you have done this you have "rolled to hit" (name of section) . You roll no dice, section completed

Step 5 auto resolves as the trivial case; you have no successful to hit rolls.

Part 2 is where you resolve the rest of the psychic power, as told. Here you follow the requirement and roll 3D6. If you do not roll 3D6 having met the warp charge cost (and being in range, etc - all trivial) you have broken a rule.

Find a rule denying the requirement to roll 3D6 regardless of the outcome of the roll to-hit step. I have proof, and have given it, that I am [b]required[b] to roll the 3D6; you must find the denial.

Answer these two, with page and graph and an exact citation of the rule you are reliant upon. Failure to do so will make me assume you cannot do so, and that your argument is simply HYWPI. I would then ask that you follow the tenets and mark your posts as such, and stop pretending your rules are anything but houserules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
as the wound is not caused within the shooting sequence step 5. Example invalid. Again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
My RAW reading is that the resolution of the power requires 2 parts

Part 1 is the shooting sequence. You check LOS, range etc, then get to step 4. As y0ou cannot roll any dice, as you have no legitimate profile (as proven) this stage is resolved. You are only required to roll a dice for each shot - once you have done this you have "rolled to hit" (name of section) . You roll no dice, section completed

Step 5 auto resolves as the trivial case; you have no successful to hit rolls.

Part 2 is where you resolve the rest of the psychic power, as told. Here you follow the requirement and roll 3D6. If you do not roll 3D6 having met the warp charge cost (and being in range, etc - all trivial) you have broken a rule.

I have highlighted where you are incorrect. If Gets Hot is not Step 5, how does the model get removed in Step 6?
He has no Step 5 or Step 6? How do you remove the model from play? Rules Quote if there are any.

Gets Hot, in Step 5, provides the Model with a Wound for Step 6 (specifically you cannot re-allocate it or take LoS)

How can you "resolve" Step 4 or Step 5 by just ignoring them?
Psychic Shriek provides a method for Step 5, and Step 4 is covered by it being a Witchfire, needing to roll.

You want the exact "instead of rolling To Wound" clause? I would need the exact "automatically inflicts (...) hits" in order to bypass a To Hit roll.

Part 2: How do you resolve a set of "Wounds" ? Quote which Rules you are using if not "Step 6"?
How can you perform Step 6 without having done 4 & 5?

Going by how you read the RaW, i have stopped my shooting sequence at Step 4.
I then resolve the rest of the psychic power, as told? How do i remove models? There is no Wound Pool.

Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – remove models equal to the result.

Now i can stop at Step 4 and simply "Resolve the Power". Unfortunately that is not the RaW.


Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.
"Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack,(...)"
"The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below."

This is the RaW. You must work from Step 1 to 7 or you are not allowed to remove models from the board.
I assume that PS was written with intent to remove models?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Find a rule denying the requirement to roll 3D6 regardless of the outcome of the roll to-hit step. I have proof, and have given it, that I am [b]required[b] to roll the 3D6; you must find the denial.

Being required to "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." means just that, follow instructions. The instructions for a Witchfire is to roll To Hit. You have not done so and are breaking the very rule you are quoting in your defence.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Answer these two, with page and graph and an exact citation of the rule you are reliant upon. Failure to do so will make me assume you cannot do so, and that your argument is simply HYWPI. I would then ask that you follow the tenets and mark your posts as such, and stop pretending your rules are anything but houserules.

 insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
. Further dissembling on your part will be concession.

Can you please stop making this sort of statement? It doesn't actually encourage any sort of positive response.

@nos You seem to think you either choose 0 as a number of shots or apparently -1 or other such number. You can at least try to come up with a rules based reason for a weapon to fire those numbers of shots or you can't. No one here in the it fires 0 shots camp can do so. There is not a single model in the game that fires 0 shots as part of a shooting attack. There have never been any weapons that fire a negative number of shots. Unless you can actually present a line from the book that states Shriek fires 0 shots then you are playing HIWPI, note this is different from stating that it doesn't tell me how many so I choose 0 to avoid situations where I create more unresolvable actions. 0 is an illogical source because by the very definition of shooting something must come out. I'll even give you your entire argument as total gospel if you can list a single weapon that actually has 0 listed as the number of shots it fires. You want logic please look up both firing and shooting and explain how you can fire 0 shots and still be doing those things.

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos You seem to think you either choose 0 as a number of shots or apparently -1 or other such number. You can at least try to come up with a rules based reason for a weapon to fire those numbers of shots or you can't. No one here in the it fires 0 shots camp can do so. There is not a single model in the game that fires 0 shots as part of a shooting attack.

Blast weapons with Gets Hot. Do I get a cookie?

rigeld2 wrote:
Blast weapons with Gets Hot. Do I get a cookie?

Why would those not be Heavy 1 still?
ED: sorry, i found it's in the rule... "(such as Blast weapons) must roll a D6 for each shot immediately before firing."
ED2: "that shot is not fired" So yeah that is an example.

I was trying to find weapons along the lines of Markerlights but they still fire shots...

 BlackTalos wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"If a Unit is told to Fall back, do you not assume "Fall Back 2D6"?"
No, I look at the units unit type to work out how far it falls back. Again, 100% complete information, no assumption required

could you Quote which rules you are using for Infantry Fall Back moves?
You said yourself that "Most units Fall Back 2D6" cannot be used: an IG Tank list contains almost no Infantry and the "most" is not RaW.

Most to me just means in all cases here "ones that are not the non-basic (Jump Units, Monstrous Creatures, etc)". Even if Infantry are 10% of the Units on the board and only 5% of shooting attacks (Witchfires) are "Most models only get to fire one shot".

I never got a reply to this.

So far, we’ve discussed the basic rules as they pertain to Infantry, the most important and common unit type in the Warhammer 40,000 game.

This means that everything before that refers to Infantry.

Most units Fall Back 2D6".

Can therefore be rewritten to be:
Most Infantry units Fall Back 2D6".

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So you cannot use an existing wording ("Most models only get to fire one shot") in the RaW but you can decide to ignore a Rule? ("a witchfire power must roll To Hit")

I mean between breaking a Rule and following a vague RaW, i've already made my decision long ago... But i can definitely see where you are coming from. Just need to wait for another FAQ. They did sort out the "Precision shots" one....

See, here you show a failure to understand.
The rule isn't being ignored just because. It's just not relevant to decide what is required because the power must be resolved according to its instructions anyway.

rigeld2 wrote:
We know how to resolve shooting attacks with profiles. Witchfires are - surprise surprise - shooting attacks with profiles (when they exist).
Sorry, I thought you were familiar with the rules being discussed.

Spoiler:

“Resolve Psychic Power
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. Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Warhammer 40,000.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Now, I'm required by the rules to "[r]esolve it's effects according to the instructions in its entry."

Spoiler:

“Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Warhammer 40,000.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

I see nothing in there telling me I must hit with the power to roll the 3d6. In fact, I see a simple instruction to do so.

I quoted rules. Find some that prove my assertions or quotes incorrect.

So, as you are basing "*Ignore To Hit* because the power must be resolved according to its instructions" on the above, as Gravmyr and Easysauce have posted, what is actually meant by the above?

"Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

What is my entry?

"Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18".

So we know that it is a Witchfire and it has a range.
Witchfire? A Shooting attack. (Needs To Hit, be in LoS and Range)
How many Shots? "Most models only get to fire one shot"

Pause - again, you have zero basis for firing a single shot here. You have no profile (which is what Gravmyr was using as his argument, and what easysauce was inventing with his) to base that on, purely an assumption.
Play!

So once you have checked LoS, range and To Hit with your shot, you may move on to the next sentence (you're up to step 4 of the shooting phase) :
"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."

I'm sorry, why are you replacing the To Wound step with something entirely different? Please cite a rule.

Simple enough. This is what you do for step 5 of the phase.

Sure, if you make things up.

Because i have a resolution that makes no assumptions, simply follows what i read, against your resolution of Ignoring a Rule (Disregarding a rule because another says so is acceptable, but "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry" doesn't somehow stop you from rolling To Hit and ignoring its effects).

No assumptions? Seriously? You're assuming Shriek falls under "most". You're assuming that the 3d6 is a roll To Wound (with no rules directing you to do so). You're ignoring the rules for Roll To Wound without a rule telling you to do so - something you admonish me for doing in this very quote. I'm in awe, truly.

Well, although i said i agreed with this, i meant in the general form:

"shriek is a shooting attack which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on."

I will not say it has a profile, nor is it a weapon. But it is a Witchfire and by extension a shooting attack. Shooting attacks must Roll To Hit and PS contains "how to resolve wounds".
Being forced to resolve the "how to resolve wounds" does not stop the To Hit phase.

It has a mechanic to resolve wounds. It is not a roll To Wound.
Haemorrhage doesn't cause wounds at all and lacks a profile, yet is a focused witchfire. Please make your argument fit both powers. Remember, Haemorrhage doesn't say anything about "instead of rolling To Wound" or any other verbiage like that.

*rigeld2 And the profile says 0?

Edit: Which also means you loose the shot and can't deal wounds with it.... is that really the claim you would like to make? That loosing a shot to Gets Hot! makes it that way so the weapons' profile becomes 0? For how long till the end of the game?

Edit: And better yet that weapons that fire 0 shots are not fired?

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"If a Unit is told to Fall back, do you not assume "Fall Back 2D6"?"
No, I look at the units unit type to work out how far it falls back. Again, 100% complete information, no assumption required

could you Quote which rules you are using for Infantry Fall Back moves?
You said yourself that "Most units Fall Back 2D6" cannot be used: an IG Tank list contains almost no Infantry and the "most" is not RaW.

Most to me just means in all cases here "ones that are not the non-basic (Jump Units, Monstrous Creatures, etc)". Even if Infantry are 10% of the Units on the board and only 5% of shooting attacks (Witchfires) are "Most models only get to fire one shot".

I never got a reply to this.

So far, we’ve discussed the basic rules as they pertain to Infantry, the most important and common unit type in the Warhammer 40,000 game.

This means that everything before that refers to Infantry.

Most units Fall Back 2D6".

Can therefore be rewritten to be:
Most Infantry units Fall Back 2D6".

Correct. But Nos's point was that "most" is not RaW. So "Most Infantry units Fall Back 2D6" is correct to me, just like "Most models only get to fire one shot".
Both are Rules as Written, yes.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So you cannot use an existing wording ("Most models only get to fire one shot") in the RaW but you can decide to ignore a Rule? ("a witchfire power must roll To Hit")

I mean between breaking a Rule and following a vague RaW, i've already made my decision long ago... But i can definitely see where you are coming from. Just need to wait for another FAQ. They did sort out the "Precision shots" one....

See, here you show a failure to understand.
The rule isn't being ignored just because. It's just not relevant to decide what is required because the power must be resolved according to its instructions anyway.

rigeld2 wrote:
We know how to resolve shooting attacks with profiles. Witchfires are - surprise surprise - shooting attacks with profiles (when they exist).
Sorry, I thought you were familiar with the rules being discussed.

Spoiler:

“Resolve Psychic Power
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. Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Warhammer 40,000.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Now, I'm required by the rules to "[r]esolve it's effects according to the instructions in its entry."

Spoiler:

“Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Warhammer 40,000.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

I see nothing in there telling me I must hit with the power to roll the 3d6. In fact, I see a simple instruction to do so.

I quoted rules. Find some that prove my assertions or quotes incorrect.

So, as you are basing "*Ignore To Hit* because the power must be resolved according to its instructions" on the above, as Gravmyr and Easysauce have posted, what is actually meant by the above?

"Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

What is my entry?

"Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18".

So we know that it is a Witchfire and it has a range.
Witchfire? A Shooting attack. (Needs To Hit, be in LoS and Range)
How many Shots? "Most models only get to fire one shot"

Pause - again, you have zero basis for firing a single shot here. You have no profile (which is what Gravmyr was using as his argument, and what easysauce was inventing with his) to base that on, purely an assumption.
Play!

So once you have checked LoS, range and To Hit with your shot, you may move on to the next sentence (you're up to step 4 of the shooting phase) :
"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."

I'm sorry, why are you replacing the To Wound step with something entirely different? Please cite a rule.

Simple enough. This is what you do for step 5 of the phase.

Sure, if you make things up.

Because i have a resolution that makes no assumptions, simply follows what i read, against your resolution of Ignoring a Rule (Disregarding a rule because another says so is acceptable, but "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry" doesn't somehow stop you from rolling To Hit and ignoring its effects).

No assumptions? Seriously? You're assuming Shriek falls under "most". You're assuming that the 3d6 is a roll To Wound (with no rules directing you to do so). You're ignoring the rules for Roll To Wound without a rule telling you to do so - something you admonish me for doing in this very quote. I'm in awe, truly.

"Most models only get to fire one shot" is RaW, not an assumption. Why does it not cover Shriek?
"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." is RaW. Rules in Vacuum? Or simply Step 5 instructions?
Or do you deny we are performing a Shooting Attack following the Shooting Sequence?
"compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below." is RaW. Can we follow those Rules without a profile?
If you can find "most Psychic attacks are S4" or a similar Rule, then you might have a point. Until then i'll follow the Instructions from PS above. With a number of wounds we can move to Step 6.

rigeld2 wrote:

Well, although i said i agreed with this, i meant in the general form:

"shriek is a shooting attack which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on."

I will not say it has a profile, nor is it a weapon. But it is a Witchfire and by extension a shooting attack. Shooting attacks must Roll To Hit and PS contains "how to resolve wounds".
Being forced to resolve the "how to resolve wounds" does not stop the To Hit phase.

It has a mechanic to resolve wounds. It is not a roll To Wound.
Haemorrhage doesn't cause wounds at all and lacks a profile, yet is a focused witchfire. Please make your argument fit both powers. Remember, Haemorrhage doesn't say anything about "instead of rolling To Wound" or any other verbiage like that.

What?
"The target must pass two separate Toughness tests or suffer a Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed for each test that was failed."

Gravmyr wrote:
*rigeld2 And the profile says 0?

Edit: Which also means you loose the shot and can't deal wounds with it.... is that really the claim you would like to make? That loosing a shot to Gets Hot! makes it that way so the weapons' profile becomes 0? For how long till the end of the game?

Edit: And better yet that weapons that fire 0 shots are not fired?

You're comparing something that has a profile with something that doesn't. Bad idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Correct. But Nos's point was that "most" is not RaW. So "Most Infantry units Fall Back 2D6" is correct to me, just like "Most models only get to fire one shot".
Both are Rules as Written, yes.

You really don't see a difference there? Because there is one.

"Most models only get to fire one shot" is RaW, not an assumption. Why does it not cover Shriek?

Because nothing says it does. Most Infatry covers Infantry units because, well, it says "Infantry."

"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." is RaW. Rules in Vacuum? Or simply Step 5 instructions?
Or do you deny we are performing a Shooting Attack following the Shooting Sequence?

You're linking the shooting attack to the resolution of the entire power. You have no rule doing so.

"compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below." is RaW. Can we follow those Rules without a profile?
If you can find "most Psychic attacks are S4" or a similar Rule, then you might have a point. Until then i'll follow the Instructions from PS above. With a number of wounds we can move to Step 6.

So like I said - you're making things up.

rigeld2 wrote:

Well, although i said i agreed with this, i meant in the general form:

"shriek is a shooting attack which includes its range, how to resolve wounds, and so on."

I will not say it has a profile, nor is it a weapon. But it is a Witchfire and by extension a shooting attack. Shooting attacks must Roll To Hit and PS contains "how to resolve wounds".
Being forced to resolve the "how to resolve wounds" does not stop the To Hit phase.

It has a mechanic to resolve wounds. It is not a roll To Wound.
Haemorrhage doesn't cause wounds at all and lacks a profile, yet is a focused witchfire. Please make your argument fit both powers. Remember, Haemorrhage doesn't say anything about "instead of rolling To Wound" or any other verbiage like that.

What?
"The target must pass two separate Toughness tests or suffer a Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed for each test that was failed."

Apologies. I misremembered the power and misread when I went to double check it.

@rigeld2 All weapons have profiles. Just because they are not spelled out for you doesn't mean it doesn't have one.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Correct. But Nos's point was that "most" is not RaW. So "Most Infantry units Fall Back 2D6" is correct to me, just like "Most models only get to fire one shot".
Both are Rules as Written, yes.

You really don't see a difference there? Because there is one.

"Most models only get to fire one shot" is RaW, not an assumption. Why does it not cover Shriek?

Because nothing says it does. Most Infatry covers Infantry units because, well, it says "Infantry."

And most models covers models because, well, it says "models". I do not really see a difference, no.

Infantry Falling back: 2D6.
Shooting attack by a Model: Get to fire one shot.

Jump Infantry? Well it tells you to go 3D6.
Heavy 2 or Rapid Fire? Well it tells you to roll 2 shots. (<12" )

rigeld2 wrote:

"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." is RaW. Rules in Vacuum? Or simply Step 5 instructions?
Or do you deny we are performing a Shooting Attack following the Shooting Sequence?

You're linking the shooting attack to the resolution of the entire power. You have no rule doing so.

Apart from "Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.". Why would you not link a Shooting Attack with a Shooting Attack?

rigeld2 wrote:

"compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below." is RaW. Can we follow those Rules without a profile?
If you can find "most Psychic attacks are S4" or a similar Rule, then you might have a point. Until then i'll follow the Instructions from PS above. With a number of wounds we can move to Step 6.

So like I said - you're making things up.

Which part is being made up?
To Wound has no Strength to use, so Step 6 cannot be resolved because there are no Wounds generated. But "suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." is generating Wounds so i see no issue here?

Advanced V Basic, the Wounds from PS (or Haemorrhage or Maleceptor) supersede the Roll To Wound at step 5.

Per Witchfire RaW you are still missing a step 4 and a step 6 to finish your Shooting Attack.
Unless, as i have already suggested you believe PS is not a "full" Shooting Attack (Stops at Step 4 or something similar). To which i ask how you remove models?

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Correct. But Nos's point was that "most" is not RaW. So "Most Infantry units Fall Back 2D6" is correct to me, just like "Most models only get to fire one shot".
Both are Rules as Written, yes.

You really don't see a difference there? Because there is one.

"Most models only get to fire one shot" is RaW, not an assumption. Why does it not cover Shriek?

Because nothing says it does. Most Infatry covers Infantry units because, well, it says "Infantry."

And most models covers models because, well, it says "models". I do not really see a difference, no.

Infantry Falling back: 2D6.
Shooting attack by a Model: Get to fire one shot.

Jump Infantry? Well it tells you to go 3D6.
Heavy 2 or Rapid Fire? Well it tells you to roll 2 shots. (<12" )

You missed the point. But you continuously do so so I'll just drop it because it's not worth it.

rigeld2 wrote:

"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." is RaW. Rules in Vacuum? Or simply Step 5 instructions?
Or do you deny we are performing a Shooting Attack following the Shooting Sequence?

You're linking the shooting attack to the resolution of the entire power. You have no rule doing so.

Apart from "Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.". Why would you not link a Shooting Attack with a Shooting Attack?

No, the fact that the power is a shooting attack does not link the resolution of the entire power to a shooting attack. But it's okay, taking one word out of context to make your argument is the right call.

rigeld2 wrote:

"compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below." is RaW. Can we follow those Rules without a profile?
If you can find "most Psychic attacks are S4" or a similar Rule, then you might have a point. Until then i'll follow the Instructions from PS above. With a number of wounds we can move to Step 6.

So like I said - you're making things up.

Which part is being made up?
To Wound has no Strength to use, so Step 6 cannot be resolved because there are no Wounds generated. But "suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." is generating Wounds so i see no issue here?

Step 6 can't be resolved so you invent a rule saying "Instead of rolling To Wound..." is making things up.
You are not allowed to skip a step without a rule telling you to do so. What rule, specifically, is allowing you to skip rolling To Wound. This is your requirement, not mine.

Advanced V Basic, the Wounds from PS (or Haemorrhage or Maleceptor) supersede the Roll To Wound at step 5.

Citation required - your statement says you're not allowed to do that without a rule saying so. Provide it.

rigeld2 wrote:
You missed the point. But you continuously do so so I'll just drop it because it's not worth it.

I really see no difference between "most Infantry" being a Rule for Infantry and "most models"(To Hit of a Shooting Attack) being a rule for models making a shooting attack.
Maybe you could elaborate on the point? The origin of it was that "most models" cannot possibly be RaW because "most" is too vague to be a Rule. "most Infantry" is just as Vague?

rigeld2 wrote:

Apart from "Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.". Why would you not link a Shooting Attack with a Shooting Attack?

No, the fact that the power is a shooting attack does not link the resolution of the entire power to a shooting attack. But it's okay, taking one word out of context to make your argument is the right call.

The permission (restriction?) is to resolve Witchfire Powers as Shooting Attacks. It's a general permission so you would need a specific Rule to "let you out" of the Standard Shooting Sequence. Providing "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." only insist that it must follow the Rules for Witchfires (+any added specifications).
It does not extract you from following the Shooting Sequence from 1 to 7 nor has PS any such permission either.

rigeld2 wrote:
Step 6 can't be resolved so you invent a rule saying "Instead of rolling To Wound..." is making things up.
You are not allowed to skip a step without a rule telling you to do so. What rule, specifically, is allowing you to skip rolling To Wound. This is your requirement, not mine.

Advanced V Basic, the Wounds from PS (or Haemorrhage or Maleceptor) supersede the Roll To Wound at step 5.

Citation required - your statement says you're not allowed to do that without a rule saying so. Provide it.

I am not adding "Instead of rolling To Wound..." as a Rule. I am following the Advanced rule PS to generate Wounds instead of the Basic Step 5:roll To Wound rules
BrB:
"Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."
"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon, unusual skills (Power: Psychic Shriek), (...)."
The Psyker model (using PS) is affected/needs to follow the rules for Witchfire > Shooting Attack > Shooting Sequence.
He does not have a weapon profile so Step 4 provides the "most" one shot (even though we agree that "most" is actually 0.01% of our models), and gets stuck at Step 5 because he has a Hit (or Not) and no Strength. PS Rules provides Wounds, so you can move on to step 6 (run through 7) and End your Shooting Attack that was the Witchfire.

So where things apply:
"Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek."
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You missed the point. But you continuously do so so I'll just drop it because it's not worth it.

I really see no difference between "most Infantry" being a Rule for Infantry and "most models"(To Hit of a Shooting Attack) being a rule for models making a shooting attack.
Maybe you could elaborate on the point? The origin of it was that "most models" cannot possibly be RaW because "most" is too vague to be a Rule. "most Infantry" is just as Vague?

No, it's not just as vague.

rigeld2 wrote:

Apart from "Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.". Why would you not link a Shooting Attack with a Shooting Attack?

No, the fact that the power is a shooting attack does not link the resolution of the entire power to a shooting attack. But it's okay, taking one word out of context to make your argument is the right call.

The permission (restriction?) is to resolve Witchfire Powers as Shooting Attacks. It's a general permission so you would need a specific Rule to "let you out" of the Standard Shooting Sequence. Providing "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." only insist that it must follow the Rules for Witchfires (+any added specifications).
It does not extract you from following the Shooting Sequence from 1 to 7 nor has PS any such permission either.

We'll remember this for later.

So where things apply:
"Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek."
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7

Since you are requiring a (I'm quoting here) specific Rule to "let you out" of the standard shooting sequence, please provide it. You've shown where you assume things fit in the Standard Shooting Sequence, but have cited zero "specific Rule[s])" allowing you to do so. Applying double standards in a discussion isn't polite.

Black Talos - so no rules from you allowing to replace the roll to-wound with the 3d6? Nothing at all? Point noted. I will not attempt to engage you further on thus, as you cannot follow the tenets by providing a single relevant rule, just assertions.

Grav - you made yet another demonstrably wrong statement, that 1 I'd the antonym of multiple shots. It isn't. Excluded middle fallacy, and this was pointed out. The rest of your paragraph of text is irrelevant.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/multiple?s=t

Except I didn't. Both logically and via english neither 0 nor a negative number can in fact be used to describe an action as occurring. If you did not perform it then you did not do it.

Gravmyr wrote:
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/multiple?s=t

Except I didn't. Both logically and via english neither 0 nor a negative number can in fact be used to describe an action as occurring. If you did not perform it then you did not do it.

So a Gets Hot Blast didn't make a shooting attack?

I just want to understand your argument.

Did you look at the link?

It attempted.

Relying on a concept like a "zero shot shooting attack" to make psychic shriek work is making up a fiction to hide that you are doing HYWPI and magically claiming that you have RAW.

Please provide a profile with "Assault 0" or something similar to show that the mythical unicorn called the "zero shot shooting attack" exists.

Gets Hot weapons still have a >0 shot on their profile. Zero is not a valid number for the number of shots on a shooting attack profile. Neither is -1 or infinity. Zero, -1, and infinity all go against basic logic and the onus is on you to prove that an illogical choice can be valid. "Chocolate" is also not a valid option. If you make up fictions, your argument is HYWPI. Per the tenets of the forum, label arguments that rely on the fiction of "zero shot shooting attack" as HYWPI.

For all of the argument about 0 shot shooting attacks and "most models only have one shot" and on ..

Please provide the rule that states how many dice are rolled when rolling to hit with a Psychic Power such as Psychic Shriek. This should be simple.

Also note that the line "most models" is not in any way a rule that states how many dice are rolled. It is a generic statement about shooting that may or may not apply. Even my Space Marines with bolters only have "one shot" yet may roll more than one die, depending on the range.

Thus far, nobody has been able to provide a rule or concrete evidence stating how many dice are rolled to hit with Psychic Shriek (or similar witchfires without a profile).

Rorschach9 wrote:
For all of the argument about 0 shot shooting attacks and "most models only have one shot" and on ..

Please provide the rule that states how many dice are rolled when rolling to hit with a Psychic Power such as Psychic Shriek. This should be simple.

Also note that the line "most models" is not in any way a rule that states how many dice are rolled. It is a generic statement about shooting that may or may not apply. Even my Space Marines with bolters only have "one shot" yet may roll more than one die, depending on the range.

Thus far, nobody has been able to provide a rule or concrete evidence stating how many dice are rolled to hit with Psychic Shriek (or similar witchfires without a profile).

Witchfire powers MUST roll to hit so we know there is at least one. Multiple shots need to be specified. One is the unstated default.

There are absolutely no provided shooting attack profiles with zero shots on them. I can no more consider "zero" a valid choice than "chocolate."

If your argument has to rely on something being possible that does not exist elsewhere in the rules then you are doing HYWPI. If zero is the default option for a shooting attack then you should have no trouble finding at least one profile with zero specified on it. Keep in mind that not only do you have to prove that it is a valid choice but you also have to prove that it is the default choice. In the case of Psychic Shriek we are providing the unstated default.

In summary,

there is no support for zero as a valid choice
there is no support for zero as the default choice

one is a valid choice without question
there is some support for one as the default choice