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.

Poll to the topic being debated here.

Hotly debated topic for the last two additions, but in your games do you actually roll a dice to hit or simply resolve the power.

This is a HIWPI poll, so when you're actually in a game and the dice are rolling, how do you play it?

This thread is NOT for debating the rules. The link above will take you to the thread for that.

This thread is purely to get a feel for how the community actually plays it.

You must resolve the power, and the to hit has no effect on anything other than rolling to wound, so I play it as my opponent does not need to roll to hit with the power, as it is an irrelevant action. Like trying to apply -1T to a vehicle.

Although it has yet to come up, from discussions, my group is under the impression you just roll a single die To Hit, and if the shot misses, the power is not resolved. HIWPI, the roll To Hit cannot be resolved, and thus, like other unresolvable actions, can be skipped.

I flit between the two interpretations almost daily. As with any contentious rule, I'd suggest to play it however it least benefits me, and just roll with what my opponent agrees with.

No - no profile without a profile rolls to hit.

rigeld2 wrote:
No - no profile without a profile rolls to hit.

No witchfire power doesn't roll to hit.

See how it can go both ways? Just discuss with the opponent before hand on how to play it. Discussing it online is pointless since we are not the opponent.

I think the intent is clearly that you roll once to hit, and that's how we play it. It probably doesn't even occur to GW that RAW are ambiguous.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You must resolve the power, and the to hit has no effect on anything other than rolling to wound, so I play it as my opponent does not need to roll to hit with the power, as it is an irrelevant action. Like trying to apply -1T to a vehicle.

100% this.

Being a shooting attack and witchfire power that emphasizes it must roll to hit, yes. As long as there are other abilities in the game that trigger off successful hits the to hit roll is not irrelevant.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No - no profile without a profile rolls to hit.

No witchfire power doesn't roll to hit.

See how it can go both ways? Just discuss with the opponent before hand on how to play it. Discussing it online is pointless since we are not the opponent.

It's almost like this thread as asking HIWPI.

OH! That's exactly what it is. Awesome.

rigeld2 wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No - no profile without a profile rolls to hit.

No witchfire power doesn't roll to hit.

See how it can go both ways? Just discuss with the opponent before hand on how to play it. Discussing it online is pointless since we are not the opponent.

It's almost like this thread as asking HIWPI.

OH! That's exactly what it is. Awesome.

It is indeed

By all means post the reason why you play it that way, as rigeld2 has done, but if you don't agree and want to debate the rules please go to the other thread.

if rules are based on general to specific.

most general= shooting -> psychic powers -> witchfires -> psychic shriek = most specific

Shooting requires we roll to hit, psychic powers require it to resolve as per the entry, the entry calls out is a witchfire which is required to roll to hit as per shooting attacks unless stated otherwise, and the entry for psychic shriek does not state otherwise on the to hit roll nor give permission for anything to happen on a miss.

RAW you have to roll to hit.

RAI- how many dice

any other answer is a house rule, which is still relevant of course because how you play is how you play right?

blaktoof wrote:
any other answer is a house rule, which is still relevant of course because how you play is how you play right?

That's right
There's no right or wrong answer in this thread. How you play is how you play.

blaktoof wrote:
if rules are based on general to specific.

most general= shooting -> psychic powers -> witchfires -> psychic shriek = most specific

Shooting requires we roll to hit, psychic powers require it to resolve as per the entry, the entry calls out is a witchfire which is required to roll to hit as per shooting attacks unless stated otherwise, and the entry for psychic shriek does not state otherwise on the to hit roll nor give permission for anything to happen on a miss.

To be fair the entry for psychic shriek does not give permission for anything to happen on a Hit either as PS does not roll To Wound.

If only they would rewrite this power a little, it could make a decent Focussed Witchfire as it is already 95% there with how it was formatted....

I always try to play by RaI and the intent here seems to line up with the RaW the contextual line that reminds you witchfires roll to hit has no impact on Psychic Shriek any more than it does on a Focussed Witchfire. Ignore the roll to hit resolve the power according to its instructions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

and the entry for psychic shriek does not state otherwise on the to hit roll nor give permission for anything to happen on a miss. 

Really blaktoof?

Find a better way to express your point than insulting other users by calling them liars. Just because people disagree with you doesn't automatically make them liars. motyak

Well the yes and no's are currently dead equal.

Definitely needs an FAQ!

 grendel083 wrote:
Well the yes and no's are currently dead equal.

Definitely needs an FAQ!

I was quite certain that was clear even before the Poll started =P

All we can do is wait and Re-Hash whenever someone rolls for PS and come here to moan

Well yes it was obvious
But it is interesting to see that opinion is split very evenly.

Find a better way to express your point than insulting other users by calling them liars. Just because people disagree with you doesn't automatically make them liars. motyak

I didn't insult the user nor did I post because he disagreed we me. He made a statement that he knew was factually incorrect I know this because I've discussed this with him 4-5 times in the linked thread. So what else do you say to some one who has intentionally posted something he knows is not true?

isnt psychic shriek a nova, which means it hits everything around it within set amount of inches, so it would need no roll to hit

Just a witchfire.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Find a better way to express your point than insulting other users by calling them liars. Just because people disagree with you doesn't automatically make them liars. motyak

I didn't insult the user nor did I post because he disagreed we me. He made a statement that he knew was factually incorrect I know this because I've discussed this with him 4-5 times in the linked thread. So what else do you say to some one who has intentionally posted something he knows is not true?

He did not admit that it was factually incorrect in the other thread. So he is arguing his opinion of the truth which he is entitled to do so. Making accusations of lying is serious business on a forum since its potentially libel. You should refrain from doing so unless you are absolutely going to stand behind a serious accusation and are prepared to have your potentially libelous accusations brought under review.

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Find a better way to express your point than insulting other users by calling them liars. Just because people disagree with you doesn't automatically make them liars. motyak

I didn't insult the user nor did I post because he disagreed we me. He made a statement that he knew was factually incorrect I know this because I've discussed this with him 4-5 times in the linked thread. So what else do you say to some one who has intentionally posted something he knows is not true?

He did not admit that it was factually incorrect in the other thread. So he is arguing his opinion of the truth which he is entitled to do so. Making accusations of lying is serious business on a forum since its potentially libel. You should refrain from doing so unless you are absolutely going to stand behind a serious accusation and are prepared to have your potentially libelous accusations brought under review.

He admitted it was general permission to resolve. He read the quote. It was proven. Yes if he wants to take me to court for pointing out facts he's welcome to.

Let's not bring the arguments of the old thread into here, use the PM service if you want that.

And I don't want to hear "He started it!"

 FlingitNow wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Find a better way to express your point than insulting other users by calling them liars. Just because people disagree with you doesn't automatically make them liars. motyak

I didn't insult the user nor did I post because he disagreed we me. He made a statement that he knew was factually incorrect I know this because I've discussed this with him 4-5 times in the linked thread. So what else do you say to some one who has intentionally posted something he knows is not true?

He did not admit that it was factually incorrect in the other thread. So he is arguing his opinion of the truth which he is entitled to do so. Making accusations of lying is serious business on a forum since its potentially libel. You should refrain from doing so unless you are absolutely going to stand behind a serious accusation and are prepared to have your potentially libelous accusations brought under review.

He admitted it was general permission to resolve. He read the quote. It was proven. Yes if he wants to take me to court for pointing out facts he's welcome to.

your post which was edited, I have no idea what it said, never read it and did not report it.

everything I posted in this thread is just from the rules written in the rulebook, or the commentary on the lack of rules- in the case of there is nothing saying you can resolve the effect of psychic shriek on a miss of the required to hit roll. I posted a very short snippet of how I feel about the rule and why I have the HIWPI based on the rules, or lack of rules stating something contrary.

If your post above is in regards to myself, I have no idea what you are talking about to be completely honest. I read the section on resolving, and yes said it had general permission to resolve, but as the entry requires it to resolve as a shooting attack/witchfire that means its required to roll to hit, and a failure to hit is a miss. There is no actual permission given in writing to continue resolving the attack past that point, and as you have satisfied the step of going to resolve and resolving it as a shooting attack- which have no effects on a miss unless their entry states otherwise, you have resolved the attack on a miss without rolling anything further.

Which of course is how I would play it based on the rules as written we are given in the rulebook.

So although it is nice that you are commenting on one part of what I said in another thread, you are actually taking it completely without the rest of the context it was used in to say I am saying something else. To put it simply, while I acknowledged that if it is not denied you go to the resolve step, as you are required to resolve it per its entry [witchfire, so a shooting attack] if it misses the resolve step is over without any further adieu.

obviously I am not going to take you to court, because this is the internet and I give 0 feths about the internet, most of the people I have played with IRL that I know as posters here and elsewhere are almost completely different IRl than the inane levels of argument we often reach on "rules discussion" threads. This is not serious business.

This is one of the few things I wish they would clarify/change. Either make it a malediction, or put something in the entry saying "it automatically hits" or put something under witchfires to ammend the part that mentions many witchfires have weapon like profiles, and say something like "if no amount of dice to roll is given in the entry, roll 1 die on the hit roll" there are just so many easy solutions to make this topic disappear and be non arguable.

Blaktoof - the shooting rules require you to step through steps one yo seven. There is no rule stating that having no successes at step four means you stop.

This was pointed out previously. You ignored.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Blaktoof - the shooting rules require you to step through steps one yo seven. There is no rule stating that having no successes at step four means you stop.

This was pointed out previously. You ignored.

I actually did not ignore, the thread was locked before I replied because I do not exist on the forums 24/7/365/100.

There is no actual RAW requirement that you continue through the steps until step 7 for each unit that is eligible to fire. As there is no way to progress past step 4 if you miss, then you have completed firing for that unit. As you make no rolls at step 5 for things that did not hit, if you had no hits you have stopped at step 4 because the attack is resolved as missing, or having no hits so it cannot go on past step 4, to 5 or 6, and can go on to step 7. Even still none of that has anything to do with the RAW of the required to hit roll.

I don't think the OP wants this to turn into a rules discussion, as that was just locked and as the OP had asked for people to explain why they picked their HIWPI, that's all I did.

Where's your permission to stop the process at step 4 on a miss?

Check page 30 paragraph 2 as that tells us to do all 7 steps. So page and paragraph where a miss stops the process please or is that yet more made up rules?

Just because nothing happens at steps 5-7 for attacks that do not hit does not mean those steps are not performed.

blaktoof wrote:
I don't think the OP wants this to turn into a rules discussion,

Indeed I dont.

The other thread was lock as the arguments were getting circular. If the same arguments start here the mods will lock this thread as well.

A Poll works best with as many votes as possible, having the thread locked early is not good for Polls!