Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Can you make a deny the witch roll for the warp storm table. When you roll 11 from two dice on the warp storm table and pick anfriend or for psyker. They must pass a ld test on 3d6 or be removed as a casualty and a herald pops out

Is it a psychic power?
Are you allowed to Deny the Witch against anything other than psychic powers?

rigeld2 likes to answer with questions so I'll just tell you in case he was not clear.
No.

To get a Deny the Witch roll against something it need to be a psychic power and it needs to target an enemy unit.

I prefer Rigeld2s way.

It teaches the recipient the correct way of thinking about the rules.

 Abandon wrote:
rigeld2 likes to answer with questions so I'll just tell you in case he was not clear.
No.

To get a Deny the Witch roll against something it need to be a psychic power and it needs to target an enemy unit.

Teach a man to fish...

My way has him crack his book and learn where rules are. Your way he just has to accept what's stated.

That, and people on here have been known to be wrong... *looks sheepish*

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
rigeld2 likes to answer with questions so I'll just tell you in case he was not clear.
No.

To get a Deny the Witch roll against something it need to be a psychic power and it needs to target an enemy unit.

Teach a man to fish...

My way has him crack his book and learn where rules are. Your way he just has to accept what's stated.

Yet sometimes if you teach a man to swim by tossing him into the ocean they will drown.

Just like sometimes people get baffled by questions ^^

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
rigeld2 likes to answer with questions so I'll just tell you in case he was not clear.
No.

To get a Deny the Witch roll against something it need to be a psychic power and it needs to target an enemy unit.

Teach a man to fish...

My way has him crack his book and learn where rules are. Your way he just has to accept what's stated.

Fair enough. Didn't mean to intrude on your lesson, just wanted to be sure the point got through.

If not a forum to ask questions, what is it here for?

 Byte wrote:
If not a forum to ask questions, what is it here for?

Here is the difference in approach;

You and I are playing a friendly game. I perform an action. You try to take a save (or something similar) against the effects.
I say "You cannot do that." You ask "Why not?

Making someone search for the information (or at least directing them to the relevant rule)
I break out the BRB and point out the rule and how that affects our specific scenario

Giving someone the answer:
I reply "Someone on the internet said you couldn't do it."

All else being equal which would you give more credence to? Which is less likely to stall the game and/or cause an argument?

Yup. It's always better to learn why, and where in the rules it says so. That way you have a better chance to learn, remember, and be able to point to it during a game if you need to.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Byte wrote:
If not a forum to ask questions, what is it here for?

Here is the difference in approach;

You and I are playing a friendly game. I perform an action. You try to take a save (or something similar) against the effects.
I say "You cannot do that." You ask "Why not?

Making someone search for the information (or at least directing them to the relevant rule)
I break out the BRB and point out the rule and how that affects our specific scenario

Giving someone the answer:
I reply "Someone on the internet said you couldn't do it."

All else being equal which would you give more credence to? Which is less likely to stall the game and/or cause an argument?

So stop logging in to online forums and hug your rule book? BTW-rule references are usually done by page and para. "Teaching to fish", and coming across as looking down the nose while talking through clenched teeth are two different approaches. Dakka is normally a welcoming environment and not elitist. Your call/approach.

If I was doing something not in accordance with the BRB and it was brought up during a GAME, I WOULD ask for a reference. I've caught many many players trying to quote/execute legacy rules from prior additions. That's the easiest way to serve crow to uninformed/naive opponents that are challenging rules they themselves don't understand.

All valid lines of reasoning here.

Personally I feel if someone is just going to take peoples word for it, eventually the words they hear will be wrong and then they get the hard lesson through embarrassment in person when someone calls them on it.

If that does not motivate them to always check the rule book I don't think we can help them.

 Byte wrote:
So stop logging in to online forums and hug your rule book? BTW-rule references are usually done by page and para. "Teaching to fish", and coming across as looking down the nose while talking through clenched teeth are two different approaches. Dakka is normally a welcoming environment and not elitist. Your call/approach.

I'm sorry you took my tone wrong. I wasn't talking down my nose or patronizing anyone.
By asking the questions I did not only is the person required to think about the questions and get the answers to find the answer to his original question, he should be learning how to use his rule book (index, different sections, etc). Something page and para don't give. Citations require page/para. "Teaching how to fish" doesn't.

If I was doing something not in accordance with the BRB and it was brought up during a GAME, I WOULD ask for a reference. I've caught many many players trying to quote/execute legacy rules from prior additions. That's the easiest way to serve crow to uninformed/naive opponents that are challenging rules they themselves don't understand.

So someone challenges you on a rule, you ask for a BRB citation, they say, "I read it on the Internet." You scoff, win a roll off and finish the game, going to research it later and learn you were the one that's wrong. The way I'm trying to help leads the person to, even if they don't remember the page/para, know how to use an index or ToC to find the rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Byte wrote:
So stop logging in to online forums and hug your rule book? BTW-rule references are usually done by page and para. "Teaching to fish", and coming across as looking down the nose while talking through clenched teeth are two different approaches. Dakka is normally a welcoming environment and not elitist. Your call/approach.

I'm sorry you took my tone wrong. I wasn't talking down my nose or patronizing anyone.
By asking the questions I did not only is the person required to think about the questions and get the answers to find the answer to his original question, he should be learning how to use his rule book (index, different sections, etc). Something page and para don't give. Citations require page/para. "Teaching how to fish" doesn't.

If I was doing something not in accordance with the BRB and it was brought up during a GAME, I WOULD ask for a reference. I've caught many many players trying to quote/execute legacy rules from prior additions. That's the easiest way to serve crow to uninformed/naive opponents that are challenging rules they themselves don't understand.

So someone challenges you on a rule, you ask for a BRB citation, they say, "I read it on the Internet." You scoff, win a roll off and finish the game, going to research it later and learn you were the one that's wrong. The way I'm trying to help leads the person to, even if they don't remember the page/para, know how to use an index or ToC to find the rule.

I just want the fish! Again, I have to think both if not all approaches are valid. Just doing my little part to keep Dakka Dakka inviting and not "that forum". I'll lay by my dish.

I didn't say the other way wasn't valid, just not how I always prefer to help.