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.

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm pretty sure no one is saying anything auto-hits.

Isn't that exactly what you, Nos and DR have been arguing for? That Psychic Shriek doesn't need to roll to hit?

People are saying that a) the rules fail to function as written and b) your assertion of intent is not the only possibility.

It certainly isn't the only possibility. But when they have written clear requirement for rolling to hit, I want to see pretty compelling case before I believe they didn't actually mean exactly that.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm pretty sure no one is saying anything auto-hits.

Isn't that exactly what you, Nos and DR have been arguing for? That Psychic Shriek doesn't need to roll to hit?

Ah, I see you are still struggling to comprehend the two arguments, despite them being stated with zero ambiguity earlier

1) I havent said it auto hits. THis was made absolutely, 100% explicit. Perhaps you shoulld try reading others posts more carefully.
2) Not needing to roll to hit != auto hit. You should hopefully be aware of this plain fact. Difference between not needing to take a test and auto passing a test.

Crimson wrote:

People are saying that a) the rules fail to function as written and b) your assertion of intent is not the only possibility.

It certainly isn't the only possibility. But when they have written clear requirement for rolling to hit, I want to see pretty compelling case before I believe they didn't actually mean exactly that.

I will try again

1) You need to roll to hit, but have no rules telling you how many shots to roll. You state, without any rules backing (because you are claiming the more specific rule should be ignored, which is a stunning rules argument - or are you back on intent again? Without stating so?) that you roll 1 dice. Actually, using the rules on page 51, it is undefined

(Kel - undefined is not the same as zero)

HOWEVER:
2) whether you manage to hit or not, the effect of PS is not tied to succeeding on your roll to hit. You cannot prove this - I assume, given you have been asked repeatedly and have failed / refused to do so - and so, in a permissive ruleset, I have been given permission to resolve the power as per the rules for psychic powers, and nothing stating I do not....

So as I stated, repeatedly, and which you seem to miss every time, it is irrelevant if you roll to hit, successfully or otherwise. Entirely irrelevant

So now, prove the number of shots isnt undefined. You cannot. Prove succesfully hitting is required to perform the 3D6 action. You cannot.

We only have your weak "RAI" argument, which you refuse to label as such, that they meant it to roll 1 dice to hit. No-one I have played has ever thought it did. Intent as muddy as ever.

Oh, in case you raise the strawman again - I DID label my HIWPI version: no roll to hit, as it is irrelevant. I am aware RAW is incomplete on this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Ah, I see you are still struggling to comprehend the two arguments, despite them being stated with zero ambiguity earlier

1) I havent said it auto hits. THis was made absolutely, 100% explicit. Perhaps you shoulld try reading others posts more carefully.
2) Not needing to roll to hit != auto hit. You should hopefully be aware of this plain fact. Difference between not needing to take a test and auto passing a test.

The end result is the same. And you have no permission to skip the rolling to hit part.

1) You need to roll to hit, but have no rules telling you how many shots to roll. You state, without any rules backing (because you are claiming the more specific rule should be ignored, which is a stunning rules argument - or are you back on intent again? Without stating so?) that you roll 1 dice. Actually, using the rules on page 51, it is undefined

No, it's one. When you are making a shooting attack in the first place, you must be making some shots, so it cannot be zero. But unless it is specifically stated, you're not making multiple shots. One is the only possibility.

HOWEVER:
2) whether you manage to hit or not, the effect of PS is not tied to succeeding on your roll to hit. You cannot prove this - I assume, given you have been asked repeatedly and have failed / refused to do so - and so, in a permissive ruleset, I have been given permission to resolve the power as per the rules for psychic powers, and nothing stating I do not....

So as I stated, repeatedly, and which you seem to miss every time, it is irrelevant if you roll to hit, successfully or otherwise. Entirely irrelevant

So now, prove the number of shots isnt undefined. You cannot. Prove succesfully hitting is required to perform the 3D6 action. You cannot.

We only have your weak "RAI" argument, which you refuse to label as such, that they meant it to roll 1 dice to hit. No-one I have played has ever thought it did. Intent as muddy as ever.

Oh, in case you raise the strawman again - I DID label my HIWPI version: no roll to hit, as it is irrelevant. I am aware RAW is incomplete on this.

So for this whole time your interpretation of the rules has been based on your houserule of skipping the rolling to hit part. Nice to know. I wish you had been clearer with that. Because without that houserule you're stuck there, regardless of whether that roll actually has any effect. You say you cannot know how many dice you have to roll, yet you must roll. So the power cannot be resolved as you cannot complete all the steps.

 Crimson wrote:
So for this whole time your interpretation of the rules has been based on your houserule of skipping the rolling to hit part. Nice to know. I wish you had been clearer with that.

He was actually. Crystal clear to anyone who was trying to actually discuss the issue instead of trying find something to harp on.

Edit - it's actually his first post in the thread. Although he didn't say he skips the to-hit roll (you've made that up) just that it's irrelevant.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/555787.page#6111970


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm pretty sure no one is saying anything auto-hits.

Isn't that exactly what you, Nos and DR have been arguing for? That Psychic Shriek doesn't need to roll to hit?

Do you understand the difference between an auto-hit and not needing to roll to hit? Based on your response, it doesn't seem like you do.

People are saying that a) the rules fail to function as written and b) your assertion of intent is not the only possibility.

It certainly isn't the only possibility. But when they have written clear requirement for rolling to hit, I want to see pretty compelling case before I believe they didn't actually mean exactly that.

Go ahead - roll to hit. I don't believe its a relevant roll, but feel free to.

rigeld2 wrote:

Go ahead - roll to hit. I don't believe its a relevant roll, but feel free to.

But I don't know how many dice to roll! (Well, I do, but you and Nos don't.)

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Go ahead - roll to hit. I don't believe its a relevant roll, but feel free to.

But I don't know how many dice to roll! (Well, I do, but you and Nos don't.)

Which is why we don't feel its a relevant roll. It's like that's our point or something...

rigeld2 wrote:

Which is why we don't feel its a relevant roll. It's like that's our point or something...

You don't get it. Whether or not it is relevant, it is still a required step by the rules. You cannot just skip it.

This is what Nos said in the Orbital Bombardment thread:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You MUST determine your range at the Check Range step. To perform this you MUST find a value for the distance between the two units, following the rules for measuring between units

YOu CANNOT complete this measurement, meaning you have NO PERMISSION to carry on firing.

While the actual value does not matter, you have to actually find a value, as per the actual rules

that is your citation. If you disagree, please find a rule allowing you to fire despite being unable to complete "check range"

This is the same thing. You must roll, even if the result wouldn't matter. And combined with your stance that the number of dice that needs to be rolled cannot be determined, you're stuck. The power cannot be resolved.

Crimson, what is the profile for Psychic Shriek (since the weapon's profile tells us how many dice to roll)?

Anything other than "undefined" is incorrect. So my next question would be how many dice do you roll when it is undefined?

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Which is why we don't feel its a relevant roll. It's like that's our point or something...

You don't get it. Whether or not it is relevant, it is still a required step by the rules. You cannot just skip it.

Which means you literally cannot use witchfire or focused witchfire powers.
Your argument means that a general rule is more appropriate to use than a specific one - which runs contrary to understanding how the rules work.

This is what Nos said in the Orbital Bombardment thread:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You MUST determine your range at the Check Range step. To perform this you MUST find a value for the distance between the two units, following the rules for measuring between units

YOu CANNOT complete this measurement, meaning you have NO PERMISSION to carry on firing.

While the actual value does not matter, you have to actually find a value, as per the actual rules

that is your citation. If you disagree, please find a rule allowing you to fire despite being unable to complete "check range"

This is the same thing. You must roll, even if the result wouldn't matter. And combined with your stance that the number of dice that needs to be rolled cannot be determined, you're stuck. The power cannot be resolved.

... Which was decided pages ago. The difference is that we've accepted that and moved on to discussing intent - you're somehow stuck on proving that you're correct RAW which is demonstrably false.

 Happyjew wrote:
Crimson, what is the profile for Psychic Shriek (since the weapon's profile tells us how many dice to roll)?

Anything other than "undefined" is incorrect. So my next question would be how many dice do you roll when it is undefined?

Well there is something to plug into that profile range 12", S- AP-.

While you may be arguing intent Rigeld, there is no reason your view of intent is any more valid than anyone else. It may have more weighting due to position within the community etc but ignore the roll and just resolve breaks more rules than assuming assault 1 IMHO.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Crimson, what is the profile for Psychic Shriek (since the weapon's profile tells us how many dice to roll)?

Anything other than "undefined" is incorrect. So my next question would be how many dice do you roll when it is undefined?

Well there is something to plug into that profile range 12", S- AP-.

While you may be arguing intent Rigeld, there is no reason your view of intent is any more valid than anyone else. It may have more weighting due to position within the community etc but ignore the roll and just resolve breaks more rules than assuming assault 1 IMHO.

And where did you find that profile? It obviously is not RAW, and it still does not tell us how many dice are rolled. So what is stopping me from rolling all of my dice at once? Would you then allow me to resolve the effect for every dice that rolled a hit?

Firstly the profile fragment is from the power, it being 12".

HIWPI? No I'd tell you to stick your dice somewhere sensitive if you rolled 40 dice and said you get to apply 3d6 - LD for each that hit. One dice as it's one shot unless stated otherwise.

There is no profile for Psychic Shriek. Psy Powers are not required to have profiles.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Firstly the profile fragment is from the power, it being 12".

HIWPI? No I'd tell you to stick your dice somewhere sensitive if you rolled 40 dice and said you get to apply 3d6 - LD for each that hit. One dice as it's one shot unless stated otherwise.

So you have a range. That's it. you have no weapon profile, and nothing stopping me from rolling 40 dice. with that many I'm bound to get at least one hit (probably even a precision shot, but I wouldn't hold my breath) so since I got a hit I can now resolve the power.

 Happyjew wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Firstly the profile fragment is from the power, it being 12".

HIWPI? No I'd tell you to stick your dice somewhere sensitive if you rolled 40 dice and said you get to apply 3d6 - LD for each that hit. One dice as it's one shot unless stated otherwise.

So you have a range. That's it. you have no weapon profile, and nothing stopping me from rolling 40 dice. with that many I'm bound to get at least one hit (probably even a precision shot, but I wouldn't hold my breath) so since I got a hit I can now resolve the power.

You have no permission to use more than 1 die. It requires a to hit roll unless stated otherwise it is a single shot. There is no profile suggesting you get more than 1 to hit roll.

Well are we playing silly buggers or 40k? Cos if we're playing silly buggers I'll roll a scatter dice and punch whoever it points at and allow them to do the same.

If we're playing 40k, there is a requirement to roll to hit and a rule that says that multiple shot weapons will have it listed in their profile. No profile = no multiple shots.

Fragile wrote:
There is no profile for Psychic Shriek. Psy Powers are not required to have profiles.

Firing assault weapons requires a profile.
Witchfires are fired as assault weapons.
Your statement is factually incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
While you may be arguing intent Rigeld, there is no reason your view of intent is any more valid than anyone else. It may have more weighting due to position within the community etc but ignore the roll and just resolve breaks more rules than assuming assault 1 IMHO.

Have I said mine is any more valid? Pretty sure I haven't. Please quote where I have.
And what rules does it break? It lifts the requirement for witchfires to roll to hit if there's no profile. Yours alters a much broader rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
There is no profile for Psychic Shriek. Psy Powers are not required to have profiles.

Firing assault weapons requires a profile.
Witchfires are fired as assault weapons.
Your statement is factually incorrect. .

Psy Powers are not Assault weapons. You have failed to parse the sentence you quote for it.

Manifesting witchfire counts as firing an Assault weapon

The two things being equated in this sentence are Manifesting =Firing (verbs). That sentence does not say ( Witchfire counts as Assault weapons.) In which case you would be correct. A psyker who uses a witchfire counts as having shot a assault weapon for all other purposes (running, assault etc.) But a Psy power is not an assault weapon as proven by the fact that several Psy powers that are witchfires do not have a Profile and like you say... all assault weapons have a profile.

Since it is not an assault weapon, it is fired 1 time.

Witchfire are not fired as an assault weapons, they count as having fired an assault weapon. The reason I know this, aside from the rules saying it, is that assault weapons don't need a psychic test. There is a bit of a leap from counts as having fired to is, just saying.

No you haven't but you and Nos are jumping up and down when I look to the basic rules first and it doesn't alter any rule to follow page 50 before page 51. You label rolling to hit as weak RAI based on the RAW, which does sound a lot like you're claiming your opinion is the right one.

Fragile wrote:
it is fired 1 time.

And you have a page for this?

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
There is no profile for Psychic Shriek. Psy Powers are not required to have profiles.

Firing assault weapons requires a profile.
Witchfires are fired as assault weapons.
Your statement is factually incorrect. .

Psy Powers are not Assault weapons. You have failed to parse the sentence you quote for it.

No, I really haven't.

It's a shooting attack. Said shooting attack is made counting as firing an assault weapon. How do you fire assault weapons that are shooting attacks? Please cite the rules for doing so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Witchfire are not fired as an assault weapons, they count as having fired an assault weapon. The reason I know this, aside from the rules saying it, is that assault weapons don't need a psychic test. There is a bit of a leap from counts as having fired to is, just saying.

If you count as having fired an assault weapon, what did you just do?
If you don't answer "Fired an assault weapon" please explain why.

No you haven't but you and Nos are jumping up and down when I look to the basic rules first and it doesn't alter any rule to follow page 50 before page 51.

We're "jumping up and down" because you're presenting that as RAW (unless I missed you stating it was a RAI argument) which cannot be correct.

I stated I was talking RAI 4 pages back as I think the rules give very clear guidance on what to do and I include IMO in most of my statements.


Also the answer is used a witchfire power. "Counts as" is not always the same as "is", counting as not having moved is not the same as not having moved.

rigeld2 wrote:

Which means you literally cannot use witchfire or focused witchfire powers.

Well, I can, because I can determine the correct number of shots. You however can't.

Your argument means that a general rule is more appropriate to use than a specific one - which runs contrary to understanding how the rules work.

Then perhaps your understanding is faulty, if it results the game breaking down? If specific rule you are looking at doesn't resolve the matter, then it is perfectly reasonable to look at the generic rule.

... Which was decided pages ago. The difference is that we've accepted that and moved on to discussing intent - you're somehow stuck on proving that you're correct RAW which is demonstrably false.

Oh, I completely agree that this is about intent. That's why I have said numerous times that clear sentence requiring roll to hit is pretty strong statement of intent.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Which means you literally cannot use witchfire or focused witchfire powers.

Well, I can, because I can determine the correct number of shots. You however can't.

And how do you determine the number of shots? You look at the profile. Since the profile does not exist you cannot determine the number of shots. Unless you have a rule stating otherwise.

 Happyjew wrote:

And how do you determine the number of shots? You look at the profile. Since the profile does not exist you cannot determine the number of shots. Unless you have a rule stating otherwise.

As you well know, p. 50 tells you how to determine number of shots. I'm making a shooting attack, thus I'm firing some shots. Does my weapon profile or any other rule say I'm firing multiple shots? Nope. Ergo, I'm firing one shot.

 Crimson wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

And how do you determine the number of shots? You look at the profile. Since the profile does not exist you cannot determine the number of shots. Unless you have a rule stating otherwise.

As you well know, p. 50 tells you how to determine number of shots. I'm making a shooting attack, thus I'm firing some shots. Does my weapon profile or any other rule say I'm firing multiple shots? Nope. Ergo, I'm firing one shot.

No page 50 tells us that some weapons shoot more than one shot. Is the psychic power a weapon? If yes, then per page 51 (which is more specific) the profile (which does not exist) tells you how many shots to fire. If it is not a weapon (as some have argued) then page 50 does not apply, as that only deals with weapons.

 Happyjew wrote:

No page 50 tells us that some weapons shoot more than one shot. Is the psychic power a weapon? If yes, then per page 51 (which is more specific) the profile (which does not exist) tells you how many shots to fire. If it is not a weapon (as some have argued) then page 50 does not apply, as that only deals with weapons.

If rule on p.50 cannot apply to any weapon that is a weapon, why it is there?

Page 50 is a general rule regarding weapons. It tells us that if a weapon fires multiple shots it will be listed in its profile.
Page 51 (which has rules dealing specifically with Assault weapons) tells us the number of shots will be in the profile.

So it comes down to
a) Psychic Shriek is an assault weapon. Since it has no profile the number of shots is undefined.
b) Psychic Shriek is not an assault weapon. Since it is not a weapon the rules governing weapons do not apply, and the number of shots fired is undefined.

This seems rather silly to have been going on for 7 pages.
The way I'm reading it is that you have to roll to hit, or in other words take a BS test.
The only real information you need at that point is your psychic character's BS value and the type of weapon, since moving would have reduced it to a snap shot if it were heavy.
Witchfire is counted as assault, probably so we know you can move fire and assault in the same turn.
So we know it's counted as assault and we have to roll to hit, or again just a simple BS test.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
This seems rather silly to have been going on for 7 pages.
The way I'm reading it is that you have to roll to hit, or in other words take a BS test.
The only real information you need at that point is your psychic character's BS value and the type of weapon, since moving would have reduced it to a snap shot if it were heavy.
Witchfire is counted as assault, probably so we know you can move fire and assault in the same turn.
So we know it's counted as assault and we have to roll to hit, or again just a simple BS test.

A BS test =/= To Hit roll. The mechanics are completely different between the two.
Everybody agrees that you have to roll To Hit. The reason it has gone on for 7 pages is that people can't agree on how many dice you roll (1 or undefined).