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.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I'm sorry abandon but there is no RAW argument for allowing resolution without a successful roll to hit.

An absence of a profile is not permission. It is a RAI argument.

The RAW argument concluded it was broken and doesn't work. RAI ensued after that. More RAW argument is fine to, I'm just asking that the two not get mixed up as has been the case. You generally make the correct distinctions whether RAW or RAI proceed appropriately and personally I always like to see your comments in a thread. My own comments were directed toward the exchange between nos and Crimson. I'm sorry if I was not clear.

Just for my 2 cents, this is HIWPI, including all my reasoning for each step.

1. Expend Warp Charge (because that is the first step to manifesting a psychic power)
2. Declare target (following the rules laid out for firing witchfires on p.69)
3. Take the psychic test (because it is a psychic power, it requires a psychic test to be passed before being able to activate)
4. Deny the Witch (I don't want to, but I have to let my opponent try, because p.67 says so)
5. resolve psychic power. (p.67 says I can now resolve my psychic shooting attack. hooray! so lets do that.)
5a. Roll 1 dice to hit (It is a witchfire and the rules for witchfires say it has to roll to hit, and that it counts as firing an assault weapon. Well, it doesn't have a profile, I'm confused, so lets try to construct one from what he have available to us. Range: 12 inches. that one's easy, its right there in the description of psychic shriek. Strength: X. That's because it does not need to roll to wound. It wounds based on the difference between 3D6 and the target unit's leadership. Seems logical. Now for the weapon type. Witchfire says it is assault, that's simple enough. I will call the special effect of the weapon "Mind Jellyfication" and define it as the part of the description of psychic shriek pertaining to causing wounds and taking saves. P.50 under "Number of Shots" states that when a weapon can fire multiple shots, it will be noted after it's type. Since witchfire only gave Psychic Shriek "Assault" and not "Assault #", that must mean it cannot fire multiple shots. Well something that is not multiple must be singular. So lets give it "Assault 1". Hooray! we now have a profile and can continue on.
5b. Assuming the shot hit, I resolve the "Mind Jellyfication" special effect mentioned earlier. After all, why would I jellify their minds if I didn't hit them O.o I just assume my psyker tripped over a rock and screamed at the ground.

To re-iterate - this is just HIWPI, and nobody I've played so far has contested it, so I'm not likely to change it unless an FAQ is released stating how much of an idiot I am.

It's ok, this has been a cluster feth of RAI vs RAW cross talk. Thanks though.

Farseer Pef wrote:

Do you think a WF, p69 in mind, should resolve any of their effect on a Miss?
Or should it, like every other shooting or melee attack in the game, have no effect whatsoever on a Miss?

Murderous Hurricane disagrees with this statement.

Even if you miss the Psychic Shooting attack has some effect.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Murderous Hurricane disagrees with this statement.

Even if you miss the Psychic Shooting attack has some effect.

EDIT: Found the rules of MH and am currently reading.

Just read the Murderous Hurricane Power and the SW FAQ. MH provides a clear weapon profile detailing the number of hits to roll. Notably, Psychic Shriek generates wounds and not hits, therefore, it does not provide a weapon profile. The SW FAQ, RAW, provides a way for MH's 'non-wounding' effect to occur even in the situation of no successful hits. The SW FAQ does not provide this written exemption for all WFs. If the SW FAQ was intended to do so, it would have been written in general terms and in the BRB FAQ.

BRB, p69: "A witchfire must roll To Hit,..."
SW FAQ, p4: "No, a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even if the power fails to hit or wound."

Specific rules trumps general rules, but specific rules do not become the new general rule. The FAQ names only MH.

Probably many people who play 'needs a successful roll to hit to apply the effect'.

Expecially since a quick search on Psychic Shriek shows several previos threads on Dakka telling people (without any mention that effects should be applied on a miss...) to roll, few of which only made it passed the first page hah

Farseer Pef, I was pointing out that your statement (The underlined specifically, Emphasis mine):

Farseer Pef wrote:
Do you think a WF, p69 in mind, should resolve any of their effect on a Miss?
Or should it, like every other shooting or melee attack in the game, have no effect whatsoever on a Miss?.

Was incorrect, as there are some shooting attacks that have effects on a miss. (Blast markers can also have an effect on a miss).

 DeathReaper wrote:

Was incorrect, as there are some shooting attacks that have effects on a miss.

My apologies, I should have been clearer and said all attacks that require a To Hit roll have no effect on a Miss.

 DeathReaper wrote:

(Blast markers can also have an effect on a miss).

Is incorrect, there are some weapons that use Blast markers that just scatter and never roll a proper To Hit roll (and thus don't 'Miss'). And those that don't roll to scatter but roll a proper To Hit roll, have no effect on a Miss.

I don't think we've played with rolling to hit on that power in our area.

However RaW does point to rolling to hit.

Argument then becomes what happens if you miss?

Say it Slower.

Happens if you MISS.
If you MISS.

You MISS.

That doesn't seem hard.

MH. Oh wait, it is hard.

You need to roll to hit with a shooting weapon, and dont get to do anything (usually) if you miss, because the rules tie the number of hits with how many dice you get to roll to wound (for the trivial case, for now)

Find the tie up, with page and paragraph, between Rolling a mythical number of dice to hit, and the 3D6 effect. Page and paragraph

Further comments as helpful as "he really thinks it does" will be treated as concession that there is no RULE connecting the two.

I am arguing from a RULES perspective here -find a link between a non-weapon profile effect, and a to-hit roll needing to be successful.

Then, once people can admit there isnt one ,some of the snide comments could perhaps be left out? THey havent exactly helped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and page 13 is overridden by page 51, for the last time. YOu dont get to ignore the more specific rule when it isnt convenient.

BRB p69, Paragraph 1: "A witchfire power must roll To Hit,..."

nosferatu1001 wrote:
YOu dont get to ignore the more specific rule when it isnt convenient.

It's a shame that GW didn't write a clearer rulebook, and that they take their time to answer FAQs. Where they have failed, the players must apply consensus. The game doesn't stop each time a player chooses to fire Psychic Shriek because the rules have a 'gap'. You don't look your opponent in the eye and tell him, "I'm trying to fire Psychic Shriek, but I can't find where it says how many To Hit dice to roll." A solution must be reached with the least number of rules being broken.
Rolling one die To Hit is the simplest solution (Occam's Razor) and breaks the fewest rules. Rolling no dice breaks the stated rule above. One die provides a binary resolution: Hit or Miss, success or failure, apply all or apply none. Rolling >1 die has no simple solution for a mixed result of Hits and Misses.

You could say I am arguing HWYPI or RAI. You would be right. To perch on top of the rulebook, claim RAW, and say the game has no clear way of proceeding, is a worthless endeavor. Rules hashing is meant to progress the game. Not to create an impasse and claim it cannot be resolved until GW breaks their silence.

Which is more specific, PSA requiring a roll to hit or assault weapons profiles tell you how many shots they fire? If you're speaking from a rules perspective Nos, which is it?

Which is a further abstraction from a standard shooting attack? Which has more restrictions and issues?
Cos from where I'm standing using witchfire powers looks a little more specific. So by your argument of "you cannot go simple when you've got a problem with a more complex rule" it all falls down. RAW and your argument, you don't get to ignore the roll to hit when it's inconvenient. It may break the game but you don't ignore it.

Also you're back to making it sounds like your argument is RAW, it's not. RAW is broken and everything else is opinion. MH is a castle on sand for any argument as it's from 2009 and is just being shoehorned into 6th.

Farseer Pef wrote:
You could say I am arguing HWYPI or RAI. You would be right. To perch on top of the rulebook, claim RAW, and say the game has no clear way of proceeding, is a worthless endeavor. Rules hashing is meant to progress the game. Not to create an impasse and claim it cannot be resolved until GW breaks their silence.

So you're agreeing that RAW it's broken. Good show. That's all nos was saying.
And I'm not sure how breaking one rule isn't breaking the fewest rules when your assumption also breaks at least one rule. But have fun.

rigeld2 wrote:

Farseer Pef wrote:
You could say I am arguing HWYPI or RAI. You would be right. To perch on top of the rulebook, claim RAW, and say the game has no clear way of proceeding, is a worthless endeavor. Rules hashing is meant to progress the game. Not to create an impasse and claim it cannot be resolved until GW breaks their silence.

So you're agreeing that RAW it's broken. Good show. That's all nos was saying.
And I'm not sure how breaking one rule isn't breaking the fewest rules when your assumption also breaks at least one rule. But have fun.

From my point of view it's breaking by degrees, to assume 1 shot follows some rules specifically a "must roll to hit" and ignores the lack of a profile because the assault weapon rules don't use as strong a wording. has vs must, the must rules have more weight IMHO.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
MH. Oh wait, it is hard.

You need to roll to hit with a shooting weapon, and dont get to do anything (usually) if you miss, because the rules tie the number of hits with how many dice you get to roll to wound (for the trivial case, for now)

Find the tie up, with page and paragraph, between Rolling a mythical number of dice to hit, and the 3D6 effect. Page and paragraph

Further comments as helpful as "he really thinks it does" will be treated as concession that there is no RULE connecting the two.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and page 13 is overridden by page 51, for the last time. YOu dont get to ignore the more specific rule when it isnt convenient.

No it isn't hard to know what happens when you MISS. Nothing could be easier to understand in a rule book that is far from easy to understand at times.
I don't need to find you a rule. You need to find me one that over rides what happens when you MISS.

This is STILL going on? About a rule that we cannot possibly know for definite and instead just disagree about different peoples interpretations? Most people have agreed that the rules don't cover it as written and as intended is unknown. After this point it just becomes opinion. Its like arguing whether the flying spaghetti monster prefers blue or red. Roll a die!

Circles...

Its still going because some people are saying that the RAW do cover it.

Stormbreed - thank you for conceding the point. There is no linkage, ruleswise, between a roll to hit and the result. I posted why, you have refused to rebut, and so your concession is accepted.

Liturgies - you are breaking two rules. WEll, actually you are making up two rules
1) YOu have made up the number of dice you are rolling out of thin air
2) You have created a link between to-hit and 3D6 when no such linkage exists in the rules

I have broken one rule - the roll to hit - as it is irrelevant

Occams Razor states mine is the more simple route to follow. Why both creating two rules when you break the one that isnt relevant?

I am not confusing RAW and RAI, I have been very, very careful. Stop sttating I am doing otherwise.

Farseer - and ,again, that doesnt answer my question. Find the link between the to-hit success and the 3D6 effect. For normal shooting is easy - you ha ve a RULE that links the two. Now, find the RULE that links the two here. IT should be easy, yes?

Oh, it isnt on page 69. POsting that again will be considered concession that you cannot find said link.

Your's isn't easiest and it ignores a must stronger restriction, I follow simpler rules to bridge a gap. Occam's razor isn't a tool used to measure gaps in a rulebook, we have tape measures for that. It's not useful for RAI debates because opinion and logic are not the same thing.

Ok to make it clear nos, are you making a RAI or a RAW argument? You don't include IMHO, I think or any caveat that points to the RAI. You just state "it is so" and everyone reads that as a statement of fact, not an RAI opinion.

if the RAW requires it to roll to hit does it require it to roll to hit?

regardless of what happens next can anyone actually say that it does not require a hit roll?

If you do not successfully roll to hit, there can be no effect as there would be no reason to require a hit roll if you did not need to hit.

If you are going to cite a specific power that can miss and have an effect keep in mind that there is no FAQ stating that all witchfire powers "which are required to roll to hit" still have an effect if they do not hit.

The fact that some powers are given permission to still effect if they do not hit, also shows that normally powers that do not hit have no effect, otherwise a specific faq wouldnt need to be made for some few singular powers to allow for those specific powers that miss its to hit roll, the ability to still have en effect.

The roll to hit is not irrelevant and thats purely your feeling on the matter as nowhere RAW does it say the roll to hit for witchfires is not relevant, or that it is not necessary to go on. Not only RAW is there 0 statements anywhere supporting that for witchfire powers, the fact that RAW it states you are required to roll to hit shows the opposite. The 100% fact that its RAW that you are required to roll to hit means that the roll to hit is relevant.

.

blaktoof wrote:
If you do not successfully roll to hit, there can be no effect as there would be no reason to require a hit roll if you did not need to hit.

Assertion without support. Please support it.
Do you mean it wouldn't make sense? Yeah, not a good argument for how rules work.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
If you do not successfully roll to hit, there can be no effect as there would be no reason to require a hit roll if you did not need to hit.

Assertion without support. Please support it.
Do you mean it wouldn't make sense? Yeah, not a good argument for how rules work.

I did, you need to read my post and not just take 1 line out, which is supported and post whatever.
you are ignored until you can post anything that is rules.

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
If you do not successfully roll to hit, there can be no effect as there would be no reason to require a hit roll if you did not need to hit.

Assertion without support. Please support it.
Do you mean it wouldn't make sense? Yeah, not a good argument for how rules work.

I did, you need to read my post and not just take 1 line out, which is supported and post whatever.
you are ignored until you can post anything that is rules.

No - actually, even in your edited post you still don't support your statement of ", there can be no effect as there would be no reason to require a hit roll if you did not need to hit."
The fact that you're falling on there needing to be a reason to require the to hit roll shows that you have no rules support for there to be one.

I think the witchfire rules are clear that the roll to hit is not some arbitrary side quest in the resolution of psychic shooting attacks.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
If you do not successfully roll to hit, there can be no effect as there would be no reason to require a hit roll if you did not need to hit.

Assertion without support. Please support it.
Do you mean it wouldn't make sense? Yeah, not a good argument for how rules work.

I did, you need to read my post and not just take 1 line out, which is supported and post whatever.
you are ignored until you can post anything that is rules.

No - actually, even in your edited post you still don't support your statement of ", there can be no effect as there would be no reason to require a hit roll if you did not need to hit."
The fact that you're falling on there needing to be a reason to require the to hit roll shows that you have no rules support for there to be one.

The fact that some powers are given permission to still effect if they do not hit, also shows that normally powers that do not hit have no effect, otherwise a specific faq wouldnt need to be made for some few singular powers to allow for those specific powers that miss its to hit roll, the ability to still have en effect.

L2R

So your assertion is that "required to roll to hit" means the outcome of the roll doesn't matter, which of course is supported by nothing RAW or FAQ, which is why I asked you to state any rules.

blaktoof wrote:
L2R

Reported.

So your assertion is that "required to roll to hit" means the outcome of the roll doesn't matter, which of course is supported by nothing RAW or FAQ, which is why I asked you to state any rules.

You've obviously not read the thread. Perhaps you should clarify first - are you making a RAW or RAI argument?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Brometheus wrote:
If it's a Witchfire, it requires a roll to hit. Saying that roll is not required because the power has no shooting power is getting close to making up rules. We would have to find in the rulebook where weapons without profiles automatically "hit". Or, more importantly, why Witchfires would automatically hit.

It's not about automatically hitting.
It's about the effect on a miss. Since there's no weapon profile does it matter if you miss?

Yes.

The fact that there are FAQs for some powers to have effect on miss [permission granted] but not for most or all powers, or all witchfires, nor RAW anywhere at all does it state that you can have en effect on a miss means that for the powers that are not FAQd if you miss, you miss. There is no effect. Do you have persmission to have an effect on a failed to hit roll? No.

The fact that RAW you are required to roll to hit.

The fact that FAQed a few specific witchfire powers are granted effects even if they miss

The fact not all powers are some witchfire powers

= if you are not the FAQed power, you have no effect on a miss. You have not been given permission by any RAW anywhere or faq to have an effect, and it has been shown in a few examples that a faq allowing them to have en effect on a miss was required for them to have an effect, as per those specific faqs.

I've played three games in the span of this entire thread, all three we diced off whether or not Psychic Shriek should roll to hit before applying results. This clearly cannot be resolved any other way at the moment.

My gaming group has its own opinions of where to take this power, but for the sake of this thread (which we have been looking at), we decided to roll it off each game until a FAQ.

Farseer Pef wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

(Blast markers can also have an effect on a miss).

Is incorrect, there are some weapons that use Blast markers that just scatter and never roll a proper To Hit roll (and thus don't 'Miss'). And those that don't roll to scatter but roll a proper To Hit roll, have no effect on a Miss.

There are two types of symbols on a scatter Die, one is a scatter arrow and one is a Hit symbol.

If you do not roll a Hit then Blast markers can have an effect even though you did not hit.

So it is not incorrect, though more correct would have been "(Blast markers can also have an effect if they do not hit)"

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Brometheus wrote:
If it's a Witchfire, it requires a roll to hit. Saying that roll is not required because the power has no shooting power is getting close to making up rules. We would have to find in the rulebook where weapons without profiles automatically "hit". Or, more importantly, why Witchfires would automatically hit.

It's not about automatically hitting.
It's about the effect on a miss. Since there's no weapon profile does it matter if you miss?

Yes.

The fact that there are FAQs for some powers to have effect on miss [permission granted] but not for most or all powers, or all witchfires, nor RAW anywhere at all does it state that you can have en effect on a miss means that for the powers that are not FAQd if you miss, you miss. There is no effect. Do you have persmission to have an effect on a failed to hit roll? No.

The fact that RAW you are required to roll to hit.

The fact that FAQed a few specific witchfire powers are granted effects even if they miss

The fact not all powers are some witchfire powers

= if you are not the FAQed power, you have no effect on a miss. You have not been given permission by any RAW anywhere or faq to have an effect, and it has been shown in a few examples that a faq allowing them to have en effect on a miss was required for them to have an effect, as per those specific faqs.

Thank you for going back and reading part of the thread. Truly - thank you.
Now - how many dice does Psychic Shriek roll To Hit with?