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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which, as pointed out, involves breaking the fewest rules. You have to completely make up two rules, versus breaking one.

You have to make up the number of shots
You have to make up a requirement that a failure to hit, on the number of shots you have made up, stops you from using the effect.

The 2nd is not a made up rule. We don't need to show what happens when you fail, we just have to show that resolution requires a roll to hit which you agree is there, page 13 defines a roll to hit. If you don't pass it, you don't hit and what happens when a shooting attack doesn't hit?

Just to be clear I am on about this specific line "To determine if the firing model has hit it's target...." If the power doesn't hit why are you continuing to resolve it?

Now you need to show permission for a witchfire power to divest it's resolution from the to hit roll. You have permission for non wound causing secondary effects, is the 3d6-LD the same as difficult and dangerous terrain?

Now, that leaves it as 1 rule each, one assumption based on page 50 and the other based on an FAQ for a 5th ed power.

I tried to stay out of this discussion as I'm a terrible rule-lawyer but looking for focused witchfires in the rulebook I noticed something
Consider Hemorragy (bomancy's 6th power)
The target has to make a toughness test or suffer a wound. If it is killed start over. If you made me roll to-hit with it, would you make me roll to-hit again for the following tests?

That's not what hamorrhage actually says. The process starts on the second line and you are told to repeat the process not to start again.

rigeld2, 'Focused witchfire' is a 'witchfire' sub-type, 'Focused witchfire' fallows all the rules for 'witchfire' except where the sub-type explicitly contradicts the generic 'witchfire' rules. Are you saying this is not the case?

 DJGietzen wrote:
rigeld2, 'Focused witchfire' is a 'witchfire' sub-type, 'Focused witchfire' fallows all the rules for 'witchfire' except where the sub-type explicitly contradicts the generic 'witchfire' rules. Are you saying this is not the case?

No. Perhaps you could quote why you're asking that? I've never said anything to contradict that. (well, I did derp on page 1 but I admitted that on page 1)

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
rigeld2, 'Focused witchfire' is a 'witchfire' sub-type, 'Focused witchfire' fallows all the rules for 'witchfire' except where the sub-type explicitly contradicts the generic 'witchfire' rules. Are you saying this is not the case?

No. Perhaps you could quote why you're asking that? I've never said anything to contradict that. (well, I did derp on page 1 but I admitted that on page 1)

I was asking mainly for clarification. It seems there may be some posts where you are addressing 'basic' vs 'advanced' and not 'witchfire' vs 'focused witchfire' and a reader could get confused. Like this statement, I'm not sure what you meant or who you were addressing.

rigeld2 wrote:
The rule does say you ignore the basic witchfire rules when it comes to resolving the power (which is what you were addressing).

That was in the middle of a conversation with liturgies of blood. So I was addressing him.

Liturgies - again, the reason we know what happens when you hit or miss your target for shooting is because - the rules tell us what happens.

They state successful hits can then roll to wound

Find a rule saying you need a successful hit before you can roll 3D6. Page and paragraph. NOte; so far you have assumed such a rule, and made a logical leap that to-hit for a weapon profile shooting being required in order to roll to-wound means the same for somethign which is NOT rolling to-wound, but an entirely separate, unique mechanic.

AGain: you are MAKING UP the requirement that you need a successful roll to-hit before you can carry on resolving the power, despite that not being in the rules for psychic powers.

No it's not in the rules for psychic powers, it's in the rules for witchfire. Being defined as a shooting attack tells you what happens when you don't roll to hit. It's a capitalised "To Hit", so if you don't make a successful roll to hit for a shooting attack what happens?

This is treated as a shooting attack? Yes/no
Shooting attacks in general must roll to hit? Yes/no
Do shooting attacks continue to be resolved if they do not roll to hit? Yes/No

Actually it is treated as firing an assault weapon

As such you roll "SOME" dice to hit
You then roll "SOME - failed to hit" to-wound

Nothing in the shooting process talks about 3D6. You are just making up a requirement that a successful roll to-hit is required.

Since you are so convinced of it, please state the exact page and paragraph you are relying on.

I am aware you dearly, dearly want this to be the case, but there is no such general rule are you are claiming - the shooting rules are very, very specific on wht is required in order to roll to-wound - successful to-hit. However they do not state, ANYWHERE that I can find, the same requirement for the 3D6 effect.

Page and paragraph if you believe otherwise, otherwise mark your argument a RAI one - as your last post is most definitely RAI. (You failed to cite a single rule to back up your posisiotn - note I cannot do so for mine, as my argument is based on a lack of such a rule; your argument requires there to be a rule, so the onus is on you to prove it)

They don't have to specifically say that the 3d6 effect is dependent on the roll to hit. The witchfire powers say that they must roll to hit and that they are a shooting attack. Many shooting attacks and PSAs substitute the normal rolling to wound procedure, you're not kicking up a fuss about those powers but for some reason this one is sacrosanct.

It doesn't matter how many dice we need to roll, that is a separate issue. You keep talking around the issue and demanding something I don't need to provide because I've already shown my rules. WHERE are you getting the RAW permission to ignore the roll To Hit in the resolution of this power? You don't have it. You're just saying "it doesn't say I cannot ignore it", good job.

You're just being obtuse for the sake of it. I know you really, really want it to be the case that you're right but you're not.

Pg: 13: To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain later.

You need to hit the target to continue with a shooting attack. It doesn't however talk about rolls to wound in the To Hit rules so the need to point to wounds is a false requirement you have included. This power doesn't need to roll to wound as it gives you a different mechanic to how we determine the wounds inflicted to the target.

Pg 69: A witchfire power must roll To Hit, .....
Note, as witchfire is a Shooting attack,....

So we have to roll to hit and the witchfire is a shooting attack, pg 13 deals fully with what a roll to hit is. Back to the above, one shot unless told otherwise = 1 dice, IMHO and restated on page 50.

Pg: 69
If the witchfire power doesn't list a subtype or simply describes itself as a psychic shooting attack, use the above to resolve it.

So the roll to hit is part of resolution, if you don't hit the target then you cannot resolve because otherwise you haven't hit the target which is required for shooting attacks unless they hit automatically. So what you need to do is show where a shooting attack must roll to wound as per page 13, hint you cannot. You need to equate shriek with MH, which you cannot within reason.

There is my argument, I have used quotes from the book, you didn't because your argument is not based on rules. You may argue with the idea about looking to the basic rules for how many numbers of shots but the rest is in the rules.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
They don't have to specifically say that the 3d6 effect is dependent on the roll to hit. The witchfire powers say that they must roll to hit and that they are a shooting attack. Many shooting attacks and PSAs substitute the normal rolling to wound procedure, you're not kicking up a fuss about those powers but for some reason this one is sacrosanct.

Please read the title - it's specifically calling out Psychic Shriek. Since that's the one the OP was about, it makes sense to discuss it.
If you'd like to talk about other powers, please bring them up. But implying that someone is being disingenuous simply because he's only talking about the single power mentioned in the topic is ... well, it's not quite dishonest but it's close.

I think it's a fine statement to make when there is an implication of all To Hits must lead to To Wounds. Which is what he was stating in his previous post.
The tone may come across bad but written word doesn't ever get it perfect.

While the OP is about Shriek, there is a wider question of do PSAs require a roll to hit if they don't follow the basic weapons profile method of being resolved. If there is something else going on instead of a weapons profile do you need to hit to continue resolution of that power. If I am too far beyond the pale, feel free to call in a mod and they can deal with it.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I think it's a fine statement to make when there is an implication of all To Hits must lead to To Wounds. Which is what he was stating in his previous post.
The tone may come across bad but written word doesn't ever get it perfect.

Except that if you replace "3d6 leadership test" with "whatever effect of a power you want to bring up" his argument is consistent. Please don't pretend otherwise.

It's not consistent with the rules, I have shown where and why. I have not seen a specific piece of argument or rules that show any reason to ignore the roll to hit in the resolution of a witchfire power.

Which has literally nothing to do with you trying to call him out on treating Psychic Shriek special. It wasn't a "fine statement" it was an implication of dishonesty (that for whatever reason nos wants PS to be treated specially, but he won't make the same argument for Pupper Master (for example)). You have no evidence to support that implication and it's insulting to make it - and worse to defend it.

liturgies of blood wrote: They don't have to specifically say that the 3d6 effect is dependent on the roll to hit. The witchfire powers say that they must roll to hit and that they are a shooting attack. Many shooting attacks and PSAs substitute the normal rolling to wound procedure, you're not kicking up a fuss about those powers but for some reason this one is sacrosanct.

Eh? No, this one is being used as an example. Other examples have been given. It is just easiest, when talking about an entire class of witchfires which do not have a shooting profile to talk about 1, and then generalise to the rest. It means we dont get bogged down in the differences that dont matter one jot.

I thought that was stunningly obvious. My apologies that it wasnt. Would you like me to restate everytime EVERY single different non to-wound mechanic for every power? Do you not see that is a little redundant?

You almost seem to be insinuating personal bias, which if you had read my posts clearly you would understand is highly, highly unlikely, given I haven't ever, and will never, use this power.

liturgies of blood wrote: It doesn't matter how many dice we need to roll, that is a separate issue.

Agreed it is separate, but disagree that it doesnt matter.

liturgies of blood wrote: You keep talking around the issue and demanding something I don't need to provide because I've already shown my rules. WHERE are you getting the RAW permission to ignore the roll To Hit in the resolution of this power? You don't have it. You're just saying "it doesn't say I cannot ignore it", good job.

Clearly you havent read my responses. Note when I talk about BREAKING one rule? Guess which one I'm breaking? THe roll to hit. BEcause, as I have proven, there is no requirement to successfully roll to hit

I have stated, over and over, that RAW this is broken - you cant roll to hit, as you cannot show how many dice you need to roll, but that it can safely be ignored as it is irrelevant whether you hit or not, because the effect has no rules stating it is tied to a successful to hit. Please show some respect for other posters by actually reading and responding to what they have written, not what you have made up.

liturgies of blood wrote: You're just being obtuse for the sake of it. I know you really, really want it to be the case that you're right but you're not.

Personal attack noted. Your denigration of others, for asking you to provide actual rules in concord with the rules of this forum, is unwarranted. Reported.

liturgies of blood wrote:

Pg: 13: To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain later.

You need to hit the target to continue with a shooting attack.

Leap, not based in rules.

liturgies of blood wrote: It doesn't however talk about rolls to wound in the To Hit rules so the need to point to wounds is a false requirement you have included. This power doesn't need to roll to wound as it gives you a different mechanic to how we determine the wounds inflicted to the target.

Entirely irrelevant, without rules to that effect. Provide those rules, page and paragraph.

liturgies of blood wrote:

Pg 69: A witchfire power must roll To Hit, .....
Note, as witchfire is a Shooting attack,....

So we have to roll to hit and the witchfire is a shooting attack, pg 13 deals fully with what a roll to hit is. Back to the above, one shot unless told otherwise = 1 dice, IMHO and restated on page 50.

That only applies to weapons. Are you back claiming it is a weapon? In which case page 51 overrides, and we are back to undefined

liturgies of blood wrote:

Pg: 69
If the witchfire power doesn't list a subtype or simply describes itself as a psychic shooting attack, use the above to resolve it.

So the roll to hit is part of resolution,

Agreed

liturgies of blood wrote:if you don't hit the target then you cannot resolve

So again you tie together two separate concepts as if they behave in a sequence. Please, using page and graph, define this sequence

It shoudl be easy, yes? You keep insisting it is there, after all. Do so, with page and paragraph for THIS 3D6 effect, and you are done convincing me.

liturgies of blood wrote: because otherwise you haven't hit the target which is required for shooting attacks unless they hit automatically.

See above: AND?#

You are positing a connection between roll to hit and the rest of a powers effects, when in ACTUAL RULES the only connection (usually) is between roll to-hit and roll to-wound

Find, using page and paragraph, the explicit connection.

Note: if you are claiming an implicit connection - then actually state so. We can then dissect that implication.

liturgies of blood wrote: So what you need to do is show where a shooting attack must roll to wound as per page 13, hint you cannot. You need to equate shriek with MH, which you cannot within reason.

Actually, YOU must show thet a roll to hit is required in order to perform an entirely-unrelated-to-shooting-an-assault-weapon effect.

I have no need to equate the two, I am requiring YOU to back up YOUR argument with rules that actually state what you are claiming. You have yet to do so.

liturgies of blood wrote:There is my argument, I have used quotes from the book, you didn't because your argument is not based on rules. You may argue with the idea about looking to the basic rules for how many numbers of shots but the rest is in the rules.

Wrong, as shown above

Yes, you have used rules - you just have yet to post any ones which are relevant

You ignore page 51, with no relevant reason to, as shown repeatedly throughout this thread
You create a rule that 3D6 (as AN EXAMPLE, so I can be EXPLICIT that this is an example, so you do not think I am being precious about this specific power) requires a succesful roll to-hit, despite the only requirement with firing a weapon is that a to-wound is tied to successful to-hit

My argument IS based in rules: I am told to resolve the power, and that includes the 3D6 effect. Failing a roll to hit has NO rules requirement on this, absolutely none

Frankly you appear unable to actually respond with relevant rules, so this is likely my final response on this matter to you. Provide an actuall

It's not insulting unless he feels aggrieved. If you feel that my comments are out of line, call a mod.

It's not an implication of dishonesty, it's a statement of my opinion that he is wrong on this issue. Your implication that I am seeking to smear Nos instead of debate him, however, is insulting.

Nos you had a go at me first, just responding in kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The roll to hit is tied to the power by the sheer fact that it is a shooting attack. That is all I need to show to tie the resolution of the power into the roll to hit. The power tells you what to do to generate the wounds, in this case and in powers such as haemorrage, ecstatic seizure etc, the roll to hit is not solely tied to rolling to wound, there is more advanced/specific rules in play in the resolution of these powers and how they wound which precludes the use of the basic To Wound.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Many shooting attacks and PSAs substitute the normal rolling to wound procedure, you're not kicking up a fuss about those powers but for some reason this one is sacrosanct.

Don't most of those powers say "instead of rolling to wound" or something like that? Also, don't most special rules for weapons usually specify "if a model is wounded/hit by a weapon with this special rule" or some other triggering language (these are actual questions, not rhetorical. I think I remember this, but I want to make sure)? Wouldn't the lack of this language for psychic shriek, which specifies the target suffers an affect, not an affect that occurs after hitting, mean that hitting is unnecessary?

After all, we know that the special abilities of weapons that miss can affect a unit. The C:SM hunter has a special rule listed in its profile (right next to armourbane and all that) that only matters when you miss. It seem so me that if a shot had to hit for its special rules and effects to matter, savant lock would have to be listed separately.

It is always possible I could be remembering this incorrectly; my mind is like a steel sieve.

No Banbaji, the hunter is seperate as it says what to do when you miss. If there is nothing that tells you to apply effects when you miss then you don't apply the effects.
A lot do say instead of roll to wound, some say roll a test for whoever is hit etc. Shriek tells you how to generate the wounds for this power and that it is applied to the target unit.

Also NOS, how is it a leap to say that a shooting attack must hit to continue in it's resolution? Can I miss with all of my dice and still roll to wound with all of my bolters?
No, because they require a successful roll to hit, the wounding comes after but is seperate and in this case is supplanted by a very specific wounding mechanic.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No Banbaji, the hunter is seperate as it says what to do when you miss. If there is nothing that tells you to apply effects when you miss then you don't apply the effects.
A lot do say instead of roll to wound, some say roll a test for whoever is hit etc. Shriek tells you how to generate the wounds for this power and that it is applied to the target unit.

OK. The hunter tells you what to do when you miss. Based on the wording of Shriek quoted earlier in the thread, the rules for psychic shriek tell you what to do when you target (i.e., leadership test and all that), which would seem to make the to hit roll irrelevant.

No, they just say that you apply it to the target unit, not that you wound when you target as that runs contrary to the rules for psychic powers on page 67 where targeting is long before resolution.
Also the fact they call it the target unit doesn't preclude the roll to hit as you've got no permission to break that rule.

Mozzamanx wrote:

Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire power with a range of 12". Roll 3D6 and subtract the targets Leadership- the target suffers a number of wounds equal to the result. Armour and Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek.

(quoted from the OP as I have no means to confirm the specific wording at this time)

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Shriek tells you how to generate the wounds for this power and that it is applied to the target unit.

You state that the 3d6 roll replaces the wounding portion of a shooting attack. What makes that more likely than the 3d6 replacing the to hit roll of a shooting attack, which seems to be just as viable an interpretation given they do not tell you either way?

That there is a clear need to roll to hit and in the absence of a weapons profile you cannot roll to wound. This power, however, tells you how to generate wounds as the resolution of a psychic power is found in it's entry and witchfire powers require a roll to hit in their resolution(last paragraph 2nd line under witchfire page 69).

Without something that tells you to ignore the roll to hit, you still have to roll to hit.

Many PSAs jump the gun and just apply wounds, like blood boil, instead of giving you a profile to generate wounds on. This is no different. Haemorrage doesn't talk about rolls to wound either, it just says how to generate them.

The question keeps coming up of the effect being tied to the To Hit roll. I am not sure why there is a necessity to explicitly spell this out. Is a Witchfire a shooting attack? I think we are all at least in agreement that a Witchfire is a shooting attack, and the rules explicitly state that they require a To Hit roll. So, in order for PS - or any Witchfire, for that matter - to have an effect on a miss, it would come to follow that there would need to be explicit permission given for the power to have an effect on a miss. To break this rule would require permission as, again, we are told over and over that 40K is a permissive ruleset. The 3d6-LD effect is how you determine the wound pool for the power rather than the standard S vs. T of your normal weapon.

Just out of curiosity...

If GW put out a FAQ tomorrow for PS, how do you THINK they would rule?

1. no roll to hit at all / or the to hit roll doesn't effect the power

2. they add a weapon profile for PS / or just call it Assault 1 or 2 or something

The title of the Forum is "You Make the Call" not "You Prove the Rule"(no offense meant to either side of the argument)


Me being the "Just Out for Fun" type would typically just roll the 3d6 without rolling to hit. Not because I think I shouldn't have to, but because there is no standard weapon profile on the card so I wouldn't even think about it. If my opponent said I needed to roll to hit(kinda reminding me) I would roll to hit. If I rolled a 6 to hit I would ask him "Hey I rolled a 6, do I get to Presision shot them since I did?"(if I even remembered).

Here's how I see GW handling it if they FAQ it, word for word:

"Do I need to roll to hit when using Psychic Shriek?"
Yes.

Note how nothing was actually clarified at all.

x13rads wrote:
Just out of curiosity...

If GW put out a FAQ tomorrow for PS, how do you THINK they would rule?

1. no roll to hit at all / or the to hit roll doesn't effect the power

2. they add a weapon profile for PS / or just call it Assault 1 or 2 or something

The title of the Forum is "You Make the Call" not "You Prove the Rule"(no offense meant to either side of the argument)


Me being the "Just Out for Fun" type would typically just roll the 3d6 without rolling to hit. Not because I think I shouldn't have to, but because there is no standard weapon profile on the card so I wouldn't even think about it. If my opponent said I needed to roll to hit(kinda reminding me) I would roll to hit. If I rolled a 6 to hit I would ask him "Hey I rolled a 6, do I get to Presision shot them since I did?"(if I even remembered).

I would think it would be 1 as I think that was how they intended it to work.

 Brometheus wrote:
Here's how I see GW handling it if they FAQ it, word for word:

"Do I need to roll to hit when using Psychic Shriek?"
Yes.

Note how nothing was actually clarified at all.

So it's a shooting attack and you rolled to hit, I would give you persision shots for it. I know that doesn't help but I just wanted to give the opinion of what I think SHOULD happen at the gaming table.

 Battlesong wrote:
The question keeps coming up of the effect being tied to the To Hit roll. I am not sure why there is a necessity to explicitly spell this out. Is a Witchfire a shooting attack? I think we are all at least in agreement that a Witchfire is a shooting attack, and the rules explicitly state that they require a To Hit roll. So, in order for PS - or any Witchfire, for that matter - to have an effect on a miss, it would come to follow that there would need to be explicit permission given for the power to have an effect on a miss. To break this rule would require permission as, again, we are told over and over that 40K is a permissive ruleset. The 3d6-LD effect is how you determine the wound pool for the power rather than the standard S vs. T of your normal weapon.

However, as has been stated previously, the rules for assault weapons (I believe it was said to be page 51) explicitly state that the number of dice rolled to hit are obtained from the weapons profile, which we are not given. Therefore, you have to roll to hit but have no permission to roll any specific number of dice, and the rules break. The other 7 pages of this thread seem to basically be trying to divine RAI (or HYWPI) or to show that there is a default number of dice to roll (1) even though the rules never define it as such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, default shooting attacks is roll to hit and then roll to wound based on strength and majority toughness. Nothing in the psychic shriek rules seems to say not to do this, just that there is this other affect (no "instead of rolling to wound"). Which means, you have no permission to skip those steps and makes the rules even less possible to follow as written.