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.

x13rads wrote:

 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.

Well, I pretty much agree with you. I just honestly think if GW did FAQ it, it'd be so vague and terrible that it doesn't solve anything. That's 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

This is how I would think they'd rule.
Partially because #2 would mean that they'd be allowing precision shots (which overrides the focussed witchfire requirements).

I don't have my rulebook with me atm, can someone post the actual wording for precision shots, please?

 Battlesong wrote:
I don't have my rulebook with me atm, can someone post the actual wording for precision shots, please?

This forum is not a replacement for Rulebooks. You have to wait until you get back to your book.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Battlesong wrote:
I don't have my rulebook with me atm, can someone post the actual wording for precision shots, please?

This forum is not a replacement for Rulebooks. You have to wait until you get back to your book.

I apologize if that was inappropriate; I saw other rules quotes throughout the thread - did not realize this was out of bounds.

Started out thinking 'yeah roll to hit sure' then changed my mind. Mainly as I was checking the nid codec for weapon effects and they do all state ' on a successful hit' (or words to that effect)

HIWPI - either the roll to hit matters and allow precision shots on a 6. Or the roll to hit is not linked to generation of wounds an no precision shots.

I don't think I've seen any of my meta use this though :p

liturgies of blood wrote:
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?

So, you didnt go and read the basic rules?

The answer is: it is a leap to apply the SHooting rules for weapons to ALL shooting attacks, because there is nothing explicitly stating your claim. We know this, and you know this, you are now jsut arguing dishonestly.

No, you may not roll to wound with bolters if you miss, because the rules explicitly tie your ability to roll to-wound with successfully rolling to-hit, however as I have pointed out, and you refuse to accept because it destroys your argument, there is no such requirement linking the two concepts of "to -hit" and "3D6 effect" together, as there is for to-hit and to-wound

Again you refuse to provide rules.

Your refusal is noted, and your concession accepted. You have lost this argument, as you cannot prove your assertion.

liturgies of blood wrote: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.

Prove it.

Prove it, using actual rules, actually relevant rules, that state that the roll to-wound is supplanted. Given you have no weapon profile for this assault weapon, you cannot honestly make that claim. You know this, I know this, you are now just trolling.

No sir, I'm not trolling. You are with you "concession accepted". Your assertion is not based on anything.

It's not a leap to apply shooting attack rules to shooting attacks. You're actually trolling now.

Either you say a roll To Wound must follow after a roll To Hit (not in the rules but you've asserted it earlier), in which case this power like so many others supplants the normal To Wound mechanics, or you just roll To Hit because it is part of the resolution as per the witchfire powers and as a shooting attack requires a successful roll to hit to resolve and then carry out the entry on the power because you're told to do so. Whichever way you slice it, you need to successfully hit. The concept that ties resolution with rolls To Hit is called the witchfire rules. A normal psychic power just resolves, a PSA requires a little more.

The witchfire powers tie the roll to hit in with resolution and resolution is "as per the entry" so resolve by rolling a successful To Hit and then apply 3d6 -LD wounds etc.

I'm just going to ask you again and please answer why.
Why does a shooting attack continue to be resolved after a failed roll to hit? Not a RAI argument about how this makes more sense to you but an actual reason.

If that's too much trouble just answer this question:
Do shooting attacks require a successful Roll to Hit? Y/N

rigeld2 wrote:

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

This is how I would think they'd rule.
Partially because #2 would mean that they'd be allowing precision shots (which overrides the focussed witchfire requirements).

Which brings up another rules problem with rolling to hit and powers like psychic shriek: if I roll a "6" to hit and cause 5 wounds after the LD test, how many of those wounds do I get to allocate to specific models because I rolled a precision shot?

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

This is how I would think they'd rule.
Partially because #2 would mean that they'd be allowing precision shots (which overrides the focussed witchfire requirements).

Which brings up another rules problem with rolling to hit and powers like psychic shriek: if I roll a "6" to hit and cause 5 wounds after the LD test, how many of those wounds do I get to allocate to specific models because I rolled a precision shot?

All of them obviously. You didn't generate a wound with any non Precision hit.

 Battlesong wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Battlesong wrote:
I don't have my rulebook with me atm, can someone post the actual wording for precision shots, please?

This forum is not a replacement for Rulebooks. You have to wait until you get back to your book.

I apologize if that was inappropriate; I saw other rules quotes throughout the thread - did not realize this was out of bounds.

Speaking of those other rules quoted in the thread, you should check to OP as I believe the italicized portion is a direct quote of the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

This is how I would think they'd rule.
Partially because #2 would mean that they'd be allowing precision shots (which overrides the focussed witchfire requirements).

Which brings up another rules problem with rolling to hit and powers like psychic shriek: if I roll a "6" to hit and cause 5 wounds after the LD test, how many of those wounds do I get to allocate to specific models because I rolled a precision shot?

All of them obviously. You didn't generate a wound with any non Precision hit.

But the rules for Precision Shot link a singular hit to a singular wound roll. Its not written in a way that accounts for a single shot to generate wounds on multiple models.

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

This is how I would think they'd rule.
Partially because #2 would mean that they'd be allowing precision shots (which overrides the focussed witchfire requirements).

Which brings up another rules problem with rolling to hit and powers like psychic shriek: if I roll a "6" to hit and cause 5 wounds after the LD test, how many of those wounds do I get to allocate to specific models because I rolled a precision shot?

All of them obviously. You didn't generate a wound with any non Precision hit.

But the rules for Precision Shot link a singular hit to a singular wound roll. Its not written in a way that accounts for a single shot to generate wounds on multiple models.

Page 63 says that wounds from precision shots are allocated as you choose. It's not singular.

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

This is how I would think they'd rule.
Partially because #2 would mean that they'd be allowing precision shots (which overrides the focussed witchfire requirements).

Which brings up another rules problem with rolling to hit and powers like psychic shriek: if I roll a "6" to hit and cause 5 wounds after the LD test, how many of those wounds do I get to allocate to specific models because I rolled a precision shot?

All of them obviously. You didn't generate a wound with any non Precision hit.

But the rules for Precision Shot link a singular hit to a singular wound roll. Its not written in a way that accounts for a single shot to generate wounds on multiple models.

Page 63 says that wounds from precision shots are allocated as you choose. It's not singular.

This. Bypassing the debate over the roll to hit, if the Witchfire "to hit" roll is a 6, then wounds from that roll are Precision and would be allocated as such. Psy Shriek is just a rare example of being able to generate more than 1 wound from a to hit roll.

Liturgies - page 14, 2nd paragraph states you are wrong. It directly links rolling to hit successfully with then being allowed to roll to wound.

You cannot find a rule linking rolling to-hit and the 3D6 effect. You continue to refuse to back up your assertion with any rules and have thus violated the rules of this forum.

Your argument is voided, and you are considered to be making RAI only. As per the tenets of this forum, mark your posts as such.

Good day.

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

The First Principle of an intelligent rules debate is simple: "Break No Rule." In every situation, we should strive to follow this principle. If rules appear to conflict each other, there are three possible causes. First, that one rule is more specific, and thus overrides the more general rule. Second, that one rule limits the other. Third (and thankfully, most rarely), the rules are actually in conflict, and it is up to the players to come up with a mutually agreeable outcome to continue the game.

Even in your opinion of me I'm not breaking a rule, you are breaking one.

As for this, I've said it from page 1 on. We don't know how many dice to roll so regardless of what happens this is RAI debate.

1. Test for power.
2. Roll to hit. "Oops sorry Nos(place holder name for opponent) can you read this card and tell me how many dice I should roll"
3. Raw (game ends)
4. RAI (well the name is a singular power)
5. We've agreed using the rules we have to roll (decided on amount of dice) I'd say 1
6. I MISS
7. Oh well (myself)
7b. Sorry Nos although I missed the power that rules specifically say I need to hit with, I still need you to do the effects of the card.
8. My Swarmlord charges Nos's Skulltaker obliterates it.

I very much enjoy my Tyranids btw. For those with arguments against Nos and I think Rigeld try and keep in mind they are using strict RAW which in this case as the power doesn't have a profile (other then being singular by name) you will not win a Raw debate. You will also not find a rule saying if you MISS with Psychic Shriek you still don't have to roll the 3d6.

However I like to think people come to these forums to find out a solution vs a blue in the face argument about proving the game is broken. so just follow the rules as closely we can without breaking any one rule.

I'm not debating strict RAW - I haven't really since I admitted it was broken. Please read the thread.

I'm only discussing RAW where people are asserting that RAW nothing is broken.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not debating strict RAW - I haven't really since I admitted it was broken. Please read the thread.

I'm only discussing RAW where people are asserting that RAW nothing is broken.

Sorry I didn't intend it in a negative way towards either of you, I was simply noting how some people really get when in reality we've noted since page 1 that you both have strict RAW stand points that won't be dis proven.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Liturgies - page 14, 2nd paragraph states you are wrong. It directly links rolling to hit successfully with then being allowed to roll to wound.

Cool story bro, how do you roll to wound with this power?
Page 14 2nd paragraph is about running....

The power explains how you generate wounds.
Have you read it?

rigeld2 wrote:
The power explains how you generate wounds.
Have you read it?

Yes, the question is rhetorical. I'm just wondering if there is a point to the To Wound thing I have to defend against even though the power tells you how to generate wounds and PSAs don't alway generate wounds by rolling To Wound. Similarly shooting weapons don't always follow a roll to hit with a roll to wound and just apply effects, rad grenades iirc.
Thanks for assuming, again, I'm just in this to argue ad nauseum.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The power explains how you generate wounds.
Have you read it?

Yes, the question is rhetorical. I'm just wondering if there is a point to the To Wound thing I have to defend against even though the power tells you how to generate wounds and PSAs don't alway generate wounds by rolling To Wound. Similarly shooting weapons don't always follow a roll to hit with a roll to wound and just apply effects, rad grenades iirc.
Thanks for assuming, again, I'm just in this to argue ad nauseum.

That you have asserted a direct link between successfully rolling to hit, and rolling the 3D6 effect.

I am requiring you to back that position up with some rules, as per the tenet of this forum.

You havent dont so so far. Is this because you cannot?

What do you want? Honestly.
Witchfire is a shooting attack? Yes
Witchfire require a roll to hit? Yes
Witchfire powers are resolved as per the witchfire rules, (pg 69 last paragraph of witchfire.)? Yes
Does that resolution include a roll To Hit? Yes

The only question is what happens when a shooting attack fails to roll To Hit. You refuse to answer this question because the answer is NOTHING happens, do not pass go, do not collect €200, do not roll 3d6 - LD. And the link between the successful roll to hit and the resolution of the power... just in case it's not clear, is that it is a shooting attack.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
What do you want? Honestly.
Witchfire is a shooting attack? Yes
Witchfire require a roll to hit? Yes
Witchfire powers are resolved as per the witchfire rules, (pg 69 last paragraph of witchfire.)? Yes
Does that resolution include a roll To Hit? Yes

The only question is what happens when a shooting attack fails to roll To Hit. You refuse to answer this question because the answer is NOTHING happens, do not pass go, do not collect €200, do not roll 3d6 - LD. And the link between the successful roll to hit and the resolution of the power... just in case it's not clear, is that it is a shooting attack.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is not always correct, check out the FAQ for Murderous Hurricane...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
What do you want? Honestly.
Witchfire is a shooting attack? Yes
Witchfire require a roll to hit? Yes
Witchfire powers are resolved as per the witchfire rules, (pg 69 last paragraph of witchfire.)? Yes
Does that resolution include a roll To Hit? Yes

The only question is what happens when a shooting attack fails to roll To Hit. You refuse to answer this question because the answer is NOTHING happens, do not pass go, do not collect €200, do not roll 3d6 - LD. And the link between the successful roll to hit and the resolution of the power... just in case it's not clear, is that it is a shooting attack.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is not always correct, check out the FAQ for Murderous Hurricane...

While true, MH's FAQ applies only to it and is not a general rule. It also has two effects on resolution, which makes it obvious why they ruled the way they did.

DR you are correct in that specific circumstance there is a 2nd part to the power and an FAQ gives specific permission.
Can you think of any others that would be similar? I can think of lots of powers etc that don't roll To Wound or hit and wound automatically but no others that have a secondary effect that isn't tied to a successful To Hit roll.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
What do you want? Honestly.

Exactly what I asked of you - a link between to-hit and resolving the rest of the power, explicitly stated as a rule in the rulebook. Not a list of assertions, which is all you have given, violating the tenets of this forum

I have shown where firing a weapon explicitly links successful hits with the ability to then roll to wound. Now, WITHOUT making assertions, provide a rule that EXPLICITLY states the same for this power.

Page, and Paragraph. Failure to do so, this time, is proof you are trolling this thread, as you are failing to abide by the tenets. I have provided rules for my posoition. Failure for you to do so this time is indeed concession.

liturgies of blood wrote:Witchfire is a shooting attack? Yes

COunts as firing an assault weapon. Found the profile yet?

liturgies of blood wrote:Witchfire require a roll to hit? Yes

Not in doubt, at no point have I disagreed with this - you seem to have difficulty with this concept.

liturgies of blood wrote:Witchfire powers are resolved as per the witchfire rules, (pg 69 last paragraph of witchfire.)? Yes

Yes; again, you realise page 68 does not state anything like your claim

liturgies of blood wrote:Does that resolution include a roll To Hit? Yes

Repetition to try and hide the lack of evidence for your position?

liturgies of blood wrote:The only question is what happens when a shooting attack fails to roll To Hit.

Depends if it is a shooting weapon or not. If it is a shooting weapon you have no permission to roll to-wound, because the actual rules, page 14 as I showed you, directly link successful to-hit with the ability to roll to-wound

liturgies of blood wrote:You refuse to answer this question because the answer is NOTHING happens,

Assertion. Rules please. Same as I asked all along

liturgies of blood wrote:do not pass go,

Assertion. Rules please

liturgies of blood wrote:do not collect €200,

Assertion, rules please

liturgies of blood wrote:do not roll 3d6 - LD.

Again, assertion. You're good at those.

liturgies of blood wrote:And the link between the successful roll to hit and the resolution of the power... just in case it's not clear, is that it is a shooting attack.

Ah, so you have some actual rules to back that up? I must have missed them, amongst the assertions.

Again, in case I wasnt clear enough:

The actual rules for Shooting Weapons links a successful roll to-hit with the ability to then roll to-wound. Page 14 under rolling to wound.

Find any actual, written rules stating the same for resolving non- to-wound effects It should be easy for you, because you keep asserting that concept.

I am asking you to provide PAGE and PARAGRAPH, as well as an EXACT QUOTE to back up your assertions. Repeated posts failing this requirement, like the one I just responded to, will be treated as further trolling

You could actually concede there is a RAW gap here - I have done at least. For some reason you seem to be taking GWs lack of rules writing ability personally.

What you asserted was that by rolling 1 dice I was breaking 2 rules. That's what I am disagreeing with you on, it breaks 1 rule by looking at the basic rules instead. You break 1 rules when you ignore the roll to hit but you're not using any other rules as a guide and claiming it's more logical based on nothing.

Pg 68 tells you resolve as per the entry. Pg 69 is more specific and tells you to resolve as above and above includes lots of targeting restrictions(which are part of Declare a Target on pg 67) and the roll to hit. Rigeld was the one that argued so much better than me that page 69, Witchfire, 4th paragraph was about resolution. And what does the 2nd line say? "use the rules given above to resolve it".

Depends if it is a shooting weapon or not. If it is a shooting weapon you have no permission to roll to-wound, because the actual rules, page 14 as I showed you, directly link successful to-hit with the ability to roll to-wound

Firstly it's not the ability to roll to wound it's a roll to wound based on the shooting attacks strength, which this power hasn't got.
So you have no permission to roll to wound with this power? That's fine, this power doesn't roll to wound. It has it's own mechanic. There is another straw man gone.
What is a shooting weapon? I couldn't see the rules for that in the BRB, I could see Shooting which deals with Shooting Attacks.

It is not an assertion to say do not pass go or collect €200 as there are no rules to say that you may pass go. Maybe you should look at the shooting rules if you think that they are part of it.

Actually I stated you were MAKING UP two rules

1) you are making up how many dice to roll
2) You are tying the success of to-hit with an effect that is not a to-wound roll

Whereas I see a rule that says resolve the power. Resolving the power means rolling 3D6. It has no requirement to link the two entities together.

You have yet to find a rule to link the successful to-hit with any requirement on the 3D6, and this is at least the 4 th time you have refused to do so

Your concession is accepted

You're just trolling nos. Simple as.
I've not made up two rules, I've ignored one line in the assault rules as there is no profile and looked at more basic rules. That isn't making up a rule, it's breaking 1.
You're making up rules that shooting attacks don't require a successful to hit roll unless otherwise stated.

You've refused to engage with any of the substantive, prefering to dance around the issue and ignore page 69. You just erect straw man and false requirements.

Resolving the power as above means what?