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.

I'll answer: the 3d6-Ld effect replaces the normal To Wound mechanic for a shooting attack.

SJ

Q: Does
Murderous Hurricane
require the power to hit or wound
its target to affect them ? (p37)
A: No, a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even
if the power fails to hit or wound.

This fluff is the basis for their argument blaktoof, the unit is still effected by the dangerous terrain test portion even though they never took a wound from the hurricane. Its fluffy but they have a point.

However FAQ's are not blanket statements.

Stormbreed wrote:
Q: Does
Murderous Hurricane
require the power to hit or wound
its target to affect them ? (p37)
A: No, a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even
if the power fails to hit or wound.

This fluff is the basis for their argument blaktoof, the unit is still effected by the dangerous terrain test portion even though they never took a wound from the hurricane. Its fluffy but they have a point.

However FAQ's are not blanket statements.

That is not a fluff basis. It is based off the FAQ ruling. (RAW).

It is base on the precedent that even if you miss your to hit roll with MH you still effect the unit with the Difficult Trrain that MH imposes.

So you do not have to hit and the power still takes effect.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Q: Does
Murderous Hurricane
require the power to hit or wound
its target to affect them ? (p37)
A: No, a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even
if the power fails to hit or wound.

This fluff is the basis for their argument blaktoof, the unit is still effected by the dangerous terrain test portion even though they never took a wound from the hurricane. Its fluffy but they have a point.

However FAQ's are not blanket statements.

That is not a fluff basis. It is based off the FAQ ruling. (RAW).

It is base on the precedent that even if you miss your to hit roll with MH you still effect the unit with the Difficult Trrain that MH imposes.

So you do not have to hit and the power still takes effect.

That is an excellent ruling for Murderous Hurricane. Now please show, if you can, how this SW FAQ answer applies to any power other than Murderous Hurricane.

SJ

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Q: Does
Murderous Hurricane
require the power to hit or wound
its target to affect them ? (p37)
A: No, a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even
if the power fails to hit or wound.

This fluff is the basis for their argument blaktoof, the unit is still effected by the dangerous terrain test portion even though they never took a wound from the hurricane. Its fluffy but they have a point.

However FAQ's are not blanket statements.

That is not a fluff basis. It is based off the FAQ ruling. (RAW).

It is base on the precedent that even if you miss your to hit roll with MH you still effect the unit with the Difficult Trrain that MH imposes.

So you do not have to hit and the power still takes effect.

It is a good "pillar" for your foundation however FAQ's often rule against one another and are not a precedent in any way.

Stormbreed wrote:

It is a good "pillar" for your foundation however FAQ's often rule against one another and are not a precedent in any way.

Did you ever play 5th edition? If so, vehicle invulnerable saves, multiple barrage from a single model and smoke launchers during scout moves would like to talk to you.

 Happyjew wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

It is a good "pillar" for your foundation however FAQ's often rule against one another and are not a precedent in any way.

Did you ever play 5th edition? If so, vehicle invulnerable saves, multiple barrage from a single model and smoke launchers during scout moves would like to talk to you.

No I played 2nd/3rd , then stopped till 6th as crazy as that sounds. FAQ's go against each other in the 6th edition rules, that is why I don't consider them blanket statements. FAQ's often use fluff as well, I personally believe the MH FAQ is really because GW wants to show that there is actually a hurricane on the field of battle! Yikes!

Stormbreed wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

It is a good "pillar" for your foundation however FAQ's often rule against one another and are not a precedent in any way.

Did you ever play 5th edition? If so, vehicle invulnerable saves, multiple barrage from a single model and smoke launchers during scout moves would like to talk to you.

No I played 2nd/3rd , then stopped till 6th as crazy as that sounds. FAQ's go against each other in the 6th edition rules, that is why I don't consider them blanket statements. FAQ's often use fluff as well, I personally believe the MH FAQ is really because GW wants to show that there is actually a hurricane on the field of battle! Yikes!

As noted GW has used precedent in the FAQ rulings before, so they have a record of similar things working, well, similarly.

such is the case with MH and PS

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

It is a good "pillar" for your foundation however FAQ's often rule against one another and are not a precedent in any way.

Did you ever play 5th edition? If so, vehicle invulnerable saves, multiple barrage from a single model and smoke launchers during scout moves would like to talk to you.

No I played 2nd/3rd , then stopped till 6th as crazy as that sounds. FAQ's go against each other in the 6th edition rules, that is why I don't consider them blanket statements. FAQ's often use fluff as well, I personally believe the MH FAQ is really because GW wants to show that there is actually a hurricane on the field of battle! Yikes!

As noted GW has used precedent in the FAQ rulings before, so they have a record of similar things working, well, similarly.

such is the case with MH and PS

And Tyranid ICs.... oh wait.

Fragile wrote:
And Tyranid ICs.... oh wait.

I do not get the reference.

What do you mean?

I assume Fragile is referring to Tyranid Independent Characters not being able to join units in Mycetic Spores despite Space Marine ICs being able to join units in Drop Pods.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I assume Fragile is referring to Tyranid Independent Characters not being able to join units in Mycetic Spores despite Space Marine ICs being able to join units in Drop Pods.

Space marines can join a unit in a Drop pod because a Drop Pod is a vehicle, something Spores are not.

Plus IC's embarking on a Drop Pod is hardly a controversial rule. No need for an FAQ about it.

Spores, on the other hand, being MCs instead of vehicles needed clarification.

The situation is hardly comparable.

How about the ruling that non shooting attacks do not grant a cover save but you do get a cover from Dooms pulse.

There are FAQs that go against each other so no FAQs do not set a precedent.

That being said at best GW would rule how many dice to roll or to not roll at all and we'd still have a players claiming that roll doesn't matter regardless.

Yes, because as proven the result of the to hit has no bearing on the resolution of the power

Not a single poster has done anything to disprove that, so it is now settled fact. Further assertions otherwise, by blastoff et al, should be ignored for breaking the tenets of the forums

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because as proven the result of the to hit has no bearing on the resolution of the power

Not a single poster has done anything to disprove that, so it is now settled fact. Further assertions otherwise, by blastoff et al, should be ignored for breaking the tenets of the forums

Nos just rolls in and says blastoff et al should be ignored. Like a boss, I've never understood saying it has been proven when you readily admit you're using a FAQ as fundamental core for your reasoning. FAQs sometime contradict each other.

I still don't believe the flow is RAI supposed to go.

Roll to hit
miss
Still cause wounds.

That being said blastoff et al shall be ignored as ruled by nosferatu1001.

Its quite tiring to see repeated posts where people claim to have "proven" their point when they have done no such thing. All I ask is that they post a rules backed chain of logic that supports their claim, as I have done, so that we can move on to an actual debate rather than the circular bickering that has become norm for this topic.

Prove your claim, don't claim it is proven.

SJ

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I assume Fragile is referring to Tyranid Independent Characters not being able to join units in Mycetic Spores despite Space Marine ICs being able to join units in Drop Pods.

Space marines can join a unit in a Drop pod because a Drop Pod is a vehicle, something Spores are not.

Plus IC's embarking on a Drop Pod is hardly a controversial rule. No need for an FAQ about it.

Spores, on the other hand, being MCs instead of vehicles needed clarification.

The situation is hardly comparable.

You continue to miss the point. Your trying to use a FAQ to apply to every possible instance, where FAQs like MH apply to only MH. Its like the Logan FAQ in the PEN argument or Tyranid ICs in dedicated transports.

Storm - sigh. No, the FAQ is not the core of my argument. Please don't make more gak up, it's rather tiresome to continually have to correct your misrepresentations.

The FACT that there is no requirement to roll to hit successfully before applying non to-wound effects HAS been proven. There are only vague assertions that because the 3d6 can cause wounds, it is a replacement for the to-wound roll, and is therefore bound by the same requirements,

It isn't. This is proven. Stop asserting that it is a to wound, otherwise you are also asserting that dangerous terrain tests, gets hot etc are also rolls to wound,

The logical chain, 100% backed up by actual written rules, has been given.

RAW, strictly, means PS halts the game. So, assuming you wish to carry on the game, paying attention to the element that doesn't matter - also proven - makes no sense.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - sigh. No, the FAQ is not the core of my argument. Please don't make more gak up, it's rather tiresome to continually have to correct your misrepresentations.

The FACT that there is no requirement to roll to hit successfully before applying non to-wound effects HAS been proven. There are only vague assertions that because the 3d6 can cause wounds, it is a replacement for the to-wound roll, and is therefore bound by the same requirements,

It isn't. This is proven. Stop asserting that it is a to wound, otherwise you are also asserting that dangerous terrain tests, gets hot etc are also rolls to wound,

The logical chain, 100% backed up by actual written rules, has been given.

There has never been proof provided, just you constantly arguing there is no connection between hitting and the 3d6, no proof just your word, myself I believe you should follow the rules for shooting as it is a shooting attack. Other instances have provided us with permission to wound without hitting or rolling to hit, this power doesn't.

And other then the tournament which Rigeld2 is currently at, I've never had or heard of, or even read a battle report of a game with another player, or TO rule that you
1. Roll to hit
2. Disregard Roll
3. Apply power affects.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - sigh. No, the FAQ is not the core of my argument. Please don't make more gak up, it's rather tiresome to continually have to correct your misrepresentations.

The FACT that there is no requirement to roll to hit successfully before applying non to-wound effects HAS been proven. There are only vague assertions that because the 3d6 can cause wounds, it is a replacement for the to-wound roll, and is therefore bound by the same requirements,

It isn't. This is proven. Stop asserting that it is a to wound, otherwise you are also asserting that dangerous terrain tests, gets hot etc are also rolls to wound,

The logical chain, 100% backed up by actual written rules, has been given.

RAW, strictly, means PS halts the game. So, assuming you wish to carry on the game, paying attention to the element that doesn't matter - also proven - makes no sense.

Always saying "proven", never actually proving. FACT.

Per RAW, Psychic Shriek works just fine. Pass a Psychic test, roll to hit, apply effect. No rules broken, no rules ignored, game moves on without issue.

To be more specific: Pass test, roll 1d6 vs Ballistic Skill, on a successful To Hit roll deal wounds to the target equaling 3d6 minus the target's Leadership.

Please actually cite RULES to support your disagreement, or concede. It would bring me joy to have a real debate on this, if only you would actually bother to follow the forum tenets and post a counter-argument rather than claiming my argument is "provably wrong". If my argument is provably wrong, please prove it wrong. Or concede.

SJ

Storm - you are claiming a connection, so prove it. You do realise proving a negative is impossible? So instead YOU get to prove that in order to resolve a psychic shooting attack with non to-wound effects, that you must succeed at rolling to hit.

Page and paragraph. We have shown, more than once, that rolling to-wound states such a requirement, and asked you to find anything real which states this for the 3d6 effect.

Prove it. Page, para and exact phrase supporting your claim.

Once you find you cannot do that, then you have to Follow the real written rules, which is that you roll to hit using an undefined number of dice, then no matter what, you roll the 3d6 effect.

Can you provide the proof? It's been tried for about 21 pages now, with a complete failure by everyone on your side to do so, so it would be refreshing to see it.

I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

Stormbreed wrote:
How about the ruling that non shooting attacks do not grant a cover save but you do get a cover from Dooms pulse

That is not a rule I have found in the BRB, Citation please.

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

Because the 3D6 effect does not require a successful hit to take effect, as the 3D6 effect is not a To Wound roll.

You get to prove that in order to resolve a psychic shooting attack with non to-wound effects, that you must succeed at rolling to hit.

As Nos has said "Prove it. Page, para and exact phrase supporting your claim. "

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
How about the ruling that non shooting attacks do not grant a cover save but you do get a cover from Dooms pulse

That is not a rule I have found in the BRB, Citation please.

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

Because the 3D6 effect does not require a successful hit to take effect, as the 3D6 effect is not a To Wound roll.

You get to prove that in order to resolve a psychic shooting attack with non to-wound effects, that you must succeed at rolling to hit.

As Nos has said "Prove it. Page, para and exact phrase supporting your claim. "

1 FAQ specifically says you do not get cover saves against non shooting attacks. In the Space Wolves FAQ, the tyranid FAQ then grants cover saves from Dooms special ability.

I'm following the rules for shooting. The 3D6 ability is fired at the target as a shooting attack, if it misses I see no special permission for it to hit. I know what a miss is, nothing to prove.

Only two things mention cover saves not being allowed in the SW faq: JOTWW and Vengeful Tornado. Jaws does not cause wounds and as such would not allow cover saves. Vengeful Tornado is poorly written, however, based on the FAQ, only denies the cover save from not being able to see side armor, which means that the effect is not based on LOS.

The exact reply in the FAQ is,

A: No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack and
therefore allows no cover save.

So they FAQ no cover saves against non shooting attacks, but then FAQ dooms pulse to have a cover save. So yea FAQs can go against each other from time to time, not a big deal as FAQ are just that questions that needed answers, sometimes they clarify and sometimes they fix the rules themselves, but they are not blanket rules for everything alike.

Because the Doom's Pulse is similar to a Nova Psychic Power, so precedent would dictate that you get a cover save against it.

However you get a cover save unless specifically disallowed (Like CC attacks specify).

Can you take a cover save against the Deff Rolla? (RAW, yes you can as they do not disallow a cover save).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormbreed wrote:
The 3D6 ability is fired at the target as a shooting attack,

Not quite, the power Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire.

if it misses I see no special permission for it to hit. I know what a miss is, nothing to prove.

Well, the roll to hit is irrelevant as there is no To Wound roll (Which demonstrably has been determined is what follows a To Hit roll), so you need to prove that a miss somehow stops you from rolling the 3d6-LD roll.

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

So still no rule denying the page 67 permission to resolve the power?

Cool story bro. Keep saying things like they're facts and you have nothing to prove.

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

Yes, there is no to wound roll, as you haven't hit. Good job the permission on page 67 to resolve the power doesn't say missing the to hit roll has any effect on things which aren't to-wound

Cool story, keep making up new terms, not based in rules, when you can't cite relevant rules,

RAW: Broken. The more specific assault weapons rules require you to consult the profile of the weapon in order to determine the number of shots(number of dice) and as the power(weapon) has no profile this number is unknown and you cannot roll an unknown number of dice. This issue is compounded with the fact that you are never given permission to do anything with a 'Hit' either. The idea that the 3d6 roll is a replacement for the normal 'to wound' roll has no supporting text and therefore such a connection does not exist in the rules as written.

RAI: Unknown. We can assume they intended the power to be functional but they left little in the way of hints as to the manner of its intended functionality. Slight alterations could be assumed but adding 'instead of rolling to wound, roll 3d6...' has no more or less merit than adding 'this power automatically hits'. While the general rule regarding witchfires being 'required to roll to hit unless otherwise noted' might lead some to believe that it was intended that a roll 'To Hit' should be worked in, that point is directly countered by the complete and obvious lack of regard for any 'To Hit' mechanic in the powers description.

HYWPI: Personally I'd go with treating it as an auto effect power that does not require a 'To Hit' roll but that is not a rules based decision. It is strictly based on game balance considering the point expenditures required to obtain the psychic power, its very short rang with a single target and wild fluctuations in effect. The odds of it one-shotting a Wraith Knight(rolling all 5's and 6's) and having no effect on a unit of termagants(rolling all 1's and 2's) are the same. A tactician would look at this power like an accountant would look at gambling as a financial plan.