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.

Stormbreed] wrote:
You can not resolve a witch fire without a role to hit. Brb page 68.

Agreed. I roll to hit using X dice.

Stormbreed wrote:A witch fire power must roll to hit. This is a requirement. You don't hit you don't resolve.

Oh, NOW I see your problem - you thnk that a requirement to roll to-hit is the same as requiring a SUCCESSFUL roll to hit. It isnt. THis makes your third sentence - and therefore yoru argument - false.

Stormbreed wrote:You have no permission to resolve a witch fire unless you hit.

Please find a rule STATING THIS. NOT a rule stating you myust ROLL to-hit, but that the roll to-hit must be successful.

J- reported for rule 1, again. Only noted as your "responses" have been quoted by others.

It isnt "obtuse" to ask people to prove their assertions.

You have now

1) created a "to wound effect" rule, which appears nowhere in the rulebook. You were requested to back up your assertion with rules - failure to do so noted, breaking the tenets.
2) YOu have lied, again by stating we are not saying that wounds are wounds. We havent. We have said that "something" that creates wounds as an outcome is not the same thing as a To Wound roll. This has been proven. Your lie was an easy one to uncover, so retract it.
3) You asserted that the 3D6 effect replaces the To Wound roll. You failed to back that up with any rules - again.
4) No concession was offered, especially not when your argument falls at the first hurdle - its based on making rules up.

So, again - your position has been soundly refuted at every turn, and your continual lying and disparaging remarks have been noted.

Stormbreed, you're claim is that in order to be able to resolve a witchfire power, you must roll to hit, and then resolve the power. Does this mean for Smite, you must roll to hit to see if you can roll to hit?

delete

Locally we play roll to hit, and the roll to hit to be successful. I checked with the TO last time. We roll 1D6 for singular powers with no profile.

I'm okay with that, though It seems pretty illogical, I blame the writers for not making it clear. If using an ability which mirrors firing a weapon then the effects should be worded the same. For weapons which do not roll to hit or automatically hit, we are told so, additional weapon effects (modifiers etc) usually say 'on a unsaved wound' or 'on a hit' or similar, PP's lack any of this, how are we suppose to know on what condition different parts can be resolved with no rules to tell us so, These WF should have contained those rules.

Oh they definitely arelacking rules - that must is indisputable* fact; currently the power, as written, does not function.

I just disagree that you need to roll to hit, AND for that hit to be successul, as it makes no sense to me given the way the rules are written AND the precedence of the SW FAQ on MH**.

I go for the simpler way to resolve this - I want the pwoer to function, at all, and so break one rule. I dont roll to hit. I consider this simpler than making up a number of dice to roll, AND then making the 3D6 effect reliant on this to-hit roll succeeding. 1 vs 2, I pick 1, especially when the latter creates an implrtance that is not only not in the rules, but has been ruled against in other FAQs - I find it hard to argue "RAI" you need to hit successfully

*as in, the specific rules for assault weapons state there MUST be a profile. As there isnt one, the power cannot function. This is not up for debate any longer
**Note the "AND" there, as some posters keep insisting that the FAQ is the "core" of my argument. It isnt, and I could nto be more clear about that fact.

Page 68 states.

Targeting requirements and any other restrictions that apply.

Page 69.

A witch fire must roll to hit. Later on in the same paragraph it says. Use the rules given Above to resolve it. So to resolve the power we must use the rules given above which include a to hit roll. We already know what a to hit roll does if you miss because we're making a shooting attack. Page 12 and 13 will tell you how to make a to hit roll.

So at that point the brb has specifically told us how to resolve the power and that we must follow the rules provided.

Nowhere in the rules above does it say a witch fire power doesn't require a hit to resolve. Under this area which is how to resolve each power it requires a hit.

Understandably enough the next power beam and later nova both give the allowance you're claiming witch fire has. Both powers say in there area explaining how to resolve that they need not roll to hit.

As for the smite question, no as it tells us to use the profile to roll to hit. Page 69.

The power itself is the shooting attack.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I'm still waiting for you to prove Wounds =/= Wounds.

I'm still waiting for a rules quote supporting your position. Since we both know I've never claimed that Wounds != Wounds you shouldn't expect any proof. Since we both know that you're not debating in good faith without rules quotes I should expect them.
So when can I expect them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormbreed wrote:
Page 68 states.

Targeting requirements and any other restrictions that apply.

Page 69.

A witch fire must roll to hit. Later on in the same paragraph it says. Use the rules given Above to resolve it. So to resolve the power we must use the rules given above which include a to hit roll. We already know what a to hit roll does if you miss because we're making a shooting attack. Page 12 and 13 will tell you how to make a to hit roll.

So at that point the brb has specifically told us how to resolve the power and that we must follow the rules provided.

Nowhere in the rules above does it say a witch fire power doesn't require a hit to resolve. Under this area which is how to resolve each power it requires a hit.

Understandably enough the next power beam and later nova both give the allowance you're claiming witch fire has. Both powers say in there area explaining how to resolve that they need not roll to hit.

As for the smite question, no as it tells us to use the profile to roll to hit. Page 69.

The power itself is the shooting attack.

Stop it. Seriously. Stop what you're doing and reread the entire thread. I am not claiming the RAW does not require a roll to hit. You're arguing against a Strawman after being corrected probably a dozen times. That's. Not. What's. Being. Said.
Your refusal to even pretend you understand the argument is noted but useless.

I'm not claiming anything. RAW does require a roll to hit, and I believe RAW if you Miss you do not resolve a witch fire power.

As for straw man arguments. You just quoted someone and said, if you don't provide rules I won't provide rules. That is 3rd grade stuff.

I've provided rules specifically stating the to hit roll is a must under targeting and resolution of the power. I've provided other types for powers that specifically grant permission to resolve without a to hit roll. All you've done is name call, and throw out an allowance to miss with a shooting attack yet still resolve the shooting attack. No rules to back up your stance.

Gah

Again. You are making a *positive* assertion - that you MUST successfully roll to-hit BEFORE you can continue resolving non-to-wound effects.

As you are making this claim - prove it

NOTHING you have posted makes this link that you are claiming. Nothing.

To be clear, despite saying this a dozen times: noone here is stating you do not "need" to roll to-hit. Noone. Stop pretending we are. What we ARE asking you to prove is that the 3D6 effect is dependent upon having successfully hit

And lastly - no, Rigeld isnt behaving like a 3rd grader, he is simply asking you to provide rules that back up your assertions - something asked since page 1 it seems. Until you do so, there is no argument.

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming anything. RAW does require a roll to hit,

You keep saying that like anyone is arguing against it. It's the only actual rule you've been able to provide and no one is disputing it.

and I believe RAW if you Miss you do not resolve a witch fire power.

And you've failed to cite rules that support that statement. Again, the only thing you've proven is something that no one disputes. Also, I thought you were discussing RAI? Switching back and forth isn't helping your argument, especially since when asked you've said that you've been arguing RAI all along.

As for straw man arguments. You just quoted someone and said, if you don't provide rules I won't provide rules. That is 3rd grade stuff.

Well, no. It's impossible to debate with someone who doesn't back up their statements with actual rules. Like if I said PS did not allow Deny the Witch. Prove me wrong.

I've provided rules specifically stating the to hit roll is a must under targeting and resolution of the power. I've provided other types for powers that specifically grant permission to resolve without a to hit roll. All you've done is name call, and throw out an allowance to miss with a shooting attack yet still resolve the shooting attack. No rules to back up your stance.

That's a lie.
I've proven that page 67 allows me to resolve the power. I've proven that page 68 explains that means to follow the instructions in its entry. There is no rule, despite your assertions, that a witchfire must hit to resolve the power. I haven't "name called" that I can think of. Thanks for the attack though! It really means a lot.

A general notification to the thread: as Nos and Rigeld are intentionally ignoring the forum tenets requiring them to prove their position rather than stating their position is proven, I would like to post a formal motion to ignore their continued obstruction to resolving this debate.

I have personally, as have others, cited and quoted the specific rules related to how the power Psychic Shriek is resolved within the rules as written. In counterpoint, Nos and Rigeld have taken a stance of deconstructing our argument rather than posting a counter argument. They continue to bait posters with legalese while supplying no actual counter argument beyond stating they are right and the rest of us are wrong.

After repeated requests for them to prove their claim, and after repeat attempts by them to derail the debate by intentionally misrepresenting their opponents' statements, I am asking formally for Moderator intervention.

If at some point, Nos and Rigeld decide to follow the tenets and post an actual counter argument that can be debated per the tenets, I will withdraw my complaint.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
A general notification to the thread: as Nos and Rigeld are intentionally ignoring the forum tenets requiring them to prove their position rather than stating their position is proven, I would like to post a formal motion to ignore their continued obstruction to resolving this debate.

I have actually proven my position. Hypocrisy abounds with you apparently.
Have you found a rules quote to support your assertion that the PS wound mechanism is a To Wound roll?

I have personally, as have others, cited and quoted the specific rules related to how the power Psychic Shriek is resolved within the rules as written. In counterpoint, Nos and Rigeld have taken a stance of deconstructing our argument rather than posting a counter argument. They continue to bait posters with legalese while supplying no actual counter argument beyond stating they are right and the rest of us are wrong.

That's a lie. I've cited page numbers repeatedly.

After repeated requests for them to prove their claim, and after repeat attempts by them to derail the debate by intentionally misrepresenting their opponents' statements, I am asking formally for Moderator intervention.

I've derailed nothing. At all. I've misrepresented nothing. You, however, have lied and are intentionally trolling to get the thread locked.

I see this thread went downhill just like the other one did. Only 9 more pages to go.

Rig you've proven permission to resolve the power, now cite the rules on page 68 or 69 which allow you miss and still resolve a witch fire, you won't find that rule.

I know I have permission to attack your models in close combat, that doesn't mean I just read the attack stat from the stat line and say "okay you take 10 wounds".

No we read how to resolve the attacks on the next pages.

Page 67 gives permission to resolve a power once passing the required tests, page 68 explains that to resolve a power we must follow the rules of the power, page 69 under witch fire specifically uses the word "resolve" and roll to hit.

You're making a shooting attack at that point so you go and look how to "roll to hit" and what happens if you miss.

I am specifically giving your rules and logical steps on how to resolve the witch fire ability. Please in response cite a page # which specifies witch fire spells being able to resolve when they miss their intended target.

Seems somewhat pointless keeping this going any longer.