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.

 mortetvie wrote:
My premise to resolve the dilemma is that Psychic Shriek is, for all intents and purposes, a SINGLE attack that when resolved generates a number of wounds by rolling 3d6 and subtracting the target's LD value from the number rolled..

An Assault 20 Weapon (eg Fleshborer Hive) is a single attack. Do you propose a single To Hit roll to see if all 20 shots hit?

Given your obvious disagreement with mortetvie's interpretation, perhaps you could offer some rules citing the number of dice to roll to hit with the witchfire power Psychic Shriek?

If you can't, then what is the value of criticizing his house rule?

My premise to resolve the dilemma is that Psychic Shriek is, for all intents and purposes, a SINGLE attack that when resolved generates a number of wounds by rolling 3d6 and subtracting the target's LDvalue from the number rolled. 

To support this premise, we look at what we can logically and naturally infer from the language of the power. The first line says it is a Psychic Shooting attack-we know this and the dead horse has been sufficiently beaten to death, it's probably a glue-like paste by now-therefore you need to roll to hit. I would imagine it makes sense to require only a single roll to hit since it doesn't specify the number of hits and since it is only a single effect. The next sentence in the power simply says what to do after the power is successful. The simplest and most logical reading of the rule is that it does a single hit which causes 3d6-Ld in wounds, not 3d6-ld hits, which is what some people I think are trying to argue? A roughly analogous situation is how a Plasma Cannon is a single attack that has a single roll to hit but can generate multiple wounds. 

The issue here is you have a premise you don't understand and even with that you've not made supported conclusions you've made an unsupported leap.

For instance firing an Assault 20 weapon is a single shooting attack yet rolls to hit 20 times.

You've also made the massive unsupported leap that you conveniently underlined that a single shooting attack means a single roll to hit (which is demonstrably false as in the example above).

Then you go on to make another unsupported leap that the effect is tied to hits. Nothing in the rules supports that conclusion.

So actual apply logic. We know the target unit suffers an effect and this effect is in no way tied to hits. We know we must roll to hit (and then to wound/armour pen) but we have no way to resolve that hit and it has no impact on the effect. So we can either create a whole mechanic of our own (i.e. a houserule) or we can say we don't have a way to resolve that effect so it has no effect (like we do in any other situation like this).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

My premise to resolve the dilemma is that Psychic Shriek is, for all intents and purposes, a SINGLE attack that when resolved generates a number of wounds by rolling 3d6 and subtracting the target's LDvalue from the number rolled. 

To support this premise, we look at what we can logically and naturally infer from the language of the power. The first line says it is a Psychic Shooting attack-we know this and the dead horse has been sufficiently beaten to death, it's probably a glue-like paste by now-therefore you need to roll to hit. I would imagine it makes sense to require only a single roll to hit since it doesn't specify the number of hits and since it is only a single effect. The next sentence in the power simply says what to do after the power is successful. The simplest and most logical reading of the rule is that it does a single hit which causes 3d6-Ld in wounds, not 3d6-ld hits, which is what some people I think are trying to argue? A roughly analogous situation is how a Plasma Cannon is a single attack that has a single roll to hit but can generate multiple wounds. 

The issue here is you have a premise you don't understand and even with that you've not made supported conclusions you've made an unsupported leap.

For instance firing an Assault 20 weapon is a single shooting attack yet rolls to hit 20 times.

You've also made the massive unsupported leap that you conveniently underlined that a single shooting attack means a single roll to hit (which is demonstrably false as in the example above).

Then you go on to make another unsupported leap that the effect is tied to hits. Nothing in the rules supports that conclusion.

So actual apply logic. We know the target unit suffers an effect and this effect is in no way tied to hits. We know we must roll to hit (and then to wound/armour pen) but we have no way to resolve that hit and it has no impact on the effect. So we can either create a whole mechanic of our own (i.e. a houserule) or we can say we don't have a way to resolve that effect so it has no effect (like we do in any other situation like this).

The number of dice rolled is unknown. I'm not criticizing his house rule, I'm criticizing how he gets it. If the argument is one attack therefore one To Hit roll, then it should be applied for all shooting attacks.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So we can either create a whole mechanic of our own (i.e. a houserule) or we can say we don't have a way to resolve that effect so it has no effect (like we do in any other situation like this).

Please cite a rule supporting the idea that if you can't resolve a rule as written, you have permission to ignore it.

Otherwise, that is a house rule my friend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So now you are arguing the merits of each other's house rules... please mark your posts as HIWPI as to not confuse what you are saying with RAW.

 Dracos wrote:
Interesting that you think a non-functional rule stops the game.

I think a non-functional rule requires "house ruling", not stopping the game.

I simply acknowledge that what I'm doing is make a house rule to resolve the situation.

Call me crazy on that one though, as acknowledging the fact that I'm glossing over the broken rule with a house rule means I can't tell other people to play it my way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw, HIWPI (you know, the house rule) is that you roll to hit once, and failing to hit discards the power.

This interacts with Chariots by allowing them to allocate to whichever profile they want, meaning under my house rule Psychic Shriek doesn't really have an affect on Chariots.

So just to confirm your argument is that to treat Enfeeble as having no effect on a Rhino is a Houserule. That is your position, correct?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dracos wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So we can either create a whole mechanic of our own (i.e. a houserule) or we can say we don't have a way to resolve that effect so it has no effect (like we do in any other situation like this).

Please cite a rule supporting the idea that if you can't resolve a rule as written, you have permission to ignore it.

Otherwise, that is a house rule my friend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So now you are arguing the merits of each other's house rules... please mark your posts as HIWPI as to not confuse what you are saying with RAW.

So is there a reason you haven't written such a reply to posts claiming you make 1 roll to hit?

I accept your criticism that I have targeted one side of the argument unfairly. I apologize.

I have not taken a position on enfeeble - I don't have the text in front of me so will not be offering one at this juncture.

edit: Btw Flingit, gratz on having post count go OVER 9000!

To consider a Punisher which has 20 shots as a "single attack" is a semantic straw man thrown into the discussion. The rules for any shooting weapon which has more than one shot is painfully obvious as per the BRB...

The Punisher Cannon is not a "single attack" as you are wording it, it is a single WEAPON with 20 shots, which allow you to make essentially 20 separate attacks each individually rolled and resolved at the same target.

Likewise, Psychic Shriek is a single attack that generates multiple wounds depending on the number rolled on the 3d6.

My position is supported by a simple, plain, logical reading and synthesis of the two rules. It is not a house rule, but the way the BRB logcially and naturally reads.

If it's not a house rule, then please cite the text telling you how many dice to roll. Not paraphrased, but the text from the rulebook.

 Dracos wrote:
I accept your criticism that I have targeted one side of the argument unfairly. I apologize.

Thank you.

I have not taken a position on enfeeble - I don't have the text in front of me so will not be offering one at this juncture.

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness..." (there is a further effect which would effect a Rhino and is not what we are discussing here).

So we have a -1 modifier we must apply to both S&T and no S or T values to modify. Do we call it broken and create a houserule. Or do we just say the effect is not resolvable and therefore has no effect.

edit: Btw Flingit, gratz on having post count go OVER 9000!

Thank you again

If it's not a house rule, then please cite the text telling you how many dice to roll. Not paraphrased, but the text from the rulebook.

And thank you once again


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Punisher Cannon is not a "single attack" as you are wording it, it is a single WEAPON with 20 shots, which allow you to make essentially 20 separate attacks each individually rolled and resolved at the same target. 

So shooting attack = shot now? Please support that with rules or rescind that comment.

Based on what you have posted:

Since, as you point out it is unresolvable, it would be a house rule no matter how you choose to resolve it.

That being said, I think one would find most (all?) players house ruling (edit) that case it the same way.

House ruling is nothing to be ashamed of in 40k - the text is written so sloppily that it's hard/impossible to use without doing so.

 Dracos wrote:
Based on what you have posted:

Since, as you point out it is unresolvable, it would be a house rule no matter how you choose to resolve it.

That being said, I think one would find most (all?) players house ruling (edit) that case it the same way.

House ruling is nothing to be ashamed of in 40k - the text is written so sloppily that it's hard/impossible to use without doing so.

It was my check for consistency and so everyone is clear your position is that if I cast Enfeeble on a Rhino we have to create a houserule to resolve it rather than just accepting the -1 S&T does nothing.

So lets look at your houserule for deal with this situation. We have no number to resolve the shooting attack so intjis case we assume it is a 1 correct?

So I roll my 1 hit, lets say I hit, you assign that to the chariot. I must now roll 3d6-LD you have no Ld so for consistency we must make up the number to be 1. So I do 2-17 wounds but you have no wounds characteristic so again we have to make up an arbitrary number so again we must pick 1 for consistency so the chariot is automatically killed. Or are you going to rule since you don't have an Ld or W to resolve against we rule the hit has no effect?

If the later why are you not apply that logic to the roll to hit, when in 3 other similar situations (Rhino, Ld & Ws) you are using the normal approach of unresolvable effect is treated as no effect?

Why would you need to house rule the enfeeble on the rhino ? BTW i believe there is another part of enfeeble that makes it treat terrain as difficult as well as the characteristic modifiers

kambien wrote:
Why would you need to house rule the enfeeble on the rhino ? BTW i believe there is another part of enfeeble that makes it treat terrain as difficult as well as the characteristic modifiers

Dracos believes if you can't resolve something because there is no profile to resolve you must create a houserule rather than simply accepting it has no effect. Examples of this are the -1 S&T from Enfeeble against a Rhino, and rolling to hit with Psychic Shriek.

Yes there is also the DT effect which can resolve against a Rhino with no issues.

 FlingitNow wrote:
It was my check for consistency and so everyone is clear your position is that if I cast Enfeeble on a Rhino we have to create a houserule to resolve it rather than just accepting the -1 S&T does nothing.

So lets look at your houserule for deal with this situation. We have no number to resolve the shooting attack so intjis case we assume it is a 1 correct?

So I roll my 1 hit, lets say I hit, you assign that to the chariot. I must now roll 3d6-LD you have no Ld so for consistency we must make up the number to be 1. So I do 2-17 wounds but you have no wounds characteristic so again we have to make up an arbitrary number so again we must pick 1 for consistency so the chariot is automatically killed. Or are you going to rule since you don't have an Ld or W to resolve against we rule the hit has no effect?

If the later why are you not apply that logic to the roll to hit, when in 3 other similar situations (Rhino, Ld & Ws) you are using the normal approach of unresolvable effect is treated as no effect?

My position is that the house rule is that the -1 S / T is ignored as the rhino does not have those characteristics.

(edit) To be clear, the act of "accepting the -1 S&T does nothing" is in fact a house rule - since there is nothing in the rulebook directing you to do this.

For my own house ruling of Psychic Shriek (which I am familiar with since my SM use it often):

I roll to hit once because I need a number greater than zero and less than infinity, and 1 seems nice and easy. I have never suggested that it is logical to assign the number 1 to all house rule situations. That is a pretty silly strawman you've built. Essentially, no one would target a vehicle (including chariot) with this power as it will never have an effect since vehicles do not suffer wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, I do believe that if a situation is unresolvable by raw, the act of ignoring it (thus filling in the blanks in "what to do next") is a house rule.

I roll to hit once because I need a number greater than zero and less than infinity, and 1 seems nice and easy. I have never suggested that it is logical to assign the number 1 to all house rule situations. That is a pretty silly strawman you've built. Essentially, no one would target a vehicle (including chariot) with this power as it will never have an effect since vehicles do not suffer wounds.

Why does it need to be greater than zero? Zero seems the most logical number to use for the roll to hit. Also it is your houserule that vehicles don't suffer the wounds (by your own definitions). The issue I have is your arbitrary decision to roll 1 dice is then causing lots of other houserules being created. Like tying the effect to the roll to hit, and how to deal with the Ld roll and wounds against the chariot.

Also all these other situations (no profile to resolve against) you consistently houserule that there is no effect. Yet for PS when you hit the same issue (must roll to hit, but no profile to resolve the to hit roll) you start arbitrarily making up numbers and then creating rules to make these numbers matter. Does that not seem just a little inconsistent or contrary to you?

And yes, I do believe that if a situation is unresolvable by raw, the act of ignoring it (thus filling in the blanks in "what to do next") is a house rule.

We have 1 step that is unresolvable and steps before it and after it that are and are not dependant on the resolution of that step. The only way to resolve that RaW is to ignore that step. I am not filling in blanks at all your houserule does that. I am only doing what the rules tell me to do. The rule requires a vague to hit roll but does not tell me how to do that, so I only do what it does tell me to do. It is the same way we ignore fluff text because it has no definable in game effect. That roll to hit requirement for a witchfire has no definable in game effect on PS so I ignore it. Much like say the rule on the number of Psychic Powers a Psyker can cast is dependant on his mastery level, as we do not know what that dependency is we ignore that rule. This is how RaW works or the game completely falls apart at almost every process.

The other problem is people quoting "Must roll to hit" are not quoting the earlier part of the paragraph. "Many have profiles". I is talking about psychic attacks with profiles. If it doesn't have a profile it isn't included in that paragraph.

 mortetvie wrote:

- Therefore, since Psychic Shriek is a witchfire, you must roll to hit for it to properly affect the target unit.

If you reject the above, then you have a problem with logic, not anything else as it is a simple If P then Q, P therefore Q logical statement.

Please explain the logic for the underlined. There aren't any rules to support it. I have no problem with logic, I have a problem with made up rules. Instead of insulting people, perhaps slow down and think things through?

I'm going to just say three things and I'd like y'all to tell me which parts you agree with or disagree with and why, fair enough?

(1) Since witch fires are shooting attacks and require a to-hit roll to be successful (witch fires that are not blasts or templates specifically), there is no getting around the fact that you need to make a successful to-hit roll for the power to actually hit and affect the target unit. No to-hit roll RAW means no effect/damage taking place. So with that said, do you agree or disagree with this because I am just sating the RAW and if we disagree even at this point then the problem is simply a rejection of the RAW in the BRB.

(2) the primary disagreement is that it does not appear to be certain how many to-hit rolls to make for the power.

(3) Looking at the shooting phase part of the BRB might shed some light on the matter. It says that "to determine if a firing model has hit it's 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 in more detail later."

Later the BRB goes on to say, under "number of shots" that "some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type."

Putting both those rules together, one can safely infer, through the cunning use of logician inference that a weapon only has one shot (if it has a shot) unless otherwise noted. If psychic shriek had more than one shot, it would be denoted and if it has NO shots, it would NOT be a witchfire.

All witchfires, according to what the rules tell us, should be a single shot for the purposes of to-hit rolls unless they have more than one shot denoted on thier profile. This is not some huge leap from premise to conclusion but the natural and logical application of applying the principles of how 40k works in general-namely that because "Most models only get to fire one shot" and "some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type" clearly imply that there is a general rule or assumption that shooting attacks have a single shot unless otherwise noted-ergo psychic shriek has one shot and one roll to hit is made.

 mortetvie wrote:

I'm going to just say three things and I'd like y'all to tell me which parts you agree with or disagree with and why, fair enough?

(1) Since witch fires are shooting attacks and require a to-hit roll to be successful (witch fires that are not blasts or templates specifically), there is no getting around the fact that you need to make a successful to-hit roll for the power to actually hit and affect the target unit. No to-hit roll RAW means no effect/damage taking place. So with that said, do you agree or disagree with this because I am just sating the RAW and if we disagree even at this point then the problem is simply a rejection of the RAW in the BRB.

You continue to claim RAW but refuse to cite support.

Please do so for the underlined statements.

"When rolling to hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of 1 always misses"

You don't need a rule to explain the concept that when an attack misses, it does no damage...that's just common sense and the way the game works.. Based on the RAW, if an attack misses, no damage takes place, the attack is not resolved. You are asking someone to prove what amounts to a "brute fact."

If I shoot a gun at you and I miss, how does it make sense that you get hit? If an attack does not hit you (I.e., misses you) then it can't hurt you... If the bullet from John Wilkes Booth's gun missed Abraham Lincoln, it would not have entered his head and killed him...

So if you have zero hits, how do you have any damage? Explain that please.

I leave this post with the point that the BRB only says that hits can cause wounds when it says "to see if a hit causes a telling amount of damage..." It never asks you to do that with misses, because misses by thier very nature and definition don't do damage. If you need further reading, check out the dictionary, it's a good read!

Psychic shriek and Hemorrhage and all other witchfires work the same way.

The unit takes hits, wounds, or characteristic tests. The player who controls the chariot gets to choose where hits and wounds go, but can not choose to allocate wounds or characteristic tests to targets that are not valid.

Order of operations for psychic shriek.

Pass psychic test.
Roll to hit.
Perform characteristic test for the unit.
Player who controls the chariot allocates wounds to legal targets which can only be the rider.

Order of operations for hemorrhage when it doesn't go off as a focused witchfire.
Pass psychic test.
Roll to hit.
Player who controls the chariot selects a legal target to take the characteristic test which can only be the rider.

Order of operations for witch fires with a str value.

Pass a witch fire that has a str value.
Roll to hit.
Player who controls the chariot allocates wounds to legal targets which can be the chariot or rider.
Roll to wound or penetrate armor.

Mortetvie

I also disagree with point 1. The fact that you state it as RaW and your support for that RaW is that it is common sense proves that it is not RaW (if it was you'd have quoted the ruke that supports it).

A missed to hit roll on a shooting attack stops you making a to wound roll or an armour penetration roll. That is all it stops by the shooting rules in the BrB (because only hits are given permission to make those rolls). It can also stop effects triggered off hits like Entropic Strike for instance. Notice there is nothing in Psychic Shriek that ties its effect to a successful to hit roll (where there is for Entropic Strike and other such abilities). So we know that the Psychic Shriek effect has nothing to do with a successful to hit roll RaW.

If you believe that the Psychic Shriek effect is triggered by a successful to hit roll please quote the rule that ties the effect to a to hit roll or to a hit. If you can not provide this rule you must concede this part of the argument.

Your 2nd point is only half right. With no profile not only do we not know how many dice we must roll to hit we also don't know the weapon type (or any special rules). Thus we don't know if we must resolve the shot as a snap shot or not and we don't know what actions this prohibits the Psyker from taking later in the turn. Simply put we can't resolve the to hit roll (and even if we could it has no impact on the effect).

 FlingitNow wrote:
Mortetvie

I also disagree with point 1. The fact that you state it as RaW and your support for that RaW is that it is common sense proves that it is not RaW (if it was you'd have quoted the ruke that supports it).

A missed to hit roll on a shooting attack stops you making a to wound roll or an armour penetration roll. That is all it stops by the shooting rules in the BrB (because only hits are given permission to make those rolls). It can also stop effects triggered off hits like Entropic Strike for instance. Notice there is nothing in Psychic Shriek that ties its effect to a successful to hit roll (where there is for Entropic Strike and other such abilities). So we know that the Psychic Shriek effect has nothing to do with a successful to hit roll RaW.

If you believe that the Psychic Shriek effect is triggered by a successful to hit roll please quote the rule that ties the effect to a to hit roll or to a hit. If you can not provide this rule you must concede this part of the argument.

Your 2nd point is only half right. With no profile not only do we not know how many dice we must roll to hit we also don't know the weapon type (or any special rules). Thus we don't know if we must resolve the shot as a snap shot or not and we don't know what actions this prohibits the Psyker from taking later in the turn. Simply put we can't resolve the to hit roll (and even if we could it has no impact on the effect).

Because psychic shriek and haemmorage are witchfires and not maledictions they require a single to hit roll or the entire power is considered to have missed.

The power is triggered when the psychic test is passed. It's then nullified if DTW kicks in, and if a miss is rolled on the to hit roll then it's still triggered but it has no effect because it whiffed.

The weapon type is witch fire with a range of 18".

Thus we do know if we must resolve the shot as a snap shot if we check the main rulebook page 27 under witch fires left hand column 3rd to last paragraph. Unless the unit is pinned or moved more than 6" in a transport or shooting at a target that requires snap shots it fires at full bs.

We do know what actions this prohibits the Psyker from taking later in the turn if we check the rule book on page 27 left column 2nd to last paragraph. It specifically states the psyker may freely act including running, turbo boost, shooting another target, or assaulting another target.

Simply put we can resolve the to hit roll will the rules being very clear on page 27 under witchfires.

Because psychic shriek and haemmorage are witchfires and not maledictions they require a single to hit roll or the entire power is considered to have missed. 

I'm going to need a rules quote to support that if you don't hit a witchfire does nothing.

You then go on to point to the rules that prove your interpretation isn't correct. Page 27 defines that you snap shot just like a normal weapon. So if the Witchfire (which isn't a weapon type) is heavy and you've move it is a snap shot. We don't know if it is heavy, assault, rapidfire, salvo, ordnance or Primary Weapon so we can know if we are snapfiring or not. Which also means we don't know if we can assault after firing the witchfire or not.

Check out most focussed Witchfires like Haemorrage which also don't need a roll to hit.

 mortetvie wrote:
You guys need to demonstrate why missing allows it to succeed... Convenient you disregard that.

We have, several times.

Here it is again, with rules backing and everything.

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase section Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

If you do not apply the effects after a missed roll to hit have you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."?

The "instructions in its entry" do not say that a successful roll to hit is needed to apply the effects of Psychic Shriek.

But seriously:
Read this thread for the full explanation about Psychic Shriek and why rolling to hit does not matter.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/599053.page

Not going to get into that aspect of it again.

there really is no point to go on as you guys are either monumental trolls or just that dumb.

So breaking the forum rules is suddenly okay now?

When an attack misses, it is a brute fact that it does nothing unless otherwise specified. Look up the terms "miss" and "brute fact."

I prefer to support my facts with the Rules in the BRB...

 mortetvie wrote:
"When rolling to hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of 1 always misses"

You don't need a rule to explain the concept that when an attack misses, it does no damage...that's just common sense and the way the game works.. Based on the RAW, if an attack misses, no damage takes place, the attack is not resolved. You are asking someone to prove what amounts to a "brute fact."

I agree that if you miss you cannot roll to wound. No issues with that.
I have permission to use the power. I have permission to resolve the power according to its rules text. Where is the denial of that permission if I miss?

I leave this post with the point that the BRB only says that hits can cause wounds when it says "to see if a hit causes a telling amount of damage..." It never asks you to do that with misses, because misses by thier very nature and definition don't do damage. If you need further reading, check out the dictionary, it's a good read!

So the only thing you can cite has to so with rolling to wound? Yeah, that's irrelevant. Perhaps you should spend less time insulting people and more time building a stable platform to argue from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 schadenfreude wrote:
The unit takes hits, wounds, or characteristic tests. The player who controls the chariot gets to choose where hits and wounds go, but can not choose to allocate wounds or characteristic tests to targets that are not valid.

Citation required.

Order of operations for psychic shriek.

Pass psychic test.
Roll to hit.
Perform characteristic test for the unit.
Player who controls the chariot allocates wounds to legal targets which can only be the rider.

Psychic Shriek is not a characteristic test. Perhaps you should read the rules involved before posting.

Good then, I'll let it go that the intent is clear to most people about the roll to hit and move on. Since everyone, just about, agrees there should be a To Hit roll even though to some is doesn't do anything I can then use the chariot rule and allocate it, the resolution, and wounds to the the chariot not the rider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would also like a rule quote that tells me that a missed weapon does nothing. I've just read the section and nothing like that is mentioned. I have permission to fire and permission to resolve the shots but I do not have any rule as what to do with the misses. Continuing with your line of thinking I'll just resolve them as I have no other instructions on what to do with them.

Gravmyr wrote:

I would also like a rule quote that tells me that a missed weapon does nothing. I've just read the section and nothing like that is mentioned. I have permission to fire and permission to resolve the shots but I do not have any rule as what to do with the misses. Continuing with your line of thinking I'll just resolve them as I have no other instructions on what to do with them.

You can't roll to wound unless you make a successful To Hit roll. But Shriek doesn't roll To Wound.

Doesn't look like a rule quote.