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.

Agreed, as PS is a witchfire of unspecified type and a roll to hit is mandatory for all witchfire attacks.

Then we look back at Model vs Unit for the Wounding.

Rules then say that the owner of the chariot decides where the hits go. If 3d6 was taken against the Ld value, then also wounds should be assigned to a profile that can be wounded.

But the chariot rules... You end up hitting the vehicle that does not have Ld value or Wounds, so the Power does nothing.

Lessons learned: Do not shoot a chariot with your Psychic Shriek.

My original stance was that the rider must be wounded, but now I think differently. Just accept the fact that in this situation another target or another Power could be more useful.

Agreed, as PS is a witchfire of unspecified type and a roll to hit is mandatory for all witchfire attacks. 

Which is impossible to resolve unless you make up numbers.

Rules then say that the owner of the chariot decides where the hits go. If 3d6 was taken against the Ld value, then also wounds should be assigned to a profile that can be wounded.

But the chariot rules... You end up hitting the vehicle that does not have Ld value or Wounds, so the Power does nothing. 
 

You assign all the unresolvable hits to the Chariot those hits then must roll armour penetration which is also unresolvable unless you make up numbers as above.

The unit then also take 3d6-ld wounds (this effect has literally no link to the impossible to resolve hits).

Also your stance is entirely hypocritical. When we must resolve a to hit roll without the relevant information you just make it up to resolve that, yet when you try to resolve 3d6-ld wounds against a vehicle that does not have the information required to resolve you say the effect does nothing.

If you are saying 3d6-ld wounds does nothing to a chariot you must also say the roll to hit for PS does nothing. There is literally no other way to read it either both do nothing or you invent the relevant information for both (i.e. the Chariot is Ld1 & W1 so is insta killed by PS).

Actually you need to make up the info, as you put it, to even manifest the power. Unless you can actually post a rules quote that states you do not need to roll to hit. Without that you can never manifest the power. I believe that even allowing you to do so is generous.

Gravmyr wrote:
Actually you need to make up the info, as you put it, to even manifest the power. Unless you can actually post a rules quote that states you do not need to roll to hit. Without that you can never manifest the power. I believe that even allowing you to do so is generous.

Then the same is true for all powers due to the wording on the number of powers a psyker can manifest is dependant on his mastery. We are not given that dependency so we have to make it up to apply that rule. Also the numerous other bits of fluff text that have no in game effect break the game because we can't resolve them. Or you know we could just treat the to hit roll like we do for any other text in the rulebook that has no in game effect and no way to resolve we ignore it and move forward with rules that actually work.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Agreed, as PS is a witchfire of unspecified type and a roll to hit is mandatory for all witchfire attacks. 

Which is impossible to resolve unless you make up numbers.

Rules then say that the owner of the chariot decides where the hits go. If 3d6 was taken against the Ld value, then also wounds should be assigned to a profile that can be wounded.

But the chariot rules... You end up hitting the vehicle that does not have Ld value or Wounds, so the Power does nothing. 
 

You assign all the unresolvable hits to the Chariot those hits then must roll armour penetration which is also unresolvable unless you make up numbers as above.

The unit then also take 3d6-ld wounds (this effect has literally no link to the impossible to resolve hits).

Also your stance is entirely hypocritical. When we must resolve a to hit roll without the relevant information you just make it up to resolve that, yet when you try to resolve 3d6-ld wounds against a vehicle that does not have the information required to resolve you say the effect does nothing.

If you are saying 3d6-ld wounds does nothing to a chariot you must also say the roll to hit for PS does nothing. There is literally no other way to read it either both do nothing or you invent the relevant information for both (i.e. the Chariot is Ld1 & W1 so is insta killed by PS).

Now you are the one freewheeling with the weak argument. You need to quote rules.

I did not read the entire rule book, but I did look into resolving a shooting attack and I did not see anything that mandates a weapon profile for a psychic shooting attack.

Witchfire [excerpt]
Similarly, a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it has the blast special rule, in which case it scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit automatically.

Roll To Hit
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 in more detail later. [remainder omitted]

Number of Shots
Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type.

The rules specifically say that, if a weapon fires multiple shots, the number of shots will be listed.

We know that witchfires have to roll To Hit. We know that a weapon fires one shot unless otherwise listed. We know that a witchfire power is is referred to as a weapon. We also know that weapons that do not hit do not have have their effect resolved unless explicitly stated.

If we do that we have no rules based way to apply the outcome to the chariot. If you treat the to hit roll like something that matters. It allows the rest of the rules to be applied, including the rest of the Witchfire rules, to make sense. You roll once to see if the power hits, if it doesn't you do not create wounds via resolving the power, just as you wouldn't roll to wound. Doesn't that fit into the feel and the rest of the rules system better then just assuming you can ignore the roll and remove up to 8+ models from the a unit without the two most common saves with an easily obtainable power? I'll stick with making the rest of the rules make sense instead of introducing 2 house rules to apply the effects of powers.

Edit: Yes we have to houserule that as well, I assume you are using a 1 for 1 ratio for that just as I am for this?

Edit2: The to hit roll does serve a purpose in this case as without it there is no way to resolve shooting attacks against a profile.

The two sides of the argument both have equally valid points, this is one of the few times when I'm really not sure which way the rule should go.

With this said, how will most people be house ruling this until an FAQ covers it?

I always find creating a single houserule is better then multiple. Pretty sure you can tell how I am planning on putting this forth.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
The two sides of the argument both have equally valid points, this is one of the few times when I'm really not sure which way the rule should go.

With this said, how will most people be house ruling this until an FAQ covers it?

I started on the majority side, but now I really don't see how not resolving the To Hit roll is possible. There are a lot of arguments with good points, but without the rules to back them up.

Gravmyr wrote:
I always find creating a single houserule is better then multiple. Pretty sure you can tell how I am planning on putting this forth.

So by creating 1 house rule you mean assigning an Assault 1 type to Psychic Shriek, the making a house rule that the 3d6-ld roll is a to wound roll and then making a houserule that 3d6-ld does nothing when you have no Ld to resolve against (a contrary choice given in the same position earlier you decided you just make up numbers when not given enough infornation).

Or you know instead of making 3 contrary houserules we could just apply rules as we do in every similar situation where a rule has no in game function we ignore it and move on as long as the process works (which it does here fine).

Now you are the one freewheeling with the weak argument. You need to quote rules. 

I did not read the entire rule book, but I did look into resolving a shooting attack and I did not see anything that mandates a weapon profile for a psychic shooting attack. 

Ok try page 40 "Every weapon has a profile" does PS have a profile? Again BrB page 40 "A shooting weapon always has one of the following types:" does PS have a weapon type? Note how Witchfire is not one of those options.

So what are we going to do? Treat these rules the way we treat all other rules or are we going to invent a list of contrary houserules and try to pass them off as RaW or RaI?

As in one rule. All witchfire powers are treated as weapons (allowing for the required To Hit roll) which also means the power does not resolve if it does not hit.

I never said the LD was what made it have no result. It was the fact that you have wounds allocated to a vehicle. I said you created a full 3d6 wounds.

In order to go your route we need to create a HR to ignore the To Hit requirement. One to ignore the allocation rules of a chariot. One to allow allocation of wounds to a vehicle. One to allow you to select the rider as the final resting place of the wounds.

As in one rule. All witchfire powers are treated as weapons (allowing for the required To Hit roll) which also means the power does not resolve if it does not hit. 

So that is 3 rules there:

1) all witchfires are weapons
2) PS is Assault 1
3) the 3d6-ld effect is made instead of a to wound roll

None of the above is supported by the rules.

I never said the LD was what made it have no result. It was the fact that you have wounds allocated to a vehicle. I said you created a full3d6 wounds. 

So we do 3d6 wounds to a vehicle. The vehicle does not have a wounds characteristic so do we:

a) Accept we have a rule that can not resolve and move on
b) invent a number to resolve those wounds against?

In order to go your route we need to create a HR to ignore the To Hit requirement. One to ignore the allocation rules of a chariot. One to allow allocation of wounds to a vehicle. One to allow you to select the rider as the final resting place of the wounds.

Right the first isn't a houserule it is simply a rule we can not resolve so move on.

As no hits are caused the Chariot rules have no function so again no houserule created.

The unit only has 1 wounds characteristic so we have no choice how to resolve. Also as it is a characteristic modifier the Chariot rules tell us how to deal with it.

So not a single houserule created.

@FlingitNow
I think that you are overstating the importance of the assumptions required to treat Psychic Shriek as a standard shooting attack while downplaying the assumptions required to treat is as something wholly unique.

Making a To Hit roll is explicitly required (just like a weapon having a profile is explicitly required). And saying that it is just a rule that we cannot resolve ignores the fact that a To Hit roll is, in every case where the rules do not state otherwise, a condition precedent for resolving the rest of the attack.

With the quotes that you provided, there are clearly rules on both sides of this one. I don't think that there is a resolution without something else from the rules.

Making a To Hit roll is explicitly required (just like a weapon having a profile is explicitly required). And saying that it is just a rule that we cannot resolve ignores the fact that a To Hit roll is, in every case where the rules do not state otherwise, a condition precedent for resolving the rest of the attack. 

Not correct only rolls to wound or armour pen are dependant on a roll to hit (plus and roll that states it requires a hit or is done in place of one of the above rolls). The 3d6-ld is not such a roll. There is literally nothing in the rules that makes that effect interact with a to hit roll. Hence why the unresolvable to hit roll is not relevant to the resolution of the power and why skipping it is the only way to play it RaW.

Except, again you need the To Hit roll to
A: Resolve the power as it is a requirement and
B: Have a legal way to allocate anything

Houserules via your outlook:
1: Deciding to ignore the roll is a houserule, there is no rule in the book that says if you can't figure it out ignore it.
2: You do not have any way of allocating the wound to either profile because you have decided to ignore the to hit roll and standard rules do not give you an option to allocate to either profile.
3: There is no rule that you can quote that requires us to allocate the wound to the rider nor permission to do so.

Going over my single houserule again.

All witchfire powers are treated as weapons (allowing for the required To Hit roll) which also means the power does not resolve if it does not hit.
1: This doesn't require a type per the To Hit rules. Page 32.
2: I am not assigning a type to it as it is not required.

1. Is only a houserule if you also count the 3d6 wounds not effecting the Vehicle is a houserule. And the -1 S&T not effecting a Rhino from Enfeeble is also a houserule. Do you consider those other situations also houserules?

2. The unit has an Ld value so we can resolve the 3d6-ld without a houserule. The Chariot tells us how to apply characteristic modifiers so we know how to apply the negative wound modifiers. So no definitely no houserule here.

3. Just repeating 2 and again not a houserule.

As for yours. The weapon must have a profile and type so you're eithrer creating houserules for both or creating houserules that neither are needed. In the case of the later you are then creating a houserule to determine how I resolve the shot if I moved and whether I can assault inthe assault phase. So you must be creating either 2 or 4 houserules there. Just because you miss with the shot that does not effect whether the unit takes the 3d6-ld wounds so to make that true it is another houserule. So between 3&5 houserules vs none.

Gravmyr wrote:
Except, again you need the To Hit roll to
A: Resolve the power as it is a requirement and

You actually do not need to roll to hit for Psychic Shriek, you resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry.

Doing so, weather you make up an arbitrary number of dice to roll to hit or not, you will roll 3D6 and compare it to the targets LD score.

Missing, on an arbitrary number of to hit dice, does not disallow the resolution of Psychic Shriek.

Ergo your A is not correct.

What rule are you using to make the determination that you don't need a successful to-hit roll to resolve psychic shriek? The BRB says psychic shriek is a shooting attack and every shooting attack needs to roll to hit...if you don't need to roll to hit to resolve psychic shriek then why does the BRB tell you to roll to hit?


Your position has no merit based on any rule in the book what so ever. Indeed, you have to actively disregard a clear, black and white rule in the BRB to try and resolve psychic shriek without a to-hit roll. Also, when someone says "show me a rule that says when an attack misses that it fails," that isn't an answer. The converse can and should be put to your position to provide a rule that says a shooting attack that misses can still do damage/inflict wounds.

The BRB sets the principle that when a shooting attack misses it doesn't do any damage-but apparently you are saying every shooting attack except psychic shriek needs to roll to hit to do any damage. The concept that only shooing attacks that hit do damage is so basic and intrinsic to the game that GW shouldn't need to write a rule that says "a shooting attack that misses does no damage" yet you guys are demanding just that.

 mortetvie wrote:
What rule are you using to make the determination that you don't need a successful to-hit roll to resolve psychic shriek? The BRB says psychic shriek is a shooting attack that needs to roll to hit...if you don't need to roll to hit to resolve psychic shriek then why does the BRB tell you to roll to hit?

Your position has no merit based on any rule in the book what so ever.

My position is actually fully supported by the rules.

The BRB says it is a Witchfire, but does not give us a profile or tell us how many dice we need to roll to hit. (So if we actually roll dice to hit we are making up the number of dice to hit, since PS does not tell us how many we need to roll, so I will roll 30 dice to hit).

The rule we use that tells us that the roll to hit for PS does not matter is this one:

"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.

You are still disregarding the brb rule that mandates a to-hit roll for all witchfire powers... You can't pick and choose what rules you want to follow dude.

The psychic shriek entry does not allow you to disregard the mandate to roll to hit. The rules you quote are only PART of the big picture of how psychic powers work and the rules you quoted don't allow you to get around the requirement to roll to-hit. Smite doesn't say you need to roll to hit either, so are you saying you can do damage with it without any to-hit rolls for that very reason? That makes no sense.

So once again, please cite a rule that allows you to resolve psychic shriek without rolling to hit because the rules you quoted don't allow you to do that...they only explain part of the requirements of resolving powers and witchfires have te adde requirement of having a to-hit roll according to the BRB-which I remind you that you are choosing to ignore.

 mortetvie wrote:
You are still disregarding the brb rule that mandates a to-hit roll for all witchfire powers... You can't pick and choose what rules you want to follow dude.

The psychic shriek entry does not allow you to disregard the mandate to roll to hit..

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

If not, why?

Part of a requirement to even be able to resolve witchfires is a to-hit roll.

Answer these questions:

(1) Is psychic shriek a witchfire power?

(2) Do witchfires require a roll to hit according to the BRB?

If the answer is yes to both of these questions then Psychic Shriek requires a to-hit roll. By trying to resolve psychic shriek without a to-hit roll, you are breaking a rule in the BRB. Resolving a rules issue where he rules are not violate should be preferred to one that requires you to break the rules...

I never said PS dod not require a roll to hit. Psychic shriek does require a roll to hit.

However the power does not tie the effect to a successful roll to hit, ergo hitting or missing with a fabricated number of to hit dice does not matter.

Seriously though, check out this thread, you are not adding anything to the discussion that has not been covered and debunked.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603219.page

 DeathReaper wrote:
I never said PS dod not require a roll to hit.

Um, yes you did:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Except, again you need the To Hit roll to
A: Resolve the power as it is a requirement and

You actually do not need to roll to hit for Psychic Shriek...

So where you said "you actually do not need to roll to hit for psychic shriek" as quoted above...you didn't really say that? Lol...

The bottom line is, by playing psychic shriek as resolving against a unit even when it misses, you are playing the power in a nonsensical manner that goes against how everything else in the game works.

Why need a to hit roll if it, according to your position, is resolved anyway? The only logical answer is that absent an exception in the power's entry itself, you still need a successful to-hit roll to resolve the power. When the BRB says you must do x to achieve y, the only way to achieve y without x is with a specific permission which is absent in the psychic shriek entry.

 mortetvie wrote:
So where you said "you actually do not need to roll to hit for psychic shriek" as quoted above...you didn't really say that?

I said that but maybe you didn't understand what I was saying. I said "I never said PS did not require a roll to hit." this is different than "You actually do not need to roll to hit for Psychic Shriek..."

I said you don't need to roll to hit, this is because even if you miss on your to hit roll you still are instructed to "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

So while it is required, you do not need to roll to hit as the effect is not tied to a successful roll to hit.

See the difference?

 mortetvie wrote:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603219.page

You seriously need to read that thread. literally none of your positions are new and its painfully obvious you haven't bothered reading the above thread despite being directed to it no less then 4 times now.

Seriously, read it.

Then we can move past the to hit debate and discuss how wounds are allocated to chariots, you know the actual point of the thread.

Yes, you keep posting that link, and I read it, but the rules you are citing are only the GENERAL ones for resolving psychic powers in general. It doesn't make sense to discuss to-hit rolls in rules that also affect blessings and maledictions. Indeed, each type of psychic power has more specific rules that determine if they are successful or not and how they function.

By your logic and by the rules you are citing, you would also be able to cast psychic shriek into combat. Anyway, like I asked before, why require a to-hit roll if it doesn't matter? How does that make sense? Ultimately, you keep citing the general rules for psychic powers while ignoring the more specific requirements that come later in the witch fire section...if you ignore the to-hit requirement, you might as well ignore the LOS and no targeting in close combat restrictions...


Now to get back on topic...

The only way wounds are inflicted or damage is done in 40k is if a model is hit by:

(1) A template weapon of which the BRB specifically mentions needs no to-hit roll to do damage;
(2) A blast weapon, of which a successfull scatter dice and 2d6 are rolled-which is modified by the firer's BS;
(3) A shooting attack, of which a successful to-hit roll per shot based on the BS of the attacker is required;
(4) A close combat attack, of which a successful to-hit roll based on the WS of the attacker is required;
(5) A special rule is in play that allows damage to be done regardless of to-hit rolls.

The rule relied upon by some people that says "...resolve the power according to its entry..." Does not make psychic shriek fall into category 5 for the very reason that psychic shriek's entry says it is a witch fire and all witchfires fall under categories 1, 2, or 3. Since psychic shriek is not a blast or template it falls under category 3. Indeed, EVERY source of damage that automatically causes damage without needing a successful to-hit roll expressly says that the hits/wounds generated are automatic while every other source of damage in the game needs a successful roll to hit to cause damage. It flies in the face of the "natural order" of things in 40k to resolve Psychic Shriek even after a failed to-hit roll.

So since a to-hit roll is made, if the model hits, a hit is generated. BTW, the only logical number of dice required to roll is one because all shooting attacks are presumed to have 1 attack unless stated otherwise (as has been quoted previously).

Since a hit is generated, and since this is a shooting attack that is neither a blast or template, the owning player has the option of allocating the attack to the rider or the chariot itself. Remember that the chariot model itself is the target, not the rider or vehicle individually so it matters not what part of the model has a ld value.

If applied to the rider, roll 3d6-ld and take any wounds if applicable. If allocated to chariot portion of the model, nothing happens as it has no ld value and cannot suffer wounds.


The ONLY way psychic shriek and the rules question from the OP gets confusing or muddled is if you try to play psychic shriek as not requiring a single, successful to-hit roll which inflicts a hit that does 3d6-ld in wounds to be able to do any damage.

This is the simplest way to resolve the problems raised and Ockham would agree!

Anyway, like I asked before, why require a to-hit roll if it doesn't matter? How does that make sense? 

Sloppy writing. Why is requiring a to hit roll for Witchfires in general and having some witchfires that cause some effects even without hitting more nonsensical than requiring a to hut roll and expecting the player to make up out of thin air how to resolve said to hit roll?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you seem huge up on a to hit roll determining the effect (which you've made up with no rules support). So if I hit 10 times with my made up weapon profile do I do 10x3d6-ld wounds? If not why not in your interpretation. If so why?

You conveniently disregard and willfully ignore the previous rules statements quoted that in summary state that a shooting attack is normally one shot unless otherwise stated (therefore every shooting attack that does not have more than one shot on its profile or lacks a profile only has one shot). Furthermore, no shooting attack in all of the history of 40k has ever done damage when the (required) to-hit roll has failed and you want to make an exception to this principle for psychic shriek?

You don't need a rule to say shooting attacks that miss do no damage because the fact that they miss makes it painfully obvious...by asking for a rule in the BRB to say "shooting attacks that miss cause no damage" is like asking for someone to demonstrate that water is wet..

I wonder if any of you guys have played psychic shriek like you propose in any major tournaments...

Actually quite a few shooting attacks have required no roll to hit to have an effect (Puppet Master 6th Ed, practically all focussed witchfires in 6th & 7th just off the top of my head). So just saying its painfully obvious is not rules. If you can't debate using any sort of rules please concede this is your made up rules or leave the debate. Just say "I'm right because it's obvious I'm right" is not helpful to the debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean have you even read that 1 shot rule? It applies to weapons which on the very same page tells you must have both a profile and weapon type. Does Psychic Shriek have either of those?