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.

Do beams roll to hit? I'm leaning toward no. What do others think?

It seems obvious that focussed witchfires roll to hit, but Crush (Telekinesis) just states "the target model suffers a hit with the strength equal to..." Is the purpose of this sentence only to mention the method of determining a hit's strength, or is it exempting this power from rolling to hit?
You make da call.

The Beam rule is very clear on this

So beams don't roll to hit. That's cool.

I'm thinking crush needs to roll to hit though.

 Kavish wrote:
So beams don't roll to hit. That's cool.

I'm thinking crush needs to roll to hit though.

Sure Crush needs to roll to hit, because it is a focussed witchfire which follows "all the normal rules for witchfire" which includes a roll to hit, but how many dice does it roll to hit, and where did you find that information because I can not find it. (The psychic phase chapter, focussed witchfire section).

Crush is a Focussed Witchfire (FWf) and thus requires a roll to hit. However it is impossible to resolve that roll to hit as we don't have a weapons profile to do that with (telling us how many shots are fired, what weapon type and what strength to resolve those shots at). However the effect is not dependant on a to hit so it is either resolved vs the nearest model in the unit or a selected model (as per the FWf rules) regardless of what happens with that unresolvable to hit roll. In game this means that you do not roll to hit, much as you do not resolve other unresolvable and irrelevant actions (like applying -1T from enfeeble on a vehicle).

 FlingitNow wrote:
Crush is a Focussed Witchfire (FWf) and thus requires a roll to hit. However it is impossible to resolve that roll to hit as we don't have a weapons profile to do that with (telling us how many shots are fired, what weapon type and what strength to resolve those shots at). However the effect is not dependant on a to hit so it is either resolved vs the nearest model in the unit or a selected model (as per the FWf rules) regardless of what happens with that unresolvable to hit roll. In game this means that you do not roll to hit, much as you do not resolve other unresolvable and irrelevant actions (like applying -1T from enfeeble on a vehicle).

Unless of course you read the shooting section that specifically tells you to roll a single die To Hit unless specefied otherwise.

No, that isnt what the shooting section specifies. It specifies most weapons roll one die. It also tells you that assault weapons must have a profile. Page and graph where this profile is, please

chanceafs wrote:
Unless of course you read the shooting section that specifically tells you to roll a single die To Hit unless specefied otherwise.

Citation please. Or are you referring to "...roll a D6 for each shot that is in range."?

Broken part of the Rules, RaW states you MUST roll To Hit, but does not provide a weapon profile, as DR said.

By Occams i'd say 1 Roll To Hit. Obviously got just as much rules support as "no dice", but does not break the "You must roll To Hit" rule, and is not a stupid amount of 25567 Dice rolls (ie Occams)

Again, roll one dice to hit if it makes you feel better

Even if you "miss", given ONLY to-wound rolls require a successful roll to hit (basic rules) barring a more specific rule, the outcome of the roll to hit is 100% irrelevant

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, roll one dice to hit if it makes you feel better

Even if you "miss", given ONLY to-wound rolls require a successful roll to hit (basic rules) barring a more specific rule, the outcome of the roll to hit is 100% irrelevant

100% this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, roll one dice to hit if it makes you feel better

Even if you "miss", given ONLY to-wound rolls require a successful roll to hit (basic rules) barring a more specific rule, the outcome of the roll to hit is 100% irrelevant

Yes a miss causes no problems but what if you hit with your made up number of dice? The shooting rules then require you to roll to wound for each hit caused, do we now make up a S value and AP to resolve the hit(s)? What actions does it prevent the user from making in later phases? Is it an assault weapon, rapidfire, salvo, heavy? What?

If you have to roll to hit with focused witchfires that demand a test rather than fire a profile, the 'Eadbanger spell just became the most worthless awful spell in the whole game.

 Bolg da Goff wrote:
If you have to roll to hit with focused witchfires that demand a test rather than fire a profile, the 'Eadbanger spell just became the most worthless awful spell in the whole game.

Why? The effect is not dependant on a to hit roll so you lose nothing. Except obviously the game breaks when you then try to roll to wound for that hit (or those hits)...

 Bolg da Goff wrote:
If you have to roll to hit with focused witchfires that demand a test rather than fire a profile, the 'Eadbanger spell just became the most worthless awful spell in the whole game.

You have to roll to hit - an undefined number of times - but the effect for e.g. 'eadbanger STILL OCCURS, NO MATTER WHAT YOU ROLL

Because only to-wound requires a succesful to-hit. If you are not rolling to-wound, then you are not required to have a successful to hit.

So, you may as well skip the unknown number of dice, that now cannot roll to-wound anyway as you have no profile.

I can't find any way around it in the rules. Even beams don't have an exception to rolling to hit. It just says your target is "a point within the powers range". I'm starting to think that psychic powers are useless.

For crush for example:
First you have to succeed in manifesting.
Then your opponent has to fail to deny the witch.
Then you have to hit.
Then you have to roll up a good Str and ap.
Then your opponent has to fail their save.

What are the chances of that succeeding?!

 Kavish wrote:
I can't find any way around it in the rules. Even beams don't have an exception to rolling to hit. It just says your target is "a point within the powers range". I'm starting to think that psychic powers are useless.

It's not about finding away around anything. Beams are absolutely clear on how they work as has been covered. Whilst for focussed witchfires it appears you haven't read either the rules or this thread:

For crush for example:
First you have to succeed in manifesting.
Then your opponent has to fail to deny the witch.
Then you have to hit.
Then you have to roll up a good Str and ap.
Then your opponent has to fail their save.

What are the chances of that succeeding?!

The underlined is clearly wrong. You have to roll to hit (with an undefined number of dice) whether you hit or not is irrelevant to the effect.

Is it wrong or is that just one interpretation? Why do you have to roll if it doesn't matter? I lean toward GW meaning for it to matter despite not telling you so. If it didn't why not make them maledictions or conjurations? RAW it may not matter but do you really believe that is what GW intended?

Gravmyr wrote:
Is it wrong or is that just one interpretation? Why do you have to roll if it doesn't matter? I lean toward GW meaning for it to matter despite not telling you so. If it didn't why not make them maledictions or conjurations? RAW it may not matter but do you really believe that is what GW intended?

I agree with the RaI of this being that a failed roll To Hit would mean the beam fails to hit, just as any other shooting attack would: it is discarded.

No rules support however.

Gravmyr wrote:
Is it wrong or is that just one interpretation? Why do you have to roll if it doesn't matter? I lean toward GW meaning for it to matter despite not telling you so. If it didn't why not make them maledictions or conjurations? RAW it may not matter but do you really believe that is what GW intended?

It is wrong, as there is nothing, written, that requires a hit for you to carry on resolving the power, and a written rule (resolving) requiring you to resovle the power. Discarding the effect on a failed to hit has no rules support

Making items witchfires allows them to be used out of fire points, would be one obvious reason for them to have this category.,

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Is it wrong or is that just one interpretation? Why do you have to roll if it doesn't matter? I lean toward GW meaning for it to matter despite not telling you so. If it didn't why not make them maledictions or conjurations? RAW it may not matter but do you really believe that is what GW intended?

It is wrong, as there is nothing, written, that requires a hit for you to carry on resolving the power, and a written rule (resolving) requiring you to resovle the power. Discarding the effect on a failed to hit has no rules support

Making items witchfires allows them to be used out of fire points, would be one obvious reason for them to have this category.,

Going by RaW, of course, no contention. But RaI: What happens when you fail To Hit with absolutely anything in the game? are these Witchfires not the ONLY time when a fail is not discarded? Also why not include text such as "most witchfires roll To Hit? Easily done and allows a choice. They seemed quite final about "witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast (...) or it is a Template". Its like saying "you must be able to Miss" (<--and RaI)

@nos I would assume then RAW you would never allow those powers to be manifested that do not tell you how many dice to roll. Would that be correct?

Edit: the roll to hit meaning something is also backup by the fact that they give exceptions to it in the beam weapon rules. I fail to understand how as a player you can choose to follow strict RAW in one part of a rule but not another. ie, The power doesn't say it matter but I'm not going to roll/don't have to roll as it's not spelled out how to do it.

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos I would assume then RAW you would never allow those powers to be manifested that do not tell you how many dice to roll. Would that be correct?

Edit: the roll to hit meaning something is also backup by the fact that they give exceptions to it in the beam weapon rules. I fail to understand how as a player you can choose to follow strict RAW in one part of a rule but not another. ie, The power doesn't say it matter but I'm not going to roll/don't have to roll as it's not spelled out how to do it.

How do you apply the -1T from enfeeble on a vehicle? Do you:

1) Ignoring the non-resolvable effect and just apply the effects we are told to how to do (like we are claiming here)
2) Make up a toughness value and apply the modifier to that (which presumably would be zero resulting in instant removal of the vehicle).

Which would you do?

RaW the roll to hit is required but irrelevant and unresolvable. RaI no roll to hit is made, this intent is clear when you consider powers like Psychic Shriek and 'Eadbanger.

Gravmyr wrote:
@nos I would assume then RAW you would never allow those powers to be manifested that do not tell you how many dice to roll. Would that be correct?

Edit: the roll to hit meaning something is also backup by the fact that they give exceptions to it in the beam weapon rules. I fail to understand how as a player you can choose to follow strict RAW in one part of a rule but not another. ie, The power doesn't say it matter but I'm not going to roll/don't have to roll as it's not spelled out how to do it.

So you -1T an enfeedbled vehicle as well?

You have an unresolvable requirement, that luckily has absolutely no effect - none whatsoever - on the rest of the power. So, RAW you resolve the power, and leave the unresolved parts alone as nothing about htem halts the game.

Black - I really dont care what other things happen when you fail compared to other, entirely unrelated rules - sometimes a 1 is a fail, sometimes a 6 is, so I'm not going to guess that just because ONE situaiton (to-hit from shooting phase) is required before you can resolve tghe next step, that something entirely unrelated also must follow this.

Other focused witchfire attacks don't require a to hit roll.

Crush is no different.

You are rolling to hit during the casting phase of it, if you meet the charge requirement it hits as if it were a regular shooting attack from the front, if it is exceeded by 1+ charges it can then strike the actual model selected.

As I said you are picking and choosing. We can use 6th as a guideline and assume they missed a line in the characteristics section or we can stop the game/not play with those powers, it's really your choice. An unresolvable requirement is still a requirement, so it's up to you choose to ignore it, a house rule or roll a single die as it is a single attack also a house rule. If you fail to roll the to hit you are not following the rule which is a requirement it doesn't matter that in your opinion they don't do anything it's still a requirement and this is a RAW discussion is it not?

I notice you bring up another power but do not actually address the fact that the power may not tell you what to do if it misses but neither does any shooting attack. No where does it tell you to ignore the misses it leaves them hanging in limbo.

There are no misses with focused witchfire.

Just fails.

Gravmyr wrote:
As I said you are picking and choosing. We can use 6th as a guideline and assume they missed a line in the characteristics section or we can stop the game/not play with those powers, it's really your choice. An unresolvable requirement is still a requirement, so it's up to you choose to ignore it, a house rule or roll a single die as it is a single attack also a house rule. If you fail to roll the to hit you are not following the rule which is a requirement it doesn't matter that in your opinion they don't do anything it's still a requirement and this is a RAW discussion is it not?

I notice you bring up another power but do not actually address the fact that the power may not tell you what to do if it misses but neither does any shooting attack. No where does it tell you to ignore the misses it leaves them hanging in limbo.

"Normal" Shooting attacks do tell you what happens if you miss, by telling you that you then roll to wound ONLY with those that successfully hit. As there is no in between state (no excluded middle), you are able to know what to do with the misses - they have no further effect, as none is called for.

There is no equivalent stipulation in *any* of these powers. So it is not an opinion that missing has no effect, it is a factual statement. If you disagree, you must provide some textual evidence, page and graph, or tkae that assertion back. Something like "if you miss, this power has no further effect" would do nicely. Failure to furnish such a point renders your argument, and thus your statement that this is my opinion, null.

"single attack = single dice" fails utterly as even a concept of a house rule, as it is belied by every multishot weapon out there. There is NO rational basis for it, conceptually.

So you you resolve the -1T? At least my ruling is consistent - ignore those conditions which can have no effect on the game. A "missed" Witchfire still resolves its power according to its entry (as the rules require you to do), enfeeble on a vehicle still resolves, despite the vehicle having no toughness.

You can make a RAI argument all you like, which is what I am assumign you are doing, but I/'m pointing out that even then it isnt even probable RAI...

I assume then you can quote a similar rule for shooting, something like "if you miss, this weapon has no further effect" would do nicely. If you cannot do so it renders your argument, and thus your statement that this is not your opinion, null.

single attack=single roll does work just fine as multishot weapons tell you they are multishot.

I use the standard ruling from 6th that if it does not have a particular stat it has no effect on that model just as had been stated about str checks against vehicles since before 6th.

If it's not probable RAI why make the statement in witchfire powers that they have to roll to hit and give exceptions to it in other subpowers?

Cute, but flawed, again

You understand the game works by telling you what to do first, yes?

Shooting tells you what to do with hits. As there is no in-between state, it also tells you what to do with misses as there is no excluded middle fallacy, which I had already pointed to you but you ignored. If you roll 5 misses from 5, you go no further, as only a successful to-hit tells you to then do something.

Witchfires tell you to roll to-hit, but then make no further requirement on that roll to-hit - successful or otherwise. I am sure you can provide a rule linking this? Either telling you you must SUCCESSFULLY roll to hit (and how many dice to do it with) before you can resolve the power according to its description, or you are told that missing means you cannot resolve.

If it tells you nothing, which as we both know for a fact is the case, you fall to your first instruction - to resolve the power according to its entry. Which has no tie to the to hit roll. There is no outcome determined by the to hit. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. We know this to be true.

Which is why your laughable swap around of my words is a failure - I am already complying with written rules. Youre not. Youre introducing a requirement that DOES NOT EXIST, and claiming it is then my opinion that this made up by you requirement does not exist.

Of course, you did make it up, and as I cannot prove a negative (I cannot prove your made up phrase does not exist in the rulebook), you must prove you did not make it up. So, do as required, or correct your flawed post and mark your argument appropriately.

Again: provide a link between the requirement to-hit, an resolving the power according to its entry. I've made it nice and simple for you, as to-hit rolls are nicely binary - they hit or miss, no third option. So, find something that tells you to continue resolving on a hit, to not resolve on a miss, or concede the point.

Single attack = one, two, three, four, 6, 7, 8, 15, 20, 30 rolls just from the top of my head on fixed number weapons, not including super gatlas that can in theory roll indefinitely. So you cannot state single attack = single roll, as ALL weapons must tell you how many shots they fire, either explicitly, or tied to another rule.