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.

Actually all weapons have a profile as DR has pointed out. Just because it has not been presented in a form you are use to does not mean it does not have one. Under weapons it states the profile will say if it fires more than one. Does Shriek state it fires more than one shot?

Great. Now show us how many dice we roll. Please.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
For all of the argument about 0 shot shooting attacks and "most models only have one shot" and on ..

Please provide the rule that states how many dice are rolled when rolling to hit with a Psychic Power such as Psychic Shriek. This should be simple.

Also note that the line "most models" is not in any way a rule that states how many dice are rolled. It is a generic statement about shooting that may or may not apply. Even my Space Marines with bolters only have "one shot" yet may roll more than one die, depending on the range.

Thus far, nobody has been able to provide a rule or concrete evidence stating how many dice are rolled to hit with Psychic Shriek (or similar witchfires without a profile).

Spoiler:

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. Indeed, they are often referred to as psychic
shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons. Just like when
shooting a weapon, a Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point) and
cannot be locked in combat if he wishes to manifest a witchfire power. Similarly, a
witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is 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.

Witchfire powers MUST roll to hit so we know there is at least one. Multiple shots need to be specified.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gravmyr wrote:
Actually all weapons have a profile as DR has pointed out. Just because it has not been presented in a form you are use to does not mean it does not have one. Under weapons it states the profile will say if it fires more than one. Does Shriek state it fires more than one shot?

So what is Psychic Shrieks weapon profile? Keep in mind a profile includes Range, Strength, Type, AP and special rules.

I just did. you roll one.

And done here.

Roll to hit all you like. The outcome cannot have any effect on resolving the 3d6 , as per actual rules, as it is not a to-wound

Claims that they are a to-wound have been refuted. That argument holds no water - and never did.

So all this talk about number of shots is utterly irrelevant. And always has been

If posters wish to claim otherwise, find a rule, an actual gakking printed rule, stating that a non to-wound effect relies upon a to- hit being succesful. NOONE has found anything like this

Until you can do so, this is finished.

Gravmyr wrote:
Did you look at the link?

It attempted.

Okay, so an attempt is all that's required.
So why is a Gets Hot Blast okay (0 shots) but Shriek isn't (0 shots)?

You are correct it is finished as you cannot find a single rule that backs up rolling 0 nor ignoring the to hit roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because it didn't attempt to shoot only to fail to shoot unless that is what you are saying. You are going to attempt to shoot then not and just move on wasting the warp charges and doing no wounds. Comparing the two is the same as stating that me making my armour saves or FNP kept you from shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shooting 0 is not even attmpting, it's not shooting.

Gravmyr wrote:
You are correct it is finished as you cannot find a single rule that backs up rolling 0 nor ignoring the to hit roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because it didn't attempt to shoot only to fail to shoot unless that is what you are saying. You are going to attempt to shoot then not and just move on wasting the warp charges and doing no wounds. Comparing the two is the same as stating that me making my armour saves or FNP kept you from shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shooting 0 is not even attmpting, it's not shooting.

Blasts that Gets Hot fail to shoot. By definition. Almost like it's what the rules say (they do).

rigeld2 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Did you look at the link?

It attempted.

Okay, so an attempt is all that's required.
So why is a Gets Hot Blast okay (0 shots) but Shriek isn't (0 shots)?

Show a Gets Hot shooting attack that has zero on its profile for the number of shots.

Then by definition a shooting attack with 0 shots fails to shoot and does nothing..... so again how are you rolling 0?

Gravmyr wrote:
You are correct it is finished as you cannot find a single rule that backs up rolling 0 nor ignoring the to hit roll.

Nor a single rule that tells you to not finish resolving the witchfires power (as instructed) inflicting 3D6-LD wounds on the target (which has no tie to any roll to hit, which makes the roll to hit discussion irrelevant).

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Did you look at the link?

It attempted.

Okay, so an attempt is all that's required.
So why is a Gets Hot Blast okay (0 shots) but Shriek isn't (0 shots)?

Show a Gets Hot shooting attack that has zero on its profile for the number of shots.

Any Blast that rolls a 1 for Gets Hot.

Gravmyr wrote:Then by definition a shooting attack with 0 shots fails to shoot and does nothing..... so again how are you rolling 0?

You're equating resolving the 3d6 to the resolution of the shooting attack. What rule are you using to do so again? You've never shown it.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
You are correct it is finished as you cannot find a single rule that backs up rolling 0 nor ignoring the to hit roll.

Nor a single rule that tells you to not finish resolving the witchfires power (as instructed) inflicting 3D6-LD wounds on the target (which has no tie to any roll to hit, which makes the roll to hit discussion irrelevant).

A roll to hit is required.

Roll to wounds are mandated for successful hits.





You cannot avoid this step. Only successful rolls to wound enable psychic shriek to wound or cause a telling amount of damage. However, we are missing critical info to resolve this mandated step. This is where the lack of profile causes the rules to technically break. Everyone at this point is required to implement some sort of HYWPI.

col_impact wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
You are correct it is finished as you cannot find a single rule that backs up rolling 0 nor ignoring the to hit roll.

Nor a single rule that tells you to not finish resolving the witchfires power (as instructed) inflicting 3D6-LD wounds on the target (which has no tie to any roll to hit, which makes the roll to hit discussion irrelevant).

A roll to hit is required.

Roll to wounds are mandated for successful hits.

Spoiler:

5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the
target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing
weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.

Spoiler:

ROLL TO WOUND
To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s
Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To
Wound chart below. The number indicated on the chart is the minimum result on a
D6 needed to convert the hit into a Wound. A value of ‘-’ indicates that the target cannot
be wounded by the attack.
Note that the minimum roll needed To Wound is always at least 2. When rolling To
Wound, there is no such thing as an automatic Wound and a roll of a 1 always
fails.

You cannot avoid this step. Only successful rolls to wound enable psychic shriek to wound or cause a telling amount of damage. However, we are missing critical info to resolve this mandated step. This is where the lack of profile causes the rules to technically break. Everyone at this point is required to implement some sort of HYWPI.

The underlined is untrue. Nothing ties the 3d6 roll (and resulting wounds) to the To Hit roll. You (and others) have repeatedly asserted that as fact, but have as yet failed to prove it. Pardon me for not just assuming you're right, but could you provide rules to support the underlined statement?

Can you back that up with a rule that states you skip things that are irrelevant in your opinion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Per the witchfire rules the entire power is the shooting attack it's not the result of one.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
You are correct it is finished as you cannot find a single rule that backs up rolling 0 nor ignoring the to hit roll.

Nor a single rule that tells you to not finish resolving the witchfires power (as instructed) inflicting 3D6-LD wounds on the target (which has no tie to any roll to hit, which makes the roll to hit discussion irrelevant).

A roll to hit is required.

Roll to wounds are mandated for successful hits.

Spoiler:

5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the
target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing
weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.

Spoiler:

ROLL TO WOUND
To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s
Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To
Wound chart below. The number indicated on the chart is the minimum result on a
D6 needed to convert the hit into a Wound. A value of ‘-’ indicates that the target cannot
be wounded by the attack.
Note that the minimum roll needed To Wound is always at least 2. When rolling To
Wound, there is no such thing as an automatic Wound and a roll of a 1 always
fails.

You cannot avoid this step. Only successful rolls to wound enable psychic shriek to wound or cause a telling amount of damage. However, we are missing critical info to resolve this mandated step. This is where the lack of profile causes the rules to technically break. Everyone at this point is required to implement some sort of HYWPI.

The underlined is untrue. Nothing ties the 3d6 roll (and resulting wounds) to the To Hit roll. You (and others) have repeatedly asserted that as fact, but have as yet failed to prove it. Pardon me for not just assuming you're right, but could you provide rules to support the underlined statement?

"For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target."

"To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage . . ."

Why are you ignoring this part then:
The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.

As Shriek does not follow the default method to determine if a Wound is successful, how can it be bound to and obey a Rule which details that method?
If it creates a conflict with the Rule because it can not follow the default method, why then does it not over-write the entirety of the Rule?

JinxDragon wrote:
Why are you ignoring this part then:
The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.

As Shriek does not follow the default method to determine if a Wound is successful, how can it be bound to a Rule which details what the default method is?

I am not ignoring it. My argument is that there is missing info that allows us to resolve Psychic Shriek and that everyone is in HYWPI land.

Everyone should be labeling their arguments as HYWPI per the tenets of this forum.

In particular, Psychic Shriek is missing "Instead of a to-wound roll" that other weapons have. Minimally, that needs to be there to resolve Psychic Shriek.

If it creates a conflict with the Rule because it can not follow the default method, why then does it not over-write the entirety of the Rule?

It's pretty bold to claim that conflicts allow the overwriting of the entirety of the rules. If that is HYWPI then fine.

col_impact wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Why are you ignoring this part then:
The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.

As Shriek does not follow the default method to determine if a Wound is successful, how can it be bound to a Rule which details what the default method is?

I am not ignoring it. My argument is that there is missing info that allows us to resolve Psychic Shriek and that everyone is in HYWPI land.

Everyone should be labeling their arguments as HYWPI per the tenets of this forum.

In particular, Psychic Shriek is missing "Instead of a to-wound roll" that other weapons have. Minimally, that needs to be there to resolve Psychic Shriek.

Seconded.

Gravmyr wrote:Can you back that up with a rule that states you skip things that are irrelevant in your opinion?

Per the witchfire rules the entire power is the shooting attack it's not the result of one.

I haven't said the rules allow you to skip it. HIWPI is it's skipped as it's irrelevant.
And no, the witchfire rules don't say that. Quoting rules is polite.

col_impact wrote:"For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target."

"To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage . . ."

And no shots hit, so those rules are irrelevant. Perhaps you'd rather read the thread to keep up with the discussion?
I mean, I don't mind informing you, but we've covered this ground already and repetition is tiring.

I don't think anyone involved in this discussion is oblivious to how broken the Written Rule itself is, the lack of a profile really does mess everything up.

Some are just trying to find out how the Authors Intended for it to work within the Rule system they designed. This is an uphill battle because it involves evoking 'loopholes' which do exist in the Written Rule, even though they lead to conclusions which make no sense. However, in order to keep in a Rule as Written structure, the only way for us to both resolve a Shooting Sequence and have no profile is to utilize one of these loopholes: The 0-Shot Shooting Sequence.

This only has problems with the group that believes such a concept its impossible, because it goes against all sorts of common sense.
Of course 0 Results is the same as 0 Successful Results, and the sequence handles those perfectly well....

BRB wrote:Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

Looks like it says exactly that.

Edit: It's literally the first line under the witchfire section.

As for the overwrite:
Without specific instructions telling us to replace only part of a Rule with the conflicting instructions, we do not have permission to evoke only half a Rule!

In this situation it is impossible to roll 3d6 in order to generate Wounds without violating the default method of To Wounding. These are not successful hit dice we are rolling to determine the number of wounds, it is an entirely different pool of dice that are rolled and the end result is X number of Successful Wounds. If this 3d6 dice roll was meant to replace just the 'Strength Vs Toughness' portion of the Rule, then it would need to be worded very different to what it currently is.

Gravmyr wrote:

BRB wrote:Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

Looks like it says exactly that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:Can you back that up with a rule that states you skip things that are irrelevant in your opinion?

Per the witchfire rules the entire power is the shooting attack it's not the result of one.

I haven't said the rules allow you to skip it. HIWPI is it's skipped as it's irrelevant.
And no, the witchfire rules don't say that. Quoting rules is polite.

No, it doesn't say exactly that.

No that is exactly what the first line under witchfire says per my BRB. It's copy pasted for exactness.

Gravmyr wrote:
No that is exactly what the first line under witchfire says per my BRB. It's copy pasted for exactness.

You misunderstand.
The rule you quoted is correct.
It does not, however, say what you assured me it does. In other words, it does not say (as I underlined) "the entire power is the shooting attack it's not the result of one."

Again that is exactly what is says. It does not state that the powers are the result of shooting attacks. It literally states the power is a shooting attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. does not mean Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. What does it mean?

JinxDragon wrote:
I don't think anyone involved in this discussion is oblivious to how broken the Written Rule itself is, the lack of a profile really does mess everything up.

Some are just trying to find out how the Authors Intended for it to work within the Rule system they designed. This is an uphill battle because it involves evoking 'loopholes' which do exist in the Written Rule, even though they lead to conclusions which make no sense. However, in order to keep in a Rule as Written structure, the only way for us to both resolve a Shooting Sequence and have no profile is to utilize one of these loopholes: The 0-Shot Shooting Sequence.

This only has problems with the group that believes such a concept its impossible, because it goes against all sorts of common sense.
Of course 0 Results is the same as 0 Successful Results, and the sequence handles those perfectly well....

It sounds like you are agreeing that strict RAW is broke here. It sounds like you agree that we are all in HYWPI land here.

The problem with ducktaping a bunch of loopholes and fictions that are made up (like the zero shot shooting attack) is that you wind up easter-egging (in addition to misrepresenting yourself as a strict RAW argument). You are producing a Psychic Shriek that acts like a malediction and not like witchfire. It's fairly obvious that the authors intend for it to resolve like witchfire.

The most elegant HYWPI solution resolves it as witchfire. Roll to hit and resolve psychic shriek on successful hits. It's super simple and we don't have to ducktape loopholes or make up fictions to do so. Plenty of shooting attacks have an "instead of a to wound roll" on them.

If anyone doesn't think we are in HYWPI land then they really are "oblivious to how broken the Written Rule itself is" or are pretending to be for advantage (which is far worse).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
As for the overwrite:
Without specific instructions telling us to replace only part of a Rule with the conflicting instructions, we do not have permission to evoke only half a Rule!

We can not skip parts of a rule that are mandatory to determining if its successful. I am not permitted to skip spending WC to manifest Psychic Shriek. If we cannot pay costs then powers fail.

If there is a conflict and we cannot resolve requisite components then Psychic Shriek fails (just as if the WC amount was missing on its entry).

Where you see a free lunch granted by a conflict or a typo and are making an easter egg out of it (wow I autohit and autowound with a witchfire attack! gee thanks sloppy rule writing!) I see a lunch that has to be paid by the rules and nothing in your wallet to pay it.

However, it's outrageously obvious that it's intended to be witchfire. So instead of turning a broken situation into something it is not, use HYWPI to fill the missing piece (a line that reads "instead of a To Wound Roll")

Col_Impact,
What I see is not people discussing How They Would Play It, but discussing Author Intent.
It is a very good question: Just what did the Author Intend when they created a Witchfire with no profile?

As for resolving only half a Rule:
Quote the Rule that allows you permission to evoke only half a Rule for me, please....

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_Impact,
What I see is not people discussing How They Would Play It, but discussing Author Intent.
It is a very good question: Just what did the Author Intend when they created a Witchfire with no profile?

I see a pretty slam dunk RAI argument that resolves Psychic Shriek as witchfire. To do that, the only thing that is missing is "Instead of a To Wound Roll . . ." and we have plenty of other cases of that in the rules. It can even be understood how a clause like that could have been accidentally left out (the writer assumed that the reader would apply the psychic shriek text as a custom to wound roll)

I hereby claim to have the most elegant solution to the mess that Psychic Shriek is in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:


As for resolving only half a Rule:
Quote the Rule that allows you permission to evoke only half a Rule for me, please....

Quote the rule that allows you to resolve witchfire without satisfying all its requirements (such as being in range, etc.)

Gravmyr wrote:
Again that is exactly what is says. It does not state that the powers are the result of shooting attacks. It literally states the power is a shooting attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. does not mean Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. What does it mean?

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.
That does not mean that everything the power does is resolved as part of a shooting attack.