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.

the issue with anyone claiming you don't know how many dice to roll to hit is ridiculous.

its 1 dice.

you are not told it is more than 1.

further if it were more than 1, then it would be the only attack in the game where you can have more than 1 chance to hit without a reroll for a single effect which it obviously is not.

further claiming it is more than 1 roll to hit is against that it generates a single set of 3d6-ld for wounds, not roll 3d6-ld for wounds per hit.

blaktoof wrote:
the issue with anyone claiming you don't know how many dice to roll to hit is ridiculous.

its 1 dice.

you are not told it is more than 1.

further if it were more than 1, then it would be the only attack in the game where you can have more than 1 chance to hit without a reroll for a single effect which it obviously is not.

further claiming it is more than 1 roll to hit is against that it generates a single set of 3d6-ld for wounds, not roll 3d6-ld for wounds per hit.

So of course you can provide rules citations for your assertions.
Calling people ridiculous isn't polite.

do you actually read the rules to this game before you post anything in any thread?

serious question, since you never quote anything from the rules.

provide a rules citation the to hit roll isn't required- you can't and also wont.

nice talking to you as always, putting you back on ignore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the issue with anyone claiming you don't know how many dice to roll to hit is ridiculous.

its 1 dice.

you are not told it is more than 1.

further if it were more than 1, then it would be the only attack in the game where you can have more than 1 chance to hit without a reroll for a single effect which it obviously is not.

further claiming it is more than 1 roll to hit is against that it generates a single set of 3d6-ld for wounds, not roll 3d6-ld for wounds per hit.

So of course you can provide rules citations for your assertions.
Calling people ridiculous isn't polite.

you do realize i am quoting the rules with each of my assertions, right? Do you have a copy of the rules?

also I called an issue ridiculous, not a person, or people. Because honestly the issue put forth is done so without any thought of what implication rolling multiple dice to hit with an attack that has a singular effect means, as I pointed out.

and yeah, its ridiculous.

blaktoof wrote:
its 1 dice.

I also cannot find this in the rules.

 grendel083 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
its 1 dice.

I also cannot find this in the rules.

can you find that it is more than 1 die?

and did you actually read my post?

here it is, since you might have a hard time locating it based on your post.



thanks for the useful contribution to the thread tho.

blaktoof wrote:
can you find that it is more than 1 die?

No. Nor can I find that it is less than 1. Nor can I find that it IS one. There is no number anywhere. No hint that it is 1.
1 is an assumption. Nothing more.

and did you actually read my post?

Yes I did. Having no evidence that it is more than 1 is NOT evidence that it is 1.

thanks for the useful contribution to the thread tho.

You're quite welcome. Sarcasm and insults at anyone that doesn't agree is no way to debate however.

No rule says it's more than 1. Great! Now prove that it IS 1.

so really no comments on the reasoning behind why i stated it was 1 with the RAW for each example?

you are told to roll to hit

you are required to do so to resolve the power.

you are not told to roll more than 1 dice.

further if it were more than 1, then it would be the only attack in the game where you can have more than 1 chance to hit without a reroll for a single effect which it obviously is not.

further claiming it is more than 1 roll to hit is against that it generates a single set of 3d6-ld for wounds, not roll 3d6-ld for wounds per hit.

In all honesty in that situation, how many dice do you think you roll to hit, if you had to guess a real number above 0.

Blaktoof, how many shots does a model with a Bolt Pistol get?
What about a model with a Boltgun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
In all honesty in that situation, how many dice do you think you roll to hit, if you had to guess a real number above 0.

It is undefined. Just like the Toughness of a vehicle.

 Happyjew wrote:
Blaktoof, how many shots does a model with a Bolt Pistol get?
What about a model with a Boltgun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
In all honesty in that situation, how many dice do you think you roll to hit, if you had to guess a real number above 0.

It is undefined. Just like the Toughness of a vehicle.

regardless if it is defined or undefined there are some rules for the power, and rules that it has to follow.

within those guidelines there is no RAW that you can ignore the required to hit roll for being a witchfire, and there is no RAW that you may roll more than 1 dice.

Given the wording of the power doesn't tell the reader that you roll 3d6-ld per hit, we know its not more than one dice.

so when you are asked to make a hit roll with such an attack, how many dice would you think is the correct to roll?

It's a good guess. And if I had to guess, it would be 1.

But it is a guess, an assumption. HIWPI at best.

No rule anywhere says its 1. It's not fact.

I agree its a guess.

but given the RAW states you have to roll to hit.

and no RAW says it cam be more than 1 dice, and the above I stated

there is no plain RAW answer.

however there is only 1 logical answer as to how many dice you are to roll to hit with, and when the best answer you have is a HYWPI that is what you go with.

blaktoof, as all you did was quote me, I repeat. How many shots does a model with a bolt pistol fire? What about a model armed with a Bolter?

Is a witchfire power a weapon?

Gravmyr wrote:
Is a witchfire power a weapon?

as much as I would love to have a circular argument where you answer no question presented to you on the topic after I answer you I am still baited into your game.

a witchfire power is not a weapon.

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

which is the first sentence after the heading witchfire

a witchfire power is a shooting attack, it is required to have a successful to hit roll as part of its resolution due to its entry[its entry states its a witchfire, resolution of psychic powers states you must resolve them by their entry witchfires require a to hit roll as per a shooting attack, shooting attacks require the hit roll to succeed to not miss) stating its a witchfire.

how many dice would you roll to hit with?

blaktoof wrote:
[how many dice would you roll to hit with?

An undefined number.

Now your turn to answer a question. How many dice would you roll To Hit with a Bolt Pistol?

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
[how many dice would you roll to hit with?

An undefined number.

Now your turn to answer a question. How many dice would you roll To Hit with a Bolt Pistol?

thanks for being pointlessly obtuse, when you manage to pickup an undefined number of dice at a game I will reply to anything you post.

I realize you are being evasive because you know that you are wrong.

which is why you posted a poor analogy like the toughness of a rhino. Rhinos have AV, so toughness never comes into play, PS is a witchfire(shooting attack) and is required to hit with a hit roll.

one has an undefined value that is undefeined because it would never been asked to be used, like the side armor value of gretchin. Another has an unlisted value, that is required for use in playing the game.

blaktoof wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
[how many dice would you roll to hit with?

An undefined number.

Now your turn to answer a question. How many dice would you roll To Hit with a Bolt Pistol?

thanks for being pointlessly obtuse, when you manage to pickup an undefined number of dice at a game I will reply to anything you post.

You ask a question, I give an answer. I ask a question, you refuse to answer, because you don't like my answer.

Rigeld2 was kind enough to gather all the instances where witchfire powers are called weapons. After which if you look at pg 40 under weapons, number of shots you will see if it is multiple shots then you will be told it is so. So 1 shot backed up by rules.

Gravmyr wrote:
Rigeld2 was kind enough to gather all the instances where witchfire powers are called weapons. After which if you look at pg 40 under weapons, number of shots you will see if it is multiple shots then you will be told it is so. So 1 shot backed up by rules.

You'll also note that under Weapons

Every weapon has a profile.

What is the profile for Psychic Shriek?

BRB - Witchfire wrote:...and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons.

Many Witchfires have profiles, not all
They're described as similar to weapons, not as weapons.

Due to GW being GW and like they have for numerous other weapons in the game we have to extrapolate. If we go by anything else, ie it doesn't have a profile it's not a weapon, then I would say a good number of things were not weapons in the change from 4th to 5th and at another large number of times. The onus is on them to provide them once they have labeled it a weapon not the on the profile to prove it's a weapon. There is nothing in that section that states the weapon profiles will in fact look like the standard profile either. Since the power does not tell us it stops us from charging we can deduce it is not heavy, salvo, rapid fire or ordance. Since it also does not state it can be used in close combat it cannot be a pistol. Leaving assault. We are not told if fires more than 1 shot so single shot. It gives no strength to resolve it so we use the rule as presented earlier as "Instead of rolling to wound as normal..." Range 18". You have your profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes this is HIWPI through the addition of Instead of rolling cause otherwise we end up resolving the power as a shooting attack then resolving the power and that cannot be as the power is a shooting attack so should fit into the shooting attack steps easily.

Here is all the proof that Rigeld2 collected.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/619172.page#7299357

 Happyjew wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Rigeld2 was kind enough to gather all the instances where witchfire powers are called weapons. After which if you look at pg 40 under weapons, number of shots you will see if it is multiple shots then you will be told it is so. So 1 shot backed up by rules.

You'll also note that under Weapons

Every weapon has a profile.

What is the profile for Psychic Shriek?

Psychic Shriek does not have a profile so it is not a weapon.

Col_impact - rolling to wound doesnt cause an issue, as you only roll a dice for each successful hit. You have no successful hits. So you roll 0 dice, fully satisfying the requirements.

I note blaktoof still struggles with answering straight forward questions.

If every weapon has a profile, and you do not have a profile, can you have a weapon? No.

So it has undefined shots. RAW.

RAW: roll to hit with an undefined number of dice. No matter the result, resolve the 3D6-Ld as the rules tell you to do.

 grendel083 wrote:
It's a good guess. And if I had to guess, it would be 1.

But it is a guess, an assumption. HIWPI at best.

No rule anywhere says its 1. It's not fact.

I've quoted that Rule before:

"roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot" From the To Hit section.

rigeld2 wrote:
The shooting attack is resolved.

That is simply not true is you have not rolled To Hit or To Wound. Unless you mean "resolved" = Stopped at Step 4?

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'd like to see a poll on this topic, to see how people are playing it.

rigeld2 wrote:
HIWPI is that I skip that step because it literally doesn't matter.

Good, HIWPI and not RaW. I agree too, it would be stupid (redundant) to have To Hit before you can apply 3D6 and the Wounds.
Even though HIWPI is in the exact same way (Basically PS is a malediction), any of my other posts so far have been arguing what the RaW (possibly part intent) is about.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Black Talos - so no rules from you allowing to replace the roll to-wound with the 3d6? Nothing at all? Point noted. I will not attempt to engage you further on thus, as you cannot follow the tenets by providing a single relevant rule, just assertions.

Advanced V Basic. (Hope you don't need a quote) It replaces a basic set of Rules (roll To Wound) with additional "special" rules (3d6 and get wounds).
3D6 to get wounds is not a Special Rule in a Vacuum. You must integrate it within a Shooting Sequence or you may never remove models.

rigeld2 wrote:

So where things apply:
"Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek."
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7

Since you are requiring a (I'm quoting here) specific Rule to "let you out" of the standard shooting sequence, please provide it. You've shown where you assume things fit in the Standard Shooting Sequence, but have cited zero "specific Rule[s])" allowing you to do so. Applying double standards in a discussion isn't polite.

Why do I need a specific Rule to "let you out" of the standard shooting sequence? I never left?
I've not assumed them to fit but rather followed Advanced V Basic as i described above.
Basic: Step 5, To Wound
Advanced: 3D6 remove Leadership, cause that amount of Wounds (Step 5 is replaced)

Continue as standard with Step 6.

BlackTalos wrote:
(Snip)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Black Talos - so no rules from you allowing to replace the roll to-wound with the 3d6? Nothing at all? Point noted. I will not attempt to engage you further on thus, as you cannot follow the tenets by providing a single relevant rule, just assertions.

Advanced V Basic. (Hope you don't need a quote) It replaces a basic set of Rules (roll To Wound) with additional "special" rules (3d6 and get wounds).
3D6 to get wounds is not a Special Rule in a Vacuum. You must integrate it within a Shooting Sequence or you may never remove models.
(end snip)

As noted, only applies when there is a conflict, which requires an overriding phrase. There is no conflict here. An example or two of a conflict, to which you have been made well aware of previoulsy and chose to ignore, would be Blasts and not rolling to hit, and destroyer weapons not rolling to wound. There is no such language contained within PS, therefore there is no support to your assertion.

Point refuted, do not repeat it further claiming it to be actual rules, as you have been made aware that it isnt. Further repetition will be a breach of the tenets of this forum, unless you mark it as "hywpi"

So you may never remove models unless within the shooting sequence? Perils. Assertion refuted through single counter example (all that is required). Do not repeat that assertion again.

Again: you have an additional step to resolve, whci his the 3D6. nothing states that it replaces the roll to wound, so it does not do so. If you wish to "debate" this further, some actual cited rules showing how the 3D6 effect replaces the to-wound - for example "...instead of rolling to-wound, for each succesful hit roll...." would do the trick - are required of you. Do not reference basic vs advanced, as this does not provide the specific override required.

Onus is on you. Page and graph.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
It's a good guess. And if I had to guess, it would be 1.

But it is a guess, an assumption. HIWPI at best.
I
No rule anywhere says its 1. It's not fact.

I've quoted that Rule before:

"roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot" From the To Hit section.

Most models only get to fire one shot. Most. Not all. And it doesn't state that 1 is the default.

This rule in no way says that you roll 1 dice for this power.

That "rule" is also woefully inaccurate, as has been pointed out before. It does nto provide an actual rule you can follow.

I would be comfortable betting that most models in fact get more than one shot, looking through my various codexes (for example, every un-upgraded model in my GK book has 2 shots, from memory)

It isnt a rule, Blacktalos, stop pretending it is one. No, fall back does not counter this, as has been proven.

Circular arguments are circular. Disprove a point, 2 pages later the same point is raised again as if it is new, or valid, or relevant, or in fact progressing the debate at all.

 Happyjew wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Rigeld2 was kind enough to gather all the instances where witchfire powers are called weapons. After which if you look at pg 40 under weapons, number of shots you will see if it is multiple shots then you will be told it is so. So 1 shot backed up by rules.

You'll also note that under Weapons

Every weapon has a profile.

What is the profile for Psychic Shriek?

Read the thread before making arguments already refuted.

Witchfires are not weapons. They work 'similar to' weapon.
The rulebook always talks about how 'witchfires are like weapons ' and 'Just like with weapons, you do X', meaning that they are similar to, but not the same as weapons. As such they are nit automatically subjected to any rule applying to weapons, including the need to have a profile.

So we know most focussed witchfires and PS aren't weapons. We know that their effect occurs regardless of a roll to hit as the psychic phase tells us.

So why does it matter if it is 1 shot, 0 shots (number with most RaW support) or 10,000 shots? You're going to either ignore the result or make up a strength and Ap value to resolve any hits. So why bother arguing about it?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As noted, only applies when there is a conflict, which requires an overriding phrase. There is no conflict here. An example or two of a conflict, to which you have been made well aware of previoulsy and chose to ignore, would be Blasts and not rolling to hit, and destroyer weapons not rolling to wound. There is no such language contained within PS, therefore there is no support to your assertion.

The language is not always required. If the rules overlap (as they do here) and one is not possible to perform, Advanced V Basic applies.
If you are not permitted to shoot, can you elect to Run?
2 permissions, one is un-resolvable, does it deny the second?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you may never remove models unless within the shooting sequence? Perils. Assertion refuted through single counter example (all that is required). Do not repeat that assertion again.

Perils is not a Shooting Attack.

The Rule, from the book:
-"Witchfire powers are shooting attacks".

Shooting Attacks require a sequence to be followed. Permission to leave/ignore said sequence is required.

Please do not bring in non-Shooting Attacks Strawman arguments. (Perils, Vector Strike, Soul Blaze...)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That "rule" is also woefully inaccurate, as has been pointed out before. It does not provide an actual rule you can follow.
It isnt a rule, Blacktalos, stop pretending it is one. No, fall back does not counter this, as has been proven.

"Most models only get to fire one shot".
"Most units Fall Back 2D6"

Two rules, one is valid for you but the other not?
Consistency, please.

 grendel083 wrote:
Most models only get to fire one shot. Most. Not all. And it doesn't state that 1 is the default.

This rule in no way says that you roll 1 dice for this power.

Most Infantry only get to Fall Back 2D6". Most. Not all. And it doesn't state that 2D6" is the default.