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.

 BlackTalos wrote:

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?

Selective quoting is bad, mmk?

 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.

More selective quoting. Awesome.

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.

Advanced vs Basic applies when there's a conflict between rules. (Cannot assault when disembarking vs Able to assault when disembarking from an Assault Vehicle, for example)
Demonstrate the conflict since your argument requires it.

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.

Step 4 you've proven nothing with regards to how many dice to roll. Step 5 requires Step 4 to be resolved.
There's no conflict generated at Step 5 so your rule "substitution" cannot happen.
Please, use actual rules to prove your argument.

 FlingitNow wrote:
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?

most of what you just stated is untrue, and mostly fabricated.

there is no RAW that their effects resolve regardless of a hit roll, you have made this up. Please correct me with the RAW passage if I am wrong.

witchfires are not required to be weapons, or have a weapon profile. Some may have weapon profiles, all of them are required to hit, and follow the rules for shooting attacks as per the rules for witchfires, if their entry states otherwise then otherwise happens. Psychic shriek does not state otherwise. Shooting attacks require a successful to hit roll so as not to miss. Nothing states the effect may occur on a miss, in the witchfire section or PS entry.

as per psychic powers resolution step you use the psychic powers entry.

Psychic shriek states it is a witchfire in its entry.

witchfires must roll to hit following the rules for a shooting attack.

shooting attacks miss on a failed to hit roll.


no where are you allowed to ignore that step.

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
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?

most of what you just stated is untrue, and mostly fabricated.

there is no RAW that their effects resolve regardless of a hit roll, you have made this up. Please correct me with the RAW passage if I am wrong.

Your statements are incorrect blaktoof, here is why:

"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 chapter, Resolve Psychic Power section).

So, for psychic powers, you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." PS says to roll 3d6 and compare that to the units LD score to make the unit suffer wounds. So this is what we do, even if the undefined number of to hit dice you roll hit or miss, we still "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." because that is what the Psychic power rules tell us to do.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
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?

most of what you just stated is untrue, and mostly fabricated.

there is no RAW that their effects resolve regardless of a hit roll, you have made this up. Please correct me with the RAW passage if I am wrong.

Your statements are incorrect blaktoof, here is why:

"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 chapter, Resolve Psychic Power section).

So, for psychic powers, you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." PS says to roll 3d6 and compare that to the units LD score to make the unit suffer wounds. So this is what we do, even if the undefined number of to hit dice you roll hit or miss, we still "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." because that is what the Psychic power rules tell us to do.

you statement is incorrect deathreaper and here is why.

you didn't actually quote the RAW for psychic shriek in your quotes.

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

its entry specifies it is a witchfire.

you must resolve it is as witchfire.

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

a witchfire power must roll To Hit,

Note that the minimum roll needed To Hit is always at least 2. When rolling To Hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses.

so to resolve the power you must roll to hit, otherwise you have broken the RAW in the resolve psychic power section, the entry for psychic shriek, the entry for witchfires, and the entry for how to roll to hit for shooting.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

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?

Selective quoting is bad, mmk?

 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.

More selective quoting. Awesome.

Thought you'd know what i was referring to as they were your posts. But to sum it up as you do not like selective quoting:

Your position, is that by RaW, you resolve steps 1-4 of the Shooting Sequence, and that by RaW, you must resolve the power after that?
So you HIWPI ignore step 4 & 5 to apply the PS Wounds within step 6?
You also beleive at the same time that the whole Shooting sequence in that is resolved?

Word your method more accurately if you do not like the above but my point for "resolved" still stands.
Anyone arguing "No To Hit, simply follow psychic steps and apply power" would be incorrect by breaking Witchfire rules if their position is RaW.

I have no issue whatsoever with labelling your method as HIWPI.

I would even agree to it 100%.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Advanced vs Basic applies when there's a conflict between rules. (Cannot assault when disembarking vs Able to assault when disembarking from an Assault Vehicle, for example)
Demonstrate the conflict since your argument requires it.

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.

Step 4 you've proven nothing with regards to how many dice to roll. Step 5 requires Step 4 to be resolved.
There's no conflict generated at Step 5 so your rule "substitution" cannot happen.
Please, use actual rules to prove your argument.

I quoted rules for 1 Dice To Hit and can only argue the "substitution" semantically. I understand that said "substitution" is an assumption, but it trumps breaking rules.

BlackTalos wrote:

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?

So you cannot provide any rules then? Nothing?

Good to note that.

Rolling to-wound is resolveable. As proven. How many dice to-wound do you roll when you havent hit? 0. Done. Prove otherwise, or will you ignore this requirement as well?

BlackTalos wrote:

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...)

a) please, for the love of debate, learn what a strawman argument is. I reiterated your argument - that you cannot remove models without a to-wound - and pointed out that this is false. You had made the mistake of making a definitive, all encompassing statement, which wasnt precise enough. That is NOT a strawman argument - I did not create an argument that was easy to defeat, state it was your argument, and then defeated it. I just defeated your written statement. Some advice would be to be more precise in your statements.
b) Yes, shooting attacks require a sequence to be followed. I have shown how step 4 and 5 are resolved, entirely within the rules. You disagree, but have no rules to show this disagreement. In debate terms, one is persuasive, the other is not.

So, where in the *shooting rules* does it require all effects from a shooting weapon to cause wounds in order to remove models? FOr example say any succesful hit requires a strength test to be passed, otherwise the model suffers a wound. No to-wound roll, and a shooting weapon. According to you, without the to-wound roll, no wound can be cause / model removed. Yet it clearly can be. So again, your assertion has been proven incorrect. Retract it.

BlackTalos wrote:

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.

Yay, more selective quoting. Go back two pages, possibly more now, where this was explained to you previously. Please dont repeat debunked arguments as if theyrre new - theyre not, and just waste everyones time.

For the avoidance of doubt: rolling 3D6 is not a to-wound roll. We know this to be true, as:
a) the rule does not state it is a to-wound roll
b) it does not follow the form of the well defined rule "roll to wound"

Nothing you have stated so far has any effect on this. For you to have any positive impact on this thread, you must find written, specific rules stating that the 3D6 effect is a replacement for the to-wound roll at step five of the shooting process. Refusal to provide this written rule, with exact page and para, will be noted as a breach of the tenets by you.

Pr you know, you could admit your error and move on. Or, we could go round this circular argument again, wher eyou make a positive assertion, are called on it, fail to provide anything, dissemble for a couple pages, and then re-assert the same argument again?

 BlackTalos wrote:
Thought you'd know what i was referring to as they were your posts. But to sum it up as you do not like selective quoting:

I do know what I said - others reading your posts don't so much. That's why it's rude to selectively quote and ignore the entirety of the post.

Your position, is that by RaW, you resolve steps 1-4 of the Shooting Sequence, and that by RaW, you must resolve the power after that?
So you HIWPI ignore step 4 & 5 to apply the PS Wounds within step 6?
You also beleive at the same time that the whole Shooting sequence in that is resolved?

No, that's not my position at all.
You resolve steps 1-6 with an undefined number of rolls To Hit. After that, there is still the rest of the power that must (per the rules) be resolved.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Advanced vs Basic applies when there's a conflict between rules. (Cannot assault when disembarking vs Able to assault when disembarking from an Assault Vehicle, for example)
Demonstrate the conflict since your argument requires it.

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.

Step 4 you've proven nothing with regards to how many dice to roll. Step 5 requires Step 4 to be resolved.
There's no conflict generated at Step 5 so your rule "substitution" cannot happen.
Please, use actual rules to prove your argument.

I quoted rules for 1 Dice To Hit and can only argue the "substitution" semantically. I understand that said "substitution" is an assumption, but it trumps breaking rules.

No, you quoted where you make your assumption for 1 dice to hit.
You also didn't back up your "Advanced vs Basic" assertion (that you made multiple times, to multiple people, that your argument relies on) when it applies the rule incorrectly.
In short, you don't have any actual rules to back up your assertions, just things you made up. Awesome.

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
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?

most of what you just stated is untrue, and mostly fabricated.

there is no RAW that their effects resolve regardless of a hit roll, you have made this up. Please correct me with the RAW passage if I am wrong.

Your statements are incorrect blaktoof, here is why:

"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 chapter, Resolve Psychic Power section).

So, for psychic powers, you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." PS says to roll 3d6 and compare that to the units LD score to make the unit suffer wounds. So this is what we do, even if the undefined number of to hit dice you roll hit or miss, we still "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." because that is what the Psychic power rules tell us to do.

you statement is incorrect deathreaper and here is why.

you didn't actually quote the RAW for psychic shriek in your quotes.

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

its entry specifies it is a witchfire.

you must resolve it is as witchfire.

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

a witchfire power must roll To Hit,

Note that the minimum roll needed To Hit is always at least 2. When rolling To Hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses.

so to resolve the power you must roll to hit, otherwise you have broken the RAW in the resolve psychic power section, the entry for psychic shriek, the entry for witchfires, and the entry for how to roll to hit for shooting.

And how many dice do you roll to hit?

This is undefined, so we do not know how many dice to roll, therefore, like trying to apply enfeeble to a vehicle, we either have to make up stats, or skip that part entirely.

One is making up rules, the other is skipping steps we can not perform.

The latter is better than the former because no one likes people making up rules out of thin air. (And making up rules is not allowed by the BRB anyway unless both players agree on the houserule).

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
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?

most of what you just stated is untrue, and mostly fabricated.

there is no RAW that their effects resolve regardless of a hit roll, you have made this up. Please correct me with the RAW passage if I am wrong.

Your statements are incorrect blaktoof, here is why:

"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 chapter, Resolve Psychic Power section).

So, for psychic powers, you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." PS says to roll 3d6 and compare that to the units LD score to make the unit suffer wounds. So this is what we do, even if the undefined number of to hit dice you roll hit or miss, we still "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." because that is what the Psychic power rules tell us to do.

you statement is incorrect deathreaper and here is why.

you didn't actually quote the RAW for psychic shriek in your quotes.

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

its entry specifies it is a witchfire.

you must resolve it is as witchfire.

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

a witchfire power must roll To Hit,

Note that the minimum roll needed To Hit is always at least 2. When rolling To Hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses.

so to resolve the power you must roll to hit, otherwise you have broken the RAW in the resolve psychic power section, the entry for psychic shriek, the entry for witchfires, and the entry for how to roll to hit for shooting.

You also break the RAW if you do not resolve the power as per entry. So the solution is simple:
- Roll a dice to hit
- Resolve the power as per entry without looking at the thrown dice because he number of pips on top is irrelevant to resolving psychic shriek.

Whether the hit is a succes or a failure does not matter because:
- You cannot convert it to a wound because you lack a Str characteristic
- You still have to resolve the power as per entry, whatever result your dice roll gave you.

DaPino wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
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?

most of what you just stated is untrue, and mostly fabricated.

there is no RAW that their effects resolve regardless of a hit roll, you have made this up. Please correct me with the RAW passage if I am wrong.

Your statements are incorrect blaktoof, here is why:

"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 chapter, Resolve Psychic Power section).

So, for psychic powers, you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." PS says to roll 3d6 and compare that to the units LD score to make the unit suffer wounds. So this is what we do, even if the undefined number of to hit dice you roll hit or miss, we still "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." because that is what the Psychic power rules tell us to do.

you statement is incorrect deathreaper and here is why.

you didn't actually quote the RAW for psychic shriek in your quotes.

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

its entry specifies it is a witchfire.

you must resolve it is as witchfire.

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

a witchfire power must roll To Hit,

Note that the minimum roll needed To Hit is always at least 2. When rolling To Hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses.

so to resolve the power you must roll to hit, otherwise you have broken the RAW in the resolve psychic power section, the entry for psychic shriek, the entry for witchfires, and the entry for how to roll to hit for shooting.

You also break the RAW if you do not resolve the power as per entry. So the solution is simple:
- Roll a dice to hit
- Resolve the power as per entry without looking at the thrown dice because he number of pips on top is irrelevant to resolving psychic shriek.

Whether the hit is a succes or a failure does not matter because:
- You cannot convert it to a wound because you lack a Str characteristic
- You still have to resolve the power as per entry, whatever result your dice roll gave you.

perhaps you can quote where in the entry it states RAW that you must or even may resolve the power on a miss.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that's not my position at all.
You resolve steps 1-6 with an undefined number of rolls To Hit. After that, there is still the rest of the power that must (per the rules) be resolved.

rigeld2 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Then how many dice are you rolling to hit?

An irrelevant number. HIWPI is that I skip that step because it literally doesn't matter.

rigeld2 wrote:

I quoted rules for 1 Dice To Hit and can only argue the "substitution" semantically. I understand that said "substitution" is an assumption, but it trumps breaking rules.

No, you quoted where you make your assumption for 1 dice to hit.
You also didn't back up your "Advanced vs Basic" assertion (that you made multiple times, to multiple people, that your argument relies on) when it applies the rule incorrectly.
In short, you don't have any actual rules to back up your assertions, just things you made up. Awesome.

And that is your HIWPI method of resolving PS? Agreed. It would break at step 4 if going by RaW.
But on the contrary, that situation (having to HIWPI because RaW breaks at "undefined number") is only because you refuse to accept "Most models only get to fire one shot" as RaW.

You are free to do so but, short of repeating myself, i do not see why it isn't.

Granted it says "most" but it's only actually 0.01%.
Granted you are still stuck at step 5 and the To Wound roll.
Granted apart from this 1 situation, ALL weapons have a profile (and defined number of shots).

So we're left here:
A) Ignore To Hit required by "a witchfire power must roll To Hit" (which you are doing HIWPI) and simply resolve "3D6-Ld Wounds" in its own Rules vacuum.
B) resolve "3D6-Ld Wounds" in step 5 because "Advanced vs Basic" you have 2 Rules that generate Wounds at Step 5. "Advanced vs Basic" means PS trumps To Wound, which is just as well because To Wound has no S to use.

A) part of RaW ignored with HIWPI
B) "Advanced vs Basic" applied loosly but no RaW broken

I play by A, and would pick A to play anyday. YMDC forums should be aware of B.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that's not my position at all.
You resolve steps 1-6 with an undefined number of rolls To Hit. After that, there is still the rest of the power that must (per the rules) be resolved.

rigeld2 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Then how many dice are you rolling to hit?

An irrelevant number. HIWPI is that I skip that step because it literally doesn't matter.

rigeld2 wrote:

I quoted rules for 1 Dice To Hit and can only argue the "substitution" semantically. I understand that said "substitution" is an assumption, but it trumps breaking rules.

No, you quoted where you make your assumption for 1 dice to hit.
You also didn't back up your "Advanced vs Basic" assertion (that you made multiple times, to multiple people, that your argument relies on) when it applies the rule incorrectly.
In short, you don't have any actual rules to back up your assertions, just things you made up. Awesome.

And that is your HIWPI method of resolving PS? Agreed. It would break at step 4 if going by RaW.

Now you're confusing me - I've made both RAW and HIWPI claims in the quotes you have here. The one, single, HIWPI claim is noted as such. The rest is RAW.

But on the contrary, that situation (having to HIWPI because RaW breaks at "undefined number") is only because you refuse to accept "Most models only get to fire one shot" as RaW.

To clarify - it's certainly a rule.
It is not a rule that all weapons fire one shot unless noted otherwise. See the difference?

So we're left here:
A) Ignore To Hit required by "a witchfire power must roll To Hit" (which you are doing HIWPI) and simply resolve "3D6-Ld Wounds" in its own Rules vacuum.
B) resolve "3D6-Ld Wounds" in step 5 because "Advanced vs Basic" you have 2 Rules that generate Wounds at Step 5. "Advanced vs Basic" means PS trumps To Wound, which is just as well because To Wound has no S to use.

A) part of RaW ignored with HIWPI
B) "Advanced vs Basic" applied loosly but no RaW broken

The underlined is a false application of "Advanced vs Basic" - thanks for at least agreeing that you're applying it loosely, but it just doesn't apply at all.
And no, stop lying when you say I'm ignoring the To Hit roll. I've corrected you numerous times, so by now it must be on purpose. I am ignoring nothing, I've addressed - multiple times - how the step is handled.

I play by A, and would pick A to play anyday. YMDC forums should be aware of B.

B is a fine HYWPI discussion point. It's not the actual rules as you're asserting it, however.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rolling to-wound is resolvable. As proven. How many dice to-wound do you roll when you havent hit? 0. Done. Prove otherwise, or will you ignore this requirement as well?

Gravmyr disproved your "0 shots". PS = 0 shots needs a bit more rules than what you could ever find.
At least i can agree with HIWPI To Hit & To Wound are skipped. Any RaW is breaking rules.

I have stated already. Once you have rolled To Hit, PS has no S and cannot roll To Wound. Rules break.
Luckily "Advanced vs Basic" means PS rules for generating Wounds trumps To Wound rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

BlackTalos wrote:

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...)

a) please, for the love of debate, learn what a strawman argument is. I reiterated your argument - that you cannot remove models without a to-wound - and pointed out that this is false. You had made the mistake of making a definitive, all encompassing statement, which wasnt precise enough. That is NOT a strawman argument - I did not create an argument that was easy to defeat, state it was your argument, and then defeated it. I just defeated your written statement. Some advice would be to be more precise in your statements.
b) Yes, shooting attacks require a sequence to be followed. I have shown how step 4 and 5 are resolved, entirely within the rules. You disagree, but have no rules to show this disagreement. In debate terms, one is persuasive, the other is not.

So, where in the *shooting rules* does it require all effects from a shooting weapon to cause wounds in order to remove models? FOr example say any succesful hit requires a strength test to be passed, otherwise the model suffers a wound. No to-wound roll, and a shooting weapon. According to you, without the to-wound roll, no wound can be cause / model removed. Yet it clearly can be. So again, your assertion has been proven incorrect. Retract it.

You are correct, shooting attacks require a sequence to be followed. You cannot resolve steps 4 & 5 with PS, as stated above. Label that part HIWPI, not RaW. I need no rules to restrict you resolving them, you need permission of Rules for this nonsensical "0 shots but i'm still rolling To Hit & To Wound".

Also as per my post on page 3 (talk about reading previous posts...): Step 5 is Roll To Wound. Rolling 3D6 is NOT a roll to wound. A Destroyer result of 6 is NOT a roll to wound. Armour Penetration Rolls are NOT rolls to wound.
They don't even cause Wounds...

I never asserted "without the to-wound roll, no wound can be cause / model removed". If anything my argument is the exact opposite. Step 5 does not HAVE to be a To Wound roll, it can be "other rules". Like "Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result."
Or "move on to step 6 if there are 0 rolls To Wound (from a 0 Shot weapon for example)" if you can find that in the BRB...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

BlackTalos wrote:

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.

Yay, more selective quoting. Go back two pages, possibly more now, where this was explained to you previously. Please dont repeat debunked arguments as if theyrre new - theyre not, and just waste everyones time.

For the avoidance of doubt: rolling 3D6 is not a to-wound roll. We know this to be true, as:
a) the rule does not state it is a to-wound roll
b) it does not follow the form of the well defined rule "roll to wound"

Nothing you have stated so far has any effect on this. For you to have any positive impact on this thread, you must find written, specific rules stating that the 3D6 effect is a replacement for the to-wound roll at step five of the shooting process. Refusal to provide this written rule, with exact page and para, will be noted as a breach of the tenets by you.

Pr you know, you could admit your error and move on. Or, we could go round this circular argument again, wher eyou make a positive assertion, are called on it, fail to provide anything, dissemble for a couple pages, and then re-assert the same argument again?

Rorschach9 wrote:
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.

This?
Quote if there's anything better... because no this has not been explained, let alone debunked.

I'm not sure why you're back on the 3D6 & To Wound when the paragraph of mine you quote is only about "Most models only get to fire one shot" being RaW.

No one has yet proved/backed by RaW why
"Most models only get to fire one shot".
"Most units Fall Back 2D6".
Are not RaW...

Oh and how far does Infantry Fall back? (with quotes still, important here)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that's not my position at all.
You resolve steps 1-6 with an undefined number of rolls To Hit. After that, there is still the rest of the power that must (per the rules) be resolved.

rigeld2 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Then how many dice are you rolling to hit?

An irrelevant number. HIWPI is that I skip that step because it literally doesn't matter.

rigeld2 wrote:

I quoted rules for 1 Dice To Hit and can only argue the "substitution" semantically. I understand that said "substitution" is an assumption, but it trumps breaking rules.

No, you quoted where you make your assumption for 1 dice to hit.
You also didn't back up your "Advanced vs Basic" assertion (that you made multiple times, to multiple people, that your argument relies on) when it applies the rule incorrectly.
In short, you don't have any actual rules to back up your assertions, just things you made up. Awesome.

And that is your HIWPI method of resolving PS? Agreed. It would break at step 4 if going by RaW.

Now you're confusing me - I've made both RAW and HIWPI claims in the quotes you have here. The one, single, HIWPI claim is noted as such. The rest is RAW.

I see, so where's "an undefined number of rolls To Hit" in the RaW if the above is such? I mean Gravmyr's Question still stands when you are performing your "RaW Step 4".

But on the contrary, that situation (having to HIWPI because RaW breaks at "undefined number") is only because you refuse to accept "Most models only get to fire one shot" as RaW.

To clarify - it's certainly a rule.
It is not a rule that all weapons fire one shot unless noted otherwise. See the difference?

blaktoof wrote:
perhaps you can quote where in the entry it states RAW that you must or even may resolve the power on a miss.

Right here:

"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." (Psychic Shriek power).

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
perhaps you can quote where in the entry it states RAW that you must or even may resolve the power on a miss.

Right here:

"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." (Psychic Shriek power).

and that says you can roll the 3d6 on a miss where?

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
perhaps you can quote where in the entry it states RAW that you must or even may resolve the power on a miss.

Right here:

"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." (Psychic Shriek power).

and that says you can roll the 3d6 on a miss where?

Right here
"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 chapter, Resolve Psychic Power section).

The instructions in the entry do not require a successful To hit roll to "Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." (Psychic Shriek power).

Because it does not mention needing a successful To Hit roll to "Resolve its effects" as it has no profile we cant roll To hit anyway.

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
perhaps you can quote where in the entry it states RAW that you must or even may resolve the power on a miss.

Right here:

"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." (Psychic Shriek power).

and that says you can roll the 3d6 on a miss where?

and that says you can roll the 3d6 on a hit where?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or how about:


and that says you can roll the 3d6 on a Tuesday where?
Better not use Psychic Shriek on a Tuesday...

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
perhaps you can quote where in the entry it states RAW that you must or even may resolve the power on a miss.

Right here:

"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." (Psychic Shriek power).

and that says you can roll the 3d6 on a miss where?

Cite where a successful hit is required in order to resolve.

You are required to roll to hit. Do not repeat that, again, thinking it answers the above question , as it doesn't. Find where a specific dice number is required to resolve the 3d6. Page and graph. Nothing else, no more wall of text citing nothing.

Black - seriously, you think if you have 0 dice you cannot resolve step 5? So, I fire a las pistol, miss, having 0 succesful to-hits. According to just what you stated you cannot resolve step five. Very imprecise again. The requirement for step five is to roll a dice for every successful hit roll. I have 0 successful hits, so I complete step five in the trivial case. Again, explained back about page three. Please, for once, read the gakking rules before referring to them, as you clearly have not.

Stop misapplying basic vs advanced. You are incorrectly using it, as proven, as you are unable to refute that. So as per the tenets, do not repeat it.

As per the repeated crap about destroyer and armour pen - you realise, as you have been told, that these are NOT SIMILAR TO PS, as both have a lone stating something akin to "instead of rolling to wound"- a CORRECT application of advanced vs basic, as they state the conflict

As you know, because it has been pointed out, ps does not have this.

So, again. Ps 3d6 is NOT a rol to wound. For proof see above.

If you wish to claim otherwise, refute the argument. Further assertions by you that vp basic vs advanced applies while NOT providing any rules to support will be noted as concession, as I will not debate further when you refuse to follow the tenets.

You stated you needed to resolve step five, or no models can be removed. You made a stupidly broad statement, that is of course untrue. I suggest you stop digging on this, it's not helping you.

RAW ps 3d6 is NOT A ROLL TO WOUND. This has been proven. Refute the argument, using actual rules, or admit you error and move on.

Blaktoof, Page 26 of the rulebook. Go read it, because I am sick of typing entire paragraphs from the rulebook just because you are too lazy to pick up the book and read it yourself.

The fact that it is a witchfire and requires you to go through the shooting sequence is not refuted.
The claim that there is a connection between the shooting sequence and the 3D6 roll is what's being disputed and you always try to re-direct the dispute to something unrelated by bringing up arguments that are of very little consequence to what we're saying.

DaPino wrote:
Blaktoof, Page 26 of the rulebook. Go read it, because I am sick of typing entire paragraphs from the rulebook just because you are too lazy to pick up the book and read it yourself.

The fact that it is a witchfire and requires you to go through the shooting sequence is not refuted.
The claim that there is a connection between the shooting sequence and the 3D6 roll is what's being disputed and you always try to re-direct the dispute to something unrelated by bringing up arguments that are of very little consequence to what we're saying.

dapino

I appreciate that you are very into your false opinion on this matter and like disregarding the RAW to support your HYWPI stance.

I really don't care if your sick about something or not.

That you feel the discussion on the hit roll being required to be performed as per the rules for resolving a psychic power according to its entry, which states its a witchfire, which requires it to follow the rules for shooting, and on a failure the attack misses is redirecting the discussion leads me to think your either unable to grasp the rules, or simply feel your HYWPI stance works better in your meta.

while I appreciate some people have house rules, it is obviously not the written rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
perhaps you can quote where in the entry it states RAW that you must or even may resolve the power on a miss.

Right here:

"Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." (Psychic Shriek power).

and that says you can roll the 3d6 on a miss where?

Cite where a successful hit is required in order to resolve.

You are required to roll to hit. Do not repeat that, again, thinking it answers the above question , as it doesn't. Find where a specific dice number is required to resolve the 3d6. Page and graph. Nothing else, no more wall of text citing nothing.

Black - seriously, you think if you have 0 dice you cannot resolve step 5? So, I fire a las pistol, miss, having 0 succesful to-hits. According to just what you stated you cannot resolve step five. Very imprecise again. The requirement for step five is to roll a dice for every successful hit roll. I have 0 successful hits, so I complete step five in the trivial case. Again, explained back about page three. Please, for once, read the gakking rules before referring to them, as you clearly have not.

Stop misapplying basic vs advanced. You are incorrectly using it, as proven, as you are unable to refute that. So as per the tenets, do not repeat it.

As per the repeated crap about destroyer and armour pen - you realise, as you have been told, that these are NOT SIMILAR TO PS, as both have a lone stating something akin to "instead of rolling to wound"- a CORRECT application of advanced vs basic, as they state the conflict

As you know, because it has been pointed out, ps does not have this.

So, again. Ps 3d6 is NOT a rol to wound. For proof see above.

If you wish to claim otherwise, refute the argument. Further assertions by you that vp basic vs advanced applies while NOT providing any rules to support will be noted as concession, as I will not debate further when you refuse to follow the tenets.

You stated you needed to resolve step five, or no models can be removed. You made a stupidly broad statement, that is of course untrue. I suggest you stop digging on this, it's not helping you.

RAW ps 3d6 is NOT A ROLL TO WOUND. This has been proven. Refute the argument, using actual rules, or admit you error and move on.

cite where you can resolve the power on a miss.

D weapons do not roll strength versus toughness after rolling to hit, therefore do you feel D weapons resolve their effect regardless of rolling to hit and it being successful?

what do you think happens when an attack misses when its required to roll to hit?

blaktoof wrote:

DaPino wrote:
Blaktoof, Page 26 of the rulebook. Go read it, because I am sick of typing entire paragraphs from the rulebook just because you are too lazy to pick up the book and read it yourself.

The fact that it is a witchfire and requires you to go through the shooting sequence is not refuted.
The claim that there is a connection between the shooting sequence and the 3D6 roll is what's being disputed and you always try to re-direct the dispute to something unrelated by bringing up arguments that are of very little consequence to what we're saying.

dapino

I appreciate that you are very into your false opinion on this matter and like disregarding the RAW to support your HYWPI stance.

I really don't care if your sick about something or not.

That you feel the discussion on the hit roll being required to be performed as per the rules for resolving a psychic power according to its entry, which states its a witchfire, which requires it to follow the rules for shooting, and on a failure the attack misses is redirecting the discussion leads me to think your either unable to grasp the rules, or simply feel your HYWPI stance works better in your meta.

while I appreciate some people have house rules, it is obviously not the written rules.

Since that's not what he said, at all, perhaps you should stop your charge, calm down, and actually read his post?
I even underlined his point for you. Yes, bringing up the fact that the to-hit roll is required is sidetracking the argument when no one is disputing that.

Blak - the rules already cited stated we resolve the power. I now, unless contradicted, has permission to resolve the power

Cite where permission is denied. I will not do your work for you.

Until you cite denial to resolve, this side is proven. Page and graph, or quit posting.

Blaktoof

You seem confused on how a permissive ruleset works. You are given general permissions which can then be restricted by other rules which in turn can have more specific rules override them. You don't need specific permission for every eventuality as that would be impossible. For instance you are given permission to resolve a power according to its entry once you have successfully manifested it. This means you always do this unless there is a specific restriction to remove that permission.

So asking for permission to resolve after a failed to hit roll is like asking for specific permission to resolve on a Tuesday or specific permission to resolve the power Psychic Shriek or specific permission to resolve on a successful to hit roll. These are all covered by the general permission to resolve after successfully manifesting a power. Thus for a fail to hit roll to deny that permission it must specifically say so.

I hope this helps you understand permissive rulesets better and if you have any questions I'll gladly try to help you.

Thus your asseration that the 3d6-ld is in anyway tied to the success or failure of the to hit rolls made for PS needs proof. You need something that links that roll to a to hit or something that states the 3d6-ld roll is not made if you miss. Do you have such rules?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Blaktoof

You seem confused on how a permissive ruleset works. You are given general permissions which can then be restricted by other rules which in turn can have more specific rules override them. You don't need specific permission for every eventuality as that would be impossible. For instance you are given permission to resolve a power according to its entry once you have successfully manifested it. This means you always do this unless there is a specific restriction to remove that permission.

So asking for permission to resolve after a failed to hit roll is like asking for specific permission to resolve on a Tuesday or specific permission to resolve the power Psychic Shriek or specific permission to resolve on a successful to hit roll. These are all covered by the general permission to resolve after successfully manifesting a power. Thus for a fail to hit roll to deny that permission it must specifically say so.

I hope this helps you understand permissive rulesets better and if you have any questions I'll gladly try to help you.

Thus your asseration that the 3d6-ld is in anyway tied to the success or failure of the to hit rolls made for PS needs proof. You need something that links that roll to a to hit or something that states the 3d6-ld roll is not made if you miss. Do you have such rules?

flingitnow

so you can show where the permission is to resolve the effect on a miss on the required to hit roll?

always resolving it according to its entry means you always resolve it as a witchfire. its entry plainly states its a witchfire.

witchfires require you to roll to hit as per shooting.

if you do not hit with a shooting attack, you miss. there are no auto hits in shooting, as per the RAW for shooting.

thus your assertion that you may resolve the remained of the entry after failing to hit needs proof, of which there is none.

I hope this helps you understand the permissive rules set better.

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Blaktoof

You seem confused on how a permissive ruleset works. You are given general permissions which can then be restricted by other rules which in turn can have more specific rules override them. You don't need specific permission for every eventuality as that would be impossible. For instance you are given permission to resolve a power according to its entry once you have successfully manifested it. This means you always do this unless there is a specific restriction to remove that permission.

So asking for permission to resolve after a failed to hit roll is like asking for specific permission to resolve on a Tuesday or specific permission to resolve the power Psychic Shriek or specific permission to resolve on a successful to hit roll. These are all covered by the general permission to resolve after successfully manifesting a power. Thus for a fail to hit roll to deny that permission it must specifically say so.

I hope this helps you understand permissive rulesets better and if you have any questions I'll gladly try to help you.

Thus your asseration that the 3d6-ld is in anyway tied to the success or failure of the to hit rolls made for PS needs proof. You need something that links that roll to a to hit or something that states the 3d6-ld roll is not made if you miss. Do you have such rules?

flingitnow

so you can show where the permission is to resolve the effect on a miss on the required to hit roll?

BRB wrote:
Resolve Psychic Power
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.

always resolving it according to its entry means you always resolve it as a witchfire. its entry plainly states its a witchfire.

witchfires require you to roll to hit as per shooting.

if you do not hit with a shooting attack, you miss. there are no auto hits in shooting, as per the RAW for shooting.

thus your assertion that you may resolve the remained of the entry after failing to hit needs proof, of which there is none.

There is nothing in the above quoted rule that disallows the resolution of the power according to its instructions on a miss as the powers effect is not tied in any way, whatsoever, to the roll to-hit. If it had a weapon profile that called for 3D6-LD wounds, you would have a valid argument.

I hope this helps you understand the permissive rules set better.

Being snarky does nothing but undermine your position.

Rorschach9 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Blaktoof

You seem confused on how a permissive ruleset works. You are given general permissions which can then be restricted by other rules which in turn can have more specific rules override them. You don't need specific permission for every eventuality as that would be impossible. For instance you are given permission to resolve a power according to its entry once you have successfully manifested it. This means you always do this unless there is a specific restriction to remove that permission.

So asking for permission to resolve after a failed to hit roll is like asking for specific permission to resolve on a Tuesday or specific permission to resolve the power Psychic Shriek or specific permission to resolve on a successful to hit roll. These are all covered by the general permission to resolve after successfully manifesting a power. Thus for a fail to hit roll to deny that permission it must specifically say so.

I hope this helps you understand permissive rulesets better and if you have any questions I'll gladly try to help you.

Thus your asseration that the 3d6-ld is in anyway tied to the success or failure of the to hit rolls made for PS needs proof. You need something that links that roll to a to hit or something that states the 3d6-ld roll is not made if you miss. Do you have such rules?

flingitnow

so you can show where the permission is to resolve the effect on a miss on the required to hit roll?

BRB wrote:
Resolve Psychic Power
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.

always resolving it according to its entry means you always resolve it as a witchfire. its entry plainly states its a witchfire.

witchfires require you to roll to hit as per shooting.

if you do not hit with a shooting attack, you miss. there are no auto hits in shooting, as per the RAW for shooting.

thus your assertion that you may resolve the remained of the entry after failing to hit needs proof, of which there is none.

There is nothing in the above quoted rule that disallows the resolution of the power according to its instructions on a miss as the powers effect is not tied in any way, whatsoever, to the roll to-hit. If it had a weapon profile that called for 3D6-LD wounds, you would have a valid argument.

I hope this helps you understand the permissive rules set better.

Being snarky does nothing but undermine your position.

considering witchfires are not weapons "some may have a weapon profile" obviously doesn't mean its required, but they follow the rules for shooting attacks which require a to hit step, which is called out both in witchfires and shooting.

that means RAW you need permission to ignore the to hit step which has been stated as being required.

do you have that permission in RAW anywhere?

your being snarky doesn't help your argument any, but of course that you have no actual proof to back up your HYWPI argument as an actual rules discussion that makes your argument even of a lower quality.

Did you even read the post?

Show permission to resolve on a hit. Then show permission to resolve on a Tuesday.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Did you even read the post?

Show permission to resolve on a hit. Then show permission to resolve on a Tuesday.

did you even read the post?

show permission to ignore the RAW required to hit roll.

Show permission to resolve on a miss.

blaktoof wrote:
D weapons do not roll strength versus toughness after rolling to hit, therefore do you feel D weapons resolve their effect regardless of rolling to hit and it being successful?

The rules for Destroyer weapons state " To resolve a Destroyer weapon’s attack, roll To Hit as you would for a standard attack. If the attack hits, roll on the table above instead of rolling To Wound or for armour penetration."

So clearly, the roll on the table is tied to a successful To Hit roll.

what do you think happens when an attack misses when its required to roll to hit?

I think it does not roll To Wound (or anything that is specifically done instead of rolling To Wound).

I haven't claimed there isn't a to hit roll.

Now show permission to resolve on a hit. Or concede.