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.

ok we have no raw way to actually resolve without ignoring some rule somewhere. As has been posted by both sides, witchfire powers are shooting attacks. If you resolve the power outside of that framework are you resolving it as a shooting attack? You are at that point resolving it as a special rule for a weapon already why not fold it into the shooting sequence as the damage step, at least that way you are actually resolving a shooting attack as instructed. If you have to resolve witchfire powers as shooting attack, which I think we all agree we have to, if you then add an extra step to resolve the power outside that framework it is not being resolved as a shooting attack. There is no way to resolve it as instructed without making some compromise. The stress that all witchfire powers must roll to hit not just the ones with profiles why do that? If it doesn't matter to the ones without profiles then why not say that witchfire powers with profiles must roll to hit. It is in the shooting rules that blacktoof and myself are concerned with, that state you must roll to hit. Anyone who states that Shriek doe snot mention having to hit cannot then claim that the ones with profiles have to hit because shooting rules require it, they both use those rules. No witchfire power with a profile states you have to hit to would in the profile because it is already covered by being told it is a shooting attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@flingit It has already been brought up statements like that are not conductive and it has been asked that people refrain from making them as such.

blaktoof wrote:

 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.

Sigh. You still seem very confused. Much like other threads where you make up rules queries that are not actually contended, you've done it here

No one disagrees that the required roll to hit is needed. Not a single person. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Does this mak it clear enough?

What we have proven, and you absolutely refuse to engage with - because it destroys your assertion, presumably - is that we have permission to resolve the power already, including the 3d6 roll. Failing to resolve this requires a restriction. There IS no restriction. .

The only thing that a succesful to hit is required for is rolling to wound. Rolling 3d6 is not - despite black talos unfounded, proven false at every turn assertion otherwise - a roll to-wound

So, you're stuck. You cannot provide a single rule restricting the resolution of the power. Meaning , as per the tenets, you should refrain from posting further.

Find rules allowing you to roll to wound in a Tuesday. Once you can do this, or understand the point of this question, we can move on.

Where during the shooting attack rules are you proposing to do the 3d6 roll nos?

I'm doing It while resolving the psychic power, as per the rules.

Found any relevant rules to back up your contentions yet? I noted a shocking absence in your last rambling paragraph.

Which uses the shooting attack rules correct?

flingit It has already been brought up statements like that are not conductive and it has been asked that people refrain from making them as such.

Statements like what exactly? Blaktoof is claiming there is not permission to resolve on a miss but there is on a hit. I'm asking him to show that. He is refusing because it destroys his argument.

so the absence of denial to resolve a power on a miss is the basis for your HYWPI argument that you can resolve the power on a miss.

there is an absence of denial for your opponent to bring a hammer and smash your models on a miss, does that mean RAW thats how it works?

is 40k in the business of things being allowed to resolve when not succeeding because it doesn't say it may not resolve when it fails the required to hit roll?

I missed that in the RAW somewhere.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Now show permission to resolve on a hit. Or concede.

Like this.

blaktoof wrote:
so the absence of denial to resolve a power on a miss is the basis for your HYWPI argument that you can resolve the power on a miss.

there is an absence of denial for your opponent to bring a hammer and smash your models on a miss, does that mean RAW thats how it works?

No. I have permission to resolve the power according to its rules entry. Agreed? And there's no denying this permission if I miss. Agreed?
Can you show me permission for an opponent to bring a hammer and smash my models?

You have permission to resolve it according to shooting rules. where does it fit in them?

Gravmyr wrote:
You have permission to resolve it according to shooting rules. where does it fit in them?

That's not a correct statement.
I have a requirement to make a shooting attack. I do so.
I'm left with things to do (that don't fit in a shooting attack because I've not been told they do). I must resolve them.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so the absence of denial to resolve a power on a miss is the basis for your HYWPI argument that you can resolve the power on a miss.

there is an absence of denial for your opponent to bring a hammer and smash your models on a miss, does that mean RAW thats how it works?

No. I have permission to resolve the power according to its rules entry. Agreed? And there's no denying this permission if I miss. Agreed?
Can you show me permission for an opponent to bring a hammer and smash my models?

the rules entry states its a witchfire power, you are required to roll to hit as part of the resolve step-because resolving it as per its entry is resolving it as per a witchfire as its entry states it is, and the attack misses if you fail the hit roll.

where is permission to continue resolving the attack on a miss?

You have permission to move to the resolve a psychic power when its not denied, but there is no stated permission to move on past the required to hit step of resolving the power if you miss.

You keep stating that you can resolve it outside of the shooting rules. You are told witchfire powers are shooting attacks which use the shooting rules. Where are you told to resolve anything outside of those rules?

Gravmyr wrote:
Which uses the shooting attack rules correct?

Yes, for the part which has to do with shooting I must still resolve ALL the power though, which you would have me jog do, breaking a rule.

Blak - we have permission to resolve. Full stop. No qualifier given. Now, find a specific restriction. Page and graph. No more walls, a simple page and graph will do.

Everyone on this thread so far has provided nothing more than HYWPI. Everyone should be marking their threads HYWPI.

If you follow Psychic Shriek per strict RAW then the power breaks at the missing profile. You are not permitted to skip required steps in the rules.

If you skip required steps or invent fictions to enable you to circumvent those steps you are doing HYWPI.

If you think you have a way of resolving Psychic Shriek by strict RAW then the onus is on you to provide a full and detailed argument indicating exactly how you plan on resolving everything according to RAW at which point the thread can critique it.

You have several hurdles to accomplish and must give detailed answers that address each of the following.

#1) Psychic Shriek is a shooting attack that MUST roll to hit

#2) Shooting attacks are required to march through the shooting sequence

#3) The missing profile means step 5 (To Wound Rule) is unresolvable without a house rule.

#4) Per RAW, a successful To Wound Roll in Step 5 is required to resolve "IF" a hit wounds the target.

#5) You need to produce a strict RAW argument that does not resolve directly opposite RAI. We know for example that Psychic Shriek is witchfire so solutions that directly oppose this truth are immediately suspect.


Please note that if you plan on resolving strict RAW by resorting to fictions like a "zero shot shooting attack" or rolling an "undefined number" of dice then it will be very easy for the thread to show how you are doing HYWPI by relying on those fictions. Remember the onus is on you to support any fictions that you create with rules (so that you prove that they indeed are not fictions).

My claim is that it is impossible to resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW and that my HYWPI is the most elegant HYWPI for resolving Psychic Shriek posted on this thread so far.

My HYWPI -> If we add "Instead of a Roll to Wound" to Psychic Shriek then we do the minimum required to enable Psychic Shriek to resolve fully as witchfire (which is RAI).

Feel free to prove your RAW argument can be resolved by strict RAW.

The onus is on anyone who would claim they have a strict RAW argument to prove they do so, because in the case of Psychic Shriek we have a missing profile and an obviously broken ruleset so it should come as no surprise that we have to house rule Psychic Shriek in order to resolve it.

If you have to resort to HYWPI then I doubt your HYWPI is better than mine.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Which uses the shooting attack rules correct?

Yes, for the part which has to do with shooting I must still resolve ALL the power though, which you would have me jog do, breaking a rule.

Blak - we have permission to resolve. Full stop. No qualifier given. Now, find a specific restriction. Page and graph. No more walls, a simple page and graph will do.

there is actually no such rule that you have to resolve all of the power, if that were the case then all rolls would result on positive success for all powers, this is actually a made up stance from you.

simply quote where you have permission to continue resolving the power during the resolve step when it fails a required roll that is part of the resolve step and we can move on.

@nos you mean the entire power then. Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. There is no part that we are instructed to treat outside of the terms of a shooting attack. If there are please post them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm doing It while resolving the psychic power, as per the rules.

Found any relevant rules to back up your contentions yet? I noted a shocking absence in your last rambling paragraph.

Would you agree that 'completing a step' can be defined as: "applying every relevant rule in the step"?

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Which uses the shooting attack rules correct?

Yes, for the part which has to do with shooting I must still resolve ALL the power though, which you would have me jog do, breaking a rule.

Blak - we have permission to resolve. Full stop. No qualifier given. Now, find a specific restriction. Page and graph. No more walls, a simple page and graph will do.

there is actually no such rule that you have to resolve all of the power, if that were the case then all rolls would result on positive success for all powers, this is actually a made up stance from you.

simply quote where you have permission to continue resolving the power during the resolve step when it fails a required roll that is part of the resolve step and we can move on.

Untrue, not all rolls for all powers would result in positive succeses. Powers with only profiles are fully resolved within the shooting sequence. Psychic Shriek is not because there is an additional piece of text that HAS to be resolved in order not to break the rules and cannot be done within the shooting sequence.

DaPino wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm doing It while resolving the psychic power, as per the rules.

Found any relevant rules to back up your contentions yet? I noted a shocking absence in your last rambling paragraph.

Would you agree that 'completing a step' can be defined as: "applying every relevant rule in the step"?

Nope. Completing a step is satisfying all requirements of that step.

col_impact wrote:
Everyone on this thread so far has provided nothing more than HYWPI. Everyone should be marking their threads HYWPI.

If you follow Psychic Shriek per strict RAW then the power breaks at the missing profile. You are not permitted to skip required steps in the rules.

If you skip required steps or invent fictions to enable you to circumvent those steps you are doing HYWPI.

If you think you have a way of resolving Psychic Shriek by strict RAW then the onus is on you to provide a full and detailed argument indicating exactly how you plan on resolving everything according to RAW at which point the thread can critique it.

You have several hurdles to accomplish and must give detailed answers that address each of the following.

#1) Psychic Shriek is a shooting attack that MUST roll to hit

#2) Shooting attacks are required to march through the shooting sequence

#3) The missing profile means step 5 (To Wound Rule) is unresolvable without a house rule.

#4) Per RAW, a successful To Wound Roll in Step 5 is required to resolve "IF" a hit wounds the target.

#5) You need to produce a strict RAW argument that does not resolve directly opposite RAI. We know for example that Psychic Shriek is witchfire so solutions that directly oppose this truth are immediately suspect.


Please note that if you plan on resolving strict RAW by resorting to fictions like a "zero shot shooting attack" or rolling an "undefined number" of dice then it will be very easy for the thread to show how you are doing HYWPI by relying on those fictions. Remember the onus is on you to support any fictions that you create with rules (so that you prove that they indeed are not fictions).

My claim is that it is impossible to resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW and that my HYWPI is the most elegant HYWPI for resolving Psychic Shriek posted on this thread so far.

My HYWPI -> If we add "Instead of a Roll to Wound" to Psychic Shriek then we do the minimum required to enable Psychic Shriek to resolve fully as witchfire (which is RAI).

Feel free to prove your RAW argument can be resolved by strict RAW.

The onus is on anyone who would claim they have a strict RAW argument to prove they do so, because in the case of Psychic Shriek we have a missing profile and an obviously broken ruleset so it should come as no surprise that we have to house rule Psychic Shriek in order to resolve it.

If you have to resort to HYWPI then I doubt your HYWPI is better than mine.

I agree completely, there is no RAW resolution to psychic shriek, I merely am pointing out that the step where it can be first argued about "the to hit roll" is required to be done as part of the resolve step, and no one can prove that you can continue to resolve the power on a miss.

There is no actual RAW way to resolve the power.

HIWPI is to perform the required RAW steps ie roll to hit as part of the resolve step, make a logical guess that 1 dice to hit ais the most reasonable because nothing in the power says it is more, and the wording of the powers entry does not state to perform the 3d6-ld check for each hit, therefore 1 hit is HIWPI the most reasonable. the to wound step is 3d6-ld wounds.

an interpretation that breaks the RAW of the required to hit step, or continuing a powers resolution when it misses on the resolve step is the worst possible solution as it breaks or ignores some of the actual rules as written regarding how the power would be resolved.

Gravmyr wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Now show permission to resolve on a hit. Or concede.

Like this.

I had explained that to him twice and that was the third time of asking a simple question. If you refuse to answer a pertinent question repeatedly when that question destroys your argument you are only refusing because you are trolling at that point and therefore have effectively conceded.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Which uses the shooting attack rules correct?

Yes, for the part which has to do with shooting I must still resolve ALL the power though, which you would have me jog do, breaking a rule.

Blak - we have permission to resolve. Full stop. No qualifier given. Now, find a specific restriction. Page and graph. No more walls, a simple page and graph will do.

there is actually no such rule that you have to resolve all of the power, if that were the case then all rolls would result on positive success for all powers, this is actually a made up stance from you.

simply quote where you have permission to continue resolving the power during the resolve step when it fails a required roll that is part of the resolve step and we can move on.

No, see - the rule does say to resolve the power according to its instructions.
If its a witchfire power with a profile, the shooting attack rules are the entirety of the resolution.
If it doesn't have a profile, there are rules that the shooting attack rules don't cover but we're still required to resolve.

col_impact wrote:

DaPino wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm doing It while resolving the psychic power, as per the rules.

Found any relevant rules to back up your contentions yet? I noted a shocking absence in your last rambling paragraph.

Would you agree that 'completing a step' can be defined as: "applying every relevant rule in the step"?

Nope. Completing a step is satisfying all requirements of that step.

The requirement to 'Roll to wound' is roll to a dice for every succesfull hit. I have 0 succesful hits so I don't roll any dice. Step complete. Nothing says that scoring 1 succesful hit is a requirement to proceed to step 5.
Onto the next step, the requirement is that 'I allocate every wound in the woud pool' I have 0 wounds in the wound pool so I allocate 0 wounds. Step complete. Again, nothing says I need a a wound in order to proceed to step 6.

Resolve rest of power, resulting in the target unit suffering wounds equal to 3D6-Ld.

Gravmyr wrote:
You keep stating that you can resolve it outside of the shooting rules. You are told witchfire powers are shooting attacks which use the shooting rules. Where are you told to resolve anything outside of those rules?

If you resolve the shooting attack, and there are still rules left unresolved, have you resolved its effects according to its entry? Simple yes or no question.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Which uses the shooting attack rules correct?

Yes, for the part which has to do with shooting I must still resolve ALL the power though, which you would have me jog do, breaking a rule.

Blak - we have permission to resolve. Full stop. No qualifier given. Now, find a specific restriction. Page and graph. No more walls, a simple page and graph will do.

there is actually no such rule that you have to resolve all of the power, if that were the case then all rolls would result on positive success for all powers, this is actually a made up stance from you.

simply quote where you have permission to continue resolving the power during the resolve step when it fails a required roll that is part of the resolve step and we can move on.

No, see - the rule does say to resolve the power according to its instructions.
If its a witchfire power with a profile, the shooting attack rules are the entirety of the resolution.
If it doesn't have a profile, there are rules that the shooting attack rules don't cover but we're still required to resolve.

witchfires do not require the attack to have a profile as they state "some may have weapon profiles"

however they do require a to hit roll as they state they are required to roll to hit.

they are stated as being shooting attacks.

looking at the shooting section, if you do not succeed on the to hit roll you miss, and there are no auto successes.

as resolve steps specifies to resolve it as per its entry, and its entry states its a witchfire part of its resolution has to be rolling to hit, and not missing.

the entry itself does not state it gets to continue the effect, or you can resolve the rest of the power on a miss during the resolve step.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Now show permission to resolve on a hit. Or concede.

Like this.

I had explained that to him twice and that was the third time of asking a simple question. If you refuse to answer a pertinent question repeatedly when that question destroys your argument you are only refusing because you are trolling at that point and therefore have effectively conceded.

Putting words into people's mouth like "therefore have effectively conceded" is trolling. No one is required to answer any of your questions.

here is actually no such rule that you have to resolve all of the power, if that were the case then all rolls would result on positive success for all powers, this is actually a made up stance from you. 

simply quote where you have permission to continue resolving the power during the resolve step when it fails a required roll that is part of the resolve step and we can move on.

I take it this is you conceding blaktoof? Or are you finally going to show permission to resolve the power on a successful hit? And show permission to resolve the power on a Tuesday?

rigeld2 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
You keep stating that you can resolve it outside of the shooting rules. You are told witchfire powers are shooting attacks which use the shooting rules. Where are you told to resolve anything outside of those rules?

Spoiler:

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. Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

If you resolve the shooting attack, and there are still rules left unresolved, have you resolved its effects according to its entry? Simple yes or no question.

Psychic Shriek is a witchfire that MUST roll to hit. Resolve that.

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so the absence of denial to resolve a power on a miss is the basis for your HYWPI argument that you can resolve the power on a miss.

there is an absence of denial for your opponent to bring a hammer and smash your models on a miss, does that mean RAW thats how it works?

No. I have permission to resolve the power according to its rules entry. Agreed? And there's no denying this permission if I miss. Agreed?
Can you show me permission for an opponent to bring a hammer and smash my models?

the rules entry states its a witchfire power, you are required to roll to hit as part of the resolve step-because resolving it as per its entry is resolving it as per a witchfire as its entry states it is, and the attack misses if you fail the hit roll.

where is permission to continue resolving the attack on a miss?

I'm not continuing to resolve the attack on a miss. The shooting attack fails.
Cite the rule that ties the resolution of the rest of the power to a hit on the shooting attack.

You have permission to move to the resolve a psychic power when its not denied, but there is no stated permission to move on past the required to hit step of resolving the power if you miss.

There is. Once the shooting attack is resolved completely, since there is no rule tying the 3d6 roll to the shooting attack, you have rules in the power's entry that have not been resolved. You are required to resolve them.


For your stance to be correct you must cite a rule tying the 3d6 roll to the shooting attack. Please do so.

 FlingitNow wrote:

here is actually no such rule that you have to resolve all of the power, if that were the case then all rolls would result on positive success for all powers, this is actually a made up stance from you. 

simply quote where you have permission to continue resolving the power during the resolve step when it fails a required roll that is part of the resolve step and we can move on.

I take it this is you conceding blaktoof? Or are you finally going to show permission to resolve the power on a successful hit? And show permission to resolve the power on a Tuesday?

FlingItNow, do not put words into other people's mouths. Your obnoxious argument tactics should be ignored.