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.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Blast has it's own set of rules. If a witchfire is marked as blast then you follow that set of rules which is outlined clearly in the rules. Are you saying that Psychic Shriek is a blast?

No. You asked for anywhere in the rules that there was a shooting attack with 0 shots. I provided one.

Rolling zero dice does not satisy "must roll to hit." If that is HYWPI then that is fine. The rest of us can read straightforward English.

Thanks for the insult.
Yes, it does satisfy "must roll to hit". Blasts don't roll to hit - ever, so according to your argument Blasts don't work?
The rolls for Wounding (in CC) say:

As with shooting, once you have scored a hit with an Attack, you must roll a D6 for each successful hit to see if you cause a Wound and damage your foe.

How many dice do you roll To Wound if you miss all of your attacks in CC? Zero. And yet you must roll. It seems like the actual rules disagree with you and everyone that "can read straightforward English."

Feel free to provide a fully delineated argument that resolves Psychic Shriek strictly according to RAW.

The burden is on you to provide one. Psychic Shriek is obviously missing a profile and critical info and we all necessarily have to resort to HYWPI unless you prove otherwise.

The burden is on you.

Full argument please. I am all ears.

col_impact wrote:
Per strict RAW, Psychic Shriek cannot resolve.

This is of course false, as shown.

This should come as no surprise as it is obviously missing a profile and obviously missing critical info.

A missing profile isn't a problem, as one isn't required. Again, as shown.

We are all obviously in HYWPI land. The Psychic Shriek entry is obviously broken.

Nope, I'm not in HIWPI land.

The burden is on those who would assert that they can construct a strict RAW argument without resorting to house rule.

You need to delineate all the steps in your strict RAW argument.

Done and done.
Have you read the thread?

rigeld2 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:The rules you keep quoting say it's a shooting power. I am resolving it as such. Those rules pertaining to shooting attacks do not allow you to continue without rolling to hit and succeeding. Again if you get to the end and you have steps left , in this case the 3d6, then you have not resolved it as a shooting attack. You have resolved the power as soon as the end of the shooting attack rules end. For your interpretation to work you need to come up with a way to fit the 3d6 roll into those rules.

Untrue, as I've shown before and you continue to ignore.

Edit: Where in the shooting attack rules are you resolving the 3d6? It is part of the power and as such part of a shooting attack.

That's not what the rules actually say. Please don't invent rules.

blaktoof wrote:resolving by its entry does not mean you get to auto succeed on the required rolls in the entry.

Indeed, I've never asserted otherwise.

the entry requires a to hit roll, you get to resolve the power, but if you fail the required to hit roll what makes you think you get to continue the attack? You have satisfied the requirement to go to the resolve step at this point before rolling to hit.

Please, cite the rule that ties the 3d6 roll to the shooting attack. I've asked before and you've failed to provide it.

the effect of psychic shriek is a witchfire, it must be resolved per its entry as a witchfire, which is a shooting attack. if you miss on step 4 'rolling to hit' of shooting there are no other steps you go through you are done with the attack. Does psychic shriek state in its entry it auto hits, or does anything when it misses?

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Per strict RAW, Psychic Shriek cannot resolve.

This is of course false, as shown.

This should come as no surprise as it is obviously missing a profile and obviously missing critical info.

A missing profile isn't a problem, as one isn't required. Again, as shown.

We are all obviously in HYWPI land. The Psychic Shriek entry is obviously broken.

Nope, I'm not in HIWPI land.

The burden is on those who would assert that they can construct a strict RAW argument without resorting to house rule.

You need to delineate all the steps in your strict RAW argument.

Done and done.
Have you read the thread?

Feel free to restate your argument that has been fully delineated elsewhere (presumably).

Otherwise I assume there is no argument for you to put fully forward. Again the onus is on you, not me.

The requirement to resolve step 5: 'Roll to wound' is to roll a dice for every succesfull hit. There are 2 options here: 1) I don't roll a succesful hit 2) I roll a succesful hit.
1)
I have 0 succesful hits so I don't roll any dice to wound. Step complete. Nothing says that scoring 1 succesful hit is a requirement to proceed to or complete 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.
2)
I have a succesful hit. I can't create a wound from this hit because I need a Str characteristic to do so. So I manage to generate 0 wounds according to the rules in this step. Step complete.
Next step, I am reqquired to allocate every wound from the wound pool. I have 0 wounds in the wound pool so I allocate 0. Step complete.


In both cases I have resolved a the shooting sequence without breaking a rule. I now resolve the rest of the power.

I'm just going to keep posting this untill someone actually provides me with evidence that I did not complete the shooting sequence without breaking a rule.

@rigeld2 You have made claims it's not part of the rules that is it. The rules state all witchfire powers are shooting attacks. You need to prove that it is not part of it. There is nothing to indicate in the description that it is separate from itself. The power in it's entirety is the shooting attack. Resolving it per it's rules tells you it is a shooting attack. Not that you resolve a shooting attack then roll 3d6. You have to come up with a way to resolve the 3d6 within the rules of a shooting attack.

Gravmyr wrote:
@rigeld2 You have made claims it's not part of the rules that is it. The rules state all witchfire powers are shooting attacks. You need to prove that it is not part of it. There is nothing to indicate in the description that it is separate from itself. The power in it's entirety is the shooting attack. Resolving it per it's rules tells you it is a shooting attack. Not that you resolve a shooting attack then roll 3d6. You have to come up with a way to resolve the 3d6 within the rules of a shooting attack.

Nothing says I have to resolve the 3D6 within the rules of a shooting attack.

Seriously, It's becomming really hard to take you guys serious while you're trying to prove that a majority of the focussed witchfire powers cannot be cast.

Actually it does say that. All witchfire powers are shooting attacks. That makes the 3d6 roll part of the shooting attack. Where does it give permission to resolve it outside of that framework?

DaPino wrote:
The requirement to resolve step 5: 'Roll to wound' is to roll a dice for every succesfull hit. There are 2 options here: 1) I don't roll a succesful hit 2) I roll a succesful hit.
1)
I have 0 succesful hits so I don't roll any dice to wound. Step complete. Nothing says that scoring 1 succesful hit is a requirement to proceed to or complete 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.
2)
I have a succesful hit. I can't create a wound from this hit because I need a Str characteristic to do so. So I manage to generate 0 wounds according to the rules in this step. Step complete.
Next step, I am reqquired to allocate every wound from the wound pool. I have 0 wounds in the wound pool so I allocate 0. Step complete.


In both cases I have resolved a the shooting sequence without breaking a rule. I now resolve the rest of the power.

I'm just going to keep posting this untill someone actually provides me with evidence that I did not complete the shooting sequence without breaking a rule.

You are not permitted to skip the To Wound Roll if you are required to do so. The To Wound Roll is required to determine "IF" it wounds the target. If the rules break here because you are missing critical info then admit as such. Skipping over the requisite step is one HYWPI among many.

col_impact wrote:
Feel free to provide a fully delineated argument that resolves Psychic Shriek strictly according to RAW.

The burden is on you to provide one. Psychic Shriek is obviously missing a profile and critical info and we all necessarily have to resort to HYWPI unless you prove otherwise.

The burden is on you.

Full argument please. I am all ears.

First, no response to my rules quotes proving your assertions incorrect? Cool.

Second,

Immediately resolved.

It is now resolved. What do these two entries mean? Let's look!

According to the instructions in its entry, eh? Okay, let's look at the entry.

A witchfire, eh? Let's see what that means.

Many have profiles - that means that they don't all have profiles. Indeed - if we look at Shriek we don't see a profile. Okay.

Must roll To Hit, eh? Let's go check the rules for that first.

d6 for every shot.

Again, d6 for each shot in range. How do we know how many shots a shooting attack has? Well, searching the entire rulebook (thank god for eBooks) we only come up with one relevant reference:

One problem with this - let's look at where it is.

Oh, under weapon profiles. So we know that not all witchfires have profiles, and that Shriek specifically doesn't have one. Right?
So how many shots do we roll To Hit with? It's an undefined number. We're never told how many to roll. So we don't roll any. Next step in the shooting process then!

For each shot that hit...

No other clarification here - so if we didn't roll any dice To Hit, we couldn't have Hit and therefore cannot roll To Wound. Next step ahoy!

Safe to say we can agree this gets skipped because there's no Wounds?

Now, we're done with the shooting process. Have we resolved the power according to its entry? Let's look at the entry again:

Well, we resolved a shooting attack, but there's part of the power we haven't resolved yet. Hmmm. Should we resolve it now, or just skip it because we feel like it?

Oh. We should resolve it. Since the instructions are in its entry and all.

Any questions? No snide remarks or rude comments please (I shouldn't have to say this, but apparently I do)

DaPino wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
@rigeld2 You have made claims it's not part of the rules that is it. The rules state all witchfire powers are shooting attacks. You need to prove that it is not part of it. There is nothing to indicate in the description that it is separate from itself. The power in it's entirety is the shooting attack. Resolving it per it's rules tells you it is a shooting attack. Not that you resolve a shooting attack then roll 3d6. You have to come up with a way to resolve the 3d6 within the rules of a shooting attack.

Nothing says I have to resolve the 3D6 within the rules of a shooting attack.

Seriously, It's becomming really hard to take you guys serious while you're trying to prove that a majority of the focussed witchfire powers cannot be cast.

I don't think anyone is trying to prove that they cannot be cast.

some people are trying to point out that there is no proof you can ignore the to hit roll, as it is required by the powers entry to be resolved since they are witchfire powers which follow the rules for shooting attacks unless permitted to do so otherwise.

Gravmyr wrote:
@rigeld2 You have made claims it's not part of the rules that is it. The rules state all witchfire powers are shooting attacks. You need to prove that it is not part of it. There is nothing to indicate in the description that it is separate from itself. The power in it's entirety is the shooting attack. Resolving it per it's rules tells you it is a shooting attack. Not that you resolve a shooting attack then roll 3d6. You have to come up with a way to resolve the 3d6 within the rules of a shooting attack.

No, you don't. You're required to resolve the power according to its entry. The entry states that it's a withfire and includes nothing about how to tie the 3d6 roll to the shooting attack. Therefore any attempt to tie the 3d6 roll to the shooting attack is breaking a rule, or inventing one.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Feel free to provide a fully delineated argument that resolves Psychic Shriek strictly according to RAW.

The burden is on you to provide one. Psychic Shriek is obviously missing a profile and critical info and we all necessarily have to resort to HYWPI unless you prove otherwise.

The burden is on you.

Full argument please. I am all ears.

First, no response to my rules quotes proving your assertions incorrect? Cool.

Second,

Spoiler:

If this test is failed, or if your opponent chooses not to make a Deny the Witch test, the psychic power is manifested and its effects are immediately resolved.

Immediately resolved.

Spoiler:

5. Resolve Psychic Power. Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the power was not negated by a successful Deny the Witch test, it is now resolved.

It is now resolved. What do these two entries mean? Let's look!

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.

According to the instructions in its entry, eh? Okay, let's look at the entry.

Spoiler:

PSYCHIC SHRIEK - Warp Charge 1
The psyker breathes in deeply the power of the Warp before emitting a banshee howl of psychic energy that shreds the minds of his enemies.
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.

A witchfire, eh? Let's see what that means.

Spoiler:

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. Indeed, they are often referred to as psychic shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons.

Many have profiles - that means that they don't all have profiles. Indeed - if we look at Shriek we don't see a profile. Okay.

Spoiler:

Similarly, a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit automatically.

Must roll To Hit, eh? Let's go check the rules for that first.

Spoiler:

4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target.

d6 for every shot.

Spoiler:

To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we’ll explain in more detail later.

Again, d6 for each shot in range. How do we know how many shots a shooting attack has? Well, searching the entire rulebook (thank god for eBooks) we only come up with one relevant reference:

Spoiler:

Number of Shots
Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type.

One problem with this - let's look at where it is.

Spoiler:

WEAPON PROFILES
Every weapon has a profile. Here are two examples:

Oh, under weapon profiles. So we know that not all witchfires have profiles, and that Shriek specifically doesn't have one. Right?
So how many shots do we roll To Hit with? It's an undefined number. We're never told how many to roll. So we don't roll any. Next step in the shooting process then!

Spoiler:

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

For each shot that hit...

Spoiler:

ROLL TO WOUND
To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below. The number indicated on the chart is the minimum result on a D6 needed to convert the hit into a Wound. A value of ‘-’ indicates that the target cannot be wounded by the attack.

No other clarification here - so if we didn't roll any dice To Hit, we couldn't have Hit and therefore cannot roll To Wound. Next step ahoy!

Spoiler:

6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties.

Safe to say we can agree this gets skipped because there's no Wounds?

Now, we're done with the shooting process. Have we resolved the power according to its entry? Let's look at the entry again:

Spoiler:

PSYCHIC SHRIEK - Warp Charge 1
The psyker breathes in deeply the power of the Warp before emitting a banshee howl of psychic energy that shreds the minds of his enemies.
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.

Well, we resolved a shooting attack, but there's part of the power we haven't resolved yet. Hmmm. Should we resolve it now, or just skip it because we feel like it?

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.

Oh. We should resolve it. Since the instructions are in its entry and all.

Any questions? No snide remarks or rude comments please (I shouldn't have to say this, but apparently I do)

This is where your argument breaks from strict RAW and you rely on house rule.



You are not permitted to roll an undefined number. The rules come to a crashing halt here. You have decided to implement a house rule to skip this step. Even though you are never told how many to roll you do not have permission to skip this step. Skipping this step is your HYWPI. The rules do not let you.

An alternate take is to simply admit that the rules are broken here and openly and honestly implement a HYWPI to fix the issue.

col_impact wrote:
This is where your argument breaks from strict RAW and you rely on house rule.

Spoiler:

So how many shots do we roll To Hit with? It's an undefined number. We're never told how many to roll. So we don't roll any. Next step in the shooting process then!

You are not permitted to roll an undefined number. The rules come to a crashing halt here. You have decided to implement a house rule to skip this step. Even though you are never told how many to roll you do not have permission to skip this step. Skipping this step is your HYWPI. The rules do not let you.

An alternate take is to simply admit that the rules are broken here and openly and honestly implement a HYWPI to fix the issue.

We're never told how many to roll. Why are we not permitted to roll 0? Cite actual rules please. You've asserted it's impossible - prove it.

Gravmyr wrote:
Actually it does say that. All witchfire powers are shooting attacks. That makes the 3d6 roll part of the shooting attack. Where does it give permission to resolve it outside of that framework?

No, all witchfires are shooting attacks. This means that they have to go through the shooting sequence, not that everything has to be resolved in that shooting sequence. There are other powers of which effects happen outside of that framework. Tzeentch's firestom's entry from the CSM codex has the following special effect.

Inferno: Each model removed causes D3 further hits at Strength 3 AP -.

This cannot be resolved in the same shooting sequence as the one Tzeentch's firestom is using because that would require you to go back into the sequence because the steps required to resolve this effect are already over. Would you say this effect is unresolvable? Not really, you resolve the effect and go through a new sequence, ignoring steps 1-4 and continue with step 5: 'Roll to wound'.

col_impact wrote:

DaPino wrote:
The requirement to resolve step 5: 'Roll to wound' is to roll a dice for every succesfull hit. There are 2 options here: 1) I don't roll a succesful hit 2) I roll a succesful hit.
1)
I have 0 succesful hits so I don't roll any dice to wound. Step complete. Nothing says that scoring 1 succesful hit is a requirement to proceed to or complete 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.
2)
I have a succesful hit. I can't create a wound from this hit because I need a Str characteristic to do so. So I manage to generate 0 wounds according to the rules in this step. Step complete.
Next step, I am reqquired to allocate every wound from the wound pool. I have 0 wounds in the wound pool so I allocate 0. Step complete.


In both cases I have resolved a the shooting sequence without breaking a rule. I now resolve the rest of the power.

I'm just going to keep posting this untill someone actually provides me with evidence that I did not complete the shooting sequence without breaking a rule.

You are not permitted to skip the To Wound Roll if you are required to do so. The To Wound Roll is required to determine "IF" it wounds the target. If the rules break here because you are missing critical info then admit as such. Skipping over the requisite step is one HYWPI among many.

I have 0 eligible hits so I roll 0 dice to wound. What is so hard about that? Prove to me that I broke a rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This is where your argument breaks from strict RAW and you rely on house rule.

Spoiler:

So how many shots do we roll To Hit with? It's an undefined number. We're never told how many to roll. So we don't roll any. Next step in the shooting process then!

You are not permitted to roll an undefined number. The rules come to a crashing halt here. You have decided to implement a house rule to skip this step. Even though you are never told how many to roll you do not have permission to skip this step. Skipping this step is your HYWPI. The rules do not let you.

An alternate take is to simply admit that the rules are broken here and openly and honestly implement a HYWPI to fix the issue.

We're never told how many to roll. Why are we not permitted to roll 0? Cite actual rules please. You've asserted it's impossible - prove it.

I don't have to prove anything beyond that you are relying on a house rule. You don't have rules support to skip that step. The language that you used indicates very clearly that you are indeed implementing a house rule.

@rigeld2 at what point in the shooting attack did you resolve the 3d6? Not as part of the shooting attack? That means the power ended once the shooting attack was resolved and you decided HYWPI was to add another step and remove it from the shooting attack that you are directly informed it is part of. Why? You are not told to do it that way. You are not told resolve a shooting attack then resolve this step. What rule are you using beyond it's a step that has to be resolved? Since you are not told where it gets resolved why wait until after you have, by the rules of the power, finished with the steps to resolve the power to add another step.

DaPino wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Actually it does say that. All witchfire powers are shooting attacks. That makes the 3d6 roll part of the shooting attack. Where does it give permission to resolve it outside of that framework?

No, all witchfires are shooting attacks. This means that they have to go through the shooting sequence, not that everything has to be resolved in that shooting sequence. There are other powers of which effects happen outside of that framework. Tzeentch's firestom's entry from the CSM codex has the following special effect.

Inferno: Each model removed causes D3 further hits at Strength 3 AP -.

This cannot be resolved in the same shooting sequence as the one Tzeentch's firestom is using because that would require you to go back into the sequence because the steps required to resolve this effect are already over. Would you say this effect is unresolvable? Not really, you resolve the effect and go through a new sequence, ignoring steps 1-4 and continue with step 5: 'Roll to wound'.

col_impact wrote:

DaPino wrote:
The requirement to resolve step 5: 'Roll to wound' is to roll a dice for every succesfull hit. There are 2 options here: 1) I don't roll a succesful hit 2) I roll a succesful hit.
1)
I have 0 succesful hits so I don't roll any dice to wound. Step complete. Nothing says that scoring 1 succesful hit is a requirement to proceed to or complete 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.
2)
I have a succesful hit. I can't create a wound from this hit because I need a Str characteristic to do so. So I manage to generate 0 wounds according to the rules in this step. Step complete.
Next step, I am reqquired to allocate every wound from the wound pool. I have 0 wounds in the wound pool so I allocate 0. Step complete.


In both cases I have resolved a the shooting sequence without breaking a rule. I now resolve the rest of the power.

I'm just going to keep posting this untill someone actually provides me with evidence that I did not complete the shooting sequence without breaking a rule.

You are not permitted to skip the To Wound Roll if you are required to do so. The To Wound Roll is required to determine "IF" it wounds the target. If the rules break here because you are missing critical info then admit as such. Skipping over the requisite step is one HYWPI among many.

I have 0 eligible hits so I roll 0 dice to wound. What is so hard about that? Prove to me that I broke a rule.

You don't have zero eligible hits. As witchfire, you must roll to hit. You will have some successes and some misses. Successful hits bring you to the To Wound Roll. In which case you need to address my above comment and cannot circumvent the broken rules without house rule.

col_impact wrote:
I don't have to prove anything beyond that you are relying on a house rule. You don't have rules support to skip that step. The language that you used indicates very clearly that you are indeed implementing a house rule.

I'm not skipping that step. I've addressed how that step is handled. Please don't put words in my mouth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gravmyr wrote:
@rigeld2 at what point in the shooting attack did you resolve the 3d6? Not as part of the shooting attack? That means the power ended once the shooting attack was resolved and you decided HYWPI was to add another step and remove it from the shooting attack that you are directly informed it is part of. Why? You are not told to do it that way. You are not told resolve a shooting attack then resolve this step. What rule are you using beyond it's a step that has to be resolved? Since you are not told where it gets resolved why wait until after you have, by the rules of the power, finished with the steps to resolve the power to add another step.

There is no rule that says the entirety of the power must be resolved as a single shooting attack and nothing outside of it.
Indeed, as we have no rule stating that we tie the 3d6 to any step of the shooting attack process, doing so is inventing rules.

We are told to resolve a shooting attack. Doing so leaves rules unresolved - we must resolve them.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I don't have to prove anything beyond that you are relying on a house rule. You don't have rules support to skip that step. The language that you used indicates very clearly that you are indeed implementing a house rule.

I'm not skipping that step. I've addressed how that step is handled. Please don't put words in my mouth.

And how you addressed it is by house rule. The rules break at that point. You don't have a str characteristic to compare against toughness and no rule supported way of advancing forward.

col_impact wrote:
You don't have zero eligible hits. As witchfire, you must roll to hit. You will have some successes and some misses. Successful hits bring you to the To Wound Roll. In which case you need to address my above comment and cannot circumvent the broken rules without house rule.

Completely and demonstrably false - as I've shown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I don't have to prove anything beyond that you are relying on a house rule. You don't have rules support to skip that step. The language that you used indicates very clearly that you are indeed implementing a house rule.

I'm not skipping that step. I've addressed how that step is handled. Please don't put words in my mouth.

And how you addressed it is by house rule. The rules break at that point. You don't have a str characteristic to compare against toughness and no rule supported way of advancing forward.

Where am I required to roll To Wound when you're asserting I am using house rules during the To Hit step?
Now I'm really confused...

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You don't have zero eligible hits. As witchfire, you must roll to hit. You will have some successes and some misses. Successful hits bring you to the To Wound Roll. In which case you need to address my above comment and cannot circumvent the broken rules without house rule.

Completely and demonstrably false - as I've shown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I don't have to prove anything beyond that you are relying on a house rule. You don't have rules support to skip that step. The language that you used indicates very clearly that you are indeed implementing a house rule.

I'm not skipping that step. I've addressed how that step is handled. Please don't put words in my mouth.

And how you addressed it is by house rule. The rules break at that point. You don't have a str characteristic to compare against toughness and no rule supported way of advancing forward.

Where am I required to roll To Wound when you're asserting I am using house rules during the To Hit step?
Now I'm really confused...

Witchfire must roll to hit. If you are told you must mail an envelope and you go to the post office and mail zero envelopes have you satisfied the command to mail an envelope? This is where basic simple English and logic break your argument in addition to what has already been said.

col_impact wrote:
Witchfire must roll to hit. If you are told you must mail an envelope and you go to the post office and mail zero envelopes have you satisfied the command to mail an envelope. This is where basic simple English and logic break your argument in addition to what has already been said.

So, according to you, CC is impossible to resolve it you miss all your attacks? Since, as I quoted, you "must roll To Wound" in CC.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Witchfire must roll to hit. If you are told you must mail an envelope and you go to the post office and mail zero envelopes have you satisfied the command to mail an envelope. This is where basic simple English and logic break your argument in addition to what has already been said.

So, according to you, CC is impossible to resolve it you miss all your attacks? Since, as I quoted, you "must roll To Wound" in CC.

You must roll to wound for all successful hits per RAW.

col_impact wrote:
If you are told you must mail an envelope and you go to the post office and mail zero envelopes have you satisfied the command to mail an envelope.

Bad analogy.
"an envelope" is singular. One.
The rules don't say to roll a single hit dice. The number of hit dice in this case is not given at all.

These word games really don't work for rule debates. You can invent a scenario to fit any perspective.

col_impact wrote:
You must roll to wound for all successful hits per RAW.

How many successful hits can you have when no rule states how many dice you can roll?

The issue isn't at the "To Wound" stage. No hits means no rolls To Wound.
The issue is at the "To Hit" stage, with an unknown number of dice.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Witchfire must roll to hit. If you are told you must mail an envelope and you go to the post office and mail zero envelopes have you satisfied the command to mail an envelope. This is where basic simple English and logic break your argument in addition to what has already been said.

So, according to you, CC is impossible to resolve it you miss all your attacks? Since, as I quoted, you "must roll To Wound" in CC.

You must roll to wound for all successful hits per RAW.

Actually, what the rule says (and what I quoted) is:

As with shooting, once you have scored a hit with an Attack, you must roll a D6 for each successful hit to see if you cause a Wound and damage your foe.

What happens if you have no successful hits? According to your words (almost literal) it's a logical implausibility to be able to satisfy a step if you roll zero dice.
This is a situation where you're required - by the rules - to roll zero dice.

According to you, this requires a house rule to continue. Do you agree?

rigeld2 wrote:

There is no rule that says the entirety of the power must be resolved as a single shooting attack and nothing outside of it.
Indeed, as we have no rule stating that we tie the 3d6 to any step of the shooting attack process, doing so is inventing rules.

We are told to resolve a shooting attack. Doing so leaves rules unresolved - we must resolve them.

There is actually. Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. It doesn't say they are mostly shooting attacks or there are parts of them that are shooting attacks. That is a flat blanket statement that the entire power is a shooting attack. You must prove that you have permission to resolve it outside of that framework. The lack of a rule telling you how to resolve it makes anything as all a house rule. Since the whole power is a shooting attack why are you taking it out of the shooting framework. You would need instructions giving you permission to do so. You are told to resolve it. You are told it is a shooting attack which tells you what rules you must follow. You are not told how to fit the power into said framework. Resolving a shooting attack then resolving part of said shooting attack separate, without direct rules telling you to is inventing rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Witchfire must roll to hit. If you are told you must mail an envelope and you go to the post office and mail zero envelopes have you satisfied the command to mail an envelope. This is where basic simple English and logic break your argument in addition to what has already been said.

So, according to you, CC is impossible to resolve it you miss all your attacks? Since, as I quoted, you "must roll To Wound" in CC.

You must roll to wound for all successful hits per RAW.

Actually, what the rule says (and what I quoted) is:

As with shooting, once you have scored a hit with an Attack, you must roll a D6 for each successful hit to see if you cause a Wound and damage your foe.

What happens if you have no successful hits? According to your words (almost literal) it's a logical implausibility to be able to satisfy a step if you roll zero dice.
This is a situation where you're required - by the rules - to roll zero dice.

According to you, this requires a house rule to continue. Do you agree?

Yup, this requires a house rule to continue. And my house rule is better than yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If you are told you must mail an envelope and you go to the post office and mail zero envelopes have you satisfied the command to mail an envelope.

Bad analogy.
"an envelope" is singular. One.
The rules don't say to roll a single hit dice. The number of hit dice in this case is not given at all.

These word games really don't work for rule debates. You can invent a scenario to fit any perspective.

col_impact wrote:
You must roll to wound for all successful hits per RAW.

How many successful hits can you have when no rule states how many dice you can roll?

The issue isn't at the "To Wound" stage. No hits means no rolls To Wound.
The issue is at the "To Hit" stage, with an unknown number of dice.

You cannot proceed with an unknown number of dice. Strict RAW breaks here. And everyone has to house rule in order to proceed. Which is my argument.

col_impact wrote:
And my house rule is better than yours.

Haha! Classic
But in that case this should be in General or Proposed Rules forum, not in a rules discussion, since it's opinion not rules.

 grendel083 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
And my house rule is better than yours.

Haha! Classic
But in that case this should be in General or Proposed Rules forum, not in a rules discussion, since it's opinion not rules.

Nope. HYPWI is certainly welcome in a YMDC forum, especially where no strict RAW argument can be advanced and we are all in the boat of having to house rule.

Feel free to advance a strict RAW argument that does not resort to house rules or fictions you make up (which are house rules).