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.

So I have been part of 2 very large gaming groups since 6th edition introduced Psychic Shriek. When I moved to my current group, I was told repeatedly that since Witchfires require a roll to Hit, you must roll to hit with Psychic Shriek.

My previous group was slightly divided, but overall said no roll to hit needed because there was not shooting profile and thus no way to determine the dice need to compare to BS. My current group, however, is pretty unanimous that you after manifesting the power, you must roll 1 dice to Hit.

I play Eldar and Daemons (with Belakor) so I almost always have Psychic Shriek. Aside from NEVER rolling higher than my opponents LD on 3D6, having to roll a snap-fire roll to hit (because my jetbike Farseer and Belakor are always jinking) makes Psychic Shriek a WORTHLESS power for me.

Are there any concrete rules that say I don't need to roll to Hit with PS so that I can convince my gaming group?

From the rulebook:

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So yes, you make one roll to hit.

Oh...oh noes

I'm guessing this is going to get heated very fast however the general consensus (I use the phrase lightly) is that you roll to hit as per normal witchfire rules and then the effect of the psykic scream is resolved after...

Although I have no actual idea how you can 'miss' screaming at something...

The RAW explanation is that it is a witchfire, and witchfires roll to hit.

Honestly, I feel as if it would make more sense as a malediction, which do not roll to hit, but that's not what the power is classified as.

While I completely agree that you must roll to hit, How many dice to you roll? Everyone assumes 1, but there isn't a profile to tell us this.

Is there any reason why I can't resolve the 3d6 -LD to see how many shots need to be rolled?

If a to-hit roll is required at all for a witch-fire power to even begin manifesting, then whenever they go to roll to hit with a power with a shooting profile, ask them to roll a single to-hit die first. Tell them that all Witch-Fire powers require a to-hit roll to take effect. If they say that these are the to-hit rolls, say that this is part of the psychic shooting attack, and not part of the manifesting of the power.

Requiring a to-hit roll for Psychic Shriek only makes sense if you also require it for ALL witch-fires, not just witch-fires that lack a shooting profile.

If they say that this is dumb, since they're just targeting and resolving the power, then say that this same thing should apply to Psychic Shriek, and that it also is just a means of targeting.


It really is one way or the other. The real dilemma in MY mind is which one of THESE are correct. EIther ALL Witch-Fires require a separate single to-hit roll first before resolving the rest of the power, or NONE do.

Makes sense. I guess I am just frustrated that every time I use PS, I either fail to hit, or roll so low on the 3d6 that is does 0 wounds. Yet EVERY time PS is used against me, I lose over half my unit.

 Galef wrote:
Makes sense. I guess I am just frustrated that every time I use PS, I either fail to hit, or roll so low on the 3d6 that is does 0 wounds. Yet EVERY time PS is used against me, I lose over half my unit.

Know the feeling, last time I ran a wraithknight (double D cannons) against Belkor the guy managed to one shot it with Psykic scream... don't even wanna know the odds on that one.


As for the amount of rolls, I've always been in the 1 roll camp and then resolve...

Raw: you have to roll to hit, but totally lack a weapon profile to do so, and the game halts.

However given even if you miss your to hit (1 or 10000 dice) the power resolves anyway, ie you still roll the 3d6 - ld and take saves etc, rai is likely you just roll the 3d6 and ignored the need to hit, as it makes no difference to the resolution of the power.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Raw: you have to roll to hit, but totally lack a weapon profile to do so, and the game halts.

However given even if you miss your to hit (1 or 10000 dice) the power resolves anyway, ie you still roll the 3d6 - ld and take saves etc, rai is likely you just roll the 3d6 and ignored the need to hit, as it makes no difference to the resolution of the power.

Slightly incorrect. The game actually halts at the To Wound Roll. In the absence of a weapon profile, the witchfire shooting attack defaults to one shot.



The To Wound Roll is required to see if the witchfire can wound at all.



It's at that point where we lack a Strength value for the weapon. The game halts. We are of necessity in house rule land at this point. Two popular answers are:

1) Keep the Roll To Hit and use the text in Psychic Shriek as the To Wound Roll.


2) Treat Psychic Shriek as a custom attack and resolve the text directly.

So col_impact do you believe it requires houserules to resolve Enfeeble on a vehicle as there is a -1T modifier and vehicles don't have a T value?

How about after you define the "to wound" process of PS do you require yet more Houserules to resolve it against a vehicle?

Why do we need a weapon profile the make a To Hit roll?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So col_impact do you believe it requires houserules to resolve Enfeeble on a vehicle as there is a -1T modifier and vehicles don't have a T value?

No house rule required. You can't modify non-existent characteristics.

 FlingitNow wrote:
How about after you define the "to wound" process of PS do you require yet more Houserules to resolve it against a vehicle?

For a similar reason already pointed out, wounds have no effect on vehicles since they lack a Wound characteristic.


If I have a weapon that modifies a models 'Glurp' characteristic by -2 that effect will do nothing in the game of 40k since no models in 40k have a 'Glurp' characteristic.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So col_impact do you believe it requires houserules to resolve Enfeeble on a vehicle as there is a -1T modifier and vehicles don't have a T value?

How about after you define the "to wound" process of PS do you require yet more Houserules to resolve it against a vehicle?

Why do you think you can use rules that cause wounds on vehicles? There is nothing in the BRB allowing this.

Enfeeble lowers T, so casting that on a vehicle is wasting your Warp Charge. PS deals wounds, so casting it on a vehicle is equally wasting WC.

 jokerkd wrote:
Why do we need a weapon profile the make a To Hit roll?

Because without one you don't know how many dice to roll. The default being 1 is implied, but never outright stated in the rules.

However, as Nos pointed out, failing your to-hit roll makes no difference to a power that isn't rolling to wound... So in this particular case, you have a rule that requires you to roll to hit (with an unspecified number of dice) but the result of that roll has absolutely no impact on whether or not the power resolves, and so the to-hit roll can safely be ignored with no impact on the resolution of the power.

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So col_impact do you believe it requires houserules to resolve Enfeeble on a vehicle as there is a -1T modifier and vehicles don't have a T value?

No house rule required. You can't modify non-existent characteristics.

 FlingitNow wrote:
How about after you define the "to wound" process of PS do you require yet more Houserules to resolve it against a vehicle?

For a similar reason already pointed out, wounds have no effect on vehicles since they lack a Wound characteristic.


If I have a weapon that modifies a models 'Glurp' characteristic by -2 that effect will do nothing in the game of 40k since no models in 40k have a 'Glurp' characteristic.

But you still have to resolve that Glurp modifier. Why in one case with no profile are you saying house rule required when in others you're simply stating 'has no effect'? The it has no effect method seems to be the most common and most applicable result yet when it comes to Psychic Shriek loads of people go crazy and start inventing rules...

Heck look at the Harlequin discipline for further evidence that these types of powers (as the same is also true for most focused witchfires) as it has 2 separate psychic shriek like effects are we to make 1 roll for each effect? Or does 1 roll grant both effects? In 6th Ed did you get 2 chances to pick out your target for focussed witchfires? Once for rolling less than 5 on test and another for precision shot?

 insaniak wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Why do we need a weapon profile the make a To Hit roll?

Because without one you don't know how many dice to roll. The default being 1 is implied, but never outright stated in the rules.

However, as Nos pointed out, failing your to-hit roll makes no difference to a power that isn't rolling to wound... So in this particular case, you have a rule that requires you to roll to hit (with an unspecified number of dice) but the result of that roll has absolutely no impact on whether or not the power resolves, and so the to-hit roll can safely be ignored with no impact on the resolution of the power.

Incorrect. You need a successful To Wound Roll to see if the Psychic Shriek actually wounds the target. It's at that point that you realize that you cannot resolve a To Wound Roll with the rules in their given state. The rules are broken and require a house rule.

 Galef wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So col_impact do you believe it requires houserules to resolve Enfeeble on a vehicle as there is a -1T modifier and vehicles don't have a T value?

How about after you define the "to wound" process of PS do you require yet more Houserules to resolve it against a vehicle?

Why do you think you can use rules that cause wounds on vehicles? There is nothing in the BRB allowing this.

Enfeeble lowers T, so casting that on a vehicle is wasting your Warp Charge. PS deals wounds, so casting it on a vehicle is equally wasting WC.

So you agree that something that takes effect on a nonexistent profile has no effect?

So no -1T on vehicles from Enfeeble and no wounds from PS on vehicles? Thus no To Hit roll for Psychic Shriek. Weird that in the other thread you were claiming the opposite?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Why do we need a weapon profile the make a To Hit roll?

Because without one you don't know how many dice to roll. The default being 1 is implied, but never outright stated in the rules.

However, as Nos pointed out, failing your to-hit roll makes no difference to a power that isn't rolling to wound... So in this particular case, you have a rule that requires you to roll to hit (with an unspecified number of dice) but the result of that roll has absolutely no impact on whether or not the power resolves, and so the to-hit roll can safely be ignored with no impact on the resolution of the power.

Incorrect. You need a successful To Wound Roll to see if the Psychic Shriek actually wounds the target. It's at that point that you realize that you cannot resolve a To Wound Roll with the rules in their given state. The rules are broken and require a house rule.

Spoiler:

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

So you think you need a houserule to resolve PS on a vehicle after you sort out the Houserule to cover the To Wound roll? Likewise you need houserules to cover Enfeeble cast on a Vehicle right?

 FlingitNow wrote:


But you still have to resolve that Glurp modifier. Why in one case with no profile are you saying house rule required when in others you're simply stating 'has no effect'? The it has no effect method seems to be the most common and most applicable result yet when it comes to Psychic Shriek loads of people go crazy and start inventing rules...

Psychic Shriek is defined as witchfire. Witchfire powers must roll To Hit per the rules which sends them to To Wound Rolls they cannot resolve.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:


So you think you need a houserule to resolve PS on a vehicle after you sort out the Houserule to cover the To Wound roll? Likewise you need houserules to cover Enfeeble cast on a Vehicle right?

No houserule required. You cannot modify non-existent characteristics. A weapon that subtracts 2 from a models Glurp characteristic does nothing in 40k. Undefined minus two is still undefined.

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


But you still have to resolve that Glurp modifier. Why in one case with no profile are you saying house rule required when in others you're simply stating 'has no effect'? The it has no effect method seems to be the most common and most applicable result yet when it comes to Psychic Shriek loads of people go crazy and start inventing rules...

Psychic Shriek is defined as witchfire. Witchfire powers must roll To Hit per the rules which sends them to To Wound Rolls they cannot resolve.

Spoiler:

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks. Indeed, they are often referred to as psychic
shooting attacks, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons. Just like when
shooting a weapon, a Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point) and
cannot be locked in combat if he wishes to manifest a witchfire power. Similarly, a
witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is has the Blast special rule, in which case it
scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit
automatically. Psykers can make Snap Shots in the Psychic phase with witchfire powers in
the same way as with other shooting weapons. Saves can be taken against Wounds from
witchfire in the same way as for any other shooting attack, and hits are allocated to the
closest target models to the Psyker.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:


So you think you need a houserule to resolve PS on a vehicle after you sort out the Houserule to cover the To Wound roll? Likewise you need houserules to cover Enfeeble cast on a Vehicle right?

No houserule required. You cannot modify non-existent characteristics. A weapon that subtracts 2 from a models Glurp characteristic does nothing in 40k.

What makes you think the -1T from Enfeeble is optional?

In the other thread, I wasn't trying to "claim" the opposite, merely stating that the viewpoint of everyone I play with assumes the roll to hit, so I shy away for ever using PS. I wanted the player to be aware of the issue and to not show up to a game expecting to use PS, only to get into a rules debate, or worse have to call a TO.

Honestly, I constantly change sides on this. I don't want to have to roll to hit because the only "logically" number of dice to roll is 1. Meaning I always miss. However, I can't reconcile the very clear statement "Withcfires roll to Hit".

I like the idea that the roll to hit doesn't matter and the 3d6 -LD is an "effect" that just happens, but I know that would not fly in my game group (Or in any nationally known tournament)

 FlingitNow wrote:


What makes you think the -1T from Enfeeble is optional?

It's not optional. It just has no characteristic to modify in the case of vehicle target. Undefined minus 1 is still undefined.

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


What makes you think the -1T from Enfeeble is optional?

It's not optional. It just has no characteristic to modify in the case of vehicle target. Undefined minus 1 is still undefined.

But you must apply it but no way to apply it so you ignore it eithout need of houserule correct?

 FlingitNow wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


What makes you think the -1T from Enfeeble is optional?

It's not optional. It just has no characteristic to modify in the case of vehicle target. Undefined minus 1 is still undefined.

But you must apply it but no way to apply it so you ignore it eithout need of houserule correct?

Nope. I apply it. No house rule required at all. Undefined minus 1 is still undefined so the result is no changes to the non-existent characteristics of Wounds or Toughness.

That's the way it works logically and mathematically.

 Yarium wrote:



It really is one way or the other. The real dilemma in MY mind is which one of THESE are correct. EIther ALL Witch-Fires require a separate single to-hit roll first before resolving the rest of the power, or NONE do.

I guess I don't understand - the answer is simply that all witchfires require a to-hit roll, with the exception of beams and novas, or powers with the template profile, which specifically state that they auto-hit. if it's a witchfire, and it's not a beam or a nova, it rolls to hit. Simple as that.

And NO ONE has more reason to complain about this than orks - wierdboy powers are actually pretty decent, except for a witchfire that causes a T test or the target takes a wound. If people complain about having to hit with a witchfire with a BS of 4 (or much, much better), try with a BS of 2.

I would LOVE for that witchfire to autohit. But it doesn't. Because it's a witchfire. And whenever I roll that power, I literally don't take the card out of the deck. It is useless.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but lots of things in the game don't. And in the absence of FAQs, we have to with what's written.

 Galef wrote:
In the other thread, I wasn't trying to "claim" the opposite, merely stating that the viewpoint of everyone I play with assumes the roll to hit, so I shy away for ever using PS. I wanted the player to be aware of the issue and to not show up to a game expecting to use PS, only to get into a rules debate, or worse have to call a TO.

Honestly, I constantly change sides on this. I don't want to have to roll to hit because the only "logically" number of dice to roll is 1. Meaning I always miss. However, I can't reconcile the very clear statement "Withcfires roll to Hit".

I like the idea that the roll to hit doesn't matter and the 3d6 -LD is an "effect" that just happens, but I know that would not fly in my game group (Or in any nationally known tournament)

If you actually read the entire paragraph and then read Psychic Shriek it should become obvious. The paragraph is little more than context with a reminder than mind bullets still have to roll to hit. Then look at Psychic Shriek it fires no shots and has no strength or profile to resolve those shots with. It instead has an effect on the target unit that is in no way shape or form linked to a successful To Hit roll.

Psychic Shriek like most focused witchfires in effect auto-misses. Then resolves an effect on the target unit or model (a lot of focused witchfires have a singular effect on a given model making the disconnect to a normal shooting sequence even more pronounced).

The roll 1 dice camp require you to set missing profiles to 1 (which as explained enables PS to murder vehicles) then make up a rule that the power is only resolved if that single To Hit is successful and make up a rule that a To Wound roll is not made after the successful To Hit roll. That To Hit roll sometimes resulting in 1 effect sometimes in multiple with no rhyme or reason. Gives Psykers with Precision shots two chances to pick their target with focussed witchfires indeed it goes more broken as you resolve the effect on the nearest model but get to allocate any wounds to whatever model(s) in the unit you like.

One way lies madness and loads of invented rules. The other just means doing what you normally do when you're told to do something with a missing profile...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 Yarium wrote:



It really is one way or the other. The real dilemma in MY mind is which one of THESE are correct. EIther ALL Witch-Fires require a separate single to-hit roll first before resolving the rest of the power, or NONE do.

I guess I don't understand - the answer is simply that all witchfires require a to-hit roll, with the exception of beams and novas, or powers with the template profile, which specifically state that they auto-hit. if it's a witchfire, and it's not a beam or a nova, it rolls to hit. Simple as that.

And NO ONE has more reason to complain about this than orks - wierdboy powers are actually pretty decent, except for a witchfire that causes a T test or the target takes a wound. If people complain about having to hit with a witchfire with a BS of 4 (or much, much better), try with a BS of 2.

I would LOVE for that witchfire to autohit. But it doesn't. Because it's a witchfire. And whenever I roll that power, I literally don't take the card out of the deck. It is useless.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but lots of things in the game don't. And in the absence of FAQs, we have to with what's written.

That isn't going with what is written. That is taking one line out of context and making up a whole raft of rules to try to fit that line. If you're making up lots of rules it is a good sign you are not following RaW. Focused Witchfires and Powers like PS roll no dice To Hit and in effect auto miss, however they have an effect that is in no way shape or form linked to a successful To Hit roll and you resolve that regardless of the To Hit roll. If you don't do that you are breaking the rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Galef wrote:
In the other thread, I wasn't trying to "claim" the opposite, merely stating that the viewpoint of everyone I play with assumes the roll to hit, so I shy away for ever using PS. I wanted the player to be aware of the issue and to not show up to a game expecting to use PS, only to get into a rules debate, or worse have to call a TO.

Honestly, I constantly change sides on this. I don't want to have to roll to hit because the only "logically" number of dice to roll is 1. Meaning I always miss. However, I can't reconcile the very clear statement "Withcfires roll to Hit".

I like the idea that the roll to hit doesn't matter and the 3d6 -LD is an "effect" that just happens, but I know that would not fly in my game group (Or in any nationally known tournament)

If you actually read the entire paragraph and then read Psychic Shriek it should become obvious. The paragraph is little more than context with a reminder than mind bullets still have to roll to hit. Then look at Psychic Shriek it fires no shots and has no strength or profile to resolve those shots with. It instead has an effect on the target unit that is in no way shape or form linked to a successful To Hit roll.

Psychic Shriek like most focused witchfires in effect auto-misses. Then resolves an effect on the target unit or model (a lot of focused witchfires have a singular effect on a given model making the disconnect to a normal shooting sequence even more pronounced).

The roll 1 dice camp require you to set missing profiles to 1 (which as explained enables PS to murder vehicles) then make up a rule that the power is only resolved if that single To Hit is successful and make up a rule that a To Wound roll is not made after the successful To Hit roll. That To Hit roll sometimes resulting in 1 effect sometimes in multiple with no rhyme or reason. Gives Psykers with Precision shots two chances to pick their target with focussed witchfires indeed it goes more broken as you resolve the effect on the nearest model but get to allocate any wounds to whatever model(s) in the unit you like.

One way lies madness and loads of invented rules. The other just means doing what you normally do when you're told to do something with a missing profile...

Psychic Shriek is witchfire per the rules.



That you have to roll To Hit and roll To Wound is indisputable. The rules break when you try to resolve the To Wound roll. So everyone is in house rule land when it comes to Psychic Shriek. There is no RAW way of resolving the power.

You can play Psychic Shriek in such a way that it acts like a witchfire shooting attack [approach A].

Or you can play Psychic Shriek in such a way that it acts like a custom attack , e.g. Gaze of Death. [approach B]


An advantage of approach A is it retains rules for what we know is certain and established, i.e. that Psychic Shriek is witchfire

An advantage of approach B is that it clear-cuts away all the broken rules down to what you can resolve.

A disadvantage of approach B however is that Psychic Shriek becomes very OP as an auto-hit 1 Warp Charge attack that rivals D weapons in potency.


It's up to your play environment how Psychic Shriek gets house-ruled. ITC and Adepticon use approach A but of course your play group is free to do what they want. Following approach B grants a power buff to some Nid units which can be desirable.

So col_impact what houserule do you use to resolve Enfeeble against a Vehicle?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So col_impact what houserule do you use to resolve Enfeeble against a Vehicle?

I have already stated that I need no house rule.

There is no Toughness characteristic associated with Vehicles so Toughness is an undefined quantity.

Following Enfeeble I subtract 2 from undefined which is still undefined.

The non-existent Toughness characteristic is unchanged.

col_impact wrote:
[Psychic Shriek is witchfire per the rules.

Spoiler:

a witchfire power must roll To Hit

That you have to roll To Hit and roll To Wound is indisputable. The rules break when you try to resolve the To Wound roll. So everyone is in house rule land when it comes to Psychic Shriek. There is no RAW way of resolving the power.

You can play Psychic Shriek in such a way that it acts like a witchfire shooting attack [approach A].

Or you can play Psychic Shriek in such a way that it acts like a custom attack , e.g. Gaze of Death. [approach B]


An advantage of approach A is it retains rules for what we know is certain and established, i.e. that Psychic Shriek is witchfire

An advantage of approach B is that it clear-cuts away all the broken rules down to what you can resolve.

A disadvantage of approach B however is that Psychic Shriek becomes very OP as an auto-hit 1 Warp Charge attack that rivals D weapons in potency.


It's up to your play environment how Psychic Shriek gets house-ruled. ITC and Adepticon use approach A but of course your play group is free to do what they want. Following approach B grants a power buff to some Nid units which can be desirable.

There is also Option C. It has to Roll To Hit, but it has a different Wounding method as defined in its rules.

PS's problem is that while it addresses its lack of a Weapon profile for Wounding, it does not define a volume To Hit with. Is it just one? Is it automatic? This is not defined. It should be just one or automatic, but that is just assumed, either way.