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.

Tsilber wrote:
we might want to consider why GW does not put out FAQ's..

They did FAQed it a while ago. I admit it isn't a FAQ for the resent codex but it is a FAQ for exactly the same situation.
I quoted it, then you all ignored it and started to babble utter nonsense. Have fun I am out.

 JamesY wrote:
my other comments have made it clear I don't intend to continue with the discussion. At least not until an alternative sequence of steps is supported by direct, unambiguous reference to the rules.

Did you read that bit as well?

Then that isn't going to happen because no such thing exists. RAW the power (and phase in general) don't function without sidestepping rules that don't work, such as the rule requiring having to roll To Hit with an unknown number of dice.

All we know is that the sequence requires us to roll To Hit, and that if we miss we can't roll To Wound. Psychic Shriek doesn't tell us how many to to roll To Hit with and doesn't require a roll(s) To Wound either, making missing do nothing.

 JamesY wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
my other comments have made it clear I don't intend to continue with the discussion. At least not until an alternative sequence of steps is supported by direct, unambiguous reference to the rules.

Did you read that bit as well?

Yep, and since you do not have any rules to back up what you have claimed, it makes sense that you do not want to continue the discussion.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Then that isn't going to happen because no such thing exists because RAW the power (and phase in general) don't function without sidestepping rules that don't work, such as the rule requiring having to roll To Hit with an unknown number of dice.

All we know is that the sequence requires us to roll To Hit, and that if we miss we can't roll To Wound. Psychic Shriek doesn't tell us how many to to roll To Hit with and doesn't require a roll(s) To Wound either, making missing do nothing.

Actually the power works just fine as the rolling of 3D6-LD has nothing to do with the power hitting or missing.

I did say that missing means nothing for the power's resolution. I should have worded it better though as I realise now that what I wrote can also be read as 'Psychic Shriek has no effect upon missing".

The problem stems from that in order to resolve it RAW (ignoring the rest of the psychic phase) you HAVE to roll To Hit, even though it is meaningless, with an unknown number of dice. If you skip this step you aren't playing RAW... but if you don't the game just stops as you attempt to roll and unknown number of dice.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JamesY wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
my other comments have made it clear I don't intend to continue with the discussion. At least not until an alternative sequence of steps is supported by direct, unambiguous reference to the rules.

Did you read that bit as well?

Yep, and since you do not have any rules to back up what you have claimed, it makes sense that you do not want to continue the discussion.

Actually, I have, repeatedly. Show me how the rules support your sequence of events, and I will happily resume the discussion at hand, or concede if your chain is better supported than mine.

And to be clear, having the last word in a discussion is not the same thing as being right. Say I'm wrong until you are blue in the face. Until you can show me in the rules an alternative resolution, rather than trying to find fault with mine, which at least have basis in the rules, it will fall on deaf ears.

Except the rules do not back what you claim. my post debunks them as you do not have any actual rules quotes that say the default is one shot.

There is nothing stating every gun is 1 shot unless otherwise noted. That simply is not a rule.

James - you continually asserting that "most..." STATES ROF 1 is the default is not helpful, because it doesn't actually state that. You can argue at best an implication. But the actual text does not support your argument

The entire point were making is that psychic shriek is broken, raw. You must roll to hit, but cannot state for certain you roll only one dice. However, as also proven, the resolution of the power (3d6-ld) has no requirement on any to hit succeeding - only oils to-wound need a successful to-hit roll first.

Also when it says "Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons can fire more than once... " They do not explain what they mean by most models.

"A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile..." (Weapons Chapter, Assault weapons section) So not a default of 1

"When shooting, a model with a Heavy weapon shoots the number of times indicated." (Weapons Chapter, Heavy weapons section) So not a default of 1

"When shooting, a model with an Ordnance weapon fires the number of times indicated in its profile after its type. (Weapons Chapter, Ordnance weapons section) So not a default of 1

"Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons." (Weapons Chapter, Pistol weapons section) First type of weapon that fires only one shot all the time.

"A model armed with a Rapid Fire weapon can fire two shots at a target up to half the weapon’s maximum range away. Alternatively, it can instead fire one shot at a target over half the weapon’s range away, up to the weapon’s maximum range." (Weapons Chapter, Rapid Fire weapons section) Sometimes 1 shot, sometimes 2 shots. So not a default of 1

"Salvo weapons have two numbers on their profile (listed after their type) separated by a ‘/’. A model armed with a Salvo weapon can move and fire at a target up to half its maximum range away. In this case, the number of shots is equal to the first number. If the model has not moved, it can instead fire a greater number of shots at a target up to the weapon’s maximum range. In this case, the number of shots is equal to the second number." (Weapons Chapter, Salvo weapons section) So not a default of 1

So out of the six weapon types only one has a default of 1, and one has 1 sometimes and 2 sometimes. The other four are not a default of one.

If 4/6 are not 1, then 1 is simply not the default for most weapons. But they are not talking about weapons are they, they are talking about models. So what exactly did they mean by "Most models only get to fire one shot..."

They must be talking about how many times a model can use a shooting attack in a particular phase. That is the only thing that lines up with the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
James - you continually asserting that "most..." STATES ROF 1 is the default is not helpful, because it doesn't actually state that. You can argue at best an implication. But the actual text does not support your argument

The entire point were making is that psychic shriek is broken, raw. You must roll to hit, but cannot state for certain you roll only one dice. However, as also proven, the resolution of the power (3d6-ld) has no requirement on any to hit succeeding - only oils to-wound need a successful to-hit roll first.

I am aware that it is an implication, but it is at least an implication supported by rules. There is no rule at all state supports a different inference that I can see. There is nothing to support not rolling to hit. Just because the rules you have been told to follow have not been repeated, it does not mean they cease to exist.

@DeathReaper, none of your examples help, as they rely on the profile of a ranged weapon, which PS does not follow. From p 32, it does say "Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons can fire more than once", but it then says that models that can fire more than once will be discussed later. It doesn't refer to any specific point though. p40 is one example of where this might be discussed, but it doesn't help as it refers to profiles that ps doesn't have. Following from there the next helpful page is the rule for ps on the telepathy page. There is no discussion there of it being more than one shot.

We are told that wf are shooting attacks. PS is a witchfire.
Shooting attacks need to roll to hit unless specified otherwise, i.e. template or blast. PS doesn't specify otherwise, and isn't a template or a blast, therefore a roll to hit is required.
Models only get to fire one shot, except in instances discussed elsewhere. No discussion elsewhere to say more than one shot.

A clear and objective reading of the rules indicates those steps. If you want to argue that some of it is implied, fine, it's implied. But given that the rules do not imply an alternative route, I accept those implications as the only actual guidance from the brb.

Again, if you want to tell me I am wrong, and there is another route supported by the rules, share it. The only other route I can see is that, in the event of no possible resolution, within the rules it simply cannot be cast by a psyker of any bs, as it is impossible to resolve. Anything else as I see it is house rules or HIWPI. Nothing wrong with that at all, but that is not what I am discussing.

edited for errors.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Tsilber wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Tsilber wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
Even if the Patriarch had a BS, exactly how may times do I roll to hit?

Once?
Or 3d6-enemy leadership times?

Even if he had a BS it doesn't solve the problem. This being the case should he roll at all?

Personally I would treat the power as a Malediction, if/until a faq comes out.
This solves all of the problems and prevents argument over specifics.

You roll to hit, when you hit, you follow the wording under the spell, its says roll 3d6 and subtract leadership. You are reading into more than you need to. I mean it is written out.

I appreciate and respect your personal opinion on how you would play it.
But the flipside to that coin is, just play it the way it says in the rulebook, keep it as a wtichfire, until an FAQ comes out.
There are some spells, psykers get, they caoulnt use... If a devastator is carrying a plasma cannon, cant shoot at any viable targets due to line of site or whatever, except can see a heldrake, should we wave the rule of blast hitting flyers for him?...

How many times do you roll to hit? Once? Twice? 3D6-Ld Times?.
The point is you have no way of determining how many dice to roll.
And even then it doesn't matter as the wording of the power means it doesn't care if you hit or miss as it has no weapon profile. No matter what you're house-ruling Psyhcic Shriek to either roll 1 to Hit roll and having a miss mean a power fails, or just skipping those steps all together because even though your meant to roll to Hit it doesn't matter in the end and it's not worth the effort of determining/deciding how many dice need to be rolled.

Psychic Shriek is just one of the many broken (read: non-functioning) parts of the Psychic Phase.

Really?
Witchfire requires roll to hit, already established.
Shriek spell tells you the rest..
Rule book states;
1) manifest,
2)make a roll to hit if witchfire
3) resolve spell
Then.
Find spell, Go to spell card or back of book;
4) then roll 3 dice and subtract leadership.

Its clear, to read into that, and make an argument against it in anyway, is beyond any answer for help.
Rules are clear, interpretation for the sake of disputing or throwing another dart at GW for "writing bad rulez" is almost like someone must just be joking on the internet boards to get a rise...

If it's so clear, how many dice to you roll To Hit? From the rules I have here the number is never specified at all.
Also, show where missing would stop a person resolving the '3D6-Ld'. From the rules I have, failing To Hit only means you can't roll To Wound, which is something Psychic Shriek doesn't do.

Okay okay we are done here it seems. Lol, are you serious? You really do not want resolution do you? You are posting to just keep arguing the metaphysical subtleties in the wording of RAW, and making further arguments changing your wording a little bit each time (as i said earlier, that you left out of my quote BTW), to keep finding a way to challenge anything anyone says or point out. So you enjoy it, agree to disagree, Yet the Majority plays it as steps 1-4 mentioned, reading the rules for what they are and when something is not directly spelled out because a single word may be missing they utilize the steps again in the rules. The game is complex, not as complex as some people want to make it though, perhaps checkers or risk would be better for some...

OP asked if it was an error on BS0 using telepathy. I shared my opinion, quoted the rules, and will continue to utilize a little common sense to have a fun time with my fellow gamers, at events and tourneys.
Because as it was said, some people will just keep disputing for the sake of disputing, the post/discussion begins experiencing diminishing returns, and sooner or later we just need to agree to disagree, part on hand shake, and hope our view on the subject is what is ruled at a tourney we play or event we play.

Considering my argument was "you can't play is RAW because it doesn't work, no matter what you have to house rule it"... yeah I know. It was not "this power can't ever be used ever because you can only play RAW". But sure be condescending and say 40k is too complex for one as simple as me.

The point is, both arguments as to how Psychic Shriek should be resolved are no more correct that the other. You either house-rule the number of dice rolled and missing actually meaning something or you house rule skipping the 'To Hit' step.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Considering my argument was "you can't play is RAW because it doesn't work, no matter what you have to house rule it"... yeah I know. It was not "this power can't ever be used ever because you can only play RAW". But sure be condescending and say 40k is too complex for one as simple as me.

The point is, both arguments as to how Psychic Shriek should be resolved are no more correct that the other. You either house-rule the number of dice rolled and missing actually meaning something or you house rule skipping the 'To Hit' step.

Well said, I still disagree, and hence we part as friends, no hard feelings, and agree to simply disagree on the matter. I know when ones mind is made, it is tough for one person to change the other persons, any conviction or frustration that one party says to influence the other, can only be met by the same conviction in their views.
I hope however you play it (and myself), we find others to enjoy the game who accept to play it the same way, which ever way is decided.
Cheers. (Cheers is not mocking you either, as i have been accused of mocking British. My 40k sparing partner, I play like 6 times a month is Alex Fennel, and hes got me saying "Cheers", "Mate", and "bloody" all the time now.)

James - it has no support, as "most" is undefined; we just know "at least half" of models can fire 1 shot, but when you actually analyse when models can shoot, you find that statement to be false.

The rules are BROKEN, they DO NOT COVER psychic shriek, as it lacks a weapon profile OR a reason to actually care about the reuslt of the to-hit, which we know is UTTERLY IRREVELANT to the resolution of the power.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
James - it has no support, as "most" is undefined; we just know "at least half" of models can fire 1 shot, but when you actually analyse when models can shoot, you find that statement to be false.

The rules are BROKEN, they DO NOT COVER psychic shriek, as it lacks a weapon profile OR a reason to actually care about the reuslt of the to-hit, which we know is UTTERLY IRREVELANT to the resolution of the power.

Using cap-locks doesn't add relevance to your point. I also commented that one reading prevents it being used at all. There is also no basis to assert that a roll to hit is irrelevant, when we are told we need to do it, but never given an exclusion from this in the case of ps. The way that wounds are resolved doesn't mean previous steps are bypassed. Deciding to bypass it for sake of ease is one thing, but it would be a house rule.

I think the rules do cover ps, and have illustrated clearly how the steps in the rules illustrate this.

Last post on this topic, it's circling.

It's strange to me how no one from the roll to hit camp has really stopped and analyzed whether the to hit roll has an effect on the resolution of the power or not.

There is no to wound roll, the to wound roll is what is conditional upon a to hit roll. You can roll to hit, but missing doesn't stop you from rolling 3d6 - leadership.

We know witchfires have to roll to hit to resolve their to wound rolls. We also know psychic shriek doesn't have a to wound roll that is conditional on a successful to hit roll because there is no weapon profile. We know that psychic shriek is a witchfire.

I really see nothing that causes a failed to hit roll to stop the power from resolving. If you think a failed to hit roll stops the power from resolving, why?

 JamesY wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
James - it has no support, as "most" is undefined; we just know "at least half" of models can fire 1 shot, but when you actually analyse when models can shoot, you find that statement to be false.

The rules are BROKEN, they DO NOT COVER psychic shriek, as it lacks a weapon profile OR a reason to actually care about the reuslt of the to-hit, which we know is UTTERLY IRREVELANT to the resolution of the power.

Using cap-locks doesn't add relevance to your point. I also commented that one reading prevents it being used at all. There is also no basis to assert that a roll to hit is irrelevant, when we are told we need to do it, but never given an exclusion from this in the case of ps. The way that wounds are resolved doesn't mean previous steps are bypassed. Deciding to bypass it for sake of ease is one thing, but it would be a house rule.

I think the rules do cover ps, and have illustrated clearly how the steps in the rules illustrate this.

Last post on this topic, it's circling.

Being required to do something, and that something having an actual effect onthe game are not the same thing

"missing" has no effect on whether or not you roll the 3d6-Ld and apply wounds. This is proven. Whether you hit or not, you MUST resolve the power, meanin gyou MUST resolve the 3d6, every time.

Caps adds emphasis. Your point lacks any relevance, as you are not following rules.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
It's strange to me how no one from the roll to hit camp has really stopped and analyzed whether the to hit roll has an effect on the resolution of the power or not.

There is no to wound roll, the to wound roll is what is conditional upon a to hit roll. You can roll to hit, but missing doesn't stop you from rolling 3d6 - leadership.

We know witchfires have to roll to hit to resolve their to wound rolls. We also know psychic shriek doesn't have a to wound roll that is conditional on a successful to hit roll because there is no weapon profile. We know that psychic shriek is a witchfire.

I really see nothing that causes a failed to hit roll to stop the power from resolving. If you think a failed to hit roll stops the power from resolving, why?

By that logic, wouldn't the power also resolve normally from a model with BS0?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 JamesY wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
James - it has no support, as "most" is undefined; we just know "at least half" of models can fire 1 shot, but when you actually analyse when models can shoot, you find that statement to be false.

The rules are BROKEN, they DO NOT COVER psychic shriek, as it lacks a weapon profile OR a reason to actually care about the reuslt of the to-hit, which we know is UTTERLY IRREVELANT to the resolution of the power.

Using cap-locks doesn't add relevance to your point. I also commented that one reading prevents it being used at all. There is also no basis to assert that a roll to hit is irrelevant, when we are told we need to do it, but never given an exclusion from this in the case of ps. The way that wounds are resolved doesn't mean previous steps are bypassed. Deciding to bypass it for sake of ease is one thing, but it would be a house rule.

I think the rules do cover ps, and have illustrated clearly how the steps in the rules illustrate this.

Last post on this topic, it's circling.

Being required to do something, and that something having an actual effect onthe game are not the same thing

"missing" has no effect on whether or not you roll the 3d6-Ld and apply wounds. This is proven. Whether you hit or not, you MUST resolve the power, meanin gyou MUST resolve the 3d6, every time.

Caps adds emphasis. Your point lacks any relevance, as you are not following rules.

Where is it proven that you still resolve the power after missing? I haven't seen any proof that that is the case. I'm not asking you to regurgitate anything, but if you could quote the steps or point me in the right direction please?

There is no "proof". Just as there is no proof that it fires a single shot. Both stances require reading into the rules and finding things that are not in print. Just accept that the Psychic rules are broken, particularly Psychic Scream, and house rule it. Or check with the TO if its not your own FLGS.

For what it's worth, all tournaments around here including the ETC have ruled that you need to hit in order to cause the wounds, and that the Partiarch can't used it due to being BS0. Yes blabla it's a houserule yadda, but it clearly indicates what the favored interpretation of competitive players is.
Also, speaking from a balancing point of view, the telepathy tree is already the best thanks to invis, no need to buff it further that way.

 M0ff3l wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
It's strange to me how no one from the roll to hit camp has really stopped and analyzed whether the to hit roll has an effect on the resolution of the power or not.

There is no to wound roll, the to wound roll is what is conditional upon a to hit roll. You can roll to hit, but missing doesn't stop you from rolling 3d6 - leadership.

We know witchfires have to roll to hit to resolve their to wound rolls. We also know psychic shriek doesn't have a to wound roll that is conditional on a successful to hit roll because there is no weapon profile. We know that psychic shriek is a witchfire.

I really see nothing that causes a failed to hit roll to stop the power from resolving. If you think a failed to hit roll stops the power from resolving, why?

By that logic, wouldn't the power also resolve normally from a model with BS0?

No, because it would not be able to initialize in the first place, as in the case of Templates and Blasts.

Ushtarador wrote:
For what it's worth, all tournaments around here including the ETC have ruled that you need to hit in order to cause the wounds, and that the Partiarch can't used it due to being BS0. Yes blabla it's a houserule yadda, but it clearly indicates what the favored interpretation of competitive players is.
Also, speaking from a balancing point of view, the telepathy tree is already the best thanks to invis, no need to buff it further that way.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but using tournaments in your area to be representative of all "competitive players" is misleading. There are HUGE differences in how games are played between the UK and the US, for instance. Primarily due to the cultural difference that the "spirit of the rule" is an actual legal, codified thing in English law, whereas in the United States, we generally follow the letter of the law, which is how huge companies get away with using tax loopholes and such here to pay no taxes. This effects the way people who grew up in these two cultures think about rules and laws.

But I'm straying. Your local tournament scene is by no means representative of the 40k community as a whole.

I'm guessing most competitive players don't have a large tyranids collection they plan on expanding with genestealer cults and using in tournaments either, so there's definitely the possibility of bias there, if not the inevitability.

I'd rather say that most competitive players understand that at least in tournaments there is no need to significantly buff Psychic Shriek for the benefit of a single model that will rarely see the tabletop anyway

Of course it's not gonna be representative for all competitive players (we aren't a hivemind yet), but seeing that e.g. for ETC people from various nations (including the US) agreed unanimously that this was the 'correct' interpretation, I think it's a good indicator. If I'm not mistaken, most big tournaments in the US rule it that way as well? If there is no clear answer to an issue, and you can't agree on a ruling within your local scene, I would think it's a good idea to look at how big tournaments rule it.

 JamesY wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 JamesY wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
James - it has no support, as "most" is undefined; we just know "at least half" of models can fire 1 shot, but when you actually analyse when models can shoot, you find that statement to be false.

The rules are BROKEN, they DO NOT COVER psychic shriek, as it lacks a weapon profile OR a reason to actually care about the reuslt of the to-hit, which we know is UTTERLY IRREVELANT to the resolution of the power.

Using cap-locks doesn't add relevance to your point. I also commented that one reading prevents it being used at all. There is also no basis to assert that a roll to hit is irrelevant, when we are told we need to do it, but never given an exclusion from this in the case of ps. The way that wounds are resolved doesn't mean previous steps are bypassed. Deciding to bypass it for sake of ease is one thing, but it would be a house rule.

I think the rules do cover ps, and have illustrated clearly how the steps in the rules illustrate this.

Last post on this topic, it's circling.

Being required to do something, and that something having an actual effect onthe game are not the same thing

"missing" has no effect on whether or not you roll the 3d6-Ld and apply wounds. This is proven. Whether you hit or not, you MUST resolve the power, meanin gyou MUST resolve the 3d6, every time.

Caps adds emphasis. Your point lacks any relevance, as you are not following rules.

Where is it proven that you still resolve the power after missing? I haven't seen any proof that that is the case. I'm not asking you to regurgitate anything, but if you could quote the steps or point me in the right direction please?

It was shown to you already. Show that anything bar to-wound requires a successful to-hit. Note you must comply with the psychic power rules which state you resolve the power. You have no permission to halt if you roll you to-hit and then miss.

Considering that this argument has gone on for 6 pages, it's safe to say the best answer for this is the same as it always is: Ask your opponent or TO how they plan to play this particular rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


It was shown to you already. Show that anything bar to-wound requires a successful to-hit. Note you must comply with the psychic power rules which state you resolve the power. You have no permission to halt if you roll you to-hit and then miss.

So, to be clear, you keep asking me to refer to the rules, and when I ask you to point me to the same, you think it is ok to refuse? Not cool, and quite rude.

Show you where it says that something bar a to-wound roll requires a successful roll to hit? In the witchfire rules where it clearly states that you must to roll to hit with all witchfires except templates and blasts. It is a shooting attack, if you miss with it, the power has been resolved. You missed, the process ends and is resolved. PS has a unique means of generating a wound pool, that's all. It replaces the to-wound section of the shooting process. We are told to hit. We are then told how wounds are generated. We are then told what kind of saves aren't allowed. Exactly the same as the shooting phase, because it is a shooting attack. If they didn't want it to function in this way, they wouldn't have made it a witchfire. 6th ed FAQ clearly shows that they were aware of it as witchfire, and wanted to keep it as a witchfire. If I shoot a bolter and miss, the shooting has been resolved. If I attack with a lightning claw and miss, the attack has been resolved. Why are you adamant that this shooting attack is resolved any differently, when we are told it is a shooting attack, and told to resolve it as such?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
Considering that this argument has gone on for 6 pages, it's safe to say the best answer for this is the same as it always is: Ask your opponent or TO how they plan to play this particular rule.

TO, agreed. Opponent? Could end up on the same carousel only face to face...

There is always the dice off in the event of such a disagreement. Nosferatu1001, AncientSkarbrand, should we ever game against each other, and one of us has PS, we can at least defer to that

 JamesY wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
Considering that this argument has gone on for 6 pages, it's safe to say the best answer for this is the same as it always is: Ask your opponent or TO how they plan to play this particular rule.

TO, agreed. Opponent? Could end up on the same carousel only face to face...

There is always the dice off in the event of such a disagreement. Nosferatu1001, AncientSkarbrand, should we ever game against each other, and one of us has PS, we can at least defer to that

If your opponent has the same lack of manners as half the posts I've seen here, then you, sir, need to find a new opponent.

Ushtarador wrote:
I'd rather say that most competitive players understand that at least in tournaments there is no need to significantly buff Psychic Shriek for the benefit of a single model that will rarely see the tabletop anyway

Of course it's not gonna be representative for all competitive players (we aren't a hivemind yet), but seeing that e.g. for ETC people from various nations (including the US) agreed unanimously that this was the 'correct' interpretation, I think it's a good indicator. If I'm not mistaken, most big tournaments in the US rule it that way as well? If there is no clear answer to an issue, and you can't agree on a ruling within your local scene, I would think it's a good idea to look at how big tournaments rule it.

Like I said in my original post to you, it had nothing to do with my stance on the rule. I happen to agree with the ruling of the people in your area. However, it's still generally not a good practice to use local tournaments as a barometer of the opinions of all competitive people in a hobby that spans the globe.