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.

 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.

We have agreed in my group that the 3d6-ld check is the to hit roll in this case, but I could also play it by using psyker's BS and then rolling "to wound".

@ EnTyme. Old and wise enough now not to play against opponents who aren't after the same thing from a game that I am. All my gaming buddies are great fun to play against.

But yeah, manners cost nothing. Happy gaming mate

 JamesY wrote:
@ EnTyme. Old and wise enough now not to play against opponents who aren't after the same thing from a game that I am. All my gaming buddies are great fun to play against.

But yeah, manners cost nothing. Happy gaming mate

And to you, sir.

Don't confuse boards with real life

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Don't confuse boards with real life

People should have the same manners in both.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Don't confuse boards with real life

People should have the same manners in both.

Yes, but unfortunately tone and sarcasm is almost impossible to convey over a pure text medium.

So something that sounds snarky could just be something said very matter of fact.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Don't confuse boards with real life

People should have the same manners in both.

Yes, but unfortunately tone and sarcasm is almost impossible to convey over a pure text medium.

So something that sounds snarky could just be something said very matter of fact.

It is achievable though. With no paralinguistic features beyond orkmoticons or pictures, we just have to be more mindful of what we are saying, and the words we choose to express ourselves with. Also, as readers, we need to be a little less sensitive to tone, as we will load meaning into comments where it wasn't intended. However, clear manners show respect to the person you are talking too. Ignorant and supercilious comments show disrespect. It's easy to forget manners in a heated discussion, but it's also easy to put right after with an apology. Luckily we have the ignore button for those who just don't seem to want to understand the importance of this basic courtesy.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Don't confuse boards with real life

People should have the same manners in both.

Odd, as I did use an emoticon then. Odd


Its more: dont presume that because people are discussing a rule on the boards, that they would discuss this in real life as well. WHat the board DOES do is provide a place to discuss where no game is being played. SO there is no "side" to worry about, and time to dig into the rules.

James - please cite a rulethat states "missing" means you have resolved the power. BEcause nothing actually states that, you will have a tough time.

Yes, we know you MUST roll to hit. However you are assuming that the words "and at least one succesful to-hit must be rolled..." is written in the rule. It isnt.

All we know is that we MUST roll to hit, and we MUST resolve the power. The power has nothing within it that requires the roll to hit to succeed - if there was a weapon profile, then we know we could not roll to-wound without a to-hit beign successful, because the rulebook tells us this. The rulebook makes no similar requirement of 3d6-Ld, so you cannot assume the same requirement applies. That is NOT rules as written, by definition.

Hence why I have said the roll to-hit is irrelevant; it has no effect, as no matter what you roll, no matter how many dice you roll based upon making up rules, you must continue to resolve the rule.

You also cannot assume the ld roll does not require you to hit as you are required to hit the targetted unit and nothing in.psychic shriek allows you to resolve the ld roll without rolling to hit or on a miss. It is personal opinion that some people think the ld roll is not tied to the to hit roll. The power as a witchfire has its resolution ties to rolling to hit. On a miss the power is resolved already, however the psyker failed to hit and the power missed.

RAW psychic shriek is not playable. Ignoring the required to hit roll us the worst way to try to make it playable as a witchfire. Generally it is bad to ignore rules you are told you must do to resolve an outcome.

Regardless of that, none of this for pages has anything to do with the question which had already been answered using the written rules. The patriarch cannot use witchfires with BS 0.

It is absolutely not opinion. It is YOUR opinion that a miss means you dont resolve the power, luckily the RULES tell us to resolve the power.

If you can find a link between successfully hitting and rolling the 3d6, post it. Given you cannot do so - as you have NEVER done so, despite claiming a link exists - please dont keep raising it as if your opinion matches rules. It doesnt, and you know it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is absolutely not opinion. It is YOUR opinion that a miss means you dont resolve the power, luckily the RULES tell us to resolve the power.

If you can find a link between successfully hitting and rolling the 3d6, post it. Given you cannot do so - as you have NEVER done so, despite claiming a link exists - please dont keep raising it as if your opinion matches rules. It doesnt, and you know it.

Nothing makes me sadder than realizing nos is on my side of the debate. Please stop being so inflammatory in your arguments. By focusing on how your opponent is wrong instead of how your interpretation is right, you weaken our stance.

Additionally RAW, there is 100% NO WAY for the patriarch to cast witchfire powers at BS0. If Psychic Shriek had a profile of Assault 3000 S 10 AP 1, he still could not use it. The argument most of us are making is that RAW, it is stupid that he can't use Psychic Shriek. It is well established in the fluff the Genestealer Patriarchs make use of the power.

I honestly think the way witchfire in general works is kind of dumb. In order to hit with a witchfire power, the Psyker must roll to manifest, roll to hit, and roll to wound. The target is allowed to roll to deny and roll to save. That's 5 rolls that have to go the Psyker's way in order for the cast to be worthwhile. Imagine if in order to hit with a bolt gun, a Space Marine had to pass an Appease the Machine Spirit Roll, followed by roll-to-hit, followed by his target's Dodge Roll, followed by roll-to-wound, followed by target's roll-to-save. Pretty ridiculous, no?

It's pointless to argue with Nos, as he will never cite support for his position while at same time ignoring the rules you cited in support of your argument. He is disingenuous in rule debates, which means there is no reason to entertain him in one.

As has already been stated, a BS0 psyker cannot legally manifest a Witchfire power. Psychic Shreik is a Witchfire power. The Patriarch either has a typo for a Ballistic Skill, or the GW writer for this specific unit failed to take into account the rules for Witchfire powers. Either way, the ability is useless until the unit is updated, or an FAQ/Errata is published.

Mods should lock this thread, as the OP was answered a long time ago.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It's pointless to argue with Nos, as he will never cite support for his position while at same time ignoring the rules you cited in support of your argument. He is disingenuous in rule debates, which means there is no reason to entertain him in one.

As has already been stated, a BS0 psyker cannot legally manifest a Witchfire power. Psychic Shreik is a Witchfire power. The Patriarch either has a typo for a Ballistic Skill, or the GW writer for this specific unit failed to take into account the rules for Witchfire powers. Either way, the ability is useless until the unit is updated, or an FAQ/Errata is published.

Mods should lock this thread, as the OP was answered a long time ago.

SJ

Rule one, reported.

I could cite my rules citations, but you would ignore them as you often do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is absolutely not opinion. It is YOUR opinion that a miss means you dont resolve the power, luckily the RULES tell us to resolve the power.

If you can find a link between successfully hitting and rolling the 3d6, post it. Given you cannot do so - as you have NEVER done so, despite claiming a link exists - please dont keep raising it as if your opinion matches rules. It doesnt, and you know it.

The rules for psychic phase sequence doesn't grant you permission to ignore the to hit roll.

You are required to roll to hit with witchfires, unless specified otherwise. Some witchfires specify such. Psychic shriek however does not.

If you could ignore rolling to hit with witchfires, despite being told you must roll to hit, and claim you could resolve the power still than other witchfires would still resolve without rolling to hit which is not at all how the rules work- rendering your opinion of the rules interaction of the psychic phase sequence list as overriding a to hit roll as a hywpi stance. That there is no link to rolling to hit and the effect of that hit is your opinion.

Which is of course fine as there is no way to play psychic shriek within the rules because anyone using it comes to the required to hit roll, and there is no rules as written way to resolve it and no rules for psychic shriek give permission to ignore it.

Which of course, isn't what I asked you to prove. Yet again you duck the question

Prove your assertion, with rules this time, that "missing" means you stop and you do not resolve the power. Please give a page and para for this.

I was not stating that the roll to hit wasn't a required element. What I did - and proved - was that the resolution of the power does not care whether this roll is successful or not. No matter whether yo hit or not, you still roll the 3d6.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It's pointless to argue with Nos, as he will never cite support for his position while at same time ignoring the rules you cited in support of your argument. He is disingenuous in rule debates, which means there is no reason to entertain him in one.

As has already been stated, a BS0 psyker cannot legally manifest a Witchfire power. Psychic Shreik is a Witchfire power. The Patriarch either has a typo for a Ballistic Skill, or the GW writer for this specific unit failed to take into account the rules for Witchfire powers. Either way, the ability is useless until the unit is updated, or an FAQ/Errata is published.

Mods should lock this thread, as the OP was answered a long time ago.

SJ

Rule one, reported.

I could cite my rules citations, but you would ignore them as you often do.

Citing the rules IS the rule of this forum, Nosferatu. Maybe you should go read them again, as you just reported someone for breaking the rules while openly admitting that you break the rules yourself because you think people will ignore them. If you think people will ignore rules citations, why post anything at all on this forum Nos? Why not just hang up the spurs and retire? What he said was a fact, that you don't support your posts with rules citations, and that you are disingenuous in debates. After repeatedly asking you in multiple threads over the last couple years to cite rules, I don't think you can make a claim otherwise: You're a habitual rule breaker, and I have no idea how you avoid being banned.

Su. Any chance you can actually read what I wrote, and not what you made up ?

I reported for rule one - being rude.

Citing rules is one of the tenets of the SUB forum. Rule one is a rule of the who,e forum.

I stated that I could cite MY rule citations. As in, I could provide links to (cite) the times when I have cited rules (in general, not just this thread) however there is no pont, as Jeffersonian will simply ignore this - as they have done before. Hopefully now you can apologise for yet again failing to read a post from another poster...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Don't confuse boards with real life

People should have the same manners in both.

Yes, but unfortunately tone and sarcasm is almost impossible to convey over a pure text medium.

So something that sounds snarky could just be something said very matter of fact.

You could type your text like an Elcor speaks...

One Rule to rule them all: Be Polite. If you decide to discount someone's argument there is no need to tell them. The ignore button is there for a reason.

The OP was answered a long time ago, and the current argument is circular, so any additional entry is simply arguing for argument's sack.

Edited by Moderator ~ Please don't ignore moderator instructions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which of course, isn't what I asked you to prove. Yet again you duck the question

Prove your assertion, with rules this time, that "missing" means you stop and you do not resolve the power. Please give a page and para for this.

I was not stating that the roll to hit wasn't a required element. What I did - and proved - was that the resolution of the power does not care whether this roll is successful or not. No matter whether yo hit or not, you still roll the 3d6.

How about you cite where missing with any witchfire allows you to resolve the power? Missing with Warp Lances allows you to still resolve Warp Lance against the target? No, it does not. Missing with Physic Shriek is the same situation. I can't believe this is even being argued again. A witch fire is a type of shooting attack, shooting attacks require a roll to hit "unless otherwise specified" witch fires have a blanket rule saying they required a roll to hit.

Since we have no profile, we look at the rules of how a witchfire work, and find that we need to roll to hit. 3d6 leadership is your roll to wound.

Edit by Moderator

Questions about moderation and site features should be posted in the Nuts & Bolts sub-forum. Please remember that Rule Number Two is Stay On Topic. Thanks!

 Whacked wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which of course, isn't what I asked you to prove. Yet again you duck the question

Prove your assertion, with rules this time, that "missing" means you stop and you do not resolve the power. Please give a page and para for this.

I was not stating that the roll to hit wasn't a required element. What I did - and proved - was that the resolution of the power does not care whether this roll is successful or not. No matter whether yo hit or not, you still roll the 3d6.

How about you cite where missing with any witchfire allows you to resolve the power? Missing with Warp Lances allows you to still resolve Warp Lance against the target? No, it does not. Missing with Physic Shriek is the same situation. I can't believe this is even being argued again. A witch fire is a type of shooting attack, shooting attacks require a roll to hit "unless otherwise specified" witch fires have a blanket rule saying they required a roll to hit.

Since we have no profile, we look at the rules of how a witchfire work, and find that we need to roll to hit. 3d6 leadership is your roll to wound.

Failing a To Hit roll only stops you from rolling To Wounds unless stated otherwise (like with Markerlights).

Witchfires do not state otherwise, therefore RAW (assuming you could somehow manage to roll a unknown number of dice and failed the rolls for all of them) Psychic Shriek would still be resolved as it doesn't require To Wounds rolls and it doesn't say the target has to be successfully hit for the 3D6-ld wounds - it just says the target takes them.

The difference with Warp Lance is that it has a weapon profile, and therefore requires a To Wound roll. If you miss the rules for shooting say you can't roll To Wound.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:



Failing a To Hit roll only stops you from rolling To Wounds unless stated otherwise (like with Markerlights).

Witchfires do not state otherwise

There you go, witchfires do not state otherwise, therefore they need to hit to progress to the next stage of the process. There is no exemption clause to say that failed hits can still cause damage (like there is with missile lock). There is nothing to say that only to-wound rolls need a successful to hit prior. If the to hit roll didn't matter, Ps would be a malediction or nova. It isn't, it's a witchfire, and a requirement of causing damage with a shooting attack is a successful hit, however that comes about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if you tried to argue that RAW the wounds don't need to hit because they don't roll to wound, allow me to apply that same logic elsewhere in the process. Raw it is a shooting attack, and in the shooting sequence the wounds caused create a wound pool, from which I take my saves. I'd use your logic to say that, as your wounds don't come from the wound pool, raw I don't take any wounds, because I am not told otherwise. Clearly ridiculous, and clearly not the intention.

Lets play sensibly, and rather than try to find wording that clearly flies in the face of the spirit of the game, just find the simplest way that works with the rules we have and enjoy our games.

Yes... If you read everything I did say they required To Hit RAW (which is a step you can't complete as you lack the knowledge of how many dice to roll).

I've also said - multiple times mind you - that RAW this power can't be played, and either requires multiple house rules to put it in line with how more conventional witchfires 'work' or less house rules to make it function while keeping it as a special snowflake power.

Also wtf are you on about? There no exception required to say that failed hits still cause wounds as failed To Hit rolls only stop To Wound rolls, unless some effect says they require a successful To Hit (or successful To Wound).

And congratulations, you found another thing that is broken RAW with Psychic Shriek. As I said, this power is completely non-functional without heavy houserules and no house rule is more correct than the other (because they're house rules... they don't need to stick to what the author probably intended).

As to why PS isn't a nova or malediction... Novas function differently (they're an AoE) and we have a power like that already (The 'nid power), and maledicitons only last until the beginning of the next psychic phase and can't be fired from vehicles. Pretty large differences. An argument could also be made in the opposite direction: if GW didn't want Psychic Shriek to be special and not require To Hit rolls, why didn't they give it a Weapon Profile like the Slaanesh power (written at a similar time, and for reference it's a Rng 24", S: Special AP - Assault 1 weapon with the Ecstasy special rule which causes every model in the unit to suffer a single hit at their own unmodified strength).

James - again, you are confusing two terms

Needing to roll to hit

And

Having to successfully "hit"

Only rolls to-wound have a RULE stating they need a successful to-hit first. This is proven - because if it were not, you would have cited the rule in psychic shriek that links the 3d6-ld to the successful "hit". There is no such rule, therefore you must resolve the power, and you're not told the 3d6 is a to wound. So it isn't. Meaning it resolves.

Find a rule linking the SUCCESFUL hit to the ability to roll the 3d6. I have cited my source with to wound rolls having this requirement, so without this requirement, there is no link.

Please, read carefully. There is a conflation you are making, and this is clouding your analysis.

Nos, you are still ignoring the RAW of having to roll to hit and claiming that the ld roll is not contingent on rolling to hit to ignore a required step.

This is proven because if it were not someone could cite the rule in psychic shriek that allows it to not perform the required to hit roll, or rather grants permission to resolve without doing what it is required to do by its type.

How do you apply the power enfeeble, which gives a -1T and -1S, to a vehicle that has an undefined (Does not have) Toughness/Strength score?

So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle (that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score) do you:

a) Skip it as it is unresolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1"
c) something else?

If you answer is A for this, then for an undefined number of shots for Psychic Shriek, you must do the same.

 DeathReaper wrote:
How do you apply the power enfeeble, which gives a -1T and -1S, to a vehicle that has an undefined (Does not have) Toughness/Strength score?

So how do you apply -1T to a vehicle (that has an undefined (Does not have) a Toughness score) do you:

a) Skip it as it is unresolvable, and cannot have an effect on the game
b) assign a random, made up value, such as "1"
c) something else?

If you answer is A for this, then for an undefined number of shots for Psychic Shriek, you must do the same.

This is not a good analogy or comparison, and I will tell you why. Psychic shriek requires you to roll to hit as it is a witchfire. More importantly, it requires you to resolve it as a shooting attack. Looking at the sequence of shooting attacks you first pick a target, you then roll to hit(which you are further told you must do under witchfires) then based on the hits you resolve wounds. However you have to resolve it in that order, You cant say "Hey I have a gun that fires 10 shots, so make 10 armor rolls and remove casualties, then I will roll to hit and wound" there is a specific sequence you have to follow. The rules for psychic shriek do not fail to have written permission that thoroughly explains how to resolve it until you get to the rolling to hit step. This is where essentially if you are following the RAW you have to stop. We don't actually have permission to look ahead and say "wounds are based on to hit rolls so we can ignore this step" as that is not given as permission anywhere in the rules. If it were psychic shriek would have it listed as permission.

Enfeeble does not have this problem at all as it is a malediction.

Enfeeble can manifest, be denied or not, and then resolve on a vehicle. It has no rules about specific types of target. It still affects the vehicle, its just that it may not have an effect on a vehicle based on its stats. Some vehicles have strength scores, and would have a lower strength. Obviously you cannot a affect a stat that does not exist- but this is in no way comparable to the issue with psychic shriek, as psychic shriek you are told as a witchfire you MUST do something. You do not get any further permission within the rules set to ignore that step. Enfeeble can resolve on a predator, it just may have no effect because you chose to target something that has no stat that it modifies. I could cast a power that causes 20 Strength 2 hits on a wraithknight- it still resolves and affects the wraithknight, there is just no effect from the power on the wraithknight as strength two cannot wound toughness 8. Or I can cast a power that causes models to suffer a morale test, but if I target an unit with fearless they fail to deny they are affected, there is just no actual effect in the game because they cannot fail a morale test. I could cast the same power on a predator, it will affect the predator which does have a LD value, but as vehicles do not suffer morale(other than killa kanz...) there will be no effect of the power.

Your last point has no basis in logic, and is not actually a correlation of rules that are similar with a similar effect based on their affect.

@matt Kingsley I don't think we do lack that knowledge, it is a single attack, that can cause multiple wounds. A single d6 to hit is all that is required. I've yet to see the logic in any other approach, or a good reason to dismiss a single d6 other than a refusal to acknowledge that it can follow all the rules we are given. As we are not told it is more than one attack, we have no reason to consider it as more than one, the potential for wounds doesn't affect the to hit stage. There is no auto hit rule for Ps. There is no directive to retrospectively hit with wounds created. There is no suggestion that it is anything but a single attack. Treating it as such allows the steps to be followed clearly and easily. Given that, why the refusal to consider that this clears up the problem neatly and makes it work perfectly well?

It's only broken if you want it to be. If you approach it as a single attack, with a unique means of generating a wound pool, it works absolutely fine. I don't see the need to insist it doesn't work when this interpretation is supported by the rules (don't ask for citations, it's all on previous posts), and shows that it does work perfectly fine.