Switch Theme:

psychic shriek and snapshots | new FAQ  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine





FAQs are up for Genestealers .

I was wrong.

BS0 Genestealers AUTOMATICALLY HIT with psychic shriek.
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch




It says BS0 can cast witchfires that don't require to-hit rolls. Snapshots apply to to-hit rolls. This makes me think a jinking psyker can cast Psychic Shriek, as there's no to-hit roll needed.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 BossJakadakk wrote:
It says BS0 can cast witchfires that don't require to-hit rolls. Snapshots apply to to-hit rolls. This makes me think a jinking psyker can cast Psychic Shriek, as there's no to-hit roll needed.


Completely different situation, as has already been addressed in this thread. Snapshot rules state you cannot fire a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snapshot. Regardless of whether they auto hit, there is a rule explicitly prohibiting shooting.

Also, snapshots shoot at BS1, so a BS0 ruling wouldn't be particularly relevant to them anyway.
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch




Fhionnuisce wrote:
 BossJakadakk wrote:
It says BS0 can cast witchfires that don't require to-hit rolls. Snapshots apply to to-hit rolls. This makes me think a jinking psyker can cast Psychic Shriek, as there's no to-hit roll needed.


Completely different situation, as has already been addressed in this thread. Snapshot rules state you cannot fire a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snapshot. Regardless of whether they auto hit, there is a rule explicitly prohibiting shooting.


Ah yeah, thanks for the reminder.

Also, snapshots shoot at BS1, so a BS0 ruling wouldn't be particularly relevant to them anyway.


Yeah, my thinking was more following the "auto-hit" part. But that was addressed.
   
Made in gb
Nurgle Veteran Marine with the Flu






Genestealer Cults FAQ wrote:
Q: Can units with a Ballistic Skill of 0 (Patriarch Ghosar from Genestealer Cults, for example) successfully use witchfire psychic powers (like the Telepathy primaris power Psychic Shriek, for example)?
A: Yes, provided no actual To Hit roll is required.


I'm glad to see most of these FAQs are confirming the common sense reading of the RAW over convoluted, tenuous and pedantic arguments.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 JimOnMars wrote:
FAQs are up for Genestealers .

I was wrong.

BS0 Genestealers AUTOMATICALLY HIT with psychic shriek.

Yea they changed the rules there.

So many contradictions and rules changes with this FAQ.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






 Tonberry7 wrote:
Genestealer Cults FAQ wrote:
Q: Can units with a Ballistic Skill of 0 (Patriarch Ghosar from Genestealer Cults, for example) successfully use witchfire psychic powers (like the Telepathy primaris power Psychic Shriek, for example)?
A: Yes, provided no actual To Hit roll is required.


I'm glad to see most of these FAQs are confirming the common sense reading of the RAW over convoluted, tenuous and pedantic arguments.
Indeed

Makes me very optimistic that Thunderwolf Cavalry will all get S10 with thunder hammers and power fists.
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

Tonberry7 wrote:I'm glad to see most of these FAQs are confirming the common sense reading of the RAW over convoluted, tenuous and pedantic arguments.

Would you like to reword that so it doesn't seem like you are attacking everyone who disagrees with you?

Don't forget, this is the same FAQ that changes Battle Brothers to Allies of Convenience, too.

It also came from the same group that has contradicted itself three times with Imperial Knights, and changes Battle Brothers to a more 6th edition version of itself.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Charistoph wrote:
...Don't forget, this is the same FAQ that changes Battle Brothers to Allies of Convenience, too.

It also came from the same group that has contradicted itself three times with Imperial Knights, and changes Battle Brothers to a more 6th edition version of itself.


I lose confidence in GW every time something new is posted because of this.


Edit:

P.S. Not that I had much to begin with

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/25 22:01:31


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Tonberry7 wrote:

I'm glad to see most of these FAQs are confirming the common sense reading of the RAW over convoluted, tenuous and pedantic arguments.

It's not really particularly 'convoluted' logic to suggest that a rule that says that models with BS0 can't make shooting attacks means that models with BS0 can't make shooting attacks...

Honestly, this one could have gone either way.

 
   
Made in gb
Nurgle Veteran Marine with the Flu






 Charistoph wrote:
Tonberry7 wrote:I'm glad to see most of these FAQs are confirming the common sense reading of the RAW over convoluted, tenuous and pedantic arguments.

Would you like to reword that so it doesn't seem like you are attacking everyone who disagrees with you?

Don't forget, this is the same FAQ that changes Battle Brothers to Allies of Convenience, too.

It also came from the same group that has contradicted itself three times with Imperial Knights, and changes Battle Brothers to a more 6th edition version of itself.


Not really. I'm sorry if you feel that my post was directed at you, or an attack in general. It wasn't. I'm just saying that I'm glad that the most obvious and straightforwards way of reading the RAW seems to be matching up with the RAI by GW, I don't think the promotion of tortuous theories on rules interpretations is helpful at all to new players in particular who might come here to learn more about the game. Although I do understand that some enjoy the debate for the sake of it, even to try and defend an untenable position.

I also will make no further comment on your record with rule interpretations at this time other than to apologise if I upset you with my previous observations on the matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 insaniak wrote:
 Tonberry7 wrote:

I'm glad to see most of these FAQs are confirming the common sense reading of the RAW over convoluted, tenuous and pedantic arguments.

It's not really particularly 'convoluted' logic to suggest that a rule that says that models with BS0 can't make shooting attacks means that models with BS0 can't make shooting attacks...

Honestly, this one could have gone either way.


Yes that particular example was one of the less clear cut situations, I even agreed it was more open to interpretation back on page 3. That quote from myself above was more of a general observation about the FAQS so far as a whole.

Admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, I still think it was fairly clear that a Patriarch would be allowed to psychic Shriek even with BS0 as it doesn't need to roll to hit. But the argument is pretty much irrelevant now I suppose.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 07:28:51


 
   
Made in us
Deranged Necron Destroyer





Saltfully they will fix the contradictions of the faqs before a final print is made.

It's easy to assume that people arguing an interpretation you disagree with are just looking for an advantage for themselves... But it's quite often not the case.  
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Tonberry7 wrote:


I'm glad to see most of these FAQs are confirming the common sense reading of the RAW over convoluted, tenuous and pedantic arguments.


They changed so many rules and contradicted themselves in that FAQ... so maybe your statement is not quite accurate...

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Nurgle Veteran Marine with the Flu






 DeathReaper wrote:
 Tonberry7 wrote:


I'm glad to see most of these FAQs are confirming the common sense reading of the RAW over convoluted, tenuous and pedantic arguments.


They changed so many rules and contradicted themselves in that FAQ... so maybe your statement is not quite accurate...


Until you remember that they are draft FAQs out for consultation, the aim of which is to iron out any further inconsistencies and misunderstandings. They may not end up 100% watertight but I for one think it's great to see GW putting in some effort to produce some solid and long overdue FAQs
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Tonberry7 wrote:


Admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, I still think it was fairly clear that a Patriarch would be allowed to psychic Shriek even with BS0 as it doesn't need to roll to hit. .

I agree that it was clear that he was supposed to be able to use it... But the better response in the FAQ in my opinion would have been to admit that they goofed and Errata him to BS1.

 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Tonberry7 wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 Tonberry7 wrote:


I'm glad to see most of these FAQs are confirming the common sense reading of the RAW over convoluted, tenuous and pedantic arguments.


They changed so many rules and contradicted themselves in that FAQ... so maybe your statement is not quite accurate...


Until you remember that they are draft FAQs out for consultation, the aim of which is to iron out any further inconsistencies and misunderstandings. They may not end up 100% watertight but I for one think it's great to see GW putting in some effort to produce some solid and long overdue FAQs


So the same goes for your Original statement...

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Nurgle Veteran Marine with the Flu






 DeathReaper wrote:
 Tonberry7 wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 Tonberry7 wrote:


I'm glad to see most of these FAQs are confirming the common sense reading of the RAW over convoluted, tenuous and pedantic arguments.


They changed so many rules and contradicted themselves in that FAQ... so maybe your statement is not quite accurate...


Until you remember that they are draft FAQs out for consultation, the aim of which is to iron out any further inconsistencies and misunderstandings. They may not end up 100% watertight but I for one think it's great to see GW putting in some effort to produce some solid and long overdue FAQs


So the same goes for your Original statement...


I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, if anything.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




That your original statement is at odds with the fact theyre draft, whcih you even acknowledge

It isnt convoluted to say a model with no ability to shoot can suddenly gain an ability to shoot.
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Not really. I'm sorry if you feel that my post was directed at you, or an attack in general. It wasn't. I'm just saying that I'm glad that the most obvious and straightforwards way of reading the RAW seems to be matching up with the RAI by GW, I don't think the promotion of tortuous theories on rules interpretations is helpful at all to new players in particular who might come here to learn more about the game. Although I do understand that some enjoy the debate for the sake of it, even to try and defend an untenable position.

I also will make no further comment on your record with rule interpretations at this time other than to apologise if I upset you with my previous observations on the matter.

Calling other people's interpretations, even in a general manner as "convoluted, tenuous and pedantic" can be seen as an attack on them, since they are the ones who are doing the actual interpretation and presenting of them.

And as nosferatu said, "It isnt convoluted to say a model with no ability to shoot can suddenly gain an ability to shoot."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 16:55:48


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in ca
Blood-Raging Khorne Berserker





Ottawa, Canada

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That your original statement is at odds with the fact theyre draft, whcih you even acknowledge

It isnt convoluted to say a model with no ability to shoot can suddenly gain an ability to shoot.


'No ability whatsoever' in ballistic skill is never defined in the BRB as not allowing to make shooting attacks - this was assumed/extrapolated from how the other characteristics were defined.

It was always in need of an FAQ since RAW did not define it.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Making a shooting attack requires some ability in the realm of shooting. That's plain reading.
   
Made in ca
Blood-Raging Khorne Berserker





Ottawa, Canada

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Making a shooting attack requires some ability in the realm of shooting. That's plain reading.


Thats RAI not RAW.

RAW means it is defined with a mechanic/instructions on how to carry out the rule.

'no ability whatsoever' is very much not well defined enough and gives no clues as how that is implemented in the game rules-wise
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 chaosmarauder wrote:

Thats RAI not RAW.

RAW means it is defined with a mechanic/instructions on how to carry out the rule.

'no ability whatsoever' is very much not well defined enough and gives no clues as how that is implemented in the game rules-wise

It does, however, leave BS0 off the To Hit, chart, and mentions in an aside in the Snap Shot rules that models with BS0 may not shoot.

 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

Now, if only there was some way to give my Broodlord a template weapon or blast weapon...

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in gb
Nurgle Veteran Marine with the Flu






 Charistoph wrote:
 Tonberry7 wrote:
Not really. I'm sorry if you feel that my post was directed at you, or an attack in general. It wasn't. I'm just saying that I'm glad that the most obvious and straightforwards way of reading the RAW seems to be matching up with the RAI by GW, I don't think the promotion of tortuous theories on rules interpretations is helpful at all to new players in particular who might come here to learn more about the game. Although I do understand that some enjoy the debate for the sake of it, even to try and defend an untenable position.

I also will make no further comment on your record with rule interpretations at this time other than to apologise if I upset you with my previous observations on the matter.

Calling other people's interpretations, even in a general manner as "convoluted, tenuous and pedantic" can be seen as an attack on them, since they are the ones who are doing the actual interpretation and presenting of them.

And as nosferatu said, "It isnt convoluted to say a model with no ability to shoot can suddenly gain an ability to shoot."


I beg to differ. It's an attack on the argument, not the poster, as per the tenets. And that particular interpretation (the Patriarch not being able to use Psychic Shriek) been proven wrong by the FAQ. Just because you were incorrect on this occasion is no cause to dress up the opposing viewpoints as personal attacks.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Time to drop it, guys. If you think a post is out of line, just report it and move on. Nothing productive is gained by dragging a thread of topic with an argument over whether or not a post was acceptable.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 21:38:05


 
   
Made in ca
Blood-Raging Khorne Berserker





Ottawa, Canada

 insaniak wrote:
 chaosmarauder wrote:

Thats RAI not RAW.

RAW means it is defined with a mechanic/instructions on how to carry out the rule.

'no ability whatsoever' is very much not well defined enough and gives no clues as how that is implemented in the game rules-wise

It does, however, leave BS0 off the To Hit, chart, and mentions in an aside in the Snap Shot rules that models with BS0 may not shoot.


I agree.

I'd like to note that in these discussions it seems there is always a very strong opinion on one side of the argument or the other when really we should all be weighing both sides of the arguments equally. It would allow us to determine where an faq is required and where house rules are needed.

I think more civil discussions would yield better results overall. (I include myself in this)

And I agree there was a very strong argument that the RAI was showing that BS0 meant 'no shooting allowed'. But noone in that camp was yielding to the fact that there was also not a clear rule written for how to treat a model with BS0 when it came to automatic hits.
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 chaosmarauder wrote:
And I agree there was a very strong argument that the RAI was showing that BS0 meant 'no shooting allowed'. But noone in that camp was yielding to the fact that there was also not a clear rule written for how to treat a model with BS0 when it came to automatic hits.


Only because you refuse to follow the logic of "if I can't launch an attack, it can't hit a thing, not even automatically". A super-intelligent smart bomb still has to be launched in order to hit, and at BS0 we're literally unable to open the bomb bay doors which would allow us to drop the bombs. Even 100% accuracy - "auto-hitting" - won't change that.
There's simply no need to specifically treat "automatic hits" when you're unable to perform any kind of attack that could automatically hit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 15:25:23


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Well thats where your wrong. A SUPER smart bomb can probably open the bomb bay doors itself. The pilot just acts as a delivery system for a weapon thats overall special-ness allows for the extraordinary. And thats where I'm gonna put PS, a weapon with extraordinary abilities that include autofire and hits. The Partriarch just supplies delivery and payload. Just goofy reasoning

Kinda makes you question Snap Shots at Flyers now that a precedent of not needing an ability to shoot has been made.... I hope so anyway.




--edited to remove "tone"

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/27 15:50:02


 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

Goobi2 wrote:
Well thats where your wrong. A SUPER smart bomb can probably open the bomb bay doors itself. The pilot just acts as a delivery system for a weapon thats overall special-ness allows for the extraordinary. And thats where I'm gonna put PS, a weapon with extraordinary abilities that include autofire and hits. The Partriarch just supplies delivery and payload.

Then the pilot isn't the one shooting it, is he? The bomb is doing the shooting.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: