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.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
I didn't say nova powers don't target. They target all units in range as part of the resolution of the ability. However, no target must be declared before firing. That is very different from most shooting attacks including Psychic Shriek that require you declare a target before you fire.

Order of operations:
Nova powers-fire, then all units in range are targetted and hit automatically, then roll and resolve wounds
Beams-lay down the line, then anything under it is automatically hit, then roll and resolve wounds
Psychic Shriek-target a unit, fire, then the unit is hit automatically, roll and wound per the Psychic Shriek rules

If something prevents Psychic Shriek from firing the auto hit never confess into play. Being prevented from firing snap shots Sirs this.

Nova powers CAN NOT be snap shot because they also do not use BS. If you jink you would not be allowed to fire it. Because it targets after firing it works around the invisible and flying rules that would dictate a snap shot when targeting them.

There's a couple things wrong with this. First, there's no RAW whatsoever to indicate a snap shot is determined at the 'declaring' step. The rule for snap shots just says "cannot be 'fired' as a snap shot". As outlined in the rules (and quoted previously), there are 7 steps in the shooting sequence. "Choose a target" is 2 and just says "The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see". Rolling to hit is 4. Inbetween them is 'select a weapon'. Where is this saying we determine if we're snap shooting or not at 2?

Conversely and second, you can just as easily argue that novas 'automatically targeting' all units occurs at 2: choose a target. Then there is literally no place for what you're arguing to supersede in the sequence as 1 is just "Nominate a unit to shoot".

So what is 'fire', where are you pulling its definition from the rules and how are we justifying inserting it before step 2 or step 4?

Under the plain language of the Shooting Sequence, we nominate a unit (the psyker), select a weapon (after manifesting it) then roll to hit, roll to wound, allocate wounds & remove casualties and finally select another weapon (if applicable). In Psychic Shriek's case, we target an invisible squad, we're asked to make a snap shot and we automatically hit. In a nova's case we target an invisible squad, we're asked to make a snap shot and we automatically hit. There's no plain language reason for a distinction.

I will concede that may have been my brain filling and and not be completely accurate. However that makes my presentation wrong not the conclusion. Nova powers still do not use BS so cannot fire snap shots. This is supported in the FAQ, which states "you cannot choose to target an invisible unit with such attacks". If an invisible unit were the only available target it would be forced to snap shot which it can't do, however if another unit is targeted the nova will automatically target and hit all other units in range.

Essentially a nova can target a unit that does not require snap shots and will hit invisible units also in range. Psychic Shriek only targets one unit with no text about targeting and hitting other units. If the unit targeted is invisible it is forced to snap shoot, wich it is prevented to do because it doesn't use BS. If it can't fire then it doesn't matter that it auto hits.

Don't worry. I've been there too.

When you use a nova, you never declare a target. The nova does that for you: it declares all units. If only an invisible unit is in range of a nova, the nova automatically targets and hits it. There's no basis in RAW to say it doesn't.

So really you need to show 2 things for this: 1. That there is a 'declare' step in the shooting sequence (outlined twice in this thread already). 2. The text of nova powers saying they 'automatically target' all units means the nova isn't declaring targets on its own, because that's my interpretation. You manifest a nova and the rules state the nova automatically declares every unit in range to be a target, including invisible ones. This is supported by the RAW and the FAQ.

Finally, look carefully at that FAQ language. You're missing an important word. It says "you cannot choose", which is still accurate. The player doesn't choose what a nova targets: it automatically targets everything. There is no basis for interpreting this as some new rule that the player must nominate an enemy unit to be the target of a nova and then coincidentally hit all others. Novas emanate from the psyker.

Jacksmiles wrote:
To expand on this, you're able to target a non-invisible unit with a template, and as long as you're hitting as many models in the target unit as possible, if the template covers any models in an invisible that unit is hit as well. You can't primarily target the invisible unit with the template, however.

Back to page 2. "Is psychic shriek more like a nova or a template?". It's pretty clearly more like a nova since they use identical language.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Psychic shriek. You declare a target. You do not roll to hit, You hit automtically. You do not use BS, you cannot snap shot.

The rules are unambiguous. Everything else that's been said is completely unrelated. (Novas and beams follow unique targeting methods, and have been clarified by faqs, no comparison to psychic shriek is valid.)

The idea that a to hit roll is made philosophically is interesting but has no place in a rules discussion.

If there were an actual choice to roll to hit or not, then perhaps a snap shot could be made, which would obviously not hit automatically. However the rules do not indicate this is the case (falling back into the age old discussion of how you roll to hit for something with no weapon profile- you can't). Fortunately the faq has cleared this up.

The attempted argument that you can BOTH snap shot AND hit automatically is clearly for the purpose of gaining a game advantage, and has no rules justification.

There reaches a point, where this is arguing for arguments sake. A lot of wookies on endor going on here.

Oh no, nu-uh. We've been at this for 3 pages and covered all these points. Not regurgitating. My wrists can't take it.

In addition, I'll have you know my primary competitive army doesn't run any Psykers. I have no horse in this race. So you can take your bias insinuation and keep it to yourself.

Slipspace wrote:
^^^

What he said.

Also, if you're claiming that Nova powers and Psychic Shriek work the same then the first sentence of the FAQ answer you quoted is relevant:

"You cannot choose to target an invisible unit with
such attacks, but should models from the unit end up
beneath the template, marker or line of fire, then they
can be hit using the normal rules."

First part of that sentence prohibits you from targeting an invisible unit with "such attacks". According to you this means not only Novas and Beams but Psychic Shriek too. We are then given special permission for Nova and Beam powers to affect an invisible unit because of the way they determine who is affected.

See what I wrote above and note the word 'choose'. Novas don't give the player a choice: they automatically target everything.

We are not given any special permission. Special permission would be part of an errata, a new rule, this is a FAQ, meaning GW is saying that's how it works RAW. Psychic Shriek and use novas use the same language, where is the RAW reason to interpret them differently?

 Stephanius wrote:
In my opinion the only reason why the FAQ even mentions "no roll is required" is that people previously insisted on a to-hit roll for Shriek. To avoid any further insisting, they spelled it out. This elaboration isn't a starting point for flipping the entire situation on it's head though.

This thread makes me very grateful that neither death-stars nor invisible death-stars are common in my meta.

The rules are the rules though. We insist on extremely particular readings for all other parts of the book when discussing RAW, there's no reason to treat this different. Look at the debates on infiltrate and independent characters for example or the fights people used to have over whether arriving from deep strike and deep strike reserves are the same thing.

Warhammer 40k, when the phrase "Automatically Hits' means it doesnt automatically hit.

Audustum wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
To expand on this, you're able to target a non-invisible unit with a template, and as long as you're hitting as many models in the target unit as possible, if the template covers any models in an invisible that unit is hit as well. You can't primarily target the invisible unit with the template, however.

Back to page 2. "Is psychic shriek more like a nova or a template?". It's pretty clearly more like a nova since they use identical language.

What's your point? They're still very separate things, whether or not they use the same words.

Another difference is that novas "automatically target and hit" while Psychic Shriek only "automatically hits" - it needs to be manually targeted, which can not be done to an invisible unit.

This is an argument you can't win, because you're clearly wrong because your whole premise is flawed yet you keep battering through using the same disproven points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Warhammer 40k, when the phrase "Automatically Hits' means it doesnt automatically hit.

Exalted.

Audustum wrote:

Back to page 2. "Is psychic shriek more like a nova or a template?". It's pretty clearly more like a nova since they use identical language.

Let's just take this piece. You are completely fixated that Psychic shriek and novas should be treated in all ways the same and an FAQ for one applies to the other because both automatically hit and that somehow equates to identical language even though the entire rest of the wording is different. That's a terribly faulty conclusion but we will run with it because even then it leads to the conclusion you can't snap shot Psychic Shriek.

The first part of that FAQ, as you yourself have acknowledged is that those types of attack cannot choose to target invisible units. Novas get around that because you don't choose a target and beams because you choose a point not a unit. Both of those have been clearly established in discussion. If the same FAQ applies because Psychic Shriek and novas "use identical language", then the entire FAQ entry applies not just the part you cherry pick to make your point. Psychic Shriek requires the player choose a unit to target and per that FAQ you cannot choose to target an invisible unit. Ergo you cannot use Psychic Shriek on an invisible target per your own line of reasoning.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Back to page 2. "Is psychic shriek more like a nova or a template?". It's pretty clearly more like a nova since they use identical language.

Let's just take this piece. You are completely fixated that Psychic shriek and novas should be treated in all ways the same and an FAQ for one applies to the other because both automatically hit and that somehow equates to identical language even though the entire rest of the wording is different. That's a terribly faulty conclusion but we will run with it because even then it leads to the conclusion you can't snap shot Psychic Shriek.

The first part of that FAQ, as you yourself have acknowledged is that those types of attack cannot choose to target invisible units. Novas get around that because you don't choose a target and beams because you choose a point not a unit. Both of those have been clearly established in discussion. If the same FAQ applies because Psychic Shriek and novas "use identical language", then the entire FAQ entry applies not just the part you cherry pick to make your point. Psychic Shriek requires the player choose a unit to target and per that FAQ you cannot choose to target an invisible unit. Ergo you cannot use Psychic Shriek on an invisible target per your own line of reasoning.

Look at the wording of the FAQ again and remember it's a FAQ not an errata. It's not making a new rule, it's just stating that blasts, novas, templates and beams cannot choose invisible targets for one reason or another. It is specifically not addressing vanilla Witchfires there.

I am not and never have argued that Shriek is identical to novas in all ways. I have said only that "automatically hits" must be interpreted the same between both rules as they use identical language. That's why you treat them the same with regards to hitting a target.

Look at the errata for Witchfires and rulebook for novas again. Note they are the same for hitting, but the errata doesn't say Witchfires automatically target. Thus, we do not have permission to treat them the same for targeting.

You have argued that RAW prevents a Witchfires from targeting a unit due to Snap Shots. Now it's time to show where. Give the quote or you've got no legs. The quote needs to relate to 'targeting'.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
To expand on this, you're able to target a non-invisible unit with a template, and as long as you're hitting as many models in the target unit as possible, if the template covers any models in an invisible that unit is hit as well. You can't primarily target the invisible unit with the template, however.

Back to page 2. "Is psychic shriek more like a nova or a template?". It's pretty clearly more like a nova since they use identical language.

What's your point? They're still very separate things, whether or not they use the same words.

Another difference is that novas "automatically target and hit" while Psychic Shriek only "automatically hits" - it needs to be manually targeted, which can not be done to an invisible unit.

This is an argument you can't win, because you're clearly wrong because your whole premise is flawed yet you keep battering through using the same disproven points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Warhammer 40k, when the phrase "Automatically Hits' means it doesnt automatically hit.

Exalted.

So your argument is that automatically hits means two different things despite identical language? Alright, where is the RAW to support that?

Where is the RAW that links snap shots to targeting rather than hitting?

I'll give you a hint because you're being snide without call: it hasn't been supplied in 4 pages because it isn't there. You're just being stubborn.

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Back to page 2. "Is psychic shriek more like a nova or a template?". It's pretty clearly more like a nova since they use identical language.

Let's just take this piece. You are completely fixated that Psychic shriek and novas should be treated in all ways the same and an FAQ for one applies to the other because both automatically hit and that somehow equates to identical language even though the entire rest of the wording is different. That's a terribly faulty conclusion but we will run with it because even then it leads to the conclusion you can't snap shot Psychic Shriek.

The first part of that FAQ, as you yourself have acknowledged is that those types of attack cannot choose to target invisible units. Novas get around that because you don't choose a target and beams because you choose a point not a unit. Both of those have been clearly established in discussion. If the same FAQ applies because Psychic Shriek and novas "use identical language", then the entire FAQ entry applies not just the part you cherry pick to make your point. Psychic Shriek requires the player choose a unit to target and per that FAQ you cannot choose to target an invisible unit. Ergo you cannot use Psychic Shriek on an invisible target per your own line of reasoning.

Look at the wording of the FAQ again and remember it's a FAQ not an errata. It's not making a new rule, it's just stating that blasts, novas, templates and beams cannot choose invisible targets for one reason or another. It is specifically not addressing vanilla Witchfires there.

I am not and never have argued that Shriek is identical to novas in all ways. I have said only that "automatically hits" must be interpreted the same between both rules as they use identical language. That's why you treat them the same with regards to hitting a target.

Look at the errata for Witchfires and rulebook for novas again. Note they are the same for hitting, but the errata doesn't say Witchfires automatically target. Thus, we do not have permission to treat them the same for targeting.

You have argued that RAW prevents a Witchfires from targeting a unit due to Snap Shots. Now it's time to show where. Give the quote or you've got no legs. The quote needs to relate to 'targeting'.

Then we are back to any shooting attack that doesn't use BS can't be snap shot and any shooting attack that targets an invisible unit must be snap shot. Same conclusion, no Psychic Shriek on an invisible unit.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Back to page 2. "Is psychic shriek more like a nova or a template?". It's pretty clearly more like a nova since they use identical language.

Let's just take this piece. You are completely fixated that Psychic shriek and novas should be treated in all ways the same and an FAQ for one applies to the other because both automatically hit and that somehow equates to identical language even though the entire rest of the wording is different. That's a terribly faulty conclusion but we will run with it because even then it leads to the conclusion you can't snap shot Psychic Shriek.

The first part of that FAQ, as you yourself have acknowledged is that those types of attack cannot choose to target invisible units. Novas get around that because you don't choose a target and beams because you choose a point not a unit. Both of those have been clearly established in discussion. If the same FAQ applies because Psychic Shriek and novas "use identical language", then the entire FAQ entry applies not just the part you cherry pick to make your point. Psychic Shriek requires the player choose a unit to target and per that FAQ you cannot choose to target an invisible unit. Ergo you cannot use Psychic Shriek on an invisible target per your own line of reasoning.

Look at the wording of the FAQ again and remember it's a FAQ not an errata. It's not making a new rule, it's just stating that blasts, novas, templates and beams cannot choose invisible targets for one reason or another. It is specifically not addressing vanilla Witchfires there.

I am not and never have argued that Shriek is identical to novas in all ways. I have said only that "automatically hits" must be interpreted the same between both rules as they use identical language. That's why you treat them the same with regards to hitting a target.

Look at the errata for Witchfires and rulebook for novas again. Note they are the same for hitting, but the errata doesn't say Witchfires automatically target. Thus, we do not have permission to treat them the same for targeting.

You have argued that RAW prevents a Witchfires from targeting a unit due to Snap Shots. Now it's time to show where. Give the quote or you've got no legs. The quote needs to relate to 'targeting'.

Then we are back to any shooting attack that doesn't use BS can't be snap shot and any shooting attack that targets an invisible unit must be snap shot. Same conclusion, no Psychic Shriek on an invisible unit.

If we're back there then your position has lost. Nova 'doesn't use BS' as you define it, but GW has said it hits invisible. Shriek and novas both automatically hit, GW says automatically hit hits invisible.

Your interpretation is a fair one, it's just the game creator went with a different one. You were overruled.

So your argument now is reading the rules directly out of the rulebook is wrong? And your entire basis for that is an FAQ on different attack types? Note FAQ not errata, so as you keep pointing out it can't change change the way the rules work.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
So your argument now is reading the rules directly out of the rulebook is wrong? And your entire basis for that is an FAQ on different attack types? Note FAQ not errata, so as you keep pointing out it can't change change the way the rules work.

No. My argument is simple.

Start with this logical principle: when a word is used in the rules it should have the same meaning.

Now, GW published an errata, a change to the rules, saying profile-less Witchfires hit automatically.

The vanilla rules identically say novas hit automatically.

Can profile-less Witchfires hit invisible is presented as a question?

That depends. Does hit automatically mean even hitting invisible automatically?

GW issues a FAQ. In the FAQ, GW says novas hit invisible. Novas hit automatically without rolling. Thus, despite the fact you would say "they don't use BS", GW says we don't go to that rule: they hit automatically.

Due to our principle, we must now interrupt "hits automatically" consistently across all rules. Profile-less Witchfires hit automatically. Profile-less Witchfires hit invisible.

You have argued profile-less Witchfires cannot target invisible due to snap shots. This is valid if true, but there's no RAW to get us there since GW said hits automatically hits invisible and those rules don't talk about targets: they talk about hits. Novas also target invisible units.

All the pages in this thread are just delving into those points in detail.

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
So your argument now is reading the rules directly out of the rulebook is wrong? And your entire basis for that is an FAQ on different attack types? Note FAQ not errata, so as you keep pointing out it can't change change the way the rules work.

No. My argument is simple.

Start with this logical principle: when a word is used in the rules it should have the same meaning.

Now, GW published an errata, a change to the rules, saying profile-less Witchfires hit automatically.

The vanilla rules identically say novas hit automatically.

Can profile-less Witchfires hit invisible is presented as a question?

That depends. Does hit automatically mean even hitting invisible automatically?

GW issues a FAQ. In the FAQ, GW says novas hit invisible. Novas hit automatically without rolling. Thus, despite the fact you would say "they don't use BS", GW says we don't go to that rule: they hit automatically.

Due to our principle, we must now interrupt "hits automatically" consistently across all rules. Profile-less Witchfires hit automatically. Profile-less Witchfires hit invisible.

You have argued profile-less Witchfires cannot target invisible due to snap shots. This is valid if true, but there's no RAW to get us there since GW said hits automatically hits invisible and those rules don't talk about targets: they talk about hits. Novas also target invisible units.

All the pages in this thread are just delving into those points in detail.

No errata says witchfires without a profile hit invisible units. An FAQ for beams and novas says they hit invisible, however it also says invisible units can't be targeted by such attacks. Regardless, there is no reason to apply rulings that do not mention Psychic Shriek to Psychic Shriek and rules state attacks that don't use BS can't snap shot. FAQs and errata modify/interpret the rules they name and nothing else. You can't just decide to apply them because you think they sound similar.

RAW you can't use Psychic Shriek on an invisible unit.

The FAQ does not say they can't hit invisible units. It says when using novas, relevant portion o ly, you cannot choose to target I visible. That's correct: novas target automatically. Novas and vanilla Witchfires do use different language for targeting so its logical to not treat them the same. Novas and profile-less Witchfires do NOT use different language for hitting, so they should be treated the same there. This is not similar, it's the same. The same language.

The only way your interpretation works is if we say "hits automatically" means two different things without a RAW reason to do so.

Your interpretation would open a Pandora's Box where every word in the book and FAQ could be subject to shifting and varied meanings at any time even if they're the same words. "Hits automatically" means hits invisible since novas hit invisible and have nothing else governing their hit mechanics. Profile-less Witchfires are in the same boat.

You are expressly forbidden in the rules from resolving a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snap shot. You are expressly required to resolve any shooting attacks against an invisible unit as a snap shot. If you don't have permission to resolve the attack at all it doesn't matter that it would auto hit, it's banned from happening.

You referenced before a Harlequin attack that automatically hits in close combat. You can't use that attack to hit a unit 12" away because rules don't allow you to resolve that attack at range. Same principle. The attack would auto hit, but you don't have permission to resolve it.

Show where any of that is incorrect RAW or show errata or FAQs that state Psychic Shriek works differently.

It's simple. Your analysis would apply to novas. They don't use BS to hit and must snap shot under your reasoning and are thus prohibited from snap shooting. GW says they can hit invisible, thus your reading is wrong. That's RAW.

Profile-less Witchfires and novas use the same to hit rules. Thus they should operate the same.

I brought up Harlequins only as a way I could envision them FAQ'ing it later.

Audustum wrote:

Please quote a rule where it says an automatic hit "does not use ballistic skill".

Actually, you have to be the one to prove that it does use ballistic skill. The roll to hit section on page 22 and on page 23 states "When rolling to hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses", qualified by the box on page 23 about rerolling the 1 and what you need if your ballistic score is higher than 6. If you hit automatically, you aren't rolling to hit, since according to the rules you have a chance of failure. Because of that, if you aren't rolling to hit (because of hitting automatically), you aren't using the Roll to Hit rules in the first place, which means you are not accessing the rules that say you use Ballsitic skill. Therefore, you need to show in the rules where you do use ballstic skill when you automatically hit.

Audustum wrote:
Alternatively, I could see GW saying it works like Harlequin attacks (see belo

Also, claiming that an automatic hit still counts as using ballistic skill means that there literally would be no situation that would not use ballistic skill for a ranged attack if that were true, which would mean that there would not be any need to say that attacks not using BS automatically miss since (by your definition) all attack use it.

Well that's not true. Flamers wouldn't use ballistic skill. Neither would weapons with the orbital profile.

Orbital would (still scatter). And if it's written so that it only excludes flamers, then why not just say that flamers can't fire and not bother with the rest?

Audustum wrote:
It's simple. Your analysis would apply to novas. They don't use BS to hit and must snap shot under your reasoning and are thus prohibited from snap shooting. GW says they can hit invisible, thus your reading is wrong. That's RAW.

Profile-less Witchfires and novas use the same to hit rules. Thus they should operate the same.

I brought up Harlequins only as a way I could envision them FAQ'ing it later.

Faulty conclusion again. First, novas target differently than Psychic Shriek which is a significant element in the resolution of the attack. More importantly though, there is an FAQ that states novas work differently with regards to hitting invisible units. If Psychic Shriek were named in that FAQ or if Psychic Shriek had a separate FAQ or errata saying it could hit invisible units then it would be able to per that rules supplement. No such FAQ or errata exists so we continue to use the rules as written in the BRB.

Audustum wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
The reason Novas and Beams work on invisible untis is because THEY DON"T TARGET UNITS.

Shriek does target a unit for its shooting attack

And that is where you would be wrong. Straight RAW from the book (and previously quoted in this thread):

A nova power automatically targets and hits all enemy units...

Which means that if an invisible unit is the only unit within range of a nova power you can't use the power because there are no units that you are allowed to target, and you have to have a valid target to shoot. If you have another target, then the invisible unit gets caught up as "collateral damage" by being within range when the other units are targeted (the way that you can't target ian invisible unit with a beam, but can hit it if it's in the path of something else that's targeted)

Fhionnuisce wrote:
You are expressly forbidden in the rules from resolving a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snap shot. You are expressly required to resolve any shooting attacks against an invisible unit as a snap shot. If you don't have permission to resolve the attack at all it doesn't matter that it would auto hit, it's banned from happening.

I would point out that you CAN resolve a shooting attack against an invisible unit without snap shooting, but it requires not actively selecting that unit as a target and usually hitting something besides when you were looking at when the shot is fired.

If a Blast Scatters from its target on to an Invisible Unit, Hits are allocated against the Invisible unit and the Attack is resolved against the Invisible unit.

If a Template user fires its Weapon properly and covers the maximum number of models in its target, but the Template also covers some models in an Invisible unit, Hits are still made and allocated to the Invisible unit.

This is because these scenarios bypass the points that would stop these Weapons from being fired by not firing AT them.

Novas and Beams fall under this category. They are indiscriminate in their targeting, just like a Scattered Blast or a Template flowing past its target, and just Hit what is there. This is how they are allowed to bypass the Invisible unit's requirements.

Psychic Shriek does not do this in any manner. It specifically targets a unit and proceeds To Wound it, not allowing its power to overflow it.

Honestly, it would have been better for all involved if it was either given a proper Ranged Profile or made a Malediction so that way this would have been a thousand times easier to write and process the rules on.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
You are expressly forbidden in the rules from resolving a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snap shot. You are expressly required to resolve any shooting attacks against an invisible unit as a snap shot. If you don't have permission to resolve the attack at all it doesn't matter that it would auto hit, it's banned from happening.

I would point out that you CAN resolve a shooting attack against an invisible unit without snap shooting, but it requires not actively selecting that unit as a target and usually hitting something besides when you were looking at when the shot is fired.

If a Blast Scatters from its target on to an Invisible Unit, Hits are allocated against the Invisible unit and the Attack is resolved against the Invisible unit.

If a Template user fires its Weapon properly and covers the maximum number of models in its target, but the Template also covers some models in an Invisible unit, Hits are still made and allocated to the Invisible unit.

This is because these scenarios bypass the points that would stop these Weapons from being fired by not firing AT them.

Novas and Beams fall under this category. They are indiscriminate in their targeting, just like a Scattered Blast or a Template flowing past its target, and just Hit what is there. This is how they are allowed to bypass the Invisible unit's requirements.

Psychic Shriek does not do this in any manner. It specifically targets a unit and proceeds To Wound it, not allowing its power to overflow it.

Honestly, it would have been better for all involved if it was either given a proper Ranged Profile or made a Malediction so that way this would have been a thousand times easier to write and process the rules on.

Agreed! It would have been much easier.

The problem some have with this logic is that blasts and templates don't say they target incidentally, they say they hit incidentally. Novas, however, specifically say they target everything. Thus, each enemy unit is being individually targeted, just like a profile-less Witchfire targeting an invisible unit.

It may very well be sloppy writing on GW's part, but we've never used that as a basis to say something isn't RAW before, just RAI.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:
It's simple. Your analysis would apply to novas. They don't use BS to hit and must snap shot under your reasoning and are thus prohibited from snap shooting. GW says they can hit invisible, thus your reading is wrong. That's RAW.

Profile-less Witchfires and novas use the same to hit rules. Thus they should operate the same.

I brought up Harlequins only as a way I could envision them FAQ'ing it later.

Faulty conclusion again. First, novas target differently than Psychic Shriek which is a significant element in the resolution of the attack. More importantly though, there is an FAQ that states novas work differently with regards to hitting invisible units. If Psychic Shriek were named in that FAQ or if Psychic Shriek had a separate FAQ or errata saying it could hit invisible units then it would be able to per that rules supplement. No such FAQ or errata exists so we continue to use the rules as written in the BRB.

I notice every time I point out you need some RAW to support you, you just go off to argue a different point without bringing any RAW.

The FAQ is not making new rules. The FAQ is interpreting the existing rules. That is the inherent nature of a FAQ and that is a rule of interpretation for tabletop games ranging from Monopoly to Risk and Arkham Horror and yes, Warhammer 40k. Your entire point here rests on the idea that GW made a specific addendum for novas. They didn't. They interpreted the RAW as saying novas hit invisible. The rule for novas hitting is "hits automatically". The rule for profile-less Witchfires is "hits automatically" per an errata.

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Please quote a rule where it says an automatic hit "does not use ballistic skill".

Actually, you have to be the one to prove that it does use ballistic skill. The roll to hit section on page 22 and on page 23 states "When rolling to hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses", qualified by the box on page 23 about rerolling the 1 and what you need if your ballistic score is higher than 6. If you hit automatically, you aren't rolling to hit, since according to the rules you have a chance of failure. Because of that, if you aren't rolling to hit (because of hitting automatically), you aren't using the Roll to Hit rules in the first place, which means you are not accessing the rules that say you use Ballsitic skill. Therefore, you need to show in the rules where you do use ballstic skill when you automatically hit.

Your problem is your entire premise rests upon "there is no such thing as an automatic hit". Remember, that rule is referring to all shooting attacks, not just shooting attacks that use ballistic skill.

It's contradicted later, however, because the rule for novas specifically says "hits automatic". The errata'd rule for profile-less Witchfires says "hits automatically". Thus, there are instances of automatic hits and just like when a Codex overrides the BRB, the specific beats the general. The specific rule for novas and profile-less witchfires means there are such things as automatic hits in shooting.

As a second point, you do not seem to have followed what I was getting at. We don't actually have any RAW whatsoever regarding how an automatic hit works except for two things: rolling is permissive ("not required") and it hits invisibility (FAQ for novas). So if you want to say it NEVER rolls, you have to use RAW to override the permissive nature of "not required".

Audustum wrote:
Alternatively, I could see GW saying it works like Harlequin attacks (see belo

Also, claiming that an automatic hit still counts as using ballistic skill means that there literally would be no situation that would not use ballistic skill for a ranged attack if that were true, which would mean that there would not be any need to say that attacks not using BS automatically miss since (by your definition) all attack use it.

Well that's not true. Flamers wouldn't use ballistic skill. Neither would weapons with the orbital profile.

Orbital would (still scatter). And if it's written so that it only excludes flamers, then why not just say that flamers can't fire and not bother with the rest?

Orbitals scatter, but they arn't reduced by ballistic skill. That's part of the definition of orbital. So no, orbital attacks don't use ballistic skill.

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:
It's simple. Your analysis would apply to novas. They don't use BS to hit and must snap shot under your reasoning and are thus prohibited from snap shooting. GW says they can hit invisible, thus your reading is wrong. That's RAW.

Profile-less Witchfires and novas use the same to hit rules. Thus they should operate the same.

I brought up Harlequins only as a way I could envision them FAQ'ing it later.

Faulty conclusion again. First, novas target differently than Psychic Shriek which is a significant element in the resolution of the attack. More importantly though, there is an FAQ that states novas work differently with regards to hitting invisible units. If Psychic Shriek were named in that FAQ or if Psychic Shriek had a separate FAQ or errata saying it could hit invisible units then it would be able to per that rules supplement. No such FAQ or errata exists so we continue to use the rules as written in the BRB.

I notice every time I point out you need some RAW to support you, you just go off to argue a different point without bringing any RAW.

The FAQ is not making new rules. The FAQ is interpreting the existing rules. That is the inherent nature of a FAQ and that is a rule of interpretation for tabletop games ranging from Monopoly to Risk and Arkham Horror and yes, Warhammer 40k. Your entire point here rests on the idea that GW made a specific addendum for novas. They didn't. They interpreted the RAW as saying novas hit invisible. The rule for novas hitting is "hits automatically". The rule for profile-less Witchfires is "hits automatically" per an errata.

FAQs and errata are rules supplements. Errata change the rules while FAQs provide guidance in the application of those rules. In both cases they apply only as specified. No matter how much you feel like Psychic Shriek is worded like a nova, it is not one. You cannot assume FAQ for one has any bearing on the other unless it says so, and cannot choose to apply an FAQ or errata for one to the other unless told to do so.

As to providing RAW, I did not quote the rules because they have been quoted multiple times already in the course of the thread, but I did reference the relevant rule. Rules do state you cannot resolve a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snap shot. Rules do state you can only resolve an attack against an invisible unit as a snap shot. You countered, as you always have, by referencing the FAQ for nova powers, but cannot cite anything that gives you permission to use that FAQ on Psychic Shriek. The best you have to offer is that it creates inconsistency in how we handle multiple attacks that automatically hit. I happen to disagree with that, but the truth is it doesn't matter. If the full rules (base rules plus any applicable rules supplements) determine you resolve an ability in a certain way then that is how it works. It is unfortunate if that results in confusion or apparent inconsistencies, but that doesn't change the fact that it is RAW.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:
It's simple. Your analysis would apply to novas. They don't use BS to hit and must snap shot under your reasoning and are thus prohibited from snap shooting. GW says they can hit invisible, thus your reading is wrong. That's RAW.

Profile-less Witchfires and novas use the same to hit rules. Thus they should operate the same.

I brought up Harlequins only as a way I could envision them FAQ'ing it later.

Faulty conclusion again. First, novas target differently than Psychic Shriek which is a significant element in the resolution of the attack. More importantly though, there is an FAQ that states novas work differently with regards to hitting invisible units. If Psychic Shriek were named in that FAQ or if Psychic Shriek had a separate FAQ or errata saying it could hit invisible units then it would be able to per that rules supplement. No such FAQ or errata exists so we continue to use the rules as written in the BRB.

I notice every time I point out you need some RAW to support you, you just go off to argue a different point without bringing any RAW.

The FAQ is not making new rules. The FAQ is interpreting the existing rules. That is the inherent nature of a FAQ and that is a rule of interpretation for tabletop games ranging from Monopoly to Risk and Arkham Horror and yes, Warhammer 40k. Your entire point here rests on the idea that GW made a specific addendum for novas. They didn't. They interpreted the RAW as saying novas hit invisible. The rule for novas hitting is "hits automatically". The rule for profile-less Witchfires is "hits automatically" per an errata.

FAQs and errata are rules supplements. Errata change the rules while FAQs provide guidance in the application of those rules. In both cases they apply only as specified. No matter how much you feel like Psychic Shriek is worded like a nova, it is not one. You cannot assume FAQ for one has any bearing on the other unless it says so, and cannot choose to apply an FAQ or errata for one to the other unless told to do so.

As to providing RAW, I did not quote the rules because they have been quoted multiple times already in the course of the thread, but I did reference the relevant rule. Rules do state you cannot resolve a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snap shot. Rules do state you can only resolve an attack against an invisible unit as a snap shot. You countered, as you always have, by referencing the FAQ for nova powers, but cannot cite anything that gives you permission to use that FAQ on Psychic Shriek. The best you have to offer is that it creates inconsistency in how we handle multiple attacks that automatically hit. I happen to disagree with that, but the truth is it doesn't matter. If the full rules (base rules plus any applicable rules supplements) determine you resolve an ability in a certain way then that is how it works. It is unfortunate if that results in confusion or apparent inconsistencies, but that doesn't change the fact that it is RAW.

This is where you're going off the rails. We're not saying "use novas as profile-less shooting powers even though we're not". We're saying that when the rules say "hits automatically" you have to apply the same definition to every instance of "hits automatically" otherwise you don't have rules: you just have player whimsy.

I'm sorry GW overruled you, it was a fair argument, but they came down on the opposite side. You want to house rule it? You want to petition the ITC to treat it differently? Go for it, but RAW, hits automatically hits invisible. Don't go to any tournament and assume an invisible unit is safe from Psychic Shriek. I know at the Nova Narrative last year they were fully allowing Psychic Shriek to hit fliers even with an automatic hit. Some of the other Mid-Atlantic tournaments do to.

Bottom line, GW said a weapon that does not use ballistic skill can target and hit an invisible unit and it hits automatically. We have no reason to interpret plain English in one part of the book different from another. That's just life.

Audustum wrote:
Agreed! It would have been much easier.

The problem some have with this logic is that blasts and templates don't say they target incidentally, they say they hit incidentally. Novas, however, specifically say they target everything. Thus, each enemy unit is being individually targeted, just like a profile-less Witchfire targeting an invisible unit.

It may very well be sloppy writing on GW's part, but we've never used that as a basis to say something isn't RAW before, just RAI.

I never stated that last paragraph was RAW, which is why I left it as "would have been better".

That having been said, everything before is RAW if one is willing to look at the interplay of all the rules instead of focusing on the only one or two lines which support what one wants it to do.

 Charistoph wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Agreed! It would have been much easier.

The problem some have with this logic is that blasts and templates don't say they target incidentally, they say they hit incidentally. Novas, however, specifically say they target everything. Thus, each enemy unit is being individually targeted, just like a profile-less Witchfire targeting an invisible unit.

It may very well be sloppy writing on GW's part, but we've never used that as a basis to say something isn't RAW before, just RAI.

I never stated that last paragraph was RAW, which is why I left it as "would have been better".

That having been said, everything before is RAW if one is willing to look at the interplay of all the rules instead of focusing on the only one or two lines which support what one wants it to do.

I wasn't saying you did, sorry for the conclusion. I was just climbing a soap box to make a general announcement to the whole thread.

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:
It's simple. Your analysis would apply to novas. They don't use BS to hit and must snap shot under your reasoning and are thus prohibited from snap shooting. GW says they can hit invisible, thus your reading is wrong. That's RAW.

Profile-less Witchfires and novas use the same to hit rules. Thus they should operate the same.

I brought up Harlequins only as a way I could envision them FAQ'ing it later.

Faulty conclusion again. First, novas target differently than Psychic Shriek which is a significant element in the resolution of the attack. More importantly though, there is an FAQ that states novas work differently with regards to hitting invisible units. If Psychic Shriek were named in that FAQ or if Psychic Shriek had a separate FAQ or errata saying it could hit invisible units then it would be able to per that rules supplement. No such FAQ or errata exists so we continue to use the rules as written in the BRB.

I notice every time I point out you need some RAW to support you, you just go off to argue a different point without bringing any RAW.

The FAQ is not making new rules. The FAQ is interpreting the existing rules. That is the inherent nature of a FAQ and that is a rule of interpretation for tabletop games ranging from Monopoly to Risk and Arkham Horror and yes, Warhammer 40k. Your entire point here rests on the idea that GW made a specific addendum for novas. They didn't. They interpreted the RAW as saying novas hit invisible. The rule for novas hitting is "hits automatically". The rule for profile-less Witchfires is "hits automatically" per an errata.

FAQs and errata are rules supplements. Errata change the rules while FAQs provide guidance in the application of those rules. In both cases they apply only as specified. No matter how much you feel like Psychic Shriek is worded like a nova, it is not one. You cannot assume FAQ for one has any bearing on the other unless it says so, and cannot choose to apply an FAQ or errata for one to the other unless told to do so.

As to providing RAW, I did not quote the rules because they have been quoted multiple times already in the course of the thread, but I did reference the relevant rule. Rules do state you cannot resolve a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snap shot. Rules do state you can only resolve an attack against an invisible unit as a snap shot. You countered, as you always have, by referencing the FAQ for nova powers, but cannot cite anything that gives you permission to use that FAQ on Psychic Shriek. The best you have to offer is that it creates inconsistency in how we handle multiple attacks that automatically hit. I happen to disagree with that, but the truth is it doesn't matter. If the full rules (base rules plus any applicable rules supplements) determine you resolve an ability in a certain way then that is how it works. It is unfortunate if that results in confusion or apparent inconsistencies, but that doesn't change the fact that it is RAW.

This is where you're going off the rails. We're not saying "use novas as profile-less shooting powers even though we're not". We're saying that when the rules say "hits automatically" you have to apply the same definition to every instance of "hits automatically" otherwise you don't have rules: you just have player whimsy.

I'm sorry GW overruled you, it was a fair argument, but they came down on the opposite side. You want to house rule it? You want to petition the ITC to treat it differently? Go for it, but RAW, hits automatically hits invisible. Don't go to any tournament and assume an invisible unit is safe from Psychic Shriek. I know at the Nova Narrative last year they were fully allowing Psychic Shriek to hit fliers even with an automatic hit. Some of the other Mid-Atlantic tournaments do to.

Bottom line, GW said a weapon that does not use ballistic skill can target and hit an invisible unit and it hits automatically. We have no reason to interpret plain English in one part of the book different from another. That's just life.

GW didn't overrule me. GW made no ruling on Psychic Shriek on invisible units or even all powers that hit automatically on invisible units. GW made a ruling on very specific attack types (novas, beams, and templates). YOU are extrapolating that out to all attacks that automatically hit with NO rules justification to do so.

And FYI, ruling by ITC or any other tournament organizer have no bearing on what is RAW. They often change rules for their own sense of balance and do sometimes just get things wrong.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Audustum wrote:
It's simple. Your analysis would apply to novas. They don't use BS to hit and must snap shot under your reasoning and are thus prohibited from snap shooting. GW says they can hit invisible, thus your reading is wrong. That's RAW.

Profile-less Witchfires and novas use the same to hit rules. Thus they should operate the same.

I brought up Harlequins only as a way I could envision them FAQ'ing it later.

Faulty conclusion again. First, novas target differently than Psychic Shriek which is a significant element in the resolution of the attack. More importantly though, there is an FAQ that states novas work differently with regards to hitting invisible units. If Psychic Shriek were named in that FAQ or if Psychic Shriek had a separate FAQ or errata saying it could hit invisible units then it would be able to per that rules supplement. No such FAQ or errata exists so we continue to use the rules as written in the BRB.

I notice every time I point out you need some RAW to support you, you just go off to argue a different point without bringing any RAW.

The FAQ is not making new rules. The FAQ is interpreting the existing rules. That is the inherent nature of a FAQ and that is a rule of interpretation for tabletop games ranging from Monopoly to Risk and Arkham Horror and yes, Warhammer 40k. Your entire point here rests on the idea that GW made a specific addendum for novas. They didn't. They interpreted the RAW as saying novas hit invisible. The rule for novas hitting is "hits automatically". The rule for profile-less Witchfires is "hits automatically" per an errata.

FAQs and errata are rules supplements. Errata change the rules while FAQs provide guidance in the application of those rules. In both cases they apply only as specified. No matter how much you feel like Psychic Shriek is worded like a nova, it is not one. You cannot assume FAQ for one has any bearing on the other unless it says so, and cannot choose to apply an FAQ or errata for one to the other unless told to do so.

As to providing RAW, I did not quote the rules because they have been quoted multiple times already in the course of the thread, but I did reference the relevant rule. Rules do state you cannot resolve a shooting attack that does not use BS as a snap shot. Rules do state you can only resolve an attack against an invisible unit as a snap shot. You countered, as you always have, by referencing the FAQ for nova powers, but cannot cite anything that gives you permission to use that FAQ on Psychic Shriek. The best you have to offer is that it creates inconsistency in how we handle multiple attacks that automatically hit. I happen to disagree with that, but the truth is it doesn't matter. If the full rules (base rules plus any applicable rules supplements) determine you resolve an ability in a certain way then that is how it works. It is unfortunate if that results in confusion or apparent inconsistencies, but that doesn't change the fact that it is RAW.

This is where you're going off the rails. We're not saying "use novas as profile-less shooting powers even though we're not". We're saying that when the rules say "hits automatically" you have to apply the same definition to every instance of "hits automatically" otherwise you don't have rules: you just have player whimsy.

I'm sorry GW overruled you, it was a fair argument, but they came down on the opposite side. You want to house rule it? You want to petition the ITC to treat it differently? Go for it, but RAW, hits automatically hits invisible. Don't go to any tournament and assume an invisible unit is safe from Psychic Shriek. I know at the Nova Narrative last year they were fully allowing Psychic Shriek to hit fliers even with an automatic hit. Some of the other Mid-Atlantic tournaments do to.

Bottom line, GW said a weapon that does not use ballistic skill can target and hit an invisible unit and it hits automatically. We have no reason to interpret plain English in one part of the book different from another. That's just life.

GW didn't overrule me. GW made no ruling on Psychic Shriek on invisible units or even all powers that hit automatically on invisible units. GW made a ruling on very specific attack types (novas, beams, and templates). YOU are extrapolating that out to all attacks that automatically hit with NO rules justification to do so.

And FYI, ruling by ITC or any other tournament organizer have no bearing on what is RAW. They often change rules for their own sense of balance and do sometimes just get things wrong.

I didn't say tournament rulings effected RAW. The point of knowing RAW, however, is to give yourself a firm foundation of what to expect when you go elsewhere. I was helping you prepare for that. Forgive me for being good natured.

We have two powers with identical methods of hitting. GW has said one of them hits invisibility. There is no reason to assume identical language should be treated differently. That's really all there is to it. At this point I think we're both just saying 'na-uh' though, so we should probably just leave it at that. We've made a good record of both arguments for anyone using Google at their local FLGS to settle a rules dispute. They'll have plenty of information to figure it out themselves. I'd say mission accomplished on our end.

Audustum wrote:



We have two powers with identical methods of hitting.

No, you don't. You have one thing, Psychic Shriek, which targets a unit. You have Nova which targets all units. Those are most definitedly not identical. Getting back to a point I made earlier, you would not be able to use a Nova power if an invisible unit is the only unit in range because you must have a target to use the power. You can't use the power if there is no target for you to use it on. Psychic Shriek targets one unit - you can't use it on an invisible unit because you are specficially told in the FAQ that you are not allowed to target invisible units.

I see no reason you wouldn't be able to cast a nova if an invisible unit was the only thing in range. The whole thing of a nova is you don't need to declare a target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(I obviously agree that novas and profileless witchfires are completely different methods of targeting)

Captyn_Bob wrote:
I see no reason you wouldn't be able to cast a nova if an invisible unit was the only thing in range. The whole thing of a nova is you don't need to declare a target.

After thinking about it, maybe. But no matter what, novas tell you they *automatically* target units. Unlike Psychic Shriek.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
I see no reason you wouldn't be able to cast a nova if an invisible unit was the only thing in range. The whole thing of a nova is you don't need to declare a target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(I obviously agree that novas and profileless witchfires are completely different methods of targeting)

Debatable, since it's not that it tells you you don't need to declare a target, but that every unit in range is a target. We are told that you can't target an invisible unit, though. Invisibility would override Nova's targeting on a basic vs advanced level. This means theere are no valid units to target, and you have no permission to shoot if you do not have a valid target.

But, this is actually a moot point (a side issue possibly worth exploring, though, but moot for the aske of Audustum's arguments) because if we accept what you say, it makes Nova powers even less like Psychic Shriek. Going with either possibility being discussed here about Nova powers vs invisible units, we are still left with the fact that we are told that you cannot target an invisible unit, and psychic shriek requires you to target a unit. That means you cannot target an invisible unit with psychic shriek.

You know, I was awful hesitant to come back since I think Fhionnuisce and I just about plumbed every angle of this, but then people are mentioning me by name specifically so I feel like I have to.

So two points.

1. You're all putting a lot of confidence in a rule that doesn't exist. Specifically, doctortom's statement that:

We are told that you can't target an invisible unit, though.

This doesn't exist. It's not a rule anywhere in RAW.

"Sequence of Shooting" under "The Shooting Phase" says: "Choose a target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see". That's it.

Even under the banner paragraph, it says "Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at. To do so, you must check the range of line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting. Note that you may check the range and line of sight to multiple enemy units before deciding which one to shoot at and declaring it to your opponent. You cannot target a unit that is locked in combat".

Again, that's it. Even the FAQ doesn't say you can't. It says :

Q: How does the Invisibility psychic power work in relation to
nova and beam powers, and Template and Blast weapons not
initially targeting the invisible unit?
A: You cannot choose to target an invisible unit with
such attacks, but should models from the unit end up
beneath the template, marker or line of fire, then they
can be hit using the normal rules.

"You cannot choose to target...with such attacks is a radically different statement than doctortom's "you cannot target an invisible unit".

RAW, the only thing that stops you from targeting a unit is line of sight. That's it. You can target a unit that you have to snap shot (when you can't snap shot). You can also target a unit that's out of range (your attack will fizzle). There's nothing in RAW to stop you from targeting a unit you can't attack.

What about the snap fire rule itself? I didn't mention it earlier because it doesn't even say the word 'target' anywhere in it. It says a weapon cannot be 'fired', which isn't described anywhere in the shooting sequence or shooting phase breakdown so we really have no idea what it means except that, for some reason, the attack doesn't work.

2. My argument wasn't conditioned on the "automatic target" part of novas. That was only brought up because some people said novas don't target invisible units. It's the "automatic hit" part, which is shared with Shriek, that was key.

3. Finally, whether novas can hit solitary invisible units, the FAQ clearly states "The invisible unit would be hit...if it was in the range of the nova...". The question itself also only speaks to an "invisible unit". No provision is made for a non-invisible unit being around. The FAQ is clearly stating that against an invisible unit, with no other considerations, a nova should hit it (and this should be its own thread).

If you want to quote RAW that says you can't target something you have to snap shot against when you can't snap shot, go for it. I'll happily concede #1 if you can, but I searched the book and the FAQ and then employed the good old search function for extra measure. If you don't quote more RAW, well, I think that speaks for itself.

I'm going to attempt to recap the major points of both sides. If I miss our get anything wrong feel free to correct.

On the no Psychic Shriek on invisible units side:

Invisibly traits any attacks against the unit to be snap shots. The rules for snap shots say attack that does not use ballistic skill cannot be fired as snap shots, which would include templates, novas, beams, and witchfires with no weapon profile.

Novas, beams, and templates are area attacks meaning, even when fired under normal rules and restrictions, there could be an invisible unit in the area of effect. GW released an FAQ that answers what would happen in that case. They cannot choose to target the unit but would automatically hit if it were there. The FAQ does not change or even address the requirements and restrictions related to firing and in particular did not give them permission to fire snap shots.

Since Psychic Shriek is not an area attack, not mentioned in the FAQ related to invisible units, nothing had been presented that would allow it to snap shot, and nothing presented that removes the restriction against snap shots, we must conclude Psychic Shriek cannot be used on an invisible unit.


On the Psychic Shriek can be used on invisible side:

GW released an FAQ saying novas, beams, and templates can hit invisible units in their area of effect, therefore all attacks that automatically hit can be used against and will automatically hit invisible units, the restriction against attacks that don't use BS didn't apply.

Have I missed a critical point in either side?