Why do you think a RAW required step is not necessary to the outcome, in this case the required to hit roll? Claiming that is the extent of what is necessary means all witchfires do not need to roll to hit, when clearly by the RAW statement that they are required to roll to hit -they do. Stating that the steps to resolve a psychic power are all you need for resolution is pretty incorrect, as they do not cover any witchfires needing to roll to hit at all.

Further dissembling on your part will be concession. Please, for once, provide actual rules showing that a successful to hit is necessary for ps et al. We check the rest of the power, note that nothing in the power requires us to successfully hit to carry on resolving, and we move on. We have a rule telling us to resolve the power. It's not like Shriek rolls To Wound or anything.Ī above. al.) from finishing resolution because you missed a To Hit roll. The psychic power rules require us to resolve a power according to its instructions.Ĭite the rule that denies Shriek (et. and admit its not RAW and that it is just some peoples HYWPI īlaktoof wrote: Can anyone quote this 'mythical' RAW passage that things that are required to hit can resolve their effect anyways because normal shooting rolls to wound after rolling to hit, and non normal shooting that is required to roll to hit doesn't therefore reasons? Yes a little vague, but has RaW always been clear cut? YMDC would not exist. But why is that? I mean it's Rules as Written. If there is no definition as to how many shots you have (as opposed to: Assault, Heavy, Salvo who are defined as 2,3,4,36 Shots) then you take the defined 'most' 1 shot.Īll in all, you struggle to find 'most' being a rule that can be followed. If there is no definition as to how far you Fall back (as opposed to: Jetbikes, Cavalry, Jump Units who are defined as 3D6) then you take the defined 'most' 2D6'. In terms of the 'most' in Fall Back and To Wound above, i always make those assumptions: If D weapons have an AP, but it is not defined, would you not assume 'have AP1 or AP2'?

If a Vehicle is not a skimmer, do you not assume that they have no base? If a Vehicle has no Unit stat line, would you not assume they 'fight as individual units'? If a Unit is told to Fall back, do you not assume 'Fall Back 2D6'? If you are rolling To Wound in close combat, do you not assume 'use the Strength on the attacker’s profile'? Most Destroyer Weapons have AP1 or AP2, so armour saves are not typically allowed. Unlike most other vehicles, Skimmers have flying bases under their hull. Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. In most cases, when rolling To Wound in close combat, you use the Strength on the attacker’s profile regardless of what weapon he is using. A charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12' away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later)

40k prescience and witchfire