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.

Fragile wrote:
Now, does a vehicle explosion hit a Flyer / FMC when zoom/swoop?

No, and no to the FMC in swoop mode as well, since it does not have a specific allowance to hit them.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Now, does a vehicle explosion hit a Flyer / FMC when zoom/swoop?

No, and no to the FMC in swoop mode as well, since it does not have a specific allowance to hit them.

Why is that? It's neither shooting nor cc attack, it literally justs says units within d6 take a s3 hit, if the fmc was within the distance rolled why would it circumvent that?

It's the same lack of specificty that has explosions going through impassable terrain and hitting models on the other side.

Fragile wrote:
Now, does a vehicle explosion hit a Flyer / FMC when zoom/swoop?

This question seems to boil down to how you read the Hard to Hit rule on p81.

I eagerly await GW's errata on that rule.

foolishmortal wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Now, does a vehicle explosion hit a Flyer / FMC when zoom/swoop?

This question seems to boil down to how you read the Hard to Hit rule on p81.

I eagerly await GW's errata on that rule.

True but nothing is shooting at it, in this case the rule simply says it takes a hit. Hard to hit only covers models shooting at it.

Several of us just went through 9 pages of this in
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/480037.page

Take a quick (ha, ha) look and tell us what you think.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Now, does a vehicle explosion hit a Flyer / FMC when zoom/swoop?

No, and no to the FMC in swoop mode as well, since it does not have a specific allowance to hit them.

Why is that? It's neither shooting nor cc attack, it literally justs says units within d6 take a s3 hit, if the fmc was within the distance rolled why would it circumvent that?

It's the same lack of specificty that has explosions going through impassable terrain and hitting models on the other side.

Because every other rule, that is not a weapon, can not hit a Zooming flyer or Swooping FMC. Such as Mawlock Terror from the deep (Unless it has a specific allowance to hit them).

Rule Book FAQ wrote:A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers"

This is true.

So this conclusion is true:

You can not affect a Zooming flyer with the explosion, since the explosion is not a shooting attack.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because every other rule, that is not a weapon, can not hit a Zooming flyer or Swooping FMC. Such as Mawlock Terror from the deep (Unless it has a specific allowance to hit them).

This is a reasonable summery of GW's apparent intent about how to interpret Hard to Hit. There are not many data points yet, but it is the trend in recent faq entries. RAI, it seems to be the safest way to go.

RAW, I have some cautions hesitation from embracing that view blindly. Mostly that the Hard to Hit rule seems to refer to shooting attacks, which these odd exceptions rarely are.

If you want to see what we have discussed so far, read the linked thread, and maybe one or two of the others (Ork Bommer, Lord of the Tempest, Vector Strike, Terror from the Deep). The last two have been resolved by faq entries.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So this conclusion is true:

You can not affect a Zooming flyer with the explosion, since the explosion is not a shooting attack.

it's not an anything attack, so following your logic it can't affect anything. That's the root of the problem, it's not a shooting, close combat or psychic attack.

 Crablezworth wrote:
it's not an anything attack, so following your logic it can't affect anything. That's the root of the problem, it's not a shooting, close combat or psychic attack.

Interesting. Let me see if I understand.

The rules do not say how to resolve a hit from a special rule rather than from a shooting attack, close combat attack or psykic shooting attack. If we as being so strict in our RAW approach to these things hitting flyers, why then are we not applying equal strictness everywhere else?

The rulebook FAQ IMO makes it pretty clear that any attack which affects an area does not affect flyers.

Foolishmortal: If you get very strict RaW, many things break down entirely in the ruleset. For example, the simple act of rolling to-wound is only (and separately, albeit identically) defined for shooting and close combat. So, if a hit is not determined to be shooting nor close combat, you can make a silly RaW argument that no roll to-wound is allowed, as no permission to-wound is granted for any hits not generated by shooting nor close combat.

Since that's obviously nonsense, it is generally played that any hit not otherwise defined is treated like a shooting hit as much as is possible.

So yeah, still no answer on this one...

 Crablezworth wrote:
So yeah, still no answer on this one...

It has no permission to hit, and is not a "weapon" that automatically hits.

Same answers apply.

Why can you not just roll to wound each model seperatly and then roll saves for the ones hit seperatly?

 Crawdadr wrote:
Why can you not just roll to wound each model seperatly and then roll saves for the ones hit seperatly?

I can come up with a house rule with my opponent, I'm just hoping for an eventual answer one way or another so there' some consitency frome game to game.

It is simple really.

If you blow up a vehicle in CC, use the CC rules for allocating wounds.
pg 25 for allocating wounds.

If you blow up a vehicle in shooting phase use shooting rules.
pg 15 for allocating wounds.

Again, that's a good example of a house rule, still lookin for the answer if anyone has found it.

I said it before, there are not any hard and fast rules that cover this specific situation.

Though the passengers treat the explosion as a shooting attack, so it should probably be handled like a shooting attack.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Again, that's a good example of a house rule, still lookin for the answer if anyone has found it.

Why?

If you are in the assault phase, unless stated other wise by a special rule, weapon or psychic power, any wounds caused during that phase should follow the "Allocating Wounds" section of the Assault phase and the same for Shooting phases.

40k-noob wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Again, that's a good example of a house rule, still lookin for the answer if anyone has found it.

Why?

If you are in the assault phase, unless stated other wise by a special rule, weapon or psychic power, any wounds caused during that phase should follow the "Allocating Wounds" section of the Assault phase and the same for Shooting phases.

At least death reaper understands that absence of a rule, you're just makin stuff up my friend.

 Crablezworth wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Again, that's a good example of a house rule, still lookin for the answer if anyone has found it.

Why?

If you are in the assault phase, unless stated other wise by a special rule, weapon or psychic power, any wounds caused during that phase should follow the "Allocating Wounds" section of the Assault phase and the same for Shooting phases.

At least death reaper understands that absence of a rule, you're just makin stuff up my friend.

I am not making anything up.

If you are in the Assault Phase, it stands to reason that you would follow the rules set forth in the BRB for the Assault Phase. One section of which is for Allocating wounds.
If you blowup a vehicle in the Assault Phase, unless otherwise stated why would you use anything other than the Assault Phase rules? You are in fact in BTB with the vehicle when it blows up and are hit automatically(if in range, which at least one model must be) so BTB models are wounded first at the owning players discretion, followed by closest to vehicle.

The same would apply for the Shooting phase using shooting phase allocating wounds rules.

You are looking for a specific rule to over ride something that is already there.

40k-noob wrote:
I am not making anything up.

If you are in the Assault Phase, it stands to reason that you would follow the rules set forth in the BRB for the Assault Phase.

Except that the passengers treat the explosion as a shooting attack, even if it is in the assault phase. So it should follow the rules for a shooting attack.

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
I am not making anything up.

If you are in the Assault Phase, it stands to reason that you would follow the rules set forth in the BRB for the Assault Phase.

Except that the passengers treat the explosion as a shooting attack, even if it is in the assault phase. So it should follow the rules for a shooting attack.

Did you read my entire post or did you just stop at that sentence?

I did say "unless stated otherwise..." which means that obviously there are exceptions but aside from those exceptions, you are to follow the rules as set forth in the BRB for allocating wounds.

The explosion is not a CC attack.

P.25 "Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the Shooting phase."

Also P.25 "A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking"

The Vehicle does not have a value for Attacks, so it can not make CC attacks.

Who is the closest model when they are all in contact with the vehicle?

 DeathReaper wrote:
The explosion is not a CC attack.

P.25 "Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the Shooting phase."

Also P.25 "A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking"

The Vehicle does not have a value for Attacks, so it can not make CC attacks.

Who is the closest model when they are all in contact with the vehicle?

Nevertheless, you are in the Assault phase and just because the vehicle is not attacking doesn't mean you are not hit in the Assault Phase.

Who is the closest model you say? Well if they are all in BTB there is no single "closest" and the rule says "If there is more than one eligible candidate, the player controlling the models being attacked chooses which model it is allocated to."

So if you have a vehicle surrounded and the entire unit is btb, then the controlling just picks at his discretion.
In the shooting phase then it goes by closest as well and if you cannot determine which is the closest then you randomize, but it should be relatively easy to do in the shooting as units tend to be spread out and not lined up perfectly equidistant from the enemy vehicle.

You are missing the "A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking"

Is the vehicle making its attacks? If not then you can not use the CC wound rules to resolve it.

The passengers treat the explosion as a shooting attack, so maybe everyone should. Though there are no rules that tell us exactly what to do.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are missing the "A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking"

Is the vehicle making its attacks? If not then you can not use the CC wound rules to resolve it.

The passengers treat the explosion as a shooting attack, so maybe everyone should. Though there are no rules that tell us exactly what to do.

Is the vehicle hitting the models with its explosion? If so then it is attacking them, unconventionally but attacking them none the less.

If you choose to use the Shooting Rules, you are in fact, breaking the game as you cannot do something that you are not given permission to by the rules.

How would you resolve the C'Tan explosion if it dies in CC?

"with a model attacking" in the context means making CC attacks.

"A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step" P.25

The vehicle is not making attacks at any given Initiative step.

Do not ignore the context.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"with a model attacking" in the context means making CC attacks.

"A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step" P.25

The vehicle is not making attacks at any given Initiative step.

Do not ignore the context.

There is no such thing as a "CC Attack" there are Melee Attacks but no "CC Attacks."

The rules merely says "a model attacking it" it does not specify Melee Attacks.

Is the Vehicle a "model," clearly that is not in question.
Is the vehicle attacking the models in D6 range with its explosion? Since the models in D6 range are suffering a Str 3, AP - hit then I would say yes, they are being attacked by the vehicle's explosion.

40k Noob, the onus is on you to prove that the explosion is a CC attack when it happens in the assault phase. There isn't anything in the rulebook to suggest that it is, although if that's how you want to house-rule it, fine. But while the explosion happens in the assault phase, it is not an attack, but merely an effect which results from the destruction of the vehicle and therefore follows the explosion rules.

Considering the lack of a specific method to allocate these wounds, if you don't plan on allocating closest-to-furthest, then it's best to come to a decision with your opponent on how to do so if you think there'll be a problem.

As for wounding FMCs, RAW it would appear that it does affect them since it is not a shooting attack.

40k-noob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"with a model attacking" in the context means making CC attacks.

"A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step" P.25

The vehicle is not making attacks at any given Initiative step.

Do not ignore the context.

There is no such thing as a "CC Attack" there are Melee Attacks but no "CC Attacks."

The rules merely says "a model attacking it" it does not specify Melee Attacks.

Is the Vehicle a "model," clearly that is not in question.
Is the vehicle attacking the models in D6 range with its explosion? Since the models in D6 range are suffering a Str 3, AP - hit then I would say yes, they are being attacked by the vehicle's explosion.

The rules do not state what you assert in the underlined.

The vehicle is not a model attacking at that Initiative step. The vehicle does not make attacks.

Do not ignore the context.