undertow wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 undertow wrote:

Some examples of weapons / attacks / special rules that don't work:
Mawloc's Terror from the Deep - Doesn't work because it uses a blast template.

Actually, this is incorrect. It doesn't work because the FAQ says it doesn't work. It doesn't give a reason, it just says, "No."
Also, it's a Large Blast Marker, not a blast template.

Are you this pedantic in real life?

It's not a huge logical leap to assume that it doesn't work because it uses a blast marker.

It depends
It's still your assumption that's why it doesn't work, and that assumption isn't completely supported. There's implications, sure. There's also implications that it doesn't work simply because they said it doesn't work. My point is that saying it doesn't work because it's a blast marker is incorrect - it was incorrect before the FAQ and it's incorrect after the FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote:

 undertow wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 undertow wrote:

Some examples of weapons / attacks / special rules that don't work:
Mawloc's Terror from the Deep - Doesn't work because it uses a blast template.

Actually, this is incorrect. It doesn't work because the FAQ says it doesn't work. It doesn't give a reason, it just says, "No."
Also, it's a Large Blast Marker, not a blast template.

Are you this pedantic in real life?

It's not a huge logical leap to assume that it doesn't work because it uses a blast marker.

It depends
It's still your assumption that's why it doesn't work, and that assumption isn't completely supported. There's implications, sure. There's also implications that it doesn't work simply because they said it doesn't work. My point is that saying it doesn't work because it's a blast marker is incorrect - it was incorrect before the FAQ and it's incorrect after the FAQ.

While I agree that it doesn't spell out exactly why it doesn't work, I'm of the opinion that it does more to support the 'no' for LotS hitting fliers than it does to support the 'yes'.

 undertow wrote:
While I agree that it doesn't spell out exactly why it doesn't work, I'm of the opinion that it does more to support the 'no' for LotS hitting fliers than it does to support the 'yes'.

Agreed. I just also feel it's good to be accurate when citing examples.

Quick experiment:
Turn to p50 of your rulebook. Read the first sentence under weapon profiles. So, we need strength, ap and how to resolve the attack (range and type). So, we're inflicting S8 AP5 hits d6 times with unlimited range. Unless you're going to argue that weapons are identical but tabulated, we are definitely looking at a weapon and thus covered by the FAQ. If it's not a weapon, you cannot use the armour penetration rule from p73 ("once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a d6 and add the WEAPON'S strength") and thus cannot hurt flyers anyway. Note also that taking the not a weapon if not tabulated line means you cannot resolve ANY special rule with a given strength value against ANY vehicle as you cannot pen it, which is obviously incorrect. So it's undeniably a weapon and thus covered.

It doesn't work. Arguing something that inflicts damage isn't a weapon is an absurdity in both the rules and using the definition of a weapon. All of these cases are covered so stop trying to exploit the rules.

Eyjio wrote:
Quick experiment:
Turn to p50 of your rulebook. Read the first sentence under weapon profiles. So, we need strength, ap and how to resolve the attack (range and type). So, we're inflicting S8 AP5 hits d6 times with unlimited range. Unless you're going to argue that weapons are identical but tabulated, we are definitely looking at a weapon and thus covered by the FAQ. If it's not a weapon, you cannot use the armour penetration rule from p73 ("once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a d6 and add the WEAPON'S strength") and thus cannot hurt flyers anyway. Note also that taking the not a weapon if not tabulated line means you cannot resolve ANY special rule with a given strength value against ANY vehicle as you cannot pen it, which is obviously incorrect. So it's undeniably a weapon and thus covered.

It doesn't work. Arguing something that inflicts damage isn't a weapon is an absurdity in both the rules and using the definition of a weapon. All of these cases are covered so stop trying to exploit the rules.

So a rhino that can ram is a weapon then?
So when I roll weapon destroy, I need to randomize between the storm bolter and the rhino?

A blanket use of that suggestion doesn't seem to work.

-Matt

@Eyjio - This looks good. I came to a similar understanding of LotS's lightning's "weapon" profile. Range and Type are a little fuzzy, but that's more because it is a special rule rather than any lack of clearness about how make it work.

I already cited the general principle laid out 'tabulated' profile vs text based profile, and cited the Necron update "You’ll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."

My only question would be "Why are we looking at the snap shot rule?" The Hard to Hit rule (p81) applies the restriction of Snap Shot (p13) to any shooting attack against a zooming flyer.

LotS does't generate shooting attacks. (No LoS, originating model, ranged weapon, BS, template, blast marker, AoE, beam, nova, or maelstrom)
So if it's not a shooting attack, why must it Snap Shot?

The faq entries on Sweep Attack and Terror from the Deep are good, solid data points to start a RAI argument in favor of the NO position.

Until Hard to Hit is errata'd (or at least faq'd), I will have a have a hard time saying anything more certain than 'maybe' to the RAW NO position

As HawaiiMatt noted, you cannot assume that everything doing damage must be able to fit a tabulated weapon for at - because if you do, suddenly every Tank can be destroyed on a Weapon Destroyed.

Seems pretty obvious that it can't to me. There may be ambiguity in the RAW but RAI it seems like only "normal" shooting attacks should be able to hurt flyers, unless an exception is explicitly spelt out.

foolishmortal wrote:
@Eyjio - This looks good. I came to a similar understanding of LotS's lightning's "weapon" profile. Range and Type are a little fuzzy, but that's more because it is a special rule rather than any lack of clearness about how make it work.

I already cited the general principle laid out 'tabulated' profile vs text based profile, and cited the Necron update "You’ll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."

My only question would be "Why are we looking at the snap shot rule?" The Hard to Hit rule (p81) applies the restriction of Snap Shot (p13) to any shooting attack against a zooming flyer.

LotS does't generate shooting attacks. (No LoS, originating model, ranged weapon, BS, template, blast marker, AoE, beam, nova, or maelstrom)
So if it's not a shooting attack, why must it Snap Shot?

The faq entries on Sweep Attack and Terror from the Deep are good, solid data points to start a RAI argument in favor of the NO position.

Until Hard to Hit is errata'd (or at least faq'd), I will have a have a hard time saying anything more certain than 'maybe' to the RAW NO position

It looks like you're interpreting "Only shots that are Snap Shots can hit a flyer" this way:

If something is a shooting attack, it cannot hit unless it can Snap Shot, anything that's not a shooting attack doesn't suffer from this restriction.

I think you should be interpreting it this way:

If something cannot Snap Shot, it cannot hit

"Without other permission (reference Vector Strike)"

ETA for next poll by foolishmortal in 23:44:53 and counting...

Aren't shooting attacks generally optional (IE choice of whether to shoot or not and target)? Imotekh's special rule (attack/weapon if you want to call it that) isn't optional, you have to roll for each unit (just like a vehicle explosion), this also might open up issues with certain allies that are considered enemies. The reason I'd tie it into vehicle explosions is they both share the same lack of specficity in how to resolve wounding, neither one calls itself a shooting attack. Right now if I roll a 6 to hit an enemy infantry unit with imotekh's special rule and roll say a 3 causing 3 S8 hits, how do I know which models take the hits?


This is also interesing http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/482176.page I see it as relevant because to me it's "ok, how far do you really wanna push the premise that flyers and flying mc's are magic?"

 Crablezworth wrote:
Aren't shooting attacks generally optional (IE choice of whether to shoot or not and target)? Imotekh's special rule (attack/weapon if you want to call it that) isn't optional, you have to roll for each unit (just like a vehicle explosion), this also might open up issues with certain allies that are considered enemies. The reason I'd tie it into vehicle explosions is they both share the same lack of specficity in how to resolve wounding, neither one calls itself a shooting attack. Right now if I roll a 6 to hit an enemy infantry unit with imotekh's special rule and roll say a 3 causing 3 S8 hits, how do I know which models take the hits?


This is also interesing http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/482176.page I see it as relevant because to me it's "ok, how far do you really wanna push the premise that flyers and flying mc's are magic?"

the fact is that "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers..."

So if it is not a snap shot, then it can not hit a zooming flyer (Unless it has specific permission to do so).

That humorous poll has little to do with the rule being discussed.

 DeathReaper wrote:

the fact is that "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers..."

So if it is not a snap shot, then it can not hit a zooming flyer (Unless it has specific permission to do so).

Right, I'm with ya, when performing a shooting attack, snap shots are a requirement for hitting a flyer/flying mc. A vehicle exploding and or imotekh's special rule aren't shooting attacks, if they were we'd know how wounding works for them, we don't, if some rule defined them as such I'd agree with you.

If you want to take that and go to some tangent that because there is no method or direction for wounding they don't wound feel free.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

the fact is that "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers..."

So if it is not a snap shot, then it can not hit a zooming flyer (Unless it has specific permission to do so).

Right, I'm with ya, when performing a shooting attack, snap shots are a requirement for hitting a flyer/flying mc. A vehicle exploding and or imotekh's special rule aren't shooting attacks, if they were we'd know how wounding works for them, we don't, if some rule defined them as such I'd agree with you.

If you want to take that and go to some tangent that because there is no method or direction for wounding they don't wound feel free.

Basically it boils down to this:

 DeathReaper wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:
4)LotS is not a shooting attack.

Since this is true.

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

And this is true.

Then this conclusion is true:

You can not affect a Zooming flyer with the LotS rule, since the LotS rule is not a shooting attack, and therefore can not make snap shots, which is the only thing that can hit a Zooming Flyer (without other specific permission (reference Vector Strike)).

 Zathras wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Zathras wrote:
You do roll to hit with Imotekh's Lightning Attack....you need to roll a 6 on a D6 to affect enemy units with it. If you do hit then you generate the D6 hits. It's not automatic and therefore can affect flyers and FMCs.

That's not actually a 'to hit' roll. More like a roll to effect.

But you do roll to activate the power....it involves rolling dice and therefore does not hit/affect units automatically. Therefore it does not fall under the rule that prevents it from hitting Fliers and FMCs.

No imotehk a lightning clearly states all enemy units not engaged in close combat can be hit by the lightning so sorry my friend ur flyer can die as soon as it comes out if the necron players rolls are hot enough

Mentok wrote:
No imotehk a lightning clearly states all enemy units not engaged in close combat can be hit by the lightning so sorry my friend ur flyer can die as soon as it comes out if the necron players rolls are hot enough

The hard to hit rule is the more specific rule and in this case trumps the basic rules of the LoTS.

So specific in fact that it only adresses shooting attacks.

The same logic you're applying to something that isn't a shooting attack, you could apply to a get's hot result on a storm raven "well, the rulebook says I take a glancing hit but what does the rulebook know, only snap shots can hurt my flyers because.. magic"

 Crablezworth wrote:
So specific in fact that it only adresses shooting attacks.

The same logic you're applying to something that isn't a shooting attack, you could apply to a get's hot result on a storm raven "well, the rulebook says I take a glancing hit but what does the rulebook know, only snap shots can hurt my flyers because.. magic"

Gets hot is the more advanced rule.

 Crablezworth wrote:
So specific in fact that it only adresses shooting attacks.

The same logic you're applying to something that isn't a shooting attack, you could apply to a get's hot result on a storm raven "well, the rulebook says I take a glancing hit but what does the rulebook know, only snap shots can hurt my flyers because.. magic"

Its not magic, the FAQ is clear about hitting Flyers. This is simply a case where people are jumping on the bandwagon saying it does apply to LotS cause LotS is a special ability. Go read Doom Scythe thread about the Death Ray, being able to hit flyers, then go read Blood Lance (and I was for Lance working) ... etc... This is just another thread fishing for a loophole that GW has made clear doesnt exist. Only snap shots can hit Flyers and they use terms like "any weapon" and "any attack" which covers most ANYthing not already listed explicitly as not being able to hit like Mawloc or Bomb Squigs.

Things like Weapon special rules and the model's own special attacks are not part of this discussion, despite "polls" to bring them into it.

copper.talos wrote:ETA for next poll by foolishmortal in 23:44:53 and counting...

Fragile wrote:Things like Weapon special rules and the model's own special attacks are not part of this discussion, despite "polls" to bring them into it.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfFanJackassery
http://xkcd.com/1095/

Fragile wrote:This is just another thread fishing for a loophole that GW has made clear doesnt exist. Only snap shots can hit Flyers and they use terms like "any weapon" and "any attack" which covers most ANYthing not already listed explicitly as not being able to hit like Mawloc or Bomb Squigs.

No, it's not. I can't speak for the intentions of anyone else, but all the same, I doubt you can either.

Here's how it's different. The lightning from Imotekh's LotS does not target/choose/nominate, nor does it use any form of geometric tool to determine what it hits. The same cannot be said of TftD, Bomb Squig, or Sweep Attack. LotS is different enough that I want to know which side of the RAW line it is on. So I participate in YMDC conversations about it. Sometimes I even put up polls. Not because they are admissible as evidence, but because they allow for more participation in the process.

I agree with the apparent general trend of GW in faqing things to limit things hitting zooming flyers. I have said so before, cited point in favor of it, and said that it is a reasonable RAI position.

I disagree with the idea of 'snap shots and specific permission only, logic and RAW be damned'. RAW, snap shots are required for shooting attacks attempting to hit flyers, per Hard to Hit p81. Faq entries on Mawloc, Squigs, and Sweep Attacks may signal a trend and an eventual future change of the RAW, but that change hasn't happened yet. Hard to Hit still says what it says, restricts what it restricts, and is silent on everything else.

From Hard to Hit and Gets Hot poll

foolishmortal wrote:The poll choices reflect the ridiculousness of the question. Of course Gets Hot hits a Zooming Flyer. I try to be unbiased, but I agree it is a dumb question, hence dumb answers.

This means you are trolling the whole forum. Bravo...

copper.talos wrote:
From Hard to Hit and Gets Hot poll

foolishmortal wrote:The poll choices reflect the ridiculousness of the question. Of course Gets Hot hits a Zooming Flyer. I try to be unbiased, but I agree it is a dumb question, hence dumb answers.

This means you are trolling the whole forum. Bravo...

“If the iron is hot, I desire to believe it is hot, and if it is cool, I desire to believe it is cool.”

If we are debating the state of the iron, you saying cold, me saying hot, and I can
...see how quickly steam boils off it in use
...smell the burning of cloth left beneath it for too long
...feel the roiling warm air near it
...see the tip of it glow dull red

After all this, if you still say "cold", I could ask you to grasp the iron and hold the metal to your flesh.

I would never ask this of you, or anyone.

Fortunately, asking someone to embrace a crazy idea to an extreme extent on the internet, is not permanently harmful. Being faced with the silly consequences of sloppy thinking is sometimes helpful.

I will of course comply with any posting policy here, but I do not believe that calling attention to a silly result of an overly broad statement is trolling, especially in the context of a rules discussion. Thank you for your concern about my conduct, but this is really not much more than a distraction. Do you have an answer to the question?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

*Rolls Eyes*
Just stop dude. The FAQ already clarified it to be attacks. I'm not going to play the semantics game with you.

Which FAQ? The oft cited one in this thread? So your statement of "never were ... In the first place" was wrong, because they were able to until the FAQ, right?

It'd be great if you could address my argument instead of just be rude to me though.

Edit: also, the Mawloc TfTD ability has still not been clarified as an attack, despite some people's assertions. What stops it from working is the Tyranid FAQ that says No. If the BRB FAQ was sufficient, the Nid one wouldn't be required.

Q: Are Zooming Flyers or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures affected by Mawloc’s Terror From the Deep special rule? (p51)
A: No.

Q: Can I take cover saves from a Mawloc’s Terror from the Deep attack? (p51)
A: Yes.

I have seen the first of the two faq entries quoted in this thread, but I have not noticed anyone quote the second one. It refers to TftD as an attack, with no reference to shooting, close combat or PSA.

I'd forgotten about that one because it was old, thanks.
Your Gets Hot poll is irrelevant and trolling, in my opinion though. It's not an attack (in any way), it doesn't cause a hit (it causes a Glancing Hit - similar to causing a wound). It's closer to OM than anything else, and guess what does work against Flyers?

rigeld2 wrote:
I'd forgotten about that one because it was old, thanks.

No problem, I was looking through the thread, noticed it, and I had the Tyranid faq already open.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your Gets Hot poll is irrelevant and trolling, in my opinion though. It's not an attack (in any way), it doesn't cause a hit (it causes a Glancing Hit - similar to causing a wound).

I disagree sir. Look at the trend of the posts on this thread. Before I posted the Gets Hot question the standard line from the NO position was 'it's not a snap shot and it has no special permission.' Now the line is 'LotS's lightning is an attack that hits automatically, thus fall under the faq entry' (paraphrasing both)

I have changed the substantive point of the discussion. Incidentally, by focusing the NO position and citing the Mawloc faq entry that shows TftD as an attack, I have also nudged myself closer to the PRO position. I'm still having a hard time seeing how LotS falls under Hard to hit, but if it does, I can see a decently strong argument for the Snap Shot faq entry to forbid it.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's closer to OM than anything else, and guess what does work against Flyers?

What's OM?

Objuration Mechanicum - Telekenisis power, page 422.

Show how a hit and a glancing hit are the same and ill agree that your Gets Hot poll isn't irrelevant and trolling.

When you said "It's closer to OM than anything else", I see now you meant Gets Hot, not LotS. I agree, they are similar.

I've tried to ask gently before, but received no answer. Why is the Gets Hot question trolling? Was it the humor? Is there a guideline I can look at?

Read my OP in that thread. I asked a realistic question to illustrate the lack of rules coherency in a position several people were taking.

As Centurian99 wrote, "I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea -- a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers

foolishmortal wrote:
When you said "It's closer to OM than anything else", I see now you meant Gets Hot, not LotS. I agree, they are similar.

I've tried to ask gently before, but received no answer. Why is the Gets Hot question trolling? Was it the humor? Is there a guideline I can look at?

Read my OP in that thread. I asked a realistic question to illustrate the lack of rules coherency in a position several people were taking.

As Centurian99 wrote, "I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea -- a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers

It's trolling because its absolutely nothing like the current situation, and it cannot be correct - because Gets Hot is not a hit, so isn't affected by Hard to Hit at all. All you're doing is mocking the situation and not bringing and rules support to your side of the argument.
It's not a realistic question. There's no lack of rules coherency except what you're attempting to insert.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's trolling because its absolutely nothing like the current situation

I was told over and over on this very page (11) that "if it is not a snap shot, then it can not hit a zooming flyer (Unless it has specific permission to do so)"

I brought up the Ork Blitza-Bommer first (S9 hit) , but most people don't have the White Dwarf rules.

Gets Hot causes a hit. A glancing hit is still a hit.

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's trolling because its absolutely nothing like the current situation

I was told over and over on this very page (11) that "if it is not a snap shot, then it can not hit a zooming flyer (Unless it has specific permission to do so)"

I brought up the Ork Blitza-Bommer first (S9 hit) , but most people don't have the White Dwarf rules.

Gets Hot causes a hit. A glancing hit is still a hit.

Absolutely false.
A hit in this context is something that turns into a glancing/penetrating hit or wound.
Or are you saying that a cover save negates the hit entirely, meaning that a jinking FMC that passes its save does not have to make a grounding test?
(Hint - you'd be wrong)

Cover saves can and often do negate glancing hits to vehicles. (p75)

I have never really thought about them negating the Gets Hot rule hits. That would probably be decent topic for a new post.

I cannot speak to the jinking FMC. I don't know the grounding test rules well enough.

foolishmortal wrote:
Cover saves can and often do negate glancing hits to vehicles. (p75)

I have never really thought about them negating the Gets Hot rule hits. That would probably be decent topic for a new post.

I cannot speak to the jinking FMC. I don't know the grounding test rules well enough.

Yes, they do negate glancing hits.
They do not negate the original hit. If the hit would cause an Entropic Strike and allow a cover save, the ES roll would still happen. Your equating of the hit and glancing hit would mean that it wouldn't happen.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your equating of the hit and glancing hit would mean that it wouldn't happen.

I did not equate hits and glancing hits. That would make them interchangeable, and would be silly. If you think I did equate them, please show me where. iirc,I said a blank cat is a cat.

A glancing hit is one type of hit. As I noted in earlier posts, there are certainly differences.

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Your equating of the hit and glancing hit would mean that it wouldn't happen.

I did not equate hits and glancing hits. That would make them interchangeable, and would be silly. If you think I did equate them, please show me where. iirc,I said a blank cat is a cat.

A glancing hit is one type of hit. As I noted in earlier posts, there are certainly differences.

In 40k, there are hits caused by to-hit rolls, and hits caused by penetration rolls. A glancing hit is the latter and a snap shot is dealing with the former. You've attempted to conflate the two situations by having a poll where you've asked if flyers can suffer from Gets Hot.

Hard to Hit can never and will never have any effect on penetration hits, only on attempts to hit. You cannot conflate a glancing hit into a to-hit roll, whic is what you've attempted to do, and is why in my opinion it's trolling.

Ah, I see where you are going. Fair enough. Before most glancing hits become glancing hits, they are hits, but the gets hot rule bypasses that.

Now I ask why did you call that trolling? It was a mistake on my part. If you think I don't make mistakes, you have probably not read very many of my posts.

You could have said "here is the rule that shows why this question is not relevant" but you went with an attack on my intent. Why?

Also, let me know if you have an opinion on the Blitza-Boomer - as I said, it's a S9 automatic hit that the bommer suffers when it rolls a 3 or 4 on it's special rule bomming run.

foolishmortal wrote:
Ah, I see where you are going. Fair enough. Before most glancing hits become glancing hits, they are hits, but the gets hot rule bypasses that.

Now I ask why did you call that trolling? It was a mistake on my part. If you think I don't make mistakes, you have probably not read very many of my posts.

You could have said "here is the rule that shows why this question is not relevant" but you went with an attack on my intent. Why?

Because I pointed out that difference the third post in the Gets Hot thread. You chose to ignore it, instead you replied to other people.
It's also a rather obvious difference.

Also, let me know if you have an opinion on the Blitza-Boomer - as I said, it's a S9 automatic hit that the bommer suffers when it rolls a 3 or 4 on it's special rule bomming run.

I don't have an opinion due to not having access to the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
Because I pointed out that difference the third post in the Gets Hot thread. You chose to ignore it, instead you replied to other people.
It's also a rather obvious difference.

yeah, I read what you and nosferatu1001 wrote about being out of context, but I misunderstood. I thought you were poking fun at someone else, not my OP.

I edited the OP to include the distinction. I would have preferred if one of you had said why I was wrong, rather than just the mocking. I would have corrected myself sooner and felt less like an idiot. Maybe not much less, but every little bit helps.

None of this is relevant because it boils down to, can LoTS hit a zooming flyer.

It is a special rule, not a weapon. It is not a shooting attack as no one is shooting it, it has no LoS restriction, and it itself is never defined as one which means that the FAQ is relevant.

Do I expect GW to go into every FAQ and say that something can or cannot hit a flyer? no.

Do I expect GW to make a blanket FAQ ruling that special abilities that cause damage cant hit a zooming flyer if they intended it that way? Absolutly.

foolishmortal wrote:
Sometimes I even put up polls. Not because they are admissible as evidence, but because they allow for more participation in the process.

But they dont. The answers are designed to sway the vote therefore making it nothing more than a simple ploy to gain agreement. Gets Hot, nor a Model's own special rule apply to the HTH/ LotS ability.

LotS can hit flyers.

It saddens me that this argument has gone on this long, but since apparently there is a "gray area (not really, but this is the internet after all)" I would say to make sure that you irritate your long-suffering LGS owner by asking them to make a house rule about it. At least then you would know what to expect, one way or the the other, until GW releases a FAQ on the subject.

 Monster Rain wrote:
LotS can hit flyers.

Not true as:
4)LotS is not a shooting attack.
Since this is true.

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

And this is true.

Then this conclusion is true:

You can not affect a Zooming flyer with the LotS rule, since the LotS rule is not a shooting attack, and therefore can not make snap shots, which is the only thing that can hit a Zooming Flyer (without other specific permission (reference Vector Strike)).

 Monster Rain wrote:
LotS can hit flyers.

Why would you bother coming into an 12 page thread thread and just post that as your argument? Unless you're goal is to be ignored or mocked, you should explain your position or you're adding nothing to the discussion.

The rest of your comment makes some sense and is what I'll be doing for a tournament coming up in a couple of weeks.

- edit -

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
LotS can hit flyers.

Not true as:
4)LotS is not a shooting attack.
Since this is true.

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

And this is true.

Then this conclusion is true:

You can not affect a Zooming flyer with the LotS rule, since the LotS rule is not a shooting attack, and therefore can not make snap shots, which is the only thing that can hit a Zooming Flyer (without other specific permission (reference Vector Strike)).

This is akin to,

Since A = X and 4 = carrot, monkey = ¥. So in other words, it doesn't make sense.

First and foremost, LotS is not a shooting attack as mentioned and the necessary "vector strike" type exception is in the rule itself when it tells you what is affected by the ability (unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield).

Secondly, you purposely omit context for your FAQ answer to support your argument. The question is in regard to how maelstrom, nova, beam, or any other WEAPON that does not hit or hits automatically interacts with flyers. The answer is specific to the question which does not address an abolitly like LotS.

Don't hide the facts to make your argument.

So if it is not a WEAPON, then it can not add its Strength to the D6 armor pen roll when it hits a vehicle...

Or it is a WEAPON/Attack and the FAQ applies.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So if it is not a WEAPON, then it can not add its Strength to the D6 armor pen roll when it hits a vehicle...

Or it is a WEAPON/Attack and the FAQ applies.

Actually it is not a weapon and therefore armor pentration cannot be resolved. However that is not the question at hand which is can LotS hit flyer, zooming or. Ot, which is a resounding yes.

The breakdown in the RAW language for armor penetration does not lend you any evidence in this argument. It is a separate issue to address altogether as that language also affects certain terrain and other game abilities and how they affect vehicles as well.

Either:

1) It is not a weapon and you do nothing against vehicles. (and you break the game).

2) It is a weapon, the FAQ kicks in and you do nothing against flyers. (And no game breakage).

Either way it is the same result.

I lean towards the 2nd one as it does not break the game.

Option 2 should say "do nothing against flyers"

 DeathReaper wrote:
Either:

1) It is not a weapon and you do nothing against vehicles. (and you break the game).

2) It is a weapon, the FAQ kicks in and you do nothing against vehicles. (And no game breakage).

Either way it is the same result.

I lean towards the 2nd one as it does not break the game.

With this Stance, Everything that isn't a weapon that causes hits breaks the game.
How to resolve hits from non-weapons is a different issue. It's beyond the scope of just Lightning vs Flyer.
If you disregard Imotekh, you are still left with hits behind caused by things that are not weapons.
I'm more inclined to say that Lightning does work against vehicles (leaving flyer out of it), because to say it doesn't work means that tank shocking, and a handful of other effects break the game.

Do we need a thread on non-weapons that cause hits, or can we agree that tank shocking does something?

-Matt

 undertow wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
LotS can hit flyers.

Why would you bother coming into an 12 page thread thread and just post that as your argument? .

It's not an argument. It's my interpretation of the rules as I read them, and it adds weight to arguments given by others to people who might be simply reading the thread to get an idea of how other people are leaning.

Relax.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
First and foremost, LotS is not a shooting attack as mentioned and the necessary "vector strike" type exception is in the rule itself when it tells you what is affected by the ability (unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield).

Secondly, you purposely omit context for your FAQ answer to support your argument. The question is in regard to how maelstrom, nova, beam, or any other WEAPON that does not hit or hits automatically interacts with flyers. The answer is specific to the question which does not address an abolitly like LotS.

The argument that LotS is not a weapon is just dumb. It's something used to attack the other player. It's an offensive ability. Not only that, but the newest Necron FAQ says this:

You’ll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Don’t worry – these are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this document.

Note that the description for LotS says:

... the unit is struck by a bolt of lightning and suffers D6, Strength 8, AP 5 hits

That looks an awful lot like a longhand description of a weapon to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
LotS can hit flyers.

Why would you bother coming into an 12 page thread thread and just post that as your argument? .

It's not an argument. It's my interpretation of the rules as I read them, and it adds weight to arguments given by others to people who might be simply reading the thread to get an idea of how other people are leaning.

Relax.

That's fine, but without adding any reasoning for your opinion, you might as well just have said:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm not wearing pants!!

 undertow wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm not wearing pants!!

I'm not.

Not that it's any of your business.

At any rate, Lord of the Storm is an ability, not a weapon. I reject any premise stating otherwise. If you roll a 6 for an unengaged enemy unit, it generates hits as described in the Necron codex. There's some interesting context provided in the FAQ regarding the effect of shrouding and stealth on LotS, so we can clearly show it doesn't follow the rules for normal weapons.

I have revised the above as I meant to say flyers and I said vehicles.

here it is in its proper form.

Either:

1) It is not a weapon and you do nothing against vehicles. (and you break the game).

2) It is a weapon, the FAQ kicks in and you do nothing against flyers. (And no game breakage).

Either way it is the same result.

I lean towards the 2nd one as it does not break the game.

If you want to argue that LoTS is not a weapon, that is fine, but then it does not get to add its Strength to the D6 roll for armor pen...

Which is nonsense, since the ability deals a S8 hit.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Which is nonsense, since the ability deals a S8 hit.

Right but if you read the armor pen rules on P. 73, you will see that you add the Weapon's Strength to the D6 roll.

If LoTS is not a weapon, you can not add its str to the D6 roll.

Or:

It is a weapon, the FAQ kicks in and you do nothing against flyers. (And no game breakage).

Either way it is the same result.

I read "weapon" as "thing dealing the damage" in this context.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I read "weapon" as "thing dealing the damage" in this context.

So LoTS is a "Weapon" as it is the "thing dealing the damage"

You have to apply that definition universally, so you apply it to the FAQ as well as the BRB quote I gave.

And you have the end result of the Lightning not being able to hit flyers.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I read "weapon" as "thing dealing the damage" in this context.

So LoTS is a "Weapon" as it is the "thing dealing the damage"

You have to apply that definition universally, so you apply it to the FAQ as well as the BRB quote I gave.

And you have the end result of the Lightning not being able to hit flyers.

So what's the "weapon" when you Ram? And, if I roll up Weapon Destroyed, what are my options to remove?
I'm playing by your rules for debate here, so:
You have to apply that definition universally, if you're claiming the tank is the weapon in the ramming attack, then anything that can ram can be removed by a weapon destroyed.

-Matt

He's also ignoring the fact that LotS doesn't follow other rules for shooting weapons according to the FAQ.

If the ram does damage, so too should LotS.

 Monster Rain wrote:
He's also ignoring the fact that LotS doesn't follow other rules for shooting weapons according to the FAQ.

If the ram does damage, so too should LotS.

Who said anything about shooting weapons?

the Armor pen rules only say to add the str of the weapon to the D6 roll.

Now since it would be silly to not allow things that are not specifically weapons, like Ram's and PSA's, to roll for armor pen, we need to lump them into the "Weapon" category for the rules to work.

And since we must do that for the rules to work, they can not hit Zooming flyers, as only snap shots can hit zooming flyers, and LoTS is not a Snap Shot.

So either LoTS does not hit units. and does not work at all.

Or LOTS does hit units, and still can not hit flyers because they can not be fired as snap shots.

You're seriously just making stuff up now.

He tends to do that.

DR, your premise that somehow the inability to pen armor due to the RAW of that rule somehow validates your thought that LotS cannot hit flyers is flawed. Your assumption that you just "lump" non-weapon hits into the weapon category is also flawed.

As it stands, there is no RAW that prevents LotS from hitting zooming flyers either in the Hard to Hit rule or the subsequent FAQ. The only RAW that exists regarding LotS or any other non-weapon hits for that matter, is in regard to armor pen and even rolling to wound IIRC.

However, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

My rules quotes are "Made Up"?

Interesting...

The rules as written say to add the weapons strength to the D6 roll...

Via Permissive ruleset, we can not add a non weapons str to the D6 roll. unless we take a loose interpretation of weapon to mean anything that does damage to the enemy.

 DeathReaper wrote:
My rules quotes are "Made Up"?

Interesting...

The rules as written say to ass the weapons strength to the D6 roll...

Via Permissive ruleset, we can not add a non weapons str to the D6 roll. unless we take a loose interpretation of weapon to mean anything that does damage to the enemy.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. That RAW debacle is for another thread.

And if you want to use a loose interpretation with weapons regarding armor pen, I can use a strict interpretation in regard to the FAQ in that it ONLY applies to actual weapons, not loose interpretations of weapons.

And thus if we "use a strict interpretation in regard to the FAQ in that it ONLY applies to actual weapons, not loose interpretations of weapons."

Then we also have to use a strict interpretation in regards to Armor pen. and that means ONLY Weapons get to add their strength to the D6 roll to pen a vehicle.

Or we go with both as a loose interpretation and any non weapons, like the Lightning, get to add their Str to pen rolls, but that also means that the lightning can not hit a zooming flyer.

Either way Lighting does nothing to flyers.

LotS has no specific permission to hit flyers. And that should be enough since the faq is clear: only snap shots can hit a flyer.

DR is trying to say that if you try to rule lawyer that LotS should hit flyers using a "very strict RAW" argument, then he can use another "very strict RAW" argument to make LotS not damage any vehicle at all.

text removed. Don't post things like this on Dakka.
Reds8n

you have to roll a 6 to do any damage anyway.

I know a bunch of people a strung up about this considering it game breaking, but you a paying for a character who may only get to do this for one round and thats it without doing any damage... meanwhile, you have marine characters that can do reliable and threatening damage consistently on a 2+

the fact of the matter is if its wears power armor, its meant to win... leave us cron players alone, as we'll be in the same boat we were before 3 years ago where everyone had a codex stronger than ours. anything spelled "rokkit" should not be a legitimate threat... sorry

This has nothing to do with the rules of the game. When you go in a tournament you should be prepared to play by the correct rules. If you play a friendly game, do as you want.

And for the record I am a Necron player too.

there is a big difference between rules, and a bunch of geeks arguing over something based on a small twist of words that makes it convenient or inconvenient for a particular player... this, to me, is very similar to cowardice and cheating... its a game... competitive or not, you dont get to ride in the first class section on a ride to heaven, you dont get another shot at the one that got away, and you certainly dont become a freakin' super hero... Youre that guy Im going to laugh at when I death or glory your Nemesis dreadknight with a rhino, and you cry that thats not fair.

and for the record,what does that have to do with anything? most consider necrons to be over powered and will look for any excuse to raise hell in order to get something FAQ'd to make them more secure about their little plastic men lol... give me a break

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
there is a big difference between rules, and a bunch of geeks arguing over something based on a small twist of words that makes it convenient or inconvenient for a particular player... this, to me, is very similar to cowardice and cheating... its a game... competitive or not, you dont get to ride in the first class section on a ride to heaven, you dont get another shot at the one that got away, and you certainly dont become a freakin' super hero... Youre that guy Im going to laugh at when I death or glory your Nemesis dreadknight with a rhino, and you cry that thats not fair.

and for the record,what does that have to do with anything? most consider necrons to be over powered and will look for any excuse to raise hell in order to get something FAQ'd to make them more secure about their little plastic men lol... give me a break

I'm sorry LoTS cannot hit zooming flyers/FMC's because the rules kinda say so. I'm sorry necrons don't get every advantage in the game.

BTW, how are you supposed to DoG with a Rhino?

You must be one of those jaded players I was talking about... too bad really. What happened? did you get tabled by a bunch of necron warriors? you dont have to be ashamed to admit it. thats how it should be lol

And you know what Im talking, stop pretending like you started playing the game... you tank shock a model and they attempt a death or glory if they wish to do so.

They were pointing out that your sentence didnt parse - you dont "death or glory" with a rhino, as you stated, the NDK performs a Death or Glory! and if failed is removed. You just didnt actually manage to write a coherent sentence there.

I would suggest, before you continue posting in YMDC, that you STOP ascribing negatives to others motives in a debate; it makes your argument really easy to ignore

Its called lingo here on planet earth. I was under the assumption that this was a friendly forum where you werent being followed like a fugitive.

speaking of which... if my argument is so easy to ignore why are you saying something about it? isnt that ascribing to a negative? or did you get a hug from a warscythe too and just cant stand another necron player making sense on your home turf?

Yes, it is a friendly text based forum, where constructing coherent sentences is an aid to understanding. Your comment about DoG a NDK with a rhino didnt make sense, so I was pointing out why James was having issues. ITs called trying to be helpful, good to know how you respond to that.

If by "making sense" you mean "ignoring rules", then yes, you are "making sense"

Again, you assume anyone arguing against you must not be a necron player. I will gve you a hint - you are wrong on this.

text deleted.
Reds8n

You need to step back, take a breather, whatever. You're being far too antagonistic and rude.

Okay, Let me see if I can understand where we are right now. There appears to be a RAW debate as to wether a special ability that is not described as a weapon in its rules can inflict damage on a vehicle. If it could not, then we could easily assume that you could not ram either. Obviously you can so that argument should be lain to rest. my previous argument, that LotS is a special ability, which is not disqualified by the HtH rule, and not disqualified directly by the FAQ like most other abilities, and therefor able to hti a zooming flyer still stands.

Can we continue from there?

hey Red! long time no see... you know I can be alot worse though... you gotta be a little proud that Im doing better right?

In all seriousness though, lightning hit a flier is legal lol

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
hey Red! long time no see... you know I can be alot worse though... you gotta be a little proud that Im doing better right?

In all seriousness though, lightning hit a flier is legal lol

Please follow th tenets of this forum by using actual rules in an argument

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
hey Red! long time no see... you know I can be alot worse though... you gotta be a little proud that Im doing better right?

I'm sure that if you put your mind to it you could craft weapons from words that would wound the Gods themselves, leave daemons weeping and searching for redemption and leave injuries that an eternity of time will not heal. Yet, mainly due to those pesky ol' forum rules, code of conduct and basic human decency that we expect users to abide by, we'd much rather you left such artifices for elsewhere and elsewhen, mayhaps for situations slightly more important that the ins and outs and whathaveyous of a game of toy soldiers.

Makes for a better experience for all.

Thank you.

copper.talos wrote:
LotS has no specific permission to hit flyers. And that should be enough since the faq is clear: only snap shots can hit a flyer.

DR is trying to say that if you try to rule lawyer that LotS should hit flyers using a "very strict RAW" argument, then he can use another "very strict RAW" argument to make LotS not damage any vehicle at all.

Have to applaude you for making a logial interpretation, with the fact that you are still a Necron player. This is not meant to be sarcastic in any way just a small salute.

And it's nice that we for once agree on something

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Okay, Let me see if I can understand where we are right now. There appears to be a RAW debate as to wether a special ability that is not described as a weapon in its rules can inflict damage on a vehicle. If it could not, then we could easily assume that you could not ram either. Obviously you can so that argument should be lain to rest. my previous argument, that LotS is a special ability, which is not disqualified by the HtH rule, and not disqualified directly by the FAQ like most other abilities, and therefor able to hti a zooming flyer still stands.

Can we continue from there?

Sure. I think the debate about if something not described as a weapon can inflict damage on a vehicle is a distraction. I posted this in on page 12 of this thread, but for reference, I'll post it again (from the newest Necron FAQ):

You’ll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Don’t worry – these are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this document.

Note that the description for LotS says:

... the unit is struck by a bolt of lightning and suffers D6, Strength 8, AP 5 hits

That looks an awful lot like a longhand description of a weapon to me. If you don't think LotS is a weapon please explain why.

Because it is listed as a special rule and not a weapon. Its not in the wargear section, nor is it ever reffered to as a weapon. It dosent use Imo's LOS, or BS, or any of his other characteristics. I feel like you need more than a strength and AP to be considered a weapon, especially because as the profile stands right now, it is almost completely a seperate entity. It dosent follow night fighting rules, and isint described as a shooting attack. I am left to belive, with all of these things that are (or arent as it was) here it is not a "weapon" by wording of the rules.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Because it is listed as a special rule and not a weapon. Its not in the wargear section, nor is it ever reffered to as a weapon. It dosent use Imo's LOS, or BS, or any of his other characteristics. I feel like you need more than a strength and AP to be considered a weapon, especially because as the profile stands right now, it is almost completely a seperate entity. It dosent follow night fighting rules, and isint described as a shooting attack. I am left to belive, with all of these things that are (or arent as it was) here it is not a "weapon" by wording of the rules.

I disagree that LotS isn't a weapon. It has a range (the entire board), Strength, AP and some special rules that determine if it hits. It is my opinion that it is a weapon written 'longhand'. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

In any case, I think that if LotS is a weapon is largely irrelevant. the BRB FAQrules say 'only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Monstrous Creatures'. It doesn't say 'weapons can only hit with snap shots', or 'hits from weapons must be fired as snap shots'. That is a very specific rule, 'only snap shots' means exactly that. I really don't see any wiggle room. The only thing that would bypass that is if an ability or rule or weapon grants specific permission to hit flyers, as Vector Strike does.

Please explain why 'only snap shots' doesn't apply to LotS.

That is a good point. I was under the impression that the wording for hard to hit was "Weapons or Attacks resolved against a flyer must be resolved as snapshots"

Now that I see the FAQ is all inclusive, I will conceed the argument.

Had to backtrack to page 9 to get the FAQ again but I see your point. I don't know how I've missed that post with as many times as I'm sure people have been using it.

 undertow wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Because it is listed as a special rule and not a weapon. Its not in the wargear section, nor is it ever reffered to as a weapon. It dosent use Imo's LOS, or BS, or any of his other characteristics. I feel like you need more than a strength and AP to be considered a weapon, especially because as the profile stands right now, it is almost completely a seperate entity. It dosent follow night fighting rules, and isint described as a shooting attack. I am left to belive, with all of these things that are (or arent as it was) here it is not a "weapon" by wording of the rules.

I disagree that LotS isn't a weapon. It has a range (the entire board), Strength, AP and some special rules that determine if it hits. It is my opinion that it is a weapon written 'longhand'. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

In any case, I think that if LotS is a weapon is largely irrelevant. the BRB FAQrules say 'only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Monstrous Creatures'. It doesn't say 'weapons can only hit with snap shots', or 'hits from weapons must be fired as snap shots'. That is a very specific rule, 'only snap shots' means exactly that. I really don't see any wiggle room. The only thing that would bypass that is if an ability or rule or weapon grants specific permission to hit flyers, as Vector Strike does.

Please explain why 'only snap shots' doesn't apply to LotS.

If the FAQ question was,

"What can hit a zooming flyer?"

Then, "only snap shots can hit a zooming flyer" would cover LotS. The problem you have is the same as DR in that you are removing context of the question and only nitpicking your answer. The question is specific to weapons and types of psychic shooting attacks that either automatically hit or do not roll to hit. That mechanic of those weapon/psychic shooting attacks is overridden by the "only snap shots can hit zooming flyers". The answer is specific and addressed to the question at hand.

For you to insist that the "only snap shots can hit zooming flyers" is all encompassing and not specific to the question, you negate any and all non-weapon hits on a zooming flyer, including special terrain or game effects that deliver non-weapon hits.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Because it is listed as a special rule and not a weapon. Its not in the wargear section, nor is it ever reffered to as a weapon. It dosent use Imo's LOS, or BS, or any of his other characteristics. I feel like you need more than a strength and AP to be considered a weapon, especially because as the profile stands right now, it is almost completely a seperate entity. It dosent follow night fighting rules, and isint described as a shooting attack. I am left to belive, with all of these things that are (or arent as it was) here it is not a "weapon" by wording of the rules.

I disagree that LotS isn't a weapon. It has a range (the entire board), Strength, AP and some special rules that determine if it hits. It is my opinion that it is a weapon written 'longhand'. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

In any case, I think that if LotS is a weapon is largely irrelevant. the BRB FAQrules say 'only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Monstrous Creatures'. It doesn't say 'weapons can only hit with snap shots', or 'hits from weapons must be fired as snap shots'. That is a very specific rule, 'only snap shots' means exactly that. I really don't see any wiggle room. The only thing that would bypass that is if an ability or rule or weapon grants specific permission to hit flyers, as Vector Strike does.

Please explain why 'only snap shots' doesn't apply to LotS.

If the FAQ question was,

"What can hit a zooming flyer?"

Then, "only snap shots can hit a zooming flyer" would cover LotS. The problem you have is the same as DR in that you are removing context of the question and only nitpicking your answer. The question is specific to weapons and types of psychic shooting attacks that either automatically hit or do not roll to hit. That mechanic of those weapon/psychic shooting attacks is overridden by the "only snap shots can hit zooming flyers". The answer is specific and addressed to the question at hand.

For you to insist that the "only snap shots can hit zooming flyers" is all encompassing and not specific to the question, you negate any and all non-weapon hits on a zooming flyer, including special terrain or game effects that deliver non-weapon hits.

Could you supply some examples of these special terrain or game effects that deliver non-weapon hits?

 undertow wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Because it is listed as a special rule and not a weapon. Its not in the wargear section, nor is it ever reffered to as a weapon. It dosent use Imo's LOS, or BS, or any of his other characteristics. I feel like you need more than a strength and AP to be considered a weapon, especially because as the profile stands right now, it is almost completely a seperate entity. It dosent follow night fighting rules, and isint described as a shooting attack. I am left to belive, with all of these things that are (or arent as it was) here it is not a "weapon" by wording of the rules.

I disagree that LotS isn't a weapon. It has a range (the entire board), Strength, AP and some special rules that determine if it hits. It is my opinion that it is a weapon written 'longhand'. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

In any case, I think that if LotS is a weapon is largely irrelevant. the BRB FAQrules say 'only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Monstrous Creatures'. It doesn't say 'weapons can only hit with snap shots', or 'hits from weapons must be fired as snap shots'. That is a very specific rule, 'only snap shots' means exactly that. I really don't see any wiggle room. The only thing that would bypass that is if an ability or rule or weapon grants specific permission to hit flyers, as Vector Strike does.

Please explain why 'only snap shots' doesn't apply to LotS.

If the FAQ question was,

"What can hit a zooming flyer?"

Then, "only snap shots can hit a zooming flyer" would cover LotS. The problem you have is the same as DR in that you are removing context of the question and only nitpicking your answer. The question is specific to weapons and types of psychic shooting attacks that either automatically hit or do not roll to hit. That mechanic of those weapon/psychic shooting attacks is overridden by the "only snap shots can hit zooming flyers". The answer is specific and addressed to the question at hand.

For you to insist that the "only snap shots can hit zooming flyers" is all encompassing and not specific to the question, you negate any and all non-weapon hits on a zooming flyer, including special terrain or game effects that deliver non-weapon hits.

Could you supply some examples of these special terrain or game effects that deliver non-weapon hits?

Ether crystals affecting a deep striking flyer which counts as zooming.

That's the first thing that comes to mind.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Because it is listed as a special rule and not a weapon. Its not in the wargear section, nor is it ever reffered to as a weapon. It dosent use Imo's LOS, or BS, or any of his other characteristics. I feel like you need more than a strength and AP to be considered a weapon, especially because as the profile stands right now, it is almost completely a seperate entity. It dosent follow night fighting rules, and isint described as a shooting attack. I am left to belive, with all of these things that are (or arent as it was) here it is not a "weapon" by wording of the rules.

I disagree that LotS isn't a weapon. It has a range (the entire board), Strength, AP and some special rules that determine if it hits. It is my opinion that it is a weapon written 'longhand'. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

In any case, I think that if LotS is a weapon is largely irrelevant. the BRB FAQrules say 'only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Monstrous Creatures'. It doesn't say 'weapons can only hit with snap shots', or 'hits from weapons must be fired as snap shots'. That is a very specific rule, 'only snap shots' means exactly that. I really don't see any wiggle room. The only thing that would bypass that is if an ability or rule or weapon grants specific permission to hit flyers, as Vector Strike does.

Please explain why 'only snap shots' doesn't apply to LotS.

If the FAQ question was,

"What can hit a zooming flyer?"

Then, "only snap shots can hit a zooming flyer" would cover LotS. The problem you have is the same as DR in that you are removing context of the question and only nitpicking your answer. The question is specific to weapons and types of psychic shooting attacks that either automatically hit or do not roll to hit. That mechanic of those weapon/psychic shooting attacks is overridden by the "only snap shots can hit zooming flyers". The answer is specific and addressed to the question at hand.

For you to insist that the "only snap shots can hit zooming flyers" is all encompassing and not specific to the question, you negate any and all non-weapon hits on a zooming flyer, including special terrain or game effects that deliver non-weapon hits.

Could you supply some examples of these special terrain or game effects that deliver non-weapon hits?

Ether crystals affecting a deep striking flyer which counts as zooming.

That's the first thing that comes to mind.

There is another game effect of lightning storms and then also some terrain features like vines and something else that deliver hits. I am at my office so core rulebook is at home, but there are some under the mysterious terrain and then ongoing game effects. I will post up the others when I get back home.

The lightning from that special game rules is a blast marker however. Not to mention that flyers ignore terrain, which would (or should?) include the effects of the mysterious terrain you're referencing.

I see your points about non-weapon effects such as mysterious terrain, but I don't see how they're excepted from the Hard to Hit rule. For example, the Carnivorous Jungle type, units in the terrain at the start of their shooting phase take D3 auto hits. They don't affect flyers as they're auto hit, non-snap shot, with no specific permission to hit flyers. In looking at the rest of the terrain types, I really don't see any that would affect flyers.

I also see your point about taking the 'only snap shots' out of context of the entire question. I don't agree with you on this one. The way I read it is the question is a specific one, asking how maelstroms, novas and beams, or any auto-hit weapons interact with flyers. The answer is a general one saying that 'only snap shots' can hit them.

It's already been mentioned in this thread, but the arguments you're using are generally the same ones people used before the FAQ to justify Mawlocs hitting flyers. People said that although it uses a large blast marker it could hit flyers because the language in the BRB said 'weapon', and they claimed that TFtD wasn't a weapon (which I find ridiculous BTW). The Tyranid FAQ said it couldn't, although I'll concede that it doesn't say why explicitly, it seems fairly obvious that this is because a marker of some sort is involved. I think there are a lot of parallels to this debate. You're saying the rules disallowing auto-hits don't apply because LotS isn't a weapon. I'm saying the language in the answer is all inclusive. Only means only. Whatever the source of the hit, if it isn't as a snap shot it cannot hit unless given permission to do so.

Okay, I have internet. All things with a profile are weapons still. The reason you can't negate this with a ram is two fold:
1) A ram attack has no profile and it only gives any indication of strength if the vehicle has moved at cruising speed. It physically doesn't exist until the vehicle moves at cruising speed (p86 last paragraph, first sentence).
2) It has no AP and thus doesn't satisfy the weapon profile requirements. Armour penetration is done due to explicit permission to do so (p86 fourth paragraph on the right, after italicised section). We must make a logical assumption this bypasses the weapon wording or it doesn't work at all.

So no, it still all applies. The game makes LotS a weapon by its own definition. Unless it bypasses the rules explicitly (it doesn't) then it has to follow.

Eyjio wrote:
Okay, I have internet. All things with a profile are weapons still. The reason you can't negate this with a ram is two fold:
1) A ram attack has no profile and it only gives any indication of strength if the vehicle has moved at cruising speed. It physically doesn't exist until the vehicle moves at cruising speed (p86 last paragraph, first sentence).
2) It has no AP and thus doesn't satisfy the weapon profile requirements. Armour penetration is done due to explicit permission to do so (p86 fourth paragraph on the right, after italicised section). We must make a logical assumption this bypasses the weapon wording or it doesn't work at all.

So no, it still all applies. The game makes LotS a weapon by its own definition. Unless it bypasses the rules explicitly (it doesn't) then it has to follow.

To be fair, the rules for AP on page 17 do say "nearly all weapons have an armour penetration value".

Don't forget vehicle explosions and flying mc's or flyers causing themselves a glancing hit due to a get's hot roll... but again, you'll be told that those aren't snap shots either... sigh

 Crablezworth wrote:
Don't forget vehicle explosions and flying mc's or flyers causing themselves a glancing hit due to a get's hot roll... but again, you'll be told that those aren't snap shots either... sigh

My interpretation is that Gets Hot! has permission to hit the vehicle that caused it.

Exploding vehicles however, cannot hit, as they have no permission to do so.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Don't forget vehicle explosions and flying mc's or flyers causing themselves a glancing hit due to a get's hot roll... but again, you'll be told that those aren't snap shots either... sigh

Glancing Hits caused by Gets Hot work just fine on flyers, because Glancing hits are damage results, not hits as defined in Shooting rules and in the FAQ. Same goes for FMC's, because Get Hots causes Wound, not an Hits.
Now vehicle explosions don't affect flyers, exactly as the FAQ said.

Edit: If someone tries to argue that "Glancing/Penetrating Hit" is a hit in the shooting sense, just point out to them that S10 weapon therefore causes infinite Penetrating Hits on a vehicle.

Why would an explosion not hit a flying mc if it's within the distance of the explosion? The explosion rules are not shooting attacks, that's actually part of the problem currently with the explosion rules, there is no method given for wounding. They also make no distinction as to what kind of unit they hit, obviously at S3 they can't hurt a vehicle but they could hurt a flying mc or any other kind of unit.

Because an explosion from a vehicle is not a snap shot. You may think that logically a big enough explosion should affect flyers but the rules forbid it.

copper.talos wrote:
Because an explosion from a vehicle is not a snap shot. You may think that logically a big enough explosion should affect flyers but the rules forbid it.

Oh look, another nit picked quote from the FAQ completely without context to the question asked. This thread is full of them.

I find it funny that you all pick that part of the answer but then do not quote the rest of the asnwer that actually shows you the connection between the question and the answer and how they are specific to eachother.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
Because an explosion from a vehicle is not a snap shot. You may think that logically a big enough explosion should affect flyers but the rules forbid it.

Oh look, another nit picked quote from the FAQ completely without context to the question asked. This thread is full of them.

I find it funny that you all pick that part of the answer but then do not quote the rest of the answer that actually shows you the connection between the question and the answer and how they are specific to each other.

Because, like some other faq answers, that answer is a very broad answer to a specific question and it applies to more situations than just the question that was asked.

We know, from that FAQ, that snap shots are the only thing that can hit Zooming flyers. So logic says that anything that is not a snap shot can not hit Zooming flyers. It is just that simple.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
Because an explosion from a vehicle is not a snap shot. You may think that logically a big enough explosion should affect flyers but the rules forbid it.

Oh look, another nit picked quote from the FAQ completely without context to the question asked. This thread is full of them.

I find it funny that you all pick that part of the answer but then do not quote the rest of the answer that actually shows you the connection between the question and the answer and how they are specific to each other.

Because, like some other faq answers, that answer is a very broad answer to a specific question and it applies to more situations than just the question that was asked.

We know, from that FAQ, that snap shots are the only thing that can hit Zooming flyers. So logic says that anything that is not a snap shot can not hit Zooming flyers. It is just that simple.

Where the hell are you getting that it is a broad answer? The question is specific to maelstrom, beam, nova, or any other weapon that automatically hits or do not roll to hit. The answer then goes on to specify those specific types of shooting attacks.

Again, how the hell is that a broad answer when it specifically references the question?

"Only Snap shots can hit a zooming flyer, or FMC" applies to everything that can hit them, even though the specific question was about weapons.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Only Snap shots can hit a zooming flyer, or FMC" applies to everything that can hit them, even though the specific question was about weapons.

This. Or do you in the NO group honestly expect GW to explicitly call out EVERY single ability, rule, weapon or effect in the game and how it works with flyers or other special cases?

 undertow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Only Snap shots can hit a zooming flyer, or FMC" applies to everything that can hit them, even though the specific question was about weapons.

This. Or do you in the NO group honestly expect GW to explicitly call out EVERY single ability, rule, weapon or effect in the game and how it works with flyers or other special cases?

I'd "expect" them to be consistent and coherent with their rules, but they have a track record of not being so, so yes everything will be questioned all the time.

That isn't what it actually says. I'd agree you are trying to 'apply' it to everything, but the question itself only explicitly applies it to the items listed within it.

edit: and yes i expect them to specifically indicate each rule that it interacts with in a consistent fashion. I do agree with the prior poster who indicated this is often not the case though.

 Kevin949 wrote:
The lightning from that special game rules is a blast marker however. Not to mention that flyers ignore terrain, which would (or should?) include the effects of the mysterious terrain you're referencing.

You don't actually know the rules do you? You just seem to spout of what you think or what has been repeated many times as rules when they are not, and you do it with a confidence that doesn't really make people challenge you.

Zooming Flyers do not ignore terrain first of all. They can move over intervening units/impassable terrain and do not take DT test if it starts or stops over difficult, dangerous, or impassable terrain.

So, page 102 details Forests, Jungles, and Woods, which are always at least difficult terrain. Number 3 of the Mysterious Forest Table is Carnivorous Jungle, which if a Zooming Flyer ends up being in, "at the start of their Shooting pahse, it suffers D3 automatic hits resolved at Strength 5, AP -". Hits on vehicles are resolved against rear armor.

Now look to page 106, Archeotech Artefacts: Booby Trap

To address the point you try to make about Lightning Storm on page 367, it uses the small blast marker. That does not make it a blast weapon as prohibited on page 81, Hard to Hit. If need be, read page 33 to familiarize yourself with blast weapons.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
The lightning from that special game rules is a blast marker however. Not to mention that flyers ignore terrain, which would (or should?) include the effects of the mysterious terrain you're referencing.

You don't actually know the rules do you? You just seem to spout of what you think or what has been repeated many times as rules when they are not, and you do it with a confidence that doesn't really make people challenge you.

Zooming Flyers do not ignore terrain first of all. They can move over intervening units/impassable terrain and do not take DT test if it starts or stops over difficult, dangerous, or impassable terrain.

So, page 102 details Forests, Jungles, and Woods, which are always at least difficult terrain. Number 3 of the Mysterious Forest Table is Carnivorous Jungle, which if a Zooming Flyer ends up being in, "at the start of their Shooting pahse, it suffers D3 automatic hits resolved at Strength 5, AP -". Hits on vehicles are resolved against rear armor.

Now look to page 106, Archeotech Artefacts: Booby Trap

To address the point you try to make about Lightning Storm on page 367, it uses the small blast marker. That does not make it a blast weapon as prohibited on page 81, Hard to Hit. If need be, read page 33 to familiarize yourself with blast weapons.

Well first off, sorry I don't have every facet of the rules memorized like you? I'll get right on that, JUST FOR YOU.

Regarding the lightning, it's absolutely considered a weapon. You just like to delude yourselves in thinking that since it's not carried by a model it's not a weapon.

Third, if a flyer didn't ignore terrain it would have to take dangerous terrain tests, no? Yes, the rule for flyers (specifically) say they don't but since the base of the flyer is ignored then there's no way they are ever in "area terrain" anyway, they're over it.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
You don't actually know the rules do you?

It's funny that you say this. Those terrain types you mentioned cause hits, flyers can only be hit by Snap Shots.

The funniest thing is that you're comparing effects from a weapon / special ability (BTW, I see no distinction between the two) to effects from terrain. I'll quote you to illustrate how silly you're being:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Since A = X and 4 = carrot, monkey = ¥. So in other words, it doesn't make sense.

For the record, I see hits from any source to be attacks. The FAQ is marvelously clear that 'Therefore, any ATTACKS that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don't roll to hit cannot target them'.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:That is a good point. I was under the impression that the wording for hard to hit was "Weapons or Attacks resolved against a flyer must be resolved as snapshots"

Now that I see the FAQ is all inclusive, I will conceed the argument.

The faq entry makes a broad statement to answer a specific question, but it is not a faq entry on Hard to Hit (p81). It clarifies Snap Snot (p13).

Neorealist wrote:That isn't what it actually says. I'd agree you are trying to 'apply' it to everything, but the question itself only explicitly applies it to the items listed within it.

edit: and yes i expect them to specifically indicate each rule that it interacts with in a consistent fashion. I do agree with the prior poster who indicated this is often not the case though.

This +1. If GW wants clarity on this issue, they should errata Hard to Hit.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Zooming Flyers do not ignore terrain first of all. They can move over intervening units/impassable terrain and do not take DT test if it starts or stops over difficult, dangerous, or impassable terrain.

This +1. The rules say what the rules say, no more, no less. It's sometimes helpful to paraphrase the above as "ignores all terrain" but a RAW discussion is not one of those times.

Kevin949 wrote:Well first off, sorry I don't have every facet of the rules memorized like you

I don't think we need to have all rules and updates memorized. But if we are posting somethinng as fact, try to double check. Also, I don't think we should come down on each other quite so hard when make a mistake. Somewhere in the middle is a nice balanced approach with phrases like 'iirc' and 'sorry, pXYZ disagrees.'

The idea that a weapon may or may not require a model is is interesting. The p50-62 weapons seem to all be wargear carried by models. Witchfire (PSA) "counts as firing an Assault weapon."
(p69)

 undertow wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
You don't actually know the rules do you?

It's funny that you say this. Those terrain types you mentioned cause hits, flyers can only be hit by Snap Shots.

The funniest thing is that you're comparing effects from a weapon / special ability (BTW, I see no distinction between the two) to effects from terrain. I'll quote you to illustrate how silly you're being:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Since A = X and 4 = carrot, monkey = ¥. So in other words, it doesn't make sense.

For the record, I see hits from any source to be attacks. The FAQ is marvelously clear that 'Therefore, any ATTACKS that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don't roll to hit cannot target them'.

You remind me of another poster that just regurgitates what has already been said without actually adressing the shortcomings of that statement that have been pointed out. In this case you keep parroting,

"Only snap shots can hit flyers.......brawk! Undertow wants a cracker!"

Despite that being a single sentence of a FAQ taken completely out of context. Read the entire entry and you see how that statement applies to a specific question regarding psychic shooting attacks and weapons that either automatically hit or do not roll to hit.

However the fact that you maintain there is no distinction between weapons, game effects, or terrain effects with stubborn indifference to what has been presented, there is no point in even trying to explain to you how the rules are written. So RAI away Undertow and pray for a TO that likes crackers just as much as you.

 undertow wrote:
Those terrain types you mentioned cause hits, flyers can only be hit by Snap Shots.

I think you are being overly broad in your reading of a faq entry. Specifically...

Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

You can't read the answer to a specific question as a new rule. If you could, I would look at the same v1.0a update and say other silly things.

Q: Do you get to Pile In twice in Fight sub-phase if you fight at two different Initiatives (i.e. a Techmarine with servo-harness)? (p22/23)
A: No. You Pile In once, at your highest Initiative step.

If I read this as a new rule, you now only get to pile in once, at your highest Initiative (so only the SM Captain if he is with Tactical Marines, or only the Marines if the Captain has a PF)

Q: Land Speeder Storms, Stormraven Gunships and Stormtalon Gunships are all listed as Space Marine vehicles in the Reference section. Does this mean that every Space Marine Chapter now has access to these vehicles as well (i.e. Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Grey Knights etc.)? (p411)
A: No – you may only select units and vehicles that are available in the army list section of your Codex. The one exception is the Stormtalon (as its rules were featured in White Dwarf), but it is only available to armies chosen from Codex: Space Marines.

If I read this as a new rule, I just negated the Allies section (p112) of the 6th ed rules.

 undertow wrote:
For the record, I see hits from any source to be attacks. The FAQ is marvelously clear that 'Therefore, any ATTACKS that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don't roll to hit cannot target them'.

Your first statement here is an opinion, without RAW. The second is an overly broad, out of context application, with predictably odd consequences, as shown above.

foolishmortal wrote:
I don't think we need to have all rules and updates memorized. But if we are posting somethinng as fact, try to double check. Also, I don't think we should come down on each other quite so hard when make a mistake. Somewhere in the middle is a nice balanced approach with phrases like 'iirc' and 'sorry, pXYZ disagrees.'

The idea that a weapon may or may not require a model is is interesting. The p50-62 weapons seem to all be wargear carried by models. Witchfire (PSA) "counts as firing an Assault weapon."
(p69)

well for witchfire; its "used instead of firing a weapon". and just counts as "firing" an assault weapon, it doesn't count as an assault weapon. so it is a shooting attack, just not a weapon.

Its a subtle difference so you end up being able to snap shot with witchfire, just not able to death or glory with it. It's clearly not a "weapon carried by the model"

@undertow; There really is no reason GW could not explicitly call out every single ability, rule, weapon and effect in the game and how they interact with each other. Go check out the Magic the gathering FAQ's. GW could do a similar FAQ style and actually answer every question, or at least look at all the old questions that keep coming up over and over again and make it clear in their rules when they update them. ie DOG & PSA. Keep the 5 page ones for the general public, but compile a TO FAQ with every question ever asked.

copper.talos wrote:
Because an explosion from a vehicle is not a snap shot. You may think that logically a big enough explosion should affect flyers but the rules forbid it.

Right, it's not a snapshot, it's not any kind of shot actually, that's the problem. The explosion rules don't forbid it, they simply don't define how the hits work, for anything. Although they explain enough that they cause hits to all units with no exceptions cited. A vehicle exploding isn't a shooting attack.

The reason I keep bringing it up is simple: Just saying x isn't a snap shot is not a solution for rules that don't fit the mould of "shooting/cc/psychic attack".

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Only Snap shots can hit a zooming flyer, or FMC" applies to everything that can hit them, even though the specific question was about weapons.

Actually that's not a 100% true, as rules with specific permission can still hit them without being snap shots.
That said whatshisname's magic thunder seems to lack that.

sirlynchmob wrote:
well for witchfire; its "used instead of firing a weapon". and just counts as "firing" an assault weapon, it doesn't count as an assault weapon. so it is a shooting attack, just not a weapon.

Its a subtle difference so you end up being able to snap shot with witchfire, just not able to death or glory with it. It's clearly not a "weapon carried by the model"

Yeah, I understand. I was mostly thinking out loud (via the keyboard) about something a previous poster said.

Sorry to distract from the conversation. We're starting to get some understanding of the scope of the snap shot faq entry.

foolishmortal wrote:

 undertow wrote:
Those terrain types you mentioned cause hits, flyers can only be hit by Snap Shots.

I think you are being overly broad in your reading of a faq entry. Specifically...

Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

You can't read the answer to a specific question as a new rule. If you could, I would look at the same v1.0a update and say other silly things.

I'm not reading it as a new rule. I'm reading it as a clarification of the Hard to Hit rule. Hard to hit in the BRB says 'Shots fired at such a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots'. The FAQ is a clarification of that poorly worded rule.

Q: Do you get to Pile In twice in Fight sub-phase if you fight at two different Initiatives (i.e. a Techmarine with servo-harness)? (p22/23)
A: No. You Pile In once, at your highest Initiative step.

If I read this as a new rule, you now only get to pile in once, at your highest Initiative (so only the SM Captain if he is with Tactical Marines, or only the Marines if the Captain has a PF)

Q: Land Speeder Storms, Stormraven Gunships and Stormtalon Gunships are all listed as Space Marine vehicles in the Reference section. Does this mean that every Space Marine Chapter now has access to these vehicles as well (i.e. Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Grey Knights etc.)? (p411)
A: No – you may only select units and vehicles that are available in the army list section of your Codex. The one exception is the Stormtalon (as its rules were featured in White Dwarf), but it is only available to armies chosen from Codex: Space Marines.

If I read this as a new rule, I just negated the Allies section (p112) of the 6th ed rules.

 undertow wrote:
For the record, I see hits from any source to be attacks. The FAQ is marvelously clear that 'Therefore, any ATTACKS that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don't roll to hit cannot target them'.

Your first statement here is an opinion, without RAW. The second is an overly broad, out of context application, with predictably odd consequences, as shown above.

Those examples you've picked are nonsense, are not ambiguous at all and are unrelated to the discussion we're having here. The only way someone would actually confuse those rules would be if they did it intentionally. So, nice straw man there.

Also, is there a definition of 'attack' anywhere in the BRB or FAQs? Why is it wrong to apply the label 'attack' to an ability of a character that is used only offensively to damage the other player's units?

undertow wrote:I'm not reading it as a new rule. I'm reading it as a clarification of the Hard to Hit rule. Hard to hit in the BRB says 'Shots fired at such a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots'. The FAQ is a clarification of that poorly worded rule.

I'm not even sure you realize you are doing it. Here it is again.

Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or
otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic
powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

This is a faq entry on Snap Shot (p13) not Hard to Hit (p81).

As you said, HtH restricts what sort of shooting attacks may hit flyers (snap shots)

As you said, Snap Shot is poorly written, thus the faq entry.

What I'm saying is that LotS is not a shooting attack, nor is it anything else prohibited from affecting flyers under the Zooming rule or HtH rule.
Since it is not a shooting attack, I'm asking why are you imposing restrictions on it as if it were?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 undertow wrote:
Also, is there a definition of 'attack' anywhere in the BRB or FAQs? Why is it wrong to apply the label 'attack' to an ability of a character that is used only offensively to damage the other player's units?

I'm actually geting much more comfortable with calling the lightning from LotS an attack now that I have re-read the Mawloc faq entries and considered some other non-shooting/cc/psykic attacks (such as Sweep Attack)

I didn't say you were wrong or that I disagreed with you when you said "For the record, I see hits from any source to be attacks." I just said it was an opinion. It looked like you were leading up to some sort of deductive argument, and those need to be based on true premises if you want them to be persuasive.

I'm open to the idea of LotS's lightning being a 'generic attack' and/or a 'non-wargear weapon'. But I'm not going to say it is or is not so because I want it to be or not to be. I was just trying to keep opinion separate from RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 undertow wrote:
Those examples you've picked are nonsense, are not ambiguous at all and are unrelated to the discussion we're having here. The only way someone would actually confuse those rules would be if they did it intentionally. So, nice straw man there.

Reading the answer to a faq entry as a new rule while ignoring the scope of question that it was asking is nonsense, I agree. You seem to think that people doing that is unlikely, or only if by intention.

Perhaps you should weigh in on http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/quote/0/4881946.page

Fragile wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
So in General you can assault a unit you can't hurt.
More Specifically you can't assault a vehicle you can't hurt.

There is no substantial difference here. Units can be made up of vehicles, therefore that FAQ overrides and allows you to charge vehicles you cannot hurt.

There is a substantial difference.
Even a single vehicle is a unit.
You can assault a unit you cannot hurt. Unless that unit is a vehicle.

The FAQ makes no distinction. You can charge a unit. A vehicle is a unit.

I'm with grendel. The FAQ on p20 is referring to general charge rules, while the p76 is specifically for vehicles, and overrides the general rule.

Which would be fine, except the FAQ overrides that. That FAQ needs an exception for vehicles put in it.

Fragile is making the argument that since the faq entry for p20 says you can, that overrides the BRB rules on p76 saying you cannot.

Do you think he is being intentionally confused, or would you say he made the honest mistake of reading a faq entry as broader in scope than it it actually was?

And if it is not a shooting attack, it can not be a weapon, and can not add its Str to the D6 roll to pen.

But we can not think of it that way, because that way breaks rules.

So we have to think of it as a weapon/attack, because that way does not break any rules.

Does LoTS have specific rules that over ride the snap shot requirement?

If not then it can not hit a zooming flyer.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Does LoTS have specific rules that over ride the snap shot requirement?

If not then it can not hit a zooming flyer.

Why? The faq entry on Snap Shots?

Hard to Hit applies the Snap Shot restriction to shooting attacks. LotS is not a shooting attack.

foolishmortal wrote:
Hard to Hit applies the Snap Shot restriction to shooting attacks. LotS is not a shooting attack.

And if it is not a shooting attack/weapon, it can not add its Str to the D6 roll to pen. (and this line of thinking breaks rules, so it must be an attack or a weapon).

Or we treat it as a weapon/attack, and the FAQ about Snap shots kicks in as the lightning is a weapon, that does not need to roll to hit, or it is an attack that creates an area of effect. (and no rules are broken).

"Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with
Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use
blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or
otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. "

foolishmortal wrote:

undertow wrote:I'm not reading it as a new rule. I'm reading it as a clarification of the Hard to Hit rule. Hard to hit in the BRB says 'Shots fired at such a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots'. The FAQ is a clarification of that poorly worded rule.

I'm not even sure you realize you are doing it. Here it is again.

Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or
otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic
powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

This is a faq entry on Snap Shot (p13) not Hard to Hit (p81).

As you said, HtH restricts what sort of shooting attacks may hit flyers (snap shots)

As you said, Snap Shot is poorly written, thus the faq entry.

What I'm saying is that LotS is not a shooting attack, nor is it anything else prohibited from affecting flyers under the Zooming rule or HtH rule.
Since it is not a shooting attack, I'm asking why are you imposing restrictions on it as if it were?

I think I see where our disconnect is. It sounds like you're saying that all things are allowed to hit flyers unless prohibited under the HtH rule. I'm saying that all hits are prohibited unless allowed by HtH or specific permission. Also, I'm not saying that HtH restricts what short of shooting attacks my hit flyers, I'm saying it restricts what can hit flyers to snap shots.

May I ask why you feel that this is a FAQ for Snap Shot? I am of the opinion that it is a FAQ for Hard to Hit, as it clarifies that rule. The Snap Shot rules on page 13 do not mention fliers in any way, it really only lays out which weapons can be fired as Snap Shots. The BRB entry for HtH on page 81 mentions (poorly) how Snap Shots interact with flyers, which is exactly the subject of this FAQ entry.

 undertow wrote:
Also, is there a definition of 'attack' anywhere in the BRB or FAQs? Why is it wrong to apply the label 'attack' to an ability of a character that is used only offensively to damage the other player's units?

I'm actually geting much more comfortable with calling the lightning from LotS an attack now that I have re-read the Mawloc faq entries and considered some other non-shooting/cc/psykic attacks (such as Sweep Attack)

I didn't say you were wrong or that I disagreed with you when you said "For the record, I see hits from any source to be attacks." I just said it was an opinion. It looked like you were leading up to some sort of deductive argument, and those need to be based on true premises if you want them to be persuasive.

I'm open to the idea of LotS's lightning being a 'generic attack' and/or a 'non-wargear weapon'. But I'm not going to say it is or is not so because I want it to be or not to be. I was just trying to keep opinion separate from RAW.

That's fair enough. My point was, if we're going to argue about what exactly is a 'weapon' or 'attack', it would be nice to have a solid definition of what that is. I don't see any such definition for 'attack' in the BRB, and the weapons section has no definition either. Just a bunch of examples, which with a little bit of looking around, can be demonstrated to be far from comprehensive.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Does LoTS have specific rules that over ride the snap shot requirement?

If not then it can not hit a zooming flyer.

Why? The faq entry on Snap Shots?

Hard to Hit applies the Snap Shot restriction to shooting attacks. LotS is not a shooting attack.

Seeing this exchange over and over again reminds me of "who's on first?".

Whoever said that there is no problem with LotS hitting Zooming Flyers was right.

There is no RAW in the BRB or the FAQ that prevents a game effect or ability from hitting a Zooming Flyer, or a Swooping FMC for that matter. The only RAW hiccup arrives when determining armor penetration or to wound rolls as neither of those mechanics make allowance to resolve hits not classified as weapons. However as has also been said, that is a debate for another weapons and has no bearing on this one.

 Brother Ramses wrote:
There is no RAW in the BRB or the FAQ that prevents a game effect or ability from hitting a Zooming Flyer, or a Swooping FMC for that matter.

Yeah, there's no RAW, unless you read the section for Hard to Hit and its FAQ entry. But if you want to ignore that, go ahead.

I didn't say LotS is not an attack. (in my recent post you quoted. I may have 10 pages ago, but as I say below, new evidence and arguments have been presented. I am reasonable )
I didn't say LotS is not a weapon. (I am willing to consider these positions, but given examples and rules based arguments cited in this thread, it seems reasonable to call the lightning from LotS a generic attack. I could also see it as a generic weapon, but I still have some concerns about it's type)

I said LotS is not a shooting attack.
I said HtH applies the Snap Shot restriction to shooting attacks

 DeathReaper wrote:
Or we treat it as a weapon/attack, and the FAQ about Snap shots kicks in as the lightning is a weapon, that does not need to roll to hit, or it is an attack that creates an area of effect. (and no rules are broken).

Why do you say the Snap Shot faq entry kicks in if it is a weapon/attack? Please read HtH again.

HtH kicks in if is is a shooting attack, because Hard to Hit restricts shots against zooming flyers to Snap Shots.
If LotS is a shooting attack, then it must be a snap shot to hit a zooming flyer.
If LotS is not a shooting attack, why are you saying it must be a snap shot to hit a zooming flyer?

You might try and make a case based on the word "shots" in the HtH rule. I have taken this to mean shooting attacks because I have never (iirc) seen the word 'shots' used in any other way or context in 40k. Please let me know if you can think of any.

 undertow wrote:

 Brother Ramses wrote:
There is no RAW in the BRB or the FAQ that prevents a game effect or ability from hitting a Zooming Flyer, or a Swooping FMC for that matter.

Yeah, there's no RAW, unless you read the section for Hard to Hit and its FAQ entry. But if you want to ignore that, go ahead.

Sections read and I see nothing dictating a restriction on what is clearly not a weapon or a shooting attack. Care to actually cite where a non-weapon/non-shooting attack is mentioned in either? You wont, which is why I said there is no RAW that prevents LotS from hitting Zooming Flyers.

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Or we treat it as a weapon/attack, and the FAQ about Snap shots kicks in as the lightning is a weapon, that does not need to roll to hit, or it is an attack that creates an area of effect. (and no rules are broken).

Why do you say the Snap Shot faq entry kicks in if it is a weapon/attack? Please read HtH again.

If it is a weapon then the Snap shot FAQ kicks in because it says

"Q: How do[es] any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with
Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures."

And LoTS "doesn’t need to roll To Hit", and if it is a weapon it must use a Snap Shot to be able to hit a Zooming Flyer.

foolishmortal wrote:
If LotS is not a shooting attack, why are you saying it must be a snap shot to hit a zooming flyer?.

If it is an attack then the Snap shot FAQ kicks in because it says
"any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them."

The LoTS rule is an attack that "otherwise [doesn't] roll to hit" so LoTS can not target a Flyer.

You keep saying the Snap Shot faq entry kicks in for mentioning 'weapon' or 'attack'.... Please show me where the Snap Shot rule kicks in.

HtH says "shots resolved at a zooming flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots"
LotS is not a shooting attack.
Why are you requiring LotS to be a Snap Shot?

It kicks in because "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers"

If it is hitting a flyer then it has to be a snap shot (Barring a specific allowance like the Skyfire rule).

If the rules say you must eat only bread for breakfast, and a faq entry tells you what bread means, including the phrase "tofu may not be made into bread", can you eat tofu for lunch?

Why don't you make a poll about that?

Oh and by the way, there is no "trick question" in the faq. It's clear, only snapshots can hit a flyer (and anything else with a specific permission).

If the Hard to Hit rule says shots must be snap shots to hit zooming flyers, and a faq entry clarifies what can and cannot make snap shot, why are you insisting that a special ability that is not a shot be a snap shot in order to hit a zooming flyer?

foolishmortal wrote:
If the Hard to Hit rule says shots must be snap shots to hit zooming flyers, and a faq entry clarifies what can and cannot make snap shot, why are you insisting that a special ability that is not a shot be a snap shot in order to hit a zooming flyer?

From their responses in this thread it appears to be because they believe that it should be considered a weapon and thus is shooting despite nothing to back up that claim.

foolishmortal wrote:
If the Hard to Hit rule says shots must be snap shots to hit zooming flyers, and a faq entry clarifies what can and cannot make snap shot, why are you insisting that a special ability that is not a shot be a snap shot in order to hit a zooming flyer?

Wrong 100%. Faq says the only attacks that can hit a flyer are snap shots.

foolishmortal wrote:
If the Hard to Hit rule says shots must be snap shots to hit zooming flyers, and a faq entry clarifies what can and cannot make snap shot, why are you insisting that a special ability that is not a shot be a snap shot in order to hit a zooming flyer?

The FAQ entry says nothing at all about 'shooting attacks', nor does it clarify what can and cannot make a snap shot. It clarifies what can hit fliers. It uses language like 'only snap shots may target' and 'any attacks that ... cannot target'.

At the risk of sounding redundant, the FAQ also says: "How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures?"

Is the lightning from Imotekh's ability any one of the above? (specifically is it a maelstrom, nova, beam, or any weapon that doesn't need to roll to hit or hits automatically?)

If the answer to the above question is 'No' (and i believe it is, as a special ability not included in the above), then why are you applying the 'answer' to that question to something that isn't 'in' the question itself?

 Neorealist wrote:
At the risk of sounding redundant, the FAQ also says: "How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures?"

Is the lightning from Imotekh's ability any one of the above? (specifically is it a maelstrom, nova, beam, or any weapon that doesn't need to roll to hit or hits automatically?)

If the answer to the above question is 'No' (and i believe it is), then why are you applying the 'answer' to that question for something that isn't 'in' the question itself?

It would be one of them though, as it doesn't need to roll to hit. on a roll of a 6 it automatically hits the unit eh?

Well for one: it isn't a weapon, it is a special ability.

The question is specific to weapons, not everything that doesn't need to roll to hit or hits automatically.

 Neorealist wrote:
At the risk of sounding redundant, the FAQ also says: "How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures?"

Is the lightning from Imotekh's ability any one of the above? (specifically is it a maelstrom, nova, beam, or any weapon that doesn't need to roll to hit or hits automatically?)

If the answer to the above question is 'No' (and i believe it is, as a special ability not included in the above), then why are you applying the 'answer' to that question to something that isn't 'in' the question itself?

This has already been brought up. This is a broad answer to a specific question.

It would be as if someone said:

Q: Can I eat wheat bread for breakfast?
A: You may not eat any thing that has flour listed as an ingredient.

Then, people on the www.breadlovers.com forums were trying to justify eating cookies for breakfast, because the specific question was about eating wheat bread.

 undertow wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
At the risk of sounding redundant, the FAQ also says: "How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures?"

Is the lightning from Imotekh's ability any one of the above? (specifically is it a maelstrom, nova, beam, or any weapon that doesn't need to roll to hit or hits automatically?)

If the answer to the above question is 'No' (and i believe it is, as a special ability not included in the above), then why are you applying the 'answer' to that question to something that isn't 'in' the question itself?

This has already been brought up. This is a broad answer to a specific question.

It would be as if someone said:

Q: Can I eat wheat bread for breakfast?
A: You may not eat any thing that has flour listed as an ingredient.

Then, people on the www.breadlovers.com forums were trying to justify eating cookies for breakfast, because the specific question was about eating wheat bread.

Holy cow, you even nitpick and paraphrase your own analogies! How about being more realistic?

Q: Can I eat wheat bread, white bread, rye bread, or any other type of baked good that uses yeast to rise?
A. You may not eat any thing that uses yeast to rise. This includes wheat, white, and rye bread - as well as baguettes or croutons.

Awesome, I can eat cookies.

 Neorealist wrote:
Well for one: it isn't a weapon, it is a special ability.

The question is specific to weapons, not everything that doesn't need to roll to hit or hits automatically.

and to take the stance that it is not a weapon means that you can not add the strength of the attack to the D6 roll to pen. So right there you have an instance of the rules not working correctly, so that interpretation can not be correct.

If it is considered a weapon, then you can add the Strength to the armor pen roll. Of course that also means that you can not hit a zooming flyer with that ability.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Well for one: it isn't a weapon, it is a special ability.

The question is specific to weapons, not everything that doesn't need to roll to hit or hits automatically.

and to take the stance that it is not a weapon means that you can not add the strength of the attack to the D6 roll to pen. So right there you have an instance of the rules not working correctly, so that interpretation can not be correct.

If it is considered a weapon, then you can add the Strength to the armor pen roll. Of course that also means that you can not hit a zooming flyer with that ability.

DUDE! That has nothing to do with this topic so stop bringing it up!! A RAW discrepency with armor penetration and to wound rolls. And how the interact with non-weapon hits has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not LotS can hit Zooming Flyers.

I can see it now. The FAQ is released to tell us that LotS can indeed hit Zooming Flyers and you are then going to insist it wont do anything because didn't address the wording for armor pen.

Before someone says it I'm going to say it.
Ram.

Already been said.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
DUDE! That has nothing to do with this topic so stop bringing it up!! A RAW discrepency with armor penetration and to wound rolls. And how the interact with non-weapon hits has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not LotS can hit Zooming Flyers.

I can see it now. The FAQ is released to tell us that LotS can indeed hit Zooming Flyers and you are then going to insist it wont do anything because didn't address the wording for armor pen.

It illustrates why the view that the LoTS is not a weapon is incorrect, as it does not gel with all of the rules and thus it is an important point.

How you do not see this puzzles me.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Well for one: it isn't a weapon, it is a special ability.

The question is specific to weapons, not everything that doesn't need to roll to hit or hits automatically.

and to take the stance that it is not a weapon means that you can not add the strength of the attack to the D6 roll to pen. So right there you have an instance of the rules not working correctly, so that interpretation can not be correct.

If it is considered a weapon, then you can add the Strength to the armor pen roll. Of course that also means that you can not hit a zooming flyer with that ability.

DUDE! That has nothing to do with this topic so stop bringing it up!! A RAW discrepency with armor penetration and to wound rolls. And how the interact with non-weapon hits has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not LotS can hit Zooming Flyers.

I can see it now. The FAQ is released to tell us that LotS can indeed hit Zooming Flyers and you are then going to insist it wont do anything because didn't address the wording for armor pen.

He's pointing out that if reading the rules one way results in broken rules, hats probably not the right way to read rules.

Damn those ninjas are getting fast......

foolishmortal wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Well first off, sorry I don't have every facet of the rules memorized like you

I don't think we need to have all rules and updates memorized. But if we are posting somethinng as fact, try to double check. Also, I don't think we should come down on each other quite so hard when make a mistake. Somewhere in the middle is a nice balanced approach with phrases like 'iirc' and 'sorry, pXYZ disagrees.'

The idea that a weapon may or may not require a model is is interesting. The p50-62 weapons seem to all be wargear carried by models. Witchfire (PSA) "counts as firing an Assault weapon."
(p69)

Let me be the first to say, if I make a mistake or am pointed out to be obviously wrong, I'll own up to it. I have NO problems admitting a mistake or when I'm wrong. It's how you learn and grow. And yes, I do double check many things before I post about them, those that I don't [double check on] I'm sure (in my head) that I'm remembering it correctly.

So tell me then, what did I post up that wasn't fact? I mean, recently in this thread. I'm trying my hardest to not take sides on this debate anymore as the actual discussion has become ludicrously juvenile and circular.

The idea of a weapon in this game to me is anything that can be used as an advantage over the opposing player at the cost of casualties. So, take for instance that terrain that was mentioned earlier. I consider that a weapon as it is something that could potentially be utilized by either side and is both beneficial and detrimental to both sides. Taking advantage of terrain or weather or whatever is absolutely considered a "weapon".

 Neorealist wrote:
Well for one: it isn't a weapon, it is a special ability.
The question is specific to weapons, not everything that doesn't need to roll to hit or hits automatically.

Question was specific to certain types of PSA's and some specific sorts of weapons. It definitely was not specific to weapons generally. The answer on other hand, wasn't specific to those things at all.

FAQ v1.1a regarding Flyers wrote:"Therefore, any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them."

Note the underlined portion. It obviously doesn't refer to either weapons or shooting attacks.
For example, if you had special ability that allowed you to place Blast Marker on the table during Movement phase, with models under the markers taking hits, you still wouldn't be able to hit Flyer with that attack.

There are other FAQs where answer given is goes far beyond what was asked. Good examples are: IG FAQ entry about priests and enginseers, SW FAQ entry about Leaders of the Pack and Tyranid FAQ entry about Mawloc.

Luide wrote: There are other FAQs where answer given is goes far beyond what was asked. Good examples are: IG FAQ entry about priests and enginseers, SW FAQ entry about Leaders of the Pack and Tyranid FAQ entry about Mawloc.

I'm sorry, you seem to be saying that the FAQ should be extrapolated from in addition to being a set of answers to specific questions. I'd like you to provide a reason for that: Do any of those examples you've listed above indicate that they extend beyond the explicit scope of their own questions to provide specific rules interpretation to non-specifically addressed related ones?

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Well for one: it isn't a weapon, it is a special ability.

The question is specific to weapons, not everything that doesn't need to roll to hit or hits automatically.

and to take the stance that it is not a weapon means that you can not add the strength of the attack to the D6 roll to pen. So right there you have an instance of the rules not working correctly, so that interpretation can not be correct.

If it is considered a weapon, then you can add the Strength to the armor pen roll. Of course that also means that you can not hit a zooming flyer with that ability.

DUDE! That has nothing to do with this topic so stop bringing it up!!

So don't bring up anything that pokes holes in your argument? Right.

Wether or not LoTS lightning hits can penetrate vehicles is at best tangically related to wether or not LoTS can hit a flier. The only common ground between them is the fact that they involve LoTS in some capacity. If
you'd like to discuss wether or not LoTS lightning hits can penetrate a vehicles' armor, perhaps you should consider starting a new thread? as this one is about a different topic which is obviously not the one you want to discuss.

Is LotS an attack? If not, why not?

 reds8n wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
hey Red! long time no see... you know I can be alot worse though... you gotta be a little proud that Im doing better right?

I'm sure that if you put your mind to it you could craft weapons from words that would wound the Gods themselves, leave daemons weeping and searching for redemption and leave injuries that an eternity of time will not heal. Yet, mainly due to those pesky ol' forum rules, code of conduct and basic human decency that we expect users to abide by, we'd much rather you left such artifices for elsewhere and elsewhen, mayhaps for situations slightly more important that the ins and outs and whathaveyous of a game of toy soldiers.

Makes for a better experience for all.

Thank you.

I think Im being civil... opinionated and all that lol

But I am curious about the either crystal too, as you ignore the base for reasons of movement only, as the vehicle is actually above the ground

 Neorealist wrote:

Luide wrote: There are other FAQs where answer given is goes far beyond what was asked. Good examples are: IG FAQ entry about priests and enginseers, SW FAQ entry about Leaders of the Pack and Tyranid FAQ entry about Mawloc.

I'm sorry, you seem to be saying that the FAQ should be extrapolated from in addition to being a set of answers to specific questions.

What I'm saying that FAQ can answer other things than just the explicit question asked. Usually they also answer stuff directly related to the participants of the question, sometimes they add new rules, in others they make up answers to other questions. Typical example would be:
Q: Can X do Y?
A: No. X also cannot do Z.
This is no way related to the specific question asked, but it is related to participant of the question.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'd like you to provide a reason for that: Do any of those examples you've listed above indicate that they extend beyond the explicit scope of their own questions to provide specific rules interpretation to non-specifically addressed related ones?

Yes, those all do. That's why I used them as examples. It really would have been common courtesy to read them through before asking this.

As far as answer going beyond the explicit scope of the question, and addressing related ones, you can find many in the rulebook FAQ itself:

Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a roll to hit)? (p13)
Q. Can units disembark from the battlements? (p95)
Q: Can a vehicle Tank Shock a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49)
Q. If a fortification you are in is charged, are your units occupying it allowed to make Overwatch shots against the assaulters from any Fire Points in the same manner as an occupied Transport? (p80/97)

These all answer related concerns. Note that saying which things cannot hit Flyers is very much related to a question that asks "Can X,Y or Z hit Fliers".

Luide wrote:As far as answer going beyond the explicit scope of the question, and addressing related ones, you can find many in the rulebook FAQ itself:

Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a roll to hit)? (p13)
Q. Can units disembark from the battlements? (p95)
Q: Can a vehicle Tank Shock a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49)
Q. If a fortification you are in is charged, are your units occupying it allowed to make Overwatch shots against the assaulters from any Fire Points in the same manner as an occupied Transport? (p80/97)

These all answer related concerns. Note that saying which things cannot hit Flyers is very much related to a question that asks "Can X,Y or Z hit Fliers".

I come from a place with different debate preferences i guess, where it is considered a courtesy to validate your own arguments rather than ask the opposing party to research them him or herself (though of course it always behooves both parties to be as educated as possible, sure.)

Regarding your FAQ questions listed above: can you indicate what you believe about them supports your position please? At the risk of sounding lacking in common courtesy; i'm not seeing how they prove your point from the information you've provided.

Every answer provides a direct answer to the question asked AND also gives additional answers related to the question, but only indirectly

Meaning that FAQ answers do, indeed, go beyond the scope of their question, and do so on a regular basis. Meaning that to posit a position stating that is not possible is highly unsafe

Can you provide a specific example of such and how it indicates that? I'm curious what you are using for your precident.

Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a roll to hit)? (p13)
A: Yes, but only in your own Shooting phase. This means that psychic shooting attacks cannot be made when firing Overwatch.

Specific question - can PSAs be fired as Snap Shots.
Answer - Yes.
Supplemental Answer - Cannot be used for Overwatch.

I'd like to note that your answer 'and' supplemental answer there are specific to PSAs, as is the question.

A closer analogue to the point that some folk seem to be trying to make would be something like this example:
Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a roll to hit)? (p13)
A: Yes, but only in your own Shooting phase. This means that attacks cannot be made when firing Overwatch.

(and the attempt to apply it to every kind of attack rather than just PSAs based on the verbiage above)

The point is the faq provided information that was never asked. There is no rule or extend to what that extra information may be. In the case of the flyers we got an answer that covers all cases. Which actually is the best GW could have done.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'd like to note that your answer 'and' supplemental answer there are specific to PSAs, as is the question.

A closer analogue to the point that some folk seem to be trying to make would be something like this example:
Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a roll to hit)? (p13)
A: Yes, but only in your own Shooting phase. This means that attacks cannot be made when firing Overwatch.

(and the attempt to apply it to every kind of attack rather than just PSAs based on the verbiage above)

The additional answer had NOTHING to do with the question. It answered a question that was not asked

This proves that any position that FAQs may only answer the question asked, and nothing wider, has no basis in fact

 Neorealist wrote:
I come from a place with different debate preferences i guess, where it is considered a courtesy to validate your own arguments rather than ask the opposing party to research them him or herself (though of course it always behooves both parties to be as educated as possible, sure.)

You can't really call it "research" if I give you exact citation of the FAQ question where you can see situation I pointed out. And I'd consider giving example and specific place where to find the exact text "validating" my argument.

 Neorealist wrote:
Regarding your FAQ questions listed above: can you indicate what you believe about them supports your position please? At the risk of sounding lacking in common courtesy; i'm not seeing how they prove your point from the information you've provided.

None of them only answers the specific question asked. They all extend beyond the explicit scope of the question asked. So exactly as I said earlier: "What I'm saying that FAQ can answer other things than just the explicit question asked. "

I've posted all FAQ entries here so I can get Neorealist to read them, as apparantly reading them from the actual FAQ documents would be considered "forcing him to research them and thus forcing him to validate my arguments".
I've also underlined the portions of the answers that were not specifically asked about in the question.

Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a
roll to hit)? (p13)
A: Yes, but only in your own Shooting phase. This means that psychic shooting attacks cannot be made when firing Overwatch.

Q. Can units disembark from the battlements? (p95)
A: Yes. Follow the same rules for embarking into the building interior to disembark from the battlements. Alternatively, you could choose to leap down using the rules on page 95

Q: Can a vehicle Tank Shock a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49)
A: No. If a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature would end up underneath the Tank Shocking vehicle when it reaches its final position, move it by shortest distance so that it is 1"
away from the vehicle.

Q. If a fortification you are in is charged, are your units occupying it allowed to make Overwatch shots against the assaulters from any Fire Points in the same manner as an occupied Transport? (p80/97)
A: Yes. Note, however, that models defending a fortification’s battlements may not fire Overwatch in this situation, as they do not count as embarked inside the fortification.

Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: No. You will need to take another model to be your Warlord.

Q: Are Zooming Flyers or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures affected by Mawloc’s Terror From the Deep special rule? (p51)
A: No. However, if the Mawloc cannot be placed because a Zooming Flyer or a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature is in the way, move the obstructing model by the shortest distance so that they are 1" away from the Mawloc when it is placed.

Q: If a Wolf Guard Pack Leader has joined a unit of Troops, does that unit cease to be a scoring unit? And does the Wolf Guard cease to
count as an Elite model? (p86)
A: When a Wolf Guard model joins another unit because of his Pack Leader special rule he becomes part of that unit to all intents and purposes. For instance, a Pack Leader that leads a Troops unit will still be able to claim an objective even if his Troops unit is wiped out – he is considered to be part of that Troops unit. He would also still be able to deploy in a mission
that only allows Troops units to be deployed at first. Conversely, a Pack Leader that leads a Long Fang unit is counted as part of a Heavy Support choice, even if under the effects of Logan Grimnar’s The Great Wolf special rule. This also applies to the calculation of victory points – the Wolf Guard who have been split off from their original Wolf Guard
unit count as part of their assigned unit in all respects. For example, I have a Wolf Guard squad of 10 and I like to split 3 of them off to be Wolf Guard Pack Leaders, one to lead my Blood Claws, one to lead my Grey Hunters, one to lead my Long Fangs. My opponent would score one victory point if he kills off all 7 of the Wolf Guard left in the squad after splitting,
who are still forming a ‘normal’ unit. He doesn't need to kill all 10 of the Wolf Guard to get that victory point, as the other three Wolf Guard are now part of other squads. Conversely, because the Wolf Guard Pack Leaders are attached to these new squads, he would not score a victory point for killing those squads unless he kills ALL of the models in those
packs, including the Wolf Guard Pack Leaders.

tl;dr version: FAQ entries do make rulings that affect things that were not specifically asked about. Just because question is "Can A do B" doesn't mean that answer cannot be "No. Also C cannot do B".

Ah good you've finally indicated what you believe each one is stating that proves your contention, so i can respond to such. I've split up your post to make it easier on me to address individual points.

Luide wrote:Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a roll to hit)? (p13)
A: Yes, but only in your own Shooting phase. This means that psychic shooting attacks cannot be made when firing Overwatch.

I've addressed this one already: but i'll reiterate that all the relevent rules in both the question and the answer are specific to PSAs, no more general context is provided for any other form of attack in either the question or the answer. Being unable to fire a PSA as an overwatch shot is a clarification based on the fact that they (psychic powers) can only be used on the psykers' owners' turn unless explicitly stated otherwise, not an additional rule or restriction.

Luide wrote:Q. Can units disembark from the battlements? (p95)
A: Yes. Follow the same rules for embarking into the building interior to disembark from the battlements. Alternatively, you could choose to leap down using the rules on page 95

Both components of this answer deal with disembarking from battlements, as does the question itself. How can this be construed to provide a more general ruling on some aspect not explicitly mentioned in the question, and if so, what is that general aspect not covered in the question?

Luide wrote:Q: Can a vehicle Tank Shock a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49)
A: No. If a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature would end up underneath the Tank Shocking vehicle when it reaches its final position, move it by shortest distance so that it is 1" away from the vehicle.

Both components of this answer deal with Tank Shocking a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature, as does the question itself. How can this be construed to provide a more general ruling on some aspect not explicitly mentioned in the question, and if so, what is that general aspect not covered in the question?

Luide wrote:Q. If a fortification you are in is charged, are your units occupying it allowed to make Overwatch shots against the assaulters from any Fire Points in the same manner as an occupied Transport? (p80/97)
A: Yes. Note, however, that models defending a fortification’s battlements may not fire Overwatch in this situation, as they do not count as embarked inside the fortification.

Both components of this answer deal with firing overwatch shots from a fortification, as does the question itself. How can this be construed to provide a more general ruling on some aspect not explicitly mentioned in the question, and if so, what is that general aspect not covered in the question?

Luide wrote:Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: No. You will need to take another model to be your Warlord.

I had to look this one up; and found that neither model can be taken as/in a HQ slot, and therefore cannot fulfill the force organisation requirement of at least one HQ per army. (so each must be taken in addition to at least one other model). How is this anything but a specific answer to a specific question?

Luide wrote:Q: Are Zooming Flyers or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures affected by Mawloc’s Terror From the Deep special rule? (p51)
A: No. However, if the Mawloc cannot be placed because a Zooming Flyer or a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature is in the way, move the obstructing model by the shortest distance so that they are 1" away from the Mawloc when it is placed.

Both components of this answer deal with the effects of the Mawlocs 'Terror from the Deep' special rule, as does the question itself. How can this be construed to provide a more general ruling on some aspect not explicitly mentioned in the question, and if so, what is that general aspect not covered in the question?

Luide wrote:Q: If a Wolf Guard Pack Leader has joined a unit of Troops, does that unit cease to be a scoring unit? And does the Wolf Guard cease to count as an Elite model? (p86)
A: When a Wolf Guard model joins another unit because of his Pack Leader special rule he becomes part of that unit to all intents and purposes. For instance, a Pack Leader that leads a Troops unit will still be able to claim an objective even if his Troops unit is wiped out – he is considered to be part of that Troops unit. He would also still be able to deploy in a mission that only allows Troops units to be deployed at first. Conversely, a Pack Leader that leads a Long Fang unit is counted as part of a Heavy Support choice, even if under the effects of Logan Grimnar’s The Great Wolf special rule. This also applies to the calculation of victory points – the Wolf Guard who have been split off from their original Wolf Guard unit count as part of their assigned unit in all respects. For example, I have a Wolf Guard squad of 10 and I like to split 3 of them off to be Wolf Guard Pack Leaders, one to lead my Blood Claws, one to lead my Grey Hunters, one to lead my Long Fangs. My opponent would score one victory point if he kills off all 7 of the Wolf Guard left in the squad after splitting, who are still forming a ‘normal’ unit. He doesn't need to kill all 10 of the Wolf Guard to get that victory point, as the other three Wolf Guard are now part of other squads. Conversely, because the Wolf Guard Pack Leaders are attached to these new squads, he would not score a victory point for killing those squads unless he kills ALL of the models in those packs, including the Wolf Guard Pack Leaders.

This is explicitly about how Wolf Guard work within the context of their own rules (both the question and fairly lengthly answer). How can this be interpreted to provide general rules apart from what it explicitly states?

 Neorealist wrote:

Luide wrote:Q: Can a vehicle Tank Shock a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49)
A: No. If a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature would end up underneath the Tank Shocking vehicle when it reaches its final position, move it by shortest distance so that it is 1" away from the vehicle.

Both components of this answer deal with Tank Shocking a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature, as does the question itself. How can this be construed to provide a more general ruling on some aspect not explicitly mentioned in the question, and if so, what is that general aspect not covered in the question?

Not true. The latter, underlined portion explains what happens when a Tank Shocks a unit on the opposite side of a SFMC but stops underneath it (for whatever reason). General Tank Shock ruling.
(In other words, the underlined portion does not, as you assert, deal with Tank Shocking a SFMC as that would be ludicrous - it's already been stated that you cannot do so)

Luide wrote:Q. If a fortification you are in is charged, are your units occupying it allowed to make Overwatch shots against the assaulters from any Fire Points in the same manner as an occupied Transport? (p80/97)
A: Yes. Note, however, that models defending a fortification’s battlements may not fire Overwatch in this situation, as they do not count as embarked inside the fortification.

Both components of this answer deal with firing overwatch shots from a fortification, as does the question itself. How can this be construed to provide a more general ruling on some aspect not explicitly mentioned in the question, and if so, what is that general aspect not covered in the question?

How can "they do not count as embarked inside the fortification" not be construed as a more general ruling?

Luide wrote:Q: If a Wolf Guard Pack Leader has joined a unit of Troops, does that unit cease to be a scoring unit? And does the Wolf Guard cease to count as an Elite model? (p86)
A: When a Wolf Guard model joins another unit because of his Pack Leader special rule he becomes part of that unit to all intents and purposes. For instance, a Pack Leader that leads a Troops unit will still be able to claim an objective even if his Troops unit is wiped out – he is considered to be part of that Troops unit. He would also still be able to deploy in a mission that only allows Troops units to be deployed at first. Conversely, a Pack Leader that leads a Long Fang unit is counted as part of a Heavy Support choice, even if under the effects of Logan Grimnar’s The Great Wolf special rule. This also applies to the calculation of victory points – the Wolf Guard who have been split off from their original Wolf Guard unit count as part of their assigned unit in all respects. For example, I have a Wolf Guard squad of 10 and I like to split 3 of them off to be Wolf Guard Pack Leaders, one to lead my Blood Claws, one to lead my Grey Hunters, one to lead my Long Fangs. My opponent would score one victory point if he kills off all 7 of the Wolf Guard left in the squad after splitting, who are still forming a ‘normal’ unit. He doesn't need to kill all 10 of the Wolf Guard to get that victory point, as the other three Wolf Guard are now part of other squads. Conversely, because the Wolf Guard Pack Leaders are attached to these new squads, he would not score a victory point for killing those squads unless he kills ALL of the models in those packs, including the Wolf Guard Pack Leaders.

This is explicitly about how Wolf Guard work within the context of their own rules (both the question and fairly lengthly answer). How can this be interpreted to provide general rules apart from what it explicitly states?

Without that we have no idea how to treat Crypteks. If you assert that it only ever counts for Wolf Guard you've opened up quite a few cans of worms that need to be resolved - and currently cannot.

rigeld2 wrote: Not true. The latter, underlined portion explains what happens when a Tank Shocks a unit on the opposite side of a SFMC but stops underneath it (for whatever reason). General Tank Shock ruling. (In other words, the underlined portion does not, as you assert, deal with Tank Shocking a SFMC as that would be ludicrous - it's already been stated that you cannot do so)

You are generally not allowed to have models taking up the same location on the board. Flying monstrous creatures use the 'Jump Units' ruleset (found on page 47) to determine legal moves/positions for them on the board as modified by the flying monstrous creature rules themselves. The FAQ answer reiterates that aspect of their rules, not creates and/or modifies them pursuant to the question.

rigeld2 wrote: How can "they do not count as embarked inside the fortification" not be construed as a more general ruling?

Easily? The less flippant answer would be that units on the battlements count as not being embarked on a fortication by virtue of the fortification rules themselves regarding battlements, not the content of the FAQ. In other words, again that latter part is a clarification of how the rules already work, not a change or modification to those rules.

rigeld2 wrote: Without that we have no idea how to treat Crypteks. If you assert that it only ever counts for Wolf Guard you've opened up quite a few cans of worms that need to be resolved - and currently cannot.

I'm afraid you've lost me with this comment. Can you clarify what part of that ruling involves Crypteks, or why you feel a literal interpretation of it's contents somehow 'opens up quite a few cans of worms'?

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: Not true. The latter, underlined portion explains what happens when a Tank Shocks a unit on the opposite side of a SFMC but stops underneath it (for whatever reason). General Tank Shock ruling. (In other words, the underlined portion does not, as you assert, deal with Tank Shocking a SFMC as that would be ludicrous - it's already been stated that you cannot do so)

You are generally not allowed to have models taking up the same location on the board. Flying monstrous creatures use the 'Jump Units' ruleset (found on page 47) to determine legal moves/positions for them on the board as modified by the flying monstrous creature rules themselves. The FAQ answer reiterates that aspect of their rules, not creates and/or modifies them pursuant to the question.

Using only the BRB, resolve the following situation.
SFMC moves half in, half out of terrain, directly in front of an infantry unit. Firing, assault phases don't matter.
Tank decides to tank shock infantry unit.
Tank is immobilized in a DoG, meaning it ends its move directly on the SFMCs base.

100% legal situation. If your assertion is true - that it does not create new rules only clarifies existing ones - please tell me what rules cover this situation.

rigeld2 wrote: How can "they do not count as embarked inside the fortification" not be construed as a more general ruling?

Easily? The less flippant answer would be that units on the battlements count as not being embarked on a fortication by virtue of the fortification rules themselves regarding battlements, not the content of the FAQ. In other words, again that latter part is a clarification of how the rules already work, not a change or modification to those rules.

"Units on battlements are not Fearless like other embarked units." Last sentence 2nd paragraph, page 95. "Like other" implies that they are, in fact, embarked units - just with quite a few exceptions. A statement that they do not, in fact, count as embarked, is a change in the rules.

rigeld2 wrote: Without that we have no idea how to treat Crypteks. If you assert that it only ever counts for Wolf Guard you've opened up quite a few cans of worms that need to be resolved - and currently cannot.

I'm afraid you've lost me with this comment. Can you clarify what part of that ruling involves Crypteks, or why you feel a literal interpretation of it's contents somehow 'opens up quite a few cans of worms'?

How many victory points is a Warrior unit with 2 Crypteks attached worth?
Does that change if there's a unit of 5 unattached Lords hanging around too? Do I have to kill all the Lords and one of the Crypteks to get a victory point?
Does a cryptek count as scoring if you attach him to a warrior unit?
Remember, use only the Nexeon FAQ and codex to answer those questions.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: Not true. The latter, underlined portion explains what happens when a Tank Shocks a unit on the opposite side of a SFMC but stops underneath it (for whatever reason). General Tank Shock ruling. (In other words, the underlined portion does not, as you assert, deal with Tank Shocking a SFMC as that would be ludicrous - it's already been stated that you cannot do so)

You are generally not allowed to have models taking up the same location on the board. Flying monstrous creatures use the 'Jump Units' ruleset (found on page 47) to determine legal moves/positions for them on the board as modified by the flying monstrous creature rules themselves. The FAQ answer reiterates that aspect of their rules, not creates and/or modifies them pursuant to the question.

rigeld2 wrote: How can "they do not count as embarked inside the fortification" not be construed as a more general ruling?

Easily? The less flippant answer would be that units on the battlements count as not being embarked on a fortication by virtue of the fortification rules themselves regarding battlements, not the content of the FAQ. In other words, again that latter part is a clarification of how the rules already work, not a change or modification to those rules.

Isn't the FAQ entry that we're discussing just a clarification of how the rules work? Someone asked a question about how certain weapons interacted with flyers, the answer clarifies that rule in the the same way as the examples we've seen. I honestly don't see a difference between the the HtH FAQ entry and any of the ones posted by Luide.

As i understand the current argument:

Idea 1: There are sometimes general principles outlined in the FAQ answers that are independant of the specific question being asked and which can be applied to rules not specifically mentioned in the question.

Idea 2: The answers are specific to the question being asked, and should not be applied to rules outside the scope of what is presented in the questions themselves.

Here is the contentious FAQ entry itself , editted to show the ideas with greater clarity:
1:
Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks (including all types of attacks, even those not specifically mentioned in the question above). that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

2:
Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks (specifically those mentioned in the question above). that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

So far all the FAQ entries that have been posted here appear to include clarifications of the original rule presented in the question rather than modifications to it.


edit: Sure, i love tangents!

rigeld2 wrote:Using only the BRB, resolve the following situation.
SFMC moves half in, half out of terrain, directly in front of an infantry unit. Firing, assault phases don't matter.
Tank decides to tank shock infantry unit.
Tank is immobilized in a DoG, meaning it ends its move directly on the SFMCs base.

100% legal situation. If your assertion is true - that it does not create new rules only clarifies existing ones - please tell me what rules cover this situation.

Sure thing. (from the tank shock rules on page 85) "If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position (it makes no difference whether the unit is falling back or not) these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance, leaving at least 1" between thern and the vehicle whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board."

rigeld2 wrote: "Units on battlements are not Fearless like other embarked units." Last sentence 2nd paragraph, page 95. "Like other" implies that they are, in fact, embarked units - just with quite a few exceptions. A statement that they do not, in fact, count as embarked, is a change in the rules.

The only thing 'like other' implies there is that a unit on the battlements is not fearless like the other units in the building. The unit is embarked on the battlements, not inside the building and is therefore not fearless. (see the 'unshakeable' rule on page 94)

rigeld2 wrote: How many victory points is a Warrior unit with 2 Crypteks attached worth?
Does that change if there's a unit of 5 unattached Lords hanging around too? Do I have to kill all the Lords and one of the Crypteks to get a victory point?
Does a cryptek count as scoring if you attach him to a warrior unit?
Remember, use only the Nexeon FAQ and codex to answer those questions.

1 victory point
no, the warrior unit with attached cryptek is still only worth one victory point. Your remaining royal court is worth a seperate point as a seperate unit of course.
yes
The royal court members can be joined to another unit (of the types listed in the necron codex) and becomes a part of that unit (for all intents and purposes). If they are not split off in this fashion, they remain a part of the royal court unit. (and count as it for all intents and purposes.)

 Neorealist wrote:
As i understand the current argument:

Idea 1: There are sometimes general principles outlined in the FAQ answers that are independant of the specific question being asked and which can be applied to rules not specifically mentioned in the question.

Idea 2: The answers are specific to the question being asked, and should not be applied to rules outside the scope of what is presented in the questions themselves.

Here is the contentious FAQ entry itself , editted to show the ideas with greater clarity:
1:
Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks (including all types of attacks, even those not specifically mentioned in the question above). that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

2:
Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks (specifically those mentioned in the question above). that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

So far all the FAQ entries that have been posted here appear to include clarifications of the original rule presented in the question rather than modifications to it.

Whether they are clarifications or modifications is irrelevant. All of the examples go beyond the specific question being asked and give a broader answer.

copper.talos wrote:
Actually lightning doesn't damage modern day aircraft at all. The lightning hits the aircraft and it continues its path to the ground as if nothing happened. The aircraft's outer shell just acts as a conductor. I guess at the distant future that would stay at least the same.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-when-lightni

Yeah but a battle tank doesn't take much damage from lightning either. Its super lightning that's the problem

And yes it hits flyers. It causes D^ automatic hits against ANY unit/vehicle on the board

 Ridealgh wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
Actually lightning doesn't damage modern day aircraft at all. The lightning hits the aircraft and it continues its path to the ground as if nothing happened. The aircraft's outer shell just acts as a conductor. I guess at the distant future that would stay at least the same.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-when-lightni

Yeah but a battle tank doesn't take much damage from lightning either. Its super lightning that's the problem

And yes it hits flyers. It causes D^ automatic hits against ANY unit/vehicle on the board

Can you cite a relevant source? Other than just your opinion.

For example; Only snapshots may hit flyers, or something of the sort?

Otherwise I can just say "Nuh-Unh"

 Neorealist wrote:

Luide wrote:Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: No. You will need to take another model to be your Warlord.

I had to look this one up; and found that neither model can be taken as/in a HQ slot, and therefore cannot fulfill the force organisation requirement of at least one HQ per army. (so each must be taken in addition to at least one other model). How is this anything but a specific answer to a specific question?

Read the underlined portion again. And tell me, where in the question was the word "Warlord" used (requirement for the specific) or where in the rules is there requirement for a Warlord to be chosen from you mandatory HQ choice (requirement for directly related)?

This is one of the very few FAQs that actually go out on their way to give out second ruling that is only peripherally related the the question asked.

Many other people have responded to the posts here, but my stance is still the same:
"FAQs may contain rulings not only about the specific question being asked, but also about issues related to the subject or object of the question asked."

Luide wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

Luide wrote:Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: No. You will need to take another model to be your Warlord.

I had to look this one up; and found that neither model can be taken as/in a HQ slot, and therefore cannot fulfill the force organisation requirement of at least one HQ per army. (so each must be taken in addition to at least one other model). How is this anything but a specific answer to a specific question?

Read the underlined portion again. And tell me, where in the question was the word "Warlord" used (requirement for the specific) or where in the rules is there requirement for a Warlord to be chosen from you mandatory HQ choice (requirement for directly related)?

This is one of the very few FAQs that actually go out on their way to give out second ruling that is only peripherally related the the question asked.

Many other people have responded to the posts here, but my stance is still the same:
"FAQs may contain rulings not only about the specific question being asked, but also about issues related to the subject or object of the question asked."

Off-topic, I'm wondering why they cannot be the Warlord. Both are characters, both are HQ choices. Nothing in the Warlord rules state that your Warlord has to be a model from the HQ Slot on the FOC.

Luide wrote: Read the underlined portion again. And tell me, where in the question was the word "Warlord" used (requirement for the specific) or where in the rules is there requirement for a Warlord to be chosen from you mandatory HQ choice (requirement for directly related)?

This is one of the very few FAQs that actually go out on their way to give out second ruling that is only peripherally related the the question asked.

Many other people have responded to the posts here, but my stance is still the same:
"FAQs may contain rulings not only about the specific question being asked, but also about issues related to the subject or object of the question asked."

From the 'Choosing your Army' page: (specifically the Force Organisation sub-section, on page 108) ....Every army contains at least one Headquarters unit, and a character from one of the army's HQ units must be nominated as the army's Warlord...

note this is reiterated in the Warlord rules themselves: ...It is is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership..."

Relevent to your point: specifically this means a model selected for a HQ FOC slot must be chosen as your warlord. It doesn't have to be your 'only' HQ, just one of the ones picked to fill an HQ slot. (which the guard ICs mentioned in the FAQ do not qualify for, despite otherwise being treated as HQ units).

 Neorealist wrote:
. It doesn't have to be your 'only' HQ, just one of the ones picked to fill an HQ slot. (which the guard ICs mentioned in the FAQ do not qualify for, despite otherwise being treated as HQ units).

The underlined is not said in any of those rules you have quoted.

One says "Headquarters unit" the other says "HQ choice" The Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers are both a "Headquarters unit" and an "HQ choice". unless you are saying you do not choose to include a Ministorum Priest or Techpriest Enginseer in your army because they are automatically chosen for you and added into your army.

The rule from the Force Organisation section telling you that you can only pick from the model(s) you've selected for your Headquarters unit for your warlord isn't a specific enough a reference for you?

While the Engiseer and Priest do count as HQ units for all other purposes, they are explicitly 'not' something you can select from for an HQ FOC slot (aka: an HQ Choice) as per their own rules.

I'm bemused by your latter comment however: By what astounding leap in logic did you go from what i actually 'said' to presuming i'm espousing that the engiseer and priest are automatically chosen for you by some method?

 Neorealist wrote:
The rule from the Force Organisation section telling you that you can only pick from the model(s) you've selected for your Headquarters unit for your warlord isn't a specific enough a reference for you?

While the Engiseer and Priest do count as HQ units for all other purposes, they are explicitly 'not' something you can select from for an HQ FOC slot (aka: an HQ Choice) as per their own rules.

So the Ministorum Priest or Techpriest Enginseer is not a "Headquarters unit"?

Where does it say "HQ FOC slot"?

I did not see that amongst your quotes.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm bemused by your latter comment however: By what astounding leap in logic did you go from what i actually 'said' to presuming i'm espousing that the engiseer and priest are automatically chosen for you by some method?

Basically when you said "note this is reiterated in the Warlord rules themselves: ...It is is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership..."

I thought you meant that it had to be an HQ unit you Choose (the HQ choice) that has the highest LD.

 Neorealist wrote:
The rule from the Force Organisationsection telling you that you can only pick from the model(s) you've selected for your Headquarters unit for your warlord isn't a specific enough a reference for you?

Underlined mine. Priest is obviously HQ units, something you seem to have ignored whole time. Now, what you'd need is rule that tells us "Warlord must come from HQ Selection that uses up FOC Selection/slot", but there is no such rule in the rulebook. You've just assumed there must be such rule, because FAQ infers that such rule does exist. Problem is that the FAQ writer just made new rule.

 Neorealist wrote:
While the Engiseer and Priest do count as HQ units for all other purposes, they are explicitly 'not' something you can select from for an HQ FOC slot (aka: an HQ Choice) as per their own rules.

Actually, you're wrong again. They're explicitly something that does not use up FOC selection, according to their own rules.

Codex IG, page 93, Ministorum Priest wrote: Priests do not use up any Force Organisation chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units.

Note that the wording very much indicates that they are in fact HQ selection. If they weren't FOC selection, they would have said "Priests are not a HQ selection". Also, if they weren't a HQ selection, how could you select them as part of your army list?
Note: As per page 109, FOC choice is synonymous with FOC selection.

Luide wrote: Underlined mine. Priest is obviously HQ units, something you seem to have ignored whole time. Now, what you'd need is rule that tells us "Warlord must come from HQ Selection that uses up FOC Selection/slot", but there is no such rule in the rulebook. You've just assumed there must be such rule, because FAQ infers that such rule does exist. Problem is that the FAQ writer just made new rule.

Note that the wording very much indicates that they are in fact HQ selection. If they weren't FOC selection, they would have said "Priests are not a HQ selection". Also, if they weren't a HQ selection, how could you select them as part of your army list?
Note: As per page 109, FOC choice is synonymous with FOC selection.

I've never ignored that priests and engiseers are units. Quite the opposite really, as i've explicitly stated that very thing in a prior post:

Neorealist wrote: ...despite otherwise being treated as HQ units...

What i'm saying is that the do not count as a 'HQ FOC selection', and therefore do not count as an 'HQ choice'. If something explicitly does not use up (fill, is, etc) any FOC selections, it cannot be said to 'be' an FOC selection regardless of it's type.

They are an HQ choice - that was FAQ'd against you previously

They are a choice that does not use up a selection - they are stil a selection, still a choice, and your assertion that FAQs never answer questions outside the specific question asked is still incorrect

I'm sorry? the Guard FAQ says the opposite of that (that they are 'not' valid HQ choices), so can you quote which FAQ you are referring to?
Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: No. You will need to take another model to be your Warlord.

No, it says they cannot be the mandatory HQ choice. They are a valid HQ choice.

Dedicated Transports don't take a FOc slot, but are Troops/HS/ etc units.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, it says they cannot be the mandatory HQ choice. They are a valid HQ choice.

Dedicated Transports don't take a FOc slot, but are Troops/HS/ etc units.

Nope, they aren't 'valid' HQ choices either, since they cannot be taken as an HQ selection (aka: choice).

Funny that you'd mention Dedicated Transports since they aren't valid FOC (troop, elite, etc, depending on the unit you purchased them for) choices either in and of themselves, though they do count as a 'unit' of that type.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm sorry? the Guard FAQ says the opposite of that (that they are 'not' valid HQ choices), so can you quote which FAQ you are referring to?
Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: No. You will need to take another model to be your Warlord.

Luide wrote: Now you've managed to mix up mandatory and calid. They're not synonyms, even you should understand that.
According to your logic, only the Mandatory HQ choices are Valid HQ choices. If I take Grand Master as my Mandatory HQ selection and Librarian as my optional HQ selection, Librarian is not a Valid HQ choice and therefore I cannot choose Librarian to be my Warlord. See now how twisted your logic has become?

I'd appreciate it if you could stop paraphrasing my arguments, it causes unnecessary confusion and you appear to be startlingly unable to do so. Nowhere in my previous statements have i 'ever' stated the above (that only mandatory HQ choices are valid HQ choices), and i'm getting weary of correcting you on what i'm actually writing in addition to addressing your points.

Luide wrote: Priests are HQ selection. They do not use up the selection slot and (probably therefore) cannot be taken as the mandatory HQ choice, but that doesn't mean they aren't HQ selection. If they weren't HQ selection, how exactly would you select them for your army? Rules only allow you to make selections from FOC slots...

You can select them from your army because they are available for purchase from the Guard codex. This does not make them available for purchase 'As an HQ Choice', but nontheless allows you to field them in your army.

copper.talos wrote:
Actually lightning doesn't damage modern day aircraft at all. The lightning hits the aircraft and it continues its path to the ground as if nothing happened. The aircraft's outer shell just acts as a conductor. I guess at the distant future that would stay at least the same.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-when-lightni

Tell this to guys working weekend duty fixing giant holes/melted hardware in aircraft where the electricity "escapes" from the airframe... Not to mention the overheating damage it causes to advanced composite structures... If you would like more info on this topic PM me and I can give you my first hand accounts of how "lightning doesn't damage modern day aircraft at all"...

On the 40K side, I would say it does hit (and it is not a template weapon) since you roll for each enemy unit. It's not a shooting attack since, it just happens. Everyone gets so finicky about their flyers... "How dare you destroy my flyer before I can up your day with it!" There is still the jink save...

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, it says they cannot be the mandatory HQ choice. They are a valid HQ choice.

Dedicated Transports don't take a FOc slot, but are Troops/HS/ etc units.

Nope, they aren't 'valid' HQ choices either, since they cannot be taken as an HQ selection (aka: choice).

Funny that you'd mention Dedicated Transports since they aren't valid FOC (troop, elite, etc, depending on the unit you purchased them for) choices either in and of themselves, though they do count as a 'unit' of that type.

The IG Codex simply states that they don't use up a FOC selection, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units. It makes absolutely no mention of any other way that they might be different from any other HQ choice.

The question in the FAQ specifically only asks if they can be used as the mandatory HQ choice. The answer goes beyond that question to address the warlord issue. Whether they count as a 'choice' or not is irrelevant and distracting. The fact is, this answer is clear evidence that answers in FAQs go beyond the specific questions being asked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

strengthofthedragon2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
Actually lightning doesn't damage modern day aircraft at all. The lightning hits the aircraft and it continues its path to the ground as if nothing happened. The aircraft's outer shell just acts as a conductor. I guess at the distant future that would stay at least the same.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-when-lightni

Tell this to guys working weekend duty fixing giant holes/melted hardware in aircraft where the electricity "escapes" from the airframe... Not to mention the overheating damage it causes to advanced composite structures... If you would like more info on this topic PM me and I can give you my first hand accounts of how "lightening doesn't damage modern day aircraft at all"...

On the 40K side, I would say it does hit (and it is not a template weapon) since you roll for each enemy unit. It's not a shooting attack since, it just happens. Everyone gets so finicky about their flyers... "How dare you destroy my flyer before I can up your day with it!"

It's not a snap shot, and it's not a roll using the model's ballistic skill. The D6 that is rolled is not a 'to hit' roll, it's a roll to see if the unit is affected. This has already been covered in this thread. Please read up before repeating arguments that have already been negated.

undertow wrote:
The question in the FAQ specifically only asks if they can be used as the mandatory HQ choice. The answer goes beyond that question to address the warlord issue. Whether they count as a 'choice' or not is irrelevant and distracting. The fact is, this answer is clear evidence that answers in FAQs go beyond the specific questions being asked.

On the contrary: Only an HQ choice (specifically, the one with the highest leadership) can be selected as a Warlord. Therefore if you cannot select a priest or engiseer as one of your HQ choices, you cannot nominate one of them as a warlord either.

I realized that soon after posting... I work night shift and fatigue got the best of me. Thank you for the correction!

 Neorealist wrote:

undertow wrote:
The question in the FAQ specifically only asks if they can be used as the mandatory HQ choice. The answer goes beyond that question to address the warlord issue. Whether they count as a 'choice' or not is irrelevant and distracting. The fact is, this answer is clear evidence that answers in FAQs go beyond the specific questions being asked.

On the contrary: Only an HQ choice (specifically, the one with the highest leadership) can be selected as a Warlord. Therefore if you cannot select a priest or engiseer as one of your HQ choices, you cannot nominate one of them as a warlord either.

I disagree with your logic. They are HQ choices that don't use up slots in the FOC. They are still HQ units.

Also, as I already said, this is irrelevant and distracting. The Warlord rule isn't mentioned in the FAQ question at all. Please tell me how this isn't evidence that the answer is goes beyond the scope of the question.

 Neorealist wrote:
What i'm saying is that the do not count as a 'HQ FOC selection', and therefore do not count as an 'HQ choice'. If something explicitly does not use up (fill, is, etc) any FOC selections, it cannot be said to 'be' an FOC selection regardless of it's type.

They are not an HQ unit you choose for your army?

Does one not choose to include a Ministorum Priest or Techpriest Enginseer in your army because they are automatically chosen for you and added into your army?

How about crusible of malediction on psykic FMC? Do they have to test?

 Neorealist wrote:

undertow wrote:
The question in the FAQ specifically only asks if they can be used as the mandatory HQ choice. The answer goes beyond that question to address the warlord issue. Whether they count as a 'choice' or not is irrelevant and distracting. The fact is, this answer is clear evidence that answers in FAQs go beyond the specific questions being asked.

On the contrary: Only an HQ choice (specifically, the one with the highest leadership) can be selected as a Warlord. Therefore if you cannot select a priest or engiseer as one of your HQ choices, you cannot nominate one of them as a warlord either.

You are conflating *mandatory* HQ choices with HQ choices
They are an HQ Choice. As in, you can choose them to be one of your HQ units. They cannot be one of you *mandatory* HQ choices, but that does not mean they are not HQ choices at all. Your logic is flawed, again, if you try to claim that

Again: you are still trying to distract tha your central premise, that FAQ answers never answer outside the scope of the question, has been found to be wrong. Repeatedly wrong. This means your entire argument about limitaitons of scope on the question is wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote: You are conflating *mandatory* HQ choices with HQ choices
They are an HQ Choice. As in, you can choose them to be one of your HQ units. They cannot be one of you *mandatory* HQ choices, but that does not mean they are not HQ choices at all. Your logic is flawed, again, if you try to claim that

Again: you are still trying to distract tha your central premise, that FAQ answers never answer outside the scope of the question, has been found to be wrong. Repeatedly wrong. This means your entire argument about limitaitons of scope on the question is wrong.

I am not 'conflating' anything; as I have never claimed that there is no difference between an HQ choice and a 'mandatory' HQ choice. That unfortunate distinction was a result of a misinterpretation of my statements by a prior poster, which i've hopefully definitively addressed in a previous post. The difference i'm positing lies between a 'Valid' HQ choice and an 'Invalid' one. Appropriate use of the word 'conflate' though, i like that one. I've claimed that the engiseer and the priest cannot be selected as one of your HQ choices (even though you can choose to place them in your army list and they do count as HQ units) and are therefore ineligable to be selected as your Warlord.

I'm not trying to 'distract' anyone; i've been merely replying to other people's questions and comments in this thread. I resent the implication that i need to resort to distraction as a sort of verbal chicanery to validate my point and it should behoove you not to assume such.

It's simply really: the latter part of that FAQ question-and-answer confirms rules present in the 6th edition rulebook and the codex it is relevant to; it does not present an additional rule modification beyond the scope of the question asked.

Again, they are an HQ choice that does not take up an HQ selection. They are not a mandatory HQ Choice, but are still a choice - there is a difference there. Stating they are not a choice implies there is no choice made to include them in your army

The rulebook does not state that a non-selection taking HQ choice cannot be your Warlord, so again the answer goes well beyond the question asked. This is simply one example where the answer goes well beyond the questions SPECIFIC scope, and your continued denial that this happens is slightly bemusing.

GW change rules and add rules in FAQs all the time, they are incredibly lax about the definition of faq and errata

Take a look at IG options in the HQ:
Lord Commissar, LD10
Commissar Yarrik (LD10)
Company Command w/Creed (Ld10)
Company Command Squad with Ld9 character.
Primaris Psyker Ld9
Techpriest (Ld8)
Priest (Ld7)

The priest and the Tecpriest do not fill the required HQ slot, so you MUST take another HQ choice that does.
Any of the other options for HQ all have higher leaderships.

So, in a legal army, you are forced to take an HQ choice with an Ld9 or Ld10 character.
This prevents you from making the tech/priest the warlord.

The 2nd half of the IG FAQ is not changing anything.

-Matt

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, they are an HQ choice that does not take up an HQ selection. They are not a mandatory HQ Choice, but are still a choice - there is a difference there. Stating they are not a choice implies there is no choice made to include them in your army

By the english-language definition of 'choice'? sure, you have a valid point. By the rule-book specific definition of an 'HQ Choice' however? you do not. 'HQ Choice' is explicitly defined as one of the headquarters models you've selected to fill one of the HQ FOC positions within your army, a position that the engiseer and priest do not qualify for despite otherwise being treated as HQ units.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Using only the BRB, resolve the following situation.
SFMC moves half in, half out of terrain, directly in front of an infantry unit. Firing, assault phases don't matter.
Tank decides to tank shock infantry unit.
Tank is immobilized in a DoG, meaning it ends its move directly on the SFMCs base.

100% legal situation. If your assertion is true - that it does not create new rules only clarifies existing ones - please tell me what rules cover this situation.

Sure thing. (from the tank shock rules on page 85) "If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position (it makes no difference whether the unit is falling back or not) these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance, leaving at least 1" between thern and the vehicle whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board."

The FMC doesn't end up underneath the Vehicle. And that sentence talks about the target unit, which an FMC cannot be.

rigeld2 wrote: "Units on battlements are not Fearless like other embarked units." Last sentence 2nd paragraph, page 95. "Like other" implies that they are, in fact, embarked units - just with quite a few exceptions. A statement that they do not, in fact, count as embarked, is a change in the rules.

The only thing 'like other' implies there is that a unit on the battlements is not fearless like the other units in the building. The unit is embarked on the battlements, not inside the building and is therefore not fearless. (see the 'unshakeable' rule on page 94)

No, the FAQ specifically says the unit is not embarked.

rigeld2 wrote: How many victory points is a Warrior unit with 2 Crypteks attached worth?
Does that change if there's a unit of 5 unattached Lords hanging around too? Do I have to kill all the Lords and one of the Crypteks to get a victory point?
Does a cryptek count as scoring if you attach him to a warrior unit?
Remember, use only the Nexeon FAQ and codex to answer those questions.

1 victory point
no, the warrior unit with attached cryptek is still only worth one victory point. Your remaining royal court is worth a seperate point as a seperate unit of course.
yes
The royal court members can be joined to another unit (of the types listed in the necron codex) and becomes a part of that unit (for all intents and purposes). If they are not split off in this fashion, they remain a part of the royal court unit. (and count as it for all intents and purposes.)

The phrase "all intents and purposes" does not appear in the codex, you've created it. Please cite sources for your statements, because I can argue against all 3 points just fine.

Edit: Sorry I didn't reply to these earlier - they were edited in to a post that I had already read and I missed them.

rigeld2 wrote:The FMC doesn't end up underneath the Vehicle. And that sentence talks about the target unit, which an FMC cannot be.

It does not say 'target unit', i'd suggest reading it again.
Regarding wether or not the model can be said to be 'underneath' the vehicle? that is in reference to it's position on the board (ie: in the same place as the vehicle), not the flier models' vertical position relative to the vehicle model.

rigeld2 wrote: No, the FAQ specifically says the unit is not embarked.

You are missing the last half of the ruling, here, let me add it for you "...do not count as embarked inside the fortification..." It doesn't say they don't count as embarked at all, just not as embarked inside the fortification. (which they are not, they are on top of it.)

rigeld2 wrote: Please cite sources for your statements, because I can argue against all 3 points just fine.

Feel free to state your arguments then; when do you so, i'll respond to them.

 Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, they are an HQ choice that does not take up an HQ selection. They are not a mandatory HQ Choice, but are still a choice - there is a difference there. Stating they are not a choice implies there is no choice made to include them in your army

By the english-language definition of 'choice'? sure, you have a valid point. By the rule-book specific definition of an 'HQ Choice' however? you do not. 'HQ Choice' is explicitly defined as one of the headquarters models you've selected to fill one of the HQ FOC positions within your army, a position that the engiseer and priest do not qualify for despite otherwise being treated as HQ units.

Please provide the location of this explicit definition of 'HQ choice'.

All I could find in the 'Choosing your Army' section of the BRB was that 'every army contains at least one Headquarters unit, and a character from one of the army's HQ units must be nominated as the army's Warlord'. In the Warlord section, it simply says 'this is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership'.

I see no explicit definition of HQ choice to be one that uses a FOC slot. Please validate your argument.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:The FMC doesn't end up underneath the Vehicle. And that sentence talks about the target unit, which an FMC cannot be.

It does not say 'target unit', i'd suggest reading it again.
Regarding wether or not the model can be said to be 'underneath' the vehicle? that is in reference to it's position on the board (ie: in the same place as the vehicle), not the flier models' vertical position relative to the vehicle model.

You're right - it doesn't say "target unit". "the unit" is explicitly referring to the Tank Shocked unit. As the FMC cannot be Tank Shocked, that sentence cannot ever apply to it.

rigeld2 wrote: Please cite sources for your statements, because I can argue against all 3 points just fine.

Feel free to state your arguments then; when do you so, i'll respond to them.

So by not citing sources, nor defending your choice of words, I'll take that as admission that you created them. Thank you.

"1 victory point" There's 2 units there, why is it only worth 1 victory point?
"no, the warrior unit with attached cryptek is still only worth one victory point. Your remaining royal court is worth a seperate point as a seperate unit of course. " Cite permission to be a separate unit - Why would I not have to kill all the Lords and the cryptek?
"The royal court members can be joined to another unit (of the types listed in the necron codex) and becomes a part of that unit (removed made up phrase). If they are not split off in this fashion, they remain a part of the royal court unit. (removed made up phrase)" So they're an HQ unit that is split off from another HQ unit that is joined to a Troop unit, but does not have the IC rule and therefore is not a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

Is that about right?

 Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, they are an HQ choice that does not take up an HQ selection. They are not a mandatory HQ Choice, but are still a choice - there is a difference there. Stating they are not a choice implies there is no choice made to include them in your army

By the english-language definition of 'choice'? sure, you have a valid point. By the rule-book specific definition of an 'HQ Choice' however? you do not. 'HQ Choice' is explicitly defined as one of the headquarters models you've selected to fill one of the HQ FOC positions within your army, a position that the engiseer and priest do not qualify for despite otherwise being treated as HQ units.

No part of the BRB rules for Warlords requires the Warlord to be anything other than an HQ choice. This is a change in rules AND is outside of the scope of the quesiton.

Still wondering how, apart from pride, you are trying to argue otherwise. The evidence against your position is overwhelming.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:The FMC doesn't end up underneath the Vehicle. And that sentence talks about the target unit, which an FMC cannot be.

It does not say 'target unit', i'd suggest reading it again.
Regarding wether or not the model can be said to be 'underneath' the vehicle? that is in reference to it's position on the board (ie: in the same place as the vehicle), not the flier models' vertical position relative to the vehicle model.

You're right - it doesn't say "target unit". "the unit" is explicitly referring to the Tank Shocked unit. As the FMC cannot be Tank Shocked, that sentence cannot ever apply to it.

rigeld2 wrote: Please cite sources for your statements, because I can argue against all 3 points just fine.

Feel free to state your arguments then; when do you so, i'll respond to them.

So by not citing sources, nor defending your choice of words, I'll take that as admission that you created them. Thank you.

"1 victory point" There's 2 units there, why is it only worth 1 victory point?
"no, the warrior unit with attached cryptek is still only worth one victory point. Your remaining royal court is worth a seperate point as a seperate unit of course. " Cite permission to be a separate unit - Why would I not have to kill all the Lords and the cryptek?
"The royal court members can be joined to another unit (of the types listed in the necron codex) and becomes a part of that unit (removed made up phrase). If they are not split off in this fashion, they remain a part of the royal court unit. (removed made up phrase)" So they're an HQ unit that is split off from another HQ unit that is joined to a Troop unit, but does not have the IC rule and therefore is not a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

Is that about right?

Members of the Royal Court aren't HQ choices, and lacking the IC rule means that they permanently become a part of their unit, behaving like Sergeants and Wolf Guard. A Unit of Warriors with an attached Cryptek is worth 1 VP, and a unit of Lords and Crypteks would also be worth 1 VP.

Drakmord wrote:
Members of the Royal Court aren't HQ choices,

From the Necron Codex:
"The unit does not take up an HQ choice."
But it is absolutely an HQ unit.

and lacking the IC rule means that they permanently become a part of their unit, behaving like Sergeants and Wolf Guard.

Rules citation required.

A Unit of Warriors with an attached Cryptek is worth 1 VP, and a unit of Lords and Crypteks would also be worth 1 VP.

Rules citation required.

rigeld2 wrote:

Drakmord wrote:
Members of the Royal Court aren't HQ choices,

From the Necron Codex:
"The unit does not take up an HQ choice."
But it is absolutely an HQ unit.

and lacking the IC rule means that they permanently become a part of their unit, behaving like Sergeants and Wolf Guard.

Rules citation required.

A Unit of Warriors with an attached Cryptek is worth 1 VP, and a unit of Lords and Crypteks would also be worth 1 VP.

Rules citation required.

"Character Types" on p. 63 defines the different types of characters, such as Veterans (which count as another member of their unit) and Mephiston (who can run around on his own). Mephiston is also an Independent Character, and since the Necrons and Crypteks are not, they would fall under the same heading as Veterans and Sergeants (and, again, Wolf Guard, since they do the same thing as the Royal Court, though I don't think they count as Characters when they're all together any more).

"Purge the Alien" on p. 127, under "Primary Objectives," says that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports count as being their own unit, and will also award a Victory Point if destroyed. It does not say anything about Characters giving additional VPs, and I could not find anything alluding to it elsewhere in the book.

edit: "Characters and Assaults" also contains the following: "Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit. If a character is in a unit
that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit." and some other qualifying statements, but I don't want to get in trouble for posting too much straight from the book.

Drakmord wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Drakmord wrote:
Members of the Royal Court aren't HQ choices,

From the Necron Codex:
"The unit does not take up an HQ choice."
But it is absolutely an HQ unit.

and lacking the IC rule means that they permanently become a part of their unit, behaving like Sergeants and Wolf Guard.

Rules citation required.

A Unit of Warriors with an attached Cryptek is worth 1 VP, and a unit of Lords and Crypteks would also be worth 1 VP.

Rules citation required.

"Character Types" on p. 63 defines the different types of characters, such as Veterans (which count as another member of their unit) and Mephiston (who can run around on his own). Mephiston is also an Independent Character, and since the Necrons and Crypteks are not, they would fall under the same heading as Veterans and Sergeants (and, again, Wolf Guard, since they do the same thing as the Royal Court, though I don't think they count as Characters when they're all together any more).

Right - they are Characters. I haven't disputed that. Space Marine Sergeants are a bad example for you - lemme quote why.

BRB page 63 wrote:Most characters are fielded in units from the start of the game, and represent squad leaders, such as a Space Marine Veteran Sergeant. They have their own profile, but do not have a separate entry.

Does a Royal Court have a separate entry from the Warriors? Oh - they do. But that sentence says "Most", not all so let's look at what else those rules say.

Other characters, such as Mephiston of the Blood Angels, fight as units on their own.

Also doesn't apply. Also, Mephston isn't an IC. You're 100% wrong about that.

Nope, nothing in the Character rules about how to treat a Character that originated in another unit selection.

"Purge the Alien" on p. 127, under "Primary Objectives," says that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports count as being their own unit, and will also award a Victory Point if destroyed. It does not say anything about Characters giving additional VPs, and I could not find anything alluding to it elsewhere in the book.

PtA doesn't reference parts of a unit - cite the rule that allows me a VP for killing off part of a unit. (the Lords when all the Crypteks are attached, for example). Remember, this discussion exists because Neorealist claims that FAQs can never be taken and applied elsewhere. Using the Wolf Guard FAQ as a reference literally proves my point.