I was wondering if Immotekh's lightning can hit flyers? I saw there was a thread on this awhile back but it seemed to have no consensus. Also, I wasn't sure how the new FAQ effected this ability as it isn't a shooting attack.

Far as I know it should still work against them. It's not a shooting attack, as you said.

I believe that Imo's lightning should be considered as a form of attack. One that creates automatic hits. So no, it shouldn't hit flyers.

Yea cuz everyone know flyers handle thunderstorms much better than any other type of vehicle.

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

copper.talos wrote:
I believe that Imo's lightning should be considered as a form of attack. One that creates automatic hits. So no, it shouldn't hit flyers.

Just because you believe it should, doesn't mean that it is.

There is no weapon profile for it. It is a special abilities effect. It is not considered an attack of any kind.

This has been hashed out several times, and I am sure the regulars will be along shortly to begin the cycle again.

If it doesn't roll to hit ... it has no chance of hitting a flyer.

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

That logic doesn't make as much sense when applied to FMC's, which often times don't have an outer shell to conduct the electricity without it coursing through the creature's body. I suppose it's the idea that blasts, AoE weapons and auto-hits target the ground, not the sky.

I posted about lightning and aircrafts in response to the comment that said that aircrafts should be more vulnerable to lightnings. It wasn't a rule-based argument and of course it doesn't cover fmc.

To get to the rules, directly from the faq:
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


If an ability can damage something is a form of attack. So Imo's lightning is an attack that doesn't roll to hit, so it cannot be used against fmc or flyers.

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.

 evildrspock wrote:
logic doesn't make as much sense when applied to FMC's

I can't think of anything quippy enough to say how true this statement is.

 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.

copper.talos wrote:If an ability can damage something is a form of attack. So Imo's lightning is an attack that doesn't roll to hit, so it cannot be used against fmc or flyers.

You are as entitled to your opinions as anyone else however you are just straight up wrong. I don't really know any better way to say it, sorry.

There is no such thing as 'a form of attack' within the context of 40k. Either it is a Close Combat Attack (which is not relevent to this scenario) , a Shooting Attack (which is clearly defined as such), or an Psychic Shooting Attack (also with clearly defined rules) or it is not an attack at all.

In this case Imotekhs' Lord of the Storm is a special ability. It is not 'fired', or 'targetted', you do not check 'LOS' for it, and you most certainly do not 'Roll to Hit' with it.

Ergo, it hit's fliers just fine.

 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.

The faq talks about "roll to hit". Imo's power is not activated by a roll to hit. It just requires a 6 on a D6 roll.

copper.talos wrote:
The faq talks about "roll to hit". Imo's power is not activated by a roll to hit. It just requires a 6 on a D6 roll.

Hmmm, "roll a 6 on a D6 roll" sounds like a roll to hit to me.

You should read the BRB then. Especially pg13.

and you should re-read zooming fliers. It says shots at fliers can only be resolved as snap shots. Imotekhs lightning is not a shooting attack so does not even trigger that rule. Maledictions also fall under this category

Yes I know that part. That's why there is a faq that covers ANY attacks.

copper.talos wrote:
Yes I know that part. That's why there is a faq that covers ANY attacks.

Well that's just wonderful...except it says you can't "target" them, and imotekh's lightning does not target anything.

An argument could be made that it targets everyone.

Fragile wrote:
An argument could be made that it targets everyone.

It could, but since it doesn't do that it would be a bad argument. Mainly because, far as I can tell, you only "choose a target" in the shooting phase.

Death Ray doesn't need a target too. But it still cannot be used against flyers.

And anyway that same faq gives the explicit permission "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures".

copper.talos wrote:
Death Ray doesn't need a target too. But it still cannot be used against flyers.

And anyway that same faq gives the explicit permission "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures".

Ya, but that was ruled that way more because you're required to nominate points on the battlefield, and it's impossible for a flier to be bisected by that line.

And yes, it does state that, but that has no bearing on a special ability that happens outside of shooting. Specifically because that FAQ entry references "weapons" and other things that only apply in the shooting phase.

Based on the precedent of other non-shooting attacks (i.e. Bomb Squigs and TFtD) I'm inclined to say that Zoomers and Swoopers cannot be hit by the lightning.

Happyjew wrote:
Based on the precedent of other non-shooting attacks (i.e. Bomb Squigs and TFtD) I'm inclined to say that Zoomers and Swoopers cannot be hit by the lightning.

I don't know about bomb squigs, but terror from the deep is a blast marker anyway.

*edit*
Ah, it appears that bomb squigs are used in the shooting phase as well. And most likely do have a weapon profile since they have a range and a strength, probably an AP but I don't know. I'm guessing you need LOS to use them too.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Ya, but that was ruled that way more because you're required to nominate points on the battlefield, and it's impossible for a flier to be bisected by that line.

And yes, it does state that, but that has no bearing on a special ability that happens outside of shooting. Specifically because that FAQ entry references "weapons" and other things that only apply in the shooting phase.

Totally wrong.

"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."

Nothing even hints at " you're required to nominate points on the battlefield, and it's impossible for a flier to be bisected by that line". Which by itself is a wrong statement because a battlefield includes the airspace above the ground. If a line on the battlefield only meant a line on the table then nothing could ever be hit by the Death Ray since it only hits units under the line, so its targets should only be under the table...

copper.talos wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Ya, but that was ruled that way more because you're required to nominate points on the battlefield, and it's impossible for a flier to be bisected by that line.

And yes, it does state that, but that has no bearing on a special ability that happens outside of shooting. Specifically because that FAQ entry references "weapons" and other things that only apply in the shooting phase.

Totally wrong.

"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."

Nothing even hints at " you're required to nominate points on the battlefield, and it's impossible for a flier to be bisected by that line". Which by itself is a wrong statement because a battlefield includes the airspace above the ground. If a line on the battlefield only meant a line on the table then nothing could ever be hit by the Death Ray since it only hits units under the line, so its targets should only be under the table...

So then I can nominate a point in the air? Anyway, the rule the death ray is abstraction of how the weapon fires but I won't get into the fluff part of it because then we'd be bringing up the blood lance and jaws and blah blah blah that all have the same wording for what is effected (outside of the fact that none of them can target flyers for one reason or another).

Anywho, you can honestly think whatever you want to think about this rule and play it however you want to play it. Everything I have seen demonstrated, though, only references actual shooting attacks or attacks that happen in the shooting phase to not affect a flyer (or disallow targeting of). Imotekhs Lightning strikes are not one of them.

copper.talos wrote:Totally wrong.

"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."

Nothing even hints at " you're required to nominate points on the battlefield, and it's impossible for a flier to be bisected by that line". Which by itself is a wrong statement because a battlefield includes the airspace above the ground. If a line on the battlefield only meant a line on the table then nothing could ever be hit by the Death Ray since it only hits units under the line, so its targets should only be under the table...

At the risk of sounding redundant: it's a 'special ability', not an 'attack'.

This is an Attack:
"ATTACKS (A)
...This shows the number of times a model aftacks during close combat..."
As is this:
During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy... ...for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack...

The special ability you are debating however is not one of those two things nor is it one of the other abilities such as PSAs which use either of the above rule-sets in their function.

Anything that a unit can use to damage an enemy unit is an attack by definition. If you wish to be extremely strict to the wording of the rules, then your opponent should be equally strict and point to you that the rules only mention weapons can score a penetrating hit against vehicles. So either way the flyer will go undamaged by the lightning.

copper.talos wrote:
Anything that a unit can use to damage an enemy unit is an attack by definition. If you wish to be extremely strict to the wording of the rules, then your opponent should be equally strict and point to you that the rules only mention weapons can score a penetrating hit against vehicles. So either way the flyer will go undamaged by the lightning.

Actually no, that definition is your personal opinion.

The 6th edition 40k rule book on the other hand (which i quoted above) is actually quite clear on what is and isn't an attack. (and what constitutes a penetrating hit for that matter, though that is not exactly relevent to this topic)

it'd help if you join the rest of us in discussing what the books actually say, or at least indicate that you are discussing something from the perspective of how you personally would play it rather than a literal interpretation of what it states.

As I said 2 can play the too strict wording game. Since 6th edition BRB says that only weapons add their str to the pen roll, good luck trying to damage a flyer with imo's lightning...

copper.talos wrote:
As I said 2 can play the too strict wording game. Since 6th edition BRB says that only weapons add their str to the pen roll, good luck trying to damage a flyer with imo's lightning...

Well, that would affect many things actually. First that comes to mind, from another thread, is the orbital strike relay. It'd never pen a vehicle either.

Then we have all the special mission rules that include lightning strikes, volcano eruptions, and things of that sort...they'd never pen vehicles.

Yep. See how wrong it is to not apply common sense? But if you choose to do so for your advantage, then you give your opponent permission to do so too.

copper.talos wrote:
Yep. See how wrong it is to not apply common sense? But if you choose to do so for your advantage, then you give your opponent permission to do so too.

Common sense has little to do with 40k and you know it! But seriously, it's still not technically an attack. Attacks generally count against something a model can do. Attacks also generally require targeting something.

Though if you really want to see some major stupidity, let's just assume for a moment that we were agreeing imotekh's lightning worked...now if you look at the lightning storm rules in the BRB those lightning strikes wouldn't work. For two reason. They require a player to target something AND they use the small blast marker. Silly, right?

I'm sorry, what? You appear to be saying that you are unable to add the strength of the lightning hit to the roll to see if you glance or penetrate a vehicle? Where are you finding the rules justification for that particularly breathtaking leap in logic?

It's RAW and of course it's wrong. But I keep it in the back of my mind if someone wishes to rule-lawyer me to death...

Ok... can you quote the particular Rules As (they are) Written to give you justification for that? I'm just not seeing it, it seems.

BRB pg 73.

uh huh. What about that page prevents you from adding the strength of the lightning hit to the d6 roll to penetrate?

 Neorealist wrote:
uh huh. What about that page prevents you from adding the strength of the lightning hit to the d6 roll to penetrate?

The fact it says you "add the weapons strength to the d6 roll". Lightning isn't a weapon, in this case. But neither are many things that hit vehicles and still affect them.

I'm sorry, but the more specific rule in the necron codex says that the vehicle takes the strength 8 hits to their side armor; regardless of lightning not being a weapon.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm sorry, but the more specific rule in the necron codex says that the vehicle takes the strength 8 hits to their side armor; regardless of lightning not being a weapon.

We know, and we're not actually arguing that. He was saying if you go too strict by RAW in some cases then there are some illogical and game breaking stopping points, such as this. Sure, the vehicle would take a str 8 hit. No vehicle is naturally AV 8 and since lightning isn't a "weapon" you couldn't add a D6. He's not saying that's how it should be done, he's saying you follow the strictest letter of the book then almost no non-weapon attack would be able to actually hurt vehicles.

It was satirical (think that's the word I'm looking for).

Right, sadly however, he is mistaken in how that particular rule interacts.

You get a strength 8 hit against the side armor of the vehicle.
How does the main book tell us to resolve hits against a vehicle? "Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon's Strength, comparing this total to the Armour \talue
of the appropriate facing of the vehicle."

You'll note you roll a d6 first, then add the strength to it. if you were resolving a hit without taking into account the strength of a weapon? You would only be able to at best penetrate something with an Armor Value of 5 but fortunately for us the necron codex tells us to use a Strength 8 hit. Note: there is nothing saying you don't get to roll the d6 for Armor Penetration too like you seem to be under the impression of.

He is pointing out that you have to "add the weapon's Strength"

Strict RAW if it is not a weapon (Like a psychic power) you do not add anything to the D6 roll.

 Neorealist wrote:
Right, sadly however, he is mistaken in how that particular rule interacts.

You get a strength 8 hit against the side armor of the vehicle.
How does the main book tell us to resolve hits against a vehicle? "Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon's Strength, comparing this total to the Armour \talue
of the appropriate facing of the vehicle."

You'll note you roll a d6 first, then add the strength to it. if you were resolving a hit without taking into account the strength of a weapon? You would only be able to at best penetrate something with an Armor Value of 5 but fortunately for us the necron codex tells us to use a Strength 8 hit. Note: there is nothing saying you don't get to roll the d6 for Armor Penetration too like you seem to be under the impression of.

Now remember, I agree with you on this but...you don't need something to tell you can't do something, it has to say you can.

Again, I AGREE WITH YOU but using the statement of "it doesn't say you can't" will never get you far in the rules.

DeathReaper wrote:Strict RAW if it is not a weapon (Like a psychic power) you do not add anything to the D6 roll.

Normally, yes but the necron codex tells us to use a strength of 8 for the hit instead of not adding anything to the D6 roll.

Kevin949 wrote:Now remember, I agree with you on this but...you don't need something to tell you can't do something, it has to say you can.

Again, I AGREE WITH YOU but using the statement of "it doesn't say you can't" will never get you far in the rules.

Fair enough. The rule saying you 'do' get to do it is in the 'Armor Penetration Rolls' section about what happens after you've scored a hit against a vehicle. It explicitly gives you permission to roll a d6 for it, that is how it works.

I'm not really sure that an argument about following a rule 'too strictly' is going to have much traction in the YMDC section of the boards, sadly.

And they're saying it says add a d6 to a weapon but since it's not a weapon you can't add it. What's so hard to get about that? Blood lance actually says to treat it as a lance weapon so you'd be able to add a d6 to that roll.

copper.talos wrote:
It's RAW and of course it's wrong. But I keep it in the back of my mind if someone wishes to rule-lawyer me to death...

Hey Mr. Pot, I have a phone call from Mr. Kettle for you.....he wants to talk to you about the color black.

Alright, so only weapons can add strength to penetrate rolls, blasts cannot allocate wounds to units completely out of sight, eyeless models (i.e. Wraithguard) cannot draw LOS...any other rule that doesn't work as written?

Happyjew wrote:
Alright, so only weapons can add strength to penetrate rolls, blasts cannot allocate wounds to units completely out of sight, eyeless models (i.e. Wraithguard) cannot draw LOS...any other rule that doesn't work as written?

Most of them if you take the literal meaning of a rule set written for children, by people with the editing skills of children.

As for Imotekh's lightning, what's the exact wording on the process of a model being hit?
Because on a D6 roll of 6 the unit takes D6 hits sure seems like a roll to hit to me. On a 1-5 the lightning misses them correct?

-Matt

No BS used so no. Also Just an FYI Lighting originates from the ground going up. Look it up.

Lungpickle wrote:
No BS used so no. Also Just an FYI Lighting originates from the ground going up. Look it up.

That's a very over simplified answer that doesn't actually address the conversation that has been going on.

And again, I will counter with "it's not a shooting attack so isn't bound by the same restrictions that shooting attacks are bound to for hitting flyers."

Again, terror from the deep and bomb squigs are not shooting attacks, and they cannot hit flyers.

Although not covered, one could argue that Swooping Hawk grenade packs are not a sitting attack either.

ianj253 wrote:And they're saying it says add a d6 to a weapon but since it's not a weapon you can't add it. What's so hard to get about that? Blood lance actually says to treat it as a lance weapon so you'd be able to add a d6 to that roll.

This might be more persuasive if p73 was the only page in the rule book. P73 deals with shooting at vehicles. Imotekh's lightning is is not a shooting attack, it is a special ability. Lets look a bit further.

On p76 under Armour Pen in Assault , it says you use the same procedure as p73, but with the notation "D6 + the Strength of the attacker"

Moving on, p86, under Ram, "Strength of the hits...calculated as follows... Both players roll for armour penetration against their opponent's vehicle and any results are immediately applied."
No mention of the shooting procedure and no mention of a d6, but it does mention rolling. Hmmm.

I think what we are seeing here is the absence of some sort of general Armour Penetration rule.

In the strictest RAW sense, I could see an argument for no d6 addition to the Lightning hits. I think that argument would be exceedingly pedantic.

Is there a more generalized Armor Penetration rule that I missed? Is there a FAQ entry that provides clarification?

Happyjew wrote:
Again, terror from the deep and bomb squigs are not shooting attacks, and they cannot hit flyers.

Although not covered, one could argue that Swooping Hawk grenade packs are not a sitting attack either.

TFTD is a blast, so that's right out either way.

Bomb squigs ARE shooting attacks since they have a range, str, and happen in the shooting phase.

What's really ridiculous is that thrown krak grenades can hit flyers. WTF!?

Does the Lightning attack roll To Hit?
If so, what is the BS used?
If not, then it cannot hit Zoomers or Swoopers.

Happyjew wrote:
Does the Lightning attack roll To Hit?
If so, what is the BS used?
If not, then it cannot hit Zoomers or Swoopers.

In essence, yes it does roll to take effect. Twice, in fact.

*Edit*
Oh, sh...I forgot that damn lightning does strike at the beginning of the shooting phase for the necron turn. Harumph. I'm still torn on it though since it's still not technically a shooting attack and it does say to roll a d6 for "each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield". Though really I suppose "on the battlefield" could be another argument to why it wouldn't work as well.

It doesn't need to be a shooting attack. Just an attack. If one wants to argue that it is not an attack due to the fact ti is not a weapon nor does it deal with the Attack characteristic, that's fine.
Just remember though, everything in regards to rolling to penetrate deals with actual attacks, so even if it is able to hit Flyers/FMCs, it would not be able to actually glance/penetrate.

Happyjew wrote:
It doesn't need to be a shooting attack. Just an attack. If one wants to argue that it is not an attack due to the fact ti is not a weapon nor does it deal with the Attack characteristic, that's fine.
Just remember though, everything in regards to rolling to penetrate deals with actual attacks, so even if it is able to hit Flyers/FMCs, it would not be able to actually glance/penetrate.

Not entirely true, it could if it had it's armor reduced via ES.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
It doesn't need to be a shooting attack. Just an attack. If one wants to argue that it is not an attack due to the fact ti is not a weapon nor does it deal with the Attack characteristic, that's fine.
Just remember though, everything in regards to rolling to penetrate deals with actual attacks, so even if it is able to hit Flyers/FMCs, it would not be able to actually glance/penetrate.

Not entirely true, it could if it had it's armor reduced via ES.

True, forgot about ES. However (assuming Necron player goes second)
Non-Necron Turn 2 Flyer arrives.
Necron Turn 2 Lightning cannot penetrate aromur 10. Flyer hit with Harp of Dissonance, AV reduced to 9.
Necron Turn 3 Lightning cannot penetrate aromur 9. Flyer hit with Harp of Dissonance, AV reduced to 8.
Necron Turn 4 Lightning cannot penetrate aromur 8. Flyer hit with Harp of Dissonance, AV reduced to 7.
Necron Turn 5 Lightning cannot penetrate aromur 7. Flyer hit with Harp of Dissonance, AV reduced to 6.

Of course this also assuming that only one model has a Harp of Dissonance and manages to hit with a Snap Shot every single turn. As you can see with an AV of 10, the lightning would not be able to glance until Turn 6, and won't be able to penetrate until Turn 7. It can also speed up if the Flyer switches to Hover mode and gets assaulted but...

the lightning is str 8.

Also you COULD have 2 of those harps as well.

Happyjew wrote:
Just remember though, everything in regards to rolling to penetrate deals with actual attacks, so even if it is able to hit Flyers/FMCs, it would not be able to actually glance/penetrate.

I would say that the Ram maneuver described on p86 calls for an Armour Penetration roll, but is not an attack.

I think there is a lot to be considered in the faq entry. Please forgive me if I am bringing up already settled points. I do not recall being involved in any of the previous threads on this topic.

BRB Update v1a, p3 [underlining mine]

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.

1) Is the bolt of lightning from Imotekh's p55 Lord of the Storm rule a weapon? It is an attack?
2) Is there a 3rd option other than a) rolling To Hit and b) hitting automatically? The caps on 'To Hit' are suggestive of BS/WS
3) Is roll of 6 on a d6 for the Lord of the Storm rule causing d6 hits a To Hit roll? What about a to hit roll (no caps)?
4) Is the Lord of the Storm rule a weapon that is generating an area of effect (the whole battlefield)?

Again, please forgive me if I am bringing up already settled points. If you feel any of thee questions has been settled by a specific rule or rules based argument, please link it. Thank you.

Ultimately, I believe this confusion is the result of GW not including a default Armour Penetration procedure.

 Kevin949 wrote:
the lightning is str 8.

However only attacks get to add strength, so if the lightning is not an attack it would only get a D6 roll to glance/penetrate.

Also you COULD have 2 of those harps as well.

Or if the vehicle entered in Hover mode and was assaulted by a unit of Scarabs. Both of which I mentioned would presumably speed things up, however, even with 2 Harps, both would be firing as Snap Shots and only hitting 1/6 of the time. My scenario was assuming 1 Harp hitting every single time.

Happyjew wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
the lightning is str 8.

However only attacks get to add strength, so if the lightning is not an attack it would only get a D6 roll to glance/penetrate.

Also you COULD have 2 of those harps as well.

Or if the vehicle entered in Hover mode and was assaulted by a unit of Scarabs. Both of which I mentioned would presumably speed things up, however, even with 2 Harps, both would be firing as Snap Shots and only hitting 1/6 of the time. My scenario was assuming 1 Harp hitting every single time.

I know, was just saying. Though there's always the possibility that your harp or harps are under the influence of the skyfire objective. But yes, I know your scenario was assuming each shot hit and each shot passed ES test.

And yes, I know you were running under the assumption of no D6 to pen, but you were factoring the lightning was Str 6, not 8.

No I was assuming that you ONLY get the D6, since only weapons, Ramming and CC attacks get to add strength for armour penetration.

Happyjew wrote:
No I was assuming that you ONLY get the D6, since only weapons, Ramming and CC attacks get to add strength for armour penetration.

Oh. Well anyway, it's not how it works so it's pointless to continue this line of discussion in particular.

Back on topic though, I'm kinda starting to think that the lightning wouldn't affect flyers now...

I really don't understand how this issue is still under discussion. Yes it is exceedingly pedantic to claim that you can't damage vehicles with imo's lightning but its RAW. Same exceedingly penadantic as claiming that causing lightning to hit enemy units all over the battlefield is not an attack, only because the description of the ability doesn't mention the word "attack"...

copper.talos wrote:
I really don't understand how this issue is still under discussion. Yes it is exceedingly pedantic to claim that you can't damage vehicles with imo's lightning but its RAW. Same exceedingly penadantic as claiming that causing lightning to hit enemy units all over the battlefield is not an attack, only because the description of the ability doesn't mention the word "attack"...

Well technically imotekh's ability is only to bring in night fighting anyway, the lightning strikes are just a sub-effect of his night fighting ability. Just further removes him from the equation, or rather removes him from actually having anything to do with the lightning itself.

Thing is, if you don't roll a D6 for the flyer you're not following the rule. Like I said, the FAQ only says you can't target them, the lightning doesn't target in the traditional sense.

BUT, since the death ray also doesn't work against flyers and it also has the wording "on the battlefield" in the rule for it...that's why I'm leaning to it not working.

Again though, in essence the lightning DOES roll to hit, or to take effect anyway. Similar to tesla weapons getting auto-hits on 6's. You roll a 6 for the lightning, you get d6 auto-hits.

The roll to hit is specifically defined in the BRB. It needs to take into account BS. This ability it's just a 1 in 6 chance. If the description said that the lightning would hit using BS 1, then the result would also be a 1 in 6 chance, but that roll would qualify as a roll to hit.

copper.talos wrote:
I really don't understand how this issue is still under discussion. Yes it is exceedingly pedantic to claim that you can't damage vehicles with imo's lightning but its RAW. Same exceedingly penadantic as claiming that causing lightning to hit enemy units all over the battlefield is not an attack, only because the description of the ability doesn't mention the word "attack"...

I apologize if my earlier post offended you. That was not my intention. I was trying for colorful but my have slipped into dismissive.

I would still be interested in people's thoughts on the Ram rules from p86 and how they might apply to this discussion. Also, any responses to any of my other previous questions. Thank you.

It's possible I am misunderstanding the tone of this argument. It seemed fairly settled that strictist RAW, there were some problems with applying the hits from the Lord of the Storm rule to zooming flyers.

I thought we had moved on to RAW-from rules based arguments.

copper.talos wrote:
The roll to hit is specifically defined in the BRB. It needs to take into account BS. This ability it's just a 1 in 6 chance. If the description said that the lightning would hit using BS 1, then the result would also be a 1 in 6 chance, but that roll would qualify as a roll to hit.

Yes, and targeting is a specific process as well, that the lightning does not follow and thus isn't restricted by the rules of the FAQ.

copper.talos wrote:
The roll to hit is specifically defined in the BRB. It needs to take into account BS. This ability it's just a 1 in 6 chance. If the description said that the lightning would hit using BS 1, then the result would also be a 1 in 6 chance, but that roll would qualify as a roll to hit.

Are you referring to p13? Those are the rules for a firing model. This is a discussion about the Lord of the Storm rule interacting with the Zooming Flyer rule. Neither is a firing model.

 Kevin949 wrote:

BUT, since the death ray also doesn't work against flyers and it also has the wording "on the battlefield" in the rule for it...that's why I'm leaning to it not working.

There was an earlier post in this thread that talked about the battlefield encompassing both what's on the ground and in the air.

The wording of the Death Ray ability, as mentioned above, indicates that it only works whats physically on the ground, meaning that flyers aren't affected. In addition, the FAQ mentions that if you have no other units on the battlefield except for Flyers at the end of your turn, you lose the game.

Although the ground and air of the battle board encompasses the general use of the term battlefield, there's precedent that GW has established what and where the specific use of battlfield represents. Unfortunately, that precedent has excluded flyers for both weapons, effects, and whether or not you lose the game.

I don't have a rulebook handy and my employer blocks GW sites, so i can't go in and get specific pages.

The Lord of the Storm rule adds a step at the beginning of the Necron player's Shooting Phase. The addition of this step is contingent on the Nightfighting rules remaining in effect and not being caused by a Solar Pulse.

In this step, the Necron player is instructed to roll a d6 for each unengaged enemy unit. On a 6, that unit is hit by lightning. Units hit by lightning suffer d6 S8 AP5 hits with the added instruction that if the Unit is a Vehicle, the hits are applied to its side armour.

I think we should be looking at rules that cause hits to Vehicles, but do not involve rolling To Hit. Hence my interest in the Ram rule.

foolishmortal wrote:
The Lord of the Storm rule adds a step at the beginning of the Necron player's Shooting Phase. The addition of this step is contingent on the Nightfighting rules remaining in effect and not being caused by a Solar Pulse.

In this step, the Necron player is instructed to roll a d6 for each unengaged enemy unit. On a 6, that unit is hit by lightning. Units hit by lightning suffer d6 S8 AP5 hits with the added instruction that if the Unit is a Vehicle, the hits are applied to its side armour.

I think we should be looking at rules that cause hits to Vehicles, but do not involve rolling To Hit. Hence my interest in the Ram rule.

Flyers are different because in order to hit a flyer, you have to use an attack that requires a roll to hit, which are the only shots that can be used to fire a snap shot> If you can't fire a snap snot, it can't hit a flyer. The lightning can't be fired as a snap shot.

Unless I'm missing a detail.

 Kevin949 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
As I said 2 can play the too strict wording game. Since 6th edition BRB says that only weapons add their str to the pen roll, good luck trying to damage a flyer with imo's lightning...

Well, that would affect many things actually. First that comes to mind, from another thread, is the orbital strike relay. It'd never pen a vehicle either.

GK codex lists OSR under Weapons section (p55) and the entry for OSR says to treat it as a ranged weapon (p58)

 Kevin949 wrote:
Then we have all the special mission rules that include lightning strikes, volcano eruptions, and things of that sort...they'd never pen vehicles.

I am very interested in finding more rules like these for reference.

Example : Is there a rule on a CCB or Walker charging a Necron unit with a Lightning Field?

Well, vehicles may become immobilized upon failing a dangerous terrain check, invoking that aspect of the 'vehicle damage table'.

Necron Ghost Arks recieve a 'glancing hit' as part of a failed roll to resurrect necron warriors.

An Embarked Librarian failing a psychic test to manifest 'Vortex of Doom' generates a hit against the vehicles rear armor. (and anything else under the template)

Grey Knight Psychic vehicles treated failed 'Perils' rolls as glancing hits.


That is all that i can recall at present.

 kcwm wrote:
Flyers are different because in order to hit a flyer, you have to use an attack that requires a roll to hit, which are the only shots that can be used to fire a snap shot> If you can't fire a snap snot, it can't hit a flyer. The lightning can't be fired as a snap shot.

Unless I'm missing a detail.

There are a few details that bring your post into more focus. 1st of all, the flyer/MC has to be Zooming/Swooping to gain the protections refered to above. This discussion is more about the Zooming rule than Flyers in general.

As the faq says...

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.

2nd of all, the lightning from the Lord of the Storm rule (Necrons p55) is not a Close Combat attack, Shooting attack, or an attack from a Weapon.

foolishmortal wrote:


I apologize if my earlier post offended you. That was not my intention. I was trying for colorful but my have slipped into dismissive.

You never offended me. My internet connection got a hiccup and although I refreshed the page, no new messages were displayed. Yours was among them. Sorry if it looked like I responded harshly towards you.

Concerning the faq, the question maybe about weapons but the answer covers any attacks.

copper.talos wrote:
You never offended me. My internet connection got a hiccup and although I refreshed the page, no new messages were displayed. Yours was among them. Sorry if it looked like I responded harshly towards you.

Concerning the faq, the question maybe about weapons but the answer covers any attacks.

No problem. It's the nature of text based internet forum conversations

At this time, I am unconvinced that the Lord of the Storm rule produces attacks. It seems much more like some of the new mysterious terrain rules (like Carnivorous Jungle p102) where Unit is not targeted, but suffers a possible consequence due to its position. In this case, the position would be on the battlefield, at the start of the Necron shooting phase, with Night Fighting, but without a Solar Pulse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kcwm wrote:
Although the ground and air of the battle board encompasses the general use of the term battlefield, there's precedent that GW has established what and where the specific use of battlfield represents. Unfortunately, that precedent has excluded flyers for both weapons, effects, and whether or not you lose the game.

I don't have a rulebook handy and my employer blocks GW sites, so i can't go in and get specific pages.

I think you might be referring to...

Q: If you leave combat airspace with all of your Flyers and have no
other models on the gaming board at the beginning of your
opponent's turn, do you automatically lose the game? (p122)
A: Yes.

Q: If all of my units are either Flyers or embarked upon Flyers, will I
automatically lose the game as there are none of my models on the
gaming board at the end of Turn 1? (p122)
A: Yes.

I think the confusion comes from not noting the "Turn 1" in the second entry.

 kcwm wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

BUT, since the death ray also doesn't work against flyers and it also has the wording "on the battlefield" in the rule for it...that's why I'm leaning to it not working.

There was an earlier post in this thread that talked about the battlefield encompassing both what's on the ground and in the air.

The wording of the Death Ray ability, as mentioned above, indicates that it only works whats physically on the ground, meaning that flyers aren't affected. In addition, the FAQ mentions that if you have no other units on the battlefield except for Flyers at the end of your turn, you lose the game.

Although the ground and air of the battle board encompasses the general use of the term battlefield, there's precedent that GW has established what and where the specific use of battlfield represents. Unfortunately, that precedent has excluded flyers for both weapons, effects, and whether or not you lose the game.

I don't have a rulebook handy and my employer blocks GW sites, so i can't go in and get specific pages.

You have that completely wrong, the FAQ talks about flyers not being on the board due to leaving the airspace OR if you only have flyers and units embarked on flyers you'll lose at the end of turn 1 (since everything has to be in reserve).

You contradict yourself with the death ray and the battlefield, also there is NO stipulation it has to be fired on the ground, it says BATTLEFIELD. IF you incorporate the airspace to be the battlefield then I can place a point in the mid-air.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kcwm wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:
The Lord of the Storm rule adds a step at the beginning of the Necron player's Shooting Phase. The addition of this step is contingent on the Nightfighting rules remaining in effect and not being caused by a Solar Pulse.

In this step, the Necron player is instructed to roll a d6 for each unengaged enemy unit. On a 6, that unit is hit by lightning. Units hit by lightning suffer d6 S8 AP5 hits with the added instruction that if the Unit is a Vehicle, the hits are applied to its side armour.

I think we should be looking at rules that cause hits to Vehicles, but do not involve rolling To Hit. Hence my interest in the Ram rule.

Flyers are different because in order to hit a flyer, you have to use an attack that requires a roll to hit, which are the only shots that can be used to fire a snap shot> If you can't fire a snap snot, it can't hit a flyer. The lightning can't be fired as a snap shot.

Unless I'm missing a detail.

You're missing the part in the FAQ that says a weapon that auto-hits when fired as a snap shot still auto-hits.

Also, the lightning is NOT "fired".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
As I said 2 can play the too strict wording game. Since 6th edition BRB says that only weapons add their str to the pen roll, good luck trying to damage a flyer with imo's lightning...

Well, that would affect many things actually. First that comes to mind, from another thread, is the orbital strike relay. It'd never pen a vehicle either.

GK codex lists OSR under Weapons section (p55) and the entry for OSR says to treat it as a ranged weapon (p58)

 Kevin949 wrote:
Then we have all the special mission rules that include lightning strikes, volcano eruptions, and things of that sort...they'd never pen vehicles.

I am very interested in finding more rules like these for reference.

Example : Is there a rule on a CCB or Walker charging a Necron unit with a Lightning Field?

Yes, it does, but does the OSR itself have a strength or AP?

I don't know what you're getting at, and I think you're taking that line I typed out of context since we were talking in a satirical manner during that discussion.

 Kevin949 wrote:
You contradict yourself with the death ray and the battlefield, also there is NO stipulation it has to be fired on the ground, it says BATTLEFIELD. IF you incorporate the airspace to be the battlefield then I can place a point in the mid-air.

He did mention that he didn't have access to a rulebook / GW website pdf updates.

The BRB update is pretty specific on this issue. It even mentions the Necron Death Ray by name

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.

 Kevin949 wrote:
You're missing the part in the FAQ that says a weapon that auto-hits when fired as a snap shot still auto-hits.

I'm still thinking about this part of it myself. I keep coming back to the point that it is the question that mentions "hits automatically", not the GW answer. Like I said, still thinking about it.

 Kevin949 wrote:
I don't know what you're getting at, and I think you're taking that line I typed out of context since we were talking in a satirical manner during that discussion.

Not really getting at anything. Just saying that the OSR is noted under Weapons in GK Codex and said to be treated as a weapon in its rules entry. I think that there are other rules that might be more helpful on this topic. Things that aren't weapons or attacks, but that cause hits.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
Again, terror from the deep and bomb squigs are not shooting attacks, and they cannot hit flyers.

Although not covered, one could argue that Swooping Hawk grenade packs are not a sitting attack either.

TFTD is a blast, so that's right out either way.

Re-read hard to hit please. It's blast weapons that are right out. TFTD is not a blast weapon. Please stop ignoring the point he's making.
It's exactly comparable. It's a special rule, not an attack or weapon, and is not allowed to hit flyers (because it does not roll to hit).

rigeld2 wrote:
Re-read hard to hit please. It's blast weapons that are right out. TFTD is not a blast weapon. Please stop ignoring the point he's making.
It's exactly comparable. It's a special rule, not an attack or weapon, and is not allowed to hit flyers (because it does not roll to hit).

This does seem comparable. I would prefer if it did not use the Large Blast marker to determine what is affected, but we work with what we have.

Reading the rule in the Tyranids Codex, it sounds quite similar to the Necron rule for Death Ray.

"Every unit under the marker suffers a number of S6, AP2 hits equal to the number of models in that unit that are wholly or partially covered by the marker."

The only major difference I see between the TftD rule and the Lord of the Storm Rule, is that the hits for the former are automatic depending on position, while the hits for the latter are potential (6 on a d6).

I'm not sure if that is enough of a difference though.

If we are going to make a rules based, common sense, decision that TftD uses a Large Blast Marker, but is not a Blast Weapon, might we also consider that a roll that determines whether or not something is hit could be called a to hit roll (not a To Hit roll). I'm not saying that's what I think, merely that the two cases require about the same amount of favorable viewing to agree with.

GW has made it pretty clear they dont want their flyers messed with. And that one FAQ pretty much summed up that attitude.

"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."

That pretty much covers about any generic power/ability, that does not use the snap shot rule. Prior to this set of FAQ's, there was alot of ground to argue how GW wanted/intended it to work. Now unless the ability or power states that it can hit a flyer, you can safely assume that it doesnt.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
Again, terror from the deep and bomb squigs are not shooting attacks, and they cannot hit flyers.

Although not covered, one could argue that Swooping Hawk grenade packs are not a sitting attack either.

TFTD is a blast, so that's right out either way.

Re-read hard to hit please. It's blast weapons that are right out. TFTD is not a blast weapon. Please stop ignoring the point he's making.
It's exactly comparable. It's a special rule, not an attack or weapon, and is not allowed to hit flyers (because it does not roll to hit).

Per the FAQ that is pointed out so often, it says "attacks" not "weapons". So, I'm not ignoring anything. He's not making a point with TFTD.

And yes, it's absolutely an attack. It's directed by the player, it rolls for scatter, and it uses a marker.

Plus I'm willing to bet that TFTD has some mention of "on the battlefield" to it as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
You contradict yourself with the death ray and the battlefield, also there is NO stipulation it has to be fired on the ground, it says BATTLEFIELD. IF you incorporate the airspace to be the battlefield then I can place a point in the mid-air.

He did mention that he didn't have access to a rulebook / GW website pdf updates.

The BRB update is pretty specific on this issue. It even mentions the Necron Death Ray by name

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.

I know it does, but that doesn't really mean much, they're just using it as an example of the types of weapons that wouldn't work. Probably because these were the most debated weapons. Now obviously that doesn't mean the list stops with these mentioned here, but all they did mention were weapons/attacks that are directed by a model or directly controlled by a model. They didn't reference battlefield wide abilities at all. Well, I guess the "area of effect" bit might count, but again imotekh's ability is primarily bringing night fight into play. Anyway...

That being said, I'm on the fence now of whether the lightning would work or not.

I keep coming back to the Hard to Hit rule and the BRB faq entry.

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.

Some of the disagreement seems to be based on whether the underline portion of the FAQ entry prohibits anything other than snap shots from hitting a Zooming Flyer.

My 3 main problems with such an all encompassingly restrictive interpretation
1) That would rule out Skyfire weapons. That seems blatantly wrong.
2) The scope the answer would be much larger than the scope of the question
3) It ignores the implication of this being a FAQ entry and not an errata or an amendment. This should be clarifying somthing from the rulebook, not adding new restrictions. I know GW plays fast and loose with this. That does not mean we should as well

"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers"

Is the Lightning fired as a Snap Shot? (No) Then how is it generating automatic hits on a flyer?

Let me see if I understand the potential positions on the issue of Lord of the Storm vs Hard to Hit

1) LotS instructs me to check for a lightning hit, but HtH prevents the check. If this is your position, I would ask, Why does HtH prevent the check?

2) LotS instructs me to check for a lightning hit, but HtH allows the check but negates the hits. If this is your position, I would ask, Why does HtH negates the hits?

3) LotS instructs me to check for a lightning hit, but the non-weapon nature of the lightning does not allow for a d6 to be added to the Armor Pen check. If this is your position, I would ask you what about Ramming on p86

4) LotS instructs me to check for a lightning hit and nothing in the HTH, Zooming, Swooping, or any related BRB/Codex Updates gives me a compelling reason not to apply such a hit as I might any other hit.

Strictest RAW, I would say I am a #3 right now.

RAW with rules based arguments, as well as RAI/HIWPI, I would say I am #4 right now. I could be convinced to switch to #2 if someone could show how LotS is a template attack with the whole battlefield as the template.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers"

Is the Lightning fired as a Snap Shot? (No) Then how is it generating automatic hits on a flyer?

Is a ADL Quad gun fired as a Snap Shot? Then how is it generating hits on a flyer?

That faq entry does not live in a vacuum. There are other rules that allow hits to be generated without snap shots. In this case, the Skyfire rule, and in the OP's case, the Lord of the Storm rule.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Per the FAQ that is pointed out so often, it says "attacks" not "weapons". So, I'm not ignoring anything. He's not making a point with TFTD.

And yes, it's absolutely an attack. It's directed by the player, it rolls for scatter, and it uses a marker.

Plus I'm willing to bet that TFTD has some mention of "on the battlefield" to it as well.

You threw out TFTD because it used a blast marker. I proved that was irrelevant. (Hard to Hit ignores blast weapons, not blast markers in general)
It's a special rule, just like LotS, that causes damage under certain circumstances, just like LotS.
And no, the words "on the battlefield" don't appear anywhere in the rules for TFTD. Are you seriously arguing about rules you don't know the wording of?

@foolishmortal, regarding number 3. It isn't that you can't add a d6, it's that you only get to add the strength of the weapon/model/ramming vehicle.

Happyjew wrote:
@foolishmortal, regarding number 3. It isn't that you can't add a d6, it's that you only get to add the strength of the weapon/model/ramming vehicle.

can you say this again in more detail, please? You seem to be saying it's not that you can't add a d6 to the AP roll, its that you only get the strength of the hit.

That's 2 ways of saying the same thing.

According to your post you only get strength of the hit (not the additional d6). However, the rules say that for armour penetration, you get d6+(strength of the weapon/psa/model/ram). Therefore, the lightning (which is not one of the listed) only gets d6 for armour penetration.

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers"

Is the Lightning fired as a Snap Shot? (No) Then how is it generating automatic hits on a flyer?

Is a ADL Quad gun fired as a Snap Shot? Then how is it generating hits on a flyer?

That faq entry does not live in a vacuum. There are other rules that allow hits to be generated without snap shots. In this case, the Skyfire rule, and in the OP's case, the Lord of the Storm rule.

Have you read the Quad guns rules, specifically the Skyfire rule, It gives the Quad gun a rule that specifically over-rides the general rules about fliers and snap-shots.

Does the Lightning rule have a similar specific exception to over-ride the general rules about fliers and snap-shots?

Happyjew wrote:
According to your post you only get strength of the hit (not the additional d6). However, the rules say that for armour penetration, you get d6+(strength of the weapon/psa/model/ram). Therefore, the lightning (which is not one of the listed) only gets d6 for armour penetration.

I guess I'm just not understanding your point about my #3 option.
I said "... but the non-weapon nature..."
Would you be happier if I said "...but the non-weapon/psa/model/ram nature..." ?

Also, where did you find it in the Ram rules that Armor Penetration for a Ram maneuver is Ram Str + d6?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Have you read the Quad guns rules, specifically the Skyfire rule, It gives the Quad gun a rule that specifically over-rides the general rules about fliers and snap-shots.

Does the Lightning rule have a similar specific exception to over-ride the general rules about fliers and snap-shots?

I have read them, and I stand by my point.

Before I go any further, just to clarify, I am arguing from a RAW permissive rules set point of view, but also willing to consider rules based arguments without specific, explicit rules.

The Lord of the Storm rules calls for me to roll a d6 for each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield.

I cite p7 BRB update v1a in conjunction with the Victory Conditions on BRB p22 favor of flyers being "on the battlefield"

Q: If you leave combat airspace with all of your Flyers and have no
other models on the gaming board at the beginning of your
opponent's turn, do you automatically lose the game? (p122)
A: Yes.

I look at Hard to Hit on BRB p81. This is the rule that Zooming Flyers and Swooping MCs use to avoid many attacks. It discusses "shots resolved at a zooming flyer..." and prohibits "Template, Blast, and Large Blast weapons" from hitting zooming flyers." The Lord of the Storm rule is not a shooting attack. Neither is it a weapon, or use Template, Blast, and Large Blast markers.

I do see a strict RAW problem with adding the d6 to the Str 8, but that has nothing to do with your objection.

Check the FAQ.

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.

The Lightning targets every unit on the battlefield. and it does not fire snap shots, so it can not hit a Zooming Flyer.

Check the Codex, Lord of the Storm does not target.

Edit : In case you don't have it

Lord of the Storm, Necrons p55.
1st paragraph is about applying Night Fighting
2nd paragraph " In addition, whilst Night Fighting rules remain in play, roll a D6 for each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield at the start of each Necron Shooting phase. On a roll of a 6, that unit is struck by a bolt of lightning and suffers D6 Strength 8, AP 5 hits (vehicles are hit on their side armour). Note that Night Fighting rules brought into play by a Solar Pulse (see page 84) do not generate lightning."

foolishmortal, there seems to be some confusion. In regards to penetrating a vehicle the armour penetration roll is D6 + the Weapon's strength. Since the Lightning is not a weapon, you only get D6 for armour penetration. I'm not sure where you are getting the Strength 8 but no D6 from.

Happyjew wrote:
foolishmortal, there seems to be some confusion. In regards to penetrating a vehicle the armour penetration roll is D6 + the Weapon's strength. Since the Lightning is not a weapon, you only get D6 for armour penetration. I'm not sure where you are getting the Strength 8 but no D6 from.

It's a Str 8 hit to the side armor. I get the Str 8 from the rules text of LotS.

I see a strength 8 hit to the side armor and no special rule to add d6 on the Armor Pen roll.

You seem to see a generalized rule for a d6 + weapon/model Str Armor Pen roll, but no special rule to add the Str 8 hit as it is not a weapon/model

Where do you see this generalized rule? I can infer it, but I did not find a generic armor pen rule that was separate from a specific form of attack.

I see it on page 73 under ARMOUR PENETRATION ROLLS where it says to roll a D6 and add the weapon's stength.

foolishmortal wrote:
Check the Codex, Lord of the Storm does not target.

Edit : In case you don't have it

Lord of the Storm, Necrons p55.
1st paragraph is about applying Night Fighting
2nd paragraph " In addition, whilst Night Fighting rules remain in play, roll a D6 for each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield at the start of each Necron Shooting phase. On a roll of a 6, that unit is struck by a bolt of lightning and suffers D6 Strength 8, AP 5 hits (vehicles are hit on their side armour). Note that Night Fighting rules brought into play by a Solar Pulse (see page 84) do not generate lightning."

So something that hits every unit on the battlefield does not target every unit on the battlefield?

The fact that the rules say that "vehicles are hit on their side armour" means that you have hit a vehicle illegally.

as zooming fliers can not be hit unless it is a snap shot.

DeathReaper wrote: So something that hits every unit on the battlefield does not target every unit on the battlefield?

Correct: Only rules which state they 'target' something can be considered to 'target' something. 'Target' in this case has specific rules-connotations to it, which the LoTS ability does not include.

Happyjew wrote:
I see it on page 73 under ARMOUR PENETRATION ROLLS where it says to roll a D6 and add the weapon's stength.

I brought up p73, p76, and p 86 earlier in this thread. It didn't get as much of a response as I thought it might.

Yes, I am aware of that rule on p73, but as it is under the larger heading of Shooting at Vehicles, I thought to apply it to shooting at vehicles.

p76 say to work out Armour Penetration for close combat "in the same way as for shooting (D6 + the strength of the attacker)."

p86 shows how to work out the Strength of the hit from the Ram maneuver, and calls for an armour pen roll, but gives no further details of procedure or what to reference (as GW did on p76)

This leaves us without a generalized Armour Penetration rule.
We have a) D6 + Weapon Str b) D6 + Model Str c) Ram Str + mention of a roll

RAW, I would be ok with p73 being the generalized base, with exceptions as noted in later rules, but that immediately invalidates RAW Ramming.

I prefer to follow the principle of not invalidating other rules when interpreting rules in question.

Thus, I went with a rules based argument (but sadly not a strictly RAW one) that a hit against a vehicle is resolved by an armour penetration roll of Strength of the hit + D6 unless other wise modified by some rule. (Armourbane, etc)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The fact that the rules say that "vehicles are hit on their side armour" means that you have hit a vehicle illegally.
as zooming fliers can not be hit unless it is a snap shot.

I would have said "zooming fliers can not be hit [by shooting attacks] unless it is a snap shot [or the attacking model has Skyfire or is firing a weapon with Skyfire]."

So we are left with one of two options.

a) Lightning is not an attack, therefore is able to hit Flyers but only gets Strength or D6 for armour penetration.

b) Lightning is an attack which means it gets Strength + D6 for armour penetration but cannot hit Flyers.

I'd go with:

C) The RAW are inconclusive in this case, wait for an FAQ.

That, or a) as modified by the LoTS rule itself to include it's strength and the normal d6 roll.

I'd go with:

D) The RAW are inconclusive in this case, use precedents until such a time it actually gets FAQ'd (assuming it ever does).

IMO, yes. Although I split your #1 up into two choices. One for Strict RAW that also invalidates Ramming, and one that allows it and Ramming to work.

I was hoping there would be some sort of parallel rule with the new terrain rules. LotS feels a great deal like a battlefield-wide version mysterious terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:
I'd go with:

C) The RAW are inconclusive in this case, wait for an FAQ.

That, or a) as modified by the LoTS rule itself to include it's strength and the normal d6 roll.

This is YMDC not You Wait For Da Faq

Make your case, argue points of logic and similar rules, try...

Imotekh is a popular HQ. Flyers are only going to get more common. This is not a trivial case we can ignore and not have it come up. I for one would prefer to have a solid rules based line of thinking in place for when it does.

In truth i don't like that answer any more than you, but sometimes the rules just aren't as clear as they need to be.

As usual when we encounter vague rules we should always take the least advantageous interpretation.

This is one of those cases where the RaW is not 100% clear, so we should go with the least advantageous interpretation which would be the Lightning can not hit Zooming Flyers.

Yes, but I think we have distilled it down to answerable questions. I don't think it's beyond a reasonable answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
As usual when we encounter vague rules we should always take the least advantageous interpretation.

This is one of those cases where the RaW is not 100% clear, so we should go with the least advantageous interpretation which would be the Lightning can not hit Zooming Flyers.

This is a reasonable point, but you seem to have added an unspoken least advantageous [for the Necrons] instead of a least advantageous [for the flyers].

Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would look at the order of events again. It all starts with the Lord of the Storm rule. In a "do this" vs "you may not do that" debate, it has to start with the "do this."

1) LotS instructs me to check every unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield for a lightning hit, but HtH prevents the check. If this is your position, I would ask, Why does HtH prevent the check?

1a) LotS instructs me to check every unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield for a lightning hit, but flyers are not on the battlefield. Why do you think that flyers are not on the battlefield?

2) LotS instructs me to check for a lightning hit, but HtH allows the check but negates the hits. If this is your position, I would ask, Why does HtH negates the hit?

3) LotS instructs me to check for a lightning hit, but the non-weapon nature of the lightning does not allow for a d6 to be added to the Armor Pen check. If this is your position, I would ask you what about Ramming on p86? Does your understanding of LotS here invalidate Ramming RAW?

4) LotS instructs me to check for a lightning hit and nothing in the HTH, Zooming, Swooping, or any related BRB/Codex Updates gives me a compelling reason not to apply such a hit as I might any other hit.

Because If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice.

In this case the action taker is the one with the Lightning.

Either way, why are you hitting a Zooming Flyer when you have not resolved that hit as a snap shot?

You have broken a rule if you generate hits on a Zooming flyer without resolving those hits as snapshots.

We should always strive to break no rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice.

In this case the action taker is the one with the Lightning. This is reasonable, and is also my understanding, but I don't think we are to the "give up and throw up our hands" point yet

Either way, why are you hitting a Zooming Flyer when you have not resolved that hit as a snap shot? I have responded to this. What was incorrect about my response? What additional evidence do you have to present to increase my belief in this statement? In what way have you corrected your statement to make it more believable?

You have broken a rule if you generate hits on a Zooming flyer without resolving those hits as snapshots. No

We should always strive to break no rule. Yes

Edit - Just for clarity...
DeathReaper wrote:
The fact that the rules say that "vehicles are hit on their side armour" means that you have hit a vehicle illegally.
as zooming fliers can not be hit unless it is a snap shot.

I would have said "zooming fliers can not be hit [by shooting attacks] unless it is a snap shot [or the attacking model has Skyfire or is firing a weapon with Skyfire]."

Pre-FAQ update i'd have agreed with you unreservedly as it states that Zooming models 'cannot be shot at'.

Sadly however the FAQ itself uses the language that Zooming models 'cannot be hit'. which makes it rather more specific to your point. That said, if the necron 'dex says that the lightning is resolved as hit against the side armor, and the general rulebook (+faq) says that zooming models cannot be hit, isn't that another case of 'advanced' vs 'basic'?

 Neorealist wrote:
Pre-FAQ update i'd have agreed with you unreservedly as it states that Zooming models 'cannot be shot at'.

Sadly however the FAQ itself uses the language that Zooming models 'cannot be hit'. which makes it rather more specific to your point.

Yes, but look at what it says. (underlining mine)

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 specific answer to a specific category of question, not a blanket statement with no exceptions. We know it's not a a blanket statement with no exceptions because the Skyfire rule exists and allows something other than Sanp Shots to hit flyers. The Skyfire rule shows that this is not a trump restriction even on the category of all shooting attacks, and LotS isn't even a shooting attack.

 Neorealist wrote:
That said, if the necron 'dex says that the lightning is resolved as hit against the side armor, and the general rulebook (+faq) says that zooming models cannot be hit, isn't that another case of 'advanced' vs 'basic'?

Where does it say in the BRB "zooming models cannot be hit."

The first part of the FAQ update "A: Only Snap Shots can hit..." implies that nothing else can hit, other than snapshots. It specifically uses the word 'hit' rather than 'shots resolved at' (which implies a shooting attack) which is the verbiage of the original 'hard-to-hit' rules-text.

Edit: I see your point about skyfire. However, have you considered that the 'skyfire' grants a specific exception to the 'Hard-to-Hit' rules rather than a precident for any other similar rule-sets?

 Neorealist wrote:
However, have you considered that the 'skyfire' grants a specific exception to the 'Hard-to-Hit' rules rather than a precident for any other similar rule-sets?

I did consider it. In the end, I decided that Hard to Hit, the FAQ, and Skyfire all refer only to shooting attacks, which LotS is not. I would be willing to re-consider it, but I'm pretty sure that like Ramming and Carnivorous jungle, LotS generates hits, not attacks.

foolishmortal wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
The fact that the rules say that "vehicles are hit on their side armour" means that you have hit a vehicle illegally.
as zooming fliers can not be hit unless it is a snap shot.

I would have said "zooming fliers can not be hit [by shooting attacks] unless it is a snap shot [or the attacking model has Skyfire or is firing a weapon with Skyfire]."

Zooming flyers can not be hit unless it is from a snap shot, or something with the skyfire rule.

The Mawlocks Terror from the deep attack is not a shooting attack, but it can not hit a Zooming flyer because it can not make snap shots.

The same goes for the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard they do not roll to hit so they can not hit a Zooming Flyer.

Remember "any attacks that...create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them."

The Lightning falls under this category. It creates an area of effect (The battlefield) so the Lightning can not target them.

The lightning hits every unit on the battlefield, but you can not target a zooming flyer, so it can not hit the zooming flyer.

foolishmortal wrote:
I decided that Hard to Hit, the FAQ, and Skyfire all refer only to shooting attacks.

Terror from the Deep is not an "Attack" as defined by the BRB, but it is an attack. It can not hit a Zooming Flyer

The Lightning is not an "attack" as defined by the BRB, but it is an attack. It creates an area of effect. so it can not hit a Zooming Flyer. same like the Terror from the Deep rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Remember "any attacks that...create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them."

The Lightning falls under this category. It creates an area of effect (The battlefield) so the Lightning can not target them.

The lightning hits every unit on the battlefield, but you can not target a zooming flyer, so it can not hit the zooming flyer.

I see what you are saying here and I think it is a valid argument, just not a very persuasive one. Also, you keep leaving in errors that make it even less persuasive.

LotS does not hit "every unit on the battlefield"

LotS does not "target" units.

Anyways, moving on to the valid part... "It creates an area of effect (The battlefield)"

This is something I have not just considered but also posted about in this thread. I do see it as a possibility, I am just not yet persuaded by any sort of rules based argument that I have thought of for it, or I that have seen presented here.

foolishmortal wrote:
I decided that Hard to Hit, the FAQ, and Skyfire all refer only to shooting attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Terror from the Deep is not an "Attack" as defined by the BRB, but it is an attack. It can not hit a Zooming Flyer.

I'm not sure about it being an attack, but it is covered by the Tyranids update as not hitting flyers, Yes.

It's probably worth mentioning that when I said the Faq, as underlined above, I was referring to

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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Lightning is not an "attack" as defined by the BRB, but it is an attack. It creates an area of effect. so it can not hit a Zooming Flyer. same like the Terror from the Deep rule.

I don't think it's an attack any more than Carnivorous Jungle generates attacks.

I get why GW ruled that TftD doesn't hit flyers, but do you get that a battlefield wide area of effect might be different than a Large Blast marker area of effect? Again, that's assuming the LotS is an area of effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's probably also worth noting that serious people on YMDC probably take the rules of 40k more seriously than most GW employees.
(That's not meant as an insult to them, more as a negative mental health assessment of us)

If I had to bet money on how that TftD faq entry happened, I would guess that either...

a) someone said "of course it doesn't hit flyers, they are flying in the air"

or b) "t says Large Blast Marker, didn't we say something about those not hitting flyers?"

"A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures."

How do you dispute this fact?

P.S. Lightning can hit every unit on the battlefield. (Better?)

Lightning does not "Target" units,(as in you do not have to pick a unit to target because it is not a model that is shooting) but it targets every enemy unit.

Anything that has the potential to cause damage is an "attack".

If I had to bet money on how they will faq Lightning I would guess they would take the same stance on it as all other things that have a potential to cause damage to Vehicles, but do not roll to hit.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures."

How do you dispute this fact?

By pointing out that it is a poorly-worded blanket statement in a faq. Easily made clear by the existence of the the Skyfire rule. If you would like to contend that it is not poorly worded, then I would point out that it says "Only Snap Shots" when by context it is referring to "Only [Shooting Attacks making] Snap Shots"

 DeathReaper wrote:
P.S. Lightning can hit every unit on the battlefield. (Better?)

I would say it checks every unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Lightning does not "Target" units,(as in you do not have to pick a unit to target because it is not a model that is shooting) but it targets every enemy unit.

It just doesn't. It doesn't target, or choose, or select or anything like that.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Anything that has the potential to cause damage is an "attack".

This is not unreasonable, but without some sort of rules reference or rules based argument, all I see here is an appeal to common sense. I don't recall which of YMDC's posting guidelines that is contrary to, but iirc, it's in there somewhere. Bottom line, it's not persuasive.

foolishmortal wrote:
Check the Codex, Lord of the Storm does not target.

Edit : In case you don't have it

Lord of the Storm, Necrons p55.
1st paragraph is about applying Night Fighting
2nd paragraph " In addition, whilst Night Fighting rules remain in play, roll a D6 for each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield at the start of each Necron Shooting phase. On a roll of a 6, that unit is struck by a bolt of lightning and suffers D6 Strength 8, AP 5 hits (vehicles are hit on their side armour). Note that Night Fighting rules brought into play by a Solar Pulse (see page 84) do not generate lightning."

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.


Ok.
FAQ says Maelstroms, novas, beams or any WEAPON that doesn't need to To Hit or hits automatically...
Imotkh's lightning isn't a Maelstrom, Nova, Beam or a weapon at all, and it doesn't hit automatically.
It isn't covered by the Question being asked, and as such, isn't covered by the answer being answered. It isn't an area of effect or a line, template or blast marker.


The Lightning Rule does tell you to roll for each unit, and on a 6 that unit is struck.
The more specific FAQ doesn't address non-weapon hits, and as such, I think the Codex rules out (for now).
If Imotekh was actually doing the shooting I'd agree, but the lightning comes down regardless of what Imotekh is doing.


-Matt

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures."

How do you dispute this fact?

By pointing out that it is a poorly-worded blanket statement in a faq. Easily made clear by the existence of the the Skyfire rule. If you would like to contend that it is not poorly worded, then I would point out that it says "Only Snap Shots" when by context it is referring to "Only [Shooting Attacks making] Snap Shots"

Pointing to a USR that grants an exception to the normal rules as justification is a poor argument.

Fragile wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures."

How do you dispute this fact?

By pointing out that it is a poorly-worded blanket statement in a faq. Easily made clear by the existence of the the Skyfire rule. If you would like to contend that it is not poorly worded, then I would point out that it says "Only Snap Shots" when by context it is referring to "Only [Shooting Attacks making] Snap Shots"

Pointing to a USR that grants an exception to the normal rules as justification is a poor argument.

Fair enough. maybe I am misinterpreting his point.

What I hear DeathReaper saying is, "Snap Shots and only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. There can be no other rules in the BRB or other Codex that allow it."

When I see someone making a blanket statement that prohibits any future modifications (something like sweeping advance in 5th) I try to point out the silliness of it with the most obvious example, in this case Skyfire.

If you or DeathReaper would like to restate the objection so that I might understand it better, I would rethink my response.

Checks = Can hit every unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield.

It targets them by saying this:
"roll a D6 for each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield at the start of each Necron Shooting phase. On a roll of a 6, that unit is struck by a bolt of lightning and suffers D6 Strength 8, AP 5 hits (vehicles are hit on their side armour)."
the underlined is where it says it targets every unengaged unit, by virtue of having to make a roll for each unengaged unit thus that unit being the target of the lightning on the roll of a 6.(this is an extrapolation of the rules of course)

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)

So your contention is that the Lightning attack is not a weapon?

Because see the Armor Pen argument for why this line of thinking is in error. Because if it is not a weapon it does not matter as you can not add the Str8 of the attack (Opps, it is not an attack or is it?) to the D6 roll, so you will never even glance a vehicle, so have it get hits on them all day, it will do nothing to them.

so It must be a "Weapon" of some sort, at the very least an attack.

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Anything that has the potential to cause damage is an "attack".

This is not unreasonable, but without some sort of rules reference or rules based argument, all I see here is an appeal to common sense. I don't recall which of YMDC's posting guidelines that is contrary to, but iirc, it's in there somewhere. Bottom line, it's not persuasive.

How about you find me the definition of "Roll" in the BRB. (You can't because the rules rely on an understanding of the english language to comprehend. This is one of those times that the BRB falls back on the English definition of a word).

HawaiiMatt wrote:


FAQ says Maelstroms, novas, beams or any WEAPON that doesn't need to To Hit or hits automatically...
Imotkh's lightning isn't a Maelstrom, Nova, Beam or a weapon at all, and it doesn't hit automatically.
It isn't covered by the Question being asked, and as such, isn't covered by the answer being answered. It isn't an area of effect or a line, template or blast marker.

The Lightning Rule does tell you to roll for each unit, and on a 6 that unit is struck.
The more specific FAQ doesn't address non-weapon hits, and as such, I think the Codex rules out (for now).
If Imotekh was actually doing the shooting I'd agree, but the lightning comes down regardless of what Imotekh is doing.

There is no 'lightning rule'. It's Lord of the Storm, but essentially, yes, that is my position.

But Wait! There's More! If you read up in around page 2 of this thread, there is a second, competing reason for why Lord of the Storm might be useless against Vehicles (not just flyers) in general from a strict RAW point of view. It's based on the hit being Str 8, but there being no instruction to add D6 to the Armor pen roll.

I personally believe that it's too strict, especially since it would also break the Ram rule on p86.

foolishmortal wrote:

Fragile wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures."

How do you dispute this fact?

By pointing out that it is a poorly-worded blanket statement in a faq. Easily made clear by the existence of the the Skyfire rule. If you would like to contend that it is not poorly worded, then I would point out that it says "Only Snap Shots" when by context it is referring to "Only [Shooting Attacks making] Snap Shots"

Pointing to a USR that grants an exception to the normal rules as justification is a poor argument.

Fair enough. maybe I am misinterpreting his point.

What I hear DeathReaper saying is, "Snap Shots and only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. There can be no other rules in the BRB or other Codex that allow it."

When I see someone making a blanket statement that prohibits any future modifications (something like sweeping advance in 5th) I try to point out the silliness of it with the most obvious example, in this case Skyfire.

If you or DeathReaper would like to restate the objection so that I might understand it better, I would rethink my response.

Now this is silliness. How Flyers interacted with LOTS of things was put on the table to GW and they responded with a simple FAQ that pretty much cleared it up. "Only snap shots.... " Does LotS snap shot ? Then it may not be resolved against a flyer. Arguing Skyfire, which is a USR that makes an exception to that rule, somehow justifies LotS being able to hit is a false comparison. The HtH rule was stated, Skyfire gives an exception. LotS does not. Its no different than Units cannot assault from reserves. But yet Ymgarl Genestealers can, because they have a rule that allows them to.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It targets them by saying this:
"roll a D6 for each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield at the start of each Necron Shooting phase. On a roll of a 6, that unit is struck by a bolt of lightning and suffers D6 Strength 8, AP 5 hits (vehicles are hit on their side armour)."
the underlined is where it says it targets every unengaged unit, by virtue of having to make a roll for each unengaged unit thus that unit being the target of the lightning on the roll of a 6.(this is an extrapolation of the rules of course)

Sir, while I recognize your experience on these forums, I cannot, in good conscience concede this point based on what I perceive to an Argument from Authority and an Appeal to Common Sense rather than a rule or rules-based argument. It is entirely possible that I am at fault in some way for not understanding or following your argument as you intended it. I am a fallible human. Nevertheless, given the information in front of me at this time, I must disagree.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So your contention is that the Lightning attack is not a weapon?

Because see the Armor Pen argument for why this line of thinking is in error. Because if it is not a weapon it does not matter as you can not add the Str8 of the attack (Opps, it is not an attack or is it?) to the D6 roll, so you will never even glance a vehicle, so have it get hits on them all day, it will do nothing to them.

I have been saying the above is a possible strict-RAW position for several pages now. My response is that this position would negate the usefulness of LotS vs not only flyers, but all vehicles, as well as breaking the Ramming rules (p86). Since that interpretation would seem oddly restrictive and break other rules as well, I see it as a possible strict-RAW argument, but reversible by a rules-based argument, and certainly not a RAI or HIWPI argument.

 DeathReaper wrote:
so It must be a "Weapon" of some sort, at the very least an attack.

No, it's quite possible that from a strict-RAW view, the lightning from LotS simply does not have the ability to pen (or even glance) 99%+ of existing vehicles. It doesn't have to be something else, just because I want to to be. What I can do is look at how strictly I am interpreting the rules and see if there is any other way to interpret it, still following a rules based argument, but allowing it and other related rules to function. That is what I have tried to do.

 DeathReaper wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Anything that has the potential to cause damage is an "attack".

This is not unreasonable, but without some sort of rules reference or rules based argument, all I see here is an appeal to common sense. I don't recall which of YMDC's posting guidelines that is contrary to, but iirc, it's in there somewhere. Bottom line, it's not persuasive.

How about you find me the definition of "Roll" in the BRB. (You can't because the rules rely on an understanding of the english language to comprehend. This is one of those times that the BRB falls back on the English definition of a word).

Again, that would be an extremely strict RAW point of view, even more so than above. I woud apply the same procedure though... I would look at how strictly I am interpreting the rules and see if there is any other way to interpret it, still following a rules based argument, but allowing it and other related rules to function.

I would then look at BRB p3 under Dice as well as Rolling a D3. I would use these 2 rules paragraphs to construct a rules based argument for "Roll"

Let me know when you have your rules based argument for what an attack is


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
Now this is silliness. How Flyers interacted with LOTS of things was put on the table to GW and they responded with a simple FAQ that pretty much cleared it up. "Only snap shots.... " Does LotS snap shot ? Then it may not be resolved against a flyer. Arguing Skyfire, which is a USR that makes an exception to that rule, somehow justifies LotS being able to hit is a false comparison. The HtH rule was stated, Skyfire gives an exception. LotS does not. Its no different than Units cannot assault from reserves. But yet Ymgarl Genestealers can, because they have a rule that allows them to.

Ah, I see the confusion. Are you arguing that since the Skyfire rule (BRB p42) is an exception to the Hard to Hit rule (BRB p81), and that LotS includes instructions for how to determine which units suffer hits, but not an exception for allowing flyers to suffer hits, it therefore does not allow flyers to suffer hits?

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Anything that has the potential to cause damage is an "attack".

This is not unreasonable, but without some sort of rules reference or rules based argument, all I see here is an appeal to common sense. I don't recall which of YMDC's posting guidelines that is contrary to, but iirc, it's in there somewhere. Bottom line, it's not persuasive.

How about you find me the definition of "Roll" in the BRB. (You can't because the rules rely on an understanding of the english language to comprehend. This is one of those times that the BRB falls back on the English definition of a word).

Again, that would be an extremely strict RAW point of view, even more so than above. I woud apply the same procedure though... I would look at how strictly I am interpreting the rules and see if there is any other way to interpret it, still following a rules based argument, but allowing it and other related rules to function.

I would then look at BRB p3 under Dice as well as Rolling a D3. I would use these 2 rules paragraphs to construct a rules based argument for "Roll"

Let me know when you have your rules based argument for what an attack is

Okay find me a rule that defines what he words "the", or "a", or "immediately" or "suffers" means within the rules.

If you can not, you must concede that some things are not defined in the BRB, but they fall back on normal English usage to define them.

So either:

1) We accept that the Lightning, and by extension ramming, can not add anything to the D6 roll. (which makes part of the game unplayable).

Or:

2) They are both attacks, and that means the Lightning can not hit a Zooming flyer.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Okay find me a rule that defines what he words "the", or "a", or "immediately" or "suffers" means within the rules.

If you can not, you must concede that some things are not defined in the BRB, but they fall back on normal English usage to define them.

Again, I must politely disagree. I believe this is a False Dilemma, and that my choices are not constrained to these two options. One of many possible third options is that "find me a rule that defines what he words "the", or "a", or "immediately" or "suffers" means within the rules" is an overly strict RAW position from which to have a productive conversation.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So either:

1) We accept that the Lightning, and by extension ramming, can not add anything to the D6 roll. (which makes part of the game unplayable).

Or:

2) They are both attacks, and that means the Lightning can not hit a Zooming flyer.

Again, I must politely disagree. I believe this is a False Dilemma, and that my choices are not constrained to these two options. One of many possible third options is that the LotS tells us what units suffer hits. These hits are the result of the LotS rule itself, not a shooting attack using a weapon, wargear, ability, or psychic ability.

Again, if the principle from which you argue LotS generates attacks, it should be simple to find a reference or two that makes the case.

I like this foolishmortal guy. A lot. Like, mancrush style levels of liking.

katfude wrote:
I like this foolishmortal guy. A lot. Like, mancrush style levels of liking.

Stop it, I'll blush....

I've been doing some reading of old threads, mostly...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/180/459193.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/475091.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/460424.page#4498668
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/468370.page

I found it kind of sad that the poster with (imo) the clearest logic, non-collapsing system structure, and helpful communication skill in the Njal thread, was also the most acerbic and least charitable. He likely got the thread closed after his rant on the 3rd page.

The Njal topic seemed to have the strongest parallel to the LotS question, but what I was most struck by was the insights some people had into to the September GW updates.

I apologize to some of the earlier posters on this thread if you tried to relate these insights to me and I was unable to follow them. Perhaps I was not looking deeply/broadly enough. Or perhaps, you knew the teacher's password, but could not re-create it on your own.

Anyways, I'm too tired to go into detail now, but if anyone wants to think about this question from a few new point of view, consider that our often quoted faq entry...

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.

... is not a reference to p80 (Flyers or Zooming) or p81 (Hard to Hit), but rather to p13 (Snap Shot).

Actually its a reference to just about anything not a snap shot that is attempting to affect a Flyer.

Fragile wrote:
Actually its a reference to just about anything not a snap shot that is attempting to affect a Flyer.

If by 'anything' you mean, "...any weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits automatically...", then I would agree. Is LotS considered a weapon (per the rules)?

-Yad

Yad wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Actually its a reference to just about anything not a snap shot that is attempting to affect a Flyer.

If by 'anything' you mean, "...any weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits automatically...", then I would agree. Is LotS considered a weapon (per the rules)?

-Yad

Read back and you can go over all those arguments. Its an area of attack ability that affects board wide, that "doesn't roll to hit" and hence cannot affect a Flyer since it is not a snapshot.

Fragile wrote:

Yad wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Actually its a reference to just about anything not a snap shot that is attempting to affect a Flyer.

If by 'anything' you mean, "...any weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits automatically...", then I would agree. Is LotS considered a weapon (per the rules)?

-Yad

Read back and you can go over all those arguments. Its an area of attack ability that affects board wide, that "doesn't roll to hit" and hence cannot affect a Flyer since it is not a snapshot.

I did. I think that your attempt to catagorize LotS as a shooting attack, which ultimately is what the FAQ entry addresses (i.e., shooting attacks originating from specific types of weapons), is very subjective. I haven't read a persuasive enough argument that LotS should be considered a shooting attack and thus would be covered by this FAQ.

-Yad

 DeathReaper wrote:
"A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures."

How do you dispute this fact?

Because it's a FAQ answer to a specific question, and not an Errata.
If an Errata said, "only snap shots can hit..." then it would be clear.
Because it's a specific answer to a question on some types of weapons, it's not a statement that can be taken on its own out of context.
If you pull part of a FAQ answer out of the book, without knowing context, or what question is being answered, you can have all sorts of wonky things happen.


-Matt

Yad wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Actually its a reference to just about anything not a snap shot that is attempting to affect a Flyer.

If by 'anything' you mean, "...any weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits automatically...", then I would agree. Is LotS considered a weapon (per the rules)?

-Yad

if you say it is not a weapon, then you must agree you only get a D6 (and not the strength of the attack) to use for armor penetration, as armor pen adds the weapon's strength to the roll).

Correct?

Yad wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Yad wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Actually its a reference to just about anything not a snap shot that is attempting to affect a Flyer.

If by 'anything' you mean, "...any weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits automatically...", then I would agree. Is LotS considered a weapon (per the rules)?

-Yad

Read back and you can go over all those arguments. Its an area of attack ability that affects board wide, that "doesn't roll to hit" and hence cannot affect a Flyer since it is not a snapshot.

I did. I think that your attempt to catagorize LotS as a shooting attack, which ultimately is what the FAQ entry addresses (i.e., shooting attacks originating from specific types of weapons), is very subjective. I haven't read a persuasive enough argument that LotS should be considered a shooting attack and thus would be covered by this FAQ.

-Yad

I didnt say it was a shooting attack. It is an area of effect attack, which cannot affect Flyers.

It does not have a Listed 'Area of Effect'. For reference those are: 'template' 'blast' or 'large blast', and occasionally an X" radius of some sort (which will always explicitly state it is an area of effect in the rule that mentions it). 'The entire battlefield' is not a rules-specific area for this purpose. (The listings for each are available on page 6 under 'Blast Markers and Templates'.)

Call it what you want, but you will find that it will fall under the same category that every other power/ability did that automatically hits..

"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures.."

LotS is not a snap shot and therefore cannot affect Flyers.. That simple sentence kills all the arguments that it can.

Sure, if the rule or FAQ actually used the words 'power/ability' then your point would be correct.

Fortunately, they do not, in preference to being much more specific (and exclusionary) about what is and is not effected by that rule.

Disprove the sentence I quoted

Fragile wrote:
Disprove the sentence I quoted

I think HawaiiMatt addressed your point in response to DR. You're lifting one portion of the FAQ answer and applying it in an overly broad manner. Basically ignoring both the context and focus of the FAQ.

-Yad

Certainly.

These are what the rule effects, as per page 81: Resolved Shots, Skyfire, Template Weapons, Blast Weapons, and Large Blast Weapons vis-a-vis Zooming models.
"...Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots (unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule, as described on page 42).Template, Blast and Large Blast weapons cannot hit fliers in Zoom mode..."

These are in the update in the FAQ about what the rule effects: Maelstroms, Novas, Beams, Any Weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits Automatically vis-a-vis Zooming models.
"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)"

So the total list of rules that the Zooming rule-set has an effect on are: Resolved Shots, Skyfire, Template Weapons, Blast Weapons, Large Blast Weapons, Maelstroms, Novas, Beams, and Any Weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits Automatically.

You'll notice 'Special Abilities' are not on that list...

Its not lifting one portion of the FAQ. Its a clear and concise statement, followed by the second sentence.... "Therefore.... " which explains the first. This whole thread is the same as the Blood Lance and Doom Scythe arguments. LotS automatically hits units and as such is prohibited by the FAQ since it does not snap shot.

No, but attacks are in the answer. Or are you going to claim the lightning strikes are not an attack?

You wouldn't have to, as you are never required to ask the question. (LoTS is not one of the listed rules effected by either the hard-to-hit ruleset itself nor the FAQ update. )

The FAQ update applies only to the items it 'says' it applies to; not everything that it's 'conceivable' that you could apply it to.

So I have a question then...if auto hits don't hit flyers then what would happen if a flyer deep strikes within 6" of a cryptek with an ether crystal? Do those not work as well?

 Neorealist wrote:
You wouldn't have to, as you are never required to ask the question. (LoTS is not one of the listed rules effected by either the hard-to-hit ruleset itself nor the FAQ update. )

The FAQ update applies only to the items it 'says' it applies to; not everything that it's 'conceivable' that you could apply it to.

And that is where you are wrong. A very general question was asked... How does a variety of things.... including "any attack" interact with Flyers. The answer was a simple " Only snap shots can hit Flyers....." They then went on to give a variety of examples including the words "any attacks..." This includes LotS. Attack is a generic term tied into numerous things, ability to wound, Instant Death, Penetration. To claim that it is not an attack but a special ability removes half of the components the game system is built around.

fragile wrote:And that is where you are wrong

Correction: that is where you 'believe' me to be wrong. The FAQ asks a question about a few 'very specific' things and how they interact with the 'Hard-to-Hit' rule, none of which are special abilities.

You appear to be inclined to apply it to anything you deem 'an attack' but to be honest there is no specific rules-valid reason to do so as it is perfectly clear from what they stated in the question, regarding what it applies to.

The most obvious example of intent i'd say is the actual written language used, it's much less clear if anything else should be effected by the rule-set.

 Neorealist wrote:

fragile wrote:And that is where you are wrong

Correction: that is where you 'believe' me to be wrong. The FAQ asks a question about a few 'very specific' things and how they interact with the 'Hard-to-Hit' rule, none of which are special abilities.

You appear to be inclined to apply it to anything you deem 'an attack' but to be honest there is no specific rules-valid reason to do so as it is perfectly clear from what they stated in the question regarding what it applies to.

"Any attack" is not something you would define as "very specific". Their answer still stands and hasn't been disproven. "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers..."

Fragile wrote: "Any attack" is not something you would define as "very specific". Their answer still stands and hasn't been disproven. "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers..."

You are correct there: "Resolved Shots, Skyfire, Template Weapons, Blast Weapons, Large Blast Weapons, Maelstroms, Novas, Beams, and Any Weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits Automatically. " is a list that i'd consider 'very specific'.

There is no reference to the type of attack (if it is in fact one) that LoTS represents in the above list which is an comprehensive list of everything specifically indicated to be modified by the 'Hard-to-Hit' rule.

I'd say the onus is currently with you and those of similar thought to 'prove' that LoTS is effected by the rule despite having no specific connection listed between the two.

Well, then, since your not an attack, then you dont compare Wound to Str toughness to wound and as was brought up previously doesnt effectively Pen vehicles... So it can hit everything on the board, just not do anything to them.

 Neorealist wrote:

Fragile wrote: "Any attack" is not something you would define as "very specific". Their answer still stands and hasn't been disproven. "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers..."

You are correct there: "Resolved Shots, Skyfire, Template Weapons, Blast Weapons, Large Blast Weapons, Maelstroms, Novas, Beams, and Any Weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits Automatically. " is a list that i'd consider 'very specific'.

There is no reference to the type of attack (if it is in fact one) that LoTS represents in the above list which is an comprehensive list of everything specifically indicated to be modified by the 'Hard-to-Hit' rule.

I'd say the onus is currently with you and those of similar thought to 'prove' that LoTS is effected by the rule despite having no specific connection listed between the two.

Neo, and others please answer this for me.
There are two options for the Lightning. Either:

1) It is an attack and works correctly with the rules.
Or
2) It is not an attack and does not work with the Armor Pen, and other, rules.

Which way are you going? 1 or 2?

Quick catch up from the post's from when I was offline...

Fragile wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
You wouldn't have to, as you are never required to ask the question. (LoTS is not one of the listed rules effected by either the hard-to-hit ruleset itself nor the FAQ update. )

The FAQ update applies only to the items it 'says' it applies to; not everything that it's 'conceivable' that you could apply it to.

And that is where you are wrong. A very general question was asked... How does a variety of things.... including "any attack" interact with Flyers. The answer was a simple " Only snap shots can hit Flyers....." They then went on to give a variety of examples including the words "any attacks..." This includes LotS. Attack is a generic term tied into numerous things, ability to wound, Instant Death, Penetration. To claim that it is not an attack but a special ability removes half of the components the game system is built around.

We have the FAQ text in question. It's widely available in this thread as well as at GW website. The discussion will almost certainly be more productive if we don't mis-quote or mis-characterize it.

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.

They did indeed ask a general question. They indeed did not ask how "any attack" interacts with flyers. You are quoting your answer as part of your question, then pointing to it and saying, "see, the question is asked and answered.

Yad wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Actually its a reference to just about anything not a snap shot that is attempting to affect a Flyer.

If by 'anything' you mean, "...any weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits automatically...", then I would agree. Is LotS considered a weapon (per the rules)?

-Yad

This is a good question, and one that may bear insightful fruit. In the earlier threads I read last night, I noticed that p50 (Weapons) was discussed and referenced. I think we need to include it in this thread as well.

Fragile wrote:Read back and you can go over all those arguments. Its an area of attack ability that affects board wide, that "doesn't roll to hit" and hence cannot affect a Flyer since it is not a snapshot.

Sir, I respectfully disagree, as a matter of principled order. This idea has been raised as a possibility by myself and others. I did not say it was a fact, nor did I make a rules based argument that it was so, nor have I seen an argument from anyone on this thread why it should be so.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures."

How do you dispute this fact?

Because it's a FAQ answer to a specific question, and not an Errata.
If an Errata said, "only snap shots can hit..." then it would be clear.
Because it's a specific answer to a question on some types of weapons, it's not a statement that can be taken on its own out of context.
If you pull part of a FAQ answer out of the book, without knowing context, or what question is being answered, you can have all sorts of wonky things happen.

Matt stole some of my thunder here. My insight from last night was in gaining a better understanding to the NO position - how it was based on the above stretch of RAW interpretation.

I was mildly drunk at the time, but the thought went something like this. In a monarchy, a king can make laws as well as pass decrees. Laws can be broad or narrow. If something is not specifically covered by them, an extrapolation or general principle may be found to cover the new application of the law. Decrees, however, are to be followed as is, and regardless of the previous common interpretation of the laws. A king might decree April 5th to be a holiday. A king might decree that his horse is now a duke. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.

GW has a similar system with BRB/Codex/Amendments/Errata as laws, and FAQs as decrees.

"The Errata corrects any mistakes in the codex, while the Amendments bring the rulebook up to date with the latest version of the rules. The
Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules."

RAW, FAQs do not change the rules, but they must be followed. If GW printed a faq that said SM troops with Pistols could Charge and make Close Combat against Zooming flyers, we would have to follow it. Sounds crazy? Oddly enough, GW did something very similar (but not quite as illogical) with Vector Strike on p4 of the BRB v1a update

Q: Can a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature make a Vector Strike against a Zooming Flyer? (p49)
A: Yes.

I won't get into it now. Just note the Faq wording and then go to p49 and look at Vector Strike.
I's not as crazy a horse duke, but it probably should have been an errata, not a faq. But it is a faq, and this is a RAW discussion. (I think/hope)

Neorealist wrote:

Fragile wrote: "Any attack" is not something you would define as "very specific". Their answer still stands and hasn't been disproven. "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers..."

You are correct there: "Resolved Shots, Skyfire, Template Weapons, Blast Weapons, Large Blast Weapons, Maelstroms, Novas, Beams, and Any Weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits Automatically. " is a list that i'd consider 'very specific'.

There is no reference to the type of attack (if it is in fact one) that LoTS represents in the above list which is an comprehensive list of everything specifically indicated to be modified by the 'Hard-to-Hit' rule.

I'd say the onus is currently with you and those of similar thought to 'prove' that LoTS is effected by the rule despite having no specific connection listed between the two.

I would agree with this representation of the state of affairs here. The argument currently seems to be about the scope of the "How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon..." faq question and/or answer. I would add that there are other points to be considered...

p50 Weapons - honestly, this line of thinking will probably decide if I am PRO or NO on the OP's question. Currently leaning towards PRO, but still pondering the nature and scope of "weapon"
p49 Vector Strike
Njal's Lord of Tempasts rule (SW p53)
Cryptek's Ether Crystal (Necron p 85)
Did we ever state a rules based argument for what an attack it?
The Armor Penetrating resolution

I believe i'll be going with 'It hits fliers because hard-to-hit doesn't cover special abilities' personally; I have no vested interest in debating wether or not it is an 'attack' in the rules-defined sense.

So no answer for my previous question?

I will ask it again:
There are two options for the Lightning. Either:

1) It is an attack (this means that it works correctly with the rules).
Or
2) It is not an attack (this means that it does not work with the Armor Pen, and other, rules).

Which way are you going? 1 or 2?

Edit: Neorealist, determining if it is or is not an attack is crucial to the debate...

 Neorealist wrote:
I believe i'll be going with 'It hits fliers because hard-to-hit doesn't cover special abilities' personally; I have no vested interest in debating wether or not it is an 'attack' in the rules-defined sense.

So the Mawloc ruling goes counter to the rules? (not that I'd be surprised - it's a Tyranid ability after all)

Tyranid FAQ 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.

foolishmortal wrote:
RAW, FAQs do not change the rules, but they must be followed.

I'm confused. how does the FAQ not change the rules?
Tyranids are the perfect example.

Does SITW affect embarked psykers?
At one point the answer was no. Now it is yes.

Better example - Spore Cloud. In 5th edition, if you took a dangerous (or difficult) terrain test your Initiative was dropped to 1 for the first round of combat. Spore Cloud forces a Dangerous Terrain test. GW (in their infinite wisdom) said that charging through a spore cloud did not drop your initiative because it was not terrain. How is that not changing the rule? The rule went from Dangerous Terrain test to moving through Dangerous terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:

1) It is an attack and works correctly with the rules.
Or
2) It is not an attack and does not work with the Armor Pen, and other, rules.

Which way are you going? 1 or 2?

I would say 3) Lord of the storm is a rule.
I will try to follow it as well as all other rules. [and now I will plagiarize shamelessly - but with this notation which may be interpreted as a tiny bit of shame]

If the language of the rule is plain and unambiguous, and the rule is coherent and consistent with the rest of the rules, I will use the rule as written.
I will not interpret the rule in such a way that creates more conflicts that it resolves.
When two rules seem to conflict, interpret them in such a way that they both can stand.
If the rules don’t tell players they can do something, players can’t do it.
I will interpret the rule as written by reference to the meanings of the words themselves and the context in which they are used.
Where the language of the rule is unclear, or in rare cases where the application of the rule as written will clearly violate GW’s intentions, interpret the rule according to GW’s intent.
I will not interpret a rule in such a way that makes some of the language inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant.
A more specific rule will be given precedence over a more general one.
The interpretation which requires the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one.
I will not interpret a rule in such a way that would create an absurd or unjust or extremely inconvenient result.
I will not interpret an ambiguous rule in such a way that would take away a substantial right that has been granted by other rules.
Older rules must be interpreted as being flexible when new rules and situations arise.
I will believe, perhaps naively, that when GW includes particular language in one place but omits it in another, it does so for a reason.

Happyjew wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:
RAW, FAQs do not change the rules, but they must be followed.

I'm confused. how does the FAQ not change the rules?
Tyranids are the perfect example.

Does SITW affect embarked psykers?
At one point the answer was no. Now it is yes.

Better example - Spore Cloud. In 5th edition, if you took a dangerous (or difficult) terrain test your Initiative was dropped to 1 for the first round of combat. Spore Cloud forces a Dangerous Terrain test. GW (in their infinite wisdom) said that charging through a spore cloud did not drop your initiative because it was not terrain. How is that not changing the rule? The rule went from Dangerous Terrain test to moving through Dangerous terrain.

And in this edition. Either the Mawloc FAQ changes the rule specifically for TFTD or it clarifies that special abilities are also affected.

Happyjew wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:
RAW, FAQs do not change the rules, but they must be followed.

I'm confused. how does the FAQ not change the rules?
Tyranids are the perfect example.

Does SITW affect embarked psykers?
At one point the answer was no. Now it is yes.

Better example - Spore Cloud. In 5th edition, if you took a dangerous (or difficult) terrain test your Initiative was dropped to 1 for the first round of combat. Spore Cloud forces a Dangerous Terrain test. GW (in their infinite wisdom) said that charging through a spore cloud did not drop your initiative because it was not terrain. How is that not changing the rule? The rule went from Dangerous Terrain test to moving through Dangerous terrain.

"The Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules."

I agree that faq entries in GW updates change how gameplay situations are resolved. From a RAI / HIWPI point of view that equates to changing the rule.

We also seem to agree that several faq entries differ from what was the commonly considered the correct way of resolving a gameplay situation. You cited several good examples.

My point is that GW's updates are divided (by GW) into things that change the RAW to fix mistakes, things that change the RAW to bring the codex
up to date with the latest version of the rules, and things answer common questions about the rules."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
And in this edition. Either the Mawloc FAQ changes the rule specifically for TFTD or it clarifies that special abilities are also affected.

I agree, GW includes information in the form of faqs, that seem much more appropriately errata or amendment.

Are you seriously saying that the Spore Cloud FAQ did not change the rules specific to Spore Cloud?

I feel i need to clarify my position "what is an attack?"

I don't have one. I just don't think it's useful.

I am willing to look at an argument that there is such a thing as a general 40k "attack", but I'm not going to chase it myself. So far, in 6th Ed, I am aware if the Attacks characteristic (p2), my shooting attacks are made by my units, nominated by my choice (p12), and that Witchfire is a Shooting attack (p69).

More useful, imo, would be a discussion about "hits". Hits are generated by many different game rules, but are resolved in much the same way, despite the rules.

1) Determine hits based upon rules. The hits will have some inherent information (Str A, AP B, Special rule C, etc) based upon the rules that caused them

2) Resolve hits. Hits vs infantry resolution is the default procedure. Other sorts of units have additional or alternate rules for working out the results of hits. Armor pen, Jink save for bikes, etc




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Are you seriously saying that the Spore Cloud FAQ did not change the rules specific to Spore Cloud?

I am saying that by GW's preface to every update they have posted for quite a while, that they are saying that spore cloud ruling and others like it "answers commonly asked
questions about the rules"

In this, as many other cases, I found their answer to be surprising and contrary to the widely used rules by many 40k players around the world.

At best, I see it as an oversight on their part.
At worst, it's pretty blatant cognitive dissonance.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So no answer for my previous question?

I will ask it again:
There are two options for the Lightning. Either:

1) It is an attack (this means that it works correctly with the rules).
Or
2) It is not an attack (this means that it does not work with the Armor Pen, and other, rules).

Which way are you going? 1 or 2?

Edit: Neorealist, determining if it is or is not an attack is crucial to the debate...

That's fine, no one had input on my question about ether crystals either. They probably aren't technically an attack, they hit automatically, they affect the opponent on their turn...would they work against flyers/swoopers?

Updated Decision Tree for resolving Lord of the Storm

Given an unengaged enemy flyer unit in play. Note that the flyer unit zoomed in it's players most recent movement phase.
Given it is the beginning of the Necron player's shooting phase. Note that the Night Fighting rules are still from the Necron Player's Imotekh's Lord of the Storm rule and that a Solar Pulse has not been used.

1) The 2nd paragraph of Lord of the Storm instructs the Necron player to roll a D6 for each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield.
?1) Is the unengaged enemy flyer unit "on the battlefield"?

2) The Necron player rolls a 6 for the unengaged enemy flyer unit. The Lord of the Storm rule states that the unit "suffers D6 Strength 8, AP 5 hits"
?2a) Is there a rule, faq, or rules based argument that prohibits the unengaged enemy flyer unit from suffering these hits?

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.

?2b) Is The Lord of the Storm and/or the lightning generated by the rule a "weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically"

?2c) What is a weapon?

p50 - "Every weapon has a profile." Profiles include Range, Strength, Armour Piercing, and Type. I don't have a citation for it right now, but iirc a weapon does not need to have an explict profile line. A profile may be given in longer sentence format. Anyone know where I am remembering this from? I think it was an update.

?2d) Does Lord of the Storm and/or the lightning generated by the rule have a profile?

It does not have an explicit profile line. It does have information in sentence form about Strength and AP. It does not have a stated range, but a range of "unlimited" could be reasonable argued.

Per p50 (Range), Range may also denote whether a weapon is a shooting weapon (range ##" or template) or a Melee weapon (Range -).

Lord of the Storm and/or the lightning generated by the rule does not seem to have an explicit or implicit Type.

?2e) What is a Weapon Type?

"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Rapid Fire or Salvo."
"Weapon with the Melee type can only be used in close combat."
"The Type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question."

?2f) Does Lord of the Storm and/or the lightning generated by the rule have an determinable Type?

This is where I am now... any ideas?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kevin949 wrote:
That's fine, no one had input on my question about ether crystals either. They probably aren't technically an attack, they hit automatically, they affect the opponent on their turn...would they work against flyers/swoopers?

I thought it was a great question and included it in my list of things to examine. It has a strong parallel to the OP's question.

I think the problem has more to do with the vagueness and often unstructured nature of Internet conversations, but for me, that's some of the fun. You never know where things might lead...

Perhaps post it as a new topic?

foolishmortal wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kevin949 wrote:
That's fine, no one had input on my question about ether crystals either. They probably aren't technically an attack, they hit automatically, they affect the opponent on their turn...would they work against flyers/swoopers?

I thought it was a great question and included it in my list of things to examine. It has a strong parallel to the OP's question.

I think the problem has more to do with the vagueness and often unstructured nature of Internet conversations, but for me, that's some of the fun. You never know where things might lead...

Perhaps post it as a new topic?

Mm, Maybe. It's not necessarily that I was asking for a RAW answer, more so how some of naysayers here would respond to it in context to what is going. I mean, if one is to say that lord of the storms' lightning won't affect flyers then surely that would mean many other things that, by all rights, should affect flyers but wouldn't as well. But then in some cases you won't be following the rules. As you said, I think it's a strong parallel to the topic of discussion here and stays within the bounds of the same codex, but it's such a rarely used item I'd doubt it would warrant its' own thread at the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:


p50 - "Every weapon has a profile." Profiles include Range, Strength, Armour Piercing, and Type. I don't have a citation for it right now, but iirc a weapon does not need to have an explict profile line. A profile may be given in longer sentence format. Anyone know where I am remembering this from? I think it was an update.

?2d) Does Lord of the Storm and/or the lightning generated by the rule have a profile?

It does not have an explicit profile line. It does have information in sentence form about Strength and AP. It does not have a stated range, but a range of "unlimited" could be reasonable argued.

Per p50 (Range), Range may also denote whether a weapon is a shooting weapon (range ##" or template) or a Melee weapon (Range -).

Lord of the Storm and/or the lightning generated by the rule does not seem to have an explicit or implicit Type.

?2e) What is a Weapon Type?

"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Rapid Fire or Salvo."
"Weapon with the Melee type can only be used in close combat."
"The Type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question."

?2f) Does Lord of the Storm and/or the lightning generated by the rule have an determinable Type?

This is where I am now... any ideas?

1. Under Rolling to Wound - Pg. 14 - "Each weapon has its own Strength value, which is given in its profile or in the description of the weapon. Here are some examples of different weapons and their Strength characteristics"

Well, since a deep-striking, non-walker vehicle is considered to have moved at cruising speed the turn it deep strikes onto the board, I would say the first question is "did the Flyer Zoom onto the board as part of it's deep-strike?"

There may be other threads on this or perhaps some update info or a rule that I missed.

If it is zooming as well as deep striking, then the argument lines up very well with Lord of the Storm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From the Necron update 1.1 p2

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.

foolishmortal wrote:
Well, since a deep-striking, non-walker vehicle is considered to have moved at cruising speed the turn it deep strikes onto the board, I would say the first question is "did the Flyer Zoom onto the board as part of it's deep-strike?"

There may be other threads on this or perhaps some update info or a rule that I missed.

If it is zooming as well as deep striking, then the argument lines up very well with Lord of the Storm.

I would presume (though possibly incorrectly) that if a monstrous creature must swoop when deep striking then a flyer must zoom when deep striking. Though do other flyers other than the necron ones have deep strike and hover? (I know necron ones don't have hover, but ones with hover are really the only ones that would be in question here)

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So no answer for my previous question?

I will ask it again:
There are two options for the Lightning. Either:

1) It is an attack (this means that it works correctly with the rules).
Or
2) It is not an attack (this means that it does not work with the Armor Pen, and other, rules).

Which way are you going? 1 or 2?

I would say 3) Lord of the storm is a rule.

It is a yes or no question. There is no third option. We know Lord of the storm is a rule. Either the rule is used to attack the opposing army, or the rule is not used to attack the opposing army.

Yes or no?

Please resolve this issue.

 DeathReaper wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So no answer for my previous question?

I will ask it again:
There are two options for the Lightning. Either:

1) It is an attack (this means that it works correctly with the rules).
Or
2) It is not an attack (this means that it does not work with the Armor Pen, and other, rules).

Which way are you going? 1 or 2?

I would say 3) Lord of the storm is a rule.

It is a yes or no question. There is no third option. We know Lord of the storm is a rule. Either the rule is used to attack the opposing army, or the rule is not used to attack the opposing army.

Yes or no?

Please resolve this issue.

Through careful reading of multiple parts of the rule book, anything that has the potential to damage an enemy is an attack. Anything with a strength value, is an attack.

 DeathReaper wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So no answer for my previous question?

I will ask it again:
There are two options for the Lightning. Either:

1) It is an attack (this means that it works correctly with the rules).
Or
2) It is not an attack (this means that it does not work with the Armor Pen, and other, rules).

Which way are you going? 1 or 2?

I would say 3) Lord of the storm is a rule.

It is a yes or no question. There is no third option. We know Lord of the storm is a rule. Either the rule is used to attack the opposing army, or the rule is not used to attack the opposing army.

Yes or no? Please resolve this issue.

I'm sure you're not intending to be rude, but some might consider this to be a loaded question or a false dilemma - something of a trick used to steer the conversation into a negitave for the answerer, no matter what he chooses.

A common example of this sort of thing in debate, discourse, logic and politics is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" There is no good yes or no answer here, although from a practical point of view, I would say "Yes" is the better answer. I will try and answer yours the same way.

Of your 2 choices, I would say it is not an attack.

So how are you defining "attack"? It certainly deosnt follow a common English example of attack, which is all we have to fall back on, given "attack" has no 40k definition...

rigeld2 wrote:So the Mawloc ruling goes counter to the rules? (not that I'd be surprised - it's a Tyranid ability after all)

I suspect that has everything to do with the Mawloc using a Large Blast Marker for it's specific special ability and nothing to do with anything intrinsic to special abilities in and of themselves.

But i'll be honest here, i have no idea why they decided it doesn't work against fliers. I guess someone asked, and they had to make a decision one way or the other? So they went with the one that didn't have giant subterranean worms sneak-attacking fliers. Pity that, would have been awesome.

foolishmortal wrote:
I'm sure you're not intending to be rude, but some might consider this to be a loaded question or a false dilemma - something of a trick used to steer the conversation into a negitave for the answerer, no matter what he chooses.

A common example of this sort of thing in debate, discourse, logic and politics is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" There is no good yes or no answer here, although from a practical point of view, I would say "Yes" is the better answer. I will try and answer yours the same way.

That is not the same situation at all.

The question you pose is a loaded question and it insinuates that the person that answers the question beats his wife. My Yes/No question makes no such Insinuations/assumptions.

Either your rule is an attack or it is not.

foolishmortal wrote:
Of your 2 choices, I would say it is not an attack.

As Nos said " how are you defining "attack"? It certainly doesn't follow a common English example of attack, which is all we have to fall back on, given "attack" has no 40k definition."

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So how are you defining "attack"? It certainly deosnt follow a common English example of attack, which is all we have to fall back on, given "attack" has no 40k definition...

I haven't defined attack. In 40k, I have noted a few instances of it's use, but no clear place from which to generalize a definition.

I did look, and was surprised at how in frequently it was used in some places in the rules that I expected it to be common.

Guess how many times the BRB has "attack" in the Shooting Phase rules (p12-19). It was a lot less than I expected.

I am fairly confident LotS does not involve a "shooting attack" (p12)
I am more confident LotS does not involve a melee or close combat attack.

That leaves me wondering if I should generate some sort of 40k rule for a generic, non-shooting, non-close combat attack, or if I should call the LotS a special rule and try to apply the special rule as best I can.

My working definition for a generic attack would be something like "an attempt permitted by the BRB and/or codex rules for one Unit to negatively affect one or more enemy units"

My problem with such a generalized attack term is that I could substitute the word "magic" or "rules" or "system" and get about the same power of clarification. It's too broad to be helpful.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Either your rule is an attack or it is not.

As Nos said " how are you defining "attack"? It certainly doesn't follow a common English example of attack, which is all we have to fall back on, given "attack" has no 40k definition."

The difficulty of the question is right here.

You are asking me if X is either A or not A, without a definition of A

It's a loaded question because you added parenthetical, negative statements of how it interpret my answer for each choice.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

1) Yes (but I was before)
2) No (I sure am bad)


Edit - a question to DeathReaper, nosferatu1001, anyone else - What rule are you looking at where it matters if LotS or the lightning from it is an attack?

If it's the faq below, why aren't you interested in my line of thinking whether of not LotS or the lightning from it is a weapon?

"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."

The explanation mostly: "Therefore, any attacks that use..."

if it is an attack then it can not hit flyers.

if it is not an attack then it can not use the str for armor pen.

The first one does not break any rules.

The second one breaks rules.

So since the question asked is...

"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? "

... why not help me figure out if it's a weapon and the faq applies?

I'd like to go on the record indicating i am uncomfortable with your allegory, linguistic device though it may be

That said, have we moved on from determining wether or not LoTS can hit fliers to the definition of the word 'attack'? seems like a bit of a leap to me, perhaps someone can clarify why defining the word 'attack' within the context of 40k is relevent to the OPs question?

I would also be interested in an opinion on my new thread Ork Blitza-Bommer's Skreamin' Descent vs Snap Shot and Hard to Hit

It is the closest parallel situation I have found yet.

It involves a zooming flier suffering a hit of S9, AP2 from a special rule after a roll of 3 or 4 on 2d6.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:
I'd like to go on the record indicating i am uncomfortable with your allegory, linguistic device though it may be

I agree and apologize. It is a painful question to ask, answer or even hear. Sadly, that is probably why it is used as a classic example in debate theory. It has a strong, emotional response regardless of the level civility or rational tone otherwise intended. I won't bring it up again.

 Neorealist wrote:
That said, have we moved on from determining wether or not LoTS can hit fliers to the definition of the word 'attack'? seems like a bit of a leap to me, perhaps someone can clarify why defining the word 'attack' within the context of 40k is relevent to the OPs question?

He is citing ...

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.

Ah i see. Personally i'd go with 'attack' in that context specifically representing attacks from weapons as defined in the question, rather than applying universally to any kind of attack. It's not from the Errata section and therefore 'should' not be introducing new rules though I have known GW to play fast and loose with rules updates presented as 'clarifications'. (for specific examples, see the writeup for the nightscythe)

i do believe that the Lightning is an 'attack' (in the english language-defined sense) but not necessarily such in the 40k-specific sense; which i believe are limited to 'close combat attacks', and 'shooting attacks'. (and anything that specifically references either of the above, such as PSAs)

PSAs (witchfire) even has a mention that it counts as firing an Assault weapon unless otherwise noted. (p69)

foolishmortal wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
That said, have we moved on from determining wether or not LoTS can hit fliers to the definition of the word 'attack'? seems like a bit of a leap to me, perhaps someone can clarify why defining the word 'attack' within the context of 40k is relevent to the OPs question?

He is citing ...

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.

So the short version of my stance is:
1) It's not a weapon.
2) It's not a shooting attack (if it were, it would be limited by range and line of sight, as no exemption to range or line of sight is given)
3) It doesn't auto hit, models are "struck" on a roll of 6.
4) All of the FAQ examples are ruling out effects that specifically work around the 1:6 chance vs flyers, either by auto-hitting or being a marker of some sort. Lightning does not bypass a roll to strike.

Since we don't have a rule for being Struck, does Struck = Hit?
I'd say yes.

Can Dark Eldar jet bikes Bladevanes a Flyer? Lacking a roll to hit, I'd say no, but I'd love to see GW respond to that as well (only because I'd bet on them waffling to confuse everyone).

-Matt

Good catch on the LoS issue.

As far as future updates, they already put out...

Q: Can a character on a Chariot that is also a Skimmer make a
Sweep Attack against a Zooming Flyer? (p82)
A: No.

So I'm guessing the trend is no.

Interestingly, GW also said ...

Q: Does a Necron Overlord on a Catacomb Command Barge benefit from Furious Charge on a Sweep Attack? In addition, are Sweep Attacks close combat attacks? (p52)
A: No to both questions.

So, we have an instance of a special rule generating attacks that are not close combat attacks. (and probably not shooting attacks either)

They are "sweep attacks"
Think of it this way, you need a roll of 6 to have the flyer be "struck". You need a 6 to "hit" a flyer based on hard to hit.. neither of these can be modified. Seems like if you call it a shooting attack, it needs a 6 to hit, and therefore is BS 1.

Other way of looking at it is...
N'Cons are OP, why not make them more OP? By Op i mean very under costed.

So we still have a general class called "attacks" then, using a common English defintion. We dont have a 40k one so the common English one is used.

In common English usage it most certainly IS an attack, and as such cannot hit fliers. Luckily this means it CAN actually damage other objects.

Fragile wrote:
Call it what you want, but you will find that it will fall under the same category that every other power/ability did that automatically hits..

"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures.."

LotS is not a snap shot and therefore cannot affect Flyers.. That simple sentence kills all the arguments that it can.

Stating that quote over and over again doesnt make it apply to non-shooting attacks. There are other things that can target flyers that doesnt fall under the Shooting rules either, like Vector Strikes etc, which means that you can't apply it to non-shooting attacks, or other special abilities.


Now, even if one rule says that Vector Strikes CAN hit Flyers it is still NOT a Snap Shot thus CAN NOT target flyers? Now i am not resolving the Vector Strike as a Snap Shot, but i can hit anyway?

Also, from the FAQ:

"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."

Now, how and when do i "target" anything?

In the Shooting phase, where i nominate which models are firing, After doing that i have to target a model by checking range and los. Now, this isn't a shooting attack, so how do you expect to follow another set of shooting rules for a non-shooting attack?

I am NOT targetting them. I don't have to target them, the models are simply hit. Targetting is a part of the Shooting Phase where you check range and LoS. This is not shooting. I am simply resolving the hits.

Edit: Incredibly silly typos

Let's look at the structure of the faq.

Only snapshots can hit flyers (gives a very specific permission to what can hit flyers)
therefore (so based on this)
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 prohibition to what can't hit is very broad and covers any other kind of attack).

There is no need for a specific mention of "targeting" because the death ray doesn't target any unit but still doesn't affect flyers.

copper.talos wrote:
Let's look at the structure of the faq.

Only snapshots can hit flyers (gives a very specific permission to what can hit flyers)
therefore (so based on this)
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 prohibition to what can't hit is very broad and covers any other kind of attack).

There is no need for a specific mention of "targeting" because the death ray doesn't target any unit but still doesn't affect flyers.

Only snapshots can hit flyers (gives a very specific permission to what can hit flyers).

There are other things that can hit a flyer, like Vector Strike. By applying the "only snap shots can hit flyers" to everything, even things that aren't shooting you're actually saying that:

Vector Strike CAN hit a flyer because it says so in the rule. A Vector Strike cannot make Snap Shots which by your own logic is the only way to hit a flyer. So how can it hit if it can't fire Snap Shots?

The death ray IS a shooting weapon and must abide by the shooting rules which is clarified in the FAQ entry regarding shooting attacks that doesnt roll to hit.

You simply can't apply shooting rules and restrictions on non-shooting attacks.

Tjolle79 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
Let's look at the structure of the faq.

Only snapshots can hit flyers (gives a very specific permission to what can hit flyers)
therefore (so based on this)
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 prohibition to what can't hit is very broad and covers any other kind of attack).

There is no need for a specific mention of "targeting" because the death ray doesn't target any unit but still doesn't affect flyers.

Only snapshots can hit flyers (gives a very specific permission to what can hit flyers).

There are other things that can hit a flyer, like Vector Strike. By applying the "only snap shots can hit flyers" to everything, even things that aren't shooting you're actually saying that:

Vector Strike CAN hit a flyer because it says so in the rule. A Vector Strike cannot make Snap Shots which by your own logic is the only way to hit a flyer. So how can it hit if it can't fire Snap Shots?

The death ray IS a shooting weapon and must abide by the shooting rules which is clarified in the FAQ entry regarding shooting attacks that doesnt roll to hit.

You simply can't apply shooting rules and restrictions on non-shooting attacks.

Citing a rule that gives specific permission to do something is a flawed argument in a permissive rule set. "Only snap shots can hit Flyers..." Vector strike gives permission to hit flyers by its rule. Where is the rule that lets LotS do it ?

Fragile wrote:

Tjolle79 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
Let's look at the structure of the faq.

Only snapshots can hit flyers (gives a very specific permission to what can hit flyers)
therefore (so based on this)
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 prohibition to what can't hit is very broad and covers any other kind of attack).

There is no need for a specific mention of "targeting" because the death ray doesn't target any unit but still doesn't affect flyers.

Only snapshots can hit flyers (gives a very specific permission to what can hit flyers).

There are other things that can hit a flyer, like Vector Strike. By applying the "only snap shots can hit flyers" to everything, even things that aren't shooting you're actually saying that:

Vector Strike CAN hit a flyer because it says so in the rule. A Vector Strike cannot make Snap Shots which by your own logic is the only way to hit a flyer. So how can it hit if it can't fire Snap Shots?

The death ray IS a shooting weapon and must abide by the shooting rules which is clarified in the FAQ entry regarding shooting attacks that doesnt roll to hit.

You simply can't apply shooting rules and restrictions on non-shooting attacks.

Citing a rule that gives specific permission to do something is a flawed argument in a permissive rule set. "Only snap shots can hit Flyers..." Vector strike gives permission to hit flyers by its rule. Where is the rule that lets LotS do it ?

It's right in the rule for LotS: "Roll a d6 for EACH unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield".

Each unit, no exceptions is listed or FAQ'd, hence each unit on the battlefield is hit.

So the permission is given that i hit a flyer because each unit is hit, without listing exceptions.
If i were to assume that the rulebook FAQ answer about shooting applies (which i don't since both Snap Shot and the rules for targetting is for shooting attacks, which this isnt). I now have clashing rules. Now what does the rulebook say about conflicting rules? That the rule in the codex always takes precedence.

Vector Strike has a specific permission, LotS does not. If LotS had such a permission we wouldn't have this discussion (at least I hope we wouldn't)...

In the specific > general point: LotS has permission to hit all units. Those that have the hard to hit rule are an exception.

Flyers can only be hit by snap shot. Vector strike is an exception to this.

copper.talos wrote:
Vector Strike has a specific permission, LotS does not. If LotS had such a permission we wouldn't have this discussion (at least I hope we wouldn't)...

In the specific > general point: LotS has permission to hit all units. Those that have the hard to hit rule are an exception.

Flyers can only be hit by snap shot. Vector strike is an exception to this.

Why are they an exception? What does the Hard to Hit rule say?

"Shots resolved at a zooming flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots"

This isn't a shot.

The HtH was clarified by the faq as: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures.

So any unit in general can be hit by LotS. Hard to Hit provides an exception to flyers.

If i were to assume that the rulebook FAQ answer about shooting applies (which i don't since both Snap Shot and the rules for targetting is for shooting attacks, which this isnt). I now have clashing rules.

My codex says that all units are hit.
The Rulebook says that the flyers aren't hit because it has to be a Snap Shot.

Now what does the rulebook say about conflicting rules? That the rule in the codex always takes precedence.

Faq > codex & rulebook.

And it never was codex>rulebook. Only specific>general. And as it is HtH provides a specific exception to LotS.

copper.talos wrote:
Faq > codex & rulebook.

And it never was codex>rulebook. Only specific>general. And as I have proven HtH provides a specific exception to LotS.

Page 7 of 6th edition rulebook:

"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between rules in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedent".

So, the Rulebook FAQ overrules the Rulebook. It's still the rulebook, just updated by the FAQ.
So still its Codex>Rulebook.

Now if it were to be put into the Necron FAQ they would most likely put a reply directly to LotS like they have for similar special abilites, such as Bomb Squigs and Mawloc's Terror from the Deep.

This isn't a case of conflicting rules. It's a case of specific vs general.

Of course its conflicting rules.

Codex lets me hit ALL targets.
Rulebook FAQ says i can't hit Flyers, thus i can't hit all targets anymore.

You just proved it's a specific vs general case.

foolishmortal wrote:Interestingly, GW also said ...
Q: Does a Necron Overlord on a Catacomb Command Barge benefit from Furious Charge on a Sweep Attack? In addition, are Sweep Attacks close combat attacks? (p52)
A: No to both questions.
So, we have an instance of a special rule generating attacks that are not close combat attacks. (and probably not shooting attacks either)

nosferatu1001 wrote:So we still have a general class called "attacks" then, using a common English defintion. We dont have a 40k one so the common English one is used.

In retrospect, "Sweep Attacks" is the name of the special rule for Chariot Skimmers on p82. It could have been "Floating Pokes" or "Royal Privileged", etc. No where in the Sweep Attack text does it refer to "attacks" separately or capitalized as part of "Sweep Attacks" .

copper.talos wrote:Let's look at the structure of the faq.

Only snapshots can hit flyers (gives a very specific permission to what can hit flyers)
therefore (so based on this)
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 prohibition to what can't hit is very broad and covers any other kind of attack).

There is no need for a specific mention of "targeting" because the death ray doesn't target any unit but still doesn't affect flyers.

Let's look at the structure of the whole faq, not just the part that supports a particular argument.

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.

1) Is Lord of the Storm (or the lightning from LotS) a weapon?
2) Does Lord of the Storm (or the lightning from LotS) need to roll To Hit or hits automatically?

Please check to see if the faq entry applies before citing parts it. (for a RAW discussion. If you want to argue, RAI or HIWPI, feel free, but try to keep it clear)

On #1, I have posted above that LotS has no easily determined type - can anyone help this line of thought?

I was waiting for #1 to resolve before I went to #2, but I will say for now, if Lord of the Storm (or the lightning from LotS) is weapon, and the traits of that weapon are only knowable by reading the LotS rules text, I am leaning towards Yes, it does need a roll to hit (based also on its rules text)

1) The lightning is comparable to a weapon. it has a Str and AP value. and if we look at the standard definition of a weapon then the lightning qualifies.

2) On a 6 the LotS automatically generates hits on a unit. That tells me it hits automatically as no roll to hit is needed, just that the unit takes D6 hits on the roll of a 6.


As for the LoS, the rule does not originate from a model so LoS does not enter into the equation.

 DeathReaper wrote:
1) The lightning is comparable to a weapon. it has a Str and AP value. and if we look at the standard definition of a weapon then the lightning qualifies.

This looks like a very reasonable HYWPI argument. RAW. I would refer to page 50 and ask what is the weapon's type?

 DeathReaper wrote:
2) On a 6 the LotS automatically generates hits on a unit. That tells me it hits automatically as no roll to hit is needed, just that the unit takes D6 hits on the roll of a 6.

You don't see any odd about this sentence?

 DeathReaper wrote:
As for the LoS, the rule does not originate from a model so LoS does not enter into the equation.

let me see if I understand your position here. You believe it is a weapon, but not a shooting attack, and therefore does not require LoS?

Not all attacks require LOS. Some examples listed:
Barrage weapons
Impaler Cannons
Astral Aim
Eldar Vibro Cannon
Seeker Missiles (unless it got FAQ'd can't remember)
It is also arguable that the Farseer psa "Eldritich Strm" does not need LOS due to the wording of Farseer powers.

I believe it is comparable to a weapon. (Not that it is a weapon, just comparable to one).

I also believe it is not a shooting attack that originates from any specific model.

as for 2) there is nothing odd about what I wrote. roll a die to see if the unit is affected by the lightning. on the roll of a 6 the unit takes D6 hits. The power does not state that it rolls to hit, so it does not. It is not a roll to hit, because rolls to hit use a BS. the Lightning does not use a BS to hit, just a 1 in 6 chance.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I believe it is comparable to a weapon. (Not that it is a weapon, just comparable to one).

I also believe it is not a shooting attack that originates from any specific model.

as for 2) there is nothing odd about what I wrote. roll a die to see if the unit is affected by the lightning. on the roll of a 6 the unit takes D6 hits. The power does not state that it rolls to hit, so it does not. It is not a roll to hit, because rolls to hit use a BS. the Lightning does not use a BS to hit, just a 1 in 6 chance.

This seems reasonable from a RAI point of view. I do have some problems with this line of thinking when applied to a Zooming Ork Blitza-Bommer's uses the Skreamin' Descent rule.

When I see an apparent contradiction like that between the application of a line of thinking to one rule invalidating another rule when applied in the same maner, I question where the problem might be - the line of thought, a poorly written other rule, or some failure on my part of comparing them.

Again, I never questioned the validity of the NO position from a RAI view. I might agree with it, or not agree with it, but I would not say it's silly or inconsistent with other flyer related rulings.

RAW, my main objection is that I'm not sure the oft quoted faq entry applies.

(p12) "During the Shooting Phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks." Since LotS is not a shooting attack, I do not believe the Hard to Hit rule applies here. I believe the LotS special rule is simply that - a special rule from a Unique HQ that instructs you to do something at certain times, under certain conditions.

The application Mawloc faq entry clarifies of whether or not my argument would be RAW or RAI.

RAI, it seems that GW wishes flyers to be nearly sacrosanct while zooming, vulnerable to a very narrow list of threats (Snap Shots, Skyfire, and Vector Strike)

RAW, the Mawloc faq entry tells me what to do with a Mawloc. No more, no less.

It is actually really simple, and I did not notice until just now.

Question for you guys.

Does LotS hit zooming flyers?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Does LotS hit zooming flyers?

Isn't that what the past 7 pages have been trying to answer?
Or do you have a cunning revelation to reveal?

The effected units suffer hits if that's what you're asking. The rule does say hits.