Can't find it in the BRB or FAQs. Can Maledictions be used on flyers? Since they're not used in the shooting phase does this mean they do not count as an attack and therefore bypass the FAQ that states that attacks that don't need to roll to hit can't hit flyers? In the FAQ it specifically mentions several psychic classes and Maledictions aren't among them.

Maledictions are basically blessings that penalize enemies instead of benefiting you. I believe they can affect flyers so long as they fit within the range.

So long as the flyer is an enemy unit, yes

As long as it doesn't cause hits without rolling to hit, or target and cause damage results, it should be fine.

You're referring to Objuration Mechanicum I'm guessing from your Nid army list. It can not be used on flyers due to the wording of the power.

..."each vehicle in the unit has a S1 HIT with the Haywire special rule allocated to it."

You're allocating hits without ever having to roll for them. This cannot be done per the FAQ ruling below.



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’troll 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.

A malediction isn't a weapon. Tough call.

Weapon Virus would be interesting to drop on some flyers, although most are twin-linked.

 loreweaver wrote:
A malediction isn't a weapon. Tough call.

But it is an attack, and if that attack uses blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’troll to hit then that attack cannot target them.

is a Malediction an attack?

40k-noob wrote:
is a Malediction an attack?

anything that has a negative effect on the opposing player or his units is an attack.

Note they say 'attacks' and not 'Attacks' in the FaQ, so they are not talking exclusively about the 'Attacks' stat in the brb.

The only reference to attacks in the 40K rule book relate to Shooting attacks and close combat attacks.

It's referred multiple times as both "Attacks" and "attacks". No where is there mention that anything "negative" is an "attack".

DeathReaper, I can't find any statement in the rulebook that supports your claim.

The use Attack when they are talking about defined Attacks in the 40k BRB.

'attacks' is a general english term that is not defined by the BRB therefore we have to apply the common English definition to it.

This is because the BRB does not define every word held within the BRB. Unless you can find definitions for remove or place.

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
is a Malediction an attack?

anything that has a negative effect on the opposing player or his units is an attack.

Note they say 'attacks' and not 'Attacks' in the FaQ, so they are not talking exclusively about the 'Attacks' stat in the brb.

false,
vector strike can cause D3 hits on flyers, and its an attack thate doesnt roll to hit

easysauce wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
is a Malediction an attack?

anything that has a negative effect on the opposing player or his units is an attack.

Note they say 'attacks' and not 'Attacks' in the FaQ, so they are not talking exclusively about the 'Attacks' stat in the brb.

false,
vector strike can cause D3 hits on flyers, and its an attack thate doesnt roll to hit

Not false.

Vector strike has a specific exception saying it can be used on flyers, therefore, since it has a specific exception, it is more specific than the FaQ. Skyfire has a similar exception.

So if someone gives you the stink-eye, it's an "attack"? That's a pretty weak argument.

 loreweaver wrote:
A malediction isn't a weapon. Tough call.

Weapon Virus would be interesting to drop on some flyers, although most are twin-linked.

It works great on high volume fire vehicles.

I used it on a Dark Talon this weekend, I see no reason why it cannot be used vs. flyers or any vehicles. Psychic powers that do not require rolls to hit are not restricted from affecting flyers anywhere that I have read in the rulebook.

EDIT: remember 40k is a permissive rulset. Attack is not defined in the BRB to include Maledictions, so we don't have to use some internet yahoo's opinion on whether or not it works. It needs to be clearly stated in the rules that it does not. Since the Malediction rules say may be used on any enemy unit in range, or some such, they may be used on ANY enemy unit in range.

A Malediction is NEVER defined as an attack in the rulset.

 loreweaver wrote:
So if someone gives you the stink-eye, it's an "attack"? That's a pretty weak argument.

According to normal English? Yes.

Normally dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debate, but the tenets of the forum say "Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out." The Tenets are listed here

It seems there is a word being used incorrectly. to say that giving the "stink-eye" is not an attack does not concur with the definition of attack.

An attack is: "An expression of strong criticism; hostile comment: vicious attacks in all the newspapers." (Attack has several definitions, this is one of them).

From The free Dictionary

In 40k it is farily obvious that an "attack" is an action that causes direct damage to a unit through strength vs. toughness, strength vs AV, or through an attribute test.

The BRB faq establishes that attacks which auto-hit may not affect flyers.

A Malediction like Machine Virus gives an atribute modification "gets hot" to a unit's weapons, this is not defined as an attack by the 40k rulset.

"Get's Hot" is what does any damage, and it is then an attribute of the flyer's wepons that it chose to fire and also not subject to the FAQ ruling.

 Ghostcat wrote:

 loreweaver wrote:
A malediction isn't a weapon. Tough call.

Weapon Virus would be interesting to drop on some flyers, although most are twin-linked.

It works great on high volume fire vehicles.

I used it on a Dark Talon this weekend, I see no reason why it cannot be used vs. flyers or any vehicles. Psychic powers that do not require rolls to hit are not restricted from affecting flyers anywhere that I have read in the rulebook.

EDIT: remember 40k is a premissive rulset. Attack is not defined in the BRB to include Maledictions, so we don't have to use some internet yahoo's opinion on whether or not it works. It needs to be clearly stated in the rules that it does not. Since the Malediction rules say may be used on any unit, or some such, they may be used on ANY unit.

A Malediction is NEVER defined as an attack in the rulset.

But it is clearly stated in the FAQ.

The only way to hit a flyer is to make a snap shot at it (ignoring vector strikes and skyfire since they have been given specific permission to do so in other ways.) Regardless if you consider it an attack or not, if you cast the power you have just inflicted a hit against a zooming flyer that you did not have to roll for. Since nothing in that powers description (or in the maledictions either) give you permission to automatically inflict hits against zooming flyers ,or make snap shots using it, you do not have permission to do so per the rules.

 Ghostcat wrote:
In 40k it is farily obvious that an "attack" is an action that causes direct damage to a unit through strength vs. toughness, strength vs AV, or through an attribute test.

you are thinking of 'Attack' not 'attack'

EDIT: remember 40k is a permissive rulset. Attack is not defined in the BRB to include Maledictions

Right 'Attack' is not defined in the BRB to include Maledictions.

'attack' is not defined in the brb so we fall back on the normal English definition, which would include maledictions.

 reaverX wrote:



But it is clearly stated in the FAQ.

The only way to hit a flyer is to make a snap shot at it (ignoring vector strikes and skyfire since they have been given specific permission to do so in other ways.) Regardless if you consider it an attack or not, if you cast the power you have just inflicted a hit against a zooming flyer that you did not have to roll for. Since nothing in that powers description (or in the maledictions either) give you permission to automatically inflict hits against zooming flyers ,or make snap shots using it, you do not have permission to do so per the rules.

I disagree and will continue to play it that a Malediction is not an attack until I see it in the 40k rulset. YMMV, play it how you see it.

'attack' is not defined in the brb so we fall back on the normal English definition, which would include maledictions.

Funny, I didn't read that in Webster's either.

Maybe we are both being subjective, but I belive you are dead wrong on this point.

I think it is very telling that the FAQ entry you are refering to did not include the word MALEDICTION.

Attack as defined by websters would include: "to set upon or work against forcefully" (Amongst other definitions).

A malediction is something that works against the flyer without its consent, therefore it fits the definition.

From The merriam-webster Dictionary online.

I'll make the argument that "Attacks" refers to the attacks characteristic and "attacks" refers to the act of making a shooting or close combat attack, which is what the FAQ is clearly referring to.

By your definition, you could bless your own flyers, but not maledict your opponents.

I see the argument your making, but it's not based on anything in the rules besides a potential definition based on capitalization of a word which isn't consistent across the rule book. By your definition, you can't make "Attacks" with some weapons because they can only be used for "attacks".

Edit: Your dictionary definition of "Malediction" doesn't apply to this discussion as "Malediction" is quite clearly defined in the rulebook.

Look, doesn't that FAQ entry specifically name the psychic abilities that cannot attack a flyer?

Do you think they just forgot malediction?

I think it was intentional.

If a Malediction uses blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’troll to hit then that Malediction cannot target them.

If we follow the FaQ.

The rules for maledictions on Page 68 clearly state that they do target one or more enemy units. So, no, they can not be used on flyers unless given explicit permission to do so.

Some maledictions cause direct damage, such as machine curse, but others merely modify the actions of a model without directly causing damage. I would say the former is an attack, while the latter is not, so it depends on what maledictions you are using in the same way as it depends on what type of witchfire attack you are using.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If a Malediction uses blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’troll to hit then that Malediction cannot target them.

If we follow the FaQ.

And where does any malediction do any of those things?

If there is one, I agree that it could not hit a flyer.

Edit: never mind you are hung up on the roll to hit bit. Got it.

Still don't agree, but templates area of effects etc are specifically excluded.Maledictions are not.

Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
(p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles.

/thread

Kevin949 wrote:The rules for maledictions on Page 68 clearly state that they do target one or more enemy units. So, no, they can not be used on flyers unless given explicit permission to do so.

easysauce wrote:

Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
(p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles.

/thread

/thread now

 Kevin949 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:The rules for maledictions on Page 68 clearly state that they do target one or more enemy units. So, no, they can not be used on flyers unless given explicit permission to do so.

easysauce wrote:

Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
(p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles.

/thread

/thread now

That settles nothing.

Some Malediction powers have no effect on vehicles like those that affect toughness.

Q:How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any
weapon...

Is the beginning of the faq entry denying flyers being hit by psychic attacks or other weapons that do not require a to hit roll.

Malediction is not mentioned and I think it is very significant to this argument. It is not a psychic shooting attack analogous to a weapon.

 Ghostcat wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If a Malediction uses blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’troll to hit then that Malediction cannot target them.

If we follow the FaQ.

And where does any malediction do any of those things?

Objuration Mechanicum is an attack that does damage to a vehicle. (It specifically says that the vehicle take a S1 hit with the Haywire rule).

For a flyer to take a hit you need to snap shot. Something that Maledictions do not usually do.

easysauce wrote:

Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
(p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles.

/thread

That actually settles nothing due to things that auto hit can not even hit a Zooming Flyer.

Nice try, but ultimately incorrect in some cases.

hard to hit doesnt forbid all damaging things, it only calls out by name
all three types of blast weapons, cannot hurt it,

only snap shots may be made against it, barring skyfire

the FAQ further states that

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.

note that, had they meant all psychic power types were banned, they would have said so instead of just naming the three types of special witchfire ones.

maleditions are not weapons, nor are they attacks, shooting or CC, so are not bound by those, different rules.

they can even be used on a target locked in CC, unlike the shooting attacks, or psychic shooting attacks,

they follow the steps on pg 66, not on 15-20,

so except for the named powers,

you can cast maledictions/blessings on flyers,
and resolve the results

 Ghostcat wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:The rules for maledictions on Page 68 clearly state that they do target one or more enemy units. So, no, they can not be used on flyers unless given explicit permission to do so.

easysauce wrote:

Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
(p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles.

/thread

/thread now

That settles nothing.

Some Malediction powers have no effect on vehicles like those that affect toughness.

Q:How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any
weapon...

Is the beginning of the faq entry denying flyers being hit by psychic attacks or other weapons that do not require a to hit roll.

Malediction is not mentioned and I think it is very significant to this argument. It is not a psychic shooting attack analogous to a weapon.

As a matter of fact, the FAQ answer continues to say that anything that does not roll to hit can not *target* flyers. Do maledictions roll to hit and do they target?

Maledictions can target flyers and FMCs, as they are neither weapons nor "attacks" they are not affected by Hard to Hit regardless of whether or not they cause a hit like Objuration Mechanicum. The FAQ everyone keeps quoting trying to say they can't specifically lists the psychic powers that cannot target flyers/FMCs, all of which are types of Witchfire powers. Stop splitting hairs, flyers are broken enough already, they don't need immunity to OM.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Maledictions can target flyers and FMCs, as they are neither weapons nor "attacks" they are not affected by Hard to Hit regardless of whether or not they cause a hit like Objuration Mechanicum.

Citation needed.

The FaQ says only snap shots can hit zooming Flyers.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Maledictions can target flyers and FMCs, as they are neither weapons nor "attacks" they are not affected by Hard to Hit regardless of whether or not they cause a hit like Objuration Mechanicum.

Citation needed.

The FaQ says only snap shots can hit zooming Flyers.

In reference to "any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically"
"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."

"Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles."

Objuration Mechanicum is a malediction, so it can target vehicles, it is not an attack, weapon, maelstrom, beam, or nova power and is therefore not covered by the FAQ entry listing things that can't target flyers.

"Hard To Hit" p81, makes it clear that "Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shot". Since p81 only calls out template, blast and large blast weapons, I took the FAQ to further clarify that other weapon types that do not use the BS of the firer and the normal To Hit procedure are also excluded from hitting flyers.

Since a Malediction is by definition not subject to the normal shooting rules (it's not a weapon, doesn't shoot, and isn't even resolved in the Shooting phase), the whole issue of Snap Shot is irrelevant, and therefore I'd conclude a Malediction can be used against a zooming flyer.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Ghostcat wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If a Malediction uses blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’troll to hit then that Malediction cannot target them.

If we follow the FaQ.

And where does any malediction do any of those things?

Objuration Mechanicum is an attack that does damage to a vehicle. (It specifically says that the vehicle take a S1 hit with the Haywire rule).

I would just like to point out that the rule actually says that the vehicle has a S1 w/ Haywire "allocated" to it, which is different from the vehicle actually suffering a/being hit.

PrinceRaven wrote:Maledictions can target flyers and FMCs, as they are neither weapons nor "attacks" they are not affected by Hard to Hit regardless of whether or not they cause a hit like Objuration Mechanicum. The FAQ everyone keeps quoting trying to say they can't specifically lists the psychic powers that cannot target flyers/FMCs, all of which are types of Witchfire powers. Stop splitting hairs, flyers are broken enough already, they don't need immunity to OM.

To say a malediction is not an attack is a fallacy. A malediction targets units and causes a negative effect, that's an attack. You and someone else (easysauce, I think) quoted the rule for vehicles being able to be affected by maledictions. Great, vehicles can. "Vehicles" is a LARGE section of units in the game and is a general group. Each vehicle type has it's own rules on top of the general rules followed by vehicles. Flyers are much more specific than "vehicles". But yes, vehicles can be affected by maledictions, but maledictions that do not roll to hit but do target units will not be able to hit flyers.

Snapshot wrote:"Hard To Hit" p81, makes it clear that "Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shot". Since p81 only calls out template, blast and large blast weapons, I took the FAQ to further clarify that other weapon types that do not use the BS of the firer and the normal To Hit procedure are also excluded from hitting flyers.

Since a Malediction is by definition not subject to the normal shooting rules (it's not a weapon, doesn't shoot, and isn't even resolved in the Shooting phase), the whole issue of Snap Shot is irrelevant, and therefore I'd conclude a Malediction can be used against a zooming flyer.

Snapshots have no link to only the shooting phase, go check out the rule. Being in the shooting phase is not required for a shooting attack. Maledictions have a range and target, they're a shooting attack.

Think of it this way, if maledictions can hit flyers then so can imotekh's lightning.

 Kevin949 wrote:


Snapshots have no link to only the shooting phase, go check out the rule. Being in the shooting phase is not required for a shooting attack. Maledictions have a range and target, they're a shooting attack.

This is also a "fallacy."

The BRB clearly defines a "Malediction."

Just because a Malediction has similar properties to something else does not define it as that other thing.

This thread needs to be locked, we basically have two sides arguing in circles that'll never come to an agreement.

"Stop, you're all wrong." :-)

40k-noob wrote:
I would just like to point out that the rule actually says that the vehicle has a S1 w/ Haywire "allocated" to it, which is different from the vehicle actually suffering a/being hit.

It says each vehicle has a S1 hit w/ Haywire allocated to it. Subtle but important difference.

"each vehicle in the unit has a Strength 1 hit with the Haywire special rule allocated to it (roll separately for each)." P. 422 Telekinesis psychic power.

40k-noob wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:


Snapshots have no link to only the shooting phase, go check out the rule. Being in the shooting phase is not required for a shooting attack. Maledictions have a range and target, they're a shooting attack.

This is also a "fallacy."

The BRB clearly defines a "Malediction."

Just because a Malediction has similar properties to something else does not define it as that other thing.

Sorry, I meant that since they have a range and target, they're an "attack".

Maledictions are not shots, which is part of the reason why they are useable while in melee, and therefore can be used against any target they are allowed to target within their range.

Just because something causes a hit doesn't mean you roll to it, it's simply stating what the ability does.

For the power in question, you never roll to hit, you simply apply the effects of the power. The effects just so happen to be damaging.

 juraigamer wrote:
Just because something causes a hit doesn't mean you roll to it, it's simply stating what the ability does.

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

If it causes hits and is not a snap shot, it can not hit a...

 juraigamer wrote:
Maledictions are not shots, which is part of the reason why they are useable while in melee, and therefore can be used against any target they are allowed to target within their range.

Just because something causes a hit doesn't mean you roll to it, it's simply stating what the ability does.

For the power in question, you never roll to hit, you simply apply the effects of the power. The effects just so happen to be damaging.

Unless there's an FAQ on it, maledictions can affect those in close combat but I don't see it saying you can use them when your psyker is in close combat. And the only reason it can do this is because it has permission to. To extend that reasoning beyond that is stretching to fit your agenda.

Given GW's broad language naming several types of attacks, and expanding it out to any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically, it seems that the FAQ is precluding any attack that doesn't roll to hit, which would include certain maledictions.

Not surprising, given GW's very pro-flier stance this edition.

 loreweaver wrote:
This thread needs to be locked, we basically have two sides arguing in circles that'll never come to an agreement.

"Stop, you're all wrong." :-)

Yup, I've made my point. I believe I am correct and nothing short of GW clarifying thier FAQ will sway me from my interpretation of the rules.

I see no convincing argument otherwise presented in this thread, and while I do understand the reasoning behind what I see as a mis-interpretation of the rules, I simply do not agree that Maledictions are defined as an attack or a weapon.

 Ghostcat wrote:

 loreweaver wrote:
This thread needs to be locked, we basically have two sides arguing in circles that'll never come to an agreement.

"Stop, you're all wrong." :-)

Yup, I've made my point. I believe I am correct and nothing short of GW clarifying thier FAQ will sway me from my interpretation of the rules.

I see no convincing argument otherwise presented in this thread, and while I do understand the reasoning behind what I see as a mis-interpretation of the rules, I simply do not agree that Maledictions are defined as an attack or a weapon.

Page 8 - A model normally needs line of sight whenever it
wishes to attack an enemy, whether with power sword, gun or
psychic power.

But it's cool, it's not an attack, so it can't hurt my guys. *Shrug*

Page 8 - A model normally needs line of sight whenever it
wishes to attack an enemy, whether with power sword, gun or
psychic power.

But it's cool, it's not an attack, so it can't hurt my guys. *Shrug*

Touche.

LoS does apply to Maledictions, but there are psychic powers that are refered to as psychic shooting attacks. While not an offical classification anymore, I don't think that the Malediction falls into the same category.

I think there is another refrence to psychic powers in the rulebook needing LOS unless otherwise stated, and it doesn't make a refernce to "attack". Don't have my rule book though so I cannot confirm.

Maledictions that are attribute modifers don't "hit" in the same sense a weapon does, IMO. The damage isn't direct and I see no idea why it would be included with a FAQ entry that does not specifically identify it.

But hey, I'm telling you how I play my games not how you should play yours.

/endmyparticipationinthisthread

 Kevin949 wrote:

PrinceRaven wrote:Maledictions can target flyers and FMCs, as they are neither weapons nor "attacks" they are not affected by Hard to Hit regardless of whether or not they cause a hit like Objuration Mechanicum. The FAQ everyone keeps quoting trying to say they can't specifically lists the psychic powers that cannot target flyers/FMCs, all of which are types of Witchfire powers. Stop splitting hairs, flyers are broken enough already, they don't need immunity to OM.

To say a malediction is not an attack is a fallacy. A malediction targets units and causes a negative effect, that's an attack. You and someone else (easysauce, I think) quoted the rule for vehicles being able to be affected by maledictions. Great, vehicles can. "Vehicles" is a LARGE section of units in the game and is a general group. Each vehicle type has it's own rules on top of the general rules followed by vehicles. Flyers are much more specific than "vehicles". But yes, vehicles can be affected by maledictions, but maledictions that do not roll to hit but do target units will not be able to hit flyers.

Snapshot wrote:"Hard To Hit" p81, makes it clear that "Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shot". Since p81 only calls out template, blast and large blast weapons, I took the FAQ to further clarify that other weapon types that do not use the BS of the firer and the normal To Hit procedure are also excluded from hitting flyers.

Since a Malediction is by definition not subject to the normal shooting rules (it's not a weapon, doesn't shoot, and isn't even resolved in the Shooting phase), the whole issue of Snap Shot is irrelevant, and therefore I'd conclude a Malediction can be used against a zooming flyer.

Snapshots have no link to only the shooting phase, go check out the rule. Being in the shooting phase is not required for a shooting attack. Maledictions have a range and target, they're a shooting attack.

Think of it this way, if maledictions can hit flyers then so can imotekh's lightning.

I don't think I actually said Snap Shots can only occur in the Shooting phase, but rather was attempting to point out that Maledictions are out of the scope of the Snap Shot rule. They aren't shooting attacks (cf, witchfire attacks), they don't use BS To Hit, they don't use templates, they don't use any of the To Hit mechanisms called out in the clarify FAQ.

If you're making a shooting attack, it has to be able to Snap Shot to hit.

So, if the FAQ is doing more than clarifying the types of the attacks that cannot hit a Zooming flyer, I guess it is also impossible for one of your own psykers to cast a Blessing on one (eg, Presience).

Sorry I can't comment on Imotekh's Lightning as I don't have the codex. Having said that, I don't see why it shouldn't be able to hit a flyer - it's flying through a lightning storm afterall

PS. Can you cast Invisibility on a Flyer to give it Stealth and Shrouded? I thought flyers didn't get cover saves but can't find the reference.

 Kevin949 wrote:
To say a malediction is not an attack is a fallacy. A malediction targets units and causes a negative effect, that's an attack.
Snapshots have no link to only the shooting phase, go check out the rule. Being in the shooting phase is not required for a shooting attack.

Maledictions have a range and target, they're a shooting attack.

The rulebook is clear that all psychic shooting attacks are considered witchfire powers (which is why you can't overwatch psychic shooting attacks in pre-6th codices that don't specify that they're witchfire), is a malediction a witchfire? No? Then it's not a shooting attack.

"If the witchfire does not list a subtype, or simply describes itself a psychic shooting attack, use the rules given above to resolve it." pg. 69

And yes while in the English language something as vague as making an insulting remark can be considered an attack, the rules for warhammer 40k are much stricter, things that are attacks are clearly listed as such and follow rules for whatever attack they are, everything else (like blessing, maledictions, banners, wings, special rules that do not specify they are attacks, wargear, bases, the pictures of Matt Ward) are not.

The problem is that the FAQ is poorly worded, in response to a question specifically about weapons and attacks, they respond "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures" If you look at the question as a whole it would seem to appliy only to weapons and attacks, but people are quoting it out of context.

 PrinceRaven wrote:


And yes while in the English language something as vague as making an insulting remark can be considered an attack, the rules for warhammer 40k are much stricter, things that are attacks are clearly listed as such and follow rules for whatever attack they are, everything else (like blessing, maledictions, banners, wings, special rules, wargear, bases, the pictures of Matt Ward) are not.

So models do not use the Hammer of Wrath special rule to attack?

Special rules can be attacks.

Maledictions can be attacks. Enfeeble is used to attack the enemy giving the enemy unit a debuff.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:


And yes while in the English language something as vague as making an insulting remark can be considered an attack, the rules for warhammer 40k are much stricter, things that are attacks are clearly listed as such and follow rules for whatever attack they are, everything else (like blessing, maledictions, banners, wings, special rules, wargear, bases, the pictures of Matt Ward) are not.

So models do not use the Hammer of Wrath special rule to attack?

Special rules can be attacks.

Maledictions can be attacks. Enfeeble is used to attack the enemy giving the enemy unit a debuff.

Caught me there, fixed it.

Enfeeble is not an attack, you said it yourself, it's a debuff. You don't attack your enemy with a debuff, you debuff them with it. Do you attack your units with blessings like Endurance, no, you buff them. Therefore maledictions and blessings clearly aren't attacks.

A debuff fits the description of an attack.

It's an issue of semantics if we want to talk about whether it counts as an attack in the English language, (or other languages even) but what's important is that it doesn't in terms of the 40k rules.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
It's an issue of semantics if we want to talk about whether it counts as an attack in the English language, (or other languages even) but what's important is that it doesn't in terms of the 40k rules.

It does not count as an 'Attack' in 40K terms, but it does count as an 'attack'.

The use Attack when they are talking about defined Attacks in the 40k BRB.

'attacks' is a general English term that is not defined by the BRB therefore we have to apply the common English definition to it.

'Attack' and 'attack' - there is no difference

malediction is not an attack in any terms it is a debuff
and debuff isn't an attack in any case

but there is one thing that permits OM to deal damage to zooming flyer:
If you can read this "A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures" as :" Only Hits which are made by Snap Shots can literally hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures or this hit will be ignored" i other words they always MUST(!) be Hit by Snap Shot to take any damage
Then in this case Hit cased by OM should be ignored as long as it is not done by Snap Shot rule

 DeathReaper wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
Just because something causes a hit doesn't mean you roll to it, it's simply stating what the ability does.

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

If it causes hits and is not a snap shot, it can not hit a...

Not only snap shots can hit zooming flyers and swooping flying monstrous creatures. ''Shots are resolved at such a target can only be resolved as snap shots unless the model or weapon has the skyfire special rule'' RAW p.49

1st the rule is about ''shots'' not ''hits''
2nd the rule specifies snap shots from ''model or weapon'' and the hits from a ''malediction'' are not hits from a ''model or weapon'', they are from a ''malediction''
3rd the rule specifies what cannot ''hit swooping models'' and it specifies that it is ''template, blast and large blast'', it doesn't say anything about auto-hit from powers.

Just wanted to add all that stuff in the favor of ''maledictions can be used agaisnt flyers''

BTW, the core of my army is the Heldrake, so everything that makes flyer better makes me happier, but here it's clearly not something going to make me happier. I just bring the truth the Emperor wants to communicate via me.

The FAQ is more specific - and that's what DR is referencing.

Citabogue wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
Just because something causes a hit doesn't mean you roll to it, it's simply stating what the ability does.

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

If it causes hits and is not a snap shot, it can not hit a...

1st the rule is about ''shots'' not ''hits''
2nd the rule specifies snap shots from ''model or weapon'' and the hits from a ''malediction'' are not hits from a ''model or weapon'', they are from a ''malediction''
3rd the rule specifies what cannot ''hit swooping models'' and it specifies that it is ''template, blast and large blast'', it doesn't say anything about auto-hit from powers.

Just wanted to add all that stuff in the favor of ''maledictions can be used agaisnt flyers''

BTW, the core of my army is the Heldrake, so everything that makes flyer better makes me happier, but here it's clearly not something going to make me happier. I just bring the truth the Emperor wants to communicate via me.

1) The rule is about shots and hits, if you read the whole FaQ.

2) A malediction comes from a model.

3) read the whole FaQ to see why your #3 is incorrect as well.

Xiber wrote:
'Attack' and 'attack' - there is no difference

That is not correct. There is a difference.

Note they say 'attacks' and not 'Attacks' in the FaQ, so they are not talking exclusively about the 'Attacks' stat in the brb.

There is no 'hit' involved in the use of maledictions.

Things that automatically hit say they do in no uncertain terms:

"The beam automatically hits all models"

"nova power automatically targets and hits all enemy units"

"maelstrom power automatically targets and hits all units"

In a permissive rules set you cannot call something a hit that does not indicate it is a hit of any sort.

Target unit(s)>pass a psychic test>effect happens on the target unit(s). That is all.

If the unit takes a hit from that effect there is nothing in the zooming rules to stop it. They only talk about models, weapons and powers 'hitting them' or 'shooting' which you have not done. Nothing makes them immune to hits either, so when you use a power that makes them take a hit as opposed to hitting them with a power(like a witchfire) you successfully get around the rule.

'Causing a hit' and 'hitting' are not the same.

So is a Malediction a Psychic attack? or a Malediction attack. Can you clarify?

Also is the test needed to activate a Malediction the same or different from the test to activate a Psychic Power?

Just wondering.

In Addition, Does the Malediction cause any kind of Wound/Hull Point Loss of the affected unit?, If so then as it was clearly shown before, if you do not roll to hit then you can not hit a zooming flyer.

BLADERIKER wrote:
So is a Malediction a Psychic attack? or a Malediction attack. Can you clarify?

Also is the test needed to activate a Malediction the same or different from the test to activate a Psychic Power?

Just wondering.

Psykers, pages 66-69, BRB

The section explains it all.

The Malediction in Question considered to hit automatically?

"Q: Does a weapon that hits automatically, still hit automatically when making snap shots?
A: Yes." (Page 3 FAQ)

However, This is the Specific reply when asked about automatic hits and flyers.

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 does this Malediction Automatically hit? If it does then (It can snap shot however, because it automatically hits it can not hit a zooming Flyer/FMC)

It does not Automatically hit (Then before the effect of the Malediction can take place a roll to hit must be made to see if the Flyer/FMC is affected at all)

I'll Add this.

"Maledictions are manifested at the start of the players Movement phase. They weaken the Psyker's enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules.- Note that bouneses and penalties from different malediction are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take a characteristics above10 or below 1." (Pg 68 BRB)

So what Stat is the Malediction in question buffing/debuffing and does it state in the malediction rule that by using it you can reduce said stat to below 1?

Remember that we've got multiple FAQ answers in play, so we should try to find an interpretation which satifies them both without creating a conflict between them.

One specifies that you can cast Maledictions on Zooming flyers.

The other specifies that...
a. The only way to cause a hit on a Zooming Flyer or Swooping FMC is to Snap Shoot at it.
b. Any kind of attack which uses templates, blasts, lines, or otherwise does not roll to hit in any manner cannot even target a ZF or SFMC.

So, we've got to distinguish somehow between which (if any) Maledictions constitute attacks, and which do not.

Objuration Mechanicum would seem to fall at least partially under the prohibitions given in the FAQ, as it does indeed inflict hits, but does not Snap Fire.

The ruling which they Bay Area Open and Adepticon are going with this year is that Objuration M may be used, but the hits are ignored, as they explicitly are in violation of the flyer FAQ. Personally I think I would rule that the whole power is disallowed, as it inflicts hits and for my money that constitutes an attack, but different TOs and groups may rule differently.

I might have found an end-run around this argument:

From 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.

Notice that the question is specifically about "any weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits automatically".

The answer is that ONLY Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Monstrous Creatures.

It also says any attacks that don't roll to hit cannot target them.

That's two specific rules. It tells you what attacks cannot target them (any attacks that don't roll to hit) and it tells you what can hit them (only Snap Shots). It doesn't say what 'attacks' can hit them; it tells you what can hit them at all. That seems pedantic, but it prevents you from say, targeting an enemy next to a flyer, and then having the blast scatter onto the flyer. You can't target the flyer with a blast weapon (because it can't roll to hit), and you can't hit it accidentally (because you can only hit it with Snap Shots). The next line is clearly a list of some, but not all examples, so doesn't itself serve to do anything other than reiterate the effect of the above rules on particular things.

Therefore, we don't need to talk about what an 'attack' is, or whether an 'attack' is different from an 'Attack'.

If you want to argue that Objuration Mechanicum isn't an 'attack, or an 'Attack', then you can target the flier, since only attacks that don't roll to hit cannot target them. You still can't actually hit the flyer, since the first sentence tells you that only Snap Shots can hit them. Feel free to target my flyer with your non-attacking psychic power, and waste a use of it.

Those who would argue that Objuration Mechanicum is an attack, would read the answer as both preventing the psychic power from targeting AND hitting the flyer.

We have a specific sentence that tells us that ONLY Snap Shots can hit a flyer.




Now, I know what some clever bloke is thinking. The original question is only about 'weapons' that hit automatically. I've already got that one too. The Haywire rule:

When a weapon with this special rule hits a vehicle, roll a d6 to determine the effect rather than rolling Armor Penetration normally.

Thus, either the Objuration Mechanicum is a weapon (which does not roll to hit), and Haywire does something, or it's not a weapon, in which case Haywire has no effect in this case.



Note that the rules for Haywire also back up my first point. Haywire takes effect when a weapon hits a vehicle. Flyers (and ZFMC) can only be hit by Snap Shots.

The precise wording for "attack" is a red herring.

It's not a red herring, because the rules are using weapon in a colloquial sense rather than a strict keyword sense. Just as in the Haywire rule, the use of the word "weapon" in the ZF/SFMC FAQ ruling is not intended to limit the use and application of the rule only to situations involving weapons.

Haywire clearly still applies and functions when it's something other than a weapon which has the rule, and Hard to Hit still applies to attacks and hits generated by things other than weapons.

So we are arguing that a maladiction is a weapon?

This means all psy powers are weapons, limiting one per turn per shooting weapon rules? 2 if you're a MC?

Ha ha, no.

A psy power that isn't a shooting attack isn't a weapon. They don't even have weapon profiles.

 juraigamer wrote:


A psy power that isn't a shooting attack isn't a weapon. They don't even have weapon profiles.

While I agree with you on the first I would just like to point out that the 2nd is irrelevant. There are numerous psychic shooting attacks that don't have a weapons profile or anything that can be ham-fisted into one. Jaws, ecstatic seizures etc.

"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. "

As has been pointed out, they clearly list the three types of psychic powers the rule applies to, notably leaving out the rest. Essentially making a broad statement saying what kinds of weapons it applies to and then which psychic powers it applies to.

Then there is this:

"Q: Can a Vector Strike be made against Swooping Flying Monstrous
Creatures? (p43)
A: Yes."

As Vector strikes are not snap shots these two FAQ answers are in conflict. So unless you start looking at RAI and correlating the answers with the questions and the BRB rules there is no clear RAW for the overly broad response. I believe the first quotes response was only to clarify the BRB rules not to make up its own rule which would remove it from conflict with the second quote. Also since the question and the answer both bring up specific types of psychic powers and neither mention Maledictions or Vector Strikes it does not apply to either of them.

Vector strike vs hard to hit is a case of the specific overriding general. The FAQ makes it clear.

As has been pointed out, they clearly list the three types of psychic powers the rule applies to, notably leaving out the rest. Essentially making a broad statement saying what kinds of weapons it applies to and then which psychic powers it applies to.

They make three separate broad statements, in an effort to be exhaustive and inclusive. Anything which automatically hits, anything which causes hits without Snap Shooting, and any attack which otherwise doesn't roll to hit are all out of luck.

Vector Strikes would fall into the categories above, but have a specific exception. Maledictions would arguably fall into the categories above, although they have a general exception, and for the most part they don't "hit" or cause hits, so that makes a degree of sense.

It gets a little messy when we encounter Maledictions which do cause hits, as that seems to create a conflict. The BAO and Adepticon FAQs resolved that conflict by allowing the power to work by disallowing the haywire hits.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Vector strike vs hard to hit is a case of the specific overriding general. The FAQ makes it clear.

No they muddled it by saying "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures."

Overriding rules come from specific profiles, unit types, special rules or codex's that take precedence over the basic rules. These are both FAQ answers which trump everything when creating new rules.

Only if they interact. Which these don't.

 Mannahnin wrote:

As has been pointed out, they clearly list the three types of psychic powers the rule applies to, notably leaving out the rest. Essentially making a broad statement saying what kinds of weapons it applies to and then which psychic powers it applies to.

They make three separate broad statements, in an effort to be exhaustive and inclusive. Anything which automatically hits, anything which causes hits without Snap Shooting, and any attack which otherwise doesn't roll to hit are all out of luck.

Vector Strikes would fall into the categories above, but have a specific exception. Maledictions would arguably fall into the categories above, although they have a general exception, and for the most part they don't "hit" or cause hits, so that makes a degree of sense.

It gets a little messy when we encounter Maledictions which do cause hits, as that seems to create a conflict. The BAO and Adepticon FAQs resolved that conflict by allowing the power to work by disallowing the haywire hits.

So Vector Strikes Work because the BRB says they have an exception even though the FAQ does not mention it. I agree. I'm just saying that if you look at the FAQ alone or as creating a rule it makes little sense as that rule would not allow a VS. I'm saying it should be looked at as what it is, answers to the question asked and clarification on the BRB. Not a new rule.

BRB says "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 flyers in Zoom mode"

FAQ says " 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"
So is it
A. Clarifying what shots can hit a Flyer and simply expanding upon the existing rule since everything mentioned in it is a witchfire or shooting attack?
or
B. Creating a new rule that would disallow literally every attack that is not a snap shot from hitting or even targeting them?

Given that Vector Strikes are assuredly intended to be able to hit them, I'm going with A.

Might call it RAI but since there is no clear RAW what else do we have?

I think it can.

The argument comes down to if a "malediction" is an attack. Since nothing in the rule book says it is, it isn't. The argument that it is because it negatively effects an enemy unit is opinion, is How I Would Play It, not RAW.

I also think, speaking from a RAI perspective, if they wanted to stop you from doing it they would have mentioned it by name when they talked about the other kinds of psychic powers in the FAQ,

greatergoodjones wrote:
I think it can.

The argument comes down to if a "malediction" is an attack. Since nothing in the rule book says it is, it isn't.

The rules do not define every word in the BRB.

Unless you can find a definition for remove, start, or always.

 DeathReaper wrote:

greatergoodjones wrote:
I think it can.

The argument comes down to if a "malediction" is an attack. Since nothing in the rule book says it is, it isn't.

The rules do not define every word in the BRB.

Unless you can find a definition for remove, start, or always.

But what if instead of wanting to define an attack as "anything negatively effecting a model" I wanted to define an attack as "anything that could cause a wound?" Can you give me a reason why one is better then the other?

In the instance of attack, I say anything that has the word "attack" in its description is an attack, and nothing else. I see no other way to move forward using constant RAW.

greatergoodjones wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

greatergoodjones wrote:
I think it can.

The argument comes down to if a "malediction" is an attack. Since nothing in the rule book says it is, it isn't.

The rules do not define every word in the BRB.

Unless you can find a definition for remove, start, or always.

But what if instead of wanting to define an attack as "anything negatively effecting a model" I wanted to define an attack as "anything that could cause a wound?" Can you give me a reason why one is better then the other?

In the instance of attack, I say anything that has the word "attack" in its description is an attack, and nothing else. I see no other way to move forward using constant RAW.

When the BRB does not define words we must fall back on the common English definition of said word. You can try to define attack, but if it does not match up with the common English definition of the word, then your definition is off.

An 'attack', as defined by webster's is: 1: to set upon or work against forcefully. (A malediction that hits a flyer with the haywire rule, and could damage or destroy the enemy flyer fits this definition).

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack

The Free dictionary has a similar definition Found Here

 juraigamer wrote:
So we are arguing that a maladiction is a weapon?

This means all psy powers are weapons, limiting one per turn per shooting weapon rules? 2 if you're a MC?

Ha ha, no.

A psy power that isn't a shooting attack isn't a weapon. They don't even have weapon profiles.

I'm not arguing that it is a weapon per the shooting weapon rules. I'm stating the obvious and incontrovertible fact that Haywire, as written, only applies when, as I quoted, a weapon with this rule hits a vehicle.

The original question asks about several types of powers (but does not mention maledictions). It ALSO includes "any weapon that doesn't need a roll To Hit" (as quoted). If you want to argue for the purposes of this FAQ that Maledictions aren't covered by the answer, since Maledictions aren't a Maelstrom, Nova, or Beam, you also need to argue that Maledictions aren't weapons either. If they aren't weapons, then Haywire doesn't have any special effect with Maledictions.

If everything that could cause a wound is an attack then dangerous terrain would be attacking models and swooping FMCs getting attacked by the ground every time they make a grounded test.

Creating a BRB definition for the word 'attack' is something that can only be done via speculation.

Barring opinion and accounting for a permissive rule set, things are only attacks if they are called an attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Malediction General description and specific power descriptions do not include the word attack anywhere.

 Abandon wrote:
If everything that could cause a wound is an attack then dangerous terrain would be attacking models and swooping FMCs getting attacked by the ground every time they make a grounded test.

Creating a BRB definition for the word 'attack' is something that can only be done via speculation.

Barring opinion and accounting for a permissive rule set, things are only attacks if they are called an attack.

You do realize there is a difference between 'Attack' and 'attack' in the BRB.

They define 'Attack' but they do not define 'attack'

and yes, by the common English definition of 'attack' DT tests do attack models, and the ground attacks models when FMC's fall from the sky. Not that it matters.

 DeathReaper wrote:

greatergoodjones wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

greatergoodjones wrote:
I think it can.

The argument comes down to if a "malediction" is an attack. Since nothing in the rule book says it is, it isn't.

The rules do not define every word in the BRB.

Unless you can find a definition for remove, start, or always.

But what if instead of wanting to define an attack as "anything negatively effecting a model" I wanted to define an attack as "anything that could cause a wound?" Can you give me a reason why one is better then the other?

In the instance of attack, I say anything that has the word "attack" in its description is an attack, and nothing else. I see no other way to move forward using constant RAW.

When the BRB does not define words we must fall back on the common English definition of said word. You can try to define attack, but if it does not match up with the common English definition of the word, then your definition is off.

An 'attack', as defined by webster's is: 1: to set upon or work against forcefully. (A malediction that hits a flyer with the haywire rule, and could damage or destroy the enemy flyer fits this definition).

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack

The Free dictionary has a similar definition Found Here

But what if I wanted to use the Oxford Dictionary?
of a person or animal) act against (someone or something) aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill:

Well, I'm not trying to injure or kill you with, say, dominate on a flying monsterous creature. I'm just trying to stop you from hurting me.

The problem with using the "common English meaning" of words as RAW is several fold. One, not everyone is going to agree on what the word means. Two, the meaning of words changes depending on context, and Three, the common usage of words and the dictionary definition of words are sometimes very different.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/attack?q=attack

Well you should use the oxford dictionary as it's the "English" English dictionary rather than Webster's which is American-English.

While a malediction isn't an an attempt to kill, it is an attempt to injure or do harm upon another model which is an attack.
I can attack you by shouting abuse at you. I can attack you in the press. I can attack you verbally or physically, neither is any more valid an attack.

greatergoodjones wrote:
But what if I wanted to use the Oxford Dictionary?
of a person or animal) act against (someone or something) aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill:

Well, I'm not trying to injure or kill you with, say, dominate on a flying monsterous creature. I'm just trying to stop you from hurting me.

The problem with using the "common English meaning" of words as RAW is several fold. One, not everyone is going to agree on what the word means. Two, the meaning of words changes depending on context, and Three, the common usage of words and the dictionary definition of words are sometimes very different.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/attack?q=attack

Then use the oxford version which says "To fasten or fall upon with force or arms; to join battle with, assail, assault. (The ordinary word to describe offensive military operations)."

Malediction falls into this definition.

http://www.oed.com/search?searchType=dictionary&q=attack&_searchBtn=Search

A malediction is curse. That's not quite 'falling upon with force or arms'

In any case please stop pretending dictionary definitions will get us anywhere. As well, your notion that 'since grounded tests can cause wounds the ground can attack' is ridiculous. The ground cannot attack in 40k, it is not permitted in the rules.

So my point stands. Hits and wounds can be caused without an attack being made against the model. See dangerous terrain, grounded tests, gets hot, Doom of Malan'tai and malediction.(just off the top of my head) Things that are not attacks and do not need 'to hit' but can cause hits or wounds do exist in the game.

Malediction fits in with the others because it does not 'hit' and is not called an attack.

 Abandon wrote:
A malediction is curse. That's not quite 'falling upon with force or arms'

But it fits perfectly into this part of the definition.

" to join battle with, assail, assault. "

You definitely assail the enemy with a curse.

 Abandon wrote:
Hits and wounds can be caused without an attack being made against the model.

Except in the case of a Zooming Flyer or Swooping FMC.

 Abandon wrote:
Some Malediction fits in with the others because it does not 'hit' and is not called an attack.

FTFY by adding the underscored word.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
A malediction is curse. That's not quite 'falling upon with force or arms'

But it fits perfectly into this part of the definition.

" to join battle with, assail, assault. "

You definitely assail the enemy with a curse.

Wrong again. To assail is to cause sudden and violent physical or emotional harm.

Maledictions do not roll to hit the target, therefore they do not hit automatically. Maledictions are not attacks. They are effects, just like Blessings. Both Blessings and Maledictions can target and effect Zooming Flyers and Swooping Monstrous Creatures.

The real question is can vehicles Deny The Witch?

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
A malediction is curse. That's not quite 'falling upon with force or arms'

But it fits perfectly into this part of the definition.

" to join battle with, assail, assault. "

You definitely assail the enemy with a curse.

Wrong again. To assail is to cause sudden and violent physical or emotional harm.

Not according to the dictionary.

Assail means "make a concerted or violent attack on:"

and of course attack means "take aggressive military action against "

Maledictions, specifically OM, does that.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/assail?q=Assail
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/attack?q=Attack

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Maledictions do not roll to hit the target, therefore they do not hit automatically. Maledictions are not attacks. They are effects, just like Blessings. Both Blessings and Maledictions can target and effect Zooming Flyers and Swooping Monstrous Creatures.

The real question is can vehicles Deny The Witch?

Agreed and yes.

"If a psychic power is targeted on an enemy unit, and the Psychic test is passed, the target can attempt to Deny the witch before the psychic power is resolved."
Edit: page 68 BRB

So long as the target is an enemy unit they can attempt to deny the witch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
A malediction is curse. That's not quite 'falling upon with force or arms'

But it fits perfectly into this part of the definition.

" to join battle with, assail, assault. "

You definitely assail the enemy with a curse.

Wrong again. To assail is to cause sudden and violent physical or emotional harm.

Not according to the dictionary.

Assail means "make a concerted or violent attack on:"

and of course attack means "take aggressive military action against "

Maledictions, specifically OM, does that.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/assail?q=Assail
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/attack?q=Attack

You realize you just said that attack means assail which means "make a concerted or violent attack on:" which means attack which means "take aggressive military action against".

The specific Malediction in question absolutely hits automatically - since one of its effects is to cause a hit and there's no to-hit roll...

to 'hit' and to 'cause a hit' are not the same. Maledictions to not 'hit' as they are not permitted to do so in the rules. The effect they have may cause a hit. Hallucination may cause a unit to take hits but that does not mean the power 'hit' them in any way. It simply effected them.

A direct effect of the power is that the vehicle suffers a hit.
That's completely different from an indirect effect of the power Hallucination.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:


Wrong again. To assail is to cause sudden and violent physical or emotional harm.

Not according to the dictionary.

Assail means "make a concerted or violent attack on:"

and of course attack means "take aggressive military action against "

Maledictions, specifically OM, does that.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/assail?q=Assail
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/attack?q=Attack

You realize you just said that attack means assail which means "make a concerted or violent attack on:" which means attack which means "take aggressive military action against".

Actually, if you follow the links provided, you will see that I was not the one who said that. The Dictionary defines it that way.

P.S.
I said assail means this, then I gave the dictionary definition of assail, which includes the word attack.

I then said attack means this, then I gave the dictionary definition of attack complete with sources.

I never said "attack means assail", I simply referenced the dictionary definitions of each.

I'll say that to assail can mean attack.
In fact the news uses it in that manner all the time in the UK and Ireland. Assailant is used just as much as attacker too.

So the dictionary and the common usage in the UK(the only one that actually matters in discussions of 40k), equate an attack with "Take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force"
Aggressive action is any action up to and including the physical. So yes a malediction is an aggressive action taken against an enemy force with a weapon of sorts.

Yes. Does not change that maledictions do not hit though in this case their effect may cause the unit to 'take a hit'.

 Abandon wrote:
Yes. Does not change that maledictions do not hit though in this case their effect may cause the unit to 'take a hit'.

They hit automatically.

Jotww doesn't roll to hit but it most definitely hits. If the effect doesn't "hit" how does it target and effect a unit?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Yes. Does not change that maledictions do not hit though in this case their effect may cause the unit to 'take a hit'.

They hit automatically.

Jotww doesn't roll to hit but it most definitely hits. If the effect doesn't "hit" how does it target and effect a unit?

Jotww is not a malediction.

Jaws is a beam witchfire power, one of the things that are stated to not affect zooming flyers.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Jaws is a beam witchfire power, one of the things that are stated to not affect zooming flyers.

JotWW is not a beam withfire. It is a witchfire with its own special rules.

As per happy.

I was arguing by analogy, not everything that doesn't roll to hit is not an attack. If it hits automatically and inflicts damage then why is it not subject to hard to hit?

I'd like an answer on this. I think both sides have some weighty arguments.

I'm particularly interested because, if Maledictions cannot "auto-hit" Flyers/FMCs, then Blessings cannot either. (And I do like twin-linking my Daemon Prince.)

So keep arguing people!

Elric Greywolf wrote:
I'd like an answer on this. I think both sides have some weighty arguments.

I'm particularly interested because, if Maledictions cannot "auto-hit" Flyers/FMCs, then Blessings cannot either. (And I do like twin-linking my Daemon Prince.)

So keep arguing people!

Except blessings never allocate hits, so they aren't valid comparisons.

rigeld2 wrote:

Elric Greywolf wrote:
I'd like an answer on this. I think both sides have some weighty arguments.

I'm particularly interested because, if Maledictions cannot "auto-hit" Flyers/FMCs, then Blessings cannot either. (And I do like twin-linking my Daemon Prince.)

So keep arguing people!

Except blessings never allocate hits, so they aren't valid comparisons.

What about the power that let's you roll on the CSM Boon table, isn't that a Blessing?

Not knowing the CSM codex I can't say.
Still not comparable IMO though because the power isn't allocating the hit - the table is.

rigeld2 wrote:
Not knowing the CSM codex I can't say.
Still not comparable IMO though because the power isn't allocating the hit - the table is.

Boon of Mutation does "hit" the target and it is a Blessing but you can only target a friendly Character, so no go on Helldrakes.

But would be interesting to consider if it can cast on a friendly FMC? Does the hit auto miss if the FMC is "Swooping" or can you even target the "Swooper"?

Here is the wording of the spell:

"Blessing: A friendly character within 2" takes a Strength 4 AP - hit, then rolls on the Chaos Boon table."

Think of it this way. An FMC while swooping can only be hit by snap shots yet the grounded test can still cause it to take a hit and it is unarguably swooping at the time it takes the test. If game mechanics can cause them to take a hit while they can only be hit by snap shots then what is meant is that the action of hitting them can only be achieved via snapshots.

If you take the FAQ answer to mean they can only take a hit from a snap shot(not what it says) that means they cannot be hit by vector strikes either(FAQ overrides BRB) so clearly it was just an answer to that specific question about shooting attacks that don't require a roll to hit.

Also important to note that 'cannot be hit' is not 'immune to hits' though 99% of the time they will have the same effect there is a subtle difference. 'Cannot be hit' implies something taking an action of hitting while 'takes a hit' is only an effect. While generally taking a hit is the result of being hit(cause and effect) in this case there is no action of being hit. The cause is OM and the effect is takes a S1 Haywire hit. Nothing in the wording of the FAQ or the BRB prevents this.

Some interesting arguements here. Initially I was in agreement with it would hit arguments, but there was some good reasons it could go the other way.

But in the general FAQ page 3 left hand column it seems to address this issue. The last line of the answer in reference to attacks that hit automatically is "psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstrom, beams, and novas." cannot hit flyers. The boldfacing is in the FAQ and it very specifically leaves out maledictions, which always hit (or those in the rulebook do) so if GW had intended maledictions to not be able to hit flyers, they would very likely have added it in.

I would also take this into consideration. Witchfire powers can only be used in the shooting phase. Maledictions can only be used in the movement phase. Maledictions, therefore, are not shooting attacks and thus can target flyers.

If this was already settled and I missed it in the earlier posts, sorry.

Rumbleguts wrote:
Some interesting arguements here. Initially I was in agreement with it would hit arguments, but there was some good reasons it could go the other way.

But in the general FAQ page 3 left hand column it seems to address this issue. The last line of the answer in reference to attacks that hit automatically is "psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstrom, beams, and novas." cannot hit flyers. The boldfacing is in the FAQ and it very specifically leaves out maledictions, which always hit (or those in the rulebook do) so if GW had intended maledictions to not be able to hit flyers, they would very likely have added it in.

I would also take this into consideration. Witchfire powers can only be used in the shooting phase. Maledictions can only be used in the movement phase. Maledictions, therefore, are not shooting attacks and thus can target flyers.

If this was already settled and I missed it in the earlier posts, sorry.

1. It was settled.
2. People are still arguing anyway.

Rumbleguts wrote:
Some interesting arguements here. Initially I was in agreement with it would hit arguments, but there was some good reasons it could go the other way.

But in the general FAQ page 3 left hand column it seems to address this issue. The last line of the answer in reference to attacks that hit automatically is "psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstrom, beams, and novas." cannot hit flyers. The boldfacing is in the FAQ and it very specifically leaves out maledictions, which always hit (or those in the rulebook do) so if GW had intended maledictions to not be able to hit flyers, they would very likely have added it in.

I would also take this into consideration. Witchfire powers can only be used in the shooting phase. Maledictions can only be used in the movement phase. Maledictions, therefore, are not shooting attacks and thus can target flyers.

If this was already settled and I missed it in the earlier posts, sorry.

The FAQ isn't restricted to just shooting attacks. If it was, then the C'tan Gaze of Death could hit flyers. It's not used in the shooting phase, afterall.

The malediction is in fact an attack. Just because the FAQ named a few items does not limit the FAQ answer to those items. The preclusion of "this includes" means that there is much more to the list, though should have added "but is not limited to" in that sentence.

A malediction does target enemy units, it causes negative effects (nothing says an attack has to cause wounds or damage results) to those enemy units, it does not roll to hit and is an "area of effect" attack. It can not target a flyer.