Kevin949 wrote:
These are just some of the questions that would be raised if it was an ability that was controlled by him, or wielded, or fired, or whatever you want to say.
My point is that the FAQ is answering a question about models shooting at flyers, and only models can make snap shots, Imotekhs rule for the lightning strikes is not fired by a model and is a battlefield wide rule with specific allowance to hit all unengaged models. How that doesn't include flyers is beyond me.

No, those questions would only be raised if shooting was the only way models could cause wounds. We know that's not true.
A model can have a special ability that isn't a weapon. That special ability would still need to use a Snap Shot to hit a flyer or have an exception similar to Vector Strike or Skyfire, based on that FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Stop me if you see where I'm going with this...

Was it fired as a Snap Shot?

If a roll to strike is a roll to hit, then sure, I'll say I'm taking a snap shot.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Stop me if you see where I'm going with this...

Was it fired as a Snap Shot?

If a roll to strike is a roll to hit, then sure, I'll say I'm taking a snap shot.

FAQ says you can never opt to take a Snap Shot.

rigeld2 wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Stop me if you see where I'm going with this...

Was it fired as a Snap Shot?

If a roll to strike is a roll to hit, then sure, I'll say I'm taking a snap shot.

FAQ says you can never opt to take a Snap Shot.

Not only that, but how are you taking a Snap Shot if it's not a shooting attack?

You do have to roll a 6 for the power to work... a snapshot at BS 1 is 6... That's where my mind is today...

First and foremost Rigeld, the FAQ is specific to Snap Shots, not Hard to Hit. The page for the FAQ queston is even in quotations as page 13, not page 49 or 81. Probably the main source of your errors.

Now why is the FAQ specific to page 13?

Snap Shots

If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots. Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. It is important to note that any shooting attack that does not use a Ballistic Skill - such as the Necron Monolith's portal of exile - cannot be fired as a Snap Shot.

Notice that the rule above makes no mention of the specific types mentioned in the FAQ such as maelstorm, nova, or beam? Notice how the FAQ clarifies that those specific types of things are then also covered by the rule for Snap Shots and thus unable to be shot as Snap Shots?

However, lo and behold you and others are now trumping the first line of, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and SFMC" within the FAQ as a general answer included in the FAQ for the specific question. The problem there is that if you tout that as a general answer to what can hit Zooming Flyers and SFMC, as a BRB FAQ, it supercedes the Hard to Hit entry on page 41 and 81. For page 41,

Shots resolved at such a target can only be resolved as Snap Shots unless the model or weapon has the Snap Fire special rule Isee page 42)."

Becomes,

Only Snap Shots can hit Flying Monstrous Creatures.

For page 81,

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).

Becomes,

Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers.

But because the answer in the FAQ is specific to the question, we are not faced with negating the Skyfire rule completely. Instead we are told things like maelstrom, beam, and nova psychic powers or any other weapon/attack also does not hit Zooming Flyers or SFMC. The firxt sentence of the answer is wholly tied into the question because it is in regard to hitting and in response to psychic powers and weapons that do not roll to hit or automatically hit.

As that LoTS is none of those mentioned in the rule or FAQ, it hits Zooming Flyers and SFMC per its rules as written.

OK and now we should start discussing again how faqs can extend beyond the original question. Give examples, discuss the IG character issue etc and then accept that faqs indeed can extend beyond the original question and take that faq at face value: only snap shots can hit flyers.

copper.talos wrote:
OK and now we should start discussing again how faqs can extend beyond the original question. Give examples, discuss the IG character issue etc and then accept that faqs indeed can extend beyond the original question and take that faq at face value: only snap shots can hit flyers.

Can we just skip all that and get back to:

No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
etc.?

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
First and foremost Rigeld, the FAQ is specific to Snap Shots, not Hard to Hit. The page for the FAQ queston is even in quotations as page 13, not page 49 or 81. Probably the main source of your errors.

Now why is the FAQ specific to page 13?

Snap Shots

If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots. Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. It is important to note that any shooting attack that does not use a Ballistic Skill - such as the Necron Monolith's portal of exile - cannot be fired as a Snap Shot.

Notice that the rule above makes no mention of the specific types mentioned in the FAQ such as maelstorm, nova, or beam? Notice how the FAQ clarifies that those specific types of things are then also covered by the rule for Snap Shots and thus unable to be shot as Snap Shots?

This exact topic was covered about ten pages back, please try to keep up.

Why would you think that the FAQ entry applies to Snap Shots? The Snap Shot entry in the rule book only concerns what a Snap Shot is, and mentions what types of weapons may not fire as Snap Shots. Why would they FAQ that page (p13) to add something about Flyers? It makes zero sense. The FAQ only concerns what may hit flyers, and logically can only belong in the Hard to Hit section.

Also, to your other points, rigeld2 already mentioned that this is a change to an existing general rule (Hard to Hit). That general rule is that only snap shots may hit fliers. Advanced rules such as those for Skyfire and Vector Strike can override this restriction. The Hard to Hit rule could be amended to say in its entirety "Only Snap Shots may hit Flyers" and all would be well with the world because the advanced rules override it.

-Edit-

I just noticed that you've pointed out that the (p13) in the FAQ entry points it at the Snap Shot entry in the BRB. I think I understand your argument for why it applies there.

This changes nothing. The Snap Shot entry in effect says what a Snap Shot is, what types of weapons may not fire them, and that they are the only thing allowed to hit flyers. This is still a basic rule, overridden by the advanced rules Skyfire and Vector Strike.

 undertow wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
First and foremost Rigeld, the FAQ is specific to Snap Shots, not Hard to Hit. The page for the FAQ queston is even in quotations as page 13, not page 49 or 81. Probably the main source of your errors.

Now why is the FAQ specific to page 13?

Snap Shots

If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots. Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. It is important to note that any shooting attack that does not use a Ballistic Skill - such as the Necron Monolith's portal of exile - cannot be fired as a Snap Shot.

Notice that the rule above makes no mention of the specific types mentioned in the FAQ such as maelstorm, nova, or beam? Notice how the FAQ clarifies that those specific types of things are then also covered by the rule for Snap Shots and thus unable to be shot as Snap Shots?

This exact topic was covered about ten pages back, please try to keep up.

Why would you think that the FAQ entry applies to Snap Shots? The Snap Shot entry in the rule book only concerns what a Snap Shot is, and mentions what types of weapons may not fire as Snap Shots. Why would they FAQ that page (p13) to add something about Flyers? It makes zero sense. The FAQ only concerns what may hit flyers, and logically can only belong in the Hard to Hit section.

Also, to your other points, rigeld2 already mentioned that this is a change to an existing general rule (Hard to Hit). That general rule is that only snap shots may hit fliers. Advanced rules such as those for Skyfire and Vector Strike can override this restriction. The Hard to Hit rule could be amended to say in its entirety "Only Snap Shots may hit Flyers" and all would be well with the world because the advanced rules override it.

-Edit-

I just noticed that you've pointed out that the (p13) in the FAQ entry points it at the Snap Shot entry in the BRB. I think I understand your argument for why it applies there.

This changes nothing. The Snap Shot entry in effect says what a Snap Shot is, what types of weapons may not fire them, and that they are the only thing allowed to hit flyers. This is still a basic rule, overridden by the advanced rules Skyfire and Vector Strike.

And this is why you are wrong.

Snap Shot is not the only thing allowed to hit flyers. We know this 100%. If you want to equivocally state that ONLY Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers in the FAQ answer is a FAQ to also include the Hard to Hit rule, then you negate the entry in the Hard to Hit rule giving exception to models or weapons with the Skyfire rule as I pointed out in my example.

The FAQ is precise in addressing psychic powers that are classed as beam, nova, or maelstrom or weapons that do not roll to hit or automatically hit and their interaction with Zooming Flyers and SFMC and they indeed fall under Snap Shots. As you need to Snap Shot to resolve a shot against a Zooming Flyer or SFMC, unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire rule, this FAQ answer includes those psychic powers and weapons under the Snap Shot rule as they were previously not clarified under said rule.

As LotS does not fall under any of those FAQ additions to the Snap Shot rule and is also not a shot to be resolved under the Hard to Hit rule, it hits Zooming Flyers and SFMC per its rules as written.

Actually the FAQ then answers wider than this, as it includes "attacks", which are not just shooting weapons - hence weapons "and" attacks

LotS is certainly, 100%, an attack. Claiming otherwise ignores English, which you MUST fall back on as the BRB does not define "attack", just "Attack"

As long as you keep ignoring this RAW, your argument will continue to be incorrect

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually the FAQ then answers wider than this, as it includes "attacks", which are not just shooting weapons - hence weapons "and" attacks

LotS is certainly, 100%, an attack. Claiming otherwise ignores English, which you MUST fall back on as the BRB does not define "attack", just "Attack"

As long as you keep ignoring this RAW, your argument will continue to be incorrect

Now you are falling back on the whole "English" defintion defense?

Not once is LotS referred to as an attack in its description. In comparison, Njal's LoT special rule goes even as far as to label his stuff, "game effects". The only "English" reference to attacks that seem to be present in the BRB refer to either shooting attacks or close combat attacks iirc. Is LotS a shooting or close combat attack?

If anything, LoTS is a modification to the Night Fighting rules, which is of course not an attack at all, just a mission special rule.

Edit: I will go as far as to label LotS a modification to the Night Fighting rules and thus exempt from the FAQ just as is Njal's Lord of Tempest game effects. On page 124 of the BRB, the description of Mission Special rules is as follows:

Some Eternal War missions use unique special rules. These confer extra abilities, restrictions, or effects onto your games. We'll explain the most common ones here, but sometimes a mission will introduce its own special rules.

Imotekh's special rule of LotS places a modified Night Fighting mission special rule into play which is implemented as written in the rules entry. Which again, makes it not an attack and thus not subject to the FAQ.

copper.talos wrote:OK and now we should start discussing again how faqs can extend beyond the original question. Give examples, discuss the IG character issue etc and then accept that faqs indeed can extend beyond the original question and take that faq at face value: only snap shots can hit flyers.

Um, no. Looking at a dozen updates, and nitpicking faq entries will not resolve this issue for either the PRO or the NO position.

You can not prove a negative based on inductive reasoning.

You can not rule out the possibility that GW might have chosen to to alter the rules via a faq entry in this case. (given that they have done so in the past in other cases)

nosferatu1001 wrote:LotS is certainly, 100%, an attack.

This is strong language. The question has been asked here before, arguments made for and against, opinions stated, etc.

Did you have something to add - rules page number, precedent, rules-based argument?

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:If anything, LoTS is a modification to the Night Fighting rules, which is of course not an attack at all, just a mission special rule.

RAW, I would agree.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
And this is why you are wrong.

Snap Shot is not the only thing allowed to hit flyers. We know this 100%. If you want to equivocally state that ONLY Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers in the FAQ answer is a FAQ to also include the Hard to Hit rule, then you negate the entry in the Hard to Hit rule giving exception to models or weapons with the Skyfire rule as I pointed out in my example.

Did you even read what I posted? Or are you just having comprehension problems?

If we say that the Snap Shot FAQ says only snap shots are allowed to hit flyers, that is a basic rule that applies to all hits against flyers. (BTW, LotS causes D6 "hits")

This does not negate the entry in the Hard to Hit rule giving exceptions, as that is a, say it with me, specific or advanced rule. Skyfire? Also an advanced rule. Vector strike? Yup, that too.

If you look on page 7 of the BRB, it says basic rules 'apply to all models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise', and advanced rules 'apply to specific types of models'. It says in bold 'where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules'.

LotS, whether an ability, weapon, attack or whatever, is a general or basic rule, as it applies to all enemies. The FAQ entry in question limits hits on fliers to Snap Shots only, regardless of the source, this is an advanced rule. If you're at all unclear about what to do in this situation, please read page 7 again until you get it.

The FAQ is precise in addressing psychic powers that are classed as beam, nova, or maelstrom or weapons that do not roll to hit or automatically hit and their interaction with Zooming Flyers and SFMC and they indeed fall under Snap Shots.

It seems that you're trying to go back to the argument we had 5 or so pages ago, where someone said that because the FAQ question used the word weapons, the answer can only apply to weapons. This is 100% wrong, and numerous examples were provided to show that in many cases, answers were given that went beyond the scope of the question.

As you need to Snap Shot to resolve a shot against a Zooming Flyer or SFMC, unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire rule, this FAQ answer includes those psychic powers and weapons under the Snap Shot rule as they were previously not clarified under said rule.

This is incorrect. The rule is not "all shots must be snap shots", but "hits can only be caused by snap shots".

As LotS does not fall under any of those FAQ additions to the Snap Shot rule and is also not a shot to be resolved under the Hard to Hit rule, it hits Zooming Flyers and SFMC per its rules as written.

The only addition to the Snap Shot rule is 'Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures'. Everything after the 'Therefore is just a non-exhaustive explanation of that point.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:If anything, LoTS is a modification to the Night Fighting rules, which is of course not an attack at all, just a mission special rule.

RAW, I would agree.

I've said this a few times, but I think it's worth repeating:

The "it's not a weapon or attack" debate is not relevant. It is a distraction. LotS causes D6 HITS, the source of the hits isn't important. The FAQ says 'only snap shots can hit'.

Can you please tell me why the hits caused by LotS are not bound by this restriction?

 undertow wrote:
LotS causes D6 HITS, the source of the hits isn't important. The FAQ says 'only snap shots can hit'.

Can you please tell me why the hits caused by LotS are not bound by this restriction?

You say things like...

undertow wrote:Did you even read what I posted? Or are you just having comprehension problems?

and then you ask me to repeat something I and others have said several time in this thread?

The Faq entry on Snap Shot =/= Errata on Hard to Hit.

The faq entry on Snap Shot clarifies Snap Shot. I thought Tyr Grimtooth did a decent job of presenting this argument (again) on this page.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
First and foremost Rigeld, the FAQ is specific to Snap Shots, not Hard to Hit. The page for the FAQ queston is even in quotations as page 13, not page 49 or 81. Probably the main source of your errors.

Now why is the FAQ specific to page 13?

Snap Shots

If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots. Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. It is important to note that any shooting attack that does not use a Ballistic Skill - such as the Necron Monolith's portal of exile - cannot be fired as a Snap Shot.

Notice that the rule above makes no mention of the specific types mentioned in the FAQ such as maelstorm, nova, or beam? Notice how the FAQ clarifies that those specific types of things are then also covered by the rule for Snap Shots and thus unable to be shot as Snap Shots?

However, lo and behold you and others are now trumping the first line of, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and SFMC" within the FAQ as a general answer included in the FAQ for the specific question. The problem there is that if you tout that as a general answer to what can hit Zooming Flyers and SFMC, as a BRB FAQ, it supercedes the Hard to Hit entry on page 41 and 81. For page 41,

Shots resolved at such a target can only be resolved as Snap Shots unless the model or weapon has the Snap Fire special rule Isee page 42)."

Becomes,

Only Snap Shots can hit Flying Monstrous Creatures.

For page 81,

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).

Becomes,

Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers.

But because the answer in the FAQ is specific to the question, we are not faced with negating the Skyfire rule completely. Instead we are told things like maelstrom, beam, and nova psychic powers or any other weapon/attack also does not hit Zooming Flyers or SFMC. The firxt sentence of the answer is wholly tied into the question because it is in regard to hitting and in response to psychic powers and weapons that do not roll to hit or automatically hit.

As that LoTS is none of those mentioned in the rule or FAQ, it hits Zooming Flyers and SFMC per its rules as written.

Foolish mortal - certainly i have rules, its called "it fits the definition of an attack in English" - which barring a 40k-specific change is all that is needed.

Prove otherwise. Prove it is not an "attack". this will require you to provide a 40k specific defintion, as causing damage to an enemy unit / model certainly would be considered an attack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
LotS is certainly, 100%, an attack.

Incorrect. It may be an attack as far as you an I are concerned in the english language, but as far as the rulebook which we use to define such things goe, it is incorrect.

For the millionth time, I am going to post this because no one can seem to disprove it.

No range, hits every unit on the board, no BS roll to hit, no firing model, not done within the normal shooting period, can be used while Imhotekh is locked in combat = not a shooting weapon or attack

No cc-characteristic in its profile, no wielding model, hits every unit on the board, even those not in base contact = not a cc attack or weapon.

No psychic test, no chance of perils, no warp charges = not a psychic power

Because these are the only weapons and attacks defined in the BRB, it is not an attack or weapon as far as the rules are concerned.

The FAQ Says

How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with
Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (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 before, emphasis mine. In this I have bolded the reference to weapons/attacks in both the quesiton and the answer. Because we are not allowed to make leaps of logic, we can only apply the answer to the question, to the exact question itself. We apply the words "Only snapshots can hit zooming flyers and swooping monstrous creares" to the question asked which was

"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)"

To do otherwise is to make a leap of logic and is not allowed. This means that since LoTS is not a weapon or attack (see above) it exists outside of the FAQ.

Now, allow me to show you what happens if you do apply your reasoning to the FAQ

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

If we are to assume that this is all inclusive, and that FAQ > Rulebook (as has been said many times in YMDC) then you can no longer use skyfire against flyers as they would not be firing snapshots and thus be breaking the rule of the FAQ.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Foolish mortal - certainly i have rules, its called "it fits the definition of an attack in English" - which barring a 40k-specific change is all that is needed.

Unless of course it fits into some other category more easily and with less linguistic contortion. The lightning from LotS is not a shooting attack, nor a close combat Attack. It does not require line of sight. No target is chosen. No range or limit on the number of units it might effect. Sounds more like a 'special rule' or 'game effect' or as was mentioned earlier, a modification of the night fighting rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Prove otherwise. Prove it is not an "attack". this will require you to provide a 40k specific defintion, as causing damage to an enemy unit / model certainly would be considered an attack.

If you want to call the lightning from LotS an attack, by all means, make the argument. 'It is because it certainly is' is a poor way to start.

I really don't think it matters if the lightning from LotS is or is not an attack.

RAI - based on recent faq entries, I think GW is moving towards errata of Hard to Hit that would restrict zooming flyers from being hit by anything other than Snap Shots and specific exceptions.

RAW - there is currently no such restriction.

Neither of these positions depends on whether or not the lightning from LotS is or is not an attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Because these are the only weapons and attacks defined in the BRB, it is not an attack or weapon as far as the rules are concerned.

This is misleading, there are a few mentions of generic 'attacks' in the rules. Off the top of my head, the most relevent is one of the faq entries for Mawloc's TftD. It refers to the 'TftD attack'. Granted, TftD shares more in common with a normal shooting attack than lightning from LotS. (normal procedure with large blast marker used for determining hits rather than special rule procedures)

They are similar enough cases that I base my RAI position on TftD's treatment as GW's "intent" for Hard to Hit.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
LotS is certainly, 100%, an attack.

Incorrect. It may be an attack as far as you an I are concerned in the english language, but as far as the rulebook which we use to define such things goe, it is incorrect.

For the millionth time, I am going to post this because no one can seem to disprove it.

No range, hits every unit on the board, no BS roll to hit, no firing model, not done within the normal shooting period, can be used while Imhotekh is locked in combat = not a shooting weapon or attack

Again, it has been disproved -40k has no general definition of "attack" . You keep ognoring that salient fact

As it has no definition of "attack" falling back on English definitions seems the only way to go, and it certainly fits the English definition of "attack". Meaning the FAQ applies

For the millionth time, read and remember: 40k is not a fully internally defined ruleset. If you claim differently you must find a 40k specific definition for "a". When you cannot do so we can perhaps move on.

So then nos, tell me what attacks the rulebook does describe, because if it dosent fall under one of those categories, how can it work at all? There is no general "Misc. Attack" section. They have shooting attacks, and they have cc attacks, neither of which is LoTS.

It is not an attack according to the BRB.

The problem with it being "your definition of attack" or "my defenition of attack" is that we have completely different definitions.

I do not consider lightning to be an attack simply because no one is attacking. Imotekh is not telling the clouds to strike this unit or that unit, otherwise it would always land, not 1/6 of the time. It is a force of nature, similar to dangerous terrain IMHO and cannot be considered an attack.

Unless the trees and clouds are chasing you......

foolishmortal wrote:

RAI - based on recent faq entries, I think GW is moving towards errata of Hard to Hit that would restrict zooming flyers from being hit by anything other than Snap Shots and specific exceptions.

RAW - there is currently no such restriction.

So RAI you agree that LotS shouldn't hit flyers. RAW has been proved that LotS doesn't penetrate vehicles. In both cases LotS doesn't damage flyers so we better move on...

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
So then nos, tell me what attacks the rulebook does describe, because if it dosent fall under one of those categories, how can it work at all? There is no general "Misc. Attack" section. They have shooting attacks, and they have cc attacks, neither of which is LoTS.

It is not an attack according to the BRB.

Your last line is a falsehood, or at least just a really, really bad error in your logic

The BRB does not have a definition for "attack", general. As you even point out. Therefore you cannot say something is not an "attack" because the BRB says so, because the BRB has NO DEFINITION of "attack"

As such you *have* to fall back on English. Where it most certainly IS an attack

Again, if you disagree, then "a" does not "work" in 40k, neither does "the". After all, according to you these things cannot "work" because they are not internally defined within the 40k rulebook

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, if you disagree, then "a" does not "work" in 40k, neither does "the". After all, according to you these things cannot "work" because they are not internally defined within the 40k rulebook

But attacks are. You are a shooting attack, cc attack, or psychic attack. None of these are LoTS.

Edit: Imo is certainly doing it, did you even read the fluff? Its even called "Lord of the Storms"; the clue is in the title there

Imotekh is causing damage to enemy units via a special rule; that certainly fits any definition of attack based on English I can think of. This isnt interpretation, just an error in comprehension on your part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, if you disagree, then "a" does not "work" in 40k, neither does "the". After all, according to you these things cannot "work" because they are not internally defined within the 40k rulebook

But attacks are. You are a shooting attack, cc attack, or psychic attack. None of these are LoTS.

WRONG

"attacks" *general*, with no qualifier of "psychic" "shooting" or "close combat" are not defined, anywhere in the rulebook

You are committing a logical fallacy; namely that because only 3 types of attack are defined that these are therefore the only attacks allowed - when all it means is that the BRB has only defined 3 sub types of attack. It does not mean that the general class "attack" does not exist

If Imotekh controlled the lightning storm, he wouldnt need infantry. He'd storm you to death instead. There is a 1/6 chance that it will happen to any unit.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
I do not consider lightning to be an attack simply because no one is attacking. Imotekh is not telling the clouds to strike this unit or that unit, otherwise it would always land, not 1/6 of the time. It is a force of nature, similar to dangerous terrain IMHO and cannot be considered an attack.

The lightning doesn't hit his own units, does it? Just a coincidence or is someone (perhaps Imotekh the Lord of Storms) directing it? If so, it is an attack.

The lighting dosent hit alot of enemy units? Maybe the enemy commisar is fighting for control of it

See the flaw?

No, I don't.

If I have the ability to call down lightning bolts wherever, and whenver I want, then I'm not commiting it to 1/6th of my enemies force.

All of them are going to eat electricity.

If you are shooting your boltgun at an enemy unit you are most likely not going to hit all of them, even though you tried. How is that different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, if it is a "force of nature" and not controlled by anyone and hence no attack, why does it only strike unengaged enemy units (regardless of its specific chances to actually strike every enemy unit)?

Because a boltgun has a range, LOS restriction, BS rolls to hit, and a designated wielder.

Lightning bolts decended from the sky above, do not.

...that are being directed by the character Imotekh

Apparently this point escapes you. It's almost like he is the "Lord" of these "Storms" and is causing them (by being present) to strike enemies in some form of an attack directed, however unskillfully, ONLY at enemy units.

Shucks. Seen your error yet?

At this point I don't think this thread is going anywhere, and as much as I would like to see this continue, no new information has been presented, and it would probably be best to just have this thread locked.

I do agree with Happyjew. This is going nowhere.

The best part of where this argument is now is that we are all right and all wrong, because now we are arguing something that isint even rules.

Not shooting, not CC, what type of attack is it? What type of attack left is there? We are not given the "Permission" that you harp on so much to use an attack that is not covered in the rulebook. You are assuming that its a mystery attack that has a category all its own. You dont have permission to assume that so in a permissive ruleset you cannot assume that.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
I do agree with Happyjew. This is going nowhere.

The best part of where this argument is now is that we are all right and all wrong, because now we are arguing something that isint even rules.

Not shooting, not CC, what type of attack is it? What type of attack left is there? We are not given the "Permission" that you harp on so much to use an attack that is not covered in the rulebook. You are assuming that its a mystery attack that has a category all its own. You dont have permission to assume that so in a permissive ruleset you cannot assume that.

Sorry, that sentence devolved somewhat into incomprehensibility there

You are still assuming something has to have a category of attack, with no basis for assuming so. Even the FAQ refers to "attacks" in general, yet you keep missing it

RAW LotS cannot hit a flyer, as it is an attack

What gives you permission to assume that there is an attack other than shooting, cc, and psychic?

English. What gives you permission to deny the general term "attack", used int eh FAQ and in other places?

Because attacks arent defined in the FAQ. They are in the rulebook. Shooting, CC, and Psychic. Each have their own section even. Specific Vs General.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Because attacks arent defined in the FAQ. They are in the rulebook. Shooting, CC, and Psychic. Each have their own section even. Specific Vs General.

'attacks' are not defined, 'Attacks' are defined. Subtle but important difference.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
English. What gives you permission to deny the general term "attack", used int eh FAQ and in other places?

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.

Can a vibro cannon hit a flyer?
It is a weapon.
It uses it's BS to fire.
It isn't a template or blast, and as such can fire a snap shot.

foolishmortal wrote:

 undertow wrote:
LotS causes D6 HITS, the source of the hits isn't important. The FAQ says 'only snap shots can hit'.

Can you please tell me why the hits caused by LotS are not bound by this restriction?

You say things like...

undertow wrote:Did you even read what I posted? Or are you just having comprehension problems?

and then you ask me to repeat something I and others have said several time in this thread?

The Faq entry on Snap Shot =/= Errata on Hard to Hit.

The faq entry on Snap Shot clarifies Snap Shot. I thought Tyr Grimtooth did a decent job of presenting this argument (again) on this page.

I understand where Tyr is coming from, and I don't agree with him.

I also grasp that the page number in the FAQ entry points to page 13 of the BRB and the Snap Shot rule. My argument is that the FAQ does not replace the Snap Shot entry in the BRB, it adds to it. The phrase 'Only Snap Shots may hit ... " does NOT invalidate other exceptions listed elsewhere in the rulebook. Vector Strike still has explicit permission to hit Flyers. Skyfire has a similar exception because these are Advanced rules that apply to specific models.

As an example of what I'm trying to get you to understand, let's look at the Snap Shot rule on page 13. This section explicitly states:

Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots.

Next we'll look at the Overwatch rules on page 21:

Any shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as Snap Shots

Yet if we look in the section that describes template weapons on page 52 we see this text in the 'Wall of Death' section:

Template Weapons can fire Overwatch, even though the cannot fire Snap Shots".

So here we have a basic rule (Snap Shot), and the advanced rule (Wall of Death) that overrides it. The rules for Basic vs. Advanced rules are on page 7, go read them again, I'll wait.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
English. What gives you permission to deny the general term "attack", used int eh FAQ and in other places?

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.

Can a vibro cannon hit a flyer?
It is a weapon.
It uses it's BS to fire.
It isn't a template or blast, and as such can fire a snap shot.

Artillery cannot Snap fire.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Now, allow me to show you what happens if you do apply your reasoning to the FAQ

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

If we are to assume that this is all inclusive, and that FAQ > Rulebook (as has been said many times in YMDC) then you can no longer use skyfire against flyers as they would not be firing snapshots and thus be breaking the rule of the FAQ.

I would still like an answer to this.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
English. What gives you permission to deny the general term "attack", used int eh FAQ and in other places?

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.

Can a vibro cannon hit a flyer?
It is a weapon.
It uses it's BS to fire.
It isn't a template or blast, and as such can fire a snap shot.

It's funny that you're quoting the thing that disproves your argument. The Vibro Cannon draws a line, and as such cannot hit Flyers.

If you want explicit proof, look at the Eldar FAQ, page 4:

Q. Can Vibro Cannons hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures, if the line drawn by the Eldar player touches these models?
A. No. They can, however hit Hovering Flyers and Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Now, allow me to show you what happens if you do apply your reasoning to the FAQ

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

If we are to assume that this is all inclusive, and that FAQ > Rulebook (as has been said many times in YMDC) then you can no longer use skyfire against flyers as they would not be firing snapshots and thus be breaking the rule of the FAQ.

I would still like an answer to this.

Again, it doesn't have to be all-inclusive. It is a basic rule that applies to all models on the table. Skyfire and Vector Strikes are Advanced rules that override the basic rule. The FAQ entry we're discussing is not an Errata, it doesn't say to replace anything, or remove anything from the rule it concerns.

And if a model with a unique special rule is not more advanced than a USR like skyfire or vector strike, I dont know what it.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
And if a model with a unique special rule is not more advanced than a USR like skyfire or vector strike, I dont know what it.

There are other models with unique special rules (Mawlocs) that are not allowed to hit flyers.

LotS applies to all enemies, making it a basic rule.

They are specifically FAQ'd.

And it is anything but basic, as shown by the myriad of FAQ entries it has already gotten.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
They are specifically FAQ'd.

And it is anything but basic, as shown by the myriad of FAQ entries it has already gotten.

A rule being basic or advanced has nothing to do with how simple or complex the rule is. As you have criticized the No group for our attempt to define 'attack', please do not attempt to use the english definitions of basic or advanced. In this context, basic rules apply to all models, and advanced rules apply to specific types of models.

LotS is a basic ability because it applies to all enemies.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Because attacks arent defined in the FAQ. They are in the rulebook. Shooting, CC, and Psychic. Each have their own section even. Specific Vs General.

Wrong, again. Please pay attention

"attacks" are NOT defined. Subsets of "attack" as a super set ARE defined.
"Attack" IS defined, but is NOT the same thing as "attack". Capitalisation is important, and you keep on missing it.

Specific vs general doesnt work here, you seem to misunderstand that it means.

Honestly Noz, there is much more evidence in the rule pointing to LotS being a modified version of the Night Fighting rules and thus a mission special rule then it being an attack.

Of course you can keep making your absolute statements of it 100% being an attack despite not a single mention of it being an attack in its entry, but that just seems like you reassuring yourself.

Well the BRB does not define 'attack' so we fall back on the English definition of 'attack' and it is clear that the lightning is an 'attack'

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well the BRB does not define 'attack' so we fall back on the English definition of 'attack' and it is clear that the lightning is an 'attack'

This fallback on the English definition crap is just that, crap.

The lightning effects of LoTS are directly tied into the modified Night Fighting rules that Imotekh creates by being included in the army. You are taking something, in this case the lightning, and trying to label it to fit your argument instead of looking at what the rule entry itself presents it as.

Imotekh modifies a mission special rule to include keeping the Night Fighting rules in effect and in turn create lightning. It isn't an attack, it is part of the Night Fighting mission special rule that has been modified by the inclusion of Imotekh in the army. That makes it no different then Njal's Lord of Tempest game effects that iirc were ruled by some prominent tournaments to hit flyers.

So resolve LotS as a game effect, brought on by LoTS being a modified version of the mission special rule, Night Fighting. Hence it is not covered by the FAQ in the slightest and hit flyers.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well the BRB does not define 'attack' so we fall back on the English definition of 'attack' and it is clear that the lightning is an 'attack'

This fallback on the English definition crap is just that, crap.

Why is it crap? Because it invalidates your argument? If there is no game definition of 'attack' you have to fall back on the English definition, or else the term is meaningless. You have an ability, that is only available when an army includes Imhotek, that only affects enemy units, and can damage and remove them from play. It's like you're saying 'it isn't an attack because I don't want it to be'

The lightning effects of LoTS are directly tied into the modified Night Fighting rules that Imotekh creates by being included in the army. You are taking something, in this case the lightning, and trying to label it to fit your argument instead of looking at what the rule entry itself presents it as.

Imotekh modifies a mission special rule to include keeping the Night Fighting rules in effect and in turn create lightning. It isn't an attack, it is part of the Night Fighting mission special rule that has been modified by the inclusion of Imotekh in the army. That makes it no different then Njal's Lord of Tempest game effects that iirc were ruled by some prominent tournaments to hit flyers.

So resolve LotS as a game effect, brought on by LoTS being a modified version of the mission special rule, Night Fighting. Hence it is not covered by the FAQ in the slightest and hit flyers.

Again, LotS causes hits, this is all the matters. Hits must be Snap Shots.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well the BRB does not define 'attack' so we fall back on the English definition of 'attack' and it is clear that the lightning is an 'attack'

This fallback on the English definition crap is just that, crap.

So all definitions must be in the rule book?
Please define the following from the BRB: the and is contains normal nullified remove expressed
Ill wait.

 undertow wrote:
Again, LotS causes hits, this is all the matters. Hits must be Snap Shots.

Not true. Hits don't have to be Snap Shots. For example, we all agree that Skyfire hits don't have to be from Snap Shots.

By skipping over a large part of the FAQ answer, it confuses the issue.

Tye_Informer wrote:

 undertow wrote:
Again, LotS causes hits, this is all the matters. Hits must be Snap Shots.

Not true. Hits don't have to be Snap Shots. For example, we all agree that Skyfire hits don't have to be from Snap Shots.

By skipping over a large part of the FAQ answer, it confuses the issue.

Skyfire shots have a specific exemption.
Does LotS?

Tye_Informer wrote:

 undertow wrote:
Again, LotS causes hits, this is all the matters. Hits must be Snap Shots.

Not true. Hits don't have to be Snap Shots. For example, we all agree that Skyfire hits don't have to be from Snap Shots.

By skipping over a large part of the FAQ answer, it confuses the issue.

It goes without saying that things given specific permission to violate a basic rule are legal.

If feel like this whole argument from the YES group has turned into that scene from Idiocracy, where Not Sure is trying to get the future people to put water on their crops instead of Brawndo.

Why do plants crave Brawndo?
Because it has electrolytes.
Why does Brawndo have electrolytes?
Because it has what plants crave.

It is a crap ploy in regard to LotS when we have the very rule entry describing a modified mission special rule that includes the choice to extend the Night Fighting special rule and causes lightning. It does not contain any reference to it being an attack and instead points directly to being an effect of the modified mission special rule.

Basically, don't pull the English definition of attack crap when the rule for LotS pretty much shows and defines the lightning as an effect of the modified mission special rule, Night Fighting.

"Attack" as used in the FAQ is not defined in the BRB.
To understand the FAQ, we must define it.
We use the English language definition.
LotS fits that definition.
LotS does not have an exemption similar to Vector Strike or Skyfire.

Cite rules to disagree.

rigeld2 wrote:
"Attack" as used in the FAQ is not defined in the BRB.
To understand the FAQ, we must define it.
We use the English language definition.
LotS fits that definition.
LotS does not have an exemption similar to Vector Strike or Skyfire.

Cite rules to disagree.

Edited by Manchu

>If I choose to use a solar pulse to remove the effects of Night Fighting for the turn, do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units?
>>do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units
>Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units
>any enemy units
>>any
>>Lord of the Storm special rule #notanattack
Please lawyer your way out.

Phil106 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"Attack" as used in the FAQ is not defined in the BRB.
To understand the FAQ, we must define it.
We use the English language definition.
LotS fits that definition.
LotS does not have an exemption similar to Vector Strike or Skyfire.

Cite rules to disagree.

I literally just made an account to tell you that you are tfg, it's done, you're him. I wouldn't bother ripping out your throat, because then I'd have to hear you gasp for air for 3 minutes, I would just never come to any event you're at. Congratz. Oh and btw

>If I choose to use a solar pulse to remove the effects of Night Fighting for the turn, do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units?
>>do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units
>Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units
>any enemy units
>>any
Please lawyer your way out.

Wow. First off, the first part is rather rude, I believe you owe rigeld an apology. The main purpose of the forum is to determine how odd rules work within the rules as a whole. Most people who argue a certain point don't even play it that way. There are two ways to look at this:
a) it is an attack and as such is subject to the Hard to Hit special rule.
b) it is not an attack at all and can hit flyers but as such cannot add strength to the armour penetration rule.

Take your pick. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

 Phil106 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"Attack" as used in the FAQ is not defined in the BRB.
To understand the FAQ, we must define it.
We use the English language definition.
LotS fits that definition.
LotS does not have an exemption similar to Vector Strike or Skyfire.

Cite rules to disagree.

I literally just made an account to tell you that you are tfg, it's done, you're him. I wouldn't bother ripping out your throat, because then I'd have to hear you gasp for air for 3 minutes, I would just never come to any event you're at. Congratz. Oh and btw

>If I choose to use a solar pulse to remove the effects of Night Fighting for the turn, do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units?
>>do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units
>Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units
>any enemy units
>>any
>>Lord of the Storm special rule #notanattack
Please lawyer your way out.

Are you seriously quoting just the question part of a (unrelated) FAQ entry to prove your point?

I'll play along. Note the part you quoted that says 'hits'. Now read the entry we're discussing, the part that says 'only snap shots may hit...' LotS causes hits that are not Snap Shots, therefore they cannot hit.

Lawyered.

Also, nice first post. Welcome to the community. Now please go away.

Happyjew wrote:

Phil106 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"Attack" as used in the FAQ is not defined in the BRB.
To understand the FAQ, we must define it.
We use the English language definition.
LotS fits that definition.
LotS does not have an exemption similar to Vector Strike or Skyfire.

Cite rules to disagree.

I literally just made an account to tell you that you are tfg, it's done, you're him. I wouldn't bother ripping out your throat, because then I'd have to hear you gasp for air for 3 minutes, I would just never come to any event you're at. Congratz. Oh and btw

>If I choose to use a solar pulse to remove the effects of Night Fighting for the turn, do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units?
>>do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units
>Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units
>any enemy units
>>any
Please lawyer your way out.

Wow. First off, the first part is rather rude, I believe you owe rigeld an apology. The main purpose of the forum is to determine how odd rules work within the rules as a whole. Most people who argue a certain point don't even play it that way. There are two ways to look at this:
a) it is an attack and as such is subject to the Hard to Hit special rule.
b) it is not an attack at all and can hit flyers but as such cannot add strength to the armour penetration rule.

Take your pick. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I'm sorry more used to /tg/, I guess I meant more to say that people who play like this "bug" me. But any how, didn't everyone already go over this? There are multiple ways non-attacks that role an additional d6 on the table, such as ramming, Also I don't know what your rulebook says but mine says "roll a d6 and add the weapon's Strength" (pg.73) since Imotekh’s 'Lord of The Storm' special ability has a 'weapon profile' it is entitled to the extra d6 is it not?

 undertow wrote:

 Phil106 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"Attack" as used in the FAQ is not defined in the BRB.
To understand the FAQ, we must define it.
We use the English language definition.
LotS fits that definition.
LotS does not have an exemption similar to Vector Strike or Skyfire.

Cite rules to disagree.

I literally just made an account to tell you that you are tfg, it's done, you're him. I wouldn't bother ripping out your throat, because then I'd have to hear you gasp for air for 3 minutes, I would just never come to any event you're at. Congratz. Oh and btw

>If I choose to use a solar pulse to remove the effects of Night Fighting for the turn, do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units?
>>do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units
>Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units
>any enemy units
>>any
>>Lord of the Storm special rule #notanattack
Please lawyer your way out.

Are you seriously quoting just the question part of a (unrelated) FAQ entry to prove your point?

I'll play along. Note the part you quoted that says 'hits'. Now read the entry we're discussing, the part that says 'only snap shots may hit...' LotS causes hits that are not Snap Shots, therefore they cannot hit.

Lawyered.

Also, nice first post. Welcome to the community. Now please go away.

I actually mean to apoligize for my rudness, coming from 4chan really isn't an excuse.

Ok, so you should know that before hand I did read that rule. But now if you will, turn to vector strike on page 43 and read with me; "... Nominate any one unengaged enemy unit the model has moved over that turn. This unit may even be an enemy Flyer. That unit takes D3+1 hits, resolved at the model's unmodified Strength and AP3..." Sound's familiar right? Imothek's LotS (although I don't have it on hand) is read in a very similar fashion, minus the flyer bit because they had not yet been added to the game. So when it says 'any' unit in the FAQ and does not clarify that it cannot target air units, this suggests to me that they in fact intend for it to hit all units.

Also back to rigeld2 If I'm to interpret what you said then models vector striking don't get to add an addition d6 to vector strike because it's not an attack but a special rule correct?

 Phil106 wrote:
I'm sorry more used to /tg/, I guess I meant more to say that people who play like this "bug" me. But any how, didn't everyone already go over this? There are multiple ways non-attacks that role an additional d6 on the table, such as ramming, Also I don't know what your rulebook says but mine says "roll a d6 and add the weapon's Strength" (pg.73) since Imotekh’s 'Lord of The Storm' special ability has a 'weapon profile' it is entitled to the extra d6 is it not?

1) Ramming also can not add its str to the D6 roll, unless things not defined as an "Attack" in the brb are in fact attacks.

2) Yes "since Imotekh’s 'Lord of The Storm' special ability has a 'weapon profile' it is entitled to the extra d6" but that also means it is a weapon. and as we know: "any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit can not hit a zooming flyer, as Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers".

TY, Lawyered.

The FAQ again for those that missed 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."

 Phil106 wrote:
Imothek's LotS (although I don't have it on hand) is read in a very similar fashion, minus the flyer bit

That minus the "flyer bit" is everything. Vector Strike has specific permission to hit flyers without a snap shot, The LoTS does not have a specific exception, so it myst snap shot to be able to hit, and since it can not snap shot it can not hit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Phil106 wrote:
I'm sorry more used to /tg/, I guess I meant more to say that people who play like this "bug" me. But any how, didn't everyone already go over this? There are multiple ways non-attacks that role an additional d6 on the table, such as ramming, Also I don't know what your rulebook says but mine says "roll a d6 and add the weapon's Strength" (pg.73) since Imotekh’s 'Lord of The Storm' special ability has a 'weapon profile' it is entitled to the extra d6 is it not?

1) Ramming also can not add its str to the D6 roll, unless things not defined as an "Attack" in the brb are in fact attacks.

2) Yes "since Imotekh’s 'Lord of The Storm' special ability has a 'weapon profile' it is entitled to the extra d6" but that also means it is a weapon. and as we know: "any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit can not hit a zooming flyer, as Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers".

TY, Lawyered.

The FAQ again for those that missed 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."

 Phil106 wrote:
Imothek's LotS (although I don't have it on hand) is read in a very similar fashion, minus the flyer bit

That minus the "flyer bit" is everything. Vector Strike has specific permission to hit flyers without a snap shot, The LoTS does not have a specific exception, so it myst snap shot to be able to hit, and since it can not snap shot it can not hit.

Actually I realized I talked myself into a corner, chariots have the same rule as vector strike with sweep attack, but it doesn't specify it can't hit flyers. Oops. Well you guys win, I'm gonna go watch flashpoint now. Good day sirs.

 Phil106 wrote:
Actually I realized I talked myself into a corner, chariots have the same rule as vector strike with sweep attack, but it doesn't specify it can't hit flyers. Oops. Well you guys win, I'm gonna go watch flashpoint now. Good day sirs.

I take back my 'please leave'. Too bad everyone else isn't as reasonable as you.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:

 undertow wrote:
Again, LotS causes hits, this is all the matters. Hits must be Snap Shots.

Not true. Hits don't have to be Snap Shots. For example, we all agree that Skyfire hits don't have to be from Snap Shots.

By skipping over a large part of the FAQ answer, it confuses the issue.

Skyfire shots have a specific exemption.
Does LotS?

My point is some people are leaving off large parts of the answer and making blanket statements that are not true. The blanket statement that "Hits must be Snap Shots", if true, would completely settle the debate. However, it's not true so the debate is not settled.

Another common tactic I see is the False Dichotomy, forcing to choose between LOTS being a weapon attack, which is covered by the FAQ and prevents flyers from being hit, and LOTS not being a weapon attack and therefore can't hurt add the D6 to the AP roll.

Based on all the reading I've done, I think that LOTS is not covered by the FAQ, and therefore can hit flyers. It does not automatically hit and it is not a weapon, so it's not covered by the FAQ. It modifies the mission rules and states to roll for every unengaged enemy unit, that would include flyers.

I have not seen anything that convinces me that LOTS automatically hits (it doesn't, you have to roll to cause the hits), but even if it did not require a roll, I still haven't seen anything that shows it is a weapon. If it was a weapon then the FAQ would cover it and it can't be snap shot, so it can't hit Flyers. However, a weapon must be wielded by a model and can't be used when the model is not on the battlefied. LOTS takes effect whether Imotekh is on the field or not, it only requires that Night Fighting rules be in effect.

It is, however, an attack, as it fits the English definition of such and, barring a rule specifying "attack" meaning something else, we HAVE to use the English definition - else the word is meaningless.

It is an attack not being made using Skyfire, so cannot hit

Tye_Informer wrote:
I have not seen anything that convinces me that LOTS automatically hits (it doesn't, you have to roll to cause the hits), but even if it did not require a roll, I still haven't seen anything that shows it is a weapon. If it was a weapon then the FAQ would cover it and it can't be snap shot, so it can't hit Flyers. However, a weapon must be wielded by a model and can't be used when the model is not on the battlefied. LOTS takes effect whether Imotekh is on the field or not, it only requires that Night Fighting rules be in effect.

As for the underlined:

If it is not a weapon you can not add its Str to the D6 roll to pen a vehicle as the armor pen rules state to add the Str of the weapon to the D6.

But that is a strict interpretation. If we use a strict interpretation in regard to the FAQ in that it only applies to weapons, and LoTS is not a weapon, then we also have to use a strict interpretation in regards to Armor pen. and that means only Weapons get to add their strength to the D6 roll to pen a vehicle, and not LoTS.

Or we go with the English definition of weapon. Then any weapons, like the LoTS rule, get to add their Str to penetration rolls because it fits the English definition of Weapon, but that also means that the lightning can not hit a zooming flyer.

Either way Lighting does nothing to flyers.

Happyjew wrote:

Phil106 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"Attack" as used in the FAQ is not defined in the BRB.
To understand the FAQ, we must define it.
We use the English language definition.
LotS fits that definition.
LotS does not have an exemption similar to Vector Strike or Skyfire.

Cite rules to disagree.

I literally just made an account to tell you that you are tfg, it's done, you're him. I wouldn't bother ripping out your throat, because then I'd have to hear you gasp for air for 3 minutes, I would just never come to any event you're at. Congratz. Oh and btw

>If I choose to use a solar pulse to remove the effects of Night Fighting for the turn, do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units?
>>do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units
>Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units
>any enemy units
>>any
Please lawyer your way out.

Wow. First off, the first part is rather rude, I believe you owe rigeld an apology. The main purpose of the forum is to determine how odd rules work within the rules as a whole. Most people who argue a certain point don't even play it that way. There are two ways to look at this:
a) it is an attack and as such is subject to the Hard to Hit special rule.
b) it is not an attack at all and can hit flyers but as such cannot add strength to the armour penetration rule.

Take your pick. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I will take option b and wait for a FAQ telling me how to resolve a game effect brought on by a modified mission special rule when including Imotekh in an army. Because here is thin thing, there are plenty of things in the BRB that are not weapons or attacks, that cause hits and yet they are somehow allowed to be resolved. For example,

A Explodes result on the vehicle damage table, "Nearby units suffer a strength 3, AP - hit for each model within D6" of the vehicle.....", Oh look, not a weapon or attack! Gee how do we resolve wounds?

Ramming, from the example given: "The total is 4+3+1, which means the Trukk suffers a strength 8 hit against its side armor." Wait, the Land Raider is not a weapon and ram isn't defined as an attack! Gee how do we resolve the armor penetration?

Carnivorous Jungle
Fuel Reserve
Booby Trap
Psychneuein Hive
Spiker Plant
Etc
Etc

So yea, I will take option b and wait for the FAQ to clarify how game effects/terrain/etc are resolved for rolling to wound and armor penetration. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that it cannot penetrate armor is a seperate issue that has nothing to do with it hitting flyers.

Tye_Informer wrote:

My point is some people are leaving off large parts of the answer and making blanket statements that are not true. The blanket statement that "Hits must be Snap Shots", if true, would completely settle the debate. However, it's not true so the debate is not settled.

Except it is true. Yes, some rules have exceptions - that does not invalidate the statement.

I have not seen anything that convinces me that LOTS automatically hits (it doesn't, you have to roll to cause the hits), but even if it did not require a roll, I still haven't seen anything that shows it is a weapon. If it was a weapon then the FAQ would cover it and it can't be snap shot, so it can't hit Flyers. However, a weapon must be wielded by a model and can't be used when the model is not on the battlefied. LOTS takes effect whether Imotekh is on the field or not, it only requires that Night Fighting rules be in effect.

The FAQ also covers attacks, which LotS indisputably is. Unless you care to define the words I asked about earlier using only the BRB?

Give it up Rigeld, I dont think this is going to go anywhere - the "yes it can hit" side have run out of any argument apart from "its not an attack, because i say so"

 DeathReaper wrote:

If it is not a weapon you can not add its Str to the D6 roll to pen a vehicle as the armor pen rules state to add the Str of the weapon to the D6.

Page 50, oddly, under the heading WEAPONS
If the weapon's range contains a '-' it is (unless otherwise stated) a Melee weapon. If it contains a number, or 'Template' it is a shooting weapon.

Yes, LoTS is an attack. Is it a weapon? The rules for weapon seems like it isn't.

Lacking a number for range, it seems like we're still left with an attack that isn't a weapon, and that doesn't auto hit; making it not covered by the FAQ. Also bear in mind, the lightning still comes down if Imotekh is embarked in a transport, or off the table, or inside a building with no fire powers. Imotekh rolls for the night fight, not for the lightning.
Convince me it's a weapon. I've got a rule that shows it doesn't fully qualify for either Melee or Shooting weapons.


-Matt

I have already shown it follows all the requirements to be classified as a weapon. Such requirements also make the environmental effects weapons and thus able to harm vehicles. I have also shown why ramming isn't a weapon (no profile, explicit permission to roll armour pen). This topic is literally going nowhere. It cannot hit flyers as it is a weapon covered by the FAQ. Simple as that. It doesn't even make sense in reality for it too as they'd be giant faraday cages. This is just silly.

Matt - Not having a range and having range "-" are not equivalent.

Tye_Informer wrote:
My point is some people are leaving off large parts of the answer and making blanket statements that are not true. The blanket statement that "Hits must be Snap Shots", if true, would completely settle the debate. However, it's not true so the debate is not settled.

Why isn't it true? Just saying 'However, it's not true so the debate is not settled' is no more authoritative than 'Because I said so'.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
...Yes, LoTS is an attack...

-Matt

"any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them"

LoTS does not roll to hit, so it can not target flyers.

Thank you for proving our point.

 DeathReaper wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
...Yes, LoTS is an attack...

-Matt

"any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them"

LoTS does not roll to hit, so it can not target flyers.

Thank you for proving our point.

An argument can be made that the ability does not 'target' flyers as it his everything on the field.

 Phil106 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
...Yes, LoTS is an attack...

-Matt

"any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them"

LoTS does not roll to hit, so it can not target flyers.

Thank you for proving our point.

An argument can be made that the ability does not 'target' flyers as it his everything on the field.

Possibly, but doesn't it 'target' everything on the field?.

I think it's irrelevant if it actually targets units though. It is the hits that matter, and if they were snap fired, or had permission to hit flyers. The source of the hits doesn't matter. If the ability is a weapon or attack doesn't matter. Once a game effect (weapon, ability, etc) has delivered some hits to a flyer, if the hits weren't snap fired or had permission, they are ignored.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Give it up Rigeld, I dont think this is going to go anywhere - the "yes it can hit" side have run out of any argument apart from "its not an attack, because i say so"

Gee, that sounds eerily similar to, "It is an attack, because I say so."

I notice that you completely duck the fact that the lightning is linked directly to the modified mission special rule of Night Fighting clearly making it something other then an attack. As I already pointed out,

Some Eternal War missions use unique special rules. These confer extra abilities, restrictions, or effects onto your games. We'll explain the most common ones here, but sometimes a mission will introduce its own special rules.

So we do know that the lightning of LoTS is classed under one of those three things, ie, "effects in your games".

But hey, repeat your, "100% is an attack" statement enough times and maybe you will get some parrots to repeat it as well.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Some Eternal War missions use unique special rules. These confer extra abilities, restrictions, or effects onto your games. We'll explain the most common ones here, but sometimes a mission will introduce its own special rules.

So we do know that the lightning of LoTS is classed under one of those three things, ie, "effects in your games".

But hey, repeat your, "100% is an attack" statement enough times and maybe you will get some parrots to repeat it as well.

Did the mission define LotS?

Have you found a definition for attack in the rulebook yet?
Or found the definitions to any of the other words I asked you to?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Some Eternal War missions use unique special rules. These confer extra abilities, restrictions, or effects onto your games. We'll explain the most common ones here, but sometimes a mission will introduce its own special rules.

So we do know that the lightning of LoTS is classed under one of those three things, ie, "effects in your games".

But hey, repeat your, "100% is an attack" statement enough times and maybe you will get some parrots to repeat it as well.

Did the mission define LotS?

Have you found a definition for attack in the rulebook yet?
Or found the definitions to any of the other words I asked you to?

Don't be an idiot Rigeld. You like to play the "is" and "that" definition game far to often on this forum as your trump card and it is a weak argument in this context.

Read the rule entry for LotS. It is a modified version of the mission special rule, Night Fighting. The lightning is directly linked to that modified mission special rule. You can keep playing ignorant and insisting that it fits the English definition of attack and therefore you fall back on it, while the rule itself shows you that it is part of the modified mission special rule when Imotekh is included in an army.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Give it up Rigeld, I dont think this is going to go anywhere - the "yes it can hit" side have run out of any argument apart from "its not an attack, because i say so"

Gee, that sounds eerily similar to, "It is an attack, because I say so."

I notice that you completely duck the fact that the lightning is linked directly to the modified mission special rule of Night Fighting clearly making it something other then an attack. As I already pointed out,

Some Eternal War missions use unique special rules. These confer extra abilities, restrictions, or effects onto your games. We'll explain the most common ones here, but sometimes a mission will introduce its own special rules.

So we do know that the lightning of LoTS is classed under one of those three things, ie, "effects in your games".

But hey, repeat your, "100% is an attack" statement enough times and maybe you will get some parrots to repeat it as well.

The rules for LotS say "While Night Fighting is in effect ..". This doesn't modify night fighting, it is triggered by it. There is a huge difference. The logical leaps you are going through to defend your position are getting pathetic.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Don't be an idiot Rigeld. You like to play the "is" and "that" definition game far to often on this forum as your trump card and it is a weak argument in this context.

I'm not being an idiot - you don't have to insult me.
It's not a weak argument - you've asserted that it is not an attack. It fits the definition of attack perfectly. To say that the word "attack" is not defined in the rulebook means you also need to define other words in the rulebook - and you can't.

Read the rule entry for LotS. It is a modified version of the mission special rule, Night Fighting. The lightning is directly linked to that modified mission special rule. You can keep playing ignorant and insisting that it fits the English definition of attack and therefore you fall back on it, while the rule itself shows you that it is part of the modified mission special rule when Imotekh is included in an army.

No, it isn't a "modified version of the mission special rule".
If it was, it would define Night Fighting.

Just like Hive Commander isn't a modified special rule just because it changes the reserve roll while the Tyrant is alive.

It's a special rule that manipulates Night Fighting, and additionally throws attacks around the field.

Also, I don't appreciate being called ignorant - I'm well informed on the topic, thanks.

 undertow wrote:

 Phil106 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
...Yes, LoTS is an attack...

-Matt

"any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them"

LoTS does not roll to hit, so it can not target flyers.

Thank you for proving our point.

An argument can be made that the ability does not 'target' flyers as it his everything on the field.

Possibly, but doesn't it 'target' everything on the field?.

I think it's irrelevant if it actually targets units though. It is the hits that matter, and if they were snap fired, or had permission to hit flyers. The source of the hits doesn't matter. If the ability is a weapon or attack doesn't matter. Once a game effect (weapon, ability, etc) has delivered some hits to a flyer, if the hits weren't snap fired or had permission, they are ignored.

But the part of the FAQ answer that DeathReaper quoted isn't the Rule portion. That particular sentence starts with 'Therefore ..', which means, as a result of

They would have clarified if it 'targeted' everything on the field, the rules for nova actually state that it targets everything in range, while the rules for LotS is simply roll a D6 for each enemy unit. It does say 'Suffers D6 hits' which skips the roll to hit entirely, and according to his quote anything that would specifically 'target' the flyer would be under the effects of hard to hit, this wouldn't.

Now reading the actual rulebook it says that 'shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots' since 'Snap Shots' refers to the reduction of BS this would lead me to believe that skipping the 'hit' roll would allow the shot to continue resolution.

Allow me to clarify my own thought process.
Can Lord of the Storm be fired as a Snap Shot? No.
Do hits generated by Lord of the Storm roll to hit? No.
Does Lord of the Storm 'target' the flyer? No.
Do hits generated by Lord of the Storm skip the 'choose a target' sub-step? Yes, because all enemies are assumed affected and you do not require to check range or line of sight to the target.
Does the 'hard to hit' special rule affect
A) Shots that must 'Roll to Hit'? Yes.
B) Shots that are covered by the FAQ (Any shot that targets the flyer)? Yes.
C) Shots that do not 'target' the flyer? No.
"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, similar to my earlier examples where in vector strike there had been an exception so that it could hit flyers while chariot couldn't, there is no text indicating that Lord of the Storm 'targets' anything whilst there is text for nova that says it does in fact select targets. But this really does depend on your interpretation of the word 'Target'. When I played Yu-gi-oh the word 'target' always came up as a very key word, any ability in which you would have to select another card would be considered 'targeting' whilst any blanket statement 'affects everything' did not target unless it stated otherwise. In this case I am seeing target being used as a key word in the FAQ and in Nova, but when I read LotS it is a blanket hit everything on the field.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Matt - Not having a range and having range "-" are not equivalent.

Correct. Having a (-) for range means it's a close combat weapon. Having a Number for Range means it's a ranged weapon. Those are the two options on page 50. LoTS has neither.

-Matt


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eyjio wrote:
I have already shown it follows all the requirements to be classified as a weapon. Such requirements also make the environmental effects weapons and thus able to harm vehicles. I have also shown why ramming isn't a weapon (no profile, explicit permission to roll armour pen). This topic is literally going nowhere. It cannot hit flyers as it is a weapon covered by the FAQ. Simple as that. It doesn't even make sense in reality for it too as they'd be giant faraday cages. This is just silly.

Could you quote that? I'm not trying to be rude, but in 23+ pages, a lot of the useful information has been buried under junk and Imperial Guard force selection.

-Matt

 Phil106 wrote:
They would have clarified if it 'targeted' everything on the field, the rules for nova actually state that it targets everything in range, while the rules for LotS is simply roll a D6 for each enemy unit. It does say 'Suffers D6 hits' which skips the roll to hit entirely, and according to his quote anything that would specifically 'target' the flyer would be under the effects of hard to hit, this wouldn't.

Now reading the actual rulebook it says that 'shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots' since 'Snap Shots' refers to the reduction of BS this would lead me to believe that skipping the 'hit' roll would allow the shot to continue resolution.

Allow me to clarify my own thought process.
Can Lord of the Storm be fired as a Snap Shot? No.
Do hits generated by Lord of the Storm roll to hit? No.
Does Lord of the Storm 'target' the flyer? No.
Do hits generated by Lord of the Storm skip the 'choose a target' sub-step? Yes, because all enemies are assumed affected and you do not require to check range or line of sight to the target.
Does the 'hard to hit' special rule affect
A) Shots that must 'Roll to Hit'? Yes.
B) Shots that are covered by the FAQ (Any shot that targets the flyer)? Yes.
C) Shots that do not 'target' the flyer? No.
"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, similar to my earlier examples where in vector strike there had been an exception so that it could hit flyers while chariot couldn't, there is no text indicating that Lord of the Storm 'targets' anything whilst there is text for nova that says it does in fact select targets. But this really does depend on your interpretation of the word 'Target'. When I played Yu-gi-oh the word 'target' always came up as a very key word, any ability in which you would have to select another card would be considered 'targeting' whilst any blanket statement 'affects everything' did not target unless it stated otherwise. In this case I am seeing target being used as a key word in the FAQ and in Nova, but when I read LotS it is a blanket hit everything on the field.

I see where you're going with your argument (I think), but I'm not of the opinion that it really matters. I used to play Magic, so I understand the difference in games like that between effects that must Target something, and effects that affect anything in play. However, I don't think that 40k has any such distinction where Target is a defined keyword.

My position is that the source of the hits doesn't matter. If Tyr's absurd assertion that LotS was a modified mission rule (really Tyr? really?) was true, it still wouldn't matter. Because it generates hits. This part of the FAQ is crystal clear on what types of hits may affect flyers:

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

This part of the FAQ (starting with Therefore) is just describing the results of the previous sentence:

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 non-exhaustive list of things that can't hit flyers. It is non-exhaustive list because it uses phrases like 'such as'.

If you want LotS lightning strikes to hit flyers, please tell me why this phrase doesn't apply to hits caused by the ability:

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

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Some Eternal War missions use unique special rules. These confer extra abilities, restrictions, or effects onto your games. We'll explain the most common ones here, but sometimes a mission will introduce its own special rules.

So we do know that the lightning of LoTS is classed under one of those three things, ie, "effects in your games".

But hey, repeat your, "100% is an attack" statement enough times and maybe you will get some parrots to repeat it as well.

Did the mission define LotS?

Have you found a definition for attack in the rulebook yet?
Or found the definitions to any of the other words I asked you to?

Don't be an idiot Rigeld. You like to play the "is" and "that" definition game far to often on this forum as your trump card and it is a weak argument in this context.

No, first of all stop insulting others, and secondly this is a perfect argument

The BRB does NOT define wht an "attack" is. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, page and para

ASsuming you argue in good faith, you will agree with that statement. At that point, according to you, we cannot use the English definition of attack - which LotS fits *perfectly* , and you are unable to contest in any *meaningful* way - meaning we cannot know what an "attack" is. Of course, we also arent allowed to know what "a" is, or "the" is

Your claims of "weak argument" are consequently shown to be in error, as this is about the strongest damn argument you can get - your argument boils down to "i dont want it to be an attack"

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Read the rule entry for LotS. It is a modified version of the mission special rule, Night Fighting.

Wrong

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The lightning is directly linked to that modified mission special rule.

Wrong.

:While Nightfighting is in effect..." does not modify Night Fighting Again, claiming otherwise is not possible, unless you are now simply ignoring plain English even more than usual. What it does is use Night fighting as a trigger condition that must be met - in simple terms an IF statements condition.

It is not a modified mission special rule, but a special attack that requires the mission special rule to be in play.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
You can keep playing ignorant and insisting that it fits the English definition of attack and therefore you fall back on it, while the rule itself shows you that it is part of the modified mission special rule when Imotekh is included in an army.

You can keep on insulting others for as long as you like, ignoring the actual rules in favour of stuff you just made up, but it wont result in anyone changing their minds.

Now, can you please argue constructively, without the insults?

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

I will take option b and wait for a FAQ telling me how to resolve a game effect brought on by a modified mission special rule when including Imotekh in an army. Because here is thin thing, there are plenty of things in the BRB that are not weapons or attacks, that cause hits and yet they are somehow allowed to be resolved. For example,

A Explodes result on the vehicle damage table, "Nearby units suffer a strength 3, AP - hit for each model within D6" of the vehicle.....", Oh look, not a weapon or attack! Gee how do we resolve wounds?

Ramming, from the example given: "The total is 4+3+1, which means the Trukk suffers a strength 8 hit against its side armor." Wait, the Land Raider is not a weapon and ram isn't defined as an attack! Gee how do we resolve the armor penetration?

Carnivorous Jungle
Fuel Reserve
Booby Trap
Psychneuein Hive
Spiker Plant
Etc
Etc

So yea, I will take option b and wait for the FAQ to clarify how game effects/terrain/etc are resolved for rolling to wound and armor penetration. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that it cannot penetrate armor is a seperate issue that has nothing to do with it hitting flyers.

More fun with the exploding vehicles is it wouldn't have LOS to any of the nearby units, or the passengers, so it can't remove any models even if it can resolve. vehicles only have LOS from its weapon barrels. and the effects on passengers clearly says to treat as a shooting attack.

same issue with the ork deff rolla, definetly not a weapon in any sense.

I find it funny that you chuckleheads refuse to even quote the rule in question in full, but instead just enough to make a faulty point. Do you do this on purpose so that casual readers will just skim through and hop on your bandwagon thinking that you have the rules known by memory?

In addition, whilst the Night Fighting rules remain in play, roll a D6....."

In addition to what? Which Night Fignting rules? Oh, I don't know, maybe in addition to the modified Night Fighting rules as described in the first part of the rules entry. Does the lightning exists without the modified Night Fighting rules put into effect by including Imotekh in the army?

Your continued insistance of labeling the lightning as an attack per your English language ploy fails in itself. You want it to be an attack to cover your arse by the FAQ wording so thus you define it as an attack when the rule shows you that it is an effect per the modified mission special rule. I have shown you the entry for Mission Special Rules, that includes the verbiage of confering extra abilities, restrictions or effects onto your games. Dare I use something akin to what one of you already said, but is it just pride now fueling your faulty arguments?

As it stands, Imotekh;s Lord of Storm special rule forces into play a mission special rule that is a modified version of the Night Fighting special rule that consists of the option of extending the Night Fighting in subsequent game turns and creates lightning.

Not an attack, a modified mission special rule that introduces a game effect.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:I find it funny that you chuckleheads refuse to even quote the rule in question in full, but instead just enough to make a faulty point. Do you do this on purpose so that casual readers will just skim through and hop on your bandwagon thinking that you have the rules known by memory?

I don't have the hubris to assume I know the rules from memory. I've referenced them every time.

In addition, whilst the Night Fighting rules remain in play, roll a D6....."

In addition to what? Which Night Fignting rules? Oh, I don't know, maybe in addition to the modified Night Fighting rules as described in the first part of the rules entry. Does the lightning exists without the modified Night Fighting rules put into effect by including Imotekh in the army?

I was told earlier in this thread that yes, any Night Fighting caused the lightning. And again - you've failed to cite where LotS actually modifies the Night Fighting rules.

Your continued insistance of labeling the lightning as an attack per your English language ploy fails in itself. You want it to be an attack to cover your arse by the FAQ wording so thus you define it as an attack when the rule shows you that it is an effect per the modified mission special rule. I have shown you the entry for Mission Special Rules, that includes the verbiage of confering extra abilities, restrictions or effects onto your games. Dare I use something akin to what one of you already said, but is it just pride now fueling your faulty arguments?

Perhaps you missed my post - nothing in LotS shows that it's a modified mission special rule.

As it stands, Imotekh;s Lord of Storm special rule forces into play a mission special rule that is a modified version of the Night Fighting special rule that consists of the option of extending the Night Fighting in subsequent game turns and creates lightning.

Citation needed.

Read the rule entry for LotS. It is a modified version of the mission special rule, Night Fighting. The lightning is directly linked to that modified mission special rule. You can keep playing ignorant and insisting that it fits the English definition of attack and therefore you fall back on it, while the rule itself shows you that it is part of the modified mission special rule when Imotekh is included in an army.

No, it isn't a "modified version of the mission special rule".
If it was, it would define Night Fighting.

Just like Hive Commander isn't a modified special rule just because it changes the reserve roll while the Tyrant is alive.

It's a special rule that manipulates Night Fighting, and additionally throws attacks around the field.

Some Eternal War missions use unique special rules. These confer extra abilities, restrictions, or effects onto your games. We'll explain the most common ones here, but sometimes a mission will introduce its own special rules.

You never answered my question - does the mission introduce LotS?

He's not going to answer your question rigeld, because he can't without admitting he's wrong.

he may not, but i can clear that one up for you:

Nightfighting rule, (see page 124). Of specific note is how it is triggered: "...on a roll of 4+,the Night Fighting special rule is in effect during game turn 1. If the Night Fighting rules did not take effect during game turn 1, roll a D6 at the start of Garne Turn 5, On a roll of 4+,the Night Fighting rules are used for the rest of the game..."

LoTS on the other hand modifies the above: "...The Night Fighting rules automatically apply during the first game turn. Furthermore, you can attempt to keep the Night Fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a D6 at the start of the turn..."

Granted this isn't particularly relevent to wether or not LoTS can hit a flyer; but it 'does' indicate definitive modification of some of the rules for how nightfighting normally works.

 Neorealist wrote:
he may not, but i can clear that one up for you:

Nightfighting rule, (see page 124). Of specific note is how it is triggered: "...on a roll of 4+,the Night Fighting special rule is in effect during game turn 1. If the Night Fighting rules did not take effect during game turn 1, roll a D6 at the start of Garne Turn 5, On a roll of 4+,the Night Fighting rules are used for the rest of the game..."

LoTS on the other hand modifies the above: "...The Night Fighting rules automatically apply during the first game turn. Furthermore, you can attempt to keep the Night Fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a D6 at the start of the turn..."

Granted this isn't particularly relevent to wether or not LoTS can hit a flyer; but it 'does' indicate definitive modification of some of the rules for how nightfighting normally works.

It actually didn't answer my question whatsoever - it does imply that the answer is "No." however.

your "question":

rigeld2 wrote:... you've failed to cite where LotS actually modifies the Night Fighting rules...

My answer:
...it modifies nightfighting as follows... (see my prior post for how it does so)

Does that make it clearer for you?

This comment: "it does imply that the answer is "No." however. " however perpetuates a false premise. I certainly did not 'imply' anything beyond my stated word (let alone support of your prior point) so taking such as given is intellectually dishonest and a waste of both our respective time and effort.

Neorealist wrote:your "question":

rigeld2 wrote:... you've failed to cite where LotS actually modifies the Night Fighting rules...

My answer:
...it modifies nightfighting as follows... (see my prior post for how it does so)

Does that make it clearer for you?

This comment: "it does imply that the answer is "No." however. " however perpetuates a false premise. I certainly did not 'imply' anything beyond my stated word (let alone support of your prior point) so take such as given is intellectually dishonest and a waste of both our respective time and effort.

rigeld2 wrote:
You never answered my question - does the mission introduce LotS?

Actually, that was my question - I even asked it twice.
No intellectual dishonesty, just knowing what I actually asked rather than what someone misread.

Any battle featuring Imotekh on at least one side automatically includes the Nightfighting rules. (as modified by the LoTS rules) So yes, each mission featuring LoTS 'introduces' the Nightfighting mission special rule, regardless of wether or not it would ordinarily include such.

 Neorealist wrote:
Any battle featuring Imotekh on at least one side automatically includes the Nightfighting rules. (as modified by the LoTS rules) So yes, each mission featuring LoTS 'introduces' the Nightfighting mission special rule, regardless of wether or not it would ordinarily include such.

That's the mission introducing the rule, or Imotekh?

Tyr - Wrong, again.

"whil(e) the night fighting rules remain in play" is your truth condition you are evaluating

It is not a modification to the night fight rule, but relies on night fight being in play. Then a separate effect occurs

It is 100% an attack, and your continued insistence otherwise, with neither linguistic nor rules support, is becoming amusing.

A mission 'introduces' all the mission rules that you and your foe(s) should be using for a given battle. (including nightfighting sometimes) That said, LoTS 'introduces' changes to the application of the Nightfighting mission special rule.

It's probably easiest to refer to the Nightfighting rules as having been changed by Imotekh and then required to be used by the mission you are playing.

 Neorealist wrote:
A mission 'introduces' all the mission rules that you and your foe(s) should be using for a given battle. (including nightfighting sometimes) That said, LoTS 'introduces' changes to the application of the Nightfighting mission special rule.

It's probably easiest to refer to the Nightfighting rules as having been changed by Imotekh and then required to be used by the mission you are playing.

Right. Night Fighting is a mission special rule. LotS is not.

Sure, if that is the distinction you are looking for i agree with you there; LoTS is not in and of itself a mission special rule. Can i ask why that distinction is important to the ongoing discussion as it's progressed to this point?

Neorealist wrote:Sure, if that is the distinction you are looking for i agree with you there; LoTS is not in and of itself a mission special rule. Can i ask why that distinction is important to the ongoing discussion as it's progressed to this point?

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:I find it funny that you chuckleheads refuse to even quote the rule in question in full, but instead just enough to make a faulty point. Do you do this on purpose so that casual readers will just skim through and hop on your bandwagon thinking that you have the rules known by memory?

In addition, whilst the Night Fighting rules remain in play, roll a D6....."

In addition to what? Which Night Fignting rules? Oh, I don't know, maybe in addition to the modified Night Fighting rules as described in the first part of the rules entry. Does the lightning exists without the modified Night Fighting rules put into effect by including Imotekh in the army?

Your continued insistance of labeling the lightning as an attack per your English language ploy fails in itself. You want it to be an attack to cover your arse by the FAQ wording so thus you define it as an attack when the rule shows you that it is an effect per the modified mission special rule. I have shown you the entry for Mission Special Rules, that includes the verbiage of confering extra abilities, restrictions or effects onto your games. Dare I use something akin to what one of you already said, but is it just pride now fueling your faulty arguments?

As it stands, Imotekh;s Lord of Storm special rule forces into play a mission special rule that is a modified version of the Night Fighting special rule that consists of the option of extending the Night Fighting in subsequent game turns and creates lightning.

Not an attack, a modified mission special rule that introduces a game effect.

If its not a mission special rule, it's just a normal special rule. It's an attack, as it fits the normal definition of an attack.
Are attacks restricted by the FAQ?

 Neorealist wrote:
Sure, if that is the distinction you are looking for i agree with you there; LoTS is not in and of itself a mission special rule. Can i ask why that distinction is important to the ongoing discussion as it's progressed to this point?

It means the only quote Tyr has left is blown entirely out of the water, as it relies on a Mission introducing altered rules so Tyr can claim it is a special rule and NOT an attack - despite it being clerly, 100% unambiguously an attack.

Its yet another nail in the coffin of Tyrs argument which, by now, has amassed roughly the mass of a small moon

That's no moon...

Is there some specific rule equating non-'mission' special rules with 'attacks'? I know some special rules specifically state they are such, but not all of them do.

 Neorealist wrote:
Is there some specific rule equating non-'mission' special rules with 'attacks'? I know some special rules specifically state they are such, but not all of them do.

No, there isn't.
There's also no rule book definition of "attack". Using the plain English definition, LotS fits.

Edit: Tyr was attempting to claim that LotS could not be an attack because it was a mission special rule.
We've proven it is not a mission special rule. Since it fits the definition of attack, it must be one (since it isn't anything else).

As above.

Tyrs argument has devolved into claiming that, because Night Fighting is mentioned in the LotS rule entire, the attack component to LotS is somehow a mission special rule.

Edited by AgeOfEgos

rigeld2 wrote:There's also no rule book definition of "attack".

On this i'd have to disagree, the rule book does define 'attacks' on page 2 as a model characteristic referring to it's (the models) number of close combat actions. Obviously that definition isn't that relevent to the effects of LoTS, but it is there.

Edit: There are also references for 'shooting attacks' (and their psychic equivilents).

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:There's also no rule book definition of "attack".

On this i'd have to disagree, the rule book does define 'attacks' on page 2 as a model characteristic referring to it's (the models) number of close combat actions. Obviously that definition isn't that relevent to the effects of LoTS, but it is there.

Edit: There are also references for 'shooting attacks' (and their psychic equivilents).

Define the word "attacks" as used in the oft quoted FAQ answer. Use only the BRB since you assert that the BRB does define it.

Neo - no, it defines "Attacks", where the capitalisation is important.

It then defines subsets of the generalised "attack" category, namely Shooting, Close Combat, PS.

This has already been covered, quite a few pages back. there is, however, NO RULEBOOK definition of "attack". None.

Fair enough, you are correct in that it does not adequately define 'attacks' apart from the types you've named.

In that light however is it not equally plausible that if it is not one of those (aka: a close combat attack, a shooting attack, etc) then it is not a form of attack, as it is that to presume you default to an english parsing of the word?

Given that those types of attack are the only types GW has (currently) bothered to explicitly define.

 Neorealist wrote:
Fair enough, you are correct in that it does not adequately define 'attacks' apart from the types you've named.

In that light however is it not equally plausible that if it is not one of those (aka: a close combat attack, a shooting attack, etc) then it is not a form of attack, as it is that to presume you default to an english parsing of the word?

Given that those types of attack are the only types GW has (currently) bothered to explicitly define.

Read the oft-quoted FAQ and tell me which attack is used therein.

 Zathras wrote:

Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf

You should change it from "lifetime", to .. "for generations to come."

- Thread may now resume its discussion.

rigeld2 wrote:Read the oft-quoted FAQ and tell me which attack is used therein.

From the context it appears to refer to 'shooting attacks', as the types listed are all such: ...attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit.... Granted non-shooting attacks sometimes use the above effects too, so it's not completely clear.

Given that i'd suggest looking at the question, which indicates that the 'attacks' referenced in the answer are generated by 'weapons' or 'psychic shooting attacks'; which adds credence to the inference that they are 'shooting attacks'.

The question doesn't refer to PSAs at all (directly) and you're referencing "weapon" as the context of the sentence when it's an afterthought.

I disagree with your assertion. You're inventing a link to shooting attacks where there isn't one.

rigeld2 wrote:The question doesn't refer to PSAs at all (directly) and you're referencing "weapon" as the context of the sentence when it's an afterthought.

I disagree with your assertion. You're inventing a link to shooting attacks where there isn't one

maelstroms, novas, and beams are all explicitly types of PSA, so i grouped them together as such for ease of conversation. Apart from those? 'Weapon' is the only other subject of the question and therefore is hardly an 'afterthought' as you've described.

The link is as such: The specific 'attacks' listed within both the question and answer are all types of 'shooting attack'. Note: I'm not saying that they cannot represent other types of attacks as well, but that is one they all have in common.

Folk here are applying a much broader definition of the word 'attack' than is necessary to interpret the FAQ. Given they are all shooting attacks and we have a working definition of such, why are you looking for an alternate definition for?

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:The question doesn't refer to PSAs at all (directly) and you're referencing "weapon" as the context of the sentence when it's an afterthought.

I disagree with your assertion. You're inventing a link to shooting attacks where there isn't one

maelstroms, novas, and beams are all explicitly types of PSA, so i grouped them together as such for ease of conversation. Apart from those? 'Weapon' is the only other subject of the question and therefore is hardly an 'afterthought' as you've described.

"How do a, b, c - or indeed any weapon..."
The "indeed" implies afterthought. Also, you said "psychic shooting attacks" using quotes, meaning you quoted something. That phrase didn't exist in the question, which is why I said that. Note that I said it doesn't reference PSAs directly - just an indirect reference. If you're going to group something together for ease of conversation, don't enclose it in quotes.

And we've established that the answer is broader than the question, so you cannot use context from the question to limit the scope of the answer.

And most of that doesn't matter as everything after "Therefore" is showing a consequence, not defining every circumstance.
Does LotS snap shot?

rigeld2 wrote: "How do a, b, c - or indeed any weapon..."
The "indeed" implies afterthought. Also, you said "psychic shooting attacks" using quotes, meaning you quoted something. That phrase didn't exist in the question, which is why I said that. Note that I said it doesn't reference PSAs directly - just an indirect reference. If you're going to group something together for ease of conversation, don't enclose it in quotes.

Actually i used 'single' quotes which in this case meant i was calling attention to the specific word or phrase, not quoting it. (this is why when i actually quote something i have a habit of changing the font colour to yellow as well as using double quotes. (though that latter part isn't strictly necessary.)) Please feel free to discontinue telling me how i should write; you can take it as assumed that I generally know exactly what i am writing and why I am writing it in a given style. (well, other than the occasional typo)

Regarding your actual points (ie: those not a criticism of my writing rather than the topic at hand)

You are taking that it's been established that "the answer is broader than the question" is fact rather than your supposition. You probably shouldn't, but do admire your confidence in your own deduction.

As we've reached a rather circular argument by this point I can only say 'it's a special ability not covered under the FAQ and therefore doesn't have to' so many times before it becomes tediously redundant. I'm really not willing to debate the exact scope of the FAQ any further, sorry.

 Neorealist wrote:
You are taking that it's been established that "the answer is broader than the question" is fact rather than your supposition. You probably shouldn't, but do admire your confidence in your own deduction.

The first sentence in the answer isn't qualified. It's been proven that FAQ answers can be broader than the question. Therefore the answer applies to all situations.

As we've reached a rather circular argument by this point I can only say 'it's a special ability not covered under the FAQ and therefore doesn't have to' so many times before it becomes tediously redundant. I'm really not willing to debate the exact scope of the FAQ any further, sorry.

No problem - until you can support your statement with rules you cannot be correct. The "no it doesn't work" crowd has done exactly that. The "yes it does" crowd has failed every time.

As above

FAQs do, indeed, provide answers beyond the scope of the question, and this has be proven repeatedly

This FAQ has an unqualified answer. To read a qualifier into this, when it has been proven that a FAQ can give broad answers, has no support within the rules of the game

LotS cannot hit zooming flyers, this has been proven repeatedly

God this thread is ponderous.

I don't suppose the fact that it hits on 6's, as required by snap shots, has any bearing on the matter.

 Monster Rain wrote:
God this thread is ponderous.

I don't suppose the fact that it hits on 6's, as required by snap shots, has any bearing on the matter.

It does not hit on a 6, as it has no 'To Hit' roll.

LoTS does not make snap shots.

On the contrary, the only time that it ever hits is on a 6.

 Monster Rain wrote:
On the contrary, the only time that it ever hits is on a 6.

Irrelevant. It's not a to-hit roll, and doesn't use ballistic skill. It's no thatSnap Shots must hit on a 6, it's that you're BS1 when making them - which requires a 6 to hit.

How is something that you roll to see if it hits something else not a "to-hit" roll?

 Monster Rain wrote:
How is something that you roll to see if it hits something else not a "to-hit" roll?

Because to-hit rolls are defined in 40k as, essentially, a Ballistic Skill test.

Would you also call Wall of Death rolls to-hit rolls?

Sure, why not?

rigeld2 wrote:Read the oft-quoted FAQ and tell me which attack is used therein.

The list looks like shooting attacks, if you consider PSAs to be a sub-section of shooting attacks. If not, it looks like shooting attacks and PSAs. That even gives a reason that GW said 'attacks' - the writer was too lazy to type out 'PSAs and shooting attacks'

Assaulting Zooming Flyers (capital 'A' Attacks) is dealt with on p81.

Neorealist wrote:You are taking that it's been established that "the answer is broader than the question" is fact rather than your supposition. You probably shouldn't, but do admire your confidence in your own deduction.

As we've reached a rather circular argument by this point I can only say 'it's a special ability not covered under the FAQ and therefore doesn't have to' so many times before it becomes tediously redundant. I'm really not willing to debate the exact scope of the FAQ any further, sorry.

+1, but I am willing to debate it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:FAQs [can], indeed, provide answers beyond the scope of the question, and this has be[en reasonably shown]

[I assert that] This FAQ has an unqualified answer. To read a qualifier into this, when it has been proven that a FAQ can give broad answers, has no support within the rules of the game

fixed that for you. I'm not sure why you are arguing to take the answer of the faq entry beyond the scope of the question. It makes sense both in and out of context. Isn't taking it in context the more reasonable choice?

nosferatu1001 wrote:LotS cannot hit zooming flyers, this has been proven repeatedly

Saying something repeatedly and proving it repeatedly are two different things, and I know you agree with me, otherwise I have proved repeatedly that anyone who disagrees with me in a discussion is wrong. I would never be so bold as to make that statement.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
How is something that you roll to see if it hits something else not a "to-hit" roll?

Because to-hit rolls are defined in 40k as, essentially, a Ballistic Skill test.

I think you mean Characteristic Test, unless you want to go back and say that attacks (lower case 'a') does indeed generally refer to shooting attacks.

Foolish - no, because you have no permission to restrict the scope of the answer, especially given the proof that repeatedly FAQ answers go beyond the scope of the question. That IS indisputable.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Foolish - no, because you have no permission to restrict the scope of the answer, especially given the proof that repeatedly FAQ answers go beyond the scope of the question. That IS indisputable.

can in some instances =/= does in this instance

Some birds can fly.
A penguin is a bird.
Does a penguin fly?

Yet it "does" do in this instance

What is more reasonable - fo are no reason restricting the answer to something other than what is written, when you know that answer are permitted to go beyond the scope

Where is your permission to alter the wording to mean something other than what was written?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet it "does" do in this instance

What is more reasonable - fo are no reason restricting the answer to something other than what is written, when you know that answer are permitted to go beyond the scope

Where is your permission to alter the wording to mean something other than what was written?

When it is possible to interpret a rules passage as 'Yes, in this case' and 'Yes, in all cases', it is more reasonable to restrict my interpretations of a passage to the context of the passage.

Where is your written and notarized guide to GW's intent for this faq entry? Why are you so certain as to banish all doubt? I'm suspicious of people who are not sufficiently suspicious

Through the last 25 pages of discussion, mainly. What is your reason for assuming you are allowed to change what is written and replace it with something else that has a different meaning?

There is no "interpretation" with your stance - there is simply changing words away from what is plainly written. the sentence parses one way and one way only.

I honestly do not know what you are talking about. You have mentioned several times that you think I am 'changing words'. Initially, I let it go, thinking it was your writing style. You keep pressing it as significant and I don't know what you are talking about.

What words did I change?

Are you talking about the part where you said something as fact and I made it into an opinion?

foolishmortal wrote:
I honestly do not know what you are talking about. You have mentioned several times that you think I am 'changing words'. Initially, I let it go, thinking it was your writing style. You keep pressing it as significant and I don't know what you are talking about.

What words did I change?

Are you talking about the part where you said something as fact and I made it into an opinion?

We know FAQ answers can be broader than the question.
The answer in this case is an absolute, unqualified statement.
To limit the statement you must assume some words are added or implied that aren't there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
How is something that you roll to see if it hits something else not a "to-hit" roll?

Because to-hit rolls are defined in 40k as, essentially, a Ballistic Skill test.

I think you mean Characteristic Test, unless you want to go back and say that attacks (lower case 'a') does indeed generally refer to shooting attacks.

Yes, thank you - Characteristic test.

rigeld2 wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:
I honestly do not know what you are talking about. You have mentioned several times that you think I am 'changing words'. Initially, I let it go, thinking it was your writing style. You keep pressing it as significant and I don't know what you are talking about.

What words did I change?

Are you talking about the part where you said something as fact and I made it into an opinion?

We know FAQ answers can be broader than the question.
The answer in this case is an absolute, unqualified statement.
To limit the statement you must assume some words are added or implied that aren't there.

The words you seem to think I "added or implied" are the words of the faq entry's question

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)

As I said before, you can't read the answer to a specific question as a new rule without considering the context of the question. For example...

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

If I read this as a new rule without considering the context of the question, you now only get to pile in once, at your highest Initiative (so only the SM Captain if he is with Tactical Marines, or only the Marines if the Captain has a PF). That would be silly.

We know FAQ answers can be broader than the question. Yes
The answer in this case is an absolute, unqualified statement.Yes
To limit the statement you must assume some words are added or implied that aren't there. No, the limiting factor is the context of the question. I am not adding or implying words. I am reading what is there, in context.

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
As I said before, you can't read the answer to a specific question as a new rule without considering the context of the question. For example...

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

If I read this as a new rule without considering the context of the question, you now only get to pile in once, at your highest Initiative (so only the SM Captain if he is with Tactical Marines, or only the Marines if the Captain has a PF). That would be silly.

The answer to this question taken by itself makes no sense and would in fact be silly. The reader is forced to look at context to make sense of the answer.

The FAQ entry we're discussing makes an unqualified answer that is easy is understand requires no such context. It actually requires a lot more mental contortions to read this in such a way as to make lightning from LotS hit fliers.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
How is something that you roll to see if it hits something else not a "to-hit" roll?

Because to-hit rolls are defined in 40k as, essentially, a Ballistic Skill test.

Would you also call Wall of Death rolls to-hit rolls?

Rolls to hit don't have to be BS test, they just generally are.

Wall of Death rolls are a roll for number of hits, not to hit (since they hit automatically). Now, if the Wall of Death required a roll of 2+ to do any hits, I would call that a roll to hit.

The "roll to hit" is clearly defined in the BRB. Any dice roll may result in an enemy unit getting hit but that doesn't make it a "roll to hit".

copper.talos wrote:
Any dice roll may result in an enemy unit getting hit but that doesn't make it a "roll to hit".

Can you give me a page number for that? I see roll to hit referenced many places, some of them using the BS others using a set number or another characteristic (like Leadership). But I have taken them all to be a "roll to hit". Is there a spot in the rulebook that says "Any dice roll may result in an enemy unit getting hit but that doesn't make it a roll to hit".

It's on pg 13 in bold letters. There is no "roll to hit" using leadership. Maybe you are referring to a "roll to wound" which is a different case entirely. I believe there are some cases when you can have a roll to hit on a set number ie 3+ but that is defined in that specific rule as a "roll to hit". In LotS it's just a 1 in 6 chance. Not a roll to hit at all.

copper.talos wrote:
It's on pg 13 in bold letters. There is no "roll to hit" using leadership. Maybe you are referring to a "roll to wound" which is a different case entirely. I believe there are some cases when you can have a roll to hit on a set number ie 3+ but that is defined in that specific rule as a "roll to hit". In LotS it's just a 1 in 6 chance. Not a roll to hit at all.

LotS doesn't say "1 in 6 chance", it says "on a roll of 6 the unit is hit". I have read several codex entries talking about "hit on a 3+" (mostly in terms of WS in close combat) and nobody argues that the 3+ roll is not a "roll to hit", so why would the "on a roll of 6 the unit is hit" not be a roll to hit?

Tye_Informer wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
It's on pg 13 in bold letters. There is no "roll to hit" using leadership. Maybe you are referring to a "roll to wound" which is a different case entirely. I believe there are some cases when you can have a roll to hit on a set number ie 3+ but that is defined in that specific rule as a "roll to hit". In LotS it's just a 1 in 6 chance. Not a roll to hit at all.

LotS doesn't say "1 in 6 chance", it says "on a roll of 6 the unit is hit". I have read several codex entries talking about "hit on a 3+" (mostly in terms of WS in close combat) and nobody argues that the 3+ roll is not a "roll to hit", so why would the "on a roll of 6 the unit is hit" not be a roll to hit?

Is it using the model's Ballistic Skill or Weapon Skill as defined on page 13 or 24 respectively?

rigeld2 wrote:
Is it using the model's Ballistic Skill or Weapon Skill as defined on page 13 or 24 respectively?

For example: Space Wolves
[quote[
Wolf Tooth Necklace.

A Space Wolves warrior who has shown exception ability in close combat may be granted a wolf tooth necklace as a mark of his prowess. Models with a wolf tooth necklace always hit on a 3+ in close combat, even against opponents whose Weapon Skill is equal to or higher than their own.

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Is it using the model's Ballistic Skill or Weapon Skill as defined on page 13 or 24 respectively?

They are not using their own WS, they are hitting on a 3+, regardless of their own and/or their opponents WS.

It's still defined as a to-hit roll, and it's creating a special allowance - it even mentions the WS comparison.

Plus, if you're leaning towards "It's a to-hit roll!" it's now definitely owned by Imotekh and pretty much indisputably an attack... and guess what falls under the FAQ?

rigeld2 wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Is it using the model's Ballistic Skill or Weapon Skill as defined on page 13 or 24 respectively?

They are not using their own WS, they are hitting on a 3+, regardless of their own and/or their opponents WS.

It's still defined as a to-hit roll, and it's creating a special allowance - it even mentions the WS comparison.

Plus, if you're leaning towards "It's a to-hit roll!" it's now definitely owned by Imotekh and pretty much indisputably an attack... and guess what falls under the FAQ?

The question is, does Lightning in LotS automatically hit? If so, then it is covered by the FAQ because the FAQ refers to things that "automatically hit". If not, then it's possible the FAQ does not apply. There are other considerations, like is the Lightning a weapon, but that's not the question I'm trying to answer with this post. I am simply arguing that the Lightning does not auto-hit.

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Is it using the model's Ballistic Skill or Weapon Skill as defined on page 13 or 24 respectively?

They are not using their own WS, they are hitting on a 3+, regardless of their own and/or their opponents WS.

It's still defined as a to-hit roll, and it's creating a special allowance - it even mentions the WS comparison.

Plus, if you're leaning towards "It's a to-hit roll!" it's now definitely owned by Imotekh and pretty much indisputably an attack... and guess what falls under the FAQ?

The question is, does Lightning in LotS automatically hit? If so, then it is covered by the FAQ because the FAQ refers to things that "automatically hit". If not, then it's possible the FAQ does not apply. There are other considerations, like is the Lightning a weapon, but that's not the question I'm trying to answer with this post. I am simply arguing that the Lightning does not auto-hit.

The Lightning also doesn't make a Snap Shot, and since you can never opt to take one the FAQ still says no.

rigeld2 wrote:
The Lightning also doesn't make a Snap Shot, and since you can never opt to take one the FAQ still says no.

No, that part of the FAQ is referring to weapons. If you are willing to stipulate that LotS Lightning does not automatically hit, then we can move on to the discussion of whether the FAQ applies because Lightning is a weapon.

I'll give you a sneak peak at that discussion, who is wielding the weapon? If it's Imotekh, that why does it get to hit when he is not on the battlefield (like in reserves?)

So, do you stipulate that LotS Lightning does, in fact, roll to hit?

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The Lightning also doesn't make a Snap Shot, and since you can never opt to take one the FAQ still says no.

No, that part of the FAQ is referring to weapons. If you are willing to stipulate that LotS Lightning does not automatically hit, then we can move on to the discussion of whether the FAQ applies because Lightning is a weapon.

It's referring to attacks.

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 bolded it for you.

So, do you stipulate that LotS Lightning does, in fact, roll to hit?

No, as I've shown it does not.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Is it using the model's Ballistic Skill or Weapon Skill as defined on page 13 or 24 respectively?

They are not using their own WS, they are hitting on a 3+, regardless of their own and/or their opponents WS.

It's still defined as a to-hit roll, and it's creating a special allowance - it even mentions the WS comparison.

Plus, if you're leaning towards "It's a to-hit roll!" it's now definitely owned by Imotekh and pretty much indisputably an attack... and guess what falls under the FAQ?

This looked like you (rigeld2) were saying that a special allowance phrase, like Space Wolves' Wolf Tooth Necklace, saying that they "hit on a 3+" was a to-hit roll. I took to be agreement from you that a set value, like 3+ or 6, cold still be a to-hit roll, even if it does not use your BS or WS value to determine the roll.

rigeld2 wrote:

So, do you stipulate that LotS Lightning does, in fact, roll to hit?

No, as I've shown it does not.

I must have missed how you (or anyone in this long thread) has shown that Lightning is automatically hitting. Please show me how a rule that says "hits on a 3+" and "on a roll of 6, the unit is hit" are not to-hit rolls.

Tye_Informer wrote:
This looked like you (rigeld2) were saying that a special allowance phrase, like Space Wolves' Wolf Tooth Necklace, saying that they "hit on a 3+" was a to-hit roll. I took to be agreement from you that a set value, like 3+ or 6, cold still be a to-hit roll, even if it does not use your BS or WS value to determine the roll.

The WTN is nothing like the LotS lightning rule.
The WTN goes out of it's way to say that you hit on a 3+ even when comparing. Meaning that it's a modification on the normal to-hit rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

So, do you stipulate that LotS Lightning does, in fact, roll to hit?

No, as I've shown it does not.

I must have missed how you (or anyone in this long thread) has shown that Lightning is automatically hitting. Please show me how a rule that says "hits on a 3+" and "on a roll of 6, the unit is hit" are not to-hit rolls.

I never said it automatically hits. The WTN you keep referencing modifies the to-hit requirement. Nothing in the LotS rules even implies that's what it's doing.

Hits can be generated by more than just a "to-hit" roll.
For example, a Nova psyker power generates hits on all units in range. Are you next going to assert that the Psychic test to manifest a Nova is a to-hit roll?
Or that a failed DtW is a to-hit roll - after all, hits were generated on anything other than a 6.

rigeld2 wrote:
I never said it automatically hits. The WTN you keep referencing modifies the to-hit requirement. Nothing in the LotS rules even implies that's what it's doing.

Hits can be generated by more than just a "to-hit" roll.
For example, a Nova psyker power generates hits on all units in range. Are you next going to assert that the Psychic test to manifest a Nova is a to-hit roll?
Or that a failed DtW is a to-hit roll - after all, hits were generated on anything other than a 6.

I don't know about the Nova psyker power, so can't answer that, but Dangerous Terrain rule does not say it hits, it says that the vehicle suffers an Immobilized result if it fails the test.

I am not sure what you are saying in regards to LotS and rolling to hit, does it roll to hit or does it hit automatically? I'm not creating a false dichotomy, it is one or the other. I am arguing that the phrase "on a roll of 6, the unit is hit" means the roll of 6 is a roll to hit.

The FAQ says "or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically", my argument is this section does not apply to LotS, because it does indeed roll to hit (and is not a weapon, but that is for another time, what I am trying to establish here is that Lighting from LotS does roll to hit and does not hit automatically).

So, does Lightning LotS roll to hit or does it hit automatically?

Tye_Informer wrote:
I am arguing that the phrase "on a roll of 6, the unit is hit" means the roll of 6 is a roll to hit.

Even if the ""on a roll of 6, the unit is hit" means the roll of 6 is a roll to hit" were true (Not arguing that currently). It is not fired as a snap shot and therefore can not hit Zooming flyers.

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I never said it automatically hits. The WTN you keep referencing modifies the to-hit requirement. Nothing in the LotS rules even implies that's what it's doing.

Hits can be generated by more than just a "to-hit" roll.
For example, a Nova psyker power generates hits on all units in range. Are you next going to assert that the Psychic test to manifest a Nova is a to-hit roll?
Or that a failed DtW is a to-hit roll - after all, hits were generated on anything other than a 6.

I don't know about the Nova psyker power, so can't answer that, but Dangerous Terrain rule does not say it hits, it says that the vehicle suffers an Immobilized result if it fails the test.

I am not sure what you are saying in regards to LotS and rolling to hit, does it roll to hit or does it hit automatically? I'm not creating a false dichotomy, it is one or the other. I am arguing that the phrase "on a roll of 6, the unit is hit" means the roll of 6 is a roll to hit.

The FAQ says "or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically", my argument is this section does not apply to LotS, because it does indeed roll to hit (and is not a weapon, but that is for another time, what I am trying to establish here is that Lighting from LotS does roll to hit and does not hit automatically).

So, does Lightning LotS roll to hit or does it hit automatically?

My reading of the rules suggests that it does not roll to hit and that it hits automatically.

Before you say 'the FAQ references weapons and LotS isn't a weapon', that's already been covered, and it has been conclusively shown that FAQ answers can go beyond the scope of the initial question.

The first sentence of the answer is an unqualified statement 'only snap shots my hit zooming flyers and swooping FMCs'. The rest of the answer, starting with 'therefore' is just an illustration of that first statement. The only things allowed to bypass that statement are things with explicit permission to hit flyers, such as: skyfire and Vector Strike.

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I never said it automatically hits. The WTN you keep referencing modifies the to-hit requirement. Nothing in the LotS rules even implies that's what it's doing.

Hits can be generated by more than just a "to-hit" roll.
For example, a Nova psyker power generates hits on all units in range. Are you next going to assert that the Psychic test to manifest a Nova is a to-hit roll?
Or that a failed DtW is a to-hit roll - after all, hits were generated on anything other than a 6.

I don't know about the Nova psyker power, so can't answer that, but Dangerous Terrain rule does not say it hits, it says that the vehicle suffers an Immobilized result if it fails the test.

I never said anything about Dangerous Terrain ... ?
And you should familiarize yourself with the rules before arguing.

A nova power automatically targets and hits all enemy units within the psychic power's maximum range, regardless of line of sight, being locked in combat, intervening models/terrain and so on.

By your assertion, psychic tests are to-hit rolls.

I am not sure what you are saying in regards to LotS and rolling to hit, does it roll to hit or does it hit automatically? I'm not creating a false dichotomy, it is one or the other. I am arguing that the phrase "on a roll of 6, the unit is hit" means the roll of 6 is a roll to hit.

It is not one or the other.
Things can cause hits pending a die roll while not being to-hit rolls.

The FAQ says "or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically", my argument is this section does not apply to LotS, because it does indeed roll to hit (and is not a weapon, but that is for another time, what I am trying to establish here is that Lighting from LotS does roll to hit and does not hit automatically).

Did you miss the part I bolded? Remember how FAQ answers aren't always limited by the question?

So, does Lightning LotS roll to hit or does it hit automatically?

Neither.

rigeld2 wrote:

I never said anything about Dangerous Terrain ... ?
And you should familiarize yourself with the rules before arguing.

Sorry, misunderstood the DtW to be Dangerous Terrain. If you meant Deny the Witch, I don't see how that is relevant either. It's not an attempt at hitting anything. Could be that I don't understand the acronyms at all.

rigeld2 wrote:

Did you miss the part I bolded? Remember how FAQ answers aren't always limited by the question?

The part you bolded had nothing to do with Lighting hitting automatically or rolling to hit, which is the subject I am discussing at the moment. Have to get past step 1 to even know what step 2 is.

rigeld2 wrote:

So, does Lightning LotS roll to hit or does it hit automatically?

Neither.

So, you are willing to stipulate that the FAQ part talking about "hitting automatically" does not apply?

The roll of a six is a trigger not a bs roll. Not using BS cant fire snap shot cant hit a flyer. discussion DONE, for game pourposes only., as we all know real airplanes are hit by lightning a few times a year. In our games never.

Really 26 pages.?

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I never said anything about Dangerous Terrain ... ?
And you should familiarize yourself with the rules before arguing.

Sorry, misunderstood the DtW to be Dangerous Terrain. If you meant Deny the Witch, I don't see how that is relevant either. It's not an attempt at hitting anything. Could be that I don't understand the acronyms at all.

It's a roll that - if failed - causes hits. You're asserting that any roll that generates hits must be a to-hit roll. Remember this post?

LotS doesn't say "1 in 6 chance", it says "on a roll of 6 the unit is hit". I have read several codex entries talking about "hit on a 3+" (mostly in terms of WS in close combat) and nobody argues that the 3+ roll is not a "roll to hit", so why would the "on a roll of 6 the unit is hit" not be a roll to hit?

Why would "On a successful Psyker test (and subsequent failure of DtW all units in range are hit." not be a roll to hit? (according to you)

rigeld2 wrote:

Did you miss the part I bolded? Remember how FAQ answers aren't always limited by the question?

The part you bolded had nothing to do with Lighting hitting automatically or rolling to hit, which is the subject I am discussing at the moment. Have to get past step 1 to even know what step 2 is.

Oh, so you're ignoring the answer. That's cool.

rigeld2 wrote:

So, does Lightning LotS roll to hit or does it hit automatically?

Neither.

So, you are willing to stipulate that the FAQ part talking about "hitting automatically" does not apply?

You mean "or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically" ? Sure. Not that it matters.


It seems like you're arguing things that have already been addressed in the thread.

Lungpickle wrote:
The roll of a six is a trigger not a bs roll. Not using BS cant fire snap shot cant hit a flyer. discussion DONE, for game pourposes only., as we all know real airplanes are hit by lightning a few times a year. In our games never.

My point exactly, the roll of a 6 is the trigger for a mission-wide rule that is in effect due to a particular Warlord chosen by the Necrons. This mission-wide rule is in effect, whether he is on the battlefield at all and hits every un-engaged enemy unit on a roll of 6. I have not seen anything that says this mission-wide rule does not effect flyers. The only thing that seems to get all of us stuck is a FAQ, so I'm attempting to analyze the FAQ from start to finish. We seem to have gotten stuck on the first sentence, which is the question that was asked.

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 will summarize my questions:

1) Does the question apply? If LotS Lightning does roll to hit, then the question is not relevant to LotS Lightning because the question 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?"
and
2) Is LotS a weapon? If LotS is not a weapon, then the question is not relevant to LotS because the question is about weapons.

If either of the 2 above questions are No, then LotS does hit flyers. However, if we assume that the question does apply or we decide that no matter what the question was, the answer could apply, then we go on:
3) Can LotS be snap shot? (I will stipulate the answer to this is No. I only include it for completeness) If LotS can be snap shot, then the roll of a 6 normally and the roll of 6 snap shot would be the same and the answer would not apply because it is a Snap Shot. (Again, I only include this for completeness) If this answer is Yes, then stop here, no further questions matter.

4) Is LotS an attack? If LotS is not an attack, then the answer is not relevant because the answer is specifically about attacks. If the answer here is No, then stop here, you have your answer. In this case LotS Lightning affects flyers.

5) Does LotS use a Blast marker, template, or create a line of effect? (I'm hoping most will stipulate this to be No, but I include it for completeness). If LotS does use a Blast marker, template, or create a line of effect (and we have decided the question applies or does not matter) then the answer applies and LotS cannot hit flyers. (Again, I hope everyone agrees that LotS is not a Blast marker, template or line of effect. Just including for completeness)

6) Is LotS an "area of effect"? If LotS does meet the definition of "Area of Effect" from the BRB, then the answer applies and LotS Lightning cannot affect flyers. If the answer here is Yes, stop here, you have your answer.

7) Does LotS not roll to hit? This question again, (see why I keep looking for an answer to this, it's important.) If Lots does not roll to hit, and is an attack, and is from a weapon (probably relevant) then the answer is relevant, continue to 8)

8) Does LotS target units? If LotS is not actually targeting units, then the FAQ restriction on targeting them is not applicable. If LotS does not target, simply affects units the stop here, LotS Lightning does affect Flyers.

9) Is the portion of the answer "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." relevant? (I hope everyone agrees that LotS Lightning is not a death ray, Deathstrike missle, or psychic power that follows the rules for maelstroms, beams, or novas. I just include it for completeness). If LotS lightning is one of these things then stop here, LotS Lightning does not affect Flyers.

If you get to this point (how, but why not), then LotS does hit Flyers.

Tye_Informer wrote:
3) Can LotS be snap shot? (I will stipulate the answer to this is No. I only include it for completeness) If LotS can be snap shot, then the roll of a 6 normally and the roll of 6 snap shot would be the same and the answer would not apply because it is a Snap Shot. (Again, I only include this for completeness) If this answer is Yes, then stop here, no further questions matter.

"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures."
Everything after that is some results of that sentence. Not all of them.

LotS cannot be Snap Shot and therefore cannot hit Flyers.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:
3) Can LotS be snap shot? (I will stipulate the answer to this is No. I only include it for completeness) If LotS can be snap shot, then the roll of a 6 normally and the roll of 6 snap shot would be the same and the answer would not apply because it is a Snap Shot. (Again, I only include this for completeness) If this answer is Yes, then stop here, no further questions matter.

"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures."
Everything after that is some results of that sentence. Not all of them.

LotS cannot be Snap Shot and therefore cannot hit Flyers.

This, it really is this simple.

As above. Nothing else really matters - and after 26 pages not a single argument has come close on this.

There is one simple paragraph in the BRB that tells me Imotekh's lightning can hit fliers....

Page 7, right column, last paragraph:

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

And until the rules for Imotekh's lightning is FAQed to say otherwise, the rules in the codex take precedence.

And boom goes the dynamite.

 Zathras wrote:
There is one simple paragraph in the BRB that tells me Imotekh's lightning can hit fliers....

Page 7, right column, last paragraph:

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

And until the rules for Imotekh's lightning is FAQed to say otherwise, the rules in the codex take precedence.

I disagree, there is no conflict.

As both sides can clearly point out they're right.

 Zathras wrote:
There is one simple paragraph in the BRB that tells me Imotekh's lightning can hit fliers....

Page 7, right column, last paragraph:

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

And until the rules for Imotekh's lightning is FAQed to say otherwise, the rules in the codex take precedence.

Read that again, specifically the underlined.

You're going to say, with a straight face, that the subject of a 26 page thread isn't generating conflict?

That's a new low, even for YMDC.

Hahahahahaha!

I'm just amazed we're on page 26 without this needing to be locked for people being tools.
Good Job for everyone not being douche bags and getting the thread locked.
Only 24 more pages to go until we hit that earlier predicted 50 page thread.

 Monster Rain wrote:

You're going to say, with a straight face, that the subject of a 26 page thread isn't generating conflict?

That's a new low, even for YMDC.

I do hope that you realize "conflict" does not mean what you are insinuating it means.

Conflict means a conflict between the Codex and the BRB.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

You're going to say, with a straight face, that the subject of a 26 page thread isn't generating conflict?

That's a new low, even for YMDC.

I do hope that you realize "conflict" does not mean what you are insinuating it means.

Conflict means a conflict between the Codex and the BRB.

Which there is between the shooting rules in the BRB and Imotekh's lightning regarding fliers. Therefore the codex rules take precedence over the BRB.

There is not a conflict.

Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers.

LoTS does not have a to hit roll, so it can not snap shot. (LoTS does not have anything to do with the shooting rules in the BRB as it is not a shooting attack from Imotekh so no conflict there).

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is not a conflict.

Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers.

LoTS does not have a to hit roll, so it can not snap shot. (LoTS does not have anything to do with the shooting rules in the BRB as it is not a shooting attack from Imotekh so no conflict there).

No conflict eh?

Weapons use one method to attack zooming fliers (Snap shots).

LoTS uses a different method to attack zooming fliers (roll a 6 on a D6).

The two methods are not the same and therefore are in conflict with each other.

When this happens the method used by the codex takes precedence.

This discussion has already been had in this thread. LotS is a basic rule (it hits all enemy models). Hard to Hit is an advanced rule (it applies to specific model types). Advanced rules trump basic rules.

Yep, we're back at page 2 or 3 now - love it when people drop in not having read the preceding, thoroughly debunked arguments, and just rehash them. Shows zero respect.

 Zathras wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is not a conflict.

Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers.

LoTS does not have a to hit roll, so it can not snap shot. (LoTS does not have anything to do with the shooting rules in the BRB as it is not a shooting attack from Imotekh so no conflict there).

No conflict eh?

Weapons use one method to attack zooming fliers (Snap shots).

LoTS uses a different method to attack zooming fliers (roll a 6 on a D6).

The two methods are not the same and therefore are in conflict with each other.

When this happens the method used by the codex takes precedence.

You are misunderstanding what conflict means.

But maybe you missed what the FAQ says, which trumps the codex and the BRB.

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.


"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" Is LoTS a snap shot?

 undertow wrote:
This discussion has already been had in this thread. LotS is a basic rule (it hits all enemy models). Hard to Hit is an advanced rule (it applies to specific model types). Advanced rules trump basic rules.

So, if LoTS is a basic rule, show me where it is in the BRB.

LoTS is also an advanced rule, applying to just one model, in a codex. Therefore, according to the rule on page 7, it trumps the shooting rules in the BRB.

Only when there is a conflict

Specific beats general. Hitting every model is not specific compared to Hard to HIt.

Again, youre back at page 2. try starting from there.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Zathras wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is not a conflict.

Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers.

LoTS does not have a to hit roll, so it can not snap shot. (LoTS does not have anything to do with the shooting rules in the BRB as it is not a shooting attack from Imotekh so no conflict there).

No conflict eh?

Weapons use one method to attack zooming fliers (Snap shots).

LoTS uses a different method to attack zooming fliers (roll a 6 on a D6).

The two methods are not the same and therefore are in conflict with each other.

When this happens the method used by the codex takes precedence.

You are misunderstanding what conflict means.

But maybe you missed what the FAQ says, which trumps the codex and the BRB.

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.


"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" Is LoTS a snap shot?

So you can show me just where it says that LoTS is described as either a maelstrom, nova, beam, or any weapon?

Again, try going back about 10 pages

Have you read this thread at all? It seems ike you havent, as you keep bringing up discredited, debunked old arguments as if they have any credence any longer...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, try going back about 10 pages

Have you read this thread at all? It seems ike you havent, as you keep bringing up discredited, debunked old arguments as if they have any credence any longer...

Hmm, then maybe you can show me the page where the rule on page 7 of the BRB was debunked?

 Zathras wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Zathras wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is not a conflict.

Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers.

LoTS does not have a to hit roll, so it can not snap shot. (LoTS does not have anything to do with the shooting rules in the BRB as it is not a shooting attack from Imotekh so no conflict there).

No conflict eh?

Weapons use one method to attack zooming fliers (Snap shots).

LoTS uses a different method to attack zooming fliers (roll a 6 on a D6).

The two methods are not the same and therefore are in conflict with each other.

When this happens the method used by the codex takes precedence.

You are misunderstanding what conflict means.

But maybe you missed what the FAQ says, which trumps the codex and the BRB.

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.


"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" Is LoTS a snap shot?

So you can show me just where it says that LoTS is described as either a maelstrom, nova, beam, or any weapon?

No need for that. Read the underlined portion. Also, if LoTS isn't a weapon, it doesn't get to roll D6 for armor penetration either RAW. This was dicussed IIRC around pages 16-18.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, we're back at page 2 or 3 now - love it when people drop in not having read the preceding, thoroughly debunked arguments, and just rehash them. Shows zero respect.

Respect? That's something that's earned not given. Anyway, I'll leave you rules lawyers to your thread.

 Zathras wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, try going back about 10 pages

Have you read this thread at all? It seems ike you havent, as you keep bringing up discredited, debunked old arguments as if they have any credence any longer...

Hmm, then maybe you can show me the page where the rule on page 7 of the BRB was debunked?

Again, please try reading the thread, you're just asking the same old tired and debunked questions.

Your FAQ question especially - or are you trying to say FAQ answers can never go beyond the scope of the question? Again, that was debunked about 10 times over....

Please show *some* respect to people in this thread by at least reading the salient points before posting, please?

Luide, small correction. If it is not a weapon, then it doesn't get to add its Strength to Armour Pen.

 Zathras wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, we're back at page 2 or 3 now - love it when people drop in not having read the preceding, thoroughly debunked arguments, and just rehash them. Shows zero respect.

Respect? That's something that's earned not given. Anyway, I'll leave you rules lawyers to your thread.

Nope, its the rules of the forum you agreed to when signing up, actually.

Along with being polite - hint: calling people a "rules lawyer" because they have a difference of opinion to you (and also have rules to back up their opinion, and dont ignore parts of a FAQ because it debunks their argument, just for a couple of examples of where posters have differed from yourself) is not polite.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:
3) Can LotS be snap shot? (I will stipulate the answer to this is No. I only include it for completeness) If LotS can be snap shot, then the roll of a 6 normally and the roll of 6 snap shot would be the same and the answer would not apply because it is a Snap Shot. (Again, I only include this for completeness) If this answer is Yes, then stop here, no further questions matter.

"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures."
Everything after that is some results of that sentence. Not all of them.

LotS cannot be Snap Shot and therefore cannot hit Flyers.

However, the blanket statement "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures." is not true, so we have to read the statement in context. When you read it in context, it is an answer to the question:

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?

Which gets you to questions 1 and 2 in my prior post. Is the question relevant, is LotS Lightning a weapon, does it hit automatically? etc.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:

So, you are willing to stipulate that the FAQ part talking about "hitting automatically" does not apply?

You mean "or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically" ? Sure. Not that it matters.

Rigeld2, you have stipulated that LotS does not hit automatically, based on that, the question being asked does not pertain to LotS Lightning.

There is argument that answers can be broader than the question, so let's assume that the question doesn't matter.

So, the answer:
[quote[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.

No, rigeld has not said it rolls to hit. Saying something does not hit automatically does not mean it rolls to hit. As you have been shown "roll to hit" is a defined process which LotS does not follow.

Your context attempt is flawed as well, because it ignores advanced > basic. Poor argument as a result, as it has been repeatedly shown to you (but you ignore)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Zathras wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, we're back at page 2 or 3 now - love it when people drop in not having read the preceding, thoroughly debunked arguments, and just rehash them. Shows zero respect.

Respect? That's something that's earned not given. Anyway, I'll leave you rules lawyers to your thread.

Nope, its the rules of the forum you agreed to when signing up, actually.

Along with being polite - hint: calling people a "rules lawyer" because they have a difference of opinion to you (and also have rules to back up their opinion, and dont ignore parts of a FAQ because it debunks their argument, just for a couple of examples of where posters have differed from yourself) is not polite.

So the truth is not polite now since "rules lawyering" has been going on in this thread since page 1? Just an observation on my part.

Again - calling people whose opinion, backed upi by rules, differs from you "rules lawyers" is not polite, and a great way to remove any respect posters have for you.

Have you read the forum rules?

I think we'll just have to call this quits and see what, if anything, GW say.