What is "Stomp" defined as ?

Is it not supposed to be a CC attack because it happens in a CC fight phase at an initiative step ?

Other than that, it does behave like a shooting attack for having templates.


Is there a clear answer on how it should interact with invisibility ?

BRB on stomp:

Any other units with models under the blast marker are stomped as normal.

BRB on invisibility:

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

The only way to be hit in close combat is on a to hit roll of 6.
That means no auto-hit or blast or anything else I guess.

Is it correct to consider Invisibility more specific than stomp, where stomp is a natural ability of all walkers, whereas invisibility is a special case for any unit ?

Stomp like other templates dont roll to hit. So Stomp away.

 phatonic wrote:
Stomp like other templates dont roll to hit. So Stomp away.

How does that deal with this sentence ?

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

"will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6".
That means it can't hit them otherwise.

You're not making To Hit rolls, you're simply placing the marker and rolling to see what happens to it. If no Hit rolls are needed, then Invisibility is useless against Stomp.

Well stomp is not a CC attack (As defined in the BRB), so Stomp Away.

This is a pretty valid question. If you're forced to snapfire then you can't use templates. But can super heavies even be forced to snapfire?

It's not a shooting attack, and it's not a CC attack - no problem with that, it's an "unknown type attack" thanks to yet another loophole in the rules.

That much I think everyone will agree on.

BUT.

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

in close combat > i.e. during the fight sub phase
will only hit > i.e. that's the only way it can *hit* them
on To Hit rolls of a 6 > i.e. if there's no to hit roll, there's no to hit roll of a 6, there's no hit.

As invisible units are by default immune to any template / blasts, and the RAW points to no hits unless To Hit during the Fight Sub-phase, not only is this consistent with the rest of the "invisibility" psychic power's rules, it's also RAW.

Non-vehicle Target - Kerr-runch: Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker suffers a Strength 6 AP4 hit.

In this case, it clearly mention hits so there is no doubt as to the RAW.


Actually, that would still leave one case where the stomp can hurt invisibles:

Non-vehicle Target - Overrun: Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker is removed as a casualty.

This one does not mention hits - doesn't mention anything really, another fethed up rule thanks GW.
And would thus bypass invisibility - and anything but RP really.

The way I like to look at it, is realistically. People act like Invisibility is supposed to protect them against everything. It makes you pretty much Invisible, as the name sounds. Even if you're Invisible, a giant Walker stomping around is still going to hit you.

So, yes, Stomps work against them.

Just as with similar weapons that automatically hit (e.g. Deathray), Blasts flat-out ignore Invisbility as they skip the To Hit step.

RAW / RAI: Stomp away. Crunch, crunch.

 krodarklorr wrote:
The way I like to look at it, is realistically. People act like Invisibility is supposed to protect them against everything. It makes you pretty much Invisible, as the name sounds. Even if you're Invisible, a giant Walker stomping around is still going to hit you.

So, yes, Stomps work against them.

But the walker stomps around BECAUSE he's trying to kill something... If you're invisible.. Ohhh man.. Im laughing so hard over here thinking about a giant ImpKnight spinning in circles like "OMG, Frakking ghosts! Everywhere!"

morgoth wrote:
on To Hit rolls of a 6 > i.e. if there's no to hit roll, there's no to hit roll of a 6, there's no hit.

Non-vehicle Target - Kerr-runch: Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker suffers a Strength 6 AP4 hit.

In this case, it clearly mention hits so there is no doubt as to the RAW.

The rule says "suffers a Hit". That means you have skipped "Roll To Hit" Phase (in CC, but also correct for shooting) and you directly apply the "Roll To Wound" Phase.

So you perform "Stomp", you have a number of hits ("Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker"), and then you follow the Rules to wound:
"As with shooting, once you have scored a hit with an Attack, you must roll a D6 for each successful hit to see if you cause a Wound and damage your foe."

The scattering Blast Template, Stomp, and all Auto-Hits attacks provide the "once you have scored a hit" above.

Ok. So stomp ignores invisibility completely.

By skipping the "To Hit" Phase, it does so, yes.

morgoth wrote:
Ok. So stomp ignores invisibility completely.

Yarrrrr.

Though, technically, it doesn not ignore it as it still "checks" for the triggers but since they do not apply, Invisibility's effects do not come into effect.

I would use the FAQ for weapons that do not roll to hit against hard to hit fliers from 6th. They don't hit.

Gravmyr wrote:
I would use the FAQ for weapons that do not roll to hit against hard to hit fliers from 6th. They don't hit.

Invisible units don't gain the Hard to Hit role so that doesn't apply here.

The section about not being hit except by 6's in the cc phase makes it's wording virtually identical as Stomp happens in the CC phase.

Can you post the FAQ in question because their isn't a 7ed BRB FAQ

What you're saying doesn't make sense because Fliers can't be hit in close combat at all because they can't get assaulted at all. How can the wording be identical to Invis in that case?

Gravmyr wrote:
The section about not being hit except by 6's in the cc phase makes it's wording virtually identical as Stomp happens in the CC phase.

You cannot use "It's wording is virtually identical" as a rules justification. You're talking HYWPI at that point.

Gravmyr wrote:
I would use the FAQ for weapons that do not roll to hit against hard to hit fliers from 6th. They don't hit.

As CrownAxe says, You cannot really apply an FAQ for Flyers (which GW intends to be "impossible to Hit" or almost) to a CC resolution and invisible Units (which GW intends to be "impossible to Target")

There is quite a difference IMHO.

This is not an unknown situation, this problem has persisted through several Editions now.

The Basic Rule book defines Shooting and Close Combat attacks in such a way that a whole bunch of 'attacks' do not meet the definition of either. These attacks still have permission to be resolved, with values that would fit easily into the 'basic attack sequence' that is the back-bone of both Shooting and Close Combat attacks, but no specific instruction on how to go about Resolving them. Some are a little better written to create a specific 'attack sequence,' do this To Hit then do this To Wound sort of thing, but even those tend to require us to know how the "basic attack sequence" is resolved in order to make sense of how what the Rule means by 'Resolve against Armour Value 12' for example.

The lack of explaining that backbone in the books, there is no such thing as a 'basic attack sequence' which is then modified by Shooting and Close Combat attacks from a Rule as Written perspective, so we literally do not have the ability to proceed. This makes it black hole territory here, and the "Universal House Rule" that most players go with is to create a 'basic attack sequence' to allow multiple Rules like stomp the ability to be resolved. It isn't to tie them into either of the two available sequences, because both have instructions which conflict with the Special Rules in question, as that creates more problems then solutions.

Yeah so basically it was written like gak and the majority is fine with that gak overriding the core rules of the game.

Invisible means he can't see you. You're still there though.
If his foot lands on you, you're still being crushed

BRB 7th: Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

As you can see it's not that they are not targeted in CC they are not hit in CC, the same as shooting. Saying anything else is implying Intent. In order for it to affect targeting you would need to force some sort of check to see if they could be targeted.

BRB 6th: Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as SnapShots (unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule). Template and Blast
weapons, and any other attacks that don’t roll To Hit, cannot hit Zooming Flyers.

Not exactly as close as I thought but in the end you have a restriction that in CC you must roll a 6 to hit them. You do not have a specific over ride for that restriction. Stomp happens in CC even if it is not a CC attack. We have a precedent set on thinking about auto-hits and requirements.

Gravmyr wrote:

BRB 7th: Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

As you can see it's not that they are not targeted in CC they are not hit in CC, the same as shooting. Saying anything else is implying Intent. In order for it to affect targeting you would need to force some sort of check to see if they could be targeted.

BRB 6th: Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as SnapShots (unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule). Template and Blast
weapons, and any other attacks that don’t roll To Hit, cannot hit Zooming Flyers.

Not exactly as close as I thought but in the end you have a restriction that in CC you must roll a 6 to hit them. You do not have a specific over ride for that restriction. Stomp happens in CC even if it is not a CC attack. We have a precedent set on thinking about auto-hits and requirements.

Blasts don't roll to hit. So having to roll a 6 to hit (since its combat) has no effect on stomp.

Hard to Hit had to make a special restriction on blasts not hitting flyers because blasts normal would hit something you'd have to snap fire at. So if anything the Hard to Hit rule proves Stomp works on Invisible units.

What are you using to bypass the restriction on requiring a roll of 6 to hit? As with all restrictions in this game you need something that states you bypass said restriction. ie, assault transports coming in from reserve still not allowing units embarked to charge.

Gravmyr wrote:
What are you using to bypass the restriction on requiring a roll of 6 to hit? As with all restrictions in this game you need something that states you bypass said restriction. ie, assault transports coming in from reserve still not allowing units embarked to charge.

The fact that blasts don't roll to hit to begin with.

It would be like saying Snap Fire prevents a unit from charging. Yes my unit doesn't have a rule to bypass that restriction of Snap Fire, but Snap fire does nothing to prevent declaring a charge in the first place.

Which does not negate the need to roll a six. It does not require you to roll a six if you roll to hit it requires one period.

Your example if flawed. If I had a rule that stated you had to roll double the distance to make your charge but you had a rule that said you allows made your charge you still would not be able to charge.

Morgoth,
We have no choice in the matter, that "Gak" has priority thanks to Basic Vs Advanced.

In general,
I am not at my library, but my memory is recalling the existence of a Rule which addressed this very concern, informing us that attacks which do not require To Hit rolls still successfully Hit in these situations.

Gravmyr wrote:
Which does not negate the need to roll a six. It does not require you to roll a six if you roll to hit it requires one period.

Your example if flawed. If I had a rule that stated you had to roll double the distance to make your charge but you had a rule that said you allows made your charge you still would not be able to charge.

things that do not roll, do not need to roll.

if it needed to roll to hit it would need a 6.

How do you roll for something that is allowed to hit normally, has no rule against it hitting, and does not roll to hit-because it auto hits?

It does have a rule against hitting, the one that states you have to roll a 6 to hit. It's a restriction. As I pointed out before you need something that specifically negates that restriction. It is not bypassed without specifically stating it bypasses the requirement. Where does it state in Stomp that it bypasses the requirement to hit invisible units?

JinxDragon wrote:
Morgoth,
We have no choice in the matter, that "Gak' has priority thanks to Basic Vs Advanced.

I disagree.

What is written does not make sense.

Therefore, the players try to make it make sense.

At that point, we have the choice to either normalize or act slowed and pretend the words are to be taken literally even when it doesn't make sense.

Almost every rules discussion shows that there are people who will follow the word of the rules no matter how slowed they may be.

For example, in another post I just made on IK's facing, the BRB's wording gives us no way to determine a facing for a large number of vehicles.

In this case, it's clear that Invisible units were meant to be "rather hard to hit" for EVERY SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME, including the death ray, the stomp ability, immotekh's lightning, and really... anything.

But hey, since everybody hates invisibility and the rulebook isn't clear, we, the players, get a choice, and the majority decides they'd rather keep the stomps even if it fragments the rules even further.

A FAQ Is not needed. Follow the rules for stomp. Invisibility is not a defense vs stomp. Anything under the template is hit. That's it.

Yes, and the death ray hits flyers.

morgoth wrote:
Yes, and the death ray hits flyers.

col_impact wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Yes, and the death ray hits flyers.

Spoiler:

Beam
To use a witchfire power with the beam sub-type, target a point within the power’s range
and trace a line (about 1mm thick) between the chosen point and the centre of the
Psyker’s base – this line cannot be drawn over any unit that is locked in combat. All units
under the line (friend and foe) are hit, with the exception of Zooming Flyers, Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures and the Psyker himself. Each unit hit by the attack takes a
number of hits equal to the number of models from that unit that are under the line. Only
one unit that has a model under the line can attempt to Deny the Witch.

Spoiler:

Hard to Hit
A Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature is a very difficult target for units without
specialised weapons. Shots resolved at such a target can only be resolved as Snap Shots
unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule.

Spoiler:

Hard to Hit
Zooming Flyers are incredibly difficult targets for troops without suitably calibrated
weapons and scopes. Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap
Shots (unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule). Template and Blast
weapons, and any other attacks that don’t roll To Hit, cannot hit Zooming Flyers.

Whoosh.

col_impact wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Yes, and the death ray hits flyers.

Spoiler:

Beam
To use a witchfire power with the beam sub-type, target a point within the power’s range
and trace a line (about 1mm thick) between the chosen point and the centre of the
Psyker’s base – this line cannot be drawn over any unit that is locked in combat. All units
under the line (friend and foe) are hit, with the exception of Zooming Flyers, Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures and the Psyker himself. Each unit hit by the attack takes a
number of hits equal to the number of models from that unit that are under the line. Only
one unit that has a model under the line can attempt to Deny the Witch.

Spoiler:

Hard to Hit
A Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature is a very difficult target for units without
specialised weapons. Shots resolved at such a target can only be resolved as Snap Shots
unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule.

Spoiler:

Hard to Hit
Zooming Flyers are incredibly difficult targets for troops without suitably calibrated
weapons and scopes. Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap
Shots (unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule). Template and Blast
weapons, and any other attacks that don’t roll To Hit, cannot hit Zooming Flyers.

Good post.

Morgoth,
Keep in mind that you are on a Rule forum dedicated to discussion how the Rules themselves are Written. While you are encouraged to discuss how the Rules are broken and how you believe they should be handled, it is polite to mark such posts in some way which makes it clear that you are not discussing how the Rules themselves are Written. This is to ensure people whom come here wishing to learn how the Rulebook states to handle a particular situation, most not regulars, do not walk away with incorrect knowledge. There is also an added benefit as well to keeping Rule as Written posts as default: We get to see where the Rules themselves are broken so we are better able to explain why we should follow 'Rule as Intended' or 'How I Would Play It' over what is actually Written in the book.

Simply stating 'because it is gak' is not enough, we need to know why it is Gak.
Then it is up to you to talk to your opponents about how to fix the situation, as the Internet lacks permission per the Written Rules to change the Written Rules....

Gravmyr wrote:
I would use the FAQ for weapons that do not roll to hit against hard to hit fliers from 6th. They don't hit.

Not relevant to the current edition of the game. Had they wanted that to apply to 7th ed, they could have included that language in the appropriate rulebook/codex. They did not, and have not updated the FAQ since then, so we cannot use this as a point of reference. It's an edition out of date.

Furthermore, we're told that Stomp automatically hits, as Invisibility does not grant the Hard to Hit rule.

It does have a rule against hitting, the one that states you have to roll a 6 to hit. It's a restriction. As I pointed out before you need something that specifically negates that restriction. It is not bypassed without specifically stating it bypasses the requirement. Where does it state in Stomp that it bypasses the requirement to hit invisible units?

The part that says don't roll to hit, you hit everything under the template automatically. There's no roll there. Another way to look at it is, because we're told the hit is automatic, we can assume that it rolled 6s to hit.

In this case, it's clear that Invisible units were meant to be "rather hard to hit" for EVERY SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME, including the death ray, the stomp ability, immotekh's lightning, and really... anything.

Invisible makes you hard to see. It does not make you intangible. The massive warmachine/daemon/gribbly thing slamming its foot/claw/tentacle/whatever down into the ground does not even need to know you're there to squish you into paste. Being hard to see is irrelevant, as the hits are scored automatically.

Stomp attacks don't actually Hit.
Units under the Blast marker are Stomped (note the rules don't say 'Hit')
Then you roll on the Stomp Table to see the effect.

You can still target 'Invisible' units and even charge them.
I see this as being similar to a Crash and Burn or Blast scattering on the unit. They are still effected and are 'Hit'.

My bad, I was looking for solutions in the wrong place again.

@psienesis The problem with discounting previous FAQ's outright is that the previous FAQs let us know what the basis for their thinking was. Unless there has been a change in the wording to alter the old arguments you might as well just link to the old arguments and not say anything else or take any further part in the discussion.

Stating that a weapon auto hits does not trump a restriction on a required roll. What part in that states that you can ignore that restriction? Why would this situation be different from Hard to Hit with flyers?

It's the same for assault transports coming in from reserve. Even though the transport gives you permission to charge does not mean that you have permission to bypass the coming in from reserve restriction.

Invisibility doesn't say the unit may only be affected by things that hit on a roll of 6, it requires things that roll to hit to roll a 6.

And did you roll a 6?

blaktoof wrote:
Invisibility doesn't say the unit may only be affected by things that hit on a roll of 6, it requires things that roll to hit to roll a 6.

Actually, it says they will only be hit on a To Hit roll of "6".
Does hammer of wraith cause a hit?
Did you roll a 6 To Hit?
Does Stomp cause a hit?
Did you roll a 6 To Hit?

How you're reading it is how I play it, but I don't think that's RAW.

Hammer of wraith does not roll To Hit, just like Stomp does not roll To Hit.

They both auto hit invisible units as they do not roll a To Hit roll.

Gravmyr wrote:
And did you roll a 6?

No, I "suffers a Strength 6 AP4 hit." instead. We could assume all To Hit rolls for it are 6s? Because it makes no difference.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Invisibility doesn't say the unit may only be affected by things that hit on a roll of 6, it requires things that roll to hit to roll a 6.

Actually, it says they will only be hit on a To Hit roll of "6".
Does hammer of wraith cause a hit?
Did you roll a 6 To Hit?
Does Stomp cause a hit?
Did you roll a 6 To Hit?

I think this is RAW.

Suffering a hit and being hit is the same, and invisibility limits that to a "To Hit roll of 6".

No roll ? No hit.

Which is rather interesting, because it also means that RAW, a roll of 6 on stomp will bypass invisibility, because it "removes a model" instead of "causing a hit".

Remember that Invisible models can suffer hits from blast weapons.

I cannot choose to target them because (as per the rules for invisibility) if I nominate them as a target unit I am reduced to snap shots only.

If, however, I lump the 54th Heavy Artillery's 9 basilisks at targets in their general direction, and one or more of those earthshaker shells scatters onto them then tough, they still die.

A stomp is not a close combat 'attack', it is a rule which places a blast template. Being invisible is no protection from being under a blast template.

locarno24 wrote:
Remember that Invisible models can suffer hits from blast weapons.

I cannot choose to target them because (as per the rules for invisibility) if I nominate them as a target unit I am reduced to snap shots only.

If, however, I lump the 54th Heavy Artillery's 9 basilisks at targets in their general direction, and one or more of those earthshaker shells scatters onto them then tough, they still die.

A stomp is not a close combat 'attack', it is a rule which places a blast template. Being invisible is no protection from being under a blast template.

It's different. Blast Weapons are shooting, which have a restriction of "not targeted" for blast/template weapons and "roll a 6" for normal weapons.

Stomp is an attack in close combat, per the wording in the BRB.

Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

1. Only snap shots
2. "in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.".

That means if you want to hit an invisible unit that is in a close combat, you need a To Hit roll of a 6.
No roll, no 6, no hit.

Therefore, if the enemy unit (IK) in close combat with that invisible unit stomps, it will not deal hits because it doesn't roll To Hit with the stomps.
It will steal deal "remove from play" because those are not hits and no restriction is placed on that.

Nice try morgoth, but while you keep repeating that "NO 6, NO hit", stomping models everywhere will keep stomping on you.

Stomp just auto hits everything under the template, no roll needed, no sight needed.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Nice try morgoth, but while you keep repeating that "NO 6, NO hit", stomping models everywhere will keep stomping on you.

Stomp just auto hits everything under the template, no roll needed, no sight needed.

And causes hits, which by the wording is not possible, unless the invisible unit is not in close combat with the stomping walker.

It's possible since it says it does it.

morgoth wrote:

And causes hits, which by the wording is not possible, unless the invisible unit is not in close combat with the stomping walker.

Since you don't roll To Hit, the entire sentence is simply skipped. The rules modify the To Hit rolls. No To Hit roll, no modification.

Gravmyr wrote:
Which does not negate the need to roll a six. It does not require you to roll a six if you roll to hit it requires one period.

Your example if flawed. If I had a rule that stated you had to roll double the distance to make your charge but you had a rule that said you allows made your charge you still would not be able to charge.

That's just not true. How is it possible to make a To-Hit roll of a 6 when you don't roll to hit, but instead automatically hit?

And when the Knight inevitable goes bang (which mine always does quite quickly) any invisible units in range will get automatically hit by the explosion as well.

I think its the same wording for the catastrophic explosion table as stomp - "suffers a hit".

Unless you can cite a rule that would allow you to treat this differently then you treated open topped transports coming in from reserve, you are either violating a restriction or were playing open topped incorrectly/house ruled.

Invisibility states you must roll a 6. It does not give permission to ignore it if you did not roll to hit nor does anything in any section state, that i know of, you can ignore a restriction without specific permission to do so. It would have to be listed as this bypasses the need to roll a 6 or ignore invisibility. Since stomp and any other auto-hit attack can't roll a 6 they can't hit. Notice how blasts with Gets hot! have to roll a separate die for gets hot? You don't have that option given to you and as such have no permission or way to by pass it.

Gravmyr wrote:
Unless you can cite a rule that would allow you to treat this differently then you treated open topped transports coming in from reserve, you are either violating a restriction or were playing open topped incorrectly/house ruled.

What?

Invisibility states you must roll a 6. It does not give permission to ignore it if you did not roll to hit nor does anything in any section state, that i know of, you can ignore a restriction without specific permission to do so. It would have to be listed as this bypasses the need to roll a 6 or ignore invisibility. Since stomp and any other auto-hit attack can't roll a 6 they can't hit. Notice how blasts with Gets hot! have to roll a separate die for gets hot? You don't have that option given to you and as such have no permission or way to by pass it.

Except they do - they hit. If something hits you it has bypassed any restriction on hitting you by virtue of... hitting.
Blasts have to roll a separate die for Gets Hot because it's a specific mechanic - if that rule wasn't there, they wouldn't have to.

Invisibility requires a roll of a 6 To Hit.
To Wound requires a Hit in the To Hit Phase.

A). Does a roll of 6 To Hit provide a Hit?
B). Does a roll of 4 To Hit provide a Hit?
C). Does Stomp provide (a) Hit?

The answer to all 3 of those being "Yes" is what To Wound needs (a Hit).

Now out of those 3, do any break the Invisibility restriction? That restriction being To Hit rolls must be 6s?
Yes, B) .

"Invisibility states you must roll a 6."

Is not the rule.
"on To Hit rolls of a 6" is the Rule, IE:
"Invisibility states you must roll a 6 when rolling To Hit"

@rigeld2 Transports and reserves have the same restriction. Which they clarified to state that even though you are given permission to charge if you disembark from an open topped vehicle reserves still prevents you from charging. How about the eldar Fire avatar that is immune to fire based weapons. Is that bypassed by those wounds if they wound automatically?

Gravmyr wrote:
@rigeld2 Transports and reserves have the same restriction. Which they clarified to state that even though you are given permission to charge if you disembark from an open topped vehicle reserves still prevents you from charging. How about the eldar Fire avatar that is immune to fire based weapons. Is that bypassed by those wounds if they wound automatically?

Depends on the wording of his ability.
And the transports/Reserves issue is absolutely nothing like this one - red herring.

I'm required to roll a 6 to hit. I hit automatically.

Cite the rule saying that you're allowed to ignore the second sentence.

You first, and by which, before you go off on any tangent, I have kindly linked Yakface's post on restrictions and permissions in my signature. As far as i knkow that is the basis for the game as well as the forums. If you are arguing that a permission overrides a restriction please start a thread to talk that over and invite Yakface to take part. Until you can do so you have a permission and a restriction, restrictions always trump permissions.

Gravmyr wrote:
You first, and by which, before you go off on any tangent, I have kindly linked Yakface's post on restrictions and permissions in my signature. As far as i knkow that is the basis for the game as well as the forums. If you are arguing that a permission overrides a restriction please start a thread to talk that over and invite Yakface to take part. Until you can do so you have a permission and a restriction, restrictions always trump permissions.

a) I have signatures disabled, so that's irrelevant.
b) I have shown permission - I hit automatically. You've asserted that's ignored. Cite the rule allowing you to ignore it. I'm not ignoring the "needs a 6" rule at all. I'm bypassing it by virtue of hitting already.
Just like a blast that scatters over an invisible unit is allowed to generate hits and wounds even though it wasn't a snapshot.

It's not irrelevant any more than anything you say is. Whether you see it or not is your issue for not knowing how he has set up these forums. It falls on you to prove that permission overrides a specific restriction, which would be at odds with how these forums work. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/520554.page#5505107

You have not shown that it overrides that restriction though any more then stating that the chart from earlier in the book states you hit an an X not just a 6. The difference between the shooting and CC language is vast. In CC the invisible unit can "only be hit by a 6" while when firing at them the weapon needs to fired as a snap shot. A scatter onto then isn't even fired at them and is therefor not covered by the rule. As you are fond of stating, red herring.

Gravmyr wrote:
You first, and by which, before you go off on any tangent, I have kindly linked Yakface's post on restrictions and permissions in my signature. As far as i knkow that is the basis for the game as well as the forums. If you are arguing that a permission overrides a restriction please start a thread to talk that over and invite Yakface to take part. Until you can do so you have a permission and a restriction, restrictions always trump permissions.

I still do not understand how you apply a restriction on a To Hit roll when there is no To Hit roll?

There are many examples.
Vector Dancer - Restriction: "cannot move Flat Out" - Am i not allowed to shoot? Flat out is instead of Shooting, so surely the restriction applies.
Ignores Cover - Restriction: "Cover saves cannot be taken" - Am i not allowed to take an armor save? Cover saves are instead of Armour saves, so surely the restriction applies.

Invisibility - Restriction: "only hit () on To Hit rolls of a 6" - Am i not allowed to auto-Hit? Auto-Hits are instead of To Hit rolls, so surely the restriction applies.

It's a restriction on hitting not just to hit rolls. They can only be hit by rolls of 6.

There is no restriction stating (and i quote verbatum) "the only way to hit an invisible unit is by rolling a 6".

This is how you are trying to interpret it, and it is wrong.

The restriction is only when you do roll to hit, you need a 6.


Not that you only ever hit by rolling a 6.

"enemy units {short} in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." It doesn't limit it to if you roll To Hit. You don't roll To Hit you can't hit.

your still taking that out of context.

Its saying they "will only hit on to hit rolls of a 6"

this means WHEN THEY ROLL TO HIT (if they roll to hit), they need 6's.

your are incorrectly thinking that they cannot hit unless they roll. If there is an automatic hit, there is no roll and thus there is no need to roll a 6.

That would be RAI not RAW.

How is Invi saying you need to hit on a 6 different from BS1 needing to hit on a 6? Are you saying blasts and templates can't hit either?

Gravmyr wrote:
It's a restriction on hitting not just to hit rolls. They can only be hit by rolls of 6.

The rule clearly states that to hit rolls need to be a 6. If there is no to hit roll then there is no requirement for a 6.

Gravmyr wrote:
"enemy units {short} in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." It doesn't limit it to if you roll To Hit. You don't roll To Hit you can't hit.

Actually, that's exactly what it does by virtue of saying "To Hit rolls".
There isn't a permission overriding a restriction. It's a rule stating that a hit happens and nothing saying that I must make To Hit rolls to have any effect (note how the 6th FAQ for HtH was worded for how that has to work).

"enemy units {short} in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." If you didn't roll a 6 you are ignoring the will only hit part.

Gravmyr wrote:
"enemy units {short} in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." If you didn't roll a 6 you are ignoring the will only hit part.

No. If I didn't roll a 6 To Hit I'd be ignoring that.
I'm not rolling To Hit at all so it doesn't apply.

Gravmyr wrote:
"enemy units {short} in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." If you didn't roll a 6 you are ignoring the will only hit part.

we arent ignoring it, but you are ignoring my underlined.

That is what is telling you what you need to do to hit the model. The restriction is that is the only way to hit the models.

no its not, but were obviously not getting anywhere.

Gravmyr wrote:
That is what is telling you what you need to do to hit the model. The restriction is that is the only way to hit the models.

No, that is telling you that to hit using a To Hit roll you need a 6. It mentions nothing about other methods of hitting.

So a blast from an exploding tank (that the invis unit killed) won't damage them?

Is it CC? Is it targeting them? Another red herring is the answer.

Edit: It tells you the only way to hit is to roll a 6. it does not state that when rolling to hit they hit on a 6 ignoring the chart. So it does in fact state all hits not just the ones from rolling to hit.

Gravmyr wrote:
Is it CC? Is it targeting them? Another red herring is the answer.

"enemy units {short} in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." (your quote, not mine)
The enemy unit still in close combat (the vehicle isn't removed until the explosion is resolved).
There's no requirement to target.

It's not a red herring. Please answer the question.

In this case the exploding vehicle is not making a CC attack, unlike Stomp. Therefor it would not fall under the the rule similar to a scattered blast weapon.

Gravmyr wrote:
In this case the exploding vehicle is not making a CC attack, unlike Stomp. Therefor it would not fall under the the rule similar to a scattered blast weapon.

Please show me in the rules quote where it must be a CC attack. The rules quote you provided does not show that. The word attack has been inserted by you.
In addition, Stomp is not a CC attack. It's "a special type of attack called a Stomp attack." So going by the "attack" theory your argument still doesn't hold.

In addition, the units are not hit, but stomped.
"Each unit that has at least one model even partially under the marker is stomped. For each unit that is stomped, roll on the Stomp table (see right) to determine what happens to it."
While being stomped can result in hits being assigned to the unit, that's not the same as the blast marker generating hits - because it demonstrably doesn't.

Incorrect, the requirement is that they are "in" close combat, not making close combat attacks

If you assert a Stomp is affected due to the rule, then so is an explosion.

Enemy models cannot hit them in cc... Is the explosion the vehicle hitting the unit?

Gravmyr wrote:
Enemy models cannot hit them in cc... Is the explosion the vehicle hitting the unit?

Yes. Also, keep moving those goalposts - do you agree that you invented the word attack?

edit: and no response to the fact that Stomps attacks don't generate hits?

What does roll 2-5 generate on Stomp? I guess I should have been more specific the hits on the 2-5 can't affect them. That was an edit after I began my post BTW.

Unless you spell everything out exactly how you see things can we try to keep this civil?

Other than an attack in cc how does a unit affect another unit with damage?

Gravmyr wrote:
What does roll 2-5 generate on Stomp? I guess I should have been more specific the hits on the 2-5 can't affect them.

Hits.
So now a special attack that doesn't roll To Hit and doesn't actually hit at all (it generates hits sometimes) is restricted by something that apples to To Hit rolls?

Unless you spell everything out exactly how you see things can we try to keep this civil?

What have I not spelled out? You asserted the rule affected CC attacks. This was demonstrably false.
Keeping it civil means not making up words in rules.

Other than an attack in cc how does a unit affect another unit with damage?

Note that attacks in CC are different from CC attacks. Stomp is demonstrably not a CC attack.

rigeld2 wrote:

Hits.
So now a special attack that doesn't roll To Hit and doesn't actually hit at all (it generates hits sometimes) is restricted by something that apples to To Hit rolls?

In your opinion it only applies to To Hits rolls as opposed to limiting how they can be hit by enemy units.

Note that attacks in CC are different from CC attacks. Stomp is demonstrably not a CC attack.

I disagree that it's not a CC attack. Although you are correct that it's not CC attacks it is attacks. That being said I do not see a vehicle explosion as an attack nor being done by the vehicle.

I'd like to point out that Stomps can be placed over models the SHW is not in CC with. Also, I fully concur with rigeld2 on this.

SJ

Stomp just hits anything under its template. Invisibility is not an I win button. If you don't want
your invisible units stomped don't get into combat with a unit that had stomp.

It's auto hit and there is no restriction for auto hits to auto miss invisible units.

Stomp is its own special attack as stated in its rules, its not a CC attack, nor does it roll to hit

Invisibility doesn't affect it.

Gravmyr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Hits.
So now a special attack that doesn't roll To Hit and doesn't actually hit at all (it generates hits sometimes) is restricted by something that apples to To Hit rolls?

In your opinion it only applies to To Hits rolls as opposed to limiting how they can be hit by enemy units.

Well, no... it's fact, based on the quoted rule. Not opinion at all.

Note that attacks in CC are different from CC attacks. Stomp is demonstrably not a CC attack.

I disagree that it's not a CC attack.

Please - show me a rule that says it's a CC attack. I've quoted where it's a special type of attack (so, not a CC attack at all).

Although you are correct that it's not CC attacks it is attacks. That being said I do not see a vehicle explosion as an attack nor being done by the vehicle.

Where in the rule does it mention attacks? You've quoted it, others have quoted it, I've looked it up - never is the word "attacks" mentioned. You've invented that. Please stop doing so.
(for reference: )

Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

Let's break that down.
0) This is a BLESSING that affects a friendly unit. - we'll come back to this in 3.
1) enemy units - I don't think anyone wants (or can) to shoot their own guys, so that's fine.
2) can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit - this is the main sticking point I see being argued
3) and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6 - this is mostly a parallel to #2.

From a RAW and not trying to make any logical sense since that is in RAI mode, let's look at premise #2

can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit

If you are shooting it, as a normal shooting attack, then you can only fire a snap shot at it.
snap shots say "hit on 6" and no direct targetting from blast weapons.

I think everyone is in agreement on that much. The only RAW exception I know of is Kharn, whose weapon specific, model specific, codex specific rule (always hits on a 2+) makes him hit on a 2+, which trumps the less specific BRB, but you can argue against that in his thread elsewhere if you like.


Imperial Knight and other stomps can hit in CC and out of CC alike, so they can fall under either premise #2 or #3, but it works out the same.

The argumentative part is against things that auto-hit: scattered blast templates, hammer of wrath, wall of death, etc.

Interpretation #1: "Boo Invisibility": If you fire at it, it must be a snap shot and that must roll a 6 to hit (if it needs to roll to hit). No roll to hit needed means no 6 needed.
Interpretation #2: "Yay Invisibility" : If you fire at it, it must be a snap shot and that must roll a 6 to hit. No roll to hit means you can't hit it.

I think Interpretation #1 makes more sense, but that's RAI and HIWPI. There is no RAW basis to assume #1 vs #2, or the reverse.

That said, if someone wants to 4+ it, you can be a grammar nazi back to them by looking at premise #0 and #3. Nothing in there says that it is only the non-psyker's unit that needs to roll 6's to hit in CC. Premise #3 can be read disjointed to premise #2, to affect both (or only) the BLESSED unit - balancing their unshootability by making them near useless in CC. If they want you to 4+ on their disagreement, you can 4+ it too. Or just concede the game and 4+ it again for the next until you get the result you want, or do what I do, not play with unfun rules/people.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
2) can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit - this is the main sticking point I see being argued
3) and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6 - this is mostly a parallel to #2.

Not a parallel at all really... and no, the current sticking point is #3.

SolentSanguine wrote:
And when the Knight inevitable goes bang (which mine always does quite quickly) any invisible units in range will get automatically hit by the explosion as well.

I think its the same wording for the catastrophic explosion table as stomp - "suffers a hit".

At which point they are not in close combat anymore, and can suffer hits from anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

"on To Hit rolls of a 6" is the Rule, IE:
"Invisibility states you must roll a 6 when rolling To Hit"

Misquote there my boy:

Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

Will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.
==
Will never hit models in close combat if it does not roll a To Hit roll of a 6. No matter what it hits them with.

That isnt ho rules work.

On to hit rolls of a 6, it will hit them. That is how the sentence parses. It does not mean you mut have rolled a to-hit, just that when you do, you need a result of a 6

You remain in error.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That is how the sentence parses.

That is your interpretation. The sentence very clearly says that they cannot be hit.
That's RAW, and yes it's probably not RAI, but we're currently discussing RAW and not interpretations.

his interpretation is the correct one, yours isnt.

Dont you think it funny your the only one who is trying to interpret it the other way?

morgoth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That is how the sentence parses.

That is your interpretation. The sentence very clearly says that they cannot be hit.
That's RAW, and yes it's probably not RAI, but we're currently discussing RAW and not interpretations.

No, we proved your position wasnt RAW, as unless you are rolling to hit it does nothing.

Your "interpretation" means scatterinig blasts also do not hit., yet we know they do. Good job your interpretation is neither RAW nor RAI then.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
his interpretation is the correct one, yours isnt.

Dont you think it funny your the only one who is trying to interpret it the other way?

I'm used to being surrounded by people who are wrong, and being factually right.

I'm also used to dealing with the vast number of people who think their numbers means they're right.

And I'm used to checking my facts even when I think I'm right, and being confirmed that I was right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your "interpretation" means scatterinig blasts also do not hit., yet we know they do. Good job your interpretation is neither RAW nor RAI then.

Nope, my interpretation means that Enemy units IN the close combat can only HIT if they roll To Hit and roll 6.

Which means that enemy units NOT IN the close combat can do as they usually do, and if scattering blasts land in there, they will hit as they do on any unit, because invisibility makes no provision for that.

How hard can it really be for you to actually read the sentence that is there, and tell me where it stops being "only hit it" ?

But Stomp can extend out some 15" from the Knight itself - so presumably you're ok with it stomping invisible units that it is not locked in combat with, but not the ones at its feet?

Because that is how it parses. AS in, how I laid it out is an equivalent reading. Yours isnt. Thats one test that shows your error.

It has nothing to do with numbers, just a basic grasp of subject and object. Here the requirement is rolling a to-hit. If you dont roll a to-hit, you arent bound by a rule about to-hit

Youre giving it hard to hit, without the rule actually meaning so.

Or is this like claiming mercedes are Munich based again? Just a complete comprehension gap?

SolentSanguine wrote:
But Stomp can extend out some 15" from the Knight itself - so presumably you're ok with it stomping invisible units that it is not locked in combat with, but not the ones at its feet?

Not me, the rules.

But yes, that's how it works, you could, since the stomp is not a shooting attack, and the invisible unit not in close combat with the stomper, do that.

I think that i can pinpoint the wording/grammar causing the issue here:

"enemy units (...) in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6."

Gravmyr, as i understand it, you believe that this word "only" is a restriction on any form of attack that might exist (Stomp/Vehicle explosion/etc).

The way I/we see it, is that this word "only" is a restriction on To Hit rolls. Because that is the subject of the phrase ("on To Hit rolls of")

so
You - Only <-as opposed to-> Everything else in the game.
Me - Only <-as opposed to-> To Hit rolls of 2-3-4-5.

Now this is back to the argument: Can you really state that a Rule applies to "everything"?
If there is a Rule that restricts how far you can Run, would it restrict any form of movement in the shooting phase?

Most restrictions, as here, often refer to a specific situation or part of the rules, in this case To Hit rolls. You cannot start blanketing that statement over all the other rules we can imagine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

"on To Hit rolls of a 6" is the Rule, IE:
"Invisibility states you must roll a 6 when rolling To Hit"

Misquote there my boy:

Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

Will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.
==
Will never hit models in close combat if it does not roll a To Hit roll of a 6. No matter what it hits them with.

Please include the full post you are referring to. The quotation marks will make more sense then.

PS: Quotation marks don't always mean it's a quote from the Rulebook. Could be from another Forum user. You could also learn some politeness and courtesy, i know YMDC lacks it sometimes but if everyone puts in some effort...

 BlackTalos wrote:

"enemy units (...) in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6."

Gravmyr, as i understand it, you believe that this word "only" is a restriction on any form of attack that might exist (Stomp/Vehicle explosion/etc).

The way I/we see it, is that this word "only" is a restriction on To Hit rolls. Because that is the subject of the phrase ("on To Hit rolls of")

Now this is back to the argument: Can you really state that a Rule applies to "everything"?

1. That's exactly what is written, not what *some people believe*. Furthermore, the wording says any attack that might exist from the enemy unit in the close combat on the invisible unit it's in close combat with. Thus vehicle explosions cannot be part of that. Neither can "etc." be.

2. The way you see it is HYWPI, we're discussing RAW at this point, which is very clear to me and gravmyr at least.

3. If a rule applies to everything, it applies to everything, we don't state anything, we just read the rule and explain it for the people who don't seem to be able to translate text to meaning.


You don't feel like it should affect stomps because you read "close combat" and "To Hit rolls" and your brain automatically tells you "this must be about To Hit rolls in close combat".

But that's not what's written.

What is written is:

enemy unit in close combat with invisible unit:

add a restriction on (hit) : only on To Hit roll of a 6.

The way it is worded, anything that says "hit" will only work on a To Hit roll of a 6.

Of course it's legalese bs, but RAW always is. In my opinion you shouldn't even be able to count the stomp roll of a 6 because you're using a damn template and in every other case invisibles don't care about templates. But that's not what's written.

morgoth wrote:
1. That's exactly what is written, not what *some people believe*. Furthermore, the wording says any attack that might exist from the enemy unit in the close combat on the invisible unit it's in close combat with. Thus vehicle explosions cannot be part of that. Neither can "etc." be.

No. It does not use the word attack. If you're going to be that pedantic at least be correct.

3. If a rule applies to everything, it applies to everything, we don't state anything, we just read the rule and explain it for the people who don't seem to be able to translate text to meaning.

It doesn't apply to everything. It applies to everything that makes a To Hit roll.
According to you, the rule for blasts/templates and Snap Shots shouldn't exist.

What is written is:

enemy unit in close combat with invisible unit:

add a restriction on (hit) : only on To Hit roll of a 6.

The way it is worded, anything that says "hit" will only work on a To Hit roll of a 6.

No. If things don't roll To Hit, there's no restriction on them.

In my opinion you shouldn't even be able to count the stomp roll of a 6 because you're using a damn template and in every other case invisibles don't care about templates. But that's not what's written.

Cite where Invisibility ignores templates. Because it doesn't - it forces Snap Shots. Normally this means they can't be hit by templates, but a scattered marker or template targeted at another unit can and will still cause damage.
Again, at least be correct if you're attempting to be pedantic.

rigeld2 wrote:
It doesn't apply to everything.

It applies to every attack from an enemy unit in close combat with an invisible unit.

morgoth wrote:
1. That's exactly what is written, not what *some people believe*. Furthermore, the wording says any attack that might exist from the enemy unit in the close combat on the invisible unit it's in close combat with. Thus vehicle explosions cannot be part of that. Neither can "etc." be.

It doesn't say "attack" anywhere in the Rule, it says To Hit rolls. So no that's not how it's written.

Vehicle explosions "exist from the enemy unit in the close combat on the invisible unit it's in close combat with.", so your entire "1." is wrong.

morgoth wrote:
2. The way you see it is HYWPI, we're discussing RAW at this point, which is very clear to me and gravmyr at least.

And I am only discussing RaW at this point, maybe you see things as HYWPI.

morgoth wrote:
3. If a rule applies to everything, it applies to everything, we don't state anything, we just read the rule and explain it for the people who don't seem to be able to translate text to meaning.

Using another words here: "It doesn't apply to everything. It applies to everything that makes a To Hit roll."

Do we really need to go into phrase construction and the English language? You seem to be asserting that you are able to translate text to meaning perfectly well.

morgoth wrote:
You don't feel like it should affect stomps because you read "close combat" and "To Hit rolls" and your brain automatically tells you "this must be about To Hit rolls in close combat".

But that's not what's written.

What is written is:

enemy unit in close combat with invisible unit:

add a restriction on (hit) : only on To Hit roll of a 6.

The way it is worded, anything that says "hit" will only work on a To Hit roll of a 6.

Wrong again. It says "on To Hit rolls of a 6", not "anything that says "hit" ". The first quotation is an actual Rule from the book. The second is your invention of rules.

morgoth wrote:
Of course it's legalese bs, but RAW always is. In my opinion you shouldn't even be able to count the stomp roll of a 6 because you're using a damn template and in every other case invisibles don't care about templates. But that's not what's written.

Or sometimes the RaW actually works normally? I mean, it's what we use to play the game... if it was "legalese bulls**t" we'd find another, more fun game to play right?

Most of this is indeed "in your opinion". Because the Raw is clear: Stomp works against Invisibility.
Anything that Auto-Hits will works against Invisibility. Simple RaW.

morgoth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It doesn't apply to everything.

It applies to every attack from an enemy unit in close combat with an invisible unit.

No, it applies to all to-hit rolls made by enemies in close combat

morgoth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It doesn't apply to everything.

It applies to every attack from an enemy unit in close combat with an invisible unit.

That rolls To Hit.

You forgot to add that at the end. Because it's in the rule:
"enemy units (...) in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6."

Not "everything 6", "To Hit rolls of a 6"

5 - INVISIBILITY - Warp Charge 2

The psyker twists and obscures the perceptions of his foes to the point that he becomes completely invisible.

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

When do you get permission to "hit" models without doing a To Hit roll, and without rolling a 6 ?

morgoth wrote:

5 - INVISIBILITY - Warp Charge 2

The psyker twists and obscures the perceptions of his foes to the point that he becomes completely invisible.

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

When do you get permission to "hit" models without doing a To Hit roll, and without rolling a 6 ?

Right here:

Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker suffers a Strength 6 AP4 hit.

Let's now roll To Wound...

 BlackTalos wrote:

morgoth wrote:

5 - INVISIBILITY - Warp Charge 2

The psyker twists and obscures the perceptions of his foes to the point that he becomes completely invisible.

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

When do you get permission to "hit" models without doing a To Hit roll, and without rolling a 6 ?

Right here:

Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker suffers a Strength 6 AP4 hit.

Let's now roll To Wound...

That sounds a lot like unit a, which is in close combat with invisible unit b, hit a model from unit b.

a model in unit b suffers a hit from an ability of unit a = a model in unit b is hit by unit a = unit a hit a model from unit b


This is of course unless we can find a good reason for "unit b suffers a hit from an ability of unit a" to be different from "unit a hit a model from unit b".

Which I still haven't seen in this thread.

morgoth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It doesn't apply to everything.

It applies to every attack from an enemy unit in close combat with an invisible unit.

You keep using the word "attack" and haven't shown that it exists in the rules for Invisibility. Stop using it to support your argument.

morgoth wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

morgoth wrote:

5 - INVISIBILITY - Warp Charge 2

The psyker twists and obscures the perceptions of his foes to the point that he becomes completely invisible.

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

When do you get permission to "hit" models without doing a To Hit roll, and without rolling a 6 ?

Right here:

Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker suffers a Strength 6 AP4 hit.

Let's now roll To Wound...

That sounds a lot like unit a, which is in close combat with invisible unit b, hit a model from unit b.

a model in unit b suffers a hit from an ability of unit a = a model in unit b is hit by unit a = unit a hit a model from unit b


This is of course unless we can find a good reason for "unit b suffers a hit from an ability of unit a" to be different from "unit a hit a model from unit b".

Which I still haven't seen in this thread.

Please show in the Stomp rules where you 'roll to hit" with a Stomp attack

Please show in the Stomp Rules where Stomp is a Close Combat attack.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Please show in the Stomp rules where you 'roll to hit" with a Stomp attack

Please show in the Stomp Rules where Stomp is a Close Combat attack.

There is no such requirement.

A stomp roll of kerrunch makes the unit B suffer hits and happens in close combat.

Read the rule carefully, then come back to tell me why you think "suffers hits" does not match the "only hit" clause.

morgoth wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Please show in the Stomp rules where you 'roll to hit" with a Stomp attack

Please show in the Stomp Rules where Stomp is a Close Combat attack.

There is no such requirement.

A stomp roll of kerrunch makes the unit B suffer hits and happens in close combat.

Read the rule carefully, then come back to tell me why you think "suffers hits" does not match the "only hit" clause.

And how is a hit resolve if it states it "suffers hit", there is no "roll to hit" wording there for "only hit by 6's" to apply, therefore it does not apply, as you made no roll to hit.

Stomp is its own special attack, as defined in its rules, it is neither a close combat attack, nor does it make rolls to hit. Knowing that, how does invisbility prevent Stomp, as no criteria to trigger the restrictions for Invisibility are ever invoked.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

And how is a hit resolve if it states it "suffers hit", there is no "roll to hit" wording there for "only hit by 6's" to apply, therefore it does not apply, as you made no roll to hit.

Stomp is its own special attack, as defined in its rules, it is neither a close combat attack, nor does it make rolls to hit. Knowing that, how does invisbility prevent Stomp, as no criteria to trigger the restrictions for Invisibility are ever invoked.

We're almost there.

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

enemy units in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

An enemy unit (the IK)
In close combat (in base contact)
Will only hit (or cause hits, or make the enemy suffer hits or really anything that has hit in its wording)
Models in it (the invisible unit which is in base contact)
On To Hit rolls of a 6 (when a To Hit roll is made and rolls a 6)

Which line do you disagree with ?

automatically hitting means you are hit, if you needed to roll a 6 to hit, you just succeeded.

also stating that you can only hit a model by rolling, and getting a 6 is not the same as stating to hit rolls require a 6.

regardless if something hits automatically, it means it passed the required to hit roll if there was one.

when a to hit roll is made and rolls a 6, also means if there is no to hit roll to make there is no need to roll a 6.

morgoth wrote:

5 - INVISIBILITY - Warp Charge 2

The psyker twists and obscures the perceptions of his foes to the point that he becomes completely invisible.

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

When do you get permission to "hit" models without doing a To Hit roll, and without rolling a 6 ?

You get permission from any Special ability that says you get to hit them without rolling. Like HoW and Stomps.

morgoth wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

And how is a hit resolve if it states it "suffers hit", there is no "roll to hit" wording there for "only hit by 6's" to apply, therefore it does not apply, as you made no roll to hit.

Stomp is its own special attack, as defined in its rules, it is neither a close combat attack, nor does it make rolls to hit. Knowing that, how does invisbility prevent Stomp, as no criteria to trigger the restrictions for Invisibility are ever invoked.

We're almost there.

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

enemy units in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

An enemy unit (the IK)
In close combat (in base contact)
Will only hit (or cause hits, or make the enemy suffer hits or really anything that has hit in its wording)
Models in it (the invisible unit which is in base contact)
On To Hit rolls of a 6 (when a To Hit roll is made and rolls a 6)

Which line do you disagree with ?

Your entire premise where you're assuming Stomp is a normal close combat attack, instead of its own attack called a "Stomp Attack" that does not roll to hit.

And the bolded line more specifically.

blaktoof wrote:

also stating that you can only hit a model by rolling, and getting a 6 is not the same as stating to hit rolls require a 6.

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

And the rule states that you can only hit a model by rolling a To Hit roll of a 6.

Read, don't interpret.

Impossible, as all reading requires interpretation.

Are you rolling a to-hit? then you need a 6. Not rolling a to-hit? the rule that concerns itself with a to-hit can do one.

THats actually what it says, but requires not focusing on one word to the exclusion fo all actual meaning.

morgoth wrote:
This is of course unless we can find a good reason for "unit b suffers a hit from an ability of unit a" to be different from "unit a hit a model from unit b".

Which I still haven't seen in this thread.

Yes, "unit b suffers a hit from an ability of unit a"
is different to "unit a rolls To Hit a model from unit b"

Did you read the rule properly?

Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units (...) will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

It is clearly written that To Hit rolls are affected.

morgoth wrote:
enemy units in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

morgoth wrote:
And the rule states that you can only hit a model by rolling a To Hit roll of a 6.

Read, don't interpret.

Correct. But what if there is no To Hit roll? What do the rules say to do then?

I mean, the Rule "will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." tells you what to do when you roll To Hit rolls. I doesn't specify anything about thing that don't roll To Hit.
Unless you add your own "opinion":

morgoth wrote:
An enemy unit (the IK)
In close combat (in base contact)
Will only hit (or cause hits, or make the enemy suffer hits or really anything that has hit in its wording)
Models in it (the invisible unit which is in base contact)
On To Hit rolls of a 6 (when a To Hit roll is made and rolls a 6)

Which line do you disagree with ?

The red section is you inventing rules, as said before.
"Will only hit" is a condition. A condition affected by the "On To Hit rolls of a 6" part.

If it was "Will only hit" *if plasma weapons Gets Hot*, would you say Boltguns cannot Hit?
No, because the "Will only hit" clause refers to the plasma weapons. It says nothing about Laser weapons or Missiles.

If it was "Will only hit" *on a charge range of 8*, would you say the Unit cannot Hit in round 2?
No, because the "Will only hit" clause refers to the turn the Unit charged. It says nothing about when you are in combat already.

It actually is "Will only hit" "On To Hit rolls of a 6". And you say Auto-Hits cannot Hit?
No, because the "Will only hit" clause refers to To Hit rolls. It says nothing about things that don't roll To Hit.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Your entire premise where you're assuming Stomp is a normal close combat attack, instead of its own attack called a "Stomp Attack" that does not roll to hit.

And the bolded line more specifically.

Nope.

Stomp is an ability that is used by a unit which is in close combat with an invisible unit, and therefore subject to the limitation "only hits unit in it"(the close combat).

The fact that it does not normally roll to hit YET makes the invisible unit to suffer hits MEANS that the stomping unit "hit" the invisible unit, which is not possible because hitting only happens on "To Hit rolls of a 6".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units (...) will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

It is clearly written that To Hit rolls are affected.

And that is where I disagree.

It is clearly written that anything from unit a that "hit models in it" is affected.

You believe that "on To Hit rolls" affects only attacks that roll "To Hit', but that's not what is written.

What is written is that it will only cause hits on a To Hit roll of 6. No To Hit roll, no 6, no hit.

morgoth wrote:
It is clearly written that anything from unit a that "hit models in it" is affected.

No, that's not the rules. You are being selective.
will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.
"models in it" is the phrase Object. "will only hit" is the clause for the condition "on To Hit rolls of a 6"
You cannot split Clause and condition. Basic English.

morgoth wrote:
You believe that "on To Hit rolls" affects only attacks that roll "To Hit', but that's not what is written.

What?
Can you read what you have just typed? I highlighted the 3 exact same words. And that's not what is written?

morgoth wrote:
What is written is that it will only cause hits on a To Hit roll of 6. No To Hit roll, no 6, no hit.

You are again adding the condition "No To Hit roll, no 6, no hit.". That is your opinion.
The rule say absolutely nothing about attacks that don't roll to hit. Nothing.
Please underline the part that says what you do with attacks that do not roll To Hit.

hitting automatically = no need to roll you succeed.

not needing to roll to hit, = did not have to roll, you succeed.

need to roll to hit? You need 6's.

 BlackTalos wrote:

morgoth wrote:
It is clearly written that anything from unit a that "hit models in it" is affected.

No, that's not the rules. You are being selective.
will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.
"models in it" is the phrase Object. "will only hit" is the clause for the condition "on To Hit rolls of a 6"
You cannot split Clause and condition. Basic English.

I don't think you understand basic english.

"will only hit" means that's the only way to hit. If you can't understand that, there's no point in discussing any further.

will on hit on to hit rolls of 6 means, if you roll you need a 6. if there is no roll there is no to hit roll.



there is no restriction of can only be hit by models that are rolling to hit.

blaktoof wrote:
will on hit on to hit rolls of 6 means, if you roll you need a 6. if there is no roll there is no to hit roll.



there is no restriction of can only be hit by models that are rolling to hit.

Will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6 means the only way to hit is if you roll To Hit and roll a 6.'

If there is no roll, there is no To Hit roll, therefore there can be no hits.

morgoth wrote:
"will only hit" means that's the only way to hit. If you can't understand that, there's no point in discussing any further.

No.

"Will only A if B" or "Will only A on rolls of B" is different to what you seem to think: "Will only A", let's ignore B.

You cannot say that A is unrelated to B, they are in the same sentence, same rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
will on hit on to hit rolls of 6 means, if you roll you need a 6. if there is no roll there is no to hit roll.



there is no restriction of can only be hit by models that are rolling to hit.

Will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6 means the only way to hit is if you roll To Hit and roll a 6.'

If there is no roll, there is no To Hit roll, therefore there can be no hits.

See the "And" above? The real rule has no "and".
"will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6. " is very different to "will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls and rolls of a 6.

The first is the real rule. The second one is what your are adding to the rule.
"on To Hit rolls of a 6" is a single Condition: It has to be a To Hit roll of a 6.

Not: it has to be a To Hit roll AND it has to be a 6.

morgoth wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
will on hit on to hit rolls of 6 means, if you roll you need a 6. if there is no roll there is no to hit roll.



there is no restriction of can only be hit by models that are rolling to hit.

Will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6 means the only way to hit is if you roll To Hit and roll a 6.'

If there is no roll, there is no To Hit roll, therefore there can be no hits.

By your wording here ANY blast will never cause damage because they DO NOT ROLL TO HIT.

You can try to be selective all that you want, however you are so very wrong as other people have pointed out various different times.

Stomps do not roll to hit ... ever. They Automatically hit. There is no if's, and's or but's about it. They auto-hit, therefore bypassing the requirement to roll a six to hit. Not sure how anyone else can explain it to you other than ... you are factually wrong.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
Not sure how anyone else can explain it to you other than ... you are factually wrong.

Trying to

All of you English majors keep going around in circles, ignoring the fact that GW does not use proper English.

Invisibility forces range attacks to snap fire when targeting Invisible units, and it forces CC attacks to roll a To Hit of 6 to hit in melee. Stomp is neither a range attack nor a CC attack, Stomp is its own special form of attack called a "Stomp Attack". Stomp Attacks are blast markers that are placed using specific rules, that do not scatter, and that generate Hits through a special method not used by range or CC attacks. Invisibility does not address non-range, non-CC attacks. Chasing your tails on what a To Hit of 6 can or cannot hit has no baring on how a Stomp Attack works.

Stomp Attacks, like Destroyer Weapons and Thunderblitz, bypass the basic rules of the game and replace the normal To Hit, To Wound sequence with a table that deals Hits arbitrarily based on a separate Die roll. Just like a scattered Blast marker, any model under a Stomp is hit. Any model, including Invisible models. Since a Stomp is neither a range attack nor a CC attack, then neither snap fire nor To Hit rolls apply. Per RAW, you follow the rules as written and treat any Invisible models under a Stomp as Hit per the Stomp rules, and roll on the Stomp table to see how many hits (lower case), if any, are applied to the Invisible unit, and how many models, if any, are removed outright.

Breaking out your English textbooks and/or dictionaries is usless when trying to parse GW rules. A plain reading with common English usage in mind is more appropriate, and will net you a non-loophole ruling.

Yes, this does mean that Invisible actually does mean "can't be seen" rather than the "Intangible" one side of this debate seems to want Invisible to mean.

SJ

I'll let somebody else handle your reading incomprehension, I've been clear enough and you keep on making the same reading mistake over and over as if you didn't even read what's written in the BRB or my posts.

Invis = crutch. Stomp hits them, and wrecks them.

morgoth wrote:
I'll let somebody else handle your reading incomprehension, I've been clear enough and you keep on making the same reading mistake over and over as if you didn't even read what's written in the BRB or my posts.

No, you've clearly made up rules.

Hint: everyone is pointing out your error. Step back and scoot that you may be, just possibly, wrong on this.