So I was spectating a game at my FLGS, and the rules issue came up, asking if you can drop bombs after you jink (example: interceptor).
I say yes, because bombing is counted as a separate different type of attack, and not a shooting attack, therefor not affected by snapshots.
However, the majority of my group decided to houserule against it, saying "in the spirit of the game", I was against this because bombers don't need the nerf, as most are already sub par.
its not a shooting attack. It happens in the movement phase, and doesn't say anything about shooting in the "bombing runs" section, just center a blast and scatter d6
I'm still trying to find something definitive either way (so far it looks ok)
just thought i'd point out that on the turn they arrive, flyers can drop bombs before interceptor is fired, so can't force jink before the bomb was dropped anyway
Type A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks.
Bombing Runs ARE Shooting Attacks, no matter when they happen. Nor does Jink only affect the Shooting Phase.
If i remember correctly though you are allowed to bomb invisible units, so even if snapshotting i think that bombing is not affected (could be wrong).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok, i did some search on this and what i found here and in other forums is not conclusive. It is unclear if Bombs are shooting weapons. Mostly the 2 important quotes from the BRB for the 2 arguments are (not quoted literally):
"Unless otherwise stated a weapon with range - is a meele weapon. If range is a number, a template or a hellstorm template then the weapon is a shooting weapon"
Bombs have - and are stated as being a special kind of weapons, so this seems to imply that they are neither shooting nor meele weapons, but a third type of weapon.
Interceptor happens at the end of the movement phase. You would do your bomb drop during the movement of the model. There for a bomb would be dropped before your opponent has a chance to fire interceptor.
Also, bomb runs are a special kind of shooting attack as the follow all rules for shooting with two exceptions. First, they can only be dropped on units that you fly over. Two, they do count as firing a weapon already for the shooting phase. Three, the flyer is allowed to shoot at a different unit than what was bombed.
I was under the impression bombs are not shooting attacks. They don't use BS do they? Just have to fly over a target during the movement phase and say that who is being bombed. I would agree bombers really don't need a nerf. Bombs Away!
Glitcha wrote: Also, bomb runs are a special kind of shooting attack as the follow all rules for shooting with two exceptions. First, they can only be dropped on units that you fly over. Two, they do count as firing a weapon already for the shooting phase. Three, the flyer is allowed to shoot at a different unit than what was bombed.
Here is where you are wrong.
First, BRB says it's a "special kind of attack" not a "special kind of shooting attack".
Second, It follows NONE of the rules for the shooting rules:
-The selection of the target unit is different
-Rolling for scatter is different (weapons doesn't scatter 1D6 unless there is a special rule, and they subtract the BS from the scatter, unless there is a special rule, like indirect fire for barrage)
-It does not require to be in range or LoS (I know there are weapons that specify they don't require LoS, but is not the normal rule for shooting)
-Wounding and Allocation is treated from the centre of the marker as barrage (so is the DS Mawloc but that doesn't make it a Shooting attack)
Glitcha wrote: Also, bomb runs are a special kind of shooting attack as the follow all rules for shooting with two exceptions. First, they can only be dropped on units that you fly over. Two, they do count as firing a weapon already for the shooting phase. Three, the flyer is allowed to shoot at a different unit than what was bombed.
Here is where you are wrong.
First, BRB says it's a "special kind of attack" not a "special kind of shooting attack".
Second, It follows NONE of the rules for the shooting rules:
-The selection of the target unit is different
-Rolling for scatter is different (weapons doesn't scatter 1D6 unless there is a special rule, and they subtract the BS from the scatter, unless there is a special rule, like indirect fire for barrage)
-It does not require to be in range or LoS (I know there are weapons that specify they don't require LoS, but is not the normal rule for shooting)
-Wounding and Allocation is treated from the centre of the marker as barrage (so is the DS Mawloc but that doesn't make it a Shooting attack)
Actually, you are incorrect, let me quote the rule again.
From Weapons > Type:
Type A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks.
Bombing Runs ARE Shooting Attacks, no matter when they happen.
-So what if the selection of the target unit is different? There are rules that mess with this all the time. And it does not state that it is no longer a Shooting Attack.
-Rolling for Scatter is not really that different. Only the range of the Scatter is different. And if you don't think the Bomb Type is a special rule of some kind, you are blinding yourself.
-It actually does require to be in range or LOS, just not at the beginning of a movement or at the end. Flying over a unit will definitely provide range and LOS requirements needed.
-So Barrage makes a weapon not a Shooting Attack? Wow, so the Wyverns aren't affected by Invisibility anymore, yay.
But I never said Barrage makes a weapon not a shooting attack, I said allocating wounds like barrage weapons (from the centre of the marker)doesn't make it a shooting attack.
Saying that bombs are not always marked as barrage.
But I never said Barrage makes a weapon not a shooting attack, I said allocating wounds like barrage weapons (from the centre of the marker)doesn't make it a shooting attack.
Saying that bombs are not always marked as barrage.
The implication was that the Barrage Wounding Rules do not follow Shooting Attack rules, and so doing, are not Shooting Attacks. They actually do, it just changes the point of reference when dealing with "the nearest".
But I never said Barrage makes a weapon not a shooting attack, I said allocating wounds like barrage weapons (from the centre of the marker)doesn't make it a shooting attack.
Saying that bombs are not always marked as barrage.
The implication was that the Barrage Wounding Rules do not follow Shooting Attack rules, and so doing, are not Shooting Attacks. They actually do, it just changes the point of reference when dealing with "the nearest".
No, I said that wound allocation from the centre of the marker following the barrage method does NOT imply it's a shooting attack; not that ALL wound allocation from the centre of the marker imply it's NOT a shooting attack.
Anyway, if it's a shooting attack, also this part of the rule for Snap Shots deny using it:
"In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot"
The point is indeed in deciding if it is a shooting attack or not, you have one section of the rules telling you that is not and one telling you that it is.
If it's not a shooting attack it can snap blast at will, after all you can vector strike while jinking and that too is an attack that isn't using ballistic skill (and VS is not close combat).
Spoletta wrote: The point is indeed in deciding if it is a shooting attack or not, you have one section of the rules telling you that is not and one telling you that it is.
If it's not a shooting attack it can snap blast at will, after all you can vector strike while jinking and that too is an attack that isn't using ballistic skill (and VS is not close combat).
Well, Bomb Run, uses a weapon, in difference to Vector Strike that uses the Model Strenght.. But well, it would look like it's a shooting attack after all.
Also, non related, if I Bomb Run and Vector Strike, I get to choose which is resolved first since both happen at the end of the Movement phase and it's my turn, right?
The rule you are looking for is called Sequencing, it is one of my favourite actually, and is found in the The Turn section of the book. It highlights how to determine the order of events if two Rules trigger at the same time, using 'start of movement phase' as the example. I find it hilarious that the Rule states that it is a 'occasional' occurrence, given how often we use this Rule without even realizing we are doing so. So many things happen 'simultaneously' on the time-line, not just things with end/start of phase wording, that we will always use this very rule in nearly every phase of the game.
Spoletta wrote: The point is indeed in deciding if it is a shooting attack or not, you have one section of the rules telling you that is not and one telling you that it is.
No one has quoted anything to indicate it isn't a Shooting Attack.
Spoletta wrote: The point is indeed in deciding if it is a shooting attack or not, you have one section of the rules telling you that is not and one telling you that it is.
No one has quoted anything to indicate it isn't a Shooting Attack.
Wallur did. He quoted it as a special kind of attack, and pointed out it's not a special kind of shooting attack.
To which you quoted all shooting attacks have the following types-
Which is not the same as saying the following types are always shooting attacks.
All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.
I'm not saying he's right, I'm saying what he said hasn't been contradicted yet.
Spoletta wrote: The point is indeed in deciding if it is a shooting attack or not, you have one section of the rules telling you that is not and one telling you that it is.
No one has quoted anything to indicate it isn't a Shooting Attack.
Wallur did. He quoted it as a special kind of attack, and pointed out it's not a special kind of shooting attack.
To which you quoted all shooting attacks have the following types-
Which is not the same as saying the following types are always shooting attacks.
All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.
I'm not saying he's right, I'm saying what he said hasn't been contradicted yet.
Well besides the fact that technically thumbs are not fingers....yes he has been contradicted. Per the quoted rule, all bombs are shooting attacks, but not all shooting attacks are bombs.
Then someone misquoted it? The quote said all shootings attacks have a type-
Type
A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks.
Nowhere does the rule state only shooting attacks have these types. In fact I see one of them right now that makes attacks in close combat i.e. melee.
Breton wrote: Then someone misquoted it? The quote said all shootings attacks have a type-
Type
A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks.
Nowhere does the rule state only shooting attacks have these types. In fact I see one of them right now that makes attacks in close combat i.e. melee.
What?
Please show one instance of a non-shooting attack having one of the listed profiles.
No, they have the pistol rule, which makes them count as close combat weapons with a different profile. But they're still pistols.
And you still haven't shown that all bombs are always shooting attacks, let we get sidetracked. They may well be, but your chosen rebuttal did not establish that, and as such your dismissive and definitive categorical claim no one has said otherwise was poor form and at least currently incorrect.
Breton wrote: No, they have the pistol rule, which makes them count as close combat weapons with a different profile. But they're still pistols.
And you still haven't shown that all bombs are always shooting attacks, let we get sidetracked. They may well be, but your chosen rebuttal did not establish that, and as such your dismissive and definitive categorical claim no one has said otherwise was poor form and at least currently incorrect.
So where does the Bomb rule state it is not a Shooting Attack like the Pistol's count as Melee weapon?
Just because it states it is special does not mean that it is no longer Shooting.
So where does the Bomb rule state it is not a Shooting Attack
Not my contention, however Wallur made this point-
First, BRB says it's a "special kind of attack" not a "special kind of shooting attack".
That is (currently- pending further rebuttal)a viable and valid distinction not contradicted by the single directional logic argument about weapon types.
Just because it states it is special does not mean that it is no longer Shooting.
The point wasn't that it's no longer shooting but that it was never called shooting (in the bombing run rule?) to begin with.
My contention is that he made a valid point, the counter point did not actually contradict him, and he deserved more credit than an argument by dismissal. He may or may not be right, but his point deserved the respect of any one else's that hasn't been disproved.
Breton, The quoted Rule states that Bombs can only be used to make Shooting Attacks... if you make an attack with a Bomb, and it is not a Shooting attack, have you obeyed this Rule?
We understand your concern about Pistols, but pointing to one weapon type that might not fit the 'must be a shooting attack' requirement does not grant us permission to ignore the rest of the weapon types on that list. We could go into a whole discussion about how 'count as' Rules work, and start some arguments as there are different lines of thought on the matter, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We have a Rule that simply states that Bombs can only be used to make shooting attacks, so the only way around that would be for a more advanced Rule to inform us that we have permission to use a Bomb as a non-shooting attack. Given that the 'special attack' alluded to in the description of Bombs is not defined, either as a Shooting Attack or something other then a Shooting Attack, nothing changes the requirement for it to be a shooting attack to legally use this weapon-type.
Also, as I believe formatting does count even if Game Workshop is bad at it, do you not find it interesting that the definition of Bombs is found between Salvo Weapons and Primary Weapons? While the Close Combat Weapon explained section is isolated, having three rules separating it and the rest of the Weapon Profiles... almost as if they where grouping them together for some reason....
Breton wrote: Then someone misquoted it? The quote said all shootings attacks have a type-
Type
A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks.
Nowhere does the rule state only shooting attacks have these types. In fact I see one of them right now that makes attacks in close combat i.e. melee.
You actually make an extra attack for having the pistol. You don't attack with it or if you had a power sword you'd have to make an ap - attack for the pistol. It just grants you an extra attack via magic
People on your side are trying very hard to stretch the rules on a technicality. It's pretty clear what is meant. There is evidence for bombs being shooting attacks, none for them not. So the simplest answer is most likely correct. Not to mention it's relatively clear.
You can only vector strike if you jink because it doesn't roll to hit at all or use a template.
jakejackjake wrote: You actually make an extra attack for having the pistol. You don't attack with it or if you had a power sword you'd have to make an ap - attack for the pistol. It just grants you an extra attack via magic.
Umm.... No....
Pistols count as Close Combat Weapons in the Assault Phase. You can choose to use them instead of another weapon you are carrying. For example, if you have a Sergeant with a Pistol and Power Fist, you can choose to use the Pistol instead of the Power Fist, just in case you are willing to forgo the Str and AP to strike at Initiative. Interestingly enough, you would also get the +1 Attack for having 2 Melee Weapons.
Also, for some models, it is the only Melee weapon they have access to (Tactical Marines, for example).
Actually there is a quote from the BRB about them NOT being a shooting weapon.
Got the Italian version, so can't quote word by word, but it should be:
"Unless specified all weapons with a range of "-" are meele weapon. All weapons where the range is a number, template or hellstorm template are shooting weapons"
Bombs have "-" as range, which seems to imply that they are not shooting weapons.
Spoletta wrote: Actually there is a quote from the BRB about them NOT being a shooting weapon.
Got the Italian version, so can't quote word by word, but it should be:
"Unless specified all weapons with a range of "-" are meele weapon. All weapons where the range is a number, template or hellstorm template are shooting weapons"
Bombs have "-" as range, which seems to imply that they are not shooting weapons.
" unless otherwise stated "
"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."
Spoletta wrote: Actually there is a quote from the BRB about them NOT being a shooting weapon.
Got the Italian version, so can't quote word by word, but it should be:
"Unless specified all weapons with a range of "-" are meele weapon. All weapons where the range is a number, template or hellstorm template are shooting weapons"
Bombs have "-" as range, which seems to imply that they are not shooting weapons.
" unless otherwise stated "
"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."
Yeah and that's the part that makes it all quite confusing.
So all considered we are told that:
Bombs are not shooting weapons (range "-" and never referred as shooting weapons), but shooting weapons can be bombs!
I think that someone divided by zero.
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way, this is how ETC ruled it:
When using a Bomb of any kind, treat the bomb/bombing run as having been fired with the barrage rules
for purposes of LOS, cover and vehicle armor facings, unless a specific Bomb's rule state otherwise.
Bombs/Bombing Runs cannot be executed when a Flyer has jinked. A bomb/bombing run isn't a shooting
attack and as such can be fired at a unit under the effects of Invisibility without the need for snapshotting.
Spoletta wrote: Actually there is a quote from the BRB about them NOT being a shooting weapon.
Got the Italian version, so can't quote word by word, but it should be:
"Unless specified all weapons with a range of "-" are meele weapon. All weapons where the range is a number, template or hellstorm template are shooting weapons"
Bombs have "-" as range, which seems to imply that they are not shooting weapons.
" unless otherwise stated "
"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."
Yeah and that's the part that makes it all quite confusing.
So all considered we are told that:
Bombs are not shooting weapons (range "-" and never referred as shooting weapons), but shooting weapons can be bombs!
I think that someone divided by zero.
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way, this is how ETC ruled it:
When using a Bomb of any kind, treat the bomb/bombing run as having been fired with the barrage rules
for purposes of LOS, cover and vehicle armor facings, unless a specific Bomb's rule state otherwise.
Bombs/Bombing Runs cannot be executed when a Flyer has jinked. A bomb/bombing run isn't a shooting
attack and as such can be fired at a unit under the effects of Invisibility without the need for snapshotting.
So, that's how the ETC sees it. As a TO, they can make up rules that do not exist.
But that's not how it's written. You are ignoring the "unless specified" part. The Bomb rules are specified as a Shooting Weapon which only makes Shooting Attacks. It's not a "divide by 0" situation, it's that you're forgetting a step before you divide that would change that 0.
Spoletta wrote: Actually there is a quote from the BRB about them NOT being a shooting weapon.
Got the Italian version, so can't quote word by word, but it should be:
"Unless specified all weapons with a range of "-" are meele weapon. All weapons where the range is a number, template or hellstorm template are shooting weapons"
Bombs have "-" as range, which seems to imply that they are not shooting weapons.
" unless otherwise stated "
"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."
But it does NOT the following types are always shooting weapons. All utensils have one or more of the spoon, fork, or knife types, does not make a tuning fork a utensil. All forks are utensils makes a tuning fork a utensil.
People on your side are trying very hard to stretch the rules on a technicality.
Thank you for matching your lackluster personal attack with an epic failure at trying to explain how pistols work in close combat. But congratulations on your two for one special, following up your "you people" with an argument by dismissal regarding the people who HAVE posted rules quotations questioning if bombing run/bombs are always a shooting attack/weapon.
You can only vector strike if you jink because it doesn't roll to hit at all or use a template.
That is aboslutely NOT why you can vector strike if you jink (I don't have the rules for vector strike so I'm not weighing in on if you may or may not). The rules for Jink say you must snap shot. The rules for snap shot says you may NOT fire snap shots with weapons that don't use BS or use a template, or blast, etc. Ergo your assertion that you don't roll to hit at all (i.e. don't use BS) is actually one of the OBSTACLES to Vector Striking while jinking. For all these rules being so clear cut in your mind, you sure are getting a LOT of them wrong.
Where we currently are:
"Unless specified all weapons with a range of "-" are meele weapon.
" unless otherwise stated "
"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."
The quoted rules say a weapon with a range of "-" is a melee weapon unless otherwise specified. The second quotation does not actually/quite specify that everything with the bomb(or other in the list) rule is a shooting weapon.
"Unless specified all weapons with a range of "-" are meele weapon.
" unless otherwise stated "
"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."
The quoted rules say a weapon with a range of "-" is a melee weapon unless otherwise specified. The second quotation does not actually/quite specify that everything with the bomb(or other in the list) rule is a shooting weapon.
Right, so if one can prove that it otherwise states that it is not a shooting weapon in a particular instance, Bombs are by default a Shooting Weapon, which means that they generate Shooting Attacks.
Since it mentions this after the Range notation, it can be safely noted as an "unless specified" situation, since it does, indeed, specify.
Are you really stating that the following Rule is not 'specific' enough to call the bomb a shooting weapon, even with a range of -? "A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo.
It is easy for us to state that the list is non-inclusive, very few things in reality are all inclusive, but we are talking about a Rule based system here. Within such systems you must include every exception to a rule within the Rulebook, or else the 'possible exception' is not legally supported because the Rules state otherwise. This is a problem when it comes to Game Workshop's writing, as they have literally put 'and so on' within a list before and that is just insane, but the fundamental concept still stands. Unless the Rulebook tells you that a Bomb attack is a non-shooting attack, then the Rule stating it is a shooting weapon and must be used to make a shooting attack is still in play.
Can you legally obey this Rule without making a shooting attack of some kind?
I'm saying that quote STILL doesn't say what you claim it does.
It says shooting weapons have 1+ of X.
It doesn't say ONLY shooting weapons have X,
it doesn't say if it has X it's a shooting weapon.
I'm saying the rules does NOT say that both rules are even in conflict. At no point does the quoted rule say that a melee weapon cannot have X, so the rule doesn't say otherwise.
Why does it have to state only within the Rule for that to matter?
This is a serious question as I think your mistaken on the fundamental concept of how a Rule system works. If a Rule states X, then it will always be X unless another Rule more specific to the situations states otherwise. It doesn't matter if the Rule allows 'wriggle room' for X to sometimes be Y... we still require a Rule telling us that they are Y in order to treat them as anything but X! Warhammer 40K is filled with examples of Rules telling us to resolve X as if it was Y, using terms such as 'count as' or 'treat as' to highlight when this is occurring, so it isn't some how uniquely void of this concept. If you disagree with the concept of a permission based system, requiring a written Rule to give us permission to legally proceed in any situation, please explain for us how the Rules actually work.
In this situation there is a Rule telling us that shooting weapons will have the Bomb type in their profiles, going on to state they can only make shooting attacks.... Do you have a Rule that states Bombs can also be found as non-shooting weapons and how to determine which is which? Do you have a Rule specifically stating that Bombs can be used to make non-shooting attacks, as that would also side-step the restriction?
Why does it have to state only within the Rule for that to matter?
Because the other rule says so?
One rule says weapons with range "-" are melee unless otherwise stated- Ergo another rule must ACTUALLY conflict and override the first one to state otherwise.
The two rules CAN coexist in harmony without one over-writing the other. Bombs CAN be a melee weapon with a range of "-" and the Bomb and Blast characteristics and not violate your second rule so it doesn't state otherwise.
Right, so if one can prove that it otherwise states that it is not a shooting weapon in a particular instance,
Can you please rephrase this? I'm getting a little lost in the if not otherwise- my brain is a bit fried from working too many days
Okay, we have two rules. One states that unless specified, weapons with a certain range are melee weapons. Then we see that Weapons with a certain type are noted as Shooting Weapons which can only make Shooting Attacks. The inclusion of the Bomb type as a Shooting Weapon is what qualifies as "unless specified". We do not have any other rules telling us that the Bomb type is NOT a Shooting Weapon.
Charistoph wrote: Bombs are by default a Shooting Weapon, which means that they generate Shooting Attacks.
Where does anything say bombs are a default anything weapon? They are by default neither melee nor shooting.
You just quoted the rule that states that they are by default, a Shooting Weapon. Or in other words, Shooting Weapons have many types, one of which is Bomb. So, unless the weapon tells us otherwise, it IS a Shooting Weapon.
Since it mentions this after the Range notation, it can be safely noted as an "unless specified" situation, since it does, indeed, specify.
Where? Where does it state bombs with range - are shooting? All bombs are shooting weapons? Bombing run is a shooting attack?
The quoted rule about all shooting weapons having one or more of those types does NOT say everything with those types is a shooting attack.
But by so qualifying them as Shooting Weapons as the default, we would need notification when they are NOT Shooting Weapons. So, since the Bomb rules and Bombing Run do not tell us they are not Shooting Weapons, it devolves to a case by case basis as to when a Bomb is not a Shooting Weapon.
I don't want to put words in your mouth so tell me if this is correct: Your argument is that the explanation of Weapon Types is not enough to be considered 'otherwise stated' to over-turn the Rule explaining how Range works?
I could do some mean Rule Laywering to prevent the illegal outcome that will cause, as Weapons with the Melee Type can only ever be used during a specific sub-phase of Assault, but that is beside the point. I am fixated on this concept that a Rule detailing how to determine if something is a 'shooting weapon,' with the restriction that shooting weapons can only make shooting attacks, clearly applies to the Bomb in question... but the restriction that comes with it can be safely ignored. Being fixated on the word only to create the conflict, how does that restriction work into your interpenetration of bombs as duel Shooting and Melee weapons?
If it is both a Shooting and Melee weapon, it would still be bound by a restriction telling us it can only make shooting attacks!
Then we see that Weapons with a certain type are noted as Shooting Weapons which can only make Shooting Attacks
Incorrect. We see shooting weapons have one or more of those types. It does not say if it has these types it is a shooting weapon. The rule being quoted about types is only half of what is needed for otherwise stated.
You just quoted the rule that states that they are by default, a Shooting Weapon.
No, because that's not what it says. It says to be a shooting weapon it has those types,it does NOT say everything that has those types is a shooting weapon. The types rule doesn't have anything about "unless otherwise stated", because it doesn't say those types are shooting weapons, it ONLY says shooting weapons have 1+ of those types.
If the best you can do is conclude that Bomb's are both Melee Weapons (without the Melee Type) and Shooting Weapons because the two Rules are not in conflict... that still does not allow us to ignore the Restriction that anything deemed a Shooting Weapons can only make Shooting Attacks!
JinxDragon wrote: I don't want to put words in your mouth so tell me if this is correct:
Your argument is that the explanation of Weapon Types is not enough to be considered 'otherwise stated' to over-turn the Rule explaining how Range works?
I could do some mean Rule Laywering to prevent the illegal outcome that will cause, as Weapons with the Melee Type can only ever be used during a specific sub-phase of Assault, but that is beside the point. I am fixated on this concept that a Rule detailing how to determine if something is a 'shooting weapon,' with the restriction that shooting weapons can only make shooting attacks, clearly applies to the Bomb in question... but the restriction that comes with it can be safely ignored. Being fixated on the word only to create the conflict, how does that restriction work into your interpenetration of bombs as duel Shooting and Melee weapons?
If it is both a Shooting and Melee weapon, it would still be bound by a restriction telling us it can only make shooting attacks!
My argument is that yes one rule says X, and the other does not quite say Y.
your interpenetration of bombs as duel Shooting and Melee weapons?
That is not my interpretation. I don't know what they are, I just know that Rule 1 says X, and Rule 2 doesn't say what people are claiming it does to over ride X. I also don't know that I believe Rule 1 was ever intended to apply to Bombs in the first place, but of the two, one is clear- melee unless otherwise specified, the other requires reading something into the rule that is not there i.e. the exclusion of other types of weapons having those types.
It's entirely possible that we're discussing a false dichotomy- that a bombing run is neither shooting nor melee- as the original point being made was that bombing run was a special attack, not a special shooting attack.
That is the part I can not grasp: How can a Rule, designed to explain what the different Weapon Types are, not apply to something that meets the definitions within?!
To put the question forth in another format: If this Rule does not define what is a Shooting Weapon, what Rule supplies that definition?
Then we see that Weapons with a certain type are noted as Shooting Weapons which can only make Shooting Attacks
Incorrect. We see shooting weapons have one or more of those types. It does not say if it has these types it is a shooting weapon. The rule being quoted about types is only half of what is needed for otherwise stated.
You just quoted the rule that states that they are by default, a Shooting Weapon.
No, because that's not what it says. It says to be a shooting weapon it has those types,it does NOT say everything that has those types is a shooting weapon. The types rule doesn't have anything about "unless otherwise stated", because it doesn't say those types are shooting weapons, it ONLY says shooting weapons have 1+ of those types.
And your statements have completely ignored my overall point.
We have rules detailing Bombs as Shooting Weapons by including them in their type list, where does it state that they are anything else?
Again if a rule says utenils are all either forks, spoons, or knives, that doesn't make a tuning fork a utensil, because it doesn't make all forks untensils, however it a rule says all forks are utensils, you can now eat your supper at the piano because your tuning fork is a utensil.
The people who say a bomb is a shooting weapon because it has blast and bomb and shooting weapons can have blast and bomb are making a logical shortcut.
They could just as easily make a Conscript Guardsman with a (melee) suicide vest (Large Blast). That doesn't break their rules for weapon types, though it would be admittedly hard to use wihtout special rule'ing the blast part.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And your statements have completely ignored my overall point.
We have rules detailing Bombs as Shooting Weapons by including them in their type list, where does it state that they are anything else?
Other than continuing to repeat the same assumption bombs are shooting because shooting CAN be a bomb/blast, what was your point?
Because my point is CAN is not MUST. So far the only rule quoted for a must is -melee for range "-" unless- . After that you've got can/might.
Breton, Your strawman is incorrect: If a Rule defines 'forks' as utensils, then for all Rule related purposes anything meeting that definition is a utensil unless a more specific Rule states otherwise. That is how Rules work, they have the power to redefine things to better fit the game, and we are forced to obey those new definitions if we want to play said game. This is quite a simple concept: we simply lack permission to apply our own personal definitions to each object, and must abide by the definitions put forth in the Rulebook. So please stop trying to use your own definitions to over-turn a written Rule that does attempt to define what 'Bomb' means when we see it on a Weapon Profile.
However; Seeing we can not convince you by quoting the one Rule in the book that defines Weapon Types, let me attack the problem from another angle. Assuming that the Weapon Type is meaningless for determining if something is or is not a shooting attack, we would need to look at another location within the Book and/or Codex's to find out this information. There is an Appendix that details Ranged Weapons, but it does not state that Ranged Weapons are Shooting Weapons and informs us the list within is only a sample of the most common weapons to be found. For the sake of this argument we will accept that Ranged Weapons are Shooting Weapons, and that Codex's will contain more items to be added to the 'Ranged Weapon' list if they are specific shooting weapons for that faction.
With that in mind: Where do we find the Pulse Bomb in the Tau Codex? Where do we find the Bigbomm in the Ork Codex? Burner Bombs are found under Flamer Weapons in the Ork codex, which are a subset of what section of the Codex? Note: There is also a weapon within this section that can be used in either Melee or Shooting attacks, how does it define this fact? Where are Status Bombs found in the old Dark Angels Codex?
If we conclude that the Weapon Type: Bomb does not automatically make it a Ranged/Shooting weapon, we still have every profile containing the Weapon Type of 'Bomb' listed as a Ranged Weapon. Therefore, the restriction preventing Ranged/Shooting Weapons from being used in anything other then a Shooting Attack still applies to all situations we will encounter in game.
Breton wrote: Because it's only half of a definition.
Again if a rule says utenils are all either forks, spoons, or knives, that doesn't make a tuning fork a utensil, because it doesn't make all forks untensils, however it a rule says all forks are utensils, you can now eat your supper at the piano because your tuning fork is a utensil.
A poor example since we already have a definition of a tuning fork that it is NOT a utensil.
Breton wrote: The people who say a bomb is a shooting weapon because it has blast and bomb and shooting weapons can have blast and bomb are making a logical shortcut.
They could just as easily make a Conscript Guardsman with a (melee) suicide vest (Large Blast). That doesn't break their rules for weapon types, though it would be admittedly hard to use without special rule'ing the blast part.
I don't see many people doing that except for an "after the fact" kind of thing.
We have a definition that a Bomb Type is a Shooting Weapon type. Do you have another definition listed in the Bomb section to tell it is otherwise?
And your statements have completely ignored my overall point.
We have rules detailing Bombs as Shooting Weapons by including them in their type list, where does it state that they are anything else?
Other than continuing to repeat the same assumption bombs are shooting because shooting CAN be a bomb/blast, what was your point?
Because my point is CAN is not MUST. So far the only rule quoted for a must is -melee for range "-" unless- . After that you've got can/might.
And again you ignore it. We have what it CAN be, do we have anything to say it is NOT or anything BUT?
Even that rule for Range is not truly a "must", since it allows for other options when specified. What could one of those other options be? Why, a Shooting Weapon that requires a model to have a movement path over the target in order to hit them. Hmm, that sounds just like a Bomb!
So, we have one definition that puts Bomb in the Shooting Weapons pile, but that is really it. Since that is all we have to go by, I will use that one.
JinxDragon wrote: Breton,
Your strawman is incorrect:
If a Rule defines 'forks' as utensils, then for all Rule related purposes anything meeting that definition is a utensil unless a more specific Rule states otherwise. That is how Rules work, they have the power to re-define things to better fit the game being played if the general definition does not apply. We simply lack permission to apply our own personal definitions to each object, and must abide by the definitions put forth in the Rulebook. This is not a difficult concept, so please stop trying to use your own definitions to over-turn a written Rule.
You appear to be misusing the "straw man" concept. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman I did not alter or provide your argument for you, certainly not with the utensil analogy.
However;
Seeing we can not convince you by quoting the one Rule in the book that defines Weapon Types, let me attack the problem from another angle. Assuming that the Weapon Type is meaningless for determining if something is or is not a shooting attack, we would need to look at another location within the Book and/or Codex's to find out this information. There is an Appendix that details Ranged Weapons, but it does not state that Ranged Weapons are Shooting Weapons and informs us the list within is only a sample of the most common weapons to be found. For the sake of this argument we will accept that Ranged Weapons are Shooting Weapons, and that Codex's will contain more items to be added to the 'Ranged Weapon' list if they are specific shooting weapons for that faction.
With that in mind:
Where do we find the Pulse Bomb in the Tau Codex?
Where do we find the Bigbomm in the Ork Codex?
Burner Bombs are found under Flamer Weapons in the Ork codex, which are a subset of what section of the Codex?
Note: There is also a weapon within this section that can be used in either Melee or Shooting attacks, how does it define this fact?
Where are Status Bombs found in the old Dark Angels Codex?
And NOW you're getting somewhere. Assuming your questions were rhetorical, you have established those listed bombs are ranged weapons via something that actually DOES establish it.
If we conclude that the Weapon Type: Bomb does not automatically make it a Ranged/Shooting weapon, we still have every profile containing the Weapon Type of 'Bomb' listed as a Ranged Weapon.
Therefore, the restriction preventing Ranged/Shooting Weapons from being used in anything other then a Shooting Attack still applies....
Sorry I misused the word so let me use the right one:
Your anecdotal argument is incorrect: If a Rule defines 'forks' as utensils, then for all Rule related purposes anything meeting that definition is a utensil unless a more specific Rule states otherwise. That is how Rules work, they have the power to redefine things to better fit the game, and we are forced to obey those new definitions if we want to play said game. This is quite a simple concept: we lack permission to apply our own personal definitions to each object, and must abide by the definitions put forth in the Rulebook. So please stop trying to use your own definitions to over-turn a written Rule that does attempt to define what 'Bomb' means when we see it on a Weapon Profile.
Breton wrote: Because it's only half of a definition.
Again if a rule says utenils are all either forks, spoons, or knives, that doesn't make a tuning fork a utensil, because it doesn't make all forks untensils, however it a rule says all forks are utensils, you can now eat your supper at the piano because your tuning fork is a utensil.
A poor example since we already have a definition of a tuning fork that it is NOT a utensil.
that was kind of the point- as an example that different things can share a set of characteristics.
Breton wrote: The people who say a bomb is a shooting weapon because it has blast and bomb and shooting weapons can have blast and bomb are making a logical shortcut.
They could just as easily make a Conscript Guardsman with a (melee) suicide vest (Large Blast). That doesn't break their rules for weapon types, though it would be admittedly hard to use without special rule'ing the blast part.
I don't see many people doing that except for an "after the fact" kind of thing.
We have a definition that a Bomb Type is a Shooting Weapon type. Do you have another definition listed in the Bomb section to tell it is otherwise?
No, you don't. You have a definition that says a bomb type CAN, MAY, MIGHT be a shooting weapon. Yet again, the logic in the sentence you're hanging your hat on only goes ONE direction, not both. If it's a shooting weapon, it will have 1+ of those characteristics. The logic does NOT turn around and say if it has one of those characteristics it's a shooting weapon.
And your statements have completely ignored my overall point.
We have rules detailing Bombs as Shooting Weapons by including them in their type list, where does it state that they are anything else?
Other than continuing to repeat the same assumption bombs are shooting because shooting CAN be a bomb/blast, what was your point?
Because my point is CAN is not MUST. So far the only rule quoted for a must is -melee for range "-" unless- . After that you've got can/might.
And again you ignore it. We have what it CAN be, do we have anything to say it is NOT or anything BUT?
Even that rule for Range is not truly a "must", since it allows for other options when specified. What could one of those other options be? Why, a Shooting Weapon that requires a model to have a movement path over the target in order to hit them. Hmm, that sounds just like a Bomb!
So, we have one definition that puts Bomb in the Shooting Weapons pile, but that is really it. Since that is all we have to go by, I will use that one.
Oh, you're right. The fifth time you try and use the same definition to prove something it doesn't prove is definitely the charm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JinxDragon wrote: Sorry I misused the word so let me use the right one:
Your anecdotal argument is incorrect:
If a Rule defines 'forks' as utensils, then for all Rule related purposes anything meeting that definition is a utensil unless a more specific Rule states otherwise. That is how Rules work, they have the power to redefine things to better fit the game, and we are forced to obey those new definitions if we want to play said game. This is quite a simple concept: we lack permission to apply our own personal definitions to each object, and must abide by the definitions put forth in the Rulebook. So please stop trying to use your own definitions to over-turn a written Rule that does attempt to define what 'Bomb' means when we see it on a Weapon Profile.
And that would certainly be the second half of my analogy- the half I was pointing out the Shooting weapons definition didn't have. The first half- the half mimicking the types definition- said utensils being either forks, spoons, knives, or combination.
I'm not going to bother continuing. If you really believe the Rule titled Type, that exists to explain what the Type section of the Weapon Profile represents, does not apply to weapon profile's containing the type: Bomb... all because an single non-Rule related anecdotal argument... then nothing we post here will ever convince you that you are incorrect.
If you really believe the Rule titled Type, that exists to explain what the Type section of the Weapon Profile represents, does not apply to weapon profile's containing the type: Bomb
There you go. Now you understand the straw man concept.
I really believe that a rule saying "shooting weapons have 1+ of X" does NOT say that "anything with 1+ of X is automatically a shooting weapon".
I believe a rule defining Ultramarines are primarily blue doesn't make a Dark Angels Librarian an Ultramarine.
And I believe this not because of a non-Rule related anecdotal argument but based on the rules of logic, reason, set theory, and language.
JinxDragon wrote: I'm not going to bother continuing.
If you really believe the Rule titled Type, that exists to explain what the Type section of the Weapon Profile represents, does not apply to weapon profile's containing the type: Bomb... all because an single non-Rule related anecdotal argument... then nothing we post here will ever convince you that you are incorrect.
The example just isn't that great. Technically - and that's the only kind of "right" for Raw - he is right.
Another analogy(since that is what you call these I believe ) :
Identifying vehicles
Cars can be one or more of the following types: Fast, four wheeled, aerodynamic, fuel powered, electric.
You argue now that both a fighter jet and a truck are cars since one is fuel powered, the other is both fast and aerodynamic. Possibly a vibrator since it's electric,although we lack a proper definition of vehicles in general to make sure.
Actually, the poorly worded Rule explaining the Range section of the profile does contain a criteria that can determine if something is a 'shooting weapon.' If you really wanted to Rule Lawyer it, and this is the right forum to do so, I would focus more on that little fact. Simply stating the failure to meet any of the criteria listed within this Rule is enough to dismiss it as a Shooting Weapon should be enough to create the ambiguous you are looking for in the Type Rule. This might leave some weapons in an ambiguous state, the good old Bomb being the most obvious but there are others, but these 'broken Loopholes' are why I can't look away from the train-wreck that is Game Workshop Rules and why I came to this forum in the first place.
Of course, this makes it a puzzle why the Authors decided to put a number of shots after the Bomb, as only Shooting weapons have permission to fire multiple shots. That would mean the number of shots is as meaningless on a non-Shooting Weapon as Twin-Linked is. Nor does it make sense for Bombs to be listed along side other Shooting Weapons within the Ranged section of every Codex, instead of within the Melee Weapon section where anything with Range - would clearly belong by the Range rule. There are many other possible broken Rules that no longer apply to Bombs under this interpretation, even some Restrictions that may be nice to get around, so I will leave others to explore the possibilities.
I will however like to bring up another problem with the Ranged Rule defining what a Shooting Weapon is.
There are a handful, a very small number, of Weapon Profiles with the Range of Infinity. Unless you conclude that infinity is a number, then it will never meet the criteria of a Shooting Weapon either. If you have some time to research if the word infinity is a number or a concept, I really recommend running the question through google as mathematician have some interesting things to say about infinity and how it is not a number at all. This could be very beneficial for some Weapons, though I don't really know how it would off the top of my head, but it defiantly will cause problems with any Rule that single out Shooting Weapons such as "Select Another Weapon." Guess the lesson to be had is simple: Make sure you fire the Weapon with the range of infinity first.. as any weapon can be nominated for the initial shot but only Shooting Weapons can be nominated for any sequential Shots.
In any case, this makes me happy as all Game Workshop screw-ups always do!
I think both sides of this are right and wrong. They correctly identified rules that shows that bombs are not shooting weapons and that they are instead shooting weapons.
The point is that there is no solution here, it's not a matter of finding the correct meaning of the rule. There is a mistake in the rules, a clear contradiction.
Just follow this:
"A bomb is a special type of weapon reserved to Flyers and FMC....they must be used in a special attack called bombing run"
The first part seems to say that they indeed fall into the range "-" weapons and are specified as a "Special type of weapon".
Also "Shooting weapons can only be used to perform shooting attacks" but bombs "they must be used in a special attack called bombing run", so by definition bombs cannot be ranged weapons.
And yet: "Shooting weapons must be of the following types:....bombs..."
There is no way out, it's a plain contradiction inside the BRB. How can it say that a shooting weapon can be a bomb when by definition it violates the basic rule of shooting weapons that they can only perform shooting attacks, while bombs have a special attack.
Spoletta wrote: How can it say that a shooting weapon can be a bomb when by definition it violates the basic rule of shooting weapons that they can only perform shooting attacks, while bombs have a special attack.
Altering the general rules is what special rules do.
As a general rule, ranged weapons can only be used a specific way.
Bombs, as a specific type of ranged weapon, have special rules that alter the way they function from to be different from other ranged weapons.
That's not a contradiction. It's how rules are supposed to work.
- Bombs are always listed under Ranged Weapons, they are ranged weapons (codex and BRB).
- Bombs don't make shooting attacks, they make a special kind of attack called Bomb Run, here the special rule overlaping the general rule of "Ranged weapons make shooting attacks"
- Rule for Snap Shots says:
any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot"
Since Bombs are NOT shooting attacks (although they are ranged weapons) they can still be used
-But also in contradiction
Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots..
Since Bombs ARE Weapons, and have the Blast special rule, it can't be fired as snap shots. Unless "Bomb Runs" means bombs are not "fired". In that case, this rule won't apply.
HIWPI dropping a bomb is basically the same as "firing" a bomb - it's just not what you call it when you pull the trigger. If you can't fire a cannon, you can't drop a bomb. In both cases you gotta pull the trigger at the right momement and you're otherwise too occupied/distracted/distraught to do so properly. Since the game doesn't want to increase the scatter, you're simply unable to use the weapon.
RAW might or might not allow it, but I'd lean toward the "it actually allows it" - but only because the rules are worded incredibly poor. A few VERY minor changes to the rules would've turned the entire thing around and my best guess is that the RAI is "no, you cannot" and RAW turned out as it is simply due to really poor wording choices.
nekooni wrote: HIWPI dropping a bomb is basically the same as "firing" a bomb - it's just not what you call it when you pull the trigger. If you can't fire a cannon, you can't drop a bomb. In both cases you gotta pull the trigger at the right momement and you're otherwise too occupied/distracted/distraught to do so properly. Since the game doesn't want to increase the scatter, you're simply unable to use the weapon.
Actually, it's very different from firing a cannon, it requires much less aiming... It's more like "Pass by and let it drop", you aim the inertial force of droping something from a vehicle in movement. Of course, if you are maneuvering to avoid fire, it'll be quite difficult to pass by the point you want to let the bomb drop, and since we are talking about zooming or swooping, even spining 360° may put the drop door on top instead bottom at the momento they pass through the point you want to drop it.
nekooni wrote: RAW might or might not allow it, but I'd lean toward the "it actually allows it" - but only because the rules are worded incredibly poor. A few VERY minor changes to the rules would've turned the entire thing around and my best guess is that the RAI is "no, you cannot" and RAW turned out as it is simply due to really poor wording choices.
I agree to that, but since the discussion was about RAW, I focussed on that.
Actually, it's very different from firing a cannon, it requires much less aiming... It's more like "Pass by and let it drop", you aim the inertial force of droping something from a vehicle in movement. Of course, if you are maneuvering to avoid fire, it'll be quite difficult to pass by the point you want to let the bomb drop, and since we are talking about zooming or swooping, even spining 360° may put the drop door on top instead bottom at the momento they pass through the point you want to drop it.
Not really though - the only real difference is that a bomb is "dropped" and a cannon shell is "fired" - the difference is that one gets imparted only a slight vector (letting go and maybe some kind of mechanism to propel it out of the bomb bay) and the other one gets imparted a massive vector (due to propellant). But if you fired a shell from a barrel downwards from a plane, it would be easier to hit something since the flight time would be much shorter (since the projectile would fly much faster). Dropping the same shell (which basically makes it a bomb) and hitting something is much harder.
It seems much more of a stretch to assume that a bomb is not, in fact, a shooting weapon that can only make shooting attacks than it does to assume a bombing run is a special kind of shooting attack
jokerkd wrote: It seems much more of a stretch to assume that a bomb is not, in fact, a shooting weapon that can only make shooting attacks than it does to assume a bombing run is a special kind of shooting attack
Its no stretch at all. Its basic logic. As Brenton keeps trying to point out that fact that a shooting weapon can be a bomb, does not mean that all bombs must be shooting weapons.
What he have here is two rules:
"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo.
and
"A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."
If we change this up to more familiar terms:
"An American citizen always has one of the following blood types: A, B, O or AB."
"An American citizen can only drive pick-up trucks and wear cowboy hats."
Its no more a stretch that a weapon with the bomb type is not a shooting weapon and as such is not limited to only making shooting attacks, then it is a stretch that Akira Kurosawa (blood type B) was not an american citizen and was not limited to only driving pick-up trucks and wearing cowboy hats.
jokerkd wrote: It seems much more of a stretch to assume that a bomb is not, in fact, a shooting weapon that can only make shooting attacks than it does to assume a bombing run is a special kind of shooting attack
Its no stretch at all. Its basic logic. As Brenton keeps trying to point out that fact that a shooting weapon can be a bomb, does not mean that all bombs must be shooting weapons.
What he have here is two rules:
"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo.
and
"A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."
And I kept asking him to tell me where it says when they are not, but he kept refusing to actually answer it. It's not enough to just say, "not all bombs must be shooting weapons", one must demonstrate when they are specifically stated as not.
jokerkd wrote: It seems much more of a stretch to assume that a bomb is not, in fact, a shooting weapon that can only make shooting attacks than it does to assume a bombing run is a special kind of shooting attack
Its no stretch at all. Its basic logic. As Brenton keeps trying to point out that fact that a shooting weapon can be a bomb, does not mean that all bombs must be shooting weapons.
What he have here is two rules:
"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo.
and
"A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."
And I kept asking him to tell me where it says when they are not, but he kept refusing to actually answer it. It's not enough to just say, "not all bombs must be shooting weapons", one must demonstrate when they are specifically stated as not.
Sorry, but that's not how the rules work. 40k is a permission based ruleset which means that unless it is clearly stated that "You can do X" or "Y is a thingy of type Z", it isn't: So you(!) have to come up with the rule that says what kind of weapon Bombs are, not the other way around - because if no rule exists, it's not defined as you claim.
How to have an intelligent rules debate wrote:"The rules don't say I can't!"
This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.
How to have an intelligent rules debate wrote:"The rules don't say I can't!"
This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.
Actually there is. You can only use models that are in play on the table. To enter play it is specified there are only 3 ways to do so: Deployed at the start of the game, Reserves, Ongoing reserves.
Models in the table that do not entered from reserves/ongoing reserves or were deployed at the start, are not in play, even though they are on the table.
Back to bombs and jink.
Bombs May be Ranged weapons... but still, I think they are not shooting attacks. Look at these rules:
Psychic Phase wrote:-Witchfire powers are shooting attacks -A nova power automatically targets and hits all enemy units (including Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures) within the psychic power’s maximum range, regardless of line of sight, being locked in combat, intervening models/terrain and so on. Otherwise, a nova is treated like a shooting attack
Shooting Phase wrote:-NOMINATE A UNIT TO SHOOT: During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.-
-any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot
-A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks.
Charge Sub-Phase wrote:-To resolve a charge, use the following procedure:
• First, pick one of your units, and declare which enemy unit it wishes to charge.
• Then, the target enemy unit gets to make a special kind of shooting attack called Overwatch (see below).
• Once Overwatch is resolved, roll the charge distance for the unit and, if it is in range, move it into contact with the enemy unit – this is sometimes called ‘launching an assault’.
1) Shooting attacks made outside the Shooting Phase are clearly specified to be Shooting Attacks. (witchfire, overwatch)
2) Overwatch are a special kind of shooting attack, while Bomb Runs are a special kind of attack never mentiones Shooting.
3) as everyone said:
-shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks general rule.
-Later we have: "Unlike other weapons, Bombs must be used in the Movement phase of their turn, in a special kind of attack called a Bombing Run."
So, Unlike other Shooting weapons, Bombs must be used in the Movement phase (no shooting Phase) in a special kind of attack (no shooting attack, not specified to work as a shooting attack)
So we have the particular rule of Bomb Runs Being Special kind of attack GO OVER the general rule of all shooting weapons being shooting attacks.
EDIT: 1) so Nova Psychic powers CAN'T be "fired" as snap shots, because except for targeting, they are treated as Shooting Attacks, so it's a shooting attack that does not use BS (due to auto hit) (If the psyker has gone to ground, can't use nova 'cause units that have gone to ground can only fire snapshots)
How to have an intelligent rules debate wrote:"The rules don't say I can't!"
This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.
Actually there is. You can only use models that are in play on the table. To enter play it is specified there are only 3 ways to do so: Deployed at the start of the game, Reserves, Ongoing reserves.
Models in the table that do not entered from reserves/ongoing reserves or were deployed at the start, are not in play, even though they are on the table.
Not my own example, I just quoted the article that quite frankly everyone should read. It's a sticky in YMDC.
But hey, lets do this if you're calling me out anyhow: where did you find that rule? provide actual proof, please. And what about summoning? Those models come from entirely outside the game straight onto the table, don't they?
You're right on account of the whole permission-based spiel, of course - but you just made the claim that you wouldn't need it in that instance, didn't you?
There is a Rule that defines what a shooting weapon is: If it contains a number, or ‘Template’ or ‘Hellstorm’, it is a shooting weapon. - Range, Weapon Section
Of course, this is the same poorly written Rule that defines Bombs as 'Melee Weapons' even though they are always found in the 'Ranged Weapon' section within each Codex. This leads me to conclude that the Authors don't have a solid grasp on what they want 'Bombs' to be. The - is likely there to simply prevent us from using it during the shooting phase as any other Ranged Weapon, given all bombs are always in the Ranged Weapon section, as that represents a 0 and ensure the weapon is always out of Range. Thanks to the clause within the Rule explaining what the Ranged section of the profile means:
Bombs are Melee Weapons that have permission to be the initial shot in a Shooting Attack, since Select Another Weapon singles out Shooting Weapons, but will never be able to be 'shot' due to a Range of 0.... Luckily, they lack the Melee Type so they do not fall under the clause that prevents them being used outside of Close Combat!
Conjuration wrote:When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes
There you are, Summoning are treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes, so, for the rule purpose of entering play, they are treated as entering from Reserves via DS.
But I give you that right now I don't know if there is or is not a rule in the BRB that specifies you have to use models that entered play via Deploy/Res/OngRes, I'll have to read ALL the BRB again for that.
But let's stop the off topic, we can discuas via PM if you want.
Back to the Bomb-Jink, I have just showed Why the rules SAY IT IS NOT a shoooting attack, not that the rules DON'T SAY IT IS a shooting attack. There is no permission to think it is or it is not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JinxDragon wrote: There is a Rule that defines what a shooting weapon is:
If it contains a number, or ‘Template’ or ‘Hellstorm’, it is a shooting weapon. - Range, Weapon Section
Of course, this is the same poorly written Rule that defines Bombs as 'Melee Weapons' even though they are always found in the 'Ranged Weapon' section within each Codex....
Bombs ARE shooting weapons, are listed in the section "ranged weapons of the 41st Millenium", also in the section of "Ranged Weapon" in the Shooting Phase of the BRB and is listed with the Ranged Weapos of each codex. But Already covered that:
Myself wrote:
3) as everyone said:
-shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks basic rule*.
-Later we have: "Unlike other weapons, Bombs must be used in the Movement phase of their turn, in a special kind of attack called a Bombing Run." Advanced rule*
So, Unlike other Shooting weapons, Bombs must be used in the Movement phase (no shooting Phase) in a special kind of attack (no shooting attack, not specified to work as a shooting attack)
So we have the particular rule of Bomb Runs Being Special kind of attack GO OVER the general rule of all shooting weapons being shooting attacks.
Advanced rule: "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."
The Advanced Rule for Bomb and Bomb Run, that override the basic rule "shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks"
Wallur, I recommend starting a new thread on the Out Of Play issue.
As for the Ranged Weapons = Shooting Weapons... please tell me you have a Rule quote that shows these two terms are identical from a Rule as Written perspective. While I agree that Game Workshop is using Ranged and Shooting interchangeably within the Rules, that is nothing more then 'Rule as Intended' and I focus mostly on the Rule as Written within this forum. That is why I stated we needed to make some concessions when I pointed out that they where all in the Ranged Weapon section of each codex, as I lacked a specific Rule stating that Ranged Weapons are Shooting Weapons outside of 'common sense...' which means nothing from a Rule as Written perspective.
If you can push that interchangeability into 'Rule as Written' I would be so very happy, I would love for another layer of 'Game Workshop dun ****** up' to this whole situation!
jokerkd wrote: It seems much more of a stretch to assume that a bomb is not, in fact, a shooting weapon that can only make shooting attacks than it does to assume a bombing run is a special kind of shooting attack
Its no stretch at all. Its basic logic. As Brenton keeps trying to point out that fact that a shooting weapon can be a bomb, does not mean that all bombs must be shooting weapons.
What he have here is two rules:
"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo.
and
"A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."
And I kept asking him to tell me where it says when they are not, but he kept refusing to actually answer it. It's not enough to just say, "not all bombs must be shooting weapons", one must demonstrate when they are specifically stated as not.
Sorry, but that's not how the rules work. 40k is a permission based ruleset which means that unless it is clearly stated that "You can do X" or "Y is a thingy of type Z", it isn't: So you(!) have to come up with the rule that says what kind of weapon Bombs are, not the other way around - because if no rule exists, it's not defined as you claim.
How to have an intelligent rules debate wrote:"The rules don't say I can't!"
This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.
So why do you keep breaking the rule by saying something isn't when something says it is without actually backing it up? We have something that says it is a Shooting Weapon, or at least, one of the Types of a Shooting Weapon, which is tantamount to the same thing until we are told otherwise. At no point have we been told in a general sense that it is NOT considered a Shooting Weapon, nor the Bombing Run is NOT considered to be a Shooting Attack. Yet, you keep insisting on it.
Wallur wrote:3) as everyone said:
-shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks basic rule*.
-Later we have: "Unlike other weapons, Bombs must be used in the Movement phase of their turn, in a special kind of attack called a Bombing Run." Advanced rule*
So, Unlike other Shooting weapons, Bombs must be used in the Movement phase (no shooting Phase) in a special kind of attack (no shooting attack, not specified to work as a shooting attack)
So we have the particular rule of Bomb Runs Being Special kind of attack GO OVER the general rule of all shooting weapons being shooting attacks.
Advanced rule: "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."
The Advanced Rule for Bomb and Bomb Run, that override the basic rule "shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks"
Just because something is listed as "special" doesn't necessarily mean that it no longer qualifies as the original type, either. Bombing Run never tells us that it is NOT a Shooting Attack. It's specialness is based on how it processes its target and other special rules added in.
In essence, you just saying it is not, when no rule actually specifies that it isn't.
Until it says that you can no one will be using blast templated while snap shooting against me. Anyone who argues they should be able to is the exact kind of player who sucks to play against but I'd let them because there is no point in arguing and I'm probably going to win anyway
There is nothing in the book that says in anyway that it is anything but a shooting attack.
The only reason it is special is because they way you resolve targeting combined with using a blast scattering 1 d6 i unique.
Since it can be a shooting attack and is never stated as being able to be used as anything else than you can only use it as a shooting attack unless somewhere granted permission to use it another way like with the pistol If it has different modes you can still only know the modes you are aware of. Or are you going to declare you are using the bombs "special kind of attack" profile instead of its "bomb shooting attack" profile. When you do that could you please make sure to classify they type of attack and be specific so I know it's legal for you to use it
If you can't logic that out though you probably aren't good enoguh to win anyway so it really doesn't matter
Wallur wrote:3) as everyone said:
-shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks basic rule*.
-Later we have: "Unlike other weapons, Bombs must be used in the Movement phase of their turn, in a special kind of attack called a Bombing Run." Advanced rule*
So, Unlike other Shooting weapons, Bombs must be used in the Movement phase (no shooting Phase) in a special kind of attack (no shooting attack, not specified to work as a shooting attack)
So we have the particular rule of Bomb Runs Being Special kind of attack GO OVER the general rule of all shooting weapons being shooting attacks.
Advanced rule: "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."
The Advanced Rule for Bomb and Bomb Run, that override the basic rule "shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks"
Just because something is listed as "special" doesn't necessarily mean that it no longer qualifies as the original type, either. Bombing Run never tells us that it is NOT a Shooting Attack. It's specialness is based on how it processes its target and other special rules added in.
So why do you keep breaking the rule by saying something isn't when something says it is without actually backing it up? We have something that says it is a Shooting Weapon, or at least, one of the Types of a Shooting Weapon, which is tantamount to the same thing until we are told otherwise. At no point have we been told in a general sense that it is NOT considered a Shooting Weapon, nor the Bombing Run is NOT considered to be a Shooting Attack. Yet, you keep insisting on it.
In essence, you just saying it is not, when no rule actually specifies that it isn't.
Because you can't make shooting attacks outside shooting phase unless stated otherwise. The examples of shooting attacks that CAN be made in other phases than shooting phase are:
-Witchfire (that are stated as being shooting attacks during the Psychic Phase)
-Nova (that actually ARE witchfire, subtype Nova, and it also specifies to treat it like a shooting attacks for all rules purposes besides Targeting, also during Psychic Phase)
-Overwatch (the rule also states it's a SPECIAL KIND OF SHOOTING ATTACK, during the Assault Phase)
JinxDragon wrote: Bombs are Melee Weapons that have permission to be the initial shot in a Shooting Attack, since Select Another Weapon singles out Shooting Weapons, but will never be able to be 'shot' due to a Range of 0....
Bombs runs happens during the movement phase, not the shooting phase.
Usually there are no attacks during the movement phase, unless a rule state it happends during it, in the BRB it mentions 2 attacks:
-Vector Strike. Since it uses the Flyer/FMC profile, would you say it's a nude melee attack that are resolved with the creature profile? Can a Flyer/FMY that has to make only snap shots do a Vector Strike Attack?
-Bomb Runs: That the book states it's a SPECIAL KIND OF ATTACK. if they would meant it was a shooting attack, they would copy-pasted from Overwatch: SPECIAL KIND OF SHOOTING ATTACK.
Since no attacks are made during movement phase, those attacks have no type at all (nor shooting, nor CC ) so, if meaning they are "special kind of attack" must keep the original type of attack, it's a Special kind of NO TYPE attack.
Vector Strike: When Swooping or Zooming, this model may savage its prey. At the end of the Movement phase, nominate one enemy unit not locked in combat that the model has moved over that turn.
Bombing Run: To make a Bombing Run, a Flyer must be Zooming; a Flying Monstrous Creature must be Swooping. Move the model that is making the Bombing Run, and then nominate one model that it passed over. Place the blast marker for the Bomb so that the central hole on the marker is over the target model, and roll a scatter dice.
JinxDragon wrote: As for the Ranged Weapons = Shooting Weapons... please tell me you have a Rule quote that shows these two terms are identical from a Rule as Written perspective
No, there is no actual quote rule that says "shooting weapons are ranged weapons"
Wallur, If a weapon fails to meet the 'Shooting Weapon' definition put forth within the Rules, and does not have another Rule stating it is a shooting weapon, how do we prove it is a shooting weapon?
Will admit the Must within the Bomb Rule itself does limit it to just the Movement Phase, stupid thing to overlook but I am excited over how broken this situation may actually be. The logic behind it was to show that the two are used interchangeably within the Rules themselves, even if it would be nothing more then Rules as Interpreted as nothing cements it in Writing. This is because first step to making a shooting attack is to nominate a Unit with a 'Ranged Weapon,' and the third step is to simply select 'a weapon...' it is only when we reach the Select Another Weapon stage that 'Shooting Weapon' becomes a requirement!
All it takes is the weapon being in the Ranged Weapon section of a Codex to allow the nomination of the Unit to start a Shooting Attack and, lacking a specific restriction against it's use, to carry out the initial shot. If Bombs are not shooting weapons, but are Ranged Weapons in every Codex, this shows that Game Workshop has created a possible loophole to be exploited and needs to be extra careful to prevent Rule Lawyering shenanigans. They have made it entirely possible, through Game Workshop simply failing to add a 'Must be used out of the Shooting Phase' Rule to one of these weapons, for a non-shooting weapon to be used in a shooting attack!
Bombing is a "special kind of attack", opposed to a "special kind of shooting attack".
We can't go around applying tags to rules without a reason, the same way we can't say that vector strikes are melee.
If i had a +2s to melee attacks would you concede me that bonus on vector strike? I wouldn't cause vector strike is never tagged as melee.
If i could twin link my ranged attacks would you allow me to twin link that blast? I wouldn't, the bombing run is not tagged as a ranged attack.
Yes, I agree that this rule is requires more information.
Another example: Can the target of the bomb use Jink? same discussion, if Bomb is a shooting attack, there is no reason not to use Jink vs the Bomb.
In my opinion, there is more evidence to declare it NOT a shooting attack. Already said why, plus the "-" range, that someone mentioned.
jokerkd wrote: It seems much more of a stretch to assume that a bomb is not, in fact, a shooting weapon that can only make shooting attacks than it does to assume a bombing run is a special kind of shooting attack
Its no stretch at all. Its basic logic. As Brenton keeps trying to point out that fact that a shooting weapon can be a bomb, does not mean that all bombs must be shooting weapons.
What he have here is two rules:
"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo.
and
"A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks."
And I kept asking him to tell me where it says when they are not, but he kept refusing to actually answer it. It's not enough to just say, "not all bombs must be shooting weapons", one must demonstrate when they are specifically stated as not.
Sorry, but that's not how the rules work. 40k is a permission based ruleset which means that unless it is clearly stated that "You can do X" or "Y is a thingy of type Z", it isn't: So you(!) have to come up with the rule that says what kind of weapon Bombs are, not the other way around - because if no rule exists, it's not defined as you claim.
How to have an intelligent rules debate wrote:"The rules don't say I can't!"
This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.
So why do you keep breaking the rule by saying something isn't when something says it is without actually backing it up? We have something that says it is a Shooting Weapon, or at least, one of the Types of a Shooting Weapon, which is tantamount to the same thing until we are told otherwise. At no point have we been told in a general sense that it is NOT considered a Shooting Weapon, nor the Bombing Run is NOT considered to be a Shooting Attack. Yet, you keep insisting on it.
The rules first have to say that Bombs are indeed a Ranged Weapon ("all Bomb type weapons are shooting/ranged weapons") in order to rescind that permission later (eg "even though it is X, it counts as Y in this instance").
The rule quoted says that something that is a shooting/ranged weapon has always one of the following types <insert List including Bomb>.
This is very much the same as the statement "A car always has an engine powered by one of the following types: gasoline, kerosine, hydrogen, liquid gas or electricity.".
While this is true (let's keep exceptions out of the discussion to keep it simple), it simply does NOT mean that every vehicle that has an engine powered by electricity automatically is a car. It could be a plane for all we know.
I've not seen a line that says "Bombs are always ranged or shooting weapons". All you've provided was "All shooting / ranged weapons must be of types X,Y or Bomb" - which is different.
Or did I overlook a rule quote at some point that did say otherwise?
It does not matter if bombs are a shooting weapon or ranged weapon or melee.
It matters if they are a shooting attack.
They are not a shooting attack, bombing runs do not happen during the shooting phase, and we are not told they are a shooting attack or counts as a shooting attack, e.g. = overwatch, psychic witchfires, some few powers like deathmarks out of turn shooting attack.
That bombs may have a weapon type does not make bombing runs a shooting attack.
If bombs were a ranged weapon, bombing runs would still not be a shooting attack, and the end result would only be that you could use bombs during the shooting phase in addition to any other time they were allowed as a shooting attack during that time. How that would resolve is a different highly crazy topic.
tldr- bombing runs are not shooting attacks, therefore it does not matter what type of weapon bombs are.
nekooni wrote:The rules first have to say that Bombs are indeed a Ranged Weapon ("all Bomb type weapons are shooting/ranged weapons") in order to rescind that permission later (eg "even though it is X, it counts as Y in this instance").
The rule quoted says that something that is a shooting/ranged weapon has always one of the following types <insert List including Bomb>.
This is very much the same as the statement "A car always has an engine powered by one of the following types: gasoline, kerosine, hydrogen, liquid gas or electricity.".
While this is true (let's keep exceptions out of the discussion to keep it simple), it simply does NOT mean that every vehicle that has an engine powered by electricity automatically is a car. It could be a plane for all we know.
I've not seen a line that says "Bombs are always ranged or shooting weapons". All you've provided was "All shooting / ranged weapons must be of types X,Y or Bomb" - which is different.
Or did I overlook a rule quote at some point that did say otherwise?
Again, we have them referenced as a Type of Shooting Weapon. Yet to be presented is how they are not. Range does not always qualify, as that rule states. So, I can show a Bomb is a Shooting Weapon until we are told otherwise.
You have presented a poor example in this case. The game has 2 types of Weapons, Shooting or Melee. They must fall in to one or the other. It is not Melee, and it is referenced as a type of Shooting. If the only types of Vehicles in existence were Cars and Horses, you would have a case, but such is not the situation here.
blaktoof wrote:It does not matter if bombs are a shooting weapon or ranged weapon or melee.
It matters if they are a shooting attack.
They are not a shooting attack, bombing runs do not happen during the shooting phase, and we are not told they are a shooting attack or counts as a shooting attack, e.g. = overwatch, psychic witchfires, some few powers like deathmarks out of turn shooting attack.
That bombs may have a weapon type does not make bombing runs a shooting attack.
If bombs were a ranged weapon, bombing runs would still not be a shooting attack, and the end result would only be that you could use bombs during the shooting phase in addition to any other time they were allowed as a shooting attack during that time. How that would resolve is a different highly crazy topic.
tldr- bombing runs are not shooting attacks, therefore it does not matter what type of weapon bombs are.
The Phase something happens does not disqualify it from happening. Both Interceptor and Ethereal Interception just simply state that the models fire their weapons in the Movement Phase, and yet never specifically mention making Shooting Attacks.
So, therefore, Bombs are a Shooting Weapon Type, and we are not told that it is anything else. Shooting Weapons only make Shooting Attacks. Bombing Runs are a special kind of Attack, but never noted as not being a Shooting Attack. The fact that is performed in the Movement Phase instead of the Shooting Phase is irrelevant to the discussion, as Shooting Attacks can happen in every Phase of the game from the beginning of Turn 1 when permission is stated, and it is so stated in the Bombing Run rule.
TL;DR: We do not have permission to treat Bombs as anything but Shooting Weapons, and as such, do not have permission to treat Bombing Runs as anything but a very modified Shooting Attack.
Therefore, until evidence is presented that specifically states that Bombs are not Shooting Weapons or that the Bombing Run is NOT a Shooting Attack, it is affected by situations requiring the possessing model to Snap Fire, and the target can declare a Jink against it.
That is not true, we are told that they can perform special attacks, advanced rule versus basic rule.
Once you are out of the restriction that all attacks are shooting attacks there is nothing stating that a bombing run is a shooting attack. Furthermore the fact that many other special attacks are specifically described as shooting attacks and this one is not, tends to imply that a special attack from a shooting weapon being a shooting attack is not a given.
Saying that a special attack is a shooting attack when not declared so, from a weapon we are not even sure is a shooting weapon, seems a bit stretched.
Bombing Runs Rule neither states it as Shooting nor not Shooting attack.
Saying it is a Shooting attack is as good as saying it is a non shooting attack.
Being a Weapon with no range plus the fact the rule says "special kind of attack" the same BRB that says that overwatch is a "special kind of shooting attack" makes me think it's more like a no shooting than a shooting.
It doesn't care of LoS, BS, Range.
The only requirement is that you Fly over (Zooming/Swooping) the target. The only difference with Vector Strike is that BombRun you choose the target before moving and Vector Strike you choose after moving (after moving everything)
And if you say there is only 2 kind of attacks, then If no A then B. If Vector Strike is not a shooting attack it is a melee attack, so if anything gives me a reroll to wound for melee attacks (like poison) I can re roll to wound for Vector Strike?
