Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

agnosto wrote:You can shoot a pistol....and it doesn't have an AP value in CC, it just confers an additional attack on an assault.

Please, someone show me one example of a close combat or other attack that has an AP.

Show me a rule saying only shooting attacks have AP.

It never states anywhere that ONLY shooting attacks have AP. Only ones have them listed, but that is NOT a bona fide rule.

Also, as I pointed out, pistols techincally have an AP and are CC. The Str and AP is ignored as they count as a "normal close combat weapon" but the AP on them does not "magically" disappear. There is a rule saying it just does not apply, as they are a normal CCW.

This pistol thing is just smoke when you attack with a pistol in CC it does not use an AP the argument about AP is that only shooting attacks use AP, the pistol does not use AP when it is used to attack in CC.

Not saying I agree with eth AP argument just pointing out the pistol thing is meaningless.

If it is not a shooting attack how does it do ANY damage? What game mechanics are you using for it to do ANY damage?

FlingitNow wrote:If it is not a shooting attack how does it do ANY damage? What game mechanics are you using for it to do ANY damage?

It is as meaningful as the AP arguement. Which is, admittedly negligible. As for the game mechanics, they are written into the Mawlock rules. Which, I think Gwar! is picking on the "template" thing again, btw.

kirsanth wrote:

agnosto wrote:You can shoot a pistol....and it doesn't have an AP value in CC, it just confers an additional attack on an assault.

Please, someone show me one example of a close combat or other attack that has an AP.

Show me a rule saying only shooting attacks have AP.

Show me a rule that says this is anything other than a shooting attack. I can't, you can't, nobody can. Show me the rule that says you can place a model on top of another model. Show me a rule that says you owe me a peanut butter and jelly sandwich when they FAQ this thing to shut up all the power gamers that want to make playing as non-fun as possible.

I have to give you credit for sticking to your guns.

kirsanth wrote:To wit:
Q. Is a vehicle hit by a Vengeful Tornado result
literally hit on its side armour, and therefore
does it get the ‘Obscured’ cover save if Njal
cannot see one of its sides?
A. No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack
and therefore allows no cover save.

Hey, a FAQ answer that breaks RAW that I can get riled up about finally, huzzah.
You'll also notice the question specifies obscured by physical obscurement from Njal, which we've already discussed non-shooting attacks not working correctly with.
Round and round.

kirsanth wrote:

agnosto wrote:You can shoot a pistol....and it doesn't have an AP value in CC, it just confers an additional attack on an assault.

Please, someone show me one example of a close combat or other attack that has an AP.

Show me a rule saying only shooting attacks have AP.

Everything that affects a CC weapon with AP or would give it an AP also goes on to clarify what type of CC weapon it is. Again, where is the AP rule under CC section? Basically there is precedent that if something has AP, it is a shot. The only way to calculate damage in the book with an AP value is under shooting. So either it's a normal (armor allowing) CC attack, a shooting attack or a third type that can't do damage.

Shorely the attack is supposed to be the "Flying Debris" being thrown up into the air around the Mawloc appears? So that would say to me that the attack is a ranged attack not a cc as the mawloc is not there to actually hit them?

fireflyer wrote:Shorely the attack is supposed to be the "Flying Debris" being thrown up into the air around the Mawloc appears? So that would say to me that the attack is a ranged attack not a cc as the mawloc is not there to actually hit them?

Where is the model on the board when it happens? It isn't. Why would it not be a "power weapon" attack then?

Gorkamorka wrote:You'll also notice the question specifies obscured by physical obscurement from Njal, which we've already discussed non-shooting attacks not working correctly with.

And you will notice the answer does not concern itself with the details, it is explaining how the general rules work. "No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack and therefore allows no cover save." Simplicity.

fireflyer wrote:Shorely the attack is supposed to be the "Flying Debris" being thrown up into the air around the Mawloc appears? So that would say to me that the attack is a ranged attack not a cc as the mawloc is not there to actually hit them?

Sorry, not even in the (lack of) fluff text for the rule "Terror from the Deep" does it describe it as flying debris or any other similar term that could be substituted as such.

Also, to answer Gwar!s inquiry, could it be that it uses the Large Blast Template? insted of the Large Blast Marker

So by RAW Vengeful tornado does no damage?

Demogerg wrote:Also, to answer Gwar!s inquiry, could it be that it uses the Large Blast Template? insted of the Large Blast Marker

Ding Ding Ding! We have a Weiner!

Have a cookie!

Gwar! wrote:

Demogerg wrote:Also, to answer Gwar!s inquiry, could it be that it uses the Large Blast Template? insted of the Large Blast Marker

Ding Ding Ding! We have a Weiner!

Have a cookie!

NOM NOM NOM

COOKIE!

(I actually will eat one of the cookies I store in my desk here at work for just this purpose)

EDIT: That cookie was Delicious.

I want a cookie too! I called that 7 posts earlier, LOL.

kirsanth wrote:I want a cookie too! I called that 7 posts earlier, LOL.

Yeah but no-one likes you

Oh, all right. Carry on then!



I do not really like sweets anyway.

hehe

On a topical note, however, there are a number of attacks that should be classified as shooting that are not. AP is a red herring, but there are a number of attacks that will cause issue without FAQ or assumptions.

it doesn't roll BS and hits, it just happens. No cover save.

kirsanth wrote:AP is a red herring, but there are a number of attacks that will cause issue without FAQ or assumptions.

Such as? Please try to list ones that match the criteria to this one.

Spore mines drifting.

FlingitNow wrote:

I disagree that it is not a shooting attack, or at least that it does not follow the mechanics for shooting type attacks. However, it is entirely possible that GW accidentally created a 3rd type of damage allocation that was neither shooting nor melee based.

Yeah denying it s shooting attack begs the question of whether it can do any damage at all, if you are not using the shooting mechanics what mechanics are you using for determining the damage? If you are using the assault mechanics then why the AP as that is meaningless and everything gets it's armour save. I'm not sure how else you can do damage without using either set of mechanics.

Are you checking for LoS? Are you rolling a D6-BS to determine the final resting place of the marker? Does the rule say to work out the hit using the rules for Blast Markers? Its execution and resolution are all self-contained. Meaning the mechanics you are looking for are all spelled out in the rule itself. Terror from the Deep is a Deep Strike attack. The rule simply states that models wholly or partially covered by the marker are hit with a ST6 AP2 hit. Vehicles are hit on the blah, blah, blah. There is nothing in the rule that states it counts as a shooting attack. I'm not seeing how you can infer it to be, or even count as, a shooting attack.

I agree with Demogerg that if the unit hit by Terror from the Deep is provided a Cover Save outside of the normal rules for determining and awarding such a save (e.g., KFF, Venomthrope, etc) then the affected unit should get a cover save.

Slightly off topic...Isn't there a bit about units that are locked in combat must try to stay in B2B with enemy models. If so, I like the ability of the Mawloc to potentially break apart an assault on my turn Though I think in practice that's going to be tough to pull off.

-Yad

It would be from the same codex >.< This things needs a damn FAQ already. I would still classify those as cover save-able (assuming we're just talking about the template going off, not when they initially DS in).

Allowing a 4+ cover save until the FAQ is out will be probably the route to go for those who do not like confrontations.

tetrisphreak wrote:Allowing a 4+ cover save until the FAQ is out will be probably the route to go for those who do not like confrontations.

Kinda hard considering we play a table top war game.

I know, funny right? I prefer a contest of wit against a friend to a screaming match over whether or not a toy soldier dies, however. I try to take the high road but have been known to throw a few temper tantrums of my own once in a while.

Even though I think they do get one, I know another side with a halfway decent argument exists so I'm willing to D6 it til then. IRL I'd never nitpick this much, but that's what the internet is for

but that's what the internet is for

I was realiably informed it was for porn I know it was true they had a song and everything!

comment withdrawn

Aftersong wrote:maybe this has been mentioned (I only read the first and last page of the thread) but can someone give me an example of a non shooting attack with an ap value? Otherwise I'm fairly certain AP=shooting=able to take a coversave.

Do you get a coversave vs swooping hawk det packs? they don't "shoot" them

This has already been mentioned. On this same page. The one you allegedly read.