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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Find where wall of death States it turns the firing into a snapshot. Page and graph please.

Wall of Death is a specific rule that overrides snap shots during Overwatch.

Invisibility is a specific rule that invokes the general rule snap shots.

So I see a specific versus specific conflict here.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Find where wall of death States it turns the firing into a snapshot. Page and graph please.

Wall of Death is a specific rule that overrides snap shots during Overwatch.

Invisibility is a specific rule that invokes the general rule snap shots.

So I see a specific versus specific conflict here.

AFAIK, one does not supersede the other, right?

 Mulletdude wrote:
1) If a unit it charged, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (BRB pg 45 - Overwatch)
P->Q
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired. (BRB pg 173 - Wall of Death)
Q->S
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
P->S
4) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (New assumption, previously agreed to be true)
R->Q
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
R->S

Premises 1 thru 4 are agreed to be true. Premises 1 and 4 have the same Q. Therefore, because premise 2 is true, premise 5 must be true because of Hypothetical Syllogism. If someone can find fault with this Logic I'd love to know.

Your premise 2 is still missing the caveat that Overwatch with template weapons is allowed as a specific exception to the normal requirement to be able to Snap Fire.


Which renders your '5' incorrect, because the template weapon doesn't fire snap shots.

Or, more precisely, your '5' becomes "If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch, but will be unable to fire Wall of Death shots as they are not Snap Shots."

 jreilly89 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Find where wall of death States it turns the firing into a snapshot. Page and graph please.

Wall of Death is a specific rule that overrides snap shots during Overwatch.

Invisibility is a specific rule that invokes the general rule snap shots.

So I see a specific versus specific conflict here.

AFAIK, one does not supersede the other, right?

Hence why I don't know if there is a real answer without a GAQ.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
You're absolutely right, but it's pointless to try to stop the bickering. Unfortunately, there is a certain class of player, who don't understand the rules of good debate, who rely one accusing their opponents their opponents of logical fallacies (generally the same logical fallacies they themselves are fall prey to), ad hominem attacks (often, as seen above, while using ad hominem attacks themselves), and an unshakable belief in the superiority of their own interpretations (often making assertions while refusing any burden of proof, yet expecting the other side to fulfil said burden) to win arguments (or rather, to grind everyone's patience down to the point that they stop arguing). These kinds of players are incapable of having an intelligent debate, because they do not know how to assume good faith, they cannot acknowledge, and therefore debate, the merits of different viewpoints, and their only goal is to "win" the argument (not surprisingly, these are the same types of players nobody wants to play with, because of the same type of attitude). And unfortunately, those are the types of players carrying this thread (and the majority of threads in YMDC).

So yeah, it's about time for this thread to end. But I don't think that's gonna happen without the mods just closing it.

And seriously people, it's a game. It's supposed to be fun, not...this

You seem to be reading a completely different thread, because this one has been fairly civil so far, aside from the two posts from you slinging off at people for wanting to discuss the rules.


The point of a rules discussion isn't to 'win' it. The point of a rules discussion is to discuss the rules, so that people can see the various interpretations of those rules that are available, and from there make up their minds as to how they will choose to play it.

If that's not something you're interested in doing, then perhaps a rules discussion board is not the place for you.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:
1) If a unit it charged, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (BRB pg 45 - Overwatch)
P->Q
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired. (BRB pg 173 - Wall of Death)
Q->S
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
P->S
4) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (New assumption, previously agreed to be true)
R->Q
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
R->S

Premises 1 thru 4 are agreed to be true. Premises 1 and 4 have the same Q. Therefore, because premise 2 is true, premise 5 must be true because of Hypothetical Syllogism. If someone can find fault with this Logic I'd love to know.

Your premise 2 is still missing the caveat that Overwatch with template weapons is allowed as a specific exception to the normal requirement to be able to Snap Fire.


Which renders your '5' incorrect, because the template weapon doesn't fire snap shots.

Or, more precisely, your '5' becomes "If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch, but will be unable to fire Wall of Death shots as they are not Snap Shots."

I'm sorry, I think I'm just blind at this point, but how does adding that caveat make 5 incorrect?

 insaniak wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:
1) If a unit it charged, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (BRB pg 45 - Overwatch)
P->Q
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired. (BRB pg 173 - Wall of Death)
Q->S
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
P->S
4) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (New assumption, previously agreed to be true)
R->Q
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
R->S

Premises 1 thru 4 are agreed to be true. Premises 1 and 4 have the same Q. Therefore, because premise 2 is true, premise 5 must be true because of Hypothetical Syllogism. If someone can find fault with this Logic I'd love to know.

Your premise 2 is still missing the caveat that Overwatch with template weapons is allowed as a specific exception to the normal requirement to be able to Snap Fire.

Which renders your '5' incorrect, because the template weapon doesn't fire snap shots.

Or, more precisely, your '5' becomes "If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch, but will be unable to fire Wall of Death shots as they are not Snap Shots."

According to that statement, if premise 5 is incorrect then premise 3 is incorrect, as they both draw off the same premise 2. This means you are saying that units can never fire overwatch with template weapons under any circumstances, invisible or not.

If I change premise 2 to read as follows:
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.
then premise 3 reads:
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.
which also means premise 5 reads:
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.

I have incorporated the caveat you have said I missed. My logic still holds that Wall of Death works regardless if the unit is invisible or not.

Only if you are counting Invisibility as the normal requirement which it is not. You have two restrictions with permission to ignore one. That does not mean you ignore the other.

Gravmyr wrote:
Only if you are counting Invisibility as the normal requirement which it is not. You have two restrictions with permission to ignore one. That does not mean you ignore the other.

The restrictions, however, are the exact same. When overwatching a unit, the shots fired are snap shots. When overwatching an invisible unit, the shots fired are snap shots. If I ignore the snap shot requirement for the non-invisible unit, then I ignore the snap shot requirement of the invisible unit (for overwatch only)

Now that I'm not typing on my phone and have a rule book open in front of me I think I'm making better sense of this mess. So here's what I see in this mess and people can tell me I'm wrong after I lay it out:

1. Snap Shots is a general rule that says templates and blasts can not be fired. (pg. 33)

2. Wall of Death is a specific rule that overrides Snap Shots during overwatch. ("Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they can not fire Snap Shots...") (pg 173)

3. Invisibility is a specific rule that says all shots from enemy units fired at it can be snap shots (which is a general rule).

4. When firing Overwatch you also can only fire Snap Shots, something that is specifically negated by Wall of Death if firing a Template Weapon.

So by what I am looking at Invisibilty forces everyone to BS1 as per the snap shot rule during the assault phase (something that Overwatch does as well), but during when using Overwatch Wall of Death specifically overrules the firing restriction.

I'd argue based on this that the specific rule invoking the general one does not negate the specific rule that says negates the snap shot restriction on template weapons.

 Mulletdude wrote:

According to that statement, if premise 5 is incorrect then premise 3 is incorrect, as they both draw off the same premise 2.

And where Invisible units are concerned, that is indeed the case. Because premise 3 doesn't take into account units that can only be fired at with snap shots.

If I change premise 2 to read as follows:
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.
then premise 3 reads:
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.
which also means premise 5 reads:
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.

I have incorporated the caveat you have said I missed. My logic still holds that Wall of Death works regardless if the unit is invisible or not.

Nope. Your 5 still ignores the fact that invisible units can only be fired at with Snap Shots.

An allowance to ignore the snap fire requirement for Overwatch is not an allowance to ignore the snap fire requirement for Invisibility, because Overwatch and Invisibility are two completely separate rules.

You're falling into the same logic hole that used to have people arguing that Fleet units could assault after Deep Striking, because they could run, and Fleet allowed assaulting after running... The removal of one restriction has no impact on a completely separate restriction, even if those two restrictions are on the same action.

Invisibility is a seperate rule but it invokes a general rule which has a specific override.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:

According to that statement, if premise 5 is incorrect then premise 3 is incorrect, as they both draw off the same premise 2.

And where Invisible units are concerned, that is indeed the case. Because premise 3 doesn't take into account units that can only be fired at with snap shots.

If I change premise 2 to read as follows:
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.
then premise 3 reads:
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.
which also means premise 5 reads:
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.

I have incorporated the caveat you have said I missed. My logic still holds that Wall of Death works regardless if the unit is invisible or not.

Nope. Your 5 still ignores the fact that invisible units can only be fired at with Snap Shots.

An allowance to ignore the snap fire requirement for Overwatch is not an allowance to ignore the snap fire requirement for Invisibility, because Overwatch and Invisibility are two completely separate rules.

You're falling into the same logic hole that used to have people arguing that Fleet units could assault after Deep Striking, because they could run, and Fleet allowed assaulting after running... The removal of one restriction has no impact on a completely separate restriction, even if those two restrictions are on the same action.

They both are the same restriction though. The firing restrictions for overwatch are the exact same as the firing restrictions for invisibility.
The restrictions for fleet and reserves are completely different. One is a permission saying you can do X after Y (fleet). Reserves says you cannot X after Z. [sidebar: Wow that brings back the 5th ed memories xD. Although, afaik, this combination of rules has never been possible. 5th allowed for fleet charges and reserve charges, but 6th disallowed both]

Yeeaaahhh.

Reading through this as a non-participant, it seems pretty well argued, and makes overall sense, that WoD bypasses invisibility.
Specific > general
The specific wording of invisibility references to a general rule (snap shots)
WoD specifically rules that it bypasses a specific rule referenced by invisibility (snap shooting, rolling to hit)

Therefore, it seems to me as an impartial observer, WoD works on invisible guys.

It doesn't matter that they are the same. That is not how restrictions work in a permissive ruleset.

It is the same as assault transports and reserves though. Even though assault overrides the transport rule of no charging it does not override the reserves restriction stating no assaulting.

Gravmyr wrote:
It doesn't matter that they are the same. That is not how restrictions work in a permissive ruleset.

It is the same as assault transports and reserves though. Even though assault overrides the transport rule of no charging it does not override the reserves restriction stating no assaulting.

It's not that they are the same, but that they both invoke the same general rule: "Snap Shots". And because Wall of Death overrides that rule during Overwatch I stand by that it works regardless of why your firing snap shots during Overwatch.

In a nutshell it requires an FAQ.

According to Invisibility, enemy units that target the invisible unit may only fire snapshots and can only hit the unit on 6s in close combat.

This causes problems for Nova, Beam, No escape, Hammer of Wrath, Wall of Death, and any other shooting or close combat ability which hits automatically. Because if it hits automatically it can't snapshot or roll a 6 to hit in close combat.

Basically, if it must fire snapshots or roll 6s in close combat to hit an invisible unit, the invisible unit becomes invulnerable to everything that hits automatically.

If, however, the rules that cause automatic hits do so without the need to fire snapshots or roll 6s in close combat (as implied by the phrase 'automatically inflict D3 hits') then there is no problem, unless you claim that "can only fire snapshots or hit on 6s" applies even to special abilities which state that they automatically inflict hits.

In other words, it requires an FAQ.

 Mulletdude wrote:

They both are the same restriction though. The firing restrictions for overwatch are the exact same as the firing restrictions for invisibility.

But they come from different sources.


Try this:
The general rules for my office say 'You're not allowed to have cookies!'
My wife says 'You're not allowed to have cookies!'

My boss says 'Today, staff can have cookies'.

If I eat a cookie, am I breaking a rule?


Quite clearly I am. The fact that the two rules are the same is irrelevant... they're being imposed by two different sources. In order to remove both restrictions, a rule has to specifically address both sources, not just one of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's not that they are the same, but that they both invoke the same general rule: "Snap Shots". And because Wall of Death overrides that rule during Overwatch I stand by that it works regardless of why your firing snap shots during Overwatch.

Wall of Death isn't just a blanket 'you don't have to fire Snap Shots, ever!' rule, though. It allows a weapon that can't fire snap shots to fire Overwatch anyway. ie: it's removing the Snap Shot requirement for that specific situation.

That has no effect whatsoever on any other rule that requires you to fire Snap Shots. It just removes the requirement to be able to Snap Shot to fire Overwatch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NightHowler wrote:
According to Invisibility, enemy units that target the invisible unit may only fire snapshots and can only hit the unit on 6s in close combat.

This causes problems for Nova, Beam, No escape, Hammer of Wrath, Wall of Death, and any other shooting or close combat ability which hits automatically.

At least a couple of the things on that list do not target the invisible unit, as has already been pointed out.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:

They both are the same restriction though. The firing restrictions for overwatch are the exact same as the firing restrictions for invisibility.

But they come from different sources.


Try this:
The general rules for my office say 'You're not allowed to have cookies!'
My wife says 'You're not allowed to have cookies!'

My boss says 'Today, staff can have cookies'.

If I eat a cookie, am I breaking a rule?


Quite clearly I am. The fact that the two rules are the same is irrelevant... they're being imposed by two different sources. In order to remove both restrictions, a rule has to specifically address both sources, not just one of them.

Your arguement breaks down that they come from different sources (like a codex and a rulebook) while both of these rules come from one source (the rulebook).

Both rules invoke the snap shot rule, snap shots during Overwatch is overruled by Wall of Death. There is no differentation between one kind of Snap Shots and another anywhere in the book, all Snap Shots are still snap shots. The only difference here is that in a very specific circumstance you have an override for that general rule.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:

They both are the same restriction though. The firing restrictions for overwatch are the exact same as the firing restrictions for invisibility.

But they come from different sources.


Try this:
The general rules for my office say 'You're not allowed to have cookies!'
My wife says 'You're not allowed to have cookies!'

My boss says 'Today, staff can have cookies'.

If I eat a cookie, am I breaking a rule?


Quite clearly I am. The fact that the two rules are the same is irrelevant... they're being imposed by two different sources. In order to remove both restrictions, a rule has to specifically address both sources, not just one of them.

That is a fair counter to my previous statement. Yes of course you're breaking a rule in your setup. Your setup is not the same as mine, however.
If I'm targeting an invisibile unit with a shooting attack, it must be resolved as a snap shot
If I'm declaring overwatch against an invisible unit, I'm declaring the invisible unit as the target of a shooting attack.
Therefore, if I'm declaring overwatch against an invisible unit, it must be resolved as a snap shot.

A template weapon cannot be fired as a snap shot.
Wall of death allows me to make a special shooting attack that causes d3 hits instead of making a snap shot in overwatch.
therefore, if I'm declaring overwatch against an invisible unit, Wall of Death allows me to make a special shooting attack that causes d3 hits instead of making a snap shot in overwatch.

I have satisfied the condition of only firing snap shots in overwatch because the wall of death rule gives explicit permission to fire a non-snap shot.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

It's not that they are the same, but that they both invoke the same general rule: "Snap Shots". And because Wall of Death overrides that rule during Overwatch I stand by that it works regardless of why your firing snap shots during Overwatch.

I assume then you allow units to charge out of assault transports after they come out of reserve?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Your arguement breaks down that they come from different sources (like a codex and a rulebook) while both of these rules come from one source (the rulebook).

Coming from the same book is irrelevant. The restriction is imposed by two different rules. That's what I meant by 'different sources'. Whether those two rules are in the same book or not makes no difference.

Both rules invoke the snap shot rule, snap shots during Overwatch is overruled by Wall of Death.

But Snap Shots to fire at an invisible unit is not.

You have two separate rules:

You can only fire Snap Shots in Overwatch
You can only fire Snap Shots at Invisible units.

Wall of death allows templates to Overwatch despite not being able to fire Snap Shots... it doesn't make their shots count as Snap Shots. So the weapon you are trying to fire at an Invisible unit, despite being allowed to fire Overwatch, can still not fire Snap Shots... and so can not fire at an Invisible unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mulletdude wrote:
Wall of death allows me to make a special shooting attack that causes d3 hits instead of making a snap shot in overwatch.

You're not doing it instead... you're doing it despite not being able to Snap Fire.

...the wall of death rule gives explicit permission to fire a non-snap shot.

Right. So the attack you are making against that invisible unit is not a snap shot. Which breaks the Invisibility rule, as that requires the attack to be a Snap Shot.

Its a simple matter of the more specific rule overriding other rules.

In this case we A) The rules for firing overwatch, B) The rules for wall of death, and C) The rules for firing at invisible units.

The rules for firing at the invisible unit is the most specific here.

The question is not can the unit fire overwatch, or can the unit fire overwatch using flamers. The question is can the unit fire overwatch using flamers targeting an invisible unit..

 insaniak wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
According to Invisibility, enemy units that target the invisible unit may only fire snapshots and can only hit the unit on 6s in close combat.

This causes problems for Nova, Beam, No escape, Hammer of Wrath, Wall of Death, and any other shooting or close combat ability which hits automatically.

At least a couple of the things on that list do not target the invisible unit, as has already been pointed out.

Can we go through them and discuss how each would be resolved?

Nova: (this one directly targets everything in range)
A nova power automatically targets and hits all enemy units within the psychic power's maximum range

Beam: (this one targets the unit indirectly)
To use a whitchfire power with the beam sub-type, target a point within the power's range and trace a line between the chosen point and the center of the psyker's base. All units under the line are hit. Each unit hit by the attack takes a number of hits equal to the number of models from that unit that are under the line.

No Escape: (this one targets the unit indirectly)
If a template weapon hits a building's fire point or an open-topped vehicle and there is a unit embarked inside that building or vehicle, then in addition to any other effects that unit suffers D6 hits, resolved at the Strenght and AP of the weapon.

Wall of Death: (this one could be argued to target the charging unit)
If a template weapon fires overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value.

Hammer of Wrath: (this one is a close combat attack, but invisibility says all close combat attacks must roll 6 to hit - not sure how targeting or not plays in)
If a model with this special rule ends its charge move in base or hull contact with an enemy model, it makes one additional attack that hits automatically and is resolved at the model's unmodified Strength with AP -.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Its a simple matter of the more specific rule overriding other rules.

In this case we A) The rules for firing overwatch, B) The rules for wall of death, and C) The rules for firing at invisible units.

The rules for firing at the invisible unit is the most specific here.

The question is not can the unit fire overwatch, or can the unit fire overwatch using flamers. The question is can the unit fire overwatch using flamers targeting an invisible unit..

I'm curious how you concluded that invisibility is more specific than wall of death...

Invisibility is a psychic power that forces other units to follow a general rule (snapshots)

Wall of death is a special ability under templates in the special rules section of the rulebook. It certainly seems more specific than snapshots to me, but then others may disagree.

Beams and No Escape don't target units. And Hammer of Wrath is not a shooting attack, so is not really relevant to the discussion.

 insaniak wrote:
Beams and No Escape don't target units. And Hammer of Wrath is not a shooting attack, so is not really relevant to the discussion.

Hammer of wrath is very relevant. It is part of the same game mechanic being discussed, mainly whether or not invisibility's ability to force enemy units to fire snapshots or hit on 6s overrides other abilities which cause hits automatically (without rolling snapshots or 6s in close combat).

Additionally, I'm curious how you feel about nova. Does it affect invisible units?

Gravmyr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

It's not that they are the same, but that they both invoke the same general rule: "Snap Shots". And because Wall of Death overrides that rule during Overwatch I stand by that it works regardless of why your firing snap shots during Overwatch.

I assume then you allow units to charge out of assault transports after they come out of reserve?

Does assaulting out of an assault transport specifically override the restriction for not being allowe to assault from reserves?

Yeah, your example doesn't work.

Which does not actually fit into a discussion of WoD and invisibility. You should start another thread if you want to look at others.

 NightHowler wrote:
Additionally, I'm curious how you feel about nova. Does it affect invisible units?

Novas target every unit in their AOE, which is a problem. Strict RAW as far as I can see would be that you can't use a Nova if an Invisible unit is in the AOE. More practical would be to just exclude the Invisible unit from its effects, although it seems more reasonable (and realistic) to allow Novas to hit them regardless of the RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Does assaulting out of an assault transport specifically override the restriction for not being allowe to assault from reserves?

Yeah, your example doesn't work.

Does Wall of Death specifically over-ride the requirement to only fire Snap Shots at Invisible units?

Gravmyr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

It's not that they are the same, but that they both invoke the same general rule: "Snap Shots". And because Wall of Death overrides that rule during Overwatch I stand by that it works regardless of why your firing snap shots during Overwatch.

I assume then you allow units to charge out of assault transports after they come out of reserve?

. That's hardly a fair comparison. The rules for assault vehicles specifically state "unless the unit arrived from reserve that turn". The rules for WoD do not specifically state, "unless the unit is invisible".

insaniak wrote:Beams and No Escape don't target units. And Hammer of Wrath is not a shooting attack, so is not really relevant to the discussion.

Hammer of Wrath is absolutely relevant, and he's as laid out several times his reasoning for believing it to be so, and asked you for your opinion on the difference between the two.

Per your logic, WoD cannot be used in Overwatch against an invisible unit, because Invisibility requires weapons to be fired as a Snap Shot, and WoD does not grant permission to fire as a Snap Shot, and so even though WoD auto-hits, the attack must be able to snap shoot in order for it to hit. It can't, so WoD doesn't work. I don't agree with that interpretation, but that is the one being used for this example.

Invisibility also requires a roll of 6 for models to hit and invisible unit in close combat.

By your logic, even though HoW also auto-hits, it cannot be used, because in order for it to hit the invisible unit, it must be able to roll a 6, and Hammer of Wrath does not create a permission for the unit to roll a die.

Under your interpretation, the two rules face a similar problem, and it is relevant to the discussion.

Dismissing an opinion is not the same as refuting it. If HoW is not relevant, then, please, enlighten us as to why.