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.

There is a clear distinction. They can not target flyers. Being allowed to snapshot does not mean you can target flyers.

Let me expound on my stance a little bit. The steps for shooting a lasgun are no different than shooting a bolter in game. They both have a normal set of rules that follow these steps, check LoS, Check Range, roll to hit, roll to wound. If something allowed those weapons to "hit automatically" they are still capable of making a snap shot, because the to hit roll is considered to be successful.

Now Shooting a flamer and shooting a bolter are very different even though they have the same strength and AP value. The flamer still checks Los, but it does not check range, nor does it roll to hit. Instead of rolling to hit we place the template and any models fully or partially under the template are hit. The flamer is not capable of making a snap shot, because it is an a weapon that does not roll to hit.

Although both the flamer and the bolter are shooting weapons, if the bolter hits automatically it can still make a snap shot, because we assume the ballistic skill check otherwise known as the to hit roll, is a number which passes. It is not a weapon that "does not roll to hit" it is a weapon that we assume passes the to hit roll. Those are two separate categories; automatically hit and does not roll to hit.

How can you shoot at something that you can not even target?

 Lone Dragoon wrote:


It is implied by the first question of the FAQ;
Q: Does a weapon that hits automatically, still hit automatically when
making a Snap Shot? (p13)
A: Yes.

That gives weapons that "hit automatically" permission to make a snap shot. If we look at the book, weapons that "do not use Ballistic skill to hit" cannot make a snap shot, that's fine we have numerous weapons that hit using a way other than ballistic skill; Flamers, Blast Markers, Line attacks, etc. However those have alternate ways of hitting compared to normal. Thus if an attack follows the normal pattern for shooting (measuring range, testing line of sight), except that it hits automatically it is capable of performing a snap shot.

Your definition of "implied" must be different from mine. The FAQ doesn't give blanket permission to make a Snap Shot with an auto-hit weapon in any way, it just gives permission to hit automactially if a Snap Shot is somehow made with said weapon, that's all, nothing more. You are jumping to a conclusion that is in no way supported by the RAW, RAI, or even the FAQ question you keep quoting.

If the question is asked, "Does a weapon that has a 36" range still have a 36" range when making a Snap Shot" ( with the obvious answer being "Yes"), then by your logic, all weapons with a 36" range now have permission to make a Snap Shot.

As well all know, GW loves to make weapons and powers that break the rules, so its not a stretch to imagine that some auto-hit weapon/power in the future will have a special rule that it can snap fire, but for right now, that doesn't exist, and so you are once again bound by the rules for what can and cannot make Snap Fire shots.

ClassicCarraway wrote:
Your definition of "implied" must be different from mine. The FAQ doesn't give blanket permission to make a Snap Shot with an auto-hit weapon in any way, it just gives permission to hit automactially if a Snap Shot is somehow made with said weapon, that's all, nothing more. You are jumping to a conclusion that is in no way supported by the RAW, RAI, or even the FAQ question you keep quoting.

If the question is asked, "Does a weapon that has a 36" range still have a 36" range when making a Snap Shot" ( with the obvious answer being "Yes"), then by your logic, all weapons with a 36" range now have permission to make a Snap Shot.

As well all know, GW loves to make weapons and powers that break the rules, so its not a stretch to imagine that some auto-hit weapon/power in the future will have a special rule that it can snap fire, but for right now, that doesn't exist, and so you are once again bound by the rules for what can and cannot make Snap Fire shots.

Tell me this, before the FAQ could a weapon that hits automatically even have made a snap shot? The answer is no, because before this faq there was no differentiation between a weapon that "hits automatically" and a weapon that "doesn't roll to hit." They were one and the same before the faq came out, which means that the weapon that hits automatically would not be able to snap fire period. With the new FAQ, that status quo has changed. Previously we would not have allowed a weapon that hits automatically to snap shoot, because it used to fall under the category of weapons that don't roll to hit. Now however a weapon that hits automatically can make a snap shot, because the faq tells us that "if the weapon makes a snap shot." That wording means that a weapon that hits automatically can snap shot, because it still hits when it snap shoots. Only weapons that don't roll to hit, blast markers, templates, lines, and the various witchfire abilities cannot make snap shots now, since we are told we need to make a snap shot to hit a flyer, and those powers cannot hit the flyer because we are told they cannot.

I'm pretty sure that the one FAQ should have read "weapons that use alternative methods of hitting such as bast, lines, large blast, or templates..." That said... what i say has no influence on how its played : )

I'm sure they'll fix this later... as of now this contentious wording is just poor choice and leaves us with a contradiction that only TOs will be able to deal with for now...

I have a pet theory: The "Yes" answer in the first FAQ (not errata) entry is just as much of a screwup as the now-infamous "Gliding" Monstrous Creatures in the page 3 FAQ entry.