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.

He is no longer "Stormcaller".

When using the effects of
Vengeful Tornado
and
Chain Lightning

Fron Njal's Lord of Furries Tempests

Would any of the effects allow for coversaves?

Does Chain Lightning strike vehicles on the facing you can see, or the facing of your choice?

What is the actual definition(if there is one) of "Unengaged enemy units" (Does it mean units that recently lost their fiancées?)

Do you roll the D6 once per unit, or once per "the abilities effect"

And lastly, does staff of the stormcaller have the same range as a runic weapon, or does it nullify ANY enemy psychic powers on the roll of a 3+?

Chain lightning is a shooting attack. So resolve as normal
If you are not engaged in close combat, you are unengaged.
It is a runic weapon that nullifies on a 3+. So it follows exactly the same rules as a normal Runic Weapon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Chain lightning is a shooting attack. So resolve as normal

Where does it say this?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you are not engaged in close combat, you are unengaged.

Agreed, but where is this defined?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is a runic weapon that nullifies on a 3+. So it follows exactly the same rules as a normal Runic Weapon.

Can anyone else back this up? ( I just want to be sure)

Chain Lightning happens during the shooting phase so maybe that makes it a shooting attack? It says unengaged enemy units, would that include tanks?
and Njal's staff is detailed on pg. 53 and 36 of the Space Wolves codex

1. Chain lighting isn't classified as a psy shooting, but since it's not a defined where the hit occurs the game breaks. Pack up your models and call it a draw since you can't continue. (it's not close combat or barrage so assume LoS)

2. Fail... there is no other place in the rulesbook that speaks of engaged or not engaged. You'd get laughed out of a store/tourney for trying to pull this one.

3. The entry states it's a runic weapon and quotes the page to find runic weapon rules.

BlueDagger wrote:1. Chain lighting isn't classified as a psy shooting, but since it's not a defined where the hit occurs the game breaks. Pack up your models and call it a draw since you can't continue. (it's not close combat or barrage so assume LoS)

2. Fail... there is no other place in the rulesbook that speaks of engaged or not engaged. You'd get laughed out of a store/tourney for trying to pull this one.

3. The entry states it's a runic weapon and quotes the page to find runic weapon rules.

Seems like the OP already knows the common sense or in some cases, RAW answers.
So he's either pushing for every inch, or is just trolling.

Che-Vito wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:1. Chain lighting isn't classified as a psy shooting, but since it's not a defined where the hit occurs the game breaks. Pack up your models and call it a draw since you can't continue. (it's not close combat or barrage so assume LoS)

2. Fail... there is no other place in the rulesbook that speaks of engaged or not engaged. You'd get laughed out of a store/tourney for trying to pull this one.

3. The entry states it's a runic weapon and quotes the page to find runic weapon rules.

Seems like the OP already knows the common sense or in some cases, RAW answers.
So he's either pushing for every inch, or is just trolling.

He isn't trolling, just pointing out the ridiculousness of Njal the Rulebreaker.

Ordo Dakka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:1. Chain lighting isn't classified as a psy shooting, but since it's not a defined where the hit occurs the game breaks. Pack up your models and call it a draw since you can't continue. (it's not close combat or barrage so assume LoS)

2. Fail... there is no other place in the rulesbook that speaks of engaged or not engaged. You'd get laughed out of a store/tourney for trying to pull this one.

3. The entry states it's a runic weapon and quotes the page to find runic weapon rules.

Seems like the OP already knows the common sense or in some cases, RAW answers.
So he's either pushing for every inch, or is just trolling.

He isn't trolling, just pointing out the ridiculousness of Njal the Rulebreaker.

If he already knows the answer, then it doesn't belong in YMDC.

BlueDagger wrote:1. Chain lighting isn't classified as a psy shooting, but since it's not a defined where the hit occurs the game breaks. Pack up your models and call it a draw since you can't continue. (it's not close combat or barrage so assume LoS)

so then, according to you, "Dethrollas" break the game as the d6 Str 10 isnt classified as Shooting or Close combat?

Also, LORD OF TEMPESTS is a SPECIAL RULE... NOT a PSYCHIC POWER, no test is required and no psychic defense can be provided against it

BlueDagger wrote:
2. Fail... there is no other place in the rulesbook that speaks of engaged or not engaged. You'd get laughed out of a store/tourney for trying to pull this one.

The question was more in regards to the fact that you are only "Engaged" in close combat during the assault phase, for every other phase, you are "locked" in close combat...

BlueDagger wrote:
3. The entry states it's a runic weapon and quotes the page to find runic weapon rules.

Ok, so based on what it says:

His staff is a runic weapon (so it wounds daemons on a 2+ and can negate enemy psychic powers cast withing 24" of him on a 4+) that negates enemy psychic powers (no range mentioned) on a 3+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Che-Vito wrote:
Seems like the OP already knows the common sense or in some cases, RAW answers.
So he's either pushing for every inch, or is just trolling.

Seems like you aren't contributing to this thread, read the tenants, and try abiding next time.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:1. Chain lighting isn't classified as a psy shooting, but since it's not a defined where the hit occurs the game breaks. Pack up your models and call it a draw since you can't continue. (it's not close combat or barrage so assume LoS)

so then, according to you, "Dethrollas" break the game as the d6 Str 10 isnt classified as Shooting or Close combat?

Also, LORD OF TEMPESTS is a SPECIAL RULE... NOT a PSYCHIC POWER, no test is required and no psychic defense can be provided against it.

Deff Rollas have a lot of issues, in my opinion. Blue Dagger is spot on.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:
2. Fail... there is no other place in the rulesbook that speaks of engaged or not engaged. You'd get laughed out of a store/tourney for trying to pull this one.

The question was more in regards to the fact that you are only "Engaged" in close combat during the assault phase, for every other phase, you are "locked" in close combat....

Semantics, and it is blatantly obvious. BlueDagger is spot on.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:
3. The entry states it's a runic weapon and quotes the page to find runic weapon rules.

Ok, so based on what it says:

His staff is a runic weapon (so it wounds daemons on a 2+ and can negate enemy psychic powers cast withing 24" of him on a 4+) that negates enemy psychic powers (no range mentioned) on a 3+..

Again, BlueDagger was correct.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Che-Vito wrote:
Seems like the OP already knows the common sense or in some cases, RAW answers.
So he's either pushing for every inch, or is just trolling.

Seems like you aren't contributing to this thread, read the tenants, and try abiding next time.

Enough said, BlueDagger is correct.

The runic weapon question is extremely obvious wording. Don't punish GW for not going into further detail, it's right there man...

The shooting attacks is up to you. Either you can play that it's some undefined gamebreaker or you can admit it's supposed to be a shooting attack. The RAW would probably allow you to resolve this however you like on the vehicle, provided you are a tool.

These are tha same type arguments that say you can't use Barserk Charge with Swiftclaws and Skyclaws becouse it says only Blood Claws under Blood Claws and just have Skyclaws and Swift Claws referance to Blood Claws.

or

The Oath of War does not work on Grey Hunter Packs becouse they are not "Squads".

"His staff is a runic weapon (so it wounds daemons on a 2+ and can negate enemy psychic powers cast withing 24" of him on a 4+) that negates enemy psychic powers (no range mentioned) on a 3+."

KInda sounds like it negates enemy powers within 24 inches, but on a 3 instead of a 4.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:1. Chain lighting isn't classified as a psy shooting, but since it's not a defined where the hit occurs the game breaks. Pack up your models and call it a draw since you can't continue. (it's not close combat or barrage so assume LoS)

so then, according to you, "Dethrollas" break the game as the d6 Str 10 isnt classified as Shooting or Close combat?

It doesnt need to be classified as shooting or close combat, it isan additional effect added to a Ram, which tells you whata rmor facing to use. (hint: follow the rules for ramming)

kill dem stunties wrote:
It doesnt need to be classified as shooting or close combat, it isan additional effect added to a Ram, which tells you whata rmor facing to use. (hint: follow the rules for ramming)

I meant on the d6 s10 on infantry (Nothing in "Tank Shock" references wounding infantry).

Either way, Njal's staff being 24" 3+ Null seems to be the generally accepted answer, and has at least some supporting evidence to back up its claims (it does specifically reference the wargear anyway)

HOWEVER! To assume that Chain Lightning is a shooting attack is COMPLETELY unjust, hell, look at the FAQ ruling for Living Tornado!(States that it COMES FROM THE SKY, no cover save)

If you are going to state that "Unengaged units" are those not "Locked in close combat", thats fine, but that means that Vehicles (besides walkers locked in CC) would be subject to the attack... at that point, which facing would you use (Tornado specifies, Lightning does not)

So, Che-Vito and Bluedagger, please, provide some sort of evidence that would infer that Chain Lightning is in fact a shooting attack?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

kill dem stunties wrote:
It doesnt need to be classified as shooting or close combat, it isan additional effect added to a Ram, which tells you whata rmor facing to use. (hint: follow the rules for ramming)

I meant on the d6 s10 on infantry (Nothing in "Tank Shock" references wounding infantry).

Either way, Njal's staff being 24" 3+ Null seems to be the generally accepted answer, and has at least some supporting evidence to back up its claims (it does specifically reference the wargear anyway)

HOWEVER! To assume that Chain Lightning is a shooting attack is COMPLETELY unjust, hell, look at the FAQ ruling for Living Tornado!(States that it COMES FROM THE SKY, no cover save)

If you are going to state that "Unengaged units" are those not "Locked in close combat", thats fine, but that means that Vehicles (besides walkers locked in CC) would be subject to the attack... at that point, which facing would you use (Tornado specifies, Lightning does not)

So, Che-Vito and Bluedagger, please, provide some sort of evidence that would infer that Chain Lightning is in fact a shooting attack?

Again, the D6 S10 attacks are in addition to the normal tank shock effects

Ordo Dakka wrote:

Again, the D6 S10 attacks are in addition to the normal tank shock effects

"Any tank shock made by a battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 S10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death of Glory attack, it takes a further D6 s 10 hits in addition to the usual effects."

The Tank Shock is the Condition to activate the initial d6 s10 attack, if the unit D/Gs, the D/G is a condition for the second set of D6 s10 hits, but what the nature of those D6 S10 hits are (for instance, if they are shooting/CC attacks) is not listed, and there for (like Chain Lightning) is a "Unique attack type"(Much like the Tornado ability of "Lord of Tempests").

Why do they need an attack type? I play that lightning doesn't have an effect on vehicles. It seems to me that it shouldn't as they are not units as such?

Ordo Dakka wrote:Why do they need an attack type? I play that lightning doesn't have an effect on vehicles. It seems to me that it shouldn't as they are not units as such?

"The attack type" would determine if units gain coversaves from the ability.

Also, Vehicles are units, if they were not, how would the gain cover saves from things like "Stormcaller" "Shield of Sanguinus" etc?

Wow, this one caught my eye on the main Forum page so I thought I would check it out. Thank you to the OP for reminding me why I steer clear of this section on Dakka like it's the plague. Good Lord.

I've always played that "unit" includes vehicle.

I've always viewed The Lord of Tempests as more of a game effect than an attack. For example, I'd roll for it even if I didn't want to. (For instance, if it was going to pop open a closed wagon full of orks, or if the failed morale check and fall back gave an opponent the edge on reaching an objective).

I'd agree Chain Lightning is not a psy shooting attack. I don't think that the issue as to whether you get cover saves is that clear cut, to be honest. You could argue it either way:

For: Based on the fact that the effect occurs in the shooting phase and needs LOS, coversaves are reasonable.

Against: If GW had meant it to be a shooting attack, GW would have said shooting attack, or "resolve exactly as for shooting" or similar. People are always talking about "permissive rules". It doesn't say it's a shooting attack, or like a shooting attack, so it's not.

In reality, you need to agree in advance or dice off. Seriously, having a disputed rule in the bag is worse than discussing it beforehand. There's nothing more annoying than losing because of a rules dispute where you had each had a different understanding. The loser feels cheated, and the winner hasn't won by tactical nouse.
You've established it's not clear. It's down to you to work it out in advance now.


Re: "unengaged units". It's obviously locked in combat. In military parlance, I think "engaged" refers to troops that are in any kind of fight with the enemy. So, being legalistic about it, you can't target any model involved in the battle.

It appears that both the RAW and the reasons that the rules as written don't actually work have both been covered by this point.

But to summarise: Njal's rules are horribly written. Discuss him with your opponent if in doubt as to how to apply them during the game.

I don't see anything much more to be gained from this, and people seem to be a little hackled over it, so I'm going to give it a rest.