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.

Would a FMC be forced to take a grounding test from a Savant Lock hit on subsequent turns? Not from the initial shot. Im leaning to no as grounding tests come from enemy shooting, and savant lock clearly say the shot missed. So subsequent hits are from an ability and not directly from the shooting. Marine players in my meta are trying to argue that they still require a test however. Opinions?

That...is kinda iffy.

On the one hand, it is not a unit's Shooting attack at that point. On the other hand, it is still an attack from the enemy.

As a Tyranid player, HIWPI you take the Grounding test. I would be surprised if GW FAQ'd it to be opposite.

Question added to the C: SM FAQ Collection.

Its kinda one of those dumb rules that's written real badly.

Another example is tau marker lights causing grounding tests.

No, Tau markerlights is a rule written correctly, it just doesn't make too much sense.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
No, Tau markerlights is a rule written correctly, it just doesn't make too much sense.

I just meant as far as them causing grounding tests.

I always thought it should be if the weapon wounds. It could even be saved wounds..... But things that can not cause damage shouldn't cause tests. But that's not how it currently works.

Sorry, just had to:

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/5615/9516128orig.jpg

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Its kinda one of those dumb rules that's written real badly.

Another example is tau marker lights causing grounding tests.

You ever try flying around with a laser in your eyes? But yes its a bit weird.

Lasers cause problems for pilots all the time because jerks point their little laser pointers at planes.

Its not too far off from reality for a laser in the eye to cause you to lose control.

At even low altitude a laser pointer can diffuse into a pretty wide beam that is still pretty intense for your eyes.

Well, regardless of the fluff, the rule for the grounding tests states that it occurs when your FMC:
"suffers one or more hits from a unit's Shooting attack".

I don't have the Marine Codex to hand, but I believe Happyjew is right in mentioning that the Savant Lock hit doesn't come from a unit, as that unit is considered to have missed already, but rather is a hit that comes from the weapon's special rule later on. Soulblaze should be a fair comparison, it can cause wounds in later turns that don't come from the original attack - I wouldn't expect this to force a grounding test either.

I'm with Super Ready, it's a hit from a special rule, not from a unit's shooting attack, per RAW it won't force a grounding test

 Grey Templar wrote:
Lasers cause problems for pilots all the time because jerks point their little laser pointers at planes.

Its not too far off from reality for a laser in the eye to cause you to lose control.

At even low altitude a laser pointer can diffuse into a pretty wide beam that is still pretty intense for your eyes.

Personally, I think the chance of a Tau pathfinder shining a markerlight in a Daemon Prince's eye and maintaining it long enough to cause more than momentary annoyance to be much lower than 1/18 times. In fact I don't think it's possible that merely being blinded would somehow affect the FMC's internal balance, I could see justification for the pilot of a flyer being blinded and losing control, because they need their sight to interface with the flyer's sensory equipment and controls. Self-propelled flying creatures have no such problems, and would presumably keep flying straight or dip around a bit to avoid the laser, not suddenly angle itself 90 degrees downwards and crash straight into the ground.

TL;DR: Pilot going "I can't see the instruments that tell me the orientation and altitude of the plane, I'm going to crash" could conceivably happen, flying creature going "I can't see, better suddenly crash into the ground" couldn't.

Well, as long as market lights cause Grounding becauseof RAW, Savant-lock doesn't for the same very reason.
If there would be no abusive marketlight precedent, I could agree that savant would cause, because you know, missile up your butt. but alas.

Back on topic, I don't think Savant Lock causea a grounding test. Is the subsequent effect a To Hit roll or an effect of a weapon? No To Hit roll, no geounding test.

The Savant Lock should and would cause a grounding test on a FMC. To reiterate what Super Ready posted concerning the grounding test rule;

"suffers one or more hits from a unit's Shooting attack".

the question becomes whether the Savant Lock is considered a shooting attack. I do not see how it cannot be considered a shooting attack albeit one that was made in a previous turn. The Savant Lock's special rule does not preclude that the weapon was delivered during a shooting attack.

Does the Savant Lock roll against the firer's BS? if not, then it is not a shooting attack.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Lasers cause problems for pilots all the time because jerks point their little laser pointers at planes.

Its not too far off from reality for a laser in the eye to cause you to lose control.

At even low altitude a laser pointer can diffuse into a pretty wide beam that is still pretty intense for your eyes.

Sorry, but there is a big difference here. The light from a laser pointer pointed at a cockpit scatters when it hits the glass which is what causes the biggest issue, further the plane will be moving in a fairly straight line thereby making it incredibly easy to keep on target. However, when targetting an animal that is turning it's head, jinking and otherwise moving in a non-linear fashion... it would be near impossible to hit their eyes and absolutely impossible to keep it there. For fun, try to keep a laser pointer pointed in a cat's eye from 50 feet away. It's not going to happen. Whereas you should be able to keep the pointer trained on the cat's body fairly easily. That said, none of this matters as a lot of the rules have little to do with real life.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
The Savant Lock should and would cause a grounding test on a FMC. To reiterate what Super Ready posted concerning the grounding test rule;

"suffers one or more hits from a unit's Shooting attack".

the question becomes whether the Savant Lock is considered a shooting attack. I do not see how it cannot be considered a shooting attack albeit one that was made in a previous turn. The Savant Lock's special rule does not preclude that the weapon was delivered during a shooting attack.

I think this is the best case for the lock causing a grounding test.

I don't think it's a shooting attack - it doesn't use the shooter's BS, it doesn't matter if the vehicle goes flat-out, etc.

Unless the wording of savant lock treats it as a shooting attack from the unit, the hit comes from a special rule, not a unit's shooting attack.

I will need to re-read the Savant rule, but as I call it is a special rule for the Skyspear Missile System that is fired by a Hunter when it makes a shooting attack. The issue isn't whether the Savant Lock is a shooting attack, it is a special rule for the SMS. So yes, it is a shooting attack that is resolved in a subsequent game turn.

It's actually explicitly not a shooting attack - you roll for the Savant Lock counter.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
I will need to re-read the Savant rule, but as I call it is a special rule for the Skyspear Missile System that is fired by a Hunter when it makes a shooting attack. The issue isn't whether the Savant Lock is a shooting attack, it is a special rule for the SMS. So yes, it is a shooting attack that is resolved in a subsequent game turn.

Yes, when the Skyspear is first shot, it is a shooting attack, and that will trigger a grounding test. But during subsequent turns, there is no roll To Hit, rather a special rule for a weapon. It would be the same as a FMC hit with Soul Blaze, it is just looking.to see if an effect is triggered.

1st shot misses, next turn a 5 or 6 is rolled you suffer a hit from a shooting attack. It's a missile remember, fire from a unit that has sky fire. If you say no they what are you hit with the JFK magic bullet that wasn't SHOT?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
I will need to re-read the Savant rule, but as I call it is a special rule for the Skyspear Missile System that is fired by a Hunter when it makes a shooting attack. The issue isn't whether the Savant Lock is a shooting attack, it is a special rule for the SMS. So yes, it is a shooting attack that is resolved in a subsequent game turn.

Yes, when the Skyspear is first shot, it is a shooting attack, and that will trigger a grounding test. But during subsequent turns, there is no roll To Hit, rather a special rule for a weapon. It would be the same as a FMC hit with Soul Blaze, it is just looking.to see if an effect is triggered.

So the SMS shoots a missile and misses. Said missile then cruises about until at a later time in a subsequent turn is able to hit the target. That missile was shot at one point does is cease to be shot afterwards? It can't be unshot. So it clearly fulfills the requirement for being a shooting attack. The rule does not say that the shooting attack must be from the same game turn, it is pretty clear that once a weapon is shot it is shot. The Savant Lock just allows the missed shot to be subsequently hit in later turns, that missile was still shot previously, nothing can change that.

Also, Soul Blaze is nothing like the Savant Lock rule, Soul Blaze is an effect that may or may not generate damage and become ongoing. The Savant Lock is a weapon rule that dictates how that weapon operates.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
I will need to re-read the Savant rule, but as I call it is a special rule for the Skyspear Missile System that is fired by a Hunter when it makes a shooting attack. The issue isn't whether the Savant Lock is a shooting attack, it is a special rule for the SMS. So yes, it is a shooting attack that is resolved in a subsequent game turn.

Yes, when the Skyspear is first shot, it is a shooting attack, and that will trigger a grounding test. But during subsequent turns, there is no roll To Hit, rather a special rule for a weapon. It would be the same as a FMC hit with Soul Blaze, it is just looking.to see if an effect is triggered.

So the SMS shoots a missile and misses. Said missile then cruises about until at a later time in a subsequent turn is able to hit the target. That missile was shot at one point does is cease to be shot afterwards? It can't be unshot. So it clearly fulfills the requirement for being a shooting attack. The rule does not say that the shooting attack must be from the same game turn, it is pretty clear that once a weapon is shot it is shot. The Savant Lock just allows the missed shot to be subsequently hit in later turns, that missile was still shot previously, nothing can change that.

Also, Soul Blaze is nothing like the Savant Lock rule, Soul Blaze is an effect that may or may not generate damage and become ongoing. The Savant Lock is a weapon rule that dictates how that weapon operates.

No, Savant Lock is exactly like Soul Blaze. You roll for counters every turn and they might do damage. Savant Lock is not a shooting attack.

Lungpickle wrote:
1st shot misses, next turn a 5 or 6 is rolled you suffer a hit from a shooting attack. It's a missile remember, fire from a unit that has sky fire. If you say no they what are you hit with the JFK magic bullet that wasn't SHOT?

Real life logic has no place in 40k RAW

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
So the SMS shoots a missile and misses. Said missile then cruises about until at a later time in a subsequent turn is able to hit the target. That missile was shot at one point does is cease to be shot afterwards? It can't be unshot. So it clearly fulfills the requirement for being a shooting attack. The rule does not say that the shooting attack must be from the same game turn, it is pretty clear that once a weapon is shot it is shot. The Savant Lock just allows the missed shot to be subsequently hit in later turns, that missile was still shot previously, nothing can change that.

We're talking rules here, not real life logic. If we started applying realism and logic to every 40k rule we'd pretty much destroy the whole game.