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.

Can the Space Marine Stratagem "Hunter-Slayer Missile" target a character under ten wounds even if is not the closest enemy model as long as it fulfills the other conditions? I ask because the rules say that you can not declare a character under 10 wounds as the target of a shooting attack if they are not the closest enemy model but the wording of the stratagem makes it seem like it is not a "shooting attack" it just follows the same rules as a shooting attack.

The wording from the stratagem:

"Use this Stratagem in your Shooting phase. Select one Repulsor model from your army to launch a hunter-slayer missile, then select one enemy Vehicle unit or Monster unit within 48" of that model that is not within 1" of any units from your army. Roll one D6; if the result is equal to or greater than that model's Ballistic Skill, that unit suffers D3 mortal wounds..."

If the model had the moster or vehicle keyword then yes imo.

Correct. It is not a shooting attack, so normal character targeting does not apply.

There aren't many under 10 wounds that are also VEHICLES or MONSTERS, but there are some (Daemon Princes come to mind!).

 Stux wrote:
Correct. It is not a shooting attack, so normal character targeting does not apply.

There aren't many under 10 wounds that are also VEHICLES or MONSTERS, but there are some (Daemon Princes come to mind!).

Libby and Chap dreads as well.

Note also that the Hunter-Slayer Missile is unaffected by hit modifiers (positive or negative), and cannot benefit from abilities which allow you reroll hit rolls (as it isn't one).

 Stux wrote:
Correct. It is not a shooting attack, so normal character targeting does not apply.

There aren't many under 10 wounds that are also VEHICLES or MONSTERS, but there are some (Daemon Princes come to mind!).

Primarchs.

Dadavester wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Correct. It is not a shooting attack, so normal character targeting does not apply.

There aren't many under 10 wounds that are also VEHICLES or MONSTERS, but there are some (Daemon Princes come to mind!).

Libby and Chap dreads as well.

Any IH dreadnought made into a character, CCB, Dlord, C'tan, broodlord...... etc.

And GIRLYMAN. He is a MONSTER. I mean the keyword

Yeah, it's still relatively niche but worth remembering for those instances where you have Guilliman sitting on 1 wound after resurrecting and behind a screen!

In my case it was a Deffkilla Wartrike.

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, it's still relatively niche but worth remembering for those instances where you have Guilliman sitting on 1 wound after resurrecting and behind a screen!

I'm not sure what's more unlikely - not being able to finish off a 1 wound Gulliman behind a screen with the same thing that killed him behind that screen just a minute ago, or getting a hunter-killer that has to roll to hit and wound through his invuln.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We're also somewhat jumping the gun - somewhere and I can't remember where - I think there's a FAQ question about if some things are shooting attacks when they're not obviously shooting attacks. I think it was a piece of wargear, or some side effect of a physic power or some such, I can't remember which but hopefully that will jog someone else's memory if it applied to their army (or armies) more than mine -

We have assumed the Hunter Slayer is not a shooting attack - and it probably isn't based off it's wording and what I remember of the answer to the FAQ - something about if it has a profile.. and Hunter Slayer doesn't have a profile.

Also I was disappointed to re-read and see this only applies to Repulsors. I'm hoping this is the global replacement for the Hunter Killer Missile vehicle upgrade - and other once per battle bits.

The text of the ability is right there in the OP - you don't roll to wound or have to get through his invuln, it just causes d3 mortal wounds if you pass the BS check.

If you can find an FAQ making it a shooting attack great, but I don't think one exists currently.

 Stux wrote:
The text of the ability is right there in the OP - you don't roll to wound or have to get through his invuln, it just causes d3 mortal wounds if you pass the BS check.

If you can find an FAQ making it a shooting attack great, but I don't think one exists currently.

You're right, I was confusing the Hunter Killer Missile with the Hunter Slayer stratagem there for a minute. This is the sort of thing GW does that I hate. A half measure trial balloon doing a similar function with a similar name. If they wanted to float this as a Beta test, they should have named it Repulsor Lance or some such. I'll be happy when/if they decide this is the path forward and all the Hunter Killers become Hunter Slayers - The once per game mechanic feels much better suited to CP than Points. Potentially this would be another jo/reason for the Company Vet/Honor Guard/Victrix Command Squad options, especially as their wording has been cleaned up. Ironically this just means you'd be more tempted let the normal shooting get through, and save them for the weird stuff - assuming you didn't flub and leave him exposed to some big guns. And give you more reason to Head -> Desk -> Repeat over the problem with Apothecaries having forgotten how to treat their own Primarch in between the book and the tabletop.

As for the FAQ, I don't think one on this particular combo literally exists - but as mentioned I think there was one for what counts as a shooting attack or some such. I think it had to do with grenades/meltabombs/digital weapons/lasers or some such weird thing, and also that just accepting the premise is premature. We assume this isn't a shooting attack. It probably isn't because there isn't a weapon profile,it includes some but not all shooting targeting restrictions, and feels more like a psychic power template than a shooting attack.. With that said, one way or another (FAQ, Errata re-write, etc.) it might be. This is the trap of accepting the premise.

It's definitely not a shooting attack as written, so not sure why you keep pushing that. It's just a BS check then an effect.

If there is an FAQ that gives relevant insight fine, we can adjust from there. If there isn't there's no point talking about it, so let's leave that be until any such evidence surfaces.

 Stux wrote:
It's definitely not a shooting attack as written, so not sure why you keep pushing that. It's just a BS check then an effect.

Why I keep pushing what exactly? Pointing out it probably isn't, but just assuming that is correct is a bad idea? I guess its because I'm hoping eventually people will read what was actually said instead of arguing with something that wasn't but is easier to "win" against. You see, I've mentioned this twice, both times I've both said it probably isn't a shooting attack, but this shouldn't just be assumed as such - and yet you're accusing me of pushing something. I'm guessing you're trying to imply I'm pushing it is a shooting attack - despite the reality contained in the following quotes?

We have assumed the Hunter Slayer is not a shooting attack - and it probably isn't based off it's wording and what I remember of the answer to the FAQ - something about if it has a profile.. and Hunter Slayer doesn't have a profile.

It probably isn't because there isn't a weapon profile,it includes some but not all shooting targeting restrictions, and feels more like a psychic power template than a shooting attack..

If there is an FAQ that gives relevant insight fine, we can adjust from there. If there isn't there's no point talking about it, so let's leave that be until any such evidence surfaces.

I can't remember which but hopefully that will jog someone else's memory if it applied to their army (or armies) more than mine -

Lets certainly not look for it.

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It's definitely not a shooting attack as written, so not sure why you keep pushing that. It's just a BS check then an effect.

Why I keep pushing what exactly? Pointing out it probably isn't, but just assuming that is correct is a bad idea?

Yes, exactly that. We absolutely should assume it's correct, because that's what the rule says.

Saying there might be an FAQ but I eh I don't know is an utterly pointless thing to do, especially repeating it without actually finding any such FAQ.

 Stux wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It's definitely not a shooting attack as written, so not sure why you keep pushing that. It's just a BS check then an effect.

Why I keep pushing what exactly? Pointing out it probably isn't, but just assuming that is correct is a bad idea?

Yes, exactly that. We absolutely should assume it's correct, because that's what the rule says.

The rule says it's not a shooting attack?! Why didn't you say so?! Of course, if the rule specifically says so, we're not assuming any more are we? If the rule doesn't say so, then we are assuming, and a proportionally sized grain of salt should be provided with any given answer.

Saying there might be an FAQ but I eh I don't know is an utterly pointless thing to do, especially repeating it without actually finding any such FAQ.

Yes, if only there were someplace people cooperated with each other to find one of the myriad questions that is partially remembered (or even misremembered) inside of the multitudes of FAQ's and errata. Someone should make a place like that.

Of course your plan of not caring what the right answer is as long as you look like you came up with the right answer works too.

I do care, I'm just perplexed as to why you've used so many words and posts on it.

 Stux wrote:
I do care, I'm just perplexed as to why you've used so many words and posts on it.

I pointed out we shouldn't necessarily take any premise for granted. And you argued with that.

I suggested there may be an FAQ, and provided what I sort of remember in hopes someone else remembered this particular FAQ better - and your answer to that was that instead of asking if anyone remembered it, we should just decide it doesn't exist.

You're perplexed that every time you say something is wrong and stupid because you said so, the people you said were wrong and stupid remake the same point again modified with a response tailored to why you're wrong about the point being wrong and stupid?

I'm perplexed that you're perplexed.

Its 100% not a shooting attack, the way i read it you take a BS check against the TARGETs BS not your own. I do not see how that could be called a shooting attack.

Dadavester wrote:
Its 100% not a shooting attack, the way i read it you take a BS check against the TARGETs BS not your own. I do not see how that could be called a shooting attack.

No, you dont. It makes no sense to do that. The missile is fired by the repulsor, you use its BS.

Re read the rule. You pick the repulsor, then a model within 48 of that model, then roll a d6 that needs to be greater or equal to that models BS.

Weather it makes sense or not that is how it reads, at least to me.

Both sentences are Subject and Object. The second sentence refers back to the first sentence for both it's Subject and Object. Thus, the Subject of the second sentence is the Subject of the first sentence an and the Object of the second sentence is the Object of the first sentence.

Dadavester wrote:
Re read the rule. You pick the repulsor, then a model within 48 of that model, then roll a d6 that needs to be greater or equal to that models BS.

Weather it makes sense or not that is how it reads, at least to me.

Correct, this is what used to be called a statistic test or similar. You used to do the same thing with Initiative/Strength/Toughness for various psychic powers or dangerous terrain and the like way way back when. Some psychic powers probably still do with Leadership or some such. You're not technically rolling to hit. Probably.