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.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
A malediction is curse. That's not quite 'falling upon with force or arms'

But it fits perfectly into this part of the definition.

" to join battle with, assail, assault. "

You definitely assail the enemy with a curse.

Wrong again. To assail is to cause sudden and violent physical or emotional harm.

Not according to the dictionary.

Assail means "make a concerted or violent attack on:"

and of course attack means "take aggressive military action against "

Maledictions, specifically OM, does that.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/assail?q=Assail
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/attack?q=Attack

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Maledictions do not roll to hit the target, therefore they do not hit automatically. Maledictions are not attacks. They are effects, just like Blessings. Both Blessings and Maledictions can target and effect Zooming Flyers and Swooping Monstrous Creatures.

The real question is can vehicles Deny The Witch?

Agreed and yes.

"If a psychic power is targeted on an enemy unit, and the Psychic test is passed, the target can attempt to Deny the witch before the psychic power is resolved."
Edit: page 68 BRB

So long as the target is an enemy unit they can attempt to deny the witch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
A malediction is curse. That's not quite 'falling upon with force or arms'

But it fits perfectly into this part of the definition.

" to join battle with, assail, assault. "

You definitely assail the enemy with a curse.

Wrong again. To assail is to cause sudden and violent physical or emotional harm.

Not according to the dictionary.

Assail means "make a concerted or violent attack on:"

and of course attack means "take aggressive military action against "

Maledictions, specifically OM, does that.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/assail?q=Assail
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/attack?q=Attack

You realize you just said that attack means assail which means "make a concerted or violent attack on:" which means attack which means "take aggressive military action against".

The specific Malediction in question absolutely hits automatically - since one of its effects is to cause a hit and there's no to-hit roll...

to 'hit' and to 'cause a hit' are not the same. Maledictions to not 'hit' as they are not permitted to do so in the rules. The effect they have may cause a hit. Hallucination may cause a unit to take hits but that does not mean the power 'hit' them in any way. It simply effected them.

A direct effect of the power is that the vehicle suffers a hit.
That's completely different from an indirect effect of the power Hallucination.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:


Wrong again. To assail is to cause sudden and violent physical or emotional harm.

Not according to the dictionary.

Assail means "make a concerted or violent attack on:"

and of course attack means "take aggressive military action against "

Maledictions, specifically OM, does that.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/assail?q=Assail
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/attack?q=Attack

You realize you just said that attack means assail which means "make a concerted or violent attack on:" which means attack which means "take aggressive military action against".

Actually, if you follow the links provided, you will see that I was not the one who said that. The Dictionary defines it that way.

P.S.
I said assail means this, then I gave the dictionary definition of assail, which includes the word attack.

I then said attack means this, then I gave the dictionary definition of attack complete with sources.

I never said "attack means assail", I simply referenced the dictionary definitions of each.

I'll say that to assail can mean attack.
In fact the news uses it in that manner all the time in the UK and Ireland. Assailant is used just as much as attacker too.

So the dictionary and the common usage in the UK(the only one that actually matters in discussions of 40k), equate an attack with "Take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force"
Aggressive action is any action up to and including the physical. So yes a malediction is an aggressive action taken against an enemy force with a weapon of sorts.

Yes. Does not change that maledictions do not hit though in this case their effect may cause the unit to 'take a hit'.

 Abandon wrote:
Yes. Does not change that maledictions do not hit though in this case their effect may cause the unit to 'take a hit'.

They hit automatically.

Jotww doesn't roll to hit but it most definitely hits. If the effect doesn't "hit" how does it target and effect a unit?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Yes. Does not change that maledictions do not hit though in this case their effect may cause the unit to 'take a hit'.

They hit automatically.

Jotww doesn't roll to hit but it most definitely hits. If the effect doesn't "hit" how does it target and effect a unit?

Jotww is not a malediction.

Jaws is a beam witchfire power, one of the things that are stated to not affect zooming flyers.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Jaws is a beam witchfire power, one of the things that are stated to not affect zooming flyers.

JotWW is not a beam withfire. It is a witchfire with its own special rules.

As per happy.

I was arguing by analogy, not everything that doesn't roll to hit is not an attack. If it hits automatically and inflicts damage then why is it not subject to hard to hit?

I'd like an answer on this. I think both sides have some weighty arguments.

I'm particularly interested because, if Maledictions cannot "auto-hit" Flyers/FMCs, then Blessings cannot either. (And I do like twin-linking my Daemon Prince.)

So keep arguing people!

Elric Greywolf wrote:
I'd like an answer on this. I think both sides have some weighty arguments.

I'm particularly interested because, if Maledictions cannot "auto-hit" Flyers/FMCs, then Blessings cannot either. (And I do like twin-linking my Daemon Prince.)

So keep arguing people!

Except blessings never allocate hits, so they aren't valid comparisons.

rigeld2 wrote:

Elric Greywolf wrote:
I'd like an answer on this. I think both sides have some weighty arguments.

I'm particularly interested because, if Maledictions cannot "auto-hit" Flyers/FMCs, then Blessings cannot either. (And I do like twin-linking my Daemon Prince.)

So keep arguing people!

Except blessings never allocate hits, so they aren't valid comparisons.

What about the power that let's you roll on the CSM Boon table, isn't that a Blessing?

Not knowing the CSM codex I can't say.
Still not comparable IMO though because the power isn't allocating the hit - the table is.

rigeld2 wrote:
Not knowing the CSM codex I can't say.
Still not comparable IMO though because the power isn't allocating the hit - the table is.

Boon of Mutation does "hit" the target and it is a Blessing but you can only target a friendly Character, so no go on Helldrakes.

But would be interesting to consider if it can cast on a friendly FMC? Does the hit auto miss if the FMC is "Swooping" or can you even target the "Swooper"?

Here is the wording of the spell:

"Blessing: A friendly character within 2" takes a Strength 4 AP - hit, then rolls on the Chaos Boon table."

Think of it this way. An FMC while swooping can only be hit by snap shots yet the grounded test can still cause it to take a hit and it is unarguably swooping at the time it takes the test. If game mechanics can cause them to take a hit while they can only be hit by snap shots then what is meant is that the action of hitting them can only be achieved via snapshots.

If you take the FAQ answer to mean they can only take a hit from a snap shot(not what it says) that means they cannot be hit by vector strikes either(FAQ overrides BRB) so clearly it was just an answer to that specific question about shooting attacks that don't require a roll to hit.

Also important to note that 'cannot be hit' is not 'immune to hits' though 99% of the time they will have the same effect there is a subtle difference. 'Cannot be hit' implies something taking an action of hitting while 'takes a hit' is only an effect. While generally taking a hit is the result of being hit(cause and effect) in this case there is no action of being hit. The cause is OM and the effect is takes a S1 Haywire hit. Nothing in the wording of the FAQ or the BRB prevents this.

Some interesting arguements here. Initially I was in agreement with it would hit arguments, but there was some good reasons it could go the other way.

But in the general FAQ page 3 left hand column it seems to address this issue. The last line of the answer in reference to attacks that hit automatically is "psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstrom, beams, and novas." cannot hit flyers. The boldfacing is in the FAQ and it very specifically leaves out maledictions, which always hit (or those in the rulebook do) so if GW had intended maledictions to not be able to hit flyers, they would very likely have added it in.

I would also take this into consideration. Witchfire powers can only be used in the shooting phase. Maledictions can only be used in the movement phase. Maledictions, therefore, are not shooting attacks and thus can target flyers.

If this was already settled and I missed it in the earlier posts, sorry.

Rumbleguts wrote:
Some interesting arguements here. Initially I was in agreement with it would hit arguments, but there was some good reasons it could go the other way.

But in the general FAQ page 3 left hand column it seems to address this issue. The last line of the answer in reference to attacks that hit automatically is "psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstrom, beams, and novas." cannot hit flyers. The boldfacing is in the FAQ and it very specifically leaves out maledictions, which always hit (or those in the rulebook do) so if GW had intended maledictions to not be able to hit flyers, they would very likely have added it in.

I would also take this into consideration. Witchfire powers can only be used in the shooting phase. Maledictions can only be used in the movement phase. Maledictions, therefore, are not shooting attacks and thus can target flyers.

If this was already settled and I missed it in the earlier posts, sorry.

1. It was settled.
2. People are still arguing anyway.

Rumbleguts wrote:
Some interesting arguements here. Initially I was in agreement with it would hit arguments, but there was some good reasons it could go the other way.

But in the general FAQ page 3 left hand column it seems to address this issue. The last line of the answer in reference to attacks that hit automatically is "psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstrom, beams, and novas." cannot hit flyers. The boldfacing is in the FAQ and it very specifically leaves out maledictions, which always hit (or those in the rulebook do) so if GW had intended maledictions to not be able to hit flyers, they would very likely have added it in.

I would also take this into consideration. Witchfire powers can only be used in the shooting phase. Maledictions can only be used in the movement phase. Maledictions, therefore, are not shooting attacks and thus can target flyers.

If this was already settled and I missed it in the earlier posts, sorry.

The FAQ isn't restricted to just shooting attacks. If it was, then the C'tan Gaze of Death could hit flyers. It's not used in the shooting phase, afterall.

The malediction is in fact an attack. Just because the FAQ named a few items does not limit the FAQ answer to those items. The preclusion of "this includes" means that there is much more to the list, though should have added "but is not limited to" in that sentence.

A malediction does target enemy units, it causes negative effects (nothing says an attack has to cause wounds or damage results) to those enemy units, it does not roll to hit and is an "area of effect" attack. It can not target a flyer.