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.

THat only works where specified it replaces. Find the line stating it replaces.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
THat only works where specified it replaces. Find the line stating it replaces.

?????

Its how specific > general works.

You need a more specific rule to override the general rule

The general rule is that shooting requires LOS, front arc, etc. We have rules that override LOS, but none that override front arc.

Sorry, such a basic concept I didnt think I needed to explain more.

You're perfectly right Nosferatu ... on all accounts
It's a good thing that "Zzzap" is not a shooting attack I guess, as it doesn't say that it's one (following your reasoning here), thus it's not governed by normal shooting rules

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its how specific > general works.

You need a more specific rule to override the general rule

The general rule is that shooting requires LOS, front arc, etc. We have rules that override LOS, but none that override front arc.

Sorry, such a basic concept I didnt think I needed to explain more.

Another jab. Sad. Stay on topic.

And you still haven't answered the specific question about whether or not the mortis engine is front arc also. It too is a damage effect that by your ruling,must be because you do not have specific permission to override it.

We have rules, as Tankol mentioned, it is specifically called a zzaap attack. It is never called a shooting attack.
And as I have stated in the past, its rules specifically override target selection. It has rewritten its effects on all counts and it is therefore reasonable that it is 360.
Front arc is just how you would play it. Incorrectly but that's okay as long as your opponents agree.

Peasant - sigh.

You replied "?????" to a post. I asumed that meant you didnt understand the concept you were replying to.

By arguing "it is therefore reasonable..." that means you are making a RAI argument. I was pointing out that specific beats general, meaning unless you have a rule specifically overriding the front arc requirement, this requirement remains. You have yet to counter that argument, and given you have JUST repeated your RAI argument - along with a snide comment that I must play it "incorrectly" if I am following rules - I accept your concession to this argument.

Do you play cannon correctly or incorrectly? Is it "reasonable" to ignore the LOS requirement for the initial spot, same as it is "reasonable" to ignore the front arc requirement for shooting attacks? Where does your "reasonable" line get drawn?

(it isnt "specifically" a zzzap attack, good way to misuse words, you win +1 internets!)

Still not answering our reasonable questions
No need to divert the question to the Cannons that have nothing at all to do here
stop trying a cheap and easy diversion!

According to you, a Banshee howl would require Arc of Sight as it's during the shooting phase ? Even if it's not a shooting attack and when it says it only requires LOS?
While a Doomwheel that does not even require LOS would require Arc of Sight? Even though it doesn't even target anything and has to be activated even when fleeing? (sheesh, it really looks like a shooting attack now!)

It's simply that the Skaven book was written by a drunk monkey using his feet and that he couldn't write clear rules ... Just use a simlar rule like the one from the VC Screams (that obviously are designed to work the same way), and you're grand

Or you can bicker, moan, argue and otherwise be haughty and an annoyance (and probably not play much, or at least with a very limited and walled-off number of people)

I seriously think this thread should be locked. Not because someone is right and the answer's definitive, but simply because it goes on due to the stubbornness of a single person while all the others take turns trying to offer reasonable arguments that are rebuffed by "Ihma sayin' you wrong cause bananas + mushrooms = pink telephone booth"

"While a Doomwheel that does not even require LOS would require Arc of Sight?"
If it is shooting, then yes - because when the armybook was written the two were the same concept

Now they are split

Apparently this is too tricky a concept for some

No, I will no stop asking about cannon - it is a perfectly analogous situation

You have a change in edition causing a change in rules. Some people adapt and play to the new rules. Others insist there is an "oversight" or a "reasonable" change to let them play in the old rules.

Stop insulting others, it degrades your argument. Your arguments are RAI, pure and simple, and you stubbornly refuse to admit that.

I think we're going nowhere now, so this thread is over.