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.

Because of the wording of the question and how the answer goes on to list that is includes various weapons and then the different types of psychic powers.

Other things that arent covered are then separately covered in their codex FAQ. Again like the ork bomb squid that specifically states i cant target flyers. The storm doesnt have that ruling and thus i should still be able to target through the below permission:

As for being given permission to use it you are given permission to either "target any model within 18" " or "all unengaged enemy units within" by the wording of the Ability.

I would say it makes sense that A) they didn't bother FAQ'ing either Imotek or Njal, therefor they must still apply since they covered other "random" cases.

B) It's a damned storm. Just like Imotek, lightning and strong wind are indiscriminate. If I was in a Valkyrie and then saw a tornado drop down in front of me, it'd probably be a bad day.

That's my thoughts, then again, a clear FAQ would be best. I don't see them as attacks, more a random element caused by Njal's presence, just like Imotek.

Full Disclosure: I play both SW and Necrons, but rarely field Njal and have never used Imotek.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

coredump wrote:
Except you *can* snap fire shots that auto hit....

To be clear:

Q: Does a weapon that hits automatically, still hit automatically when
making a Snap Shot? (p13)
A: Yes.

If it's already making a snap shot, a shot that hits automatically can be fired as a snap shot.
Not all shots that automatically hit can be fired as snap shots.

In answer to BR, Lord of Tempests is a maelstrom so it cannot hit flyers. If it helps, think of it like the zooming flyer is flying above the tempest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with
Zooming Flyers and Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)

This question includes Lord of Tempest since it qualifies as a weapon that hits automatically and interacts with the flyer.

How does Lord of Tempests interact with Zooming Flyers and Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)

A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Gliding
Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use
blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or
otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
As I see it only "driving gale" may effect a flyer. "Vengeful Tornado" and "chain lightning" should not affect flyers as they are a form of attack.

And remember, when the issue of whether abilities that require LoS could be used inside transports with firepoints came up, we all agreed that vengeful tornado and chain lightning were shooting attacks and could be used inside transports. So why should this change now?

While this makes sense from a house rule and narrative point of view, the question is whether the ability can effect the flyer at all. The rules do not allow for partial effects.

Does anyone know of any other effect in the game that is a maelstrom or specifically called maelstrom? I believe Tempest and the description qualifies it as a maelstrom, but perhaps maelstrom is some specific weapon type somewhere.

Wait, so you do not even know that maelstrom is a type of psychic power (it is), spout off that Lord of Tempest is a maelstrom (it isn't), spout off that it qualifies as a weapon (it isnt), and then do not rectify that you had no idea what you were talking about?

Go read the rules before posting instead of jumping on bandwagons responses please.

The rules state explicitly that maelstroms can not target flyers so it is still a pointless argument.

I am paraphrasing a post from the B&C that BR posted,

Q: How do maelstroms, nova and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming and ? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas

The FAQ is specifically a directed question regarding maelstroms, nova and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically. Lord of Tempest is not of those specifically outlined items. It is not any of those psychic attacks, nor is it a weapon.

The answer then not only specifies attacks (of which Lord of Tempest is not), but then also gives examples of what the questions specifically asked about, This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas. Those are all weapons or psychic attacks, shooting or not.

So other then knee jerk reaction to the "Oh So Sacred Flyers of 40k", you need to be able to prove that the Lord of Tempest game effects are one of the following,

1. A maelstrom, nova and beam.
2. A weapon.

Since it is neither, it is not denied by that FAQ answer.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amaya wrote:
The rules state explicitly that maelstroms can not target flyers so it is still a pointless argument.

Lord of Tempest is NOT A MAELSTROM PSYCHIC ATTACK!!!

"rulezbok, do you haz it?"

-lolcat

I misread Ramses' post, and that was the friendly part of this sentence. -Mannahnin

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
I am paraphrasing a post from the B&C that BR posted,

Q: How do maelstroms, nova and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming and ? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas

The FAQ is specifically a directed question regarding maelstroms, nova and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically. Lord of Tempest is not of those specifically outlined items. It is not any of those psychic attacks, nor is it a weapon.

The answer then not only specifies attacks (of which Lord of Tempest is not), but then also gives examples of what the questions specifically asked about, This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas. Those are all weapons or psychic attacks, shooting or not.

So other then knee jerk reaction to the "Oh So Sacred Flyers of 40k", you need to be able to prove that the Lord of Tempest game effects are one of the following,

1. A maelstrom, nova and beam.
2. A weapon.

Since it is neither, it is not denied by that FAQ answer.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amaya wrote:
The rules state explicitly that maelstroms can not target flyers so it is still a pointless argument.

Lord of Tempest is NOT A MAELSTROM PSYCHIC ATTACK!!!

"rulezbok, do you haz it?"

-lolcat

I would actually wonder why you are highlighting the section which states 'including', not 'only'. Interesting way to frame it.

The initial point "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures" is the main point. This means, very simply, that any affect that is NOT a Snap Shot, cannot hit a Zooming Flyer. I think this was very clearly answered. Njal's Tempest hits automatically. The next line states that 'any attacks' that do not roll to hit cannot hit a Zooming Flyer. An automatic hit does not roll to hit.

Ergo; given that Njal's Tempest is not a Snap Shot, and that only Snap Shots can hit a Zooming Flyer or Flying Monstrous Creature, the answer is that Njal's tempest cannot hit a Zooming Flyer.

Do I agree with this interpretation by GW? No. I think it's silly, and it means I need to radically redesign my SW list to include substantially more AA power. But RAW it's the only way it can work.

My first comment was fairly short, so let me try to be as explicit as possible. There is no conceivable way to make these "ability" attacks harm flyers in any capacity. I realise this is a controversial statement, so let me explain.

From FAQ:

Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

You want to use Lord of Tempest. If we assume it is a shooting attack, it automatically fails the requirements to snapshot as it doesn't use ballistic skill. For a moment, let's accept it is a "weapon" and not a shooting attack, thus this FAQ is unavoidably directed at it. Suppose you pick to use it to target "all units within" range, thus creating an area of effect. Well, this cannot hurt flyers by this FAQ. Similarly, it cannot snapshot so it cannot "target any model" within range either. Therefore in this situation, it fails as it cannot target the flyer, hence cannot be used a snapshot in any capacity.

This leaves us with only two more situations - LoT is neither a shooting attack, nor a "weapon". We still need to discount it as an "attack" due to the FAQ, otherwise we're once more discounted by "Therefore, any attacks that [...] don’t roll to hit cannot target them.". So, we now need to say that LoT is not a shooting attack, not a weapon and not an attack. Consider the following quote from p73 BYB under armour penetration rolls:

Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon's Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.

So, we decided it wasn't a weapon otherwise the FAQ overrules us. However, now we cannot actually DAMAGE flyers as they are vehicles and only weapons can actually roll for armour penetration. We have no other way to resolve this hit on the vehicle, so as 40k is a permissive rule set the game either breaks or the hit is discarded. Either way, it fails. All this, plus the precedent for "not-a-weapon-actually-an-ability" hits set by the ruling against the Mawloc makes it fairly open and closed that it doesn't work against vehicles.

How absurd has this debate become? Are we really saying that "not a weapon, not a shooting attack, not an attack" is a reasonable thing to be considering? How exactly is something causing damage not a weapon when the definition of weapon is literally "a thing designed or used for inflicting damage"? The rulebook doesn't overrule this definition, so you can't use "if the book says orange is blue, it's blue" because the book says nothing on it. The rules don't allow LoT to work against flyers, therefore it doesn't work against flyers. Simple. Does anyone really like how flyers are obviously the new GW fad of the half-decade, whereby their rules are strictly better than any other unit? No, of course they don't, it's an obvious and quite frustrating money grab. It's just not worth insulting each other (directly or indirectly) over a game.

Based on the FAQ and it's generalization of what "attack" types are affected I have to say it still hits flyers.

Irdion wrote:


The initial point "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures" is the main point. This means, very simply, that any affect that is NOT a Snap Shot, cannot hit a Zooming Flyer. I think this was very clearly answered. Njal's Tempest hits automatically. The next line states that 'any attacks' that do not roll to hit cannot hit a Zooming Flyer. An automatic hit does not roll to hit.

So, it absolutely, positively *must* be a snap shot, or there is *no possible way* that it can harm a flyer...???

So much for Skyfire....



Or.... the requirement of a snap shot is the 'basic' rule, and there are exceptions in the rules....

My bad about the maelstrom. It must not be a maelstrom

However it is an attack that doesn't roll to hit.

A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Gliding
Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use
blast markers, templates, create a line of/[area of effect or
otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them.

The fluff may be confusing. All that stuff about rousing elements, but it's still an attack that doesn't roll to hit made by Njal on everything in his LoS.

coredump wrote:

Irdion wrote:


The initial point "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures" is the main point. This means, very simply, that any affect that is NOT a Snap Shot, cannot hit a Zooming Flyer. I think this was very clearly answered. Njal's Tempest hits automatically. The next line states that 'any attacks' that do not roll to hit cannot hit a Zooming Flyer. An automatic hit does not roll to hit.

So, it absolutely, positively *must* be a snap shot, or there is *no possible way* that it can harm a flyer...???

So much for Skyfire....



Or.... the requirement of a snap shot is the 'basic' rule, and there are exceptions in the rules....

SKYFIRE: A model with this special rule,or that is firing a weapon with this special rule, fires using its normal Ballistic Skill when shooting at Flyers, Flying Monstrous Creatures and Skimmers. Unlessi it also has the Interceptor special rule, it can only fire snap shots against other targets.

This is a clear BRB rulebook exception to the stipulation presented in the normal BRB rules... which has no connection to this point of the FAQ. Again: (sic) "any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them." A model firing a Skyfire weapon is not even remotely covered in the FAQ, to which the question only addresses 'maelstroms, novas, beams, or any weapon that doesn't need to roll to hit or hits automatically'. Quite simply, there is no controversy at this point (as this entire point of the FAQ only addresses the list of conditions it specifically addresses, not including normal firing and models firing with the Skyfire special rule), and the next time you'd like to wildly spin my point out of context in a clever fashion, at least try to make an effort to stick to the point rather than ignore the wording of the FAQ in favor of trying to be snarky

I agree as well.

"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Gliding
Flying Monstrous Creatures. "


Seems simple enough to me.

However, I suppose if you need a thesaurus, a dictionary, a slide rule and need to point out capitalisation, punctuation and possible theories just to reason out why Njal's ability can affect fliers you might have a point.

Me? I think you're trying to hard.

Doesn't matter what type of ability it is, it's still an attack that automatically hits, therefore, doesn't work.

Why?

Because of the wording from a FAQ answer about shooting, weapons and Psychic powers? You can't take a FAQ answer from something else and apply it to something that is a special rule. You can't simply take the wording out of context and apply it to where you want it.

All references about Snap Shots should also be ignored when it comes to Njal and Imotekhs Storms, since that is a rule for shooting, both from weapons and PSAs.

Njals and Imotekhs storms are special enough that they need a separate clarification from a FAQ, like other similar effects have had, again like the Bomb Squig and Mawlocs Terror from the deep.

They even went into Njals Storm and changed the wording from "any model within 18" to "any single enemy model of your choice within 18", and there's no addition saying i can't choose a flyer. So its not like they forgot the storm altogether.

You can't really argue RAI either, as since they didnt touch these two special rule with regards to flyers anywhere they might as well have Intended these rules to be just what they are - special abilities with special rules.


Saying that Snap Shots are the only way to target flyers is saying that Vector Strikes can't target flyers either, although its clear both from the rules and the FAQ that they can.

I don't want to repeat my answer as I believe I made myself quite clear earlier. I would like to address this though:

Tjolle79 wrote:
Why?
You can't really argue RAI either, as since they didnt touch these two special rule with regards to flyers anywhere they might as well have Intended these rules to be just what they are - special abilities with special rules.


Saying that Snap Shots are the only way to target flyers is saying that Vector Strikes can't target flyers either, although its clear both from the rules and the FAQ that they can.

It's possible that these were simply an oversight. Vector Strikes, however, are a special case - there is a very clear statement in the special rule that it can, indeed, hit flyers. Such an example is evidence against your case rather than for it, as they weren't FAQ'd a similar exception to the ban on autohitting weapons.

And yet there is not a single rule that i've managed to find that denies me the option of choosing a flyer. And trust me, i've looked.

Saying that it isnt an attack is also wrong. Of course it is an attack, but its not a shooting attack (it even clearly states that in the FAQ). It is a special attack, and thus requires special rules, just like the Bomb Squig. It has gotten a clear ruling that it can't affect flyers. Why has it got this special FAQ answer if by your own logic it falls under the FAQ answer about weapons and PSAs? Because it needs special clarification since its also a special form of attack.

To get back to your last comment though.

What i'm saying about Snap Shots is this:

People keep quoting different versions of "snap shots is the only thing that can target flyers" even though this is clearly not the case. There are different kinds of special cases.

In the case of the Vector Strike you're given permission to specifically target flyers, yet you still lack some forms of targetting (you can't, for instance target individual models inside units like Njals #6 result).

Vector strike is a special case that has a set of rules, one of those making it eligible to target a flyer.

Njals Storm is a special case that has a different set of rules, mainly being able o choose exaclty which model i want to hit.

A permission to choose any model within 18" with the only limitation rule being that is has to be in Njals LoS is exactly that, a permission to choose whichever model i want,, in LoS, without exceptions.

Eyjio wrote:
I don't want to repeat my answer as I believe I made myself quite clear earlier. I would like to address this though:

Tjolle79 wrote:
Why?
You can't really argue RAI either, as since they didnt touch these two special rule with regards to flyers anywhere they might as well have Intended these rules to be just what they are - special abilities with special rules.


Saying that Snap Shots are the only way to target flyers is saying that Vector Strikes can't target flyers either, although its clear both from the rules and the FAQ that they can.

It's possible that these were simply an oversight. Vector Strikes, however, are a special case - there is a very clear statement in the special rule that it can, indeed, hit flyers. Such an example is evidence against your case rather than for it, as they weren't FAQ'd a similar exception to the ban on autohitting weapons.

Why would they need an exception to the ban on autohitting weapons when they are NOT weapons?

Because the faq's answer covers all attacks, not just weapons. So an exception is needed.

And be careful how strict you want to go with RAW with an opponent. As has been previously noted, absolute-strict RAW only weapons may roll for armour penetration, which as you say LoT isn't one...

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
I don't want to repeat my answer as I believe I made myself quite clear earlier. I would like to address this though:

Tjolle79 wrote:
Why?
You can't really argue RAI either, as since they didnt touch these two special rule with regards to flyers anywhere they might as well have Intended these rules to be just what they are - special abilities with special rules.


Saying that Snap Shots are the only way to target flyers is saying that Vector Strikes can't target flyers either, although its clear both from the rules and the FAQ that they can.

It's possible that these were simply an oversight. Vector Strikes, however, are a special case - there is a very clear statement in the special rule that it can, indeed, hit flyers. Such an example is evidence against your case rather than for it, as they weren't FAQ'd a similar exception to the ban on autohitting weapons.

Why would they need an exception to the ban on autohitting weapons when they are NOT weapons?

As well as restating that RAW non-weapons cannot harm vehicles, I'd like you to explain how it isn't a weapon. Humour me. The exact definition of weapon is this:
"A weapon is a tool or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings—physical or mental—artificial structures, or systems."
So, in what way is a tool (his ability) that inflicts damage (using the profile and rules for resolving such attacks in the official rulebook) upon artificial structures (models) in our minds (40k is a simulation of battle done in our minds) not a weapon? No, really, how exactly do you intend to argue against the dictionary definition? The rules don't override it, so you must be happy to accept this definition normally to interpret the rules in any meaningful sense at all. Just because something doesn't explicitly state "THIS IS A WEAPON, IT USES RULES FOR WEAPONS" does not, in fact, constitute as evidence that it isn't a weapon.

I would dare anybody to show up to a table with that FAQ and try to get a pick up game, arguing that it isn't a weapon. How ludicrously specific do we need them to get here. Now we are debating the definition of weapon? This is an egg hunt, try reading the whole FAQ in the answer it tells us what may hit a zooming flier or swooping MC, snapshots. Skyfire removes the restriction.

If you try to claim it isn't a weapon then I would use copper.talos strategy, if it isn't a weapon it can't penetrate armor. Which is stupid, it's a weapon.

Eyjio wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
I don't want to repeat my answer as I believe I made myself quite clear earlier. I would like to address this though:

Tjolle79 wrote:
Why?
You can't really argue RAI either, as since they didnt touch these two special rule with regards to flyers anywhere they might as well have Intended these rules to be just what they are - special abilities with special rules.


Saying that Snap Shots are the only way to target flyers is saying that Vector Strikes can't target flyers either, although its clear both from the rules and the FAQ that they can.

It's possible that these were simply an oversight. Vector Strikes, however, are a special case - there is a very clear statement in the special rule that it can, indeed, hit flyers. Such an example is evidence against your case rather than for it, as they weren't FAQ'd a similar exception to the ban on autohitting weapons.

Why would they need an exception to the ban on autohitting weapons when they are NOT weapons?

As well as restating that RAW non-weapons cannot harm vehicles, I'd like you to explain how it isn't a weapon. Humour me. The exact definition of weapon is this:
"A weapon is a tool or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings—physical or mental—artificial structures, or systems."
So, in what way is a tool (his ability) that inflicts damage (using the profile and rules for resolving such attacks in the official rulebook) upon artificial structures (models) in our minds (40k is a simulation of battle done in our minds) not a weapon? No, really, how exactly do you intend to argue against the dictionary definition? The rules don't override it, so you must be happy to accept this definition normally to interpret the rules in any meaningful sense at all. Just because something doesn't explicitly state "THIS IS A WEAPON, IT USES RULES FOR WEAPONS" does not, in fact, constitute as evidence that it isn't a weapon.

Red Corsair wrote:I would dare anybody to show up to a table with that FAQ and try to get a pick up game, arguing that it isn't a weapon. How ludicrously specific do we need them to get here. Now we are debating the definition of weapon? This is an egg hunt, try reading the whole FAQ in the answer it tells us what may hit a zooming flier or swooping MC, snapshots. Skyfire removes the restriction.

If you try to claim it isn't a weapon then I would use copper.talos strategy, if it isn't a weapon it can't penetrate armor. Which is stupid, it's a weapon.

Or you can go into the Warhammer 40k rulebook, starting on page 50, and read what the game designers consider a weapon in this game and try and then match it up to the Lord of Tempest game effects.

And if we want to go down the line of copper.talos, his interpretation disallows the hits from an exploding vehicle from being resolved, a total/structural collapse/detonation of a building from being resolved, carnivorous jungles from being resolved, razorwing nests from being resolved, fuel reserve battlefield debris from being resolved, booby traps from being resolved, and spiker plants from being resolved.

Do I need to go on with examples of hits from things that are not from a weapon that somehow are then resolved without being a weapon? How about we take a moment and pretend not to be stupid and acknowledge that hits can be delivered on models without being called weapons and are still resolved using the armor penetration/wounding mechanics? Otherwise the can of worms you open is far worse then the mechanic you are trying to argue against.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Or you can go into the Warhammer 40k rulebook, starting on page 50, and read what the game designers consider a weapon in this game and try and then match it up to the Lord of Tempest game effects.

And if we want to go down the line of copper.talos, his interpretation disallows the hits from an exploding vehicle from being resolved, a total/structural collapse/detonation of a building from being resolved, carnivorous jungles from being resolved, razorwing nests from being resolved, fuel reserve battlefield debris from being resolved, booby traps from being resolved, and spiker plants from being resolved.

Do I need to go on with examples of hits from things that are not from a weapon that somehow are then resolved without being a weapon? How about we take a moment and pretend not to be stupid and acknowledge that hits can be delivered on models without being called weapons and are still resolved using the armor penetration/wounding mechanics? Otherwise the can of worms you open is far worse then the mechanic you are trying to argue against.

Did you just argue that RAW we should allow something that's clearly an attack and clearly banned in the FAQ as everyone keeps repeating, then say we should use RAI to resolve hits? Then you call US stupid?

Let's check your examples then. P50 let's us know we need a weapon profile - S, AP, type. Type dictates how it is fired only and allows number of shots as the only restriction. So, let's look up your examples:

Hits from exploding vehicles - S3(4 if inside) AP- autohit all models. Check.
Structural collapse - S6 AP- 2d6 autohits. Check.
Total collapse - S6 AP- 2d6 autohits. Check.
Detonation - S6 AP- 4d6 autohits. Check.
Carnivorous jungle - S5 AP- d3 autohits. Check.
Razorwing nest - S3 AP- d6 autohits. Check.
Fuel reserve - S3 AP- large blast. Check.
Booby trap - S5 AP- d6 autohits. Check.
Spiker plant - S3 AP- d6 autohits. Check.

See, they're all weapons. Every last one of them. So, ask yourself this: does LoT have S, AP and how many shots/hits it makes? Then it's a weapon. Notice how even for Vector Strike, we go S user, AP3, d3+1 autohits? Yup, it's a weapon but unlike YOUR weapon, that one has permission to hit flyers. So again, how does your thing with a weapon profile NOT constitute a weapon?

But the FAQ answer is directly covering shooting attacks, and PSAs, not ALL different forms of weapons and attacks.

The FAQ in question states:

"Only Snap Shots can hit zooming flyers and swooping monstrous creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use blast markers etc cannot target them".

It explicitly states therefore meaning that because of the Snap Shot rule in the first sentence, any weapons and attacks that would fire as a conventional shooting weapon would then be unable to hit flyers and FMCs.

Which weapons are affected by the Snap Shot rule? ONLY shooting attacks and PSAs that counts as shooting attacks, since its a rule concerning shooting.

Trying to argue that Njal and imotekhs attacks aren't from weapons is kinda letting people just keep on arguing, and its not the reason why their attacks aren't affected by the particular FAQ answer.

Of course Njals and Imotekhs Storms are weapons of sorts, just not shooting weapons. They are still attacks, but not shooting attacks, and therefore you CANNOT put a restriction like Snap Shots on them since that rule only affects Shooting Weapons.

Again, you can't take the FAQ sentence "any attacks that use etc" out of context and apply it whereever you want.

Tjolle79 wrote:
But the FAQ answer is directly covering shooting attacks, and PSAs, not ALL different forms of weapons and attacks.

The FAQ in question states:

"Only Snap Shots can hit zooming flyers and swooping monstrous creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use blast markers etc cannot target them".

It explicitly states therefore meaning that because of the Snap Shot rule in the first sentence, any weapons and attacks that would fire as a conventional shooting weapon would then be unable to hit flyers and FMCs.

Which weapons are affected by the Snap Shot rule? ONLY shooting attacks and PSAs that counts as shooting attacks, since its a rule concerning shooting.

Actually, the FAQ implies that ONLY shooting attacks can ever hit flyers. unless given special permission (like Vector Strike). The FAQ question is this:

Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)

It doesn't specify shooting at all, it just says weapons. The immediate reply is this:

A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures.

So, if you're not hitting on BS, be it a psychic power or a gun, you cannot hit. The following therefore is to make it clear that as blast markers don't use BS and cannot be fired as a snapshot, they don't affect flyers. It still covers this, as it's still a weapon.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

And if we want to go down the line of copper.talos, his interpretation disallows the hits from an exploding vehicle from being resolved, a total/structural collapse/detonation of a building from being resolved, carnivorous jungles from being resolved, razorwing nests from being resolved, fuel reserve battlefield debris from being resolved, booby traps from being resolved, and spiker plants from being resolved.

Do I need to go on with examples of hits from things that are not from a weapon that somehow are then resolved without being a weapon? How about we take a moment and pretend not to be stupid and acknowledge that hits can be delivered on models without being called weapons and are still resolved using the armor penetration/wounding mechanics? Otherwise the can of worms you open is far worse then the mechanic you are trying to argue against.

You might not understand it yet, but you just proved your own argument is wrong. All these effects ie explosions are not specifically mentioned as weapons, but they do have a weapon like profile and ingame they do get resolved against vehicles as being weapons, as yourself have said. Now apply the same logic to LoT which also is not specifically mentioned as a weapon but has a weapon like profile...

Eyjio wrote:

Tjolle79 wrote:
But the FAQ answer is directly covering shooting attacks, and PSAs, not ALL different forms of weapons and attacks.

The FAQ in question states:

"Only Snap Shots can hit zooming flyers and swooping monstrous creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use blast markers etc cannot target them".

It explicitly states therefore meaning that because of the Snap Shot rule in the first sentence, any weapons and attacks that would fire as a conventional shooting weapon would then be unable to hit flyers and FMCs.

Which weapons are affected by the Snap Shot rule? ONLY shooting attacks and PSAs that counts as shooting attacks, since its a rule concerning shooting.

Actually, the FAQ implies that ONLY shooting attacks can ever hit flyers. unless given special permission (like Vector Strike). The FAQ question is this:

Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)

It doesn't specify shooting at all, it just says weapons. The immediate reply is this:

A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures.

So, if you're not hitting on BS, be it a psychic power or a gun, you cannot hit. The following therefore is to make it clear that as blast markers don't use BS and cannot be fired as a snapshot, they don't affect flyers. It still covers this, as it's still a weapon.

You can't apply a shooting rule (Snap Shot) to non-shooting attacks just because you feel it should be. Snap Shot ruling doesnt affect non-shooting hits. It has absolutely nothing to do with BS, nor is it a shooting attack or a PSA that hits automatically.

If you are going to use quotes, use the entire text, not just the part you want. The entire text is dependent on the rest. The second sentence is in direct reference to the first, as a clarification of how to resolve shooting attacks that normally can't be resolved as Snap Shots.

Let me ask you this:

Can a Bomb Squig target a flyer?
According to the wording on the Bomb Squig, yes it can.
According to the Ork FAQ it can't.

If you were to remove that particular FAQ answer, what would happen? You could hit a flyer, because it isnt a shooting attack either, and you cant apply the Snap Shot FAQ answer about weapons and PSAs as its neither.

Same thing for Terror from the deep. If you remove the Tyranid answer from their FAQ that it can't target flyers, it wouldnt fall under the Snap Shot FAQ reply either.

There's nothing, nowhere, that denies Njals and Imotekhs Storms from hitting. There is, in fact, a SW FAQ that says you can't even take Cover saves for Vehicles even if they're Obscured, because it isnt a shooting attack

" Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Gliding
Flying Monstrous Creatures."



Begin sentence, content explaining exactly what can hit flyers, and a period.

Rules are PERMISSIVE. They tell you what you CAN do.

Sure, the rules do not say that you CANNOT use Njal's power against a flier, however,

....they also do not say that cannot sneeze and knock over a flier with my snot to kill it.

I cannot go to a GT during flu season and have a better chance against flier armies.


" Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Gliding
Flying Monstrous Creatures."

This is all you need to know. Until you can point out a rule that says that your power works specifically on fliers, one that gives you PERMISSION in this PERMISSIVE ruleset, you're out of luck. Sorry.

Erm no, it would still not hit a flyer. The general faq, covers this too. As has been said before, the lack of a specific faq doesn't invalidate a general faq, otherwise we would be needing specific faqs for each model, each weapon and each ability in all the codices for every BRB faq.

Some situations are covered by specific faqs, some aren't. And remember specific faqs for one situation create precedents for other similar situations. There are numerous examples on this. So the squig faq actually shows that hard to hit doesn't stop just weapons but anything that cannot be shot as a snapshot.