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.

As I said 2 can play the too strict wording game. Since 6th edition BRB says that only weapons add their str to the pen roll, good luck trying to damage a flyer with imo's lightning...

copper.talos wrote:
As I said 2 can play the too strict wording game. Since 6th edition BRB says that only weapons add their str to the pen roll, good luck trying to damage a flyer with imo's lightning...

Well, that would affect many things actually. First that comes to mind, from another thread, is the orbital strike relay. It'd never pen a vehicle either.

Then we have all the special mission rules that include lightning strikes, volcano eruptions, and things of that sort...they'd never pen vehicles.

Yep. See how wrong it is to not apply common sense? But if you choose to do so for your advantage, then you give your opponent permission to do so too.

copper.talos wrote:
Yep. See how wrong it is to not apply common sense? But if you choose to do so for your advantage, then you give your opponent permission to do so too.

Common sense has little to do with 40k and you know it! But seriously, it's still not technically an attack. Attacks generally count against something a model can do. Attacks also generally require targeting something.

Though if you really want to see some major stupidity, let's just assume for a moment that we were agreeing imotekh's lightning worked...now if you look at the lightning storm rules in the BRB those lightning strikes wouldn't work. For two reason. They require a player to target something AND they use the small blast marker. Silly, right?

I'm sorry, what? You appear to be saying that you are unable to add the strength of the lightning hit to the roll to see if you glance or penetrate a vehicle? Where are you finding the rules justification for that particularly breathtaking leap in logic?

It's RAW and of course it's wrong. But I keep it in the back of my mind if someone wishes to rule-lawyer me to death...

Ok... can you quote the particular Rules As (they are) Written to give you justification for that? I'm just not seeing it, it seems.

BRB pg 73.

uh huh. What about that page prevents you from adding the strength of the lightning hit to the d6 roll to penetrate?

 Neorealist wrote:
uh huh. What about that page prevents you from adding the strength of the lightning hit to the d6 roll to penetrate?

The fact it says you "add the weapons strength to the d6 roll". Lightning isn't a weapon, in this case. But neither are many things that hit vehicles and still affect them.

I'm sorry, but the more specific rule in the necron codex says that the vehicle takes the strength 8 hits to their side armor; regardless of lightning not being a weapon.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm sorry, but the more specific rule in the necron codex says that the vehicle takes the strength 8 hits to their side armor; regardless of lightning not being a weapon.

We know, and we're not actually arguing that. He was saying if you go too strict by RAW in some cases then there are some illogical and game breaking stopping points, such as this. Sure, the vehicle would take a str 8 hit. No vehicle is naturally AV 8 and since lightning isn't a "weapon" you couldn't add a D6. He's not saying that's how it should be done, he's saying you follow the strictest letter of the book then almost no non-weapon attack would be able to actually hurt vehicles.

It was satirical (think that's the word I'm looking for).

Right, sadly however, he is mistaken in how that particular rule interacts.

You get a strength 8 hit against the side armor of the vehicle.
How does the main book tell us to resolve hits against a vehicle? "Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon's Strength, comparing this total to the Armour \talue
of the appropriate facing of the vehicle."

You'll note you roll a d6 first, then add the strength to it. if you were resolving a hit without taking into account the strength of a weapon? You would only be able to at best penetrate something with an Armor Value of 5 but fortunately for us the necron codex tells us to use a Strength 8 hit. Note: there is nothing saying you don't get to roll the d6 for Armor Penetration too like you seem to be under the impression of.

He is pointing out that you have to "add the weapon's Strength"

Strict RAW if it is not a weapon (Like a psychic power) you do not add anything to the D6 roll.

 Neorealist wrote:
Right, sadly however, he is mistaken in how that particular rule interacts.

You get a strength 8 hit against the side armor of the vehicle.
How does the main book tell us to resolve hits against a vehicle? "Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon's Strength, comparing this total to the Armour \talue
of the appropriate facing of the vehicle."

You'll note you roll a d6 first, then add the strength to it. if you were resolving a hit without taking into account the strength of a weapon? You would only be able to at best penetrate something with an Armor Value of 5 but fortunately for us the necron codex tells us to use a Strength 8 hit. Note: there is nothing saying you don't get to roll the d6 for Armor Penetration too like you seem to be under the impression of.

Now remember, I agree with you on this but...you don't need something to tell you can't do something, it has to say you can.

Again, I AGREE WITH YOU but using the statement of "it doesn't say you can't" will never get you far in the rules.

DeathReaper wrote:Strict RAW if it is not a weapon (Like a psychic power) you do not add anything to the D6 roll.

Normally, yes but the necron codex tells us to use a strength of 8 for the hit instead of not adding anything to the D6 roll.

Kevin949 wrote:Now remember, I agree with you on this but...you don't need something to tell you can't do something, it has to say you can.

Again, I AGREE WITH YOU but using the statement of "it doesn't say you can't" will never get you far in the rules.

Fair enough. The rule saying you 'do' get to do it is in the 'Armor Penetration Rolls' section about what happens after you've scored a hit against a vehicle. It explicitly gives you permission to roll a d6 for it, that is how it works.

I'm not really sure that an argument about following a rule 'too strictly' is going to have much traction in the YMDC section of the boards, sadly.

And they're saying it says add a d6 to a weapon but since it's not a weapon you can't add it. What's so hard to get about that? Blood lance actually says to treat it as a lance weapon so you'd be able to add a d6 to that roll.

copper.talos wrote:
It's RAW and of course it's wrong. But I keep it in the back of my mind if someone wishes to rule-lawyer me to death...

Hey Mr. Pot, I have a phone call from Mr. Kettle for you.....he wants to talk to you about the color black.

Alright, so only weapons can add strength to penetrate rolls, blasts cannot allocate wounds to units completely out of sight, eyeless models (i.e. Wraithguard) cannot draw LOS...any other rule that doesn't work as written?

Happyjew wrote:
Alright, so only weapons can add strength to penetrate rolls, blasts cannot allocate wounds to units completely out of sight, eyeless models (i.e. Wraithguard) cannot draw LOS...any other rule that doesn't work as written?

Most of them if you take the literal meaning of a rule set written for children, by people with the editing skills of children.

As for Imotekh's lightning, what's the exact wording on the process of a model being hit?
Because on a D6 roll of 6 the unit takes D6 hits sure seems like a roll to hit to me. On a 1-5 the lightning misses them correct?

-Matt

No BS used so no. Also Just an FYI Lighting originates from the ground going up. Look it up.

Lungpickle wrote:
No BS used so no. Also Just an FYI Lighting originates from the ground going up. Look it up.

That's a very over simplified answer that doesn't actually address the conversation that has been going on.

And again, I will counter with "it's not a shooting attack so isn't bound by the same restrictions that shooting attacks are bound to for hitting flyers."

Again, terror from the deep and bomb squigs are not shooting attacks, and they cannot hit flyers.

Although not covered, one could argue that Swooping Hawk grenade packs are not a sitting attack either.

ianj253 wrote:And they're saying it says add a d6 to a weapon but since it's not a weapon you can't add it. What's so hard to get about that? Blood lance actually says to treat it as a lance weapon so you'd be able to add a d6 to that roll.

This might be more persuasive if p73 was the only page in the rule book. P73 deals with shooting at vehicles. Imotekh's lightning is is not a shooting attack, it is a special ability. Lets look a bit further.

On p76 under Armour Pen in Assault , it says you use the same procedure as p73, but with the notation "D6 + the Strength of the attacker"

Moving on, p86, under Ram, "Strength of the hits...calculated as follows... Both players roll for armour penetration against their opponent's vehicle and any results are immediately applied."
No mention of the shooting procedure and no mention of a d6, but it does mention rolling. Hmmm.

I think what we are seeing here is the absence of some sort of general Armour Penetration rule.

In the strictest RAW sense, I could see an argument for no d6 addition to the Lightning hits. I think that argument would be exceedingly pedantic.

Is there a more generalized Armor Penetration rule that I missed? Is there a FAQ entry that provides clarification?

Happyjew wrote:
Again, terror from the deep and bomb squigs are not shooting attacks, and they cannot hit flyers.

Although not covered, one could argue that Swooping Hawk grenade packs are not a sitting attack either.

TFTD is a blast, so that's right out either way.

Bomb squigs ARE shooting attacks since they have a range, str, and happen in the shooting phase.

What's really ridiculous is that thrown krak grenades can hit flyers. WTF!?

Does the Lightning attack roll To Hit?
If so, what is the BS used?
If not, then it cannot hit Zoomers or Swoopers.

Happyjew wrote:
Does the Lightning attack roll To Hit?
If so, what is the BS used?
If not, then it cannot hit Zoomers or Swoopers.

In essence, yes it does roll to take effect. Twice, in fact.

*Edit*
Oh, sh...I forgot that damn lightning does strike at the beginning of the shooting phase for the necron turn. Harumph. I'm still torn on it though since it's still not technically a shooting attack and it does say to roll a d6 for "each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield". Though really I suppose "on the battlefield" could be another argument to why it wouldn't work as well.

It doesn't need to be a shooting attack. Just an attack. If one wants to argue that it is not an attack due to the fact ti is not a weapon nor does it deal with the Attack characteristic, that's fine.
Just remember though, everything in regards to rolling to penetrate deals with actual attacks, so even if it is able to hit Flyers/FMCs, it would not be able to actually glance/penetrate.

Happyjew wrote:
It doesn't need to be a shooting attack. Just an attack. If one wants to argue that it is not an attack due to the fact ti is not a weapon nor does it deal with the Attack characteristic, that's fine.
Just remember though, everything in regards to rolling to penetrate deals with actual attacks, so even if it is able to hit Flyers/FMCs, it would not be able to actually glance/penetrate.

Not entirely true, it could if it had it's armor reduced via ES.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
It doesn't need to be a shooting attack. Just an attack. If one wants to argue that it is not an attack due to the fact ti is not a weapon nor does it deal with the Attack characteristic, that's fine.
Just remember though, everything in regards to rolling to penetrate deals with actual attacks, so even if it is able to hit Flyers/FMCs, it would not be able to actually glance/penetrate.

Not entirely true, it could if it had it's armor reduced via ES.

True, forgot about ES. However (assuming Necron player goes second)
Non-Necron Turn 2 Flyer arrives.
Necron Turn 2 Lightning cannot penetrate aromur 10. Flyer hit with Harp of Dissonance, AV reduced to 9.
Necron Turn 3 Lightning cannot penetrate aromur 9. Flyer hit with Harp of Dissonance, AV reduced to 8.
Necron Turn 4 Lightning cannot penetrate aromur 8. Flyer hit with Harp of Dissonance, AV reduced to 7.
Necron Turn 5 Lightning cannot penetrate aromur 7. Flyer hit with Harp of Dissonance, AV reduced to 6.

Of course this also assuming that only one model has a Harp of Dissonance and manages to hit with a Snap Shot every single turn. As you can see with an AV of 10, the lightning would not be able to glance until Turn 6, and won't be able to penetrate until Turn 7. It can also speed up if the Flyer switches to Hover mode and gets assaulted but...