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.

foolishmortal wrote:
Check the Codex, Lord of the Storm does not target.

Edit : In case you don't have it

Lord of the Storm, Necrons p55.
1st paragraph is about applying Night Fighting
2nd paragraph " In addition, whilst Night Fighting rules remain in play, roll a D6 for each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield at the start of each Necron Shooting phase. On a roll of a 6, that unit is struck by a bolt of lightning and suffers D6 Strength 8, AP 5 hits (vehicles are hit on their side armour). Note that Night Fighting rules brought into play by a Solar Pulse (see page 84) do not generate lightning."

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)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
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.


Ok.
FAQ says Maelstroms, novas, beams or any WEAPON that doesn't need to To Hit or hits automatically...
Imotkh's lightning isn't a Maelstrom, Nova, Beam or a weapon at all, and it doesn't hit automatically.
It isn't covered by the Question being asked, and as such, isn't covered by the answer being answered. It isn't an area of effect or a line, template or blast marker.


The Lightning Rule does tell you to roll for each unit, and on a 6 that unit is struck.
The more specific FAQ doesn't address non-weapon hits, and as such, I think the Codex rules out (for now).
If Imotekh was actually doing the shooting I'd agree, but the lightning comes down regardless of what Imotekh is doing.


-Matt

foolishmortal wrote:

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

How do you dispute this fact?

By pointing out that it is a poorly-worded blanket statement in a faq. Easily made clear by the existence of the the Skyfire rule. If you would like to contend that it is not poorly worded, then I would point out that it says "Only Snap Shots" when by context it is referring to "Only [Shooting Attacks making] Snap Shots"

Pointing to a USR that grants an exception to the normal rules as justification is a poor argument.

Fragile wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

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

How do you dispute this fact?

By pointing out that it is a poorly-worded blanket statement in a faq. Easily made clear by the existence of the the Skyfire rule. If you would like to contend that it is not poorly worded, then I would point out that it says "Only Snap Shots" when by context it is referring to "Only [Shooting Attacks making] Snap Shots"

Pointing to a USR that grants an exception to the normal rules as justification is a poor argument.

Fair enough. maybe I am misinterpreting his point.

What I hear DeathReaper saying is, "Snap Shots and only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. There can be no other rules in the BRB or other Codex that allow it."

When I see someone making a blanket statement that prohibits any future modifications (something like sweeping advance in 5th) I try to point out the silliness of it with the most obvious example, in this case Skyfire.

If you or DeathReaper would like to restate the objection so that I might understand it better, I would rethink my response.

Checks = Can hit every unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield.

It targets them by saying this:
"roll a D6 for each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield at the start of each Necron Shooting phase. On a roll of a 6, that unit is struck by a bolt of lightning and suffers D6 Strength 8, AP 5 hits (vehicles are hit on their side armour)."
the underlined is where it says it targets every unengaged unit, by virtue of having to make a roll for each unengaged unit thus that unit being the target of the lightning on the roll of a 6.(this is an extrapolation of the rules of course)

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)

So your contention is that the Lightning attack is not a weapon?

Because see the Armor Pen argument for why this line of thinking is in error. Because if it is not a weapon it does not matter as you can not add the Str8 of the attack (Opps, it is not an attack or is it?) to the D6 roll, so you will never even glance a vehicle, so have it get hits on them all day, it will do nothing to them.

so It must be a "Weapon" of some sort, at the very least an attack.

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Anything that has the potential to cause damage is an "attack".

This is not unreasonable, but without some sort of rules reference or rules based argument, all I see here is an appeal to common sense. I don't recall which of YMDC's posting guidelines that is contrary to, but iirc, it's in there somewhere. Bottom line, it's not persuasive.

How about you find me the definition of "Roll" in the BRB. (You can't because the rules rely on an understanding of the english language to comprehend. This is one of those times that the BRB falls back on the English definition of a word).

HawaiiMatt wrote:


FAQ says Maelstroms, novas, beams or any WEAPON that doesn't need to To Hit or hits automatically...
Imotkh's lightning isn't a Maelstrom, Nova, Beam or a weapon at all, and it doesn't hit automatically.
It isn't covered by the Question being asked, and as such, isn't covered by the answer being answered. It isn't an area of effect or a line, template or blast marker.

The Lightning Rule does tell you to roll for each unit, and on a 6 that unit is struck.
The more specific FAQ doesn't address non-weapon hits, and as such, I think the Codex rules out (for now).
If Imotekh was actually doing the shooting I'd agree, but the lightning comes down regardless of what Imotekh is doing.

There is no 'lightning rule'. It's Lord of the Storm, but essentially, yes, that is my position.

But Wait! There's More! If you read up in around page 2 of this thread, there is a second, competing reason for why Lord of the Storm might be useless against Vehicles (not just flyers) in general from a strict RAW point of view. It's based on the hit being Str 8, but there being no instruction to add D6 to the Armor pen roll.

I personally believe that it's too strict, especially since it would also break the Ram rule on p86.

foolishmortal wrote:

Fragile wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

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

How do you dispute this fact?

By pointing out that it is a poorly-worded blanket statement in a faq. Easily made clear by the existence of the the Skyfire rule. If you would like to contend that it is not poorly worded, then I would point out that it says "Only Snap Shots" when by context it is referring to "Only [Shooting Attacks making] Snap Shots"

Pointing to a USR that grants an exception to the normal rules as justification is a poor argument.

Fair enough. maybe I am misinterpreting his point.

What I hear DeathReaper saying is, "Snap Shots and only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. There can be no other rules in the BRB or other Codex that allow it."

When I see someone making a blanket statement that prohibits any future modifications (something like sweeping advance in 5th) I try to point out the silliness of it with the most obvious example, in this case Skyfire.

If you or DeathReaper would like to restate the objection so that I might understand it better, I would rethink my response.

Now this is silliness. How Flyers interacted with LOTS of things was put on the table to GW and they responded with a simple FAQ that pretty much cleared it up. "Only snap shots.... " Does LotS snap shot ? Then it may not be resolved against a flyer. Arguing Skyfire, which is a USR that makes an exception to that rule, somehow justifies LotS being able to hit is a false comparison. The HtH rule was stated, Skyfire gives an exception. LotS does not. Its no different than Units cannot assault from reserves. But yet Ymgarl Genestealers can, because they have a rule that allows them to.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It targets them by saying this:
"roll a D6 for each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield at the start of each Necron Shooting phase. On a roll of a 6, that unit is struck by a bolt of lightning and suffers D6 Strength 8, AP 5 hits (vehicles are hit on their side armour)."
the underlined is where it says it targets every unengaged unit, by virtue of having to make a roll for each unengaged unit thus that unit being the target of the lightning on the roll of a 6.(this is an extrapolation of the rules of course)

Sir, while I recognize your experience on these forums, I cannot, in good conscience concede this point based on what I perceive to an Argument from Authority and an Appeal to Common Sense rather than a rule or rules-based argument. It is entirely possible that I am at fault in some way for not understanding or following your argument as you intended it. I am a fallible human. Nevertheless, given the information in front of me at this time, I must disagree.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So your contention is that the Lightning attack is not a weapon?

Because see the Armor Pen argument for why this line of thinking is in error. Because if it is not a weapon it does not matter as you can not add the Str8 of the attack (Opps, it is not an attack or is it?) to the D6 roll, so you will never even glance a vehicle, so have it get hits on them all day, it will do nothing to them.

I have been saying the above is a possible strict-RAW position for several pages now. My response is that this position would negate the usefulness of LotS vs not only flyers, but all vehicles, as well as breaking the Ramming rules (p86). Since that interpretation would seem oddly restrictive and break other rules as well, I see it as a possible strict-RAW argument, but reversible by a rules-based argument, and certainly not a RAI or HIWPI argument.

 DeathReaper wrote:
so It must be a "Weapon" of some sort, at the very least an attack.

No, it's quite possible that from a strict-RAW view, the lightning from LotS simply does not have the ability to pen (or even glance) 99%+ of existing vehicles. It doesn't have to be something else, just because I want to to be. What I can do is look at how strictly I am interpreting the rules and see if there is any other way to interpret it, still following a rules based argument, but allowing it and other related rules to function. That is what I have tried to do.

 DeathReaper wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Anything that has the potential to cause damage is an "attack".

This is not unreasonable, but without some sort of rules reference or rules based argument, all I see here is an appeal to common sense. I don't recall which of YMDC's posting guidelines that is contrary to, but iirc, it's in there somewhere. Bottom line, it's not persuasive.

How about you find me the definition of "Roll" in the BRB. (You can't because the rules rely on an understanding of the english language to comprehend. This is one of those times that the BRB falls back on the English definition of a word).

Again, that would be an extremely strict RAW point of view, even more so than above. I woud apply the same procedure though... I would look at how strictly I am interpreting the rules and see if there is any other way to interpret it, still following a rules based argument, but allowing it and other related rules to function.

I would then look at BRB p3 under Dice as well as Rolling a D3. I would use these 2 rules paragraphs to construct a rules based argument for "Roll"

Let me know when you have your rules based argument for what an attack is


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
Now this is silliness. How Flyers interacted with LOTS of things was put on the table to GW and they responded with a simple FAQ that pretty much cleared it up. "Only snap shots.... " Does LotS snap shot ? Then it may not be resolved against a flyer. Arguing Skyfire, which is a USR that makes an exception to that rule, somehow justifies LotS being able to hit is a false comparison. The HtH rule was stated, Skyfire gives an exception. LotS does not. Its no different than Units cannot assault from reserves. But yet Ymgarl Genestealers can, because they have a rule that allows them to.

Ah, I see the confusion. Are you arguing that since the Skyfire rule (BRB p42) is an exception to the Hard to Hit rule (BRB p81), and that LotS includes instructions for how to determine which units suffer hits, but not an exception for allowing flyers to suffer hits, it therefore does not allow flyers to suffer hits?

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Anything that has the potential to cause damage is an "attack".

This is not unreasonable, but without some sort of rules reference or rules based argument, all I see here is an appeal to common sense. I don't recall which of YMDC's posting guidelines that is contrary to, but iirc, it's in there somewhere. Bottom line, it's not persuasive.

How about you find me the definition of "Roll" in the BRB. (You can't because the rules rely on an understanding of the english language to comprehend. This is one of those times that the BRB falls back on the English definition of a word).

Again, that would be an extremely strict RAW point of view, even more so than above. I woud apply the same procedure though... I would look at how strictly I am interpreting the rules and see if there is any other way to interpret it, still following a rules based argument, but allowing it and other related rules to function.

I would then look at BRB p3 under Dice as well as Rolling a D3. I would use these 2 rules paragraphs to construct a rules based argument for "Roll"

Let me know when you have your rules based argument for what an attack is

Okay find me a rule that defines what he words "the", or "a", or "immediately" or "suffers" means within the rules.

If you can not, you must concede that some things are not defined in the BRB, but they fall back on normal English usage to define them.

So either:

1) We accept that the Lightning, and by extension ramming, can not add anything to the D6 roll. (which makes part of the game unplayable).

Or:

2) They are both attacks, and that means the Lightning can not hit a Zooming flyer.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Okay find me a rule that defines what he words "the", or "a", or "immediately" or "suffers" means within the rules.

If you can not, you must concede that some things are not defined in the BRB, but they fall back on normal English usage to define them.

Again, I must politely disagree. I believe this is a False Dilemma, and that my choices are not constrained to these two options. One of many possible third options is that "find me a rule that defines what he words "the", or "a", or "immediately" or "suffers" means within the rules" is an overly strict RAW position from which to have a productive conversation.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So either:

1) We accept that the Lightning, and by extension ramming, can not add anything to the D6 roll. (which makes part of the game unplayable).

Or:

2) They are both attacks, and that means the Lightning can not hit a Zooming flyer.

Again, I must politely disagree. I believe this is a False Dilemma, and that my choices are not constrained to these two options. One of many possible third options is that the LotS tells us what units suffer hits. These hits are the result of the LotS rule itself, not a shooting attack using a weapon, wargear, ability, or psychic ability.

Again, if the principle from which you argue LotS generates attacks, it should be simple to find a reference or two that makes the case.

I like this foolishmortal guy. A lot. Like, mancrush style levels of liking.

katfude wrote:
I like this foolishmortal guy. A lot. Like, mancrush style levels of liking.

Stop it, I'll blush....

I've been doing some reading of old threads, mostly...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/180/459193.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/475091.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/460424.page#4498668
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/468370.page

I found it kind of sad that the poster with (imo) the clearest logic, non-collapsing system structure, and helpful communication skill in the Njal thread, was also the most acerbic and least charitable. He likely got the thread closed after his rant on the 3rd page.

The Njal topic seemed to have the strongest parallel to the LotS question, but what I was most struck by was the insights some people had into to the September GW updates.

I apologize to some of the earlier posters on this thread if you tried to relate these insights to me and I was unable to follow them. Perhaps I was not looking deeply/broadly enough. Or perhaps, you knew the teacher's password, but could not re-create it on your own.

Anyways, I'm too tired to go into detail now, but if anyone wants to think about this question from a few new point of view, consider that our often quoted faq entry...

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)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
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.

... is not a reference to p80 (Flyers or Zooming) or p81 (Hard to Hit), but rather to p13 (Snap Shot).

Actually its a reference to just about anything not a snap shot that is attempting to affect a Flyer.

Fragile wrote:
Actually its a reference to just about anything not a snap shot that is attempting to affect a Flyer.

If by 'anything' you mean, "...any weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits automatically...", then I would agree. Is LotS considered a weapon (per the rules)?

-Yad

Yad wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Actually its a reference to just about anything not a snap shot that is attempting to affect a Flyer.

If by 'anything' you mean, "...any weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits automatically...", then I would agree. Is LotS considered a weapon (per the rules)?

-Yad

Read back and you can go over all those arguments. Its an area of attack ability that affects board wide, that "doesn't roll to hit" and hence cannot affect a Flyer since it is not a snapshot.

Fragile wrote:

Yad wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Actually its a reference to just about anything not a snap shot that is attempting to affect a Flyer.

If by 'anything' you mean, "...any weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits automatically...", then I would agree. Is LotS considered a weapon (per the rules)?

-Yad

Read back and you can go over all those arguments. Its an area of attack ability that affects board wide, that "doesn't roll to hit" and hence cannot affect a Flyer since it is not a snapshot.

I did. I think that your attempt to catagorize LotS as a shooting attack, which ultimately is what the FAQ entry addresses (i.e., shooting attacks originating from specific types of weapons), is very subjective. I haven't read a persuasive enough argument that LotS should be considered a shooting attack and thus would be covered by this FAQ.

-Yad

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

How do you dispute this fact?

Because it's a FAQ answer to a specific question, and not an Errata.
If an Errata said, "only snap shots can hit..." then it would be clear.
Because it's a specific answer to a question on some types of weapons, it's not a statement that can be taken on its own out of context.
If you pull part of a FAQ answer out of the book, without knowing context, or what question is being answered, you can have all sorts of wonky things happen.


-Matt

Yad wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Actually its a reference to just about anything not a snap shot that is attempting to affect a Flyer.

If by 'anything' you mean, "...any weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits automatically...", then I would agree. Is LotS considered a weapon (per the rules)?

-Yad

if you say it is not a weapon, then you must agree you only get a D6 (and not the strength of the attack) to use for armor penetration, as armor pen adds the weapon's strength to the roll).

Correct?

Yad wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Yad wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Actually its a reference to just about anything not a snap shot that is attempting to affect a Flyer.

If by 'anything' you mean, "...any weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits automatically...", then I would agree. Is LotS considered a weapon (per the rules)?

-Yad

Read back and you can go over all those arguments. Its an area of attack ability that affects board wide, that "doesn't roll to hit" and hence cannot affect a Flyer since it is not a snapshot.

I did. I think that your attempt to catagorize LotS as a shooting attack, which ultimately is what the FAQ entry addresses (i.e., shooting attacks originating from specific types of weapons), is very subjective. I haven't read a persuasive enough argument that LotS should be considered a shooting attack and thus would be covered by this FAQ.

-Yad

I didnt say it was a shooting attack. It is an area of effect attack, which cannot affect Flyers.

It does not have a Listed 'Area of Effect'. For reference those are: 'template' 'blast' or 'large blast', and occasionally an X" radius of some sort (which will always explicitly state it is an area of effect in the rule that mentions it). 'The entire battlefield' is not a rules-specific area for this purpose. (The listings for each are available on page 6 under 'Blast Markers and Templates'.)

Call it what you want, but you will find that it will fall under the same category that every other power/ability did that automatically hits..

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

LotS is not a snap shot and therefore cannot affect Flyers.. That simple sentence kills all the arguments that it can.

Sure, if the rule or FAQ actually used the words 'power/ability' then your point would be correct.

Fortunately, they do not, in preference to being much more specific (and exclusionary) about what is and is not effected by that rule.

Disprove the sentence I quoted

Fragile wrote:
Disprove the sentence I quoted

I think HawaiiMatt addressed your point in response to DR. You're lifting one portion of the FAQ answer and applying it in an overly broad manner. Basically ignoring both the context and focus of the FAQ.

-Yad

Certainly.

These are what the rule effects, as per page 81: Resolved Shots, Skyfire, Template Weapons, Blast Weapons, and Large Blast Weapons vis-a-vis Zooming models.
"...Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots (unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule, as described on page 42).Template, Blast and Large Blast weapons cannot hit fliers in Zoom mode..."

These are in the update in the FAQ about what the rule effects: Maelstroms, Novas, Beams, Any Weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits Automatically vis-a-vis Zooming models.
"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)"

So the total list of rules that the Zooming rule-set has an effect on are: Resolved Shots, Skyfire, Template Weapons, Blast Weapons, Large Blast Weapons, Maelstroms, Novas, Beams, and Any Weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits Automatically.

You'll notice 'Special Abilities' are not on that list...

Its not lifting one portion of the FAQ. Its a clear and concise statement, followed by the second sentence.... "Therefore.... " which explains the first. This whole thread is the same as the Blood Lance and Doom Scythe arguments. LotS automatically hits units and as such is prohibited by the FAQ since it does not snap shot.

No, but attacks are in the answer. Or are you going to claim the lightning strikes are not an attack?

You wouldn't have to, as you are never required to ask the question. (LoTS is not one of the listed rules effected by either the hard-to-hit ruleset itself nor the FAQ update. )

The FAQ update applies only to the items it 'says' it applies to; not everything that it's 'conceivable' that you could apply it to.

So I have a question then...if auto hits don't hit flyers then what would happen if a flyer deep strikes within 6" of a cryptek with an ether crystal? Do those not work as well?

 Neorealist wrote:
You wouldn't have to, as you are never required to ask the question. (LoTS is not one of the listed rules effected by either the hard-to-hit ruleset itself nor the FAQ update. )

The FAQ update applies only to the items it 'says' it applies to; not everything that it's 'conceivable' that you could apply it to.

And that is where you are wrong. A very general question was asked... How does a variety of things.... including "any attack" interact with Flyers. The answer was a simple " Only snap shots can hit Flyers....." They then went on to give a variety of examples including the words "any attacks..." This includes LotS. Attack is a generic term tied into numerous things, ability to wound, Instant Death, Penetration. To claim that it is not an attack but a special ability removes half of the components the game system is built around.

fragile wrote:And that is where you are wrong

Correction: that is where you 'believe' me to be wrong. The FAQ asks a question about a few 'very specific' things and how they interact with the 'Hard-to-Hit' rule, none of which are special abilities.

You appear to be inclined to apply it to anything you deem 'an attack' but to be honest there is no specific rules-valid reason to do so as it is perfectly clear from what they stated in the question, regarding what it applies to.

The most obvious example of intent i'd say is the actual written language used, it's much less clear if anything else should be effected by the rule-set.