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.

 Neorealist wrote:

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.

"Any attack" is not something you would define as "very specific". Their answer still stands and hasn't been disproven. "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers..."

Fragile wrote: "Any attack" is not something you would define as "very specific". Their answer still stands and hasn't been disproven. "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers..."

You are correct there: "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. " is a list that i'd consider 'very specific'.

There is no reference to the type of attack (if it is in fact one) that LoTS represents in the above list which is an comprehensive list of everything specifically indicated to be modified by the 'Hard-to-Hit' rule.

I'd say the onus is currently with you and those of similar thought to 'prove' that LoTS is effected by the rule despite having no specific connection listed between the two.

Well, then, since your not an attack, then you dont compare Wound to Str toughness to wound and as was brought up previously doesnt effectively Pen vehicles... So it can hit everything on the board, just not do anything to them.

 Neorealist wrote:

Fragile wrote: "Any attack" is not something you would define as "very specific". Their answer still stands and hasn't been disproven. "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers..."

You are correct there: "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. " is a list that i'd consider 'very specific'.

There is no reference to the type of attack (if it is in fact one) that LoTS represents in the above list which is an comprehensive list of everything specifically indicated to be modified by the 'Hard-to-Hit' rule.

I'd say the onus is currently with you and those of similar thought to 'prove' that LoTS is effected by the rule despite having no specific connection listed between the two.

Neo, and others please answer this for me.
There are two options for the Lightning. Either:

1) It is an attack and works correctly with the rules.
Or
2) It is not an attack and does not work with the Armor Pen, and other, rules.

Which way are you going? 1 or 2?

Quick catch up from the post's from when I was offline...

Fragile wrote:

 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.

We have the FAQ text in question. It's widely available in this thread as well as at GW website. The discussion will almost certainly be more productive if we don't mis-quote or mis-characterize it.

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.

They did indeed ask a general question. They indeed did not ask how "any attack" interacts with flyers. You are quoting your answer as part of your question, then pointing to it and saying, "see, the question is asked and answered.

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

This is a good question, and one that may bear insightful fruit. In the earlier threads I read last night, I noticed that p50 (Weapons) was discussed and referenced. I think we need to include it in this thread as well.

Fragile wrote: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.

Sir, I respectfully disagree, as a matter of principled order. This idea has been raised as a possibility by myself and others. I did not say it was a fact, nor did I make a rules based argument that it was so, nor have I seen an argument from anyone on this thread why it should be so.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 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 stole some of my thunder here. My insight from last night was in gaining a better understanding to the NO position - how it was based on the above stretch of RAW interpretation.

I was mildly drunk at the time, but the thought went something like this. In a monarchy, a king can make laws as well as pass decrees. Laws can be broad or narrow. If something is not specifically covered by them, an extrapolation or general principle may be found to cover the new application of the law. Decrees, however, are to be followed as is, and regardless of the previous common interpretation of the laws. A king might decree April 5th to be a holiday. A king might decree that his horse is now a duke. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.

GW has a similar system with BRB/Codex/Amendments/Errata as laws, and FAQs as decrees.

"The Errata corrects any mistakes in the codex, while the Amendments bring the rulebook up to date with the latest version of the rules. The
Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules."

RAW, FAQs do not change the rules, but they must be followed. If GW printed a faq that said SM troops with Pistols could Charge and make Close Combat against Zooming flyers, we would have to follow it. Sounds crazy? Oddly enough, GW did something very similar (but not quite as illogical) with Vector Strike on p4 of the BRB v1a update

Q: Can a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature make a Vector Strike against a Zooming Flyer? (p49)
A: Yes.

I won't get into it now. Just note the Faq wording and then go to p49 and look at Vector Strike.
I's not as crazy a horse duke, but it probably should have been an errata, not a faq. But it is a faq, and this is a RAW discussion. (I think/hope)

Neorealist wrote:

Fragile wrote: "Any attack" is not something you would define as "very specific". Their answer still stands and hasn't been disproven. "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers..."

You are correct there: "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. " is a list that i'd consider 'very specific'.

There is no reference to the type of attack (if it is in fact one) that LoTS represents in the above list which is an comprehensive list of everything specifically indicated to be modified by the 'Hard-to-Hit' rule.

I'd say the onus is currently with you and those of similar thought to 'prove' that LoTS is effected by the rule despite having no specific connection listed between the two.

I would agree with this representation of the state of affairs here. The argument currently seems to be about the scope of the "How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon..." faq question and/or answer. I would add that there are other points to be considered...

p50 Weapons - honestly, this line of thinking will probably decide if I am PRO or NO on the OP's question. Currently leaning towards PRO, but still pondering the nature and scope of "weapon"
p49 Vector Strike
Njal's Lord of Tempasts rule (SW p53)
Cryptek's Ether Crystal (Necron p 85)
Did we ever state a rules based argument for what an attack it?
The Armor Penetrating resolution

I believe i'll be going with 'It hits fliers because hard-to-hit doesn't cover special abilities' personally; I have no vested interest in debating wether or not it is an 'attack' in the rules-defined sense.

So no answer for my previous question?

I will ask it again:
There are two options for the Lightning. Either:

1) It is an attack (this means that it works correctly with the rules).
Or
2) It is not an attack (this means that it does not work with the Armor Pen, and other, rules).

Which way are you going? 1 or 2?

Edit: Neorealist, determining if it is or is not an attack is crucial to the debate...

 Neorealist wrote:
I believe i'll be going with 'It hits fliers because hard-to-hit doesn't cover special abilities' personally; I have no vested interest in debating wether or not it is an 'attack' in the rules-defined sense.

So the Mawloc ruling goes counter to the rules? (not that I'd be surprised - it's a Tyranid ability after all)

Tyranid FAQ wrote:Q: Are Zooming Flyers or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures
affected by Mawloc’s Terror From the Deep special rule? (p51)
A: No. However, if the Mawloc cannot be placed because a
Zooming Flyer or a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature is in
the way, move the obstructing model by the shortest distance so
that they are 1" away from the Mawloc when it is placed.

foolishmortal wrote:
RAW, FAQs do not change the rules, but they must be followed.

I'm confused. how does the FAQ not change the rules?
Tyranids are the perfect example.

Does SITW affect embarked psykers?
At one point the answer was no. Now it is yes.

Better example - Spore Cloud. In 5th edition, if you took a dangerous (or difficult) terrain test your Initiative was dropped to 1 for the first round of combat. Spore Cloud forces a Dangerous Terrain test. GW (in their infinite wisdom) said that charging through a spore cloud did not drop your initiative because it was not terrain. How is that not changing the rule? The rule went from Dangerous Terrain test to moving through Dangerous terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:

1) It is an attack and works correctly with the rules.
Or
2) It is not an attack and does not work with the Armor Pen, and other, rules.

Which way are you going? 1 or 2?

I would say 3) Lord of the storm is a rule.
I will try to follow it as well as all other rules. [and now I will plagiarize shamelessly - but with this notation which may be interpreted as a tiny bit of shame]

If the language of the rule is plain and unambiguous, and the rule is coherent and consistent with the rest of the rules, I will use the rule as written.
I will not interpret the rule in such a way that creates more conflicts that it resolves.
When two rules seem to conflict, interpret them in such a way that they both can stand.
If the rules don’t tell players they can do something, players can’t do it.
I will interpret the rule as written by reference to the meanings of the words themselves and the context in which they are used.
Where the language of the rule is unclear, or in rare cases where the application of the rule as written will clearly violate GW’s intentions, interpret the rule according to GW’s intent.
I will not interpret a rule in such a way that makes some of the language inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant.
A more specific rule will be given precedence over a more general one.
The interpretation which requires the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one.
I will not interpret a rule in such a way that would create an absurd or unjust or extremely inconvenient result.
I will not interpret an ambiguous rule in such a way that would take away a substantial right that has been granted by other rules.
Older rules must be interpreted as being flexible when new rules and situations arise.
I will believe, perhaps naively, that when GW includes particular language in one place but omits it in another, it does so for a reason.

Happyjew wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:
RAW, FAQs do not change the rules, but they must be followed.

I'm confused. how does the FAQ not change the rules?
Tyranids are the perfect example.

Does SITW affect embarked psykers?
At one point the answer was no. Now it is yes.

Better example - Spore Cloud. In 5th edition, if you took a dangerous (or difficult) terrain test your Initiative was dropped to 1 for the first round of combat. Spore Cloud forces a Dangerous Terrain test. GW (in their infinite wisdom) said that charging through a spore cloud did not drop your initiative because it was not terrain. How is that not changing the rule? The rule went from Dangerous Terrain test to moving through Dangerous terrain.

And in this edition. Either the Mawloc FAQ changes the rule specifically for TFTD or it clarifies that special abilities are also affected.

Happyjew wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:
RAW, FAQs do not change the rules, but they must be followed.

I'm confused. how does the FAQ not change the rules?
Tyranids are the perfect example.

Does SITW affect embarked psykers?
At one point the answer was no. Now it is yes.

Better example - Spore Cloud. In 5th edition, if you took a dangerous (or difficult) terrain test your Initiative was dropped to 1 for the first round of combat. Spore Cloud forces a Dangerous Terrain test. GW (in their infinite wisdom) said that charging through a spore cloud did not drop your initiative because it was not terrain. How is that not changing the rule? The rule went from Dangerous Terrain test to moving through Dangerous terrain.

"The Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules."

I agree that faq entries in GW updates change how gameplay situations are resolved. From a RAI / HIWPI point of view that equates to changing the rule.

We also seem to agree that several faq entries differ from what was the commonly considered the correct way of resolving a gameplay situation. You cited several good examples.

My point is that GW's updates are divided (by GW) into things that change the RAW to fix mistakes, things that change the RAW to bring the codex
up to date with the latest version of the rules, and things answer common questions about the rules."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
And in this edition. Either the Mawloc FAQ changes the rule specifically for TFTD or it clarifies that special abilities are also affected.

I agree, GW includes information in the form of faqs, that seem much more appropriately errata or amendment.

Are you seriously saying that the Spore Cloud FAQ did not change the rules specific to Spore Cloud?

I feel i need to clarify my position "what is an attack?"

I don't have one. I just don't think it's useful.

I am willing to look at an argument that there is such a thing as a general 40k "attack", but I'm not going to chase it myself. So far, in 6th Ed, I am aware if the Attacks characteristic (p2), my shooting attacks are made by my units, nominated by my choice (p12), and that Witchfire is a Shooting attack (p69).

More useful, imo, would be a discussion about "hits". Hits are generated by many different game rules, but are resolved in much the same way, despite the rules.

1) Determine hits based upon rules. The hits will have some inherent information (Str A, AP B, Special rule C, etc) based upon the rules that caused them

2) Resolve hits. Hits vs infantry resolution is the default procedure. Other sorts of units have additional or alternate rules for working out the results of hits. Armor pen, Jink save for bikes, etc




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Are you seriously saying that the Spore Cloud FAQ did not change the rules specific to Spore Cloud?

I am saying that by GW's preface to every update they have posted for quite a while, that they are saying that spore cloud ruling and others like it "answers commonly asked
questions about the rules"

In this, as many other cases, I found their answer to be surprising and contrary to the widely used rules by many 40k players around the world.

At best, I see it as an oversight on their part.
At worst, it's pretty blatant cognitive dissonance.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So no answer for my previous question?

I will ask it again:
There are two options for the Lightning. Either:

1) It is an attack (this means that it works correctly with the rules).
Or
2) It is not an attack (this means that it does not work with the Armor Pen, and other, rules).

Which way are you going? 1 or 2?

Edit: Neorealist, determining if it is or is not an attack is crucial to the debate...

That's fine, no one had input on my question about ether crystals either. They probably aren't technically an attack, they hit automatically, they affect the opponent on their turn...would they work against flyers/swoopers?

Updated Decision Tree for resolving Lord of the Storm

Given an unengaged enemy flyer unit in play. Note that the flyer unit zoomed in it's players most recent movement phase.
Given it is the beginning of the Necron player's shooting phase. Note that the Night Fighting rules are still from the Necron Player's Imotekh's Lord of the Storm rule and that a Solar Pulse has not been used.

1) The 2nd paragraph of Lord of the Storm instructs the Necron player to roll a D6 for each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield.
?1) Is the unengaged enemy flyer unit "on the battlefield"?

2) The Necron player rolls a 6 for the unengaged enemy flyer unit. The Lord of the Storm rule states that the unit "suffers D6 Strength 8, AP 5 hits"
?2a) Is there a rule, faq, or rules based argument that prohibits the unengaged enemy flyer unit from suffering these hits?

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.

?2b) Is The Lord of the Storm and/or the lightning generated by the rule a "weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically"

?2c) What is a weapon?

p50 - "Every weapon has a profile." Profiles include Range, Strength, Armour Piercing, and Type. I don't have a citation for it right now, but iirc a weapon does not need to have an explict profile line. A profile may be given in longer sentence format. Anyone know where I am remembering this from? I think it was an update.

?2d) Does Lord of the Storm and/or the lightning generated by the rule have a profile?

It does not have an explicit profile line. It does have information in sentence form about Strength and AP. It does not have a stated range, but a range of "unlimited" could be reasonable argued.

Per p50 (Range), Range may also denote whether a weapon is a shooting weapon (range ##" or template) or a Melee weapon (Range -).

Lord of the Storm and/or the lightning generated by the rule does not seem to have an explicit or implicit Type.

?2e) What is a Weapon Type?

"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Rapid Fire or Salvo."
"Weapon with the Melee type can only be used in close combat."
"The Type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question."

?2f) Does Lord of the Storm and/or the lightning generated by the rule have an determinable Type?

This is where I am now... any ideas?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kevin949 wrote:
That's fine, no one had input on my question about ether crystals either. They probably aren't technically an attack, they hit automatically, they affect the opponent on their turn...would they work against flyers/swoopers?

I thought it was a great question and included it in my list of things to examine. It has a strong parallel to the OP's question.

I think the problem has more to do with the vagueness and often unstructured nature of Internet conversations, but for me, that's some of the fun. You never know where things might lead...

Perhaps post it as a new topic?

foolishmortal wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kevin949 wrote:
That's fine, no one had input on my question about ether crystals either. They probably aren't technically an attack, they hit automatically, they affect the opponent on their turn...would they work against flyers/swoopers?

I thought it was a great question and included it in my list of things to examine. It has a strong parallel to the OP's question.

I think the problem has more to do with the vagueness and often unstructured nature of Internet conversations, but for me, that's some of the fun. You never know where things might lead...

Perhaps post it as a new topic?

Mm, Maybe. It's not necessarily that I was asking for a RAW answer, more so how some of naysayers here would respond to it in context to what is going. I mean, if one is to say that lord of the storms' lightning won't affect flyers then surely that would mean many other things that, by all rights, should affect flyers but wouldn't as well. But then in some cases you won't be following the rules. As you said, I think it's a strong parallel to the topic of discussion here and stays within the bounds of the same codex, but it's such a rarely used item I'd doubt it would warrant its' own thread at the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:


p50 - "Every weapon has a profile." Profiles include Range, Strength, Armour Piercing, and Type. I don't have a citation for it right now, but iirc a weapon does not need to have an explict profile line. A profile may be given in longer sentence format. Anyone know where I am remembering this from? I think it was an update.

?2d) Does Lord of the Storm and/or the lightning generated by the rule have a profile?

It does not have an explicit profile line. It does have information in sentence form about Strength and AP. It does not have a stated range, but a range of "unlimited" could be reasonable argued.

Per p50 (Range), Range may also denote whether a weapon is a shooting weapon (range ##" or template) or a Melee weapon (Range -).

Lord of the Storm and/or the lightning generated by the rule does not seem to have an explicit or implicit Type.

?2e) What is a Weapon Type?

"A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Rapid Fire or Salvo."
"Weapon with the Melee type can only be used in close combat."
"The Type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question."

?2f) Does Lord of the Storm and/or the lightning generated by the rule have an determinable Type?

This is where I am now... any ideas?

1. Under Rolling to Wound - Pg. 14 - "Each weapon has its own Strength value, which is given in its profile or in the description of the weapon. Here are some examples of different weapons and their Strength characteristics"

Well, since a deep-striking, non-walker vehicle is considered to have moved at cruising speed the turn it deep strikes onto the board, I would say the first question is "did the Flyer Zoom onto the board as part of it's deep-strike?"

There may be other threads on this or perhaps some update info or a rule that I missed.

If it is zooming as well as deep striking, then the argument lines up very well with Lord of the Storm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From the Necron update 1.1 p2

You’ll also find that some of
the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather
than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook. Don’t worry – these are functionally identical, unless
noted otherwise in this document.

foolishmortal wrote:
Well, since a deep-striking, non-walker vehicle is considered to have moved at cruising speed the turn it deep strikes onto the board, I would say the first question is "did the Flyer Zoom onto the board as part of it's deep-strike?"

There may be other threads on this or perhaps some update info or a rule that I missed.

If it is zooming as well as deep striking, then the argument lines up very well with Lord of the Storm.

I would presume (though possibly incorrectly) that if a monstrous creature must swoop when deep striking then a flyer must zoom when deep striking. Though do other flyers other than the necron ones have deep strike and hover? (I know necron ones don't have hover, but ones with hover are really the only ones that would be in question here)

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So no answer for my previous question?

I will ask it again:
There are two options for the Lightning. Either:

1) It is an attack (this means that it works correctly with the rules).
Or
2) It is not an attack (this means that it does not work with the Armor Pen, and other, rules).

Which way are you going? 1 or 2?

I would say 3) Lord of the storm is a rule.

It is a yes or no question. There is no third option. We know Lord of the storm is a rule. Either the rule is used to attack the opposing army, or the rule is not used to attack the opposing army.

Yes or no?

Please resolve this issue.

 DeathReaper wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So no answer for my previous question?

I will ask it again:
There are two options for the Lightning. Either:

1) It is an attack (this means that it works correctly with the rules).
Or
2) It is not an attack (this means that it does not work with the Armor Pen, and other, rules).

Which way are you going? 1 or 2?

I would say 3) Lord of the storm is a rule.

It is a yes or no question. There is no third option. We know Lord of the storm is a rule. Either the rule is used to attack the opposing army, or the rule is not used to attack the opposing army.

Yes or no?

Please resolve this issue.

Through careful reading of multiple parts of the rule book, anything that has the potential to damage an enemy is an attack. Anything with a strength value, is an attack.

 DeathReaper wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So no answer for my previous question?

I will ask it again:
There are two options for the Lightning. Either:

1) It is an attack (this means that it works correctly with the rules).
Or
2) It is not an attack (this means that it does not work with the Armor Pen, and other, rules).

Which way are you going? 1 or 2?

I would say 3) Lord of the storm is a rule.

It is a yes or no question. There is no third option. We know Lord of the storm is a rule. Either the rule is used to attack the opposing army, or the rule is not used to attack the opposing army.

Yes or no? Please resolve this issue.

I'm sure you're not intending to be rude, but some might consider this to be a loaded question or a false dilemma - something of a trick used to steer the conversation into a negitave for the answerer, no matter what he chooses.

A common example of this sort of thing in debate, discourse, logic and politics is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" There is no good yes or no answer here, although from a practical point of view, I would say "Yes" is the better answer. I will try and answer yours the same way.

Of your 2 choices, I would say it is not an attack.

So how are you defining "attack"? It certainly deosnt follow a common English example of attack, which is all we have to fall back on, given "attack" has no 40k definition...

rigeld2 wrote:So the Mawloc ruling goes counter to the rules? (not that I'd be surprised - it's a Tyranid ability after all)

I suspect that has everything to do with the Mawloc using a Large Blast Marker for it's specific special ability and nothing to do with anything intrinsic to special abilities in and of themselves.

But i'll be honest here, i have no idea why they decided it doesn't work against fliers. I guess someone asked, and they had to make a decision one way or the other? So they went with the one that didn't have giant subterranean worms sneak-attacking fliers. Pity that, would have been awesome.

foolishmortal wrote:
I'm sure you're not intending to be rude, but some might consider this to be a loaded question or a false dilemma - something of a trick used to steer the conversation into a negitave for the answerer, no matter what he chooses.

A common example of this sort of thing in debate, discourse, logic and politics is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" There is no good yes or no answer here, although from a practical point of view, I would say "Yes" is the better answer. I will try and answer yours the same way.

That is not the same situation at all.

The question you pose is a loaded question and it insinuates that the person that answers the question beats his wife. My Yes/No question makes no such Insinuations/assumptions.

Either your rule is an attack or it is not.

foolishmortal wrote:
Of your 2 choices, I would say it is not an attack.

As Nos said " how are you defining "attack"? It certainly doesn't follow a common English example of attack, which is all we have to fall back on, given "attack" has no 40k definition."

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So how are you defining "attack"? It certainly deosnt follow a common English example of attack, which is all we have to fall back on, given "attack" has no 40k definition...

I haven't defined attack. In 40k, I have noted a few instances of it's use, but no clear place from which to generalize a definition.

I did look, and was surprised at how in frequently it was used in some places in the rules that I expected it to be common.

Guess how many times the BRB has "attack" in the Shooting Phase rules (p12-19). It was a lot less than I expected.

I am fairly confident LotS does not involve a "shooting attack" (p12)
I am more confident LotS does not involve a melee or close combat attack.

That leaves me wondering if I should generate some sort of 40k rule for a generic, non-shooting, non-close combat attack, or if I should call the LotS a special rule and try to apply the special rule as best I can.

My working definition for a generic attack would be something like "an attempt permitted by the BRB and/or codex rules for one Unit to negatively affect one or more enemy units"

My problem with such a generalized attack term is that I could substitute the word "magic" or "rules" or "system" and get about the same power of clarification. It's too broad to be helpful.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Either your rule is an attack or it is not.

As Nos said " how are you defining "attack"? It certainly doesn't follow a common English example of attack, which is all we have to fall back on, given "attack" has no 40k definition."

The difficulty of the question is right here.

You are asking me if X is either A or not A, without a definition of A

It's a loaded question because you added parenthetical, negative statements of how it interpret my answer for each choice.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

1) Yes (but I was before)
2) No (I sure am bad)


Edit - a question to DeathReaper, nosferatu1001, anyone else - What rule are you looking at where it matters if LotS or the lightning from it is an attack?

If it's the faq below, why aren't you interested in my line of thinking whether of not LotS or the lightning from it is a weapon?

"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."

The explanation mostly: "Therefore, any attacks that use..."

if it is an attack then it can not hit flyers.

if it is not an attack then it can not use the str for armor pen.

The first one does not break any rules.

The second one breaks rules.

So since the question asked is...

"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? "

... why not help me figure out if it's a weapon and the faq applies?

I'd like to go on the record indicating i am uncomfortable with your allegory, linguistic device though it may be

That said, have we moved on from determining wether or not LoTS can hit fliers to the definition of the word 'attack'? seems like a bit of a leap to me, perhaps someone can clarify why defining the word 'attack' within the context of 40k is relevent to the OPs question?

I would also be interested in an opinion on my new thread Ork Blitza-Bommer's Skreamin' Descent vs Snap Shot and Hard to Hit

It is the closest parallel situation I have found yet.

It involves a zooming flier suffering a hit of S9, AP2 from a special rule after a roll of 3 or 4 on 2d6.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:
I'd like to go on the record indicating i am uncomfortable with your allegory, linguistic device though it may be

I agree and apologize. It is a painful question to ask, answer or even hear. Sadly, that is probably why it is used as a classic example in debate theory. It has a strong, emotional response regardless of the level civility or rational tone otherwise intended. I won't bring it up again.

 Neorealist wrote:
That said, have we moved on from determining wether or not LoTS can hit fliers to the definition of the word 'attack'? seems like a bit of a leap to me, perhaps someone can clarify why defining the word 'attack' within the context of 40k is relevent to the OPs question?

He is citing ...

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.