Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 18:21:07
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:
Since this is true.
Rule Book FAQ wrote:A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers"
And this is true.
Then this conclusion is true:
You can not affect a Zooming flyer with the LotS rule, since the LotS rule is not a shooting attack, and therefore can not make snap shots, which is the only thing that can hit a Zooming Flyer without other specific permission (reference Vector Strike).
Fixed that for you.
Thank you for the addition of "without other specific permission", I will add that to my Post.
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 18:42:52
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar
USA
|
foolishmortal wrote:Maybe read it again in this new light. If you still disagree, tell me which part you think is wrong. Maybe I am wrong and you can show me why.
Not to be rude, but if you haven't gotten it by now, you're unlikely to get in the future.
It seems fairly obvious to me. The arguments you're making are the same ones people made for Mawlocs being able to hit flyers, and they are equally wrong. Whether or not the ability or weapon you're using is an 'attack' is completely irrelevant. You check two things to see if you an attack or ability can hit a flyer. Is it a Snap Shot, and if not, does it have specific permission to hit flyers. If they answer to both of those questions is no, then you cannot hit flyers.
Does LotS use or have the option to use Snap Shots? No
Does LotS have specific permission to hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping FMCs? No
In any event, this thread should probably be closed. From what I've read in the last few pages, neither side of this debate seems likely to concede, it'll take a FAQ to end it.
|
Check out my list building app for 40K and Fantasy:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/576793.page |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 18:51:44
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
undertow wrote:foolishmortal wrote:Maybe read it again in this new light. If you still disagree, tell me which part you think is wrong. Maybe I am wrong and you can show me why.
Not to be rude, but if you haven't gotten it by now, you're unlikely to get in the future.
It seems fairly obvious to me. The arguments you're making are the same ones people made for Mawlocs being able to hit flyers, and they are equally wrong. Whether or not the ability or weapon you're using is an 'attack' is completely irrelevant. You check two things to see if you an attack or ability can hit a flyer. Is it a Snap Shot, and if not, does it have specific permission to hit flyers. If they answer to both of those questions is no, then you cannot hit flyers.
Does LotS use or have the option to use Snap Shots? No
Does LotS have specific permission to hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping FMCs? No
In any event, this thread should probably be closed. From what I've read in the last few pages, neither side of this debate seems likely to concede, it'll take a FAQ to end it.
I certainly put my FAQ email in to GW.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 19:48:19
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
undertow wrote:In any event, this thread should probably be closed. From what I've read in the last few pages, neither side of this debate seems likely to concede, it'll take a FAQ to end it.
It does not really need an FaQ.
This previous post of mine should solidify it.
DeathReaper wrote:
Since this is true.
Rule Book FAQ wrote:A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers"
And this is true.
Then this conclusion is true:
You can not affect a Zooming flyer with the LotS rule, since the LotS rule is not a shooting attack, and therefore can not make snap shots, which is the only thing that can hit a Zooming Flyer (without other specific permission (reference Vector Strike)).
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 20:06:21
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
DeathReaper wrote: undertow wrote:In any event, this thread should probably be closed. From what I've read in the last few pages, neither side of this debate seems likely to concede, it'll take a FAQ to end it.
It does not really need an FaQ.
This previous post of mine should solidify it.
DeathReaper wrote:
Since this is true.
Rule Book FAQ wrote:A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers"
And this is true.
Then this conclusion is true:
You can not affect a Zooming flyer with the LotS rule, since the LotS rule is not a shooting attack, and therefore can not make snap shots, which is the only thing that can hit a Zooming Flyer (without other specific permission (reference Vector Strike)).
I will say, safely, that no it doesn't "solidify" it. Nothing anyone has said in this thread is solid for either side of this argument as everything stated has a counter argument (or circular argument).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/08 20:06:33
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 20:10:22
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
DeathReaper wrote: undertow wrote:In any event, this thread should probably be closed. From what I've read in the last few pages, neither side of this debate seems likely to concede, it'll take a FAQ to end it.
It does not really need an FaQ.
If it did not need a FAQ it would not be a 10-page thread going back and forth. Generally once a thread reaches 6+ pages, it is a good indicator it needs looking at by GW.
|
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 20:20:43
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
It should solidify it, unless they do not understand what I wrote.
There is nothing that can refute the logic.
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 20:26:09
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
DeathReaper wrote:It should solidify it, unless they do not understand what I wrote.
There is nothing that can refute the logic.
The fact that you don't see the other side and recognize the validity of the claims shows that your point of view will never "solidify" anything regarding this. This isn't meant as a jab at you.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 20:29:03
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
I can see the other side, but they are not correct, as they can not refute the rules I have presented. Plus: undertow wrote:The arguments [they're] making are the same ones people made for Mawlocs being able to hit flyers, and they are equally wrong.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/08 20:29:59
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 21:31:09
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
DeathReaper wrote:I can see the other side, but they are not correct, as they can not refute the rules I have presented.
Plus:
undertow wrote:The arguments [they're] making are the same ones people made for Mawlocs being able to hit flyers, and they are equally wrong.
No, the arguments for mawlocs were always wrong because blast markers never were able to hit zooming flyers/swoopers in the first place. To compare the two attacks to one another is an incorrect method to debate the validity of lord of the storm working or not as the primary reasons for them working or not are not the same. There are one or two similarities, yes, but there's a large difference to why TftD doesn't work compared to why some say LotS doesn't work.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 21:35:47
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
Exchange Mawlock, for Death Ray and it works the same way.
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 21:44:40
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Kevin949 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:I can see the other side, but they are not correct, as they can not refute the rules I have presented.
Plus:
undertow wrote:The arguments [they're] making are the same ones people made for Mawlocs being able to hit flyers, and they are equally wrong.
No, the arguments for mawlocs were always wrong because blast markers never were able to hit zooming flyers/swoopers in the first place.
Absolutely false.
Template, Blast and Large Blast weapons never were able to hit. TfTD is not a Large Blast weapon.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 21:49:41
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
If that's how you want to see it. I personally still wouldn't compare those two, they're still very different. I have my own reasons for thinking why it would or wouldn't work. But on this subject I don't think I'd be so rash to flat out say "I'm right and you're wrong." for either side of it.
Anywho, I agree with the other guy that there really should be something official for it, hopefully anyway. I know you disagree with that as well, and that's fine. Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2 wrote: Kevin949 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:I can see the other side, but they are not correct, as they can not refute the rules I have presented.
Plus:
undertow wrote:The arguments [they're] making are the same ones people made for Mawlocs being able to hit flyers, and they are equally wrong.
No, the arguments for mawlocs were always wrong because blast markers never were able to hit zooming flyers/swoopers in the first place.
Absolutely false.
Template, Blast and Large Blast weapons never were able to hit. TfTD is not a Large Blast weapon.
*Rolls Eyes*
Just stop dude. The FAQ already clarified it to be attacks. I'm not going to play the semantics game with you.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/08 21:50:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 22:17:29
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
Kevin949 wrote:... The FAQ already clarified it to be attacks. I'm not going to play the semantics game with you.
So it did clarify it to be attacks. So if the Mawlock's rule is an attack, so is LoTS. (Seems clear enough to me).
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/08 22:27:38
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
DeathReaper wrote: Kevin949 wrote:... The FAQ already clarified it to be attacks. I'm not going to play the semantics game with you.
So it did clarify it to be attacks. So if the Mawlock's rule is an attack, so is LoTS. (Seems clear enough to me).
I'm not saying it isn't. I'm not debating the ability of it to hit or not hit flyers anymore, either. Mostly because it does appear that both sides are set in what they believe is right. I say if it becomes a problem, roll for it. Or, discuss pre-game.
Besides, I need to save my angry-strength for playing X-Com tonight!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/08 22:28:33
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/09 01:26:01
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Kevin949 wrote:
*Rolls Eyes*
Just stop dude. The FAQ already clarified it to be attacks. I'm not going to play the semantics game with you.
Which FAQ? The oft cited one in this thread? So your statement of "never were ... In the first place" was wrong, because they were able to until the FAQ, right?
It'd be great if you could address my argument instead of just be rude to me though.
Edit: also, the Mawloc TfTD ability has still not been clarified as an attack, despite some people's assertions. What stops it from working is the Tyranid FAQ that says No. If the BRB FAQ was sufficient, the Nid one wouldn't be required.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/09 02:09:20
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/09 02:03:11
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar
USA
|
Kevin949 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:I can see the other side, but they are not correct, as they can not refute the rules I have presented.
Plus:
undertow wrote:The arguments [they're] making are the same ones people made for Mawlocs being able to hit flyers, and they are equally wrong.
No, the arguments for mawlocs were always wrong because blast markers never were able to hit zooming flyers/swoopers in the first place. To compare the two attacks to one another is an incorrect method to debate the validity of lord of the storm working or not as the primary reasons for them working or not are not the same. There are one or two similarities, yes, but there's a large difference to why TftD doesn't work compared to why some say LotS doesn't work.
I posted a couple of times in that Mawloc thread, arguing that it wouldn't affect fliers. My reasoning was that it was a weapon ( and/or attack) that used a large blast marker, and was thus unable to hit flyers. People responded with the same argument that is being used in this thread, that TFTD isn't an attack or a weapon, it's a special rule is therefore can hit fliers. They said it didn't have a weapon profile, or that it wasn't listed in the weapons chart in the back of the book. I tried to say that if looked like a weapon, and acted like a weapon, then it was a weapon, but I was roundly shot down. You people (yes, You People) are using the same flawed argument to get LotS to hit fliers.
Using the Mawloc debate as a model it is clear that one of the two following statements are true:
1. It doesn't matter if the ability / attack / weapon / special rule is officially an attack. If it can't be fired as a Snap Shot it can't hit unless given permission to do so.
2. All things that can cause damage or remove models are considered 'attacks' and if they can't be fired as a Snap Shot it can't hit unless given permission to do so.
|
Check out my list building app for 40K and Fantasy:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/576793.page |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/09 05:41:34
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Rough Rider with Boomstick
|
undertow wrote:I posted a couple of times in that Mawloc thread, arguing that it wouldn't affect fliers. My reasoning was that it was a weapon ( and/or attack) that used a large blast marker, and was thus unable to hit flyers. People responded with the same argument that is being used in this thread, that TFTD isn't an attack or a weapon, it's a special rule is therefore can hit fliers. They said it didn't have a weapon profile, or that it wasn't listed in the weapons chart in the back of the book. I tried to say that if looked like a weapon, and acted like a weapon, then it was a weapon, but I was roundly shot down. You people (yes, You People) are using the same flawed argument to get LotS to hit fliers.
I realize it's a rather lengthy thread and that there is little chance of changing many minds at this point. If you look back you might see me trying to fit LotS's lightning into a weapon role. The points that it didn't have a weapon profile explicitly stated and wasn't listed in the weapons chart in the back of the book were never raised by me or, iirc, by anyone on this thread.
I was arguing from a RAW point of view. One that tries to take the rules as they are, and only balks at applying the RAW if they break the game. I believe that when and if this issue gets addressed in an update, LotS will not be allowed to hit zooming flyers. I believe this, because that seems to be the trend, not because of the strength of the RAW NO position currently.
I don't want a faq entry on LotS. I want errata on Hard to Hit.  Don't ask GW to mop up the floor. Ask them to fix the roof.
Moving on....
If this is the 'final position' of the NO position, I would again ask
If an Zooming Ork Blitza-Bommer's uses the Skreamin' Descent rule and a 3 or 4 is rolled on 2D6, the Zogging 'eck! effect is applied.
Skreamin' Descent - "During the Blitz Bommer's movement phase, it may drop one boom bomb. To do so, stop your Bommer 1" in front of it's target, roll 2d6 and consult the table below."
Zogging 'eck! -"The pilot manages to pull up, clipping his target. No bomb is dropped. Instead the bommer and its target each suffer a single S9, AP 2 hit."
This is a special rule that applies a hit to a flyer, without special exception to hit a zooming flyer. Vote in the poll if you like. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/480573.page
When GW releases new flyers that have plasma weapons, will you say Get's Hot cannot inflict a glancing hit if the flyer is zooming?
|
"Ignorance is bliss, and I am a happy man."
"When you claim to be a purple unicorn, and I do not argue with you, it is not because I agree with you."
“If the iron is hot, I desire to believe it is hot, and if it is cool, I desire to believe it is cool.”
"Beware when you find yourself arguing that a policy is defensible rather than optimal; or that it has some benefit compared to the null action, rather than the best benefit of any action." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/09 07:00:48
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
The difference (to me anyway) is that with Zogging 'Eck! and Gets Hot! is they are not "attacks" in the same way that LOTS and TftD are.
You may disagree with me and that's fine. However, as I stated in my initial post in this thread:
Happyjew wrote:Based on the precedent of other non-shooting attacks (i.e. Bomb Squigs and TFtD) I'm inclined to say that Zoomers and Swoopers cannot be hit by the lightning.
|
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/09 14:27:24
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar
USA
|
foolishmortal wrote:I realize it's a rather lengthy thread and that there is little chance of changing many minds at this point. If you look back you might see me trying to fit LotS's lightning into a weapon role. The points that it didn't have a weapon profile explicitly stated and wasn't listed in the weapons chart in the back of the book were never raised by me or, iirc, by anyone on this thread.
I know you didn't raise that argument. I just brought it up as an example of what people were saying to justify Mawlocs attacking flyers. My main point was that it is completely irrelevant if LotS is an attack, a weapon or a special rule. If it doesn't snap shot or have permission to hit a flyer, it cannot hit.
Moving on....
If this is the 'final position' of the NO position, I would again ask
If an Zooming Ork Blitza-Bommer's uses the Skreamin' Descent rule and a 3 or 4 is rolled on 2D6, the Zogging 'eck! effect is applied.
Skreamin' Descent - "During the Blitz Bommer's movement phase, it may drop one boom bomb. To do so, stop your Bommer 1" in front of it's target, roll 2d6 and consult the table below."
Zogging 'eck! -"The pilot manages to pull up, clipping his target. No bomb is dropped. Instead the bommer and its target each suffer a single S9, AP 2 hit."
This is a special rule that applies a hit to a flyer, without special exception to hit a zooming flyer. Vote in the poll if you like. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/480573.page
When GW releases new flyers that have plasma weapons, will you say Get's Hot cannot inflict a glancing hit if the flyer is zooming?
I disagree that Zogging 'eck has no permission to hit the bomber. I think it's pretty clear that the rule says the Bommer suffers a hit. Should it have said:
"No bomb is dropped. Instead the bommer (which this rule is hereby officially allowed to hit) and its target suffer a single S9, AP 2 hit."
It's a specific rule that explicitly says hits the bomber. If the rule said something like "all targets within 6 inches of the bomber take a S9 AP2 hit" that wouldn't be allowed to hit other flyers, and perhaps not the bomber, but this rule says the 'bommer takes a hit'.
|
Check out my list building app for 40K and Fantasy:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/576793.page |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/09 16:03:17
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
rigeld2 wrote: Kevin949 wrote:
*Rolls Eyes*
Just stop dude. The FAQ already clarified it to be attacks. I'm not going to play the semantics game with you.
Which FAQ? The oft cited one in this thread? So your statement of "never were ... In the first place" was wrong, because they were able to until the FAQ, right?
It'd be great if you could address my argument instead of just be rude to me though.
Edit: also, the Mawloc TfTD ability has still not been clarified as an attack, despite some people's assertions. What stops it from working is the Tyranid FAQ that says No. If the BRB FAQ was sufficient, the Nid one wouldn't be required.
What are you going on about man? No, TftD was NEVER ALLOWED TO HIT FLYERS, just because some people thought or think it could doesn't mean it was actually correct. The FAQ posted on it is a clarification, not an errata. Yes, both of them. The BRB faq is answering a broader scope of a question and the nid faq is answering a specific question to the codex. They cover the same basis (though you seem to not see that) but in different fashions. So, there's cross-information between faq's. That's a bad thing?
You're fooling yourself if you think it's not an attack at this point.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/09 16:09:04
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Kevin949 wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Kevin949 wrote:
*Rolls Eyes*
Just stop dude. The FAQ already clarified it to be attacks. I'm not going to play the semantics game with you.
Which FAQ? The oft cited one in this thread? So your statement of "never were ... In the first place" was wrong, because they were able to until the FAQ, right?
It'd be great if you could address my argument instead of just be rude to me though.
Edit: also, the Mawloc TfTD ability has still not been clarified as an attack, despite some people's assertions. What stops it from working is the Tyranid FAQ that says No. If the BRB FAQ was sufficient, the Nid one wouldn't be required.
What are you going on about man? No, TftD was NEVER ALLOWED TO HIT FLYERS, just because some people thought or think it could doesn't mean it was actually correct. The FAQ posted on it is a clarification, not an errata. Yes, both of them. The BRB faq is answering a broader scope of a question and the nid faq is answering a specific question to the codex. They cover the same basis (though you seem to not see that) but in different fashions. So, there's cross-information between faq's. That's a bad thing?
You're fooling yourself if you think it's not an attack at this point.
Why was it never allowed to hit flyers again? It's still not a weapon, which is what Hard to Hit restricts.
And I think it's amusing that you are okay with a special rule affecting flyers, but absolutely against a special rule affecting flyers.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/09 16:14:30
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
rigeld2 wrote: Kevin949 wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Kevin949 wrote:
*Rolls Eyes*
Just stop dude. The FAQ already clarified it to be attacks. I'm not going to play the semantics game with you.
Which FAQ? The oft cited one in this thread? So your statement of "never were ... In the first place" was wrong, because they were able to until the FAQ, right?
It'd be great if you could address my argument instead of just be rude to me though.
Edit: also, the Mawloc TfTD ability has still not been clarified as an attack, despite some people's assertions. What stops it from working is the Tyranid FAQ that says No. If the BRB FAQ was sufficient, the Nid one wouldn't be required.
What are you going on about man? No, TftD was NEVER ALLOWED TO HIT FLYERS, just because some people thought or think it could doesn't mean it was actually correct. The FAQ posted on it is a clarification, not an errata. Yes, both of them. The BRB faq is answering a broader scope of a question and the nid faq is answering a specific question to the codex. They cover the same basis (though you seem to not see that) but in different fashions. So, there's cross-information between faq's. That's a bad thing?
You're fooling yourself if you think it's not an attack at this point.
Why was it never allowed to hit flyers again? It's still not a weapon, which is what Hard to Hit restricts.
And I think it's amusing that you are okay with a special rule affecting flyers, but absolutely against a special rule affecting flyers.
So you really haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/09 16:17:20
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle
|
I do believe that Immotehk should be able to hit flyier, because you need a 6 to hit. The FAQ wasn't clear on Immotehk ability at all, but was clearly for the rest. I believe that GW are going to do an update on Immotehk.
|
Overall Tournaments 11-2 2012
WarGame Con Best General RTT 2012
WarGame Con Team 12th 2012
ATC Team Fanastic 4 plus 1 17th overall (nercons (5-1) 2012
Beaky Con GT WarMaster Nercons (5-1) 2012 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/09 16:22:04
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw
|
mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:I do believe that Immotehk should be able to hit flyier, because you need a 6 to hit. The FAQ wasn't clear on Immotehk ability at all, but was clearly for the rest. I believe that GW are going to do an update on Immotehk.
It's not 6 to hit.
It's not a to hit roll.
I'm sure that's been mentioned a few times already in this thread.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/09 16:24:20
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Kevin949 wrote:So you really haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying.
Which part? Filtering the thread for your posts shows that you've been in support of lightning hitting flyers since your first post.
The lightning is a special ability.
TfTD is a special ability.
You've been against TfTD apparently forever.
There are more similarities between the two than there are differences. The only thing you've been able to point at for TfTD saying it didn't work before the FAQ was the fact that it was a blast - but that's not what Hard to Hit restricts, as I pointed out, so therefore was not restricted before the FAQ.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/10 06:34:50
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Irked Necron Immortal
|
As written; TftD, Sweep Attacks, and even bomb squigs should be able to hit flyers. That's a tenuous "should" with many dissenters of course, the most important one being GW itself. Never mind that Hard to Hit only mentions Shots. As was said earlier:
foolishmortal wrote:
I don't want a faq entry on LotS. I want errata on Hard to Hit.  Don't ask GW to mop up the floor. Ask them to fix the roof.
Until such a time as this happens, every special rule in the books is going to spawn an argument somewhere in the world.
My feelings on LotS is that techno-lightening should be able to down aircraft in fiery glory. We'll see what GW has to say on that soon, I hope.
Perhaps we can take tacit approval in that GW hasn't said LotS can't hit flyers. They've taken time to mention a lot of other contenders...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/10 06:35:38
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/10 14:27:08
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar
USA
|
Fafnir13 wrote:Perhaps we can take tacit approval in that GW hasn't said LotS can't hit flyers. They've taken time to mention a lot of other contenders...
That's sort of a silly assumption. Do you honestly expect GW to list every single attack that doesn't work against flyers? From the restrictions they've laid out I think it's far safer to assume that if an ability / weapon / special rule was not given special permission to hit, then it cannot.
|
Check out my list building app for 40K and Fantasy:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/576793.page |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/10 19:23:33
Subject: Re:Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Here's another thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/481504.page in which we're trying to figuer out how to resolve hits from a vehicle explosion. There are similar issues because the rulebook does not specify how to resolve wounding because it doesn't define it as a shooting/close combat/psychic attack. It's none of them, similar to imotehk's rule.
|
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/10 19:41:05
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
I just skimmed this post but here is what happened to me. I was in a tournament a couple of weeks back and the TO there resolved that Imotekh's Lightning could hit fliers because they needed a '6' to 'hit'. They equated the lightning strike to Snap Fire because they both needed 6's.
Aycee
|
|
 |
 |
|