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:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's trolling because its absolutely nothing like the current situation

I was told over and over on this very page (11) that "if it is not a snap shot, then it can not hit a zooming flyer (Unless it has specific permission to do so)"

I brought up the Ork Blitza-Bommer first (S9 hit) , but most people don't have the White Dwarf rules.

Gets Hot causes a hit. A glancing hit is still a hit.

Absolutely false.
A hit in this context is something that turns into a glancing/penetrating hit or wound.
Or are you saying that a cover save negates the hit entirely, meaning that a jinking FMC that passes its save does not have to make a grounding test?
(Hint - you'd be wrong)

Cover saves can and often do negate glancing hits to vehicles. (p75)

I have never really thought about them negating the Gets Hot rule hits. That would probably be decent topic for a new post.

I cannot speak to the jinking FMC. I don't know the grounding test rules well enough.

foolishmortal wrote:
Cover saves can and often do negate glancing hits to vehicles. (p75)

I have never really thought about them negating the Gets Hot rule hits. That would probably be decent topic for a new post.

I cannot speak to the jinking FMC. I don't know the grounding test rules well enough.

Yes, they do negate glancing hits.
They do not negate the original hit. If the hit would cause an Entropic Strike and allow a cover save, the ES roll would still happen. Your equating of the hit and glancing hit would mean that it wouldn't happen.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your equating of the hit and glancing hit would mean that it wouldn't happen.

I did not equate hits and glancing hits. That would make them interchangeable, and would be silly. If you think I did equate them, please show me where. iirc,I said a blank cat is a cat.

A glancing hit is one type of hit. As I noted in earlier posts, there are certainly differences.

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Your equating of the hit and glancing hit would mean that it wouldn't happen.

I did not equate hits and glancing hits. That would make them interchangeable, and would be silly. If you think I did equate them, please show me where. iirc,I said a blank cat is a cat.

A glancing hit is one type of hit. As I noted in earlier posts, there are certainly differences.

In 40k, there are hits caused by to-hit rolls, and hits caused by penetration rolls. A glancing hit is the latter and a snap shot is dealing with the former. You've attempted to conflate the two situations by having a poll where you've asked if flyers can suffer from Gets Hot.

Hard to Hit can never and will never have any effect on penetration hits, only on attempts to hit. You cannot conflate a glancing hit into a to-hit roll, whic is what you've attempted to do, and is why in my opinion it's trolling.

Ah, I see where you are going. Fair enough. Before most glancing hits become glancing hits, they are hits, but the gets hot rule bypasses that.

Now I ask why did you call that trolling? It was a mistake on my part. If you think I don't make mistakes, you have probably not read very many of my posts.

You could have said "here is the rule that shows why this question is not relevant" but you went with an attack on my intent. Why?

Also, let me know if you have an opinion on the Blitza-Boomer - as I said, it's a S9 automatic hit that the bommer suffers when it rolls a 3 or 4 on it's special rule bomming run.

foolishmortal wrote:
Ah, I see where you are going. Fair enough. Before most glancing hits become glancing hits, they are hits, but the gets hot rule bypasses that.

Now I ask why did you call that trolling? It was a mistake on my part. If you think I don't make mistakes, you have probably not read very many of my posts.

You could have said "here is the rule that shows why this question is not relevant" but you went with an attack on my intent. Why?

Because I pointed out that difference the third post in the Gets Hot thread. You chose to ignore it, instead you replied to other people.
It's also a rather obvious difference.

Also, let me know if you have an opinion on the Blitza-Boomer - as I said, it's a S9 automatic hit that the bommer suffers when it rolls a 3 or 4 on it's special rule bomming run.

I don't have an opinion due to not having access to the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
Because I pointed out that difference the third post in the Gets Hot thread. You chose to ignore it, instead you replied to other people.
It's also a rather obvious difference.

yeah, I read what you and nosferatu1001 wrote about being out of context, but I misunderstood. I thought you were poking fun at someone else, not my OP.

I edited the OP to include the distinction. I would have preferred if one of you had said why I was wrong, rather than just the mocking. I would have corrected myself sooner and felt less like an idiot. Maybe not much less, but every little bit helps.

None of this is relevant because it boils down to, can LoTS hit a zooming flyer.

It is a special rule, not a weapon. It is not a shooting attack as no one is shooting it, it has no LoS restriction, and it itself is never defined as one which means that the FAQ is relevant.

Do I expect GW to go into every FAQ and say that something can or cannot hit a flyer? no.

Do I expect GW to make a blanket FAQ ruling that special abilities that cause damage cant hit a zooming flyer if they intended it that way? Absolutly.

foolishmortal wrote:
Sometimes I even put up polls. Not because they are admissible as evidence, but because they allow for more participation in the process.

But they dont. The answers are designed to sway the vote therefore making it nothing more than a simple ploy to gain agreement. Gets Hot, nor a Model's own special rule apply to the HTH/ LotS ability.

LotS can hit flyers.

It saddens me that this argument has gone on this long, but since apparently there is a "gray area (not really, but this is the internet after all)" I would say to make sure that you irritate your long-suffering LGS owner by asking them to make a house rule about it. At least then you would know what to expect, one way or the the other, until GW releases a FAQ on the subject.

 Monster Rain wrote:
LotS can hit flyers.

Not true as:
4)LotS is not a shooting attack.
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)).

 Monster Rain wrote:
LotS can hit flyers.

Why would you bother coming into an 12 page thread thread and just post that as your argument? Unless you're goal is to be ignored or mocked, you should explain your position or you're adding nothing to the discussion.

The rest of your comment makes some sense and is what I'll be doing for a tournament coming up in a couple of weeks.

- edit -

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
LotS can hit flyers.

Not true as:
4)LotS is not a shooting attack.
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)).

This is akin to,

Since A = X and 4 = carrot, monkey = ¥. So in other words, it doesn't make sense.

First and foremost, LotS is not a shooting attack as mentioned and the necessary "vector strike" type exception is in the rule itself when it tells you what is affected by the ability (unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield).

Secondly, you purposely omit context for your FAQ answer to support your argument. The question is in regard to how maelstrom, nova, beam, or any other WEAPON that does not hit or hits automatically interacts with flyers. The answer is specific to the question which does not address an abolitly like LotS.

Don't hide the facts to make your argument.

So if it is not a WEAPON, then it can not add its Strength to the D6 armor pen roll when it hits a vehicle...

Or it is a WEAPON/Attack and the FAQ applies.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So if it is not a WEAPON, then it can not add its Strength to the D6 armor pen roll when it hits a vehicle...

Or it is a WEAPON/Attack and the FAQ applies.

Actually it is not a weapon and therefore armor pentration cannot be resolved. However that is not the question at hand which is can LotS hit flyer, zooming or. Ot, which is a resounding yes.

The breakdown in the RAW language for armor penetration does not lend you any evidence in this argument. It is a separate issue to address altogether as that language also affects certain terrain and other game abilities and how they affect vehicles as well.

Either:

1) It is not a weapon and you do nothing against vehicles. (and you break the game).

2) It is a weapon, the FAQ kicks in and you do nothing against flyers. (And no game breakage).

Either way it is the same result.

I lean towards the 2nd one as it does not break the game.

Option 2 should say "do nothing against flyers"

 DeathReaper wrote:
Either:

1) It is not a weapon and you do nothing against vehicles. (and you break the game).

2) It is a weapon, the FAQ kicks in and you do nothing against vehicles. (And no game breakage).

Either way it is the same result.

I lean towards the 2nd one as it does not break the game.

With this Stance, Everything that isn't a weapon that causes hits breaks the game.
How to resolve hits from non-weapons is a different issue. It's beyond the scope of just Lightning vs Flyer.
If you disregard Imotekh, you are still left with hits behind caused by things that are not weapons.
I'm more inclined to say that Lightning does work against vehicles (leaving flyer out of it), because to say it doesn't work means that tank shocking, and a handful of other effects break the game.

Do we need a thread on non-weapons that cause hits, or can we agree that tank shocking does something?

-Matt

 undertow wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
LotS can hit flyers.

Why would you bother coming into an 12 page thread thread and just post that as your argument? .

It's not an argument. It's my interpretation of the rules as I read them, and it adds weight to arguments given by others to people who might be simply reading the thread to get an idea of how other people are leaning.

Relax.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
First and foremost, LotS is not a shooting attack as mentioned and the necessary "vector strike" type exception is in the rule itself when it tells you what is affected by the ability (unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield).

Secondly, you purposely omit context for your FAQ answer to support your argument. The question is in regard to how maelstrom, nova, beam, or any other WEAPON that does not hit or hits automatically interacts with flyers. The answer is specific to the question which does not address an abolitly like LotS.

The argument that LotS is not a weapon is just dumb. It's something used to attack the other player. It's an offensive ability. Not only that, but the newest Necron FAQ says this:

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.

Note that the description for LotS says:

... the unit is struck by a bolt of lightning and suffers D6, Strength 8, AP 5 hits

That looks an awful lot like a longhand description of a weapon to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
LotS can hit flyers.

Why would you bother coming into an 12 page thread thread and just post that as your argument? .

It's not an argument. It's my interpretation of the rules as I read them, and it adds weight to arguments given by others to people who might be simply reading the thread to get an idea of how other people are leaning.

Relax.

That's fine, but without adding any reasoning for your opinion, you might as well just have said:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm not wearing pants!!

 undertow wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm not wearing pants!!

I'm not.

Not that it's any of your business.

At any rate, Lord of the Storm is an ability, not a weapon. I reject any premise stating otherwise. If you roll a 6 for an unengaged enemy unit, it generates hits as described in the Necron codex. There's some interesting context provided in the FAQ regarding the effect of shrouding and stealth on LotS, so we can clearly show it doesn't follow the rules for normal weapons.

I have revised the above as I meant to say flyers and I said vehicles.

here it is in its proper form.

Either:

1) It is not a weapon and you do nothing against vehicles. (and you break the game).

2) It is a weapon, the FAQ kicks in and you do nothing against flyers. (And no game breakage).

Either way it is the same result.

I lean towards the 2nd one as it does not break the game.

If you want to argue that LoTS is not a weapon, that is fine, but then it does not get to add its Strength to the D6 roll for armor pen...

Which is nonsense, since the ability deals a S8 hit.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Which is nonsense, since the ability deals a S8 hit.

Right but if you read the armor pen rules on P. 73, you will see that you add the Weapon's Strength to the D6 roll.

If LoTS is not a weapon, you can not add its str to the D6 roll.

Or:

It is a weapon, the FAQ kicks in and you do nothing against flyers. (And no game breakage).

Either way it is the same result.

I read "weapon" as "thing dealing the damage" in this context.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I read "weapon" as "thing dealing the damage" in this context.

So LoTS is a "Weapon" as it is the "thing dealing the damage"

You have to apply that definition universally, so you apply it to the FAQ as well as the BRB quote I gave.

And you have the end result of the Lightning not being able to hit flyers.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I read "weapon" as "thing dealing the damage" in this context.

So LoTS is a "Weapon" as it is the "thing dealing the damage"

You have to apply that definition universally, so you apply it to the FAQ as well as the BRB quote I gave.

And you have the end result of the Lightning not being able to hit flyers.

So what's the "weapon" when you Ram? And, if I roll up Weapon Destroyed, what are my options to remove?
I'm playing by your rules for debate here, so:
You have to apply that definition universally, if you're claiming the tank is the weapon in the ramming attack, then anything that can ram can be removed by a weapon destroyed.

-Matt

He's also ignoring the fact that LotS doesn't follow other rules for shooting weapons according to the FAQ.

If the ram does damage, so too should LotS.