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.

Wait, what does the court being characters have to do with Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers Question?

Am I missing something?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Wait, what does the court being characters have to do with Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers Question?

Am I missing something?

Neorealist challenge against the FAQ being able to apply to more than the question - the Wolf Guard FAQ clears up a lot with respect to how to handle Crypteks, but he's asserted that they're 100% covered in the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Wait, what does the court being characters have to do with Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers Question?

Am I missing something?

That was my first thought, but things have been derailed quite thoroughly.

I think that there was a resolution on the third or fourth page. Since the lightning doesn't roll to hit and isn't a shooting attack, it can't affect flyers. It seems like it should be able to, but alas!

Drakmord wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Wait, what does the court being characters have to do with Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers Question?

Am I missing something?

That was my first thought, but things have been derailed quite thoroughly.

I think that there was a resolution on the third or fourth page. Since the lightning doesn't roll to hit and isn't a shooting attack, it can't affect flyers. It seems like it should be able to, but alas!

Well, you could just as easily say "there was a resolution on page 1 or 2 that since the lightning hits every unengaged enemy model on the board, on a roll of a 6, then it affects flyers as well."

*Shrug* Just playing devils advocate here.

Drakmord wrote:
I think that there was a resolution on the third or fourth page. Since the lightning doesn't roll to hit and isn't a shooting attack, it can't affect flyers. It seems like it should be able to, but alas!

Right, but people that desperately want LotS to hit flyers (or are incapable of admitting they're wrong) have dragged this thread into 18 pages.

 undertow wrote:

Drakmord wrote:
I think that there was a resolution on the third or fourth page. Since the lightning doesn't roll to hit and isn't a shooting attack, it can't affect flyers. It seems like it should be able to, but alas!

Right, but people that desperately want LotS to hit flyers (or are incapable of admitting they're wrong) have dragged this thread into 18 pages.

Or perhaps it is you who are wrong.

Despite what you may think, it's an argument that can go both ways and both sides can claim the other is wrong (no matter how 'right' you may feel you are). It's also an argument that will probably get no traction either way until it's officially declared one way or the other. Sure, some TO's and house-gamers may decide to play it one way or the other but that doesn't make them any more or less right or wrong.

I fully expect a standard "but the rules say this so you can't do that" response. I assure you, I'm not looking to extend this debate any further as it's already gone around and around.

It can go both ways only if you ignore the faq.

copper.talos wrote:
It can go both ways only if you ignore the faq.

Who's ignoring it? The possibility exists that the power, or sub-effect of Lord of the Storm, falls outside the realm of that one question.

That's quite impossible since the faq covers any attacks. And trying to advocate that LotS is not an attack can have very undesirable side effects ie not penetrating vehicles at all.

copper.talos wrote:
That's quite impossible since the faq covers any attacks. And trying to advocate that LotS is not an attack can have very undesirable side effects ie not penetrating vehicles at all.

No, I'm not doing anything of the sort. And no, it's not impossible as this is all fictional anyway and entirely up to the discretion of GW (such as the change to Characters that lead units like Wolf Guard and Nobz and some other ones, but not Royal Court Members).

Besides, I made my point quite a ways earlier in this thread about LotS being an attack/weapon.

copper.talos wrote:
That's quite impossible since the faq covers any attacks. And trying to advocate that LotS is not an attack can have very undesirable side effects ie not penetrating vehicles at all.

But the FAQ does not cover board-wide rules, like dangerous terrain tests and the like. LOTS lightning could very well be a board-wide rule (like the night fighting is) and not be covered by the FAQ and is simply covered by it's rules, roll for every unengaged enemy unit on the board and on a roll of 6, the unit is hit with lightning (which also sounds like a roll to hit, but that's another argument).

The argument that GW must have meant it to be an attack, because if it's not it breaks the armor-penetration rules sounds a lot like an argument for RAI, not RAW.

I read the rules for LOTS as roll a D6 for every unengaged enemy unit on the board. The rules give me permission to roll for every enemy unit on the board and I don't understand the argument against that. However, my FLGS has currently house ruled that LOTS does not hit flyers. Once that decision was made, I did not question it anymore. (Partly to avoid being TFG, and also to avoid the next step of "if it's a weapon attack from Imotekh, then it must not go off if Imotekh is not on the board")

Tye_Informer wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
That's quite impossible since the faq covers any attacks. And trying to advocate that LotS is not an attack can have very undesirable side effects ie not penetrating vehicles at all.

But the FAQ does not cover board-wide rules, like dangerous terrain tests and the like. LOTS lightning could very well be a board-wide rule (like the night fighting is) and not be covered by the FAQ and is simply covered by it's rules, roll for every unengaged enemy unit on the board and on a roll of 6, the unit is hit with lightning (which also sounds like a roll to hit, but that's another argument).

But it's not. It exists because of a model. It's a model's special rule.

I read the rules for LOTS as roll a D6 for every unengaged enemy unit on the board. The rules give me permission to roll for every enemy unit on the board and I don't understand the argument against that. However, my FLGS has currently house ruled that LOTS does not hit flyers. Once that decision was made, I did not question it anymore. (Partly to avoid being TFG, and also to avoid the next step of "if it's a weapon attack from Imotekh, then it must not go off if Imotekh is not on the board")

So you know there's legitimate arguments against it but you don't understand arguments against that?
You have permission to roll for every enemy unit on the board. You can even roll for Flyers if you want. It just won't do anything.

Good to see the thread back on track. Continue beating the dead horse !!

A brief recap for all new-comers to this thread:
Can Lightning hit the Flyers?

10 Yes
20 No
30 Goto 10

With a brief sidetrack of do FAQs answer more than the question asked:

10 Yes
20 No
30 Goto 10

Fragile wrote:
Good to see the thread back on track. Continue beating the dead horse !!

The beatings will continue as long as there are people trying to ride it.

Happyjew wrote:
A brief recap for all new-comers to this thread:
Can Lightning hit the Flyers?

10 Yes
20 No
30 Goto 10

With a brief sidetrack of do FAQs answer more than the question asked:

10 Yes
20 No
30 Goto 10

Never. Use. The GOTO command. it generally doesn't end well programming-wise. and makes your code flow-chart look like an escher drawing.

Err sorry... Yes... Lightning can hit Fliers!1!!

 Neorealist wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
A brief recap for all new-comers to this thread:
Can Lightning hit the Flyers?

10 Yes
20 No
30 Goto 10

With a brief sidetrack of do FAQs answer more than the question asked:

10 Yes
20 No
30 Goto 10

Never. Use. The GOTO command. it generally doesn't end well programming-wise. and makes your code flow-chart look like an escher drawing.

Err sorry... Yes... Lightning can hit Fliers!1!!

i never got past the BASIC commands I learned in high School. Besides, Escher is awesome.

Anyway, where were we? Ahh yes, No, it cannot based on precedents.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
That's quite impossible since the faq covers any attacks. And trying to advocate that LotS is not an attack can have very undesirable side effects ie not penetrating vehicles at all.

But the FAQ does not cover board-wide rules, like dangerous terrain tests and the like. LOTS lightning could very well be a board-wide rule (like the night fighting is) and not be covered by the FAQ and is simply covered by it's rules, roll for every unengaged enemy unit on the board and on a roll of 6, the unit is hit with lightning (which also sounds like a roll to hit, but that's another argument).

But it's not. It exists because of a model. It's a model's special rule.

I read the rules for LOTS as roll a D6 for every unengaged enemy unit on the board. The rules give me permission to roll for every enemy unit on the board and I don't understand the argument against that. However, my FLGS has currently house ruled that LOTS does not hit flyers. Once that decision was made, I did not question it anymore. (Partly to avoid being TFG, and also to avoid the next step of "if it's a weapon attack from Imotekh, then it must not go off if Imotekh is not on the board")

So you know there's legitimate arguments against it but you don't understand arguments against that?
You have permission to roll for every enemy unit on the board. You can even roll for Flyers if you want. It just won't do anything.

To make this more fun should I bring up the point that the rule only says your army has to include Imotekh and nothing about him requiring to be in play?

 Kevin949 wrote:
To make this more fun should I bring up the point that the rule only says your army has to include Imotekh and nothing about him requiring to be in play?

Off topic, but I see what you did there.

Kevin949 wrote:To make this more fun should I bring up the point that the rule only says your army has to include Imotekh and nothing about him requiring to be in play?

it's even more fun that you can use a cryptek with a chronometron to 're-roll' some of said LoTS rolls, even when Imotekh is in reserves or whereever?

Happyjew wrote:
No, it cannot based on precedents.

Bad argument. Precedents mean nothing.

Precedents can mean everything. There was a thread that listed issues in 5th that were resolved through precedents ie resolving mandicore barrage blasts using an eldar faq.

Maybe RAI. As it has been stated many times, this is a permissive ruleset, and unless otherwise stated, a ruling only applies to what it specifically applies to.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Maybe RAI. As it has been stated many times, this is a permissive ruleset, and unless otherwise stated, a ruling only applies to what it specifically applies to.

And that's not correct at all.

Or are you going to say that the only vehicles prohibited from using Smoke Launchers during the scout move are Baal Preds?

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Maybe RAI. As it has been stated many times, this is a permissive ruleset, and unless otherwise stated, a ruling only applies to what it specifically applies to.

Are you still beating the 'specific question' horse? It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there are answers in the the various FAQs that apply to issues beyond the scope of the original question.

 undertow wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Maybe RAI. As it has been stated many times, this is a permissive ruleset, and unless otherwise stated, a ruling only applies to what it specifically applies to.

Are you still beating the 'specific question' horse? It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there are answers in the the various FAQs that apply to issues beyond the scope of the original question.

Besides, we are done with that de-railing, the thread is back on track, and just to beat Neorealist's "It does." I'm going to preemptively say "It does not.".

On a side note, how many of the people arguing it does also argue that St C's FAQ allowing her to come back from RFP should allow RP/EL to come back from RFP because it sets a precedent?

Happy - that's a different question entirely. There's nothing general about the question or answer. If it was "Are RFP and RFPaaC equivalent with respect to Miraculous Intervention? Yes." I'd say that's a general precedent.

As it is (
Q: Can Saint Celestine use her Miraculous Intervention special rule against attacks that remove models from play? (White Dwarf, August 2011, Page 103)
A: Yes
) It's extremely specific to St. C in the question, and doesn't offer anything extra in the answer. Unlike many of the other examples in this thread.

Happyjew wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Maybe RAI. As it has been stated many times, this is a permissive ruleset, and unless otherwise stated, a ruling only applies to what it specifically applies to.

Are you still beating the 'specific question' horse? It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there are answers in the the various FAQs that apply to issues beyond the scope of the original question.

Besides, we are done with that de-railing, the thread is back on track, and just to beat Neorealist's "It does." I'm going to preemptively say "It does not.".

So, if the thread is back on track, and we've shown that there can be general answers to specific questions, can we all agree that the FAQ applies to hits from LotS?

 undertow wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Maybe RAI. As it has been stated many times, this is a permissive ruleset, and unless otherwise stated, a ruling only applies to what it specifically applies to.

Are you still beating the 'specific question' horse? It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there are answers in the the various FAQs that apply to issues beyond the scope of the original question.

Besides, we are done with that de-railing, the thread is back on track, and just to beat Neorealist's "It does." I'm going to preemptively say "It does not.".

So, if the thread is back on track, and we've shown that there can be general answers to specific questions, can we all agree that the FAQ applies to hits from LotS?

No.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 undertow wrote:
So, if the thread is back on track, and we've shown that there can be general answers to specific questions, can we all agree that the FAQ applies to hits from LotS?

No.

And your reasoning for that wound be?

Because it is clear that there can be general answers to specific questions in the FaQ. As shown with quotes from the FaQ.