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) 2012/10/23 21:35:45
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
Oceanside, CA
|
nosferatu1001 wrote:Again, they are an HQ choice that does not take up an HQ selection. They are not a mandatory HQ Choice, but are still a choice - there is a difference there. Stating they are not a choice implies there is no choice made to include them in your army
The rulebook does not state that a non-selection taking HQ choice cannot be your Warlord, so again the answer goes well beyond the question asked. This is simply one example where the answer goes well beyond the questions SPECIFIC scope, and your continued denial that this happens is slightly bemusing.
GW change rules and add rules in FAQs all the time, they are incredibly lax about the definition of faq and errata
A character from one of the armies HQ units must be nominates as the army's warlord (page 111). (quote from page 108)
Sometimes a single choice on the Force Organisation Chart will allow you to select more than one unit. This will always be explained int he appropriate codes, so be sure to read it carefully. (page 109)
Your warlord can be from either of the primary detachments (quote from page 110, ref large games)
When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord. This is always the HQ Choice character with the highest Leadership. (quote page 111)
Ok. We do have GW on page 109 referring to the use of a force org slot as a "choice", and the warlord being " HQ Choice Character" on page 111.
Now techpriests and priests are not "choices" in that they don't come for free tied with another choice that takes a slot, they simply are free all on their own.
Crytpeks and Lords come in the Royal Court, which are 0-1 per Necron Overlord in the army. I was about to say that would fall into the "2 for 1" type of situation described on page 109, but then I looked at Codex Necrons and read: This unit does not take up an HQ Choice. (page 90).
So IG mini-heroes (priest/techpriest) cannot be warlord because they are not a choice and don't have the leadership required (page111), and Royal Court members can't be warlord because the court has a rule that they are Not an HQ choice, which I'm pretty sure means they can be the HQ Choice Character.
So, lets get this back on topic. Could we get some blind reposts from around page 4 or so?
-Matt
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/23 21:54:46
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar
USA
|
HawaiiMatt wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Again, they are an HQ choice that does not take up an HQ selection. They are not a mandatory HQ Choice, but are still a choice - there is a difference there. Stating they are not a choice implies there is no choice made to include them in your army
The rulebook does not state that a non-selection taking HQ choice cannot be your Warlord, so again the answer goes well beyond the question asked. This is simply one example where the answer goes well beyond the questions SPECIFIC scope, and your continued denial that this happens is slightly bemusing.
GW change rules and add rules in FAQs all the time, they are incredibly lax about the definition of faq and errata
A character from one of the armies HQ units must be nominates as the army's warlord (page 111). (quote from page 108)
Sometimes a single choice on the Force Organisation Chart will allow you to select more than one unit. This will always be explained int he appropriate codes, so be sure to read it carefully. (page 109)
Your warlord can be from either of the primary detachments (quote from page 110, ref large games)
When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord. This is always the HQ Choice character with the highest Leadership. (quote page 111)
Ok. We do have GW on page 109 referring to the use of a force org slot as a "choice", and the warlord being " HQ Choice Character" on page 111.
Now techpriests and priests are not "choices" in that they don't come for free tied with another choice that takes a slot, they simply are free all on their own.
Crytpeks and Lords come in the Royal Court, which are 0-1 per Necron Overlord in the army. I was about to say that would fall into the "2 for 1" type of situation described on page 109, but then I looked at Codex Necrons and read: This unit does not take up an HQ Choice. (page 90).
So IG mini-heroes (priest/techpriest) cannot be warlord because they are not a choice and don't have the leadership required (page111), and Royal Court members can't be warlord because the court has a rule that they are Not an HQ choice, which I'm pretty sure means they can be the HQ Choice Character.
So, lets get this back on topic. Could we get some blind reposts from around page 4 or so?
-Matt
Whether or not these IG 'mini-heroes' count as HQ choices seems to me to be irrelevant. The simple facts are that a specific question was asked about the mandatory HQ choice, it was answered, and an additional answer was provided beyond the scope of the question. So like you said, 'lets get this back on topic'.
|
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) 2012/10/23 22:52:35
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
Oceanside, CA
|
undertow wrote:
Whether or not these IG 'mini-heroes' count as HQ choices seems to me to be irrelevant. The simple facts are that a specific question was asked about the mandatory HQ choice, it was answered, and an additional answer was provided beyond the scope of the question. So like you said, 'lets get this back on topic'.
But that FAQ didn't change anything.
If you completely disregard that FAQ, you still can't make a legal list that would have the mini-heroes as Warlord. They have a lower leadership than any HQ choice you take to fill the required slot, and as such cannot be warlord.
I'm baffled by the FAQ mentioning that at all.
It's like asking, can you assault out of a destroyed Rhino?
No, but skimmers that move get a 5+ jink cover save.
Moving more off topic;
Death Company Tycho is Ld8.
Blood Angel Honor Guard can have a champion in it (who is a character) and Ld9.
If I take Tycho + honor guard, who is the warlord?
-Matt
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/23 23:02:10
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 00:26:02
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
Can DC Tycho unlock the Honor Guard?
|
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) 2012/10/24 00:44:00
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
Oceanside, CA
|
Any HQ choice in blood angels, except for honor guard, unlocks and honor guard. I'll make a new thread after dinner.
-Matt
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 01:24:21
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
HawaiiMatt wrote: Any HQ choice in blood angels, except for honor guard, unlocks and honor guard. I'll make a new thread after dinner. -Matt I was at worked and away from my books when I asked, I thought it was similar to the SM Command Squad/Honour Guard which are only unlocked by certain HQ choices. Thus why I asked.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/24 01:25:40
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) 2012/10/24 01:48:58
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
HawaiiMatt - you havent actually proven your contention, in fact you proved the opposite. You made a couple of leaps no supported by rules.
"
A character from one of the armies HQ units must be nominates as the army's warlord (page 111). (quote from page 108"
Which is what an Enginseer is. It is an HQ unit, and is a character.
Requirement met.
"When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord. This is always the HQ Choice character with the highest Leadership. (quote page 111) "
An Enginseer is an HQ choice, just one who does not take up a selection. However the rule for nominating does NOT state it must take up a FOC selection, just it is the HQ Choice character with the highest leadership.
You are also seemingly confused about what this statement requires - it requires you to pick the highest Ld HQ Choice Character *from those you have picked in your army* - not across the possible selections. So what if they only have Ld7? If you do not pick any other HQ choices with higher leadership, it is perfectly valid to pick the enginseer
Requirement met.
"Now techpriests and priests are not "choices" in that they don't come for free tied with another choice that takes a slot, they simply are free all on their own. "
This is a nonsense statement - an Enginseer IS an HQ Choice. You CHOOSE to take them in the HQ slot. They are indisputably, using actual rules, an HQ choice. What they are is an HQ Choice that does not use an HQ FOC selection, but that isnt required
So, now you have been shown that, again, an Enginseer is a *valid* *legal* Warlord choice according to the ACTUAL rules, please show how they did not a) answer a question that was never asked and b) did not add new rules as part of this answer that was never asked
Tyr - again, astounded by your argument. Do you disagree that FAQs give answers beyond the scope of the question? If so, please abide by the tenets of this forum and provide some actual argument, not just your unsupported opinion.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 01:51:46
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
Interesting to note, the BA Honour Guard says:
You can take one unit of Honour Guard for every HQ unit you have included in your army, not
counting Honour Guard units. Units of Honour Guard do not themselves take up an HQ choice.
So it seems the Blood Champ/Novitiate are not HQ choices.
|
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) 2012/10/24 02:37:42
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
It says they do not "take up" an HQ choice; it does not say they are NOT an HQ choice at all
Key difference in meaning there Happyjew
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 11:01:11
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Missionary On A Mission
Richmond Va
|
rigeld2 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.
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?
RAW in a permissive ruleset, yes. If a permissive ruleset is what people are having such a hard time getting LoTS through. We are arguing that even if it can hit, since it would not be an "Attack" it cant penetrate the armor. There is flaws in that argument as I just demonstrated. If a FAQ says X gets this, then only X gets that. If it says classification XYZ gets this, then everything under that classification gets that. If we are fighting over verbage, then this is the result.
Precedents are a RAI argument. The fact that they are precedents themselves mans that they are not RAW because you must make a leap of logic (however small) to connect the two, and that is not RAW.
|
My Overprotective Father wrote:Tyrants shooting emplaced weapons? A Hive Tyrant may be smarter than your average bug, but that still isint saying much
Pretre: Are repressors assault vehicles? If they are, I'm gonna need emergency pants.
n0t_u: No, but six can shoot out of it. Other than that it's a Rhino with a Heavy Flamer thrown on if I remember correctly.
Pretre: Thanks! I guess my pants are safe and clean after all.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 11:25:22
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
So even if all arguments are against LotS hitting flyers, you still won't admit it just because there is not a faq that says "LotS doesn't hit flyers"? Why do you even bother participating in YMDC then? The whole purpose of this forum is to resolve rule issues that there isn't 100% RAW answer.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 11:29:06
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Missionary On A Mission
Richmond Va
|
My argument is that, because it posted several different rules, none of which work like LoTS and it was never said in any FAQ that special rules = weapons/attacks LoTS is therefore, not a weapon/attack and therfore, not covered by the FAQ.
I have said this before, and then the reply was "Well since it is not an attack/weapon, it cannot damage a vehicle" which is a valid point, only if we are looking at pure RAW, in which case, no precedent can be used as RAW.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/24 11:30:32
My Overprotective Father wrote:Tyrants shooting emplaced weapons? A Hive Tyrant may be smarter than your average bug, but that still isint saying much
Pretre: Are repressors assault vehicles? If they are, I'm gonna need emergency pants.
n0t_u: No, but six can shoot out of it. Other than that it's a Rhino with a Heavy Flamer thrown on if I remember correctly.
Pretre: Thanks! I guess my pants are safe and clean after all.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 12:31:29
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
It's not common for one rule to work exactly like another. That's not a problem with RAI because I = intended. You look at the intention of the rule. There is a faq that says only snap shots can hit flyers and there are faqs that forbid non snap shot abilities to hit flyers. So RAI, the intention is clear: LotS should not hit flyers.
And RAW as you said LotS doesn't penetrate vehicles in general...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/24 12:31:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 12:38:51
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Missionary On A Mission
Richmond Va
|
RAI I belive it does. They would've FAQ'd it as well if they didnt want it to. Thats the worst part of RAI. The I is up to your own interpretation more-so than the I of GW because no one knows truly what their I is.
Also, as far as I know, no weapon hits every unit on the board, has no LOS rules, and has no user. I dont consider that to be a weapon at all.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/24 12:40:49
My Overprotective Father wrote:Tyrants shooting emplaced weapons? A Hive Tyrant may be smarter than your average bug, but that still isint saying much
Pretre: Are repressors assault vehicles? If they are, I'm gonna need emergency pants.
n0t_u: No, but six can shoot out of it. Other than that it's a Rhino with a Heavy Flamer thrown on if I remember correctly.
Pretre: Thanks! I guess my pants are safe and clean after all.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 12:44:03
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
So a lack of faq is proof for something without any other precedent? How nice. Is there a faq that says you win if you ever roll 1 six times in a row? No, so I guess I won my last game... (I lost horribly due to bad dice)
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/24 12:44:30
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 12:49:43
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Missionary On A Mission
Richmond Va
|
Do you have permission to win when you roll 6 1's? no.
Does LoTS have permission to hit every unit on the board? Check.
Does Hard to Hit prohibit it? lets see. Is it a weapon? No range, no user, no LOS rules, Id say its not a weapon.
Okay, so lets assume for a moment that it isint a weapon. Is it an attack? Never described as one and attacks arent defined. Since it has no user, range, or LOS rules that means its no a shooting weapon. Since nothing has to be in bse contact to use it its not a cc weapon. By that logic, its not a weapon.
So again, does Hard to Hit prohibit it? By the looks of it, no. Is it written anywhere that LoTS cannot hit a flyer? no. Is it written that it can? Well since it hits everything, I'd say yes.
I have my permission, I have nothing that tells me I cant. Thats all I need.
|
My Overprotective Father wrote:Tyrants shooting emplaced weapons? A Hive Tyrant may be smarter than your average bug, but that still isint saying much
Pretre: Are repressors assault vehicles? If they are, I'm gonna need emergency pants.
n0t_u: No, but six can shoot out of it. Other than that it's a Rhino with a Heavy Flamer thrown on if I remember correctly.
Pretre: Thanks! I guess my pants are safe and clean after all.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 14:04:17
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
Blowing up enemy units all over the battlefield is not considered an attack? Really?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/24 14:04:41
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 14:35:22
Subject: Re:Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar
USA
|
It's already been pointed out a couple of times in this thread, but the Necron FAQ says this about weapons:
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.
I would argue that LotS is a weapon that is written out longhand.
However, I still think its status as a weapon or attack is irrelevant. The FAQ says 'only snap shots may hit', not 'weapons may only hit with snap shots'. If the ability / weapons / attacks / rule cannot fire a snap shot (or doesn't have specific permission to hit) then it cannot hit flyers. It really is that simple.
|
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) 2012/10/24 15:09:08
Subject: Re:Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Missionary On A Mission
Richmond Va
|
Yes, so you told me and I dropped my argument. However, I recently read the FAQ in question. Allow me to post it here.
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)
(Emphasis Mine)
 That was dirty. It does make mention of weapons in the FAQ. Its the question that was asked actually. Thus I have rejoined the debate.
As for a weapon written out longhand, I have already stated why I belive it is not a weapon at all, much less a longhand one. It has no range, no model fires it, it has no LOS rules.
As for if it is an attack or not, allow me to reitereate because it may sound like an attack to you copper, but it is not as defined.
Since it has no user, range, or LOS rules that means its no a shooting weapon. Since nothing has to be in bse contact to use it its not a cc weapon. By that logic, its not a weapon.
If you insist that it being able to damage something makes it a weapon then tell your opponent that a "Weapon Destroyed" result kills their tank since it can ram which causes damage. You are likely to get ban-hammered.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/10/24 15:11:10
My Overprotective Father wrote:Tyrants shooting emplaced weapons? A Hive Tyrant may be smarter than your average bug, but that still isint saying much
Pretre: Are repressors assault vehicles? If they are, I'm gonna need emergency pants.
n0t_u: No, but six can shoot out of it. Other than that it's a Rhino with a Heavy Flamer thrown on if I remember correctly.
Pretre: Thanks! I guess my pants are safe and clean after all.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 15:12:22
Subject: Re:Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Vindicare-Obsession wrote:That was dirty. It does make mention of weapons in the FAQ. Its the question that was asked actually. Thus I have rejoined the debate.
Know what else is dirty? Ignoring the answer to that FAQ. Perhaps you should read it.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 15:14:58
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Missionary On A Mission
Richmond Va
|
I did. It answeres the......
Question?
But to humor you, allow me to post the aswer where again, you are wrong.
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.
Again, emphasis mine. It clarifies the statement by saying attacks. you must read and use the whole FAQ, not just a bit that proves your argument.
Hey look at that. Both attacks and weapons are in the aswer...
Huh, wish someone had told me that..........
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/10/24 15:17:04
My Overprotective Father wrote:Tyrants shooting emplaced weapons? A Hive Tyrant may be smarter than your average bug, but that still isint saying much
Pretre: Are repressors assault vehicles? If they are, I'm gonna need emergency pants.
n0t_u: No, but six can shoot out of it. Other than that it's a Rhino with a Heavy Flamer thrown on if I remember correctly.
Pretre: Thanks! I guess my pants are safe and clean after all.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 15:21:11
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Vindicare-Obsession wrote:I did. It answeres the......
Question?
But to humor you, allow me to post the aswer where again, you are wrong.
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.
Again, emphasis mine. It clarifies the statement by saying attacks. you must read and use the whole FAQ, not just a bit that proves your argument.
Hey look at that. Both attacks and weapons are in the aswer...
Huh, wish someone had told me that..........
It's been posted a few dozen times in this thread, and those specific words have been referenced multiple times. If you believed otherwise, it wasn't anyone else's fault.
It does more than answer the question. That much has been demonstrated multiple times in this thread.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 15:22:06
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Missionary On A Mission
Richmond Va
|
Apparantly not.
It refrences both weapons and attacks, neither of which is LoTS.
|
My Overprotective Father wrote:Tyrants shooting emplaced weapons? A Hive Tyrant may be smarter than your average bug, but that still isint saying much
Pretre: Are repressors assault vehicles? If they are, I'm gonna need emergency pants.
n0t_u: No, but six can shoot out of it. Other than that it's a Rhino with a Heavy Flamer thrown on if I remember correctly.
Pretre: Thanks! I guess my pants are safe and clean after all.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 15:32:01
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Vindicare-Obsession wrote:That is a good point. I was under the impression that the wording for hard to hit was "Weapons or Attacks resolved against a flyer must be resolved as snapshots"
Now that I see the FAQ is all inclusive, I will conceed the argument.
Had to backtrack to page 9 to get the FAQ again but I see your point. I don't know how I've missed that post with as many times as I'm sure people have been using it.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/360/480037.page#4879717
So I'm not sure why you're pretending you were lied to about the FAQ. You referenced it yourself in this post that I quoted. You admitted the FAQ was all inclusive. Then you come back because you said you were misled about what the FAQ says. But the FAQ says exactly what undertow said it does.
Can you re-read the Answer to the FAQ? The first sentence is sufficient.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 15:48:41
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Missionary On A Mission
Richmond Va
|
Almost never. You never use, "Part of" a rule unless explicitly told to. "The first part" covers not even 1/5 of the total answer. I will attach my previous argument once again.
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.
Again, emphasis mine. It clarifies the statement by saying attacks. you must read and use the whole FAQ, not just a bit that proves your argument.
I was lied to. I was told that there was no mention of a weapon or attack in the FAQ. Guess what? I read back to page 9 where an incomplete quote of the FAQ was written.
I most certainly have been lied to, and I dont appreciate it. If you have an honest, rules based argument, now would be the time to use it. I am beyond being agreeable at this point. Short of GW releasing an FAQ saying that LoTS or special rules as a whole dont effect fliers, this is legal. Gw chose to FAQ certain rules that LoTS was not among. None of the abilities in the FAQ are even remotely like LoTS.
It has no user, no LOS rules, and no range. It is not a shooting weapon or attack.
It has no user, no cc profile, and no cc archtype in its profile. It is not a close combat weapon or attack.
Since those are the only weapons and attacks covered in the rulebook, LoTS is not an attack or weapon. It is a special rule with function all its own, and therefore exists outside of any current FAQ ruling.
If you can counter the exact points I have in bold above, I invite you to do so.
|
My Overprotective Father wrote:Tyrants shooting emplaced weapons? A Hive Tyrant may be smarter than your average bug, but that still isint saying much
Pretre: Are repressors assault vehicles? If they are, I'm gonna need emergency pants.
n0t_u: No, but six can shoot out of it. Other than that it's a Rhino with a Heavy Flamer thrown on if I remember correctly.
Pretre: Thanks! I guess my pants are safe and clean after all.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:05:41
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Almost never. You never use, "Part of" a rule unless explicitly told to. "The first part" covers not even 1/5 of the total answer. I will attach my previous argument once again.
I'm absolutely not using part of a rule. The rule is that "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures." End of sentence. The next sentence starts with "Therefore" which means it's explanatory and not the rule
Again, emphasis mine. It clarifies the statement by saying attacks. you must read and use the whole FAQ, not just a bit that proves your argument.
There's nothing in the FAQ saying that it's limited to attacks and weapons. You're assuming that.
"There are no $20 bills in this cash machine. Therefore I cannot give you a $20 bill in change."
Is the second sentence the only ramification of the first sentence?
I was lied to. I was told that there was no mention of a weapon or attack in the FAQ. Guess what? I read back to page 9 where an incomplete quote of the FAQ was written.
You were not lied to. I looked through your posts in this thread. You said you referenced the FAQ.
It has no user, no LOS rules, and no range. It is not a shooting weapon or attack.
It has no user, no cc profile, and no cc archtype in its profile. It is not a close combat weapon or attack.
It absolutely has a user - Imotekh. We know that because he's allowed to use a Chrono re-roll.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:12:58
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
rigeld2 wrote:
It has no user, no LOS rules, and no range. It is not a shooting weapon or attack.
It has no user, no cc profile, and no cc archtype in its profile. It is not a close combat weapon or attack.
It absolutely has a user - Imotekh. We know that because he's allowed to use a Chrono re-roll.
In all fairness, he's allowed a chronotek re-roll to keep night fighting in effect, which is actually what LotS is for. The lightning strike rolls, he can not re-roll for.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/10/24 16:13:32
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:15:05
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Source? I didn't see that in the FAQ (could've missed it) and if he can re-roll for the storm there's no reason he can't re-roll for the Lightning - it's the same ability.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:25:01
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
rigeld2 wrote:
Source? I didn't see that in the FAQ (could've missed it) and if he can re-roll for the storm there's no reason he can't re-roll for the Lightning - it's the same ability.
There's no source, but the FAQ only allowed the re-roll for the night fighting effect. The night fighting effect IS what lord of the storm is, the lightning strikes are an additional effect of the night fighting rule brought into play. What was it you were arguing before...."in addition" is not the same as "including"?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/24 16:25:23
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:34:32
Subject: Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Taking an argument out of context is a great way to make a point - Good job!
Part of LotS is the lightning strike. To disagree you'd have to cite where the lightning strike is referenced/used outside of the LotS rules.
GW Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night Fighting continues
at the start of the game turn? (p55)
A: No, he can attempt it but isn’t forced to.
He can attempt it - meaning it's his power, he owns it.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
|