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.

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

It's actually not even referenced in the LotS rule. It is its own paragraph with no heading that is referencing lightning strikes that happen while night fighting from LotS is in effect. It is it's own separate thing.

Also, the argument was not taken out of context because the rule for the lightning starts off "In addition", and you (or someone) has tried to make it very clear in the past that "in addition" means to treat the following as it's own thing, where as if it was "including" then it would be one-and-the-same.

And yes, Imotekh can choose not to roll for the night fighting, I've never said the LotS rule is not owned by him. He can NOT choose to not have the lightning strike, however, otherwise I would just choose it to never hit my allies of convenience.

 Kevin949 wrote:
It's actually not even referenced in the LotS rule. It is its own paragraph with no heading that is referencing lightning strikes that happen while night fighting from LotS is in effect. It is it's own separate thing.

So you get lightning strikes during normal (non LotS) night fighting?

edit: If it's not part of LotS then it's not part of Imotekh at all - and it's a basic rule that everyone must follow.

Also, the argument was not taken out of context because the rule for the lightning starts off "In addition", and you (or someone) has tried to make it very clear in the past that "in addition" means to treat the following as it's own thing, where as if it was "including" then it would be one-and-the-same.

Yes, it was me. Yes, it was out of context. Do you know what that means? It means you're taking something that was said and presenting it without also presenting all the other relevant information.
And that's not what I've said. I've said that if something says "including" it means part of, not in addition to.

And yes, Imotekh can choose not to roll for the night fighting, I've never said the LotS rule is not owned by him. He can NOT choose to not have the lightning strike, however, otherwise I would just choose it to never hit my allies of convenience.

... And I haven't said otherwise? Once you enact the LotS rule, the entire rule (both paragraphs) comes into play.
And it's his ability. He owns it.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

 undertow wrote:
The FAQ says 'only snap shots may hit

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.

I'm sorry if you feel I misled you, that wasn't my intent. I posted the first sentence of the answer because I feel that is where the rule is. The part of the answer that begins with "Therefore ... " is just an explanation, as rigeld2 already mentioned. I'm not here to 'win' the argument. I'm here to debate the issue and I'm perfectly willing to change my stance if I can be shown the error of my ways. Lying here is just as lame as cheating on the tabletop.

For what it's worth, I'm going to a tournament this weekend and will just ask the TO how he's going to rule it, I might argue my point for a minute or two if he disagrees, but I'll still happily play whichever way he rules.

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.

Again, I feel this is irrelevant but where is 'attack' defined?

 undertow wrote:
Again, I feel this is irrelevant but where is 'attack' defined?

The only place "Attack" is defined in the BRB (that I found) was the statistic.

When the BRB fails to define a word, we should fall back on normal English (or you end up with "Where is 'the' defined?").

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
It's actually not even referenced in the LotS rule. It is its own paragraph with no heading that is referencing lightning strikes that happen while night fighting from LotS is in effect. It is it's own separate thing.

So you get lightning strikes during normal (non LotS) night fighting?

edit: If it's not part of LotS then it's not part of Imotekh at all - and it's a basic rule that everyone must follow.

Also, the argument was not taken out of context because the rule for the lightning starts off "In addition", and you (or someone) has tried to make it very clear in the past that "in addition" means to treat the following as it's own thing, where as if it was "including" then it would be one-and-the-same.

Yes, it was me. Yes, it was out of context. Do you know what that means? It means you're taking something that was said and presenting it without also presenting all the other relevant information.
And that's not what I've said. I've said that if something says "including" it means part of, not in addition to.

And yes, Imotekh can choose not to roll for the night fighting, I've never said the LotS rule is not owned by him. He can NOT choose to not have the lightning strike, however, otherwise I would just choose it to never hit my allies of convenience.

... And I haven't said otherwise? Once you enact the LotS rule, the entire rule (both paragraphs) comes into play.
And it's his ability. He owns it.

I didn't say it's not part of imotekh, I said it is its own separate thing. It's tied to the night fighting effect for LotS but it is not controlled directly by any model, otherwise imotekh would be able to choose who to use it on and who not to. Even so, it would not be a "basic rule" since no other army has allowance for this effect.

And yes, according to the rules for the lightning you absolutely would get the lightning strikes during night fighting effects brought into play from mission rules. The only thing that can't do it is solar pulse, because there's a specific denial for such.

No, it wasn't really out of context as that was your stance in other debates and it holds up here. If "including" is part of, then what is "in addition", to you? Because, the lightning is not included in Lord of the Storm.

Yes, you're right, both rules, but the lightning strikes can happen during standard night fighting as well. The lord of the storm rule simply forces and continues night fighting to be in effect if rolled sufficiently.

 Kevin949 wrote:
I didn't say it's not part of imotekh, I said it is its own separate thing.

It's part of him, but it's not. So what ability is it part of?

It's tied to the night fighting effect for LotS but it is not controlled directly by any model, otherwise imotekh would be able to choose who to use it on and who not to.

Not true. There's no permission for choice.

Even so, it would not be a "basic rule" since no other army has allowance for this effect.

It's a rule. Agreed?
It's not tied to anything specific (your stance). Agreed?
If it's not tied to anything, but it's a rule, why is it a Necron specific rule?

And yes, according to the rules for the lightning you absolutely would get the lightning strikes during night fighting effects brought into play from mission rules. The only thing that can't do it is solar pulse, because there's a specific denial for such.

No, you wouldn't - because it's part of the rule for LotS.

No, it wasn't really out of context as that was your stance in other debates and it holds up here. If "including" is part of, then what is "in addition", to you? Because, the lightning is not included in Lord of the Storm.

It is. Do you have any idea what context means?
It means that, in this context, "In addition" means "In addition to the Night Fighting stuff, LotS does this." That means that LotS includes the lightning.

Yes, you're right, both rules, but the lightning strikes can happen during standard night fighting as well. The lord of the storm rule simply forces and continues night fighting to be in effect if rolled sufficiently.

No, LotS is both paragraphs as a whole. LotS causes the lightning strikes.

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The lord of the storm rule simply forces and continues night fighting to be in effect if rolled sufficiently.

This is a bit of a derailment, but LotS does more than 'simply' force and continue night fighting. The LotS ability has two effects:

1. Forces Night Fighting on Turn 1 and allows the controlling player the option of rolling to continue Night Fighting.
2. Attack that generates hits on enemy units on a roll of 6 on a D6 while Night Fighting is in play.

It's not part of an ability at all, not directly anyway. It is it's own separate thing that is applied when night fighting rules are in effect, except by solar pulse. Lord of the Storm FORCES night fighting into effect. That is all. Read the second paragraph, it says "While the night fighting rules are in effect" it does not say "While lord of the storm night fighting is in effect".

They are separate.

What I'm trying to say is that Lord of the Storm is two wholly separate effects. The first is to force night fighting. This is the part that is 100% controlled by imotekh. This part has zero bearing on the lightning strikes brought into play, as they happen when "night fighting rules are in effect" which is applied to any night fighting rules other than solar pulse.

The lightning strikes are not controlled by him, they are brought into play because he was included in your army, but by the letter of the rule even if he was dead you would still get the lightning strikes if night fighting was in effect somehow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 undertow wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The lord of the storm rule simply forces and continues night fighting to be in effect if rolled sufficiently.

This is a bit of a derailment, but LotS does more than 'simply' force and continue night fighting. The LotS ability has two effects:

1. Forces Night Fighting on Turn 1 and allows the controlling player the option of rolling to continue Night Fighting.
2. Attack that generates hits on enemy units on a roll of 6 on a D6 while Night Fighting is in play.

Well, it's not my aim to derail the thread (any more than it has in the past), I'm trying to show exactly what you said, they are two effects that are not tied to one another and I believe many people are tying the night fight roll and the lightning strikes as one thing, which isn't the case.

And that it's not even controlled by imotekh directly as how it's read currently, he could be dead and the lightning strikes could still go on if night fighting was still in effect by other means.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The lord of the storm rule simply forces and continues night fighting to be in effect if rolled sufficiently.

This is a bit of a derailment, but LotS does more than 'simply' force and continue night fighting. The LotS ability has two effects:

1. Forces Night Fighting on Turn 1 and allows the controlling player the option of rolling to continue Night Fighting.
2. Attack that generates hits on enemy units on a roll of 6 on a D6 while Night Fighting is in play.

Well, it's not my aim to derail the thread (any more than it has in the past), I'm trying to show exactly what you said, they are two effects that are not tied to one another and I believe many people are tying the night fight roll and the lightning strikes as one thing, which isn't the case.

I tentatively agree with you here.

And that it's not even controlled by imotekh directly as how it's read currently, he could be dead and the lightning strikes could still go on if night fighting was still in effect by other means.

But not here, although I think I see where you're coming from and I could be persuaded.

I'm not really interested in debating that in this thread though. I'd rather get back to the actual discussion.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

To both DR and Nosotros, I never said that there cannot be general answers to specific questions iirc. Just not in this case.

The answer is specific to the question asked in this case. We know there are other ways that a zooming flyer can be hit, which by the RAI some of you here are placing on, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers", would trump them all. The fact that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" cannot stand on its own merit as a rule, shows you that it is specific to the context of the question asked. All the other examples of a general answer being included in a specific question stand on their own merit, supported not only by the question asked, but also by the RAW present in the BRB or codex in question.

You cannot say the same about, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers". It can only apply to the question at hand.

 Kevin949 wrote:
It's not part of an ability at all, not directly anyway. It is it's own separate thing that is applied when night fighting rules are in effect, except by solar pulse. Lord of the Storm FORCES night fighting into effect. That is all. Read the second paragraph, it says "While the night fighting rules are in effect" it does not say "While lord of the storm night fighting is in effect".

And it's absolutely impossible for the context of that paragraph to be referring to the other paragraph in the LotS rules - the one that forces night fighting.
No, wait - that's actually what's happening.

What I'm trying to say is that Lord of the Storm is two wholly separate effects. The first is to force night fighting. This is the part that is 100% controlled by imotekh. This part has zero bearing on the lightning strikes brought into play, as they happen when "night fighting rules are in effect" which is applied to any night fighting rules other than solar pulse.

Taking the second paragraph completely by itself completely ignores how rules are actually written. Well done. It's like you don't understand how to use context at all.

And that it's not even controlled by imotekh directly as how it's read currently, he could be dead and the lightning strikes could still go on if night fighting was still in effect by other means.

No, really - that's not true.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

To both DR and Nosotros, I never said that there cannot be general answers to specific questions iirc. Just not in this case.

The answer is specific to the question asked in this case. We know there are other ways that a zooming flyer can be hit, which by the RAI some of you here are placing on, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers", would trump them all. The fact that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" cannot stand on its own merit as a rule, shows you that it is specific to the context of the question asked. All the other examples of a general answer being included in a specific question stand on their own merit, supported not only by the question asked, but also by the RAW present in the BRB or codex in question.

You cannot say the same about, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers". It can only apply to the question at hand.

Really?
So you do not think that "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers, and Flying Monstrous Creatures." is a general answer?

Interesting take on it. but incorrect. It clarifies exactly what can and can not hit a Zooming Flyers, and Flying Monstrous Creatures.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The fact that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" cannot stand on its own merit as a rule, shows you that it is specific to the context of the question asked.

Please list the other attacks that are allowed to hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping FMCs that either have Skyfire or some other specific permission to do so.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

To both DR and Nosotros, I never said that there cannot be general answers to specific questions iirc. Just not in this case.

The answer is specific to the question asked in this case. We know there are other ways that a zooming flyer can be hit, which by the RAI some of you here are placing on, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers", would trump them all. The fact that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" cannot stand on its own merit as a rule, shows you that it is specific to the context of the question asked. All the other examples of a general answer being included in a specific question stand on their own merit, supported not only by the question asked, but also by the RAW present in the BRB or codex in question.

You cannot say the same about, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers". It can only apply to the question at hand.

Really?
So you do not think that "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers, and Flying Monstrous Creatures." is a general answer?

Interesting take on it. but incorrect. It clarifies exactly what can and can not hit a Zooming Flyers, and Flying Monstrous Creatures.

Then your view that it is a FAQ general answer trumps both the Skyfire and Vector Strike/Dancer rules.

This means that despite some Chaos Havocs having flakk missiles, they can still only Snap Shot at a Zooming Flyer or FMC? Good luck getting that one by a TO.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

To both DR and Nosotros, I never said that there cannot be general answers to specific questions iirc. Just not in this case.

The answer is specific to the question asked in this case. We know there are other ways that a zooming flyer can be hit, which by the RAI some of you here are placing on, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers", would trump them all. The fact that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" cannot stand on its own merit as a rule, shows you that it is specific to the context of the question asked. All the other examples of a general answer being included in a specific question stand on their own merit, supported not only by the question asked, but also by the RAW present in the BRB or codex in question.

You cannot say the same about, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers". It can only apply to the question at hand.

Really?
So you do not think that "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers, and Flying Monstrous Creatures." is a general answer?

Interesting take on it. but incorrect. It clarifies exactly what can and can not hit a Zooming Flyers, and Flying Monstrous Creatures.

Then your view that it is a FAQ general answer trumps both the Skyfire and Vector Strike/Dancer rules.

This means that despite some Chaos Havocs having flakk missiles, they can still only Snap Shot at a Zooming Flyer or FMC? Good luck getting that one by a TO.

It's funny you bring those up when they specifically override the normal rule that only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

To both DR and Nosotros, I never said that there cannot be general answers to specific questions iirc. Just not in this case.

The answer is specific to the question asked in this case. We know there are other ways that a zooming flyer can be hit, which by the RAI some of you here are placing on, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers", would trump them all. The fact that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" cannot stand on its own merit as a rule, shows you that it is specific to the context of the question asked. All the other examples of a general answer being included in a specific question stand on their own merit, supported not only by the question asked, but also by the RAW present in the BRB or codex in question.

You cannot say the same about, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers". It can only apply to the question at hand.

Really?
So you do not think that "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers, and Flying Monstrous Creatures." is a general answer?

Interesting take on it. but incorrect. It clarifies exactly what can and can not hit a Zooming Flyers, and Flying Monstrous Creatures.

Then your view that it is a FAQ general answer trumps both the Skyfire and Vector Strike/Dancer rules.

This means that despite some Chaos Havocs having flakk missiles, they can still only Snap Shot at a Zooming Flyer or FMC? Good luck getting that one by a TO.

Are you being intentionally obtuse here?

Seriously, how many times have we said in this thread "snap shots cannot hit (unless given specific permission like Vector Strike)?

 undertow wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The fact that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" cannot stand on its own merit as a rule, shows you that it is specific to the context of the question asked.

Please list the other attacks that are allowed to hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping FMCs that either have Skyfire or some other specific permission to do so.

You do understand that by you proposing that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" in the FAQ is a general answer and not specific to the question trumps those permissions. It is a FAQ to the BRB, meaning that by your stance, it trumps what is written in the BRB and makes, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" the default rule for hitting Zooming Flyers and FMC.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The fact that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" cannot stand on its own merit as a rule, shows you that it is specific to the context of the question asked.

Please list the other attacks that are allowed to hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping FMCs that either have Skyfire or some other specific permission to do so.

You do understand that by you proposing that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" in the FAQ is a general answer and not specific to the question trumps those permissions. It is a FAQ to the BRB, meaning that by your stance, it trumps what is written in the BRB and makes, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" the default rule for hitting Zooming Flyers and FMC.

Not true whatsoever.

It still only applies to Hard to Hit. Skyfire, et. al. are "more advanced" ie more specific and therefore win out.

Happyjew wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

To both DR and Nosotros, I never said that there cannot be general answers to specific questions iirc. Just not in this case.

The answer is specific to the question asked in this case. We know there are other ways that a zooming flyer can be hit, which by the RAI some of you here are placing on, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers", would trump them all. The fact that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" cannot stand on its own merit as a rule, shows you that it is specific to the context of the question asked. All the other examples of a general answer being included in a specific question stand on their own merit, supported not only by the question asked, but also by the RAW present in the BRB or codex in question.

You cannot say the same about, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers". It can only apply to the question at hand.

Really?
So you do not think that "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers, and Flying Monstrous Creatures." is a general answer?

Interesting take on it. but incorrect. It clarifies exactly what can and can not hit a Zooming Flyers, and Flying Monstrous Creatures.

Then your view that it is a FAQ general answer trumps both the Skyfire and Vector Strike/Dancer rules.

This means that despite some Chaos Havocs having flakk missiles, they can still only Snap Shot at a Zooming Flyer or FMC? Good luck getting that one by a TO.

It's funny you bring those up when they specifically override the normal rule that only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers.

Read my post above.

If the opinion is that the FAQ answer of, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" is not specific to the question at hand, then it overrides the specific permissions given by Skyfire/Vector to not use Snap Shots to hit a Zooming Flyer. BRB FAQ > BRB after all.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

If the opinion is that the FAQ answer of, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" is not specific to the question at hand, then it overrides the specific permissions given by Skyfire/Vector to not use Snap Shots to hit a Zooming Flyer. BRB FAQ > BRB after all.

Skyfire, et. al. > BRB FAQ for Hard to Hit > BRB entry for Hard to Hit

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The fact that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" cannot stand on its own merit as a rule, shows you that it is specific to the context of the question asked.

Please list the other attacks that are allowed to hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping FMCs that either have Skyfire or some other specific permission to do so.

You do understand that by you proposing that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" in the FAQ is a general answer and not specific to the question trumps those permissions. It is a FAQ to the BRB, meaning that by your stance, it trumps what is written in the BRB and makes, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" the default rule for hitting Zooming Flyers and FMC.

It appears that I forgot a "don't" in my request, it should read like this:

Please list the other attacks that are allowed to hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping FMCs that don't have Skyfire or some other specific permission to do so.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Then your view that it is a FAQ general answer trumps both the Skyfire and Vector Strike/Dancer rules.

This means that despite some Chaos Havocs having flakk missiles, they can still only Snap Shot at a Zooming Flyer or FMC? Good luck getting that one by a TO.

Barring any specific exception (Like Skyfire), I thought that was implied, but I guess I had to say it...

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The fact that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" cannot stand on its own merit as a rule, shows you that it is specific to the context of the question asked.

Please list the other attacks that are allowed to hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping FMCs that either have Skyfire or some other specific permission to do so.

You do understand that by you proposing that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" in the FAQ is a general answer and not specific to the question trumps those permissions. It is a FAQ to the BRB, meaning that by your stance, it trumps what is written in the BRB and makes, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" the default rule for hitting Zooming Flyers and FMC.

Not true whatsoever.

It still only applies to Hard to Hit. Skyfire, et. al. are "more advanced" ie more specific and therefore win out.

Then the codex rule of LoTS is an advanced rule that tells you that it hits any enemy unit on the board as then Codex > BRB.

See, you can't have it both ways. You cannot say that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" is a general answer and not specific to the question at hand without trumping the Skyfire/Vector rules. If you then say that the Skyfire/Vector rules then override the, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" as they are advanced rules, then the codex rule of LoTS hitting any enemy model on the board also overrides the FAQ answer as an advanced codex rule.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The fact that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" cannot stand on its own merit as a rule, shows you that it is specific to the context of the question asked.

Please list the other attacks that are allowed to hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping FMCs that either have Skyfire or some other specific permission to do so.

You do understand that by you proposing that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" in the FAQ is a general answer and not specific to the question trumps those permissions. It is a FAQ to the BRB, meaning that by your stance, it trumps what is written in the BRB and makes, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" the default rule for hitting Zooming Flyers and FMC.

Not true whatsoever.

It still only applies to Hard to Hit. Skyfire, et. al. are "more advanced" ie more specific and therefore win out.

Then the codex rule of LoTS is an advanced rule that tells you that it hits any enemy unit on the board as then Codex > BRB.

See, you can't have it both ways. You cannot say that, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" is a general answer and not specific to the question at hand without trumping the Skyfire/Vector rules. If you then say that the Skyfire/Vector rules then override the, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" as they are advanced rules, then the codex rule of LoTS hitting any enemy model on the board also overrides the FAQ answer as an advanced codex rule.

You can. Codex only overrides BRB if there's a conflict - there's no conflict here.
Codex says to hit everything. BRB FAQ says only snapshots. Codex would need to say "even if it would normally need a snapshot" or "even hits flyers" or something like that.

rigeld2 wrote:
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?

Therefore- Meaning because. It describes what occurs because of something. I am not arguing semantics with you. It specifically decribes weapons and attacks in the FAQ. End of story. Argument over.

LoTS is not an attack or weapon. It is a special rule assigned to a character. You assume that Imotekh uses it but you are wrong, otherwise he couldnt use another shooting attack in the shooting phase. Not a shooting weapon/attack, not a cc weapon/attack, not covered in an FAQ.

RAW you cannot make logical leaps. Do not make logical leaps. I have permission to use a special rule to hit every unit. FAQ, rulebook, coedex, none of them limit the use of a special rule on a flyer. As bad as this could make you feel, flyers are not invincible, untargetable, things. There are exceptions to the rule. Again, counter the points of

No LOS, No firing model, No range

becuase you have not been abkle to do so

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
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?

Therefore- Meaning because. It describes what occurs because of something. I am not arguing semantics with you. It specifically decribes weapons and attacks in the FAQ. End of story. Argument over.

Yes, because of A, B. That does not mean that B is the only outcome of A.

LoTS is not an attack or weapon. It is a special rule assigned to a character. You assume that Imotekh uses it but you are wrong, otherwise he couldnt use another shooting attack in the shooting phase. Not a shooting weapon/attack, not a cc weapon/attack, not covered in an FAQ.

Actually, I've quoted where it is his rule to use. And he can use another shooting attack in the shooting phase because there's nothing saying he can't (and he has general permission to).

RAW you cannot make logical leaps. Do not make logical leaps. I have permission to use a special rule to hit every unit. FAQ, rulebook, coedex, none of them limit the use of a special rule on a flyer. As bad as this could make you feel, flyers are not invincible, untargetable, things. There are exceptions to the rule. Again, counter the points of

No LOS, No firing model, No range

becuase you have not been abkle to do so

Actually, you said "owning model" which I've proven. You're asking me to prove things that are relevant for shooting attacks, which I've never claimed LotS is.
And despite what you obviously think, I dislike Flyers and how hard they are to hit. Assigning bias to someone is a bad idea.

rigeld2 wrote:

 undertow wrote:
Again, I feel this is irrelevant but where is 'attack' defined?

The only place "Attack" is defined in the BRB (that I found) was the statistic.

When the BRB fails to define a word, we should fall back on normal English (or you end up with "Where is 'the' defined?").

I completely agree.
Does the rule book define Struck?
No.

Would a Dictionary define being struck the same was as being hit?
Stop me if you see where I'm going with this...

If so, then Imotekhs lightning does indeed roll to hit, and does not auto hit. If not, then you need to find a definition where Struck does not equate to Hit.

-Matt

rigeld2 wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
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?

Therefore- Meaning because. It describes what occurs because of something. I am not arguing semantics with you. It specifically decribes weapons and attacks in the FAQ. End of story. Argument over.

Yes, because of A, B. That does not mean that B is the only outcome of A.

Exactly. Therefore means 'as a result of this ...', not 'the only result of this is... '

The rule part of the answer is just this: "only snap shots may hit zooming flyers and swooping monstrous creatures." The rest of the answer is a non-exhaustive listing of SOME of the things affected.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
LoTS is not an attack or weapon. It is a special rule assigned to a character.

Which is irrelevant, because it causes hits that are not Snap Shots and have no permission to hit flyers.

And just for the sake of argument, here's the weapon profile for lightning caused by LotS:

Lighting from LotS
R: infinite S:8 AP:2 D6 hits



Automatically Appended Next Post:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 undertow wrote:
Again, I feel this is irrelevant but where is 'attack' defined?

The only place "Attack" is defined in the BRB (that I found) was the statistic.

When the BRB fails to define a word, we should fall back on normal English (or you end up with "Where is 'the' defined?").

I completely agree.
Does the rule book define Struck?
No.

Would a Dictionary define being struck the same was as being hit?
Stop me if you see where I'm going with this...

If so, then Imotekhs lightning does indeed roll to hit, and does not auto hit. If not, then you need to find a definition where Struck does not equate to Hit.

If struck == hit, then you just need to refer back to the FAQ answer: "Only Snap Shots can hit ...."

Was the lighting fired as a Snap Shot? Nope
Does it have permission to hit flyers? Nope

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Stop me if you see where I'm going with this...

Was it fired as a Snap Shot?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
It's not part of an ability at all, not directly anyway. It is it's own separate thing that is applied when night fighting rules are in effect, except by solar pulse. Lord of the Storm FORCES night fighting into effect. That is all. Read the second paragraph, it says "While the night fighting rules are in effect" it does not say "While lord of the storm night fighting is in effect".

And it's absolutely impossible for the context of that paragraph to be referring to the other paragraph in the LotS rules - the one that forces night fighting.
No, wait - that's actually what's happening.

What I'm trying to say is that Lord of the Storm is two wholly separate effects. The first is to force night fighting. This is the part that is 100% controlled by imotekh. This part has zero bearing on the lightning strikes brought into play, as they happen when "night fighting rules are in effect" which is applied to any night fighting rules other than solar pulse.

Taking the second paragraph completely by itself completely ignores how rules are actually written. Well done. It's like you don't understand how to use context at all.

And that it's not even controlled by imotekh directly as how it's read currently, he could be dead and the lightning strikes could still go on if night fighting was still in effect by other means.

No, really - that's not true.

The fact it starts "In Addition" lends credence to that paragraph being a secondary thing that is not tied to the first. Imotekh's ability to bring night fighting has no bearing on whether the lightning happens or not. Only the occurrence of night fighting being in play does.

I fully understand context, I think you're not understanding how one special rule can have two wholly separate effects.

Then prove it isn't true.


I suppose that there are bigger questions to be asked about this. Such as, how do you determine if the roll to see if the lightning goes off is a 'to-hit' roll or not? If it is indeed a weapon controlled by imotekh, why can I not just claim I'm firing it as a snap shot? What 'type' of weapon is it, a pistol? Assault? Heavy? Can I assault after using it? What unit can he charge if he doesn't use either of his 'other' weapons?

These are just some of the questions that would be raised if it was an ability that was controlled by him, or wielded, or fired, or whatever you want to say.
My point is that the FAQ is answering a question about models shooting at flyers, and only models can make snap shots, Imotekhs rule for the lightning strikes is not fired by a model and is a battlefield wide rule with specific allowance to hit all unengaged models. How that doesn't include flyers is beyond me.