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.

 Kevin949 wrote:
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.

No, those questions would only be raised if shooting was the only way models could cause wounds. We know that's not true.
A model can have a special ability that isn't a weapon. That special ability would still need to use a Snap Shot to hit a flyer or have an exception similar to Vector Strike or Skyfire, based on that FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote:

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

Was it fired as a Snap Shot?

If a roll to strike is a roll to hit, then sure, I'll say I'm taking a snap shot.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

Was it fired as a Snap Shot?

If a roll to strike is a roll to hit, then sure, I'll say I'm taking a snap shot.

FAQ says you can never opt to take a Snap Shot.

rigeld2 wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

Was it fired as a Snap Shot?

If a roll to strike is a roll to hit, then sure, I'll say I'm taking a snap shot.

FAQ says you can never opt to take a Snap Shot.

Not only that, but how are you taking a Snap Shot if it's not a shooting attack?

You do have to roll a 6 for the power to work... a snapshot at BS 1 is 6... That's where my mind is today...

First and foremost Rigeld, the FAQ is specific to Snap Shots, not Hard to Hit. The page for the FAQ queston is even in quotations as page 13, not page 49 or 81. Probably the main source of your errors.

Now why is the FAQ specific to page 13?

Snap Shots

If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots. Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. It is important to note that any shooting attack that does not use a Ballistic Skill - such as the Necron Monolith's portal of exile - cannot be fired as a Snap Shot.

Notice that the rule above makes no mention of the specific types mentioned in the FAQ such as maelstorm, nova, or beam? Notice how the FAQ clarifies that those specific types of things are then also covered by the rule for Snap Shots and thus unable to be shot as Snap Shots?

However, lo and behold you and others are now trumping the first line of, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and SFMC" within the FAQ as a general answer included in the FAQ for the specific question. The problem there is that if you tout that as a general answer to what can hit Zooming Flyers and SFMC, as a BRB FAQ, it supercedes the Hard to Hit entry on page 41 and 81. For page 41,

Shots resolved at such a target can only be resolved as Snap Shots unless the model or weapon has the Snap Fire special rule Isee page 42)."

Becomes,

Only Snap Shots can hit Flying Monstrous Creatures.

For page 81,

Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots (unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule as described on page 42).

Becomes,

Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers.

But because the answer in the FAQ is specific to the question, we are not faced with negating the Skyfire rule completely. Instead we are told things like maelstrom, beam, and nova psychic powers or any other weapon/attack also does not hit Zooming Flyers or SFMC. The firxt sentence of the answer is wholly tied into the question because it is in regard to hitting and in response to psychic powers and weapons that do not roll to hit or automatically hit.

As that LoTS is none of those mentioned in the rule or FAQ, it hits Zooming Flyers and SFMC per its rules as written.

OK and now we should start discussing again how faqs can extend beyond the original question. Give examples, discuss the IG character issue etc and then accept that faqs indeed can extend beyond the original question and take that faq at face value: only snap shots can hit flyers.

copper.talos wrote:
OK and now we should start discussing again how faqs can extend beyond the original question. Give examples, discuss the IG character issue etc and then accept that faqs indeed can extend beyond the original question and take that faq at face value: only snap shots can hit flyers.

Can we just skip all that and get back to:

No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
etc.?

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
First and foremost Rigeld, the FAQ is specific to Snap Shots, not Hard to Hit. The page for the FAQ queston is even in quotations as page 13, not page 49 or 81. Probably the main source of your errors.

Now why is the FAQ specific to page 13?

Snap Shots

If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots. Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. It is important to note that any shooting attack that does not use a Ballistic Skill - such as the Necron Monolith's portal of exile - cannot be fired as a Snap Shot.

Notice that the rule above makes no mention of the specific types mentioned in the FAQ such as maelstorm, nova, or beam? Notice how the FAQ clarifies that those specific types of things are then also covered by the rule for Snap Shots and thus unable to be shot as Snap Shots?

This exact topic was covered about ten pages back, please try to keep up.

Why would you think that the FAQ entry applies to Snap Shots? The Snap Shot entry in the rule book only concerns what a Snap Shot is, and mentions what types of weapons may not fire as Snap Shots. Why would they FAQ that page (p13) to add something about Flyers? It makes zero sense. The FAQ only concerns what may hit flyers, and logically can only belong in the Hard to Hit section.

Also, to your other points, rigeld2 already mentioned that this is a change to an existing general rule (Hard to Hit). That general rule is that only snap shots may hit fliers. Advanced rules such as those for Skyfire and Vector Strike can override this restriction. The Hard to Hit rule could be amended to say in its entirety "Only Snap Shots may hit Flyers" and all would be well with the world because the advanced rules override it.

-Edit-

I just noticed that you've pointed out that the (p13) in the FAQ entry points it at the Snap Shot entry in the BRB. I think I understand your argument for why it applies there.

This changes nothing. The Snap Shot entry in effect says what a Snap Shot is, what types of weapons may not fire them, and that they are the only thing allowed to hit flyers. This is still a basic rule, overridden by the advanced rules Skyfire and Vector Strike.

 undertow wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
First and foremost Rigeld, the FAQ is specific to Snap Shots, not Hard to Hit. The page for the FAQ queston is even in quotations as page 13, not page 49 or 81. Probably the main source of your errors.

Now why is the FAQ specific to page 13?

Snap Shots

If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots. Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. It is important to note that any shooting attack that does not use a Ballistic Skill - such as the Necron Monolith's portal of exile - cannot be fired as a Snap Shot.

Notice that the rule above makes no mention of the specific types mentioned in the FAQ such as maelstorm, nova, or beam? Notice how the FAQ clarifies that those specific types of things are then also covered by the rule for Snap Shots and thus unable to be shot as Snap Shots?

This exact topic was covered about ten pages back, please try to keep up.

Why would you think that the FAQ entry applies to Snap Shots? The Snap Shot entry in the rule book only concerns what a Snap Shot is, and mentions what types of weapons may not fire as Snap Shots. Why would they FAQ that page (p13) to add something about Flyers? It makes zero sense. The FAQ only concerns what may hit flyers, and logically can only belong in the Hard to Hit section.

Also, to your other points, rigeld2 already mentioned that this is a change to an existing general rule (Hard to Hit). That general rule is that only snap shots may hit fliers. Advanced rules such as those for Skyfire and Vector Strike can override this restriction. The Hard to Hit rule could be amended to say in its entirety "Only Snap Shots may hit Flyers" and all would be well with the world because the advanced rules override it.

-Edit-

I just noticed that you've pointed out that the (p13) in the FAQ entry points it at the Snap Shot entry in the BRB. I think I understand your argument for why it applies there.

This changes nothing. The Snap Shot entry in effect says what a Snap Shot is, what types of weapons may not fire them, and that they are the only thing allowed to hit flyers. This is still a basic rule, overridden by the advanced rules Skyfire and Vector Strike.

And this is why you are wrong.

Snap Shot is not the only thing allowed to hit flyers. We know this 100%. If you want to equivocally state that ONLY Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers in the FAQ answer is a FAQ to also include the Hard to Hit rule, then you negate the entry in the Hard to Hit rule giving exception to models or weapons with the Skyfire rule as I pointed out in my example.

The FAQ is precise in addressing psychic powers that are classed as beam, nova, or maelstrom or weapons that do not roll to hit or automatically hit and their interaction with Zooming Flyers and SFMC and they indeed fall under Snap Shots. As you need to Snap Shot to resolve a shot against a Zooming Flyer or SFMC, unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire rule, this FAQ answer includes those psychic powers and weapons under the Snap Shot rule as they were previously not clarified under said rule.

As LotS does not fall under any of those FAQ additions to the Snap Shot rule and is also not a shot to be resolved under the Hard to Hit rule, it hits Zooming Flyers and SFMC per its rules as written.

Actually the FAQ then answers wider than this, as it includes "attacks", which are not just shooting weapons - hence weapons "and" attacks

LotS is certainly, 100%, an attack. Claiming otherwise ignores English, which you MUST fall back on as the BRB does not define "attack", just "Attack"

As long as you keep ignoring this RAW, your argument will continue to be incorrect

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually the FAQ then answers wider than this, as it includes "attacks", which are not just shooting weapons - hence weapons "and" attacks

LotS is certainly, 100%, an attack. Claiming otherwise ignores English, which you MUST fall back on as the BRB does not define "attack", just "Attack"

As long as you keep ignoring this RAW, your argument will continue to be incorrect

Now you are falling back on the whole "English" defintion defense?

Not once is LotS referred to as an attack in its description. In comparison, Njal's LoT special rule goes even as far as to label his stuff, "game effects". The only "English" reference to attacks that seem to be present in the BRB refer to either shooting attacks or close combat attacks iirc. Is LotS a shooting or close combat attack?

If anything, LoTS is a modification to the Night Fighting rules, which is of course not an attack at all, just a mission special rule.

Edit: I will go as far as to label LotS a modification to the Night Fighting rules and thus exempt from the FAQ just as is Njal's Lord of Tempest game effects. On page 124 of the BRB, the description of Mission Special rules is as follows:

Some Eternal War missions use unique special rules. These confer extra abilities, restrictions, or effects onto your games. We'll explain the most common ones here, but sometimes a mission will introduce its own special rules.

Imotekh's special rule of LotS places a modified Night Fighting mission special rule into play which is implemented as written in the rules entry. Which again, makes it not an attack and thus not subject to the FAQ.

copper.talos wrote:OK and now we should start discussing again how faqs can extend beyond the original question. Give examples, discuss the IG character issue etc and then accept that faqs indeed can extend beyond the original question and take that faq at face value: only snap shots can hit flyers.

Um, no. Looking at a dozen updates, and nitpicking faq entries will not resolve this issue for either the PRO or the NO position.

You can not prove a negative based on inductive reasoning.

You can not rule out the possibility that GW might have chosen to to alter the rules via a faq entry in this case. (given that they have done so in the past in other cases)

nosferatu1001 wrote:LotS is certainly, 100%, an attack.

This is strong language. The question has been asked here before, arguments made for and against, opinions stated, etc.

Did you have something to add - rules page number, precedent, rules-based argument?

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:If anything, LoTS is a modification to the Night Fighting rules, which is of course not an attack at all, just a mission special rule.

RAW, I would agree.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
And this is why you are wrong.

Snap Shot is not the only thing allowed to hit flyers. We know this 100%. If you want to equivocally state that ONLY Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers in the FAQ answer is a FAQ to also include the Hard to Hit rule, then you negate the entry in the Hard to Hit rule giving exception to models or weapons with the Skyfire rule as I pointed out in my example.

Did you even read what I posted? Or are you just having comprehension problems?

If we say that the Snap Shot FAQ says only snap shots are allowed to hit flyers, that is a basic rule that applies to all hits against flyers. (BTW, LotS causes D6 "hits")

This does not negate the entry in the Hard to Hit rule giving exceptions, as that is a, say it with me, specific or advanced rule. Skyfire? Also an advanced rule. Vector strike? Yup, that too.

If you look on page 7 of the BRB, it says basic rules 'apply to all models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise', and advanced rules 'apply to specific types of models'. It says in bold 'where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules'.

LotS, whether an ability, weapon, attack or whatever, is a general or basic rule, as it applies to all enemies. The FAQ entry in question limits hits on fliers to Snap Shots only, regardless of the source, this is an advanced rule. If you're at all unclear about what to do in this situation, please read page 7 again until you get it.

The FAQ is precise in addressing psychic powers that are classed as beam, nova, or maelstrom or weapons that do not roll to hit or automatically hit and their interaction with Zooming Flyers and SFMC and they indeed fall under Snap Shots.

It seems that you're trying to go back to the argument we had 5 or so pages ago, where someone said that because the FAQ question used the word weapons, the answer can only apply to weapons. This is 100% wrong, and numerous examples were provided to show that in many cases, answers were given that went beyond the scope of the question.

As you need to Snap Shot to resolve a shot against a Zooming Flyer or SFMC, unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire rule, this FAQ answer includes those psychic powers and weapons under the Snap Shot rule as they were previously not clarified under said rule.

This is incorrect. The rule is not "all shots must be snap shots", but "hits can only be caused by snap shots".

As LotS does not fall under any of those FAQ additions to the Snap Shot rule and is also not a shot to be resolved under the Hard to Hit rule, it hits Zooming Flyers and SFMC per its rules as written.

The only addition to the Snap Shot rule is 'Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures'. Everything after the 'Therefore is just a non-exhaustive explanation of that point.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:If anything, LoTS is a modification to the Night Fighting rules, which is of course not an attack at all, just a mission special rule.

RAW, I would agree.

I've said this a few times, but I think it's worth repeating:

The "it's not a weapon or attack" debate is not relevant. It is a distraction. LotS causes D6 HITS, the source of the hits isn't important. The FAQ says 'only snap shots can hit'.

Can you please tell me why the hits caused by LotS are not bound by this restriction?

 undertow wrote:
LotS causes D6 HITS, the source of the hits isn't important. The FAQ says 'only snap shots can hit'.

Can you please tell me why the hits caused by LotS are not bound by this restriction?

You say things like...

undertow wrote:Did you even read what I posted? Or are you just having comprehension problems?

and then you ask me to repeat something I and others have said several time in this thread?

The Faq entry on Snap Shot =/= Errata on Hard to Hit.

The faq entry on Snap Shot clarifies Snap Shot. I thought Tyr Grimtooth did a decent job of presenting this argument (again) on this page.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
First and foremost Rigeld, the FAQ is specific to Snap Shots, not Hard to Hit. The page for the FAQ queston is even in quotations as page 13, not page 49 or 81. Probably the main source of your errors.

Now why is the FAQ specific to page 13?

Snap Shots

If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots. Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. It is important to note that any shooting attack that does not use a Ballistic Skill - such as the Necron Monolith's portal of exile - cannot be fired as a Snap Shot.

Notice that the rule above makes no mention of the specific types mentioned in the FAQ such as maelstorm, nova, or beam? Notice how the FAQ clarifies that those specific types of things are then also covered by the rule for Snap Shots and thus unable to be shot as Snap Shots?

However, lo and behold you and others are now trumping the first line of, "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and SFMC" within the FAQ as a general answer included in the FAQ for the specific question. The problem there is that if you tout that as a general answer to what can hit Zooming Flyers and SFMC, as a BRB FAQ, it supercedes the Hard to Hit entry on page 41 and 81. For page 41,

Shots resolved at such a target can only be resolved as Snap Shots unless the model or weapon has the Snap Fire special rule Isee page 42)."

Becomes,

Only Snap Shots can hit Flying Monstrous Creatures.

For page 81,

Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots (unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule as described on page 42).

Becomes,

Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers.

But because the answer in the FAQ is specific to the question, we are not faced with negating the Skyfire rule completely. Instead we are told things like maelstrom, beam, and nova psychic powers or any other weapon/attack also does not hit Zooming Flyers or SFMC. The firxt sentence of the answer is wholly tied into the question because it is in regard to hitting and in response to psychic powers and weapons that do not roll to hit or automatically hit.

As that LoTS is none of those mentioned in the rule or FAQ, it hits Zooming Flyers and SFMC per its rules as written.

Foolish mortal - certainly i have rules, its called "it fits the definition of an attack in English" - which barring a 40k-specific change is all that is needed.

Prove otherwise. Prove it is not an "attack". this will require you to provide a 40k specific defintion, as causing damage to an enemy unit / model certainly would be considered an attack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
LotS is certainly, 100%, an attack.

Incorrect. It may be an attack as far as you an I are concerned in the english language, but as far as the rulebook which we use to define such things goe, it is incorrect.

For the millionth time, I am going to post this because no one can seem to disprove it.

No range, hits every unit on the board, no BS roll to hit, no firing model, not done within the normal shooting period, can be used while Imhotekh is locked in combat = not a shooting weapon or attack

No cc-characteristic in its profile, no wielding model, hits every unit on the board, even those not in base contact = not a cc attack or weapon.

No psychic test, no chance of perils, no warp charges = not a psychic power

Because these are the only weapons and attacks defined in the BRB, it is not an attack or weapon as far as the rules are concerned.

The FAQ Says

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)

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.

As before, emphasis mine. In this I have bolded the reference to weapons/attacks in both the quesiton and the answer. Because we are not allowed to make leaps of logic, we can only apply the answer to the question, to the exact question itself. We apply the words "Only snapshots can hit zooming flyers and swooping monstrous creares" to the question asked which was

"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)"

To do otherwise is to make a leap of logic and is not allowed. This means that since LoTS is not a weapon or attack (see above) it exists outside of the FAQ.

Now, allow me to show you what happens if you do apply your reasoning to the FAQ

Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures.

If we are to assume that this is all inclusive, and that FAQ > Rulebook (as has been said many times in YMDC) then you can no longer use skyfire against flyers as they would not be firing snapshots and thus be breaking the rule of the FAQ.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Foolish mortal - certainly i have rules, its called "it fits the definition of an attack in English" - which barring a 40k-specific change is all that is needed.

Unless of course it fits into some other category more easily and with less linguistic contortion. The lightning from LotS is not a shooting attack, nor a close combat Attack. It does not require line of sight. No target is chosen. No range or limit on the number of units it might effect. Sounds more like a 'special rule' or 'game effect' or as was mentioned earlier, a modification of the night fighting rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Prove otherwise. Prove it is not an "attack". this will require you to provide a 40k specific defintion, as causing damage to an enemy unit / model certainly would be considered an attack.

If you want to call the lightning from LotS an attack, by all means, make the argument. 'It is because it certainly is' is a poor way to start.

I really don't think it matters if the lightning from LotS is or is not an attack.

RAI - based on recent faq entries, I think GW is moving towards errata of Hard to Hit that would restrict zooming flyers from being hit by anything other than Snap Shots and specific exceptions.

RAW - there is currently no such restriction.

Neither of these positions depends on whether or not the lightning from LotS is or is not an attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Because these are the only weapons and attacks defined in the BRB, it is not an attack or weapon as far as the rules are concerned.

This is misleading, there are a few mentions of generic 'attacks' in the rules. Off the top of my head, the most relevent is one of the faq entries for Mawloc's TftD. It refers to the 'TftD attack'. Granted, TftD shares more in common with a normal shooting attack than lightning from LotS. (normal procedure with large blast marker used for determining hits rather than special rule procedures)

They are similar enough cases that I base my RAI position on TftD's treatment as GW's "intent" for Hard to Hit.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
LotS is certainly, 100%, an attack.

Incorrect. It may be an attack as far as you an I are concerned in the english language, but as far as the rulebook which we use to define such things goe, it is incorrect.

For the millionth time, I am going to post this because no one can seem to disprove it.

No range, hits every unit on the board, no BS roll to hit, no firing model, not done within the normal shooting period, can be used while Imhotekh is locked in combat = not a shooting weapon or attack

Again, it has been disproved -40k has no general definition of "attack" . You keep ognoring that salient fact

As it has no definition of "attack" falling back on English definitions seems the only way to go, and it certainly fits the English definition of "attack". Meaning the FAQ applies

For the millionth time, read and remember: 40k is not a fully internally defined ruleset. If you claim differently you must find a 40k specific definition for "a". When you cannot do so we can perhaps move on.

So then nos, tell me what attacks the rulebook does describe, because if it dosent fall under one of those categories, how can it work at all? There is no general "Misc. Attack" section. They have shooting attacks, and they have cc attacks, neither of which is LoTS.

It is not an attack according to the BRB.

The problem with it being "your definition of attack" or "my defenition of attack" is that we have completely different definitions.

I do not consider lightning to be an attack simply because no one is attacking. Imotekh is not telling the clouds to strike this unit or that unit, otherwise it would always land, not 1/6 of the time. It is a force of nature, similar to dangerous terrain IMHO and cannot be considered an attack.

Unless the trees and clouds are chasing you......

foolishmortal wrote:

RAI - based on recent faq entries, I think GW is moving towards errata of Hard to Hit that would restrict zooming flyers from being hit by anything other than Snap Shots and specific exceptions.

RAW - there is currently no such restriction.

So RAI you agree that LotS shouldn't hit flyers. RAW has been proved that LotS doesn't penetrate vehicles. In both cases LotS doesn't damage flyers so we better move on...

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
So then nos, tell me what attacks the rulebook does describe, because if it dosent fall under one of those categories, how can it work at all? There is no general "Misc. Attack" section. They have shooting attacks, and they have cc attacks, neither of which is LoTS.

It is not an attack according to the BRB.

Your last line is a falsehood, or at least just a really, really bad error in your logic

The BRB does not have a definition for "attack", general. As you even point out. Therefore you cannot say something is not an "attack" because the BRB says so, because the BRB has NO DEFINITION of "attack"

As such you *have* to fall back on English. Where it most certainly IS an attack

Again, if you disagree, then "a" does not "work" in 40k, neither does "the". After all, according to you these things cannot "work" because they are not internally defined within the 40k rulebook

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, if you disagree, then "a" does not "work" in 40k, neither does "the". After all, according to you these things cannot "work" because they are not internally defined within the 40k rulebook

But attacks are. You are a shooting attack, cc attack, or psychic attack. None of these are LoTS.

Edit: Imo is certainly doing it, did you even read the fluff? Its even called "Lord of the Storms"; the clue is in the title there

Imotekh is causing damage to enemy units via a special rule; that certainly fits any definition of attack based on English I can think of. This isnt interpretation, just an error in comprehension on your part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, if you disagree, then "a" does not "work" in 40k, neither does "the". After all, according to you these things cannot "work" because they are not internally defined within the 40k rulebook

But attacks are. You are a shooting attack, cc attack, or psychic attack. None of these are LoTS.

WRONG

"attacks" *general*, with no qualifier of "psychic" "shooting" or "close combat" are not defined, anywhere in the rulebook

You are committing a logical fallacy; namely that because only 3 types of attack are defined that these are therefore the only attacks allowed - when all it means is that the BRB has only defined 3 sub types of attack. It does not mean that the general class "attack" does not exist

If Imotekh controlled the lightning storm, he wouldnt need infantry. He'd storm you to death instead. There is a 1/6 chance that it will happen to any unit.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
I do not consider lightning to be an attack simply because no one is attacking. Imotekh is not telling the clouds to strike this unit or that unit, otherwise it would always land, not 1/6 of the time. It is a force of nature, similar to dangerous terrain IMHO and cannot be considered an attack.

The lightning doesn't hit his own units, does it? Just a coincidence or is someone (perhaps Imotekh the Lord of Storms) directing it? If so, it is an attack.

The lighting dosent hit alot of enemy units? Maybe the enemy commisar is fighting for control of it

See the flaw?

No, I don't.

If I have the ability to call down lightning bolts wherever, and whenver I want, then I'm not commiting it to 1/6th of my enemies force.

All of them are going to eat electricity.

If you are shooting your boltgun at an enemy unit you are most likely not going to hit all of them, even though you tried. How is that different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, if it is a "force of nature" and not controlled by anyone and hence no attack, why does it only strike unengaged enemy units (regardless of its specific chances to actually strike every enemy unit)?