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.

Because a boltgun has a range, LOS restriction, BS rolls to hit, and a designated wielder.

Lightning bolts decended from the sky above, do not.

...that are being directed by the character Imotekh

Apparently this point escapes you. It's almost like he is the "Lord" of these "Storms" and is causing them (by being present) to strike enemies in some form of an attack directed, however unskillfully, ONLY at enemy units.

Shucks. Seen your error yet?

At this point I don't think this thread is going anywhere, and as much as I would like to see this continue, no new information has been presented, and it would probably be best to just have this thread locked.

I do agree with Happyjew. This is going nowhere.

The best part of where this argument is now is that we are all right and all wrong, because now we are arguing something that isint even rules.

Not shooting, not CC, what type of attack is it? What type of attack left is there? We are not given the "Permission" that you harp on so much to use an attack that is not covered in the rulebook. You are assuming that its a mystery attack that has a category all its own. You dont have permission to assume that so in a permissive ruleset you cannot assume that.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
I do agree with Happyjew. This is going nowhere.

The best part of where this argument is now is that we are all right and all wrong, because now we are arguing something that isint even rules.

Not shooting, not CC, what type of attack is it? What type of attack left is there? We are not given the "Permission" that you harp on so much to use an attack that is not covered in the rulebook. You are assuming that its a mystery attack that has a category all its own. You dont have permission to assume that so in a permissive ruleset you cannot assume that.

Sorry, that sentence devolved somewhat into incomprehensibility there

You are still assuming something has to have a category of attack, with no basis for assuming so. Even the FAQ refers to "attacks" in general, yet you keep missing it

RAW LotS cannot hit a flyer, as it is an attack

What gives you permission to assume that there is an attack other than shooting, cc, and psychic?

English. What gives you permission to deny the general term "attack", used int eh FAQ and in other places?

Because attacks arent defined in the FAQ. They are in the rulebook. Shooting, CC, and Psychic. Each have their own section even. Specific Vs General.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Because attacks arent defined in the FAQ. They are in the rulebook. Shooting, CC, and Psychic. Each have their own section even. Specific Vs General.

'attacks' are not defined, 'Attacks' are defined. Subtle but important difference.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
English. What gives you permission to deny the general term "attack", used int eh FAQ and in other places?

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)
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.

Can a vibro cannon hit a flyer?
It is a weapon.
It uses it's BS to fire.
It isn't a template or blast, and as such can fire a snap shot.

foolishmortal wrote:

 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.

I understand where Tyr is coming from, and I don't agree with him.

I also grasp that the page number in the FAQ entry points to page 13 of the BRB and the Snap Shot rule. My argument is that the FAQ does not replace the Snap Shot entry in the BRB, it adds to it. The phrase 'Only Snap Shots may hit ... " does NOT invalidate other exceptions listed elsewhere in the rulebook. Vector Strike still has explicit permission to hit Flyers. Skyfire has a similar exception because these are Advanced rules that apply to specific models.

As an example of what I'm trying to get you to understand, let's look at the Snap Shot rule on page 13. This section explicitly states:

Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots.

Next we'll look at the Overwatch rules on page 21:

Any shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as Snap Shots

Yet if we look in the section that describes template weapons on page 52 we see this text in the 'Wall of Death' section:

Template Weapons can fire Overwatch, even though the cannot fire Snap Shots".

So here we have a basic rule (Snap Shot), and the advanced rule (Wall of Death) that overrides it. The rules for Basic vs. Advanced rules are on page 7, go read them again, I'll wait.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
English. What gives you permission to deny the general term "attack", used int eh FAQ and in other places?

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)
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.

Can a vibro cannon hit a flyer?
It is a weapon.
It uses it's BS to fire.
It isn't a template or blast, and as such can fire a snap shot.

Artillery cannot Snap fire.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
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.

I would still like an answer to this.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
English. What gives you permission to deny the general term "attack", used int eh FAQ and in other places?

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)
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.

Can a vibro cannon hit a flyer?
It is a weapon.
It uses it's BS to fire.
It isn't a template or blast, and as such can fire a snap shot.

It's funny that you're quoting the thing that disproves your argument. The Vibro Cannon draws a line, and as such cannot hit Flyers.

If you want explicit proof, look at the Eldar FAQ, page 4:

Q. Can Vibro Cannons hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures, if the line drawn by the Eldar player touches these models?
A. No. They can, however hit Hovering Flyers and Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
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.

I would still like an answer to this.

Again, it doesn't have to be all-inclusive. It is a basic rule that applies to all models on the table. Skyfire and Vector Strikes are Advanced rules that override the basic rule. The FAQ entry we're discussing is not an Errata, it doesn't say to replace anything, or remove anything from the rule it concerns.

And if a model with a unique special rule is not more advanced than a USR like skyfire or vector strike, I dont know what it.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
And if a model with a unique special rule is not more advanced than a USR like skyfire or vector strike, I dont know what it.

There are other models with unique special rules (Mawlocs) that are not allowed to hit flyers.

LotS applies to all enemies, making it a basic rule.

They are specifically FAQ'd.

And it is anything but basic, as shown by the myriad of FAQ entries it has already gotten.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
They are specifically FAQ'd.

And it is anything but basic, as shown by the myriad of FAQ entries it has already gotten.

A rule being basic or advanced has nothing to do with how simple or complex the rule is. As you have criticized the No group for our attempt to define 'attack', please do not attempt to use the english definitions of basic or advanced. In this context, basic rules apply to all models, and advanced rules apply to specific types of models.

LotS is a basic ability because it applies to all enemies.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Because attacks arent defined in the FAQ. They are in the rulebook. Shooting, CC, and Psychic. Each have their own section even. Specific Vs General.

Wrong, again. Please pay attention

"attacks" are NOT defined. Subsets of "attack" as a super set ARE defined.
"Attack" IS defined, but is NOT the same thing as "attack". Capitalisation is important, and you keep on missing it.

Specific vs general doesnt work here, you seem to misunderstand that it means.

Honestly Noz, there is much more evidence in the rule pointing to LotS being a modified version of the Night Fighting rules and thus a mission special rule then it being an attack.

Of course you can keep making your absolute statements of it 100% being an attack despite not a single mention of it being an attack in its entry, but that just seems like you reassuring yourself.

Well the BRB does not define 'attack' so we fall back on the English definition of 'attack' and it is clear that the lightning is an 'attack'

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well the BRB does not define 'attack' so we fall back on the English definition of 'attack' and it is clear that the lightning is an 'attack'

This fallback on the English definition crap is just that, crap.

The lightning effects of LoTS are directly tied into the modified Night Fighting rules that Imotekh creates by being included in the army. You are taking something, in this case the lightning, and trying to label it to fit your argument instead of looking at what the rule entry itself presents it as.

Imotekh modifies a mission special rule to include keeping the Night Fighting rules in effect and in turn create lightning. It isn't an attack, it is part of the Night Fighting mission special rule that has been modified by the inclusion of Imotekh in the army. That makes it no different then Njal's Lord of Tempest game effects that iirc were ruled by some prominent tournaments to hit flyers.

So resolve LotS as a game effect, brought on by LoTS being a modified version of the mission special rule, Night Fighting. Hence it is not covered by the FAQ in the slightest and hit flyers.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well the BRB does not define 'attack' so we fall back on the English definition of 'attack' and it is clear that the lightning is an 'attack'

This fallback on the English definition crap is just that, crap.

Why is it crap? Because it invalidates your argument? If there is no game definition of 'attack' you have to fall back on the English definition, or else the term is meaningless. You have an ability, that is only available when an army includes Imhotek, that only affects enemy units, and can damage and remove them from play. It's like you're saying 'it isn't an attack because I don't want it to be'

The lightning effects of LoTS are directly tied into the modified Night Fighting rules that Imotekh creates by being included in the army. You are taking something, in this case the lightning, and trying to label it to fit your argument instead of looking at what the rule entry itself presents it as.

Imotekh modifies a mission special rule to include keeping the Night Fighting rules in effect and in turn create lightning. It isn't an attack, it is part of the Night Fighting mission special rule that has been modified by the inclusion of Imotekh in the army. That makes it no different then Njal's Lord of Tempest game effects that iirc were ruled by some prominent tournaments to hit flyers.

So resolve LotS as a game effect, brought on by LoTS being a modified version of the mission special rule, Night Fighting. Hence it is not covered by the FAQ in the slightest and hit flyers.

Again, LotS causes hits, this is all the matters. Hits must be Snap Shots.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well the BRB does not define 'attack' so we fall back on the English definition of 'attack' and it is clear that the lightning is an 'attack'

This fallback on the English definition crap is just that, crap.

So all definitions must be in the rule book?
Please define the following from the BRB: the and is contains normal nullified remove expressed
Ill wait.

 undertow wrote:
Again, LotS causes hits, this is all the matters. Hits must be Snap Shots.

Not true. Hits don't have to be Snap Shots. For example, we all agree that Skyfire hits don't have to be from Snap Shots.

By skipping over a large part of the FAQ answer, it confuses the issue.

Tye_Informer wrote:

 undertow wrote:
Again, LotS causes hits, this is all the matters. Hits must be Snap Shots.

Not true. Hits don't have to be Snap Shots. For example, we all agree that Skyfire hits don't have to be from Snap Shots.

By skipping over a large part of the FAQ answer, it confuses the issue.

Skyfire shots have a specific exemption.
Does LotS?

Tye_Informer wrote:

 undertow wrote:
Again, LotS causes hits, this is all the matters. Hits must be Snap Shots.

Not true. Hits don't have to be Snap Shots. For example, we all agree that Skyfire hits don't have to be from Snap Shots.

By skipping over a large part of the FAQ answer, it confuses the issue.

It goes without saying that things given specific permission to violate a basic rule are legal.

If feel like this whole argument from the YES group has turned into that scene from Idiocracy, where Not Sure is trying to get the future people to put water on their crops instead of Brawndo.

Why do plants crave Brawndo?
Because it has electrolytes.
Why does Brawndo have electrolytes?
Because it has what plants crave.

It is a crap ploy in regard to LotS when we have the very rule entry describing a modified mission special rule that includes the choice to extend the Night Fighting special rule and causes lightning. It does not contain any reference to it being an attack and instead points directly to being an effect of the modified mission special rule.

Basically, don't pull the English definition of attack crap when the rule for LotS pretty much shows and defines the lightning as an effect of the modified mission special rule, Night Fighting.

"Attack" as used in the FAQ is not defined in the BRB.
To understand the FAQ, we must define it.
We use the English language definition.
LotS fits that definition.
LotS does not have an exemption similar to Vector Strike or Skyfire.

Cite rules to disagree.

rigeld2 wrote:
"Attack" as used in the FAQ is not defined in the BRB.
To understand the FAQ, we must define it.
We use the English language definition.
LotS fits that definition.
LotS does not have an exemption similar to Vector Strike or Skyfire.

Cite rules to disagree.

Edited by Manchu

>If I choose to use a solar pulse to remove the effects of Night Fighting for the turn, do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units?
>>do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units
>Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units
>any enemy units
>>any
>>Lord of the Storm special rule #notanattack
Please lawyer your way out.