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.

Phil106 wrote:

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.

I literally just made an account to tell you that you are tfg, it's done, you're him. I wouldn't bother ripping out your throat, because then I'd have to hear you gasp for air for 3 minutes, I would just never come to any event you're at. Congratz. Oh and btw

>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
Please lawyer your way out.

Wow. First off, the first part is rather rude, I believe you owe rigeld an apology. The main purpose of the forum is to determine how odd rules work within the rules as a whole. Most people who argue a certain point don't even play it that way. There are two ways to look at this:
a) it is an attack and as such is subject to the Hard to Hit special rule.
b) it is not an attack at all and can hit flyers but as such cannot add strength to the armour penetration rule.

Take your pick. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

 Phil106 wrote:

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.

I literally just made an account to tell you that you are tfg, it's done, you're him. I wouldn't bother ripping out your throat, because then I'd have to hear you gasp for air for 3 minutes, I would just never come to any event you're at. Congratz. Oh and btw

>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.

Are you seriously quoting just the question part of a (unrelated) FAQ entry to prove your point?

I'll play along. Note the part you quoted that says 'hits'. Now read the entry we're discussing, the part that says 'only snap shots may hit...' LotS causes hits that are not Snap Shots, therefore they cannot hit.

Lawyered.

Also, nice first post. Welcome to the community. Now please go away.

Happyjew wrote:

Phil106 wrote:

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.

I literally just made an account to tell you that you are tfg, it's done, you're him. I wouldn't bother ripping out your throat, because then I'd have to hear you gasp for air for 3 minutes, I would just never come to any event you're at. Congratz. Oh and btw

>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
Please lawyer your way out.

Wow. First off, the first part is rather rude, I believe you owe rigeld an apology. The main purpose of the forum is to determine how odd rules work within the rules as a whole. Most people who argue a certain point don't even play it that way. There are two ways to look at this:
a) it is an attack and as such is subject to the Hard to Hit special rule.
b) it is not an attack at all and can hit flyers but as such cannot add strength to the armour penetration rule.

Take your pick. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I'm sorry more used to /tg/, I guess I meant more to say that people who play like this "bug" me. But any how, didn't everyone already go over this? There are multiple ways non-attacks that role an additional d6 on the table, such as ramming, Also I don't know what your rulebook says but mine says "roll a d6 and add the weapon's Strength" (pg.73) since Imotekh’s 'Lord of The Storm' special ability has a 'weapon profile' it is entitled to the extra d6 is it not?

 undertow wrote:

 Phil106 wrote:

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.

I literally just made an account to tell you that you are tfg, it's done, you're him. I wouldn't bother ripping out your throat, because then I'd have to hear you gasp for air for 3 minutes, I would just never come to any event you're at. Congratz. Oh and btw

>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.

Are you seriously quoting just the question part of a (unrelated) FAQ entry to prove your point?

I'll play along. Note the part you quoted that says 'hits'. Now read the entry we're discussing, the part that says 'only snap shots may hit...' LotS causes hits that are not Snap Shots, therefore they cannot hit.

Lawyered.

Also, nice first post. Welcome to the community. Now please go away.

I actually mean to apoligize for my rudness, coming from 4chan really isn't an excuse.

Ok, so you should know that before hand I did read that rule. But now if you will, turn to vector strike on page 43 and read with me; "... Nominate any one unengaged enemy unit the model has moved over that turn. This unit may even be an enemy Flyer. That unit takes D3+1 hits, resolved at the model's unmodified Strength and AP3..." Sound's familiar right? Imothek's LotS (although I don't have it on hand) is read in a very similar fashion, minus the flyer bit because they had not yet been added to the game. So when it says 'any' unit in the FAQ and does not clarify that it cannot target air units, this suggests to me that they in fact intend for it to hit all units.

Also back to rigeld2 If I'm to interpret what you said then models vector striking don't get to add an addition d6 to vector strike because it's not an attack but a special rule correct?

 Phil106 wrote:
I'm sorry more used to /tg/, I guess I meant more to say that people who play like this "bug" me. But any how, didn't everyone already go over this? There are multiple ways non-attacks that role an additional d6 on the table, such as ramming, Also I don't know what your rulebook says but mine says "roll a d6 and add the weapon's Strength" (pg.73) since Imotekh’s 'Lord of The Storm' special ability has a 'weapon profile' it is entitled to the extra d6 is it not?

1) Ramming also can not add its str to the D6 roll, unless things not defined as an "Attack" in the brb are in fact attacks.

2) Yes "since Imotekh’s 'Lord of The Storm' special ability has a 'weapon profile' it is entitled to the extra d6" but that also means it is a weapon. and as we know: "any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit can not hit a zooming flyer, as Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers".

TY, Lawyered.

The FAQ again for those that missed it:
"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."

 Phil106 wrote:
Imothek's LotS (although I don't have it on hand) is read in a very similar fashion, minus the flyer bit

That minus the "flyer bit" is everything. Vector Strike has specific permission to hit flyers without a snap shot, The LoTS does not have a specific exception, so it myst snap shot to be able to hit, and since it can not snap shot it can not hit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Phil106 wrote:
I'm sorry more used to /tg/, I guess I meant more to say that people who play like this "bug" me. But any how, didn't everyone already go over this? There are multiple ways non-attacks that role an additional d6 on the table, such as ramming, Also I don't know what your rulebook says but mine says "roll a d6 and add the weapon's Strength" (pg.73) since Imotekh’s 'Lord of The Storm' special ability has a 'weapon profile' it is entitled to the extra d6 is it not?

1) Ramming also can not add its str to the D6 roll, unless things not defined as an "Attack" in the brb are in fact attacks.

2) Yes "since Imotekh’s 'Lord of The Storm' special ability has a 'weapon profile' it is entitled to the extra d6" but that also means it is a weapon. and as we know: "any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit can not hit a zooming flyer, as Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers".

TY, Lawyered.

The FAQ again for those that missed it:
"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."

 Phil106 wrote:
Imothek's LotS (although I don't have it on hand) is read in a very similar fashion, minus the flyer bit

That minus the "flyer bit" is everything. Vector Strike has specific permission to hit flyers without a snap shot, The LoTS does not have a specific exception, so it myst snap shot to be able to hit, and since it can not snap shot it can not hit.

Actually I realized I talked myself into a corner, chariots have the same rule as vector strike with sweep attack, but it doesn't specify it can't hit flyers. Oops. Well you guys win, I'm gonna go watch flashpoint now. Good day sirs.

 Phil106 wrote:
Actually I realized I talked myself into a corner, chariots have the same rule as vector strike with sweep attack, but it doesn't specify it can't hit flyers. Oops. Well you guys win, I'm gonna go watch flashpoint now. Good day sirs.

I take back my 'please leave'. Too bad everyone else isn't as reasonable as you.

rigeld2 wrote:

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?

My point is some people are leaving off large parts of the answer and making blanket statements that are not true. The blanket statement that "Hits must be Snap Shots", if true, would completely settle the debate. However, it's not true so the debate is not settled.

Another common tactic I see is the False Dichotomy, forcing to choose between LOTS being a weapon attack, which is covered by the FAQ and prevents flyers from being hit, and LOTS not being a weapon attack and therefore can't hurt add the D6 to the AP roll.

Based on all the reading I've done, I think that LOTS is not covered by the FAQ, and therefore can hit flyers. It does not automatically hit and it is not a weapon, so it's not covered by the FAQ. It modifies the mission rules and states to roll for every unengaged enemy unit, that would include flyers.

I have not seen anything that convinces me that LOTS automatically hits (it doesn't, you have to roll to cause the hits), but even if it did not require a roll, I still haven't seen anything that shows it is a weapon. If it was a weapon then the FAQ would cover it and it can't be snap shot, so it can't hit Flyers. However, a weapon must be wielded by a model and can't be used when the model is not on the battlefied. LOTS takes effect whether Imotekh is on the field or not, it only requires that Night Fighting rules be in effect.

It is, however, an attack, as it fits the English definition of such and, barring a rule specifying "attack" meaning something else, we HAVE to use the English definition - else the word is meaningless.

It is an attack not being made using Skyfire, so cannot hit

Tye_Informer wrote:
I have not seen anything that convinces me that LOTS automatically hits (it doesn't, you have to roll to cause the hits), but even if it did not require a roll, I still haven't seen anything that shows it is a weapon. If it was a weapon then the FAQ would cover it and it can't be snap shot, so it can't hit Flyers. However, a weapon must be wielded by a model and can't be used when the model is not on the battlefied. LOTS takes effect whether Imotekh is on the field or not, it only requires that Night Fighting rules be in effect.

As for the underlined:

If it is not a weapon you can not add its Str to the D6 roll to pen a vehicle as the armor pen rules state to add the Str of the weapon to the D6.

But that is a strict interpretation. If we use a strict interpretation in regard to the FAQ in that it only applies to weapons, and LoTS is not a weapon, then we also have to use a strict interpretation in regards to Armor pen. and that means only Weapons get to add their strength to the D6 roll to pen a vehicle, and not LoTS.

Or we go with the English definition of weapon. Then any weapons, like the LoTS rule, get to add their Str to penetration rolls because it fits the English definition of Weapon, but that also means that the lightning can not hit a zooming flyer.

Either way Lighting does nothing to flyers.

Happyjew wrote:

Phil106 wrote:

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.

I literally just made an account to tell you that you are tfg, it's done, you're him. I wouldn't bother ripping out your throat, because then I'd have to hear you gasp for air for 3 minutes, I would just never come to any event you're at. Congratz. Oh and btw

>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
Please lawyer your way out.

Wow. First off, the first part is rather rude, I believe you owe rigeld an apology. The main purpose of the forum is to determine how odd rules work within the rules as a whole. Most people who argue a certain point don't even play it that way. There are two ways to look at this:
a) it is an attack and as such is subject to the Hard to Hit special rule.
b) it is not an attack at all and can hit flyers but as such cannot add strength to the armour penetration rule.

Take your pick. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I will take option b and wait for a FAQ telling me how to resolve a game effect brought on by a modified mission special rule when including Imotekh in an army. Because here is thin thing, there are plenty of things in the BRB that are not weapons or attacks, that cause hits and yet they are somehow allowed to be resolved. For example,

A Explodes result on the vehicle damage table, "Nearby units suffer a strength 3, AP - hit for each model within D6" of the vehicle.....", Oh look, not a weapon or attack! Gee how do we resolve wounds?

Ramming, from the example given: "The total is 4+3+1, which means the Trukk suffers a strength 8 hit against its side armor." Wait, the Land Raider is not a weapon and ram isn't defined as an attack! Gee how do we resolve the armor penetration?

Carnivorous Jungle
Fuel Reserve
Booby Trap
Psychneuein Hive
Spiker Plant
Etc
Etc

So yea, I will take option b and wait for the FAQ to clarify how game effects/terrain/etc are resolved for rolling to wound and armor penetration. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that it cannot penetrate armor is a seperate issue that has nothing to do with it hitting flyers.

Tye_Informer wrote:

My point is some people are leaving off large parts of the answer and making blanket statements that are not true. The blanket statement that "Hits must be Snap Shots", if true, would completely settle the debate. However, it's not true so the debate is not settled.

Except it is true. Yes, some rules have exceptions - that does not invalidate the statement.

I have not seen anything that convinces me that LOTS automatically hits (it doesn't, you have to roll to cause the hits), but even if it did not require a roll, I still haven't seen anything that shows it is a weapon. If it was a weapon then the FAQ would cover it and it can't be snap shot, so it can't hit Flyers. However, a weapon must be wielded by a model and can't be used when the model is not on the battlefied. LOTS takes effect whether Imotekh is on the field or not, it only requires that Night Fighting rules be in effect.

The FAQ also covers attacks, which LotS indisputably is. Unless you care to define the words I asked about earlier using only the BRB?

Give it up Rigeld, I dont think this is going to go anywhere - the "yes it can hit" side have run out of any argument apart from "its not an attack, because i say so"

 DeathReaper wrote:

If it is not a weapon you can not add its Str to the D6 roll to pen a vehicle as the armor pen rules state to add the Str of the weapon to the D6.

Page 50, oddly, under the heading WEAPONS
If the weapon's range contains a '-' it is (unless otherwise stated) a Melee weapon. If it contains a number, or 'Template' it is a shooting weapon.

Yes, LoTS is an attack. Is it a weapon? The rules for weapon seems like it isn't.

Lacking a number for range, it seems like we're still left with an attack that isn't a weapon, and that doesn't auto hit; making it not covered by the FAQ. Also bear in mind, the lightning still comes down if Imotekh is embarked in a transport, or off the table, or inside a building with no fire powers. Imotekh rolls for the night fight, not for the lightning.
Convince me it's a weapon. I've got a rule that shows it doesn't fully qualify for either Melee or Shooting weapons.


-Matt

I have already shown it follows all the requirements to be classified as a weapon. Such requirements also make the environmental effects weapons and thus able to harm vehicles. I have also shown why ramming isn't a weapon (no profile, explicit permission to roll armour pen). This topic is literally going nowhere. It cannot hit flyers as it is a weapon covered by the FAQ. Simple as that. It doesn't even make sense in reality for it too as they'd be giant faraday cages. This is just silly.

Matt - Not having a range and having range "-" are not equivalent.

Tye_Informer wrote:
My point is some people are leaving off large parts of the answer and making blanket statements that are not true. The blanket statement that "Hits must be Snap Shots", if true, would completely settle the debate. However, it's not true so the debate is not settled.

Why isn't it true? Just saying 'However, it's not true so the debate is not settled' is no more authoritative than 'Because I said so'.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
...Yes, LoTS is an attack...

-Matt

"any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them"

LoTS does not roll to hit, so it can not target flyers.

Thank you for proving our point.

 DeathReaper wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
...Yes, LoTS is an attack...

-Matt

"any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them"

LoTS does not roll to hit, so it can not target flyers.

Thank you for proving our point.

An argument can be made that the ability does not 'target' flyers as it his everything on the field.

 Phil106 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
...Yes, LoTS is an attack...

-Matt

"any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them"

LoTS does not roll to hit, so it can not target flyers.

Thank you for proving our point.

An argument can be made that the ability does not 'target' flyers as it his everything on the field.

Possibly, but doesn't it 'target' everything on the field?.

I think it's irrelevant if it actually targets units though. It is the hits that matter, and if they were snap fired, or had permission to hit flyers. The source of the hits doesn't matter. If the ability is a weapon or attack doesn't matter. Once a game effect (weapon, ability, etc) has delivered some hits to a flyer, if the hits weren't snap fired or had permission, they are ignored.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Give it up Rigeld, I dont think this is going to go anywhere - the "yes it can hit" side have run out of any argument apart from "its not an attack, because i say so"

Gee, that sounds eerily similar to, "It is an attack, because I say so."

I notice that you completely duck the fact that the lightning is linked directly to the modified mission special rule of Night Fighting clearly making it something other then an attack. As I already pointed out,

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.

So we do know that the lightning of LoTS is classed under one of those three things, ie, "effects in your games".

But hey, repeat your, "100% is an attack" statement enough times and maybe you will get some parrots to repeat it as well.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

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.

So we do know that the lightning of LoTS is classed under one of those three things, ie, "effects in your games".

But hey, repeat your, "100% is an attack" statement enough times and maybe you will get some parrots to repeat it as well.

Did the mission define LotS?

Have you found a definition for attack in the rulebook yet?
Or found the definitions to any of the other words I asked you to?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

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.

So we do know that the lightning of LoTS is classed under one of those three things, ie, "effects in your games".

But hey, repeat your, "100% is an attack" statement enough times and maybe you will get some parrots to repeat it as well.

Did the mission define LotS?

Have you found a definition for attack in the rulebook yet?
Or found the definitions to any of the other words I asked you to?

Don't be an idiot Rigeld. You like to play the "is" and "that" definition game far to often on this forum as your trump card and it is a weak argument in this context.

Read the rule entry for LotS. It is a modified version of the mission special rule, Night Fighting. The lightning is directly linked to that modified mission special rule. You can keep playing ignorant and insisting that it fits the English definition of attack and therefore you fall back on it, while the rule itself shows you that it is part of the modified mission special rule when Imotekh is included in an army.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Give it up Rigeld, I dont think this is going to go anywhere - the "yes it can hit" side have run out of any argument apart from "its not an attack, because i say so"

Gee, that sounds eerily similar to, "It is an attack, because I say so."

I notice that you completely duck the fact that the lightning is linked directly to the modified mission special rule of Night Fighting clearly making it something other then an attack. As I already pointed out,

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.

So we do know that the lightning of LoTS is classed under one of those three things, ie, "effects in your games".

But hey, repeat your, "100% is an attack" statement enough times and maybe you will get some parrots to repeat it as well.

The rules for LotS say "While Night Fighting is in effect ..". This doesn't modify night fighting, it is triggered by it. There is a huge difference. The logical leaps you are going through to defend your position are getting pathetic.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Don't be an idiot Rigeld. You like to play the "is" and "that" definition game far to often on this forum as your trump card and it is a weak argument in this context.

I'm not being an idiot - you don't have to insult me.
It's not a weak argument - you've asserted that it is not an attack. It fits the definition of attack perfectly. To say that the word "attack" is not defined in the rulebook means you also need to define other words in the rulebook - and you can't.

Read the rule entry for LotS. It is a modified version of the mission special rule, Night Fighting. The lightning is directly linked to that modified mission special rule. You can keep playing ignorant and insisting that it fits the English definition of attack and therefore you fall back on it, while the rule itself shows you that it is part of the modified mission special rule when Imotekh is included in an army.

No, it isn't a "modified version of the mission special rule".
If it was, it would define Night Fighting.

Just like Hive Commander isn't a modified special rule just because it changes the reserve roll while the Tyrant is alive.

It's a special rule that manipulates Night Fighting, and additionally throws attacks around the field.

Also, I don't appreciate being called ignorant - I'm well informed on the topic, thanks.

 undertow wrote:

 Phil106 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
...Yes, LoTS is an attack...

-Matt

"any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them"

LoTS does not roll to hit, so it can not target flyers.

Thank you for proving our point.

An argument can be made that the ability does not 'target' flyers as it his everything on the field.

Possibly, but doesn't it 'target' everything on the field?.

I think it's irrelevant if it actually targets units though. It is the hits that matter, and if they were snap fired, or had permission to hit flyers. The source of the hits doesn't matter. If the ability is a weapon or attack doesn't matter. Once a game effect (weapon, ability, etc) has delivered some hits to a flyer, if the hits weren't snap fired or had permission, they are ignored.

But the part of the FAQ answer that DeathReaper quoted isn't the Rule portion. That particular sentence starts with 'Therefore ..', which means, as a result of

They would have clarified if it 'targeted' everything on the field, the rules for nova actually state that it targets everything in range, while the rules for LotS is simply roll a D6 for each enemy unit. It does say 'Suffers D6 hits' which skips the roll to hit entirely, and according to his quote anything that would specifically 'target' the flyer would be under the effects of hard to hit, this wouldn't.

Now reading the actual rulebook it says that 'shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots' since 'Snap Shots' refers to the reduction of BS this would lead me to believe that skipping the 'hit' roll would allow the shot to continue resolution.

Allow me to clarify my own thought process.
Can Lord of the Storm be fired as a Snap Shot? No.
Do hits generated by Lord of the Storm roll to hit? No.
Does Lord of the Storm 'target' the flyer? No.
Do hits generated by Lord of the Storm skip the 'choose a target' sub-step? Yes, because all enemies are assumed affected and you do not require to check range or line of sight to the target.
Does the 'hard to hit' special rule affect
A) Shots that must 'Roll to Hit'? Yes.
B) Shots that are covered by the FAQ (Any shot that targets the flyer)? Yes.
C) Shots that do not 'target' the flyer? No.
"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."

So, similar to my earlier examples where in vector strike there had been an exception so that it could hit flyers while chariot couldn't, there is no text indicating that Lord of the Storm 'targets' anything whilst there is text for nova that says it does in fact select targets. But this really does depend on your interpretation of the word 'Target'. When I played Yu-gi-oh the word 'target' always came up as a very key word, any ability in which you would have to select another card would be considered 'targeting' whilst any blanket statement 'affects everything' did not target unless it stated otherwise. In this case I am seeing target being used as a key word in the FAQ and in Nova, but when I read LotS it is a blanket hit everything on the field.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Matt - Not having a range and having range "-" are not equivalent.

Correct. Having a (-) for range means it's a close combat weapon. Having a Number for Range means it's a ranged weapon. Those are the two options on page 50. LoTS has neither.

-Matt


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eyjio wrote:
I have already shown it follows all the requirements to be classified as a weapon. Such requirements also make the environmental effects weapons and thus able to harm vehicles. I have also shown why ramming isn't a weapon (no profile, explicit permission to roll armour pen). This topic is literally going nowhere. It cannot hit flyers as it is a weapon covered by the FAQ. Simple as that. It doesn't even make sense in reality for it too as they'd be giant faraday cages. This is just silly.

Could you quote that? I'm not trying to be rude, but in 23+ pages, a lot of the useful information has been buried under junk and Imperial Guard force selection.

-Matt

 Phil106 wrote:
They would have clarified if it 'targeted' everything on the field, the rules for nova actually state that it targets everything in range, while the rules for LotS is simply roll a D6 for each enemy unit. It does say 'Suffers D6 hits' which skips the roll to hit entirely, and according to his quote anything that would specifically 'target' the flyer would be under the effects of hard to hit, this wouldn't.

Now reading the actual rulebook it says that 'shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots' since 'Snap Shots' refers to the reduction of BS this would lead me to believe that skipping the 'hit' roll would allow the shot to continue resolution.

Allow me to clarify my own thought process.
Can Lord of the Storm be fired as a Snap Shot? No.
Do hits generated by Lord of the Storm roll to hit? No.
Does Lord of the Storm 'target' the flyer? No.
Do hits generated by Lord of the Storm skip the 'choose a target' sub-step? Yes, because all enemies are assumed affected and you do not require to check range or line of sight to the target.
Does the 'hard to hit' special rule affect
A) Shots that must 'Roll to Hit'? Yes.
B) Shots that are covered by the FAQ (Any shot that targets the flyer)? Yes.
C) Shots that do not 'target' the flyer? No.
"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."

So, similar to my earlier examples where in vector strike there had been an exception so that it could hit flyers while chariot couldn't, there is no text indicating that Lord of the Storm 'targets' anything whilst there is text for nova that says it does in fact select targets. But this really does depend on your interpretation of the word 'Target'. When I played Yu-gi-oh the word 'target' always came up as a very key word, any ability in which you would have to select another card would be considered 'targeting' whilst any blanket statement 'affects everything' did not target unless it stated otherwise. In this case I am seeing target being used as a key word in the FAQ and in Nova, but when I read LotS it is a blanket hit everything on the field.

I see where you're going with your argument (I think), but I'm not of the opinion that it really matters. I used to play Magic, so I understand the difference in games like that between effects that must Target something, and effects that affect anything in play. However, I don't think that 40k has any such distinction where Target is a defined keyword.

My position is that the source of the hits doesn't matter. If Tyr's absurd assertion that LotS was a modified mission rule (really Tyr? really?) was true, it still wouldn't matter. Because it generates hits. This part of the FAQ is crystal clear on what types of hits may affect flyers:

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

This part of the FAQ (starting with Therefore) is just describing the results of the previous sentence:

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."

This is a non-exhaustive list of things that can't hit flyers. It is non-exhaustive list because it uses phrases like 'such as'.

If you want LotS lightning strikes to hit flyers, please tell me why this phrase doesn't apply to hits caused by the ability:

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

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

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.

So we do know that the lightning of LoTS is classed under one of those three things, ie, "effects in your games".

But hey, repeat your, "100% is an attack" statement enough times and maybe you will get some parrots to repeat it as well.

Did the mission define LotS?

Have you found a definition for attack in the rulebook yet?
Or found the definitions to any of the other words I asked you to?

Don't be an idiot Rigeld. You like to play the "is" and "that" definition game far to often on this forum as your trump card and it is a weak argument in this context.

No, first of all stop insulting others, and secondly this is a perfect argument

The BRB does NOT define wht an "attack" is. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, page and para

ASsuming you argue in good faith, you will agree with that statement. At that point, according to you, we cannot use the English definition of attack - which LotS fits *perfectly* , and you are unable to contest in any *meaningful* way - meaning we cannot know what an "attack" is. Of course, we also arent allowed to know what "a" is, or "the" is

Your claims of "weak argument" are consequently shown to be in error, as this is about the strongest damn argument you can get - your argument boils down to "i dont want it to be an attack"

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Read the rule entry for LotS. It is a modified version of the mission special rule, Night Fighting.

Wrong

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The lightning is directly linked to that modified mission special rule.

Wrong.

:While Nightfighting is in effect..." does not modify Night Fighting Again, claiming otherwise is not possible, unless you are now simply ignoring plain English even more than usual. What it does is use Night fighting as a trigger condition that must be met - in simple terms an IF statements condition.

It is not a modified mission special rule, but a special attack that requires the mission special rule to be in play.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
You can keep playing ignorant and insisting that it fits the English definition of attack and therefore you fall back on it, while the rule itself shows you that it is part of the modified mission special rule when Imotekh is included in an army.

You can keep on insulting others for as long as you like, ignoring the actual rules in favour of stuff you just made up, but it wont result in anyone changing their minds.

Now, can you please argue constructively, without the insults?

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

I will take option b and wait for a FAQ telling me how to resolve a game effect brought on by a modified mission special rule when including Imotekh in an army. Because here is thin thing, there are plenty of things in the BRB that are not weapons or attacks, that cause hits and yet they are somehow allowed to be resolved. For example,

A Explodes result on the vehicle damage table, "Nearby units suffer a strength 3, AP - hit for each model within D6" of the vehicle.....", Oh look, not a weapon or attack! Gee how do we resolve wounds?

Ramming, from the example given: "The total is 4+3+1, which means the Trukk suffers a strength 8 hit against its side armor." Wait, the Land Raider is not a weapon and ram isn't defined as an attack! Gee how do we resolve the armor penetration?

Carnivorous Jungle
Fuel Reserve
Booby Trap
Psychneuein Hive
Spiker Plant
Etc
Etc

So yea, I will take option b and wait for the FAQ to clarify how game effects/terrain/etc are resolved for rolling to wound and armor penetration. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that it cannot penetrate armor is a seperate issue that has nothing to do with it hitting flyers.

More fun with the exploding vehicles is it wouldn't have LOS to any of the nearby units, or the passengers, so it can't remove any models even if it can resolve. vehicles only have LOS from its weapon barrels. and the effects on passengers clearly says to treat as a shooting attack.

same issue with the ork deff rolla, definetly not a weapon in any sense.

I find it funny that you chuckleheads refuse to even quote the rule in question in full, but instead just enough to make a faulty point. Do you do this on purpose so that casual readers will just skim through and hop on your bandwagon thinking that you have the rules known by memory?

In addition, whilst the Night Fighting rules remain in play, roll a D6....."

In addition to what? Which Night Fignting rules? Oh, I don't know, maybe in addition to the modified Night Fighting rules as described in the first part of the rules entry. Does the lightning exists without the modified Night Fighting rules put into effect by including Imotekh in the army?

Your continued insistance of labeling the lightning as an attack per your English language ploy fails in itself. You want it to be an attack to cover your arse by the FAQ wording so thus you define it as an attack when the rule shows you that it is an effect per the modified mission special rule. I have shown you the entry for Mission Special Rules, that includes the verbiage of confering extra abilities, restrictions or effects onto your games. Dare I use something akin to what one of you already said, but is it just pride now fueling your faulty arguments?

As it stands, Imotekh;s Lord of Storm special rule forces into play a mission special rule that is a modified version of the Night Fighting special rule that consists of the option of extending the Night Fighting in subsequent game turns and creates lightning.

Not an attack, a modified mission special rule that introduces a game effect.