Imotekh's lightning Vs flyers

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**rigeld2**

Tyr Grimtooth wrote: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?

I don't have the hubris to assume I know the rules from memory. I've referenced them every time.

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?

I was told earlier in this thread that yes, any Night Fighting caused the lightning. And again - you've failed to cite where LotS actually modifies the Night Fighting rules.

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?

Perhaps you missed my post - nothing in LotS shows that it's a modified mission special rule.

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.

Citation needed.

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.

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.

You never answered my question - does the mission introduce LotS?

**undertow**

He's not going to answer your question rigeld, because he can't without admitting he's wrong.

**Neorealist**

he may not, but i can clear that one up for you:

Nightfighting rule, (see page 124). Of specific note is how it is triggered: "...on a roll of 4+,the Night Fighting special rule is in effect during game turn 1. If the Night Fighting rules did not take effect during game turn 1, roll a D6 at the start of Garne Turn 5, On a roll of 4+,the Night Fighting rules are used for the rest of the game..."

LoTS on the other hand modifies the above: "...The Night Fighting rules automatically apply during the first game turn. Furthermore, you can attempt to keep the Night Fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a D6 at the start of the turn..."

Granted this isn't particularly relevent to wether or not LoTS can hit a flyer; but it 'does' indicate definitive modification of some of the rules for how nightfighting normally works.

**rigeld2**

Neorealist wrote:
he may not, but i can clear that one up for you:

Nightfighting rule, (see page 124). Of specific note is how it is triggered: "...on a roll of 4+,the Night Fighting special rule is in effect during game turn 1. If the Night Fighting rules did not take effect during game turn 1, roll a D6 at the start of Garne Turn 5, On a roll of 4+,the Night Fighting rules are used for the rest of the game..."

LoTS on the other hand modifies the above: "...The Night Fighting rules automatically apply during the first game turn. Furthermore, you can attempt to keep the Night Fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a D6 at the start of the turn..."

Granted this isn't particularly relevent to wether or not LoTS can hit a flyer; but it 'does' indicate definitive modification of some of the rules for how nightfighting normally works.

It actually didn't answer my question whatsoever - it does imply that the answer is "No." however.

**Neorealist**

your "question":

rigeld2 wrote:... you've failed to cite where LotS actually modifies the Night Fighting rules...

My answer:
...it modifies nightfighting as follows... (see my prior post for how it does so)

Does that make it clearer for you?

This comment: "it does imply that the answer is "No." however. " however perpetuates a false premise. I certainly did not 'imply' anything beyond my stated word (let alone support of your prior point) so taking such as given is intellectually dishonest and a waste of both our respective time and effort.

**rigeld2**

Neorealist wrote:your "question":
rigeld2 wrote:... you've failed to cite where LotS actually modifies the Night Fighting rules...

My answer:
...it modifies nightfighting as follows... (see my prior post for how it does so)

Does that make it clearer for you?

This comment: "it does imply that the answer is "No." however. " however perpetuates a false premise. I certainly did not 'imply' anything beyond my stated word (let alone support of your prior point) so take such as given is intellectually dishonest and a waste of both our respective time and effort.

rigeld2 wrote:
You never answered my question - does the mission introduce LotS?

Actually, that was my question - I even asked it twice.
No intellectual dishonesty, just knowing what I actually asked rather than what someone misread.

**Neorealist**

Any battle featuring Imotekh on at least one side automatically includes the Nightfighting rules. (as modified by the LoTS rules) So yes, each mission featuring LoTS 'introduces' the Nightfighting mission special rule, regardless of wether or not it would ordinarily include such.

**rigeld2**

Neorealist wrote:
Any battle featuring Imotekh on at least one side automatically includes the Nightfighting rules. (as modified by the LoTS rules) So yes, each mission featuring LoTS 'introduces' the Nightfighting mission special rule, regardless of wether or not it would ordinarily include such.

That's the mission introducing the rule, or Imotekh?

**nosferatu1001**

Tyr - Wrong, again.

"whil(e) the night fighting rules remain in play" is your truth condition you are evaluating

It is not a modification to the night fight rule, but relies on night fight being in play. Then a separate effect occurs

It is 100% an attack, and your continued insistence otherwise, with neither linguistic nor rules support, is becoming amusing.

**Neorealist**

A mission 'introduces' all the mission rules that you and your foe(s) should be using for a given battle. (including nightfighting sometimes) That said, LoTS 'introduces' changes to the application of the Nightfighting mission special rule.

It's probably easiest to refer to the Nightfighting rules as having been changed by Imotekh and then required to be used by the mission you are playing.

**rigeld2**

Neorealist wrote:
A mission 'introduces' all the mission rules that you and your foe(s) should be using for a given battle. (including nightfighting sometimes) That said, LoTS 'introduces' changes to the application of the Nightfighting mission special rule.

It's probably easiest to refer to the Nightfighting rules as having been changed by Imotekh and then required to be used by the mission you are playing.

Right. Night Fighting is a mission special rule. LotS is not.

**Neorealist**

Sure, if that is the distinction you are looking for i agree with you there; LoTS is not in and of itself a mission special rule. Can i ask why that distinction is important to the ongoing discussion as it's progressed to this point?

**rigeld2**

Neorealist wrote:Sure, if that is the distinction you are looking for i agree with you there; LoTS is not in and of itself a mission special rule. Can i ask why that distinction is important to the ongoing discussion as it's progressed to this point?

Tyr Grimtooth wrote: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.

If its not a mission special rule, it's just a normal special rule. It's an attack, as it fits the normal definition of an attack.
Are attacks restricted by the FAQ?

**nosferatu1001**

Neorealist wrote:
Sure, if that is the distinction you are looking for i agree with you there; LoTS is not in and of itself a mission special rule. Can i ask why that distinction is important to the ongoing discussion as it's progressed to this point?

It means the only quote Tyr has left is blown entirely out of the water, as it relies on a Mission introducing altered rules so Tyr can claim it is a special rule and NOT an attack - despite it being clerly, 100% unambiguously an attack.

Its yet another nail in the coffin of Tyrs argument which, by now, has amassed roughly the mass of a small moon

**DeathReaper**

That's no moon...

**Neorealist**

Is there some specific rule equating non-'mission' special rules with 'attacks'? I know some special rules specifically state they are such, but not all of them do.

**rigeld2**

Neorealist wrote:
Is there some specific rule equating non-'mission' special rules with 'attacks'? I know some special rules specifically state they are such, but not all of them do.

No, there isn't.
There's also no rule book definition of "attack". Using the plain English definition, LotS fits.

Edit: Tyr was attempting to claim that LotS could not be an attack because it was a mission special rule.
We've proven it is not a mission special rule. Since it fits the definition of attack, it must be one (since it isn't anything else).

**nosferatu1001**

As above.

Tyrs argument has devolved into claiming that, because Night Fighting is mentioned in the LotS rule entire, the attack component to LotS is somehow a mission special rule.

**Evileyes**

Edited by AgeOfEgos

**Neorealist**

rigeld2 wrote:There's also no rule book definition of "attack".

On this i'd have to disagree, the rule book does define 'attacks' on page 2 as a model characteristic referring to it's (the models) number of close combat actions. Obviously that definition isn't that relevent to the effects of LoTS, but it is there.

Edit: There are also references for 'shooting attacks' (and their psychic equivilents).

**rigeld2**

Neorealist wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:There's also no rule book definition of "attack".
On this i'd have to disagree, the rule book does define 'attacks' on page 2 as a model characteristic referring to it's (the models) number of close combat actions. Obviously that definition isn't that relevent to the effects of LoTS, but it is there.

Edit: There are also references for 'shooting attacks' (and their psychic equivilents).

Define the word "attacks" as used in the oft quoted FAQ answer. Use only the BRB since you assert that the BRB does define it.

**nosferatu1001**

Neo - no, it defines "Attacks", where the capitalisation is important.

It then defines subsets of the generalised "attack" category, namely Shooting, Close Combat, PS.

This has already been covered, quite a few pages back. there is, however, NO RULEBOOK definition of "attack". None.

**Neorealist**

Fair enough, you are correct in that it does not adequately define 'attacks' apart from the types you've named.

In that light however is it not equally plausible that if it is not one of those (aka: a close combat attack, a shooting attack, etc) then it is not a form of attack, as it is that to presume you default to an english parsing of the word?

Given that those types of attack are the only types GW has (currently) bothered to explicitly define.

**rigeld2**

Neorealist wrote:
Fair enough, you are correct in that it does not adequately define 'attacks' apart from the types you've named.

In that light however is it not equally plausible that if it is not one of those (aka: a close combat attack, a shooting attack, etc) then it is not a form of attack, as it is that to presume you default to an english parsing of the word?

Given that those types of attack are the only types GW has (currently) bothered to explicitly define.

Read the oft-quoted FAQ and tell me which attack is used therein.

**ENOZONE**

Zathras wrote:

Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf

You should change it from "lifetime", to .. "for generations to come."

- Thread may now resume its discussion.

**Neorealist**

rigeld2 wrote:Read the oft-quoted FAQ and tell me which attack is used therein.

From the context it appears to refer to 'shooting attacks', as the types listed are all such: ...attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit.... Granted non-shooting attacks sometimes use the above effects too, so it's not completely clear.

Given that i'd suggest looking at the question, which indicates that the 'attacks' referenced in the answer are generated by 'weapons' or 'psychic shooting attacks'; which adds credence to the inference that they are 'shooting attacks'.

**rigeld2**

The question doesn't refer to PSAs at all (directly) and you're referencing "weapon" as the context of the sentence when it's an afterthought.

I disagree with your assertion. You're inventing a link to shooting attacks where there isn't one.

**Neorealist**

rigeld2 wrote:The question doesn't refer to PSAs at all (directly) and you're referencing "weapon" as the context of the sentence when it's an afterthought.

I disagree with your assertion. You're inventing a link to shooting attacks where there isn't one

maelstroms, novas, and beams are all explicitly types of PSA, so i grouped them together as such for ease of conversation. Apart from those? 'Weapon' is the only other subject of the question and therefore is hardly an 'afterthought' as you've described.

The link is as such: The specific 'attacks' listed within both the question and answer are all types of 'shooting attack'. Note: I'm not saying that they cannot represent other types of attacks as well, but that is one they all have in common.

Folk here are applying a much broader definition of the word 'attack' than is necessary to interpret the FAQ. Given they are all shooting attacks and we have a working definition of such, why are you looking for an alternate definition for?

**rigeld2**

Neorealist wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:The question doesn't refer to PSAs at all (directly) and you're referencing "weapon" as the context of the sentence when it's an afterthought.

I disagree with your assertion. You're inventing a link to shooting attacks where there isn't one

maelstroms, novas, and beams are all explicitly types of PSA, so i grouped them together as such for ease of conversation. Apart from those? 'Weapon' is the only other subject of the question and therefore is hardly an 'afterthought' as you've described.

"How do a, b, c - or indeed any weapon..."
The "indeed" implies afterthought. Also, you said "psychic shooting attacks" using quotes, meaning you quoted something. That phrase didn't exist in the question, which is why I said that. Note that I said it doesn't reference PSAs directly - just an indirect reference. If you're going to group something together for ease of conversation, don't enclose it in quotes.

And we've established that the answer is broader than the question, so you cannot use context from the question to limit the scope of the answer.

And most of that doesn't matter as everything after "Therefore" is showing a consequence, not defining every circumstance.
Does LotS snap shot?

**Neorealist**

rigeld2 wrote: "How do a, b, c - or indeed any weapon..."
The "indeed" implies afterthought. Also, you said "psychic shooting attacks" using quotes, meaning you quoted something. That phrase didn't exist in the question, which is why I said that. Note that I said it doesn't reference PSAs directly - just an indirect reference. If you're going to group something together for ease of conversation, don't enclose it in quotes.

Actually i used 'single' quotes which in this case meant i was calling attention to the specific word or phrase, not quoting it. (this is why when i actually quote something i have a habit of changing the font colour to yellow as well as using double quotes. (though that latter part isn't strictly necessary.)) Please feel free to discontinue telling me how i should write; you can take it as assumed that I generally know exactly what i am writing and why I am writing it in a given style. (well, other than the occasional typo)

Regarding your actual points (ie: those not a criticism of my writing rather than the topic at hand)

You are taking that it's been established that "the answer is broader than the question" is fact rather than your supposition. You probably shouldn't, but do admire your confidence in your own deduction.

As we've reached a rather circular argument by this point I can only say 'it's a special ability not covered under the FAQ and therefore doesn't have to' so many times before it becomes tediously redundant. I'm really not willing to debate the exact scope of the FAQ any further, sorry.