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.

 Neorealist wrote:
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.

The first sentence in the answer isn't qualified. It's been proven that FAQ answers can be broader than the question. Therefore the answer applies to all situations.

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.

No problem - until you can support your statement with rules you cannot be correct. The "no it doesn't work" crowd has done exactly that. The "yes it does" crowd has failed every time.

As above

FAQs do, indeed, provide answers beyond the scope of the question, and this has be proven repeatedly

This FAQ has an unqualified answer. To read a qualifier into this, when it has been proven that a FAQ can give broad answers, has no support within the rules of the game

LotS cannot hit zooming flyers, this has been proven repeatedly

God this thread is ponderous.

I don't suppose the fact that it hits on 6's, as required by snap shots, has any bearing on the matter.

 Monster Rain wrote:
God this thread is ponderous.

I don't suppose the fact that it hits on 6's, as required by snap shots, has any bearing on the matter.

It does not hit on a 6, as it has no 'To Hit' roll.

LoTS does not make snap shots.

On the contrary, the only time that it ever hits is on a 6.

 Monster Rain wrote:
On the contrary, the only time that it ever hits is on a 6.

Irrelevant. It's not a to-hit roll, and doesn't use ballistic skill. It's no thatSnap Shots must hit on a 6, it's that you're BS1 when making them - which requires a 6 to hit.

How is something that you roll to see if it hits something else not a "to-hit" roll?

 Monster Rain wrote:
How is something that you roll to see if it hits something else not a "to-hit" roll?

Because to-hit rolls are defined in 40k as, essentially, a Ballistic Skill test.

Would you also call Wall of Death rolls to-hit rolls?

Sure, why not?

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

The list looks like shooting attacks, if you consider PSAs to be a sub-section of shooting attacks. If not, it looks like shooting attacks and PSAs. That even gives a reason that GW said 'attacks' - the writer was too lazy to type out 'PSAs and shooting attacks'

Assaulting Zooming Flyers (capital 'A' Attacks) is dealt with on p81.

Neorealist wrote: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.

+1, but I am willing to debate it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:FAQs [can], indeed, provide answers beyond the scope of the question, and this has be[en reasonably shown]

[I assert that] This FAQ has an unqualified answer. To read a qualifier into this, when it has been proven that a FAQ can give broad answers, has no support within the rules of the game

fixed that for you. I'm not sure why you are arguing to take the answer of the faq entry beyond the scope of the question. It makes sense both in and out of context. Isn't taking it in context the more reasonable choice?

nosferatu1001 wrote:LotS cannot hit zooming flyers, this has been proven repeatedly

Saying something repeatedly and proving it repeatedly are two different things, and I know you agree with me, otherwise I have proved repeatedly that anyone who disagrees with me in a discussion is wrong. I would never be so bold as to make that statement.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
How is something that you roll to see if it hits something else not a "to-hit" roll?

Because to-hit rolls are defined in 40k as, essentially, a Ballistic Skill test.

I think you mean Characteristic Test, unless you want to go back and say that attacks (lower case 'a') does indeed generally refer to shooting attacks.

Foolish - no, because you have no permission to restrict the scope of the answer, especially given the proof that repeatedly FAQ answers go beyond the scope of the question. That IS indisputable.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Foolish - no, because you have no permission to restrict the scope of the answer, especially given the proof that repeatedly FAQ answers go beyond the scope of the question. That IS indisputable.

can in some instances =/= does in this instance

Some birds can fly.
A penguin is a bird.
Does a penguin fly?

Yet it "does" do in this instance

What is more reasonable - fo are no reason restricting the answer to something other than what is written, when you know that answer are permitted to go beyond the scope

Where is your permission to alter the wording to mean something other than what was written?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet it "does" do in this instance

What is more reasonable - fo are no reason restricting the answer to something other than what is written, when you know that answer are permitted to go beyond the scope

Where is your permission to alter the wording to mean something other than what was written?

When it is possible to interpret a rules passage as 'Yes, in this case' and 'Yes, in all cases', it is more reasonable to restrict my interpretations of a passage to the context of the passage.

Where is your written and notarized guide to GW's intent for this faq entry? Why are you so certain as to banish all doubt? I'm suspicious of people who are not sufficiently suspicious

Through the last 25 pages of discussion, mainly. What is your reason for assuming you are allowed to change what is written and replace it with something else that has a different meaning?

There is no "interpretation" with your stance - there is simply changing words away from what is plainly written. the sentence parses one way and one way only.

I honestly do not know what you are talking about. You have mentioned several times that you think I am 'changing words'. Initially, I let it go, thinking it was your writing style. You keep pressing it as significant and I don't know what you are talking about.

What words did I change?

Are you talking about the part where you said something as fact and I made it into an opinion?

foolishmortal wrote:
I honestly do not know what you are talking about. You have mentioned several times that you think I am 'changing words'. Initially, I let it go, thinking it was your writing style. You keep pressing it as significant and I don't know what you are talking about.

What words did I change?

Are you talking about the part where you said something as fact and I made it into an opinion?

We know FAQ answers can be broader than the question.
The answer in this case is an absolute, unqualified statement.
To limit the statement you must assume some words are added or implied that aren't there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
How is something that you roll to see if it hits something else not a "to-hit" roll?

Because to-hit rolls are defined in 40k as, essentially, a Ballistic Skill test.

I think you mean Characteristic Test, unless you want to go back and say that attacks (lower case 'a') does indeed generally refer to shooting attacks.

Yes, thank you - Characteristic test.

rigeld2 wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:
I honestly do not know what you are talking about. You have mentioned several times that you think I am 'changing words'. Initially, I let it go, thinking it was your writing style. You keep pressing it as significant and I don't know what you are talking about.

What words did I change?

Are you talking about the part where you said something as fact and I made it into an opinion?

We know FAQ answers can be broader than the question.
The answer in this case is an absolute, unqualified statement.
To limit the statement you must assume some words are added or implied that aren't there.

The words you seem to think I "added or implied" are the words of the faq entry's question

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)

As I said before, you can't read the answer to a specific question as a new rule without considering the context of the question. For example...

Q: Do you get to Pile In twice in Fight sub-phase if you fight at two different Initiatives (i.e. a Techmarine with servo-harness)? (p22/23)
A: No. You Pile In once, at your highest Initiative step.

If I read this as a new rule without considering the context of the question, you now only get to pile in once, at your highest Initiative (so only the SM Captain if he is with Tactical Marines, or only the Marines if the Captain has a PF). That would be silly.

We know FAQ answers can be broader than the question. Yes
The answer in this case is an absolute, unqualified statement.Yes
To limit the statement you must assume some words are added or implied that aren't there. No, the limiting factor is the context of the question. I am not adding or implying words. I am reading what is there, in context.

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
As I said before, you can't read the answer to a specific question as a new rule without considering the context of the question. For example...

Q: Do you get to Pile In twice in Fight sub-phase if you fight at two different Initiatives (i.e. a Techmarine with servo-harness)? (p22/23)
A: No. You Pile In once, at your highest Initiative step.

If I read this as a new rule without considering the context of the question, you now only get to pile in once, at your highest Initiative (so only the SM Captain if he is with Tactical Marines, or only the Marines if the Captain has a PF). That would be silly.

The answer to this question taken by itself makes no sense and would in fact be silly. The reader is forced to look at context to make sense of the answer.

The FAQ entry we're discussing makes an unqualified answer that is easy is understand requires no such context. It actually requires a lot more mental contortions to read this in such a way as to make lightning from LotS hit fliers.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
How is something that you roll to see if it hits something else not a "to-hit" roll?

Because to-hit rolls are defined in 40k as, essentially, a Ballistic Skill test.

Would you also call Wall of Death rolls to-hit rolls?

Rolls to hit don't have to be BS test, they just generally are.

Wall of Death rolls are a roll for number of hits, not to hit (since they hit automatically). Now, if the Wall of Death required a roll of 2+ to do any hits, I would call that a roll to hit.

The "roll to hit" is clearly defined in the BRB. Any dice roll may result in an enemy unit getting hit but that doesn't make it a "roll to hit".

copper.talos wrote:
Any dice roll may result in an enemy unit getting hit but that doesn't make it a "roll to hit".

Can you give me a page number for that? I see roll to hit referenced many places, some of them using the BS others using a set number or another characteristic (like Leadership). But I have taken them all to be a "roll to hit". Is there a spot in the rulebook that says "Any dice roll may result in an enemy unit getting hit but that doesn't make it a roll to hit".

It's on pg 13 in bold letters. There is no "roll to hit" using leadership. Maybe you are referring to a "roll to wound" which is a different case entirely. I believe there are some cases when you can have a roll to hit on a set number ie 3+ but that is defined in that specific rule as a "roll to hit". In LotS it's just a 1 in 6 chance. Not a roll to hit at all.

copper.talos wrote:
It's on pg 13 in bold letters. There is no "roll to hit" using leadership. Maybe you are referring to a "roll to wound" which is a different case entirely. I believe there are some cases when you can have a roll to hit on a set number ie 3+ but that is defined in that specific rule as a "roll to hit". In LotS it's just a 1 in 6 chance. Not a roll to hit at all.

LotS doesn't say "1 in 6 chance", it says "on a roll of 6 the unit is hit". I have read several codex entries talking about "hit on a 3+" (mostly in terms of WS in close combat) and nobody argues that the 3+ roll is not a "roll to hit", so why would the "on a roll of 6 the unit is hit" not be a roll to hit?

Tye_Informer wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
It's on pg 13 in bold letters. There is no "roll to hit" using leadership. Maybe you are referring to a "roll to wound" which is a different case entirely. I believe there are some cases when you can have a roll to hit on a set number ie 3+ but that is defined in that specific rule as a "roll to hit". In LotS it's just a 1 in 6 chance. Not a roll to hit at all.

LotS doesn't say "1 in 6 chance", it says "on a roll of 6 the unit is hit". I have read several codex entries talking about "hit on a 3+" (mostly in terms of WS in close combat) and nobody argues that the 3+ roll is not a "roll to hit", so why would the "on a roll of 6 the unit is hit" not be a roll to hit?

Is it using the model's Ballistic Skill or Weapon Skill as defined on page 13 or 24 respectively?

rigeld2 wrote:
Is it using the model's Ballistic Skill or Weapon Skill as defined on page 13 or 24 respectively?

For example: Space Wolves
[quote[
Wolf Tooth Necklace.

A Space Wolves warrior who has shown exception ability in close combat may be granted a wolf tooth necklace as a mark of his prowess. Models with a wolf tooth necklace always hit on a 3+ in close combat, even against opponents whose Weapon Skill is equal to or higher than their own.

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Is it using the model's Ballistic Skill or Weapon Skill as defined on page 13 or 24 respectively?

They are not using their own WS, they are hitting on a 3+, regardless of their own and/or their opponents WS.

It's still defined as a to-hit roll, and it's creating a special allowance - it even mentions the WS comparison.

Plus, if you're leaning towards "It's a to-hit roll!" it's now definitely owned by Imotekh and pretty much indisputably an attack... and guess what falls under the FAQ?

rigeld2 wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Is it using the model's Ballistic Skill or Weapon Skill as defined on page 13 or 24 respectively?

They are not using their own WS, they are hitting on a 3+, regardless of their own and/or their opponents WS.

It's still defined as a to-hit roll, and it's creating a special allowance - it even mentions the WS comparison.

Plus, if you're leaning towards "It's a to-hit roll!" it's now definitely owned by Imotekh and pretty much indisputably an attack... and guess what falls under the FAQ?

The question is, does Lightning in LotS automatically hit? If so, then it is covered by the FAQ because the FAQ refers to things that "automatically hit". If not, then it's possible the FAQ does not apply. There are other considerations, like is the Lightning a weapon, but that's not the question I'm trying to answer with this post. I am simply arguing that the Lightning does not auto-hit.

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Is it using the model's Ballistic Skill or Weapon Skill as defined on page 13 or 24 respectively?

They are not using their own WS, they are hitting on a 3+, regardless of their own and/or their opponents WS.

It's still defined as a to-hit roll, and it's creating a special allowance - it even mentions the WS comparison.

Plus, if you're leaning towards "It's a to-hit roll!" it's now definitely owned by Imotekh and pretty much indisputably an attack... and guess what falls under the FAQ?

The question is, does Lightning in LotS automatically hit? If so, then it is covered by the FAQ because the FAQ refers to things that "automatically hit". If not, then it's possible the FAQ does not apply. There are other considerations, like is the Lightning a weapon, but that's not the question I'm trying to answer with this post. I am simply arguing that the Lightning does not auto-hit.

The Lightning also doesn't make a Snap Shot, and since you can never opt to take one the FAQ still says no.

rigeld2 wrote:
The Lightning also doesn't make a Snap Shot, and since you can never opt to take one the FAQ still says no.

No, that part of the FAQ is referring to weapons. If you are willing to stipulate that LotS Lightning does not automatically hit, then we can move on to the discussion of whether the FAQ applies because Lightning is a weapon.

I'll give you a sneak peak at that discussion, who is wielding the weapon? If it's Imotekh, that why does it get to hit when he is not on the battlefield (like in reserves?)

So, do you stipulate that LotS Lightning does, in fact, roll to hit?