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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Zathras wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is not a conflict.

Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers.

LoTS does not have a to hit roll, so it can not snap shot. (LoTS does not have anything to do with the shooting rules in the BRB as it is not a shooting attack from Imotekh so no conflict there).

No conflict eh?

Weapons use one method to attack zooming fliers (Snap shots).

LoTS uses a different method to attack zooming fliers (roll a 6 on a D6).

The two methods are not the same and therefore are in conflict with each other.

When this happens the method used by the codex takes precedence.

You are misunderstanding what conflict means.

But maybe you missed what the FAQ says, which trumps the codex and the BRB.

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.


"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" Is LoTS a snap shot?

So you can show me just where it says that LoTS is described as either a maelstrom, nova, beam, or any weapon?

Again, try going back about 10 pages

Have you read this thread at all? It seems ike you havent, as you keep bringing up discredited, debunked old arguments as if they have any credence any longer...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, try going back about 10 pages

Have you read this thread at all? It seems ike you havent, as you keep bringing up discredited, debunked old arguments as if they have any credence any longer...

Hmm, then maybe you can show me the page where the rule on page 7 of the BRB was debunked?

 Zathras wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Zathras wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is not a conflict.

Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers.

LoTS does not have a to hit roll, so it can not snap shot. (LoTS does not have anything to do with the shooting rules in the BRB as it is not a shooting attack from Imotekh so no conflict there).

No conflict eh?

Weapons use one method to attack zooming fliers (Snap shots).

LoTS uses a different method to attack zooming fliers (roll a 6 on a D6).

The two methods are not the same and therefore are in conflict with each other.

When this happens the method used by the codex takes precedence.

You are misunderstanding what conflict means.

But maybe you missed what the FAQ says, which trumps the codex and the BRB.

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.


"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers" Is LoTS a snap shot?

So you can show me just where it says that LoTS is described as either a maelstrom, nova, beam, or any weapon?

No need for that. Read the underlined portion. Also, if LoTS isn't a weapon, it doesn't get to roll D6 for armor penetration either RAW. This was dicussed IIRC around pages 16-18.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, we're back at page 2 or 3 now - love it when people drop in not having read the preceding, thoroughly debunked arguments, and just rehash them. Shows zero respect.

Respect? That's something that's earned not given. Anyway, I'll leave you rules lawyers to your thread.

 Zathras wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, try going back about 10 pages

Have you read this thread at all? It seems ike you havent, as you keep bringing up discredited, debunked old arguments as if they have any credence any longer...

Hmm, then maybe you can show me the page where the rule on page 7 of the BRB was debunked?

Again, please try reading the thread, you're just asking the same old tired and debunked questions.

Your FAQ question especially - or are you trying to say FAQ answers can never go beyond the scope of the question? Again, that was debunked about 10 times over....

Please show *some* respect to people in this thread by at least reading the salient points before posting, please?

Luide, small correction. If it is not a weapon, then it doesn't get to add its Strength to Armour Pen.

 Zathras wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, we're back at page 2 or 3 now - love it when people drop in not having read the preceding, thoroughly debunked arguments, and just rehash them. Shows zero respect.

Respect? That's something that's earned not given. Anyway, I'll leave you rules lawyers to your thread.

Nope, its the rules of the forum you agreed to when signing up, actually.

Along with being polite - hint: calling people a "rules lawyer" because they have a difference of opinion to you (and also have rules to back up their opinion, and dont ignore parts of a FAQ because it debunks their argument, just for a couple of examples of where posters have differed from yourself) is not polite.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:
3) Can LotS be snap shot? (I will stipulate the answer to this is No. I only include it for completeness) If LotS can be snap shot, then the roll of a 6 normally and the roll of 6 snap shot would be the same and the answer would not apply because it is a Snap Shot. (Again, I only include this for completeness) If this answer is Yes, then stop here, no further questions matter.

"Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures."
Everything after that is some results of that sentence. Not all of them.

LotS cannot be Snap Shot and therefore cannot hit Flyers.

However, the blanket statement "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures." is not true, so we have to read the statement in context. When you read it in context, it is an answer to the 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?

Which gets you to questions 1 and 2 in my prior post. Is the question relevant, is LotS Lightning a weapon, does it hit automatically? etc.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:

So, you are willing to stipulate that the FAQ part talking about "hitting automatically" does not apply?

You mean "or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically" ? Sure. Not that it matters.

Rigeld2, you have stipulated that LotS does not hit automatically, based on that, the question being asked does not pertain to LotS Lightning.

There is argument that answers can be broader than the question, so let's assume that the question doesn't matter.

So, the answer:
[quote[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.

No, rigeld has not said it rolls to hit. Saying something does not hit automatically does not mean it rolls to hit. As you have been shown "roll to hit" is a defined process which LotS does not follow.

Your context attempt is flawed as well, because it ignores advanced > basic. Poor argument as a result, as it has been repeatedly shown to you (but you ignore)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Zathras wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, we're back at page 2 or 3 now - love it when people drop in not having read the preceding, thoroughly debunked arguments, and just rehash them. Shows zero respect.

Respect? That's something that's earned not given. Anyway, I'll leave you rules lawyers to your thread.

Nope, its the rules of the forum you agreed to when signing up, actually.

Along with being polite - hint: calling people a "rules lawyer" because they have a difference of opinion to you (and also have rules to back up their opinion, and dont ignore parts of a FAQ because it debunks their argument, just for a couple of examples of where posters have differed from yourself) is not polite.

So the truth is not polite now since "rules lawyering" has been going on in this thread since page 1? Just an observation on my part.

Again - calling people whose opinion, backed upi by rules, differs from you "rules lawyers" is not polite, and a great way to remove any respect posters have for you.

Have you read the forum rules?

I think we'll just have to call this quits and see what, if anything, GW say.