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.

Can't find it in the BRB or FAQs. Can Maledictions be used on flyers? Since they're not used in the shooting phase does this mean they do not count as an attack and therefore bypass the FAQ that states that attacks that don't need to roll to hit can't hit flyers? In the FAQ it specifically mentions several psychic classes and Maledictions aren't among them.

Maledictions are basically blessings that penalize enemies instead of benefiting you. I believe they can affect flyers so long as they fit within the range.

So long as the flyer is an enemy unit, yes

As long as it doesn't cause hits without rolling to hit, or target and cause damage results, it should be fine.

You're referring to Objuration Mechanicum I'm guessing from your Nid army list. It can not be used on flyers due to the wording of the power.

..."each vehicle in the unit has a S1 HIT with the Haywire special rule allocated to it."

You're allocating hits without ever having to roll for them. This cannot be done per the FAQ ruling below.



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’troll 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.

A malediction isn't a weapon. Tough call.

Weapon Virus would be interesting to drop on some flyers, although most are twin-linked.

 loreweaver wrote:
A malediction isn't a weapon. Tough call.

But it is an attack, and if that attack uses blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’troll to hit then that attack cannot target them.

is a Malediction an attack?

40k-noob wrote:
is a Malediction an attack?

anything that has a negative effect on the opposing player or his units is an attack.

Note they say 'attacks' and not 'Attacks' in the FaQ, so they are not talking exclusively about the 'Attacks' stat in the brb.

The only reference to attacks in the 40K rule book relate to Shooting attacks and close combat attacks.

It's referred multiple times as both "Attacks" and "attacks". No where is there mention that anything "negative" is an "attack".

DeathReaper, I can't find any statement in the rulebook that supports your claim.

The use Attack when they are talking about defined Attacks in the 40k BRB.

'attacks' is a general english term that is not defined by the BRB therefore we have to apply the common English definition to it.

This is because the BRB does not define every word held within the BRB. Unless you can find definitions for remove or place.

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
is a Malediction an attack?

anything that has a negative effect on the opposing player or his units is an attack.

Note they say 'attacks' and not 'Attacks' in the FaQ, so they are not talking exclusively about the 'Attacks' stat in the brb.

false,
vector strike can cause D3 hits on flyers, and its an attack thate doesnt roll to hit

easysauce wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
is a Malediction an attack?

anything that has a negative effect on the opposing player or his units is an attack.

Note they say 'attacks' and not 'Attacks' in the FaQ, so they are not talking exclusively about the 'Attacks' stat in the brb.

false,
vector strike can cause D3 hits on flyers, and its an attack thate doesnt roll to hit

Not false.

Vector strike has a specific exception saying it can be used on flyers, therefore, since it has a specific exception, it is more specific than the FaQ. Skyfire has a similar exception.

So if someone gives you the stink-eye, it's an "attack"? That's a pretty weak argument.

 loreweaver wrote:
A malediction isn't a weapon. Tough call.

Weapon Virus would be interesting to drop on some flyers, although most are twin-linked.

It works great on high volume fire vehicles.

I used it on a Dark Talon this weekend, I see no reason why it cannot be used vs. flyers or any vehicles. Psychic powers that do not require rolls to hit are not restricted from affecting flyers anywhere that I have read in the rulebook.

EDIT: remember 40k is a permissive rulset. Attack is not defined in the BRB to include Maledictions, so we don't have to use some internet yahoo's opinion on whether or not it works. It needs to be clearly stated in the rules that it does not. Since the Malediction rules say may be used on any enemy unit in range, or some such, they may be used on ANY enemy unit in range.

A Malediction is NEVER defined as an attack in the rulset.

 loreweaver wrote:
So if someone gives you the stink-eye, it's an "attack"? That's a pretty weak argument.

According to normal English? Yes.

Normally dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debate, but the tenets of the forum say "Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out." The Tenets are listed here

It seems there is a word being used incorrectly. to say that giving the "stink-eye" is not an attack does not concur with the definition of attack.

An attack is: "An expression of strong criticism; hostile comment: vicious attacks in all the newspapers." (Attack has several definitions, this is one of them).

From The free Dictionary

In 40k it is farily obvious that an "attack" is an action that causes direct damage to a unit through strength vs. toughness, strength vs AV, or through an attribute test.

The BRB faq establishes that attacks which auto-hit may not affect flyers.

A Malediction like Machine Virus gives an atribute modification "gets hot" to a unit's weapons, this is not defined as an attack by the 40k rulset.

"Get's Hot" is what does any damage, and it is then an attribute of the flyer's wepons that it chose to fire and also not subject to the FAQ ruling.

 Ghostcat wrote:

 loreweaver wrote:
A malediction isn't a weapon. Tough call.

Weapon Virus would be interesting to drop on some flyers, although most are twin-linked.

It works great on high volume fire vehicles.

I used it on a Dark Talon this weekend, I see no reason why it cannot be used vs. flyers or any vehicles. Psychic powers that do not require rolls to hit are not restricted from affecting flyers anywhere that I have read in the rulebook.

EDIT: remember 40k is a premissive rulset. Attack is not defined in the BRB to include Maledictions, so we don't have to use some internet yahoo's opinion on whether or not it works. It needs to be clearly stated in the rules that it does not. Since the Malediction rules say may be used on any unit, or some such, they may be used on ANY unit.

A Malediction is NEVER defined as an attack in the rulset.

But it is clearly stated in the FAQ.

The only way to hit a flyer is to make a snap shot at it (ignoring vector strikes and skyfire since they have been given specific permission to do so in other ways.) Regardless if you consider it an attack or not, if you cast the power you have just inflicted a hit against a zooming flyer that you did not have to roll for. Since nothing in that powers description (or in the maledictions either) give you permission to automatically inflict hits against zooming flyers ,or make snap shots using it, you do not have permission to do so per the rules.

 Ghostcat wrote:
In 40k it is farily obvious that an "attack" is an action that causes direct damage to a unit through strength vs. toughness, strength vs AV, or through an attribute test.

you are thinking of 'Attack' not 'attack'

EDIT: remember 40k is a permissive rulset. Attack is not defined in the BRB to include Maledictions

Right 'Attack' is not defined in the BRB to include Maledictions.

'attack' is not defined in the brb so we fall back on the normal English definition, which would include maledictions.

 reaverX wrote:



But it is clearly stated in the FAQ.

The only way to hit a flyer is to make a snap shot at it (ignoring vector strikes and skyfire since they have been given specific permission to do so in other ways.) Regardless if you consider it an attack or not, if you cast the power you have just inflicted a hit against a zooming flyer that you did not have to roll for. Since nothing in that powers description (or in the maledictions either) give you permission to automatically inflict hits against zooming flyers ,or make snap shots using it, you do not have permission to do so per the rules.

I disagree and will continue to play it that a Malediction is not an attack until I see it in the 40k rulset. YMMV, play it how you see it.

'attack' is not defined in the brb so we fall back on the normal English definition, which would include maledictions.

Funny, I didn't read that in Webster's either.

Maybe we are both being subjective, but I belive you are dead wrong on this point.

I think it is very telling that the FAQ entry you are refering to did not include the word MALEDICTION.

Attack as defined by websters would include: "to set upon or work against forcefully" (Amongst other definitions).

A malediction is something that works against the flyer without its consent, therefore it fits the definition.

From The merriam-webster Dictionary online.

I'll make the argument that "Attacks" refers to the attacks characteristic and "attacks" refers to the act of making a shooting or close combat attack, which is what the FAQ is clearly referring to.

By your definition, you could bless your own flyers, but not maledict your opponents.

I see the argument your making, but it's not based on anything in the rules besides a potential definition based on capitalization of a word which isn't consistent across the rule book. By your definition, you can't make "Attacks" with some weapons because they can only be used for "attacks".

Edit: Your dictionary definition of "Malediction" doesn't apply to this discussion as "Malediction" is quite clearly defined in the rulebook.

Look, doesn't that FAQ entry specifically name the psychic abilities that cannot attack a flyer?

Do you think they just forgot malediction?

I think it was intentional.

If a Malediction uses blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’troll to hit then that Malediction cannot target them.

If we follow the FaQ.

The rules for maledictions on Page 68 clearly state that they do target one or more enemy units. So, no, they can not be used on flyers unless given explicit permission to do so.

Some maledictions cause direct damage, such as machine curse, but others merely modify the actions of a model without directly causing damage. I would say the former is an attack, while the latter is not, so it depends on what maledictions you are using in the same way as it depends on what type of witchfire attack you are using.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If a Malediction uses blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’troll to hit then that Malediction cannot target them.

If we follow the FaQ.

And where does any malediction do any of those things?

If there is one, I agree that it could not hit a flyer.

Edit: never mind you are hung up on the roll to hit bit. Got it.

Still don't agree, but templates area of effects etc are specifically excluded.Maledictions are not.

Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
(p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles.

/thread

Kevin949 wrote:The rules for maledictions on Page 68 clearly state that they do target one or more enemy units. So, no, they can not be used on flyers unless given explicit permission to do so.

easysauce wrote:

Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
(p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles.

/thread

/thread now

 Kevin949 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:The rules for maledictions on Page 68 clearly state that they do target one or more enemy units. So, no, they can not be used on flyers unless given explicit permission to do so.

easysauce wrote:

Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
(p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles.

/thread

/thread now

That settles nothing.

Some Malediction powers have no effect on vehicles like those that affect toughness.

Q:How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any
weapon...

Is the beginning of the faq entry denying flyers being hit by psychic attacks or other weapons that do not require a to hit roll.

Malediction is not mentioned and I think it is very significant to this argument. It is not a psychic shooting attack analogous to a weapon.