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.

Citabogue wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
Just because something causes a hit doesn't mean you roll to it, it's simply stating what the ability does.

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

If it causes hits and is not a snap shot, it can not hit a...

1st the rule is about ''shots'' not ''hits''
2nd the rule specifies snap shots from ''model or weapon'' and the hits from a ''malediction'' are not hits from a ''model or weapon'', they are from a ''malediction''
3rd the rule specifies what cannot ''hit swooping models'' and it specifies that it is ''template, blast and large blast'', it doesn't say anything about auto-hit from powers.

Just wanted to add all that stuff in the favor of ''maledictions can be used agaisnt flyers''

BTW, the core of my army is the Heldrake, so everything that makes flyer better makes me happier, but here it's clearly not something going to make me happier. I just bring the truth the Emperor wants to communicate via me.

1) The rule is about shots and hits, if you read the whole FaQ.

2) A malediction comes from a model.

3) read the whole FaQ to see why your #3 is incorrect as well.

Xiber wrote:
'Attack' and 'attack' - there is no difference

That is not correct. There is a difference.

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

There is no 'hit' involved in the use of maledictions.

Things that automatically hit say they do in no uncertain terms:

"The beam automatically hits all models"

"nova power automatically targets and hits all enemy units"

"maelstrom power automatically targets and hits all units"

In a permissive rules set you cannot call something a hit that does not indicate it is a hit of any sort.

Target unit(s)>pass a psychic test>effect happens on the target unit(s). That is all.

If the unit takes a hit from that effect there is nothing in the zooming rules to stop it. They only talk about models, weapons and powers 'hitting them' or 'shooting' which you have not done. Nothing makes them immune to hits either, so when you use a power that makes them take a hit as opposed to hitting them with a power(like a witchfire) you successfully get around the rule.

'Causing a hit' and 'hitting' are not the same.

So is a Malediction a Psychic attack? or a Malediction attack. Can you clarify?

Also is the test needed to activate a Malediction the same or different from the test to activate a Psychic Power?

Just wondering.

In Addition, Does the Malediction cause any kind of Wound/Hull Point Loss of the affected unit?, If so then as it was clearly shown before, if you do not roll to hit then you can not hit a zooming flyer.

BLADERIKER wrote:
So is a Malediction a Psychic attack? or a Malediction attack. Can you clarify?

Also is the test needed to activate a Malediction the same or different from the test to activate a Psychic Power?

Just wondering.

Psykers, pages 66-69, BRB

The section explains it all.

The Malediction in Question considered to hit automatically?

"Q: Does a weapon that hits automatically, still hit automatically when making snap shots?
A: Yes." (Page 3 FAQ)

However, This is the Specific reply when asked about automatic hits and flyers.

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.

So does this Malediction Automatically hit? If it does then (It can snap shot however, because it automatically hits it can not hit a zooming Flyer/FMC)

It does not Automatically hit (Then before the effect of the Malediction can take place a roll to hit must be made to see if the Flyer/FMC is affected at all)

I'll Add this.

"Maledictions are manifested at the start of the players Movement phase. They weaken the Psyker's enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules.- Note that bouneses and penalties from different malediction are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take a characteristics above10 or below 1." (Pg 68 BRB)

So what Stat is the Malediction in question buffing/debuffing and does it state in the malediction rule that by using it you can reduce said stat to below 1?

Remember that we've got multiple FAQ answers in play, so we should try to find an interpretation which satifies them both without creating a conflict between them.

One specifies that you can cast Maledictions on Zooming flyers.

The other specifies that...
a. The only way to cause a hit on a Zooming Flyer or Swooping FMC is to Snap Shoot at it.
b. Any kind of attack which uses templates, blasts, lines, or otherwise does not roll to hit in any manner cannot even target a ZF or SFMC.

So, we've got to distinguish somehow between which (if any) Maledictions constitute attacks, and which do not.

Objuration Mechanicum would seem to fall at least partially under the prohibitions given in the FAQ, as it does indeed inflict hits, but does not Snap Fire.

The ruling which they Bay Area Open and Adepticon are going with this year is that Objuration M may be used, but the hits are ignored, as they explicitly are in violation of the flyer FAQ. Personally I think I would rule that the whole power is disallowed, as it inflicts hits and for my money that constitutes an attack, but different TOs and groups may rule differently.

I might have found an end-run around this argument:

From the FAQ:

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.

Notice that the question is specifically about "any weapon that doesn't need to roll To Hit or hits automatically".

The answer is that ONLY Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Monstrous Creatures.

It also says any attacks that don't roll to hit cannot target them.

That's two specific rules. It tells you what attacks cannot target them (any attacks that don't roll to hit) and it tells you what can hit them (only Snap Shots). It doesn't say what 'attacks' can hit them; it tells you what can hit them at all. That seems pedantic, but it prevents you from say, targeting an enemy next to a flyer, and then having the blast scatter onto the flyer. You can't target the flyer with a blast weapon (because it can't roll to hit), and you can't hit it accidentally (because you can only hit it with Snap Shots). The next line is clearly a list of some, but not all examples, so doesn't itself serve to do anything other than reiterate the effect of the above rules on particular things.

Therefore, we don't need to talk about what an 'attack' is, or whether an 'attack' is different from an 'Attack'.

If you want to argue that Objuration Mechanicum isn't an 'attack, or an 'Attack', then you can target the flier, since only attacks that don't roll to hit cannot target them. You still can't actually hit the flyer, since the first sentence tells you that only Snap Shots can hit them. Feel free to target my flyer with your non-attacking psychic power, and waste a use of it.

Those who would argue that Objuration Mechanicum is an attack, would read the answer as both preventing the psychic power from targeting AND hitting the flyer.

We have a specific sentence that tells us that ONLY Snap Shots can hit a flyer.




Now, I know what some clever bloke is thinking. The original question is only about 'weapons' that hit automatically. I've already got that one too. The Haywire rule:

When a weapon with this special rule hits a vehicle, roll a d6 to determine the effect rather than rolling Armor Penetration normally.

Thus, either the Objuration Mechanicum is a weapon (which does not roll to hit), and Haywire does something, or it's not a weapon, in which case Haywire has no effect in this case.



Note that the rules for Haywire also back up my first point. Haywire takes effect when a weapon hits a vehicle. Flyers (and ZFMC) can only be hit by Snap Shots.

The precise wording for "attack" is a red herring.

It's not a red herring, because the rules are using weapon in a colloquial sense rather than a strict keyword sense. Just as in the Haywire rule, the use of the word "weapon" in the ZF/SFMC FAQ ruling is not intended to limit the use and application of the rule only to situations involving weapons.

Haywire clearly still applies and functions when it's something other than a weapon which has the rule, and Hard to Hit still applies to attacks and hits generated by things other than weapons.

So we are arguing that a maladiction is a weapon?

This means all psy powers are weapons, limiting one per turn per shooting weapon rules? 2 if you're a MC?

Ha ha, no.

A psy power that isn't a shooting attack isn't a weapon. They don't even have weapon profiles.

 juraigamer wrote:


A psy power that isn't a shooting attack isn't a weapon. They don't even have weapon profiles.

While I agree with you on the first I would just like to point out that the 2nd is irrelevant. There are numerous psychic shooting attacks that don't have a weapons profile or anything that can be ham-fisted into one. Jaws, ecstatic seizures etc.

"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. "

As has been pointed out, they clearly list the three types of psychic powers the rule applies to, notably leaving out the rest. Essentially making a broad statement saying what kinds of weapons it applies to and then which psychic powers it applies to.

Then there is this:

"Q: Can a Vector Strike be made against Swooping Flying Monstrous
Creatures? (p43)
A: Yes."

As Vector strikes are not snap shots these two FAQ answers are in conflict. So unless you start looking at RAI and correlating the answers with the questions and the BRB rules there is no clear RAW for the overly broad response. I believe the first quotes response was only to clarify the BRB rules not to make up its own rule which would remove it from conflict with the second quote. Also since the question and the answer both bring up specific types of psychic powers and neither mention Maledictions or Vector Strikes it does not apply to either of them.

Vector strike vs hard to hit is a case of the specific overriding general. The FAQ makes it clear.

As has been pointed out, they clearly list the three types of psychic powers the rule applies to, notably leaving out the rest. Essentially making a broad statement saying what kinds of weapons it applies to and then which psychic powers it applies to.

They make three separate broad statements, in an effort to be exhaustive and inclusive. Anything which automatically hits, anything which causes hits without Snap Shooting, and any attack which otherwise doesn't roll to hit are all out of luck.

Vector Strikes would fall into the categories above, but have a specific exception. Maledictions would arguably fall into the categories above, although they have a general exception, and for the most part they don't "hit" or cause hits, so that makes a degree of sense.

It gets a little messy when we encounter Maledictions which do cause hits, as that seems to create a conflict. The BAO and Adepticon FAQs resolved that conflict by allowing the power to work by disallowing the haywire hits.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Vector strike vs hard to hit is a case of the specific overriding general. The FAQ makes it clear.

No they muddled it by saying "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures."

Overriding rules come from specific profiles, unit types, special rules or codex's that take precedence over the basic rules. These are both FAQ answers which trump everything when creating new rules.

Only if they interact. Which these don't.

 Mannahnin wrote:

As has been pointed out, they clearly list the three types of psychic powers the rule applies to, notably leaving out the rest. Essentially making a broad statement saying what kinds of weapons it applies to and then which psychic powers it applies to.

They make three separate broad statements, in an effort to be exhaustive and inclusive. Anything which automatically hits, anything which causes hits without Snap Shooting, and any attack which otherwise doesn't roll to hit are all out of luck.

Vector Strikes would fall into the categories above, but have a specific exception. Maledictions would arguably fall into the categories above, although they have a general exception, and for the most part they don't "hit" or cause hits, so that makes a degree of sense.

It gets a little messy when we encounter Maledictions which do cause hits, as that seems to create a conflict. The BAO and Adepticon FAQs resolved that conflict by allowing the power to work by disallowing the haywire hits.

So Vector Strikes Work because the BRB says they have an exception even though the FAQ does not mention it. I agree. I'm just saying that if you look at the FAQ alone or as creating a rule it makes little sense as that rule would not allow a VS. I'm saying it should be looked at as what it is, answers to the question asked and clarification on the BRB. Not a new rule.

BRB says "shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots (unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule, as described on page 42).Template, Blast and large Blast weapons cannot hit flyers in Zoom mode"

FAQ says " 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"
So is it
A. Clarifying what shots can hit a Flyer and simply expanding upon the existing rule since everything mentioned in it is a witchfire or shooting attack?
or
B. Creating a new rule that would disallow literally every attack that is not a snap shot from hitting or even targeting them?

Given that Vector Strikes are assuredly intended to be able to hit them, I'm going with A.

Might call it RAI but since there is no clear RAW what else do we have?

I think it can.

The argument comes down to if a "malediction" is an attack. Since nothing in the rule book says it is, it isn't. The argument that it is because it negatively effects an enemy unit is opinion, is How I Would Play It, not RAW.

I also think, speaking from a RAI perspective, if they wanted to stop you from doing it they would have mentioned it by name when they talked about the other kinds of psychic powers in the FAQ,

greatergoodjones wrote:
I think it can.

The argument comes down to if a "malediction" is an attack. Since nothing in the rule book says it is, it isn't.

The rules do not define every word in the BRB.

Unless you can find a definition for remove, start, or always.

 DeathReaper wrote:

greatergoodjones wrote:
I think it can.

The argument comes down to if a "malediction" is an attack. Since nothing in the rule book says it is, it isn't.

The rules do not define every word in the BRB.

Unless you can find a definition for remove, start, or always.

But what if instead of wanting to define an attack as "anything negatively effecting a model" I wanted to define an attack as "anything that could cause a wound?" Can you give me a reason why one is better then the other?

In the instance of attack, I say anything that has the word "attack" in its description is an attack, and nothing else. I see no other way to move forward using constant RAW.

greatergoodjones wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

greatergoodjones wrote:
I think it can.

The argument comes down to if a "malediction" is an attack. Since nothing in the rule book says it is, it isn't.

The rules do not define every word in the BRB.

Unless you can find a definition for remove, start, or always.

But what if instead of wanting to define an attack as "anything negatively effecting a model" I wanted to define an attack as "anything that could cause a wound?" Can you give me a reason why one is better then the other?

In the instance of attack, I say anything that has the word "attack" in its description is an attack, and nothing else. I see no other way to move forward using constant RAW.

When the BRB does not define words we must fall back on the common English definition of said word. You can try to define attack, but if it does not match up with the common English definition of the word, then your definition is off.

An 'attack', as defined by webster's is: 1: to set upon or work against forcefully. (A malediction that hits a flyer with the haywire rule, and could damage or destroy the enemy flyer fits this definition).

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack

The Free dictionary has a similar definition Found Here

 juraigamer wrote:
So we are arguing that a maladiction is a weapon?

This means all psy powers are weapons, limiting one per turn per shooting weapon rules? 2 if you're a MC?

Ha ha, no.

A psy power that isn't a shooting attack isn't a weapon. They don't even have weapon profiles.

I'm not arguing that it is a weapon per the shooting weapon rules. I'm stating the obvious and incontrovertible fact that Haywire, as written, only applies when, as I quoted, a weapon with this rule hits a vehicle.

The original question asks about several types of powers (but does not mention maledictions). It ALSO includes "any weapon that doesn't need a roll To Hit" (as quoted). If you want to argue for the purposes of this FAQ that Maledictions aren't covered by the answer, since Maledictions aren't a Maelstrom, Nova, or Beam, you also need to argue that Maledictions aren't weapons either. If they aren't weapons, then Haywire doesn't have any special effect with Maledictions.

If everything that could cause a wound is an attack then dangerous terrain would be attacking models and swooping FMCs getting attacked by the ground every time they make a grounded test.

Creating a BRB definition for the word 'attack' is something that can only be done via speculation.

Barring opinion and accounting for a permissive rule set, things are only attacks if they are called an attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Malediction General description and specific power descriptions do not include the word attack anywhere.

 Abandon wrote:
If everything that could cause a wound is an attack then dangerous terrain would be attacking models and swooping FMCs getting attacked by the ground every time they make a grounded test.

Creating a BRB definition for the word 'attack' is something that can only be done via speculation.

Barring opinion and accounting for a permissive rule set, things are only attacks if they are called an attack.

You do realize there is a difference between 'Attack' and 'attack' in the BRB.

They define 'Attack' but they do not define 'attack'

and yes, by the common English definition of 'attack' DT tests do attack models, and the ground attacks models when FMC's fall from the sky. Not that it matters.

 DeathReaper wrote:

greatergoodjones wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

greatergoodjones wrote:
I think it can.

The argument comes down to if a "malediction" is an attack. Since nothing in the rule book says it is, it isn't.

The rules do not define every word in the BRB.

Unless you can find a definition for remove, start, or always.

But what if instead of wanting to define an attack as "anything negatively effecting a model" I wanted to define an attack as "anything that could cause a wound?" Can you give me a reason why one is better then the other?

In the instance of attack, I say anything that has the word "attack" in its description is an attack, and nothing else. I see no other way to move forward using constant RAW.

When the BRB does not define words we must fall back on the common English definition of said word. You can try to define attack, but if it does not match up with the common English definition of the word, then your definition is off.

An 'attack', as defined by webster's is: 1: to set upon or work against forcefully. (A malediction that hits a flyer with the haywire rule, and could damage or destroy the enemy flyer fits this definition).

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack

The Free dictionary has a similar definition Found Here

But what if I wanted to use the Oxford Dictionary?
of a person or animal) act against (someone or something) aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill:

Well, I'm not trying to injure or kill you with, say, dominate on a flying monsterous creature. I'm just trying to stop you from hurting me.

The problem with using the "common English meaning" of words as RAW is several fold. One, not everyone is going to agree on what the word means. Two, the meaning of words changes depending on context, and Three, the common usage of words and the dictionary definition of words are sometimes very different.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/attack?q=attack

Well you should use the oxford dictionary as it's the "English" English dictionary rather than Webster's which is American-English.

While a malediction isn't an an attempt to kill, it is an attempt to injure or do harm upon another model which is an attack.
I can attack you by shouting abuse at you. I can attack you in the press. I can attack you verbally or physically, neither is any more valid an attack.

greatergoodjones wrote:
But what if I wanted to use the Oxford Dictionary?
of a person or animal) act against (someone or something) aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill:

Well, I'm not trying to injure or kill you with, say, dominate on a flying monsterous creature. I'm just trying to stop you from hurting me.

The problem with using the "common English meaning" of words as RAW is several fold. One, not everyone is going to agree on what the word means. Two, the meaning of words changes depending on context, and Three, the common usage of words and the dictionary definition of words are sometimes very different.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/attack?q=attack

Then use the oxford version which says "To fasten or fall upon with force or arms; to join battle with, assail, assault. (The ordinary word to describe offensive military operations)."

Malediction falls into this definition.

http://www.oed.com/search?searchType=dictionary&q=attack&_searchBtn=Search

A malediction is curse. That's not quite 'falling upon with force or arms'

In any case please stop pretending dictionary definitions will get us anywhere. As well, your notion that 'since grounded tests can cause wounds the ground can attack' is ridiculous. The ground cannot attack in 40k, it is not permitted in the rules.

So my point stands. Hits and wounds can be caused without an attack being made against the model. See dangerous terrain, grounded tests, gets hot, Doom of Malan'tai and malediction.(just off the top of my head) Things that are not attacks and do not need 'to hit' but can cause hits or wounds do exist in the game.

Malediction fits in with the others because it does not 'hit' and is not called an attack.

 Abandon wrote:
A malediction is curse. That's not quite 'falling upon with force or arms'

But it fits perfectly into this part of the definition.

" to join battle with, assail, assault. "

You definitely assail the enemy with a curse.

 Abandon wrote:
Hits and wounds can be caused without an attack being made against the model.

Except in the case of a Zooming Flyer or Swooping FMC.

 Abandon wrote:
Some Malediction fits in with the others because it does not 'hit' and is not called an attack.

FTFY by adding the underscored word.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
A malediction is curse. That's not quite 'falling upon with force or arms'

But it fits perfectly into this part of the definition.

" to join battle with, assail, assault. "

You definitely assail the enemy with a curse.

Wrong again. To assail is to cause sudden and violent physical or emotional harm.

Maledictions do not roll to hit the target, therefore they do not hit automatically. Maledictions are not attacks. They are effects, just like Blessings. Both Blessings and Maledictions can target and effect Zooming Flyers and Swooping Monstrous Creatures.

The real question is can vehicles Deny The Witch?