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.

I've searched the FAQ a few times and searched the web a few times also and found no answers, so I'll go ahead and ask:

1) What type of attack is the Lightning Field classed as? Since the enemy models are in assault is it classed as a CC attack (since AP is no longer exclusively used by shooting attacks), or is it classed as a shooting attack? If it is classed as a shooting attack, which armour facing are vehicle struck on? The facing the Cryptek is in, his unit is in, or side armour like Imhotek's lightning? If it is classed as a close combat attack, would it strike facings as CC attacks normally do, so rear against chariots and front against walkers?
2) How are casualties from the Lightning Field selected? Closest to the Cryptek, to the unit in general, or randomised?

I would classify it as a close combat attack, I suppose. Mainly because there's no range, it's akin to using grenades in close combat in my opinion.

Casualties from lightning field would be handled identically to any close combat casualties.

Keep in mind however that these wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) count toward close combat resolution as the hits/wounds take place in the CHARGE sub-phase and not the FIGHT sub-phase. Page 26 will clear that up for you.

Although at the time of the codex there were no cc attacks with AP, in 6th treating lightning field as kevin949 suggests works very well.

Totally forgot I asked this. Thanks for the answers.

Personally I would treat it as shooting from the cryptek just to give any potential cover saves and to not automatically hit rear armor on chariots (use the facing the cryptek is in). D6 S8 hits would obliterate AV 10 rear armor.

I say shooting only because in 5th cc had no AP and the implications were obvious and it's the least advantageous interpretation. It's one of those rules that was missed in the 6ed FAQ update.

Yes but this is not 5th. The fact that the hits happen after the charge move is successful, it fits better for those hits to be CC.

The context of 5th still matters as that's what the codex was written for.

As to it fitting better as cc, not really. We have rules for shooting attacks hitting models that are locked in combat. We don't have rules for cc attacks outside of the fight sub-phase. All cc attacks strike at an initiative step. If they are cc attacks they would count toward combat resolution unless there was a specific exception somewhere in the rules. In fact it seems easier to use shooting rules in the 6th ed context as well.

 Tarrasq wrote:
We don't have rules for cc attacks outside of the fight sub-phase. All cc attacks strike at an initiative step.

Cleansing flame proves that your thinking is wrong.

 Tarrasq wrote:
The context of 5th still matters as that's what the codex was written for.

Actually the last few codex of 5th were designed with 6th in mind, Necrons especially.

Perhaps but they were 'also' designed with 5th in mind (perhaps more so, i'd wager) so his point has merit.

Whether it's intention in 5th was shooting is no longer a point for 6th edition. Arguing about what it was is not going to solve what it is now. With that in mind, are you allowed to make shooting attacks while in base to base contact? This would, of course, bleed over to the "If you're assaulted by two separate units can you overwatch fire either of them or only the first?"

Also, the fact that the lightning field will work when you're locked in combat and is separate from overwatch fire should further prove that should be not be treated as a shooting attack.

copper.talos wrote:

 Tarrasq wrote:
We don't have rules for cc attacks outside of the fight sub-phase. All cc attacks strike at an initiative step.

Cleansing flame proves that your thinking is wrong.

Cleansing Flame has been changed by GK FAQ Errata: "This power is used at the start of the Fight sub-phase." It doesn't strike at a specified Init step, but it does happen in the Fight sub-phase, before Init Step 10.

However, Cleansing Flame cannot be compared to the Lightning Field very well, because CF does not have a Str Value, and it also can only cause wounds, and not Vehicle Damage.

The Str of the attack has nothing to do with that argument. An initiative value is not a necessity for an attack to be classified as a CC. So LF doesn't have any factor forbiding it to be a cc attack.

At my 1st post on this thread I was the first to say that in 5th it was meant to be a shooting attack. But for all the reasons mentioned above, in 6th the rule fits better as a cc attack, so why cling to 5th;

To sum this up, general consensus is these hits/wounds count as cc attacks, count towards combat resolution, hit non-walker vehicles on the rear, and enemies (like wyches) would be able to take saves against it that only work vs cc attacks?

Also, are these hits resolved before challenges are issued and mindshackle would go off?

 RobPro wrote:
To sum this up, general consensus is these hits/wounds count as cc attacks, count towards combat resolution, hit non-walker vehicles on the rear, and enemies (like wyches) would be able to take saves against it that only work vs cc attacks?

Also, are these hits resolved before challenges are issued and mindshackle would go off?

Since the hits are done in the charge subphase and not the fight subphase, the wounds would NOT count toward the combat resolution.

I don't really think you can safely assume the lightning field is a CC attack, as it doesn't follow any of the established rules for CC attacks and it isn't specified as a CC attack. Its also not a shooting attack either. Its a special rule effect, so I don't think it falls into either category, much like Imhotek's lightning strikes.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 RobPro wrote:
To sum this up, general consensus is these hits/wounds count as cc attacks, count towards combat resolution, hit non-walker vehicles on the rear, and enemies (like wyches) would be able to take saves against it that only work vs cc attacks?

Also, are these hits resolved before challenges are issued and mindshackle would go off?

Since the hits are done in the charge subphase and not the fight subphase, the wounds would NOT count toward the combat resolution.

I don't really think you can safely assume the lightning field is a CC attack, as it doesn't follow any of the established rules for CC attacks and it isn't specified as a CC attack. Its also not a shooting attack either. Its a special rule effect, so I don't think it falls into either category, much like Imhotek's lightning strikes.

Nevermind, didn't read whole post. My fault.

I treat it as Overwatch myself, just another old weapon to unravel at someone legging it at you.

Then it would have the possibility of causing an assault to fail, which can't happen since it takes place after the unit successfully moves into base contact which is after overwatch fire.

Mind you, I'm not saying you're wrong in how you play it, just saying there's other factors to consider if played that way. And asking how you'd resolve that.

Its just sort of logical.

you wouldnt wait until someone was within punching distance before electrocuting him would you?

Also, played this way it prevents it from zapping a second enemy squad should you opponant want to multiassault you.

 IHateNids wrote:
Its just sort of logical.

you wouldnt wait until someone was within punching distance before electrocuting him would you?

Also, played this way it prevents it from zapping a second enemy squad should you opponant want to multiassault you.

So....you're limiting the effectiveness of the item? It's entire purpose was to dissuade assaulting that unit, and dissuade throwing a lot of guys at them. Seems like you're hampering yourself, to me. But hey, if that's how you want to play it, then by all means. I just want to point out to others that that's not what the rules say to do.

The way I read it LF basically is a proximity affect that hits any unit the moves into assault the unit. We treat the hits as allocated as shooting just for the chance of cover saves as the ability does not mention them ignoring cover.

 Gravmyr wrote:
The way I read it LF basically is a proximity affect that hits any unit the moves into assault the unit. We treat the hits as allocated as shooting just for the chance of cover saves as the ability does not mention them ignoring cover.

True, but then it would/could cause morale tests.

 Tarrasq wrote:
We don't have rules for cc attacks outside of the fight sub-phase.

Incorrect. A Death or Glory attack can be a CC attack and that happens in the movement phase.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
The way I read it LF basically is a proximity affect that hits any unit the moves into assault the unit. We treat the hits as allocated as shooting just for the chance of cover saves as the ability does not mention them ignoring cover.

True, but then it would/could cause morale tests.

Not in 6th, as you do not take morale checks for 25% casualties except in the movement and shooting phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
The way I read it LF basically is a proximity affect that hits any unit the moves into assault the unit. We treat the hits as allocated as shooting just for the chance of cover saves as the ability does not mention them ignoring cover.

True, but then it would/could cause morale tests.

Not in 6th, as you do not take morale checks for 25% casualties except in the movement and shooting phase.

Those are only the most common reasons a unit takes a morale test, not "the only time". If it was the case where you'd only take morale during moving/shooting phases from 25% casualties then there'd be no need for the stipulation in overwatch. Currently, as far as I know, overwatch is the only shooting attack allowance that doesn't cause morale tests.

How should LF be treated then?

I've always worked it out like this -

1. Charge A declared

2. Overwatch

3. Distance rolled for Charge A, gets in/no

4. Any additional charges

5. All enemy units that got at least 1 model into base with the LF unit takes hits (from models in B2B moving outwards like hits would normally be resolved, since it doesn't say random models). I have played these to ignore cover saves, but I'm not sure if that's right. I also don't count these wounds for combat res or allow CC only saves (like wyches have) to be used. If this causes a vehicle to blow up, I don't count any wounds from the explosion into combat res either.

6. Regular combat starts here (MSS, challenges, etc)

Thoughts on how I'm doing with Step 5? Does that seem to follow a good process?

Sorry Kev but according to the when to test section on page 29 shooting and movement are the only phases to take a moral checks for loosing 25%.

Edit: Also per pg 28 units locked in cc do not take moral checks or Pinning tests caused by shooting. Therefor if LF triggers by a unit making it's charge distance it would be locked in combat at the time of LF triggering.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Sorry Kev but according to the when to test section on page 29 shooting and movement are the only phases to take a moral checks for loosing 25%.

Read the very first line, above the example you're speaking of but below the heading. The reason that statement about Casualties is there is because there are generally no shooting attacks happening in the assault phase, except for overwatch which has a specific mention of not causing morale tests. I say again, if the intention was that only those two phases could cause 25% casualty morale tests then why the stipulation?

This also leads to be more of a reason to not treat the lightning field as a shooting attack at all.

Find somewhere that it tells you to take the moral check after loosing 25% other than pg 29.