A question about flyers crashing

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.

**liturgies of blood**

How is any attack where the attacker's position not clear not permission?

**rigeld2**

liturgies of blood wrote:
How is any attack where the attacker's position not clear not permission?

Self reference isn't the best basis for an argument.
And that sentence still doesn't "give permission". At best it's implied - like I said.

Would the process for the wounds inflicted by a warp storm not fall into this catagory?

Not having a Demon codex I can't say.

**liturgies of blood**

Daemons is a bad example, they have their allocation method described. My knowledge of their codex isn't what it should be.

Implied my ass, that is stating when to use random allocation. That entire paragraph is about when to use it.

**Kevin949**

rigeld2 wrote:
Kevin949 wrote:
It's ludicrous to say it's not a blast attack when the rule says they suffer a Str 6 AP - hit....not a Str 6 AP - Large Blast hit? Your designers note reference has no bearing here, also Rigeld "Randomising" is mentioned on page 5, long before "shooting attacks". As well, it states to randomize in the shooting phase but it does not make any mention of it needing to be a shooting attack. Re-read the rule.

I've read it many times. Cite permission to reference the random allocation rules without following the shooting attack rules.
Randomising on page 5 - does that tell you how to allocate wounds? Oh, no it doesn't. Hm.
So the Random Allocation rules - where are they again? Because that's what I said is in the shooting section. Oh look, that's where it is!
Why did you bring up page 5 again? Because it has the word Random?

And your statement would posit that it's impossible to randomize wounds in the game if it's not in the shooting phase. That's ludicrous.

Well, no - that's the rules. And it's something that I've brought up many times before and defended many times before.

Ok, so randomizing only happens in the shooting phase. Show me where it has to be a shooting attack then.

**liturgies of blood**

Nope, random alloation happens in the movement phase too. I'm sure there is something out there that causes it in the assault phase but I'm yet to find it.

**rigeld2**

Kevin949 wrote:
Ok, so randomizing only happens in the shooting phase. Show me where it has to be a shooting attack then.

If it's not a shooting attack, why are you referencing shooting attack rules?

**liturgies of blood**

rigeld2 wrote:
Kevin949 wrote:
Ok, so randomizing only happens in the shooting phase. Show me where it has to be a shooting attack then.

If it's not a shooting attack, why are you referencing shooting attack rules?

Because we are told to do so for many non shooting attacks and any attack where the attacker's position isn't clear.

**Idolator**

liturgies of blood wrote:
.

So I ask you again, is it clear where the attacker is?

I think that the best course of action here is to accept that you cannot get a concession from the dude that you are debating. Then utilize the ignore function.

**liturgies of blood**

No, rigeld usually is on the ball. I don't ignore people otherwise you just get people that agree with you.