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 did not find any recent or conclusive discussion so here's my take on it:

As the source of the lightning is not explicitly defined, and Imotekh is responsible for it, I treated it just like a blast and counted cover saves, using Imotekh's position to determine cover.

It's a bit weird because it hits units that are not visible, but I don't see how there could not be cover saves.

The only cover you can claim is that which is not based off of LOS.

So, a unit that has Shrouded, will get a cover save. A unit hiding behind a rock would not.

And you base that opinion on ?

Not only is there nothing in the whole BRB about map-wide effects, but the closest thing to imotekh's effect in normal rules would be a 187" blast marker that affects only enemy units.

On top of that, if you want to go the "lightning comes down from the sky" road, you'd have to pinpoint that lightning, AND models would get either LoS block if under a roof, or cover saves under foliage.

The line of thinking is based off the fact that the old FAQ stated as much and there were no rules changed that would have made a difference in that line of thinking.

Old FAQ does not count as RAW afaik.

Actually I do not base it on an FAQ at all.

Since the lightning does not come from a model, any cover that is dependent on a model's LOS, would not work.

morgoth wrote:
Old FAQ does not count as RAW afaik.

Agreed, however it isnt needed.

In order to claim LOS based cover, you MUST draw LOS from the source of the attack - the model shooting, for example - to the model you want to take a save on. Given you CANNOT draw LOS, please explain HOW you are drawing LOS.

Given you cannot possibly draw LOS, you have no means, as in absolutely none, to claim a LOS-based cover save.

There's no way to judge LOS since it is not a shooting attack, therefore there is no way to determine cover and you don't get a cover save.

The FAQ also states that models do not benefit from stealth or shrouded when hit by the lightning so they wouldn't receive cover from that either.

On the contrary, Imotekh is very clearly the source of the lightning unless specified otherwise.

morgoth wrote:
On the contrary, Imotekh is very clearly the source of the lightning unless specified otherwise.

No, Imotekh is not the source of the lightning as can be seen by stating the lightning hits the side armour of vehicles. If it originated from Imotekh, it would hit whatever facing that he was in.

sonicaucie wrote:
There's no way to judge LOS since it is not a shooting attack, therefore there is no way to determine cover and you don't get a cover save.

The FAQ also states that models do not benefit from stealth or shrouded when hit by the lightning so they wouldn't receive cover from that either.

The FAQ specifically states that the night stealth or shrouded granted by imothek's storm darkness does not count against lightning.
Any other stealth or shrouded or holo fields or anything else is of course NOT AFFECTED by that FAQ.
You can of course Jink against lightning.

The only clarification required is whether the lightning is considered as an attack from imothek, in which case LoS is drawn from Imothek, OR an attack from the skies on behalf of Imothek, in which case LoS is drawn from the vertical above the center point of a unit or vehicle, in which case trees may very well give a cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

morgoth wrote:
On the contrary, Imotekh is very clearly the source of the lightning unless specified otherwise.

No, Imotekh is not the source of the lightning as can be seen by stating the lightning hits the side armour of vehicles. If it originated from Imotekh, it would hit whatever facing that he was in.

His attack has a special rule that makes it count against the side armour, like hand to hand combat is resolved against the rear armour, it has absolutely no bearing as to where the attack actually hits.

morgoth wrote:
You can of course Jink against lightning.

No you cannot. It is not a shooting attack.

Orbital bombardment works in a similar way (not the same, similar) It is considered to be coming 'from' the Chapter master, even though it comes down from the skies.

Barrage hits side armor, even though it comes 'from' a unit on the board.

 Happyjew wrote:

morgoth wrote:
You can of course Jink against lightning.

No you cannot. It is not a shooting attack.

Says who ?

By default, everything is a shooting attack and gives you cover saves.

That's why you have to specify "ignores cover" when something is not hand to hand combat and yet ignores cover saves.

He meant (I assume) that because no targets are declared, you have no chance to declare Jinking.

Quanar is correct. You declare that you're going to Jink when the unit is declared as a target, and the Lord of the Storm special rule never declares a target.

It does target each and every enemy unit separately though.

In addition, whilst the Night Fighting rules remain in play,
roll a D6 for each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield
at the start of each Necron Shooting phase. On a roll of a
6, that unit is struck by a bolt of lightning and suffers D6
Strength 8, AP 5 hits (vehicles are hit on their side armour).
Note that Night Fighting rules brought into play by a Solar
Pulse (see page 84) do not generate lightning.

To me... that happens in the shooting phase, it targets (without explicitly using the v7 keyword target) each unengaged enemy unit.

No, it does not target. The clue is the lack of the word "target" . No targetting occurs, so no junk

Again, please state it is a) a shooting attack. B) that it's an attack that originates from imotekh.

Page and para. Strict proof.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it does not target. The clue is the lack of the word "target" . No targetting occurs, so no junk

Again, please state it is a) a shooting attack. B) that it's an attack that originates from imotekh.

Page and para. Strict proof.

Actually it's the other way around.

By default, it's a shooting attack because it occurs in the shooting phase
By default, it originates from Imotekh because he made it happen

UNLESS specified otherwise, it's cover saveable and jinkable.

The other cases where cover saves are not applicable are all explicit.
The other cases where jinks cannot be declared are all explicit.

So what makes you think that "no precision whatsoever" equals "it does not target and it's not a shooting attack" ?

You're deciding that this attack is a special case based on the fact that there is no information on it.

I'm deciding that this attack is a standard case based on the fact that there is no information on it.

morgoth wrote:
By default, it's a shooting attack because it occurs in the shooting phase

Can you give us the rules for that?

By default, it originates from Imotekh because he made it happen

Can you give the rules on that?

UNLESS specified otherwise, it's cover saveable and jinkable.

According to what rule?

Would this qualify ?

Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.

In the absence of an advanced rule taking precedence - i.e. in the absence of any EXPLICIT precedence,...

There is explicit AP5 on those lightning strikes, why no explicit ignores cover ? because it just doesn't.

For jink, the legalese point is that unless it says "targeted", you're fked so... you're probably fked even if it doesn't seem very fair.

State where imotekh actually "shoots" the lightening. Page and graph

morgoth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it does not target. The clue is the lack of the word "target" . No targetting occurs, so no junk

Again, please state it is a) a shooting attack. B) that it's an attack that originates from imotekh.

Page and para. Strict proof.

Actually it's the other way around.

By default, it's a shooting attack because it occurs in the shooting phase
By default, it originates from Imotekh because he made it happen

UNLESS specified otherwise, it's cover saveable and jinkable.

The other cases where cover saves are not applicable are all explicit.
The other cases where jinks cannot be declared are all explicit.

So what makes you think that "no precision whatsoever" equals "it does not target and it's not a shooting attack" ?

You're deciding that this attack is a special case based on the fact that there is no information on it.

I'm deciding that this attack is a standard case based on the fact that there is no information on it.

If it was a shooting attack it wouldn't affect his allies of convenience, but as it does affect enemy units on his side it is clearly not coming from him. He modifies the night fighting rules, it doesn't even use his BS, nor does it follow the shooting sequence. Does using the LOTS ability prevent him from shooting with a different weapon? nope.

see allies of convenience "can not be shot"
"are affected by attacks, special rules, or abilities used by allies of convenience that affect 'enemy' units...."

nosferatu1001 wrote:
State where imotekh actually "shoots" the lightening. Page and graph

So you have no problems with random unclassified undocumented effects ignoring half of the game mechanics ?

You don't know what attack type that lightning is, you don't know the origin point, and you're very confident that it's not a shooting attack and the origin point is not Imotekh when very clearly those are the only options if not explicitly stated otherwise.

But I guess that's how you rule RAW isn't it ?

morgoth wrote:
Would this qualify ?

Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.

In the absence of an advanced rule taking precedence - i.e. in the absence of any EXPLICIT precedence,...
There is explicit AP5 on those lightning strikes, why no explicit ignores cover ? because it just doesn't.
For jink, the legalese point is that unless it says "targeted", you're fked so... you're probably fked even if it doesn't seem very fair.

No, that would not qualify.
You are telling me that it's a shooting attack because it doesn't say it isn't.

A C'tans Gaze of Death is in the Assault phase. Does that make it a melee attack? Would it benefit from Entropic Touch?
Spyder's Scarab Hive is done in the Movement phase, does it count as Movement?

And why should they give it Ignores Cover?
It's not a Shooting Attack, so you can't take cover saves against it.

If the Transcendent C’tan loses its last Wound, all models within 4D6" suffer a Strength 10 AP2 hit

So would you take Cover Saves against that too?

sirlynchmob wrote:


If it was a shooting attack it wouldn't affect his allies of convenience, but as it does affect enemy units on his side it is clearly not coming from him. He modifies the night fighting rules, it doesn't even use his BS, nor does it follow the shooting sequence. Does using the LOTS ability prevent him from shooting with a different weapon? nope.

see allies of convenience "can not be shot"
"are affected by attacks, special rules, or abilities used by allies of convenience that affect 'enemy' units...."

Ok then, wtf is it, why are there no cover saves ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

It's not a Shooting Attack, so you can't take cover saves against it.

Imo, if it's not an Assault Attack, you can take cover saves against it -- but then that may just be not what's written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

If the Transcendent C’tan loses its last Wound, all models within 4D6" suffer a Strength 10 AP2 hit

So would you take Cover Saves against that too?

I don't see why not. Somebody or something blocked the blast partially, that makes sense, anything else is rubbish for the sake of playing legalese with games rules.

From a strictly practical standpoint it's a non deviating 4d6" blast with S10AP2.

Because you can only take those if you are partially obscured from the firer.
Nobody that fires the attack = no cover save.

Please note that we are not talking about Stealth or Shrouded, but cover-saves granted by blocking LoS, like terrain, walls or ruins.

From a strictly practical standpoint it's a non deviating 4d6" blast with S10AP2.

But not from a RAW standpoint.
And why describe it as a blast? It might be a wave of radiation that is released.. Good luck trying to hide from radiation!

You can keep Imotekh in reserves, and the lightning will still happen. Hard to use where the model is for cover purposes then.

morgoth wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


If it was a shooting attack it wouldn't affect his allies of convenience, but as it does affect enemy units on his side it is clearly not coming from him. He modifies the night fighting rules, it doesn't even use his BS, nor does it follow the shooting sequence. Does using the LOTS ability prevent him from shooting with a different weapon? nope.

see allies of convenience "can not be shot"
"are affected by attacks, special rules, or abilities used by allies of convenience that affect 'enemy' units...."

Ok then, wtf is it, why are there no cover saves ?

It's a special rule, and you can claim cover if you're in area terrain, or from stealth/shroud not gained from nightfighting. It's also why you use random allocation for the attack to allocate the wounds.

You just don't get cover based on LOS to imotekh or cover from night fighting, as he has nothing to do with the ability, you bought him, he modified the night fighting rules. The nightfighting rules now cause d6 hits against his enemy units.

There is something very interesting in the Random Allocation Rules that relates to this question, and if I am remembering right it even uses lightning as an example but don't quote me on that.

I do remember the existence of this sentence, informing us to treat the attack as if it was coming from above for the purpose of determining Cover Saves via Obstruction, because I felt such an important sentence should not be berried in the Random Allocation section of the Rule book. While all attacks which do not originate from a firing Model will always use Random Allocation unless other wise stated, just like any other situation where the location of the 'firing model' can not be determined, it still seems like that sentence should be located in Cover Saves themselves. It is far to easy to overlook berried as it is in the Random Allocation section of the Rules....