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.

Does anyone have an idea what the Necron errata surrounding the 'Methodical Destruction' stratagem was supposed to address? Do you think the amended wording is designed to prevent the 'Lord of the Storm' ability from being used to trigger it?

It seems they wanted to remove the phrase 'unsaved wound' but also specifically added 'has attacked an enemy unit'. I'm not sure what they are getting at with this.

Original Stratagem wording
Methodical Destruction
Use this strategem after a Sautekh unit from your army has inflicted an unsaved wound on an enemy unit. Add 1 to hit rolls for friendly Sautekh units that target the same enemy unit this phase.

Amended Stratagem wording
Change the rules text to read:
‘Use this Stratagem after a Sautekh unit from your army has attacked an enemy unit and the attack resulted in the enemy unit losing one or more wounds. Add 1 to hit rolls for attacks made by other Sautekh units from your army that target the same enemy unit this phase.’

Lord of the Storm
Once per battle, in your shooting phase, Imotekh can call the storm: pick an enemy unit within 48" of Imotekh, other than a Character, and roll a d6. On a 2+ that unit suffers that many mortal wounds.

==

It appears they did two things:

Removed 'unsaved wound', which is an ill-defined concept and replaced with the better defined 'lost a wound'

Added attack to make it clear the wound must come from a shooting or close combat attack and not any other source of damage.

So yes, they seem to have targeted Lord of the Storm and any similar ability to be not eligible as a trigger for Methodical Destruction.

 alextroy wrote:
It appears they did two things:

Removed 'unsaved wound', which is an ill-defined concept and replaced with the better defined 'lost a wound'

Added attack to make it clear the wound must come from a shooting or close combat attack and not any other source of damage.

So yes, they seem to have targeted Lord of the Storm and any similar ability to be not eligible as a trigger for Methodical Destruction.

What's the formalities stating that ruleswise, an attack is used only with shooting and hand to hand fighting?

That's an important, mising, part of your argument as targeting someone with that ability certainly can he seen as an attack in the word's own right.

torblind wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
It appears they did two things:

Removed 'unsaved wound', which is an ill-defined concept and replaced with the better defined 'lost a wound'

Added attack to make it clear the wound must come from a shooting or close combat attack and not any other source of damage.

So yes, they seem to have targeted Lord of the Storm and any similar ability to be not eligible as a trigger for Methodical Destruction.

What's the formalities stating that ruleswise, an attack is used only with shooting and hand to hand fighting?

That's an important, mising, part of your argument as targeting someone with that ability certainly can he seen as an attack in the word's own right.

The T'au FAQ. I know, stellar work GW.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

torblind wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
It appears they did two things:

Removed 'unsaved wound', which is an ill-defined concept and replaced with the better defined 'lost a wound'

Added attack to make it clear the wound must come from a shooting or close combat attack and not any other source of damage.

So yes, they seem to have targeted Lord of the Storm and any similar ability to be not eligible as a trigger for Methodical Destruction.

What's the formalities stating that ruleswise, an attack is used only with shooting and hand to hand fighting?

That's an important, mising, part of your argument as targeting someone with that ability certainly can he seen as an attack in the word's own right.

The T'au FAQ. I know, stellar work GW.

I just went and checked and it says it applies to this context, without saying what exactly that context is

If this context is... 'attacks in the shooting phase' , then yes.

If on the other hand the context is 'Saviour Protocols' , then no.

Drawing conclusions from that, by the above rationale, obviously is in RAI land.

torblind wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
It appears they did two things:

Removed 'unsaved wound', which is an ill-defined concept and replaced with the better defined 'lost a wound'

Added attack to make it clear the wound must come from a shooting or close combat attack and not any other source of damage.

So yes, they seem to have targeted Lord of the Storm and any similar ability to be not eligible as a trigger for Methodical Destruction.

What's the formalities stating that ruleswise, an attack is used only with shooting and hand to hand fighting?

That's an important, mising, part of your argument as targeting someone with that ability certainly can he seen as an attack in the word's own right.

Attack is used in both the rules for shooting and close combat. Check the rules for the shooting phase and the fight phase. Both have sections on resolving attacks. If your ability does not reference the word attack, it's not an attack.