Mawloc vs Zooming Flyers - Page 4 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
40k Rules Discussion Post any Warhammer 40k rules queries and discussions here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 72 (permalink) Old 07-15-12, 08:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Salahaldin's Avatar
Salahaldin's Flag is: Canada
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Georgetown, ON
Posts: 584
Reputation: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim/Steve View Post
Nope, we're just pointing out the rules over and over in the hope that you'll catch on at some point.
Avoid this, as it makes people less open to being pursuaded. No one is made more willing to agree with you by being called dumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim/Steve View Post
i understand exactly what you are saying... you are just wrong.

TftD is not a shooting attack, does not follow the rules for a shooting attack, is not resolved as a shooting attack and in fact has nothing to do with shooting at all... you may have the belief that anything that isn't combat is a shooting attack, but that is rubbish.
You claim to understand what he's saying, but then say "...does not follow the rules for a shooting attack, is not resolved as a shooting attack and in fact has nothing to do with shooting at all." Well, as Zion has pointed out multiple times, Terror from the Deep does have shooting-like characteristics. You can take cover saves against it, and it is resolved using the Large Blast template with hits being allocated and resolved the same as Blast weapons. Both of these are almost exclusively in the realm of Shooting; the only exceptions are other special rules, and they're also blurred as to whether they're shooting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim/Steve View Post
You cannot find rules that effect 'shooting' and 'weapons' and apply them to things which are neither of those just because their effects are similar. It would be like claiming CSM have ATSKNF because they are both not Tau... not being combat does not make something shooting.
A lot of things I find wrong with this analysis. There is nothing to stop us from using rules from shooting and applying them to shooting-like special rules, and indeed doing this "rules-transplant" is necessary when there are gaps in the rules, like when they don't cover the effect of a special rule against flyers for example. This is how we determined where to allocate wounds from a Vector Strike, after all; by taking the allocation rules that govern the Shooting and Assault phase and using them for a Movement phase attack, we determined that they would be allocated to models closest to the Flying Monstrous Creature at the end of the move (as that was when the attack is resolved).

I'm not sure what you meant with your example involving ATSKNF, Codex Space Marines and Tau. I mean literally, I don't know what you were trying to convey.

Zion's argument was not "because it isn't combat it must be shooting"; his argument was since this special rule's resolvement has more in common with shooting then melee, the necessary "rules-transplant" to cover what's missing should come from the Shooting section. Kudos to Zion for continuing this discussion in a civil manner in the face of many people misrepresenting his argument. All I seemed to get from every other poster was that no one had considered Zion's points when making their own interpretation. My approach with posts I disagree with is to quote it, and in between the various points the person makes, I make my rebuttal. That way, it is both clear I am reading the argument and what my counterargument is to the various points. Try it and see if it doesn't help to speedily resolve an issue.

Now in my opinion, RAW you can hit a Zooming Flyer with this attack. It is never specifically stated to be a Shooting Attack; it is never stated to be any kind of attack, which would have been nice when determining how it is resolved, but I digress. The only thing that would dissallow it is if it was a Shooting attack that does not use BS. It is not a Shooting Attack, and thus will hit the Zooming Flyer.

HOWEVER, this RAW technicality will not last, because it is clearly against RAI and will be addressed in the Rulebook or Tyranids FAQ. (With a little help from my updated FAQ/Errata Candidates - please visit and send to GW, every e-mail increases chances of resolution.) There are many indications that Terror from the Deep is meant to be resolved like shooting.

- You may take cover saves against this kind of attack, just like in Shooting.

- A Flying Monstrous Creature that makes a Vector Strike counts as having fired a weapon in the shooting phase. This is another example of a Movement phase attack, and it is being treated as a shooting attack - even though the rule represents what is probably a close combat attack.

- A Flyer that makes a bombing run is considered to have fired one weapon in it's Shooting phase. Another example of a Movement phase attack being resolved like a shooting attack.

- The Harpy in Codex: Tyranids may make a movement phase attack called Spore Mine Cysts, where it drops a cluster of Spore Mines. This is resolved "... exactly as if the Harpy were firing a barrage weapon at that spot..." and the FAQ clarifies that this is resolved like a barrage attack.

To conclude, RAW you can smack down that flyer due to vagaries in an ill-defined rule, but the RAI is clearly meant to be otherwise.

"Trying to make some sense of it all,
When I can see it makes no sense at all"

"Fools to the left of me,
Jokers to the right,
Here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you."

Last edited by Salahaldin; 07-15-12 at 08:48 PM.
Salahaldin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 72 (permalink) Old 07-15-12, 09:20 PM Thread Starter
Token Trans Mod
 
Zion's Avatar
Zion's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: On the internet.
Posts: 6,385
Reputation: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim/Steve View Post
Nope, we're just pointing out the rules over and over in the hope that you'll catch on at some point.
Odd, because I've also been quoting the rules but you keep using arguments for other parts of the rules that I'm not referring to then telling me I'm reading the rules wrong when I'm quoting them exactly from the book and providing page numbers as sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim/Steve View Post
i understand exactly what you are saying... you are just wrong.
My point of view is no less valid than yours just because it's different. I'm interpreting the rules differently than you while providing clear and complete sources and wording to back up my position. I'm not adding anything to the rules, and am taking this as a process that is strictly RAW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim/Steve View Post
TftD is not a shooting attack, does not follow the rules for a shooting attack, is not resolved as a shooting attack and in fact has nothing to do with shooting at all...
Incorrect. It does follow several rules for shooting attacks. 1. It provides cover saves (which are only taken against shooting attacks), 2. the Mawloc doesn't go into assault after this attack, this would points towards the attack being treated as shooting (since it's not using the rules for Dangerous Terrain to inflict wounds) attack instead, 4. there are several attacks that are obviously not shooting attacks that are handled out of phase but are handled like shooting attacks (Vector Strikes, Blade Vane hits from Dark Eldar bikes, ect).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim/Steve View Post
you may have the belief that anything that isn't combat is a shooting attack, but that is rubbish.
See point 4. above. There are several non-shooting attacks in the game resolved as shooting attacks. This is what is called "precedence".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim/Steve View Post
You cannot find rules that effect 'shooting' and 'weapons' and apply them to things which are neither of those just because their effects are similar.
Odd, because the only other way I know of to inflict hits on anything in the game is through Dangerous Terrain tests, but this doesn't work like that since doesn't involve a test.

And again, I agree that Terror From the Deep isn't specifically a shooting attack, I believe that it resolves like one (which is why I think it should follow the rules I've outlined before for hits against Zooming Fliers and Snap Fire) for the purposes of dealing wounds (and determining where the "front" is for pulling casualties out of a unit) and hits on a vehicle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim/Steve View Post
It would be like claiming CSM have ATSKNF because they are both not Tau... not being combat does not make something shooting.
Your sample argument is deeply flawed nowhere close to similar, I claim no such thing. I claim the resolution of the hit inflicted on the Flyer follows additional rules from the big rulebook (ones that you claim that I don't pay attention to (despite quoting them verbatim from the rulebook with sources sited for others to double check me one) and then misquote me to try and state that my claim has to do with weapons specifically or with how a weapon hits a flyer).

At this point I'm choosing to agree that we don't see eye to eye on this, though you are far more aggressive about this than I am (seriously, is it necessary to keep implying that you think I'm an idiot for not agreeing with you, or to misquote what I'm saying in an effort to be correct?). It's perfectly okay for two people to disagree and have equally valid arguments on how rule situations like this work. This is why GW has the dice off method for settling these before they get ugly.

I respect that you see it being resolved with no additional modifiers from the big rulebook for how Terror From the Deep is handled in this situation, I just don't agree with it. I was just offering my point of view, with carefully cited information on how I reached this conclusion nothing more.
Zion is offline  
post #33 of 72 (permalink) Old 07-15-12, 09:40 PM
Banned
Magpie_Oz's Flag is: Australia
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not every shadow, but any shadow
Posts: 7,889
Reputation: 74
Default

For my tuppence from what I read I can see no reason why TftD wouldn't effect a flyer.

The rule simply gives an area within which a unit must take a hit. It is similar to the crashing FMC and exploding flyer, they aren't shooting attacks either just damage being sustained on the FMC or occupants of an otherwise unassailable vehicle.
Magpie_Oz is offline  
 
post #34 of 72 (permalink) Old 07-15-12, 09:43 PM
WFB Moderator
 
Tim/Steve's Avatar
Tim/Steve's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Posts: 8,248
Reputation: 13
Default

I could mention things like Gaze of Death, which are also Special Rules and are almost entirely similar to TftD... but its irrelevant. There are 3 types of attack in 40k: combat, shooting and neither (normally a special rule). If something doesn't happen in the assault or shooting phase then it needs specific rules to say how it works: some rules make it seem like a combat attack (such as Sweep), some like shooting (such as Spore Cysts) and others look like neither. The point is while those attacks might have elements of shooting/combat they aren't: you can't make up your own rules and say "since this is so much like shooting it must be a shooting attack".

But getting away from unhelpful arguments about the nature of the rules and getting back to an actual Rules Discussion I'll repeat my earlier line of reasoning:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranid dex (Terror From The Deep)
Place the large blast marker directly over the spot the Mawloc is emerging. Every unit under the marker suffers a number of S6 AP2 hits equal...
(FAQ changes word template to marker)

No part of that rule says anything about "firing" "weapon" or "shoots". Even more clear is that P95 of the 'nid dex lists Terror from the Deep as a special rule... not a weapon.

The 2 rules stopping large blast weapons from hitting flyers are:

Quote:
Originally Posted by page 13 BRB
Some weapon types... cannot be fired as snap shots
Terror From the Deep isn't a weapon, so doesn't have a type. You certainly cannot talk about 'Not being able to fire a Special Rule'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by page 81 BRB
Template, Blast and Large Blast weapons cannot hit Flyers in Zoom mode
Terror From the Deep is a Special Rule, not a Weapon.


Now, you can do one of 3 things:
1- prove me wrong (proof requires BRB/FAQ quotes... not just conjecture)
2- accept that that is correct
or
3- start a thread in general 40k discussing your views/opinions, RAI or how you think the rules may change in future... it certainly doesn't belong here.

Tim/Steve is offline  
post #35 of 72 (permalink) Old 07-15-12, 09:45 PM
ZOMGZOR CUSTOM USER TITLE
 
scscofield's Avatar
scscofield's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Finger Lakes Region of NY
Posts: 6,195
Reputation: 56
Default

BS0 should be enough proof that it is not shooting the way I see it.

http://i.imgur.com/aPfHUHy.gif?1




scscofield is offline  
post #36 of 72 (permalink) Old 07-15-12, 09:58 PM Thread Starter
Token Trans Mod
 
Zion's Avatar
Zion's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: On the internet.
Posts: 6,385
Reputation: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim/Steve View Post
I could mention things like Gaze of Death, which are also Special Rules and are almost entirely similar to TftD... but its irrelevant. There are 3 types of attack in 40k: combat, shooting and neither (normally a special rule). If something doesn't happen in the assault or shooting phase then it needs specific rules to say how it works: some rules make it seem like a combat attack (such as Sweep), some like shooting (such as Spore Cysts) and others look like neither. The point is while those attacks might have elements of shooting/combat they aren't: you can't make up your own rules and say "since this is so much like shooting it must be a shooting attack".

But getting away from unhelpful arguments about the nature of the rules and getting back to an actual Rules Discussion I'll repeat my earlier line of reasoning:

(FAQ changes word template to marker)

No part of that rule says anything about "firing" "weapon" or "shoots". Even more clear is that P95 of the 'nid dex lists Terror from the Deep as a special rule... not a weapon.

The 2 rules stopping large blast weapons from hitting flyers are:


Terror From the Deep isn't a weapon, so doesn't have a type. You certainly cannot talk about 'Not being able to fire a Special Rule'.


Terror From the Deep is a Special Rule, not a Weapon.


Now, you can do one of 3 things:
1- prove me wrong (proof requires BRB/FAQ quotes... not just conjecture)
2- accept that that is correct
or
3- start a thread in general 40k discussing your views/opinions, RAI or how you think the rules may change in future... it certainly doesn't belong here.
Tyranid FAQ also refers to Terror From the Deep as an "attack". And again, I didn't mention weapons (seriously where do you keep getting weapons?), but "shooting attack". There are things that are resolved as a "shooting attack" that are not weapons, for instance Witchfires, or anything that resolves as shooting (if I recall correctly, though I may need to double check, the Blade Vanes on Dark Eldar Jetbikes would fall into this category).

I never once said that the power is "shot" either. I said I believe that it "resolves" as shooting. Actions and resolutions are not the same thing. By it resolve as shooting it can clearly follow the wound allocation rules as outlined in the section for shooting, and it provides cover saves, as shooting. If it doesn't resolve as shooting then it shouldn't provide cover saves (as it is said to do in the Tyranid FAQ).

I also never mentioned anything in any of my supporting statements that the "marker" is counted as a "template". I clearly pointed out that based on my reading of the rules that automatic hits from shooting attacks (which as I've stated I'm reading that this is what this resolves as thanks to it being granted cover saves like a shooting attack) can't happen unless you have Skyfire.

Out of curiosity, is there anything in the game that is not resolved as per the rules for shooting, that grants a cover save? Because if there is I'll gladly concede my point being incorrect and that I'm misinterpreting the rules, otherwise I believe I have sufficient evidence to support my claim that Terror From the Deep is treated as a shooting attack for the purposes of wound allocation and hitting Flyers.
Zion is offline  
post #37 of 72 (permalink) Old 07-15-12, 10:11 PM
Banned
Magpie_Oz's Flag is: Australia
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not every shadow, but any shadow
Posts: 7,889
Reputation: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zion View Post
I said I believe that it "resolves" as shooting.
You need to define what you mean by that.

The attack doesn't have a To Hit process merely the later To Wound process so where is the distinction made between resolving as a shooting attack and something else?

Cleansing Flame from the Grey Knights is similar, it has an autohit and then goes into a wound test that grants armour saves but it certainly isn't a shooting attack.
Magpie_Oz is offline  
post #38 of 72 (permalink) Old 07-15-12, 10:20 PM
Senior Member
 
Taggerung's Avatar
Taggerung's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Washington
Posts: 870
Reputation: 3
Default

I have a question then, especially those for it hitting flyers....

Would you honestly try and play it that way in a game?



Check out my DKOK Project Log!

Armies : Raven Lords Chapter, 219th Siege Regiment and Da Grotteef Waaaaghhhh

Currently Painting : 219th Siege Regiment, about 25% done! Last updated 3/7/2013
Taggerung is offline  
post #39 of 72 (permalink) Old 07-15-12, 10:20 PM Thread Starter
Token Trans Mod
 
Zion's Avatar
Zion's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: On the internet.
Posts: 6,385
Reputation: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magpie_Oz View Post
You need to define what you mean by that.

The attack doesn't have a To Hit process merely the later To Wound process so where is the distinction made between resolving as a shooting attack and something else?

Cleansing Flame from the Grey Knights is similar, it has an autohit and then goes into a wound test that grants armour saves but it certainly isn't a shooting attack.
I mean that for the purposes for how it affects models touched by the marker (or the flyer) that it follows the same rules as a shooting attack that hits automatically. It does not have to be "fired" and it is not a "weapon". But it is an "attack" (as stated in the FAQ), but does not put the model into assault (as a close combat based attack would). This is why I state that it's a special rule that resolves as a shooting attack for the purpose of models affected, how wounds are allocated, and what kind of saves that can be taken.

Cleansing Flame is done in the assault phases after the Assault Movement Sub-Phase but before the Fight Sub-Phase. It's a special kind of close-combat attack as it can only be done when in assault. Same for Baleful Eye (at least how I'm reading these things) since they can be used while locked in combat.

Last edited by Zion; 07-15-12 at 10:22 PM.
Zion is offline  
post #40 of 72 (permalink) Old 07-16-12, 05:25 AM
WFB Moderator
 
Tim/Steve's Avatar
Tim/Steve's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Posts: 8,248
Reputation: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zion View Post
I mean that for the purposes for how it affects models touched by the marker (or the flyer) that it follows the same rules as a shooting attack that hits automatically. It does not have to be "fired" and it is not a "weapon". But it is an "attack" (as stated in the FAQ), but does not put the model into assault (as a close combat based attack would). This is why I state that it's a special rule that resolves as a shooting attack for the purpose of models affected, how wounds are allocated, and what kind of saves that can be taken.
The reason that you haven't convinced anyone of your argument and that I keep calling it wrong is that you haven't shown this to be true. You've quoted rules that shown that if you assume that attacks not made in combat are resolved as shooting attacks... but you NEED to quote the BRB showing that hits such as this are in any way resolved as shooting.

I keep coming back to the words "shot", "shooting" and "weapon" because those are the rules that the relevant sections of the BRB refer to. If TftD was one of those then you would be correct... but plain fact that it is a special rule which has no 'shooting' aspect other then that it follows the ruleset of 40k, in which sense you could start to argue that combat is shooting because it is also similar.
Unless there is a rule stating that hits not made in combat are shooting then you cannot make that assumption.


EDIT- with that I'm out. I've made my arguments, no-one has tried to disprove them so I assume they are correct. As for zion's belief that any special rules similar to shooting must be shooting.... well, he's entitled to his beliefs.


Last edited by Tim/Steve; 07-16-12 at 05:30 AM.
Tim/Steve is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > 40k Rules Discussion

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome