Doom VS Flying Monstrous Creatures

[Raven]

If causing wounds makes something an attack, does that mean my Hive Tyrants are immune to Perils of the Warp when Swooping?

[Jabberwocky]

Perils is suffered from a failed test, initiated by the sufferer himself. Whether you count that as an attack, I don't know. Is an overheating plasma gunner attacking himself and would he gain benefits from rules associated such as preferred enemy? People usually say yes.

It's a very grey area.

All I'm trying to say is, you can't claim spirit leech is a) not associated with the DoM b) just a stat test or c) not a type of attack.

What the consequences of those are, are debatable I feel.

[atrocity]

Alright then

No one seems to have answered my allocation question. Does the controlling player chose how to allocate the wounds? In other words, 20 flesh hounds take 7 wounds. Now, how to allocate these?

1. 7 Flesh hounds all the way in the back furthest from DOOM take one wound each.

2. 3 flesh hounds die and one takes a wound from all the way back in the unit, furthest from doom.

3. 7 wounds are allocated to the closest models just as with shooting

The reason I'm writing "furthest away" is because I mean the controlling player has the choice and thus CAN do so.


Since this is not shooting (which several of you has mentioned), why should it be allocated as shooting? Is not the controlling player free to do as he pleases with the wounds?


Regarding "attack".

In the rulebook the references to "attack" is in the profile characteristics, shooting attack and close combat attack. So since DOOMs ability is neither of these things, then yes, it might not be an attack.


While discussing this we came to kind of agreement which was "DOOM affects swooping FMCs but does not cause grounded tests (as it is not a hit)" but I'm still not sure that's correct in any way.

We still have come to no conclusion on the wound allocation issue.


I'm not trying to be condescening or any of the sort here, I really just want to see the arguments for and against this because we've been duscussing it back and fourth since 6th edition arrived

[Davor]

I am not sure what Flesh Hounds are so not sure if it will make a difference or not. So if you have 20 Flesh Hounds, does this mean they are exactly the same type?

Also not sure what you mean controlling player. You mean you are the Doom and it's your turn, or it's your turn and the Doom is attacking you? So if you are the controlling player, my guess would be is you can remove the models where you want, since it's not a shooting attack, it doesn't have to be closet to the Doom. So the wound allocation would be just like in 5th, were ever you want as long as it's in the same unit. So it could be all the way up close or far way at the end. It's up to the controlling player.

Then again, I haven't played in ages, so I could be wrong. I thought it was up to the person who took the wounds, e.g. no the Doom but the one who took the Ld test and failed can place where to allocate the wounds too.

[ranmafan]

IIRC wounds caused by the Doom are nonspecific, so random allocation seems to be the best way to go IMO.

[infornography]

Before you mentioned it I would have said closest to doom first, but you do make an interesting point. Given that I would say random allocation as well would be correct. It would however be something to address with your opponent beforehand.

[Jabberwocky]

Random allocation is GW's answer to oversights, such as vector strike, so I'd also agree.

Grounding tests are also specifically on hits, hence marker light cheese, so I'd stick with spirit leech not causing them.

[Raven]

Aug 3, 2013 9:16:42 GMT Jabberwocky said:

Perils is suffered from a failed test, initiated by the sufferer himself. Whether you count that as an attack, I don't know. Is an overheating plasma gunner attacking himself and would he gain benefits from rules associated such as preferred enemy? People usually say yes.

It's a very grey area.

All I'm trying to say is, you can't claim spirit leech is a) not associated with the DoM b) just a stat test or c) not a type of attack.

What the consequences of those are, are debatable I feel.

I can indeed claim it is not a type of attack, as it does not fit the definition of an attack according to the 40k rules.

Random allocation states that "At times, you will not be able to tell which model is closest" and it is during these times we use random allocation. Since losing wounds to Spirit Leech is non-directional and therefore doesn't have a point of origin, we can't tell which model is closest, so we use random allocation.

[Deleted]

It doesn't have a point of origin? . . .

That's a pretty bad one. If someone tried to run that line past me they would get a dead stare of disbelief from me -.-

[Raven]

Aug 4, 2013 5:10:24 GMT @60mm said:

It doesn't have a point of origin? . . .

That's a pretty bad one. If someone tried to run that line past me they would get a dead stare of disbelief from me -.-

Obviously the power comes from the Doom, but it doesn't have a range value, cannot be blocked by line of sight and you cannot get cover saves from obscurement, so it doesn't have a point of origin in the same a Vector Strike doesn't, even though a Vector Strike clearly comes from the FMC.

[Jabberwocky]

Aug 4, 2013 6:01:00 GMT Raven said:

Aug 4, 2013 5:10:24 GMT @60mm said:

It doesn't have a point of origin? . . .

That's a pretty bad one. If someone tried to run that line past me they would get a dead stare of disbelief from me -.-

Obviously the power comes from the Doom, but it doesn't have a range value, cannot be blocked by line of sight and you cannot get cover saves from obscurement, so it doesn't have a point of origin in the same a Vector Strike doesn't, even though a Vector Strike clearly comes from the FMC.

Since 6th my gaming group actually has required LoS from the DoM for models to suffer wounds and since 5th we've granted cover for obscurement actually.

[Raven]

Aug 4, 2013 7:33:10 GMT Jabberwocky said:

Aug 4, 2013 6:01:00 GMT Raven said:

Obviously the power comes from the Doom, but it doesn't have a range value, cannot be blocked by line of sight and you cannot get cover saves from obscurement, so it doesn't have a point of origin in the same a Vector Strike doesn't, even though a Vector Strike clearly comes from the FMC.

Since 6th my gaming group actually has required LoS from the DoM for models to suffer wounds and since 5th we've granted cover for obscurement actually.

You recognise that these are houserules not the way Spirit Leech works according to RAW, yes?

[Jabberwocky]

When something is debatable, such as a 5th ed ability in the 6th ed rule set, until an FAQ arrives people normally go with the majority.

Saying spirit leech does not originate from the DoM and therefore does not grant cover from being hidden behind an ADL for example, is just as much a house rule, especially when the FAQ says cover saves can be taken (even if not explicit in which cover saves it means).

It's quite clear that spirit leech will be updated to be a nova version of psy shriek if it does stay in for 6th ed but until then I'm happy to compromise granting cover for not needing to hit or grant deny the witch.

[Raven]

1. You take cover saves from obscurement based on true line of sight from the firing model.
2. The Doom of Malan'tai is not a firing model when using Spirit Leech.
C. You do not get cover saves from obscurement against Spirit Leech.

I am simply applying the rules of the game, not making a house-rule.

[Jabberwocky]

Aug 4, 2013 8:46:10 GMT Raven said:

1. You take cover saves from obscurement based on true line of sight from the firing model.
2. The Doom of Malan'tai is not a firing model when using Spirit Leech.
C. You do not get cover saves from obscurement against Spirit Leech.

I am simply applying the rules of the game, not making a house-rule.

Except the 'rules' you are applying are all assumptions, since spirit leech has never been defined. The closest we have is the FAQ answer.

As per the FAQ, you can take cover saves. The only time in the game you take cover saves, is against shooting attacks. Ergo, you'd follow the normal shooting rules for determining the cover save available. The process doesn't break down because you don't have a gun, since you've already been told you must be able to come to the outcome of a cover save being available in some instances.