PDA

View Full Version : chain lightning, lightning generator, and convocation



eKraye
03-18-2015, 09:42 AM
This is something I'm having an issue with rules-wise on clarity between players and pgs. I could not find a relevant ruling. Chain lightning and lightning generator are both d6 d3 abilities, the former a spell, the latter a weapon quality.

Do the additional arcs from these specifically prevent convocation (enigma foundry) from collecting souls?

Thank you.

Juris
03-18-2015, 09:59 AM
Damage rolls generated by the Lightning Generator rule (those d3 leaps) are not attacks. Just like electro-leap, it does not generate souls.

Chain lightning, on the other hand, is an attack spell, and the d6 leaps are all magic attack damage rolls; as such, they do generate souls.

eKraye
03-18-2015, 10:10 AM
I guess confusion comes from sharing the exact same wording on both abilities, the difference being one is attached to a weapon while the other is a spell. If this is correct however - so be it.

SageofLodoss
03-18-2015, 10:16 AM
I guess confusion comes from sharing the exact same wording on both abilities, the difference being one is attached to a weapon while the other is a spell. If this is correct however - so be it.

A lot of people were confused about it and asked for clarification, but the final verdict handed down was that electro leap and lightning generator (and Admonisher) are not attacks. They are damage rolls that now officially belong to the model who caused them, but not an attack.

eKraye
03-18-2015, 10:31 AM
Is there an infernal ruling on this currently?

Stormpuppy_Infantry
03-18-2015, 10:37 AM
Is there an infernal ruling on this currently?

https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?179153-Electro-Leap-NOT-an-attack&p=2318133&viewfull=1#post2318133


Electro Leap is considered damage from the model with the ability, so things that modify the damage rolls from a model (e.g., Prey) will apply to Electro Leap. However, the Electro Leap does not "hit" the model (per the tactical tip), thus will not trigger effects based on hitting. It is not considered damage from an attack (melee, ranged, or otherwise), so it will not trigger effects based on being damaged by attacks.


This is the most current, verified, ruling, so any prior rulings contrary to this understanding are superseded.

https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?175985-Are-Chain-Lightning-arcs-Attacks&highlight=chain+lightning+attack


Confirmed that this is correct:

A model that is destroyed after suffering damage caused by the chain lightning arc is not attacked, but is destroyed by an attack.

Remember, Chain Lightning and Electro Leap do not work the same way.

eKraye
03-18-2015, 11:00 AM
Thank you for the links, unfortunately it does bring me back to: why is lightning generator not treated the same way as chain lightning? It is worded the exact same and it is not electro leap to the best of my reading ability.

AcidOverride
03-18-2015, 12:28 PM
Because Electro Leap (and Admonisher) are not attacks...they are EFFECTS of an attack that cause a damage roll.

Chain Lightning is an offensive spell that on a direct hit causes d6 more attacks (without a to hit roll)

The difference is where they are listed. Electro Leap is not a weapon, it is an ability of a weapon. Chain Lightning is a spell, thus all portions of the spell constitute an attack.

EDIT: While I used Electro Leap as the term in my reply, the same logic applies to Lightning Generator.

Juris
03-18-2015, 12:51 PM
Thank you for the links, unfortunately it does bring me back to: why is lightning generator not treated the same way as chain lightning? It is worded the exact same and it is not electro leap to the best of my reading ability.

Because Infernals said so. That is the most logical answer that can be provided. Many of the rules decisions in this game rely simply upon "because Infernals said so" rather than strong logical deduction.

SageofLodoss
03-18-2015, 01:31 PM
Because Infernals said so. That is the most logical answer that can be provided. Many of the rules decisions in this game rely simply upon "because Infernals said so" rather than strong logical deduction.

Keep in mind that a lot of these decisions are delivered by the Infernals, but they are not the ones who made that decision. The Infernals consult with the dev team and designers (that's what it means when they write "Checking..."). The ruling on Electro Leap and its similar brethren was one that took a long time (I think at least a year, if not more), so it was not a kneejerk decision.

And if you want to blame anything for a perceived lack of logical deduction, it would be the forces books tactical tips. Those are considered hard rules and they said Electro Leaps were not attacks.

eKraye
03-18-2015, 01:36 PM
Again, lightning generator is not electro leap, it is specifically the ability of a weapon. If there is an infernal ruling saying otherwise - please link it but do not get snappy towards me.

Edit: I need to be able to provide a ruling in tournaments since it is such a flip floppy rule understanding. So far as i know, there is currently not one.

SageofLodoss
03-18-2015, 01:45 PM
Again, lightning generator is not electro leap, it is specifically the ability of a weapon. If there is an infernal ruling saying otherwise - please link it but do not get snappy towards me.

Edit: I need to be able to provide a ruling in tournaments since it is such a flip floppy rule understanding. So far as i know, there is currently not one.

Lightning Generator is also covered in its own rulebook entries stating that it is not from an attack.

https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?218989-Firepower-objective-and-storm-tower-s-lightning-generator&highlight=Lightning+Generator

See this thread, which reiterates it in regard to the fact that the objective which boosts ranged attack damage rolls of artillery does not boost the lightning generator damage rolls from the Storm Tower.

Syas
03-18-2015, 03:47 PM
Again, lightning generator is not electro leap, it is specifically the ability of a weapon. If there is an infernal ruling saying otherwise - please link it but do not get snappy towards me.

Edit: I need to be able to provide a ruling in tournaments since it is such a flip floppy rule understanding. So far as i know, there is currently not one.

Infernal said so is the be all end all of explanation, refer them to the quote provided.

eKraye
03-18-2015, 05:15 PM
Infernal said so is the be all end all of explanation, refer them to the quote provided.

Thank you for your valuable input.

Syas
03-18-2015, 08:09 PM
Thank you for your valuable input.

You can probably dial back the sarcasm a little, the truth is (as others have said), the reasoning on why they designed these rules different is irrelevant to the fact that they were designed different. They are different rules, which have similar thematic effects, but differ in rules application.

How these rules differ have been explained and validated by an Infernal.

So I will say it again, "Infernal said so" is the be all end all of rules clarification, refer your players to the quote provided. Why developers designed rules certain ways have no effect on how those rules are played on the table.

Stormpuppy_Infantry
03-18-2015, 08:33 PM
First, Let me introduce your Rules team for this forum. We call them the Infernals.

Macallan
Poeticruse
Maudlin
TheUnknownMercenary
DarkLegacy

These fine soldiers of the shadow are here to answer your question and help you resolve any issues you have with the rules. Their words are official.


A sticked post is sticked because it is an announcement. In short, RTFM.

Also note that Lightning Generator and Electro Leap has same wording about its mechanism, but not with Chain Lightning. Chain Lightning itself contains both basic attack and lightning arcs parts in the same effect, but Lightning Generator and Electro Leap is seperated with the attack itself.

Juris
03-19-2015, 09:02 AM
Keep in mind that a lot of these decisions are delivered by the Infernals, but they are not the ones who made that decision. The Infernals consult with the dev team and designers (that's what it means when they write "Checking..."). The ruling on Electro Leap and its similar brethren was one that took a long time (I think at least a year, if not more), so it was not a kneejerk decision.

And if you want to blame anything for a perceived lack of logical deduction, it would be the forces books tactical tips. Those are considered hard rules and they said Electro Leaps were not attacks.

I'm not assigning blame or judging; sometimes there are decisions that need to be made that either cannot be made using logic (answer could logically be two or more things and a policy decision must be made), or must be made illogically for other reasons. I'm simply pointing out that the logic (as it relates to written rules) is not always present, and sometimes we just need to accept that instead of trying to understand the why of a rules decision.