Actually that post was in response to rigeld's query. I kinda took to long to type and verify page numbers, that you and DoW were able to slip in posts before mine.

Happyjew wrote:Actually that post was in response to rigeld's query. I kinda took to long to type and verify page numbers, that you and DoW were able to slip in posts before mine.

No Problems lol.
I didnt take offense at all, and look we even have a FAQ and all that for reference now.

Icemyn wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Well they do define Attacks on page 6. There are Psychic Shooting Attacks mentioned on page 50 (which would imply that there are non-psychic shooting attacks). There is also attacking buildings on page 79.

So yes, the BRB does define attacks.

I do agree that Attacks are defined in the BGB, which is in fact my point.
ZWC is not a psychic shooting attack.
From the 40k Rulebook FAQ:

Q: What psychic powers count as psychic shooting
attacks? (p50)
A: Any psychic power with a profile like that of a
ranged weapon (i.e. has a range, strength and AP
value) and any psychic power that specifically states
that it is a psychic shooting attack.

Fair enough - I withdraw my support for St. C standing back up after squigging.

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Well they do define Attacks on page 6. There are Psychic Shooting Attacks mentioned on page 50 (which would imply that there are non-psychic shooting attacks). There is also attacking buildings on page 79.

So yes, the BRB does define attacks.

I do agree that Attacks are defined in the BGB, which is in fact my point.
ZWC is not a psychic shooting attack.
From the 40k Rulebook FAQ:

Q: What psychic powers count as psychic shooting
attacks? (p50)
A: Any psychic power with a profile like that of a
ranged weapon (i.e. has a range, strength and AP
value) and any psychic power that specifically states
that it is a psychic shooting attack.

Fair enough - I withdraw my support for St. C standing back up after squigging.

This is normally where I would expect a chorus of Hallelujah, but you have a habit of changing opinions when presented with actual rules RAW evidence. Damn you Rigeldferatu for being open minded. (Not to be confused with Nosfereld)

Icemyn wrote:Damn you Rigeldferatu for being open minded. (Not to be confused with Nosfereld)

Sorry about that. And next time I post in this thread I'll apologize with my other persona as well.

Well now st.c can run off the table and be run down. Good with the bad i guess.

The FAQ is all well and good for PSA's.

Take the Tyranid Psychic Power Aura of despair. It lowers enemy LD values. how is that not an attack?

Wait, so all we had to do was say, "umm, zwc is not an attack, so she is not rfp by an attack" and we could have ended this 10 pages ago? Well, dang.

I was thinking the same hj.

Happyjew wrote:Wait, so all we had to do was say, "umm, zwc is not an attack, so she is not rfp by an attack" and we could have ended this 10 pages ago? Well, dang.

Something that has an unfriendly effect on enemy units is an attack as well.

DeathReaper wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Wait, so all we had to do was say, "umm, zwc is not an attack, so she is not rfp by an attack" and we could have ended this 10 pages ago? Well, dang.

Something that has an unfriendly effect on enemy units is an attack as well.

We have to play the game within the confines of the rules. The rules have definitions of what an attack is, close combat attack, Shooting attack, psychic shooting attack, and even psychic close combat attacks(Purifying Flame). While what you are saying is fine in english it is not for RAW. There are several instances where this is true that I am sure you know of so I won't list them here as it would be arbitrary in any case.

Stretching to apply RFP to replace is one thing as replace nor RFP is truly defined. In this instance Attack is clearly defined for all phases even movement (See: Necron CCB). As such this is not a case where you can take the english meaning as there exists a fully functioning RAW meaning.

The rules do not define everything.

Unless you can find a definition for "successful" or "Immune" in the BRB

Some things we have to use plain English to define as the book does not.

DeathReaper wrote:The rules do not define everything.

Unless you can find a definition for "successful" or "Immune" in the BRB

Some things we have to use plain English to define as the book does not.

Correct they do not define everything. But in this case Attack is defined and truly it is defined very well for GW standards. Some times you have to use plain English for a definition, this is not one of those times.

Attack is defined, but not attack. (Actually attack has several different definitions.)

DeathReaper wrote:Attack is defined, but not attack.

I can't tell if serious or not.
If you are I can point you to many pages of the BGB where attack is defined.
Under PSA's, Under IC's, etc etc. If you are serious you have to see the stretch you are making.

Edit for your Edit: That is correct attack has several different definitions for each different scenario PSA, SA, CCA, PCCA etc. It is a very well defined thing in the BGB ZWC does not fall into any of the definitions. This is not free reign to create your own.

It still stands that the rules do not define every instance of everything.

Note my "find a definition for "successful" or "Immune" in the BRB" example.

DeathReaper wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Wait, so all we had to do was say, "umm, zwc is not an attack, so she is not rfp by an attack" and we could have ended this 10 pages ago? Well, dang.

Something that has an unfriendly effect on enemy units is an attack as well.

It's an unfriendly act, to be sure.
But since the BRB defines attack (even in a limited sense) IMO its unreasonable to apply a plain English definition to the word "attack" in the FAQ.