DoG says you can use a weapon carried.
Psychic shooting attacks say you can use them instead of firing with a normal weapon.
I know of no other relevant info.
Is it possible?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it is a melee weapon that has to be used, so whichever model attacks, you use their strength. I think this is also modified by a powerfist.
I can't think of any melee-style (if that is the correct term) Physic Powers, but I don't think they could be used, as they are powers rather than weapons.
Of course, I might be talking total , you'd best get someone else's opinion here.
rigeld2 wrote:PSAs are not shooting attacks.
You can't DoG with a Warp Lance from a Zoanthrope.
Psychic Shooting Attacks are not shooting attacks?
That's news to me. So I guess you don't have to roll to hit with them, you don't get cover from them and you can fire another weapon if you use one (so long as the power doesn't exclude using another weapon)?
Agree with Nos here. You can use a PSA to DoG just like you could a meltagun. It's more dangerous, even. You have to pass your Psychic Test, then roll to hit - more chance of getting squashed.
PSAs are Psychic Shooting Attacks.
DoG specifies, and I quote, "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades."
Please elaborate on how a PSA fits the requirement of being a "weapon carried by the model".
rigeld2 wrote:PSAs are Psychic Shooting Attacks.
DoG specifies, and I quote, "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades."
Please elaborate on how a PSA fits the requirement of being a "weapon carried by the model".
That's a different argument than "PSAs are not shooting attacks."
rigeld2 wrote:PSAs are Psychic Shooting Attacks.
DoG specifies, and I quote, "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades."
Please elaborate on how a PSA fits the requirement of being a "weapon carried by the model".
That's a different argument than "PSAs are not shooting attacks."
Well, they aren't. They're PSAs. PSAs are required to follow the same rules as shooting attacks (with some additional restrictions), but they are not shooting attacks.
Shooting attack is the General term for all ranged attacks in 40k. PSA is a subset of shooting attacks much like ramming is a subset of tankshock.
That aside the wording of a "weapon carried by the model" would trump using a PSA unless there is wording in PSA's rules that states it counts as shooting the weapon. I know there is rules someplace what have wording to the nature of PSA replacing your weapon, but I do not have my BRB on me today.
rigeld2 wrote:
Well, they aren't. They're PSAs. PSAs are required to follow the same rules as shooting attacks (with some additional restrictions), but they are not shooting attacks.
I would argue that Psychic Shooting Attacks are a subset of shooting attacks, just like Jetbikes are a subset of Bikes and Jet Pack infantry are a subset of Jump Infantry.
However, this is getting OT. The real question is, is "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon..." (BRB, pg. 50) enough to qualify it for DoG?
puma713 wrote: The real question is, is "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon..." (BRB, pg. 50) enough to qualify it for DoG?
IMO yes - and it's extra risky since you have to pass your psychic test first. As long as we both agree that the model gets squashed both if he fails the test and if his attack fails to stop the vehicle I'm all game.
puma713 wrote: The real question is, is "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon..." (BRB, pg. 50) enough to qualify it for DoG?
IMO yes - and it's extra risky since you have to pass your psychic test first. As long as we both agree that the model gets squashed both if he fails the test and if his attack fails to stop the vehicle I'm all game.
I don't think you could play it any other way. And I'm with you. If someone wanted to stand their zoanthrope up and try to Lance my Wave Serpent, then I'm for it. I am not going to deny him that because the Zoanthrope is not "carrying" his Warp Lance.
rigeld2 wrote:
Well, they aren't. They're PSAs. PSAs are required to follow the same rules as shooting attacks (with some additional restrictions), but they are not shooting attacks.
I would argue that Psychic Shooting Attacks are a subset of shooting attacks, just like Jetbikes are a subset of Bikes and Jet Pack infantry are a subset of Jump Infantry.
However, this is getting OT. The real question is, is "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon..." (BRB, pg. 50) enough to qualify it for DoG?
Thanks for the rules quote, I think that one makes it rather clear that, yes, you can use a PSA on DoG.
I tank shock your Farseer. You choose to DoG with him and use Eldritch Storm on it. You fail to damage the tank, but you do spin the tank to face at a right angle to the Farseer (so that the Farseer no longer will ever be under the path of the tank).
Since Tank Shock requires you to move in a straight line without turning, what happens?
A) The Farseer is saved and the tank continues on its new path.
B) The Farseer dies and the tank continues on its old patch, but just facing to the side.
C) The Farseer dies and the tank continues on its new path.
rigeld2 wrote:
Well, they aren't. They're PSAs. PSAs are required to follow the same rules as shooting attacks (with some additional restrictions), but they are not shooting attacks.
I would argue that Psychic Shooting Attacks are a subset of shooting attacks, just like Jetbikes are a subset of Bikes and Jet Pack infantry are a subset of Jump Infantry.
However, this is getting OT. The real question is, is "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon..." (BRB, pg. 50) enough to qualify it for DoG?
Is that "shot from a weapon that is carried by the model"?
If I were a TO, I would say that the Farseer is killed and the tank continues on its original path, then spins at the end of the tank shock.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:
Is that "shot from a weapon that is carried by the model"?
puma713 wrote: I am not going to deny him that because the Zoanthrope is not "carrying" his Warp Lance.
I would imagine I would get some disgruntled looks and a few whispered "TFGs", if I were to suggest that because the Zoanthrope isn't actually "carrying" its Warp Lance, it cannot use it, even though shooting it counts as a firing a ranged weapon (a ranged weapon that it must be carrying, since all "ranged weapons" are carried in one form or another).
I'd allow it, only because you first have to pass your test. Then you have to roll off against my hood (or worse a SW dude with the staff that blocks you on a 4+). Then you have to roll a punch. Then you have to roll high enough to immobilize the vehicle.
Thats 4 sets of rolls you have to face, failing any of them causes your Zoe to die.
Those are good odds in my favor.
rigeld2 wrote:
Is that "shot from a weapon that is carried by the model"?
puma713 wrote: I am not going to deny him that because the Zoanthrope is not "carrying" his Warp Lance.
I would imagine I would get some disgruntled looks and a few whispered "TFGs", if I were to suggest that because the Zoanthrope isn't actually "carrying" its Warp Lance, it cannot use it, even though shooting it counts as a firing a ranged weapon (a ranged weapon that it must be carrying, since all "ranged weapons" are carried in one form or another).
Speaking as a Nid player - that's exactly how I would play it, if I fielded Zoeys (ie no Warp Lance on a DoG). There's no TFG about it - the rule says that you have to be carrying the weapon.
I tank shock your Farseer. You choose to DoG with him and use Eldritch Storm on it. You fail to damage the tank, but you do spin the tank to face at a right angle to the Farseer (so that the Farseer no longer will ever be under the path of the tank).
Since Tank Shock requires you to move in a straight line without turning, what happens?
A) The Farseer is saved and the tank continues on its new path.
B) The Farseer dies and the tank continues on its old patch, but just facing to the side.
C) The Farseer dies and the tank continues on its new path.
D) Something I haven't thought of.
D)
Eldritch Storm is a "psychic power used in the shooting phase instead of firing a weapon" whereas Tank Shocks are attempted in the movement phase (unless you consider Star Engine movement as being allowed to Tank Shock, but that's the only exception I can think of) or whenever the Tank is able to move normally, and not many tanks can move normally in the Shooting Phase. The same goes for the Destructor Warlock power. Doombolt, Wind of Chaos, Nurgle's Rot, and Bolt of Change from C: CSM are also used in the Shooting phase, as is everything pre-5th Edition I think, as C: SM has no such restriction on its PSAs, although Ork powers are also used in the Shooting Phase (regardless of the power used, however).
rigeld2 wrote:
Speaking as a Nid player - that's exactly how I would play it, if I fielded Zoeys (ie no Warp Lance on a DoG). There's no TFG about it - the rule says that you have to be carrying the weapon.
Strict RAW is a dangerous road to follow.
Space marine characters (like Ko'Sarro Khan) can be mounted on a bike and then embark in a Land Raider, because taking a bike in the SM Codex doesn't change your unit type. It simply says that the model follows the rules for bikes and the rules for bikes don't include anything about your unit type. The ability to embark is dependant upon your unit type, nothing more.
So, you'd allow me to mount Ko'Sarro Khan and his buddies on bikes and put them in a LR?
rigeld2 wrote:
Speaking as a Nid player - that's exactly how I would play it, if I fielded Zoeys (ie no Warp Lance on a DoG). There's no TFG about it - the rule says that you have to be carrying the weapon.
Strict RAW is a dangerous road to follow.
Space marine characters (like Ko'Sarro Khan) can be mounted on a bike and then embark in a Land Raider, because taking a bike in the SM Codex doesn't change your unit type. It simply says that the model follows the rules for bikes and the rules for bikes don't include anything about your unit type. The ability to embark is dependant upon your unit type, nothing more.
So, you'd allow me to mount Ko'Sarro Khan and his buddies on bikes and put them in a LR?
Page 100 SM codex.
"Models equipped with Space Marine bikes follow all the rules for bikes as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."
Page 66 BRB.
"Only infantry models may embark in transports (it is worth noting that this does not include jump infantry), unless a Codex book states otherwise."
Since following the rules for bikes means you're following a unit type that is not infantry, you don't embark.
"Models equipped with Space Marine bikes follow all the rules for bikes as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."
Page 66 BRB.
"Only infantry models may embark in transports (it is worth noting that this does not include jump infantry), unless a Codex book states otherwise."
Since following the rules for bikes means you're following a unit type that is not infantry, you don't embark.
Just because I am following the rules for a unit does not change the unit type. Kor'sorra Khan is an Infantry model, even with his bike. Taking his bike does not change the fact that he is an infantry model - he is an infantry model that follows the rules for bikes. I am following the movement rules for Jump Infantry with a Chaos Lord with wings, but it does not change my unit type from Monstrous Creature to Jump Infantry. In fact, when unit types are changed, codices are very explicit to let you know (Grey Knight Interceptors).
This is not the point though. I can dig up the old RAW Silliness thread if you like, but the point still stands - strict RAW without the use of logic to parse it is dangerous and can lead to issues. Put in a bit of complex thinking (because a unit can use something that counts as a ranged weapon, they would be able to use it just like someone that is holding their ranged weapon) and all the RAW silliness goes away.
Is a psychic power a weapon or wargear? I don't think so. If the rule states "a weapon" wouldn't it stand to reason that a psychic power is not w weapon?
rigeld2 wrote:
Well, they aren't. They're PSAs. PSAs are required to follow the same rules as shooting attacks (with some additional restrictions), but they are not shooting attacks.
I would argue that Psychic Shooting Attacks are a subset of shooting attacks, just like Jetbikes are a subset of Bikes and Jet Pack infantry are a subset of Jump Infantry.
However, this is getting OT. The real question is, is "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon..." (BRB, pg. 50) enough to qualify it for DoG?
Is that "shot from a weapon that is carried by the model"?
Depends on how you define 'carried'. It DOES count as a weapon, and it is definitely attached to the model, so I would say that yes, it does count as a 'shot from a weapon that is carried by the model'.
If someone had, for some odd reason, converted a Space Marine with a meltagun so that the model appeared to be juggling the weapon, and mounted it on a piece of wire so that no part of the weapon was touching any part of the Space Marine, would he be allowed to fire it in a DoG attempt despite the fact that the model was not, technically, 'carrying' the weapon?
If yes, then you can use a PSA in a DoG attempt; it counts as firing a weapon per the PSA rules, and the model has the ability to use it in exactly the same way as a Space Marine with a meltagun has the ability to use a meltagun.
If no, then we'll have to agree to disagree, because GW has never defined 'carrying' as far as I know.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Is a psychic power a weapon or wargear? I don't think so. If the rule states "a weapon" wouldn't it stand to reason that a psychic power is not w weapon?
puma713 wrote: "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon..." (BRB, pg. 50)
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Is a psychic power a weapon or wargear? I don't think so. If the rule states "a weapon" wouldn't it stand to reason that a psychic power is not w weapon?
puma713 wrote: "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon..." (BRB, pg. 50)
"counts as firing a ranged weapon" does not look the same as "weapon carried" as the rulebook says...
nosferatu1001 wrote:Saying you cannot use the psychic power because it is normally a shooting phase power denies you using any shooting weapon. So that argument is wrong.
Of course it is. That's not the argument I'm using.
And yes, pure RAW can and does cause silliness. I don't see that as an issue in this scenario.
There are some fairly significant differences between a PSA and a normal shooting attack - the largest of which is the fact that PSAs need the psychic test.
I absolutely understand the other side of the argument. I disagree with it, and without a FAQ (which will in all likelihood not happen if 6th really is due out soon) we'd have to 4+ or TO rule it.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Saying you cannot use the psychic power because it is normally a shooting phase power denies you using any shooting weapon. So that argument is wrong.
I don't see how, at least for powers that specify that they must be used in the shooting phase.
DoG allows you to use a ranged weapon that the model is carrying to make the attack, if we assume that includes psychic powers, then Blood Lance and similar powers happen as normal, since they simply count as firing a ranged weapon.
However, powers like Eldritch Storm can only be used in the Shooting Phase, meaning that you cannot take the psychic test required to use the power if you are in any other phase. How does that stop you using any shooting weapon?
You are given express permission to use a shooting weapon by the DoG rule, however nothing gives you permission to ignore any other rules the weapon itself carries. If you tank shocked a unit carrying a weapon that had a minimum range of 24", for example (yes, it doesn't exist, but it's a hypothetical situation), from under 24", would they be able to use that weapon to DoG with, even though the shocking vehicle is within its minimum range?
DoG allows the use of a ranged weapon carried by the model, it does not remove any further restrictions that this weapon may have. Blood Lance and Living Lightning and other such powers simply count as firing a ranged weapon, they have no other restrictions apart from needing LoS, being in range, and being out of combat; Eldritch Storm and Bolt of Change, on the other hand, require it to be the Shooting Phase before you can take the psychic test to cast them, and DoG does not give you permission to take a psychic test there and then (it doesn't matter for Blood Lance if we assume it can be used, since it has no phase restriction) in the same way that it allows you to fire a weapon there and then.
Before you can fire Bolt of Change, you must first pass a psychic test, and to take the test, you must be in the shooting phase; you are not in the shooting phase, so the test may not be taken, and without the test you do not have a ranged weapon to use.
DOG: "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades."
Let s consider why GW used the repeated and distinct language of 'any weapon carried', as opposed to 'any weapon'. Was the purpose to include Pistols or some such other weapon possibly not modeled? Probably not. To prevent somebody from dropping an Orbital Bombardment on the vehicle? Maybe. Or perhaps to prevent players from inferring that 'any weapon' would mean even one they did not possess but carried by another model in the Squad that was not in the path of the Tank Shock? I suspect this, but it is only RAI.
Now let's look at the non-binary meaning of 'any weapon carried'. Can a model carry an Orbital Bombardment? Does it carry a Psychic ability?
Here we have to use our individual, colloquial, and etymological resources to determine what it means for a plastic model to carry something as intangible as a Psychic Ability written down as facts and figures on a Codex page.
Let s consider why GW used the repeated and distinct language of 'any weapon carried', as opposed to 'any weapon'.
I have considered it, and made a short list of answers that spring to mind;
1. Because it was written on a Thursday. 2. Because Jodie Fosters dog told the games designer to say it. 3. Because of the inherent splongoyf included in the protracted mafulf. 4. Because GW doesn't give a flying sod about the use of consistent language in their rules. 5. Profit?? 6. There is no number six. 7. Consider it considered and discarded as an argument. 8. Because GW intended to discard PSA as a viable option during DoG.
Take a pick, throw a die or consult an oracle. In my opinion each are equally as likely to provide you wiht the correct answer.
Ghenghis Jon wrote:DOG: "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades."
Let s consider why GW used the repeated and distinct language of 'any weapon carried', as opposed to 'any weapon'. Was the purpose to include Pistols or some such other weapon possibly not modeled? Probably not. To prevent somebody from dropping an Orbital Bombardment on the vehicle? Maybe. Or perhaps to prevent players from inferring that 'any weapon' would mean even one they did not possess but carried by another model in the Squad that was not in the path of the Tank Shock? I suspect this, but it is only RAI.
Now let's look at the non-binary meaning of 'any weapon carried'. Can a model carry an Orbital Bombardment? Does it carry a Psychic ability?
Here we have to use our individual, colloquial, and etymological resources to determine what it means for a plastic model to carry something as intangible as a Psychic Ability written down as facts and figures on a Codex page.
I think this used to be a fun game.
And to go farther, if they wanted it to be allowed, they'd have stated "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, Psychic attack or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades." . IMHO anyway. I think it was omitted for a reason.
Avatar - shooting weapons only have permission to be used in the shooting phase. Your intepretation makes you unable to use shooting attacks, or making any close combat attacks, because TS occurs in the movement phase.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Avatar - shooting weapons only have permission to be used in the shooting phase. Your intepretation makes you unable to use shooting attacks, or making any close combat attacks, because TS occurs in the movement phase.
Except there's explicit permission to shoot or use a close combat attack for DoG. There is no over-ride of a Shooting phase requirement for psychic powers.
Note that while some PSAs also require that they are used in the shooting phase, not all do, so is argument does not apply to all PSAs.
Right. And for psa's that's do not require the shooting phase, that's enough. For those that additionally require the shooting phase it isn't.
Also, DoG doesn't specify psychic attacks. What if you have an assault 2 psa? Do you get both shots - because the DoG rules talk about assault weapons, not assault attacks.
rigeld2 wrote:
Also, DoG doesn't specify psychic attacks. What if you have an assault 2 psa? Do you get both shots - because the DoG rules talk about assault weapons, not assault attacks.
You keep making a huge distinction between Psychic Shooting Attacks and Shooting Attacks. One is a subset of the other. In fact, the BRB goes on to describe how much they're alike. All from page 50:
Psychic powers that take the form of shooting attacks are very common.
Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon (an assault weapon, unless specified otherwise).
Even if a psyker has a special rule allowing him to use more than one psychic power per turn, he can only use one psychic shooting attack (as models can fire only one ranged weapon per turn.)
There are even more ways that a Psychic Shooting Attacks act exactly like a shooting attack (being able to assault the unit you shot at, not having run being a pre-requisite to firing, etc.).
So, what if you had a DoG Plasma Gun shot? How would you resolve that? Or doing DoG with an Autocannon? That's exactly the same way you'd resolve an Assault 2 PSA, since the only distinction is that one requires a Psychic Test, and one does not.
rigeld2 wrote:
Also, DoG doesn't specify psychic attacks. What if you have an assault 2 psa? Do you get both shots - because the DoG rules talk about assault weapons, not assault attacks.
You keep making a huge distinction between Psychic Shooting Attacks and Shooting Attacks. One is a subset of the other. In fact, the BRB goes on to describe how much they're alike.
Yes - they're very much alike. I never said otherwise. PSAs rely on SA rules to work.
Jump Infantry are a subset of Infantry, but there are places Infantry can do things Jump Infantry cannot (like embarking without Codex allowance).
PSAs are a subset of SAs, but there are things SAs can do that PSAs cannot.
Note that the DoG rules talk about a shooting weapon not a shooting attack. The difference there is important.
No, because that would be 2 "hits", not the one you are allowed
So PSAs are weapons? Could you cite a reference for that? I'm not being facetious - I'd really like to know, as that would clinch the argument in your favor.
And to go farther, if they wanted it to be allowed, they'd have stated "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, Psychic attack or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades." . IMHO anyway. I think it was omitted for a reason.
History has shown that GW often doesn't write what it means nor mean what it does write...
And to go farther, if they wanted it to be allowed, they'd have stated "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, Psychic attack or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades." . IMHO anyway. I think it was omitted for a reason.
History has shown that GW often doesn't write what it means nor mean what it does write...
I know. it was foolish of me to say. but sometimes common sense takes over in a world it has no place.
rigeld2 wrote:
So PSAs are weapons? Could you cite a reference for that? I'm not being facetious - I'd really like to know, as that would clinch the argument in your favor.
puma713 wrote:
Even if a psyker has a special rule allowing him to use more than one psychic power per turn, he can only use one psychic shooting attack (as models can fire only one ranged weapon per turn.)[
Why would this matter, if a psychic shooting attack didn't count as a ranged weapon? This is to say that a psychic shooting attack is the same as a weapon. We both already knew that using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon. But the power itself doesn't "count" as a ranged weapon?
If it walks like a dog, and talks like a dog and smells like a dog, it's a cat, huh?
puma713 wrote:Why would this matter, if a psychic shooting attack didn't count as a ranged weapon? This is to say that a psychic shooting attack is the same as a weapon. We both already knew that using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon. But the power itself doesn't "count" as a ranged weapon?
Using a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon. That sentence clarifies that you can only "replace" firing a ranged weapon once per turn (normally). I don't see a single sentence, anywhere, that says a PSA counts as a ranged weapon - just the usage of.
If it walks like a dog, and talks like a dog and smells like a dog, it's a cat, huh?
Excuse me? I've never said that a PSA and a ranged attack are completely different. Please stop alluding to the fact that I have, or quote where I did so I can edit and apologize.
Personal attacks are against Dakka Rule Number One. Keep the argument to your points and leave the name-calling out of it. Thanks! ~Manchu (edited out the inflammatory comment)
alarmingrick wrote:And to go farther, if they wanted it to be allowed, they'd have stated "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, Psychic attack or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades." . IMHO anyway. I think it was omitted for a reason.
If it walks like a dog, and talks like a dog and smells like a dog, it's a cat, huh?
Excuse me? I've never said that a PSA and a ranged attack are completely different. Please stop alluding to the fact that I have, or quote where I did so I can edit and apologize. Please quit being a dick.
Aww, did you get your feelings hurt? Welcome to YMDC, there's a disclaimer on the door.
Flamebaiting is against Dakka Rule Number One. You don't need to anatagonize someone to argue your points or theirs. Thanks! ~Manchu
Your first post sounds almost exactly like PSA and ranged attack are different:
rigeld2 wrote:PSAs are not shooting attacks.
We can call "shooting attacks" not the same as "ranged attacks", just like we can say that a crimson crayon is not a red crayon, but then we're getting into the RAW silliness again, and you said something about you not subscribing to that.
rigeld2 wrote:
puma713 wrote:Why would this matter, if a psychic shooting attack didn't count as a ranged weapon? This is to say that a psychic shooting attack is the same as a weapon. We both already knew that using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon. But the power itself doesn't "count" as a ranged weapon?
Using a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon. That sentence clarifies that you can only "replace" firing a ranged weapon once per turn (normally). I don't see a single sentence, anywhere, that says a PSA counts as a ranged weapon - just the usage of.
That was the point of the dog/cat comment. So, using a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon. If you use a PSA, you must assault the same unit you shot at, just like a ranged weapon. If you have used a PSA, you may not choose to shoot any OTHER ranged weapon because a model may only fire 1 ranged weapon a turn (why would they call it a ranged weapon, if it wasn't one?), if you ran, you cannot fire a PSA just like a ranged weapon. You must have LOS to fire it, just like a ranged weapon and you cannot be locked in combat. Even in the first sentence of the paragraph, it says, "Psychic powers that take the form SHOOTING ATTACKS are very common." (this is them calling a PSA a simple "shooting attack").
Now, it never says that they're a "ranged weapon", but it needs to? This is where the RAW silliness comes in to play. The deployment rules refer to a model with the 'Scout' rule - but there is no 'Scout' rule. There's a 'Scouts' rule. Do you make sure that none of your opponents can 'scout' because it is not RAW? Eldar Phoenix Lords are never referred to as Exarchs, but their powers require them to be an 'Exarch' to use them. Does this mean that all Eldar Phoenix Lord powers are useless?
You had a better argument when you were talking about them having to have "carried" it.
DeathReaper wrote:
Using a PSA is not a "shot from a weapon carried by the model"
Uh oh. All those models who merely have their weapons attached to them are going to be in trouble. Most models I've seen don't articulate any kind of hand/arm action that allows the model to carry something. Usually it's just glued to them.
puma713 wrote:Your first post sounds almost exactly like PSA and ranged attack are different:
rigeld2 wrote:PSAs are not shooting attacks.
We can call "shooting attacks" not the same as "ranged attacks", just like we can say that a crimson crayon is not a red crayon, but then we're getting into the RAW silliness again, and you said something about you not subscribing to that.
PSAs are absolutely not simply Shooting Attacks. Shooting Attacks are defined in the rules. Psychic Shooting Attacks are also defined in the rules.
PSAs are a subset of SAs. All PSAs follow SA rules, but not all SAs follow PSA rules. Jump Infantry are a subset of Infantry. All Jump Infantry follow Infantry rules, but not all Infantry rules apply to Jump Infantry.
Or do you allow JI to embark in Rhinos, contrary to what the rules require?
rigeld2 wrote:Using a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon. That sentence clarifies that you can only "replace" firing a ranged weapon once per turn (normally). I don't see a single sentence, anywhere, that says a PSA counts as a ranged weapon - just the usage of.
Even in the first sentence of the paragraph, it says, "Psychic powers that take the form SHOOTING ATTACKS are very common." (this is them calling a PSA a simple "shooting attack").
If it was a simple shooting attack, it would follow all the SA rules - and not add additional requirements, like, I dunno... the requirement to roll a psychic test? A PSA is not a SA. Jump Infantry are not Infantry. I'm not sure why you disagree with those statements.
Now, it never says that they're a "ranged weapon", but it needs to? This is where the RAW silliness comes in to play. The deployment rules refer to a model with the 'Scout' rule - but there is no 'Scout' rule. There's a 'Scouts' rule. Do you make sure that none of your opponents can 'scout' because it is not RAW? Eldar Phoenix Lords are never referred to as Exarchs, but their powers require them to be an 'Exarch' to use them. Does this mean that all Eldar Phoenix Lord powers are useless?
Is Scout defined in the rules? No? Then falling back on the Scouts USR is fine. Shooting Attacks are defined in the rules. PSAs are defined in the rules. They are, by definition, not the same thing. They are extremely similar. As far as Exarchs - I don't have the codex, but it likely falls into the similar issues that the Nid codex has - Doom, Deathleaper, Old One Eye... those were FAQed to work, but it was pretty obvious that anyone arguing otherwise was trolling.
I don't see how those comparisons are similar. The Scout/Scounts, Doom/Deathleaper/OOE/Exarch are vague/silly GW writing. I cannot agree, however, that PSAs not beeing the same thing as SAs are vague/silly writing. They are not the same thing.
PSAs are a subset of SAs. All PSAs follow SA rules, but not all SAs follow PSA rules.
Jump Infantry are a subset of Infantry. All Jump Infantry follow Infantry rules, but not all Infantry rules apply to Jump Infantry.
Or do you allow JI to embark in Rhinos, contrary to what the rules require?
No. Jump Infantry are NOT a subcategory of Infantry, any more than Bikes or Monstrous Creatures or Cavalry are; they are an entirely different Unit Type. Both Infantry and Jump Infantry are subcategories of the general categories 'models' and 'units', but they are both at the same level on the hierarchy.
PSAs, by contrast, are a subcategory of Shooting Attacks, which we know because they 'count as firing a ranged weapon'; which means that, yes, if something gives you permission to use a Shooting Attack it is ALSO giving you permission to use a PSA UNLESS it specifically exempts them. There is no specific exemption in the DoG rules which would forbid you from using a PSA; therefore, PSAs may be used in a DoG attempt.
puma713 wrote:Your first post sounds almost exactly like PSA and ranged attack are different:
rigeld2 wrote:PSAs are not shooting attacks.
We can call "shooting attacks" not the same as "ranged attacks", just like we can say that a crimson crayon is not a red crayon, but then we're getting into the RAW silliness again, and you said something about you not subscribing to that.
PSAs are absolutely not simply Shooting Attacks.
Shooting Attacks are defined in the rules.
Psychic Shooting Attacks are also defined in the rules.
PSAs are a subset of SAs. All PSAs follow SA rules, but not all SAs follow PSA rules.
Okay? This makes them 'not-shooting attacks'? All PSA's are shooting attacks (the rulebook even references this), but not all shooting attacks are PSA's. Not all shooting attacks have to be PSA's for this to matter. All that matters is that all PSA's are shooting attacks.
rigeld2 wrote:Jump Infantry are a subset of Infantry. All Jump Infantry follow Infantry rules, but not all Infantry rules apply to Jump Infantry.
Or do you allow JI to embark in Rhinos, contrary to what the rules require?
No, because Jump Infantry are not a subset of Infantry. They are their own unit type. However, jetbikes are a subset of bike and being a Jetbike doesn't stop a model from being a subset of Bike. GW even acknowledges this:
Q. If the unit type that a Wolf Priestʼs Oath of War affects
is declared to be Bikes, does the unit gain the benefit
against Jetbikes, and vice versa? (p35)
A. Yes, because Jetbikes is a subcategory of the ʻBikeʼ unit
type. Similarly, ʻBeasts & Cavalryʼ are the same unit type,
and ʻJet Packsʼ are a subcategory of the ʻJump Infantryʼ
unit type. A Wolf Priest that has sworn his oath against one
will still get the benefit of the oath against the other.
rigeld2 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:Using a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon. That sentence clarifies that you can only "replace" firing a ranged weapon once per turn (normally). I don't see a single sentence, anywhere, that says a PSA counts as a ranged weapon - just the usage of.
Even in the first sentence of the paragraph, it says, "Psychic powers that take the form SHOOTING ATTACKS are very common." (this is them calling a PSA a simple "shooting attack").
If it was a simple shooting attack, it would follow all the SA rules - and not add additional requirements, like, I dunno... the requirement to roll a psychic test?
A PSA is not a SA. Jump Infantry are not Infantry. I'm not sure why you disagree with those statements.
And you contradicted yourself here, in two separate statements. Jebtikes are bikes just like PSA's are shooting attacks. You wouldn't know how a PSA functions without the shooting attack rules. Just because something has an additional rule to clarify it, doesn't make it stop becoming its derivative.
rigeld2 wrote:
Now, it never says that they're a "ranged weapon", but it needs to? This is where the RAW silliness comes in to play. The deployment rules refer to a model with the 'Scout' rule - but there is no 'Scout' rule. There's a 'Scouts' rule. Do you make sure that none of your opponents can 'scout' because it is not RAW? Eldar Phoenix Lords are never referred to as Exarchs, but their powers require them to be an 'Exarch' to use them. Does this mean that all Eldar Phoenix Lord powers are useless?
Is Scout defined in the rules? No? Then falling back on the Scouts USR is fine.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Now you're making an assumption. Show me where in the rules it says that you can do this. Give me a page number that tells me that if I can't find a rule, I can substitute another similar rule for it. You won't, but you're asking for that kind of detail in regard to shooting attacks.
rigeld2 wrote: Shooting Attacks are defined in the rules. PSAs are defined in the rules. They are, by definition, not the same thing.
Again, just like a red crayon and a crimson crayon "aren't the same thing". But you wouldn't know how a PSA functions without the shooting attack rules. It is very clearly a shooting attack. But it is a shooting attack with additional rules. Just because a weapon may have additional rules in its codex entry, does it stop becoming a shooting attack because those exact rules aren't outlined in the BRB?
If a model has a psychic shooting attack, and it counts for the model having fired a ranged weapon then doesn't it fit the requirements for DoG? Or are we really hung up on the carried? Because I am not sure that anyone could really say that PSAs dont work because they aren't carried in the hands of the model. What about servitors? Some of their models have their weapons mounted on their shoulders. That would mean that they wouldn't work. Psychic attacks are carried by the psyker in one way or another. Whether that means they physically manifest in its mind or whether there is a device lodged in their brain that allows them to take in the energy around them and throw it.
gpfunk wrote:If a model has a psychic shooting attack, and it counts for the model having fired a ranged weapon then doesn't it fit the requirements for DoG? Or are we really hung up on the carried? Because I am not sure that anyone could really say that PSAs dont work because they aren't carried in the hands of the model. What about servitors? Some of their models have their weapons mounted on their shoulders. That would mean that they wouldn't work. Psychic attacks are carried by the psyker in one way or another. Whether that means they physically manifest in its mind or whether there is a device lodged in their brain that allows them to take in the energy around them and throw it.
My two pence.
rigeld2 wrote:I'll concede. Thanks for the discussion.
gpfunk wrote:If a model has a psychic shooting attack, and it counts for the model having fired a ranged weapon then doesn't it fit the requirements for DoG? Or are we really hung up on the carried? Because I am not sure that anyone could really say that PSAs dont work because they aren't carried in the hands of the model. What about servitors? Some of their models have their weapons mounted on their shoulders. That would mean that they wouldn't work. Psychic attacks are carried by the psyker in one way or another. Whether that means they physically manifest in its mind or whether there is a device lodged in their brain that allows them to take in the energy around them and throw it.
My two pence.
rigeld2 wrote:I'll concede. Thanks for the discussion.
rigeld2 wrote:I'll concede. Thanks for the discussion.
Its a thread buddy. I was addressing the thread.
And most of the thread was me arguing exactly those points you brought up. If you'd like to address someone else's arguments, please quote them and debate.
alarmingrick wrote:And to go farther, if they wanted it to be allowed, they'd have stated "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, Psychic attack or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades." . IMHO anyway. I think it was omitted for a reason.
gpfunk wrote:What about servitors? Some of their models have their weapons mounted on their shoulders. That would mean that they wouldn't work.
That is not true at all, unless you are working off of a different definition of "Carried" than everyone else.
Shoulder mounted weapons are in fact, carried by the person that has it mounted on their shoulders.
gpfunk wrote:Psychic attacks are carried by the psyker in one way or another. Whether that means they physically manifest in its mind or whether there is a device lodged in their brain that allows them to take in the energy around them and throw it.
My two pence.
A Psychic power is not a "Shot from a weapon carried by the model."
It is a Psychic power, and does not qualify for DoG
ceramice wrote:
you would have to explain to me how it comes from a weapon carried, otherwise I'm not giving it to you. Just because its a "shooting attack"
And that's what it boils down to. Your local meta and your TO.
If I tanked shocked someone, and they asked me if they could Warp Blast for DoG, I would surely allow them to. Why? Because it is a shooting attack. It might as well be a weapon they were "carrying". The only thing that does not match completely is that it is not physically carried. If I modelled a warp lance on my Zoanthrope, would you let me use it? There are plenty of other silly RAW judgements that don't rely on common sense, logic or critical thinking.
Again, there's no 'Scout' rule in the rulebook, but the Deployment rules refer to using your 'scout' rule. Do you not allow your opponents to use their 'Scouts', because GW didn't perfectly clarify what it meant to use it?
Guitardian wrote:You use it in the shooting phase, AS a shooting weapon = PSA... death or glory is not in your shooting phase. what's the problem again?
Firing a meltagun is done in the shooting phase. DoG is not in the shooting phase. Whats the problem again?
For those who say that a PSA is not carried, couldn't you say it is held in their minds? Also, a weapon does not need to be held. Look at this definition from thefreedictionary.com:
weap·on (wpn) n. 1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword. 2. Zoology A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense. The brain is an organ. 3. A means used to defend against or defeat another.
BoyMac wrote:For those who say that a PSA is not carried, couldn't you say it is held in their minds? Also, a weapon does not need to be held. Look at this definition from thefreedictionary.com:
weap·on (wpn)
n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense. The brain is an organ.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another.
The DoG rules require a weapon to be carried. So your dictionary definition, while cute, means nothing.
BoyMac wrote:For those who say that a PSA is not carried, couldn't you say it is held in their minds? Also, a weapon does not need to be held. Look at this definition from thefreedictionary.com:
weap·on (wpn)
n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense. The brain is an organ.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another.
The DoG rules require a weapon to be carried. So your dictionary definition, while cute, means nothing.
BoyMac wrote:For those who say that a PSA is not carried, couldn't you say it is held in their minds?
While your reading is cute, you didn't read my whole post.
BoyMac wrote:For those who say that a PSA is not carried, couldn't you say it is held in their minds?
While your reading is cute, you didn't read my whole post.
Actually, I did. I just didn't respond to that. You know, because you had two statements in your post?
You could say they're held in their minds, but there's no precedent for that. Unless you can find one.
<COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE text redacted - if you can't participate in a rules discussion without resorting to rude characterizations of poster's who have different view from you, then you will quickly lose the right to participate on Dakka at all --Janthkin>
rigeld2 wrote: The DoG rules require a weapon to be carried. So your dictionary definition, while cute, means nothing.
So if I model my zoey holding a Warp Lance, we're good to go?
How do you model a psychic power?
Using my imagination? It can be modelled in any sort of way. . .say a psychic construct that forms into a lance that is carried. I can come up with lots and lots of explanations why/how it could be 'manifested'.
In fact, here's an example of a Librarian Dread with a modelled psychic power. I think it was Blood Lance manifesting itself, but it could be anything I suppose:
Here is a Dark Elf from Fantasy with modelled magic. Is it so difficult to imagine a modelled psychic power?
So, since you seem to believe that a PSA is a weapon you believe then when rolling a weapon destroyed result against a librarian dread you can select one of his psychic powers to be destroyed?
Psychic power != weapon
The act of using a PSA means that you count as having fired a weapon (so that you can't fire another one) but that does not mean that the power is a weapon.
Scott-S6 wrote:
The act of using a PSA means that you count as having fired a weapon (so that you can't fire another one) but that does not mean that the power is a weapon.
But it counts as if you have fired it as a weapon...
Scott-S6 wrote:
The act of using a PSA means that you count as having fired a weapon (so that you can't fire another one) but that does not mean that the power is a weapon.
But it counts as if you have fired it as a weapon...
No it doesn't - your wording there is subtly but significantly different.
What the BRB says is "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon. So, for example, the psyker must be able to see his target" etc.
Just because a PSA is subject to the same restrictions as a range weapon does not mean that it is a ranged weapon.
Even if it did, it would still not meet the criteria of "a weapon carried by the model".
Not to mention, if we consider PSAs to be weapons then this causes all manner of problems with the rules.
- Librarian dreads can lose powers to weapon destroyed results.
- BT characters (who are limited to carrying one two-handed weapon or two single-handed weapons) will have PSAs count against the weapons that they can carry.
etc
Scott-S6 wrote:
-BT characters (who are limited to carrying one two-handed weapon or two single-handed weapons) will have PSAs count against the weapons that they can carry.
etc
Yes those pesky BT psykers who keeps on turning up everywhere
Just mentioned BT as they're now the only old-style armoury left. Regardless, throught 5th edition there have been a number of armies with weapon restrictions. Are we suggesting that having a PSA means you couldn't have a sword and a pistol? Because that would be the case if PSA's are weapons.
Scott-S6 wrote:
The act of using a PSA means that you count as having fired a weapon (so that you can't fire another one) but that does not mean that the power is a weapon.
But it counts as if you have fired it as a weapon...
No it doesn't - your wording there is subtly but significantly different.
What the BRB says is "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon. So, for example, the psyker must be able to see his target" etc.
Just because a PSA is subject to the same restrictions as a range weapon does not mean that it is a ranged weapon.
Even if it did, it would still not meet the criteria of "a weapon carried by the model".
Not to mention, if we consider PSAs to be weapons then this causes all manner of problems with the rules.
- Librarian dreads can lose powers to weapon destroyed results.
- BT characters (who are limited to carrying one two-handed weapon or two single-handed weapons) will have PSAs count against the weapons that they can carry.
etc
The issue here is not the fact that a PSA is not a weapon carried by a model, it's that there is no logic being introduced into this reading at all. We know that a PSA is not a "weapon" and it is not "carried". My example about modelling a warp lance was to show how silly this argument has gotten.
But should this exclude PSA's from DoG attacks? If you go by strict RAW, then yes, it excludes them. However, every thing in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, and you can used ranged weapons in DoG attacks. Because it is not specifically "carried" and it is not referred to as a "weapon", then you can't use them, is a bit silly, imo.
We also know that when the BRB is referring to the 'scout' rule, it is actually referring to 'Scouts', but we apply logic there. Why not here?
puma713 wrote:The issue here is not the fact that a PSA is not a weapon carried by a model, it's that there is no logic being introduced into this reading at all. We know that a PSA is not a "weapon" and it is not "carried". My example about modelling a warp lance was to show how silly this argument has gotten. But should this exclude PSA's from DoG attacks? If you go by strict RAW, then yes, it excludes them. However, every thing in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, and you can used ranged weapons in DoG attacks. Because it is not specifically "carried" and it is not referred to as a "weapon", then you can't use them, is a bit silly, imo.
So it's not a weapon and it's not carried. What in the rulebook points to them being used for DoG?
puma713 wrote:But should this exclude PSA's from DoG attacks? If you go by strict RAW, then yes, it excludes them.
Thank you for that.
However, every thing in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, and you can used ranged weapons in DoG attacks. Because it is not specifically "carried" and it is not referred to as a "weapon", then you can't use them, is a bit silly, imo.
We also know that when the BRB is referring to the 'scout' rule, it is actually referring to 'Scouts', but we apply logic there. Why not here?
Not applying Scouts to the Scout rule makes the Scouts USR useless. Not applying PSAs to DoG's does not make either DoG nor PSAs useless.
The former has the rules actually work. The latter is introducing an additional ability into the rules. If you don't allow it nothing breaks. If you do allow it, things could break.
puma713 wrote:The issue here is not the fact that a PSA is not a weapon carried by a model, it's that there is no logic being introduced into this reading at all. We know that a PSA is not a "weapon" and it is not "carried". My example about modelling a warp lance was to show how silly this argument has gotten.
But should this exclude PSA's from DoG attacks? If you go by strict RAW, then yes, it excludes them. However, every thing in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, and you can used ranged weapons in DoG attacks. Because it is not specifically "carried" and it is not referred to as a "weapon", then you can't use them, is a bit silly, imo.
So it's not a weapon and it's not carried. What in the rulebook points to them being used for DoG?
What in the rulebook points to the 'scout' USR? No such USR exists. I expect that you don't allow your opponent's to use 'Scouts'?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:
Not applying Scouts to the Scout rule makes the Scouts USR useless. Not applying PSAs to DoG's does not make either DoG nor PSAs useless.
I just pulled that example out of the hat. I could grab another one that doesn't break the game, if you like.
However, I am more than happy to admit that I see both sides of the argument. I just don't think it is as clear cut as everyone would like to think. Everyone is taking a sentence out of the rulebook and taking it as sacrosanct, as if there is no way but one to read it. But we all know that that kind of thinking can get you into trouble. However, the people defending this reading don't admit that they play by strict RAW 100% of the time, and if they don't, then they should be ready to admit that there is another way to interpret this ruling as well.
I would allow my opponents to do it. I might even ask to do it. If my opponent doesn't allow me to, I understand why. It doesn't mean I agree with it.
rigeld2 wrote:
Not applying Scouts to the Scout rule makes the Scouts USR useless. Not applying PSAs to DoG's does not make either DoG nor PSAs useless.
I just pulled that example out of the hat. I could grab another one that doesn't break the game, if you like.
Sure. And that one will probably end up as a 4+, just like DoG is.
However, I am more than happy to admit that I see both sides of the argument. I just don't think it is as clear cut as everyone would like to think. Everyone is taking a sentence out of the rulebook and taking it as sacrosanct, as if there is no way but one to read it. But we all know that that kind of thinking can get you into trouble. However, the people defending this reading don't admit that they play by strict RAW 100% of the time, and if they don't, then they should be ready to admit that there is another way to interpret this ruling as well.
I've pretty much always admitted exactly that. Should I quote where I said essentially this?
I would allow my opponents to do it. I might even ask to do it. If my opponent doesn't allow me to, I understand why. It doesn't mean I agree with it.
If my opponent attempted this (not that I have vehicles) I'd say he wasn't allowed, but offer to 4+ it if he persists.
puma713 wrote:The issue here is not the fact that a PSA is not a weapon carried by a model, it's that there is no logic being introduced into this reading at all. We know that a PSA is not a "weapon" and it is not "carried". My example about modelling a warp lance was to show how silly this argument has gotten.
But should this exclude PSA's from DoG attacks? If you go by strict RAW, then yes, it excludes them. However, every thing in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, and you can used ranged weapons in DoG attacks. Because it is not specifically "carried" and it is not referred to as a "weapon", then you can't use them, is a bit silly, imo.
So it's not a weapon and it's not carried. What in the rulebook points to them being used for DoG?
What in the rulebook points to the 'scout' USR? No such USR exists. I expect that you don't allow your opponent's to use 'Scouts'?
110% not relevant. The criteria for DoG is "a weapon carried by the model" and you've agreed that a PSA is neither carried nor a weapon. Using something as a ranged weapon does not make it a ranged weapon. Moving as jump infantry does not make an MC jump infantry, etc.
you've agreed that a PSA is neither carried nor a weapon.
By strict RAW, right. But I also said that strict RAW can be ridiculous and removes logic and critical thinking from the equation. But you didn't mention any of that. That is why the 'scouts' example is relevant, whether you understand why it is or not.
Page 2 of the 5th edition rule book says
'The most important rule then is that the rules aren’t
all that important! So long as both players agree,
you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines
– the choice is entirely yours.'
If your opponent agrees, eff it, its all good. If you are worried ask before you start playing. Its what I do.
7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.
rigeld2 wrote:Yeah, citing TMIR is completely valid in YMDC.
7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.
Oops. Guess it's not.
You do realize you can get your point across with being a complete dick, right?
I realize this is YMDC, so a being a little dickish is required.
Welcome to Dakka Riker210. Just pop into the OT for even more fun!
Riker210 wrote:All I have to say is this;'The most important rule....
You realise that you can use TMIR to respond to absolutely any rules question, clear or unclear, and it makes conversations about rules completely pointless. It adds precisely nothing to debate. Can I ask what your motivation in posting it was?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
puma713 wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:
you've agreed that a PSA is neither carried nor a weapon.
By strict RAW, right. But I also said that strict RAW can be ridiculous and removes logic and critical thinking from the equation. But you didn't mention any of that. That is why the 'scouts' example is relevant, whether you understand why it is or not.
You have stated "everything in the rulebook" points to PSAs being used for DoG. Can you actually back that up with some rules?
The Scout examples is not relevant. There you had a special rule that did not function in any many. Therefore we were forced to look for what it might have been supposed to do. There is no such issue with PSA and DoG. Neither the rulebook or any of the codexes hint that PSAs should be used for DoG. You feel that it ought to work and are trying to justify that when there is nothing in rules to suggest this application.
Are you happy with PSAs being removed from a librarian dread which suffers a weapon destroyed result? The same logic that allows PSAs to DoG allows that to happen also?
you've agreed that a PSA is neither carried nor a weapon.
By strict RAW, right. But I also said that strict RAW can be ridiculous and removes logic and critical thinking from the equation. But you didn't mention any of that. That is why the 'scouts' example is relevant, whether you understand why it is or not.
You have stated "everything in the rulebook" points to PSAs being used for DoG. Can you actually back that up with some rules?
No, I said "everything in the rulebook" points to it being a ranged attack. And that ranged attacks can be used in DoG. And I've already provided statements in this thread to support that. They're the ones that are bolded and say "ranged attack" everywhere. I can quote them if you like.
Scott-S6 wrote:The Scout examples is not relevant. There you had a special rule that did not function in any many. Therefore we were forced to look for what it might have been supposed to do. There is no such issue with PSA and DoG. Neither the rulebook or any of the codexes hint that PSAs should be used for DoG. You feel that it ought to work and are trying to justify that when there is nothing in rules to suggest this application.
Okay, apparently you're hung up on this Scouts rule. Let's see. . .how about another one.
The Rage USR doesn't work because you're not allowed to check Line of Sight in the Movement Phase. The only time you're given permission to check Line of Sight is in the Shooting Phase, when you're about to fire.
Lysander has 'Bolster Defenses', but he cannot use it, because Bolster Defenses refers to 'Techmarines'. Lysander is not a techmarine.
Ork Boarding Planks don't work if the opponent's vehicle has moved over 12" at all in the entire game, not just that turn.
I can go on and on and on, if you like, but we both know what I'm getting at. You don't play this way, I imagine. I think I would be hard-pressed to find anyone that does. Yet, these are RAW.
Now, if you don't play with these rules above, then what you're doing is assuming what the author meant and applying logic and reasoning. And if you're doing that, then you need to be prepared to accept the same sort of logic and reasoning applied to other rules, like using a ranged attack for DoG that is not defined strictly as a "weapon" and is not "carried". What you're doing is removing all critical thinking from the rule and applying RAW. The Rulebook is not the bible. The authors are flawed. Isn't there a chance, that they meant for Psychic Powers to be used for DoG, just like there's a chance that the Rage USR was supposed to work?
Scott-S6 wrote:Are you happy with PSAs being removed from a librarian dread which suffers a weapon destroyed result? The same logic that allows PSAs to DoG allows that to happen also?
I didn't say they were weapons. I likened them to a ranged weapon. I made a correlation between them being used 'as a ranged weapon' to actually being 'ranged weapons'. I even said "they might as well be weapons". But, I also said (one page back if you care to check), that we know they're not "weapons" and they're not "carried". As I said before, everything in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, but they're never specifically called a "weapon".
The thing I think you're misunderstanding is that I'm not trying to make a PSA a "weapon" or "carried". I'm not trying to conform to what the PSA rules say. I'm trying to help you see that maybe it is the PSA rules that are poorly written, just like Rage, Bolster Defenses and Boarding Planks.
puma713 wrote:Okay, apparently you're hung up on this Scouts rule. Let's see. . .how about another one.
The Rage USR doesn't work because you're not allowed to check Line of Sight in the Movement Phase. The only time you're given permission to check Line of Sight is in the Shooting Phase, when you're about to fire.
Lysander has 'Bolster Defenses', but he cannot use it, because Bolster Defenses refers to 'Techmarines'. Lysander is not a techmarine.
Ork Boarding Planks don't work if the opponent's vehicle has moved over 12" at all in the entire game, not just that turn.
I can go on and on and on, if you like, but we both know what I'm getting at. You don't play this way, I imagine. I think I would be hard-pressed to find anyone that does. Yet, these are RAW.
Now, if you don't play with these rules above, then what you're doing is assuming what the author meant and applying logic and reasoning. And if you're doing that, then you need to be prepared to accept the same sort of logic and reasoning applied to other rules, like using a ranged attack for DoG that is not defined strictly as a "weapon" and is not "carried". What you're doing is removing all critical thinking from the rule and applying RAW. The Rulebook is not the bible. The authors are flawed. Isn't there a chance, that they meant for Psychic Powers to be used for DoG, just like there's a chance that the Rage USR was supposed to work?
All of these examples are just like Scout/scouts. They are rules that do not function at all if you use a strict reading. Therefore it is clear that something is in error.
This is not the case with PSA and DoG, both of which are fully functional as is.
Can you find anything to suggest that PSAs ought to work with DoG?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
puma713 wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:Are you happy with PSAs being removed from a librarian dread which suffers a weapon destroyed result? The same logic that allows PSAs to DoG allows that to happen also?
I didn't say they were weapons. I likened them to a ranged weapon. I made a correlation between them being used 'as a ranged weapon' to actually being 'ranged weapons'. I even said "they might as well be weapons". But, I also said (one page back if you care to check), that we know they're not "weapons" and they're not "carried". As I said before, everything in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, but they're never specifically called a "weapon". The thing I think you're misunderstanding is that I'm not trying to make a PSA a "weapon" or "carried". I'm not trying to conform to what the PSA rules say. I'm trying to help you see that maybe it is the PSA rules that are poorly written, just like Rage, Bolster Defenses and Boarding Planks.
But I can use the exact same logic to suggest that PSAs ought to be able to be removed by Weapon Destroyed results. Maybe the PSA rules are poorly written about that as well? There is just as much to suggest that as there is to suggest that PSAs can DoG (i.e. nothing).
This really is not a rules debate any more. You've already said that the rules do not support using PSAs for DoG.
puma713 wrote:Okay, apparently you're hung up on this Scouts rule. Let's see. . .how about another one.
The Rage USR doesn't work because you're not allowed to check Line of Sight in the Movement Phase. The only time you're given permission to check Line of Sight is in the Shooting Phase, when you're about to fire.
Lysander has 'Bolster Defenses', but he cannot use it, because Bolster Defenses refers to 'Techmarines'. Lysander is not a techmarine.
Ork Boarding Planks don't work if the opponent's vehicle has moved over 12" at all in the entire game, not just that turn.
I can go on and on and on, if you like, but we both know what I'm getting at. You don't play this way, I imagine. I think I would be hard-pressed to find anyone that does. Yet, these are RAW.
Now, if you don't play with these rules above, then what you're doing is assuming what the author meant and applying logic and reasoning. And if you're doing that, then you need to be prepared to accept the same sort of logic and reasoning applied to other rules, like using a ranged attack for DoG that is not defined strictly as a "weapon" and is not "carried". What you're doing is removing all critical thinking from the rule and applying RAW. The Rulebook is not the bible. The authors are flawed. Isn't there a chance, that they meant for Psychic Powers to be used for DoG, just like there's a chance that the Rage USR was supposed to work?
All of these examples are just like Scout/scouts. They are rules that do not function at all if you use a strict reading. Therefore it is clear that something is in error.
How so? Bolster Defenses still works for any techmarine. Boarding Planks still work until the enemy moves over 12". These rules still work (unlike Scouts and Rage). They just don't work if you're using Lysander without another techmarine or any enemy vehicles finally go over 12". When you're applying your own reasoning to the rulings I have listed above, you're now in the realm of RAI, not RAW. When you say, "Well, they meant for Lysander to be able to use Bolster Defenses, because otherwise they wouldn't have given it to him." Then you're not playing by the RAW anymore, you're asserting what you believe the writer's meant, and you're using your own version of RAI. I am asserting what I believe the writer's may have meant for DoG.
It's no different than Dreadknights being able to use their Nemesis Doomfists. There was a big stink that "Why would they give them Nemesis Doomfists if they couldn't use them properly?" And lo' and behold, Nemesis Doomfists don't work with Dreadknights because the entry refers to a "walker" and Dreadknights aren't 'walkers'. Yet, we expect Bolster Defenses to work, even though it never refers to "techmarines" and Lysander is not a techmarine. Why?
Scott=S6 wrote:Can you find anything to suggest that PSAs ought to work with DoG?
That they function exactly like a shooting attack (with additional rules) and therefore, a ranged weapon (with additional rules). They are simply not "carried" and not referred to as a "weapon".
Scott-S6 wrote:
puma713 wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:Are you happy with PSAs being removed from a librarian dread which suffers a weapon destroyed result? The same logic that allows PSAs to DoG allows that to happen also?
I didn't say they were weapons. I likened them to a ranged weapon. I made a correlation between them being used 'as a ranged weapon' to actually being 'ranged weapons'. I even said "they might as well be weapons". But, I also said (one page back if you care to check), that we know they're not "weapons" and they're not "carried". As I said before, everything in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, but they're never specifically called a "weapon".
The thing I think you're misunderstanding is that I'm not trying to make a PSA a "weapon" or "carried". I'm not trying to conform to what the PSA rules say. I'm trying to help you see that maybe it is the PSA rules that are poorly written, just like Rage, Bolster Defenses and Boarding Planks.
But I can use the exact same logic to suggest that PSAs ought to be able to be removed by Weapon Destroyed results. Maybe the PSA rules are poorly written about that as well? There is just as much to suggest that as there is to suggest that PSAs can DoG (i.e. nothing).
You're still not getting it. I'm not trying to debate with you about what PSAs are and aren't. I'm not trying to change PSA's at all. This actually has nothing to do with PSA's, but the wording of DoG.
Scott-S6 wrote:This really is not a rules debate any more. You've already said that the rules do not support using PSAs for DoG.
Heh heh sure. Be sure not to let Lysander Bolster Defenses in any of your games, either, k? And if anyone tries to use Warptime against you, you better be sure that it is their model that is rolling the dice, not the player. Otherwise, you're picking and choosing which RAW rules you like to follow, and which ones you don't.
puma713 wrote:I'm trying to help you see that maybe it is the PSA rules that are poorly written, just like Rage, Bolster Defenses and Boarding Planks.
puma713 wrote:This actually has nothing to do with PSA's, but the wording of DoG.
Which one is it?
scott-s6 wrote:
puma713 wrote:All of these examples are just like Scout/scouts. They are rules that do not function at all if you use a strict reading. Therefore it is clear that something is in error.
How so? Bolster Defenses still works for any techmarine.
Bolster Defenses does not work for Lysander. There is a non-functional rule that requires to be fixed.
puma713 wrote:When you're applying your own reasoning to the rulings I have listed above, you're now in the realm of RAI, not RAW.
Yes, and with something like Lysander having Bolster Defenses or Doom having Warptime we have a really strong indication that the RAI does not match the RAW.
There is no such indication for PSAs and DoG. The wording of DoG is clear and functional. There is nothing to suggest that it's an error.
puma713 wrote:I'm trying to help you see that maybe it is the PSA rules that are poorly written, just like Rage, Bolster Defenses and Boarding Planks.
puma713 wrote:This actually has nothing to do with PSA's, but the wording of DoG.
Which one is it?
Whoops - in the first quote I meant DoG. Sorry about that.
Scott-S6 wrote:
scott-s6 wrote:
puma713 wrote:All of these examples are just like Scout/scouts. They are rules that do not function at all if you use a strict reading. Therefore it is clear that something is in error.
How so? Bolster Defenses still works for any techmarine.
Bolster Defenses does not work for Lysander. There is a non-functional rule that requires to be fixed.
Okay. So how do you play it? You don't let your opponent's use it?
Scott-S6 wrote:
puma713 wrote:When you're applying your own reasoning to the rulings I have listed above, you're now in the realm of RAI, not RAW.
Yes, and with something like Lysander having Bolster Defenses or Doom having Warptime we have a really strong indication that the RAI does not match the RAW.
But you can't go on "strong indications" if you're using RAW. If you're going off of "indications", then you're not using RAW anymore.
I have a strong indication that PSA's can be used to DoG.
Scott-S6 wrote:There is no such indication for PSAs and DoG. The wording of DoG is clear and functional. There is nothing to suggest that it's an error.
To you. I think that it may have meant to include things like PSA's and forgotten to add an explicit mentioning of (even Psychic Shooting Attacks). Just because a rule is functional doesn't mean it didn't leave something out or not clarify specifically enough. There are Errata where GW simply clarifies a way a simple sentence (one that is not in question at all) reads. There's no way at all that this is a similar situation? That's pretty absolute. And if you're going to be absolute, you have to be wholly absolute.
The funny thing is, what it all boils down to is something that acts exactly like a ranged weapon not being allowed because it is not defined as a weapon. That, to me, is a silly as saying that Rage doesn't work because you can't draw LOS in the Movement Phase. To you, it's not. So, we're at an impasse. I'm not going to agree with you and you're not going to agree with me. I will allow my opponents to use it, whereas you may reach a point where you have to call a TO or 4+ it. I like my way better. Smoother game, happier opponent and more chance for a squished zoanthrope.
Scott-S6 wrote:]All I have to say is this;'The most important rule....
You realise that you can use TMIR to respond to absolutely any rules question, clear or unclear, and it makes conversations about rules completely pointless. It adds precisely nothing to debate.
Can I ask what your motivation in posting it was?
Because...I felt like it lol, and IMO it does solve any debate in the rules. I already PM'ed you my response to that message you sent me...for what ever reason. Nuff said.
Also I don't believe you can use a psychic power to DoG, as you have to activate it and not just roll for the automatic hit with a weapon. We consider it a power/item and not a weapon carried,. At least thats how our group plays. How ever if I was playing you i'd say eff it, roll your powers, more choas, more carnage, more fun I say.
Scott-S6 wrote:
Yes, and with something like Lysander having Bolster Defenses or Doom having Warptime we have a really strong indication that the RAI does not match the RAW.
There is no such indication for PSAs and DoG. The wording of DoG is clear and functional. There is nothing to suggest that it's an error.
Of course not; there IS no error. PSAs interact just fine with DoG.
Using a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon.
DoG allows you to fire a ranged weapon when tank-shocked.
If a PSA 'counts as' firing a ranged weapon, that means that using it can be treated exactly like firing a ranged weapon unless a specific exception is made. There is no such specific exception. Since DoG allows you to fire a ranged weapon, it therefore also allows you to use a PSA.
Actually the rules do not state you can make a ranged attack. It says that the attack can be a shot (singular) from a weapon carried by the model. As is this is one of those arguments that neither side will agree to, and if you and your opponent cannot agree should be rolled off on. And before anyone says anything, I am aware of the tenets of this forum referring to tmir. However, it's yet another poorly written rule (CURSE YOU MATT WARD!!!). Ahem, sorry about that.
The DoG rule says that you can use "a weapon carried by the model" in DoG. I believe that's the exact wording, but I don't have my BGB here with me; if I'm wrong, by all means correct me.
Assuming that I'm correct on the wording, psychic powers are allowed. Why? Because using a PSA "counts as firing a ranged weapon". Which means that, effectively, as soon as you declare you're going to use the power a 'ranged weapon', which the model possesses, is being fired; this 'ranged weapon' just happens to require a Psychic Test in addition to or instead of the normal BS test. It counts as being exactly the same as a gun with the same profile for all game purposes. If you can use a ranged weapon, you can use PSA; that's what 'counts as' means. Only if there was a specific exception would they be disallowed, and there isn't one.
There are two objections that can be (and have been, in this thread) raised; one is easily defeated, the other may be technically correct depending on your definitions of a word, but quite TFG-ish and has implications on play outside of PSAs.
First; the objection that PSAs are not treated as weapons in any other way. For example, you cannot remove one of a Librarian Dreadnought's PSAs if you get a 'Weapon Destroyed' result. The answer to this is. . . well, yes. The PSA ONLY counts as a ranged weapon when it is being used; which means in your Shooting Phase after you've declared that it's going to be used, and possibly for a short time during your opponent's Movement Phase if you're using it to DoG. Furthermore, once the shot is resolved it immediately CEASES to "(count) as a ranged weapon", and so there is never any time when it 'counts as a ranged weapon' during which your opponent can shoot at the model. Now, theoretically, if your opponent had a model with a special rule that let it interrupt your Shooting Phase after you'd declared that your Librarian Dreadnought was going to fire a PSA, then it COULD remove the PSA on a 'Weapon Destroyed' result; because right then, the PSA DOES '(count) as a ranged weapon', and as such is a valid choice. Since no such model exists, however, it isn't possible at present.
The second objection is that the PSA is not 'carried' by the model, and the DoG rules require that you use a 'carried' weapon. This depends on how you define 'carried in the context of 40k. If you interpret 'carried' to mean 'present on the model's profile/list of wargear & abilities' (which I do, for the sake of simplicity) then it's wrong; the PSA is 'carried', and when used it counts as a weapon. However, if you interpret 'carried' to mean 'physically carried the model, WYSIWYG' then it's correct; PSAs are usually not modeled on the figure, and so cannot be used in DoG. However, this interpretation leaves us with a rule that is both curiously inconsistent and has some unfortunate side-effects.
The most obvious issue is that any psyker which DOES happen to have a psychic power represented visually CAN use it in DoG; if your Librarian Dreadnought has a Blood Lance spewing out of its shoulder, it can DoG with it, because it is clearly 'carrying' it and it counts as a ranged weapon when used. That's modeling for advantage under this interpretation, since it gives the psyker an ability that the standard miniature doesn't have.
Also, Obliterators do not have enough guns modeled onto their bodies to represent all of their possible weapon options. If you follow the second interpretation of 'carried', you'll need to ask your opponent which weapon each modeled gun-barrel represents and record them somewhere, as any weapons not present on the model cannot be used for DoG. Arguably, they can't use their Power Fists either. Of course, modifying the standard Citadel miniature to have more guns or obvious Power Fists would be modeling for advantage.
In addition, If a player happens to have upgraded a unit with grenades or meltabombs, and hasn't physically placed grenades on the models, they cannot be used for DoG. Since you're technically supposed to represent all optional equipment in WYSIWYG manner, this CAN be fixed without modeling for advantage.
And finally, if for whatever reason someone has posed their model in such a manner that a weapon is not actually touching them (If your Clown Marine is juggling his Meltagun and you've held it up in midair with a bit of wire, to give a silly example), or has a minor piece of 'counts-as' instead of the weapon (A Khornate Chaos Lord using an Ultramarine corpse as a Power Fist, for example, or the old Ghazghkull model which has a curved sword instead of a Power Klaw), that weapon ALSO cannot be used in DoG, because of course the model isn't 'carrying' it. Since this would require significant conversion (except in the case of the old Ghazghkull model), under this interpretation doing so would be modeling for DISadvantage, and while there's no specific RAW behind it GW has indicated repeatedly in their rulebooks that they do not penalize players for creative modeling and posing.
I'm sure there are more examples that a diligent searcher could discover, but I believe this is enough to make my point. Given that both interpretations of the word are equally valid and consistent with the RAW, I choose to follow the one which causes no issues with the game, allows both players to use the abilities and weapons which they paid points for, does not create situations which seem to go against precedent by punishing players for creative conversions, and is least likely to cause bad feeling.
Now, all that said; if you're convinced the second interpretation is correct, AND willing to accept all the other issues it causes, then you are technically just as correct as those who choose to accept the first interpretation. However, if you disallow PSAs in DoG but still let other models use their non-modeled meltabombs, Obliterators use their Power Fists, or converted models use their counts-as weapons, I'm afraid you're wrong. You can have it one way or the other RAW, but you cannot disallow ONLY PSAs and not the other things without a house rule.
Using RAW to determine what a rule actually says and attempting to play the game by this straightjacket is not one and the same.
Imo, persue the RAW until it fails (it will in a large % of cases), then rebuild with the remains.
Find out what can and can't apply then use or discard.
I would start with "Attack".
Ccw/ranged = irrelevant.
Can you use a "weapon" to attack? = yes.
Do you need to be "carrying" a weapon to attack? = no.
If we check ranged weapons pg28, we find that models are "armed" with rapid fire weapons, whereas models "carry" assault weapons.
Is this relevant? = no.
On p42, we find that witchblades are "carried" by eldar psychers and models can be armed with rending weapons.
Is this relevant? = no.
Lets apply this logic to tank shock and dog.
I have mythical model "pilchard."
Pilchard has a ranged attack eminating from bad breath.
Does he carry this? = no. Can he use it as an attack to dog? = yes.
Pilchard is a monstrous creature.
Does he carry this? = no. Can he use it as an attack to dog? = yes.
I would sauggest that this would put paid to "carrying" as a term enforceable under RAW in this case.
Well I'm not going to read through a lot of this, it seems more like a shoving match then a decent conversation, alas I'll just bring up a little thing and maybe it will help clear some heads.
Since DoG auto hits the target, a player using a PSA could argue that they need not take their psychic test, because the ability is suppose to auto hit (and if they fail their test it won't have the chance to hit). Now obviously we always want to require a psychic test of our opponents since it can potentially kill the caster, and so to avoid making an issue more convoluted it seems simplest to not allow a PSA during DoG and keep the game flowing and friendly. Best of luck to you all, I hope you can all come to a sensible agreement on this issue.
GreyChaos wrote:Well I'm not going to read through a lot of this, it seems more like a shoving match then a decent conversation, alas I'll just bring up a little thing and maybe it will help clear some heads.
Since DoG auto hits the target, a player using a PSA could argue that they need not take their psychic test, because the ability is suppose to auto hit (and if they fail their test it won't have the chance to hit). Now obviously we always want to require a psychic test of our opponents since it can potentially kill the caster, and so to avoid making an issue more convoluted it seems simplest to not allow a PSA during DoG and keep the game flowing and friendly. Best of luck to you all, I hope you can all come to a sensible agreement on this issue.
'Never got the chance to hit' and 'failed to hit' aren't the same thing. The Psychic Test has nothing to do with hitting with the power, and is still required in DoG.
Also, as I have pointed out just three posts above, if you're following the RAW you CAN disallow PSAs in DoG, but doing so also means you have to disallow a bunch of other things, and it's really rather silly. You can house-rule it, of course. . . but personally, I would never make a house-rule that so blatantly removed a legal ability from a class of models, particularly not for the sake of keeping things 'simple'. I don't want to appear rude, but 40k is NOT a simple game, and making it trivially simpler does not appear, to me, to be worth nerfing a bunch of models for no other reason.
I would say no to PSA in DoG. First of all wording. You may not agree but I think psychic power is not "carried weapon".
Putting this aside I really think allowing PSAs will mess things more than it helps. Weapons (mostly) have a simple way of resolving hits. We have a standardized(?) weapon template and there are very few weapons which are troublesome. PSA bring much more to the table.
Can you honestly say that there won't be ANY problems with allowing powers like:
* JotWW - I auto hit. I know I can't harm vehicle but after hitting I can draw a line (this is effect of the spell, not a way to hit) and kill some models behind vehicle..
* Murderous hurricane - let's say I tank shock with falcon 6" from priest and I want to move 24". When do I test for difficult terrain? At the end, immediately, I go back to the start? Does this immobilized result stop vehicle and prevent death? * Eldrich Storm - I know, I know "used in shooting phase". However if we allow PSAs because wording is 'sketchy' because they work like weapons I demand to allow ES because! So, (as someone already mentioned) when does the spinning occurs?
FYI those may not be 100% accurate but show that there will be disputes with some PSAs against DoGs. Of course they may be resolved, but why stretch rules and allow PSAs if this only leads to more problems? Again, not my interpretations - just examples of possible issues.
EDIT: Friend pointed out MH works only on the next turn.
Macok wrote:
Can you honestly say that there won't be ANY problems with allowing powers like:
* JotWW - I auto hit. I know I can't harm vehicle but after hitting I can draw a line (this is effect of the spell, not a way to hit) and kill some models behind vehicle...
So, you're going to Death or Glory with a power that has no chance to stop the tank that's going to run you down? Just to snipe a few models behind it, possibly?
Macok wrote:
Can you honestly say that there won't be ANY problems with allowing powers like:
* JotWW - I auto hit. I know I can't harm vehicle but after hitting I can draw a line (this is effect of the spell, not a way to hit) and kill some models behind vehicle...
So, you're going to Death or Glory with a power that has no chance to stop the tank that's going to run you down? Just to snipe a few models behind it, possibly?
Yes, I'll allow you to do that.
Snipe a few models behind it that he doesn't want shooting/assaulting the rest of his army, sure. You can't say that would never be a good use of the power.
Macok wrote:
Can you honestly say that there won't be ANY problems with allowing powers like:
* JotWW - I auto hit. I know I can't harm vehicle but after hitting I can draw a line (this is effect of the spell, not a way to hit) and kill some models behind vehicle...
So, you're going to Death or Glory with a power that has no chance to stop the tank that's going to run you down? Just to snipe a few models behind it, possibly?
Yes, I'll allow you to do that.
Snipe a few models behind it that he doesn't want shooting/assaulting the rest of his army, sure. You can't say that would never be a good use of the power.
You're right, I can't say "never", but to take a chance that 1) the power might not be cast, 2) the power might be Hooded/Nullified and 3) the models you're actually aiming for may pass their Initiative tests for a free 100+ pt. Rune Priest is not something that I would recommend.
Macok wrote:I would say no to PSA in DoG. First of all wording. You may not agree but I think psychic power is not "carried weapon".
Putting this aside I really think allowing PSAs will mess things more than it helps. Weapons (mostly) have a simple way of resolving hits. We have a standardized(?) weapon template and there are very few weapons which are troublesome. PSA bring much more to the table.
Can you honestly say that there won't be ANY problems with allowing powers like:
* JotWW - I auto hit. I know I can't harm vehicle but after hitting I can draw a line (this is effect of the spell, not a way to hit) and kill some models behind vehicle..
* Murderous hurricane - let's say I tank shock with falcon 6" from priest and I want to move 24". When do I test for difficult terrain? At the end, immediately, I go back to the start? Does this immobilized result stop vehicle and prevent death? * Eldrich Storm - I know, I know "used in shooting phase". However if we allow PSAs because wording is 'sketchy' because they work like weapons I demand to allow ES because! So, (as someone already mentioned) when does the spinning occurs?
FYI those may not be 100% accurate but show that there will be disputes with some PSAs against DoGs. Of course they may be resolved, but why stretch rules and allow PSAs if this only leads to more problems? Again, not my interpretations - just examples of possible issues.
EDIT: Friend pointed out MH works only on the next turn.
Yes, I can and in fact DO say that there won't be ANY problems with allowing PSAs to be used in DoG attempts.
JotWW: What problem? You draw the line, I take the Initiative tests, then your Rune Priest dies automatically because you didn't stop the tank. Except, of course, that JotWW requires that you have LOS to the first model the power AFFECTS, not the first model the line TOUCHES; and it doesn't affect vehicles, so you cannot snipe out anything behind the tank. You can only use it against models that you can see around the sides of the tank, because you cannot draw LOS through it. So using JotWW in DoG is an excellent way to commit suicide without accomplishing anything, and if you want to do so you are allowed to.
Murderous Hurricane; Your friend already answered this. Once again, no problem, just a good way to commit suicide and not accomplish anything.
Eldritch Storm; First off, we are not allowing PSAs because the wording is 'sketchy', we're allowing PSAs because the rules SPECIFICALLY TELL US WE CAN. So, FIRST, you need to prove that using it is in fact legal, not by saying 'because' but by quoting the rules. Now, since all ranged weapons can normally only be used in the Shooting Phase, that isn't hard; all the same arguments apply, do long as Eldritch Storm is defined as a PSA.
When it comes to the actual effects, it doesn't matter when the spinning occurs. Tank Shocking requires that you declare how far the tank is moving beforehand; if that distance would place it atop or move it through another model, a Tank Shock occurs. DoG specifically states that unless you STOP the tank by Destroying, Stunning, Exploding or Immobilizing it, the model attempting DoG is killed. So regardless of when the spinning happens, your Farseer still dies unless he STOPS the tank, and the squad Falls Back automatically. For the third time; a good way to commit suicide without accomplishing anything.
BeRzErKeR wrote:Eldritch Storm; First off, we are not allowing PSAs because the wording is 'sketchy', we're allowing PSAs because the rules SPECIFICALLY TELL US WE CAN. So, FIRST, you need to prove that using it is in fact legal, not by saying 'because' but by quoting the rules. Now, since all ranged weapons can normally only be used in the Shooting Phase, that isn't hard; all the same arguments apply, do long as Eldritch Storm is defined as a PSA.
Your caps is charming but could you quote those rules specifically telling us that psychic powers are weapons? Not that they shoot like weapons, they are weapons.
When it comes to the actual effects, it doesn't matter when the spinning occurs. Tank Shocking requires that you declare how far the tank is moving beforehand; if that distance would place it atop or move it through another model, a Tank Shock occurs. DoG specifically states that unless you STOP the tank by Destroying, Stunning, Exploding or Immobilizing it, the model attempting DoG is killed. So regardless of when the spinning happens, your Farseer still dies unless he STOPS the tank, and the squad Falls Back automatically. For the third time; a good way to commit suicide without accomplishing anything.
Except if you are playing 2/3 of missions and somebody is last-turn tank shocking farseer on his way to the objective. I will gladly, with a smile on my face sacrifice my farseer to prevent your troops filled vehicle from getting there.
BeRzErKeR wrote:Eldritch Storm; First off, we are not allowing PSAs because the wording is 'sketchy', we're allowing PSAs because the rules SPECIFICALLY TELL US WE CAN. So, FIRST, you need to prove that using it is in fact legal, not by saying 'because' but by quoting the rules. Now, since all ranged weapons can normally only be used in the Shooting Phase, that isn't hard; all the same arguments apply, do long as Eldritch Storm is defined as a PSA.
Your caps is charming but could you quote those rules specifically telling us that psychic powers are weapons? Not that they shoot like weapons, they are weapons.
I already have. 'Counts as' firing a ranged weapon means 'functions in exactly the same manner as a ranged weapon'. If something functions in exactly the same manner as a ranged weapon, that means it can be used whenever a ranged weapon can be used. If it couldn't be used whenever a ranged weapon can be used, it wouldn't be functioning in exactly the same manner, and then it could not be considered to 'count as' a ranged weapon.
If you are proposing that the phrase 'counts as' actually has a different definition, please tell me what that different definition is. What I've stated here is common English; since Games Workshop hasn't given us a jargon definition, this is the one we have to use.
Macok wrote:
When it comes to the actual effects, it doesn't matter when the spinning occurs. Tank Shocking requires that you declare how far the tank is moving beforehand; if that distance would place it atop or move it through another model, a Tank Shock occurs. DoG specifically states that unless you STOP the tank by Destroying, Stunning, Exploding or Immobilizing it, the model attempting DoG is killed. So regardless of when the spinning happens, your Farseer still dies unless he STOPS the tank, and the squad Falls Back automatically. For the third time; a good way to commit suicide without accomplishing anything.
Except if you are playing 2/3 of missions and somebody is last-turn tank shocking farseer on his way to the objective. I will gladly, with a smile on my face sacrifice my farseer to prevent your troops filled vehicle from getting there.
How the movement of the vehicle is affected is an open question; I'm actually inclined to think that it isn't affected at all, regardless of whether the vehicle gets turned around or not. But that isn't the question we're discussing, in any case; whether the tank's movement is modified or not, the Farseer dies and the unit falls back. There's no problem, all the rules are working fine.
Happyjew wrote:Why would the unit fall back? In order to perform DoG, the unit has to pass the morale test.
I don't have my rulebook with me, as I've said, but I believe that the unit automatically falls back if DoG is failed. I could be wrong, in which case the remaining models simply have to move aside and make room for the vehicle to finish its move. Someone with a rulebook handy can tell us which; either way has no bearing on the argument at hand, however.
puma713 wrote:I think that it may have meant to include things like PSA's and forgotten to add an explicit mentioning of (even Psychic Shooting Attacks).
And this is the whole the argument. You have a feeling that you ought to be able to use PSAs for DoG despite there being nothing to suggest that this is the case.
If you decide to ignore RAW any time you think that it might be wrong you end up simply making up your own rules. When the RAW absolutely does not function then it is necessary to search for meaning beyond the RAW but this is no the case with these particular rules.
Sorry I missed that you didn't have your rb, however the only time a failed DoG causes a unit to fall back is if the unit size was 4 models or less (before the attempt).
BeRzErKeR wrote:I already have. 'Counts as' firing a ranged weapon means 'functions in exactly the same manner as a ranged weapon'. If something functions in exactly the same manner as a ranged weapon, that means it can be used whenever a ranged weapon can be used. If it couldn't be used whenever a ranged weapon can be used, it wouldn't be functioning in exactly the same manner, and then it could not be considered to 'count as' a ranged weapon.
Yes, and if DoG said "you may fire a ranged weapon" or "you make make a ranged attack" then you'd be fine.
However, it says something very different - use "a weapon carried by the model". PSAs do not fit that definition. Functioning as a weapon does not mean "is a weapon".
BeRzErKeR wrote:I already have. 'Counts as' firing a ranged weapon means 'functions in exactly the same manner as a ranged weapon'. If something functions in exactly the same manner as a ranged weapon, that means it can be used whenever a ranged weapon can be used. If it couldn't be used whenever a ranged weapon can be used, it wouldn't be functioning in exactly the same manner, and then it could not be considered to 'count as' a ranged weapon.
Yes, and if DoG said "you may fire a ranged weapon" or "you make make a ranged attack" then you'd be fine.
However, it says something very different - use "a weapon carried by the model". PSAs do not fit that definition. Functioning as a weapon does not mean "is a weapon".
So you aren't arguing with the 'weapon' part of the sentence, then; you're arguing that it isn't 'carried'. Is that correct?
I addressed that argument on the previous page. Do you have a rebuttal?
BeRzErKeR wrote:I already have. 'Counts as' firing a ranged weapon means 'functions in exactly the same manner as a ranged weapon'.
No. "counts as firing a ranged weapon" and "functions in exactly the same manner as firing a ranged weapon" are synonymous.
Can you use a plasma weapon (pistol, rifle, cannon) in a DoG? Yes.
Can you suffer a Gets Hot!? No - you don't roll to hit.
Can you scatter large or small blast markers? No, you automatically hit.
This means that you aren't firing the ranged weapon - you just get a hit from either a CC or ranged weapon.
Since you aren't firing a ranged weapon, you cannot count as firing a ranged weapon.
BeRzErKeR wrote:So you aren't arguing with the 'weapon' part of the sentence, then; you're arguing that it isn't 'carried'. Is that correct?
Absolutely not.
It is not a weapon.
Using a PSA in the circumstances where you are given permission to do so counts as firing a ranged weapon. It is not a weapon. Or are you suggesting that they can be removed from a librarian dread by weapon destroyed results?
I'm curious as to what theruleslawyers.com would decide on regarding this. And I do realize whatever they say has absolutely no bearing on dakka's discussion.
puma713 wrote:I think that it may have meant to include things like PSA's and forgotten to add an explicit mentioning of (even Psychic Shooting Attacks).
And this is the whole the argument. You have a feeling that you ought to be able to use PSAs for DoG despite there being nothing to suggest that this is the case.
This is where we disagree. I think that there is plenty to suggest that it should work with DoG. Those reasons have been enumerated ad nauseum.
Scott-S6 wrote:If you decide to ignore RAW any time you think that it might be wrong you end up simply making up your own rules. When the RAW absolutely does not function then it is necessary to search for meaning beyond the RAW but this is no the case with these particular rules.
The old slippery slope, eh? So, in the case of Ork Boarding Planks, that do work until a vehicle moves 12", then it is immune for the rest of the game - that is working as intended? Because it works, by RAW. Only if you allow it to work every turn are you "searching for meaning beyond the RAW".
My point is this - you make these distinctions (reading beyond the RAW) nearly every time you play. There are entire lists that function oddly when going solely on RAW, and require RAI to work properly. You use RAI on these rulings without thinking twice, but you defend this one vehemently. If you play by strict RAW 100% of the time, then you need to do so on all rulings, even ones that may need you to "search for meaning beyond the RAW."
What if a rifleman dread which has suffered two weapon destroyed results suffers a tank shock. It has no ranged attack that it can make. It also has no close combat weapon. it Carries no eligible weapon. is it therefor unable to DOG?
The rule clearly states that any CCW carried by the model may be used to perform the DOG attack and the dread is clearly not carrying any CCW, nor does it have an eligible ranged weapon.
Weapon = Something causes harm or damage
Warp Lance = Causes Damage to the Tank Shockerer = Weapon.
Heres a question!
The Dark Eldar Djinn Blade allows 2 extra hits against a target or unit or something... In Death Or Glory, would he get one of these 2 hits? This isn't anything to do with argeing a point, i just thought of the question and it seemed interesting
Happyjew wrote:Sorry I missed that you didn't have your rb, however the only time a failed DoG causes a unit to fall back is if the unit size was 4 models or less (before the attempt).
its for any size unit. if your unit gets tanked shocked you make a morale check, if they fail, they will fall back. If you make your morale check you can just step out of the way of the tank, or DOG.
Happyjew wrote:Sorry I missed that you didn't have your rb, however the only time a failed DoG causes a unit to fall back is if the unit size was 4 models or less (before the attempt).
its for any size unit. if your unit gets tanked shocked you make a morale check, if they fail, they will fall back. If you make your morale check you can just step out of the way of the tank, or DOG.
Happyjew wrote:Sorry I missed that you didn't have your rb, however the only time a failed DoG causes a unit to fall back is if the unit size was 4 models or less (before the attempt).
its for any size unit. if your unit gets tanked shocked you make a morale check, if they fail, they will fall back. If you make your morale check you can just step out of the way of the tank, or DOG.
I think you may have mis-read Happyjew's post.
I could have, i'm the new guy but it sounded to me that if you fail a dog you'll fall back. as far as I know the only way you'll fall back is by failing the morale check, if you pass that reguardless if the DOG succeeds or not you won't fall back.
I should have clarified, failing the dog in my situation would not have caused fall back. It WOULD cause a morale test for loss of 25%, which if failed would cause fall back. Apologies for not clarifying. I wasn't thinking clearly at the time.
Im still curious about the answer to my question from the RAW peeps. the were splitting hairs about everything with such furious attention to detail that i would like to know, is a Rifleman dread unable to make a DOG attack if it has suffered two weapon destroyed results since it is carrying no weapon.
They were only looking at the verbage in the DOG attacks section of the rules and in those rules it says that the CC attack must be from a weapon that is being carried. Clearly the RAW stand point must be that a rifleman dread with two weapon destroyed cannot perform a DOG.
Unless we dont just doggedly pursue RAW which in my opinion is a fail in this instance because of reasons amply provided by Puma713 and BeRzErKeR.
sennacherib wrote:Im still curious about the answer to my question from the RAW peeps. the were splitting hairs about everything with such furious attention to detail that i would like to know, is a Rifleman dread unable to make a DOG attack if it has suffered two weapon destroyed results since it is carrying no weapon.
They were only looking at the verbage in the DOG attacks section of the rules and in those rules it says that the CC attack must be from a weapon that is being carried. Clearly the RAW stand point must be that a rifleman dread with two weapon destroyed cannot perform a DOG.
Unless we dont just doggedly pursue RAW which in my opinion is a fail in this instance because of reasons amply provided by Puma713 and BeRzErKeR.
Hey, I take exception to that! I AM doggedly pursuing the RAW!
I'm just not trying to claim that I know the RAW used a common word to mean only one of two possible things, particularly when one option causes no problems whatsoever with the game, and the other causes several.
sennacherib wrote:Im still curious about the answer to my question from the RAW peeps. the were splitting hairs about everything with such furious attention to detail that i would like to know, is a Rifleman dread unable to make a DOG attack if it has suffered two weapon destroyed results since it is carrying no weapon.
They were only looking at the verbage in the DOG attacks section of the rules and in those rules it says that the CC attack must be from a weapon that is being carried. Clearly the RAW stand point must be that a rifleman dread with two weapon destroyed cannot perform a DOG.
Unless we dont just doggedly pursue RAW which in my opinion is a fail in this instance because of reasons amply provided by Puma713 and BeRzErKeR.
He can't make a DoG attack even with zero weapons destroyed according to strict RAW. He's not carrying those weapon, they are his arms. A model can only DoG with carried weapons.
DarknessEternal wrote:
He can't make a DoG attack even with zero weapons destroyed according to strict RAW. He's not carrying those weapon, they are his arms. A model can only DoG with carried weapons.
Sucks for Daemons too. Their powers are even called "weapons", but they can't use them because they're not carried. . .
I do believe dreadnoughts carry their weapons in the conventional sense.
I think the issue is, for something to be carried, it has to physically exist.
Psychic powers, OTOH, do not physically exist, and so cannot literally be carried.
EDIT: The distinction is more adequately illustrated this way:
Just as I carry this box, so too does the Space Marine carry a meltagun.
Just as I carry this box, so too does Lexicanum Billy carry a psychic power. (See how that doesn't work? You can't 'carry' an idea. Although food for thought, you can 'hold' an idea in your head.)
Unit1126PLL wrote:I do believe dreadnoughts carry their weapons in the conventional sense.
I think the issue is, for something to be carried, it has to physically exist.
Psychic powers, OTOH, do not physically exist, and so cannot literally be carried.
Psychic powers come from the mind. So, they physically exist in the various neurons of the brain.
Only if you believe the mind and brain are inseparable...
...and for what it's worth, a soul's Warp existence is indeed separate from its physical existence. So no, unfortuantely not.
EDIT: To clarify, psychic powers are a latent talent, an ability of the soul to channel energy. If they were an ability of the mind, then they could be removed simply by lobotomy (which they cannot, incidentally).
EDIT2: In fact, if psychic powers really WERE manifestations of mere neural activity, then think of the wonderous things one could accomplish with the biomechanical comprehension possessed by the Imperium Mechanicus! They could literally make entire planets psychic by copying the engrams of psychic neurons onto computer circuits embedded into the crust of the planet...
DarknessEternal wrote:He can't make a DoG attack even with zero weapons destroyed according to strict RAW. He's not carrying those weapon, they are his arms. A model can only DoG with carried weapons.
I think you would have a very hard time trying to convince that weapons are not "carried" by vehicles. Hell, write "dreadnought" and "weapons" in google and see for yourself. I think it's safe to say that weapon is carried by a vehicle.
BeRzErKeR wrote:I already have. 'Counts as' firing a ranged weapon means 'functions in exactly the same manner as a ranged weapon'. If something functions in exactly the same manner as a ranged weapon, that means it can be used whenever a ranged weapon can be used. If it couldn't be used whenever a ranged weapon can be used, it wouldn't be functioning in exactly the same manner, and then it could not be considered to 'count as' a ranged weapon.
If you are proposing that the phrase 'counts as' actually has a different definition, please tell me what that different definition is. What I've stated here is common English; since Games Workshop hasn't given us a jargon definition, this is the one we have to use.
That is not what I was saying. If it runs like a horse it can be a zebra. "Count as" has nothing to do with this discussion. Count as firing like a weapon and count as being a weapon is the important part and different enough for me. PSAs don't function exactly as a ranged weapon. Only a part of their functionality is borrowed from weapons. I do however agree with a bolded part in your quote and that is why I personally would allow PSAs on DoG.
When it comes to the actual effects, it doesn't matter when the spinning occurs. Tank Shocking requires that you declare how far the tank is moving beforehand; if that distance would place it atop or move it through another model, a Tank Shock occurs. DoG specifically states that unless you STOP the tank by Destroying, Stunning, Exploding or Immobilizing it, the model attempting DoG is killed. So regardless of when the spinning happens, your Farseer still dies unless he STOPS the tank, and the squad Falls Back automatically. For the third time; a good way to commit suicide without accomplishing anything.
How the movement of the vehicle is affected is an open question; I'm actually inclined to think that it isn't affected at all, regardless of whether the vehicle gets turned around or not. But that isn't the question we're discussing, in any case; whether the tank's movement is modified or not, the Farseer dies and the unit falls back. There's no problem, all the rules are working fine.
BeRzErKeR wrote:I'm just not trying to claim that I know the RAW used a common word to mean only one of two possible things, particularly when one option causes no problems whatsoever with the game, and the other causes several.
Again, I don't care about farseer. I don't care about his unit either. It can get killed and your whole squad along with vehicle can get re-rollable 2+ inv save. Preventing your vehicle from getting to objective by spinning it half way is the most important and only important issue. So spinning matters because when it it occurs can win/loose me the game.
How is open question no problem whatsoever? There will be problems and discussions about strange effects of psychic powers in DoG. Please do tell how is excluding PSAs causing several problems?
FYI: In a friendly game I would in fact allow PSAs on DoG. I really don't care that much and they are always fun no matter the outcome. But for a sake of argument in YMDC I don't think they are supposed to be allowed.
BeRzErKeR wrote:I already have. 'Counts as' firing a ranged weapon means 'functions in exactly the same manner as a ranged weapon'. If something functions in exactly the same manner as a ranged weapon, that means it can be used whenever a ranged weapon can be used. If it couldn't be used whenever a ranged weapon can be used, it wouldn't be functioning in exactly the same manner, and then it could not be considered to 'count as' a ranged weapon.
If you are proposing that the phrase 'counts as' actually has a different definition, please tell me what that different definition is. What I've stated here is common English; since Games Workshop hasn't given us a jargon definition, this is the one we have to use.
That is not what I was saying. If it runs like a horse it can be a zebra. "Count as" has nothing to do with this discussion. Count as firing like a weapon and count as being a weapon is the important part and different enough for me. PSAs don't function exactly as a ranged weapon. Only a part of their functionality is borrowed from weapons. I do however agree with a bolded part in your quote and that is why I personally would allow PSAs on DoG.
You're still missing the important bit. Using a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon. It doesn't count as firing LIKE a ranged weapon, it counts AS firing a weapon, which means that it's exactly the same.
A zebra which runs on four hooved, digitigrade legs like a horse does still does not 'count as' a running horse; it's a running zebra, and zebras are different animals than horses. There exists a difference between the two, namely zebra-ness versus horse-ness. But a firing PSA 'counts as' a firing ranged weapon. There exists NO difference between them. Do you see what that means? In order to be EXACTLY like a ranged weapon, it must for all intents and purposes BE a ranged weapon, at that instant. Which means that it can be used for anything a ranged weapon can be used for, including DoG.
To draw a more exact analogy; you own a handgun. I own a magic knife which, whenever I say a certain word, 'counts as' an identical handgun for five minutes. What does that mean? It means that for five minutes after I say the word I can cock and uncock the knife, sight down the barrel of the knife, load and unload the knife with the proper caliber of ammunition, strip and clean the knife, put the safety on the knife (or take it off), attach the proper size of accessories such as silencers to the knife, and fire cartridges of the proper caliber from the knife with exactly the same accuracy, report, recoil, and destructive effect as your handgun. However, during that time I CANNOT whittle with the knife, chop vegetables with it, shave with it (assuming I could shave with it at any time), cut my initials into a tree with it, hold the handle in a standard knife-grip or stab someone with it, because while it 'counts as' a handgun it has no blade, only a barrel, and a pistol-grip rather than a knife's handle. The knife IS, for all intents and purposes, a handgun, until such time as it no longer 'counts as' one. That's what 'counts as' means, and that's why you can do something that 'counts as' firing a ranged weapon any time you are allowed to fire a ranged weapon.
Macok wrote:
When it comes to the actual effects, it doesn't matter when the spinning occurs. Tank Shocking requires that you declare how far the tank is moving beforehand; if that distance would place it atop or move it through another model, a Tank Shock occurs. DoG specifically states that unless you STOP the tank by Destroying, Stunning, Exploding or Immobilizing it, the model attempting DoG is killed. So regardless of when the spinning happens, your Farseer still dies unless he STOPS the tank, and the squad Falls Back automatically. For the third time; a good way to commit suicide without accomplishing anything.
How the movement of the vehicle is affected is an open question; I'm actually inclined to think that it isn't affected at all, regardless of whether the vehicle gets turned around or not. But that isn't the question we're discussing, in any case; whether the tank's movement is modified or not, the Farseer dies and the unit falls back. There's no problem, all the rules are working fine.
BeRzErKeR wrote:I'm just not trying to claim that I know the RAW used a common word to mean only one of two possible things, particularly when one option causes no problems whatsoever with the game, and the other causes several.
Again, I don't care about farseer. I don't care about his unit either. It can get killed and your whole squad along with vehicle can get re-rollable 2+ inv save. Preventing your vehicle from getting to objective by spinning it half way is the most important and only important issue. So spinning matters because when it it occurs can win/loose me the game.
How is open question no problem whatsoever? There will be problems and discussions about strange effects of psychic powers in DoG. Please do tell how is excluding PSAs causing several problems?
First point; What I meant by "there's no problem" is that there are no problems with the DoG rules. Yes, any ability can change the tactical situation; but my point was that the movement of a vehicle that is hit with Eldritch Storm during a Tank Shock is irrelevant to the question we're discussing. It's an interesting question, but it is not THIS question, and it does not have anything to say on the subject of whether PSAs can be used in a DoG attempt.
As to the problems excluding PSAs causes; I have already explained that, in one of my previous posts. I'll quote myself here, for simplicity's sake.
BeRzErKeR wrote:The second objection is that the PSA is not 'carried' by the model, and the DoG rules require that you use a 'carried' weapon. This depends on how you define 'carried in the context of 40k. If you interpret 'carried' to mean 'present on the model's profile/list of wargear & abilities' (which I do, for the sake of simplicity) then it's wrong; the PSA is 'carried', and when used it counts as a weapon. However, if you interpret 'carried' to mean 'physically carried the model, WYSIWYG' then it's correct; PSAs are usually not modeled on the figure, and so cannot be used in DoG. However, this interpretation leaves us with a rule that is both curiously inconsistent and has some unfortunate side-effects.
The most obvious issue is that any psyker which DOES happen to have a psychic power represented visually CAN use it in DoG; if your Librarian Dreadnought has a Blood Lance spewing out of its shoulder, it can DoG with it, because it is clearly 'carrying' it and it counts as a ranged weapon when used. That's modeling for advantage under this interpretation, since it gives the psyker an ability that the standard miniature doesn't have.
Also, Obliterators do not have enough guns modeled onto their bodies to represent all of their possible weapon options. If you follow the second interpretation of 'carried', you'll need to ask your opponent which weapon each modeled gun-barrel represents and record them somewhere, as any weapons not present on the model cannot be used for DoG. Arguably, they can't use their Power Fists either. Of course, modifying the standard Citadel miniature to have more guns or obvious Power Fists would be modeling for advantage.
In addition, If a player happens to have upgraded a unit with grenades or meltabombs, and hasn't physically placed grenades on the models, they cannot be used for DoG. Since you're technically supposed to represent all optional equipment in WYSIWYG manner, this CAN be fixed without modeling for advantage.
And finally, if for whatever reason someone has posed their model in such a manner that a weapon is not actually touching them (If your Clown Marine is juggling his Meltagun and you've held it up in midair with a bit of wire, to give a silly example), or has a minor piece of 'counts-as' instead of the weapon (A Khornate Chaos Lord using an Ultramarine corpse as a Power Fist, for example, or the old Ghazghkull model which has a curved sword instead of a Power Klaw), that weapon ALSO cannot be used in DoG, because of course the model isn't 'carrying' it. Since this would require significant conversion (except in the case of the old Ghazghkull model), under this interpretation doing so would be modeling for DISadvantage, and while there's no specific RAW behind it GW has indicated repeatedly in their rulebooks that they do not penalize players for creative modeling and posing.
Now, all that said; if you're convinced the second interpretation is correct, AND willing to accept all the other issues it causes, then you are technically just as correct as those who choose to accept the first interpretation. However, if you disallow PSAs in DoG but still let other models use their non-modeled meltabombs, Obliterators use their Power Fists, or converted models use their counts-as weapons, I'm afraid you're wrong. You can have it one way or the other RAW, but you cannot disallow ONLY PSAs and not the other things without a house rule.
@ BeRzErKeR
No offence was intended at my prior comment. Im pretty sure that you are aware of that but since sarcasm and other forms of communication can be hard to detect in written word i just wanted to clarifty this to be sure.
I also 100% agree with the counts as interpretation that you put forth.
The psychic ability counts as a ranged attack. Therefor it is useable in any situation that a ranged attack is usable in. I made my prior point about the dreadnought being unable to attack, because the strictly literal interpretation of the rules without also using logic can lead to a lot of rules making very little sense, as Puma has pointed out amply while sighting the fact that Lysander cant technically use Bolster defences since he is not a tech marine. We can infer that Lysander is meant to be able to use the rule but RAW he is not allowed to use the rule. I believe that we can infer that psychic attacks should be allowed in a DOG action since they count as a ranged attack or a close combat attack in all ways except for the use of the word CARRIED. All the hair splitting about the use of this word leads to 6 page threads that show no sign of any resolution being possible.
Macok wrote:I think you would have a very hard time trying to convince that weapons are not "carried" by vehicles. Hell, write "dreadnought" and "weapons" in google and see for yourself. I think it's safe to say that weapon is carried by a vehicle.
I have two arms, yet you cannot say that I carry two arms. In the same manner, a Dreadnought's arms are his guns. He cannot be said to be carrying them. I'm not sure if Crisis suits could be said to be carrying their weapons; the weapons are attached to the suit. I wear a wristwatch and glasses, but I do not carry them. I wear the shirt on my back, I don't carry it. Tyranid ranged weapons are all part of the host creature, so they cannot be used to DoG as they are not carried.
Obviously, the rules allow the use of PSA for DoG, but I don't see any such allowance to ignore some PSA's requirement to be manifested in the shooting phase. Of course, I'd allow it, but I wouldn't push to hard to use them myself.
Personally I say no to psychic powers and here's why:
1. If we allow some psychic powers we must allow ALL psychic powers.
2. If we allow psychic powers, we need to determine how they all interact with DoG. Things like Warp Lance, no problem. It has a ranged weapon profile and cannot do anything a ranged weapon cannot. Eldritch Storm on the other hand, let's say you declare 6". You move forward 2. My farseer gets a weapon destroyed result and spins the tank so it's facing a different direction. Now we have to argue if it goes in the new direction or the old direction as there are no rules covering this.
I can't remember the wording exactly, but the rule goes something like "The selected model makes a SINGLE attack from any weapon or wargear they are carrying" so in my mind that would include psychic powers, but you can only make a single attack.
Happyjew wrote:Personally I say no to psychic powers and here's why:
1. If we allow some psychic powers we must allow ALL psychic powers.
2. If we allow psychic powers, we need to determine how they all interact with DoG. Things like Warp Lance, no problem. It has a ranged weapon profile and cannot do anything a ranged weapon cannot. Eldritch Storm on the other hand, let's say you declare 6". You move forward 2. My farseer gets a weapon destroyed result and spins the tank so it's facing a different direction. Now we have to argue if it goes in the new direction or the old direction as there are no rules covering this.
1. Wrong. It's been well-established that MOST psychic powers are not allowed in DoG; the only ones under discussion are Psychic Shooting Attacks, because they are the only ones which count as ranged weapons.
2. That is a question that needs to be thought about, yes. . . but it has nothing to do with the DoG itself. What happens in terms of the DoG is perfectly clear; you didn't stop the tank, so the Farseer dies. The fact that the rules force you to consider a situation that you had not considered before does not change what they say.
You know there's trouble at t'mill when the dictionaries come out ...
The Oxford dictionary, carry ...
transport in vehicle, ship, aircraft, hand, or mind, or on person ...
... so even vehicles without hands carry people/objects, hands carry stuff (!!!), minds carry thoughts (psychic powers) and things can be carried on your person, such as in pockets or backpacks.
I have nailed a pizza to my head, everywhere I go, I am now carrying it.
It seems to me, that in this case, carrying a weapon, is synonimous with being equipped with one.
That is, a close combat weapon, a ranged weapon, or something that functions in that capacity.
If you were daft enough (lets say you are) to tank shock my wraithlord.
My wraithlord is "equipped" with a bright lance.
We have all seen them modelled with their guns, weilded in their hands. Does this mean a model of this type is functionally different to one with a shoulder mounted weapon? = no, of course not.
The wraithlord "carries" the lance, regardless of its location on the model.
So what about the wraithsword?
I am entitled to use any weapon I carry, because of the way this is modelled (ie, weilded in a hand), does this mean I can use my "monstrous creature" type attack, whereas, if the model wasn't holding a weapon, I couldn't???
RustyKnight wrote:I have two arms, yet you cannot say that I carry two arms. In the same manner, a Dreadnought's arms are his guns. He cannot be said to be carrying them. I'm not sure if Crisis suits could be said to be carrying their weapons; the weapons are attached to the suit. I wear a wristwatch and glasses, but I do not carry them. I wear the shirt on my back, I don't carry it. Tyranid ranged weapons are all part of the host creature, so they cannot be used to DoG as they are not carried.
DarknessEternal wrote:
fuusa wrote:
This "carry" argument is laughable.
Yes, it is, but these are the guys insisting on a strict RAW interpretation. They reap what they sow.
Just google what APC stands for. Vehicles are perfectly capable of carrying.
What is next? You will try to tell that people can't speak? Carrying argument *is* laughable.
FYI: "We" don't reap what we saw. YMDC is for interpreting RAW. You could as easily go and try to stop people from proposing rules in "40K Proposed Rules" section. Almost all people who are incredible anal about rules here don't play them that way. Discussing rules on a internet board made for discussing rules and playing is two totally separate things. Grow up and understand that finally.
In addition don't just band everybody because they enjoy talking about the rules. For the last time: talking about rules is not forcing anybody to play like that. I even specifically stated that I would allow DoGs in friendlies.
Please, join the discussion but not like that.
Back on topic:
@BeRzErKeR
My Storm part was addressed at "no problems whatsoever" with PSAs on DoG. PSAs are usually more complex than weapons and may cause problems. But that is just my feelings not based by rules at all, so..
As for "juggling" weapons and not modelling them on the miniature. Carrying does not mean that somebody is holding a thing in his hand all the time.
You could easily say that some knight was carrying gifts for his king when they were actually safely strapped to the horse. The horse who was being led by a squire walking far behind said knight. As far as I'm concerned there is no issue about carrying PSAs.
In the and I guess we simply won't agree on the "shoots as a weapon" and "is a weapon". I just think that those two are different and can lead to some different results from two rules interaction. There are more discussions very similar to this problem like: first turn dangerous from Writhing Worldscape or Tempest's Wrath against Jump Infantry / something moving as Jump Infantry etc.
And I don't agree on your logic behind "Weapon Destroyed" on PSAs. How about when PSA is used on DoG and if it doesn't succeed to stop the tank the ram causes weapon destroyed? Is this still that window of time where PSA is a weapon? DeffRolla hits are a part of a ram which caused DoG and changed PSA to weapon for a second - can I destroy psychic power then? This is very counter intuitive.
IMHO there should be separation of function (shoots like a weapon, count as shooting a weapon, moves like jump infantry) and attribute (is a weapon, counts as a weapon, is jump infantry).
Dear god that is a long and useless wall of text. Well, back to lurking mode probably..
most PSAs say exactly when you can cast them which would usually exclude your opponents movement phase. I know for sure that the Eldar dex says that eldritch storm is cast in the shooting phase which would mean you can't cast it in the opponents movement phase for a DoG.
Macok wrote:Just google what APC stands for. Vehicles are perfectly capable of carrying.
Macok wrote:What is next? You will try to tell that people can't speak? Carrying argument *is* laughable.
Erm ...
fuusa wrote:transport in vehicle, ship, aircraft, hand, or mind, or on person ...
... so even vehicles without hands carry people/objects, hands carry stuff (!!!), minds carry thoughts (psychic powers) and things can be carried on your person, such as in pockets or backpacks.
Either you missed this post or misunderstood my point.
The notion that a model must be physically carrying a weapon/item in its hands, in order to be used, is laughable.
My point was that saying psychic shooting attacks aren't technically weapons is just as spurious as someone saying a model doesn't actually carry any weapons. Both are using the same line of RAW. Both are stupid.
, you'd best get someone else's opinion here.
Be sure not to let Lysander Bolster Defenses in any of your games, either, k? And if anyone tries to use Warptime against you, you better be sure that it is their model that is rolling the dice, not the player. Otherwise, you're picking and choosing which 
