Sorry if this has been covered. Looked and couldn't find anything on it. How does the crucible interact with brotherhood of sorcerers/psychers? Is it just one model that goes if you fail the test or the whole squad? I'm thinking just one member of the squad. If I remember correctly that was the way they FAQed it in sixth.

The Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers rules in the Special rules section explicitly covers this. Check the Index for the page number for Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers.

ohiowargamer wrote:
Sorry if this has been covered. Looked and couldn't find anything on it. How does the crucible interact with brotherhood of sorcerers/psychers? Is it just one model that goes if you fail the test or the whole squad? I'm thinking just one member of the squad. If I remember correctly that was the way they FAQed it in sixth.

One member If I remember right and you can pick any BoP on the board as well, though don't quote me on the 2nd part

Single model. Read the BOP rule.

Well..... I'm not convinced it is that cut and dry. And it is *not* explicitly stated.

If this unit suffers Perils of the Warp, or is hit by an attack that specifically targets Psykers, the hits are Randomly Allocated amongst models with the Brotherhood of Psykers/ Sorcerers special rule.


The Crucible is not a Perils of the Warp.
The Crucible may or may not be an "attack", but it certainly does not 'hit', nor does it have any 'hits' to randomly allocate.
Thus it is not clearly (and definitely not 'explicitly) addressed.

The Crucible forces a Ld test which if not passed, the psyker is "removed from play"
As far as I know, there is only 1 other way this can happen in the game; Demonic spell Possession.
It also says the psyker is immediately "removed as a casualty". But then it goes on to clarify that if BoP, the *entire unit* is removed.

crucible of malediction is most certainly an attack that specifically targets Psykers...

Eventhough it never says it attacks, and never says it targets anything, and there are no 'hits' to allocate....

Amazing how you are so sure about things the rules never mention...

coredump wrote:
Eventhough it never says it attacks, and never says it targets anything, and there are no 'hits' to allocate....

Amazing how you are so sure about things the rules never mention...

Something that effects the enemy and can remove enemy models from play is most certainly an attack on the enemy.

it is not a Close Combat Attack, but that is the only Attack that is defined in the BRB, and the CoM says attacks (General usage) and not Attacks (Defined as a Characteristic in the BRB).

we need to use the dictionary definition of attacks because attacks, unlike Attacks, is not defined in the BRB.

Target is a defined term.... and it doesn't target either.

It also does not 'hit'....

But it does target psykers, it targets all psykers within its range...

 DeathReaper wrote:
But it does target psykers, it targets all psykers within its range...

It actually doesnt "target" anything. In fact, it is not even a shooting attack.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But it does target psykers, it targets all psykers within its range...

It actually doesnt "target" anything. In fact, it is not even a shooting attack.

It does not matter that it is not a shooting attack. it targets (not Targets) all psykers within its range.

We're all still waiting patiently for you to address "hit" with presumably the same assumption.

It doesn't hit, target or need LOS.

It affects ALL psykers including your own.

While I agree based on the BRB description that the BoP rule states what happens I dont think it's correct, that is based on units.

The DE codex description clearly states every model and not unit therefore regardless of the BoP rule it still hits the models.

It does not target, it never says it targets, never uses the word target... nothing. That is an assumption you are creating.

There are several things in the game that affect a unit without actually targeting that unit.

You are correct, it does not say target, therefore it does not.

You'll know if it targets if it uses words like:

Target, select, choose, pick, exclude.

These things denote that something is being targeted, without words like these, it doesn't target

Also DeathReaper. Reading through the rules, it does need to say target on it otherwise it simply doesn't and the rules have made sure to let you know when you target or not.

It does not "Choose a Target", but it does target psykers.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not "Choose a Target", but it does target psykers.

So a blast that scatters onto a wholly different unit than was intended is targeting them?
Can that unit Jink?

No, they aren't targeted.

So, if we go with that.... it does not target, so *that* rule does not apply.

That still leaves the question of what happens to a BoP.

Does that rule provide enough 'precedence"? Or does the Possession rule act as precedence? Or what....???

Crucible affected all psykers in range before the last edition FAQ said otherwise, the current Dark Eldar faq no longer has any ruling saying it does not affect all psykers.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not "Choose a Target", but it does target psykers.

So a blast that scatters onto a wholly different unit than was intended is targeting them?
Can that unit Jink?

No, they aren't targeted.

They are not Targeted, but they are the target of the attack.

Subtle but important difference.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not "Choose a Target", but it does target psykers.

So a blast that scatters onto a wholly different unit than was intended is targeting them?
Can that unit Jink?

No, they aren't targeted.

They are not Targeted, but they are the target of the attack.

Subtle but important difference.

No, they aren't. Not as far as the rules are concerned anyway.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers rules in the Special rules section explicitly covers this. Check the Index for the page number for Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers.

Could you explain exactly how this works? I have read through the rule and I am failing to understand.

The CoM targets all psykers within range. if this happens you roll LD and if failed you remove one psyker since the attack specifically targets psykers.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CoM targets all psykers within range. if this happens you roll LD and if failed you remove one psyker since the attack specifically targets psykers.

The underlined is incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CoM targets all psykers within range. if this happens you roll LD and if failed you remove one psyker since the attack specifically targets psykers.

The underlined is incorrect.

No it is not.

It does not Target them, but it certainly targets them...

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CoM targets all psykers within range. if this happens you roll LD and if failed you remove one psyker since the attack specifically targets psykers.

The underlined is incorrect.

No it is not.

It does not Target them, but it certainly targets them...

You do realize that this makes absolutely no grammatical sense right? Flat out breaking basic English rules, not to mention baseless and lacking in any logical support whatsoever.

It isn't targeting Psykers, it is an effect that can only be applied to Psykers, entirely different meaning sir, do you not see that?

"Target" an "target" can easily mean different things.

"Target" has a specific meaning found in the rulebook (basically nominating a unit to be shot at).

"target" is being used with the "normal" English definition, eg someone to be affected by an action.

What DR is saying is that it does not nominate the Psykers for an attack (Target) but it does mark them as someone to be affected by an action (target).

 Lobomalo wrote:
It isn't targeting Psykers, it is an effect that can only be applied to Psykers, entirely different meaning sir, do you not see that?

So it is something that only affects Psykers?

How is that not targeting them?

The BRB does not define target. so we have to use the common English definition of target. (It defines Target, but that is for shooting attacks and not the same thing at all).

so clearly something that only affects one group definitely targets that group as per the common English definition of targeting.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CoM targets all psykers within range. if this happens you roll LD and if failed you remove one psyker since the attack specifically targets psykers.

The underlined is incorrect.

No it is not.

It does not Target them, but it certainly targets them...

No, it certainly does not.
"target" is the subject or aim of an attack or effect. The Crucible doesn't aim or pick a subject to devote energy to. It's completely uncaring as to who it nukes.

You're literally inventing things to try and make it work the way you think it should. You shouldn't do that.

RAW it's grey. I think it's only intended to remove one model from a BoP unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CoM targets all psykers within range. if this happens you roll LD and if failed you remove one psyker since the attack specifically targets psykers.

The underlined is incorrect.

No it is not.

It does not Target them, but it certainly targets them...

No, it certainly does not.
"target" is the subject or aim of an attack or effect. The Crucible doesn't aim or pick a subject to devote energy to. It's completely uncaring as to who it nukes.

You're literally inventing things to try and make it work the way you think it should. You shouldn't do that.

RAW it's grey. I think it's only intended to remove one model from a BoP unit.

Agreed, RAW it is grey.

However, RAI, I believe it removes the whole unit. I think of it this way:
If the crucible removes one of my Farseers, I would lose 3 warp charge dice, 3 (or 4) powers, and would give up one kill point. If the entire BoP unit is removed it largely has the same effect. If only one model is removed, it virtually has no effect.

If Perils removes one of your Farseers you lose 3 Warp Hcaege dice, 3 or 4 powers, and one Kill Point.

Perils on a BoP unit does what again? Right, just kills one model.

rigeld2 wrote:
If Perils removes one of your Farseers you lose 3 Warp Hcaege dice, 3 or 4 powers, and one Kill Point.

Perils on a BoP unit does what again? Right, just kills one model.

I get your point, but perils only causes a single wound most of the time, while the crucible takes all your wounds every time. Besides, this is not perils.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If Perils removes one of your Farseers you lose 3 Warp Hcaege dice, 3 or 4 powers, and one Kill Point.

Perils on a BoP unit does what again? Right, just kills one model.

I get your point, but perils only causes a single wound most of the time, while the crucible takes all your wounds every time. Besides, this is not perils.

No, it's not perils.
My point was that different units are different and are affected differently by different things.
Your method unnecessarily penalizes BoP/S units.

If the sixth edition FAQ spelled out that it only removed one model from BOP ( if I remember correctly) is there any reason to think that has changed?

Ok, so lets say it both targets and causes hits.
BoP says these hits are randomly allocated amongst models with the BoP rule.
The Crucible affects every psykers within 3D6".

If I have 3 Zoanthropes in a unit, with an attached Prime, 2 zoanthropes are within. The unit would be forced to take 2 leadership tests, and the "hits" (the Ld tests) are randomly distributed to Zoanthrope models as per the BoP rule.
The only way you aren't causes multiple tests on BoP is if somehow the 2nd, 3rd and 4th model with the BoP rule aren't psykers.
I do not believe this is the original intent, but that's the fallout with shoddy FAQ's and out of date rules.

So it does not target any psyker in range? Cool, means it doesn't affect them either....

 don_mondo wrote:
So it does not target any psyker in range? Cool, means it doesn't affect them either....

Citation required.
Why do you say that?

rigeld2 wrote:
If Perils removes one of your Farseers you lose 3 Warp Hcaege dice, 3 or 4 powers, and one Kill Point.

Perils on a BoP unit does what again? Right, just kills one model.

What about casting Possession?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 don_mondo wrote:
So it does not target any psyker in range? Cool, means it doesn't affect them either....

There are plenty of effects in the game that does not target a unit/model/whatever... but still effects them plenty.

RAW definitely seems to indicate the whole unit is removed. Not sure how it should be played though.

ohiowargamer wrote:
If the sixth edition FAQ spelled out that it only removed one model from BOP ( if I remember correctly) is there any reason to think that has changed?

the issue is that it has been removed from the 7th edition faq purposefully, means that that is no longer the case.

blaktoof wrote:

ohiowargamer wrote:
If the sixth edition FAQ spelled out that it only removed one model from BOP ( if I remember correctly) is there any reason to think that has changed?

the issue is that it has been removed from the 7th edition faq purposefully, means that that is no longer the case.

Well it is the case, as the FaQ's are clarifications of the rules. Ergo it should still be played that way as the wording has not changed and the rule was clarified to work in a certain way.

blaktoof wrote:

ohiowargamer wrote:
If the sixth edition FAQ spelled out that it only removed one model from BOP ( if I remember correctly) is there any reason to think that has changed?

the issue is that it has been removed from the 7th edition faq purposefully, means that that is no longer the case.

Nearly everything has been removed from all the FAQs. That does not mean that the previous rulings are invalid, just that they haven't written them back in yet. Which, IMO, they should have had full FAQs ready to go at release, not this half-assed job that they threw out and called an FAQ update.

Many of the FAQs contain some of their previous rulings, along with a few new rulings for 7th.

I do not agree that they removed it because its still valid. I am sorry, but that does not make sense.

Perhaps tyranids still cannot use fortifications/terrain because a previous ruling said they could not. Nah, that doesn't make sense.


The current rule for BoP says they follow all the rules for psykers with 2 clarifications, one is for using psychic powers, the other is for suffering a perils of the warp/ being hit by an attack that specifically targets psykers.

If this unit suffers Perils of the Warp, or is hit by an attack that specifically targets Psykers, the hits are Randomly Allocated amongst models with the Brotherhood of Psykers/ Sorcerers special rule. If a model with this special rule gains or loses a psychic power, all other models with this special rule in their unit also gain or lose that power.

the issues are:

Crucible of malediction does not choose a target, nor does it require LoS.

The Crucible of malediction does not require a to hit roll, and does not auto hit.

It hits every psyker within range.

BoP does not say the unit counts as 1 psyker, the new wording says you distribute the hits among the unit to models that have the BoP rule, this means for each hit you put one on each model with BoP ignoring models that are in the unit that do not have BoP.

The crucible of malediction affects every psykers within range.

Each model in a BoP/BoS unit is a model with the rule psyker, so it generates an effect for each model. If you applied the BoP rule, which you can't as they are not hits nor are they targeting a unit, but let's say you do, you still have to test for every model in range you would then randomly remove models based on the # that fail as opposed to rolling for each model and seeing if each one fails individually.

blaktoof wrote:
Many of the FAQs contain some of their previous rulings, along with a few new rulings for 7th.

I do not agree that they removed it because its still valid. I am sorry, but that does not make sense.

You do realize that the Warhammer 40K Rulebook FAQ is not there right, they have not posted the Warhammer 40K Rulebook FAQ yet.

No reason to think that the clarifications made in the last one are not the same if the wordings have not changed.

Mmmmmm, Blaktoof? You do realize that when you say:

"The Crucible of malediction does not require a to hit roll, and does not auto hit.

It hits every psyker within range."

... that you invalidate your entire argument?

Per the BRB and DE codex, only 1 randomly determined model in a BoP unit would be removed on a failed Ld roll. Good luck trying to get a TO to agree to your interpretation.

SJ

Per the BRB and DE codex, only 1 randomly determined model in a BoP unit would be removed on a failed Ld roll. Good luck trying to get a TO to agree to your interpretation.

that's neither in the BRB or the DE codex, posting false information is not proper.

Despite me saying the word hit, it is not used in the rules for crucible of malediction. There is no hitting, no auto hit, no to hit roll.

Once per game the model may use it instead of firing, every psyker within 3d6" must passs a leadership roll or be removed from play as they go stark raving mad. No saves of any kind are allowed.

As you can see the rule for crucible does not require targeting, or hitting.

BoP changed from how it was worded last edition, it doesn't protect the unit from taking more than 1 wound from a psyker being affected by something.

If a template/blast weapon that only affected psykers hit the unit it would not only affect 1 model, as per the current BoP/BoS rule it would affect as many models as were hit but the hits would be randomly allocated to models in the unit that have the psyker or BoP/BoS rule.

The new wording of the BoP rule prevents the unit from being removed by a failed perils roll, as the perils hit is 1 hit that can be randomly allocated but in all other regards the whole unit is eligible for being hit by things that affect psykers.

If I was at a Tournament and found the TO was incapable of following basic RAW in the rulebook, I would ask for my entry fee back and leave.

You posted it yourself, BoP prevents the removal of the entire unit by removing one randomly selected model, while CoM only removes Psykers on a failed Ld check. If CoM removed units, targeted units, hit units, it wound be a different story. Instead, CoM effects Psykers in range, forces a Ld check, and removes the Psykers that fail the check, something BoP protects against. You are barking HYWPI, not RAW.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You posted it yourself, BoP prevents the removal of the entire unit by removing one randomly selected model,

Except that BoP only does this when the attack targets psykers, and the Crucible never targets anything.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You posted it yourself, BoP prevents the removal of the entire unit by removing one randomly selected model,

Except that BoP only does this when the attack targets psykers, and the Crucible never targets anything.

Incorrect, the Crucible targets all psykers in range...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You posted it yourself, BoP prevents the removal of the entire unit by removing one randomly selected model,

Except that BoP only does this when the attack targets psykers, and the Crucible never targets anything.

Incorrect, the Crucible targets all psykers in range...

It affects all psykers in range. It does not target them.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You posted it yourself, BoP prevents the removal of the entire unit by removing one randomly selected model,

Except that BoP only does this when the attack targets psykers, and the Crucible never targets anything.

Incorrect, the Crucible targets all psykers in range...

It affects all psykers in range. It does not target them.

It does not Target them, but it does target them...

Affecting psykers is targeting psykers.

affecting and targeting are not the same.

ex- models suffering casualties from running through DT and being removed have been affected by it, the DT did not target them however.

Also I do not think you understand how BoP works, clarification #2 states that if a unit is hit by an attack that targets psykers the hits are randomly allocated to models in the unit with BoP special rule.

So if for example a mindstrike missile, a weapon that does roll to hit and does declare a target hits a unit with BoP and hits 3 models, you distribute 3 hits randomly to the models in the unit. not 1.

Crucible of malediction does not hit 1 model, it affects all models in range. So even if #2 kicked in and it affected 10 models in a unit because the were in range you would allocate 10 "hits" to the unit not 1, and take 10 ld tests not 1. Given that CoM doesn't target or cause hits this rule would never kick in, and yes this also means this rule does next to nothing other than you don't roll 1 test for the entire unit but you roll 1 test for each model affected by something that hits it. Hence why HITS is plural in the rules for BoP.

BoP is not the same as it used to be.

that said CoM also does not target or hit.

Bad example, DT is not something that is activated.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not Target them, but it does target them...

Affecting psykers is targeting psykers.

Okay...does this distinction have any explicit basis in the rules? I'm willing to hear this argument out, but I cannot find anywhere in the book that explicitly (or implicitly) clarifies a distinction.

Target is a process, shooting attacks use the Target Process to determine what unit is selected for a shooting attack and is clearly defined in the BRB.

target is the normal English definition of the word and its definition should be used when not talking about the shooting process.

Plus the CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Target is a process, shooting attacks use the Target Process to determine what unit is selected for a shooting attack and is clearly defined in the BRB.

target is the normal English definition of the word and its definition should be used when not talking about the shooting process.

I'm halfway convinced. This seems like a reasonable line of logic so far. However, I can't find any other instances of Target being used, capitalized, as a proper term. All the other rules I could think of (and check) that use 'Target' in the way you specify as a game-term, do not capitalize it. Without some form of distinction within the book, I don't think we can draw a line and say "Well, this time they mean it as a game-term and this time they don't" without some identifier to tell us that. Have I missed an example of 'target' being capitalized to mark it out as a rules-specific term?

Plus the CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

I'm actually bang alongside this line of reasoning, with two caveats. The first is, we have to recognize that using an FAQ that no longer exists is not RAW, but is a houserule. Granted, an extremely reasonable one in many cases. HOWEVER, in this case the nature of psykers and psychic powers changed dramatically between these two editions, so I don't think intent on the part of the authors is so easily read in this case.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Target is a process, shooting attacks use the Target Process to determine what unit is selected for a shooting attack and is clearly defined in the BRB.

target is the normal English definition of the word and its definition should be used when not talking about the shooting process.

Plus the CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

If a blast scatters and hits your own unit, did you target that unit?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Target is a process, shooting attacks use the Target Process to determine what unit is selected for a shooting attack and is clearly defined in the BRB.

target is the normal English definition of the word and its definition should be used when not talking about the shooting process.

Plus the CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

If a blast scatters and hits your own unit, did you target that unit?

This brings to mind the old 6th Ed Night fighting rules.
You cannot target something outside of 36", but a blast can scatter onto the unit, as it was never targeted.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Target is a process, shooting attacks use the Target Process to determine what unit is selected for a shooting attack and is clearly defined in the BRB.

target is the normal English definition of the word and its definition should be used when not talking about the shooting process.

I'm halfway convinced. This seems like a reasonable line of logic so far. However, I can't find any other instances of Target being used, capitalized, as a proper term. All the other rules I could think of (and check) that use 'Target' in the way you specify as a game-term, do not capitalize it. Without some form of distinction within the book, I don't think we can draw a line and say "Well, this time they mean it as a game-term and this time they don't" without some identifier to tell us that. Have I missed an example of 'target' being capitalized to mark it out as a rules-specific term?

I couldn't find one.

Couldn't find it because there isn't one.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Couldn't find it because there isn't one.

Please don't be antagonistic, Lobo. There's no reason for it. This is a reasonable rules discussion, and in this case Deathreaper is trying to present a legitimate rules argument. If he has found an example of this that I missed, then his argument will hold water, and I for one would love to know.

If we have new information to present, that's fine, but without it there's no reason to jump in just to dog-pile someone.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
Couldn't find it because there isn't one.

Please don't be antagonistic, Lobo. There's no reason for it. This is a reasonable rules discussion, and in this case Deathreaper is trying to present a legitimate rules argument. If he has found an example of this that I missed, then his argument will hold water, and I for one would love to know.

If we have new information to present, that's fine, but without it there's no reason to jump in just to dog-pile someone.

That wasn't antagonistic. Literally, there is no such ruling within the book, which brings us to our own interpretations.

Don't be so sensitive.

I am not dog piling, I looked for myself and I am in agreement with him

 DeathReaper wrote:
Target is a process, shooting attacks use the Target Process to determine what unit is selected for a shooting attack and is clearly defined in the BRB.

target is the normal English definition of the word and its definition should be used when not talking about the shooting process.

Plus the CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

Where was this logic in the Death Ray vs Invisibility thread?

-Matt

Target vs target: This is a distinction that does not exist in the rulebook. I all these years I have never heard anyone (including DR) present this distinction until this thread. It is never been mentioned in all the other similar rules issues: scattering blasts, death ray, Deathleaper, Invisibility, Vector Strike, hammer of Wrath, etc....

Target vs Hit: Being skipped over is the fact that BoP rule needs a unit to be targetted *and* only applies to allocating Hits.
Again, the above logic has never been applied to distinguish between Hits, and the English dictionary version of 'hits' when discussing things like Look Out Sir, HoW, VS, etc.


Possession: Again, this is not being addressed. CoM states to "remove the psyker", there is only *one* other time I can find this wording in the BRB, and that is the spell Possession. Where it *clarifies* that "remove the psyker" results in the entire unit being removed, not just one model.



FAQs: I agree that the previous FAQs, as 'clarifications', should be used when possible. But while the wording on CoM has not changed, there have been a *lot* of changes to how Psychic powers and psychic 'units' work, including the addition of another 'remove a psyker' effect in the game with a result that goes against what the FAQ would have implied.



I am, personally, willing to play with BoP only losing 1 model, because I think losing the unit doesn't 'feel right'... but that is not a valid rules argument, and there are a *lot* of rules in 40K that do no 'feel right'.....

The CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

As pointed out above, how psykers work, and how model vs unit is removed from play, has changed.
That, and the 6th edition FAQ is gone. To me, the change in how the brotherhood of psykers is removed is an indication of intent. When a psychic effect hits the brotherhood and removes a model, it takes out the whole unit.

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

That FAQ you are referencing is not current. Please label your post as HIWPI, it's not an acceptable source for YMTC.

How I myself would play it would be to have every psychic model in the brotherhood test. It's less of an all or nothing. You'll get some of them, and some will survive.

-Matt

It does not matter if that particular FAQ is not current. it was a clarification of the rules in an FAQ.

The BoB rules have very similar wording as 6th, CoM is the same, it was clarified to work a certain way in 6th, and since the wording on both of the rules in question has not changed, there is no reason to think it works any differently

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

Okay, but the very nature of psykers and how we play them has changed.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but have you got any rules support for the target/Target distinction? I'm not going to throw rocks at you if you think it's a "common sense" thing, I just wanted to know if you had any written rules that led you to that conclusion.

It does not matter that the very nature of psykers and how we play them has changed.

The Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers rules are almost identical to last edition, and CoM has not changed at all.

No reason to think a clarification on something that has not changed now affects Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers differently given their wording being very similar to las edition.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not matter that the very nature of psykers and how we play them has changed.

The Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers rules are almost identical to last edition, and CoM has not changed at all.

No reason to think a clarification on something that has not changed now affects Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers differently given their wording being very similar to las edition.

Tyranid FAQ flip flopping demonstrates that this is incorrect thinking.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not matter that the very nature of psykers and how we play them has changed.

The Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers rules are almost identical to last edition, and CoM has not changed at all.

No reason to think a clarification on something that has not changed now affects Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers differently given their wording being very similar to las edition.

Tyranid FAQ flip flopping demonstrates that this is incorrect thinking.

not at all, this has nothing to do with the Tyranids or their rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not matter that the very nature of psykers and how we play them has changed.

The Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers rules are almost identical to last edition, and CoM has not changed at all.

No reason to think a clarification on something that has not changed now affects Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers differently given their wording being very similar to las edition.

Tyranid FAQ flip flopping demonstrates that this is incorrect thinking.

not at all, this has nothing to do with the Tyranids or their rules.

The point is that you can't count on consistency, especially between editions.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not matter that the very nature of psykers and how we play them has changed.

The Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers rules are almost identical to last edition, and CoM has not changed at all.

No reason to think a clarification on something that has not changed now affects Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers differently given their wording being very similar to las edition.

Tyranid FAQ flip flopping demonstrates that this is incorrect thinking.

not at all, this has nothing to do with the Tyranids or their rules.

Right, and this also has nothing to do with an out of date FAQ. The current FAQ does not include that clarification. Your argument is RAI.

The crucible rules clearly state each model so why is this conversation still going on? It's not targeted and it doesn't hit the unit, it's every model with the psyker rule irrespective of bop or not.

Wait, if it says that it affects models with the Psyker special rule, wouldn't Brotherhoods be immune?

After all, the models do not have the Psyker special rule. The unit is a Psyker, but not the models within the unit.

If it just says "Psyker" then yeah, any unit within range including at least one model with the Brotherhood special rule would be affected and removed.

 Happyjew wrote:
Wait, if it says that it affects models with the Psyker special rule, wouldn't Brotherhoods be immune?

After all, the models do not have the Psyker special rule. The unit is a Psyker, but not the models within the unit.

If it just says "Psyker" then yeah, any unit within range including at least one model with the Brotherhood special rule would be affected and removed.

Under BoP
"A unit containing at least one model with this special rule is a Psyker unit..."
"The unit follows all the normal rules for Psykers..."

Crucible of Malediction
"Every Psyker within 3D6..."

It seems that the whole unit is removed.

It says each model has to take the test so I doubt it's the whole unit.

Without a doubt, all models are one psyker, and will be removed from play if the unit, which is one psyker, fails the Ld test.

1. Perils of the Warp affecting only one model in a BoP is clearly illogical, so it cannot be used as a reference point.

2. Psyker Ld Test > removed, the brotherhood of psykers counts as one psyker as per the rules. There are no hits to randomly allocate (as if it were one attack specific to a psyker), and CoM says "remove the psyker".

I see no reason why a Zoan brood would withstand a psychic blast that wipes a seerStar off the board, other than very stupid rules, such as those that are currently applying to BoPs for Perils of the Warp.

It may have been that RAI truly meant BoPs to laugh at perils, and maybe even at crucibles, but it makes sense to consider that it did not.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

No it doesnt cause it where 6th Edition FAQ and not 7th! If it should they could have done a simple copy and paste job, but they didnt. It may be youre personal wish, but you have no argument here. Otherwise we can argue, the helldrake has still a 360° firing arc, cause it was in the last FAQ. Or better, we can say template weapons hit only a single floor, cause it was in the 6th Edition rulebook, but isnt adressed in the 7th Edition rules...


RAW = latest BRB + latest Codices/Supplements/Dataslates + latest FAQ

Not in the latest FAQ = not RAW

Simple as that.

For the rulesquestion itself: Dont know the exact wording of BOP, but if it says the unit counts as a psyker of mastery Level XXX than it is removed competly in my interpretation of the rules, cause unit = psyker and crucible removes the psyker. Maybe someone could post the exact wording of both rules, so it is easier to discuss.

Only one psyker would be removed due to the wording in the Brotherhood of Psykers special rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Only one psyker would be removed due to the wording in the Brotherhood of Psykers special rules.

and what wording is that? please cite the relevant ruling


The one that says for if hit by an attack that targets psykers an Unit of BoP/BoS the hits (notice the plural) are randomly allocated to members with the BoP rule.

There is no longer blanket protection for only 1 model in a BoP unit that is hit by something that causes more than 1 model to be hit to only take 1 hit.

Additionaly CoM does not target or cause hits, as per its wording and rules.

It affects all psyker models in range, regardless of LoS or if they are in separate units. Obviously it is not a targeted ability and has no hit rolls.

At best each model in the unit would have to take a separate LD test. at worst the whole unit is removed.

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Only one psyker would be removed due to the wording in the Brotherhood of Psykers special rules.

and what wording is that? please cite the relevant ruling

I have, the Brotherhood of Psykers rules cover this situation.

The CoM is an attack that targets psykers so you only remove a random psyker.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Only one psyker would be removed due to the wording in the Brotherhood of Psykers special rules.

and what wording is that? please cite the relevant ruling

I have, the Brotherhood of Psykers rules cover this situation.

The CoM is an attack that targets psykers so you only remove a random psyker.

No, it's not. It doesn't target anything. Perhaps you'd like to respond to the posts challenging your statement instead of ignoring them?

I have, the Com targets all paykers. ergo the BoP rules cover the situation.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have, the Com targets all paykers. ergo the BoP rules cover the situation.

It does not target all Psykers.
You've literally invented that and are ignoring posts that prove otherwise.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have, the Com targets all paykers. ergo the BoP rules cover the situation.

It does not target all Psykers.
You've literally invented that and are ignoring posts that prove otherwise.

Actually it does target all psykers within its range.

I have shown why it does this above, and you guys have ignored it so...

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Target is a process, shooting attacks use the Target Process to determine what unit is selected for a shooting attack and is clearly defined in the BRB.

target is the normal English definition of the word and its definition should be used when not talking about the shooting process.

Plus the CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

If a blast scatters and hits your own unit, did you target that unit?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CoM targets all psykers within range. if this happens you roll LD and if failed you remove one psyker since the attack specifically targets psykers.

The underlined is incorrect.

No it is not.

It does not Target them, but it certainly targets them...

No, it certainly does not.
"target" is the subject or aim of an attack or effect. The Crucible doesn't aim or pick a subject to devote energy to. It's completely uncaring as to who it nukes.

You're literally inventing things to try and make it work the way you think it should. You shouldn't do that.

RAW it's grey. I think it's only intended to remove one model from a BoP unit.

You never responded to either of these posts. Please don't ignore things. Let's have an honest discussion, okay?

I have ignored nothing.

All Psykers in range are definitely the "subject or aim of an attack or effect."

The Psykers within range are definitely the subject of an effect.

DR is fixated on creating a targeting rule in there. He will not change his mind, nor can he show any targeting. At this point the conversation will go in circles.

Fragile wrote:
DR is fixated on creating a targeting rule in there. He will not change his mind, nor can he show any targeting. At this point the conversation will go in circles.

I have just shown how it targets Psykers.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have ignored nothing.

All Psykers in range are definitely the "subject or aim of an attack or effect."

The Psykers within range are definitely the subject of an effect.

You certainly didn't respond to those posts.
So a blast that scatters onto another unit is targeted?

The crucible doesn't have any specific subject or aim - it hits all Psykers in range.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have ignored nothing.

All Psykers in range are definitely the "subject or aim of an attack or effect."

The Psykers within range are definitely the subject of an effect.

You certainly didn't respond to those posts.
So a blast that scatters onto another unit is targeted?

The crucible doesn't have any specific subject or aim - it hits all Psykers in range.

It does have a specific subject, Psykers and only Psykers. Non-Psyker models are not affected.

P.S. What does blasts have to do with CoM? CoM is not a shooting attack and works differently to scattering blasts.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have ignored nothing.

All Psykers in range are definitely the "subject or aim of an attack or effect."

The Psykers within range are definitely the subject of an effect.

You certainly didn't respond to those posts.
So a blast that scatters onto another unit is targeted?

The crucible doesn't have any specific subject or aim - it hits all Psykers in range.

It does have a specific subject, Psykers and only Psykers. Non-Psyker models are not affected.

P.S. What does blasts have to do with CoM? CoM is not a shooting attack and works differently to scattering blasts.

If there are 12 Psykers in range, which specific ones are affected?
And it's relevant because you're using a word with a specific 40k definition and twisting it to mean something else based on ... What again? Aside from "it used to work this way"?

Considering the wording has not significantly changed the clarification in 6th about the way it used to work is still valid.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
DR is fixated on creating a targeting rule in there. He will not change his mind, nor can he show any targeting. At this point the conversation will go in circles.

I have just shown how it targets Psykers.

You have not. You are simply trying to keep rewording your argument to make it sound like you have. Nor does it really matter.

If this unit suffers Perils of the Warp, or is hit by an attack that specifically targets Psykers, the hits are Randomly Allocated amongst models with the Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rule. If a model with this special rule gains or loses a psychic power, all other models with this special rule in their unit also gain or lose that power.

Nothing in that rule does what you claim and nothing stops every Psyker in there from taking the LD test.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have, the Com targets all paykers. ergo the BoP rules cover the situation.

"targeting" aside, you are also conveniently skipping over the part where it deals with 'hits' and allocates 'hits' to a single model.

Or are you now going to claim that CoM targets *and* hits......???

 DeathReaper wrote:
Considering the wording has not significantly changed the clarification in 6th about the way it used to work is still valid.

And, as I've said before, this isn't a reliable way to look at things.
Nid FAQs flip flopping.
GK Deathknight flip flop.

FAQs aren't reliably the same within an edition, let alone through one.

So do you have an actual, rules based argument anymore?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Considering the wording has not significantly changed the clarification in 6th about the way it used to work is still valid.

You just ignore everything that proves you wrong, like in the cited part. You are wrong with this!!! THE CLARIFICATION FOR 6TH EDITION ISNT VALID, CAUSE WE HAVE 7TH EDITION AND THE 7TH EDITION FAQ DOESNT MENTION IT! --- Hope you get it if i write the relevant parts in caps... What does this mean? It means that GW hasn' t decided jet how the crucible works in 7th. Until they FAQ it again, its up to the interpretation of the players.

So now we look at your definition of targeting. Its the same Problem here. Until we have a clear Statement from GW, that "targeting" means also "affected by" or "everything that does something to a model" you cant argue the crucible targets all psykers, cause the exact wording doesnt mention its targeting anything.

The only to clear things we have is:

1. Crucible removes a psyker who failed his Ld
2. A unit with BoP is treated as a Psyker (still not sure, have to check the exact wording)

So if you add 1+1 you get the crucible will remove the whole unit. Maybe that isnt RAI. But as long as we dont get a FAQ that states otherwise or you find a clear definition of the word "target" everything else is just interpretation and not a fact.