Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Macok wrote:

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.

Why would the unit fall back? In order to perform DoG, the unit has to pass the morale test.

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".

Scott-S6 wrote:

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?

Maybe we should let the wh40k supreme court handle this one. I know the website was mentioned somewhere, something like ruleslawyers.com

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 have also already addressed THAT argument. Please, go back a page and read the post, it will save time.

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.

Scott-S6 wrote:

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."

Just sent an inquiry to them, if/when I get a reply I'll let you know what they say (regardless if you believe me or not).

rigeld2 wrote:This means that you aren't firing the ranged weapon - you just get a hit from either a CC or ranged weapon.

If that's the case, then my one-use demo charge or combi-weapon is still usable after I wreck a tank by not firing it???

I am certainly convinced that the definition of "carried weapon" being used here, is not in any way defensible.

Scott-S6 wrote: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.

That's been killed hasn't it?
For eg doombolt counts as a weapon and is used instead of another ranged weapon.

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.

To be fair, I think it says any ranged weapon carried by the model, or a CC attack...

...a CC weapon is not required IIRC. Could be wrong though.

my completly ruleless 2p !

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


No need for the rest of this post.
reds8n

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.

sirlynchmob wrote:

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.

Avatar 720 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

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.

Grakmar wrote:

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...

... to be a Logician in those times!

EDIT3: PSYCHIC TITANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!