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.

Again, show the action taken against them - at the moment of deployment neither side has taken an action against the enemy, just taken an action of their own army.
That quote also uses "against" to mean "opposite", I would posit.

What definition of against are you using? I was assuming "in opposition to", is that the same one?

Opposite vs Oppose

One is passive, the other active

Opposition relates to oppose not opposite according to the OED, except in relation to celestial objects. They have a related etymology obvs.

So for those who still think we should use the dictionary definition of "attack".
If you are not deploying "against" the foe, then you are just randomly putting units on the table.
Deployment should be and IS considered an "attack" by definition of the English word. Henceforth, using the English meaning is not an appropriate reasoning.
You have no RAW to support your claim. Please prove me wrong or concede.
(just as an aside, HIYPI is that maledictions are bound by it, I'm only arguing RAW here.)

There are several recent political situations where the simple lining up of troops on a border (ie. deploying forces) is considered an act of aggression. The definition Prince Raven gave us earlier for attack, "Take aggressive action against a foe," seems to describe exactly this deployment of troops. Deploying things is certainly active, and not passive. If it were passive, your hands would not be moving, your brain would not be working. In the context of deployment, you are actively planning the downfall of your opponent. I'd call that an "attack" if we're insisting on calling maledictions "attacks."

Going back to what Drunkenspleen said on page 1, the rules for Swooping on page 49 are pretty clear: If a Flying Monstrous Creature is Swooping, it moves exactly like a Jump Monstrous Creature, with the following exceptions and clarifications: ...

So if a FMC is forced to Fall Back, it would Fall Back 3D6" as per the rules for Jump Monstrous Creatures.

Can a Malediction "hit" a Swooping FMC? RAW, yes, it can. It is not a shooting attack or shooting psychic attack. You simply need to be in range of the intended target. If you pass your psychic test, you can use your Malediction against any enemy unit in range. Your Malediction doesn't even need to be able to hurt it (FAQ example is Hallucination can target a Vehicle but won't actually have any effect).

So you could use a Malediction against a Zooming Vendetta if you really wanted to. Other than Misfortune and Objuration Mechanicum I don't think there's any BRB powers that would work. Maybe Dominate, but I'm pretty sure you can't force vehicles to take a Leadership test. I think they count as Ld 10 for Psychic Powers if they have the Psychic Pilot rule but that was it.