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.

@Kirsanth

I'd recommend reading the actual rules in both codexes. The BoP rule does say they are a psyker and then goes on to describe how anti-psyker abilities or issues affect them. If it just said they were psykers I'd agree with you.

@Dash

No, Dash. Like has been said before it's not an ongoing attack. The very few things that are are noted as such. It's another of the rules we've discussed before. But like before, play how you want to buddy. Just thought I'd chime in. It's not worth it to me to fight about it. I'm pretty sure of how every TO I've ever met is going to rule it which is all that matters to me

**Editted for tone that could be misinterpreted **

Hulksmash wrote:I'm pretty sure of how every TO I've ever met is going to rule it which is all that matters to me

I think this is the most important issue here. This isn't a rule that could possibly fall either way and people are debating the implications of each method - most of the GK rules loopholes create some pretty severe extremes, the kinds of extremes that the FAQs and TO judgement largely exist for in the first place.

Hulksmash wrote:@Kirsanth

I'd recommend reading the actual rules in both codexes. The BoP rule does say they are a psyker and then goes on to describe how anti-psyker abilities or issues affect them. If it just said they were psykers I'd agree with you.

@Dash

No, Dash. Like has been said before it's not an ongoing attack. The very few things that are are noted as such. It's another of the...creative....readings of the rules we've discussed before. But like before, play how you want to buddy. Just thought I'd chime in. It's not worth it to me to fight about it. I'm pretty sure of how every TO I've ever met is going to rule it which is all that matters to me

Hulk: Answer your damned phone! =D

The BoP rule doesn't describe how anti-psyker abilities or issues affect them, it tells you how to allocate anti-psyker attacks. Those are quite different - which is my point....scroll up ad naseum for discussions of different kinds of leadership checks, whey they are forced, and why none of them constitute attacks.

And the root issue remains: BoP's writing explains allocation - which is what it is for. The unit is a psychic, the Justicar is used to resolve psychic attacks before anyone else. Removing the Justicar would fit allocation, but it doesn't remove the psychic.

We seem to only have partial rules quotes of the relevent GK codex in the thread, at least there gaps in the quotes in this thread.

The inital post that the OP made did seem to indicate that BoP has the attack specifically resolve against the Justicar. This would mean that the justicar suffers the result of the attack...and once the result is applied we are done.

Thats if the wording given in the OP is precise.


The attack is specifically resolved. That would mean that the attack's results are applied to the specific model of the Justicar, not the more general unit. Its not saying merely that the justicar takes the test for the unit, its saying that the attack is resolved against the justicar.



Unless perhaps someone could quote the rules for the BoP in their entirety? With what has been given so far I would have to rule for our local tournets that the BoP has the attack resolve on the Justicar, and he alone is removed if he fails.



Sliggoth

"Units of Grey Knights are psykers and use their mental might to enhance their abilities or unleash psychic attacks.

A Grey Knight unit can use one psychic power each turn. The unit counts as a single psyker and follows all the normal rules for psykers with the following clarifications:

-A Grey Knight uses the leadership of its Justicar or Knight of the Flamer (if he is alive), or the unit (if he is dead) for Psychic tests. A Grey Knight unit can never use the Leadership value of an independat character for Psychic test.

-If the Grey Knight unit suffers the Perils of the Warp, or any attack that specifically targets psykers, it is resolved against the Justicar or Knight of the Flamer (if he is alive) or against a random non-character model in the squad if the Justicar or Knight of the Flame is dead."

That is the entire Brotherhood of Psykers rule. I hope that helps.

@Dash

The wife and I are chillin, call me tomorrow if you wanna discuss it

Dashofpepper wrote:The BoP rule doesn't describe how anti-psyker abilities or issues affect them, it tells you how to allocate anti-psyker attacks.

My only issue with this is that you basically have to claim that GW wrote a rule for something that doesn't exist yet - a specifically anti-psyker weapon that somehow doesn't already come with it's own explanation of how to resolve it's attack. Now I'm one of the first to believe that GW rules are bad, but it seems fairly straightforward to assume they weren't writing BoP to refer specifically to some new Sisters of Battle weapon.

As for claiming it's not an attack in the first place, from the BRB we know basic stuff like that all gunshots and chainsword swings are attacks, but not that all attacks are gunshots and chainsword swings, and that's really it - not a whole lot to work with. Attack isn't defined anywhere, so saying "attack isn't defined anywhere so CoM isn't an attack" is on the same shaky but equal footing with "attack isn't defined anywhere so CoM is an attack"

As has been said a few times now it's all irrelevant because the ability to remove the squad wholesale doesn't really care who you allocated the attack to (the whole squad still dies, you just got to use the justicar's leadership) and we know how any TO or FAQ is likely to rule it.

MikeMcSomething wrote:


As for claiming it's not an attack in the first place, from the BRB we know basic stuff like that all gunshots and chainsword swings are attacks, but not that all attacks are gunshots and chainsword swings, and that's really it - not a whole lot to work with. Attack isn't defined anywhere, so saying "attack isn't defined anywhere so CoM isn't an attack" is on the same shaky but equal footing with "attack isn't defined anywhere so CoM is an attack"

Its the opposite of that though.

Attack hasn't been defined in the rulebook, so we look to every instance in which it is used in the rulebook to establish trends. Things that directly cause wounds are attacks, things resolving around characteristics are tests, and the two are not the same.

This is a case of the undefined orange. Every orange you've ever seen, and every orange that has ever been written about is orange in color. Your friend produces a red apple and says, "This is an orange too." You say, "No its not...all oranges are orange colored." Your friend says, "There's no definition saying that oranges must be orange, so this must be assumed to be an orange too."

The rulebook isn't a dictionary, it doesn't define every word. But every attack and description of attack fall in line with each other. And nowhere in there do you make a leadership attack.

Hmmm, so BoP would seem to be saying that no IC can take a leadership test for psychic tests. So an IC could only use a psychic power if hes in a group, and then he would have to take the test on the Justicar's leadership....messy.

Vehicles using psychic powers shouldnt be a problem, since they will never have a justicar in their unit. Now attacks that hit psychers that are vehicles might be interesting, depending on how vehicles are listed in the codex. Vehicles might not be Grey Knights depending on the wording.



The last part of the rule does seem to be saying that a perils or attack that specifically targets psychers is resolved against only the justicar.

That does leave open an arguement that the crucible isnt targetting anything, altho thats a fairly weak reed. Might be worth looking at tho.


As far as the what is an attack bit....looking at psychic shooting attacks really is a reasonable test to see what GW considers an attack. And psychic shooting attacks are worded as being used instead of firing a weapon during the shooting phase, exactly the same language they used for the crucible. So yes, we all know that the crucible isnt psychic, but yes we also are looking for similar wording in the rules.

The resolution of the attack does involve a characteristic test, however a characteristic test is used in the resolution of a Jotww attack. No matter how you slice it, Jotww is an attack, it requires a test, and doesnt cause wounds.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Hmmm, so BoP would seem to be saying that no IC can take a leadership test for psychic tests. So an IC could only use a psychic power if hes in a group, and then he would have to take the test on the Justicar's leadership....messy.

Vehicles using psychic powers shouldnt be a problem, since they will never have a justicar in their unit. Now attacks that hit psychers that are vehicles might be interesting, depending on how vehicles are listed in the codex. Vehicles might not be Grey Knights depending on the wording.



The last part of the rule does seem to be saying that a perils or attack that specifically targets psychers is resolved against only the justicar.

That does leave open an arguement that the crucible isnt targetting anything, altho thats a fairly weak reed. Might be worth looking at tho.


As far as the what is an attack bit....looking at psychic shooting attacks really is a reasonable test to see what GW considers an attack. And psychic shooting attacks are worded as being used instead of firing a weapon during the shooting phase, exactly the same language they used for the crucible. So yes, we all know that the crucible isnt psychic, but yes we also are looking for similar wording in the rules.

The resolution of the attack does involve a characteristic test, however a characteristic test is used in the resolution of a Jotww attack. No matter how you slice it, Jotww is an attack, it requires a test, and doesnt cause wounds.

Sliggoth

The resolution of JotWW may be an attack - the characteristic test that gets you there is not. You test against a characteristic to see if you suffer an attack. Like any other psychic power. First, pass a leadership...attack. Then execute your psychic...attack. Oh! You suffered 25% casualties. Take a leadership attack. I'm going to hit and run, making an initiative attack.

No...doesn't really work.

Dashofpepper wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:


As for claiming it's not an attack in the first place, from the BRB we know basic stuff like that all gunshots and chainsword swings are attacks, but not that all attacks are gunshots and chainsword swings, and that's really it - not a whole lot to work with. Attack isn't defined anywhere, so saying "attack isn't defined anywhere so CoM isn't an attack" is on the same shaky but equal footing with "attack isn't defined anywhere so CoM is an attack"

Its the opposite of that though.

Attack hasn't been defined in the rulebook, so we look to every instance in which it is used in the rulebook to establish trends. Things that directly cause wounds are attacks, things resolving around characteristics are tests, and the two are not the same.

This is a case of the undefined orange. Every orange you've ever seen, and every orange that has ever been written about is orange in color. Your friend produces a red apple and says, "This is an orange too." You say, "No its not...all oranges are orange colored." Your friend says, "There's no definition saying that oranges must be orange, so this must be assumed to be an orange too."

The rulebook isn't a dictionary, it doesn't define every word. But every attack and description of attack fall in line with each other. And nowhere in there do you make a leadership attack.

I see where you're coming from with that, but I think it's closer to my friend producing a red fruit with a citrus taste and claiming it is a new type of orange. Most people are making the distinction that a test in a vacuum is a test, but that an effect that forces you to take a test or suffer some sort of negative effect becomes an attack (with a corresponding test) <- this is obviously not outlined anywhere in the rules, but seems to be implied from the fact that BoP makes references to ''attacks that specifically target Psykers" when none of those currently exist in the game (unless there's some random psyker-only bullet in a codex somewhere that people don't take frequently, it's possible that something slipped my mind). If we were near the end of the codex cycle I would chalk it up to something to come in 6th ed but I don't think they are looking that far ahead.

The problem right now is there is no wargear item in the game that I know of that would satisfy the conditions of fitting that established criteria of attack (essentially weapon swings, gunshots, and psychic shooting) that doesn't already have clear resolution via the melee or shooting rules. I'm that you could even create an item that somehow didn't already fit into the types of attacks you've established while still leaving enough of a grey area in resolution that it needed BoP to clarify how it worked. Not to say that GW couldn't try, and break like 15 other rules while they're doing it, but it seems like BoP is only really there for things like COM, even though they wrote it in a way that COM gets around.

The clear loser in this one is still the Grey Knights, who die whether we call it an attack, an effect, or an orange, or a black hole that Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts fall into. Right now it reads like BoP lets you lose the Justicar's leadership until he falls over, but CoM is taking the whole unit down with him anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sliggoth wrote:No matter how you slice it, Jotww is an attack

In GW terms this is actually up in the air - the rules have room for interpreting it as an attack, and they also have room for interpreting it as a magical effect that happens to make stuff disappear into a hole. That's where Dash is starting from, essentially saying "Since GW didn't outline explicitly what an attack is, let's find where some of them are in the book" and when you do that you only find passing references to the standard melee and normal/psychic shooting attacks. Does that mean JOTWW is not an attack? No, but it doesn't mean that "JOTWW is an attack no matter how you slice it" either.

Dashofpepper wrote:
Attack hasn't been defined in the rulebook, so we look to every instance in which it is used in the rulebook to establish trends. Things that directly cause wounds are attacks, things resolving around characteristics are tests, and the two are not the same.

I may not be a fair precedent to limit our defining criteria to examples outlined in general rules of the BRB when the discussion is actually about very specific and distinct army rules outlined in opposing codices. Half the purpose and fun of each of our codices is to give us a ton of interesting traits and utilities to make use of that will often not strictly meet to conventions within the rulebook itself.

Dashofpepper wrote:The resolution of JotWW may be an attack - the characteristic test that gets you there is not. You test against a characteristic to see if you suffer an attack. Like any other psychic power. First, pass a leadership...attack. Then execute your psychic...attack. Oh! You suffered 25% casualties. Take a leadership attack. I'm going to hit and run, making an initiative attack.

No...doesn't really work.

I am of the opinion that when player declares the use of CoM an action has immediately taken place so far as that the model using it will no longer be shooting or running this turn even if there are no Psykers is in range merely because the acting player has declare it has been used. I do not quite understand this obsession with mentioning that it is a characteristic test ad nauseam because it is not a characteristic test but rather it requires one be done following the action. Characteristic Test is the term describing a ruleset which is followed to determine whether or not, in the case of CoM, the outcome of the action will or will not effect a particular Psyker. How are we able to keep acting as though an action is not necessarily an attack because it calls for a characteristic test?


Crucible says, "Every psyker within 3D6" of the bearer must pass a Leadership test or be removed from play". The item itself sets the range and criteria for who is effected. Now the Brother of Psyker ruling says, "If the Grey Knight unit suffers a Perils of the Warp, or any attack that specifically targets psykers, it is resolved against the Justicar--". Call me raving mad but, besides the ancient Witchhunter gear, is there anything else in the game that specifically will only effect Psykers as precisely as Crucible of Malediction does? What do we consider targetting exactly? The gear itself determines its victims, but is that different from being something that specifically targets Psykers? Is there a textbook example we could all agree on of a weapon or attack that does in fact target Psykers specifically by its own definition?

Honestly, I am done with the arguement, it was fun while it was a debate, but once everyone decided that no matter what I said, or how I changedto different things, it was still an attack because they said it was, and because a dictionary defined it as that, and it doesn't matter that attack is used many times in the BRB for what an attack is, and that a characteristic test is defined on pg 8, or that there is no target as per the rules in the shooting phase.

So, this is what I will go with until it gets FAQ'ed and I its use by any DE player that wishes to use it:

1. I activate my uberscary CoM in the shooting phase.
2. I roll my dice and measure my distance.
3. I tell my opponent, "Lets start with squad A and work out way from there."
4. He rolls a LD test for squad A. He then passes or fails it.
5. If he passes, we move on to squad B.
6. If he fails it, he then states that the Justicar is dead. I say,"Ok, so there are no more psykers in the unit, right?"
7. He tells me there are still psykers in the squad and it goes off a random model now.
8. I say," Ok, then test again. If there are still psykers, then the requirement has not been fulfilled."
9. He either says OK and test again, or begins to argue it with me.
10. I then tell him that the rules of CoM state it is used in my shooting phase instead of firing a weapon and that every Psyker within 3D6" must take a Ld test. If they fail, they are removed from play."
11 He says that they took it and the Justicar died.
12. Ok, so no more psykers so no hammerhand, right? Nope, they are still psykers. Well, its still my shooting Phase, so keep testing.
13. But they already tested. Yeah, but CoM states for EVERY psyker within 3D6", not for every UNIT of Psykers. So, if they are psykers, they test. If they are a single psyker, take the squad.
14. He still argues.
15. I tell him fine, pick my models up off the board, and begin to put them in my case.
16. He asks what I'm doing, I tell him that I won't play if he won't follow the same rules that I do, and won't listen to the rules as written. He then tells me the BoP rule and points at the attack part.
17. I then tell him, show me(while handing him both my codex and rulebook) where it states that CoM is an attack or that a Ld test is an attack.
18. He can't, so I continue to pack up unless he sees common sense.
19. I then come home and check DakkaDakka, and see how many people have nerd raged against the list of events I have posted here and laugh when I realize he is probably one of them, and sit back and bask in the hate that one minor piece of wargear has caused, and the fear we Dark Eldar have once again placed within the Imperium of Man's "super soldiers". Ahh, there souls shall taste ever the sweeter as I reap them at my convienence!


End list and of course, let the nerd rage begin!!!!!

Majesticgoat wrote:Call me raving mad but, besides the ancient Witchhunter gear, is there anything else in the game that specifically will only effect Psykers as precisely as Crucible of Malediction does? Is there a textbook example we could all agree on of a weapon or attack that does in fact target Psykers specifically by its own definition?

Perils of the Warp for one. I can't think of any non-psykers that are ever affected by it.

As far as that "ancient Witchhunter gear", that many of us still use in our armies, that specifically affects psykers that I still haven't received much of any feedback on how the feth it would work with BoP:

Hammer of the Witches
Combi-Weapon: Bolter-stake Crossbow
Excruciators
Hexagrammic Wards (actually this one makes sense with BoP)
Power Stake
Psi-Tracker (also makes sense)
Psychic Hood (also makes sense)
Psyocculum (also makes sense)

Huh, I feel like an idiot. My own codex defines within what the hell it considers a psyker or not anyway giving a HUGH middle finger to BoP and GK in general:

"Psyker Terminology: Throughout this book, the term 'psyker' refers to any unit or model counted as a psyker in its own Codex, or that has any power or ability that requires a Psychic test, even if such a test is normally passed automatically." WH Codex Page 24.

Emphasis mine! For WH powers and gear it would seem each model is a psyker! Sorry Dash that your DE Codex doesn't define as well as the WH Codex exactly what it does and doesn't consider a psyker.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

Majesticgoat wrote:Call me raving mad but, besides the ancient Witchhunter gear, is there anything else in the game that specifically will only effect Psykers as precisely as Crucible of Malediction does? Is there a textbook example we could all agree on of a weapon or attack that does in fact target Psykers specifically by its own definition?

Perils of the Warp for one. I can't think of any non-psykers that are ever affected by it.

As far as that "ancient Witchhunter gear", that many of us still use in our armies, that specifically affects psykers that I still haven't received much of any feedback on how the feth it would work with BoP:

Hammer of the Witches
Combi-Weapon: Bolter-stake Crossbow
Excruciators
Hexagrammic Wards (actually this one makes sense with BoP)
Power Stake
Psi-Tracker (also makes sense)
Psychic Hood (also makes sense)
Psyocculum (also makes sense)

Huh, I feel like an idiot. My own codex defines within what the hell it considers a psyker or not anyway giving a HUGH middle finger to BoP and GK in general:

"Psyker Terminology: Throughout this book, the term 'psyker' refers to any unit or model counted as a psyker in its own Codex, or that has any power or ability that requires a Psychic test, even if such a test is normally passed automatically." WH Codex Page 24.

Emphasis mine! For WH powers and gear it would seem each model is a psyker! Sorry Dash that your DE Codex doesn't define as well as the WH Codex exactly what it does and doesn't consider a psyker.

Give it a few minutes, someone will pop in here with their GK woody on and thell you that you can't cause they say you can't. Good luck with that, btw.

Jotww is an attack because pg 37 of the SW codex talls us it is an attack. Thats why I said: No matter how you slice it, Jotww is an attack. Nothing is up in the air in GW terms.

Its not the resolution of jotww thats the attack, Jotww itself is an attack. So if the SW player decides to use Jotww and measures a line that doesnt touch any model along the way, he has still attacked with that model and that model can no longer run etc etc.


And thats why I examined the psyhic powers that we KNOW are attacks. They have in common that they are used in the shooting phase instead of firing a weapon, other psychic powers that still influence combat do not have that feature and also are not attacks.


The crucible uses the same wording as the psychic powers that are attacks, it is the defining part of the rule that makes them attacks instead of not attacks. This is what leads to the idea that yes, using the crucible is an attack.





Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Jotww is an attack because pg 37 of the SW codex talls us it is an attack. Thats why I said: No matter how you slice it, Jotww is an attack. Nothing is up in the air in GW terms.

Its not the resolution of jotww thats the attack, Jotww itself is an attack. So if the SW player decides to use Jotww and measures a line that doesnt touch any model along the way, he has still attacked with that model and that model can no longer run etc etc.


And thats why I examined the psyhic powers that we KNOW are attacks. They have in common that they are used in the shooting phase instead of firing a weapon, other psychic powers that still influence combat do not have that feature and also are not attacks.


The crucible uses the same wording as the psychic powers that are attacks, it is the defining part of the rule that makes them attacks instead of not attacks. This is what leads to the idea that yes, using the crucible is an attack.





Sliggoth

but its not a psychic attack, so why compare it to one??? thats apples and oranges. There is NOTHING in the DE codex that is a Psychic power of any kind.

Galador wrote:Honestly, I am done with the arguement, it was fun while it was a debate, but once everyone decided that no matter what I said, or how I changedto different things, it was still an attack because they said it was, and because a dictionary defined it as that, and it doesn't matter that attack is used many times in the BRB for what an attack is, and that a characteristic test is defined on pg 8, or that there is no target as per the rules in the shooting phase.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Wow, you ignore what I said and then blame ME for ignoring YOU? Note how I SPECIFICALLY stated that it's NOT the test that is an attack, but rather the act of forcing your opponent to take it in the first place. By your analogy, pulling the trigger of a gun isn't an attack because it's the bullet attacking your foe.

Still waiting.

Galador wrote:Give it a few minutes, someone will pop in here with their GK woody on and thell you that you can't cause they say you can't. Good luck with that, btw.

Yep, here I am with my Wooly Hat of Proof, saying that you can't because I, and the rules, say you can't. And here's why:

Codex: Witch Hunters page 14 (PDF version) wrote:Throughout this book, the term ‘psyker’ refers to any unit or
model counted as a psyker in its own Codex, or that has any
power or ability that requires a Psychic test, even if such a test
is normally passed automatically (such as a character with the
Mark of Tzeentch).

Here, we can clearly see what C:WH considers a psyker, which is more specific than what the BRB says. However, Codex: Grey Knights states that (courtesy of HulkSmash):

Units of Grey Knights are psykers and use their mental might to enhance their abilities or unleash psychic attacks.

A Grey Knight unit can use one psychic power each turn. The unit counts as a single psyker and follows all the normal rules for psykers with the following clarifications:

-A Grey Knight uses the leadership of its Justicar or Knight of the Flamer (if he is alive), or the unit (if he is dead) for Psychic tests. A Grey Knight unit can never use the Leadership value of an independat character for Psychic test.

-If the Grey Knight unit suffers the Perils of the Warp, or any attack that specifically targets psykers, it is resolved against the Justicar or Knight of the Flamer (if he is alive) or against a random non-character model in the squad if the Justicar or Knight of the Flame is dead."

Thus, BoP creates an exception, being more specific than the WH definition (all models with psychic powers are psykers, except these because they say so).

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
Hammer of the Witches
Combi-Weapon: Bolter-stake Crossbow
Excruciators
Power Stake

(I removed the ones that "made sense", which I agree with BTW)
What's the big deal? The Crossbow doesn't specifically target psykers, it simply has a different effect versus psykers. Similarly, the power stake has additional effects against psykers, and as you're attacking the unit as a whole, you get the added bonus. As such, they both wound on a 2+ and ignore armour saves, and are subject to normal allocation rules.

Excruciators only count for VC (something that isn't even an issue in normal scenarios anymore) if they kill the entire unit, as it's the UNIT that is a psyker, not the individual models (C:GK are more specific than C:WH in this case, as C:GK provides an exception to C:WHs definition of "psyker").
"Hammer of the Witches" is easily resolved, as the nearest psyker must pass a Ld test or suffer perils of the warp. Once again, the more specific BoP trumps the definition of "psyker" in C:WH and the only one in the GD unit affected if they suffer a perils is the Justicar/KotF/random model. Once that instance has been resolved, you move on to the next psyker. As the GK squad has already tested, and is a single psyker as per BoP, you move on to the next psyker.

I will grant though that none of the above examples mean anything for the current debate whatsoever, as they're clearly labeled as "attacks" or as something that modifies attacks (at least clearer than CoM, which I agree could be read either way, I just don't read it the same way as you do).

/wall o' text

EDIT:

Galador wrote:but its not a psychic attack, so why compare it to one??? thats apples and oranges. There is NOTHING in the DE codex that is a Psychic power of any kind.

So? We're not saying that it's a psychic attack, we're saying that it isn't entirely unbelievable that something that has the same wording as something that is defined as an attack is, in fact, an attack in it's own right.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:We're not saying (I'm not at least) that the test is an attack. The act of forcing your enemy to take a test, however, is. As you're forcing every psyker within 3D6 inches to test (i.e. they're your targets), every instance of Brotherhood of Psykers activates, and clearly states what to do.

Ok, obviously my first answer to this wasn't what you wanted, so lets try again.

You want to call the act of forcing the test and attack, fine, do it. But thats the end of the attack at that point. I ATTACK you by saying you have to test, and then the attack ends, and you take the test, which is NOT an attack, it is the effect from the attack. It has no specific target within the bubble, it is a TEST against a characteristic. I don't agree with it being an attack, because honestly, if I looked at you and told you that you had to take a test today, is that hostile?? Must be I guess. Now, the actions that result if you fail the test you are forced to take can be offensive and hostile, but making you take a test is not hostile or offensive.

But fine, we will go with Dash's interpretation because that works also. Lets go with the whole "attack " philosophy everyone seems to want. I can counter you there. And I will use your own rule to do it.

Com states EVERY psyker, correct? Correct. BoP states that any attack that specifically targets psykers is resolved against the Justicar/KOTF or a random model in the squad if he is dead, right??

So, going along those lines, it would go like this then:

1. I start my shooting phase.
2. I activate the CoM instead of firing a weapon. (funny how its instead of, but its supposedly still a weapon causing an attack, but anyway...)
3. I roll my 3D6 and lets just for SNG say I get 3 6's, so my range is 18".
4. We go from my left to my right, measuring to every unit with a psyker to see if they are in range.
5. We then test every psyker that is within range.
6. Our first Psyker still has its Justicar, and according to BoP, they are a single psyker, but he takes the damage. Got it.
7. He rolls his LD TEST, and fails it, so poof, no more justicar.
8. We go to move on to the next one and I say,"So is that unit still a psyker?"
9. You respond,"According to BoP, yes it is still a psyker."
10. I respond, Then you have to roll for it again."
11. You say, "Why?"
12. I respond, "Because its not the same psyker that just failed. That psyker had a leadership of 9 and 10 models, this psyker has a ld of 8 and 9 models. Hence, its a different psyker because its a different unit with a different statline that hasn't been tested on yet."
13. You respond,"Now your just being RAW stupid."
14. I respond, "Just like everyone that says its an attack."
15. I then say, " It is still effected also because its still MY SHOOTING PHASE, and its a PSYKER WITHIN the range of CoM, so it must test."



Welcome to the endless cycle of slowed bickering back and forth this is going to cause until it is FAQ'ed.

There, are you done waiting now?

The unit has already been attacked, using your own list as written. The UNIT is the psycher. The UNIT has been attacked. The UNIT has had the attack resolved. There is no endless loop, there is no cycle of attacks.

This is all going by the list of events put forth by Galador. The reason that there is no repeated series of tests is that the crucible doesnt look to see if every model within its range has been attacked, it merely attacks every psycher within its range. And so the psycher unit (the entire unit is the psycher according to the BoP rules) is attacked, the attack is then resolved (resolved upon the justicar according to the interpretation being used). The unit is the psycher, the unit has been attacked. BoP changes HOW the attack is RESOLVED on the psycher unit, but the attack has been resolved.

The crucible doesnt create a zone of make the test or die, it fires off an area of make the test or die. It does NOT check to make sure that everything within that area has made the test, it merely forces everything to make a test when it goes off.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:The unit has already been attacked, using your own list as written. The UNIT is the psycher. The UNIT has been attacked. The UNIT has had the attack resolved. There is no endless loop, there is no cycle of attacks.

The unit was not attacked. The unit was required to make a leadership test. The unit *is* the psyker. If it was a specific anti-psyker attack targeting the unit, you'd remove the Justicar.

-You have overwhelming reason why it isn't an attack
-You have overwhelming reason why it isn't targeting the unit

As for the JotWW reference Walrus....you're comparing a Psychic shooting attack to piece of wargear. They are not written the same...or even in the same realm.

The crucible is not an attack for you to resolve. If you fail leadership, you are required to remove the psyker from the board. Your justicar is *not* the psyker. He is simply the leader of the psychic unit.

Galador wrote:

Ok, obviously my first answer to this wasn't what you wanted, so lets try again.

Indeed it wasn't, as you didn't respond to what I had actually written. I'm satisfied with the answer this time though, even though I do not agree with you.

Galador wrote:
10. I respond, Then you have to roll for it again."
11. You say, "Why?"
12. I respond, "Because its not the same psyker that just failed. That psyker had a leadership of 9 and 10 models, this psyker has a ld of 8 and 9 models. Hence, its a different psyker because its a different unit with a different statline that hasn't been tested on yet."

I counter with: "Yes it is, the entire unit is the psyker, but my special rule, which is more specific than yours, makes the Justicar/equivalent take the consequences alone."

Really, I can see where both sides are coming from, and what it boils down to is wether CoM is an attack or not, which I personally believe it to be.

Dashofpepper wrote:

-You have overwhelming reason why it isn't an attack

I must respetcfully disagree. I wholeheartedly agree that we need an FAQ ASAP though.

Dashofpepper wrote:
The crucible is not an attack for you to resolve. If you fail leadership, you are required to remove the psyker from the board. Your justicar is *not* the psyker. He is simply the leader of the psychic unit.

Again, I'm not claiming that the Justicar is the psyker, I'm claiming that he's the only one who goes mad as BoP redirects what I consider to be an attack affecting psykers to him and him alone.

Just so that we're on the same page Dash, if it said "abilities or effects" instead of "attacks", it'd work the way described by the "only the Justicar/equivalent goes mad" side, right?

Hulksmash wrote:@Kirsanth

I'd recommend reading the actual rules in both codexes. The BoP rule does say they are a psyker and then goes on to describe how anti-psyker abilities or issues affect them. If it just said they were psykers I'd agree with you.

Oh, I shall. But until then I am just nit-picking based upon what is posted.
I have not read a posting that shows that "The BoP rule . . . goes on to describe how anti-psyker abilities or issues affect them." Only that it shows how to allocate/deal with attacks targeting the unit.

And as I read it "target" never occurs even if you assert that "attack" does.

I could be incorrect, as I said, I have not read the codex, just what folks have posted.

At what point are you guys just going to settle for a no-solution here. You've been repeating the same things for pages and neither side is influenced by it.

kirsanth wrote:
And as I read it "target" never occurs even if you assert that "attack" does.

So something that only affects psykers isn't targetting psykers? Isn't that grasping a bit?


Also, completely unrelated question that just sprung to my mind: Why does the CoM need to tell us that it ignores all saves? I'm guessing this is just a case of GW actually being redundant, right? (No sarcasm intended, just genuinely curious if I've found something I can use)

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:
And as I read it "target" never occurs even if you assert that "attack" does.

So something that only affects psykers isn't targetting psykers?

Not necessarily, things can be affected without being targeted.

See: Spirit Leech, Scattering Blast markers, KFF, etc.

Galador wrote:You want to call the act of forcing the test and attack, fine, do it. But thats the end of the attack at that point. I ATTACK you by saying you have to test, and then the attack ends, and you take the test, which is NOT an attack, it is the effect from the attack. It has no specific target within the bubble, it is a TEST against a characteristic. I don't agree with it being an attack, because honestly, if I looked at you and told you that you had to take a test today, is that hostile?? Must be I guess. Now, the actions that result if you fail the test you are forced to take can be offensive and hostile, but making you take a test is not hostile or offensive.

What exactly does the requirement of the person to do a characteristic test have to do with it being an attack or not? There is no such action as a "Character test" to use on a player/model/unit. A character test is something people do as a result of a particular action, whether or not it is invoked by a player, or to fulfill the requirement of a rule such as the rules to resolve the effects of 25% losses, or a pinning weapon, or in this case as specified in the wording of CoM which itself is declared used as an action.

CoM is an piece of wargear, arcane weaponry to be specific, that defines its range and tells you what is the focus/target/is effected after CoM is used as an action in the shooting phase. I think in general the only thing most of us can not be in agreement on is if its specifically effecting only psykers within its range could be regarded as targetting psykers. I am not sure if you can exactly get away with saying there is no target just because you have not defined the target yourself. The wording of the CoM does that for us. BoP then goes forth to say only things that specifically target psykers will have their effects resolved on the justicar,knight of flame, or individual GK if the other two are not present.

kirsanth wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:
And as I read it "target" never occurs even if you assert that "attack" does.

So something that only affects psykers isn't targetting psykers?

Not necessarily, things can be affected without being targeted.

See: Spirit Leech, Scattering Blast markers, KFF, etc.

Those specify what they affect, thus the units affected are the targets, just as the psykers affected by the CoM are the targets of the CoM.

This is why no good can come from Matt Ward!!

Burn the Heretic!

Psy.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Those specify what they affect, thus the units affected are the targets,

Untrue. Never must the DoM target a model or a unit to use Spirit Leech.

It is entirely possible they meant it to target something, thus following all the restrictions that entails, but I have not read that anywhere.

Editing to add:
Are you seriously saying the Doom of Malan'tai must use Cataclysm on a unit affected by Spirit Leech?

Called GW and they said that the Justicar would be the model taking the the test and being removed if failed. I know you guys hate it when I call GW...but there it is.

Dash, when the Justicar is alive, no one else in the unit acts as a psyker...only he does. So when COM goes off, he is a psyker. It isn't until he dies that another random unit is able to use psyker powers. By that time, COM has finished.

Here's an argument...COM targets Psykers, and the unit isn't a PSYKER...it's a BROTHERHOOD of Psykers. So COM doesn't affect them at all...because a brotherhood is different from a psyker, just as a model is different than a unit. COM doesn't affect brotherhoods from what I see in the rules....just psykers. lol