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.

Rymafyr wrote:Yes, I know the analogy is not apples to apples, I really don't care.

That idea was sort of my point as well. I think.

Saying it is a worth x points so should (or should not) be able to do y is ridiculous.

There are models that have optional upgrades that cost extra points to utilize that actually make models WORSE.

A 15 point blaster killing a 265 point land raider?!?!? RIDICULOUS!

Even worse than a 20 point piece of wargear wiping out 200 points of marines.

Oh! And what about a 15 point shattershard sniping out any IC, denying allocation of wounds...absolutely broken!

Dashofpepper wrote:A 15 point darklance killing a 265 point land raider?!?!? RIDICULOUS!

Even worse than a 20 point piece of wargear wiping out 200 points of marines.

you forgot about a 2 pt piece of wargear penetrating and wrecking a 235 pt. Monolith, Dash!!

Galador wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:A 15 point darklance killing a 265 point land raider?!?!? RIDICULOUS!

Even worse than a 20 point piece of wargear wiping out 200 points of marines.

you forgot about a 2 pt piece of wargear penetrating and wrecking a 235 pt. Monolith, Dash!!

OMGOMGOMG *head asplodes*

Dashofpepper wrote:

Galador wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:A 15 point darklance killing a 265 point land raider?!?!? RIDICULOUS!

Even worse than a 20 point piece of wargear wiping out 200 points of marines.

you forgot about a 2 pt piece of wargear penetrating and wrecking a 235 pt. Monolith, Dash!!

OMGOMGOMG *head asplodes*

Good thing your wearing your fruit helmet!!! (At least I think that is a fruit on the cat's head.... )


Even better... that 2 pt piece of wargear blowing up a warhound..... that is just so wrong its not even funny.( actually, its quite hilarious!!)

Right, and my point was that if there is a contentious rule about a cheap item that can have a huge effect in one interpretation and a small effect in another interpretation, until there is a GW FAQ TO's will likely rule for the small effect.


As far as I know there is nothing contentious about a dark lance shooting at a land raider.

Dashofpepper wrote:
Seems like most of the anti-CoM crowd here still doesn't understand the allocation requirements of Brotherhood of Psykers. You are instructed to first allocate attacks to the Justicar. Saying that the justicar dies and then everything stops is the same as saying that if you take 25 wounds from....anti-psyker weapons during a round of shooting, all 25 are allocated to the Justicar. And once he dies, you stop and ignore all other wounds.

Firstly, the bolded part is wrong. Page 21 of the Grey Knights Codex states that: "If a 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 Flame (if he is alive) or agaisnt a random non-character model in the squad if the Justicar or Knight of the Flame is dead." Thus, the entire anti-psyker attack is resolved against the Justicar-equivalent alone, with no possible overflow to the rest of the squad as the entire attack is resolved simultaneously unless otherwise stated.

Secondly, just to clarify how I see it:
CoM activates, the effect (which I will treat as an attack, as that's my point of view) forces your GK unit to take an Ld test or go mad. BoP kicks in and tells you to take the test on the Justicar-equivalent, and the Justicar-equivalent alone. Thus, if he fails, he goes mad but the rest of the unit is fine, because BoP redirected the entire effect onto the Justicar-equivalent.

Galador wrote:
And your right, nowhere in CoM does it state that I get a recycle, but it does state in your BoP rule that you are not only a unit of Psykers, but that you count as a single psyker. So tell me how I can remove a single psyker and still have that single psyker be on the board??? I can't, either the whole of the single psyker goes away, or your rule is broken as you are not, in fact, a single psyker, but a unit of psykers.

We've told you more than once, since BoP is a more specific rule than CoM the attack (just assume it is an attack for this argument, we're not gonna agree on it anyway) the effect of the CoM is resolved against the Justicar-equivalent, and nothing else. Thus, you can have a squad fail it's Ld test and still remain on the table, as the effect of CoM (pass or remove) is overruled by the more specific BoP (only remove Justicar-equivalent). Thus, if CoM counts as an attack (again, just assume that it does for the purpouse of this specific argument), only the Justicar-equivalent is removed, as per the rules of BoP.

Galador wrote:
And as far as the first line of the CoM stating that it is a weapon, the first line of BoP states that units of Grey Knights are Psykers. Notice the pluralization??? Which tells me they are all psykers, so either you test as a unit, which you are, and go bye bye when you fail, or you test separately, and remove the models that fail. Your choice on that one, as I don't really care which way you do it.

Of course psykers are written in plural, they're talking about all UNITS with the special rule. Still doesn't mean that all the individual units are psykers.

Solourus wrote:
CoM does not finish untill all psykers in range have either passed the test or have been removed from play. Its not like you test half the psykers in range and then say alright boys lets call it a day. CoM specificaly requires all psykers to either PASS a LD test or be removed from play. If there are still psykers in range who have not passed a LD check then CoM is still active.

A Gk squad who failed the test, regardless who it was on is still a psyker who hasent PASSED the test and is still in range of CoM, hence CoM is not resolved untill they are removed form play.

Yes it does, because BoP, being the more specific rule, tells you to ignore the normal effect (remove the entire unit) and only resolve the attack against the Justicar-equivalent (remove that). As such, you have a psyker unit on the table that hasn't passed an Ld test, but which remains on the table because it has a more specific rule of it's own (yet again, assuming that the CoM is an attack, which is the only *real* issue I can see).

AlmightyWalrus, you just....passed over all the things that you needed to answer to rehash the same stuff.

That's why this thread is 8 pages. =p We keep bringing up the same stuff that doesn't get answered thinking maybe you just *missed* it somehow.


But bear this in mind. You are assuming that BoP gives you powers that it does not. It does not say "any and all attacks." You do not have permission to resolve all attacks against the Justicar, just a singular one. If you take 25 anti-psyker wounds, the first one goes to the Justicar. The rest allocate out. Or, you have precedent with the DE Shadowfield. You roll saves one at a time instead of simultaneously until one fails.

No matter how you spin it, you are not given permission to resolve all attacks against the Justicar, just a single one. it says "....attack that specifically targets psykers, it is resolved..." it doesn't say, "they are resolved."

If you are going to force leadership checks to be attacks, then you must define attack and add to the rules. What is the scale of the attack? Which characteristic tests are attacks? Put a scope on this. If the rulebook's use of "attack" is insufficient for you, and "tests" need to be lumped in, define it for us so that we have common ground to talk from. Is hit and run an attack? Is a leadership check an attack? What about a psychic test? Initiative roll off at the end of combat? ONly when you're forced to take leadership? How about Thousand Sons? THey're forced to take leadership just to move. Are they attacked by themselves at the start of every movement turn?

Making a test be defined into an attack - when the concept has no support in the rules breaks much more than it fixes, not to mention being antithetical to the way the rules are written. They are permissive, not restrictive. They tell you what you MAY do, not what you may NOT do. For you to presume that because the rulebook doesn't say it ISN'T an attack that it is....is backwards. What does the rulebook say an attack is? Go through and make a list. No, it isn't a dictionary. But it is explicit on what attacks are. What gives you the right to lump in a completely section of the rulebook, like characteristic tests and say "These are attacks too." Might as well say running is an attack. "Well, your unit has fleet, and intends to assault me, and you're moving towards me, so running is an offensive action and constitutes an attack." Movement is an attack too. "Well, you're positioning yourself to get LOS and shoot at me, which is an offensive action, so movement is an attack."

If you refuse to accept the rulebook's distinctions for what is and is not an attack, then make your own boundaries for attack and present them - in such a way that they make characteristic tests attacks while also in keeping with the rulebook's use and description of attacks. Snatching this particular example, this particular piece of wargear and trying to lump it into something it is not meant to be lumped into and hoping no one notices is not good enough.


QUESTION: If you make a leadership check on your Justicar for him as an individual, did you just make a leadership check for your psyker?

Yes, that was rhetorical.

You're trying to make the Crucible of Malediction into a single wound. If you take 25 wounds from an anti-psyker weapon, you don't get to resolve them all against the Justicar. At best, you have precedent to roll them one at a time until the Justicar is dead. At worst, you have singular permission to allocate one to him. But the Justicar is like one wound of a psyker. If you must remove the psyker from the table, there's nothing for you to allocate to the justicar. There's no attack to allocate to a single model.

You can allocate "Deal a STR10 AP1 wound to the enemy psyker" to your Justicar.
You cannot allocate "remove your psyker from the table" to your Justicar. Because he isn't your psyker.

Dashofpepper wrote:You cannot allocate "remove your psyker from the table" to your Justicar. Because he isn't your psyker.

As far as BoP is concerned He is your psyker.

Here is an interesting point:

CoM is an 'Arcane weapon' as it is written.

Using/Activating said Arcane weapon and having it have a detrimental effect on the opponent is the very definition of an 'attack'

Taking the LD test is the result of the attack.

CoM specifically targets only psykers.

So here we have an "....attack that specifically targets psykers," "it is resolved..." It meaning this attack is resolved against the justicar etc.

CoM is only 1 attack that targets all psykers in a 3d6 range.

CoM is not multiple attacks, just 1 attack on every psyker.

the unit is 1 psyker. and BoP tells us how to resolve attacks that specifically target psykers.

DeathReaper wrote:As far as BoP is concerned He is your psyker.

Using/Activating said Arcane weapon and having it have a detrimental effect on the opponent is the very definition of an 'attack'

1. Where do you get the idea that the Justicar *is* the psyker? The GK codex specifies otherwise.

2. Leadership tests in a unit are never allocated to a single model. They are taken for a unit. A unit passes leadership or it doesn't. You can no more have a sergeant take leadership from shooting and individually run away from the squad than you can have a single model from a cohesive psyker unit take individual leadership and fail. Nor could you have your Justicar take leadership for a psychic test, fail, and presume he's the only model who doesn't get Hammerhand.

3. So you're saying that things that have a detrimental effect on the opponent are an attack? I don't buy it as a definition.
-If you fail a dangerous terrain test, you suffer a detrimental effect. You weren't attacked.
-If you suffer 25% casualties from my attacks and take a morale check and fail, you fall back. That's a detrimental effect. If it is an attack, then the unit that caused the 25% casualties (presuming it was one) just attacked you twice, which is illegal.
-If you mishap, you suffer a detrimental effect without being attacked.
-If you mishap because an opponent has a special rule causing mishaps within a certain range *cough* you still weren't attacked.

Dashofpepper wrote:
But bear this in mind. You are assuming that BoP gives you powers that it does not. It does not say "any and all attacks." You do not have permission to resolve all attacks against the Justicar, just a singular one. If you take 25 anti-psyker wounds, the first one goes to the Justicar. The rest allocate out. Or, you have precedent with the DE Shadowfield. You roll saves one at a time instead of simultaneously until one fails.

Right, it doesn't say "any and all attacks", it just says "any". The difference is semantic. And while I realize that I'm saying the same thing over and over again, so are you. I think it'd be better if we just let this one die and wait for the FAQ. If all else fails, use fire roll a D6.

At least we've come to a conclusion: We don't agree!

Galador wrote:
I can effect things without targeting them. And if your going to argue for target vs nontarget, don't defeat yourself in your own sentence by putting in what it actually does, which is effect psykers, not target them. I can effect you without targeting you.

When you use a weapon that you are well aware harms Psykers within an area of effect, it is reasonable to claim that you are targetting Psykers. Just because you do not speak your exact target does not mean the wording of CoM does not target Psykers.

Dashofpepper wrote:
3. So you're saying that things that have a detrimental effect on the opponent are an attack? I don't buy it as a definition.
-If you fail a dangerous terrain test, you suffer a detrimental effect. You weren't attacked.
-If you suffer 25% casualties from my attacks and take a morale check and fail, you fall back. That's a detrimental effect. If it is an attack, then the unit that caused the 25% casualties (presuming it was one) just attacked you twice, which is illegal.
-If you mishap, you suffer a detrimental effect without being attacked.
-If you mishap because an opponent has a special rule causing mishaps within a certain range *cough* you still weren't attacked.

A morale check in this case, mishaps, etc. are not actions that my opponent is invoking as their chosen action during a phase. There are rules that are outlined that require these things be done when there is sufficient criteria met to merit doing so. That is the distinction here. I break because I lose 25% after your action has been resolved. This in and of itself is not at all your action. Your action preceeds this. Your action is the act of doing harm to my units which will remove them from the table or cause wounds or generally harm my army.

Morale checks and mishaps are the natural course of how things are in the framework of the 40k universe.
There is a difference between whether I get sick during the natural course of things in the real world versus having you make me sick by feeding me a toxin with the intent to harm me.

Majesticgoat wrote:

When you use a weapon that you are well aware harms Psykers within an area of effect, it is reasonable to claim that you are targetting Psykers. Just because you do not speak your exact target does not mean the wording of CoM does not target Psykers.

And you can only target one unit in the Shooting phase with a weapon, as per the shooting phase rules. Also, I dont shoot the weapon, as I am not allowed to fire a weapon if I use the CoM.

Majesticgoat wrote:
A morale check in this case, mishaps, etc. are not actions that my opponent is invoking as their chosen action during a phase. There are rules that are outlined that require these things be done when there is sufficient criteria met to merit doing so. That is the distinction here. I break because I lose 25% after your action has been resolved. This in and of itself is not at all your action. Your action preceeds this. Your action is the act of doing harm to my units which will remove them from the table or cause wounds or generally harm my army.

Morale checks and mishaps are the natural course of how things are in the framework of the 40k universe.
There is a difference between whether I get sick during the natural course of things in the real world versus having you make me sick by feeding me a toxin with the intent to harm me.

It is not what I am invoking but it is a result of my actions, so according to what I have been told earlier, that is still an attack.

Majesticgoat wrote:A morale check in this case, mishaps, etc. are not actions that my opponent is invoking as their chosen action during a phase. There are rules that are outlined that require these things be done when there is sufficient criteria met to merit doing so. That is the distinction here. I break because I lose 25% after your action has been resolved. This in and of itself is not at all your action. Your action preceeds this. Your action is the act of doing harm to my units which will remove them from the table or cause wounds or generally harm my army.

So....if I read this right:

In scenario one, due to enemy action you are required to take a leadership test, but such a test is not an attack.

In scenario two, due to enemy action you are required to take a leadership test, but such a test is an attack. A leadership attack.

Again, not buying it.

In both situations, you suffering a detrimental effect, or an "attack" if you must is the result of you failing a test.

If a unit fires a lot of sniper weapons at another unit and causes 4 pinning wounds how many pinning tests does the unit take?

pretty sure its 1.

I know sniper weapons are not really close to the CoM but there aren't many attacks in this game to draw a good previous ruled precedent on in this situation.

Even though I would love to be able to remove whole units with a piece of wargear I do not think it is going to be allowed.

Honestly though as it requries an LD test and the max range is 11" even if it does end up removing whole units its not going to be that deadly. At most in rare circumstances you are going to get 3-4 units of GKs to test, on average with an item that reduces enemy LD by -1 and you get 4 units to test you will affect 1 unit. I do not think it is as game ending as some people are making it out to be.

I mean if I as any army got 4 units within 12" of some model I knew had a doomsday weapon like vortex or the debated 4 GK ICS with rad grenades making anything t4 t0 which *might* be instantly dead or something its kinda my fault at that point.

And going down that road...removing the Justicar while the unit remains and is still a psyker isn't allowed.

I don't agree with this.

When the CoM is activated the squad of grey knights counts as a (as in the singular) pysker.

After removing the Justicar, the CoM has already effected the psyker (the unit of grey knights), a new psyker has not appeared.

Galador wrote:And you can only target one unit in the Shooting phase with a weapon, as per the shooting phase rules. Also, I dont shoot the weapon, as I am not allowed to fire a weapon if I use the CoM.

The CoM user's targets are defined by CoM's rules. This is done in accordance to the rules written under the CoM heading. This is not a shooting attack. And it not being a shooting attack does not have to do with its status as an attack or not. What makes an action an attack is up in the air and has not been agreed upon here. Stop comparing this to a conventional rulebook attack as it is a codex ruling for a special item belonging to one particular army and one that by its very nature is unique and requiring of special consideration.

Dashofpepper wrote:

In scenario one, due to enemy action you are required to take a leadership test, but such a test is not an attack.

In scenario two, due to enemy action you are required to take a leadership test, but such a test is an attack. A leadership attack.

Again, not buying it.

In both situations, you suffering a detrimental effect, or an "attack" if you must is the result of you failing a test.

They are very different situations. When you shoot me the result of that is a wound. The wound is resolved by rolling to hit and wound. Once that is done you are no longer involved in that interaction or any of the following consequences until you make your next attack. Morale checks with regards to break tests occur after the effect of your action is resolved.
I think you are mincing words and using the fact that the effect of CoM is resolved by having the Psyker do a leadership test as opposed to how a conventional attack such as a normal shooting attack would be through To Hit and To Wound tests as a means of improperly comparing it to a morale test when they are both done under very different conditions. The effects from CoM as a result of the leadership test outcome, as well as the requirement to do the leadership test in the first place is all part of that single action taken by the DE player. Everything in CoM, from invoking it, to making your opponent do a leadership test falls under the flag of how to resolve the effects of that action. Rolling a leadership test to resolve if a Psyker is removed during a specific attack as specified entirely in the wording of that specific attack is entirely unlike a morale test or mishap.

What makes an action an attack is up in the air and has not been agreed upon here.

This is why this rule will be contentious until an official FAQ comes out.

blaktoof wrote:If a unit fires a lot of sniper weapons at another unit and causes 4 pinning wounds how many pinning tests does the unit take?

pretty sure its 1.

Yes, they take one pinning test. But they make 4 saves, not one. If a STR10 AP1 template hits 10 models out of cover who don't have invulnerable saves and deals 10 wounds....you don't kill one model and call it a day. You allocate them as you like, equally among wound groups. If that was a psychic attack, the first wound would go against the Justicar. Not all 10.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manimal wrote:
After removing the Justicar, the CoM has already effected the psyker (the unit of grey knights), a new psyker has not appeared.

Removing the Justicar has not affected the Psyker. Because the Justicar is not the psyker. He is a member of a psyker. It is one thing to say that wounds get allocated to a Justicar first, and an entirely different thing to claim that being GK makes you immune to things that can cause more than one wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Majesticgoat wrote:I think you are mincing words and using the fact that the effect of CoM is resolved by having the Psyker do a leadership test as opposed to how a conventional attack such as a normal shooting attack would be...

Conventional is a good word. Attacks are conventional. They have a series of rules governing them. Targeting, hitting, wounding, making saves if they are allowed.

Attacks in 40k require interaction from the attacker. You have to roll to hit. You have to make a psychic test to make the attack. You have to ram into something and see if your attack is strong enough to get through enemy armour. I can't think of any kind of attack that doesn't have the attacker rolling some kind of dice with an effect in mind.

As I've repeatedly said, leadership checks don't fit the profile of an attack. From anywhere in the rulebook. No offensive action takes place to constitute an attack being made. The reason you are taking leadership does not constitute an attack, because the attacker is making no offensive action. There are no dice involved in opening the Crucible of Malediction. There is no offensive action, no attack, no to hit, no targeting - nothing similar to the governing rules of every attack in 40k. However, it has everything in common with the rules governing NON-ATTACKS in 40k - characteristic tests like leadership.

All of you have it wrong. The leadership test is not an attack. The COM targetting Psykers and removing them from play is the attack. The Leadership check is the SAVE...what prevents you from being removed from table. So for Boon, the removal of the model is attack, and the toughness check is the save. For COM, the attack (and yes it is an attack) targets psykers (well it specifies psykers within 3d6 from other models, which is the definition of TARGET) and the save is the Leadership check.

So let's quit arguing over the leadership test being an attack...your leadership isn't removing you from the board. The COM is. The leadership test you take will save you from being removed, thus it is a save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you have to roll the range of the COM...range is an attack. It targets...all psykers within that range. And it removes from table...which is the new instant death and answer to eternal warrior.

The more I think about it, the more I think that defining "attack" is important.

I've presented my thoughts on it - which fits everything presented in the rulebook, and more importantly - doesn't add or create new rules or issues.

I get a 4+ invulnerable save against non power weapon attacks. So you tell me to take a leadership test, I say "That's an attack, and I get a 4+ invulnerable save against having to make it." What are you going to say...its not an attack, its a characteristic test?

The changeling lets you redirect attacks to another unit. So you tell me to take a leadership test and I say, "Take it on yourself instead!"

Trying to classify leadership tests as an attack is simply too over the top. It is unsupported by any kind of rule, contrary to the rulebook in fact....well, I don't believe I'm going to get anywhere with the die hard, "Its not fair that a 20 point piece of wargear has the potential of killing a unit" crowd who are unfamiliar with Eldar and Tyranids. I've updated the OP with my thoughts.

If someone wants to offer a counter-definition of "attack" that doesn't simply rip the rulebook in half trying to explain why leadership tests are attacks, I'll consider it.

Shenra wrote:All of you have it wrong. The leadership test is not an attack. The COM targetting Psykers and removing them from play is the attack. The Leadership check is the SAVE...what prevents you from being removed from table.

I am going to ignore all of the stuff you just said because it made no sense, and was all completely wrong. I am only going to say this to completely destroy your entire argument.... Seeing as you think the LD test is the save to prevent you from being taken off the table, then that actually breaks this rule even more to the DE advantage.... because no saves of ANY kind are allwed against the Crucible of Malediction as per its rules.

Please, read the rules that are being debated before posting, so that you don't post something that is so blatantly wrong its ridiculous.

Saves in the traditional sense Galador.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leadership is not a save or an attack. But it's being used as a type of save, because it saves your psyker from being removed from play. Don't be purposefully dense.

Shenra wrote:All of you have it wrong. The leadership test is not an attack. The COM targetting Psykers and removing them from play is the attack. The Leadership check is the SAVE...what prevents you from being removed from table. So for Boon, the removal of the model is attack, and the toughness check is the save. For COM, the attack (and yes it is an attack) targets psykers (well it specifies psykers within 3d6 from other models, which is the definition of TARGET) and the save is the Leadership check.

So let's quit arguing over the leadership test being an attack...your leadership isn't removing you from the board. The COM is. The leadership test you take will save you from being removed, thus it is a save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you have to roll the range of the COM...range is an attack. It targets...all psykers within that range. And it removes from table...which is the new instant death and answer to eternal warrior.

Just because I actually reread this, I am going to list all the incongruities in it....

1)CoM does NOT target Psykers, it effects them.
2) state in the rules where if you have to measure range for something, that makes it an attack. So me moving my models is an attack? I am measuring their range of movement, so it must be, according to your logic.
3) once again, saves are not allowed at all, so your wrong there also.
4)the CoM does NOT remove from the table, it removes from play, so EW does NOT get used in this instance, because it is NOT Instant Death, plus you can't use EW here anyway, because there are no wounds to trigger Instant Death in the first place.

Shenra wrote:Saves in the traditional sense Galador.

And what, pray tell, is the traditional sense?? I only remember one model in the entire game having a LD test be thier save, and that was Iyanna in the last Eldar codex. Other than that, I don't remember ANY models having their save being a LD test, traditionally or not. Feel free to show me otherwise though, as I can't remember all the units from all 5 editions of rules and all the codicies(I am getting older after all, and the memory is going.... )

Dashofpepper wrote:
As I've repeatedly said, leadership checks don't fit the profile of an attack. From anywhere in the rulebook. No offensive action takes place to constitute an attack being made. The reason you are taking leadership does not constitute an attack, because the attacker is making no offensive action. There are no dice involved in opening the Crucible of Malediction. There is no offensive action, no attack, no to hit, no targeting - nothing similar to the governing rules of every attack in 40k. However, it has everything in common with the rules governing NON-ATTACKS in 40k - characteristic tests like leadership.

Template attacks do not roll to hit. They fall under an area of the template.
CoM sets the area by a roll of some dice to determine a radius around the user of the item.
Why do you repeat ad infinitum that Leadership tests do not constitute an attack? No one has ever made the claim that they do. You are missing my point which is that the attack is not done at the point of the Leadership test, but rather that the attack happens when you claim to have used CoM. The attack still continues through you checking to see what the range of CoM is, and if you find nothing in range then no Leadership tests are necessary the attack is over but it still has occurred. If stuff is in the range then you do the Leadership tests not as the attack but to determine whether or not the effect of the attack that is in progress and that has not yet been resolved is going to be removing Psykers from play or not.

Galador wrote:

Shenra wrote:All of you have it wrong. The leadership test is not an attack. The COM targetting Psykers and removing them from play is the attack. The Leadership check is the SAVE...what prevents you from being removed from table. So for Boon, the removal of the model is attack, and the toughness check is the save. For COM, the attack (and yes it is an attack) targets psykers (well it specifies psykers within 3d6 from other models, which is the definition of TARGET) and the save is the Leadership check.

So let's quit arguing over the leadership test being an attack...your leadership isn't removing you from the board. The COM is. The leadership test you take will save you from being removed, thus it is a save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you have to roll the range of the COM...range is an attack. It targets...all psykers within that range. And it removes from table...which is the new instant death and answer to eternal warrior.

Just because I actually reread this, I am going to list all the incongruities in it....

1)CoM does NOT target Psykers, it effects them.
2) state in the rules where if you have to measure range for something, that makes it an attack. So me moving my models is an attack? I am measuring their range of movement, so it must be, according to your logic.
3) once again, saves are not allowed at all, so your wrong there also.
4)the CoM does NOT remove from the table, it removes from play, so EW does NOT get used in this instance, because it is NOT Instant Death, plus you can't use EW here anyway, because there are no wounds to trigger Instant Death in the first place.

Shenra wrote:Saves in the traditional sense Galador.

And what, pray tell, is the traditional sense?? I only remember one model in the entire game having a LD test be thier save, and that was Iyanna in the last Eldar codex. Other than that, I don't remember ANY models having their save being a LD test, traditionally or not. Feel free to show me otherwise though, as I can't remember all the units from all 5 editions of rules and all the codicies(I am getting older after all, and the memory is going.... )

1)CoM does NOT target Psykers, it effects them. (It specifically selects psykers from other models, monstrous creatures, infantry etc. If you pick one specific type out of a group, that is targetting. Is English your native language?)
2) state in the rules where if you have to measure range for something, that makes it an attack. So me moving my models is an attack? I am measuring their range of movement, so it must be, according to your logic. (I'm not saying everytime you measure it's an attack. Did I say that, or are you trying to muddy the water? I said that the COM has a range like most weapons, and that's 3d6)
3) once again, saves are not allowed at all, so your wrong there also. (Saves in the traditional sense...you know, armor, invul, cover? These are not allowed. Now let's consider the word itself: save. Does COM remove a psyker from the table? Yes. What will SAVE the psyker from this fate? A leadership test. No, the rulebook does not classify Leadership as a type of save, but we all use TESTS as saves...meaning you roll the dice. If you make your leadership or under, you are saved. If not, you are not saved. You need to be able to separate 40k classifications and uses of words from what the word means in our language.)
4)the CoM does NOT remove from the table, it removes from play, so EW does NOT get used in this instance, because it is NOT Instant Death, plus you can't use EW here anyway, because there are no wounds to trigger Instant Death in the first place. (I never said EW would trigger. Again, do you even consider your opponent's point of view with careful thought before you spew a response? What I said was that remove from play is the NEW instant death...it's a way of killing or removing a model, even with EW, from contention. I'm making a comparison between instant death and remove from play. I'm not stating that EW would be any type of benefit here.)

The COM is classified as a weapon in the codex. Arcane weapon I believe. It has a range. It attacks psykers. It can kill them/remove them from play. Saying it's not an attack is ignorant. Saying the leadership test doesn't save you from being removed is dense. Does GW have to make a chart for you to understand what an attack does? If your side does something that causes my side to lose a model, that's an attack. If you argue otherwise I really don't know what to say, other than you're being purposefully difficult and probably trying to gain an advantage. COM: if you use it, it will affect one model from a unit, as BOP describes. If you try to get around that by being technical, that's fine. Just don't think I'll let you if I'm your opponent.

Removing the Justicar has not affected the Psyker. Because the Justicar is not the psyker. He is a member of a psyker. It is one thing to say that wounds get allocated to a Justicar first, and an entirely different thing to claim that being GK makes you immune to things that can cause more than one wound.

I disagree, the BoP rule doesn't take effect until you have tried to force a psyker within the range to take a test. So until the CoM has forced a test on a psyker nothing happens.

The BoP rule then turns the test against a pysker into a test against the justicar.

This is of course all predicated on assuming that the Ld test is an attack which is in debate.

Shenra wrote:Don't be purposefully dense.

Shenra wrote:Saying the leadership test doesn't save you from being removed is dense

Shenra wrote:All of you have it wrong. . .Saying it's not an attack is ignorant.

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

The crucible of Malediction causes every psyker within 3d6 range takes a leadership test, and if failed is removed from play.

kirsanth wrote:Unless it actually targets something it simply does not matter though.

I understand you think you are targeted because this conversation affects you, but it is not true.

Shenra wrote:CoM does NOT target Psykers, it effects [sic] them.

Galador wrote:
1)CoM does NOT target Psykers, it effects them.

Target is no more strictly defined in the rulebook than the word effect is defined in the rulebook. Rules with specifically defined rulesets are capitalized in the rulebook. Target is not capitalized. Target is just a word and its application in this game falls within our interpretation of what that word means based on our understanding of language or whatever dictionary definition we choose to reference.

Note that CoM does not use the word target or effect in its wording. You have just implied the ruling doesn't target something because it doesn't use that word target but then said it effects something yet it doesn't say it effect anything either.. Both are verbs that we use to understand how to apply the rules we are reading, neither are specifically rules themselves. Now, please note that I am not outlining this because I want to debate about the word effects, so spare me. Just as it is inferred by the fact that all Psykers in the range of an action that it used with the intent of harming specifically Pyskers could be considered to be targeting Psykers when using basic language, it can just as well be inferred that Pyskers are being effected by this power without actually having CoM use the word effect to denote or define what the word effect actually means in this case. How come you can use one word to describe what is happening but then ignore our use of another word we believe has just as much merit given the circumstances?

Shenra wrote: If your side does something that causes my side to lose a model, that's an attack.

So if your unit is falling back from a shooting attack after failing a morale check, and I move my unit to stay within 6" causing your unit to continue to fall back until they move off the table and are destroyed, my movement has been one attack after another at your unit?

Just a question.