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.

I would never play this, but I figure you guys might appreciate this argument.

A Culexus Assassin has the Pysker Assassin power. It says that it can always target a psyker, yadda yadda yadda. It says "regardless of whether the psyker is in a unit..., etc."

Now that a vehicle is a unit, couldn't you argue that the Culexus can shoot any assassin in a vehicle because the Pysker Assassin power says it can ignore the vehicle (unit) the psyker is in?

Does it say you can ignore line of sight?

'Cuz if the psyker is in a vehicle, you can't draw line of sight to him.

It says the "Culexus Assassin can always target a psyker specifically with any shooting attacks, regardless of whether the psyker is in a unit, an independent character, etc."

So it does say etc. Even if you can't ignore line of sight, it does seem to say you can ignore the vehicle. Because being in one doesn't matter wrt this assassin's targeting.

So, do you think the "etc." includes the following:

Range
Line of Sight
Psyker is in reserve
Culexus is in reserve

So, how all encompassing do you, in your opinion, think the "etc." is?

(Totally not trolling; I'm merely trying to show you the extent that this interpretation of the rule could go.)

Note that the phrase "in a unit" means "joined to a unit" not "embarked in a vehicle".

One argument for why it wouldn't work: Sure, you can target anything you'd like. Unfortunately, the shot is going to miss because there's no way to determine range to a model embarked in a vehicle.

No, you can't. Just no.

Saldiven wrote:So, how all encompassing do you, in your opinion, think the "etc." is?

(Totally not trolling; I'm merely trying to show you the extent that this interpretation of the rule could go.)

If this was a Chaos Sorcerer that was attached to the back of a unit of Chaos Terminators, such that the Chaos Terminators blocked TLOS from the Assassin to the Sorcerer, this power would still be effective. In the standard situation, line of sight is meant to be ignored by Psyker Assassin.

The first question is whether a vehicle is a unit. That's clearly so. It wasn't true when these codexes came out, but it is true now.

Then, the next question is how you ignore being "in a vehicle" for the purposes of this power. RAW. This is what the rules says.

And considering how effective a Culexus is against Psykers, it's not clear that this effect isn't something GW would accept. RAI. For example, the rest of the powers. The Culexus can target psykers with their grenades, ignore other models in a unit to assault a psyker specifically and more.

Vehicles are units. There's no debate there.

However the psyker isn't on the table. Simply being in a unit isn't the issue in this case, it's having the model removed from the table until it leaves the transport.

The entire issue is opened up with the ruling that psykers (or however you spell the damned things) in vehicles can use their powers. With the latest 40k General Rules FAQ saying that the psykers are "embarked in a transport vehicle" (my emphasis), how can it not be considered in a vehicle for the purposes of Psyker Assassin?

Replace transport vehicle with unit, which is completely allowable, and there you have it. The Culexus can ignore the vehicle the psyker is in to target the psyker with its shooting attacks.

It's not about being in a unit though, it's about not being on the table.

The FAQ for Eldar helps back this up to a degree, as it bans casting powers (Doom, Guide, Fortune) on any unit in a transport that doesn't have the casting psyker inside it. The powers don't require line of sight, nor are they treated as shooting in any way, they merely require the unit to be within a certain distance.

I would think the Culexus would work in the same manner. He can't shoot something that isn't there, and the unit in the transport is gone until the transport is destroyed or the unit disembarks. (For the purpose of being targeted, anyways, they can still shoot from firing points and such.)

I'd point out that Psyker Assassin is not a psychic power, it's a rule; an anti-psychic special rule. So by the technicalities of faith in RAW, it has not been disallowed by RAW interpretation even if we accept current FAQ answers as RAW.

As for RAI, with the psychers in vehicles now able to use powers, this interpretation doesn't fail on fairness. They can shoot at something that can fight back, sort of. Additionally, the Culexus is pretty specifically bad ass against pskyers, intentionally.

So, the rule says the Culexus can always target a psyker with its shooting attacks, even when it is in a unit. So, even when it is in a vehicle, a Culexus can always target any psykers. Notice that a Culexus still can't target a psyker if it's blocked by another unit, terrain, or a bunker - just by a unit it happens to be in.

It doesn't matter if it's on the table if the psyker is in the vehicle. Other than that we are told it is in the vehicle several times (for example in the BRB embarking rules) if it wasn't in the vehicle, it wouldn't be able to use psychic powers from the vehicle's location. So, ignoring the vehicle, as we are told to do, the psyker is right there where the vehicle was. If the vehicle explodes, the psyker pops right out of it. But more than that. If the reason why you can't target the psykers is because it's in the vehicle, this rule specifically says you can target the psykers if that's the reason you normally couldn't.

"The Culexus Assassin can always target a psyker specifically with any shooting attacks, regardless of whether the psyker is in a unit, an independent character, etc." (WH, p. 30) Being in a vehicle (unit) is a listed example of when this power works.

There's the idea that this shouldn't be, but the whys about why it shouldn't aren't based on what this rule says. It's based off of other things, like how people play the game, what people expect, and how other parts seem to work.

(And anyway, first sentence in first post - I wouldn't necessarily play it this way, either, but thought it was interesting to see that it was there.)

Another unmentioned weakness is that it says "a unit" rather than "any unit", but that might not dissuade folks too much.

gaylord500, I have a simple response:

Page 16, Which Models Can Fire?.

All models in the firing unit that have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit can fire.

In this case, the assassin is targeting the psycher as the "target unit". So, if the assassin doesn't have line of sight to the model, it doesn't matter whether or not the psycher can be targetted because the assassin can't fire.

gaylord500 wrote:I'd point out that Psyker Assassin is not a psychic power, it's a rule; an anti-psychic special rule. So by the technicalities of faith in RAW, it has not been disallowed by RAW interpretation even if we accept current FAQ answers as RAW.

The special rule isn't the issue; the psyker isn't being targeted by the Psyker Assassin rule, he's being targeted by the Culexus' shooting weapon (Animus Spectrum, right? I don't know if he has a pistol or something too though).

The Psyker Assassin rule only modifies the rules for targeting a model.

As for RAI, with the psychers in vehicles now able to use powers, this interpretation doesn't fail on fairness. They can shoot at something that can fight back, sort of.

Except units have always been able to fire from vehicle firing points at any rate, and their targets haven't been able to shoot back at the embarked unit.

The rule says the Culexus can always target a psyker with its shooting attacks, even when it is in a unit. So, even when it is in a vehicle, a Culexus can target any psykers.

But there is no psyker to target.

The fact that the model is in the transport isn't itself making the unit untargetable; it's the fact that the model is removed from the table when it goes inside the transport that makes it untargetable.

It doesn't matter if it's on the table if the psyker is in the vehicle. If it wasn't in the vehicle, it wouldn't be able to use psychic powers from the vehicle's location.

But it's not on the table.

It's in the vehicle, but not on the table. There is no model. The model could be put in your briefcase, or thrown across the room. It doesn't make a difference until comes out of the transport.

So, ignoring the vehicle, as we are told to do, the psyker is right there where the vehicle was. If the vehicle explodes, the psyker pops right out of it.

It pops out of it because there are mechanisms in place for putting the model back on the table when the vehicle it is being transported in is destroyed. It hasn't been there the whole time. It has only been there for the purposes of shooting from the vehicle because we are told that units in transports can shoot from that transport's firing points.

There's the idea that this shouldn't be, but why it shouldn't aren't based on what this rule says. It's based off of other things, like how people play the game, what people expect, and how other parts seem to work.

I think that's your problem, actually.

You assume that being "in" something for the transport rules means there is a model actually inside of the transport. However, there isn't. It wouldn't fit. It's "in" in one respect, but not in another.

solkan wrote:gaylord500, I have a simple response:

Page 16, Which Models Can Fire?.

All models in the firing unit that have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit can fire.

In this case, the assassin is targeting the psycher as the "target unit". So, if the assassin doesn't have line of sight to the model, it doesn't matter whether or not the psycher can be targetted because the assassin can't fire.

So you're saying that BRB beats Codex. The reason why the Culexus has this rule is because Codex beats BRB. You may as well as ATSKNF doesn't work because the BRB beats the SM's rule.

Every single one of these assassins already "violates" some pretty fundamental BRB rules. The Eversore has a 12" assault run. The Vindicare can shoot into CC, and arguably shoot friendly models. The Callidus has deep strike with no chance of failure. The Culexus can shoot pskyers in a unit, ignoring the other models in that unit when it does so. They can do these things because their rules say they can, usually in no more than a few words without need for anything more, despite what the BRB extensively says on these different things. I'm trying to follow the rule as it's given, in as literal a fashion as possible.

The fact that the psykers are described as in the vehicle in both the FAQ and the embarkation rules is enough to consider them "in a unit" for the Culexus special targeting rule. And if it's in the vehicle, it's a sufficient condition for the Culexus to target them with shooting, with no need for anything else. Look at how the rule is written. If it's in a unit, the Culexus can always target a psyker with shooting - not sometimes, not if it otherwise can, always. All the other stuff doesn't matter. Because even if the Culexus would not otherwise be able shoot at the pskyer, it'll be able to - that's pretty much a given, or the power wouldn't work as it's written.

gaylord500 wrote:So you're saying that BRB beats Codex. The reason why the Culexus has this rule is because Codex beats BRB. You may as well as ATSKNF doesn't work because the BRB beats the SM's rule.

Lol. Except that the BRB does beat codex in many cases, most notably Sweeping Advance.

So, by following the argument given for allowing the Culexus assassin to shoot a character in a vehicle, I can distribute successful hits on my Blood Claw loaded rhino so the Lascanon shot only removes one Blood Claw. As much as I like that idea (another turn of getting them to where I want them), it doesn't work that way.

If you want to shoot the psyker, then you have to crack the vehicle.

The Culexus can't ignore the vehicle at all if there isn't a psyker in it. It can't even ignore a vehicle if the psyker is standing behind it, rather than in it. If it is, the Culexus has so much special and anti-psyker training it can ignore the vehicle to shoot the guy.

----

Orkeosaurus wrote:The fact that the model is in the transport isn't itself making the unit untargetable; it's the fact that the model is removed from the table when it goes inside the transport that makes it untargetable.

Thinking about it further, where in the rules does it say that a model in a transport is off the table? I believe that's an assumption.

There's more to say that the model is in the transport. 4 of the 6 results on the vehicle damage chart affect passengers. Psych powers are counted from the vehicle location. We normally can't target a unit in a vehicle for psychic powers because it'd be simpler not to, not because those folks aren't there. Ignoring the vehicle yet affecting the passengers seems possible, and counting the passengers as where the vehicle is seems to have more support than not.

-----

On one side, there's a rule that allows you to do this. On the other, there's some theory and some assumptions. Weigh the relative importance as necessary depending on your game.

Personally, I'd recommend using this against folks who GoI out of CC, etc.; in competitive environments against rules lawyers. A rule doesn't need to be popular to be valid, although playing a game isn't worth getting into a big argument over.

It's not on the table because the actual model is not on the table, and there is no rule stating that the model counts as still being on the table.

It's not an assumption because there is a model and there is a table, and the model is not on top of the table when embarked in a transport.

Measuring to the hull of the vehicle for targeting a model inside the vehicle isn't allowed by the rules, even if it seems the obvious method you would use to target a model in a vehicle.

It says you can target specifically with any shooting attacks. It's an override to wound allocation, not to target selection or line of sight rules.

You may target the psyker specifically with shooting attacks. Shooting attacks require LOS. No LOS means that unit is not a valid target and you must choose another.

You do not have LOS to models inside transports, so no, you cannot use the Psyker Assassin special rule on a psyker in a transport.

I have to agree that this does not work. even though my mek's KFF works from inside the vehicle.. you have no way of shooting him directly until the transport is destroyed. it just is the way of things.

If the Psyker embarks into a vehicle then he and any unit he's with are removed from the tabletop.

That's what makes it impossible to shoot him, he doesn't exist. He's not 'in' the unit', even though that seems to be the intuitive location, he's in some nether dimension that everything goes to when it embarks.

As others have already said.

A rule doesn't need to be popular to be valid, although playing a game isn't worth getting into a big argument over.


Man up. If you can come here with the rule and keep arguing it's valid, at least test it out on a few people in real life and see how it flies.

This whole "lets argue forever on the internet, yet I'd never actually play this way" gets old. If that's how "you'd make da call", then go play it that way.

sourclams wrote:If the Psyker embarks into a vehicle then he and any unit he's with are removed from the tabletop.

That's what makes it impossible to shoot him, he doesn't exist. He's not 'in' the unit', even though that seems to be the intuitive location, he's in some nether dimension that everything goes to when it embarks.

As others have already said.

That argument actually doesn't work. While the unit is indeed physically removed from the table, in that same paragraph you are given a special rule for how to measure to it as if it were.

It doesn't work because it is a shooting attack, which requires LOS as I posted above. You are never considered as having LOS to a model inside a vehicle.

Another problem with the removed from the tabletop argument is that it was from 4th edition. Specifically, a copy of the relevant FAQ question can be found here. It says:

4th Edition Rules FAQ wrote:Q. Can psychic powers (like Fear of the Darkness) or other special rules (Imperial Guard Officers’ Leadership) and pieces of wargear (like Psychic Hoods) be used from within vehicles by models that are being transported?

A. As transported models are not physically on the table, they cannot do anything (unless differently specified). The only exception is firing weapons (and using psychic powers and abilities that replace firing a weapon) from one of the vehicle’s Fire Point or from an open-topped transport. On the positive side, transported troops cannot be targeted by the enemy (the enemy can of course target their transport, and the passengers may suffer consequences as a result).

Plenty of that isn't true any longer in 5th edition. Treating transported models as being off the table is not something that exists any more.

That said, I'm happy to agree that passengers are off the table if you also play that they can't use any non-shooting psychic powers, any special rules, or any wargear. This would violate current 5th edition FAQ on these topics, but as we know the current FAQ may not be rules anyway.

If not, I'll point out again that if you ignore the vehicle for purposes of line of sight, the psyker passengers can be shot at. Because if it wasn't for the vehicle, you could already shoot at the models the vehicle contains. The Culexus is just that anti-psyker - being in a vehicle won't offer protection from shots.

gaylord500, where in the assassin's rule does it say to ignore line of sight or range for the purpose of anything except targeting the psyker?

As far as I can tell, according to your (incorrect, in my opionion) interpretation a Culexus which was removed from play as a casualty could shoot at a psyker held in reserves. After all, no one can prove that those conditions aren't also covered by that et cetera. :-/

gaylord500 wrote:If not, I'll point out again that if you ignore the vehicle for purposes of line of sight, the psyker passengers can be shot at.

Sure, if you ignore the vehicle for LOS. But the rules don't say to do that. They simply say that the Psyker can be targeted even if in a unit... because normally if the Psyker is a part of a unit, they can't be singled out as a target.

Nothing in the rule in question modifies the normal rules for LOS. It just modifies the rules for choosing a target.


So you can choose the Psyker as a target whether or not he is in a unit. If you want to read that creatively and ignore the context, then yes, that means he can be chosen as a target even when inside a transport vehicle. But you don't have LOS to him, so still can't attack him.

solkan wrote:gaylord500, where in the assassin's rule does it say to ignore line of sight or range for the purpose of anything except targeting the psyker?

I'm not saying anything about range. Range still matters. However, BRB p. 66 states at the bottom of the first paragraph under the heading Embarking, "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit...this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull."

As for the line of sight question, it's part of the standard rule of the model. While I agree that it can't ignore line of sight for terrain and other units, it can ignore line of sight for the rest of the unit the psyker is in to specifically target a psyker model in a unit.

Let's use the standard situation: a Chaos Sorcerer is in the back, and joined to, a unit of Terminators. While the assassin can see the unit, it cannot see the Sorcerer with the Terminators in front of it. If the Terminators and the Sorceror were separate units, the Sorceror could not be targeted by the Culeuxus - TLOS is blocked.

The rule says, "The Culexus Assassin can always target a psyker specifically with any shooting attacks, regardless of whether the psyker is in a unit..." So, despite having the Terminators in front of it, the Culexus can still shoot the Chaos Sorceror and target it specifically. Without the phrase 'regardless of whether the psyker is in a unit,' we could not as clearly target the psyker model specifically because the rest of the models in the unit blocks TLOS to the psyker model.

If the rule said the Culexus can always target a psyker specifically with any shooting attacks, regardless of whether the psyker is in a bunker, would it be an ability that ignores the bunker for targeting purposes? If we take a wound regardless of armor, hit regardless of WS, or assault regardless of difficult terrain, we wouldn't apply armor, WS, or the terrain penalty - we'd ignore them. But things like invulnerable save or the like could still apply.

As a vehicle is a unit, same situation for the vehicle if the psyker is in it. We are ignoring the vehicle for the purposes of targeting the psyker. If the psyker was standing behind it instead of in it, the vehicle could not be ignored.

gaylord500 wrote:As for the line of sight question, it's part of the standard rule of the model. While I agree that it can't ignore line of sight for terrain and other units, it can ignore line of sight for the rest of the unit the psyker is in to specifically target a psyker model in a unit.

Except, again, that's not what the rule says.

It says only that you can target Psykers in a unit. It doesn't say to ignore the rest of the models in the unit for LOS purposes.

The rule says, "The Culexus Assassin can always target a psyker specifically with any shooting attacks, regardless of whether the psyker is in a unit..." So, despite having the Terminators in front of it, the Culexus can still shoot the Chaos Sorceror and target it specifically.

No, sorry, that doesn't work. Using that logic, if there was a wall in between the unit and the Psyker, the Culexis could still shoot the Psyker... because he can " always target a psyker specifically with any shooting attacks"...

The problem is that this isn't what the statement means.

It's not saying that he can always target the Psyker regardless of all other considerations. It's saying that the Psyker can be specifically chosen as the target of the Assassin's attack, even in situations where you could not normally pick the Psyker out.

All other shooting restrictions will still apply. The only allowance made is that you can choose the Psyker as a target when the rules would normally force you to shoot something else, or force you to shoot his unit rather than him specifically.

@gaylord500 Please also remember that the vehicle is indeed another unit, so your arguement fails from your own conditions. The psycher is not a part of the vehicle unit, he is part of the unit that is inside the vehicle. So by your own rules on what blocks LOS, the vehicle would block LOS.
Even a dedicated transport is still a separate unit from whatever unit its trasnporting in 5th edition.

Whether or not the other models in the psycher's own unit can be ignored for LOS purpose (that arguement is still to be worked out) the vehicle can most certainly not be ignored if other units and terrain cant be ignored.


As to whether or not the assassin can ignore even other models in the psychers own unit for LOS.....thats reading a lot into the etc part. The etc is being used to describe the characteristics of the psycher....IC, upgrade char, regular unit member, IC with retinue.... it isnt talking about nullifying any other rules of the game such as LOS, range or the like.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote: @gaylord500 Please also remember that the vehicle is indeed another unit, so your arguement fails from your own conditions. The psycher is not a part of the vehicle unit, he is part of the unit that is inside the vehicle.

I don't think he was trying to say that the Psyker is a part of the vehicle unit. Just that he is in the vehicle, and therefore the vehicle is a unit he is in.

It's a dodgy interpretation, and completely ignores the context of the statement in question, though. It's quite clearly talking about units that the Psyker is a part of.