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.

Traceoftoxin wrote:

Shenra wrote:How about this logic?

"If the Grey Knight Unit suffers Perils of the Warp...it is resolved against the Justicar or Knight of Flame..."

Almost everyone has been arguing about whether or not the CoM is an attack. Let's say, for argument's sake, that it's not. Perils of the Warp is also not an attack. But it's clear from GW's standpoint that they do not want the entire unit, even though it counts as a single psyker, to suffer the Perils. They want one model to suffer, and not the entire unit. To me, this points clearly to what the FAQ or Errata will say when it comes out. GW does not intend for the entire unit to treated as a groups of psykers. They intend for one model to face anti-psyker shenanigans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Perils, a non-attack being resolved against a single model instead of the group, even when that group is a single psyker...does that not set a precedent?

This actually supports it not being an attack, as it SPECIFICALLY states Perils, a non-attack, affects them. It goes out of it's way to pick something that would affect only a psyker, that isn't an attack, and name it. This shows that they are aware there are things that aren't attacks that affect psykers and they addressed ONE specifically. They could've easily said, "Anything attacks or abilities that target psykers (Such as perils in the warp, etc.)". Look at Lady Malys, her ability doesn't say "Psychic attacks" it says, "Psychic powers". Clearly GW is cognizant of the fact that there are more than just attacks out there.

But answer the point of my quote. I'm saying GW set a precedent by showing that Perils does not affect every psyker, or the whole unit, but just one model. So it stands to reason with that precedent that CoM will also only affect the Justicar or one model, and not the whole unit, just as Perils does.

The whole unit is psyker...yet they can only cast one power, they take one test, and only one model is affected when Perils or antipsyker comes into play. So where is the precedent that something will indeed kill the whole group? Perils doesn't, Anti-Psyker doesn't...nothing does. So why would the Crucible be any different?

Ok, to take a slightly different tac (and to throw fuel on the fire because I have a love of the absurd).

What happens if a GK unit uses Warp Quake and an enemy GK unit walks into the area and one or more of their models stubs their toe on the dangerous terrain.

Does this count as a psychic attack or is it a dangerous terrain check? If it is a psychic attack, because it's caused by a psychic power, does that mean Lady Malys and any squad she leads can completely ignore the Warp Quake?

-brought up because it's related periferally to certain interpretations of the rules in this thread that could affect the main discussion-

Galador wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:Oh and it's not because they are Space Marines! It's because they aren't Tyranids.....DE's FAQ didn't nerf them at all if I recall.

No, it didn't nerf the whole codex, I will give you that, it just nerfed the best vehicle and special character in the game, especially for their points cost. Oh yeah, and it nerfed the implosion missile badly. I love how you can allocate wounds that aren't wounds......

@Thunderfrog. I think you slightly misunderstood Dash. He didn't mean that it sits there forever, and that anything that moves in range as per your example is effected, because nothing can move in your Shooting phase but you using a run. But, if it is used in the Shooting phase, it would last for the phase, and seeing as you use it, you can't run. But basically you roll your range, and lets say you get 11" for range, and you have a ful GK squad within range. What Dash says is that if you resolve on the Justicar, and he fails, you remove him if its an attack. But then you still have the same psyker within the range that failed the test. It breaks the rules of the CoM. That is also why, if the justicar dies, it then says for BoP that you resolve against a random model. Hence the repeat against the unit if you resolve only against the Justicar, as it is technically a new psyker as the unit. The Justicar died when he was the psyker, now the new head honcho is a psyker to resolve against, so he has to test. If he dies, then the next replacement has to test. Its all still during the same shooting phase.

A bad example, but one that basically covers the same premise of doing it over and over is the supagatling gun, except that it causes hits and wounds.

Why does it last for the phase? You use it in the phase...but nothing says it lasts longer than the initial use. How does it continually use it after its been resolved?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's 4 precedents:

The whole unit only uses ONE psychic power. If each individual model was counted as psyker, then each would be able to use a power.

The whole unit only takes ONE psychic test to activate all of its force weapons, acting as ONE psyker. If each individual model was counted as a psyker, then they would each have to take a psychic test.

Perils can only affect ONE member of the unit. If each model was a psyker, then perils could affect more than one model.

Anti-Psyker attacks may only affect ONE member of the unit. If each member was considered a psyker, then psychic attacks would affect all of the models.

The fact is we have at least 4 precedents which show that GW does not intend for the unit to count as a group or mob of psykers. Everyone seems to be arguing over the Crucible, while I think the key lies in the BoP. Each individual model is not counted as a psyker. The entire unit is not threatened by anti-psychic attacks, non attacks such as perils, and not even checks to activate powers or weapons. Every precedent GW gives shows us that we treat the unit as one psyker, and that only one model of that unit at any one time may be affected as said psyker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What you guys are arguing is that:

Ok, Perils only affects one model.

Ok, anti psyker attacks only affect one model.

Only one model has to take a check to activate the powers for the group.

Only one model has to take a check to activate force weapons for the group.

But Crucible of Malediction is different. Contrary to everything else, it treats each model as a psyker, endangering each one or requiring each separate one to take a check or test.

Why should it be different?

Shenra wrote:
The whole unit only uses ONE psychic power. If each individual model was counted as psyker, then each would be able to use a power. (not true, reference the psyker battle squad for this, they are a squad of psykers but only get one power. Or reference a henchmen squad of psykers in the GK codex, they also only get one power.)

The whole unit only takes ONE psychic test to activate all of its force weapons, acting as ONE psyker. If each individual model was counted as a psyker, then they would each have to take a psychic test. (except its in your rules they only take one test for it, that is their exception, otherwise, yes, they would each have to test, if it is a separate power for each.)

Perils can only affect ONE member of the unit. If each model was a psyker, then perils could affect more than one model. (Perils could effect every psyker in the squad, if it wasn't for the BoP rule. Once again reference the Psyker battle squad in the Imperial guard codex.)

Anti-Psyker attacks may only affect ONE member of the unit. If each member was considered a psyker, then psychic attacks would affect all of the models. (this is true, as per the BoP rule only once again. Any other group of psykers would test individually.)

Also, I just noticed something. While it does not say this in the BRB, I just took a stroll through the other codicies (Eldar, IG, and Nids) looking at their psykers. I found an interesting precedent that might help with this....

In all three of them, they all list a Perils of the Warp as an ATTACK.

IG PG 33 Primaris Psyker : Its For Your Own Good rule and PG 47, Psyker Battle Squad: Ultimate Sanction Rule

Eldar Pg 26: Ghosthelm rule and Runes of Warding rule.

Tyranids PG 33: Shadow in the Warp rule and Tyranid Psykers rules.

Now granted, if its not in the BRB, its not related to every army, before that gets thrown at me. I am simply stating it because these each are either special psykers(nids) or have some rule that helps prevent a Perils on themselves (Eldar Ghosthelm) or help make it easier for their enemies to get a Perils(Eldar, Tyranids).

Dashofpepper wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Actually, they would. You resolve any attacks that target psykers versus the Justicar or a random model. All those 10 anti-psyker weapon wounds would be picked up by BoP and placed onto the Justicar, who would turn into one very gory crater. The rest of his unit would be fine though, as they're not in the same wound allocation group as him, unless it's a random model with the same wargear as someone else. Nowhere in the BoP rules does it state that you start with the Justicar, it says you resolve EVERYTHING versus him.

No....you are pluralizing your rule. It is not plural. It is singular. THE ATTACK and ATTACK, and ALLOCATE IT......not attacks, all attacks, allocate them, Justicar resolves them....

You're given permission to resolve a single attack targeting psykers.....albeit ANY kind of attack form that takes against the Justicar.

Your Justicar may have an apple. That is not the same as "Your Justicar may have all apples."

While I must apologize for my pluralization, I still do not see how it matters. The way I see it, BoP specifies that "if your squad come across any apples, they must be given to the Justicar".

As an example of what I mean:
Let's say that we have a blast weapon that auto-wounds any psykers it hits. This theoretical weapon hits our GK squad, hitting 5 Knights. This is when, I believe, BoP kicks in. As our squad has been hit by an anti-psyker attack, we follow the procedure lined out in BoP and resolve the entire attack against the Justicar-equivalent, almost as if he was a separate unit. As any doesn't mean "only the first", we do what the rules tell us and resolve the entire effect of any anti-psyker attack against the Justicar-equivalent alone. In this case, the blast attack is rerouted to the Justicar-equivalent, causing 1 wound to him. He may then take any saves he's entitled to.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:

While I must apologize for my pluralization, I still do not see how it matters. The way I see it, BoP specifies that "if your squad come across any apples, they must be given to the Justicar".

But the way it is written is, "If your squad comes across any apple(singular), IT is given to the Justicar.

If your squad comes across multiple applies, THEY are given.....well, you already have rules for wound allocation.

Dashofpepper wrote:
If your squad comes across multiple applies, THEY are given.....well, you already have rules for wound allocation.

Ah, I see what you mean. I think it boils down to what we consider an attack. The way you see it, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that a unit of 10 marines, each shooting 1 psyker-b-gone bullet, is ten attacks, whereas I would consider that scenario one attack, which means that we have a Justicar who just turned into swiss cheese. Which means we're back to debating what constitutes an attack, i.e. agreeing to disagree.

Remember that time when everyone was arguing about the Doom of M. The Nid side was stating that since it wasn't a shooting attack(it happens in the movement phase) then you didn't get a cover save and could affect stuff in vehicle...man those were good times.

This whole "what's an attack" thing reminds me off those times.

Hinging one's argument on what constitutes an attack when the term itself isn't defined per se, and is implied, is a stretch. Because GW omits a word or poorly describes something due to poor editing, some people will grasp at anything to find a loophole.

Most of the DE camp here have even stated that the FAQ is likely to go the GKs way, so why is this an issue then? Roll off and play it one way or the other.

I for one am fairly confident how the FAQ will turn out and glad I'm not wasting anymore time arguing this.

Would be funny tho, if GW sides with dash on this thread. I for one would be shocked. They love their power armoured hummies too much

I think the following conclusions can be made.

RaI: It seems fairly clear that they intended for the BoP rules to account for such affects as CoM. As such only one model would be removed.

RaW: The entire GK squad is removed from play.

I know people might disagree with the last one but hear me out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rule set for 40k is permissive. Which means unless it specifically allows you to do something, you cant do it.

Now the interaction between BoH and CoM is completely and utterly broken (Thanks GW). In order to make any sense of it you have to define weather or not CoM is an "attack", weather it can be considered to "target" the GK squad, heck is it even something you can allocate? If you can allocate it what exactly are you allocating? If the attack would cause a number of allocatable hits equal to the number of squad members ( as it would remove the whole squad if not for BoP) then do you follow normal allocation rules?

Exactly HOW is CoM resolved i.e dose it cause a single effect or only end when its conditions are met (all psykers who haven’t passed a test removed form play)? From reading it seems like it might even force every psyker in range to simultaneously take a LD test and THEN removes the ones who haven’t passed from play.

Is the individual that the LD test is assigned to actually a psyker?, can he even be removed according to CoM? Strictly speaking failing the LD dose not even cause you to be removed from play, due to the wording of CoM. Its being a psyker who hasn’t passed a LD check in its radius that results in removal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the point of that was to illustrate that neither the BRB nor either codex tells you clearly how to resolve the interaction, nor is there a clear precedent for this kind of interaction.

So in order to resolve it we have to interpret the rules and as soon as you do that you are talking RaI not RaW.

So from a purely RaW perspective (remembering 40k is a permissive ruleset) BoP is broken in regards to its interaction with CoM, as there is no way to effectively resolve the interaction using the rules as written.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary: The ambiguous interaction between CoM and BoP, with no clear governing rules or precedent means in order for BoP to work you need to resort to RaI due to the permissive nature of the 40k rule set.

Whew

Some good points made there, but one other thing needs to be considered. If rules interactions seem to be broken by the interpretation that you are using, you need to examine other interpetations to see if perhaps there is a different logic chain that isnt broken.

One of the key methods used to determine how the rules work together is to look for the interpretation that breaks the fewest rules. And it is also key to remember that the more specific rule takes precedence over the more general rule. (ie a general rule may be that a model gets a 4+ save, but then the more specific rule about power weapons negates that rule)


So this section of Dakka is mostly taken up with examining how various rules interact and then trying to see if there is a path that leads to an interpretation that works under these parameters. At times it may come down to simply having to go with the interpretation that breaks the fewest rules. Ideally if things are working well various ideas are brought up, examined and compared to similarirties to other rules, and a web of ideas is formed about how the rule(s) in question work.



Sliggoth

Crantor wrote:Remember that time when everyone was arguing about the Doom of M. The Nid side was stating that since it wasn't a shooting attack(it happens in the movement phase) then you didn't get a cover save and could affect stuff in vehicle...man those were good times.

This whole "what's an attack" thing reminds me off those times.

Hinging one's argument on what constitutes an attack when the term itself isn't defined per se, and is implied, is a stretch. Because GW omits a word or poorly describes something due to poor editing, some people will grasp at anything to find a loophole.

Most of the DE camp here have even stated that the FAQ is likely to go the GKs way, so why is this an issue then? Roll off and play it one way or the other.

I for one am fairly confident how the FAQ will turn out and glad I'm not wasting anymore time arguing this.

I would say do not be so confident how you think an FAQ will turn out. That in itself is presupposing one position over the other. A good example of that is the VBR and Void mine where, despite everyone saying how the FAQ would not allow the VBR to use the VM on a flat out move, the FAQ proved them wrong. Same with the Deffroller IIRC. I personally don't have enough confidence in GW's rules authors to believe they are aware of the interaction other rules and wargear bring when they write new codecii. That's just my opinion.

Solourus has presented the best perspective yet in this thread concerning the issue. Thanks for the arbitrary viewpoint.

It is no more arbitrary than anyone elses position here.

I never had a problem with deff Rolla or the DE VM on a flat out. My problem is that people are using the "It isn't an attack" argument because they have their own definition for something that isn't defined. Just like the DoM "It isn't shooting so no cover saves" argument was just as ridiculous when the rule specifically said no armour saves.

The argument is hinging on what an attack is or isn't. Really? Has that particular problem "what is an attack" come up before? So only now when you try and find a loophole? The whole thing is ridiculous. It's simple rules lawyering to gain an edge. Ten pages of back and forth, what a waste. The BoP explains exactly how it works but people are hanging their argument about what "attack" really means.

Like I said, roll off. Or even better, alternate the rules each game. Sorry, i guess when I suggested that the first time it was "arbitrary".

Some of you need to have more fun when you are playing.

I hope that Dashs' summary is correct as I only read the first page and from P8 onwards....

My apologies if I repeat something said elsewhere.

Firstly even if the leadership test is an attack, failing the test would still result in the removal of the entire unit, because the effect of failing it, isn't the allocation of wounds, but the removal of the psyker.

eg an psychic attack deals 10 wounds to a unit, BoP says to allocate those attacks against the relevant model. That model is removed. Now the effect of that attack was wounds, but CoM doesn't inflict wounds, but requires the removal of the psyker. Is the justicar or Knight the psyker? No he is the target, but the unit is the psyker, which is what the rules require removed.

Put it another (poor) way, Vindicare shoots an IC attached to a unit, who is pinned? The IC took the hit, but everyone else has to bear the effects.

Cheers

Andrew

On a similar vein, and I raise this because I can't get the search function to work, how did the Hex Scroll work against Horrors?

Cheers

Wow...I left this "debate" back on pages 3 or 4. I then come back and it's still going....

So what's the concensus so far (if any)? Too much reading to catch up on and not enuff time...

Right now at this point, its Just a rinse and repeat atm. Nothing has changed since pages 1-3.

Crantor wrote:The argument is hinging on what an attack is or isn't. Really? Has that particular problem "what is an attack" come up before?

Yes, it has come up before.

Is A deffrolla attack a shooting attack? It doesn't happen during the shooting or assault phase. If you are in cover, you get cover saves from shooting attacks but not from close combat attacks.

The argument doesn't hinge on attack, one point of the argument does. And it is the GK advocates attempting to exploit it. Since the CoM doesn't say that it ISN'T an attack, we get to presume it is. That's the problem. Well, you know what? Shooting psybolt ammo doesn't say that it isn't a psychic attack, so we're just going to psychic hood all your attempts to shoot in the future - because we get to presume that it is.

That's the problem. The rules tell you what *IS* not what *ISN'T*.

The rules say "This is an attack, that is an attack, the other is an attack." "This is a test, this is a test, and this is a test."

And the GK advocates here want the reverse to hold true. "Since the rules don't specify that it isn't...instead of going with "Then it isnt'" we'll just presume that it is.

That's about as ridiculous as, "Well...all my STR3 T3 Dark Eldar models don't say that they AREN'T monstrous creatures...so I'm going to presume they are."

That isn't the same as is a Deff Roller an "attack".

There is no definition of what an attack is. Only what you think it is.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just for giggles, how many items or abilities only affect psykers. more specifically how many that are not in the GK codex.

Crantor wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just for giggles, how many items or abilities only affect psykers. more specifically how many that are not in the GK codex.

Eldar: Rune of witnessing, runes of Warding, Ghost Helm.
Imperial Guard: "Its for your own good" special rule, "Ultimate Sanction" special Rule.
Tyranids: Synapse Special Rule, Shadow in the Warp Special Rule
Blood Angels: Psychic Hood, Wings of Sanguinius, The Sanguine Sword
Dark Eldar: Crucible of Malediction, Lady Malys' Crystal Heart special rule
Chaos Space Marines: Familiar, Warp Talisman
Space Marines: Psychic Hood, Quickening, Might of the Ancients
Dark Angels: Psychic Hood, Force Barrier
Black Templar, Abhor the witch vow
Witch Hunters: Hammer of the witches, Hammerhand, His will be done, Hexagrammic Wards, Psi-Tracker, Psychic Hood, Power Stake, Etherium, Psychic Abomination, Life Drain, Psyker Assasin, Psyk Out Grenades, Enhancer
Orks: Warphead upgrade


And I'm sure I probably missed one or two, but you get the idea......

Perfect. Then lets classify them as offensive (ones that affect enemy psykers) and ones that are defensive (ones that affect friendly).

Let's just take the abilities that affect enemy psykers.

What does that leave us with.

Crantor wrote:Perfect. Then lets classify them as offensive (ones that affect enemy psykers) and ones that are defensive (ones that affect friendly).

Let's just take the abilities that affect enemy psykers.

What does that leave us with.

dunno, you do that, I looked them up, your turn to do the research!

From what I can see.

Eldar: Nothing
Tyranids: Shadows
Blood Angels: Nothing
Dark Eldar: Crucible of Malediction
Chaos Space Marines: Nothing
Space Marines: Nothing
Dark Angels: Nothing
Black Templar, Nothing
Witch Hunters: Hammer of the witches, Power Stake, Etherium, Psychic Abomination, Life Drain, Psyker Assasin, Psyk Out Grenades,
Orks: nothing
Daemons: Nothing

So from what i gather based on this (keep in mind there may be other items or weapons or powers etc that I am likely unaware of or forgoten and I don't have the exact wording), there is nothing there that we can classify as an attack that specifically goes after Psykers. A lot of characteritic tests etc and a lot cause perils (which the Justicar would take as per the rule in BoP). But so far I have yet to see anything anywhere else that is an attack by your definition. Which says what? The BoP rule about any attack that targets Psykers is only good against GKs and possibly witches? That makes a lot of sense.

I am curious (really I am) if there are any actual attacks (using your definition) that target psykers only.

Crantor wrote:
I am curious (really I am) if there are any actual attacks (using your definition) that target psykers only.

You missed quite a few things from C:WH. And to answer your question, using Dash's definition of attack, the WH Psyk-out Warhead meets his definition while only affecting psykers. There's probably more, but that's just for starters.

Edit: To clarify, the Psyk-out Warhead is a weapon, has a profile, Str, AP, ect., it rolls to hit with a variable range, it rolls to have an affect against psykers only that doesn't cause wounds (S vs Psyker's Ldr like the Neural Shredder), and it does allow for invul saves.

Edit 2: The Culexus Assassin's Psyk-Out Grenades from C:WH also seems to meet Dash's definition while again only affecting psykers.

Right. So once again we have GK have an ability meant to defend against GKs and Witchunters. Again makes no sense.

If there are more, other than the missile that strips psychic powers, which ones are calssified as attacks per the description being touted.

I'll just throw this out there:

All GK models are equipped with force weapons. Force weapons are "used exclusively by trained psykers" (BGB p50). So, you have two options:

A) Each and every GK is in fact a psyker. This means that CoM will hit every single model.

B) GK models tend to carry around weapons they can't actually wield. So, all those Nemesis weapons aren't actually usable by non-IC. Who knows why? Perhaps they just think they look cool, perhaps they're just backups in case the Brother-Captain looses his and needs another.

In my conscience and my rational mind I have to agree with those stating the CoM will remove the unit. Regardless how it is eventually faq'd.

Grakmar wrote:I'll just throw this out there:

All GK models are equipped with force weapons. Force weapons are "used exclusively by trained psykers" (BGB p50). So, you have two options:

A) Each and every GK is in fact a psyker. This means that CoM will hit every single model.


B) GK models tend to carry around weapons they can't actually wield. So, all those Nemesis weapons aren't actually usable by non-IC. Who knows why? Perhaps they just think they look cool, perhaps they're just backups in case the Brother-Captain looses his and needs another.

A) would mean that the Culexus Assassin gets 1 extra shot for every GK near him.

lucasbuffalo wrote:A) would mean that the Culexus Assassin gets 1 extra shot for every GK near him.

Either way there is a way to make it sound bad for GK. If that assassin is the worst part they have to deal with for such abilities. . .

/shrug

Crantor wrote:Then lets classify them as offensive (ones that affect enemy psykers):
Eldar: Runes of Warding
Tyranids: Shadows
Blood Angels: Psychic Hood
Dark Eldar: Crucible of Malediction
Chaos Space Marines: Nothing
Space Marines: Psychic Hood
Dark Angels: Psychic Hood
Black Templar: Abhor the witch, destroy the witch vow
Witch Hunters: Hammer of the witches, Power Stake, Etherium, Psychic Abomination, Life Drain, Psyker Assasin, Psyk Out Grenades,
Orks: nothing
Daemons: Nothing

So from what i gather based on this (keep in mind there may be other items or weapons or powers etc that I am likely unaware of or forgoten and I don't have the exact wording), there is nothing there that we can classify as an attack that specifically goes after Psykers. A lot of characteritic tests etc and a lot cause perils (which the Justicar would take as per the rule in BoP). But so far I have yet to see anything anywhere else that is an attack by your definition. Which says what? The BoP rule about any attack that targets Psykers is only good against GKs and possibly witches? That makes a lot of sense.

I am curious (really I am) if there are any actual attacks (using your definition) that target psykers only.

cleared that up for you a bit.... you left out a few that affect enemy psykers.

kirsanth wrote:

lucasbuffalo wrote:A) would mean that the Culexus Assassin gets 1 extra shot for every GK near him.

Either way there is a way to make it sound bad for GK. If that assassin is the worst part they have to deal with for such abilities. . .

A GK army can choose to take a Culexus. It won't always be facing Dark Eldar.