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.

What I mean is, how many psychic powers out there actually use the words "psychic shooting attack" in their definition or profile?

Hardly any, but this is because it is indicated by a weapon stateline on the power just like doombolt has. So based on that i'd disagree. Lash has things like its range listed in the text not on a weapon profile. It very deliberatly does not have a weapon profile, and has no charactaristics of ranged weapons other than that range and requiering LOS. It cannot miss, does not need to wound, and saves cannot be taken.

I do not see why the burden of proof would be on those arguing that it isn't a shooting attack. It has nothing in common with shooting powers other than that it is used in the shooting phase, has range and needs LOS. As has been said plenty of times, there is nothing to indicate that it is a shooting attack other than some vague wording that only means anything with liberal use of inductive reasoning.

So, the argument stems from the second quote found on Pg. 50. In which using a "psychic shooting attack" COUNTS as firing a ranged weapon. Ergo, it can be easily interpreted that any power that is used 'instead' of shooting is an attack 'counts' as firing a ranged weapon.

This is inductive reasoning and a logical fallacy. Its not RAW and is a stretch to be RAI.

To go at this from a different angle: Is a supposed psychic shooting attack that is not specified as one and has no weapon profile really a psychic shooting attack? The answer is obviously no as those are the only things that define a psychic shooting attack.

This is inductive reasoning and a logical fallacy. Its not RAW and is a stretch to be RAI.

I totally agree. But that does not exclude that it is a fact that 1) there is only 2 lines that give us any guidelines on what a psychic shooting attack is, so we have to use what we got.

Hardly any, but this is because it is indicated by a weapon stateline on the power just like doombolt has.

2) Now where in the definition does it state that a psychic shooting attack 'has' to have a profile for a shooting weapon. It just simply has to 'counts' as a shooting attack. If I am wrong please show me a quote or page I may correct myself on. I listed the quotes and page numbers for my supportive stance, please do the same.

I do not see why the burden of proof would be on those arguing that it isn't a shooting attack. It has nothing in common with shooting powers other than that it is used in the shooting phase, has range and needs LOS

3) What else is there that would make it 'not in common' with a shooting attack/power, you pretty much covered all the basics. The only thing it does not do is cause wounds, but that is not required for a shooting attack. An example would be a DE horrorfex has all the same profiles you listed the lash has and it pins but doesn't cause any wounds like the lash yet it is a shooting weapon. And being an auto hit weapon does not preclude it either (remember the old Zaap gun).

So far all you did was show how like a shooting attack Lash is, not how it is not a shooting attack. Please show me how it is not similar.

Lets brake it down:

1) it is used in shooting phase
2) it is used instead of shooting
3) uses all the basics rules that are required for shooting (line of sight, range) don't know how it has 'nothing' in common


Things that don't point towards a shooting power

1) it doesn't say "psychic shooting power" in its profile/definition

Wow

I apologize if I am coming off harsh or mean, but I listed the arguments with references and have yet to see any shred of that from the 'for' side. It is the old 'this is what I think' stance that just does nothing for rules arguments.

How can there be any reference to what I say when there isnt anything in the rule saying it is a "psychic shooting attack"? I cant very well list something thats not there.

A psychic shooing attack doesnt have to have a wepon profile either, but it has to have something in the rule saying that it is just that. Othervise it isnt, same as for all rules. Also, the burden of evidence isnt on lash to prove it isnt a "psychic shooting attack" but on whoever wants it to be to prove that it is. (wich isnt possible with the wording at the moment)

I see your reasoning though but its not written in the rules.

Its not a matter of what we think, it is a matter of reading the entry without adding inferences or making assumptions. Of course there are no references. The point is that all there is is what it says. There are no references because we arn't trying to prove anything beyond what it simply says. I can restate the page number it is listed on if you like, but thats already been said so why bother?

1) it is used in shooting phase
2) it is used instead of shooting
3) uses all the basics rules that are required for shooting (line of sight, range) don't know how it has 'nothing' in common

Again, inductive reasoning.

When it comes down to it the arguments are this:
Against: It has a few aspects similar to shooting and is used instead of shooting.
For: It doesn't say it is shooting (which many don't) and doesn't have a weapon profile (which the other shooting powers do).

So, we're back to the old rule of thumb. If it doesn't say it is something, it isn't. It doesn't say it is a shooting attack and has no weapon profile, therefore it is only what it says: A ranged psychic power used in the shooting phase instead of shooting. Therefore it can be used from a fast moving rhino, etc etc.

On another note: Do people think nurgle's Rot is a shooting power? It is used in the shooting phase instead of another shooting power but can be used while in cc. It also has no weapon profile and does not miss. It also doesn't require LOS. I'd argue that it is not a shooting power for the same reasons i'm arguing that lash isn't: It doesn't say it is. Does anybody who thinks lash IS a shooting power think nurgle's rot isn't?

So, we're back to the old rule of thumb. If it doesn't say it is something, it isn't. It doesn't say it is a shooting attack and has no weapon profile, therefore it is only what it says: A ranged psychic power used in the shooting phase instead of shooting. Therefore it can be used from a fast moving rhino, etc etc.

Dude, did you even read my post or just that one part you listed, show some references, I gave mine, read pg. 50 please and list your references IT does not have to have a weapon profile, please list that reference. I just has to count as a weapon.

Exactly my point, "psychic shooting attack" is a 5th edition rule. It existed to an extent in 4th edition but never had its on specified rules. So all the 4th ed codex just do not have that phrase, so to say all powers that do not have that phrase are not shooting attacks just opens a flood gate of abuse.

The rule book just says "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon."

Note: it doesn't list that it must have a stat line or anything of the like. In fact it just goes on to say that you have to follow all the rules as if you fired a weapon (assaulting same target, running, etc...)

So by saying that it doesn't have "psychic shooting attack" in its profile means that I can go to town with my orks, DA, Deamon Hunters, and everyother codex with out that line who have 'shooting like' powers but clearly does not say "psychic shooting attack'.

No one wants that.

The whole point is if you skipped all that I wrote is this is a new rules set working with books written for an older rules set. GW gave us a guideline on what a shooting power is, a crapy one, but a guideline none the less. We as players are only left with interpreting what they consider what a shooting power is from that one line. And it ONLY says "a psychic shooting attack COUNTS as firing a ranged weapon." (Emphasis mine)

If your group is ok with playing it as not a shootng power, than more power to you.

Ok, so you do think(and interprit it the only way you think is left) it is a shooting attack and your group plays it like that. If that was the point your trying to make, doesnt make it so according to the rules though.

OK people. I'm here to fix your arguements. I hope this helps.

I just read the rule and you can't use it in a vehicle that has moved a distance that says it can't shoot. Why do you ask? That vehicle doesn't have a shooting phase. It lost it.

Also I read the power and it's used as a weapon. If it wasn't used as a weapon it would say so. You can use the power instead of using a shooting weapon. If you can't use a shooting weapon in a vehicle that has moved than you can't use the power.

This is not hard to understand.

If someone says they can and it's a tourny adjust their sportsmanship score.

Kallbrand wrote:How can there be any reference to what I say when there isnt anything in the rule saying it is a "psychic shooting attack"? I cant very well list something thats not there.

A psychic shooing attack doesnt have to have a wepon profile either, but it has to have something in the rule saying that it is just that. Othervise it isnt, same as for all rules. Also, the burden of evidence isnt on lash to prove it isnt a "psychic shooting attack" but on whoever wants it to be to prove that it is. (wich isnt possible with the wording at the moment)

I see your reasoning though but its not written in the rules.

i'l give you 10$ if you find in any 4ed codex line - Psychic shooting attack.

I think you are right then padixon. I was looking for too solid of a definition of a psychic shooting attack and forgot we were working with GW material. There are plenty of powers that neither say they are a psychic shooting attack and don't have profiles that are probably meant to be psychic shooting attacks. So for the sake of an accurate RAI i'd say if it is probably a psychic shooting attack if it is used in the shooting phase instead of another weapon etc.

Nurglitch wrote:On p.88 of Codex: Chaos Space Marines it says of both Lash of Submission and Doombolt:

"A psyker may use this psychic power in the Shooting phase instead of using another ranged weapon."

"Doombolt may be used in the model's Shooting phase instead of using another ranged weapon."

On p.50 of the Rulebook it says of Psychic Shooting Attacks:

"Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon (an assault weapon, unless specified otherwise). So, for example, the psyker must be able to see his target unit, cannot be locked in combat, or must not have run in the Shooting phase if he wishes to use a psychic shooting attack."

So the Lash of Submission is a psychic shooting attack, and is limited in the ways specified in the rulebook.

So both Doombolt and Lash of Submission are psychic powers that count as ranged weapons. And a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon. Therefore the Lash of Submission is a psychic shooting attack.

Damn, dropped my popcorn. Try to keep it civil until I can get a refill.

Nurglitch wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:On p.88 of Codex: Chaos Space Marines it says of both Lash of Submission and Doombolt:

"A psyker may use this psychic power in the Shooting phase instead of using another ranged weapon."

"Doombolt may be used in the model's Shooting phase instead of using another ranged weapon."

On p.50 of the Rulebook it says of Psychic Shooting Attacks:

"Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon (an assault weapon, unless specified otherwise). So, for example, the psyker must be able to see his target unit, cannot be locked in combat, or must not have run in the Shooting phase if he wishes to use a psychic shooting attack."

So the Lash of Submission is a psychic shooting attack, and is limited in the ways specified in the rulebook.

So both Doombolt and Lash of Submission are psychic powers that count as ranged weapons. And a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon. Therefore the Lash of Submission is a psychic shooting attack.

That logic might work if it wasnt for the fact that there is nothing that says it is a psychic shooting attack(or counts as one), only that it is used instead of another ranged weapon.

Kallbrand:

Okay, let me put it into an argument so that you can follow along more easily.

Premise 1
A Lash of Submission is a psychic power.

Premise 2
Using a Lash of Submission counts as firing a ranged weapon.

Premise 3
Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon.

Conclusion:
Therefore, the Lash of Submission is a psychic shooting attack.

You see Kallbrand, the fact that there is something saying that the Lash of Submission is used instead of another ranged weapon means that the psychic power in question counts as a ranged weapon.

As people have pointed out in this thread, the Lash of Submission is not a ranged weapon in all aspects or properties (lacks weapon profile, etc). So if the rules call for it to be used instead of another ranged weapon, then the relation between it and the kind 'range weapons' is a 'counts as' relation.

Incidentally, we could say that "counts as" is a special kind of identity, where a partial match in a special case is enough to establish identity for that case.

So the fact that the rules state the Lash of Submission, a psychic power, is used instead of another ranged weapon means that the rules state that the Lash of Submission is a psychic shooting attack.

Premise 1
A Lash of Submission is a psychic power.

Premise 2
Using a Lash of Submission counts as firing a ranged weapon.

Premise 3
Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon.

Conclusion:
Therefore, the Lash of Submission is a psychic shooting attack.

Your second premise is false. Nowhere does it say that Lash counts as firing a ranged weapon. It says that it may be used instead of using another ranged weapon meaning that either it is A) A power used instead of a ranged weapon or B) It is a power that is a ranged weapon. By RAW these are the only options, depending on how you interpret the use of "another". Nowhere does it say anything about it counting as firing a ranged weapon.

Your first and third premise are true, but they do not support the conclusion. You seem to be interpreting this as if it were mathematics where a = c and b =c therefore a = b. That is not the case. Just because something counts as firing a ranged weapon doesn't mean it is a psychic shooting attack, and saying it does is, you guessed it, inductive reasoning and a logical fallacy. There are plenty of instances in this game of things counting as other things without being them. If we applied your logic to some other things like slow and purposful or chaos wings we'd be in direct defiance of RAW and have serious play problems.

Drudge Dreadnought:

Okay, let me try again. Firstly, what "logic" or reasoning am I using?

Let's take the 'a is b' vs the 'a counts as b' relations.

Take a set A containing [a, b, c]. It is the same as a set B containing [a, b, c], and counts as a set C containing [b, c, d] where b and c are concerned. Let's use the traditional '=' sign for identity, and use '$' for counts as.

A = B.
B ≠ C
A $ C|b & c.

Note carefully A is always B whereas A is only C under certain conditions.

So you're making a mistake in supposing that I am conflating identity with counts as when my argument is about how these relationships are different!

Now, you're quite right that just because something counts as firing a ranged weapon does not mean it is a psychic shooting attack. That isn't my argument though.

My argument is that a psychic power that is used instead of another ranged weapon counts as firing a ranged weapon, and if a psychic counts as firing a ranged weapon then it is a psychic shooting attack as defined.

This is what you get when you combine the information on p.88 of Codex: Chaos Space Marines and on p.50 of the Rulebook. To say that: "Nowhere does it say that Lash counts as firing a ranged weapon" is false. It says so right there on those two pages.

So, the second premise is true. Let me repeat mysef:

The rules say that the Lash of Submission is used instead of another ranged weapon. This is printed on p.88 of Codex: Chaos Space Marines.

It isn't a ranged weapon. This information is also known by what is printed on p.88 of Codex: Chaos Space Marine. It is a psychic power that has some properties in common with ranged weapons, but not all.

So if it is used instead of another ranged weapon, and it is not a ranged weapon, what could it be?

It's a psychic power that counts as a ranged weapon.

The interesting thing about this thread is that the topic is really, what are the conditions under which the Lash of Submission is a ranged weapon?

Here again we check to see what the Lash of Submission has in common with ranged weapons and what it does not. It does not have a profile, although it has a range, a line of sight requirement, and causes pinning. The psychic shooting attack rules tell us it is Assault 1 unless mentioned otherwise. It does not roll to hit, or to wound, and has no AP.

This line of sight requirement is especially important because it means that a transported model will require a fire point to use the psychic power on models outside the vehicle. Since it is used instead of a ranged weapon, and ranged weapons cannot be used while a transport is moving at Cruising speed, it cannot be used in a transport moving at Cruising speed.

Otherwise a transport vehicle has no effect on the to hit, to wound, or AP of a weapon, and since these aspects of ranged weapons are not shared by the Lash of Submission, they are irrelevant.

Edit:

Psychic Powers, p.88, Codex: Chaos Space Marines wrote:A psyker may only attempt to use one psychic power per turn. The only exception to this is a model with the Mark of Tzeentch, which can attempt to use up to two psychic powers per player turn (but not two powers that both count as firing a weapon, as models can only fire one weapon per Shooting phase).

Emphasis mine.

The rules say that the Lash of Submission is used instead of another ranged weapon. This is printed on p.88 of Codex: Chaos Space Marines.

It isn't a ranged weapon. This information is also known by what is printed on p.88 of Codex: Chaos Space Marine. It is a psychic power that has some properties in common with ranged weapons, but not all.

So if it is used instead of another ranged weapon, and it is not a ranged weapon, what could it be?

It's a psychic power that counts as a ranged weapon.

If it is used instead of another ranged weapon, and it is not a ranged weapon, what could it be? It could be a psychic power that doesn't count as a ranged weapon. Or it could be a psychic power that counts as nothing we've ever heard of before. Or it could be made of bread for all we know. So sure, it could be a psychic power that counts as a ranged weapon, but that isn't anymore supported by what you are saying than anything else. The whole point is that we do not know. It is unspecifcied. Hence my original RAI conclusion that this is just GW being bad at writing rules again.

EDIT in response to your EDIT: That fully supports my RAI interpretation, but again has no impact on the RAW.

Drudge Dreadnought:

No, it could not be a psychic power that doesn't count as a ranged weapon. It is used instead of another ranged weapon. That counts it as something that is, under certain conditions, a ranged weapon.

It could not be a psychic power that counts as nothing we've ever heard of before because the text is entirely consistent with the other psychic powers that count as ranged weapons, and it refers only to rules that we have heard before (ranged weapons, etc).

It could not be made of bread, since that it irrelevant to the Warhammer rules and not a term used in those rules. The relevance conditions have been established by the 40k rules, so that's just disingenuous.

The fact is that it must be a psychic power that counts as a ranged weapon. There is no room for competing explanations or interpretations given the relevant text, which states that it is a psychic power that counts as a ranged weapon.

The fact is that the rules state this, we know that they state this, and that continually saying: "We don't know this, it's not certain, it's unspecified" is just arguing a controversy when there are no reasonable grounds for disagreement from this conclusion.

Nurglitch, it is already established that we agree on RAI. But what you are claiming for RAW makes no logical sense and is presumptuous inductive reasoning at best. I have given my counter argument twice now without you caring to argue against it with actual reason. You are using a lot of words but all you are doing is stating your opinion over and over. I cannot force rationality on you, and i am sure you are very convinced of your position. So, just as in any case where people refuse to be logical and instead repeat the same fallacy over and over my only option is to stop responding.

Drudge Dreadnought:

Of course I'm just repeating my position over and over. Your critique that my argument makes no 'logical sense' (whatever that means) and is 'presumptive inductive reasoning' is false. I figure that perhaps you will notice this if I explain the argument to you more clearly.

Would you like to try again, from square 1? Or shall we just let it drop?

Lets give time for some others to post and see what they say. I think i fully understand your argument, but i could be wrong. In the mean time i will re-read your posts and perhaps we will try it again from square 1 later.

What I always find humorous about RAW arguements is that they always have one basic premise; "If it doesn't say it specifically, it can not be saying it indirectly."

A sign on the side of the road says;
SPEED
LIMIT
65
Now, the sign doesn't say "Maximum speed limit is 65 US standard miles an hour as an average velocity measured at instance of travel." So, does that mean I may travel at a rate of 130 miles per hour as long as I stop after 20 minutes and wait there for 40 minutes before resuming at a velocity of 130 MPH? I only traveled 65 miles in an hour, so my average velocity was 65 miles an hour. So would I be suprised when I get pulled over for speeding?

The inference is so blatently obvious RAI should not even be needed to be contemplated. The only reason this arguement would come up is if you are either a Vulcan or are trying to squeeze out an extra attack because you are either a poor sport, or a poor tactician. Seriously, even an ambulance chasing lawyer wouldn't take this case.

Plenty of people here view it as an enjoyable intellectual exercise. Often people argue against how they actually play it.

I agree with Nurglitch here (rare case :p). you can't use it. I bet if you go to a tourny you won't be able to use it either.

fleet/running functions the same way. If it is done during the shooting phase instead of shooting, it counts as a shooting attack

guyz, about what you arguing???
"psychic shooting attack" - is new 5ed rule\trait. And by RAW its only presented now in new SM dex. All old codexes don't have any kind of "psychic shooting attack" so by RAW all pre-5ed psychic powers are not PSA, even if they intended to be such thing with new rule book and SM dex.
So all your arguments about are they PSA or no - is nothing.

Then how about using the exact words that the power is used instead of using another ranged weapon. That seems pretty clear to me that the model must still be able to use a ranged weapon. A vehicle that moves 12" disallows its passengers from using ranged weapons.

Nurglitch wrote:Kallbrand:

Okay, let me put it into an argument so that you can follow along more easily.

Premise 1
A Lash of Submission is a psychic power.

Premise 2
Using a Lash of Submission counts as firing a ranged weapon.

Premise 3
Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon.

Conclusion:
Therefore, the Lash of Submission is a psychic shooting attack.

Your Argument is a terrible one:
Basically your argument claims that all things "firing a ranged weapon" count as "a psychic shooting attack"

Lets switch it with one phrase:

Premise 1
A Lash of Submission is a psychic power.

Premise 2
Using a Lash of Submission counts as firing a ranged weapon.

Premise 3
Using a bolter counts as firing a ranged weapon.

Conclusion:
Therefore, shooting a Bolter is a psychic shooting attack.



The problem is not all things firing as a range weapon count as a psychic shooting attack.

Yes, I will agree all of your premises are correct just as all mine are. However the conclusion you obtained from them is not proven by them.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Then how about using the exact words that the power is used instead of using another ranged weapon. That seems pretty clear to me that the model must still be able to use a ranged weapon. A vehicle that moves 12" disallows its passengers from using ranged weapons.

There will be always two groups
1) Who go RAW
2) Who go RAI

so before GW release FAQ with clarification for PSA, there will be disputes

You guys are really still talking about this? If you are going to cheat and use this in a vehicle that has moved and can't shoot, then do so. Get people mad at you and have them not play you again.

Do you want to have a fun game or do you want to cheat people? Stop being cowards and play the right way. Get out of your vehicle after you move that 12 inches and use the whip or is that to brave for you.

STOP CHEATING. IT'S A SHOOTING ATTACK.

I think everyone focuses on the wrong things here.

You really need to re-read the fire point rules.

Here they are:

Rulebook page 66 wrote:FIRE POINTS
A transport vehicle may have a number of fire points
defined in its entry. A fire point is a hatch or gun slit
from which one or more passengers inside the vehicle
can fire (or use a psychic power).
Unless specified differently in the vehicle’s entry, a
single passenger may fire out of a fire point and the
other transported models may not fire. Ranges and line
of sight are measured from the fire point itself.
Models firing from a vehicle count as moving if the
vehicle moves, and may not fire at all if the vehicle
moved at Cruising speed that turn.

Regardless if a psychic power is a psychic shooting attack or not when it comes to fire points using a psychic power follow the same restrictions as firing (check the bold text in the quote).
You can not fire (or use a psychic power) at all from a vehicle that is moving at cruising speed if you must use a fire point.

So to answer the original question.

No, the lash can't be used out of a vehicle that moved at cruising speed.

Careful, now they are going to start arguing that it isn't a psychic power for the purposes of firing from a vehicle.