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.

true, but it is used by nearly every tournament for resolving issues GW has failed to address.

so in a sense it is better then GW as they usually talk about things that are of a lower profile but that actually cause the big problems.


they also take care not to overlap with the GW FAQ so the 2 can be used in tandem.

The INAT is quite irrevelant, in this discussion, it is a wonderful resouce for those who use it. As stated earlier it is not official, and I may choose disagree with it.

My position is that it is not an attack for the reasons given ( doesn't have to roll to hit, doesnt casue wounds. etc) You state it is an attack simply because it can not be anything else, so it must be an attack even though it is not defined as such. I feel this is an example of not clearly defined rules by GW.

Should one army have an "I win" button against another army probably not, however according to RAW the CoB would force every GK infantry model to take a test and if fail be removed from play. That is my position, I have made my case, I am simply at the point of wanting to hear yours.


Also just because something is widely used or belived is not a reason as to its validity.

It would seem we are at an impasse, as such there really may not be any point in continuing. There are two sides, if someone plays it in there games ( with your opponents consent etc) that the INAT is law so be it. If someone chooses to not do that, then that is fine as well. It is just a game after all. For any tournament play, I am sure the issue would be clarified before hand as to not cause any discrepancies on game day/ list building.

Unfortunately the INAT is not really used outside of the US, so us Europeans are a bit stuck with having to resolve these issues when they come up.

In this case I do not really see the two different interpretations coming to an agreement as the rule is just too badly worded to accommodate one. In my OPINION the INAT interpretation is the correct one. However I could make an argument for the other interpretation as well. My reasoning being is that the BoP rule part stating attacks specifically targeting psykers and the CoM "targeting" all psykers in a 3D6 area are compatible. However there is room to interpret both if CoM is truly an attack and if it is actually targetting psykers. Until GW comes out with an official answer I do think we are stuck with relying on Tournament Organisers or D6's to solve this issue.

DutchSage wrote:Unfortunately the INAT is not really used outside of the US, so us Europeans are a bit stuck with having to resolve these issues when they come up.

In this case I do not really see the two different interpretations coming to an agreement as the rule is just too badly worded to accommodate one. In my OPINION the INAT interpretation is the correct one. However I could make an argument for the other interpretation as well. My reasoning being is that the BoP rule part stating attacks specifically targeting psykers and the CoM "targeting" all psykers in a 3D6 area are compatible. However there is room to interpret both if CoM is truly an attack and if it is actually targetting psykers. Until GW comes out with an official answer I do think we are stuck with relying on Tournament Organisers or D6's to solve this issue.

+1 to this

I personally don't agree with the INAT resolution, in part for the reason others have stated here, but primarily because it does not addrress the way the CoM actually works.

As menitoned it is not specifically an attack, granted it can be labled as such, but it is in fact an attribute test that remains in play until all possible affected models have taken the test. This test is not a check made once that then ends the effect (like it was in previous editions), it is a check against any valid model (unit) - until all said models have passed or failed.

I agree that it seems fair the check is made against the sergeant rather than the unit as a whole, but the way it is suggested to be resolved does not satisfy the pre-requisites of the CoM if the test is failed, since when the sergeant fails the test there is still a unit of psykers on the table that have not passed this test led now by a different model.

Why? The CoM states that all psykers must take the test and must either succeed or fail it.

Succeeding the test means the GK psyker is not affected (nor is his unit since he has taken the test for them) failing means he is removed. Once the sergeant is removed there is a new target for the CoM, the sergeants replacement, and if he were to fail the test then he too would be removed and so on down the line until a model in that unit that has replaced the sergeant has succeeded, sparring the rest of the unit the effects.

I personally believe it should work against the GK vehicle, but per RAW it does not affect GK vehicles at this time since the verbage is specific as to when the vehicle is considered to have a LD value at all. CoM is not one of those situations listed.

Jacet - it is an attack as it causes an offensive action on the unit. It is not a shooting attack, nor a close combat one, so arbitrarily restricting your definition to only those which "roll to hit", or similar.

@ nosferatu so is LoS an attack in that case, as it cause an "offensive action".

Also as you stated it is not a shooting or a close combat attack, so what other type of attack does the game cover? If it doesn't cover any others then it is further credence to my point that it is in fact not an attack.

I'm in the "it does damage, therefore it is an attack" camp. How can it be defined as anything else? If you ask anyone what can be classed as an attack they'd tell you the same, and laugh at you for thinking otherwise.

Re the CoM itself, the 'dex describes it as a box that contains the screaming, tormented souls of tortured psykers (or something to that effect). Imagine that you're walking down a battlefield, you open your box. You don't say to these tortured souls "go get 'im over there", they just blast out in all directions damaging everything they can, hence why no to hit roll is required.

Also, cudos to whoever pointed out that the DE are an ancient race and are technologically superior to their human counterparts (dont argue with my wording there, you know what I mean).

How many other attacks out there don't need to roll to hit or wound? Does anyone else have any in their codex?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

jacetms87 wrote:@ nosferatu so is LoS an attack in that case, as it cause an "offensive action".

Also as you stated it is not a shooting or a close combat attack, so what other type of attack does the game cover? If it doesn't cover any others then it is further credence to my point that it is in fact not an attack.

The question you should be asking is "is this item intended to cause damage". The answer is yes. Ergo, it is an attack - it's simple!!!!

Screw the fact that the rulebook doesnt define the various types of attack that can occur, it'd be half a mile thick if that were the case. Common sense tells you that if you are hit by something (caused by a concious being if you want to be ridiculously pedantic) then you were attacked by it. Simple. End of. The arguement can go no further!

kitch102 wrote:I'm in the "it does damage, therefore it is an attack" camp. How can it be defined as anything else? If you ask anyone what can be classed as an attack they'd tell you the same, and laugh at you for thinking otherwise.

Re the CoM itself, the 'dex describes it as a box that contains the screaming, tormented souls of tortured psykers (or something to that effect). Imagine that you're walking down a battlefield, you open your box. You don't say to these tortured souls "go get 'im over there", they just blast out in all directions damaging everything they can, hence why no to hit roll is required.

Also, cudos to whoever pointed out that the DE are an ancient race and are technologically superior to their human counterparts (dont argue with my wording there, you know what I mean).

How many other attacks out there don't need to roll to hit or wound? Does anyone else have any in their codex?

Technically it doesn't do damage, it is a save or the model is removed. Also why is it ridiculous to think of it as anything else? As written it follows no rules for an attack, there for it must not be one, was it the best way to write it most likely not, is that how it is written yes, yes it is.

Technically it doesn't do damage

How d'you figure that when it's intended to kill / remove models from table due to sending them stark raving bonkers?

The question you should be asking is "is this item intended to cause damage". The answer is yes. Ergo, it is an attack - it's simple!!!!

Screw the fact that the rulebook doesnt define the various types of attack that can occur, it'd be half a mile thick if that were the case. Common sense tells you that if you are hit by something (caused by a concious being if you want to be ridiculously pedantic) then you were attacked by it. Simple. End of. The arguement can go no further!

Also judging intent is a subjective matter, is that what he really intended and you know 100%? The simple answer is no you do not, you did not write the rule you can not know the intent 100% it is not possible, as no one can. There for the only thing we have is RAW, and while the rules are not written perfectly ( understatement) it is the only purely OBJECTIVE standard to go by. Is it ideal? far from, is it all we have, yes, yes it is.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

kitch102 wrote:

Technically it doesn't do damage

How d'you figure that when it's intended to kill / remove models from table due to sending them stark raving bonkers?

Well damage would imply wounds, as in physical damage. Unless that was not the intent of the poster, you see intent is a subjective standard please see my above comments for more on that matter.

Who's intent are you trying to judge? the codex writer for adding a piece of wargear that is intended to kill / mentally impair enemy psykers, or the gamers for taking said piece of wargear to intentionally do damage to enemy psykers? As the CoM does not benefit any friendly units I can see no other reason for having it.

Yes, we have the RAW, but we also have common sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The CoM causes mental wounds, as stated in 'dex. There are no saves, other than Ld / psychic saves that can protect against that.

Think of it as an auto hit / auto wound piece of kit, and instead of making an armour save you test against your characteristics.

kitch102 wrote:Who's intent are you trying to judge? the codex writer for adding a piece of wargear that is intended to kill / mentally impair enemy psykers, or the gamers for taking said piece of wargear to intentionally do damage to enemy psykers? As the CoM does not benefit any friendly units I can see no other reason for having it.

Yes, we have the RAW, but we also have common sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The CoM causes mental wounds, as stated in 'dex. There are no saves, other than Ld / psychic saves that can protect against that.

Think of it as an auto hit / auto wound piece of kit, and instead of making an armour save you test against your characteristics.

"common sense" has no clear definition, it is not concrete, there for we can not apply it as it would not be the same in all situations. In order to have rules that do not change from game to game to game, we must have 1 standard that is purely objective that can have no other interpretation. As the rules are written by people there will be situations in which this is difficult, but a through defining of all parts involved will solve the issue. If it is not that is when an official FAQ should address it, as GW did not we are at an impasse as I stated earlier. I believe that all we can go by is RAW as that is the one standard that is the same no matter who looks at it. Others believe trying to derive the intent is better. I have made my points as to why I believe RAW is superior in every way. As it does not seem to have swayed you, and I assure you will not sway me unless you can show me by RAW.

It is an attack and defined as such by RAW, not intent or "common sense".

My girlfriend's just made a brilliant point. Mustard Gas was used in WW1. It was an indirect attack as you lob it, and all who are caught in its area of effect are hurt. Maybe not killed, but if you lost your eyesite or suffered other wounds you would not be fit to fight and would have to remove yourself from battle.

It's exactly the same principle. An attack is an attack, no matter how it is delivered.

kitch102 wrote:

The CoM causes mental wounds, as stated in 'dex. There are no saves, other than Ld / psychic saves that can protect against that.

Think of it as an auto hit / auto wound piece of kit, and instead of making an armour save you test against your characteristics.

The DE codex does not state "mental wounds" it states

"once per game instead of shooting, a model with CoM, may choose to open it instead of firing, every psyker with in 3d6 must pass a leader ship test, or be removed from play, as they go stark raving mad, no saves of any kind are allowed"

I will not consider an auto hit or wound as it does not state this in the codex. Assuming such lends it to be an attack, however there is no basis for this other than assumption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kitch102 wrote:My girlfriend's just made a brilliant point. Mustard Gas was used in WW1. It was an indirect attack as you lob it, and all who are caught in its area of effect are hurt. Maybe not killed, but if you lost your eyesite or suffered other wounds you would not be fit to fight and would have to remove yourself from battle.

It's exactly the same principle. An attack is an attack, no matter how it is delivered.

It is indeed not the same principle as the driving force behind this argument is if it is an attack as defined by warhammer 40k not by your girlfriend or the real world ( I would agree that in the real world lobbing mustard gas is an attack) this is about a game system. It is not defined as an attack in the game system there for it is not an attack. The only basis that has been put forward that it is an attack is intent or "common sense" both of which are incredibly subjective standards therefore largely useless as they can change, rendering them mute.

The BRB does not define attack in toto, just specific applications of it.

Something intended to damage the enemy, by removing models, fits any sensible definition of attack.

Last point before I leave this to die as we're only going to endup going round in circles is this: it's opened in the shooting phase. A phase dedicated to making attacks. I'd consider that to be a pretty good basis for it being an attack.

It is of course an auto hit item, provided that models are in its area of effect. If they're in, they're hit, if not in range, they're not hit. Simple.

Auto wound I agree I was wrong there as the unit / model must pass a test to see if it has been damaged, which would itself be a substitution for rolling on the to wound chart.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The BRB does not define attack in toto, just specific applications of it.

Something intended to damage the enemy, by removing models, fits any sensible definition of attack.

The parts it does define as in hitting, saving ect, all share a common vain, does CoM have any of these? No, no it most certainly does not.

Also calling your definition the only "sensible" would give a negative connotation to my definition of it ( as defined by RAW) as such can we please leave all other tongue in cheek out of this, this is after all about plastic army men ( in the case of DE plastic army men with spikes and thongs)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kitch102 wrote:Last point before I leave this to die as we're only going to endup going round in circles is this: it's opened in the shooting phase. A phase dedicated to making attacks. I'd consider that to be a pretty good basis for it being an attack.

It is of course an auto hit item, provided that models are in its area of effect. If they're in, they're hit, if not in range, they're not hit. Simple.

Auto wound I agree I was wrong there as the unit / model must pass a test to see if it has been damaged, which would itself be a substitution for rolling on the to wound chart.

Again not damaged "removed from play" You may also do other things in the shooting phase, besides making attacks, Certain phsyic powers, running ect.

Please read posts slightly more carefully: I said it fits ANY sensible definition of "attack", not that it is the only

Your interpretation is also not RAW, dont misuse that phrase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please read posts slightly more carefully: I said it fits ANY sensible definition of "attack", not that it is the only

Your interpretation is also not RAW, dont misuse that phrase.

How is it not? I belive it is, can you please provide some reasons as to why it is not? ( am genually curious, I am not infallable and would simply like to know how to make my self more clear.)

I will consider this my last post this is going no where fast. Thank you for the spirited debate.

What other reason is there for removing a model from the game? By damaging them. By banishing them. By making them useless.

Stark raving mad ticks 2 of those boxes. Imagine frothing at the mouth, rolling around on the ground biting off your own tongue - you're definitely damaged. Maybe better off dead but definitely damaged. And definitely removed from play. By an attack.

Can you just clarify exactly what you think the CoM is for, if not damaging enemy units? It doesn't make me move forward d6", so it doesn't work like running. It doesn't bestow any benefits on my units or those of my allies, like some psychic powers would.

I don't think there's a definition for tanks being restricted to just tracked vehicles, does that mean my raiders can be treated as such? I know this sounds overly flippant (andyes, I know the answer), I'm just trying to make a point that the BRB doesn't have to have everything in writing, becuase often it's just that damned obvious that it doesn't have to be.

kitch102 wrote:What other reason is there for removing a model from the game? By damaging them. By banishing them. By making them useless.

Stark raving mad ticks 2 of those boxes. Imagine frothing at the mouth, rolling around on the ground biting off your own tongue - you're definitely damaged. Maybe better off dead but definitely damaged. And definitely removed from play. By an attack.

Can you just clarify exactly what you think the CoM is for, if not damaging enemy units? It doesn't make me move forward d6", so it doesn't work like running. It doesn't bestow any benefits on my units or those of my allies, like some psychic powers would.

I don't think there's a definition for tanks being restricted to just tracked vehicles, does that mean my raiders can be treated as such? I know this sounds overly flippant (andyes, I know the answer), I'm just trying to make a point that the BRB doesn't have to have everything in writing, becuase often it's just that damned obvious that it doesn't have to be.

Again we do not have that it is an attack its not defined as such hence the argument.

The brb did define them as vehicles not tanks, and the raider has an AV so it meets the definition in the rules.

What I think the CoM is for is irrelevant as my thoughts on the intent of that wargear is not the issue it is how it is how its affect is defined in game.

I will consider this my last post this is going no where fast. Thank you for the spirited debate.

You're very welcome.

No disrespect has ever been intended in any of my posts, and I thank you too for the spirited debate. Even if I do think that you're completely bonkers

kitch102 wrote:You're very welcome.

No disrespect has ever been intended in any of my posts, and I thank you too for the spirited debate. Even if I do think that you're completely bonkers

I didn't think that there was, if it helps I do think that the intent is clearly an attack and the BoP should stop it, its just that I also believe intent is meaningless. I don't actually believe its not at attack it simply isn't stated in the rules, and if its not stated I wont put it there because I think it is.

Indeed the debate was quite enjoyable, I will send you a buddy request if you don't mind.

Not at all, I'd like that. I'll teach you to admit when you're wrong Lmao.

Awww. When enemies become friends. Haha

Anyone else have any points on this?

Im still of the option that if it is or is not an attack is irrelivent.

Any psykers in its radius that have not PASSED a LD check have to be removed from play.

The BoP rule just alows you to deligate the LD check to the Justicar. If he fails, then the squad is still a psyker, still in range of CoM, and still has not passed a LD check.

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

In regards to the INAT, despite its virtues, its still just a collection of house rulings. If you tried to use its rullings in a casual game with out asking me first I reserve the right to look at you funny.

Except it cannot continue acting - the psyker in range (the justicar) too the test and failed. You are not allowed to then go back and reactivate CoM and find out the rest of the squad is still in range. You have ONE psyker, the Justicar, because thats how BoP works - when you attack the unit there is a single psyker.

Can someone tell me what BoP is? Heard it a few times and don't know.

I'm in agreement with Solourus here, that's exaclty how it works, ie - it works the same as taking an Ld check to see if a squad falls back, you use the Ld value of the most senior model / model with highest value, if failed all models in that unit fall back. It makes sense that the CoM follows the same method.

@ Nosferatu - it's a one shot weapon so you wouldn't be able to reactivate it. The one time that it is activated affects all psykers within its area of effect, we're now swinging back to the real issue at hand which is - does it affect one model such as the justicar and only he / she is removed if the test is failed, or does it affect the entire unit.

I personally believe that it's meant to affect the entire unit, otherwise it'd be pretty pointless to have. I don't have the points value of said piece of kit to hand but no-one would take it if all it did was get rid of a 10 or 15 point upgrade character.

As for having just one psyker, that disagrees completely with the GK fluff, who are all chosen for their psychic ability, and they channel through the Justicar to make their powers most potent. Therefore, all models are psykers, and all can be / should be affected.

kitch102 wrote:Can someone tell me what BoP is? Heard it a few times and don't know.

Brotherhood of Psykers, the Grey Knight special rule designed specifically to defend them from anti-psyker attacks.

Kitch - it is a attack on psykers and as such there is only one target - the justicar (or random other model if justicar isnt present)

The unit is not, in itself, a psyker.