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.

Crucible of Malediction, which is an attack (it directly damages units) aimed at psykers. Oddly enough this does interact with BoP and triggers the justicar-gets-eaten text.

Psykout grenades are NOT attacks, even though they do only affect psykers

Snicker - no, its not "dumb", especially when you dont have the right answer.

Psychout grenades are not "attacks" as defined on p.6 of the BRB...I agree with you there. But neither is just about everything else that effects psykers specifically.

The point made, that the two referenced faq's interact in such a way to suggest that a broader definition of "attacks" is warranted is valid. Particularly when compared with what defined "attacks" are. As such, almost nothing would be an "attack," including everthing that involves shooting, etc., so as to make this particular rule pretty much useless whenever it might otherwise be invoked.

attack /= Attack

They define "Attack", as in the attack characteristic, not the general term "attack"

the general term "attack" is certainly NOT fit - lowering your initiative is not an "attack", unless you consider terrain to be "attacking" you?

No, I consider any item or effect that has a negative impact on my models, and the source is from an enemy model, to be some sort of attack.

This was your original post, I believe:

nosferatu1001 wrote:They are not an attack; they do not match the definition of an attack in the rulebook.

It can be parsed either way, and I do understand your argument, and think in general, you have made some good points. However, I do not think this term was meant to be as tightly construed as you have suggested. It would have been nice if they would have chosen to FAQ items that have ambiguous references and undefined terms; instead, they chose to answer some of the most obvious, and easliy understandable items, such as whether a vehicle can be wounded by Cleansing Flames. But that's GW for you...

I happen to agree with Eldanar on this one. There is no given definition of an attack in the rulebook (as far as I'm aware). Before the FAQ came out there was a whole lot of huffing and puffing about whether or not CoM was an attack because it didn't inflict wounds, it just removed models. Now we have Psyk-out grenades which do not exactly hurt a model but they do indeed have a negative effect...would that imply an attack of some form?

I have used this example before, but I really feel it's relevant. Paroxysm is an attack, yet all it does is reduce WS and BS. If reducing stats can be classified as an attack in 1 case then why not another?

1) because paroxysm is defined as one. 2) you are now saying the terrain is attacking you

the last is an absurd position that strays far from an accepted English definition of attack

The entire unit counts as a single psyker, ergo the entire unit is affected.

This is how I'd rule it anyway.

My point is that since we don't know the definition of what an attack is we have something to reference. Yes Paroxysm is a psychic shooting attack, but does it cause damage...no. Can we therefore infer that models equipped with psyk-out grenades count as using an attack?

Of course difficult terrain counting as an attack is absurd, but what about models equipped with something that "affects" other models? Terrain and Models are very different.

I'm not saying I'm right, I may indeed be wrong. But this is one of those cases where the RAW is unclear so I'm going for a little open-mindedness on the issue. I just wish GW would give us the FAQ answers we actually need...

No, you can't infer that - because you are ignoring that difficult terrain has exactly the same affecr as psyk out yet isn't an attack.

I see what you are saying but is it possible that terrain and models are different?

For example models may move, shoot, assault and fallback and more...I have never seen terrain do that (well I have seen some of that in WFB but that's a different story).

So the exact same effect should only be considered an attack when a model causes it?

Inconsistency really should be avoided as the bass of an argument, especially when your distinction is arbitrary

I agree with lukus. An attack would be anything that causes negative effects that are specifically caused by a models wargear, rules, shooting ect.

As a unit of GK counts as a singl psyker i would say reduce I to 1 on the turn the grenades are used.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:I agree with lukus. An attack would be anything that causes negative effects that are specifically caused by a models wargear, rules, shooting ect.

As a unit of GK counts as a singl psyker i would say reduce I to 1 on the turn the grenades are used.

Wait, you agree with him and yet come to the opposite conclusion?

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:I agree with lukus. An attack would be anything that causes negative effects that are specifically caused by a models wargear, rules, shooting ect.

So you are making an arbitrary distinction on what counts as an attack, based on whether its the model or the ground that does it?

Thats not a good argument

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:As a unit of GK counts as a singl psyker i would say reduce I to 1 on the turn the grenades are used.

Erm, thats the opposite (actually correct by any meaningful meaning of the term "attack") position. Youre agreeing by disagreeing?

I was agreeing about terrain and models being two seprate things in terms of attack.

And, as I pointed out, that is an arbitrary distinction.

So you are stating that falling down and breaking you neck in dangerous terrain would be an attack just like chucking a grenade at someone? I fail to see how the terrain attacked you. Just because you take casulties from something does not mean it atacks you. Something with an actuall profile can attack you, terrain cannot as it does not have a profile per se, it is just a special rule.

My opinion, it is an attack, the entire squad is reduced to intiative 1. Anyone who disagrees is free to. That is my outlook and input.

It makes sense both fluffwise and because of all the NFWs.

I will be playing it as the whole squad,untill I come across a person who disagrees.If that is the case then no opne is at a disadvantage.

Vindicare - you appear to be confused.

If you state it is an attack, then you BY DEFINITION Trigger BoP and the initiative reduction is only resolved against a single model - not the whole squad.

My contention is that it is ABSURD to define Psykouts as an "attack" for the *precise* reason that the only way to do so ifs to either consider difficult terrain an attack (as this has exactly the same effect as psykouts) or to arbitrarily distinguish between what is and isnt an attack based on source.

thus the correct answer is psykouts aree NOT an attack and therefore the whole squads I is reduced.

Ah,
After rereading BoP rules i admit i was wrong. It does seem as if the justicar will take the hit for the unit. I had BoP wrong and was giving a misinformed opinion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vindicare - you appear to be confused.

If you state it is an attack, then you BY DEFINITION Trigger BoP and the initiative reduction is only resolved against a single model - not the whole squad.

My contention is that it is ABSURD to define Psykouts as an "attack" for the *precise* reason that the only way to do so ifs to either consider difficult terrain an attack (as this has exactly the same effect as psykouts) or to arbitrarily distinguish between what is and isnt an attack based on source.

thus the correct answer is psykouts aree NOT an attack and therefore the whole squads I is reduced.

You are conflating two totally unrelated things. Whether or not terrain has an effect on a model has no relevance in discussing whether or not a negative effect caused by an enemy model, which happens to more or less cause the same negative effect as the terrain, is an attack or not. The first is a passive effect , which under the rules, generates a negative result to simulate actions undetaken by models. The second is a simulation of an active effect, i.e., the models had to actually use the grenades in some way prior to the beginning of combat. So, calling the use of the grenades an "attack" is entirely appropriate; and trying to conflate the effects of terrain to equate to this is merely a fallacy of confusing cause and effect as well as a red herring.

No, it really isnt.

First off, not "more or less" the same effect - exactly the same effect, just on a subset of models. Exactly the same.

Secondly - deciding one is an attack and another isnt based on source, when the same effect is generated, is absurd.

So, do you believe something which causes no wounds, no damage, nothing whatsoever to be an attack? Because English sure doesnt.