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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Saying you cannot use the psychic power because it is normally a shooting phase power denies you using any shooting weapon. So that argument is wrong.

I don't see how, at least for powers that specify that they must be used in the shooting phase.

DoG allows you to use a ranged weapon that the model is carrying to make the attack, if we assume that includes psychic powers, then Blood Lance and similar powers happen as normal, since they simply count as firing a ranged weapon.

However, powers like Eldritch Storm can only be used in the Shooting Phase, meaning that you cannot take the psychic test required to use the power if you are in any other phase. How does that stop you using any shooting weapon?

You are given express permission to use a shooting weapon by the DoG rule, however nothing gives you permission to ignore any other rules the weapon itself carries. If you tank shocked a unit carrying a weapon that had a minimum range of 24", for example (yes, it doesn't exist, but it's a hypothetical situation), from under 24", would they be able to use that weapon to DoG with, even though the shocking vehicle is within its minimum range?

DoG allows the use of a ranged weapon carried by the model, it does not remove any further restrictions that this weapon may have. Blood Lance and Living Lightning and other such powers simply count as firing a ranged weapon, they have no other restrictions apart from needing LoS, being in range, and being out of combat; Eldritch Storm and Bolt of Change, on the other hand, require it to be the Shooting Phase before you can take the psychic test to cast them, and DoG does not give you permission to take a psychic test there and then (it doesn't matter for Blood Lance if we assume it can be used, since it has no phase restriction) in the same way that it allows you to fire a weapon there and then.

Before you can fire Bolt of Change, you must first pass a psychic test, and to take the test, you must be in the shooting phase; you are not in the shooting phase, so the test may not be taken, and without the test you do not have a ranged weapon to use.

DOG: "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades."

Let s consider why GW used the repeated and distinct language of 'any weapon carried', as opposed to 'any weapon'. Was the purpose to include Pistols or some such other weapon possibly not modeled? Probably not. To prevent somebody from dropping an Orbital Bombardment on the vehicle? Maybe. Or perhaps to prevent players from inferring that 'any weapon' would mean even one they did not possess but carried by another model in the Squad that was not in the path of the Tank Shock? I suspect this, but it is only RAI.

Now let's look at the non-binary meaning of 'any weapon carried'. Can a model carry an Orbital Bombardment? Does it carry a Psychic ability?

Here we have to use our individual, colloquial, and etymological resources to determine what it means for a plastic model to carry something as intangible as a Psychic Ability written down as facts and figures on a Codex page.

I think this used to be a fun game.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

Let s consider why GW used the repeated and distinct language of 'any weapon carried', as opposed to 'any weapon'.

I have considered it, and made a short list of answers that spring to mind;

1. Because it was written on a Thursday.
2. Because Jodie Fosters dog told the games designer to say it.
3. Because of the inherent splongoyf included in the protracted mafulf.
4. Because GW doesn't give a flying sod about the use of consistent language in their rules.
5. Profit??
6. There is no number six.
7. Consider it considered and discarded as an argument.
8. Because GW intended to discard PSA as a viable option during DoG.


Take a pick, throw a die or consult an oracle. In my opinion each are equally as likely to provide you wiht the correct answer.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:DOG: "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades."

Let s consider why GW used the repeated and distinct language of 'any weapon carried', as opposed to 'any weapon'. Was the purpose to include Pistols or some such other weapon possibly not modeled? Probably not. To prevent somebody from dropping an Orbital Bombardment on the vehicle? Maybe. Or perhaps to prevent players from inferring that 'any weapon' would mean even one they did not possess but carried by another model in the Squad that was not in the path of the Tank Shock? I suspect this, but it is only RAI.

Now let's look at the non-binary meaning of 'any weapon carried'. Can a model carry an Orbital Bombardment? Does it carry a Psychic ability?

Here we have to use our individual, colloquial, and etymological resources to determine what it means for a plastic model to carry something as intangible as a Psychic Ability written down as facts and figures on a Codex page.

I think this used to be a fun game.

And to go farther, if they wanted it to be allowed, they'd have stated "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, Psychic attack or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades." . IMHO anyway. I think it was omitted for a reason.

Avatar - shooting weapons only have permission to be used in the shooting phase. Your intepretation makes you unable to use shooting attacks, or making any close combat attacks, because TS occurs in the movement phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Avatar - shooting weapons only have permission to be used in the shooting phase. Your intepretation makes you unable to use shooting attacks, or making any close combat attacks, because TS occurs in the movement phase.

Except there's explicit permission to shoot or use a close combat attack for DoG. There is no over-ride of a Shooting phase requirement for psychic powers.

Note that while some PSAs also require that they are used in the shooting phase, not all do, so is argument does not apply to all PSAs.

....except there is permission to use a PSA whenever you can shoot a weapon. Overriding the normal restrictions.

Right. And for psa's that's do not require the shooting phase, that's enough. For those that additionally require the shooting phase it isn't.

Also, DoG doesn't specify psychic attacks. What if you have an assault 2 psa? Do you get both shots - because the DoG rules talk about assault weapons, not assault attacks.

No, because that would be 2 "hits", not the one you are allowed

rigeld2 wrote:
Also, DoG doesn't specify psychic attacks. What if you have an assault 2 psa? Do you get both shots - because the DoG rules talk about assault weapons, not assault attacks.

You keep making a huge distinction between Psychic Shooting Attacks and Shooting Attacks. One is a subset of the other. In fact, the BRB goes on to describe how much they're alike. All from page 50:

Psychic powers that take the form of shooting attacks are very common.

Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon (an assault weapon, unless specified otherwise).

Even if a psyker has a special rule allowing him to use more than one psychic power per turn, he can only use one psychic shooting attack (as models can fire only one ranged weapon per turn.)

There are even more ways that a Psychic Shooting Attacks act exactly like a shooting attack (being able to assault the unit you shot at, not having run being a pre-requisite to firing, etc.).

So, what if you had a DoG Plasma Gun shot? How would you resolve that? Or doing DoG with an Autocannon? That's exactly the same way you'd resolve an Assault 2 PSA, since the only distinction is that one requires a Psychic Test, and one does not.

You carry a PSA... in your mind.

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Also, DoG doesn't specify psychic attacks. What if you have an assault 2 psa? Do you get both shots - because the DoG rules talk about assault weapons, not assault attacks.

You keep making a huge distinction between Psychic Shooting Attacks and Shooting Attacks. One is a subset of the other. In fact, the BRB goes on to describe how much they're alike.

Yes - they're very much alike. I never said otherwise. PSAs rely on SA rules to work.

Jump Infantry are a subset of Infantry, but there are places Infantry can do things Jump Infantry cannot (like embarking without Codex allowance).
PSAs are a subset of SAs, but there are things SAs can do that PSAs cannot.

Note that the DoG rules talk about a shooting weapon not a shooting attack. The difference there is important.

No, because that would be 2 "hits", not the one you are allowed

So PSAs are weapons? Could you cite a reference for that? I'm not being facetious - I'd really like to know, as that would clinch the argument in your favor.

Dunwich wrote:You carry a PSA... in your mind.

No, you do not carry a PSA... in your mind.

Using a PSA is not a "shot from a weapon carried by the model"

A PSA is not a "weapon carried by the model"

So RAW you can not use a PSA for DoG.

alarmingrick wrote:

And to go farther, if they wanted it to be allowed, they'd have stated "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, Psychic attack or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades." . IMHO anyway. I think it was omitted for a reason.

History has shown that GW often doesn't write what it means nor mean what it does write...

CT GAMER wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

And to go farther, if they wanted it to be allowed, they'd have stated "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, Psychic attack or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades." . IMHO anyway. I think it was omitted for a reason.

History has shown that GW often doesn't write what it means nor mean what it does write...

I know. it was foolish of me to say. but sometimes common sense takes over in a world it has no place.

Common sense: so rare it should be a got dang superpower

rigeld2 wrote:
So PSAs are weapons? Could you cite a reference for that? I'm not being facetious - I'd really like to know, as that would clinch the argument in your favor.

puma713 wrote:

Even if a psyker has a special rule allowing him to use more than one psychic power per turn, he can only use one psychic shooting attack (as models can fire only one ranged weapon per turn.)[

Why would this matter, if a psychic shooting attack didn't count as a ranged weapon? This is to say that a psychic shooting attack is the same as a weapon. We both already knew that using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon. But the power itself doesn't "count" as a ranged weapon?

If it walks like a dog, and talks like a dog and smells like a dog, it's a cat, huh?

puma713 wrote:Why would this matter, if a psychic shooting attack didn't count as a ranged weapon? This is to say that a psychic shooting attack is the same as a weapon. We both already knew that using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon. But the power itself doesn't "count" as a ranged weapon?

Using a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon. That sentence clarifies that you can only "replace" firing a ranged weapon once per turn (normally). I don't see a single sentence, anywhere, that says a PSA counts as a ranged weapon - just the usage of.

If it walks like a dog, and talks like a dog and smells like a dog, it's a cat, huh?

Excuse me? I've never said that a PSA and a ranged attack are completely different. Please stop alluding to the fact that I have, or quote where I did so I can edit and apologize.

Personal attacks are against Dakka Rule Number One. Keep the argument to your points and leave the name-calling out of it. Thanks! ~Manchu
(edited out the inflammatory comment)

alarmingrick wrote:And to go farther, if they wanted it to be allowed, they'd have stated "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, Psychic attack or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades." . IMHO anyway. I think it was omitted for a reason.

No, please don't go further.

rigeld2 wrote:

If it walks like a dog, and talks like a dog and smells like a dog, it's a cat, huh?

Excuse me? I've never said that a PSA and a ranged attack are completely different. Please stop alluding to the fact that I have, or quote where I did so I can edit and apologize. Please quit being a dick.

Aww, did you get your feelings hurt? Welcome to YMDC, there's a disclaimer on the door.

Flamebaiting is against Dakka Rule Number One. You don't need to anatagonize someone to argue your points or theirs. Thanks! ~Manchu

Your first post sounds almost exactly like PSA and ranged attack are different:

rigeld2 wrote:PSAs are not shooting attacks.

We can call "shooting attacks" not the same as "ranged attacks", just like we can say that a crimson crayon is not a red crayon, but then we're getting into the RAW silliness again, and you said something about you not subscribing to that.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:Why would this matter, if a psychic shooting attack didn't count as a ranged weapon? This is to say that a psychic shooting attack is the same as a weapon. We both already knew that using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon. But the power itself doesn't "count" as a ranged weapon?

Using a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon. That sentence clarifies that you can only "replace" firing a ranged weapon once per turn (normally). I don't see a single sentence, anywhere, that says a PSA counts as a ranged weapon - just the usage of.

That was the point of the dog/cat comment. So, using a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon. If you use a PSA, you must assault the same unit you shot at, just like a ranged weapon. If you have used a PSA, you may not choose to shoot any OTHER ranged weapon because a model may only fire 1 ranged weapon a turn (why would they call it a ranged weapon, if it wasn't one?), if you ran, you cannot fire a PSA just like a ranged weapon. You must have LOS to fire it, just like a ranged weapon and you cannot be locked in combat. Even in the first sentence of the paragraph, it says, "Psychic powers that take the form SHOOTING ATTACKS are very common." (this is them calling a PSA a simple "shooting attack").

Now, it never says that they're a "ranged weapon", but it needs to? This is where the RAW silliness comes in to play. The deployment rules refer to a model with the 'Scout' rule - but there is no 'Scout' rule. There's a 'Scouts' rule. Do you make sure that none of your opponents can 'scout' because it is not RAW? Eldar Phoenix Lords are never referred to as Exarchs, but their powers require them to be an 'Exarch' to use them. Does this mean that all Eldar Phoenix Lord powers are useless?


You had a better argument when you were talking about them having to have "carried" it.

DeathReaper wrote:
Using a PSA is not a "shot from a weapon carried by the model"

Uh oh. All those models who merely have their weapons attached to them are going to be in trouble. Most models I've seen don't articulate any kind of hand/arm action that allows the model to carry something. Usually it's just glued to them.

DeathReaper wrote:
Using a PSA is not a "shot from a weapon carried by the model"

Sure it is. A Psyker is just someone that has weaponized all the emotional baggage that they're carrying.

puma713 wrote:Your first post sounds almost exactly like PSA and ranged attack are different:

rigeld2 wrote:PSAs are not shooting attacks.

We can call "shooting attacks" not the same as "ranged attacks", just like we can say that a crimson crayon is not a red crayon, but then we're getting into the RAW silliness again, and you said something about you not subscribing to that.

PSAs are absolutely not simply Shooting Attacks.
Shooting Attacks are defined in the rules.
Psychic Shooting Attacks are also defined in the rules.

PSAs are a subset of SAs. All PSAs follow SA rules, but not all SAs follow PSA rules.
Jump Infantry are a subset of Infantry. All Jump Infantry follow Infantry rules, but not all Infantry rules apply to Jump Infantry.

Or do you allow JI to embark in Rhinos, contrary to what the rules require?

rigeld2 wrote:Using a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon. That sentence clarifies that you can only "replace" firing a ranged weapon once per turn (normally). I don't see a single sentence, anywhere, that says a PSA counts as a ranged weapon - just the usage of.

Even in the first sentence of the paragraph, it says, "Psychic powers that take the form SHOOTING ATTACKS are very common." (this is them calling a PSA a simple "shooting attack").

If it was a simple shooting attack, it would follow all the SA rules - and not add additional requirements, like, I dunno... the requirement to roll a psychic test?
A PSA is not a SA. Jump Infantry are not Infantry. I'm not sure why you disagree with those statements.

Now, it never says that they're a "ranged weapon", but it needs to? This is where the RAW silliness comes in to play. The deployment rules refer to a model with the 'Scout' rule - but there is no 'Scout' rule. There's a 'Scouts' rule. Do you make sure that none of your opponents can 'scout' because it is not RAW? Eldar Phoenix Lords are never referred to as Exarchs, but their powers require them to be an 'Exarch' to use them. Does this mean that all Eldar Phoenix Lord powers are useless?

Is Scout defined in the rules? No? Then falling back on the Scouts USR is fine. Shooting Attacks are defined in the rules. PSAs are defined in the rules. They are, by definition, not the same thing. They are extremely similar. As far as Exarchs - I don't have the codex, but it likely falls into the similar issues that the Nid codex has - Doom, Deathleaper, Old One Eye... those were FAQed to work, but it was pretty obvious that anyone arguing otherwise was trolling.

I don't see how those comparisons are similar. The Scout/Scounts, Doom/Deathleaper/OOE/Exarch are vague/silly GW writing. I cannot agree, however, that PSAs not beeing the same thing as SAs are vague/silly writing. They are not the same thing.

rigeld2 wrote:
PSAs are absolutely not Shooting Attacks.
All PSAs are SAs

You realize you just contradicted yourself.

Green is Best! wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
PSAs are absolutely not Shooting Attacks.
All PSAs are SAs

You realize you just contradicted yourself.

Clarified my point - thanks.

rigeld2 wrote:

PSAs are a subset of SAs. All PSAs follow SA rules, but not all SAs follow PSA rules.
Jump Infantry are a subset of Infantry. All Jump Infantry follow Infantry rules, but not all Infantry rules apply to Jump Infantry.

Or do you allow JI to embark in Rhinos, contrary to what the rules require?

No. Jump Infantry are NOT a subcategory of Infantry, any more than Bikes or Monstrous Creatures or Cavalry are; they are an entirely different Unit Type. Both Infantry and Jump Infantry are subcategories of the general categories 'models' and 'units', but they are both at the same level on the hierarchy.

PSAs, by contrast, are a subcategory of Shooting Attacks, which we know because they 'count as firing a ranged weapon'; which means that, yes, if something gives you permission to use a Shooting Attack it is ALSO giving you permission to use a PSA UNLESS it specifically exempts them. There is no specific exemption in the DoG rules which would forbid you from using a PSA; therefore, PSAs may be used in a DoG attempt.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:Your first post sounds almost exactly like PSA and ranged attack are different:

rigeld2 wrote:PSAs are not shooting attacks.

We can call "shooting attacks" not the same as "ranged attacks", just like we can say that a crimson crayon is not a red crayon, but then we're getting into the RAW silliness again, and you said something about you not subscribing to that.

PSAs are absolutely not simply Shooting Attacks.
Shooting Attacks are defined in the rules.
Psychic Shooting Attacks are also defined in the rules.

PSAs are a subset of SAs. All PSAs follow SA rules, but not all SAs follow PSA rules.

Okay? This makes them 'not-shooting attacks'? All PSA's are shooting attacks (the rulebook even references this), but not all shooting attacks are PSA's. Not all shooting attacks have to be PSA's for this to matter. All that matters is that all PSA's are shooting attacks.

rigeld2 wrote:Jump Infantry are a subset of Infantry. All Jump Infantry follow Infantry rules, but not all Infantry rules apply to Jump Infantry.

Or do you allow JI to embark in Rhinos, contrary to what the rules require?

No, because Jump Infantry are not a subset of Infantry. They are their own unit type. However, jetbikes are a subset of bike and being a Jetbike doesn't stop a model from being a subset of Bike. GW even acknowledges this:

Q. If the unit type that a Wolf Priestʼs Oath of War affects
is declared to be Bikes, does the unit gain the benefit
against Jetbikes, and vice versa? (p35)

A. Yes, because Jetbikes is a subcategory of the ʻBikeʼ unit
type. Similarly, ʻBeasts & Cavalryʼ are the same unit type,
and ʻJet Packsʼ are a subcategory of the ʻJump Infantryʼ
unit type. A Wolf Priest that has sworn his oath against one
will still get the benefit of the oath against the other.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Using a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon. That sentence clarifies that you can only "replace" firing a ranged weapon once per turn (normally). I don't see a single sentence, anywhere, that says a PSA counts as a ranged weapon - just the usage of.

Even in the first sentence of the paragraph, it says, "Psychic powers that take the form SHOOTING ATTACKS are very common." (this is them calling a PSA a simple "shooting attack").

If it was a simple shooting attack, it would follow all the SA rules - and not add additional requirements, like, I dunno... the requirement to roll a psychic test?
A PSA is not a SA. Jump Infantry are not Infantry. I'm not sure why you disagree with those statements.

And you contradicted yourself here, in two separate statements. Jebtikes are bikes just like PSA's are shooting attacks. You wouldn't know how a PSA functions without the shooting attack rules. Just because something has an additional rule to clarify it, doesn't make it stop becoming its derivative.

rigeld2 wrote:

Now, it never says that they're a "ranged weapon", but it needs to? This is where the RAW silliness comes in to play. The deployment rules refer to a model with the 'Scout' rule - but there is no 'Scout' rule. There's a 'Scouts' rule. Do you make sure that none of your opponents can 'scout' because it is not RAW? Eldar Phoenix Lords are never referred to as Exarchs, but their powers require them to be an 'Exarch' to use them. Does this mean that all Eldar Phoenix Lord powers are useless?

Is Scout defined in the rules? No? Then falling back on the Scouts USR is fine.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Now you're making an assumption. Show me where in the rules it says that you can do this. Give me a page number that tells me that if I can't find a rule, I can substitute another similar rule for it. You won't, but you're asking for that kind of detail in regard to shooting attacks.

rigeld2 wrote: Shooting Attacks are defined in the rules. PSAs are defined in the rules. They are, by definition, not the same thing.

Again, just like a red crayon and a crimson crayon "aren't the same thing". But you wouldn't know how a PSA functions without the shooting attack rules. It is very clearly a shooting attack. But it is a shooting attack with additional rules. Just because a weapon may have additional rules in its codex entry, does it stop becoming a shooting attack because those exact rules aren't outlined in the BRB?

I think not.

I'll concede. Thanks for the discussion.

If a model has a psychic shooting attack, and it counts for the model having fired a ranged weapon then doesn't it fit the requirements for DoG? Or are we really hung up on the carried? Because I am not sure that anyone could really say that PSAs dont work because they aren't carried in the hands of the model. What about servitors? Some of their models have their weapons mounted on their shoulders. That would mean that they wouldn't work. Psychic attacks are carried by the psyker in one way or another. Whether that means they physically manifest in its mind or whether there is a device lodged in their brain that allows them to take in the energy around them and throw it.

My two pence.

gpfunk wrote:If a model has a psychic shooting attack, and it counts for the model having fired a ranged weapon then doesn't it fit the requirements for DoG? Or are we really hung up on the carried? Because I am not sure that anyone could really say that PSAs dont work because they aren't carried in the hands of the model. What about servitors? Some of their models have their weapons mounted on their shoulders. That would mean that they wouldn't work. Psychic attacks are carried by the psyker in one way or another. Whether that means they physically manifest in its mind or whether there is a device lodged in their brain that allows them to take in the energy around them and throw it.

My two pence.

rigeld2 wrote:I'll concede. Thanks for the discussion.

In case you missed it. Thanks.