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.

To the OP no where under the rulebook does it say how POTW affect vehicles, if a glance or pen, so I would say if its a psy or not potw do not affect vehicles

DK wrote:To the OP no where under the rulebook does it say how POTW affect vehicles, if a glance or pen, so I would say if its a psy or not potw do not affect vehicles

Actually there is a mechanic for Psyker vehicles suffering from perils, check the GK codex P.21 under Psychic Pilot rule.

Then thats the answer, not an interpretation, Its not saying potw under a psy test, it is its own sentence so being hit by a msm it takes a glancing hit.

No, wrong. The PP rule means it is only a psyker for two instances. Meaning when you hit it with a MSM it is not a psyker, and so doesnt take a perils

If it was a psy only for the time it takes the test, it would say "psy only for psy test reasons and is not at anyother time" same thing if you charge a dreadnought with psyk out nads. it is a psy with a force dread hammer. how do you make that out?

DeathReaper wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:<Snip>Nothing precludes a vehicle from being a psyker at all times.

The Psychic pilot rule precludes the vehicle from being a Psyker at all times.

There is no punctuation separating the two clauses of that one sentence.

So the vehicle is treated as being a psyker (Mastery level 1) and Leadership 10

But only for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods.

'A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker (Mastery level 1) and Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods.'

Which is not answering the argument I stated. There is no requirement for a vehicle to have a leadership. There is no reason for a psyker to have a leadership value. I can say this tree is a psyker. The tree does not have a leadership value or any stats for that matter. In order to prevent the ruoes from breaking I must state that for a psychic test this tree is ld 10. I must state that a psychic hood pupose it is leadership 10.

You are simply applying a predicate of a sentence to a combined sentence and stating that the predicate applies to the entire combined sentence. I can do that with any type of sentence and make a logical mistake because it disregards logical and is done blindly.

Taking the parts and expanding them in reverse order states that this is required for this but is not required for this. Aka

The vehicle can be a psyker without any additional conditions but it requires a leadership value in order to cast psychic powers and use psychic hoods. Thus we get the end clause with psychic powers and psychic hoods.

The gk book is only saying what the Ld is for the vehicle is, nothing in the brb says that you have to have a Ld value to be a psyker. So in turn the gk book is only saying what the Ld value is, the vehicle has a psyker power and there for is psychic.

rogueeyes wrote:Which is not answering the argument I stated. There is no requirement for a vehicle to have a leadership. There is no reason for a psyker to have a leadership value. I can say this tree is a psyker. The tree does not have a leadership value or any stats for that matter. In order to prevent the ruoes from breaking I must state that for a psychic test this tree is ld 10. I must state that a psychic hood pupose it is leadership 10.

You are simply applying a predicate of a sentence to a combined sentence and stating that the predicate applies to the entire combined sentence. I can do that with any type of sentence and make a logical mistake because it disregards logical and is done blindly.

Taking the parts and expanding them in reverse order states that this is required for this but is not required for this. Aka

The vehicle can be a psyker without any additional conditions but it requires a leadership value in order to cast psychic powers and use psychic hoods. Thus we get the end clause with psychic powers and psychic hoods.

But that is not how the sentence is read,because there is no punctuation separating that sentence into two parts, so it is all one sentence, and everything applies. So it is only a psyker and LD10 for the purposes of...

At no other time is it a psyker or LD 10.

DeathReaper wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:Which is not answering the argument I stated. There is no requirement for a vehicle to have a leadership. There is no reason for a psyker to have a leadership value. I can say this tree is a psyker. The tree does not have a leadership value or any stats for that matter. In order to prevent the ruoes from breaking I must state that for a psychic test this tree is ld 10. I must state that a psychic hood pupose it is leadership 10.

You are simply applying a predicate of a sentence to a combined sentence and stating that the predicate applies to the entire combined sentence. I can do that with any type of sentence and make a logical mistake because it disregards logical and is done blindly.

Taking the parts and expanding them in reverse order states that this is required for this but is not required for this. Aka

The vehicle can be a psyker without any additional conditions but it requires a leadership value in order to cast psychic powers and use psychic hoods. Thus we get the end clause with psychic powers and psychic hoods.

But that is not how the sentence is read,because there is no punctuation separating that sentence into two parts, so it is all one sentence, and everything applies. So it is only a psyker and LD10 for the purposes of...

At no other time is it a psyker or LD 10.

It doesn't necessarily have to be separated as "and" can act as a sentence separator so it could well be that instead of writing: "The vehicle is a psyker (Mastery Level 1). It has Ld 10 for the purposes of.." the writer didn't like the sentence and substituted the "." with "and", as it is a perfectly reasonable sentence structure, without implying that the clause affects both statements.

That would be true if there were a comma there.

Nos said it best:

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you add a "comma" to the sentence, then they would indeed be psykers all the time. The lack of the comma denotes that it is only a psyker for the purpose of making psychic checks and psychic hoods - nothing else.

DeathReaper wrote:That would be true if there were a comma there.

Nos said it best:

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you add a "comma" to the sentence, then they would indeed be psykers all the time. The lack of the comma denotes that it is only a psyker for the purpose of making psychic checks and psychic hoods - nothing else.

I'l just let it pass on this one, but If I were to write the Codex I would have put the "For the purpose..." first, that way it would have been crystal clear, It would be nice to get an errata though, just to avoid any possible confussion.

DK - permissive ruleset; it tells you when it IS a psyker, meaning you have no permission to treat it as a psyker at any other time.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DK - permissive ruleset; it tells you when it IS a psyker, meaning you have no permission to treat it as a psyker at any other time.

Have you actually read the thread? The "issue" was that the wording is a bit vague and it could imply that the LD10 is the thing that is only present at certain times, anyway there is a post a bit above mine where that is explained in much more detail

Given I've posted since the start, YES I have read the thread. DK was stating it would need to say that it was a psyker for X "and at no other time", when the point is that it already tells you when it is a psyker, it doesnt need to tell you when it isnt one, due to the nature of the game.
It is only vague wording if you mentally insert commas into it. If you dont mentally insert commas in, the wording is just fine.

At no point in the sentence are you given permission to separate the first part. It says, you are 'this' and 'this' for the purposes of 'this' and 'this'. Are you saying that the end of the sentence isn't clear either? You are Ld 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests. Also, on a completely unrelated topic, Psychic hoods! Aren't those great?
If the purpose was to separate being a psyker from the rest of the sentence, a period would've worked fine. Or they would've given it the psyker special rule under the vehicles special rules.

I'm not sure how a comma would change anything there. If the sentence said "a vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker, a battle monkey, and ld 10 for the purposes of psychic tests and psychic hoods" it would not be a battle monkey unless it was performing a psychic test or comparing ld for a psychic hood. It is defining a status and the conditions for that status.

Dok wrote:At no point in the sentence are you given permission to separate the first part. It says, you are 'this' and 'this' for the purposes of 'this' and 'this'. Are you saying that the end of the sentence isn't clear either? You are Ld 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests. Also, on a completely unrelated topic, Psychic hoods! Aren't those great?
If the purpose was to separate being a psyker from the rest of the sentence, a period would've worked fine. Or they would've given it the psyker special rule under the vehicles special rules.

I'm not sure how a comma would change anything there. If the sentence said "a vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker, a battle monkey, and ld 10 for the purposes of psychic tests and psychic hoods" it would not be a battle monkey unless it was performing a psychic test or comparing ld for a psychic hood. It is defining a status and the conditions for that status.

But if it said: "It is treated as being a psyker, and LD10 for X and NMSH..." that would mean it always is a psyker but only has Ld 10 for X and NMSH

if with "and" they are using this definition: "used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly" It indeed means that they are only ever psykers for "X" and "Y" but if it means: "used to connect two clauses, the second of which refers to something that results from the first", it Would mean it IS a psyker and resulting from that it has Ld 10 for "X" and "Y".

I just want to say that, unlike the Codex Astartes, there is room for doubt

If you treat the psychic pilot as a psyker for only psychic tests and psychic hoods I purpose this argument:

Psychic pilot allows a dreadnought to be a psyker for psychic tests and psychic hoods.
Force weapons state that they are used by trained psykers.
A force weapon requires the user to be a psyker.
A dreadnought is not considered a psyker for purposes of a force weapon.
A dreadnought therefore cannot use its doom fists which are nemesis force weapons which are force weapons.

You see this according to your argument works because by raw the dreadnought is only a psyker for psychic powers and psychic hoods. A force weapon confers upon a pysker an additional psychic power. The dreadnought is not able to gain this psychic power because it is not a psyker for force weapons only the psychic powers from force weapons which cannot be granted unless they are a psyker for the purposes of a force weapon.

So basically you can treat it as a psyker only for psychic powers and psychic hoods but you can never use a force weapon.

jgehunter wrote:

Dok wrote:At no point in the sentence are you given permission to separate the first part. It says, you are 'this' and 'this' for the purposes of 'this' and 'this'. Are you saying that the end of the sentence isn't clear either? You are Ld 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests. Also, on a completely unrelated topic, Psychic hoods! Aren't those great?
If the purpose was to separate being a psyker from the rest of the sentence, a period would've worked fine. Or they would've given it the psyker special rule under the vehicles special rules.

I'm not sure how a comma would change anything there. If the sentence said "a vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker, a battle monkey, and ld 10 for the purposes of psychic tests and psychic hoods" it would not be a battle monkey unless it was performing a psychic test or comparing ld for a psychic hood. It is defining a status and the conditions for that status.

But if it said: "It is treated as being a psyker, and LD10 for X and NMSH..." that would mean it always is a psyker but only has Ld 10 for X and NMSH

if with "and" they are using this definition: "used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly" It indeed means that they are only ever psykers for "X" and "Y" but if it means: "used to connect two clauses, the second of which refers to something that results from the first", it Would mean it IS a psyker and resulting from that it has Ld 10 for "X" and "Y".

I just want to say that, unlike the Codex Astartes, there is room for doubt

Hmmm, somehow you keep adding that little guy to the sentance.

rogueeyes wrote:A dreadnought is not considered a psyker for purposes of a force weapon.

It is if you read the Psychic Pilot rule on P.21 of the GK codex.

Since activating a force weapon requires a psychic test.

If you don't activate the instagib ability it is still a force weapon, but that does not matter as all unactivated force weapons do is ignore armor saves, which the doomfist, being a DCCW, does anyway on merit of it being a DCCW.

I think the gk book would say "this is the only time it is a psyker and is not affected by weapons that affect psykers" if thats whats intended, even for the Brits thats a broad way of altering a sentence that could be said outload and heard both ways.

This is GW, they can mess up the simplest things. To say "If they meant for that they would have said so" is extremely naive. Even their FAQs lack clarity most of the time.

The gk book does have lots of issues such as what happens to Coteaz if he's in a psyker squad that perils? Is Coteaz still liable since he's stilla a psyker but not a psker henchman?

under the bhos rule it says the leader taking the test, it dosent say you can use anyone else so no coteaz would not be affected.

Grey Templar wrote:

jgehunter wrote:

Dok wrote:At no point in the sentence are you given permission to separate the first part. It says, you are 'this' and 'this' for the purposes of 'this' and 'this'. Are you saying that the end of the sentence isn't clear either? You are Ld 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests. Also, on a completely unrelated topic, Psychic hoods! Aren't those great?
If the purpose was to separate being a psyker from the rest of the sentence, a period would've worked fine. Or they would've given it the psyker special rule under the vehicles special rules.

I'm not sure how a comma would change anything there. If the sentence said "a vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker, a battle monkey, and ld 10 for the purposes of psychic tests and psychic hoods" it would not be a battle monkey unless it was performing a psychic test or comparing ld for a psychic hood. It is defining a status and the conditions for that status.

But if it said: "It is treated as being a psyker, and LD10 for X and NMSH..." that would mean it always is a psyker but only has Ld 10 for X and NMSH

if with "and" they are using this definition: "used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly" It indeed means that they are only ever psykers for "X" and "Y" but if it means: "used to connect two clauses, the second of which refers to something that results from the first", it Would mean it IS a psyker and resulting from that it has Ld 10 for "X" and "Y".

I just want to say that, unlike the Codex Astartes, there is room for doubt

Hmmm, somehow you keep adding that little guy to the sentance.

If "and" had this meaning "used to connect two clauses, the second of which refers to something that results from the first", there would be no need for a comma.

Oh, And I was responding to DoK that said a comma wouldn't affect anything

DeathReaper wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:A dreadnought is not considered a psyker for purposes of a force weapon.

It is if you read the Psychic Pilot rule on P.21 of the GK codex.

Since activating a force weapon requires a psychic test.

If you don't activate the instagib ability it is still a force weapon, but that does not matter as all unactivated force weapons do is ignore armor saves, which the doomfist, being a DCCW, does anyway on merit of it being a DCCW.

If you read the force weapons rule in the rulebook you are required to be a psyker in order to get this extra power. If you are not a psyker for the purpose of a force weapon then you do not have this power thus can never activate a force weapon.

Plus you have the entire point of a DCCW wrong. A DCCW ignores armor saves - it does not cause instant death. It does if the S is double the T of the target but not on T6 and higher models. My argument even stated that you would be able to cast the psychic power to activate the force weapon f you were considered to be psyker for the purpose of the force weapon which confers upon you the psychc power to activate a force weapon.

My argument again:
You must be a psyker in order to be granted a psychic power from a force weapon.
Psychic pilot does not grant you the ability to be a psyker for the purposes of a force weapon.
Thus you do not have the psychic power to cast to activate the force weapon.
Thus you can never use your force weapon.

Now if you look at my original argument that you are always a psyker and that you are leadership 10 for the purposes of psychic tests and psychic hoods then this argument allows you to have the power to activate your force weapon. Because of a logical error and ambiguous grammar you can attribute the predicate of the sentence to all of the combined sentence. The sentence can be broken into multiple parts:

A Vehicle with this special rule
- This clarifies that it is only attributable to vehicles so if any other model has this rule it doesn't get any benefit from it.
is treated as a psyker (Mastery level 1)
- this states that the model is treated as a psyker
and Leadership 10
- this is giving a leadership value to the model
for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods
-This clarifies when the model has the leadership 10 value.

When creating an argument you must be able to create the argument forwards and backwards and logically be able to gain the same conclusion. The issue is that the clause for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic hoods is being attributed to the entire sentence before rather than just the individual subject that come before.

My argument against being able to use force weapons syncs up with the psychic pilot rule and forces dreadnoughts not to use force weapons because they are not considered psykers for the purpose of force weapons precluding them from having the psychic power to cast.

rogueeyes wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:A dreadnought is not considered a psyker for purposes of a force weapon.

It is if you read the Psychic Pilot rule on P.21 of the GK codex.

Since activating a force weapon requires a psychic test.

If you don't activate the instagib ability it is still a force weapon, but that does not matter as all unactivated force weapons do is ignore armor saves, which the doomfist, being a DCCW, does anyway on merit of it being a DCCW.

If you read the force weapons rule in the rulebook you are required to be a psyker in order to get this extra power. If you are not a psyker for the purpose of a force weapon then you do not have this power thus can never activate a force weapon.

Plus you have the entire point of a DCCW wrong. A DCCW ignores armor saves - it does not cause instant death. It does if the S is double the T of the target but not on T6 and higher models. My argument even stated that you would be able to cast the psychic power to activate the force weapon f you were considered to be psyker for the purpose of the force weapon which confers upon you the psychc power to activate a force weapon.

My argument again:
You must be a psyker in order to be granted a psychic power from a force weapon.
Psychic pilot does not grant you the ability to be a psyker for the purposes of a force weapon.
Thus you do not have the psychic power to cast to activate the force weapon.
Thus you can never use your force weapon.

Now if you look at my original argument that you are always a psyker and that you are leadership 10 for the purposes of psychic tests and psychic hoods then this argument allows you to have the power to activate your force weapon. Because of a logical error and ambiguous grammar you can attribute the predicate of the sentence to all of the combined sentence. The sentence can be broken into multiple parts:

A Vehicle with this special rule
- This clarifies that it is only attributable to vehicles so if any other model has this rule it doesn't get any benefit from it.
is treated as a psyker (Mastery level 1)
- this states that the model is treated as a psyker
and Leadership 10
- this is giving a leadership value to the model
for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods
-This clarifies when the model has the leadership 10 value.

When creating an argument you must be able to create the argument forwards and backwards and logically be able to gain the same conclusion. The issue is that the clause for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic hoods is being attributed to the entire sentence before rather than just the individual subject that come before.

My argument against being able to use force weapons syncs up with the psychic pilot rule and forces dreadnoughts not to use force weapons because they are not considered psykers for the purpose of force weapons precluding them from having the psychic power to cast.

Doesn't all that then support the notion that a Psychic Pilot is a psyker, why would the Dreadnaught be equipped with a Nemisis Doomfist if it could never activate it?
The only thing the dread has to tangibly do to activate the weapon is take a Psychic Test and we have a rules set that allows us to do so.

And also, with nos's reading you are not a psyker for determining if you can use a power. Only for tests, which dont matter because before you test for a psychic power you must first be a psyker to use the power. Kind of like the force weapon issue.

And again, this is due to reading the sentence with differing definations for 'and' that either makes the vehicle a psyker or does not let the vehicle use psychic powers.

DevianID wrote:And also, with nos's reading you are not a psyker for determining if you can use a power. Only for tests, which dont matter because before you test for a psychic power you must first be a psyker to use the power. Kind of like the force weapon issue.

False. Psykers use powers, but not everything that uses powers must be a Psyker.

rigeld2 wrote:

DevianID wrote:And also, with nos's reading you are not a psyker for determining if you can use a power. Only for tests, which dont matter because before you test for a psychic power you must first be a psyker to use the power. Kind of like the force weapon issue.

False. Psykers use powers, but not everything that uses powers must be a Psyker.

wrong, psykers use psychic powers, everything that uses psychic powers are psykers.

DK wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

DevianID wrote:And also, with nos's reading you are not a psyker for determining if you can use a power. Only for tests, which dont matter because before you test for a psychic power you must first be a psyker to use the power. Kind of like the force weapon issue.

False. Psykers use powers, but not everything that uses powers must be a Psyker.

wrong, psykers use psychic powers, everything that uses psychic powers are psykers.

Rules quote please.
(protip: you're wrong)