Brotherhood of Psykers vs. the Crucible of Malediction Incongruity (Final Update added to OP)

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.

**Rymafyr**

I love how the side claiming only the Justicar is removed constantly states two things:

1. That GK units are not psykers when:
a. The unit is clearly designated as a 'psyker' by their own BoP rule.
b. The unit is capable of casting 1 psychic power per turn.

2. That everyone else needs to follow 'all' the lettering of the BoP rule while they themselves ignore it.

The issue is that the entire unit is a psyker. The unit must take a psychic test or be removed in whole. CoM is no more an attack, as the Void Raven Bomber issue of moving 'flat out' and dropping a mine is a shooting attack. (Which I called correctly before the FAQ was released)

**Rymafyr**

kirsanth wrote:I meant the army that gets wtfpwnd by a 20 point piece of wargear.

All synapse = psykers.

I personally hate it when my 25pt DL takes out a 250+pt Land Raider. (Noting how certain people rationalized how a 20pt piece of wargear (CoM) taking out a unit (GK) is too overpowered.)

Yes, I know the analogy is not apples to apples, I really don't care.

**Rymafyr**

Crantor wrote:Remember that time when everyone was arguing about the Doom of M. The Nid side was stating that since it wasn't a shooting attack(it happens in the movement phase) then you didn't get a cover save and could affect stuff in vehicle...man those were good times.

This whole "what's an attack" thing reminds me off those times.

Hinging one's argument on what constitutes an attack when the term itself isn't defined per se, and is implied, is a stretch. Because GW omits a word or poorly describes something due to poor editing, some people will grasp at anything to find a loophole.

Most of the DE camp here have even stated that the FAQ is likely to go the GKs way, so why is this an issue then? Roll off and play it one way or the other.

I for one am fairly confident how the FAQ will turn out and glad I'm not wasting anymore time arguing this.

I would say do not be so confident how you think an FAQ will turn out. That in itself is presupposing one position over the other. A good example of that is the VBR and Void mine where, despite everyone saying how the FAQ would not allow the VBR to use the VM on a flat out move, the FAQ proved them wrong. Same with the Deffroller IIRC. I personally don't have enough confidence in GW's rules authors to believe they are aware of the interaction other rules and wargear bring when they write new codecii. That's just my opinion.

Solourus has presented the best perspective yet in this thread concerning the issue. Thanks for the arbitrary viewpoint.

**Rymafyr**

In my conscience and my rational mind I have to agree with those stating the CoM will remove the unit. Regardless how it is eventually faq'd.