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.

the FULL line is "A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a pskyer and Ld10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods only"


for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods only is the killer of any Psyker specific attacks.

juraigamer wrote:

Cottonjaw wrote:
Also, no one expects the inquisition.

Codexes are different. I mean GK battlesuit better than my tau, armor better than my CSM, melee better than my berzerkers, ect ect... but they are an elite army, their stuff is supposed to be good.

Just shoot the damn assassin, it will drop like a fly to a raider full of dudes doing a driveby.

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! NO BODY!

Grey Templar wrote:the FULL line is "A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a pskyer and Ld10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods only"


for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods only is the killer of any Psyker specific attacks.

Let me give a grammar lesson then. That sentence structurally reads:

A vehicle with this special rule is treated as a psyker. A vehicle with this special rule is treated as [having] Ld10 for the purpose of psychic tests and psychic hoods.

"And" is what we call a conjunction that joins two or more clauses together, in this case, using the same subject.

Also, you added the "only", it does not appear in the book.

the Only can be added because this is a permissive rules set.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:the FULL line is "A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a pskyer and Ld10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods only"


for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods only is the killer of any Psyker specific attacks.

Let me give a grammar lesson then. That sentence structurally reads:

A vehicle with this special rule is treated as a psyker. A vehicle with this special rule is treated as [having] Ld10 for the purpose of psychic tests and psychic hoods.

"And" is what we call a conjunction that joins two or more clauses together, in this case, using the same subject.

Also, you added the "only", it does not appear in the book.

And you should learn to read better. There is no stop in the sentence, thats important. No matter how you think it should read, there is no stop. It one sentence and MUST be read that way.

It's pretty clear that the intention was that the Vehicle, for all intents and purposes, is suppose to be a Psyker. Note that under Mastery it indicates that the level comes after "the Psyker Special Rule". This would indicate that the part mentioning the vehicle is being treated as a psyker literally means "it now gains the Psyker special rule". That's how I'd go by it in RAW. Going by RAI, it's also pretty clear they intended for it to be a Psyker.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:It's pretty clear that the intention was that the Vehicle, for all intents and purposes, is suppose to be a Psyker. Note that under Mastery it indicates that the level comes after "the Psyker Special Rule". This would indicate that the part mentioning the vehicle is being treated as a psyker literally means "it now gains the Psyker special rule". That's how I'd go by it in RAW. Going by RAI, it's also pretty clear they intended for it to be a Psyker.

No it dosen't, if they wanted it to be a Psyker they give it the "Psyker" rule. Like every Psyker in the game has.

Punisher Gatling Cannon wrote:

Noir wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote: It just adds to the punishment when his own vehicle is a psyker (and yes, I realize a rhino is a DT, hence first turn needing to hop in)

No there are not. No "Psyker" rule = not a Psyker. So Culexus dose not get the bonus from GK vehicle.

he will get the bonus from the vehicle because of the psychic pilot special rule. Page 21 if you want to look it up.

Cool, if you want to play that way, my Crucible of Malediction just sucked your Landraider into Hell, along with everyone inside.

I don't mind!

Don't forget guys, "Vindicare Assassin can not fire on Eldar Farsseer due to love." Should balance things out a bit!

The vehicle isnt a psyker except when it casts its own power.

Sniper rifle - that line is functionally identical to the old DH entry, which while only 3D6 WAS FAQ'd to confirm that, yes, it is STILL a sniper rifle and so is 3+3D6+Rending on any and all 6s.

THis is exactly the same. 3+4D6+rending on any and all 6s rolled. Arguing otherwise also means that chainfists only roll 2D6 total for armour penetration, as they have the same line.

The +D6 IS your "armour penetration", your armour penetratrion ROLL is S+XD6

Probably pointing out the obvious but... Both the rifle and the pistol are subject to those rules. So yeah, you could ker-xplode a LR with a pistol in one shot

They are both AP1 as well IIRC, so it's even kind likely.

Well it is 5/6+(1/6*1/2) to hit, or 11/12 chance of hitting
You then on average get an armour pen of 17 (avg per D6 is 3.5, before rends, so 14 in total, +3 for sniper) and any 6s just add to that.

So rougly 70% chance of a pen result. This then needs a 4+ to kill a normal, working vehice.

Which is what got me last night - pen'd a LR twice in a row, both results were a 1 and a 3. Didnt kill it, but stopped it moving.

GeckoOBac wrote:Probably pointing out the obvious but... Both the rifle and the pistol are subject to those rules. So yeah, you could ker-xplode a LR with a pistol in one shot

They are both AP1 as well IIRC, so it's even kind likely.

Dark eldar blast pistols can, i think

Ditto Inferno pistols.

Its a nice image, isn't it

Blasters are only S8, Ap2, so no exploding a landraider

Infernus are AP1 melta so can do so, however have to roll reasonably well to penetrate.

Vindicare: There's no kill like overkill.

For everything else: Let's wait for the FAQ.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Blasters are only S8, Ap2, so no exploding a landraider

They're S8 AP2 Lance, so yes, they can explode a Land Raider.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sniper rifle - that line is functionally identical to the old DH entry, which while only 3D6 WAS FAQ'd to confirm that, yes, it is STILL a sniper rifle and so is 3+3D6+Rending on any and all 6s.

THis is exactly the same. 3+4D6+rending on any and all 6s rolled. Arguing otherwise also means that chainfists only roll 2D6 total for armour penetration, as they have the same line.

The +D6 IS your "armour penetration", your armour penetratrion ROLL is S+XD6

If that the case how dose it work with Monoliths, would it only be 3+1D6 like the chainfist only give +1D6.

Noir wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sniper rifle - that line is functionally identical to the old DH entry, which while only 3D6 WAS FAQ'd to confirm that, yes, it is STILL a sniper rifle and so is 3+3D6+Rending on any and all 6s.

THis is exactly the same. 3+4D6+rending on any and all 6s rolled. Arguing otherwise also means that chainfists only roll 2D6 total for armour penetration, as they have the same line.

The +D6 IS your "armour penetration", your armour penetratrion ROLL is S+XD6

If that the case how dose it work with Monoliths, would it only be 3+1D6 like the chainfist only give +1D6.

There's a certain amount of debate about that

My view is that as the monolith specifies that you only ever get the unmodded str of the weapon + 1d6 you would get 3 (sniper weapon Str vs vehicles) + 1d6. The other view is that it ignores the Living Metal rule and does a flat 4d6. Until we get an FAQ or new Monolith rules it's a bit up in the air, thoug both sides will declaim that only their way is true RAW

It's going to be one of mnay things in the GK FAQ...I swear that FAQ is going to be as long as the codex itself.

Are we talking permanantly destroyed (as all 4 remaining ones from the codex are currently accounted for) or 'temporarily inconvenienced'

It's pretty easy to temporarily inconvenience a Ctan, very very hard to actually kill one..

Read his fluff.
Killed is a pretty clear word.

Blasters are only S8, Ap2, so no exploding a landraider

Infernus are AP1 melta so can do so, however have to roll reasonably well to penetrate.

They are also lance, so yes they can.

average roll of a 7 on 2D6 = Pen.
No only have to roll average.

why do we need the FAQ?

if the issue could go one of 2 ways, it will be the one in the GKs favor, every time.

Maybe we'll be lucky and GW has recognized Matt Ward's folly, and will be using the FAQ in an attempt to tone down GK!

And maybe Satan will be buying jackets at Hot Topic, and Bacon Wings will become available, but hey...a man can dream can't he?

ChrisWWII wrote:Maybe we'll be lucky and GW has recognized Matt Ward's folly, and will be using the FAQ in an attempt to tone down GK!

And maybe Satan will be buying jackets at Hot Topic, and Bacon Wings will become available, but hey...a man can dream can't he?

Or we can get our very own cheap jet packs. *waits another 5 decades*

The GK codex itself seems even less proof read than the last few, there are so many glaring problems they should have caught. When the FAQ is released, it will most definately be monumental in size.

Noir wrote:
And you should learn to read better. There is no stop in the sentence, thats important. No matter how you think it should read, there is no stop. It one sentence and MUST be read that way.

There is a stop. "and" is a stop. It's a conjunction joining two clauses. That's how English works.

The sentence you are imagining is "The vehicle is treated as a psyker with Ld 10 for purposes of psychic tests and psychic hoods."

It only acts as a seperator if it is , and. If there is no comma it is not linking two independent clauses.

If Grey Templar quoted the rule properly, then there is not necessarily two seperate clauses in that sentence linked by the conjunction 'and'. As it seems, it appears to be linking 'psyker' with 'Leadership 10', implying that the two are meant to be used together. In game terms, this seems to come across as equivalent to the phrase 'psyker with leadership 10'.

Jackal wrote:

Are we talking permanantly destroyed (as all 4 remaining ones from the codex are currently accounted for) or 'temporarily inconvenienced'

It's pretty easy to temporarily inconvenience a Ctan, very very hard to actually kill one..

Read his fluff.
Killed is a pretty clear word.

Blasters are only S8, Ap2, so no exploding a landraider

Infernus are AP1 melta so can do so, however have to roll reasonably well to penetrate.

They are also lance, so yes they can.

average roll of a 7 on 2D6 = Pen.
No only have to roll average.

Fluff tends to speak of necron lords etc as being killed too, ditto the swarmlord etc. Doesn't mean they're gone, when speaking of things that can come back from the dead

I'll read his fluff when i get the chance, but I still doubt he killed a Ctan, as there are (canon) 4 left, all accounted for


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which book is this fluff in, btw?

I'm not a devotee of Black Library, so I haven't read that many of their books (and i'll not get into fluff contradiction arguments on them here..)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
never mind- looked it up on lexicanum

'Medusa was a harsh, unwelcoming planet inhabited by a tough and stoic people. Ferrus would not join these tribes, as many of his brothers did. Rather he would seek out physical challenges, to make himself stronger and more resilient. These tests ended with his battle against Asirnoth, the Great Silver Wyrm, a metallic beast impervious to harm and Ferrus had to drown it in magma to kill it. The melted flesh of the wyrm fused into Ferrus' flesh, giving him the true metal hands his Legion would take its name from. '

Not seeing anthing saying it's a Ctan

Ctan don't need to breathe, would be unphased by lava (being something like living plasma inside a metal shell) and can pretty much ignore objects (including lave pits ) in the fluff by phasing through them. Also, there is no mention of the critter exploding in a mini-sun like fireball

Even assuming that it was a Ctan and that the explosion did happen, but wasn't reported, that would only mean that the Ctan's body was destroyed (see temporarily inconvenienced here again..) as the C'tan itself is a planet-sized energy being with no physical form Read the C'tan fluff

There are other machine entities out there than the Ctan you know There was a Psychic cyborg in the rulebook fluff with a mind strong enough to distort the Astronomican, for example...


*edited for clarity and lousy spelling *

nosferatu1001 wrote:Blasters are only S8, Ap2, so no exploding a landraider.

1) Blasters aren't Pistols. The Blast Pistol is a Pistol.

2) Both the Blaster and Blast Pistol are Lance, so yeah, exploding Landraiders all around!

ChrisWWII wrote:It only acts as a seperator if it is , and. If there is no comma it is not linking two independent clauses.

That's not correct, commas aren't used when you have the same subject.

True, but that's irrelevant in this situation.

Plus it would pre-suppose that GW writers actually passed their English GCSE, if you're sifting for the intent of the rule.