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.

Psychic Awakening: The Greater Good, p65 wrote:54th Psian Jakals: Each model destroyed by an attack made by a model with this doctrine in your Shooting Phase is treated as two destroyed models in the following Morale phase.

If I overcharge plasma and lose models to it, would I also suffer from this penalty despite it being my own doctrine?

I want to say no, as the intent is clear but RAW-purists will argue otherwise, but has there been any FAQ on this?

Overcharged plasma isn’t an attack, so doesn’t apply.

Models being slain by plasma aren't being slain due to an attack, they are being slain due to a weapon ability.

So would other abilities such as "...a wound roll of 6 causes an additional Mortal Wound" not trigger the doctrine?

 Valkyrie wrote:
So would other abilities such as "...a wound roll of 6 causes an additional Mortal Wound" not trigger the doctrine?

They would, because that rule adds an additional rule as part of an attack. Your own weapon killing you is not part of an attack, which is defined as "An attack is either a ranged attack or melee attack depending on which type of weapon is used to make it."

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
So would other abilities such as "...a wound roll of 6 causes an additional Mortal Wound" not trigger the doctrine?

They would, because that rule adds an additional rule as part of an attack. Your own weapon killing you is not part of an attack, which is defined as "An attack is either a ranged attack or melee attack depending on which type of weapon is used to make it."

Agreed. Overcharged plasma is not an attack and in the same way, psychic powers and exploding vehicles aren’t attacks either so wouldn’t count double for morale.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Models being slain by plasma aren't being slain due to an attack, they are being slain due to a weapon ability.

They are attacking with that weapon when they blow up, arent they ? It doesnt say "Each enemy model destroyed by an attack....."

 p5freak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Models being slain by plasma aren't being slain due to an attack, they are being slain due to a weapon ability.

They are attacking with that weapon when they blow up, arent they ? It doesnt say "Each enemy model destroyed by an attack....."

It requires some serious mental gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion of "therefore, wounds caused to self via overcharging plasma weapon counts as an attack made by a model."

Weaving together series of weak inductive (if not outright fallacious) premises do not yield a RAW conclusion.

Normally I would agree with p5freak and I would argue that something that's part of the weapon profile's Abilities, counts as part of the attack.
However, "Overcharge" would be an exception here because it specifically uses the wording "after the shot has been resolved". That means once the attack has finished, so it can't really still be considered part of it.

 Super Ready wrote:
Normally I would agree with p5freak and I would argue that something that's part of the weapon profile's Abilities, counts as part of the attack.
However, "Overcharge" would be an exception here because it specifically uses the wording "after the shot has been resolved". That means once the attack has finished, so it can't really still be considered part of it.

There is no provision in the rule that permits "attacking" of friendly units. There are certain rules that permit "wounding" of friendly units. Therefore, no friendly unit/model can be a target of an attack that would otherwise destroy them, while they can be subject to wound losses that do not involve attacking that would result in unit/model being destroyed.

 skchsan wrote:
There is no provision in the rule that permits "attacking" of friendly units. There are certain rules that permit "wounding" of friendly units. Therefore, no friendly unit/model can be a target of an attack that would otherwise destroy them, while they can be subject to wound losses that do not involve attacking that would result in unit/model being destroyed.

Irrelevant to this anyway. Look again at the trigger for the rule:
"Each model destroyed by an attack made by a model with this doctrine in your Shooting Phase"
That's any model - friendly or enemy - and says nothing about whether the model in question was ever a target.

I find it particularly perplexing how enemy models slain as a result of an ability triggering mortal wounds on certain wound rolls might count as being slain 'by an attack' while friendly models slain as a result of an ability triggering on certain attack rolls might simultaneously not count as being slain 'by an attack'.

It would seem to me that these should be handled the same way. Either both should count, or neither should.

 Super Ready wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
There is no provision in the rule that permits "attacking" of friendly units. There are certain rules that permit "wounding" of friendly units. Therefore, no friendly unit/model can be a target of an attack that would otherwise destroy them, while they can be subject to wound losses that do not involve attacking that would result in unit/model being destroyed.

Irrelevant to this anyway. Look again at the trigger for the rule:
"Each model destroyed by an attack made by a model with this doctrine in your Shooting Phase"
That's any model - friendly or enemy - and says nothing about whether the model in question was ever a target.

Resulting self-inflicted damage due to resolving an attack != attack made by a model. Not the same trigger.

The underlying fallacious assumption being made here is "any mechanic that causes wound loss during shooting phase is counted as 'attack made by a model.'" This is an unwarranted conclusive assumption that is not supported by the rules text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maethbalnane wrote:
I find it particularly perplexing how enemy models slain as a result of an ability triggering mortal wounds on certain wound rolls might count as being slain 'by an attack' while friendly models slain as a result of an ability triggering on certain attack rolls might simultaneously not count as being slain 'by an attack'.

It would seem to me that these should be handled the same way. Either both should count, or neither should.

This could've been intentional, and we will never know.

Dang it, you're making me actually pull up a rules quote from the book to prove that a weapon profile's Abilities are considered part of the attack, aren't you...

Ok, here we go:

Abilities: If any abilities apply to attacks made with this weapon profile, they are listed here.

However, as I mentioned before - this is my thinking on weapon Abilities in general, and I do accept that in this case, supercharge mortal wounds don't apply because they're stated to take place "once the shot has been resolved".

 Super Ready wrote:
Dang it, you're making me actually pull up a rules quote from the book to prove that a weapon profile's Abilities are considered part of the attack, aren't you...

Ok, here we go:

Abilities: If any abilities apply to attacks made with this weapon profile, they are listed here.

However, as I mentioned before - this is my thinking on weapon Abilities in general, and I do accept that in this case, supercharge mortal wounds don't apply because they're stated to take place "once the shot has been resolved".

Abilities applying to attacks made != attacks made by a model.

Take a step back and re-read without any assumptions. The text does not support the claim on hand.

The Psian Jackal CT states "Each model destroyed by an attack made by a model", not "each model destroyed due to an attack made by a model" (in which case would give you bit more ammo due to the greater degree of ambiguity of the phrase "due to"). The friendly model was never a subject of "an attack made by a model".

If a model is slain by OC'ed plasma, it was destroyed because of an attack, but not by an attack.

Ohhhhh, ok, I see what you mean now. I still disagree, because to say that the weapon profile doesn't count as part of the attack is drawing an arbitrary line in the sand without cause. At what point do you make that distinction based on RAW? You don't exclude the weapon's Strength or the Damage from the attack, why are the Abilities different considering they're still in the profile?

 Super Ready wrote:
Ohhhhh, ok, I see what you mean now. I still disagree, because to say that the weapon profile doesn't count as part of the attack is drawing an arbitrary line in the sand without cause. At what point do you make that distinction based on RAW? You don't exclude the weapon's Strength or the Damage from the attack, why are the Abilities different considering they're still in the profile?

That's because "all parts of an attack, including any abilities the weapon/model may have, is an attack" is not semantically same as "all wounds resulting from an attack is considered to have been caused by an attack".

The former is a valid question, but the latter is a conjecture.

 Super Ready wrote:
Ohhhhh, ok, I see what you mean now. I still disagree, because to say that the weapon profile doesn't count as part of the attack is drawing an arbitrary line in the sand without cause. At what point do you make that distinction based on RAW? You don't exclude the weapon's Strength or the Damage from the attack, why are the Abilities different considering they're still in the profile?

In this case being told "once the shot has been resolved" to do the damage to the wielder.

 skchsan wrote:
That's because "all parts of an attack, including any abilities the weapon/model may have, is an attack" is not semantically same as "all wounds resulting from an attack is considered to have been caused by an attack".
The former is a valid question, but the latter is a conjecture.

Neither of those are rules quotes, though, are they? Whereas the one I gave comes direct from the Datasheets page. It seems clear to me that weapon Abilities are to be considered part of the attack, because of the quote I gave - you've yet to provide one that counters that.

 doctortom wrote:
In this case being told "once the shot has been resolved" to do the damage to the wielder.

Yes, I'm agreed with you for the purposes of supercharged plasma in particular. I'm making a point on the wider nature of weapon Abilities, there are after all loads out there that cause additional Mortal Wounds, that could affect the doctrine mentioned.

There is a simple logical exercise here:
When did a unit overcharging plasma declare an attack against itself?

It didn't. It just inflicted a causality on itself due to the attack roll on a different unit.

 alextroy wrote:
There is a simple logical exercise here:
When did a unit overcharging plasma declare an attack against itself?

If the doctrine was triggered by the act of declaring, or targeting, an attack - then there wouldn't be any debate here. The problem is that that's not what triggers the rule.

If not attack was declared against the unit, how can the that model be "destroyed by an attack made by a model"?

The following argument, for the purposes of demonstration, is going to completely ignore the wording "once the shot has been resolved" - only because I can't find any other examples where the firing model could end up being destroyed by its own attack (even bomb squigs say "removed" instead).

To put this another way. "Each model destroyed by an attack made by a model with this doctrine" - nothing about this says that the destroyed model must be a target of the original attack. It must simply be destroyed by that attack.
In this case, the model in question was destroyed by an ability that was part of the weapon profile. My argument is that the wording I previously provided from the datasheet page, shows that that ability is considered part of the attack. Therefore, the model was destroyed by (the ability that is considered part of) its attack.
If I'm reading you correctly, your counterpoint seems to be that the attack is considered a separate entity, made up simply of the hit and wound rolls and the other parts of the weapon profile - and the abilities are then added onto that attack, not part of it.

I can see the reasoning for that position because the wording does mention the abilities "applying" to the attack.
I reject that thinking on the grounds that we don't have any cause to exclude the abilities as part of the attack, when we're including the rest of the weapon profile. The ability is part of the weapon profile - it's not a separate entity - we have as much permission to exclude it as we do to exclude the Strength, or the AP.

That position also opens up a massive can of worms for other abilities with this particular doctrine. When it comes to triggering the doctrine - what about abilities that affect Strength or Damage, such as half-range meltas? Or rerolled Wounds, such as those granted by plague weapons?
If the abilities don't count as being part of the attack - how do you reconcile whether those wounds were caused by those abilities, or on the merits of the original profile? The simple answer is that you can't realistically do it without whipping out a pen and paper and spending a few minutes tracking the individual dice rolls.

You're reading into it too much.

A friendly model cannot attack a friendly model or be attacked by friendly model.
A friendly model can incur damage/wound to friendy model and can receive damage/wound from friendly model.

CT triggers when model is destroyed by an attack and only by an attack.

So, your position is that any wounds caused to friendly models can't be considered part of the Attack - but those caused to enemy models still do?

Trouble is, that isn't actually a rule. You absolutely can "attack" friendly models - nothing in the attack portion of the rules stops it. What you're prevented from doing is targeting friendly units - but again, that's not a trigger for this doctrine.

 Super Ready wrote:
So, your position is that any wounds caused to friendly models can't be considered part of the Attack - but those caused to enemy models still do?

Trouble is, that isn't actually a rule. You absolutely can "attack" friendly models - nothing in the attack portion of the rules stops it. What you're prevented from doing is targeting friendly units - but again, that's not a trigger for this doctrine.

But an attack is a specific thing in 40K.

You absolutely can not attack friendly models. (Baring the one or two exceptions I can't remember off the top of my head right now).

"When a model makes an attack, make one hit roll for that attack by rolling one D6" P. 18 core rules PDF

An "overcharge plasma" would not trigger 54th Psian Jakals, as a model destroyed by plasma is not destroyed by an attack, as models can not attack themselves.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You absolutely can not attack friendly models. (Baring the one or two exceptions I can't remember off the top of my head right now).

In practical terms, no, you can't - but only because you can't target the unit. There is nothing in the attack rules themselves that prevent you from attacking friendly models.
If there were a weapon out there that allowed you to ignore targeting, per RAW you could use it to attack friendly models. (This would of course be extremely silly, and I don't see it happening, but...!)

"When a model makes an attack, make one hit roll for that attack by rolling one D6" P. 18 core rules PDF
An "overcharge plasma" would not trigger 54th Psian Jakals, as a model destroyed by plasma is not destroyed by an attack, as models can not attack themselves.

Again this takes the position that the weapon ability is not considered part of that attack that you begin with that one hit roll. Why?

 Super Ready wrote:

Spoiler:

Super Ready wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You absolutely can not attack friendly models. (Baring the one or two exceptions I can't remember off the top of my head right now).

In practical terms, no, you can't - but only because you can't target the unit. There is nothing in the attack rules themselves that prevent you from attacking friendly models.
If there were a weapon out there that allowed you to ignore targeting, per RAW you could use it to attack friendly models. (This would of course be extremely silly, and I don't see it happening, but...!)

DeathReaper wrote:"When a model makes an attack, make one hit roll for that attack by rolling one D6" P. 18 core rules PDF
An "overcharge plasma" would not trigger 54th Psian Jakals, as a model destroyed by plasma is not destroyed by an attack, as models can not attack themselves.

Again this takes the position that the weapon ability is not considered part of that attack that you begin with that one hit roll. Why?

Because page 18 in the PDF rules have very specific steps you follow to make an attack. Plasma blowing up is not one of them.

The very first line of page 18:

Attacks are made using ranged or melee weapons.

Also, the attack sequence holds multiple references to using the weapon profile, and even refers to weapon abilities in the process:

If an attack is made with a weapon that has an ability that says it ‘automatically hits the target’, no hit roll is made

The result required is determined by comparing the attacking weapon’s Strength...

...modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration (AP) characteristic of the weapon that the attack was made with.

The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage (D) characteristic of the weapon making the attack.

These lines in particular show that attacks can cause mortal wounds, which can't come from anywhere on the weapon profile other than the Abilities:

Some attacks inflict mortal wounds

If an attack inflicts mortal wounds in addition to the normal damage, resolve the normal damage first.

I'd say that's pretty conclusive proof that an attack:
- uses weapon profiles
- includes the Abilities on the weapon profile.

Anything I haven't covered yet?

It may or may not be considered a part of an attack. Regardless, a friendly model cannot be destroyed by an attack from a friendly model, which is the precise trigger for the CT - destroyed by an attack and not 'as a result of', 'because of', 'due to', etc an attack.

The CT does not check for whether or not the last wound assigned to a model which subsequently destroys it came from a model with the CT. It checks for whether a CT unit attacked a model, and whether that attack destroyed that said target model. RAW, in order for the CT to proc, the model need to be destroyed as a cause of being attacked (i.e. 'by an attack'), not subsequent effect of resolving the said attack.

I.e. - If a Psian Jackal model destroys a vehicle, and the said vehicle explodes! and inflicts wounds onto nearby model and is subsequently destroyed, the said casualty resulting from the vehicle exploding does not cause the CT to trigger because the said model was not 'destroyed by an attack by a model with this [Psian Jackal] doctrine'

In order to 'attack' you must select a target. A friendly model is not a valid target to be selected. Therefore a friendly unit cannot be attacked.