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.

I say we just burn every copy of the new Greyknights codex and pretend it was never released, problem solved. As time goes on I am more and more disappointed in the direction 40K is going and things like this encourage me to sell my 3 40K armies and put that money into fantasy and warmachine.

In response to the poster below me, it's not the magical abilities that bother me, but the overall feel of the hobby. 40K is a hobby more than it's a game (2/3rds hobby, 1/3 game) and as such i like to have a good backstory to all the little people i am painting and pushing around the table. As it stands, the story is getting dumber and dumber. What is the reasoning behind greyknights killing uncorrupted sisters of battle to "purify" themselves? That's the most ridiculous idea and would be more fitting in a chaos codex as a tribute to a dark god. I have played the inquisition for many years and always enjoyed it's story, but if this is the direction they want to go, they can go there without me.

So as to not derail the thread, i agree with Dash that the test would go against the justicar as he is the unit commander then if failed removes the unit. Not because I am partial to Dark Eldar or because i hate the Greyknights, but because of the wording between the two powers and the fact that it causes a test without using a method of attack. If the Crucible needed a leadership test to activate and targeted the unit then i would say it is an attack as you had to do something to activate it (a leadership test) then choose a target. As you do neither, I have to say it removes the entire unit as it resolves a failed leadership test.

If you're worried about magical stuff making entire units evaporate in a single phase then I'm not sure that Warhammer Fantasy is really going to be much better for you.

Dash and Galador made a few logical mistakes in their arguments preventing them from being logically correct.

First, Dash you should realize that if the enemy has an action that harms the other side by making them take a test, that can be considered an attack. Thus, CoM causing enemies to test or be destroyed is/can be considered attacking the other side.

Now, second, the unit does count as a single psyker. So CoM says that the unit needs to make a single check. All your talk of multiple checks occurring one after another I hope has been forgotten, as that was pretty flawed logic.

Third, the effect is that the psykers within range need to make a test or be removed from play. Here is where the argument is best examined. We know that the psyker in question is the unit. We also know that the unit's rule that makes them a psyker also has a clause that causes attacks that hit psykers to be resolved against a single model in the unit. No conflict so far, just rules.

So the conflict then becomes, if you are going to resolve any part of CoM against the justicar due to the BoP rule, do you resolve the entire CoM against the justicar? Or put another way, who is rolling the leadership check, and what is being hit when CoM resolved?

So the rule is that the BoP rule directing attacks against a psyker changes the target from the psyker (the whole unit) to the psyker (justicar model). Since the target has changed from unit to model, one model is removed.

As an example, fear the darkness. Here is a power that causes a unit to make a test, and if they fail, then the entire unit is hit by the morale check.

In contrast, look at mindwar. Here is a test that is directed at a single model, thus the unit is not hit as a whole.

Now, Dash is currently arguing that the BoP rule does NOT change the target from unit to justicar, because he does not define the CoM as an attack, thus is getting around that rule in BoP. If this was logically correct, then the entire unit would be removed, because CoM would be hitting the whole unit at once. However, that argument is subjective, as his opponent may infact declare that CoM IS an attack. If CoM is an attack action, then the target changes from the unit to the single model, and thus only one model dies.

So the wording hinges on whether CoM constitutes an attack on psykers. Because 'attack' in this sense must be the broad version of attack (as opposed to the 'Attack' stat which is defined) then we must use the common definition of attack, as in a harmful action, the action in this case being a 'test.' This in turn means that the CoM target, thanks to the BoP rule, changes from 'unit' to 'model' and only removes a single model from a unit.

If there was a logical mistake in that argument, please highlight that area for me. Thanks!

Dashofpepper wrote:
Deadshane, a once-per-game piece of wargear isn't game-ending.

Full Paladin unit going *POP* not game ending?


MMMMM....Kay.

Deadshane, the point value or relative worth of the psykers really shouldnt matter as to how CoM should be ruled.

After all, in a 450 point game if a BA player has mephiston and 2 tiny troop squads, CoM could kill 250 points in one go, over half the army. Or, the CoM could fail and do nothing. Either way, the CoM's rules dont care how good it may be in a specific circumstance versus the perfect army matchup.

To determine whether or not using the cruciblie is an attack lets just look at what occurs:


A model may choose to use the crucible instead of firing. Every psycher within the 3d6" of the model has to make a leadership tet or be removed.

Now, by reading the top of pg 56 and the crucible listing on pg 60 of the DE codex we find that the crucible is a weapon that is used instead of firing. (for those caught up in the fluff debate, reread the top of pg 56 where we find the crucible is referred to as weaponry) This is an action initiated by the player during his firing phase instead of firing...this action is attempting to remove enemy psychers from the game.

Various forms of attacks in the game all attempt to remove enemy models from the game; firing, cc, jotww, mind war etc are all attacks.

Since the crucible is a weapon being used instead of firing, and the weapon is being used in an attempt to remove enemy models that pretty much IS the basic definition of an attack. And as been pointed out many times in this thread, 40k doesnt define an attack, we have to look to the basic language for the definition.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:To determine whether or not using the cruciblie is an attack lets just look at what occurs:


A model may choose to use the crucible instead of firing. Every psycher within the 3d6" of the model has to make a leadership tet or be removed.

Now, by reading the top of pg 56 and the crucible listing on pg 60 of the DE codex we find that the crucible is a weapon that is used instead of firing. (for those caught up in the fluff debate, reread the top of pg 56 where we find the crucible is referred to as weaponry) This is an action initiated by the player during his firing phase instead of firing...this action is attempting to remove enemy psychers from the game.

Various forms of attacks in the game all attempt to remove enemy models from the game; firing, cc, jotww, mind war etc are all attacks.

Since the crucible is a weapon being used instead of firing, and the weapon is being used in an attempt to remove enemy models that pretty much IS the basic definition of an attack. And as been pointed out many times in this thread, 40k doesnt define an attack, we have to look to the basic language for the definition.


Sliggoth

Instead of trying to create a definition....look to the rulebook. The rulebook talks about attacks often. This attack, that attack, number of attacks, order of attacks. Never one does it talk about a leadership attack.

You guys are taking BoP way out of context. Its a tool to help with allocation, not to dodge damage.

Dash, you are also looking to shoehorn an inappropriate definition to the word attack. The 'Attack' stat in the rulebook is obviously not the 'attack' in CoM.

Also, as noted, the BoP rule that makes them susceptible to damage from CoM in the first place also deals with damage allocation. Your argument is not built on logic, but on opinion, which is not wrong or a slight on you in any way. You are entitled to your opinion. But that said, you surely agree that there are leadership test-based attacks in the rules, right?

DevianID wrote: But that said, you surely agree that there are leadership test-based attacks in the rules, right?

Which ones are those?

When you make a leadership test in order to make an attack....that's a test to see if you get to attack, not an attack itself.
When you make a leadership test to see if you are going to fall back, that's not an attack, its the resulting leadership from previous attacks.
If the Deceiver orders you to make a leadership test, that's not an attack either, that's a characteristic test.
Etc.

There are shooting ATTACKS.
There are close combat ATTACKS.
There are characteristic TESTS.

Dashofpepper wrote:
If the Deceiver orders you to make a leadership test, that's not an attack either, that's a characteristic attack.

Your Freudian slip was accurate.

DevianID wrote:Dash, you are also looking to shoehorn an inappropriate definition to the word attack. The 'Attack' stat in the rulebook is obviously not the 'attack' in CoM.

Also, as noted, the BoP rule that makes them susceptible to damage from CoM in the first place also deals with damage allocation. Your argument is not built on logic, but on opinion, which is not wrong or a slight on you in any way. You are entitled to your opinion. But that said, you surely agree that there are leadership test-based attacks in the rules, right?

In this, I am guessing you are once again erferring to both mindwar and JoTWW, correct?? Reread their definitions. JotWW is a psychic shooting attack, hence it is labeled as an attack. Mindwar is a psychic power used in the shooting phase instead of a weapon, you both roll leadership, and for each one you are higher than the opponet, you take a wound, with no armour saves allowed, but you still get cover saves and invul saves. These are both either labeled as an attack in their codex, FAQ, or the BRB under psychic shooting attacks, which is what Mind War is. Also, Mind War causes wounds, which attacks do, cause wounds unless specified otherwise, such as JoTWW, which is defined in its rules as a psychic shooting attack.

CoM fulfills none of those conditions, for it is not defined as a weapon, causes no wounds, nor is it s psychic shooting attack. On top of that, it doesn't target an individual unit, it targets an individual type, I.E Psykers. BoP stats that the unit counts as a single psyker, and stats that attacks that target psykers only go against the Justicar/KotF or a random model if they are dead. Also, if you once again go by the rule, it doesn't kill the model, it removes them from play cause they go mad, which while the last part is fluff, is once again along the same premise of the hexrifle and shattershard, where they take a test and are remove from play. Difference is, those are both defined as shooting attacks, not a weapon or wargear that is used instead of shooting. Also, your reference to the arcane weaponry on pg. 56 would mean that everything under the Arcane wargear section would count as a weapon, and that is not the case, as both the Com and the Archangel of pain are not labeled as a weapon, except for the CoM in its fluff. And if you still wish to reference page numbers to say its a weapon, lets head back to the Haemy page in the army list shall we?? Pg. 85 lists the CoM under wargear, which while there are weapons listed under that, they are all either an attack, or labeled as a weapon in their rules, not the fluff in their rules.

Bottom line, noone has yet shown myself or Dash where the CoM is an attack, as it does nothing that all attacks do in this game, i.e. they are labeled as an attack (JoTWW), or they cause a wound (Mind War). Hence, it is still just a characteristic test that nowhere in its rules is labeled as any kind of attack, and doesn't cause Instant Death, it just is removed from play, which like all other removed from play options, circumvents Eternal Warrior.

So, instead of debating me on the premise of what an attack is supposed to be(since it isnt exactly defined in the rulebook or elsewhere), show me proof. Show me somewhere in the Dark Eldar or Grey Knight codex, the Dark Eldar FAQ or the WH40K FAQ, or the BRB that a leadership test caused by CoM is an attack. If you can't show me where it causes an attack, and you can't define attack for me from one of these direct peices of GW literature, its not an attack, plain and simple. The dictionary definition everyone tries to use doesn't matter, because we already know that GW contradicts themselves alot. And if you want to tell me its common sense that its an attack, its not. Because just like Dash, I looked at all the references for attack in the rulebook, and in the DE codex, the GK codex, and the FAQs, and none of them defined a LD test as an attack, the only definiton I got for a LD test was on page 8 of the BRB, under characteristic test, but there are plenty of places that attacks are listed, and not one of them was because of a Ld test.

So bring me written proof from the inventors, or just give up, cause its not an attack. Nice try though!!

Oh, and yes, I know that because they are the new SM army, and GW loves their SMs, that it will get FAQed in their favor, but until it does, you still have to show me where its an attack.

By your definition Gift of Chaos is not an attack because it does not specifically mention that it is an attack?

We have to use the real world definition of what an attack constitutes, because only psychic shooting attacks denote themselves as being 'attacks'

Bolt of change does not say that it is an attack, yet it has a weapon profile and causes wounds.

To say that a chaos Psyker using Gift of Chaos is not an attack, when it clearly had an adverse effect on the opposing army is ignoring what an attack is.

Galador, your issue is that you are clinging to the 'Attack' term in the rulebook, but other than the 'Attack' characteristics, the rulebook does not define what a generic attack is--the common idea of attack does that for us. The rulebook has special rules for shooting attacks with weapons, and special close combat attacks, but there are many other references to attacks.

JotWW is a Psychic Shooting Attack. It follows the rules for the PSA.
You use the power to attack the enemy.

CoM is not labeled a Psychic Shooting Attack. Thus, it does not follow the rules for a PSA.
You use the CoM to attack the enemy.

Galador and Dash are both saying that CoM is not a shooting attack, or psychic attack, or close combat attack. That is true. However, it is still an attack in the generic sense. If you read the rules for BoP, you will note that it makes NO mention of a specific kind of incoming attack. It works on all generic attacks, with no qualifiers other than the attack must hit psykers.

By the way Galador and Dash, do you feel that CoM is an offensive move against the enemy?

What I think and feel doesn't matter, it is what is written in black and white in the reference material that I cited that matter, so show me where it states that iti is an attack, or else its not, still waiting on that. Good luck with it either cause I don't think you will find that a Leadership test is an attack anywhere unless it is stated inits rules that it is, which CoM is not.

@Galador ok, lets start with what you yourself reference and yet ignore.

The crucicle is a weapon. Yes, pg 56 tells us that all of the listed Haemonculi items are arcane weaponry. This does let us know that the weapons may function in an unusual manner, the arcane term used here. That reference alone is enough for us to KNOW that the crucible is a weapon. Then on page 60 we do see that the crucible is termed a weapon...

Now if one has psychic powers of ones own, perhaps one could know which part of the RULES on pg 60 are fluff. For the rest of us mere mortals we have to go by what the codex rules tell us. And pg 56 tells us that what follows is "This section of Codexark Eldar lists the weapons and equipment used by the armies of the Dark Eldar, along with the rules for using them in your games"

Hmmm, no mention of any fluff in the rules, it just tells us that what follows is a list and rules. Rules.

We have NO criteria to judge any of the following list as fluff. Particularly since 40k rules are often of two types. There are the hard analytical (lets call them math rules since they tend to contain numbers) and the descriptive rules that are used to tell us a description of what and how the item may operate. Yes, GW has a tendency to wax poetic at times, this still does not let us arbitrarily deem part of what they call rules as fluff. Especially when the codex itself calls them rules.

With two separate references in the rules calling the crucible a weapon, it takes quite a reach to decide that the crucible is instead NOT a weapon.

Sliggoth


PS

Perhaps there really is a force that we can tap into to determine what is fluff and what is not. Lets give it a try, ommmm ommmm ommm. Yes, yes I can see it! The fluff...its in the last line of the crucible rules, its the word "no"!! So what they are really trying to tell us is that any save can be taken against the crucible rather than no save of any kind!

If one desires to ignore words in the rules, just be prepared for your opponent to become liberal with his own interpretation as well.

Fair enough, I will go with the fact that it is a weapon, but I still don't see anywhere that it states that it is an attack. Everything else that has been quoted, even though none of them belong to the Dark Eldar or the Grey Knights, which are the only two armies in question right now, (not Chaos, not Space Wolves, not Eldar, not anyone else) still has not listed anywhere that it is an attack or that it causes wounds. CoM in its rules lists neither that it is an attack, nor that it causes wounds. And as far as the Gift of Chaos, its still a Psychic power, which have their own rules and consequences. CoM is not a Psychic power, hence it does not fall under the same thing as gift of chaos.

Everyone keeps trying to compare CoM to something that its not, but everyone keeps ignoring the most simple question, where is it listed that a Characteristic test is an attack?? Attacks are listed all over the BRB, from shooting to close combat and everywhere in between, but I haven't seen anywhere that it lists that a leadership test, whether caused by a weapon or not, is an attack. If you can show me something that states that, I will conced my point and BoP wins. If you can't. then BoP does not win, and the rules for CoM win. Simple request, simple fix. Until that is shown to me, I will not concede that a leadership test, no matter what it is caused by, is an attack, unless it is specifically stated that it is an attack.

Galador wrote:Fair enough, I will go with the fact that it is a weapon.

It is not called an attack anywhere, but Using a weapon on an opponent is the exact meaning of the word.

When you use a weapon on an opponent you attack that opponent with said weapon. If one army uses a weapon to remove models of the opposing army from the table, then that is exactly what an attack is, even if it is not specifically listed as such in the rules.

Q: Is Bolt of change an attack?

It is a psychic power, it has a weapon profile and it causes wounds, But it does not say that it is an attack.

A: It would have to be yes, anything one uses to get rid of his opponent is an attack, since attack is not defined we have to pull in the real world meaning of what an attack is.

I know CoM is not a psychic power, but the question about bolt of change is valid. It illustrates that, sometimes, attacks are not specifically listed as attacks. I imagine the GW rules boyz didn't think we needed to be hand held on every single little detail of what an attack actually is.

Galdor answer this please
Q: Is Gift of Chaos an attack? if so/not Why?

*edit* Deleted. I said I was leaving this debate because my points were being selectively ignored, so posting a quote of myself to point out that no one has bothered answering defeats the purpose of me leaving because I'm being selectively ignored....

K bye!

This may or may not be a bit of precedent;

Venomthropes cause attacking units to take a dangerous terrain test.

That is a case of a test being forced upon someone by another unit, but not being defined as an attack.

Ergo,

Crucible of malediction is a test, forced upon someone by another unit, but not being defined as an attack.

So, you have a single psyker (All models in a brotherhood of psykers) being targeted by CoM. The crucible tells each psyker (Which the brotherhood as a whole, is defined as a single psyker) to take a LD check or be removed.

Here's where things get tricky, so pay attention.

Brotherhood specifically states that you only take PSYCHIC tests on the Justicar. Not Leadership checks. Psychic tests.

In addition, it states specifically that Perils (Which is not an attack, it is the byproduct of a failed TEST) and ATTACKS (Which if Perils, a test failure result, was, it wouldn't be specifically mentioned) targeting psykers are resolved against the Justicar.

So, we have 2 dilemmas.

1) The unit is taking a LD check, not a psychic check, therefore the first bullet of Brotherhood of Psykers is a moot point.

2) The second bullet specifically states attacks, and a SPECIFIC test. If all tests were attacks (Which they aren't, look at the Venomthrope reference) then we'd know what to do. But since a test is not an attack, nor a peril, the second bullet is also a moot point.

So, we know that, a Brotherhood of psykers is a single unit and follows all the rules for psykers. Effectively they are a psyker Voltron. This is the only thing that is relevant to the Crucible.

The crucible tells us that all psykers (And a brotherhood of psykers is only a single psyker) within 3d6 take a LD (Not a psychic) check (Not an attack) or be removed from play.

So we take the highest LD of the psyker voltron, and if he fails, psyker voltron is gone. If he passes, psyker voltron is fine.


That's RAW, and how a tournament should resolve the situation. In a friendly game, the RAI are very clear. All horrible psychic evils are to be resolved against the Justicar and if he flubs he pays the price.

DeathReaper wrote:Galdor answer this please
Q: Is Gift of Chaos an attack? if so/not Why?

well lets see, there are a few interpretations of this, so bear with me as I go through them all.

1) Yes it is an attack because it is a psychic power, used in the shooting phase, and is given the exception that it can be used even if locked in combat.
2) No, because it is not listed as an attack, it is simply a Psychic test for the user, which makes it a Psychic power, not a psychic shooting attack, used in the shooting phase instead of shooting, as per its rules.
3) No it is not, because it is not listed as an attack anywhere, it is simply a Psychic test, followed by a D6 roll against the opponents toughness (which is not a characteristic test, because pg. 8 states that you must get equal to or below the characteristic on a characteristic test, while GoC needs to get over the Victim's Toughness), and if he makes the D6 roll, the victim is turned into a Chaos Spawn, with no armour save to prevent it, but you can use an invul save.
4) Yes, because you are allowed to make a save against it, even if it is only an invulnerable save.
5) No, because your opponent's model is removed and then replaced with your Chaos Spawn, which is still in the game, it just has a different stat line and changes sides.
6) Yes, because your model is removed as a casualty, not removed from play, which are two different, although almost similarly worded, things if your opponent does not have a Chaos Spawn Model.
7) No, because even though he is now a Chaos Spawn and has changed army sides, your unit is still on the board, you just no longer have use of it in your army because he has defected to Chaos.
8) Yes, because the model is counted as killed for Victory point purposes.
9) No, because the model is not counted as killed for Kill Point Purposes.

I am sure there are a few more, but hey, I'll leave that for you to come up with.

All in all, out of the ones I thought of, the score is 4 Yes to 5 No. So, if 40K was a democracy, the No's would have it. However, 40K is a permissive ruleset that tells you what something is and what it can do, so because it is never listed as an attack, never listed as causing a wound, and never listed as removed as a casualty except if the person casting it doesn't have the model, and even if they do, it doesn't count RAW as killed for a Kill Point, only for Victory Points, which are no longer used in a standard mission except if there is a tie in the Victory conditions and you want a moral victory and both you and your opponent agree on Victory Points counting in the case of a draw, or in a tournament where they state they are counting them, it wouldn't count as an attack inmy interpretation of the rules. I always look at the double edged sword, so if CoM is not an attack because it is not stated, then neither is GoC, but unlike GoC, CoMs removal of the units does count as a Kill Point, because they are removed from play, which means they aren't on the board, which also means that they are destroyed at the end of the game for a Kill Point due to the BRB FAQ, while if the Chaos Spawn is still alive at the end of the game and not falling back, it would NOT count as a KP for the Chaos player if it was used on his opponent's model, due to the fact that the unit was never killed or destroyed and is still on the board, albeit in his army now!!

Hopefully that answered your question, now then, I have answered IMHO, with relevant data laid out to bear that comes from my readings of the BRB, BRB FAQ, CSM codex, and CSM FAQ, whether I think GoC counts as an attack. I thought from both sides of it, yours and mine, at least to the best of my abilities, so now I ask the same of you....

Is CoM an attack?? Please site relevant data as I have from the BRB, BRB FAQ, Dark Eldar codex, and Dark Eldar FAQ. use those to convince me, as I used the same for GoC to try and convince you. I eagerly await your side of this debate.

(nothing smartass meant by that last line either, I really do want to see your different interpretation useing those references on the ways you can look at CoM! )

Ei

CoM is an attack, and here is why

One of these two things is true:

1) The BRB defines attack as a characteristic, this is the only BRB reference to what an attack is. (they list shooting attack but do not define attack) So nothing but the attack characteristic is an attack

2) The BRB does not define attack so we have to use a real world definition to define it.

If #1 is true then the only things that are attacks is the attack characteristic on the profile, and things like "If a Grey Knight unit suffers....an attack that specifically targets psykers" is null and void because there are no attack characteristics that "specifically target psykers" so the game breaks.

If #2 is true then anything that one army does to have adverse effects on the opposing army is an attack.

DeathReaper wrote:CoM is an attack, and here is why

One of these two things is true:

1) The BRB defines attack as a characteristic, this is the only BRB reference to what an attack is. (they list shooting attack but do not define attack) So nothing but the attack characteristic is an attack

2) The BRB does not define attack so we have to use a real world definition to define it.

If #1 is true then the only things that are attacks is the attack characteristic on the profile, and things like "If a Grey Knight unit suffers....an attack that specifically targets psykers" is null and void because there are no attack characteristics that "specifically target psykers" so the game breaks.

If #2 is true then anything that one army does to have adverse effects on the opposing army is an attack.

ok, so if we go off of #1, then attacks only happen in close combat, as the BRB defines the attacks characteristic as the number of dice that a model rolls in close combat. If you still wanna go with this, this means that all shooting isn't an attack, and technically, you can't attack in close combat, as the model must roll the dice not you. I am not going for a RAW approach, I am distinctively asking for one of the above sited references from my previous posts to define the Leadership test, which is defined in the BRB as a Characteristic test, not an attack, as an attack. I don't care what you wish to bring from a dictionary, a thesaurus, your 5th grade spelling test grades, whatever, I didn't ask for any of these. I asked for specific, made just for the Warhammer 40k game and ruleset, documents to show me that a Leadership Characteristic test for Crucible of Malediction is defined as an attack. If you can't show that, all arguments you have are irrelevant.

I can affect my opponents army without attacking them, I.E. I can use my Dark Eldar's superior speed and mobility to stay completely out of range of an opponent's shooting, thus making it impossible for him to do anything to me, but I am doing something to him by making him try to catch me, which, as per the definition you keep bringing up, is an attack. So now the use of movement as per what you are saying, is an attack?? It is a harmful action I am doing that has an effect on my opponent, because it is preventing him from winning the game because he can't shoot or assault me with anything, so that makes it an attack right??? According to the definitions being thrown out for attack, then yes, it is an attack. Be it a harmful action, something that affects the opponent, or something that causes something to happen to the other army, it is an attack. All three of those have relevance when compared to what I just suggested, but is it an attack??? If you really think that my moving to ensure I stay out of your range is an attack, you REALLY need some help! However, it fulfills all three of those definitions, plus, if I really want to, any other definition you put out for attack I can define that into, and technically, by your definitions, me even deploying my army is an attack, as it causes an effect on the opponent that can be construed as harmful to the way they were to deploy!!! Heck, me even showing up to the tournament can be construed as an attack then, simply because I am forcing my opponent to react to playing me!!! Guess I should be put in jail huh???

Plain and simple, you can debate what the definition of an attack is all you want, I can offer a counter definition or defeat any definition you put up from a dictionary. However, if you can show me, written in the references I have cited multiple times in previous posts where a leadership test is an attack, then you win. If not, this is going to continue to go on forever, because you cannot fulfill your end of the debate without me being able to spin it back to the base accusation of it says nowhere that a Characteristic test is an attack. Heck, it doesn't even state that the Attacks characteristic test is an attack, although I have honestly never seen anything have to take a Characteristic test on the Attack Characteristic, but hey, I haven't read and memorized every codex, so it might be out there, or it might be in a previous edition.

Once again, bottom line, show me in the reference I cited in previous posts, where the LD test from CoM is an attack, or we can continue this round robin until I get tired of debating with someone who falls back on the same defeated tactics every single time. Come up with an actual arguement, not the same one that has already been defeated. show it to me in GW source material relevant to the two armies, or else stop trying, because you can't prove what it is or isn't by referencing another army that has nothing to do with these two, and you can't prove it if its not stated where I can read it.

Good Luck and eagerly awaiting some new evidence!!

In the example of using movement as an attack, you're not specifically doing anything to your enemy, and as such you are merely indirectly affecting them adversely. Using something defined as a weapon in a Codex against an enemy unit obviously counts as an attack. If we're not allowed to use definitions from outside the BRB for words, how the gak do we know what the book is saying? It'd have to define itself to be able to define itself, thus vanishing in a poof of logic.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:In the example of using movement as an attack, you're not specifically doing anything to your enemy, and as such you are merely indirectly affecting them adversely. Using something defined as a weapon in a Codex against an enemy unit obviously counts as an attack. If we're not allowed to use definitions from outside the BRB for words, how the gak do we know what the book is saying? It'd have to define itself to be able to define itself, thus vanishing in a poof of logic.

I never said that you can't use definitions outside of the book for simple English, however, the book is what defines what does and does not have an attack value. And if we wish to continue that it is a weapon, is it a shooting or a close combat weapon??? It is used in the shooting phase, correct?? then that must mean it is some type of shooting weapon, right??? Well lets look under the shooting section of the BRB and see what type of weapon it is then.....

BRB pg.27 : Weapons (in the shooting section):

every weapon has a profile that consist of several elements, and it then lists the Boltgun as an example of a shooting weapon. the elements of a shooting weapons profile are :

Maximum range
Strength
Armour Piercing (AP)
Type

So lets break it down even more for the Crucible and examine its profile.

Maximum Range in the Profile: non existent because it doesn't have a profile!!!!
Strength in the Profile: non existent because it doesn't have a profile!!!!
Armour Piercing (AP) in the Profile: non existent because it doesn't have a profile!!!!
Type in the Profile: non existent because it doesn't have a profile!!!!

So if this is the case, it must not be a shooting weapon right?? So it must be a weapon that fires a Psychic shooting attack then??? Nope, because it does not need a Psychic test to use.

So we must need to at least follow the steps for the Shooting Phase to use it, right??? So lets go look that up and see what we get.....

BRB pg. 15. the Shooting Sequence:

1. Check line of sight & pick a target
2. Check Range
3. Roll to hit
4. Roll to wound
5. Take saving throws
6. Remove casualties

Ok, so lets break the Crucible down intothe shooting phase...

BRB pg. 15. the Shooting Sequence:

1. Check line of sight & pick a target: Not needed as it doesn't specifically target anything! It simply says that every Psyker within 3D6" takes a LD test! Not every psyker in a target unit, not every psyker in a unit within 3D6", simply EVERY PSYKER within 3D6"!
2. Check Range: Wll, this one we can do because we roll 3D6", so somewhere between 3" and 18" is our range, so we can check and see if the psykers are within range... Oh wait, we can't do this because at least one target model must be within range of the weaponry of your firing models, and the Crucible is used instead of firing! and has no target unit! and even if it is a weapon, it isn't fired! It is opened!
3. Roll to hit: also not needed as I don't use the Crucible off of my Ballistic Skill, so I don't need to hit you! And I still don't have a single target unit!
4. Roll to wound: Not needed as it causes no wounds!
5. Take saving throws: also not needed because of two reasons, reason1: It states in the rules that no saving throws of any kind are allowed, so you don't get any. Reason 2, under the armour and invulnerable saving throw sections, it states they are both taken against wounds, which we didn't cause any, so no worries. And it negates cover save, because NO saves are allowed! also, cover saves are taken against wounds according to the multiple save section and the removing casualties section!
6. Remove casualties: Not done either, as they are not removed as casualties, they are removed from play, not removed from play counting as a casualty! So then they don't count as a Kill Point then, right?? Right, they don't count as a kill point.... until the game is over and right before totaling victory conditions, where it states in the BRB FAQ that any units not on the board at the end of the game are counted as destroyed for victory conditions! So, they aren't a Kill Point til after the game is over! Where do they go?? I have no idea, but they aren't in reserve, they aren't on the board, but they aren't dead either, they are simply removed from play cause they went stark raving mad! So maybe they are up in a tree off in the corner counting the creases in the sky, I don't know, but they are no longer a worry!!

So, its not a Shooting attack as it doesn't fulfill the shooting sequence, nor does it state its a shooting attack in its rules, nor does it have a shooting weapon profile... so whats left??? It must be a close combat weapon then!! But wait, if its a close combat weapon, how can I use it in the shooting phase??? Oh wait, I can't, because you can only use CC weapons in the Assault Phase (except for pistols of course, but they are counted as both a shooting and normal close combat weapon, according to the BRB).

So then, how can I use it at all if its a weapon and doesn't fulfill any of the requirements for a weapon??? Guess I can't, right???


WRONG. I can use it in the exact manner as described in its rules, which is I choose to open it instead of firing in the Shooting phase. I mean, if the weapon part in the first line of the rule is part of the rules, so is the opening of it, right?? Which also means that, guess what?? Its not my army that is attacking the Psykers..... its the essence of captured and tortured psykers that is attacking them. Funny, if they were part of my army, why would I have to capture and torture them??? I mean, we want to get literal with every word, they aren't part of my army, I am holding their essence captive in a box that I open and let them go, and their shrieks and screams as they are released are what is attacking the psykers, according to the Crucible's rules on pg. 60 of the Dark Eldar Codex.

So its not my army that is attacking them, and according to once again all the definitions brought in, the attack has always been done by my army, so then once again, its not an attack right??? Or is it once again my attack because I brought about the consequences of the attack??? Does everything revolve back to the fact that no matter what, its an attack, even though it isn't a normal shooting or close combat weapon, has none of the characteristics required for being either weapon, Is listed as WARGEAR in two different places in the codex, and causes no wounds, which Psychic Shooting Attacks, regular shooting sequence attacks, and close combat attacks all cause???

Your still not answering my question, and I'm wondering why you all keep spouting the same thing over and over instead of, oh I don't know, going and looking through the references cited to try and find something to contradict me, instead of always bringing up the same thing, which I will continually shoot down.


And ya know what, I'm going to throw one more at you where you reference page 60, along with pg 56, to tell me that the CoM is a weapon. Did you also note that on pg 56 it says weapons and equipment? or that on page 60, the CoM is listed under the arcane wargear section?? Or how about in the description of the Arcane wargear, the things listed after it are described as tools, devices, wargear, and items??? Oh, and lets not forget that its called an item under the part where it talks about what the * is for......

So its a weapon/wargear/tool/equipment/device/item? Quite confusing.... especially when you add on that on pg 85 it is listed under wargear for the Haemonculus, but so are other weapons, but of course those other weapons also specifically state they are either a CC weapon and.or have a shooting profile! Amazing what using the whole rulebook will do for your perception of things....


And just to remind, in case you forgot from where I stated it AGAIN earlier in this post, show me in the aforementioned references where it is an attack, otherwise your argument STILL doesn't hold water, and I still remove the entire squad from play on a failed Leadership Characteristic TEST.

Dash and Galador, it is an attack because... wait for it...
It is an offensive action you take against the enemy.

You keep on blindly insisting that it is not defined as a specific kind of attack. I have said that you are right. CoM is not a specific kind of attack.

Now, like I said before, read the BoP rule. Tell me what kind of specific kind of attack the BoP rule works against... You should see that it does not work on a specific kind of attack.

So CoM is an unspecified attack, hitting a unit that has a rule for unspecified attacks.

Here is the thing you both keep missing... you keep wanting a definition for attack in the rulebook, which there is none. HOWEVER, this lack of a definition ALSO applies to the BoP rule!

DevianID wrote:Dash and Galador, it is an attack because... wait for it...
It is an offensive action you take against the enemy.

You keep on blindly insisting that it is not defined as a specific kind of attack. I have said that you are right. CoM is not a specific kind of attack.

Now, like I said before, read the BoP rule. Tell me what kind of specific kind of attack the BoP rule works against... You should see that it does not work on a specific kind of attack.

So CoM is an unspecified attack, hitting a unit that has a rule for unspecified attacks.

Here is the thing you both keep missing... you keep wanting a definition for attack in the rulebook, which there is none. HOWEVER, this lack of a definition ALSO applies to the BoP rule!

Precedent-

Doom of Malan'tai's passive ability is not an attack. It does not activate any abilities based on attacking. It is simply a LD check that deals wounds and allows saves.

DevianID wrote:Dash and Galador, it is an attack because... wait for it...
It is an offensive action you take against the enemy.

You keep on blindly insisting that it is not defined as a specific kind of attack. I have said that you are right. CoM is not a specific kind of attack.

Now, like I said before, read the BoP rule. Tell me what kind of specific kind of attack the BoP rule works against... You should see that it does not work on a specific kind of attack.

So CoM is an unspecified attack, hitting a unit that has a rule for unspecified attacks.

Here is the thing you both keep missing... you keep wanting a definition for attack in the rulebook, which there is none. HOWEVER, this lack of a definition ALSO applies to the BoP rule!

Ok, if the attack is an offensive action I take against the enemy, what offensive action am I taking??? Opening the Crucible??? how is opening a box, bag, door, whatever the Crucuble actually is, an offensive action against my enemy??? I am not taking the offensive action, the things inside the Crucible are taking the offensive action. After all, if the first line of the Crucible description/rule is part of the rule, then the whole thing is part of the rule, right?

CoM is not an unspecified attack, it is not an attack at all. It is never defined as an attack, but it is defined as something you do in your shooting phase, instead of firing a weapon. So if i'm not firing a weapon, and its not defined as an attack, what am I doing?? Oh, wait, thats right, im opening the Crucible!

The BoP rule works against Perils of the Warp, which happens when a Psyker fails a Psychic test, and against any attack that specifically targets psykers! So question for you, where is my target??? I am targeting nothing, according to the shooting phase sequence on pg 15 of the BRB. So if I'm not targeting the Psyker, BoP is negated because they aren't being shot at with a shooting attack!! Because I don't have a single target! I simply cause ALL Psykers within 3D6" to take a Leadership test, CoM don't cause them a wound, CoM doesn't kill them, CoM don't do anything that every other attack in the game does, a.k.a make them count as a kill point or make them a casualty. CoM simply makes them take a LD test, at which point in time, if they fail that, they are removed from play. Is a Ld test an offensive action??? Not according to pg. 8 of the BRB. According to Pg. 8, a leadership test is simply different from the other characteristics test because you roll 2D6 instead of 1D6. But its still a characteristics test, which you have to take those for many, many different reasons, but NONE of them are an attack. Even in the example with the toughness test against a lethal gas, it is still a test, not an attack, and I'm sorry but a lethal gass would seem pretty offensive to me, so why isn't it an attack??? Because its defined by the BRB as a TEST, hence, no attack. Everywhere except for the Characteristcs page, where it states attacks are the number of dice you roll in Close Combat, an attack causes a wound, unless its rules specifically state that it doesn't. Whic at that point, the rule for that will still call it an attack (i.E. JotWW). So where in the CoM rules is it called an attack??? Its not, so its not an attack, as per the 40K rules.

Thank you and have a nice day, and bring on the next dictionary definition of attack!!

Edit: and BoP does work against a specific attack: (restating this because I didn't feel it was completely clear up top) It works against attacks that specifically TARGET Psykers.

There is your specific attack it works against. Now, does that cover different kinds of attacks??? Yes, it covers shooting, CC and all other attacks that.... wait for it(as you said earlier )...

TARGET PSYKERS!! So, to put an even newer twist on it, show me where I target anything with the CoM.

Galador wrote:Ok, if the attack is an offensive action I take against the enemy, what offensive action am I taking??? Opening the Crucible??? how is opening a box, bag, door, whatever the Crucuble actually is, an offensive action against my enemy??? I am not taking the offensive action, the things inside the Crucible are taking the offensive action. After all, if the first line of the Crucible description/rule is part of the rule, then the whole thing is part of the rule, right?

CoM is not an unspecified attack, it is not an attack at all. It is never defined as an attack, but it is defined as something you do in your shooting phase, instead of firing a weapon. So if i'm not firing a weapon, and its not defined as an attack, what am I doing?? Oh, wait, thats right, im opening the Crucible!

The BoP rule works against Perils of the Warp, which happens when a Psyker fails a Psychic test, and against any attack that specifically targets psykers! So question for you, where is my target???

Attack IS NOT DEFINED in the BRB so we can not find out what an attack is from the BRB we Must use the real world definition to define it.

The target is ALL Psykers within the 3D6 inch range. There are your target(s) The attack you are taking is using the CoM to eliminate models from the board.

Something that targets ALL Psykers within 3D6 inches and forces them to make a test or be removed is most certainly an attack against them in hopes of getting them off the board.

you can try to shoot down the argument of what constitutes an attack (Which is undefined in the brb so we use the standard english definition) But these counter arguments are not valid because taking an action that has an effect that removes model from the table is the very definition of what an attack is, since it is not defined in the brb.

I think there's very bad news for this thread. From the "Tenets of You Make Da Call" thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page stickied at the top of the forum:

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

That leaves everyone at:
A: "I think it's an attack."
B: "I respectfully disagree."

DeathReaper wrote:

Galador wrote:Ok, if the attack is an offensive action I take against the enemy, what offensive action am I taking??? Opening the Crucible??? how is opening a box, bag, door, whatever the Crucuble actually is, an offensive action against my enemy??? I am not taking the offensive action, the things inside the Crucible are taking the offensive action. After all, if the first line of the Crucible description/rule is part of the rule, then the whole thing is part of the rule, right?

CoM is not an unspecified attack, it is not an attack at all. It is never defined as an attack, but it is defined as something you do in your shooting phase, instead of firing a weapon. So if i'm not firing a weapon, and its not defined as an attack, what am I doing?? Oh, wait, thats right, im opening the Crucible!

The BoP rule works against Perils of the Warp, which happens when a Psyker fails a Psychic test, and against any attack that specifically targets psykers! So question for you, where is my target???

Attack IS NOT DEFINED in the BRB so we can not find out what an attack is from the BRB we Must use the real world definition to define it.

The target is ALL Psykers within the 3D6 inch range. There are your target(s) The attack you are taking is using the CoM to eliminate models from the board.

Something that targets ALL Psykers within 3D6 inches and forces them to make a test or be removed is most certainly an attack against them in hopes of getting them off the board.

you can try to shoot down the argument of what constitutes an attack (Which is undefined in the brb so we use the standard english definition) But these counter arguments are not valid because taking an action that has an effect that removes model from the table is the very definition of what an attack is, since it is not defined in the brb.

Ok, you want something other than attack, huh?? Well, thats easy enough.... When is the crucible used??? In the shooting pahse instead of shooting, correct??? So lets once again go back to the BRB on pg. 15 and see what that constitutes...

1st part of the shooting phase is enough: Check line of site and pick a target.

A TARGET, not multiple targets. Flip it over to page 16 real fast, and read the first line of part one of the shooting phase.

A firing unit (i.e. a Haemy carrying a Com) may choose a SINGLE enemy unit that is not locked in combat as its TARGET, and may NOT split its fire between different targets.

So in order for me to hit multiple TARGETS, I have to bring more than one CoM, as it is a weapon used in the shooting phase, correct??

WRONG AGAIN. There are no TARGETS for the CoM, it never asks you nor tells you to target anything, unlike firing a weapon, which is states you cannont do if you use the CoM. So how can I target something if I am using this in the shooting phase instead of firing a weapon without specific permission to target??? I can't, hence I am not targeting anyone, it is an AREA OF EFFECT LEADERSHIP TEST. All Psykers within 3D6" must test, not A PSYKER within 3D6". I can't target anyone, because I am not allowed to as it isn't a shooting weapon, it is simply an area of effect within a certain number of inches. I dont measure only straight in head of me, or to my left, right, or behind, I have a 360 degree measurement with it all the way around my model carrying it. And I don't pick a SINGLE Psyker unit within that 3D6", I cause a leadership test on them ALL within the 3D6", so the shooting phase rules DO NOT apply to CoM, which means I don't pick a TARGET. But in order to ATTACK in the shooting phase, using your dictionary definition of attack, I must do something offensive to them, which I am not, because I am not following the rules for using a weapon in the Shooting phase.

So, you ask, WHAT am I doing to them then??? I am making them take a Leadership TEST. I am TESTING them, not ATTACKING them. Now then, if they FAIL that TEST, then they are removed from play. if they PASS that TEST, they are fine, and nothing has happened to them whatsoever. So what your trying to say is that if I cause them to fail, its an attack, but if they pass, its not??? Thats what it seems like, because them passing the test means they suffered no offensive action, as all they did was roll some dice and look at my Haemy funny.....

Now then, lets cover the removed from play bit..... and I will even use ANOTHER DE piece of arcane wargear to demostrate this. Lets take a look at the Hexrifle, shall we??? Now, it has a weapon profile, so it obviously ATTACKS. It is one sniper shot, that picks a target and checks line of sight, then checks the range to the TARGET, then rolls to hit, then rolls to wound, and then the TARGET rolls any applicable saves. So, my Haemy shoots at, oh, lets say Lord Kaldor Draigo, Just to keep it in the GK codex. Why Lord Kaldor Draigo, you ask??? Because Lord Kaldor Draigo is the only thing within the GK codex with the Special Rule Eternal Warrior. So my Haemy chooses LKD as his target, then checks line of site and finds out he can see him. I then check the range to LKD and see that he is within the 36" range of the Hexrifle. So I roll to see if my Haemy hits, and he does. I then roll to see if he wounds, and he does. so at this point LKD takes his save, and fails it. I have now caused my attack against him and given him an unsaved wound, exactly as happens in the shooting phase.

But here is where the twist comes in.... because for every unsaved wound caused by the hexrifle, the affected model must take a CHARACTERISTICS TEST (Emphasis mine, but the two words are verbatim from the DE codex) based on their Wounds Value. and it clearly states the one in their profile, which we all know is made up of characteristics, not the current number of wounds they have remaining. So LKD takes the test, and he starts with 4 wounds. If he rolls a 4 or less, hes fine, but if he rolls higher, what happens???? Why, he's removed from play, with no saves of any kind allowed!!!! But wait, he's just gonna take that one wound right, cause he has Eternal Warrior! WRONG. The hexrifle says nothing about Instant Death, it says removed from PLAY. But you can't take all his wounds at once because of EW!! Yes, I can, because I didn't wound him for him to be REMOVED FROM PLAY, he failed the TEST he had to take in order to stay in PLAY, so buh bye, remove him from play.

But wait!!!!! How can I remove him from play based on a characteristics test that is supposedly an attack??? the Hexrifle, according to how a shooting weapon is defined by GW, is only allowed Assault1, which means I can only attack him once, and then assault if I am within range for close combat. But, if a characteristic test is an ATTACK, that would give me TWO ATTACKS, something my weapons profile denies me have, because I only have ASSAULT 1 on the hexrifle.... so how am I getting the second attack if I can only have one attack??? Simple answer.... I'm not attacking him after the shot, I'm making him take a characteristic TEST, which can be done as it doesn't go over my one attack allowed by my weapon's profile. So, long story short, CHARACTERISTICS TESTS ARE NOT ATTACKS, OTHERWISE ANYTHING THAT DID PINNING ATTACKS OR ANY OTHER CHARACTERISTICS TEST COULD NEVER CAUSE THE TEST BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE THE ALLOWED AMOUNT OF ATTACKS IN ITS WEAPONRY PROFILE.

(not shouting in the last part, put it in all caps to ensure it was read and paid attention to )

Ball is back in your court, and the score is still tied, 0-0, IMHO!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

solkan wrote:I think there's very bad news for this thread. From the "Tenets of You Make Da Call" thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page stickied at the top of the forum:

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

That leaves everyone at:
A: "I think it's an attack."
B: "I respectfully disagree."

I thank you for posting that....... I really really do!!!!