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.

puma713 wrote:The issue here is not the fact that a PSA is not a weapon carried by a model, it's that there is no logic being introduced into this reading at all. We know that a PSA is not a "weapon" and it is not "carried". My example about modelling a warp lance was to show how silly this argument has gotten.
But should this exclude PSA's from DoG attacks? If you go by strict RAW, then yes, it excludes them. However, every thing in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, and you can used ranged weapons in DoG attacks. Because it is not specifically "carried" and it is not referred to as a "weapon", then you can't use them, is a bit silly, imo.

So it's not a weapon and it's not carried. What in the rulebook points to them being used for DoG?

puma713 wrote:But should this exclude PSA's from DoG attacks? If you go by strict RAW, then yes, it excludes them.

Thank you for that.

However, every thing in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, and you can used ranged weapons in DoG attacks. Because it is not specifically "carried" and it is not referred to as a "weapon", then you can't use them, is a bit silly, imo.

We also know that when the BRB is referring to the 'scout' rule, it is actually referring to 'Scouts', but we apply logic there. Why not here?

Not applying Scouts to the Scout rule makes the Scouts USR useless. Not applying PSAs to DoG's does not make either DoG nor PSAs useless.

The former has the rules actually work. The latter is introducing an additional ability into the rules. If you don't allow it nothing breaks. If you do allow it, things could break.

Scott-S6 wrote:

puma713 wrote:The issue here is not the fact that a PSA is not a weapon carried by a model, it's that there is no logic being introduced into this reading at all. We know that a PSA is not a "weapon" and it is not "carried". My example about modelling a warp lance was to show how silly this argument has gotten.
But should this exclude PSA's from DoG attacks? If you go by strict RAW, then yes, it excludes them. However, every thing in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, and you can used ranged weapons in DoG attacks. Because it is not specifically "carried" and it is not referred to as a "weapon", then you can't use them, is a bit silly, imo.

So it's not a weapon and it's not carried. What in the rulebook points to them being used for DoG?

What in the rulebook points to the 'scout' USR? No such USR exists. I expect that you don't allow your opponent's to use 'Scouts'?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Not applying Scouts to the Scout rule makes the Scouts USR useless. Not applying PSAs to DoG's does not make either DoG nor PSAs useless.

I just pulled that example out of the hat. I could grab another one that doesn't break the game, if you like.

However, I am more than happy to admit that I see both sides of the argument. I just don't think it is as clear cut as everyone would like to think. Everyone is taking a sentence out of the rulebook and taking it as sacrosanct, as if there is no way but one to read it. But we all know that that kind of thinking can get you into trouble. However, the people defending this reading don't admit that they play by strict RAW 100% of the time, and if they don't, then they should be ready to admit that there is another way to interpret this ruling as well.

I would allow my opponents to do it. I might even ask to do it. If my opponent doesn't allow me to, I understand why. It doesn't mean I agree with it.

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Not applying Scouts to the Scout rule makes the Scouts USR useless. Not applying PSAs to DoG's does not make either DoG nor PSAs useless.

I just pulled that example out of the hat. I could grab another one that doesn't break the game, if you like.

Sure. And that one will probably end up as a 4+, just like DoG is.

However, I am more than happy to admit that I see both sides of the argument. I just don't think it is as clear cut as everyone would like to think. Everyone is taking a sentence out of the rulebook and taking it as sacrosanct, as if there is no way but one to read it. But we all know that that kind of thinking can get you into trouble. However, the people defending this reading don't admit that they play by strict RAW 100% of the time, and if they don't, then they should be ready to admit that there is another way to interpret this ruling as well.

I've pretty much always admitted exactly that. Should I quote where I said essentially this?

I would allow my opponents to do it. I might even ask to do it. If my opponent doesn't allow me to, I understand why. It doesn't mean I agree with it.

If my opponent attempted this (not that I have vehicles) I'd say he wasn't allowed, but offer to 4+ it if he persists.

puma713 wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

puma713 wrote:The issue here is not the fact that a PSA is not a weapon carried by a model, it's that there is no logic being introduced into this reading at all. We know that a PSA is not a "weapon" and it is not "carried". My example about modelling a warp lance was to show how silly this argument has gotten.
But should this exclude PSA's from DoG attacks? If you go by strict RAW, then yes, it excludes them. However, every thing in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, and you can used ranged weapons in DoG attacks. Because it is not specifically "carried" and it is not referred to as a "weapon", then you can't use them, is a bit silly, imo.

So it's not a weapon and it's not carried. What in the rulebook points to them being used for DoG?

What in the rulebook points to the 'scout' USR? No such USR exists. I expect that you don't allow your opponent's to use 'Scouts'?

110% not relevant. The criteria for DoG is "a weapon carried by the model" and you've agreed that a PSA is neither carried nor a weapon. Using something as a ranged weapon does not make it a ranged weapon. Moving as jump infantry does not make an MC jump infantry, etc.

Scott-S6 wrote:

you've agreed that a PSA is neither carried nor a weapon.

By strict RAW, right. But I also said that strict RAW can be ridiculous and removes logic and critical thinking from the equation. But you didn't mention any of that. That is why the 'scouts' example is relevant, whether you understand why it is or not.

All I have to say is this;

Page 2 of the 5th edition rule book says
'The most important rule then is that the rules aren’t
all that important! So long as both players agree,
you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines
– the choice is entirely yours.'

If your opponent agrees, eff it, its all good. If you are worried ask before you start playing. Its what I do.

Yeah, citing TMIR is completely valid in YMDC.

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

Oops. Guess it's not.

I would say no, because most psychic powers are on your turn anyways but to my interpretation of the rules it is just a CC attack.

rigeld2 wrote:Yeah, citing TMIR is completely valid in YMDC.

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

Oops. Guess it's not.

You do realize you can get your point across with being a complete dick, right?
I realize this is YMDC, so a being a little dickish is required.

Welcome to Dakka Riker210. Just pop into the OT for even more fun!

Let's all try not to be dicks to each other, eh?

Riker210 wrote:All I have to say is this;'The most important rule....

You realise that you can use TMIR to respond to absolutely any rules question, clear or unclear, and it makes conversations about rules completely pointless. It adds precisely nothing to debate.
Can I ask what your motivation in posting it was?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

you've agreed that a PSA is neither carried nor a weapon.

By strict RAW, right. But I also said that strict RAW can be ridiculous and removes logic and critical thinking from the equation. But you didn't mention any of that. That is why the 'scouts' example is relevant, whether you understand why it is or not.

You have stated "everything in the rulebook" points to PSAs being used for DoG. Can you actually back that up with some rules?

The Scout examples is not relevant. There you had a special rule that did not function in any many. Therefore we were forced to look for what it might have been supposed to do. There is no such issue with PSA and DoG. Neither the rulebook or any of the codexes hint that PSAs should be used for DoG. You feel that it ought to work and are trying to justify that when there is nothing in rules to suggest this application.

Are you happy with PSAs being removed from a librarian dread which suffers a weapon destroyed result? The same logic that allows PSAs to DoG allows that to happen also?

Scott-S6 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

you've agreed that a PSA is neither carried nor a weapon.

By strict RAW, right. But I also said that strict RAW can be ridiculous and removes logic and critical thinking from the equation. But you didn't mention any of that. That is why the 'scouts' example is relevant, whether you understand why it is or not.

You have stated "everything in the rulebook" points to PSAs being used for DoG. Can you actually back that up with some rules?

No, I said "everything in the rulebook" points to it being a ranged attack. And that ranged attacks can be used in DoG. And I've already provided statements in this thread to support that. They're the ones that are bolded and say "ranged attack" everywhere. I can quote them if you like.

Scott-S6 wrote:The Scout examples is not relevant. There you had a special rule that did not function in any many. Therefore we were forced to look for what it might have been supposed to do. There is no such issue with PSA and DoG. Neither the rulebook or any of the codexes hint that PSAs should be used for DoG. You feel that it ought to work and are trying to justify that when there is nothing in rules to suggest this application.

Okay, apparently you're hung up on this Scouts rule. Let's see. . .how about another one.

The Rage USR doesn't work because you're not allowed to check Line of Sight in the Movement Phase. The only time you're given permission to check Line of Sight is in the Shooting Phase, when you're about to fire.

Lysander has 'Bolster Defenses', but he cannot use it, because Bolster Defenses refers to 'Techmarines'. Lysander is not a techmarine.

Ork Boarding Planks don't work if the opponent's vehicle has moved over 12" at all in the entire game, not just that turn.

I can go on and on and on, if you like, but we both know what I'm getting at. You don't play this way, I imagine. I think I would be hard-pressed to find anyone that does. Yet, these are RAW.

Now, if you don't play with these rules above, then what you're doing is assuming what the author meant and applying logic and reasoning. And if you're doing that, then you need to be prepared to accept the same sort of logic and reasoning applied to other rules, like using a ranged attack for DoG that is not defined strictly as a "weapon" and is not "carried". What you're doing is removing all critical thinking from the rule and applying RAW. The Rulebook is not the bible. The authors are flawed. Isn't there a chance, that they meant for Psychic Powers to be used for DoG, just like there's a chance that the Rage USR was supposed to work?

Scott-S6 wrote:Are you happy with PSAs being removed from a librarian dread which suffers a weapon destroyed result? The same logic that allows PSAs to DoG allows that to happen also?

I didn't say they were weapons. I likened them to a ranged weapon. I made a correlation between them being used 'as a ranged weapon' to actually being 'ranged weapons'. I even said "they might as well be weapons". But, I also said (one page back if you care to check), that we know they're not "weapons" and they're not "carried". As I said before, everything in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, but they're never specifically called a "weapon".

The thing I think you're misunderstanding is that I'm not trying to make a PSA a "weapon" or "carried". I'm not trying to conform to what the PSA rules say. I'm trying to help you see that maybe it is the PSA rules that are poorly written, just like Rage, Bolster Defenses and Boarding Planks.

puma713 wrote:Okay, apparently you're hung up on this Scouts rule. Let's see. . .how about another one.

The Rage USR doesn't work because you're not allowed to check Line of Sight in the Movement Phase. The only time you're given permission to check Line of Sight is in the Shooting Phase, when you're about to fire.

Lysander has 'Bolster Defenses', but he cannot use it, because Bolster Defenses refers to 'Techmarines'. Lysander is not a techmarine.

Ork Boarding Planks don't work if the opponent's vehicle has moved over 12" at all in the entire game, not just that turn.

I can go on and on and on, if you like, but we both know what I'm getting at. You don't play this way, I imagine. I think I would be hard-pressed to find anyone that does. Yet, these are RAW.

Now, if you don't play with these rules above, then what you're doing is assuming what the author meant and applying logic and reasoning. And if you're doing that, then you need to be prepared to accept the same sort of logic and reasoning applied to other rules, like using a ranged attack for DoG that is not defined strictly as a "weapon" and is not "carried". What you're doing is removing all critical thinking from the rule and applying RAW. The Rulebook is not the bible. The authors are flawed. Isn't there a chance, that they meant for Psychic Powers to be used for DoG, just like there's a chance that the Rage USR was supposed to work?

All of these examples are just like Scout/scouts. They are rules that do not function at all if you use a strict reading. Therefore it is clear that something is in error.

This is not the case with PSA and DoG, both of which are fully functional as is.

Can you find anything to suggest that PSAs ought to work with DoG?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Are you happy with PSAs being removed from a librarian dread which suffers a weapon destroyed result? The same logic that allows PSAs to DoG allows that to happen also?

I didn't say they were weapons. I likened them to a ranged weapon. I made a correlation between them being used 'as a ranged weapon' to actually being 'ranged weapons'. I even said "they might as well be weapons". But, I also said (one page back if you care to check), that we know they're not "weapons" and they're not "carried". As I said before, everything in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, but they're never specifically called a "weapon".
The thing I think you're misunderstanding is that I'm not trying to make a PSA a "weapon" or "carried". I'm not trying to conform to what the PSA rules say. I'm trying to help you see that maybe it is the PSA rules that are poorly written, just like Rage, Bolster Defenses and Boarding Planks.

But I can use the exact same logic to suggest that PSAs ought to be able to be removed by Weapon Destroyed results. Maybe the PSA rules are poorly written about that as well? There is just as much to suggest that as there is to suggest that PSAs can DoG (i.e. nothing).

This really is not a rules debate any more. You've already said that the rules do not support using PSAs for DoG.

Scott-S6 wrote:

puma713 wrote:Okay, apparently you're hung up on this Scouts rule. Let's see. . .how about another one.

The Rage USR doesn't work because you're not allowed to check Line of Sight in the Movement Phase. The only time you're given permission to check Line of Sight is in the Shooting Phase, when you're about to fire.

Lysander has 'Bolster Defenses', but he cannot use it, because Bolster Defenses refers to 'Techmarines'. Lysander is not a techmarine.

Ork Boarding Planks don't work if the opponent's vehicle has moved over 12" at all in the entire game, not just that turn.

I can go on and on and on, if you like, but we both know what I'm getting at. You don't play this way, I imagine. I think I would be hard-pressed to find anyone that does. Yet, these are RAW.

Now, if you don't play with these rules above, then what you're doing is assuming what the author meant and applying logic and reasoning. And if you're doing that, then you need to be prepared to accept the same sort of logic and reasoning applied to other rules, like using a ranged attack for DoG that is not defined strictly as a "weapon" and is not "carried". What you're doing is removing all critical thinking from the rule and applying RAW. The Rulebook is not the bible. The authors are flawed. Isn't there a chance, that they meant for Psychic Powers to be used for DoG, just like there's a chance that the Rage USR was supposed to work?

All of these examples are just like Scout/scouts. They are rules that do not function at all if you use a strict reading. Therefore it is clear that something is in error.

How so? Bolster Defenses still works for any techmarine. Boarding Planks still work until the enemy moves over 12". These rules still work (unlike Scouts and Rage). They just don't work if you're using Lysander without another techmarine or any enemy vehicles finally go over 12". When you're applying your own reasoning to the rulings I have listed above, you're now in the realm of RAI, not RAW. When you say, "Well, they meant for Lysander to be able to use Bolster Defenses, because otherwise they wouldn't have given it to him." Then you're not playing by the RAW anymore, you're asserting what you believe the writer's meant, and you're using your own version of RAI. I am asserting what I believe the writer's may have meant for DoG.

It's no different than Dreadknights being able to use their Nemesis Doomfists. There was a big stink that "Why would they give them Nemesis Doomfists if they couldn't use them properly?" And lo' and behold, Nemesis Doomfists don't work with Dreadknights because the entry refers to a "walker" and Dreadknights aren't 'walkers'. Yet, we expect Bolster Defenses to work, even though it never refers to "techmarines" and Lysander is not a techmarine. Why?

Scott=S6 wrote:Can you find anything to suggest that PSAs ought to work with DoG?

That they function exactly like a shooting attack (with additional rules) and therefore, a ranged weapon (with additional rules). They are simply not "carried" and not referred to as a "weapon".

Scott-S6 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Are you happy with PSAs being removed from a librarian dread which suffers a weapon destroyed result? The same logic that allows PSAs to DoG allows that to happen also?

I didn't say they were weapons. I likened them to a ranged weapon. I made a correlation between them being used 'as a ranged weapon' to actually being 'ranged weapons'. I even said "they might as well be weapons". But, I also said (one page back if you care to check), that we know they're not "weapons" and they're not "carried". As I said before, everything in the rulebook points to them being used as a ranged weapon, but they're never specifically called a "weapon".
The thing I think you're misunderstanding is that I'm not trying to make a PSA a "weapon" or "carried". I'm not trying to conform to what the PSA rules say. I'm trying to help you see that maybe it is the PSA rules that are poorly written, just like Rage, Bolster Defenses and Boarding Planks.

But I can use the exact same logic to suggest that PSAs ought to be able to be removed by Weapon Destroyed results. Maybe the PSA rules are poorly written about that as well? There is just as much to suggest that as there is to suggest that PSAs can DoG (i.e. nothing).

You're still not getting it. I'm not trying to debate with you about what PSAs are and aren't. I'm not trying to change PSA's at all. This actually has nothing to do with PSA's, but the wording of DoG.

Scott-S6 wrote:This really is not a rules debate any more. You've already said that the rules do not support using PSAs for DoG.

Heh heh sure. Be sure not to let Lysander Bolster Defenses in any of your games, either, k? And if anyone tries to use Warptime against you, you better be sure that it is their model that is rolling the dice, not the player. Otherwise, you're picking and choosing which RAW rules you like to follow, and which ones you don't.

puma713 wrote:I'm trying to help you see that maybe it is the PSA rules that are poorly written, just like Rage, Bolster Defenses and Boarding Planks.

puma713 wrote:This actually has nothing to do with PSA's, but the wording of DoG.

Which one is it?

scott-s6 wrote:

puma713 wrote:All of these examples are just like Scout/scouts. They are rules that do not function at all if you use a strict reading. Therefore it is clear that something is in error.

How so? Bolster Defenses still works for any techmarine.

Bolster Defenses does not work for Lysander. There is a non-functional rule that requires to be fixed.

puma713 wrote:When you're applying your own reasoning to the rulings I have listed above, you're now in the realm of RAI, not RAW.

Yes, and with something like Lysander having Bolster Defenses or Doom having Warptime we have a really strong indication that the RAI does not match the RAW.

There is no such indication for PSAs and DoG. The wording of DoG is clear and functional. There is nothing to suggest that it's an error.

Scott-S6 wrote:

puma713 wrote:I'm trying to help you see that maybe it is the PSA rules that are poorly written, just like Rage, Bolster Defenses and Boarding Planks.

puma713 wrote:This actually has nothing to do with PSA's, but the wording of DoG.

Which one is it?

Whoops - in the first quote I meant DoG. Sorry about that.

Scott-S6 wrote:

scott-s6 wrote:

puma713 wrote:All of these examples are just like Scout/scouts. They are rules that do not function at all if you use a strict reading. Therefore it is clear that something is in error.

How so? Bolster Defenses still works for any techmarine.

Bolster Defenses does not work for Lysander. There is a non-functional rule that requires to be fixed.

Okay. So how do you play it? You don't let your opponent's use it?

Scott-S6 wrote:

puma713 wrote:When you're applying your own reasoning to the rulings I have listed above, you're now in the realm of RAI, not RAW.

Yes, and with something like Lysander having Bolster Defenses or Doom having Warptime we have a really strong indication that the RAI does not match the RAW.

But you can't go on "strong indications" if you're using RAW. If you're going off of "indications", then you're not using RAW anymore.

I have a strong indication that PSA's can be used to DoG.

Scott-S6 wrote:There is no such indication for PSAs and DoG. The wording of DoG is clear and functional. There is nothing to suggest that it's an error.

To you. I think that it may have meant to include things like PSA's and forgotten to add an explicit mentioning of (even Psychic Shooting Attacks). Just because a rule is functional doesn't mean it didn't leave something out or not clarify specifically enough. There are Errata where GW simply clarifies a way a simple sentence (one that is not in question at all) reads. There's no way at all that this is a similar situation? That's pretty absolute. And if you're going to be absolute, you have to be wholly absolute.

The funny thing is, what it all boils down to is something that acts exactly like a ranged weapon not being allowed because it is not defined as a weapon. That, to me, is a silly as saying that Rage doesn't work because you can't draw LOS in the Movement Phase. To you, it's not. So, we're at an impasse. I'm not going to agree with you and you're not going to agree with me. I will allow my opponents to use it, whereas you may reach a point where you have to call a TO or 4+ it. I like my way better. Smoother game, happier opponent and more chance for a squished zoanthrope.

To each his own.

Riker210 wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:]All I have to say is this;'The most important rule....

You realise that you can use TMIR to respond to absolutely any rules question, clear or unclear, and it makes conversations about rules completely pointless. It adds precisely nothing to debate.
Can I ask what your motivation in posting it was?

Because...I felt like it lol, and IMO it does solve any debate in the rules. I already PM'ed you my response to that message you sent me...for what ever reason. Nuff said.

Also I don't believe you can use a psychic power to DoG, as you have to activate it and not just roll for the automatic hit with a weapon. We consider it a power/item and not a weapon carried,. At least thats how our group plays. How ever if I was playing you i'd say eff it, roll your powers, more choas, more carnage, more fun I say.

Scott-S6 wrote:
Yes, and with something like Lysander having Bolster Defenses or Doom having Warptime we have a really strong indication that the RAI does not match the RAW.

There is no such indication for PSAs and DoG. The wording of DoG is clear and functional. There is nothing to suggest that it's an error.

Of course not; there IS no error. PSAs interact just fine with DoG.

Using a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon.

DoG allows you to fire a ranged weapon when tank-shocked.

If a PSA 'counts as' firing a ranged weapon, that means that using it can be treated exactly like firing a ranged weapon unless a specific exception is made. There is no such specific exception. Since DoG allows you to fire a ranged weapon, it therefore also allows you to use a PSA.

NOOOOO BeRzErKeR! Don't get sucked into the Vortex! Turn away before it's too late!

Actually the rules do not state you can make a ranged attack. It says that the attack can be a shot (singular) from a weapon carried by the model. As is this is one of those arguments that neither side will agree to, and if you and your opponent cannot agree should be rolled off on. And before anyone says anything, I am aware of the tenets of this forum referring to tmir. However, it's yet another poorly written rule (CURSE YOU MATT WARD!!!). Ahem, sorry about that.

You kind of have to parse the wording here.

The DoG rule says that you can use "a weapon carried by the model" in DoG. I believe that's the exact wording, but I don't have my BGB here with me; if I'm wrong, by all means correct me.

Assuming that I'm correct on the wording, psychic powers are allowed. Why? Because using a PSA "counts as firing a ranged weapon". Which means that, effectively, as soon as you declare you're going to use the power a 'ranged weapon', which the model possesses, is being fired; this 'ranged weapon' just happens to require a Psychic Test in addition to or instead of the normal BS test. It counts as being exactly the same as a gun with the same profile for all game purposes. If you can use a ranged weapon, you can use PSA; that's what 'counts as' means. Only if there was a specific exception would they be disallowed, and there isn't one.

There are two objections that can be (and have been, in this thread) raised; one is easily defeated, the other may be technically correct depending on your definitions of a word, but quite TFG-ish and has implications on play outside of PSAs.

First; the objection that PSAs are not treated as weapons in any other way. For example, you cannot remove one of a Librarian Dreadnought's PSAs if you get a 'Weapon Destroyed' result. The answer to this is. . . well, yes. The PSA ONLY counts as a ranged weapon when it is being used; which means in your Shooting Phase after you've declared that it's going to be used, and possibly for a short time during your opponent's Movement Phase if you're using it to DoG. Furthermore, once the shot is resolved it immediately CEASES to "(count) as a ranged weapon", and so there is never any time when it 'counts as a ranged weapon' during which your opponent can shoot at the model. Now, theoretically, if your opponent had a model with a special rule that let it interrupt your Shooting Phase after you'd declared that your Librarian Dreadnought was going to fire a PSA, then it COULD remove the PSA on a 'Weapon Destroyed' result; because right then, the PSA DOES '(count) as a ranged weapon', and as such is a valid choice. Since no such model exists, however, it isn't possible at present.

The second objection is that the PSA is not 'carried' by the model, and the DoG rules require that you use a 'carried' weapon. This depends on how you define 'carried in the context of 40k. If you interpret 'carried' to mean 'present on the model's profile/list of wargear & abilities' (which I do, for the sake of simplicity) then it's wrong; the PSA is 'carried', and when used it counts as a weapon. However, if you interpret 'carried' to mean 'physically carried the model, WYSIWYG' then it's correct; PSAs are usually not modeled on the figure, and so cannot be used in DoG. However, this interpretation leaves us with a rule that is both curiously inconsistent and has some unfortunate side-effects.

The most obvious issue is that any psyker which DOES happen to have a psychic power represented visually CAN use it in DoG; if your Librarian Dreadnought has a Blood Lance spewing out of its shoulder, it can DoG with it, because it is clearly 'carrying' it and it counts as a ranged weapon when used. That's modeling for advantage under this interpretation, since it gives the psyker an ability that the standard miniature doesn't have.

Also, Obliterators do not have enough guns modeled onto their bodies to represent all of their possible weapon options. If you follow the second interpretation of 'carried', you'll need to ask your opponent which weapon each modeled gun-barrel represents and record them somewhere, as any weapons not present on the model cannot be used for DoG. Arguably, they can't use their Power Fists either. Of course, modifying the standard Citadel miniature to have more guns or obvious Power Fists would be modeling for advantage.

In addition, If a player happens to have upgraded a unit with grenades or meltabombs, and hasn't physically placed grenades on the models, they cannot be used for DoG. Since you're technically supposed to represent all optional equipment in WYSIWYG manner, this CAN be fixed without modeling for advantage.

And finally, if for whatever reason someone has posed their model in such a manner that a weapon is not actually touching them (If your Clown Marine is juggling his Meltagun and you've held it up in midair with a bit of wire, to give a silly example), or has a minor piece of 'counts-as' instead of the weapon (A Khornate Chaos Lord using an Ultramarine corpse as a Power Fist, for example, or the old Ghazghkull model which has a curved sword instead of a Power Klaw), that weapon ALSO cannot be used in DoG, because of course the model isn't 'carrying' it. Since this would require significant conversion (except in the case of the old Ghazghkull model), under this interpretation doing so would be modeling for DISadvantage, and while there's no specific RAW behind it GW has indicated repeatedly in their rulebooks that they do not penalize players for creative modeling and posing.

I'm sure there are more examples that a diligent searcher could discover, but I believe this is enough to make my point. Given that both interpretations of the word are equally valid and consistent with the RAW, I choose to follow the one which causes no issues with the game, allows both players to use the abilities and weapons which they paid points for, does not create situations which seem to go against precedent by punishing players for creative conversions, and is least likely to cause bad feeling.

Now, all that said; if you're convinced the second interpretation is correct, AND willing to accept all the other issues it causes, then you are technically just as correct as those who choose to accept the first interpretation. However, if you disallow PSAs in DoG but still let other models use their non-modeled meltabombs, Obliterators use their Power Fists, or converted models use their counts-as weapons, I'm afraid you're wrong. You can have it one way or the other RAW, but you cannot disallow ONLY PSAs and not the other things without a house rule.

Raw!

Using RAW to determine what a rule actually says and attempting to play the game by this straightjacket is not one and the same.

Imo, persue the RAW until it fails (it will in a large % of cases), then rebuild with the remains.

Find out what can and can't apply then use or discard.

I would start with "Attack".
Ccw/ranged = irrelevant.

Can you use a "weapon" to attack? = yes.
Do you need to be "carrying" a weapon to attack? = no.

If we check ranged weapons pg28, we find that models are "armed" with rapid fire weapons, whereas models "carry" assault weapons.

Is this relevant? = no.

On p42, we find that witchblades are "carried" by eldar psychers and models can be armed with rending weapons.

Is this relevant? = no.

Lets apply this logic to tank shock and dog.

I have mythical model "pilchard."
Pilchard has a ranged attack eminating from bad breath.
Does he carry this? = no. Can he use it as an attack to dog? = yes.

Pilchard is a monstrous creature.
Does he carry this? = no. Can he use it as an attack to dog? = yes.

I would sauggest that this would put paid to "carrying" as a term enforceable under RAW in this case.

Well I'm not going to read through a lot of this, it seems more like a shoving match then a decent conversation, alas I'll just bring up a little thing and maybe it will help clear some heads.

Since DoG auto hits the target, a player using a PSA could argue that they need not take their psychic test, because the ability is suppose to auto hit (and if they fail their test it won't have the chance to hit). Now obviously we always want to require a psychic test of our opponents since it can potentially kill the caster, and so to avoid making an issue more convoluted it seems simplest to not allow a PSA during DoG and keep the game flowing and friendly. Best of luck to you all, I hope you can all come to a sensible agreement on this issue.

GreyChaos wrote:Well I'm not going to read through a lot of this, it seems more like a shoving match then a decent conversation, alas I'll just bring up a little thing and maybe it will help clear some heads.

Since DoG auto hits the target, a player using a PSA could argue that they need not take their psychic test, because the ability is suppose to auto hit (and if they fail their test it won't have the chance to hit). Now obviously we always want to require a psychic test of our opponents since it can potentially kill the caster, and so to avoid making an issue more convoluted it seems simplest to not allow a PSA during DoG and keep the game flowing and friendly. Best of luck to you all, I hope you can all come to a sensible agreement on this issue.

'Never got the chance to hit' and 'failed to hit' aren't the same thing. The Psychic Test has nothing to do with hitting with the power, and is still required in DoG.

Also, as I have pointed out just three posts above, if you're following the RAW you CAN disallow PSAs in DoG, but doing so also means you have to disallow a bunch of other things, and it's really rather silly. You can house-rule it, of course. . . but personally, I would never make a house-rule that so blatantly removed a legal ability from a class of models, particularly not for the sake of keeping things 'simple'. I don't want to appear rude, but 40k is NOT a simple game, and making it trivially simpler does not appear, to me, to be worth nerfing a bunch of models for no other reason.

I would say no to PSA in DoG. First of all wording. You may not agree but I think psychic power is not "carried weapon".

Putting this aside I really think allowing PSAs will mess things more than it helps. Weapons (mostly) have a simple way of resolving hits. We have a standardized(?) weapon template and there are very few weapons which are troublesome. PSA bring much more to the table.
Can you honestly say that there won't be ANY problems with allowing powers like:
* JotWW - I auto hit. I know I can't harm vehicle but after hitting I can draw a line (this is effect of the spell, not a way to hit) and kill some models behind vehicle..
* Murderous hurricane - let's say I tank shock with falcon 6" from priest and I want to move 24". When do I test for difficult terrain? At the end, immediately, I go back to the start? Does this immobilized result stop vehicle and prevent death?
* Eldrich Storm - I know, I know "used in shooting phase". However if we allow PSAs because wording is 'sketchy' because they work like weapons I demand to allow ES because! So, (as someone already mentioned) when does the spinning occurs?
FYI those may not be 100% accurate but show that there will be disputes with some PSAs against DoGs. Of course they may be resolved, but why stretch rules and allow PSAs if this only leads to more problems? Again, not my interpretations - just examples of possible issues.

EDIT: Friend pointed out MH works only on the next turn.

Macok wrote:
Can you honestly say that there won't be ANY problems with allowing powers like:
* JotWW - I auto hit. I know I can't harm vehicle but after hitting I can draw a line (this is effect of the spell, not a way to hit) and kill some models behind vehicle...

So, you're going to Death or Glory with a power that has no chance to stop the tank that's going to run you down? Just to snipe a few models behind it, possibly?

Yes, I'll allow you to do that.

puma713 wrote:

Macok wrote:
Can you honestly say that there won't be ANY problems with allowing powers like:
* JotWW - I auto hit. I know I can't harm vehicle but after hitting I can draw a line (this is effect of the spell, not a way to hit) and kill some models behind vehicle...

So, you're going to Death or Glory with a power that has no chance to stop the tank that's going to run you down? Just to snipe a few models behind it, possibly?

Yes, I'll allow you to do that.

Snipe a few models behind it that he doesn't want shooting/assaulting the rest of his army, sure. You can't say that would never be a good use of the power.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Macok wrote:
Can you honestly say that there won't be ANY problems with allowing powers like:
* JotWW - I auto hit. I know I can't harm vehicle but after hitting I can draw a line (this is effect of the spell, not a way to hit) and kill some models behind vehicle...

So, you're going to Death or Glory with a power that has no chance to stop the tank that's going to run you down? Just to snipe a few models behind it, possibly?

Yes, I'll allow you to do that.

Snipe a few models behind it that he doesn't want shooting/assaulting the rest of his army, sure. You can't say that would never be a good use of the power.

You're right, I can't say "never", but to take a chance that 1) the power might not be cast, 2) the power might be Hooded/Nullified and 3) the models you're actually aiming for may pass their Initiative tests for a free 100+ pt. Rune Priest is not something that I would recommend.

Macok wrote:I would say no to PSA in DoG. First of all wording. You may not agree but I think psychic power is not "carried weapon".

Putting this aside I really think allowing PSAs will mess things more than it helps. Weapons (mostly) have a simple way of resolving hits. We have a standardized(?) weapon template and there are very few weapons which are troublesome. PSA bring much more to the table.
Can you honestly say that there won't be ANY problems with allowing powers like:
* JotWW - I auto hit. I know I can't harm vehicle but after hitting I can draw a line (this is effect of the spell, not a way to hit) and kill some models behind vehicle..
* Murderous hurricane - let's say I tank shock with falcon 6" from priest and I want to move 24". When do I test for difficult terrain? At the end, immediately, I go back to the start? Does this immobilized result stop vehicle and prevent death?
* Eldrich Storm - I know, I know "used in shooting phase". However if we allow PSAs because wording is 'sketchy' because they work like weapons I demand to allow ES because! So, (as someone already mentioned) when does the spinning occurs?
FYI those may not be 100% accurate but show that there will be disputes with some PSAs against DoGs. Of course they may be resolved, but why stretch rules and allow PSAs if this only leads to more problems? Again, not my interpretations - just examples of possible issues.

EDIT: Friend pointed out MH works only on the next turn.

Yes, I can and in fact DO say that there won't be ANY problems with allowing PSAs to be used in DoG attempts.

JotWW: What problem? You draw the line, I take the Initiative tests, then your Rune Priest dies automatically because you didn't stop the tank. Except, of course, that JotWW requires that you have LOS to the first model the power AFFECTS, not the first model the line TOUCHES; and it doesn't affect vehicles, so you cannot snipe out anything behind the tank. You can only use it against models that you can see around the sides of the tank, because you cannot draw LOS through it. So using JotWW in DoG is an excellent way to commit suicide without accomplishing anything, and if you want to do so you are allowed to.

Murderous Hurricane; Your friend already answered this. Once again, no problem, just a good way to commit suicide and not accomplish anything.

Eldritch Storm; First off, we are not allowing PSAs because the wording is 'sketchy', we're allowing PSAs because the rules SPECIFICALLY TELL US WE CAN. So, FIRST, you need to prove that using it is in fact legal, not by saying 'because' but by quoting the rules. Now, since all ranged weapons can normally only be used in the Shooting Phase, that isn't hard; all the same arguments apply, do long as Eldritch Storm is defined as a PSA.

When it comes to the actual effects, it doesn't matter when the spinning occurs. Tank Shocking requires that you declare how far the tank is moving beforehand; if that distance would place it atop or move it through another model, a Tank Shock occurs. DoG specifically states that unless you STOP the tank by Destroying, Stunning, Exploding or Immobilizing it, the model attempting DoG is killed. So regardless of when the spinning happens, your Farseer still dies unless he STOPS the tank, and the squad Falls Back automatically. For the third time; a good way to commit suicide without accomplishing anything.