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.

Couldn't find it because there isn't one.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Couldn't find it because there isn't one.

Please don't be antagonistic, Lobo. There's no reason for it. This is a reasonable rules discussion, and in this case Deathreaper is trying to present a legitimate rules argument. If he has found an example of this that I missed, then his argument will hold water, and I for one would love to know.

If we have new information to present, that's fine, but without it there's no reason to jump in just to dog-pile someone.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
Couldn't find it because there isn't one.

Please don't be antagonistic, Lobo. There's no reason for it. This is a reasonable rules discussion, and in this case Deathreaper is trying to present a legitimate rules argument. If he has found an example of this that I missed, then his argument will hold water, and I for one would love to know.

If we have new information to present, that's fine, but without it there's no reason to jump in just to dog-pile someone.

That wasn't antagonistic. Literally, there is no such ruling within the book, which brings us to our own interpretations.

Don't be so sensitive.

I am not dog piling, I looked for myself and I am in agreement with him

 DeathReaper wrote:
Target is a process, shooting attacks use the Target Process to determine what unit is selected for a shooting attack and is clearly defined in the BRB.

target is the normal English definition of the word and its definition should be used when not talking about the shooting process.

Plus the CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

Where was this logic in the Death Ray vs Invisibility thread?

-Matt

Target vs target: This is a distinction that does not exist in the rulebook. I all these years I have never heard anyone (including DR) present this distinction until this thread. It is never been mentioned in all the other similar rules issues: scattering blasts, death ray, Deathleaper, Invisibility, Vector Strike, hammer of Wrath, etc....

Target vs Hit: Being skipped over is the fact that BoP rule needs a unit to be targetted *and* only applies to allocating Hits.
Again, the above logic has never been applied to distinguish between Hits, and the English dictionary version of 'hits' when discussing things like Look Out Sir, HoW, VS, etc.


Possession: Again, this is not being addressed. CoM states to "remove the psyker", there is only *one* other time I can find this wording in the BRB, and that is the spell Possession. Where it *clarifies* that "remove the psyker" results in the entire unit being removed, not just one model.



FAQs: I agree that the previous FAQs, as 'clarifications', should be used when possible. But while the wording on CoM has not changed, there have been a *lot* of changes to how Psychic powers and psychic 'units' work, including the addition of another 'remove a psyker' effect in the game with a result that goes against what the FAQ would have implied.



I am, personally, willing to play with BoP only losing 1 model, because I think losing the unit doesn't 'feel right'... but that is not a valid rules argument, and there are a *lot* of rules in 40K that do no 'feel right'.....

The CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

As pointed out above, how psykers work, and how model vs unit is removed from play, has changed.
That, and the 6th edition FAQ is gone. To me, the change in how the brotherhood of psykers is removed is an indication of intent. When a psychic effect hits the brotherhood and removes a model, it takes out the whole unit.

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

That FAQ you are referencing is not current. Please label your post as HIWPI, it's not an acceptable source for YMTC.

How I myself would play it would be to have every psychic model in the brotherhood test. It's less of an all or nothing. You'll get some of them, and some will survive.

-Matt

It does not matter if that particular FAQ is not current. it was a clarification of the rules in an FAQ.

The BoB rules have very similar wording as 6th, CoM is the same, it was clarified to work a certain way in 6th, and since the wording on both of the rules in question has not changed, there is no reason to think it works any differently

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

Okay, but the very nature of psykers and how we play them has changed.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but have you got any rules support for the target/Target distinction? I'm not going to throw rocks at you if you think it's a "common sense" thing, I just wanted to know if you had any written rules that led you to that conclusion.

It does not matter that the very nature of psykers and how we play them has changed.

The Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers rules are almost identical to last edition, and CoM has not changed at all.

No reason to think a clarification on something that has not changed now affects Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers differently given their wording being very similar to las edition.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not matter that the very nature of psykers and how we play them has changed.

The Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers rules are almost identical to last edition, and CoM has not changed at all.

No reason to think a clarification on something that has not changed now affects Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers differently given their wording being very similar to las edition.

Tyranid FAQ flip flopping demonstrates that this is incorrect thinking.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not matter that the very nature of psykers and how we play them has changed.

The Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers rules are almost identical to last edition, and CoM has not changed at all.

No reason to think a clarification on something that has not changed now affects Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers differently given their wording being very similar to las edition.

Tyranid FAQ flip flopping demonstrates that this is incorrect thinking.

not at all, this has nothing to do with the Tyranids or their rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not matter that the very nature of psykers and how we play them has changed.

The Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers rules are almost identical to last edition, and CoM has not changed at all.

No reason to think a clarification on something that has not changed now affects Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers differently given their wording being very similar to las edition.

Tyranid FAQ flip flopping demonstrates that this is incorrect thinking.

not at all, this has nothing to do with the Tyranids or their rules.

The point is that you can't count on consistency, especially between editions.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not matter that the very nature of psykers and how we play them has changed.

The Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers rules are almost identical to last edition, and CoM has not changed at all.

No reason to think a clarification on something that has not changed now affects Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers differently given their wording being very similar to las edition.

Tyranid FAQ flip flopping demonstrates that this is incorrect thinking.

not at all, this has nothing to do with the Tyranids or their rules.

Right, and this also has nothing to do with an out of date FAQ. The current FAQ does not include that clarification. Your argument is RAI.

The crucible rules clearly state each model so why is this conversation still going on? It's not targeted and it doesn't hit the unit, it's every model with the psyker rule irrespective of bop or not.

Wait, if it says that it affects models with the Psyker special rule, wouldn't Brotherhoods be immune?

After all, the models do not have the Psyker special rule. The unit is a Psyker, but not the models within the unit.

If it just says "Psyker" then yeah, any unit within range including at least one model with the Brotherhood special rule would be affected and removed.

 Happyjew wrote:
Wait, if it says that it affects models with the Psyker special rule, wouldn't Brotherhoods be immune?

After all, the models do not have the Psyker special rule. The unit is a Psyker, but not the models within the unit.

If it just says "Psyker" then yeah, any unit within range including at least one model with the Brotherhood special rule would be affected and removed.

Under BoP
"A unit containing at least one model with this special rule is a Psyker unit..."
"The unit follows all the normal rules for Psykers..."

Crucible of Malediction
"Every Psyker within 3D6..."

It seems that the whole unit is removed.

It says each model has to take the test so I doubt it's the whole unit.

Without a doubt, all models are one psyker, and will be removed from play if the unit, which is one psyker, fails the Ld test.

1. Perils of the Warp affecting only one model in a BoP is clearly illogical, so it cannot be used as a reference point.

2. Psyker Ld Test > removed, the brotherhood of psykers counts as one psyker as per the rules. There are no hits to randomly allocate (as if it were one attack specific to a psyker), and CoM says "remove the psyker".

I see no reason why a Zoan brood would withstand a psychic blast that wipes a seerStar off the board, other than very stupid rules, such as those that are currently applying to BoPs for Perils of the Warp.

It may have been that RAI truly meant BoPs to laugh at perils, and maybe even at crucibles, but it makes sense to consider that it did not.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

No it doesnt cause it where 6th Edition FAQ and not 7th! If it should they could have done a simple copy and paste job, but they didnt. It may be youre personal wish, but you have no argument here. Otherwise we can argue, the helldrake has still a 360° firing arc, cause it was in the last FAQ. Or better, we can say template weapons hit only a single floor, cause it was in the 6th Edition rulebook, but isnt adressed in the 7th Edition rules...


RAW = latest BRB + latest Codices/Supplements/Dataslates + latest FAQ

Not in the latest FAQ = not RAW

Simple as that.

For the rulesquestion itself: Dont know the exact wording of BOP, but if it says the unit counts as a psyker of mastery Level XXX than it is removed competly in my interpretation of the rules, cause unit = psyker and crucible removes the psyker. Maybe someone could post the exact wording of both rules, so it is easier to discuss.

Only one psyker would be removed due to the wording in the Brotherhood of Psykers special rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Only one psyker would be removed due to the wording in the Brotherhood of Psykers special rules.

and what wording is that? please cite the relevant ruling


The one that says for if hit by an attack that targets psykers an Unit of BoP/BoS the hits (notice the plural) are randomly allocated to members with the BoP rule.

There is no longer blanket protection for only 1 model in a BoP unit that is hit by something that causes more than 1 model to be hit to only take 1 hit.

Additionaly CoM does not target or cause hits, as per its wording and rules.

It affects all psyker models in range, regardless of LoS or if they are in separate units. Obviously it is not a targeted ability and has no hit rolls.

At best each model in the unit would have to take a separate LD test. at worst the whole unit is removed.

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Only one psyker would be removed due to the wording in the Brotherhood of Psykers special rules.

and what wording is that? please cite the relevant ruling

I have, the Brotherhood of Psykers rules cover this situation.

The CoM is an attack that targets psykers so you only remove a random psyker.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Only one psyker would be removed due to the wording in the Brotherhood of Psykers special rules.

and what wording is that? please cite the relevant ruling

I have, the Brotherhood of Psykers rules cover this situation.

The CoM is an attack that targets psykers so you only remove a random psyker.

No, it's not. It doesn't target anything. Perhaps you'd like to respond to the posts challenging your statement instead of ignoring them?

I have, the Com targets all paykers. ergo the BoP rules cover the situation.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have, the Com targets all paykers. ergo the BoP rules cover the situation.

It does not target all Psykers.
You've literally invented that and are ignoring posts that prove otherwise.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have, the Com targets all paykers. ergo the BoP rules cover the situation.

It does not target all Psykers.
You've literally invented that and are ignoring posts that prove otherwise.

Actually it does target all psykers within its range.

I have shown why it does this above, and you guys have ignored it so...

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Target is a process, shooting attacks use the Target Process to determine what unit is selected for a shooting attack and is clearly defined in the BRB.

target is the normal English definition of the word and its definition should be used when not talking about the shooting process.

Plus the CoM was clarified in 6th and the wording has not changed so that clarification should still be used.

If a blast scatters and hits your own unit, did you target that unit?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CoM targets all psykers within range. if this happens you roll LD and if failed you remove one psyker since the attack specifically targets psykers.

The underlined is incorrect.

No it is not.

It does not Target them, but it certainly targets them...

No, it certainly does not.
"target" is the subject or aim of an attack or effect. The Crucible doesn't aim or pick a subject to devote energy to. It's completely uncaring as to who it nukes.

You're literally inventing things to try and make it work the way you think it should. You shouldn't do that.

RAW it's grey. I think it's only intended to remove one model from a BoP unit.

You never responded to either of these posts. Please don't ignore things. Let's have an honest discussion, okay?

I have ignored nothing.

All Psykers in range are definitely the "subject or aim of an attack or effect."

The Psykers within range are definitely the subject of an effect.

DR is fixated on creating a targeting rule in there. He will not change his mind, nor can he show any targeting. At this point the conversation will go in circles.