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.

 skchsan wrote:
RAW, in order for the CT to proc, you need to be destroyed as a direct cause of the attack (i.e. 'by an attack'), not subsequent effect of resolving the said attack.

I disagree with your classifying the ability as a subsequent effect. You've still not provided any actual rules quote for your definition of "an attack" that excludes a weapon profile or abilities. Whereas I've conclusively provided evidence than "an attack" DOES include those things.
The explosion example isn't the best analogy because the explosion doesn't come from the weapon, it's a function of that unit's datasheet instead.
I did see this counterpoint coming, so I'll copy/paste from before:

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

And what I've telling you is that determining whether or not ability of a weapon is part of an attack is inconsequential to the determination on whether the CT procs or not.

The CT proc has a very specific set of condition to be met: 1. model was destroyed by an attack in the shooting phase. 2. the attack was made by a model with CT.

If you cannot fulfill these two conditions, the CT cannot proc.

There's no provision in the rulebook to consider self inflicted wound/death as though one has been 'attacked'. All we know from what is provided in the rulebook is that you can wound yourself but you cannot attack yourself.

If you take a MW from overcharged plasma, you have only taken a wound as a part of the attack's resolution; you have not been attacked. You HAVE attacked, but you have not BEEN attacked. Very important distinction.

 skchsan wrote:
If you take a MW from overcharged plasma, you have only taken a wound as a part of the attack's resolution; you have not been attacked. You HAVE attacked, but you have not BEEN attacked. Very important distinction.

Yet again you've come up with something irrelevant. Here's that original trigger again:

"Each model destroyed by an attack made by a model with this doctrine"
The attack was made by a model with the doctrine, satisfying that part of this rule - why does it matter whether that model has BEEN attacked?

Regardless, you're still trying to argue that the words "destroyed by an attack" somehow magically doesn't include the Abilities tied to that attack. I've shown that they do, with rules quotes as backup - the onus is on you to prove that wrong. With a rules quote, please.

(added) it occurs to me that with all this quoting of the various parts of the attack rules, you might not be seeing how I've laid this out in my head. Hopefully this illustrates.
My point is that the wound only needs to have occurred as part of the sequence in yellow in order to trigger the doctrine, and supercharged plasma is only an exception to this because it specifically states it's to be resolved after the shot.

This is the precise "some serious mental gymnastics" I was referring to in page 1. Your arguments are 'what I think the rule is saying, because of fact 1, fact 2, fact 3, etc.' This is not a RAW argument.

[Destroyed by an attack by a model] != [destroyed by MW suffered from overheating plasma because overheating is an innate ability that plasma weapon has]. There is no rules text that support this idea because it's not written so in the rulebook. It is a conjecture based on series of inductive inferences. It may be a part of resolving an attack, but it is not the actual act of attacking.

Please quote me the rules that state "if a model is destroyed because of wounds suffered from overheated plasma, it is considered to have been destroyed by an attack by a model." As long as the said line does not exist in the rulebook, CT cannot proc off self wound/destroyed models by RAW.

 skchsan wrote:
Please quote me the rules that state "if a model is destroyed because of wounds suffered from overheated plasma, it is considered to have been destroyed by an attack by a model." As long as the said line does not exist in the rulebook, CT cannot proc off self wound/destroyed models by RAW.

Can you quote the rules that state "if a model is destroyed because of wounds suffered from a Sniper Rifle's special rule, it is considered to have been destroyed by an attack by a model"?

I'm pretty sure that that line does not exist in the rulebook, either.

Hell, I'm pretty sure that that line doesn't literally exist even for the regular damage of an attack.

 skchsan wrote:
It may be a part of resolving an attack, but it is not the actual act of attacking.

So that's the crux of the difference here? I understand. I don't think we're going to come to an agreement.
What concerns me is that the notion of what is/isn't an attack is left entirely to us players to determine, and we've just shown that it's up for interpretation. It's those edge cases that I'm thinking of - eg does it still count as part of the attack if you got the wound off a plague weapon reroll.

The rule for 54th Psian Jackals state “each model destroyed by an attack made by a model with this doctrine in your Shooting Phase is treated as two destroyed models in the following Morale phase” (‘PA: TGG’ pg. 65). In order to be “destroyed by an attack made by a model with this doctrine in your Shooting Phase”, we must follow the rules for making an attack with a ranged weapon.

We are told that “attacks are made using ranged or melee weapons” (‘core rule’ pg. 18). In the shooting phase, attacks are made using a ranged weapon. During the shooting phase, you must “select a unit to shoot with,” and then you must “select targets” in order to “resolve attacks with… weapons that models… are equipped with” (‘core rule’ pg. 15). We are told the sequence in which these action occur in: “when a unit shoots, you must select the target unit(s)… before any attacks are resolved”, but “only enemy units can be chosen as the target for an attack” (‘core rule’ pg. 15).

After choosing a target as per rules, we look at the rules for resolving attacks with weapons that models are equipped with. We are told to look at the datasheet in which “the ranged weapons that models in a unit are equipped with are detailed on” (‘core rule’ pg. 15), and “if any abilities apply to attacks made with this weapon profile, they are [also] listed” in the datasheet (‘core rule’ pg. 7).

So here we find that in order to resolve attacks with weapons that models are equipped with, along with any abilities that may apply to attacks made with weapon being used, you must first select a target before any attacks are resolved.

In order to be selected as a target of an attack, you must be an enemy unit. Because a friendly model is not an enemy unit, it cannot be selected as a target of an attack which must be resolved prior to following all other rules applicable. Therefore, a friendly unit can never be a model that is “destroyed by an attack made by a model with this doctrine in the shooting phase” because we cannot fulfill the conditions for making an attack with a ranged weapon.

Maethbalnane wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Please quote me the rules that state "if a model is destroyed because of wounds suffered from overheated plasma, it is considered to have been destroyed by an attack by a model." As long as the said line does not exist in the rulebook, CT cannot proc off self wound/destroyed models by RAW.

Can you quote the rules that state "if a model is destroyed because of wounds suffered from a Sniper Rifle's special rule, it is considered to have been destroyed by an attack by a model"?

I'm pretty sure that that line does not exist in the rulebook, either.

If the target is an enemy unit, then it is eligible to be selected to be attacked. When attacked by a shooting weapon, you resolve the shooting attack following the rules as detailed on the datasheet, including any abilities that may apply.

We can only follow the rules for resolving the attack if and when a target can be selected to be attacked.

Ahaaaa, now I see - thank you for including the rules quotes.
So, we're agreed that Abilities do count as part of attacks generally - as long as they affect the unit that was targeted, and if they affect a different unit, it's not considered part of the attack sequence that begins with targeting? This approach now makes sense to me, I didn't put enough stock in the link between targeting and the actual attack before.

Handily this covers the other cases I was thinking of like plague weapons and half-range meltas, while ensuring that any other "self-harming" effects like plasma are excluded.

 skchsan wrote:
When attacked by a shooting weapon, you resolve the shooting attack following the rules as detailed on the datasheet, including any abilities that may apply.

Including any rules that would result in, say...the destruction of the attacking model?

 Super Ready wrote:

What concerns me is that the notion of what is/isn't an attack is left entirely to us players to determine, and we've just shown that it's up for interpretation.

No we absolutely do not determine what an attack is, and it is not up to interpretation. The rules are clear when it comes to defining what an attack is.

Page 18 defines what an attack is under the "MAKING ATTACKS" section.

"Attacks are made using ranged or melee weapons" Then they list the 5 steps of the attack.

These are :
1) Hit roll
2) Wound roll
3) Allocate attack
4) Saving throw
5) Inflict damage

So if you are not using your attacks profile number and a melee weapon, or the number written on that weapon’s profile after its type for ranged attacks, then you are not making an attack.

P.S. Moth melee and ranged attacks specify you target enemy units.

 Super Ready wrote:

So, we're agreed that Abilities do count as part of attacks generally - as long as they affect the unit that was targeted, and if they affect a different unit, it's not considered part of the attack sequence that begins with targeting?

Well, not quite.

TLDR, there are numerous ways to kill yourself/friendly models by during a shooting phase, but whatever the means, it can never be qualified as to have been "by an attack made" against itself, because the RAW specifically defines the act of attacking as something that occurs from a model to/against enemy model.

I'm not sure if this scenario applies to this rule, but it illustrates the point well enough:

A leman russ overcharges its plasmacannons against an enemy unit, and has this rule about casualties from the attack counting as double.

The overcharge kills the tank, and the tank explodes, killing 2 models from a guard squad and 3 models from an enemy squad.

I wouldn't say that the explosion is an attack made from the tank, even if it was caused by the attack backfiring and exploding the tank.

Here's another example:

Your guard squad shoots at a transport and the transport dies. The transport explodes, killing 3 guys from an enemy squad, and then kills 2 guys as they disembark. I think that most of us will agree that the explosions and disembarking casualties do not count as being "destroyed by an attack" from the original firer, they are destroyed by the vehicles explosion rules.

In the same sense, an overcharging plasma user is not destroyed by the attack, it is destroyed by the wording of the rules.


Now this may be put-to-bed-able with strict RAW:

The rule states:

Each model destroyed by an attack made by a model with this doctrine in your Shooting Phase is treated as two destroyed models in the following Morale phase.

And then Plasma overcharge states:

On a Hit roll of 1, the bearer is slain

Note that one says "Slain" and the other says "Destroyed". Semantically, we find "Destroyed" as part of "Inflict Damage":

If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from play

So Technically the only way for a model to be "Destroyed" by an attack is for it to be reduced to 0 or less wounds. Plasma Overcharging does not cause the loss of wounds, it causes the bearer to be Slain - bypassing "destroyed" entirely.


To summarise:
Plasma Slays, Attacks Destroy. Only Destroy's matter.

That's a very thorny road to go down, because previous FAQs have clarified that "slain" does count as "destroyed" - I don't know if those particular parts of the FAQs are still around, mind.

 Super Ready wrote:
That's a very thorny road to go down, because previous FAQs have clarified that "slain" does count as "destroyed" - I don't know if those particular parts of the FAQs are still around, mind.

I agree that it's tenuous, but it's more of a RAW argument that whether a weapons ability to kill its own user is regarded as an attack made by the model in question. As one says "destroyed" and the other says "slain", it gives a distinction between the two which has to be accounted for.

Similarly, if (somehow) a big mek with a tellyport blasta had this rule (which he doesn't) then it would only count if the shots killed the target, and not if he rolls higher than their Wounds characteristic afterwards, because that invokes "Slain" not "Destroyed".

Also unresolved by "Slain vs Destroyed" sits the Executioner Plasma Cannon and similar weapon abilities that inflict mortal wounds on the attacker rather than killing them outright.

Maethbalnane wrote:
Also unresolved by "Slain vs Destroyed" sits the Executioner Plasma Cannon and similar weapon abilities that inflict mortal wounds on the attacker rather than killing them outright.

These units would then be "Destroyed" by the wording of it as they would lose wounds. I guess that puts us back to whether the weapons ability, which happens after the attack, is part of the attack. I'd say no, in the same way that the psychic phase, which happens after the movement phase, is not part of the movement phase.

The psychic phase happening is not contingent on specified events happening in the movement phase. These things are not the same.

The whole "destroyed" vs "slain" seems to be stemming from edition lag + GW being particularly bad at maintaining consistency in their language rather than something concrete enough to be used for this discussion IMO.

 skchsan wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:

So, we're agreed that Abilities do count as part of attacks generally - as long as they affect the unit that was targeted, and if they affect a different unit, it's not considered part of the attack sequence that begins with targeting?

Well, not quite.

TLDR, there are numerous ways to kill yourself/friendly models by during a shooting phase, but whatever the means, it can never be qualified as to have been "by an attack made" against itself, because the RAW specifically defines the act of attacking as something that occurs from a model to/against enemy model.

Your entire argument is based on one subjective interpretation of 'by', though. In a plain sense, 'by' could mean 'as a result of' or 'directly because of'. Saying overchage is 'by' an attack is just as definitionally correct.

"A model destroyed himself by overcharging his plasma" - grammatically, semantically & contextually correct.

"A model destroyed himself by attacking himself with an overcharged plasma" grammatically correct & semantically correct, but contextually incorrect as per provisions given in the rulebook.

Context matters.

"Overcharging" is not an action that units can take.
"Attacking with an overcharged plasma weapon", however, is.

The issue stems from whether the model is destroyed by the attack. I have already given evidence that the model is in fact slain by the effect. The only similar wording there is "by" and "the".

If you are out walking, and a bear attacks you, and you run away into the path of a lorry and are mown down, were you killed by the bear's attack?

If you are attacked by a bear, and then go to hospital and the surgeon nicks an artery and you bleed out, were you killed by the bears attack?

If you attack a lorry-driving surgeon with a bear, and the bear instead kills you, were you killed by your own attack (IE was it suicide?)

I mean... that's not really the best analogy because those of us who follow the Darwin awards would be quite happy in saying "yes" to all three examples.

 Super Ready wrote:
I mean... that's not really the best analogy because those of us who follow the Darwin awards would be quite happy in saying "yes" to all three examples.

you'd be killed because of the bear, but not by it's attacks - but I get your drift