GK vs. DE

[RedMoon]

i dont think it needs to be FAQ'd at all its pretty clear. any ability that targets a psyker only effects the justicar....the crucible says it effects any psyker...thats the same as saying its targeting psykers...so only effects one model.

[Decoy]

Then if it's a Leadership test, the vehicles are indeed immune. That's a slight load off my chest.

 

I tend to agree that only one model will be affected, simply because it'd be damned OP otherwise in my opinion. However, ultimately an FAQ would probably be best, as the locals seem to think that because "a grey knight unit counts as 1 psyker", then "any psyker" is read as "The Grey Knight Unit". Grammatically, that's the way it works out, and I can't really find a way to argue against it other than RAI. I've literally not got a leg to stand on otherwise, because of the way that the GK is phrased and because Crucible doesn't target anything.

 

ON EDIT: Redmoon, I think you need to read the arguments above. Crucible doesn't target anything; it's Area Effect. "Affecting" something and "targeting" something are not synonymous, which is where the majority of the conflict arises.

[Vindicatus]

I actually do think it needs to be FAQ'd just to put the question to rest of whether or not Aegis/Reinforced Aegis comes into play as well as who and what it's allowed to 'target' under the effect, because despite what we say here, people are going to argue this one into the floor at gameshops.

[RedMoon]

well if there gonna be that much of a but hole about it just run 3 heavy rifle dreads and 3 venerable rifle dreads with psycanon rounds and blow up all there vehicles first turn lol cant use the crucible if you never get to me lol :cuss

[ToI]

Does lead to questions what happens to a tranport's content when it is removed from play thoug.

 

 

That reason, is exactly why I think they will rule the Crucible doesn't affect vehicles...the logical thing would be to have the squad go with it, as the transport is going *fwoop* off into oblivion, it isn't getting destroyed in a manner that would open it for the guys to get out before it does the death spiral into a black hole. that's the logical way to think about it, the gameplay balancing way to look at it is for them to get out and just be standing there...angry...and alone...poor guys

[Brother Valerius]

The CoM targets every psyker. So if it hits the GK unit, you only hurt one model! as said in the rules that i typed in. Yes, that would mean vehicles are vulnerable to this piece of wargear. Is it a shooting attack?

 

That's what I'm getting at. No, it's not shooting. It's done instead of shooting, but it's not an attack, and it doesn't require you to target anything. It's like a blast template. Everything within 3d6".

 

Because it doesn't "target" anything, (the wording is "any Psyker within...") and is a blanket effect, it wouldn't apply to any "targeting" rules such as things like Aegis, Shrouding, et cetera. Likewise, it wouldn't fall to "specifically targeting psykers", simply because by virtue of the rules and how Crucible is written, it does not "target" anything, falling short of the requirements to only take casualties on the Brother Captain/Flame Knight.

 

That isn't true. Because it ONLY affects psykers, it "specifically targets" psykers. If it was not specifically targeting psykers, it would affect everything. Thus, it affects one model, not the whole squad. Yes, this is not technically clarified in the rules, but the way English works gives us the answer (and as the rules are, of a necessity, built on the foundation of the language the codex is written in, the rules of that language must apply unless the codex specifically says otherwise).

[Decoy]

That isn't true. Because it ONLY affects psykers, it "specifically targets" psykers. If it was not specifically targeting psykers, it would affect everything. Thus, it affects one model, not the whole squad. Yes, this is not technically clarified in the rules, but the way English works gives us the answer (and as the rules are, of a necessity, built on the foundation of the language the codex is written in, the rules of that language must apply unless the codex specifically says otherwise).

 

 

Yes and no. I concede that it does specifically interact with psykers, but I cannot justify that it targets them. You're using an oblique definition of "Targeting", based around what essentially boils down to "it's designed against". While yes, by definition, that is "Targeting", in the process of this game, targeting is very clearly outlined. It involves a designation of a specific unit or model, and Crucible does neither.

 

Moreover, since 40K relies on a permissive rules-set, we have to take that into account as well. Is Crucible allowed to affect Psykers? Yes. Is it allowed to target them? I don't think there's room for much debate in the "No" of it, simply because it -cannot- target them. If Crucible targeted a model (or unit, in this case) then the bearer of the Crucible would have to assault that unit. However, since Crucible is an area-effect ability, it no longer meets the qualification for targeting a unit; effectively, a unit with Crucible could assault whatever it damned well pleased simply because Crucible -does not- target a unit, or a Psyker, much the same as a Vindicator round that scatters into Squad B when it was -targeting- Squad A is not, in fact, targeting Squad B. I appreciate the attempt at appealing to the English language, but because English is a finicky thing, it's quite unreliable as a source of rules justification.

 

Also... To emphasize...

Yes, this is not technically clarified in the rules

 

That sentence effectively mitigates whatever it is related to. If something is not clearly or "Technically" clarified in the rules (Remember, rules are kind of important in most games), then that "something" does not happen, especially in a permissive rules-set.

 

If the rules don't say you can do it, you can't. As it stands, the rules say that "A Psyker", which applies to a GK squad. Since Crucible does not target (because the rules don't say that it does), the entire squad is eligible for removal.

[Vindicatus]

Breaking it down even further...

 

Can CoM affect or 'attack' any other unit, other than psykers? No. It affects psykers, and psykers only, and based on that fact alone, it SPECIFICALLY targets psykers (much like psyk-out grenades). You just have to be there. Wouldn't this, in effect, count as 'targeting psykers' and give the appropriate defenses against it via BoP and stretching even further, Aegis?

 

Perhaps if they reword one or all instances of it to something along the lines of 'attacks that specifically affect psykers' there wouldn't be so much confusion, but I'm still going to stand by the mindset of an attack that only affects psykers thusly counts as targetting them, thus applying the appropriate defenses against it.

[Brother Valerius]

That isn't true. Because it ONLY affects psykers, it "specifically targets" psykers. If it was not specifically targeting psykers, it would affect everything. Thus, it affects one model, not the whole squad. Yes, this is not technically clarified in the rules, but the way English works gives us the answer (and as the rules are, of a necessity, built on the foundation of the language the codex is written in, the rules of that language must apply unless the codex specifically says otherwise).

 

 

Yes and no. I concede that it does specifically interact with psykers, but I cannot justify that it targets them. You're using an oblique definition of "Targeting", based around what essentially boils down to "it's designed against". While yes, by definition, that is "Targeting", in the process of this game, targeting is very clearly outlined. It involves a designation of a specific unit or model, and Crucible does neither.

 

Moreover, since 40K relies on a permissive rules-set, we have to take that into account as well. Is Crucible allowed to affect Psykers? Yes. Is it allowed to target them? I don't think there's room for much debate in the "No" of it, simply because it -cannot- target them. If Crucible targeted a model (or unit, in this case) then the bearer of the Crucible would have to assault that unit. However, since Crucible is an area-effect ability, it no longer meets the qualification for targeting a unit; effectively, a unit with Crucible could assault whatever it damned well pleased simply because Crucible -does not- target a unit, or a Psyker, much the same as a Vindicator round that scatters into Squad B when it was -targeting- Squad A is not, in fact, targeting Squad B. I appreciate the attempt at appealing to the English language, but because English is a finicky thing, it's quite unreliable as a source of rules justification.

 

Also... To emphasize...

Yes, this is not technically clarified in the rules

 

That sentence effectively mitigates whatever it is related to. If something is not clearly or "Technically" clarified in the rules (Remember, rules are kind of important in most games), then that "something" does not happen, especially in a permissive rules-set.

 

If the rules don't say you can do it, you can't. As it stands, the rules say that "A Psyker", which applies to a GK squad. Since Crucible does not target (because the rules don't say that it does), the entire squad is eligible for removal.

 

That isn't true, Decoy. If we establish that the rules of plain English do not apply, then we enter the zone of madness where we start questioning what "counts as" means, or any other of an infinite number of really petty arguments. The rules can explicitly override the plain language meaning of words (and frequently do), but when they do not, the rules of English are conclusive evidence in a discussion about the rules of the game. They must be, or else we couldn't begin to interpret the rules.

 

Now, let's discuss what "specifically targets" means. It means, as you said, singling out a specific unit or model (or any number of specific units or models). However, unless the quote for the crucible's rules is inaccurate, it does specifically target them. If it were not, it would hit every unit in range, not just psykers. That is a specific targeting, by definition. It does not target a specific psyker, but it does specifically target all psykers within range.

[Decoy]

TO the above two:

 

I think you guys are really getting hung up on the word "Target".

 

When a unit elects an enemy unit to shoot, said enemy is "Targeted."

 

When an IC is singled out in combat, he is "Targeted."

 

When all units of a given type are subjected to an effect, they are "Affected".

 

 

Psykers, in the terminology that you are using, are being "Affected", not "Targeted", as "Targeting" in the 40K rulebook is quite clearly defined, and it isn't what you guys are describing. I refer you, yet again, to the scattering of ordinance off of the -targeted- unit to -affect- a seperate, NON-targeted unit.

[Brother Valerius]

I don't have the BRB, as I'm at work. If you can find a citation in the BRB where it explicitly defines targeting as being the situations you describe, and ONLY the situations you describe, I will happily accept your argument. However, if the BRB doesn't explicitly define targeting, we need to use the plain English definition, which is not restricted in the way you describe it.

[Decoy]

I'll be home in about an hour, I'll have internet access in like... an hour and a half. I'll look it up around then.

[Decoy]

"Check line of sight and pick a target."

 

"At least one target model must be within range..."

 

"Roll to see if it hits the target..."

 

"The target unit suffers..."

(From shooting, Page 15, BRB)

 

"To determine if the firing models have hit their target..."

(Roll to Hit, P 17, BRB)

 

"A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat as its target."

 

"If no models have line of sight then a different target must be chosen."

 

"All models in the firing unit that have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit..."

(Pick a Target, P16, BRB)

 

"If the target is in range..."

(Blast, P 30)

 

"Barrage weapons can fire at a target they cannot see..."

(Barrage, P32)

 

"If you misjudge the distance and the unit is unable to reach its target..."

(Declare Assaults, P33)

 

"While blast markers and templates may not be deliberately placed such that they cover any models... ...may end up there after scattering and will hit any models they touch." (The only reason I quoted this is because it is a clear exception to targeting rules, an exception shared by Crucible.)

(Shooting into combat, P 40)

 

"Be aware, though, that this also means that independent characters can be targeted seperately by models engaged with them!"

(Independent Characters and Assaults, P 49)

 

"Independent characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets" (Emphasis mine.)

(Independent Characters and Shooting, P 49)

 

"If a psyker targets a unit with a psychic shooting attack, then he can only assault that unit..."

(P50, Psychic Shooting Attacks.)

 

"Vehicles and Cover- Obscured Targets"

(Vehicles and Cover-Obscured Targets, P 62)

 

 

 

I could go on. I hope the meaning of Target is quite clear; Targeting is a direct action that involves specific picking of a squad or unit. Such things as the Barrage and Blast rules make it clear that you must target a unit, but the scatter may -affect- non-targeted units.

 

Since Crucible affects non-targeted units, I can only assume that it would Warp-hole the entire squad(s).

[Vindicatus]

CoM selectively affects models on the table, thus they are targetted by the attack.

 

If you threw a grenade that only affects women under 5 feet, four inches, anyone want to take a wild guess as to who the target is?

 

Hint : it's not everyone.

[RedemptionNL]

Since Crucible affects non-targeted units, I can only assume that it would Warp-hole the entire squad(s).

Heh, by that same logic, would a GK Stormraven's Mindstrike missile or the Orbital Strike's Psyk-out Bomb suddenly affect the entire unit if it scattered on them from their original target, and only 1 if it was their original target? ^_^

[Decoy]

CoM selectively affects models on the table, thus they are targetted by the attack.

 

If you threw a grenade that only affects women under 5 feet, four inches, anyone want to take a wild guess as to who the target is?

 

Hint : it's not everyone.

 

 

See, that's not "targeting", that's being "selective" or "discriminating." A more apt analogy would be...

 

 

If you aim a sniper rifle at someone's head, that's targetting.

 

If you throw up a clusterbomb that selectively annihilates a given race or gene type, that's being selective.

 

 

To Redemption; It may very well be. I'm unfamiliar with those weapons, so I couldn't give you a definitive answer.

 

 

 

QUICKEDIT: If anyone here has played Magic: The Gathering, this analogy might do for ya.

 

Protection from [red] makes any red creature that has Protection from Red unable to be targeted by Red spells. Therefore, a Red spell that targets a Pro-Red creature is invalid, and fizzles. It does nothing. In fact, the ruling is quite similar to that of this issue at hand: A card with Pro-Red cannot be the target of red spells or abilities.

 

However, Protection from Red does not grant protection from effects that do not TARGET it. An effect that hits everything on the board, for instance, will bypass Protection from Red. A Pro-Red creature that happens to get hit by a Red board-damage effect IS NOT being targeted, and is -affected- normally.

[ToI]

CoM selectively affects models on the table, thus they are targetted by the attack.

 

If you threw a grenade that only affects women under 5 feet, four inches, anyone want to take a wild guess as to who the target is?

 

Hint : it's not everyone.

 

 

See, that's not "targeting", that's being "selective" or "discriminating." A more apt analogy would be...

 

 

If you aim a sniper rifle at someone's head, that's targetting.

 

If you throw up a clusterbomb that selectively annihilates a given race or gene type, that's being selective.

 

 

To Redemption; It may very well be. I'm unfamiliar with those weapons, so I couldn't give you a definitive answer.

 

 

 

QUICKEDIT: If anyone here has played Magic: The Gathering, this analogy might do for ya.

 

Protection from [red] makes any red creature that has Protection from Red unable to be targeted by Red spells. Therefore, a Red spell that targets a Pro-Red creature is invalid, and fizzles. It does nothing. In fact, the ruling is quite similar to that of this issue at hand: A card with Pro-Red cannot be the target of red spells or abilities.

 

However, Protection from Red does not grant protection from effects that do not TARGET it. An effect that hits everything on the board, for instance, will bypass Protection from Red. A Pro-Red creature that happens to get hit by a Red board-damage effect IS NOT being targeted, and is -affected- normally.

 

I swear I'm not going to get into an arguement of Magic mechanics on a 40k forum...*twitch*

 

right idea but wrong analogy. Crucible of malediction would be like saying "Copy this spell for all legal targets and resolve them individually" at least the way I see it. either way the arguement is going to just run in circle until GW says one way or the other...or just sits back and has a giggle while they watch us chase our own tails...

[Brother Valerius]

To be honest, Decoy, your quotes from the BRB don't constitute, in my eyes, an explicit definition of the word "targeting" to not cover all units of a given type. Those quotes are all using the plain English definition of target, not a specific, 40k-only definition. There's nothing in there that I see to support your statement of "When all units of a given type are subject to an effect, they are 'affected'. [not targeted]" You are claiming that a very narrow definition of "target" is in effect, but none of your quotes define it... they simply use whatever definition already exists.

 

Like I said, if there is an explicit definition of "target" (verb, not noun), and it says what you have interpreted, you have a valid point. If there is no definition, however, we fall back on the ordinary definition of "target". Quoting thefreedictionary.com, as I don't have a real dictionary on hand:

 

tr.v. tar·get·ed, tar·get·ing, tar·gets

1. To make a target of.

2. To aim at or for.

3. To establish as a target or goal.

 

Nothing in this definition says that an individual or group of individuals must be targeted, so something which affects a certain class of individuals indiscriminately can, indeed, be said to target them.

 

Based on current evidence, it doesn't appear that there is a specific 40k definition of the verb "target", so we use the English definition, which tells us that yes, the Crucible does specifically target the unit.

[Vindicatus]

Uhm.

 

Perhaps you missed the part where CoM only works on psykers.

 

Not you, ogyrns.

 

Not you, third commissar from the left.

 

Not you, random =][= henchmen carrying that wrench.

 

Psykers.

 

If it went off in the middle of a bunch of Guard platoons, what happens?

 

Nothing.

 

Why? Because CoM is discriminatory against psykers, and psykers only.

 

A virus bomb genetically set to wipe out all gingers on the planet (because apparently they have no souls, thanks South Park. :D), it would be a selective, descriminatory weapon despite covering the entirety of the planet. Why? Because it only affects one group. One SPECIFIC group, that match SPECIFIC parameters in order for it to successfully work.

[RedemptionNL]

I think the most important distinction is that the WH40k rules capitalize words that have a specific gameplay meaning. I.e.: 'To Hit' specifically means the gameplay mechanic of rolling to hit, versus regular plain ol' 'hit' which just means, well, hit.

The word 'target' appears in lowercase every time, which indicates it's just the regular English word.

[Decoy]

A virus bomb genetically set to wipe out all gingers on the planet (because apparently they have no souls, thanks South Park. :D), it would be a selective, descriminatory weapon despite covering the entirety of the planet. Why? Because it only affects one group. One SPECIFIC group, that match SPECIFIC parameters in order for it to successfully work.

 

 

Thanks for making my point for me. Not once did you say "Target", yet you accomplished the wording of Crucible perfectly. (back in a sec for more, gotta retrieve my BRB.)

 

Brother V, like the guy above, you make my point for me. To quote you,

 

To be honest, Decoy, your quotes from the BRB don't constitute, in my eyes, an explicit definition of the word "targeting" to not cover all units of a given type.

 

You're right. The quotes don't -have- to define targeting to "not cover all units of a given type." IT IS A PERMISSIVE RULES SET. If the rules do not say it happens, then it doesn't happen. If an ability does not say it targets, it does not target. ALL Psychic Shooting attacks use Shooting targeting. ALL abilities in Close Combat (Except for blanket ones, like Lukas) use close combat targeting. The Crucible is neither of these.

 

 

Take Lukas, for instance. His Stasis Bomb says "Any Model". Does that target anything? Hells to the no, because there is no targeting being made. It's a blanket effect that, no matter what, will -affect- something.

 

And since English is being whipped around here, I'll crack out my own degree and fight that battle.

 

"Effect: 1.) Anything brought about by a cause or agent." Let's see. Does Crucible? Well, by definition, yes, if a model is removed.

 

"2.) Influence or action" I'd say Crucible does this too; it forces a Leadership test.

 

 

Let's try Target now. Hell, for fun, let's use your definition. Actually, let's not, since yours is not "Target", but "Targeted", which, in the field of English, can make all the difference. (Moreover, web dictionaries are weak. Might I suggest even a pocket-sized one for your desk?)

 

"Target: "

 

The first two definitions don't have any bearing; they're archery-based, describing an actual target. However...

 

" 3.) Any object that is shot at." Well, seeing as Crucible doesn't shoot... Nope.

 

"4.) An object of attack, criticism, or ridicule." Since Crucible is NOT an attack... Nope.

 

Webster's New World, latest edition, if you're wondering.

 

 

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and include your own definitions, though they're for the wrong word (Targeted. If you're going to slack on your research, at least make it less obvious.)

 

 

 

tr.v. tar·get·ed, tar·get·ing, tar·gets

1. To make a target of.

2. To aim at or for.

3. To establish as a target or goal.

 

1.) Given the definition of the actual word "target" above? Nope.

2.) No aiming here; it's a BLANKET EFFECT, which is what I've been saying all along.

3.) This is the closest thing you can even begin to justify. However, as I mentioned earlier, your use of "target" is oblique, taking advantage of a word that means a great many things and using it to the most advantage suited to your argument. If you are really trying to foist off "I'm -targeting- Psykers because I want to kill them" (Goal, if you're wondering) as exempting an ability requiring actual targeting, which has been stated numerous times in the BRB in the exact definitions that I have provided, then you've been a lost cause from the beginning and had no interest in changing your mind, regardless of the evidence presented against you.

[Vindicatus]

I proved your point by stating that Crucible targets a specific group of models that fall under a specific heading in the rulebook by fact of discrimination of target preference?

 

Excellent. I'm glad we agree.

[Drachnon]

here's an idea: Just be friendly with your opponent and there's a good chance he'll agree that the brotherhood rule means only a single model is affected. And if he doesn't agree suggest to have the crucible count as an penetrating hit on vehicles with psychic pilots in compensation. Sounds like a reasonable offer to make for me.

[Vindicatus]

The Psychic Pilot rule doesn't come into play, as it is not a Psychic test required, but a leadership test. Vehicles have no leadership, thus are immune.

[Decoy]

I proved your point by stating that Crucible targets a specific group of models that fall under a specific heading in the rulebook by fact of discrimination of target preference?

 

Excellent. I'm glad we agree.

 

 

Ah, but that's where your wrong. You described Crucible perfectly, EXACTLY what it does, and not once did you use Target. Your very own words could have been substituted into the Dark Eldar dex and Crucible would have functioned no differently, and it -still- would have worked as I said it.

 

ADDED ON EDIT: I say yet again. 40K is a permissive rules set. If the rules don't say you do something, you don't do it. Crucible doesn't say you "Target". Therefore, you don't "Target".

 

Read the rest of my post above, please. I think you missed the whole "Target" and "Effect" because, by an actual dictionary definition, Crucible does not target jack.

 

Also, agreed on Psychic Pilot.

 

 

Crucible of malediction would be like saying "Copy this spell for all legal targets and resolve them individually" at least the way I see it.

 

More appropriately, it would be Hibernation: "Return all green creatures to the opponent's hands." Which STILL gets through Protection, because it's a blanket effect.