GK vs. DE

[Brother Valerius]

Vindicatus, you're right that RAW the vehicle is immune, but I have to imagine that the intent is otherwise, and that it will be corrected in a future FAQ. In the meantime, if an opponent is being difficult, it would be a pretty fair compromise to agree that the Crucible affects vehicles, but does not affect the entire unit at once.

 

Edit: didn't see your earlier post, Decoy. Sorry. Need to read that, then I can properly address you.

[Decoy]

Edited out, because of mild misunderstanding between Valerius and I (and an ill-timed post on both of our parts. )

[RedMoon]

but then if it dose certain things to psykers then i get to role leadership for every single guy in the squad not just make them all puff since there all "psykers" and thats RIDICULOUS..... brother hood of psykers is there for a reason. to stop your hole unit being taken away by things like this. if somebody pulls this crap on me im packing my stuff up and letting him have the game cause thats just stupid the rule is there in english....this whole thing is giving me a head ach to me its clear as glass.

[Decoy]

but then if it dose certain things to psykers then i get to role leadership for every single guy in the squad not just make them all puff since there all "psykers" and thats RIDICULOUS..... brother hood of psykers is there for a reason. to stop your hole unit being taken away by things like this. if somebody pulls this crap on me im packing my stuff up and letting him have the game cause thats just stupid the rule is there in english....this whole thing is giving me a head ach to me its clear as glass.

 

 

You're right. The rule is there. In English.

 

The GK rulebook makes the ENTIRE unit -A- (singular) Psyker.

 

Crucible effects ALL Psykers, and because of the GK rulebook, one GK unit is ONE Psyker. The entire unit is "A" Psyker.

 

Therefore, if "A" Psyker (read; GK unit) is within the range, the Psyker (Whole unit) makes a leadership test. Upon failure, the Psyker (The unit) is removed.

 

It's quite crystal clear. I'm surprised you're so ambivalent against the rules that are, as you say, clear as glass.

[Vindicatus]

Not using the word 'target' in my post and you hinging on it is like a court throwing an innocent man in jail merely because he didn't say 'I'm not guilty'.

 

What does the power do? It gibs psykers. Who does the ability/wargear target as a result of use? Psykers. "All psykers" means that it is selective, weeding out individuals in a unit (example : Inquisitor sitting in a band of warrior acolytes) to pick them out.

 

Discrimination of target preference denotes preference or sole use against specific.... targets. You are targetting a specific ruleset and model type with a piece of wargear, whether it be the one Farseer trying to skate out on a bike, or an entire batch of sanctioned psykers throughout nine different Guard platoons. Them, only them, and no one else.

 

Edit : Yes, "A" psyker. However, when dealing with things that target "A" psyker, as a psychic hivemind, it goes through the Justicar/KotF, then a random model afterwards who just got battlefield promoted.

 

I'm sorry, but a single piece of wargear that can obliterate an entire ARMY worth of models this isn't.

[RedMoon]

so you can take that part of the rule but not that it only effects the justicar then???? that looks pretty clear to me then.

 

Vindictus i agree with you 100%. i think we are just gonna have to agree to disagree cause this is going nowhere fast.

[Decoy]

Not using the word 'target' in my post and you hinging on it is like a court throwing an innocent man in jail merely because he didn't say 'I'm not guilty'.

 

What does the power do? It gibs psykers. true.

 

Who does the ability/wargear target as a result of use? Psykers. Incorrect. As stated, in a permissive rulesset, which you seem to not be understanding, if something does not say "This targets" or follows rules pertaining to targeting, then it does not target. It's simple. Anything else is blatant cheating.

 

Discrimination of target preference denotes preference or sole use against specific.... targets. You are targetting a specific ruleset and model type with a piece of wargear, whether it be the one Farseer trying to skate out on a bike, or an entire batch of sanctioned psykers throughout nine different Guard platoons. Them, only them, and no one else. How to explain this so you'll understand... Something can be -a target- while simultaneously not being -targeted.- That should do.

 

Edit : Yes, "A" psyker. However, when dealing with things that target "A" psyker, as a psychic hivemind, it goes through the Justicar/KotF, then a random model afterwards who just got battlefield promoted. Well it's yet again a good thing that Crucible doesn't target and never will, unless the entire English language changes around it.

 

I'm sorry, but a single piece of wargear that can obliterate an entire ARMY worth of models this isn't. Except when it is. Like now. Or until you can actually prove your point beyond what you're wishing really hard for it to be.

 

 

RedMoon, the part of the rule in question is inclusive of the Justicar. Moreover, because Crucible... For the Gods-know how many-ith time... doesn't target anything... the Justicar bit is superfluous at best.

[ToI]

so you can take that part of the rule but not that it only effects the justicar then???? that looks pretty clear to me then.

 

 

This is exactly what I have been thinking the whole time reading this. The Brotherhood of Psykers rule, has a clause in it that causes things like perils and attacks that harm the "psyker" to harm the justicar instead of the squad. As should be obvious because the language apparently isn't clear enough, this will have to get FAQ'd before the 2 sides agree on anything. And even then I'm sure that the side that doesn't get it their way will continue to argue and complain that the GW ruling isn't correct. Sorry had to say that...seen that scenario too much.

 

either way, I'm going to play as if it affects the Justicar (with permission from my opponent, as I would expect in reverse from a DE player) until the rulings from GW are made.

[Brother Valerius]

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.

 

The problem with your reasoning is that, permissive rule set or not, if it describes a situation that falls under the definition of "target", it is targeting, whether the original rule stated it that way or not. Many, many FAQ rulings have made it clear that common sense applies here, and the FAQ is just codifying it for those who still may doubt.

 

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.)

 

My word was "target", actually (you can look it up on the site I mentioned yourself if you don't believe me). The other words are conjugations. And, in any case, since it is the definition of a verb, the tense I looked up shouldn't make a lot of difference anyway. Also, your definition is for the noun form of "target", not the verb form, which is what is germane to this discussion.

 

Crucible does fall under the realm of an attack, by the way, in general English terms. I found the following for a complete quote of the rule for Crucible*: "Every psyker within 3D6" of the bearer must pass a leadership test or be removed from play as they go stark raving mad. No saves of any kind are allowed." When we look up in the dictionary, we are in the realm of English, not 40k rules, and an action which causes someone to go stark raving mad would certainly be an attack in normal English terms, even though it is not in 40k rules. Thus, the 4th definition you cite applies.

 

*http://secondsphere.org/index.php?topic=15701.0

 

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.

 

1.) The noun form of target, which you looked up, does indeed apply in its 4th definition (as I said above). Thus, since the Crucible "makes a target of" the psykers, it does indeed target them.

2.) True enough. Aiming does not cover this scenario.

3.) This could be argued, but not needed, because 1.) covers it nicely.

 

And, finally, I respectfully request that you stop getting personal with me. You have both insinuated that I tried to twist evidence to support my goal, and that I have never been willing to change my mind. Neither of these true, and although you and I disagree, I have been assuming that you are arguing in good faith. Even if I remain unable to convince you, I will STILL assume you have been arguing in good faith. Please show me the same courtesy.

[monkeyking]

but then if it dose certain things to psykers then i get to role leadership for every single guy in the squad not just make them all puff since there all "psykers" and thats RIDICULOUS..... brother hood of psykers is there for a reason. to stop your hole unit being taken away by things like this. if somebody pulls this crap on me im packing my stuff up and letting him have the game cause thats just stupid the rule is there in english....this whole thing is giving me a head ach to me its clear as glass.

 

 

You're right. The rule is there. In English.

 

The GK rulebook makes the ENTIRE unit -A- (singular) Psyker.

 

Crucible effects ALL Psykers, and because of the GK rulebook, one GK unit is ONE Psyker. The entire unit is "A" Psyker.

 

Therefore, if "A" Psyker (read; GK unit) is within the range, the Psyker (Whole unit) makes a leadership test. Upon failure, the Psyker (The unit) is removed.

 

It's quite crystal clear. I'm surprised you're so ambivalent against the rules that are, as you say, clear as glass.

 

 

Yes, except for the second bullet pointed part of the Brotherhood of Psykers rule that SPECIFICALLY states that Perils, or any other attack that specifically targets pyskers, is resolved against the Justicar, or the random GK that replaces him. No more, no less. The key part is the "is resolved against" not the "targetting" part. It doesn't continue on to say that if the Justicar, or random guy, fails then the whole squad shares his fate, so we must limit it to only the failing model.

 

There is no controversy here.

[RedMoon]

so if you had the answer in your head the whole time from your first post why would you bring it up to ask at all. i understand the vehicle bit but it looks like you had your mind made up already but asked anyway for the sake of arguing? as you said the codex states the ENTIRE unit is a psyker so by your saying and the wording of the rule only the justicar would be effected. you cant say it in one case to make your point then turn around and change it to make another point. you asked and the consensus is that it only effects the justicar we answered your question.

[Vindicatus]

Edit : I had a nice, longwinded reply, but I deleted it and am going to have to go with Redmoon on this, and simply agree to disagree until the GW FAQ team deems it necessary to clarify what is permissible via psyker defenses that the GK have, the wording of CoM, the wording of said psyker defenses the GK have, or a combination thereof.

 

Of the three local game shops in my area, I've spoken with the tourney ref's and runners, who are all in unanimous agreement that CoM will not, in fact, utterly destroy an entire army of Grey Knights due to dubious word choices in the codices. I'm content with that much, knowing that at least locally, I don't face off against an insta-gib-fest because someone wants to try to take a cheapshot with an inexpensive piece of wargear.

[RedMoon]

i need some tylenol now lol :lol:

[Decoy]

Ooh, this -has- been fun! However, I've hit my limit. I can't be responding to four posts with only one of my own, and since I'm only playing Devil's Advocate for this whole thing (I'm firmly of the mind that it's only Justicars/Sarges/Whatever y'all have that would be affected), I'll let this hit it's closure for now (not the least of reasons being that my lady just showed up.)

 

Seeya all in a bit! :lol:

[RedemptionNL]

Decoy, if you're so adamant about the word target, how do you explain the lack of the capital, as I noted on the previous page? Things that have strict rulings all have capitals in their rule, unless there is only one meaning to the word like bolter or thunderhammer. Words like Assault phase, Leadership test, To Hit, To Wound all have specific rules attached to them. There is no Targetting, only targetting, which to me seems it is just using the English word, and not a specific rule.

 

Not to mention that if there was a difference, all sorts of random rule quirks like GKs being the initial target of blast weapons that do extra things against psykers, or just have one scatter on them suddenly do different things, even if the same number of models are hit.

 

Edit: aww, much too late to the party :lol:

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't continue on to say that if the Justicar, or random guy, fails then the whole squad shares his fate, so we must limit it to only the failing model.

 

 

I'll have you know that if I failled a test I'd make sure my squad shared my fate. I'd hate to think they were missing out on anything...

 

Random Guy

[Whitefireinferno]

I would side with Decoy on this. I would not call it a attack from the DE thing nor does it Target. also the wording of the crucible does not state it is a attack. so as for the justicar bit it is not perils it is not targeting and well is not a attack its just something that happens if they Brainfart.

[muadib02]

if the crucible of maladiciton is not an attack what is it?

in this game units may only:

Move (move, run, charge, consolidate, etc)

Attack (shoot, psychic shoot, melee attack, otherwise affect enemy models)

Buff (affect friendly models, psychic powers, special powers, techmarine etc)

 

The crucible of Maladiction causes psykers within 3d6" to take leadership tests or be removed from play

Brotherhood of Psykers makes it that perils and any attack which targets psykers is resolved solely against the justicar (or random model)

 

The Crucible is an attack, because attacking is the only way Armies interact in 40k (even things like doom are still an attack, technically)

On top of this, the Crucible singles out Psykers for its effect, as such it is targeting them. The statement affects all psychers in this area and targets all psyker in this area mean the same thing. The act of singling out for effect is the act of targeting.

 

Therefore if you use the Crucible and i fail my leadership tests only the Justicar or designated dude dies.

[Brother Valerius]

I would side with Decoy on this. I would not call it a attack from the DE thing nor does it Target. also the wording of the crucible does not state it is a attack. so as for the justicar bit it is not perils it is not targeting and well is not a attack its just something that happens if they Brainfart.

 

It singles out only psykers within a certain range. That cannot be reasonably referred to as anything except "targeting" psykers.

[Godhead]

The way I've read this is that a unit (IE SQUAD of Grey Knights) counts as a single psyker. I don't have the "real" codex at hand but the leaked one under the brotherhood of psykers rule states that a unit of grey knights counts as a single pyker. The crucible would remove the WHOLE unit. If it's a psyker (even one lower GKSS) then the you would make a LD against the Justicar and if failed the psyker (.. aka the whole unit) goes away. Kind of sucks huh? If it's true, and Grey Knights can remove eternal warrior and gifts from daemons then I don't really see where you have any room to complain tbh. It's only a one use a game item though and it should be relatively rare that you'll fail the leadership test.

 

The argument about the attack only removing the justicar is wrong IMO simply because if you fail the LD test and remove the Justicar, you still have the ability to use psychic powers in subsequent turns, just resolved at a lower Ld value. Therefore the effect of the crucible wouldn't have been resolved correctly as it removes all psykers within 3d6 inches.

[Brother Valerius]

That's not exactly right, Godhead. You got the first part of the rule right, but to quote the second part from the real codex: "If the Grey Knight unit suffers Perils of the Warp, or any attack that specifically targets psykers, it is resolved against the Justicar or Knight of the Flame (if he is alive) or against a random non-character model in the squad if [he] is dead."

 

The rule seems pretty clearly intended such that you do not remove the entire unit. The sticking point which can be argued (and has been being argued, with Decoy playing devil's advocate here) are: is it an attack that specifically targets psykers? I say yes, because the Crucible affects psykers and only psykers. That is, to me, the definition of "specifically targeting psykers". The counterargument is that the Crucible doesn't "target" anything, it merely affects certain models within a certain area, so the "specifically targets" clause fails. The intent is clear enough, but it will probably take a FAQ entry to get everyone and his brother to agree that it is the ruling to follow.

[Godhead]

The crucible targets nothing. It only affects psykers the wording is clear that it affects many and all. It removes ALL psykers within 3d6 inches. The brotherhood of psykers rule states that a unit of grey knights is considered a single psyker. You resolve the leadership test vs the Justicar (using his Ld) and if it fails you remove the psyker from play (IE the entire unit as its 1 psychic entity). All it takes is one guy to ruin it for everyone. ;)

 

The crucible isn't thrown. You don't pick an enemy and its affect radiates from that. You open it and it Affects ALL psykers within 3d6 inches. Since you always use the highest leadership of a unit, you would test against the Justicar's LD value thereby resolving against the justicar. But in order to remove the psyker it has to take the entire unit. It's all or nothing. For as rarely as situation is likely to come up, it's not OMG OVERPOWERED. If you happen to lose the squad to it, it's just bad dice and it happens, although realistically It would be rare.

 

We can get into a huge debate over RAI vs RAW, but that really doesn't get anyone anywhere. RAW is the standard until an faq, errata, or house ruling dictates otherwise.

 

Tell me how you aren't following RAW when you resolve the crucible against the LD value of the Justicar and then removing the entire unit? Both rules have been satisfied in this way. By just removing the justicar then one rule isn't satisfied.

[Spacefrisian]

Weird i cant find the psychic reference in the Daemonhunter codex stating that all greyknights are psykers by rule, its not on page 8 where all the special rules are presented. Neither can i find the stuff that states the Vehicles as even having a psychic option available.

 

Unless its about the new dex that isnt out yet, making these argument kinda pointless.

[muadib02]

as multiple people have already stated in this thread

singling out psykers for effect is the same as targeting psykers

as such the Crucible targets psykers

therefore only the Justicar is removed

[muadib02]

as multiple people have already stated in this thread

singling out psykers for effect is the same as targeting psykers

as such the Crucible targets psykers

therefore only the Justicar is removed