GK vs. DE

[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

[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]

doublt post

[monkeyking]

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. :lol:

 

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.

 

RAW can only apply when your using the whole rule.

 

Because the second part of Brotherhood of Psykers says that If a GK UNIT takes a perils, or ANY (meaning the Crucible) negative effect against them as psykers, it is resolved against the Justicar, or random promoted guy. I don't understand how you can claim RAW says the unit as a whole is removed. The effect being resolved against the Justicar seems to be a pretty clear cut statement of whats supposed to happen.

 

There is no continuation of the rule saying anywhere that the squad suffers the fate of the Justicar or replacement.

 

Your interpretation is based on half the rule. Your argument is no different then saying that Slow and Purposeful USR gives you Relentless, but you can move normally because you didn't bother to apply the second half of the Slow and Purposeful rule because you didn't bother reading it that far or for whatever reason you might come up with.

 

The only real question is whether or not a psyker IC would have to test seperately from the GK unit its joined to. I'm thinking it would, but it's an argument that has latitude either way, really.

[Brother Valerius]

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.

 

Um, the two rules I quoted are two halves of the same rule. You can say the second half doesn't apply because the crucible doesn't specifically target psykers, but you can't say it does apply, but that you still remove the whole unit. That's just blatantly ignoring what the rule says.

 

Also, this isn't about RAW vs RAI. The debate is over what, RAW, is the proper way to interpret this. As I said, the opinion of myself (and most others) is that the crucible most certainly does specifically target psykers. It hits psykers, and only psykers, thus it targets them. The fact that it targets all psykers within 3d6" does not change this. If it did not "specifically target psykers", then it would hit all units, not all psykers. RAI is clear, everyone agrees on this. I also maintain that RAW is clear, and that the second half of the Brotherhood of Psykers rule applies.

[The Rose Princes]

The only real question is whether or not a psyker IC would have to test seperately from the GK unit its joined to. I'm thinking it would, but it's an argument that has latitude either way, really.

this one pretty cut and dry at least.... the unit is 1 psyker, the IC would be a separate one, they would each have to roll individually.

[Spacefrisian]

But its a ld test not a psychic test so why is the Justicars psychic test wording being qouted all the time while its not even used vs the Crucible..

[Brother Valerius]

It's not. The GK rule in question has nothing to do with a psychic test, it speaks to how to resolve something which specifically targets psykers, and that it is resolved on the justicar. You're talking about only part of the Brotherhood of Psykers rule which says to use the Justicar's Ld for psychic test, but that's not the part which is being quoted all the time.

[Whitefireinferno]

And everybody keeps adding in the word Targeting to the DE trinket, It causes a AOE that does its business to Psykers and has no word TARGET anywhere in it It just Absorbs any that fail the Ld test they get a new house.

 

So do landmines Target only army folk?

[Brother Valerius]

And your point is? If some country launched a program where all people of a certain description were to be thrown in prison, everyone would say it TARGETS those people. If the Crucible specifically aims for psykers, rather than having an indiscriminate effect, it TARGETS psykers. If you can find a specific, narrow definition of the verb "target" which the BRB or either codex gives, please share it. If you cannot (and I very much doubt you can), we get to use the English definition of the verb, which unquestionably applies here.

 

You're making a RAW argument without providing a rule to back it up. If you claim a narrow definition of "target" that excludes the type of action the crucible takes, you need to find it in the rules or else your argument carries no weight.

[Decoy]

Actually, the burden of proof would be on you, Valerius.

 

Crucible's wording does not include "target", therefore it doesn't. That's the way the rules work.

 

If you're attempting to prove that it -does- TARGET anything, YOU have to prove that it targets. Otherwise, it doesn't. That's just the way this rules system works.

[Hepburn]

Not to add fuel to the fire but as a tyranid player our latest FAQ states that aura type effects (Doom of Malan'tai's spirit leech for example) dont affect models inside vehicles. Are GK vehicles psykers THEMESELVES or are just the pilots psykers?!

[Brother Valerius]

Actually, the burden of proof would be on you, Valerius.

 

Crucible's wording does not include "target", therefore it doesn't. That's the way the rules work.

 

If you're attempting to prove that it -does- TARGET anything, YOU have to prove that it targets. Otherwise, it doesn't. That's just the way this rules system works.

 

No, Decoy, that's not how the rules work. As I stated earlier, any number of FAQ answers indicate that GW expects us to use a modicum of common sense when applying the rules (in fact, most of the FAQ answers are of the "you guys really shouldn't need us to tell you this but here it is" variety). So if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... it targets psykers. The burden of proof is on those who wish to claim their very narrow definition of "target". As I have previously stated, in the absence of a game definition we use the English definition, which says that it targets. Without a narrow game rules definition, there is no case for the "it doesn't target" crowd.

 

You're claiming that targeting is a specific, narrowly-defined game term which is never defined in the rules. It's an untenable position.

 

I'm going to now bow out of this discussion as well, because quite honestly, it's getting frustrating listening to everyone (except you) simply state the same tired line over and over again, without providing any arguments to back up their claim, simply treating it as self-evident. I enjoyed debating with you, but I'm obviously beating my head against a wall here.

[Whitefireinferno]

So because you have the ultimate power to add words to a ability to make you right I must be wrong correct? Because the Page number 60 of the Dark eldar codex clearly does not have the word Target it is a save or Die effect so if it said Target psyker or all targetable Psykers then yes as for this does not target or is a attack sure something used during the shooting Phase is not always a attack such as this then fails to be a Perils or targeting the squad. and as for the first part of brotherhood of Psykers on page 21 of the new GK dex says the whole group is a Single psyker mainly to avoid a assault 29 gun in the Witch hunter codex.

 

What you are saying is that we should just Pencil in to the DE codex the word this Targets things so we don't By a small margin manage to fail our leadership save and get swept. And you do say about most FAQs being more of a use your Brain and it makes sense your Point however does not you cannot add words willy nilly to suit.

[Justcar]

I don't claim the a rules lawyer, but...

 

In my opinion, in order for something to affect a unit, it must first target it. You target a squad with ranged weapons, causing that unit to be affected by those weapons.

 

I think arguing that the fact that two authors used two words should not confuse people. They mean the same thing in practice.

 

CoM affects only the justicar/random guy.

 

The intent is clear as day and even RAW there is no real arguement.

 

I don't know about tanks, I am more inclined to believe that it would affect vehicles, but that's just my mindset.

[Decoy]

Tanks are completely in the clear, GM. Crucible forces a Leadership, and since a vehicle doesn't have a Leadership, it can't fail the test.

 

 

To Brother Valerius: I'm sorry, mate. That's -exactly- how the rules work. The Crucible doesn't target unless the rules say it does. Many, many psychic powers and other abilities say "target unit" when referencing something. Crucible doesn't. Therefore, it doesn't target. If you want to insist that it targets, you're more than welcome to, but you need to prove it. To say the burden is on us to disprove it simply shows a lack of knowledge of proper debate; you can't prove a negative. The burden of proof, so to speak, is on the accuser. In this case, that would be you, claiming that Crucible targets when it does not say that it does. If you can prove it... (which I haven't heard from you or anyone who claims otherwise)... then the argument is yours, only the Justicar is hit. Otherwise, the Crucible does not target, meaning that the part about only the Justicar getting affected is moot, meaning the entire squad goes up in smoke.

 

However, I agree that this is an argument best left for the FAQs. I've no doubt that the -intention- is that it only affects the Justicar, but as it stands, the RAW wording is quite clear; it does not target, therefore the entire squad is forfeit on a failed leadership. This is one of those "Agree to disagree" things, methinks.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

Man, what's next?

 

An argument over whether dreadnought close combat weapons work on a dreadknight?

 

It's a game people, and the number one rule is having fun.

 

Sit back, take a hit of the bong, and just relax.

[RedemptionNL]

As there isn't a rule that narrows down targetting to a specific gameplay mechanic, we use the english definition. The dictionary entry of target (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/target):

 

2. An object of criticism or attack.

3. One to be influenced or changed by an action or event.

 

So, what's next? Are we going to argue that the rule of Crucible of Malediction isn't an attack because it doesn't use the word 'attack' anywhere in the CoM's description? :D

[Chengar Qordath]

So, what's next? Are we going to argue that the rule of Crucible of Malediction isn't an attack because it doesn't use the word 'attack' anywhere in the CoM's description? :D

I wouldn't be surprised. I've always been amazed at how far some people will go to twist the meaning of what should be a very self-evident rule when they think there's some advantage to be gained from it.

[Brother Valerius]

The thing is, Decoy, I have proved my claim. The BRB doesn't offer a definition of targeting, so I proved that yes, by the ordinary definition, it does target psykers. Those who still claim it doesn't are now claiming a very narrow definition of the verb "target", and the burden of proof is now on them to prove that definition applies.

 

The fact that the word "targets" is not anywhere in the Crucible rule is not germane to the discussion. If something meets the criteria of X, it is X even if it doesn't say it is. This is simple logic. If people are prepared to abandon basic logic, then there was no arguing with them in the first place. To quote Grey Mage: "GW doesn't say you need to read off the top of your dice either." I suppose we get to read off the sides or bottom of the dice because the BRB doesn't say we have to read from the top? The rules are not, cannot be all-inclusive. Common sense applies when the rules don't explicitly say otherwise, and they don't explicitly say otherwise here.

[ValourousHeart]

Man, what's next?

 

An argument over whether dreadnought close combat weapons work on a dreadknight?

 

It's a game people, and the number one rule is having fun.

 

Sit back, take a hit of the bong, and just relax.

 

Too late, that argument has already been started in another thread, they are also claiming that it doesn't get the bonus attack because the BRB rules for DCCW only reference WALKERS.

 

I agree that it is completely stupid... but I am less and less surprised at the lengths people will go to win.

I guess if they can't win legitimately then cheating is the next best thing.

[ToI]

Man, what's next?

 

An argument over whether dreadnought close combat weapons work on a dreadknight?

 

It's a game people, and the number one rule is having fun.

 

Sit back, take a hit of the bong, and just relax.

 

Too late, that argument has already been started in another thread, they are also claiming that it doesn't get the bonus attack because the BRB rules for DCCW only reference WALKERS.

 

I agree that it is completely stupid... but I am less and less surprised at the lengths people will go to win.

I guess if they can't win legitimately then cheating is the next best thing.

 

 

and this is what we call WAAC...I hate people like that, I usually avoid playing with them when I can, just because it only makes me angry.

[The Rose Princes]

"If you're not cheating, you're not trying." - Eddie Guerrero

[ToI]

That's the dumbest thing on the planet. If you can't win within the rules then you weren't meant to win...not trying hard enough has nothing to do with cheating