Grey Knights and Psk-out grenades

[spu00sed]

Grey Knight units are not technically Psykers, rather one of them is considered a psyker when casting powers or suffering perils.

 

So what happens when they are charged by a unit with psyk-out grenades?

 

1) The Justicard/Knight of the flame/random brother is reduced to I1

 

2) Nothing since they don't have the psyker rule

 

3) All the charged grey knights are reduced to I1

 

 

Personally I will be playing option 3 with my knights, but what is the concencus?

[imzra]

hi ya spu, i dont know for sure but...

 

when i play against our local power-gamers; the ones who only have 1 marine army (usually painted sprue-grey) but is GK,BA,SW,BT,DA, they insist it is (1) only their leader hits at I1

 

when i play with most of my friends who does use proper GK models and have been playing them for awhile we use (3)

 

again, im not quite sure how it works and we may have played it wrong but (3) is what most of our local GK players uses

[Angelis Mortis]

Grey Knight units are not technically Psykers, rather one of them is considered a psyker when casting powers or suffering perils.

 

So what happens when they are charged by a unit with psyk-out grenades?

 

1) The Justicard/Knight of the flame/random brother is reduced to I1

 

2) Nothing since they don't have the psyker rule

 

3) All the charged grey knights are reduced to I1

 

 

Personally I will be playing option 3 with my knights, but what is the concencus?

 

 

#1 is what happens. It's laid out clearly in the Brotherhood of Psykers rule.

[evileyevirtue]

Grey Knight units are not technically Psykers, rather one of them is considered a psyker when casting powers or suffering perils.

 

So what happens when they are charged by a unit with psyk-out grenades?

 

1) The Justicard/Knight of the flame/random brother is reduced to I1

 

2) Nothing since they don't have the psyker rule

 

3) All the charged grey knights are reduced to I1

 

 

Personally I will be playing option 3 with my knights, but what is the concencus?

 

 

#1 is what happens. It's laid out clearly in the Brotherhood of Psykers rule.

 

Here's the problem... it is NOT clearly explained in BoP. The grenades are not an attack nor do they cause PotW. Hence, the only part that applies is that the entire unit counts as one psyker, and thet they follow all the normal rules for psykers.

 

Now, the conundrum. None of the GK units have psyker in their profile, so they aren't really psykers in game terms. However, since they all "count as" being a single psyker, it would make sense that the entire unit would then suffer the effects of the grenades. The GK codex has suffered from really poor writing all over the place... which sucks because it is such a nice codex. But all things considered, I'd go with option 3 for the time being.

[Angelis Mortis]

I disagree. I think its very simple.

 

1)Psykout says "When a unit equipped with psykout grenades launches an assault, any Daemons or Psykers in the assaulted unit are reduced to initiative 1 for the remainder of the phase.

 

2)Brotherhood of Psykers says "If the Grey Knights unit suffers the Perils of the Warp, or ANY ATTACK THAT SPECIFICALLY TARGETS PSYKERS, it is resolved against the Justicar or KoF or against a random non-character model in the squad if they Justicar or KoF is dead.

 

It very clearly spells out how to handle it. The grenade is an attack. The fact that you think it isn't is where your missing it I think.

[Chairman_woo]

It very clearly spells out how to handle it. The grenade is an attack. The fact that you think it isn't is where your missing it I think.

 

I completely agree however I can't recall anywhere in the books that appears to specificaly say so, concequently this point will likely be argued constantly by "those people" untill FAQ, or untill someone find the semantical "magic bullet".

[Chengar Qordath]

Well, I think it hinges on the question of whether or not a Psyk-out Grenade's effects are an "attack." I could see the argument either way (Depends on whether you define an attack as something that inflicts damage/wounds, or if just a debuff is enough to be an attack); probably another issue that needs an FAQ.

[Angelis Mortis]

It very clearly spells out how to handle it. The grenade is an attack. The fact that you think it isn't is where your missing it I think.

 

I completely agree however I can't recall anywhere in the books that appears to specificaly say so, concequently this point will likely be argued constantly by "those people" untill FAQ, or untill someone find the semantical "magic bullet".

 

There are plenty of example of attacks with grenades. Psykotroke, Krak Greandes, Haywire, etc. An attack is an attack, the effects it has are really irrelevant. For an example, I could punch somebody, thats an obvious attack. I could also insult them personally, thats an attack of sorts too even though it does not physical harm. If it hinged on whether or not it caused wounds, you could argue that ccw attacks that fail to hit are not attacks. They didn't cause any wounds.

[Chairman_woo]

It very clearly spells out how to handle it. The grenade is an attack. The fact that you think it isn't is where your missing it I think.

 

I completely agree however I can't recall anywhere in the books that appears to specificaly say so, concequently this point will likely be argued constantly by "those people" untill FAQ, or untill someone find the semantical "magic bullet".

 

There are plenty of example of attacks with grenades. Psykotroke, Krak Greandes, Haywire, etc. An attack is an attack, the effects it has are really irrelevant. For an example, I could punch somebody, thats an obvious attack. I could also insult them personally, thats an attack of sorts too even though it does not physical harm. If it hinged on whether or not it caused wounds, you could argue that ccw attacks that fail to hit are not attacks. They didn't cause any wounds.

 

General english semantics do not apply here only those defined and applied by the rule system:

So while krak would count, being specificaly described as an alternative to making a normal attack. Psychostrokes, frags, blind etc. etc. would not. They are not described as attacks they are described as effects that go off when attacked or attacking not attacks in and of themselves.

 

I agree with the sentiment, but the semantics are not there as far as I can tell and that always means rules arguements!

[gil galed]

1 seems like the obvious choice, BOP treats anything directed as Psykers as directed against Justicar.

 

~Gil :ph34r:

[Chairman_woo]

1 seems like the obvious choice, BOP treats anything directed as Psykers as directed against Justicar.

 

~Gil :ph34r:

 

Agreed the best arguement is that the BOP rules states that the squad always counts as one psyker, however we have little more than our interpretation of the authors intended meaning to work with.

 

 

Playing devils advocate for a moment:

 

BOP makes the whole squad 1 psyker, psykouts make all psykers I1 when they go off; therefore the whole squad is knocked to I1 as the special caveat regarding "attacks specificaly targeting psykers" only affecting the justicar/random dude is stated to apply only to attacks that specificaly target psykers. Psykouts are not stated as being attacks, simply effects that are concurrent with a charge therefore this would not apply.

 

I dont agree with this, but this is what you are going to have to argue against when playing "those people".

[Angelis Mortis]

General english semantics do not apply here only those defined and applied by the rule system:

 

What page is that rule on?

 

1 seems like the obvious choice, BOP treats anything directed as Psykers as directed against Justicar.

 

~Gil :)

 

Agreed the best arguement is that the BOP rules states that the squad always counts as one psyker, however we have little more than our interpretation of the authors intended meaning to work with.

 

 

Playing devils advocate for a moment:

 

BOP makes the whole squad 1 psyker, psykouts make all psykers I1 when they go off; therefore the whole squad is knocked to I1 as the special caveat regarding "attacks specificaly targeting psykers" only affecting the justicar/random dude is stated to apply only to attacks that specificaly target psykers. Psykouts are not stated as being attacks, simply effects that are concurrent with a charge therefore this would not apply.

 

I dont agree with this, but this is what you are going to have to argue against when playing "those people".

 

I agree with your example as Devils Advocate, however, you can cite the way Perils works as well. It only affects the Justicar/KoF as well.

[spu00sed]

After ready all the replies, I am going to play that they are all effected, until the FAQ comes out.

 

I have two reasons:

 

1: it give me a disadvantage (though only aginast othe Grey Knights)

 

2: Any Grey knight can be used as the focus of the gorups psychic power, thus they are all psykers and can suffer from the grenade. It is their focus that uses one of the brotherhood as the loci of the power.

[Angelis Mortis]

After ready all the replies, I am going to play that they are all effected, until the FAQ comes out.

 

I have two reasons:

 

1: it give me a disadvantage (though only aginast othe Grey Knights)

 

2: Any Grey knight can be used as the focus of the gorups psychic power, thus they are all psykers and can suffer from the grenade. It is their focus that uses one of the brotherhood as the loci of the power.

 

So then your going to kill them all off when you suffer a Perils too then?

[evileyevirtue]

Ok, so where does it say in the rules that a grenade counts as an attack? It doesn't, plain and simple. An attack causes a wound. Grenade effect do not cause wounds so the argument that they are attacks falls flat on its face, cause if it isn't in the rules, you might as well just be making stuff up... which in this case, you are. Psyk-out grenades DO NOT cause wounds, hence they are not an attack. Psychic powers, on the other hand, that cause wounds ARE an attack because THEY CAUSE WOUNDS. The rules for BOP says attacks and PotW are covered, not "Perils, attacks, and effects that target psykers". If it doesn't say it, unless it is FAQ'd differently, you can't do it, and you simply just can't just make assumptions and say it includes something that is clearly not written in the rules, PERIOD.

[Daedalus Templarius]

When I played a mirror match against another GK, and he played a mirror match against a GK before me, we resolved everyone at I1.

[gil galed]

Ok, so where does it say in the rules that a grenade counts as an attack? It doesn't, plain and simple. An attack causes a wound. Grenade effect do not cause wounds so the argument that they are attacks falls flat on its face, cause if it isn't in the rules, you might as well just be making stuff up... which in this case, you are. Psyk-out grenades DO NOT cause wounds, hence they are not an attack. Psychic powers, on the other hand, that cause wounds ARE an attack because THEY CAUSE WOUNDS. The rules for BOP says attacks and PotW are covered, not "Perils, attacks, and effects that target psykers". If it doesn't say it, unless it is FAQ'd differently, you can't do it, and you simply just can't just make assumptions and say it includes something that is clearly not written in the rules, PERIOD.

 

No reason to get angry now, we're only having a friendly discussion... anyway, you're interpretation of what an attack is is as made up as anyone else, the rule book says under grenades that their effect are considered to be taken into account in close combat attacks. Alternatively do psychic powers which cause modification to stats count as an attack? One might argue they do in some senses at least.

 

~Gil ;)

[Angelis Mortis]

Ok, so where does it say in the rules that a grenade counts as an attack? It doesn't, plain and simple. An attack causes a wound. Grenade effect do not cause wounds so the argument that they are attacks falls flat on its face, cause if it isn't in the rules, you might as well just be making stuff up... which in this case, you are. Psyk-out grenades DO NOT cause wounds, hence they are not an attack. Psychic powers, on the other hand, that cause wounds ARE an attack because THEY CAUSE WOUNDS. The rules for BOP says attacks and PotW are covered, not "Perils, attacks, and effects that target psykers". If it doesn't say it, unless it is FAQ'd differently, you can't do it, and you simply just can't just make assumptions and say it includes something that is clearly not written in the rules, PERIOD.

 

So by your logic, I could sit here and curse you and call you names, make fun your haircut and that would be considered an attack then? How about if say North Korea gets a wild hair up its butt and sends a computer virus to shut down all electrical production in Europe? Would they say "oh no biggy, they didn't really attack us as nobody got hurt directly". The point is, your interpretation of the word "attack" is way too narrow.

 

In addition, if you read page 36 of the BRB it clearly defines grenades as attacks. It further says their damage is considered to be part of the attacks caused in the assault. That covers your "assault grenade/defensive grenade" argument. More obvious ones such as Melta-Bombs, Haywire, and Krak do cause direct damage. So, to argue that grenades are not an attack because it isn't worded the way you want it to be is really just being silly.

[Liberame]

So by your logic, I could sit here and curse you and call you names, make fun your haircut and that would be considered an attack then? How about if say North Korea gets a wild hair up its butt and sends a computer virus to shut down all electrical production in Europe? Would they say "oh no biggy, they didn't really attack us as nobody got hurt directly". The point is, your interpretation of the word "attack" is way too narrow.

 

 

I don't see how real world logic can apply to a game system that involves magic, mysticism, and futuristic stuff. Maybe in the 40k universe those aren't considered attacks, who knows, its make believe.

 

I however think its resolved just on the Justicar, not because you use the example of verbal attacks and what not, but because of other abilities that are "Psychic Shooting Attacks" that do not cause wounds (Such as the Tyranids Psychic Horror Fear Thingy or the Blood Angels Fear Whatchamacallit). That gives us precedence that not all attacks are things that cause wounds.

[Chengar Qordath]

In addition, if you read page 36 of the BRB it clearly defines grenades as attacks. It further says their damage is considered to be part of the attacks caused in the assault. That covers your "assault grenade/defensive grenade" argument. More obvious ones such as Melta-Bombs, Haywire, and Krak do cause direct damage. So, to argue that grenades are not an attack because it isn't worded the way you want it to be is really just being silly.

I don't see anything on page 36 that specifically defines grenades as an attack. Also, whenever the BRB uses the term "attack" it is almost always used in reference to shooting and close combat attacks (although there are exceptions, like the "tank shock/Ramming attack").

 

However, since GW never specifically defines what an attack is in the rulebook, I would say a broader interpretation of the term is certainly viable.

[Angelis Mortis]

So by your logic, I could sit here and curse you and call you names, make fun your haircut and that would be considered an attack then? How about if say North Korea gets a wild hair up its butt and sends a computer virus to shut down all electrical production in Europe? Would they say "oh no biggy, they didn't really attack us as nobody got hurt directly". The point is, your interpretation of the word "attack" is way too narrow.

 

 

I don't see how real world logic can apply to a game system that involves magic, mysticism, and futuristic stuff. Maybe in the 40k universe those aren't considered attacks, who knows, its make believe.

 

I however think its resolved just on the Justicar, not because you use the example of verbal attacks and what not, but because of other abilities that are "Psychic Shooting Attacks" that do not cause wounds (Such as the Tyranids Psychic Horror Fear Thingy or the Blood Angels Fear Whatchamacallit). That gives us precedence that not all attacks are things that cause wounds.

 

Tripple post. Yay for lag on B&C.

[Angelis Mortis]

So by your logic, I could sit here and curse you and call you names, make fun your haircut and that would be considered an attack then? How about if say North Korea gets a wild hair up its butt and sends a computer virus to shut down all electrical production in Europe? Would they say "oh no biggy, they didn't really attack us as nobody got hurt directly". The point is, your interpretation of the word "attack" is way too narrow.

 

 

I don't see how real world logic can apply to a game system that involves magic, mysticism, and futuristic stuff. Maybe in the 40k universe those aren't considered attacks, who knows, its make believe.

 

I however think its resolved just on the Justicar, not because you use the example of verbal attacks and what not, but because of other abilities that are "Psychic Shooting Attacks" that do not cause wounds (Such as the Tyranids Psychic Horror Fear Thingy or the Blood Angels Fear Whatchamacallit). That gives us precedence that not all attacks are things that cause wounds.

 

Double post.

[Angelis Mortis]

So by your logic, I could sit here and curse you and call you names, make fun your haircut and that would be considered an attack then? How about if say North Korea gets a wild hair up its butt and sends a computer virus to shut down all electrical production in Europe? Would they say "oh no biggy, they didn't really attack us as nobody got hurt directly". The point is, your interpretation of the word "attack" is way too narrow.

 

 

I don't see how real world logic can apply to a game system that involves magic, mysticism, and futuristic stuff. Maybe in the 40k universe those aren't considered attacks, who knows, its make believe.

 

I however think its resolved just on the Justicar, not because you use the example of verbal attacks and what not, but because of other abilities that are "Psychic Shooting Attacks" that do not cause wounds (Such as the Tyranids Psychic Horror Fear Thingy or the Blood Angels Fear Whatchamacallit). That gives us precedence that not all attacks are things that cause wounds.

 

See this kind of argument is exactly why nobody likes rules lawyers. If we follow your logic (or lack thereof), then we can never play any game because how could we possibly know what any of the rules are because its a fantasy setting and their logic is alien to ours. Seriously? Thats if thats going to be your argument, just stop. You are the types that you can never convince of anything because your standards of proof are impossible to fulfill. No matter what answer or reason is given, you will claim "well, maybe it doesn't work that way in this universe, because its fantasy". Utterly ridiculous argument.

[Angelis Mortis]

In addition, if you read page 36 of the BRB it clearly defines grenades as attacks. It further says their damage is considered to be part of the attacks caused in the assault. That covers your "assault grenade/defensive grenade" argument. More obvious ones such as Melta-Bombs, Haywire, and Krak do cause direct damage. So, to argue that grenades are not an attack because it isn't worded the way you want it to be is really just being silly.

I don't see anything on page 36 that specifically defines grenades as an attack. Also, whenever the BRB uses the term "attack" it is almost always used in reference to shooting and close combat attacks (although there are exceptions, like the "tank shock/Ramming attack").

 

However, since GW never specifically defines what an attack is in the rulebook, I would say a broader interpretation of the term is certainly viable.

 

And thats exactly why you will never get the answer you need. You need it spelled out specifically using these words. "Grenades are an attack". It doesn't say those words, but seeing as you we all have a good grasp on English, you can derive that from page 36. I read the term "assault", "grenade", "attacks", "combat", "damage" all in just the first paragraph describing grenades in game. If you can't derive that they are attacks from that, well, you will never be satisfied and its pointless discussing it with you.

[Chengar Qordath]

In addition, if you read page 36 of the BRB it clearly defines grenades as attacks. It further says their damage is considered to be part of the attacks caused in the assault. That covers your "assault grenade/defensive grenade" argument. More obvious ones such as Melta-Bombs, Haywire, and Krak do cause direct damage. So, to argue that grenades are not an attack because it isn't worded the way you want it to be is really just being silly.

I don't see anything on page 36 that specifically defines grenades as an attack. Also, whenever the BRB uses the term "attack" it is almost always used in reference to shooting and close combat attacks (although there are exceptions, like the "tank shock/Ramming attack").

 

However, since GW never specifically defines what an attack is in the rulebook, I would say a broader interpretation of the term is certainly viable.

 

And thats exactly why you will never get the answer you need. You need it spelled out specifically using these words. "Grenades are an attack". It doesn't say those words, but seeing as you we all have a good grasp on English, you can derive that from page 36. I read the term "assault", "grenade", "attacks", "combat", "damage" all in just the first paragraph describing grenades in game. If you can't derive that they are attacks from that, well, you will never be satisfied and its pointless discussing it with you.

Moving the goalposts much? We've gone from "clearly defined" to "implied if you read between the lines and cherry-pick your words."

 

There's certainly a case to be made that Psyk-out grenades are an attack; after all, since GW never offers a restrictive definition of what an attack is we can assume standard definitions apply, but it's not 100% indisputably ironclad.