Mindstrike missiles versus GK vehicles

[thade]

A mindstrike missile imposes a Perils of the Warp on a Psyker when it hits it.

 

GK vehicles have the Psychic Pilot rule that says they count as Psykers for the purposes of Psychic Tests and...something else (I forget, and would super appreciate someone reminding me).

 

If a vehicle suffers a Perils, they take a Glancing Hit...so if they count as Psykers insofar as the Mindstrike is concerned, that much is clear.

 

But...do they?

 

This came up a couple of weeks ago and I grappled with it and also forgot about it; but it haunts me (and a recent thread brought it back to me).

 

Thoughts?

[dswanick]

Psychic tests and psychic hoods. You're welcome. ;)

 

It seems pretty straight forward to me - a Psychic Pilot vehicle hit by a Mind Strike missile gets a glancing hit in addition to any other result.

[Dan VK]

"A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker" (C:GK pg21) and "Any psyker hit by a mindstrike missile suffers the Perils of the Warp" (C:GK pg57) and "If the vehicle suffers the Perils of the Warp, treat it as a glancing hit." (C:GK pg21) Therefore, the vehicle suffers a glancing hit when hit with a mindstrike missile.

[thade]

That was my take as well, guys...however the rule does go on to say what cases under which it's classified as a Psyker. The question (as always) is whether that list is clearly exhaustive or not? What is the list? How is it worded?

 

Given that Dan believes it, it's probably worded that way. ;) But please dig into it so I can has evidence sufficient to show it is so.

 

EDIT: Nothing changed. Just want to point out that there be no typoz here. @_@

[Dan VK]

Given that Dan believes it, it's probably worded that way. ;) But please dig into it so I can has evidence sufficient to show it is so.

Right you are! ;) I will refrain from elaborating with an unnecessary grammatical analysis, and stick to plain language. ^_^

 

That was my take as well, guys...however the rule does go on to say what cases under which it's classified as a Psyker. The question (as always) is whether that list is clearly exhaustive or not? What is the list? How is it worded?

The following quotes are for clarity, and so they may be easily referenced for discussion in the thread.

 

Mindstrike missiles have "Psi-shock*" under Type, which reads:

 

"* Any psyker hit by a mindstrike missile suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other effects." C:GK pg57

 

The totality of the psychic pilot rule is:

"PSYCHIC PILOT

A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker (Mastery level 1) and Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods. If the vehicle suffers the Perils of the Warp, treat it as a glancing hit." C:GK pg21

 

Psychic pilot states that:

A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker.

A vehicle with this special rule is treated as Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods.

 

Psychic pilot does not state that:

A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker with Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods.

A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods.

 

It is all about where the 'and' is placed, and that there is an 'and' instead of another word.

 

 

[EDIT: Added quotes, because I :cuss quotes. Hopefully added clarity.]

[thade]

Thank you, Dan. That's what I figured. :) The Ld 10 part is in reference to the tests; the Psyker part is for everything else.

 

To my club board I go. <3

[Lt. Cmdr. Jim]

Aaaah, an operator precidence ambiguity question, in a GW rule, whatever next!

 

This question essentially boils down to:

 

What is the meaning of "A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker (Mastery level 1) and Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods."?

 

To me, this appears to be ambigous, and could be read as one of:

 

* [...]treated as (being a psyker[...]) and (Leadership 10 for the purposes[...])

* [...]treated as (being a psyker[...] and Leadership 10) for the purposes[...]

 

Normally when things like this crop up in language, we'd use context to determine the correct version, but in this instance, I don't see one as making more sense than the other. My verdict:

 

RAW: Indeterminable - Erratum required.

[greatcrusade08]

What is the meaning of "A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker (Mastery level 1) and Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods."?

 

To me, this appears to be ambigous, and could be read as one of:

 

* [...]treated as (being a psyker[...]) and (Leadership 10 for the purposes[...])

* [...]treated as (being a psyker[...] and Leadership 10) for the purposes[...]

 

Normally when things like this crop up in language, we'd use context to determine the correct version, but in this instance, I don't see one as making more sense than the other. My verdict:

 

RAW: Indeterminable - Erratum required.

 

really? c'mon lets insert some common sense shall we? an errata is not needed here.

why do we need to examine every iota of the sentence in order to manipulate its meaning, the meaning is very clear for most readers... GK vehicles with a certain rule are treated as psykers..

whether they are psykers or not doesnt matter, we treat them as if they were, thats very clear RAW.

so if something comes along that causes a psyker to take a perils test then anything that we treat as a psyker would take a perils test too

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Remember by thread about the Crucible of Malediction? The consensus, IIRC, was that the vehicle wasn't in fact a psyker and thus excempt from the effects of the Crucible. If this is to hold true still, the the vehicle isn't in fact a psyker, and is is not affected by "Any psyker hit by" or similar. It can only be the victim of a Perils when using the power it has. To actually suffer the effects of a Mindstrike missile, it must for all intents and purposes be a psyker.

 

Now, not to hijack the thread, but if we do posit that the vehicle is, for all intents and purposes, a psyker, how then would the Crucible affect squads in a transport that fail the test and go poof?

[Baragash]

Now, not to hijack the thread, but if we do posit that the vehicle is, for all intents and purposes, a psyker, how then would the Crucible affect squads in a transport that fail the test and go poof?

 

We don't?

 

DE FAQ:

Q: Does the Crucible of Malediction affect vehicles that

are also psykers? {p60}

A: No.

[thade]

Well, at least some of these things are addressed in FAQs. :wub:

[Lt. Cmdr. Jim]

What is the meaning of "A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker (Mastery level 1) and Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods."?

 

To me, this appears to be ambigous, and could be read as one of:

 

* [...]treated as (being a psyker[...]) and (Leadership 10 for the purposes[...])

* [...]treated as (being a psyker[...] and Leadership 10) for the purposes[...]

 

Normally when things like this crop up in language, we'd use context to determine the correct version, but in this instance, I don't see one as making more sense than the other. My verdict:

 

RAW: Indeterminable - Erratum required.

 

really? c'mon lets insert some common sense shall we? an errata is not needed here.

why do we need to examine every iota of the sentence in order to manipulate its meaning, the meaning is very clear for most readers... GK vehicles with a certain rule are treated as psykers..

whether they are psykers or not doesnt matter, we treat them as if they were, thats very clear RAW.

so if something comes along that causes a psyker to take a perils test then anything that we treat as a psyker would take a perils test too

 

If all it said was "X is treated as a psyker.", then yes, the meaning would be clear, it would be covered. Conversely, if it simply said "X is treated as a psyker for the purposes of Y", it would equally clearly not (as we are not talking about Y). Unfortunately the author has chosen neither of those options, instead picking something that could be either. Now I happen to think that in order to make 40K truly, properly playable simply by RAW, we'd need a rhinoful of errata, but in this case, it goes beyond closing down an obscure-but-technically-possible interpretation of a rule, in that I genuinely have no idea what the original intent in this situation is supposed to be (rather optimistically assuming any thought was actually given to it at all).

 

Of course, I could be missing something which makes it obvious which of the way it should be read, but I'm not sure what.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Now, not to hijack the thread, but if we do posit that the vehicle is, for all intents and purposes, a psyker, how then would the Crucible affect squads in a transport that fail the test and go poof?

 

We don't?

 

DE FAQ:

Q: Does the Crucible of Malediction affect vehicles that

are also psykers? {p60}

A: No.

Ah. That one I hadn't seen. Time to update my FAQ folder then. Cheers.

[Jacinda]

Go to a tournament.

Ask a TO.

 

I guarantee you will get the same answer from any official GW tourney. It really is not that difficult to see and appears to me to need more than a little twisting to turn a list of properties into a logical AND statement.

 

"A christmas tree is decorated and brightly lit at night."

So if it is not night there is no christmas tree? Does not make sense.

 

 

Let me put this another way.

"A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker (Mastery level 1) and Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods."

 

If it is [a psyker (Mastery level 1)] AND [Leadership 10]

then it is also for the purposes of (of Psychic tests) AND (psychic hoods). So if you are not taking a psychic test with a psycic hood it is not treated as a Psyker. Is this your argument? Or do you only want to use the logical AND once and the linguistic and the other time?

 

It is a psyker and it is leadership 10. Those two properties apply Since vehicles do not have a Ld score, the Leadership 10 is for tests and hoods which it will be subject to as a psyker. Another short list of two. You can not use the Leadership 10 for rally purposes since vehicles do not actually have a Ld value. As a psyker it will be subject to taking these tests and they must have a leadership value to test against.

[Acebaur]

I agree with Jacinda.

 

The line "for the purposes of Psychic test and psychic hoods" is put in there specifically about the Ld 10 part. Without it, things that cause Ld tests would affect the vehicle and they didn't want that to happen. To read anything else into it is to try and change the RAW to your own interpretation.

[thade]

I agree with you all. There are people in my local club who are "louder than I am" and that's the crux of my issues locally. That said, it hasn't come up yet. :D Nobody around here uses Mind Strike missiles much.