zoanthrope and death or glory

[Stonerhino]

Just hit it with bolter rounds. Then it's only as tough as two marines.

[Fle]

Ok what does that tell us? That the Librarian is considered to still be able to sustitute the fireing of one of his ranged weapons for his PSA even if he doesn't have one.

I disagree, this tells us the PSA is not a weapon. If it was a weapon then the last part of the question "... if he has no weapons left?" would not make sense.

SO he still "counts as" having a ranged weapon.

I disagree again. When using a PSA he counts as "firing a ranged weapon". When a Dark Eldar raider with a shockprow makes a ramming attack it can (if the player rolls a six) count as ramming with armour 14 to the front. Does that mean it has armour 14 to the front?

Imagine a rule in the rulebook that said "choose a vehicle with armour 14 to make a Death or Glory attack. The vehicle makes a single ramming attack against the target". Would you let that player select the raider on the basis that when it makes a ramming attack it counts as having armour 14? I don't think so.

[Vipoid]

copper, some people clearly want to bypass the 3+ invuln and just hit it with their rhinos rather than shoot it =P

I'm not really sure how this 'bypasses' the 3+ invulnerable.

Regardless of how this debate ends, the zoanthrope always has the option of simply moving out of the rhino's way.

[TheGreatDalmuti]

What is so hard to understand.
Using a PSA counts as shooting a weapon. We read it. Ok? Now lets get over it.
What I am saying is something else. The rules for models that can fire twice say something else than the rules for models that can fire once. So I am not talking about genestealers here. That is why I mentioned the dreadnought and the Hive Tyrant.
Again, if you have a model that can fire twice, the rule tells you to replace the firing of one of it's weapons with a PSA. The FAQ tells you you can do that even if you have no weapons. So in order to replace if you have no weapons you must still be concidered to have one. The only way to do it is to "count" as having one. But then you can also perform the DoG. You count as having one, and then replace it's firing with a PSA.
And what does running have to do with it? It says you can run if you have no ranged weapons in "Running". Anyway, running is "instead of shooting" not "replace shooting a weapon". Clearly there is a distinction here.

[lantzkev]

see here's the crux of it all. PSA is not saying you have a shooting weapon, just that it counts towards firing one, counts as having fired one, firing one etc...

This in no way means you are carrying one for death or glory. The rules for models able to fire twice are merely the same as rules for firing one with "still can't do the same psychic power twice a turn"

If you count as having one, then surely when you get shot again I can remove that psychic power right? you count as having a weapon after all....

[TheGreatDalmuti]

Two sentences. Ok three. I didn't say that the PSA is the weapon. So you can't remove it.
Again. A model that can fire twice, can replace the firing of one of it's weapons with a PSA. Ok? So it must have a weapon and replace the firing of it. If it has no weapons can it still fire? Yes, that is what the FAQ says. If we put these two together we see that it must always count as having a weapon so it can replace it's firing for a PSA. So it counts as having a weapon on ODG.

[lantzkev]

you're adding 2 and 2 to get 5 here.

If you're told you can do X, Y or Z in a turn, and that Z supplants X or Y in the turn, does not make Z=X or Y.
you're saying that a model can fire twice, a PSA takes up one of the firing actions, even when a dreadnought has no weapons it counts as having a weapon since a PSA counts as a firing action. (my words here, but this is what the counts as firing a ranged weapon amounts to, taking up a number of limited scope actions) so therefor it is a weapon that is carried. Which is a) not adding the two together right and b) leads to the following issue if correct...

If we take your "it always count as having a weapon" then we'll also have to deal with dreadnoughts that can have unlimited weapon destroyed results.

[Fle]

If it has no weapons can it still fire? Yes, that is what the FAQ says.

All the FAQ says is that you can use a PSA when you have no weapons. It doesn't mean the PSA is a weapon.

[Sons of Lorgar]

FFS people, just agree to disagree and roll off if you ever play against eachother...

[lantzkev]

that's the known way to resolve differences during a game, we're in the rules forum though where we debate the rules.

Thanks for visiting though!

[TheGreatDalmuti]

Ok I didn't say it right. It always counts as having a weapon for the purposes of PSAs. That is what the FAQ says to me. Again this comes from the specific wording on the "more than one weapon firing" models. It is not the wording for normal models.

[SacredCow]

I don't really see the librarian dreadnaught situation as terribly troubling. A PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon when the user makes the choice to use it. This choice is presented whenever the opportunity arises to make a ranged weapon attack. This opportunity is not presented when the weapon destroyed result is rolled.

This is reinforced by the wording at the beginning of the shooting section. "Normally each model in a firing unit can fire a single weapon. Some models, including vehicles, may be able to fire more than one weapon, as detailed later." There are no specific allowances for things that are worded as "counting as a weapon". If a PSA never had the opportunity to be classified as a "weapon" then the opportunity to use it would then never present itself.

The order would flow as follows for a Zoanthrope using a DoG
Zoanthrope is given the allowance to use a ranged weapon
Zoanthrope chooses to replace this allowance with making a PSA (which counts as firing a ranged weapon)
Qualifiers for DoG are checked - Is the Zoanthrope making a ranged weapon attack? Yes, Is this weapon carried by the Zoanthrope? Yes
Psychic test is taken and if passed, the attack automatically hits... if failed then follow the rules for psychic test

The order would flow as follows for the Librarian Dreadnaught
Unit successfully hits the dreadnaught
AP result is either glancing or penetrating
Weapon Destroyed result is rolled
Unit that fired chooses which weapon was destroyed

There must come a time when the PSA is considered a weapon, otherwise the wording for the shooting phase would bar the use of a PSA. The ability to use a PSA is not contingent on previously having a ranged weapon with which to swap out the use of a PSA. Therefore we have to conclude that the PSA "counts as firing a ranged weapon" when the controlling player chooses to use it, which they are given this option whenever the ability to fire a ranged weapon is given. At no point during the weapon destroyed result is the librarian dreadnaught given the option to fire a ranged weapon.

[Fle]

The ability to use a PSA is not contingent on previously having a ranged weapon with which to swap out the use of a PSA.

I agree, but that doesn't mean the PSA is actually a weapon. And you have to have a weapon in order to be able to make a DoG attack.

Therefore we have to conclude that the PSA "counts as firing a ranged weapon" when the controlling player chooses to use it,

You don't have to conclude anything, the rules for PSA state that a model making a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon.

which they are given this option whenever the ability to fire a ranged weapon is given.

I disagree, they have to be given explicit permission to use a PSA in order to be able to use a PSA. For DoG they are given permission to make an attack with a weapon, not use a PSA.

At no point during the weapon destroyed result is the librarian dreadnaught given the option to fire a ranged weapon.

This is irrelevent...the PSA is not a weapon

[copper.talos]

This is rather pointless. Anyway my way of thinking is that tank shocking anti-tank units should always be a mistake/desperation move, no matter what codex. I can't see how any tourney organizer will rule against the zoanthrope. On friendly matches just roll off...

[Vipoid]

This is rather pointless. Anyway my way of thinking is that tank shocking anti-tank units should always be a mistake/desperation move, no matter what codex.

It certainly seems logical that a zoanthrope would get to DoG with its psychic power. I mean, its not exactly going to think "Hmm, should I focus my awsome psychic power to give this vehicle a new exit hatch? No... No, that's just what it would expect me to do. Ah, I know; I'll lure it closer, and then jab at it with my 3" talons - it will never see that coming..."

(btw, I'm aware that the above is not a rules argument, I just felt like pointing it out.)

[Egaeus]

I agree, but that doesn't mean the PSA is actually a weapon. And you have to have a weapon in order to be able to make a DoG attack.

I've mentioned this before but no one commented on it so I'm going to repeat it with a bit more detail...

Say I have a Carnifex with two ranged weapons. It gets Tank Shocked. I figure "Hey, it's got good S and is a Monstrous Creature (bonus pen die) so I'm going to make a CC attack instead of using the anti-infantry guns it's equipped with."

Now can my opponent deny me this since the 'fex isn't "carrying" any close combat weapons (as this a requirement just like ranged weaponry)?

Hmm...this gets even more interesting since I thought the Assault section mentioned that models were assumed to be carrying a basic CC weapon, but I can't seem to find that reference (it could be there I'm just overlooking it)...

So we have a situation where models don't have actual weapons, they are just assumed to have something they can use. Or is it actually the fact that you can't use a "basic" CC attack for DoG?

As to the AV14 on a Raider...at the point when having AV14 comes into play then yes, it "has" that value. The fact that at some other point is doesn't have that value is irrelevant.

I still think the fundamental problem is that Games Workshop doesn't write their rules in a comprehensive fashion...so the fact that they used the term "carry" (which has been pointed out ad nauseum isn't itself strictly defined in the rules) doesn't mean that it is absolutely what they meant. Or the fact that they don't explicitly mention PSA does not to me mean that they intended for them to be unusable in a DoG attack (it may simply be that they didn't consider them common enough to make an explicit allowance, or that they figured people understood that they "count as" a weapon). Of course on the flip side we aren't a telepathic race so we can't divine intent so it may well be that they did mean for these things.

[Archangelion]

@Egaeus, the rules concerning the use of rifle butts is on page 42 of the CRB, under the heading "Normal Close Combat Weapons". Again, the list there shows only carried objects, and not teeth, arm blades, claws, fists ect. Those things are not carried objects, they are physical attributes, body parts ect. There is no difference between such objects and PSAs as far as I am concerned.

As for the Weapon Destroyed result impacting a PSA. PSAs are not weapons. They count as weapons when you use them, and are not a targetable 'item' on the model as far as effects that target weapons are concerned (for the most part). When something counts as something else, it generally only does so when it is activated, or in use. The PSA counts as a weapon when the model is using the PSA. The PSA may be used in any situation where a normal ranged weapon could be used. Because DoG! permits the use of a ranged weapon, it also permits the use of abilities that count as a ranged weapon. Shooting a gun, and shooting a PSA are, as far as the rules are concerned, essentially the same action type, and both can thus be used for DoG! attacks.

[SacredCow]

I agree, but that doesn't mean the PSA is actually a weapon. And you have to have a weapon in order to be able to make a DoG attack.

You also have to have a weapon in order to make a ranged attack during the shooting phase as pointed out in the quote I referenced. There is nothing in the shooting section that dictates when you may make a PSA. Those rules are under the descriptions for a PSA which do not specifically state that you may make a PSA in place of a ranged attack during the shooting phase only.

You don't have to conclude anything, the rules for PSA state that a model making a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon.

It seems we actually agree on the same conclusion. A model using a PSA counts as firing a ranged weapon. The model in question does not need to possess a ranged weapon in order for the model to make a PSA, it just needs to be given the opportunity to make a ranged attack in order to qualify for the swap.

I disagree, they have to be given explicit permission to use a PSA in order to be able to use a PSA. For DoG they are given permission to make an attack with a weapon, not use a PSA.

the explicit permission given to a model to make a PSA is only outlined in the description for a PSA as far as I know. This permission is given whenever a model makes a ranged attack. It can then make a PSA in place of that ranged attack. This permission is not confined to the shooting phase only.

This is irrelevent...the PSA is not a weapon

It is far from irrelevant. When deciding targets for a weapon destroyed result, it is not an option because it only "counts as firing a ranged weapon" when the controlling player chooses to use it in place of a ranged shooting attack. I agree completely that most of the time, a PSA does not count as a weapon. I do contest that a PSA "counts as firing a ranged weapon" when the controlling player opts to use it in place of a ranged attack, which carries with it all of the pros and cons that having a weapon entails. For example, if the player controlling a librarian dreadnought that was immobilized with all weapons destroyed who was contesting an objective when his opponent rolled another weapon destroyed result, the player with the librarian dread wouldn't be able to force his opponent to destroy his PSA before the dread was wrecked in order to increase its longevity.

[thanoson]

Fle and Lanks, you guys still haven't answered my question if you think DoG is denied to the entire race of tyranids or not, because they don't "carry" thier weapons.

[Fle]

I've mentioned this before but no one commented on it so I'm going to repeat it with a bit more detail...

Say I have a Carnifex with two ranged weapons. It gets Tank Shocked. I figure "Hey, it's got good S and is a Monstrous Creature (bonus pen die) so I'm going to make a CC attack instead of using the anti-infantry guns it's equipped with."

Now can my opponent deny me this since the 'fex isn't "carrying" any close combat weapons (as this a requirement just like ranged weaponry)?

No I don't think your opponent can deny this. You are allowed to make a single attack with either a ranged weapon, ccw or grenade. The fex's claws count as CCW as per page 42. The key point with regards to this argument though is that a PSA is not and does not count as a ranged weapon, ccw or a grenade.

As to the AV14 on a Raider...at the point when having AV14 comes into play then yes, it "has" that value. The fact that at some other point is doesn't have that value is irrelevant.

The point I was trying to make was that the raider counts as having armour 14 only when it is making a ramming attack. Imagine if there was a rule that said "Pick a model with armour 14 to make a ramming attack" - would you be able to pick the raider?

I still think the fundamental problem is that Games Workshop doesn't write their rules in a comprehensive fashion...so the fact that they used the term "carry" (which has been pointed out ad nauseum isn't itself strictly defined in the rules) doesn't mean that it is absolutely what they meant.

The whole 'carrying a weapon' thing is irrelevent as the PSA is not a weapon. IF the PSA was a weapon then it could be used for DoG...but it isn't.

or that they figured people understood that they "count as" a weapon).

They don't count as a weapon...so it doesn't matter if they are being carried or not.