Deepest Shadow vs. Psychic Chaneling

[yoritomo]

Even if you do the gentlemanly thing and let them reconsider, finding out mid game that there is a hard counter to your best psychic powers AND the strat you plan to use to cast them can really mess with their game.

[No One]

yoritomo said:

This would fall under the Attacker's Priority in the rare rules section of the BRB, which would let the Grey Knight player decide which of the stratagems resolves.

Nope: attackers priority only applies to attacks.

While resolving attacks, you'll occasionally find that two
rules cannot both apply —

A psychic test is not an attack. There is a rule for adding and subtracting dice to a psychic test (which...I cannot find. Huh. I'm sure I read it: was what I mentioned with sequencing). And manifesting priority from FAQ, which almost covers the issue, but actually doesn't because it only refers to cannot be denied/is denied.

MANIFESTING PRIORITY
While manifesting a psychic power, you’ll occasionally find
that two rules are in direct conflict and cannot both apply - for
example, when one rule says that a psychic power cannot be
denied and another rule says that a psychic power is denied (or
resisted). When this happens, rules that say a psychic power
cannot be denied take precedence over rules that say the psychic
power is denied.

[grubblenmash]

If this happened in my game I’d probably just follow the order in which the strategems were used even tho that’s probably not the rule. If you used deepest shadow then they followed with the grey knight one then they’d be at 2d6, if you followed his with deepest shadow they’d be at 1d6.

[nidnewbie]

This has been an iluminating thread for me to digest. I started playing 40K New Years Day 2020 and know I have a lot to learn. Isn't this something GW should specificaly address?

[hivemind03]

Gw is often loose and fast with the wording of their rules which gets us into these situations. They might address it in an FAQ if it comes to their attention. Or maybe it will go by the wayside until we get a new book.

Theirs always plenty to discuss and learn about the nuances of the rules. Its part of the fun.

[yoritomo]

Dec 1, 2020 2:00:14 GMT nidnewbie said:

This has been an iluminating thread for me to digest. I started playing 40K New Years Day 2020 and know I have a lot to learn. Isn't this something GW should specificaly address?

Should they? Yes. Will they? Probably not. Unless it breaks the game or comes up extremely frequently GW won't bother with it.

[yoritomo]

You are correct No One. Strictly speaking, an attack is defined in 9th edition as ranged or melee attack. Yes, that is a circular definition and yes, it is printed in the BRB.

If we operate under the assumption that the stratagems conflict and there is no exact rule in the BRB or either codices we are left with three options. The first is a house rule, the second is historical precedence, and the third is to apply similar or parallel rules.

I think we can all agree that a house rule is the simplest, and probably best, solution to this problem. However, this only works for your local group. As we are a forum and not a play group this solution is trivial and will not be examined.

Historical precedence can be used to resolve these kind of conflicts. However, GW hasn't been consistent enough with their rulings to create a precedence. How they treat a space marine rule conflict can be the opposite way they treat a tyranid rule conflict. Plus the last time this type of rules conflict happened was in 4th edition with the tyranid Shadows in the Warp rule and the Eldar Runes of Witnessing rules. That ruling was close to 15 years ago, so I'm not so sure I trust it today.

This leaves us with the third option, finding a parallel rule. Here the argument for Attacker's Priority applies. A psychic power, while not defined as an attack, both targets and can cause wounds. In my opinion this makes psychic powers de-facto attacks. If you can treat a psychic power as an attack then the Attacker's Priority should be able to be used to settle this conflict.



All that being said, I do not believe these strats conflict. In my eyes you can apply both without conflict and therefore should apply both. In a casual game, if my opponent had a problem with this interpretation I would be willing to say these strats cancel each other out.

[No One]

yoritomo said:

Historical precedence can be used to resolve these kind of conflicts. However, GW hasn't been consistent enough with their rulings to create a precedence. How they treat a space marine rule conflict can be the opposite way they treat a tyranid rule conflict. Plus the last time this type of rules conflict happened was in 4th edition with the tyranid Shadows in the Warp rule and the Eldar Runes of Witnessing rules. That ruling was close to 15 years ago, so I'm not so sure I trust it today.
This leaves us with the third option, finding a parallel rule. Here the argument for Attacker's Priority applies. A psychic power, while not defined as an attack, both targets and can cause wounds. In my opinion this makes psychic powers de-facto attacks. If you can treat a psychic power as an attack then the Attacker's Priority should be able to be used to settle this conflict.

No way is GW consistent enough for this . How they rule the exact same thing can change (see: fight last and interrupt as the one that springs to mind, but I believe there's been some others 8th to 9th as well).

This leaves us with the third option, finding a parallel rule. Here the argument for Attacker's Priority applies. A psychic power, while not defined as an attack, both targets and can cause wounds. In my opinion this makes psychic powers de-facto attacks. If you can treat a psychic power as an attack then the Attacker's Priority should be able to be used to settle this conflict.

So, while I agree with 'find a parallel rule', a psychic power is far from 'not technically' an attack. Like, sure smite shares similarities. Their tides change power...does not. At all. Considering that most of GK's powers are buffs (I believe they have 3 offensive power and smite. The other 9 are buffs).

So you go to other rules, like the similar psychic one (caster has priority), or as I said the general case of turn player (anything on sequencing). Aside, the idea that the one doing the 'proactive' thing like psychic/attacks always has priority falls down a bit when you look at morale priority (auto pass trumps auto fail), so doesn't quite work as a general 'parallel'. But based on similar rules, I'd definitely agree that they'd get their roll additional and discard at least.

All that being said, I do not believe these strats conflict. In my eyes you can apply both without conflict and therefore should apply both. In a casual game, if my opponent had a problem with this interpretation I would be willing to say these strats cancel each other out.

Yeah, it just depends on if you view it as a sequencing thing (set to 1, then 1 additional) or a hard 'always and regardless, only the 1'. The former is nice and simple, the latter goes to conflicting rules discussion.

[kazetanade]

For the record due to sequencing on active player turn, it should logically always be "Tyranid uses Shadow, GK uses Channelling“, because this only comes up in the GK casting phase where he is the active player.

Sequencing from memory is not explicitly spelled out, but for the sake of game design and player fun, (and sensible TO judgements), we should assume roll 2 discard 1, rather than roll 1 discard 1 which is utter nonsense.

[dranzyl]

The roll one extra dice and keep the highest is different enough to not be in conflict with 'you can roll a maximum of one'. Roll 2d6 keep the highest i think is correct. You arent rolling additional dice so much as rerolling existing ones in a sense.
I dont think using priority in this instance works