What is the LD value of a vehicle for Psychic powers like the Eldar Mind War?

[Daemonette666]

"Mind war" is a Witchfire power so unless noted can target vehicles such as walkers. The Psyker and the target model roll a D6 and add their LD. The difference in results determines the result. The disagreement some have said is that vehicles including walkers, are not subject to LD test, and automatically pass any LD tests.

Someone else mentioned that they are LD 10 for such things as Mind War, and others have said they are immune to it. The rule book and Errata only state that vehicles (walkers are not excluded from this) never take morale tests or LD tests for any reasons, and the person who quoted that vehicles are LD 10, could not find the reference to back their statement.

My view is that walkers would be immune to Mind War, as they never have to take any LD tests at all. Even though Mind War is a Witchfire power, it requires the target to take a form of LD test - D6 + their LD value VS the Psykers D6 and LD value.

Does anyone know where it states vehicles have a LD of 10?

[Magpie]

The Psychic Pilot special rule says that vehicles are Ld10 but only for the purposes of psychic tests.

I would say that as vehicles do not have leadership characteristics they cannot be targeted by Mind War

[Wolfshade]

The only rule is for Psychic Pilot as Magpie says and it must be part of their special rules.

Under the Vehicles, Leadership and Morale section on Pp. 76(?) the paragraph state that vehicles never take Morale checks for any reason.

So, while you can argue that the walker can be hit by the witchfire power it would never fail it's moral check and so not be effected by the results of failing it.

The counter argument to this is if a model has a characteristic value of 0 or - it automatically fails this, now it is a stretch to say that the Ld value is either of these as it is actually blank, but if it were it would then fail the test, but I feel this is a stretch.

I think this came up with the Mind Shakle Scarabs that randomly hit a model in B2B at the start of the fight subphase.

If walkers did have Ld value then they would need to do leadership tests when they loose combat, which I don't think would be a good thing.

[Daemonette666]

I argued that the power says to use the target's LD value + D6 and compare that to the farseer's LD value + D6 roll. I said that GW would not make it so vehicles would auto lose. I challenged them to show me where GW has stated either in their rule book or Errata/FAQ that vehicles in general have a LD of 10.

I showed that the power "Mind War" is designed to be used against models that have both a LD value and wounds, as the description in the power says that if the farseer wins, the target loses wounds equal to the difference in the results. I said it was trying to twist the rules to get an advantage against vehicles/walkers that are already disadvantaged through the current vehicle rules in 6th ed. I could say that the vehicle has a deny the witch roll of 2+ to account for it's thick armour, but then I would have to show where I came up with that rule (which I just made up as an example).

One guy argued that a LD test was not required, you just had to add a D6 roll to the target's LD value, and compare it to the farseer's D6 roll + LD value. I refuted that saying that they automatically pass anything that requires you to have a LD value, or that the power can not effect them.

[Wolfshade]

Hmm it is a strange one the wording as clarrified through the Errata says:

Page 76 – Vehicles, Leadership and Morale.
Change the section in bold to “Therefore, vehicles never take
Morale checks or Leadership tests for any reason”.

Ah ha, I think this is the gem:

Q: Can psychic powers or other effects that cause a Leadership test,
for example the Tyranids’ Psychic Scream, affect vehicles or units
embarked upon transports? (p76 / p78)
A: No.

So the mindwar would force the Vehicle to make a leadership test, so by this faq/errata would make it a non-viable target for it.

(Both quotes from http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3170233a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.4_APRIL13.pdf)

And indeed the Mindshackle scarabs wording has been amended to explicity state "randomly select a non-vehicle enemy model in base
contact with the bearer of the mindshackle scarabs" clarrifying that "loophole"

I think you are quite right, after all we know that Vehciles do not "take wounds" only non-vehicle models can.

[Magpie]

Yeh I think it is pretty open and shut that it doesn't apply.

The Grey Knight FAQ asks if Cleansing Flame has any effect on vehicles and the answer is "No as they do not suffer wounds" which makes it pretty clear to me that if you don't have the attribute you can't be harmed by something.

[Daemonette666]

I have 3 people saying that because the vehicle does not have a LD value you auto win against it. LD "0" +D6 vs farseer's LD 10 + D6. They say it would not lose the wounds, but would be reduced to WS and BS 1 till the end of the following turn.

I even had one guy argue that because I said vehicle do not hve a LD value, then it is automatically destroyed as it does not have a LD, Strength or toughness or wounds value (page 3 zero level characteristics). I replied stating that they have a special rule "Hull Points" which were their version of wounds, Hull Points are their version of toughness. Thus they have characteristics, but if these were reduced to '0", the vehicle is destroyed.

Walkers have strength, so I suppose that if that value is reduced to "-", then they are removed form play/ wrecked.

The 3 guys still think they can loop-hole/ rules lawyer the power to make walkers WS and BS 1 for an entire Game turn.

[Wolfshade]

They sound like right "douche bags", the FAQ 1.4 clears it up simples.

Can psychic powers that cause a Leadership test affect vehicles? No.

The only way around this is if they try and argue that the walker isn't a vehicle, or that a witchfire power isn't a psychic power, or mindwar doesn't force a leadership test.

I'm quite happy to try and explore other "loop holes they have".

[henrythesecond]

So the mindwar would force the Vehicle to make a leadership test, so by this faq/errata would make it a non-viable target for it.

I don't believe Mindwar says anything about requiring a Leadership test. It simply uses Leadership in the mechanics of resolving the Psychic Power. Not the same as a Leadership test.



I think you are quite right, after all we know that Vehciles do not "take wounds" only non-vehicle models can.

In my opinion, this is the compelling reason why Mindwar wouldn't work against vehicles. Even if an argument could be made for actually resolving the power against vehicle (either at Ld 10 or Ld 0, take your pick), the vehicle can't take any Wounds that my be allocated to it as a result.

Cheers.

[Wolfshade]

Hmm, it isn't a leadership test is it. It's a test that just uses it's characteristic...

See I keep coming across this one problem resolving this question.

What is the leadership of a vehicle, and that is the crux of the matter.
It is not 0 nor - it is undefined. If it were 0 or - we could then add D6 and always lose. The consequence would be to lose X wounds, as vehicles have no wounds it has no effect, but, it would cause BS 1 and WS 1.

In a fluffy way, I can see that that pilot or driver is within the vehicle and just as embarked troops are immune so crew should be, and that works fine. But as we all know fluff =! rules.

[Luke Licens]

I prefer to keep things simple.

I do not have any apples. My apple count is 0.
A vehicle does not have any Leadership. It's Leadership is 0.

Zero apples plus 1d6 is 1d6.
Zero Leadership plus 1d6 is 1d6.

It's not as bad as it sounds. Eldrad just spent one of his powers this turn to make your Walker BS/WS1, instead of exploding the head of your Warlord. Is that really such a bad trade?

[DarkLink]

By keeping things simply, you ignore all the relevant FAQs that point in the exact opposite direction of your assumption.

[Magpie]

Apple Pie requires 6 Apples.

I have 0 Apples.

No Apple Pie. :(

[zenBen]

How'd you like them apples? :)