I am planning to run an ork list involving Weirdboyz and Daemonology since i want to see how badly i'll nuke my brains before the new dex hits lol.

Couple of things i coulda sworn i saw, but cant seem to find might jack up my strat though. If anyone could help me find it i'd be grateful.
1) Psyker phase says a unit may not manifest the same spell twice. What about ICs in that unit? Or in my case, two ICs with psyker powers in the same unit? Contemplating bringing a 2nd weirdboy for backup spellcasting case my first one fails.

EDIT: Ignore this one, found it under Witchfire. Changed title to reference one question.
2) If i use any spells in the psyker phase, can i still run in the shooting phase? cant seem to find anything saying anything i do affects my actions in the shooting phase. Could have sworn i saw a paragraph saying i can still shoot even at a different target than any spells were thrown at before, but now i cant seem to find it

Any help would be appreciative.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
1) Psyker phase says a unit may not manifest the same spell twice. What about ICs in that unit? Or in my case, two ICs with psyker powers in the same unit? Contemplating bringing a 2nd weirdboy for backup spellcasting case my first one fails..

There is nothing in the rules (that I've found so far) to indicate that IC's joined to a unit count as a separate unit for the purposes of resolving psychic powers.

 insaniak wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
1) Psyker phase says a unit may not manifest the same spell twice. What about ICs in that unit? Or in my case, two ICs with psyker powers in the same unit? Contemplating bringing a 2nd weirdboy for backup spellcasting case my first one fails..

There is nothing in the rules (that I've found so far) to indicate that IC's joined to a unit count as a separate unit for the purposes of resolving psychic powers.

Not disagreeing with you here, but how would you then follow Step one?

BRB, Pg 24, Select Psyker and Psychic Power.

"To manifest a psychic power, you will first need to select one of your Psyker units. It does not matter if the selected unit is Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. Then, select a psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase." emphasis theirs

 extremefreak17 wrote:
Not disagreeing with you here, but how would you then follow Step one?

You can't. The rules don't cover having non-Brotherhood Psykers in units with other models.

And of course the IC rules say it follows the unit for all rules purposes. Seems to lead like RAW it would indeed limit only one psyker in a unit to cast one of the spells, despite both of them knowing it, even though i would be very surprised if anyone tries to deny it in case of IC's being involved. Outside a tournament anyway, which i never goto.

Bleh, guess i'll just try to email GW for when/if they FAQ the brb - was kinda surprised the BRB itself didnt get a faq - unless i am blind and didnt see it in the list.

 insaniak wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
Not disagreeing with you here, but how would you then follow Step one?

You can't. The rules don't cover having non-Brotherhood Psykers in units with other models.

Interesting, this is pretty broken it seems. This makes me wonder if separate warlocks within the same council were actually intended to be able to cast the same named power.

Y'know... in several parts of that section, they seem to use "psyker unit" as a way to refer to psyker models, such as psyker ICs.

It leads me to believe that the restriction to not repeating the same spell, is meant to be per model (except for BoP/BoS units)


Hmmmmm.....

It could be the restriction is meant to be on models, or could be it's on units to 'limit' it so to speak - as in not getting 2 chances at the same blessing on the unit because you added a / multiple IC's - Essentially making it harder for someone to ensure that unit gets the buff they want (& More importantly, sticking tongue out at buffstars). Makes sense because it takes away from the system of choosing how many dice if you are able to cast something twice - if you really want it, put the dice in.

Psyker unit will be terminology for unit containing 1 or more psyker. Or the IC retains some sort of unit tag -The unit he was bought for- (but that's not very popular).

coredump wrote:
Y'know... in several parts of that section, they seem to use "psyker unit" as a way to refer to psyker models, such as psyker ICs..

When not joined to another unit, an IC is a unit.

Generating warp charges is also based on units, not models.

So you're telling me a squad of 10 warlocks is only 1 warp charge? :(

and I thought Eldar were the master Psykers..

A units warp charges would be based on how many warp charges each model in the unit has, unless they are Brotherhood etc

I wish it stated that in the book, unless i'm missing it.

But reading it right here it just says 'adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units'.

This usage of units is really confusing things...

It unfortunately seems pretty clear in the case of Seer Councils that together they are only 1 ML. Which is pretty unfortunate and surely is an oversight...

It gets even more complicated when an IC Psyker joins a Brotherhood of Psykers unit.

Basically even without addressing possible issues in determining how many Warp Charge points that unit generates it looks like attempting to manifest a power the IC knows, you cannot use the IC to draw range or line of sight because:

When manifesting a psychic power, this unit measures range and line of sight from, and uses the characteristics profile (if required) of, any one model in the unit that has the Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rule (controlling player’s choice)

Also if a peril occurs with a power the IC knows, the IC is immune to perils because of the second portion of BoP:

If this unit suffers Perils of the Warp, or is hit by an attack that specifically targets Psykers, the hits are Randomly Allocated amongst models with the Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rule

coredump wrote:
Y'know... in several parts of that section, they seem to use "psyker unit" as a way to refer to psyker models, such as psyker ICs.

It leads me to believe that the restriction to not repeating the same spell, is meant to be per model (except for BoP/BoS units)


Hmmmmm.....

This was how I read/interpreted it.

Jacob29 wrote:
I wish it stated that in the book, unless i'm missing it.

But reading it right here it just says 'adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units'.

So? A unit of five Warlocks has five mastery levels, just like they have five wounds.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Voodoo_Chile wrote:

Also if a peril occurs with a power the IC knows, the IC is immune to perils because of the second portion of BoP:

If this unit suffers Perils of the Warp, or is hit by an attack that specifically targets Psykers, the hits are Randomly Allocated amongst models with the Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rule

Well, that is actually pretty cool. I can imagine the lesser psykers helping the master psyker manifesting his powers, and him using them as shield against Chaos.

I dunno where you are getting that.

They are a unit of ML1 Psykers.

You calculate your Warp Charge via the units ML which is only 1.

Yes they have five wounds, and all of them are a Psyker ML1 but the rules don't tell us how interpret situations like this and the only rules applicable assume the unit is a whole psyker.

Jacob29 wrote:
I wish it stated that in the book, unless i'm missing it.

But reading it right here it just says 'adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units'.

This usage of units is really confusing things...

It unfortunately seems pretty clear in the case of Seer Councils that together they are only 1 ML. Which is pretty unfortunate and surely is an oversight...

'Units' appear in the rule book in this capacity throughout the rule book. It's not new it's been there throughout 6th, in the shooting, assault etc phases, it is in fact still there in all these ways. Unit is a invisible rule layer used to refer to models. Unit's don't hit, unit don't wound etc, models within unit's do this and from the rules we are able to use the short hand of the unit hit.

I've noted (ranted) on many different threads 'unit' is used in different ways, depending on the surrounding phrases and relevant rules it usually means 'A particular group of models' sometimes it means 'One or more models in that group' and sometimes 'All of those models in that group' the last two being 'unit' used in a permissive or restrictive capacity.

The usual difference (IMO) is actually on what the writer is getting across, in cases where the rules are letting the models take an action this normally goes into details telling you it means all models or some models. However when it's not action based, some rules tend to be a bit.... lazy in their terminology, as the above example with hit by a unit, it's overall a short hand so the writers don't have to go.. ' hit by one or more models in that group'.

Now, there is no such thing as a literal Psyker unit. There are units which contain models with the Pskyer rule (One or more models in that group) , and there are group of models that have Brotherhood rules etc where they all act as one (All the models in that group).

Brotherhood etc models have worked as a combined ''force'' and act akin to 1 model with Psyker, there warp charges and the way they work. individual models do with the rule do not. If your interpretation of 'unit' was correct quite simply no one would have warp charges.

Now you say the line is 'adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units'.

I have a unit which contains 5 models with ML 1. the ''unit'' layer has zero ML. But the mastery level of the unit (AKA Mastery level of the group of models) is 5.

Logically, the only thing that sentence can mean in the rules is the ML of the groups of models, each Unit's ML is worked out from the model's ML (Brotherhood have different rules here).


----
In the case of IC's joining BH not looked at that.
----

But then the rule stating that psyker units can only cast the same power once is also on a per model basis?

Jacob29 wrote:
I dunno where you are getting that.

They are a unit of ML1 Psykers.

You calculate your Warp Charge via the units ML which is only 1.

Yes they have five wounds, and all of them are a Psyker ML1 but the rules don't tell us how interpret situations like this and the only rules applicable assume the unit is a whole psyker.

You're trying to apply 'Brotherhood of Psykers' rule to an unit which is not 'Brotherhood of Psykers'. Unit has mastery levels just like unit has wounds: combined mastery levels of all the models in the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shandara wrote:
But then the rule stating that psyker units can only cast the same power once is also on a per model basis?

No. Why would it be?

You're combing the mastery level of individual models in a unit, where no rules say we can do this.

So I'll apply the limitation on casting powers to individual models...

 Crimson wrote:

Jacob29 wrote:
I dunno where you are getting that.

They are a unit of ML1 Psykers.

You calculate your Warp Charge via the units ML which is only 1.

Yes they have five wounds, and all of them are a Psyker ML1 but the rules don't tell us how interpret situations like this and the only rules applicable assume the unit is a whole psyker.

You're trying to apply 'Brotherhood of Psykers' rule to an unit which is not 'Brotherhood of Psykers'. Unit has mastery levels just like unit has wounds: combined mastery levels of all the models in the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shandara wrote:
But then the rule stating that psyker units can only cast the same power once is also on a per model basis?

No. Why would it be?

I guess it is quite confusing. 'Unit' on it's own doesn't mean any one thing... ...

It's being defined by the words around it and the possibilities to how they can apply to the rules. Hmmmm. I would suggest try reading the rules and changing every instance of 'Unit' to 'Group of models' (Or the grammatically correct phrasing dependent on the sentence).

Should be like,

-Add up the ML of the group of models.
-That group of models can only cast the same spell once.

Perhaps that way is clearer.

 Shandara wrote:
You're combing the mastery level of individual models in a unit, where no rules say we can do this.

So I'll apply the limitation on casting powers to individual models...

I am adding up mastery levels of my psyker units using normal math, just like I'm told. Yes, some units contain several mastery levels, but this doesn't matter, I'm adding up all mastery levels of all the psyker units I have.

 insaniak wrote:

coredump wrote:
Y'know... in several parts of that section, they seem to use "psyker unit" as a way to refer to psyker models, such as psyker ICs..

When not joined to another unit, an IC is a unit.

Well of course, but check out the page or two before this. They use the term 'unit' in many places that seem odd unless read as "psyker model or BoP unit" instead. IOW, the verbage just doesn't work well. If they are doing the same thing in this sentence, then it is not as limited as it first appears.


edit: Even if I follow this interpretation, I still think you add up all of the ML of each psyker in the unit. 5 warlocks do not contribute just 1 ML.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's see some of the uses of "psyker unit":

Select psyker:
"To manifest a psychic power, you will first need to select one of your Psyker units. It does not matter if the selected unit is Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. "

So, is that the unit, or a specific model within the unit?


Take psychic test:
"A Psyker must pass a Psychic test to see if he can harness the power of the Warp."

That seems obviously a specific model within the unit

"If, when making a Psychic test, two or more dice rolls (before applying modifiers) were rolls of a 6, the unit attempting to manifest the psychic power suffers Perils of the Warp"

But what about that. Specific model in unit, or entire unit?


Perils of the Warp:
"If a unit suffers Perils of the Warp, roll a D6 and consult the Perils of the Warp table below"

So, entire unit, or specific model within that unit?

"... the psychic power still manifests, regardless of whether or not the Psyker in question suffers a Wound or is slain by Perils of the Warp."

That seems to imply they were talking about a specific model suffering Perils


Lets go back to Select Psyker:
"Then, select a psychic power known to the selected unit that te unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase"


So far *every* time they have used the term "psyker unit", what they really mean is "A specific psyker model within a unit".... why is this time treated differently?

 Crimson wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
You're combing the mastery level of individual models in a unit, where no rules say we can do this.

So I'll apply the limitation on casting powers to individual models...

I am adding up mastery levels of my psyker units using normal math, just like I'm told. Yes, some units contain several mastery levels, but this doesn't matter, I'm adding up all mastery levels of all the psyker units I have.

Except that if you have multiple psyker models in one unit, they are NOT separate units.

It seems they can't keep it strait themselves they need a FAQ.

 Shandara wrote:

Except that if you have multiple psyker models in one unit, they are NOT separate units.

So? If I'm told to add up wounds of all my units, then I do not count 'one' for ten man tactical squad, even though each marine has one wound.

This is a bit different than wounds vs units, as THAT paragraph specifically says "models" through out it after defining which unit. Psyker phase seems to completely ignore the word "model" which seems to be a gross oversight.

Until FAQ'd, this will always be resolved by talking to your opponent as RAI it makes no freakin sense to deny the unit of Warlocks to cast individual spells since they are not Brotherhood units, or two IC psykers in the same unit from casting the same spell or generating additional warp charges. But, RAW, it indeed does what makes 0 sense.

Thankfully this is the only thing in the BRB for 7th ive seen that seems to be a neverending loop of "What if...?" crap. Last edition had TONS of them.

'Mastery Levels' of a unit isn't explicitly defined. The implicit definition would be the total for the unit. RAW matches RAI.

As for an IC being able to manifest a power someone else in the unit tried to manifest, the clear RAW is no, and it's obviously the RAI.

My interpretation is "psyker unit" is a unit that has one or more psykers in it. I think the restriction of "one power attempt per unit" is completely intentional and was made to nerf screamerstars and jetseer councils.

I think RAI, if you have a unit that contains more than one psyker, you resolve the powers by model (because the powers are assigned to the model, same as wargear), but still have the unit power restriction. So if you have two Tzeralds in a unit of Pinkies, you resolve each power as assigned, but the entire unit can't cast duplicates of powers previously cast by any psyker in that unit.

Or... and this is a big what if... perhaps the rules are INTENTIONALLY vague because Games Workshop wants us to Forge a Narrative and could care less about competitive balance. They tote 40k as a painting hobby that happens to also be a game. Every time there's a rules conflict, you roll a D6 to settle the matter. That's an OFFICIAL RULE!

The company doesn't care about making rulesets that are airtight... but perhaps that's because they don't want an airtight set of rules. We see them more as "guidelines" than an actual code!

Here's some House Rules I drew up. If you're a TO, feel free to use them and modify them. It makes casting psychic pwoers act more like 6e, which I believe was the intent of the designers (although of course I can't prove that).

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/597632.page#6880569

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Here's some House Rules I drew up. If you're a TO, feel free to use them and modify them. It makes casting psychic pwoers act more like 6e, which I believe was the intent of the designers (although of course I can't prove that).

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/597632.page#6880569

I feel what you posted there is what it will turn out to be.

Except being able to manifest the same power within a unit

I'm fairly sure that, if my first farseer fails to cast Fortune, my second farseer who also got it but is in the same unit isn't supposed to be able to cast it.

needs FAQ badly

The other odd consequence is that any psyker in a unit can cast a power that another user knows.

E.g. you select a power the 'unit' knows. So if Farseer #1 knows fortune then Farseer #2 could cast it. Of course how you allocate perils in this case is completely ambiguous though it seems reasonable that Farseer #2 takes it in this case.

At one point they refer to an Astropath as a Psyker Unit. An Astropath is always part of a company command squad. So unless "psyker unit" does indeed refers to both lone psykers and psykers that are part of a unit, how can the Astropath be a Psyker Unit?

coredump wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

coredump wrote:
Y'know... in several parts of that section, they seem to use "psyker unit" as a way to refer to psyker models, such as psyker ICs..

When not joined to another unit, an IC is a unit.

Well of course, but check out the page or two before this. They use the term 'unit' in many places that seem odd unless read as "psyker model or BoP unit" instead. IOW, the verbage just doesn't work well. If they are doing the same thing in this sentence, then it is not as limited as it first appears.


edit: Even if I follow this interpretation, I still think you add up all of the ML of each psyker in the unit. 5 warlocks do not contribute just 1 ML.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's see some of the uses of "psyker unit":

Select psyker:
"To manifest a psychic power, you will first need to select one of your Psyker units. It does not matter if the selected unit is Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. "

So, is that the unit, or a specific model within the unit?

Take psychic test:
"A Psyker must pass a Psychic test to see if he can harness the power of the Warp."

That seems obviously a specific model within the unit

"If, when making a Psychic test, two or more dice rolls (before applying modifiers) were rolls of a 6, the unit attempting to manifest the psychic power suffers Perils of the Warp"

But what about that. Specific model in unit, or entire unit?


Perils of the Warp:
"If a unit suffers Perils of the Warp, roll a D6 and consult the Perils of the Warp table below"

So, entire unit, or specific model within that unit?

"... the psychic power still manifests, regardless of whether or not the Psyker in question suffers a Wound or is slain by Perils of the Warp."

That seems to imply they were talking about a specific model suffering Perils

Lets go back to Select Psyker:
"Then, select a psychic power known to the selected unit that te unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase"

So far *every* time they have used the term "psyker unit", what they really mean is "A specific psyker model within a unit".... why is this time treated differently?

In addition to this:

"To manifest a psychic power, you will first need to select one of your Psyker units. It does not matter if the selected unit is Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. Then, select a psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase." emphasis theirs

I don't really see where the conflict is. In this case, the "Unit" that you're selecting is the Pskyer.

If you have a Weirdboy unit in a squad of Boyz, you do not select the "Boyz Unit" to manifest a Psychic power. The Boyz unit does not KNOW any psychic powers. It's not an eligible selection in the first place. In this context, it's obvious the intended word is "Psychic Model". However, GW doesn't specifically use the word "Model" because sometimes Psykers ARE units, such as in Brotherhood of Psychers.

I honestly don't think there is a rule conflict here. Unless you are choosing a Brotherhood of Pskyers unit, "Unit" in this context is meant as "The Pskyer". Not "The Pskyer's Unit".

IC's are part of a unit, for ALL purposes.

a psyker IC, in a BOP psyker unit, is not two units, it is ONE unit, and that unit still has BOP's rule.

this means that that UNIT can cast any power known to it (so the BOP's powers and IC's powers), you cannot say the IC is casting a power one he is in a unit of BOP's, only units cast powers, not models.

that unit may not manifest the same power twice,
perils is resolved as per BOP's rule,

that whole unit dies if it casts the greater demon summon power

and so on.

Pg 22 - For the purposes of all rules, the term 'psyker' and 'psyker unit' refers to any unit with the Psykee (pg 170), Psychich Pilot (pg 170) or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers (pg 159) special...

But I see it that psyker (pg 170) does not confure to a unit same as IC does not confure to a unit so you can have a unit of psyker but they are not a psyker unit as defined in Brotherhood of psykers (Pg 159) - a unit containing at least one model with this special rule is a psyker unit....

So now we see a clear definition difference of psyker and psyker unit... So we have have units of psykers ans psyker units

So what I THINK this is meant to mean is psyker are treated sepratly and psyker units are treated as one thing... Ergo never asd a psyker to a unit of brotherhood of psyker cus then that rule confers to him as well :/

easysauce, answer this question:

If a Farseer is attached to three Warlocks, and the Farseer rolls a Perils, which model suffers the Perils?
Please use some BRB page numbers when you answer so that I can follow along.

And another question:
If two Farseers are joined to each other, how many WC does that unit generate? [note that each Farseer has the same rule, Psyker (Mastery Level 3), and special rules cannot stack]

 easysauce wrote:
IC's are part of a unit, for ALL purposes.
.

That's true, and it's also not true. When you're talking about Warhammer 40k, the word "Unit" can mean many different things. You need to avoid taking the term too literally, or you end up with weird situations like I outlined above. Sometimes the rules refer to individual models as "models". Sometimes they're "units". Sometimes they're both.

If your interpretation of the rules is correct, then no Independent Character joined to another unit is capable of using Psychic powers. Because then a Farseer joined to a unit of Dire Avengers would no longer count as a "Psychic Unit".

An IC joined to another unit is treated as one unit. Yes. For the purposes of Moving, Shooting, being a target of enemy shooting, assault, etc... they all act as one unit. That part you've got correct.

However, that doesn't mean that you can't further sub-define the unit. Individual models can still be called "Units". If you have a space marine with a rocket launcher in a squad of tactical marines, he is the "unit with the rocket launcher".

An Independent Character doesn't stop being treated as a "Unit" simply because he's joined to another unit. They just ACT as one unit for most game purposes.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
easysauce, answer this question:

If a Farseer is attached to three Warlocks, and the Farseer rolls a Perils, which model suffers the Perils?
Please use some BRB page numbers when you answer so that I can follow along.

And another question:
If two Farseers are joined to each other, how many WC does that unit generate? [note that each Farseer has the same rule, Psyker (Mastery Level 3), and special rules cannot stack]

I figure you'll like this one.

I have a Herald of Tzeentch in a unit of Pink Horrors , The Herald of Tzeentch casts Possession. Do you Remove all of the unit?

The Pink Horrors Cast Possession do you remove the Heralds?

I dunno kind of looks like you do.

If a unit of Warlocks cast Possession do you removed all of the Warlocks?

so I can target the IC psyker in a unit with shooting, because hes his own unit now/still?

he cannot LOS because the other models are not in his unit?

that IC is still a separate unit, so you cannot put him in a transport with the unit he joined?

and so on, too many things you break when you choose to not treat an IC as part of the unit for a particular rules purpose.

seems like you are picking and choosing what rules purposes that IC counts as part of the unit for, instead of treating it as such for ALL PURPOSES.


Unit=/=model, the two terms are 100% not interchangable, unit means unit, model means model.

power casting changed in 7th, its by unit, not by individual pyskers, and not separated by BOPs, deal with it,

other units get to buff you with WC's, but at the same time, putting your IC's in units got a bit of a nerf.

again, a IC by him self, is one unit, the unit he intends to join, pre him joining it is also a unit. once he has joined that unit, the two units become ONE unit. If that unit has at least one model with the psyker or BOP rule, its a psychic unit.


so we have a unit, with a psyker in it, which is now a SINGLE psykic unit, that casts a power that states the UNIT that cast it is now dead.

that UNIT, which is some dudes+psyker, is now dead. done and done, thats RAW.

a IC psyker, in a BOP unit, is still ONE unit, that cast a power, that cause the UNIT to die... hence the UNIT is now dead.

again, RAW.

perils tells you to assign it to the psyker if alone, or randomly if the unit has the BOP rule.

 easysauce wrote:

again, a IC by him self, is one unit, the unit he intends to join, pre him joining it is also a unit. once he has joined that unit, the two units become ONE unit. If that unit has at least one model with the psyker or BOP rule, its a psychic unit.

so we have a unit, with a psyker in it, which is now a SINGLE psykic unit, that casts a power that states the UNIT that cast it is now dead.
.

So point me to a page in the rulebook that validates your point in bold. Because honestly you're making stuff up, and misunderstanding the definition of the word "Unit" as Games Workshop employs it. Or to be more accurate, Games Workshop has SEVERAL definitions for what a "unit" is, and you're insisting that only one of them applies.

Murrdox wrote:
When you're talking about Warhammer 40k, the word "Unit" can mean many different things.

No, it can't. 'Units' are defined quite clearly at the front of the book.

You need to avoid taking the term too literally, ...

Written rules have to be taken literally. That's how written rules work.

If the written rule, taken literally, doesn't work, then the rule is badly written, and needs to be fixed.

Murrdox wrote:

So point me to a page in the rulebook that validates your point in bold. Because honestly you're making stuff up, and misunderstanding the definition of the word "Unit" as Games Workshop employs it. Or to be more accurate, Games Workshop has SEVERAL definitions for what a "unit" is, and you're insisting that only one of them applies.

the pages that deal with pychic powers 20-26IIRC state what to do with the psyker rule, BOP"s, and psychic pilot and its just as I have said it.

please cite the pages with GW's official multiple definitions of "unit" please, because,
again GW has only ONE definition in book, at the front, that you take GW's singular definition, and call them out as having multiple definitions, shows who is lacking understanding here... I am not making assumptions, I am not assuming definitions outside the literal one GW has given us, I am following RAW to its logical conclusion,

namely that if GW says ICs are part of a unit for all purposes, that means that the IC is part of the unit for all purposes.


you need a lot more justification to turn "an IC is treated as part of the unit for ALL PURPOSES"
into
"an IC is treated as part of the unit for some but not all PURPOSES, and we wont spell out which is which"

then simply claiming with no evidence that GW has "multiple definitions" of units, which you cant even quote pg #'s for because they simply do not exist.

So I think it comes down to the difference between a unit with psykers in and a psyker unit. which i believe there is a clear difference in the rules its just in the psychic power phase they the term psyker and psyker unit interchangeably and they state they are going to as well

As others have stated , Editor at Gameworkshop is a Ceremonial Title.

Hollismason wrote:
As others have stated , Editor at Gameworkshop is a Ceremonial Title.

thats fine, feel free to discuss what you think the rules should be written as,

in the mean time, YMDC is meant for the rules as they are written.

GW has made it abundantly clear, and encouraged you, to make 40k your own way, and you are allowed to change the rules to make whatever house rules you see fit to do so.

in the mean time, please make your RAI, or "i think the rules should be written differently" discusions as RAI discussions, dont claim them as valid RAW in YMDC, it just clutters it up for people who want to play the game as GW wrote it.

A unit usually consists of several models that have banded
together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a
rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right.

For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any unit with the
Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rules.

To manifest a psychic power, you will first need to select one of your Psyker units. It
does not matter if the selected unit is Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. Then, select a
psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted
to manifest in this Psychic phase.

You will find no such rule stating that a "unit with a Pskyer model in it counts as a Psychic Unit" as you said above... because there is no such thing.

So your rule interpretation is that RAW, you can never cast a Psychic power with any character or independent character joined to a unit that are not also all Psykers. Congratulations, you broke the psychic phase. If you can't "Select one of your Psyker units" then you can't cast any powers with that unit.

Your interpretation of the RAW is just wrong on its face. Which interpretation do you think is correct? The one that makes all Psykers mostly useless or the one that actually lets them cast powers as the book describes?

This is the one that I'd like answered, according to RAW:

If two Farseers are joined to each other, how many WC does that unit generate? [note that each Farseer has the same rule, Psyker (Mastery Level 3), and special rules cannot stack]

Murrdox wrote:
You will find no such rule stating that a "unit with a Pskyer model in it counts as a Psychic Unit" as you said above... because there is no such thing.

That's correct. As was discussed earlier in the thread, the rules simply don't cover units of non-psykers that have a psyker in them, only units with the 'Psyker' rule.

So your rule interpretation is that RAW, you can never cast a Psychic power with any character or independent character joined to a unit that are not also all Psykers. Congratulations, you broke the psychic phase. If you can't "Select one of your Psyker units" then you can't cast any powers with that unit.

Correct., Again, this was all covered earlier in the thread.

Your interpretation of the RAW is just wrong on its face. Which interpretation do you think is correct? The one that makes all Psykers mostly useless or the one that actually lets them cast powers as the book describes?

The 'correct' interpretation is the one that follows the rules as written, because that's what the written rules are for.

The problem is simply that those rules, as they currently stand, are incomplete. We have no way of knowing how GW expect psykers to function in the various situations not covered by the current rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
This is the one that I'd like answered, according to RAW:

If two Farseers are joined to each other, how many WC does that unit generate? [note that each Farseer has the same rule, Psyker (Mastery Level 3), and special rules cannot stack]

And the answer is: nobody knows.

They would appear to count as a single, mastery 3 unit for the purposes of the psychic phase... But that leads to all sorts of issues.

an IC with the psyker rule, has the psyker rule.

that IC joins a unit,

that unit now contains at least one model with the psyker rule,
its therefore a psyker unit.

its not broken at all when read in correct order.

you still know that the psyker gets the perils as BOP's isnt in play, and your unit is still a psyker unit, because part of that unit is a psyker with that special rule.

the main thing that RAW is unlcear about is if two psychic IC's are in a unit, and suffer perils, which psyker is hit by it?

If you guys want to debate that, fine I guess, but it seems like a useless waste of energy.

For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any unit with the
Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rules.

This rule basically tells you how it's meant to be treated. You're getting bent out of shape on the RAW because it doesn't say THIS instead:

For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any model with the
Psyker or Psychic Pilot special rule, [color=red]or a unit /color]with the Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rules.

Personally, I don't think the distinction is necessary. A character or an Independent Character can be a "unit".

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules
purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

An Independent Character doesn't STOP being a unit just because he's joined to a unit. You're just getting too bent out of shape because there isn't a completely different set of rules specifying how a Psyker "Unit" acts and a Pskyer "Model" acts. Sometimes you have to treat a Character or Independent Character as a "model as part of a unit" and sometimes you have to treat it as a "unit of one model". In this context, referring to the Pskyer as a "unit", even when it's joined to another unit isn't really a big jump in logic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
an IC with the psyker rule, has the psyker rule.

that IC joins a unit,

that unit now contains at least one model with the psyker rule,

its therefore a psyker unit.

Demonstrably false.

A model with this special rule is a Psyker. This rule is typically presented with a Mastery
Level, shown in brackets – if no Mastery Level is shown then that model has a Mastery Level
of 1. Rules for generating and manifesting psychic powers can be found in the Psychic phase
section.

There is nothing written there about a Unit being treated as a "Psychic Unit" because it has a Psycher present in it. The rule refers only to the individual model.

Murrdox wrote:
An Independent Character doesn't STOP being a unit just because he's joined to a unit. You're just getting too bent out of shape because there isn't a completely different set of rules specifying how a Psyker "Unit" acts and a Pskyer "Model" acts. Sometimes you have to treat a Character or Independent Character as a "model as part of a unit" and sometimes you have to treat it as a "unit of one model". In this context, referring to the Pskyer as a "unit", even when it's joined to another unit isn't really a big jump in logic.

Except that they do when they become part of the unit for all rules purposes.

They are using the terms psyker and psyker unit interchangeably.

Here is proof.

if you read under the bullet point :"Manifesting Psychic Powers Sequence", step 3 says "... If two or more 6s are rolled, the Psyker suffers Perils of the Warp, which is resolved immediately."

Under "manifesting a psychic power" we find this at the end of the section: "If, when making a Psychic test, two or more dice rolls (before applying modifiers) were rolls of a 6, the unit attempting to manifest the psychic power suffers Perils of the Warp..."

So do both the unit, and the psyker take a perils? Or are these terms being used interchangeably?

There are more examples, but I won't go there unless needed.

What does all this mean? It means its poorly written. But you can't go back and forth on weather you intend these words to be specific, or general.

There is no definitive answer to this issue, because of the terrible wording of the rules, so we are left trying to discern what they Intended.

I'm rather confident they intended each mastery level of individual psykers to be added up for warp charges. (with the exception of brotherhoods of psykers). I hear the argument that it says "total the mastery levels of your psychic units" but I doubt they intended to make it so in order to get warp charges from your warlocks you have to split them off to guardian squads. The one thing they are consistent with throughout the rules, ls using the term "psyker unit" to refer to weather or not you can use a psy power again for the same unit. I would not be at all surprised that this is intentional, and an intended nerf to seer councils and the like... and intending to encourage you to add a little demonology to your warlocks.

All that said, this is probably the worst unfaq'd gw rule I've ever seen, and I've been playing since second.

Murrdox wrote:
A character or an Independent Character can be a "unit".

They certainly can. The problem is that they're not always a unit.

An Independent Character doesn't STOP being a unit just because he's joined to a unit.

If that were true, you would still be able to shoot at them.

However, Independant Characters aren't the only issue here. Units of Warlocks have the exact same problem.

You're just getting too bent out of shape because there isn't a completely different set of rules specifying how a Psyker "Unit" acts and a Pskyer "Model" acts.

No, we're 'getting bent out of shape' because the rules simply don't cover what happens when a unit only contains some models with the Psyker rule, or where a unit is comprised entirely of Psykers who don't have the Brotherhood rule.

Sometimes you have to treat a Character or Independent Character as a "model as part of a unit" and sometimes you have to treat it as a "unit of one model".

Except there is abolutely no rules basis for doing this.

In this context, referring to the Pskyer as a "unit", even when it's joined to another unit isn't really a big jump in logic.

Sure. Just as soon as the rules say thay this is how it works, that is how it will work.

Right now, they don't.

Honestly I think the word 'unit' was the poor choice in this edition. It seems to me that the RAI was that each psyker, is a 'psyker unit' unto itself, regardless of whether it is part of a 'unit' in the more generic sense of 40K.

I.E. A 10-man squad of warlocks is a single 'unit'. But that 'unit' consists of 10 'psyker units'. Where as a GK squad with the Brotherhood of Psykers rule, is collectively 1 'psyker unit' that has a single mastery level... etc


Unfortunately since the genius GW writers decided to use the same word to apply to both concepts, the RAW makes it very hard to determine if this was the intended use.

The only way the psyker rules make any sense is if you treat all instances of the word 'unit' in the psychic chapter as 'psyker unit' and something completely different then what is meant by 'unit' in the rest of the BRB.

Really not that hard I do agree above the tern psyker unit is a bit meh but we have definitons as I have stated.

Firstyl they tells us they when in psychich phase section that will will use the term psyker and psychic unit to stand stand for three different thing (psyker, Brotherhood and psychich vehicles).

Then when we look at Brotherhood it tells us a model woth this special rule confers it to a squad. When you have thr rule psykee it does not confer same as psychich pilot meaning we can have psyker unit and units with psykers in jot hard at all.

So when ever in the psychic phase it says psyker unit, it also means psyker and psychic vehicle you are told to replace the word as needed depending on which one it is

katana100 wrote:
Firstyl they tells us they when in psychich phase section that will will use the term psyker and psychic unit to stand stand for three different thing (psyker, Brotherhood and psychich vehicles).

Those terms stand for units with those three rules.

The problem is that a squad of Warlocks is a unit with the Psyker rule. So is a unit comprised of two Psyker ICs.

Where it gets really muddy is in figuring out how to determine how many models in a unit have to have the Psyker rule before you can say that the unit has the Psyker rule.

 erick99 wrote:

Murrdox wrote:
An Independent Character doesn't STOP being a unit just because he's joined to a unit. You're just getting too bent out of shape because there isn't a completely different set of rules specifying how a Psyker "Unit" acts and a Pskyer "Model" acts. Sometimes you have to treat a Character or Independent Character as a "model as part of a unit" and sometimes you have to treat it as a "unit of one model". In this context, referring to the Pskyer as a "unit", even when it's joined to another unit isn't really a big jump in logic.

Except that they do when they become part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Cite source please?

Becoming a part of another unit, per the RAW, says nothing about losing his unit-ness himself. Where do the rules state a model can only be a part of one unit at a time?

On the other hand, the rules do indicate that "psyker" and "psyker unit" are used interchangably to mean "psyker, brotherhood, and psychic vehicles". The only reason unit is even there is likely to accommodate Brotherhoods, who are not "models", and prevent this sort of Rules Lawyering regarding the effects of the psychic phase. In this regard, every time they state "psyker unit", you can easily replace that with "psyker".

Kyutaru wrote:
Becoming a part of another unit, per the RAW, says nothing about losing his unit-ness himself. Where do the rules state a model can only be a part of one unit at a time?

Where do the rules state that a model can be part of more than one unit at a time?

If the IC still counts as a unit in his own right, then you would be able to shoot at him despite being joined to another unit. And you would never be able to join more than one IC to a unit, as the second IC to join would find himself having to choose which unit to join (the IC, or the squad... which also includes the IC who he isn't joining...) and then the universe would implode while you try to work out how that IC can be both joined and not joined to the IC who is a part of the unit for all rules purposes but to whom apparently the rules don't apply...


To put it more simply, if you assume that the IC remains an 'IC Unit' even when joined to another unit, madness happens.

 insaniak wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:
Becoming a part of another unit, per the RAW, says nothing about losing his unit-ness himself. Where do the rules state a model can only be a part of one unit at a time?

Where do the rules state that a model can be part of more than one unit at a time?

Where do the rules state they can't? All I see is that a unit is joining another unit, becoming a combo unit. Where does it say he stops being a unit at that point? Permissive ruling required.

 insaniak wrote:
If the IC still counts as a unit in his own right, then you would be able to shoot at him despite being joined to another unit. And you would never be able to join more than one IC to a unit, as the second IC to join would find himself having to choose which unit to join (the IC, or the squad... which also includes the IC who he isn't joining...) and then the universe would implode while you try to work out how that IC can be both joined and not joined to the IC who is a part of the unit for all rules purposes but to whom apparently the rules don't apply...

Yep! Targeting an individual IC would be possible as long as you have clear line of sight to him, but any extra wounds wouldn't transfer to his "other unit". If some other IC joins his unit and not the unit he's part of, he won't be able to participate in shooting or assault phases that the "other unit" participates in. When an IC moves into coherency range of multiple units, he chooses which unit to join. If he joins the squad, he has joined the IC within that squad but is not part of the IC's "other unit", so the IC remains counted as a unit individually. This actually PERMITS multiple IC psykers to generate warp charges and manifest powers regardless of how many of them have joined a squad. They are all part of the same unit and yet are also individual units.

 insaniak wrote:

To put it more simply, if you assume that the IC remains an 'IC Unit' even when joined to another unit, madness happens.

You mean like this entire thread and it's debilitating processing of psykers and their phase? Considering the issues you pointed out seem to have clear resolutions, I'm okay with this! The RAW supports it and it makes 7th edition psykers useful, which I believe was the RAI to begin with. Plus, it's not the first edition where ICs joined to a unit can be targeted. We have precedence!

 insaniak wrote:

katana100 wrote:
Firstyl they tells us they when in psychich phase section that will will use the term psyker and psychic unit to stand stand for three different thing (psyker, Brotherhood and psychich vehicles).

Those terms stand for units with those three rules.

The problem is that a squad of Warlocks is a unit with the Psyker rule. So is a unit comprised of two Psyker ICs.

Where it gets really muddy is in figuring out how to determine how many models in a unit have to have the Psyker rule before you can say that the unit has the Psyker rule.

Yeh it is a little muddy but as im reading it they are a unit with psykers in just as you can have units with any other special rule and a psyker unit is a brotherhood one as that actually brotherhood rule. So a unit of warlocks is a unit with psykers same as a unit with two IC that are psykers but a GK squad becuase it has the brotherhood rule is a psykee unit

Kyutaru wrote:

 erick99 wrote:

Murrdox wrote:
An Independent Character doesn't STOP being a unit just because he's joined to a unit. You're just getting too bent out of shape because there isn't a completely different set of rules specifying how a Psyker "Unit" acts and a Pskyer "Model" acts. Sometimes you have to treat a Character or Independent Character as a "model as part of a unit" and sometimes you have to treat it as a "unit of one model". In this context, referring to the Pskyer as a "unit", even when it's joined to another unit isn't really a big jump in logic.

Except that they do when they become part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Cite source please?

Jesus, people are still questioning this?

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

Emphasis mine.

If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

If he was already a unit of one model, how does he again become one?

Not a single word in the IC rule has changed from last edition that I can see. So since this was true last edition, it still is.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:

 erick99 wrote:

Murrdox wrote:
An Independent Character doesn't STOP being a unit just because he's joined to a unit. You're just getting too bent out of shape because there isn't a completely different set of rules specifying how a Psyker "Unit" acts and a Pskyer "Model" acts. Sometimes you have to treat a Character or Independent Character as a "model as part of a unit" and sometimes you have to treat it as a "unit of one model". In this context, referring to the Pskyer as a "unit", even when it's joined to another unit isn't really a big jump in logic.

Except that they do when they become part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Cite source please?

Jesus, people are still questioning this?

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

Emphasis mine.

Which only states that he counts as part of that unit for all rules purposes, such as wounds being distributed among a unit, units having to take morale checks, units shooting together. It says nothing about him ceasing to be an IC unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

If he was already a unit of one model, how does he again become one?

No silly... this is merely clarification for what happens when "all other models in that unit are killed". When an IC joins a unit, he remains a unit himself and also becomes a part of the new unit. But if all the models in the new unit are killed, does that mean the IC now has TWO units? NO! This rule clearly states that he becomes a single unit again, thereby destroying his connection with the other unit entirely should they all die off. If you didn't have this rule, the IC could join a unit of Chosen and still be considered part of a "Chosen unit" even if every Chosen model had died off!

Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit. You're merely arguing for your preferred interpretation, not the One True RAW.

Kyutaru wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:
Cite source please?

Jesus, people are still questioning this?

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

Emphasis mine.

Which only states that he counts as part of that unit for all rules purposes, such as wounds being distributed among a unit, units having to take morale checks, units shooting together. It says nothing about him ceasing to be an IC unit.

He's part of the unit for all rules purposes. Not just what you outlined, but all.
Are you treating him as not a part of that unit for a rules purpose? Please cite why.

rigeld2 wrote:

If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

If he was already a unit of one model, how does he again become one?

No silly... this is merely clarification for what happens when "all other models in that unit are killed". When an IC joins a unit, he remains a unit himself and also becomes a part of the new unit. But if all the models in the new unit are killed, does that mean the IC now has TWO units? NO! This rule clearly states that he becomes a single unit again, thereby destroying his connection with the other unit entirely should they all die off. If you didn't have this rule, the IC could join a unit of Chosen and still be considered part of a "Chosen unit" even if every Chosen model had died off!

The underlined is not true. It actually states that he again becomes a single model unit.

Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit. You're merely arguing for your preferred interpretation, not the One True RAW.

The underlined isn't a basis for a discussion about the written rules. Additionally, your interpretation - by your own admission - allows ICs to be singled out in combat and shooting. That's not a "loophole [you] can exploit"?

I'm pretty sure there's a line that simply states "A unit may not attepmt to cast the same power twice", I'll go find my book and see if I can reference it.

rigeld2 wrote:
He's part of the unit for all rules purposes. Not just what you outlined, but all.
Are you treating him as not a part of that unit for a rules purpose? Please cite why.

Well since you're attempting to restate my claim using a weaker argument, let me restate AGAIN that he DOES count as part of that unit for ALL rules purpose. He just happens to also count as part of another unit, his own. I play many RTS games online and we frequently are able to bind units to teams using the number keys for quick selection. Having a single unit bound to team 1, 2, and 7 is simple enough, so my experience helps me understand the logic behind being part of multiple units and counting as a particular unit when a rule asks of it. For all rule purposes, he's dual-united. Merely selecting his solo unit does not rid of him of counting as part of the other unit for any rules purpose, he is still a part of that unit and still suffers the rule implications of that fact.

rigeld2 wrote:
The underlined is not true. It actually states that he again becomes a single model unit.

Where previously he was both a single model unit AND a Chosen unit. It remains true, you merely don't care to acknowledge it because it hurts your position.

The underlined isn't a basis for a discussion about the written rules. Additionally, your interpretation - by your own admission - allows ICs to be singled out in combat and shooting. That's not a "loophole [you] can exploit"?

I'm not even certain what you're asking here, and I did not "base" anything here for any rule discussion. This line was simply a summary addressment that your rule interpretations are flawed and leave holes in the logic that I can abuse. Which I have, repeatedly. Allowing an IC to be singled out is surely a loophole to be exploited by anyone looking to murder that IC. Doesn't stop him being part of and affected by all rules that affect the unit he's joined to.

Kyutaru wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
He's part of the unit for all rules purposes. Not just what you outlined, but all.
Are you treating him as not a part of that unit for a rules purpose? Please cite why.

Well since you're attempting to restate my claim using a weaker argument, let me restate AGAIN that he DOES count as part of that unit for ALL rules purpose. He just happens to also count as part of another unit, his own. I play many RTS games online and we frequently are able to bind units to teams using the number keys for quick selection. Having a single unit bound to team 1, 2, and 7 is simple enough, so my experience helps me understand the logic behind being part of multiple units and counting as a particular unit when a rule asks of it. For all rule purposes, he's dual-united. Merely selecting his solo unit does not rid of him of counting as part of the other unit for any rules purpose, he is still a part of that unit and still suffers the rule implications of that fact.

The bolded is absolutely irrelevant to how the rules actually work. 40k isn't a RTS, and quick select doesn't change the unit so it's a poor comparison..
Please support the underlined with actual rules.
I've shown how he is part of the larger unit for all (not some) rules purposes. Treating him as anything but part of that unit for a rules purpose is incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:
The underlined is not true. It actually states that he again becomes a single model unit.

Where previously he was both a single model unit AND a Chosen unit. It remains true, you merely don't care to acknowledge it because it hurts your position.

rigeld2 wrote:
The bolded is absolutely irrelevant to how the rules actually work. 40k isn't a RTS, and quick select doesn't change the unit so it's a poor comparison..
Please support the underlined with actual rules.
I've shown how he is part of the larger unit for all (not some) rules purposes. Treating him as anything but part of that unit for a rules purpose is incorrect.

You're dismissing something that was not stated for rules, LOL! That was stated for experience, and the comparison you call "poor" is culminated with this final statement that you conveniently overlook -- "my experience helps me understand the logic behind being part of multiple units and counting as a particular unit when a rule asks of it." If you are devoid of such understanding, surely comprehending this logic of multi-unit allocations would be quite difficult and perplexing. I also already supported what you underlined earlier, please be sure to read the thread, especially parts you just quoted in your previous post!

rigeld2 wrote:
No. I do like how you edited it so your misquote disappeared.
"This rule clearly states that he becomes a single unit again" != "he again becomes a unit of one model"
Please don't intentionally misquote.

Yet since you seem to have left out your rebuttal, I'll take that as acknowledgement of its apt correctness.

rigeld2 wrote:
Saying, and I quote, "Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit" is irrelevant. If the rules support that position, they support that position. Your statement is that the position cannot be correct if there are loopholes to be exploited (while ignoring the massive one that your interpretation leaves open).

I am permitted to make any statements I care to on a public forum, including ones not directly relevant to the conversation. I stated that simple fact because the rules are so open to interpretation that I have been able to provide an alternate interpretation for each so far, and there's little you can do to argue that it is not meant to be that way.

rigeld2 wrote:
Now - you've agreed twice so far that your interpretation allows the IC to be targeted separate from the unit he's joined to.
Is that treating him as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes? Please explain how your stance fits this requirement.

Indeed it does! When shooting at units, you must select which unit you care to shoot at. Selecting the Macro unit results in wounds being distributed to all including the IC, who must also fall back if the unit fails their morale check. But if a shooter selects the IC himself, they are targeting the Micro unit. Remember, we're not talking about the IC here! We're talking about the UNIT! These are different things! An IC is a model, not a unit. The MODEL counts as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes, however shooting can only be done against a UNIT! Models merely receive the wounds that are allocated against that unit. Therefore, you can target the Micro unit individually from the Macro unit because the IC model is treated as part of the macro unit for all rules purposes, yet his own unit contains only himself. The REST of the models in the Macro unit do not count as part of HIS unit. He counts as part of THEIRS. Targeting the micro unit would then only distribute wounds against models within that unit, and since the Macro unit models are not considered part of the Micro unit, the only model that can receive wounds is the IC. Whose model is STILL treated for ALL RULES PURPOSES as part of the Macro unit, just not to the extent of exclusivity that you seem to read into when the RAW does not support that.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm curious as to what loopholes you're seeing though.

See above. I'm curious as to what difficulty you're having understanding my version of the interpretation. The rules are clear what the requirements are that must be met, and I am meeting those requirements in addition to the requirements of other rulings within the book.

Kyutaru wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Now - you've agreed twice so far that your interpretation allows the IC to be targeted separate from the unit he's joined to.
Is that treating him as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes? Please explain how your stance fits this requirement.

Indeed it does! When shooting at units, you must select which unit you care to shoot at. Selecting the Macro unit results in wounds being distributed to all including the IC, who must also fall back if the unit fails their morale check. But if a shooter selects the IC himself, they are targeting the Micro unit. Remember, we're not talking about the IC here! We're talking about the UNIT! These are different things! An IC is a model, not a unit. The MODEL counts as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes, however shooting can only be done against a UNIT! Models merely receive the wounds that are allocated against that unit. Therefore, you can target the Micro unit individually from the Macro unit because the IC model is treated as part of the macro unit for all rules purposes, yet his own unit contains only himself. The REST of the models in the Macro unit do not count as part of HIS unit. He counts as part of THEIRS. Targeting the micro unit would then only distribute wounds against models within that unit, and since the Macro unit models are not considered part of the Micro unit, the only model that can receive wounds is the IC. Whose model is STILL treated for ALL RULES PURPOSES as part of the Macro unit, just not to the extent of exclusivity that you seem to read into when the RAW does not support that.

Im probably opening myself up for some serious attack here

But Micro and Macro units we don't have those in this game no where in the BRB does this even exists :/ we just have units and when an IC joins a unit he joins that unit for all rules purposes meaning he cannot be singled out because he is part of that unit for all purposes.

Also this is gone way of track we are talking about psykers in relation to units and what happens when one joins it it would be nice to get back on track

Kyutaru wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The bolded is absolutely irrelevant to how the rules actually work. 40k isn't a RTS, and quick select doesn't change the unit so it's a poor comparison..
Please support the underlined with actual rules.
I've shown how he is part of the larger unit for all (not some) rules purposes. Treating him as anything but part of that unit for a rules purpose is incorrect.

You're dismissing something that was not stated for rules, LOL! That was stated for experience, and the comparison you call "poor" is culminated with this final statement that you conveniently overlook -- "my experience helps me understand the logic behind being part of multiple units and counting as a particular unit when a rule asks of it." If you are devoid of such understanding, surely comprehending this logic of multi-unit allocations would be quite difficult and perplexing. I also already supported what you underlined earlier, please be sure to read the thread, especially parts you just quoted in your previous post!

Please, link me to the post where you proved "For all rule purposes, he's dual-united." using actual rules.
Sure - it helps you understand the logic of something that has literally no basis in actual rules, it just helps you invent something. I don't care about that - I care about actual rules. I can handle the concept of dual units just fine, but the rules don't support them.

rigeld2 wrote:
No. I do like how you edited it so your misquote disappeared.
"This rule clearly states that he becomes a single unit again" != "he again becomes a unit of one model"
Please don't intentionally misquote.

Yet since you seem to have left out your rebuttal, I'll take that as acknowledgement of its apt correctness.

Left out my rebuttal? Sorry I messed up that quote. Again, however,
"This rule clearly states that he becomes a single unit again" != "he again becomes a unit of one model"
Please don't intentionally misquote. Your statement has no basis in fact.

rigeld2 wrote:
Saying, and I quote, "Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit" is irrelevant. If the rules support that position, they support that position. Your statement is that the position cannot be correct if there are loopholes to be exploited (while ignoring the massive one that your interpretation leaves open).

I am permitted to make any statements I care to on a public forum, including ones not directly relevant to the conversation. I stated that simple fact because the rules are so open to interpretation that I have been able to provide an alternate interpretation for each so far, and there's little you can do to argue that it is not meant to be that way.

They're as open to interpretation as what happens when a model loses a wound. In other words, they only are if you make things up.

rigeld2 wrote:
Now - you've agreed twice so far that your interpretation allows the IC to be targeted separate from the unit he's joined to.
Is that treating him as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes? Please explain how your stance fits this requirement.

Indeed it does! When shooting at units, you must select which unit you care to shoot at. Selecting the Macro unit results in wounds being distributed to all including the IC, who must also fall back if the unit fails their morale check. But if a shooter selects the IC himself, they are targeting the Micro unit. Remember, we're not talking about the IC here! We're talking about the UNIT! These are different things! An IC is a model, not a unit. The MODEL counts as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes, however shooting can only be done against a UNIT! Models merely receive the wounds that are allocated against that unit. Therefore, you can target the Micro unit individually from the Macro unit because the IC model is treated as part of the macro unit for all rules purposes, yet his own unit contains only himself. The REST of the models in the Macro unit do not count as part of HIS unit. He counts as part of THEIRS. Targeting the micro unit would then only distribute wounds against models within that unit, and since the Macro unit models are not considered part of the Micro unit, the only model that can receive wounds is the IC. Whose model is STILL treated for ALL RULES PURPOSES as part of the Macro unit, just not to the extent of exclusivity that you seem to read into when the RAW does not support that.

Assuming you're correct (when no rules actually agree with you), how does targeting a unit and wounding a model allow you to wound a model in a different unit? Remember, the IC is part of the larger unit for all (literally all, not just some as it seems you're pretending) rules purposes. So allocating a wound to that model would mean you're allocating a wound to a model that for all rules purposes is a part of a unit other than the one you targeted. Cite permission.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm curious as to what loopholes you're seeing though.

See above. I'm curious as to what difficulty you're having understanding my version of the interpretation. The rules are clear what the requirements are that must be met, and I am meeting those requirements in addition to the requirements of other rulings within the book.

See what above? You do realize that loophole only exists in your (flawed) interpretation, correct? Using the actual rules it can't happen.
Please, elaborate on your statement of, "Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit. " What loopholes?

katana100 wrote:
But Micro and Macro units we don't have those in this game no where in the BRB does this even exists :/ we just have units and when an IC joins a unit he joins that unit for all rules purposes meaning he cannot be singled out because he is part of that unit for all purposes.

Allow me to clarify for your that Macro and Micro units are merely expressions I came up with to help discern which unit I am referencing in that post. Macro unit is the IC's joined unit and all models they had, the Micro unit is the IC's original unit, which I am stating still exists.

katana100 wrote:
Also this is gone way of track we are talking about psykers in relation to units and what happens when one joins it it would be nice to get back on track

Not at all! If ICs count as units even when they are counted as another unit, then you can select them for the psyker phase and they generate warp charges individually regardless of what unit they're attached to. So arguing these rules is actually perfectly on track with the goal of the thread!

I love how some people read "part of the unit for all purposes"

as part of the unit for some purposes and not others, as I see fit.
*looks at kyutaru*

really no point in you being here if you are just going to ignore the rules that are actually plain and simple, and bring in "non rules" to a discussion that already has some vaugness.

IC, by raw, are their own unit until they join another unit, at which time they are part of it for all purposes.

if you ignore this, you are ignoring the rules, despite what you think/want the rules to say, that is what they in fact say, there is no leeway.

stop cluttering up the thread with stuff thats just utter nonsense for the actual topic at hand please,

So,

for those who actually understand whats going on,

obviously RAW for and IC psyker is a bit screwey,

HIWPI is that GW does obs mean unit, as they specifically state that repeatedly and it balances things out a bit, they gramatically screwed up by not overtly stating that a unit with at least one psyker in it counts as a psyker unit, but it does seem to be implied to me.

Does that seem to fit you you all?

rigeld2 wrote:
Please, link me to the post where you proved "For all rule purposes, he's dual-united." using actual rules.
Sure - it helps you understand the logic of something that has literally no basis in actual rules, it just helps you invent something. I don't care about that - I care about actual rules. I can handle the concept of dual units just fine, but the rules don't support them.

Second and fourth posts at the top of this page, same ones that I responded to Insaniak with when he questioned the same. Please, link me to the post where YOU proved that his old unit ceases to exist using actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
Left out my rebuttal? Sorry I messed up that quote. Again, however,
"This rule clearly states that he becomes a single unit again" != "he again becomes a unit of one model"
Please don't intentionally misquote. Your statement has no basis in fact.

"Where previously he was both a single model unit AND a Chosen unit. It remains true, you merely don't care to acknowledge it because it hurts your position."
Yep, no rebuttal aside from claiming my statement has no basis in fact, which is clearly untrue as it was founded in the same posts I addressed above. You're employing a tactic where you have the authority to pick and choose what you'd care to interpret and how, but I assure you your basis for your claims are no more founded in fact than my own. The eye of the beholder chooses to see what it wants to see and you're simply refusing to accept my evidence that the rules do not support the IC's unit being destroyed unless explicitly stated.

rigeld2 wrote:
They're as open to interpretation as what happens when a model loses a wound. In other words, they only are if you make things up.

Please refrain from unintellectual dribble that adds nothing to the discussion merely because your point has been countered. Nothing here has been made up but has in fact been a mere interpretation of the rulings, the same as your own posts, supported by the Rules As They Are Written, not the Rules As You Think They Should Be Written.

rigeld2 wrote:
Assuming you're correct (when no rules actually agree with you)

That is an opinion, please refrain from stating such things as fact or discussion with you will be viewed as hostile.

rigeld2 wrote:
how does targeting a unit and wounding a model allow you to wound a model in a different unit? Remember, the IC is part of the larger unit for all (literally all, not just some as it seems you're pretending) rules purposes. So allocating a wound to that model would mean you're allocating a wound to a model that for all rules purposes is a part of a unit other than the one you targeted. Cite permission.

Under allocating wounds of both the Shooting and Assault phases. Remember, the IC has two units and therefore every wound he receives comes from a unit other than the one targeted. Please cite prohibition.

rigeld2 wrote:
See what above? You do realize that loophole only exists in your (flawed) interpretation, correct? Using the actual rules it can't happen.
Please, elaborate on your statement of, "Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit. " What loopholes?

Presuming to know the Rules As Intended and dismissing with prejudice interpretations that are not your own is the anti-thesis of the YMDC discussion area and a quick way to end up on everyone's ignore list. Please stick to factual statements founded in logic and reason, not attacks against a poster's credibility because of your own difference in opinions. We've been discussing the loopholes in reasoning this entire time as there is no rules supporting that your interpretation is the correct one when mine exists just as likely.

Kyutaru wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:
Becoming a part of another unit, per the RAW, says nothing about losing his unit-ness himself. Where do the rules state a model can only be a part of one unit at a time?

Where do the rules state that a model can be part of more than one unit at a time?

Where do the rules state they can't? All I see is that a unit is joining another unit, becoming a combo unit. Where does it say he stops being a unit at that point? Permissive ruling required.

Remember that 40k is a permissive ruleset-if the rules don't say we can, than we cannot. We demonstrated that for all rules purposes, he becomes part of the unit. You need to cite permission for the IC to be treated as his own unit while joined to another.

Kyutaru wrote:
....

rigeld2 wrote:
how does targeting a unit and wounding a model allow you to wound a model in a different unit? Remember, the IC is part of the larger unit for all (literally all, not just some as it seems you're pretending) rules purposes. So allocating a wound to that model would mean you're allocating a wound to a model that for all rules purposes is a part of a unit other than the one you targeted. Cite permission.

Under allocating wounds of both the Shooting and Assault phases. Remember, the IC has two units and therefore every wound he receives comes from a unit other than the one targeted. Please cite prohibition.

Again, 40k is a permissive ruleset. Cite permission.

rigeld2 wrote:
See what above? You do realize that loophole only exists in your (flawed) interpretation, correct? Using the actual rules it can't happen.
Please, elaborate on your statement of, "Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit. " What loopholes?

Presuming to know the Rules As Intended and dismissing with prejudice interpretations that are not your own is the anti-thesis of the YMDC discussion area and a quick way to end up on everyone's ignore list. Please stick to factual statements founded in logic and reason, not attacks against a poster's credibility because of your own difference in opinions. We've been discussing the loopholes in reasoning this entire time as there is no rules supporting that your interpretation is the correct one when mine exists just as likely.

We aren't talking RAI, we're talking RAW. RAW, we don't have permission to treat the IC as a separate unit.

Folks, please tone down the hostility. Keep in mind we are here to discuss toy soldiers. If doing so raises your blood pressure, you are not doing it right. Thanks!

Kyutaru wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Please, link me to the post where you proved "For all rule purposes, he's dual-united." using actual rules.
Sure - it helps you understand the logic of something that has literally no basis in actual rules, it just helps you invent something. I don't care about that - I care about actual rules. I can handle the concept of dual units just fine, but the rules don't support them.

Second and fourth posts at the top of this page, same ones that I responded to Insaniak with when he questioned the same.

Aside form the fact that there isn't a single rules quote or citation in those posts (which is what I asked for)...

Becoming a part of another unit, per the RAW, says nothing about losing his unit-ness himself. Where do the rules state a model can only be a part of one unit at a time?

On the other hand, the rules do indicate that "psyker" and "psyker unit" are used interchangably to mean "psyker, brotherhood, and psychic vehicles". The only reason unit is even there is likely to accommodate Brotherhoods, who are not "models", and prevent this sort of Rules Lawyering regarding the effects of the psychic phase. In this regard, every time they state "psyker unit", you can easily replace that with "psyker".

He is part of unit A for all (emphasized because you continually ignore it) rules purposes.
Are you treating him as something other than part of unit A for a rules purpose? Cite why. Actual rules, not "interpretations.

Where do the rules state they can't? All I see is that a unit is joining another unit, becoming a combo unit. Where does it say he stops being a unit at that point? Permissive ruling required.

Permissive ruling indeed. He's part of unit A for all rules purposes. Cite permission count him as part of unit B for any rules purpose.

rigeld2 wrote:
Left out my rebuttal? Sorry I messed up that quote. Again, however,
"This rule clearly states that he becomes a single unit again" != "he again becomes a unit of one model"
Please don't intentionally misquote. Your statement has no basis in fact.

"Where previously he was both a single model unit AND a Chosen unit. It remains true, you merely don't care to acknowledge it because it hurts your position."
Yep, no rebuttal aside from claiming my statement has no basis in fact, which is clearly untrue as it was founded in the same posts I addressed above. You're employing a tactic where you have the authority to pick and choose what you'd care to interpret and how, but I assure you your basis for your claims are no more founded in fact than my own. The eye of the beholder chooses to see what it wants to see and you're simply refusing to accept my evidence that the rules do not support the IC's unit being destroyed unless explicitly stated.

Actually, I'm not interpreting anything. I'm not assuming "all" means anything other than "all" - you are. I'm not inventing the concept of a dual unit - you are.
You've shown no evidence using rules. I have. Perhaps you'd like to provide some?

rigeld2 wrote:
They're as open to interpretation as what happens when a model loses a wound. In other words, they only are if you make things up.

Please refrain from unintellectual dribble that adds nothing to the discussion merely because your point has been countered. Nothing here has been made up but has in fact been a mere interpretation of the rulings, the same as your own posts, supported by the Rules As They Are Written, not the Rules As You Think They Should Be Written.

I'm sorry? You said the rules are "so open to interpretation". They're demonstrably not, unless you think things like what happens when a model loses a wound is open to interpretation. They're exactly as clear as this situation.

rigeld2 wrote:
Assuming you're correct (when no rules actually agree with you)

That is an opinion, please refrain from stating such things as fact or discussion with you will be viewed as hostile.

It's not an opinion - I've demonstrated it.

rigeld2 wrote:
how does targeting a unit and wounding a model allow you to wound a model in a different unit? Remember, the IC is part of the larger unit for all (literally all, not just some as it seems you're pretending) rules purposes. So allocating a wound to that model would mean you're allocating a wound to a model that for all rules purposes is a part of a unit other than the one you targeted. Cite permission.

Under allocating wounds of both the Shooting and Assault phases. Remember, the IC has two units and therefore every wound he receives comes from a unit other than the one targeted. Please cite prohibition.

So you're not treating him as a member of unit A for a rules purpose? Please cite permission.

rigeld2 wrote:
See what above? You do realize that loophole only exists in your (flawed) interpretation, correct? Using the actual rules it can't happen.
Please, elaborate on your statement of, "Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit. " What loopholes?

Presuming to know the Rules As Intended and dismissing with prejudice interpretations that are not your own is the anti-thesis of the YMDC discussion area and a quick way to end up on everyone's ignore list. Please stick to factual statements founded in logic and reason, not attacks against a poster's credibility because of your own difference in opinions. We've been discussing the loopholes in reasoning this entire time as there is no rules supporting that your interpretation is the correct one when mine exists just as likely.

Yours is in fact not "just as likely". It literally requires you to not treat the IC as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and the actual rules require you to treat the IC as part of the unit for all rules purposes. Since yours breaks that rule it cannot be correct.

I reject the implication that this is a biased reading of the rules. Please, explain how I'm inserting bias into the following rule:
"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."
I'm following it, word for word. You are inserting opinion and not following the rule (where it says "all rules purposes"). How am I biased?

Unless you have a different definition of "all".

right, one poster aside,

we are all past the RAW discussion, RAW: characters are part of their units for all purposes.

lets move past that, and get something consctuctive discussed.


lets get into RAI a bit, as it seems, to me, that everything is indeed done by unit, but that GW simply forgot to explicitly state that a unit with one or more psykers in it, is a psychich unit.

it does seem to me that it is implied, and that is HIWPI,

what do you guys think about this RAI HIWPI interpretation?

So you lose the charges a IC would normaly generate if they join a unit?

That seeems a bit silly.

HIWPI:
ICs contribute their charges. Units contribute their charges. Multiple Psykers in a unit contribute their charges.

ICs that are members of a unit cannot case the same spell as the unit they're a member of.
Multiple Psykers that are members of a unit (not BoP/S) cannot cast the same spell

rigeld2 wrote:
HIWPI:
ICs contribute their charges. Units contribute their charges. Multiple Psykers in a unit contribute their charges.

ICs that are members of a unit cannot case the same spell as the unit they're a member of.
Multiple Psykers that are members of a unit (not BoP/S) cannot cast the same spell

ok so it sounds like most of us are on the same page here, all that is what I believe RAI to be, and is HIWPI.

while not explicitly stated in the rules, it does seem implied to me that all that is true.

It also makes a lot of sense, and balances things out nicely.

 easysauce wrote:
right, one poster aside,

we are all past the RAW discussion, RAW: characters are part of their units for all purposes.

lets move past that, and get something consctuctive discussed.


lets get into RAI a bit, as it seems, to me, that everything is indeed done by unit, but that GW simply forgot to explicitly state that a unit with one or more psykers in it, is a psychich unit.

it does seem to me that it is implied, and that is HIWPI,

what do you guys think about this RAI HIWPI interpretation?

You're really going to have to go back and read the rest of the thread before these two got into their debate about if an ic remains his own unit. They actually discuss what you are saying in the rule book, and it was discussed ad nausium earlier in this thread.

So... for the two of you....

you will not find an opponent ANYWHERE that is going to let you single target an IC that has joined a unit. they will cite the rule that he has become part of the unit or all purposes, and if you insist, you will quickly run out of opponents in that game shop.

I'll give you a few examples though just to give you some food for thought. After that I'm not debating it anymore, because as I said, there is not a 40k player on the planet that's going to let you use that interpretation of the rules.


An IC can't fire at a different unit than the rest of his unit.

He "AGAIN BECOMES" a unit of one model at the start of the following phase. You can't become something you already are. That statement is pretty clear.


But regardless, no one is going to play with you that way man.

And for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't even matter. the rule still says that a unit with a model that has the 'psyker' special rule is referred to as a "psychic unit". Even your definition of what happens to an IC doesn't explain the wording in these rules. It's unfortunate, but they used the terms "psyker' and "psyker unit" interchangeably for this section, as is evidenced where they have repeated rules and swapped the noun. (see my previous posts for examples). It''s poor wording. Playing this rule by RAW would result in things like "taking two perils of the warp every time you suffered perils, one for the psyker, and one for the psyker unit". I don't think anyone believes that's what was RAI. And I don't for see anyone forcing you to pay by RAW in that regard.

Can we move on from this particular debate and try to figure out how to handle the psykers?

Emmagine

why are you talking to me, rudely, like I think an IC in a unit isnt part of that unit for all purposes?

thats not my position at all, in fact, I have repeatedly been stating the opposite...

you have me confused with another poster...

also, the whole point of me changing the discussion to HIWPI and RAI was to stop people from going on and on about exactly what you continue to go on and on about...

The first part of my reply was towards you. Your point has been discussed already in this thread. alot. after that, I'm referring to the other two people who are going back and forth over the whole IC thing. next time I'll be more specific when I say 'for the two of you". The rest was not intended for you as the respondent.

The problem is that it actually does say that. All of it. but it also stats completely different things that contradict it, if you are not using the terms "psyker" and "psyker unit' interchangeably. Trying to interpret as raw would, as i have said elsewhere, result in things like suffering 2 perrils of the warp rolls every time you rolled doubles. One for the psyker, and one for the psyker unit.

This leaves me with the only possible interpretation left, is that when it is making the following statement

For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/ Sorcerers special rules.

Games Workshop Ltd. Warhammer 40,000 (Kindle Locations 5757-5759).

is that you are supposed to substitute the appropriate term whenever you see one of these terms.

For example: substitute Psyker for Psyker unit. Or substitute the term "brothrhood of psykers" for the term psyker. Depending on what unit/ model you are using.

That's the only way every thing jives. If you do this, you no longer suffer perils of the warp twice when a model rolls doubles. There is no other way of working it that results in only one perils. Doing it this way, each psyker would be able to cast each spell once. He would suffer his own perils. Etc.

This thread seems to be entirely about the vagueness between Psyker and Psyker unit. The limited on not casting the same power has nothing to do with that, at least on the digital rulebook, it says no "unit" can attempt to cast the same power twice.

This is a fantastic change and very clear RAW that stops abusive psychic death stars that most people hated in 6th ed. I

If you have 2 farseers in a unit both of which have fortune you get one chance to get it off, that's your gamble for attempting to make a seer star you won't get any tears from me about how your totally abusive deathstar can't auto-win anymore. They would clearly add there full combine mastery level to the warp charge pool, there is not verbiage that says otherwise. The no unit casting the same power twice on the other hand is extremely clear. Perils is also pretty clear that the psyker who's spell you chose is the psyker that suffers the perils, and brotherhood has their own way of working that out.

The summoning of a daemon price on the other hand seems RAW that if the pink horrors cast the spell the herald goes to.... your getting a greater daemon here and you can easily move the herald out in the movement phase before you cast the spell, it's not really that big of a deal.

Kyutaru wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Where do the rules state that a model can be part of more than one unit at a time?

Where do the rules state they can't?

The same place they say that he can't turn into a 17-foot-tall wilderbeast and inflict Strength D Stomp attacks on every unt on the board...

The rules tell you what you can do. 'The rules don't say I can't' is not a reason to allow something.

Yep! Targeting an individual IC would be possible as long as you have clear line of sight to him, but any extra wounds wouldn't transfer to his "other unit".

Except that if you're targeting the IC specifically, then you're not counting him as a part of the unit he is joined to for all rules purposes...

If some other IC joins his unit and not the unit he's part of, he won't be able to participate in shooting or assault phases that the "other unit" participates in.

And so, again, not counting him as a part of the unit for all rules purposes.

When an IC moves into coherency range of multiple units, he chooses which unit to join. If he joins the squad, he has joined the IC within that squad but is not part of the IC's "other unit", so the IC remains counted as a unit individually. This actually PERMITS multiple IC psykers to generate warp charges and manifest powers regardless of how many of them have joined a squad. They are all part of the same unit and yet are also individual units.

Except, again, for the bit where they're all supposed to be one unit for all rules purposes.

You mean like this entire thread and it's debilitating processing of psykers and their phase?

That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Considering the issues you pointed out seem to have clear resolutions,...

...provided you completely ignore the rules for ICs joining units. And which doesn't solve anything at all where units of multiple, non-IC, non-Brotherhood Psykers are concerned...

Kisada II wrote:
This thread seems to be entirely about the vagueness between Psyker and Psyker unit. The limited on not casting the same power has nothing to do with that, at least on the digital rulebook, it says no "unit" can attempt to cast the same power twice.

This is a fantastic change and very clear RAW that stops abusive psychic death stars that most people hated in 6th ed. I

If you have 2 farseers in a unit both of which have fortune you get one chance to get it off, that's your gamble for attempting to make a seer star you won't get any tears from me about how your totally abusive deathstar can't auto-win anymore. They would clearly add there full combine mastery level to the warp charge pool, there is not verbiage that says otherwise. The no unit casting the same power twice on the other hand is extremely clear. Perils is also pretty clear that the psyker who's spell you chose is the psyker that suffers the perils, and brotherhood has their own way of working that out.

The summoning of a daemon price on the other hand seems RAW that if the pink horrors cast the spell the herald goes to.... your getting a greater daemon here and you can easily move the herald out in the movement phase before you cast the spell, it's not really that big of a deal.

all of this has been discussed ad nauseum. please read the rest of the thread.

rigeld2 wrote:
HIWPI:
ICs contribute their charges. Units contribute their charges. Multiple Psykers in a unit contribute their charges.

ICs that are members of a unit cannot case the same spell as the unit they're a member of.
Multiple Psykers that are members of a unit (not BoP/S) cannot cast the same spell

this does seem to be the intention. Getting rid of the massed psy death units and trying to get players to distribute thier psy characters throughout the army and not just massing them in one unit.

I agree with this hwypi as it is fair and balanced given the changes to how some powers work.

1. pg.22 For the purposes of all the rules, the term 'Psyker' and 'Psyker Unit' refers to any unit with the Psyker (pg.170), Psychic Pilot (pg170) or brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcers (pg 159) special rules.

2. pg 159 Brotherhood - A unit containing at least one model with this special rule is a Psyker Unit if no Mastery Level is shown, then that unit has a Mastery level of 1

3. pg 170 Psyker (psyker pilot) - A model with this special rule is a Psyker...

So as I read it, the only psyker unit is a unit containing a model with the rule brotherhood of psykers. Meaning we can have a 'unit with psykers' and a 'psyker unit' which is very important difference when determining powers and generating dice.

psyker seems to be like many of special rules and does not confer while brotherhood does confer.

So an example of when this sucks is a GK Lib joins a unit he becomes part of the brotherhood so what mastery level is he? Another one then means warlocks all being psyker and not brotherhood each individually generate dice and such.

Thats what I think and HIWPI

katana100 wrote:

1. pg.22 For the purposes of all the rules, the term 'Psyker' and 'Psyker Unit' refers to any unit with the Psyker (pg.170), Psychic Pilot (pg170) or brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcers (pg 159) special rules.

2. pg 159 Brotherhood - A unit containing at least one model with this special rule is a Psyker Unit if no Mastery Level is shown, then that unit has a Mastery level of 1

3. pg 170 Psyker (psyker pilot) - A model with this special rule is a Psyker...

So as I read it, the only psyker unit is a unit containing a model with the rule brotherhood of psykers. Meaning we can have a 'unit with psykers' and a 'psyker unit' which is very important difference when determining powers and generating dice.

psyker seems to be like many of special rules and does not confer while brotherhood does confer.

So an example of when this sucks is a GK Lib joins a unit he becomes part of the brotherhood so what mastery level is he? Another one then means warlocks all being psyker and not brotherhood each individually generate dice and such.

Thats what I think and HIWPI

Again, the rules are just badly written, and the terms psychic unit and psyker are being used interchangeably. Otherwise as I have explained above, if you used a psychic power and rolled doubles, you would suffer TWO perils of the warp, because it says at one point that the psyker takes a perils if doubles are rolled, and it says elsewhere that the psyker unit takes a perils if doubles are rolled.

The terms are being utilized interchangeably. The paragraph at the beginning has to be saying that you substitute the appropriate term for the unit or model you are looking at, for the term psyker or psyker unit. Otherwise, as I've stated,, you'd take two perils.

katana100 wrote:
So as I read it, the only psyker unit is a unit containing a model with the rule brotherhood of psykers

The rule you just quoted quite specifically says that a psyker unit is any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood rules, so I'm not sure how you're reading that Psyker units are only Brotherhood units.

 insaniak wrote:

katana100 wrote:
So as I read it, the only psyker unit is a unit containing a model with the rule brotherhood of psykers

The rule you just quoted quite specifically says that a psyker unit is any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood rules, so I'm not sure how you're reading that Psyker units are only Brotherhood units.

There are no units with the Psyker rule except the ones that consist of a single model.

Mymearan wrote:
There are no units with the Psyker rule except the ones that consist of a single model.

A unit of Warlocks has the Psyker rule.

A unit of Warlocks with a Farseer in it has the Psyker rule.

A unit of Guardians with a Farseer in it may or may not have the Psyker rule, depending on interpretation.

So, I'm on the side of logic and reason, so I want to pose a question that goes with the majority assumption of the pysker IC joining units...

Let's say I have Draigo with his Paladin buddies. Not a stretch of the imagination in the least.

Draigo has the invisibility power. I know I want this power off and I don't give a flying flip about how it goes down. I throw 12 dice at the power, getting 6 successes (math) and I perils (also math). Now, since Draigo is a part of that unit for all rules purposes, and the unit is a Brotherhood of Traveling PantsPsykers, can I assign the perils to random Paladin #9 versus that of Driago? And if so, I then do my normal stuff of d6, check results,... BUT, what if it requires leadership test? Do I then use Ld10 of Draigo? And assuming I take I wound, I can then proceed to use my Feel No Pain I have from the Apothecary.

TL;DR: Can I 12 dice a power Draigo uses and then throw the Perils on some random schlub hoping to either walk off the results or at least use FNP to minimize the incoming damage?

The answer to that is going to depend on whether you consider most of the unit having the Brotherhood rule to be the same as 'the unit' having the Brotherhood rule.

If so, then yes, you could farm off the perils.

If no, then you couldn't... but in return, a power cast by one of the Paladins that results in a perils would also have to ignore the Brotherhood rule. Essentially, joining an IC to the unit would pretty much just negate the Brotherhood rule entirely.


For how I woudl play it - as others have mentioned. I suspect that the intention was to treat each distinct Psyker or Brotherhood group as a separate 'psyker unit'. So no, in your example Draigo would be stuck with his own Perils.

 insaniak wrote:

For how I woudl play it - as others have mentioned. I suspect that the intention was to treat each distinct Psyker or Brotherhood group as a separate 'psyker unit'. So no, in your example Draigo would be stuck with his own Perils.

That's how I intend to play it, too. I'm just being devil's advocate.

But see.. that's the thing.


If you want to go 100% RAW if you're treating it as you're reading it, you'd do both.

First, :

3. Take Psychic Test. The Psyker must now expend Warp Charge points and attempt to harness them by taking a Psychic test. If the test is failed, the psychic power fails and nothing further happens. If two or more 6s are rolled, the Psyker suffers Perils of the Warp, which is resolved immediately.

Gives a perils to the psyker.

Then :

If, when making a Psychic test, two or more dice rolls (before applying modifiers) were rolls of a 6, the unit attempting to manifest the psychic power suffers Perils of the Warp (see below), whether or not the manifestation attempt failed.

So the unit would take a perils, and so would the psyker. Unless these terms are being used interchangeably. In which case when they say select a psyker unit, they could easily mean select a psyker. (in fact, they say that too elsewhere).


You're trying to build a castle out of molasses unless you interpret

For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/ Sorcerers special rules.
"

to mean that when you see one of these terms, substitute the term appropriate for what you have selected (aka a farseer would be a psyker, something with brotherhood of psykers is a psychic unit [which is actually stated elsewhere, but no where other than here could it possibly be saying a farseer is a psychic unit)

If you interpret this *one rule* this way, then the rest of them make sense. If you don't, then it's a hodge podge of mess like this example.

emmagine wrote:
But see.. that's the thing.


If you want to go 100% RAW if you're treating it as you're reading it, you'd do both..

If you want to go 100% RAW, there is no way to cast the power in the first place, since the rules don't currently address how psychic powers work in units of mixed psykers.

Unless you interpret that paragraph as I indicated. which fixes that problem as well.

emmagine wrote:
Unless you interpret that paragraph as I indicated. which fixes that problem as well.

Your interpretation involves subsituting different terms in as you deem appropriate... so is hardly RAW.

For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/ Sorcerers special rules.

I'm saying that's what this sentence means.

According to RAW:

BRB pg 170 Psyker: A model with this special rule is a Psyker.

BRB pg 22 "For the purposes of all rules, the term 'Psyker and 'Psyker unit' refers to any unit with the Psyker, psychic pilot, or BoP/S special rules."

So, since Psyker and Psychic unit are apparently interchangable, a warlock unit of 10, is both 10 psyker units and 1 psyker unit. Thus RAW has no meaning in this case, because in two rules that reference each other create two contradicting facts.



THere is no solution to this RAW, so the only way to resolve anything is to try to figure out RAI, and or agree with your opponent on HIWPI.

For my money, the only logical conclusion is that 'psyker unit' means something completely independent of the typical 40K term 'unit'. Since each model with the Psyker SR is a Psyker and Psyker = psyker unit RAW. So regardless of what characters join what, or how many psykers are in a squad... each instance of one of those special rules is an independant psyker unit.

The only time we make a psyker unit is when a model has the brotherhood rule otherwise we have units with psykers in. Emmachine I believe is correct about the interpretation of that line in the psychic phase as well using it (the closet to correct intrpretation we have) means. Unit with warlocks is is a unit with a bunch of psykers that do.psychic thingies independently where as a GK Strike Squad is a psyker unit that follow the psyker unit rules layed out in brotherhood (so select one to.cast the unit all counts as one psyker blahblahblah)

katana100 wrote:
The only time we make a psyker unit is when a model has the brotherhood rule otherwise we have units with psykers in.

Why? An IC is also a unit, so a single IC Psyker is also a Psyker Unit.

A unit of Warlocks is a unit comprised solely of models with the Psyker rule, so by any reasonable interpretation is a unit with the Psyker rule, and is thus a Psyker Unit.

 insaniak wrote:

katana100 wrote:
The only time we make a psyker unit is when a model has the brotherhood rule otherwise we have units with psykers in.

Why? An IC is also a unit, so a single IC Psyker is also a Psyker Unit.

A unit of Warlocks is a unit comprised solely of models with the Psyker rule, so by any reasonable interpretation is a unit with the Psyker rule, and is thus a Psyker Unit.

And if an Autarch joins it?

emmagine wrote:

Kisada II wrote:
This thread seems to be entirely about the vagueness between Psyker and Psyker unit. The limited on not casting the same power has nothing to do with that, at least on the digital rulebook, it says no "unit" can attempt to cast the same power twice.

This is a fantastic change and very clear RAW that stops abusive psychic death stars that most people hated in 6th ed. I

If you have 2 farseers in a unit both of which have fortune you get one chance to get it off, that's your gamble for attempting to make a seer star you won't get any tears from me about how your totally abusive deathstar can't auto-win anymore. They would clearly add there full combine mastery level to the warp charge pool, there is not verbiage that says otherwise. The no unit casting the same power twice on the other hand is extremely clear. Perils is also pretty clear that the psyker who's spell you chose is the psyker that suffers the perils, and brotherhood has their own way of working that out.

The summoning of a daemon price on the other hand seems RAW that if the pink horrors cast the spell the herald goes to.... your getting a greater daemon here and you can easily move the herald out in the movement phase before you cast the spell, it's not really that big of a deal.

all of this has been discussed ad nauseum. please read the rest of the thread.

I did, prior to posting, you should do the same and then read what I posted and hopefully eventually realize that you missed the point.

Query?

If an IC with the Psyker special rule joins a unit that does not have the Psyker rule, is that unit now a Psyker unit because of the IC's inclusion?

 Baragash wrote:
And if an Autarch joins it?

Then the game breaks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rakear wrote:
Query?

If an IC with the Psyker special rule joins a unit that does not have the Psyker rule, is that unit now a Psyker unit because of the IC's inclusion?

Right now, nobody knows.

The most likely option is that the IC is considered a psyker unit of one model even when joined to another unit, and the rest of the unit is ignored for the purposes of the psychic phase... but that's just a guess as the rules simply don't cover the situation.

 insaniak wrote:

katana100 wrote:
The only time we make a psyker unit is when a model has the brotherhood rule otherwise we have units with psykers in.

Why? An IC is also a unit, so a single IC Psyker is also a Psyker Unit.

A unit of Warlocks is a unit comprised solely of models with the Psyker rule, so by any reasonable interpretation is a unit with the Psyker rule, and is thus a Psyker Unit.

He is a unit with a psker in... Same with warlocks its a unit with psykers in so if say an autarch joins them its doesnt matter its still a unit with a psyker in.

Not brotherhood if a non psyker joins the unit the rule confers to him as stated in the rules of brotherhood and he is theb subject to being ina psyker unit

Any unit with the psyker rule is a psyker unit. So an IC psyker is a psyker unit of one model.

Okay then if it's all considered one big unit, then what's it's ML level?

A ML3 joins a ML1 squad does he become a ML1? Cause by the logic presented here he does.

One again, nobody knows.

For about the fifteenth time, the rules don't cover how to resolve the psychic phase when you have a unit made up of mixed psykers, or some psykers and some other models.

 insaniak wrote:
One again, nobody knows.

For about the fifteenth time, the rules don't cover how to resolve the psychic phase when you have a unit made up of mixed psykers, or some psykers and some other models.

Yes it does. It specifically breaks down how to go about doing this, how is this not apparent?

I'll break it down for you.

Under the Manifesting Psychic Powers Sequence.

1. Select Psyker and Psychic Power: Select one of your Psyker Units, then nominate a psychic power known to that unit that you wish to manifest. (Hint: the answer you are all looking for is in this sentence)

A Psyker by himself, is a unit.

For example, in my own codex for the DA, my Librarians unit composition is 1 Librarian and its unit type is IC.

If I joined him up with a squad of tactical, he does not lose his base unit type nor his own unit composition. The unit he joins though does not then become a Psyker unit.

Before I continue, Remember: Unit applies to the group of models as a whole in a unit (most players call them squads) and INDIVIDUAL units that make up their own unit. They never lose this unit type, ever, unless you can quote me a direct rule stating that they lose their unit status or their IC status for the remainder of the game then this point cannot be disputed. An IC can freely come and go from another unit, yet it still remains its own unit in all these things.

Now to continue.

Say I had two Librarians. One I decided would be fun to teach pure Pyromancy and a second I wanted pure Telepathy. Though both are in the same group, only one of them can cast a specific spell, for instance Psychic Shriek. The Telepath knows this, but the Pyromancer does not therefore he cannot cast said spell.

If both Librarian had the spell, I would choose one at a time and resolve as normal.

3. Take Psychic Test: The Psyker must now expend Warp Charge points and attempt to harness them by taking a Psychic test. If two or more 6s are rolled, the Psyker (notice, singular, not plural and not referring to a unit other than the Psyker who attempted to cast the spell) suffers Perils of the Warp, which is resolved immediately.

Now to clarify again. Scroll back and reread point 1. You select ONE Psyker at a time and attempt to cast a power, you roll doubles, that ONE Psyker takes a Perils of the Warp roll. You would not get to pass this on to another Psyker within the unit or to another Psyker in your army, plain and simply because they are not the ones attempting to cast a spell. Again, because each Psyker is a unit in its own right, even if he is with someone else, nobody can take that bullet for him.

So to answer the op question, if you have a group of multiple Psykers, you would roll for them each on their own, as their own unit and if any Perils are suffered, the Psyker attempting to manifest said power will take the punishment.

I think the problem many of you are having is that you're looking at RAW and simply because you are not seeing a statement of something you assume that it cannot be.

Simply by reading and comprehending the words and the structure of the sentences, paragraphs, the stuff you learn in basic English that become second nature to an English major, someone who went to college to study how things are written, someone who understands how a simple word placement can drastically change a meaning, the answer is very obvious.

A Psyker unit, using DA as an example again, a Librarian counts as a single UNIT, on his own, specifically he is considered an Independent Unit for the entire game and until GW changes this classification. If he joins a unit, he DOES NOT lose this unit type. He still remains an Independent Unit, he simply joins up with others and tags along with them. He does not change their unit type unless he confers something to them that specifically states that he does so, using mine as an example, this would never happen.

If multiple Psykers are in the same unit, they are all INDEPENDENT UNITS, even though they are together and thus would roll as individuals and resolve Perils as individuals.

Tbh, as I'm writing this I realize the RAW are very specific and like the Psychic Shriek question in another thread have absolutely no room for interpretation.

Zodiark, I realise you're new to the game, but I can't see how your explanation, setting everything else that may or may not be incorrect with it, applies to IC Psykers joining units comprised entirely of Psykers (such as Grey Knights or Pink Horrors?)

 azreal13 wrote:
Zodiark, I realise you're new to the game, but I can't see how your explanation, setting everything else that may or may not be incorrect with it, applies to IC Psykers joining units comprised entirely of Psykers (such as Grey Knights or Pink Horrors?)

First thing, explain what is incorrect about my statement.

No, I said setting aside that, because I'm not prepared to invest the time, but you've made no account for Brotherhood of Sorcerors/Psykers that I can see, suggesting you've probably missed the main thrust of the debate.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
I am planning to run an ork list involving Weirdboyz and Daemonology since i want to see how badly i'll nuke my brains before the new dex hits lol.

Couple of things i coulda sworn i saw, but cant seem to find might jack up my strat though. If anyone could help me find it i'd be grateful.
1) Psyker phase says a unit may not manifest the same spell twice. What about ICs in that unit? Or in my case, two ICs with psyker powers in the same unit? Contemplating bringing a 2nd weirdboy for backup spellcasting case my first one fails.

EDIT: Ignore this one, found it under Witchfire. Changed title to reference one question.
2) If i use any spells in the psyker phase, can i still run in the shooting phase? cant seem to find anything saying anything i do affects my actions in the shooting phase. Could have sworn i saw a paragraph saying i can still shoot even at a different target than any spells were thrown at before, but now i cant seem to find it

Any help would be appreciative.

I'm helping him

 azreal13 wrote:
No, I said setting aside that, because I'm not prepared to invest the time, but you've made no account for Brotherhood of Sorcerors/Psykers that I can see, suggesting you've probably missed the main thrust of the debate.

I am showing all of you who are pointlessly arguing about something that is very specific and is in no way hard to understand.

I made no account of it because the rules for these are indeed quite clear and IIRC I was responding to a specific person and a specific quote that he said which brought about my own response

Zodiark wrote:

Before I continue, Remember: Unit applies to the group of models as a whole in a unit (most players call them squads) and INDIVIDUAL units that make up their own unit. They never lose this unit type, ever, unless you can quote me a direct rule stating that they lose their unit status or their IC status for the remainder of the game then this point cannot be disputed. An IC can freely come and go from another unit, yet it still remains its own unit in all these things.

We already covered this earlier in the thread. There is zero rules basis for assuming that an IC can be a member of more than one unit at the same time, and if you do assume that the game breaks and you remove any point in joining ICs to units in the first place.

 insaniak wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

Before I continue, Remember: Unit applies to the group of models as a whole in a unit (most players call them squads) and INDIVIDUAL units that make up their own unit. They never lose this unit type, ever, unless you can quote me a direct rule stating that they lose their unit status or their IC status for the remainder of the game then this point cannot be disputed. An IC can freely come and go from another unit, yet it still remains its own unit in all these things.

We already covered this earlier in the thread. There is zero rules basis for assuming that an IC can be a member of more than one unit at the same time, and if you do assume that the game breaks and you remove any point in joining ICs to units in the first place.

Again if you are looking for a specific sentence, you would be right. But in the absence of a supporting sentence from your side of the discussion, your assertion becomes null and void as well.

Serious question though.

If so many people can agree that an IC has his own individual unit at all times and more importantly, can accept it as RAW, then why are you fighting against it so hard?

YMDC from what I understand from these "tenets" that people keep messaging me about is meant to focus on things that are debatable or unclear in the rules. I could be wrong, but when you use the words You Make Da Call, this then becomes a matter of opinion and preference than actual fact or rules which, tbh is pointless when someone comes seeking answers to an actual rule that really is not vague or anything of the sort.

IIRC an IC is his own unit, he never stops being an individual.

Example: I put Ezekiel in a squad of Tactical Marines. He doesn't cease to be an Independent Character. I could see the argument that would support your side of the discussion, but seeing as there is nothing stating in the rules that he loses this, the answer is obvious, he doesn't.

But he does cease to be an independent unit, otherwise he can't get into a Rhino with them, because only Superheavies normally have permission to embark more than one unit.

 azreal13 wrote:
But he does cease to be an independent unit, otherwise he can't get into a Rhino with them, because only Superheavies normally have permission to embark more than one unit.

No he simply accompanies that particular unit. His unit type does not change, it never does. Unless specifically stated within the rules as many of you want to say, nothing changes. Yet the RAW allow an IC to join another unit and embark together. It mentions nothing about the IC losing his independent unit status.

Independent Unit doesn't exist as a game term.

Independent Character is a clearly defined set of special rules that allow for the joining of the unit to a other unit, to make one unit, until the IC decides to leave.

They are not two units, otherwise, like I said, they couldn't embark transports together.



I direct your attention to the first two lines of this screen grab from the digi BRB

 azreal13 wrote:
Independent Unit doesn't exist as a game term.

Independent Character is a clearly defined set of special rules that allow for the joining of the unit to a other unit, to make one unit, until the IC decides to leave.

They are not two units, otherwise, like I said, they couldn't embark transports together.

I'll stick with the RAW and basic reading comprehension.

Until something that specifically states for or against, I'll play it how it reads and how the people I play with it play it, which tbh, is the best any of us can do since people are looking for an explicit statement that supports one side or another

Btw, the answer is in the pick. He counts as being a part of that unit, exactly what I have been saying, but nowhere does it say he loses his own unit status.

"He counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"

(hint: he doesn't lose his own unit status, the unit he joins simply takes precedence over his own)

Thanks for proving my point

/End Discussion, you've answered your own argument in support of mine

So the RAW is he is part of the unit "for all rules purposes"

Edit in response to edit

Feth me.

 azreal13 wrote:
So the RAW is he is part of the unit "for all rules purposes"

Yes I am aware of that, hence why I am saying RAW. But you will notice, his own unit status is not being taken away, the unit he is joining is simply the one that is being applied according to the rules.

But back to the individual Psykers, multiples joining together would still resolve the spells on an individual basis, not a group unit.

What is "unit status?"

There is no such thing, just nothing in the rules, that corresponds to that.

Independent character is a USR, HQ is a FOC designation, character is a unit type, but there isn't "unit status" as a defined term, and you seem to be hanging a lot of your argument on it n

 azreal13 wrote:
What is "unit status?"

There is no such thing, just nothing in the rules, that corresponds to that.

Independent character is a USR, HQ is a FOC designation, character is a unit type, but there isn't "unit status" as a defined term, and you seem to be hanging a lot of your argument on it n

I'm not using status as a defined term, I am simply stating it as its state of being. Its state of being, if this works better for you is defined as Independent Character. Even if he joins another unit, he NEVER loses this state of being. Refer to previous examples.

BRB entry you provided supports the rest of my statements

No, it doesn't, it supports everyone else's argument you just don't see it.

You are confusing HIWPI for RAW.

Independent Character, as defined is a special rule, like Furious Charge or Feel No Pain. It gives permission for a model to join other units and become one unit, as outlined in my screen grab, amongst other benefits.

You can hold the opinion, and indeed play the game, that the IC is still considered a separate unit from the point of view of casting powers, but it is unsupported by RAW, and if you are going to start arguing there are circumstances where an IC is considered part of a unit (embarking) and isn't (casting powers) you're going to have a hard time.

 azreal13 wrote:
No, it doesn't, it supports everyone else's argument you just don't see it.

You are confusing HIWPI for RAW.

Independent Character, as defined is a special rule, like Furious Charge or Feel No Pain. It gives permission for a model to join other units and become one unit, as outlined in my screen grab, amongst other benefits.

You can hold the opinion, and indeed play the game, that the IC is still considered a separate unit from the point of view of casting powers, but it is unsupported by RAW, and if you are going to start arguing there are circumstances where an IC is considered part of a unit (embarking) and isn't (casting powers) you're going to have a hard time.

To quote an earlier debater

"Show me the exact sentence, paragraph and page" that states that it loses its status as an IC

This isn't an opinion I am stating, this is answers to question that I myself asked just the other day to the entire store receiving the same answers I have listed here, so if you wanna talk opinions, theirs has more value than yours in my book.

HIWPI? I play RAW because I have yet to come across anything that I couldn't find an obvious answer to since I started.

Your screen grab explicit states that he counts as part of the unit he joins, but it makes no mention of him losing his status as an IC because, as you say, it is a special rule that he has, but he never loses it, which, reading comprehension dictates allows him to be considered an IC no matter what unit he is in, including a unit of other IC, so when resolving or casting a Psyker power, you would do so on an individual basis as per BRB and RAW rather than as a whole unit, this being the total squad that he is in

To reiterate

Show me the exact sentence, paragraph and page that defines unit status.

IC is a rule, not a state of mind!

It explicitly states he becomes part of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES. The rule for casting says one unit = one attempt.

Characters =/= Independent Characters. He can continue to follow the rules for characters because the rules for characters are not necessarily applicable solely to ICs, Sergeants are also characters for instance, are you arguing they simultaneously count as part of the unit and their own special mini super secret squirrel unit too?

 azreal13 wrote:
To reiterate

Show me the exact sentence, paragraph and page that defines unit status.

IC is a rule, not a state of mind!

It explicitly states he becomes part of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES. The rule for casting says one unit = one attempt.

Characters =/= Independent Characters. He can continue to follow the rules for characters because the rules for characters are not necessarily applicable solely to ICs, Sergeants are also characters for instance, are you arguing they simultaneously count as part of the unit and their own special mini super secret squirrel unit too?

The rules for casting say select one Psyker in one place and select one Psyker unit in another. Which was discussed earlier in this thread. The way to go about doing this is how it was taught to me and what I understood from the rules the first of the dozen times I read the BRB.

Using your style of debate, if I have a Psyker in a unit of tactical marines and I select a Psyker unit, the entire squad would thus be considered a Psyker now and would thus be effected by Perils? If the answer is anything but no, you are by far missing the point and clearly not understanding the RAW

Kindly provide page references, as forgive me, but your precision is such that I'm not willing to take your word for it.

 azreal13 wrote:
Kindly provide page references, as forgive me, but your precision is such that I'm not willing to take your word for it.

Stated this earlier, scroll up and reread and you'll find where I found them, not going to do the work for you sir.

Again, someone explain to me what Psychic Level a unit with a ML3 joins a ML1 Brother Hood of Psykers.

If their not treated seperate for rules you cannot answer that question and the game breaks.

Hollismason wrote:
Again, someone explain to me what Psychic Level a unit with a ML3 joins a ML1 Brother Hood of Psykers.

If their not treated seperate for rules you cannot answer that question and the game breaks.

Hey someone else gets it, you get +1 internets today

To be fair, you should first read what your codex states then read BRB for an answer, we only deal in theoretical here it seems

From the rules though.

A unit containing at least one model with this special rule is a Psyker unit - if no mastery level is shown, then that unit has a mastery level of 1.

From there calculate as normal

Hollismason wrote:
Again, someone explain to me what Psychic Level a unit with a ML3 joins a ML1 Brother Hood of Psykers.

If their not treated seperate for rules you cannot answer that question and the game breaks.

RAW
As it specifies Psyker units for generating warp charge, and for manifesting a power, I would use the majority characteristic rule for mastery level and the unit as a whole could only attempt to cast a specific power once.

HIWPI
Ignore the reference of the word "unit" and use total mastery levels and allow the IC and unit to both cast it if they both could.

 azreal13 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Again, someone explain to me what Psychic Level a unit with a ML3 joins a ML1 Brother Hood of Psykers.

If their not treated seperate for rules you cannot answer that question and the game breaks.

RAW
As it specifies Psyker units for generating warp charge, and for manifesting a power, I would use the majority characteristic rule for mastery level and the unit as a whole could only attempt to cast a specific power once.

HIWPI
Ignore the reference of the word "unit" and use total mastery levels and allow the IC and unit to both cast it if they both could.

His version of HIWPI is RAW but not Rules as Interpreted

RAI is rules as intended dude, it means how you think the designer intended it to work, even if it isn't technically written that way.

 azreal13 wrote:
RAI is rules as intended dude, it means how you think the designer intended it to work, even if it isn't technically written that way.

I know what RAI is, Rules as Interpreted is something that popped into my head because all I've seen today are different interpretations and opinions on RAW

Ok, fabulous.

Hollismason wrote:
Again, someone explain to me what Psychic Level a unit with a ML3 joins a ML1 Brother Hood of Psykers.

If their not treated seperate for rules you cannot answer that question and the game breaks.

Yes, that's been the point from the start. The rules simply do not cover it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:
If so many people can agree that an IC has his own individual unit at all times and more importantly, can accept it as RAW, then why are you fighting against it so hard?

I'm not 'fighting against it'... I'm discussing it in a forum that is intended for this sort of discussion, and I am presenting a dissenting opinion to that presented by several other people because I disagree with it.

That's how discussion works.

IIRC an IC is his own unit, he never stops being an individual.

Example: I put Ezekiel in a squad of Tactical Marines. He doesn't cease to be an Independent Character. I could see the argument that would support your side of the discussion, but seeing as there is nothing stating in the rules that he loses this, the answer is obvious, he doesn't.

You have apparently misunderstood the issue, then.

Nobody has claimed that he ceases to be an Independant Character. But he ceases to be a separate unit. He has to cease to be a separate unit, because if he doesn't then there is absolutely no point in him joining the unit... you would still have able to target him separately, as he is a distinct unit. As someone else pointed out, the unit would be unable to enter a transport or a building, as there would then be two units in there. And the statement in the rules for ICs leaving units (to the effect that they once again 'become' a single-model unit) would be a trifle peculiar, since you can't 'become' something that you already are.

'IC' is not a unit type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:
From the rules though.

A unit containing at least one model with this special rule is a Psyker unit...

Where are you seeing '...at least...' in the rules?

Zodiark wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Again, someone explain to me what Psychic Level a unit with a ML3 joins a ML1 Brother Hood of Psykers.

If their not treated seperate for rules you cannot answer that question and the game breaks.

Hey someone else gets it, you get +1 internets today

Pfft, I was doing it before it went mainstream.

I can't be the only one basking in the irony here. It's almost like deja vu.

I understand you believe that the IC remains being a unit of one. except he doesn't. This rule shows definitively that your interpretation is in error, otherwise this rule would not make sense. This has been stated a few times, and never addressed by your argument.

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. He cannot join or leave during any other phase – once shots are fired or charges are declared, it is too late to join in or duck out! An Independent Character cannot leave a unit while either he or the unit is in Reserves, locked in combat, Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. He cannot join a unit that is in Reserves, locked in combat or Falling Back. If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

You can't say he again becomes something at the start of the following phase, if he was already that. I wish your interpretation was true. But it simply isn't.

So my Pink Horrors are Mastery Level 3 since there is no written rule or is the Herald who joins them Level 1?

Hollismason wrote:
So my Pink Horrors are Mastery Level 3 since there is no written rule or is the Herald who joins them Level 1?

Technically, since its noy stated anywhere... it would be mastery level 1 by the interpretation that you count them together hahaha

Hollismason wrote:
So my Pink Horrors are Mastery Level 3 since there is no written rule or is the Herald who joins them Level 1?

Since in this case as the rule brothergood confers to the herald and the only model in that unit with a mastery level is the herald while he is in it they are mastery lvl 3 but so much breaks when an established psyker joins a brotherhood unit.

Okay again thought the only time in the rules we have permission for gaining a psyker unit is brotherhood as it is a confering USR that states about making psyker units. If I am wrong so where in the psyker or psychic pilot rule that it confers to other models and where in them.it stats that they make a psychic unit and will concede the point

per the digi codex drop down highlights.

Psyker is either a psychic pilot, or psyker.

psyker unit refers to both the brother hoods.

so pink horrors, and a herald of tzentch (sp) are not a psyker unit just the horrors, so yes they both can cast flickering fire during the psychic phase. i would post the highlighted rules but allas we cant do that.

Lungpickle wrote:
per the digi codex drop down highlights.

Psyker is either a psychic pilot, or psyker.

psyker unit refers to both the brother hoods.

so pink horrors, and a herald of tzentch (sp) are not a psyker unit just the horrors, so yes they both can cast flickering fire during the psychic phase. i would post the highlighted rules but allas we cant do that.

While that is true the problem lies in the fact that the pink horrors are brotherhood which confers to all models in the unit making the herald part of the brotherhood psyker unit messing it all up

katana100 wrote:
Okay again thought the only time in the rules we have permission for gaining a psyker unit is brotherhood as it is a confering USR that states about making psyker units. If I am wrong so where in the psyker or psychic pilot rule that it confers to other models and where in them.it stats that they make a psychic unit and will concede the point

I've just read this 5 times, and I still have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Psyker and psychic pilot do not confer and thus do not make a psychic unit. Only Brotherhood confers to the unit and only brotherhood makes a psyker unit as it is in its USR

Show me where in the rules we get told that psyker and psychic pilot make a unit a psyker unit.

(so about previous post was on phone and can see literally none of what I am writing as it keeps jumpinp up)

katana100 wrote:
Show me where in the rules we get told that psyker and psychic pilot make a unit a psyker unit.

I'm confused... you posted the relevant rule yourself earlier in the thread:

katana100 wrote:
Pg 22 - For the purposes of all rules, the term 'psyker' and 'psyker unit' refers to any unit with the Psykee (pg 170), Psychich Pilot (pg 170) or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers (pg 159) special...

So any unit with the Psyker or Psychic Pilot rule is a Psyker Unit.

 insaniak wrote:

katana100 wrote:
Show me where in the rules we get told that psyker and psychic pilot make a unit a psyker unit.

I'm confused... you posted the relevant rule yourself earlier in the thread:

katana100 wrote:
Pg 22 - For the purposes of all rules, the term 'psyker' and 'psyker unit' refers to any unit with the Psykee (pg 170), Psychich Pilot (pg 170) or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers (pg 159) special...

So any unit with the Psyker or Psychic Pilot rule is a Psyker Unit.

*sigh* I knew you where going to quote that but that is what that is saying read the brotherhood rules that is the rules for a psyker unit it says as much.

That rule is stating where they writr psyker uni or psyker you can i terchange the word as needed dependong oj the circumstance so in perils where it says a psyker unit takes a perils of the warp test it can be read a psyker takes a perils of the warp it is in no way saying that they are the same thing

It sounds like you're possibly just a little confused about what constitutes a 'unit' in Warhammer 40K.

A squad of Brotherhood psykers is a unit of 1 or more models. Because they are a unit that has the Brotherhood rule, they are a psyker unit, as per that rule on page 22.

An Independant Character Psyker is a unit of one model. Because he has the Psyker rule, he is a psyker unit, as per that rule on page 22.

Hey i've been reading this thread and I think I found the source of all this consternation. As the OP said in the title, it all stems from the usage of "unit" in the rule book. Now most people when they hear the word think of a group of models, and that's reasonable. That is not how GW uses the term in the rulebook however. Unit is a catch all, a umbrella term describing lone models, groups of models (squads), Monstrous Creatures, etc...It's their pronoun.

A unit usually consists of several models that have banded
together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a
rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right.

On pg. 9 they explain how it will be used. It can mean pretty much anything depending on the context. Now context is key because they will reuse this word in the psyker section as a "Psyker unit, Psyker, and unit.

For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any unit with the
Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rules.

To manifest a psychic power, you will first need to select one of your Psyker units. It
does not matter if the selected unit is Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. Then, select a
psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted
to manifest in this Psychic phase.

Pg. 24

Assuming you have enough Warp Charge points, you can alternate back and forth between the same Psyker units in this way, but no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than one per Psychic Phase.

The bolded parts are key because when they're used in context, the word unit is a call back to the original use of the term Psyker unit in the paragraph or sentence. Unit is an abbreviation that the author is expecting you to follow.

What is happening here is a unintentional broadening of the word unit to a squad when the context of the paragraph doesn't call for it. Their dealing solely with the definition of a Psyker Unit which was explained earlier in the section.

So what you take from this is that Psyker rule (or BoP) can only manifest the same power once (reasonable), and they alone suffer the perils. Its much simpler when you stop focusing on the broader use of the term "Unit" and actually engage on the context of the section.

 insaniak wrote:
It sounds like you're possibly just a little confused about what constitutes a 'unit' in Warhammer 40K.

A squad of Brotherhood psykers is a unit of 1 or more models. Because they are a unit that has the Brotherhood rule, they are a psyker unit, as per that rule on page 22.

An Independant Character Psyker is a unit of one model. Because he has the Psyker rule, he is a psyker unit, as per that rule on page 22.

I know what a unit it it is a group of several models or a lone epic hero blahblah

So by what your saying a tactical squad becuase one model has a flamer in it is a flamer unit or becuaee a model has zealot it is a zealot unit or even becuase it is a IC in the unit it is a IC unit not a unit with a flamer in or a character with the zealot or IC rule.

Units are made of of model eith varying rules and wargear there are in cases where USR confers to the wholeunit like brotherhood does as it states it does in its rules where as psyker does not state it confers.

Katana100,
We lack instructions telling us how to determine if X causes the Unit to be an "X Unit" outside of one specific situation, that of Psykers. This is a glaring Black Hole not just in 7th Edition, it has plagued Editions right back to the first which would allow two Units to merge into a single Unit. This latest development is just the most logical conclusion that would stem from Game Workshops inability to resolve this particular little problem once and for all, if we had Rules on how to determine "Unit Status" for Mixed-Units then we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

Therefore the comparison of a 'Flamer Unit' is inaccurate, because we have instructions telling us how to determine if something is a "Pskyker Unit."

katana100 wrote:
So by what your saying a tactical squad becuase one model has a flamer in it is a flamer unit or becuaee a model has zealot it is a zealot unit or even becuase it is a IC in the unit it is a IC unit not a unit with a flamer in or a character with the zealot or IC rule.

No. By what I'm saying, any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood rules is a Psyker Unit. Because that's what the rule on page 22 says.

That was a direct response to your statement that Brotherhood units are the only thing that can be called a Psyker Unit. That statement is incorrect. Brotherhood units are Psyker Units. Vehicles with the Psychic Pilot rule are Psyker Units. Independant Characters with the Psyker rule are Psyker Units. Units of Psykers (like Warlocks) are Psyker Units.

Whether or not a unit made up of non-psykers with an IC joined to it is a Psyker Unit is, as I have pointed out repeatedly through this thread, something that we simply do not have enough information to determine.

 insaniak wrote:

katana100 wrote:
So by what your saying a tactical squad becuase one model has a flamer in it is a flamer unit or becuaee a model has zealot it is a zealot unit or even becuase it is a IC in the unit it is a IC unit not a unit with a flamer in or a character with the zealot or IC rule.

No. By what I'm saying, any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood rules is a Psyker Unit. Because that's what the rule on page 22 says.

That was a direct response to your statement that Brotherhood units are the only thing that can be called a Psyker Unit. That statement is incorrect. Brotherhood units are Psyker Units. Vehicles with the Psychic Pilot rule are Psyker Units. Independant Characters with the Psyker rule are Psyker Units. Units of Psykers (like Warlocks) are Psyker Units.

Whether or not a unit made up of non-psykers with an IC joined to it is a Psyker Unit is, as I have pointed out repeatedly through this thread, something that we simply do not have enough information to determine.

If you notice, the examples you provide all clearly state that they are Psyker units, but for mixed units it does not, the answer is obvious, a mixed unit would not be considered a Psyker unit.

Zodiark wrote:
If you notice, the examples you provide all clearly state that they are Psyker units, but for mixed units it does not, the answer is obvious, a mixed unit would not be considered a Psyker unit.

Except that would mean that an IC Psyker joined to a non-psyker unit would not count towards your warp points for the psychic phase.

 insaniak wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
If you notice, the examples you provide all clearly state that they are Psyker units, but for mixed units it does not, the answer is obvious, a mixed unit would not be considered a Psyker unit.

Except that would mean that an IC Psyker joined to a non-psyker unit would not count towards your warp points for the psychic phase.

How? Does he stop being a Psyker? I see no ruling that states that the Psyker stops being a Psyker because he is in another unit.

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" Direct quote.

The Psyker in a mixed unit doesn't lose his Mastery Levels if he is in a unit so you would count as normal

Zodiark wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
If you notice, the examples you provide all clearly state that they are Psyker units, but for mixed units it does not, the answer is obvious, a mixed unit would not be considered a Psyker unit.

Except that would mean that an IC Psyker joined to a non-psyker unit would not count towards your warp points for the psychic phase.

How? Does he stop being a Psyker? I see no ruling that states that the Psyker stops being a Psyker because he is in another unit.

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" Direct quote.

The Psyker in a mixed unit doesn't lose his Mastery Levels if he is in a unit so you would count as normal

You said the mixed unit is not a psyker unit.
Since only psyker units add mastery levels, per your quote, it wouldn't add mastery levels.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
If you notice, the examples you provide all clearly state that they are Psyker units, but for mixed units it does not, the answer is obvious, a mixed unit would not be considered a Psyker unit.

Except that would mean that an IC Psyker joined to a non-psyker unit would not count towards your warp points for the psychic phase.

How? Does he stop being a Psyker? I see no ruling that states that the Psyker stops being a Psyker because he is in another unit.

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" Direct quote.

The Psyker in a mixed unit doesn't lose his Mastery Levels if he is in a unit so you would count as normal

You said the mixed unit is not a psyker unit.
Since only psyker units add mastery levels, per your quote, it wouldn't add mastery levels.

Except that it does where I play. Because we read the RAW and since it doesn't say anything to contradict, we play it as it does as the BRB does a good job as letting you know when you can or cannot do something.

That's enough I'll add in reply to you unless you bring rule quotes to contradict my statement, don't want another senseless thread of arguing.

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
If you notice, the examples you provide all clearly state that they are Psyker units, but for mixed units it does not, the answer is obvious, a mixed unit would not be considered a Psyker unit.

Except that would mean that an IC Psyker joined to a non-psyker unit would not count towards your warp points for the psychic phase.

How? Does he stop being a Psyker? I see no ruling that states that the Psyker stops being a Psyker because he is in another unit.

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" Direct quote.

The Psyker in a mixed unit doesn't lose his Mastery Levels if he is in a unit so you would count as normal

You said the mixed unit is not a psyker unit.
Since only psyker units add mastery levels, per your quote, it wouldn't add mastery levels.

Except that it does where I play. Because we read the RAW and since it doesn't say anything to contradict, we play it as it does as the BRB does a good job as letting you know when you can or cannot do something.

That's enough I'll add in reply to you unless you bring rule quotes to contradict my statement, don't want another senseless thread of arguing.

So that's a RAI/HYWPI argument then. Fair enough - in the future please clarify that fact beforehand.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
If you notice, the examples you provide all clearly state that they are Psyker units, but for mixed units it does not, the answer is obvious, a mixed unit would not be considered a Psyker unit.

Except that would mean that an IC Psyker joined to a non-psyker unit would not count towards your warp points for the psychic phase.

How? Does he stop being a Psyker? I see no ruling that states that the Psyker stops being a Psyker because he is in another unit.

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" Direct quote.

The Psyker in a mixed unit doesn't lose his Mastery Levels if he is in a unit so you would count as normal

You said the mixed unit is not a psyker unit.
Since only psyker units add mastery levels, per your quote, it wouldn't add mastery levels.

Except that it does where I play. Because we read the RAW and since it doesn't say anything to contradict, we play it as it does as the BRB does a good job as letting you know when you can or cannot do something.

That's enough I'll add in reply to you unless you bring rule quotes to contradict my statement, don't want another senseless thread of arguing.

So that's a RAI/HYWPI argument then. Fair enough - in the future please clarify that fact beforehand.

You do realize that Rules as Interpreted is pretty much everything you do right. The process of reading on a mental basis is all about your brain analyzing and interpreting rules, which means all you do is interpret things. Some people read and see an answer immediately while others read and think that there is some vague conspiracy afoot in which they must question everything simply because there was no direct mention of a specific instance that occurs on an infrequent basis for individuals who have a problem interpreting from the start.

HYWPI. I play it how I read it. It isn't a home brew, it isn't rule breaking. I play it how it reads. I have yet to come across anything I flat out needed to have a full on discussion. Everything I've talked about the last few days I already understood when I got into the discussions in the first place, hence why I tried to answer the questions, but you people in this forum don't care for RAW it seems, though you claim to do so. You look for something specific and upon not finding it you feel that it is okay to simply do with it how you want which isn't really the right way to go about doing things, but this is okay, its one of the golden rules.

In the future, please cite exact quotes or at least a page and sentence when adding anything to a discussion because you have failed to do so on every account

Zodiark wrote:
How? Does he stop being a Psyker? I see no ruling that states that the Psyker stops being a Psyker because he is in another unit.

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" Direct quote.

The Psyker in a mixed unit doesn't lose his Mastery Levels if he is in a unit so you would count as normal

Per that quote, you ad up the mastery levels of your psyker units. You just said that the IC in a non-psyker unit is not a psyker unit. So you wouldn't add his mastery level.

 insaniak wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
How? Does he stop being a Psyker? I see no ruling that states that the Psyker stops being a Psyker because he is in another unit.

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" Direct quote.

The Psyker in a mixed unit doesn't lose his Mastery Levels if he is in a unit so you would count as normal

Per that quote, you ad up the mastery levels of your psyker units. You just said that the IC in a non-psyker unit is not a psyker unit. So you wouldn't add his mastery level.

I did not say he was a non-psyker unit, do NOT put words in my mouth sir. I said the MIXED unit was not a Psyker unit. The Psyker never ceases to be a Psyker, whether he is in a mixed unit or not and only certain conditions make other units Psyker when a Psyker joins them, as this isn't the issue at hand it doesn't matter at this point. Please, read carefully next time, no more assumptions.

The Psyker is still a Psyker, but the unit itself is not a Psyker, you would still do that Psykers Mastery level unless you find a ruling that states otherwise.

Zodiark wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
How? Does he stop being a Psyker? I see no ruling that states that the Psyker stops being a Psyker because he is in another unit.

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" Direct quote.

The Psyker in a mixed unit doesn't lose his Mastery Levels if he is in a unit so you would count as normal

Per that quote, you ad up the mastery levels of your psyker units. You just said that the IC in a non-psyker unit is not a psyker unit. So you wouldn't add his mastery level.

I did not say he was a non-psyker unit, do NOT put words in my mouth sir.

You didn't? What does the following mean? (Underlined for emphasis)

Zodiark wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

katana100 wrote:
So by what your saying a tactical squad becuase one model has a flamer in it is a flamer unit or becuaee a model has zealot it is a zealot unit or even becuase it is a IC in the unit it is a IC unit not a unit with a flamer in or a character with the zealot or IC rule.

No. By what I'm saying, any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood rules is a Psyker Unit. Because that's what the rule on page 22 says.

That was a direct response to your statement that Brotherhood units are the only thing that can be called a Psyker Unit. That statement is incorrect. Brotherhood units are Psyker Units. Vehicles with the Psychic Pilot rule are Psyker Units. Independant Characters with the Psyker rule are Psyker Units. Units of Psykers (like Warlocks) are Psyker Units.

Whether or not a unit made up of non-psykers with an IC joined to it is a Psyker Unit is, as I have pointed out repeatedly through this thread, something that we simply do not have enough information to determine.

If you notice, the examples you provide all clearly state that they are Psyker units, but for mixed units it does not, the answer is obvious, a mixed unit would not be considered a Psyker unit.

Zodiark wrote:You do realize that Rules as Interpreted is pretty much everything you do right. The process of reading on a mental basis is all about your brain analyzing and interpreting rules, which means all you do is interpret things. Some people read and see an answer immediately while others read and think that there is some vague conspiracy afoot in which they must question everything simply because there was no direct mention of a specific instance that occurs on an infrequent basis for individuals who have a problem interpreting from the start.

There are not various ways to interpret 1+1=2. According to you, there are. This isn't some vague thing where you think "well, what did he really mean here" and assume that's what is written. What is written is what's written - your assumptions on what it means based on leaps is not written (by definition) and therefore isn't RAW despite what you said.

In the future, please cite exact quotes or at least a page and sentence when adding anything to a discussion because you have failed to do so on every account

That's a lie. You've obviously not read my post history.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
How? Does he stop being a Psyker? I see no ruling that states that the Psyker stops being a Psyker because he is in another unit.

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" Direct quote.

The Psyker in a mixed unit doesn't lose his Mastery Levels if he is in a unit so you would count as normal

Per that quote, you ad up the mastery levels of your psyker units. You just said that the IC in a non-psyker unit is not a psyker unit. So you wouldn't add his mastery level.

I did not say he was a non-psyker unit, do NOT put words in my mouth sir. I said the MIXED unit was not a Psyker unit. The Psyker never ceases to be a Psyker, whether he is in a mixed unit or not and only certain conditions make other units Psyker when a Psyker joins them, as this isn't the issue at hand it doesn't matter at this point. Please, read carefully next time, no more assumptions.

The Psyker is still a Psyker, but the unit itself is not a Psyker, you would still do that Psykers Mastery level unless you find a ruling that states otherwise.

You edited, so I'll respond to it.
If the mixed unit is not a psyker unit, and only psyker units can generate warp charges, what rule is allowing you to count the psyker?

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
How? Does he stop being a Psyker? I see no ruling that states that the Psyker stops being a Psyker because he is in another unit.

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" Direct quote.

The Psyker in a mixed unit doesn't lose his Mastery Levels if he is in a unit so you would count as normal

Per that quote, you ad up the mastery levels of your psyker units. You just said that the IC in a non-psyker unit is not a psyker unit. So you wouldn't add his mastery level.

I did not say he was a non-psyker unit, do NOT put words in my mouth sir.

You didn't? What does the following mean? (Underlined for emphasis)

Zodiark wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

katana100 wrote:
So by what your saying a tactical squad becuase one model has a flamer in it is a flamer unit or becuaee a model has zealot it is a zealot unit or even becuase it is a IC in the unit it is a IC unit not a unit with a flamer in or a character with the zealot or IC rule.

No. By what I'm saying, any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood rules is a Psyker Unit. Because that's what the rule on page 22 says.

That was a direct response to your statement that Brotherhood units are the only thing that can be called a Psyker Unit. That statement is incorrect. Brotherhood units are Psyker Units. Vehicles with the Psychic Pilot rule are Psyker Units. Independant Characters with the Psyker rule are Psyker Units. Units of Psykers (like Warlocks) are Psyker Units.

Whether or not a unit made up of non-psykers with an IC joined to it is a Psyker Unit is, as I have pointed out repeatedly through this thread, something that we simply do not have enough information to determine.

If you notice, the examples you provide all clearly state that they are Psyker units, but for mixed units it does not, the answer is obvious, a mixed unit would not be considered a Psyker unit.

Zodiark wrote:You do realize that Rules as Interpreted is pretty much everything you do right. The process of reading on a mental basis is all about your brain analyzing and interpreting rules, which means all you do is interpret things. Some people read and see an answer immediately while others read and think that there is some vague conspiracy afoot in which they must question everything simply because there was no direct mention of a specific instance that occurs on an infrequent basis for individuals who have a problem interpreting from the start.

There are not various ways to interpret 1+1=2. According to you, there are. This isn't some vague thing where you think "well, what did he really mean here" and assume that's what is written. What is written is what's written - your assumptions on what it means based on leaps is not written (by definition) and therefore isn't RAW despite what you said.

In the future, please cite exact quotes or at least a page and sentence when adding anything to a discussion because you have failed to do so on every account

That's a lie. You've obviously not read my post history.

Reading comprehension, work on it. The MIXED unit is not a Psyker, but the Psyker never stops being a Psyker, remember he is still a unit in his own right, how many times must we run around in circles before you get this.

Nevermind, I'm done. Play it how you want, I'll play it how I want, we can both be right and wrong until GW says otherwise.

Also, I've debated with you on two separate threads and about to be a 3rd if I decide to answer your weak argument and you have added facts less than 10% of your posts. You in fact ask for citations more than you say anything else, yet you provide extremely little on your own.

Zodiark wrote:
Reading comprehension, work on it. The MIXED unit is not a Psyker, but the Psyker never stops being a Psyker, remember he is still a unit in his own right, how many times must we run around in circles before you get this.

You've never proven this. In fact, it's been proven incorrect. The citations are through the threads.

Also, I've debated with you on two separate threads and about to be a 3rd if I decide to answer your weak argument and you have added facts less than 10% of your posts. You in fact ask for citations more than you say anything else, yet you provide extremely little on your own.

Because recently by the time I get involved in a thread all the relevant citations have been made. I ask for citations because someone (like you) asserts something as fact without supporting it with a citation. So I can't add anything as far as citations go, but others that disagree and haven't cited why absolutely can add something as far as citations go.

Also, would you mind stopping the personal attacks? They truly aren't warranted - I've been nothing but polite to you.

Zodiark wrote:
The MIXED unit is not a Psyker, but the Psyker never stops being a Psyker, remember he is still a unit in his own right, how many times must we run around in circles before you get this.

The psychic phase rules tell you to count the mastery levels of your psyker units, not psykers.

Imsaniak, he's still insisting the psyker is his own unit.
Never mind that the rules specifically state he BECOMES a unit of 1 again in the phase after the unit he's in is killed. Cause you know.... statements like "I was a doctor. Then I became a doctor" make total sense in his point of view

emmagine wrote:
Imsaniak, he's still insisting the psyker is his own unit.
Never mind that the rules specifically state he BECOMES a unit of 1 again in the phase after the unit he's in is killed. Cause you know.... statements like "I was a doctor. Then I became a doctor" make total sense in his point of view

As was stated to me in a game in which I was royally thrashed by a GK player and I asked him how BoP works.

The unit with BoP in it becomes a Psyker unit with a mastery level of 1. The Psyker does not lose his mastery level, ever. So I have a Librarian for example with a mastery level of 2 in a group with BoP with a mastery level of 1, the total would be mastery level of 3 because you add up the ML of all Psykers on the board and a BoP unit counts as a Psyker unit as per rules.

-edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1-

You add up the ML of Psyker *units* on the board.
And your example has literally nothing to do with the current discussion.

HIWPI:
The problematic definition of a 'psychic unit' is there simply so the authors don't have to keep saying 'select a psyker, or a brotherhood of psykers unit, or a vehicle with the psychic pilot special rule...' every time. But, their clarification backfired.

IMO, the rules are intended so that each psyker/unit/pilot is selected separately and can cast their spells separately. This means that
a) If multiple psykers in the same unit have the same spell, they can each attempt to cast it
b) Perils/benefits are not conferred to other non-psyker models in the unit, or models in the unit not part of the brotherhood.
c) you 'drill down' to the most atomised view of psykers possible - essentially, whatever individual units appear on your army list.

I think that if you don't do that, you have all kinds of problems as the 'psyker unit' expands to include
- mixed units with psykers and non-psykers: this doesn't even count as a psyker unit according to RAW and thus can't generate WC or cast powers.
- mixed units with psykers and brotherhood of psykers can calculating mastery levels.
- powers which affect 'the psyker' when he is in a unit
- allocating perils wounds to non-casting models in the unit

Trasvi wrote:
HIWPI:
The problematic definition of a 'psychic unit' is there simply so the authors don't have to keep saying 'select a psyker, or a brotherhood of psykers unit, or a vehicle with the psychic pilot special rule...' every time. But, their clarification backfired.

IMO, the rules are intended so that each psyker/unit/pilot is selected separately and can cast their spells separately. This means that
a) If multiple psykers in the same unit have the same spell, they can each attempt to cast it
b) Perils/benefits are not conferred to other non-psyker models in the unit, or models in the unit not part of the brotherhood.
c) you 'drill down' to the most atomised view of psykers possible - essentially, whatever individual units appear on your army list.

I think that if you don't do that, you have all kinds of problems as the 'psyker unit' expands to include
- mixed units with psykers and non-psykers: this doesn't even count as a psyker unit according to RAW and thus can't generate WC or cast powers.
- mixed units with psykers and brotherhood of psykers can calculating mastery levels.
- powers which affect 'the psyker' when he is in a unit
- allocating perils wounds to non-casting models in the unit

This is exactly my point. I completely agree. Well said.

Agreed as well. I fully believe that is the RAI, but that the GW writers F'ed up by using the word unit when they attempted to write it down. Thus RAW is broken.

I fully intend to play according to Trasvi's logic, and it seems likely that most Tourney's will agree.

Trasvi wrote:
HIWPI:
The problematic definition of a 'psychic unit' is there simply so the authors don't have to keep saying 'select a psyker, or a brotherhood of psykers unit, or a vehicle with the psychic pilot special rule...' every time. But, their clarification backfired.

IMO, the rules are intended so that each psyker/unit/pilot is selected separately and can cast their spells separately. This means that
a) If multiple psykers in the same unit have the same spell, they can each attempt to cast it
b) Perils/benefits are not conferred to other non-psyker models in the unit, or models in the unit not part of the brotherhood.
c) you 'drill down' to the most atomised view of psykers possible - essentially, whatever individual units appear on your army list.

I think that if you don't do that, you have all kinds of problems as the 'psyker unit' expands to include
- mixed units with psykers and non-psykers: this doesn't even count as a psyker unit according to RAW and thus can't generate WC or cast powers.
- mixed units with psykers and brotherhood of psykers can calculating mastery levels.
- powers which affect 'the psyker' when he is in a unit
- allocating perils wounds to non-casting models in the unit

Totally agree and was the original point I myself and others mentioned earlier except for this part: "mixed units with psykers and non-psykers: this doesn't even count as a psyker unit according to RAW and thus can't generate WC or cast powers." The way I read it, the way I see GK players player it and Daemons for that matter, the Psyker is still a Psyker, even in another unit as he does not lose his Psyker status, so you would still apply his mastery levels for WC generation and you can still select him as an individual within the unit to resolve his psychic power.

This point is hotly in contention and will most likely need an FAQ as the sides are two entrenched to agree.

Zodiark wrote:
This point is hotly in contention and will most likely need an FAQ as the sides are two entrenched to agree.

It's not really in contention at all. Pretty much everyone seems to agree that this is how the rules should work. The argument is just over the insistence from a couple of people that the rules already say that when they don't.

 insaniak wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
This point is hotly in contention and will most likely need an FAQ as the sides are two entrenched to agree.

It's not really in contention at all. Pretty much everyone seems to agree that this is how the rules should work. The argument is just over the insistence from a couple of people that the rules already say that when they don't.

Yeah I'm not seeing that at all here in fact. You are still of the opinion that a Psyker in a mixed unit is no longer a Psyker and therefore no Mastery charges are applied when in fact they are as you look at all Psyker units on the board, and he is still a Psyker unit, even when in a mixed unit, hence the term "mixed" unit which defines a unit composition of multiple types.

Zodiark wrote:
You are still of the opinion that a Psyker in a mixed unit is no longer a Psyker...

I have no idea where you are getting that idea. I have never been of the opinion that a psyker in a mixed unit is no longer a psyker.

Nor have I ever claimed that a psyker in a mixed unit would not receive charges for his mastery. I merely pointed out that this was the outcome of your claim that the mixed unit is not a Psyker Unit.

 insaniak wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
You are still of the opinion that a Psyker in a mixed unit is no longer a Psyker...

I have no idea where you are getting that idea. I have never been of the opinion that a psyker in a mixed unit is no longer a psyker.

Nor have I ever claimed that a psyker in a mixed unit would not receive charges for his mastery. I merely pointed out that this was the outcome of your claim that the mixed unit is not a Psyker Unit.

O.O I may have the wrong person then, in that case I apologize. But my claim that a mixed unit is not a Psyker unit is true unless it is a unit with the special rule BoP, simply putting a Librarian with my Tac Marines does not make their unit Psyker. Until I see otherwise I'll stick with this. (I admit, I should have clarified better, sometimes I get ahead of myself)

To answer op's question then.

By your own statement just now, since a Psyker in a mixed unit is still a Psyker, he keeps his Mastery Levels and applies them when generating warp charges. So the OP's question on an IC joining a unit, it would thus allow him to do this. The rule gets a little foggy when you add the Psyker to a unit with BoP but you would still count his Mastery Level separately and then the BoP Mastery Level which would be 1 as the original Psyker never loses these and as it is on the table, is taken into account when generating Warp Charges as per BRB as well as when being selected to resolve a Psychic power, as per BRB.

Zodiark wrote:
By your own statement just now, since a Psyker in a mixed unit is still a Psyker, he keeps his Mastery Levels and applies them when generating warp charges.

You keep coming back to this point, and it's still just as incorrect now as it was the first time.

If the unit is not a psyker unit, the psyker will not count for generating charges, because charges are calculated based on psyker units, not psykers.

But according to the BRB... there is no difference between a psyker and a psyker unit.

"For the purposes of all rules, the term 'Psyker' and 'Psyker Unit' refer to any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot, or BoP/S special Rules."

Thus stating that both those terms are equavalent and can refer to any case of those rules.

And according to the Psyker rule "A model with this special rule is a Psyker"

So if a model with that rule is a Psyker, and Psyker, and Psyker Unit are the same thing. Then any model with that rules is a 'Psyker Unit' unto itself regardless of whether it is part of or joined to another unit.

"For the purposes of all rules, the term 'biscuit' and 'snack' refer to any unit with the 'Cookie' special Rules."

That doesn't mean that 'biscuit' and 'snack' are synonymous. It just means that anytime you see either of those terms, it means 'cookie'. A rule that specifically addresses snacks would have no effect on a cookie listed only as a biscuit and not a snack.

 insaniak wrote:
"For the purposes of all rules, the term 'biscuit' and 'snack' refer to any unit with the 'Cookie' special Rules."

That doesn't mean that 'biscuit' and 'snack' are synonymous. It just means that anytime you see either of those terms, it means 'cookie'. A rule that specifically addresses snacks would have no effect on a cookie listed only as a biscuit and not a snack.

But if you are given no rule to distinguish them, 'biscuit' and 'snack' have no separate meaning. Thus they can't be anything but the same thing.

And even if they are not, you are still left with fact that A Model, can be defined as a Psyker, and according to that rule at the begining of the Psychic chapter, a Psyker is a unit with (one of those rules).

Therefore a model with the Psyker rule is a unit. By RAW.

chanceafs wrote:
But according to the BRB... there is no difference between a psyker and a psyker unit.

"For the purposes of all rules, the term 'Psyker' and 'Psyker Unit' refer to any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot, or BoP/S special Rules."

Thus stating that both those terms are equavalent and can refer to any case of those rules.

And according to the Psyker rule "A model with this special rule is a Psyker"

So if a model with that rule is a Psyker, and Psyker, and Psyker Unit are the same thing. Then any model with that rules is a 'Psyker Unit' unto itself regardless of whether it is part of or joined to another unit.

Close its telling us that we can basically apply the words psyker, BOP or psychic pilot where they are needed.

So generating a warp charge can be read:
Select a psyker unit or select a psyker

Meaning that where people are complaining that a mixed unit can generate WC points it can becuase we can select a Psyker.

They are just litterally stating they are being lazy and can't be bothered to write everything out over and over

chanceafs wrote:
And even if they are not, you are still left with fact that A Model, can be defined as a Psyker, and according to that rule at the begining of the Psychic chapter, a Psyker is a unit with (one of those rules).

Therefore a model with the Psyker rule is a unit. By RAW.

Therein lies the problem. 'Psyker' is a rule that is applied to models, but the new psychic rules deal with units with the Psyker rule.

If you treat every model with the Psyker rule as a unit in its own right, you run into all of the problems outlined earlier in the thread. It just doesn't work.


What I suspect that rule should have said is that the terms 'psyker' and 'psyker unit' refer to models with the Psyker or Psychic Pilot rule, or squads with the Brotherhood rule.

That sidesteps the whole 'unit' issue. All of your Independant Character psykers would generate charges regardless of whether or not they are with units, and mixed units would only care about the actual psykers in them,


Instead, what we have is a big ol' mess.

 insaniak wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
And even if they are not, you are still left with fact that A Model, can be defined as a Psyker, and according to that rule at the begining of the Psychic chapter, a Psyker is a unit with (one of those rules).

Therefore a model with the Psyker rule is a unit. By RAW.

Therein lies the problem. 'Psyker' is a rule that is applied to models, but the new psychic rules deal with units with the Psyker rule.

If you treat every model with the Psyker rule as a unit in its own right, you run into all of the problems outlined earlier in the thread. It just doesn't work.


What I suspect that rule should have said is that the terms 'psyker' and 'psyker unit' refer to models with the Psyker or Psychic Pilot rule, or squads with the Brotherhood rule.

That sidesteps the whole 'unit' issue. All of your Independant Character psykers would generate charges regardless of whether or not they are with units, and mixed units would only care about the actual psykers in them,


Instead, what we have is a big ol' mess.

The game does work though and very well.

So if we do as we are told and every time we see psyker or psychic pilot we apply psyker, BoS, Psychic pilot evrything flows smooth.

pg. 22 Number of psychic Powers
"The Psyker (psyker, BoS, Psychic pilot )knows a number of psychic powers equal to his mastery level"... fine

Pg. 23 Generating psychic powers
"Psyker (psyker, BoS, Psychic pilot ) generate their psychic powers before the game begins"
"in some army list entries, a Psyker (psyker, BoS, Psychic pilot) will have more than one specified psychic power listed"
"Otherwise a Psyker (psyker, BoS, Psychic pilot) generate a random psychic powers from amongst the psychic disciplines know to him"
"A psyker (psyker, BoS, Psychic pilot) cannot know the same psychic power twice"
"Immediatley after generating a psychic power, a Psyker (psyker, BoS, Psychic pilot) can always choose to substitute the power generated for the disciplines primaris power"
"if a Psyker (psyker, BoS, Psychic pilot) has choosen all the powers from the same psychic discipline to gain the Pyschic focus, he will already know that discplines primaris power and so cannot substitute any of his randomly generated powers"
That is all fine

pg24. Generating Warp Charge
"At the beginning of each psychic phase, the player whose turn it is rolls a D6. Then each player takes a number of dice equal to the result of the D6 roll; those dice are their warp charge pool. Each player then adds up the Mastery Level of all the Psyker Unit (psyker, BoS, Psychic pilot ) they currently have on the tabletop and adds that many dice to their warp charge pool"
Select Psyker and Psychic Power
"Select one of your psyker units (psyker, BoS, Psychic pilot )"

pg. 25 Take a psychic test
"For each individual result of 4+, the psyker (psyker, BoS, Psychic pilot ) has successfully harnessed one warp charge point. If the total number of harnessed Warp Charge points is greater than or equal to the Warp Charge cost stated in the psychic powers descriptions, the psychic test is successful"
"If, when making a psychic test, two or more dice rolls were rolls of a 6, the unit attempting to manifest the psychic suffers a Perils of the Warp" - Dont know where people are getting you take a perils twice from :/

So yeh when told what to do we are fine all the way through following RAW.

But I know I'm right and you know your right so this argument is going to keep on going and going. I have emailed GW so hopefully we will have a resolution some time soon hopefully (Where they show im right .

Have fun continuing to argue I'm out of this one peace out and enjoy

- Removed by insaniak. This sort of comment adds nothing constructive to the discussion -

katana100 wrote:
The game does work though and very well.

So if we do as we are told and every time we see psyker or psychic pilot we apply psyker, BoS, Psychic pilot evrything flows smooth.

Except that's not what we are told. You have paraphrased the rule in a way that rather drastically changes its application.

All of your examples are incorrect, because you are trying to apply the rule to individual models, when the rule actually applies to units.

 insaniak wrote:

katana100 wrote:
The game does work though and very well.

So if we do as we are told and every time we see psyker or psychic pilot we apply psyker, BoS, Psychic pilot evrything flows smooth.

Except that's not what we are told. You have paraphrased the rule in a way that rather drastically changes its application.

All of your examples are incorrect, because you are trying to apply the rule to individual models, when the rule actually applies to units.

To reiterate for the upteenth time, we are told to select individual Pyskers as well as Psyker units. An individual Psyker NEVER stops being a Psyker unit in its own right, even if it is in a mixed unit with others. I will reiterate once again which I have realized is literally beating a dead horse that simply because you do not see it the same way, does not make it wrong. We as players read the BRB and this is what WE understand from the RAW. Until you can excite explicitly where we cannot count an individual Psyker as a Psyker when in a mixed unit, when literally, at least for me, every single person I have played with since I began has played it this way, some have laughed flat out with looks of disgust when I discuss some of the opinions on this particular forum.

They have stated, which I have come to accept as a general truth. "Some people just want to play the game how they think it should be played, rather than how the game was meant to be played. You are better off ignoring these people and moving on"

I'm thinking about doing that here because there is a small circle of players here who have failed to cite any rules to counter the concept of counting all Psykers, regardless of individual units and a group that is a unit, as remember, an individual model is still counted as a unit and a mixed unit counts as multiple units. The majority of players I have encountered in regards to this have also agreed and, when we all read RAW we came to the same conclusion because the BRB DOES NOT state otherwise, that you count EVERY Psyker unit, individual, grouped unit or mixed group as a Psyker and count ALL mastery levels of ALL Psyker units on the table.

This includes BoP units who count as Mastery Level one as per BRB as well as the Psyker himself who joins that particular group, for example my Mastery Level 2 Librarian, which if this was all that was on the table gives me 3 WC before I roll the dice. Not 1 charge for the unit only and not 2 for the Librarian only, which explicitly answers the ops question which you yourself have failed to answer with actual citations from the text numerous times.

The burden of proof, is now on you as more players have joined this discussion and have come to the same conclusion, dissenting opinions must now begin to prove their point or concede the debate.

By the way. As per RAW. A unit has multiple meanings. It refers to a group of models that composes one "unit" most players I know simply call them squads to avoid ridiculus discussions like these and Individual units that do not need to be grouped with others i.e., Librarians, Company Masters, Vehicles etc (any model with a unit composition of 1)

So again, to answer the ops original statement.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
I am planning to run an ork list involving Weirdboyz and Daemonology since i want to see how badly i'll nuke my brains before the new dex hits lol.

Couple of things i coulda sworn i saw, but cant seem to find might jack up my strat though. If anyone could help me find it i'd be grateful.
1) Psyker phase says a unit may not manifest the same spell twice. What about ICs in that unit? Or in my case, two ICs with psyker powers in the same unit? Contemplating bringing a 2nd weirdboy for backup spellcasting case my first one fails.

Any help would be appreciative.

The IC that is joined with a unit or by himself would still be able to cast the spell. For example, I have two Librarians in one group, they would both be able to cast the same spells and both of their Mastery Levels would be added together when determining WC. Until this is DIRECTLY stated otherwise in the BRB which I know it will not be, this is how you should play it.

Remember, when you join a Psyker to a unit with BoP, you would count the entire unit of BoP as Mastery Level 1 as stated RAW as well as the Psykers Mastery Level


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

katana100 wrote:
The game does work though and very well.

So if we do as we are told and every time we see psyker or psychic pilot we apply psyker, BoS, Psychic pilot evrything flows smooth.

All of your examples are incorrect, because you are trying to apply the rule to individual models, when the rule actually applies to [i]units[/i[i][u]].

I felt the need to reiterate again. See highlighted area.

You are referring to a group of models making up one unit. For example, a squad of tac marines is one unit. But Individual models are still considered units as per BRB, IIRC its right at the beginning when it defines what a unit is.

Further point.

When properly using and understanding the English language certain things become clear when looking at the word "Unit"

You would not say, I have 10 units of Tactical Marines if you were talking about a full squad of Tactical Marines which cap at 10. You would say I have 1 unit of 10 Tactical Marines. Do you see the proper use? Unit can mean singular as in I have one Librarian or plural, I have 1 unit of Tactical Marines. The devil is in the details.

Quoting from 6th edition BRB because I know the definition hasn't changed.

"A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered a unit in its own right." Pg 3 under units.

Quoting from 7th edition.

""A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered a unit in its own right." First paragraph under the sub-heading units under the heading Forming a Unit.

Zodiark wrote:
To reiterate for the upteenth time, we are told to select individual Pyskers as well as Psyker units. An individual Psyker NEVER stops being a Psyker unit in its own right, even if it is in a mixed unit with others.

If you are treating him as a Psyker unit, when you have stated that the mixed unit is not a Psyker unit, how are you treating him as part of the unit for all rules purposes?

They have stated, which I have come to accept as a general truth. "Some people just want to play the game how they think it should be played, rather than how the game was meant to be played. You are better off ignoring these people and moving on"

I'm curious. Could you explain what value this added to the discussion, other than an attempt to make people feel bad?

I'm thinking about doing that here because there is a small circle of players here who have failed to cite any rules to counter the concept of counting all Psykers, regardless of individual units and a group that is a unit, as remember, an individual model is still counted as a unit and a mixed unit counts as multiple units.

...
You've utterly failed to prove that the 40k rules have a concept of multiple units inside one unit. You've utterly failed to prove your assertions that an IC joined to a unit is still a unit by himself. And yet you still assert this as fact. Please actually prove it - for once.
The IC rules - that have been cited in the past - prove those assertions incorrect.

count ALL mastery levels of ALL Psyker units on the table.

You've stated that an IC in a non-Psyker unit is not a Psyker unit.
If you count the ICs MLs you're not treating him as a part of the mixed unit for a rules purpose (if you were you couldn't count him). Please cite permission to do so. For once.

The burden of proof, is now on you as more players have joined this discussion and have come to the same conclusion, dissenting opinions must now begin to prove their point or concede the debate.

No matter how many people join the debate, unless they actually prove their assertions their voices are useless.
Please prove you're allowed to count a Psyker IC when he's not part of a Psyker unit.

By the way. As per RAW. A unit has multiple meanings. It refers to a group of models that composes one "unit" most players I know simply call them squads to avoid ridiculus discussions like these and Individual units that do not need to be grouped with others i.e., Librarians, Company Masters, Vehicles etc (any model with a unit composition of 1)

That's not multiple meanings. That's showing that the word unit can refer to any sized grouping of models, from 1 to infinity.

The IC that is joined with a unit or by himself would still be able to cast the spell. For example, I have two Librarians in one group, they would both be able to cast the same spells and both of their Mastery Levels would be added together when determining WC. Until this is DIRECTLY stated otherwise in the BRB which I know it will not be, this is how you should play it.

So it's not RAW, but how you should play it. And yet you asserted that this is RAW. That's an interesting position. Perhaps you should clarify your point.

Remember, when you join a Psyker to a unit with BoP, you would count the entire unit of BoP as Mastery Level 1 as stated RAW as well as the Psykers Mastery Level

Yes, per the rules it's a single ML1 unit - the IC adds nothing.

You are referring to a group of models making up one unit. For example, a squad of tac marines is one unit. But Individual models are still considered units as per BRB, IIRC its right at the beginning when it defines what a unit is.

Individual models can be units.
Your interpretation would mean that a 10 man Tac squad has 11 units and I can fire at the heavy weapon and special weapon guy, ignoring the rest of the unit. The rules do not support that position.

When properly using and understanding the English language certain things become clear when looking at the word "Unit"

Unnecessarily antagonizing.

You would not say, I have 10 units of Tactical Marines if you were talking about a full squad of Tactical Marines which cap at 10. You would say I have 1 unit of 10 Tactical Marines. Do you see the proper use? Unit can mean singular as in I have one Librarian or plural, I have 1 unit of Tactical Marines. The devil is in the details.

Yes, unit can mean singular. That does not mean that every single model is always, without fail, a unit.

Define mixed unit please.

You once again provided no citations from the BRB so I will acknowledge nothing you have said until you do.

Actually nevermind, I don't really care. I am more than confident in the RAW and to me the answer is obvious. It is not my job to prove how or why this is correct. It is your job to prove that these are wrong. You have failed to do this on multiple occasions in multiple discussions.

To reiterate.

You play how you play, I'll play how I play because one side won't listen to anything that isn't a specific statement of such and the other accepts the RAW as they were written and is not being confused by the way they were written.

Any further discussion between me and you from this point on in this thread is simply spam and will be reported.

Have a nice day!

Zodiark wrote:
Define mixed unit please.

A Psyker IC in a non Psyker unit.

You once again provided no citations from the BRB so I will acknowledge nothing you have said until you do.

I've explained why. All the relevant rules have been quoted and you've ignored them. I'm not going to waste my time requiring more rules for you to ignore.

And you didn't quote a single rule in the post I was replying to - but you did contradict yourself and have declined to address that fact.
You also used some very antagonistic sentences that I don't think actually added to the discussion - care to explain what they added? I'm honestly curious.

IC rules - the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes. Have a rules purpose and want to treat him as something other than part of the unit he joined? Cite the allowance. You've declined to do so as of this writing. Instead you've waxed theoretical about Mini and Macro units, and that every model is also a unit in itself...

Zodiark wrote:
To reiterate for the upteenth time, we are told to select individual Pyskers as well as Psyker units.

Really?

The rule in question again:

The Rulebook wrote:
...Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all of the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop (including those embarked in Transports) and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.

So... No, we're not told to look at individual Psykers at all. When you are generating your Warp Charge, you just count the Psyker units.

An individual Psyker NEVER stops being a Psyker unit in its own right, even if it is in a mixed unit with others.

That's correct. However if you argue (as you have) that a unit of non-psykers with a Psyker in it is not a Psyker unit, then any rule that refers to Psyker units will not apply to that unit.

They have stated, which I have come to accept as a general truth. "Some people just want to play the game how they think it should be played, rather than how the game was meant to be played. You are better off ignoring these people and moving on"

So you're also ignoring the part where I already pointed out that we agree on how this probably should be played?

The sole issue here in this thread is with the fact that the wording used in the Psychic rules is rubbish, and as a result the psychic rules don't actually work without some modification from the players.

The majority of players I have encountered in regards to this have also agreed and, when we all read RAW we came to the same conclusion because the BRB DOES NOT state otherwise, that you count EVERY Psyker unit, individual, grouped unit or mixed group as a Psyker and count ALL mastery levels of ALL Psyker units on the table.

This rule says otherwise:

The Rulebook wrote:
...Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all of the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop (including those embarked in Transports) and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.

The burden of proof, is now on you as more players have joined this discussion and have come to the same conclusion, dissenting opinions must now begin to prove their point or concede the debate

No problem. Since it doesn't appear to have been mentioned yet, how about this:

The Rulebook wrote:
...Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all of the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop (including those embarked in Transports) and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.

By the way. As per RAW. A unit has multiple meanings. It refers to a group of models that composes one "unit" most players I know simply call them squads to avoid ridiculus discussions like these and Individual units that do not need to be grouped with others i.e., Librarians, Company Masters, Vehicles etc (any model with a unit composition of 1)

Yes, I'm aware of that. It's the cause of the entire problem.

Because:

The Rulebook wrote:
...Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all of the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop (including those embarked in Transports) and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.

Remember, when you join a Psyker to a unit with BoP, you would count the entire unit of BoP as Mastery Level 1 as stated RAW as well as the Psykers Mastery Level

Why?

But Individual models are still considered units as per BRB,

No they're not.

A unit can consist of a single model. A single model is not automatically a unit.

And if you were correct, the game would break. We've already discussed earlier in the thread the problems created if you assume that a single model can belong to multiple units at the same time. It just doesn't work that way.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Define mixed unit please.

A Psyker IC in a non Psyker unit.

You once again provided no citations from the BRB so I will acknowledge nothing you have said until you do.

I've explained why. All the relevant rules have been quoted and you've ignored them. I'm not going to waste my time requiring more rules for you to ignore.

And you didn't quote a single rule in the post I was replying to - but you did contradict yourself and have declined to address that fact.
You also used some very antagonistic sentences that I don't think actually added to the discussion - care to explain what they added? I'm honestly curious.

IC rules - the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes. Have a rules purpose and want to treat him as something other than part of the unit he joined? Cite the allowance. You've declined to do so as of this writing. Instead you've waxed theoretical about Mini and Macro units, and that every model is also a unit in itself...

Reported for argumentative.

I have read through every rule posted in this topic and nothing counters the following:

Unless a rule specifically states that a Psyker IC in a non-Psyker unit or even in a Psyker unit stops being a Psyker unit, he is still able to cast Psyker powers as per rules. The example was cited earlier in the thread but I'll paraphrase for you to save you a search.

When determining WC add the ML of all Psykers on the table, this includes those inside of a transport. A mixed unit is defined as you said as a Psyker unit with a non-psyker unit. The transport is not a Psyker unit unless stated otherwise therefore you would still count the Psyker's ML in this unit combination for WC and he is still able to cast Psyker powers as per normal.

When attempting to cast a Psyker power, you select any Psyker unit you have, this is a grouped unit of Psykers such as those with BoP or an individual Psyker unit, IC. It doesn't say you cannot choose an IC that is in a mixed unit anywhere in the description for selecting a Psyker and because it does not state that you cannot do something, we can.

Again. I have paraphrased from the BRB, find a ruling that specifically states that I cannot use an IC in a mixed unit to apply his ML to my WC or cast a Psyker power and I will concede.

Until then, again, I will report anything you post in response to me that does not further contribute to the discussion.

This means no more trying to flip the discussion around asking me to prove something, this is no more having me cite something, this is no more disagreeing simply because you think its RAI and not RAW. RAW means RAW. If it is not written in a negative, then it is a positive which literally means, if the book says you cannot do something, then you can.

Actual citations from the text or Faq's please or do not respond.