Not attempt to manifest the same spell on itself, but in fact cast a spell on another unit. Like if you had 2 Space Marine Librarians in a squad of Tacticals, they both would not be able to cast smite. We know they couldn't both cast Gate of Infinity or whatever but what's the limitation on other spells? Just not finding it right now.

Hollismason wrote:
Not attempt to manifest the same spell on itself, but in fact cast a spell on another unit. Like if you had 2 Space Marine Librarians in a squad of Tacticals, they both would not be able to cast smite. We know they couldn't both cast Gate of Infinity or whatever but what's the limitation on other spells? Just not finding it right now.

This is getting into the whole "Psychic Unit" debate.

"no Unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic mower more than once per Psychic phase."

Basically Psyker Units are seperate, so each Librarian is a Seperate Psyker Unit. If you that them as seperate,everything works pretty well. If you lump them together, things get messy and break.


That them as seperate Osychic units for WC generation, casting powers, and perils and things work just fine.

That is how NOVA has FAQed it so far it's a good workable solution.

presumably it is to stop gamebreakers like the jetseer council from being so powerful.

in the previous edition, if 3 of them got fortune, they could attempt to cast it three times - so if the first attempt fails, that's alright, roll on the second guy, then again with the third if he fails too.
this edition means that if the jetseer council attempts to cast a power, then fails, that's it, the power failed. no second tries.

and let's be frank here. if you're putting more than 1 psyker in a unit, you're trying to make a deathstar and deserve the nerf in its entirety.

 Zagman wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Not attempt to manifest the same spell on itself, but in fact cast a spell on another unit. Like if you had 2 Space Marine Librarians in a squad of Tacticals, they both would not be able to cast smite. We know they couldn't both cast Gate of Infinity or whatever but what's the limitation on other spells? Just not finding it right now.

This is getting into the whole "Psychic Unit" debate.

"no Unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic mower more than once per Psychic phase."

Basically Psyker Units are seperate, so each Librarian is a Seperate Psyker Unit. If you that them as seperate,everything works pretty well. If you lump them together, things get messy and break.


That them as seperate Osychic units for WC generation, casting powers, and perils and things work just fine.

That is how NOVA has FAQed it so far it's a good workable solution.

That's what i thought Nova did, and BAO did, but couldn't find the rules entry thanks. Also I would like a "Psychic Mower"

 some bloke wrote:
presumably it is to stop gamebreakers like the jetseer council from being so powerful.

in the previous edition, if 3 of them got fortune, they could attempt to cast it three times - so if the first attempt fails, that's alright, roll on the second guy, then again with the third if he fails too.
this edition means that if the jetseer council attempts to cast a power, then fails, that's it, the power failed. no second tries.

and let's be frank here. if you're putting more than 1 psyker in a unit, you're trying to make a deathstar and deserve the nerf in its entirety.

Actually I think the rules prevent this because it says that attempting to manifest the same power on the same unit more than once is disallowed. However if you had two seperate targets you could in fact cast two seperate fortunes , one on your unit, one on the other, but would not be able to try to cast fortune on your unit more than once.

I think...

If you read the whole paragraph, the subject in question is the Psyker Unit, not any unit he may be joined to.

Hollismason wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
presumably it is to stop gamebreakers like the jetseer council from being so powerful.

in the previous edition, if 3 of them got fortune, they could attempt to cast it three times - so if the first attempt fails, that's alright, roll on the second guy, then again with the third if he fails too.
this edition means that if the jetseer council attempts to cast a power, then fails, that's it, the power failed. no second tries.

and let's be frank here. if you're putting more than 1 psyker in a unit, you're trying to make a deathstar and deserve the nerf in its entirety.

Actually I think the rules prevent this because it says that attempting to manifest the same power on the same unit more than once is disallowed. However if you had two seperate targets you could in fact cast two seperate fortunes , one on your unit, one on the other, but would not be able to try to cast fortune on your unit more than once.

I think...

no, the rules are that a unit cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once. you can cast the same power on a unit from 2 different units but a single unit cannot cast the same one twice.

Acctually, isnt there a rule stating that if the "unit" fails casting a power, that nobody in the unit can cast that power again for the rest of the turn anyway?

I thought it said manifest. I'm pretty sure it says manifest.

The problem with this is that "units" do not manifest powers, Psyker units do. Unit has to mean Psyker unit, or else it does not make any sense. Also worth mentioning, when a Farseer joins a unit of guardians, the guardians DO NOT become a Psyker unit. So when a second Farseer joins the same unit, you have 2 seperate Psyker units joined to a unit of Guardians. Therefore, both Farseers may cast with complete freedom.

I'm pretty sure you can't attempt to manifest the same blessing on a unit more than once.

 extremefreak17 wrote:
The problem with this is that "units" do not manifest powers, Psyker units do. Unit has to mean Psyker unit, or else it does not make any sense. Also worth mentioning, when a Farseer joins a unit of guardians, the guardians DO NOT become a Psyker unit. So when a second Farseer joins the same unit, you have 2 seperate Psyker units joined to a unit of Guardians. Therefore, both Farseers may cast with complete freedom.

Except when an IC joins a unit, he becomes a part of that unit for all rules purposes.

While it is probably how it is supposed to work, there is absolutely no support in the rules for treating those two Farseers as separate units for resolving psychic powers.

 insaniak wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
The problem with this is that "units" do not manifest powers, Psyker units do. Unit has to mean Psyker unit, or else it does not make any sense. Also worth mentioning, when a Farseer joins a unit of guardians, the guardians DO NOT become a Psyker unit. So when a second Farseer joins the same unit, you have 2 seperate Psyker units joined to a unit of Guardians. Therefore, both Farseers may cast with complete freedom.

Except when an IC joins a unit, he becomes a part of that unit for all rules purposes.

While it is probably how it is supposed to work, there is absolutely no support in the rules for treating those two Farseers as separate units for resolving psychic powers.

Psyker unit =/= unit joined by a Psyker. We have no permission for the Pskyker special rule to confer, and thus, the guardian unit does not have the rule.

We know from the rules that any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot, or Brotherhood of Psykers Special rule is a Psyker unit. The word unit is used multiple times throughout the book to refer to both single models, and groups of models. Here the word "unit" is used to represent both.

Any model with the Psyker or Psychic Pilot special rule, and any unit with the Brotherhood of Pskers special rule is a Pskyer unit.
This is the only way to read that rule without breaking the game.

With the way that most people are reading it, a Farseer attached to a Guardian unit will NEVER be able to cast a power as long as he is with them. This is because the Guardians are not a Psyker unit, and thus can never be selected to cast a power. The Farsser can not be selected seperately, as he is a part of the Guardian unit for all rules purposes, and his Psyker rule has no permission to confer to said unit.

Exactly.

You either treat the Psyker as invisible for generating warp charge, casting powers etc if attached to a unit, which seems the least likely RAI, or you ignore pretty much every use of the word 'unit' in the psychic phase section of the rulebook, treat every Psyker, or brotherhood, as a discrete, separate unit.

This allows most rules to function, and will allow characters attached to units that know the same power elsewhere within it, to cast the same power multiple times (but only once for each discrete occurrence of a Psyker which knows that power.)

 extremefreak17 wrote:
Psyker unit =/= unit joined by a Psyker. We have no permission for the Pskyker special rule to confer, and thus, the guardian unit does not have the rule.

Which means that a unit of Guardians with a Farseer joined to it is not a Psyker Unit, and since ICs count as a part of the unit for all rules purposes, the Farseer therefore can not be considered a separate unit and so can not cast powers and is not counted when tallying warp charges.

The word unit is used multiple times throughout the book to refer to both single models, and groups of models.

It's applied to single models when they are single model units. An IC joined to another unit is no longer a single model unit. He is a part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Any model with the Psyker or Psychic Pilot special rule, and any unit with the Brotherhood of Pskers special rule is a Pskyer unit.
This is the only way to read that rule without breaking the game.

Except that isn't what the rules say. So the only solution to not break the game is apparently to re-write the psychic power rules...

With the way that most people are reading it, a Farseer attached to a Guardian unit will NEVER be able to cast a power as long as he is with them. This is because the Guardians are not a Psyker unit, and thus can never be selected to cast a power. The Farsser can not be selected seperately, as he is a part of the Guardian unit for all rules purposes, and his Psyker rule has no permission to confer to said unit.

Yes, that's how most people are reading it, and is the result of your statement right at the top of this post.

It's quite obviously not how it's supposed to work, but until GW get around to finishing writing the psychic rules, we won't know just how it is supposed to work.

Its pretty clear how it is supposed to work. Anything else breaks the game. I think we can all safely assume they didn't mean to break it.

The way i read it in the rule book made it pretty obvious, to me atleast, that "psyker unit" refers to brotherhood of psyker units and not two farseers attached to dire avengers. The farseers themselves are psychic units. A brotherhood unit cant cast iron arm twice in a row, makes perfect sense, they share a mastery level. Two seperate IC psykers, with their own mastery levels and powers, that joined a troop squad should be able to pop off two smites or iron arm twice so far as each is being cast by seperate psykers

 insaniak wrote:

While it is probably how it is supposed to work, there is absolutely no support in the rules for treating those two Farseers as separate units for resolving psychic powers.

...except that, if we treat them as the same Psychic unit, then we can't seem to resolve Perils very well (if at all), and Farseer Bob can cast the power(s) that only Farseer Sam knows.


I'll keep promoting my HIWPI, which is linked in my sig. I think it's a pretty safe way to play, and irons out these rules problems.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
...except that, if we treat them as the same Psychic unit, then we can't seem to resolve Perils very well (if at all), and Farseer Bob can cast the power(s) that only Farseer Sam knows.

Yes, the psychic rules are borked. As I believe I mentioned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 inquisitormaus wrote:
The way i read it in the rule book made it pretty obvious, to me atleast, that "psyker unit" refers to brotherhood of psyker units and not two farseers attached to dire avengers. The farseers themselves are psychic units.

How can they be units when they aren't units?

An IC joined to another unit is a part of that unit for all rules purposes. There is no stated exception to this in the psychic rules. So there is no justification within the rules for treating a psyker joined to another unit as a separate unit for resolving the psychic phase.

So if ive got tigurius and a libi in an assault squad i cant iron arm both psykers?

 inquisitormaus wrote:
So if ive got tigurius and a libi in an assault squad i cant iron arm both psykers?

No one really knows right now.

The rules are not very well written.

Isnt an IC considered a unit when alone?

Well in that case it's simply " What is the most beneficial rule that does not cause harm".

RAI , no they did not intend to break the game with rules. Yes, it can be confusing they are assuming that the person reading what they wrote will not intentionally read it in such away as to do something that breaks the game they designed.

I don't need a crystal ball to know that the writers intent is not malicious.

psykers and psychic pilots are psykers, brotherhood of psykers are a unit. Units cannot try and manifest the same power twice. two separate psykers who are not brotherhoods can try the same power twice.

Thats my thinking

 inquisitormaus wrote:
Isnt an IC considered a unit when alone?

When he's alone, yes.

The problem is, when he's joined to a unit, he's a part of that unit. And the rules don't tell us if only one model in the unit having the Psyker rule is sufficient to make the unit a 'psyker unit'.

It's possible that we're supposed to still consider the psyker a psyker unit even though he is no longer a unit anymore... But it's also possible that GW didn't want Farseers hiding in units of Guardians, or Rune Protests hanging at the back of a Grey Hunters squad...

Until they clarify it, all we can do is guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lungpickle wrote:
... two separate psykers who are not brotherhoods can try the same power twice.

...unless they're in the same unit, as the rules specifically forbid a unit from casting the same power twice.

Do you actually play the game like that? I'm always curious when someone posts something like that, because I think to myself surely this person does not actually play the game like this.

Like do you not join your psykers to units.

Hollismason wrote:
Do you actually play the game like that? I'm always curious when someone posts something like that, because I think to myself surely this person does not actually play the game like this.

Like do you not join your psykers to units.

I play it as each non-brotherhood psyker being treated as a separate psyker unit, because I think that's most likely to be what was intended by the rules, as I have pointed out several times.

But I'm also careful to keep in mind that this is purely a guess and that it's possible that I'm playing it wrong, because that way of playing is just what I think works rather than anything that's actually supported by the rules. Given the number of things in 7th ed that I think are just downright insane design choices, I'm not prepared to just blindly assume that the interpretation that I think is the 'common sense' one must be the correct one.

I was just wondering it's sort of how we talk about Flickering Fire being well broken. Functionally. So we all play it how we think they'd make it work now.

The problem is, GW went to some length to make sure they well defined the terms for psyker and psychic unit.... then they proceeded to write rules that ignored those definitions.

Which leads to the problem... we don't know which rules are meant to use which definitions. It is quite possible that some of the rules are meant to be followed as written, and some are not. We just can't tell.....


The rules are *very* clear that a unit with multiple psykers in it can't attempt the same power more than once.
But other rules break if you use that definition.... So do you only change the rules that don't work as written (ie perils) or do you *also* change the rules that do work as written (ie the thread topic)

Well sometimes you go searching for Dragons and find Windmills, then the Windmills eat you.Just taking a nonsensical approach to reading and always trying to view it in illogical terms is kind of asinine.

I've brought this up before but in Paramedicine or EMS there's something called implied consent.

What this means is that a person who is unresponsive gives consent because any reasonable person would do so in that situation if asked.

There's actual implied consent in the rules themselves and the author and reader have an agreement that is unspoken, that the author is not maliciously misleading the reader and the reader is not purposefully misreading the author.

This "implied consent " terms of the rules doesn't need to be spelled out because we cannot approach the rules with the understanding that the author is purposefully being malicious and misleading with his words, because it would lead to the game being unplayable. The writer in turn has to write as if the player or reader who is reading his instructions is not going to purposefully misread his instructions because then it would make it impossible to write.

The problem you run into is that people seem to think that it's "okay to break it", it's not we do it here because well most of us enjoy argueing and it's fun to say "what if" and these types of " mental exercises" with the rules help us understand them better.

You cannot fundamentally approach the rules from a mindset that author is being purposefully vague. You have to in fact approach the rules as I stated earlier " the best outcome with the least harm". Why? Because if you start approaching the rules from that standpoint you will not be able to functionally play the game.

Except nobody was actually saying that the rules are deliberately vague. Just that they are vague.

Your point here seems to be 'the writer intended the rules to work, so we should assume my interpretation is correct, because it's the one that I think makes the most sense.'

The problem is, there are several different ways that this could have been intended to work, and we have no actual clue which is correct beyond guesswork.

Having 'implied consent' to read the rules in a way that makes them function doesn't actually make the rules functional.

Hollismason wrote:
You cannot fundamentally approach the rules from a mindset that author is being purposefully vague. You have to in fact approach the rules as I stated earlier " the best outcome with the least harm". Why? Because if you start approaching the rules from that standpoint you will not be able to functionally play the game.

Sure - now, why is your definition of "best outcome" the "right" one? There's no other outcome that could possibly be what they meant (and therefore the best)? Are you really sure?

If the author had intended to make it so that Psykers could not join other units and use psychic powers, something that has never happened in 6 editions of Warhammer 40k, and is literally a upheaval and major change to the way that independent characters join squads, why would they be vague about that?

This huge major change in the rules, but they don't specify this?

No, that doesn't make sense. We're talking about a change that has never in the multiple editions of the game ever happened.


Is a psyker joining a squad and being unable to use his abilities the best outcome from that? No it's certainly not which is why I say when a situation is vague look at it from the standpoint of "best outcome with the least harm". It's the best way to interpret the rules, as generally that's what we know to be true and generally what comes out in the FAQs.

That's not the only other interpretation. It's surely the worst one, but another one is that multiple psykers in the same unit cannot attempt to cast the same power. Equally as valid as "every man for himself" and also potentially what was intended.

coredump wrote:


The rules are *very* clear that a unit with multiple psykers in it can't attempt the same power more than once.
But other rules break if you use that definition.... So do you only change the rules that don't work as written (ie perils) or do you *also* change the rules that do work as written (ie the thread topic)

Personal opinion I think, though the route of less rule changing is usually proffered =).

Anyway after playing 7th it feels a lot harder to get any powers off in the first place. I now use 3/4 warp charges to be able to cast a warp charge 2 power.... More psykers will produce diminishing returns through the maximum extra warps up to 6.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not the only other interpretation. It's surely the worst one, but another one is that multiple psykers in the same unit cannot attempt to cast the same power. Equally as valid as "every man for himself" and also potentially what was intended.

The rules for psykers are not vague when you approach it in a optimistic frame, why do we need that ? Well, we need that statement because they want us to know that a psyker can not keep trying to manifest a power over and over again. That's it. The best outcome? " Psykers can't keep trying to manifest a power over and over again", which leads to the least harm to the psyker.

It's honestly just a difference of approaching the rules with the mindset of optimistic and not pessimistic view.
I mean that's literally what I mean when I say " Try to interpret the best out come with least amount of harm".
A lot of people approach the rules as if they're a complex puzzle to be solved, their not. Taking that approach makes them a puzzle.

I think when you think positively and approach it that way you'll find the rules do actually function and you'll have less trouble with understanding it, but if you approach it with a negative mindframe something that people here do seem to have then you'll have difficulty.

It's kind of a tangent but thats just what we're discussing and it's a good discussion because I think discussing how we approach the rules is important.

Hollismason wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not the only other interpretation. It's surely the worst one, but another one is that multiple psykers in the same unit cannot attempt to cast the same power. Equally as valid as "every man for himself" and also potentially what was intended.

It's honestly just a difference of approaching the rules with the mindset of optimistic and not pessimistic view.
I mean that's literally what I mean when I say " Try to interpret the best out come with least amount of harm".
A lot of people approach the rules as if their a complex puzzle to be solved, they're not. Taking that approach makes them a puzzle.

I think when you think positively and approach it that way you'll find the rules do actually function and you'll have less trouble with understanding it, but if you approach it with a negative mindframe something that people here do seem to have then you'll have difficulty.

It's kind of a tangent but thats just what we're discussing and it's a good discussion because I think discussing how we approach the rules is important.

Yes, if you approach them knowing what you want them to say, they'll say that.
If you approach them with no opinion of what you want them to say, they'll say something different.

The proper way to read rules is the latter. The former leads to your bias being inserted into rules discussions, which is bad form.

rigeld2 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not the only other interpretation. It's surely the worst one, but another one is that multiple psykers in the same unit cannot attempt to cast the same power. Equally as valid as "every man for himself" and also potentially what was intended.

It's honestly just a difference of approaching the rules with the mindset of optimistic and not pessimistic view.
I mean that's literally what I mean when I say " Try to interpret the best out come with least amount of harm".
A lot of people approach the rules as if their a complex puzzle to be solved, they're not. Taking that approach makes them a puzzle.

I think when you think positively and approach it that way you'll find the rules do actually function and you'll have less trouble with understanding it, but if you approach it with a negative mindframe something that people here do seem to have then you'll have difficulty.

It's kind of a tangent but thats just what we're discussing and it's a good discussion because I think discussing how we approach the rules is important.

Yes, if you approach them knowing what you want them to say, they'll say that.
If you approach them with no opinion of what you want them to say, they'll say something different.

The proper way to read rules is the latter. The former leads to your bias being inserted into rules discussions, which is bad form.

Which is why I advocate not approaching the rules as a puzzle, but when having a question , take a positive outlook. No one here is a robot, everyone is going to approach the rules with a certain bias whether emotionally or intellectually. You cannot claim to be unbiased, because it's human nature to in fact have emotion. I'm saying that if you find yourself frustrated take a positive outlook and re approach the issue.

Honestly, becoming frustrated with something actually makes it more difficult to understand. I see this all the time, someone won't specifically understand a problem and by being frustrated they get "locked" in this negative attitude toward what their doing which just builds on itself. What I always tell my students is to just step away move past that problem and focus on something else then re approach it.

Hollismason wrote:
Which is why I advocate not approaching the rules as a puzzle, but when having a question , take a positive outlook. No one here is a robot, everyone is going to approach the rules with a certain bias whether emotionally or intellectually. You cannot claim to be unbiased, because it's human nature to in fact have emotion. I'm saying that if you find yourself frustrated take a positive outlook and re approach the issue.

Honestly, becoming frustrated with something actually makes it more difficult to understand. I see this all the time, someone won't specifically understand a problem and by being frustrated they get "locked" in this negative attitude toward what their doing which just builds on itself. What I always tell my students is to just step away move past that problem and focus on something else then re approach it.

a) You're assuming I'm frustrated about the issue. You shouldn't. The only thing bothering me is how poorly GW writes rules - because that's what every example like this is.
b) Humans actually can remove bias from the equation.

And none of that has anything to do with why your method is the right way to do it.

It causes the least amount of harm and assumes the best which is why I think it's the best way to approach.

No, human beings cannot be unbiased about issues that directly concern or directly affect them as human beings exist in a reward/harm society.We can not care but that's not the same as being unbiased. We are naturally biased towards things that benefit us or enhance our happiness.

Hollismason wrote:
If the author had intended to make it so that Psykers could not join other units and use psychic powers, something that has never happened in 6 editions of Warhammer 40k, and is literally a upheaval and major change to the way that independent characters join squads, why would they be vague about that?

Because they didn't actually finish writing the psychic rules before they went to print?

Or, in other words, the same reason that Aegis Defense Line rules were incomplete last edition, and that one previous edition completely left out the vehicle access and fire points...


The thing here is that you seem to be arguing against the idea that the rules are purposely written to be unclear (a statement nobody ever actually made) with the argument that the rules are deliberately written to be unclear.

'Why' the rules are unclear is irrelevant. We know why: It's because GW don't care enough about their product to properly proof-read and edit their books before publishing. That has no impact on what the rules actually say, or how they should be interpreted.

I think it's a interesting argument, at least in how we approach the game and with what mentality.

While you see it as unclear, as to what the intention of that was. I don't.

I mean we're off on a new tangent, but I kind of feel the rules should not be approached from a negative viewpoint. Meaning that what's the negative result ?'The negative result is that Psychic Powers are broke through that interpretation.

I dunno, I think others have posted it but NOVA and others kind of view it the same way that the intention of Pskyer unit was to literally mean BrotherHood or other unit made entirely of Psykers, it could mean something else but which is more likely they intentionally wrote it unclear or you view it as unclear?

It came up in the Flickering Fire thing to, initially I was like " Oh this absolutely how it works".Then after a few pages it was pretty clear that it was just fundamentally kind of disfunctional and everyone was like well the intention has to be...

That's just my point when we approach it from a negative or like it is a "puzzle" we turn it into one. We may not mean to but it's what happens.

Hollismason wrote:
The negative result is that Psychic Powers are broke through that interpretation.

Incorrect.
You're only seeing 2 interpretations - one being that every Psyker is on his own no matter what, and one being Psykers in units are screwed. The latter is obviously wrong, but that doesn't make the former correct.
It's possible that they intended for 2 psykers in the same unit to not cast the same power. In fact, that's literally the way I read it when I first read the rules - and I'm not the only one.

Keep insisting that any other viewpoint than yours is just being negative though - I'm sure it'll make people see your side as the one true interpretation. Somehow.

Hollismason wrote:
I think it's a interesting argument, at least in how we approach the game and with what mentality.

While you see it as unclear, as to what the intention of that was. I don't.

I mean we're off on a new tangent, but I kind of feel the rules should not be approached from a negative viewpoint. Meaning that what's the negative result ?'The negative result is that Psychic Powers are broke through that interpretation.

That's not a 'negative result'. That's the result of reading the rules as written without interjecting extra bits into them that aren't actually there.

...but which is more likely they intentionally wrote it unclear or you view it as unclear?

And again with that red herring.

The fact that the rules are incomplete does not mean that they deliberately wrote them that way. I left the bathroom light on this morning. I didn't intentionally do so... but it was still on when I came back 10 minutes later.

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
I think it's a interesting argument, at least in how we approach the game and with what mentality.

While you see it as unclear, as to what the intention of that was. I don't.

I mean we're off on a new tangent, but I kind of feel the rules should not be approached from a negative viewpoint. Meaning that what's the negative result ?'The negative result is that Psychic Powers are broke through that interpretation.

That's not a 'negative result'. That's the result of reading the rules as written without interjecting extra bits into them that aren't actually there.

...but which is more likely they intentionally wrote it unclear or you view it as unclear?

And again with that red herring.

The fact that the rules are incomplete does not mean that they deliberately wrote them that way. I left the bathroom light on this morning. I didn't intentionally do so... but it was still on when I came back 10 minutes later.

Breaking the rules through the use of the rules is the point though, we've all done it. I'm saying though when we actually play the game we don't play this way. That's my point though about the viewpoint and approach to interpretation of the rules and why a "best outcome with least harm" is the way to view the rules.

There's no puzzlement here. In fact, I'd say it's probably not even spoken of elsewhere, I have membership to other forums. I've only seen this point of view expounded upon here. There are no long diatribes on blogs about it. Nothing really. Even the people I play with don't view it this way. I've literally only ever encountered these kind of interpretations on this forum.

Why? Because we like to pick apart things specifically in YMDC the viewpoint is always to approach it as if it is a puzzle, with semantic and literal interpretations taking precedent. I myself take a literal viewpoint in the rules in some cases just because I feel that's the most appropriate way to read them most of the time. It's enjoyable part of the enjoyment is taking apart and finding something that "breaks or makes useless" a part of the rules.

Why? I dunno. I'd say because most of us have wargamed a long time and it's part of wargaming to a degree.

I know, for a fact, it is discussed elsewhere. I wasn't even the person who brought it up locally.

That doesn't change the fact that the rules are written poorly and there are multiple potentially intended interpretations. And you only seem to think yours is correct... why exactly? Because everyone else needs to cut it with the negative vibes?

I stand by my assertation that if you approach the rules from a positive viewpoint that a lot of rule issues are resolved with no need for argument.

I don't think the rules are actually written poorly. I think that the person who writes them does not empathically feel that they need to elaborate them because from their viewpoint they probably don't expect the rules to be misinterpreted especially to a malicious end. I think by simply taking the standpoint that they are poorly written that in fact informs you and makes you bias towards reading them and influences peoples interpretations.

Also, I don't disagree with you on your interpretation it's your opinion, neither of us have affirmation that we are correct I am just trying to in my way explain why I take this approach when reading the rules and why taking a positive approach leads to less "malicious" interpretations.

Hollismason wrote:
I don't think the rules are actually written poorly. I think that the person who writes them does not empathically feel that they need to elaborate them because from their viewpoint they probably don't expect the rules to be misinterpreted especially to a malicious end. I think by simply taking the standpoint that they are poorly written that in fact informs you and makes you bias towards reading them and influences peoples interpretations.

That's amusing. So let's look at the Heldrake. The original FAQ, where was the positive outlook that showed it had a 360 degree arc of fire?
Where's the new positive outlook that shows it really meant a 45 degree arc of fire?

Should we look at the rest of the FAQs? Or is that enough of an example that the rules are poorly written?

Hollismason wrote:
I don't think the rules are actually written poorly.

And there we're going to have to agree to disagree. Because the rules currently define psykers at a unit level, and then go on to outline a system that doesn't work at a unit level.

And that, in my opinion, is poor.


Yes, we can figure out a way to make them work. We shouldn't need to, though, because someone in the studio should have read over those rules before publication, and spotted the fact hat hey don't actually work. You know, as happened within about 3 minutes of the rules being posted online.


And no, not just on Dakka.

rigeld2 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
I don't think the rules are actually written poorly. I think that the person who writes them does not empathically feel that they need to elaborate them because from their viewpoint they probably don't expect the rules to be misinterpreted especially to a malicious end. I think by simply taking the standpoint that they are poorly written that in fact informs you and makes you bias towards reading them and influences peoples interpretations.

That's amusing. So let's look at the Heldrake. The original FAQ, where was the positive outlook that showed it had a 360 degree arc of fire?
Where's the new positive outlook that shows it really meant a 45 degree arc of fire?

Should we look at the rest of the FAQs? Or is that enough of an example that the rules are poorly written?

I don't think that was issue of interpretation but of power creep. Also, if you look at the faqs most corrections are replacements to coincide with new rules or to change a specific wording. They're FAQs are actually quiet brief usually containing at most 10 to 12 items of note.

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
I don't think the rules are actually written poorly.

And there we're going to have to agree to disagree. Because the rules currently define psykers at a unit level, and then go on to outline a system that doesn't work at a unit level.

And that, in my opinion, is poor.


Yes, we can figure out a way to make them work. We shouldn't need to, though, because someone in the studio should have read over those rules before publication, and spotted the fact hat hey don't actually work. You know, as happened within about 3 minutes of the rules being posted online.


And no, not just on Dakka.

They're not poorly written they're just not very elaborate. My background is in technical writing and editing. I would say that the reason they don't elaborate is because from a writing standpoint it's literally impossible to have brevity as well as depth without getting rid of one. Most laws civil or regulatory are actually quiet brief for this reason. Of course laws have a designated interpreter as well as an explanation on how they are to be enforced but the principle is the same. They want to be as succinct and to the point as possible with their writing but they also don't want to have to break down each and every scenario that could come into play.

It's why they preface the book with " these are guidelines", something that's written as a guideline is just that.

I think once we get into the rules themselves you'll find they're pretty clear on most if not all. The goal of the reader is not to in fact approach the rules with a unbiased judgement but with a fair and reasonable one.

I think that's the best analogy I could make for a interpretation is that the rules will never be 100% clear, but also you're not suppose to interpret them in a way that hinders the game or causes more harm than benefit.

It's why I advocate the idea of approaching it from that standpoint as functionally the rules work. As for other peoples interpretation, I don't think that's a fair interpretation to punish players with rules. The rules are not punishments, which you are doing when you unfairly interpret something you're using the rules to punish a player with in the game.

So what do I mean by unfair? Do I mean the player is being unfair? No, I mean the situation as changed that instead of a rule being beneficial it has become a detriment. That's unfair.

A great example, and we can move away from Psykers if you want but I think that this is a good example is the Flickering Fire issue, as someone pointed out functionally the spell RAW worked in such a way as to be either useless or punishing towards a player to use that way with the new rules. That's a good example because where as before you had something that was beneficially it was now detrimental to use. That's a unfair interpretation.


Why is unfair to interpret the rule that why with Psykers? Because it's detrimental to the player who uses psykers. If you have an Eldar player and you say " Okay, you can't put any of your psykers in squads now and use psychic powers, because of this rule" that's a punishment to the player. If you say " Okay, you can put your psykers in a squad but now they can't use the same powers, where as before they could" that's a punishment. If you instead say " You can't manifest the same power with the same psyker" that's not a punishment, that's a restriction and a restriction that previously has maintained itself from another edition.

The rules are very specific when it comes to punishing players for actions. It's one of the few definitive things the game does is specify when a punishment or detriment occurs to a player. I mean I could go through and list punishment or detriment sections but we're aware of multiple situations where a detriment occurs to a player. If the rules were detrimental to the Psyker would it be vague? I don't think it would. That's why taking the fair and reasonable, with a positive affirmation towards the rules is a way to lessen problems with the rules themselves.

Hollismason wrote:
They're not poorly written.

So the fact that the rules refer to things that aren't units as units is not an example of poor writing?

Seriously?

I would say that the reason they don't elaborate is because from a writing standpoint it's literally impossible to have brevity as well as depth without getting rid of one.

They didn't need to elaborate. They just needed to not use the term 'psyker unit' to refer to things that aren't units.

I think that's the best analogy I could make for a interpretation is that the rules will never be 100% clear, but also you're not suppose to interpet them in a way that hinders the game or causes more harm than benefit.

In a well-written ruleset, you shouldn't be able to interpret them in a way that hinders the game. You're putting the blame on the players here rather than on the supposedly professional writers selling a product for money.

I wouldn't say they're poorly written I'd say that it's not concise, but also I don't have any misunderstanding with that specific rule so it's hard for me to empathize with you on that and it's because I don't read things as other people read them.

I'm not placing blame on anyone, I just feel that if we as players approach the rules with the knowledge and forethought that we should be reasonable and fair judges we won't have rules issues. This is a game, the writer has no intention of writing a rule that breaks the game.

I understand the argument and basis around it but I don't feel that specific passage is unclear because I know from previous usage that Psyker and Psyker unit are interchangeable.

I'm sure you'll be ble to explain then how Psychic Shriek interacts with Chariots using your special powers.

There's so many vague rules in that interaction it's not a matter of approaching it in a different light - they could've meant almost literally anything at the end of that decision tree.

Hollismason wrote:
...and it's because I don't read things as other people read them.

If you're reading the word 'unit' to mean something other than 'unit' then yes, this would seem to be the problem.

I'm not placing blame on anyone, I just feel that if we as players approach the rules with the knowledge and forethought that we should be reasonable and fair judges we won't have rules issues.

There have been any number of rules issues discussed over th eyears where people have presented multiple possible interpretations of the rule that are fair and reasonable.

The biggest example off the top of my head being 4th ed LOS... Some players insisted for the entire duration of 4th edition that the Size categories were suposed to apply to all LOS issues. They were wrong, but their interpretation wasn't unreasonable, and they were arguing for what they genuinely thought the rules were saying.

Even with the rule under discussion here, the only reason that you don't think that a psyker joined to a unit not being able to cast powers is unreasonable is because it wasn't the case in previous editions. There is absolutely no rules basis in 7th edition for the claim that it is unreasonable... it's just a side effect of an uclear rule that you have personally decided is unreasonable. And are now insisting that it shouldn't be an issue because we should all be reasonable and read the rule the way you read it.


Do you honestly not see the problem there?

This is a game, the writer has no intention of writing a rule that breaks the game.

Seriously, can you please stop repeating this as if it's an actual point of contention?

I understand the argument and basis around it but I don't feel that specific passage is unclear because I know from previous usage that Psyker and Psyker unit are interchangeable.

Awesome. I know from previous usage that bolters can only fire at half range if the model carrying it moved in the movement phase. Should we just ignore the 7th edition Rapid Fire rules, then?

Previous editions of the rules are irrelevant for determining how the rules work in 7th edition.

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
...and it's because I don't read things as other people read them.

If you're reading the word 'unit' to mean something other than 'unit' then yes, this would seem to be the problem.

I'm not placing blame on anyone, I just feel that if we as players approach the rules with the knowledge and forethought that we should be reasonable and fair judges we won't have rules issues.

There have been any number of rules issues discussed over th eyears where people have presented multiple possible interpretations of the rule that are fair and reasonable.

The biggest example off the top of my head being 4th ed LOS... Some players insisted for the entire duration of 4th edition that the Size categories were suposed to apply to all LOS issues. They were wrong, but their interpretation wasn't unreasonable, and they were arguing for what they genuinely thought the rules were saying.

Even with the rule under discussion here, the only reason that you don't think that a psyker joined to a unit not being able to cast powers is unreasonable is because it wasn't the case in previous editions. There is absolutely no rules basis in 7th edition for the claim that it is unreasonable... it's just a side effect of an uclear rule that you have personally decided is unreasonable. And are now insisting that it shouldn't be an issue because we should all be reasonable and read the rule the way you read it.


Do you honestly not see the problem there?

This is a game, the writer has no intention of writing a rule that breaks the game.

Seriously, can you please stop repeating this as if it's an actual point of contention?

I understand the argument and basis around it but I don't feel that specific passage is unclear because I know from previous usage that Psyker and Psyker unit are interchangeable.

Awesome. I know from previous usage that bolters can only fire at half range if the model carrying it moved in the movement phase. Should we just ignore the 7th edition Rapid Fire rules, then?

Previous editions of the rules are irrelevant for determining how the rules work in 7th edition.

I honestly can't see a problem against approaching the rules in a rational , reasonable, and fair way. I mean I can't argue for anything else but to do that?

As for how I read rules? I generally take the context of a entire document and not a specific passage. It's how I edit briefs and other documents for my job, so over the years of doing that I take context from other passages as that's what you need to do when you are doing legal briefs and other documents like that. I hope that clears it up, there's a few other people here who are in law and we've talked about how it's weird to us to see arguments like this.

For your last statement that's kind of a false analogy, a true one would be I know that from previous editions and as well as other documents, the word bolter refers to X that's inferring to much into that statement.

So how do I read this and where does my logic come from? This my reveal some insight.

1. I know from the rules section on unit types, there different types of units. I know that there are Infantry, Infantry (Character),..... . I know there is not in fact a Unit type called Psychic Unit. As if I refer to any current rulebook for example the Space Marine book. A Librarian is actually a Infantry (Character).

It is a rational and reasonable conclusion for me to infer at this point that there is in fact no unit type called Infantry (Psyker) or Psyker. As it's not presented in the material.

2. I know that Psyker is in fact a Special Ability, listed under the Units Special Ability.

It is at this point I know that Psyker is a special ability that a unit has generally a special character or a unit that has Brotherhood or Sorcerer as further on I will point out why this is true due to the rules statement of such.

3. I know that Independent characters follow all normal rules if they join a unit, in regards to coherency, assaulting, and firing when the unit fires.

It is reasonable and rationale for me to know that since it does not state that a Independent characters lose their special abilities when joining a squad that they retain them unless stated elsewhere or in their special rules. The psyker special rules have no such restriction. Therefore it retains the Psyker Special Ability. I also know that unless stated Independent Characters do not gain the special ability of a unit they join to.

4. I know that from the Independent Character can join a squad even though it is its own separate unit to be considered part of that unit it must follow normal coherency rules.

It is reasonable for me to assume that the character must obey the normal rules of the unit in regards to movement, shooting, and assault for a unit.

5. I know that from the Psychic Phase that Psychic Unit can refer to Psyker or the reverse is true.

It's reasonable for me to infer that when the book speaks of a unit as a Psyker Unit that it is indeed referring to a unit that has a Psyker special Ability and not in fact a unit of Psykers or Infantry ( Psykers) as that is not a unit type. However I also know that the rules state that models that have Brotherhood etc.. count as Psykers for when referencing back to the rules.

That's my logic train , I hope that helps.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm sure you'll be ble to explain then how Psychic Shriek interacts with Chariots using your special powers.

There's so many vague rules in that interaction it's not a matter of approaching it in a different light - they could've meant almost literally anything at the end of that decision tree.

Which is the most reasonable thing though? Your right it is dependent on what you term reasonable, but I view reasonable as "Most benefit least Harm". Not all rules are going to be 100% and I never claimed it would in fact lead to a perfect interpretation but simply less problems , not a 100% sure fire solution. That's you inferring something that I did not state.

We know that Psyhic Scream is a Witchfire power and that witchfire powers require a roll to hit.


We do not know it's rate of fire. However we know that it will have a range then of 1 to Infinity. We can in fact not roll infinity number of dice, but since we know that it's range minimally will be one we can roll that. That is reasonable.

We know that from the rule book units that have multiple characteristics we always use the highest of the value of that characteristic. A chariot itself has two profiles one that has no profile on leadership which can be represented as 0. We know that the rider does have a leadership value. Since the leadership value is greater than 0 we would use that instead. Now this may only apply to characteristics tests since it specifically says so ,but it's a good start.

We know that a chariot is considered to have a dual profile and we know for the purpose of Characteristic tests we always use the Riders profile. It is also treated as a single model but with two profiles.

That's pretty reasonable. Is it RAW , probably not, but then Psychic Scream doesn't have specific rules for dealing with witchfires just shooting that states it gets to locate it.

Hollismason wrote:
I honestly can't see a problem against approaching the rules in a rational , reasonable, and fair way. I mean I can't argue for anything else but to do that?

You appear to be still missing the point.

The problem isn't approaching the rules in a rational, reasonable way.

The problem is that approaching the rules in a rational, reasonable way doesn't automatically result in everyone agreeing with one particular interpretation.


Or, in other words, an interpretation isn't automatically going to be accepted as correct just because you personally think it's a reasonable one. Particularly when it flies in the face of the actual written rules. Because other people are going to think that a different interpretation is the reasonable one.

Yes, but when your reasonable conclusion is that " it does not work, game breaks" then that is not a reasonable conclusion which is why I keep bringing up that point.

No, rational, or reasonable conclusion will result in the game "breaking", but instead lead to a functional outcome.

Which is why I don't think your interpretation of Psykers joining a unit cannot cast spells is reasonable or rationale.

Hollismason wrote:
Yes, but when your reasonable conclusion is that " it does not work, game breaks" then that is not a reasonable conclusion which is why I keep bringing up that point.

No one is advocating this conclusion. Which is why you bringing up that point is frustrating.

Hollismason wrote:
Yes, but when your reasonable conclusion is that " it does not work, game breaks" then that is not a reasonable conclusion which is why I keep bringing up that point.

My reasonable conclusions in this case are not that the game breaks.

Which is why I don't think your interpretation of Psykers joining a unit cannot cast spells is reasonable or rationale.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the above is not 'my' interpretation, how does the game break if psykers joined to non-psyker units can't cast powers?

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Yes, but when your reasonable conclusion is that " it does not work, game breaks" then that is not a reasonable conclusion which is why I keep bringing up that point.

My reasonable conclusions in this case are not that the game breaks.

Which is why I don't think your interpretation of Psykers joining a unit cannot cast spells is reasonable or rationale.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the above is not 'my' interpretation, how does the game break if psykers joined to non-psyker units can't cast powers?

Well first , to reach that conclusion you have to take make unreasonable conclusions.

That when a Independent Character joins a unit, they lose a special ability.
That a unit type called " Psyker Unit" exists and is not in fact just a reference to a unit that has the Psyker rule.
That Psyker units were in fact left out completely in the Unit Types section of the rulebook as well as notation regarding what units are "Psyker units" instead of a unit that simply has the psyker rule.

It breaks the game is a convenient phrase and a argument of semantics about it is not something I want to get into, if it moves us past that then I can give you want a actual definition of what I mean by that phrase as "something that is added to the game that infers a detriment to a unit without a basis in the rules with a concise instruction of that detriment."

So your reasonable conlusion is in fact "something that is added to the game that infers a detriment to a unit without a basis in the rules with a concise instruction of that detriment." I've made clear that rules specifically as written are quiet clear when something is definitively detrimental in fact to going out of the way to make emphasis with bolding or multiple mentions.

It's why I advocate that view of approach, because it leads to these detriments or punishments to players over another that can be unfair.

Which is more reasonable?

Psykers joining units lose Psyker abilities when joining squads

Psykers do not lose Psyker abilities when joining squads.

One is specifically adding a detriment in the rules, and this argument of "vagueness" isn't something I advocate at all in this specific situation.

Hollismason wrote:
That when a Independent Character joins a unit, they lose a special ability.

Why is that unreasonable? ICs do lose certain special abilities when they join units.

That a unit type called " Psyker Unit" exists and is not in fact just a reference to a unit that has the Psyker rule.

Uh, no, it's the fact that 'Psyker Unit' is a reference to a unit that has the Psyker rule that causes this whole mess in the first place, because an IC joined to another unit is no longer themselves a unit.

That Psyker units were in fact left out completely in the Unit Types section of the rulebook as well as notation regarding what units are "Psyker units" instead of a unit that simply has the psyker rule.

Psyker units aren't defined in the unit types section because they are defined in the Psychic section.

It breaks the game is a convenient phrase and a argument of semantics about it is not something I want to get into, if it moves us past that then I can give you want a actual definition of what I mean by that phrase as "something that is added to the game that infers a detriment to a unit without a basis in the rules with a concise instruction of that detriment."

Then you're using it wrong.

When people refer to something 'breaking the game' they are talking about something that brings the game to a screeching halt because there is no way within the rules to resolve the situation, or something that is so wildly unbalanced that you just might as well not bother playing any further.

A psyker not being able to cast powers while joined to a unit would not be a situation that breaks the game. It would be a situation in which a psyker would be unable to cast psychic powers.

So your reasonable conlusion is in fact "something that is added to the game that infers a detriment to a unit without a basis in the rules with a concise instruction of that detriment."

Again, the idea that psykers joined to units can't cast powers is not 'my' reasonable conclusion.

I've made clear that rules specifically as written are quiet clear when something is definitively detrimental in fact to going out of the way to make emphasis with bolding or multiple mentions.

Assuming that the rules in the book are actually what the writer intended, and there isn't some important piece of information missing... like, for example, how to determine whether or not a psyker joined to another unit is still considered a psyker unit.

Which is more reasonable?

Psykers joining units lose Psyker abilities when joining squads

Psykers do not lose Psyker abilities when joining squads.

Either is arguably reasonable, particularly in light of some of the other craziness in the 7th ed rules. You've just decided that since one of them is (to you) more reasonable, that it must be the correct interpretation.

There's no indication or even reasonable/rational conclusion to state that a independent character with the Psyker special ability joins a unit that they in fact lose the special ability.

The Psychic Phase does not actually in fact define what "Psychic Unit" is but instead literally just states that Psychic Unit and Psyker always mean a unit with Psyker special rule. There is also no indication of notation anywhere that something is a "psyker unit" within the unit type rules. The phrase psychic unit is a generalized phrase to mean a unit that has a special ability and not a categorization, as if it was a categorization then it would be listed as a category of unit or referenced elsewhere in the rules for a unit type. This is a reasonable conclusion. A irrational conclusion is that there is a Unit Type (Psyker) as we know that there is no documentation that changes specific entries in any codex to state that. It is not listed in the units type portion of the rulebook. So reasonably we can conclude the Psychic Phase does not deal a unit category of Psyker but instead units that have the psyker rule.

It's also not reasonable to assume that by unit it means multiple models as we know that unit can in fact have multiple types. One of which is in fact a independent character unit. The only difference is that independent character units can join other units, they do not lose the designation that they are in fact a independent character, there is no basis in the rules and in fact as previous stated it is normal action they must follow to remain with the squad in regards to targeting, shooting, movement, coherency and assaults.

It's reasonable to say " This means that independent characters are units that join other units but in fact do not lose special abilities unless stated" , as there is no statement to the effect that that is not the case.

It's unreasonable or not rational to state " Independent characters lose special abilities" when you have no reference.

It's reasonable and rationale to state " Independent characters lose this specific ability because that ability specifically states that they do in fact lose it"

This is not just what's just reasonable to just me, it's reasonable to someone who could be considered a reasonable person in regards to a interpretation of the rules.

It is not reasonable to place a detriment on a unit or player without a concise and specific rule which that interpretation does.Whether it's yours or not you are claiming it is a reasonable argument when in fact it is not reasonable at all to place that detriment.

The idea of approach to the rules with as a reasonable person instead of as a rational actor , leads us to less messy rules interpretations.

Hollismason wrote:
There's no indication or even reasonable/rational conclusion to state that a independent character with the Psyker special ability joins a unit that they in fact lose the special ability.

Sure there is: Psychic powers are cast by psyker units. If a psyker joined to another unit counts as a part of that unit for all rules purposes, and a unit is only a psyker unit if all of its members have the psyker rule, then an IC psyker joined to a unit of non-psykers will not be able to cast psychic powers.

The Psychic Phase does not actually in fact define what "Psychic Unit" is but instead literally just states that Psychic Unit and Psyker always mean a unit with Psyker special rule.

So telling you what constitutes a psyker unit is not defining what a psyker unit is?

. A irrational conclusion is that there is a Unit Type (Psyker) as we know that there is no documentation that changes specific entries in any codex to state that. It is not listed in the units type portion of the rulebook. So reasonably we can conclude the Psychic Phase does not deal a unit category of Psyker but instead units that have the psyker rule.

On this, we are in absolute agreement.

It's also not reasonable to assume that by unit it means multiple models as we know that unit can in fact have multiple types. One of which is in fact a independent character unit. The only difference is that independent character units can join other units, they do not lose the designation that they are in fact a independent character, there is no basis in the rules and in fact as previous stated it is normal action they must follow to remain with the squad in regards to targeting, shooting, movement, coherency and assaults.

Independant characters are units in their own right, unless they are joined to another unit, in which case they count as a part of that unit for all rules purposes.

It's reasonable to say " This means that independent characters are units that join other units but in fact do not lose special abilities unless stated" , as there is no statement to the effect that that is not the case.

Reasonable, but not actually necessarily true.

There is no requirement for the rules top specify 'this rule is lost if the IC joins a unit'. While it's good practice for the purposes of clarity, a statement that a given situation will invalidate a specific action is not necessary if the interaction of the rules in question makes that action impossible anyway.

It's unreasonable or not rational to state " Independent characters lose special abilities" when you have no reference.

See above.

It's also worth pointing out that the issue here isn't so much that the IC loses a special ability... he's still a model with the psyker rule. But while joined to another unit, if you follow the interpretation that a unit must all have the psyker rule to be considered a psyker unit then he is not a member of a psyker unit.

He doesn't lose a special rule... he simply is not currently given permission to cast psychic powers.

It's reasonable and rationale to state " Independent characters lose this specific ability because that ability specifically states that they do in fact lose it"

See my comment above about good practice.

Yes, it's a good idea to make your rules as clear as possible. That's kind of the point of this discussion.

The fact that you can argue that rules should be written clearly while also arguing that clarity in this particular rule is uneccessary is a little puzzling, to be honest.

This is not just what's just reasonable to just me, it's reasonable to someone who could be considered a rational actor in regards to a interpretation of the rules.

It is not reasonable to place a detriment on a unit or player without a concise and specific rule which that interpretation does.Whether it's yours or not you are claiming it is a reasonable argument when in fact it is not reasonable at all to place that detriment.

The idea of approach to the rules with a reasons and fairness by a Rational Actor, leads us to less messy rules interpretations.

The other thing that leads to less messy rules interpretations is actually sticking to the written rules when arguing about the actual rules.

Your interpretation is a reasonable house rule. But it requires the additon of rules that don't currently exist, and a guess as to what the writer actually intended... so ultimately whether or not it's the most reasonable way to play it is going to come down to individual opinion.

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
There's no indication or even reasonable/rational conclusion to state that a independent character with the Psyker special ability joins a unit that they in fact lose the special ability.

Sure there is: Psychic powers are cast by psyker units. If a psyker joined to another unit counts as a part of that unit for all rules purposes, and a unit is only a psyker unit if all of its members have the psyker rule, then an IC psyker joined to a unit of non-psykers will not be able to cast psychic powers.

The Psychic Phase does not actually in fact define what "Psychic Unit" is but instead literally just states that Psychic Unit and Psyker always mean a unit with Psyker special rule.

So telling you what constitutes a psyker unit is not defining what a psyker unit is?

. A irrational conclusion is that there is a Unit Type (Psyker) as we know that there is no documentation that changes specific entries in any codex to state that. It is not listed in the units type portion of the rulebook. So reasonably we can conclude the Psychic Phase does not deal a unit category of Psyker but instead units that have the psyker rule.

On this, we are in absolute agreement.

It's also not reasonable to assume that by unit it means multiple models as we know that unit can in fact have multiple types. One of which is in fact a independent character unit. The only difference is that independent character units can join other units, they do not lose the designation that they are in fact a independent character, there is no basis in the rules and in fact as previous stated it is normal action they must follow to remain with the squad in regards to targeting, shooting, movement, coherency and assaults.

Independant characters are units in their own right, unless they are joined to another unit, in which case they count as a part of that unit for all rules purposes.

It's reasonable to say " This means that independent characters are units that join other units but in fact do not lose special abilities unless stated" , as there is no statement to the effect that that is not the case.

Reasonable, but not actually necessarily true.

There is no requirement for the rules top specify 'this rule is lost if the IC joins a unit'. While it's good practice for the purposes of clarity, a statement that a given situation will invalidate a specific action is not necessary if the interaction of the rules in question makes that action impossible anyway.

It's unreasonable or not rational to state " Independent characters lose special abilities" when you have no reference.

See above.

It's also worth pointing out that the issue here isn't so much that the IC loses a special ability... he's still a model with the psyker rule. But while joined to another unit, if you follow the interpretation that a unit must all have the psyker rule to be considered a psyker unit then he is not a member of a psyker unit.

He doesn't lose a special rule... he simply is not currently given permission to cast psychic powers.

It's reasonable and rationale to state " Independent characters lose this specific ability because that ability specifically states that they do in fact lose it"

See my comment above about good practice.

Yes, it's a good idea to make your rules as clear as possible. That's kind of the point of this discussion.

The fact that you can argue that rules should be written clearly while also arguing that clarity in this particular rule is uneccessary is a little puzzling, to be honest.

This is not just what's just reasonable to just me, it's reasonable to someone who could be considered a rational actor in regards to a interpretation of the rules.

It is not reasonable to place a detriment on a unit or player without a concise and specific rule which that interpretation does.Whether it's yours or not you are claiming it is a reasonable argument when in fact it is not reasonable at all to place that detriment.

The idea of approach to the rules with a reasons and fairness by a Rational Actor, leads us to less messy rules interpretations.

The other thing that leads to less messy rules interpretations is actually sticking to the written rules when arguing about the actual rules.

Your interpretation is a reasonable house rule. But it requires the additon of rules that don't currently exist, and a guess as to what the writer actually intended... so ultimately whether or not it's the most reasonable way to play it is going to come down to individual opinion.

The first part to this that only "psyker units" can cast spells is actually not true. The only thing that can cast psychic spells are units that have the Pskyer ... special rule. Units though is not just defined though by a multitude of models but in fact can in fact mean independent character, as independent characters do not lose their independent character status or "unit type" when they join a squad. It's in fact not a Psyhic unit that joins another unit ,but is a unit infantry( character) that has the independent character special rule that allows it to in fact join a squad.

There's a distinction to be made and one you have to make, because he is still unit type (indepedent character) and has the special ability of Psyker.

I think that may be where you are getting hung up on.


Another specific point that I'd like to point out to your argument is the use of the word "normal". That's a important distinction as the rules actually make a clear distinction between "advanced and basic" rules. The only rules a indepedent character has to follow is actually, movement, coherency, assaulting, and shooting in order to be considered part of a unit. That's a pretty clear distinction but it actually does not include Psychic Powers.

I think this is interesting distinction by the way to further illustrate that a psyker can actually fire Witchfire in his shooting phase and his unit can in fact shoot in the shooting phase, he can even target a different unit. Which makes it clear at least for witchfires that a psyker in a unit can in fact manifest witchfire.


He doesn't need explicit permission to cast Psychic powers because he already has that in his rules and special abilities. It also does not say he cannot cast psychic powers, now generally the rules are a mix of permissive and restrictive. I don't actually subscribe to that specific idea that there is a such thing as the rules being a "permissive ruleset" I'm not sure if you do. I don't though as its evident that it's a restrictive and permissive ruleset. That may be the case and you may argue he needs to permission to cast use that special ability. However, if you believe that that a Independent character needs special dispensation to use a special ability, you have to universally apply this to other special rules. What's good for the goose.

Here's why I find this to be a unreasonable conclusion though and it's a evidently clear one, in order for that statement to be true there are some questions and affirmations. Does a independent character lose his unit type or become the unit type of the unit he is with? And where is that in the rules?

As we know that there is no such thing as Unit Type : XXXX ( Psyker), we know that in fact Psyker is a special rule that is applied to XXXX.

We also know that his unit type does not change when he is within a squad.


I'm not arguing that the rules could not be more clearly written, I specifically just don't think that this rule is unclear.

Correction: there's no unit type (Independent Character).
Unit Type is a poorly named thing. It's model based, not unit based. Like the rest of a model's characteristic profile.

Hollismason wrote:
The first part to this that only "psyker units" can cast spells is actually not true. The only thing that can cast psychic spells are units that have the Pskyer ... special rule.

Manifesting Psychic Powers Sequence wrote:
1: Select Psyker and Psychic Power
Unless you have 0 Warp Charge point remaining, select one of your Psyker units, then nominate a psychic power known to that unit that you wish to manifest.

Select Psyker and Psychic Power wrote:
To manifest a psychic power, you will first need to select one of your Psyker units...

So, no, psychic powers are manifested by your Psyker units. Units that have the psyker rule are psyker units.

There is no permission in the rules to attempt to manifest a power with anything that is not a psyker unit.

Units though is not just defined though by a multitude of models but in fact can in fact mean independent character, as independent characters do not lose their independent character status or "unit type" when they join a squad. It's in fact not a Psyhic unit that joins another unit ,but is a unit infantry( character) that has the independent character special rule that allows it to in fact join a squad.

There's a distinction to be made and one you have to make, because he is still unit type (indepedent character) and has the special ability of Psyker.

I think that may be where you are getting hung up on.

'Independant Character' is not a unit type.

You are correct that ICs do not lose their IC status when they join another unit. They do, however, count as a part of the unit for all rules purposes. They are no longer a single-model unit... They are a part of the unit they have joined, until they leave it.

Another specific point that I'd like to point out to your argument is the use of the word "normal". That's a important distinction as the rules actually make a clear distinction between "advanced and basic" rules. The only rules a indepedent character has to follow is actually, movement, coherency, assaulting, and shooting in order to be considered part of a unit. That's a pretty clear distinction but it actually does not include Psychic Powers.

Again, the IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes.

So any rule that refers to units will include the IC and the unit combined, because they are a single unit.

I think this is interesting distinction by the way to further illustrate that a psyker can actually fire Witchfire in his shooting phase and his unit can in fact shoot in the shooting phase, he can even target a different unit. Which makes it clear at least for witchfires that a psyker in a unit can in fact manifest witchfire.

Sure. So long as the unit is a psyker unit, because otherwise there is no way for them to manifest a power.

He doesn't need explicit permission to cast Psychic powers because he already has that in his rules and special abilities. It also does not say he cannot cast psychic powers, now generally the rules are a mix of permissive and restrictive. I don't actually subscribe to that specific idea that there is a such thing as the rules being a "permissive ruleset" I'm not sure if you do. I don't though as its evident that it's a restrictive and permissive ruleset. That may be the case and you may argue he needs to permission to cast use that special ability. However, if you believe that that a Independent character needs special dispensation to use a special ability, you have to universally apply this to other special rules. What's good for the goose.

You're completely missing the point here, because of your misunderstanding at the start about who manifests powers.

Does a independent character lose his unit type or become the unit type of the unit he is with? And where is that in the rules?

No, he does not.

As we know that there is no such thing as Unit Type : XXXX ( Psyker), we know that in fact Psyker is a special rule that is applied to XXXX.

Correct.

We also know that his unit type does not change when he is within a squad.

Correct.

And none of that changes the fact that when it comes time to manifest a psychic power, you choose one of your psyker units. If the unit that includes the IC is not a psyker unit, they have no permission to manifest a psychic power, nor is there anything in the rules to indicate that the IC should be treated as a separate unit for the purposes of resolving psychic powers.

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
The first part to this that only "psyker units" can cast spells is actually not true. The only thing that can cast psychic spells are units that have the Pskyer ... special rule.

Manifesting Psychic Powers Sequence wrote:
1: Select Psyker and Psychic Power
Unless you have 0 Warp Charge point remaining, select one of your Psyker units, then nominate a psychic power known to that unit that you wish to manifest.

Select Psyker and Psychic Power wrote:
To manifest a psychic power, you will first need to select one of your Psyker units...

So, no, psychic powers are manifested by your Psyker units. Units that have the psyker rule are psyker units.

There is no permission in the rules to attempt to manifest a power with anything that is not a psyker unit.

Units though is not just defined though by a multitude of models but in fact can in fact mean independent character, as independent characters do not lose their independent character status or "unit type" when they join a squad. It's in fact not a Psyhic unit that joins another unit ,but is a unit infantry( character) that has the independent character special rule that allows it to in fact join a squad.

There's a distinction to be made and one you have to make, because he is still unit type (indepedent character) and has the special ability of Psyker.

I think that may be where you are getting hung up on.

'Independant Character' is not a unit type.

You are correct that ICs do not lose their IC status when they join another unit. They do, however, count as a part of the unit for all rules purposes. They are no longer a single-model unit... They are a part of the unit they have joined, until they leave it.

Another specific point that I'd like to point out to your argument is the use of the word "normal". That's a important distinction as the rules actually make a clear distinction between "advanced and basic" rules. The only rules a indepedent character has to follow is actually, movement, coherency, assaulting, and shooting in order to be considered part of a unit. That's a pretty clear distinction but it actually does not include Psychic Powers.

Again, the IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes.

So any rule that refers to units will include the IC and the unit combined, because they are a single unit.

I think this is interesting distinction by the way to further illustrate that a psyker can actually fire Witchfire in his shooting phase and his unit can in fact shoot in the shooting phase, he can even target a different unit. Which makes it clear at least for witchfires that a psyker in a unit can in fact manifest witchfire.

Sure. So long as the unit is a psyker unit, because otherwise there is no way for them to manifest a power.

He doesn't need explicit permission to cast Psychic powers because he already has that in his rules and special abilities. It also does not say he cannot cast psychic powers, now generally the rules are a mix of permissive and restrictive. I don't actually subscribe to that specific idea that there is a such thing as the rules being a "permissive ruleset" I'm not sure if you do. I don't though as its evident that it's a restrictive and permissive ruleset. That may be the case and you may argue he needs to permission to cast use that special ability. However, if you believe that that a Independent character needs special dispensation to use a special ability, you have to universally apply this to other special rules. What's good for the goose.

You're completely missing the point here, because of your misunderstanding at the start about who manifests powers.

Does a independent character lose his unit type or become the unit type of the unit he is with? And where is that in the rules?

No, he does not.

As we know that there is no such thing as Unit Type : XXXX ( Psyker), we know that in fact Psyker is a special rule that is applied to XXXX.

Correct.

We also know that his unit type does not change when he is within a squad.

Correct.

And none of that changes the fact that when it comes time to manifest a psychic power, you choose one of your psyker units. If the unit that includes the IC is not a psyker unit, they have no permission to manifest a psychic power, nor is there anything in the rules to indicate that the IC should be treated as a separate unit for the purposes of resolving psychic powers.

Your taking the rules out of context and using one specific statement that uses the word psychic unit to justify this it's a false dichotomy and it's just not true because we know that Psyker and Psychic unit refer to any unit or model that has the Pskyer .... special rule. Those terms are interchangeable. There is no such things a unit called " psychic unit". There are units that have Psychic Special Rule, a rule that applies to any model or unit that has that special ability. Psychic unit is just a general term used with in the rules themselves to refer to this. There is no difference in the rules between Psyker, Psychic unit , or Models that have the Psyker special Ability. We know that there are multiple different types of unit and those can have the Psyker special ability, a rule that is not lost when a unit is joined by another unit, if you claim this then a independent character loses all special abilities including being a independent character when joining a squad and cannot use them and can furthermore never leave the unit. Why? Because your claim of for all rules purposes precludes the independent character from using a special ability. Something that is not lost when joining another unit.



3. Psychic phase. In the Psychic phase, models known as Psykers can use strange mental powers, and other Warp-born effects may manifest. See the psychic rules for more details of how to do this.

For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any unit with the Psyker, ......



You also seem to ignore this statement

Manifesting psychic powers can be summarised in five steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section.

1. Select Psyker and Psychic Power. Unless you have 0 Warp Charge points remaining, select one of your Psyker units

This is the part that is your justification and literally uses the terms Psyker and Psychic unit interchangably in the same sentence..

A Psyker must pass a Psychic test to see if he can harness the power of the Warp

......

......

Assume this is where I posted quotations of the word usage of Psyker here as I don't think copy/pasting the whole rule section is appropriate, from here on out though it is of note that the term Psyker and not Psychic unit is used pretty much exclusively.

Now in terms of whether they can use a special rule.. which while it does state for all rules purposes a independent character is part of a unit there is no exclusion in this section saying how to deal with special abilities this is a different section. If you use that out of context, then you can also apply it out of context to meaning any rule. Even rules that don't apply and won't apply to a independent character but we know that is not true as there is further elaboration on special abilities and units joined by Independent character.

Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.

A clear distinction that special abilities of units and of independent characters are treated separately unless otherwise noted.

And the psychic rule itself

Psyker
Psykers are battlefield mystics who harness the power of the Warp.
A model with this special rule is a Psyker.

A interesting of note is that twice during the rules it uses the term model and not unit. There is no difference in phrasing between psyker and psyker unit, they from a terminology stand point are the same thing. Now in regards to independent characters, no there is in fact no unit type any more called this it is infantry ( character ). However we both agree and know that units do not confer their unit type to a independent character that joins.

It also states for all rules purposes, but we know that this is not completely true as they must remain seperate as specific abilities do not confer on each other.

Here's the thing your using something out of context. That's not a reasonable argument, taking something out of context of the whole isn't how to make a reasoned argument which goes back to my earlier assertion that we have to as readers approach the rules as a reasonable person. A specific instruction of a reasonable person with in legal terms is to consider all evidence before them before they reach their conclusion.

No, it really is all rules purposes. The abilities that don't confer don't because they're model based, not unit based.

Which makes that statement not a entirely true statement as we know specifically certain rules special abilities are not conferred between them unless stated. Also paraphasing isn't that great on it, the actually statement is " Though he still follows the rules for characters".

I don't actually know what point you're trying to make here unless its a reaffirmation of what I stated ? Psyker is a special ability that applies to a model.

While I am not willing to spend the time and effort to respond in detail, I don't think it is necessary. It seems to me that rigeld2 and Insaniak have explained it pretty well.

Hollismason wrote:
Your taking the rules out of context and using one specific statement that uses the word psychic unit to justify this it's a false dichotomy and it's just not true because we know that Psyker and Psychic unit refer to any unit or model that has the Pskyer .... special rule.

Referring to the rule that tells you who can cast a psychic power in order to determine who can cast a psychic power is not taking a rule out of context.

Both of the rules I quoted specifically state that you choose a psyker unit.

Those terms are interchangeable.

No, they aren't. But it wouldn't matter if they were, because both of those terms refer to units.

The rules tell us that when they refer to a 'psyker' or a 'psyker unit' then they mean a unit with the psyker, psychic pilot or Brotherhood rule.

So anytime you see the word 'psyker' in the rules, it is referring to a unit, not to an individual model.

There is no such things a unit called " psychic unit".

That's correct.

There is, however, a thing called a 'psyker unit'... and it's what a unit has to be in order to cast psychic powers.

if you claim this then a independent character loses all special abilities including being a independent character when joining a squad and cannot use them and can furthermore never leave the unit.[/u] Why? Because your claim of for all rules purposes precludes the independent character from using a special ability. Something that is not lost when joining another unit.

Being a part of the unit for all rules purposes doesn't mean that he loses any rules of his own. It simply means that he functions as a part of the unit.

Any rule that applies specifically to the IC will still apply to him. He still has the psyker rule.

The problem is simply that the rest of the unit he is now a part of does not have the psyker rule. So if you follow the interpretation that a unit's members must all have the psyker rule in order to be considered a psyker unit then the unit that the IC is a part of is not a psyker unit, and so can not cast psychic powers.

That's really all there is to this. The IC isn't losing a rule. He's losing the ability to use that rule because his unit composition has changed. He is no longer a single model unit with the psyker rule (which would make him a psyker unit). He is now a single member of a unit that is not a psyker unit.

You also seem to ignore this statement

Manifesting psychic powers can be summarised in five steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section.

1. Select Psyker and Psychic Power. Unless you have 0 Warp Charge points remaining, select one of your Psyker units

This is the part that is your justification and literally uses the terms Psyker and Psychic unit interchangably in the same sentence..

No, it doesn't.

It has a heading that tells you what you are doing. And then in a separate sentence it tells you how to do that thing.

And the way you do that thing is that you select a psyker unit.

It also states for all rules purposes, but we know that this is not completely true as they must remain seperate as specific abilities do not confer on each other.

That doesn't require them to remain separate.

Quite a lot of units have things that apply to specific models. Like any unit with mixed weaponry, for example... A model can be a part of the unit for all rules purposes, but still roll to wound on a different value to the rest of the unit because its weapon has a different strength.

What you still seem to be overlooking is that it's precisely because the IC's special rule doesn't confer to the unit that you have this problem. If the psyker rule was conferred to the unit the IC had joined, they would be a psyker unit. It doesn't, and so they are not.

The rules require you to select a psyker unit to cast a psychic power. The IC joined to another unit is not himself a unit. He's not a single model unit. He's not a blue unit. He's not an angry unit. He's not a unit with big, sharp, pointy teeth. And he's not a psyker unit.

Because he's no longer a unit. He's a part of a unit.

Hollismason wrote:
Which makes that statement not a entirely true statement as we know specifically certain rules special abilities are not conferred between them unless stated. Also paraphasing isn't that great on it, the actually statement is " Though he still follows the rules for characters".

I don't actually know what point you're trying to make here unless its a reaffirmation of what I stated ? Psyker is a special ability that applies to a model.

It is entirely true. Nothing you've said is an exception from that statement so unless you can show one, it's entirely true.

My point is that you're making a lot of arguments based on statements hat are factually incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Which makes that statement not a entirely true statement as we know specifically certain rules special abilities are not conferred between them unless stated. Also paraphasing isn't that great on it, the actually statement is " Though he still follows the rules for characters".

I don't actually know what point you're trying to make here unless its a reaffirmation of what I stated ? Psyker is a special ability that applies to a model.

It is entirely true. Nothing you've said is an exception from that statement so unless you can show one, it's entirely true.

My point is that you're making a lot of arguments based on statements hat are factually incorrect.

Here's rules quote's been super busy lately.
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.

He is still follows the rules for characters
This is Important
Special rules are so important that many of the other rules in this tome (particularly those for weapons and for troop types) are tied into the special rules given here. If you’re new to the game, you can cheerfully ignore this section until you’ve got the basic rules under your belt – you can always dip back in as and when you need to.

Why is this important?
CHARACTER TYPES
CHARACTER AND SHOOTING
..........
Characters and Assault
Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit


Here's the whole special ability thing..

Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.


That's the special rules thing, no where does it state he is unable to use his special rules they just do not apply to the other members of the squad that is the only instance and why it is stated that he is still considered a character unit with in that squad.

Psyker
Psykers are battlefield mystics who harness the power of the Warp.
A model with this special rule is a Psyker..

This in fact makes it true that models have the Psyker rule and is not by a "unit" basis. The reason is that units do not have special abilities, models do. For Example ; (jump unit) has special abilities those do not confer to a independent character unless he also has that special ability through wargear etc.. now on to what that sentence actually means and why it specifically means that not all units of a squad need to the Psyker special ability and you can in fact cast Psychic powers etc.. et al.

insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Your taking the rules out of context and using one specific statement that uses the word psychic unit to justify this it's a false dichotomy and it's just not true because we know that Psyker and Psychic unit refer to any unit or model that has the Pskyer .... special rule.

Referring to the rule that tells you who can cast a psychic power in order to determine who can cast a psychic power is not taking a rule out of context.

Both of the rules I quoted specifically state that you choose a psyker unit.

Those terms are interchangeable.

No, they aren't. But it wouldn't matter if they were, because both of those terms refer to units.

The rules tell us that when they refer to a 'psyker' or a 'psyker unit' then they mean a unit with the psyker, psychic pilot or Brotherhood rule.

So anytime you see the word 'psyker' in the rules, it is referring to a unit, not to an individual model.

There is no such things a unit called " psychic unit".

That's correct.

There is, however, a thing called a 'psyker unit'... and it's what a unit has to be in order to cast psychic powers.

if you claim this then a independent character loses all special abilities including being a independent character when joining a squad and cannot use them and can furthermore never leave the unit.[/u] Why? Because your claim of for all rules purposes precludes the independent character from using a special ability. Something that is not lost when joining another unit.

Being a part of the unit for all rules purposes doesn't mean that he loses any rules of his own. It simply means that he functions as a part of the unit.

Any rule that applies specifically to the IC will still apply to him. He still has the psyker rule.

The problem is simply that the rest of the unit he is now a part of does not have the psyker rule. So if you follow the interpretation that a unit's members must all have the psyker rule in order to be considered a psyker unit then the unit that the IC is a part of is not a psyker unit, and so can not cast psychic powers.

That's really all there is to this. The IC isn't losing a rule. He's losing the ability to use that rule because his unit composition has changed. He is no longer a single model unit with the psyker rule (which would make him a psyker unit). He is now a single member of a unit that is not a psyker unit.

You also seem to ignore this statement

Manifesting psychic powers can be summarised in five steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section.

1. Select Psyker and Psychic Power. Unless you have 0 Warp Charge points remaining, select one of your Psyker units

This is the part that is your justification and literally uses the terms Psyker and Psychic unit interchangably in the same sentence..

No, it doesn't.

It has a heading that tells you what you are doing. And then in a separate sentence it tells you how to do that thing.

And the way you do that thing is that you select a psyker unit.

It also states for all rules purposes, but we know that this is not completely true as they must remain seperate as specific abilities do not confer on each other.

That doesn't require them to remain separate.

Quite a lot of units have things that apply to specific models. Like any unit with mixed weaponry, for example... A model can be a part of the unit for all rules purposes, but still roll to wound on a different value to the rest of the unit because its weapon has a different strength.

What you still seem to be overlooking is that it's precisely because the IC's special rule doesn't confer to the unit that you have this problem. If the psyker rule was conferred to the unit the IC had joined, they would be a psyker unit. It doesn't, and so they are not.

The rules require you to select a psyker unit to cast a psychic power. The IC joined to another unit is not himself a unit. He's not a single model unit. He's not a blue unit. He's not an angry unit. He's not a unit with big, sharp, pointy teeth. And he's not a psyker unit.

Because he's no longer a unit. He's a part of a unit.

Okay so here's your logic

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.

You're logic is thus ( Feel free to correct)
1. The underline portion refers to units that have the psyker special rule.
2. If a independent character joins another unit he cannot use his powers as you nominate a "unit" and since the "unit" does not have the Psyker special rule it cannot be used.

This was going to be super long but I think this pretty much ends the argument?

Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models...............Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations.

Designer’s Note
The rules presented in this section assume that players are already familiar with rules and concepts described in other phases of Warhammer 40,000 – particularly the Shooting phase. If this is the first time you are reading this book, don’t worry, just come back and revisit the Psychic Phase section again once you are familiar with the rest of the core game rules.

I'd say Psychic Phase is a advanced rule and since we've found a contradiction it overrides it? If that's not satisfactory and you do not consider it a contradiction I can continue but also please refer to the quotations I've taken out for Rigel in regards to "Normal" rules, special abilities etc...

In other news I think I am addicted to Tostadas.

Hollismason wrote:
Psyker
Psykers are battlefield mystics who harness the power of the Warp.
A model with this special rule is a Psyker..

This in fact makes it true that models have the Psyker rule and is not by a "unit" basis.

Yes, that's a part of the problem.

Individual models have the psyker rule.

However, when we get to the section that deals with actually casting psychic powers, the rules deal entirely with psyker units, as per the rules I quoted previously.

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Psyker
Psykers are battlefield mystics who harness the power of the Warp.
A model with this special rule is a Psyker..

This in fact makes it true that models have the Psyker rule and is not by a "unit" basis.

Yes, that's a part of the problem.

Individual models have the psyker rule.

However, when we get to the section that deals with actually casting psychic powers, the rules deal entirely with psyker units, as per the rules I quoted previously.

See rest of my post, but I can actually quote the rules if you wish. Sorry just finished that last post up.

Hollismason wrote:
Okay so here's your logic

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.

You're logic is thus ( Feel free to correct)
1. The underline portion refers to units that have the psyker special rule.
2. If a independent character joins another unit he cannot use his powers as you nominate a "unit" and since the "unit" does not have the Psyker special rule it cannot be used.

If you go by the interpretation that the entire unit needs to have the psyker rule in order to be considered a unit with the psyker rule, yes.

I'd say Psychic Phase is a advanced rule and since we've found a contradiction it overrides it?

There is no contradiction.

Your quotes about normal and special rules are irrelevant. The psychic phase rules require you to select a unit to cast a power. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that a single model within the unit can cast a psychic power, even if that single model has the psyker special rule... because the rules for casting powers never, ever refer to individual models with the rule.

The IC has the psyker rule... if you go by the interpretation that the entire unit needs the psyker rule in order to be considered a psyker unit, then he needs to be in a unit that only consists of models with the psyker rule in order to be able to cast psychic powers. Because powers are cast by units, not models.

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Okay so here's your logic

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.

You're logic is thus ( Feel free to correct)
1. The underline portion refers to units that have the psyker special rule.
2. If a independent character joins another unit he cannot use his powers as you nominate a "unit" and since the "unit" does not have the Psyker special rule it cannot be used.

If you go by the interpretation that the entire unit needs to have the psyker rule in order to be considered a unit with the psyker rule, yes.

I'd say Psychic Phase is a advanced rule and since we've found a contradiction it overrides it?

There is no contradiction.

Your quotes about normal and special rules are irrelevant. The psychic phase rules require you to select a unit to cast a power. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that a single model within the unit can cast a psychic power, even if that single model has the psyker special rule... because the rules for casting powers never, ever refer to individual models with the rule.

The IC has the psyker rule... if you go by the interpretation that the entire unit needs the psyker rule in order to be considered a psyker unit, then he needs to be in a unit that only consists of models with the psyker rule in order to be able to cast psychic powers. Because powers are cast by units, not models.

You seem to be ignoring the " characters follow normal rules" portion of that. Also, if you actually want me to quote the rules here.

Also, you are implying that a psyker stops being a unit when he becomes part of another unit which isn't in the rules. He follows the "rules for that unit", but there are obvious exceptions to this because he does not gain special rules nor does he confer special rules unless stated. He is also still considered a character which only states that he follows the "normal " rules.

No where does it state that the independent character becomes the unit type of the unit he joins. He is still "unit type : infantry (character)". He does not lose that.


Also only models can have the Psyker rule. I understand exactly what you are saying but it's just a false conclusion to state that a Independent character loses it's status as a unit when it joins another unit when it states that it still retains it's abilities as a character, which includes following only the normal rules.

It's just a irrational interpretation and has no rules basis, as we know that models with special abilities can in fact use them there's no such restriction evident.

If anything that interpretation is just irrational, which is why it's a false dichotomy. That a independent character loses it's units type when joining a squad.

Hollismason wrote:
You seem to be ignoring the " characters follow normal rules" portion of that.

Yes, I am. Because it's irrelevant. There are no rules for casting psychic powers that are specific to characters.

Also, you are implying that a psyker stops being a unit when he becomes part of another unit which isn't in the rules. He follows the "rules for that unit", but there are obvious exceptions to this because he does not gain special rules nor does he confer special rules unless stated. He is also still considered a character which only states that he follows the "normal " rules.

He's still a character. He's no longer a unit of one model, because he is now a part of the unit he has joined for all rules purposes.

No where does it state that the independent character becomes the unit type of the unit he joins.

Nowhere have I argued that this is the case.

He is still "unit type : infantry (character)". He does not lose that.

Which has no impact on the process for casting psychic powers.

Also only models can have the Psyker rule. I understand exactly what you are saying but it's just a false conclusion to state that a Independent character loses it's status as a unit when it joins another unit when it states that it still retains it's abilities as a character, which includes following only the normal rules.

If you are still considering the IC to be a unit of one model, how is he being counted as a part of the unit he has joined for all rules purposes?

Note also that if you consider the IC to still be a unit of one model while joined to another unit, the unit with IC joined would be unable to enbark into a transport vehicle (as there would then be two units on board, and the transport rules only allow 1). Any enemy that wishes to charge the unit would have to declare a disordered charge if they are going to contact the IC (as he is a member of two different units) and the first model would not be able to move into contact with the IC as they are forbidden from moving into base contact with anything other than the single unit that the initial charge is declared against. Shooting, movement, and any other rules that require to to resolve a single unit at a time would likewise suddenly run into all sorts of problems, as anything involving the IC is involving two different units.


To put it simply - If you count the joined IC as still a unit in his own right, the game breaks.

If anything that interpretation is just irrational, which is why it's a false dichotomy. That a independent character loses it's units type when joining a squad.

How many times do I need to repeat the fact that the IC doesn't lose its unit type when joining a squad?

That's simply not the issue.

The issue is very, very simple: Psychic Powers are cast by psyker units. If a unit isn't a psyker unit, it can't cast psychic powers.

That's it. The difference between special and normal rules has nothing to do with it. Unit types have nothing to do with it. The character rules have nothing to do with it.

An IC joined to another unit is a single unit. That single unit, by the rules as they currently stand, needs to be a psyker unit in order for that unit to cast psychic powers.


There are no rules that would allow individual models within that unit to cast psychic powers.

Hollismason wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Which makes that statement not a entirely true statement as we know specifically certain rules special abilities are not conferred between them unless stated. Also paraphasing isn't that great on it, the actually statement is " Though he still follows the rules for characters".

I don't actually know what point you're trying to make here unless its a reaffirmation of what I stated ? Psyker is a special ability that applies to a model.

It is entirely true. Nothing you've said is an exception from that statement so unless you can show one, it's entirely true.

My point is that you're making a lot of arguments based on statements hat are factually incorrect.

Here's rules quote's been super busy lately.
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.

He is still follows the rules for characters
This is Important
Special rules are so important that many of the other rules in this tome (particularly those for weapons and for troop types) are tied into the special rules given here. If you’re new to the game, you can cheerfully ignore this section until you’ve got the basic rules under your belt – you can always dip back in as and when you need to.

Why is this important?
CHARACTER TYPES
CHARACTER AND SHOOTING
..........
Characters and Assault
Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit


Here's the whole special ability thing..

Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.


That's the special rules thing, no where does it state he is unable to use his special rules they just do not apply to the other members of the squad that is the only instance and why it is stated that he is still considered a character unit with in that squad.

Psyker
Psykers are battlefield mystics who harness the power of the Warp.
A model with this special rule is a Psyker..

This in fact makes it true that models have the Psyker rule and is not by a "unit" basis. The reason is that units do not have special abilities, models do. For Example ; (jump unit) has special abilities those do not confer to a independent character unless he also has that special ability through wargear etc.. now on to what that sentence actually means and why it specifically means that not all units of a squad need to the Psyker special ability and you can in fact cast Psychic powers etc.. et al.

Here's a gold star for quoting rules. Too bad they don't say what you've asserted.
A). You quoted no rule that says an IC is only a member of the unit it joins for some rules purposes. The IC rules say all rules purposes, you've asserted otherwise, prove your assertion.
B). Cite the rule allowing you to select a Psyker model to cast a power. As far as I can tell its units with the Psyker rule that add warp charges, etc. When an IC joins a hint, he's not a unit in and of himself anymore. Since the unit he joined does not have the Psyker rule, please prove - using rules and not assumptions as I've underlined above - you can select something other than a Psyker unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Which makes that statement not a entirely true statement as we know specifically certain rules special abilities are not conferred between them unless stated. Also paraphasing isn't that great on it, the actually statement is " Though he still follows the rules for characters".

I don't actually know what point you're trying to make here unless its a reaffirmation of what I stated ? Psyker is a special ability that applies to a model.

It is entirely true. Nothing you've said is an exception from that statement so unless you can show one, it's entirely true.

My point is that you're making a lot of arguments based on statements hat are factually incorrect.

Here's rules quote's been super busy lately.
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.

He is still follows the rules for characters
This is Important
Special rules are so important that many of the other rules in this tome (particularly those for weapons and for troop types) are tied into the special rules given here. If you’re new to the game, you can cheerfully ignore this section until you’ve got the basic rules under your belt – you can always dip back in as and when you need to.

Why is this important?
CHARACTER TYPES
CHARACTER AND SHOOTING
..........
Characters and Assault
Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit


Here's the whole special ability thing..

Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.


That's the special rules thing, no where does it state he is unable to use his special rules they just do not apply to the other members of the squad that is the only instance and why it is stated that he is still considered a character unit with in that squad.

Psyker
Psykers are battlefield mystics who harness the power of the Warp.
A model with this special rule is a Psyker..

This in fact makes it true that models have the Psyker rule and is not by a "unit" basis. The reason is that units do not have special abilities, models do. For Example ; (jump unit) has special abilities those do not confer to a independent character unless he also has that special ability through wargear etc.. now on to what that sentence actually means and why it specifically means that not all units of a squad need to the Psyker special ability and you can in fact cast Psychic powers etc.. et al.

Here's a gold star for quoting rules. Too bad they don't say what you've asserted.
A). You quoted no rule that says an IC is only a member of the unit it joins for some rules purposes. The IC rules say all rules purposes, you've asserted otherwise, prove your assertion.
B). Cite the rule allowing you to select a Psyker model to cast a power. As far as I can tell its units with the Psyker rule that add warp charges, etc. When an IC joins a hint, he's not a unit in and of himself anymore. Since the unit he joined does not have the Psyker rule, please prove - using rules and not assumptions as I've underlined above - you can select something other than a Psyker unit.

I just did that's literally the second thing I posted? He doesn't lose his status as a unit , all models are units per the rules. He still remains a character, which is a unit type. He can cast psychic powers as you can select him. I dunno how to draw it out any further.

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.

This completely disregards that statement that characters counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes

This is Important
Special rules are so important that many of the other rules in this tome (particularly those for weapons and for troop types) are tied into the special rules given here. If you’re new to the game, you can cheerfully ignore this section until you’ve got the basic rules under your belt – you can always dip back in as and when you need to.

This is Important
Special rules are so important that many of the other rules in this tome (particularly those for weapons and for troop types) are tied into the special rules given here. If you’re new to the game, you can cheerfully ignore this section until you’ve got the basic rules under your belt – you can always dip back in as and when you need to.

Please read what I actually wrote thanks. Also, I've posted these rules multiple times.

He still remains a (character) which is a unit type. It's not a special ability. It's also not "units" it's "unit" with the Psyker special rule.

He is a (character) unit within a unit? It's not like super complicated he has to follow all normal rules. Pyker abilites are Specia.

By your assertion
Please quote the exact rule where my independent character that according to you follows all rules does not in fact become calvary when he joins a calvary unit?


This goes back to my quotes regarding approaching the rules rationally and fairly by the way as by your interpretation you kind eliminate/punish/denigrate certain units in the game that can upgrade characters or have Psykers attached to them.

I'd also like to refer to this distinction that the rules are a "all or nothing" phrase which keeps being insisted on, you select models to fire by selecting a unit and then models within that unit fires. You have to fire all those models before moving on but they do not all have to fire.

It I select a unit that has a model that has a Psyker special ability I've still selected a unit with the Psyker Special Rule because all models make up the unit which is where I think your logics getting caught up in. If that model is part of that unit then that unit has a model that can be selected to use the Psychic Ability it has. The rule that you are insisting on does not exist which is that all models within a unit must have the psychic ability which it doesn't state, it just states unit with the psychic ability. One of those models has the psychic ability which is part of that unit.

It's just kind of faulty logic.

So I mean I guess I can break it down for you further and do a sentence tree but those are two perfectly good examples on why a unit with a psychic ability means a model with psychic ability that is part of that unit. It's the same thing.


Here's one last example that I am going to draw.


@@@@
@@@@
@@@@
==================
@@@@
@@@@
@@@@

Please select a group with an orange.
Please select a group with all oranges

What the rules actually state :

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 think this is important as well since it is literally in the same instruction to select a psyker and psychic power which actually has a period at the end of it, which is grammatically the end of that sentence. So you can argue either way that psyker and psychic unit are actually synonomous. The first step in this is to Select a Psyker. The next instruction is unless you have 0 warp charge, select one of your Psyker units. Those are actually two separate sentences which is why it has a period. A Psyker is a model with the Psyker special rule. So I guess that's like a 3rd way that independent characters can cast psychic powers from a squad. By the way if you say that means you do it twice then that makes no sense grammatically which is illogical.


Manifesting Psychic Powers Sequence
1. Select Psyker and Psychic Power. Unless you have 0 Warp Charge points remaining, select one of your Psyker units, then nominate a psychic power known to that unit that you wish to manifest.

What's the first thing you do in this sentence? Select a Psyker and a Psychic Power.

Unit type != being a unit, is your first error

So yes, the IC is still a character. He is not, anymore, a single model unit - because you are told he cannot be, he is a normal member of the unit for all rule purposes, and no normal member of the unit is a single model unit

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Unit type != being a unit, is your first error

So yes, the IC is still a character. He is not, anymore, a single model unit - because you are told he cannot be, he is a normal member of the unit for all rule purposes, and no normal member of the unit is a single model unit

Should actually read what I wrote which is that (character) follow the normal rules, psychic phase is actually not a normal rule. Also that's a fallacy as one model can be a unit. Also the myriad of all the other rules I quoted regarding a selection et.. al..

The other rules, such as where you ignore that it states "select psyker" meaning "psyker unit", as you are told, and in the actual text telling you how to do this it again states "psyker unit"?

I read it, but you are quoting rules that dont actually support your assertions, for the reasons given already. Yes, they are still a character. Character is a unit type but you are making a classic error in that unit type isnt actually a unit level characteristic, but model level.

Re-evaluate what you are quoting, as it is clear there are some fundamentals youve missed.

Hollismason wrote:
He doesn't lose his status as a unit , all models are units per the rules.

All models are members of units. All models are not units.

He still remains a character, which is a unit type.

No, it isn't.

CHARACTERS wrote:In addition to their unit type, some models might also be noted as being characters...

'Character' is a special rule that is applied in addition to the unit type. It is not a unit type.

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.

This completely disregards that statement that characters counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes

So you're saying that the rule that tells you that characters count as a part of the unit for all rules purposes is actually telling us that characters don't count as a part of the unit for all rules purposes?

He is a (character) unit within a unit?

So are you just going to ignore the reasons I pointed out that having a unit within another unit doesn't actually work within the rules of the game?

A Psyker is a model with the Psyker special rule.

No, it isn't. A Psyker, for the purposes of resolving psychic powers, is a unit with the Psyker special rule. As has been pointed out to you, and as has been quoted (including by you), numerous times now.

Manifesting Psychic Powers Sequence
1. Select Psyker and Psychic Power. Unless you have 0 Warp Charge points remaining, select one of your Psyker units, then nominate a psychic power known to that unit that you wish to manifest.

What's the first thing you do in this sentence? Select a Psyker and a Psychic Power.

That first sentence is a heading, not an instruction.

Hollismason wrote:
I just did that's literally the second thing I posted? He doesn't lose his status as a unit , all models are units per the rules. He still remains a character, which is a unit type. He can cast psychic powers as you can select him. I dunno how to draw it out any further.

Unit Type is part of a models characteristic profile. It has literally nothing to do with what unit you're in. And that still doesn't prove the underlined statement.

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.

This completely disregards that statement that characters counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes

No, it doesn't. At all. Tac Squad Sergeants are part of the hint for all purposes and yet they're characters too.

Please read what I actually wrote thanks. Also, I've posted these rules multiple times.

He still remains a (character) which is a unit type. It's not a special ability. It's also not "units" it's "unit" with the Psyker special rule.

I have read what you wrote. Apparently you're not understanding what you're reading. Please explain why unit type is relevant?
And how does the unit have the Psyker special rule when only a single model in the unit has the rule?

He is a (character) unit within a unit? It's not like super complicated he has to follow all normal rules. Pyker abilites are Specia.

Special rules win when there's a contradiction. You haven't proven one.
In addition, you haven't proven that permission to nominate a Psyker unit allows you to nominate a unit that has a single Payker model.

By your assertion
Please quote the exact rule where my independent character that according to you follows all rules does not in fact become calvary when he joins a calvary unit?

You're again under the mistaken impression that Unit Type is a rule belonging to a unit. It's not. It's part of a models profile.

“In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Warhammer 40,000.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

This goes back to my quotes regarding approaching the rules rationally and fairly by the way as by your interpretation you kind eliminate/punish/denigrate certain units in the game that can upgrade characters or have Psykers attached to them.

No sir. What units am I eliminating/punishing/denigrating? Back up your statements before attempting to throw out my arguments. Learn the actual rules before making statements like this.

I'd also like to refer to this distinction that the rules are a "all or nothing" phrase which keeps being insisted on, you select models to fire by selecting a unit and then models within that unit fires. You have to fire all those models before moving on but they do not all have to fire.

Because the shooting rules specify you fire each model in a unit. The Psyker rules are worded completely differently.

It I select a unit that has a model that has a Psyker special ability I've still selected a unit with the Psyker Special Rule because all models make up the unit which is where I think your logics getting caught up in. If that model is part of that unit then that unit has a model that can be selected to use the Psychic Ability it has. The rule that you are insisting on does not exist which is that all models within a unit must have the psychic ability which it doesn't state, it just states unit with the psychic ability. One of those models has the psychic ability which is part of that unit.

Does the unit have the special rule? Since it doesn't confer, we know the answer is no - the model does.

So I mean I guess I can break it down for you further and do a sentence tree but those are two perfectly good examples on why a unit with a psychic ability means a model with psychic ability that is part of that unit. It's the same thing.

It's not the same thing at all, unless you want to make up rules.
If a Mindstrike Missile lands covering 2 Space Marines in a unit with an attached Librarian, who suffers Perils?

Please select a group with an orange.
Please select a group with all oranges

I'm going to stop you right here. This doesn't work because you deliberately changed the example from the actual rule.

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'll keep this for later.

I think this is important as well since it is literally in the same instruction to select a psyker and psychic power which actually has a period at the end of it, which is grammatically the end of that sentence. So you can argue either way that psyker and psychic unit are actually synonomous. The first step in this is to Select a Psyker. The next instruction is unless you have 0 warp charge, select one of your Psyker units. Those are actually two separate sentences which is why it has a period. A Psyker is a model with the Psyker special rule. So I guess that's like a 3rd way that independent characters can cast psychic powers from a squad. By the way if you say that means you do it twice then that makes no sense grammatically which is illogical.

Manifesting Psychic Powers Sequence
1. Select Psyker and Psychic Power. Unless you have 0 Warp Charge points remaining, select one of your Psyker units, then nominate a psychic power known to that unit that you wish to manifest.

What's the first thing you do in this sentence? Select a Psyker and a Psychic Power.

It's a heading, not the rule. The rule follows the heading.
In addition, per the rule you quoted (remember I said I'd use it later?) Psyker must refer to "unit with the Psyker special rule" for the purposes of all rules. So the heading you underlined actually says "Select unit with the Psyker special rule and Psychic Power."

I find it infinitely amusing that this argument continues.

insaniak, can't you just concede that there was some careless writing when defining what a "Psychic Unit" is? GW wrote the definition the way they did because they had to encompass both Psyker Characters and Psyker Brotherhoods. The rules for singular Pskyers are written from the perspective of the model itself, in a vacuum, not joined to any units. Honestly your incredibly narrow definition of what a "unit" is was likely not in the writers' heads at the time.

insaniak, your "interpretation" of the RAW here basically breaks the Psychic phase, and obviously goes against the intention of the authors. It should be fairly obvious that Games Workshop did not intend for Librarians joined to Tactical squads to suddenly be incapable of casting a Psychic Power because they no longer could as a "Psychic Unit".

The point of YMDC as I understand it is to HELP people UNDERSTAND the rules of the game, and to resolve rule disputes to PLAY the game.

What this has devolved into is you simply proving a point that yes, there is some errata in the Psychic Unit definition.

WHAT IS MORE LIKELY?

A) Your interpretation is correct?
B) There is a small errata in the definition of a Psychic Unit.

Your interpretation (and others on the same bandwagon) result in broken units, and really unusual situations that seem counter-intuitive and wrong on their face. Actually playing the game this way results in such odd situations that one questions if this is actually how the rules are supposed to work. Given that, what is the point of arguing about a mistake in the rules?

Now can we agree that this isn't how the game is actually supposed to be PLAYED? This argument doesn't HELP anyone. There's a difference between interpreting what RAW is, and being such a slave to RAW that you are bound by obvious rule errors to broken game situations.

Murrdox wrote:
insaniak, can't you just concede that there was some careless writing when defining what a "Psychic Unit" is? GW wrote the definition the way they did because they had to encompass both Psyker Characters and Psyker Brotherhoods. The rules for singular Pskyers are written from the perspective of the model itself, in a vacuum, not joined to any units. Honestly your incredibly narrow definition of what a "unit" is was likely not in the writers' heads at the time.

He's said as much. Hollismason is saying it's not vague at all.
And it's not insaniak's definition of "unit" - it's the writer's definition of "unit".

Murrdox wrote:

insaniak, can't you just concede that there was some careless writing when defining what a "Psychic Unit" is? GW wrote the definition the way they did because they had to encompass both Psyker Characters and Psyker Brotherhoods. The rules for singular Pskyers are written from the perspective of the model itself, in a vacuum, not joined to any units. Honestly your incredibly narrow definition of what a "unit" is was likely not in the writers' heads at the time.

You are not following the conversation very closely. (which is likely a compliment in this case.) Insaniak *asserts* that the writing is sloppy and contradictory. Hollismason insists that it is clear and unambiguous...

The real problem, from what I can tell, is that GW wrote some *very clear* rule definitions.... and then preceded to blatantly and obviously ignore them in places.

Leading to the real problem of us not being able to tell which situations they meant to follow the definitions, and which situations they didn't.

The rule about not using the same power twice is pretty darn clear, and makes plenty of sense. But if you follow those same definitions elsewhere (such as perils) the game breaks. So... is the defintion only off for Perils, or is is it off for everything...even things that otherwise could make sense...??

Anyway... Hollismason is misinterpreting rules to try and prove that everyone else is wrong, and the rules are clear and obvious.

Murrdox wrote:
The point of YMDC as I understand it is to HELP people UNDERSTAND the rules of the game, and to resolve rule disputes to PLAY the game.

I think this part is slightly off: YMDC for users to express their positions (making the call) on rules that might not be clear. Insaniak is clearly putting forward his position, so is Hollismason. Both are withing what YMDC is about.

Your post however, is not an expression of your position, but instead a form of rant aimed at a user (or bandwagon) that you do not agree with. Disprove them with rules if you think they are wrong. Do not simply state "Your interpretation result in broken units".

Murrdox wrote:
Given that, what is the point of arguing about a mistake in the rules?
Now can we agree that this isn't how the game is actually supposed to be PLAYED? This argument doesn't HELP anyone. There's a difference between interpreting what RAW is, and being such a slave to RAW that you are bound by obvious rule errors to broken game situations.

This discussion is also clearly about the RaW. If they were arguing about how it is PLAYED, they would post HIWPI.
Only by breaking down the RaW can we come to a decision about "Whats the rules reason a unit with 2 psykers cannot cast the same spell??"

When it comes down to it, i also agree that a Unit with 2 different Psykers is still, by RaW, a single unit. With all the broken results. I'm just not as much into "Philosophical RaW" as i am into Raw that is argued for a HYWPI result to feel like i need to actively participate.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Murrdox wrote:
The point of YMDC as I understand it is to HELP people UNDERSTAND the rules of the game, and to resolve rule disputes to PLAY the game.

I think this part is slightly off: YMDC for users to express their positions (making the call) on rules that might not be clear. Insaniak is clearly putting forward his position, so is Hollismason. Both are withing what YMDC is about.

Your post however, is not an expression of your position, but instead a form of rant aimed at a user (or bandwagon) that you do not agree with. Disprove them with rules if you think they are wrong. Do not simply state "Your interpretation result in broken units".

My point is that there is no real rule dispute going on here. This thread isn't going to accomplish anything that is going to help anyone to play the game that this forum is devoted to. On the contrary, threads like this that devolve into beating dead horses threaten to INCREASE confusion and CAUSE more rule disputes than are necessary, especially for new players.

Rule threads like the classic "Do you need to roll to hit with Psychic Scream"? Useful, even if they go off the rails sometimes. Points out a rule contradiction, attempts to resolve it.

Threads like this? You might end up with some new player who sees this thread, goes back to his gaming group, and proceeds to try and convince his new player friends that Psykers are broken, ruining the game for them. There's no useful outcome there.

The only point of this thread is arguing for arugment's sake. It's lost focus on the game. That's my point.

The point is to show that it's wrong to approach the rules irrationally and that the rules are only vague if you do so. By approaching the rules rationally and with fairness it eliminates a gakload of problems.

We're not actually arguing that it should be played this way we're arguing whether or not it's vague.

It's not vague. They insist that a unit with a model that has the psychic ability is not a unit with a psychic special rule. I'm stating that it in fact is as logically it's a valid choice as it has a model with the psychic rule. That characters don't some being models / units with a special rule for psykers when they join the squad.

My statement is that any rational person or reasonable person who approaches the rules will not find the rules to be vague if they approach them with the knowledge that they are not meant to be interpreted to a malicious ends and the writer is not writing the rules maliciously.

It's kind of silly as to what the actual rules are neither insaniak or rigel play the rules RAW, they insist though that you must have your own HWIPI because the rules are vague in regards to what a "psychic unit" is.

I state it's not vague at all.

I've listed numerous reasons on why it cannot be vauge they list numerous reason why it's vague. That's it.

Murrdox wrote:
Threads like this? You might end up with some new player who sees this thread, goes back to his gaming group, and proceeds to try and convince his new player friends that Psykers are broken, ruining the game for them. There's no useful outcome there.

So how is it absolutely clear that 2 psykers in the same unit can cast the same spell? We're not saying that the right answer is that the game is broken - that's dumb.
But we *are* saying that it's not clear what the right answer actually is. Hollismason disagrees and has yet to actually show why - given that his assumptions are based off of Unit Type being a unit trait and all (which is incorrect).

The only point of this thread is arguing for arugment's sake. It's lost focus on the game. That's my point.

Because most people agreed that the wording is vague and could mean "Yes, 2 psykers in the same unit cannot cast the same spell. Sux." or "Nope, it's every Psyker for himself." depending on how much tea the writer had before answering the FAQ if/when it eventually comes out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
It's not vague. They insist that a unit with a model that has the psychic ability is not a unit with a psychic special rule. I'm stating that it in fact is as logically it's a valid choice as it has a model with the psychic rule. That characters don't some being models / units with a special rule for psykers when they join the squad.

Stop with the underlined argument - literally no one is saying it. You've been asked before to drop the strawman.

My statement is that any rational person or reasonable person who approaches the rules will not find the rules to be vague if they approach them with the knowledge that they are not meant to be interpreted to a malicious ends and the writer is not writing the rules maliciously.

Thank you for calling me irrational or unreasonable. It really helps your argument. And again with your other strawman.

It's kind of silly as to what the actual rules are neither insaniak or rigel play the rules RAW, they insist though that you must have your own HWIPI because the rules are vague in regards to what a "psychic unit" is.

And they are vague. You've not proven they aren't. Seriously - what's a psyker unit? Since it's not vague I'm sure you can point to explicit wording. You've failed to do so until now - have you been holding back?

I've listed numerous reasons on why it cannot be vauge they list numerous reason why it's vague. That's it.

And your numerous reasons have been based on 100% incorrect assumptions (the most recent being that Unit Type is tied to the unit and not the model).

Murrdox wrote:
insaniak, can't you just concede that there was some careless writing when defining what a "Psychic Unit" is?

Yes, of course I can. That's been my point from the start.

The rules for singular Pskyers are written from the perspective of the model itself, in a vacuum, not joined to any units.

Correct. Hence the problem.

Honestly your incredibly narrow definition of what a "unit" is was likely not in the writers' heads at the time.

What 'narrow definition'?

A unit is a unit. There's no tricky wordplay going on here. 'Unit' as a descriptor has been in use for the entire lifespan of the 40K game. If whoever write the psychic rules was unaware of what the word means, there's something seriously wrong in the design studio.

insaniak, your "interpretation" of the RAW here basically breaks the Psychic phase, ...

'My' interpretation doesn't break the psychic phase. The psychic phase rules are broken.

We are told that powers are cast by psyker units, but we are not given any way to determine what happens when a unit contains non-psyker models, or any way to separate non-brotherhood psykers within a unit.

It should be fairly obvious that Games Workshop did not intend for Librarians joined to Tactical squads to suddenly be incapable of casting a Psychic Power because they no longer could as a "Psychic Unit".

And that should have been obvious enough for someone in the design studio, when they were working on these rules, to stick their hand up and say 'Uh, hey, guys? What about when a psyker joins another unit...?'


The likely intention, as I have pointed out several times, is that when they wrote '...unit with the psyker, psychic pilot or Brotherhood of etc rule.' they actually meant '...model with the psyker or psychic pilot rule, or unit with the Brotherhood rule.'

But this is not apparent from the actual rules. We're left to figure out for ourselves if we're supposed to ignore the multiple references to units, or if GW actually did intend for psykers to be neutered when joined to units (which isn't entirely implausible, as I mentioned earlier). Or if they are supposed to be able to share their Perils with non-psykers they have joined, which is the other interpretation of this mess.


So if someone reads this thread, ignores the people pointing out that the rules as written are borked but that the way people are undoubtedly playing it already based on how last edition worked is probably what was intended, and proceeds to try to convince their playgroups that the psychic phase rules are broken, then that's a good thing, because the psychic phase rules are broken, and people should be aware of that. Because GW should be accountable for the standard of their work.

The point of YMDC as I understand it is to HELP people UNDERSTAND the rules of the game, and to resolve rule disputes to PLAY the game.

Yes and no. As outlined in the Tenets thread, YMDC has room for both 'How You Would Play It' and 'What Do The Rules Say' style discussion. The question asked at the top of this thread was about what the rules actually say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
It's not vague. They insist that a unit with a model that has the psychic ability is not a unit with a psychic special rule.

Who's 'they'?

Because I've insisted no such thing. My argument all along has been '...if you go by the interpretation that all models in the unit need the psyker rule for the unit to be considered a psyker unit.' ... because that's one of the common interpretations.

I personally think one model in the unit is sufficient... but that breaks the psychic phase worse than the 'all models' interpretation does, because it leaves you with the entire unit being able to cast psychic powers even though most of them aren't psykers and having to figure out how to distribute Perils results.

So either one model with the psyker rule is enough to call the unit a psyker unit, in which case the psychic rules are just completely whacked, or all models in the unit need the psyker rule for it to be a psyker unit, in which case psyker characters joined to non-psyker units can't cast powers.

The third 'interpretation' (that we should consider the psyker to be a separate 'psyker unit' distinct from the unit he has joined) is IMO probably what was intended, but has no basis in actual rules.

My statement is that any rational person or reasonable person who approaches the rules will not find the rules to be vague if they approach them with the knowledge that they are not meant to be interpreted to a malicious ends and the writer is not writing the rules maliciously.

And the counter argument is that this is nonsensical. A vague rule is a vague rule. It is no less vague just because you choose to ignore it and play the game in a way that makes sense to you.

 insaniak wrote:
or if GW actually did intend for psykers to be neutered when joined to units (which isn't entirely implausible, as I mentioned earlier). Or if they are supposed to be able to share their Perils with non-psykers they have joined, which is the other interpretation of this mess.

Even though "plausible", i would say that those are still "highly unlikely" when discussing intent.