Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The big issue here is that the definition of units, and how ICs interact with them, has changed.

In 5th, when the GK codex was written, the IC was not part of the unit for all purposes. Really only for movement, leadership, shooting, and embarking purposes. He was seperate for combat and force weapon activation(because of how Force Weapons worked)

Now, the definition of unit has changed. The IC is part of the unit for all purposes now.


This definition has altered what the BoP can mean by unit. It may not be what was intended, but an edition change can alter a rule radically.

nosferatu1001 wrote: ...Neo - no, I am not claiming that. I am claiming that for determining if the "unit" is bound, you treat him as a normal member of the unit for that pupose. Otherwise you can never activate BoP with an IC (or mordrak) around, because you never havea unit with BoP- you havea unit which is partially BoP, which does not meet the rules requirements...

So you are saying that a unit that is only partially comprised of models with the BoP rule does not count as a unit 'with' the BoP rule? This strikes you as a better interpretation than one which the unit as a whole 'does' count as having the BoP rule because some of it's models have it?

My concern with your interpretation is that it does not account for the possibility that any given 'unit' could be comprised of models with different special rules; which i find fairly counter-intuitive to the way the game currently exists. There are 'numerous' examples of perfectly legal units that nontheless contain some models which do not have nor benefit from a given specific rule, in fact there is an actual rule which goes so far as to say 'all' USRs work this way unless otherwise explicitly noted within their rules-text.

In this case saying that an IC which has joined a unit with it is bound by the BoP rule itself despite not having it; is akin to saying that a model that has joined another unit with the Swarm USR takes double the unsaved wounds from a template weapon from wounds assigned to that specific model.

 Neorealist wrote:
In this case saying that an IC which has joined a unit with it is bound by the BoP rule itself despite not having it; is akin to saying that a model that has joined another unit with the Swarm USR takes double the unsaved wounds from a template weapon from wounds assigned to that specific model.

Except for the fact that Swarm is a model based rule and not a unit based rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

So, do you agree or disagree that the IC is a normal member of the unit?

BRB p. 39: Independent Character

Joining and Leaving a Unit:
"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters"

Special Rules
"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit"

Read those sentences again please. No, the IC is not a "normal" member of the unit, he is an "abnormal" member. He is still a part of the unit, but he has his own special rules. Your assertion completely ignores the last part of sentence about being part of a unit, namely "he still follows the rules for characters" In this case, the rules for characters are that they have to activate their own force weapons. Even if we take "unit" in this case to mean the most generic unit possible, there is still a specific clause regarding ICs. However, I believe that the "unit" in question is a unit with the BOP special rule, and it is entirely possible in 6th edition to apply different special rules to different parts of a unit depending on its composition. Part of the unit has BOP, and follows the rules for that while the other part has an individual test.

Grey knight.

And, again, you are ignoring the phrasing of NFW, namely ALL members of the unit are bound by the result

Is the IC a member of the unit? Yes or No.

To clear this up somewhat, as GW has not specifically defined what they mean by "unit" in the context of the NFW rules, we can correctly assume from the rule itself that "unit" refers to a grouping of models with NFWs. If this is indeed the case, then when the NFW rule refers to a "unit" with the BoP special rule, that "unit could be any composition from just the BoP unit to the BoP+ICs. This can be inferred based on the inclusion of the IC reminder in parenthesis.

As I've pointed out in previous posts, the NFW rules states that NFW are Force weapons that follow all Force weapon rules, except for when those Force weapons are in a unit of Brotherhood of Psykers (BoP). If BoP is present, treat the first unsaved wound dealt as the trigger for activating all NFW in the unit following normal Force weapon activation rules except that BoP models in the unit roll only once as if they are a single Psyker. And that's it. We treat the entire unit (BoP+ICs) as a single entity for determining the trigger point, and then we treat each Psyker as a separate entity for their activation rolls (remember, BoP models in the same unit are considered a single Psyker for using Psychic powers, including Force weapon activation).

On the note of a non-Psyker Inquisitor with a Daemonhammer, we would simply treat him as if he has 0 Warp Charges (which is true).

Example (because I love examples!):

Librarian with Staff, Might of Titan, and Warp Rift.
Inquisitor with Psycannon, TDA, and Daemonhammer (not a Psyker).
Techmarine with "I Win!" grenades.
10man GKT with Thawn and mixed NFW (Halberds, Swords, Hammers)

Assault phase starts: Thawn casts Hammerhand, Librarian casts Might of Titan
Initiative 10-7
Initiative 6: Halberds strike, an unsaved wound is dealt, all Psykers with NFW roll to activate (Libby rolls a 7, Thawn rolls an 8), all GK NFW are now active, all GK NFWs now inflict ID
Initiative 5
Initiative 4: Staff strikes, Swords strike, Tech power weapon strikes, all unsaved wounds dealt by GK NFWs inflict ID.
Initiative 3-2
Initiative 1: Hammers strike, Tech servo arms strike, all unsaved wounds dealt by GK NFWs inflict ID, Inquisitor's Hammer may ID T5 or lower models (because he has a +2 Str bonus before doubling), Tech servo arms may inflict ID T4 or lower models (because they hit at an unmodified Str 8).

As you can see, neither the Inquisitor nor the Techmarine rolled to activate because the Inquisitor is not a Psyker, and the Techmarine is not equipped with a NFW, yet both are in a unit with the BoP special rule. Also, the Librarian rolled separately from Thawn for activation, following the NFW special rule. Further, Thawn rolled for all his GKT per the BoP special rule, as Thawn is not an IC yet is the Justicar for his BoP unit. Finally, the Inquisitor had Str 10 due to Hammerhand stacking with Might of Titan per the Might of Titan special rule (MoT is cumulative with HH, which is applied before doubling for the Hammer). Not even going to mention the Rad and Psychotropic grenades.

Yes, I can see why people say GKs are broken.

SJ

Happyjew wrote:Except for the fact that Swarm is a model based rule and not a unit based rule.

Brotherhood of Psykers doesn't indicate every model within the unit is effected by it either, just the unit as a whole.

Which interpretation seems more logical: That any psyker-models joining said unit become part of said unit for the purposes of Psychic checks (which directly contradicts the rule itself), or that they are independant of the unit for the purposes of Psychic checks (which directly supports it's current wording) and therefore not included in it's effects?

I'm not really sure tbh. There is a reason I'm staying out of this. That being said, HIWPI is the IC counts as a separate unit for the purpose of activating NFW.

 Neorealist wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Except for the fact that Swarm is a model based rule and not a unit based rule.

Brotherhood of Psykers doesn't indicate every model within the unit is effected by it either, just the unit as a whole.

Which interpretation seems more logical: That any psyker-models joining said unit become part of said unit for the purposes of Psychic checks (which directly contradicts the rule itself), or that they are independant of the unit for the purposes of Psychic checks (which directly supports it's current wording) and therefore not included in it's effects?

And, again, you have mis-stated the argument. The argument is plain as the rule itself - the IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, and THIS RULE states that THE UNIT, which *must* include the IC, is bound by the result. The IC is *free* to test seperately, but is still bound by the result of the unit. Because thats wht the rule actually states

Please, argue the actual text, not what you *think* it is saying

I have been I assure you. I'd suggest not arguing what you 'believe' I am saying so much as the actual content within the post.

You seem to be missing a couple of points:
1) Another rule which states how a given model is bound by the results of a psychic test. (hint: it's the rule for activating a force weapon, 'and' the rules for Psykers)
2) The rule for NSF 'clearly' refers to models within a unit that have the BoP rule when referencing 'the unit' later in it's rules text. You cannot simply ignore this and presume it means the unit as a whole and still expect the rule to function properly. (ie: activating non-psykers' force weapons, activating Non-BoP ICs' force weapons without a check of their own, and/or lowering the mastery of psyker ICs with a higher mastery level than the BoP grants and other such silliness)

So when it says "unit" it doesnt mean the definition of unit, but another definition of unit you have just made up?

Almost. When it says unit within the context of the rules we are discussing, its referring to the part (models) of the unit that does not contravene this part: "The unit can never use the leadership of an Independent Character for Psvchic tests." or this part: "...independant characters must still roll seperately..." or this part "...if the test is failed ... then there is no additional effect..."

The rules in question very clearly go out of their way to indicate that independant characters' leadership cannot be used for this purpose, that they have to roll seperately, and that they must abide by the results of that specific roll.

OK, so now find the part where they redefine what unit means.

Nothing you have posted states that, at all.

1) The unit not being able to use the Ld of any attached ICs != the IC is not a member of the unit
2) ICs must test separately != the IC is not a member of the unit
3) if the test is failed.... != the IC is not a member of the unit

You are backed into a corner by attempting to argue this, as you are arguing a rule which has fundamentally changed between editions. In 5th the reminder text in parens was true, in 6th it has no function.

Why on earth do they have to redefine what 'a unit' is when they've very clearly defined what parts of that unit the rule applies to and more importantly for this argument (ie; Independant characters) which parts of the unit it does not?

So, just ignoring everything showing youre wrong?

Carry on.

They have simply stated that the unit is bound by the result. Please, prove that "unit" does not mean "unit", as defined in the 40k BRB. Prove that the IC is not a member of the unit for ALL rules purposes, as defined in the 40k rulebook.

You have yet to do so.

"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 still follows the rules for characters"
You keep forgetting to quote that part.

The rules for characters in this case are that he must roll separately for his weapon. The first "unit" specified is "a unit of Grey Knights with the Brotherhood of Psykers special rule". It follows logically that the "unit" in the rest of the paragraph is a unit of Grey Knights with the Brotherhood of Psykers special rule. Separate rolls=separate results.

Pulling out a single sentence, yes you are correct in your interpretation. But in reading the NFW paragraph as a whole, the amplifying rules of BOP, as well as the full section on independent characters (not just half a sentence); you are incorrect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...deleted non-relevent though amusingly presumptuous opinion...
They have simply stated that the unit is bound by the result. Prove that the IC is not a member of the unit for ALL rules purposes, as defined in the 40k rulebook.

This is simple: The IC in this scenario has to test seperately and is bound by the roll it makes for this test, not the one governing the rest of the unit. Ergo, it is not treated the same as the rest of the unit in this regard.

Got all that?

"This is simple: The IC in this scenario has to test seperately and is bound by the roll it makes for this test, not the one governing the rest of the unit"

Bolded your entirely unsupported leap of an assertion. The parens does NOT say he is not bound by the units roll, as that isnt how 5th edition worked for ICs during the Attacks part of close combat. The negative would be required to take the IC out of being bound by the units result (the IC must test separately and is not bound by the rest of the units result) is what is required. Of course, in 5th this would have been a nonsense rule, as the IC never had a "rest of unit" to worry about when this rule would activate.

Citation required to show tht "the unit is bound" excludes the IC from "unit". Note; the parens does not do this.

Page and paragraph as to where a new definition of unit is created

It wasnt presumptuous. I pointed out for each argument you made why it was rwrong. You then ignored that response, and carried on.

Greyknight - I am not ignoring that rule one jot. You are ignoring that the unit is composed of BoP+IC, and nothing excludes the IC from that definition of unit - unlike for VPs in Purge the Alien, for example.

Again: you are attempting to shoehorn a rule written for an entirely different editions combat mechanic into 6th and say it still operates. It doesnt. That is absolutely clear - the rule requires the IC, as a member of the unti for ALL RULES PURPOSES, to be bound by the result, while still being able to test separately. Now, the intention is probably clear - especially as they cannot use his Ld to test, even if he is the one activating it (GKGM with halberd, for example, warpspeed libby, etc) - however you are amusingly still arguing a rule despite having no written argument against it. You have nothing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:...once again deleted interesting, though amusingly unsubstantiated opinions regarding the veracy of my argument which fails to specifically address the content within them......you are attempting to shoehorn a rule written for an entirely different editions combat mechanic into 6th and say it still operates. It doesnt. That is absolutely clear - the rule requires the IC, as a member of the unti for ALL RULES PURPOSES, to be bound by the result, while still being able to test separately. Now, the intention is probably clear - especially as they cannot use his Ld to test, even if he is the one activating it (GKGM with halberd, for example, warpspeed libby, etc) - however you are still arguing a rule...

What part of "if the test is failed... ...then there is no additional effect." and "...independant characters must still roll (their test) seperately..." is tripping you up? These are actual rules, quoted from the actual codex and 6th edition main book. It's not the first time i've referenced either one, for that matter. They clearly (again, i cannot stress this enough) state that the IC must be treated independantly from the rest of the unit for this specific purpose in order for the rules to be fulfilled as written.

You cannot both have a IC be bound to the results of their own force activation 'and' bound to the results of an exclusive (and potentially opposite) one. To read such via your 'interpretation' is to invite sophistry like an non-psychic inquisitor having an activated force weapon solely by virtue of being a part of a unit with the contested rule when the initiative step came to activate 'their' weapons.

So, you have answered the points 1,2 & 3 above? Point it out please, I must have missed it.

Nothing has tripped me up. Given your inability to answer the specific points I raised, without simply repeating the rules I have already shown do not say what you repeatedly assert (as in, without any proof you are making claims that are unsupported in text) I will leave you to your condescension.

In short - provide a real counter. You have yet to do so.

Tell you what, i'll humour you and answer your 3 points even more clearly than i have up to this point. In return, please feel free to address why you think essentially ignoring the independant character exceptions in the BoP and NSF rules is RAW.

nosferatu wrote:1) The unit not being able to use the Ld of any attached ICs != the IC is not a member of the unit
2) ICs must test separately != the IC is not a member of the unit
3) if the test is failed.... != the IC is not a member of the unit

1) The IC is a normal member of the unit. It however uses it's own leadership for Psychic checks (as per the normal rules for Psykers) instead of that of the unit. in fact, the Leadership of the IC cannot be used for the Psychic checks required for BoP to function.
2) The IC is a normal member of the unit. It is however given a specific exception to test seperately instead of having to abide by the test of the unit.
2) The IC is a normal member of the unit. It however has to follow the results of it's own Psychic test even if they are different than the BoP units psychic test.

You cannot treat the IC as a normal member of the unit bound to all the rules that you keep insisting that the unit is bound by. Why? Because those very rules list a few exceptions that the IC must follow instead. You know what else lists exceptions that an IC must follow? The Independant character rules in general, but this phrase specifically: "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."

Neo, arguing with Nos is pointless. His goal is to find supposedly "broken" rules and beat posters over the head with them. In this case, Nos happens to be wrong, yet he will never admit it.

We've shown the correct sequence the NFW rule works through over the various unit compositions one can have with NFW activation. No need to feed the trolls at this point.

SJ

Jeffersonian - please fllow the tenets, helpfully stickied at the top of the forum. You have so far provided no argument, an d jst another personal attack. Reported.

Neo - So it is "humouring" to actually answer the points raised? Amusing.

One. So you agree that your initial point does NOT show that the IC is not a member of the unit? Because that was your contention.

Two - he still has to abide, as it just reminds you he must test separatelym, as a reminder that in 5th he was not a member of the unit. Which, of course, has changed in 6th. You continually ignore this, which is also highly amusing . Again, try to actually answer what the rules as actually WRITTEN say, not as how you are attempting to interpret them.

Three - again, you have made yet another logical leap. The rules do not say "It however has to follow the results of it's own Psychic test even if they are different than the BoP units psychic test. ", that is something you have simply made up.

Again, real written rules disagree with your assertions. You can keep on making ruleless assertions, with no rules backing, anbd I will keep pointing this out.

nosferatu1001 wrote:One. So you agree that your initial point does NOT show that the IC is not a member of the unit? Because that was your contention.

Now i may be getting senile in my old age or somesuch, so could you do me a favour? quote the post where i said that? (that the IC is not a member of the unit) Thanks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Three - again, you have made yet another logical leap. The rules do not say "It however has to follow the results of it's own Psychic test even if they are different than the BoP units psychic test. ", that is something you have simply made up.

Really? So the IC does 'not' have to follow the results of it's own Psychic test? Or is what you are saying that it has to follow both somehow? Perhaps you can explain to me what the effects an activated 'and' unactivated force weapon has then? For example if the IC fails his test, but the BoP unit succeeds at theirs.

Furthermore, how do you reconcile this: "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. " with how you claim BoP works?

And Nos, while you're at it, answer this one (which I posted above; it was ignored).

The USR BoP (in the BRB) says: "A unit with this special rule counts as a Mastery Level 1 Psyker." Since the word "unit" is used, does that mean that my Level 2 Tzeentch Herald becomes part of the Level 1 BoP Horrors when he joins them, and thus unable to cast his own powers?

Neo - you stated that there was a new context where "unit" did not mean "BRB unit" but "those models with the BoP rule". You said it repeatedly, and then posted up "1)" as proof. I pointed out it did not actually state that.

"The IC is a member of the unit"- yes or no.

If YES then the IC is bound by the result of the test, because that is what the literal rule states.

Please answer the quesiton, and prove that "is bound by" means "apart from when I decide they arent"

Elric - off topic hence ignored. This is not the same situation, so desist or make a new thread (note that there is entirely different wording here)

codex GK tells you to test for force weapons seperatly for the unit and IC's attached
being part of a unit, does not make you THE unit,

or do you think that powers the psyker can cast only on himself (who in your opinion is THE unit) now affect unit en masse? because I would LOVE to reroll all hits, wounds, and saves when i get lucky on divination.

and that is exactly the kind of illegal shenanigains you support by, wrongly, equating being part of the unit to being THE unit.

besides codex GK overides BRB, and it tells you to take a seperate test for the IC and for the unit

end of story,

its very clear and obvious from codex GK that the IC and the unit test seperately, with neither test affecting the other.

the BRB changing from 5th to 6th doesnt change codex GK at all in this respect, and its just inventing confusion where none actually exists

I think the others have shown Nos to be interpreting only parts of the rules as a whole that fit with his argument. Neo and others have quoted broader and specific RAW that refute Nos's assertions. I go with Neo's RAW.. But that's just my $.02 (which aint worth much...)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Elric - off topic hence ignored. This is not the same situation

Alright, here's a different (same?) example for you to wrestle with, using one of the rules in question--C:GK Brotherhood of Psykers.

The GK BoP: "A Grey Knight unit can use one psychic power each turn." Since the word "unit" is used, does the Libby who joins a GK Termie squad lose his Mastery Levels and thus become unable to cast his own powers?

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Elric - off topic hence ignored. This is not the same situation, so desist or make a new thread (note that there is entirely different wording here)

Actually Nosferatu, he is entirely ON-topic and his point is very relevant to this situation. If you read the entirety of the rules quoted for you in numerous posts above, you'll see that you are incorrect. I haven't seen you respond to any of those RAW quotes yet. You just keep reposting the same parsed excerpts from one line and treating it as if it is the rule in it's entirety...

This discussion seems to be pretty clear-cut to me, which is a bit surprising... The quotes provided from the relevant rules define this nicely... Thanks guys... I'll have to remember this one.