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.

rigeld2 wrote:

The IC is a member of the non-Psyker unit for all rules purposes. (IC special rule) You're attempting to treat him as a Psyker unit for a rules purpose.
Please cite permission to do so.

I don't need to. No ruling states that the Psyker unit ever ceases to be a Psyker unit, whether he is in a mixed unit or solo, therefore he is a Psyker unit at all times for game purposes.

Can you cite anything to say otherwise?

(We both know the answer)

The rest of your post has been answered by me and others numerous times, simply scroll back and read for yourself, wasting too much time repeating myself as it is.

Zodiark wrote:
Here you would apply the ruling for mixed units, which combines multiple unit types, one Psyker with none Psykers, this has been discussed, you simply disagree because it's "game breaking"

What ruling? Is there one explaining this that I missed?

False. He cannot stop being a Psyker unit, this is in effect game breaking. There is nothing within the rules in any way that states that you can take away a units type. The unit he joins with would not be a Psyker unit, it would be a mixed unit, also discussed earlier.

If he's no longer a unit, how can he be. Psyker unit?

Not to mention there is no ruling to allow you to remove a units type. Independent Character is a Special Rule as was mentioned earlier, it is not a unit type. Therefore he remains a Psyker unit for all rules purposes, but he loses the IC Special Rule when he joins a unit. (Though I use the word lose loosely as it stays with the unit, but the mixed units rules take precedence)

No, the IC never loses the IC special rule. That has no basis in fact.
He is, however, no longer a unit. This has been proven.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

The IC is a member of the non-Psyker unit for all rules purposes. (IC special rule) You're attempting to treat him as a Psyker unit for a rules purpose.
Please cite permission to do so.

I don't need to. No ruling states that the Psyker unit ever ceases to be a Psyker unit, whether he is in a mixed unit or solo, therefore he is a Psyker unit at all times for game purposes.

Can you cite anything to say otherwise?

(We both know the answer)

The rest of your post has been answered by me and others numerous times, simply scroll back and read for yourself, wasting too much time repeating myself as it is.

If he isn't a unit any longer, he cannot be a Psyker unit.
And no - you've literally never proven your macro/mini unit theory. So there's nothing to scroll back to read.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Here you would apply the ruling for mixed units, which combines multiple unit types, one Psyker with none Psykers, this has been discussed, you simply disagree because it's "game breaking"

What ruling? Is there one explaining this that I missed?

False. He cannot stop being a Psyker unit, this is in effect game breaking. There is nothing within the rules in any way that states that you can take away a units type. The unit he joins with would not be a Psyker unit, it would be a mixed unit, also discussed earlier.

If he's no longer a unit, how can he be. Psyker unit?

Not to mention there is no ruling to allow you to remove a units type. Independent Character is a Special Rule as was mentioned earlier, it is not a unit type. Therefore he remains a Psyker unit for all rules purposes, but he loses the IC Special Rule when he joins a unit. (Though I use the word lose loosely as it stays with the unit, but the mixed units rules take precedence)

No, the IC never loses the IC special rule. That has no basis in fact.
He is, however, no longer a unit. This has been proven.

1. As there is no rule stating that a Psyker unit joined with another unit, forming a mixed unit stops being a Psyker unit, which would by default make the unit no longer a mixed unit as a mixed unit is defined as a units with multiple unit type, he is still a Psyker unit within the mixed unit.
2. I clarified, he does not lose IC rule, it is super ceded by the rules for the unit he joins.
3. There has been no proof, from the BRB that states that he is no longer a unit. Again, this is what a mixed unit is for, a unit composed of multiple unit types.
4. What you are doing is interpreting rules, not reading them for what they are. This is RAI and possibly HYWPI. As there are no rules stating the opposite, this is the best you can do. You cannot claim RAW written RAW does not remove the Psyker units unit type within a mixed unit. He retains it, otherwise mixed unit type is redundant.
5. Why are we still arguing about this? Seriously though, you'll never convince me because I have rules backing me up and I'll never convince you because you think you have rules backing you up. Can't we agree to disagree?
6. Read my posts again, repeating myself is exhausting

If he isn't a unit any longer, he cannot be a Psyker unit.

Exactly how did you determine this as there is no rule that takes away him being a Psyker unit? The unit he joins becomes a MIXED unit, you know what mixed means yes? This means a unit with multiple unit types which allows for him to be a Psyker unit while being in a unit of something else, for example Tactical Marine units. He would not join a squad of Tactical Marines Units and cease to be a Psyker unit, he would be a Psyker unit MIXED with a squad of Tactical Marines units. Any dispute of this is illogical and not RAW but HYWPI

Exactly how did you determine this as there is no rule that takes away him being a Psyker unit?

A psyker unit is a unit with the psyker rule. If the IC is no longer a unit, then he is no longer a psyker unit.

The unit he joins becomes a MIXED unit, you know what mixed means yes? This means a unit with multiple unit types which allows for him to be a Psyker unit while being in a unit of something else, for example Tactical Marine units.

No such thing exists in the Warhammer 40000 rules.

 insaniak wrote:

Exactly how did you determine this as there is no rule that takes away him being a Psyker unit?

A psyker unit is a unit with the psyker rule. If the IC is no longer a unit, then he is no longer a psyker unit.

The unit he joins becomes a MIXED unit, you know what mixed means yes? This means a unit with multiple unit types which allows for him to be a Psyker unit while being in a unit of something else, for example Tactical Marine units.

No such thing exists in the Warhammer 40000 rules.

1. No ruling states that he no longer is a Psyker unit and you cannot prove otherwise. As RAW supports my assertion as it answers in the positive, you must prove a negative.
2. Mixed units is a concept in the game, otherwise people would not be using it consistently, maybe it isn't where you play but you have no rule citation proving otherwise.

Also, I just remembered something.

You are not an authority on the BRB at all, you are a forum moderator, you are not an expert on the game but a player so anything you say on the RAW is merely an opinion until you can quote exact rulings.

Now while it has no place in YMDC which is an OPINION forum and nothing more, the veterans, shop-keepers and employees of the company who help enforce rules and help those understand them, supersedes everything but the BRB itself and so far, nothing they have said violates this, where as everything you have said does, which means, I'm done with you as you cannot contribute a valid answer that is based on FACTS.

Stepping away from the discussion before some hot-headed individual reports/bans me for posting a disagreement or an interpreted rude statement.

But I'll leave you with this.

If you are going to discuss rules and ever answer in the negative, you need EXPLICIT statements of a negative to dispute something that is RAW, otherwise your answer is invalidated because you cannot dispute what is written. Just an FYI.

Now, have a nice day!

Zodiark,
The arguments are not because of ground breaking status, I am sure the vast majority of us would never dream of denying an opponent a warp point based on this loophole. The problem is that this loophole does exist because there is a Black Hole when it comes to some of the concepts found in the Psyker section. The central cause of this error was making a Rule depending on if a Unit has a Special Rule, something which is found at the "Model Level," and then writing every other Rule based off that concept. As there are no official instructions telling us how to define what a Unit consists of, other then Models, we run into problems when certain clauses require a Unit of X.

Hell this isn't even the first we have seen this exact same problem, Mixed Units have always caused these sorts of issues so why should Mixed Units of Psykers be any different!

If we every are given a definition that would let us define what Mixed Unit consists of, it would probably be along the lines of 'A Unit containing a Model with the Special Rule is a X Unit' and nothing more. While that solves some issues, a very few I might add, it still doesn't correct the basic problem of having Model Specific clauses written into the Unit level. I, personally, have little hope that we will see an Answer provided that corrects not just this problem but a great deal of other Rules which run afoul of Mixed Units. The above would fail to do it, even for Psykers which it would probably be trying to address directly, as there will still be Unit level Restriction dependent on Model specific factors. ch things.

Right now:
The definition of Psyker Unit is far to restrictive....

 insaniak wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
However, does IC Psyker also stop being a Psyker Unit when he joins a squad?

Yes. Probably.

A Psyker unit is a unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood rule. So the question becomes: Is a unit that consists of one model with the Psyker rule and a bunch of other models without the Psyker rule a 'unit with the Psyker rule'?


Edit - So to be clearer: Yes, the IC is no longer a Psyker unit. The IC combined with the unit he joined may be a Psyker Unit, depending on personal interpretation until GW FAQ it.

Okay I see now. This becomes pretty broken and complicated for my Seer Council. GW please FAQ this nightmare! Until then, I will play the RAI as detailed above, seems pretty legit/fair.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
However, does IC Psyker also stop being a Psyker Unit when he joins a squad?

Yes. Probably.

A Psyker unit is a unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood rule. So the question becomes: Is a unit that consists of one model with the Psyker rule and a bunch of other models without the Psyker rule a 'unit with the Psyker rule'?


Edit - So to be clearer: Yes, the IC is no longer a Psyker unit. The IC combined with the unit he joined may be a Psyker Unit, depending on personal interpretation until GW FAQ it.

Okay I see now. This becomes pretty broken and complicated for my Seer Council. GW please FAQ this nightmare! Until then, I will play the RAI as detailed above, seems pretty legit/fair.

I would suggest you don't unless playing with friends or unless this is how shops near you play. I know all the shops near me play it the way I have been describing as there is a debate. Better to keep an open mind and ask, rather than insisting one is right or wrong. The RAW are quite clear, just a disagreement in the understanding.

You've said over and over to cite a rule. I've cited a perfectly good example multiple times showing that he is no longer a unit of one model, because he ONCE AGAIN BECOMES A UNIT OF ONE MODEL IN THE FOLLOWING PHASE.

How can he "once again become" a unit of one i he already is one? You've never answered this.

emmagine wrote:
You've said over and over to cite a rule. I've cited a perfectly good example multiple times showing that he is no longer a unit of one model, because he ONCE AGAIN BECOMES A UNIT OF ONE MODEL IN THE FOLLOWING PHASE.

How can he "once again become" a unit of one i he already is one? You've never answered this.

And he won't. I've asked him 2-3 times and he usually comes back with some micro/macro unit theory that's completely and utterly unsupported by actual rules (you can tell because none are cited) and asserts it as RAW.

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

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

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

Any help would be appreciative.

People citing RAW to answer in the negative need to cite a negative within the rules on principal, otherwise their argument then becomes "No, because I say so."

When a ruling in the BRB does not state a negative, you assume the positive. You do not look at a positive and assume a negative. Now in the absence of a negative, to the original poster and to him alone I answer, the Psyker would never lose his Psyker unit classification whether he is solo, in a mixed unit of non psykers or in a unit of BoP specifically because the BRB does not state that he does. The BRB states that his rules are determined by the unit he is in but him being a Psyker unit is not a rule at all, its a classification of a model within the game and unless there is a specific rule that states a negative to this, you must assume the positive as logic dictates.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, needs to quote an exact ruling answering in the negative as logic and the rules of debate dictates.

Now if you need more clarification, my best advice to you, don't take it to the forums, take it to the places you play at as their rules will trump any interpretation of the rules you find as house rules trump in nearly all circumstances.

For me, literally everywhere I play and every player I have come across count a Psyker within a mixed unit as a Psyker unit because it is a mixed unit. Many people disagree with this statement, but not a single one of them can quote a rule from the text citing a negative and as stated earlier, if you cannot cite a negative, you must assume the positive.

Once again, this is likely how many, including myself, would play it.

It is not a position supported by RAW.

 azreal13 wrote:
Once again, this is likely how many, including myself, would play it.

It is not a position supported by RAW.

For the final time. As there is nothing answering in the negative you interpret the RAW as a positive which makes it RAW. Until something comes along and states otherwise it is RAW, you can call it whatever you like but it is RAW.

No RAW is what is written. If you are taking something which is not mentioned as RAW, that would explain much of your argument.

 azreal13 wrote:
No RAW is what is written. If you are taking something which is not mentioned as RAW, that would explain much of your argument.

I'm not, I am taking RAW and as there is nothing answering in the negative, immediately moving onto the positive. This is how you analyze rules in a game, any other way of doing this is strictly HYWPI.

Moving on now.

Have a nice day!

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No RAW is what is written. If you are taking something which is not mentioned as RAW, that would explain much of your argument.

I'm not, I am taking RAW and as there is nothing answering in the negative, immediately moving onto the positive. This is how you analyze rules in a game, any other way of doing this is strictly HYWPI.

Moving on now.

Have a nice day!

Except the point I made.

emmagine wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No RAW is what is written. If you are taking something which is not mentioned as RAW, that would explain much of your argument.

I'm not, I am taking RAW and as there is nothing answering in the negative, immediately moving onto the positive. This is how you analyze rules in a game, any other way of doing this is strictly HYWPI.

Moving on now.

Have a nice day!

Except the point I made.

Except that the point you made does not state anywhere in it that the Psyker unit ceases to be a Psyker unit. He ceases to be an IC but there is not a rule anywhere in the BRB that takes away from a Psyker its status as a Psyker unit. Any claim otherwise needs to be backed up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

emmagine wrote:
You've said over and over to cite a rule. I've cited a perfectly good example multiple times showing that he is no longer a unit of one model, because he ONCE AGAIN BECOMES A UNIT OF ONE MODEL IN THE FOLLOWING PHASE.

How can he "once again become" a unit of one i he already is one? You've never answered this.

He joins a unit, ceases to be one model. He does not cease to be a Psyker unit. Nothing in the rules states this.

Question answered.

Except he is considered to be part of the unit he joins "for all rules purposes."

Where does it say a model can simultaneously be part of and not be part of a unit, I must have missed it?

That's not even what it says. it says "he once again becomes a unit of one model" This means he was not a unit of one model before. You can't change the wording to suit your argument.

 azreal13 wrote:
Except he is considered to be part of the unit he joins "for all rules purposes."

Where does it say a model can simultaneously be part of and not be part of a unit, I must have missed it?

I never said he is part of both, I said he never loses the classification of Psyker unit. The RAW does not state that him joining a unit removes this unit type.

The way you guys have stated in this discussion, a Psyker in a mixed unit of non Psykers is unable to generate WC or cast Psychic Powers. I ask then, what is the point of joining them together if it makes the unit useless? It is illogical and makes no sense within the context of the game.

Not to mention the rules don't state anywhere that it stop being a Psyker. Does a Company Master cease to be a Company Master if it joins a unit? Does a Warlord? Does a biker? Btw that's a no for all those examples. Their unit type never goes away at all. They are considered part of another unit, but it never states that they lose their own unit status.

A further example.

You can have, in one unit, in a transport a Psyker with non-psykers and still generate WC and use powers. I have found nothing in the BRB that states you cannot do this, the same with the above statements. Until a direct rule states otherwise, this is a legal maneuver.

What you are doing is interpreting it a different way because you see the wording as vague and unclear when it is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

emmagine wrote:
That's not even what it says. it says "he once again becomes a unit of one model" This means he was not a unit of one model before. You can't change the wording to suit your argument.

Dude I copied and pasted your post into my reply, I didn't edit it lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

See this quote right here.

I never stated that he counts as both an independent unit and a member of a second unit. I said he does not lose his status as a Psyker unit, because he does not.

Read better

Zodiark wrote:
Except that the point you made does not state anywhere in it that the Psyker unit ceases to be a Psyker unit. He ceases to be an IC but there is not a rule anywhere in the BRB that takes away from a Psyker its status as a Psyker unit. Any claim otherwise needs to be backed up.

That's incorrect - he never ceases to be an IC.
He does cease to be a unit however, and you've not answered how something can be a Psyker unit while not being a unit.

emmagine wrote:
You've said over and over to cite a rule. I've cited a perfectly good example multiple times showing that he is no longer a unit of one model, because he ONCE AGAIN BECOMES A UNIT OF ONE MODEL IN THE FOLLOWING PHASE.

How can he "once again become" a unit of one i he already is one? You've never answered this.

He joins a unit, ceases to be one model. He does not cease to be a Psyker unit. Nothing in the rules states this.

Question answered.

So you're just refusing to actually answer it? He does cease to be a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:

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

See this quote right here.

I never stated that he counts as both an independent unit and a member of a second unit. I said he does not lose his status as a Psyker unit, because he does not.

Read better

How can something that isn't an independent unit be a Psyker Unit? Have you found a definition in the rules for this creation of yours?

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Except he is considered to be part of the unit he joins "for all rules purposes."

Where does it say a model can simultaneously be part of and not be part of a unit, I must have missed it?

I never said he is part of both, I said he never loses the classification of Psyker unit. The RAW does not state that him joining a unit removes this unit type.

Unit type is "Infantry" or "Cavalry" or "Vehicle, Walker." Psyker is not a unit type, it is a special rule.

The way you guys have stated in this discussion, a Psyker in a mixed unit of non Psykers is unable to generate WC or cast Psychic Powers. I ask then, what is the point of joining them together if it makes the unit useless? It is illogical and makes no sense within the context of the game.

Exactly. We're not saying it should be played this way, we're just highlighting the fact that GW's rules writing is so fething dumb that if taken literally, this is, in fact, the case.

Not to mention the rules don't state anywhere that it stop being a Psyker. Does a Company Master cease to be a Company Master if it joins a unit? Does a Warlord? Does a biker? Btw that's a no for all those examples. Their unit type never goes away at all. They are considered part of another unit, but it never states that they lose their own unit status.

Of those, only "bike" is actually a unit type, all the other things are merely descriptor. And no, a bike does not cease to be a bike, but as mentioned "Psyker" is not a unit type.

A further example.

You can have, in one unit, in a transport a Psyker with non-psykers and still generate WC and use powers. I have found nothing in the BRB that states you cannot do this, the same with the above statements. Until a direct rule states otherwise, this is a legal maneuver.

Except for the fact that the unit does not have the special rule "Psyker" and once joined, the IC is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes, and while he does not lose the special rule "Psyker" it is not a rule that has permssion to be conferred onto the rest of the unit like some (eg Stealth) Therefore, while the IC remains a Psyker, the unit he is part of is not, and because the rules for generating warp charge etc. specify "Psyker unit" he is invisible for the purposes of calculating WC and choosing a caster for the manifestation of a power.

What you are doing is interpreting it a different way because you see the wording as vague and unclear when it is not.

No, what we are doing is highlighting how dumb the way the rules are expressed is. The removal of the word "unit" in the rules would solve all these issues.

Trying to follow this I'm left wondering,

as the psyker special rule isn't transfered to "the unit" Then if a IC psyker joins a unit, wouldn't the IC cease to be a psyker unit? Because the unit wouldn't have the psyker rule. As it's not a psyker unit it wouldn't generate warp charges, nor be able to use psychic powers.

strictly RAW speaking.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Trying to follow this I'm left wondering,

as the psyker special rule isn't transfered to "the unit" Then if a IC psyker joins a unit, wouldn't the IC cease to be a psyker unit? Because the unit wouldn't have the psyker rule. As it's not a psyker unit it wouldn't generate warp charges, nor be able to use psychic powers.

strictly RAW speaking.

Yes, according to the rules, that's what were pointing out.
Zodiark is pretending the rules don't say that, without presenting any evidence to support his point and calling it RAW.

Under Unit Types, last sentence before Characters heading.

"In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type category a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relevant codex or Army List Entry."

Subheading Character and Moving as well as Character and Shooting.

"Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in."

"Characters shoot just like ordinary models of their type, although they sometimes have a better Ballistic Skill or exotic weaponry that sets them apart."

Everything else in the Character section goes on to talk about assaults and challenges in which you would resolve your characters stats using their own profile and not the unit they are a part of.

Now, nothing in that section says anything about a character losing its unit type. It simply joins another unit.

Your argument is that a single unit cannot have multiple units types i.e., you cannot both be a Psyker unit and be a part of another unit. Yet there is no rule backing this up anywhere within the text. It is simply an assumption as has been pointed out and something that "breaks the game"

My argument. A units type cannot be modified by the rules unless specifically stated. Meaning, a Psyker unit joins another unit, he becomes a part of that unit, but he does not cease to be a Psyker unit as, "unit type is essentially an [b]extension of the characteristic profile"

To modify anything here you need explicit rulings stating that you can, if you do not have them you cannot modify this.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Trying to follow this I'm left wondering,

as the psyker special rule isn't transfered to "the unit" Then if a IC psyker joins a unit, wouldn't the IC cease to be a psyker unit? Because the unit wouldn't have the psyker rule. As it's not a psyker unit it wouldn't generate warp charges, nor be able to use psychic powers.

strictly RAW speaking.

No because Psyker is not just a rule, it is a unit type and a unit type will not be modified unless specifically said so by a rule which there isn't one.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Trying to follow this I'm left wondering,

as the psyker special rule isn't transfered to "the unit" Then if a IC psyker joins a unit, wouldn't the IC cease to be a psyker unit? Because the unit wouldn't have the psyker rule. As it's not a psyker unit it wouldn't generate warp charges, nor be able to use psychic powers.

strictly RAW speaking.

Yes, according to the rules, that's what were pointing out.
Zodiark is pretending the rules don't say that, without presenting any evidence to support his point and calling it RAW.

I have supported my point numerous times quoting rules, you have not. You are arguing Special Rules, I am arguing UNIT TYPES. Nothing modifies them unless a rule states that it can.

Now, in the section of the rulebook entitled "Unit Types" show me where it lists "Psyker" as a unit type.

Because I've got Infantry, Artillery, Bikes, Jump and Jet Pack troops, all sorts but.....nope, no "Psyker."

 azreal13 wrote:
Now, in the section of the rulebook entitled "Unit Types" show me where it lists "Psyker" as a unit type.

Because I've got Infantry, Artillery, Bikes, Jump and Jet Pack troops, all sorts but.....nope, no "Psyker."

And this is where I tell you to go to an authority on the subject because obviously you are entirely missing the point.

Remember, this is a theory crafting forum, I'm arguing facts with rule and GW backing, you are arguing opinion. GW authority may not be respected here, but that is simply rude and plain slowed considering they make the rules.

Now, I'm out, I have better things to do.

Officially this time because there is no hope for you

Please stop writing "I'm out" after every post, or at least make it your sig and save yourself some time.



Here's the CSM codex page with the Sorcerer entry.

See that bit where it says "Unit Type"

Kindly explain where the word Psyker is?

Oh look, there it is, down with all the other entries for special rules.

Your whole argument is based on something that is demonstrably false, or, alternatively, were you to be correct, no Psyker exists in the game, because no unit has the unit type "Psyker"

Which is it?

@Zodiark

Look under special rules, that's where you find psyker & psychic pilot.

A model with this special rule is a psyker.

I'll leave you guys to hash this one out, I was just trying to make sure I understood all of what I had read so far.

Zodiark wrote:
Under Unit Types, last sentence before Characters heading.

I'm going to stop you here - there isn't a unit type of "Psyker Unit" so quoting these rules is meaningless.

Your argument is that a single unit cannot have multiple units types i.e., you cannot both be a Psyker unit and be a part of another unit. Yet there is no rule backing this up anywhere within the text. It is simply an assumption as has been pointed out and something that "breaks the game"

No, that's not my argument, although I'm not surprised that's your understanding of it.
Unit Types are, amusingly, a model based rule and not lost when joining another unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Trying to follow this I'm left wondering,

as the psyker special rule isn't transfered to "the unit" Then if a IC psyker joins a unit, wouldn't the IC cease to be a psyker unit? Because the unit wouldn't have the psyker rule. As it's not a psyker unit it wouldn't generate warp charges, nor be able to use psychic powers.

strictly RAW speaking.

Yes, according to the rules, that's what were pointing out.
Zodiark is pretending the rules don't say that, without presenting any evidence to support his point and calling it RAW.

I have supported my point numerous times quoting rules, you have not. You are arguing Special Rules, I am arguing UNIT TYPES. Nothing modifies them unless a rule states that it can.

This is literally the first time you've brought up unit types to my knowledge.
Unit types are absolutely irrelevant because Psyker is not a unit type - it's a special rule. Which is why I'm discussing special rules.