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.

Happyjew wrote:Of course it is also possible (I don't think it likely) that the 'Psyker" that AS refers to is the model named "Psyker" (aka Inquisitorial Psyker)

It specifically states "Psyker" so for that to be true the unit would have to be named "Psyker" not "Inquisitorial Psyker"

I mean I would agree with you with this supposition in this part

Happyjew wrote:Of course it is also possible (I don't think it likely) that the 'Psyker" that AS refers to is the model named "Psyker"

But how is "Psyker" = "Inquisitorial Psyker"? From a rules point of view

Honestly, this is all over a character not used that frequently. I would argue anyone that has a Psychic power would be considered a Psyker. If they have a special rule that changes the stance I would agree to it such as the Brotherhood of Psykers has a special rule that the unit is counted as only 1 psyker.

My theory would be
1) do they have a Psychic power?
2) do they have the Psychic special rule?

If either then the AS gets a +1.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, in "short" it is 100% clear

The unit entry does not contain the "PSYKER" special rule, so they are not, individually, psykers.

Only if you ignore this simple fact can you come to any other conclusion. The ONLY thing that lets them use any psychic power at all is ALSO the rule that says they are only one psyker

You can also claim that because they are "Psykers" in name that they are therefore "psykers" in rules, however in that case Heavy flamers are now Heavy

But...they are, aren't they?

Morpheus wrote:Honestly, this is all over a character not used that frequently. I would argue anyone that has a Psychic power would be considered a Psyker. If they have a special rule that changes the stance I would agree to it such as the Brotherhood of Psykers has a special rule that the unit is counted as only 1 psyker.

My theory would be
1) do they have a Psychic power?
2) do they have the Psychic special rule?

If either then the AS gets a +1.

Then what the is the psyker special rule for? The looks?

Nope, there are some units with they Psyker special rule but do not use the Psyker rules. Warlocks for example.

jgehunter wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Of course it is also possible (I don't think it likely) that the 'Psyker" that AS refers to is the model named "Psyker"

But how is "Psyker" = "Inquisitorial Psyker"? From a rules point of view

There is no such thing as "Inquisitorial Psyker." The model in the Grey Knights codex is simply called "Psyker." Hence where the wording becomes an issue.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:But...they are, aren't they?

Are you talking about Heavy Flamers? They are Assault weapons, not Heavy weapons.

Unlike the Assault Cannon, which is a Heavy weapon, not an Assault weapon.

I also got quite confused last time they released the FAQ for GK's and expanded what I thought was the definition for plasma weapons. Lots of things that I had no idea were plasma at all except in their fluff description fell under that change so it spawned all sorts of ideas.

personally our local plays that each vehicle is a psyker. Again, we can agree to disagree but that's what we've done since everything fits nicely and we've had dealt with furioso librians for some time we had no problems using vehicles as psykers. Also the assasin is pretty bad otherwise so no one really uses him much anyway so it's not like we're fixated on this all the time.

Xca|iber wrote:

jgehunter wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Of course it is also possible (I don't think it likely) that the 'Psyker" that AS refers to is the model named "Psyker"

But how is "Psyker" = "Inquisitorial Psyker"? From a rules point of view

There is no such thing as "Inquisitorial Psyker." The model in the Grey Knights codex is simply called "Psyker." Hence where the wording becomes an issue.

My bad, I have to recognize I haven't read the codex and just read the thread and thought they were named like that

Morpheus wrote:Nope, there are some units with they Psyker special rule but do not use the Psyker rules. Warlocks for example.

How so? The Eldar Codex says quite clearly they are a psyker and they have a psychic ability, what am I missing?

Probably the fact that Warlock powers are always active, and do not need to roll to use them.

OK fair enough, he does have a psychic special rule tho' albeit a slightly different one.

Though of course to be fair, Farseers and Warlocks do not have the Psyker rule per se. They have a rule called "Psychic/Warlock Powers" which claims they are psykers. Though that will probably change when the next Codex comes out.

Morpheus wrote:Nope I am just arguing that anyone using the Psyker rules is a Psyker.

Good job the unit entry doesnt say they are, meaning your argument lacks any actual rules.

Especialy given they went out of their way to point out that the unit is only EVER a single psyker. Its almost like they didnt want a full squad adding 10 shots. Hmm, who would have thought....

Where does it say they are only ever considered a single Psyker ?

GK Codex, Page 51:
"All psykers in the same unit are treated as a single psyker for the purposes of Psychic tests, etc, and use their own Leadership value, not that of any attached characters."

I agree, it's the "etc." which shows damn sloppy/lazy writing. I can actually see both sides of the argument here and agree that a houserule would need to be made if/until GW FAQs it.

I agree with you agnosto and my doubt is heightened by the rule for the Brotherhood of Psykers on Page 21 that makes the simple statement "the unit counts as a single psyker" and makes no further qualification, no "etc"

Why says etc when you mean to say in all cases?

Lazy writer syndrome. A classic failing of GW.

That would have a significant impact on the Rules As Written I'd have thought.

What? The fact that they didn't finish writing the rules?

Because in this case "etc" does cover "all cases"

You ask - are they a psyker? You look at the special rule, which is the only thing that lets them use any psychic powers at all, and see that yes, they are a psyker - a single one, for any purpose.

Etc means "and other similar items" so it applies to things which are similar to psychic tests which I'd reckon is a long way from all cases.

OK then - find a rule saying they are more than one psyker for the purpose of AS.

YOu cant, so theyre not.

Page 51 of the GK Codex

"For every Psyker within 12" of the Culexus Assassin, add +1 to the animus speculum's Assault value."

Can't get much more clear than that I'd have thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IcyCool wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:But...they are, aren't they?

Are you talking about Heavy Flamers? They are Assault weapons, not Heavy weapons.

Unlike the Assault Cannon, which is a Heavy weapon, not an Assault weapon.

Your confusing adjectives and nouns.

A Heavy Flamer, Light Flamer, Blue Flamer and Paper Flamer are all Flamers.

Sanctioned Psyker, Primaris Psyker and Psyker are all Psykers.

Magpie - theyre Psykers, not a Psyker. They dont have the Psyker special rule, meaning they are not a Psyker.

Scouts and Scout do not refer to the same USR as they are spelled differently

The Psykers do not have the Psyker special rule themselves, so are not a Psyker for the purposes of AS. 100% crystal clear

They are a SINGLE psyker for a number of reasons, so at best they are a single psyker for the purposes of AS. Again, doesnt get much simpler than that

If you are saying the name of the unit determines its special rule, then you are saying a Heavy Flamer is now a Heavy 1 weapon. Good luck with that.

Page 51 GK Codex : Psyker no "s"

the rule for the AS says "every Psyker within 12" "

All psykers are considered a single psyker for Psychic tests, etc (and other things like that). Enhancing the number of attacks of the AS is in no way similar to a Psychic test.

Throwing in sarcastic bollocks about flamers has no relevance at all, sarcasm rarely does.

So the name of the unit defines its special rule? Psykers /= Psyker

HEavy flamers are definitely heavy in Magpie land then.

They dont have the special rule Psyker, so are not a Psyker for the purpose of the AS. Cant get any more simple than that. AT BEST they are a single psyker, depending on how you decide to interpret "etc"

So, since it specifies 'Psykers' and Warlocks/Farseers are psykers (no Psyker rule), does that meant hey will not add to the number of shots?

nosferatu1001 wrote:So the name of the unit defines its special rule? Psykers /= Psyker

HEavy flamers are definitely heavy in Magpie land then.

They dont have the special rule Psyker, so are not a Psyker for the purpose of the AS. Cant get any more simple than that. AT BEST they are a single psyker, depending on how you decide to interpret "etc"

So Daemon Princes aren't Daemons now? Since they don't have the Daemon Special rule.

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So the name of the unit defines its special rule? Psykers /= Psyker

Heavy flamers are definitely heavy in Magpie land then.

They dont have the special rule Psyker, so are not a Psyker for the purpose of the AS. Cant get any more simple than that. AT BEST they are a single psyker, depending on how you decide to interpret "etc"

So Daemon Princes aren't Daemons now? Since they don't have the Daemon Special rule.

Depends on who's asking. According to GK just about everything in the Chaos Daemon codex IS a daemon. Most other armies don't ahve anything that deals with Daemon's specifically..