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.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nem wrote:
I think on my first post on this subject matter I noted the word 'unit' in the brb is used in different ways.

Which is great, aside from not actually being true.

It certainly is, at the time I posted examples from the use of 'Unit' in the rules where they are used in different ways. Maybe my mistake for not posting them here.

At a basic level, a 'unit' is defined as a 'group of models' a unit is something that contains one or more models.

In the rules, 'Unit' is only qualified contextually, sometimes it is qualified by rules before of after, but throughout the rule book we see unit being used in any of these ways;
-'All of the models in the unit'
-'one or more of the models in the unit'
-'unit as bought from the codex (IE. unit as per the FOC)'

Usually phrased in order in such ways *Digs out new quotes to make sure they are relevant to 7th.*

-If a unit starts its move outside difficult terrain, the player must declare if he wants his
unit to try to enter difficult terrain as part of their move.
Requiring to account for every model in that unit taking the action

- A unit’s Faction applies regardless of how you choose
your army,
Units as described by codex or army list.

-At the start of each Fight sub-phase, a unit in base contact with one or more enemy
models that cause Fear must take a Leadership test
Unit as present as any of the models (Not requiring all models to be in base contact to constitute the 'unit' being in base contact

The rules are usually very good at verifying quantity of models in the phrase unit, but the writing in the psychic phase is not so clear. This is how a Psyker unit may be quantified by if any psyker model is present it is a psyker unit, but where restricting the unit from attempting to manifest the same power twice is referring to all models. Of course, a Psyker unit may require all models to be psykers to be a psyker unit, but it is unlikely. Much like determining if a 'unit has moved' It is said the unit moved even if some models chose not it.

I also agree an IC joining is not always in a full capacity, due to many things I won't dig out now but have posted plenty of times before.

An IC joining a unit is always joining in a 'full capacity' because the rules say that he becomes a part of the unit for all rules purposes. There are no rules that allow the IC to sort of join the unit a little bit.

In the basic principles section it states that an IC is also considered a unit unto themselves. However when the IC joins another unit, he becomes part of that unit for all rules purposes. Thse statements directly contradict, and I don't think RAI is as clear as some are making out. The fact that a unit can only attempt to manifest the same psychic power once could have intentionally been put in place to kill deathstars [one of the big complaints from 6th]. Or, it could be a mistake.

I'm leaning towards the mistake as the term "psyker unit" is used. I think it was an attempt to be more consistent with the language used, but the copy & paste of some of the old psychic powers [in particular 'Force'] does make it a mess. HIWPI - each psyker IC counts as a separate unit for manifestation of powers.

Feel a little embarrassed as I also posted I thought that this was a well written rulebook.

They do not contradict - yes, an IC is a unit by themselves, until they join a unit whenthey are no longer a unit by themself any longer. This is reinforced as they again" become" a single model unti when the unit around them is destroyed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They do not contradict - yes, an IC is a unit by themselves, until they join a unit whenthey are no longer a unit by themself any longer. This is reinforced as they again" become" a single model unti when the unit around them is destroyed.

But the rules also state that when an IC joins a unit he becomes part of that unit for ALL rules purposes. Agreed, it would only need an FAQ saying "except the manifestation of psychic powers," but it does need an FAQ. Ass I said it might be an attempt in the rules to kill multi-psyker death stars by only allowing them to attempt to manifest the power once.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I think we can put this to bed a little simpler. So the Force power which targets the psyker and his unit actually only targets the psyker? Correct?

So why are there numerous other powers which become next to useless if they only effect the Psyker with the same wording. For instance Perfect Timing from Divination. Whilst other powers that do only effect the Pysker specifically call him out like Ironarm?

You are correct. I think this implication of my interpretation is far enough away from what I believe the intent of the Psychic powers is that is is likely that my interpretation is not what GW intended.

I think Zinko may have been correct from the start, and that FAQs from big tournaments might be the best informal standard until an official errata update is made. I had never heard of NOVA before, but after searching, I find that they have a fairly comprehensive draft FAQ for 7th: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13mcnnnPW_nDoAKsWMDOQVnUi3hIizsVrNzppGggzEVs/pub

This is how they specify how Psykers are played in the tournament:

To clarify, the term Psyker and Psychic Unit refers to individual Psyker models within a Unit (or of course to the entire unit if it has Brotherhood of Psykers). All Psykers in a Unit are different Psykers and thereby can manifest the same power.

Seems reasonable enough for me. My plan is to convert my extra platoon and company standards (giant flags on a pole) into staffs so I can make my own non-metal Wyrdvane Psykers.

I'm leaning towards the mistake as the term "psyker unit" is used. I think it was an attempt to be more consistent with the language used, but the copy & paste of some of the old psychic powers [in particular 'Force'] does make it a mess. HIWPI - each psyker ICcounts as a separate unit for manifestation of powers. 

Except of course Force was not copied and pasted it was entirely rewritten for this edition as it is worded completely differently to how it was in ANY previous edition.

 Nem wrote:
In the rules, 'Unit' is only qualified contextually, sometimes it is qualified by rules before of after, but throughout the rule book we see unit being used in any of these ways;
-'All of the models in the unit'
-'one or more of the models in the unit'
-'unit as bought from the codex (IE. unit as per the FOC)'

All of those ways are the same way.

But I would disagree with the proposition the IC changes faction or loses rules when joined to a unit.

Which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

madric wrote:

Your argument is against a point I am not making. Nobody is stating that in all cases an IC joined to a unit should be treated as a separate unit. I am stating that the rules should be followed as written, that is, when an IC joins a unit, then he is considered part of that unit for all rule purposes. I am also stating that this does not imply the converse.

Except you are making that point. Poorly. You even stated that, using your argument, it's one unit while assaulting, two units when determining Psychic stuff, and two units (potentially - because you haven't investigated that) when shooting. Do you not see the issue with that argument?

I'm not sure where your argument is heading. I am not arguing that it is one unit here and two units there. I am arguing that an Independent Character is treated as part of the unit he joins for all rules purposes, but not necessarily the converse.

Yes, you are.

When the unit an IC joins declares an assault, the assault rules describe what all members of that do, and the IC is part of that unit. Because a unit is defined by an Army List Entry, it is possible for a unit to contain another unit when the contained unit consists of a model with the IC special rule.

Citation required for the underlined. Superunits and subunits are never described in the actual rules. And you're asserting there's one unit here.

When the unit an IC joins declares it will shoot, the shooting rules describe what all members of that unit do, and the IC is part of that unit.

The Psyker special rule specifies that a model with the Psyker special rule is a Psyker. The Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rule specifies that a unit with at least one model with the special rule is a Psyker unit. It is perfectly consistent with the rules for a Psyker unit to be part of a unit it joins, but for the joined unit to not be part of the Psyker unit.

This is where you're arguing there's two units. Which you've said you're not.

Nothing is disregarded. The Army List entry is still correct - an IC is a unit by itself. When it joins another unit it's not some magical unit-but-not-really-and-part-of-another-unit.
And the PTA reminder works just as fine as, I've reminded you once and you hand waved away, it only applies after the battle. Of course an IC is a separate unit after the battle - the rules only cover him being part of another unit during the battle.

I'm sorry if you feel this way, but I am trying with apparently little success to communicate my point of view. I am not attempting to "hand-wave-away" anything nor am I trying to create a fictional "unit-but-not-really-and-part-of-another-unit". In fact, I have no idea what any of that means. The definition of a unit comes from being an Army List Entry, I am not aware of any changes to this definition that occur when an IC joins another unit, either before, during, or after the battle.

The definition changes because treating an IC as anything but part of the joined unit for any rules purpose (remember, the Psyker rules are a rules purpose) is against the rules. You're attempting to single him out for a rules purpose and that is specifically against the rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
But I would disagree with the proposition the IC changes faction or loses rules when joined to a unit.

Stop with this strawman. No one is arguing that they do.

I am not arguing that it is one unit here and two units there.

Yes, you are.

Clearly my presence or involvement is not required for this argument.

The Psyker special rule specifies that a model with the Psyker special rule is a Psyker. The Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rule specifies that a unit with at least one model with the special rule is a Psyker unit. It is perfectly consistent with the rules for a Psyker unit to be part of a unit it joins, but for the joined unit to not be part of the Psyker unit.

This is where you're arguing there's two units. Which you've said you're not.

Nothing in my argument was based on the idea of one unit, two units, or any other number of units. I'm not aware of any circumstance where this would matter. My argument, from start to finish, was that a unit corresponds to an Army List Entry (straight from the rules), and that an IC counts as a member of the unit it joins, but not necessarily the converse.

The definition changes because treating an IC as anything but part of the joined unit for any rules purpose (remember, the Psyker rules are a rules purpose) is against the rules. You're attempting to single him out for a rules purpose and that is specifically against the rules.

There exists no part of the rules that discusses "singling out" a unit, not doing so, or any other interpretation you have presented. The rule merely states that the IC is considered a part of the joined unit for all rule purposes. In other words, for any rule that impacts the joined unit, the IC would be impacted as well.

It is a shame that there seems to be such great difficulty in communication.

madric wrote:
Nothing in my argument was based on the idea of one unit, two units, or any other number of units. I'm not aware of any circumstance where this would matter.

Then you're not actually reading the Psyker rules you proclaim work fine.
You're told to nominate a unit. According to your argument, you're allowed to nominate the Psyker attached to a non-Psyker unit.
This requires you treating him like a separate unit. The IC rules explicitly don't allow that. Cite permission.

There exists no part of the rules that discusses "singling out" a unit, not doing so, or any other interpretation you have presented. The rule merely states that the IC is considered a part of the joined unit for all rule purposes. In other words, for any rule that impacts the joined unit, the IC would be impacted as well.

Correct. And if you're told to target a unit, targeting the IC individually is demonstrably not treating him like a member of the joined unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
But I would disagree with the proposition the IC changes faction or loses rules when joined to a unit.

Stop with this strawman. No one is arguing that they do.

I thought I better explain what I meant as there was quotes off my first post with issues (That was addressing points from the OP's article, granted I didn't quote each section) which was not worded very well.....

But this thread seems hostile than most, so I'm out.

rigeld2 wrote:

madric wrote:

There exists no part of the rules that discusses "singling out" a unit, not doing so, or any other interpretation you have presented. The rule merely states that the IC is considered a part of the joined unit for all rule purposes. In other words, for any rule that impacts the joined unit, the IC would be impacted as well.

Correct. And if you're told to target a unit, targeting the IC individually is demonstrably not treating him like a member of the joined unit.

That's a converse fallacy.

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
But I would disagree with the proposition the IC changes faction or loses rules when joined to a unit.

Stop with this strawman. No one is arguing that they do.

I thought I better explain what I meant as there was quotes off my first post with issues (That was addressing points from the OP's article, granted I didn't quote each section) which was not worded very well.....

But this thread seems hostile than most, so I'm out.

You did explain it well for most folks. He just gets hostile when he gets backed into a corner. If its too much to ask though could you please explain how you would play 2 psykers in a unit of say 10 regular models.

madric wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

madric wrote:

There exists no part of the rules that discusses "singling out" a unit, not doing so, or any other interpretation you have presented. The rule merely states that the IC is considered a part of the joined unit for all rule purposes. In other words, for any rule that impacts the joined unit, the IC would be impacted as well.

Correct. And if you're told to target a unit, targeting the IC individually is demonstrably not treating him like a member of the joined unit.

That's a converse fallacy.

No, it's not.

Is an IC a member of the joined unit for all rules purposes or not? Simple question.

osirisx69 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
But I would disagree with the proposition the IC changes faction or loses rules when joined to a unit.

Stop with this strawman. No one is arguing that they do.

I thought I better explain what I meant as there was quotes off my first post with issues (That was addressing points from the OP's article, granted I didn't quote each section) which was not worded very well.....

But this thread seems hostile than most, so I'm out.

You did explain it well for most folks. He just gets hostile when he gets backed into a corner. If its too much to ask though could you please explain how you would play 2 psykers in a unit of say 10 regular models.

I'm not "backed into a corner". What he said is a strawman, he's been asked repeatedly to stop using it as a basis to argue and still does it. I'm not being hostile, I'm asking him to stop repeating it.

If its too much to ask though could you please explain how you would play 2 psykers in a unit of say 10 regular models.

Just for comparison, I figured I would list how this would behave using the model I put in the article (which I now think is probably not what GW intended).

If the 2 psykers are independent characters, then each psyker would be a "psyker unit", would generate warp charges separately, would be able to manifest powers they know separately, activate Force weapons separately (and only for themselves), and would suffer perils of the warp on powers they suffer perils on.

If the 2 psykers are not ICs, e.g. regular models or characters, then the rules do not appear to cover this case. This is a big problem for Warlock Councils. The "psyker unit" includes both. What their ML level is is unclear, how many warp charges they generate is unclear, and it is unclear what powers they have access to, who may manifest them, or who suffers perils of the warp.

If the 2 psykers are not ICs, but have brotherhood of psykers, then the whole unit is considered to be a psyker unit. Activating force would apply to all models in the unit with force weapons, including those that do not have the Brotherhood of Psykers rule. Perils of the Warp tests would be randomly resolved against one of the two models with Brotherhood of Psykers special rule.

madric wrote:

If its too much to ask though could you please explain how you would play 2 psykers in a unit of say 10 regular models.

Just for comparison, I figured I would list how this would behave using the model I put in the article (which I now think is probably not what GW intended).

If the 2 psykers are independent characters, then each psyker would be a "psyker unit", would generate warp charges separately, would be able to manifest powers they know separately, activate Force weapons separately (and only for themselves), and would suffer perils of the warp on powers they suffer perils on.

If the 2 psykers are not ICs, e.g. regular models or characters, then the rules do not appear to cover this case. This is a big problem for Warlock Councils. The "psyker unit" includes both. What their ML level is is unclear, how many warp charges they generate is unclear, and it is unclear what powers they have access to, who may manifest them, or who suffers perils of the warp.

If the 2 psykers are not ICs, but have brotherhood of psykers, then the whole unit is considered to be a psyker unit. Activating force would apply to all models in the unit with force weapons, including those that do not have the Brotherhood of Psykers rule. Perils of the Warp tests would be randomly resolved against one of the two models with Brotherhood of Psykers special rule.

I see, thanks for your opinion!

 madric wrote:
Just for comparison, I figured I would list how this would behave using the model I put in the article (which I now think is probably not what GW intended).

If the 2 psykers are independent characters, then each psyker would be a "psyker unit", would generate warp charges separately, would be able to manifest powers they know separately, activate Force weapons separately (and only for themselves), and would suffer perils of the warp on powers they suffer perils on.

For what it's worth, and as I pointed out earlier, this is almost exactly what I think GW intended. I also think it's how non-Brotherhood psyker units (ie: Warlocks) are supposed to work.

GW just did an appalling job of writing the psychic rules.