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.

Just want to get a feel for this. Grey Knights are psykers yes? Does the Culexus assassin gain +1 to its Animus Speculum for each Grey Knight within 12" of the Culexus or +1 per unit of Grey Knights within 12"?

The GK's that have the Psyker special rule are psykers. The GK's that have the 'Brotherhood of Psykers' rule, treat the whole unit as 1 psyker.

GK Vehicles are never a psyker for the purposes of the speculum.

Grey Knight vehicles with the Psychic Pilot arguably are psykers for the purposes of the speculum. It depends on how you read the Psychic Pilot rule. There is an entire thread on it.

Only if you mentally insert a comma. Reading it according to the rules of English (British, to be precise) grammar there is only a single interpretation, as the other ends up not making sense.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Only if you mentally insert a comma. Reading it according to the rules of English (British, to be precise) grammar there is only a single interpretation, as the other ends up not making sense.

Thank you for stating one side of the argument.

There is also another way this could be read and also grammatically correct. The beginning of the sentence is a verbial phrase and does not require a comma.
I could also state the fluff agrees with the vehicle being considered a psyker for all purposes. Both the grammar argument and the fluff argument are not able to decide this issue.

We can disagree on the proper reading of this sentence and the final meaning of the rule - only a FAQ can answer for sure.

It requires a comma to read the sentence as not applying the restrictions (for the purposes of) to all abilities granted by the rule.

Given the entire codex was written to explicitly limit the number of psykers around at any one time, as much as possible, not only does your reading fail grammatically it fails on consistency, sense (why write an otherwise over complicated phrase when "psyker (mastery level 1), at Ld10 could have been added to the SR, without requiring a contained Special Rule called PP)

On all counts your reading fails the sniff test.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It requires a comma to read the sentence as not applying the restrictions (for the purposes of) to all abilities granted by the rule.

Given the entire codex was written to explicitly limit the number of psykers around at any one time, as much as possible, not only does your reading fail grammatically it fails on consistency, sense (why write an otherwise over complicated phrase when "psyker (mastery level 1), at Ld10 could have been added to the SR, without requiring a contained Special Rule called PP)

On all counts your reading fails the sniff test.

Your argument now RAI is easily explained - adding psyker and Ld10 to the SR would give the vehicle a Ld value for all purposes. This is not what was intended. The vehicle only has Ld 10 for the purpose of psychic tests and hoods so an explanation is needed.

The fluff and the wording of every other part of the rule suggests, the vehicles pilot is psychic. It would pass the "sniff test" for the vehicle to be counted as a psyker for the Culexus too.

Is the Culexus a psychic hood or test? No. Then the vehicle is not a psyker.

My argument is not "now" RAI - I am showing that, yet again, your argument falls apart on pretty much every level.

PLease dont bother trying to debate it here - it is a Psyker for only two purposes, as the rule actually states, and any other treatment fails dramatically

nosferatu1001 wrote:Is the Culexus a psychic hood or test? No. Then the vehicle is not a psyker.

My argument is not "now" RAI - I am showing that, yet again, your argument falls apart on pretty much every level.

PLease dont bother trying to debate it here - it is a Psyker for only two purposes, as the rule actually states, and any other treatment fails dramatically

1) You're again stating your original argument - the quite undecided and debatable one. This argument based on grammar rules has no solution. If you're honest you will agree, there are two valid ways the Psychic Pilot rule can be read.

2) Your RAI argument failed. Reading it either way requires explanation.

Are statements like "don't bother to debate", "you have no argument", "wrong again" part of your argument? Get over it. Just declare yourself "Winner of the thread" so we can all get back to discussing the actual rules.

1) Again, only debateable if yuo dont parse the sentence correctly. "for the purposes of" has no restrictions so it applies to all the sentence preceding it. Thats it.

Oh, and feth off with your false dichotomies. I AM honest, and it ISNT debateable. Something else you have failed at.

2) My RAI argument did not "fail" - the entire codex was written to NOT have too many psykers around. See the Psykers unit entry. BoP. EVERYTHING is aimed at reducing the number of psykers around the place - and same for PP. To pretend otherwise is just you being as dishonest an arguer as ever.

Oh, and your final whine? Arguing with someone who ignores written rules, ignores wording they find inconvenient ("distance" and "as a casualty", to name but two), deliberately chopping rules they dont like to remove inconvenient words or context, etc all make "debating" rules a bit of a non starter, especially in a thread not about this topic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) Again, only debateable if yuo dont parse the sentence correctly. "for the purposes of" has no restrictions so it applies to all the sentence preceding it. Thats it.

Oh, and feth off with your false dichotomies. I AM honest, and it ISNT debateable. Something else you have failed at.

"A vehicle with this special rule is treated as" is used as a verbal phrase.
Here it may be understood to read:

A vehicle with this special rule is treated as a pysker.
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as leadership 10 for the sake of x and y.

Here a comma would be incorrect:
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as, a psyker and leadership 10.

I am showing that correct grammar terms may be used to describe another other interpretation also. This is even taking into account the lack of a comma.

This combined with the fact that the rule is named Psychic Pilot and goes on to describe fluff that shows the vehicle indeed should be counted as a psyker.

The Culexus assassin gain +1 to its Animus Speculum for each GK vehicle within 12" that has Psychic Pilot.

Not according to the ACTUAL rules it doesnt

FOR THE PURPOSES OF applies to it being a psyker and it being Leadership 10. In NDEnglish it may not, but in actual rules it does.

Verbal Phrase
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being

object of the verb
a psyker (mastery level 1)

coordinating conjunction
and

object of the verb
Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods.

Read this way, the sentence is both correct without a comma and grammatically correct. In fact, to put a comma would be wrong as it would be like this:
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being, a psyker (mastery level 1) and Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods.

Clearly this is the correct interpretation because otherwise, the vehicle, not being a psyker for purposes of how many powers it may use, can use 0 and may never use any psychic powers anyway.

And this is why I didn't bring up Psychic Pilot. To OP. There is a debate on whether Psychic Pilot treats the vehicle as a psyker at all times, or only in the 2 situations mentioned. If you are not sure how to run it, talk to your opponent before hand. Personally, I agree with nos, that GK vehicles are only psykers for the 2 reasons mentioned. YMMV.

Happyjew wrote:And this is why I didn't bring up Psychic Pilot. To OP. There is a debate on whether Psychic Pilot treats the vehicle as a psyker at all times, or only in the 2 situations mentioned. If you are not sure how to run it, talk to your opponent before hand. Personally, I agree with nos, that GK vehicles are only psykers for the 2 reasons mentioned. YMMV.

I to am of the, according to the way I understand grammer to work its not a psyker at all times, party. So if the vehicle is a psyker at all times, yes it counts for the assassin, if not.... then it dont XD

ND - thats not where the comma needs to be placed, that would be after the "a psyker"

For the purposes of applies tothe whole phrase, not just the Ld 10 part.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:I to am of the, according to the way everyone should understand grammar to work its not a psyker at all times, party. So if the vehicle is a psyker at all times, yes it counts for the assassin, if not.... then it dont XD

Fixed that for you with the orange.

Psychic Pilot is very specific on when the vehicle is a Psyker.

Nos is correct.

I love it when people make things more complicated than it needs to be.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:I love it when people make things more complicated than it needs to be.

I love it when topics derail quicker than a dead pig on a unicycle. @_@ Crazy how much arguement one rule can bring up.

Anyway, thanks for the responses everyone, I think I'm just gonna avoid moving vehicles in range of my Culexus just so I can avoid this debate.

@OP

Basically, each squad of Grey Knight;Paladins, Terminators, Interceptors, Purgators, Purifiers, Strikes, Ghost Knights, Henchman with at least 1 Psyker as part of the Unit (Not including ICs), as well as each model with Psyker( Mastery Lvl X) under their Srs, are counted towards the culexus, as well as enemy models meeting the above restrictions.

Whether or not vehicles (other than the Chimera) count is, as you can see, widely debated. I think it is best to dicuss pregame.

Just to note, I believe that BA Furioso Librarian Dreadnoughts count, unlike GK ones but am unsure.

DeathReaper wrote:

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:I to am of the, according to the way everyone should understand grammar to work its not a psyker at all times, party. So if the vehicle is a psyker at all times, yes it counts for the assassin, if not.... then it dont XD

Fixed that for you with the orange.

Psychic Pilot is very specific on when the vehicle is a Psyker.

Nos is correct.

I agree with you, completely.