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 USR says, "A unit with this special rule counts as a Mastery Level 1 Psyker." It then goes on to say that you use the Ld of the Character, and the Character takes any Perils.

Does this mean that my Level 2 Tzerald becomes Level 1 when he joins a unit of Horrors?
If the answer to that is yes, and I have a Tzerald and an Iridescent Horror (ch), whose Ld do I use and who Perils?

The resolution to this question, I think, can be found in the definition of the word "unit." Does the word "unit" refer to the "Unit Composition" when building a roster, or does it refer to the unit on the tabletop? There's a section on units on p3 that is not too specific; the IC rule talks about units, and obviously means while on the tabletop.

RAI and HIWPI are both pretty clear: Your Tzerald does not get nerfed for joining a unit. But RAW....?

The IC rules say that it counts as a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

The rules for Brotherhood tells you whose Leadership to use (including if an IC is joined to the unit). An IC joined to the unit does not gain or lose Mastery Levels.

The unit is ML1.
Is the IC a member of the unit for all rules purposes?
So why is the IC not ML1?

rigeld2 wrote:
The unit is ML1.
Is the IC a member of the unit for all rules purposes?
So why is the IC not ML1?

The unit is Mastery Level 1. The IC is not the unit - he is a member of the unit. He is still his normal Mastery Level.

That's a fair statement.

rigeld2 wrote:
The unit is ML1.
Is the IC a member of the unit for all rules purposes?
So why is the IC not ML1?

The IC does not have the Brotherhood of Psykers USR therefore he isn't affected by the ML1, otherwise any IC that joins would become a psyker.

ICs do not have the "Brotherhood" rule (the rule also is not conferred to attached ICs), and thus the word "unit" refers to the unit composition, not the unit on the table. As Happyjew said, "The IC is a member of the unit, but he is not the unit."

This means, then, that ICs attached to a unit of Grey Knights with the BoP rule still need to take their own NFW test. None of the GK ICs have the BoP rule, so the IC can't be the "unit" referred to in BoP. The NFW rule says, "A unit of GKs with the BoP rule needs to take only a single test (although ICs must test separately)." BoP isn't transferred to ICs, thus ICs must pass their own test and use their own Warp Charge.
*Note that the C:GK BoP rule is the same as the BRB rule: "A Grey Knight unit can use one psychic power each turn. The unit counts as a single psyker."

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
This means, then, that ICs attached to a unit of Grey Knights with the BoP rule still need to take their own NFW test. None of the GK ICs have the BoP rule, so the IC can't be the "unit" referred to in BoP. The NFW rule says, "A unit of GKs with the BoP rule needs to take only a single test (although ICs must test separately)." BoP isn't transferred to ICs, thus ICs must pass their own test and use their own Warp Charge.

However the IC is still bound to the units result... GW really needs to fix this.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
This means, then, that ICs attached to a unit of Grey Knights with the BoP rule still need to take their own NFW test. None of the GK ICs have the BoP rule, so the IC can't be the "unit" referred to in BoP. The NFW rule says, "A unit of GKs with the BoP rule needs to take only a single test (although ICs must test separately)." BoP isn't transferred to ICs, thus ICs must pass their own test and use their own Warp Charge.

However the IC is still bound to the units result...

Not if the word "unit" is used in the same way that it is used in the BoP rule (which the NFW rule specifically references). You can't pick and choose which definition of "unit" is used. If the IC is bound, then the IC also becomes a member of BoP, which changes his PML.

GW really needs to fix this.

Agreed

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
This means, then, that ICs attached to a unit of Grey Knights with the BoP rule still need to take their own NFW test. None of the GK ICs have the BoP rule, so the IC can't be the "unit" referred to in BoP. The NFW rule says, "A unit of GKs with the BoP rule needs to take only a single test (although ICs must test separately)." BoP isn't transferred to ICs, thus ICs must pass their own test and use their own Warp Charge.

However the IC is still bound to the units result... GW really needs to fix this.

How do you figure?

 Purifier wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
This means, then, that ICs attached to a unit of Grey Knights with the BoP rule still need to take their own NFW test. None of the GK ICs have the BoP rule, so the IC can't be the "unit" referred to in BoP. The NFW rule says, "A unit of GKs with the BoP rule needs to take only a single test (although ICs must test separately)." BoP isn't transferred to ICs, thus ICs must pass their own test and use their own Warp Charge.

However the IC is still bound to the units result... GW really needs to fix this.

How do you figure?

Per the IC rules an IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes, correct?
Per the NFW rules, if the test [to activate the weapons] is passed, all wounds caused by the unit's NFW inflict ID.

Since the IC is a normal member of the unit, if the test is passed, all wounds by the unit (which the IC is a normal member of) inflict ID.

It is a strict reading of the rule, and I don't know anyone who actually plays this way (similar to Tau Bombers and the severe lack of bombs).

I think it goes like this....

Step 1: Read Brotherhood of Psykers in C:GK. "A Grey Knight unit can use one psychic power each turn. The unit counts as a single psyker."
Step 2: This thread has already established that attached ICs do not become part of the Brotherhood--their PML is not affected, they may cast their own psychic powers. Thus, a GK IC attached to a GK unit with Brotherhood is not affected by Brotherhood. He is not part of the unit referred to in the BoP rule.
Step 3: Read Nemesis Force Weapons in C:GK. "A unit of GKs with the BoP rule needs to take only a single test (although ICs must test separately).... Any further wounds caused by the unit's NFW that phase will be bound...."
Step 4: Since the word unit refers to the Brotherhood understanding of unit (and not the tabletop unit), the IC is not affected by the unit's test. The definition of unit must be consistent throughout the whole rule--no picking and choosing.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
This means, then, that ICs attached to a unit of Grey Knights with the BoP rule still need to take their own NFW test. None of the GK ICs have the BoP rule, so the IC can't be the "unit" referred to in BoP. The NFW rule says, "A unit of GKs with the BoP rule needs to take only a single test (although ICs must test separately)." BoP isn't transferred to ICs, thus ICs must pass their own test and use their own Warp Charge.

However the IC is still bound to the units result... GW really needs to fix this.

How do you figure?

Per the IC rules an IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes, correct?
Per the NFW rules, if the test [to activate the weapons] is passed, all wounds caused by the unit's NFW inflict ID.

Since the IC is a normal member of the unit, if the test is passed, all wounds by the unit (which the IC is a normal member of) inflict ID.

It is a strict reading of the rule, and I don't know anyone who actually plays this way (similar to Tau Bombers and the severe lack of bombs).

Fair enough. Btw, you've spelt it "Ganes Workshop" in your signature.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I think it goes like this....

Step 1: Read Brotherhood of Psykers in C:GK. "A Grey Knight unit can use one psychic power each turn. The unit counts as a single psyker."
Step 2: This thread has already established that attached ICs do not become part of the Brotherhood--their PML is not affected, they may cast their own psychic powers. Thus, a GK IC attached to a GK unit with Brotherhood is not affected by Brotherhood. He is not part of the unit referred to in the BoP rule.
Step 3: Read Nemesis Force Weapons in C:GK. "A unit of GKs with the BoP rule needs to take only a single test (although ICs must test separately).... Any further wounds caused by the unit's NFW that phase will be bound...."
Step 4: Since the word unit refers to the Brotherhood understanding of unit (and not the tabletop unit), the IC is not affected by the unit's test. The definition of unit must be consistent throughout the whole rule--no picking and choosing.

I think at this point if anyone is curious they can look for the thread. I don't think we need to re-hash the same old arguments.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I think it goes like this....

Step 1: Read Brotherhood of Psykers in C:GK. "A Grey Knight unit can use one psychic power each turn. The unit counts as a single psyker."
Step 2: This thread has already established that attached ICs do not become part of the Brotherhood--their PML is not affected, they may cast their own psychic powers. Thus, a GK IC attached to a GK unit with Brotherhood is not affected by Brotherhood. He is not part of the unit referred to in the BoP rule.
Step 3: Read Nemesis Force Weapons in C:GK. "A unit of GKs with the BoP rule needs to take only a single test (although ICs must test separately).... Any further wounds caused by the unit's NFW that phase will be bound...."
Step 4: Since the word unit refers to the Brotherhood understanding of unit (and not the tabletop unit), the IC is not affected by the unit's test. The definition of unit must be consistent throughout the whole rule--no picking and choosing.

I think at this point if anyone is curious they can look for the thread. I don't think we need to re-hash the same old arguments.

Fair enough