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.

My book finally arrived and I finally got time to read through it. The debates on Psyker rules has been rather intense as of late, but I think virtually all the conflicts vanish with a careful reading of the rules. Warlock Counsels are not addressed in this article.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18eeUYYkAOj2G28f4OumDkKDbnzqGwgMGybT5Fvk6Fhw/edit?usp=sharing

Give it a read, place comments, see if you find my reasoning convincing or not.

You can find a detailed discussion on the subject here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603879.page

The Psychic rules are still broken in RaW as there have been no new FAQs or rule changes.
I am sorry to say your document is a good read, but still your personal opinion on the matter, not a fix for the rules =)

Aye, what you propose in the article (that Independent Characters are still their own units for psyker powers but not for anything else like shooting...) has already been discussed. The Rulebook simply contradicts itself and it is up to TOs to sort out the mess and make their own FAQs.

I can't copy/paste because I'm not going to install Google Drive, but I'll attempt to address it.

Your second paragraph final sentence is false. That may be some people's argument, but I don't believe that's true at all.

Also, your argument citing the rules for Purge the Alien fails because victory points are counted *AFTER* the battle ends, not during. This argument also leads to being able to target ICs that are joined to units separately from the "mother" unit.

You're also making the assumption that "Psyker Unit" is referring to two things - a Psyker that is a Unit. Instead, it's one thing - a Psyker Unit. It's a creation of a new thing.

Since the rest of your article is based off of these incorrect assumptions there's no reason to address it.

You can find a detailed discussion on the subject here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603879.page

The Psychic rules are still broken in RaW as there have been no new FAQs or rule changes.
I am sorry to say your document is a good read, but still your personal opinion on the matter, not a fix for the rules =)

I've seen the previous discussions and I do not think they sufficiently address the evidence. I've sited my sources, if you disagree with my analysis please state why. Disregarding a piece due to it being an "opinion" disregards anything that anyone can say at any time.

Aye, what you propose in the article (that Independent Characters are still their own units for psyker powers but not for anything else like shooting...) has already been discussed. The Rulebook simply contradicts itself and it is up to TOs to sort out the mess and make their own FAQs.

A very interesting point, but I do not feel that shooting creates a conflict. Because a unit cannot have two shooting actions in the same phase, and because independent characters are considered part of the unit they join, then the shooting phase of the joined unit would include them. Attempting to shoot with the independent character first, and then shoot with the unit he joins would result in the independent character taking two shooting actions, and would not be permitted in the rules. You could, however, shoot ONLY with the independent character and not the joined unit, but this is the exact same effect as shooing with the joined unit and then only having the independent character choose to fire.

I can't copy/paste because I'm not going to install Google Drive, but I'll attempt to address it.

Your second paragraph final sentence is false. That may be some people's argument, but I don't believe that's true at all.

Also, your argument citing the rules for Purge the Alien fails because victory points are counted *AFTER* the battle ends, not during. This argument also leads to being able to target ICs that are joined to units separately from the "mother" unit.

You're also making the assumption that "Psyker Unit" is referring to two things - a Psyker that is a Unit. Instead, it's one thing - a Psyker Unit. It's a creation of a new thing.

Since the rest of your article is based off of these incorrect assumptions there's no reason to address it.

You can edit online without having to install Google Drive. The Google Drive extension is for synchronizing files locally. You can just click the link and edit the document.

Yes I also disagree with the argument that is in the second paragraph, I was merely noting it to point out why it doesn't work.

The before/after battle for Purge the Alien is not essential for the article, it merely provides disambiguity in rules that are already written under the Independent Character special rule. Stating that an Independent Character counts as part of his joined unit does not imply that the joined unit is part of the Independent Character's unit.

Concerning being able to target an independent character separately from the joined unit, this is a valid point, and I will reflect upon it.

The term Psyker Unit has a definition, which I cited, which is based on the definitions of Unit, Psyker, Brotherhood of Psykers, and Psychic Pilot, which I move on to define directly from the rules.

madric wrote:

I can't copy/paste because I'm not going to install Google Drive, but I'll attempt to address it.

Your second paragraph final sentence is false. That may be some people's argument, but I don't believe that's true at all.

Also, your argument citing the rules for Purge the Alien fails because victory points are counted *AFTER* the battle ends, not during. This argument also leads to being able to target ICs that are joined to units separately from the "mother" unit.

You're also making the assumption that "Psyker Unit" is referring to two things - a Psyker that is a Unit. Instead, it's one thing - a Psyker Unit. It's a creation of a new thing.

Since the rest of your article is based off of these incorrect assumptions there's no reason to address it.

You can edit online without having to install Google Drive. The Google Drive extension is for synchronizing files locally. You can just click the link and edit the document.

I clicked and tried to copy/paste, but got a popup to install google drive. So...

The before/after battle for Purge the Alien is not essential for the article, it merely provides disambiguity in rules that are already written under the Independent Character special rule. Stating that an Independent Character counts as part of his joined unit does not imply that the joined unit is part of the Independent Character's unit.

It is essential. You've made the assumption that the IC counts as anything but part of the joined unit during the game without a rule saying so.

I can't help but feel that this discussion is futile. Especially considering that your interpretation doesn't even touch non-Independent Character psykers such as warlocks. Meanwhile the focus on Independent Characters being units while joined to a unit adds new issues with targeting units during the shooting phase, such as being able to target the Independent Character since it would be it's own unit.

The simplest solution, and one that many TOs are taking, is to treat all instances of 'psyker unit' in the BRB to refer to individual models with the Pysker special rule. It's an elegant and simple solution that resolves nearly all conflicts in the BRB.

The before/after battle for Purge the Alien is not essential for the article, it merely provides disambiguity in rules that are already written under the Independent Character special rule. Stating that an Independent Character counts as part of his joined unit does not imply that the joined unit is part of the Independent Character's unit.

It is essential. You've made the assumption that the IC counts as anything but part of the joined unit during the game without a rule saying so.

The reason that it is not essential is because a unit is defined from an Army List Entry, as per the rules. I am not stating that the IC counts as something other than the joined unit. I am merely pointing out that the joined unit does not count as part of the IC.

I can't help but feel that this discussion is futile. Especially considering that your interpretation doesn't even touch non-Independent Character psykers such as warlocks. Meanwhile the focus on Independent Characters being units while joined to a unit adds new issues with targeting units during the shooting phase, such as being able to target the Independent Character since it would be it's own unit.

I wouldn't say that the argument is futile without addressing warlocks, I simply did not address warlocks, I did not consider them to be part of the argument (yet). Targetting of ICs is a real issue, though I have to wait until I get home to my rulebook to reflect further.

The simplest solution, and one that many TOs are taking, is to treat all instances of 'psyker unit' in the BRB to refer to individual models with the Pysker special rule. It's an elegant and simple solution that resolves nearly all conflicts in the BRB.

It is a pretty elegant solution which works if you are a TO and can lay down the rules. However, if you are playing with another person as a peer, consensus of the rules based upon the rules rather than decree is required. This is more to present a case (which is very close to what these TOs are ruling) based upon the rules themselves and does not depend on a TOs promulgation.

madric wrote:

It is a pretty elegant solution which works if you are a TO and can lay down the rules. However, if you are playing with another person as a peer, consensus of the rules based upon the rules rather than decree is required. This is more to present a case (which is very close to what these TOs are ruling) based upon the rules themselves and does not depend on a TOs promulgation.

I think if I met you for a pick-up game and before the game we talked about psychic powers and you presented that entire argument... my eyes would glaze over and I'd tell you to play your psykers however you want just so we can get a game started.

It would probably be easier to bring an FAQ from a popular tournament along, like the NOVA FAQ. If you're playing a psyker heavy army and you and your opponent can't agree to use the rules in the FAQ to simplify psykers then save yourself the headache and don't play that person. It sucks but that's what happens when GW writes complicated rules.

madric wrote:

You can find a detailed discussion on the subject here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603879.page

The Psychic rules are still broken in RaW as there have been no new FAQs or rule changes.
I am sorry to say your document is a good read, but still your personal opinion on the matter, not a fix for the rules =)

I've seen the previous discussions and I do not think they sufficiently address the evidence. I've sited my sources, if you disagree with my analysis please state why. Disregarding a piece due to it being an "opinion" disregards anything that anyone can say at any time.

Any assertion of rules in YMDC, by the tenets, must contain "cited sources". Which is just the 40K rulebook, by the way and identical to all of us (normally). And you also quote the Astra Militarum Codex for an example.

I am simply stating that that Document does not "beat all other previous discussions" simply because it was properly typed up.
It is at the exact same level as any one here quoting the rulebook would be. I applaud that you went to such lengths to back up your position on this matter, but it is still only your position. If another user here quotes 3 lines and has a better position, i would probably favor that position.

Zimko wrote:The simplest solution, and one that many TOs are taking, is to treat all instances of 'psyker unit' in the BRB to refer to individual models with the Pysker special rule. It's an elegant and simple solution that resolves nearly all conflicts in the BRB.

I also never stated that i disagree with the analysis. I am not disregarding the piece due to "opinion".
If i do disregard this document (I would not have read through it then), as i did the other thread, it would be because i do not play Psykers at all.
The intent of my post was simply to let you know that it might not be taken as seriously as you might want by others... and not a definite answer to the Psyker question. Only GW can provide such documentation.

Zimko wrote:
Meanwhile the focus on Independent Characters being units while joined to a unit adds new issues with targeting units during the shooting phase, such as being able to target the Independent Character since it would be it's own unit.

It also causes issues with movement (because you are only allowed to move a single unit at a time), embarking into transports and buildings (which can only hold a single unit), assaulting with the unit (as you resolve charges one unit at a time) and being assaulted (as any unit assaulting the IC + Squad would always have to make a disordered charge).

Not to mention the fact that it contradicts the unequivocal statement in the IC rules that the IC counts as a part of the unit it has joined for all rules purposes.

I think on my first post on this subject matter I noted the word 'unit' in the brb is used in different ways. 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. however I disagree with the conclusion of unit contextually for these rules in some places within the section I think they are actually using unit in different ways, good article though.

 Nem wrote:
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.

And, as before, the rules disagree with you.

 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. 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. however I disagree with the conclusion of unit contextually for these rules in some places within the section I think they are actually using unit in different ways, good article though.

You did note the word "unit" and IC joining said unit is not always at full capacity as been noted several times. How does that play into the psychic phase for you though, in this context of course.

 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.

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.

 insaniak wrote:

Zimko wrote:
Meanwhile the focus on Independent Characters being units while joined to a unit adds new issues with targeting units during the shooting phase, such as being able to target the Independent Character since it would be it's own unit.

It also causes issues with movement (because you are only allowed to move a single unit at a time), embarking into transports and buildings (which can only hold a single unit), assaulting with the unit (as you resolve charges one unit at a time) and being assaulted (as any unit assaulting the IC + Squad would always have to make a disordered charge).

Not to mention the fact that it contradicts the unequivocal statement in the IC rules that the IC counts as a part of the unit it has joined for all rules purposes.

My article states that a unit corresponds to an Army List Entry, which may be an IC. The IC rule states that for all rule purposes, the IC is part of the joined unit, not necessarily the reverse.

Being able to target an IC independent of the unit it joins is a valid issue I need to resolve after I get back from work.

Movement is not contradicted. You move the joined unit, and the IC counts as part of the joined unit for rule purposes.

Embarking on building and transports is not contradicted, the IC counts as part of the joined unit for rule purposes.

Assaulting is not contradicted, the IC is still a part of the joined unit. No disordered charge is required.

The article states that the joined unit is not part of the IC's unit. The distinction is very important. That is, things that apply specifically to the IC's unit are not necessarily conferred to the unit he joins. This distinction impacts ongoing effects, psychic powers known, status as a "Psyker Unit", who may be wounded by a Perils of the Warp, who counts as a Psyker Unit for the purposes of generating warp charge, and how to determine whether a power has already been manifested by a unit during the psychic phase.

madric wrote:
The IC rule states that for all rule purposes, the IC is part of the joined unit, not necessarily the reverse.

For the former to be true, the latter also has to be true.

So long as the IC is joined to the unit, they are one unit.

Movement is not contradicted. You move the joined unit, and the IC counts as part of the joined unit for rule purposes.

Embarking on building and transports is not contradicted, the IC counts as part of the joined unit for rule purposes.

Assaulting is not contradicted, the IC is still a part of the joined unit. No disordered charge is required.

All of these are a problem for the same reason that shooting at the unit is a problem... If you treat the IC as still being a unit in his own right, then anything that affects the unit that includes the IC is affecting two units at once. So if that effect is something that specifically has to be applied ot a single unit, the game breaks.

The article states that the joined unit is not part of the IC's unit.

Then the article is wrong, because the IC counts as a part of the unit he has joined for all rules purposes.

That is, things that apply specifically to the IC's unit are not necessarily conferred to the unit he joins.

Yes, they are. Because the IC counts as a part of the unit he has joined for all rules purposes.

This distinction impacts ongoing effects, psychic powers known, status as a "Psyker Unit", who may be wounded by a Perils of the Warp, who counts as a Psyker Unit for the purposes of generating warp charge, and how to determine whether a power has already been manifested by a unit during the psychic phase.

Indeed it does. Which is exactly why the current Psychic rules don't work.

madric wrote:
The IC rule states that for all rule purposes, the IC is part of the joined unit, not necessarily the reverse.

For the former to be true, the latter also has to be true.

So long as the IC is joined to the unit, they are one unit.

This is a converse logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
Stating that an IC is part of a joined unit does not imply that the joined unit is part of the IC.

All of these are a problem for the same reason that shooting at the unit is a problem... If you treat the IC as still being a unit in his own right, then anything that affects the unit that includes the IC is affecting two units at once. So if that effect is something that specifically has to be applied ot a single unit, the game breaks.

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.

For example, if a boy joins a gang of girls he is part of the gang. If a rule states that all gang members may jump up and down, then this would apply to the boy and the girls. If another rule states that boys may run about, this does not mean that the girls of the gang may run around as well. Any time a rule impacts the joined unit, it impacts the IC. However, a rule that impacts an IC does not necessarily impact the joined unit.

Following your interpretation would require one to disregard the book where it states that an Army List Entry describes a unit. It would also make interpreting the section in "Purge the Alien" difficult, as they place a reminder that Independent Characters are their own units. The game only breaks if one places the logical fallacy described above as a precondition to any rules discussion.

This distinction impacts ongoing effects, psychic powers known, status as a "Psyker Unit", who may be wounded by a Perils of the Warp, who counts as a Psyker Unit for the purposes of generating warp charge, and how to determine whether a power has already been manifested by a unit during the psychic phase.

Indeed it does. Which is exactly why the current Psychic rules don't work.

We disagree on this point. The analysis and interpretation I provided is consistent with rules as written. The major flaw in my approach thus far is the question of whether the Independent Character's unit may be targeted in the shooting phase apart from the unit he joins. I just got back home so I'll be reading about that tonight.

madric wrote:

madric wrote:
The IC rule states that for all rule purposes, the IC is part of the joined unit, not necessarily the reverse.

For the former to be true, the latter also has to be true.

So long as the IC is joined to the unit, they are one unit.

This is a converse logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
Stating that an IC is part of a joined unit does not imply that the joined unit is part of the IC.

He's not saying that the unit is part of the IC.
He's saying that treating the IC as anything but a member of the unit (ie, treating it as a unit by itself) contradicts the IC rules.

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?

For example, if a boy joins a gang of girls he is part of the gang. If a rule states that all gang members may jump up and down, then this would apply to the boy and the girls. If another rule states that boys may run about, this does not mean that the girls of the gang may run around as well. Any time a rule impacts the joined unit, it impacts the IC. However, a rule that impacts an IC does not necessarily impact the joined unit.

As far as 40k is concerned, if the boys may run about, the boy that joined the girls can't run about. Because that would be treating him as something other than part of the girls.

Following your interpretation would require one to disregard the book where it states that an Army List Entry describes a unit. It would also make interpreting the section in "Purge the Alien" difficult, as they place a reminder that Independent Characters are their own units. The game only breaks if one places the logical fallacy described above as a precondition to any rules discussion.

Incorrect.
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.

We disagree on this point. The analysis and interpretation I provided is consistent with rules as written. The major flaw in my approach thus far is the question of whether the Independent Character's unit may be targeted in the shooting phase apart from the unit he joins. I just got back home so I'll be reading about that tonight.

The underlined is demonstrably false.

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.

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.

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.

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.

madric wrote:
This is a converse logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
Stating that an IC is part of a joined unit does not imply that the joined unit is part of the IC.

I'm not saying the unit is part of the IC.

I'm saying there is only one unit (consisting of the IC and the unit he has joined), because the IC counts as a part of the unit he has joined for all rules purposes.

If at any point, for any reason, you consider the IC to be a unit in his own right, you are not counting him as a part of the unit he has joined for all rules purposes.

For example, if a boy joins a gang of girls he is part of the gang. If a rule states that all gang members may jump up and down, then this would apply to the boy and the girls. If another rule states that boys may run about, this does not mean that the girls of the gang may run around as well. Any time a rule impacts the joined unit, it impacts the IC. However, a rule that impacts an IC does not necessarily impact the joined unit.

Sure. The problem you're hitting is that your analogy here is for a completely different situation.

The psyker rule doesn't reference ICs. It references units.

Following your interpretation would require one to disregard the book where it states that an Army List Entry describes a unit.

No it wouldn't, because an Army List entry does describe a unit. The IC rule simply gives you a way to change the composition of the unit during the game.

It would also make interpreting the section in "Purge the Alien" difficult, as they place a reminder that Independent Characters are their own units.

Yes, the Victory Conditions rules for Purge the Alien are badly written. In previous editions they made a point of specifying that ICs were counted separately even if joined to units. Because 7th edition was written by scrawling a bunch of rules on a napkin during someone's lunch break and sending it to the printers, this clarification was omitted.

The analysis and interpretation I provided is consistent with rules as written.

Except for the part where you try to have the IC act as a unit in his own right despite counting as a part of another unit for all rules purposes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

madric wrote:
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.

Except the end result of that is that when you come to move your charging unit, you are moving two units at the same time (the unit the IC is joined to, and the IC) ... which is against the rules.

He can not be considered a unit in his own right. It breaks the game.

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.

Only if you accept that a unit can be made up of multiple other units... which breaks the game.

A model with the Psyker rule is a psyker, yes. But when you come to the rules for the psychic phase, suddenly the term 'psyker' actually applies specifically to units with the Psyker special rule, not models.

So while at other times your IC can be called a psyker, during the part of the game where being a psyker actually matters he's not individually considered a psyker unless he is on his own.

If at any point, for any reason, you consider the IC to be a unit in his own right, you are not counting him as a part of the unit he has joined for all rules purposes.

This is the part I disagree with. One can apply every single rule in the book to the joined unit, and have it also apply to the IC (counting the IC as part of the joined unit for all rule purposes) and still have other rules apply specifically to the IC and not the joined unit without creating a violation.

In fact, this is exactly what happens when an IC is subject to an ongoing effect like Soulblaze and joins another unit, the joined unit is not impacted by Soulblaze. It also happens for Victory Points in Purge the Alien. And it makes perfect sense for this to also be the case when picking a Psyker unit.

In short, the IC never stops being a unit, the unit that contains the IC simply become a member of the joined unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Except the end result of that is that when you come to move your charging unit, you are moving two units at the same time (the unit the IC is joined to, and the IC) ... which is against the rules.

I have no idea why this is seen as a point of confusion. On pg 45, they give what I think is the relevant rule: To resolve a charge, use the following procedure: First pick one of your units, and declare which enemy unit it wishes to charge.

So you pick the joined unit, and the IC unit counts as part of that unit for all rule purposes, including this one. What's the issue?

Only if you accept that a unit can be made up of multiple other units... which breaks the game.

I'm not sure it breaks the game at all, it seems to be stated and implied in several places of the game. In fact, I would say it causes more breaks in the game to state that units may never contain other units.

madric wrote:
This is the part I disagree with. One can apply every single rule in the book to the joined unit, and have it also apply to the IC (counting the IC as part of the joined unit for all rule purposes) and still have other rules apply specifically to the IC and not the joined unit without creating a violation.

If the rule specifically references the IC, sure.

If the rule specifically references a unit, then no, you can not. Because there is only one unit. There can only be one unit, because the IC counts as a part of the unit he has joined for all rules purposes.

And it makes perfect sense for this to also be the case when picking a Psyker unit.

Sure. It also makes sense that the guy beside the melta-gunner could pick up his weapon when he takes a bolter round to the sternum. Unfortunately, it's not actually in the rules, though.

In short, the IC never stops being a unit,

Yes, he does. He has to, otherwise all of the rules listed earlier break.


Edit: It's also worth pointing out that the rules for ICs Leaving units mention that when the unit he has joined is killed:

Joining and Leaving a unit wrote:...he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

He can't 'become' a unit of one model if he was already a unit of one model to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

madric wrote:
So you pick the joined unit, and the IC unit counts as part of that unit for all rule purposes, including this one. What's the issue?

The issue is that the moment you try to move the IC, you are moving a model from two different units. The assault rules require you to resolve charges one unit at a time.

Ok, let's turn this around for a bit. This quote is especially relevant:

Joining and Leaving a unit wrote:...he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

My opinion is that this phrase is vague and it can mean that he had previously stopped being a unit, or it can reiterate that he now a single unit not joined to anything.

But let's go with your interpretation and say that when an IC joins another unit, he stops being a unit is subsumed into the unit he joins.

How many warp charges would a non-psyker unit with 2 ML 1 psykers joined to it generate?

If the same unit attempts to manifest a power and a perils of the warp is rolled, which model of the "psyker unit" does this apply to?

What constitute a "power known to a psyker unit"? Which model actually manifests the power with the above unit of two ML 1 psykers joined to a unit?

In your opinion, are the rules currently playable at all? If so, how do you determine what the rules should be?


Under my interpretation, all the rules would stand as it with the exception of the sentence that defines a Psyker unit as a unit with the Psyker special rule (only models can have special rules), but the individual special rules for Psyker and Brotherhood of Psykers still provide a definition. A nasty side effect of my interpretation appears to be that enemy units could indeed target an IC's unit to fire upon, joined or not.

I hope this isn't considered off-topic but seeing as how my question relates to the issue of what a Psyker unit is to begin with, would a unit with the Brotherhood of Psykers rule like a GK Strike Squad be considered a single psyker for the purposes of something like the Culexus Assassin's Animus Speculum? I know that in the previous rendition of the Brotherhood of Psykers they counted as only one psyker but the term Psyker unit doesn't specify whether or not each model would still be considered a Psyker.

 Grimskul wrote:
I hope this isn't considered off-topic but seeing as how my question relates to the issue of what a Psyker unit is to begin with, would a unit with the Brotherhood of Psykers rule like a GK Strike Squad be considered a single psyker for the purposes of something like the Culexus Assassin's Animus Speculum? I know that in the previous rendition of the Brotherhood of Psykers they counted as only one psyker but the term Psyker unit doesn't specify whether or not each model would still be considered a Psyker.

Ironically, one of the only places where the rules are not ambiguous is with a Brotherhood of Psykers.

pg. 159 Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers
A unit containing at least one model with this special rule is a psyker unit --
...
If this unit suffers a Perils of the Warp, or it is hit by an attack that specifically targets Psykers, the hits are Randomly Allocated amongst models with the Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rule...

Maybe that's the secret power of units like Wyrdvane Psykers, the rules actually cover them clearly. Har har har.

madric wrote:
Ok, let's turn this around for a bit. This quote is especially relevant:

Joining and Leaving a unit wrote:...he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

My opinion is that this phrase is vague and it can mean that he had previously stopped being a unit, or it can reiterate that he now a single unit not joined to anything.

The key word being 'becomes'.

In order to 'become' something, you must have been something else up until that point.

But let's go with your interpretation and say that when an IC joins another unit, he stops being a unit is subsumed into the unit he joins.

How many warp charges would a non-psyker unit with 2 ML 1 psykers joined to it generate?

Nobody knows.

See my previous comment about the current psychic rules being broken. There is currently nothing in the rules that tells us how to determine whether or not a non-psyker unit with psykers in it is considered a psyker unit, or how to determine the mastery level of that psyker unit.

If the same unit attempts to manifest a power and a perils of the warp is rolled, which model of the "psyker unit" does this apply to?

See above. Nobody knows.

What constitute a "power known to a psyker unit"? Which model actually manifests the power with the above unit of two ML 1 psykers joined to a unit?

As above.

In your opinion, are the rules currently playable at all?

No.

If so, how do you determine what the rules should be?

I don't, until GW see fit to finish writing 7th edition.

My opinion is that treating each psyker (or Brotherhood group) as a separate entity for the purposes of resolving the psychic phase is the most sensible way to do it. Essentially changing the definition of psyker unit to '...model with the psyker or psychic pilot rule, or unit with the brotherhood of etc rule.'

Whether or not that's how the rules are supposed to work? I have no idea.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimskul wrote:
I hope this isn't considered off-topic but seeing as how my question relates to the issue of what a Psyker unit is to begin with, would a unit with the Brotherhood of Psykers rule like a GK Strike Squad be considered a single psyker for the purposes of something like the Culexus Assassin's Animus Speculum? I know that in the previous rendition of the Brotherhood of Psykers they counted as only one psyker but the term Psyker unit doesn't specify whether or not each model would still be considered a Psyker.

Yes, a Brotherhood unit is a single psyker.

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?

If your point is that the psychic rules are poorly written, I think we've already covered that...

 insaniak wrote:
If your point is that the psychic rules are poorly written, I think we've already covered that...

My point was his interpretation completely breaks numerous psychic powers. Yes the Psychic phase is poorly written and any stringent RaW applied to it quickly falls apart.