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.

It should faq-ed anyway!

I have never, ever, in any game of 40k I've ever played in, seen this rule played as Nos and his cadre are saying it should be played. This includes big tournaments such as NOVA and Adepticon. If this were in any way in doubt, don't you think that in all the time the GK book has been out these guys would have picked up on it?

I don't understand how GW could have been clearer about IC's taking thier own psychic tests.

EDIT: I can't spell.

First off, GW is notoriously slow in catching rules issues. Their track record is clear on this, although they have shown signs of improvement.

Second, I highly doubt Nos and company actually play it like this. They are simply showing what the RAW is. Its not necessarily how they play it in their games.

People simply need to be aware that they need to specifically alter the rules to have things play the other way(the "correct" way)


6th has only been out for little while, some of the more subtle rules issues can easily slip under the radar till someone rereads something and a new can of worms is opened.

IMO both sides make valid arguments. I agree with Eduh, that I've never seen it played in 6th edition the way nos and crew a stating (that does not mean their side is wrong). Personally I am of the opinion that while the IC is a member of the unit for all rule purposes, he may not be a normal member of the unit for all rule purposes (see debate on whether an allied IC joined to a unit can embark in their transport).

By "those guys" I mean TO's of big events who take a look through books looking for FAQ issues.

Samurai_Eduh wrote:
By "those guys" I mean TO's of big events who take a look through books looking for FAQ issues.

You assume that those guys are incapable of overlooking things. They can miss things just like anybody else.

They also have better things to do other than sitting down with the rulebook, and every codex, cross referencing every rule interaction. They have to deal with getting venues organized, collecting entry fees, getting prizes, etc... The stuff that actually makes the tournament worth going to.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Jeffersonian - except the IC is bound to the units result, as he is a member of the unit. While he passed his roll the unit failed (thanks to thawn) and so his weapon is NOT active.

This alone tells you that the *reminder* text in parens is just that - reminder of an old rule.

You also made an unsupported leap in your claim that "for psychic purposes" an IC is considered differently to the unit - *just* for Animus Speculum, as that is the full context AND answer to the question raised do they add +1. You cannot leap and make the claim that this is somehow true for all psychic purposes.

The "reminder" text in question does tell us to count ICs as different at that point, just as the Animus Q and A reminds us that ICs counts on their own as Psykers. Two (2) examples that support this. In point of fact, you cannot take a "leap of faith" and say that my statement is not fully supported by RAW until such time as you actually bother to prove it. I have shown via RAW how ICs in a BoP unit activate NFW. You may disagree, but you have not shown any form of support as to why you disagree. I only ask that you do try to support your claim that if the BoP unit fails while the ICs succeed, the the ICs do not activate their NFWs. Please support your argument.

SJ

Sorry, I havent "bothered" to prove it? I have done, repeatedly over 4 pages. You just ignore it each time.

ONE example, the FAQ for Animus Speculum, says they are different. Not two (2), One (1)

Please, show the rules for your leap of faith. There aren't any, but you have so far not even argued that point - so I do consider you have conceded that not for all "psychic purposes" does an Ic count as different.

The argument has been supported, 20 times now, with the same rule you have yet to manage to even mention in your response here. The IC is a NORMAL member of the unit for ALL rules purposes. Show how this is not true for anything other than this single Animus Speculum, or yet again you have conceded a point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The IC is a NORMAL member of the unit for ALL rules purposes. Show how this is not true for anything other than this single Animus Speculum, or yet again you have conceded a point.

Does that include for embarking into a battle brother's transport? I know we have had this discussion before, but I forget your stance on it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sorry, I havent "bothered" to prove it? I have done, repeatedly over 4 pages. You just ignore it each time.

ONE example, the FAQ for Animus Speculum, says they are different. Not two (2), One (1)

Please, show the rules for your leap of faith. There aren't any, but you have so far not even argued that point - so I do consider you have conceded that not for all "psychic purposes" does an Ic count as different.

The argument has been supported, 20 times now, with the same rule you have yet to manage to even mention in your response here. The IC is a NORMAL member of the unit for ALL rules purposes. Show how this is not true for anything other than this single Animus Speculum, or yet again you have conceded a point.

Whatever, Nos. Neither you nor Rigel will back up your statements, while both of you will shot down the arguments of others based on a non-supported view of RAW. I have explained how the process works, the OP has been answered correctly by myself and others. You and Rigel can continue to play in your fantasy world where the rules don't function. Good Luck!

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You and Rigel can continue to play in your fantasy world where the rules don't function. Good Luck!

SJ

See this isn't exactly necessary and is not conducive to an intelligent discussion.

 Happyjew wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You and Rigel can continue to play in your fantasy world where the rules don't function. Good Luck!

SJ

See this isn't exactly necessary and is not conducive to an intelligent discussion.

Not sure what you mean, Happy. I play in a fantasy world where the rules work, which goes by the name Warhammer 40,000. All I wished Nos and Rigel was good luck in their fantasy world (which also happens to be Warhammer 40,000). It is just a waste of time to argue with them, as they do not support the forum tenets in presenting their side of any argument, forcing everyone else to constantly have to produce proof they will never except (while never actually supporting their point of view in a logical manner with citations). So I wished them the best, as I will no longer be continuing this one-sided argument with them.

As far as I'm concerned, their lack of support within the rules as written means they have no argument.

SJ

They have supported their side of the rules, you seem to be purposfully ignoring where they have done that. Thats not cool man.

rigeld2 wrote:
The "ICs must take separate tests" is a reminder from 5th edition when ICs were considered separate units while resolving attacks.
If they all have NFW it's a single test for all.

So then, we are allowed to ignore clauses in the codex. How can I tell which parts of codices are defunct leftovers from old editions, and which are still viable?

Yeah i'd wondered that one myself. What rule or position renders that last part of the rules text about ICs testing seperately any more or less relevent than anything else found in the codex?

 Happyjew wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You and Rigel can continue to play in your fantasy world where the rules don't function. Good Luck!

SJ

See this isn't exactly necessary and is not conducive to an intelligent discussion.

Quite.

No more comments like this please.

Jeffersonian - we supported our argument in the first 3 pages, showed where you were making unsupported, ruleless assertions which undeermined your entire argument, and have simply bene poinitng you to where you have failed to actually show anything rule-based ever since.

That isnt "failing to support" our argument. It is pointing you to where that support is found, which you then consistently ignore

It is indeed a one sided argument. I accept you have conceded the point, and will ignore any further posts from you that fail to cite rules.

Elric Greywolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The "ICs must take separate tests" is a reminder from 5th edition when ICs were considered separate units while resolving attacks.
If they all have NFW it's a single test for all.

So then, we are allowed to ignore clauses in the codex. How can I tell which parts of codices are defunct leftovers from old editions, and which are still viable?

By reading the codex and understanding context. In the context of 5th edition, it was a reminder. A parenthetical statement should be able to be removed from the sentence and not change the meaning whatsoever.

In 5th removing that statement changed nothing as the IC was a separate unit during combat resolution.

Oh, and I'm rigeld2, not Rigel, SJ. In case you want to direct your insults correctly.

I think that nosferatu1001's and rigeld2's argument is primarily based upon the status of an independent character joining a unit. I think they're wrong based upon the fact that Brotherhood of Psykers doesn't transfer to ICs.

p. 39 BRB - Independent Character, Special Rules
"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them"

So, an IC isn't affected by a special rule unless the rule specifically says that it transfers (stealth is another good example of one that does).

p. 21 Codex Grey Knights - Grey Knights Special Rules, Brotherhood of Psykers
Basically it's a rule that certain GK units have, "as denoted in the unit entries", other special rules include Psychic Pilot, ATSKNF, Combat Squads, and The Aegis.
Bottom Line: BOP does not have the "if a unit contains a model with" verbiage (most BRB USRs use this specific phrase) or any remotely similar language to indicate that an IC who joins gains that rule.

Now, Nemesis Force Weapons (p. 54, GK Codex):
"All Nemesis force weapons are force weapons, as detailed in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Note that a unit of Grey Knights with the Brotherhood of Psykers special rule needs to take only a single Psychic test to "activate" all its force weapons (although independent characters must still roll separately). If the test is passed, all wounds caused by the unit's Nemesis force weapons that phase inflict instant death If a unit is striking at different initiative orders, take the Psychic test to "activate" the force weapons immediately after the first unsaved wounds are caused. Any further wounds caused by the unit's Nemesis force weapons that phase will be bound by the result of that Psychic test".

The rules for force weapons and their activation is covered in BRB. The above section is merely clarifying how this rule works for a unit with the BOP special rule, because the force weapon rules only discuss a single model armed with one. As further clarified by the GK FAQ, a unit of Grey Knights with the BOP special rule counts as a single psyker. The "unit" being discussed in the paragraph is a GK unit with the BOP special rule, and what follows applies to said unit (because other unit types are covered in BRB).

This aside, Independent Characters are still Independent Characters, even if they are part of a unit (they can leave, have different rules, etc). So it is perfectly acceptable in 6th edition for a rule to separate ICs from their units. And furthermore, it is not FAQ'd, so it is still RAW (which ironically seems to be the fallback for arguing against it).

So, in summary:
BOP doesn't transfer to ICs that join units with BOP
The unit being referred to in the NFW entry is a GK unit with the BOP special rule
It explicitly states ICs must roll and activate separately

GreyKnight12...
We've tried that line of reasoning at least twice in this thread. Nos and Rig believe that the NFW use of the word "unit" refers to the unit composition on the table, and does not refer to the unit composition in the Force Org.

As you correctly point out (and I have also pointed out), the parenthetical clause in the NFW rule must be ignored to roll the way the other side wishes.

This is the primary difference between the two sides.

Elric Greywolf wrote:
As you correctly point out (and I have also pointed out), the parenthetical clause in the NFW rule must be ignored to roll the way the other side wishes.

This is the primary difference between the two sides.

And as I pointed out for a parenthetical statement to be used correctly it must not change the sentence if you remove it.
Using my and nos' argument, removing the parenthetical changes nothing (because its a leftover from 5th and means nothing anyway).
Use your argument, removing the parenthetical phrase significantly changes the meaning of the sentence.

If we're going to ignore parenthetical clauses then we should follow an actual convention of standard english, namely that the subject of a sentence/paragraph remains the subject until modified by specific reference. In this case, "unit" first refers to a unit of Grey Knights with the Brotherhood of Psykers special rule. The only reference to any other unit composition is when ICs are mentioned in the parenthetical statement, which states very simply how they interact with this rule (and if we ignore said statement they are not mentioned at all). As a sidenote, no GK ICs have the BOP special rule.
The meaning is not changed if you remove the parenthetical, the paragraph is still talking about a unit of grey knights with the BOP rule activating force weapons. Earlier the Librarian example was used, stating how they are different because they don't have the same rules. Well, ICs do not have said rule under any circumstances, and so it doesn't apply to them, only to units with BOP, which as I showed before does not transfer to the IC.

And even if it it is a carryover, it is still RAW. Even if it is in parenthesis.

Elric - of course it refers to the Unit on the table, at the time. Explain why it isnt, using rules. (You have "explained" but have yet to support)

Greyknight - then you can never use BoP, because the unit is not a unit with the BoP rule; it is a unit where some of the models have the BoP rule. Or, you follow the IC rules which is that "for ALL rules purposes" they are a normal member of the unit; a normal member of the unit is a model with BoP

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...Or, you follow the IC rules which is that "for ALL rules purposes" they are a normal member of the unit; a normal member of the unit is a model with BoP

I'm sorry, what? Do you honestly believe that being a normal part of a unit confers USRs that do not explicitly indicate they are conferred or for that matter that every member in a unit has to have the same USRs effecting them in order to be considered part of that unit?

BRB p. 39, Independent Character, Joining and Leaving a Unit:
"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters" (emphasis mine)

BRB p. 127, Purge The Alien, Primary Objectives:
"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed"

I respectfully suggest that you have a misunderstanding of how ICs interact with the units that they join. Per precedent and explicit reference, Independent Characters can join units and fight alongside them and can't be called out for targeting purposes; however, they and the unit retain their own special rules and wargear. ICs, even if joined to a squad of troops are a separate entity on the tabletop and can do different things.

While yes, your argument is supported by half a sentence here and there, a thorough reading of the IC rules makes the separate activation argument (which is already the more reasonable and common application of the rule) to be the correct one by RAW as well.

Furthermore, while that section of the NFW rules by my interpretation are referring to a GK unit with BOP, they do acknowledge that characters can join and change composition of said unit, and how this works...hence the parenthetical statement. In other words, "here's how a unit with BOP activates force weapons (if an IC joined he has to activate his/her own)."

I can understand Nos and RIGEL's view on how ICs are treated when attatched to a BoP unit. The only issue I have with their stance on the subject is that they ignore RAW on how ICs attached to BoP units actually work. As has been pointed out, you cannot support a "RAW" argument by stating "ignore the RAW that disagrees with my interpretation of RAW".

We see that in a BoP unit without attached ICs, the BoP models are treated as a single Psyker and roll once to activate their NFW immediately after the first unsaved wound is dealt. No one is arguing this.

We see that in a unit composed of only ICs with NFW each Psyker is treated seperately and may only attempt an activation independantly from the other ICs in the unit upon their own individually scored unsaved wound. No onw is arguing this, either.

When the two are combined, we see an oddity of rules interaction: In a unit with the BoP special rule, only one roll is required to activate all NFW (except for ICs which still roll seperately). Side A argues that this means immediately upon the first unsaved wound being dealt, each IC with an NFW rolls for their own activation while the remaining BoP models roll once collectively for their NFW activation, with each model bound by the result of its respective roll. Side B is arguing that only one roll is ever made, that roll is done using the BoP's Leadership only, and all attached ICs are bound by the results of that roll.

Per RAW, the only side that is correct is the one that is not ignoring a section if the actual Rules As Written (Side A, in this instance).

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Per RAW, the only side that is correct is the one that is not ignoring a section if the actual Rules As Written (Side A, in this instance).

So Side A is not ignoring that the rule uses the word "unit"? And that ICs are members of the unit for all rules purposes?

As GK12 just stated above, Side A sees that the word "unit" is taken in context of the sentence as a whole: the word explicitly references a unit with the BoP rule, a rule which is not conferred to ICs.

Here's two counter-examples for "Side B": the USR BoP (in the BRB) says: "A unit with this special rules counts as a Mastery Level 1 Psyker." Since the word "unit" is used, does that mean that my Level 2 Tzeentch Herald becomes part of the Level 1 BoP Horrors when he joins them, and thus unable to cast his own powers?
The GK BoP: "A Grey Knight unit can use one psychic power each turn." Since the word "unit" is used, does the Libby who joins a GK Termie squad lose his Mastery Levels and thus become unable to cast his own powers?

Upon review of the codex it looks like Justicar Thawn does not have Brotherhood of Psykers either, but can only be fielded with a squad of terminators.

Logically (along the same lines as Elric's previous response), does side B feel that it was intended that he only have the ability to manifest one power per turn until such time as he ends up by himself (and/or the Mastery level 2 written in his rulestext was a typo of some sort?)


Another interesting example: Does a non-psychic ordo malleus inquisitor in TDA armed with a nemesis daemon hammer count as having it activated if he is attached to a squad with BoP and the choice is made to activate the squads weapons?

Greyknight - except they are not a seperate unit; only for purge the alien and counting VPs do they count as such

Jeffersonian - it isnt ignoring the RAW, actually.

The IC is bound by the units result, because he is a member of the unit. He is free to test all he likes, but pass or fail he is bound by the same result as the unit, because that is what the rule AS WRITTEN states

Neo - no, I am not claiming that. I am claiming that for determining if the "unit" is bound, you treat him as a normal member of the unit for that pupose. Otherwise you can never activate BoP with an IC (or mordrak) around, because you never havea unit with BoP- you havea unit which is partially BoP, which does not meet the rules requirements.

This was more ambiguous in 5th, and previous (do a search for Shrouding (3rd edition codex rule) and attached non-Shrouding ICs as a simple example) editions, but is concrete now

So, do you agree or disagree that the IC is a normal member of the unit?

Also - to your final point. He can manifst two per turn, as he is mastery 2. ONLY for NFW (because that mentions BoP, you are going from BoP outwards, which is the wrong way round) is he bound by the result of the unit.