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.

katana100 wrote:
Firstyl they tells us they when in psychich phase section that will will use the term psyker and psychic unit to stand stand for three different thing (psyker, Brotherhood and psychich vehicles).

Those terms stand for units with those three rules.

The problem is that a squad of Warlocks is a unit with the Psyker rule. So is a unit comprised of two Psyker ICs.

Where it gets really muddy is in figuring out how to determine how many models in a unit have to have the Psyker rule before you can say that the unit has the Psyker rule.

 erick99 wrote:

Murrdox wrote:
An Independent Character doesn't STOP being a unit just because he's joined to a unit. You're just getting too bent out of shape because there isn't a completely different set of rules specifying how a Psyker "Unit" acts and a Pskyer "Model" acts. Sometimes you have to treat a Character or Independent Character as a "model as part of a unit" and sometimes you have to treat it as a "unit of one model". In this context, referring to the Pskyer as a "unit", even when it's joined to another unit isn't really a big jump in logic.

Except that they do when they become part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Cite source please?

Becoming a part of another unit, per the RAW, says nothing about losing his unit-ness himself. Where do the rules state a model can only be a part of one unit at a time?

On the other hand, the rules do indicate that "psyker" and "psyker unit" are used interchangably to mean "psyker, brotherhood, and psychic vehicles". The only reason unit is even there is likely to accommodate Brotherhoods, who are not "models", and prevent this sort of Rules Lawyering regarding the effects of the psychic phase. In this regard, every time they state "psyker unit", you can easily replace that with "psyker".

Kyutaru wrote:
Becoming a part of another unit, per the RAW, says nothing about losing his unit-ness himself. Where do the rules state a model can only be a part of one unit at a time?

Where do the rules state that a model can be part of more than one unit at a time?

If the IC still counts as a unit in his own right, then you would be able to shoot at him despite being joined to another unit. And you would never be able to join more than one IC to a unit, as the second IC to join would find himself having to choose which unit to join (the IC, or the squad... which also includes the IC who he isn't joining...) and then the universe would implode while you try to work out how that IC can be both joined and not joined to the IC who is a part of the unit for all rules purposes but to whom apparently the rules don't apply...


To put it more simply, if you assume that the IC remains an 'IC Unit' even when joined to another unit, madness happens.

 insaniak wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:
Becoming a part of another unit, per the RAW, says nothing about losing his unit-ness himself. Where do the rules state a model can only be a part of one unit at a time?

Where do the rules state that a model can be part of more than one unit at a time?

Where do the rules state they can't? All I see is that a unit is joining another unit, becoming a combo unit. Where does it say he stops being a unit at that point? Permissive ruling required.

 insaniak wrote:
If the IC still counts as a unit in his own right, then you would be able to shoot at him despite being joined to another unit. And you would never be able to join more than one IC to a unit, as the second IC to join would find himself having to choose which unit to join (the IC, or the squad... which also includes the IC who he isn't joining...) and then the universe would implode while you try to work out how that IC can be both joined and not joined to the IC who is a part of the unit for all rules purposes but to whom apparently the rules don't apply...

Yep! Targeting an individual IC would be possible as long as you have clear line of sight to him, but any extra wounds wouldn't transfer to his "other unit". If some other IC joins his unit and not the unit he's part of, he won't be able to participate in shooting or assault phases that the "other unit" participates in. When an IC moves into coherency range of multiple units, he chooses which unit to join. If he joins the squad, he has joined the IC within that squad but is not part of the IC's "other unit", so the IC remains counted as a unit individually. This actually PERMITS multiple IC psykers to generate warp charges and manifest powers regardless of how many of them have joined a squad. They are all part of the same unit and yet are also individual units.

 insaniak wrote:

To put it more simply, if you assume that the IC remains an 'IC Unit' even when joined to another unit, madness happens.

You mean like this entire thread and it's debilitating processing of psykers and their phase? Considering the issues you pointed out seem to have clear resolutions, I'm okay with this! The RAW supports it and it makes 7th edition psykers useful, which I believe was the RAI to begin with. Plus, it's not the first edition where ICs joined to a unit can be targeted. We have precedence!

 insaniak wrote:

katana100 wrote:
Firstyl they tells us they when in psychich phase section that will will use the term psyker and psychic unit to stand stand for three different thing (psyker, Brotherhood and psychich vehicles).

Those terms stand for units with those three rules.

The problem is that a squad of Warlocks is a unit with the Psyker rule. So is a unit comprised of two Psyker ICs.

Where it gets really muddy is in figuring out how to determine how many models in a unit have to have the Psyker rule before you can say that the unit has the Psyker rule.

Yeh it is a little muddy but as im reading it they are a unit with psykers in just as you can have units with any other special rule and a psyker unit is a brotherhood one as that actually brotherhood rule. So a unit of warlocks is a unit with psykers same as a unit with two IC that are psykers but a GK squad becuase it has the brotherhood rule is a psykee unit

Kyutaru wrote:

 erick99 wrote:

Murrdox wrote:
An Independent Character doesn't STOP being a unit just because he's joined to a unit. You're just getting too bent out of shape because there isn't a completely different set of rules specifying how a Psyker "Unit" acts and a Pskyer "Model" acts. Sometimes you have to treat a Character or Independent Character as a "model as part of a unit" and sometimes you have to treat it as a "unit of one model". In this context, referring to the Pskyer as a "unit", even when it's joined to another unit isn't really a big jump in logic.

Except that they do when they become part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Cite source please?

Jesus, people are still questioning this?

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.

If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

If he was already a unit of one model, how does he again become one?

Not a single word in the IC rule has changed from last edition that I can see. So since this was true last edition, it still is.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:

 erick99 wrote:

Murrdox wrote:
An Independent Character doesn't STOP being a unit just because he's joined to a unit. You're just getting too bent out of shape because there isn't a completely different set of rules specifying how a Psyker "Unit" acts and a Pskyer "Model" acts. Sometimes you have to treat a Character or Independent Character as a "model as part of a unit" and sometimes you have to treat it as a "unit of one model". In this context, referring to the Pskyer as a "unit", even when it's joined to another unit isn't really a big jump in logic.

Except that they do when they become part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Cite source please?

Jesus, people are still questioning this?

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.

Which only states that he counts as part of that unit for all rules purposes, such as wounds being distributed among a unit, units having to take morale checks, units shooting together. It says nothing about him ceasing to be an IC unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

If he was already a unit of one model, how does he again become one?

No silly... this is merely clarification for what happens when "all other models in that unit are killed". When an IC joins a unit, he remains a unit himself and also becomes a part of the new unit. But if all the models in the new unit are killed, does that mean the IC now has TWO units? NO! This rule clearly states that he becomes a single unit again, thereby destroying his connection with the other unit entirely should they all die off. If you didn't have this rule, the IC could join a unit of Chosen and still be considered part of a "Chosen unit" even if every Chosen model had died off!

Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit. You're merely arguing for your preferred interpretation, not the One True RAW.

Kyutaru wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:
Cite source please?

Jesus, people are still questioning this?

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.

Which only states that he counts as part of that unit for all rules purposes, such as wounds being distributed among a unit, units having to take morale checks, units shooting together. It says nothing about him ceasing to be an IC unit.

He's part of the unit for all rules purposes. Not just what you outlined, but all.
Are you treating him as not a part of that unit for a rules purpose? Please cite why.

rigeld2 wrote:

If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

If he was already a unit of one model, how does he again become one?

No silly... this is merely clarification for what happens when "all other models in that unit are killed". When an IC joins a unit, he remains a unit himself and also becomes a part of the new unit. But if all the models in the new unit are killed, does that mean the IC now has TWO units? NO! This rule clearly states that he becomes a single unit again, thereby destroying his connection with the other unit entirely should they all die off. If you didn't have this rule, the IC could join a unit of Chosen and still be considered part of a "Chosen unit" even if every Chosen model had died off!

The underlined is not true. It actually states that he again becomes a single model unit.

Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit. You're merely arguing for your preferred interpretation, not the One True RAW.

The underlined isn't a basis for a discussion about the written rules. Additionally, your interpretation - by your own admission - allows ICs to be singled out in combat and shooting. That's not a "loophole [you] can exploit"?

I'm pretty sure there's a line that simply states "A unit may not attepmt to cast the same power twice", I'll go find my book and see if I can reference it.

rigeld2 wrote:
He's part of the unit for all rules purposes. Not just what you outlined, but all.
Are you treating him as not a part of that unit for a rules purpose? Please cite why.

Well since you're attempting to restate my claim using a weaker argument, let me restate AGAIN that he DOES count as part of that unit for ALL rules purpose. He just happens to also count as part of another unit, his own. I play many RTS games online and we frequently are able to bind units to teams using the number keys for quick selection. Having a single unit bound to team 1, 2, and 7 is simple enough, so my experience helps me understand the logic behind being part of multiple units and counting as a particular unit when a rule asks of it. For all rule purposes, he's dual-united. Merely selecting his solo unit does not rid of him of counting as part of the other unit for any rules purpose, he is still a part of that unit and still suffers the rule implications of that fact.

rigeld2 wrote:
The underlined is not true. It actually states that he again becomes a single model unit.

Where previously he was both a single model unit AND a Chosen unit. It remains true, you merely don't care to acknowledge it because it hurts your position.

The underlined isn't a basis for a discussion about the written rules. Additionally, your interpretation - by your own admission - allows ICs to be singled out in combat and shooting. That's not a "loophole [you] can exploit"?

I'm not even certain what you're asking here, and I did not "base" anything here for any rule discussion. This line was simply a summary addressment that your rule interpretations are flawed and leave holes in the logic that I can abuse. Which I have, repeatedly. Allowing an IC to be singled out is surely a loophole to be exploited by anyone looking to murder that IC. Doesn't stop him being part of and affected by all rules that affect the unit he's joined to.

Kyutaru wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
He's part of the unit for all rules purposes. Not just what you outlined, but all.
Are you treating him as not a part of that unit for a rules purpose? Please cite why.

Well since you're attempting to restate my claim using a weaker argument, let me restate AGAIN that he DOES count as part of that unit for ALL rules purpose. He just happens to also count as part of another unit, his own. I play many RTS games online and we frequently are able to bind units to teams using the number keys for quick selection. Having a single unit bound to team 1, 2, and 7 is simple enough, so my experience helps me understand the logic behind being part of multiple units and counting as a particular unit when a rule asks of it. For all rule purposes, he's dual-united. Merely selecting his solo unit does not rid of him of counting as part of the other unit for any rules purpose, he is still a part of that unit and still suffers the rule implications of that fact.

The bolded is absolutely irrelevant to how the rules actually work. 40k isn't a RTS, and quick select doesn't change the unit so it's a poor comparison..
Please support the underlined with actual rules.
I've shown how he is part of the larger unit for all (not some) rules purposes. Treating him as anything but part of that unit for a rules purpose is incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:
The underlined is not true. It actually states that he again becomes a single model unit.

Where previously he was both a single model unit AND a Chosen unit. It remains true, you merely don't care to acknowledge it because it hurts your position.

rigeld2 wrote:
The bolded is absolutely irrelevant to how the rules actually work. 40k isn't a RTS, and quick select doesn't change the unit so it's a poor comparison..
Please support the underlined with actual rules.
I've shown how he is part of the larger unit for all (not some) rules purposes. Treating him as anything but part of that unit for a rules purpose is incorrect.

You're dismissing something that was not stated for rules, LOL! That was stated for experience, and the comparison you call "poor" is culminated with this final statement that you conveniently overlook -- "my experience helps me understand the logic behind being part of multiple units and counting as a particular unit when a rule asks of it." If you are devoid of such understanding, surely comprehending this logic of multi-unit allocations would be quite difficult and perplexing. I also already supported what you underlined earlier, please be sure to read the thread, especially parts you just quoted in your previous post!

rigeld2 wrote:
No. I do like how you edited it so your misquote disappeared.
"This rule clearly states that he becomes a single unit again" != "he again becomes a unit of one model"
Please don't intentionally misquote.

Yet since you seem to have left out your rebuttal, I'll take that as acknowledgement of its apt correctness.

rigeld2 wrote:
Saying, and I quote, "Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit" is irrelevant. If the rules support that position, they support that position. Your statement is that the position cannot be correct if there are loopholes to be exploited (while ignoring the massive one that your interpretation leaves open).

I am permitted to make any statements I care to on a public forum, including ones not directly relevant to the conversation. I stated that simple fact because the rules are so open to interpretation that I have been able to provide an alternate interpretation for each so far, and there's little you can do to argue that it is not meant to be that way.

rigeld2 wrote:
Now - you've agreed twice so far that your interpretation allows the IC to be targeted separate from the unit he's joined to.
Is that treating him as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes? Please explain how your stance fits this requirement.

Indeed it does! When shooting at units, you must select which unit you care to shoot at. Selecting the Macro unit results in wounds being distributed to all including the IC, who must also fall back if the unit fails their morale check. But if a shooter selects the IC himself, they are targeting the Micro unit. Remember, we're not talking about the IC here! We're talking about the UNIT! These are different things! An IC is a model, not a unit. The MODEL counts as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes, however shooting can only be done against a UNIT! Models merely receive the wounds that are allocated against that unit. Therefore, you can target the Micro unit individually from the Macro unit because the IC model is treated as part of the macro unit for all rules purposes, yet his own unit contains only himself. The REST of the models in the Macro unit do not count as part of HIS unit. He counts as part of THEIRS. Targeting the micro unit would then only distribute wounds against models within that unit, and since the Macro unit models are not considered part of the Micro unit, the only model that can receive wounds is the IC. Whose model is STILL treated for ALL RULES PURPOSES as part of the Macro unit, just not to the extent of exclusivity that you seem to read into when the RAW does not support that.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm curious as to what loopholes you're seeing though.

See above. I'm curious as to what difficulty you're having understanding my version of the interpretation. The rules are clear what the requirements are that must be met, and I am meeting those requirements in addition to the requirements of other rulings within the book.

Kyutaru wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Now - you've agreed twice so far that your interpretation allows the IC to be targeted separate from the unit he's joined to.
Is that treating him as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes? Please explain how your stance fits this requirement.

Indeed it does! When shooting at units, you must select which unit you care to shoot at. Selecting the Macro unit results in wounds being distributed to all including the IC, who must also fall back if the unit fails their morale check. But if a shooter selects the IC himself, they are targeting the Micro unit. Remember, we're not talking about the IC here! We're talking about the UNIT! These are different things! An IC is a model, not a unit. The MODEL counts as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes, however shooting can only be done against a UNIT! Models merely receive the wounds that are allocated against that unit. Therefore, you can target the Micro unit individually from the Macro unit because the IC model is treated as part of the macro unit for all rules purposes, yet his own unit contains only himself. The REST of the models in the Macro unit do not count as part of HIS unit. He counts as part of THEIRS. Targeting the micro unit would then only distribute wounds against models within that unit, and since the Macro unit models are not considered part of the Micro unit, the only model that can receive wounds is the IC. Whose model is STILL treated for ALL RULES PURPOSES as part of the Macro unit, just not to the extent of exclusivity that you seem to read into when the RAW does not support that.

Im probably opening myself up for some serious attack here

But Micro and Macro units we don't have those in this game no where in the BRB does this even exists :/ we just have units and when an IC joins a unit he joins that unit for all rules purposes meaning he cannot be singled out because he is part of that unit for all purposes.

Also this is gone way of track we are talking about psykers in relation to units and what happens when one joins it it would be nice to get back on track

Kyutaru wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The bolded is absolutely irrelevant to how the rules actually work. 40k isn't a RTS, and quick select doesn't change the unit so it's a poor comparison..
Please support the underlined with actual rules.
I've shown how he is part of the larger unit for all (not some) rules purposes. Treating him as anything but part of that unit for a rules purpose is incorrect.

You're dismissing something that was not stated for rules, LOL! That was stated for experience, and the comparison you call "poor" is culminated with this final statement that you conveniently overlook -- "my experience helps me understand the logic behind being part of multiple units and counting as a particular unit when a rule asks of it." If you are devoid of such understanding, surely comprehending this logic of multi-unit allocations would be quite difficult and perplexing. I also already supported what you underlined earlier, please be sure to read the thread, especially parts you just quoted in your previous post!

Please, link me to the post where you proved "For all rule purposes, he's dual-united." using actual rules.
Sure - it helps you understand the logic of something that has literally no basis in actual rules, it just helps you invent something. I don't care about that - I care about actual rules. I can handle the concept of dual units just fine, but the rules don't support them.

rigeld2 wrote:
No. I do like how you edited it so your misquote disappeared.
"This rule clearly states that he becomes a single unit again" != "he again becomes a unit of one model"
Please don't intentionally misquote.

Yet since you seem to have left out your rebuttal, I'll take that as acknowledgement of its apt correctness.

Left out my rebuttal? Sorry I messed up that quote. Again, however,
"This rule clearly states that he becomes a single unit again" != "he again becomes a unit of one model"
Please don't intentionally misquote. Your statement has no basis in fact.

rigeld2 wrote:
Saying, and I quote, "Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit" is irrelevant. If the rules support that position, they support that position. Your statement is that the position cannot be correct if there are loopholes to be exploited (while ignoring the massive one that your interpretation leaves open).

I am permitted to make any statements I care to on a public forum, including ones not directly relevant to the conversation. I stated that simple fact because the rules are so open to interpretation that I have been able to provide an alternate interpretation for each so far, and there's little you can do to argue that it is not meant to be that way.

They're as open to interpretation as what happens when a model loses a wound. In other words, they only are if you make things up.

rigeld2 wrote:
Now - you've agreed twice so far that your interpretation allows the IC to be targeted separate from the unit he's joined to.
Is that treating him as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes? Please explain how your stance fits this requirement.

Indeed it does! When shooting at units, you must select which unit you care to shoot at. Selecting the Macro unit results in wounds being distributed to all including the IC, who must also fall back if the unit fails their morale check. But if a shooter selects the IC himself, they are targeting the Micro unit. Remember, we're not talking about the IC here! We're talking about the UNIT! These are different things! An IC is a model, not a unit. The MODEL counts as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes, however shooting can only be done against a UNIT! Models merely receive the wounds that are allocated against that unit. Therefore, you can target the Micro unit individually from the Macro unit because the IC model is treated as part of the macro unit for all rules purposes, yet his own unit contains only himself. The REST of the models in the Macro unit do not count as part of HIS unit. He counts as part of THEIRS. Targeting the micro unit would then only distribute wounds against models within that unit, and since the Macro unit models are not considered part of the Micro unit, the only model that can receive wounds is the IC. Whose model is STILL treated for ALL RULES PURPOSES as part of the Macro unit, just not to the extent of exclusivity that you seem to read into when the RAW does not support that.

Assuming you're correct (when no rules actually agree with you), how does targeting a unit and wounding a model allow you to wound a model in a different unit? Remember, the IC is part of the larger unit for all (literally all, not just some as it seems you're pretending) rules purposes. So allocating a wound to that model would mean you're allocating a wound to a model that for all rules purposes is a part of a unit other than the one you targeted. Cite permission.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm curious as to what loopholes you're seeing though.

See above. I'm curious as to what difficulty you're having understanding my version of the interpretation. The rules are clear what the requirements are that must be met, and I am meeting those requirements in addition to the requirements of other rulings within the book.

See what above? You do realize that loophole only exists in your (flawed) interpretation, correct? Using the actual rules it can't happen.
Please, elaborate on your statement of, "Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit. " What loopholes?

katana100 wrote:
But Micro and Macro units we don't have those in this game no where in the BRB does this even exists :/ we just have units and when an IC joins a unit he joins that unit for all rules purposes meaning he cannot be singled out because he is part of that unit for all purposes.

Allow me to clarify for your that Macro and Micro units are merely expressions I came up with to help discern which unit I am referencing in that post. Macro unit is the IC's joined unit and all models they had, the Micro unit is the IC's original unit, which I am stating still exists.

katana100 wrote:
Also this is gone way of track we are talking about psykers in relation to units and what happens when one joins it it would be nice to get back on track

Not at all! If ICs count as units even when they are counted as another unit, then you can select them for the psyker phase and they generate warp charges individually regardless of what unit they're attached to. So arguing these rules is actually perfectly on track with the goal of the thread!

I love how some people read "part of the unit for all purposes"

as part of the unit for some purposes and not others, as I see fit.
*looks at kyutaru*

really no point in you being here if you are just going to ignore the rules that are actually plain and simple, and bring in "non rules" to a discussion that already has some vaugness.

IC, by raw, are their own unit until they join another unit, at which time they are part of it for all purposes.

if you ignore this, you are ignoring the rules, despite what you think/want the rules to say, that is what they in fact say, there is no leeway.

stop cluttering up the thread with stuff thats just utter nonsense for the actual topic at hand please,

So,

for those who actually understand whats going on,

obviously RAW for and IC psyker is a bit screwey,

HIWPI is that GW does obs mean unit, as they specifically state that repeatedly and it balances things out a bit, they gramatically screwed up by not overtly stating that a unit with at least one psyker in it counts as a psyker unit, but it does seem to be implied to me.

Does that seem to fit you you all?

rigeld2 wrote:
Please, link me to the post where you proved "For all rule purposes, he's dual-united." using actual rules.
Sure - it helps you understand the logic of something that has literally no basis in actual rules, it just helps you invent something. I don't care about that - I care about actual rules. I can handle the concept of dual units just fine, but the rules don't support them.

Second and fourth posts at the top of this page, same ones that I responded to Insaniak with when he questioned the same. Please, link me to the post where YOU proved that his old unit ceases to exist using actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
Left out my rebuttal? Sorry I messed up that quote. Again, however,
"This rule clearly states that he becomes a single unit again" != "he again becomes a unit of one model"
Please don't intentionally misquote. Your statement has no basis in fact.

"Where previously he was both a single model unit AND a Chosen unit. It remains true, you merely don't care to acknowledge it because it hurts your position."
Yep, no rebuttal aside from claiming my statement has no basis in fact, which is clearly untrue as it was founded in the same posts I addressed above. You're employing a tactic where you have the authority to pick and choose what you'd care to interpret and how, but I assure you your basis for your claims are no more founded in fact than my own. The eye of the beholder chooses to see what it wants to see and you're simply refusing to accept my evidence that the rules do not support the IC's unit being destroyed unless explicitly stated.

rigeld2 wrote:
They're as open to interpretation as what happens when a model loses a wound. In other words, they only are if you make things up.

Please refrain from unintellectual dribble that adds nothing to the discussion merely because your point has been countered. Nothing here has been made up but has in fact been a mere interpretation of the rulings, the same as your own posts, supported by the Rules As They Are Written, not the Rules As You Think They Should Be Written.

rigeld2 wrote:
Assuming you're correct (when no rules actually agree with you)

That is an opinion, please refrain from stating such things as fact or discussion with you will be viewed as hostile.

rigeld2 wrote:
how does targeting a unit and wounding a model allow you to wound a model in a different unit? Remember, the IC is part of the larger unit for all (literally all, not just some as it seems you're pretending) rules purposes. So allocating a wound to that model would mean you're allocating a wound to a model that for all rules purposes is a part of a unit other than the one you targeted. Cite permission.

Under allocating wounds of both the Shooting and Assault phases. Remember, the IC has two units and therefore every wound he receives comes from a unit other than the one targeted. Please cite prohibition.

rigeld2 wrote:
See what above? You do realize that loophole only exists in your (flawed) interpretation, correct? Using the actual rules it can't happen.
Please, elaborate on your statement of, "Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit. " What loopholes?

Presuming to know the Rules As Intended and dismissing with prejudice interpretations that are not your own is the anti-thesis of the YMDC discussion area and a quick way to end up on everyone's ignore list. Please stick to factual statements founded in logic and reason, not attacks against a poster's credibility because of your own difference in opinions. We've been discussing the loopholes in reasoning this entire time as there is no rules supporting that your interpretation is the correct one when mine exists just as likely.

Kyutaru wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:
Becoming a part of another unit, per the RAW, says nothing about losing his unit-ness himself. Where do the rules state a model can only be a part of one unit at a time?

Where do the rules state that a model can be part of more than one unit at a time?

Where do the rules state they can't? All I see is that a unit is joining another unit, becoming a combo unit. Where does it say he stops being a unit at that point? Permissive ruling required.

Remember that 40k is a permissive ruleset-if the rules don't say we can, than we cannot. We demonstrated that for all rules purposes, he becomes part of the unit. You need to cite permission for the IC to be treated as his own unit while joined to another.

Kyutaru wrote:
....

rigeld2 wrote:
how does targeting a unit and wounding a model allow you to wound a model in a different unit? Remember, the IC is part of the larger unit for all (literally all, not just some as it seems you're pretending) rules purposes. So allocating a wound to that model would mean you're allocating a wound to a model that for all rules purposes is a part of a unit other than the one you targeted. Cite permission.

Under allocating wounds of both the Shooting and Assault phases. Remember, the IC has two units and therefore every wound he receives comes from a unit other than the one targeted. Please cite prohibition.

Again, 40k is a permissive ruleset. Cite permission.

rigeld2 wrote:
See what above? You do realize that loophole only exists in your (flawed) interpretation, correct? Using the actual rules it can't happen.
Please, elaborate on your statement of, "Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit. " What loopholes?

Presuming to know the Rules As Intended and dismissing with prejudice interpretations that are not your own is the anti-thesis of the YMDC discussion area and a quick way to end up on everyone's ignore list. Please stick to factual statements founded in logic and reason, not attacks against a poster's credibility because of your own difference in opinions. We've been discussing the loopholes in reasoning this entire time as there is no rules supporting that your interpretation is the correct one when mine exists just as likely.

We aren't talking RAI, we're talking RAW. RAW, we don't have permission to treat the IC as a separate unit.

Folks, please tone down the hostility. Keep in mind we are here to discuss toy soldiers. If doing so raises your blood pressure, you are not doing it right. Thanks!

Kyutaru wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Please, link me to the post where you proved "For all rule purposes, he's dual-united." using actual rules.
Sure - it helps you understand the logic of something that has literally no basis in actual rules, it just helps you invent something. I don't care about that - I care about actual rules. I can handle the concept of dual units just fine, but the rules don't support them.

Second and fourth posts at the top of this page, same ones that I responded to Insaniak with when he questioned the same.

Aside form the fact that there isn't a single rules quote or citation in those posts (which is what I asked for)...

Becoming a part of another unit, per the RAW, says nothing about losing his unit-ness himself. Where do the rules state a model can only be a part of one unit at a time?

On the other hand, the rules do indicate that "psyker" and "psyker unit" are used interchangably to mean "psyker, brotherhood, and psychic vehicles". The only reason unit is even there is likely to accommodate Brotherhoods, who are not "models", and prevent this sort of Rules Lawyering regarding the effects of the psychic phase. In this regard, every time they state "psyker unit", you can easily replace that with "psyker".

He is part of unit A for all (emphasized because you continually ignore it) rules purposes.
Are you treating him as something other than part of unit A for a rules purpose? Cite why. Actual rules, not "interpretations.

Where do the rules state they can't? All I see is that a unit is joining another unit, becoming a combo unit. Where does it say he stops being a unit at that point? Permissive ruling required.

Permissive ruling indeed. He's part of unit A for all rules purposes. Cite permission count him as part of unit B for any rules purpose.

rigeld2 wrote:
Left out my rebuttal? Sorry I messed up that quote. Again, however,
"This rule clearly states that he becomes a single unit again" != "he again becomes a unit of one model"
Please don't intentionally misquote. Your statement has no basis in fact.

"Where previously he was both a single model unit AND a Chosen unit. It remains true, you merely don't care to acknowledge it because it hurts your position."
Yep, no rebuttal aside from claiming my statement has no basis in fact, which is clearly untrue as it was founded in the same posts I addressed above. You're employing a tactic where you have the authority to pick and choose what you'd care to interpret and how, but I assure you your basis for your claims are no more founded in fact than my own. The eye of the beholder chooses to see what it wants to see and you're simply refusing to accept my evidence that the rules do not support the IC's unit being destroyed unless explicitly stated.

Actually, I'm not interpreting anything. I'm not assuming "all" means anything other than "all" - you are. I'm not inventing the concept of a dual unit - you are.
You've shown no evidence using rules. I have. Perhaps you'd like to provide some?

rigeld2 wrote:
They're as open to interpretation as what happens when a model loses a wound. In other words, they only are if you make things up.

Please refrain from unintellectual dribble that adds nothing to the discussion merely because your point has been countered. Nothing here has been made up but has in fact been a mere interpretation of the rulings, the same as your own posts, supported by the Rules As They Are Written, not the Rules As You Think They Should Be Written.

I'm sorry? You said the rules are "so open to interpretation". They're demonstrably not, unless you think things like what happens when a model loses a wound is open to interpretation. They're exactly as clear as this situation.

rigeld2 wrote:
Assuming you're correct (when no rules actually agree with you)

That is an opinion, please refrain from stating such things as fact or discussion with you will be viewed as hostile.

It's not an opinion - I've demonstrated it.

rigeld2 wrote:
how does targeting a unit and wounding a model allow you to wound a model in a different unit? Remember, the IC is part of the larger unit for all (literally all, not just some as it seems you're pretending) rules purposes. So allocating a wound to that model would mean you're allocating a wound to a model that for all rules purposes is a part of a unit other than the one you targeted. Cite permission.

Under allocating wounds of both the Shooting and Assault phases. Remember, the IC has two units and therefore every wound he receives comes from a unit other than the one targeted. Please cite prohibition.

So you're not treating him as a member of unit A for a rules purpose? Please cite permission.

rigeld2 wrote:
See what above? You do realize that loophole only exists in your (flawed) interpretation, correct? Using the actual rules it can't happen.
Please, elaborate on your statement of, "Not a single rule supports your statement without leaving loopholes that I can exploit. " What loopholes?

Presuming to know the Rules As Intended and dismissing with prejudice interpretations that are not your own is the anti-thesis of the YMDC discussion area and a quick way to end up on everyone's ignore list. Please stick to factual statements founded in logic and reason, not attacks against a poster's credibility because of your own difference in opinions. We've been discussing the loopholes in reasoning this entire time as there is no rules supporting that your interpretation is the correct one when mine exists just as likely.

Yours is in fact not "just as likely". It literally requires you to not treat the IC as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and the actual rules require you to treat the IC as part of the unit for all rules purposes. Since yours breaks that rule it cannot be correct.

I reject the implication that this is a biased reading of the rules. Please, explain how I'm inserting bias into the following rule:
"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."
I'm following it, word for word. You are inserting opinion and not following the rule (where it says "all rules purposes"). How am I biased?

Unless you have a different definition of "all".

right, one poster aside,

we are all past the RAW discussion, RAW: characters are part of their units for all purposes.

lets move past that, and get something consctuctive discussed.


lets get into RAI a bit, as it seems, to me, that everything is indeed done by unit, but that GW simply forgot to explicitly state that a unit with one or more psykers in it, is a psychich unit.

it does seem to me that it is implied, and that is HIWPI,

what do you guys think about this RAI HIWPI interpretation?

So you lose the charges a IC would normaly generate if they join a unit?

That seeems a bit silly.

HIWPI:
ICs contribute their charges. Units contribute their charges. Multiple Psykers in a unit contribute their charges.

ICs that are members of a unit cannot case the same spell as the unit they're a member of.
Multiple Psykers that are members of a unit (not BoP/S) cannot cast the same spell

rigeld2 wrote:
HIWPI:
ICs contribute their charges. Units contribute their charges. Multiple Psykers in a unit contribute their charges.

ICs that are members of a unit cannot case the same spell as the unit they're a member of.
Multiple Psykers that are members of a unit (not BoP/S) cannot cast the same spell

ok so it sounds like most of us are on the same page here, all that is what I believe RAI to be, and is HIWPI.

while not explicitly stated in the rules, it does seem implied to me that all that is true.

It also makes a lot of sense, and balances things out nicely.

 easysauce wrote:
right, one poster aside,

we are all past the RAW discussion, RAW: characters are part of their units for all purposes.

lets move past that, and get something consctuctive discussed.


lets get into RAI a bit, as it seems, to me, that everything is indeed done by unit, but that GW simply forgot to explicitly state that a unit with one or more psykers in it, is a psychich unit.

it does seem to me that it is implied, and that is HIWPI,

what do you guys think about this RAI HIWPI interpretation?

You're really going to have to go back and read the rest of the thread before these two got into their debate about if an ic remains his own unit. They actually discuss what you are saying in the rule book, and it was discussed ad nausium earlier in this thread.

So... for the two of you....

you will not find an opponent ANYWHERE that is going to let you single target an IC that has joined a unit. they will cite the rule that he has become part of the unit or all purposes, and if you insist, you will quickly run out of opponents in that game shop.

I'll give you a few examples though just to give you some food for thought. After that I'm not debating it anymore, because as I said, there is not a 40k player on the planet that's going to let you use that interpretation of the rules.


An IC can't fire at a different unit than the rest of his unit.

He "AGAIN BECOMES" a unit of one model at the start of the following phase. You can't become something you already are. That statement is pretty clear.


But regardless, no one is going to play with you that way man.

And for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't even matter. the rule still says that a unit with a model that has the 'psyker' special rule is referred to as a "psychic unit". Even your definition of what happens to an IC doesn't explain the wording in these rules. It's unfortunate, but they used the terms "psyker' and "psyker unit" interchangeably for this section, as is evidenced where they have repeated rules and swapped the noun. (see my previous posts for examples). It''s poor wording. Playing this rule by RAW would result in things like "taking two perils of the warp every time you suffered perils, one for the psyker, and one for the psyker unit". I don't think anyone believes that's what was RAI. And I don't for see anyone forcing you to pay by RAW in that regard.

Can we move on from this particular debate and try to figure out how to handle the psykers?

Emmagine

why are you talking to me, rudely, like I think an IC in a unit isnt part of that unit for all purposes?

thats not my position at all, in fact, I have repeatedly been stating the opposite...

you have me confused with another poster...

also, the whole point of me changing the discussion to HIWPI and RAI was to stop people from going on and on about exactly what you continue to go on and on about...

The first part of my reply was towards you. Your point has been discussed already in this thread. alot. after that, I'm referring to the other two people who are going back and forth over the whole IC thing. next time I'll be more specific when I say 'for the two of you". The rest was not intended for you as the respondent.

The problem is that it actually does say that. All of it. but it also stats completely different things that contradict it, if you are not using the terms "psyker" and "psyker unit' interchangeably. Trying to interpret as raw would, as i have said elsewhere, result in things like suffering 2 perrils of the warp rolls every time you rolled doubles. One for the psyker, and one for the psyker unit.

This leaves me with the only possible interpretation left, is that when it is making the following statement

For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/ Sorcerers special rules.

Games Workshop Ltd. Warhammer 40,000 (Kindle Locations 5757-5759).

is that you are supposed to substitute the appropriate term whenever you see one of these terms.

For example: substitute Psyker for Psyker unit. Or substitute the term "brothrhood of psykers" for the term psyker. Depending on what unit/ model you are using.

That's the only way every thing jives. If you do this, you no longer suffer perils of the warp twice when a model rolls doubles. There is no other way of working it that results in only one perils. Doing it this way, each psyker would be able to cast each spell once. He would suffer his own perils. Etc.

This thread seems to be entirely about the vagueness between Psyker and Psyker unit. The limited on not casting the same power has nothing to do with that, at least on the digital rulebook, it says no "unit" can attempt to cast the same power twice.

This is a fantastic change and very clear RAW that stops abusive psychic death stars that most people hated in 6th ed. I

If you have 2 farseers in a unit both of which have fortune you get one chance to get it off, that's your gamble for attempting to make a seer star you won't get any tears from me about how your totally abusive deathstar can't auto-win anymore. They would clearly add there full combine mastery level to the warp charge pool, there is not verbiage that says otherwise. The no unit casting the same power twice on the other hand is extremely clear. Perils is also pretty clear that the psyker who's spell you chose is the psyker that suffers the perils, and brotherhood has their own way of working that out.

The summoning of a daemon price on the other hand seems RAW that if the pink horrors cast the spell the herald goes to.... your getting a greater daemon here and you can easily move the herald out in the movement phase before you cast the spell, it's not really that big of a deal.

Kyutaru wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Where do the rules state that a model can be part of more than one unit at a time?

Where do the rules state they can't?

The same place they say that he can't turn into a 17-foot-tall wilderbeast and inflict Strength D Stomp attacks on every unt on the board...

The rules tell you what you can do. 'The rules don't say I can't' is not a reason to allow something.

Yep! Targeting an individual IC would be possible as long as you have clear line of sight to him, but any extra wounds wouldn't transfer to his "other unit".

Except that if you're targeting the IC specifically, then you're not counting him as a part of the unit he is joined to for all rules purposes...

If some other IC joins his unit and not the unit he's part of, he won't be able to participate in shooting or assault phases that the "other unit" participates in.

And so, again, not counting him as a part of the unit for all rules purposes.

When an IC moves into coherency range of multiple units, he chooses which unit to join. If he joins the squad, he has joined the IC within that squad but is not part of the IC's "other unit", so the IC remains counted as a unit individually. This actually PERMITS multiple IC psykers to generate warp charges and manifest powers regardless of how many of them have joined a squad. They are all part of the same unit and yet are also individual units.

Except, again, for the bit where they're all supposed to be one unit for all rules purposes.

You mean like this entire thread and it's debilitating processing of psykers and their phase?

That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Considering the issues you pointed out seem to have clear resolutions,...

...provided you completely ignore the rules for ICs joining units. And which doesn't solve anything at all where units of multiple, non-IC, non-Brotherhood Psykers are concerned...

Kisada II wrote:
This thread seems to be entirely about the vagueness between Psyker and Psyker unit. The limited on not casting the same power has nothing to do with that, at least on the digital rulebook, it says no "unit" can attempt to cast the same power twice.

This is a fantastic change and very clear RAW that stops abusive psychic death stars that most people hated in 6th ed. I

If you have 2 farseers in a unit both of which have fortune you get one chance to get it off, that's your gamble for attempting to make a seer star you won't get any tears from me about how your totally abusive deathstar can't auto-win anymore. They would clearly add there full combine mastery level to the warp charge pool, there is not verbiage that says otherwise. The no unit casting the same power twice on the other hand is extremely clear. Perils is also pretty clear that the psyker who's spell you chose is the psyker that suffers the perils, and brotherhood has their own way of working that out.

The summoning of a daemon price on the other hand seems RAW that if the pink horrors cast the spell the herald goes to.... your getting a greater daemon here and you can easily move the herald out in the movement phase before you cast the spell, it's not really that big of a deal.

all of this has been discussed ad nauseum. please read the rest of the thread.