Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The point is to show that it's wrong to approach the rules irrationally and that the rules are only vague if you do so. By approaching the rules rationally and with fairness it eliminates a gakload of problems.

We're not actually arguing that it should be played this way we're arguing whether or not it's vague.

It's not vague. They insist that a unit with a model that has the psychic ability is not a unit with a psychic special rule. I'm stating that it in fact is as logically it's a valid choice as it has a model with the psychic rule. That characters don't some being models / units with a special rule for psykers when they join the squad.

My statement is that any rational person or reasonable person who approaches the rules will not find the rules to be vague if they approach them with the knowledge that they are not meant to be interpreted to a malicious ends and the writer is not writing the rules maliciously.

It's kind of silly as to what the actual rules are neither insaniak or rigel play the rules RAW, they insist though that you must have your own HWIPI because the rules are vague in regards to what a "psychic unit" is.

I state it's not vague at all.

I've listed numerous reasons on why it cannot be vauge they list numerous reason why it's vague. That's it.

Murrdox wrote:
Threads like this? You might end up with some new player who sees this thread, goes back to his gaming group, and proceeds to try and convince his new player friends that Psykers are broken, ruining the game for them. There's no useful outcome there.

So how is it absolutely clear that 2 psykers in the same unit can cast the same spell? We're not saying that the right answer is that the game is broken - that's dumb.
But we *are* saying that it's not clear what the right answer actually is. Hollismason disagrees and has yet to actually show why - given that his assumptions are based off of Unit Type being a unit trait and all (which is incorrect).

The only point of this thread is arguing for arugment's sake. It's lost focus on the game. That's my point.

Because most people agreed that the wording is vague and could mean "Yes, 2 psykers in the same unit cannot cast the same spell. Sux." or "Nope, it's every Psyker for himself." depending on how much tea the writer had before answering the FAQ if/when it eventually comes out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
It's not vague. They insist that a unit with a model that has the psychic ability is not a unit with a psychic special rule. I'm stating that it in fact is as logically it's a valid choice as it has a model with the psychic rule. That characters don't some being models / units with a special rule for psykers when they join the squad.

Stop with the underlined argument - literally no one is saying it. You've been asked before to drop the strawman.

My statement is that any rational person or reasonable person who approaches the rules will not find the rules to be vague if they approach them with the knowledge that they are not meant to be interpreted to a malicious ends and the writer is not writing the rules maliciously.

Thank you for calling me irrational or unreasonable. It really helps your argument. And again with your other strawman.

It's kind of silly as to what the actual rules are neither insaniak or rigel play the rules RAW, they insist though that you must have your own HWIPI because the rules are vague in regards to what a "psychic unit" is.

And they are vague. You've not proven they aren't. Seriously - what's a psyker unit? Since it's not vague I'm sure you can point to explicit wording. You've failed to do so until now - have you been holding back?

I've listed numerous reasons on why it cannot be vauge they list numerous reason why it's vague. That's it.

And your numerous reasons have been based on 100% incorrect assumptions (the most recent being that Unit Type is tied to the unit and not the model).

Murrdox wrote:
insaniak, can't you just concede that there was some careless writing when defining what a "Psychic Unit" is?

Yes, of course I can. That's been my point from the start.

The rules for singular Pskyers are written from the perspective of the model itself, in a vacuum, not joined to any units.

Correct. Hence the problem.

Honestly your incredibly narrow definition of what a "unit" is was likely not in the writers' heads at the time.

What 'narrow definition'?

A unit is a unit. There's no tricky wordplay going on here. 'Unit' as a descriptor has been in use for the entire lifespan of the 40K game. If whoever write the psychic rules was unaware of what the word means, there's something seriously wrong in the design studio.

insaniak, your "interpretation" of the RAW here basically breaks the Psychic phase, ...

'My' interpretation doesn't break the psychic phase. The psychic phase rules are broken.

We are told that powers are cast by psyker units, but we are not given any way to determine what happens when a unit contains non-psyker models, or any way to separate non-brotherhood psykers within a unit.

It should be fairly obvious that Games Workshop did not intend for Librarians joined to Tactical squads to suddenly be incapable of casting a Psychic Power because they no longer could as a "Psychic Unit".

And that should have been obvious enough for someone in the design studio, when they were working on these rules, to stick their hand up and say 'Uh, hey, guys? What about when a psyker joins another unit...?'


The likely intention, as I have pointed out several times, is that when they wrote '...unit with the psyker, psychic pilot or Brotherhood of etc rule.' they actually meant '...model with the psyker or psychic pilot rule, or unit with the Brotherhood rule.'

But this is not apparent from the actual rules. We're left to figure out for ourselves if we're supposed to ignore the multiple references to units, or if GW actually did intend for psykers to be neutered when joined to units (which isn't entirely implausible, as I mentioned earlier). Or if they are supposed to be able to share their Perils with non-psykers they have joined, which is the other interpretation of this mess.


So if someone reads this thread, ignores the people pointing out that the rules as written are borked but that the way people are undoubtedly playing it already based on how last edition worked is probably what was intended, and proceeds to try to convince their playgroups that the psychic phase rules are broken, then that's a good thing, because the psychic phase rules are broken, and people should be aware of that. Because GW should be accountable for the standard of their work.

The point of YMDC as I understand it is to HELP people UNDERSTAND the rules of the game, and to resolve rule disputes to PLAY the game.

Yes and no. As outlined in the Tenets thread, YMDC has room for both 'How You Would Play It' and 'What Do The Rules Say' style discussion. The question asked at the top of this thread was about what the rules actually say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
It's not vague. They insist that a unit with a model that has the psychic ability is not a unit with a psychic special rule.

Who's 'they'?

Because I've insisted no such thing. My argument all along has been '...if you go by the interpretation that all models in the unit need the psyker rule for the unit to be considered a psyker unit.' ... because that's one of the common interpretations.

I personally think one model in the unit is sufficient... but that breaks the psychic phase worse than the 'all models' interpretation does, because it leaves you with the entire unit being able to cast psychic powers even though most of them aren't psykers and having to figure out how to distribute Perils results.

So either one model with the psyker rule is enough to call the unit a psyker unit, in which case the psychic rules are just completely whacked, or all models in the unit need the psyker rule for it to be a psyker unit, in which case psyker characters joined to non-psyker units can't cast powers.

The third 'interpretation' (that we should consider the psyker to be a separate 'psyker unit' distinct from the unit he has joined) is IMO probably what was intended, but has no basis in actual rules.

My statement is that any rational person or reasonable person who approaches the rules will not find the rules to be vague if they approach them with the knowledge that they are not meant to be interpreted to a malicious ends and the writer is not writing the rules maliciously.

And the counter argument is that this is nonsensical. A vague rule is a vague rule. It is no less vague just because you choose to ignore it and play the game in a way that makes sense to you.

 insaniak wrote:
or if GW actually did intend for psykers to be neutered when joined to units (which isn't entirely implausible, as I mentioned earlier). Or if they are supposed to be able to share their Perils with non-psykers they have joined, which is the other interpretation of this mess.

Even though "plausible", i would say that those are still "highly unlikely" when discussing intent.