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.

morgoth wrote:
*You* can't have it both ways.

Nobody can have it both ways. The IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes. If he also counts as a unit comprised just of himself, then you're not counting him as a part of the unit for all rules purposes.

 insaniak wrote:

morgoth wrote:
*You* can't have it both ways.

Nobody can have it both ways. The IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes. If he also counts as a unit comprised just of himself, then you're not counting him as a part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Because you refuse to accept that if the IC rule is given to a unit, then that unit is what becomes a part of the other unit.

Or, the IC rule is given to the model, so are the other rules including the Psyker rule, and demonstrably, there can be no unit with the Psyker rule because it's always the model who's getting it.

What's so hard to understand ?

Who said that the IC rule is given to the unit?

 insaniak wrote:
Who said that the IC rule is given to the unit?

Go back a few posts, read what I wrote, and you'll understand why there is even discussion of the rule being given to the unit or the model.

morgoth wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

morgoth wrote:
*You* can't have it both ways.

Nobody can have it both ways. The IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes. If he also counts as a unit comprised just of himself, then you're not counting him as a part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Because you refuse to accept that if the IC rule is given to a unit, then that unit is what becomes a part of the other unit.

Or, the IC rule is given to the model, so are the other rules including the Psyker rule, and demonstrably, there can be no unit with the Psyker rule because it's always the model who's getting it.

What's so hard to understand ?

Wait - you're attempting to treat the IC as his own unit for a rules purpose?
Something the IC rule specifically doesn't allow?
I'm sure you can show rules support.

Morgoth,

Game Workshop does have an annoying habit of referring to a Model Specific element when addressing the Unit as a whole, do not believe that the posters here are unable to see that. The most common we have ranted over in the past are Special Rules which triggers off shots against a specific Unit Type, as Unit Types are Model specific while Shooting Attacks are Unit wide. The underlining problem with the entirety of the Psychic Rules is that Game Workshop has created an entire Phase which falls for this very annoying trap. No one will try and claim that the Authors Intended for the broken situations we find every game Turn, they clearly never intended for the 'all Rule purpose' clause to apply here.

Written Rules though...
The Independent Character is a member of the Joined Unit for all Rule purposes, it is illegal to apply a Rule in a way which does not treat the Model as part of that Unit.

JinxDragon wrote:
Morgoth,

Game Workshop does have an annoying habit of referring to a Model Specific element when addressing the Unit as a whole, do not believe that the posters here are unable to see that. The most common we have ranted over in the past are Special Rules which triggers off shots against a specific Unit Type, as Unit Types are Model specific while Shooting Attacks are Unit wide. The underlining problem with the entirety of the Psychic Rules is that Game Workshop has created an entire Phase which falls for this very annoying trap. No one will try and claim that the Authors Intended for the broken situations we find every game Turn, they clearly never intended for the 'all Rule purpose' clause to apply here.

Written Rules though...
The Independent Character is a member of the Joined Unit for all Rule purposes, it is illegal to apply a Rule in a way which does not treat the Model as part of that Unit.

The argument was:

Either

the model gets the rules, and the BRB wording needs to be corrected to "unit or model" instead of "unit".

OR

the single IC unit gets the rules, and that means that the unit has the IC rule, remains a unit, and therefore can still be a Psyker Unit, even when part of another unit, without breaking the "all Rule Purposes" clause.

the brotherhood of pskers rule isnt all that hard to understand... it is basicially a rule to help units that are pskers... i know imperial guard has a unit of psykers....i play naids, and my thropes are a brotherhood of pskers.... the only rule that might give a problem is when you perils and one of your guys die, you get to pick which model it is.... so i believe the imperial guard unit has one psyker and an amount of other guys in the unit......and if that unit perils, you dont have to kill the psyker, you can kill one of the extra guys.......

as far as powers go, the psker can use/cast as many powers as he is able to...

what i mean is you have one psyker and you get one dice...lets say you roll a 3 on the dice, so 3 plus your 1 psyker gives you 4 charges..... and every psyker has at least 2 powers, cause if you take all your powers from the same school, you get the primary one also.....so your one unit of brotherhood of psykers has 4 charges, the psyker can use 1-4 charges on the first power lets say you use 2 charges, and you have 2 charges left to use on the second power......


if an independent join a unit of brotherhood, nothing changes...
the only rule towards powers is that one character or unit cant cast the same power twice in a turn..... so in your example, your brotherhood cant use crush twice, but and independent could use crush, and your brotherhood can use crush if they both have it

@Varnos.... you have no idea do you ?

Morgoth,
The two choices you put forth as the only possible outcomes are both, themselves, in violation of the Written Rules.

The first option requires us to change the Written Rules in order to allow it to address individual Models. There is only one legal way to change the Rule-book itself: Evoke The Most Important Rule. This option is only available to entities known as 'opponents' and not something we can put forth as a Rule as Written solution to any problem in an internet forum. You are not my opponent, so you do not have permission to modify the Rules even if it didn't require my consent to do so.

The second option is simply out-right illegal because as it disobeys as specific Rule found on Independent Characters, regardless of how much I dispose that Rule. We ca never simply state 'oh, treat it as it's own Unit in this situation' in face of Written instructions that single out 'All Rule Purposes' for when the count as clause in question triggers. It is a sign of terrible Rule Writing if you ask me, no count as clause should have a 'always' when describing the timing said Rule uses. It defeats the purpose of using a count as clause in the first place... it might as well simply state 'is.'

JinxDragon wrote:

The second option is simply out-right illegal because as it disobeys as specific Rule found on Independent Characters, regardless of how much I dispose that Rule. We ca never simply state 'oh, treat it as it's own Unit in this situation' in face of Written instructions that single out 'All Rule Purposes' for when the count as clause in question triggers. It is a sign of terrible Rule Writing if you ask me, no count as clause should have a 'always' when describing the timing said Rule uses. It defeats the purpose of using a count as clause in the first place... it might as well simply state 'is.'

But it's not.

You think it's disobeying because you didn't read it correctly.

Here's the rule you did not understand properly:

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.

He counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Does that prevent him from being a unit or a tuna fish ? no it does not.

Does that affect him as anything else that's part of the unit ? yes it does.

Does it prevent any Written Rule from interacting with the Independent Character's original Unit while he is Joined to another Unit?

morgoth wrote:
He counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Does that prevent him from being a unit or a tuna fish ? no it does not.

If you are counting him as a part of any unit other than the one he has joined for the purposes of resolving a rule, then you are not counting him as a part of the unit he has joined for all rules purposes.

Varnos wrote:
the brotherhood of pskers rule isnt all that hard to understand... it is basicially a rule to help units that are pskers... i know imperial guard has a unit of psykers....i play naids, and my thropes are a brotherhood of pskers.... the only rule that might give a problem is when you perils and one of your guys die, you get to pick which model it is.... so i believe the imperial guard unit has one psyker and an amount of other guys in the unit......and if that unit perils, you dont have to kill the psyker, you can kill one of the extra guys.......

as far as powers go, the psker can use/cast as many powers as he is able to...

what i mean is you have one psyker and you get one dice...lets say you roll a 3 on the dice, so 3 plus your 1 psyker gives you 4 charges..... and every psyker has at least 2 powers, cause if you take all your powers from the same school, you get the primary one also.....so your one unit of brotherhood of psykers has 4 charges, the psyker can use 1-4 charges on the first power lets say you use 2 charges, and you have 2 charges left to use on the second power......


if an independent join a unit of brotherhood, nothing changes...
the only rule towards powers is that one character or unit cant cast the same power twice in a turn..... so in your example, your brotherhood cant use crush twice, but and independent could use crush, and your brotherhood can use crush if they both have it

If you haven't go back and read the whole thread. RAW things get all kinds of sticky. Most peoples HYWPI is how you describe but not clear per RAW.

There is a lot to absorb here...The IC issue is really throwing me. Here's how I see it, how I'm presently proposing it to my opponents, and presently playing it in my FLGS.

My army contains a:

1. SM Librarian - ML2, Bones of Osrak (Sentinels of Terra CAD) - IC, Unit - 3 Dice, 2 powers, Force Sword, (I usually generate the powers from the same "school" to gain focus)

2. Ordo Xenos Inquisitor - ML1 - (Inquisitorial Detachment) - IC, Unit - 1 Die, 1 power, Force Sword, (One power generation gives him focus)

3. A CC-oriented Inquisitorial Henchmen Warband that includes one Psyker - ML1 - (Inquisitorial Detachment) - Brotherhood of Psykers Unit - 1 Die, 1 power (One power generation gives him focus)

I start the game with both the Librarian and the Inquisitor attached to the Henchmen Warband. As per the BRB, the ICs are part of the unit for all rules purposes meaning this is one Psyker unit. There is one model with the "Brotherhood of Psykers" Special Rule, and there are two models without but who are Psykers.

Being one unit, if the Librarian casts Force and fails (I know, the Bones of Osrak allow reroll of failed, but bear with me), then the Inquisitor cannot cast Force as they are part of the same unit, and therefore cannot cast the same power. This also means that if either the Librarian or the Inquisitor successfully casts Force, then both force swords go live as all force weapons in the unit go live with a successful casting.

Regarding Deny the Witch from psychic attacks against the unit, all of this is superfluous as the ML2 Librarian has a Psychic Hood, so his Psyker status (+1) and ML2 (+1 against ML1) would always apply whether he was the specific target in the unit or not.

As far as Perils not from double-6s, I know that RAW state they are allocated amongst models with "Brotherhood of Psykers" special rule, and that the Libby and the Inq don't have the Brotherhood special rule so TECHNICALLY it could be construed that they Libby and the Inq can't peril, but I play RAI and randomly assign amongst the psykers in the unit as I think all the Psykers in the unit are susceptible.

Umm...what else?

Known powers - Even though there are three Psykers in one unit, the powers are only known to each character/ brotherhood. If there were 5 Brotherhood Psykers in the warband with Psychic Shriek, and the Inquisitor had Prescience, and the Librarian has Objuation Mechanicum and Psychic Maelstrom, then any one of the 5 "Brotherhood" Psykers could case Psychic Shriek, but none of them could cast Prescience, Obj Mech. or Psychic Maelstrom. Powers cannot be passed between Psykers because they are in the same unit UNLESS they are "Brotherhood" in which case they all draw the same powers to start with.

ummm...I guess that's all for now.

Lynkon_Lawg wrote:
I start the game with both the Librarian and the Inquisitor attached to the Henchmen Warband. .

When you get to the first psychic phase, you discover that there is no way to determine the Mastery Level of a unit that contains psykers with different Mastery Levels, and so can not generate Warp Charges, and the game comes to a screeching halt.


It's much cleaner to just treat each psyker as a separate 'psyker unit' even though there is no actual rules support for doing so. It's how most people assume it's supposed to work.

morgoth wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:

The second option is simply out-right illegal because as it disobeys as specific Rule found on Independent Characters, regardless of how much I dispose that Rule. We ca never simply state 'oh, treat it as it's own Unit in this situation' in face of Written instructions that single out 'All Rule Purposes' for when the count as clause in question triggers. It is a sign of terrible Rule Writing if you ask me, no count as clause should have a 'always' when describing the timing said Rule uses. It defeats the purpose of using a count as clause in the first place... it might as well simply state 'is.'

But it's not.

You think it's disobeying because you didn't read it correctly.

Here's the rule you did not understand properly:

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.

He counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Does that prevent him from being a unit or a tuna fish ? no it does not.

Does that affect him as anything else that's part of the unit ? yes it does.

If you treat him as his own unit for a rules purpose, are you treating him as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes?
The answer is, of course, demonstrably no. Therefore your assertions are incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

If you treat him as his own unit for a rules purpose, are you treating him as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes?
The answer is, of course, demonstrably no. Therefore your assertions are incorrect.

Sorry, I'm new to Dakka and 40k, and I'm not trying to get sucked into quibbling, but you say demonstrably... can you demonstrate? I guess I'm not seeing an inherent contradiction with a unit also counting as part of a larger unit while in cohesion with that larger unit. Is there a rule that prohibits nesting units? Because the IC rule reads to me as wanting to be just that.

I don't think anyone's denying that 40k RAW have problems; from what I understand, anytime they introduce a new concept (such as the Psychic Phase) it tends to be ramshackle, only to be (hopefully) cleaned up with later editions. But then again, this really doesn't seem to be the sort of game anyone plays RAW.

So really my only concern is, do we have a playable game? The Psychic aspect is something I would like to add to my arsenal, long as I can figure a workable way to do it. Been looking at adding an allied detachment of Grey Knights to my Crimson Fists army, thus my interest in this thread.

 AlienHydra01 wrote:
Sorry, I'm new to Dakka and 40k, and I'm not trying to get sucked into quibbling, but you say demonstrably... can you demonstrate? I guess I'm not seeing an inherent contradiction with a unit also counting as part of a larger unit while in cohesion with that larger unit. Is there a rule that prohibits nesting units? Because the IC rule reads to me as wanting to be just that.

We've already been over this: If you are to treat him as a part of a given unit for all rules purposes, it is simply impossible for him to also be considered a part of another unit... because that would mean that for some rules purposes he is a part of that other unit instead. The moment you consider him to be a member of unit B, you are not considering him to be a member of unit A for all purposes.

There is no rule that would allow an IC to ever be a member of two different units.


And if it was possible, it would lead to all sorts of problems. Take the assault phase, for example: We are required to resolve charges one unit at a time. If an IC joined to another unit counts as a part of that unit and as a unit in his own right, then the moment you try to charge with him you are moving two separate units. So you would never be able to charge with a unit that has an IC joined to it.

 AlienHydra01 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

If you treat him as his own unit for a rules purpose, are you treating him as part of the larger unit for all rules purposes?
The answer is, of course, demonstrably no. Therefore your assertions are incorrect.

Sorry, I'm new to Dakka and 40k, and I'm not trying to get sucked into quibbling, but you say demonstrably... can you demonstrate? I guess I'm not seeing an inherent contradiction with a unit also counting as part of a larger unit while in cohesion with that larger unit. Is there a rule that prohibits nesting units? Because the IC rule reads to me as wanting to be just that.

First, there's no permission for "nested units" which there'd have to be.
Second, what rule are you going to treat this IC as separate from the larger unit? Does that rule make some exception? Because the IC rule says all rules purposes, not "some" or "most".

It's a demonstrable fact that ICs cannot be their own unit for any rules purpose once joined to a unit.
Not without breaking rules, of course.

It seems to me that treating an IC as part of the unit for all rules purposes is referring to any rule that affects the unit as a whole. For example if im shooting at the combined unit, then the IC model is part of the unit for all intents and purposes and takes hits (barring look out sirs and special exceptions of course).

But, the IC never does cease to be his own unit, this is why we are reminded on missions such as purge the alien that IC's are worth victory points - or would you argue that hiding your IC in a unit on purge prevents the enemy from claiming a victory point for killing him since he is "part of the unit for all rules purposes".

Clearly to me, that clause is intended to be invoked whenever a rule is applied to the combined unit. Anything however that applies to the IC separately however, such as victory points, slay the warlord, etc., still seem to affect the IC unit even if he isn't at the time technically an independent unit.

With this, I think there is precedent for considering "psyker units" a separate classification that is treated independently of its current status/relationship on the battlefield when specifically invoked (i.e. during the psychic phase).

 insaniak wrote:

 AlienHydra01 wrote:
Sorry, I'm new to Dakka and 40k, and I'm not trying to get sucked into quibbling, but you say demonstrably... can you demonstrate? I guess I'm not seeing an inherent contradiction with a unit also counting as part of a larger unit while in cohesion with that larger unit. Is there a rule that prohibits nesting units? Because the IC rule reads to me as wanting to be just that.

We've already been over this: If you are to treat him as a part of a given unit for all rules purposes, it is simply impossible for him to also be considered a part of another unit... because that would mean that for some rules purposes he is a part of that other unit instead. The moment you consider him to be a member of unit B, you are not considering him to be a member of unit A for all purposes.

There is no rule that would allow an IC to ever be a member of two different units.

And if it was possible, it would lead to all sorts of problems. Take the assault phase, for example: We are required to resolve charges one unit at a time. If an IC joined to another unit counts as a part of that unit and as a unit in his own right, then the moment you try to charge with him you are moving two separate units. So you would never be able to charge with a unit that has an IC joined to it.

Okay, that last bit makes sense, in that the rules kind of break in that case I guess. Re-reading the IC rules, I see how it works with regards to sharing special rules, and that it joins the unit but as to whether it's two units becoming a larger unit, or one model leaving his unit (or ceasing to be a unit) to join another unit, doesn't seem to say explicitly either way. I guess I just don't see unit membership as an innately either/or thing as much as you folks who are more familiar with the game do. Clearly that's how this game is played, but not coming from the frame of reference you are, it's not as obvious. Like, maybe there isn't a rule that says you can be in two units, but is there a rule that stops it happening, that defines it as either/or? I'll assume there is, from what you're saying, or else it's a fundamental conceit of the game to the degree that it doesn't need to be spelled out. The whole unit concept as applied in 40k seems kind of wonky to me; still wrapping my head around it, as I come from Malifaux and X-Wing where a model is a model is a model.

TBH, I find the tone in a lot of the previous posts a bit off-putting. Is this just something rules discussions bring out, or is this pretty much what I can expect from Dakka?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Lynkon_Lawg wrote:
I start the game with both the Librarian and the Inquisitor attached to the Henchmen Warband. .

When you get to the first psychic phase, you discover that there is no way to determine the Mastery Level of a unit that contains psykers with different Mastery Levels, and so can not generate Warp Charges, and the game comes to a screeching halt.


It's much cleaner to just treat each psyker as a separate 'psyker unit' even though there is no actual rules support for doing so. It's how most people assume it's supposed to work.

You're right, the rulebook is really sloppy about conflating units and models, especially when it comes to psykers. It defines a psyker as a MODEL with the psyker rule, but then in the psychic phase rules it says for the purposes of all rules Psyker is = Psyker Unit is = any UNIT with any of those psyker special rules.

Although, it saying 'add up the mastery levels of your psyker units' seems pretty straightforward. Just add the mastery levels of all the models with those special rules in each psyker unit, right?

 insaniak wrote:

morgoth wrote:
He counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Does that prevent him from being a unit or a tuna fish ? no it does not.

If you are counting him as a part of any unit other than the one he has joined for the purposes of resolving a rule, then you are not counting him as a part of the unit he has joined for all rules purposes.

Oh dear.

If we consider that the UNIT gets the IC rule, then it is the UNIT that is part of another UNIT, and EVEN THOUGH ITS PART OF ANOTHER UNIT ITS STILL A fething UNIT.

 AlienHydra01 wrote:
Although, it saying 'add up the mastery levels of your psyker units' seems pretty straightforward. Just add the mastery levels of all the models with those special rules in each psyker unit, right?

Nope. You add up the Mastery Level of the units, not the individual models. Hence the problem with multiple psykers with different Mastery Levels in the same unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:
If we consider that the UNIT gets the IC rule, ....

We don't.

And there is no rules basis for one unit being a part of another unit, and every reason to assume that it shouldn't be possible. See my charging example from just up the thread a ways.

 insaniak wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:
If we consider that the UNIT gets the IC rule, ....

We don't.

And there is no rules basis for one unit being a part of another unit, and every reason to assume that it shouldn't be possible. See my charging example from just up the thread a ways.

You're not getting it are you.

I'm explaining to you that either the rules pertain to the UNIT and what I just told you happens OR they pertain to the MODEL and the BRB is wrong, must be corrected to model with Psyker and not unit with Psyker, and everything's still fine.

morgoth wrote:
I'm explaining to you that either the rules pertain to the UNIT and what I just told you happens OR they pertain to the MODEL and the BRB is wrong, must be corrected to model with Psyker and not unit with Psyker, and everything's still fine.

We've already established that the rules as written don't work properly, so I'm not really sure why you're still trying to make that point.

Morgoth,
There is a massive issue I have with this concept:
... the BRB is wrong, must be corrected to model ...

While we are all willing to accept that the Basic Rule Book is written in a way that does not function as Intended, we are not willing to accept any single person demanding that their 'fix' become the only way to proceed. Even the common House Rules that many players use to fix issues like this one are still agreements between those two individual players, as the Rule book requires, and not something we can force other players to do. We simply do not have permission to demand such, the Rule Book outlines when and how to go about doing what you are requesting. An Internet Forum is not the correct place or method detailed within the Rulebook when it comes to modifying Rules.

In Short:
We are not the Authors and this is not the Black Library, so please refrain from requesting that we fix the book....

Prodigious1 wrote:
But, the IC never does cease to be his own unit, this is why we are reminded on missions such as purge the alien that IC's are worth victory points - or would you argue that hiding your IC in a unit on purge prevents the enemy from claiming a victory point for killing him since he is "part of the unit for all rules purposes".

Except that the rules don't allow this - the IC is demonstrably not a member of the unit when the game ends, which is when VP are counted.

Clearly to me, that clause is intended to be invoked whenever a rule is applied to the combined unit. Anything however that applies to the IC separately however, such as victory points, slay the warlord, etc., still seem to affect the IC unit even if he isn't at the time technically an independent unit.

If it only "kicks in" when applying a rule to the combined unit, please cite the rule disallowing me from targeting the IC unit.

JinxDragon wrote:
We simply do not have permission to demand such, the Rule Book outlines when and how to go about doing what you are requesting. An Internet Forum is not the correct place or method detailed within the Rulebook when it comes to modifying Rules.

In Short:
We are not the Authors and this is not the Black Library, so please refrain from requesting that we fix the book....

And I believe we have a responsibility to come up with a consistent RAW interpretation and share it.

I know it's not how people think nowadays, but a bullet-proof demonstration showing why the BRB is wrong and why the correction respects all but the single incorrect word in the rule should have a hell of a lot more weight than some guy's impression of the rules.

If we did create that, there would be so many less rules discussions and ridiculous roll-offs (hey I've got a dumb interpretation for this rule, let's roll off) and a frame of reference for other people wondering about the same topic.


I don't find it acceptable that people end up making the same threads over and over with different answers each time or feelings making up the bigger part of the answers (like when anything eldar or invisibility is discussed).



Anyway, if it's like that it's because most people are fine with it, so who am I to interfere.

Sorry but quick question where does it say that a psyker unit=unit, can i not treat them as separate entities, and say a model can be a part of multiple psyker units, ie the brotherhood creates one psyker unit, and all ics that join that unit are a part of the psyker unit, but a model with the psyker specail rule forms an additional psyker unit which the Brotherhood is not a part of, as the specail rules of ICs arent transfered to the unit they join. Does this not work RAW? if not where does it break down?