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.

Sajeel,
The problem is with the Independent Character Special Rule, where it forbids any Rule from being Resolved unless it treats the Independent Character as a member of the Joined Unit.
If you treat the Independent Character as it's own Unit, for any reason, have you obeyed this requirement?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Morgoth,
There is nothing wrong with stating 'The Rule is broken, here is a solution to fixing it,' that is actually an appropriate use of this forum and I encourage it as long as that is all you are doing....
And that you mark it as such simply so we can tell that is what is being discussed, that is just for curtsey though.

The problem comes when one demands others use their 'Fix' to the break above all else, arguing that everyone who plays it in any other way must be doing things wrong. I have even seen accusations that those of us wishing to simply highlight the broken Rule are 'part of the problem' in the past, because we refuse to simply accept someone else's solution to this break as 'the one true way.' There are even those which have demanded outright that we use this Forum in an attempt to 'fix' these Rules like you are attempting to do here, some even going as far to advocate lying to those less knowledgeable of the Rules in order to get them to play the game we deem to be correct. All these people are ignoring a few very important things that make it impossible for us to do that:

1) Groups out there know we can't force them to obey our House Rules, they would honestly just laugh at someone stating 'that is how the internet told them to do it.'
2) We can't even force our own members to agree when a Broken Rule occurs, unless it is very obvious, so there is no way to get anyone to agree to a way to fix said break.
3) No one would bother coming to this site in order to get a Rule clarified, once we get a reputation for playing loose with the Rules.

That last one is very important, the reason we get so many questions posted here is due to DakkaDakka having a reputation as one of the better place to discuss Rules.
If we start telling people something other then 'Rule is broke, discuss it with your opponents' in these situations, how long till we get a Reputation of playing fast and loose with the Rules?

Read the thread SaJeel, all those rules have already been pasted here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:

3) No one would bother coming to this site in order to get a Rule clarified, once we get a reputation for playing loose with the Rules.

That last one is very important, the reason we get so many questions posted here is due to DakkaDakka having a reputation as one of the better place to discuss Rules.
If we start telling people something other then 'Rule is broke, discuss it with your opponents' in these situations, how long till we get a Reputation of playing fast and loose with the Rules?

On the contrary, what I propose is not to play loose with the Rules.

Instead, it offers something more than just a House Rule, i.e. a standard resolution based on the RAW and logic alone, which people are welcome to try and debunk to improve it.

A sort of work in progress that people can base themselves on, instead of a dozen discussions with three different outcomes and often no logic or the wrong logic behind the conclusion.



But I know nobody cares for solutions, people come here because they want their interpretation to be right and confirmed and that's about it, while idiots chime in without even reading or understanding what's written and others lock threads in which they participated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:

If you treat the Independent Character as it's own Unit, for any reason, have you obeyed this requirement?

If the Independent Character is a unit, that's part of another unit for all rules purposes, it's still a unit.

When you're asked to determine whether it is a unit with the Psyker special rule, you can confirm that it is.
When you're asked to resolve a rule that affects "parts of a unit", you can still do it.
What you need to realize is that even if it were a unit, it could still *count* as part of another unit for all rules purposes while being a unit and therefore matching the Psyker unit definition.

This is of course *if* the Independent Character was a rule possessed by the single model unit, and not by the model itself.


That is relevant in exploring the two possibilities only, since we have proof that only a model can have the Psyker Special Rule, and that means that all rules listed below the "Farseer" unit or any other Psyker pertain to the model itself and not the unit.

Which means that the BRB's definition of Psyker Units is false, as there cannot be "units" with the "Psyker" or "Psychic Pilot" USR.

morgoth wrote:
On the contrary, what I propose is not to play loose with the Rules.

Instead, it offers something more than just a House Rule, i.e. a standard resolution based on the RAW and logic alone, which people are welcome to try and debunk to improve it.

A sort of work in progress that people can base themselves on, instead of a dozen discussions with three different outcomes and often no logic or the wrong logic behind the conclusion.

The section you're looking for is '40K Proposed Rules'

But I know nobody cares for solutions, people come here because they want their interpretation to be right and confirmed and that's about it, while idiots chime in without even reading or understanding what's written and others lock threads in which they participated.

To the contrary, people want solutions. But where that solution is not found in a readily available, written rule, the best you can do is provide a suggested workaround, and accept that not everyone will agree that your proposed workaround is the best way to do it.



Meanwhile, this thread is just going around in circles like the last one did at this point, so I think it's about time to give it a rest.