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.

How do the rules work with regards to Psyker ICs joined to units ?


The one sentence that started the discussion:

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.

According to that rule, you need a unit with the USR to be considered a "Psyker" / "Psyker Unit".

For that rule to make sense, it should be possible to have units with any of those three USRs.


For "Brotherhood of Psykers", (only) units can have the USR so everything's fine.
For "Psychic Pilot", I can't find a unit that can have the USR. But there are models:

PSYKER:

Dreadnoughts and Venerable Dreadnoughts know the Banishment and Sanctuary powers from the Daemonology (Sanctic) discipline.

Psychic Pilot

Some craft have psychic gunners, drivers or other crew who can use their mental abilities in support of their allies.

A vehicle with this special rule is a Psyker.

Dreadnoughts are models that generally constitute units of one single Dreadnought - but not always.



For "Psyker", I can't find a unit that can have the USR. But there are models:

PSYKER:

A Rune Priest generates his powers from the Biomancy,

A Rune Priest is a model, not a unit, and the model is identified as the bearer of the special rules.

PSYKER: Weirdboyz generate their powers from the Power of the Waaagh! and Daemonology disciplines.

Weirdboyz are modelz, not unitz.

PSYKER:

Grey Knights Librarians generate their powers from the Daemonology (Sanctic), Divination, Pyromancy, Telekinesis and Telepathy disciplines.

GK Libs are models, not units.

Psyker

Psykers are battlefield mystics who harness the power of the Warp.

A model with this special rule is a Psyker.

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.

Since the only *things* that can have the Psyker or Psychic Pilot USRs are models, the wording of that sentence in the BRB is demonstrably false, and its most logical rewrite would be:

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

It's long-ish but at least rules-debate-proof.

And it means that RAW, each Psyker within a unit is still a Psyker or Psyker Unit.

It's a little hard to understand what this thread is about.

You can't have a unit with Psychic Pilot? Is that what you''re trying to say?

A Hemlock Wraithfighter (I think that's right?) is a sinlge vehicle with Psychic Pilot.

A model is always part of a unit. A model by it's self is a unit (of one). So despite being a single model, it is still a unit, with the Psychic Pilot USR, and therefore refered to as a Psychic Unit.

Grendel, I know why you're on my ignore list.

If a model is part of a unit, then it's not a unit, it's a model that's part of a unit, even if that unit contains only that model.

That difference is instrumental in the application of many rules so you shouldn't amalgamate the two concepts so carelessly.

The unit containing the single Psychic Pilot Vehicle does not have the "Psychic Pilot" USR.

Like the models in a unit with the "Psychic Brotherhood" USR do not have the USR themselves.

morgoth wrote:
Grendel, I know why you're on my ignore list.

Is it because I keep asking you to back up statements with actual rules, and you never do?

If a model is part of a unit, then it's not a unit, it's a model that's part of a unit, even if that unit contains only that model.

That difference is instrumental in the application of many rules so you shouldn't amalgamate the two concepts so carelessly.

The unit containing the single Psychic Pilot Vehicle does not have the "Psychic Pilot" USR.

Like the models in a unit with the "Psychic Brotherhood" USR do not have the USR themselves.

Your initial post simply isn't clear on what you're trying to say.

Are you trying to say a Hemlock Wraithfighter isn't a Psychic unit?

or are you trying to say the rule could be better written?

I'm trying to understand what the dabate is.

Even if a unit has a single model it is still a unit. And anything with the psyker, psychic pilot, and brotherhood rules is a psyker. Therefor any psyker may attempt to manifest a power during the psychic phase. Even an ip can attempt to manifest if he has joined a unit. If he has joined a unit with the brotherhood rules he can attempt to manifest as much as his ml allows, and then the brotherhood unit can attempt, of course you can choose which order as well.

 NakedSeamus wrote:
And anything with the psyker, psychic pilot, and brotherhood rules is a psyker.

That's not what's written and that's why I had to do some research and make a post to prove that "this basic hunch" we all share was indeed RAW and demonstrably so.

morgoth wrote:
...
Since the only *things* that can have the Psyker or Psychic Pilot USRs are models, the wording of that sentence in the BRB is demonstrably false, and its most logical rewrite would be:

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

It's long-ish but at least rules-debate-proof.

And it means that RAW, each Psyker within a unit is still a Psyker or Psyker Unit.

If you have just changed the rule in order to make it function, then the result is most certainly not RAW.


Your proposed edit is pretty much how most people appear to play it, and assume it was supposed to work. But it's not RAW.

morgoth wrote:
How do the rules work with regards to Psyker ICs joined to units ?

They don't.

Since the only *things* that can have the Psyker or Psychic Pilot USRs are models, the wording of that sentence in the BRB is demonstrably false, and its most logical rewrite would be:

And it means that RAW, each Psyker within a unit is still a Psyker or Psyker Unit.

Wow. A new stretch - claiming that the rule doesn't work so it must be rewritten and your rewrite is RAW is totally new territory.
Well done.

morgoth wrote:

For "Psychic Pilot", I can't find a unit that can have the USR. But there are models:

A Rune Priest is a model, not a unit, and the model is identified as the bearer of the special rules.

Weirdboyz are modelz, not unitz.

GK Libs are models, not units.

Page 11:
Units:
"In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units. A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together,but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

Turns out you just needed to read the rule book...

 insaniak wrote:

morgoth wrote:
...
Since the only *things* that can have the Psyker or Psychic Pilot USRs are models, the wording of that sentence in the BRB is demonstrably false, and its most logical rewrite would be:

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

It's long-ish but at least rules-debate-proof.

And it means that RAW, each Psyker within a unit is still a Psyker or Psyker Unit.

If you have just changed the rule in order to make it function, then the result is most certainly not RAW.


Your proposed edit is pretty much how most people appear to play it, and assume it was supposed to work. But it's not RAW.

When what is written does not make perfect sense because of rules lawyers arguing over tiny words like "unit", rewording what's written so that it may make perfect sense while not altering the meaning is still RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

morgoth wrote:

For "Psychic Pilot", I can't find a unit that can have the USR. But there are models:

A Rune Priest is a model, not a unit, and the model is identified as the bearer of the special rules.

Weirdboyz are modelz, not unitz.

GK Libs are models, not units.

Page 11:
Units:
"In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units. A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together,but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

Turns out you just needed to read the rule book...

Turns out you just needed to read some more of the book, and my post.

Psyker

Psykers are battlefield mystics who harness the power of the Warp.

A model with this special rule is a Psyker.

morgoth wrote:

When what is written does not make perfect sense because of rules lawyers arguing over tiny words like "unit", rewording what's written so that it may make perfect sense while not altering the meaning is still RAW.

Rewording what is written is, by definition, no longer RAW. Any kind of rewording is usually injecting an interpretation into the meaning of the original sentence. This applies even more strongly where the original sentence is unclear. You can't convince anyone with this approach, as it's essentially just stating "I think it should be this way."

morgoth wrote:
When what is written does not make perfect sense because of rules lawyers arguing over tiny words like "unit", rewording what's written so that it may make perfect sense while not altering the meaning is still RAW.

This is the most absurd thing I've heard on 40k forums. No, rewriting the rules because you think they should work a certain way is not RAW.

Selicate wrote:

morgoth wrote:

When what is written does not make perfect sense because of rules lawyers arguing over tiny words like "unit", rewording what's written so that it may make perfect sense while not altering the meaning is still RAW.

Rewording what is written is, by definition, no longer RAW. Any kind of rewording is usually injecting an interpretation into the meaning of the original sentence. This applies even more strongly where the original sentence is unclear. You can't convince anyone with this approach, as it's essentially just stating "I think it should be this way."

It's not injecting an interpretation at all.

Think of it like fixing a typo.

If by RAW it's strictly impossible for a unit to get the Psyker or Psychic Pilot rules, then surely it's a mistake and there is no discussion that "unit" should have been "unit or model".

Don't you agree ?

Its like you forgot what RAW stands for. Its "Read as Written not "Read as Intended". If what's written in the book is a broken rule that doesn't work, then by RAW it's a broken rule.

morgoth wrote:

Think of it like fixing a typo.

If by RAW it's strictly impossible for a unit to get the Psyker or Psychic Pilot rules, then surely it's a mistake and there is no discussion that "unit" should have been "unit or model".

Don't you agree ?

I agree that it's probably a mistake. I cannot agree that ""unit" should have been "unit or model" by RAW. RAI, sure, and that's how many people play it.

morgoth wrote:
When what is written does not make perfect sense because of rules lawyers arguing over tiny words like "unit", rewording what's written so that it may make perfect sense while not altering the meaning is still RAW.

This one comment shows that you lack understanding of the abbreviation "R A W".

R A W = Rules as Written

Every . or , or : or " or every word is exactly RaW when it is written in the book.

Any change, adaptation, modification of any of the characters in a statement copied from the Rulebook is no longer RaW.

morgoth wrote:
When what is written does not make perfect sense because of rules lawyers arguing over tiny words like "unit", rewording what's written so that it may make perfect sense while not altering the meaning is still RAW.

Not even remotely.

The moment you change the wording, you're no longer dealing with the Rules as Written, you're dealing instead with the rules as you think they were intended.

Again, your proposed rules change is a commonly accepted one, and has been since this was first brought up about 3 minutes after the 7th edition rules were first revealed. But it's not RAW. Just the way that many players feel it makes sense to play it.

morgoth wrote:
It's not injecting an interpretation at all.

Think of it like fixing a typo.

Unless you're one of the people who writes official errata for the game, you're not fixing a typo, because you can only guess (a) that it is a typo and (b) what it actually supposed to say instead.

If by RAW it's strictly impossible for a unit to get the Psyker or Psychic Pilot rules, then surely it's a mistake and there is no discussion that "unit" should have been "unit or model".

Is it impossible, though?

If the whole unit has the rule, is that not a unit that has the rule?

For that matter, if one guy in your tactical squad has a meltagun, does the unit not have a meltagun? The same applies here.

The problem isn't that it's impossible. The problem is that it isn't clearly defined.

But deliberately changing that definition because you think it is wrong puts you firmly in house-rule territory, not the realm of RAW. Regardless of how 'correct' you think your house rule is, or how widely it is accepted.

 insaniak wrote:

If by RAW it's strictly impossible for a unit to get the Psyker or Psychic Pilot rules, then surely it's a mistake and there is no discussion that "unit" should have been "unit or model".

Is it impossible, though?

If the whole unit has the rule, is that not a unit that has the rule?

For that matter, if one guy in your tactical squad has a meltagun, does the unit not have a meltagun? The same applies here.

The problem isn't that it's impossible. The problem is that it isn't clearly defined.

But deliberately changing that definition because you think it is wrong puts you firmly in house-rule territory, not the realm of RAW. Regardless of how 'correct' you think your house rule is, or how widely it is accepted.

But it is impossible.


The BRB is extremely clear on the fact that rules apply to a model or to a unit.

There is a large difference between unit and model, and a unit composed of models with fleet is not a unit with fleet.

Just like a unit with "brotherhood of psykers" is not composed of models with "brotherhood of psykers".

There is nothing in the BRB saying that rules carry over from the models to the unit and vice versa, therefore it is impossible in a permissive ruleset.





You may call my vision of the RAW a house-rule, but then how do you show the difference between your classic house rule and the direct logical consequence of what's written in the book, as well as the first (closest) interpretation that makes sense at all ?

The problem with "house-rule" is that you're putting it on the same level as "blasts only hit one level above and below" which is not a direct consequence of what's written but a personal invention, an opinion without any RAW backing.



You are forced to interpret the rules at all times, so RAW is never anything more than the first most logical interpretation of what's written.

morgoth wrote:


You are forced to interpret the rules at all times, so RAW is never anything more than the first most logical interpretation of what's written.

This is true, but a key point is that said interpretation cannot rely on changes to what's written. That's what distinguishes RAW from RAI in the first place. There's nothing wrong (in terms of discussion on this forum) with the answer being broken by RAW.

morgoth wrote:
The BRB is extremely clear on the fact that rules apply to a model or to a unit.

Sure. That doesn't change the fact that something that applies to a model can be considered to exist in the unit that model belongs to.

...and a unit composed of models with fleet is not a unit with fleet.

Why not?

Certainly looks like one to me.

Just like a unit with "brotherhood of psykers" is not composed of models with "brotherhood of psykers".

If the unit has the rule and the individual models don't, then that would be true.

Although it would be pointless, since only the models with Brotherhood in the unit get to cast psychic powers...

There is nothing in the BRB saying that rules carry over from the models to the unit...

Nobody is saying that the rules carry over. Just that the rules exist.

You may call my vision of the RAW a house-rule,

You specifically stated that your 'vision' was a change to the written rules. That's not a vision of RAW. It's a change to the RAW.

...but then how do you show the difference between your classic house rule and the direct logical consequence of what's written in the book, as well as the first (closest) interpretation that makes sense at all ?

By reading what is actually written in the book?

The problem with "house-rule" is that you're putting it on the same level as "blasts only hit one level above and below" which is not a direct consequence of what's written but a personal invention, an opinion without any RAW backing.

But that's what it is.

You are forced to interpret the rules at all times, so RAW is never anything more than the first most logical interpretation of what's written.

Sure. But the moment you change what is written to something else entirely, you have moved beyond 'interpretation' and into the land of 'alteration'.

 insaniak wrote:

Just like a unit with "brotherhood of psykers" is not composed of models with "brotherhood of psykers".

If the unit has the rule and the individual models don't, then that would be true.

Although it would be pointless, since only the models with Brotherhood in the unit get to cast psychic powers...

Wrong. Only the unit with brotherhood gets to cast psychic powers, because it is the Psyker Unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

There is nothing in the BRB saying that rules carry over from the models to the unit...

Nobody is saying that the rules carry over. Just that the rules exist.

You are saying that the rules carry over.

A unit composed of models with the Psyker rule is not a unit with the Psyker rule.

Until you address that statement, the rest of the discussion will not make sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

You are forced to interpret the rules at all times, so RAW is never anything more than the first most logical interpretation of what's written.

Sure. But the moment you change what is written to something else entirely, you have moved beyond 'interpretation' and into the land of 'alteration'.

There is a huge difference between correcting an incorrect part of the rules and changing it to something else entirely.

I think this a word-play that even Foucault could be proud of.

morgoth wrote:

There is a huge difference between correcting an incorrect part of the rules and changing it to something else entirely.

There isn't any difference. As pointed out by Insaniak earlier this requires you to know that an error exists, and also know what the author's intended meaning was in order to correct the error. The second portion of that is impossible for any of us. What do you do if people have different opinions on what the correction should be? Neither can be more valid than the other in terms of RAW since it's a literal change to RAW.

Selicate wrote:

morgoth wrote:

There is a huge difference between correcting an incorrect part of the rules and changing it to something else entirely.

There isn't any difference. As pointed out by Insaniak earlier this requires you to know that an error exists, and also know what the author's intended meaning was in order to correct the error. The second portion of that is impossible for any of us. What do you do if people have different opinions on what the correction should be? Neither can be more valid than the other in terms of RAW since it's a literal change to RAW.

I strongly disagree with the notion that it is possible to know RaW but not possible to know RaI. Sometimes RaI is very clear and most of the time RaI is RaW. For instance in 6th Ed FMCs had the never defined special rule "Relentless Smash" but it was absolutely clear this was a typo and they were supposed to have "Relentless, Smash".

However this is not one of those incidents. The Design Studio does not have a handle on their own terminology between units and models. This causes problems in a whole host of cases not least in the psychic phase.

morgoth wrote:

Wrong. Only the unit with brotherhood gets to cast psychic powers, because it is the Psyker Unit.

The unit casts the power, but you resolve it from one of the models with the Brotherhood rule within the unit.

A unit composed of models with the Psyker rule is not a unit with the Psyker rule.

Sure it is. It's a unit. The Psyker rule is present in that unit. It is therefore a unit that includes the Psyker rule. Which makes it a unit with the Psyker rule.

There is a huge difference between correcting an incorrect part of the rules and changing it to something else entirely.

In either case, what you have afterwards is not what was written in the book. So not RAW, by very definition.

 insaniak wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Wrong. Only the unit with brotherhood gets to cast psychic powers, because it is the Psyker Unit.

The unit casts the power, but you resolve it from one of the models with the Brotherhood rule within the unit.

Wrong again. You measure range from one of the models which are part of the unit with the Brotherhood rule.

 insaniak wrote:

A unit composed of models with the Psyker rule is not a unit with the Psyker rule.

Sure it is. It's a unit. The Psyker rule is present in that unit. It is therefore a unit that includes the Psyker rule. Which makes it a unit with the Psyker rule.

Please quote the BRB on that. It seems to be your creation.

 insaniak wrote:

There is a huge difference between correcting an incorrect part of the rules and changing it to something else entirely.

In either case, what you have afterwards is not what was written in the book. So not RAW, by very definition.

RAW starts and ends with the first meaningful interpretation.

If the original text does not hold meaning, you are forced to correct it before interpretation, and my correction of the Psyker Unit definition only returns meaning to the meaningless "unit" bit of the sentence.

If you can find another interpretation that does not require that correction, feel free to talk about it, after you've understood the difference between model and unit.

RAW starts and ends with the first meaningful interpretation. 

If the original text does not hold meaning, you are forced to correct it before interpretation, and my correction of the Psyker Unit definition only returns meaning to the meaningless "unit" bit of the sentence. 

If you can find another interpretation that does not require that correction, feel free to talk about it, after you've understood the difference between model and unit.

RaW starts and ends with what is written as soon as you change that you have deviated from RaW. The original meaning is still a meaning granted it is a meaning that denies anyone the ability to manifest powers. But hey that's RaW. RaW is frequently broken, meaningless or absurd that doesn't stop it from being RaW all it means is that trying to play by RaW is a dumb attitude to have.

Anyone that claims they know what the design studio meant when they state "unit" or "model" is lying even if that person is from the Design Studio as they clearly don't have a clue what those two different things are and how they work in game. Just look at Destroyer Weapons which still do nothing RaW (as you roll on the table for each model hit but models are never hit only units).

morgoth wrote:
Wrong again. You measure range from one of the models which are part of the unit with the Brotherhood rule.

That's not what it says. It's an awkwardly written rule, but that interpretation of it means half of the sentence is completely redundant.

Please quote the BRB on that. It seems to be your creation.

You're not going to get a rulebook definition of the word 'with'.

RAW starts and ends with the first meaningful interpretation.

...of what is actually written in the book.

If the original text does not hold meaning, you are forced to correct it before interpretation, and my correction of the Psyker Unit definition only returns meaning to the meaningless "unit" bit of the sentence.

The original text in this case does have meaning. It just results in a rule that doesn't function properly because the rule is badly written.

If you can find another interpretation that does not require that correction, feel free to talk about it, after you've understood the difference between model and unit.

You're still missing the point. There is no valid interpretation of the psychic rules as they currently stand that results in them working correctly. That's because the psychic rules are badly written, and GW haven't seen fit to fix that.

The RAW is broken. Changing those rules to make them work the way you think they should work is not RAW. We know it's not RAW, because it's not what is written in the book... and that's what RAW (Rules as Written) is.

If a rule contains an error, even a genuine 100% error, it is still the "Rule as Written".

RaW is what is in black and white, mistakes and all.

 insaniak wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Wrong again. You measure range from one of the models which are part of the unit with the Brotherhood rule.

That's not what it says. It's an awkwardly written rule, but that interpretation of it means half of the sentence is completely redundant.

Indeed that's not what it says, and that means that "unit" was the wrong word for every single case, because the Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers USR mentions models with that special rule.

Another proof if necessary that the following sentence:

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.

is incorrect and should read instead:

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

If you use the BRB's words to correct the sentences that do not make any sense, I see that as RAW.

And since no unit can have the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rules, it's clear that it could only be "model or vehicle" as the USRs tell us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

If the original text does not hold meaning, you are forced to correct it before interpretation, and my correction of the Psyker Unit definition only returns meaning to the meaningless "unit" bit of the sentence.

The original text in this case does have meaning. It just results in a rule that doesn't function properly because the rule is badly written.

It does not have meaning because there is no such thing as "units" with the Psyker or Psychic Pilot or even Brotherhood of Psykers USRs, as the Special Rules section tells us.