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.

We're having a big argument about this at our FLGS, and it's actually becoming sort of a problem (since it heavily affects our Grey Knights player, who runs with a lot of lvl 1 psykers). The rules state certain restrictions when you're manifesting powers (a unit can't manifest the same power twice, and you need to have enough warp charges in your pool to actually cast it, etc.), but there doesn't seem to be a hard limit on how many individual powers a psyker can cast. At the beginning of the psychic phase section of the rulebook, there is a big bolded sentence: The number of psychic powers a Psyker can use each turn depends on his Mastery Level, and most of the people at our FLGS are taking this to mean that a psyker can only manifest as many powers as he has mastery levels (so that a lvl 1 psyker who knows Force, Invisibility, and Psychic Shriek could only manifest one of those in the psychic phase). But I don't see any specific restriction like that in the rulebook - it seems like if you have enough warp charges in your pool, you could try casting all three of those. Again, for a Grey Knights army this is fairly important, since my interpretation would allow you to cast Hammerhand AND Force on your lvl 1 squads (a powerful buff if you're fighting an MC). It would also significantly buff an army with a single lvl1 power, since he could usually rely on the d6 warp charge pool to give him enough warp dice to cast both his regular and his primaris power.

Who's right, Dakka: can psykers only cast as many powers as they have mastery levels, or is there no upper limit provided you have enough warp charges and are casting unique powers?

There was a previous thread here. Lots of RAW discussion there.
I don't remember if a consensus was reached, but HIWPI as long as you have warp charges and unique powers you can keep casting.

Lol. You answered it your self with the bold text.

My big hangup is that this sentence "The number of psychic powers a Psyker can use each turn depends on his Mastery Level" is not qualitative. HOW does it depend on his master level? Is his mastery level how many he can cast? Or is it just that his mastery level dictates how many spells he has, and that's your inherent limit on how many he can cast? If they intended that it mean "A psycher can only use as many powers per turn as his mastery level", why didn't they just say that? Why don't they mention this limitation in the "Manifesting Psychic Powers" section, where they repeat every other restriction?

I would go even farther: there wasn't any mention of a limit even in 6th edition (it was just a functional limit, since you only ever had as many warp charges as powers).

I hate to dredge up this topic again, but I've been working my way through the thread linked in the second post, and everyone seems to just be arguing past each other.

Number of powers cast is dependent on ML, true, but the BRB doesn't say how it depends on the mastery level.
This is why no agreement was reached, as RAW is too vague and RAI is unclear.

Yeah, anyone who told me that I'd just back slowly away from as they're being purposely dense. It's like those people who discover a mismatch or torn tag or something where their Playstation is 19.99 and they insist that it be sold to them for that , and suddenly they become like a expert at like prices and law or something. It's the most goddamn annoying thing in the forum. To have a actual conversation with someone who is either stupid or trying to be dumber than they already are

It's literally almost like people purposefully play dumb in YMDC when it comes to rules. It's incredibly frustrating to have any kind of real dialogue.

It means ML = the number of Spells you can cast. Tell them to stop being obtuse.

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah, anyone who told me that I'd just back slowly away from as their being purposely dense.

I see it as more of a cool perk of the new system, allowing you the choice to concentrate warp charges onto some lower-level psykers if they're in a good position to use them.

Hollismason wrote:
I don't need a road map to understand what that sentence means.

It's literally almost like people purposefully play dumb in YMDC when it comes to rules. It's incredibly frustrating to have any kind of real dialogue.

I can understand why many (most?) people are not on my side, and I suspect that RAI are that there is a 1:1 correlation between how many powers you can cast and your mastery level. But, IMO, I don't think the book is as clear about this as you're making it out to be.

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah, anyone who told me that I'd just back slowly away from as they're being purposely dense. It's like those people who discover a mismatch or torn tag or something where their Playstation is 19.99 and they insist that it be sold to them for that , and suddenly they become like a expert at like prices and law or something. It's the most goddamn annoying thing in the forum. To have a actual conversation with someone who is either stupid or trying to be dumber than they already are

It's literally almost like people purposefully play dumb in YMDC when it comes to rules. It's incredibly frustrating to have any kind of real dialogue.

It means ML = the number of Spells you can cast. Tell them to stop being obtuse.

Could you share your psychic abilities with the rest of the class? Or are you too busy being condescending and holier-than-thou?
Is it possible for you to admit it's not a clear rule?

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah, anyone who told me that I'd just back slowly away from as they're being purposely dense. It's like those people who discover a mismatch or torn tag or something where their Playstation is 19.99 and they insist that it be sold to them for that , and suddenly they become like a expert at like prices and law or something. It's the most goddamn annoying thing in the forum. To have a actual conversation with someone who is either stupid or trying to be dumber than they already are

It's literally almost like people purposefully play dumb in YMDC when it comes to rules. It's incredibly frustrating to have any kind of real dialogue.

It means ML = the number of Spells you can cast. Tell them to stop being obtuse.

RAW it doesn't state a 1:1 relationship. RAI isn't clear either, and can go either way. Like I said, HIWPI is as long as you have unique powers and warp charges, cast away (though I would ne willing to play it either way.) That said, it is something to discuss with an opponent before the game until the GW FAQs it.

I don't find it unclear at all, and doubt it will be faqed. It will be in the aether then for everyone playing this way.

Sppppppppooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookkkky

Hollismason wrote:
It's incredibly frustrating to have any kind of real dialogue..

Yeah, it totally sucks when you're trying to have a discussion and someone disagrees with you.


The rule in question is not clear. We can only guess as to what they meant. And as the previous thread showed, there are reasonable guesses either way.

Brandishing one interpretation as the only possible true one and insulting everyone who disagrees is not the way to encourage productive discussion.

I don't need magic cards, or some special insight, I can simply say " Okay through understanding and common sense, this is what this sentence meant". It's not being insulting , what's insulting is to purposefully be difficult in a argument and unyielding. That goes nowhere.

Do you genuinelly think that Psykers can cast all spells they know? If yes why? Then why have the statement, why not say " Casters can cast all spells they know".Why is this such a huge divergence from every single edition of the game. Why was this specific ruling made. Why was this statement not made this way?

Because of the assumption of the writer ,which is unfortunate as they should know better, that people would find it actually difficult to interpret.There's no "trick" in 40k the people who write this aren't trying to hide combos, they're not trying to "confuse" you on purpose. They are assuming that the reader is versed in the game and understanding of language that they will reach a logical not illogical conclusion to what they write.

That's my problem with it.

When I was a paramedic , there was this thing called implied consent.What this meant was that a person who could not give consent, due to being injured or unconscious, would want the best available treatement to them as that was a reasonable response.There's implied consent in the rules, they want you to enjoy the game and understand the rules in a simple and orderly fashion. Granted they could use a actual editor but the person who writes these is not trying to be willfully unclear.

If you take that statement to it's logical conclusion then you have to come to a reasonable assumption that the authorial intent was to right something simply that anyone could understand with out misinterpretation. They failed but that doesn't mean they are wrong or bad or that the rule is unclear. It's that you the reader are unwilling to view the rule in a clear and concise rational view.

Rules say a number is dependent on another number.

Players start looking for exponents.

Hollismason wrote:
Why is this such a huge divergence from every single edition of the game.

It's not. Psykers in 2nd edition (ie: The last time we had a separate 'Psychic Phase') could potentially cast every power they had, provided they drew sufficient Warp cards.

If you take that statement to it's logical conclusion then you have to come to a reasonable assumption that the authorial intent was to right something simply that anyone could understand with out misinterpretation. They failed but that doesn't mean they are wrong or bad or that the rule is unclear..

Uh, if the rule has been written in such a way as to have people reading it is not 'understanding without misinterpretation' how does that not mean that the rule is unclear...?

If you can cast every power you know...

and the number of powers you know is dependent on your ML

Then the number of powers you can cast is also dependent on your ML.


So when they say the number of spells you can cast is dependent on the ML.... that can easily mean you can cast every spell you know.

You can cast every power the psyker knows, the only limit is the psychic phase dice.

As far as I recall the statement referenced by the OP is just a cut and paste from 6E when the maximum number of powers you could use was dependent on your ML. The 7E psychic phase rules have completely changed that. Having the pool of WC means a psyker can continue casting as long as they a) know the power concerned b) have not already cast it that turn and c) have enough WC.

If they wanted to limit the number of powers that could be cast by a psyker they really needed to change the up front statement to reflect this. As the moment that statement is a now vague hangover from 6E which conflicts with the detailed psychic phase rules.

It could certainly do with an FAQ if the RAI were to limit the number of powers however as it stands RAW means you aren't limited by your ML.

The statement saying "The number of psychic powers a Psyker can use each turn depends on his Mastery Level" may mean two things, to me, and both seem semantically correct (again, to me):

I. A ML1 psycher may attempt to manifest one power, a ML2 may attempt 2, et cetera;

II. A ML1 psycher knows 1 power + bonus(es) + Force, so he may attempt those 2+1, a ML2 knows 2 to 4 + Force (primaris and Chaos focus being bonuses). If what they know depends on their ML, and they cast what they know, thei cast depending on their ML.

I'd go with the latter for two more reasons:
- force can now be denied, iirc, (and it can fail) so being usable alongside another power balances a bit this drawback (and adds to strategy, the order of manifested powers matters)
- take 2 armies with 1 single ml1 psycher each... Psy A generates 6+1 warp charges, psy B generates 1+1...
Rules (again, iirc) say that A can try and manifest each power once per unit if it has enough warp charges and the unit knows that power: in the example, let's say A manifests primaris with 1 die, and gets denied; then attempts Force with 1 die, denied again; finally attempts the rolled power with yet again 1 die (to avoid perils), and succeeds.
Same situation, only one power:
- A rolls 1 die, deny with 2 (more chances to be denied)
- A rolls 2-6 dice, more chances to peril..

One reading is more "tactical", one penalizes the caster.... I'd still go with the tactical one

I'm unsure. Could easily mean either.

However I would lean towards your ML being how many casts as a restriction, because of the structure of the sentence. How many he can use depends on his mastery level.

Rather than how many he has/ha generated and how many ML your army has, which are different things. Its pretty specific to how many of the psyker's powers he can use depends on his mastery level.

How many power he 'knows' is not dependent 100% on his ML. Maybe just a copy - paste fail, or thy didn't take that into account.

Either way it's in RAI territory.

Dependant on does not mean equal to.

And the rules very clearly state that any psychic unit can keep casting spells so long as they know more and haven't run out of warp charges.

People are claiming that a vague sentence means what they want it to, and ignoring the crystal clear RAW later in the chapter.

Hell, it was even possible to cast more powers than your mastry level back in 6th ed. (Eldrad casting all four powers he knows during the turn, regaining warp charges off his equipment, then activating a force weapon in assault)

Yes. Any interpretation of that initial statement is always going to be from a RAI or HIWPI standpoint because it's just not explicit enough. If you follow the RAW for the psychic phase you can currently cast as many powers as you want if you meet the other rules requirements.

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah, anyone who told me that I'd just back slowly away from as they're being purposely dense. It's like those people who discover a mismatch or torn tag or something where their Playstation is 19.99 and they insist that it be sold to them for that , and suddenly they become like a expert at like prices and law or something. It's the most goddamn annoying thing in the forum. To have a actual conversation with someone who is either stupid or trying to be dumber than they already are

It's literally almost like people purposefully play dumb in YMDC when it comes to rules. It's incredibly frustrating to have any kind of real dialogue.

It means ML = the number of Spells you can cast. Tell them to stop being obtuse.

Way to be condescending AND wrong, all in the same post

Dependency does not equate to a 1:1 relationship every time. It CAN do, but does not HAVE to. It gives you insufficient information for you to come to the answer you have done, therefore at best you are arguing HYWPI.

Hollismason wrote:
I don't need magic cards, or some special insight, I can simply say " Okay through understanding and common sense, this is what this sentence meant". It's not being insulting , what's insulting is to purposefully be difficult in a argument and unyielding. That goes nowhere.

Do you genuinelly think that Psykers can cast all spells they know? If yes why? Then why have the statement, why not say " Casters can cast all spells they know".Why is this such a huge divergence from every single edition of the game. Why was this specific ruling made. Why was this statement not made this way?

Because of the assumption of the writer ,which is unfortunate as they should know better, that people would find it actually difficult to interpret.There's no "trick" in 40k the people who write this aren't trying to hide combos, they're not trying to "confuse" you on purpose. They are assuming that the reader is versed in the game and understanding of language that they will reach a logical not illogical conclusion to what they write.

That's my problem with it.

When I was a paramedic , there was this thing called implied consent.What this meant was that a person who could not give consent, due to being injured or unconscious, would want the best available treatement to them as that was a reasonable response.There's implied consent in the rules, they want you to enjoy the game and understand the rules in a simple and orderly fashion. Granted they could use a actual editor but the person who writes these is not trying to be willfully unclear.

If you take that statement to it's logical conclusion then you have to come to a reasonable assumption that the authorial intent was to right something simply that anyone could understand with out misinterpretation. They failed but that doesn't mean they are wrong or bad or that the rule is unclear. It's that you the reader are unwilling to view the rule in a clear and concise rational view.

This from a person that thinks when GW say different Maledictions stack they mean the same Maledictions stack. Which is A LOT clearer than this rule. Granted when I read the first sentence I was expecting a 1:1 ratio to be mentioned. However looking at previous Editions we have a mixed bag only 2 Editions have had Psychic Levels. In 6th is was a direct 1:1 ratio, in 2nd the only previous Edition that also included a Psychic phase how many powers you had depended on your mastery level but you could cast as many as you had which appears to me to be what the rules are saying here.

I could be wrong and it clearly needs an FAQ. On first reading I thought it was entirely clear that you could cast as many powers as you had but the reaction here illustrates that it needs to be more clear.

Hollismason wrote:
Do you genuinelly think that Psykers can cast all spells they know? If yes why?

Because of the rule later on that says you can keep casting until you run out of Warp Charges.

Then why have the statement, why not say " Casters can cast all spells they know".Why is this such a huge divergence from every single edition of the game. Why was this specific ruling made. Why was this statement not made this way?

Are you really asking why a GW writer wrote something vague? :-)

Because of the assumption of the writer ,which is unfortunate as they should know better, that people would find it actually difficult to interpret.There's no "trick" in 40k the people who write this aren't trying to hide combos, they're not trying to "confuse" you on purpose. They are assuming that the reader is versed in the game and understanding of language that they will reach a logical not illogical conclusion to what they write.

That's my problem with it.

Why is it illogical to think "If, after attempting to manifest a psychic power, you still have Warp Charge points left, you can attempt to manifest another psychic power with the same unit, or select another of your Psyker units and attempt to manifest a power the new unit knows." should mean something? If you can only manifest your ML in number of powers, why does it matter if you have WC left?
Why is it illogical to think "Where this is not the case, the Psyker knows a number of psychic powers equal to his Mastery Level." is what it means by "depends on"?

When I was a paramedic , there was this thing called implied consent.What this meant was that a person who could not give consent, due to being injured or unconscious, would want the best available treatement to them as that was a reasonable response.There's implied consent in the rules, they want you to enjoy the game and understand the rules in a simple and orderly fashion. Granted they could use a actual editor but the person who writes these is not trying to be willfully unclear.

I suspect that more and more with each edition - either they don't know how to express themselves clearly (which I don't believe) or they're deliberately making some rules vague for whatever reason.

If you take that statement to it's logical conclusion then you have to come to a reasonable assumption that the authorial intent was to right something simply that anyone could understand with out misinterpretation. They failed but that doesn't mean they are wrong or bad or that the rule is unclear. It's that you the reader are unwilling to view the rule in a clear and concise rational view.

My problem with your stance is that you're only accepting your interpretation as correct when you literally have no basis for doing so.
An equally valid interpretation exists that takes all the Psychic phase rules into account (where yours has to handwave some of them away as redundant statements) and you're refusing to recognize it, dismissing it as illogical and against the "spirit" of the rules.

"The number of psychic powers a Psycher can use each turn depends on his Mastery Level". BWB (Big White Book?), page 22, paragraph 4.

I do not think this relationship is as unclear as people are making it out to be. In addition to the rule stating that the number of powers that can be manifested depends on mastery level, you also have to consider that nowhere else in the book does it indicate that the number of powers that can be manifested depends upon anything else.

Thus, two psychers with the same mastery level should be able to manifest the same number of powers. This actually rules out a lot of possibilities. There are units that have a number of powers that is more than their mastery level, and from the rule, we know that this cannot influence the number of powers manifested, only the mastery level can.

So let us figure out more specific limitations for the following:

Number of Powers = F( ML ), where F is some unknown function and ML is the psycher's Mastery Level.

Powers are countable, thus F > 0 for any ML.
F is NOT influenced by any other factors, such as the number of powers known.
F(ML) <= ML + (minimum 1d6 roll, which is 1), otherwise there would not be enough warp charges to even attempt to manifest powers.
This also implies that F(ML) must be linear.
F(ML) is NOT a constant, otherwise it would not depend on ML.

The only possibilities logically left are:
1) F(ML) = ML - 1
2) F(ML) = ML
3) F(ML) = ML + 1

Even though there are no ML 0 psychers, I think it is fair to eliminate option 1 because that would lead to -1 powers for a hypothetical ML0 psycher.

So the only possibilities left are:
F(ML) = ML --or-- F(ML) = ML + 1

I do not have a 7th edition book, but the final formula could be determined by looking for an example in the book that indicates how many powers a specific psycher can manifest.

madric wrote:

So the only possibilities left are:
F(ML) = ML --or-- F(ML) = ML + 1

I do not have a 7th edition book, but the final formula could be determined by looking for an example in the book that indicates how many powers a specific psycher can manifest.

Problem with using this is that guys like Be'lakor have access to a TON of powers (like 7) while only having a Mastery level of 3. So the debate is actually very important for certain characters.

Problem with using this is that guys like Be'lakor have access to a TON of powers (like 7) while only having a Mastery level of 3. So the debate is actually very important for certain characters.

It may be a problem with what people desire, but not with the rules. If the rules stated that the number of powers that can be manifested depended on both the ML and the number of powers known, then characters like Be'lakor would be able to manifest a lot of powers. But as the rules are written, the number of powers that can be manifested only depends upon the ML.

Even still, there is a great advantage to knowing a large number of powers, and picking and choosing which ones to manifest depending on the circumstances. Even for lowly ML1 psychers, getting to pick between their power and the primaris power is a great advantage as many powers are very useful, but only in the right circumstances.

every aspect of the psychic phase is badly written. Figure out how your local community will play it until / if a faq comes out and go with that. But don't pretend anything about it is "clear" or "obvious".

The rule synopsis at the beginning of each section and the more specific rules contradict in nearly every single section.

You want a consistent formula? OK.

F(ML) = ML + BP + FP

ML = mastery level
BP = 1 if given bonus primarus power. 0 if not
FP = 1 if equipped with Force weapon. 0 if not.

Example. Warlock is Psyker ML 1. He will roll in his table and reciieve the bonus primarus power. He does not have a force weapon.

F(ML) = 1 + 1 + 0 = 2

When I was a paramedic , there was this thing called implied consent.What this meant was that a person who could not give consent, due to being injured or unconscious, would want the best available treatement to them as that was a reasonable response.There's implied consent in the rules, they want you to enjoy the game and understand the rules in a simple and orderly fashion. Granted they could use a actual editor but the person who writes these is not trying to be willfully unclear.

If you take that statement to it's logical conclusion then you have to come to a reasonable assumption that the authorial intent was to right something simply that anyone could understand with out misinterpretation. They failed but that doesn't mean they are wrong or bad or that the rule is unclear. It's that you the reader are unwilling to view the rule in a clear and concise rational view.

Quoted for truth. Thank you for the breath of fresh air...