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.

Alright so I have been debating with people about this, and I wanted to see if you guys could help me see if I am missing anything.

Now let me preface this by saying that I have no problem with house rules, I make many myself as I play. I will openly admit that I am using the librarian conclave and that is why I am making this post now. I noticed it before but did not bother arguing it because frankly, I didn't care.

I have no problems with TO's saying "we are trying to balance X or decided on a rules change". However I don't like being told that something is written when it is not. The only defense I ever hear is "It is clear as day it means 1 to 1" or "What else would it mean". I will be sending this to the TO's as well just to clarify that it is a rules change so that I know going into the tournament rather than expecting to play RAW outside of their FAQs.

To try and understand my point you must look at the rulebook as if you had ZERO knowledge of how 40k works other than the information that has been presented to you so far in the rulebook. Forget older editions and just look at the print of 7th edition. However i think once you get to end of my argument it will still work backwards and forwards while retaining consistency.

So near the start of the psychic section we see the following line.

"The number of psychic powers a psyker can manifest depends on his mastery level".
This statement can be re-written in to a X/Y statement as "A change in mastery level, results in a change in the ability to manifest psychic powers"..

All we know so far is that some change in mastery level will result in a change in manifesting psychic powers.

Next we establish that mastery level is on a numerical scale(starting at 1) and going towards 4 or higher. Or rewritten as "Mastery level is on a numerical scale of values 1 or higher"

Continuing on: the book describes how to generate powers, one line says that
"The psyker knows a number of powers equal to his mastery level"

So lets look at our premise again

"A change in mastery level, results in a change in the ability to manifest psychic powers".

We have already met the requirements established by that sentence. By establishing a limit on the number of powers a psyker knows we have made a direct connection between mastery level and ability to manifest powers. However this does not satisfy most people so I will continue on.

Next Section

Generating warp charges ".....each player then adds the combined mastery levels of all the psykers they currently have on the table top" effectively this can be construed as

"Changes in mastery level result in changes in the warp charge pool"

Next we are told that to cast psychic powers a psyker is required to use warp charges. or

"Casting Psychic Powers reduces the warp charge pool"

Next

"If after resolving a psychic action the player whose turn it is has 0 warp charge points remaining, the psychic phase ends" this effectively means that: When the warp charge pool = zero the player can no long cast psychic powers" Extrapolating from that "A psyker can no longer cast psychic powers when the warp charge pool is zero"

"A change in mastery level, results in a change in the ability to manifest psychic powers".

Mastery level is on a numerical scale
The psyker knows a number of powers equal to his mastery level.
Changes in mastery level result in changes in the warp charge pool
Casting Psychic Powers reduces the warp charge pool
A psyker can no longer cast psychic powers when the warp charge pool is zero

So we see that there is a further area where mastery level impacts the ability to cast powers. Mastery Level impacts directly impacts warp charges, warp charges directly impact the ability to cast.

So far I have two examples for my interpretation of the rules. I have yet to see any on the side of 1 to 1.

Next

"...no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per phase" Or "A psyker can cast each power once"

"A change in mastery level, results in a change in the ability to manifest psychic powers".

Mastery level is on a numerical scale
The psyker knows a number of powers equal to his mastery level.
Changes in mastery level result in changes in the warp charge pool
Casting Psychic Powers reduces the warp charge pool
A psyker can no longer cast psychic powers when the warp charge pool is zero
A psyker can cast each power once.

So here we now have a further limitation on the previous limitation established by mastery levels. The psyker can only cast powers that he knows as determined by his mastery level, AND he can only cast each power once. This is the last point of information relevant to my arguement in this section. If there is something that I missed please let me know and I will have lots of apologies to make.

So, in this post I have established that there are two instances where Mastery Level imposes a limit on the ability to cast powers. I have the written rules to support my arguement, thus the "well whatelse would it refer to" argument is no longer valid.

So if anyone can please show me where it clearly says 1 to 1 I would greatly appreciate it.

It doesnt say one to one. You're correct, explicitly so, 100%. The one to one relationship has been invented by people. It isnt in the rules and doesnt exist.

There exists already an inherent dependance on mastery level when determining the powers a psyker can cast. You outlined them perfectly. I doubt anyone has an argument against you that isnt "but i read it as one to one!"

Yeah I know, and dont get me started on the "only one per unit" for units with multiiple IC psykers. If you stay consistent with that ruling the whole system falls apart lol. If the entire unit counts as the "psyker unit" then I can choose who takes perils, who actually counted as casting it, the entire unit benefits from iron arm, etc.

Uh I hope I understand you correctly: you are trying to prove that Psyker Mastery Level 2 can cast more than two psychic powers? If yes then I'm with you.

You see the whole sentence about Mastery Level is just introduction (section title written in bold font). Later in that section we have precise rules about Establishing Mastery Levels and Number of Psychic Powers (section titles written in italic).

How it depends?
Mastery Level 1 can cast 1 power + 1 psychic focus + 1 force = 3
Mastery Level 3 can cast 3 powers + 1 psychic focus + 1 force = 5
Is there a dependence between ML and number of powers he can cast? Yes there is.

Also please look at section Shooting Phase called Roll to hit:

"The dice roll needed To Hit will depend on how accurate the firers are, as shown by their Ballistic Skill (or BS)."

It does not mean that model with BS 2 hit on 2+ right? And yet roll needed To Hit depend on firers BS...

The statement of powers being reliant on mastery level is a copy paste from a previous edition that has little impact on the current rules. yes powers are dependant on the ML but not directly. Rather indirectly as you have spelled out in your post.

As for interpreting what psyker or unit means at any given time during the course of reading the rules...ask your TO, group or opponent. That's a can of worms you don't want to open without a solid argument haha

 Bausk wrote:
The statement of powers being reliant on mastery level is a copy paste from a previous edition that has little impact on the current rules. yes powers are dependant on the ML but not directly. Rather indirectly as you have spelled out in your post.

As for interpreting what psyker or unit means at any given time during the course of reading the rules...ask your TO, group or opponent. That's a can of worms you don't want to open without a solid argument haha

I find that even having a solid argument will not get you very far with Most people

Not really, either you treat all psykers as independent units.(Right) during the psychic phase, or I get to do some crazy gak.

IF you treat the entire unit as being one unit for all things psyker, you only generate one of the models warp charges, I can have ANY of the psykers benefit from a model specific thing, I can have ANY of the psykers suffer perils of the warp. Any psyker in the unit can cast any of the powers known to any of the models. So on and so forth.

People were looking for a solution to seer star at the start of 7th, THAT is why it got interpreted that way. However they neglected to maintain consistency in light of finding a way to prevent a hated unit from working.

In fact I already broke down their arguments in about 5 places, but I will post that later tonight.

Game Workshop writes Rules as if they are in a vacuum, by using only the most simplest of scenarios to explain the Rule in question. This is why we regularly encounter problems when more complicated interactions are added to the mix, the more Rule interactions added the more likely a broken outcome will occur. Throw some poor rule writing into the mix, such as using catch all terminology like 'for all Rule purposes,' and you have the present state of Warhammer 40k. The real disgusting part is how Game Workshop expects their player base to fix any broken situation they encounter. Their reluctant to produce meaningful Errata was already well known, but it has gotten worse in the last two years alone....

Technically, the Independent Characters count as members of the joined Unit and if that leads to 'Gak' then it is Rule as Written supported 'Gak.'
One really does need to discuss these problem with their opponents in order to fix Game Workshop's mistake, because this one is one of their worse!

 jokerkd wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
The statement of powers being reliant on mastery level is a copy paste from a previous edition that has little impact on the current rules. yes powers are dependant on the ML but not directly. Rather indirectly as you have spelled out in your post.

As for interpreting what psyker or unit means at any given time during the course of reading the rules...ask your TO, group or opponent. That's a can of worms you don't want to open without a solid argument haha

I find that even having a solid argument will not get you very far with Most people

its a good start on Dakka though, meaning if you jump on with no clue and just throw out statments like "they are only independent of the unit they are attached to if they have a power boot on their left foot" then yeah you wint get far.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Leth wrote:
Not really, either you treat all psykers as independent units.(Right) during the psychic phase, or I get to do some crazy gak.

IF you treat the entire unit as being one unit for all things psyker, you only generate one of the models warp charges, I can have ANY of the psykers benefit from a model specific thing, I can have ANY of the psykers suffer perils of the warp. Any psyker in the unit can cast any of the powers known to any of the models. So on and so forth.

People were looking for a solution to seer star at the start of 7th, THAT is why it got interpreted that way. However they neglected to maintain consistency in light of finding a way to prevent a hated unit from working.

In fact I already broke down their arguments in about 5 places, but I will post that later tonight.

To me, emphasised and capitalized variations make a difference when GW is using such blanket terms as units and such. Such things make a difference when understanding context of what's being read. But this is a discussion for another (highly reapeated) thread.

 Leth wrote:
IF you treat the entire unit as being one unit for all things psyker, you only generate one of the models warp charges, I can have ANY of the psykers benefit from a model specific thing, I can have ANY of the psykers suffer perils of the warp. Any psyker in the unit can cast any of the powers known to any of the models. So on and so forth.

Unless the psyker who joined the unit is a different mastery level to the rest of the unit, or joins a unit of non-psykers... In either of those situations, you don't get to resolve your psychic phase at all. The game breaks at the start of the phase, because we're given no way to determine the mastery level of such units.

 insaniak wrote:

 Leth wrote:
IF you treat the entire unit as being one unit for all things psyker, you only generate one of the models warp charges, I can have ANY of the psykers benefit from a model specific thing, I can have ANY of the psykers suffer perils of the warp. Any psyker in the unit can cast any of the powers known to any of the models. So on and so forth.

Unless the psyker who joined the unit is a different mastery level to the rest of the unit, or joins a unit of non-psykers... In either of those situations, you don't get to resolve your psychic phase at all. The game breaks at the start of the phase, because we're given no way to determine the mastery level of such units.

I guess this mean I can't put my Weirdboy with my Grots...

Brotherhood of psykers is another good example.

I've taken all of leth's points to my local GW manager, and still been told I'm wrong because "the writers of the rules don't make mistakes"

You just cant argue with that.

 jokerkd wrote:
Brotherhood of psykers is another good example.

Brotherhood creates a slightly different problem, since it just treats a unit containing at least one model with the rule as a psyker, and only models with the rule can cast powers or suffer perils.

So an IC psyker joining a unit with Brotherhood effectively just stops being a psyker, and becomes unit filler.

I've taken all of leth's points to my local GW manager, and still been told I'm wrong because "the writers of the rules don't make mistakes"

You just cant argue with that.

You probably can, at least once you've stopped laughing and realised that he's serious...

Just ask him to show you where in the rules it tells us how to determine the Mastery Level of a unit containing one ML2 psyker and one ML1 psyker.

Because we are told to use the terms interchangeably it means that the definitions are the same. Thus it is impossible to combine the "psyker" and "unit" rules and have it make sense since something can not equal itself + something else.

The only solution that realistically work is if you treat "psyker unit" as its own distinct term not trying to merge "psyker" and "unit". Once you do this then the psychic phase works in all aspects. For this specific aspect it is not GW poor writing, it is people looking for a solution to a problem and that blinds them to other factors. I remember the "per unit" ruling and the exact sentence mentioned after that was "this will solve the seer star problem". They had not even gotten to how the psychic phase works and were already determining that this was how it was going to be.

 Leth wrote:
Because we are told to use the terms interchangeably it means that the definitions are the same. Thus it is impossible to combine the "psyker" and "unit" rules and have it make sense since something can not equal itself + something else.

The issue isn't with something being itself and something else. It's just with two different (but related things) having the same name applied to them.

Bob (my cat) and Bob (my uncle) aren't the same. They just happen to be called the same thing.

The only solution that realistically work is if you treat "psyker unit" as its own distinct term not trying to merge "psyker" and "unit".

While I agree that this is the functional solution, it's not an issue of trying to 'merge' terms. People assume that the term 'psyker unit' refers to 'units' because the definition of 'psyker unit' specifically tells us that this is the case.


This is most definitely a case of poor writing on GW's behalf. They simply didn't consider (or didn't feel it was worth addressing) that a single unit might sometimes contain multiple non-brotherhood psykers, or a mix of psykers and non-psykers.

The definition for 'psykers' and 'psyker units' should have referred to models with the 'psyker rule', instead of units.

 insaniak wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Because we are told to use the terms interchangeably it means that the definitions are the same. Thus it is impossible to combine the "psyker" and "unit" rules and have it make sense since something can not equal itself + something else.

The issue isn't with something being itself and something else. It's just with two different (but related things) having the same name applied to them.

Bob (my cat) and Bob (my uncle) aren't the same. They just happen to be called the same thing.

The only solution that realistically work is if you treat "psyker unit" as its own distinct term not trying to merge "psyker" and "unit".

While I agree that this is the functional solution, it's not an issue of trying to 'merge' terms. People assume that the term 'psyker unit' refers to 'units' because the definition of 'psyker unit' specifically tells us that this is the case.


This is most definitely a case of poor writing on GW's behalf. They simply didn't consider (or didn't feel it was worth addressing) that a single unit might sometimes contain multiple non-brotherhood psykers, or a mix of psykers and non-psykers.

The definition for 'psykers' and 'psyker units' should have referred to models with the 'psyker rule', instead of units.

While I agree, I think the issue is that people assume that when a character joins a unit it loses its status as a unit in its own right.

We are clearly reminded of this in the mission section for kill points. That independent characters are units in their own right. So while joined to another unit they are still a unit. Otherwise we would interpret the kill points section as IC's on their own count for independent points but not when joined to other units.

 Leth wrote:
While I agree, I think the issue is that people assume that when a character joins a unit it loses its status as a unit in its own right.

Indeed. And they assume that because it's what the rules say.

Once joined to a unit, the IC counts as a part of that unit for all rules purposes. If you still count him as also being a unit in his own right, you're not counting him as a part of the unit he joined for all rules purposes.

We are clearly reminded of this in the mission section for kill points. That independent characters are units in their own right.

For the purposes of scoring, because the mission rules say so.

This is an exception to the rules for joining units.

Can it be said enough:
I really, really, really really despise the 'all Rule purpose' clause, but thus it was written....

 insaniak wrote:

 Leth wrote:
While I agree, I think the issue is that people assume that when a character joins a unit it loses its status as a unit in its own right.

Indeed. And they assume that because it's what the rules say.

Once joined to a unit, the IC counts as a part of that unit for all rules purposes. If you still count him as also being a unit in his own right, you're not counting him as a part of the unit he joined for all rules purposes.

We are clearly reminded of this in the mission section for kill points. That independent characters are units in their own right.

For the purposes of scoring, because the mission rules say so.

This is an exception to the rules for joining units.

Except that it specifically says it is a reminder, not a specific mission rule

"Remember that independent characters and dedicated transports are independent units and award victory points as such"

Not gonna lie, this has been fun, the number of people who have called me names and insulted my intelligence keeps on going up without actually stating a reason why they are right. Nerd rage is the best rage.

 Leth wrote:
Except that it specifically says it is a reminder, not a specific mission rule

It's worded badly, yes.

Since it directly contradicts the actual IC rules, though, it only applies at that time, not anywhere else.


If you count the IC as a unit in his own right all of the time, any action that can only be performed by a single unit at a time (moving, shooting, charging into close combat, just for starters) becomes impossible when an IC is joined to another unit, as there would be no way to complete that action without affecting two units at the same time.

While your cat and uncle are named the same it often not hard to interpret which you mean in context of a statement. For instance I'm sure your uncle would be hard to infer from the statement "bobs squating in the front yard to relieve his bowels"....unless your uncle is a lunatic it would be a fair bet you're refering to your cat.

 insaniak wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Except that it specifically says it is a reminder, not a specific mission rule

It's worded badly, yes.

Since it directly contradicts the actual IC rules, though, it only applies at that time, not anywhere else.


If you count the IC as a unit in his own right all of the time, any action that can only be performed by a single unit at a time (moving, shooting, charging into close combat, just for starters) becomes impossible when an IC is joined to another unit, as there would be no way to complete that action without affecting two units at the same time.

interesting, I cant find anything that would make it work if you had to treat a IC as a unit other than treating it as a unit within a unit(which is possible according to their poorly written definition)

How does treating it as a 'Unit within a Unit' still not run afoul of numerous 'One Unit at a Time' Restrictions?
How would it prevent other shenanigans, such as targeting the Independent Characters Unit instead of the Unit she has Joined?

 Bausk wrote:
While your cat and uncle are named the same it often not hard to interpret which you mean in context of a statement. For instance I'm sure your uncle would be hard to infer from the statement "bobs squating in the front yard to relieve his bowels"....unless your uncle is a lunatic it would be a fair bet you're refering to your cat.

I'm not quite sure what your point is here, sorry.

The dosagreement here was over whether two different things can have the same name, not whether or not it's possible to tell two identically named things apart by looking at context... That's obviously possible, and is made easier in this specific case under discussion since the psychic phase rules explicitly give us that context... Any time the psychic phase rules refer to a 'psyker' they're talking about the unit, not the model.

I have absolutely no idea what you guys are talking about.

How Ive played 7th is I have only a Weirdboy ML2. He can manifest 2 powers and gets d6+2 warp charge. He can attempt to cast up to 2 powers.

Or I have no psyskers except a unit of 5 GK termies ML1 led by a librarian ML2. Each termie can cast only 1 power, force and the libby can cast up to 2... even though he may know 4. Then at the start of the psychic phase I get d6+5+2 warp dice or whatever.

Have I been wrong this whole time?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you perils on the model casting? Right?

Doctor_g yes you've been doing it wrong. You may vast as many different powers as you have warp charge to do it with regardless of ML of a Psyker.

Doktor_g,
5 Warp Charges for a single Unit with the Brotherhood of Psyker Special Rule?

 doktor_g wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you guys are talking about.

How Ive played 7th is I have only a Weirdboy ML2. He can manifest 2 powers and gets d6+2 warp charge. He can attempt to cast up to 2 powers.

Or I have no psyskers except a unit of 5 GK termies ML1 led by a librarian ML2. Each termie can cast only 1 power, force and the libby can cast up to 2... even though he may know 4. Then at the start of the psychic phase I get d6+5+2 warp dice or whatever.

Have I been wrong this whole time?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you perils on the model casting? Right?

So while that is how many people play mastery levels, there is actually nothing limiting you to one power per mastery level.

You are obviously supposed to perils on the model casting however I was jokingly saying that some people are using two different definitions for psychic unit when interpreting rules. I was saying what I could do if they stuck with the wrong interpretation consistently.

Texted a buddy. He said when he puts 2 or 3 rune priests @ML2 in a unit (deathstar) that TFG would say that the whole unit ciuld only cast 2 powers. I call bull gak on that. They could cast six.... right?

My example was that each termie could cast force and tge libby could cast force and something else. Right? OR would forego force and cast two orher things... so the whole unit would cast 3? Even though the "unit" is ML2? Is that what this is about?

Seems like wvery psycher in the unit can cast a number up to his mastery level? So 4 ML2s in a death star could cast 8 differemt powers right?

Im lost.

Every psyker can cast as many powers as he knows until he runs out of warp charge. Note that this means you can cast a number of spells greater than your mastery level. For example a lvl 2 rune priest with a force weapon rolls for two powers and knows force as well. He is fully allowed to cast all three powers provided he has the warp charge.

If he rolled his two powers on the same table and gained psychic focus, he could potentially cast 4. If he joins a unit with another lvl2 rune priest with a force weapon and that rune priest also gained psychic focus, they can potentially cast eight powers, provided they have the warp charge.