Since he is generating from technically 2 schools, would he still get the primaris if he generated all 3 of his ML powers from one school? For example, if he took 3 powers from divination, would he get the primaris, or would his special ability override that?
My inclination would be that he would get the primaris, otherwise generating the extra daemonology power would be a huge weakness and not the benefit i'm sure it's intended to be. Because the phrase "one more than normal" would imply that his other powers are generated normally, which would include psychic focus...
Indeed. He basically automatically generates the Lore Master warlord trait.
This does interfere with psychic focus. But if you generate from only Sanctic or don't make him your warlord you don't have to deal with it.
If he's your warlord, he basically always generates 4 powers. 1 from Sanctic, and 3 from disciplines of choice. Which if you want Psychic Focus has to be from Sanctic.
Personally, I always just go full sanctic, not because I want Banishment, but because Sanctic is awesome.
The Sanctic psychic focus isn't worth it, as most GK come with it standard. Voldus is only really good for access to the new SM disciplines, as he is the only GK unit with permission to select from those 4. Beyond that, he's a slightly more expensive version of a unit GK players rarely take.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The Sanctic psychic focus isn't worth it, as most GK come with it standard. Voldus is only really good for access to the new SM disciplines, as he is the only GK unit with permission to select from those 4. Beyond that, he's a slightly more expensive version of a unit GK players rarely take.
SJ
Grey Knight librarians can generate the new disciplines as well.
Spoiler:
Voldus is good for many things - His x2 ap2 at initiative is really solid. He's that true melee-psyker GK have been missing. He might be overcosted but he is a good unit.
The only reason I'd take Daemonology with him would be the defensive stuff, but then Librarius is just flat out better. Every other power is easily accessible from within the GK staple units.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The Sanctic psychic focus isn't worth it, as most GK come with it standard. Voldus is only really good for access to the new SM disciplines, as he is the only GK unit with permission to select from those 4. Beyond that, he's a slightly more expensive version of a unit GK players rarely take.
SJ
Grey Knight librarians can generate the new disciplines as well.
Spoiler:
Voldus is good for many things - His x2 ap2 at initiative is really solid. He's that true melee-psyker GK have been missing. He might be overcosted but he is a good unit.
The only reason I'd take Daemonology with him would be the defensive stuff, but then Librarius is just flat out better. Every other power is easily accessible from within the GK staple units.
I don't see permission for GK librarians to generate powers from the new disciplines on there. I see that GK has access to them, but not which specific models. Or are you saying that all Eldar psykers can generate powers from Divination, Telepathy, Telekinesis, Malefic and Sanctic?
Marmatag wrote: Could you explain how GK could have access to those powers while being unable to generate them?
Voldus has the disciplines available as listed in his datasheet. No other Grey Knights Psyker unit has those disciplines listed in their datasheet.
For example, Eldar have access to the Divination, Telepathy, Malefic and Sanctic rulebook disciplines according to the quick reference chart from the rulebook cards. According to their datasheet the Farseer for example can generate from Sanctic, Divination and Telepathy, but the Warlock Conclave datasheet allows them to generate only from Sanctic of the rulebook disciplines.
Now, Angels of Death tells us that all Space Marine Librarians may generate their powers from the new disciplines, but this does not include Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Angels and Blood Angels. One of the recent Blood Angels supplements further granted that ability to Blood Angels, but nothing has yet allowed Librarians (or other specified units) from Dark Angels, Space Wolves or Grey Knights access.
Marmatag wrote: Could you explain how GK could have access to those powers while being unable to generate them?
To be more succinct than Mr Shine:
On the contrary, GK DO have access to the AoD powers, through Voldus. Hence the checkmark. This is exactly the same reason Daemons have a checkmark on Pyromancy: a single unit in the book can roll on it (Fatey).
And like Shine shone out, a unit needs permission to generate from a tree...otherwise my Pink Horrors would be getting Iron Arm all the time!
Marmatag wrote: Could you explain how GK could have access to those powers while being unable to generate them?
To be more succinct than Mr Shine:
On the contrary, GK DO have access to the AoD powers, through Voldus. Hence the checkmark. This is exactly the same reason Daemons have a checkmark on Pyromancy: a single unit in the book can roll on it (Fatey).
And like Shine shone out, a unit needs permission to generate from a tree...otherwise my Pink Horrors would be getting Iron Arm all the time!
While I'm with you on the RAW argument, I do wanna point out that card was printed months and months before Voldus was even rumored. I'm not sure there's any evidence they meant that as a RAI for Voldus.
Marmatag wrote: Could you explain how GK could have access to those powers while being unable to generate them?
To be more succinct than Mr Shine:
On the contrary, GK DO have access to the AoD powers, through Voldus. Hence the checkmark. This is exactly the same reason Daemons have a checkmark on Pyromancy: a single unit in the book can roll on it (Fatey).
And like Shine shone out, a unit needs permission to generate from a tree...otherwise my Pink Horrors would be getting Iron Arm all the time!
While I'm with you on the RAW argument, I do wanna point out that card was printed months and months before Voldus was even rumored. I'm not sure there's any evidence they meant that as a RAI for Voldus.
Voldus is the nail in this arguments coffin. I see very little RAI play because that is even murkier than RAW.
Straight off GW's site page for Angels of Death: - four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)
Murrax9 wrote: Straight off GW's site page for Angels of Death: - four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)
Murrax9 wrote: Straight off GW's site page for Angels of Death: - four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)
The main issue it's that grey knights codex it's older than the new datacards, so no one can claim 100% GK can't generate those powers based just in outright datasheet.
Wich is pretty much as not allowing any AM psyker to generate any Demonology powers due not being show as options on their datasheet, or not allowing any other race until they got a 7th edition codex despite what the rulebook claims.
The main issue just boils down to how much *legal* or validity it's given to the power quick reference sheet.
Wich boils down to 2 options.
option A: it's valid so any army included in the quick reference can choose those powers as long they own a unit capable to generate powers normaly (Aka not fixed ones, wich for GK will just be the librarian and grand master)
option B: the quick reference it's just a guide and not valid and thus Mr. Shine and Elric stance it's the right one.
At the end of the day we just need to get a FAQ answer about it as any TO can rule any of those 2 options.
Murrax9 wrote: Straight off GW's site page for Angels of Death: - four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)
Store pages aren't the rules, and Space Wolves don't even have Librarians.
But surely you can see the RAI here... Not only that but I would argue Rune Priests could use the powers as well, why would they release a reference card with Grey Knights and Space wolves list on it, if they could not even use the powers?
Lord Perversor wrote: The main issue it's that grey knights codex it's older than the new datacards, so no one can claim 100% GK can't generate those powers based just in outright datasheet.
Wich is pretty much as not allowing any AM psyker to generate any Demonology powers due not being show as options on their datasheet, or not allowing any other race until they got a 7th edition codex despite what the rulebook claims.
The main issue just boils down to how much *legal* or validity it's given to the power quick reference sheet.
Wich boils down to 2 options.
option A: it's valid so any army included in the quick reference can choose those powers as long they own a unit capable to generate powers normaly (Aka not fixed ones, wich for GK will just be the librarian and grand master)
option B: the quick reference it's just a guide and not valid and thus Mr. Shine and Elric stance it's the right one.
At the end of the day we just need to get a FAQ answer about it as any TO can rule any of those 2 options.
GK /can/ generate from AoD, the grey knights that can are Voldus.
Daemons can take from pyromancy. The Daemon that can do so is Fatey.
Idk, I would certainly love my warlocks to spam telepathy...
Murrax9 wrote: why would they release a reference card with Grey Knights and Space wolves list on it, if they could not even use the powers?
Future-proofing.
And I'd say that the RAI is AGAINST anyone not given permission because of FAQs. They JUST released codex FAQs, which would've been a perfect opportunity to give errata to specific units that would allow them to generate on AoD powers.....buuuuuuuuuuuuuut they didn't. RAI is exceptionally clear in this case, and it lines up very nicely with RAW.
Now, MARKETING as intended is a different matter, but marketing ain't rules.
Murrax9 wrote: why would they release a reference card with Grey Knights and Space wolves list on it, if they could not even use the powers?
Future-proofing.
And I'd say that the RAI is AGAINST anyone not given permission because of FAQs. They JUST released codex FAQs, which would've been a perfect opportunity to give errata to specific units that would allow them to generate on AoD powers.....buuuuuuuuuuuuuut they didn't. RAI is exceptionally clear in this case.
But, from what I know there also has not been an FAQ specifically on the Angels of Death supplement, so we will not have a definitive answer until they FAQ that or the powers themselves. I hate these situations...
No FAQ is necessary for AoD. It clearly states what faction and units in that faction are given permission. Why would there be a FAQ for that very clear statement?
An errata entry for a GK Librarian would have been included in the GK Codex FAQ. It was not. Therefore, RAI is crystal clear: no fancy powers for GK.
@Murrax9 answer these two questions.
The reference cards for 7e psychic powers have a checkmark under Biomancy for Faction Chaos Daemons. In the current Daemon codex, Pink Horrors "generate their powers from the Change discipline." (This was published before the 7e BRB) In the updated rules from Wrath of Magnus, Pink Horrors "generate their powers from the Change discipline." (This was published after the 7e BRB)
The question: Can Pink Horrors generate their powers from the Biomancy discipline? Why or why not?
And explain this: The reference cards for 7e psychic powers have a checkmark under Divination for Faction Eldar. In the current Eldar codex, the Warlock Conclave "generates its powers from the Daemonlology (Sanctic) and Runes of Battle disciplines." (This was published after the 7e BRB) In the same book, the Spiritseer "generates his powers from the the Daemonlology (Sanctic), Runes of Battle, and Telepathy disciplines."
The question: Can Warlocks and Spiritseers generate powers from Divination? Why or why not?
Elric Greywolf wrote: No FAQ is necessary for AoD. It clearly states what faction and units in that faction are given permission. Why would there be a FAQ for that very clear statement?
An errata entry for a GK Librarian would have been included in the GK Codex FAQ. It was not. Therefore, RAI is crystal clear: no fancy powers for GK.
@Murrax9 answer these two questions.
The reference cards for 7e psychic powers have a checkmark under Biomancy for Faction Chaos Daemons.
In the current Daemon codex, Pink Horrors "generate their powers from the Change discipline." (This was published before the 7e BRB)
In the updated rules from Wrath of Magnus, Pink Horrors "generate their powers from the Change discipline." (This was published after the 7e BRB)
The question: Can Pink Horrors generate their powers from the Biomancy discipline? Why or why not?
And explain this:
The reference cards for 7e psychic powers have a checkmark under Divination for Faction Eldar.
In the current Eldar codex, the Warlock Conclave "generates its powers from the Daemonlology (Sanctic) and Runes of Battle disciplines." (This was published after the 7e BRB)
In the same book, the Spiritseer "generates his powers from the the Daemonlology (Sanctic), Runes of Battle, and Telepathy disciplines."
The question: Can Warlocks and Spiritseers generate powers from Divination? Why or why not?
1. No, because in Wrath of Magnus, it states that they can only generate their powers from the Change discipline. Specific rules>General Rules
2. I am not familiar with Eldar but based on the rules you stated here, I would say no they cannot.
But you are comparing things that are not that similar, as you are dealing with a unit that is shared throughout different factions, (The Librarian) , that is different than looking at a Daemon Prince and a pink horror unit. There is too much conflicting information for me to say that RAI is clearly against GK's using the powers, and if i was playing against a space wolf player, or a grey knights player,
I would let them use the powers. I think an FAQ is needed.Just so you know, when it comes to RAW, I concede, the rules as written today do not say that GK or SW could use the powers, that is clear imo.
Elric Greywolf wrote: No FAQ is necessary for AoD. It clearly states what faction and units in that faction are given permission. Why would there be a FAQ for that very clear statement?
An errata entry for a GK Librarian would have been included in the GK Codex FAQ. It was not. Therefore, RAI is crystal clear: no fancy powers for GK.
@Murrax9 answer these two questions.
The reference cards for 7e psychic powers have a checkmark under Biomancy for Faction Chaos Daemons.
In the current Daemon codex, Pink Horrors "generate their powers from the Change discipline." (This was published before the 7e BRB)
In the updated rules from Wrath of Magnus, Pink Horrors "generate their powers from the Change discipline." (This was published after the 7e BRB)
The question: Can Pink Horrors generate their powers from the Biomancy discipline? Why or why not?
And explain this:
The reference cards for 7e psychic powers have a checkmark under Divination for Faction Eldar.
In the current Eldar codex, the Warlock Conclave "generates its powers from the Daemonlology (Sanctic) and Runes of Battle disciplines." (This was published after the 7e BRB)
In the same book, the Spiritseer "generates his powers from the the Daemonlology (Sanctic), Runes of Battle, and Telepathy disciplines."
The question: Can Warlocks and Spiritseers generate powers from Divination? Why or why not?
Do you notice both of your examples had an update on rules/codex after 7th edition rules right?
Grey Knights never had any update after AoD was published hence why it's falls on a limbo, i may agree with you that when the current FAQ was published they could adress this but we often overlook they just answered to player questions wich simply means no one bothered to ask about this (or AoD wasn't even released yet not sure about dates).
P.S: i just checked dates GW requested FAQ questions at early march while Angels of Death got released on mid to late April, thus proving my point again that AoD rules are older than FAQ and Grey Knight codex.
Elric Greywolf wrote: No FAQ is necessary for AoD. It clearly states what faction and units in that faction are given permission. Why would there be a FAQ for that very clear statement?
An errata entry for a GK Librarian would have been included in the GK Codex FAQ. It was not. Therefore, RAI is crystal clear: no fancy powers for GK.
@Murrax9 answer these two questions.
The reference cards for 7e psychic powers have a checkmark under Biomancy for Faction Chaos Daemons.
In the current Daemon codex, Pink Horrors "generate their powers from the Change discipline." (This was published before the 7e BRB)
In the updated rules from Wrath of Magnus, Pink Horrors "generate their powers from the Change discipline." (This was published after the 7e BRB)
The question: Can Pink Horrors generate their powers from the Biomancy discipline? Why or why not?
And explain this:
The reference cards for 7e psychic powers have a checkmark under Divination for Faction Eldar.
In the current Eldar codex, the Warlock Conclave "generates its powers from the Daemonlology (Sanctic) and Runes of Battle disciplines." (This was published after the 7e BRB)
In the same book, the Spiritseer "generates his powers from the the Daemonlology (Sanctic), Runes of Battle, and Telepathy disciplines."
The question: Can Warlocks and Spiritseers generate powers from Divination? Why or why not?
Do you notice both of your examples had an update on rules/codex after 7th edition rules right?
Grey Knights never had any update after AoD was published hence why it's falls on a limbo, i may agree with you that when the current FAQ was published they could adress this but we often overlook they just answered to player questions wich simply means no one bothered to ask about this (or AoD wasn't even released yet not sure about dates).
P.S: i just checked dates GW requested FAQ questions at early march while Angels of Death got released on mid to late April, thus proving my point again that AoD rules are older than FAQ and Grey Knight codex.
Without a rule granting units access to a discipline, there is no access. Very simple.
SM got access via AoD.
BA apparently got access via a supplement - Angel's Blade?
CSM got access to the renamed disciplines with Traitor Legions.
GK got one character with access via Gathering Storm III.
All other GK/DA/SW units do not have permission to generate powers from the AoD disciplines.
The card and the webshop listing are nothing more than a marketing misunderstanding: "Space Marines" vs "Faction Space Marines" specifically.
Audustum wrote: I'd say marketing is as good for RAI as anything else though. RAW wise, yeah, Voldus is the only GK who can generate those powers.
How does MANI (marketing as not intended) become RAI? Rules are made up by the rules team, not by the marketeers.
Yet, all marketing did was imply that the factions have access to the disciplines. As explained in this thread based on other factions, access to a discipline with a checkmark can still be limited to specific units or contingent on other conditions. Which leaves us without any clear intent.
Access can be limited sure, but at the time marketing and that card were done Voldus didn't exist. We can say 'future proofing' but there's no proof they meant to be doing that either.
We also don"'t know the extent marketing and rules teams work together. RAI is what GW meant to happen. In this case, I can see why there's fuel for both sides on RAI and I'd come down personally on the side of it being faction wide. Like I said though, fuel for both.
Elric Greywolf wrote: No FAQ is necessary for AoD. It clearly states what faction and units in that faction are given permission. Why would there be a FAQ for that very clear statement?
An errata entry for a GK Librarian would have been included in the GK Codex FAQ. It was not. Therefore, RAI is crystal clear: no fancy powers for GK.
@Murrax9 answer these two questions.
The reference cards for 7e psychic powers have a checkmark under Biomancy for Faction Chaos Daemons.
In the current Daemon codex, Pink Horrors "generate their powers from the Change discipline." (This was published before the 7e BRB)
In the updated rules from Wrath of Magnus, Pink Horrors "generate their powers from the Change discipline." (This was published after the 7e BRB)
The question: Can Pink Horrors generate their powers from the Biomancy discipline? Why or why not?
And explain this:
The reference cards for 7e psychic powers have a checkmark under Divination for Faction Eldar.
In the current Eldar codex, the Warlock Conclave "generates its powers from the Daemonlology (Sanctic) and Runes of Battle disciplines." (This was published after the 7e BRB)
In the same book, the Spiritseer "generates his powers from the the Daemonlology (Sanctic), Runes of Battle, and Telepathy disciplines."
The question: Can Warlocks and Spiritseers generate powers from Divination? Why or why not?
Do you notice both of your examples had an update on rules/codex after 7th edition rules right?
Grey Knights never had any update after AoD was published hence why it's falls on a limbo, i may agree with you that when the current FAQ was published they could adress this but we often overlook they just answered to player questions wich simply means no one bothered to ask about this (or AoD wasn't even released yet not sure about dates).
P.S: i just checked dates GW requested FAQ questions at early march while Angels of Death got released on mid to late April, thus proving my point again that AoD rules are older than FAQ and Grey Knight codex.
Without a rule granting units access to a discipline, there is no access. Very simple.
SM got access via AoD.
BA apparently got access via a supplement - Angel's Blade?
CSM got access to the renamed disciplines with Traitor Legions.
GK got one character with access via Gathering Storm III.
All other GK/DA/SW units do not have permission to generate powers from the AoD disciplines.
The card and the webshop listing are nothing more than a marketing misunderstanding: "Space Marines" vs "Faction Space Marines" specifically.
So according to your interpretation any Webstore exclusive formation like Skyhammer back in the day (not sure if it's included somewhere else) and Start collecting ones are void and can't be used because there is not a fixed rule allowing those in any rulebook or codex published?
Gotcha, if it's not written in a rulebook or supplement it's not valid under any circunstances.
Elric Greywolf wrote: No FAQ is necessary for AoD. It clearly states what faction and units in that faction are given permission. Why would there be a FAQ for that very clear statement?
An errata entry for a GK Librarian would have been included in the GK Codex FAQ. It was not. Therefore, RAI is crystal clear: no fancy powers for GK.
@Murrax9 answer these two questions.
The reference cards for 7e psychic powers have a checkmark under Biomancy for Faction Chaos Daemons.
In the current Daemon codex, Pink Horrors "generate their powers from the Change discipline." (This was published before the 7e BRB)
In the updated rules from Wrath of Magnus, Pink Horrors "generate their powers from the Change discipline." (This was published after the 7e BRB)
The question: Can Pink Horrors generate their powers from the Biomancy discipline? Why or why not?
And explain this:
The reference cards for 7e psychic powers have a checkmark under Divination for Faction Eldar.
In the current Eldar codex, the Warlock Conclave "generates its powers from the Daemonlology (Sanctic) and Runes of Battle disciplines." (This was published after the 7e BRB)
In the same book, the Spiritseer "generates his powers from the the Daemonlology (Sanctic), Runes of Battle, and Telepathy disciplines."
The question: Can Warlocks and Spiritseers generate powers from Divination? Why or why not?
Do you notice both of your examples had an update on rules/codex after 7th edition rules right?
Grey Knights never had any update after AoD was published hence why it's falls on a limbo, i may agree with you that when the current FAQ was published they could adress this but we often overlook they just answered to player questions wich simply means no one bothered to ask about this (or AoD wasn't even released yet not sure about dates).
P.S: i just checked dates GW requested FAQ questions at early march while Angels of Death got released on mid to late April, thus proving my point again that AoD rules are older than FAQ and Grey Knight codex.
Without a rule granting units access to a discipline, there is no access. Very simple.
SM got access via AoD.
BA apparently got access via a supplement - Angel's Blade?
CSM got access to the renamed disciplines with Traitor Legions.
GK got one character with access via Gathering Storm III.
All other GK/DA/SW units do not have permission to generate powers from the AoD disciplines.
The card and the webshop listing are nothing more than a marketing misunderstanding: "Space Marines" vs "Faction Space Marines" specifically.
So according to your interpretation any Webstore exclusive formation like Skyhammer back in the day (not sure if it's included somewhere else) and Start collecting ones are void and can't be used because there is not a fixed rule allowing those in any rulebook or codex published?
Gotcha, if it's not written in a rulebook or supplement it's not valid under any circunstances.
No, that is something completely different. It doesn't matter if a rule is printed in a Codex, a supplement or part of a web or in-box datasheet. But you do have to have a rule.
Let's take your example: Skyhammer came with a formation datasheet, which clearly listed the faction (SM). The formation icon and the SM icon clearly establish a link within the army building framework on how to integrate the formation. As such it was perfectly fine to use in an SM army or to tack the SM formation on to any other force, even before it was reissued in AoD for faction SM. What was clearly not permitted, is to substitute the SM units with units from any other codex.
For the faction SM, there is a clear link to the AoD disciplines. Funny enough, it's a rule in the SM:AoD supplement that specifies that psykers with the faction SM may use the powers.
There is no link between the AoD Disciplines and any specific SW/DA unit and any GK unit other than Voldus. You need a rule that grants you access to stuff. That is true within codices (model x from unit y may take stuff from list z; Bobby may generate powers from disciplines a, b, c and d), for added on powers (BRB Daemonology) or supplement additions to codices (AoD, Traitor Legions, Angel's Blade). If you don't have a rule granting you access to something, you don't get to use it. If you try to use it anyway, be prepared to be called on it.
The firespear formation is only available as a rule card in the get-started box, in the exact same way that the psychic power card is only available in the psychic power package.
Marmatag wrote: The firespear formation is only available as a rule card in the get-started box, in the exact same way that the psychic power card is only available in the psychic power package.
Is the firespear not legal?
This is strawman argument; where it comes from is not the issue.
The issue is that it does not say which units may choose the listed Psychic Disciplines.
Marmatag wrote: The firespear formation is only available as a rule card in the get-started box, in the exact same way that the psychic power card is only available in the psychic power package.
Is the firespear not legal?
This is strawman argument; where it comes from is not the issue.
The issue is that it does not say which units may choose the listed Psychic Disciplines.
It doesn't need to, any unit that can choose where it generates its powers is subject to these rules.
Bottom line is the card ships with an official GW trademark as a part of a GW product.
For this NOT to be a rule would require an FAQ entry.
Marmatag wrote: The firespear formation is only available as a rule card in the get-started box, in the exact same way that the psychic power card is only available in the psychic power package.
Is the firespear not legal?
This is strawman argument; where it comes from is not the issue.
The issue is that it does not say which units may choose the listed Psychic Disciplines.
It doesn't need to, any unit that can choose where it generates its powers is subject to these rules.
No, it's not. Note how the Space Marines Supplement Angels of Death doesn't just provided the psychic disciplines which you find reprinted on the cards for your convenience, but also provides a separate rule that does grant clear and explicit access for psykers with the faction Space Marines. Even with the whole book being all about faction Space Marines, from a rules perspective a rule granting units access to the disciplines printed in the book is required. That why there is such a rule.
Bottom line is the card ships with an official GW trademark as a part of a GW product.
For this NOT to be a rule would require an FAQ entry.
The quick reference card does not mean what you think it means.
As explained in this thread based on previous quick reference cards, the checkmark between a faction and a discipline simply means that at least one datasheet in the faction has access to the discipline, either by default or with an optional upgrade or special conditions which may apply, either currently or with a future publication.
Without a rule granting explicit access to individual units the access implied by the reference card to the faction is meaningless.
Although it is not explicitly stated, except on the GW site and on the ref card, under the conditions that were put forth the other faction libs do not have access to thees powers.
However, I would like to point out that since the release of AOD, every single supplement, rule and non-sm-faction-sm character that has access to psy powers has been listed as having access to the AOD powers. So I wouldn't call it future proofing so much as ret-coning.
I would guess it is GW's intention to allow astarties thees powers but no ITC valid document supports it.
Because this is a rules forum, the conclusion should be they do NOT have access to the powers, but this forum also concluded that Catifractii captain should have bikes because even though "terminator" is part of their name, they are not wearing terminator armor (Hurr-durr).
Marmatag wrote: The firespear formation is only available as a rule card in the get-started box, in the exact same way that the psychic power card is only available in the psychic power package.
Is the firespear not legal?
This is strawman argument; where it comes from is not the issue.
The issue is that it does not say which units may choose the listed Psychic Disciplines.
It doesn't need to, any unit that can choose where it generates its powers is subject to these rules.
The Codexes themselves put the lie to this statment. Eldar psyker units do not all get to generate their powers off of any of the disciplines checked on the Eldar psychic power reference card. That should serve as a reality check for your claims.
Marmatag wrote: Bottom line is the card ships with an official GW trademark as a part of a GW product.
For this NOT to be a rule would require an FAQ entry.
Not at all. What is needed is a FAQ entry to indicate what units CAN use psychic powers that are not listed in their unit entry or a rules supplement. The psychic power cards do not serve this purpose since the reference card does not say which units get to use which powers.
MattKing wrote: Although it is not explicitly stated, except on the GW site and on the ref card, under the conditions that were put forth the other faction libs do not have access to thees powers.
However, I would like to point out that since the release of AOD, every single supplement, rule and non-sm-faction-sm character that has access to psy powers has been listed as having access to the AOD powers. So I wouldn't call it future proofing so much as ret-coning.
I would guess it is GW's intention to allow astarties thees powers but no ITC valid document supports it.
Because this is a rules forum, the conclusion should be they do NOT have access to the powers, but this forum also concluded that Catifractii captain should have bikes because even though "terminator" is part of their name, they are not wearing terminator armor (Hurr-durr).
ITC rulings have 0 influence on this game. ITC does not even follow GWfaq's in their tournaments. I would really like to see someone produce a GW approved source that states it's game cards have no actual validity as a rules source. Explicitly stating that even though GK have access to the AOD powers based on their cards - they do not actually have access to them.
MattKing wrote: Although it is not explicitly stated, except on the GW site and on the ref card, under the conditions that were put forth the other faction libs do not have access to thees powers. However, I would like to point out that since the release of AOD, every single supplement, rule and non-sm-faction-sm character that has access to psy powers has been listed as having access to the AOD powers. So I wouldn't call it future proofing so much as ret-coning. I would guess it is GW's intention to allow astarties thees powers but no ITC valid document supports it. Because this is a rules forum, the conclusion should be they do NOT have access to the powers, but this forum also concluded that Catifractii captain should have bikes because even though "terminator" is part of their name, they are not wearing terminator armor (Hurr-durr).
ITC rulings have 0 influence on this game. ITC does not even follow GWfaq's in their tournaments. I would really like to see someone produce a GW approved source that states it's game cards have no actual validity as a rules source. Explicitly stating that even though GK have access to the AOD powers based on their cards - they do not actually have access to them.
You have it backwards. If you want to use something, you have to demonstrate eligibliity.
The misguided argument based on the card goes like this: There is a checkmark between GK and Geomancy. Ergo all GK psyker can use Geomancy! QED! Yay. Oh wait. Wrong... see all the cases explained above where a checkmark for a faction does not imply general access to a discipline, since actually only a single psyker unit out of many in a faction can actually access a discipline. That means there is more detail needed, the checkmark does NOT mean all psykers have or will have access, it means at least one psyker does have, can have or will have access. Or of course simply that someone fethed up.
The actual argument for SM access to Geomancy et al goes like this: Angels of Death, page 107: "Any Psyker with the Space Marine Faction can generate their psychic powers from theh Librarius, Technomancy, Fulmination and Geokinesis disciplines, in addition to any other disciplines they have access to.".
MattKing wrote: Although it is not explicitly stated, except on the GW site and on the ref card, under the conditions that were put forth the other faction libs do not have access to thees powers.
However, I would like to point out that since the release of AOD, every single supplement, rule and non-sm-faction-sm character that has access to psy powers has been listed as having access to the AOD powers. So I wouldn't call it future proofing so much as ret-coning.
I would guess it is GW's intention to allow astarties thees powers but no ITC valid document supports it.
Because this is a rules forum, the conclusion should be they do NOT have access to the powers, but this forum also concluded that Catifractii captain should have bikes because even though "terminator" is part of their name, they are not wearing terminator armor (Hurr-durr).
ITC rulings have 0 influence on this game. ITC does not even follow GWfaq's in their tournaments. I would really like to see someone produce a GW approved source that states it's game cards have no actual validity as a rules source. Explicitly stating that even though GK have access to the AOD powers based on their cards - they do not actually have access to them.
The burden of proof lies on the accuser, you have to prove its a eligible source, I don't have to prove that it isn't.
@StephaniusMade
I don't think anyone is saying all grey knight psykers should be able to use them. Most Greyknights have their powers already picked, making that easy to figure out. The argument is if grey knight [Librarians] can use them. The Angels of Death supplement contradicts the card and the marketing that GW put out, which makes me think this is worthy of an Angels of Death psychic powers FAQ.
MattKing wrote: Although it is not explicitly stated, except on the GW site and on the ref card, under the conditions that were put forth the other faction libs do not have access to thees powers.
However, I would like to point out that since the release of AOD, every single supplement, rule and non-sm-faction-sm character that has access to psy powers has been listed as having access to the AOD powers. So I wouldn't call it future proofing so much as ret-coning.
I would guess it is GW's intention to allow astarties thees powers but no ITC valid document supports it.
Because this is a rules forum, the conclusion should be they do NOT have access to the powers, but this forum also concluded that Catifractii captain should have bikes because even though "terminator" is part of their name, they are not wearing terminator armor (Hurr-durr).
ITC rulings have 0 influence on this game. ITC does not even follow GWfaq's in their tournaments. I would really like to see someone produce a GW approved source that states it's game cards have no actual validity as a rules source. Explicitly stating that even though GK have access to the AOD powers based on their cards - they do not actually have access to them.
The burden of proof lies on the accuser, you have to prove its a eligible source, I don't have to prove that it isn't.
No it doesn't. When a player claims permission to do something, they have to demonstrate that permission on request. If you don't have a rule that grants you permission, you don't get to do it. The ruleset only lists things you can do. Anything not listed explicitly, you cannot do.
If I play BA and claim access to the DA psychic discipline for a BA psyker, you'd ask me to show you how that psyker gets access. There is no such rule anywhere, so I cannot show it and have to limit myself to things I actually have permission to use.
That situation does not change when you swap the Codices from BA and DA to GK and SM.
ok, let me contiune the example...
Assume the GK player slams the quick reference card on the table and points to the checkmark as proof that his rhino - or librarian - or any other unit can access the disciplines.
The logical response is - ok, so there is some current or future connection between the discipline and the faction somewhere, show me how that unit gets access. No? Ok, then pick other disciplines to roll on.
MattKing wrote: However, I would like to point out that since the release of AOD, every single supplement, rule and non-sm-faction-sm character that has access to psy powers has been listed as having access to the AOD powers.
[emphasis added]
This definitely isn't true. The codex FAQs came out a few months ago, including those for DW, GK, DA, and SW. This was the perfect opportunity to grant access to AoD powers to DW Libbys, GK Libbys, DA Libbys, and SW Rune Priests. The errata in those documents did not change any of those datasheets.
RAI we can clearly see that none of those four factions should have access to the AoD powers. Voldus is a step forward. And to use fluff, he's the GM of the Librarian Brotherhood, so of course he'd be more knowledgeable than some rando Libby.
Off-topic, his warlord trait is stupid, and it should've been he gets to generate a 4th power if he sticks with one discipline (like a double Psychic Focus), not just Sanctic.
Murrax9 wrote: @StephaniusMade
I don't think anyone is saying all grey knight psykers should be able to use them. Most Greyknights have their powers already picked, making that easy to figure out. The argument is if grey knight [Librarians] can use them. The Angels of Death supplement contradicts the card and the marketing that GW put out, which makes me think this is worthy of an Angels of Death psychic powers FAQ.
Sounds logical, but it is just an assumption and interpretation of the possible meaning the checkmark could have. It could also just have been Voldus. We don't know, since we don't have a rule.
My understanding is that the Quick Reference Card's only purpose is to tell players which cards the might want to hang on to, depending on the faction they play. The card's checkmarks arn't GW's equivalent to reading tea leaves and interpreting their meaning freely, also known as making stuff up.
Lets say there is an identical reference card that instead of showing psychic disciplines, showed weapon groups (like melta weapons, flamer weapons, etc.) So there is a grid with faction on one side, weapon groups on the other, and checks indicating that faction has access to that weapon group.
What models in a Blood Angel army have access to melta guns?
This definitely isn't true. The codex FAQs came out a few months ago, including those for DW, GK, DA, and SW. This was the perfect opportunity to grant access to AoD powers to DW Libbys, GK Libbys, DA Libbys, and SW Rune Priests. The errata in those documents did not change any of those datasheets.
Unless they thought it was obvious. Or already stated it on their website.
This definitely isn't true. The codex FAQs came out a few months ago, including those for DW, GK, DA, and SW. This was the perfect opportunity to grant access to AoD powers to DW Libbys, GK Libbys, DA Libbys, and SW Rune Priests. The errata in those documents did not change any of those datasheets.
Unless they thought it was obvious. Or already stated it on their website.
There is a third option. Mind you, I have no behind the scenes knowledge. So this is a guess:
The rules designers meant SM only, the marketing guys fethed up , not understanding the difference between "faction Space Marines" and "space marine factions" and chucked the SM supplement and the cards into the webshop for all the other loyal marine factions.
Now, after people bought the supplment which isn't for their faction - or the cards which were not either - it's difficult to tell them that was a mistake, because that gives rise to requests to return the products for a refund.
Instead, calling it future proofing is better for customer relations.
MattKing wrote: Again I don't think you can do this RAW but the biggest argument for RAI in my opinion is that they immediately released a BA update that included it.
This definitely isn't true. The codex FAQs came out a few months ago, including those for DW, GK, DA, and SW. This was the perfect opportunity to grant access to AoD powers to DW Libbys, GK Libbys, DA Libbys, and SW Rune Priests. The errata in those documents did not change any of those datasheets.
Unless they thought it was obvious. Or already stated it on their website.
There is a third option. Mind you, I have no behind the scenes knowledge. So this is a guess:
The rules designers meant SM only, the marketing guys fethed up , not understanding the difference between "faction Space Marines" and "space marine factions" and chucked the SM supplement and the cards into the webshop for all the other loyal marine factions.
Now, after people bought the supplment which isn't for their faction - or the cards which were not either - it's difficult to tell them that was a mistake, because that gives rise to requests to return the products for a refund.
Instead, calling it future proofing is better for customer relations.
Yes there is a third option i called it most people choosed to ignore it.
AoD supplement and new psy powers was released in late april 2016, while the FAQ questions was gathered around 1 month before this release (march of same year) that's why this issue don't shows up in the FAQ because no one bothered to ask it since no player knew this conflict to properly ask.
Gk codex it's older and outdated, AoD only refer to vanilla chapters and upgrade those largely ignoring SW, BA, DA, so unless GW publish a FAQ or update the GK one we can't fully know for sure wich is the intent for those powers and both sides may be right.
MattKing wrote: Although it is not explicitly stated, except on the GW site and on the ref card, under the conditions that were put forth the other faction libs do not have access to thees powers. However, I would like to point out that since the release of AOD, every single supplement, rule and non-sm-faction-sm character that has access to psy powers has been listed as having access to the AOD powers. So I wouldn't call it future proofing so much as ret-coning. I would guess it is GW's intention to allow astarties thees powers but no ITC valid document supports it. Because this is a rules forum, the conclusion should be they do NOT have access to the powers, but this forum also concluded that Catifractii captain should have bikes because even though "terminator" is part of their name, they are not wearing terminator armor (Hurr-durr).
ITC rulings have 0 influence on this game. ITC does not even follow GWfaq's in their tournaments. I would really like to see someone produce a GW approved source that states it's game cards have no actual validity as a rules source. Explicitly stating that even though GK have access to the AOD powers based on their cards - they do not actually have access to them.
You have it backwards. If you want to use something, you have to demonstrate eligibliity.
I demonstrate the aforementioned eligibility by providing an official games workshop publication which clearly states that Grey Knights can draw powers from AoD disciplines. (the card)
Attempts to discredit this card stray into the realm of "what games workshop intended with the publication," which isn't reading the rules as written. This is a rule card published by games workshop. All of the psychic cards, data cards, etc, are rule cards. This is no different.
Aye, but the psyker entries in the codex do not list those powers. Thus Librarians, Brother Captains, etc... are not allowed to draw from those disciplines.
MattKing wrote: Although it is not explicitly stated, except on the GW site and on the ref card, under the conditions that were put forth the other faction libs do not have access to thees powers.
However, I would like to point out that since the release of AOD, every single supplement, rule and non-sm-faction-sm character that has access to psy powers has been listed as having access to the AOD powers. So I wouldn't call it future proofing so much as ret-coning.
I would guess it is GW's intention to allow astarties thees powers but no ITC valid document supports it.
Because this is a rules forum, the conclusion should be they do NOT have access to the powers, but this forum also concluded that Catifractii captain should have bikes because even though "terminator" is part of their name, they are not wearing terminator armor (Hurr-durr).
ITC rulings have 0 influence on this game. ITC does not even follow GWfaq's in their tournaments. I would really like to see someone produce a GW approved source that states it's game cards have no actual validity as a rules source. Explicitly stating that even though GK have access to the AOD powers based on their cards - they do not actually have access to them.
You have it backwards. If you want to use something, you have to demonstrate eligibliity.
I demonstrate the aforementioned eligibility by providing an official games workshop publication which clearly states that Grey Knights can draw powers from AoD disciplines. (the card)
Attempts to discredit this card stray into the realm of "what games workshop intended with the publication," which isn't reading the rules as written. This is a rule card published by games workshop. All of the psychic cards, data cards, etc, are rule cards. This is no different.
You have not demonstrated eligibility by providing an official games workshop publication which clearly states which units may draw powers from AoD disciplines.
Again, back to the Eldar example. I present you with the card saying which powers Craftworld Eldar may use. Does that suddenly mean that my Warlocks can use Divination or Telepathy? No. I have not provided proof of what powers Warlocks may use. Likewise, you have not provided proof of which units may use AoD disciplines.
MattKing wrote: Although it is not explicitly stated, except on the GW site and on the ref card, under the conditions that were put forth the other faction libs do not have access to thees powers.
However, I would like to point out that since the release of AOD, every single supplement, rule and non-sm-faction-sm character that has access to psy powers has been listed as having access to the AOD powers. So I wouldn't call it future proofing so much as ret-coning.
I would guess it is GW's intention to allow astarties thees powers but no ITC valid document supports it.
Because this is a rules forum, the conclusion should be they do NOT have access to the powers, but this forum also concluded that Catifractii captain should have bikes because even though "terminator" is part of their name, they are not wearing terminator armor (Hurr-durr).
ITC rulings have 0 influence on this game. ITC does not even follow GWfaq's in their tournaments. I would really like to see someone produce a GW approved source that states it's game cards have no actual validity as a rules source. Explicitly stating that even though GK have access to the AOD powers based on their cards - they do not actually have access to them.
You have it backwards. If you want to use something, you have to demonstrate eligibliity.
I demonstrate the aforementioned eligibility by providing an official games workshop publication which clearly states that Grey Knights can draw powers from AoD disciplines. (the card)
Attempts to discredit this card stray into the realm of "what games workshop intended with the publication," which isn't reading the rules as written. This is a rule card published by games workshop. All of the psychic cards, data cards, etc, are rule cards. This is no different.
You have not demonstrated eligibility by providing an official games workshop publication which clearly states which units may draw powers from AoD disciplines.
Again, back to the Eldar example. I present you with the card saying which powers Craftworld Eldar may use. Does that suddenly mean that my Warlocks can use Divination or Telepathy? No. I have not provided proof of what powers Warlocks may use. Likewise, you have not provided proof of which units may use AoD disciplines.
You card was released within 7th edition, the Codex:Craftworld was updated after 7th edition release, BRB says use the most up to date rulebook you can find, Codex trumps your card.
Gk codex it's older than Angels of Death datacards, so your example is void, and the reason this argument keeps comming. Until Gw updates again the GK codex or publish a new FAQ/Errata both sides have a good reason to be right.
MattKing wrote: Although it is not explicitly stated, except on the GW site and on the ref card, under the conditions that were put forth the other faction libs do not have access to thees powers.
However, I would like to point out that since the release of AOD, every single supplement, rule and non-sm-faction-sm character that has access to psy powers has been listed as having access to the AOD powers. So I wouldn't call it future proofing so much as ret-coning.
I would guess it is GW's intention to allow astarties thees powers but no ITC valid document supports it.
Because this is a rules forum, the conclusion should be they do NOT have access to the powers, but this forum also concluded that Catifractii captain should have bikes because even though "terminator" is part of their name, they are not wearing terminator armor (Hurr-durr).
ITC rulings have 0 influence on this game. ITC does not even follow GWfaq's in their tournaments. I would really like to see someone produce a GW approved source that states it's game cards have no actual validity as a rules source. Explicitly stating that even though GK have access to the AOD powers based on their cards - they do not actually have access to them.
You have it backwards. If you want to use something, you have to demonstrate eligibliity.
I demonstrate the aforementioned eligibility by providing an official games workshop publication which clearly states that Grey Knights can draw powers from AoD disciplines. (the card)
Attempts to discredit this card stray into the realm of "what games workshop intended with the publication," which isn't reading the rules as written. This is a rule card published by games workshop. All of the psychic cards, data cards, etc, are rule cards. This is no different.
You have not demonstrated eligibility by providing an official games workshop publication which clearly states which units may draw powers from AoD disciplines.
Again, back to the Eldar example. I present you with the card saying which powers Craftworld Eldar may use. Does that suddenly mean that my Warlocks can use Divination or Telepathy? No. I have not provided proof of what powers Warlocks may use. Likewise, you have not provided proof of which units may use AoD disciplines.
four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)
Which actually explains the intent of the card in further detail.
MattKing wrote: Although it is not explicitly stated, except on the GW site and on the ref card, under the conditions that were put forth the other faction libs do not have access to thees powers.
However, I would like to point out that since the release of AOD, every single supplement, rule and non-sm-faction-sm character that has access to psy powers has been listed as having access to the AOD powers. So I wouldn't call it future proofing so much as ret-coning.
I would guess it is GW's intention to allow astarties thees powers but no ITC valid document supports it.
Because this is a rules forum, the conclusion should be they do NOT have access to the powers, but this forum also concluded that Catifractii captain should have bikes because even though "terminator" is part of their name, they are not wearing terminator armor (Hurr-durr).
ITC rulings have 0 influence on this game. ITC does not even follow GWfaq's in their tournaments. I would really like to see someone produce a GW approved source that states it's game cards have no actual validity as a rules source. Explicitly stating that even though GK have access to the AOD powers based on their cards - they do not actually have access to them.
You have it backwards. If you want to use something, you have to demonstrate eligibliity.
I demonstrate the aforementioned eligibility by providing an official games workshop publication which clearly states that Grey Knights can draw powers from AoD disciplines. (the card)
Attempts to discredit this card stray into the realm of "what games workshop intended with the publication," which isn't reading the rules as written. This is a rule card published by games workshop. All of the psychic cards, data cards, etc, are rule cards. This is no different.
You have not demonstrated eligibility by providing an official games workshop publication which clearly states which units may draw powers from AoD disciplines.
Again, back to the Eldar example. I present you with the card saying which powers Craftworld Eldar may use. Does that suddenly mean that my Warlocks can use Divination or Telepathy? No. I have not provided proof of what powers Warlocks may use. Likewise, you have not provided proof of which units may use AoD disciplines.
four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)
Is it in the AoD book or a FAQ?
Which actually explains the intent of the card in further detail.
MattKing wrote: Although it is not explicitly stated, except on the GW site and on the ref card, under the conditions that were put forth the other faction libs do not have access to thees powers.
However, I would like to point out that since the release of AOD, every single supplement, rule and non-sm-faction-sm character that has access to psy powers has been listed as having access to the AOD powers. So I wouldn't call it future proofing so much as ret-coning.
I would guess it is GW's intention to allow astarties thees powers but no ITC valid document supports it.
Because this is a rules forum, the conclusion should be they do NOT have access to the powers, but this forum also concluded that Catifractii captain should have bikes because even though "terminator" is part of their name, they are not wearing terminator armor (Hurr-durr).
ITC rulings have 0 influence on this game. ITC does not even follow GWfaq's in their tournaments. I would really like to see someone produce a GW approved source that states it's game cards have no actual validity as a rules source. Explicitly stating that even though GK have access to the AOD powers based on their cards - they do not actually have access to them.
You have it backwards. If you want to use something, you have to demonstrate eligibliity.
I demonstrate the aforementioned eligibility by providing an official games workshop publication which clearly states that Grey Knights can draw powers from AoD disciplines. (the card)
Attempts to discredit this card stray into the realm of "what games workshop intended with the publication," which isn't reading the rules as written. This is a rule card published by games workshop. All of the psychic cards, data cards, etc, are rule cards. This is no different.
You have not demonstrated eligibility by providing an official games workshop publication which clearly states which units may draw powers from AoD disciplines.
Again, back to the Eldar example. I present you with the card saying which powers Craftworld Eldar may use. Does that suddenly mean that my Warlocks can use Divination or Telepathy? No. I have not provided proof of what powers Warlocks may use. Likewise, you have not provided proof of which units may use AoD disciplines.
You card was released within 7th edition, the Codex:Craftworld was updated after 7th edition release, BRB says use the most up to date rulebook you can find, Codex trumps your card.
Gk codex it's older than Angels of Death datacards, so your example is void, and the reason this argument keeps comming. Until Gw updates again the GK codex or publish a new FAQ/Errata both sides have a good reason to be right.
The datacard isn't older than the latest Grey Knights FAQ. Did the FAQ tell us they could use the powers? If not, then no you don't get to because it's not in the AoD supplement or in your GKFAQ. Until it's FAQ'd to let you, you can't.
There is no official FAQ supporting the use of each individual forgeworld unit, and forgeworld units are not included in codexes. Therefore, no one can use forgeworld units in a bound list.
There is no official FAQ stating that formation cards included in start collecting packages are allowed outside of an unbound game. These formations are not included in the codex. Therefore, start collecting formations are not allowed in a bound list.
I mean things get absurd fast if we start using (1) the presence in a codex or (2) the presence in an FAQ as a requirement - above and beyond other official, GW publications - to use things.
Marmatag wrote: There is no official FAQ supporting the use of each individual forgeworld unit, and forgeworld units are not included in codexes. Therefore, no one can use forgeworld units in a bound list.
Forgeworld books state which units can be used in which battlefield roles in a 40k game. No FAQ needed.
Marmatag wrote: There is no official FAQ stating that formation cards included in start collecting packages are allowed outside of an unbound game. These formations are not included in the codex. Therefore, start collecting formations are not allowed in a bound list.
I mean things get absurd fast if we start using (1) the presence in a codex or (2) the presence in an FAQ as a requirement - above and beyond other official, GW publications - to use things.
You go to extreme levels, however. The formation cards in start collecting boxes are official publications so are fine. The psychic power cards while published by GW still need you to refer to a GW publication to tell you which units can use which powers. The psychic power card by itself is not enough to allow specific units to use the powers. There has been no GW publication that has come out to allow it - the markeyting hype does not count as a publication giving us rules for the game. It's been almost a year since the book has come out and there's been no FAQ on it. Grey Knights had a FAQ in January which does not mention using these. Barring lack of any rules-based publications that tell you what units can use the powers in AoD, you don't get to use the powers in AoD by RAW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Perversor wrote: Again GW requested Questions and doubts to be submitted for the FAQ in march , Angels of Death was published in late April.
the latest FAQ/Errata it's based in player questions made 1 month before this issue could arise not on GW self intent to keep up to date the rules.
Nice try, but no cigar. It's been almost a year (10 1/2 months) and no FAQ for AoD. There has been a FAQ for Grey Knights in January of this year. They could easily have included mention of it in there if they had wanted to. Or, put out a FAQ on Angels of Death in the 10 1/2 months since it's been published. They managed to get a FAQ out on The Fracture of Biel-Tan pretty quickly; you'd think if there was any feeling that they wanted to clarify in the rules that GK could use the powers from Angels of Death they could easily have put out a mention somewhere in that time period. That they didn't should be an indication to you.
There's been no FAQ because there is no need for an FAQ.
The website explicitly states that Grey Knights have access to these powers.
This is reinforced by the cards, which are an official publication.
The only argument against the cards involves either an entirely different set of circumstances, or discrediting them by saying it's "future proofing," which wouldn't really make sense at all, because I doubt even GW knows if GK would get access to biomancy down the road, but more importantly it's a subjective stance based on what you think the rules mean, rather than what they say.
We can just end the debate really, I doubt we'll agree. I do understand why you'd want it in an FAQ or a codex, largely because that precedent was set for other factions. Explicit clarity never hurt anyone.
Even if I'm wrong, it would be nice to see an FAQ entry regarding this topic, that (1) answers our question and (2) establishes if the website or cards are an official source.
And at the end of the day it hardly matters, since basically every tournament format bans or neuters these powers anyway, for some reason or another.
Marmatag wrote: The only argument against the cards involves either an entirely different set of circumstances, or discrediting them by saying it's "future proofing," which wouldn't really make sense at all, because I doubt even GW knows if GK would get access to biomancy down the road, but more importantly it's a subjective stance based on what you think the rules mean, rather than what they say.
No. The argument against the cards and the website is the one that actually matters. That is the rules.
Marmatag wrote: The only argument against the cards involves either an entirely different set of circumstances, or discrediting them by saying it's "future proofing," which wouldn't really make sense at all, because I doubt even GW knows if GK would get access to biomancy down the road, but more importantly it's a subjective stance based on what you think the rules mean, rather than what they say.
No. The argument against the cards and the website is the one that actually matters. That is the rules.
We will go in circles here, because I believe that official GW publications are rules unless otherwise stated. Just like I won't refuse to play with people who use Forgeworld units, or counts-as proxies, or start collecting formations.
Marmatag wrote: The only argument against the cards involves either an entirely different set of circumstances, or discrediting them by saying it's "future proofing," which wouldn't really make sense at all, because I doubt even GW knows if GK would get access to biomancy down the road, but more importantly it's a subjective stance based on what you think the rules mean, rather than what they say.
No. The argument against the cards and the website is the one that actually matters. That is the rules.
We will go in circles here, because I believe that official GW publications are rules unless otherwise stated. Just like I won't refuse to play with people who use Forgeworld units, or counts-as proxies, or start collecting formations.
You're really not catching on that those are all different things. Nothing anywhere grants Libs from GK access to AoD. Voldus has access to them, that does not grant a blanket rule to the whole faction. The cards do NOT grant access, they REVEAL that factions have or will have access. Marketing is not rules. Rules are what tell you how to play the game.
FW have rules.
I don't recall a rule saying you have to play with GW products.
SC formations are printed rules.
The cards have a checkmark, what does that tell us? Does it indicate which *units* can generate these powers?
You're saying HYWPI, which is fine, because that's HIWPI too. Don't pretend it's RAW, and don't assume it's RAI. People have thought RAI was "obvious" plenty of times and been wrong, so it just doesn't hold water.
If it isn't rules as written, then Games Workshop made a significant error on their website under AoD when they made this claim:
four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)
We can argue what is rules, and what is intended all day long, but this statement still exists, it hasn't been taken down.
Now, it is possible that GW made an error here, but that isn't something you can assume.
For those of you who say this statement + the card shouldn't be treated as rules, I ask why? Clearly define what constitutes a rule. Also, you can argue that the green check mark meaning is unclear, but given the statement above, in the context of its release, it is very clear that it represents which powers a librarian can generate. You could argue that the green check mark means "goes good with tequila," and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but if you are going to take it to that level, you could start poking holes in all kinds of rules all over the place.
Actually, Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and flip sides here. There isn't anything that says they can't and one official source that says they can. It would be different if another official source said "Librarians of the following chapters cannot", but there isn't. There's only one official comment on the matter and it says "can". Nothing in any rules book contradicts this.
Marmatag wrote: If it isn't rules as written, then Games Workshop made a significant error on their website under AoD when they made this claim:
four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)
We can argue what is rules, and what is intended all day long, but this statement still exists, it hasn't been taken down.
Now, it is possible that GW made an error here, but that isn't something you can assume.
Misleading advertising. They made an error, there is no assumption needed. The web description claim you quoted about the SM Supplement Angels of Death is demonstrably false. Read the book. It does not contain a single reference to BA, DA, SW, GK, or DW. No mention of these factions at all in the book, regardless of the website text.
For those of you who say this statement + the card shouldn't be treated as rules, I ask why? Clearly define what constitutes a rule. Also, you can argue that the green check mark meaning is unclear, but given the statement above, in the context of its release, it is very clear that it represents which powers a librarian can generate. You could argue that the green check mark means "goes good with tequila," and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but if you are going to take it to that level, you could start poking holes in all kinds of rules all over the place.
A rule is at the core an instruction that tells you what you may do in the game.
A checkmark isn't an instruction you can follow, since it doesn't actually tell you what you are permitted to do.
Let me be more specific: The checkmark between Fulmination and GK means:
a) that all GK psyker units - including those with fixed powers - can generate Fulmination powers
b) that all GK psyker units - except for vehicles - can generate Fulmination powers
c) that all GK psyker units with ML2 or better can generate Fulmination powers
d) that all GK psyker units with the unit name Voldus can generate Fulmination powers
Which is it - and why?
Also, why do a judge web-shop description and an optional card decks reference card as equal or higher authority than the rule book it describes or reprints in excerpts respectively?
Grey Templar wrote: Aye, but the psyker entries in the codex do not list those powers. Thus Librarians, Brother Captains, etc... are not allowed to draw from those disciplines.
Angels of death was released after the Grey Knight codex. If we were judging just off the codexes that would mean no one got to use these powers.
Marmatag wrote: If it isn't rules as written, then Games Workshop made a significant error on their website under AoD when they made this claim:
four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)
We can argue what is rules, and what is intended all day long, but this statement still exists, it hasn't been taken down.
Now, it is possible that GW made an error here, but that isn't something you can assume.
Misleading advertising. They made an error, there is no assumption needed. The web description claim you quoted about the SM Supplement Angels of Death is demonstrably false. Read the book. It does not contain a single reference to BA, DA, SW, GK, or DW. No mention of these factions at all in the book, regardless of the website text.
For those of you who say this statement + the card shouldn't be treated as rules, I ask why? Clearly define what constitutes a rule. Also, you can argue that the green check mark meaning is unclear, but given the statement above, in the context of its release, it is very clear that it represents which powers a librarian can generate. You could argue that the green check mark means "goes good with tequila," and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but if you are going to take it to that level, you could start poking holes in all kinds of rules all over the place.
A rule is at the core an instruction that tells you what you may do in the game.
A checkmark isn't an instruction you can follow, since it doesn't actually tell you what you are permitted to do.
Let me be more specific: The checkmark between Fulmination and GK means:
a) that all GK psyker units - including those with fixed powers - can generate Fulmination powers
b) that all GK psyker units - except for vehicles - can generate Fulmination powers
c) that all GK psyker units with ML2 or better can generate Fulmination powers
d) that all GK psyker units with the unit name Voldus can generate Fulmination powers
Which is it - and why?
Also, why do a judge web-shop description and an optional card decks reference card as equal or higher authority than the rule book it describes or reprints in excerpts respectively?
or
e) All GK librarians can generate fulmination powers. We should not act like these things have higher authority but they certainly give conflicting information, advertising is still something, it would be false advertising if GK librarians couldn't use those powers.
Marmatag wrote: If it isn't rules as written, then Games Workshop made a significant error on their website under AoD when they made this claim:
four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)
The real problem with using this as rules is that it's laughably NOT rules. It's fluff, and we can't use fluff as rules. Unless you want me to claim that my Daemonettes get to always strike first in combat, regardless of initiative, because of some fluffy thing that describes their preternatural speed and grace. Just...no.
Actually, that distracted me from what I was going to type. The REAL problem is the blatant error in that quoted statement. Space Wolves don't have Librarians. That's an enormous clue that it isn't a rule.
So here's a clip from the Vindicare Assassin product page:
Able to instantly calculate the trajectory of their shot from seemingly impossible angles, a Vindicare Assassin can loose off a single round, powerful and precise enough to penetrate even powerful force fields, and move on to the next target even before their bullet has found its prey.
I'm going to now claim that my Vindi gets to shoot twice per turn, with the second shot rolling to hit before resolving the wound against the first target, since he can "move on to the next target even before [the] bullet has found its prey."
And Fateweaver:
This twin-headed terror is a master of magic, able to transform foes into tentacle-ridden Chaos Spawn
I'm going to claim that he now has the Mutating Warpblade that's a Daemonic Reward (even though he can't take rewards).
This is an equivalency error. It's not fluff, It's a statement from the company about the rules of the game. Let's entirely forget about the card and focus on the GW site statement. What specifically makes a GW statement about a GW product directly pertaining to GW rules "erroneous fluff"?
MattKing wrote: This is an equivalency error. It's not fluff, It's a statement from the company about the rules of the game. Let's entirely forget about the card and focus on the GW site statement. What specifically makes a GW statement about a GW product directly pertaining to GW rules "erroneous fluff"?
If the label doesn't match the product, it's erroneous.
AOD does nothing for and contains no mention of GK, SW et al.
Just like a can of beans mislabelled "corn" doesn't make the can contain corn.
MattKing wrote: This is an equivalency error. It's not fluff, It's a statement from the company about the rules of the game. Let's entirely forget about the card and focus on the GW site statement. What specifically makes a GW statement about a GW product directly pertaining to GW rules "erroneous fluff"?
I'd say "Space Wolves Librarians" in a statement is a good indication of being erroneous and not being a rule you can accept. At the very least it indicates that the person who wrote the statement doesn't know what he's talking about.
Another way to look at it, is making a claim like this is legally binding. They're making a direct statement about the rules, and how this release interacts with them. For these to not be allowed, this would be an example of false advertising.
A set of twenty-eight datacards detailing four psychic disciplines usable by any Space Marine Librarian (even a Space Wolves Rune Priest – these are for every Chapter!), each consisting of seven psychic powers:
You don't have to consider this to be rules if you don't want to, but they went above and beyond in this message to clarify that when they said librarians, they meant to include rune priests. They even go on to specifically say that these are for every chapter.
Legally binding or false advertising is a completely different issue from a rules discussion.
If you buy a can of peas online because you were led to believe by the advertising that the product also contains carrots, that is one thing. Pointing out the misleading ad will certainly square this with your significant other. We also understand that.
Yet, this still doesn't make carrots appear in the can. Insisting that peas are peas and carrots because the advertising said there would be carrots even though there clearly are no carrots - that is just silly.
I disagree. The writer of this clearly had an understanding of the different chapters and psy characters or, as you pointed out, wouldn't have included rune priests. Raw the card is arguable weather or not it gives permission, but RAI is pretty clear. Let's put it his way I don't know any TO's that wouldn't let you use it if you brought a printed copy of this page.
Well you know of one now. (It's me.) I like RAW in tournaments, or FAQs when clarification is needed. It's easier to have a simple, provable guideline instead of making a thousand thousand exceptions.
Edit: and those aren't big guns. Again, websites aren't rules! We look to datasheets for a model's rules. My Librarian does not have permission on his datasheet to generate from a discipline. His datasheet has not been modified in any way. Ergo, he cannot generate from that discipline.
GW does have ways to modify datasheets, and their methods for doing so are very standard and straightforward. Text on a webpage is not how they do it. They do it through PDFs or a White Dwarf or a printed Supplement.
Stephanius wrote: Legally binding or false advertising is a completely different issue from a rules discussion.
If you buy a can of peas online because you were led to believe by the advertising that the product also contains carrots, that is one thing. Pointing out the misleading ad will certainly square this with your significant other. We also understand that.
Yet, this still doesn't make carrots appear in the can. Insisting that peas are peas and carrots because the advertising said there would be carrots even though there clearly are no carrots - that is just silly.
Actually it does matter, because even if they didn't want this to be true, at this point they've used it to generate a significant amount of revenue, in the US we're protected against this kind of chicanery. It would be far easier for them to make this the rules than to fight it and face sanctions.
Secondly, in your example you've opened the can to reveal that there are indeed no peas. In this case, we have ZERO evidence to suggest that this statement was made in error. A better example would be, I hold up a can of peas, with a peas label on it, and you say, "Hey there's carrots in there. You can't trust the peas label." And I say, "But, that makes no sense, it clearly says peas." To which you reply, "that's future proofing, in case peas may at some point be in the can. Therefore, it contains carrots."
Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that this statement wasn't authored by the team that writes the rules. Typically user accessibility and knowledge management author documentation as well as public facing content. Marketing doesn't write these kinds of things. At least, that's how things are done in fortune 500 companies i've worked for, I can't speak to games workshop, but in my experience there is 0 evidence to support the assertion that this was written by a team who doesn't know what they're doing, and is totally disconnected from the rules writing process. It's most likely that it's the same team.
Marmatag wrote: I can't speak to games workshop, but in my experience there is 0 evidence to support the assertion that this was written by a team who doesn't know what they're doing, and is totally disconnected from the rules writing process. It's most likely that it's the same team.
Actually we have great evidence that they are a mishmash of clumsy The text on the AoD supplement page and the text on the AoD Psychic Cards page are different. If the same guy wrote them, he'd copy-pasta.
Stephanius wrote: Legally binding or false advertising is a completely different issue from a rules discussion.
If you buy a can of peas online because you were led to believe by the advertising that the product also contains carrots, that is one thing. Pointing out the misleading ad will certainly square this with your significant other. We also understand that.
Yet, this still doesn't make carrots appear in the can. Insisting that peas are peas and carrots because the advertising said there would be carrots even though there clearly are no carrots - that is just silly.
Actually it does matter, because even if they didn't want this to be true, at this point they've used it to generate a significant amount of revenue, in the US we're protected against this kind of chicanery. It would be far easier for them to make this the rules than to fight it and face sanctions.
So sue them.
Marmatag wrote: Secondly, in your example you've opened the can to reveal that there are indeed no peas. In this case, we have ZERO evidence to suggest that this statement was made in error. A better example would be, I hold up a can of peas, with a peas label on it, and you say, "Hey there's carrots in there. You can't trust the peas label." And I say, "But, that makes no sense, it clearly says peas." To which you reply, "that's future proofing, in case peas may at some point be in the can. Therefore, it contains carrots."
The lack of a statement in the supplement itself or in a FAQ or, indeed, anywhere except by some marketing hack on the page meant to sell the book, is evidence in and of itself - evidence that you can't take the statement as RAW. The sales page for an item is not something that's been cited by GW as a rules source.
Marmatag wrote: Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that this statement wasn't authored by the team that writes the rules.
So what? There's no evidence it was. Your point here is irrelevant. You would think, though, if the team that writes the rules wrote they hype on the webpage, then they would have had the intelligence to put the statements in the book itself. Or at least get a FAQ out quickly to correct it. So far, neither has been done.
Marmatag wrote:
Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that this statement wasn't authored by the team that writes the rules.
So what? There's no evidence it was. Your point here is irrelevant. You would think, though, if the team that writes the rules wrote they hype on the webpage, then they would have had the intelligence to put the statements in the book itself. Or at least get a FAQ out quickly to correct it. So far, neither has been done.
One lousy (error wrought) faq and people forget we're dealing with GW. No. They will not "rush" to get out a faq. Especially if they think they already dealt with it by putting it on the main page.
I respectfully disagree completely - they would most certainly have had it mentioned in a FAQ or another sourcebook in the 10 1/2 months since AoD came out. Nobody in their right mind is going to think the sales blurb on a website is going to serve for providing the proper rules, and it's highly doubtful the GW people would think that either (he says, knowing someone would jump on the straight line if he didn't first).
Stephanius wrote: Legally binding or false advertising is a completely different issue from a rules discussion.
If you buy a can of peas online because you were led to believe by the advertising that the product also contains carrots, that is one thing. Pointing out the misleading ad will certainly square this with your significant other. We also understand that.
Yet, this still doesn't make carrots appear in the can. Insisting that peas are peas and carrots because the advertising said there would be carrots even though there clearly are no carrots - that is just silly.
Actually it does matter, because even if they didn't want this to be true, at this point they've used it to generate a significant amount of revenue, in the US we're protected against this kind of chicanery. It would be far easier for them to make this the rules than to fight it and face sanctions.
I hope you saved your receipt. Did you buy the book or just the cards? Of course in the US you are most likely going to claim compensation for the mental anguish caused by having your claim to other factions cheese rejected by other players. This might make a great Judge Judy episode.
Secondly, in your example you've opened the can to reveal that there are indeed no peas. In this case, we have ZERO evidence to suggest that this statement was made in error. A better example would be, I hold up a can of peas, with a peas label on it, and you say, "Hey there's carrots in there. You can't trust the peas label." And I say, "But, that makes no sense, it clearly says peas." To which you reply, "that's future proofing, in case peas may at some point be in the can. Therefore, it contains carrots."
No. Actually, in my example, the webshop shows an image of a can of peas. The picture shows a can with a label that says "Peas" and a picture of peas. Yet, the webshop text says: "contains carrots, which are awesome for YOU!". When you get the can, it looks just like the can in the picture. No trace whatsoever of the mentioned carrots on the label. Or in the can. Hint : the carrots would be rules for non-SM marines.
See, if you'd bought and read the AoD book, you'd know that it's SM on the cover, SM on the rear cover. SM in the table of contents. SM on every page. Which kinda makes sense for a SM supplement. It doesn't mention anything about DA/BA/GK/SW/DW.
Marmatag wrote: Another way to look at it, is making a claim like this is legally binding. They're making a direct statement about the rules, and how this release interacts with them. For these to not be allowed, this would be an example of false advertising.
A set of twenty-eight datacards detailing four psychic disciplines usable by any Space Marine Librarian (even a Space Wolves Rune Priest – these are for every Chapter!), each consisting of seven psychic powers:
You don't have to consider this to be rules if you don't want to, but they went above and beyond in this message to clarify that when they said librarians, they meant to include rune priests. They even go on to specifically say that these are for every chapter.
"any librarian"
"these are for every chapter"
Don't see how this could be any clearer.
From the Solitaire's explanation:
None, even amongst the Harlequins, know the limits of the Solitaire’s abilities. Tales exist of these supernatural killers running up sheer fortress walls, spilling from the shadows inside locked bunkers, even slowing time itself. For any who stand in the Solitaire’s way, death is destined
So if not even the harlequins know his rules, can I just make up whatever rules? If he kills literally everything in his path then he should be erasing entire armies? If he slows time itself, then why can't I just have him move a lot faster than he does? His explanation is quite flattering, but his actual in game rules are situational at best. Therefore, the marketing is not indicative of the rules themselves.
If you can't tell the difference between fluff, and rules, because it's posted on the website, I don't even know what to say. The Harlequin example really shows willful ignorance, nothing more.
And you can call the powers cheese if you want to, but most tournament formats flat out ban or neuter these powers heavily, so it's not even a big deal.
And yeah, it says "Space Marines." I guess according to this thread, "Hatred: Space Marines" would exclude Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Space Wolves. Of course in the C:SM it does explicitly say that the category 'Space Marines' comprises all units taken from the following codexes: Space Marines, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights and Space Wolves.
I mean to click on a different page and accidentally exalted this post. no idea what that means but it wasn't on purpose.
All this back and forth, yet no one mentions which unit is a Space Wolf Librarian. Space Wolf Librarians case access AoD powers per the marketing blurb, but to my knowledge there are no Space Wolf Librarians!
Marmatag wrote: ...
And yeah, it says "Space Marines." I guess according to this thread, "Hatred: Space Marines" would exclude Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Space Wolves. Of course in the C:SM it does explicitly say that the category 'Space Marines' comprises all units taken from the following codexes: Space Marines, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights and Space Wolves.
...
Which is a completely separate, clear rule and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
AoD uses clearly defined terms to explicitly state which units it applies to: "Any Psyker with the Space Marines Faction can ...".
If you are unsure what that means, refer to page 118 of Warhammer 40k The Rules. You'll see the BA, DA, GK, SW and SM factions clearly pointed out as separate.
Yes, in the fluff SM are basic and the separate codices marines are the best of the bestest. Yet, from a rules perspective they are completely separate factions.
That's also why GK cannot simply take anything SM can - and vice versa.
jeffersonian000 wrote: All this back and forth, yet no one mentions which unit is a Space Wolf Librarian. Space Wolf Librarians case access AoD powers per the marketing blurb, but to my knowledge there are no Space Wolf Librarians!
SJ
They published another statement saying the same thing and added that it includes rune priests.
Marmatag wrote: If you can't tell the difference between fluff, and rules, because it's posted on the website, I don't even know what to say. The Harlequin example really shows willful ignorance, nothing more.
And you can call the powers cheese if you want to, but most tournament formats flat out ban or neuter these powers heavily, so it's not even a big deal.
And yeah, it says "Space Marines." I guess according to this thread, "Hatred: Space Marines" would exclude Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Space Wolves. Of course in the C:SM it does explicitly say that the category 'Space Marines' comprises all units taken from the following codexes: Space Marines, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights and Space Wolves.
I mean to click on a different page and accidentally exalted this post. no idea what that means but it wasn't on purpose.
How is the harlequin example willful ignorance? I am genuinely curious. I mean, its obviously RAI, if not RAW because it is official GW material.
And the space marine powers are silly, hardly cheese, but in certain missions completely poorly written. And generally saying "its not cheese because tournaments changed the rules" is a terrible argument for something not being strong/cheesy
All this back and forth, yet no one mentions which unit is a Space Wolf Librarian. Space Wolf Librarians case access AoD powers per the marketing blurb, but to my knowledge there are no Space Wolf Librarians!
"A set of twenty-eight datacards detailing four psychic disciplines usable by any Space Marine Librarian (even a Space Wolves Rune Priest – these are for every Chapter!), each consisting of seven psychic powers:"
All this back and forth, yet no one mentions which unit is a Space Wolf Librarian. Space Wolf Librarians case access AoD powers per the marketing blurb, but to my knowledge there are no Space Wolf Librarians!
"A set of twenty-eight datacards detailing four psychic disciplines usable by any Space Marine Librarian (even a Space Wolves Rune Priest – these are for every Chapter!), each consisting of seven psychic powers:"
Yes, the advertising blub for the AoD book is different from the advertising from the AoD cards.
Since there is nothing in the book or in the card deck that actually delivers on this claim, the claim has no weight in a rules discussion.
All this back and forth, yet no one mentions which unit is a Space Wolf Librarian. Space Wolf Librarians case access AoD powers per the marketing blurb, but to my knowledge there are no Space Wolf Librarians!
"A set of twenty-eight datacards detailing four psychic disciplines usable by any Space Marine Librarian (even a Space Wolves Rune Priest – these are for every Chapter!), each consisting of seven psychic powers:"
Yes, the advertising blub for the AoD book is different from the advertising from the AoD cards. Since there is nothing in the book or in the card deck that actually delivers on this claim, the claim has no weight in a rules discussion.
This is not advertising.
This is a product description - they are telling you exactly what the kid includes.
There is a huge difference.
This claim is on the same level as listing the number of parts included in a kit. If you bought a TAC squad equivalent or some such squad, and it didn't come with any guns, but they listed all the gun options in the product description, would you just accept it, because everything on the website is marketing or fluff? "Oh it says it comes with guns, but my kit has no guns. Oh well that was just marketing/fluff."
All this back and forth, yet no one mentions which unit is a Space Wolf Librarian. Space Wolf Librarians case access AoD powers per the marketing blurb, but to my knowledge there are no Space Wolf Librarians!
"A set of twenty-eight datacards detailing four psychic disciplines usable by any Space Marine Librarian (even a Space Wolves Rune Priest – these are for every Chapter!), each consisting of seven psychic powers:"
Yes, the advertising blub for the AoD book is different from the advertising from the AoD cards.
Since there is nothing in the book or in the card deck that actually delivers on this claim, the claim has no weight in a rules discussion.
This is not advertising.
This is a product description - they are telling you exactly what the kid includes.
There is a huge difference.
This claim is on the same level as listing the number of parts included in a kit. If you bought a TAC squad equivalent or some such squad, and it didn't come with any guns, but they listed all the gun options in the product description, would you just accept it, because everything on the website is marketing or fluff? "Oh it says it comes with guns, but my kit has no guns. Oh well that was just marketing/fluff."
Your example posits an incomplete product, rather that bad marketing QA.
AOD is complete - it summed up all SM bits floating around and delivers what it was supposed to. There is no indication anywhere that AOD was supposed to do anything for any other codex.
After AOD was finished and off to the print, someone in marketing confused "the Space Marines Faction" with all (loyal) space marines. That resulted in the messed up text for AOD and the cards.
The web shop descriptions are not necessarily very accurate, fluff aside. In fact, the other day I bought a kit that was supposed to be a "highly detailed resin kit" but instead of Forgeworld quality it was Finecast
Ok so AOD is a complete product but the cards aren't?
The Psychic Power cards are a separate product.
I could easily make the case that while the Angels of Death powers are not usable by every librarian, the Psychic Powers detailed on the cards are, as the codex and the cards are two distinct objects.
So yeah. I can't take fulmination from the angels of death codex, but i can take fulmination from the space marines psychic power cards. Which happens to be identical to the AOD book.
The finecast example is a total non sequitur.
I'm beginning to think people have difficulty understanding the fundamental difference between subjective versus objective.
This is a product description - they are telling you exactly what the kid includes.
There is a huge difference.
This is a chunk of text giving a product description for something they're trying to sell in the hopes of selling more of the product - sounds like a textbook description of marketing.
And, it obviously is not telling you exactly what the "kit" includes, since the marketing hype on the webpage tells you something totally different from what the actual codex it's hyping tells you about its usability with Marine types that have a faction different from the Space Marines Faction.
Marmatag wrote: Ok so AOD is a complete product but the cards aren't?
The Psychic Power cards are a separate product.
I could easily make the case that while the Angels of Death powers are not usable by every librarian, the Psychic Powers detailed on the cards are, as the codex and the cards are two distinct objects.
So yeah. I can't take fulmination from the angels of death codex, but i can take fulmination from the space marines psychic power cards. Which happens to be identical to the AOD book.
The finecast example is a total non sequitur.
I'm beginning to think people have difficulty understanding the fundamental difference between subjective versus objective.
The cards are a product, but the cards are not complete in and of themselves. They do not tell you which units within the faction get to use which powers. Going by your statement, since the cards are complete I could have any Eldar pskyer use Runes of Battle, and any Eldar Psyker use Runes of Fate since there are cards for both disciplines for Eldar. And, any Eldar Psyker could use Divination since there's a check mark.
I'm beginning to think people have difficulty understanding the fundamental difference between official rules and hype they only wish were actual rules.
This is a product description - they are telling you exactly what the kid includes.
There is a huge difference.
This is a chunk of text giving a product description for something they're trying to sell in the hopes of selling more of the product - sounds like a textbook description of marketing.
And, it obviously is not telling you exactly what the "kit" includes, since the marketing hype on the webpage tells you something totally different from what the actual codex it's hyping tells you about its usability with Marine types that have a faction different from the Space Marines Faction.
You're calling it marketing hype because it suits your purposes, yet it very clearly makes a definitive statement about the rules and restrictions. It says librarian & rune priest. Those are very specific models in the context of space marines.
Can you please define marketing, and define rules & restrictions? Not in the context of GW, just in general. I'm curious.
Marmatag wrote: Ok so AOD is a complete product but the cards aren't?
The Psychic Power cards are a separate product.
I could easily make the case that while the Angels of Death powers are not usable by every librarian, the Psychic Powers detailed on the cards are, as the codex and the cards are two distinct objects.
So yeah. I can't take fulmination from the angels of death codex, but i can take fulmination from the space marines psychic power cards. Which happens to be identical to the AOD book.
The finecast example is a total non sequitur.
I'm beginning to think people have difficulty understanding the fundamental difference between subjective versus objective.
The cards are a product, but the cards are not complete in and of themselves. They do not tell you which units within the faction get to use which powers. Going by your statement, since the cards are complete I could have any Eldar pskyer use Runes of Battle, and any Eldar Psyker use Runes of Fate since there are cards for both disciplines for Eldar. And, any Eldar Psyker could use Divination since there's a check mark.
I'm beginning to think people have difficulty understanding the fundamental difference between official rules and hype they only wish were actual rules.
The cards do tell you this.
The Eldar scenario is fundamentally different and proves nothing.
The Eldar scenario is fundamentally different and proves nothing.
The cards tell you nothing that isn't in the book they are copied from, they repeat the powers verbatim.
The quick reference card tells you which FACTIONS have access to each discipline, but not which UNITS have access.
Without a permission for units - which SM units gets in the AOD book - there is no access for any unit.
The Eldar craftworld cards do not include a quick reference card.
The Eldar example applied to the generic power cards and Chaos Deamons is a valid example for the complete failure of equating faction access with access for all units.
The finecast example for the webshop copy reliabiliy is funny, but as you correctly point out, not really needed to illustrate how unreliable the copy is. As we have been over, the description for the AOD book and the cards are both inaccurate regarding the product they describe and inconsistent between themselves, which makes them a poor source of reliable information.
This is a product description - they are telling you exactly what the kid includes.
There is a huge difference.
This is a chunk of text giving a product description for something they're trying to sell in the hopes of selling more of the product - sounds like a textbook description of marketing.
And, it obviously is not telling you exactly what the "kit" includes, since the marketing hype on the webpage tells you something totally different from what the actual codex it's hyping tells you about its usability with Marine types that have a faction different from the Space Marines Faction.
You're calling it marketing hype because it suits your purposes, yet it very clearly makes a definitive statement about the rules and restrictions. It says librarian & rune priest. Those are very specific models in the context of space marines.
Can you please define marketing, and define rules & restrictions? Not in the context of GW, just in general. I'm curious.
from dictionary.com
Marketing
noun
1.the act of buying or selling in a market.
2.the total of activities involved in the transfer of goods from the producer or seller to the consumer or buyer, including advertising, shipping, storing, and selling.
The block of text on the webpage is a description of the product used to help get people to purchase the product. This is part of their act to sell the product in the market, meeting definition one. It also meets the requirements of definition 2.
Your turn for to provide information - please provide a quotation from Games Workshop where they have defined their product description page as a valid source for rules. They've told us the other things you've brought up as a smokescreen (Let's Get Started boxes, codexes, FAQs, etc) are valid.
Without the webpage that inaccurately describes the contents of the supplement, there is no other place that defines which psyker units in the non-SM Faction marine types as getting to use the AoD rules. The cards certainly don't, a fact that you continually ignore. Without a valid source giving you permission, you don't have permission to use iwth outside of Space Marines faction.
Marmatag wrote: Ok so AOD is a complete product but the cards aren't?
The Psychic Power cards are a separate product.
I could easily make the case that while the Angels of Death powers are not usable by every librarian, the Psychic Powers detailed on the cards are, as the codex and the cards are two distinct objects.
So yeah. I can't take fulmination from the angels of death codex, but i can take fulmination from the space marines psychic power cards. Which happens to be identical to the AOD book.
The finecast example is a total non sequitur.
I'm beginning to think people have difficulty understanding the fundamental difference between subjective versus objective.
The cards are a product, but the cards are not complete in and of themselves. They do not tell you which units within the faction get to use which powers. Going by your statement, since the cards are complete I could have any Eldar pskyer use Runes of Battle, and any Eldar Psyker use Runes of Fate since there are cards for both disciplines for Eldar. And, any Eldar Psyker could use Divination since there's a check mark.
I'm beginning to think people have difficulty understanding the fundamental difference between official rules and hype they only wish were actual rules.
The cards do tell you this.
The Eldar scenario is fundamentally different and proves nothing.
That's a load of codswallop. No, it's not fundamentally different. Eldar had a card which defined what powers were (supposedly) able to be accessed by someone in the faction. Not everybody in the faction got to use every power that was checked off. We've had people asserting that because Grey Knights have a check mark, every psyker in the army can use it. It doesn't work that way. The cards are not complete in and of themselves; you still have to consult the unit descriptions to see which units can use what disciplines. If you don't have a leginitmate rules source saying a specific unit can use the discipline, then the unit can't. A card with a check mark is not a valid source for this - it doesn't tell you what units can use it. The product description on a webpage is not a valid rules source, it's a marketing blurb. GW has never told us we can use the marketing blurbs from their product descriptions as a valid rules source.
You asserting that it's fundamentally different and proves nothing is merely you not wanting to consider the issue and therefore trying to dismiss it in order to not have to deal with it.
In a general sense, yes, but this case is clearly different in the content and the circumstance. Games Workshop is making a clear statement regarding the rules in that description.
Anyway, we can agree to disagree. I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me.
...which just seems literally insane. There's no way you can actually believe that a line on a webpage is considered rules.
Wait are you the type of person who makes up their own datasheets and then wants to play with them all the time? Bc while that's fun for some, it's obviously house rules.
I suppose your group could house rule that all Libbys and equivalents can generate AoD...but expect to have it not go that way when confronted with any other group, because it's clearly not given rules permission.
Are you just one of those hyper-petty fellows who has to end every debate on an insult? He's clearly tried to end the discussion at several points but always you swoop in to trash talk and try to have the last word. Weak.
MattKing wrote: Are you just one of those hyper-petty fellows who has to end every debate on an insult? He's clearly tried to end the discussion at several points but always you swoop in to trash talk and try to have the last word. Weak.
If he wants to leave the discussion, that's fine and all he has to do is stop posting. But that in no way means that others can't continue to contribute to the discussion. So far it seems like it's you and him trying to get in the last word and are the ones complaining because others aren't letting you do so.
Arguing Grey Knight Librarians can use the Angels of Death powers because the webstore says so is like claiming you can do something that is clearly against the rules because they made a mistake and did it in a White Dwarf battle report.
Mr. Shine wrote: Arguing Grey Knight Librarians can use the Angels of Death powers because the webstore says so is like claiming you can do something that is clearly against the rules because they made a mistake and did it in a White Dwarf battle report.
If we are following that logic, marmatag, you might be happy to know it's legal to rid dice rolls now bc he does it all the time
The text on the AoD supplement page and the text on the AoD Psychic Cards page are different. If the same guy wrote them, he'd copy-pasta.
