Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was going through the codex when I noticed a little inconsistency. I the rules page it says that warlocks must buy a psy power but in the army pages the powers are listed as may buy wargear. What´s the one we should play with? I think it´d more fluffy the must option they are psykers after all but not needing to buy a power would be a discount of 5 pts (the lowest cost power) per warlock for the ´lock on a bike armies. And of course this is 40K fluff matters a

M.

You cannot willingly break a rule.

So if one section says you "must" do something and another section says you "may" then you must do it, because if you don't you have broken the first rule.

The "Forces of the Eldar" section takes precedence. Think of it this way:

Warlocks have the Special Rule "Warlock Powers" which says they must take a psychic power.

In the Warlock army list entry the Options say that "All Warlocks may buy one Warlock psychic power from the following list:"

So they must take and psychic power and that psychic power may be one of the ones on the list.

yakface wrote:
You cannot willingly break a rule.

So if one section says you "must" do something and another section says you "may" then you must do it, because if you don't you have broken the first rule.

makes sense. Embolden is a great power anyway for only 5 pts. And destructor adds alot for 10. Don't forget bikes don't fleet so it's a great place to take it.

Apart from the points saving of no power, why would you want a Warlock with no powers anyway?

Confused,
Viperion

You have to take a power.

Edit:

GBF - you know better.

You always have the option to ignore Nuglitch's posts, no one is forcing you to read them. In the next few months we'll be implementing an 'ignore user' button so you will be able to avoid any poster you don't care for. Until then, you'll just have to ignore posts on your own.

But posting random insults is never allowed.


--yakface

Viperion wrote:Apart from the points saving of no power, why would you want a Warlock with no powers anyway?

Confused,
Viperion

Probably for the witchblade. I think this is a legality issue not whether its useful or not.

I have to take a powder after reading some of your long winded posts.

Politeness is a virtue GBF

Seriously though it is seldom that I am scraping so much for points that I would pass up a psychic power for only 5 more (esp. since it is compulsory for him to take one)... Definitely worth it.

Miguelsan wrote:I was going through the codex when I noticed a little inconsistency. I the rules page it says that warlocks must buy a psy power but in the army pages the powers are listed as may buy wargear. What´s the one we should play with?

I don't see the 'inconsistency'. Warlock powers aren't wargear, are they?

In my codex it says "may" purchase a warlock power in both the special rules and the army list.

Diferent printing than mine? I was asking because I met with a few rules lawyers that were very tiresome.

M.

That makes all the difference if there is no wording that requires him to take a power. Much like an Inquisitor who can be a psyker, but doesn't have to purchase any powers? If that is how your codex is printed, then rules lawyers would not have much to stand on- unless they have a codex that says something different. In that case, I can see the debate. But otherwise, yak had it right at the beginning. Break no rule and you should be fine...

I bought the codex immediately when it came it out in the US, and mine says may in both locations, therefore you should be able to take a Warlock without a power if you wish.

As a Warlock is by definition a magic user, and as by all previous examples of Eldar Warlocks throughout the existence of them in the game, you should consider yourself required to purchase a Power.

I believe you are taking words out of context.

The case of "may" in the codex which I own seems to me to stress "may be given a single Warlock power" ... as in "no more than a single Warlock power".

I would expect all opponents using them to think likewise.

Scott wrote:As a Warlock is by definition a magic user, and as by all previous examples of Eldar Warlocks throughout the existence of them in the game, you should consider yourself required to purchase a Power.

I believe you are taking words out of context.

The case of "may" in the codex which I own seems to me to stress "may be given a single Warlock power" ... as in "no more than a single Warlock power".

I would expect all opponents using them to think likewise.

Highly disagree with this. Previous rules have no bearing on current rules. The codex I own clearly says a Farseer Must purchase a power, while a Warlock May purchase a power. If we use your version, I would also be required to purchase an exarch for every squad, purchase him every power and upgrade and such, because they all say may.

Scott wrote:As a Warlock is by definition a magic user, and as by all previous examples of Eldar Warlocks throughout the existence of them in the game, you should consider yourself required to purchase a Power.

I believe you are taking words out of context.

The case of "may" in the codex which I own seems to me to stress "may be given a single Warlock power" ... as in "no more than a single Warlock power".

I would expect all opponents using them to think likewise.

Woah woah Scott, this is YMDC. Out of context? I'd say your definition of that wording is more, as "no more than one single Warlock power" still gives a player the option to not take a power at all. Rules that happened in previous incarnations of a codex also have no bearing on a current rules discussion.

However, given GW's stance on simply rewriting books without announcing any changes, I'd say use the "may" wording only until someone can present the more recent printing using the "must" wording. I'd also say that knowingly abusing a use of wording that you are aware of being errata'd is very poor gamesmanship. There's a difference between being a rules lawyer and a total jerk, I'd say if people are busting your balls over this then present them with a recent printing of the book and see what happens.

That is sometimes a problem because they don't always update the copywrite date in reprinted codeci. So you get two 'current' codeci that have the same copywrite date and they say two (slightly) different things that can create a difference in how some rules work. If the reprint of the Eldar codex has an updated copywrite on it that is newer than the first printing, then no problem.

Add to that GW's notorious lack of FAQ support and you never get a resolution to this kind of issue until a new codex comes out.

So, which printing is the more current? *must* or *may*?

In the case of two printings, I'd argue that your safest bet
is to have the most restrictive wording until a FAQ comes
along and then to make a group consensus for things
like competitions and ongoing play.

Is there any evidence of a new English language printing? From the OP's listed location, I'm not sure he has an English language codex. If that is the case, then the English language version would be correct given GW's past problem with translators being a little too 'liberal' in their duties.