Switch Theme:

Librarian power costs  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




*Current meatspace coordinates redacted*

"What does a Librarian pay to exchange his power? The listed cost on page 21. If you are an Epistolary, what is the listed cost on page 21? It must be the one marked 'Epistolary'. Why would you think otherwise?"

Because "Librarians" (which includes both Codicers and Epistolarys) "pay the cost (singular) to exchange a power". The only logical outcome of this statement is that librarians (plural) pay one cost to exchange a power. The cost in question in listed on page 21 - and the only cost listed on page 21 that can possibly apply to "librarians" is the first one. That the second cost is marked "Epistolary" actually makes it impossible for this to be the 'singular' cost "librarians" pay because it excludes Codicers.

If the entry said librarians pay the cost's' listed on page 21 to exchange a power then you'd be in business. But the rule doesn't say that does it?

He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all. 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Because "Librarians" (which includes both Codicers and Epistolarys) "pay the cost (singular) to exchange a power". The only logical outcome of this statement is that librarians (plural) pay one cost to exchange a power.


You have quoted it wrong. It says "[Librarians] may replace this power... at the cost specified on page 21." That clearly says that there is a cost specified on the page, and you must find the specific cost to pay in each instance.

Your reading is somewhat bizarre - in effect, you are saying that there is a single cost to exchange powers. (pay the cost, singular) There clearly is not - there are at least five costs to exchange powers, at least one for each power. Obviously, you must find the appropriate cost to pay. Otherwise you could pay +3 points for Veil of Time and say, well, I paid the listed cost on page 21, which is exactly what the rule says - no, I don't have to pay the +10 points, because it only says that I pay the cost, singular, and I say it's that cost. Obviously you cannot. You must pay the appropriate listed cost. If you are an Epistolary, the appropriate listed cost is the one marked 'Epistolary'. It can't be any clearer.

Put another way, you already know from the rule above that you are looking for the specified cost. Each power specifies different costs. You are saying that each power specifies one cost to exchange, and one cost for an additional power, but it doesn't say that. It just says that you pay the cost specified.

Using the sign example again, the first sign says "Customers may purchase tickets at the price specified."

The sign underneath says, "Tickets - $5. Tickets for males - $10."

Your argument says that all tickets must be $5, because it says the price, singular, and everyone who is buying is a customer. That's not the case. The ticket prices themselves require you to differentiate between customers - they are the more specific rule, and that is what you must follow.

Similarly, the costs for the powers require you to differentiate. They price things differently for one kind of customer. They are the more specific rule, and that is what you must follow.

   
Made in us
Master of the Hunt





Angmar

I saw mention of "trade ins" above. Remember you cannot trade in the cost of any other item, so why psychic powers? Its a good theory, but not in line with the rest of the codex.


"Cost listed", and the lack of a discription of the first cost, is the entire problem then.


"Cost listed" is indeed singular, but must refer to the entire cost structure listed for each power, because we are not told otherwise.

The cost structure itself then consists of two parts, one part of which directly references the Epistolary. Barring any other rule, we must then apply the entire cost structure each time we purchase or replace a power. Since we are told to use the second cost only for "additional" powers, this part is simple. Since we are told to use the entire cost structure for replacements, this is not so simple.

If the "additional" power did not directly reference the second power, we would have no choice but to apply the entire cost to the replacement power, which would mean: cost part one for the Codicier, and cost part one PLUS cost part two, as an additional cost for being an Epistolary. Meaning that an Epistolary does not get a discount on his first power, but rather a minor relative discount on his second power. This kind of makes sense, because both powers lose some of their usefulness by having a competitor for "casting time". You can only use one per turn, so why not grant a discount on the second power.

However, since the second cost IS directly, if in a limited manner, referenced, everyone assumes that either the first cost only applies to Codiciers, or that the second cost always and only applies to Epistolaries. BOTH of these positions are assumptions.

Without making any assumptions at all, applying a power's full cost would work thusly:

Fury of the Ancients Cost: +3 points (Epistolary +9 points)

Codicer: Storm Replacement ----> +3 points
Epistolary: Storm Replacement -> +3 points +9 points = +12 points
Epistolary: Second Power --------> +9 points

There is nothing that tells you NOT to apply both parts of the cost to the Epistolary's replacement power, why should the Epistolary get out of paying the first part of the cost in addition to the second.

I think I've been convinced that the Epistolary must, at the minimum, always pay the second cost. However, by a strict RAW reading, I now think that an Epistolary might have to pay both parts of the cost for his replacement power.

"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion."
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




*Current meatspace coordinates redacted*

"You have quoted it wrong. It says "[Librarians] may replace this power... at the cost specified on page 21." That clearly says that there is a cost specified on the page, and you must find the specific cost to pay in each instance."

The only part that really matters is "librarians" and "at the cost". Its still plural librarians and a single cost.

"Your reading is somewhat bizarre - in effect, you are saying that there is a single cost to exchange powers. (pay the cost, singular) There clearly is not - there are at least five costs to exchange powers, at least one for each power."

We both know that there are only two sorts of entries in each power. The fact that the example is multiplied by the number of powers changes nothing. for any given power and thus any given application of the rules there are only two entries. What I am saying is that there is a single cost to replace SotEW with any given power.

So, to clarify, "'librarians' may replace this power ... at the cost specified on page 21" expands to:

[Codicers and Epistolarys] may replace this power ... at the cost specified on page 21"

Both Cs and Es pay a single cost to replace Storm with any other given power, with the cost listed in each entry. I am starting to suspect that you are willfully misunderstanding me because the grammar is clear.

He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all. 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




What I am saying is that there is a single cost to replace SotEW with any given power.


That is what you're saying, but that is not supported by the rules. The rules do not say there is a single cost. They say there is a specified cost.

Both Cs and Es pay a single cost to replace Storm with any other given power,


You are also saying this, and this is not supported by the rules either. The general rule is that Librarians pay the specified cost to exchange their power. The specific rule is that there are two costs listed, and one is for only one kind of Librarian. You are saying that even though one of the costs listed is marked specifically for Epistolarys, that cannot be the cost Epistolarys pay, because that contradicts the general rule that Librarians pay the specified cost to exchange. Even if we accept your assertion that when it says 'the cost specified', it really means that we should take that to mean one and only one cost for all Librarians, you would still be incorrect, because your argument then says that you obey the general rule over the specific rule. And that's not how it works - the specific rule, that there is a separate cost listed for Epistolarys, takes precedence over the general rule.

The only part that really matters is "librarians" and "at the cost". Its still plural librarians and a single cost.


Actually, on page 21, it says "Any Librarian" may exchange his power at the 'listed cost'. That would be a singular Librarian, who exchanges at the singular listed cost. Your argument still hinges on the idea that the 'listed cost' is one cost to exchange, and one cost that says 'Epistolary', but really means that it is the cost to purchase. And that idea is not supported by the text, because it does not label the first cost as an Exchange Cost, or anything like that.

Using the sign example again, the first sign says "Customers may purchase tickets at the price specified."

The sign underneath says, "Tickets - $5. Tickets for males - $10."

Your argument says that all tickets must be $5, because it says the price, singular, and everyone who is buying is a customer. That's not the case. The ticket prices themselves require you to differentiate between customers - they are the more specific rule, and that is what you must follow.

I'm not wilfully misunderstanding you. The example of the price signs I made in my last post is exactly what your argument is saying. And it's incorrect on three levels - firstly, because you are assuming that a 'specified cost' means 'a single, specified cost' and not 'the appropriate specified cost'. Secondly, because you are assuming that the unlabeled 'specified cost' is supposed to be the one that is always used to exchange powers, even though it is not marked as such. And finally, because even if your first two assumptions are correct, you are trying to apply the general rule of paying one cost over the specific rule of paying a separate cost for a specified, different type of customer.

I think I've been convinced that the Epistolary must, at the minimum, always pay the second cost. However, by a strict RAW reading, I now think that an Epistolary might have to pay both parts of the cost for his replacement power.


Maybe, if you consider the '(Epistolary +9 points)' as a sort of modifier to the first cost. I can see that as an idea, but I'm not sure that that's not an assumption in itself. The wording does suggest that there are two separate costs, not one cost and a cost modifier.

However, since the second cost IS directly, if in a limited manner, referenced, everyone assumes that either the first cost only applies to Codiciers, or that the second cost always and only applies to Epistolaries. BOTH of these positions are assumptions.

This is true, but I think that if you look at two prices, and one is marked specifically for one kind of person, it's a safe assumption to make that the marked one is the only one that applies specifically to that kind of person.

When a Hive Tyrant buys a venom cannon, he has two prices. One is for Tyrants that have toxin sacs, but they're both the prices for a Tyrant to buy a venom cannon. We only pay one or the other, though, because we only pay one price for anything. We don't add prices together unless we're specifically told to.

If you assume that the cost entry doesn't list two separate prices, but rather one price and a modifier to that price, then you may be right. But that's an assumption in itself. The wording does strongly suggest that these are two separate prices, and since nothing tells you to add two prices together, it seems safe to assume that you only pay one of two prices.

   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Posted By Relic_OMO on 03/06/2006 5:40 AM

But it wouldn't be legal. You would have paid the first cost for your power. As you painstakingly pointed out, in English we read left to right, so the second cost is the second one we read, which is the higher one. We all agree that when an Epistolary buys a second power, he pays the higher cost. So why would you now think otherwise?



Because there are two powers listed on page 26, not 21 which doesn't say a thing about psychic powers, this clearly, is a misprint in the book.  If the higher price is the one I pay as my 'first' power, then it follows, logically, that the second price is something other than what you've declared as 'first.'  Since the 'first' power is already spoken for, by your logic, then it is safe to assume, that the other and lower cost is the second.  Otherwise you're counting the the same thing as both first and second, which breaks the very specific language of the paragraph at the top of the page.

As you should note, I was making a rhetorical argument trying to apply the logic you've submitted to me.  It was meant to be wrong. 

Now, I've noted that the book has a misprint in the Librarian section on page 28.  It is very possible, nay likely, that page 26 is misprinted as well.  To be totally clear, I believe GW meant to say the higher cost is the cost for the Epistolary second power.  But they neglected to say 'Epistolary second power' on each of the entries inside of the parens.

Speaking of parens, another piece of evidence I will submit to back up my claim that the lower cost is the price of the Epistolary first power is the use of parens on that page.  Consider what parens are used for in English.  I'm sure I can skip a grammar lesson on parens, we all should know what they are used for, but they suggest to me that I should ignore them when considering what the first power is.  And apply them when I'm expressly told to do so, as noted in the paragraph above the power entries on page 26. 

Page 28 does not expressly say I have to pay a higher cost it simply says cost listed.  And the "Cost:" entry on page 26 tells me what the cost is.  I think just because it says simply Epistolary in the parens is ambiguous at best.  But because its included inside parens I believe that is the secondary cost mentioned in the paragraph at the top of the page.

Another point.  Some people like to look elsewhere in the rules to glean the intent of the game designers.  I have no particular objection to this practice and as such I'll show you another area where I think the rules will help.  Here we go:

Look at the differences between the two types of characters for the SM HQ. What is the difference between the two?  Well for an extra 15 points, the Master has +1W, +1A, and +1 leadership.  Otherwise he and the Captain are the same, and pay the same prices for wargear.  Looking at the Chaplain I see the same thing.  For and extra 15 points I get +1W, +1A, and +1 leadership.  And librarians are the same +1W, +1A, +1 leadership.

So the pattern that GW has set here tells me this:  For all HQ characters, at an additional 15 points you get an extra wound, attack and +1 to leadership. Otherwise they are the same thing as the two wound variety of the model.  Again, this is born out by looking at the Commander and Chaplain entries. This tells me that the Epistolary is a Codicier except for 15 points we get the extra wound, attack and leadership. Now, Relic and others here, have suggested that the Epistolary is additionally saddled with a very steep price (3 times the cost for a Codicier to have the same power) for any power other than Storm.  Yet to upgrade a Codicier to an Epistolary is only 15 points! If all his powers are meant to be more expensive, how come an Epistolary isn't upgraded at some higher cost? Its been submitted in this thread, that the reason the Epistolary powers are at a higher cost is because they are more powerful due to his higher leadership.  Wouldn't that bear out for Storm as well?  For that matter why isn't the Master additionally charged because his Rights of Battle is way more powerful at Ld 10?

This 3x price hike for each and every power of the Epistolary breaks the pattern that GW has set out for the HQ entries in the Space Marine Codex. Additionally, it punishes the Epistolary, for the cost of two marine models in the case of Veil, if he takes anything other than the power listed initially.  Which doesn't make since if you look at GW intents as a whole for HQ choices in this codex.

Sadly we don't have another codex in 4th edition to look at and see if  there is a similar pattern.  I haven't seen the new Tau 'dex because it hasn't been released here in the US so I can't look there and see if GW continues this pattern of upgrading HQ characters for 15 or so points.

My gaming group plays the Epistolary as paying the lower cost for his first power and his second power at the points listed in parens on page 26. And, interestingly, one of our members is Italian and his Codex (in Italian) leads him to agree with Fenris and I.  Which, for me, is all that matters.  I've taken the time in this thread to show other people the logic of my group so others can decide for themselves what to do with the Epistolary.

I can only hope that someday GW releases a FAQ to fix all these misprints and gray areas of the 4th Edition and the SM 'dex.  I'm pretty worn out with this debate here, so I'm done responding in circles with this discussion, you guys can take my points or leave them as you see fit.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Because there are two powers listed on page 26, not 21 which doesn't say a thing about psychic powers, this clearly, is a misprint in the book.


Hah. Funny. All this quoting and I missed that. Good grab.

If the higher price is the one I pay as my 'first' power, then it follows, logically, that the second price is something other than what you've declared as 'first.' Since the 'first' power is already spoken for, by your logic, then it is safe to assume, that the other and lower cost is the second. Otherwise you're counting the the same thing as both first and second, which breaks the very specific language of the paragraph at the top of the page.


That's not quite true, though, because the language of the paragraph at the top of the page only specifies that the additional power is at the second cost. It does not specify that an Epistolary pays different costs for his powers. Nor does it specify that the lower cost is the cost to exchange powers, or that the cost to exchange a power is somehow a 'first' cost. It just says that the cost to exchange powers is the 'listed' cost. It then specifies which listed cost is used to buy an additional power.

As you should note, I was making a rhetorical argument trying to apply the logic you've submitted to me. It was meant to be wrong.


Of course, but you have applied the logic falsely, which is why the argument is false. Not because the logic is false.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




*Current meatspace coordinates redacted*

"It just says that the cost to exchange powers is the 'listed' cost. It then specifies which listed cost is used to buy an additional power. "

I think you said it all. the rules say there is a listed cost to exchange a power (not specified) and it also states that there is a listed cost to buy an additional power (specified). So we have two costs and two actions, and one of the two actions is specifically linked to one of the costs. The presence of the word epistolary isn't enough Relic, not when all the logical and grammatical evidence points to the contrary. With two sepatate actions and two listed costs, and one of those costs clearly connected to one of the two actions, simple process of elimination gets me where I need to go. Never mind the ticket prices.

He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all. 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




The presence of the word epistolary isn't enough Relic, not when all the logical and grammatical evidence points to the contrary.


Not enough? Even though the logical evidence supports it, despite your belief that it doesn't? That's quite a claim. Let's look at your argument.

The Codex says, Librarians exchange their power at the listed cost.

There are two listed costs, one is unmarked, and one is marked with the name of a specific kind of Librarian.

Now, we generally understand that when you have a specific kind of model, and one price is marked with the specific name of that model, then that is the price for that model. It seems a basic assumption. But you say that's not enough. You insist that even though you have the specific, named kind of model, you don't pay the price that is marked with its name.

Your defence is that you are told to pay that price when performing a different action. Somehow, you believe that being told to pay that price when performing this different action means that you only pay that price when performing that action, despite the fact that nothing says that. You also say, and I quote,

With two sepatate actions and two listed costs, and one of those costs clearly connected to one of the two actions, simple process of elimination gets me where I need to go.


If so, then you are logically wrong. Essentially, you are saying:

There are two possible actions, A and B.
There are two costs, C and D.
At all times, when you perform action B, you use cost D. All B are D.
Your conclusion, from this, is that all A are therefore C.

This is logically false. You are told only that all B are D. You are not told that all A are C. You are not told anything with regards to them, except that the action (A) is associated with a cost.

Nothing tells you to always use the cheaper cost when exchanging powers. Nothing tells you to disregard a cost listed specifically with the Epistolary's name. Nothing tells you that the first cost should actually be labeled 'Exchange Cost'. Nothing tells you that Epistolarys must pay different costs for their first and second power. You are only told that Epistolarys must pay the listed cost to exchange a power, and that one cost is labeled with the word 'Epistolary'. Yet you insist, for various reasons that have all been refuted, that because Epistolarys are also told to use this cost to perform a different action, that means that this cost should only be used for this action, despite the demonstrable falseness of such a claim.

Still, if a logical, concise argument and the systematic refutation of all your points will not convince you, nothing will.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




NV

Relic's way is how my local group always played it.



History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. - Dwight D. Eisenhower 
   
Made in us
Master of the Hunt





Angmar

My group as well.

An Epistolary with Storm and Veil costs the same as an Epistolary with Veil only. Basically, the only cost effective one-power Epistolary is one which retains Storm and buys nothing else.

While both sides have to make some sort of assumption, the "Epistolary always pays more" assumption is less of a departure from the written rule and provides the least advantage, both of which are key points in finding the most sportsmanlike conclusion to a rules question.


Thanks for your input everyone!

Feel free to continue the discussion, but further arguing of this point will not produce a more difinitive outcome. I suggest we leave the matter until a FAQ comes out. Check with your local groups and decided how you want to play it locally.


END

"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion."
 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




For what its worth, most of the other 40k players I've run into online and in person (besides my gaming group) also agree with me.  And since many of my group are going to Adepticon, I asked them for an official ruling from the con on the rule.  And they agreed with me as well.

So besides a few here on Dakka, the over-whelming majority of people I've talked to think the Epistolary pays the lower cost for his first power, just like a Codicier, and pays the higher cost for his second power.

You play the game you want however, I just thought you'd all like to know what I've found out.
   
Made in us
Master of the Hunt





Angmar

Interesting find Apnu.

I suppose it never hurts to ask!

"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion."
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

I think Relic has excellent logic, and basically has me convinced, but the only remaining element that leaves me in doubt is the one Blue Loki brought up:

If you play by Relic's interpretation, an Epistolary with Storm and a second power pays the exact same points cost as one with only the second power. Why would that be?

Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




If you play by Relic's interpretation, an Epistolary with Storm and a second power pays the exact same points cost as one with only the second power. Why would that be?


Cause Pete Haines writes bad rules?

In all honesty, I believe that the intent of the rules is quite probably the way most people seem to play it; ie. the second cost is probably intended to be only used to buy the second power. And I don't really think of myself as a RAW nazi - if the rule is ambiguous, and the intent is fairly clear, I'm prepared to go with intent. But the rule isn't really ambiguous here. It is manifestly clear, even if what it says is contrary to how most people read it, and since it is so clear, that's how we play it. And if it only costs 6-10 points to stay not only within the letter of the rules, but also the ethics of taking the least advantageous interpretation, then there really shouldn't be an issue.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

I can respect that. It just seems to point at the intent, and as you noted, most people are letting that hint towards the intention guide their decision.

Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: