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.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule states "If a Psyker generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline..."

This rule does not count non generated powers, as it concerns itself only with the powers that are generated.

This assertion is not supported by the RAW. The rule is quite clear that the restriction applies to "all of his powers" not just "all of his generated powers". To claim otherwise is to make up rules that aren't actually there.

So then a model with a Force weapon can never benefit from Psychic Focus?

 Happyjew wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule states "If a Psyker generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline..."

This rule does not count non generated powers, as it concerns itself only with the powers that are generated.

This assertion is not supported by the RAW. The rule is quite clear that the restriction applies to "all of his powers" not just "all of his generated powers". To claim otherwise is to make up rules that aren't actually there.

So then a model with a Force weapon can never benefit from Psychic Focus?

There is an explicit exception for powers that do not belong to a discipline.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Statement A: I have generated all of my powers from the same discipline.

Bravo for your efforts.

To the other side of the argument, the important part to review is in blue below. ALL powers were not generated from the same psychic discipline. And stop mentioning Force as it has a clearly written exception right below the rule.

If a Psyker generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline (even if he can only generate one power), that Psyker is said to have Psychic Focus, and gains that discipline's primaris power in addition to his other powers.

A fun comparison:

If a Psyker eats all of his blueberries from one bucket, he can have the cherry.

If he eats a blueberry from a second bucket, all of his blueberries did not come from one bucket.
If he acquires a blueberry from a second bucket, he did not eat all of his blueberries.
If the Psyker eats or acquires a blueberry from a second bucket, he does not get the cherry.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule states "If a Psyker generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline..."

This rule does not count non generated powers, as it concerns itself only with the powers that are generated.

This assertion is not supported by the RAW. The rule is quite clear that the restriction applies to "all of his powers" not just "all of his generated powers". To claim otherwise is to make up rules that aren't actually there.

It is supported if you do not ignore the context.


"If a Psyker generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline..."

This rule is discussing only the powers that a psyker can generate (As per the generating Psychic Powers rules which includes rolling on the discipline), it is not concerned with non generated powers.


Farseer Pef do not ignore the context of the rule. The rule is specifically talking about the powers that are randomly generated. not any other powers.\


Basically you have to ask how many powers can the psyker generate, then compare that with the number of powers that come from a single discipline. If they match the psyker gains Psychic Focus.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule states "If a Psyker generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline..."

This rule does not count non generated powers, as it concerns itself only with the powers that are generated.

This assertion is not supported by the RAW. The rule is quite clear that the restriction applies to "all of his powers" not just "all of his generated powers". To claim otherwise is to make up rules that aren't actually there.

It is supported if you do not ignore the context.


"If a Psyker generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline..."

This rule is discussing only the powers that a psyker can generate (As per the genearting Psychic Powers rules which includes rolling on the discipline), it is not concerned with non generated powers.

The rule in question is not discussing only powers the psyker can generate - it is discussing what condition must be met in order for a psyker to be granted a free non-generated power. In order to do so the psyker must generate "all of his powers" and they must be "from the same discipline". It doesn't say "all of his generated powers" - it says "all of his powers" period. It's spelled out in clear English. You are adding additional qualifiers there that don't actually exist and by doing so you are changing the entire meaning of the sentence.

If you are going to throw in additional "implicit" made-up language to the RAW that fundamentally changes their meaning IMHO you had better have more solid support than just "context". Your personal interpretation of the "context" does not entitle you to add made-up language to the rules, especially if a reasonable person can disagree with you about the "context" and his interpretation of the rules doesn't require the addition of made-up language.

Also note that they could have easily written it to mean what you're claiming (e.g., "If all the powers a Psyker generates are from the same psychic discipline...") but they did not.

why are you singling out "all of his powers" when there is more to the rule?

"If a Psyker generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline..."

That is the whole rule, and has the same meaning as (e.g., "If all the powers a Psyker generates are from the same psychic discipline...")

 DeathReaper wrote:
why are you singling out "all of his powers" when there is more to the rule?

"If a Psyker generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline..."

That is the whole rule, and has the same meaning as (e.g., "If all the powers a Psyker generates are from the same psychic discipline...")

The entire contention is that those two sentences do not have the same meaning. I feel both readings are fairly reasonable.

 DeathReaper wrote:
why are you singling out "all of his powers" when there is more to the rule?

"If a Psyker generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline..."

That is the whole rule, and has the same meaning as (e.g., "If all the powers a Psyker generates are from the same psychic discipline...")

If you can't see that those two different wordings have different meanings then there's really not much more I can do. But because hope springs eternal I will take one last shot at illustrating the difference.

Suppose I'm in a blueberry contest. The rule is that
if I pick all my blueberries from the same bush I will be eligible for a prize. I pick some blueberries from one bush and then head on over to the grocery store and buy some more. I claim that I am eligible for a prize because all the blueberries I picked were from the same bush. Am I eligible for a prize?

Then you have indeed picked all of your blueberries from the same bush, because the ones you bought you did not pick.

You are eligible for a prize

But I've also got some blueberries I didn't even pick. The intent of the rule is to require that all my blueberries are from the same bush. And coincidentally that's exactly what the rule says. If you insist on adding unstated qualifiers maybe you should be careful that you aren't circumventing the intent of the rule by doing so?

You have evidence that you're correct about the intent? Like - actual evidence, not assumptions?

I'm sure you can cite such evidence.

rigeld2 wrote:
You have evidence that you're correct about the intent? Like - actual evidence, not assumptions?

I'm sure you can cite such evidence.

You mean like the fact that they gave an explicit exemption for non-discipline powers like Force, even though such an exemption would be completely superfluous if Psychic Focus only required generated powers to be from the same discipline? Or what about the thoroughness of their efforts in ensuring that a psyker with powers from multiple disciplines never gains the benefit of Psychic Focus even if those extra-discipline powers are granted after the game begins?

But don't get me wrong - my interpretation is based on a literal reading of the RAW. The other side's interpretation relies on "context" - i.e. the rules don't mean what they literally say, there are unwritten qualifiers that we need to infer. Well, that then goes to intended meaning, to which my reponse is - wrong on RAI too.

Since your interpretation is not based on context, your arguments are incorrect.

You need to take context into account when deciphering the rules set.

Also: No, there is no evidence about the intent, as we can not read the rules writers minds.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Since your interpretation is not based on context, your arguments are incorrect.

You need to take context into account when deciphering the rules set.

Also: No, there is no evidence about the intent, as we can not read the rules writers minds.

You are inferring unwritten qualifiers into your reading of the rules. Therefore your interpretation is not based on the RAW. If you have any evidence as to why we should disregard the literal rules as written in favor of your interpretation present it. If you wish to make an intent-based argument as to why the rules don't mean what they actually say, feel free do so and I will rebut.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Since your interpretation is not based on context, your arguments are incorrect.

You need to take context into account when deciphering the rules set.

Also: No, there is no evidence about the intent, as we can not read the rules writers minds.

You are inferring unwritten qualifiers into your reading of the rules. Therefore your interpretation is not based on the RAW. If you have any evidence as to why we should disregard the literal rules as written in favor of your interpretation present it. If you wish to make an intent-based argument as to why the rules don't mean what they actually say, feel free do so and I will rebut.

Context is important, otherwise the words are meaningless...

The rules do mean what they actually say, but you have to understand the context to be able to correctly assess the circumstances of the rules.

You should not disregard the literal rules as written, but to disregard the context would be to disregard the literal rules as written.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Context is important, otherwise the words are meaningless...

The words in question have a meaning that is perfectly clear. They just don't mean what you think they mean. I've even been so kind as to give you some examples of words that do mean what you are thinking, but unfortunately those words aren't the ones that appear in the rulebook.

I contend that "all his powers" means all his powers. You contend that "all his powers" really means all his generated powers. Your interpretation requires us to infer the existence of an unwritten qualifier and therefore departs from the rules as written. The burden is on you to provide justification for this. You have yet to do so. And just in case it wasn't clear from the context, by "justification" I mean actual support from the RAW - things like quotes, page references, etc. - the kind of stuff you would expect to see in YMDC.

it means all her generated powers, as it says

"If a Psyker generates all of her psychic powers from the same psychic discipline, that psyker will automatically know that disciplines primaris power"

your omission of the word generated which is clearly right before "all of her" is what is known as cherry picking, and makes you completely incorrect on this topic.

blaktoof wrote:
it means all her generated powers, as it says

"If a Psyker generates all of her psychic powers from the same psychic discipline, that psyker will automatically know that disciplines primaris power"

your omission of the word generated which is clearly right before "all of her" is what is known as cherry picking, and makes you completely incorrect on this topic.

I'm not omitting anything. I'm just not adding words that aren't there. The addition of words that aren't there is what is known as "making rules up" and makes you completely incorrect on this topic.

I quoted the written rule which states generates all his powers and you get psychic focus

that is not made up rules unless I typed the rulebook and put that in there, in which case they would be my made up rules which are the rules.

regardless, the rules state verbatim generated powers, and generated powers are powers you roll for which is under the section for generating powers.

RAW you are completely incorrect and have failed to prove your point.

Farseer Pef wrote:If a Psyker generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline (even if he can only generate one power), that Psyker is said to have Psychic Focus, and gains that discipline's primaris power in addition to his other powers.

blaktoof wrote:it means all her generated powers, as it says

"If a Psyker generates all of her psychic powers from the same psychic discipline, that psyker will automatically know that disciplines primaris power"

your omission of the word generated which is clearly right before "all of her" is what is known as cherry picking, and makes you completely incorrect on this topic.

Grammer time. Reread the colored sentence. In green we have a VERB, which tells us what the subject (the Pskyer) does. In blue we have the DIRECT OBJECT, which is what receives the verb's action.
What does the Psyker do? He generates. What does he generate? His powers. What kind of powers? All of his powers.
Did you see "generated powers" anywhere? You did not. Because the sentence does not mention the direct object you are looking for.
"All of his powers" vs "his generated powers." There is a world of difference between these direct objects.

What you are looking for would read:
If a Psyker generates his GENERATED powers from the same psychic discipline (even if he can only generate one power), ...

This is not the case. There is no context to consider. It is the first sentence in a two sentence paragraph.

Read more about blueberries in my earlier post to help get a grasp on how important sentence structure is.

Farseer pef, "all of his powers" is talking about his generated powers. Remember they are talking about generated powers because the Psyker will gain "that discipline's primaris power in addition to his other powers."

His other powers directly references the generated powers from a single discipline.

If he generates powers from multiple disciplines he does not get Psychic focus.

It is like context is important or something.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Farseer pef, "all of his powers" is talking about his generated powers.
...
His other powers directly references the generated powers from a single discipline.
...
It is like context is important or something.

Death reaper, I still don't see "generated" inside "all of his powers." Cherry picking invisible cherries. Odd.

"His other powers" doesn't mean jack-all to the conversation. You are indirectly, and incorrectly, inferring that the phrase at the end of a sentence somehow changes what the conditional clause means at the beginning of the sentence.

It is like sentence structure is important or something.

I am not cherry picking, but unlike you I am not ignoring the context either.

That rule is clearly talking about generated powers.

context is important do not ignore it.

 DeathReaper wrote:
context is important do not ignore it.

And the rules of grammar are important, but you seem content to willfully ignore them.

I have no doubt that for you there is an unwritten "generated" before "powers". The weak link in your argument however is that we are debating "what the rules mean in proper English" as opposed to "what the rules mean to DeathReaper when he's free to infer words that aren't there." On the latter I will concede your interpretation is absolutely correct!

I am not ignoring the rules of grammar.

your arguments are ignoring context though, so there is that.

This part of the rule proves they are talking about generated powers:

"...that discipline's primaris power in addition to his other powers.in addition to his other powers."

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not ignoring the rules of grammar.

your arguments are ignoring context though, so there is that.

This part of the rule proves they are talking about generated powers:

"...that discipline's primaris power in addition to his other powers.in addition to his other powers."

No one's ignoring context. Some people disagree with your interpretation of the context. It's very difficult to convince anyone that something is strictly RAW if it requires inferences through context, as any such inferences are inherently in RAI territory. This is especially true when multiple readings are valid grammatically.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not ignoring the rules of grammar.

your arguments are ignoring context though, so there is that.

This part of the rule proves they are talking about generated powers:

"...that discipline's primaris power in addition to his other powers.in addition to his other powers."

I'm honestly at a loss here. I don't see how what you quoted in any way proves what you're claiming it proves.

The portion of the rule you quoted is simply saying that the psyker gains the primaris power of the discipline from which he generated all of his powers. This primaris power is gained in addition to any other powers he knows. If you followed the rule properly the only powers he should have at the end of the day are the powers he generated from Discipline X, Discipline X's primaris power and any powers he may know that are explicitly exempted from the rule (i.e. - those not belonging to a discipline).

I'm not entirely sure what you think the rule you quoted means as I don't own the DeathReaper edition of the rules with all the verbiage omitted from the general release so please feel free to elaborate.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

If you followed the rule properly the only powers he should have at the end of the day are the powers he generated from Discipline X, Discipline X's primaris power and any powers he may know that are explicitly exempted from the rule (i.e. - those not belonging to a discipline).

The above is 100% false.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

I'm honestly at a loss here. I don't see how what you quoted in any way proves what you're claiming it proves.

"...that discipline's primaris power in addition to his other powers.in addition to his other powers."

They are talking about generating powers.

They are talking about gaining the primaris of the discipline you generated all of your powers from.

Thus the context being they are talking about generated powers, and not every single power he has.

Even this like is talking about the powers that are generated... "If a Psyker generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline..."

If he generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline is talking about generating powrs, it is not concerned with non generated powers because they are specifically talking about a single psychic discipline and the generation of powers within that discipline.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

If you followed the rule properly the only powers he should have at the end of the day are the powers he generated from Discipline X, Discipline X's primaris power and any powers he may know that are explicitly exempted from the rule (i.e. - those not belonging to a discipline).

The above is 100% false.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

I'm honestly at a loss here. I don't see how what you quoted in any way proves what you're claiming it proves.

"...that discipline's primaris power in addition to his other powers.in addition to his other powers."

They are talking about generating powers.

They are talking about gaining the primaris of the discipline you generated all of your powers from.

Thus the context being they are talking about generated powers, and not every single power he has.

Even this like is talking about the powers that are generated... "If a Psyker generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline..."

If he generates all of his powers from the same psychic discipline is talking about generating powrs, it is not concerned with non generated powers because they are specifically talking about a single psychic discipline and the generation of powers within that discipline.

OK this has become almost surreal. You posted a bunch of words that look like they came out of the rulebook but then you infer all kinds of hidden meanings that have no discernable relationship to what you quoted. It's like you're using your own version of English (DeathReaperese?) or you have some kind of secret decoder that reveals all the hidden words the rest of us can't see.

Here's the thing. In English it's OK to talk about different kinds of things in the same sentence. Like I could talk about "angry dogs" and "all dogs" in the same sentence and "angry dogs" would refer to dogs that are angry and "all dogs" would refer to the entirety of dogdom. The adjective "angry" doesn't get magically applied to all instances of "dog" within a 30 mile radius. That's how words work in our language. I hope that clears things up.

So question then. If just knowing a power is not generating them, does the Broodlord (who automatically knows The Horror psychic power (and does not roll for powers) benefit from Psychic Focus and gain the Dominion psychic power?

If not, why would GW change the wording for Dominion to be able to cast non-Synapse Psykers (of which the only one is the Broodlord)?