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.

wow, dumb as rocks, im asking because half of this thread vs the psychic thing has been "the rules are permissive, you dont haven permission to use the tank as a psyker unless its activly using the abilty" Im sorry but going from saying its permissive to now not understanding why im asking, your whole argument, weather you see it or not, is in a hole and you keep digging it deeper. If its permissive, then hammerhand does not stack. if fact alot of rules do not work that being the case. but its the words writen in the codex are read propperly, then there is no problem. people keep adding words that are not there to fight this. im sorry but everytime you say the word "only" like the rhino is a psyker only when taking the test, your changing the wordding. it dosent say only, it says for test perp, and its Ld10 for test perp, because psyker is before the and. take it to a grammer teacher and they will explain that its a psyker and has ld10 for tests means its a psyker...and will have ld10 for the test it needs toc take to use the ability its been given. im tired of people tweeking rules because they dont understand how to play.

rant over.

Im a grown man, I really dont care how this turns out because I have two armie and dont play gk vs gk, and im not dumb enought to hit my own tank with a msm.

Icemyn wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:You are trying to make a specific versus general case when there is nothing in the GK codex that is specific to overide the psyker restriction.

You still haven't cited a restriction.

Actually, I have and you have either tried to ignore it or don't wish to acknowledge its relevance which is fine.
But, on a side note if you tried being a little less blunt and unfriendly, you might be able to stop people like NecronLords
personal attacks.

I seem blunt so I don't inject any bias or what I see as humor - but can be received poorly - into what I'm typing.
I'd rather not offend people.
And I don't really care about personal attacks, they amuse me more than insult me.

And no, you haven't cited a restriction. You've cited an allowance that units with the Psyker special rule have - you have not cited a restriction that only units with the Psyker special rule can use psychic powers.

Such a restriction doesn't exist. Therefore there's nothing to deny the permission granted by Fortitude.

But its not the same wording as psychic pilot, at all. Farseers have none of the limitations placed upon when they are a psyker like Psychic Pilots do.

Also, I don't get you saying;

'Eldar Farseers and Warlocks do not have Psyker Special rules'.

There is no USR Psyker or anything, but they do have the psyker special rules, its there in their special rules 'a farseer is a psyker'. I don't know about Warlocks...wait, same thing

Edit: with warlock replacing farseer, of course

NecronLord3 wrote:

motyak wrote:NecronLord in regards to your PM which you asked me to answer here, it says in the Farseer's entry 'A Farseer is a psyker and must choose between 1 and 4 Farseer psychic powers. A Farseer can use a single psychic power a turn.' Sounds cut and dry to me.

The same wording as Psychic Pilot.

"A Farseer is a psyker and must choose between 1 and 4 Farseer Psychic Powers."

and

"A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker and Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods."

Are not even remotely the same sentence. Let me break it down for you.

A Farseer is a psyker vs. a vehicle is treated as being a psyker for. . .

You know what a prepositional phrase is don't you? Everything after the word "for" in Psychic Pilot is describing how you treat a vehicle as being a psyker. You cannot separate those two parts of the sentence. It is grammatically incorrect to do so.

Seriously, this thread was answered in the second post.

DK wrote:what pg shows the rules with the words "permissive"rules? because I hear hammerhand can stack but the rule for it dosent say you can stack them...

It does not say anywhere that is it a permissive rule set, but it is a convention of the rules.

If it is not a permissive rule set, then I can take a hammer and smash all of your models, because it doesn't say I cant. (Restrictive rule set is like the U.S. legal system, you can do anything you want, unless it says you can't)

Where the permissive rule set only allows you to do what the rules allow you to do, if you try to take a hammer and smash all of your models then you are breaking the rules, as the rules do not allow you to take a hammer and smash all of your models.

See why it is a permissive rule set and not a restrictive rule set?

and Hammerhand stacks because it gives the unit a +1 str, so you give the unit +1 twice, you get Str of 4+1+1=6, where giving a unit stealth twice does nothing, as Stealth + Stealth does not equal StealthX2, it just has the stealth rule.

DK wrote:wow, dumb as rocks, im asking because half of this thread vs the psychic thing has been "the rules are permissive, you dont haven permission to use the tank as a psyker unless its activly using the abilty" Im sorry but going from saying its permissive to now not understanding why im asking, your whole argument, weather you see it or not, is in a hole and you keep digging it deeper. If its permissive, then hammerhand does not stack. if fact alot of rules do not work that being the case. but its the words writen in the codex are read propperly, then there is no problem. people keep adding words that are not there to fight this. im sorry but everytime you say the word "only" like the rhino is a psyker only when taking the test, your changing the wordding. it dosent say only, it says for test perp, and its Ld10 for test perp, because psyker is before the and. take it to a grammer teacher and they will explain that its a psyker and has ld10 for tests means its a psyker...and will have ld10 for the test it needs toc take to use the ability its been given. im tired of people tweeking rules because they dont understand how to play.

rant over.

Im a grown man, I really dont care how this turns out because I have two armie and dont play gk vs gk, and im not dumb enought to hit my own tank with a msm.

But I did show where you get permission to treat your vehicle as a psyker for purposes of casting and being hooded. You would need a rule saying that psi-shock also affects tanks with psychic pilot before what you say would be accurate.

Telling me what a hypothetical grammar teacher (from a different country who use a different version of english almost) would tell me about a rule set written by someone who is from a different country (with almost a different kind of english) to him and you is just.....nuts. You'd go to an English grammar teacher, and he would probably lol at the whole situation and drink his coffee.

DK wrote:take it to a grammer teacher and they will explain that its a psyker and has ld10 for tests means its a psyker...and will have ld10 for the test it needs toc take to use the ability its been given. im tired of people tweeking rules because they dont understand how to play.

I love this. If you want me to break down the sentence grammatically, I can. You are incorrect. The word "for" in the Psychic Pilot rule is a preposition. Everything after it is its prepositional phrase, describing how exactly you treat a vehicle as a psyker. To try to separate the two (as you're trying to do to say that those two are not the only time that being a psyker applies) then you are making a grammatical mistake.

If you want it broken down further to complete parts of speech and parts of a sentence, I can do that for you.

DK wrote:wow, dumb as rocks, im asking because half of this thread vs the psychic thing has been "the rules are permissive, you dont haven permission to use the tank as a psyker unless its activly using the abilty" Im sorry but going from saying its permissive to now not understanding why im asking, your whole argument, weather you see it or not, is in a hole and you keep digging it deeper. If its permissive, then hammerhand does not stack. if fact alot of rules do not work that being the case. but its the words writen in the codex are read propperly, then there is no problem. people keep adding words that are not there to fight this. im sorry but everytime you say the word "only" like the rhino is a psyker only when taking the test, your changing the wordding. it dosent say only, it says for test perp, and its Ld10 for test perp, because psyker is before the and. take it to a grammer teacher and they will explain that its a psyker and has ld10 for tests means its a psyker...and will have ld10 for the test it needs toc take to use the ability its been given. im tired of people tweeking rules because they dont understand how to play.

rant over.

Im a grown man, I really dont care how this turns out because I have two armie and dont play gk vs gk, and im not dumb enought to hit my own tank with a msm.

You are acting like a child. If you are a grown mature adult you can walk away and not insult other posters since the RULE of dakka is to be respectful and only attack the arguement not the posters.

puma713 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

motyak wrote:NecronLord in regards to your PM which you asked me to answer here, it says in the Farseer's entry 'A Farseer is a psyker and must choose between 1 and 4 Farseer psychic powers. A Farseer can use a single psychic power a turn.' Sounds cut and dry to me.

The same wording as Psychic Pilot.

"A Farseer is a psyker and must choose between 1 and 4 Farseer Psychic Powers."

and

"A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker and Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods."

Are not even remotely the same sentence. Let me break it down for you.

A Farseer is a psyker vs. a vehicle is treated as being a psyker for. . .

You know what a prepositional phrase is don't you? Everything after the word "for" in Psychic Pilot is describing how you treat a vehicle as being a psyker. You cannot separate those two parts of the sentence. It is grammatically incorrect to do so.

Seriously, this thread was answered in the second post.

And Henchman Psykers. Are you going to argue they aren't Psykers too?

It seems to say that they are only psykers 'are treated as a single psyker for the purpose of Psychic tests, etc.' but that one is difficult, because it has psykers and psyker in the same sentence, and the first could refer to the unit or the rule...

But theres gotta be an argument about that on another thread, its not for here, its pretty tangential

motyak wrote:It seems to say that they are only psykers 'are treated as a single psyker for the purpose of Psychic tests, etc.' but that one is difficult, because it has psykers and psyker in the same sentence, and the first could refer to the unit or the rule...

But theres gotta be an argument about that on another thread, its not for here, its pretty tangential

It directly effects this argument. You either are a psyker and use the rules on page 50 of the BrB, or you are not and cannot access any psychic abilities you might have. The later assumes GW would pointlessly add in special rules with no effect on the unit or game. Now, this is true when moving from one edition to another. So perhaps Psychic Pilot is just a moot useless ability until 6th comes out.

Or maybe Psychic Pilot, a special rule, works exactly as I and others have outlined above, while a completely different unit, with completely different special rules, works in a completely different way? I know, I know, its outlandish, but let me finish.

Psychic Pilot is one rule which only vehicles in a certain codex have.

Psykers are a completely different unit. With completely different rules.

They can work differently. They do work differently. You can't say if one works this way, then so does the other. Because it doesn't have to. They are different rules.


I think we will have to agree to disagree mate, we aren't convincing eachother at all. If by some chance you end up in my area of brisbane, or I end up in your area of the US, we'll hash it out there and come to a happy conclusion, and most importantly, beat the snot out of eachother's armies to the hilarious sounds of guardsmen dying in droves (my guard, that is, I have no idea who you play but I guess crons....my guardsmen kick ass at dying).

NecronLord3 wrote:

motyak wrote:It seems to say that they are only psykers 'are treated as a single psyker for the purpose of Psychic tests, etc.' but that one is difficult, because it has psykers and psyker in the same sentence, and the first could refer to the unit or the rule...

But theres gotta be an argument about that on another thread, its not for here, its pretty tangential

It directly effects this argument. You either are a psyker and use the rules on page 50 of the BrB, or you are not and cannot access any psychic abilities you might have. The later assumes GW would pointlessly add in special rules with no effect on the unit or game. Now, this is true when moving from one edition to another. So perhaps Psychic Pilot is just a moot useless ability until 6th comes out.

Yet you want to compare a 4th ed codex to one written for 6th. Yes that's logical. Why do you suppose certain characters have a psy rating when in the brb it states that a psyker uses 1 power unless stated? Why is there a need for it in the gk book?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This debate reminds me of the debate when sw came out and vehicles like bjorn got invulns. lol People lost their minds and kept bringing up the brb grasping for hope.

NecronLord3 wrote:And Henchman Psykers. Are you going to argue they aren't Psykers too?

Actually if you look at P.51 in the GK codex, under PSYKER last graph left column it says this "All psykers in the same unit are treated as a single psyker for the purposes of psychic tests..." So similar to Brotherhood of Psykers, all PSYKERS are treated as a single psyker.

So they are a psyker.

also under Psychic Powers "Psychic barrage: the Psykers can unleash a powerful psychic shooting attack with the following profile"

Put them together and the henchmen PSYKER can use "Psychic barrage"

NecronLord3 wrote:

And Henchman Psykers. Are you going to argue they aren't Psykers too?

Once again, you're misreading a sentence.

The Henchman Psykers are not the same wording as Psychic Pilot. Henchman Psykers say:

"All psykers in the same unit are treated as a single psyker for the purposes. . "

Here, they are clearly defined as psykers. The rule is simply saying for the purposes of Psychic Barrage, they are treated as a single psyker. This doesn't invalidate the fact that they are called psykers earlier in the rule.

The vehicles are not psykers in any way shape or form. They become psykers and leadership 10 for the purposes of psychic tests and psychic hoods. That is the function of the prepositional "for". It defines in what way they become psykers and leadership 10. For the sentence to read the way you want it to read, it would need to read:

"A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker and leadership 10."

Unfortunately, it does not say that. There is a pesky prepositional phrase that is defining that subject, telling you how to treat them as a psyker and leadership 10.

You're getting confused by prepositional phrases, which is not uncommon.

Draigo wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

motyak wrote:It seems to say that they are only psykers 'are treated as a single psyker for the purpose of Psychic tests, etc.' but that one is difficult, because it has psykers and psyker in the same sentence, and the first could refer to the unit or the rule...

But theres gotta be an argument about that on another thread, its not for here, its pretty tangential

It directly effects this argument. You either are a psyker and use the rules on page 50 of the BrB, or you are not and cannot access any psychic abilities you might have. The later assumes GW would pointlessly add in special rules with no effect on the unit or game. Now, this is true when moving from one edition to another. So perhaps Psychic Pilot is just a moot useless ability until 6th comes out.

Yet you want to compare a 4th ed codex to one written for 6th. Yes that's logical. Why do you suppose certain characters have a psy rating when in the brb it states that a psyker uses 1 power unless stated? Why is there a need for it in the gk book?

GK Henchmen are in a 5th edition Codex.

Because GK are one of the only things capable of casting multiple Psychic powers in 1 turn, and my guess(and also if the leaked 6th rules are to be believed) is that the new Psychic Power rules section in 6th edition gives levels of Psyker as opposed to just being Psyker.

Yes but warlocks, farseers and the straws are not.

And my belief is that the 6th ed rules aren't out yet, so it doesn't matter in the least.

I think Puma got it in regards to the henchmen.

Here, maybe this is a better way to break it down for you:

You have a GK Rhino. You want to cast Fortitude. How are you going to do that? - You're not a psyker.

Well, you have a special rule that makes you a psyker just for the purposes of psychic tests.

Oh, in that case, I'll try to hood your Fortitude.

Your special rule also makes you Ld 10 for the purposes of Psychic Hoods. I don't hood it. You cast Fortitude.

Now, you go back to being a normal Rhino. You're no longer a psyker. You're no longer Ld 10.

yakface wrote:...although one could definitely argue that if you read the rule that way they are unable to use a psychic power as only psykers are able to use psychic powers and they aren't a psyker except in those two specific cases.

And you are arguing that. Quoting someone else who agrees with you is like me quoting puma and thinking ha! gotcha!

Quoting someone who supports you doesn't, however, actually argue your argument for you, to do that you have to keep doing what we've (and we've here isn't me meaning just my side, but the whole thread) been doing for pages and pages. Provide evidence, point out errors in previous evidence, then repeat.

DeathReaper wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:The Rule permits you to have leadership 10 when you are doing psychic tests or using a psychic hood. The permissive rule argument doesn't work because we cannot tell if the for the purposes of psychic tests and psychic hoods applies to the first part of the sentence or the second part since it is a complex sentence and ambiguous.

The "For the purposes of" applies to the whole sentence, as there is not comma separating "psyker (mastery level 1) and leadership 10"

If it read psyker (mastery level 1), and leadership 10" It would still not be ambiguous, as that would mean it is a psyker, and it is LD 10 for tests and hoods. But it does not read like that and there is only one way to read it, and that it to have the "For the purposes of" apply to the whole sentence.

The ambiguity is that I can split the sentence up as multiple ways and still have it retain the ideas that it holds and obey both the original ideas and the structure of sentences.

A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker (Mastery level 1).
A vehicles with this special rule is treated as being leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods.

The other argument states that it should be:

A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker (Mastery level 1) for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods.
A vehicles with this special rule is treated as being leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods.

"for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods" is a predicate clause. These have the ability to only affect parts of a sentence or the entire sentence.

Now it was argued that you do not need to be a psyker to cast psychic powers. I agree with this - you only must be given the ability to cast psychic powers. However that gives credit to my argument that you can separate the sentence out the first way and psyker is not affected by the limited predicate clause.

1. Psychic tests are a type of leadership test. BRB
2. Vehicles do not have a leadership value. BRB
3. A vehicle is granted the ability to cast a psychic power. GK (psychic pilot rule)
4. In order to case the psychic power we must be granted a leadership value because of 1 and 2.
5. Vehicles are leadership 10 for the purposes of psychic tests.

This argument works and requires the predicate clause because you are required to be given a leadership value or the game breaks. Vehicles are leadership 10 for the purposes of psychic tests because you must have leadership to cast a psychic power otherwise it would be impossible.

The argument for them being a psyker does not work out the same. You are not required to be a psyker to cast psychic powers (which has been stated multiple sides and argued over). If you are not always a psyker then force weapons cease to work because you need to be a psyker in order to be granted a psychic power by the force weapon before you can cast the psychic power.

Vehicles can cast psychic powers if they have the psychic pilot rule. This is clear from the rule. Dreadnoughts according to the argument stated throughout this are only psykers for the purposes of psychic powers and psychic hoods. This prevents them from being granted the psychic power to activate a force weapon. This is what precludes a dreadnought from activating a force weapons special ability to cause instant death. IF you are not granted the psychic power you can never cast the psychic power.

This leads to the argument that a vehicle with the psychic pilot rule would be a psyker all of the time. You are not required to have a leadership value to be a psyker. All you are required to be is a model. Once you are granted the ability to be a psyker then you are granted the ability to use the psychic powers. When you try to use psychic powers you must have a leadership value for the purpose of the psychic power thus the clause for the purposes of psychic powers and psychic hoods only granting leadership 10 in these instances. Leadership 10 is only for psychic powers and psychic hoods - otherwise I would be able to use the fear of darkness blood angel power and force you to take a morale check on your vehicles with the psychic pilot rule.

Limiting when the model is a psyker adds a logic problem into being able to use force weapons. Limiting Leadership 10 does not create any logic problems. Thus we figure out how to properly distinguish what the clause of the sentence applies to - it applies to only leadership 10 and not to psyker (mastery level 1).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:Here, maybe this is a better way to break it down for you:

You have a GK Rhino. You want to cast Fortitude. How are you going to do that? - You're not a psyker.

Well, you have a special rule that makes you a psyker just for the purposes of psychic tests.

Oh, in that case, I'll try to hood your Fortitude.

Your special rule also makes you Ld 10 for the purposes of Psychic Hoods. I don't hood it. You cast Fortitude.

Now, you go back to being a normal Rhino. You're no longer a psyker. You're no longer Ld 10.

I'm a dreadnought.
I want to use my force weapon.
Force weapons can only be used by psykers.
I'm not a psyker because I'm only a psyker for the purposes of psychic powers and psychic hoods.
I guess my force weapon is only a power weapon instead.

Oh wait if I read the rule the other way:
I'm a dreadnought.
I have a psychic pilot rule that says I'm a psyker.
The force weapon grants me the instant death psyker power for force weapons since I'm a psyker.
I try to cast the psyker power. Oh wait I have no leadership value.
Psychic pilot says I'm leadership 10 for the purposes of psychic powers.
I now can use my force weapon.

Please cite source (and not fluff) that only psykers can use Force weapons.

It depends if you take the first sentence as fluff or rules. Its not on its own line, or italicized, but then neither is the bit in fortitude re: the psycho-reactive armour stuff (which is clearly fluff) so I don't know, it depends how you view it I guess.

"Force weapons are potent psychic weapons used
exclusively by trained psykers. They have the same
effects as power weapons, but also confer to the
wielder one additional psychic power, used in
close combat, that can instantly extinguish the life
force of any opponent.

...Mechanics, hit and wound and saves etc...

The psyker may then take a Psychic test to use the
weapon’s power against any one opponent that
suffered an unsaved wound by the weapon in
that player turn. The normal rules for using
psychic powers apply (remember that a psyker
may normally use only one power per turn). If the
test is passed, the enemy model suffers instant
death, regardless of its Toughness value.

...Limitations on what can die instantly etc..."

I guess that first sentence would be the bone of contention here. And it would kind of bleed of this argument about whether or not the rhino can cast powers too.

If you are of the side which claims it can cast powers (the rhino, that is) then the dreadnought using its fist is in the same kind of boat (so long as you also take that first sentence as fluff). It has a psychic power which psychic pilot would let it cast.


If you are of the side which claims rhinos have to always be psykers to use powers, then it depends on if you judge them as being able to (i.e. always psykers) or being incapable of it (i.e. not being psykers), the dreadnought using its fist may not be in the same kind of boat (so long as you also take that first sentence as rules). It is either always a psyker and can use the rule (first option) or not a psyker always, so therefore can't do it (the second option)

Its an interesting question, but it'll go the same way as the rest of this thread...

rogueeyes wrote:


The ambiguity is that I can split the sentence up as multiple ways and still have it retain the ideas that it holds and obey both the original ideas and the structure of sentences.

A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker (Mastery level 1).
A vehicles with this special rule is treated as being leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods.

The other argument states that it should be:

A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker (Mastery level 1) for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods.
A vehicles with this special rule is treated as being leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods.

"for the purposes of Psychic tests and psychic hoods" is a predicate clause. These have the ability to only affect parts of a sentence or the entire sentence.

I disagree. You're not allowed to split up the sentence at all. "for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods" is not the only part of the predicate. In fact, in and of itself, it is not the predicate at all. It is a prepositional phrase that is a part of the complete predicate. "is treated as a psyker and leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods" is the complete predicate. You see, if you leave the prepositional phrase out (which you're allowed to do, since prepositional phrases cannot stand on their own), you have a complete sentence:

A vehicle with this special rule is treated as a psyker and Leadership 10. This is a complete sentence. You have a subject and a predicate. Now, if you add in "for the purposes of. . " you have a compelte predicate with a prepositional phrase modifying why you treat the vehicle as these things. The prepositional phrase describes the verb "is treated". You cannot parse them separately:

A vehicle with this special rule (complete subject)
is treated as being a psyker and leadership 10 for the purposes of. . . (complete predicate [verb + direct object predicate])
for the purposes of. . . (prepositional phrase describing is treated).

This means when you "treat" a vehicle, you must reference the prepositional phrase to see why you treat them : "for the purposes" and it goes on with another prepositional phrase to describe what purposes: "of pyschic tests and psychic hoods."

rogueeyes wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:Here, maybe this is a better way to break it down for you:

You have a GK Rhino. You want to cast Fortitude. How are you going to do that? - You're not a psyker.

Well, you have a special rule that makes you a psyker just for the purposes of psychic tests.

Oh, in that case, I'll try to hood your Fortitude.

Your special rule also makes you Ld 10 for the purposes of Psychic Hoods. I don't hood it. You cast Fortitude.

Now, you go back to being a normal Rhino. You're no longer a psyker. You're no longer Ld 10.

I'm a dreadnought.
I want to use my force weapon.
Force weapons can only be used by psykers.
I'm not a psyker because I'm only a psyker for the purposes of psychic powers and psychic hoods.
I guess my force weapon is only a power weapon instead.

Erm. You need to read the rulebook. Force weapons say nothing about "only being used by psykers". Simply that psykers are trained to use them. The only relevant part of the force weapon rules are that they grant the user a psychic power during the close combat phase. Therefore, using a force weapon counts as using a psychic power. To use a psychic power, you must roll a psychic test. You are a psyker for the purposes of psychic tests. You can use your force weapon.

No it says Psykers use them and it is under the section Psyker. If you aren't a Psyker you can't use anything on Pg. 50 of the BrB.

Simple.

rigeld2 wrote:Side question - if you didn't mean to imply that nos and I are the same person, could you explain what you meant by the following?

NecronLord3 wrote:Okay back to the Nos profile I see. You are just so completely wrong and have yet to site any rules under any profile. Keep going till they lock this.

Just wondering. Specifically the first sentence.

Also, you haven't shown the restriction that only psykers can use Force Weapons and Psychic Powers.
Surely if it's that obvious, you'd be able to point to something that says what you want it to say.

I have repeatedly reread every post of mine in this thread.

NecronLord3 wrote:No it says Psykers use them and it is under the section Psyker. If you aren't a Psyker you can't use anything on Pg. 50 of the BrB.

Simple.

Let's look at another wargear example then.

Eldar codex, page 30 wrote:Avenger Shuriken Catapult: Dire Avengers use modified shuriken catapults with extended barrels, power feeds, and inbuilt rangefinders.

This is under the Dire Avenger section of the codex. According to you, only Dire Avengers can use them, despite Autarchs having the choice to purchase them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NecronLord3 wrote:I have repeatedly reread every post of mine in this thread.

And, you still have not specified what you meant by "Okay back to the Nos profile I see." What was that quote suppose to mean?

Happyjew wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:No it says Psykers use them and it is under the section Psyker. If you aren't a Psyker you can't use anything on Pg. 50 of the BrB.

Simple.

Let's look at another wargear example then.

Eldar codex, page 30 wrote:Avenger Shuriken Catapult: Dire Avengers use modified shuriken catapults with extended barrels, power feeds, and inbuilt rangefinders.

This is under the Dire Avenger section of the codex. According to you, only Dire Avengers can use them, despite Autarchs having the choice to purchase them.

Purchase Shuriken Catapult. Refer to the Reference Section at the end of the codex for the Statistics on that weapon. For access to how ranged attacks work, see BrB under the Ranged Combat section.