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.

Breng77 wrote:
Like I said certainly not clear, to me powers Known is a bad metric because the BRB states that powers know are first determined by the models profile, then if not default to mastery level.

So powers known by definition is independent of mastery level (See models such as Be'lakor, and Fateweaver etc.), so saying it could be 1 to 1+1 because a model might know more powers to me is a bad argument, because Known powers is not dependent on Mastery level. Whereas it says Powers per turn is dependent on ML.

I agree that it is undefined as a relationship, I personally go with 1 to 1 simply because it is the easiest relationship to argue for because of history, simplicity (it is the same for all models at that point) and clarity to players.

That said If GW came out and said "psykers can cast all powers they know." I would not be shocked. I would also not be Shocked if they said nothing. So HIWPI and how I rule it in events I run is 1 to 1, just so a ruling exists.

Do you not find it odd then that they carefully spell out the requirements and process of casting a spell but never mention a check of how many spells the psyker has cast or a requirement at keeping track of them as you cast spells? It still seems more likely to me that it was a line they meant to delete but forgot to change since I can point out several other similar copy and paste errors they've made recently. That seems more likely to me than anything else since they have instituted a new system of limiting the spells an army can cast through the warp charge system.

For the 1 to 1 argument, if I told you that my paycheck was dependent on the number of hours I worked would you also assume I make $1 per 1 hour of work?

Again it's contextual. Pay dependent on hours worked the contextual expectation is an hourly rate more than 1:1. Powers dependent on ML by contrast is contextually expected to be closer to 1:1, if it's not 1:1. Not solely mathematical of an issue as context brings expectation of an approximate correlation between the two. If it was solely a mathematical issue of X:Y then yes no answer is possible. However given we have the contextual expectation of a low ratio the simplest answer is 1:1. This is not RAW, but neither is infinite power use given the unresolvable dependency on ML.

If you gave me no other information sure. But I generally have other info...like the minimum wage in your area, potentially what your job is etc.

To me assuming "well they actually meant that line not to count" is a poor assumption. And if they did mean it to mean 1 to 1... And they thought it was clear (wouldn't be the first time) then they already told you to check. If the wording was clear and said a the number of spells a psyker can cast a turn is equal to his mastery level. Would you expect it to be spelled out later in the process as well?

I mean they tell you elsewhere that a psyker cannot cast the same spell twice but don't spell out in the process, check to make sure the psyker in question has not already cast this spell this turn.

To me the assumption that the wording is meaningless is a larger leap than assuming it means some thing. That's just how I feel. Otherwise every time Gw writes an unclear rule why don't we just assume they really didn't mean for it to be there. So serpent shield firing arc is apparently unclear, so let's assume they meant to delete it and now serpents cannot fire. We don't do that we make a ruling.

I rule 1 to 1 other will rule you can cast every spell you know because they feel that is the dependency. At this point there is no rules support for either side.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
If that is true then please explain to me the purpose of that sentence if the numbers of spells do not in fact depend on the mastery level.


This is simple logic.

It does depend, just not solely. As ml influences the number of wc you generate, this IS a dependency.

This is incorrect. The number of powers useable is solely dependent on the ML as no other dependency is specified in the rule. The specifics of the dependency are not explained, however as I've said previously the context lends to a small ratio.

ML influencing WC generation is a true and fully explained dependency, though it is also dependent on other explained sources. This I do not contest. The use of WC generation as justification of your counter argument in a discussion about number of powers useable is questionable as it's irrelevant to maximum powers available per turn.

.....my page two sense is tingling .....

If you think it doesn't and that you play the game that Belakor can cast all 7 spells in one turn from Telepathy or Fatweaver can cast all 6 of his more power to you.


Seriously, if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. The ratio is one to one, if it wasn't one to one, then there would be no need to state " How many spells you can cast is dependent".

It's that simple.

 Bausk wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
If that is true then please explain to me the purpose of that sentence if the numbers of spells do not in fact depend on the mastery level.


This is simple logic.

It does depend, just not solely. As ml influences the number of wc you generate, this IS a dependency.

This is incorrect. The number of powers useable is solely dependent on the ML as no other dependency is specified in the rule. The specifics of the dependency are not explained, however as I've said previously the context lends to a small ratio.
..

But that is *not* what it says. It says there is a dependency on ML, it does not say that is the *only* dependency... you are adding meaning that is not in the rule.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Let's be clear on a few things this does not need an FAQ at all. This is not unclear in anyway,...

The number of times it's been argued since 7th ed dropped seems to indicate otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
If you think it doesn't and that you play the game that Belakor can cast all 7 spells in one turn from Telepathy or Fatweaver can cast all 6 of his more power to you..

You're still limited by the number of warp charges you manage to generate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bausk wrote:
This is incorrect. The number of powers useable is solely dependent on the ML as no other dependency is specified in the rule. The specifics of the dependency are not explained, however as I've said previously the context lends to a small ratio.

Without that dependancy being specified, it makes no difference to the rules for manifesting powers, which specifically allow a psyker to continue manifesting powers after the first is resolved.

Coredump: page 22-sub heading: Mastery Levels

Please point out where any other statistic or game mechanic is referenced. Mastery Levels are the ONLY thing referenced which means they are the sole source of dependency. Again this means very little as the dependency is not elaborated upon.

Insaniak: It's been pointed out repeatedly the whole psychic rules are at face value broken and require the players or TO to alter and agree on what 'feels' right. This is no different to the rest of the section. Without the complete rule it at best serves to waste time and worst breaks psykers before they manifest WCs.

Given that strict RAW you would need to have a psyker be unattached to make use of his ML to generate WCs or even manifest his powers. To say the least this whole section only serves to be a RAI discussion.

Breng77 wrote:
The biggest difference is for units like horrors, you can generate more Warp Charges than their ML, and know 4 powers, so could cast 3 Daemonology powers and FF. It also plays into the psychic battery style where some units hide out and just generate WC for stronger units.

Uh.... no?

Horrors, no matter their unit size, are ML1. They know 1 rolled power and their psychic focus power(s). <-- whether they get 1 or 2 is a debate for another thread.

The unit size determines how many warp charges they generate only.

Hollismason wrote:
If you think it doesn't and that you play the game that Belakor can cast all 7 spells in one turn from Telepathy or Fatweaver can cast all 6 of his more power to you.


Seriously, if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. The ratio is one to one, if it wasn't one to one, then there would be no need to state " How many spells you can cast is dependent".

It's that simple.

If you believe that Belakor or Fateweaver being able to cast all of their powers with the 4 warp charges they can generate (they can't even do this on their own) is at all competitive or OP then more power to you.

Seriously, if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to buy from you in Brooklyn. It costs $100,000,000 but if you want to trade a small bridge in VA for 1:1 then I'll be alright with that.

It's that simple.

 Bausk wrote:
Coredump: page 22-sub heading: Mastery Levels

Please point out where any other statistic or game mechanic is referenced. Mastery Levels are the ONLY thing referenced which means they are the sole source of dependency. Again this means very little as the dependency is not elaborated upon.

Not at all it means ML is the sole source of dependency mentioned at that time. That is all it means. They go on the clarify the exact restrictions on powers cast later on.

Insaniak: It's been pointed out repeatedly the whole psychic rules are at face value broken and require the players or TO to alter and agree on what 'feels' right. This is no different to the rest of the section. Without the complete rule it at best serves to waste time and worst breaks psykers before they manifest WCs.

True the psychic phase rules don't work RaW. However we have rules here that do work so why break them? Gravguns don't work against mixed armour units RaW does that mean we totally make up the entire grav gun rules and change the bits that do work fine?

Given that strict RAW you would need to have a psyker be unattached to make use of his ML to generate WCs or even manifest his powers. To say the least this whole section only serves to be a RAI discussion.

Surely that is the only true of all rules? What is the point of discussing the rules if not to work out what the rules are? Sure RaW gives us a starting point to work out RaI but surely working out what the rules actually are is the only point of discussing the rules?

While RAW Grav has no rules for mixed armour we have what I would call the best idea of what the RAI would be based on the very similar rules for mixed toughness. And yes there are a few rules that are harder to work out than that but none as systematically failing as the psychic rules. For all it's worth debating they are a mess RAW to the point of being unusable in any realistic sense without hammering out A LOT of RAI.

Speaking with any absolute on almost any facet of them is difficult without running across another related rule that either is too ambiguous or flat out broken.

So I say again that speaking about the psychic rules should, as a guide, be done so from a RAI/HWYPI basis. Not one of us has the answer for sure, all we can do is attempt to find something close.

When working out RaI the best starting point is the processes they have given us. Those processes change only when we are told they do. Using this method to work out RaI for Gravguns vs mixed armour gives the result you have, it also makes Gravguns not ignore invulnerable or cover saves on vehicles. So that's two counts we know it works for Gravguns.

Here we have a process for determining if a Psyker can cast another power (does he have powers he has yet to attempt to manifest, is there WC left in the pool) this sentence does not give us instructions to change that process so we shouldn't. In all likely hood when that phrase was written there probably was a 1:1 ratio with mastery levels that they chose to remove from the book and did so poorly. However there is nothing that removes the permission given in that process or restricts. To claim a 1:1 ratio with ML is just clearly inventing rules that has literally nothing to do with RaI.

 Bausk wrote:
Insaniak: It's been pointed out repeatedly the whole psychic rules are at face value broken and require the players or TO to alter and agree on what 'feels' right.

Indeed it has. Quite often by me.

In this specific case though, all that is required though is for us to ignore a 'rules' statement at the start of the psychic section that, as written, doesn't actually do anything, and is probably just an unintentional copy-paste from last edition that they didn't realise would cause a problem.

I quite firmly believe, given this edition's strong throwback vibe to 2nd edition and the studio's stated desire to make psychic powers more prevalent again, that the intention of the psychic rules in 7th edition was for psykers to be able to cast as many powers as they have warp charges for, as outlined in the process for manifesting powers.

Given that strict RAW you would need to have a psyker be unattached to make use of his ML to generate WCs or even manifest his powers.

That's only one interpretation of strict RAW. And completely beside the point... How we determine what does and does not constitute a 'psyker unit' has no bearing on this particular discussion.

The total pool of WCs apply to the whole army now which, in contex, doesn't imply limitation on how many powers one particular psyker in that army is allowed to cast per turn. As such it serves as poor justification for unlimited powers per turn. I would agree it would hold water back in the previous two editions as WCs were directly tied to psykers and were the main limitation of how many powers one particular psyker may manifest.

Which is why the specific limitation on use per psyker has been included, however poorly worded, in this edition. Yes they are hitting a lot of 2nd ed notes this edition but they are going about it in a different way that is more compatible with larger scale battles and the latest rules we are familiar with.

There is no specific limitation. Don't use a word that cannot apply here. You have, at best, an implied limitation. Even that requires a huge, inconceivable stretch belied entirely by the rest of the psychic phase rules

By specific I mean it's specifically mentioned, not that the limitation is fully specified. Context is important Nos.

The 'Stretch', or inference rather, from the specifically mentioned limitation is significantly more likely than ignorance of it's existance to use outdated WC limitation methodologies.


Fact is it exists and the use of WCs, which I remind you ate now an army wide pool, as justification for blatant ignorance of it's existence is not a counter argument.

 Bausk wrote:
By specific I mean it's specifically mentioned, not that the limitation is fully specified. .

The problem is that it's only specifically mentioned in a section that has been copy-pasted from last edition's rulebook, when psychic powers worked very differently.

It isn't mentioned in the section that details the actual casting process, which specifies that after you resolve the first power, you can cast another with the same psyker.

If this limitation by Mastery Level was supposed to apply, it would be nice to thnk that this would point out at that point that this is only actually possible if the psyker has not already cast as many powers as they are allowed for the turn. It doesn't... just says that they can continue to cast.


So we're left with an implied but undefined restriction based on Mastery Level, and a casting process that says that we can keep on casting so long as we have Warp Charges.

The permission to keep casting seems, to me at least, to be the clearer rule there.

I don't recall this wording in the previous edition, will have to double check that. Far as I recall you were limied by the amount of WCs you had, granted they were solely dependent on ML and the section was written mostly with a single psyker context. The same cannot be said for a better portion of the new rules. They are written in a multiple psyker context and WCs are now an army based pool. The casting process is also army based in context and the proposition that you 'Can' keep casting is conditional on a multitude of factors that are also not listed in the process IIRC.

That said I will have a look at 6ths section and and review the current rules again to better format my reply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reviewed both editions. Yeah it's copied verbatim from 6th. With no elaborated dependency you're correct that there's no limitation. Plays out similar to 6th but some what more complete. Point conceded unless new information on the limitation comes to light.

 Bausk wrote:
.... The same cannot be said for a better portion of the new rules. They are written in a multiple psyker context and WCs are now an army based pool.....

Hence my reference to 2nd edition before, as this is exactly how it worked back then. You generated a number of cards based on the levels of the psykers on the table, and these were pooled for each army. There was no limit on how many powers could be cast, aside from not being able to cast the same power twice... You just kept casting until you chose to stop or you ran out of Force cards.