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.

Please don’t conflate terms. Area and volume are two different things. It is poor communication to use the incorrect terminology to describe something.

For instance, a 3" range on it's own does not describe a volume. It's only when you add additional information such as "from the model" that it can help describe a volume.

If I'm not mistaken though, don't the Core Rules say that unless specified otherwise, all distances given are horizontal?

Is any of this pertinent to the question. As far as I can see the following is the answer to the OP's question. The 12" becomes 18" since that is the range of the spell. The 3" area of effect are not effected by the ability since it is not a range but rather a description of what happens after the spell is cast. If someone wants to play it differently then that's on them but I think most TOs will agree with me.

@Leo_the_Rat
Not really, however there are people who refuse to accept that 3" is neither an area or volume. Conclusions drawn on the premise of 3" being an area are fundamental flawed (weather or not the conclusion is correct)

To resolve the psychic power you use two ranges to identify affected units.

@Blindmage, I'm not aware of such a rule, but would be interested in a rules quote if you could produce it.

If it's a fundamental flaw then surely you can show some rule or even flavor text that shows that there are 2 ranges in this one spell.

BRB p215- So long as the Psychic test was successful and the psychic power was not
denied by a successful Deny the Witch test, the psychic power is successfully
manifested and its effects, which will be described in the power itself, are
then resolved. If the PSYKER unit can attempt to manifest more than one
psychic power in its Psychic phase, you can then attempt to manifest those,
one at a time, as described above. The number of psychic powers each PSYKER
unit can attempt to manifest in its Psychic phase is listed on its datasheet. " (emphasis added by me.)

So it appears that Psychic powers don't have ranges they have effects. Therefore the Interaction of Lorekeeper of Tzeentch has no role in the game. That's as RAW as you can get.

The fundamental flaw is labelling something with the wrong terminology to try and "win" a discussion. To highlight the flaw, I only needed to demonstrate that the terminology is incorrect, which I have.

If you go down that route about effects, yes psychic powers have effects. Effects may or may not have ranges. If a effect has one or more ranges, then that also means the power has them.

A simple example of this concept is a Space Marine with a bolt pistol. The Space Marine has a 12" S4 shooting attack.

This is simple transitivity.

JakeSiren wrote:
Please don’t conflate terms. Area and volume are two different things. It is poor communication to use the incorrect terminology to describe something.

For instance, a 3" range on it's own does not describe a volume. It's only when you add additional information such as "from the model" that it can help describe a volume.

It's poor communication on your part, as you created a conflation where none exists.
Area is the amount of space enclosed on a 2d surface. Volume is the amount of space enclosed in a 3d space. So, as I stated correctly, volume is area but in 3 dimensions.

The 3" is describing an area, and a volume, from first principles. It is not a range which is defined as a single distance between two points, which is in a single dimension

Proven. For the third time now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Please don’t conflate terms. Area and volume are two different things. It is poor communication to use the incorrect terminology to describe something.

For instance, a 3" range on it's own does not describe a volume. It's only when you add additional information such as "from the model" that it can help describe a volume.

It's poor communication on your part, as you created a conflation where none exists.
Area is the amount of space enclosed on a 2d surface. Volume is the amount of space enclosed in a 3d space. So, as I stated correctly, volume is area but in 3 dimensions.

The 3" is describing an area, and a volume, from first principles. It is not a range which is defined as a single distance between two points, which is in a single dimension

Proven. For the third time now.

Let's try simple a substitution on your argument:
Area is: "the amount of space enclosed on a 2d surface"
Volume is: "the amount of space enclosed in a 3d space"


The 3" is: "describing an area, and a volume"
Substituting your definitions of area and volume, it becomes...

The 3" is: "describing an amount of space enclosed on a 2d surface and the amount of space enclosed in a 3d space"

So a 1 dimensional measurement is describing both a 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional space? Am I to understand that this is your stance? If so, I do not think any further reasonable discourse can occur if you are taking such an absurd position.

No, the 3" BY ITSELF isn't doing so, but of course only someone arguing in bad faith would try to construe that as my total argument when it's pretty clearly not the case.

When it states everything 3" from a model is effect then that single measurement is describing an area (and also a volume) of effect from first principles. For example the area of a circle of pi cm2 can obviously be described fully by stating the area enclosed by all points of unit distance from a centre point

In this case we have a variable area (volume) because the size and shape of models base (or not) will vary.

Does that make it simpler to see now?

It appears that you are upset that I quoted your words back to yourself to point out the fact that you have been conflating terms. Calling someone out on that is not "arguing in bad faith".

In response to what you have posted, yes, "When it states everything 3" from a model is effect", it does describe a volume. I don't dispute that. You may have noted earlier that I said:

JakeSiren wrote:
A 3" range on it's own does not describe a volume. It's only when you add additional information such as "from the model" that it can help describe a volume.

I am opposed however to calling a 3" range a 3" volume or 3" area, because they are, quite frankly, entirely different things.

Ah, so your accusation was based on you failing to read back to the context the post was made in. ok, your error again.

There is no range here. There is a volume of effect. But no range.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so your accusation was based on you failing to read back to the context the post was made in. ok, your error again.

There is no range here. There is a volume of effect. But no range.

*shrugs*, if you are unable to own up to using the incorrect terminology and blame other people instead, then I guess you are not interested in genuine discussion. The fact that you are unwilling or unable to address the simply demonstrated 3" range, as shown in my explanation below, tells everyone about the strength of your argument. Trying to confuse the issue by conflating terms is disingenuous.

JakeSiren wrote:
A 3" range on it's own does not describe a volume. It's only when you add additional information such as "from the model" that it can help describe a volume.

The range of the power is different from the range of its effects.

This isn’t worth arguing with the two who are refusing to accept consensus. Just move on, peeps. Pointless thread is pointless as we’re into the stage of misrepresenting others’ words instead of focussing on the rule and how it is played. We know how it is played. The range of the power is extended. Nothing supports extending the range of the effect. Move along, nothing to see here.

No, I addressed it Jake. By proving it wasn't a range, but a volume of effect. The fact you are completely unable to answe the point, and in fact dont quote the bit proving you wrong, shows everyone how you are failing to argue in good faith

Johnny - agreed. You have a range, defined as the distance between two points, and that is what is increased. The effect isn't increased as it's a volume and not a range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And, to be clear Jake - I didn't use the wrong terminology. You're just lying now. It's not a good look. Your apparent failure to parse context isn't my issue but yours.