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.

With regard to bespoke psychic powers, it seems rather off from a verisimilitude perspective that e.g. if a Farseer mounts a Jetbike then they must immediately forget Guide and instead learn Misfortune before going into battle.

Why?

It's not as if either of these powers is in some way specific to being on foot or mounted, so what's the point?

The theory would be not that the forgot the foot psychic power, but they they chose to study and learn a power that capitalized on high mobility because they knew they liked jetbikes.

Like maybe the foot faseer's path went Guardian> Warlock> Farseer

Where the mounted farseers path was
Windrider> Mounted Warlock> Mounted Farseer.

I'm still not sure I like it better than choices, but I get it.

Maybe you select a defensive/utility power and an attack power for the psyker before the game.

Or maybe, it's more important that the "play against other person" part matches the fluff than the "sit at home alone and write an army" part.

When two units can more or less do the same thing, at some point you will figure out who does it best. At that point, it's no longer a strategic decision and goes to the shelf unless you make up flavorful excuses to run them anyways.

@Jake, I have read your post but am too tired to write a response today. Will respond eventually.

PenitentJake wrote:The theory would be not that the forgot the foot psychic power, but they they chose to study and learn a power that capitalized on high mobility because they knew they liked jetbikes.

Like maybe the foot faseer's path went Guardian> Warlock> Farseer

Where the mounted farseers path was
Windrider> Mounted Warlock> Mounted Farseer.

I'm still not sure I like it better than choices, but I get it.

Fluff nitpick: technically they're supposed to have an aspect warrior in there somewhere. Have to be a former aspect to become a warlock. I think there's even fluff suggesting that all farseers were former warlocks implying that they were all former aspects, but that particular bit of fluff doesn't sit well with me.

More on-topic, the concept of a psyker "studying" and "learning" a power feels off to me. Like, it seems wrong that a pair of farseers would be setting around comparing their stat sheets and discussing the merits of Guide vs Misfortune. Even back when we could pay for multiple powers or generate our choice of power at the start of each battle, it felt a bit strange. If I were to redesign psykers with fluff in mind, I think I'd probably give each faction one or more power lists (sort of like disciplines from past editions but with like, 3 powers instead of 6+) and then give psykers access to the relevant power list. And then let psykers be flexible swiss army knives that can choose how they contribute each turn. Price accordingly. One farseer already Doomed the main thing your army plans on shooting at? Go ahead and toss out a Fortune onto a unit that needs it. Or opt to let him shoot an Eldritch Storm this turn instead. First farseer died? Your army isn't suddenly without Doom; the second farseer can step into that role.

Even if you don't want to implement a complicated subsystem for building up stress by casting too much or whatever, simply lettin psykers choose one of several effects each turn both gives the impression that they have access to a wide variety of psychic effects and have to focus on one of them at a time to pull them off. Optionally: include a core strat that lets you use a second power.

Jidmah wrote:Or maybe, it's more important that the "play against other person" part matches the fluff than the "sit at home alone and write an army" part.

When two units can more or less do the same thing, at some point you will figure out who does it best. At that point, it's no longer a strategic decision and goes to the shelf unless you make up flavorful excuses to run them anyways.

@Jake, I have read your post but am too tired to write a response today. Will respond eventually.

I feel like it's worth noting that *some* (not all) of this efficiency contest is an artificial result of datasheets being broken up based on wargear. So back in the day, a bikeseer and a footseer weren't necessarily competing directly with eachother. A bikeseer was just a farseer that paid a few extra points for some extra mobility, durability, and the ability to keep up with a bike squad. He had access to the same powers as a footseet because they were the same "datasheet." Sure, maybe the totally-not-a-meltagun psychic power made more sense on a terminator librarian than on a foot librarian, but ultimately you were just customizing your librarian(s) rather than framing it in terms of termie librarisn competiting with foot librarians and so forth.

Also, outside of highly optimized play, things like taking a footseer even if a bikeseer is considered more optimal usually isn't a huge deal. Outside of competitive play, you're generally just looking for options to be "good enough" to be viable rather than looking for each option to be perfectly even with other options.

 Jidmah wrote:
Or maybe, it's more important that the "play against other person" part matches the fluff than the "sit at home alone and write an army" part.

When two units can more or less do the same thing, at some point you will figure out who does it best. At that point, it's no longer a strategic decision and goes to the shelf unless you make up flavorful excuses to run them anyways.

@Jake, I have read your post but am too tired to write a response today. Will respond eventually.

That's going to be true for all units in the army, not just those with specific power options. Psychic powers don't just add the optimisation pathway issue to the game, they are just one example of it. People will always optimise their units, allowing power choice back doesn't change that at all.

 Wyldhunt wrote:


Fluff nitpick: technically they're supposed to have an aspect warrior in there somewhere. Have to be a former aspect to become a warlock. I think there's even fluff suggesting that all farseers were former warlocks implying that they were all former aspects, but that particular bit of fluff doesn't sit well with me.

I wasn't trying to reference official lore or anything, just providing a rough sketch to answer someone else's question. Certainly reasonable that time as an Aspect could be a requirement of either. The point was that psykers might choose to develop and specialize in particular powers that align with other aspects of their martial style.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

More on-topic, the concept of a psyker "studying" and "learning" a power feels off to me.

So what feels "on" to you? Like, Eldrad emerging from the womb with full psychic mastery? Or, like, was it elf puberty; went to sleep one night a zit faced loser, woke up the next day a psychic master... Never had to learn any of it, the power just appeared like pubes!

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Like, it seems wrong that a pair of farseers would be setting around comparing their stat sheets and discussing the merits of Guide vs Misfortune.

No, it likely involved hours of reflection, meditation, ritual preparation with those rituals been adjusted over time through trial and error in order to achieve more tailored results. There may be quests to specific shrines, or perhaps a period of apprenticeship to one or several masters over time. I mean, ever play a Sorcerer in D&D?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Even back when we could pay for multiple powers or generate our choice of power at the start of each battle, it felt a bit strange. If I were to redesign psykers with fluff in mind, I think I'd probably give each faction one or more power lists (sort of like disciplines from past editions but with like, 3 powers instead of 6+) and then give psykers access to the relevant power list. And then let psykers be flexible swiss army knives that can choose how they contribute each turn. Price accordingly. One farseer already Doomed the main thing your army plans on shooting at? Go ahead and toss out a Fortune onto a unit that needs it. Or opt to let him shoot an Eldritch Storm this turn instead. First farseer died? Your army isn't suddenly without Doom; the second farseer can step into that role.

You think this because you're thinking in terms of stand-alone games and not Crusade campaigns. What you are describing is a Psyker who has achieved the Heroic level, or at the very least, Battle Hardened. But when you Crusade, you don't start at the end point or even the middle; you tend to start at the beginning. People made similar statements about Space Marines when Crusade first dropped: "Space Marines are veterans of thousand of wars, blah, blah, blah."

A Space Marine CAN be a veteran of a thousand wars, sure. Many are. But the dude who just took off his scout armour for the last time and put on his full power armour for the first time is no less a Space Marine. And for a Crusader, it's the playing the journey that is fun. Certainly, your force will have Elite units in it, and those will certainly have "experience" ... But they may still be new to their role as an elite, meaning that there are elements of that role they haven't learned, despite their veteran status in other roles.

So sure, you want super flexible swiss army psyker? I can get behind it. But let me start the day I have my first vision; let me pick my first power based on what I experience in my first battle with psychic awareness: did I kill an enemy from a distance or up close? Did I take hits and stand defiant, or was I too evasive to be hit? Did I rally the Guardians, or terrorize the enemy?

Because when I choose my first battle honour, these battlefield events are the things that will determine whether that is a psychic battle honour, and if so, which one it is. And the process repeats four times, with longer intervals between moments of enlightenment.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Even if you don't want to implement a complicated subsystem for building up stress by casting too much or whatever, simply lettin psykers choose one of several effects each turn both gives the impression that they have access to a wide variety of psychic effects and have to focus on one of them at a time to pull them off. Optionally: include a core strat that lets you use a second power.

Again, psykers AREN'T one size fits all- some of them perhaps SHOULD be limited to one power. In my last post, even I conceded that Hemlock Wraithfighter and the Psyker from the Corsair Voidscarred unit could be reasonably limited to a single chosen power, or even an assigned one. And of course I realize taking your suggestion doesn't necessarily mean applying it equally to every single psychic unit, but you also haven't explicitly said you wouldn't either.

My basic point, from the beginning of this thread, has been that the current system is definitely shallower than what I'm looking for, and ANY proposal that offers more flexibility than what we have now would be preferrable; that includes your suggestions, Jid's and Lathe's suggestions and the suggestion of others in the thread too. Each of us has different ideas- we all fall at different places on the spectrum between total flexibility and total rigidity, but all of us are proposing something with more depth than the status quo.

 Wyldhunt wrote:


I feel like it's worth noting that *some* (not all) of this efficiency contest is an artificial result of datasheets being broken up based on wargear. So back in the day, a bikeseer and a footseer weren't necessarily competing directly with each other. A bikeseer was just a farseer that paid a few extra points for some extra mobility, durability, and the ability to keep up with a bike squad. He had access to the same powers as a footseet because they were the same "datasheet." Sure, maybe the totally-not-a-meltagun psychic power made more sense on a terminator librarian than on a foot librarian, but ultimately you were just customizing your librarian(s) rather than framing it in terms of termie librarisn competiting with foot librarians and so forth.

Also, outside of highly optimized play, things like taking a footseer even if a bikeseer is considered more optimal usually isn't a huge deal. Outside of competitive play, you're generally just looking for options to be "good enough" to be viable rather than looking for each option to be perfectly even with other options.

Good points. The stance that I've taken in my posts to Jidmah has been a stance of meeting halfway, because I understand the point of view. I personally prefer chosen powers for the vast majority of psychic units... But I do see how curated powers chosen specifically to support a unit's battlefield role by synergizing with the other characteristics of the unit helps define and expand the battlefield role in question... And again, if you allow swaps for all or even some units on top of that, IT'S STILL better than what we have, so I'm not gonna shot it down.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Or maybe, it's more important that the "play against other person" part matches the fluff than the "sit at home alone and write an army" part.

When two units can more or less do the same thing, at some point you will figure out who does it best. At that point, it's no longer a strategic decision and goes to the shelf unless you make up flavorful excuses to run them anyways.

@Jake, I have read your post but am too tired to write a response today. Will respond eventually.

That's going to be true for all units in the army, not just those with specific power options. Psychic powers don't just add the optimisation pathway issue to the game, they are just one example of it. People will always optimise their units, allowing power choice back doesn't change that at all.

Of course it's true for all units. Which is why GW has been differentiating units in direct competition by changing profiles, adding abilities and splitting datasheets while also increasing the number of roles units fulfill on the battlefield. That's why a farseer on foot has different powers than a farseer on bike - so there is a strategic advantage to bringing both, creating more diverse armies.

If both can take doom and guide like in past editions, this causes the opposite effect - people are being rewarded to spam the bestest unit as often as they can, leading to cookie-cutter lists with no variance.