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.

The Tome of Malcador is a relic which allows a psyker to know an extra power from any discipline it has access to.

If a psyker from a <CHAPTER> draws 2 powers from its chapter specific discipline, Ie, Tempestas, can it use the Tome of Malcador to learn a power from Librarius?



Tome of Malcador, page 109:
LIBRARIAN model only. The bearer knows one additional psychic power from any discipline it has access to.

SW supplement, page 52:
PSYKER models in Space Wolves detachments can know all of their psychic powers from the Tempestas Discipline instead of the Librarius or Obscuration disciplines.

I dont know those names. But the way I read it i allows my SW psyker to grab a regular marine power in adition to his two SW powers or vise versa. A pitty I can not get to 3 spells a turn.

But yeah. I suppose you can do 5++ and count as being in cover. Throw in the stratagem to give them -1 to hit and just walk your army upfield with 6 of the psyker and laugh.

Probably good on rhinoes. Throw a jump pack on the psyker.

 Niiai wrote:
I dont know those names. But the way I read it i allows my SW psyker to grab a regular marine power in adition to his two SW powers or vise versa. A pitty I can not get to 3 spells a turn.

But yeah. I suppose you can do 5++ and count as being in cover. Throw in the stratagem to give them -1 to hit and just walk your army upfield with 6 of the psyker and laugh.

Probably good on rhinoes. Throw a jump pack on the psyker.

This hinges on how we interpret "has access to" and what access means in the context of selecting powers. It is unclear.

To be honest it probably needs an FAQ.

It can be interpreted both ways quite clearly. He has acces to both. But once you are instructed to choose two from one disipline. Does this mean he looses acess? I would play it as no he does not loose acess until an FAQ comes out. Although I doubt I will take that relic. If you are boulding your army around psykick fortress and storm caller I would not glue up new models.

 Marmatag wrote:
The Tome of Malcador is a relic which allows a psyker to know an extra power from any discipline it has access to.

If a psyker from a <CHAPTER> draws 2 powers from its chapter specific discipline, Ie, Tempestas, can it use the Tome of Malcador to learn a power from Librarius?



Tome of Malcador, page 109:
LIBRARIAN model only. The bearer knows one additional psychic power from any discipline it has access to.

SW supplement, page 52:
PSYKER models in Space Wolves detachments can know all of their psychic powers from the Tempestas Discipline instead of the Librarius or Obscuration disciplines.

This is an "issue" that has been going on since 8th edition and GW have never addressed it IIRC.

However, my opinion is that you cannot take a Librarius power with the Tome if you picked a different discipline via some other rule. This is because the rules in the supplements say they must know "all of their psychic powers" from an alternate discipline, which means if you use a different discipline they no longer have access to the Librarius discipline.

I sent a query to GW and maybe we'll see it in a supplement FAQ doc.

This relic is complete F tier if indeed it is limited to the selected discipline. So we'll see.

A chief librarian "....knows one additional psychic power from their chosen discipline....". The Tome says he "....knows one additional psychic power from any discipline it has access to....". To me this difference in wording means the librarian can choose any power from the librarius (obscuration), or his chapter specific discipline.

 p5freak wrote:
To me this difference in wording means the librarian can choose any power from the librarius (obscuration), or his chapter specific discipline.

Or it means that the rules were written inconsistently due to incompetence. I know which one I believe.

Still, I don't think this question has a definitive answer so your only real option is to get your opponent / TO to agree before the game.

 Bilge Rat wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
To me this difference in wording means the librarian can choose any power from the librarius (obscuration), or his chapter specific discipline.

Or it means that the rules were written inconsistently due to incompetence. I know which one I believe.

Still, I don't think this question has a definitive answer so your only real option is to get your opponent / TO to agree before the game.

Possible, but until GW provides a FAQ answer, this is my opinion.

 p5freak wrote:
A chief librarian "....knows one additional psychic power from their chosen discipline....". The Tome says he "....knows one additional psychic power from any discipline it has access to....". To me this difference in wording means the librarian can choose any power from the librarius (obscuration), or his chapter specific discipline.

Agreed. Seems clear.

This has come up before and there are two answers that people give

1) The psyker has access to two disciplines to choose from therefore the tome lets you take from either - however this has the problem that it conflicts with the psykers rules although might have been the intention so its a RAI argument

2) The second is that while the rules for the tome allow you take from any disciplines available to the psyker. The rules for psyker only allow the psyker to take from a single discipline. If the psyker could choose multi disciplines through another special rule then it could take from either but most can't. This is a RAW answer

RAW beats RAI so the second is correct in the absence of a faq

By strict RAW he can only get powers from the same list.

However, it is fairly clear that the relic allows you to dip into the base psychic powers as well, or in the case of a phobos librarian the obfuscation discipline in addition to their chapter specific one.

U02dah4 wrote:
This has come up before and there are two answers that people give

1) The psyker has access to two disciplines to choose from therefore the tome lets you take from either - however this has the problem that it conflicts with the psykers rules although might have been the intention so its a RAI argument

2) The second is that while the rules for the tome allow you take from any disciplines available to the psyker. The rules for psyker only allow the psyker to take from a single discipline. If the psyker could choose multi disciplines through another special rule then it could take from either but most can't. This is a RAW answer

RAW beats RAI so the second is correct in the absence of a faq

You can’t just pick your preferred argument, add “RAW” to it, “RAI” to the other, then proclaim yourself victor. That doesn’t track.

Special rules break core rules constantly. There is nothing RAI about following the exact letter of the text that says any discipline they have access to. Your logic does not hold true, RAwhatever.

A psyker have access to multiple discipline, but when choose his powers have to get them all from the same list.
The Tome allow to select an additional power with a specific bespoken restriction, "any discipline he has access to". It's explicitly different than "an additional power".

So, does he retain access to the discipline he isn't currently using? Yes he does, the rule that blocks him doesn't have anything to do with his access to the discipline, but limits only his selection of powers.
Powers are different from disciplines.

Does the Tome follow the same restriction? No, because it's not a psyker that is selecting power, it's a Relic granting a special effects.
If the Relic rule was "pick an additional power" then you would follow all restriction for selecting power. Since it explicitly say something different, "pick one between any discipline available"... Well, you get it, you pick one between any discipline available. "Any" in this case is even a further explicit reinforcement of the concept.

Any modification to what is or not available that is deducted from a sub-restriction about power and not discipline ("all powers have to be from the same list") is an improper deduction... that rules do not support.

And that's RAW, if you a fetish for those kind of things.
(I personally think RAW do not exist, to be frank, but to each their own). RAW is not the first impression you have when you read something.

@ johnny hell

I'm not sure you understand what RAW means.

RAI may mean following the exact text or it may mean not following the exact text. It depends which was intended.

Normally it is impossible to know for sure hence any RAI argument is always subjective someone can say that is what GW meant and someone else can say it isn't. In normal circumstances neither know for sure because GW often contradict themselves and special snowflake.

Which is why RAI answers are by default considered less correct than RAW ones (unless as in rare cases the RAW answer literally doesn't work)

A RAW argument is following the text exactly as it is written. Because you follow it exactly as it is written their is no subjectivity and we can all agree what it is where as we will often not agree what the RAI is.

I would note you can occasionally have differing RAW answers because occasionally terms are ambiguous in which case we often go to RAI but the ambiguity has to be proven first.

I agree there are many circumstances where RAI and RAW differ and following the RAW entirely is often not RAI.

However convention is because RAW is not subjective and RAI is always subjective (you cannot 100% know GW intention as they regularly contradict themselves.) That on the rules thread we follow the RAW answers unless the RAW answers don't work then we follow RAI.

In response to your complaint at me labeling my arguments RAW and RAI I will refer you to the tenets of YMDC

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

That expressly states you should label your arguments RAW and RAI or HIWPI to be clear about what you are talking about.

In this case I label one as RAI because I think their is a good case that it was intended that the tome allow you to pick an alternate discipline but recognise the RAW argument is clear that it can't and so we go to convention and their is no reason in this case that the RAW argument doesn't function so we ignore the RAI argument.

In this case RAW is ambigius. I stated earlier it probably needs an FAQ and many post later, lo and behold. :-)

One work around I was wondering, can you pick the tome, choose your psykick power and then pick the disipline you generate your two default librarian powers from?

U02dah4 wrote:
@ johnny hell

I'm not sure you understand what RAW means.

RAI may mean following the exact text or it may mean not following the exact text. It depends which was intended.

Normally it is impossible to know for sure hence any RAI argument is always subjective someone can say that is what GW meant and someone else can say it isn't. In normal circumstances neither know for sure because GW often contradict themselves and special snowflake.

Which is why RAI answers are by default considered less correct than RAW ones (unless as in rare cases the RAW answer literally doesn't work)

A RAW argument is following the text exactly as it is written. Because you follow it exactly as it is written their is no subjectivity and we can all agree what it is where as we will often not agree what the RAI is.

I would note you can occasionally have differing RAW answers because occasionally terms are ambiguous in which case we often go to RAI but the ambiguity has to be proven first.

I agree there are many circumstances where RAI and RAW differ and following the RAW entirely is often not RAI.

However convention is because RAW is not subjective and RAI is always subjective (you cannot 100% know GW intention as they regularly contradict themselves.) That on the rules thread we follow the RAW answers unless the RAW answers don't work then we follow RAI.

In response to your complaint at me labeling my arguments RAW and RAI I will refer you to the tenets of YMDC

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

That expressly states you should label your arguments RAW and RAI or HIWPI to be clear about what you are talking about.

In this case I label one as RAI because I think their is a good case that it was intended that the tome allow you to pick an alternate discipline but recognise the RAW argument is clear that it can't and so we go to convention and their is no reason in this case that the RAW argument doesn't function so we ignore the RAI argument.

lol he is at it again XD ... @johnny give up before it begins. He has already demonstrated before that his skills at parsing RAW are lacking and that he has an inability to understand nuance if it doesn't fit his subjective interpretations/assumptions.

 Niiai wrote:
In this case RAW is ambigius. I stated earlier it probably needs an FAQ and many post later, lo and behold. :-)

One work around I was wondering, can you pick the tome, choose your psykick power and then pick the disipline you generate your two default librarian powers from?

No theirs no ambiguity i understand your counter argument but it is still a RAI one as it relies on you ignoring that the psyker is required to take all his powers from one discipline.

Sure the language on the the tome is not limiting what it can take but by RAW you can't ignore the restriction on the librarian and that applies to all powers the librarian selects and you don't have a RAW answer unless you address that

And that can't be done without going into the territory of saying this bit of text doesn't apply to the tome it only applies to the psyker- to which the question is why - and then you get into the RAI bit because the exact text doesn't tell you there is an exemption for the tome

The RAI is ambiguous the RAW is not

I mean you only have to look at cybtrolls attempt to justify it as the tome selects the power not the psyker so its exempted from the librarians restrictions to see your clearly in RAI territory despite his statement that its RAW as there's no direct quote stating the tomes exemption that's just as assumption and unless that can be proven theirs no RAW case

 Niiai wrote:

One work around I was wondering, can you pick the tome, choose your psykick power and then pick the disipline you generate your two default librarian powers from?

Indeed you point proves me correct

At step 2 you select the relic as you say and at this point there is no restriction on what you can take

However as you say you subsequently pick your psykers powers before the battle

And at that point you can know all of their psychic powers from the XXXX Discipline instead of the Librarius or Obscuration disciplines. Not some.

I would suggest the selection happens at the same time in which case the restriction of all applies to the tome aswell

If your trying to get round this by saying the tome selects at step 2 it doesnt solve your problem. Because sure at the point the tome selects its power it may select any disipline . Then when it comes to the psyker selecting its remaining powers if it picks the same disaipline as the one selected for the tome it meets its requirement if however it selects another disipline it is in violation of its rules that say all its displines from one disipline. So yes your tome has a free choice and then your librarians choice must equal it.

Either way it makes no difference.

@type 40 I know you struggle with rules from your responses in other threads calling me a houseplant adds nothing constructive to the discussion and is a violation of tenets of YMDC as quoted as it is intended to be insulting.

As to my quote at johnnyhell that was a response to him complaining that I had labelled my answer as the tenets require and that my RAW answer was wrong because it did not match the intention so no he clearly doesn't understand what raw means it was not an insult but if someone doesn't understand the basic terminology we use in rules threads you can't have a proper discussion until they do i cannot know what jonny knows but if you think RAW has to match RAI you don't understand the terms.

As to what rule - we are back to you inventing stuff as you derailed other threads with

If you can present a rules quote stating that their is a separate ability provided by the relic that allows it to select psykic powers completely separately from the psyker it is attached to even though there is a clearly stated limitation that the psyker knows an additional power and that power must come from a disipline that psker has access to. In which case i will address that point.

If however as per your other arguments you can present no such quote because it doesn't exist then from a RAW perspective your argument has no merit i do not need to prove an imaginary rule does not exist and the statement that their could be one with no evidence is not a challenge of a raw argument.

It is an inherent assumption in all RAW arguments that the RAW is correct unless another RAW counters it but you must prove that RAW exists with a quote if you want to make a RAW argument. If not your argument is RAI at best and we are back to RAW vs RAI and RAW winning

Also discussions of FAQ is irrelevant to the discussion because the question has not been FAQ'd

U02dah4 wrote:
Indeed you point proves me correct

At step 2 you select the relic as you say and at this point there is no restriction on what you can take

However as you say you subsequently pick your psykers powers before the battle

And at that point you can know all of their psychic powers from the XXXX Discipline instead of the Librarius or Obscuration disciplines. Not some.

I would suggest the selection happens at the same time in which case the restriction of all applies to the tome aswell

If your trying to get round this by saying the tome selects at step 2 it doesnt solve your problem. Because sure at the point the tome selects its power it may select any disipline . Then when it comes to the psyker selecting its remaining powers if it picks the same disaipline as the one selected for the tome it meets its requirement if however it selects another disipline it is in violation of its rules that say all its displines from one disipline. So yes your tome has a free choice and then your librarians choice must equal it.

Either way it makes no difference.

@type 40 I know you struggle with rules from your responses in other threads calling me a houseplant adds nothing constructive to the discussion and is a violation of tenets of YMDC as quoted as it is intended to be insulting.

As to my quote at johnnyhell that was a response to him complaining that I had labelled my answer as the tenets require and that my RAW answer was wrong because it did not match the intention so no he clearly doesn't understand what raw means it was not an insult but if someone doesn't understand the basic terminology we use in rules threads you can't have a proper discussion until they do i cannot know what jonny knows but if you think RAW has to match RAI you don't understand the terms.

As to what rule - we are back to you inventing stuff as you derailed other threads with

If you can present a rules quote stating that their is a separate ability provided by the relic that allows it to select psykic powers completely separately from the psyker it is attached to even though there is a clearly stated limitation that the psyker knows an additional power and that power must come from a disipline that psker has access to. In which case i will address that point.

If however as per your other arguments you can present no such quote because it doesn't exist then from a RAW perspective your argument has no merit i do not need to prove an imaginary rule does not exist and the statement that their could be one with no evidence is not a challenge of a raw argument.

It is an inherent assumption in all RAW arguments that the RAW is correct unless another RAW counters it but you must prove that RAW exists with a quote if you want to make a RAW argument. If not your argument is RAI at best and we are back to RAW vs RAI and RAW winning

Also discussions of FAQ is irrelevant to the discussion because the question has not been FAQ'd

Lol , Ok bud.

U02dah4:
"oh you asked me to prove something,,, now your inventing stuff and your 'derailing' things. How DARE you ask me to justify my conclusions with written rules XD. I can say what I want and its RAW , I am the only one who is allowed to demand rules quotes for others claims... I clearly do not need any kind of proof or evidence because my assumptions are RAW. Now go present ME with rules quotes that specifically say my invented assumptions are incorrect even though nothing in the written rules indicates what I am assuming are facts are indeed true"

lol ... come on man XD .
You can't even properly parse what people are writing to you on these posts.
Your response to people pointing out where you have made assumptions is "YOU CANT SHOW ME A RULE THAT SAYS MY ASSUMPTION IS WRONG". LOL. Geeze, I wonder why they can't show you that XD. (I'll give you a hint: Maybe, GW doesn't write rules to specifically ban or restrict the random rule assumptions you make up in your head.)
Give it up. You arn't the high king of RAW and English understanding that you seem to think you are.
You really don't understand that you are making assumptions with subjective bias LOL. You really don't understand you are applying context without any written rules to back it up... and that is hilarious.
p.s. "I would suggest" ... why do you have to suggest something, I thought it was RAW LOL .

Paragraph one derailment no relevant comment

Paragraph two you have not shown any of my assumptions are flawed your complaint seems to be that my RAW argument is incorrect because I am following the rules and not considering options that you cannot evidence so I am assuming they are wrong. that is not a flawed argument.

You have again stated that I have made assumptions without providing any evidence as to those assumptions, how they are relevant to the case in hand and that those assumptions are wrong. I would ask you to again consider the tenets of YMDC

Literally number 1

" 1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.

And if you have nothing constructive to add please don't derail another thread

Again what context please support with evidence which of my statements have not been supported by written rules

20+ posts in can we not just wait for an FAQ?

The wording on the book is you can choose any you have acces to. The psyker can choose from two disipilines (have acess) but have to makr both choises from one disipline. This is merly how you choose them. It does not deny access to the other disipline the way it is worded. You can merly not choose those two from them. If this wad in Mtg with its 220 pages laywer rules document the wording would have alloved it. But with gw you never know. An faq, yeah?

 Niiai wrote:
20+ posts in can we not just wait for an FAQ?

Indeed. Sometimes the best, or only, response may be "we don't know". It's not like there has to be a knowable answer to every rules question. The two camps have set out their reasoning and I don't think anything will change that, especially as it contains largely the same people as the last 200+ post thread in YMDC and that thread had nothing of value added after about the 10th post.

To summarise the two positions:

1. "any discipline it has access to" means literally any of the allowable disciplines (usually the Phobos one, the core SM discipline and a Chapter-specific one)
2. "any discipline it has access to" is restricted by whichever discipline the Librarian has already chosen to select their powers from

I don't think there's enough direct evidence either way to fully support one or the other interpretation so all we're doing is arguing about interpretation, which rarely ends well.

U02dah4 wrote:
Paragraph one derailment no relevant comment

Paragraph two you have not shown any of my assumptions are flawed your complaint seems to be that my RAW argument is incorrect because I am following the rules and not considering options that you cannot evidence so I am assuming they are wrong. that is not a flawed argument.

You have again stated that I have made assumptions without providing any evidence as to those assumptions, how they are relevant to the case in hand and that those assumptions are wrong. I would ask you to again consider the tenets of YMDC

Literally number 1

" 1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.

And if you have nothing constructive to add please don't derail another thread

Again what context please support with evidence which of my statements have not been supported by written rules

I havn't made a statement XD LOL !!!!!!! I am pointing out that you arn't backing up yours XD ,,, LOL..... and you continue XD what, do you want me to quote the BRB for where it says "U02dah4 doesn't back up his made up assumptions" LOL. ?

Slipspace wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
20+ posts in can we not just wait for an FAQ?

Indeed. Sometimes the best, or only, response may be "we don't know". It's not like there has to be a knowable answer to every rules question. The two camps have set out their reasoning and I don't think anything will change that, especially as it contains largely the same people as the last 200+ post thread in YMDC and that thread had nothing of value added after about the 10th post.

To summarise the two positions:

1. "any discipline it has access to" means literally any of the allowable disciplines (usually the Phobos one, the core SM discipline and a Chapter-specific one)
2. "any discipline it has access to" is restricted by whichever discipline the Librarian has already chosen to select their powers from

I don't think there's enough direct evidence either way to fully support one or the other interpretation so all we're doing is arguing about interpretation, which rarely ends well.

Agreed. Good summary! You highlighted the key that "any discipline it has access to" might mean all the disciplines it could potentially choose from, or restrict it to the discipline that he has taken powers from. It can be read either way, so the RAW's ambiguous on this point. I would suggest sticking with the latter choice (as choosing from the same discipline will always be valid under both interpretations) unless you talk with your opponent beforehand (or tournament organizer to find their ruling on this). Always follow the concept of not trying to spring something on an opponent in the middle of the game that they might not see as legal, unless the two of you agree beforehand.

 doctortom wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
20+ posts in can we not just wait for an FAQ?

Indeed. Sometimes the best, or only, response may be "we don't know". It's not like there has to be a knowable answer to every rules question. The two camps have set out their reasoning and I don't think anything will change that, especially as it contains largely the same people as the last 200+ post thread in YMDC and that thread had nothing of value added after about the 10th post.

To summarise the two positions:

1. "any discipline it has access to" means literally any of the allowable disciplines (usually the Phobos one, the core SM discipline and a Chapter-specific one)
2. "any discipline it has access to" is restricted by whichever discipline the Librarian has already chosen to select their powers from

I don't think there's enough direct evidence either way to fully support one or the other interpretation so all we're doing is arguing about interpretation, which rarely ends well.

Agreed. Good summary! You highlighted the key that "any discipline it has access to" might mean all the disciplines it could potentially choose from, or restrict it to the discipline that he has taken powers from. It can be read either way, so the RAW's ambiguous on this point. I would suggest sticking with the latter choice (as choosing from the same discipline will always be valid under both interpretations) unless you talk with your opponent beforehand (or tournament organizer to find their ruling on this). Always follow the concept of not trying to spring something on an opponent in the middle of the game that they might not see as legal, unless the two of you agree beforehand.

Or in otherwords exactly what I said - Always valid is RAW. Could be valid depending on interpretation is RAI. RAW beats RAI because RAI may or may not be correct so thats the one you use


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Paragraph one derailment no relevant comment

Paragraph two you have not shown any of my assumptions are flawed your complaint seems to be that my RAW argument is incorrect because I am following the rules and not considering options that you cannot evidence so I am assuming they are wrong. that is not a flawed argument.

You have again stated that I have made assumptions without providing any evidence as to those assumptions, how they are relevant to the case in hand and that those assumptions are wrong. I would ask you to again consider the tenets of YMDC

Literally number 1

" 1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.

And if you have nothing constructive to add please don't derail another thread

Again what context please support with evidence which of my statements have not been supported by written rules

I havn't made a statement XD LOL !!!!!!! I am pointing out that you arn't backing up yours XD ,,, LOL..... and you continue XD what, do you want me to quote the BRB for where it says "U02dah4 doesn't back up his made up assumptions" LOL. ?

If you haven't made a statement in 4 post then what are you adding to the argument

stop trying to derail the thread

If you have a problem with my argument address the specific problem with supportive evidence (exactly what point have I not supported). Saying I have not backed up my position when all my premises have been backed up with evidence just distracts everyone needlessly

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
20+ posts in can we not just wait for an FAQ?

Indeed. Sometimes the best, or only, response may be "we don't know". It's not like there has to be a knowable answer to every rules question. The two camps have set out their reasoning and I don't think anything will change that, especially as it contains largely the same people as the last 200+ post thread in YMDC and that thread had nothing of value added after about the 10th post.

To summarise the two positions:

1. "any discipline it has access to" means literally any of the allowable disciplines (usually the Phobos one, the core SM discipline and a Chapter-specific one)
2. "any discipline it has access to" is restricted by whichever discipline the Librarian has already chosen to select their powers from

I don't think there's enough direct evidence either way to fully support one or the other interpretation so all we're doing is arguing about interpretation, which rarely ends well.

Agreed. Good summary! You highlighted the key that "any discipline it has access to" might mean all the disciplines it could potentially choose from, or restrict it to the discipline that he has taken powers from. It can be read either way, so the RAW's ambiguous on this point. I would suggest sticking with the latter choice (as choosing from the same discipline will always be valid under both interpretations) unless you talk with your opponent beforehand (or tournament organizer to find their ruling on this). Always follow the concept of not trying to spring something on an opponent in the middle of the game that they might not see as legal, unless the two of you agree beforehand.

Or in otherwords exactly what I said - Always valid is RAW. Could be valid depending on interpretation is RAI. RAW beats RAI because RAI may or may not be correct so thats the one you use

Totally brimming over with wrongability. It's not a RAW vs RAI, There are two interpretations of RAW, it's one interpretation of RAI vs another interpretation of RAI. One interpretation may be valid 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean it's the right interpretation, merely the more stringent interpretation. In these cases where RAW can be interpeted differently, check with your opponent which interpretation he favors.

 Niiai wrote:
20+ posts in can we not just wait for an FAQ?

The wording on the book is you can choose any you have acces to. The psyker can choose from two disipilines (have acess) but have to makr both choises from one disipline. This is merly how you choose them. It does not deny access to the other disipline the way it is worded. You can merly not choose those two from them. If this wad in Mtg with its 220 pages laywer rules document the wording would have alloved it. But with gw you never know. An faq, yeah?

The argument is not that the psyker does not have access to two different disiplines the argument is that it has to choose its powers from only 1 and the tome doesn't change that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
20+ posts in can we not just wait for an FAQ?

Indeed. Sometimes the best, or only, response may be "we don't know". It's not like there has to be a knowable answer to every rules question. The two camps have set out their reasoning and I don't think anything will change that, especially as it contains largely the same people as the last 200+ post thread in YMDC and that thread had nothing of value added after about the 10th post.

To summarise the two positions:

1. "any discipline it has access to" means literally any of the allowable disciplines (usually the Phobos one, the core SM discipline and a Chapter-specific one)
2. "any discipline it has access to" is restricted by whichever discipline the Librarian has already chosen to select their powers from

I don't think there's enough direct evidence either way to fully support one or the other interpretation so all we're doing is arguing about interpretation, which rarely ends well.

Agreed. Good summary! You highlighted the key that "any discipline it has access to" might mean all the disciplines it could potentially choose from, or restrict it to the discipline that he has taken powers from. It can be read either way, so the RAW's ambiguous on this point. I would suggest sticking with the latter choice (as choosing from the same discipline will always be valid under both interpretations) unless you talk with your opponent beforehand (or tournament organizer to find their ruling on this). Always follow the concept of not trying to spring something on an opponent in the middle of the game that they might not see as legal, unless the two of you agree beforehand.

Or in otherwords exactly what I said - Always valid is RAW. Could be valid depending on interpretation is RAI. RAW beats RAI because RAI may or may not be correct so thats the one you use

Totally brimming over with wrongability. It's not a RAW vs RAI, There are two interpretations of RAW, it's one interpretation of RAI vs another interpretation of RAI. One interpretation may be valid 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean it's the right interpretation, merely the more stringent interpretation. In these cases where RAW can be interpeted differently, check with your opponent which interpretation he favors.

No one of those arguments is always valid that is demonstrated according to the rules as written therefore it is RAW Noone is suggesting you cant pick from one disipline

One of those items is potentially valid under the RAW but is also potentially wrong. Whether you choose to apply it is, therefore, a matter of RAI. Thats why I consider it to be a RAI argument.We are not arguing if the interpretation exists or is valid only whether it is appropriate to apply it and that is the definition of RAI. It's why I say the argument is RAI not that the argument is wrong

A pure RAW argument is better than one that is RAI and subjective

U02dah4 wrote:

If you have a problem with my argument address the specific problem with supportive evidence (exactly what point have I not supported). Saying I have not backed up my position when all my premises have been backed up with evidence just distracts everyone needlessly

LOL !!
Yes, my problem with your argument is that you are not providing evidence for your assumptions and you are calling it RAW and telling me to provide written rules to that prove your assumptions wrong... how do you not get this, its like talking to a wall. Your position has 100% not been backed up with evidence XD.

Seriously, the fact that you don't get this is baffling XD.

Where is it written that the tome is not considered to be taking the power ? could it be possible that you are making an assumption XD LOL seriously... You just dismiss it like its obviously not the correct reading of the text with providing zero evidence and then you scream your answer is RAW and if anyone wants to disprove you they have to provide evidence that your made up assumption is incorrect... we can't provide evidence that what you made up in your head is incorrect GW doesn't write rules specifically designed to ban or restrict your made up assumptions.

Seriously. how do you not get this XD ...