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.

Xzerios wrote:

Yad wrote:

Xzerios wrote:
Another thing Id like to point out is that due in part to the wording of MSS, it infers that the Special rules that are attached to weapons are innately on (like Fleshbane or Armorbane) for it to work as normal. Force is written is such a way that it has a choice within its own rule (again to prevent the Psyker from doing what it asks on each unsaved wound).

Until someone refutes that with proper English. Thats how the rule is written and MSS does not have permission to make the choice within the special rule.

As I had pointed out though, for the duration that MSS is in effect, the Necron player is the controller of the model. MSS directs the Necron player to choose, if necessary, which weapon the affected model will use. It also provides access to any ability the chosen weapon has. Because the Necron player is now considered the 'controller' of the model (BRB pg.8) he is afforded the option to choose to activate Force. Why? Because a controlling player is allowed to make a decision when a rule prompts him for one.

1.) MSS successfully affects target model (Assumes affected model has a weapon with the Force USR)

2.) Necron player is now considered the 'controlling player' for the affected model

3.) Affected model scores a number of unsaved wounds

4.) Because Force is now an ability of the weapon it is eligible for MSS. Force requires a decision (i.e., choice) to be made as to whether or not to activate it.

5.) Because of #2 the Necron player is allowed to decide to activate Force.

The short of it is that once affected, the Necron player is the Controlling Player for that model with all the privileges that come with it. But the actions the Necron player can take on behalf of that model are narrow in scope due to the MSS rules. He can initially only decide what weapon the affected model will use. However, should any ability of the chosen weapon also require a decision, the Necron player (who is the Controlling Player for that model) is afforded the right to make that decision.

-Yad

1.) Yes, nothing wrong here good sir. :3
2.) Half way, the Necron player is in control in a very specific way. MSS outlines where you are in control.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough here. I'm establishing what the pre-conditions would be to be able to use the Force USR

Xzerios wrote:
3.) I got no issue with that, its bound to happen.
4.) Force is on the weapon, yup. Read your second sentence: Force requires a decision (i.e., choice) to be made as to whether or not to activate it. This choice right here is outside the scope of what MSS has given permission to control. You have the Force USR, but not the choice to expend that Warp Charge point. Thats where Controlling Player Vs Opposing Player kicks back in and trumps MSS.

You've twisted you statement here a bit. You start by saying that you have a decision to be made regarding whether or not to activate Force. You finish by saying that you can't choose to spend a charge and take a test. These are two different things. The MSS player cannot directly choose to spend a warp charge and take a psychic test on behalf of the affected model. The MSS can choose to activate Force. The Force rule then requires the model to spend a charge and take a test.

Xzerios wrote:
5.) Reread the rule -EXTREMELY- carefully with proper English. You are only given permission to Special rules on weapons. As MSS is written, its assuming that these Special rules that you will get to choose are Special rules without choices within them (as I have outlined and will do so again: Fleshbane, and Armorbane). There is no choice within those rules and should you the Necron player choose to use them, you are then given no choice within the rule to 'turn it on' as its worded in such a way that its simply on, period.

Close. You (the Necron player) are considered the Controlling Player first and foremost. Second to that you are only provided the power to choose which weapon the affected model may wield. Should an ability of that weapon require a decision to be made, you as the Controlling Player may do so. Why? Because it's a matter of inheritance (if you're familiar with programming ) As the Controlling Player you are allowed to make decisions and take actions for the models you control.

Yes, MSS only allows you to choose the weapon to be used. It also allows you to use any ability that the weapon may have. That permission right there directly correlates to how the Controlling Player can make decisions and take actions for the model.

Xzerios wrote:


Again, page eights Controlling Player Vs Opposing Player was trumped up to this point in the process, but again, this choice within the rule lies just outside the scope that MSS gives the Necron player control over and thus the second choice that lies in the rule now goes to the model's owner.

I think you're wrong here. As the MSS rules explicitly say you must return control to the owning player it ties in directly to pg.8.

-Yad

copper.talos wrote:
@stoff3

Wasn't you who said that I would be disappointed in tournaments with this issue? Aren't you the first to bring up the "tournaments" in this discussion? And now you complain about tournament rulings? Really?

Just admit that you were wrong. At least on the tournaments part. It'll make you look less ego-driven.

I don't play GK any more so I can't really say I would be "ego-driven" in this area. You on the other hand appear to play necrons so watch out, you could shoot yourself in the foot with your statements.

I can surely admit I wouldn't believe they would do the same misstake interpreting the MSS rule as many here do, but it does the same tbh. The thing we need is a GW clarification faq-wise and sadly it wouldn't surprise me at all if they don't have it for the next faq since they often misses important areas. And to be honest it's almost 50-50 in the poll with a small favor of the no-sayers, then it's nothing else than clear that the rules are in need of clarification. And by that I believe them to be too weak to make assumptions in the question.

If they are intending MSS to work as you want it to work, I believe they are going to change the text by a not so small amount since it's really weak now if it is intended in that way. And if they are intending it to work as I for an example believes they are surely just going to add this question to the faq and answer it.

Yad wrote:

As a matter of fact I do. I actually posted earlier about it, even providing a breakdown of what the rule entails. I'm paraphrasing here but the rule specifies that the affected model, if it's still alive, returns to the owning player's control after blows have been struck. See the part there about owning player's control.

...which in context means you return control over those items you had control over. You never have full control. You keep on ignoring this point, hoping people will forget youre making gak up.

Yad wrote: Now go to the BRB pg.8 and read about Controlling Player. See the part in there that says, sometimes a rule will require an action or decision. This is in reference to the Controlling Player being able to take that action and/or make that decision.

Yep, and when it comes to choosing which CCW to use, which is the only element of decision making control MSS imparts, that is up to the MSS owner.

Yad wrote:So you have a rule in MSS that specifically says you must return control of the affected model to the owning player.

....meaning only the control that was taken. Which isnt full control. Stop. Ignoring. Rules. Your argument isnt on solid ground anyway, this just removes the ground entirely

Yad wrote:You have a section in the BRB that discusses what is meant by Controlling Player and Opposing Player. If you can't see that this means that for the duration that MSS is in effect, the Necron player is the Controlling Player, well there's not much more I can say about that.

-Yad

If you cannot see that you are ignoring the MSS rule itself, which defines the level of control the MSS player has (making him attack his unit, what weapon to choose to use if a choice exists) in making your above statement, then there's really not much more that can be said about that.

 Stoff3 wrote:
I can surely admit I wouldn't believe they would do the same misstake interpreting the MSS rule as many here do, but it does the same tbh.

Well at least one good thing came out of this discussion. You got a heads-up and won't be disappointed in a tournament.

And as long as a FAQ doesn't come up, but all major tournaments are in favor of MSS, I am actually very OK with it.

Rigeld - i assume it was a hangover from pre-ELdar FAQ.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - i assume it was a hangover from pre-ELdar FAQ.

That was me asking about the ETC FAQ, not rigeld.

Ah sorry, long day today!

I can only assume it was a mistakenly left in ruling. Hell, one of the largest UK tourneys managed to equate LOS with spotting distance, and ruled that Hive Guard didnt need to roll for night fight in 5th edition...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yad wrote:

As a matter of fact I do. I actually posted earlier about it, even providing a breakdown of what the rule entails. I'm paraphrasing here but the rule specifies that the affected model, if it's still alive, returns to the owning player's control after blows have been struck. See the part there about owning player's control.

...which in context means you return control over those items you had control over. You never have full control. You keep on ignoring this point, hoping people will forget youre making gak up.

Nope, there is no need to infer the meaning of the rule through your subjective context lens Control means control. And returning control of a model to an owning player ties in neatly with how Controlling and Opposing players are defined in the BRB. I also find it odd that you somehow figured out what I'm 'hoping' people will do? Have you some device that lets you do this over the Internet? Where is this fabulous technology and how can I get my hands on it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yad wrote:So you have a rule in MSS that specifically says you must return control of the affected model to the owning player.

....meaning only the control that was taken. Which isnt full control. Stop. Ignoring. Rules. Your argument isnt on solid ground anyway, this just removes the ground entirely

I. Like. Using. Periods. Too. Just. Not. Like. This. As. It. Comes. Off. Reading. As. Overtly. Hostile. And. Authoritative.

Subjective constraint is subjective. There is no inherent contradiction in being the Controlling Player and having access to only a subset of actions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yad wrote:You have a section in the BRB that discusses what is meant by Controlling Player and Opposing Player. If you can't see that this means that for the duration that MSS is in effect, the Necron player is the Controlling Player, well there's not much more I can say about that.

-Yad

If you cannot see that you are ignoring the MSS rule itself, which defines the level of control the MSS player has (making him attack his unit, what weapon to choose to use if a choice exists) in making your above statement, then there's really not much more that can be said about that.

heh. When, for the entirety of this thread, I've done nothing else but speak to the particulars of the MSS and Force rule I would not necessarily say I've been ignoring the MSS rule. You obviously disagree with my take of the MSS rule, but I wouldn't say I'm ignoring it. If I were actually ignoring it I wouldn't speak of it at all.

-Yad

Ah, so you can just ignore context now, and consider that to be a good argument? It isnt subjective when the return of control can only referernce the control that was taken in the first place. Entirely objective parsing of the sentence that is a very basic comprehension of the English language tells you.

It is amusing you believe otherwise.

Carry on making gak up, your argument is still without merit. You are ignoring the context of a rule to remove "return control" from context and state "full" control was taken in the first place. Which is false, and has been demonstrated to be so.

I agree with Nosferatu on this one.

The complete and willful ignorance of the parameters of control that MSS directs is almost infuriating as it makes any debate impossible. How can you have a RAW discussion with someone that willfully ignores the very wording and stated conditions/intentions of a rule?

Page 8 gives you the general overview of controlling a players models. The rules for MSS specify a specific set of actions that are given to a controlling player. The pro-stance has devolved into arbitrarily making up a rule to continue making their argument. That is a lost argument and a lost cause.

I happen to agree with Yad. Does not the ability to benefit from 'any' ability on the weapon in the context of being in 'control' of what weapon is used allow one to decide 'how' the abilities on the weapon itself are used?

At that point, activating the Force USR and then following 'its' rules seems inevitable.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
I agree with Nosferatu on this one.

The complete and willful ignorance of the parameters of control that MSS directs is almost infuriating as it makes any debate impossible. How can you have a RAW discussion with someone that willfully ignores the very wording and stated conditions/intentions of a rule?

Page 8 gives you the general overview of controlling a players models. The rules for MSS specify a specific set of actions that are given to a controlling player. The pro-stance has devolved into arbitrarily making up a rule to continue making their argument. That is a lost argument and a lost cause.

Seems like a whole lot of whining with very little substance.

Pg.8 establishes what a Controlling Player and an Opposing Player is. It specifies that a Controlling Player can encounter a rule that could require him to take an action or make a decision.

In the rules for MSS (I'm talking about actual rules not fluff) there are only two instances where it mentions control. The first is directly related to the Controlling Player of the MSS bearing model (Paraphrasing: the controller of the scarabs chooses the weapon). The second in in reference to who has control of the affected model. You need to understand what is meant by having control of a model. That's what pg.8 provides. The MSS rule however does not give you carte blanche. MSS only works during a limited time period (the fight sub-phase) and for a specific action (choosing the CC weapon the affectedm model will use). So though you are the Controlling Player, you are restricted in the actions you can take. The point of this is that the Force USR, which can be 'accessed' by MSS, and the choice to activate Force when the model is affected by MSS belongs to the MSS controller.

You obviously disagree with my assessment of the rules in question. Discounting my position in its entirety then, I would still suggest your take on the rules is incorrect. MSS gives access to any ability of the chosen weapon. As soon as the MSS player says that the Force USR will be used, the decision to activate it has been made. The rules for Force then necessitate the expenditure of a warp charge and a psychic test.

-Yad

Edit: removed some hyperbolic comments regarding Tyr's near descent into anger about a game with little toy soldiers

Yad wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
I agree with Nosferatu on this one.

The complete and willful ignorance of the parameters of control that MSS directs is almost infuriating as it makes any debate impossible. How can you have a RAW discussion with someone that willfully ignores the very wording and stated conditions/intentions of a rule?

Page 8 gives you the general overview of controlling a players models. The rules for MSS specify a specific set of actions that are given to a controlling player. The pro-stance has devolved into arbitrarily making up a rule to continue making their argument. That is a lost argument and a lost cause.

Seems like a whole lot of whining with very little substance.

Pg.8 establishes what a Controlling Player and an Opposing Player is. It specifies that a Controlling Player can encounter a rule that could require him to take an action or make a decision.

In the rules for MSS (I'm talking about actual rules not fluff) there are only two instances where it mentions control. The first is directly related to the Controlling Player of the MSS bearing model (Paraphrasing: the controller of the scarabs chooses the weapon). The second in in reference to who has control of the affected model. You need to understand what is meant by having control of a model. That's what pg.8 provides. The MSS rule however does not give you carte blanche. MSS only works during a limited time period (the fight sub-phase) and for a specific action (choosing the CC weapon the affectedm model will use). So though you are the Controlling Player, you are restricted in the actions you can take. The point of this is that the Force USR, which can be 'accessed' by MSS, and the choice to activate Force when the model is affected by MSS belongs to the MSS controller.

You obviously disagree with my assessment of the rules in question. Discounting my position in its entirety then, I would still suggest your take on the rules is incorrect. MSS gives access to any ability of the chosen weapon. As soon as the MSS player says that the Force USR will be used, the decision to activate it has been made. The rules for Force then necessitate the expenditure of a warp charge and a psychic test.

-Yad

Edit: removed some hyperbolic comments regarding Tyr's near descent into anger about a game with little toy soldiers

Nice edit.

You remove hyperbolic comments by editing one in.

Just for the record, I am not infuriated about a game of toy soldiers, but by your willful ignorance by you in the course of debate. The topic could be about the wording of a nuclear arms ban against Iran or the proper way to bake cupcakes, and I would still be appalled by your debate methodology of willful ignorance and creation of rules to support your argument.

I think this is starting to get out of hand...what does that one mod keep posting? Dakka rule #1 Be Polite?

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Yad wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
I agree with Nosferatu on this one.

The complete and willful ignorance of the parameters of control that MSS directs is almost infuriating as it makes any debate impossible. How can you have a RAW discussion with someone that willfully ignores the very wording and stated conditions/intentions of a rule?

Page 8 gives you the general overview of controlling a players models. The rules for MSS specify a specific set of actions that are given to a controlling player. The pro-stance has devolved into arbitrarily making up a rule to continue making their argument. That is a lost argument and a lost cause.

Seems like a whole lot of whining with very little substance.

Pg.8 establishes what a Controlling Player and an Opposing Player is. It specifies that a Controlling Player can encounter a rule that could require him to take an action or make a decision.

In the rules for MSS (I'm talking about actual rules not fluff) there are only two instances where it mentions control. The first is directly related to the Controlling Player of the MSS bearing model (Paraphrasing: the controller of the scarabs chooses the weapon). The second in in reference to who has control of the affected model. You need to understand what is meant by having control of a model. That's what pg.8 provides. The MSS rule however does not give you carte blanche. MSS only works during a limited time period (the fight sub-phase) and for a specific action (choosing the CC weapon the affectedm model will use). So though you are the Controlling Player, you are restricted in the actions you can take. The point of this is that the Force USR, which can be 'accessed' by MSS, and the choice to activate Force when the model is affected by MSS belongs to the MSS controller.

You obviously disagree with my assessment of the rules in question. Discounting my position in its entirety then, I would still suggest your take on the rules is incorrect. MSS gives access to any ability of the chosen weapon. As soon as the MSS player says that the Force USR will be used, the decision to activate it has been made. The rules for Force then necessitate the expenditure of a warp charge and a psychic test.

-Yad

Edit: removed some hyperbolic comments regarding Tyr's near descent into anger about a game with little toy soldiers

Nice edit.

You remove hyperbolic comments by editing one in.

Socrates' Apology

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Just for the record, I am not infuriated about a game of toy soldiers, but by your willful ignorance by you in the course of debate. The topic could be about the wording of a nuclear arms ban against Iran or the proper way to bake cupcakes, and I would still be appalled by your debate methodology of willful ignorance and creation of rules to support your argument.

Thanks for the clarification. I suppose that you may also realize that the opposition may feel the same about your 'reasoning'? Which is why comments like yours really serve no useful purpose. I think that my, and like-minded folks, arguments have been well reasoned. Citing rules where and when appropriate, offering examples and scenarios to facilitate understanding of how the two rules in question interact. I certainly don't mind disagreement. Opposing viewpoints can often introduce points of view that I haven't yet considered. Charges of 'willful ignorance' and appalling debating seem a tad to outside the norm though.

-Yad

edit: for structure and clarity

Sadly there has been a fair lot of that, comments which call the credibility of the poster and/or their debating style into question rather than addressing the points they've raised.

I think at this point i'm going to try to summarize the (legitimate, as i see it) arguments for and against to see if there is anything new left to discuss.

Against:
1) The activation of (ie: 'choice' inherent in) the Force USR is a voluntary action and one which is the psykers' (ie: the owning players') choice.
2) The control granted by MSS does not extend to making optional choices for the weapon properties of effected models
3) The control granted by MSS does not extend to making optional choices for the Force weapon property specifically due to it being a Psychic power, but may extend to other optional choices.

For:
1) Control of the psyker model is granted (in an admittedly less than fully-defined fashion) to the controller of the MSS.
2) The controller of MSS is granted access to 'any' of the benefits and penalties of the weapon, including the optional ones. In order for the latter option to be relevent, the controller of the MSS must be able to make choices for them.
3) The effected model is the one attacking his or her victims. Therefore choices should be made in accordance with the most efficent way for the model to do so. (ie: likely in the best interests of the necron player and to the detriment of the owning player)

Did i miss anything?

Other than a bit of name calling, I think that's it.

Neo - I would argue that control is not "less than well defined" - the elements of control are rigidly defined by the MSS rule

Choosing to activate a force weapon is NOT within that delegated control.

Yad wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear enough here. I'm establishing what the pre-conditions would be to be able to use the Force USR

No problem good sir, I follow you there. :3

Yad wrote:You've twisted you statement here a bit. You start by saying that you have a decision to be made regarding whether or not to activate Force. You finish by saying that you can't choose to spend a charge and take a test. These are two different things. The MSS player cannot directly choose to spend a warp charge and take a psychic test on behalf of the affected model. The MSS can choose to activate Force. The Force rule then requires the model to spend a charge and take a test.

Your point only comes out at the end here on this one. Im not going to point out the logical falicy with a Decision and Choice not being the same thing at the start here. The last bit here is what concerns me with the point your making. Your stating that Force as its written "forces" this test. Reread the rule. It states that the point is spent and test made if the Psyker chooses. If you can tell me that the rule reads that this charge must be used, and the ensuing test (that will) be taken are a mandatory (no choice) thing. I want your BRB cause thats not what mine says or in English. Again, the very first sentence of the rule states that a choice can be made. The rule once more:

Pg 27 BRB, first line of Force wrote:
if a Psyker inflicts on or more unsaved Wounds with a Force weapon, he can immediately choose to activate it by expending a Warp Charge point and taking a Psychic test (see page 67).

The underlined portion is what the Necron player is unable to do. Not just because they are not the psyker model, but once again, page eights rule comes back and states that if a rule calls for the model to make a choice, its the owning players model and they are the ones who make the choice. This choice lies outside what MSS has given you permission to dictate. Its outlined boundries that its confined to (and trumps page eight) is the Strength, Initiative (due in part to resolving swings in the Fight Sub-phase), Weapons, and lastly, Special rules on those weapons. To demonstrate this as it works;

You declare your using Force (as you have permission to do). We now move to the rule to resolve it and the models owner gets to make the decision and that can be yes, or no.

You do not get to decide this, the model's owner does. Why? Us, the Necron players have trumped page eights Controlling Player Vs Opposing Player up to this very point. The rule itself calls for a choice to spend that point, ect. Due to this choice, the models owner now gets to decide as once again, we the Necrons do not have permission to decide within the rule. We may only state we are going to use this rule. This rule calls for a choice within itself and that second choice is out of MSS' defined parameters that have allowed it to trump Controlling Player Vs Opposing Player.

Yad wrote:Close. You (the Necron player) are considered the Controlling Player first and foremost. Second to that you are only provided the power to choose which weapon the affected model may wield. Should an ability of that weapon require a decision to be made, you as the Controlling Player may do so. Why? Because it's a matter of inheritance (if you're familiar with programming ) As the Controlling Player you are allowed to make decisions and take actions for the models you control.

Yes, MSS only allows you to choose the weapon to be used. It also allows you to use any ability that the weapon may have. That permission right there directly correlates to how the Controlling Player can make decisions and take actions for the model.

You (the Necron player) have control over the model with the outlined parameters that MSS has outlined. Full control is not listed within the rule for MSS and you can not assume so because it was given permissions to a few items. To do so is a leap of faith and breaks the rules. Programing has no sway over this discussion Yad, use the rules and argue your point with the BRB and proper English. I agree with the last statement here. Ive outlined just above why your not allowed to resolve Force with MSS. It simply does not allow you to make that decision to spend the point, ect. You can declare your using the rule for each unsaved wound, but the end result will be the owner saying "No, no, and no for that last attack".

Yad wrote:I think you're wrong here. As the MSS rules explicitly say you must return control to the owning player it ties in directly to pg.8.

Sure does, You still have been trumping this rule for the majority of the phase due to Codex vs BRB. MSS is very explicit that the model returns to the owner at the end otherwise its status each Fight Sub-phase would remain under the MSS control. This doesnt conflict with that rule in any way.

I also know the Pro-side is going to try to take my first point apart as the will feel that theres a flaw to it. There isnt. I have covered my point that way for proper English' sake. Choosing to use the rule does not arbitrarily force the rule to automatically resolve. Nor in the fashion they are describing. Lastly, to state at any point within this discussion that the Necron player is in full control of the model if MSS is resolved successfully is incorrect. It would have stated that within its own wording of the rule.
It has not, therefore, you may not.

Some where along the way this discussion has lost its way .

OK the point is simple Can the Necron player using MSS activate a force weapon ?

Can the player of the Model being controlled then choose not to activate the force weapon ?

Once you activate force the following must be done, the spending of a warp charge and the taking of a psychic test ,can you after choosing to activate force, choose not to use a warp charge or take a psychic Test ?

Answer the 3 questions using RAW and then not matter what your argument is you will all come to the same conclusion .

snakel wrote:
Some where along the way this discussion has lost its way .

OK the point is simple Can the Necron player using MSS activate a force weapon ?

Can the player of the Model being controlled then choose not to activate the force weapon ?

Once you activate force the following must be done, the spending of a warp charge and the taking of a psychic test ,can you after choosing to activate force, choose not to use a warp charge or take a psychic Test ?

Answer the 3 questions using RAW and then not matter what your argument is you will all come to the same conclusion .

No, the Necron player is given permission to use the rule.

No, that decission that the rule calls for lies outside the Necron players limits. MSS was specific with what the player could control. They have permission to use the rule, the rule then calls for permission from the model to spend the point. This second choice is not defined as being controalable by MSS, therefore, it may not control this decision.

You state "im using Force", you follow the rule and that second choice falls to the owning player to make. He/she then chooses wether or not to activate the weapon per the rule as it is written. Those choices the owning player has is "Yes, spend the point and take the test" or "No, do not spend the point and do not take the test".They must answer however for each Unsaved Wound as the rule calls for.

Forget the Necron player, can you in the course of a game choose to activate force then after making that choice change your mind and choose not to spend a warp charge or take a psychic test ? if yes the against side wins, if no then the pro side wins

Activating force or not activating force for me, is the choice ,spending a warp charge and taking the test is not a choice .

While i can see both sides arguments re this issue RAW here is the discussion so using RAW you must follow RAW, so the only question here is can the player using MSS activate a force weapon answer this using RAW and the discussion can end

Ok. RAW, are you the Psyker?

The answer to that question is the correct answer.

Xzerios wrote:
Ok. RAW, are you the Psyker?

The answer to that question is the correct answer.

GK dreads activate force weapons without being a psyker.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
GK dreads activate force weapons without being a psyker.

Psycic Pilot grants them Psyker Mastery Level 1, giving them one point per turn. As a Nemesis force weapon, you must still use the rules outlined by Force to resolve the power.
Next.

Just FYI I haven't ignored the thread. I just feel less strongly about the position I held and therefore don't feel comfortable defending it anymore.

I wouldn't chalk it up as a win/concession, but I'm not fully in the MSS camp anymore either.

Xzerios wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
GK dreads activate force weapons without being a psyker.

Psycic Pilot grants them Psyker Mastery Level 1, giving them one point per turn. As a Nemesis force weapon, you must still use the rules outlined by Force to resolve the power.
Next.

Only for the purposes of tests. Not generating warp charges.

rigeld2 wrote:
Just FYI I haven't ignored the thread. I just feel less strongly about the position I held and therefore don't feel comfortable defending it anymore.

I wouldn't chalk it up as a win/concession, but I'm not fully in the MSS camp anymore either.

Nothing wrong with that. Would you care to tell us why you feel less strongly about what you thought earlier?

 Stoff3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Just FYI I haven't ignored the thread. I just feel less strongly about the position I held and therefore don't feel comfortable defending it anymore.

I wouldn't chalk it up as a win/concession, but I'm not fully in the MSS camp anymore either.

Nothing wrong with that. Would you care to tell us why you feel less strongly about what you thought earlier?

TBH nothing specific. I took the time to re-read every post in the thread and I'm just unsure.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Neo - I would argue that control is not "less than well defined" - the elements of control are rigidly defined by the MSS rule

Choosing to activate a force weapon is NOT within that delegated control.

Yes, and i respect your dedication to your opinion. That said I'd definately argue that fulfilling the requirement for access to 'any' of the weapons' properties renders it not as 'cut-and-dried' as you'd indicated.

In other words it's just as easy to say rules-wise that you can choose to activate a force weapon because you have access to every one of the weapons' abilities (ipso facto are in control of the model for this purpose) as it is to say you cannot choose to activate a force weapon because you are not the psyker's owning player.

Both are legitimate positions with rules-support that has already been brought forth, no?