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.

JinxDragon wrote:
Yep, hence the need for House Rules to do just that.

Yeah I kind of agree, there was at one time a correlation but there is no more it's been removed. I mean straight RAW I think it works the way I stated with you declaring a level then rolling the dice, but then it gets all funky.

1 warp charge, one 4+ success, 2d6 of shots; 2 warp charge, two 4+ success's , 3d6 worth of shots; 3 warp charges, three 4+ success's, 4d6 worth of shots.

Its pretty clear if intent even if not precisely worded, and its far to easy and common for someone to say "LOOK LOOK GW bad writing!!!!". We get it they write things poorly, to some.... But Cmon let it go, its clear how it is suppose to work. If we constantly twist meaning and argue the little metaphysical subtitles in the wording... We are going to force another 85$ rule book in 2 years LOL

You're going to have that anyway, it is a money source that Game Workshop loves to tap.

Tsilber wrote:
1 warp charge, one 4+ success, 2d6 of shots; 2 warp charge, two 4+ success's , 3d6 worth of shots; 3 warp charges, three 4+ success's, 4d6 worth of shots.

Its pretty clear if intent even if not precisely worded, and its far to easy and common for someone to say "LOOK LOOK GW bad writing!!!!". We get it they write things poorly, to some.... But Cmon let it go, its clear how it is suppose to work. If we constantly twist meaning and argue the little metaphysical subtitles in the wording... We are going to force another 85$ rule book in 2 years LOL

No it's actually the opposite of clear , like opaque. Opaque is a nice word for it.

Seriously, actually read what people have written previously. It actually becomes broken at a certain point because it's own rules limit how many warp charge you can use on it. So yeah, you could charge it a Level 3 I guess but then you'd have to roll only 3 dice.

Then if you have it at level 1 an you expend 3 warp charge , what's it do then.

Hollismason wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
1 warp charge, one 4+ success, 2d6 of shots; 2 warp charge, two 4+ success's , 3d6 worth of shots; 3 warp charges, three 4+ success's, 4d6 worth of shots.

Its pretty clear if intent even if not precisely worded, and its far to easy and common for someone to say "LOOK LOOK GW bad writing!!!!". We get it they write things poorly, to some.... But Cmon let it go, its clear how it is suppose to work. If we constantly twist meaning and argue the little metaphysical subtitles in the wording... We are going to force another 85$ rule book in 2 years LOL

No it's actually the opposite of clear , like opaque. Opaque is a nice word for it.

Seriously, actually read what people have written previously. It actually becomes broken at a certain point because it's own rules limit how many warp charge you can use on it. So yeah, you could charge it a Level 3 I guess but then you'd have to roll only 3 dice.

Then if you have it at level 1 an you expend 3 warp charge , what's it do then.

Sure if it reads opaque to you then it read opaque to you. Read as you like, free country man. I read it as not to difficult to understand what they imply or intent, also how its intended/run in pick up games i played from others, friendly games and at the few tournies I been to since 7th. I read what others wrote, same ole argument one side will find the fun, intent and agreeable meaning with said opponent, one side will blame GW for not clearly writing the rule out with no question to debate even the slightest. This is a you make the call, i made my call.. Spell is capped at 3 warp charges, so as i stated I have run it and seen it run as I explained up above.

Its not a issue of me reading it wrong, you can't tell me that as it is written right now it actually functions, its a leftover psychic from 6th that just doens't really quiet work in 7th rules because of the way 7th redid psychic powers without some major changes by your own self to the rules itself.

Previously there was a way to say " yes if you spent 3 warp charge you could use it to cast a Warp Charge 3 spell", it doesn't work that way, anyone using this spell now is house ruling it. There's no intent there it literally was not written for the new edition at all. It raises a ton of questions etc..

Sure it's obvious that yea if you mess around with it a bit and say disregard that disregard this you can get it to work but you're just making up your own rules to play it as the rest of us have done.

This was written the intent of being a 6th edition spell.

Like you are literally making up your own rules , others have come up with the way they think it should be run but when it comes down to it. It's us making up our own rules for it.

JinxDragon wrote:
Fragile,
Where are you getting permission to declare how many Points the Power costs, as opposed to how many Warp Charges you wish to use on it?

The spell is designed to be a variable level spell. You have a choice of spending 1,2,3 WC on the spell. Based on how you declared the spell was going to be cast you then have to generate an equal amount of WC with your dice roll.

If you say you want to use 2 WC on FF, then you simply roll and hope you get two 4+. If you do, you resolve the spell. 36d shots.

Either way the the RAW interpretation makes FF worse then the RAI interpretation

In Seventh Edition the cost of the Power is no longer directionally proportional to the amount of Warp Charges used to manifest it.
As Permission exists to use up to any number of available Warp Charges to Manifest Powers, it is no longer possible to use the number of Warp Charges being used as any sort of meaningful measurement to how many successes are required. A player would be able to spend half a dozen Warp Charge attempting to Manifest a two Point Power without it changing the Point cost of the Power in question. Therefore a Restriction, which is what that section has become, limiting the number of Warp Charges that can be used on this task would be just as valuable to trying to determine the cost of the Power so you know how many successes are required.

I would consult your FAQ to see if this spell is even accesible still.

A lot of older gak that doesnt work can not even be cast anymore.

Orkz come to mind.

They can now ONLY cast deamonology and not their usual gak.

 Awfeel wrote:
I would consult your FAQ to see if this spell is even accesible still.

A lot of older gak that doesnt work can not even be cast anymore.

Orkz come to mind.

They can now ONLY cast deamonology and not their usual gak.

This is clearly not the case, Only the 5ed and 4ed books lost their book powers.

JinxDragon wrote:
In Seventh Edition the cost of the Power is no longer directionally proportional to the amount of Warp Charges used to manifest it.
As Permission exists to use up to any number of available Warp Charges to Manifest Powers, it is no longer possible to use the number of Warp Charges being used as any sort of meaningful measurement to how many successes are required. A player would be able to spend half a dozen Warp Charge attempting to Manifest a two Point Power without it changing the Point cost of the Power in question. Therefore a Restriction, which is what that section has become, limiting the number of Warp Charges that can be used on this task would be just as valuable to trying to determine the cost of the Power so you know how many successes are required.

This is correct in regards to restrictions but I'd point out though that there is no restriction that states you cannot expend 3 Warp Charge ( the maximum you can use) to power a Level 1 Spell which would make the extra d6 kick in.

As we've both agreed on it's wonky as there's no more correlation between the spells level and Warp Charge expended, but we do know that we can in fact use it as a Level 1 spell and that the rules state we can expend extra warp charge to make it succeed.



I actually think this is the best way to play it right now as functionally it really makes its a gakky level 3 and a gakky level 2 as well. The only real chance to cast this is if you declare it a level 1.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Either way the the RAW interpretation makes FF worse then the RAI interpretation

RAW actually makes it "normal".

Your still expending 3 Warp Charge to "charge it".

I mean RAW the max you can use is 3 warp charge, but honestly that makes it basically almost impossible to cast it at a level 3. However casting a Level 1 at 3 Warp Charge still works RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Fragile,
Where are you getting permission to declare how many Points the Power costs, as opposed to how many Warp Charges you wish to use on it?

The spell is designed to be a variable level spell. You have a choice of spending 1,2,3 WC on the spell. Based on how you declared the spell was going to be cast you then have to generate an equal amount of WC with your dice roll.

If you say you want to use 2 WC on FF, then you simply roll and hope you get two 4+. If you do, you resolve the spell. 36d shots.

It is but that is not RAW that's you trying to determine "intention" and it was intended to work that way in 6th but it just acts weird in 7th I think everyone agrees. I can't discern intent of this, it really is weird. It's specifically because of the way spells manifest now and how you manifest spells that this changes the whole rules for using this spell.

If we go with your interpretation then you'll have a like 22% chance to ever cast it as a level 3 , which I clearly do not think was intended with this spell. As you hit a ceiling max of 3 dice. Which is most certainly not the intention at all.

The intention was to tie the Manifestation dice to max out at 3 because that was the max level was 3 and that was how it was in 6th they didn't want you powering this somehow with more power to stop it from getting ridiculous. that's the intention of the restriction.

This was a spell that worked perfectly in 6th it's broken in 7th.

RAW , I can cast a level 1 Flickering Fire , expend 3 Warp Charge ( my maximum), get 1 success and because I expended more than 1 I get the 4D6. That's strictly RAW.

Now how I've been playing it and others have which is literally against the rules is to just treat it as a spell that can be a level 1 , level 2 , level 3 and then just use corresponding warp dice to cast it and just ignore the whole 1, 2, or 3 thing and that it can only max out at 4D6.

That is not RAW, that's RAI straight up and I think it will hopefully be faqed to say that cause I think that's fair.

Fragile wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Fragile,
Where are you getting permission to declare how many Points the Power costs, as opposed to how many Warp Charges you wish to use on it?

The spell is designed to be a variable level spell. You have a choice of spending 1,2,3 WC on the spell. Based on how you declared the spell was going to be cast you then have to generate an equal amount of WC with your dice roll.

If you say you want to use 2 WC on FF, then you simply roll and hope you get two 4+. If you do, you resolve the spell. 36d shots.

I completely agree, and I don't really get the confusion around how it work any other way. The spell works the same way it did in 6th which, mind you, is how most things work in 7th. The spell got slightly better because now a 10man Pink Horror squad can cast it at 3WC for 4d6 shots, however it also got worse because of how its harder to cast Psychic Powers in general now (higher chance of failure, running out of dice in the Warp Charge pool etc).

GoonBandito wrote:

Fragile wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Fragile,
Where are you getting permission to declare how many Points the Power costs, as opposed to how many Warp Charges you wish to use on it?

The spell is designed to be a variable level spell. You have a choice of spending 1,2,3 WC on the spell. Based on how you declared the spell was going to be cast you then have to generate an equal amount of WC with your dice roll.

If you say you want to use 2 WC on FF, then you simply roll and hope you get two 4+. If you do, you resolve the spell. 36d shots.

I completely agree, and I don't really get the confusion around how it work any other way. The spell works the same way it did in 6th which, mind you, is how most things work in 7th. The spell got slightly better because now a 10man Pink Horror squad can cast it at 3WC for 4d6 shots, however it also got worse because of how its harder to cast Psychic Powers in general now (higher chance of failure, running out of dice in the Warp Charge pool etc).

Yeah uh there's no way that you can play it that way here are your odds

1 Dice at 1 Warp charge - 50%
2 Dice at 2 Warp Charge - 25%
3 Dice at 3 Warp Charge - 12.50%

The rules clearly state that you can manifest a lower level spell with more Warp charge , the spell states your max you can use toe manifest is 3, you most certainly can expend 3 Warp Charge to cast it at level 1.There's no real argument to make other than a RAI. RAW this is how it has to be played. Then there's all kinds of weird things with like where does it include rules for using powers that are 1-3? cause that gak is not covered at all in the new rules. It worked in sixth, but as has been pointed out we aren't given any correlation or rules to follow in 7th for this at all. It's just a weird damn spell.

Also, I'll add in that by saying it is played that way you are denying it the rule that you can use more than one warp charge to cast a lower level , something specifically against the rules.

At this point I think this is a RAI argument.

I think a fair trade is what I'd stated earlier just treat it as one spell that can be manifested as a level 1, 2 ,3 spell and ignore the stupid 1,2,3 limitation.

Edit: wrong thread.

Hollismason wrote:
RAW , I can cast a level 1 Flickering Fire , expend 3 Warp Charge ( my maximum), get 1 success and because I expended more than 1 I get the 4D6. That's strictly RAW.

Not strictly. Remember there is currently no rules support for being able to designate it as being a level 1 power. Or a level 2 or 3 power for that matter.

Bottom line is that in terms of RAW it's currently broken and you can't use it without invoking some sort of house rule.

After reading this thread I will play it as the rules state: a level 1 power that cast 4d6 shots if you use 3 dice to manifest it.

Good riddance, even with 4d6 shots its a unreliable, frustrating piece of work. No way Im making it a lv3 power and use up 6 dice to kill 3 orks and give a whole blob fnp.

I suppose it will be changed into lv1, 2, and 3 powers (because honestly, thats the obvious intent) but untill then it actually usefull.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
RAW , I can cast a level 1 Flickering Fire , expend 3 Warp Charge ( my maximum), get 1 success and because I expended more than 1 I get the 4D6. That's strictly RAW.

Not strictly. Remember there is currently no rules support for being able to designate it as being a level 1 power. Or a level 2 or 3 power for that matter.

Bottom line is that in terms of RAW it's currently broken and you can't use it without invoking some sort of house rule.

The only way to use it is to state what level you are using it at, you do not have the option to pick it being a level 1, 2, 3 spell at the same time. Just by simple elimination we know that it cannot be a fractional number and that in order to resolve it we have to pick a whole number that is in the range that it stated. That's actual rules as written which is what the dash is.

Of course you can argue that there is actually no definition of what 1-3 means but just grammatically if we are told something is X A-Z we know it's range and what it can be.

But yes, there is actually no functional method for saying , this is it's spell level as it's not actually explained anywhere what a 1-3 means we have to use our own interpretation of what 1-3 means which is pretty easy to figure out.

The BRB tells us what manifesting is and we choose how many WC fore the attempt. Flickering Fire tells us that if we manifest it with three dice is has 4d6 shots. That is a RAW and cannot be argued, harnessed WC has no impact on flickering Fire, except how it is manifested. We also have a hard limit on how many dice we can use to attempt to Manifest the power.

Now, the problem is how many successes or harnessed WC are required to cast Flickering Fire. Nothing, except the "Warp Charge 1-3" remains. Manifesting is very different in 7th and does not directly alter that number anymore. Using 3 Dice to manifest the power is not the same as requiring 3 Harnessed WC. The default was 1 WC and with no permission to increase the number of required harnessed WC it stays there until FAQed.

Using 3WC to manifest Flickering Fire requires 1 Harnessed WC and has 4d6 shots. That's the only usable interpretation. Anything else, requires inventing rules or adding rules back that no longer exist.

Manifesting using 3WC is very clear, it's rolling three dice. Nothing is left that increases our required successes.

 Zagman wrote:
The BRB tells us what manifesting is and we choose how many WC fore the attempt. Flickering Fire tells us that if we manifest it with three dice is has 4d6 shots. That is a RAW and cannot be argued, harnessed WC has no impact on flickering Fire, except how it is manifested. We also have a hard limit on how many dice we can use to attempt to Manifest the power.

Now, the problem is how many successes or harnessed WC are required to cast Flickering Fire. Nothing, except the "Warp Charge 1-3" remains. Manifesting is very different in 7th and does not directly alter that number anymore. Using 3 Dice to manifest the power is not the same as requiring 3 Harnessed WC. The default was 1 WC and with no permission to increase the number of required harnessed WC it stays there until FAQed.

Using 3WC to manifest Flickering Fire requires 1 Harnessed WC and has 4d6 shots. That's the only usable interpretation. Anything else, requires inventing rules or adding rules back that no longer exist.

Manifesting using 3WC is very clear, it's rolling three dice. Nothing is left that increases our required successes.

I kind of agree with this as well and it makes a good point about the 1-3. Any altering of it requires us to basically rewrite the spell.

I would changing using to expending and expend it.

Its basically HIWPI at this point. There's the RAW version, the version others have been using. RAW it does function that way absolutely.

You can run into some weird arguments with the whole 1-3 but that's easily enough addressed regardless of whether we are told what that means, we know it does not mean its a Warp Charge 1 , 2 , 3 spell.

It isn't a definition of 1-3 that is the problem, it is the lack of permission to simply declare that it is a 'level 1 power.'

JinxDragon wrote:
It isn't a definition of 1-3 that is the problem, it is the lack of permission to simply declare that it is a 'level 1 power.'

There's no step to declare what level of power you are using correct? Yes, I had seen that as a problem as well however I'd stated earlier that we know that once we eliminate all illogical options that do not work the only solution we are left is with the option to do so.

We can't pick any numbers but 1 ,2 , or 3. We know we can not pick them all at once because it cannot at the same time be a Level 1 , 2, or 3. We also know we cannot pick a fraction as it does not function in the rule frame.

So all we're left is the to pick either 1, 2, or 3 as the spells level and cast it accordingly.

This isn't a absence of a rule , I actually checked the 6th and there is no mention that i can find of a type of spell or how to treat a spell that is 1 -3. If anyone was wondering. So yeah by that argument it didn't function in 6th either as it never gives you permission.

In fact the rules state :

For each individual result of 4+, the Psyker has successfully harnessed one Warp Charge point. If the total number of harnessed Warp Charge points is greater than or equal to the Warp Charge cost stated in the psychic power’s description, the Psychic test is successful

In fact I'd say the opposite is true as it is 1-3 then we know that a success is in fact a 1 , 2 , or a 3. So this all may actually be a little pointless. We know that each of those numbers satisfies a success however ,we also know that not making that number means a failure.

This statement may in fact mean that the spell is always "broken" as it has multiple statements on what it's Warp Charge is so unless you do cast it at a level 3 with 3 dice and get 3 successes , it would fail even if you cast it at Level 1 which I disagree with but I think it's perfectly valid argument.

At this point we're trying to discern what they mean by Level 1-3. As it's not stated anywhere how to interpret it, we have to assume they mean pick one of those numbers for the spell level which is our only option to do. That may be a mix of RAI and RAW but functionally if you don't the spell just doesn't work it seems as the only option you have is casting it at level 3 with 3 dice and succeeding, because that implies the spell is all of those levels at once which get's into this weird ethereal argument on the nature of the spell itself and whether a spell can be level 1 etc..

All we can conclude is it has to be one of the three, that does not give us permission to decide which of the three it actually is.

JinxDragon wrote:
All we can conclude is it has to be one of the three, that does not give us permission to decide which of the three it actually is.

Agreed. Needs an Errata.

There is also no justification for claiming the default WC cost of FF is 1. If this were the case it would be listed as WC1.

JinxDragon wrote:
In Seventh Edition the cost of the Power is no longer directionally proportional to the amount of Warp Charges used to manifest it.
As Permission exists to use up to any number of available Warp Charges to Manifest Powers, it is no longer possible to use the number of Warp Charges being used as any sort of meaningful measurement to how many successes are required.

While true, this has nothing to do with the issue.

A player would be able to spend half a dozen Warp Charge attempting to Manifest a two Point Power without it changing the Point cost of the Power in question. Therefore a Restriction, which is what that section has become, limiting the number of Warp Charges that can be used on this task would be just as valuable to trying to determine the cost of the Power so you know how many successes are required.

""A Psyker must pass a Psychic test to see if he can harness the power of the Warp. To make a Psychic test, you will first need to expend a number of Warp Charge points; declare how many points you are spending and remove them from your pool. Then, roll a number of D6 equal to the number of Warp Charge points you have expended.

For each individual result of 4+, the Psyker has successfully harnessed one Warp Charge point. If the total number of harnessed Warp Charge points is greater than or equal to the Warp Charge cost [u]stated in the psychic power’s description, the Psychic test is successful""


Warp Charges are what you generate. You declare FF to be cast as WC3. Then you pick any number of dice from your pool and roll. If you get 3 or more 4+, it is successful. If not, it fails.

JinxDragon wrote:
Yep, hence the need for House Rules to do just that.
Congrats on finding a broken scenario by the way, not as hilarious as Tanks climbing ladders in Sixth Edition's Battlement Rules but another to add to the list.

We've still got a week of flying Bomb Squigs before the codex is updated, too.

Fragile wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
In Seventh Edition the cost of the Power is no longer directionally proportional to the amount of Warp Charges used to manifest it.
As Permission exists to use up to any number of available Warp Charges to Manifest Powers, it is no longer possible to use the number of Warp Charges being used as any sort of meaningful measurement to how many successes are required.

While true, this has nothing to do with the issue.

A player would be able to spend half a dozen Warp Charge attempting to Manifest a two Point Power without it changing the Point cost of the Power in question. Therefore a Restriction, which is what that section has become, limiting the number of Warp Charges that can be used on this task would be just as valuable to trying to determine the cost of the Power so you know how many successes are required.

""A Psyker must pass a Psychic test to see if he can harness the power of the Warp. To make a Psychic test, you will first need to expend a number of Warp Charge points; declare how many points you are spending and remove them from your pool. Then, roll a number of D6 equal to the number of Warp Charge points you have expended.

For each individual result of 4+, the Psyker has successfully harnessed one Warp Charge point. If the total number of harnessed Warp Charge points is greater than or equal to the Warp Charge cost [u]stated in the psychic power’s description, the Psychic test is successful""


Warp Charges are what you generate. You declare FF to be cast as WC3. Then you pick any number of dice from your pool and roll. If you get 3 or more 4+, it is successful. If not, it fails.

This isn't a actually the crux of the debate, the problem is that with the new rules the wording of the spell restricts it to only being allowed to manifest using 1, 2, 3 warp charge. The other portion is that you can expend Warp charge above a spells casting cost, something previously not able to do in 6th. Which would mean you could expend 3 Warp Charge for a Level 1 spell which in turn would mean it was 4d6. I hope this clears that up on what we are discussing.

Fragile wrote:
You declare FF to be cast as WC3. Then you pick any number of dice from your pool and roll. If you get 3 or more 4+, it is successful. If not, it fails.

This is HIWPI but you can't actually do this if you follow the RAW for the FF power.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
All we can conclude is it has to be one of the three, that does not give us permission to decide which of the three it actually is.

Agreed. Needs an Errata.

There is also no justification for claiming the default WC cost of FF is 1. If this were the case it would be listed as WC1.

This is a little bit flawed in the logic, because we know we have to pick one of those three. Not that we must choose a specific one, we just know that 1 of those 3 has to be the spell cost. There doesn't actually need to be a rule saying pick one of those three because we know through deduction that it can't be all 3 numbers at the same time. It can only be one of those numbers which we have to pick in order to cast the spell. This is like saying " You have 3 choices, ice cream , pizza, or hamburgers. You have to have one of those choices", we don't need to actually say " You must select one" because just through grammar we know our only choice is to pick one of those three once as we cannot pick all three. I hope this helps.

I don't think anyone is actually debating what you are debating so I am not sure what you are referencing that it has to be a level 1 spell. It actuall is a 1, 2, 3 level spell.

Also I stated earlier it is actually broken a bit because 1-3 means literally it is a 1 , 2, 3 warp charge spell which can actually be argued that you need 3 successes to cast a level 1 spell.

It most certainly is broken but you can get it to work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
You declare FF to be cast as WC3. Then you pick any number of dice from your pool and roll. If you get 3 or more 4+, it is successful. If not, it fails.

This is HIWPI but you can't actually do this if you follow the RAW for the FF power.

This is hiwpi now actually, even though it's totally against it's own rules, I just think it's fair. I mean yeah if you want to play it the other way nothing really prevents you from doing it as I've given the exact reason why you don't need it to tell you that you can pick what level it is because you actually have to pick a level and you can't pick multiple levels.

Hollismason wrote:
[


This isn't a actually the crux of the debate, the problem is that with the new rules the wording of the spell restricts it to only being allowed to manifest using 1, 2, 3 warp charge. The other portion is that you can expend Warp charge above a spells casting cost, something previously not able to do in 6th. Which would mean you could expend 3 Warp Charge for a Level 1 spell which in turn would mean it was 4d6. I hope this clears that up on what we are discussing.

Ok, I see your first part now. The problem with that is that all 6th powers were Warp Charge Points and there is no Warp Charge Cost. So by that logic no 6th edition codex power works. And that applies to the second part as well.