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.

Except nobody was actually saying that the rules are deliberately vague. Just that they are vague.

Your point here seems to be 'the writer intended the rules to work, so we should assume my interpretation is correct, because it's the one that I think makes the most sense.'

The problem is, there are several different ways that this could have been intended to work, and we have no actual clue which is correct beyond guesswork.

Having 'implied consent' to read the rules in a way that makes them function doesn't actually make the rules functional.

Hollismason wrote:
You cannot fundamentally approach the rules from a mindset that author is being purposefully vague. You have to in fact approach the rules as I stated earlier " the best outcome with the least harm". Why? Because if you start approaching the rules from that standpoint you will not be able to functionally play the game.

Sure - now, why is your definition of "best outcome" the "right" one? There's no other outcome that could possibly be what they meant (and therefore the best)? Are you really sure?

If the author had intended to make it so that Psykers could not join other units and use psychic powers, something that has never happened in 6 editions of Warhammer 40k, and is literally a upheaval and major change to the way that independent characters join squads, why would they be vague about that?

This huge major change in the rules, but they don't specify this?

No, that doesn't make sense. We're talking about a change that has never in the multiple editions of the game ever happened.


Is a psyker joining a squad and being unable to use his abilities the best outcome from that? No it's certainly not which is why I say when a situation is vague look at it from the standpoint of "best outcome with the least harm". It's the best way to interpret the rules, as generally that's what we know to be true and generally what comes out in the FAQs.

That's not the only other interpretation. It's surely the worst one, but another one is that multiple psykers in the same unit cannot attempt to cast the same power. Equally as valid as "every man for himself" and also potentially what was intended.

coredump wrote:


The rules are *very* clear that a unit with multiple psykers in it can't attempt the same power more than once.
But other rules break if you use that definition.... So do you only change the rules that don't work as written (ie perils) or do you *also* change the rules that do work as written (ie the thread topic)

Personal opinion I think, though the route of less rule changing is usually proffered =).

Anyway after playing 7th it feels a lot harder to get any powers off in the first place. I now use 3/4 warp charges to be able to cast a warp charge 2 power.... More psykers will produce diminishing returns through the maximum extra warps up to 6.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not the only other interpretation. It's surely the worst one, but another one is that multiple psykers in the same unit cannot attempt to cast the same power. Equally as valid as "every man for himself" and also potentially what was intended.

The rules for psykers are not vague when you approach it in a optimistic frame, why do we need that ? Well, we need that statement because they want us to know that a psyker can not keep trying to manifest a power over and over again. That's it. The best outcome? " Psykers can't keep trying to manifest a power over and over again", which leads to the least harm to the psyker.

It's honestly just a difference of approaching the rules with the mindset of optimistic and not pessimistic view.
I mean that's literally what I mean when I say " Try to interpret the best out come with least amount of harm".
A lot of people approach the rules as if they're a complex puzzle to be solved, their not. Taking that approach makes them a puzzle.

I think when you think positively and approach it that way you'll find the rules do actually function and you'll have less trouble with understanding it, but if you approach it with a negative mindframe something that people here do seem to have then you'll have difficulty.

It's kind of a tangent but thats just what we're discussing and it's a good discussion because I think discussing how we approach the rules is important.

Hollismason wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not the only other interpretation. It's surely the worst one, but another one is that multiple psykers in the same unit cannot attempt to cast the same power. Equally as valid as "every man for himself" and also potentially what was intended.

It's honestly just a difference of approaching the rules with the mindset of optimistic and not pessimistic view.
I mean that's literally what I mean when I say " Try to interpret the best out come with least amount of harm".
A lot of people approach the rules as if their a complex puzzle to be solved, they're not. Taking that approach makes them a puzzle.

I think when you think positively and approach it that way you'll find the rules do actually function and you'll have less trouble with understanding it, but if you approach it with a negative mindframe something that people here do seem to have then you'll have difficulty.

It's kind of a tangent but thats just what we're discussing and it's a good discussion because I think discussing how we approach the rules is important.

Yes, if you approach them knowing what you want them to say, they'll say that.
If you approach them with no opinion of what you want them to say, they'll say something different.

The proper way to read rules is the latter. The former leads to your bias being inserted into rules discussions, which is bad form.

rigeld2 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not the only other interpretation. It's surely the worst one, but another one is that multiple psykers in the same unit cannot attempt to cast the same power. Equally as valid as "every man for himself" and also potentially what was intended.

It's honestly just a difference of approaching the rules with the mindset of optimistic and not pessimistic view.
I mean that's literally what I mean when I say " Try to interpret the best out come with least amount of harm".
A lot of people approach the rules as if their a complex puzzle to be solved, they're not. Taking that approach makes them a puzzle.

I think when you think positively and approach it that way you'll find the rules do actually function and you'll have less trouble with understanding it, but if you approach it with a negative mindframe something that people here do seem to have then you'll have difficulty.

It's kind of a tangent but thats just what we're discussing and it's a good discussion because I think discussing how we approach the rules is important.

Yes, if you approach them knowing what you want them to say, they'll say that.
If you approach them with no opinion of what you want them to say, they'll say something different.

The proper way to read rules is the latter. The former leads to your bias being inserted into rules discussions, which is bad form.

Which is why I advocate not approaching the rules as a puzzle, but when having a question , take a positive outlook. No one here is a robot, everyone is going to approach the rules with a certain bias whether emotionally or intellectually. You cannot claim to be unbiased, because it's human nature to in fact have emotion. I'm saying that if you find yourself frustrated take a positive outlook and re approach the issue.

Honestly, becoming frustrated with something actually makes it more difficult to understand. I see this all the time, someone won't specifically understand a problem and by being frustrated they get "locked" in this negative attitude toward what their doing which just builds on itself. What I always tell my students is to just step away move past that problem and focus on something else then re approach it.

Hollismason wrote:
Which is why I advocate not approaching the rules as a puzzle, but when having a question , take a positive outlook. No one here is a robot, everyone is going to approach the rules with a certain bias whether emotionally or intellectually. You cannot claim to be unbiased, because it's human nature to in fact have emotion. I'm saying that if you find yourself frustrated take a positive outlook and re approach the issue.

Honestly, becoming frustrated with something actually makes it more difficult to understand. I see this all the time, someone won't specifically understand a problem and by being frustrated they get "locked" in this negative attitude toward what their doing which just builds on itself. What I always tell my students is to just step away move past that problem and focus on something else then re approach it.

a) You're assuming I'm frustrated about the issue. You shouldn't. The only thing bothering me is how poorly GW writes rules - because that's what every example like this is.
b) Humans actually can remove bias from the equation.

And none of that has anything to do with why your method is the right way to do it.

It causes the least amount of harm and assumes the best which is why I think it's the best way to approach.

No, human beings cannot be unbiased about issues that directly concern or directly affect them as human beings exist in a reward/harm society.We can not care but that's not the same as being unbiased. We are naturally biased towards things that benefit us or enhance our happiness.

Hollismason wrote:
If the author had intended to make it so that Psykers could not join other units and use psychic powers, something that has never happened in 6 editions of Warhammer 40k, and is literally a upheaval and major change to the way that independent characters join squads, why would they be vague about that?

Because they didn't actually finish writing the psychic rules before they went to print?

Or, in other words, the same reason that Aegis Defense Line rules were incomplete last edition, and that one previous edition completely left out the vehicle access and fire points...


The thing here is that you seem to be arguing against the idea that the rules are purposely written to be unclear (a statement nobody ever actually made) with the argument that the rules are deliberately written to be unclear.

'Why' the rules are unclear is irrelevant. We know why: It's because GW don't care enough about their product to properly proof-read and edit their books before publishing. That has no impact on what the rules actually say, or how they should be interpreted.

I think it's a interesting argument, at least in how we approach the game and with what mentality.

While you see it as unclear, as to what the intention of that was. I don't.

I mean we're off on a new tangent, but I kind of feel the rules should not be approached from a negative viewpoint. Meaning that what's the negative result ?'The negative result is that Psychic Powers are broke through that interpretation.

I dunno, I think others have posted it but NOVA and others kind of view it the same way that the intention of Pskyer unit was to literally mean BrotherHood or other unit made entirely of Psykers, it could mean something else but which is more likely they intentionally wrote it unclear or you view it as unclear?

It came up in the Flickering Fire thing to, initially I was like " Oh this absolutely how it works".Then after a few pages it was pretty clear that it was just fundamentally kind of disfunctional and everyone was like well the intention has to be...

That's just my point when we approach it from a negative or like it is a "puzzle" we turn it into one. We may not mean to but it's what happens.

Hollismason wrote:
The negative result is that Psychic Powers are broke through that interpretation.

Incorrect.
You're only seeing 2 interpretations - one being that every Psyker is on his own no matter what, and one being Psykers in units are screwed. The latter is obviously wrong, but that doesn't make the former correct.
It's possible that they intended for 2 psykers in the same unit to not cast the same power. In fact, that's literally the way I read it when I first read the rules - and I'm not the only one.

Keep insisting that any other viewpoint than yours is just being negative though - I'm sure it'll make people see your side as the one true interpretation. Somehow.

Hollismason wrote:
I think it's a interesting argument, at least in how we approach the game and with what mentality.

While you see it as unclear, as to what the intention of that was. I don't.

I mean we're off on a new tangent, but I kind of feel the rules should not be approached from a negative viewpoint. Meaning that what's the negative result ?'The negative result is that Psychic Powers are broke through that interpretation.

That's not a 'negative result'. That's the result of reading the rules as written without interjecting extra bits into them that aren't actually there.

...but which is more likely they intentionally wrote it unclear or you view it as unclear?

And again with that red herring.

The fact that the rules are incomplete does not mean that they deliberately wrote them that way. I left the bathroom light on this morning. I didn't intentionally do so... but it was still on when I came back 10 minutes later.

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
I think it's a interesting argument, at least in how we approach the game and with what mentality.

While you see it as unclear, as to what the intention of that was. I don't.

I mean we're off on a new tangent, but I kind of feel the rules should not be approached from a negative viewpoint. Meaning that what's the negative result ?'The negative result is that Psychic Powers are broke through that interpretation.

That's not a 'negative result'. That's the result of reading the rules as written without interjecting extra bits into them that aren't actually there.

...but which is more likely they intentionally wrote it unclear or you view it as unclear?

And again with that red herring.

The fact that the rules are incomplete does not mean that they deliberately wrote them that way. I left the bathroom light on this morning. I didn't intentionally do so... but it was still on when I came back 10 minutes later.

Breaking the rules through the use of the rules is the point though, we've all done it. I'm saying though when we actually play the game we don't play this way. That's my point though about the viewpoint and approach to interpretation of the rules and why a "best outcome with least harm" is the way to view the rules.

There's no puzzlement here. In fact, I'd say it's probably not even spoken of elsewhere, I have membership to other forums. I've only seen this point of view expounded upon here. There are no long diatribes on blogs about it. Nothing really. Even the people I play with don't view it this way. I've literally only ever encountered these kind of interpretations on this forum.

Why? Because we like to pick apart things specifically in YMDC the viewpoint is always to approach it as if it is a puzzle, with semantic and literal interpretations taking precedent. I myself take a literal viewpoint in the rules in some cases just because I feel that's the most appropriate way to read them most of the time. It's enjoyable part of the enjoyment is taking apart and finding something that "breaks or makes useless" a part of the rules.

Why? I dunno. I'd say because most of us have wargamed a long time and it's part of wargaming to a degree.

I know, for a fact, it is discussed elsewhere. I wasn't even the person who brought it up locally.

That doesn't change the fact that the rules are written poorly and there are multiple potentially intended interpretations. And you only seem to think yours is correct... why exactly? Because everyone else needs to cut it with the negative vibes?

I stand by my assertation that if you approach the rules from a positive viewpoint that a lot of rule issues are resolved with no need for argument.

I don't think the rules are actually written poorly. I think that the person who writes them does not empathically feel that they need to elaborate them because from their viewpoint they probably don't expect the rules to be misinterpreted especially to a malicious end. I think by simply taking the standpoint that they are poorly written that in fact informs you and makes you bias towards reading them and influences peoples interpretations.

Also, I don't disagree with you on your interpretation it's your opinion, neither of us have affirmation that we are correct I am just trying to in my way explain why I take this approach when reading the rules and why taking a positive approach leads to less "malicious" interpretations.

Hollismason wrote:
I don't think the rules are actually written poorly. I think that the person who writes them does not empathically feel that they need to elaborate them because from their viewpoint they probably don't expect the rules to be misinterpreted especially to a malicious end. I think by simply taking the standpoint that they are poorly written that in fact informs you and makes you bias towards reading them and influences peoples interpretations.

That's amusing. So let's look at the Heldrake. The original FAQ, where was the positive outlook that showed it had a 360 degree arc of fire?
Where's the new positive outlook that shows it really meant a 45 degree arc of fire?

Should we look at the rest of the FAQs? Or is that enough of an example that the rules are poorly written?

Hollismason wrote:
I don't think the rules are actually written poorly.

And there we're going to have to agree to disagree. Because the rules currently define psykers at a unit level, and then go on to outline a system that doesn't work at a unit level.

And that, in my opinion, is poor.


Yes, we can figure out a way to make them work. We shouldn't need to, though, because someone in the studio should have read over those rules before publication, and spotted the fact hat hey don't actually work. You know, as happened within about 3 minutes of the rules being posted online.


And no, not just on Dakka.

rigeld2 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
I don't think the rules are actually written poorly. I think that the person who writes them does not empathically feel that they need to elaborate them because from their viewpoint they probably don't expect the rules to be misinterpreted especially to a malicious end. I think by simply taking the standpoint that they are poorly written that in fact informs you and makes you bias towards reading them and influences peoples interpretations.

That's amusing. So let's look at the Heldrake. The original FAQ, where was the positive outlook that showed it had a 360 degree arc of fire?
Where's the new positive outlook that shows it really meant a 45 degree arc of fire?

Should we look at the rest of the FAQs? Or is that enough of an example that the rules are poorly written?

I don't think that was issue of interpretation but of power creep. Also, if you look at the faqs most corrections are replacements to coincide with new rules or to change a specific wording. They're FAQs are actually quiet brief usually containing at most 10 to 12 items of note.

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
I don't think the rules are actually written poorly.

And there we're going to have to agree to disagree. Because the rules currently define psykers at a unit level, and then go on to outline a system that doesn't work at a unit level.

And that, in my opinion, is poor.


Yes, we can figure out a way to make them work. We shouldn't need to, though, because someone in the studio should have read over those rules before publication, and spotted the fact hat hey don't actually work. You know, as happened within about 3 minutes of the rules being posted online.


And no, not just on Dakka.

They're not poorly written they're just not very elaborate. My background is in technical writing and editing. I would say that the reason they don't elaborate is because from a writing standpoint it's literally impossible to have brevity as well as depth without getting rid of one. Most laws civil or regulatory are actually quiet brief for this reason. Of course laws have a designated interpreter as well as an explanation on how they are to be enforced but the principle is the same. They want to be as succinct and to the point as possible with their writing but they also don't want to have to break down each and every scenario that could come into play.

It's why they preface the book with " these are guidelines", something that's written as a guideline is just that.

I think once we get into the rules themselves you'll find they're pretty clear on most if not all. The goal of the reader is not to in fact approach the rules with a unbiased judgement but with a fair and reasonable one.

I think that's the best analogy I could make for a interpretation is that the rules will never be 100% clear, but also you're not suppose to interpret them in a way that hinders the game or causes more harm than benefit.

It's why I advocate the idea of approaching it from that standpoint as functionally the rules work. As for other peoples interpretation, I don't think that's a fair interpretation to punish players with rules. The rules are not punishments, which you are doing when you unfairly interpret something you're using the rules to punish a player with in the game.

So what do I mean by unfair? Do I mean the player is being unfair? No, I mean the situation as changed that instead of a rule being beneficial it has become a detriment. That's unfair.

A great example, and we can move away from Psykers if you want but I think that this is a good example is the Flickering Fire issue, as someone pointed out functionally the spell RAW worked in such a way as to be either useless or punishing towards a player to use that way with the new rules. That's a good example because where as before you had something that was beneficially it was now detrimental to use. That's a unfair interpretation.


Why is unfair to interpret the rule that why with Psykers? Because it's detrimental to the player who uses psykers. If you have an Eldar player and you say " Okay, you can't put any of your psykers in squads now and use psychic powers, because of this rule" that's a punishment to the player. If you say " Okay, you can put your psykers in a squad but now they can't use the same powers, where as before they could" that's a punishment. If you instead say " You can't manifest the same power with the same psyker" that's not a punishment, that's a restriction and a restriction that previously has maintained itself from another edition.

The rules are very specific when it comes to punishing players for actions. It's one of the few definitive things the game does is specify when a punishment or detriment occurs to a player. I mean I could go through and list punishment or detriment sections but we're aware of multiple situations where a detriment occurs to a player. If the rules were detrimental to the Psyker would it be vague? I don't think it would. That's why taking the fair and reasonable, with a positive affirmation towards the rules is a way to lessen problems with the rules themselves.

Hollismason wrote:
They're not poorly written.

So the fact that the rules refer to things that aren't units as units is not an example of poor writing?

Seriously?

I would say that the reason they don't elaborate is because from a writing standpoint it's literally impossible to have brevity as well as depth without getting rid of one.

They didn't need to elaborate. They just needed to not use the term 'psyker unit' to refer to things that aren't units.

I think that's the best analogy I could make for a interpretation is that the rules will never be 100% clear, but also you're not suppose to interpet them in a way that hinders the game or causes more harm than benefit.

In a well-written ruleset, you shouldn't be able to interpret them in a way that hinders the game. You're putting the blame on the players here rather than on the supposedly professional writers selling a product for money.

I wouldn't say they're poorly written I'd say that it's not concise, but also I don't have any misunderstanding with that specific rule so it's hard for me to empathize with you on that and it's because I don't read things as other people read them.

I'm not placing blame on anyone, I just feel that if we as players approach the rules with the knowledge and forethought that we should be reasonable and fair judges we won't have rules issues. This is a game, the writer has no intention of writing a rule that breaks the game.

I understand the argument and basis around it but I don't feel that specific passage is unclear because I know from previous usage that Psyker and Psyker unit are interchangeable.

I'm sure you'll be ble to explain then how Psychic Shriek interacts with Chariots using your special powers.

There's so many vague rules in that interaction it's not a matter of approaching it in a different light - they could've meant almost literally anything at the end of that decision tree.

Hollismason wrote:
...and it's because I don't read things as other people read them.

If you're reading the word 'unit' to mean something other than 'unit' then yes, this would seem to be the problem.

I'm not placing blame on anyone, I just feel that if we as players approach the rules with the knowledge and forethought that we should be reasonable and fair judges we won't have rules issues.

There have been any number of rules issues discussed over th eyears where people have presented multiple possible interpretations of the rule that are fair and reasonable.

The biggest example off the top of my head being 4th ed LOS... Some players insisted for the entire duration of 4th edition that the Size categories were suposed to apply to all LOS issues. They were wrong, but their interpretation wasn't unreasonable, and they were arguing for what they genuinely thought the rules were saying.

Even with the rule under discussion here, the only reason that you don't think that a psyker joined to a unit not being able to cast powers is unreasonable is because it wasn't the case in previous editions. There is absolutely no rules basis in 7th edition for the claim that it is unreasonable... it's just a side effect of an uclear rule that you have personally decided is unreasonable. And are now insisting that it shouldn't be an issue because we should all be reasonable and read the rule the way you read it.


Do you honestly not see the problem there?

This is a game, the writer has no intention of writing a rule that breaks the game.

Seriously, can you please stop repeating this as if it's an actual point of contention?

I understand the argument and basis around it but I don't feel that specific passage is unclear because I know from previous usage that Psyker and Psyker unit are interchangeable.

Awesome. I know from previous usage that bolters can only fire at half range if the model carrying it moved in the movement phase. Should we just ignore the 7th edition Rapid Fire rules, then?

Previous editions of the rules are irrelevant for determining how the rules work in 7th edition.

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
...and it's because I don't read things as other people read them.

If you're reading the word 'unit' to mean something other than 'unit' then yes, this would seem to be the problem.

I'm not placing blame on anyone, I just feel that if we as players approach the rules with the knowledge and forethought that we should be reasonable and fair judges we won't have rules issues.

There have been any number of rules issues discussed over th eyears where people have presented multiple possible interpretations of the rule that are fair and reasonable.

The biggest example off the top of my head being 4th ed LOS... Some players insisted for the entire duration of 4th edition that the Size categories were suposed to apply to all LOS issues. They were wrong, but their interpretation wasn't unreasonable, and they were arguing for what they genuinely thought the rules were saying.

Even with the rule under discussion here, the only reason that you don't think that a psyker joined to a unit not being able to cast powers is unreasonable is because it wasn't the case in previous editions. There is absolutely no rules basis in 7th edition for the claim that it is unreasonable... it's just a side effect of an uclear rule that you have personally decided is unreasonable. And are now insisting that it shouldn't be an issue because we should all be reasonable and read the rule the way you read it.


Do you honestly not see the problem there?

This is a game, the writer has no intention of writing a rule that breaks the game.

Seriously, can you please stop repeating this as if it's an actual point of contention?

I understand the argument and basis around it but I don't feel that specific passage is unclear because I know from previous usage that Psyker and Psyker unit are interchangeable.

Awesome. I know from previous usage that bolters can only fire at half range if the model carrying it moved in the movement phase. Should we just ignore the 7th edition Rapid Fire rules, then?

Previous editions of the rules are irrelevant for determining how the rules work in 7th edition.

I honestly can't see a problem against approaching the rules in a rational , reasonable, and fair way. I mean I can't argue for anything else but to do that?

As for how I read rules? I generally take the context of a entire document and not a specific passage. It's how I edit briefs and other documents for my job, so over the years of doing that I take context from other passages as that's what you need to do when you are doing legal briefs and other documents like that. I hope that clears it up, there's a few other people here who are in law and we've talked about how it's weird to us to see arguments like this.

For your last statement that's kind of a false analogy, a true one would be I know that from previous editions and as well as other documents, the word bolter refers to X that's inferring to much into that statement.

So how do I read this and where does my logic come from? This my reveal some insight.

1. I know from the rules section on unit types, there different types of units. I know that there are Infantry, Infantry (Character),..... . I know there is not in fact a Unit type called Psychic Unit. As if I refer to any current rulebook for example the Space Marine book. A Librarian is actually a Infantry (Character).

It is a rational and reasonable conclusion for me to infer at this point that there is in fact no unit type called Infantry (Psyker) or Psyker. As it's not presented in the material.

2. I know that Psyker is in fact a Special Ability, listed under the Units Special Ability.

It is at this point I know that Psyker is a special ability that a unit has generally a special character or a unit that has Brotherhood or Sorcerer as further on I will point out why this is true due to the rules statement of such.

3. I know that Independent characters follow all normal rules if they join a unit, in regards to coherency, assaulting, and firing when the unit fires.

It is reasonable and rationale for me to know that since it does not state that a Independent characters lose their special abilities when joining a squad that they retain them unless stated elsewhere or in their special rules. The psyker special rules have no such restriction. Therefore it retains the Psyker Special Ability. I also know that unless stated Independent Characters do not gain the special ability of a unit they join to.

4. I know that from the Independent Character can join a squad even though it is its own separate unit to be considered part of that unit it must follow normal coherency rules.

It is reasonable for me to assume that the character must obey the normal rules of the unit in regards to movement, shooting, and assault for a unit.

5. I know that from the Psychic Phase that Psychic Unit can refer to Psyker or the reverse is true.

It's reasonable for me to infer that when the book speaks of a unit as a Psyker Unit that it is indeed referring to a unit that has a Psyker special Ability and not in fact a unit of Psykers or Infantry ( Psykers) as that is not a unit type. However I also know that the rules state that models that have Brotherhood etc.. count as Psykers for when referencing back to the rules.

That's my logic train , I hope that helps.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm sure you'll be ble to explain then how Psychic Shriek interacts with Chariots using your special powers.

There's so many vague rules in that interaction it's not a matter of approaching it in a different light - they could've meant almost literally anything at the end of that decision tree.

Which is the most reasonable thing though? Your right it is dependent on what you term reasonable, but I view reasonable as "Most benefit least Harm". Not all rules are going to be 100% and I never claimed it would in fact lead to a perfect interpretation but simply less problems , not a 100% sure fire solution. That's you inferring something that I did not state.

We know that Psyhic Scream is a Witchfire power and that witchfire powers require a roll to hit.


We do not know it's rate of fire. However we know that it will have a range then of 1 to Infinity. We can in fact not roll infinity number of dice, but since we know that it's range minimally will be one we can roll that. That is reasonable.

We know that from the rule book units that have multiple characteristics we always use the highest of the value of that characteristic. A chariot itself has two profiles one that has no profile on leadership which can be represented as 0. We know that the rider does have a leadership value. Since the leadership value is greater than 0 we would use that instead. Now this may only apply to characteristics tests since it specifically says so ,but it's a good start.

We know that a chariot is considered to have a dual profile and we know for the purpose of Characteristic tests we always use the Riders profile. It is also treated as a single model but with two profiles.

That's pretty reasonable. Is it RAW , probably not, but then Psychic Scream doesn't have specific rules for dealing with witchfires just shooting that states it gets to locate it.

Hollismason wrote:
I honestly can't see a problem against approaching the rules in a rational , reasonable, and fair way. I mean I can't argue for anything else but to do that?

You appear to be still missing the point.

The problem isn't approaching the rules in a rational, reasonable way.

The problem is that approaching the rules in a rational, reasonable way doesn't automatically result in everyone agreeing with one particular interpretation.


Or, in other words, an interpretation isn't automatically going to be accepted as correct just because you personally think it's a reasonable one. Particularly when it flies in the face of the actual written rules. Because other people are going to think that a different interpretation is the reasonable one.

Yes, but when your reasonable conclusion is that " it does not work, game breaks" then that is not a reasonable conclusion which is why I keep bringing up that point.

No, rational, or reasonable conclusion will result in the game "breaking", but instead lead to a functional outcome.

Which is why I don't think your interpretation of Psykers joining a unit cannot cast spells is reasonable or rationale.

Hollismason wrote:
Yes, but when your reasonable conclusion is that " it does not work, game breaks" then that is not a reasonable conclusion which is why I keep bringing up that point.

No one is advocating this conclusion. Which is why you bringing up that point is frustrating.

Hollismason wrote:
Yes, but when your reasonable conclusion is that " it does not work, game breaks" then that is not a reasonable conclusion which is why I keep bringing up that point.

My reasonable conclusions in this case are not that the game breaks.

Which is why I don't think your interpretation of Psykers joining a unit cannot cast spells is reasonable or rationale.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the above is not 'my' interpretation, how does the game break if psykers joined to non-psyker units can't cast powers?

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Yes, but when your reasonable conclusion is that " it does not work, game breaks" then that is not a reasonable conclusion which is why I keep bringing up that point.

My reasonable conclusions in this case are not that the game breaks.

Which is why I don't think your interpretation of Psykers joining a unit cannot cast spells is reasonable or rationale.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the above is not 'my' interpretation, how does the game break if psykers joined to non-psyker units can't cast powers?

Well first , to reach that conclusion you have to take make unreasonable conclusions.

That when a Independent Character joins a unit, they lose a special ability.
That a unit type called " Psyker Unit" exists and is not in fact just a reference to a unit that has the Psyker rule.
That Psyker units were in fact left out completely in the Unit Types section of the rulebook as well as notation regarding what units are "Psyker units" instead of a unit that simply has the psyker rule.

It breaks the game is a convenient phrase and a argument of semantics about it is not something I want to get into, if it moves us past that then I can give you want a actual definition of what I mean by that phrase as "something that is added to the game that infers a detriment to a unit without a basis in the rules with a concise instruction of that detriment."

So your reasonable conlusion is in fact "something that is added to the game that infers a detriment to a unit without a basis in the rules with a concise instruction of that detriment." I've made clear that rules specifically as written are quiet clear when something is definitively detrimental in fact to going out of the way to make emphasis with bolding or multiple mentions.

It's why I advocate that view of approach, because it leads to these detriments or punishments to players over another that can be unfair.

Which is more reasonable?

Psykers joining units lose Psyker abilities when joining squads

Psykers do not lose Psyker abilities when joining squads.

One is specifically adding a detriment in the rules, and this argument of "vagueness" isn't something I advocate at all in this specific situation.