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.

Psykers in the fluff of 40k and on the tabletop always seem so narrow-minded and idiotic. They always use the same kinds of powers, with minimal deviation. Is there a good reason for this, or is it just 40k being 40k?

I mean, honestly, you'd think that Psykers would be using magic like they do in the novel Eragon, only minus the magic words. You know, cut a few capillaries and stop someone's heart, feed a tiny bit of energy into a specific portion of somebody's brain and cause him/her to go temporarily insane, etc. Is that just too awesome for 40k? Because, if not, the magicians of a medieval Fantasy world might be superior to Librarians, and that's quite simply unacceptable.

The Warp is a weird and unpredictable place, fella.
Best stick with what works lest you accidentally summon nine Bloodthirsters or your head blows up.

There has to be some limits to what they can do, otherwise no one could really challenge them except other psykers, and then 40k would be a much simpler and less diverse game about wizards. I personally think this is the only real reason, although there is fluff justification in the unpredictability of the warp. Easier to call on the tried and true than take a chance of perils.

In novels, magic and its uses are more myriad and interesting than the tabletop.

Have you had a look through the FFG RPGs for how they treat Psykers? There's some quite interesting things in there.

Admittedly the Perils of the Warp table is occasionally hilarious.

I recently played an Apoc game with ALOT of psykers (For fun) with my friend.

THE AMOUNT OF HEADS.
THE AMOUNT OF DAEMONS.

BREH.

The warp is so dangerous and unpredictable that it's just so much safer to stick with what you know, there is already such a huge risk that you'll be eaten be a daemon prince you don't want to raise that chance

The energy of the Warp is dangerous and unpredictable. The only safe way to use it is to channel it via familiar, disciplined routines, practiced so often they become rote.

In Malleus, you see some psykers getting crazy on the cheez whiz, and just flinging psychic energy around willy nilly. It doesn't end well for a bunch of them.

There's all kinds of strange and unique psychic powers, but the variety in which they "actually" exist (in the setting) is impossible to account for in the TT game rules, so they just cover the most-common types seen with combat applications.

After all, no one gives a feth if your psychic power allows you to accurately predict whether or not the tea on the stove is boiling or not (and nothing else) or that permits you to take on the appearance and natural abilities of a particularly-dim stoat, but such powers do exist.

It's the Warp, in a narrative, you could grant a Psyker almost any power you can conceive of... all of them are dangerous, though.

Read Ahriman: Exile. Ahriman uses his powers in many different ways in that book. Nothing quite like what you're talking about, but there is a great variety of abilities on display.

 Orblivion wrote:
Read Ahriman: Exile. Ahriman uses his powers in many different ways in that book. Nothing quite like what you're talking about, but there is a great variety of abilities on display.

Pretty much this. If you're looking for the most use of magic, this book is what your looking for, but not every psyker can do the stuff Ahriman does, considering he already gave in to Chaos and has 10,000 years of practice, but I'm sure that all goes without saying.

 dusara217 wrote:
Psykers in the fluff of 40k and on the tabletop always seem so narrow-minded and idiotic. They always use the same kinds of powers, with minimal deviation. Is there a good reason for this, or is it just 40k being 40k?

I mean, honestly, you'd think that Psykers would be using magic like they do in the novel Eragon, only minus the magic words. You know, cut a few capillaries and stop someone's heart, feed a tiny bit of energy into a specific portion of somebody's brain and cause him/her to go temporarily insane, etc. Is that just too awesome for 40k? Because, if not, the magicians of a medieval Fantasy world might be superior to Librarians, and that's quite simply unacceptable.

It's a matter of skill and power.
Most psykers do not have both.
But if you want to see the higher levels of power I'd back the recommendation of the Ahriman series, the Thousand Sons there can do things like split their armour into its constituent atoms and then reassemble it perfectly, which I think you'll agree in terms of telekinesis is a bit more impressive than stopping someone's heart,.

 dusara217 wrote:
Psykers in the fluff of 40k and on the tabletop always seem so narrow-minded and idiotic. They always use the same kinds of powers, with minimal deviation. Is there a good reason for this, or is it just 40k being 40k?

I mean, honestly, you'd think that Psykers would be using magic like they do in the novel Eragon, only minus the magic words. You know, cut a few capillaries and stop someone's heart, feed a tiny bit of energy into a specific portion of somebody's brain and cause him/her to go temporarily insane, etc. Is that just too awesome for 40k? Because, if not, the magicians of a medieval Fantasy world might be superior to Librarians, and that's quite simply unacceptable.

I'm sorry, you want someone to perform heart surgery? Blind? While being shot at?

However, let us take pause in our discussion of 40K to point out that Eragon is a terrible series of novels, published only because the boy who wrote it happened to be the offspring of, you guessed it, people who owned a printing company.

Anyone else who wrote that would be laughed out of the editor's office, it is that terrible. It makes BL seem absolutely Shakespearean in comparison. One might even desire, nay, even, to prefer C.S. Goto over... Eragon.

Besides the ending of the series I quite liked them all. Looking back, it does have some faults, but I thought it was well done, especially considering it was wrote by a 16 year old. Anyway, I'm not here to fight to the death over Eragon, (especially not the movie and video games).

I do find myself in agreement with the statement of how 40k wouldn't be as interesting if it was just psyker battles instead of bolter and chainsword, and the little bit of ship battles we are given, etc etc.

 Psienesis wrote:
However, let us take pause in our discussion of 40K to point out that Eragon is a terrible series of novels, published only because the boy who wrote it happened to be the offspring of, you guessed it, people who owned a printing company.

Anyone else who wrote that would be laughed out of the editor's office, it is that terrible. It makes BL seem absolutely Shakespearean in comparison. One might even desire, nay, even, to prefer C.S. Goto over... Eragon.

And yet, it's a New York Times bestseller, with millions and millions of copies sold...

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

McD's has sold billions of hamburgers... it doesn't make their food "good". The Backstreet Boys and One Direction have both sold millions of albums, does that make their music good?

 Psienesis wrote:
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

McD's has sold billions of hamburgers... it doesn't make their food "good". The Backstreet Boys and One Direction have both sold millions of albums, does that make their music good?

Mickeydee's is delicious! The amount of chemicals put into their food is like molly for your taste-buds.

Also, Eragon really wasn't that bad until the last book. Before that, it was mostly just like Paolini was writing a really good fanfic of Tolkien's world.

 dusara217 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
However, let us take pause in our discussion of 40K to point out that Eragon is a terrible series of novels, published only because the boy who wrote it happened to be the offspring of, you guessed it, people who owned a printing company.

Anyone else who wrote that would be laughed out of the editor's office, it is that terrible. It makes BL seem absolutely Shakespearean in comparison. One might even desire, nay, even, to prefer C.S. Goto over... Eragon.

And yet, it's a New York Times bestseller, with millions and millions of copies sold...

So is Twilight. Popularity is not indicative of quality.