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.

Well, I have always played it as ML=powers you can cast and I play Eldar, Daemon & GKs, so plenty of psykers. With the way you cast in 7th, I have NEVER had enough WC to go beyond my ML anyway, so this is only a "change" if you were using the other psykers just to generate WC for 1 main psyker to use. If you, like me, were actually trying to use most of your psykers each phase, this should be business as usual

Zarroc1733 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

You're technically right that RAW there was no explicit link.... but its very rules-lawyery territory to bring up the point..

The problem was that we had an introduction to the psychic phase that was a direct copy-paste from 6th edition, that mentioned a link between the two without explaining what that link was.

We then had a set of psychic rules that told us that we could keep on casting until we ran out of warp charges, with no mention ever being made of this being limited by your mastery level. This same section mentioned that 'most' psykers are ML1....

I never read that section as explicitly contradicting the first section. The # of powers depends on ML was pretty clearly spelled out in the beginning and was not "state otherwise" in the later section, The later section was only referring to swapping back & forth between Psykers. No part of that section stated you could cast more than allowed, just that you could continue going back and forth until you ran out of WC, otherwise the first section was pointless.

--

I myself who just started as a new player, did indeed read it as though a psyker could cast until he was out of powers or WC, I figured the link to ML was just that it affected number of powers a psyker could have, which affected the number that could be cast. My two friends who also just started read it the same way, so to say it could only be read otherwise is false. Also I actually benefit from the change as I play Tau, so no psykers here, but I still kind of preferred the old way, I feel my friends' psykers are gonna be put away, or at least be much less useful.

It was never read just one way or the other. The problem is some people feel like thier interpretation was rules as written. But it was obvious there were quite a few rules not clear. However with people playing it both ways. It was obvious it was never written in a clear way to how the devs intended And obviously not a rules change. It's a bit narsacistic to insist otherwise.

 Galef wrote:
Well, I have always played it as ML=powers you can cast and I play Eldar, Daemon & GKs, so plenty of psykers. With the way you cast in 7th, I have NEVER had enough WC to go beyond my ML anyway, so this is only a "change" if you were using the other psykers just to generate WC for 1 main psyker to use. If you, like me, were actually trying to use most of your psykers each phase, this should be business as usual

Being a new player myself, I also read it as "cast until you run out of Warp Charge". I mostly play Necrons, so this didn't effect me much, but now that I'm finally working on my SM again, it does. It makes for a pretty heft nerf to the Librarius Conclave, but it does make sense. You are giving up the ability to cast more than 2 (3 with Tiggy) psychic powers in exchange for being able to almost guarantee those powers are manifested.

 Galef wrote:
Well, I have always played it as ML=powers you can cast and I play Eldar, Daemon & GKs, so plenty of psykers. With the way you cast in 7th, I have NEVER had enough WC to go beyond my ML anyway, so this is only a "change" if you were using the other psykers just to generate WC for 1 main psyker to use. If you, like me, were actually trying to use most of your psykers each phase, this should be business as usual

As a new player in 7th edition, I figured I could cast all day. "Depends on" does not mean "is equal to." A level of dependency was never actually stated. However, as you say, it really never came into play for me, as I always have several psykers with powers I want to cast, so my wc pool always diminishes quickly and I never cast everything a psyker knows.

Next part isn't at Galef

If people really want to claim it's so obvious, perhaps they'd like to know that in a survey on a facebook group I'm in of 24k people, about 80% of respondents (there were several hundred but I'm not sure the exact figures) thought it worked the way I thought. 80%. Casting = ML was an incredible minority. Ambiguous wording was presented by the rulebook, so I could always see both sides. However, like I said, I always figured it was "cast all you have" because no dependency level was ever clarified (until now). So the dependency the rulebook presented was only in how many spells a psyker knows. The FAQ doesn't bother me because I understand it's ambiguous language.

Friend of mine just brought this up in another forum:

The deep-strike has my attention. Deep striking from the table does not count as deep strike reserves. So I could put my destroyer lord (relic) with some wraiths and deep strike then assault on the same turn! Not sure if the space marines can benefit from this, but I think grey knights can?

That can't be right... right?

No, because DS has its own restriction on assaulting, and not just reliant upon also having arrived from Reserves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

It was never read just one way or the other. The problem is some people feel like thier interpretation was rules as written. But it was obvious there were quite a few rules not clear. However with people playing it both ways. It was obvious it was never written in a clear way to how the devs intended And obviously not a rules change. It's a bit narsacistic to insist otherwise.

Depends on does not mean equal to. It can only do so if you add more words. This is indisputable using actual language.

It may not be what they intended, but it is literally what they wrote.

Galef wrote:Well, I have always played it as ML=powers you can cast and I play Eldar, Daemon & GKs, so plenty of psykers. With the way you cast in 7th, I have NEVER had enough WC to go beyond my ML anyway, so this is only a "change" if you were using the other psykers just to generate WC for 1 main psyker to use. If you, like me, were actually trying to use most of your psykers each phase, this should be business as usual

gungo wrote:It was never read just one way or the other. The problem is some people feel like thier interpretation was rules as written. But it was obvious there were quite a few rules not clear. However with people playing it both ways. It was obvious it was never written in a clear way to how the devs intended And obviously not a rules change. It's a bit narsacistic to insist otherwise.

ML had more direct control on how many powers a Psyker could generate than could cast using the words in the rulebook. In fact, Manifesting Psychic Powers states nothing about Mastery Levels. When combined with the facts that a Psyker could have more Powers than their Mastery Level, permission to cast until Warp Charges ran out, and a Psyker unit cannot cast the same power twice, it seems quite reasonable that the "depends" places the restriction on the number of powers cast by restricting the powers generated.

Yarium wrote:Friend of mine just brought this up in another forum:

The deep-strike has my attention. Deep striking from the table does not count as deep strike reserves. So I could put my destroyer lord (relic) with some wraiths and deep strike then assault on the same turn! Not sure if the space marines can benefit from this, but I think grey knights can?

That can't be right... right?

Arriving by Deep Strike specifically states the inability to Charge in its last paragraph, just as much as Moving On From Reserves does.

MIni MIehm wrote:
No, it won't kill any models. The FAQ ruling says that you pick up the unit and move it the minimum distance required to get it out from under the tank and in coherency. This could conceivably force you to teleport a unit behind a tank, or six to eight inches away, depending on just how hard a player has tried to crush some models.

The entire Crunch! rule has been rendered completely unenforcable in any manner, and makes it literally impossible to kill any models with tank shock. Not harder, impossible. It was already hard enough, and there were still instances where tank shocking was worth it, now it's utterly pointless against most of the things that would even be worth tank shocking.

One thing needs to be clarified. The ruling currently regards a tank stopping on a unit, but we need them to clarify what happens if the tank stops on PART of a unit. If so, then crunch can still happen, assuming the models that were not tank shocked cannot move, and the others can't fit in coherency.

I have removed several off topic posts. Let's stick to discussing the game, hmm?

 JimOnMars wrote:

MIni MIehm wrote:
No, it won't kill any models. The FAQ ruling says that you pick up the unit and move it the minimum distance required to get it out from under the tank and in coherency. This could conceivably force you to teleport a unit behind a tank, or six to eight inches away, depending on just how hard a player has tried to crush some models.

The entire Crunch! rule has been rendered completely unenforcable in any manner, and makes it literally impossible to kill any models with tank shock. Not harder, impossible. It was already hard enough, and there were still instances where tank shocking was worth it, now it's utterly pointless against most of the things that would even be worth tank shocking.

One thing needs to be clarified. The ruling currently regards a tank stopping on a unit, but we need them to clarify what happens if the tank stops on PART of a unit. If so, then crunch can still happen, assuming the models that were not tank shocked cannot move, and the others can't fit in coherency.

I guess, but the way it's written heavily implies that you can no longer use tank shock to break up a tight packed unit, and then a few more shocks to start killing off models a few at a time, which was possible in the past. If it only applies to instances of blocking in a unit and then trying to steamroll them, I can live with it. I never had enough tanks to make that viable anyway, but I did have enough to make a good go at using my tanks to pick off a few models here and there, which was never good for my enemies, or their big scary deathstars.

Glad this also answers the issue of declaring all targets for a gargantuan creature before firing. Also glad it was clarified that you can fire all of its weapons and at different targets.

 Bhazakhain wrote:
Glad this also answers the issue of declaring all targets for a gargantuan creature before firing. Also glad it was clarified that you can fire all of its weapons and at different targets.

But it also clarified that targets are declared before firing, so the age old "can I shoot at the passengers of the transport I just wrecked?" question is still a resounding "NO!"

SJ

NVM

Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus FAQs posted.

Cult Mach opened the doors for bounce back attacks not allowing Jink. I could see similar logic applying to stuff like the Hunter's Savant Lock attack. Very interesting. Tau will likely be happy with this precedent if they use the Shield Wall.

Are these only 1 page each? Or is there some secret means of viewing these?

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Are these only 1 page each? Or is there some secret means of viewing these?

They're only one page each.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Are these only 1 page each? Or is there some secret means of viewing these?

The secret is to read the text below the picture, not the text in the picture, because there are errors in the picture text.

SJ

 Ghaz wrote:
... ongoing discussion in News & Rumours. FAQ can be found HERE.

Skitarii & Cult Mechanicus FAQs HERE.

Militarum Tempestus Scions, Inquisition, Adeptus Sororitas and Officio Assassinorum HERE.

New FAQs posted.

Yay! Flip flops.
From the BRB FAQ - This codex rule and Rulebook rule conflict. What happens? They cancel out.
From the Assassin FAQ - These two codex rules conflict. What happens? This rule takes precedence.

Oh boy, another oddity. I might need to join Facebook just to start commenting directly on it!

Assassins wrote:Q: A Culexus Assassin’s Psychic Abomination special rule says that nearby Psykers only harness Warp Charge points on a 6, but some Psykers, like those in a Seer Council Formation, have special rules that let them harness Warp Charge points on a 3+. Which rule takes precedence?
A: In these cases, the Culexus Assassin’s Psychic Abomination special rule takes precedence.

This seems to contradict the earlier FAQ on Special Rules stating that when two special rules both try to modify the same thing, they cancel out. Why are these rulings different?

These are different because GW said so.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
These are different because GW said so.

You are 100% correct, but we really need an explanation of why now, since there's no discernible pattern. The closest pattern I can see is "do what seems fluffiest, unless it's impossible to tell, in which case they cancel each other out". It's fluffy that the Culexus works this way, because he's draining the warp power from the entire Seer Council. By this pattern, my guess in Kharne vs Invisibility is that Invisibility trumps Kharne's "hit a 2+" ability since, hey, they're Invisible and Kharne can't see 'em. That method leaves this really open to fluff arguments though.

I think the first FAQ is a "catch-all", whereas the specific scenario FAQs are meant for....that specific scenario.

 Yarium wrote:
Oh boy, another oddity. I might need to join Facebook just to start commenting directly on it!

Assassins wrote:Q: A Culexus Assassin’s Psychic Abomination special rule says that nearby Psykers only harness Warp Charge points on a 6, but some Psykers, like those in a Seer Council Formation, have special rules that let them harness Warp Charge points on a 3+. Which rule takes precedence?
A: In these cases, the Culexus Assassin’s Psychic Abomination special rule takes precedence.

This seems to contradict the earlier FAQ on Special Rules stating that when two special rules both try to modify the same thing, they cancel out. Why are these rulings different?

Psykers ordinarily manifest charges on a 4+. The Eldar formation allows them to manifest charges on a 3+ instead (in effect, their "BS" for psychic powers increases by 1).

The Assassin basically forces psykers to "snapshoot" their psychic powers.

It's basically the same as using a devastator marine sergeant's signum vs. a flier. Yes, sarge increases BS to 5, but it's still a flier. Therefore, snapshots unless skyfire.

The ruling makes perfect sense.

Traditio wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Oh boy, another oddity. I might need to join Facebook just to start commenting directly on it!

Assassins wrote:Q: A Culexus Assassin’s Psychic Abomination special rule says that nearby Psykers only harness Warp Charge points on a 6, but some Psykers, like those in a Seer Council Formation, have special rules that let them harness Warp Charge points on a 3+. Which rule takes precedence?
A: In these cases, the Culexus Assassin’s Psychic Abomination special rule takes precedence.

This seems to contradict the earlier FAQ on Special Rules stating that when two special rules both try to modify the same thing, they cancel out. Why are these rulings different?

Psykers ordinarily manifest charges on a 4+. The Eldar formation allows them to manifest charges on a 3+ instead (in effect, their "BS" for psychic powers increases by 1).

The Assassin basically forces psykers to "snapshoot" their psychic powers.

It's basically the same as using a devastator marine sergeant's signum vs. a flier. Yes, sarge increases BS to 5, but it's still a flier. Therefore, snapshots unless skyfire.

The ruling makes perfect sense.

This was the thought I had. It's not a total change from precedent in the FAQ, rather a different style of problem.

Traditio wrote:
Psykers ordinarily manifest charges on a 4+. The Eldar formation allows them to manifest charges on a 3+ instead (in effect, their "BS" for psychic powers increases by 1).

The Assassin basically forces psykers to "snapshoot" their psychic powers.

It's basically the same as using a devastator marine sergeant's signum vs. a flier. Yes, sarge increases BS to 5, but it's still a flier. Therefore, snapshots unless skyfire.

The ruling makes perfect sense.

It does not make perfect sense. Perfect sense would mean that something directly follows. Sure, the FAQ points to this being the intention, but without that FAQ, such intention was definitely not obvious. If the rulebook didn't tell you that snapshots are always BS1 even after other modifiers unless specified otherwise, you might think that the signum would benefit people shooting at fliers. The rulebook doesn't do that for psychic powers, not does the Culexus' rules.

I agree that it makes fluff-sense in this case, but things aren't always so clear from that perspective either, and fluff is not a good a representation of the game's rules (else Space Marines would spit acid).

Finally, even if what you said above made perfect sense (which, as stated, I do not believe it does), that still does not provide a guide for answering other situations where there appears to be a conflict between two sets of rules.

 Yarium wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Psykers ordinarily manifest charges on a 4+. The Eldar formation allows them to manifest charges on a 3+ instead (in effect, their "BS" for psychic powers increases by 1).

The Assassin basically forces psykers to "snapshoot" their psychic powers.

It's basically the same as using a devastator marine sergeant's signum vs. a flier. Yes, sarge increases BS to 5, but it's still a flier. Therefore, snapshots unless skyfire.

The ruling makes perfect sense.

It does not make perfect sense. Perfect sense would mean that something directly follows. Sure, the FAQ points to this being the intention, but without that FAQ, such intention was definitely not obvious. If the rulebook didn't tell you that snapshots are always BS1 even after other modifiers unless specified otherwise, you might think that the signum would benefit people shooting at fliers. The rulebook doesn't do that for psychic powers, not does the Culexus' rules.

I agree that it makes fluff-sense in this case, but things aren't always so clear from that perspective either, and fluff is not a good a representation of the game's rules (else Space Marines would spit acid).

Finally, even if what you said above made perfect sense (which, as stated, I do not believe it does), that still does not provide a guide for answering other situations where there appears to be a conflict between two sets of rules.

I agree, this only raises more questions, they gave us a broad stroke answer, not the best thing in the world but at least consistent and easy to remember. By calling this example out and differing from the broad stroke, they have essentially relegated themselves to having to answer every specific instance like this one, because now, they have mucked up the clarity they had achieved

 Ghaz wrote:
... ongoing discussion in News & Rumours. FAQ can be found HERE.

Skitarii & Cult Mechanicus FAQs HERE.

Militarum Tempestus Scions, Inquisition, Adeptus Sororitas and Officio Assassinorum HERE.

Imperial Knights, Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch HERE.

New FAQs added.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
... ongoing discussion in News & Rumours. FAQ can be found HERE.

Skitarii & Cult Mechanicus FAQs HERE.

Militarum Tempestus Scions, Inquisition, Adeptus Sororitas and Officio Assassinorum HERE.

Imperial Knights, Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch HERE.

New FAQs added.

And some weird interactions again.

The BS 0 Psychic Shriek one is mentioned in the other current thread on subject, and some pointed out the contradiction.

The alliance level of the Cult with the Tyranids was changed from Battle Brothers to Allies of Convenience. This has been pointed out as a contradiction with the original document.