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.

I´m starting a small (-ish) FT army and I´m a little hazy on the fluff behind them. How do they feel about psykers? I want to utelise as many actual BA models as possible

They use them, they get frenzied too into the bloodlust. They have no issues with them otherwise and use them as any other Blood Angels chapter would.

Deathwatch (the RPG) had them as being able to use their abilities while in the throes of bloodfrenzy, utilizing horrific psyker abilities that flayed foes alive and empowered their brothers to frightening feats.

Wouldn't a psyker who loses control just turn in to a mini warp gate or go splat though?

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't a psyker who loses control just turn in to a mini warp gate or go splat though?

Depends. Usually on what the author wants to happen!

Ok, but I mean in like lore, not what someone just invents to sound cool. What would be the reason for screening, psychic hoods and teaching control. Grey Knight for example don't allow their brothers to use psychic powers, when each one of them is equal to a marine librarian, because they have to be 100% they are in full control of their powers. If a dude on blood rage could just run around casting powers, it would be rather crazy.

Karol wrote:
Ok, but I mean in like lore, not what someone just invents to sound cool. What would be the reason for screening, psychic hoods and teaching control. Grey Knight for example don't allow their brothers to use psychic powers, when each one of them is equal to a marine librarian, because they have to be 100% they are in full control of their powers. If a dude on blood rage could just run around casting powers, it would be rather crazy.

Sure, but I'm saying the lore is inconsistent. Especially with regards to the warp. There's no solid fixed rules for it across the canon.

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't a psyker who loses control just turn in to a mini warp gate or go splat though?

Well yes, but actually no.

Depends entirely on what the author is trying to achieve. All 40K lore is like this; there are certain fundamental truths, that are immediately discarded the very second they become inconvenient for the... well lets be generous and call it a 'plot'.

So yes, an uncontrolled and uncontrollable psyker is a terrible danger that cannot possibly be countenanced, except when the author thinks they're cool.

IIRC, World Eaters had big issues with their psykers because of this. FW actually addressed this part of the fluff, but apparently not GW... FT shouldn't be able to use psykers.

World eaters had issues with psykers because of the butcher's nails caused pain when near a psyker and would kill a psyker if implanted into them.

Flesh Tearers could still have psykers, because overcoming the Red Thirst is a matter of willpower and psykers have a lot of that or they wouldn't be able to use their powers.

The black rage on the other had can't be overcome by will, only delayed like Chaplain Lemartes.

Also Mephiston is the only case of a librarian overcoming the black rage.

Sounds inconsistent and self contradicting. If a crazy BA librarian can just will through losing self control, and still be efficient, then why would GK just not mass produce battle brothers instead of losing 10 times as many aspirants to get one battlebrother, then a normal chapter does?

Karol wrote:
Sounds inconsistent and self contradicting. If a crazy BA librarian can just will through losing self control, and still be efficient, then why would GK just not mass produce battle brothers instead of losing 10 times as many aspirants to get one battlebrother, then a normal chapter does?

That's because it is inconsistent.

This is what happens when dozens upon dozens of authors contribute to the same canon with minimal oversight on the details.

The best way to look at it is to assume that every source is from an unreliable narrator. Maybe it's propaganda, maybe it's skewed by the opinion of the person, maybe it's a story passed around so much the details have got muddled. This is basically something that happens a lot in real world history. A lot of the time we really don't know the exact truth of events.

Karol wrote:
Sounds inconsistent and self contradicting. If a crazy BA librarian can just will through losing self control, and still be efficient, then why would GK just not mass produce battle brothers instead of losing 10 times as many aspirants to get one battlebrother, then a normal chapter does?

Because those FT librarians can well lash out against their own brothers, and by and large, their margin for error is wider than what the GK can afford. Not to mention that a FT Librarian losing control isn't efficient - they might be "effective", but they're not as efficient as a controlled Librarian.

The Grey Knights *could* mass produce their psykers, but when you're giving them Terminator armour, Nemesis Force Weapons, and are fighting some of the most dangerous threats in the galaxy, you can't afford to have undisciplined forces.

The biggest loss in Grey Knight recruiting is the fact they limit themselves to having only pyskers, and the weakness of some of those psykers to the daemonic, not from the same kind of weeding out that Scions do.

The problem, Karol, is that you seem to believe the 40K lore is some super-tight, super-consistent, super-polished, all-encompassing narrative, when in reality it is little more than a bunch of hastily-published comic strips pasted on a garage wall.

FT psykers are, interestingly enough, probably the only kind that Khorne would approve of. It would be interesting to have a story featuring one who fell to Chaos and used his abilities to make Khorne's followers a hundred times more effective in combat. Or possibly teaming up with Be'lakor and combining the psyker's own abilities with Be'lakor's Dark Hereticus powers.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
FT psykers are, interestingly enough, probably the only kind that Khorne would approve of. It would be interesting to have a story featuring one who fell to Chaos and used his abilities to make Khorne's followers a hundred times more effective in combat. Or possibly teaming up with Be'lakor and combining the psyker's own abilities with Be'lakor's Dark Hereticus powers.

I have beef with the whole principal of Khorne being against Psykers.

Psykers/sorcerers are beings who manipulate warp energy at will. Daemons are made of warp energy. Anyone who summons daemons is essentially practicing sorcery. Ergo, many Khorne followers are functionally Psykers, and Khorne Daemons being against Psykers is like a person being against converting food into energy in the body.

 Stux wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
FT psykers are, interestingly enough, probably the only kind that Khorne would approve of. It would be interesting to have a story featuring one who fell to Chaos and used his abilities to make Khorne's followers a hundred times more effective in combat. Or possibly teaming up with Be'lakor and combining the psyker's own abilities with Be'lakor's Dark Hereticus powers.

I have beef with the whole principal of Khorne being against Psykers.

Psykers/sorcerers are beings who manipulate warp energy at will. Daemons are made of warp energy. Anyone who summons daemons is essentially practicing sorcery. Ergo, many Khorne followers are functionally Psykers, and Khorne Daemons being against Psykers is like a person being against converting food into energy in the body.

That's true, although I think Khorne would argue that merely summoning daemons is the Chaos equivalent of using drop pods and landing craft; as a means to get troops to the battlefield. I think that he associates the use of sorcery on the battlefield to how Tzeentch sorcerers often use it, namely, to fight with less physical strength and more with tricks, unnatural dakka, and mind control, which Khorne sees as unmanly and not the truly visceral and honorable combat that he sees in melee or hand to hand combat. Still, I think sorcerous swords are alright for him as long as they are used strictly as cutting weapons, which is essentially what hellblades are. I do think that sorcery does provide the opportunity for the creation of a number of truly bizarre, psychotic weapons that Khorne might well like, such as axes with many different blades fused into one weapon that could simultaneously inflict all sorts of different wounds that could vastly increase the amount of blood splatter, or some kind of blade perfectly shaped to take off an enemy's skull.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
The problem, Karol, is that you seem to believe the 40K lore is some super-tight, super-consistent, super-polished, all-encompassing narrative, when in reality it is little more than a bunch of hastily-published comic strips pasted on a garage wall.

Well they had what 20 years or more to strighten it up. Inconsisten stuff irks me on a physical level, I just can't deal with it or ignore it. Probably better for me to not read on the lore too much to be honest.

Doesn't GW have people that work there since the company started, shouldn't they pick such stuff up. I mean if they accept inconsistent lore, then next 2 editions in the future we may get female space marines or orange skined orks.

Karol wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
The problem, Karol, is that you seem to believe the 40K lore is some super-tight, super-consistent, super-polished, all-encompassing narrative, when in reality it is little more than a bunch of hastily-published comic strips pasted on a garage wall.

Well they had what 20 years or more to strighten it up. Inconsisten stuff irks me on a physical level, I just can't deal with it or ignore it. Probably better for me to not read on the lore too much to be honest.

Doesn't GW have people that work there since the company started, shouldn't they pick such stuff up. I mean if they accept inconsistent lore, then next 2 editions in the future we may get female space marines or orange skined orks.

20 years is the problem, not a reason it should be better!

People leave and new people with different ideas replace them. What the public wants changes. On top of all that, it's literally impossible to keep track of everything everyone has said in every source for a canon this big, and totally impractical to get everyone to check!

Could it be better/tighter? Sure. But I don't think it would generally be worth the huge effort it would likely entail.

Not to mention that it is explicitly an intended part of how 40k canon is structured according to some designers/authors. Because they feel it's important that aside from the really big central ideas, people should be free to make up the narratives for their armies.

And the Imperium is explicitly an "unreliable narrator". Inconsistency is baked into the setting.

Karol wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
The problem, Karol, is that you seem to believe the 40K lore is some super-tight, super-consistent, super-polished, all-encompassing narrative, when in reality it is little more than a bunch of hastily-published comic strips pasted on a garage wall.

Well they had what 20 years or more to strighten it up. Inconsisten stuff irks me on a physical level, I just can't deal with it or ignore it. Probably better for me to not read on the lore too much to be honest.

Doesn't GW have people that work there since the company started, shouldn't they pick such stuff up. I mean if they accept inconsistent lore, then next 2 editions in the future we may get female space marines or orange skined orks.

There are different levels of inconsistency. Some things are more or less ingrained into the lore and sacrosanct - Space Marines are male, Orks are green, Eldar have pointy ears, etc (though nothing is truly untouchable and GW could change any of these if they wanted). On a grand scale the lore is pretty consistent but at a smaller scale there can be inconsistencies due to the needs of the story being told or the rules being written. In 2nd edition, for example, the Codices were all written in a very impersonal, 3rd-person "word of God" style, much like an authoritative history textbook. GW then moved to a more in-universe style with unreliable narrators and sources being used to create the background. So when GW say that if a psyker loses control they'll be possessed or open a doorway to the Warp that's not inconsistent with a FT psyker going crazy and flaying people alive with is mind. Perhaps his indoctrination and training allows him to retain enough control to hold back the Warp but his bloodlust manifests as alack of control over his specific powers? It's not really inconsistent if there's never been a completely accurate set of rules about what constitutes "losing control" for a psyker.

Some stuff is absolutely inconsistent but other things are more nuanced. Some things have simply never been unequivocally stated in the background, or have been left open to interpretation. That's different to being inconsistent.