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.

On the subject of Psychic tests I'm always torn. On one hand, I think 10th's implementation is more than a little soulless but on the other, I've never liked the Psychic phase in any of its implementations. It's always been pretty clunky and the uneven and relatively expensive implementation tends to make it rarely an interesting part of an already overlong game.

I don't think the 10th implementation is necessarily bad, but the Psychic keyword doesn't seem to actually do anything. There's lots of things it could do, like certain things have a FNP against it, but those are mostly negatives as is making it hazardous or something similarly fluffy. I'm not sure it needs a separate system that armies need to take a model to interact with (if they can at all), but its also just odd that some leadership abilities have this random Psychic tag without it actually mattering.

They probably needed to bring back the old blessing/malediction/witchfire/etc. keywords if they wanted to interact with psychic abilities more directly. It's easy enough to write rules for "psychic attacks" because you know broadly what they'll do (follow the attack process). It's harder to write one-size-fits-all rules that interact with non-witchfires because there isn't currently an easy way to tell whether that power is going to grant rerolls to attacks or a defensive buff or something else entirely.

But honestly, I mostly like how 10th handles psychic powers. That is, it just makes them into special abilities and weapons like any other with tags so that things like a culexus assassin can theoretically interact with them.

I think public opinion on powers would be a lot better if they just gave psykers a few powers to choose from on each datasheet rather than locking in a single specific rule.

 LunarSol wrote:
On the subject of Psychic tests I'm always torn. On one hand, I think 10th's implementation is more than a little soulless but on the other, I've never liked the Psychic phase in any of its implementations. It's always been pretty clunky and the uneven and relatively expensive implementation tends to make it rarely an interesting part of an already overlong game.

And in a pick-up game context, this point of view makes a lot of sense. Bringing an army with zero psykers and finding yourself up against Ksons, GK or a Psyker heavy Eldar list could really suck.

I just don't typically play pick-up games, so my friends and I always tended to build armies together, which meant fewer surprises and gotchas.

It certainly was always true that armies who are decidedly unpsychic always needed something to help them more actively participate during the psychic phase. But IMHO, that is the solution the game needed, not a neutering or marginalization of psychic phenomenon, upon which the entire background of the game is based.

After all, the Astronomicon is the only thing that allows the Imperium to exist at all, and is based entirely upon the daily tithing of hundreds of thousands of psykers via the blackships. You can make that a central theme and then just say "Yeah, but actual psychic powers are are just shooting or melee attacks cuz balance."

Or rather, you can (because GW did), but you shouldn't.

I used to love building list. A lot of the fun for me came out of thinking of an army concept and working it into a actual army, theme was so important and I had to make choices.

Now the only decision I really have to make is what detachment to take. Everything else is just stock standard with no choices or minimal choices with no real impact. Enhancements are a cool concept but just like artifacts before them so many are just flat out laughably unusable.

My biggest moment of dissonance in 10th was the first game where I saw that battleshock does absolutely nothing. I just couldn't wrap my head around how THAT was the down side to losing half your unit. Ohh no, my half dead squad can't be target by stratagems? Good thing I wouldn't use stratagems on a half dead unit because I am not brain dead. The biggest issue is the loss of Obsec but really, I can't think of a situation where it would have meaningful impact on the game.

PenitentJake wrote:

It certainly was always true that armies who are decidedly unpsychic always needed something to help them more actively participate during the psychic phase. But IMHO, that is the solution the game needed

Fun fact: when I started playing in 5th, there was no such thing as the psychic phase. Psychic defenses were few and far between, and there was no expectation that every army would have ways of interfering with a psyker's ability to use his powers. From my understanding, that's how thing worked at least as far back as 3rd up until the whole warp dice minigame got introduced in 6th or 7th.

, not a neutering or marginalization of psychic phenomenon, upon which the entire background of the game is based.

After all, the Astronomicon is the only thing that allows the Imperium to exist at all, and is based entirely upon the daily tithing of hundreds of thousands of psykers via the blackships. You can make that a central theme and then just say "Yeah, but actual psychic powers are are just shooting or melee attacks cuz balance."

Respectfully, I think you're overhyping the importance of the Astronomicon and psychic powers in general to the setting. It's not Astronomicon 40k. The tagline isn't, "In the grim psychic future of the psychic-first millennium, there are only psykers."

Psykers are just one of many cool things in a large setting full of cool things. Technology is a big part of the setting, but we don't have elaborate subsystems for tech priests and crypteks to wage hacker duels over the local wifi. We just give them powers that represent them doing impressive tech-related things. Similarly, psykers have rules that let them do things their non-psychic counterparts can't, and we represent the unreliability of the warp by making their psychic attacks hazardous or giving them a small chance of failure where appropriate. It doesn't mean that psykers aren't cool or that they're unimportant to the setting; it just means that the game experience isn't well-served by clunky subsystems that make units fluffed as being psychic unreliable.

 JNAProductions wrote:

ccs wrote:
I think that what the OP is largely noticing is that they don't need to waste time adding up wargear costs.
And then doing it again with the next Balance Sheet..

Because rules? There's plenty of rules. Every unit has 1,2, 3+ unique rules. And 1/2+ of the weapons as well.

And a lot of the rules feel pretty dull or unimpactful.
Plus, without any costs for anything besides unit size (in bulk) there's often a clear winner in terms of gear to pick.

There were always clear winners.

 LunarSol wrote:
On the subject of Psychic tests I'm always torn. On one hand, I think 10th's implementation is more than a little soulless but on the other, I've never liked the Psychic phase in any of its implementations. It's always been pretty clunky and the uneven and relatively expensive implementation tends to make it rarely an interesting part of an already overlong game.

I don't think the 10th implementation is necessarily bad, but the Psychic keyword doesn't seem to actually do anything. There's lots of things it could do, like certain things have a FNP against it, but those are mostly negatives as is making it hazardous or something similarly fluffy. I'm not sure it needs a separate system that armies need to take a model to interact with (if they can at all), but its also just odd that some leadership abilities have this random Psychic tag without it actually mattering.

As a member of one of the premier psychic armies I feel the changes a lot. I enjoyed tailoring my psykers in 9th. Now I'm sort of forced to pick the "right model for the job" rather than the spells. It's different, but I don't hate it and it's given me enough to ponder before games. The decision tree for selecting units is a little more synergistic now.

In 9th I might have used an Exalted to cast Weaver ( 4++ ) on my unit and Tendrils on an enemy. Now he simply grants the 4++ to what's he attached to and I need a 2+ on Tendrils to apply it. It's pretty much the same just with less risk -- except that is mostly all he did in 9th - two spells and done. Not even likely to be involved in denials ( I guess he did have a rr1s aura? I can't even recall now ). In 10th he now also comes with a S6 AP2 DD3 flamer on top of two abilities. If I'm being honest most of my spell selection was to push as many MW through as I could on key targets. Now all my casters do lots of stuff.

ccs wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

ccs wrote:
I think that what the OP is largely noticing is that they don't need to waste time adding up wargear costs.
And then doing it again with the next Balance Sheet..

Because rules? There's plenty of rules. Every unit has 1,2, 3+ unique rules. And 1/2+ of the weapons as well.

And a lot of the rules feel pretty dull or unimpactful.
Plus, without any costs for anything besides unit size (in bulk) there's often a clear winner in terms of gear to pick.

There were always clear winners.

Clearer winners, I guess. Previously, you could at least weigh the pros and cons of taking a cheap squad without all the bells and whistles. Now you're paying for the bell and whistle prices even if you want a bell-less, whistle-less squad. Or if your squad is built with bells but not whistles because you were trying to save points in the previous edition.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

ccs wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

ccs wrote:
I think that what the OP is largely noticing is that they don't need to waste time adding up wargear costs.
And then doing it again with the next Balance Sheet..

Because rules? There's plenty of rules. Every unit has 1,2, 3+ unique rules. And 1/2+ of the weapons as well.

And a lot of the rules feel pretty dull or unimpactful.
Plus, without any costs for anything besides unit size (in bulk) there's often a clear winner in terms of gear to pick.

There were always clear winners.

Clearer winners, I guess. Previously, you could at least weigh the pros and cons of taking a cheap squad without all the bells and whistles. Now you're paying for the bell and whistle prices even if you want a bell-less, whistle-less squad. Or if your squad is built with bells but not whistles because you were trying to save points in the previous edition.

It depends. There are definitely non-choices out there, but they largely did a good job of making high volume vs high damage weapons unique roles that are often a meta pick. There are units with options that don't fit this paradigm that are left with some notable duds, but there's quite a few units where I feel like my loadout choices come down to what I want the unit to do.

Sure. But also sergeants have no reason to pass on a free plasma pistol, and my kabalite warriors are stuck with weapons that I'd rather trade in for some extra points (if only to avoid having 5+ weapon profiles in a single unit each shooting phase.)

 Wyldhunt wrote:

ccs wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

ccs wrote:
I think that what the OP is largely noticing is that they don't need to waste time adding up wargear costs.
And then doing it again with the next Balance Sheet..

Because rules? There's plenty of rules. Every unit has 1,2, 3+ unique rules. And 1/2+ of the weapons as well.

And a lot of the rules feel pretty dull or unimpactful.
Plus, without any costs for anything besides unit size (in bulk) there's often a clear winner in terms of gear to pick.

There were always clear winners.

Clearer winners, I guess. Previously, you could at least weigh the pros and cons of taking a cheap squad without all the bells and whistles.

Most people were not doing any such weighing. They were simply figuring out how to squeeze in as many of whatever they thought were the winners. Or what people on-line told them were the winners. They weren't picking it by the pts, just AP/Damage with the side effect that now and then you'd get a squad with a cheaper spec/heavy weapon or even none.
And this would repeat every time new pts were released.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Now you're paying for the bell and whistle prices even if you want a bell-less, whistle-less squad. Or if your squad is built with bells but not whistles because you were trying to save points in the previous edition.

Well, considering that the cost your paying is 0 either way I don't see what your complaining about pts wise.
BTW, did you know that I'm paying 5pts LESS for each of my Guard squads here in 10e? That my CSMs Legionares didn't change price at all? Im even paying less for a full Tac squad (160 now vs 180 in 9e - of course I've also lost the ability to only take 5x for half the points on this one.)
If you're looking at a model thats now not armed optimally for the current edition? Well, welcome to 40k. That's been happening for 9 editions & a few decades.... The solutions the same as it's always been: 1) Use what you've got, or 2) get yourself some spare models, arm them with the rest of the weapons you didn't pick the 1st time through & paint to match the squads. Rotate wich models you use based on the meta.

@ccs: The biggest issue, to my mind, is that a lot of units went from having multiple viable builds to only have a single "correct" build. My kabalites, for instance. They worked as a dirt cheap space filler. They worked as a 5-man squad with a blaster. They worked as a 10-man squad with special and heavy weapons. In various editions, the sybarite could be left cheap or kitted out for phantasm shenanigans, or built for melee, or serve as an extra source of darklight. All of those were reasonably viable at one point or another.

Now, we're down to a single correct option. Any special weapons you don't take (except the sybarite weapons) are power left on the table. So in addition to it being annoying to resolve 5+ weapon profiles on a single unit, it also just stinks that you can't put a little personality into the squad based on which of the various viable options you chose.

For those of us not playing cut-throat competitive games, there used to be a range of "good enough" options. Now there aren't. I think this is one of the contributing factors to why the current edition feels a bit more bland. Where there used to be like, 3 reasonably good builds for kabalites at a given time, now there's 1. And other units are in similar positions.

Wayniac wrote:
For me, the biggest issue is just the way the rules work. They FEEL clunky and with a lot of "hidden" parts that you just don't get unless you see it, or unless you're a high-end comp player who digs into it to find the old "Well, the rule is worded like X so that means I can do Y since that's part of X" kind of stuff that just fries my brain to consider. I find watching games that I'm shocked by people doing things that don't even seem possible and then you read the rule and it's like some nuanced thing that's allowable due to the wording the rule, but not something that anyone "normal" would even consider can be done.

That frustrates me probably the most because it constantly feels like there's this metagame within the game that you're only aware of if you're looking for it, and just playing the game doesn't work. Like, it legit hurts my brain to watch people play 40k and constantly be like "Wait, that's legal?" because it's not something that even remotely appears like a thing you can do. I do not recall the game EVER being like that in the past.

Psychic powers being as bland as they are is another huge problem; the AOS approach would have been 100% better than what we got.

Such as?

 Bosskelot wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
For me, the biggest issue is just the way the rules work. They FEEL clunky and with a lot of "hidden" parts that you just don't get unless you see it, or unless you're a high-end comp player who digs into it to find the old "Well, the rule is worded like X so that means I can do Y since that's part of X" kind of stuff that just fries my brain to consider. I find watching games that I'm shocked by people doing things that don't even seem possible and then you read the rule and it's like some nuanced thing that's allowable due to the wording the rule, but not something that anyone "normal" would even consider can be done.

That frustrates me probably the most because it constantly feels like there's this metagame within the game that you're only aware of if you're looking for it, and just playing the game doesn't work. Like, it legit hurts my brain to watch people play 40k and constantly be like "Wait, that's legal?" because it's not something that even remotely appears like a thing you can do. I do not recall the game EVER being like that in the past.

Psychic powers being as bland as they are is another huge problem; the AOS approach would have been 100% better than what we got.

Such as?

Almost everything? I can't point to just one thing. But I feel like an absolute idiot reading the 10th edition rules, and I've played since 1997. I can't really explain it more, sorry. But I can read the rules and think I comprehend it, then I watch a video of competitive/tournament play and I'm left staring like "WTF how did they do that" like a moron.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Respectfully, I think you're overhyping the importance of the Astronomicon and psychic powers in general to the setting. It's not Astronomicon 40k. The tagline isn't, "In the grim psychic future of the psychic-first millennium, there are only psykers."

Equally respectfully, (and BTW, thanks for that- I sometimes misinterpret tone in text without cues, and while I can read regular emoji, Orkmoticons confuse me as much as text without cues), several books from Rogue Trader on have said that without Warp travel, humans would till be confined in the Sol System where humanity began on terra, and since warp travel is only possible due to psykers, I think it is you who underestimate the importance of psykers.

Cuz if we never got to Baal? No BA.
If we never got to Fenris? No SW.
Oh yeah, and that Emperor guy who created ALL SM?
Pretty potent psyker, right?

Not convinced?

How did the Eldar fall? Surely not the psychic confluence that birthed a God?
Why are the Tau restricted to such a small area of space? Couldn't be the lack of Psykers (and resulting lack of warp travel), could it?
What is the Hive Mind? Surely not a gestalt psychic consciousness?
Why do the SoS even exist? The Hereticus?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Fun fact: when I started playing in 5th, there was no such thing as the psychic phase. Psychic defenses were few and far between, and there was no expectation that every army would have ways of interfering with a psyker's ability to use his powers. From my understanding, that's how thing worked at least as far back as 3rd up until the whole warp dice minigame got introduced in 6th or 7th.

You may be right about 5th- I don't have a copy of that rulebook or any dexes from that era.

But 3rd had psychic powers and sisters Shield of Faith ability nullified psychic powers on 5+, and there was a selection of Ordo Hereticus powers. I don't have the rulebook from 3rd, but the Witch Hunters dex confirms the existence of psychic tests, a mechanic like Deny the Witch within the Shield of Faith rules, and it confirms the existence of faction specific powers chosen from a list.

I DO have the fourth ed rulebook, and it too has psychic phase.

Second had a very detailed psychic system released as a Dark Millennium, which was big box of cards, including the infamous Foot of Gork template. I played Rogue Trader, but I came late in the game and only got two games or so before the table-top world exploded in Space Crusade, Space Hulk and Second ed, so I'm not sure about RT, but if they did have a psychic phase, it was probably published in a compendium, a Chapter Approved, or a WD Article.

So if you remember a psychic phase in 6th and 7th (the only editions I didn't play), then 5th and 10th are the anomalies in a game that otherwise, has ALWAYS had psychic phase (with the possible exception of RT).

Personally, I believe the mid-edition campaign arch will be a psychic expansion; I was surprised in 8th when that wasn't what Psychic Awakening turned out to be. I wouldn't be surprised if they reused the Psychic Awakening title- after all, our second third trip to the Pariah Nexus has just begun. Getting us to think about datacards as play aids was slow-walking us into card based psychic play like 2nd ed. I also believe that 11th will be a 10,5 that updates one or two small core rules the way 9th re-did terrain; it will bring back costed equipment, somewhat more options and it will re-solidify the psychic phase as a core rule.

There was no Psychic Phase in 3rd Edition. As you noted, the Codex Witch Hunters, a 3rd Edition Codex, has psychic powers with test. Each of these powers tells you what phase to use them in. I doubt there was a Psychic Phase given this is the case.

If the Lexicanum article on 4th Edition is accurate, there was no Psychic Phase on 4th Edition.

My copy of the 5th Edition rules has no Psychic Phase in it.

So the Psychic Phase seems to have started in 6th Edition, probably as an import from Fantasy Battles.

GW doesn't do a good job of labelling the edition numbers on their books, so I could be wrong about the BRB I have- it could be the 3rd, 4th, or 5th. It is the one that has the Kill Team rules with sentries and Brutes. When I described it to Unit, he said it was 4th.

But either way, it clearly identifies a psychic phase; I trust that Unit correctly identified it, but even if he didn't, the edition predates 6th.

Third is actually more interesting, because rereading it, it's a really good model to add back into 10th part way through, because I concede- you're right, it does look like like there was no psychic phase, but they still had enough nuance to psychic rules that it didn't need a phase to feel right- really, as long as you choose a power from a faction based list, and the opportunity to Deny the Witch exists, I can get behind it. There also needs to be mechanism for Perils, though I could see something other than a psychic test to achieve that.

2nd definitely had a psychic phase, or at least I was sure it did, but seeing how well 3rd did it without a phase, I'm less sure. Either way, if 10th system was as good as 3rd's I'd be satisfied.

But I would still like to see those lifers weigh in- like the dudes from the Oldhammer thread. Someone summon Mezmorki! Does Prohammer have a psychic phase?

4th absolutely doesn't have a psychic phase.

I have no experience with 2nd but it looks like it did have one, though like you mentioned the system in 2nd was quite different from anything 40k had later.

Oh man, I feel stupid- I had my 4th and my 8th book out at the same time and mixed them on one of my checks. You are right, no psychic phase in 4rth.

There goes my credibility lol.

Wayniac wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
For me, the biggest issue is just the way the rules work. They FEEL clunky and with a lot of "hidden" parts that you just don't get unless you see it, or unless you're a high-end comp player who digs into it to find the old "Well, the rule is worded like X so that means I can do Y since that's part of X" kind of stuff that just fries my brain to consider. I find watching games that I'm shocked by people doing things that don't even seem possible and then you read the rule and it's like some nuanced thing that's allowable due to the wording the rule, but not something that anyone "normal" would even consider can be done.

That frustrates me probably the most because it constantly feels like there's this metagame within the game that you're only aware of if you're looking for it, and just playing the game doesn't work. Like, it legit hurts my brain to watch people play 40k and constantly be like "Wait, that's legal?" because it's not something that even remotely appears like a thing you can do. I do not recall the game EVER being like that in the past.

Psychic powers being as bland as they are is another huge problem; the AOS approach would have been 100% better than what we got.

Such as?

Almost everything? I can't point to just one thing. But I feel like an absolute idiot reading the 10th edition rules, and I've played since 1997. I can't really explain it more, sorry. But I can read the rules and think I comprehend it, then I watch a video of competitive/tournament play and I'm left staring like "WTF how did they do that" like a moron.

Without actual examples it just sounds like you don't read rules properly, sorry. No seriously; give examples.

Believe me, I dislike 10th's rules but there are very few things that would apply to what you're talking about, or at least not many more than the previous 9 editions. They exist, but they're absolutely edge-cases that will never come up in 90% of games. The main things are actually just because of how loose and restriction-free the rules are so you're able to do things that you weren't in previous (9th especially) editions. Prime example being able to stack out-of-phase movement like Shadow Spectres JSJ ability with the Fire and Fade stratagem. This isn't hidden away or some weird way to interpret the way the rules are written; it's very clear. It's just completely at odds with how such abilities have been designed for like at least 2 editions previously.

 Kothra wrote:
4th absolutely doesn't have a psychic phase.

I have no experience with 2nd but it looks like it did have one, though like you mentioned the system in 2nd was quite different from anything 40k had later.

There was no separate "phase" for powers like in classic warhammer fantasy. there were 3 phases to a players turn- move/shoot/assault. powers were used in those phases depending on what they did. if it was a shooting power it was treated like a gun, if it was a melee power it was used in close combat, a travel power-during movement and support powers the eldar were famous for-guide/fortune/doom were all done during their movement phase.

Seriously MODs need to close this topic everything in here is a re-hash of this recent topic that is 63 pages long-go there read it and add to it if you want.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/811846.page

PenitentJake wrote:
GW doesn't do a good job of labelling the edition numbers on their books, so I could be wrong about the BRB I have- it could be the 3rd, 4th, or 5th. It is the one that has the Kill Team rules with sentries and Brutes. When I described it to Unit, he said it was 4th.

But either way, it clearly identifies a psychic phase; I trust that Unit correctly identified it, but even if he didn't, the edition predates 6th.

Third is actually more interesting, because rereading it, it's a really good model to add back into 10th part way through, because I concede- you're right, it does look like like there was no psychic phase, but they still had enough nuance to psychic rules that it didn't need a phase to feel right- really, as long as you choose a power from a faction based list, and the opportunity to Deny the Witch exists, I can get behind it. There also needs to be mechanism for Perils, though I could see something other than a psychic test to achieve that.

2nd definitely had a psychic phase, or at least I was sure it did, but seeing how well 3rd did it without a phase, I'm less sure. Either way, if 10th system was as good as 3rd's I'd be satisfied.

But I would still like to see those lifers weigh in- like the dudes from the Oldhammer thread. Someone summon Mezmorki! Does Prohammer have a psychic phase?

Easy to mix the books up, 4th through 8th all had a hammer on the front.

Yeah, psychic powers were used in the appropriate phase. There was no game-wide Deny the Witch until... 6th edition I think. Generally speaking, some armies had no psychic defenses, some had limited defenses, and some had psychic defenses as their theme (Sisters of Battle/Hereticus and Black Templars). Most psychic defenses only worked on powers targeting the unit with the defense. Imperial Guard, for example, could take Sanctioned Psykers from 2003, but they randomly generated powers and had a 1/6th chance of getting the psychic defense power. That was the only codex option for IG psychic defense (there was a Chapter Approved high command unit for a Cadian campaign that could basically take a high-ranking astropath who counted as having a psychic hood). Tau had no defences. Space Marine Librarians had psychic hoods, Space Wolves had a wolf something or other too. Culexus assassins were available to Imperial forces, but these didn't defend other units from psykers particularly. They were good at killing psykers.

A lot of psychic effects in this era were also innate and didn't require psychic tests, they couldn't be blocked although some could be weakened. Examples include Grey Knights Nemesis force weapons (except when used as force weapons by high ranking knights) or their Shrouding power, and Warlock powers.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
They probably needed to bring back the old blessing/malediction/witchfire/etc. keywords if they wanted to interact with psychic abilities more directly. It's easy enough to write rules for "psychic attacks" because you know broadly what they'll do (follow the attack process). It's harder to write one-size-fits-all rules that interact with non-witchfires because there isn't currently an easy way to tell whether that power is going to grant rerolls to attacks or a defensive buff or something else entirely.

But honestly, I mostly like how 10th handles psychic powers. That is, it just makes them into special abilities and weapons like any other with tags so that things like a culexus assassin can theoretically interact with them.

I think public opinion on powers would be a lot better if they just gave psykers a few powers to choose from on each datasheet rather than locking in a single specific rule.

Some of us miss the mini game from 2nd.

 alextroy wrote:
There was no Psychic Phase in 3rd Edition. As you noted, the Codex Witch Hunters, a 3rd Edition Codex, has psychic powers with test. Each of these powers tells you what phase to use them in. I doubt there was a Psychic Phase given this is the case.

If the Lexicanum article on 4th Edition is accurate, there was no Psychic Phase on 4th Edition.

My copy of the 5th Edition rules has no Psychic Phase in it.

So the Psychic Phase seems to have started in 6th Edition, probably as an import from Fantasy Battles.

2nd had a psychic phase like WHFB at the time (card driven). 3rd had something like 10ths but you could buy powers; it wasn't a "This model always has this power and that's all you get, feth you" (aka how they SHOULD have done 10th edition). 4th and 5th I assume were the same as 3rd. 6th I think is when they added back the Psychic Phase similar to how, again, WHFB did at the time.

Wayniac wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
There was no Psychic Phase in 3rd Edition. As you noted, the Codex Witch Hunters, a 3rd Edition Codex, has psychic powers with test. Each of these powers tells you what phase to use them in. I doubt there was a Psychic Phase given this is the case.

If the Lexicanum article on 4th Edition is accurate, there was no Psychic Phase on 4th Edition.

My copy of the 5th Edition rules has no Psychic Phase in it.

So the Psychic Phase seems to have started in 6th Edition, probably as an import from Fantasy Battles.

2nd had a psychic phase like WHFB at the time (card driven). 3rd had something like 10ths but you could buy powers; it wasn't a "This model always has this power and that's all you get, feth you" (aka how they SHOULD have done 10th edition). 4th and 5th I assume were the same as 3rd. 6th I think is when they added back the Psychic Phase similar to how, again, WHFB did at the time.

Not all psykers could choose in 3rd. Sanctioned psykers had one of 5 randomly-selected, wildly-different powers and could end up with NO power. Some psykers had assigned powers, like Ork Weirdboyz.

There was also the experimental minor psychic powers list for extra shenanigans

Plus as mentioned, there were "always on" psychic abilities that required no psychic test: Warlock powers (except Augment), Grey Knights Shrouding, Rites of Exorcism, and most Nemesis force weapon abilities, arguably Exarch powers, the deepstrike-detection of Daemonhunter mystics, the psychic lighning-rod effect of Witchhunter penitents to name a few.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I used to love building list. A lot of the fun for me came out of thinking of an army concept and working it into a actual army, theme was so important and I had to make choices.

Now the only decision I really have to make is what detachment to take. Everything else is just stock standard with no choices or minimal choices with no real impact. Enhancements are a cool concept but just like artifacts before them so many are just flat out laughably unusable.

Here's a consideration I waffle on.

Sorcerer - Lethal Hits, Untargetable outside 18". Comes with a pistol spell - 12" 2D6 BS2 S5 AP1 D1 SH3.
Infernal Master - SH, changes one of his own rolls to a 6. Comes with a flamer - 18" 2D3 S6 AP2 D1 - hazardous for 2D6

Both attach to Rubrics who rr1s to wound and full wounds against targets on objectives. Neither of these characters would interact with flamers. So what does a bolter squad look like?

I have strats that add 9" to Psychic weapons and another that makes the bolters Pyschic and S5. My army ability is that I add either DW, SH, or LH to psychic attacks.

Sorcerer unit -
Pros : more durable in the backfield with less that can target them
Cons : spell is shorter range, LH doesn't mix well with rr wounds and DW
Output vs terminators :

Infernal Master unit -
Pros : flamer spell will reach further, SH and DW go great together
Cons : flamer spell needs to go hazardous to be on par, unit is more vulnerable
Output vs terminators :

The Infernal Master unit is slightly better at the cost of durability. Or i can saw screw it and go all flamers, but be danger close:

My biggest moment of dissonance in 10th was the first game where I saw that battleshock does absolutely nothing. I just couldn't wrap my head around how THAT was the down side to losing half your unit. Ohh no, my half dead squad can't be target by stratagems? Good thing I wouldn't use stratagems on a half dead unit because I am not brain dead. The biggest issue is the loss of Obsec but really, I can't think of a situation where it would have meaningful impact on the game.

There's a difference between "happens all of the time" and "happens some of the time and you need to be vigilant". There are strong outcomes in tight games where battleshock matters. That it doesn't happen often or that you or the opponent didn't look for it doesn't make it have no impact.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
There was no Psychic Phase in 3rd Edition. As you noted, the Codex Witch Hunters, a 3rd Edition Codex, has psychic powers with test. Each of these powers tells you what phase to use them in. I doubt there was a Psychic Phase given this is the case.

If the Lexicanum article on 4th Edition is accurate, there was no Psychic Phase on 4th Edition.

My copy of the 5th Edition rules has no Psychic Phase in it.

So the Psychic Phase seems to have started in 6th Edition, probably as an import from Fantasy Battles.

Yea I literally purchased spells in CSM 3.5 and they worked exactly like they do now. They just happen ( with an LD test ).

My two bits for psychic powers is that we need the ability to chose from a list, although not necesarily all psykers need such list: e.g my Zoanthropes don't need one, but my Hive Tyrant would love to have one.

And the second one is that we need a special rule for a psychic test. Not all psychic abilities need to have a test, again my Zoanthropes shouldn't need to test to fire their warp blasts, but we already see plenty of psychic abilities that have a "roll a D6, on a 1 take X mortal wounds and you suck" kind of inbuilt tests.

 Tyran wrote:
My two bits for psychic powers is that we need the ability to chose from a list, although not necesarily all psykers need such list: e.g my Zoanthropes don't need one, but my Hive Tyrant would love to have one.

And the second one is that we need a special rule for a psychic test. Not all psychic abilities need to have a test, again my Zoanthropes shouldn't need to test to fire their warp blasts, but we already see plenty of psychic abilities that have a "roll a D6, on a 1 take X mortal wounds and you suck" kind of inbuilt tests.

I think they have the right balance on ones that need tests. It'd be obnoxious to test for Lethal Hits or whether or not I can shoot my gun that usually needs to roll to hit anyway.

I can't see a "pick a spell" setup, but I could see them adding extra datasheets with varied configurations.

I think it could be cool if Psychic leadership abilities came in sets of 3 and you could take a test to change them mid game.

 Tyran wrote:
My two bits for psychic powers is that we need the ability to chose from a list, although not necesarily all psykers need such list: e.g my Zoanthropes don't need one, but my Hive Tyrant would love to have one.

Agreed. Honestly, the way they were handling pivotal roles and exarch powers the last couple editions was great, and I think a similar approach could work for psychic powers. Do you want your librarian to provide defense, offense, or mobility (teleportation)? Choose Kine Shield, Avenger, or Gate of Infinity as appropriate.

And the second one is that we need a special rule for a psychic test. Not all psychic abilities need to have a test, again my Zoanthropes shouldn't need to test to fire their warp blasts, but we already see plenty of psychic abilities that have a "roll a D6, on a 1 take X mortal wounds and you suck" kind of inbuilt tests.

I could live with this, but I'm not sure it's really needed. How often do psykers fail to use their powers in BL novels? Probably not 1 in 6 times. Possibly never? If anything, it might be more appropriate to have a small chance of suffering mortal wounds, but have the power go off regardless so long as the psyker doesn't die from it.