Author Topic: Librarius Conclave  (Read 17104 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online SharkoutofWata

  • Chapter Master
  • *
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #120 on: May 04, 2016, 06:43:30 PM »
Just an update after my first time browsing the new FAQ rough draft: Nothing about Librarius Conclave.  Very few specific army related questions so this shouldn't be a huge surprise.

However, a couple of interesting things scattered throughout.  They brought back the 6th Edition restriction on amount of powers able to be cast.

"Q: Is the maximum number of powers a Psyker can use in their turn equal to their Mastery Level, or the number of powers they have (due to Psychic Focus they often have one more power than their Mastery Level)?
A: Unless explicitly permitted to do so, Psykers may not attempt to manifest more psychic powers than the number of their Mastery Level within a single Psychic phase."

We might suddenly want to study weboflies' interpretation and use it ourselves. /s

Offline SittingInACorner

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #121 on: May 04, 2016, 08:05:31 PM »
I don't want to say I told you so, but I was correct about the number of powers that may be cast in a single turn. The Formation seems very odd to me if this is the case. I'm sure we will see the GW ruling on it with in a week or so. So we can all sit tight till then :P

Offline pomalicious

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #122 on: May 04, 2016, 09:25:05 PM »
RAI you were correct. RAW you weren't correct then, though you are now.

That's what faqs are for. They take rules as intended, and make the rules as written

Online SharkoutofWata

  • Chapter Master
  • *
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #123 on: May 04, 2016, 10:00:22 PM »
Keep in mind that this is still a rough draft and not official.  Anything in it is subject to change.  We as players can adopt it in its current form, but they're not official rules yet.  Officially, Sitting is still wrong but that will very likely change when this gets published.  I can imagine a lot of games in the upcoming weeks are going to be annoying with everyone referencing a FAQ and those token few players who will fight the validity of an unpublished first draft.

Offline SittingInACorner

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #124 on: May 04, 2016, 10:31:30 PM »
I'm still not sure how "the number of powers that can be cast depends on mastery level" is at all odd, it seems I have the same mid set as GW in that regard. It also looks like we may have to wait a little while for the space marine FAQ to be posted, but I'm sure it will be the first one after the main rules.

Offline pomalicious

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #125 on: May 04, 2016, 10:50:22 PM »
You misquoted. Also, the old rule and faq both say "per turn". The rulebook doesn't. Those of us that have played previous editions can understand your point of view, but someone that has never seen the "per turn" rule before would have no reason to assume thats what it meant

Offline Kvekan

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #126 on: May 05, 2016, 03:51:40 AM »
Whoa... Didn't see that coming. So if this is actually going to be the official verdict it's a major, major change to the psychic phase. Psychic focus is suddenly quite overrated and not having an extra chance to cast force, for example, is really damaging to grey knight players and mastery level 1 psykers and not to mention single pysker armies (many dice and few powers to cast).

If what you say about the extent of the FAQ, SharkoutofWata, remains true to the final draft it sounds like a huge let down when it seemed such a promising endevour. As always the answers seem to be made in a vacuum with little to no thought on how it affects related aspects of the game.

"For those we cherish, we die in glory" ...And we die a lot.

Offline pomalicious

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #127 on: May 05, 2016, 04:00:50 AM »
The most concerning part is, if the conclave isn't changed to the way Weboflies and sitting in a corner interpret it,  my 5 man, 500ish point conclave can only cast 2 powers per turn if they use empirical channeling.

Offline SittingInACorner

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #128 on: May 05, 2016, 06:53:37 AM »
Which is why I've always thought that the formation rules made no sense if interpreted to interior casting.

Offline SittingInACorner

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #129 on: May 05, 2016, 06:55:34 AM »
The way people are using the conclave right now is actually way more powerful than I think was intended. The possibility of casting up to 15 powers on a 2+ is very scary

Offline Fritz40K

  • ADMIN
  • Primarch
  • *
  • Posts: 1365
    • View Profile
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #130 on: May 05, 2016, 09:20:59 AM »
This is some good 40K discussion on the usual ambiguity of GW's rules.

Moderators and the Inquisition are watching...
Though my men may sleep, and my ships rest at anchor, my foes know full well that big guns never tire...

Look on my works ye mighty, and despair...

Offline weboflies

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
    • Keepers of the Relics of Ultramar
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #131 on: May 05, 2016, 11:25:14 PM »
Weboflies, whilst following this thread (and the dakka one) I have seen you change your argument numerous times after being proved wrong on every point. You have gone from saying 40k is not a permissive ruleset, to "if I dont have written permission, i can use logic to grant it myself", to "I can add exceptions to the rule that requires me to choose not to cast anymore powers" (forgive the obvious paraphrasing)
this is what we call "reaching" or "rules lawyering". You are not trying to objectively take the rules to their logical conclusion. You are trying to find ways to do what you want

I appreciate the mental exercise, but I don't believe we will ever come to an agreement on this topic.

Just for the record, in a friendly game, if you asked me to allow this. I would. I do not believe it broken, and as long as i am granted the same privilege (I run conclaves myself), then it's a house rule I'm willing to run with.

I'd never get much farther than rolling a D6 over an in-game rules dispute over something like this. Internet forums are a totally different story.

I haven't changed my position at all. The fact that 40k does not define itself as a permissive ruleset is something that I stopped arguing because there wasn't any point to that. I came to realize that it supported the position I had already taken rather than hinder it. Likewise, I aboandoned the dictionary definitions of "end" and "ends" because the in-game definitions only prove my point even more strongly.

I'm not trying to twist the rules to say anything other than what they plainly said to me the first time I read them. I don't have room for this formation in my list, and would likely only ever play it here and there just for fun if even that. You mentioned this was a fun mental exercise. That gives me hope that maybe you are starting to see where I'm coming from with this.

Quote
"if I dont have written permission, I can use logic to grant it myself"

This, especially is a mischaracterization that is inaccurate, unfair and just plain unkind. My argument is that the permission is clearly stated to be granted, not that it's implied. We've narrowed it down to two rules who's interaction is the root of our disagreement. The first requires a rule to "say" something "happens" NOT to grant permission. the second rule, arguably can be said to "say" the thing in question "happens" at the given time. I'm not making up a special permission, because the rules don't require a special permission. The basic permission is already there in the form of Warp Charge as we've gone over again and again.

I've already admitted that I was wrong to say my reading of these rules was the only one that could possibly be correct, and I've pointed out that there's no way that's yet been discussed to prove either side wrong on the way pg 17 and the Formation rules interact. Can "not until, be read to mean the same as "at"?. It's open to debate, and in the abscence of any new info, I'm happy to agree to disagree.


Offline weboflies

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
    • Keepers of the Relics of Ultramar
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #132 on: May 05, 2016, 11:31:14 PM »
thank you dihunter, and no each librarian can only cast one copy of each spell and may only cast up to their masterly level.

The rules are unclear on that. They say the number of powers a psyker may cast "depends" on Mastery. Idoesn ot say it's equal to it. In the same section it goes on to explain that Primaris, and Force are in addition to that., so the argument can very reasonably be made that the limit is Mastery + Primaris + Force. It could also very reasonably said that the only way in which the number of powers "depends" on Mastery is the number of known powers, so If a rule, like these formation rules allow a psyker to access more powers, then that could be said to increase the limit further. All open to debate.

Offline weboflies

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
    • Keepers of the Relics of Ultramar
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #133 on: May 05, 2016, 11:58:20 PM »
I've chosen to stay out of this discussion since my grasp of the English language was called into question being an uncouth barbarian of the Scandinavian wildlands... I guess 2 decades of warhammer counts for little if you're sporting the wrong beard.

I was apologetic and emphatic at the time that I didn't mean to offend. it appers I did and I'm sorry. I think it's legitimate to point out that you might miss some small nuance of a language that is not your first. I say this as someone who is fluent in other languages himsel, and from a place of complete respect. Your english is impeccable, but I assume your first language, the one in which you think and dream, is Swedish, no?

Quote
It's been pointed out several times in this thread that 40k is a permissive rule set. Nowhere in the empyric channelling rule are you given permission to cast at the end of the phase, you're just bending the words "until the end of phase" to suit your own view. There is no RULE explicitly allowing them to cast. And you need a rule to be allowed to do anything at the end of a phase, it's right there in the definition at page 17. Until the end means it's the end.

Warp Charge = Permission. A rule requiring that another rule "say" something "happens" isn't a requirement of permission, it's a requirement that the event or action be defined a certain way.

Quote
If you want an example of rules where you have actual end of phase permissions there are examples to be found in hit & run, interceptor and vector strike.

Those rules are able to grant blanket permission for those actions in the end of phase, because there's no other permission that the actions are dependent on. In the case of the Conclave, their ability to cast is dependent on Warp Charge, and if a rule gave another permission, a specific permission to cast at the end of the phase, you might have "rules lawers" arguing they could do so without Warp Charge. Isn't it simpler to say " may not until the end of the phase" than "may at the end of the phase, if you've saved yourself some Warp Charge, and the conditions for the phase to complete and become the shooting phase are not yet met"?

Quote
And before you say that the wording of those rules don't add anything meaningful to the debate I'd like to point out that philosophical discussions about movie ends and dictionary definitions of the word end has absolutely zero application on the rule set 40k with its own definition of end.

agreed, we threw the dictionary out as it pertains to "end' and "ends", and I proved that the rules not only can, but must, treat the two differently pages ago. Not only that, but I outlined just exactly how the rules dictate they must be treated in our specific example.

Quote
We'll have a FAQ where this is resolved soon I hope, until then people play it like their meta calls it. Be happy we're not forced to agree since apparently majority consensus is not a thing.

Aren't we all glad Copernicus and Gallileo didn't care about majority concensus? Just because a lot of people think something is right, doesn't make it right. Furthermore, that's just the internet forums and TO's. How would opinion of the whole 40k community (including those that don't partake in these discussions, and those who don't care about tourney rulesets) look if you could get a sense of that? ALmost every casual contributor to these threads has not seen why it wouldn't ne allowed. It's just the guys super into the discussion, and presumably these forums, that seem to disagree strongly, that's a minirity of 40k players.

If the FAQ settles it, that will be final. Until then, RaW, and the possibly logically consistent readings of them is all we have to go on.

Offline weboflies

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
    • Keepers of the Relics of Ultramar
Re: Librarius Conclave
« Reply #134 on: May 06, 2016, 12:00:33 AM »
Except that it doesn't say that... It says "any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase, before the next phase (if any) starts".

There is no rule in empyric channeling that says it happens AT the end. There is only a rule that says you may not cast until the end. And since any rules that happen AT the end are always performed after ALL OTHER actions have been performed that phase you need to discard your warp charge dice, as ann example, before doing your end of phase actions.

It is quite clear. There is no extra psychic phase at the end. There is only an "after the actual psychic phase but before the shooting phase these special rules can take effect" phase.

Does "not until" mean the same thing as "at"? I could, and it might not. No way to prove it either way without more info.