Question about Warp lock

[morrowind06 3]

Hi this could be a stupid question, but the tier three talent warp lock states                                                        

 

"Once per game session, he may ignore

the Psychic Phenomena he has rolled (including the Perils of the

Warp result on Table 6–2: Psychic Phenomena, see page 196),

completely negating its effects"                                                                                                                            

 

 Now my question is do you get to see the perils of the warp result? Or do you have to negate the effects before rolling on perils?

Edited November 12, 2014 by morrowind06

[Asymptomatic 110]

I think players should be allowed to see if the roll is worth negating. Fate Points, another common cost for such Talents, are both more numerous and more expendable than a once-a-session ability. If Warp Lock forced a player to negate rolls beforehand, the bonus is much less appreciable. This is my personal opinion, anyway.

[cps 686]

The phrasing "may ignore the phenomena he has rolled" is past tense, meaning the decision happens after rolling on the table.

[morrowind06 3]

But it says the phenomena he has rolled which a roll of 75-100 says roll on the perils table. So I was just wondering if the act of rolling on the perils table was the effect of 75-100 phenomena and thus negate the act of rolling.

[Asymptomatic 110]

[cps] helpfully pointed out that a Warp Lock player can see if the roll is worth negating after the actual roll because of how the Talent is worded. It doesn't really matter when the player negates the Phenomena roll or the Perils roll since he's free to choose which roll he negates; negating either roll bears the same result. Does that make sense?

Edited November 13, 2014 by Asymptomatic

[morrowind06 3]

I suppose so! Thanks guys!

[Naviward 57]

To be honest, I'd argue the other way. The power doesn't say anything about ignoring a Peril of the Warp, it just lets you stop a Psychic Phenomena. If you let the phenomena resolve (which for 76+ would be roll on the Peril of the Warp table), it's already too late to then ignore it.

 

It would be like letting the a player see how big an area the shadow of the warp (66-68) affected and then ignoring it if you don't like the result, which I would think most GMs wouldn't allow.

[Asymptomatic 110]

To be honest, I'd argue the other way. The power doesn't say anything about ignoring a Peril of the Warp, it just lets you stop a Psychic Phenomena. If you let the phenomena resolve (which for 76+ would be roll on the Peril of the Warp table), it's already too late to then ignore it.

But Warp Lock does say you can ignore Perils of the Warp? I can follow your logic if it didn't, but as written it does.

[Naviward 57]

 

To be honest, I'd argue the other way. The power doesn't say anything about ignoring a Peril of the Warp, it just lets you stop a Psychic Phenomena. If you let the phenomena resolve (which for 76+ would be roll on the Peril of the Warp table), it's already too late to then ignore it.

But Warp Lock does say you can ignore Perils of the Warp? I can follow your logic if it didn't, but as written it does.

 

 

That's what I thought, but rereading the talent, it allows you to ignore the Peril of the Warp result (76+) on Table 6-2 the Psychic Phenomena. It doesn't say anything about actually ignoring Perils of the Warp.

 

Once per game session, he may ignore

the Psychic Phenomena he has rolled (including the Perils of the

Warp result on Table 6–2: Psychic Phenomena, see page 196),

completely negating its effects.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Naviward

[Asymptomatic 110]

That's what I thought, but rereading the talent, it allows you to ignore the Peril of the Warp result (76+) on Table 6-2 the Psychic Phenomena. It doesn't say anything about actually ignoring Perils of the Warp.

Oh, I gotcha. If the Warp Lock player somehow skips straight to the Perils table (such as by not negating the Phenomena result), Warp Lock wouldn't apply. Huh. I hadn't considered that; thanks for the new perspective.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Asymptomatic