Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
DarkHunter888

Khorne Berserker archetype question

21 posts in this topic

So, in the starting skills you get common lore (war), but you also get this for being a space marine.  Does one cancel the other, or do you gain common lore (war) +10 effectively?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get +10 Common Lore(War). If a skill turns up twice, once in Race and once in Archetype they are indeed added together to net you a +10. Thats the way such issues have been handled before, and the way they should be handled.

Granted, it would have been smarter to just put in Common Lore(War) +10 right off the bat for 'zerkers. But sometimes certain things are just very poorly written.

Chrysalis2 and Decessor like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get +10 Common Lore(War). If a skill turns up twice, once in Race and once in Archetype they are indeed added together to net you a +10. Thats the way such issues have been handled before, and the way they should be handled.

Granted, it would have been smarter to just put in Common Lore(War) +10 right off the bat for 'zerkers. But sometimes certain things are just very poorly written.

 

This is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An advanced archetype is always the same race. If the 'same skill + same skill = better skill' thing applied, then you'd always get better skill, because there's no alternative. Which means the better skill would be listed in the advanced archetype. It's not. Logic dictates what's in the archetype is the final starting skill, unless it's lower than what's in the race (which will never happen as far as I know, because races don't start with +10/+20 in any skills). If there's redundancy (as in this case), it's just an editing error, until otherwise stated, and should not be increased like you say — because that's not a rule.

Edited by BrotharTearer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the same token, leaving out +10 from that skill could be an editing error.

 

In any case, that would mean we are both wrong since there is no rule favoring either way. In which case people can make up their own **** minds until an errata surfaces, which by the look of things will be never...

 

 

The closest analogue would be Rogue Trader in this case. In that game it IS clearly stated that if you receive the same skill from more than one source you gain Skill Mastery in that skill. So my hypothesis at least has precedence in previous 40k titles whereas yours is pulled out of the thin air. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but in Rogue Trader you can mix and match different origins and classes. That's not the case in BC, which means it's not a valid precedent. In BC a package is ALWAYS the same. Human Archetypes and CSM Archetypes. A fixed Race + Archetype schema leaving no room for 'upgrading' skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the same token, leaving out +10 from that skill could be an editing error.

I consider this to be the most likely situation by far

...as well as disagreeing with BrotharTearer's argument...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By the same token, leaving out +10 from that skill could be an editing error.

I consider this to be the most likely situation by far

...as well as disagreeing with BrotharTearer's argument...

 

 

Then that's a houserule. But going by what is written, what I say is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then that's a houserule. But going by what is written, what I say is correct.

 

 

It's also 100% true that something about the author's intent did not match what was printed there, since the skills are redundant.  You're not actually correct or incorrect; what's going on here is that the printed material is incorrect, and so we're interpreting a fix, a houserule.  And that's not less correct than what you're doing, because you're interpreting as well; there is no non-houseruled way to play a Khorne Berzerker because of that inherent error in the rules.

Amroth likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just happened upon this thread. I'm just imagining BrotharTearer being Justice Scalia sitting down to rule on the obvious and clear meanings that only he can find in vague, poorly edited rules. 

Edited by Duphrane
NFK likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing vague about it. There's a skill listed, and that's what you get. It doesn't upgrade just because the same skill is listed previously.

 

You have Common Lore (War) and get Common Lore (War). It replaces itself, making the second entry redundant.

 

This is as RAW as it can get.

 

If you want to treat it as an upgrade to +10, that's a houserule.

Edited by BrotharTearer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replacing CL:War with CL:War....

As a Khronate Berserker not likely to be keen on lores giving a +10 to CL:War actually helps him being more capable in other situation's. If RAW cause trouble (as here) it is the Gm work to fix it, as to grant that everyone has fun. Giving another Common Lore (like demonic wars, pirate raids or other combat specific lores) also can be an option  

Edited by Athanatosz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BrotharTearer: What happens when you already have a skill at the Known level, and then you buy it up not to Trained but to Known again? There are no rules for that, because it's supposed to be impossible. There is no RAW answer to this question, because by RAW the game hits a fatal error and crashes to desktop.

 

@Athanatosz: The literal description of the War specialty technically only covers Chaos vs. Imperium conflicts, so pirate raids and daemon wars would not fall under its umbrella. But so long as we're house ruling things (by inventing new specialties or whatever), I think it'd be better to place all famous conflicts under the umbrella of War. A heretic shouldn't need a new specialty for every faction's war history. Gaining an encyclopedic knowledge of any one subject should only require training up one or two skills, rather than buying the one Tzeentch talent that lets you treat all knowledge skills as Known and therefore lets you have an encyclopedic knowledge of every subject.

Edited by Lupa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Athanatosz: heretic shouldn't need a new specialty for every faction's war history. Gaining an encyclopedic knowledge of any one subject should only require training up one or two skills

 

These was just random examples it can be anything else like Common Lore: (specific World) or Screaming Vortex  or Local Enforcers....

 If we agree that giving poor Berserkers a +10 to CL:War or another CL (choose or make one) is not power gaming (and can be the wiser choice than gaining 2 CL:War)  I'm happy with any solutions... 

Edited by Athanatosz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BrotharTearer: What happens when you already have a skill at the Known level, and then you buy it up not to Trained but to Known again? There are no rules for that, because it's supposed to be impossible. There is no RAW answer to this question, because by RAW the game hits a fatal error and crashes to desktop.

 

Now you just sound silly.

 

Of course you can't buy that which you already possess. You can't buy that which you don't meet the prerequisites for, and not having the skill is a prerequisite for buying it (for example).

 

There's no "fatal error" (as you put it), because it's an if-else statement.

 

 

Frankly, I don't give a crap (because the skill is nigh worthless) if a GM houserules it to give the berzerker CL war +10, but it is a houserule if he does go that route. My point is that it's not RAW.

Edited by BrotharTearer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course you can't buy that which you already possess. You can't buy that which you don't meet the prerequisites for, and not having the skill is a prerequisite for buying it (for example).

 

...Yes. Yes, that's the point. The game instructs you to do something which it has no rules for, because it's supposed to be impossible. The game tells you to take the exact same skill at the Known level and to take it twice. Literally every response to that is a house rule, because the RAW are contradictory and completely impossible to follow. What you're doing now is parading around the house rule that makes most sense to you as though it were RAW, but it's not. And it's very easy to prove it: Where is it written that if you get the same skill at Known level twice from two different sources, you only get the skill at Known level? What rule as written actually, literally says that? Because unless you can point to an actual line of text that actually says something, you aren't talking about RAW, you're talking about house rules. It doesn't matter that one of these entries replacing the other makes sense to you, because the rules don't actually say what happens when you have the same skill at the same level in both race and class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

...Yes. Yes, that's the point. The game instructs you to do something which it has no rules for, because it's supposed to be impossible. The game tells you to take the exact same skill at the Known level and to take it twice

 

 

No. Just no. The game doesn't ask you to buy something when you choose an archetype or race. It just lists things you start with. If the same thing is on two different lists of things you start with, it's just redundant. Something only needs to be on one of the lists.

 

 

Literally every response to that is a house rule, because the RAW are contradictory and completely impossible to follow. What you're doing now is parading around the house rule that makes most sense to you as though it were RAW, but it's not. And it's very easy to prove it: Where is it written that if you get the same skill at Known level twice from two different sources, you only get the skill at Known level? What rule as written actually, literally says that? Because unless you can point to an actual line of text that actually says something, you aren't talking about RAW, you're talking about house rules. It doesn't matter that one of these entries replacing the other makes sense to you, because the rules don't actually say what happens when you have the same skill at the same level in both race and class.

 

 

You're basing your reasoning and arguments on faulty understanding of the rules and logic. The RAW in this case makes perfect sense. It's only a redundant entry of a skill you're already recieving that's making stuff difficult for you. Either ignore it (RAW) or have it do something else (houserule).

 

Why does there need to exist a line of text within the rules that states that nothing happens when an editor has forgotten to take a redundant skill out from an archetype?

 

A better question you should've asked yourself is this: "Where does it say you upgrade a skill if it's in both a Race entry and an Archetype entry?", because that would be a strange rule considering what a special case it would be. There's only two races in the game, there won't be many combinations where that'd happen (in fact, only if something turns up in an archetype, where an upgraded skill would be in the first place). Your sense of logical conclusions are laughably bad.

Edited by BrotharTearer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A better question you should've asked yourself is this: "Where does it say you upgrade a skill if it's in both a Race entry and an Archetype entry?",

 

I'm not actually going to tell you what piece of my writing you are blatantly ignoring to make this statement, because I shouldn't have to. I have already made an argument, which you are clearly ignoring by writing this. I'm assigning you homework: When you figure out what line of my argument you have completely ignored and come back to argue in good faith, we can continue the discussion.

 

It would also helped if you learned what logic actually is. It doesn't just mean "correct arguments."

Edited by Lupa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0