My favourite thing about this update is how a non-Mystic psyker could still be a member of the Astra Telepathica, and yet remain completely unsanctioned. Hell, if you wanted to play something similar to a Templar Calix then you'd have to be running around completely unsanctioned.

Regardless of what happens with the Mystic special rules, Sanctioning needs to be a part of the AAT background.

Personally, it's my opinion that a psyker should be made to go through the Astra Telepathica if they want to be sanctioned. All psykers, even those stationed in the Imperial Guard, have to be trained by the ATT before they get assigned to active duty, so it only makes sense for that to be their background. Obviously there are exceptions, but these are rare, and the rules should reflect the how psykers would be commonly encountered, with perhaps a sidebar option on unorthodox sanctioning.

I know these points have already been made, but I feel really strongly about them, okay?

The bigger issue is that you don't WANT a trained psyker in the party...while some rogue nobody - what's supposed to be one of the big problems, can't ever hope to actually cause the troubles they're known to be.

I don't see this. Both the trained guy and the rogue trigger an effect on doubles. Both roll 2d10+PL. IIRC, the rogue starts with a bunch of corruption the trained guy doesn't, and has a much bigger chance of triggering an effect when pushing.

Given those mechanics, training is obviously much better than not training. Yeah, trained psykers are still a threat, but they're less of a threat than the witches.

Now, if your complaint is more 'why would the Imperium allow psykers to exist at all, given the threat,' well (1) interstellar travel, and (2) this is an RPG based on a previously worked-out setting in which psykers exist; in some sense, the decision is already made and what we have to do here is actualize it.

I was referring to those "PR 1 at most" nobodies that get black-shipped, not as in Black Crusade full powered unsanctioned chaos psykers. Sanctioned vs Unsanctioned had significant differences in previous games, those are what you're thinking of.

Right now the mechanics are flatly based on PR used, rather than, as before, the difference between PR used and what you can actually handle. There's no "fettered" right now. Some shmuck with PR1 that's gonna get black-shipped when they find him CANNOT do the whole possession or going full warp-portal bit that is the main reason they need to be hunted down, astronomicon fueling notwithstanding. He can't. 23's his maximum if he pushed. Someone powering Smite with PR7, of his actual rating of 10? Anything from Spectral Rot to Permanent mutation. He can't get a simpler, lower phenomena like before.

By these mechanics, if the Emperor used one of his massive abilities, and we can safely assume he bloody well did a few times over thousands of years, he'd be, what, running a ten percent chance of turning Sol into an Eye of Terror every time?

There is a fettered in so far, as you may use less PR to do the power than you have, which also gives you a bonus on the Willpower throw (and lowers your PR, whichreduces Perils effect).

This is the same as fettering. It is even better than before as you may scale it yourself, besides that it reduces the Peril effect instead of letting you ignore Perils in general.

I always hated this always-save psykering, so I am very happy about the new rule, which reduces risks, but does not take them away.

To be fair fettered in the previous games was really, really weak unless you were, like, divining a future battle or something. Half your rating generally had you thinking "why didn't I just pull out this laspistol I found on a dead ganger to do the exact same damage?"

I actually rather disagree with the willpower bonus when lowering your PR like that. That actually seems too much of a bonus. Yes, I realize that probably sounds strange coming from me, given I'm at the same time stating that firing at a lower rating than you can handle right now is far riskier than it should.

Absolutely no danger, I agree we do not need. But "it's safe because it's 2d10+4 instead of 2d10+5"... no. At least lower either the amount a little more [that's why I suggested it adding up to -2 per point under instead of -1], or lower the odds of it occurring a little [at -1PR 11 is clean, at -2PR 11 and 22 are clean, or something of the sort].

At least if we put the focus bonus on pushing instead, folks will get tempted to do it for the aiming, and I think Push, while slightly too inducing [this is perils of the warp, not psychic phenomena that might cause then cause them] percentage-wise, is also not enough of a danger in terms of roll result.

Again though, do understand, I don't want NO danger. I want a class/character-category that isn't defaulted to "no f*** you bob, no psykers in the party. In fact we'll all take blanks if you do so you can't screw us over with your f***ups". I want the risk to, like so often with the psykers, be the user's fault for playing with fire, not just an inevitable assured default state of being.

That's why I want Pushing attractive, but nastier on what it does to your perils roll, and why I don't want to see accuracy boosts on holding back, but also less risk on holding back as well. I want a reason people push too much and too often, and not "Well it doesn't matter I'm f***ed anyways".

We should be able to look across the table and say "you brought this entirely on yourself" to the player and his character, but for his actions - not for the simple "error" of having chosen the wrong class. "This is all your fault" at character creation doesn't happen, because that's where the idea stops. "This is all your fault" has to come a little later.

Maybe the following changes could help then:

Fettered:

> the perils go down by -2 per level below the own PR

--> so if you have PR 4 and only use PR 2, you get +10 on the roll and 2d10 perils

General:

> scaling by PR should increased

--> this would benefit pushing and punishing fettering

That's actually exactly what I suggested earlier. or possibly in a different thread. With the opposite being for pushing, though with lower chance of perils.

"Guaranteed perils" makes you think twice about it. "It won't necessarily happen" with a bigger impact when it does, that makes folks try to risk it.

And it'll work, once or twice, and then you'll get what you were waiting for: horrific bloody peril rolls.

Its not guaranteed as before - it is "only" 90% ;D

My favourite thing about this update is how a non-Mystic psyker could still be a member of the Astra Telepathica, and yet remain completely unsanctioned. Hell, if you wanted to play something similar to a Templar Calix then you'd have to be running around completely unsanctioned.

Well, if your GM doesn't want you to be sanctioned, it's not like the rule system can force him.

In other words: Non-Mystic Psykers already require GM fiat. Why the GM would allow you to play a Templar-Calix style psyker while refusing your request to start the game sanctioned is really a matter between you and him.

Of course, it's my personal opinion that Sanctioning is such a traumatic experience that the AAT should be the background of choice for any Imperial Psyker, overshadowing everything else he's been doing before or since. I also suspect that was the reason the AAT background was set up the way it was, originally, They probably hadn't expected such an outcry of "but I want to be a non-AAT psyker!" Either way, I can work with the system as presented.