Hey folks.

Earlier today, during work, i thought about the rules around being (un)sanctioned psyker.

The rules says, that you can push for a +1/2 psy rating.

Also, i figured out a way, to make a more clear difference between sanctioned and not, what comes to the playsystem.

As the rules are, when you are required to roll on the table (Perils of the Warp), an unsantioned psyker will roll 3D10 (instead of 2d10) but removing the lowest

An unsanctioned psyker will be able to push for +1/2/3 psy rating.

.

A sanctioned will roll the same, but removing the highest.

A sanctioned psyker will be able to push for +1/2 psy rating.

It might be a house rule for my team in the future, but i liked the idea that a sanctioned psyker has been teached to defend his mind against the dangers from the warp. On the other hand, an unsanctioned psyker has no teachings from the Black Ship, and will otherwise stay the opposite of the sanctioned..

Any thoughts?

What's the problem with a pre-errata Mystic (unsanctioned) vs. an AAT psyker (mystic or elite advance)?

Well, it's just a suggestion.. If the group of players wants the sanctioned psyker trait to be in-built part of the mystic. So you don't need to pick AAT..

But i see your point..

A popular idea is to separate the Sanctioned Trait into its own elite advance (removing it from both Mystic and AAT) and make it free for AAT characters.

Ye well, you could do that, but also add my thing? - giving the psyker something to think about (if he has the choice of being sanctioned or not)

Just a question, why would an inquisitor employ and unsanctioned psyker? Unsanctioned psykers are dangerous and unpredictable, they are seen as heretical and a pawn of the dark powers. I don't think an inquisitor would make one an acolyte.

Just a question, why would an inquisitor employ and unsanctioned psyker? Unsanctioned psykers are dangerous and unpredictable, they are seen as heretical and a pawn of the dark powers. I don't think an inquisitor would make one an acolyte.

Look at this idealist. I bet he thinks humans don't make trade deals with aliens, too.

The number of differing opinions on the use of unsanctioned psykers amongst the ranks of the Holy Ordos equals to (n+1), where n is the total number of past, future and present members of the Inquisition.

Some Inquisitors just don't care. Some might find the particular psyker interesting enough a specimen to enlist him, with the implicit understanding that he can always be killed later should he grow troublesome. It all depends on the particular witch and the particular Inquisitor - which in practice means, anything goes on the global scale. In the environment of a particular campaign, it should be discussed between players and the GM whether it's a good idea to try play one.

We were used to have 1 guy always playing Psyker in DH1.. often being a follower of chaos magic.. >.<

always ended with big explosions and dead comrades + burned fate points for all

Just a question, why would an inquisitor employ and unsanctioned psyker? Unsanctioned psykers are dangerous and unpredictable, they are seen as heretical and a pawn of the dark powers. I don't think an inquisitor would make one an acolyte.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Radical

The Inquisition has a collective mandate to maintain certain imperial standards amongst the populace, but they're not all as upstanding members of society as some would have you believe.

The short of it, the answer to your question, why would an inquisitor employ an unsanctioned psyker? Because the psyker is useful of course.

Hey folks.

Earlier today, during work, i thought about the rules around being (un)sanctioned psyker.

The rules says, that you can push for a +1/2 psy rating.

Also, i figured out a way, to make a more clear difference between sanctioned and not, what comes to the playsystem.

As the rules are, when you are required to roll on the table (Perils of the Warp), an unsantioned psyker will roll 3D10 (instead of 2d10) but removing the lowest

An unsanctioned psyker will be able to push for +1/2/3 psy rating.

.

A sanctioned will roll the same, but removing the highest.

A sanctioned psyker will be able to push for +1/2 psy rating.

Great topic Scyndria, the difference btw Sactioned vs. Non-Sanctioned psykers has been on my mind the last few weeks, as well.

First let me ask, it sounds like you're saying that what you've put in your post are the rules as they currently are, "As the rules are". I'm not familiar with those rules of for Perils rolling three d10 and dropping the highest or lowest. Also not familiar with pushing +1/2/3 or pushing +1/2. Where are those from? Or are those your ideas?

As you suggest, I also find very compelling that Sanctioned psykers, having spent years in painful training with some of the best teachers available should have significantly more control (if not overwhelmingly more control) than the vast majority of unsanctioned psykers, who were taught by no one. Obviously, there's going to be the exception of an unsanctioned psyker having been taught by someone outside the Imperial structure (a witch, daemon, cultist, sorcerer, cult of unsanctioned psykers, etc.) - but even then I think there's a case to be made that the control for most of these is unlikely to be as good as a psyker who spent years at the very difficult AAT school...and passed.

The suggestions you list look good - I like those.

My house rule was from the other direction - of mishap frequency . Most recently we were using Willpower Tests to manifest psyker abilities (vs. DH1's Threshold rolls). The DH2 beta RAW has a roll of doubles triggering a Perils roll. If it was an unsanctioned psyker, I was also using any result of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, etc. to also indicate a psychic phenomenon thereby doubling the frequency of mishaps.

Combining your ideas and mine offers perhaps three psyker mishap options for GMs. The AAT psyker (and perhaps exceptional rare unsanctioned psyker), who experiences mishaps per beta RAW. The unsanctioned psyker with some non-Imperial training who perhaps uses just my higher-frequency-Perils house rule or your worse-result-Perils house rule - but not both. And the vast majority of unsanctioned psykers, who use both the higher-frequency-mishap and the worse-result-mishap house rules.

Just a thought.

Just a question, why would an inquisitor employ and unsanctioned psyker? Unsanctioned psykers are dangerous and unpredictable, they are seen as heretical and a pawn of the dark powers. I don't think an inquisitor would make one an acolyte.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Radical

The Inquisition has a collective mandate to maintain certain imperial standards amongst the populace, but they're not all as upstanding members of society as some would have you believe.

The short of it, the answer to your question, why would an inquisitor employ an unsanctioned psyker? Because the psyker is useful of course.

I know a psyker is useful and not all of the emperor's pet psychopaths are purist holy people but look at the resources an inquisitor has access to. I'm trying to see why an Inquisitor would choose to use an unsanctioned psyker over a sanctioned one. Not that it doesn't happen but it seems highly unlikely that an inquisitor would think that the risk of using an unsanctioned psyker is worth it.

It takes years for psykers to be trained to use their powers safely and guard themselves from the influence of daemons, having a ticking time bomb in you party might be fun but it doesn't make sense form a fluff standpoint.

I know a psyker is useful and not all of the emperor's pet psychopaths are purist holy people but look at the resources an inquisitor has access to. I'm trying to see why an Inquisitor would choose to use an unsanctioned psyker over a sanctioned one. Not that it doesn't happen but it seems highly unlikely that an inquisitor would think that the risk of using an unsanctioned psyker is worth it.

It takes years for psykers to be trained to use their powers safely and guard themselves from the influence of daemons, having a ticking time bomb in you party might be fun but it doesn't make sense form a fluff standpoint.

You make a good rational point Robomummy, to be sure. However, I think the devil lies in the details of possible mindsets of Radical Inquisitors. To wit, Sanctioned Psykers have had painfully drummed into them for years, on Terra itself, the Imperial Creed party line, especially as it pertains to the warp & heretical behavior involving it.

(The following Inquisitor radical factions & their descriptions are from The Radical's Handbook .)

Now you have a Xanthite or Oblationist Inquisitor who don't believe themself restricted so much by the Imperial Creed & like playing with Daemons - with the intention of being better able to destroy Daemons, of course. It would not be surprising if that didn't fly with a very significant number of sanctioned psykers. A great many Xanthites and all Oblationists rely on keeping their chosen faction a secret - so loyalty is at a very special premium. I think there's a strong case to be made that unsanctioned psykers would be a far more ethically malleable lot.

Ocularian Inquisitors are going to be always watching for powerful diviners they come across. Their focus on this is so strong - really almost a perfectly singular focus really - that there's a good case to be made that they're simply not going to pass up on a powerful diviner.

An Istvaanian Inquisitor is interested in creating chaos for the Imperium, so a good case could be made that, not only is he not concerned about a warp "ticking time bomb"...in many circumstances he might prefer it.

I think the possibility must also be considered that an Inquisitor that is a psyker, from factions like the ones above, might want to "bring up his psykers right" and train them himself. What that training would be like compared to AAT training is another interesting discussion in and of itself. However, I think one could see that a Radical Inquisitor might be satisfied with a psyker trained by themself - arrogance is kind of a required Inquisitorial requirement, after all.

Then consider any of the above Inquisitors coming across an unsanctioned psyker of especially rare breathtaking power and combine it with any of the "radical rationales" above...oh the temptation to utilize such a gift for the Imperium...surely to have come across such a psychic specimen was the Emperor's will....

One man's opinion

As for Xanthites and Oblationists I still think that the risks for having an unsanctioned psyker for an inquisitor outweigh the rewards.

I see your point with Ocularians if they run across a particularly powerful psyker (see Ravenor novels as a good example) still they would probably send them to the black ships at some point.

Isstvanian inquisitors are all insane so nobody would be surprised if they did use an unsanctioned psyker to cause havoc.

I'm sure there are cases where inquisitors have used untrained psykers I just think that as a character from a story perspective it seems like too big of a risk.

Hey folks.

Earlier today, during work, i thought about the rules around being (un)sanctioned psyker.

The rules says, that you can push for a +1/2 psy rating.

Also, i figured out a way, to make a more clear difference between sanctioned and not, what comes to the playsystem.

As the rules are, when you are required to roll on the table (Perils of the Warp), an unsantioned psyker will roll 3D10 (instead of 2d10) but removing the lowest

An unsanctioned psyker will be able to push for +1/2/3 psy rating.

.

A sanctioned will roll the same, but removing the highest.

A sanctioned psyker will be able to push for +1/2 psy rating.

Great topic Scyndria, the difference btw Sactioned vs. Non-Sanctioned psykers has been on my mind the last few weeks, as well.

First let me ask, it sounds like you're saying that what you've put in your post are the rules as they currently are, "As the rules are". I'm not familiar with those rules of for Perils rolling three d10 and dropping the highest or lowest. Also not familiar with pushing +1/2/3 or pushing +1/2. Where are those from? Or are those your ideas?

As you suggest, I also find very compelling that Sanctioned psykers, having spent years in painful training with some of the best teachers available should have significantly more control (if not overwhelmingly more control) than the vast majority of unsanctioned psykers, who were taught by no one. Obviously, there's going to be the exception of an unsanctioned psyker having been taught by someone outside the Imperial structure (a witch, daemon, cultist, sorcerer, cult of unsanctioned psykers, etc.) - but even then I think there's a case to be made that the control for most of these is unlikely to be as good as a psyker who spent years at the very difficult AAT school...and passed.

The suggestions you list look good - I like those.

My house rule was from the other direction - of mishap frequency . Most recently we were using Willpower Tests to manifest psyker abilities (vs. DH1's Threshold rolls). The DH2 beta RAW has a roll of doubles triggering a Perils roll. If it was an unsanctioned psyker, I was also using any result of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, etc. to also indicate a psychic phenomenon thereby doubling the frequency of mishaps.

Combining your ideas and mine offers perhaps three psyker mishap options for GMs. The AAT psyker (and perhaps exceptional rare unsanctioned psyker), who experiences mishaps per beta RAW. The unsanctioned psyker with some non-Imperial training who perhaps uses just my higher-frequency-Perils house rule or your worse-result-Perils house rule - but not both. And the vast majority of unsanctioned psykers, who use both the higher-frequency-mishap and the worse-result-mishap house rules.

Just a thought.

Instead of the normal 2d10+psy rating, you should roll 3d10+psy rating, removing highest/lowest.

To counter inbalance between those (in case of gameplay), i would let the unsanctioned psyker be able to push +1/+2/+3 instead of the normal +1/2 (which is the normal rule - The +1/+2 should be for the sanctioned only).

Makes more sense?

And thanks for your liking

I know a psyker is useful and not all of the emperor's pet psychopaths are purist holy people but look at the resources an inquisitor has access to. I'm trying to see why an Inquisitor would choose to use an unsanctioned psyker over a sanctioned one. Not that it doesn't happen but it seems highly unlikely that an inquisitor would think that the risk of using an unsanctioned psyker is worth it.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Radical

The Inquisition has a collective mandate to maintain certain imperial standards amongst the populace, but they're not all as upstanding members of society as some would have you believe.

The short of it, the answer to your question, why would an inquisitor employ an unsanctioned psyker? Because the psyker is useful of course.

Just a question, why would an inquisitor employ and unsanctioned psyker? Unsanctioned psykers are dangerous and unpredictable, they are seen as heretical and a pawn of the dark powers. I don't think an inquisitor would make one an acolyte.

It takes years for psykers to be trained to use their powers safely and guard themselves from the influence of daemons, having a ticking time bomb in you party might be fun but it doesn't make sense form a fluff standpoint.

An officially sanctioned psyker has a lot of restrictions, is already "in the system", has loyalty to the Telepathica burned into him (sometimes literally), so there's many different reasons why someone would have an unsanctioned psyker.

The most obvious reason, however, is one of chance. Where would an Inquisitor even go to specifically recruit an "unsanctioned" psyker? Any that would be discovered by the Imperium would be sent away for Sanctioning, so it's not like he can walk down to Unsanctioned-Psykers'R'Us and get himself one.

What is more likely is that an unsanctioned psyker either doesn't know that it's a psyker or came in contact with the Inquisitor by chance or manifests it's fledgling powers while in the field. At that point, the Inquisitor may not want to send away a (relatively) valuable Acolyte or (arguably) loyal servant, and even rarer; a psyker outside the Bureaucracy of Man.

Sending him away for sanctioning would at best take him away for years, likely forever.

I think it's important that the dangers of unsanctioned psykers should be emphasized, and I do not think that it should be one of the basic choices - it may even be inappropriate to have rules for it in the main rulebook, because it would signify that this is somehow normative, whereas, much as you say, this is simply not very common, for the reasons you mention.

But it should definitely be a possibility at some point, because it does happen.

Just a question, why would an inquisitor employ and unsanctioned psyker? Unsanctioned psykers are dangerous and unpredictable, they are seen as heretical and a pawn of the dark powers. I don't think an inquisitor would make one an acolyte.

Look at this idealist. I bet he thinks humans don't make trade deals with aliens, too.

Of course not ! They also dont make pacts with the dark powers ! Never !

The most obvious reason I can think of as to why an Inquisitor would use an unsanctioned psyker is that there's no paper trail, so enemies would not be aware that the Inquisitor travels with a psyker.

The 2e rulebook actually states that some Inquisitors themselves aren't sanctioned.

The most obvious reason I can think of as to why an Inquisitor would use an unsanctioned psyker is that there's no paper trail, so enemies would not be aware that the Inquisitor travels with a psyker.

The 2e rulebook actually states that some Inquisitors themselves aren't sanctioned.

Sometimes you need a precision instrument, sometimes you need a grenade.

The most obvious reason I can think of as to why an Inquisitor would use an unsanctioned psyker is that there's no paper trail, so enemies would not be aware that the Inquisitor travels with a psyker.

The 2e rulebook actually states that some Inquisitors themselves aren't sanctioned.

Sometimes you need a precision instrument, sometimes you need a grenade.

As he walks along the walkways of Hive Sibellus in the night, he comes upon a building, a skylight on a roof releasing hundreds of multicoloured beams of light towards the heavens. As he looks down, hundreds of nobles in baroque masks, delicacies from a thousand worlds, naked slaves scurrying about refilling glasses with Malfian Nectar and throwing Ghostfire Pollen into the air.

The Inquisitor looks upon the wretched scene, unties his comrade, pulls off his mask, and pushes him through the skylight.

"Go fetch."

The most obvious reason I can think of as to why an Inquisitor would use an unsanctioned psyker is that there's no paper trail, so enemies would not be aware that the Inquisitor travels with a psyker.

The 2e rulebook actually states that some Inquisitors themselves aren't sanctioned.

Sometimes you need a precision instrument, sometimes you need a grenade.

I am now imagining an Inquisitor walking around with a man in manacles, both arms and feet, his ears plugged and his eyes covered, his mouth gagged, perhaps entirely covered by a gas-mask, with psychic suppressor implants protruding out of his head.

As he walks along the walkways of Hive Sibellus in the night, he comes upon a building, a skylight on a roof releasing hundreds of multicoloured beams of light towards the heavens. As he looks down, hundreds of nobles in baroque masks, delicacies from a thousand worlds, naked slaves scurrying about refilling glasses with Malfian Nectar and throwing Ghostfire Pollen into the air.

The Inquisitor looks upon the wretched scene, unties his comrade, pulls off his mask, and pushes him through the skylight.

"Go fetch."

This actually happens in the Eisenhorn books, where one radical inquisitor has a arcoflagellants dressed up under heavy robes to look just like acolytes. Literally a thing that is done.

The most obvious reason I can think of as to why an Inquisitor would use an unsanctioned psyker is that there's no paper trail, so enemies would not be aware that the Inquisitor travels with a psyker.

The 2e rulebook actually states that some Inquisitors themselves aren't sanctioned.

Sometimes you need a precision instrument, sometimes you need a grenade.

typically when someone uses a grenade they take precautions to make sure it doesn't go off in their hand.

The most obvious reason I can think of as to why an Inquisitor would use an unsanctioned psyker is that there's no paper trail, so enemies would not be aware that the Inquisitor travels with a psyker.

The 2e rulebook actually states that some Inquisitors themselves aren't sanctioned.

Sometimes you need a precision instrument, sometimes you need a grenade.

typically when someone uses a grenade they take precautions to make sure it doesn't go off in their hand.

Thats what an acolyte cell is for? An Inquisitor never needs to even contact the cell. Statis them, wake them up remotely and you have your problem solved.

typically when someone uses a grenade they take precautions to make sure it doesn't go off in their hand.

The most obvious reason I can think of as to why an Inquisitor would use an unsanctioned psyker is that there's no paper trail, so enemies would not be aware that the Inquisitor travels with a psyker.

The 2e rulebook actually states that some Inquisitors themselves aren't sanctioned.

Sometimes you need a precision instrument, sometimes you need a grenade.

typically when someone uses a grenade they take precautions to make sure it doesn't go off in their hand.

Half of the talk of unsanctioned psykers being dangerous is just propaganda to keep the populace fear and hate them, so the Imperium has an easier time keeping psykers in check.

There are unsanctioned psykers who are a constant threat for themselves and everyone around, and those who, through a mixture of willpower and practice, have self-taught themselves to keep their powers in check. The unspoken assumption of the system is, you get to play the latter kind.