It really, really is not binary. But it seems you've never met someone who's half-Asian and half-black.

Oh, I have. But do note that they are half-Asian and half-African; not Asian, and not African.

Yeah it's confusing - especially since at that point in the character creation table they still haven't officially been declared as a Navigator yet. I still think that because the text for a Navigator says to always roll on their table instead of the general Mutation table, then any mutations you gain through character creation should be re-rolled on that table. It seems most in line with the intent of what a Navigator is.

There is an argument to be made that the mutations on the Origin path does not count as gained mutations for the purpose of the latter Navigator-specific rules regarding mutations.

I'm not saying that argument is right or wrong, I'm just saying that there is one. Personally, before it was pointed out in this thread, I've always counted those mutations as coming from the general Mutation table.

There's a norm in rules-lawyering that states that Specific Rules trump General Rules. That is, if there's a general rule ("navigators roll on the navigator mutation table") that conflicts with a specific rule (such as the origin option actually stating exactly what table you are supposed to roll on.. which I think it does), the more specific rule takes precedence.

Again, I'm not saying this is 100% right or wrong, I'm just saying that there's an argument to be made and that it could use ironing out. Personally, I've never given it much thought.

Navigators and psykers can have babies but there be one or the other.

Editting out the parts of this thread I wish would go away, the book says that the Navigator gene is recessive so that if a Navigator has a child with someone who's not a Navigator, they definitely won't have a Warp Eye. Not sure if their child would be psychic. I would assume so, but it's never been made clear I think.

Recessive to what degree, though? If two couples of Navigator/Non-Navigator have a child each, both children born without the Third Eye, if those children have a child in turn, would there be a chance of that child manifesting a Third Eye?

I prefer to think of it as completely recessive, forcing Navigators to inbreed heavily and to actively trade their progenies between the houses to stave off inbreeding depression.

Concerning Navigators and rolling on the Mutations table, allow me to assist you with a quote from the Errata:

Question: Since Navigators wield Warp powers, bud to not possess a Psy Rating, can they gain a Psy Rating through the Wyrdling mutation?

Answer: No. Navigators are not psykers and can never become psykers or gain a Psy Rating. They have their own mutation chart ( Table 7-2: Navigator Mutations , on page 182 of the Rogue Trader Core Rulebook), and should never roll on Table 14-3: Mutations on page 369 of the Rogue Trader Core Rulebook.

This means, that even if your character hasn't been declared by the game system as a Navigator at Character Creation, you still roll on the Navigator table, due to your character being a Navigator at birth, due to genetic engineering, breeding and so on. So if you're planning a Navigator, or chooses a Navigator career, your mutations must be from the Navigator Mutations chart. The Tainted (Mutant) option states that you should roll, and as such you default to the Navigator table as noted in the Errata. That you may pay to choose doesn't let you pick from the other chart. Contaminated Environs from Into The Storm also specifies rolling on that table.

I guess you could make the argument that you don't know what you'll play until you get to the bottom row, but I find that unlikely. Should that be the case, well, we hit a snag. Best would probably be to re-roll or pick the corresponding table entry from the other table.

Well that settles that with a nice little "Never!" .

Here's a thought. Can they become SORCERERS?

Obviously the RT books (that I know of) don't actually have rules for sorcery (however you want to clearly define what "sorcery" entails). So if the answer is yes, you'd need to turn to DH and/or BC for this.

If you go the BC route...well, there's no "effective" distinction between a psyker and a sorcerer there. Whether you're using 100% inborn psyker talent, incanting spells you learned from some prohibited tome, or whatever mixture of the two floats your boat, the rules treat all the same way.

Of course, there is that "Never gain a psy rating" clause that was pointed out, and BC does use a psi rating even for the aforementioned space wizard type, so...maybe I just killed my own food for thought.

As a side note, the BigBad in a campaign I played in was a navigator/warp user. No idea if he was classified as a psyker or sorcerer, but then again horrible warp ice being hurled at you is horrible warp ice being hurled at you, regardless of the technicalities

Here's a thought. Can they become SORCERERS?

Obviously the RT books (that I know of) don't actually have rules for sorcery (however you want to clearly define what "sorcery" entails).

Edge of the Abyss, p. 84-86, most importantly the box on p. 85.

... which I actually like better than the rules for sorcerors in any other FFG publications, because it allows you to play an Intelligence based sorceror, rather than just another word for a psyker.

I see absolutely no reason why Navigators would be unable to become Sorcerers, myself.

And I agree with Tenebrae - the rules for sorcerers in Rogue Trader are solid. They're not big, but what is there is good.

Nevermind that sorcery in Black Crusade is a bit.. wonky. In no way are for example CSM Sorcerers actually sorcerers - they're more like psykers dabbling in sorcery (at best), than actual sorcerers. And I think that's... odd.

I always preferred to think of it as CSM Sorcerers being pure sorcerers, more than psykers, whereas their loyalist counterparts, the Librarians, are actual psykers. But now I'm just musing.

They can be sorcerers, though I'm sure by RAW they cannot be Psykers.

See.... I was right. And according to my wife, this happens rarely, so yes it's a big deal for me.

On a seriously note, I agree that RT rules for sorcerers are the simplest.

The entire point of the navigator gene is that it makes them into buffers, wheras psykers are conduits. A Navigator can no more become a psyker than rubber can conduct electricity.

Although yes they should be able to be sorcerors, in fact they should probably be better at it than anyone else.

The entire point of the navigator gene is that it makes them into buffers, wheras psykers are conduits. A Navigator can no more become a psyker than rubber can conduct electricity.

Although yes they should be able to be sorcerors, in fact they should probably be better at it than anyone else.

While my initial reaction was that that was a pretty apt and cool analogy, I'm not sure anything capable of opening a literal portal on his forehead and spew literal hellfire can count as a 'buffer'.

You kidding me? The fact that he can have a warp portal in his head of all places and not immediately explode or something is proof that every inch of the guy is some sort of warp buffer, especially since it's so controlled he can use it to kill deamons by sucking them into it over about half a minute.

That's why I say Navigators would probably be the best possible sorcerors, if they screw up they can be their own cleanup crew and it'll take a long time for the deteriorous effects to kick in and when they do they'll be partially mitigated anyway.

Do all gaming groups have munchkins?

Do all gaming groups have munchkins?

No. My current group doesn't have a one, but then again we're all in our 30's - 40's and most of us have families. After a while, you learn that all the game breaking crap has a bad long term effect on the fun... And if you're not having fun, then why the heck aren't you doing something else?

Cheers,

- V.

I'd say no - unless serious warp fuckery was involved. I did ONCE have a Navigator who was also a Psyker, but their Psychic Powers came from a Mark of Tzeentch and thus were more of a 'Hah, god of psykers, here have psychic powers' than them actually manifesting the powers themselves. They did also explode into a daemon.

I'm with the 'no' faction. RAW and all fluff of which I am aware prevents Navigators from doing not-navigator things. I rationalize it thusly-

The navigator gene makes the navigator able to perceive the Warp through the third eye by

A) causing them to grow a sensory organ for the purpose

B) focusing their psychic capability through that organ

C) 'hardening' their minds to psychic capabilities other than through that organ.

The third eye is what supports the buffer effect Larry mentions.

So while a Navigator could potentially learn Sorcery, he could only channel it through his eye... leading him to unlock new navigator powers. The 'open a warp portal and spew fire from my third eye' power comes to mind as a potentially sorcerous warp power.

In game, I could see this being handled one of two ways.

1) Purely flavour. The Navigator spends xp to unlock powers, and the rationale is that he's been practicing sorcery.

2) Corrupting. The Navigator gains X corruption points, and in exchange is able to unlock certain navigator powers at a discount.

Fluffwise, I don't see why a navigator couldn't be born with a mutation that causes them to become a psyker. Remember, in the fluff psykers pop up everywhere, seemingly at random. Being psychic is not limited to certain races or species. However...

-It would be exceptionally rare, in the same way that human psykers are exceptionally rare. As there are considerably fewer navigators than regular humans, this possibility becomes smaller.

-It would be rarer still for a psychic navigator to be strong/lucky enough to be able to control both their abilities.

-If such a powerful individual existed, they would probably be too valuable to send out to some rogue trader ship in the arse end of the galaxy. They would probably be in the service of the inquisition, or controlling one of the Navigator houses, or possibly hanging with the High Lords of Terra (Or maybe even being one).

A psychic navigator would be so rare as to be nearly impossible. Such a creature would be almost certainly be exceptionally dangerous and powerful. For what it's worth I could see one as a unique 'boss' enemy, but not as a player character.

Number one rule to remember though, This is Sci-Fi. Nothing is impossible. (Except female Space Marines )

Fluffwise, I don't see why a navigator couldn't be born with a mutation that causes them to become a psyker. Remember, in the fluff psykers pop up everywhere, seemingly at random. Being psychic is not limited to certain races or species. However...

Copy/Pasted from the Errata

Question: Since Navigators wield Warp powers, but do not possess a Psy Rating, can they gain a Psy Rating through the Wyrdling mutation?

Answer: No. Navigators are not psykers and can never become psykers or gain a Psy Rating. They have their own mutation

Admittedly the question was about a specific way for Navigators to gain a Psy Rating, but the answer is pretty unambiguous.

Navigators cannot become psykers, because they are already psykers.

An extremely specialised breed of psykers, but never the less.

...quoting from the first page of the thread.

Right. I was just trying to provide more justification behind your statement than "just 'cause."

Of course, when corrupting fluff the whim of the GM trumps all, followed closely by Rule of Cool.

I recently took over a gaming group that includes an Arch-Magos who was given a Warrant of Trade and made an Inquisitor by the last GM. I've had to get creative about limiting that kind of power, because I am slightly less Monty Haul. If OP is the sort of GM who thinks that this sort of combination of all-of-it is cool, then I see no reason that a Psyker-Navigator might not be kosher as well. If you're the sort of GM who thinks that an Arch-Magos/Inquisitor/Rogue Trader combination is absurd, cheesy and unnecessary (like me), then you'll probably also find the Psyker-Navigator similarly so.

Right. I was just trying to provide more justification behind your statement than "just 'cause."

and that had already been posted, and quoted.

Of course, when corrupting fluff the whim of the GM trumps all, followed closely by Rule of Cool.

You're right. RoC trumps most.

Fluffwise, I don't see why a navigator couldn't be born with a mutation that causes them to become a psyker. Remember, in the fluff psykers pop up everywhere, seemingly at random. Being psychic is not limited to certain races or species. However...

Copy/Pasted from the Errata

Question: Since Navigators wield Warp powers, but do not possess a Psy Rating, can they gain a Psy Rating through the Wyrdling mutation?

Answer: No. Navigators are not psykers and can never become psykers or gain a Psy Rating. They have their own mutation

Admittedly the question was about a specific way for Navigators to gain a Psy Rating, but the answer is pretty unambiguous.

Navigators cannot become psykers, because they are already psykers.

An extremely specialised breed of psykers, but never the less.

...quoting from the first page of the thread.

That is a rule and an opinion, not a reason. Both of which are contradictory about if Navigators are psykers or not. Even if they are, that doesn't mean they can't develop other psychic abilities. There are very few outright 'this can never happen' statements in 40k lore, and I don't beleive this is one of them. Just because it is exceptionally unlikely and isn't in the rules, it doesn't mean that it could never happen in the fluff.

Saying Navigators can't develop other psychic abilities has actually been one of the "never happens" statements, made as far back as in the original 40k Rogue Trader tabletop, maintained ever since; there are no preexisting examples of psyker-navigators in the fluff to contradict insofar as I am aware.

Again, Navigators are psykers sort-of, and their warp-eye abilities all function exactly as psychic powers do for the purposes of blanks, hexagrammatic wards, and so on. Culexus assassins are just as effective against navigators as they are against astropaths. Saying that Navigators are psykers may be a matter of opinion, but it's opinion reinforced by evidence. It seems obvious when you see how their abilities work with wards and such. It's also thematically appropriate when you consider that the warp-eye is just a tool for the demihuman brain to interact with the warp- which is a pretty much word-for-word definition of how psychic powers work.

Again, though, Rule of Cool/Whim of the GM. This is like FeMarines- if you want to do it, then do it, but why try to argue justification in fluff?

I couldn't believe this thread was still going so I had to check it out to see where it had gone.

Look, if you're posting here with this question, then you're probably not experienced enough in RT to run a psyker/navigator by evoking GM whim or Rule of Cool.

The reason I'm amazed the thread is still going is because the answer to the question is

NO!

It's that simple. Argue all you want. It's still

NO!

It's your game. Do what you want. Don't, however, try to justify it to a crowd of the non-Monte Haulers. We ain't buying that product.

Oh my.

Brother Knight Errant, while I agree with the crux of your opinion, you seem to be mad. *beat* Sorry, couldn't resist.

I already refuted Quidam with a logical, evidence-based argument (anecdotal evidence is still evidence, but I'm afraid I'm too lazy to go look up references in the original 40k Rogue Trader rulebook for why psykers are navigators, so on and so forth) which he has not had the opportunity to respond to. I also used the "why justify in fluff what you want to do?" argument, which means that your argument (while ostensibly allied to mine) is repetitive and inflammatory, nothing more.

In the event Quidam is just trolling (unlikely, but possible), I'd say you took the bait, hard. If not, you seem to have allowed your choler to take hold for little gain.

Perhaps I am too sanguine, but I do recommend a balance of the humours.

Edit: Translation:

Umadbro? Don't be.

The internet is a mediocre medium at best. I did not post in anger, but in derision. You are probably correct, though, in suggesting it wasn't needed. Yes, I was once a 10-year old roleplayer, too. Of course, that was in the early 70's.

I couldn't believe this thread was still going so I had to check it out to see where it had gone.

Look, if you're posting here with this question, then you're probably not experienced enough in RT to run a psyker/navigator by evoking GM whim or Rule of Cool.

The reason I'm amazed the thread is still going is because the answer to the question is

NO!

It's that simple. Argue all you want. It's still

NO!

It's your game. Do what you want. Don't, however, try to justify it to a crowd of the non-Monte Haulers. We ain't buying that product.

Need a cookie?

Oh my.

Brother Knight Errant, while I agree with the crux of your opinion, you seem to be mad. *beat* Sorry, couldn't resist.

I already refuted Quidam with a logical, evidence-based argument (anecdotal evidence is still evidence, but I'm afraid I'm too lazy to go look up references in the original 40k Rogue Trader rulebook for why psykers are navigators, so on and so forth) which he has not had the opportunity to respond to. I also used the "why justify in fluff what you want to do?" argument, which means that your argument (while ostensibly allied to mine) is repetitive and inflammatory, nothing more.

In the event Quidam is just trolling (unlikely, but possible), I'd say you took the bait, hard. If not, you seem to have allowed your choler to take hold for little gain.

Perhaps I am too sanguine, but I do recommend a balance of the humours.

Edit: Translation:

Umadbro? Don't be.

Just want to say my argument was based on my understanding of the fluff that I have read, and not a need to be annoying. I was never arguing that a navigator/psyker should exist, just that it could. If it does say in one of the books that Navigators cannot have other psychic abilities due to [insert fluff here] then fair enough, that's good enough for me.

Quidam- there is no shame in arguing from ignorance- it's wilful ignorance that's the big problem on the internet, and it doesnt happen often here. Like I said, I didn't think it was likely that you were trolling.

I found that reference, though: Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader (the original tabletop), page 150 first paragraph.

Of course, I'm sure newer referents exists, as this has been a long-reinforced piece of fluff. Try Lexicanum?