Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Say that you have more than 1 Space Wolf IC, each with a Wolftail Talisman, joining a unit. Now when a psychic power is used on that unit, does that mean the unit will get a save against the power once per IC?

Example -

4 TWC Wolf Lords, each equipped differently but with a WTT each, joins a unit of Thunderwolf Cavalry. Now if I cast Weaken Resolve on them, would you say they get only 1 save against it or 4 saves (1 for each of the lords)?

Have you rolled a 5+ to block the power? Then you've fulfilled all of Wolf-tail Talismans in one go. Things only stack if they say they do.

Tri wrote:Have you rolled a 5+ to block the power? Then you've fulfilled all of Wolf-tail Talismans in one go. Things only stack if they say they do.

I'm inclined to agree with you. However, certain wargear such as psychic hoods say that only 1 can be used. Before Rune Priests' runic weapons got FAQ'd, by RAW each of them would be able to cancel out a psychic power if it was in range.

For those not familiar with the Wolf-tail Talisman, this is what it does:

Space Wolf codex, p.62 wrote:
If a model with a Wolf Tail talisman or the unit he is with is affected by an enemy psychic power, roll a D6. On the roll of 5+ that power is nullified.

Space Wolf codex, p.62 wrote:
If a model with a Wolf Tail talisman or the unit he is with is affected by an enemy psychic power, roll a D6. On the roll of 5+ that power is nullified.

Tri is correct.

It's similar to the reason that multiple Astropaths or Masters of the Fleet do not stack. Breaking it down into the order of events you get the following:

1) "If a model with a wolf Tail talisman or the unit he is with is affected by an enemy psychic power" --- You need at least one model bearing the talisman, but 4 models also satisfies the conditional.
2) "roll a d6" --- Whether you had 1, 2, 3, or 4 models with a talisman, you roll a single d6 as you are not instructed specifically to roll one for each model.
3) "On the roll of 5+ that power is nullified" --- The result of the single d6 determines the effect of the conditional, whether it was triggered by having 1 talisman in the unit, or as many as 4.

Generally, rules that require you to roll multiple dice according to the number of models in a unit that have a particular effect will tell you to do so. One example would be the dangerous terrain test.

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:
It's similar to the reason that multiple Astropaths or Masters of the Fleet do not stack. Breaking it down into the order of events you get the following:

Actually, before their FAQ came out, most people were playing it as stacking. Same with the Tyranids' Hive Commander until the FAQ came out.

But this does suggest the Intent of GW with regards to multiples of the same powers/special rules.

Yes, grammatically the Astropaths and OoF did stack.

As for the WTT, I interpret the rule as meaning that the WTTs do indeed stack as following the sentence structure of the rule, there is no provision against getting multiple rolls. However, it is not expressly permitted, either.

For me it is the statement that "if a unit with a WTT is affected..."

That implies that each individual model with the piece of wargear triggers the rule if they or the unit they are affected with are targeted by a psychic power. It in no way excludes this at the least.

It excludes multiple uses, in the same way that Waaaagh! banners dont stack with each other.

As soon as you have at least 1 WTT you satisfy the requirement, you then parse the effect. Nothing allows you to, in effect, trigger the rule consecutively.

Reecius wrote:Yes, grammatically the Astropaths and OoF did stack.

As for the WTT, I interpret the rule as meaning that the WTTs do indeed stack as following the sentence structure of the rule, there is no provision against getting multiple rolls. However, it is not expressly permitted, either.

For me it is the statement that "if a unit with a WTT is affected..."

That implies that each individual model with the piece of wargear triggers the rule if they or the unit they are affected with are targeted by a psychic power. It in no way excludes this at the least.

Is there anything else in the game, barring it explicitly saying so, that stacks in this way? IMO GW seems to be FAQ'ing all possiblities to say no. Waaagh Banners and Astropaths don't stack, but it seems to me the Runic weapon is more closely related to the WTT scenario. A psychic power goes off - can multiple runic weapons act to nullify it or just one. A psychic power goes off, can multiple Wolf Tail Talismans act to nullify it or just one.

Runic weapons COULD be used more than once, because they had very different language. Now they are errata'd so they cannot be.

I agree with you guys that the trend is towards NOT stacking, however we have to make rules calls based on RAW.

In this case, as in previous cases (until FAQ's) the language indicates that they do stack. Since each model with a WTT is a unit, and the provision states that so long as the unit witht he item is affected then the ability triggers, this indicates that they all get the roll.

Until it is FAQ'd I can see no other way to play it, personally.

And for the record, I play AGAINST Wolfstar all the time and I would love for this not to be the case, but I can't see any other way to play it based upon the wording in the book.

Each model is NOT A UNIT. They are a *normal member of the unit they have joined*. Page 49, ICs in assault. The same bit that tells you they are only treated as a seperate unit in CC.

So no, it is not the same and no, they do not stack.

I disagree. An IC is defined as a unique unit. Pg 4, unit types.

Pg 48 and 49 state in multiple locations that the IC is a unique unit and acts as a combined unit for the purposes of movement. No where does it state that the IC loses its status as a unique unit unless for certain purposes when in a retinue.

If you choose not to play it that way in your area, that is fine. But by RAW and grammar, the items do stack. I have seen no definitive argument to counter this and until it is FAQd in some manner, will continue to play it that way myself.

The language does not indicate that they stack - if the rule said "If the model with the Wolf Tail talisman or the unit he is with" then it would stack as every Wolf Tail talisman would trigger individually.

As it stands, the condition is satisfied when a single Wolf Tail triggers for the unit (or unit+ic as explicitly mentioned in the rule).

This unit is being affected by a psychic power. Does the unit or an IC with them have a wolf tail talisman? Yes - 5+ to nullify. There is nothing in the rule that would indicate stacking.

Add to this that there is no stacking of the same ability or wargear in 40K except where explicitly stated and it's a done deal.

Reecius - so you disagree despite page 49, 2nd paragraph under "Independent Characters & Assaults", final sentence stating you are wrong in your assertion?

BRB page 49 wrote:
Once all attacks have been resolved, these characters are once again treated as normal members of the unit they have joined...

You may play it that they are different units, but you are wrong to do so according to the actual rules.

"The" is an indefinite article indicating a specific person place of thing, which I agree. If it had been worded that way, it would have been explicit.

However, the indefinite article "a", can be specific but it can also encompass multiple persons places or things. It is unclear. While the rule does not specifically allow stacking, it does not disallow it, either.

Like I said initially, it is not crystal clear by any means and I agree that the trend is to move away form stacking but we have nothing that states that in this case.

Funny, this is pretty much the exact same argument that was made about Astropaths and OoF. It boils down to an ambiguity in language.

As I said, I believe it to be indicative of stacking by most closely applying grammar, just as I believed the Astropaths, and OoF to stack by most closely following grammar. But how you chose to play it in your area is up to you as it is not definitive.

Looks like the wolve star isnt as good as we thought

@Nosferatu1001

You are referring to a rule that applies to the narrowly defined context of assault.

An IC is unequivocally a unique unit. When attached to a unit it does not become a squad upgrade, for example.

ICs do not count towards squad size for break checks. They can leave or join them at will. They can be targeted and attack as a unique unit in combat. They roll separately for break checks in combat. They have en entire section of the rule book dedicated to them and they are defined clearly as a unique unit in the rules.

The line you are quoting pertains only to how they behave during assaults and has no bearing on the question at hand, which is the WTTs stacking.

By your reasoning, an IC that joins a unit is no longer a unique unit and therefore loses its IC status and may never leave that unit as it is now a part of the squad it joins.

You see the problem? An IC is either a unique unit or it is not, and the book defines them as such. The only exception to this rule is a character in a retinue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Italiaplaya

I don't think that interpretation is right at this point in time. Until it is FAQ'd it is not clear, although I can certainly see their argument against it.

Either way, the Wolfstar is still brutal! Haha.

Reecius wrote:"The" is an indefinite article indicating a specific person place of thing, which I agree. If it had been worded that way, it would have been explicit.

However, the indefinite article "a", can be specific but it can also encompass multiple persons places or things. It is unclear. While the rule does not specifically allow stacking, it does not disallow it, either.

Like I said initially, it is not crystal clear by any means and I agree that the trend is to move away form stacking but we have nothing that states that in this case.

Funny, this is pretty much the exact same argument that was made about Astropaths and OoF. It boils down to an ambiguity in language.

As I said, I believe it to be indicative of stacking by most closely applying grammar, just as I believed the Astropaths, and OoF to stack by most closely following grammar. But how you chose to play it in your area is up to you as it is not definitive.

Given my profession, I'd read it exactly opposite - in the narrow context of patent interpretation, "a" is equivalent to "one or more," and shouldn't be read as the definite article without an express reason to do so.

It's like putting TWC on 60mm bases instead of calvary bases. I think they eventually will be on 60mm bases, but for now you can base them on whatever you want as there is no model for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Janthkin

Yes, I see your point. However, due to the ambiguity of the context in question, and the fact that an IC is a unique unit, I believe the rule to trigger for each model with the wargear.

I suppose we should ask Yak cover it in the Inat as it is fairly important. This is a top tier list that will take a big hit by losing WTT psyker defense.

Reecius - they take break checks seperately from their joined unit?

No, no they dont. Not at all. #

You also ignored that the line I quoted is talking about what happens after combat ends. Not before. Here, I'll quote it again as you missed it first time:

BRB page 49 wrote:
Once all attacks have been resolved, these characters are once again treated as normal members of the unit they have joined..

ONCE AGAIN == they already were, before combat started, "normal members" of the unit.

Meaning they are NOT a separate unit once joined. Which is handy, as the assault rules then tell you to treat them as if they were - which is a line that is utterly useless if your (mis)reading of the rules were correct.

An IC is a normal member of a unit once joined, and is ONLY treated as a separate unit for COMBAT.

I agree with Reecius the wolftail talisman does stack as it is worded right now in the book. I am sure they didnt mean for it to stack and i am sure they will make the correction to the number of times it can be used on one spell. But until they do it most certainly does stack.

Except it doesnt, as it requires Reecius idea (a wrong one) that ICs are still separate units when they have joined another unit, despite the rules stating the exact opposite is the case.

they do NOT stack, at all.

Reecius wrote:Like I said initially, it is not crystal clear by any means and I agree that the trend is to move away form stacking but we have nothing that states that in this case.

There's no trend moving away, it's always been the case.

The Astropath example is bogus as that and the OOF were phrased "Whilst the Astropath.." making it quite different. Since we know that wording like that does not stack why should we take wording which is highly ambiguous as stacking?

Hahaha, calm down, nosferatu1001. This isn't verbal combat, we are discussing a rules interpretation. You are free to disagree with me, but no need to poke at me personally or get emotionally involved (which you may not be, it is hard to tell on the internet).

ICs are not a SEPARATE unit, they are a UNIQUE unit. An IC does not stop being an IC when attached to a unit, they are still a unit unto themselves.

ICs join a squad but are still a unique unit with their own rules as indicated by their IC status.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Scott

It was not clear at the time at all if it stacked or not, thus the huge debate. Now it is clear as it has been FAQ'd. I was pointing out the comparison as the language debate centered around the use of "the" and "a" as it does here.

Again, it is not definitive and it is open to interpretation. As I said, I agree that the precedent is for not stacking, but in this specific case, RAW is not clear, but does indicate that each IC gets to roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Nosferatu1001

Ah yes, I was incorrect on the ICs taking test individually after combat. They test with their squad, I got my rule mixed up. That is quite clear in the rules and the way I have always played it.

You got me there! Haha.

But I still stand on the point that the IC is a unique unit that operates as a part of a squad when joined, but is not a "normal" part of that squad insofar as they do not lose their IC status or stop being a unique unit, and that is quite clear in the rules (to me at least). It is a unique unit acting as a part of that squad yet still retains its own unique rules and characteristics.

For the purposes of this argument, I feel that indicates that each IC will have it's own rules to trigger when the unit is targeted by a psychic power.

jy2 wrote:

For those not familiar with the Wolf-tail Talisman, this is what it does:

Space Wolf codex, p.62 wrote:
If a model with a Wolf Tail talisman or the unit he is with is affected by an enemy psychic power, roll a D6. On the roll of 5+ that power is nullified.

Reecius has a good point about RAW letting this work.

"If a model...or the unit he is with" says that you'd basically roll 4 dice at once if 4 models had a WTT, as the condition is met for all 4 of the wargear pieces simultaneously. Again, without some sort of "Limit 1 per power" caveat there's nothing there stopping it, aside from *similar* rulings in other FAQs.

*edited to fix quote attribution*

I am trying to word this as clearly as possible, so maybe this will help (and please bear in mind that I have no stake in this game, I don't play with this wargear):

An independent character is a unit as defined on pg. 47 and 4.

They are specifically defined as NOT being an upgrade character to a unit such as sergeants as stated on page 47 but are in fact a unit that fight on their own in a game but may join a unit.

When attached to a unit, an IC is still an IC unless that unit is a retinue, in which case the IC is treated as an upgrade character until all other models are dead, at which point it acts as a normal IC. An IC in a unit is therefore, still a unit unto itself with rules modifying how it acts.

The rules for the WTT states: "if a MODEL with a WTT or the unit he is with is affected by a psychic power, roll a D6..."

So, that sentence is specifying the model with the wargear. If that model or it's unit is targeted by a psychic power, then the wargear triggers.

Since there are more than one model with this piece of wargear and nothing states they can not be used simultaneously, then they all trigger together.

Granted, the precedent is against stacking and the language is not crystal clear, the grammar however does indicate that each model may use its wargear as there is nothing preventing this and the rule is worded to be permissive.

It is very clear to me that RAW is for multiple WTTs, but as I said, I can see the argument against it. Just as RAW allowed multiple Runic Weapons to operate simultaneously, and it allowed for OoF and Astropaths stack until these items were FAQ's.

I am not saying it is RAI or fair, or whatever, only that the language indicates that multiple WTTs may be used at once.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Reecius - they take break checks seperately from their joined unit?
No, no they dont. Not at all. #
You also ignored that the line I quoted is talking about what happens after combat ends. Not before. Here, I'll quote it again as you missed it first time:

BRB page 49 wrote:Once all attacks have been resolved, these characters are once again treated as normal members of the unit they have joined..

ONCE AGAIN == they already were, before combat started, "normal members" of the unit.
Meaning they are NOT a separate unit once joined. Which is handy, as the assault rules then tell you to treat them as if they were - which is a line that is utterly useless if your (mis)reading of the rules were correct.
An IC is a normal member of a unit once joined, and is ONLY treated as a separate unit for COMBAT.

Seriously, Reecius, how you you maintain your position after this? When shot up, the IC and the unit he's joined have to share the wounds (enough to go around, granted). Let's say the unit is Lashed. The WTT gets a chance to save the whole unit from being moved by the Chaos DP/Sorcerer. As it is *one* unit.

The way you are interpreting things, the IC will get to save his own bacon, but the unit he's attached to will get yanked away by the Lash (I see Space Marines doing "the Batman", personally). You've got the IC-thing wrong.

And if there were *two* ICs in the unit, each with a WTT, one ought to be enough, no stacking IMHO.

Lastly, citing that GW means this or that, depending on which article they used, 'the' or 'a' ... dude, that's reading waaaay too deeply into the writer's intent.

Hahaha, Brotherekose, you have proven nothing with your statements.

I can understand where you are coming from, but the only way to interpret rules is to break down the language.

You have stated no factual evidence, no support from the book, simply an opinion, which proves nothing.

Again, I understand where you are coming from as what we are doing seems like complete hair splitting, but this is the only way to resolve rules issues definitively without simply saying "I think it should be this way."

Yakface wrote forum guidelines on how to have an intelligent rules debate, and I suggest you check them out. I am not trying to come across as condescending, I am being literal. Reread what you have written and look to see if you have provided any evidence to support your position or if you have just stated your opinion (which you explicitly say you are doing). An opinion does not hold weight; facts do. My argument presents the facts as stated in the rule book and codex. You state that you "feel" one save ought to be enough. That is not the way things work, I am afraid. Your opinion, while important to you, has no bearing on what the rules ACTUALLY SAY.

You are drawing false conclusions from my argument. Read the rule for the WTT. Is an IC a model? Yes. Is that model or its unit being affected by a psychic power? Yes. Then the piece of wargear triggers. Is there any prohibition stated or implied that only one WTT counts? No. And the IC saves his own bacon? How are you getting that? His save affects the entire unit, including attached ICs. That has nothing to do with his status as an IC or being attached to a unit or the rules for the WTT.

Please point out a fault in my logic. If I am wrong, I will freely admit it. I make rules mistakes frequently. In this case though, I have yet to see a compelling argument against my stance. The language appears to be quite clear to me but if I am mistaken, prove it.

Reading into "a" or "the" has nothing to do with intent and everything to do with the literal meaning of the rule as it is written. That should be obvious. Intent is speculation,

So yes, seriously, I am maintaining my position that grammar and RAW indicate they do stack. What have you "seriously" contributed to this conversation other than unsupported opinions?

And, sorry if this seems overly aggressive, it is just frustrating to read what appears to be a mocking post that offers literally no factual evidence.

Reecius wrote:You are drawing false conclusions from my argument. Read the rule for the WTT. Is an IC a model? Yes. Is that model or its unit being affected by a psychic power? Yes. Then the piece of wargear triggers. Is there any prohibition stated or implied that only one WTT counts? No.

I'm all for debating points, but unless I'm missing a very important point, this one is pretty cut and dry.

I think you are mixing up units and models and what is being applied to each.

I like to think about it like this:

A unit declares a target, measures range and shoots at an enemy unit.
Each model is given permission to fire a single weapon in the shooting phase (unless there is a special rule allowing otherwise).
Models with ranged weapons ask: Have I shot yet?
- If no, then that model resolves its shooting attack.
- If yes, then that model may not fire.
(continued until you reach the point where all models with ranged weapons in the unit answer 'yes' to the question "Have I shot yet")

With the WTT you have the same structure but because the 'or' is used (inclusively, rather than exclusively) with the term 'unit', you have a very different result.

A unit is affected by an enemy psychic power.
Each model is given permission to use their WTT in the event of being affected by an enemy psychic power or in the event of their unit being affected by an enemy psychic power.
Models with WTT ask: Have I used my WTT against this psychic power or am I in a unit that has used a WTT against this psychic power?
- If no, then you roll a D6 and on a 5+ that power is nullified.
- If yes, then you do nothing.
(continued until you reach the point where all models with WTT answer 'yes' to the question "Have I used my WTT against this psychic power or am I in a unit that has used a WTT against this psychic power?"

The rule would have to read "If a model with a WTT or the unit he is with is affected by an enemy psychic power, you may roll a D6 for each model equipped with a WTT. If any result is a 5+, the power is nullified."

Otherwise, you could have 100 models with WTT and they would all be satisfied by a single D6 roll.

DoW

Let's look at a similar example:

A Blood Angel unit is within 6" of 3 Sanguinary Priests. Thus, he becomes "subject to the Furious Charge and FNP special rules" from each of the Sanguinary Priests. Do you play it as he gets only 1 FNP save or 3? Keep in mind that the rules for FNP doesn't say that they don't stack.


Now let's assume each IC does form an independent unit and thus they get 4 WTT saves. Now, we've been assuming all along that if even one of the lords makes his WTT save, then the entire unit ignores the power. Then what's to say that we couldn't just as easily assume that if 1 lord fails his WTT save, then the entire unit is affected by the power? The rule isn't just pass on a 5+. It's pass on a 5+ and fail on a 1-4.

Do you see the logistical contradiction this situation presents if they are all indepedent?